Previous April 2004

More April 2004

But of course, it is always about blood

So the cup is Buffy's blood, the grail is Spike's spirit?

HmmmÖtaking a wild leap, the cup is the world, Buffyís blood, Spikeís spirit, these are substances that we use to fill the cup. The grail that is all around us, but we cannot see it because we are blind. And as Glory would say, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed chicklet is queen.

It makes me think of the beginning of Tea with the Black Dragon, where the Black Dragon (Oolong) who has been searching for ìthe truthî for a bit on the far side of a thousand years is told that to find ìthe truthî Oolong needs a master who will tell him that he is a fool and Oolong will know it to be true. But in so doing, he will not mind that he is a fool. What dragons are good at is holding on to things, there is a repeated emphasis on Oolongís long fingers and impossibly large hands. Itís only when Oolong reaches the end of Twisting the Rope and faces grasping that he comes to his little epiphany.

Which brings me to soaking in the apocalypse and kings.

Angel is Macbeth the mighty fighter and Lear the old king and Arthur on his wounded bed.

That shining cup that holds prophecy, of course he wants it, he has torn his own heart out and put it inside a bitter shelled walnut, inside a whirl eyed dove, inside a red red fox, inside a steer with a crooked horn that stands in a green valley by a silent lake under a cold black mountain. Heís wounded and his people stumble and the grail is full of soda pop named after a type of poison. Rut gut alcohol. Wesley has better taste and drowns in the good poison.

Mountain Dew that needs to be transmuted not into ambrosia, but water.

I think Origin returns us to the beginning, except we are now three floors up and looking through the green glass and black iron floor. Pulls the sliver of glass from Arthurís heart. The well is unblocked to feed the land. Weíll see what flows out.

[> [> [> [> Blood and Sacrifice, Dew or Water.. (spoilers Origin ATS 5.18 -- s'kat, 12:25:52 04/28/04 Wed

That shining cup that holds prophecy, of course he wants it, he has torn his own heart out and put it inside a bitter shelled walnut, inside a whirl eyed dove, inside a red red fox, inside a steer with a crooked horn that stands in a green valley by a silent lake under a cold black mountain. Heís wounded and his people stumble and the grail is full of soda pop named after a type of poison. Rut gut alcohol. Wesley has better taste and drowns in the good poison.

My head keeps circling back to two things in the Buffyverse: the Guardian and the Guide. Both tell Buffy the same things in an odd way that Cordelia and Lindsey tell Angel. Don't play by their rules. Risk the love. Allow yourself to care. You are filled with love if you will only open up and let it be.

The grail is like you state what we are blind to, we choose what to fill it with. For one person - it's moutain dew, rotgut whisky or soda pop. For another - water. For Buffy in The Gift - the grail was Dawn, who held within her the possibility for the future, the "dawn" of a new age. Buffy's mortality, her humanity, wrapped inside the skin and bones of her sister. In Angel, I wonder, if Angel himself has sort of looked at Connor the same way that Buffy looked at Dawn. Connor is "Angel's" second chance. His holy grail. The miracle child, who was conceived in despair and bitterness but came into the world through an act of self-sacrifice and love. Did Darla play Buffy's role in Lullaby? Was Darla's act similar to Buffy's in the Gift?
It might have been. She certainly went through a similar emotional arc as Buffy's, disliking the child, then falling for it, then sacrificing her own life so it could be in the world.

YEt both children seem to resent their mother's sacrifices.
Dawn isn't happy about Buffy's. And Connor sees his mother's as abadonment. Odd.

Brings me to the fathers or male vampires...spirit, I'm wondering if Angel and Spike represent this? Not sure.

It makes me think of the beginning of Tea with the Black Dragon, where the Black Dragon (Oolong) who has been searching for ìthe truthî for a bit on the far side of a thousand years is told that to find ìthe truthî Oolong needs a master who will tell him that he is a fool and Oolong will know it to be true. But in so doing, he will not mind that he is a fool. What dragons are good at is holding on to things, there is a repeated emphasis on Oolongís long fingers and impossibly large hands. Itís only when Oolong reaches the end of Twisting the Rope and faces grasping that he comes to his little epiphany.

Holding on. Letting go. Holding on to memories, letting go of them. Sometimes you need to hold on to things, forgettin while easy and tempting does not permit growth. In other instances, holding onto a grudge can be problematic. Holding on to a perception of self - equally so, especially if it is a false one. One must be flexible in life after all. Or one is left grasping at imaginary straws.

So I guess the question here is what are they holding on to that they shouldn't and what are they letting go of or forgetting that shouldn't be forgotten?

Angel wants to forget his past crimes, who he is, Angelus.
But Angelus is and always will be within him. Even if the demon were purged, what informed the demon remains. And learning from Angelus' mistakes, learning from his crimes, can be helpful. Remorse is a good thing. And if we remember those we hurt, we learn not to hurt others, which in a way is an atonement.

At the same time, Angel is grasping tightly at things he might want to let go of. A future with Buffy. (No she's not there, but she's in his thoughts, he has not let her go, she remains in him as a dream or reward). Another is Connor.
(No he's not with him. But Angel clearly puts Connor and a possible reconcilation with him above all else. Which is ironic in someone who insists on seeing the big picture.)
I'm not saying that he can't have a future with these people, but I think like your dragon, the fact that he continues to grasp at them causes them to remain forever out of reach. And I remain uncertain that what he is grasping is not in itself an illusion, that the real people are nothing like what lies in his head. If the grail is whatever we imagine it to be then I'd say Angel's grail isn't the shanshue so much as the rewards he hopes the shanshue will bring him - those things he's been forced to let go of, yet hasn't - which are Buffy and Connor.
They say once you truly let go of something, it can come back to you...when the king grasping for the grail, it came to him, he found what he was searching for and discovered it wasn't what he thought.

There are so many distractions...it's hard to see the true grail amongst all the glittering ones.

[> [> [> [> [> Oops, that should read..(spoilers Origin ATS 5.18 -- s'kat, 12:32:15 04/28/04 Wed

...when the king grasping for the grail, it came to him, he found what he was searching for and discovered it wasn't what he thought.

when the king *stopped* grasping for the grail

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood and Sacrifice, Dew or Water.. (spoilers Origin ATS 5.18 -- fresne, 16:58:23 04/28/04 Wed

I want to get this in before the possible deluge of this evening, plus writing meeting minutes is incredibly boring.

Yes, the carpenters cup among all the glittering jeweled cups. Dissolving into a dew. Becoming a king of infinite space inside the walnut that is the heart.

I'm not saying that he can't have a future with these people, but I think like your dragon, the fact that he continues to grasp at them causes them to remain forever out of reach.

Yes, exactly. If were home, this would be easier, but the interesting bit is that at the end Oolong ultimately comes to his revelation by reciting a prayer that he already knew by never understood that goes something like, ìForm is emptiness, emptiness itself is formî or something like that. This same character in an earlier book, Raphael while fighting Lucifer, contemplates the philosophical implications of fighting the prince of lies. It goes something like, Wham with the tail. Philosophical thought about the nature of truth. Slash with claws. Philosophical thought about the nature of existence. Etc.

[> I've been very reluctant to enter into most discussions about the mindwipe -- Lunasea, 09:13:59 04/28/04 Wed

I think a lot of people felt betrayed by it and that is probably one of the strongest emotions. ME has been writing about identity and finding yourself. They come out and say memories/feelings are what makes us who we are. One of Willow's greatest crimes was raping Tara's mind and even though the Scoobies never yelled at her for "Tabula Rasa," the audience didn't exactly just forget it. Then they go against all of this and have Angel, their hero, take away people's memories to save his son.

A lot of it boils down to one feeling: Of anything, my knowledge and experiences and how they have shaped me are uniquely mine.

But does it necessarily follow that we have a right to these? Do I have a right to who I am? We have no right to any experience before it happens. Why do we have a right to it once it has? Why is this right absolute? I have no right to stop where I am. I cannot remain who I am this very instant. I am different with the addition of any experience. Fred changed when her memories did. She also changed with every single minute of every single day. The degree of change was variable.

There are two other instances of reality shifts in the Buffyverse. The first is IWRY. Did Buffy have a right to those experiences before she showed up in LA? Why does she have a right to them afterward? The second is the creation of Dawn. Did the monks rape the Scoobies and others? They did the same thing that Vail did.

Identity is incredibly important to me. The question is who am I. If I am those memories/feelings I have, does it really matter what those are? Isn't the important part figuring out who I am NOW? Now is influenced by all sorts of things. Memories were taken away, but they were also added. If they were left with a vacuum, then those years were wasted. They weren't. Wesley and the others couldn't learn from their actual mistakes regarding Connor, but they had mistakes to learn from. Wesley remembers Lilah. Gunn didn't forget his relationship with Fred. They all remember Jasmine.

Their characters may have been changed, but if that change had occured naturally because Connor wasn't born, would they have had the right to this other life? What if Angel had never rescued Fred from Pylea? What if all the machinations of Jasmine never happened? Did Connor have a right to be born? Did Fred have a right to leave Pylea? Did Cordy have a right to go up to the Higher Realms?

The gang didn't have their mind sucked like Glory did to Tara. THAT was a mind rape. Angel didn't do it because he wanted to have power over them, like Willow did to Tara. THAT was a mind rape. The characters had their lives changed, lives they don't necessarily have a right to, just like Buffy had in IWRY. The only difference is that they didn't have to go back and relive that year.

On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't have a right to these. Memories shouldn't be changed lightly. The question becomes do memories matter more than the life of a character, such as Connor, Buffy (and all those Angel later saved) and Dawn? Why is one reality more valid or better than another?

The fluttering of the butterfly's wings can have disasterous effects. Does that mean we should just let it happen or that we should just squash them?

I think that is a lot of what this season is about. We can't just automatically do or not do something. We have to decide whether it should be done or not. It isn't about what we do and don't have a right to. It is about what should or should not be done. Rights are just things we label to protect. Maybe we should ask if something should be protected in a certain instance. As Illyria put so well "Are these the memories you needed back. Does this now make you Wesley?" Illyria does not understand why one set of memories are more important than another.

"At least I know what happened" Wesley responds.
"Do you?" Illyria asks. "There are two sets of memories. Those that happened and those that are fabricated. It's hard to tell which is which."

Philosophically speaking, why is one set of memories more valid than another? Why is one identity more important?

Since this is the Buffyverse, there is always a twist.

Wesley: Try to push reality out of your mind. Focus on the other memories. They were created for a reason.
Illyria: To hide from the truth
Wesley: To endure it

Wolfram and Hart had those memories made for a reason. It would be interesting to see that discussed.

[> [> Having strange Memories/Cats/AL Weber flashbacks -- fresne, 12:24:37 04/28/04 Wed

Well, to quote a different thread, Growing up isn't just about facing various issues. It is about those experiences changing us, maturing us. is one of the issues I have with the mindwipe.

Alas, I too have been leery, because itís a subject that it is too easy to veer from opinion into fact. So, I apologize in advance if in anyway say things too stridently.

But does it necessarily follow that we have a right to these? Do I have a right to who I am?

My answer would be, yes, because it is fundamentally, the hardest thing to take from me.

It reminds me of the book, entitled oddly enough, Memory in which the main character is gradually stripped away of all his pretensions and is forced to reflect. Childhood, teens, twenties, he stands 30 and blinking.

Why do we have a right to it once it has? Why is this right absolute? I have no right to stop where I am. I cannot remain who I am this very instant.

For me it not absolute, nothing is absolute, but I have no way to go forward, unless I have the ground to push against.

Did Buffy have a right to those experiences before she showed up in LA? Why does she have a right to them afterward?

Before, no. They didnít exist. They were the road ahead full of infinite horizon. After, yes. Angel got to make an informed choice based on his experience, an experience that informed his choice in Home.

The second is the creation of Dawn. Did the monks rape the Scoobies and others? They did the same thing that Vail did.

I will go out on a limb and say, yes. Course, it was to save the world, not one individual, so Iím willing to cut them some slack. Iíve never claimed to consistency. The Monks/Angel had a choice. It was made. That choice has consequences. Thatís life.

If they were left with a vacuum, then those years were wasted. They weren't.

Well, here I too am leery, because we verge to the crux at fulcum. Is it enough that they remember some, but not all their mistakes? I wouldnít be satisfied with that for myself. It is very important to me that I own my mistakes. Itís also very important that I own my successes. That I own the dreary bits that fills the places in between.

The question of what ifís is a difficult one. What if I had chosen to go to UC Irvine instead of UC Santa Cruz. What if my mother had chosen to remain in South Dakota. What if my great-great-great-great Grandfather hadnít come to California as a ë49er. Well, I wouldnít exist then, so I guess I wouldnít have many rights.

However, I did and they did and these are the threads that make up my world. As in the ST:NG episode, take out any one of them and my world would unravel. Not necessarily a worse world or a better one, but this is the world we created with our choices.

Rights are just things we label to protect.

Oh, as absolutely as Iím going to be. I am a dragon and I have five fingered hands that hold. I seek the truth and get lost in minutia while I practice my calligraphy.

Maybe we should ask if something should be protected in a certain instance.

Here is I think the crux of the discussion. I have asked that question and for my personal philosophy have decided that my things can be given or taken, my liberties abrogated or expanded, I can love and my loved one can and inevitably will leave if only in death. My beliefs built on the stuff I have in my head are my only way to honor my love. My only way to climb toward new things, liberties, love, is to build from the foundation. My only way to put down my foot and not only walk, but dance forward.

Thus, my incredible discomfort with Angelís decision.

For those who have a different lifeís philosophy, it may truly be a different refraction of some truth through a lens or in a mirror.

Wolfram and Hart had those memories made for a reason. It would be interesting to see that discussed.

Cracks knuckles. Why, absolutely. Positively. Why. Reasons for what they left to remain. Reasons for what they planted. The best work that Vail has ever done.

Unfortunately, Iím uncertain if W&H wants the world destroyed in the apocalypse, ìMwhwhahah, weíre evil.î Or if they want the world preserved, ìWho will be our clients without the world?î If so, Iíd guess they would want, as do we all, the world that they would like best. Weíll see if the remaining players want to create that world too.

[> [> [> Underneath every belief (mild spoiler Time Bomb) -- Lunasea, 10:54:28 04/29/04 Thu

is some assumption. The root of this discussion is what we assume to be "me". Essentialist v existentialist. (oooh. Philosophy. I like philosophy). Joss may be an angry existentialst, but that isn't the only position he has given us. Just the addition of a soul changed Angel from the worst vampire of all time, to someone who couldn't kill a baby even to get back in Darla's good graces. Season 6, Riley tells Buffy that "none of this touches you." Season 7, Giles tells Willow, "In the end, we all are who we are, no matter how much we may appear to have changed." Cordy tells Angel "you are bigger than all this."

Becoming. Do the choices we make make us who we are, or are they expressions of who we are? If there is some sort of untouchable essence, do we define ourselves by that essence or the expression of that essence? Do our choices create or express our nature?

If Angel believed that he was saving Connor by giving him a new life, he had to believe that there was some essence that remained consistant. Otherwise, the new person wouldn't be "Connor." What he changed was just the expression of that essence.

My answer would be, yes, because it is fundamentally, the hardest thing to take from me.

The hardest thing to take from me is me. "Me" still has to be defined. Darla says it is memories/feelings. Is that who we are or is that what shows us who we are? Memories are our timelines. This timeline is unique to each individual. It could be said to be our mental fingerprints. The combination of feelings is also unique to each individual. It could be said to be our emotional fingerprints. The question is, am I my fingerprints or do my fingerprints point to me?

If you believe in an essence, THAT would be the hardest thing to take from a person. Even the change of memories didn't effect this in the characters. Connor was still Connor. UNLESS you don't believe that. Am Jeanie or am I 32 year old Jeanie? Was Giles right, no matter how much we appear to change, we are who we are?

Perhaps I should amend what I said earlier: Growing up isn't just facing various issues. It is about those issues changing how we express ourselves, maturing us.

but I have no way to go forward, unless I have the ground to push against.

This is a very good point, but what is the ground we push against? What is it that grounds us?

Archetypes are one of the most misunderstood concepts in Jungian theory. They are often confused with the form they take. Jung admits this is his own fault because he didn't want to have to keep writing "the form the archetypes take," so he shortened it to just archetypes. Archetypes are the psychic counterpart to instinct. They are given form by symbols. They are unknowable except through this.

Same with this essence. It is unknowable, except through how we express it. Experience form the ground, but is one ground better than another? As long as it ultimately comes from this essence, does it matter whether we walk in Spain or Russia or Washington, DC or the moon? That seems to be an important part of the mindwipe/memory fabrication debate.

Wesley realized how important this is. Why did Wolfram and Hart have them walking in a particular location? How do memories of playing Jenga factor into their plans for the gang? In the Buffyverse, one set of memories is more valid because one set isn't trying to manipulate them. One set is just them walking about. Where didn't matter. I would say this is why the gang should have one set over another. It isn't that the real set is somehow more valid just because it is real. It is more valid because it isn't leading them anywhere on purpose.

This would be a strike against the memory wipe. That isn't all that needs to be factored into. The gang voluntarily go into danger all the time to save someone. Each of them would risk their lives to save Connor. They would risk their lives to save Jane Do. What if instead of a memory wipe, they were hit on the head, causing brain damage, during a fight? They did not want to be hit on the head. It just happened. It was their circumstances.

After, yes.

The only problem is this action was done by the PTB's and caused the Oracles to refer to Angel as "not a lower being." Buffy herself approved the action. ""I understand.Ý -Ý So, what happens now?"

Angel got to make an informed choice based on his experience, an experience that informed his choice in Home.

And Buffy made informed choices based on her leaving Angel in LA. This allowed her to move on to Riley. It wasn't just not having Angel that did this, but the closure she got confronting Angel in LA. Not having that perfect day made it possible for her to be friends with Angel and only think about him "sometimes."

Course, it was to save the world, not one individual,

What the monks did wasn't even to save one individual. It was to save a green ball of energy called The Key. To save the world, all they had to do was what the Knights of Byzantium wanted, namely destroy The Key.

Is it enough that they remember some, but not all their mistakes?

Enough? That is a tough judgment call. That is why this a very gray area. Would it have been best if Angel didn't have to decide between Connor's life and the memories of his friends? Yes. He didn't obliterate their identity. The question is does what he did for Connor balance with the specific loss the AI team was dealt. The life of one person v. the partial loss of expression of several people. What is one life worth?

We can factor into it that Connor's life was destroyed as a baby, before he even got to make choices. He was completely at the mercy of the world. What was done to the gang happened when they were adults and did not involve a radical change in how they expressed themselves. The Butterfly Effect caused them to be put in situations they wouldn't have otherwise, but they essentially stayed the same.

this is the world we created with our choices.

More philosophical goodness. I'm sure you have taken one of those quizes at quizilla or any number of places. What Harry Potter Character are you or What is Your Tarot Card or any number of things like that. Typically for at least one question there are at least two answers I could choose, each equally valid. The Butterfly Effect: any one of those questions answered differently result in different conclusions. Good luck pinning me down on Myers-Briggs. It varies from day to day.

This is the world we create with our choices, but those choices are often so close that things could go either way. Is one way more valid than another, just because it was taken? Angel changed one tiny moment, he knew how to kill the Mohra Demon. That moment did not involve a choice. It involved knowing. He didn't choose not to kill the Mohra Demon the first time and to kill him the second. The difference wasn't a choice. It was knowledge.

This is the world that is created by so many things.

My beliefs built on the stuff I have in my head are my only way to honor my love. My only way to climb toward new things, liberties, love, is to build from the foundation. My only way to put down my foot and not only walk, but dance forward.

I wanted to say this was beautifully put. If Angel had wiped Fred's existence from Wesley, I would be more strongly against what was done. That isn't just a memory. That is something more personal. It is in loving that we find out who we are. It is in loving that we are who we are. If Angel had taken this away, he would have taken away something that revealed something essential about Wesley. It is in loving another that we find out we are loving.

That isn't the memory that Angel had taken away. Illyria wanted to know if these memories now make him Wesley. Good luck defining Wesley. That is why I became a Buddhist. The essence I believe in is the Buddha-nature. here is a pretty good explanation of it.

I'm torn. I still have a few toes in the Western world I was raised in. I was taught that the only way to move forward was to have a past to learn from. Now I have learned that just sitting can teach me who I am. Breathing can lead to enlightenment.

I used to want to dance forward, to climb the mountain. Now I just want to smile. I just want to dance. I just want to be happy. I just want to be.

Unfortunately, Iím uncertain if W&H wants the world destroyed in the apocalypse,

I'm not sure what they want either. Whatever it is, it is an obsticle for Angel. Angel, to me, is uncovering his true nature. Wolfram and Hart would be the ones that want to cover it up. Memories are one thing that both help us uncover our true natures and obscure them. It is the fire that can clense and the fire that leaves all that yucky ashes behind. Illyria tells Wesley that he betrayed Angel. Wesley also loved Angel so much that he was willing to give up everything for him. Where Illyria comes from, betrayal was a neutral word. It isn't here and Wesley focuses on the betrayal rather than the love.

That's a lot. Sorry to ramble so long.

[> [> [> [> Re: With brief, quick, too short a response(mild spoiler Time Bomb) -- fresne, 16:57:59 04/29/04 Thu

Very interesting and not a ramble at all. In fact, just right.

However, since, my evening will be occupied with a class and installing a ceiling fan, and my morrow is full of meetings, I thought Iíd give you a short reply for now.

At a guess, I used to want to dance forward, to climb the mountain. Now I just want to smile. I just want to dance. I just want to be happy. I just want to be. probably says it all.

I am all about forward momentum. Several amusing and long anecdotes, that Iíll skip, come to mind.

I would define the ground that I push against as the past. My knowledge of the past being my memories that enable me to gain experience to deal with the path ahead. One ground is neither better nor worse than another. However, it is the ground that I chose. That others chose. I could wish it different. But I will not. I will move forward. Change is constant and you cannot see all the bends in the road.

I assume a belief in a me that is made up of an essence and experience, which roughly translates into a soul and a spirit. So, perhaps I should qualify that of the things that can be taken from me, memories are the hardest. The other half only has to worry about eternity.

Iím afraid I donít really have the time at the moment to give your discussion of essence, choice, memory, etc. the response it deserves.

I could argue that AngelÖ, that this or that characterÖahhÖI canít even encapsulate it sufficiently. Quickly. Elegantly. Thus for now, not at all. I can only say that loosing my mind/memory is a personal horror of mine. Thus in a horror show, it is apt, but not something that I believe Iím supposed to feel, in any way, comfortable with/about/on. Lost in a dark wood, I want Virgil and I want Beatrice. I want it all, which I suppose is why I keep running up mountains.

I found the pairing of Time Bomb with Origin fascinating. And I suppose it says something about me, that I preferred the problematic conclusion. Characters have called Angel a champion. Jasmine called Angel her general. Now, he really is a king.

[> [> [> [> [> Since we dealt with Biggie Philosophy Question One -- Lunasea, 07:06:23 04/30/04 Fri

which is who am I, it makes sense to move onto Biggie Philosophy Question Two, what is my purpose. Just like the "me" question, this one has layers, too.

One layer is who determines this purpose. Ultimately it has to come from the individual. Even when an external entity says what this purpose is, the individual has to accept or reject it. That was another thing that drew me to Buddhism. Per the Buddha himself, we aren't supposed to just accept anything he says. He gives us experiments in the form of meditation to perform, so we can repeat his results and see for ourselves. Some may say that I have to at least accept his word that I shouldn't accept his word. It really didn't work that way, since I don't have to be told to be a skeptic. That part comes naturally to me. A system which does not incorporate this is not going to be for me. It doesn't speak to my essence. The Buddha's words are more a way not to rule Buddhism out than a reason to accept it.

The crux of this debate seems to be where we want to go, what will fulfill our purpose best. The word forward now needs to be defined. We can define forward as the direction that better fulfill our purpose. In that case, I would contend that we best move forward by not worrying about direction or even movement.

For me, the ultimate purpose is to make the world and myself a better place. For me, the way to do this is to find and live our true nature/essence. I do that by just breathing. I do that by living in the present and not letting the past clutch at me. I do that by letting go of the expression of me and just being. The past is a hindrance as much as an aide. It involves interpretation. Our experiences can cause us to misinterpret something as much as it does to see something.

I can understand the part about your greatest horror. I am coming from a different place, since until a few months ago, I had lost my memory. It is hard to be scared of something you have survived. The unknown is the scariest thing.

For me that unknown was to be meaningless. For this reason, I confront my fear and embrace a system that revolves around shunyata or emptiness. I trade meaning for prajna or wisdom. Through meditation I have experienced emptiness and it isn't so scary.

Still working on it though. I still have that desire to make the world a better place. My saddest moments come when I feel like I'm not doing this or even worse contributing something negative.

[> [> [> [> [> [> And with a spring, Iím free (spoilers Time Bomb, AtS 5.19) -- fresne, 17:18:24 04/30/04 Fri

Whether from essence or memory or third non-mixy ineffable skeptical thing, as Ted Esquire might say, ìExcellent Goals!î

I reminded of a story by a monk from Thailand who was traveling in the US. He and his fellow monks encountered a group ìpunksî (as in Mohawks, colorful hair, piercings, etc.) The monks had never heard of ìpunksî and the punks didnít know much about Buddhist monks. So, they stood on the sidewalk under the hot sun and discussed finding your essence and being true to yourself.

I type and I think, ìThis is me breathing.î

If it does not seem too elliptic, I would comment that the experience of loosing your memories, in itself a memory, would seem to have affected how you act, choose, believe. Letting emptiness pass through.

This is the world that is created by so many things.
Yes, isnít it delicious, frightening, hard, soft, empty, full. Running up the mountain. Blisters on the feet. Head giddy with thinning air. Breathing in the lotus. Roots in the mire. Pink gold petals blooming open in the warm sun.

The past is a hindrance as much as an aide.
Oh, certainly. In context, Time Bomb was deliciously fascinating. Memory and progress and change. Illyria trapped and cycling. Change is compromise. And yet, ìEverything changes, nothing remains constant.î Adapt or die. The woman offering her child to be worshiped, in exchange for the return of the husband she loves. Gunnís contrast of the basementís honesty, and the cyclic falseness of the world above. Forgetting. Remembering. Bits of Fred creeping up Illyriaís spine. Spike adapting. Angel ceasing to struggle in the web.

The crux of this debate seems to be where we want to go, what will fulfill our purpose best. The word forward now needs to be defined. We can define forward as the direction that better fulfill our purpose.
Sort of. The crux, for me, is where I want to go, ìmyî free will, ìmyî memories, ìmyî choices, and another individualís relative ìrightî to control me, even for my own good. I suppose the crux is the philosophical my. In a season about puppets and children and webs and loss of control, relevant I think. Or getting back to the fictional, Angelís relative ìrightî to make certain choices. Choices for other people. Other peopleís choices for him.

The reason I regard Angelís choice with regard time integrity/Buffyís memory as critical, is because I believe that his experience with that type of choice, that apparently had no ill affects (other than transforming a day of love into another bitter break, I doubt it did. Daddy did more damage.), impacted his choice in Home. The opposite of Willow, whoís experience should have informed her that her decision in Tabula Rasa was a bad idea. This is what my friend meant by being rational.

Lo the years ago, I had a summer job working at a preschool. No matter how many times I told the children, ìIf you kick someone in front of me, thereís no point in lying about it.î They did not have the cognitive logic necessary to kick each other behind my back. That comes later.

Iím certainly willing to censure the monks of the key equally in the interests of fairness. However, our acquaintance was brief and ended in their deaths. But, I digressÖ

Archetypes. The forms they take. Form is the same as emptiness. Emptiness is the same as form. Void. Time. Rippling through worlds in infinite speed and mass, and boom. The serpent with its tail in its mouth. The Angel cha-cha-ing on a pin. Justice. Mercy.

I hope that I may take as an assumption that Angel has father issues. These issues help inform his personality and actions. You arenít who you were in the last conversation, but throughout the entire relationship. Essays comparing Angel to Abraham. Essays comparing Angel to Macbeth, Lear, Henry V, Arthur. Patriarch. Kings. That moment in Time Bomb when Angel called himself a king.

Archetypes. The Emperor card. A masculine symbol of solar illumination, clarity, parter familias, authority, responsibility. He sets the laws, judges, and maintains order. A source of conscious spiritual and moral principles. A mighty oak in his strengths.

Often it seems, our strengths are our weaknesses. Often the Emperor is too bright, too harsh. He attempts to impose order on the natural world and that can make him vulnerable to the natural world. Grounded in the conscious, he suppresses the subconscious. He is often rigid and self-righteous unless tempered by the High Priest, Priestess, or the Empress.

Angel has, it now seems to me, assumes the mantle of the Emperor. Although, Iím inclined to think without necessarily being self aware of the role. In Time Bomb, although I donít know what it meant, I thought I saw him understand the form of the archetype he is taking. Stepping into. Becoming and thus I think better able to negotiate his strengths as strengths.

Perhaps, be ready to take that step into the soft sun without the burning ash.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And with a spring, Iím free (spoilers Time Bomb, AtS 5.19) -- Ann, 17:34:42 04/30/04 Fri

"I thought I saw him understand the form of the archetype he is taking. Stepping into."

Literally. He was stepping into his office when he did this. He was finally stepping into the command of W&H. He was assuming *his* command and taking his throne. He can now be the true and perhaps final king at W&H. The king is dead, long live the king. The old empty Angel is gone and the newly refreshed Angel is taking the helm. The submarine has finally surfaced.

This is wonderfully contrasted with messy Wes in his office and Wes's lost footing. He was even on the floor with his books.

This is so fascinating.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll have to give this the proper time it deserves later -- Lunasea, 18:43:05 04/30/04 Fri

I still have Hubby home for a brief few more days before he has to deploy.

The crux, for me, is where I want to go, ìmyî free will, ìmyî memories, ìmyî choices, and another individualís relative ìrightî to control me, even for my own good.

Now we have to define my. What belongs to "me"? If I can't define me, how do I define my?

This is me breathing.

The "goal" of meditation is to show that this isn't me breathing. There is no "me." Mediation isn't just something that is supposed to relax us. That is what it has become to some. It is a good way to relax, but it can be so much more (or less).

I would comment that the experience of loosing your memories, in itself a memory, would seem to have affected how you act, choose, believe.

and my contention is that I am not how I act, choose and believe. These are just expressions of me. Me is something else. I will agree that experience affects these things greatly. How we act, choose and believe is a combination of me and my experiences. To act, to choose and to believe are verbs. I am not a verb. My actions, choices and beliefs are not just me. My experiences are not me. Things that happens to me are things that happen to me, not me. Anything that involves that which is not me, but are things that happen TO me, cannot be me.

We can look at experiences like food. We eat food. When we do this, when it nourishes our body, does it become "us?" At what point does it become "us"? When does it become "mine"?

I'll return to this later, probably Monday or Tuesday, depending on when Hubby's ship gets fixed.

Did I mention that his ship is broken? He got a call today saying "By the way, you don't have to report Sunday. The ship is broken. We'll call you when it is fixed." My hubby is not the ship that he will ride eventually. It is just another experience on the ocean of life.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'll have to give this the proper time it deserves later -- fresne, 23:43:43 04/30/04 Fri

Now we have to define my. What belongs to "me"? If I can't define me, how do I define my?

And thatís the essential difficulty. If you cannot define me, myself, I, then there is no my.

And if you can define me, myself, I, there are quite a few mys.

As to me breathing, sorry about that, itís a quote from Grosse Pointe Blanke, a movie I enjoy very much for just this same type of discussion. Well, and huge gun battles and explosions. Okay, and John Cussak, with whom I might be willing to eat Zitti.

Have a good weekend.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Weekend was busy -- Lunasea, 17:12:09 05/04/04 Tue

Now I'm back to being a single mom. Hubby shipped out today.

I am thinking of maybe pulling this discussion out and summing up the main points to start a new thread.

I can sum up my position very easily, I don't know. That is what drew me to Zen in the first place. The purpose of Zen koans aren't to figure out some deep wisdom, or even some not so deep one. Instead it is to get us to a point where we say "I don't know." It is to get us to feel that and actually be comfortable with it. That is the human realm and enlightenment is only possible from there. Enlightenment isn't transcending the realms, but actually being able to stay in the human realm. If Samsara stops, you stay where you are. If enlightenment is only possible from the human realm, that is where Nirvana is. Nirvana and samsara are the same. Makes sense to me. Just really hard to do. Koans help with this. At least, they help me.

I know my words often seem very sure, but really I don't know. I can't define me. I've spent way too much time on the topic and haven't come close to a real answer. Where do you end and I begin? Which ideas are "yours" and which are "mine"? All the questions about memory and experience involve some sort of me for this stuff to happen to. I have yet to find that person. I've looked.

Thank you for the discussion. You made a hard week a little easier.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Week's end and Wodan's day turns around -- fresne, 13:51:20 05/05/04 Wed

Iíve certainly enjoyed it from my end.

Speaking of sea voyages, somehow I think of a story Karen tells. When she was a child, her mother built all the playsets, bicycles, etc. because her father, also in the Coast Guard, was often out at sea (one of Karenís life ambitions is see that green light flash thing when the sun sets on a perfectly clear day at sea). When she was a teenager, and her father did a two year tour of administration in D.C., he built thisÖhmmmÖbeer making thing. She and her siblings were shocked, dad knows how to build things! But thatís momís job! However, I digress.

I know my words often seem very sure, but really I don't know.

Thatís the interesting thing about this sort of discussion. Any attempt to define an opinion, oft seems to nail down the pinions and yet by writing ideas can take shape. The pinioning of feathered wings becoming the pins that form that first airplane. As T.R was wont to say, ìFlying is Bully!î

Itís an interesting place.

Especially, since Iíd hate imply that the I is any one. Facets. Costumes. Fire dancing on Water. The earth waiting air.

Sum away. I live for the moments when 1+1 (contrary to all expectation) = 9.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lots of heaps -- Lunasea, 14:44:54 05/05/04 Wed

That is the closest Buddhism comes to defining "I." Lots of heap or piles. Skandas. This idea was actually one of the things that got me interested in Buddhism in the first place. Form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. They are also known as the aggregates of attachment, since craving attaches to them and attracts them to itself. This is what leads to suffering.

It is an interesting difference between West and East. West is trying to find yourself; East wants to lose it. But to lose it, we have to acknowledge it exists, and it doesn't. It is just a creation/illusion and things just keep getting more fun. It is no more a part of me than the coat I wear to keep warm. When the weather gets warmer, the coat becomes a hindrance. It is hard to realize this. We are frogs in boiling water.

Buddhism uses Dependant co-arising (also known by lots of names) to undo all of this and correct that initial ignorance where we forget that we create "I." It isn't actually something. West tries to solidify I. I wonder if I approach the show from the "right" perspective. Is Angel trying to find himself or lose himself? I like things like the Prayer of St. Francis which merge the two ideas. In losing ourselves we find ourselves. That is what I got from "Epiphany." We replace the quest to find ourselves with wisdom. "Others shouldn't suffer as they do." It was a turning point for Angel.

Buddhism in a nutshell:iddappaccayata, this that conditionality. When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that. It is all cause and effect. It isn't concerned with solidifying the cause, but stopping the effect.

I've seen the green flash. Sunset Beach in Cape May, NJ on a beautiful evening. Hubby has seen it lots of times.

My kids have been lucky. They had Daddy home for 5 years. It is hitting them hard now. At least we get to transition them. He will be home this weekend. He returns to move us end of the month. This is going to be a busy time for them. Not much time to sit around and miss Daddy. It is worst at bedtime. At least it was last night. This is the first full day they have done without him.

[> [> [> The I in me salutes the I in you -- Pony, 11:14:27 04/29/04 Thu

I just finished reading China Mieville's Perdido Street Station which has lots to say on the idea of punishment, judgement and choice. In the book is depicted a culture whose greatest crime is the theft of choice - murder, rape, theft, it all comes down to taking away someone else's ability to choose. Which really is what those things come down to in the end. The worst thing someone can do to another is to treat them as an abstraction. Which reminds me of Reading Lolita In Tehran where the author finds the worst part of totalitarian regimes is the leaders' desire to have everyone else live out their dreams. Individuals as abstractions, phantoms, shells - empathy and compassion become pointless because the other people are no longer real.

In any case I loved the wrongness of Angel's actions in Home, because the season was set up as a tragedy. To see the wrongness and flaws acknowledged and entered into with open eyes (even after they're plucked out) are payoffs of the tragic, and Home had that in spades. Angel seemed very similar to Giles in The Wish, striking out in the belief that there had to be a better world even if it meant destroying the old one. Of course no one, not even Anya, ever called Giles on that because he destroyed himself along with the world, while Angel chose to remain most definitely apart.

---

---

Do Angel and Wesley think of Dawn differently now? (Spoilers 5.18) -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:41:55 04/27/04 Tue

We know from "Salvage" in Season 4 that Angel is familiar with Dawn, and it can be presumed that Wesley may remember meeting Dawn sometime in Season 3. But the Orlon window broke near both of them, showing them the past as it actually occured. We know what that means for their memories of Connor, but have their memories of Dawn (assuming the have any) been affected, as any from before Season 5 were just as artificial as the Connor replacement ones. Course, probably doesn't matter any, since I doubt Dawn really impacted either of them, but it merits idle curiosity, I think.

Replies:

[> Re: Do Angel and Wesley think of Dawn differently now? (Spoilers 5.18) -- BrianWilly, 22:51:56 04/27/04 Tue

I've never thought of that...that's really interesting.

If this subject is never brought up in the remaining four episodes -- and "The Girl in Question" gives a lot of leeway for the subject to be brought up -- I supposed we'll have to assume that at some point Angel's team was informed of Dawn's status as ex-key, complete with explanations of the fake memories. Wilow went to Angel's place at the end of season 2 to bring news of Buffy's death, she could have done it then. Or Buffy herself could have, during that never-seen-onscreen reunion with Angel shortly after her resurrection. Back then the two teams still trusted each other implicitly and it would make sense that, in relating the news of Buffy's death, they would have also had to explain why Buffy died at all, which would include at least a basic explanation of Dawn.

Because yeah, if that box did what it was supposed to -- revealing reality in its unaltered state -- then there's no reason it wouldn't have revealed the truth about Dawn as well, and we've seen before that even simpler spells such as Buffy's trance thingy had the same effect.

[> Nope! -- luvthistle, 23:30:47 04/27/04 Tue

..They never learn about Dawn being aka "the key", and Dawn was never mind-wipe from their memories, therefore their memories of Dawn should stay the same.

[> [> I agree -- CW, 07:22:04 04/28/04 Wed

Wesley got his memories back; not necessarily the truth.

[> [> Re: Nope! -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:01:30 04/28/04 Wed

But, suppose Angel remembers an occasion where he had to quickly leave because Dawn might catch him with Buffy. If the Orlon Window shows people the past as it really happened, then he might very well realize that that event never actually happened, although he'll still have memories of it. I'm not saying they wouldn't be able to remember Dawn, just that they might realize the memories were fabricated.

[> [> [> Re: Nope! -- CW, 11:03:48 04/28/04 Wed

I see your point, but I thought it was a device for Vail to observe the world as it was before he changed it, not necessarily before any changes were made to it before that.

[> Theoretical Possibility -- Dlgood, 06:00:29 04/28/04 Wed

We don't really know what Angel & Wesley know about Dawn - as it's never been explained onscreen. Presumably, they know what the folks in Sunnydale did, but then I'm assuming Willow filled them in. And that's not a given.

I don't know if they have memories of Dawn pre-S5 BtVS. Dawn definitely remembers Angel, and comments on him. Even if Wes was in Sunnydale, he may not have ever actually met Dawn. (in the fake memories) I can't really imagine him coming to the Summers' house.

Personally, I'd prefer it if breaking the box meant Angel had sets of memories with and without Dawn. It would make her story more interesting to me, as that's a pretty relevant aspect of her character just getting left on the floor.

[> Specificity -- mrsubjunctive, 06:37:28 04/28/04 Wed

Do they say in the episode that it takes away all false memories? I was under the impression that since it was Vail's spell, and since Vail had nothing to do with Dawn, that the Orlon Window (which by the way I can't say without chuckling: Orlon is a synthetic fiber in the real world, I think possibly a DuPont trademark, and is, or at least was, widely used in carpeting) was equivalently specific to Connor, and would only have counteracted the memory-wipe related to Connor. In which case there'd be no change in memories relating to Dawn.

Another reason to think that memories of Dawn, if any, are unaffected: Vail has a reputation for creating these kinds of spells. Memory, time flux, etc. He'd hardly have considered it worthwhile to break the O. Window if it were going to undo all of his spells ever, and yet the implication seems to be that he intended it to be broken all along.

[> [> Re: Specificity -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:05:30 04/28/04 Wed

See my post to luvisthle above for how I think it might actually affect their memories.

Two more things: Vail said the Window let's people see the past as it actually occured; nothing was said about it being specific to his spells or just one particular spell. Also, he said it only had an effect on those in the vicinity of the breaking; as such, only Wesley, Angel, Illyria, and possibly Connor were affected. As such, it wouldn't necessarily undo his past work.

[> [> [> *an* Orlon WIndow -- skeeve, 11:39:06 04/28/04 Wed

I got the impression that Orlon Window's
were not an invention of Veil.
If that is correct, there is no reason to
suspect that the effect would be specific
to Veil's spell.

As noted by others, Angel and company wouldn't
have a lot of Dawn-related memories of any kind.
Of course, any memories of Dawn after she actually
showed up were real and would be unaffected.

Also, my recollection is that an intact Orlon Window
is good for seeing the past as it was.
Breaking an Orlon Window restores memories.

[> [> [> [> But grafting on new memories of Dawn would have required removing or altering old ones -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:57:40 04/28/04 Wed

So my stance is still that, presuming they have memories of Dawn from before Season 5, they should now be able to figure out that those memories are fake (assuming they weren't filled in on that already).

[> [> [> [> [> Re: But grafting on new memories of Dawn would have required removing or altering old ones -- heywhynot, 15:03:28 04/28/04 Wed

Well depends, did Orlon Window contain the events unaffected by any change in reality or as they were before Veil made his changes (seasons 3 & four of Angel)? If the latter then the memories of Dawn pre-season 5 would still be there. The state of reality when Veil made his changes had Dawn there & remembered as being there prior to Season 5 of BtVS.

[> [> [> [> [> Yes, they should know that all the fake memories are fake. -- skeeve, 15:27:12 04/28/04 Wed

I'd thought that I'd at least implied that.

There were few, if any, fake memories involving Dawn,
hence we might be arguing in a vacuum.

[> How much work does it take to alter reality? -- Ames, 14:59:59 04/28/04 Wed

There's a bit of an inconsistency here. Consider:

1. In The Wish, Anyanka altered reality for everyone in the world (not just Sunnydale, because Buffy was in Cleveland), with the simple word "Done!"

2. In Superstar, Jonathan altered reality and the memories of everyone in Sunnydale (Sunnydale only maybe?) with a spell that he did on his own. Not complicated or permanent memories though.

3. In No Place Like Home, 3 monks in a panicky hurry managed to create Dawn, alter everyone's memories about her (maybe only in Sunnydale?), and alter reality in other minor ways (e.g., creating photos and other memorabilia), in just about 60 seconds before Glory burst in on them. That was a pretty elaborate job.

4. In Home, W&H had to pay a whole team of experts to alter the memories of 8(?) people. Maybe there wasn't even any basic reality-altering involved.

Why was it so much more work for W&H than for everyone else?

[> [> Re: How much work does it take to alter reality? -- heywhynot, 15:11:04 04/28/04 Wed

Anya- was a demon who was linked to some pretty powerful higher demons. Her magic came from them. It was to grant the wish of a scorned woman. She did not construct the reality. Anya simply (relatively speaking of course) changed one event and let things run from that point on.

Jonathon's seemed relatively limited but who knows. His required creating a counter-balance to his own greatness. I assume the work of the monks and W&H were done to keep such elements out, hence the greater work.

The monks probably had been planning changing the key for awhile, a back-up scenario just in-case. We saw the end of the ritual, who knows how long it actually took. Plus remember not much time passed between when Angel made the deal & its affects were seen.

[> Re: Do Angel and Wesley think of Dawn differently now? (Spoilers 5.18) -- heywhynot, 17:28:57 04/28/04 Wed

When Vail introduced the OW to Angel this is what he said:
"Do you know what an Orlon Window is Angel?
It is a fascinating little spell. It allows warlocks such as myself to see the past as it once was. You have to be careful with it though, if it were to break around someone whose mind had been altered then all his old memories would come rushing back."

It really doesn't confirm one way or another whether Angel & Wes would now recall the world as it was without Dawn prior to season 5 of BtVS. The "to see the past as it once was." goes either way. It once was a world with memories of no Dawn until season 5 of BtVS but it also was once a world with memories of Dawn prior to S5 and of memories of Connor being Angel's son. Vail specifically altered the memories pertaining to Connor. To me he would design an Orlon Window to view the world as it had been before he had altered people's memories (ie those pertaining to Connor). Vail is in the business it seems of altering such things, why take the chance one Orlon Window breaking causing someone to see through all his changes? Also, all the memories that rushed back related to Connor seems to give credence to that idea. It is open though.

[> [> Actually -- LittleBit, 17:50:27 04/28/04 Wed

While it's possible that Wes might have had 'contact' with Dawn during his short time in Sunnydale, it's unlikely that Buffy would have given him that much access to her private life. I'm feeling doubtful that the monks would have bothered to build a memory for someone who wouldn't be around her (season 5). And even if Wes did experience a change, I'm imagining it wouldn't even register as a blip on his radar compared to the memories relating to Connnor.

If that's the case, then the only one present whose memory could have been altered was Angel, and his memories weren't tampered with in the first place. So I'm thinking, no, there wouldn't be any 'changes' in their memories of Dawn.

[> [> [> I guess I assumed the monks did a blanket "everyone remembers Dawn" spell -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:48:50 04/28/04 Wed

But, even if they didn't, as Buffy's Watcher, he probably would have at least known she had a sister. Also, Angel's memories were tampered with in the creation of Dawn, so there would be authentic memories the Orlon Window could show him.

[> [> [> [> Re: I guess I assumed the monks did a blanket "everyone remembers Dawn" spell -- LittleBit, 19:56:10 04/28/04 Wed

Heh. One of my fanwank/spackle thoughts has always been that when Buffy and Angel met after Willow brought her back, she told him about Dawn. First, she'd trust him with the information and second, it would be natural in the course of explaining things.

[> [> [> [> [> We know Angel does remember Dawn -- KdS, 02:05:47 04/29/04 Thu

Because somewhere in the AtS4 Angelus run, he talks to her briefly on the telephone and seems to recognise her voice immediately.

---

---

I have a what if... -- Ender, 02:31:22 04/28/04 Wed

I have a 'what if', what if Buffy had staked Angel in Innocence? How would that have changed the course of events in the Buffy world? This is the moment when a choice is made by Buffy, where Angelus becomes more than just another vampire. This is when someone with destiny (Buffy) recognizes Angel making him into a player in the bigger battle. OR is this really when Angel comes into contact with his destiny? Is Angelís first encounter with Whistler when Angel is drawn into his current path? Or maybe destiny must get going from the begging for Angel, thatís just the type of thing destiny is. Iíd like to hear peopleís thoughts on this.

Replies:

[> Many, many possibilities -- Gyrus, 13:33:18 04/28/04 Wed

what if Buffy had staked Angel in Innocence? How would that have changed the course of events in the Buffy world?

Well, everything that happened in the ANGEL series would have transpired differently, of course. I won't even try to speculate about all of that.

More easily addressed are the ways in which Buffy herself would have been changed by that decision. Killing someone she loved might have hardened her, making her more willing to kill Faith in S3, chip-ridden Spike in S4, or Dawn (to foil Glory's plan) in S5. On the other hand, if Buffy had found out later in S2 that Willow could have restored Angel's soul, Buffy might have ended up second-guessing herself in every subsequent battle, possible to the extent that she couldn't function effectively as a Slayer. Either way, she would probably have been even more resistant to any possibility of romance with Riley in S4, which would have left her without a key source of intelligence on Adam and the Initiative.

That's all the speculation I dare to engage in right now; otherwise, I could be typing all afternoon.

[> [> Buffy would be insane and in seclusion... -- Belladonna, 14:39:12 04/28/04 Wed

After the events of Earshot, without Angel, Buffy would be insane. Angel was the only one who could hunt down the second demon in order to get its heart. If he hadn't been around, it's unlikely the rest of the scoobies would have acquired the necessary ingredients for the antidote. Therefore, Buffy would be like the last guy to be infected with an aspect of that particular demon - insane and in seclusion.
That's if she even would have survived up until then. I don't have time to go through every episode in season three, but it's possible, and even likely that Angel saved her life in some fashion or another. Without him there, perhaps she would have been killed.
It's an interesting thought. I've often watched Innocence and thought that by not killing him, Buffy was responsible for all the people he killed after that. But if she had, look at all the people who would have died because Angel wasn't there to save them.

[> [> [> nothing would really be THAT different -- Ray, 18:30:00 04/28/04 Wed

Angel would most likely still have been brought back by the PTB/First Evil (never was certain which one did it).
keep in mind all those prophecies featuring Angel. As we saw in Origin with Connor, prophecy generally happens despite plans to the contrary.

[> [> [> [> Re: nothing would really be THAT different -- Gyrus, 07:40:46 04/29/04 Thu

Angel would most likely still have been brought back by the PTB/First Evil (never was certain which one did it).
keep in mind all those prophecies featuring Angel.

But none of the prophecies mention Angel by name -- they merely mention "the vampire with a soul." All of the prophesied actions that Angel took could instead have been taken by Spike at a later date.

---

---

Wacky Theory #267-C -- 'Orlon Window' a subtle reference to *The Nylon Curtain* ? -- OnM, 08:20:36 04/28/04 Wed

My apologies if anyone else has already posted on this, and if so, please direct me to the thread, but from the very first time I heard the words 'Orlon Window' used I couldn't help but think of Billy Joel's (probably most significant) work of some years ago, the album titled The Nylon Curtain. There do seem to be certain thematic similarities to what is currently happening (and has happened) on AtS this season and last. BTW, I'm guessing most older posters already know this, but 'Orlon' was a trade name for a very early synthetic/plastic material used for making fabrics and other such things.

Here's a link to a review I Googled on the album:

http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/j/joelbilly-nylon.shtml

And here's a few lyrical snippets:

(From "Surprises")

Don't get excited
Don't say a word
Nobody noticed
Nothing was heard
It was committed discreetly
It was handled so neatly
And it shouldn't surprise you at all
You know
Break all the records
Burn the cassettes
I'd be lying if I told you
That I had no regrets
There were so many mistakes
And what a difference it makes
But still it shouldn't surprise you at all
You know
I said it shouldn't surprise you at all
You know
Don't look now but you have changed
Your best friends wouldn't tell you
Now it's apparent
Now it's a fact
So marshal your forces
For another attack
You were so young and naive
I know it's hard to believe
But now it shouldn't surprise you at all
You know
No it shouldn't surprise you at all
You know
What has it cost you
What have you won
The sins of the fathers
Are the sins of the sons
It was always within you
It will always continue
But it shouldn't surprise you at all
You know
I said it shouldn't surprise you at all
You know

(And from "Laura")

Laura
Loves me
Even if I don't care
That's my problem
That's her sacred absolution
If she had to
She would put herself in my chair
Even though I faced electrocution
She always says
I'm the best friend that she's ever had
How do you hang up on someone
Who needs you that bad?

(And from "Pressure")

You used to call me paranoid / (Pressure..)
But even you can not avoid / (Pressure...)
You turned the tap dance into your crusade
Now here you are with your faith
And your Peter Pan advice
You have no scars on your face
And you cannot handle pressure


Methinks I'm gonna have to dig out the vinyl here and have another listen. It's been quite a few years!

Meanwhile, plenty of Joel lyrics sites out there, if'n ya'all have some thoughts to share.

Replies:

[> So, that's what was bugging me! -- CW, 08:28:52 04/28/04 Wed

The word 'nylon' did keep popping into my head after they named the thing! Couldn't make the connection to the album, but I think you are on to something.

[> [> Link to the DuPont website: -- OnM, 11:13:04 04/28/04 Wed

http://heritage.dupont.com/touchpoints/tp_1941/overview.shtml

[> it also raises the question, what kind of windows do "glass houses" have? @>) -- anom, 08:45:42 04/28/04 Wed


[> [> Glass isn't always transparent, you know! -- OnM, 11:18:21 04/28/04 Wed

And if you recall, the adage about stones thrown in or at glass houses refers to their fragility, not their transparency.

Now if one had a polycarbonate ('Lexan') house...

;-)

---

---

The 2004 ATPoBtVS&AtS Board Gathering in Chicago--Room reservation deadline just over a month away! -- The Cheerleadery One, 12:42:08 04/28/04 Wed

What is the ATPoBtVS&AtS Gathering?

It is the major international in-person meeting of the Existential Scoobies, a group of intelligent, well-learned Buffy and Angel fans who communicate on-line every day at the All Things Philosophical on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel: The Series Forum. The last Gathering took place in June, and was headed by the amazing LadyStarlight in the lovely city of Vancouver. Next year, it is being held in Chicago at the brand-new Holiday Inn Chicago-O'Hare International Airport Hotel on the weekend of July 4th, 2004, and being arranged by me, Rob. We hope this will be an annual event.

Here's the Deal...

The official weekend of the conference runs from Saturday, July 3rd through Monday, July 5th, so we recommend that you arrive on Friday night, and leave Monday afternoon or evening.

Each hotel room is at a flat rate of $72 a night, whether it is a single or a double!

A block of 20 rooms have been reserved for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights.

For every day that we have at least 18 rooms booked (and on Monday, the final day), the conference room will be completely free. Any day that we come up short, it will cost $100 for the day. Splitting that between all of us shouldn't be a problem, if we do come up short on any or all of the nights. But our aim should be to get that number of rooms each night.

Making Your Reservations

To reserve your room, all you have to do is call 1-773-693-2323 and tell them that you are with the "Philosophical Buffy" conference. IMPORTANT: You must specify "Philosophical Buffy," because the hotel is hosting another Buffy convention at an earlier date, so we don't want there to be any confusion.

And don't forget, the reservations must be made by June 11, 2004.

Other Concerns

The A/V equipment will be free.

We are not getting catering, but will order food in, or go out.

The hotel is approximately 15 miles from Downtown Chicago.

If you have any questions, concerns, or other issues you think I should ask the hotel, you can respond to this thread or e-mail me. Everyone is welcome to come: regular posters, non-regular posters, lurkers, etc.

Rob

Replies:

[> Yippie! -- Masq, 12:54:51 04/28/04 Wed

You mean "this year", right Rob?

This is the big one, folks! The meet we want everyone to be at! Last year was a blast!

This year we need to commiserate! Buffy and Angel viewing! Food! Conversation!

And of course a big drunken singing laughing sobby Irish wake!

Oh, plus I need a roomie. Female is my only specification.

[> [> Re: Yippie! -- fresne, 13:13:07 04/28/04 Wed

Hey, I've been lame and haven't made my reservations yet.

Roomie?

I'm planning on arriving late Friday (after work), Saturday and flying back Monday, which I must make reservations for, like, tonight.

I'll be bringing red wine.

[> [> [> Re: Yippie! -- Masq, 14:12:54 04/28/04 Wed

Roomie?

That would be cool. Is K coming?

I'm planning on arriving late Friday (after work), Saturday and flying back Monday, which I must make reservations for, like, tonight.

So at least make it a double occupancy. I am staying until Tuesday as I am going to Denver afterwards for my brother's wedding and I don't want to get there too early.

I'll be bringing red wine.

Cool! Or, er... I guess room-temperature. ; )

[> [> [> [> Re: Yippie! -- fresne, 17:02:35 04/28/04 Wed

Alas, only one of us can afford it this time (house, england, etc.) and well, that one was gunna be me.

So, yes, room temperature.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yippie! -- Masq, 20:34:09 04/28/04 Wed

Do I make room reso's or do you? Just want to make sure one of us does.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yippie! -- fresne, 16:05:40 04/29/04 Thu

Hmmm...if you're leaving a day later, you should probably make the reservation to make it easier to check out/not confuse them.

[> [> Oof! Yes, *this* year! Which would be 2004. :-) -- Rob, 14:47:30 04/28/04 Wed


[> [> w-what? but...but, masq-- -- anom, 17:13:52 04/28/04 Wed

--I thought you, me, & Scroll were gonna triple up again! We said! Y'know, sometime probably soon after the 1st meet, so it's been long enough you coulda forgotten by now....

But hey, if you wanna have a different roomie this year, I'll just have to find someone else! Scroll, you coming this year? Anybody else game? I'm expecting to arrive probably mid-afternoon Friday & leave Monday (although I haven't made any reservations yet).

[> [> [> Re: w-what? but...but, masq-- -- Masq, 20:39:53 04/28/04 Wed

Scroll isn't sure if she's coming or not (I did talk to her first before I posted my request here). But you can ask Fresne about tripling with us.

[> [> [> [> Fine with me -- fresne, 16:23:34 04/30/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> up to you, fresne... -- anom, 16:29:42 04/30/04 Fri

Is a triple OK? If not, I'll make other arrangements.

Oh, & BTW, either way...I will be bringing chocolate again. (This is not an attempt to influence you--it's for everyone. But you could have 1st crack at it....)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: up to you, fresne... -- Masq, 16:48:36 04/30/04 Fri

Oh, & BTW, either way...I will be bringing chocolate again. (This is not an attempt to influence you--it's for everyone. But you could have 1st crack at it....)

anom is bringing chocolate. Fresne's bringing red wine. Together, they = decadence!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...decadence -- fresne, 21:41:23 04/30/04 Fri

Sounds good to me.

Philosophy. Decadence. Same thing right. It'll be a fun and very convention-like room.

[> Can you walk me through some details? -- Belladonna, 14:30:22 04/28/04 Wed

What does this weekend consist of? Do you have events planned, and if so, what are they? Is the majority of the weekend spent at the hotel (in the conference room) discussing Buffy, or do you head out on the town? The reason I ask, is, I live in Chicago, and therefore will probably not be getting a hotel room. If I can commute, that would be great. However, if there is, as Masq puts it, "a big drunken singing laughing sobby Irish wake," I may get a room for that night. So, if I could get an idea (even a vague one) on the schedule, it could help me plan ahead. Thanks!
*giddy with excitement*
Belladonna

[> [> No schedule yet... -- Rob, 14:45:18 04/28/04 Wed

...but if things work out like last year, we'll spend most time at the hotel but will probably go out together for food at night. The Irish wake is happening, but again, not sure yet what night it'll be. I'll keep you updated when we get closer.

Rob

[> [> [> Actually... -- Rob, 15:08:04 04/28/04 Wed

I assume the Irish Wake will be on Saturday night. I doubt people leaving on Monday morning will want to be all headachy and hangovery for their trip home.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Re: Actually... -- Masq, 15:10:17 04/28/04 Wed

The opposite problem is, though, that since Friday night is the earliest arrival time, some people will plan for Saturday arrivals. Will everyone be there by Sat night?

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, good point. Everyone want to chime in with when they're planning on coming? -- Rob, 15:11:42 04/28/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm planning to arrive on Friday morning and leave on Tuesday morning -- cjl, 20:06:36 04/28/04 Wed

Of course, I could be more definitive with my plans if I would get off my ass and actually make my reservation.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh good another tuesday-er -- Masq, 20:44:43 04/28/04 Wed

I'm headed to Denver after the meet for my bro's wedding, but it isn't until the following Saturday. I'm taking the whole week off and will probably kill some time in Chicago, I don't know when, maybe Monday after most of the crowd has left.

I'm thinking of renting a car then to drive to Denver. Road trip through Iowa and Nebraska. What a joy!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Won't be able to make it unfortunately... -- s'kat, 22:19:05 05/01/04 Sat

Financial constraints make it impossible, wishing everyone a blast!

[> [> [> [> [> [> My flight arrives early Friday morning and departs late Monday evening. -- Sheri, 10:04:26 04/29/04 Thu

but, I haven't gotten a room yet...

if anybody would like to split the cost of a room with me (*flutters eyelashes at the board*), send me an email :)

Perhaps we could start a roommate thread?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My flight arrives early Friday morning and departs late Monday evening. -- Ann, 10:15:34 04/29/04 Thu

I will probably arrive Fri night and leave Mon.

Do you snore? If not, I might want to share!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> according to hubby... -- Sheri, 19:09:43 04/29/04 Thu

... I don't snore!

so, you're safe :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is hubby still... -- Random, 20:27:50 04/29/04 Thu

...objecting to me sharing a room with you? ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll go ask him.... -- Sheri, 20:35:08 04/29/04 Thu

...

he grumbled.


That's a good thing, right?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sounds good to me. Shall I bring the cookies and Cosmo? -- Random, 20:41:32 04/29/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm taking the tautological route . . . -- d'Herblay, 14:30:48 04/29/04 Thu

. . . i.e., I'll get there when I get there and I'm leaving when I'm leaving.

We have to finalize reservations in June, right?

Not that I like to wait until the last minute.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yup, June 11th is the hotel room reservation deadline. -- Rob, 14:50:07 04/29/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I so want to be there!. -- Jane, 21:25:16 04/29/04 Thu

Unfortunately, I booked my vacation before I knew about the meet. Bummer. I'm trying to reorganize it, but it means trading shifts etc. so fingers crossed..And to think you were here in Vancouver last year AND I HAD TO WORK :(
Anyhow, I am still hopeful I'll be there to party with you all.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We'd be glad to have you! -- Masq, 09:54:23 04/30/04 Fri

Not that I'm trying to put any pressure on your already stressful plans-juggling. ; )

[> [> [> [> [> [> At the moment... -- LittleBit, 19:10:02 04/29/04 Thu

I should be getting there on Thursday and leaving on Tuesday.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Planning on getting in on the Thursday evening and leaving Monday morning/early afternoon -- LadyStarlight, 07:40:25 05/01/04 Sat

If someone will come and find me at O'Hare before this poor little Canadian goes catatonic in a corner from all the people! ;)

And Bit? Going to get the thing today.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Coming in Friday, Leaving Monday - Reservations Made! -- Sara, doing the happy dance, 12:30:52 05/01/04 Sat

fun! fun! fun! I got so excited about this I just made the reservations myself, instead of making Darby do it!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, good! And there were no problems with the second phone number? -- Rob, 14:47:46 05/01/04 Sat

I was getting a little worried, since the first phone number the lady gave me was supposedly the right one!

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Worked like a charm -- Sara, 20:02:17 05/01/04 Sat

Although the reservation person got confused when I said "Philosophical Buffy" since it's down as "All things Philosophical" but that was just a small glitch. I got my e-mail confirmation and we are good to go!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent! :-) Going to have to make a reservation myself pretty soon. ;-) -- Rob, 21:45:15 05/01/04 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> Saturday only, probably -- mamcu, 19:27:43 05/03/04 Mon

I probably will be there only on Saturday--sadly. Have to be in SC on July 4 for big family thing, but will be in Chicago the two weeks before that, so I plan to come to the hotel Saturday and fly out early Sunday. Still working on details, though.

[> [> Last year's schedule -- Masq, 15:07:08 04/28/04 Wed

Just to give you an idea.

We didn't have any big things planned. Thursday night a few people drifted in late and went to each other's hotel rooms to chat until all hours and eat chocolate.

The first day (Friday) people were still arriving. I think we all went out to dinner Friday night together. Other than that, there might have been some DVD watching.

The second day (Saturday) was the big day because we expected everyone to be there by then. The only big plan was the OMWF sing-along. We skipped dinner out and had pizza in the conference room, then drank copious amounts and did the singing.

Day time stuff was mostly DVD-watching, informal discussions at pool-side, some sight-seeing for individuals who wanted to do that.

The third day (Sunday) we had a few more DVD sessions and lots of huggy good-byes going into the afternoon.

You can assume something similar this year, only with Friday night being the earliest arrival time, and Sat 1st day, Sun 2nd day and Mon 3rd day.

That makes the big day/evening Sunday.

[> [> [> Might I just add... -- Old One, 15:36:41 04/28/04 Wed

If Buffy Boy is in attendance you need not worry about what to do when--he was capable of putting anything in the Buffyverse we requested up on the screen within seconds! He was amazing. Whenever there was a momentary lull someone would say, "Hey, let's watch X," and BAM! We'd be watching X.

Please, just promise me you'll all watch, sing, and dance to the Hamster Dance, at least once?

;o)

[> [> [> [> Buffyboy? Little Bit? You out there? -- Masq, 16:46:16 04/28/04 Wed

Buffyboy was invaluable. One of the things he supplied was region 2 DVDs. There are a few more DVDs out on region one, so we won't need to rely on his computer so much.

Of course, we might need a different tech guy/gal if BB can't attend.

And all the BtVS/Angel fan vids, well 'Bit is the queen of that.

You coming this year Old One?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm out here -- LittleBit, 17:29:43 04/28/04 Wed

And I do have all the episodes, although not all of them on DVD, but I will have all the region 1 DVDs available through then.

And my fanvids, too, if anyone wants to see them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> enough w/the false modesty awreddy, 'bit! -- anom, 21:00:06 04/28/04 Wed

"...if anyone wants to see them." Riiiiight....

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffyboy? Little Bit? You out there? -- Old One, 19:57:26 04/28/04 Wed

Doesn't look like I'm going to make it this year...I haven't given up on the idea entirely, but I probably won't be able to pull it off.

I'll be thinking of you all, though, and waiting for the minute-by-minute updates!!

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> I'm out there too -- Buffyboy, 23:39:16 04/28/04 Wed

I'll be there--wasn't too sure I'd be able to attend until just recently. I have BtVS Season 7 and AtS Season 4 and I'm ready to "spoil" anyone who cares to be spoiled.

BTW Masq, I just saw in the archive your sugestion for a SF Bay Area meeting at the end of May. Count me in on this too.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh good! -- Masq, 12:52:16 04/29/04 Thu

I thought everyone had missed that. Will have to re-post. That makes three of us so far!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Hey there Buffyboy! -- Caroline, waving, 06:11:09 04/30/04 Fri

Have fun at the meets - sorry I can't be there but I'm rather busy here down under. My best to D.

Caroline

[> Oh, incidentally... -- Masq, 15:32:29 04/28/04 Wed

If you are in charge, you must wear the tiara. Lady S. has two lovely selections for you to choose from. Or wear both! Just not simultaneously. ; )

[> [> Visual aid -- Masq, 15:35:59 04/28/04 Wed



[> [> Oh no..... -- LittleBit and LadyS [snickering like crazy], 20:01:37 04/29/04 Thu

...a tiara's not nearly good enough for our Rob... we have something extra special for him!

[> [> [> *gulp* -- Rob, 21:44:18 04/29/04 Thu


[> Re: Gathering in Chicago -- Anon Lurker, 08:50:10 04/29/04 Thu

Can lurkers or those interested the topics discussed here attend? Or is this a gathering of on-line friends off-line?

[> [> Re: Gathering in Chicago -- LittleBit, 08:58:08 04/29/04 Thu

Lurkers are absolutely welcome!!

[> If I can go -- Arethusa, 15:55:58 04/29/04 Thu

it will probably be Friday night to Sunday or Monday, depending on work schedules and my daughter's departure for summer camp, which is on Sunday.

Assuming I don't chicken out, that is!

[> [> GO!!!! -- Ann, 10:00:54 04/30/04 Fri


[> Uh... Rob?? -- Masq, 12:15:04 04/30/04 Fri

I just called the hotel to book a reservation, and they told me I called the wrong hotel. I guess there's a difference between the regular O'Hare Holiday Inn and the International O'Hare Holiday Inn. The number she gave me is 1-847-671-6350

[> [> Hmmm....I called the lady there and she hasn't called me back yet. I'll try again. -- Rob, 13:11:00 04/30/04 Fri


[> [> Okay, she called back...She gave the wrong number! The one you got should work, I hope. -- Rob, 13:40:27 04/30/04 Fri


[> IMPORTANT...The phone number in the above post is wrong. -- Rob, 13:41:51 04/30/04 Fri

1-847-671-6350

This number should be the right one.

Don't forget to say "Philosophical Buffy Conference". The room rate should be $72 per night. Tell me if there are any problems!

Rob

[> ANOTHER IMPORTANT NOTE! -- Rob, 21:48:15 05/01/04 Sat

Sara called, and said that they have the Gathering down as "All Things Philosophical" rather than "Philsophical Buffy," so say that, and not what I told you to say. ;-)

Rob

[> [> Worked like a charm, Rob. Thanks. -- cjl, 20:37:05 05/03/04 Mon

My reservation is in. I'm checking in at 3:00 p.m. on Friday afternoon and leaving at noon Tuesday. Masq, if you and some of the other holdovers want to party on Monday night, I'm your man....

[> [> [> Cool! -- Masq, 06:11:38 05/04/04 Tue

Finalizing up my plans, but I should be checking in around 7 pm Friday and checking out Tues am (but staying in the city at least for part of that day). I haven't made my resos for the hotel yet, but plan to soon.

[> [> [> [> just to confirm: so it's the 3 of us in the decadence room? (the 3rd being fresne, not cjl!) -- anom, 09:40:08 05/04/04 Tue

And you're the one making the reservation, Masq? 'Cause I was gonna ask which one of us should do that, so thanks for bringing it up.

I haven't made my final travel plans yet, so I don't know exactly when I'll be coming & going. I'm hoping to arrive Friday in the early to mid-afternoon (will I have any problem getting in the room if I arrive before you, Masq?) & leave Monday early evening, or possibly Tuesday early afternoon. One more night of decadence is certainly tempting...assuming there's still any chocolate left by then....

[> [> [> [> [> Yes our room is the convention-party room -- Masq, 10:00:03 05/04/04 Tue

Chocolate. Red wine. Deep philosophical conversations about cats.

I haven't made the resos yet as I finalize my own plans, but I was going to request a double occupancy room (2 beds). I guess I should tack on a roll-away bed and put your name on the reso too? I don't know how we requested all that last year, as Scroll made the resos.

I will be arriving at the hotel around 7 pm Friday eve.

[> [> [> [> [> [> yup to all that -- anom, 10:52:51 05/04/04 Tue

"Chocolate. Red wine. Deep philosophical conversations about cats."

Mmmmmmm...yup.

"I haven't made the resos yet as I finalize my own plans, but I was going to request a double occupancy room (2 beds). I guess I should tack on a roll-away bed and put your name on the reso too? I don't know how we requested all that last year, as Scroll made the resos."

Yup here too. I'll even take that 3rd bed.

"I will be arriving at the hotel around 7 pm Friday eve."

Could you let the hotel know that at least 1 of your roomies may arrive earlier? Er...I mean...yup!

And of course, yup to its being the convention-party room! The place to be!

---

---

OT - Kill Bill Volume Two (very large spoilers for film) -- KdS, 14:20:25 04/28/04 Wed

Reviews for Kill Bill Volume One were mixed, because many reviewers had enjoyed the increased emotional depth and relative stylistic restraint of Jackie Brown found found Volume One to be just another ìQuentin Tarantinoî film. Kill Bill Volume One was a film by the ìQuentin Tarantinoî who uses violence solely as meaningless spectacle to raise an audienceís excitement to fever pitch.

Volume Two is a ìQuentin Tarantinoî film as well, or at least it starts off that way. But the influences being used here are the brutal westerns of Leone and Peckinpah, and this ìQuentin Tarantinoî is the one who builds suspense with lengthy sinister dialogues that you know are going to end with a cool murderer killing a hapless victim, like the almost unbearably ominous scene at the opening of Volume Two which has Bill, a darkly avuncular presence, appearing at the Brideís wedding rehearsal, feeding her desperate hopes that he will restrain himself and being introduced to the harmless silly people who we know he will soon have gunned down like dogs. And this ìQuentin Tarantinoî, the one who creates horrible, viscerally shocking scenes of violence merely to gross the audience out, with no genuine sense of human pain, is the one who follows the Bride for the first two thirds of this film as she battles her former colleagues Bud and Elle in Texas. Unlike the choreography of Volume One, the violence here is brutal, messy and sadistic, approaching the level of the cheap early-eighties video nasty. Michael Madsenís Bud is a wonderfully horrible and despicable creation, a self-destructive, self-abasing bloated wreck who professes crippling guilt with his every word and look but seems to fail to understand the necessary connection between feeling genuine guilt and not killing and torturing people any more. Daryl Hannahís Elle is similarly scarifying, a chilly, sadistic angel of self-serving and unnecessary brutal death.

But while the first two-thirds of Kill Bill Volume Two are viscerally exciting, they arenít particularly deep. But when the Bride finally tracks down David Carradineís Bill ( a quite astonishingly unearthly performance from Mr Carradine), the mood changes instantly and astonishingly. Because this isnít really a physical battle, although there is violence. What it is, is a battle of philosophies, of tainted good against genuinely appalling evil. And the genuinely appalling evil, Bill, isnít really Bill, a fictional character. The fictional Bill is really ìQuentin Tarantinoî.

I hope I donít seem to have a one-track mind, but there are some pretty interesting Buffy the Vampire Slayer comparisons here. Because the relationship between Beatrice, the Bride, and her once beloved Bill, who committed unspeakable crimes against her and others when she wouldnít return his dark and possessive love, is almost that of an alternate universe Buffy and Spike. An alternate universe that diverged after Seeing Red, when Spike didnít even have the half-formed, vestigial moral sense that drove him to get his soul, even if he didnít fully understand what he was asking for. Instead, itís an AU where the post-Seeing Red Spike, still loving Buffy in a dark and twisted but oh so romantic way, decided to try to become the monster again, and set out to create the consummation part of him always wanted, and the nihilistic fringe of Spuffy fans were angling for and writing in their fanfic. The Big Ruck. The one that rhymes with The Big Fuck and ends with two self-loathing monsters who finally have to stop denying their mutual monsterishness lovingly and ecstatically removing one another from the world in a Duel in the Sun style.

Because Bill is not a human, heís the incarnation of the cool aesthetic kill, the man with all the laid-backness, self-awareness, self-control, effortlessly and beautifully unspooling articulacy, charm and grace under pressure that we usually associate with spiritual advancement, but utterly devoid of any kind of morality. The handsomely and elegantly ageing millionaire killer hippie Orientalist [*] grandfather of all those fast-talking charismatic men in black suits and ties with big guns. And as we see him reunited with his ex-lover and their child, we see him overcome with the perfectly captured sentimentality of the cultured and susceptible death-camp proprietor. And we think that this is meant to be genuine feeling, because this kind of sentimentality is all we expect from ìQuentin Tarantinoî. And Quentin Tarantino masterfully prepares us with the directorial mood as Beatrice leaves her sleeping daughter, with the soundtrack, an ominously laid-back deconstruction of ìSheís Not Thereî, with our expectations of a ìQuentin Tarantinoî film, for that Big R/Fuck. But first we get Billís big speech. ìQuentin Tarantinoîís big speech. And itís a wonderful speech of utter nihilism and misanthropy, the speech that post-S6 AU Spike could have made if heíd been able to put all his romanticism and preconceptions and wishful thinking into perfectly flowing exposition, a speech based on a single grotesquely yet plausibly misinterpreted pop culture reference [**] to make anybody accept that the world is made of killers and victims and that it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that weíre the former, incumbent on all of us to cut a bloody swath of self-assertion in the only honest way we can until we meet an equal or better killer who can give us a death worthy of our life, the death which that life has been just a preparation for. A minimalistic cherry blossom spray of blood, a moment of utterly amoral beauty.

But then Quentin Tarantino gives us a flashback of what seems ludicrous sentimentality and dares us to abandon our cool anomie and find genuine feeling in it. (Even if it is possibly based on a slightly patronising view of Woman as the essential spirit of Nurturing.) And then the argument continues between human feeling and nihilism, between the evil spirit of utter cool and all those messy human feelings, between Beatrice and Bill ,between Buffy and soulless Spike, between Quentin Tarantino and ìQuentin Tarantinoî. Beatrice responds with action and expression more than words and logic, because the hopeless, amoral logic that leads to Billís Prudent Predator nihilism canít be defeated by any words, because words like love and goodness and kindness have no logically justifiable worth for physical survival. And because Quentin Tarantino still has a bit of ìQuentin Tarantinoî in him, or maybe because pessimistically some people canít be redeemed and some impulses can never be harnessed positively, Quentin Tarantino kills ìQuentin Tarantinoî. But itís the ultimate fantasy death, cool and clean and quick and almost bloodless and almost a tender caress and, very deliberately, something that couldn't be imitated in real life [***]. And itís just the cool and elegant death that Bill and ìQuentin Tarantinoî secretly longed for or maybe not se secretly in their sadomasochistic hearts. And Quentin Tarantino drives off into the world with innocent new life by his side into a really beautiful credit sequence that reminds us of and acknowledges all the death that led up to this point and then sails off hopefully down the open road. And Beatrice winks at us.

[*] An Orientalist who took all the blood and grace and death of the Chinese and Japanese martial arts with none of their spiritual aspect and honour

[**] Just like a certain other character, Bill can only make sense of the good and heroic by imagining them as dark and hypocritical

[***] Unless you accept certain mystical conspiracy theories about the death of Bruce Lee

Of course, maybe Iím completely misinterpreting the film, and the intent was more simplistic or darker. But Iíd love to see what Quentin Tarantino does next.

That was what I wrote a couple of hours after seeing the film. Examining the blogosphere, a fair number of people didn't see any depth at all, basically unconvinced by the change of mood and seeing the whole thing as cheap sentimentality. A lot of them simply couldn't forgive Quentin for the hospital scene in Volume One, which genuinely was Tarantino at his absolute worst, justifying making light of appalling things because the victim got to have bloody vengeance. But I'm still convinced by everything I wrote above, maybe because Joss's preoccupations have taken over my mind, especially since I'm currently reading a collection of stuff by Lester Bangs, who had similar preoccupations regarding the blind alley of pop cultural nihilism.

Replies:

[> About the hospital scene... (Kill Bill Volume 1 spoilers) -- Rob, 15:29:44 04/28/04 Wed

The reason I didn't have a problem with the scenario in the first film where it is made clear that Buck, the nurse, has been allowing men to rape the comatose Beatrice is because of the mythological aspect of the scenario. In many of the more primitive versions of the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, the prince who awoke Briar Rose after 100 years of her sleep was not the first one to arrive upon the slumbering maiden. In some, in fact, a prince has sex with her, and she gives birth to children, all while still in her magical coma. This concept of having a child while in a coma, unbeknowst to the sleeping woman, obviously has great significance for The Bride's tale. The concept of Sleeping Beauty than waking up and wreaking bloody vengeance on those men who have defiled her is obviously not in the original story, but the brutal and shocking flip of this mythical scenario is what makes the scene for me. I'm reminded me of a line from Hedwig and the Angry Inch that perfectly describes Beatrice: "...reviled, graffitied, spit upon..." until she emerges from what should have been death, and instead roars against all who had harmed her.

I also didn't find the ending sentimental at all, or if it was, it was a warped kind of sentimentality that fit the tone of the film perfectly, IMO. The odd juxtaposition and contrast of what Beatrice had expected to find when she arrived at Bill's house with what she actually does find, as well as the story about B.B. and the fish, and the little girl's choice in film make this decidely unsentimental. In fact, I whispered to the friend I saw the film with, "Is it just me, or is this the oddest scene you have ever seen?" He agreed. The sheer oddness of the calmness with which Bill makes the sandwich while telling that story, of the little girl having met her mother by pretending to shoot her, etc. I thought the scene was completely unexpected, but also far more brilliant and emotionally satisfying than any other way it could have played out. It was sweet...but not.

Rob

[> [> Sorry...Vol 2 spoilers also. -- Rob, 15:30:50 04/28/04 Wed


[> QT's Critique of Revenge Cinema or PoMo Recycling of Same Old, Same Old? -- cjl, 20:47:16 04/28/04 Wed

In the best of the revenge flicks of Quentin Tarantino's fevered youth--Kung Fu movie, samurai epic, spaghetti western, whatever--the person taking revenge "dies" almost as much as the people he (or, in this case, she) kills. There is a cost to vengeance, a stripping away of humanity, and after the bloodbath is over, the person who has taken such a huge toll in human life is a little less human. Either that, or the protagonist is so morally compromised in the first place that the triumph at the end can hardly be looked at as a simplistic victory of good over evil.

This cost is not a surprise to either the protagonist or the audience. Rather, it is expected. The moral ambiguity of the hero utilizing his (or her) deadly gifts with a sword or a gun to eliminate the bad guys (or the "worse" guys) is like part of the celluloid itself.

And this is where I think Tarantino falls short.

If we want to look at "Kill Bill" as a critique of the cinema of revenge, Uma Thurman's Bride is not the protagonist to reassess the stock motivations of the genre. After the carnage of Volume 1, it is a little late in the game to give the Bride a "get out of jail free card" when her maternal instincts kick in for Volume 2. The DiVAS leave her for dead at the Two Pines Chapel. She wakes up. She kills them and anybody who defends them. She's living by the old code. Her goal is noble--defending the life and soul of her daughter--but her methods are the methods of Pei Mei, who slaughtered an entire Shaolin Temple for the slight social indiscretion of a Monk. The old bastard liked Beatrix. And why not? She bought into the program and didn't give him any backtalk.

The happy ending left me a little queasy. Looking at little B.B., I could only think of Vernita's four-year-old daughter in California, who watched the blond lady in the yellow suit kill her mother in cold blood. Tarantino once said in an interview that he could pick up the story fifteen years later, with the girl coming after the Bride for revenge. The parallel stories of the little girls and the costs of the cycle of revenge should have been the ending of this movie. Then I would have been convinced that Tarantino thought hard about the moral implications of the cinematic influences he's been recycling....

[> [> Re: QT's Critique of Revenge Cinema... (Kill Bill, Thelma and Louise spoilers) -- Rob, 21:24:42 04/28/04 Wed

In the best of the revenge flicks of Quentin Tarantino's fevered youth--Kung Fu movie, samurai epic, spaghetti western, whatever--the person taking revenge "dies" almost as much as the people he (or, in this case, she) kills. There is a cost to vengeance, a stripping away of humanity, and after the bloodbath is over, the person who has taken such a huge toll in human life is a little less human.

And yet there is a central difference at the conclusion of Kill Bill that separates it from other revenge flicks, and that is that at the end, the main character discovers that the child whose death she was avenging...is still alive. After all of the "bloody vengeance" she wreaked throughout the first 75% of the film, the fact that her child is still alive changes everything. One can interpret it that she should feel extreme guilt for having slaughtered so many people for reasons that are only partially sound. Either that, or you can interpret it the way The Bride herself seems to...That the universe is smiling on her actions, and has in a very real way returned her child to her as a sign that it approves of what she has done throughout the first nine chapters of the saga. What I found so refreshing about the film is that the conclusion isn't about morality; it's about this single character's journey to reclaim her life from those who stole it from her, and killing the demons of her past. As she grows closer and closer to her goal--Bill--she becomes less and less "monstrous" (for lack of a better word). The first kill, Oren Ishii, along with the Crazy 88s, are the most violent of the film. The second, Vernita Green, is quicker--a swift knife to the heart. The third, Budd, she doesn't kill herself at all, because she doesn't have the chance. The fourth, Elle Driver, she has the chance to kill, but she doesn't. When she finally gets to Bill, the two seem to have a mutual respect for each other: she allows him to die with dignity, bloodless, and on his feet.

Another thing that makes this film unique is that the main character is a woman. In film class, we just covered Thelma and Louise and basically came to the conclusion that the feminism of the film was undermined by its genre trappings: as free and adventurous as the female characters are allowed to be, they are in a typically male genre--the buddy-thief action/adventure--most of which end with the death of the two male characters. Thelma and Louise do not escape this fate. For the film to have been truly revolutionary and revisionist, rather than just two female characters subsituting the males, they should have been allowed to live at the end. In the same way, what I find revolutionary about the end of Kill Bill is that The Bride isn't forced to be the broken shell of a person that most men are at the end of revenge films. She finishes her job happy and content. After a long, cathartic cry, she can hang up her weapons and continue her life as a well-adjusted and finally complete individual. Will the mother and daughter have issues in the future? Most likely. There was definitely a satirical tone to the ultra-happy conclusion, with the "mother has returned to her cub" title card. But the fact that such a film can be given an (at least on the surface) happy ending, the last thing that one would expect, is what makes this film truly one of a kind to me.

Rob

[> [> [> Re: QT's Critique of Revenge Cinema... (Kill Bill, Thelma and Louise spoilers) -- s'kat, 10:33:05 04/29/04 Thu

Oddly enough, I agree with Rob on this one. I can't help but wonder that the desire to see the film as a critique of the revenge genre is also a desire to pigeon-hole it. To place it in a neat little box along with The Man With No Name triology, the Once Upon A Time in The West triology,
and the Kung-Fu pics of the seventies. Is it possible that when we review a film, particularly one that uses bits and pieces of the stylings of past films, practically asking us to compare them, that we fall into the trap of attempting to make it fit within the boundaries those past films explored? To see it only within their frame-work?

Rob is right, I think, when he states that Kill Bill Vol.2 did something that Thelma and Louise failed to do, which is why I prefer Kill Bill Vol. 2 and have always found Thelma and Louise annoying. Is it chose life over death at the end.

We live in a society where "retribution" and "punishment"is desired. We are unfortunately a vengenful race. Who feels that anyone who kills should be punished. And that may not be altogether wrong. After all - you can't have murders rampaging the streets, can you? But in Kill Bill Vol2 - the ending scenes reminded me heavily of scenes in Burgess' book A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick saw this version as lame and was, I believe as disturbed by the original version as cjl is by Kill Bill above. Kubrick did not believe a "murderer" can change or can choose life. So he left out that final chapter. And it was reported by Burgess at the time that the American movie group felt the British were wimps for copping out and not keeping Alec bad. I've seen the same analysis online regarding Spike. And I see it above regarding The Bride. And it worries me. Are we so cynical and so caught up in the black and white pop culture of action hero comic books, revenge westerns, and the old noir cinema of the 1930s, that we cannot accept the idea that the universe is far greyer than those works make out?
The Bride can be blissfully happy with her child, yet still kill Bill. That is not only possible, but far more realistic than the nihilsitic endings we remember from the comics or movies which Tartanio appears to be referencing here.

In the movie Bill references a comic book. Superman. And it struck me how clever the reference was because in that moment he was talking about those black and white views of the universe. He was referencing those kids who pull their morality out of the carefully drawn boundaries of a comic, where the action seldom leaves (at least in the older versions) those neat little squares. Bill views certainly fit those squares. His philosophy was pulled from the two-dimensional drawings of Action Comics. And the Bride/Beatrix starring back at him, began her tale, one of life not death. One where Superman stops being Superman and decides he'd rather be Clark Kent and raise his child, the new version, the one where the artwork kicks down those walls and flows across the page. A life Bill cannot begin to contemplate, because Bill lives inside the Clint Eastwood Westerns (heck he even dresses like him, tall thin, in black - the man in black),and inside the four square walls of those comic books. Beatrix Kiddo has chosen to leave that comic book universe, guietly with her daughter. Is it a happy ending? Not necessarily. Vernita Green's daughter may at some point decide to pursue Beatrix, or she may not. But It's not a sad one either. Truth is - it's not an ending at all, it's not confined to the pages of a comic, and that's what makes it interesting.

[> [> [> [> Wonderful post! -- Rob, 11:18:56 04/29/04 Thu

In the movie Bill references a comic book. Superman. And it struck me how clever the reference was because in that moment he was talking about those black and white views of the universe. He was referencing those kids who pull their morality out of the carefully drawn boundaries of a comic, where the action seldom leaves (at least in the older versions) those neat little squares. Bill views certainly fit those squares. His philosophy was pulled from the two-dimensional drawings of Action Comics. And the Bride/Beatrix starring back at him, began her tale, one of life not death. One where Superman stops being Superman and decides he'd rather be Clark Kent and raise his child, the new version, the one where the artwork kicks down those walls and flows across the page. A life Bill cannot begin to contemplate, because Bill lives inside the Clint Eastwood Westerns (heck he even dresses like him, tall thin, in black - the man in black),and inside the four square walls of those comic books. Beatrix Kiddo has chosen to leave that comic book universe, guietly with her daughter. Is it a happy ending? Not necessarily. Vernita Green's daughter may at some point decide to pursue Beatrix, or she may not. But It's not a sad one either. Truth is - it's not an ending at all, it's not confined to the pages of a comic, and that's what makes it interesting.

Yes, and interestingly, Bill is the one who keeps telling Beatrix that she is a monster, that she can never be a normal person in society because the killer is who she really is. And yet, before he ruined her rehearsal wedding (the fact that it was a rehearsal and not the real ceremony I also see as highly symbolic) she seemed happy, well-adjusted, loved by her friends. It is Bill's act of violence against her that put her back in the comic-book frame of mind. When she is finally rid of Bill and his philosophy, it is clear that the film isn't endorsing the tropes that say that he who takes revenge becomes just as much of a monster as those he killed. That was what Bill believed, because in his mind, there is good, and there is evil. No in-betweens. This film is one of the rare cases where the "happy ending" is the morally ambiguous one, and that is what I think is most interesting about it. If the film had ended nihilistically, it wouldn't be a critique on revenge films; it would merely be another remake of the same old revenge film. By allowing for the possibility that people can change, Tarantino put his own spin on the genre. I had expected, as most people did I'm sure, that the film would either end with The Bride dead along with Bill, or completely broken over her actions. Instead, she was given a second chance at life, a clean slate, tabula rasa. Can The Bride change? Just try and stop her.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Bill's God Complex and The Bride's Madonna Complex -- cjl, 11:59:12 04/29/04 Thu

'kat, Rob, I'm afraid I don't see it that way. Like the criticism of Thelma and Louise, I don't think KB2 sufficiently breaks the mold of the Revenge Movie to be truly revolutionary.

To be sure, Bill's monologue about Superman was one of the coolest things I've seen in the movies in awhile, the topper in a long list of cool moments in the film. It captures everything about Superman as a character, except for one important factor: the compassion taught him by the Kents. What Bill sees as a weakness, we know as the reason why Superman is the greatest superhero of them all. The monologue perfectly illustrates Bill's God Complex, and why the Bride had to kill him. (If there was any hope for a non-violent rapprochement between the two for B.B.'s sake, that pretty much killed it.)

But I didn't find The Bride's Madonna Complex any more involving or emotionally complex as Bill's Action Comics-inspired God Complex. It's a revenge cinema cliche to go on a killing spree after the death of children. (See: The Punisher.) Is PROTECTING the child a sufficiently different motivation? Perhaps. I don't see how Volume 2 would have been any different if B.B. HADN'T lived. The death toll was far lower, agreed, but The Bride was hardly sparing lives out of her new sense of moral purity. She was ready and willing to slice Bud into trailer trash cutlets, and her Oedipal revenge on Elle was hardly merciful. And the dispatching of Bill, while elegant, was her inheritance from the old school teachings of Pei Mei.

I guess what I'm saying is that there weren't ENOUGH shades of grey in this movie. Bill was evil and the Bride was protecting the soul of their little girl. That's pretty black and white to me. Along with tying the loose ends up with Vernita's daughter, I would have liked to have seen the Bride talk to Bud for a while. He was the only character who seemed to fully understand the moral rot of the assassin's life, beyond the surface coolness of fast money, samurai swords and luxury accommodations. (He didn't havet the guts to translate those qualms into anything more than a vague self-loathing, but that's why a talk with the Bride would have been so interesting.)

In other words, a little less Shaw Brothers and a little more "Unforgiven."

[> [> [> [> [> No time to respond, but I hated "Unforgiven," just to give you an idea where I'm coming from. ;-) -- Rob, 12:04:52 04/29/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Bill's God Complex and The Bride's Madonna Complex -- Rob, 14:25:30 04/29/04 Thu

To be sure, Bill's monologue about Superman was one of the coolest things I've seen in the movies in awhile, the topper in a long list of cool moments in the film. It captures everything about Superman as a character, except for one important factor: the compassion taught him by the Kents.

Agreed...As I was watching that scene, the first thing I was thinking was, "This guy sure never saw Smallville!"

But I didn't find The Bride's Madonna Complex any more involving or emotionally complex as Bill's Action Comics-inspired God Complex. It's a revenge cinema cliche to go on a killing spree after the death of children. (See: The Punisher.) Is PROTECTING the child a sufficiently different motivation? Perhaps. I don't see how Volume 2 would have been any different if B.B. HADN'T lived.

The difference to me is in the outcome. Had B.B. not lived, The Bride would have been given the same nihilistic ending as the typical revenge film (anti?)hero. At the end of her bloody killing spree, she would most likely have felt empty inside. Everyone who had harmed her would be dead, but she would have nothing to live for. The survival of B.B. ensures that she can be given a new start at her life. To Beatrix, B.B. has been resurrected just as surely as she has been, twice in the film, and gives her a new hope that she can have back that "normal" life that she had a small glimpse of, which Bill destroyed for her.

The death toll was far lower, agreed, but The Bride was hardly sparing lives out of her new sense of moral purity. She was ready and willing to slice Bud into trailer trash cutlets, and her Oedipal revenge on Elle was hardly merciful. And the dispatching of Bill, while elegant, was her inheritance from the old school teachings of Pei Mei.

I don't think it was out of a new sense of moral purity, but rather that the decreasing severity of the deaths symbolically prefigures The Bride moving away from her assassin life at the end of the film. I don't think it was a conscious decision on her part but rather a thematic device to signal her growing closer and closer to reclaiming her life with her daughter.

I guess what I'm saying is that there weren't ENOUGH shades of grey in this movie. Bill was evil and the Bride was protecting the soul of their little girl. That's pretty black and white to me.

I disagree. Bill was evil, but at the same time, he had the capacity for love. He raised B.B., it seems, in a fairly innocuous way, at least up to this point, and the reason he struck out against Beatrix so violently was not only because she had run away from him, but because he had thought she was dead. He loved her, and mourned her and thus felt an astounding depth of betrayal when he discovered that not only was she alive but that she had consciously chosen to keep that fact hidden from him. He was far from the one-dimensional villain (although he himself thought of himself in one-dimensional terms), while The Bride could obviously not be classified as a pure heroine, due to all the murders she committed. The difference is that The Bride's actions are justifiable, and Bill's are not.

...I would have liked to have seen the Bride talk to Bud for a while. He was the only character who seemed to fully understand the moral rot of the assassin's life...

Ah, see, but I don't think she does have any moral rot left by the time she wakes up. She is taking revenge on those who tried to kill her, and had apparently killed her daughter. She was not being paid for her actions, as the assassin is. This was not a job. To her, it was her duty to right the wrongs that were done to her, her child, and her friends and fiancÈ who were slaughtered at the rehearsal wedding. That's a very different situation from Budd, whose murders were cold, empty ones, done because he was paid to do them, not because he felt a personal, emotional drive to end the lives of the people who he killed. The Bride had passion, and he had none, making them fundamentally different creatures.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> The Metanarrative View of Kill Bill, and other nitpicks -- cjl, 08:38:23 04/30/04 Fri

Some excellent points here, Rob. Running it down:

Rob sez: "[T]he first thing I was thinking was, 'This guy sure never saw Smallville!'"

Sure he watches Smallville. Bill thinks Clark eventually modeled himself on Lionel Luthor.


Rob sez: "The difference to me is in the outcome. Had B.B. not lived, The Bride would have been given the same nihilistic ending as the typical revenge film (anti?)hero."

Absolutely agree here.


Rob sez: "[T]he decreasing severity of the deaths symbolically prefigures The Bride moving away from her assassin life at the end of the film. I don't think it was a conscious decision on her part but rather a thematic device to signal her growing closer and closer to reclaiming her life with her daughter."

True, but it feels like a cheat. Manipulating events so that circumstances preventing the hero/heroine from killing is (IMO) a substitute for genuine characterization. You could make a similar argument for Angel Season 4: Angelus' low-to-nil kill count symbolizes a change/growth in the character away from his previous nihilism. (You'd be wrong, of course, but you could make the argument.)


Rob sez: "Bill was evil, but at the same time, he had the capacity for love. He raised B.B., it seems, in a fairly innocuous way, at least up to this point, and the reason he struck out against Beatrix so violently was not only because she had run away from him, but because he had thought she was dead. He loved her, and mourned her and thus felt an astounding depth of betrayal when he discovered that not only was she alive but that she had consciously chosen to keep that fact hidden from him."

Bill was stone, cold evil. He thought of himself as the God of his little world. What's worse, he was teaching this ruthless, amoral, God-like demeanor to B.B. If Beatrix came to Bill after that final assignment and told him she was leaving the life, I have absolutely no doubt he would have let her walk out the door, waited a while for her to come to her senses--then hunted her down and killed her. And if he found out right away that she was pregnant with his child? His "gentle" treatment of her at the Two Pines might have looked like a Sunday School brunch by comparison.

***************

Look, guys, it's not that I don't see your point. There is a definite metanarrative through-line for Kill Bill. Bill is QT and The Bride is Uma, who brings the maternal touch to Quentin's testosterone-poisoned world. She's Marlene Dietrich to Quentin's Joseph von Sternberg, except her Svengali has trapped her in a genre she wants no part of.

She runs through the Master's paces in Volume One; she undergoes a symbolic burial/rebirth at the start of Volume Two, then is ready to deal with the limitations of the genre on HER terms. She confronts and kills her Svengali, and brings their offspring, the hope for the future, out of the darkness. Bill is QT. Uma is the Bride. B.B. is the movie. Neat-o.

But I can't quite get behind this interpretation, at least not completely. It supposes that Quentin has grown beyond his genre inspirations enough to re-jigger them in a way that completely changes their meaning. To be blunt, I don't see that kind of growth in Quentin. I love the man's movies: he's a master of cinema pastiche, an unparallelled stylist who's able to engineer visual and verbal riffs that would be the envy of any other film-maker. But "stylist" and "artist" and two different things. He still depends on genre conventions and stock characters to act as the building blocks of his movies. He hasn't convinced me that he's grown as an artist enough to look at his pulp inspirations from the outside and make them something entirely his own.

You're probably asking: well, cjl, I hear a lot of complaining, but no constructive criticism. Can you give an example of somebody who's done what you want Quentin to do?

Sure.

We're on a posting board devoted to his TV shows.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Metanarrative View of Kill Bill, and other nitpicks -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:09:00 04/30/04 Fri

Bill thought of himself as God of his own little world according to your interpretation. Well then, from his point of view, there could be no greater act of love then showing his daughter how to take the same path. A Christian and equal-fights activist is likely to try to raise his child to worship Jesus and stand up for people's rights. A member of the Russian People's Revolution is likely to teach his child to respect the proletariat and distrust capitalist nations. A self-proclaimed murdering bastard is likely to raise his daughter to be a self-proclaimed murdering bitch. Most parents want their children to take after them, and Bill is no exception. He thinks the life he leads is the ideal one, and wants nothing less for B.B.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quoting KdS on the Nature of Bill: -- cjl, 11:01:07 04/30/04 Fri

KdS: "Bill is not a human, heís the incarnation of the cool aesthetic kill, the man with all the laid-backness, self-awareness, self-control, effortlessly and beautifully unspooling articulacy, charm and grace under pressure that we usually associate with spiritual advancement, but utterly devoid of any kind of morality. The handsomely and elegantly ageing millionaire killer hippie Orientalist grandfather of all those fast-talking charismatic men in black suits and ties with big guns. And as we see him reunited with his ex-lover and their child, we see him overcome with the perfectly captured sentimentality of the cultured and susceptible death-camp proprietor."

Yep.

Bill loves B.B., but only as a reflection of himself, a measure of his own power to shape an agile and impressionable young mind to his own way of thinking. If Beatrix hadn't taken out Bill, B.B. might have become a monster, just like her father. Or, if she rebelled, just like her mother, Bill would have made it clear that the slightest of indiscretions simply would NOT be tolerated.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm going to keep up this argument, even though it seems to be almost entirely opinion based -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:56:52 04/30/04 Fri

I agree that Bill would probably have done something quite horrible to B.B. if she had gone against him like Beatrix had, perhaps in a way similar to how parents and children grow estranged when the child starts rebelling (only with much more violence, since Bill tends to "overreact"). However, I don't think this lessens the fact that he does sincerely love her, and that he sincerely loved the Bride. It's just that, whenever he acts on his feelings, he always does it through his own outlook on the world, one where killing is the most natural of solution to any problem. He says that what he did to the Bride was payback for breaking his heart; this line, if true, must mean that he has a heart to break. Bill is very honest about himself; he readily admits that he's never been nice person and is a murdering bastard. For someone with so little shame over his own monstrousness, I don't see why he would he suddenly try to lie and pretend he honestly grieved over Beatrix unless he actually did. Just because someone is a viscious and remorseless killer doesn't mean they can't love someone as fully as others can; love is but an emotion, neither good nor evil. Bill was incapable of change; he would always be a killer and react to being spurned with fury and vengeance, but the feelings were still there, even though he had an odd way of showing them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And this is exactly why... -- Rob, 19:08:06 04/30/04 Fri

However, I don't think this lessens the fact that he does sincerely love her, and that he sincerely loved the Bride. It's just that, whenever he acts on his feelings, he always does it through his own outlook on the world, one where killing is the most natural of solution to any problem.

...Bill's first speech in the film, before we even saw his face, was that he is not sadistic, that this is him at his most masochistic. He saw it as his right to strike out against the woman who had wronged him, and at the same time, by killing the woman who is possibly the love of his life, he is harming himself. Budd understood this same philosoophy when he said that the woman deserves her revenge, and they deserve to die, but that she does also, for betraying Bill.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> One quibble -- Traveler, 18:55:31 05/01/04 Sat

When Budd put her in the coffin, he said, "this is for breaking Bill's heart." He didn't ask Ellie to pay him for the Bride's death; he asked her to pay him for the SWORD. I take this to mean his motivation was one of revenge as much as money.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> In this instance you're right... -- Rob, 22:19:02 05/01/04 Sat

I meant in general, his assassin job, working for the DiVAS was a paying gig.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bill's God Complex and The Bride's Madonna Complex -- Cleanthes, 11:05:58 05/03/04 Mon


The death toll was far lower, agreed, but The Bride was hardly sparing lives out of her new sense of moral purity. She was ready and willing to slice Bud into trailer trash cutlets, and her Oedipal revenge on Elle was hardly merciful. And the dispatching of Bill, while elegant, was her inheritance from the old school teachings of Pei Mei.

I don't think it was out of a new sense of moral purity, but rather that the decreasing severity of the deaths symbolically prefigures The Bride moving away from her assassin life at the end of the film. I don't think it was a conscious decision on her part but rather a thematic device to signal her growing closer and closer to reclaiming her life with her daughter.

I thought the use of the five point method on Bill had more to do with the Tao of the thing -- he did not have what it took and so, in the grand scheme of things, received his instruction the hardest of ways.

Also, for all his shortcomings, he fathered the innocent child. She deserved a whole father's remains. For some span of time, she need not worry about his life because his death occured from natural causes. Not "natural" in the prosaic sense, but natural in relation to the proper workings of the universe.

[> [> [> [> [> "Kill Bill" wasn't about right and wrong -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:30:58 04/29/04 Thu

I personally didn't try to judge the characters based on the morality of their actions. After all, it's a movie where the hero is an assassin who slices up dozens of people on her road to getting revenge. I feel no need to try to justify the Bride's actions, but I don't expect or want her to recieve punishment either. Also, while others who liked the movie saw it as having many shades of grey, I did not. Rather, when watching "Kill Bill", I took morality out of the equation. I didn't worry myself over whether her actions were right or wrong. I felt no desire to see the right thing or the wrong thing occur. What mattered was that I cared for the character of the Bride and wanted her to succeed and be happy. I cared about the morality of the situations only as it affected the Bride (and, her being a brutal killer and all, this happens very little). Tarantino set "Kill Bill" in its own little universe, one where samurai swords are commonplace, characters behave in the most outlandish manner, and enough martial arts training can take down an army, and this universe is distinctly a morally neutral one. It therefore didn't seem black and white to me at all, nor grey; instead we got a whole different color. At least that's how I view it.

P.S. I personally preferred Volume 1 to Volume 2, but that has more to do with the decrease in action and potentially interesting backstories left undeveloped. Granted, I liked the more dramatic angle, but if some scenes hadn't run as long as they did, there might have been room to fit a little bit of the old ultra-violence in as well. Would it really have been so bad to have the Bride massacre a few guards on her way to Bill and her daughter? In a movie with a very Western feel, it's a shame we didn't get Western shoot-em-up scene on par with the samurai sword fight in Volume One.

[> [> Re: In cold blood? (Spoilers Kill Bill Vol 1) -- Vegeta, 08:49:51 04/29/04 Thu

Sorry, but I completely disagree that the Bride's murder of Vernita Green was in "cold blood". If you recall, Vernita attempted to shoot the Bride with a gun hidden in a box of cereal. Had she not done that, the Bride wouldn't of had to toss her knife deep into Vernita's chest. The plan was to meet in a nearby park around midnight to settle the fight. The only person's fault for Vernita's daughter witnessing Vernita's murder is Vernita. Plain and simple. The bride isn't thrilled that this has taken place... thus explaining the previous hiding of the fight by both Vernita and the Bride from Vernita's daughter. I admit, it's a heart wrenching scene, but I can't describe the Bride's actions as cold blooded.

[> [> [> Agreed. -- Rob (Can ya tell I loved this movie? ;-) ), 09:13:30 04/29/04 Thu


[> interview w/david carradine in "the onion" -- anom, 07:11:32 05/02/04 Sun

The Onion (for those who don't know, it's a satirical newspaper in the US) has an interview w/David Carradine in this week's AV Club section. Carradine gives his opinions on the character Bill & the character of Bill, & his take on Tarantino's intentions about the character & the film.

---

---

Current board | More April 2004

---