August 2004 posts


Previous August 2004  

September 2004

A Third Slayer? -- BuffyObsessed, 09:38:33 08/29/04 Sun

After Buffy died in Season 5 why wasn't another slayer called? I may have missed it but I never noticed a third slayer being mentioned.

Replies:

[> Buffy had already died once before -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:57:24 08/29/04 Sun

She died in "Prophecy Girl" and was brought back through CPR, but it was still enough to call Faith. Thus Buffy's death in "The Gift" couldn't call another Slayer because each Slayer only gets one shot to Call another, and Buffy had already used hers up.

[> [> Re: Buffy had already died once before -- Onjel, 11:34:37 08/29/04 Sun

When Buffy died in S1, Kendra was called. When Kendra died in S2, Faith was called. The next slayer would be called only if Faith died.

[> [> [> Why didn't Buffy understand that? -- Gyrus, 08:38:57 08/31/04 Tue

When Buffy died in S1, Kendra was called. When Kendra died in S2, Faith was called. The next slayer would be called only if Faith died.

And yet, in S7, Buffy seemed convinced that if she died again, another Slayer WOULD be called. Shouldn't she have known better?

[> [> [> [> hey, buffy was going through a lot that season! -- anom, 08:59:24 08/31/04 Tue

She didn't have time to read the interviews where the writers explained that.

Characters in any work of fiction don't necessarily know everything the writers, or even the audience, do. I don't think any of the characters on Buffy, even the Watchers, could have known that Buffy's death wouldn't cause another Slayer to be called--the situation had never occurred before.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: hey, buffy was going through a lot that season! -- Gyrus, 14:04:47 08/31/04 Tue

I don't think any of the characters on Buffy, even the Watchers, could have known that Buffy's death wouldn't cause another Slayer to be called--the situation had never occurred before.

The thing is, it HAD occurred before--when Buffy died in S5. No new Slayer showed up after that, so unless Buffy was assuming that there was another one out there that she'd never met, she should have suspected that her own death wouldn't activate a new Slayer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> How were they to know? -- Duell, 08:55:25 09/01/04 Wed

Just because no new Slayer arrived in Sunnydale, it doesn't mean one couldn't have been called elsewhere (Cleveland,perhaps?), and Buffy and Co. would have no way of knowing that. They weren't exactly on the best terms with the council at that point so for all they knew, there was a third slayer active somewhere, fighting vamps and saving the world. After all, you don't really think the Scoobies were the only group of fighters to ever save the world in those seven years do you? There were supposedly Hellmouths all over the place and someone had to be protecting them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How were they to know? -- Gyrus, 11:44:07 09/02/04 Thu

Kendra and Faith both managed to put in an appearance in Sunnydale within a few months of their activation, so were I in Buffy's place, I might expect to meet (at some point) any additional Slayers who popped up. This would be an assumption, of course, but no more of one than Buffy's assumption that her death would activate another Slayer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> it took longer than that to find buffy after she was called -- anom, 18:20:55 09/08/04 Wed

At least, according to the movie. The TV series didn't really address this, as far as I remember; it certainly didn't refute it. So there's precedence for the new Slayer not to show on the Council's radar screen for an extended time. As for the 2 Slayers you mentioned, Kendra & her watcher were apparently as unaware of Buffy's existence as Buffy & Giles were of Kendra's. Faith, on the other hand, was well aware of Buffy & came to Sunnydale on her own--she wasn't sent there by the Watchers. And Giles says in Grave that the Watchers had no clue about Willow's rampage--he learned of it from the coven in Devon. So the Watcher's Council's record w/regard to keeping track of new Slayers, as well as other matters of concern, is far from spotless, & Buffy had no reason to think that a new Slayer hadn't been called when she died in The Gift, esp. given the lack of time she had to look into it.

OK, having written that, it occurs to me that the coven probably would've found another new Slayer if there'd been one....
Favorite Couples on Buffy -- BuffyObsessed, 10:19:33 08/29/04 Sun

What are your favorite couples or relationships on Buffy? I haven't decided yet if I like Buffy better with Spike or Angel (a little help please!) but I think one of my favorite couples was Willow and Oz. They were so cute together and Oz was so sweet. I hated that episode where Oz left Willow... I think it was called Wild at Heart. I also really liked Faith and the Mayor's father-daughter relationship. That was sweet and he was always looking out for her.

Replies:

[> How about Willow And Tara -- skpe, 19:18:36 08/29/04 Sun


[> Re: Favorite Couples on Buffy -- Loki, 19:56:10 08/29/04 Sun

I like Buffy and Spike better. I think mostly because I like Angel's character better when Buffy isn't around. But I haven't seen S7 for BtVS yet.

Wow. Thinking about Willow and Oz actually made me nostalgic.

[> Re: Favorite Couples on Buffy *spoiler* -- BuffyObsessed, 14:06:01 08/30/04 Mon

I've been thinking about this and I decided that one of my other favorite couples was Anya and Xander. They were so cute together! Anyways they both made eachother better people and im just mad they didn't end up together!

[> Best and Worst Couples in the Buffyverse -- cjl, 22:23:30 08/30/04 Mon

I'm going to skip the B/A and B/S couplings, because I've never been dumb enough to dive into that shark tank without full body armor. Let's just say that both pairings had their peak periods and their down periods. BtVS probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground without the B/A romance, and the latter seasons probably wouldn't have had as much "kick" without B/S.

But the honest truth is, Buffy's romances never interested me. I always thought her relationships with her friends, her family, and her calling were always the keystones to understanding her character. The way Joss and ME wrote Buffy's love affairs, they never gave me the level of insight provided by these other areas of her life. There were great moments in B/A and B/S for sure (WML and Dead Things in particular), but overall, I was never all that thrilled with either one.

Which relationships did give me a thrill? Glad you asked:

1. Wes/Lilah. My favorite 'ship in the Whedonverse. In all of Joss' attempts to craft a classic noir hero/femme fatale pairing, this was the most successful. Both Wes and Lilah pushed each other's characters into grey areas they'd never explored previously--Wes toward darkness and Lilah back toward genuine connection with human beings. Every scene of W/L crackled, up to and including Wes' futile attempt to save her soul in Home. The gamesmanship, the scruffiness, Lilah playing dress-up--all of it entertaining, morally ambiguous and HOT.

2. Giles/Jenny. Giles' romance with Jenny Calendar was an enormous leap forward in his development. From their first meeting in IRYJ, Jenny's presence broke Giles out from his dead end status of Stuffy Exposition Guy, and ME constantly used the G/J relationship to peel back layers of Giles' character, revealing the former dark wizard and bad boy underneath.

3. Willow/Tara. And not just because of its groundbreaking aspects, although that's a big part of it. I liked the W/T relationship because when Joss and Co. got down to tackling Willow's power issues in S5&S6, we had a fascinating study about power dynamics in a relationship and how even slight imbalances can turn into abuses. ME was trying to explore similar issues with B/S, but not hitting the mark nearly as well. I was proud of Tara for dumping Willow's ass in Tabula Rasa--a rare moment when the darker plotlines of S6 actually aligned with the characterizations of the previous five seasons.

4. Spike and Drusilla. Best vampire pairing ever, nudging out Angel and Darla. Two great actors, and two memorable characters, providing the hot caramel center of Buffy S2.

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

Those were the great ones. The ones I liked, but didn't love (or loved at the beginning but got bored)? As I said, all of Buffy's romances. Xander and Anya (stalled after S6). Fred's pair-ups on ANGEL.

As for the bad:

1. Willow/Kennedy. Rob tells us Iyari Limon is a nice person. I'll take his word for it. I won't hold the role of Kennedy against her if I ever meet her. But this was a disastrous pairing from the start, with no chemistry between Hannigan and Limon whatsoever, and no credible explanation as to why these two would wind up together. After relationships with the cool and soulful Oz and the gentle and spiritual Tara, why would Willow get involved with someone as immature, aggressive and insensitive as Kennedy? Unlike the four 'ships listed above, W/K moments in S7 seemed to DETRACT from Willow's character development. Joss' determination to make amends to the Kittens and avoid the cliche of Willow as Lonely Sexless Lesbian Martyr was noble on paper, I suppose--it just didn't work in practice.

2. Cordy/Angel. Another dead end. The big coming out party for C/A in "Waiting in the Wings" told you everything you wanted to know: 1) Boreanaz and Carpenter had no romantic chemistry; and 2) messing with the brother/sister vibe from previous seasons would be detrimental to both characters. As it turns out, WitW was the first of a series of C/A deathblows to Cordelia's character, continuing with Birthday (demonization for the love of Angel) and capped by Tomorrow (her mirror epiphany and the oceanside rendezvous). Carpenter seemed uncomfortable for the entirety of S4 and the Evil Cordy plotline, and the C/A relationship never recovered until You're Welcome. At least it ended with some dignity.

[> [> Re: Best and Worst Couples in the Buffyverse -- BuffyObsessed, 09:21:55 08/31/04 Tue

I have to agree with several of your couples. For the best couples I also liked Jenny and Giles and Willow and Tara. Jenny was nice, funny, and always was ready to help out and she was good for Giles. She helped create a lot of funny and sad episodes, for examples Passions. I liked Tara and Willow's relationship because Tara helped Willow to develop her powers and become a really powerful witch. Also, she tried to do what was best for Willow and stop her from growing addicted to magic. Willow in turn helped Tara to stop being shy and develop, as explained in the song Tara sing "Under Your Spell" during the episode Once More With Feeling.

I haven't decided yet if I agree with either of your worst couples. For Willow and Kennedy I haven't seen any season 7 episodes with Kennedy in them so im going to refrain from making an opinion about her until I have something to base it on. As for Angel and Cordelia, while I am not totally supportive of their relationship I have to say that if Angel doesn't end up with Buffy, Cordy would have been a perfect match for him instead.

[> [> Re: Best and Worst Couples in the Buffyverse -- shambleau, 11:46:53 09/01/04 Wed

I completely disagree that the darker plotlines of S6 didn't align with the previous five seasons characterizations. They were a brilliant deepening of them, for the most part, IMO, but that's a debate for another thread.

On the question of why Willow would want to get involved with someone immature, agressive and insensitive, Xander anyone? Yes, it happened when she was young. But it happened because she didn't have enough self-esteem to go out looking for someone who'd return her affections. How was her self-esteem in S7? When Kennedy showed up, we weren't too far in time from Willow's sub-conscious making herself invisible (with Amy's help?) because she didn't think she was worthy of love or forgiveness. And here's someone with no connection to the Scoobs who is interested in her.

At the end of Hush, after she'd told Tara she was nothing special as a witch, Tara said no, Willow WAS special. Willow lit up. If Tara had been critical of Willow's abilities, subtextual lesbian connection or not, I think the relationship would not have advanced so quickly, if at all. And notice how Willow kept Tara away from her friends so that Tara would focus on her alone. The same dynamic is at work for Willow with Kennedy. Someone is focusing on her unworthy ass, and just as she did with Tara, Willow gets her validation where she can.

As for Kennedy, Willow's the available lesbian, and she's a veteran Scoobie, so Kennedy gets a rise to the status she thinks she deserves from being hooked up with her. She's put in charge of the Potentials and Kennedy loves being in charge. I'm not saying it was all thought at a conscious level on either party's part, but these are perfectly credible motivations for their ending up together.

That there's not much chemistry, I'd agree, although the scene in Chosen where Willow does the spell shows some on Kennedy's part. But since this relationship is comparable to Buffy/Riley, the lack of chemistry is fitting. This is not the great love of Willow's life and it isn't shown as such. So, even though it was only roughly sketched in, I found it a believable relationship, based on real psychological tendencies in both characters.

All that said, I did feel it was a sop to the Kittens and their supporters and it irked the hell out of me for that reason. It felt like a political decision more than a story decision and while the two aren't always mutually incompatible, I would have preferred the story focus elsewhere
misc questions abt two songs and writers -- ghady, 14:46:21 08/29/04 Sun

1) In Close Your Eyes, what's the instrument being used at first? is it the flute or the violin? cuz i used to think it was the violin till i paid a little more attention and heard a lowing sound.

2) in something to sing about, when buffy sings "wishes can come true, whistle while you work," doesn't that seem a bit "wrong?" it seems a bit rushed. there should have been a slight pause before "whistle" for it to sound "right." does anyone else agree?

3) in schoolhard, i noticed that there was no "writer." they credited joss and david under "story by," and someone else under "teleplay." what does that mean??

Replies:

[> Re: misc questions abt two songs and writers -- RJA, 15:17:30 08/29/04 Sun

Don't know about the first two, but on the third it means that Joss and David came up with the story and then the other person wrote the script (although wasn't that David anyway?).

[> What it sounds like to an ex-musician -- manwitch, 06:17:42 08/31/04 Tue

Christopher Beck tended to use synthesizers and then add a small handfull of real musicians when he needed something to be really convincing. So he could create the fullnes of a whole orchestra on the synth, but have some of the lead sounds be very convincing.

It sounds like that's what he's doing in the Close Your Eyes cue. The first sustained note that creeps in sounds like strings and winds, probably piccolo and maybe a reed like an oboe. They sound like they're synthesized, though. To me anyway. The lead theme is a flute, and sounds real, ultimately surrendering to orchestra and a clarinet or bass clarinet. Clarinets for some reason sound good on synthesizers so it wouldn't surprise me if its a synth, especially given the heavy texture to hide any imperfections. But the first statement of the lead theme is supposed to sound like a flute.

The rest is just my speculation. I haven't seen the score.

As for the something to sing about question, here's what it sounds like to an ex-musician. Others may hear different. English is not really the easiest way to explain this. Forgive me if I speak a vulgar dialect of musician.

It sounds a little odd, yes, but I think its ok.

The pause is shifted from before "whistle" to after "while." Or to put it another way, instead of starting the phrase on the downbeat (beat one), like they did with all the other phrases, they start it on the last half of beat four, the upbeat.

You can hear it in the clearly deliberate change to the bass/guitar line in that fourth phrase: equal length of the notes under "whistle while" and the pause in the middle there (before coming in heavily under "you work") that was not done in the earlier phrases).

But at that moment there is a change in the meter to 2/4 and an extra bar is put in. (Conceivably that whole section starting with "Where there's life" shifts to 2/4 and there's simply an extra measure added to the last phrase). Either way the result is that you have three phrases of four beats each and then a final one of six. Its a way of heightening interest and tension.

It does sound compressed, even like it accelerates through the end there, but when it comes back to the main theme the downbeat is so strong that you are right back on track.

I wouldn't want to say for sure that there isn't conceiveably a microsecond in there that was edited out, but it seems like that's how they wrote it to give you the build on "you work, so hard, all day." "Whistle" is shifted a half a beat forward so that they can punch those last words as it builds through two extra beats.

If I'm wrong about that, well then never mind. I've been out of music for a while. Good song though. I thought Sarah sang very well. And looked kinda pretty.

[> [> Excellent description, and may I add. . . . -- Briar Rose, 01:01:35 09/03/04 Fri

Sarah should be given major props for making it through the time changes as perfectly as she did (even if it was heavily edited afterward?) because may professional singers couldn't have carried it off as well as she did.

"Something to Sing About. . ." was a tough song. The lyrics were hard enough with the lack of rhyme, then to add a few pretty complicated time changes into it AND lipsynch and dance at the same time?

I admit, my mouth was hanging open when I watched it the first time out of sheer admiration.

[> [> they did it in both verses -- anom, 20:54:17 09/07/04 Tue

There's the same acceleration in "knowing that/it ends/well, that/depends...." So I'm pretty sure they meant to.
Classic Movie of the Week - August 29th 2004 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures Part V -- OnM, 17:23:54 08/29/04 Sun

*******

It's a Safety Dance
Well it's a Safety Dance
Oh it's a Safety Dance
Well it's a Safety Dance

............ Men Without Hats

*******

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.

............ d Herblay

*******

A-say, give it up / Give it up
Television's takin' its toll
That's enough / That's enough
Gimme the remote control!

............ Weird Al Yankovic

*******


About two weeks ago, I started off this column with a little riff about how I come up with the various ideas that I use to thematically structure it with. I was pretty sure that most of my regular readers had already figured it out long before I ever elaborated on the specifics, since frankly I ve never tried to hide the fact that I just look for connections between sundry odd thoughts and then extemporize. It s often quite fun to do this, because I may start out with one idea in mind and then end up a week later somewhere completely different-- much like following links on the net, in fact.

So far, it s been a useful methodology, but at times it does tend to take a few unexpected turns, and this week is turning out to be one of those weeks. The most recent detour took place when-- having gotten the idea that Men Without Hats one-hit-wonder tune Safety Dance was both (somewhat) metaphorically connected with, and possessed of a similarly innocuous goofiness to, this week s guilty pleasure-- I started searching the web for a copy of the lyrics to paste in for part of the column header. It took a good deal longer than I expected it to, but eventually I succeeded, and after pasting them up at the top of the page, I took time to read over them carefully, which is something I always do before committing any quotation, poem, lyric or whathaveyou to headersville.

There s a very good reason for this, which is that I don t like looking like a dope unless it serves a greater purpose of some kind. Inspirations don t always pan out, because most of the time there is no real logic behind them, only some kind of subconscious shortcut that your brain takes on faith, and then afterward it sits there twiddling its neurons hoping for a positive result. If all goes well, you get the Aha! or even the Eureka! If not, it s either back to the well for another bucket or maybe even back-on-your-heads time.

Safety Dance turned out to be dangerously close to that latter situation, partly because I never really listened closely to the words of the tune during the multitude of times I heard it played or watched the video. (I d bet I m not alone in that deficiency, but that s not a benefit to count on.) After all, it s such a happy, bouncy little number that you get caught up in the music and the higher language functions go on vacation for the duration.

Remember Suzanne Vega s only real chart-topper single, Luka? Shiny happy music, moves right along, you re boppin and groovin and thinking hey this is fun! , and then at some point your forebrain finally notices:

If you hear something late at night
Some kind of trouble, some kind of fight
Just don't ask me what it was

Uh-oh... But then it gets worse:

Yes I think I'm okay
I walked into the door again
Well, if you ask that's what I'll say
And it's not your business anyway
I guess I'd like to be alone
With nothing broken, nothing thrown
Just don't ask me how I am

It s been more than a few years since this tune was out there in regular rotation, and by now many people have forgotten that it stirred a bit of a controversy at the time. Not because of the topic itself, but because of the way the topic was packaged. There were a number of listeners who thought that Vega had no business wrapping a profoundly serious subject like child abuse inside a perky pop format. Other listeners pointed out that a serious song presented in a serious musical form would get almost no serious airplay (ooo, heads up-- bummer alert!), leading to lots of people never hearing the message, and then what would be the point?

Sadly, only a very few considered that Vega might have been creating an apt musical metaphor for the fact that society constantly works to pretty up ugly truths it has a hard time dealing with. If you were familiar with her body of songwriting work up until the time Luka was released, this would have been your most logical supposition, but it s safe to say that Vega fans represented a miniscule part of the popular music behemoth of the day, and the general public isn t looking to comb through complexities in the first place. As such, the argument quickly degenerates into who has the loudest voice, and said voice didn t belong to the songwriter in question. No matter-- Vega weathered the brief storm, and returned to comfortable obscurity, where she has remained to this day, periodically turning out one brilliant album after another, flying under the radar.

Returning to the matter of hats and headers, and my unsubstantiated recollections prior to researching for this column, the band Men Without Hats effectively disappeared after penning Safety and making the video. After a closer reading of the lyrics in question, I was tempted to think that they were being too subtle, and that their satirical intent got away from them. Such may be the case, and it would give some explanation as to why there was an atomic bomb blast appearing at the very end of the Safety video, a part that always made me go at least slightly huh? whenever I saw it.

Here we are:

We can dance if we want to / We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance / and if they don't dance
Well they're, no friends of mine

Say, we can go where we want to / A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come / from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind

And we can dance, dansez


Frankly, that first part has a mean streak running through it, does it not? It depends on the interpretation you assign to it, natch. If you read it one way, person A is suggesting to person B that person B s friends are losers, and they should more-or-less piss off. On the other hand, the term friends could be used sardonicallly, indicating that person B s social circle could actually be losers in reality, and that maybe person B already knows this. You know, like wastoid drug users, corrupt politicians or TV networks that cancel good shows and replace them with mindless dreck. Let s move on to the next several verses:

We can go when we want to / Night is young and so am I
And we can dress real neat / from our hats to our feet
And surprise them with a victory cry

Say, we can act if we want to / If we don't nobody will
And you can act real rude / and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile, and say

We can dance, we can dance / Everything's out of control
We can dance, we can dance / We're doing it from pole to pole
We can dance, we can dance / Everybody look at your hands
We can dance, we can dance / Everybody's taking the chance

Safe to dance
Oh well it s safe to dance
Yes it s safe to dance


Hummm.... this sounds almost 60-ish to me, where the youth of the world are going to take over and straighten everything out that their elders screwed up, and then everyone can party all night. Hey, I understand, I was there then. I d like to do that too, and if I hadn t gotten older I might have even... never mind. I do wonder most of all about everybody look at your hands , which I recall was a line somewhat reinforced visually in the video by the editing and camerawork. Juxtapose everything's out of control and the hands bit, and maybe what we re doing is not encouraging fantasy beliefs, but trying to restore a grounding in reality. I mean, if everyone s partying, who re the designated drivers?

Or maybe the answer is deliberately left ambiguous:

We can dance if we want to / We've got all your life and mine
As long as we abuse it / never going to lose it
Everything will work out right

It's a Safety Dance
Well it's a Safety Dance
Oh it's a Safety Dance
Well it's a Safety Dance


Now that s very Jossian, I posit. The first part there forcefully asserts that wackiness rulz, then the refrain chimes in and suggests that instead, it s an escapist means of dealing with justifiable fear. Cue the nukes, end the vid. Uh-huh. Well. That s pretty deep after all, and coming from a synth-pop band yet. Or maybe it isn t. Maybe d Herb is right and the girl in question is merely the girl in question. A movie is just a movie sometimes, and that s all you want for your $7.50.

Have to say that I agree. So close analysis-B mode, and start your projectors-- as is my norm for this last week of the annual August GP/BT-fest, I have deliberately chosen a film that...

1) Has no terribly important or particularly insightful social value beyond the painfully obvious
2) Utilizes a genre that has little respect or appreciation among the general public (and)
3) Is way cool in some fashion or another, or at least in yours truly s semi-informed opinion.

Thus, and verily, I do present to thee Mortal Kombat, director Paul Anderson s 1995 effort at bringing characters from a video game to the big screen, perhaps one of the first mostly successful ones. Whether or not Anderson initiated a trend, or went along with the inevitablity of one, Mortal Kombat was a serious effort to create an alternate reality that holds up well visually against many films to debut later on, such as the Lara Croft outings.

(Just one brief but important note to make before I go any farther-- this is not Paul Thomas Anderson, the man who directed Boogie Nights and Magnolia, but Paul W. S. Anderson, whose last directorial outing was Resident Evil, another game-based flick. As far as I know, these two men are not related beyond working in the same profession.)

There are a respectable number of filmgoers who dislike the game-to-film genre, but my personal opinion is that the end result is more important that what the source material is. While it s very tempting to ascribe a greater value to a movie with traditional literary sources, this is the same logic that relegates truly magnificent works like Shrek or American Splendor to the cinematic ghetto of Well it s OK for a...(fill in the pigeonholing blank). The real world out there in 2004 is chock full of people who regularly play video games, and some of the characters in some of those games do begin to take on an iconic presence after a while, and so call out for expansion and elaboration.

Not being a gamer myself (lousy high-speed brain-eye-hand co-ordination), I confess that I have no idea if the Mortal Kombat series is still active in the gaming marketplace, but I do know for sure that the success of high-concept martial arts cinema rolls on unabated, and is obviously a format here to stay, just like the perennial western or espionage genres. If you re a creative type, you should feel justified in drawing on whatever inspiration happens to move you.

Anderson s goal in bringing MK to life was to make a film that looked like nothing else he had seen before, one where the visual style was so dynamic that it could keep up with the stunning martial arts work from his cast. In that aspect, he succeeded and then some, because despite the numerous advances in the use of computer generated imaging and other high-tech processes since it debuted, Mortal Kombat remains visually dazzling.

The story itself is hardly innovative, and I don t fault the director and friends for that-- it s the same elemental tale told over and over by thousands of bards, writers and (more lately) lensmen since half-past forever, namely bad guys threaten somebody, hero type(s) whomp em right good. If you re bored by this, then go rent Searching for Bobby Fischer or Election or... uhmmm, wait a minute. Those are about chess, and politics, and... moving on now...

Over the years, I ve seen a lot of films that started out to be really impressive visually, but that couldn t sustain the impression over the entire course of the film, or even the majority of it. In the B-movie world in particular I d clearly be left with the thought that there was only one or two decently cool ideas to begin with, and that when they were done with, there was nothing left to fall back upon but to pad the two hours out with lots of dialog or naked-babe-flesh. While I suppose that MK would be classed by many viewers as a B-flick, to me it clearly possesses the tight focus and level of advance planning needed to give it A-flick cred.

The bad guys in this tale are a bunch of demonic types who normally exist in a dimension separate from our own, but who are looking to move into new cosmic neighborhoods, and our Earthly plane is one of them. Somehow or another, there are these rules that state that in order for them to enter our world, the demon guys must challenge Earthers to ten rounds of big-ass kung-fu fighting, and only if they are able to win all ten of these fights are they permitted to rend the dimensional barrier and make for a permanent move-in. Yes, it s ridiculous, but remember that if there are no rules, then there is naught but nasty death for us, because the demon guys are way bigger and meaner than we are. Rules level the playing field, so to speak, and the MK-verse PTB s seem to be Tarantino fans.

Enter the heroes, stalwart and true, or most of the time anyway. They re all a bit Buffyish in that while they might be heroic in their hearts, their souls come with heavy baggage to lug, and heavy baggage is... well, heavy. (There s even a humorous shot in the film that illustrates this exact principle. It s an anvil, but a funny anvil.) The alpha hero in this story is one Liu Kang, played by actor/martial artist Robin Shou. He s absolutely bitchin with the chop-socky, but his burden is that he feels responsible for the death of his brother, who challenged a major baddie in Kang s place when Kang decided that his calling wasn t one he wanted to pursue.

Then we have Johnny Cage (Linden Ashby), who does slick, Hollywood-ized martial arts films and thus faces charges that he isn t really talented, that his on-screen moves are just special-effects tricks and not genuine skills. This isn t true, but that doesn t make him feel any better about selling-out , as his detractors see it.

Next comes Sonya Blade, played by Bridgette Wilson, and if there is one complaint I have about MK, the way this character was handled is it. I don t really fault the actress here, since according to the laserdisc commentary track, she was brought in pretty much at the last moment, and received far less pre-film training as some of the others in the cast. Wilson is attractive, but she just doesn t look the part of a warrior woman, and lacks whatever experience or imagination that would be required acting-wise to deflect one s attention from her physical limitations. She wasn t bad, mind you, just unconvincing. This situation is worsened by the charismatic presence of Talisa Soto in the role of Princess Kitana, who does possess the Xena gene, and would have been a far better choice as Sonya.

Kitana, in the MK mythology, was the daughter of the big king muckymuck who once ruled over a world since taken over by the demons. Her father was killed, but she was kept alive reputedly to serve as a liason to the humans the demons enslaved, which doesn t make a lot of sense to me, but just like in the Buffyverse, demons seem to have a real weak spot for hot humanoid chicks who look great in leather, and does she ever.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some variety of gods and/or PTB s present in the Kombat universe, represented on the Earther s side by one Lord Rayden (Christopher Lambert). Rayden s an electric kind of fellow, literally-- he s made from the stuff, and among the best special effects shots in the film are ones that show his sparky self in action. When I first saw this movie, I wasn t quite sure what Lambert was up to in the way he played his god-guy with this one-minute-serious, next-minute-wacky demeanor. It didn t go so far as to take me out of the moment, but it was a bit disconcerting-- was he doing what Sutherland did to Joss in the original BtVS movie, trying to rewrite the tone to suit his own interpretation? According to the commentary track, this was not the case-- Anderson wanted Lambert s reading to reflect a god who was as often amused at his human charges as he was impressed or disappointed in them. (A young George Burns in Oh, God! 3 - Hee-yahhh!! ? Sorry, just had to set that image out there.)

Anywho, these fighters are all collected and then travel on a very kewl-looking dragon-headed ghost ship to an island that exists in some dimension lying in-between the demons and ours, and mix it up with the evil types. This section, which comprises about 3/4 s of the film, continued to startle me with scene after scene after scene of stunning set design and art direction. While I m not putting MK in the same cinematic class as Ridley Scott s Blade Runner, the effectiveness of the visuals as executed are on a par in both of these films. Also, I don t want to slight the equally amazing physical talents of the actors here, who pull off some inventive and well-choreographed martial arts moves, especially on the part of Robin Shou.

By the time the credits are getting ready to roll, all three of the primary heroes get to face down their fears and come out triumphant against the demon usurpers (big ol surprise, right?), and the Earth is saved from big naughty evil once again. Or is it? Can you say cue the sequel , boys and girls? Yes, you can. Go ahead, I dare ya. Double dog dancin dare ya.

In the meantime, the end of summer is fast approaching, and with it the hazy lazy days of guilty pleasures. Dish yourself out a nice bowl of blueberry muffin frozen yogurt, stretch out on the barcolounger, and enjoy a movie that s pretty much just a movie, but pretty darn good at it nevertheless. You can leave your friends behind.

You even can go when you want to, the night is young and so s your mind. You can dress real neat from your hat to your feet and surprise em with a victory cry.

Heeee-yaaaaaahhh!


E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM


*******

Technical fire-breathing dragonese:

Mortal Kombat is available on DVD, the review copy was on laserdisc. The film was released in 1995 with a running time of 1 hour and 41 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio was 1.85:1, which was preserved on the laserdisc edition and presumably also on the DVD. The laserdisc contained a very informative and interesting commentary track by producer Lawrence Kasanoff and visual effects supervisor Alison Savitch. No information is available on any possible extra content on the DVD version.

The film was produced by Lawrence Kasanoff, Robert Engelman, Alison Savitch, Danny Simon and Lauri Apelian. Screenwriting credits go to Kevin Droney, with acknowledgement to the work of Ed Boon and John Tobias for the original video game. Cinematography was by John R. Leonetti with film editing by Martin Hunter. Production design was by Jonathan A. Carlson, with art direction by Jeremy A. Cassells and set decoration by Susan Degas. Costume design was by Ha Nguyen. Original music was by Buckethead, George S. Clinton, Shane Embury, Barney Greenway, Stefan Holweck, Sascha Konietzko, Traci Lords, Mike Maguire, Ben Watkins and Walter Werzowa. The original theatrical sound mix was presented in DTS, Dolby Digital and SDDS.

Cast overview:

Christopher Lambert .... Lord Rayden
Robin Shou .... Liu Kang
Linden Ashby .... Johnny Cage
Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa .... Shang Tsung
Bridgette Wilson .... Sonya Blade
Talisa Soto .... Princess Kitana
Trevor Goddard .... Kano
Chris Casamassa .... Scorpion
Fran ois Petit .... Sub-Zero
Keith Cooke .... Reptile
Hakim Alston .... Fighting Monk
Kenneth Edwards .... Art Lean
John Fujioka .... Chief Priest
Daniel Haggard .... Assistant Director
Sandy Helberg .... Director

*******

Miscellaneous Dept:

While there ain t no cure for the summertime blues, I ll do what I can to inform and amuse:

~ ~ ~

Courtesy the IMDb:

Paul W.S. Anderson gained a fair bit of notoriety in his native England when he directed the ultra-violent Shopping, which he also wrote. The film, released in 1994, starred Jude Law and Sean Pertwee in a story about thieves who steal by ramming a car into storefronts. Banned in some cinemas in England, it became a direct-to-video, slightly-edited release in the United States.

Shopping allowed Anderson to get the chance to direct Mortal Kombat, an adaptation of the hit video game, which showcased his directorial trademarks-- visually stunning scenery and quick-cut editing. The film did well enough for him to choose his next project, which was Soldier with Warner Bros. Kurt Russell was chosen to play the lead role, but unfortunately Russell decided at the time to go on hiatus, pushing the release date of Soldier into 1998. In the meantime, Anderson directed Event Horizon from a script by Philip Eisner, which featured Anderson regulars Sean Pertwee and Jason Isaacs. The science fiction/horror film, a gothic horror version of Solaris, was stylish and scary, but was critically panned and did not do well in the box office, which Anderson blamed on studio-enforced cuts to the story. (Anderson has promised a director's cut, though none has been announced as of yet.)

Soldier didn't fare well with either critics or at the box office, and Anderson's planned 2000 remake of Death Race 2000 was cancelled. This forced him to think smaller, which led to a TV movie named The Sight, a supernatural mystery movie that was a minor hit. He then resurfaced to direct another video game adaption, Resident Evil in 2002. Long rumored among fans to be a choice comeback vehicle for zombie grandfather George Romero, the writing and directing credits eventually transferred to Anderson. He next was given the helm for the long-awaited film adaption of the popular Dark Horse comic book, Alien Vs. Predator, currently playing in theaters.

~ ~ ~

Hats are just alright with me, although in my dreams as in real life, I am hatless:

Once upon a time, in a land far, far north, there lived three brothers who never wore any hats. It was their motto, as Brother Colin so aptly put it, of style before comfort that led them into the nether-regions of early cyberspace, the world of primitive sequencers, samplers and drumboxes, populated by such classic hardware as the Pro 5, Dr Click and the LinnDrum. Where conformity was a banned word, along with things like drummer and bass player , there came to flourish a whole community of electropop artists, whose goal was to bring something new and completely different to the music scene of the day.

............ from http://www.menwithouthats.com/info.html

~ ~ ~

Nobody doesn t like Weird Al:

You can watch Mister Rogers / You can watch Three's Company
And you can turn on Fame / Or the Newlywed Game
Or the Addams Family

Say, you can watch Barney Miller / And you can watch your MTV
You can watch till your eyes / Fall out of your head
That'll be okay with me

You can watch Johnny Carson / You can watch Phil Donahue
And you can use TV Guide / To help you decide
With a capsulized review

Say, you can watch 60 Minutes / Even Captain Kangaroo
But there's only one set / So whatever you watch
Well, you know I... gotta watch it too

A-say, give it up / Give it up / Television's takin' its toll
That's enough / That's enough
Gimme the remote control!

I've been nice / I've been good / Please don't do this to me
Turn it off / Turn it off
I don't wanna have to see

The Brady Bunch / Not the Brady Bunch!
Well, the Brady Bunch /Yeah, the Brady Bunch


*******

The Question of the Week:

Ah, the last one of these for a while. In case you re still all comfy there on the barcolounger, I ll make it one you can answer quickly or at length, as suits your mood:

Q. What did you do on your summer vacation?

(If you didn t have one, well... poo! That s no good. Go back and get yourself one, fer cryin out loud! What, you wanna grow up to be like me? In my dreams, we are not vacationless.)

And so it goes, and as it was before, it was a trip, and I hope ya all enjoyed the ride. I m sure that I ll drop by from time to time with the occasional mini-review or other movie recommendation. At the moment, I m way looking forward to seeing Zhang Yimou s newest film, Hero, which is just now going into nationwide release. Said to be the finest martial arts genre film since Ang Lee s evocative and unforgettable Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, I m looking forward to having a lengthy board discussion about it.

So, a Woo! and a Hoo! and Tyler too. Take care, and I ll exit with a canny quote from our hatless friends up north:

You want a room with a view, you need ideas for walls.

See you soon.

-- OnM

*******

Replies:

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 29th 2004 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures Part V -- LadyStarlight, 20:34:44 08/29/04 Sun

I kinda have to take offense to the "one-hit wonder" designation for Men Without Hats. Just off the top of my head (and okay, I did Google a little), they had two other very popular hits in Canada -- Pop Goes the World, and Hey Men.

Okay, so maybe "three-hit-wonder" would've been better. ;) But they are releasing another album soon.

[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 29th 2004 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures Part V -- Dlgood, 06:44:44 08/30/04 Mon

I'll give you "Pop Goes the World", but calling 'Hey Men' a hit seems like a bit of a stretch. And "Pop Goes the World" wasn't that big...

I'd call them a "One and one-half hit wonder"...

[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - August 29th 2004 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures Part V -- LadyStarlight, 16:45:36 08/30/04 Mon

Don't forget that in Canada, they were bigger. ;)

[> [> [> [> But were they as big as Glass Tiger? -- dlgood, 08:14:36 09/01/04 Wed


[> Buffy's stunt double did music for the movie?! -- Kenny, 14:20:24 08/30/04 Mon

Traci Lords did a song on the soundtrack! (Old usenet Buffy joke there).

Thanks for the write-up. I saw this with some friends my last year in collegem, after which we went to BK for "dinner" and came up with the Mortal Kombat dance (actaully, one of my friends came up with it during the movie and we made fun of her at BK). We still do it when we see each other. But she was right, 'cause, "if they don't dance"....you know the rest.

[> What I Learned on My Summer Vacation -- dub, 18:57:30 08/30/04 Mon

My summer vacation is still going on--I have one more week.

I discovered I'm not exactly an atheist any more. I'm not exactly a Wiccan any more, either. I don't quite know what the heck I am now.

I discovered that philosophy is pretty much a gendered pursuit, not just in that philosophy has been done mostly by dead white males, or that some of them seemed to have been coincidently misogynistic, but that the very concept of reason is linked on an almost archetypal level to the male of the species, rather than the female. Scary stuff. Plus, too old at this stage to worry about it.

I uncovered an unexpected Third Wave of feminism I never knew existed. (I'll let them worry about sexism in philosophy. Don't think it's very high on their list, though.)

I learned that some of the things I had accepted as proven scientific fact are really just pie-in-the-sky suppositions with nothing more to support them than the observation that they appear to work...sometimes. Well, hey, so does astrology. I learned, belatedly, a fair bit about mathematical notation, and quantum physics for dummies. And that sometimes Superstring Theory looks like a pair of pants.

I found out that quite a lot of people have shared an experience that I had once, a sort of spontaneous enlightenment where for a very brief time everything made perfect sense and I remembered that I understood it all, life, the universe, and everything. That experience is over quickly, and you can't remember the answers no matter how hard you try. Not only that, you tend to keep forgetting that you had the experience at all. What impresses me about the accounts I've read of others who have gone through this is the shared feeling, at the moment of "enlightenment," of "Oh, yeah, I remember this...I've always known this!" I think there's something very simple that we've all forgotten for some reason, but it will come back to us.

And I've decided that the only way any of this makes sense is if life is a gigantic role-playing game of our own devising, and the rules are kinda sadistic.

Next year I think I'll just go to the beach.

;o)

[> [> Update -- dub, 14:02:03 09/03/04 Fri

Apparently, I'm a Taoist.

;o)

[> More summer vacation education -- matching mole, 14:15:21 08/31/04 Tue

Things I learned

While the Indiana countryside can be more beautiful than I imagined possible the food there is still kind of dull

Periodical (17 year) cicadas were everything I expected of them and more

It is not always incredibly hot in St. Louis in the summer.

I found the remnants of route 66 in the Chicago suburbs

I rediscovered how much less tedious Canadian elections are than American ones (6 weeks vs almost a year - you decide!).

Even sharks less than a meter long can be a bit unnerving when snorkelling

The infinite variety of the good, bad the in between, and the just plain interesting of our planet will probably (and hopefully) never cease to astound me.

The capacity of human beings to render themselves oblivious to this variety will also probably never cease to amaze me.

I'm not in as bad shape as I thought I might be.

Ecuadoreans don't like to make change

Although anacondas are not particularly afraid of people they do not seek them out and pick them off one at a time. In fact, even given an entire boatload of potential entrees they seem to prefer to just lie about

Trying to teach students in the rainforest is a very different experience than trying to teach them on campus (this sounds obvious I know)

Summer is never long enough except with regard to weeding when it is always too long.

Thanks OnM - I always look for your posts when I stop by
what are the ideas ME had for AS6?? -- ghady, 17:36:05 08/29/04 Sun


Replies:

[> We're working on it! Stay tuned! -- OnM, 04:55:26 08/31/04 Tue

Wicca/Paganism and the metro-Chicago area (completely off-topic) -- Thunderclap, 09:36:43 08/30/04 Mon

Hey All.

This is completely off-topic - but an acquaintance recommedned that I do this:

I have a quick question for all you Wiccans/Pagans on the board.

I've been studying as a Solitaire for the past year and a half, but I've been meaning to branch out and meet others. Even possibly join a coven.

I've been doing some research on the Web - but finding it very difficult to find Wiccan/Pagan groups here in the city (I live in Chicago).

I was wondering if someone(s) could help me out and point me in the right direction - or if you do live in the ChicagoLand area - would be up for corresponding via email.

ANY help with this would be so appreciated.

FYI: I am a gay male (27 y/o) - but I'm open to interacting with anyone of any age/gender/sexual orientation.

Thanks so much.

-Thunderclap-

Replies:

[> Re: Wicca/Paganism and the metro-Chicago area (completely off-topic) -- dub, 13:07:54 08/30/04 Mon

I don't live in Chicago (I've never even been there), but the best place to find listings of Wiccan/Pagan groups that I know of is at Witches' Voice, online. They have listings by state and by town.

http://www.witchvox.com

Good luck on the quest.

;o)

[> Re: Wicca/Paganism and the metro-Chicago area (completely off-topic) -- V.L.S., 15:48:12 08/30/04 Mon

This may be to far away for you to attend but there is a pagan pride day september 25, in St. Louis Mo. in Tower grove park. V.L.S.

[> Awesome - thanks for the help, everyone -- Sebastian, 14:01:31 09/01/04 Wed

Re: question -- Tzegha, 17:44:45 08/30/04 Mon

>>But maybe Mal truly no longer believes in God, and doesn't have a longing for more. It wouldn't necessarily follow that he wouldn't have a code of ethics.<<

I think this is more like it. I would hazard a guess that were Mal's own moral compass not so strong and steady, after Serenity Valley he would have lost a lot of the creeds set down by whatever religion he might have (loosely) adhered to.

But I think it is the other way around. I suspect that *because* of his strong moral compass, believing in God and all the good nice things that go along with it fit snugly into that. Losing faith in God therefore did not equal losing his morals or ethics.
question about the first airing of buffy -- nino, 19:54:52 08/30/04 Mon

i came across this web site (actually a friend sent it to me), and was wondering if it is true...check it out and let me know.

http://www.tvobscurities.com/pages/btvs_lostrailer.php

Replies:

[> I saw that trailer. -- Sophist, 20:18:33 08/30/04 Mon

Can't remember when, though.

[> [> I'm with Sophist.... -- Briar Rose, 02:15:05 08/31/04 Tue

It certainly might have been right before the premier episode, because I do remember that the premier's opening was very long, and had a full view of the line "she died" written in what is sometimes called Black Script or Old English Black Face in fonts. It was in the book that would turn out to be one of the prophecy books that is shown in other first season openings. But the times it is shown later it's in a much shorter shot. Harder to read, and not as much of the page is shown.

A lot of the little snippets of that longer promo were later used in the opening credit sequence over the seasons. Some of which were never in the series itself, like the totally German page (which I presume was another prophecy?) shown in another book in the premier opening sequence.

But it's also possible that the Annabel Gish snippit ended up in the opening for season 7, I think I might have seen it in the opening sequence of the Shadowmen ep. (Can't remember the name right now. Origins?) I guess that will have to wait until season 7 comes out on DVD. . . .

Now I'm intrigued. I wonder if that's going to float up in any DVD at any point, or if I'm remembering it wrong.

[> Re: question about the first airing of buffy -- CW, 06:30:51 08/31/04 Tue

Yes, it did air as a part of the first presentation of Welcome to the Hellmouth, and The Harvest together in the two part premiere. I haven't seen it since.

The WB was showing Buffy reruns two or more times a week that following summer, so I easily could have missed it if they showed it a second time.

[> The text in the opening title sequence -- Ames, 09:36:08 08/31/04 Tue

There's a web site somewhere that has an analysis of it. The German text is partly from the Bible, and partly from somebody's chatty letter home about their summer vacation.

[> [> Wow! Thanks Ames, I think I know who did it... I'd wondered if they ever finished. -- Briar Rose, 00:54:06 09/03/04 Fri

Angel, Season 1 eps 20-22 -- Masq, 15:04:57 08/31/04 Tue

War Zone

It's interesting, in retrospect, that M.E. chose to introduce Gunn by doing a billowy-coat/sword/batman music fake-out thing that makes us expect to see Angel. Gunn's tenure on the show would end up being defined by the question "What do I contribute to the gang that nobody else does?" The brains, well, that's Fred and Wesley. And "the muscle", well, Angel's stronger than Gunn. Angel is also the leader of and surrogate father to a group of fighters, something Gunn had to relinquish to Angel when he joined forces with him.

So what's the point of Gunn? The writers couldn't figure it out, so they made Gunn unable to figure it out, either.

The truth is, Gunn was (and of course I'm talking pre-5th season magical knowledge up-grade) smarter than Angel, and he had a street smarts AND a practical detective kind of smarts that none of the gang had. And the writers wrote him that way, but they never did explicitly acknowledge that, except for perhaps a little in "Players".

Season 1 Gunn is introduced as hot-headed and reckless and a little obsessed with the need to control his circumstances (his sister chides him on needing to "get a little death in" - provoke vampires into attacking them so they can kill the vampires). This makes perfect sense in his world, where he and his are victims of circumstance.

Season 1 Gunn is also a great deal less earnest than the Gunn we see later. Much less invested in anything beyond his own little world. All these aspects of Gunn disappear pretty rapidly in Season 2. Season 2 Gunn is presented as less reckless and more cautious and concerned about his fellow fighters. And he is invested in "the good fight". That comes out pretty clearly in his reactions to Noir Angel in mid-season 2 and his reaction to Wesley in the Pylea arc.

I suppose this rapid change in character might have to do with Gunn having to slay his own sister at the end of War Zone. This action is presented in "That Old Gang of Mine" as one of the central reasons (if not THE reason) he leaves his own gang to fight with Angel's. Maybe it was one of those painful epiphany moments where Gunn realizes that fighting for sheer survival means you have to be a certain kind of person that he doesn't want to be, and that if he has the chance to get out, to fight evil on a more leisurely schedule and with the luxury of doing it for "principled" reasons, he should grab it.

On another note, I remember a review of this episode praising Gunn's decision to kill his sister. Unlike the Scooby Gang with Angelus in Season 2 or VampWillow in Doppelgangland, the reviewer said, Gunn "knew" that wasn't really his loved one behind that familiar face.

Were we really still believing that as late as Angel season 1? That the unsouled vampire wasn't the same person as the souled vampire? That the soul was consciousness/memories/self rather than simply the conscience? See, I think Gunn "knew" that that was his sister standing there, soulless, due to his mistakes. And that's what made killing her so jarring and life-altering for him.

Anyway. War Zone. You see the title "War Zone", you think "Gunn!" You totally forget: David Nabbit!!

David Nabbit was a character who sounded good on paper, but didn't work in practice. A billionaire who thinks you're the coolest thing going? If they'd kept David Nabbit around, the 2nd season would have ended up like the 5th, with Angel driving one of a huge collection of muscle cars to help the helpless.

I suppose the point of David Nabbit was to show that Angel really does have an enviable life with dragons and swords and beautiful vampires and Slayers (that he can't actually touch, but still...) and fighting by choice rather than necessity, while Gunn's life was considerably less enviable.

Blind Date

This episode takes us once again back into the world of Wolfram and Hart, but deeper than we've been before. Where in "Five by Five" we see the firm through the lens of three almost comically clueless underlings, in "Blind Date", we head up the corporate ladder a few steps and are introduced to probably the scariest individual ever to grace the show, Holland Manners.

I was listening to the Rolling Stones "Sympathy for the Devil" shortly before I watched this episode, and Holland Manners just stepped right into the images that song invoked. The expensive suit in the halls of corporate power. His calm, reasonable smoothness. The way he sees Lindsey's Achilles Heel and aims right for it with avuncular charm.

"It's not about good or evil - it's about who wields the most power."

This is a man who appeals to and draws out the very worst in human nature, not out of a belief in evil or out of some uncontrollable psychopathic compunction, but because he knows that is how to have and wield power in the world, and he doesn't care about the consequences.

He is certainly scarier than Vanessa Brewer, who is just your garden variety blind ninja psychopath. She's working for Wolfram and Hart purely out of self-interest, because it gives her an outlet for her psychotic tendencies. I doubt she believes in anything. And Wolfram and Hart see in her somebody they can use. But they want more from Lindsey than pure self-interest. They want a company man. They want a believer.

"Blind Date" is the episode the spawned the "Can Lindsey be Redeemed?" debate. I always rather thought the answer was "Yes, he just had to *choose* to do it". Apparently ME thought the answer was no, in the end. Or maybe they just wanted Angel and Lorne to go out with a morally ambiguous bang. I don't know. What I do know is that it is in "Blind Date" that we first see Lindsey's moral confusion. I think Lindsey honestly DOES believe "It's not about good and evil, it's about power, and those willing to use it" and so he grasps and claws for power. Wolfram and Hart is his chance to rise above a childhood of poverty and a lifetime of being a pawn of the powerful and he's going to take it.

But he still has a conscience. A conscience that he sees as a weakness, an impediment to having what he wants - real control over his fate. So he fights his conscience. But he doesn't always succeed. And that still, small voice whispering in the background is what could redeem him if he'd just listen to it. If he'd just question his own assumptions about the way the world works.

Of course, the irony is that while allying himself with Wolfram and Hart gave him power, it didn't make him any less a pawn. He figured that out in Season 2 and that's why he left. And that's what made him turn his former employers into a project. It's all about control for him. "I won't let anyone control me. No, I will control the people who used me." That's Season 5 Lindsey and his obsession with the Senior Partners.

I suppose if Lindsey had really wanted to rid himself of his conscience and become master of his own fate, he should have become a vampire. No wonder he was obsessed with them, with Darla and Drusilla. But he could never get himself to cross that line. And no wonder Angel drove him nuts. What should have been a soulless, self-actualizing creature of the night was instead a vampire utterly wallowing in conscience.

And no wonder Angel was, in Lindsey's mind, Lindsey's ultimate enemy and ultimate obsession. Because Angel was the very symbol of conscience winning over consciencelessness.

But I suppose ME wanted to use Lindsey to write a tragedy. A Greek Tragedy, where a person who could be a good man eventually falls because of a fatal flaw in his character.

Just a side note. I wonder what ever happened to those seer kids? Did anyone ever fic them?

To Shanshu in L.A.

In "Blind Date", Angel finds the Shanshu Prophecy. He's drawn to it. He steals it. Wesley translates it, eventually and roughly as, "the vampire with a soul once he completes all his battles, will become mortal."

You know, I always wondered, from a writer's point of view, "Why the Shanshu Prophecy?" I'll give the writers credit they may not deserve and say they didn't come up with it to be a carrot on a stick for Angel.

Of course, through the first half of Season 2, it *was* a carrot on a stick for him, and then in "Epiphany" they had him turn his back on it. As well he should. Because a hero needs to answer the "Why we fight" question with a response more complex than "'cause if I do, I get the toy surprise at the bottom of the box."

Not that I objected to the idea of the Shanshu. I just didn't want it to be Angel's primary motive for doing good, and I wanted it happen to him a long, long time from now. Most likely as the curtain dropped on the last episode, or, at least have implied that it *would* happen eventually in that final moment.

As for where they actually went with the Shanshu, my thoughts are this. As I see it, a prophecy in the Buffyverse is like literary promissory note to the viewers. It means, "Something will happen in a future episode that will be a plausible interpretation of the words of this prophecy." That's one reason I was so furious with "Home" and so delighted with "Origin". You don't have characters spouting prophecies without following up on them IN SOME WAY, AT SOME POINT, ON CAMERA. Otherwise, don't drag a prophecy into the story at all (or very quickly show that it's false, as they did with "The father will kill the son").

That doesn't mean Buffyverse prophecies need to be fulfilled quite as literally and unambiguously as "Origin" fulfilled, "The one sired by the Vampire with a Soul will grow to manhood and kill Sahjhan." Prophecies, after all, are only as clear as the language they were written in, the translations of them you do and the power of the original seer. In other words, there's wiggle room, but some wiggling breaks the promise implicit in bringing a prophecy into the story line to begin with.

OK, all this is a preamble for me to say that - I don't believe that, within the literary practices and metaphysical rules Mutant Enemy established on both shows, they could simply have Angel "sign away" a prophecy, especially one that colored every season of the show the way the Shanshu did. Buffyverse prophecies simply don't work that way.

The fact that Angel appeared to do just that in "Not Fade Away" is therefore either a disappointing mistake on the part of the writers, OR, a mislead, in which case one of the following must be true:

(1) Angel survived the battle in the alley at the end of Not Fade Away, and will some day become mortal. (I like this one)
(2) Angel is in fact, not the Vampire with a Soul in question, and Spike survived the battle in the alley at the end of Not Fade Away, and will some day become mortal.
(3) Neither of them is the vampire in question, someone else is. While this is a valid interpretation of the prophecy, in my mind it completely breaks the promise implicit in bringing the original prophecy into play. Who IS this hypothetical vampire, and why aren't we ever told who s/he is?
(4) Wesley in fact translated the prophecy wrong, as did Wolfram and Hart. Wesley spends most of "TSiLA" thinking Shanshu means "death", not "mortalness". Eventually, he decides based on a historical-linguistic analysis of the text that it in fact means "mortal", and the interpreters at W&H conclude the same thing. But maybe they all got it wrong. Maybe it just means "After all the battles, Angel will die." This one is kind of interesting given what happened in "NFA", but if it's the case, why not just say so in "NFA"?

Oh right, because the series ending was supposed to be ambiguous. Pllfft. What.Ever.

or

(5) There is in fact some *other* interpretation of the prophecy that *did* come true, and NOT off-camera or later on. I have one idea on this. It's not the interpretation I favor (I like (1) above), but here it is:

The part of TSiLA I find really interesting is the exchange between Cordelia and Wesley about why Angel doesn't care if he some day will die as the prophecy seemed to predict on first glance.

Wesley: "Angel's cut off. Death doesn't bother him because there is nothing in life he wants! It's our desires that make us human."
Cordy: "Angel is kind of human. He's got a soul."
Wesley: "He's got a soul, but he's not a part of the world. He-he can never be part of the world."
Cordy: "Because he doesn't want stuff? That's ridiculous. (Wesley takes her doughnut away from her) Hey! I want that!"
Wesley: "What connects us to life?"
Cordy: "Right now? I'm going with doughnuts."
Wesley: "What connects us to life is the simple truth that we are part of it. We live, we grow, we change. But Angel..."
Cordy: "Can't do any of those things. Well, what are you saying, that Angel has nothing to look forward to? That he's going to go on forever, in the world, but always cut off from it?"
Wesley: "Yes."

I don't know if, at this point in the series, Joss and ME had any thoughts about allowing Angel to join the cycle of life (that as a vampire he is cut off from) by making him a father.

But a year later they did just this, and he became a father. Perhaps the idea behind fatherhood was simply to give Angel something more personal and concrete to tie him to the world beyond just "a noble love of humanity" or a some-day Shanshu. Or perhaps they made him a father just to torment the hell out of him.

But it is one possible interpretation of the Shanshu prophecy that Connor is in fact Angel's Shanshu. If you see "mortality" as simply meaning, "being tied into the cycle of life", then fathering a child who survives and goes on to father his own children is one way of answering the literary promise of the Shanshu prophecy. And probably why they have this father-son exchange near the end of NFA:

Angel: Go home...now.
Connor: They'll destroy you.
Angel: As long as you're OK, they can't.

If you don't buy that Angel can sign his destiny away, then hey, maybe he's already fulfilled it, and he did so ON CAMERA.

Anyway, there's more than one prophecy about the Vampire with a Soul and W&H have read them all and TSILA marks the end of W&H's attempts to kill Angel and the beginning of W&H's big plan to separate him from the Powers that Be and corrupt him. This is in fact the Big Plan of Season 2 and it continues right into Season 5, when W&H believe they have finally succeeded because they have Angel in their clutches.

Their first volley is trying to kill Cordelia and Wesley. Their second is the revivification of Darla. And ME did their job with 5x5 and The Prodigal very well, because when I saw Darla in that box, Wow! I was on the edge of my seat, chomping at the bit for Season 2 to start.

Replies:

[> Re: Angel, Season 1 eps 20-22 -- Vickie, 16:23:54 08/31/04 Tue

Wow! That is a great analysis of the Shanshu. Going to update the web site with that one?

Regarding the War Zone/Blind Date one-two punch, I've always enjoyed looking at Gunn and Lindsey side-by-side. They have similar backgrounds: impoverished, with few realistic choices, and little to no control of their environments. And both become a little control-freakish as a result.

They are pretty similar up to the point where they meet Angel (and company). At that point, Gunn suffers the loss of his sister and takes the opportunity to fight for more than survival. Maybe he thinks that he has a better chance at control if he teams up with Angel (though he resists the teamup for several months).

Lindsey, on the other hand, considers W&H a better bet in the control Olympics. So he goes back to them.

There's probably an essay in here somewhere. Especially with their crossing arcs in S5 (Gunn becomes the flashy lawyer, Lindsey becomes the outsider trying to extend his control). Arguably, the both end up just as dead.

Ok, now I'm depressed.

[> [> Re: Angel, Season 1 eps 20-22 -- Masq, 19:47:39 08/31/04 Tue

I noticed the contrast between Gunn and Lindsey, too as I was writing this. I never noticed it before (both poor, each does different things with it in season 1, then a sort of role-reversal in season 5). It would have made my review a little too long to get into the contrast, so I skipped it, but yeah, there's an essay in contrasting their journies through season 5.

My analysis of the Shanshu is pretty much a lot of grumbling in the face of canon, which I think pretty much implies "Angel signed away his destiny. Deal with it."

Or, no, I don't think that's true. I think Joss left the fate of the Shanshu ambiguous in a lot of ways. Angel signing the Circle's parchment with a funny signature, what Angel says to Connor before he leaves W&H, the fact that we never *see* Angel actually die on screen. I think we are allowed to read into it what makes us happiest. So I read "Huh. Angel must have survived that fight in the alley. Cool."

[> [> [> Of course Angel survived... -- Vickie, 21:18:34 08/31/04 Tue

... that fight in the alley. Was there ever any other possible interpretation?

I think we were cheated out of a great fight sequence.

[> [> [> [> Um.... they all died? -- Masq, 21:49:07 08/31/04 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> Nope, nope, no, noway... -- Vickie, fingers in ears, averting eyes, 08:58:18 09/01/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> You'll love Season 6, then -- Masq, 12:41:06 09/01/04 Wed

When it gets here.

[> Re: Angel, Season 1 eps 20-22 -- riding_on_this_train, 04:12:51 09/01/04 Wed

This is my first post ever and I'm not an English speaking person, so please excuse my poor English. I just thought the subject deserved delurking.
You see, I'm going through this Angel video-marathon (though I'm a few episodes ahead of you), and I had that same revelation while watching that Wesley-Cordelia conversation in TSiLA.
Loved your anaylisis of the Shanshu prophecy. I'm staying with options 1 and 5. If this is the last we hear from Angel, it works fine for me that Angel shanshues through Connor. And it is perfectly consistant with a conversation that took place as soon as in Season 1!
But I like to believe that Angel survives in that alley too(that's the romantic in me I guess...).
I think this ambiguity was deliverately chosen so it works well whatever happens from now on.
Great site! Greetings from Barcelona

[> [> Welcome -- Cactus Watcher, 06:11:05 09/01/04 Wed

Thank you for posting your thoughts!

[> [> Oh, I love Barcelona -- Masq, 07:16:07 09/01/04 Wed

Welcome. I, too prefer option 1.

We are working on a Season 6 Angel fan fic here at ATPo where, naturally, Angel does survive, along with the others in the alley.

[> [> [> Have you ever been to Barcelona? -- riding_on_this_train, 10:27:06 09/01/04 Wed

Thanks! I'm looking forward for this season 6 project :)

[> [> [> [> Re: Have you ever been to Barcelona? -- Masq, 12:51:43 09/01/04 Wed

I was there in October of 2002, very briefly, to catch a cruise ship. Didn't see *nearly* enough of it - an evening stroll along Las Ramblas, a short walk through the Gothic Quarter, a taxi ride back to the hotel, and a short bus tour in town, that was about the all of it.

*sigh*

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Have you ever been to Barcelona? -- Jane, 19:44:25 09/01/04 Wed

Welcome! Nice to have new people on board. Barcelona is a great city. I was there in 1969, on my first trip to Europe. I loved the city, even though I didn't speak any Spanish. I'd like to go back some day.

[> [> Barcelona! *sighs and daydreams that she is in Barcelona* -- angel's nibblet, 21:45:12 09/01/04 Wed

Welcome to the board! Have a cookie!

[> [> [> Thanks! :) -- riding_on_this_train, 03:48:35 09/02/04 Thu

Nice to meet you all!
You know, it's kind of lonely here. Not many Buffy/Angel fans in this country...(sigh)
Now I'm sitting around, waiting for my ATS Season 4 DVD to come...

[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks! :) -- Jane, 19:45:23 09/02/04 Thu

Well, we have regular chat nights Tuesdays. Come join us sometime!

[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks! :) -- angel's nibblet, 20:16:25 09/02/04 Thu

Not many Buffy/Angel fans in this country...(sigh)

Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that, in my experience there's generally a lot more than one thinks ;-) They'll be around, somewhere...

[> [> [> [> Hola -- Cheryl, 20:20:40 09/02/04 Thu

Welcome to ATPoBtVS&AtS (what a mouthful!)- the best Buffy and Angel site out there.

Some day I want to get back to Spain. I was there 24 years ago and loved it. Although I didn't get to Barcelona. But I was in Madrid, Toledo, Segovia, Seville, and Malaga and enjoyed all of it.


Now I'm sitting around, waiting for my ATS Season 4 DVD to come...

Me, too! I just pre-ordered it the other night along with Volume 3 of the Watchers Guide.

[> About prophecy -- Kenny, 05:16:41 09/01/04 Wed

Listen. Some prophecies are, are a bit dodgy. They're, they're mutable. Buffy herself has, has thwarted them time and time again, but this is the Codex. There is nothing in it that does not come to pass. Giles, Prophecy Girl (transcript from buffy-vs-angel.com)

This is probably the most explicit statement ever made in the Buffyverse about prophecy.

Prophecy (from Mirrian-Webster)
1: an inspired utterance of a prophet
2: the function or vocation of a prophet; specifically: the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose
3: a prediction of something to come

There have been different types of prophecies on "Buffy" and "Angel". We most often think of the ones written in ancient texts or spouted from the mouths of hamburgers outside an fast food joint. But there are others. Buffy, through her dreams, was a prophet. She saw the deaths of the girls at the beginning of S7 and had a warning that something bad was on its way. Cordelia was a prophet. She had divinely inspired visions of the future. But the whole point of her prophecies was for Angel to invalidate them. They were incredibly mutable.

An important point of "Don't Fade Away" was that a prophecy could only be undone through the original document. We've no indication that any of the other prophecies we've seen were the original. Perhaps when they say original they don't even mean the first time it was written down by a prophet or scribe. Perhaps this is a document created by the PTB or some other entity/group that first made the prophet aware of the prophecy. Instead of being a copy of the event(s) to occur, it could just be another representation of the event(s), another facet of the same jewel, hence disrupting its existence disrupts the event as they are one and the same.

Really, this is just me saying that I don't have a problem with the metaphysics in "Not Fade Away". I think it's totally in keeping with the rest of the series, and I think it was a beautiful scene.

Current board | September 2004