http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040819_white_firefly.php
The Ascendance of Firefly
by Monica White - Aug 19, 2004
A firefly is a creature given to metaphor. Short-lived, dazzling,
and surprisingly bright, it conveniently mirrors larger occurrences
in history and allows us to essentialize and encapsulate them
in one convenient image.
When Joss Whedon gave his FOX show the moniker Firefly, I don
t think he did so with the foresight that it would so closely
mirror the actual lifespan of the little bug. I d like to think,
rather, that he knew (given the right creative freedom) he could
make the show sparkle and delight like its namesake. Happily,
he was right, and I was utterly delighted.
Firefly is a series centered around nine very unique characters
living, working, and traveling on a Firefly-class spaceship set
some 400 years in the future. True, the future is apocalyptically
grim a totalitarian state exists in the form of the far-reaching
Alliance, reminiscent of Darth Vader's troops in demeanor and
attire. Our heroes, however, manage to eke out an exciting if
meager existence on the cusp of illegality by running a smuggling
operation in their cleverly designed vessel.
Always railing against the stifling control of the state, they
fly from planet to planet encountering various scenarios, forging
close bonds among one another and slowly unveiling the mysteries
behind their characters for the benefit of the audience.
Firefly is a science-fiction show dressed as a western and written
as a drama with some of the sharpest, cleverest riposte on TV.
Written and directed by Joss Whedon of Buffy The Vampire Slayer,
Angel, and Toy Story fame, it is easily the best work he has done
to date, and the work which least resembles the current staid
fare the networks present.
It wasn t until I saw the show extras on my DVD set that I came
to a more complete understanding of why this series was so good.
The narrated sections took me through the concept, set design,
camera/FX/CG work, and musical score I saw how each element was
controlled by people with a deep understanding for their craft
and a genuine love for the show.
The series was run in a fly by the seat of your pants experimentation
mode, and in watching the narrative I heard the phrase You simply
don t do that many times. As someone fascinated by business process,
I love to hear that kind of thing it s usually the way innovations
and breakthroughs happen.
To me, Firefly is primarily an example of what happens when a
talented group of people come together and give their best to
a project which is itself led by someone talented giving his best.
In the same way as like attracts like on a personal level (you
can tell a man by the company he keeps, as the old saying goes),
like hires and retains like on a professional level (you can tell
a company by the people it keeps). I think this dynamic explains
why companies carefully and obsessively controlled by the original
entrepreneur or by a strong CEO have such a different feel from
those controlled by the everyone and no-one of committees in bureaucratic
organizations.
Personally, I don t buy into the idea that things should be run
by committee. Projects that shine are always, ultimately, controlled
by an individual.
One person holds a vision and controls the execution at the macro
level he hires people who get it and they control its execution
at the micro level. If you look at the credits of Firefly you
will see that Joss Whedon even wrote the theme song there s no
mistaking who was at the wheel.
Digging a little deeper into the drama behind the drama, I learned
that Whedon had innumerable problems with his host network, FOX.
Seemingly wishing to do everything possible to make Firefly a
ratings failure, FOX screened the series out of order (the carefully
orchestrated pilot was deemed to be a little too slow as a starter),
moved the screening slot constantly, and finally canceled the
show.
It seemed FOX was expecting something else from Joss Whedon perhaps
something of the ilk that is expected to resonate with current
TV viewers. Whedon gave them something so unrecognizably good
that it wasn t valued until very recently.
Someone who didn t understand the concept of Firefly and who wasn
t completely and irrevocably committed wouldn t have fought so
valiantly for its original inception. We wouldn t have had the
short, fresh, violent, and utterly brilliant season of Firefly
we do today we would have had a season of Friends on a spaceship.
Whedon fought for his concept, and today we have a piece of art
that is incredible in its design and execution.
Whedon s commitment to his passion is one of the things worth
celebrating in the Firefly phenomenon it is the story of a man
holding fast to his principles, sticking to his unusual and groundbreaking
vision, and winning. The echoes of Howard Roark s struggle, in
The Fountainhead, to maintain his artistic vision and integrity
immediately leap to mind.
There is also joy in learning that Firefly s following is disproportionately
strong for a show technically classified as a flop. Firefly forums
abound on the internet, and loyal fans flock to conventions to
hear the actors and director speak.
The groundswell is so strong, in fact, that Universal Studios
has purchased the rights to produce a Firefly movie, Serenity,
which is scheduled for release on April 22, 2005.
What is it, then, that makes this series so endearing to its fans?
Why the tributes? Why the passionate struggle to keep it on the
screen? Why the knowing smile and instant camaraderie when someone
introduces himself at a party as a Firefly fan?
For me, what the show gets so right what sets it apart from every
other show I ve seen is the fact that the morality is so damn
close to what I agree with. The characters don t faff about they
know which action will give them the most benefit personally and
pursue it without qualms. There is no apology for what would usually
be considered crude opportunism.
For someone who enjoys Ayn Rand s work, Firefly is a welcome respite
from the myriad of flawed, moribund, and lackluster moralities
of the shows routinely presented on the small screen.
The story itself is engaging, and doesn t allow the futuristic
backdrop to rob it of a plausible storyline. It is not a prerequisite
to have enjoyed Sci-Fi previously this isn t traditional Sci-Fi.
The characters are well rounded and complex, and the storylines
are masterfully and surprisingly interwoven. Whedon spins his
verbal mastery to give the characters strong, punchy, funny lines
that you will find yourself quoting often.
So here s an endorsement nay, a directive.
When there s so much entertainment around and so much of it is
lukewarm, finding something that makes you think, laugh, gasp,
worry, admire the actors and chew the couch cushions is a prize.
Discover the joy of Firefly for yourself.
Replies:
[> About the committee comment -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:17:09
08/20/04 Fri
"Personally, I don t buy into the idea that things should
be run by committee. Projects that shine are always, ultimately,
controlled by an individual."
I tend to disagree with this. I think how it works is that a committee
is many people coming together modifying each others ideas to
create one. It kind of reminds me of a Sherlock Holmes story where
Holmes comments that an individual is capable of totally surprising
you and doing something totally unexpected, but a large population
will follow sociological predictions something like 90% of the
time. Committees are like that; a committee can occasionally turn
out a great piece of work, and occasionally turn out a really
sucky piece of work, but most frequently their product will fall
closer to the middle. An individual given lots of creative control,
however, while they certainly can fall within the middle area
between good and bad, they're just as likely to create something
very bad or very good. So, giving a project over to an individual's
control can produce a work of sheer genius (such as "Kill
Bill" or "Once Upon a Time in Mexico"), or utter
and complete crap ("Lost in Translation"). As such,
studios prefer committees to handle products, as you get a lot
more reliability, whereas a sort of auteur project is much more
of a gamble.
[> Morality on Firefly (spoiler for "The Train Job")
-- dub ;o), 14:58:36 08/20/04 Fri
Welcome, JudyKay, and thank you for posting this article.
There are a number of points raised that bear thinking about and
discussion. The references to Rand's work, I'll leave for others;
I've never read her. At university in the 70s Rand was considered
an elitist by most, and even a Fascist by some. I think she's
gaining popularity again now, and I regret that I never read her
major works and decided for myself how I felt about them. It's
not too late, though.
I recently re-watched the entire Firefly series on DVD,
although I haven't done so with the commentaries yet. One major
thing that struck me was the very different morality exhibited
by Mal, as opposed to either Buffy or Angel. The first episode
I saw when it was broadcast was, of course, The Train Job.
I remember being quite shocked at the end when Mal nonchalantly
kicked Nishka's (sp?) hulking enforcer into Serenity's churning
engine. You see, at some point Simon said he was concerned that
Mal might kill him in his sleep. Mal's reply was that, if he killed
Simon, Simon would be awake, facing him, and armed. Well, the
bad guy was awake and facing him, but far from being armed, he
was in restraints, helpless to defend himself, when Mal killed
him.
That alerted me right away to the fact that we were dealing with
a whole different kettle of fish on Firefly. We don't have
the luxury of vampires or demons in this series. Joss deliberately
chose not to have any aliens from other planets either (I think
I read that he personally believes humans are alone in the universe).
But the series is, on the surface, a violent, action-packed adventure
on the frontiers of space. That means when someone is shot, maimed,
or killed, it's going to be a human being.
Indeed, the personification of evil in this universe of the future
is a group called The Reivers who are (or were originally) human
beings. We haven't actually seen a Reiver in the episodes that
were shot, but there's a good chance that at least one will show
up in the upcoming film. I suspect they'll be portrayed fairly
close to some of the demons we're familiar with from Buffy and
Angel, given what we've learned of them already. But they won't
be demons, they'll be humans.
The article posted above talks quite a bit about Joss's role as
the single, creative force behind Firefly, and his determination
to fight to protect his vision of what the series should be, against
the unspeakably evil forces of Fox (ptui, we will speak of them
no more). I'm beginning to suspect that Joss learned a whole lot
of harsh lessons during the production of his previous two series,
and the harshest one was that there will always be someone else
ultimately in control of what gets on the air. You can either
accept that (tantamount to working for The Alliance) or you can
rebel against it, turn your back on it, and carve out your own
piece of the sky.
By the time he gets to Firefly Joss seems hardened, prepared
to dispense with the idea that characters shouldn't be killed
just because they happen to be human. If they're bad (and the
applicable definition of "bad" isn't crystal clear just
yet) then kill the buggers dead.
I suspect there might be a fair amount of wish fulfillment for
Joss in the character of Mal, a man in complete control of his
ship and his crew, if not his personal life. That type of control
is only possible when it is granted by the other people involved.
Mal's crew love him enough to grant him control. So do Joss's
"crew." In another episode of Firefly, a large
red button figured in the script as a device for recalling the
crew. When the series wrapped, Alan Tudyk, who played Wash, presented
the red button to Joss and told him to use it to call them all
together again when he needed them. Given the vagaries of an actor's
life, it's hard to believe that all nine of the cast responded
to that call when it came time to shoot the upcoming feature film,
but they did.
I know I'm really excited about what comes next in the Firefly
saga. I hope to spend some more time in the next couple of weeks,
while I'm on vacation, rewatching the series and listening to
the commentaries, and getting my thoughts straight on the "new"
morality that Joss is presenting. There's a lot more cold-blooded
killing, but it seems there's a lot more genuine love, as well.
dub ;o)
[> [> Re: Morality on Firefly (spoiler for "The
Train Job") -- Arethusa, 08:33:38 08/25/04 Wed
Well, the bad guy was awake and facing him, but far from being
armed, he was in restraints, helpless to defend himself, when
Mal killed him....That alerted me right away to the fact that
we were dealing with a whole different kettle of fish on Firefly.
Yes, the audience is not able to take refuge in the fact that
the "hero" is killing sub-human demons. Mal makes up
his own rules and the audience members are forced to decide for
themselves whether he is in the wrong or not. If Whedon is deliberately
putting the audience in Mal's existential shoes, it's a fascinating
delimma. Many or even most people, I believe, want to see the
main character as a good guy; we usually see the action from his
pov and tend to identify with him. So when the hero's moral decisions
are questionable-killing unarmed men, stealing, insurrection against
the government-we, like Mal, are forced to examine each decision
he makes. And when he does something wrong we can either find
a way to justify it, which is immoral, or recognize that the downside
of existentialism is that as humans we will make questionable
moral decisions at times.
The Alliance, Mal, the Reivers. It's kind of a continuum of moral
choice. The Alliance lives by society's rules-their decisions
are guided or controlled by rules and regulations generally accepted
by society. The nihilistic Reivers don't rcognize morality, they've
abandoned it altogether. In the middle is Mal, refusing both blind
obedience and total freedom from morality, making his own code
to live by, decision by decision.
[> [> [> Mal in the middle -- dub ;o), 09:53:55
08/25/04 Wed
Great observation! Much there to ponder. Thanks.
;o)
[> [> some possibilities (likewise spoilers) -- anom,
22:24:23 08/29/04 Sun
First I should point out that I didn't see every episode of Firefly.
I had to tape it, & sometimes things went wrong, plus I was never
as invested in it as I was in Buffy & Angel, so
I didn't keep the tapes intact. Yes, I taped over them & can't
refer to them again. So I could easily be off on either facts
or interpretation.
"You see, at some point Simon said he was concerned that
Mal might kill him in his sleep. Mal's reply was that, if he killed
Simon, Simon would be awake, facing him, and armed. Well, the
bad guy was awake and facing him, but far from being armed, he
was in restraints, helpless to defend himself, when Mal killed
him."
Is Mal's morality...mal-leable? Or are there other factors in
his moral decisions that he doesn't declare openly? That he may
not even be conscious of? I suspect there are, & I have a few
possibilities in mind as to what they might be.
1. It's about power.
True, a tied-up bad guy doesn't have a whole lot of power. Not
at that moment. But he was exercising a threatening degree of
power earlier, & he represented a group w/far greater power. Simon
originally came from a family w/economic power, but he willingly
gave it up to get River out of the hands of the Alliance's (as
far as we know, right?) experimenters. Mal appears to have contempt
& distrust for the kind of person he considers Simon to have been
but admires his decision to leave his comfortable existence for
the sake of someone he cares about. And Simon's current lack of
power makes him no threat to Mal, so there's not likely to be
any need (as perceived by Mal) to kill him for self-protection.
2. [button]Cynical? No, I'm a pragmatist.[/button]
Not surprisingly, when tied-up bad guy no. 1 is punished--permanently--for
his refusal to cooperate, tied-up bad guy no. 2 suddenly becomes
motivated to cooperate. Conceivably, a situation might arise in
which Mal would have a pragmatic reason to kill Simon without
giving him a chance to defend himself. But Mal isn't entirely
a pragmatist. I think he'd need more of a personal motivation
in addition.
3. Which side are you on?
My impression is that this is a big factor for Mal. Obviously,
the bad guys aren't on his side (or we wouldn't be calling them
bad guys). It may be more of a question of whether you're actively
against him, since it's a while before he counts Simon as being
on his side, during which he may lean toward denying him sanctuary
or other help but probably wouldn't kill him without giving him
a fair chance. (Of course, there's always the question of how
fair a chance Simon would have against Mal even if he were "awake,
facing him, & armed.")
4. Let's see some ID.
How much Mal identifies w/someone may be an even bigger factor.
He thinks of himself as an underdog (not w/out reason), & this
is probably the root of his ambivalence about Simon, who on the
one hand grew up at the top of the societal food chain & on the
other is nowhere near the top by the time Mal meets him. Tied-up
bad guy provokes no such ambivalence. I think this factor comes
into play earlier in the episode, when Mal finds out what the
"cargo" he's been hired to steal--w/no questions asked--really
is, & that he can't, after all, live down to his own claimed amorality.
Slaves are the ultimate underdogs, & Mal turns on his clients
on their behalf w/as much righteousness as if they'd tried to
enslave him. Maybe more--he may consider it worse to be implicated
in enslaving others.
[> Totalitarian? -- KdS, 15:16:44 08/20/04 Fri
There are some dubious things about the Alliance (especially their
black ops teams) but to describe them as "totalitarian"
is, IMHO, hardly justified by what we saw in the season. Especially
since the most dominant characters are hard-core anti-government
libertarians. If they were "totalitarian" there would
be no way that Mal and company could have pulled any of the stuff
they did in Ariel without a lot more violence and hustling.
I suspect, though, that the author of the piece in question thinks
that income tax is the mark of a totalitarian state.
why haven't any ME shows
won any Emmys?? -- ghady, 05:13:22 08/21/04 Sat
Replies:
[> Since there is really no way for me to read the minds
of the Academy voters.... -- SS, 07:58:53 08/21/04 Sat
My guess would be that Buffy and Angel are too fringy for them.
Just my guess.
But that gets me to thinking. Nick has their own awards for shows
too youth oriented for the Emmys....maybe we could petition the
Sci Fi channel to host a show for the best sci fi shows?
Just an idea.
:)
SS
[> Re: why haven't any ME shows won any Emmys?? -- Ames,
09:18:37 08/21/04 Sat
Most industry awards (not just entertainment industry) are primarily
about politics and recognizing commercial success rather than
innovation or outstanding achievement. This is just a fact of
life. Industry organizations are formed for political and commercial
reasons - that's their whole reason for being.
We appreciate the ME shows for artistic achievement and entertainment
value, but none of them have been a commercial success in the
same league as the industry heavyweights that earn Emmy awards.
Shows like The West Wing or ER may be mass-market pap (no offense
to fans!), but they attract 10 times the audience that ME did,
and that means 10 times the money.
You would think that the television industry would be a little
worried that they are losing their younger audience, while continuing
to hand out Emmys to the same old dogs. Perhaps they should be
looking more closely at People's Choice and Teen Choice, where
the ME shows figured much more significantly.
Just had to let you know....
-- LadyStarlight, 07:28:16 08/21/04 Sat
that the Canadian Olympic team has a Buffy on it! Buffy Williams.
How cool is that!
Replies:
[> Go Canada! -- dub ;o), 08:26:48 08/21/04 Sat
We export...hee hee.
;o)
[> [> We just beat you in the rowing ;-) -- KdS,
10:27:53 08/21/04 Sat
[> [> [> Oh, well... :oP -- dub, 15:28:37 08/21/04
Sat
[> Good to see Canada and the Kiwis winning some medals
-- Caroline, 17:39:29 08/21/04 Sat
Finally! ;)
Of course Australia is winning them all over the place!
MetaPost (an observation
about Voy and ATPo Forum) -- Kenny, 07:44:29 08/21/04 Sat
I'd like to know how Voy figures out what ads to place in the
banner at the top of the forum. While it often comes up with "Buffy"
or "Firefly" merchandise, which is appropriate, I noticed
this morning that the taglines in the ads were "Enema Kits
to Clean Colon", "My Cleansing Experience", and
(my personal favorite) "Poop it All Out". I'll leave
it to others to come up with the logic behind putting those ads
on this forum.
Replies:
[> I saw a viagra one once lol -- Ann, 08:22:56 08/21/04
Sat
But I am not sure whose post it was. LOL
Wouldn't slayers or connor
pass some of their enhancements to their offspring? -- megaslayer,
18:41:00 08/21/04 Sat
Each has superior abilities far greater than ordinary humans so
can't their pass on those abilities to their kids? I think connor
could but his offspring could only slighty tougher than a human.
Slayers are a question because the slayer with child was Robin
but I think she was called after he was born. If they are girls
a good possibly but boys who knows.
Replies:
[> Re: Wouldn't slayers or connor pass some of their enhancements
to their offspring? -- LeeAnn, 08:47:50 08/22/04 Sun
I think of Slayertude as an endowment not a heritage, an augmentation
not a genetic trait. Like if you got splashed with toxic waste
that made you into a superhero, the changes would be acquired,
not part of your DNA. A lot of girls apparently have the potential
of becoming Slayers but if they are never Chosen they never become
Slayers because, although the potential to be a Slayer might be
genetic, the actual powers are not. You have to get a dose of
the old demon smoke to turn you into a Slayer, not because you
were born a Slayer. So the offspring of a Slayer wouldn't have
superpowers unless some of the Demon whatever got into the baby
before birth. Even then the DNA of both the Slayer and baby would
be unaffected.
I think.
[> [> Re: Wouldn't slayers or connor pass some of their
enhancements to their offspring? -- David, 12:05:31 08/23/04
Mon
I agree with LeeAnn since the powers aren't genetic but i do think
kids of slayers would get some fast reflexes and maybe speed since
don't potential slayers have that?.
Connor would pass on his strength to his kids because his power
comes from his DNA since Angel and Darla are his parents so they
would probably have really good hearing, sight, strength, reflexes,
etc.
If Connor and a slayer had a kid, they'd probably have most of
Connors strength as well as potential slayer aglity since that's
in DNA.
They's probably make super soldiers.
I could imangine their kids in school, they'd probably be fast
runners, super strong and could hear what people said about them!!
Angel the Series Ranking
Game -- s'kat, 20:21:01 08/21/04 Sat
Hey, want to play a game? This little game was on the ATPO
board this winter and traveled across livejournal briefly. I did
it in my livejournal recently and someone asked me to bring it
over to one of their boards, decided if I'd bring it there, I
should bring it back here as well.
The way this version works is you compare episodes as they
appeared in the season. ie. City of (1st episode S1), Judgement
(1st episode S2), Heartthrob (1st episode S3), Deep Down (1st
episode S4), Conviction (1st episode S5). Explain which one episode
worked the best. Criteria: for the seasonal arc, flim, direction,
writing, acting, overall. And yes, it will most likely be subjective.
My Best Choices in bold. Oh decided to forgo the worst selection,
which was also done. Long enough as it is. Besides we get enough
negativity as it is in this world.
1. City Of
Judgement
Heartthrob
Deep Down
Conviction
Deep Down does a masterful job of setting up the arc
of the season and the journey of the lead and other characters
through a sort of dreamscape. Angel's dreams show us how he feels
about everyone, his hopes/fears about his relationship with them
and how he views what happened. The loss of family is a major
theme as is the idea of the world turning upside down yet remaining
erect. The Existentialist view that we have no control and the
struggle against that concept. A dark gritty episode, that includes
a man holding a woman prisoner in his closet with nothing more
than a bucket - it never lost track of the metaphors, it blended
them, and it proved Angel was *not* a kids show. When people
call it one. I laugh and want to show them Deep Down. One
of the riskiest episodes the show ever did. And one of the best.
With all it's twists and turns. Also one of the first episodes
that compares Angel's world with an MC ESCHER landscape. Angel
even mentions Escher in a statement to his son, a perfect coupling
of visual with dialogue.
2. Lonely Heart
Are You Now or Have You Ever Been
That Old Gange of Mine
Ground State
Just Rewards
The online favorite is Are You Now, which never impressed
me as much as it did everyone else, possible because it reminds
me of one too many Twilight Zone and Star Trek episodes
I've seen? Not sure. At any rate I think Ground State did
a better job of moving the season forward in some respects. It
explained where Cordelia was, shed light on Angel's view of Buffy
and Cordelia's fates and his own hopes (you get the feeling he
envied both their deaths or up-lifting to the higher place), through
Gwen, it demonstrated Angel's desperate desire to connect and
fear of doing so without destroying those around him - a theme
that resurfaces later in the season. Gwen also was an interesting,
well-drawn character, whom we got the past of, rare in the show.
The mythos of Dinzia who informs Angel he has more to lose - is
a nice echo of the Oracles from earlier seasons. We also have
the visuals, the underground world of Dinzia, the high world of
Cordy, and the ground in between with Gwen, who is connected by
both with the electricity she gets through earth and sky.
3. In The Dark
First Impressions
That Vision Thing
The House Always Wins
Unleashed.
Of all the options, that Vision Thing is the only one
that clearly moves everyone forward. The metaphor perfectly hits
the emotional connection. In this episode, Cordelia's relationship
with the Visions is examined more closely, are they always good,
can she be manipulated through them, can others? It's a nice twist
on the idea of prophecy and predestination. We also have the Cordy/Lilah
dynamic set up far more closely - where Cordy has the visions
and it is her dark alter-ego who sends them to her via a shaman,
in order to pull a misogynistic man out of hell (we don't learn
all this until Billy of course, but it is hinted at here and in
some respects this episode is better than Billy, because of the
sublety.). The irony of the situation, emphasizes the desire to
have a comfortable plan, only to realize that it wasn't what you
thought. In Season 3, the writers are constantly pulling the rug
out from under their characters. The moment their characters start
getting comfortable, start planning - wham. Hey, Cordy, maybe
your visions don't help the world after all? That Vision Thing
started the arc, demonstrating in a way that Cordelia's heroism
didn't come from having the visions, but how she coped with them,
which was stoically and hanging in there, it also showed how that
could back-fire on her. An episode that makes you think.
4. I Fall to Pieces
Untouched
Carpe Noctum
Slouching Toward Bethlehem
Hellbound
I pick Hellbound, because of the interaction between
Angel/Fred and Spike. How Angel deals with the situation and deals
with Fred forshadows what he does later with the Circle of The
Black Thorn and Illyria almost perfectly. His comment to Fred
- that not everyone can be saved - echoes his realization in Hole
in the World, when he realizes he can't save Fred. Fred's desire
to save Spike, because it's worth the attempt, is echoed by Spike
in Hole. This episode more than the others foreshadows what lies
ahead. It also does a brilliant job of developing the relationships
between Spike/Fred and Spike/Angel. Plus the closure of Angel
locking away Parvayne is a lovely echo of his son's actions towards
him.
5. Room with a Vu
Dear Boy
Fredless
Supersymmetry
Life of The Party
Hard one to pick, because Supersymmetry in some ways
so perfectly sets up the Fred/Gunn/Wes triangle in S4, but it's
a triangle that falls a bit flat and doesn't quite play out as
well as what was set up in the flashback sequence of Dear Boy,
where Darla nudges Angelus towards Dru, and gets off on how he
tortures her and outdoes Darla in nastiness - an action Darla
and Angel pay for beautifully centuries later when WR&H bring
Drusilla back to vamp Darla, who'd become human and ensouled.
Dear Boy also does a brilliant job of setting up Angel's
dark arc in S2, which got cut short when Christian Kane and Julie
Benze suddenly became unavailable. In it, Darla reminds Angel
that he is no better than she. That in a way they are soulmates,
remembering actions equally ugly. She also points out to him that
Angelus is him, that just because he has a soul now, does not
mean that part isn't there. Supersymmetry came close to giving
us the same complexity with Fred and Gunn but not quite. Also
the visual of Darla in the sunlight and Angel in the darkness
as they discuss morality.
6. Sense and Sensibility
Guise Will Be Guise
Billy
Spin The Bottle
Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinquo
While I enjoyed Billy and Spin, Tale does
a better job of being both stand-a-lone and perfect metaphor for
Angel's journey that season. Through Numero Cincquo we see Angel's
desires, fears, and his depression crystalized. The replays of
Cinguo's triumphes, how he is made a fool of, is echoed later
in Girl in Question - where we realize that it may depend on point
of view. That taking oneself too seriously and making the past
too important, causes one to lose track of the present. The other
characters are also all equally handled and melded in. The finale
of Tale echoes and foreshadows Not Fade Away, where Numero
Cincquuo dies alongside his five brothers in a fight against an
unstoppable demon who steals hearts, a demon who even when killed,
will only surface again several years in the future, but by fighting
him and even dying to do so, they save people today. The metaphor
being - living is tough, but we can either go out fighting, doing
the best we can, or lurk in the background, a hermit, unknown,
lost mail guy.
7. The Bachelor Party
Darla
Offspring
Apocalpyspe Nowish
Lineage
OF the five, Darla does the best job of moving forward
story, and developing character. Darla is the twin to Fool
for Love. Both tell the tale of Angelus' closest comrades
of the Fanged Four, Spike and Darla - his mother/lover, brother/son.
In each, we see the tale not from the lead's perspective = Angel
and Buffy, but from the dark supporting character/nemesis who
is also an unreliable narrator. What Darla says to Angel and what
is told don't quite fit any more than what Spike says to Buffy
and what is told don't quite fit. Her story tells us the other
side of vampire lore, the part Angel doesn't say. It also does
a wonderful job of telling us what informed this character and
why Angel is taken with her - her anger at men and children, leading
later to her redemption through both. If you haven't seen Darla,
I'm not sure you can understand the series. It is in some respects
one of it's corner stones. Telling us as much about Angel and
his relationship with Connor and women in general as it does Darla.
In that way it is very much like Fool for Love another corner
stone episode that is essential to understanding the series as
a whole. Also the filming of this baby - we have the Boxer Rebellion
and the perfect imagery of Angel stealing the child to save him
and Darla trying to get him to eat him instead, a motif that is
interesting considering Darla later kills herself to save a child,
and Spike - who in the same flashback at the same time is shown
killing a slayer, later shows remorse for it in Damage and steals
a child to save it just as Angel does here. Those later images
have more power if you see this episode.
8. I Will Remember You
The Shroud of Rahmon
Quickening
Habeas Corpses
Destiney
As much as I loved Habeas, Destiney is a better
choice. Destiney does for Angel and Spike, what Dear
Boy did for Darla and Angel. It clarifies their relationship.
It also does a lovely twist on the Fisher King mythos, in effect,
making fun of it. Showing how the journey is far more important
that the reward. Something Angel finally figures out by the end
of the season. Spike also acts as a nice surrogate son here, in
some ways voicing Angel's issues with Connor from Home, as well
as Angel's issues with Angelus. An episode that appears on the
surface to be about a fight or which vamp is better, when in reality
it is about a relationship between two men who know each other
too well. A relationship I've seen explored more closely in Nip/Tuck.
9. Hero
The Trial
Lullaby
Long Day's Journey
Harm's Way
Of the five, Lullaby is the best. It brings the Darla
arc to its end and beyond. It also introduces Angel's son. But
most of all, it does an excellent job of exploring the central
themes of the series, redemption, family, rebirth, and choice.
Darla who fears giving birth, because once she does she'll lose
the ability to love unconditionally and may destroy that which
she loves, ends up killing herself to do so.
It's an incredibly ironic episode - we have Holtz who chases Darla
and Angel, who ages ago killed his baby son, we have Darla who
struggles with the idea of having a child - and Angel who has
always struggled with his father's approval and now is suddenly
faced with having a son. Lullaby is the turning point in the series
and in all the characters journeys.
After Lullaby no one is the same. Possibly the best episode of
the series. Three perfect images - Darla and Angel on the roof
in the rain, Darla kicking everyone out of the car in the alley,
and of course the last when Darla stakes herself and Angel is
left holding his child staring at Holtz.
10. Parting Gifts
Reunion
Dad
Awakenings
Soul Purpose
This one is hard. I personally enjoyed Reunion the most.
It was certainly the darkest and took Angel in the most interesting
direction. But I think Awakenings, which I didn't really
enjoy that much, may have been better critically speaking, since
it describes perfectly what Angel wanted most and why that is
in effect Angel's greatest flaw. Angel's perfect day demonstrates
in a nutshell how he's misread all the players of this piece and
overlooked a couple of important ones. It's a fascinating episode
in retrospect and shows us so much of the lead character's psychology
and flaws. And it sticks so closely to Angel's pov that the audience
is almost as pleasantly shocked as Angelus when they discover
it's a hoax. It is also a nice parody of the Indiana Jones films.
No flaws here.
11. Somnabulist
Redefinition
Birthday
Soulless
Damage
I preferred Damage, but I think Soulless may
be the better episode. The reason is that Soulless focuses again
on the relationships between the characters - we get Fred/Gunn/Connor/Wes/Lorne/Cordy/Angel's
relationships all neatly shown - in a twisty seven character play.
Here Angel finally lets each character know how much he does see,
and how much he ignores. The id unleashed as it were. Imagine
being in a room with your dearest friends, locked in a cage, and
your conscience removed. Damage - spent far too much time on psycho
slayer and not enough on the characters and moving forward. Also
again with the perfect visuals - Angel in the box. The others
outside it. We also have all the literary/film allusions - The
Teddy Bear Picnic,
Hannibal, Oedipus, etc. TCH on apto did a running analysis of
each one when it first aired.
12. Expecting
Blood Money
Provider
Calvery
You're Welcome
I may be the only person online who didn't love You're Welcome.
It was okay. But I didn't feel it told me anything new or interesting
about these characters. Nor did it really propell the story forward
much. Calvery does. In Calvery - Lilah comes back and the
Cordy/Lilah relationship is flipped. Here Lilah becomes Gal Friday
and Cordy the betraying femme fatale, who literally stabs Lilah.
The role switchage is marvelous and mouth dropping. We also have
Angelus pretending to be Angel, and demonstrating as Angel did
ages ago in the BTVS episode Enemies, how close the two really
are. The Jekyll and Hyde or dualism in the episode is kept throughout.
Plus Wes - who saves Lilah, brings her to his sanctuary, only
to have his friend Cordy kill her.
13. She
Happy Anniversary
Waiting in The Wings
Salvage
Why We Fight
While Waiting in The Wings does a nice job of poking fun at
the fans and audience, Salvage does a better job of propelling
forward plot and character. Two scenes make Salvage memorable:
Wes talking to Lilah's imaginary ghost in the basement as he contemplates
chopping off the head of her corspe, and when he confronts Faith
in prison. The idea of saving someone who can't be saved, even
if that person is yourself is a theme that follows Wes throughout
the series, almost as closely as Angel. In some respects in Wes's
case it's far more trageic.
14. I've Got You Under My Skin
The Thin Dead Line
Couplet
Release
Smile Time
Two words: Angel Puppet. This episode may in my humble opinion
be the second best if not the best episode of the series. Outside
of the Wes/Fred romance which got a little smulchy at times, it
is a lovely satire on television business and fans. It also expands
on and plays with the idea of Angel as a puppet to the PTB, WRH
and anyone else. Three scenes stick in the memory, Spike and Puppet
Angel fight, Puppet Angel/Nina in the jail cell showing perfectly
how Angel's attention is always on the wrong thing at the wrong
time, and the creepy scene of the three puppets manhandling David
Fury. Smile Time, Destiney, and Tale of Cinquo may be the three
episodes that perfectly describe what Season 5 was all about and
why I enjoyed it as much as I did.
15. The Prodigal
Reprise
Loyalty
Orpheus
A Hole in The World
Hands down the best has to be Reprise. I loved the others,
but Reprise is another episode that perfectly flips things. In
it Angel is told he's in hell. That there is no point. The world
is meaningless. And he falls into bed with Darla, in a scene that
is brutal and comes very close to sexual assault. Dark, gritty.
Reprise is the opposite of the BTVS episode Surprise in every
way and that's the point. It also is the turning point in Angel's
relationship with his friends and it results in Connor. Another
corner stone episode.
16. The Ring
Epiphany
Sleep Tight
Players
Shells
As wonderful as Epiphany and Shells are, everything changed
in Sleep Tight. Sleep Tight is when Wes' arc truly took off. He
was never the same, nor was his relationship with Angel and the
others the same, after that episode. Sleep Tight flipped the series
over on it's head. It took it in a darker, grittier, less comfortable
direction and questioned many of the precepts. After Sleep Tight,
Angel the Series took a few risks most series don't. Like it or
hate it, it was a corner stone and it propelled everyone forward
and commented on all the themes in a new way.
17. Eternity
Disharmony
Forgiving
Inside/Out
Underneath
Hard one. But picking Underneath over Forgiving and Inside/Out.
Underneath made me think. It asked questions without providing
simple answers. Took the characters places that weren't quite
expected. The Lindsey/Gunn switcheroo. The idea of selling out
for the dream. Also the visuals - the perfect subarb cul-a-sac
that circles in on itself, the circle door of flame, the tunnel,
the three men in the car and the three people in the house. The
cycle of the day, wake up, paper, help kid, go get oven light,
get tortured. Another episode that perfectly captured the themes
of the season and the series as a whole.
18. Five by Five
Dead End
Double or Nothing
Shiny Happy People
Origin
Of the episodes mentioned, Five By Five did the best job of
furthering characters arcs, using a character who'd been missing
in action, was horrible, had done horrible things, and showing
how those things did not define her. If Connor's arc in Origin
had come close to what was done with Faith in Five by Five and
Sanctuary, I might have liked it more. It also once again, gave
us yet another side of Wes.
19. Sanctuary
Belonging
The Price
The Magic Bullet
TimeBomb
I chose Magic Bullet for three scenes: the scene in the shop
about the consipiracy where Fred shoots Angel, the scene with
Fred running from Gunn/Wes (her former lovers) with the Beach
Boys playing in the background, and the scene at the end when
Connor betrays them. We also again have literary allusions - to
Alice in Wonderland. Quirky. Twisty. And Surprising.
20. War Zone
Over The Rainbow
A New World
Sacrifice
The Girl in Question
Okay this was hard. I loved A New World. But I adore
Girl In Question. Girl in Question hammered home a point
about the characters, the series, the writers, and the people
watching it: move on. If you run in place, you'll miss the world.
You'll miss the small things, the necessities - and you will lose
your head. It discussed how what we want forever eludes us when
we focus on it. That it may in fact not be what it appears to
be. How perspective can lie. All these wonderful themes. Plus
three beautiful scenes that echo in my memory: Spike and Angel's
debate on who saved the world the most, Angel echoing Buffy's
cookie dough speech to a bewildered Spike, and finally Spike and
Angel sitting on Angel's desk discussing moving on. Three moments
I'd waited a long time to see. Oh - then we had the wonderful
Fred/Illyria/Wes scenes, where Wes struggles with Illyria's ability
to play Fred, so well, one wonders if it is an illusion.
21. Blind Date
Through The Looking Glass
Benediction
Peace-Out
Power Play
Winner is Peace-Out, simply because of four scenes: Connor
explaining his actions to Wes/Gunn/Fred about Jasmine - in it
we see Connor for who and what he is and how he became that way,
Connor and Cordelia in the church - where Connor tells us how
he is not like his father, Angel and Jasmine in the streets after
he has exposed her - Connor's killing of Jasmine, and Lilah showing
up just as Jasmine leaves is the perfect twist. This episode showed
just what price we pay for free will. And what price we pay for
being shiny happy people. Of the episodes above it does the best
job of wrapping up these themes, propelling characters into new
situations, and closing old arcs.
22. To Shanshu in LA
There's No Place Like Plzt Glirb
Tomorrow
Home
Not Fade Away
While I love Not Fade Away, I prefer Home. Home felt more multi-faceted,
more layered somehow. And made me think more. The idea of selling
out. The idea of making bargains. Of twists of fate. Of where
fate leads and how much we can control it. Thinking you can. Edgy
episode. Tragic. And a wonderful book end to Deep Down. Home and
Deep Down may in my opinion be the best openers and closers of
the series. Visually both get across character and propell forward
the story being told.
Whew - took a long time. Sorry for typos. Didn't edit much.
Just typed free-hand into the posting box. Like I usually do for
most of my entries. Silly I know but that's me. Also ran out of
steam in the analysis towards the end.
sk
Replies:
[> I'll play (Episodes 1 - 5) -- Finn Mac Cool, 00:30:54
08/22/04 Sun
However, my way of judging it will probably be a little bit different,
as you seem to distinguish between being the most entertaining
and being the best through depth or moving the characters along.
Personally, I feel all things done on a TV show (excluding works
of non-fiction) should be to entertain, and depth/character-development
are merely one way to accomplish that. So even if an episode was
shallow and accomplished nothing (although few if any ME episodes
are like that) I might still rank it above a deep episode were
the characters made many changes if the former was funny, moving,
and lots of fun while the latter was dull and plodding.
All right, disclaimer out of the way, here goes:
1. City Of
Judgement
Heartthrob
Deep Down
Conviction
This one wasn't a particularly difficult choice as, in my opinion,
Angel has never had particularly great seasonal openers.
"City Of" was just really weighted down by having to
give a lot of exposition, establish the status quo, and give an
example of the type of story Angel would deal with. As
such, at times, it feels kind of rushed. Also, the whole "LA
is so depressing/people can be so cruel" theme is out in
full force, an aspect of Angel I've always hated. It's
just repeated way too much and done so unsubtly that it comes
off as rather pretentious. "Judgement" and "Heartthrob"
are both decent episodes with interesting plot ideas, but their
execution seemed a little hackneyed (plus "Judgement",
not so oddly, given it's title, judged Angel a little too harshly
for my tastes, since all he did was make an honest mistake). "Deep
Down", however, is a fairly good episode. There are several
surprises, lots of dark moodiness, and a somewhat spooky atmosphere.
Something that brought it down in my estimation compared to others,
though, is that Angel kicking out Connor didn't seem like such
a big deal. After how Angel and the rest of AI seperated in Season
2, or how Wesley was excluded from the group in Season 3, another
person being kicked out after doing something wrong and violating
the others' trust seemed like a pretty obvious route to take.
No, "Conviction" gets my vote. While "Home"
set up the basic premises of Season 5, it was "Conviction"
that created the new status quo almost effortlessly. The plot
doesn't really impact the characters too much, but it gives each
of them a chance to shine and do their own thing. Not only that,
it was funny; it took people who had spent so long surrounded
by gloom, paranoia, and dysfunctional relationships, put them
in a morally ambiguous position with the fate of millions of people
at satke, and it was still funny! That earns "Conviction"
the gold star.
2. Lonely Hearts
Have You Now Or Have You Ever Been
That Vision Thing
Ground State
Just Rewards
Right off the bat, I can cross "Lonely Hearts" and AYNOHYEB
off the list. "Lonely Hearts" was OK, but you could
tell Angel was still finding its footing; the Monster Of
The Week was somewhat interesting, but not very, and the scenes
in the club were more often painfully awkward rather than humorously
awkward (I can appreciate humiliation humor to a certain extent,
but scenes where someone keeps talking their way deeper and deeper
into the hole has often motivated me to mute the television).
However, I too loved the Angel Investigations card (and Cordelia
was right, it doesn't look like a lobster; it looks more like
a crawdad of some kind). AYNOHYEB, while it had a lot of good
ideas, just seemed to be forcing the paranoia and suspicion a
little too much (that's actually a sense I've gotten off of many
Tim Minear episodes: it feels like he's simply trying too hard).
"That Vision Thing" I would have to put one even footing
with "Just Rewards". "That Vision Thing" was
a disturbing episode that presented Cordelia with a crisis of
faith that was only a little over the top (but still a little),
and the lengths Angel went to to protect her nicely forshadowed
future plot developments. Plus it makes a nice change from Season
2, where morally grey Angel was often treated as though he were
just a smidge or two better than evil Angel (it reminds me of
Batman fans who say that, if Batman were ever to take a life in
trying to protect someone, it would make him no better than his
villains, which seems grossly unfair considering that Batman's
rouges kill dozens of people often for little more than the fun
of it). Meanwhile, in Season 3, everyone recognizes Angel has
a dilemma and they support him in his difficult decision, which
I much prefer. However, I'm not sure why, but by this point "That
Vision Thing" seemed to be just a little too by the numbers.
It was done well, but still seemed to just be a recycling plots
used in previous episodes over again. "Just Rewards"
is humorous in many places with incorporeal Spike getting the
only jollies he can out of taunting Angel, and the conflicts with
the necromancer had a lot of dark humor that I enjoyed (guy getting
killed with spoon or brought back in wave of buckets is really
sort of a more violent form of slapstick, which I happen to find
very appealing (of course, that might be a sign of latent psychotic
tendencies, but who can tell?)). The revelation about Spike and
Hell near the end was both unexpected and moving, and set up a
Spike/Fred relationship that, while it didn't really go anywhere,
did make Spike's actions in "A Hole in the World" more
interesting than they would have been otherwise. But "Ground
State" recieves the high honors this time. The beginning
of the episode at first seemed to be a little too obviously setting
up a new character, but the development of Gwen Rayden was very
well handled, which is not easy to do when the audience seems
entirely focused on where's Cordelia and pretty much everything
Wesley does (I was personally never too interested in on-his-own
Wesley, so the brevity of his appearance was also a plus). The
heist was handled quite well, loved the comparison between Angel's
drawings and Fred's, and what Angel offers to the infiltration
plan ("I'm really strong"). This wasn't a very competitive
spot, I'll grant, but "Ground State" was still pretty
darn good and emerges the winner.
3. In The Dark
First Impressions
That Old Gang of Mine
The House Always Wins
Unleashed.
"The House Always Wins", no question. "In the Dark",
while it had good, old-fashioned, evil Spike, would have benefitted
from a little more conflict between the two and maybe some more
use of the Gem of Amarra. Angel being tortured didn't quite give
me the sympathy or shivers of squeamishness I expected (probably
because it got hyped so much in episode reviews) and I gladly
would have traded it for Spike and Angel fighting each other a
little more, both verbally and physically (I know writers have
commented that it's difficult to put these two together and still
keep both alive, but a little more action would still have been
nice). "First Impressions" was merely an average episode.
It wasn't bad, but the plot just seemed a little too simple and
really lacking in depth, impact on the characters, or even an
impetus for really cool action. "That Old Gang of Mine"
was fairly good, but with a few sour notes thrown in. The message
was good and the plot had some interesting elements, however the
whole "demons can be good guys too" concept never really
worked too well for me because, if demons are no different from
humans in their motivations towards good and evil, then not killing
evil humans except in self-defense but killing evil demons on
the spot makes Angel a tad bigoted as well, doesn't it? Now, I
really liked "Unleashed". Similar to "Ground State",
it managed to craft a somewhat deep and interesting new character
in the space of a single episode, only I personally found Nina
to be more interesting than Gwen, particularly because, unlike
many characters in later seasons of Angel, she had no idea
that the supernatural existed until it began chasing her through
the woods (and I will admit that the nakedness factor was also
a plus). The Bistro of the Bizarre was an odd yet amusing threat,
and the scene with all our leads hanging out together at the end
was a really nice touch. However, I've still got to place "The
House Always Wins" in the number one spot. It never pretended
to be anything other than a fun romp through Vegas, and that made
it a real breath of fresh air among the almost stifling broodiness.
Fred and Gunn were cute as a young couple on vacation, Angel was
funny both as a mindless zombie and as he recalled his previous
trips to Vegas, and Lorne got to be Lorne. The escape from the
casino was great fun, as was almost every line out of the mouths
of Lorne and Angel (loved his comment about the Blue Man Group).
Now, a steady diet of episodes like "The House Always Wins"
would probably be bad for the digestion, but it can be really
nice to get a gem of simple fun like this once and a while.
4. I Fall to Pieces
Untouched
Carpe Noctum
Slouching Toward Bethlehem
Hellbound
Once again, the winner is clear: "Hellbound" by a mile.
"I Fall To Pieces" was still in the very early stages
of the show, and I don't think the writers had quite gotten a
proper hold on how to handle the people Angel saved each week.
Was it supposed to center around Angel with Melissa as a guest
star, or is Melissa the focus and Angel just someone who ends
up coming into her life? I don't think the writers were quite
sure which way to go, and I think that affected the pacing. The
rip apart doctor was creepy, although maybe a little too strange
for a serious threat (oh, and did Angel's conversation with the
other doctor remind anyone of Neo and Morpheus from The Matrix?)
"Untouched" I just didn't care for simply because I
didn't care for Bethany. I just never quite got a handle on what
she felt and why she felt it, which makes makes the whole episode
none too interesting. Both "Carpe Noctum" and "Slouching
Towards Bethelhem" had their good points and their bad points.
"Carpe Noctum" was pretty good whenever it went for
the funny bone, but wasn't much of a success when it tried to
be semi-serious (body swapping can often be funny even without
trying to be, especially when it's Angel bodyswapped with a lecherous
old man). "Slouching Towards Bethelhem" at first wasn't
my cup of tea since I'm not fond of amnesia stories (I make exception
for "Tabula Rasa" since everyone losing their memories
totally changes the dynamic). It does improve once we start getting
the Connor/Cordelia interaction and Lilah's machinations come
into place, but it still doesn't move this ep beyond the pretty
good category. Then we come to "Hellbound". While I
think the warning before the episode was really just there to
draw people in, it was an incredibly creepy episode. At first
I thought they were going through the "tortured by souls
of past victims" route, but Spike's slow descent into Hell
was filled with such terrifying imagery and utter dread that I
have to love it. In many ways it's a ghost story told from the
ghost's point of view. One of the scariest episodes of either
Buffy or Angel, and the ending was a triple treat:
Spike reclaiming some level of power, stopping Pavayne even though
it left him trapped as a ghost, and the imprisonment Angel created
for Pavayne, which truly must be Hell. A great episode all around.
5. Room with a Vu
Dear Boy
Fredless
Supersymmetry
Life of The Party
I really didn't want to pick this one. I detest the dark Angel
arc of Season 2 and have always found Darla to be far too over
the top for my tastes. However, through relatively weak episodes
presented by the other seasons and the fact that this is probably
tht best of the Angel/Darla episodes in Season 2, I had to choose
it. "Room With A View" is an alright episode, with a
few funny Cordelia moments (loved the cockroach scene) and even
a few genuinely creepy ones. However, the plot seemed a little
bare, as though they could have fit a lot more into this episode
if they had tried. It's not truly bad, just average. I'm getting
the sense that I'm not a Fred fan as I disliked both "Fredless"
and "Supersymmetry". With "Fredless", I thought
Fred's parents were nice, but I thought the way all the characters
mooned over them was a bit too much (of course, coming from a
fairly stable home, I guess I can't really but myself in the shoes
of most of AI when it comes to parents). "Supersymmetry",
beyond the confusion involved with Seidel intentionally sending
Fred to Pylea, just seemed out of character on the part of Fred
and Wesley. Fred's outright panic and shift to cold-blooded, murderous
intent seemed a bit jarring a out of place. Then there was Wesley,
who non-chalantly supplied Fred with the materials to kill Seidel,
seeming to have no problems with helping her commit an act that
goes against all the characters' moral codes. Maybe killing Seidel
would eventually have to have been done, but I think cutting off
limbs, tougne, and maybe paralyzing him a little could have been
tried. Oddly enough, if Angel had done that, he probably would
have recieved a lot more flack then Fred and Gunn got for actually
killing the guy.
So we're down to two: "Life of the Party" (which was
a fun Lorne episode in the style of "The House Always Wins")
and "Dear Boy". While "Life of the Party"
was good in many places (the way each character's destiny was
altered was hilarious, especially when they interacted with each
other). However, Hulk!Lorne was a tad too cheesy, and Sebassis
was only funny 50% of the time, while the rest of the time he
was just weird. It was still a close race with "Dear Boy",
though, but the underdog Darla/Angel episode pulled through. I've
never been too fond of flashbacks to the old days of Darla and
Angelus, since Angelus is best when we see him in relation to
a sympathetic figure (such as Buffy or the Fang Gang), when told
through his point of view you lose the point of his sadistic nature.
And I've said it before: evil Darla is just too over-the-top evil
for my tastes. Either tone her down or add some more layers, but
enough with the femme fatale stuff already, we get it! Now, Kate's
interaction with AI, as well as Angel with the human Darla is
quite good, particularly the monastery scene. This is one of the
few scenes (and, indeed, one of the few episodes) where I really
see a good portion of Angelus in Angel. His obsession with Darla
comes through quite clearly, and David Boreanaz portrays the darker
impulses still within Angel well. If we had gotten more of this
in Season 2 rather than despairing or emotionally unreadable Angel,
I would probably have liked it far more. Still, at least there's
"Dear Boy".
And here's where I quit for the night. This post is already probably
way too long, it's so late that it's technically early, and I
need to get up early tomorrow. So, I'll have to get back to the
rest of the episodes some other time (it took me two hours to
get these five, so finsihing it all might take a while).
P.S. Shadowkat, you have "That Old Gang of Mine" listed
as a second episode and "That Vision Thing" as third,
when it should be the other way around (not sure how that will
change your rankings if at all).
[> [> Uhm Finn... -- s'kat, 06:25:39 08/22/04
Sun
According to The OFFICIAL BUFFY YEARBOOK -2002, and my
tapes: "THAT OLD GANG OF MINE" comes before "THAT
VISION
THING" in Season 3.
[> [> [> Well, than either the Buffy or Masq's site
have the order wrong -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:42:09 08/22/04
Sun
Cause her episode analysis page has "That Vision Thing"
listed before "That Old Gang of Mine" (I only managed
to see Season 3 through reruns, so I have no first hand knowledge
of what order they aired in).
[> [> [> That Vision Thing is definitely #2, Old Gang
of Mind #3 -- Masq, 08:47:48 08/22/04 Sun
I was there, I remember.
[> [> [> [> Re: That Vision Thing is definitely
#2, Old Gang of Mind #3 -- s'kat, 17:17:34 08/22/04 Sun
Well, TNT is showing them out of order and so is the OFFical Buffy
Guide...which is interesting.
[> [> [> [> [> On the DVD set, though, it's
in the right order: That Vision Thing, then That Old Gang of Mine.
-- Rob, 08:26:30 08/23/04 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> They were switched after production
-- hebrokeaway, 09:39:28 08/23/04 Mon
"That Vision Thing" is 3ADH03, and "That Old Gang
of Mine" is 3ADHO2. They were switched sometime after filming
was completed, though I don't remember why. There is nothing in
the episodes that say one had to come before another, so it works.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: They were switched
after production -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 10:51:47 08/23/04
Mon
Right you are, hebrokeaway.
They reason they were switched is that the WB wanted a more Angel-centric
second episode because this was the season that the show aired
behind 'Seventh Heaven' and the WB were doing what they felt would
be best to keep new viewers. Tim Minear mentioned this in an interview
a few years ago.
By the way, this is fun if little weird (this rating method seems
quite arbitrary) kinda thread.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually... -- Masq,
11:17:18 08/23/04 Mon
Actually, I think Fred's development makes more sense with That
Vision Thing first and This Old Gang of Mine second. In Vision
Thing, the gang is all impressed Fred joined them downstairs after
being locked in her room all summer. In TOGOM, Fred actually ventures
out of the Hyperion at Cordy's urging. Small steps.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually...
-- Mr. Bananagrabber, 11:44:46 08/23/04 Mon
This is really funny that you mentioned this.
I was going to say pretty much the exact same thing in my last
post but I had to go quickly. Fred's development is more logical
with these episodes in the original air order rather than the
'technical' production order. It isn't a matter of just a last
minute scene addition either as the Fred storyline is intregal
to TOGOM. Don't know quite how to explain that one.
I've heard of shows shooting episodes out of order because of
guest-star issuses & such (although I can't think of any examples
right now) but I don't see why that would be necessary here. Maybe
the decesion to switch the air order of the episodes was made
during the writing phase but then why the production order issue?
Ah, the banal mysteries of television production.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually...
-- hebrokeaway, 14:41:59 08/23/04 Mon
Nothing directly contradicts itself, but the arcs are a bit weird.
But then, if I were in the scene at Caritas I'd go back to hiding
under a table as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the explanation..
-- s'kat, 16:37:36 08/23/04 Mon
Makes sense. It's not the first time they've done this with a
Whedon or Minear show. Firefly switched Serenity with Train Job.
On DVD Serenity airs first as it should have, but
on air it aired last. While on Wonderfalls, Minear requested the
network put an episode he wrote and directed as the 13th episode,
third. Fans got upset, but Minear reassurred them it was his idea.
Then on Cartoon Network, Justice League Unlimited has the third
episode coming fifth and the fourth third. So apparently this
is the deal with tv shows.
[> interresting reading -- lakrids, 07:51:02 08/22/04
Sun
[> 'kat, you beat me to it! Again. (How do you write so
fast?!) -- cjl (best & worst picks pending), 08:57:05 08/22/04
Sun
[> S'kat: week 3 needs revision -- Dlgood, 11:09:31
08/22/04 Sun
As noted above, you have S3.2 and S3.3 transposed. I'd suggest
you re-vise the rankings as you have "That Vision Thing"
winning the week it didn't run.
[> [> Still not convinced, but here's the revision
-- s'kat, 17:32:05 08/22/04 Sun
The question is who to trust? Memory of fans? (With all due respect
to Finn and Masq, memory is a tricky thing. And hey I can't remember
three years ago - hence the reason I used another resource a magazine
where they listed each episode in the order of it's appearance),
a magazine, the TNT/UPN repeats order? Shrugs.
Doesn't really matter that much at any rate. Just changes
my choice on Episode #3 slightly.
Episode 2 remains Ground State for me. (Finn covers the reasons
pretty well and I agree with him). While That Vision Thing is
a good episode, it doesn't propell the story forward, doesn't
really hit some of the themes of the arc quite as effectively
as Ground State does. I liked the depiction of Angel in That Vision
Thing far better than Finn did, but that's a subjective thing.
But I still think Ground State gives us more insight into Angel's
character and those around him.
Episode 3 would be The House Always Wins for the reasons
Finn states as well. Added to that? House advances the story and
it plays with one of the essential themes of the series - Destiney,
can it be taken away from you? Do we have one? What is fate? And
can others or should others interfer with our choices regarding
it and what are the consequences if they do? This episode sets
the stage for what happens later with Cordelia and also nicely
foreshadows a later episode "Destiney" and "Soul
Purpose".
[> [> [> Re: Still not convinced, but here's the revision
-- Masq, 19:55:57 08/22/04 Sun
It's not memory, s'kat. I put my episode analysis on that page
back when the episodes aired. That order's been there for four
years.
But yeah! for the ranking game. I did it back in January when
season 5 wasn't even half over and haven't gotten back to it yet.
[> [> [> [> Yes, bowing to the explanation above
;-) -- s'kat, 16:33:55 08/23/04 Mon
[> Re: Angel the Series Ranking Game #20 -- dlgood,
11:22:43 08/22/04 Sun
The Girl in Question
If it had been done well, I might have agreed. As it aired, I
couldn't. For a few reasons:
Girl in Question hammered home a point about the characters,
the series, the writers, and the people watching it: move on.
And that's #1, the hammering. I get it. I got it. Had it a long
time ago. Until this episode aired, I was fairly certain the show
had shown that the characters were facing that too. With some
degree of subtlety. So I looked at the main point of the episode
and said: "yeah, so? what else".
That, among many things, is what bugs me about TGiQ. It doesn't
show us anything about the characters that wasn't already known.
Plus three beautiful scenes that echo in my memory: Spike and
Angel's debate on who saved the world the most
Which would have worked better if the writing had been cleaner.
Angel's lines are written specifically to set up Spike's comeback,
and not a reflection of what the character would actually say
in the circumstance. Which makes for a pretty weak debate to watch.
Unless you're only watching for Spike's comeback, which was written
very nicely.
And the Fred/Wes/Illyria scenes would have worked far better if
there'd been some acknowledgement on Wesley's part that he faces
this particular scene largely because he ignored Fred's dying
wish to tell her parents. Which renders the reflection far more
self-involved then it's played as being.
In a sense then, perhaps TGiQ does accomplish a purpose. By holding
up so poorly to my attempts to think about it, it did force me
to stop analysing it deeply. But seeing as I find holding up to
deep analysis a strong point of an episode, that doesn't boost
TGiQ in my esteem.
Subjective humor analysis removed, TGiQ is a nice little diversion
from the storyline, but it doesn't actually move anything anywhere,
so I'd place A New World ahead of it.
[> [> feel free to disregard above - wasn't playing along
w/game -- dlgood, 12:33:30 08/22/04 Sun
[> Once more, with laziness, (Spoilers 5.22, maybe)
-- Tchaikovsky, 15:53:06 08/22/04 Sun
I've done this before, so here's a re-post, with a couple of comments
added in italics since I've seen the rest of Season Five:
1) Angel does brilliant, brilliant season openers, and I don't
want to give the impression I don't deeply value the work of Greenwalt
in 'Judgement' and 'Heartthrob', but 'Deep Down' is extraordinary.
2) 'Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?', an elegant episode well-told,
edges the very competent introduction of Gwen in 'That Vision
Thing'.
3) In a weakish week, I'm tempted to give the prize to 'In the
Dark', but I think that was a backward step for the series at
the time. So Minear takes it again, even with the sub-par 'That
Old Gang of Mine'
4)'Untouched', both one of the scariest monsters ever (Bethany's
father), and a beautiful piece of direction from Joss.
5)'Supersymmetry', a lovely tangly and ambiguous episode, just
about edges the series-shaping 'Dear Boy', and I do like 'Fredless',
the 'Family' of Angel.
6) All five episodes are marvellous: 'Guise Will Be Guise' does
a mesmeric job of setting up Wesley as a leader in Season Two;
'Sense and Sensitivity' invests Kate's character with a lot more
impetus than we could have hoped for; 'Billy' and 'Spin the Bottle'
are both episodes nestling before the start of something massive,
and the really beautiful 'The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco'
takes it for its all round perfect direction and music.
7) Significantly weaker than their Buffy counterparts, the seventh
episode decision really hangs on whether you prefer the plot-line
of Season Two, Three or Four. For me, 'Darla' edges 'Offspring'.
8)A lot of episodes that I have less fondness for than others
here: including the still-hideous (I re-watched it to see if I
was angry that day) 'I Will Remember You', and the snoreathon
of 'Habeas Corpses'. There, that sentence was incendiary. 'Destiny',
my current hope for a wonderful Season Five, sweeps out the competition.
9) 'Lullaby' is captivating, but I think 'The Trial' may be my
favourite episode ever, for the challenges that Angel faces for
Darla, and for the spine-tingling Greek tragic ending. Harm's
Way doesn't deserve a mention here, despite ita competence
10) 'Reunion' is lovely and creepy; but 'Awakening' peeks inside
Angel's soul, and deserves the gong and in a much more cohesive
and ingenious way than the vaudevillian Sole Porpoise.
11) 'Soulless', bless Seasn Astin and his little hobbit feet,
is the best hour of entertainment ever to come from one character
sitting in a cage talking to other characters.
The strengths of 'Somnambulist', 'Redefinition' and 'Birthday'
(and 'Damage') are all noted.
12) Not a good week, at all. 'Provider' is a miscalculation, while
'Expecting' and 'Blood Money' are not-that-entertaining fillers.
'Calvary' takes it. And despite the remaining controversy about
its fluffiness, 'You're Welcome' still really works for me. At
very least, it's better than these episodes.
13) It pains me not to put in all three episodes of the Season
Four Faith arc, but it would be overkill, and 'Waiting in the
Wings', despite cjl's reservations, is classic Whedon.'Why
we Fight' is maybe the second weakest episode in the season for
me personally
14) 'I've Got You Under My Skin', a genuinely excellent Season
One episode, takes on 'Release'! And wins! What's happening to
the Faith episodes?'Smile Time''s omission is not rectified
here, though to my regret
15) Good God. This choice is the hardest decision over both shows
with four absolute Titans in contention. I bet 'Calvary' is sniggering
that it won its contest, considering that here we have a battle
between: 'The Prodigal', which gave Angel real forward momentum,
and consolidated Minear's genius; 'Reprise', which did the same
in the most nihilistic way in Whedon's canon; 'Loyalty', the best
episode of Season Three, and Wesley's turning point; and 'Orpheus'
where the Angel/Angelus/Faith conversations are magnificent, and
Willow just such fun. 'Reprise' currently the best episode of
Angel ever, just takes it. Which means that there's no Faith Season
4 whatsoever. Sometimes I surprise myself. And 'A Hole in the
World' keeps up the quality, though not edging the three middle
season's episodes
16) And its partner 'Epiphany', can't quite make it a double,
losing out to the chaotic, insolent anarchy, and the final heartache,
of 'Sleep Tight'.
17) 'Forgiving' beats out two of my betes noir in 'Eternity' and
'Disharmony' and the flawed yet interesting 'Inside Out' and
the really, really good, but not great 'Underneath'
18) 'Five by Five' quite easily dismisses some weak opposition,
thereby marking Faith's return after her triple defeat in the
Season Four episodes.
19) Although I have a soft spot for the under-rated 'Belonging',
Shawn Ryan's best episode by far, no-one takes on 'Sanctuary'
and wins. Tight, marvellous plotting, good character resolutions.
20) In not the greatest week, I choose the dense and unwieldy
but fascinating 'Sacrifice'. I like 'The Girl in Question',
but 'Sacrifice' continues to rise in my estimation on re-views
21)'Benediction', Holtz' final act of treachery, is delicious,
and sets up a Season Finale that I, possibly alone, am very fond
of.
22) But not fond enough to beat out the magnificent Tim Minear,
with playful Lilah his mouthpiece, redefining the entire show
with 'Home'.
It's count-up time:
Season One: 3
Season Two: 5
Season Three: 5
Season Four: 7 6
Season Five: 2 3
Well, I am really very fond of Season Two, but the figures speak
for themselves, and Season Four, a brilliant Season, takes it.
TCH
[> [> Re: Once more, with laziness, (Spoilers 5.22, maybe)
-- Jay, 20:22:44 08/22/04 Sun
I think I'll save some of this just in case I ever do another
tournament. It's like ready made seeding.
[> Me Again (Episodes 6-8) -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:34:05
08/22/04 Sun
Once more with rankings:
6. Sense and Sensibility
Guise Will Be Guise
Billy
Spin The Bottle
Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinquo
This episode was a fairly easy choice. "Spin The Bottle",
while it had a number of good gags and might have won if there
were never a Season 6 of Buffy, but I have to give it demerits
for ripping so much off from "Tabula Rasa" (while the
use of different characters and partial memory recall helped a
little, there really did seem to be too little difference). "Sense
and Sensitivity" and "Guise Will Be Guise" are
both more or less average episodes that take a fairly silly plot
but inject a little seriousness into it. I personally don't think
the genre melding worked too well in these cases, since, rather
than having pieces of humor followed by pieces of seriousness,
they tried to have the two work silmutaneously, which made it
hard to take the serious parts seriously and even harder to laugh
at the silly parts. "The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco"
is a good episode with quite a few laughs and a good message,
albeit one which is maybe a little too obviously stated. Still,
while an enjoyable ep, my number one choice for this spot is "Billy".
Part of my ranking may be because this is the first episode of
Angel I ever saw, but I think it would still win on its
own merits. The detective parts were handled well and actually
succeeded in creating a noir mystery vibe, which Angel
really doesn't manage too often considering its premise. The destruction
Billy wreaks is very creepy, and the seriousness of it is driven
home when you see Wesley attacking Fred and the battering Lilah
suffered (although, I have the feeling that if some demon had
beat up Lilah instead, the writers probably would have chosen
to portray her as shrugging it off, possibly even making it slightly
humerous, but there probably would have been a lot of angry people
on this board if that were done in "Billy"). I didn't
have a problem with the "primal misogyny" aspect, as
everyone has the potential within them to hate pretty much anything;
Billy's spell just brought it out. For a moody atmosphere and
truly creepy villain, "Billy" wins the prize.
7. The Bachelor Party
Darla
Offspring
Apocalpyspe Nowish
Lineage
"Lineage" all the way, baby! A mixture of being a great
episode and facing some pretty weak episodes makes this episode
a shoe in for first place. "The Bachelor Party" isn't
a very interesting episode. The lack of any real opponent until
near the end, solving the problem simply by clearing up a misunderstanding,
introducing the "demons as minorities" metaphor, and
focusing on Doyle (who really only works well, in my opinion,
as someone for other characters to interact with, not as a character
in his own right) all make this episode just a real snooze too
watch. As I mentioned in my first post to this thread, I'm not
a Darla fan, so the episode bearing her name also didn't hold
much interest for me. I still maintain that evil, vampiric Darla
is too over-the-top in her femme fatale image, and scenes
between her and Angelus miss the fact that, being such an evil
son-of-a-bitch, Angelus only really works well when we see him
through the eyes of his victims; he's too focused on being evil
for him to be interesting on his own or with Darla. The flashback
involving souled Angel was fairly decent, although I would've
liked to have seen him actually killing one these criminals, just
so we could know how he felt about it at the time. "Offspring"
definitely shook things up at the Hyperion Hotel, however Cordelia
siding with Darla for much of the episode seemed a little too
extreme, and the implication that Angel forced himself on Darla
seems kind of off (Darla seems to be helping Angel along in the
process quite willingly in "Reprise"). "Apocalypse
Nowish" falls into the category of action-heavy episode to
get the main arc moving, so there's not much going on dramatically,
but the fight scene between AI and the Beast remains one of the
best of the series (although I've gotta wonder why they'd take
Lorne with them and leave Fred behind; seems like they'd stand
a better chance doing it the other way around). I also seem to
be one of the few not squicked out by Connor/Cordelia (probably
has something to do with imaging myself in Connor's place).
Still, none of these quite match up to "Lineage". I
wasn't a big fan of Dark Wesley from late Season 3 and early Season
4. While I can understand why he would be cut off and distant
given the circumstances, that doesn't necessarily make him an
interesting character to have on screen (I felt the same way about
Dark Angel in Season 2; if you're gonna cut someone off from the
group and become morally ambiguous, making them super-stoic and
hard to relate to doesn't seem like the ideal method). In "Lineage",
however, Wesley goes down a very dark route, except here he's
brimming with emotion: his desire to please his father, his uncomfortableness,
his love for Fred, and his hatred of how his father treated them.
The moment when Wesley shoots what he believes to be his father
was a very shocking moment that really showed a lot about Wesley's
character. Add in some good suspense/action scenes involving the
cyborg ninjas (which unfortunately weren't followed up on) and
you've got an all around great episode.
8. I Will Remember You
The Shroud of Rahmon
Quickening
Habeas Corpses
Destiny
The episode eight slot has produced a surprisingly large number
of good episodes. "Quickening" is probably the weakest
of the five, and even it still provides some decent entertainment
value with the endless parade of villains and Darla actually being
entertaining for once (snarky pregnant Darla is a hoot). "Habeas
Corpses", while containing little emotional impact, is a
very exciting ride coupled with several unexpected twists. The
Beast killing everyone at Wolfram & Hart and killing the white
room girl was something I never saw coming. The disturbing imagery
invoked as the characters travel through a building filled with
dead bodies (soon to become zombies) made my goosebumps rise a
few times, and the confrontations had with the Beast were great
as usual. "The Shroud of Rahmon" was an eery, thoroughly
spooky story. The shroud's varied effects were very interesting,
but I actually found the scene with Wesley at the police station
to be far more disturbing, particularly the "dent your skull"
comment (violence done by people in positions of power, particularly
when you no they can't be punished for it, have always creeped
me out).
The runner up would have to be "I Will Remember You",
an excellent Buffy/Angel episode even for someone like me who
isn't really a B/A shipper. Some may have found Angel's day with
Buffy to be sappy, but I've personally always liked seeing characters
just being happy spending time with each other. Nothing but that
would make a dull episode, and IWRY realizes that, but it's still
nice to see every now and then. The plot of hunting the demon
wasn't too interesting, but it wasn't really the point; the point
was how the star crossed lovers interact while doing it. I also
had no problem with Angel's decision to turn back time. Yes, it
affected Buffy, Doyle, and Cordelia a lot, but I can't fault him
for not discussing it since he's the one it impacts most of all,
and in the end it would ultimately be his choice to make. Still,
even this can't quite match "Destiny", a mixture of
action, comedy, and drama that's truly magnificent to behold.
The dynamic between Spike and Angel is great, as the two of them
bring out the worst in each other, and you can tell their fight
is about far more than just some cup. The fight sequence is a
long, brutal, and spectacular piece of choreography, and it made
me happy to see Spike win after seeing people online dub him a
loser and "a pushover for someone like Angel or Buffy".
The flashbacks explained a lot about the relationship between
Angel and Spike, and were a clear example of how Angelus is around
other evil beings: at first they love him because he's so great
at what he does, but end up hating him once he decides to shift
his attention in their direction. A hands down winner, and one
of the best episodes, not only of Season 5, but of all of Angel
(I still get a chuckle out of "mountain dew").
Well, I'm calling it quits for tonight. It might take weeks at
this rate, but I am determined to go through all 22 episode spots.
Hope to have more soon.
[> Re: Angel the Series Ranking Game -- Mr. Bananagrabber,
10:21:45 08/26/04 Thu
Just re-read the above and wanted to comment on how much I enjoyed
your "Underneath' write-up. This was an episode I enjoyed
very much the first time but my desire to see where the long-term
story was going stopped me from really looking at it. Now, I re-watch
it and think it's a mini-masterpiece. I take something new from
it each time (one of what I could call my masterpiece rules) and
what it says about the sacrifices we have to make for subarbian
happiness is complicated, ruthless and yet utterly humane.
Re-watching the final 9 episodes (from Smile Time to the finale)
leads me to think that it's not only the greatest run of episodes
in Angel history but can legitimately stand-up to Buffy's greatest
runs.
[> [> Re: Angel the Series Ranking Game -- s'kat,
06:59:32 08/29/04 Sun
Thank you.
Underneath fascinates me. Especially after reading an interview
a few months ago with the two writers Craft and Fain. Craft and
Fain grew up in a suburb of Kansas City, Mo.
A suburb filled with wealthy families and poorer ones, actually
it may be one of the most affluent suburbs in the US. (That does
not mean everyone was rich there, quite few middle income and
lower income, but there was quite a bit of wealth there - and
that was what everyone aspired to.) Johnson County, Kansas and
Mission Hills, Missouri.
This suburb has four car garages, the houses in the more recently
developed portions all look alike, and oh yes, the cul-de-sac's
that go around and around. Plus the ever lovable round-a-about's
which you seldom see in the US, more often in Europe, showed up
here. Their commentary on suburban life was right on target for
anyone who has ever lived in a suburb in the US or seen the newly
developed ones. The bit with the tunnel - reminded me a great
deal of NYC - you leave Manhattan to hit the more affluent suburbs
by going through the Lincoln Tunnel. It was at the same time an
interesting reflection on films that similarily commented on this
- ranging from Poltergeist to the Stepford Wives. The price we
pay for the gated community, the wife, the son, the nice house,
the perfectly mowed lawn, the BMW, - which is basically having
our hearts ripped from our chests. And we wonder why we are miserable.
It's a commentary that you see repeated in different ways in Sci-Fi.
But I thought, due to their own experience and background, they
did a nice job of nailing some of the main points, as well as
expanding on who these characters are at the same time.
Classic Movie of the Week
- August 22nd 2004 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. IV
-- OnM, 19:22:02 08/22/04 Sun
*******
One of these days I'm going to get it together
Gonna buy a watch gonna get it together
Stop wasting time
One of these days I'm gonna get out of bed
I'm gonna turn off the TV
Gonna raise the dead
One of these days when I fall in love
It won't fall apart like it always does
One of these days I'll forget about you
Take out the trash that's what I'll do
One of these days and it'll be real soon
I'm gonna kick some ass
Gonna clean my room
Sometime soon
One of these days I'm gonna touch the sky
Like that awful song
"I Believe I Can Fly"
I believe I can fly
One of these days you'll be so sorry
Sorry that you let it slip away
One of these days I just won't care
If you're sorry anyway
One of these days I'm gonna get it together
Gonna be on time
I'm gonna get it together
Stop wasting time
One of these days I'll accept the fact
I'm not getting any younger
And I can't go back
Can't go back
One of these days when I fall in love
It won't fall apart like it always does
One of these days I'll forget about you
Take out the trash that's what I'll do
One of these days I'm gonna
stop saying one of these days...
............ Jill Sobule
*******
I can't touch you now / I'm paralyzed
I'm like a child / With the saddest eyes
You won't talk to me / You're over me
You won't take me back / I need you back
You're so alive / It makes me numb
I could survive / But I don't want to
You're the ruby / And I'm the lead
Feeling heavy / Am I dead ?
But last night, I had a dream
I saved your life / I proved my love
I took the bullet / I killed a shark
I kissed your hand / I thawed your heart
I thawed your heart
You're not around / I'm lost
Seems all I do anymore / Is hit the sauce
And at the end / Of another glass
Is a drop of gin / And I'm sinking
But last night... I had a dream
I saved your life / I proved my love
I took the bullet / I killed a shark
I kicked some ass / I won your heart
I won your heart
But last night... I healed your wounds
I thawed your heart
I thawed your heart
And you melted in my arms
You melted in my arms
............ Phil Roy / Nicholas Cage
*******
Have you ever wondered if somehow your soul got switched at birth
with somebody else? That if only you hadn t been saddled with
the unfortunate circumstance of the wrong brain or body, that
you could have been a contender ?
Yeah, I thought so.
I suspect this is a mostly age-related delusion, but it reared
its annoying head again this last Wednesday when I got out to
see the newly released film Collateral, starring Tom Cruise
and Jamie Foxx. This is a really excellent flick, by the
way, and I heartily recommend that you get out to see it while
it s still in theaters. Being involved in the audio/video trade
as I am, I keep hearing regular reports that after a while, no
one will go out to the movies, because they can just watch them
at home on the big screen . Maybe over the very long, long term
this scenario could evolve, but I really have my doubts-- very
few people have the room or the budget to devote to a fairly genuine
home theater , one that at least approximates the experience of
a real theater. A film like Collateral (and for that matter
a great many others) should be viewed at least one time on the
real big screen with decent sound, the way the filmmakers
intended.
Anyway, back to the brain-body-soul dilemma. What set me to thinking
about the increasing disconnection between what one planned
to do with one s life when in the throes of youth and the reality
that gradually emerges as the decades pass slowly/quickly by was
a comment by Cruise s character about midway throught the flick.
In the film, Foxx s character has been driving cab for 18 years,
with the eventual goal of getting out of it and starting up his
own limousine service, one with a unique and marketable twist
that he feels sure will make it into a profitable enterprise.
And the plan is indeed very reasonable, but until Cruise brings
up the fact that 18 years is a long time to spend waiting to make
the reality manifest, Foxx doesn t realize the degree that he
s been in denial. How long is long enough to make a dream happen?
Boy, I wish I knew. It would certainly make my life easier if
there was a clear, unmoving goal in sight. When I was just getting
out of high school back in 1971, I had no definite goal in mind
as to what I wanted to be as an adult, but I wasn t very worried
because I knew for a fact that most of my fellow graduates didn
t have a clue either.
Oh, many of them had plans for the immediate future-- work a summer
job, go to college in the fall, study medicine or art or journalism
or business. Living as I do in the midst of a heavily agricultural
area, I knew that there were those for whom high school was as
far as it would go; they d be back on the farm tomorrow and possibly
always-- after all, people always need food, don t they? But whatever
they stated publicly for the benefit of parents or professors,
if you were in a position to hear what they really thought as
those first years post-Sunnydale unfolded, you realized that their
journey was just beginning and that the roadway through life possessed
lots of opportunites for detours and perhaps not so many rest
stops as originally envisioned. Exhilarating? Sometimes. Scary?
That too.
But you go on, because there s some kind of dream somewhere, no
matter how loosely or firmly you might be attached to it at any
given time. I figured I was way ahead of the game because I deliberately
kept my dream very on a long leash, and let it wander around enough
to preserve its illusion of freedom. I had no grand desire to
become rich and/or powerful, and that was a big help. I just wanted
to be able to enjoy my various hobbies, buy a very modest little
castle to be king of, and work just hard enough to be able to
retire at 50, before the disabilities and disillusionment started
to creep in.
It was a reasonable plan, and it should have worked. I kept all
my expenses to a bare minimum, bought a cheap house far smaller
than I needed, but figuring I could pay it off quickly and then
save for a better one a decade or so down the line. You know,
right about now. I could repair things, which is a portable skill
, and after all, broken things will always need to be fixed, and
people will pay to fix them. All was well with the world.
Then the world went and changed on me. Oh, I expected it to, I
m no fool after all. (Feel free to start a new thread if you d
like to debate this assertion.) Polital regimes and social mores
mutate, sometimes surprisingly quickly, and a wise worker/dreamer
adjusts the working dream accordingly. What blindsided me, in
retrospect, is that I didn t ever anticipate-- even in my remotest,
darkest, most Reaganesque moments-- that the virulent secular
anti-humanism of the 60 s would resurrect itself, minus the balancing
counter-revolutionary hope for a better future. (Not to mention
the stunningly perverse mutation of being a theologically-driven
anti-humanism this time arround. Yeeesh!)
But if it happens, it must be possible, and now here I am, little-ol
midlife me. People throw things away rather than fix them now
because it s cheaper. I have arthritis, chronic gastric reflux
disease, and an underactive thyroid gland. Oh, and optiorectumosis.
And I have to deal.
Worst of all, I m still working.
No, I take that back. Worst of all is that at minimum I m 15 years
from retirement, and should I even live so long, by the time I
make 65 they ll have moved the retirement age up to 70 in order
to fix the problems with social security. Here I was, laying the
most safe and conservative of lifstyle plans in order to avoid
the pitfalls that I saw so many others of my age bracket stumble
into, and it still wasn t enough. If only I had developed into
a vicious, opportunistic schmuck who didn t care about the wants
or needs of others in my life (like the evil pol in this week
s film frolic), then things could be different. I wouldn t sit
in a darkened theater and feel the resonance that contract-killer
Cruise sets to vibrating when he points out what a self-imposed
loser the humble cabbie of the tale has become.
What can I do? Well, there is only one thing-- while others pass
the Lord and praise the ammunition, I m gonna switch off my brain,
go back to the movies and get me a happy soul for a few blessed
hours in ever-after-land. After all, it worked during the last
great depression, and my parents made it though that desolate
time more-or-less in one peace.
~ ~ ~
Aykroyd: Where do these stairs go?
Murray: They go up.
............ classic line of dialog from Ghostbusters,
1984
~ ~ ~
Veteran film director Ivan Reitman has been at the helm of a number
of often lightweight, but eminently enjoyable films over the past
several decades. Some of his efforts have been misses, but the
good stuff has been very good indeed, and this week s Classic
Movie, Dave, is one of his best works.
The Dave of the title is one Dave Kovic, owner of a tiny temp
agency where he works diligently to get jobs for people who are
in desperate need of them. Dave is one of those lucky few who
takes both great pride and pleasure in his work, work that isn
t just a job to make ends meet but a kind of secular grail in
itself. The temp agency job doesn t bring in a lot of income for
Dave-- after all, just how much money can you get from someone
who is currently unemployed, and may have been for some time?
So as a part-time supplement, Dave uses his coincidental physical
resemblance to the current U.S. president, a fellow named William
'Bill' Mitchell, to generate some extra income by acting for-hire
as a celebrity lookalike . Life is going along all day-to-day-ish
just as it typically does, until one late afternoon when Dave
gets an unexpected visit from the secret service.
What Dave doesn t know is that the real president is a womanizing
sort who regularly cheats on his wife, Ellen (Sigourney Weaver).
During the most recent tryst, the president suffers a severe stroke
that leaves him close to death with no hope of recovery. Taking
advantage of this random circumstance, the machinations of Bob
Alexander (Frank Langella), the president s Secretary of State,
shift into a higher gear. Bob has long harbored big plans to put
himself in charge of the country, aided somewhat reluctantly by
Bill s press secretary Alan Reed (Kevin Dunn), and the imminent
death of his boss puts him on a fast track to power.
Langella really chews the scenery in his role as the power-mad
highest-office appropriator, and in a serious, conventionally
dramatic production his acting chops could be easily classed as
over-the-top, but in a more easy-going film such as this one,
he s just perfect. The press secretary role is written and played
in a nicely ambiguous fashion, with Dunn showing us that Alan
Reed is primarily someone who has gotten caught up in the spin
business for so long that he s forgotten what the baseline of
ethical behavior actually is, and is thus easily steered into
behavior he would otherwise disdain.
Interestingly, we get to see very little of the president himself.
Early in the film, he gives a routine speech at a routine fundraising
dinner and then quickly sneaks off to his rendezvous with his
latest honey. This is when we are informed that the technique
of using body doubles has been going on for some time-- the double
covers not just in cases of actual potential danger, but for prosaic
convenience. Some of them are apparently not very realistic copies,
and when the secret service guys locate Dave Kovic, they are stunned
at the degree of resemblence.
A cover story is quickly fabricated to allow the necessary time
to get Dave into position to stand-in for Bill Harrison for a
more extended time, and the deception works-- while the real president
is confined to a room in the basement of somewhere, hooked to
ventilators and other life-support equipment, Dave is publically
flaunted, shown to be recovering easily from a minor stroke, and
fully ready to remain in command of the country s affairs. Naturally,
Bob Alexander is running the show, and directing it in a manner
that will eventually lead to him discrediting the current vice-president
(who, legally, should be the one in charge right now) and assuming
the role of chief exec.
The vice president, a decent and honorable man, is at first kept
out of the country during the initial portion of the deception,
and then just prior to returning is accused of criminal misdeeds
in an effort to get him removed from office, paving the way for
Alexander s personal coup. Another veteran actor, Ben Kingsley,
underplays the character of the vice president, offering a nice
counterpoint to the deliberate stylistic exaggerations of Langella.
Yes, these are kind of anvils , but they actually work in the
overall context, and every actor in this movie manages to walk
the fine line between going far enough without shattering the
suspension of disbelief.
Speaking of disbelief, Dave is increasingly concerned that things
aren t being played out the way they should be. While he bought
into the original concept that the chaotic events surrounding
the real president s abrupt infirmity called for the drastic measures
of his impersonation, Dave knows full well that something isn
t kosher. The difficulty lies in that Dave actually is a patriot,
and wants to do the right thing, but he s caught up in the machine,
so to speak, and realizes that revealing the truth of the impersonation
would bring about as many or more problems as it would solve.
The means to solve the dilemma gradually emerge as Dave groks
that the devious Bob has ensnared himself in the same position.
Namely, if the truth were to surface, Bob would go down with the
ship also. As such, Dave gets to pull a Checkpoint -like maneuver
where he assertively steps out of the puppet role and beings to
wield genuine presidential power, much to the rage of Bob, who
is galled by the fact that he put Dave in this position in the
first place.
Surrounding this major plot arc is the inevitable sub-plot involving
Bill Harrison s estranged wife, the First Lady. Ellen, who is
fully aware of her husband s sexual peccadillos, avoids even talking
to him anymore, aside from those public instances where the good
of the country necessitates doing so. Dave looks so much like
Bill that even she is fooled at first, but as the story progresses,
she notices that Bill s behavior is very different than before,
and becomes increasingly suspicious. Bob and Alan have been promulgating
the idea that the president s new-found vigor and desire to serve
his country with greater passion came about as a result of the
stroke, that having nipped a little to close to the reaper, he
has re-invented himself and all that. Ellen is highly skeptical,
but the evidence is increasingly convincing.
Like nearly all films of this genre, we know all too well what
is going to happen long before it actually does. Director Reitman
understands this, and makes no attempt to diverge from the accepted
formula, because the formula is just the base of the structure,
not the structure itself. That we see the end coming a mile away
doesn t really matter, because the end is far less important than
the means for getting there-- it s all about the journey.
Is Dave a contender in terms of political satire? To some
extent, yes, but the satire is extremely soft-edged. You can readily
draw inferences that the various characters represent certain
real-world persons, but Reitman blurs the lines sufficiently so
that as soon as you think for sure that he s talking about a given
anyone, you realize that there are other elements that don t quite
fit.
The overriding philosophical viewpoint appears to be that there
are numerous persons out there in legislature-land who are decent
types trapped by circumstances, and at times those circumstances
shift, opportunities arising when they do. The filmmaker s only
real target for genuine derision is the lethal combination of
abject cynicism and hunger for power, which is limited to the
characters of Bill Harrison and Bob Alexander. Almost everyone
else in the film could be aptly described as being well-meaning
, so Reitman seems to be implying that there really only are a
few bad apples in the bunch, and that if we could just provide
a decent come-uppance for these miserable blighters, things would
get better.
That last idea, of course, is patently ridiculous, but this film
is a guilty pleasure, and I m not remotely pretending otherwise.
The halls of realpolitick are filled with types like Harrison
and Alexander, and they aren t chewing the scenery, they re strip-mining
it and making us pay the bill. They aren t going away any time
soon, and there isn t going to be a Dave Kovic stepping in to
clean up their act. But one can dream, and more importantly one
should, and with any luck the dream can be a happy one.
And I ll vote for that.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically not running for anything:
Dave is available on DVD, the review copy was on laserdisc.
The film was released in 1993 and the run time is 1 hour and 40
minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which
was preserved on the laserdisc edition and presumably also on
the DVD. No info is available re: any DVD special features.
Screenwriting credits go to Gary Ross. The film was produced by
Ivan Reitman, Sherry Fadely, Michael C. Gross, Joe Medjuck, Lauren
Shuler Donner and Gordon A. Webb. Cinematography was by Adam Greenberg,
with film editing by Sheldon Kahn. Production design was by J.
Michael Riva, with art direction by David F. Klassen and set decoration
by Michael Taylor. Costume design was by Richard Hornung and Ann
Roth. Original music was by James Newton Howard. The original
theatrical sound mix was in Dolby SR.
Cast Overview:
Kevin Kline .... Dave Kovic / President William Bill Mitchell
Sigourney Weaver .... Ellen Mitchell
Ving Rhames .... Duane Stevenson
Ben Kingsley .... Gary Nance
Charles Grodin .... Murray Blum
Faith Prince .... Alice
Laura Linney .... Randi
Bonnie Hunt .... White House Tour Guide
Parley Baer .... Senate Majority Leader
Stefan Gierasch .... House Majority Leader
Anna Deavere Smith .... Mrs. Travis
Charles Hallahan .... Policeman
Tom Dugan .... Jerry
*******
Miscellaneous Department:
Candidate #1: As much as I would love to claim it as
one of my own classic quips, the Pass the Lord and praise the
ammunition bit is pure Firesign Theater. I bow down all humbly
in tribute to their most excellent satiric wordplay, as should
we all.
Candidate #2: Some upcoming DVD releases deserving of special
attention include:
Michael Tolkin's haunting, brilliant and very disturbing film
The Rapture, starring Mimi Rogers and and a very young
David Duchovny is scheduled for debut on 11/02/2004. Gus Van Sant's
Even Cowgirls Get the Blues starring Tarantino muse Uma
Thurman will be out on the same date.
Two Criterion Collection titles have been delayed slightly from
their original 08/24/2004 street-dates: David Cronenberg's Videodrome
should appear on August 31st, while Richard Linklater's Slacker
is in recline for three more weeks, to be up and around on September
14th.
If you rent, buy or order no other disc this week, be sure to
get yourself a copy of Steven Spielberg's classic TV movie thriller
Duel, which made its DVD debut last week after several
delays. Better and scarier than Jaws by far.
Candidate #3: Some selected other Ivan Reitman films:
Evolution (2001)
Six Days Seven Nights (1998)
Fathers' Day (1997)
Junior (1994)
Kindergarten Cop (1990)
Ghostbusters II (1989)
Twins (1988)
Legal Eagles (1986)
Ghost Busters (1984)
Stripes (1981)
Meatballs (1979)
Candidate #4: Read some more about Phil Roy at: http://www.acousticlive.com/feb.3.htm
And some more about Jill Sobule at: http://www.acousticlive.com/apr.4.feat.htm
*******
Question of the Week:
Multiple choice this time around, gentle readers. Being that I
m so easy to get along with, you may even choose more than one
answer.
Q: Do you go to the movies (or play them at home on video) primarily
to:
1) relax
2) get a thrill kind of rush
3) gain a safe emotional outlet
4) distance yourself from reality temporarily
5) use them as the fulcrum for a social gathering
6) see a favorite actor/actress (or director, etc.)
7) entertain the kids
8) get away from the kids
9) other (elaborate as you wish)
And so we re in the final stretch of the annual GP/BT trip. (Sorry,
Olympics playing in the background. Do they have stretches in
like, diving or beach volleyball?) Hope you ve been having fun
for the past four weeks, and as is my custom, next week I ll be
finishing out the month by recommending a sci-fi/fantasy/horror
genre of film, and for sure one in the GP category.
Until then, post em if you ve got em, and I ll see you
next week.
Take care!
*******
Replies:
[> Wow, On, that *Ghostbusters* is one classic movie, that's
for sure! -- Evil Clone, 19:31:40 08/22/04 Sun
( If you can't beat 'em, be sneaky. )
[> Ghostbusters ROX!! -- dub ;o), 21:51:46 08/22/04
Sun
And in response to the QotW, a combination of 2 and 4, I think,
although 4 doesn't always happen.
There's another option, though, and I'd say sometimes I go to
the movies to have something to think about, not necessarily distancing
from reality. Some good films present (or even introduce) concepts
that I may not have previously considered, and I love it when
that happens.
;o) dub
[> 9) other (elaborate as you wish) -- d'Herblay, 22:29:09
08/22/04 Sun
I've looked at your list of possibilities, and none of them seem
to strike a chord with me. I think this is because when I go to
see a movie, my primary intent is to see a movie.
[> #2 for me -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:45:53 08/22/04
Sun
I like to see movies because they have the power to invoke strong
emotions. Dramas can make me feel sad or glad for the characters
in them, comedies can make me laugh out loud, suspense/horror
movies can give me a nice jolt of fear, and action movies make
me go "woah!" (that plus, sometimes, I get pleasant
tingling sensation across my skin during action scenes, usually
when the hero comes to the rescue; I'm not quite sure how to explain
it, but it feels good).
Of course, technically I think I should also include #9, since
for the past year I've been writing movie reviews for the local
paper, so it has technically been my job to see them (although
I've enjoyed doing it very much).
[> [> Hey! I remember that! -- OnM, 06:14:01 08/23/04
Mon
You told me last year that the local paper review bit was a possible
upcoming gig-- glad to see it worked out. Does the paper have
an online version, and are your reviews available? Inquiring minds
want to know!
:-)
[> [> [> Re: Hey! I remember that! -- Finn Mac
Cool, 07:41:44 08/23/04 Mon
They're archived at www.postbulletin.com, unfortunately you have
to subsribe to it in order to view anything, so it's not really
worth the trouble. At any rate, since I'm heading off to college
this fall, that gig's pretty much over. I'm sending my last review
in this week.
[> I'm #9, too... -- Rob, 23:33:34 08/22/04 Sun
...which for me is: "To analyze,"... or over-analyze,
as the case may be. Although I can enjoy a fluffy film every now
and then, I really enjoy the ones I can sink my teeth into, find
meaning in, and perhaps even compose an essay on or discuss with
my friends later. Even when I go see, for example, a thriller,
I prefer a more intelligent one, such as The Bourne Supremacy.
A lot of my friends think I'm crazy for that, but I like it better
when my brain can get a bit of a work-out rather than just sitting
their passively in the theatre. If the plot itself does not have
a great deal of depth, I at least ask that there be something
interesting to mull over, such as the direction or editing. (Bourne
was a great example of a movie with perhaps not a plot with a
great deal of depth, but one with involving characters and very
interesting direction.) Not that I'm a snob in the least. My favorite
film of the summer was Spider-Man 2. I absolutely adored
the film, from top to bottom, and spent more hours dissecting
and analyzing it, both in posts and in my own brain than most
people would probably do for more "important" or "serious"
films.
Rob
[> I generally don't go to the movies, but I do have a pick
worth watching... -- Rufus, 23:55:49 08/22/04 Sun
The Magnificent Seven...it has a commentary track, making of documentary,
and the movie itself. Firefly brought me back to Westerns and
I just happened to be in a store with this movie in a sale bin,
I couldn't resist.
[> [> Hey, me too! -- CW, 07:42:31 08/23/04 Mon
I'd just bought the movie that The Magnificient Seven was
based on, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai and thought, gee, I'd
like see to the American version again. Then a week later, there
it was in the bargain bin. Glad I wasn't the only one to get a
good deal on it!
I guess I pick 1) on the quiz. I think of movies as fun not something
to get too concerned about.
[> [> [> Re: Hey, me too! -- Rufus, 22:51:39
08/23/04 Mon
There was supposed to be a collectors booklet with the DVD, but
mine was empty of anything other than the disc itself...I don't
know if I missed anything.
[> [> [> [> Re: Hey, me too! -- CW, 07:44:59
08/24/04 Tue
Just checked the cover of mine. Looks like we're both proud owners
of invisible collector's booklets. Oh, well, It's not like I would
have paid more if I thought it was in there. ;o)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 22nd 2004 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. IV -- Ann, 06:39:07 08/23/04
Mon
I loved Dave when it came out. Kline and Weaver are brilliant
together. I loved Ice Storm also, it shook me to the core. My
friend cried for 20 minutes following it as apparently her childhood
was just like theirs.
Reasons:
1) relax sometimes. My second viewing of HP-POA turned out to
be for just this reason
2) get a thrill kind of rush Speed began as a # 6 (like a car
accident you can t look away) and then became this reason
3) gain a safe emotional outlet not particularly, that is what
poetry is sometimes for
4) distance yourself from reality temporarily not usually
5) use them as the fulcrum for a social gathering mostly just
a date with my husband, I would rather go to dinner or where ever
to actually talk with other friends, not that I don t talk with
my husband lol
6) see a favorite actor/actress (or director, etc.) most often.
7) entertain the kids yes although so many times, those same movies
don t accomplish the same effect for adults (this summer broke
that rule with HP POA and Spiderman2)
8) get away from the kids see #5
9) other (elaborate as you wish) My reason for movie viewing is
mostly just to see the movie. Nevertheless, like all things, other
reasons can make themselves heard depending on mood and movie.
[> Seeing the original Jaws in the theater -- manwitch,
06:02:14 08/24/04 Tue
" If you rent, buy or order no other disc this week, be
sure to get yourself a copy of Steven Spielberg's classic TV movie
thriller Duel, which made its DVD debut last week after several
delays. Better and scarier than Jaws by far."
High praise indeed. I agree people would enjoy this movie. But,
a few words for Jaws, if I may.
I'm sure some people on this board remember the days when movie
theaters were gargantic. Like big. And you would be in a theater
with like over a thousand other people if the pic sold out.
Well, Jaws sold out like gangbusters. My mom was an English lit
teacher at the time, and she used Jaws in one of her classes,
so we were psyched to go see the movie when it came out. We tried
to see it at the Golf Mill theater outside of Chicago, cuz, well,
we lived near there. Four times we tried. The lines for this picutre
were like nothing we had seen before. Not even Poseidon Adventure
had lines like this. You had to get to the theater to cue up two
hours at least before show time if you wanted to get in. There
were lines literally going around a city block, stretching into
the distance. There was no online ticket purchase back then. If
you went to the 6 o'clock show and got to the theater at 5 oclock,
you were told it was already sold out. And these are HUGE theaters
compared with piss ant TV screening rooms of today.
This went on for what seemed like months. Towards the end of summer
we finally got in. The theater had employees in the aisle who
would keep track of where the empty seats were, so as you were
huddled into the theater they would shout "One seat down
here in row 4." When my family went there weren't five seats
together anywhere in the theater. I was ten, I think at the time,
and I had to sit by myself, albeit with thousands of strangers,
in row 4. And the screens were just really really big. It wasn't
like sitting in row 4 today, which you have to do now just so
you can see the tiny images. No, back then, row 4 put your face
right in it.
Jaws was just a friggin brilliant, hilarious, powerful, gripping,
and terrifying movie. It has what has got to be one of the greatest
film scores ever done. And I'm not just talking about the title
theme. The slow development of its story, and its lead characters
is more sophisticated and deeper than anything Spielberg had done
before, i.e. Duel. Plus, its just way way way more terrifying.
To see Ben Gardiner's head come out of that boat in a theater
of a thousand terrified people is an experience worth having.
People would clutch onto people they didn't know for protection
and comfort. It was frickin wild. I can't really even think of
anything to compare to that experience. Maybe Silence of the Lambs.
Maybe the original Alien. But the alterations in the venue itself
kinda diminish the slow build of collective terror that was the
experience of seeing Jaws.
After Duel, there wasn't an explosion of magazines or documentaries
or tv programs or books about psycotic truck drivers and what
happens if you pass them. After Jaws there was an explosion of
interest in sharks. The reason was because the thought of being
eaten alive by one of those things is largely more horrifying
than the thought of passing a truck on the highway. Plus, Jaws
inspired a number of horrible sequels that make one forget just
how good the original was.
Jaws is a great movie. Duel is an interesting look at the origins
of Steven Spielberg. I grant its gripping and a lot of fun. But
it certainly lacks the depth of Jaws. It lacks the characters.
It lacks the music, which is a huge part of what made Jaws terrifying
and successful. And I just don't think it does or ever will touch
people in that deep primordial way that the fear of being eaten
does.
Jaws is the largest single factor in why I studied music and composition
in school and why I majored in composition at IU and Film Scoring
at Berklee. That should not mean anything to anyone, but it does
to me. If you had been sitting in row 4 at age ten, that movie
would be seared into you memory.
So I just felt the need to defend this treasure. I know no one
was knocking it. They were praising something else and using Jaws
as the standard. Forgive my neuroses. Jaws just holds a very special
place for me. Its one of the great films of all time. After all
of Spielberg's masterpieces, to me it still ranks as one of his
best (if not the best) pieces of story-telling. Its only flaw
is the special effects available at the time. But the story-telling
is flawless, even as it deviates from the book.
I'll give him the Color Purple and Close Encounters, but I'd take
Jaws over ET, Schindler, Private Ryan, Amistad, Jurrasic Park,
Empire, even Raiders, although I find that absolutely charming.
I'd even take Jaws over 1941.
That was a joke.
Don't get me completely wrong. Duel is worth seeing. It'll get
your gut in a knot to be sure. Its a very suspenseful thriller.
But personally I would set your expectations a little lower. "Better
and scarier than Jaws by far" I think is overstating the
case. It'll seem new, cuz not everybody's seen it a hundred thousand
times.
So, I don't mean to knock Duel</>, and I'm glad its out
on DVD and glad people are singing its praises. Movies are largely
a matter of personal preference, and if people prefer Duel, they
should go right on doing so.
That door has been closed to me since I was ten. See what happens
when you take little kids to those movies?
Jaws is a really well crafted film.
[> [> Sorry about the missing token. -- manwitch,
06:03:27 08/24/04 Tue
[> [> [> Re: Sorry about the missing token. --
manwitch, 06:08:32 08/24/04 Tue
So do I just need to put in an end token in another post? Is that
what cures it?
[> [> [> [> You can fix the broken tag, post again,
and... -- OnM, 18:38:01 08/24/04 Tue
...get d'herb or Masq to delete the original. Unfortunately that's
about the only way, since there's no after-posting edit privileges
here on Voy.
[> [> Re: Seeing the original Jaws in the theater
-- OnM, 19:13:27 08/24/04 Tue
*** Jaws just holds a very special place for me. Its one of the
great films of all time. After all of Spielberg's masterpieces,
to me it still ranks as one of his best (if not the best) pieces
of story-telling. Its only flaw is the special effects available
at the time. But the story-telling is flawless, even as it deviates
from the book. ***
One of the things that always makes me happy is when an artist
who started out pretty much at the top of his/her game while still
very young, continues to make challenging and interesting films
(or music, or whatever) throughout their lifetime. Paul Simon
was someone who did that with his music, and I would have to say
that the older Simon is even better than the younger one.
The same is true with Spielberg, I believe. His two most recent
films, Catch Me if You Can and The Terminal were incredibly great,
perhaps his best work yet. Even AI: Artificial Intelligence merits
serious attention despite the oft-lamented un-Kubrickian 'happy
ending', because too many critics have focussed on the last 20
minutes and in doing so forget just how perfectly Spielberg channeled
Kubrick for the first 2 hours. The sad truth is (IMHO, of course)
that Kubrick seemed to lose much of his gift in the latter years
of his career, and AI was actually realized better than he could
have done it.
Your point about seeing Jaws in a 'real' theater is well taken,
and I am now intrigued into wondering how Duel would look on a
big screen, which after all, it was never made for. I'll have
to try it out on the big theater rig at work and see, I guess!
What scares people isn't much different than what arouses people
sexually-- that is, it can be almost anything, and it's very individualistic.
Being on the roadways with crazy people a large part of the time
could easily terrify you more than sharks, if you aren't the type
to ever go swimming in the ocean, wouldn't you say?
I was going to finish up the post by making a comparison relative
to the endings of each film, but I decided to erase it for fear
of spoiling anyone who hasn't seen Duel yet, as I suspect that
there may be quite a few who haven't. The comment related to the
appearance of the evil trucker relative to what we see of the
shark in Jaws, which is one of the ways that makes Jaws just a
wee bit more 'conventional', but just a bit-- you'll get no argument
from me that it is a masterful film overall.
[> [> [> Re: Seeing the original Jaws in the theater
(A.I. spoilers) -- Rob, 19:44:41 08/24/04 Tue
Even AI: Artificial Intelligence merits serious attention despite
the oft-lamented un-Kubrickian 'happy ending', because too many
critics have focussed on the last 20 minutes and in doing so forget
just how perfectly Spielberg channeled Kubrick for the first 2
hours. The sad truth is (IMHO, of course) that Kubrick seemed
to lose much of his gift in the latter years of his career, and
AI was actually realized better than he could have done it.
Agreed...And I also have to say that I liked the ending, if only
because after all the misery and hardship and torture that poor
little guy had to go through during the first two hours of the
film, I think he (and the audience, by extension) deserved even
just a short time of happiness, as a reprieve from the overwhelming
sadness of the first 3/4 of the film. And of course, the fact
that after his perfect day, he dies, does keep it from being too
happy. ;-)
And on a another note, the film was meant to be an update of Pinocchio,
so the robot's evolution into "real boy" did have to
happen for the film's journey to be come full circle and be complete.
Had he been left forever at the bottom of the ocean, it would
be as if a story were cut off in mid-sentence. JMHO.
Rob
[> [> Am I the only person in the world -- Caroline,
05:20:57 08/25/04 Wed
who didn't go to film school who thinks that Stephen Spielberg
is one of the most manipulative directors in cinema history? I
can't stand to watch his films because the emotional button-pushing
is so sledgehammer-ish that it leaves me numb and sometimes so
annoyed I want to throw my popcorn (no butter) at the screen.
I can't bring myself into the experience when I'm being so blatantly
manipulated. My repulsion is so complete that even the possibility
of reassurance that he has changed his ways would not get me to
go to see a film he has made.
[> [> [> Re: Am I the only person in the world
-- OnM, 07:17:21 08/25/04 Wed
*** My repulsion is so complete that even the possibility of reassurance
that he has changed his ways would not get me to go to see a film
he has made. ***
I doubt very much that you are the only person who feels this
way, and Spielberg isn't by any means the only director accused
of this characteristic (Mr. 'Titanic' ego, for example).
You feel what you feel, and that's the way it is. [butface]Buuutt...
I would respectfully suggest that you see Catch Me if You Can
and let us know what you think.[/butface]
Seriously, this is exactly the reason that I don't give
the film's title away when I do these reviews until I have a chance
to get readers involved in the sort of flow of things. If I put
"Duel - Steven Spielberg" right up on the post heading,
persons like yourself would be likely to go "Eww, Spielberg!
He's so damn manipulative!" and think "OK, gonna pass
on the Classic Movie this week."
I try to take every film on its own merits, and every actor, every
director, and so forth. Remember, even a blind squirrel finds
some nuts.
;-)
[> [> [> Re: Am I the only person in the world
-- Rob, 09:42:28 08/25/04 Wed
I can't bring myself into the experience when I'm being so blatantly
manipulated. My repulsion is so complete that even the possibility
of reassurance that he has changed his ways would not get me to
go to see a film he has made.
I have the exact opposite reaction to Spielberg. I am always in
awe of how much of a complete genius as a filmmaker he is, because
he knows exactly how to manipulate audience emotions: the perfect
lighting, the perfect musical cue coming in at the perfect moment,
the perfect angle, all of which combine to put the audience in
emotional overload. I personally would classify any director of
any film as manipulative--the act of drawing someone into and
being emotionally affected by a fictional story requires manipulation--the
difference with Spielberg being that he is much better at it than
most people.
Rob
[> [> [> No, I feel that way too -- manwitch,
09:47:56 08/25/04 Wed
But it depends on the manipulation for me. I mean, every film
maker is manipulating us to a degree, right? Duel and Jaws are
basically suspense/thriller movies. Obviously he's attempting
to manipulate you into being scared, disturbed, whatever. But
they are extremely effective and they don't cheese out at the
end.
I hated ET The Extra Terrestrial and His Adventures on Earth when
I first saw it. My opinion hasn't really changed. The ending of
that movie defies the conventions the movie had already established
solely for the purposes of tugging on our heartstrings. Sorry,
but I'll rent Meet Me in St. Louis if that's what I'm after. Oh
Yay, ET's alive! Oh Yay, ET can fly! Too bad he didn't think of
that at the start of the movie instead of futzin about on his
stumpy legs trying to get back to his ship. Woulda saved us all
a couple of hours.
Not that ET doesn't have good film making in it, but to do that
kind of crap at the end is crassly manipulative.
And for me, that's the thing about Spielberg. All of his movies,
every one, has exceptional film making in it. But they frequently
reach a point, usually near the end, where I become indignant.
Even Private Ryan I have to take a deep breath and grind my teeth
at the end.
He has a handful of films, my opinion obviously, that aren't manipulative,
at least not in an objectionable way, and that aren't hitting
you over the head with what you're supposed to think about it.
They are Jaws, Close Encounters, Empire Strikes Back, Raiders
of the Lost Ark, and The Color Purple. Just good stories, well
told. And oddly enough, five of the most memorable and successful
film scores in history (four by John Williams and one by Quincy
Jones).
I'll throw Duel in there too even though its not a feature. Its
a very clean story, and the only thing it manipulates is your
heart rate.
Do you have the same Spielberg reaction to those movies? Or are
you talking ET, Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, and Schindler?
I haven't seen the most recent ones, from AI to the present.
[> [> [> It is a fine line -- Ann, 10:44:30 08/25/04
Wed
I never thought about Spielberg s direction much, just enjoying
the ride, until Shindler's List. I felt very manipulated by that
movie. I think he was trying too hard to represent events that
need very little direction. They speak for themselves. His attempt,
especially with the little girl in the red coat, was the colorization
of horror. I understand his need to make it individual and personal,
but it made it seem contrived and manipulative.
Apparently, because there are a number of people who believe said
events never happened, [boggles] he wanted to make it appear personal.
6 million people is a huge number to grasp. Somehow, his attempt
just cheapened the loss. I don t think the movie succeeded for
me. The upside is he gave his profits away and is using them for
documenting the verbal histories of those that lived through that
horrible time. And the story should be told. Repeatedly.
I guess I also have that feeling about his other historical movies
like A Colour Purple and Private Ryan. He takes on these events,
and there is no way that the commercialization of Hollywood can't
cast an obscene glow on events that are even more obscene.
In college, I took a Jewish Literature class, a Rabbi teaching.
There were two people college age, and the rest were retired Jewish
people who lived (literally) through the Holocaust. What they
spoke of was much more meaningful than that entire movie. That
comparison is why I wasn t impressed with the movie. He tried,
I credit him with trying, but it didn t work for me.
[> [> [> I still cringe at the thought of The Color
Purple. I mean, come on. -- cjl, 11:50:17 08/25/04 Wed
[> [> Agree - why JAWS is a fantastic film (Spoilers
for JAWS) -- s'kat, 08:09:52 08/29/04 Sun
Jaws was just a friggin brilliant, hilarious, powerful, gripping,
and terrifying movie. It has what has got to be one of the greatest
film scores ever done. And I'm not just talking about the title
theme. The slow development of its story, and its lead characters
is more sophisticated and deeper than anything Spielberg had done
before, i.e. Duel. Plus, its just way way way more terrifying.
To see Ben Gardiner's head come out of that boat in a theater
of a thousand terrified people is an experience worth having.
People would clutch onto people they didn't know for protection
and comfort. It was frickin wild. I can't really even think of
anything to compare to that experience. Maybe Silence of the Lambs.
Maybe the original Alien. But the alterations in the venue itself
kinda diminish the slow build of collective terror that was the
experience of seeing Jaws.
I agree with you on JAWS. I saw it at an early age as well for
the first time. But alas never on the big screen. I have however
seen it at least 20 times and often pause when flipping channels
on it, whenever it comes on, BRAVO and TNT seem to show it alot
for some reason. I've also seen a documentary on the making of
JAWS.
Of Spielberg's films, hands down, JAWS is possibly his best work.
It is the least manipulative, the least special effects laden
and the most honest - odd things to say, I know, for a horror
movie with a mechanical shark. What made it great? The scenes
without the shark. The scenes that Spielberg was forced to rely
on because the mechanical shark wouldn't cooperate or work. It
kept breaking down.
There's several I can think of off-hand, scenes I pause to watch
whenever JAWS comes on screen, because of their brilliance.
1. The sequence towards the beginning of the film where
you see the Sheriff having breakfast with his family, it's a normal,
hetic moment, realistically filmed with no fancy footwork. The
dialogue tells us everything we need to know without being too
smulchy or over the top. Schneider's Sheriff is an Ex-New Yorker
who moved to a quiet island to raise his family in safety. Ironically
he is scared to death of water and refuses to enter it. The interaction
between Schieder, the family, the locals in the town perfectly
sets up the character and gives us a reason to care about him.
This is what a good horror film does. The reason JAWS scared the
shit out of you as a child was you *cared* what happened to the
characters. You liked them.
They were familar. You knew them. They'd become friends.
And you did not want them to be hurt. Establishing that link early
on between audience and character is crucial to the success of
a horror film. The ones that don't take the time to do this, aren't
scarey.
2. The scene when Richard Dreyfuss's oceanographer examines the
body and almost throws up. His interaction with the sheriff. We
establish in this scene who this character is and why we should
root for him. It's why you jump when Ben Gardiner's head appears
- because it's Dreyfuss who finds it and you feel for Dreyfus.
3. The two men in the boat hunting JAWs with their wife's holiday
HAM. And how they barely escape. We never see the shark. But we
fear for these two men, which is frightening and comical sequence.
4. The tracking shot on the beach, when the little boy gets killed.
JAWS copiers often would kill a whole slew of people. Speilberg,
because he didn't have the budget, did just one boy on a raft.
A boy his mother worked to get into the water. We follow the mother
and boy, but not in an obvious way up to the point he gets killed.
We also spend time with the Sheriff. The Mayor. How there's nothing
to worry about. How the Sheriff looks tense and is having troubles
relaxing. But finally does. The crowded beach that looks just
like any crowded beach. Then suddenly it happens.
And everyone rushes in. Almost trampling one another. And you
see the tracking shot on the Sheriff, his reaction, how his rushing
to the beach. And the mother calling for her son. One of the best
scenes ever done on film. And we never even saw more than a fin
of the monster. But we cared who died. We felt the death like
a wound. It wasn't gratuitous.
5. The three men in the boat. If you have seen this film, I don't
need to explain more. Xander's line in Graduation Day PArt I comes
directly from this sequence. Roy Schneider says to the shark hunter
Quinn after seeing the shark for the first time - "You're
going to need a bigger boat."
But it's not that line I'm referring to or the scenes with the
shark. It's the quieter scenes. At night. The three men sit and
trade war stories. There's conflict between Quinn and Dreyfuss'
doctor. So they start showing each other scars, each one more
grisely than the last. They are all drunk and have been singing
tunes. Now the competition on the scars. Finally, the last one,
and it's not a scar but a small tattoo. Dreyfuss looks at it and
knows what it means.
Schnieder doesn't and asks. And here Quinn launches in one the
best monologues on film. A monologue that may have gotten the
actor nominated for an Oscar. According to the Making of JAWS
- the actor wrote and came up with most of that monologue himself.
It's a frightening story about a ship going down and sailors being
eaten one by one by sharks. And it is told with no background
music. Complete silence. The score in JAWS is done so well - that
silence scares you. All you hear is the ocean hitting the boat.
In the documentary - Spielberg makes it clear that the reason
JAWS was so good was he was prevented by budget limitations to
do what he wanted. The obstacles he ran into while filming and
how he dealt with them caused JAWS ironically to be amongst the
best horror films or films period ever to be made. And it shows
how making a good film, let along a brilliant film is not only
a miracle but an obstacle course. Dreyfuss and the actor playing
Quinn did not get along. Both actors had substance abuse problems.
Quinn was drunk through a good portion of the shooting.
The shark did not work. They had to find ways of shooting around
it. It rusted up at one point. When they had the boat catch on
fire they almost lost Schnieder in the fire and he barely escaped.
Shooting went over budget. And the special effects Speilberg wanted
to employ to make the shark scary weren't available. So he decided
to show as little of the shark as possible. To rely on other things
for suspense, such as musical score, relationships between people,
dialogue, tracking shots - and as a result created a film masterpiece.
One can't help but wonder how good his other films might have
been if his budget had been as limited? Would the color palette
of The Color Purple been quite as emotionally cloying? Would he
have tried to do the little red coat in Schindler's List which
hurt him more than helped? Would
we have gotten the light display in Empire of The Sun, which almost
took you completely out of a fairly good movie?
What JAWS had that Close Encounters didn't - was no sentimentality.
Speilberg let the movie speak for itself, because he had to. He
couldn't go overboard. Provide the sentimental touches. Which
may be why I think JAWS remains his best work, a work I'm not
sure he's ever come close to repeating or mastering.
[> [> [> Yup to all -- Ann, 11:10:53 08/29/04
Sun
Those all all my favorite scenes and I agree with you completely.
Yes the three men in the boat, (the baker, candlestick maker,
butcher hee) and their stories. Expecially that of the sunken
Indianapolis ship in the WW2 story. Chilling. He had been through
all of it before.
Great movie. I so prefer his action-y movies, to just go along
for the ride, for which he succeeds very well.
[> [> [> [> Re: Yup to all -- s'kat, 12:20:59
08/29/04 Sun
I so prefer his action-y movies, to just go along for the ride,
for which he succeeds very well.
Agreed. I think Spielberg is one of the best *action* filmmakers
out there. Here's a quick list:
Raider of The Lost Arc
Duel
Jurassic Park
JAWS
Those four films were tight, suspenseful, provided us with interesting
characterizations and hit all the right notes.
Even the later Indiana Jones films were good.
It's when he falls into sentimentality, that I think Spielberg
tends to get carried away. It's that old catch-22 scenerio - when
you write what obsesses you, you tend to get self-indulgent. Yes
- that's what drives you to write and create, but at the same
time, there are one too many traps to fall into. Same can be said
about criticism in a way, when you are too emotionally invested
or obsessed with a topic, the criticism suffers - because it is
just pure emotion - not that there is anything wrong with that,
it's just translating pure emotion into words and images without
falling into traps such as overt/cloying sentimentality, bashing,
or preachiness can be difficult, I think. In JAWS, Speilberg avoids
the traps, Schindler's List and Color Purple which were closer
to his heart, he falls into them.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yup to all -- Ann, 13:00:07
08/29/04 Sun
which were closer to his heart, he falls into them.
Well said! Now I have to think of that statement in terms of Whedon!
[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! -- s'kat, 16:35:49
08/30/04 Mon
sk:which were closer to his heart, he falls into them.
ann:Now I have to think of that statement in terms of Whedon!
LOL! I think it's a statement that possibly applies to everyone.
I know it does to me. The more invested, the more passionate you
feel about a topic, the harder it is to see it rationally or critically
or to write about it well. Notice I'm not saying it's impossible.
Some people can only write about that which they feel passionate
about - Harper Lee only wrote one book - To Kill a Mockingbird,
a subject it is safe to say she felt passionate towards. Others
have more trouble and find that too much emotion clouds or interfers
with their art. I think Whedon falls into the latter category,
I get the feeling he writes best when he is trying to explore
a topic or character (example River in Objects of Space in Firefly)
and worste when he wants to expound on a topic, feels passionately
about it, or adores a character overly much (Fred in Hole in The
World). At least that was my impression.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 22nd 2004 - Guilty
Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. IV -- DickBD, 12:18:34 08/25/04
Wed
My wife had been wanting to see this movie, and I took her last
night. Because of this review, I enjoyed it a lot more than I
would have otherwise.
I primarily lurk at this site, but I must confess that I really
get a lot out of it. I always make it a point to read whatever
Shadowcat has to say, as well as Rob and Masq, and a bunch of
others, too, of course.
I am really happy that the site has managed to keep going, even
after the shows which inspired them have ended. It is always a
pleasure to visit here, and if I don't contribute, it is because
someone else has already made whatever point I might make--and
done it with more grace.
[> [> The shows that inspired this site have ended? Really?
Gee, I didn't notice. -- OnM, 18:27:00 08/25/04 Wed
Thanks for your kind comments. There is no place like this place,
and we'll keep it that way as long as possible.
:-)
[> [> Thanks -- Masq, 09:39:01 08/26/04 Thu
I didn't want to see this place go away when BtVS and Angel did,
either. I think there are plenty of things for us to talk about,
including the shows that started it all.
[> [> [> Call me crazy -- DickBD, 11:46:15 08/26/04
Thu
But I think the Whedon shows are like Shakespeare, worthy of being
re-watched and discussed. Thank the Powers that Be for DVDs!
[> [> [> [> Re: Call me crazy -- Jane, 17:28:22
08/27/04 Fri
I agree. I think we will watching and discussing these shows for
years to come. I keep watching Buffy over and over - Space just
finished up with Chosen yesterday and started all over again with
Welcome to the Hellmouth today. It's a loop like the Mummy hand
episode!
[> [> [> [> [> Aarf! -- Spot, 14:19:54 08/31/04
Tue
(Sorry, I couln't resist. I was among the last group of schoolchildren
who learned to read with Dick, Jane and Spot books. Arethusa)
Current board
| More August 2004