August 2004 posts
Powers to get their
ass in gear. -- Kana, 03:17:17 08/06/04 Fri
I was watching Angel s3 and in Tomorrow it seems the powers were
warning Cordy about what was going to happen to her(the whole
Jasmine thing), in the 'I'm in love with Angel' vision. Aren't
Cordy's vision of people in danger? Wasn't she in danger? As far
as the powers were concerned she was. If it was the powers why
didn't they make it just a little more obvious than supervague?
Or maybe it was Jasmine herself.....
Replies:
[> as far as I know... -- seven, 16:06:14 08/06/04
Fri
The image of Cordelia was more a premonition of what she would
decide on the frozen highway. In fact, they are the exact words.
Taken out of context, they led Cordelia to the decision that she
would make. I would surmise that Jasmine had a heavy hand in this.
Classic Movie
of the Week - August 8th 2004 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures
Pt. II -- OnM, 20:19:53 08/08/04 Sun
*******
Nightswimming
deserves a quiet night.
I'm not sure all these people understand.
It's not like years ago,
The fear of getting caught,
of recklessness and water.
They cannot see me naked.
These things, they go away,
replaced by everyday.
R.E.M.
*******
oh now feel it comin' back again
like a rollin' thunder chasing the wind
forces pullin' from the center of the earth again
I can feel it
Live
*******
Meet me in the crowd
People, people
Throw your love around
Love me, love me
Take it into town
Happy, happy
Put it in the ground
Where the flowers grow
Gold and silver shine
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
R.E.M.
*******
We were both named after great singers of the past who went
on to do infomercials.
character commentary from this week s film
*******
A few hours ago, just before I started to write this, it started
to rain. Not only is there nothing unusual about that simple fact,
around my southeastern Penn s neck of the sylvania the only remotely
surprising thing was that it hadn t already started raining several
hours before.
A second simple fact is that my memory isn t all that good these
days, although the short term stuff suffers far more than the
longer term, which is the common way of it, or so they tell me.
For some reason I still recall looking at a global rainfall map
sometime around my high school days or a bit thereafter, and noticing
that my town s latitude and longitude had about the same average
annual rainfall as the typical tropical rainforest. Gosh, I feel
so privileged to have a little bit of the equator right
here in my hometown!
OK, no I don t. And that bothers me.
In addition to the memory stuff, there s a certain amount of cogitative
dissonance at work in my be-it-ever-so-humble brain these days.
For example, right after making the nifty wordplay I just set
free in the last sentence, I then had to hit shift-F7 to check
the thesaurus and be certain I was using the word cogitate correctly,
albeit oddly. (Incorrectly, bad-- oddly, pretty). It turns out
that I was right after all ( meditate, muse, reflect , quoth the
thesaurus), and so you got to read what you read, but the basic
fear remains, and you can t always hit a delete key and make it
go poof.
Has my previous life become destined to desert me? Have I forgotten
so much already, and/or lost the ability to relate to my former
youthful self that I now have to settle for a few lingering seconds
of random d j vu to remind my id that at one time I liked
the rain? That as a child I could sit on our front porch and do
nothing but just watch it fall, transfixed at the endless visual
patterns it created and the sound of it sympathetically crashing
into things?
Rain nourished the earth, made plants grow that became the food
we ate or flowers whose beauty and scent we admired. Rain created
beautiful oil-rainbowed ripples on the dark macadam as it flowed
down my city streets and eventually out to the great river to
our west. I loved the smell of it, and the feel of it hitting
my skin on a hot summer afternoon. It fascinated me when I learned
that while and after flowing from the river to the sea, the rain
would evaporate, rise into the skies and someday return again
as rain-- my first introduction to the concept of a circle of
life . It made quietly reading a book about such astounding science
inside a warm, comfy home a greater delight on a cold November
morning. Then in another month or so it would occasionally transform
itself into the magical snowfalls that totally changed the way
the world looked and acted (and sometimes made for an entire day
off school, yay!)
Oh, I loved the rain, what it was and all good things that it
stood for. Part of me still does, but it s a part buried so deeply
under the mass of later experience that it emerges clamoring for
a burst of empathy only when my mind wanders into one of those
empty rooms with a vu . So, I stand staring out through the screen
of the front door and try to hold on to the brief, ancient feeling,
the feeling that rain was something more than delayed appointments
or floody destruction, or that snow wasn t something that existed
only to risk a heart attack whilst moving it somewhere else.
You can t go home again , the man said, and what can I
say, he spoke the truth. But then, not everyone wants to
go home again, at least to the home of one s youth. In the Whedonverse,
Buffy Summers has often longed for the joys of simpler times;
when her parents were happily married, when she was the popular
girl in her high school class, when following fashion trends,
shopping, and hanging out with her friends were the guiding forces
of her life. After all, who wouldn t want to linger in such a
blissful state of minimal responsibility? It seems petty and churlish
to deny a child their childhood, since the end to it shall come
to pass all too soon.
But Rockwellian childhoods are denied to many, in the real world
and in the fiction that reflects it. Based on what we know of
the character, it seems reasonable that such exultant moments
were painfully few and far between for Buffy s alternate self,
Faith. In her case, it would be reasonable to assume that her
childhood memories would become ones of selective neglect and
not accidental erasure. Those occasions of personal pride and
triumph that did occur for her would be ones that represent defiance
of authority and/or acts of physical bravery, actions taken against
the persecuting world rather than passive (and typically pleasant)
acceptance of its norms, norms totally alien to her experience.
There are no shortages of Faiths in the realverse, and what exactly
can be done to help them, should you be so inclined to do so?
Should you be one of the lucky, popular, shiny happy ones? Well,
if you are a writer or a filmmaker, there is but one thing, I
might posit.
You could use your gift to create some fiction that takes people
out of the real world, and places them in a better one. You give
them new memories to place over the old ones, and wait for the
passage of time to blur everything together. It works, dear friends,
trust me. So, I ll shut the front door, let the rain do its thing
for better or for worse, and talk to you for a little while about
this week s flick pick, a buried treasure that starts out with
an unlikely premise and then goes places with it (and happy ones
to boot!) that you certainly never expect.
Back in 1982, a nearly newbie director by the name of Amy Heckerling
debuted a feature film called Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
It received fairly lukewarm, and frequently outrightly negative
reviews, but over time developed a near-cult following after showing
up on pay cable and eventually video. Seemingly stuffed with fluff,
some who gave it more than a single viewing often arrived at the
conclusion that there was more going on than met the initial eye.
I was one of those people, and at at intervals found myself defending
it as having greater import than the unintentional launching of
Sean Penn s film career, although it did that quite nicely, there
is no doubt.
Penn, of course, played the unforgettable character of surfer/stoner
Jeff Spicoli, and the estimable and experienced actor Ray Walston
played his nemesis, the history teacher Mr. Hand. Penn s rendering
of Spicoli was so dead-on perfect that not only did his character
become an archetype subject to much future use (and misuse) by
other filmmakers, but also it became easy to forget that he wasn
t supposed to be the primary focus of the film.
While said focus was intended to be the collective
stories of a wide variety of characters, each looking for different
things in their personal and social lives, I always felt that
Heckerling had a special interest in the female students and the
social/sexual issues they had to confront during this latter period
of adolescence. This week s Classic Movie, Clueless
is not only a delightful film in its own right, it strikes me
as being an attempt by Heckerling to prove that she could revisit
the same basic ground as Fast Times and yet bring something
fresh to the screen.
Clueless may cover some of the same scholastic territory
in Fast fashion, but the character focus is much tighter this
time around. The lead is played by actor Alicia Silverstone, who
fills the role of one Cher Horowitz, 16 years of age and the daughter
of a powerful attorney, or as Cher states the matter:
Daddy s a litigator. Those re the scariest kinds of lawyer.
And daddy is so good he gets $500 an hour to fight with people.
But he fights with me for free cos I m his daughter.
Cher isn t being even remotely disingenuous with this evaluation--
she dearly loves her dad, and it soon becomes apparent that he
not only loves his daughter back, he s exceptionally trusting
of her and credits her with more intelligence and ability than
many of her other adult aquaintances do. Right off the bat, this
is a different tone and tack than what one usually gets to see
in the majority of teen comedies . Clueless is full of
genuine wit, not mere garden variety humor, and it doesn t wait
very long before flinging one clever turn of phrase after another
at the audience. The opening scene, in fact, sets up audience
expectations of (groan ) oh, we ve seen this before , and
then within a half-minute undermines it with Cher doing the following
voiceover:
Wait a minute-- what is this, a Noxema commercial?
(In truth, if you listen carefully to the words of the music that
accompanies the scene, you ll notice that the undermining has
begun even before Cher speaks. The tune only seems relentlessly
happy, but there s a slightly dark streak present lyrically beneath
the upbeat rhythms. The same slight dark twist occurs not too
much later when we learn the fate of Cher s mother, and we laugh
at the absurdity of the situation even though the results are
objectively tragic.)
The film is replete with teen-speak , where just as with Whedon
s Buffyverse, you aren t ever quite sure the language is real
slang or just made up wholesale by the screenwriter(s), because
it sounds both real and plausible when spoken in context
by the actors. (I particularly liked the term Betty used as an
affectionate synonym for babe . The only thing is I m not sure
is whether they had the Betty from the Archie comics in mind,
or Bettie as in Bettie Page. I ll leave you to suggest other possibilities.)
While Fast Times was written by Cameron Crowe, for Clueless
Heckerling wrote the screenplay as well as directed, and obviously
has the same ear for dialog flow that Crowe did.
It is my understanding that Heckerling based the outline of the
plot on Jane Austen s Emma, updated for contempory sensibilities.
Never having read the story, I cannot comment on this aspect intelligently,
but if true I expect this will add an additional layer of pleasure
for those who have. Rest assured that you don t need to appreciate
this literary level to enjoy the film; the work stands completely
on its own as an engrossing story.
Cast-wise, some other key players in the mix include Cher s best
friend Dionne Marie Davenport (Stacey Dash), her college-age step-brother
Josh Lucas (Paul Rudd), new-kid-in-school Tai Fraiser (Brittany
Murphy) and Spicoli-archetype descendent Travis Birkenstock (Breckin
Meyer). Veteran stage and screen actor Wallace Shawn appears primarily
in the first quarter of the film as civics (and apparently Cher
s homeroom) teacher Alphonse Hall, whom Dionne characterizes at
one point as a mean old man , but he seems every bit as laid back
and funny as the students themselves. ( Example: After handing
out report cards, he stops the despondent Travis from climbing
out the [ground-level] classroom window and announces Will you
please hold all suicide attempts until after class
is dismissed. )
All of these roles and even many of the minor ones are fleshed
out very nicely, and each major character has an important ultimate
contribution to the story line. That it does so is quite a feat,
considering the plot circumstances. The students in this fictional
California high school are almost universally well off financially,
if not outrightly wealthy. This wealth doesn t seem to affect
most of them in a negative way that goes beyond the conventional
self-involvement of youth. In short, they re what you d consider
pretty good kids , despite the occasional wild behavior and sometime
lack of better judgement. Was Heckerling sick and tired of endless
books and films about moody, destructive, abusive teens and their
dysfunctional parents and teachers? If she wanted to make a statement
to the contrary, she didn t do it by shifting over to the other
extreme and Disney-fy everybody either, which is a major blessing.
The teens in Clueless mean well, as do the teachers they
interact with.
Getting back to the story progression, we discover that Cher really
does take her duties as popular girl very seriously, in that she
wants to use [my] popularity to do good things for people. Dionne
seems puzzled at this novel concept, but goes along with it and
eventually begins to appreciate its wisdom herself as Cher cleverly
and successfully arranges to get Mr. Hall and another teacher,
the somewhat fashion-challenged but warm-hearted Miss Geist (Heckerling
also shares Joss talent for appropriate naming) together for a
romantic coupling, the ensuing connubial happiness making for
a higher grade point average for students in their classes.
Watching this movie again since becoming a Buffyphile, I was astounded
at how similar this character was to Buffy, or at least Buffy
in her days at Hemery High in the original movie. In other ways,
Cher is also a lot like Dawn, less na ve and far more confident
than Buffy was at 16, and naturally good with both street and
book smarts. Cher may not follow her father s journey into the
law, but if she decided to become a lawyer in some imaginary sequel
based on her college years, you d buy into the premise without
a second thought. Cher enables other people and ultimately leads
them into a better way of behaving, while at the same time not
being a perfect person herself, or always choosing the best course
of action. I m not sure that the short time we get to live with
her and her friends in this film could allow one to posit that
she s full of love , but she s certainly full of affection and
there s always room to grow, isn t there? Like I said, potential:
So, OK, like right now, for example, the Haiti-ans need to come
to America. But some people are all, What about the strain on
our resources? And it s like when I had this garden party for
my father s birthday, right? I said R.S.V.P., because it was a
sit-down dinner. But people came that like, did not R.S.V.P.
So I was like, totally buggin . I had to haul ass to the kitchen,
redistribute the food, squish in extra place settings, but, by
the end of the day it was like, the more the merrier! And so,
if the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange some
things, we could certainly party with the Haiti-ans. And in conclusion,
may I please remind you that it does not say R.S.V.P. on
the statue of liberty!
Thank you very much.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically I have no clue, but I can argue persuasively for the
following:
Clueless is available on DVD, the review copy was on laserdisc.
The film was released in 1995, with a run time of 1 hour and 37
minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which
was preserved on the laserdisc edition and presumably also on
the DVD.
Screenwriting credit goes to the director, Amy Heckerling. Cinematography
was by Bill Pope, with film editing by Debra Chiate. The film
was produced by Barry M. Berg, Twink Caplan, Robert Lawrence,
Scott Rudin and Adam Schroeder. Production Design was by Steven
Jordan. Art Direction was by William Hiney, with set decoration
by Amy Wells and costume design by Mona May. The original theatrical
sound mix was Dolby Digital.
Cast overview:
Alicia Silverstone .... Cher Horowitz
Paul Rudd .... Josh Lucas
Brittany Murphy .... Tai Fraiser
Stacey Dash .... Dionne
Donald Faison .... Murray Lawrence Duvall
Dan Hedaya .... Mel Horowitz
Breckin Meyer .... Travis Birkenstock
Justin Walker .... Christian Stovitz
Wallace Shawn .... Mr. Alphonse Hall
Jeremy Sisto .... Elton Tiscia
Twink Caplan .... Miss Geist
Elisa Donovan .... Amber Princess Mariens
Aida Linares .... Lucy Hernandez
Sabastian Rashidi .... Paroudasm
Herb Hall .... Principal
Julie Brown .... Coach Millie Stoeger
Susan Mohun .... Heather
Nicole Bilderback .... Summer
Ron Orbach .... DMV tester
Sean Holland .... Lawrence
Roger Kabler .... College guy
Jace Alexander .... Robber
Josh Lozoff .... Logan
Carl Gottlieb .... Minister
*******
Miscellaneous Departmentos (fresh and full of life!):
(Uno) - Fans of Quentin Tarantino s Kill Bill Volume 1
should be on high alert that Volume 2 will be released
on DVD next Tuesday, August 10th. Seek bloody vengeance against
boring movies, by renting or purchasing this ASAP. Hee-yahhh!
(Dos) - Not looking for bloody vengeance? I understand. Why not
pick up the DVD of Fast Times at Ridgemont High and do
a double feature next weekend with Clueless? Or, if you
re really ambitious, a triple feature with those two plus Excess
Baggage another Alicia Silverstone film that would fit right
in with the GP/BT monthly arc if I had room for it.
(Tres) - Can t get enough hot chicks with great fashion sense
who might become lawyers? Then double feature Clueless
with Legally Blonde (the original LB, not the sequel, please)
(Quattro) - Before Buffy, I, like many genre fans, considered
The X-Files to be the cat s sleepwear. I prefer to remember
the show as it was in the glorious past, and not dwell on the
lamentable last two seasons. I already own a number of episodes
on laserdisc, and someday hope to get the remainder of the good
years into my collection via DVD. Creator Chris Carter was considered
quite the TV auteur of the day, but his attempts to repeat the
success of Files met with bafflement on the part of many
viewers and even greater disdain by the network when he presented
them with Harsh Realm and Millenium. Harsh Realm
received the Wonderfalls treatment, cut off at the kness
after only a pitifully few episodes aired. Millenium fared
a bit better, making it through at least two seasons before getting
the axe.
I m not sure about Harsh Realm (though I ve heard rumors),
but Millenium Season 1 is now out on DVD in a six-disc
set. Those who were not fans of the enduring darkness that was
BtVS Season 6 will probably want to stay far away from this even
darker storytelling effort, but I was fascinated by it (and the
creative chances Carter took in producing it). I also often missed
the original shows because the time slot conflicted with my work
schedule and I d always forget to set the &*%$ VCR!! Your
call, but be aware or be snared.
(Cinco) - Last September I offered a chance for guest-hosting
the Classic Movie column, and I d be happy to do so again, particularly
because this year I m going to be very involved in working on
Masquerade s Angel Virtual Season 6 project, and would
therefore be hard pressed to do the CMotW columns here in addition
to my efforts there.
September is what I designate as theme month , where all the titles
chosen for review have a common thread that links them all. I
have selected the films already, and if there is anyone out there
in ATPoland who might be interested in writing a review, just
mail me at
objectsinmirror@mindspring.com
for the list and other info. Remember, you do not need to write
them all, just pick one film that you like and go for it. Hope
to hear from you!
*******
The Question of the Week:
As I touched on in mid-early essay this week, it seems that we
as a society are more and more eager to get our children out of
childhood and into adulthood at a faster pace than ever before
in history, relative to the complexity of modern life. While you
may feel free (and are encouraged) to respond to this topic in
any way you wish, one specific thing that I see all the time that
bothers the daylights out of me is the significant number of adults
who take their very young children into the theater to see PG-13
and even R-rated films. I m talking 5 or 6 year-olds, not teens,
although I feel that some films are often not really appropriate
until the mid-teens at least.
One aquaintance/customer of mine has a goodly film-on-DVD collection,
including many R-rated ones, within easy access of his home theater
system and his 7-to-12 year-old progeny. I asked him if he didn
t worry about them seeing things that are far too mature for them,
but his response was they find a way to see them anyway, so it
might as well be here at home .
To me, this is a cop-out, and he was just being selfish or careless
or both, although I didn t state it to him in such accusatory
terms. After all, they are his kids, but what thinketh thee all?
All for now, so post em if you ve got em, and I ll see
you next week!
Take care.
*******
Replies:
[> Question of the Week -- Cactus Watcher, 22:56:09
08/08/04 Sun
I think its just a symptom of lazy parenting. Even in the good
old days kids asked to go see movies that were too mature for
them. The consensus then was that no child should be subjected
to that. Then about the time my generation started having kids,
the theory was that you should be honest at all times with your
kids, so they should be able to see anything you did. In truth
I think it was more a case of people not wanting to start fights
with their kids by saying no. It certainly didn't stop the fights,
it just pushed the arguing to different topics.
Even back in the 50's they said we were growing up too fast. Compared
to the times in history where girls were expected to get
married at 13, probably we were no so bad off. In fact it's surely
true that in many ways, too many kids these days aren't expected
to grow up (ie. be responsible in any way) till they get out on
their own after college, which is a bit too late, in my oppinion.
Sean Penn was in Fast Times? Just joking, of course, but
I have to say I was a lot more interested at the time in Phoebe
Cates than in anything Sean Penn did in the movie. Plus having
gone to college with a few clowns like Spicoli, I didn't find
the role either as entertaining or as clever as a lot of people
did.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 8th 2004 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. II -- Marie, 02:07:02
08/09/04 Mon
What is broadcast in my home has never seemed to me to be a problem
- in my house, I control what my child may or may not watch. He
(Davie, aged 7) does not have, and will not have, a TV in his
bedroom (I don't have one myself, so no argument there). The TV
isn't switched on until I say it's okay - homework and chores
and dinner over with, say - and then I supervise what he watches.
I also know very well the parents of his friends, and we have
discussed this topic on several occasions, so I am happy that
we are like-minded on the subject, as are they, and that if he
is in one or other of their houses, they won't have access to
things I might consider unsuitable.
My videos and DVDs are kept on the bottom shelves of a bookcase
in the living-room, and to be honest, there isn't much in my collection
I wouldn't be happy for him to see. I do keep things like BtVS
and AtS in a cupboard in my bedroom, as there are some episodes
I fast-forward if he's watching with me (as a four-year-old, he
adored watching Buffy, and regarded 'the monsters', such as Kakistos,
as cartoon characters. He knew they weren't real, and never had
nightmares. As the series and the characters grew older, I obviously
censored more and more, and finally stopped him watching them
altogether.)
Happily, we are a book-loving family, so I don't get too many
arguments over television programmes. As he gets older, well,
I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
As for Clueless - I loved it. Am I right in thinking it
was based on Emma?
Marie
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 8th 2004 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. II -- Lunasea, 05:27:12
08/09/04 Mon
I think not only is it bad/lazy parenting, but it is part of the
bigger/faster=better mentality that is screwing with society in
so many ways. Growing up is no longer a process. It is a destination.
The goal is to grow up. Parents proudly boast that their kids
can "handle" more mature films, that they aren't trying
to shelter their kids, as if this is a bad thing.
It isn't. Kids need innocence. It gives them a safe place to grow
up. Growing up IS a process. Kids have more important things to
be concerned with than "adult" themes. Adults don't
even approach things things with maturity and I believe part of
the reason for that is that they didn't see growing up as a process,
but a destination.
Some parents are proud that their kids can handle violence or
horror. That is something to be proud of and try to foster? It's
called desensitization and we are sensitized for a reason. We
ignore that reason in order to do everything faster. Faster does
not mean better. Kids with actual childhoods becomes better adjusted
adults who aren't just desensitized, but are mature.
Children aren't just smaller adults. Those who say that they will
find a way to see them any way, often forget the next step. They
let the kids watch the stuff, but do they bother to explain anything?
If they don't, the kid might as well see it elsewhere. Even if
they watch it at home, they are still going to see it elsewhere.
Unless you instill in them why they don't want to see certain
things. Then it will be their choice to hold off. Kids can act
responsible and hold off. If kids can say no to drugs, then can
say no to movies. Our job as parents is to help them be strong
enough to not do anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.
This will do more to protect them than exposure to anything dangerous
can.
It isn't "just" a movie. It is this attitude that desensitizes
people. In the words of Jewel "Be careful with me. I'm sensitive
and I'd like to stay that way."
[> Regarding the 'Betty' -- AngelvsAngelus, 07:34:50
08/09/04 Mon
I always assumed it was in reference to Betty Rubble, of Flinstones
fame, as she was the more attractive and pleasant demeanored between
she and Wilma.
It also corresponds with the term for a non-attractive male, the
'Barney'.
Barney and Betty, see? :)
[> Lost Boys 2 disc DVD is out tomorrow some of the goodies
are....... -- Rufus, 17:20:14 08/09/04 Mon
See the movie that was one of the influences for Joss Whedon with
a new commentary track. So August 10th will be a good day to buy...;)
On the DVD
All-new digital transfer
Commentary by director Joel Schumacher
Languages: English & Fran ais
Subtitles: English, Fran ais & Espa ol
Additional scenes
The Lost Boys: A Retrospective documentary
The Return of Sam and the Frog Brothers: The 2 Coreys and Jamison
Newlander - multiangle video commentary
Vamping Out: The Undead Creations of Greg Cannom
Inside the Vampire's Cave: 4 featurettes
The Vampire's Photo Gallery
Lost in the Shadows music video
A World of Vampires interactive map
Synopsis
In this hit '80s hybrid of the horror movie and the teen flick,
a single mom and her two sons become involved with a pack of vampires
when they move into an offbeat Northern California town. Lucy
(Dianne Wiest) and her sons, Michael (Jason Patric) and Sam (Corey
Haim), move to Santa Carla to live with Lucy's lovable but curmudgeonly
father (Barnard Hughes). Lucy gets a job from video store-owner
Max (Edward Herrmann), then begins dating him, while Sam hangs
out with Edward and Alan Frog (Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander),
a pair of vampire-obsessed comic-shop clerks. Soon Michael falls
in with some actual vampires after becoming enamored of one of
their victims: Star (Jami Gertz), a gypsy-like vixen who is trying
to hold onto her humanity even though vampire leader David (Kiefer
Sutherland) wants to play Peter Pan to her Wendy. When Michael
visits the cavernous hangout of David and his cronies and unwittingly
drinks from a wine bottle full of vampiric blood, he becomes an
unwilling member of the bloodsucker biker gang. Soon, it's up
to Sam and the Frog brothers to destroy David and his ilk without
killing Michael and Star. Shot on location in the coastal California
town of Santa Cruz and directed by Hollywood pro Joel Schumacher,
The Lost Boys became a pop-culture phenomenon thanks to its attractive
young stars, offbeat soundtrack, and hip, clever marketing campaign;
the film's tagline -- "Sleep all day. Party all night. Never
grow old. Never die. It's fun to be a vampire." -- perfectly
captured its knowing mixture of attitude and gore. The effects
team who transformed Sutherland and company into snarling blood-suckers
would go on to provide equally gruesome effects for Blade, another
revisionist vampire flick, more than a decade later. ~ Brian J.
Dillard, All Movie Guide
DVD Menu
Side #1 -- Feature
Play Movie
Special Features
Commentary by Joel Schumacher
Scene Selections
Languages
Spoken Languages: English
Spoken Languages: Fran ais
Subtitles: English
Subtitles: Fran ais
Subtitles: Espa ol
Subtitles: Off
Side #2 -- Special Features
The Lost Boys: A Retrospective
Inside the Vampire's Cave
Play All
A Director's Vision
Comedy vs. Horror
Fresh Blood: A New Look at Vampires
The Lost Boys Sequel?
Vamping Out: The Undead Creations of Greg Cannom
The Vampire's Photo Gallery
The Return of Sam and the Frog Brothers - Haimster & Feldog: The
Story of 2 Coreys
Multi-Angle Video Commentary With Corey Haim, Corey Feldman & Jamison
Newlander
Play
The Lost Scenes
A World of Vampires
The British Isles
Eastern Europe & Russia
Greece & Mesopotamia
India
Asia
Central & South America
Australia
Music Video: "Lost in the Shadows" by Lou Gramm
Theatrical Trailer
Commentary by Joel Schumacher on Other Disc
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 8th 2004 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. II -- questing, 00:35:56
08/10/04 Tue
About Jane Austen s Emma, there is something of a resemblance
more in plot than in sentiment. Emma, the clever only daughter
who though raised in luxury took care of her widowed father, meddled
in other friends lives by matchmaking. All of her plans went awry
but with ultimately positive outcomes. Cher did the same with
similar results. In the end both were surprised by the proximity
of the objects of their affection.
The sentiment seems different to me in that my sense of Cher is
that she appeared obtuse but was ultimately clever. In Emma the
reverse was true. Emma suffered something of a comeuppance when
her carefully hatched plans fell apart. OTOH Cher was often underestimated
by those around her. Emma was a product of its times and
the idea that a woman could not be successfully independent infused
that period. Just so Clueless manages to impart the reverse with
its bimbo blond heroine who turns out to not be the hapless victim
in the alley.
Oops! Did I just describe Buffy? Yes, there is definitely something
of that there. And there was that scene of Cher getting robbed
in a deserted parking lot, after getting out of her obnoxious
date s car, and surviving albeit, if I recall correctly, with
ruined shoes. And I agree something too of Reese Witherspoon in
Legally Blonde.
[> Question of the Week -- Isabel, 08:51:39 08/13/04
Fri
I was at a screening of Spider-Man two years ago when right before
the lights went down, I saw a single man come in with two little
girls, obviously his daughters. I estimated their ages at 7 and
4. I was shocked because I knew how violent that movie got. About
one hour in to the movie, after one of the gruesome fight scenes,
the 4 year old went into hysterics. That little girl was screaming
and crying as her Daddy tried to calm her down so he didn't miss
any of the action. The manager had to ask him to take the girls
out.
So my opinion of parents who take little kids into R rated movies?
They're too cheap to hire babysitters or wait for it to come out
on video or DVD. They don't care what's actually good for their
kids because their wants are more important. Little kids can be
bothered by many things that adults don't even think twice about.
Ok, that's a bit vitriolic, but I wanted to beat that man. And
he's not the only one I've seen.
[> [> To be fair, though... -- Rob, 15:15:35 08/13/04
Fri
..."Spider-Man" was only rated PG-13, and many times
it is hard to judge based on that rating whether there will be
anything young kids can't see. Oftentimes PG-13 films are suitable
for young children.
Rob
[> [> [> But 4 is a long, *long* way from 13, Rob
-- OnM, 15:28:58 08/14/04 Sat
And to me, when in doubt, you don't. Nor can you necessarily trust
film reviews, they are made by adults and largely for other adults.
I have to agree with Isabel that's it's usually a case of 'me
first'-ism. The adult wants to see the film, it's inconvenient
to get someone to look after the kids while doing so, so they
go along.
At some point in time, most normal children aquire the ability
to clearly differentiate reality and fantasy. Until they do, the
events depicted up on the screen are very close to reality for
small children. Having daddy or mommy tell them "it's OK,
it's only pretend" doesn't help all that much, especially
since filmmaking technologies are getting so good at making what
previously looked fake look very convincing.
I'd be less concerned if I didn't see this happen so often. It's
like cell phones in cars-- at one time there were only a few,
now they're all over the place. Everytime I see some yahoo steering
around the corner at an intersection with one hand palming the
wheel while the other holds a cell to their ear, I keep thinking
that there's an accident just waiting to happen.
And messing with a young child's all-to-suggestible mind is another
one.
[> QOTW: children viewing movies with adult material
-- Vickie, 09:43:43 08/16/04 Mon
I think the worst I ever saw was a man with two young sons (guessing
8 and 11?) at the remake of Cat People.
Now I'm not a parent and probably shouldn't criticize, but if
those had been my nephews there would have been a huge family
fight. As it was, the boys didn't cry but got very quiet.
I asked my husband later, and he said he didn't think I was being
hyper-protective. He said he wouldn't have been ready to handle
that film at that age--and he was a pretty mature kid.
I found it all creepy.
The "False" prophecy
of Destiny (aka I really like to hear myself talk) -- Lunasea,
07:23:17 08/09/04 Mon
Because of the recent discussion regarding Angel's final scene,
I decided to throw this out.
Here is something else to think about:
From "I Will Remember You"
Angel: "What's happened to me?"
Woman steps to one side of Angel: "It's true then, brother."
Man on Angel's other side: "He is no longer a warrior."
Angel: "It was the demon's blood. It wasn't the Powers-That-Be
that did this?"
Man: "The Powers-That-Be? Did you save humanity? Avert the
Apocalypse?"
Woman: "You faced a Mohra demon. Life goes on."
Angel: "My life as a human. I'm not poisoned or under some
spell?"
Woman looks up, after a beat: "The Auguries say no. If it
has happened it was meant to be."
Man: "From this day, you will live and die as any mortal
man."
Woman: "Privy to all the attendant pains - and pleasures."
Man: "That which we serve is no longer that which you serve.
You are released from your fealty."
The woman and man walk away form him.
Angel: "That's it? I'm free?"
This episode is actually the first time we hear about Shanshu,
though it isn't called that.
Doyle quoting: "'Veins run with the blood of eternity.' There
it is. Its blood has regenerative properties."
Angel staring fascinated at his reflection in a window: "Which
explains what happened to me. But it doesn't explain why."
Doyle closes the book: "Hey, what difference does it make,
man? The demon's dead, you're alive! It's happy fun time."
Angel spins to confront Doyle: "What's going on here, Doyle?"
Doyle: "I don't know. I thought the only way for you to be
made mortal was if the Powers-That-Be stepped in."
Angel: "What, they could have done this? How come I keep
getting the feeling that you're not telling me everything."
Doyle: "Because I'm not. We're both on a need to know basis
here."
Angel pacing: "I need to know about this. Is this permanent?
Am I - am I normal Joe now? Can I have a normal life? I want to
speak to the Powers-That-Be."
From "To Shanshu in LA"
Wesley: "Shanshu has roots in so many different languages.
The most ancient source is the Proto-Bantu and they consider life
and death the same thing, part of a cycle, only a thing that's
not alive never dies. It's- it's saying - that you get to live
until you die. - It's saying - it's saying you become human."
Cordy: "That's the prophecy?"
Wesley: "Ah, the vampire with a soul, once he fulfills his
destiny, will Shanshu. Become human. - It's his reward."
Cordy: "Wow. Angel a human."
Angel: "That'll be nice."
Cordy: "Wait. What's that thing about him having to fulfill
his destiny first?"
Wesley: "Well, it's saying that it won't happen tomorrow
or the next day. He has to survive the coming darkness, the apocalyptic
battles, a few plagues, and some - uh, several, - not that many
- fiends that will be unleashed."
Gotta love those prophecies. We are looking for a single event
that will allow Angel to fulfill his destiny, one huge battle,
which is what he gets at the end of "Not Fade Away."
Redemption is an ongoing process has been one of ME's themes.
It won't just be one event that does it.
I believe the "key" to the prophecy is in the "false"
one that Sirk gives in "Destiny."
The root of the tree will split in 2. And each thing will seek
nourishment from the buried river. Storm unleashed. The balance
will falter until the vampire with a soul drinks from the cup
of perpetual torment. He will have the weight of worlds upon him,
binding his limbs, grinding his bones to meal until he saves creation...
or destroys it. The earth will thrash and mark the appearance
of the cup at the columns. And the desert will swallow cup and
house whole and the fat lady will sing no more.
As Sirk obnoxiously says, "It's metaphor. Please tell me
I don't have to explain metaphor to you people."
The cup of perpetual torment in "Destiny" was false.
Since when are false prophecies actually false on Angel? The father
did kill the son. This false prophecy has a chance of being every
bit as right as the true prophecy. So what is the cup of perpetual
torment?
That question is answered season 4. It is restoring free will
to man that ends paradise. It isn't the apple, the knowledge of
good and evil that causes hell on earth, but the ability to choose
between them. It is free will that causes man torment. Not only
how we exercise it causes others harm, but the ultimate torment
is having to choose. Without this choice, everyone is shiny and
happy. Once the gang is no longer under Jasmine's thrall, even
though the world is paradise, they are in despair. Connor believes
it is because they don't have to fight anymore. It is because
they CAN fight, that they are driven to fight by choice, that
they are in despair. THAT is the cup of perpetual torment.
The root of the tree will split in two, the "false"
prophecy starts. That root is fate. "Our fate has to be our
own, or we're nothing," Angel tells Jasmine in "Peace
Out." Angel restores free will so that Man's fate is our
own. He still doesn't believe himself to be part of that. "The
Oracles told me that I was released from my duty. Buffy and I
were together until - we realized it couldn't be. - We don't belong
to ourselves. We belong to the world, fighting." (To Doyle
in "Hero.") People like Angel because he feels that
way, but the root of the tree has been split in two.
Storm unleashed, the "false" prophecy continues. That
storm is THE Apocalypse which continues when Angel restores free
will to man, THE Apocalypse that Angel is destined to be a major
player in. This is his destiny. This is his fate. He plays his
role out of fealty to the PTBs.
But balance won't be restored until the vampire with a soul (Angel,
not Spike) drinks from the cup of perpetual torment. Angel has
to start acting with his free will. He has to drink of the cup
that he gave to humanity. In "Lineage" we see him totally
immobilized by the total removal of his free will by the Rogerbot.
He is equally immobilized by his belief that he belongs to the
world. Even as CEO of Wolfram and Hart, his actions are dictated
not by his desires, but by his duty. The power he has there is
resources. Humanity's power is choice as Darla tells Connor in
"Inside Out." That is real power.
Back to "To Shanshu in LA"
the vampire with a soul, once he fulfills his destiny, will
Shanshu. Become human. - It's his reward.
What is Angel's all important destiny that is so cloudy that it
isn't known what side he will fight for? He will be a major player
in THE Apocalypse. What does that mean? Angel WAS a major player,
season 4, when he allowed it to start up again. This was so important
to the Senior Partners, that THEY rewarded him. Interesting twist
on the original idea of the PTB's rewarding him by making him
human. If that was his destiny, why didn't he become human last
season?
Because the root of the tree will split in 2. Angel restored free
will to humanity, but since he is under fealty to the PTBs, he
doesn't completely have it. Angel will be released from the fealty
when he saves humanity. "The Powers-That-Be? Did you save
humanity? Avert the Apocalypse?" Angel did save humanity
season 4. That releases him.
It was incomplete though. Angel through his interactions is now
a part of humanity. As Cordelia tells him, "You know how
you're always trying to save, oh, every single person in the world?
Did it ever occur to you you were one of them? " He is now
one of them. We say "You're Welcome" to Charisma Carpenter.
Angel says, "You're Welcome" to Cordelia. One more "You're
Welcome." The PTBs to Angel. They give him the vision to
allow him a way to grab his own destiny.
In order for Angel's task to be complete, he has to restore free
will to himself. The actions of "Peace Out" are incomplete
until then. As he puts his plan into effect, he does have the
weight of the world on him. His limbs (hands/actions) are bound
by this. His bones (that which supports him/his friends) are ground/harmed/in
danger. This will continue until he either saves creation or destroys
it. That is that final battle we see.
Wesley said he will face "some - uh, several, - not that
many - fiends that will be unleashed." I love Wesley mistranslations.
The earth thrashed as all those demons appeared. Angel exercised
his free will/the cup in that alley, which form a sort of column.
The desert could be a portal that sucks everyone to another dimension
where Angel will be removed from this fight by his inability to
fight because Angel will receive his reward.
Who says none of this was set up this season?
Replies:
[> Re: The "False" prophecy of Destiny (aka I
really like to hear myself talk) -- Jane, 13:40:47 08/09/04
Mon
I like this take on Destiny, Lunasea. That the Cup of Torment
is free will, the necessity of choosing one's course in life,
makes sense to me. Angel's acceptance of his own free will, not
bound by The PTBs or W&H, leads him to the Alley at the end
of NFA, where he drinks from the Cup...Oh, I like that image.
And, I enjoy hearing you talk! Even when I don't agree with you,
you make me think about stuff. :)
[> Puppet Masters -- SNS, 08:39:37 08/10/04 Tue
I don't know if it's been discussed elsewhere, but Angel being
turned into a puppet is a great metaphor for his strings being
pulled by either the PTB or the SP.
[> [> Found puppet metaphor discussion in archives
-- SNS, 10:20:42 08/10/04 Tue
[> [> There are whole other layers there -- Lunasea,
11:13:27 08/10/04 Tue
but it is easy to focus on the trees.
One thing to keep in mind, they are puppets, but they have no
strings. There are no hands up their bottoms. The puppets are
actually the masters.
Hello! -- Loki,
15:10:57 08/09/04 Mon
Hello, I've been looking for a place like this for awhile. I like
the depth and maturity of discussion exhibited here.
I just got into Joss' shows; Firefly, then Buffy and Angel, posthumously.
I like Firefly best, and am eagerly awaiting the Serenity movie.
The brooding, pensive characters are my favorites, especially
Mal and Angel. I like the idea of a character who's gone to a
very dark place of the soul, and is striving for redemption. And
Spike's cool, just cause he's Spike.
Replies:
[> Welcome to the Board -- fidhle, 18:19:42 08/09/04
Mon
[> Welcome. Glad you found us! -- Jane, 20:51:50
08/09/04 Mon
[> Welcome, join in! -- Masquerade, 06:54:57 08/10/04
Tue
[> Redemption -- frisby, 17:56:55 08/10/04 Tue
Hi! One of my central concerns is the redeption of Spike which
it seems to me involves Buffy to a great degree. My question though
is whether it is more a matter that Buffy redeems Spike (one of
her tactics for fighting evil, as contrasted with simply opposing
it with more evil), or whether Spike redeems (or strives to redeem)
himself so as to make himself worthy of Buffy. I suppose a third
alternative would be that Spike aims for his own redemption and
Buffy just happens to become a part of it, but merely adventitiously
and not essentially. What do you think, off the top of your head
(assuming you've not studied intently the seven seasons of Buffy
as so many posters and lurkers of this board have)? And of course,
any thought of redemption with regard to Spike seems to call forth
a comparison with Angel, including 'his' path to redemption, his
mission of being a champion (which Buffy gave him), and (in the
end) whether he is more worthy of Buffy's love than Spike. All
things philosophical ---- are there any 'other' things not thereby
included? That's a good question -- I wonder if Heidegger provides
an answer in his _What is a thing?_
[> [> Re: Redemption -- Loki, 10:51:45 08/13/04
Fri
I haven't seen the 7th season of Buffy; I just got into Whedon's
shows after a friend lent me the DVDs for Firefly this summer,
so all I've seen of any of the shows is what's been released on
DVD.
From first appearance, it appears that the catalyst for Spike's
redemption is his love for Buffy. Perhaps it was the chip that
allowed this love to blossom, though I doubt it because I think
he genuinely loved Drusilla, sans chip and soul. I don't know
where Spike's arc will take him, but my guess would be that it's
just driven by love; as he said, he is love's bitch.
I don't know how Spike'll treat Buffy in season 7, but it seems
as though Spike made a greater sacrifice in going through the
trials to regain his soul (I'm assuming he wanted a soul), than
Angel did in leaving Buffy. But it's very difficult to compare.
[> [> [> Re: Redemption -- frisby, 08:34:46
08/15/04 Sun
Wow, in my mind you are in for a big treat, cause the story of
buffy and spike in season seven is the best part of the whole
whedonverse -- but that's just my opinion of course. And some
of the particular scenes, like the early one where the two of
them are in a church -- absolutely magnificent! My continuing
question is whether it's legitimate or not immoral to pretend
that the angelverse part of the whedonverse can be suspended from
the buffyverse, cause in some ways, the end of season seven of
buffy simply really is the end, and the angelverse part is kind
of an afterthought or parallel world, or what have you. Welcome
to the ATP board.
[> [> [> [> Re: Redemption -- Loki, 18:01:42
08/15/04 Sun
I am anxiously awaiting season 7, and will probably have it pre-ordered
on amazon so I don't have to worry about paying $20 extra at borders
or finding the time to get to a store. And it's nice to get things
in the mail. :)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Redemption -- Dlgood,
20:33:27 08/15/04 Sun
I guess we'll see what you think of it. S7 has drawn some very
mixed reviews.
One of the key things to keep in the back of your head when you
watch S7, and when you look at how Buffy interacts with Spike
is the S3 episode Amends. It may help you get inside her head
and understand what she's going through, because it's not always
very clear. What Spike goes through this year is very new to him.
It may or may not necessarily be a new experience for Buffy.
V The Television Series HELP!!!!!
-- Kateanjen, 03:30:43 08/10/04 Tue
Does Anyone Know anything about V the TV Series if so the Complete
TV Series has just been released for Region 1 dvd, I need to know
if its going to come out in Region 2 (UK).
Anyone know or can you direct me anywhere?
Replies:
[> Re: V The Television Series HELP!!!!! -- CW, 06:36:31
08/10/04 Tue
V is a sci-fi series from the 1980s about an alien race that comes
to earth and promises all kinds of things; ingratiates itself
into the politcal systems of thw world to use humanity as a food
source. It had it's good moments, but it was mostly good guys
(the rebel human underground) vs bad guys (aliens plus their slimy
human allies). It was pretty much the last of the Cold-War-paranoia
aliens-are-all-monsters things. Depth in American sci-fi really
didn't come along until Alien Nation a few years later, after
which came Star Trek: Next Generation.
[> [> Re: V The Television Series HELP!!!!! -- Gyrus,
13:47:24 08/12/04 Thu
The first V miniseries was meant to be a metaphor about the rise
of the Nazis, with scientists standing in for Jews as the persecuted
group (plus the creation of a Hitler-youth-type organization,
and widespread denial of the notion that the aliens might actually
be planning a massive slaughter of human beings). The metaphor
largely fell apart in the subsequent miniseries and short-lived
TV series, though.
OT Poetry: The Man with the
Blue Guitar -- Vickie, 11:08:32 08/10/04 Tue
Hi all,
I need the aid of the poetry scholars on the board. I was recently
introduced to Wallace Stevens' The Man with the Blue Guitar. I
really respond to this poem, but intellectually I have little
clue what it's saying.
I've done a little Internet research without luck. Have any of
you studied this poem (formally or in)? What does it say to you
(if anything)?
Here is the text of the poem:
**************************************
The Man With The Blue Guitar
One
The man bent over his guitar,
A shearsman of sorts. The day was green.
They said, "You have a blue guitar,
You do not play things as they are."
The man replied, "Things as they are
Are changed upon the blue guitar."
And they said to him, "But play, you must,
A tune beyond us, yet ourselves,
A tune upon the blue guitar,
Of things exactly as they are."
Two
I cannot bring a world quite round,
Although I patch it as I can.
I sing a hero's head, large eye
And bearded bronze, but not a man,
Although I patch him as I can
And reach through him almost to man.
If a serenade almost to man
Is to miss, by that, things as they are,
Say that it is the serenade
Of a man that plays a blue guitar.
Three
A tune beyond us as we are,
Yet nothing changed by the blue guitar;
Ourselves in tune as if in space,
Yet nothing changed, except the place
Of things as they are and only the place
As you play them on the blue guitar,
Placed, so, beyond the compass of change,
Perceived in a final atmosphere;
For a moment final, in the way
The thinking of art seems final when
The thinking of god is smoky dew.
The tune is space. The blue guitar
Becomes the place of things as they are,
A composing of senses of the guitar.
Four
Tom-tom c'est moi. The blue guitar
And I are one. The orchestra
Fills the high hall with shuffling men
High as the hall. The whirling noise
Of a multitude dwindles, all said,
To his breath that lies awake at night.
I know that timid breathing. Where
Do I begin and end? And where,
As I strum the thing, do I pick up
That which momentarily declares
Itself not to be I and yet
Must be. It could be nothing else.
**************************************
Apologies for the OT nature of the post. Masq, please delete if
you find it inappropriate.
V.
Replies:
[> Re: OT Poetry: The Man with the Blue Guitar -- dub
;o), 13:10:38 08/11/04 Wed
Didn't Picasso do a painting in his Blue Period called The
Man with the Blue Guitar, or something like that?
As I recall, everything in the painting is blue except
the guitar, so that probably doesn't help much...
It just occurred to me because the first section of the poem could
also be talking about the sort of abstract work Picasso did, which
did not depict things "as they are" but for some afficionados
showed things "exactly as they are."
Okay, just a thought, makes my brain hurt now.
;o)
[> [> Re: OT Poetry: The Man with the Blue Guitar
-- Vickie, 14:43:17 08/11/04 Wed
Yes, dub. Stevens is indeed talking (at least, in part) about
Picasso's painting, or about what Stevens thought Picasso was
saying in the painting.
I'm fascinated by the meditation on reality, or maybe concensual
(sp?) reality. And also on the concept of the "I" and
the "not-I", and how in a sense the speaker *is* the
guitar by the end of the poem. But I feel like I'm just flailing
around in it.
[> [> A few resources, if nothing else -- Tchaikovsky,
03:14:20 08/12/04 Thu
Picasso's picture, 'The Old Guitar':
Another poem by Wallace Stevens which confronts similar themes:
Anecdote of the Jar
I placed a jar in Tennessee,
And round it was, upon a hill.
It made the slovenly wilderness
Surround that hill.
The wilderness rose up to it,
And sprawled around, no longer wild.
The jar was round upon the ground
And tall and of a port in air.
It took dominion every where.
The jar was gray and bare.
It did not give of bird or bush,
Like nothing else in Tennessee.
My thoughts, for what they're worth, follow:
Why, as dub notices, is the guitar in Picasso's picture not blue
whereas everything else is? Stevens postulates in the first couple
of stanzas that the guitar and the surroundings are instrument
and audience, and that in playing, the guitar turns the audience
blue, while remaining wooden-looking itself. The puzzle is partly
that we expect it to be the man playing the guitar talking, and
by the end of the poem we've swapped from this anthropological
assumption to believing that in fact it has to be the guitar,
the centre-piece of the drawing, that is speaking.
Now here's the struggle! In part of the second stanza, there is
a comparison between the guitar and Picasso's point of view in
drawing.
Here's substantiation for this point of view. I do realise it's
only my own, quite possibly crazily over-elaborate, coping mechanism!
'A shearsman of sorts'.
Quite apart from the compelling visual parallel between a shepherd
shearing his sheep and a guitarist plucking his instrument, this
sets up the guitarist himself as an artisan rather than an artist.
The sheep's wool- made by the sheep, is the real art.
'The day was green.'
This little line, with its double meaning (early in the day, or
perhaps we're outside), hints towards the blue guitar. While we're
almost bullied into thinking the guitar itself is blue, what's
to stop us taking the more poetic meaning that the music it is
playing is sad? This then chimes (or twangs) with Picasso's painting.
The man then has a conversation with them. In a sense, there's
a pun of 'instrument' going on. While we habitually call our guitar
the instrument, which we play with our artistry, here the man
is almost the instrument of the guitar, showing the limitations
of art through the musician.
In the second stanza, we have the comparison with Picasso. I think
'round' means partly 'full', as in rounded out. The world, the
full reality of it, is impossible to convey in art, so Picasso
attempts a schematic. He's not trying to paint what he sees photorealistically,
but drawing a schenatic interpretation that is truer and deeper
than any attempt at a photographic image. The 'hero's head, large
eye/ And bearded bronze' refer to Picasso's picture (see above).
At the end of the second verse, we are told that the gap between
the serenade written to man and the reality of the world resides
in the man with the blue guitar. In other words, the very process
of art itself introduces the difference between exploring human
souls and exploring the world as it is. Science vs art if you
will. I think.
The allusion between being a tune and living in the world continues
into the third stanza, where Stevens compares being correctly
described in space, (the photorealism of some non-cubist artists)
to being 'in tune'. Sometimes the awkward off-keyness of the instrument
can reveal honest human feeling, in the same way as Picasso's
people appearing a little out of space explain more about the
human condition. Somewhat like the music of the Ainur, the act
of cration of life is explored through the playing of a song;
the tune we make out of our cups of tea and long drives home from
work becomes a story of an existence.
The dichotomy between God's creation around us and the other creation
fashioned out of it by art comes to its climax in the poem between
couplets, deliberately just out of phase. So we get:
The thinking of God seems final when
The thinking of God is smoky dew
Space not quite all there. And by explaining it as 'smoky dew',
this slight loosening of space, we get back another reason for
the blueness of Picasso, and the guitar.
The final stanza confronts the author's eternal question about
his audience. The image of the dwindling, which is set up with
much more explicit imagery than much of the earlier poem, and
hence feels less abstract, is an analogue of Joss-as-Lorne walking
down and out of that empty cafe at the end of 'Spin the Bottle'.
The way art and the 'high hall with shuffling men' 'dwindl[es]'
to just 'timid breathing' is beautifully done, in my opinion.
Finally we get this uncomfortable attempt to reject the dualism
of performance and performer. The music it makes has a life of
its own, and yet it seems not to come from anyone else. Is the
man playing the guitar directly responsible for the blueness pervading
his surroundings; for the blueness of the guitar itself? He concludes
that this is the only explanation.
A lovely poem. Hope bits and pieces of that made some kind of
sense, though I don't clain any kind of coherent 'moral' for the
poem. Hey, it's 20th century poetry...
TCH
PS This is garbled since I was interspersing it with work at my
Call Centre, so excuse thoughts which U-turn in mid-sentence!
[> Wow... -- Kenny, 19:19:17 08/11/04 Wed
I've gotta admit, I haven't read poetry regularly since high school
(10 years ago), but I really dug that. OK, that's not exactly
true. I've read (and listened to) poetry in the form of lyrics,
but not poetry that isn't set to music.
Anywho, never having read this poem, I'll give some of my impressions.
They're going to be a bit jumbled, but make of them what you will.
The first thing that came to mind when reading this (bear in mind
that I'm a scientist) was Einstein's Theory of Relativity. A recurring
theme through the poem is the conflict between reality and perception.
In verse two, the narrarator laments the distinction between man
and a more idealized version of man (the hero). It's funny, because
often one would speak of patching one's perception of man to make
men look more heroic. In this case, the writer is going the other
way, attempting to make the idealized version more real, so "patching"
seems to actually infer adding flaws to the hero.
Back to Relativity. The basis of this theory is that every observer
has a frame of reference, but those frames may not be the same.
That is, while the laws of physics always apply, the measurements
of two different observers moving at two different rates may be
different. So I may come up with a set of measurements from a
certain phenomenon, and they match up with other measurements
around me, and everything is hunky-dory in my frame of reference.
An astronaut circling the earth may come up with different measurements
because she has a different frame of reference. Again, everything
is OK and everything agrees to her, but she and I may not agree.
Take for example, a car driving down the road. If I'm standing
on the side of the road, the car might appear to zoom right by
me. However, if I'm driving alongside the car, it might not seem
to be moving all that fast. If the frames of reference of two
different observers are different enough, they can have vastly
different measurements (even with scientific equiment, not just
their senses) of the same event. The only thing exempt from this
is the speed of light. No matter one's frame of reference, everyone
will agree on the measurements of the speed of light. It's a standard.
The blue guitar reminds me of the speed of light, in that everyone
seems to be holding it to a standard that brings a mutual understanding,
and the goal is to become as close as possible to the blue guitar
(verse 4).
OK, that was a bit off course. Anyway, back to actual interpretation
and not my own ramblings (well, the interpretation is my own rambling...but
whatever). I think the voice of the narrative changes in the second
verse. The first verse is in third person, with the player of
the blue guitar being an object. I think the rest of the verses
are from the player's point of view. It strikes me as a lament.
The audience has asked the artist to lay out a universal truth
(how do I connect to the rest of the universe, but tell me in
a way that doesn't disturb me). The artist then struggles to find
a way to do just that. Going back to the idea of trying to "de-idealize"
man, the artist realizes that all his work is in a form that presents
a more-than-perfect human, and he has to fight against that to
provide the audience what it craves.
I think I've muddled things around too much for myself now. I'm
going to have to sleep on this one, but I appreciate your posting.
Sorry if I've been incoherent, but this is a fascinating poem.
Hope you start to understand what you see in it.
[> [> Re: Wow... -- Vickie, 09:18:05 08/12/04
Thu
Thanks Tch, Kenny. Your insights are clarifying my own dim, inarticulate
thoughts.
I love the fact the the guitar, in fact, is NOT blue. That the
poem's title is not "things as they are."
I'm still playing in my mind with the guitar as a transformative
device. Playing not things as they are (green) but things as they
become (blue). Making things blue with the music.
Thank you both!
[> For me... -- Rahael, 11:37:55 08/13/04 Fri
I am very unfamiliar with American modern poetry and know next
to nothing about Steven's work, but this is what it reminds me
of.
It reminds me of Philip Sidney's Defense of Poesie, where he says
that the true meaning of art is that it can show you a *better*
world, a purer, more golden world that that which already exists.
That the poet is something more elevated than just someone who
writes words.
The guitar also echos to me of Orpheus, and the Lyre. Stevens
seems to be connecting three different kinds of artist: the poet,
the painter and the musician and according to them the power to
see the world as it truly is.
The refernece to the "Shearsmen" speaks to me not only
of the shearing of sheep, as TCH points out, but also of one who
wields a knife. This resonates to me of the traditional image
of death. The cutting, the setting of boundaries. The precision
of the blade, slicing the air, words, tune. Creating harmonies
out of endings.
"Green" speaks to me of growth, of summer.
Stevens talks about things being placed "Beyond the compass
of change". That brings me back to Sidney, because for Sidney's
golden world, there is of course no decay or change. Just the
platonic ideal of the beautiful world. The artificial, more true
and real than the "reality".
Resonates with Shakespeare's sonnets with the idea that art can
bring true immortality, past death, past change. Also, the "viewless
wings of poesy".
That disjuncture between reality and art, that beautiful blindness.
What I finally leave with is the idea of an endless chord, a moment
that is almost frozen, but not quite - there is the idea of mutability,
of lack of firmness in the "dew". But the idea that
there is a moment that never ends - the boundary between self
and art disappears, and "tom-tom c'est moi. The blue guitar
and I are one"
But also the fragility. He never quite makes this perfect world:
I cannot bring the world quite round. Can he achieve that Homeric
ideal?
I sing a hero's head, large eye
And bearded bronze, but not a man,
Although I patch him as I can
And reach through him almost to man.
The Blue Guitar, the poet's song cannot help but bring this imperfection
- it's view of the ideal is askew. Instead of Sidney's Golden
world, it is Blue.
Ultimately, the art is created between the musician and the hearer,
the poet and the reader.
And they said to him, "But play, you must,
A tune beyond us, yet ourselves,
A tune upon the blue guitar,
Of things exactly as they are."
[> Re: OT Poetry: The Man with the Blue Guitar -- stratnav71,
10:26:04 08/15/04 Sun
I ve been lurking here for quite some time. Not that I'm a poetry
scholar of any sort, but for some reason this thread made me want
to delurk. I get something a little different from this poem than
what I've read above. It may be due to the fact that I am a guitar
player, so I see something other than what Picasso may or may
not have been trying to do with the painting that may have influenced
the poem.
The opening of the poem The man bent over his guitar, A shearsman
of sorts. The day was green, reminds me of a rural bluesman.
The thing about the blues is that you can hear the same song done
by different artists and each version will sound very different.
They may be playing the same chords, licks, and riffs, but the
best ones will always put their own spin into it. That s where
playing things not as they are comes in.
There have been a lot of times where I ve been playing something
or have been asked to play something and have people say that
it doesn t sound right, or doesn t sound like the song they know.
(And it isn t always because I suck!) It may be because I m playing
a harmony or rhythm part as opposed to the more familiar lead
line or melody. Sometimes it s because I ve come across a little
something that to me sounds better. The great players do that
automatically. I remember an interview with one of my favorite
players where he described his early years of playing. When he
would try and play cover tunes he could never get them to sound
like the record. No matter what he did he could never exactly
copy the sound or style of the original. Now, if you are trying
to make a living in a cover band, playing exact copies of classic
hits, that could be a problem. If you are trying to create your
own music, you ve probably just unlocked your own creativity and
found the way to make something special yourself.
So what I see going on in the poem is a conversation. A crowd,
or maybe just a few listeners are talking to this bluesman. They
want him to play them something. They know he does not play
things as they are but they want him to. They want "A
tune beyond us, yet ourselves, A tune upon the blue guitar, Of
things exactly as they are." Play us a song that is universal,
yet touches our lives, something that shows us how the world is
and how it all works. In other words Sing us a song, you re
the Piano Man. Sing us a song tonight. Cause we re all in the
mood for a melody, and you ve got us feeling all right. They
don t want perspective or interpretation. Ourselves in tune
as if in space, Yet nothing changed, except the place. Of things
as they are and only the place As you play them on the blue guitar,
Placed, so, beyond the compass of change.
The bluesman responds that he ll play, but it may not be what
they want, since Things as they are, Are changed upon the blue
guitar He can not change the world through his music, but
perhaps help with a little understanding of how it has shaped
him I cannot bring a world quite round, Although I patch it
as I can. That interpretation is his and his alone. Formed
by the union of him and his guitar. Although there is only one
instrument, as he plays it and lets he feelings flow through the
instrument it is to him as though there is a symphony going on
around him. He can imagine how the other instruments would blend
together with his simple guitar. The orchestra fills the high
hall with shuffling men High as the hall. The whirling noise
This is something the listeners seem to not be able to understand.
They want him to interpret their lives for them, in terms they
can understand. play things as they are What they are not
getting is that he can t. There is no as they are That
varies with every person's perspective on life. Instead of finding
that meaning for themselves, they are asking someone to do it
for them. It is up to each of them to do it for themselves through
whatever medium (music or otherwise) works for them the way the
blue guitar does for the subject of the poem. That is what I see
the poem as saying.
[> [> Thanks for delurking - a very fine post. --
OnM, 19:49:04 08/15/04 Sun
And welcome.
:-)
[> [> thanks! -- Vickie, 21:59:35 08/15/04 Sun
Thank you for delurking. I really appreciate your comments.
I was ambivalent about posting this, but I'm really glad I did.
Thank you all for your insights.
V.
Buffy's Not Indecent!
-- TheBLT, 11:50:46
08/10/04 Tue
Check out the attached article at YAHOO.COM. I'm so relieved to
know that the FCC has concluded that Buffy's not indecent!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=597&ncid=763&e=6&u=/nm/20040810/tv_nm/television_indecency_dc
Replies:
[> Re: Buffy's Not Indecent! -- Ames, 14:16:14 08/10/04
Tue
Way to go, FTC! Nice to know that you can do anything you want
on TV as long as you keep your clothes on and your mouth shut.
Personally I was shocked and upset at the indecency of that scene
in Smashed. (BTW does anyone know where you can get the longer
uncut version?)
[> Re: Buffy's Not Indecent! -- Dlgood, 17:31:56
08/10/04 Tue
"The commission noted that there was no nudity, and there
was no evidence that the activity depicted was dwelled upon or
was used to pander, titillate or shock the audience," the
commission said in a release."
It's great for Whedon, but they should have lost.
That scene was very clearly there to "pander, titillate,
or shock". It most certainly should not have been run on
public airwaves at 8 PM.
[> [> Re: Buffy's Not Indecent! -- Buffalo, 21:25:25
08/10/04 Tue
It was at the end of the show at @8:56P. That's 4 minutes before
the "ok time" of 9PM.
Indecent? Certainly provocative. What was indecent was an underage
slayer getting boffed in Season 2.
[> [> [> Other articles I've read -- Majin Gojira,
05:31:51 08/11/04 Wed
Seemed to focus more on the Willow/Tara thing more than "Smashed".
http://www.buffy.nu/article.php3?id_article=5968
In Either Case, our society is puritanical in its thinking anyway,
allowing extreme violence but going up in arms over only hints
of sexuality. This is a big step forward, IMO, from those medieval
ideas to a more modern setting.
"Explicit, Deplorable violence is OK, as long as no-one has
Potty-mouths" or aknowledges that Sex exists.
[> [> [> [> Re: Other articles I've read --
TheBLT, 11:14:22 08/11/04 Wed
A good example of violence is OK, but not sexuality happened in
my own home a few Christmases ago. My husband got a DVD player
and promplty rented "Enemy at the Gates" which he proceded
to watch with a friend's 10 year old daughter in the room. It
didn't seem to matter to him that she was watching people's heads
exploding, but the second Jude Law's and Rachel Weise's charcters
began kissing, my husband turned off the DVD player. I commented
that that was a great lesson: you can watch all the violence you
want but the minute some affection or tenderness is shown, that's
it! No more viewing! What a backwards notion.
Also, what I found so disconcerting, disturbing, amazing in the
episode "Smashed" was not that there was "sex"
but there was sex between BUFFY & SPIKE!!! THAT was the mind boggleing
part.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's Not Indecent! -- Dlgood,
05:54:01 08/11/04 Wed
Indecent? Certainly provocative. What was indecent was an underage
slayer getting boffed in Season 2.
It's not the plot. It's the depiction of the act.
Regs are regs. If you want to script and depict sex scenes designed
to shock and titilate your audience, then you find another venue
other than public airwaves during legally designated family hours.
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Not Indecent! -- Kenny,
18:36:32 08/11/04 Wed
First things first, we have to define "shock" and "titilate".
As for the second word, I'm pretty sure nothing in "Smashed"
was written to provoke such a reaction. The final scenes between
Buffy and Spike were meant to provoke a reaction, no question.
But whereas "titilate" has a positive sexual connotation
(and I mean "positive" as in something that is supposed
to arouse someone sexually, not necessarily something that is
always positive...if you catch the description through the vague
wording), I don't think there was supposed to be anything positive
in those scenes. They were meant to be disturbing, not titilating.
As for shocking...well, yes, I suppose it was meant to be shocking.
Again, depending on definition. It was obvious from early on in
season 6 that Buffy and Spike were going to get together. That
they did isn't shocking. If the sex scene had been like the one
in "Innocence" it wouldn't have been shocking. The violence
in the act, the way it was portrayed, was the shocking part. But
it wasn't done for the sole purpose of shocking the audience.
The shock was necessary in conveying the depths to which Buffy
had plummetted. A distilled scene that might be considered more
"appropriate" could have left the audience with the
idea, "OK, that wasn't so bad, Buffy just needed a little
lovin' ". That's not what the writers wished to convey. So
shocking, yes, but not shocking for the sake of being shocking...the
shock was necessary for the narrative.
Shows such as "Paradise Island" are about shocking and
titilating the audience. Nothing substantive comes out of them...they
are pure entertainment drivel with sexy people making out. While
certain scenes on "Buffy" may have been more intense
than individual scenes of other shows, it actually had the guts
to explore the fact that certain sexual relationships are harmful
and destructive, where most other programs are extremely happy
to place half-naked women on the screen for men to ogle ("Victoria's
Secret 'Fashion' Show", anyone), never exploring the actual
consequences of the decisions made by the people on those shows.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's Not Indecent! -- Gyrus, 08:50:07
08/12/04 Thu
Indecent? Certainly provocative. What was indecent was an underage
slayer getting boffed in Season 2.
She was 17 at the time, which is over the age of consent in some
U.S. states. I don't know about California specifically, though.
[> [> Re: Buffy's Not Indecent! -- Gyrus, 08:56:22
08/12/04 Thu
That scene was very clearly there to "pander, titillate,
or shock".
I think anyone who wasn't pandered to or titillated by that scene
was certainly shocked by it. I'm not sure if that definition of
"shock" is the same as the FCC's, though.
It most certainly should not have been run on public airwaves
at 8 PM.
I always felt that BTVS should have a later time slot. Here in
the Central Time zone, it was on at 7 PM! Of course, I don't have
kids, so I don't know how actual parents might have felt about
that.
[> [> [> The problem with the time zones . . .
-- Finn Mac Cool, 10:21:40 08/12/04 Thu
Something that's aired at midnight in the Eastern timezone, long
after when you can assume all the youngin's have been sent off
to bed, it's only 8:00 PM in the Pacific timezone. Perhaps that's
why California has the reputation for being a place of "loose
morals": they're watching high violence, high language, and
high sexuality by 5:00 in the afternoon.
[> [> [> [> Re: The problem with the time zones
. . . -- q 3, 12:13:06 08/12/04 Thu
I think most networks stagger their broadcasts between time zones,
e.g. so that a program aired at 12:00 Eastern won't be seen on
the west coast until three hours later. Not sure if that's applied
consistently across all time zones, though.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The problem with the time
zones . . . -- Kenny, 13:03:01 08/12/04 Thu
Eastern and Pacific (east and west coasts) have the same schedule.
That is, if a show is on at 8 EST it's also on at 8 PST. The Central
and Mountain zones show the same episode an hour earlier. What
this means is that EST and CST people watch the same episode at
the same time (8 and 7 respectively). People on MST watch it an
hour later actual time (7 for them). The same episode airs 3 hours
later (actual time) on PST than it does on EST (which means it's
8 for the people on PST).
What this means is that only EST and CST timezones watch live
shows live (except for sporting events, presedential addresses,
emergency news, and the like). And I assume New Years events are
staggered so that midnight corresponds to the correct timezone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, here in the central
timezone . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:17:36 08/12/04 Thu
We have Conan O'Brien, who does a Happy New Year Central Time
Zone show (since his late show actually ends at midnight Central
time). Not quite the same dignity as the dropping ball, but it
has its charms.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But really...
-- Kenny, 14:26:00 08/12/04 Thu
How much dignity is there in dropping balls? It sounds just like
something Conan might do.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The problem with the time
zones . . . -- Ames, 08:25:41 08/13/04 Fri
Actually if you have satellite reception, then all of those hundreds
of satellite channels arive at the same time for everyone (i.e.,
11:00pm time slot on the east coast is 8:00pm on the west coast
in North America). You can choose to watch a network station in
your own time zone for the major nets, but you don't have to.
Of course the networks have done a fine job of providing morally
uplifting reality shows in prime time in case children are viewing.
You know, the ones featuring lying, backstabbing, cheating, promiscuous
weasels and sluts.
Freakin' Jordan Levin - Did
he simply quit the WB? Get fired? -- Mike, 20:01:19 08/10/04
Tue
I have a question that I've been meaning to ask around the boards
all summer and darn it I'll finally ask now before I put it off
any longer. Did Freakin' Jordan Levin quit the WB or was he fired?
Or whatever else happened, I'd really appreciate the answer to
that. After all, I most directly blame him for ANGEL's demise.
I'm thinking back for now to sometime around May when Jordan Levin
talked to E's Kristen about ANGEL's cancellation. Kristen mentioned
to him about ANGEL being a fine fit following SMALLVILLE, something
along those lines. Levin's response I distinctly remember was
that some people he knows who like SMALLVILLE also like Jeff Foxworthy.
Talk about biased powerheads, right. Alright, at the time it was
declared that Blue Collar TV was going to follow SMALLVILLE. Then
that obviously got changed and now The Mountain will be following
SMALLVILLE (I don't capitalize names of shows I'm not into, or
have seen yet). ANGEL and SMALLVILLE did blend well, I thought,
and too bad that blend only lasted 1 year. Worse, Levin just seemed
like a pigheaded moron in that interview. And yet, Levin isn't
with the WB anymore.
I continue to wonder if Levin had left the WB a year ago, in one
way or another, would ANGEL have remained? Or if he had left just
months before rescheduling fall lineups, would ANGEL have been
safe? It tends to irritate me that this son of a gun cancels the
fave show and suddenly isn't in the network afterwards. The chances
of The Mountain fitting in well with SMALLVILLE seem fifty-fifty.
But it seems now SMALLVILLE will take over the helm of entertaining
fantasy show on current network TV.
However, there is a terrific series currently around, THE DEAD
ZONE. Highly recommended, it's on USA. It's a feast for those
ANGEL-starved mouths, I know all too well.
For what it's worth, good riddens to Levin's exit!
thre kinds of violent murder
-- solace, 06:58:57 08/11/04 Wed
Been scanning my mind to try to remember the three types of murderers;
meaning Serial, Mass and what is the third one though it is not
used very often anymore
Replies:
[> The FBI classification is, I believe -- KdS, 02:11:03
08/12/04 Thu
Serial murder: four or more killings committed over a period of
time in separate incidents.
Classic mass murder: four or more killings committed in a single
incident/location.
Spree murder: four or more killings committed in different locations,
but in suich quick succession as to form a single incident (I'm
gonna get in my car and shoot anything that crosses my path).
If all demon are hybrids
why is Doyle called a half-breed? -- megaslayer, 10:44:10
08/11/04 Wed
If he has a human mother and demon father he is halfdemon but
wouldn't that make him 25 percent demon. If a person has two demon
parents can they pass to a human face if they are passive? Wouldn't
have access to demon strength even in his human form too? Also
is just limited to his breed of demon?
Replies:
[> It's never been said that all demons are hybrids
-- Finn Mac Cool, 14:29:09 08/11/04 Wed
According to Anya in "Graduation Day Part I": "All
demons that walk the earth are tainted, or human hybrids like
vampires." This definitely implies that there are non-hybrid
demons going about out there, just that, in order to exist in
this dimension, they must limit or "taint" their true
forms (see the Mayor's giant snake form or the creature that comes
out of the Hellmouth for examples of what a non-tainted demon
looks like).
[> [> Re: It's never been said that all demons are hybrids
-- Ames, 16:52:59 08/11/04 Wed
What exactly did Anya say? According to the Buffyworld transcript,
she said "All the demons that walk the earth are tainted,
ARE human hybrids like vampires". That's the way I always
understood it, but it's easy to confuse "or" and "are".
Has anyone got the original script handy?
[> [> [> Re: It's never been said that all demons
are hybrids -- Ames, 22:48:06 08/11/04 Wed
Here's the clip - you be the judge: anya.mp3
[> [> [> No, but I'll check the DVD -- Majin Gojira,
07:15:51 08/12/04 Thu
and besides, it's not gramatically correct to use "are",
it's either "Or" or a very quick "They're"...but
it's used anyway.
The DVD says "Are", which must be short for "They're/They
Are"
What does this mean?
There are True Demons--100% Pure
There are Pureblood Demon Races -- 75% demon, 25% Human
There are Demons -- 50% Demon, 50% Human
There are Vampires -- Infected Humans
There are Half-Demons -- 25% Demon, 75% Human
Least that's how I see it...
[> [> [> [> An ad for Demon Snax -- Gyrus,
08:40:44 08/12/04 Thu
There are Half-Demons -- 25% Demon, 75% Human
And 100% cookie crunch!
Sorry. I heard something yesterday about Prozac in the water,
and I think I'm having a massive placebo response.
[> [> [> [> Re: No, but I'll check the DVD
-- q 3, 12:10:41 08/12/04 Thu
I figure it's something like domesticated dogs. Trace them back
far enough and they'll turn out to be mixed breeds, but many combinations
have consistently produced similar results for long enough that
they've come to be classified as breeds in themselves. Makes me
wonder if they're a Kennel Club for demons...
[> Hybrids vs. half-breeds -- Masquerade, 07:36:41
08/12/04 Thu
Anya said in "Graduation" that all the demons that walk
the Earth are hybrids--they have human blood in their ancestry.
But "ancestry" can go a long way back--thousands or
millions of years. The actual interbreeding took place hundreds
of generations ago.
Half-breeds are individuals who have one demon parent and one
human parent, or one demon grandparent or one human grandparent,
etc. Their human ancestry is in the very recent past.
[> [> Re: Hybrids vs. half-breeds -- skeeve, 12:18:18
08/12/04 Thu
The really interesting thing is that they could interbreed.
[> Just to muck things up a bit -- Lunasea, 17:18:51
08/12/04 Thu
Are demons just another species, like the Initiative would like
to think, or is it a mystical condition? Does the human part of
the demon allow the mystical part to have form in this dimension?
We have Illyria, an Old One, a superduper demon. She needs Fred's
body (or at least someone's) to come back. We have Jasmine, a
Power that Be, which are probably demonic as well. She needs all
sorts of things to be born into this dimension. The Wolf, Ram
and Hart needs the Band of Blacknil to manifest here at will.
Otherwise it would need to be conjured. The First has no corporeal
form.
Is "Demon" a condition of DNA or a mystical situation?
It isn't about what chromosomes make something, but the joining
of two life forces to make another life force. What does a souled
Angel sire? What does the union of an unsouled vampire (Darla)
and a souled vampire (Angel) produce?
What is a werewolf? Are they full time demons or part-time ones?
How does wolf and man relate?
Just some thoughts, no real answers.
regarding the filming of
episodes that pick up where the previous one left off -- ghady,
11:30:57 08/12/04 Thu
how do they do that?
do they film both eps at once?
do they do each ep separately, paying a lot of attention to detail
the 2nd time around?
or do they shoot the FIRST scene of "part 2" while working
on "part 1"? for instance in Seeing red/villains/two
to go/grave: where the first scenes of the last three episodes
filmed DURING the making of the ep before it?
thx
Replies:
[> Re: regarding the filming of episodes that pick up where
the previous one left off -- Ames, 14:10:48 08/12/04 Thu
When a scene continues from the point where it left off in a previous
episode, or across the break between acts, you can assume that
they filmed it all at once and inserted the break later.
But you should realize something when you're watching these scenes.
Often scenes that look like they were shot as one continuous segment,
weren't. The crew may set up half of the scene, shoot those angles,
take a half-hour break to rearrange the cameras and lighting,
then shoot the other half. Sometimes not all of the actors are
present, and they come in later to shoot their parts separately.
Sometimes they come back later in the production cycle and re-shoot
parts of the scene that they weren't happy with the first time.
In Welcome to the Hellmouth, SMG had to reshoot parts of her scenes
with Giles much later after all the episodes of the season were
done because they felt that her relationship with Giles had turned
out differently than she interpreted it at first.
That's why the crew includes a "continuity checker",
whose job is to make sure that things look consistent from one
scene to the next, even if they are shot months apart. And that's
why there's a lot of little blooper where somebody is wearing
different shoes from one second to the next, or an object keeps
moving from one side of the desk to the other during the scene.
Nobody's perfect, but they do a pretty good job.
AtS Season 1, eps 11-15 -- Masq,
16:38:44 08/12/04 Thu
Somnambulist has a special place in my heart. Yes, there's
the Kate thing, but I hate 'Sense and Sensitivity' (another Kate
episode) with such a passion that it's the lowest of all on my
Season 1 ratings scale and I didn't even mention it in my AtS
1.1-1.10 post (that icky touchy-feely-dorky dialogue! Angel in
*that outfit*! Blah!).
I think what I like is the 'coming out' aspect: Angel being forced
to reveal to a colleague/acquaintance that he is a vampire, and
the fall-out that has on the Angel/Kate relationship. I mean,
she was starting to seriously crush out on him by this point,
and then he opens this whole scary world to her that she can't
handle. You thought she had issues before this....
"Expecting" marks the first in the almost yearly
"why is someone always trying to impregnate Cordelia with
their demon spawn?" episodes. The other two are, of course,
"Epiphany" in Season 2 and "Apocalypse, Nowish"
in Season 4. Cordelia gets a reprieve in Season 3 when it's Darla
who gets knocked up instead.
AtS: a good, old-fashioned show where the men beat up the corpses
and the women have the babies.
One of the humorous aspects of season 1 was the constant hard
time the writers gave Angel. In almost every episode, there would
be a gay/effeminate jab at the Broody One. Angel "the magnificent
poof" with the Nancy-boy hair gel, who Cordelia's friends
assume is gay in Expecting, who is the one who should be wearing
the push-up bra in The Ring, yada yada. Angel with the clothes
and the hair, the almost total lack of a sex-life, the sensitive
broody artist who likes ballet and opera and is proud of his good
penmanship. Angel can afford the teasing because he kicks A better
than anyone.
"Expecting" also raises a vitally important question.
You get the impression from this episode that Cordelia was not
a virgin before "Expecting", and yet Xander *was* a
virgin when he slept with Faith. So no Cordy/Xander sex. Any speculation
on when Cordelia lost her virginity?
One thing that Expecting makes clear is that joining up with Angel
was good for Wesley. I mean, yeah, ultimately it introduced him
to his dark side and got him killed, but at least in seasons 1
and 2 and part of 3, it gave Wesley a chance to be a fighter and
not just a book-man, which increased his confidence and allowed
the warrior for good within to come out. OTOH, Wesley got his
share of gay/effeminate jokes, too, over the years (including
in Expecting).
She
Almost from the inception of my website, I had Evil on BtVS broken
down into discrete categories: Predatory Evil, Evil-as-Chaos,
Evil-as-Corruption, and Evil-as-Order. I didn't categorize Good
in the same way for a long time. "She" was one of the
episodes that made me realize I *could* sub-divide Good with the
same categories. This is the episode where I identified "Good-as-Chaos"
(I think "Buffy vs. Dracula" turned me onto "Predatory
Good", and "Good-as-Corruption" came from "Gingerbread").
The idea popped in my head when the Oden Tal demon calls Jiera
"the bringer of chaos". From his point of view, she
is destroying his society. From her point of view, she is fighting
for the basic rights of women. It's that same interesting sympathetic
angle you get on revolutionaries and terrorists in Deep Space
Nine's Bajoran/Cardassian conflict.
Another interesting thing about "She" is that that episode
was supposed to mark the debut of a new, recurring character on
the show, Jhiera. According to a TV guide article that came out
at the time, she was supposed to be an occasional, morally ambiguous
ally to the gang who also had her own agenda and got in their
way from time to time too. Sort of "our pal the feminist
terrorist from Oden Tal". Since she wasn't that popular with
fans, though, they invented a different character to play a similar
role on the series, and named him Charles Gunn.
The highlight of "She" on DVD, of course, are the outtakes
of Wesley and Angel dancing at Cordelia's party. Check out the
closing credits and dance like a dork!
IGYUMS
I don't have a whole lot to say about "IGYUMS". I liked
the concept of looking at demon possession from a religious point
of view, and of course the twist with the sociopathic child was
chillingly clever. I sort of wish they'd explored Angel's connection
to the Christian religion more in the series as a whole, and his
relationship to Catholicism in particular. But that's one place
Joss rarely goes, as it opens up a can of worms he doesn't like
to chew on (he'd rather face the hordes of angry viewers complaining
about Willow being a lesbian after "New Moon Rising"
than explore *actual* religions and the religious beliefs of his
characters, like Willow being Jewish. Hence the need to invent
the PTBs). At any rate, the only reason Angel even blinks at the
nun in this episode ("nuns are my thing!") is because
she's nobody's victim. Tough-ass nun.
The Prodigal
Angel(us) and Darla:
It's hard to believe that "The Prodigal" is only the
first in what will be a series of flashback episodes that flesh
out the Angel(us)/Darla relationship. That relationship is so
ingrained in my psyche now that it feels like it's been there
longer.
Maybe it has. That short sequence in "Becoming" made
Darla intriguing in a way that season 1 BtVS didn't, but up until
The Prodigal, all we had of Darla was season 1 of BtVS and Angel's
siring in Becoming, and that didn't tell us much. Watching that
sequence in the episode "Angel" where Darla tells Buffy
that she and Angel were a thing for "several generations"
just made you want to go, "Yeah, sure, sounds epic. *yawn*
What kept you together? Crazy glue?," the time it first aired.
So The Prodigal was just more back story at the time. But it was
hella back story, harbinger of things to come. Yes, I am a frothing-at-the-mouth
Darla/Angel(us) shipper.
Angel(us) and fathers:
Trevor Lockley: "You got any kids, Angel?"
Angel: "No."
Trevor Lockley: "Right. Then don't think you know how a father
feels, or why he does the things he does."
What interests me in this episode, re: Kate is not her relationship
with her father, but Angel's relationship with the relationship
between Kate and her father.
Retired police officer Trevor Lockley is making some money on
the side protecting guys he thinks are trafficking illegal auto
parts. Or that he *hopes* are trafficking illegal auto parts.
They're not, they're big teh_ev0l!!1! demon thugs.
At any rate, Angel wants to protect Kate from being hurt by her
father. He's seen Trevor Lockley in action before, after all--the
way Trevor threw Kate's magic-induced confrontation of him in
Sense and Sensitivity back in her face. So in classic paternalistic
fashion, Angel sets out to confront Trevor and save Trevor on
his own without telling Kate about Trevor's misdeeds *or* his
investigation of them, and without giving Kate a chance to be
involved in any way.
So it makes sense that Kate would blame Angel for her father's
death even though Angel didn't *do* the actual killing.
Kate's relationship with her dad is contrasted with Liam's relationship
with his own father. Liam wants to blame all his misbehavior on
the impossibility of *ever* pleasing his father or meeting his
father's impossible standards for behavior. His father wants to
blame all Liam's misbehavior on his son's inability to understand
that a father just wants the best for/from his son. Liam finally
has enough and leaves home and heads right into the arms of the
predatory blonde who will become the major influence on his new
unlife the way his father was the major influence on his human
life.
Darla's loving amusement at VampLiam's insistence upon slaughtering
his whole family to "get the last word" is now a legendary
scene among Buffyverse fans:
Darla: Your victory over him took but moments. But his defeat
of you will last lifetimes.
VampLiam: What are you talking about? He can't defeat me now.
Darla: Nor can he ever approve of you... in this world, or any
other. What we once were informs all that we have become. The
same love will infect our hearts, even if they no longer beat.
Simple death won't change that.
VampLiam: Is this the work of love?
One of the masterpieces of the season.
Note to self: gotta revisit this one. It will be essential background
later in season 6.
Replies:
[> Re: AtS Season 1, eps 11-15 -- Kenny, 18:16:19
08/12/04 Thu
I can't believe you hate "Sense and Sensitivity" that
much. That's one of my faves just for the sheer hilarity of seeing
Angel in touch with his sensitive side (and still kicking ass
when he needs to). Only "Smile Time" makes me laugh
that much.
"Expecting", "She", and "I've Got You
Under My Skin" probably makes up my longest blah run of the
series. IGYUMS definitely had its creepy moments, and I like'd
the none, but everything else there just bores me. I especially
don't like "Expecting". I hate Cordelia as a victim,
and her "this is my punishment" thing so soon after
"Rm w/a Vu" left me cold. In the latter she at least
found her inner bitch, allowing her to be the hero. She had to
be saved in "Expecting", and the best she got was to
shatter the demon that had already been defeated. That's not enough
catharsis for me, given the torture they put her through in the
episode.
I'm also not sure it was a great idea to put "Expecting"
and "She" back-to-back, as they both make strong statements
about the victimization of women, which really isn't a theme of
the show. Recurring motif, maybe, but not a theme.
As for the Cordy virginity thing...my guess is she lost it before
she started dating Xander. As much as those two made out, I think
one of the things she liked about him was that he wasn't about
the sex. Sure, he was horny as hell, but he respected her (also,
he probably still held out hope that Buffy would be his first
even if he wasn't hers). Post-Xander, she probably held out until
LA. Don't know if Wilson was the first since she got there, but
I wouldn't be too surprised if that were the case. And don't forget
that she was pretty hot-to-trot in "Spin the Bottle".
[> [> Re: AtS Season 1, eps 11-15 -- Kenny, 06:18:08
08/13/04 Fri
Whoa, I can't believe I actually typed "I like'd the none."
It was supposed to be "I liked the nun." And I hadn't
even been drinking. I'm one of those Internet people that Tara
was complaining about!
[> [> [> Re: AtS Season 1, eps 11-15 -- Tara hates
me too., 09:47:14 08/13/04 Fri
I check & re-check my spelling before I send & then later when
I look at my post, it's always littered with spelling errors so
I feel like an enormous doof.
[> [> [> [> Re: AtS Season 1, eps 11-15 --
Mr. Bananagrabber, 17:38:20 08/15/04 Sun
God, I am a total moron. I write a post about how I can't spell
and then I screw even that minor task up by posting my title for
the post (Tara hates me too) under my name.
Also, Tara wouldn't hate me for my bad spelling. She would merely
be diappointed.
[> [> [> ohh, I'm all the time doing homophones.
-- Masq, 10:16:09 08/13/04 Fri
Your brain knows what word it means, but somehow you write a different
word that's spelled differently and means something different
but sounds the same.
Just as long as there's no Freudian stuff involved in that.
[> [> [> [> there, their, they're--you're not alone!
-- anom, 23:59:42 08/15/04 Sun
[> Just wanted to say how much I am enjoying these --
Mr. Bananagrabber, 20:26:58 08/12/04 Thu
[> [> Thanks! -- Masq, 20:33:27 08/12/04 Thu
I'm enjoying revisiting the episodes with other people to talk
about them with!
[> [> Me too!!! -- JudyKay, 13:49:25 08/13/04
Fri
[> I'm loving them, too -- Vickie, 08:50:30 08/13/04
Fri
I especially enjoyed the Kate defense in this one. I've always
enjoyed Kate, and thought the character could have developed in
interesting directions had the actress not gotten a "better"
gig.
Think about it. Vigilante Kate, hating vigilantism but unable
to leave the helpless undefended when she knows the kind of monsters
that attack them. Finding herself growing closer and closer to
what she most hated about Angel...
Pure Whedon.
[> [> Oooh! I love that -- Masq, 10:19:45 08/13/04
Fri
Think about it. Vigilante Kate, hating vigilantism but unable
to leave the helpless undefended when she knows the kind of monsters
that attack them. Finding herself growing closer and closer to
what she most hated about Angel...
She starts out representing the established organization for law
enforcement in the city, but as she starts becoming a demon/supernatural
hunter, she becomes increasingly marginalized until *she* becomes
a vigilante!
And the LAPD finally kick her out because she can't convince them
to see what she sees, to take her back into the fold and accept
what she knows.
PS Vickie, did you get my emails about a possible Bay Area meet?
[> [> [> Re: Oooh! I love that -- Vickie, 11:36:56
08/13/04 Fri
Got them. Sorry for the tardy response. I'll try to respond tonight.
[> [> [> Can you use it in AtS season 6? -- Vickie,
12:24:26 08/13/04 Fri
If you do, do I get a credit?
Story by Masquerade and Vickie, screenplay by Masquerade...
[> [> [> [> Re: Can you use it in AtS season 6?
-- Masq, 14:54:13 08/13/04 Fri
Well, we've discussed having Kate in it, and hadn't really found
a good place for her that fit with the storyline.
But if Kate continued in a vigilante-like mode after Epiphany,
that would be interesting....
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Can you use it in AtS season
6? -- Dlgood, 11:54:52 08/16/04 Mon
Although, at the end of her growth arc, I think Kate is still
an 'order' person.
If she could find an organization that she believed was effectively
engaged in confronting the dangers that the supernatural predators
posed to society, she'd be looking to join it.
IMHO, if Kate stays active (rather than just quitting altogether)
she's going to wind up in the X-Files division...
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's very true --
Masq, 10:43:37 08/17/04 Tue
Kate is a company gal. She likes being part of a larger organizational
family.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think Kate either
died -- Vickie, 11:36:25 08/17/04 Tue
shortly after her last appearance on AtS, or she joined up with
Riley and Sam.
Now there's a weird image!
[> Re: AtS Season 1, eps 11-15 -- cjl, 08:57:22 08/13/04
Fri
SOMNAMBULIST - One of the best eps of the season. Vintage Minear
script and tremendous direction by Winrich Kolbe. A lot of people
complain that "Somnambulist" solidified a metaphorical
link between vampires and serial killers and that ME tripped all
over themselves with that one. I'm not so unforgiving and inflexible.
Kate staking Penn through Angel was one of the coolest shots in
series history. Elizabeth Rohm never should have taken the L&O golden
parachute. She had a great character going on AtS.
EXPECTING - Other than Wes' tenderness and compassion towards
Cordy (awww), completely forgettable. And yes, the first of three(!)
CC demon spawn impregnations. (Since I considered that old horror
cliche a failure of imagination the first time around, you can
guess how I felt about the other two.)
SHE - Prime candidate for Worst Episode Ever. I acknowledge that
there were serious issues raised here, but how can I respect Marti's
intent when the script makes stupid jokes about gay health spa
directors and how the alien women make Wes horny? The ep is an
unholy mess, and there's zero chemistry between Bai Ling and DB.
(Thank God the braintrust came to their senses and never brought
her back.) The museum tour bit was good and the dancing sequences
are gold, but that's two minutes out of 45. Burn the other 43.
I'VE GOT YOU UNDER MY SKIN - Great stuff. The first sign of things
to come for Wes, the darkness lying within the loveable goof of
a bookworm. Love it even more since TCH brought to my attention
that the family is a metaphor for Angel Investigations, trying
to find a way to go on after the death of a loved one. For an
Exorcist-style horror extravaganza, remarkably subtle.
THE PRODIGAL - "What we once were informs all that we have
become." If I ever get confused about vampires in the Whedonverse,
I simply repeat this line of dialogue to myself and the fog rolls
away. It's amazing how Minear can convey complex ideas that other
Buffyverse writers cannot seem to grasp in such a powerful and
direct fashion.
P.S. I loved Sense and Sensitivity. Spot on satire of Lalaland
psychobabble.
[> [> Re: AtS Season 1, eps 11-15 -- Dlgood, 10:56:07
08/13/04 Fri
A lot of people complain that "Somnambulist" solidified
a metaphorical link between vampires and serial killers and that
ME tripped all over themselves with that one.
I don't see why it merits too much complaint. Almost all of the
vampires on these two shows have committed a number of murders
and many of them seem to have psychological patterns that might
indicate having committed serial murders of one type or another.
To me, it seems pretty well grounded in the characters and the
internal reality of the shows...
It's amazing how Minear can convey complex ideas that other
Buffyverse writers cannot seem to grasp in such a powerful and
direct fashion.
I agree. I thought that scene was wonderful - Minear gave the
"Prodigal" the depth, subtlety, and artfulness that
I found desperately lacking from Marti Noxon's "She".
[> Re: AtS Season 1, eps 11-15 -- Loki, 08:59:13
08/13/04 Fri
Insightful.
IGYUMS is one of my favorite episodes, and I'm not sure why. It
was a clever retelling of the Exorcist, and there were many references
to it, which delights me. I think part of what I like is the emphasis
on people as the Big Bad, because from what I've seen (and I've
only seen 2 seasons so far), people seem to be the secondary focus
(apart from Angel's redemption) of the series. People, in all
of their glory, kindness, destructiveness, and cruelty.
My first Firefly essay: You
can't take the sky from me (spoilers inc unaired episodes) --
Lunasea, 12:46:35 08/13/04 Fri
When I was a little girl, I used to look up at the sky and wonder
what it is, as young children tend to do. When I articulated my
question to my scientifically inclined father, I got an answer.
When I was a little older, I understood that answer. When I was
a pre-teen, I heard about the hole that was forming in the ozone
layer, a hole in the sky. When I was a little older, I started
asking questions about that hole and the atmosphere. Joss Whedon's
show Firefly has me looking up at the sky again and asking
those questions.
Take my love.
Take my land.
Take me where I cannot stand.
I don't care,
I'm still free.
You can't take the sky from me.
Take me out to the black.
Tell em I ain't comin' back.
Burn the land
And boil the sea.
You can't take the sky from me.
Have no place I can be
Since I found Serenity.
But you can't take the sky from me.
Everybody sing.
To examine the theme of Joss Whedon's Firefly, one has
to look no further than the theme song Joss wrote for it. Six
of the nine characters' story lines revolve around the Alliance.
The Firefly class spaceship Serenity named after the
Battle of Serenity Valley offers each of them a way to get away
from that. Captain, then Sergeant, Malcolm Reynolds and Zoe Warren
(maiden name unknown) served in the war against the Alliance together.
River Tam has been tortured and changed by the Alliance. Her brother
Simon has to rescue her, and now the two of them are fugitives
on the run from them.
The short run for Firefly did not allow us to get into
the stories of Shepherd Book and Inara Serra. Clues are dropped
throughout the series to set up their stories. We know that Shepherd
Book has strong enough ties to the Alliance that in "Safe"
he merits immediate medical attention. We know he is rich and
knows things a Shepherd shouldn't. I wouldn't be surprised, if
as Mal's foil, he has ties not only to the Alliance, but specifically
the decisive Battle of Serenity Valley. Inara also has a story
to tell. Why is a Companion attached to a Firefly with
a bunch of outlaws? Unaired "Heart Of Gold" lays down
some more clues as to her story. She tells Mal in "Out of
Gas" that she "voted for unification" and has no
problems with the Alliance. Are she and Book disenchanted by what
Blue Sun/the Alliance do once unification was achieved?
Two of the remaining three characters are tied directly to Serenity.
Wash Warren, in addition to being married to Zoe, is her pilot.
He can make the ship do amazing things, as is shown in "The
Message." Kaylee Frye is her mechanic. Kaylee's connection
with the ship isn't intellectual, but intuitive. When the ship
breaks down in "Out of Gas" she says, "Sorry, Captain.
I'm real sorry. I shoulda kept better care of her. Usually she
lets me know when something's wrong. Maybe she did, I just wasn't
paying attention." It is one of many sweet relationships
on the show.
Jayne Cobb is a pure outlaw. He cares neither for the Alliance
or Serenity. He cares about himself. He isn't running from anything.
He is just doing a job. He doesn't even realize how that job is
tied to the oppressive regulations and disregard for the sanctity
of human life/rights that the Alliance demonstrates. Jayne doesn't
think too much about anything.
In "Train Job," Mal sums up the Alliance when talking
to the Sheriff, "That sounds like the Alliance. Unite all
the planets under one rule so that everybody can be interfered
with or ignored equally." The sky and Serenity represent
a way to get beyond this. He even tells this to Zoe when he shows
her the ship for the first time.
MAL: [Fei-oo? - "Junk?"] Okay. She won't be winning
any beauty contests anytime soon. But she is solid. Ship like
this, be with ya 'til the day you die.
ZOE: 'Cause it's a deathtrap.
MAL: That's not... you are very much lacking in imagination.
ZOE: I imagine that's so, sir.
MAL: C'mon. You ain't even seen most of it. I'll show you the
rest. And try to see past what she is, and on to what she can
be.
ZOE: What's that, sir?
MAL: Freedom, is what.
He goes on to tell her
MAL: I tell ya, Zoe, we find ourselves a mechanic, get her running
again. Hire a good pilot. Maybe even a cook. Live like real people.
Small crew, them as feel the need to be free. Take jobs as they
come -- and we'll never be under the heel of nobody ever again.
No matter how long the arm of the Alliance might get, we'll just
get ourselves a little further.
The theme song reflects this belief of Mal. What is important
is "I'm still free." I'm free because "You can't
take the sky from me." This is the central metaphor of the
show. It's not as simple as sky=freedom because of that question
that most young children ask "What is the sky?"
The theme song says "take me out to the black" referring
to the black of outer space. Mal believes that this is freedom,
which is whose perspective we are in for the theme song. In "Shindig"
when Wash and Zoe are enjoying the sunset as they near Persephone,
Mal gets testy, "Persephone ain't home. Too many people we
got to avoid. Re-supply, look for work, move along. Sniff the
air, we don't kiss the dirt." Home to Mal is Serenity, Serenity
flying in the emptiness of space.
That emptiness has it's dangers. Two episodes highlight these
dangers. The first is "Bushwhacked." With the pilot
unaired, this is the first introduction we get to the Reavers.
Mal describes them "Reavers might take issue with that philosophy.
If they had a philosophy. If they weren't too busy gnawing on
your insides. Jayne's right, Reavers ain't men. Or they forgot
how to be. Now they're just nothing. They got out to the edge
of the galaxy, to that place of nothing, and that's what they
became."
This stand alone episode is very important to the mythology of
Firefly.
MAL: It's not "Sergeant". Not no more. War's over.
HARKEN: For some the war will never be over. I notice your ship's
called Serenity. You were stationed on Hera at the end of the
war; Battle of Serenity Valley took place there if I recall.
MAL: You know, I believe you might be right.
HARKEN: Independents suffered a pretty crushing defeat there.
Some say that after Serenity the brown coats were through. That
the war ended in that valley.
MAL: Hmm.
HARKEN: Seems odd that you would name your ship after a battle
you were on the wrong side of.
(why he names his ship is left on the cutting room floor deliberately.
We will have to see why that happened later, probably in the movie)
MAL: May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was
the wrong one.
(though probably not convinced the Independents were any better
than the Alliance after they abandoned him)
HARKEN: Is that why you attacked that transport?
MAL: What?
HARKEN: You're still fighting the same battle, Sergeant. Only
those weren't soldiers
you murdered. Those were civilians, families. Citizens loyal to
the Alliance, trying to make a new life for themselves and you
just can't stand that, can you?
MAL: So we attacked that ship, then brought the only living survivor
to our infirmary. That's what we did?
HARKEN: I'd ask him. Only I'm not sure he'll be able to speak
with his tongue split down the middle.
MAL (realizing): [Wuh de tyen, ah. - "Dear god in heaven."]
HARKEN: I haven't seen that kind of torture since... well, since
the war.
MAL (quietly, to himself): Oh I should have known.
HARKEN: You and your crew are bound by law. Formal charges will
be transmitted to Central Authority.
MAL: Commander, I'm not what you need to be concerned with right
now. Things go
the way they are, there's going to be blood.
Mal's been telling his story. Harken's not buying it.
HARKEN: Reavers?
MAL: That is what I said.
HARKEN: You can't imagine how many times men in my position hear
that excuse. "Reavers did it."
MAL: It's the truth.
HARKEN: You saw them, did you?
MAL: Wouldn't be sitting here talking to you if I had.
HARKEN: No, of course not.
MAL: But I'll tell you who did. That poor bastard you took off
my ship. He looked right into the face of it. Was made to stare.
HARKEN: "It"?
MAL: The darkness. Kind of darkness you can't even imagine. Blacker
than the space it moves through.
HARKEN: Very poetic.
MAL: They made him watch. He probably tried to turn away, and
they wouldn't let him. You call him a survivor? He's not. A man
comes up against that kind of will, the only way to deal with
it, I suspect, is to become it. He's following the only course
left to him.
First, he'll try to make himself look like one. Cut on himself,
desecrate his flesh and then, he'll start acting like one.
On "Out of Gas" Mal tells Zoe "No matter how long
the arm of the Alliance might get, we'll just get ourselves a
little further." The problem with this is there is a point
where they get too far away from civilization. The Reavers represent
this extreme. In the unaired pilot we see Mal trying to find "the
safest and the closest" place with Whitefall being a happy
medium for him. It isn't too medium, because the Reavers are encroaching
further and further in. They do come in contact with the Reavers
(or at least their big scary radiation leaking ship).
The complete anarchy of the Reavers, a complete lawlessness, a
complete disregard for humanity is a result of staring into darkness.
In "Bushwhacked" the Reavers turn a settler into one
of them, not because he has been forced to see the edge of the
galaxy, but as a survival tactic to seeing their darkness. The
darkness of space isn't just freedom, but too much freedom is
darkness itself, the darkest kind of darkness. Too much freedom
ceases to be freedom and becomes license. Freedom should not be
confused with our humanity. It allows us to express it. It is
not that expression.
The other episode that shows the danger of space is "Out
of Gas." Because of an explosion, the ship is running out
of air, or as they like to call it atmo. My father taught me about
the Earth's atmosphere with its troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere,
thermosphere, and exosphere. He taught me about why the sky is
blue and the importance of ozone. Now I find myself asking is
the sky blue? Is the sky the stratosphere, all the layers of the
atmosphere or is the blackness of space still the sky? The stars
hang in the sky. The stars aren't a part of Earth's atmosphere.
Serenity flies in the darkness of space, but she brings atmosphere
with her. One is sky that allows her freedom of movement and one
is sky that allows her to sustain life. The sky that Mal and the
others need is both. Captain Mal Reynolds asserts his authority
when needed, most notably at the end of "Ariel" when
Jayne is going to be sucked out of the ship once they leave the
atmo. Mal does have a code, even if it is more relaxed than the
Alliance and built on two principles, survival and maximizing
freedom. That is part one of the sky. It is the balance between
Alliance and Reavers.
The other is the air/atmo that sustains the crew. That is the
heart of any Joss series, namely heart. This is the part of the
sky that Mal does not sing about. He sings about "the black."
It is the atmosphere the sustains life. The troposphere contains
most of the air we breathe. The stratosphere contains the ozone
that protects us. The mesosphere is where most meteors break up.
The thermosphere bounces most of the sun's heat back out to space
so we don't cook. The exosphere contains the magnetosphere.
Atmo is mentioned in practically every script. Serenity entering
or leaving it is important. In "Serenity" she even sets
it on fire when the Reavers are chasing them. Whether the ship
is in atmo or in the dark coldness of space is as important to
the story as whether something takes place above or below ground
in the Buffyverse.
That isn't the only way atmo is used on the show. Serenity brings
air to the crew. So do space suits. In the original pilot, we
are introduced to the crew as they are doing crime outside of
the ship. They are wearing space suits to do this. Space suits
are also important in "Bushwhacked."
JAYNE: Well, Cap and Zoe are going in first. We'll holler if we
need you. (off Simon's somewhat worried look) Something wrong?
SIMON: Hmmm? Oh, no. I suppose it's just the thought of a little
Mylar and glass separating a person from... nothing.
JAYNE: It's impressive what "nothing" can do to a man.
Like that fella we bumped into.
He's likely stuck up under our belly about now. That's what space
trash does, you know. Kind of latches onto the first big something
that stops long enough. Hey now,
that'd be a bit like you and your sister now, wouldn't it?
JAYNE: Whatever. I ain't waiting. I'll meet you over there. But
don't take forever. Still
got to get suited up.
INT. DERELICT SHIP - AIRLOCK
Simon enters in a spacesuit, alone, looking nervous. He moves
through the dark corridor, his breathing loud and irregular. He
enters a small room where we find Jayne, Mal, Zoe and Kaylee,
without spacesuits.
MAL: Hi.
Simon realizes he's been had, and struggles to remove his helmet.
Kaylee moves to help him.
MAL (cont'd): Um, what are you doing here, and what's with the
suit?
Jayne cracks up.
SIMON (to Jayne): You're hilarious. Sadist.
....
KAYLEE: (to Simon, re: his helmet): You, um, had this on wrong.
A funny set-up, but it also makes some important points about
Simon and how he doesn't fit with the rest of the crew. That space
suit is later used in the episode to save him and his sister.
Mal has them suit up and hide outside the ship while the Alliance
tears the ship apart. River loves this. The suit gives River freedom
outside of the ship. Not just freedom, but it sustains her. She
is outside of the Alliance's reach AND is alive. Simon is terrified.
River in her mental condition needs lots of love and understanding.
Poor Simon doesn't know how to react to this, especially Kaylee.
Another episode space suits are important is "Objects in
Space." The scene where River comes back to the ship to Mal's
outstretched arms is as beautiful as Simon holding her hand in
"Serenity." If anything is the mission statement of
that show, that scene is it.
The episode "Out of Gas" is not just about the ship
running out of atmo. It is a wonderful weaving of flashback sequences
that show the relationship of the crew and most importantly Mal's
love for Serenity. It is these relationships that allows the crew
to live and fix the metaphor. The metaphor of atmo is fixed by
the literal love the people have for each other and the ship.
It is a beautiful episode.
The beauty of the sky is in it's colors. Why is the sky blue is
a question children ask. The answer is because of the ozone layer.
The complete answer is because of the interaction of the ozone
layer with the yellow sun. What if the sun weren't yellow? Joss,
an avid comic book fan is aware of the effect of the color of
the sun on say Superman. If Joss' central metaphor is the sky=freedom
what effect would a Blue Sun have on it?
We just start to get into that as the series was cut down in its
prime. From "Serenity" on there are references to the
Uber Corporation Blue Sun. In "The Message," they stop
on a space station. There are HUGE monitors running commercials
for Blue Sun. When you can't turn away, when you are forced to
look into that, what happens to you? These are questions the series
just began to ask.
So I ask them to the reader. Mal maintains his identity by rejecting
the Alliance/Blue Sun. He still wears his army uniform. In the
coldness of space in "Out of Gas" he wraps himself in
an army blanket. On the flip side we have Simon. The only reason
Simon rejected the Alliance is because of what they did to his
sister. He loses his identity when he does this. For Mal, freedom
is paramount. It is his heart that sustains him without him even
realizing it though. For Simon, he is doing everything because
of his heart. He just doesn't realize the dangers of mass identity
that the Alliance fosters.
It was an interesting show. It will be an interesting movie with
Joss finally visiting things he didn't get a chance to because
they would have been the final arc. What is Blue Sun and what
exactly did they do to River? Why did they do it? Who is Shepherd
Book? Why does Inara leave her society to hang out on the fringes
of it? What color is the sky?
Take my love.
Take my show
Take me where I do not know.
I don't care,
I'm still free.
You can't take the sky from me.
Take me out to the black.
Tell em I ain't comin' back.
Burn the books
And boil the TV.
You can't take the sky from me.
Have no place I can be
Since I found Serenity.
But you can't take the sky from me.
Replies:
[> Re: My first Firefly essay: You can't take the sky from
me (spoilers inc unaired episodes) -- Loki, 20:41:09 08/13/04
Fri
That's a pretty concise overview of the series. The only question
I have is about Book's wealth. You mention that he has wealth,
but I can't recall the reference to it. Unless you mean real foodstuffs,
which is probably almost priceless.
[> [> Food on Firefly is shorthand for money -- Lunasea,
10:58:21 08/14/04 Sat
Such as when we see Badger peeling an apple (as the commentary
said, he is so rich he doesn't have to eat the peel) or the party
in "Shindig." The "treasure" of the Pilot
was even food. Yucky protein is treasure (also in "Bushwhacked")
and fresh fruit is considered even more than that. The strawberry
that Book gave to Kaylee shows him to be a man of considerable
wealth.
[> [> [> Re: Food on Firefly is shorthand for money
-- Loki, 15:29:27 08/14/04 Sat
I figured the strawberry was more because of his lifestyle; he
was able to grow real food at the Abbey, wealth or not.
Current board
| More August 2004