January 2003 posts
First Impressions on Ats Episode 4.9 (Major Spoilers for Tonights ATS) -- shadowkat, 20:52:50 01/15/03 Wed
I left the title off on purpose guys - because it is a spoiler in of itself. First off - I loved this episode.
Sorry - IMHO Ats is outdoing Btvs in the dramedy department this season. This was a stellar episode. Some cheesy moments here and there but all in all - great fun. I'd give it an A.
Huge Spoilers below!!
*
*
*
First off the meaning of Habeas Corpus legally and metaphorically in the episode.
HABEAS CORPUS :
According to my handy Barrons law dictionary (The Black's is in Hilton Head unfortunately) - the writ of habeas corpus also known as the Great Writ is the procedure for obtaining a judicial determination of the legality of an individual's custody. Technically, it is used in the criminal law context to bring the petitioner before the court to inquire into the legality of his confinement.
The Latin meaning of Habeas Corpus is " you have the body"
Wolfram & Hart - it's a legal term so I'm starting with them first:
In this episode - Connor goes to Wolfram and Hart and asks for their help to determine who and what he is physically.
And what his connection is to the Beast. He hands his body over to them - but not as Lilah first assumes to dissect and put under microscopes at her whim. She attempts to control the "body" but instead Connor takes control.
Lilah: Throughout this episode - Lilah attempts to take control of the body, whether it be Wesely's with sex, the BEast's with a deal, W&H with threats and power, or Connor's. She fails on all counts. Even in the end is proven to not have custody of her own.
The episode also concerns the idea of safe haven. And control over your body and someone else's.
Lilah tells Wes at the beginning of the episode that she was safe because she stayed the night at W&H. If there's an Apocalypse - you'll always be safe there - she reiterates.
She seems to think at this stage - since her firm wants an Apocalypse then she is automatically on the same side of the Beast and it will deal with her. She believes she's in control.
But step by step her control is shredded.
- Her sexual relationship with Wes is the first thing to drop from her control. HE ends it - quickly and neatly. With no fanfair. Gee Buffy should take lessons. Lilah believes she has control over it. Note it is a physical relationship they have - based on sex, based on the cravings of the body. I have custody of his body she thinks. Nope. She comes to him, she leaves messages on his machine - apparently he has custody of hers? Or one would think. She tries to bait him, tries to seduce him, tries to use Fred to do so - nothing works. He is cold and tells her it's over - he's chosen the "right side" the white side and gives her a very Watcher like speech about how everything is black and white...which makes one wonder if he's learned nothing from Angel. She lets him know that actually it's more gray. (More on this later).
So she retreats to nurse her wounds in her safe haven, W&H which she controls. She orders Gavin to find the Beast - and see if they can't set up a deal, it'll be hard to control but since they want the same things...then Connor appears and she thinks she's won. Nope Connor grabs her by the throat and once again Connor has her body not the other way around.
When the Beast shows - Connor knows it before she does. And she still thinks she can control things. But the Beast according to connor is following him and could care less about her. The Beast doesn't stop to talk to the attorneys - instead it kills them - takes control of their bodies literally turning them into zombies to do it's will (okay I'm assuming it's the Beast doing this - it is possible that W&H had a security measure in place that did it or the evil thing in the white room caused it - but I'm sticking with the Beast until told otherwise...works with the whole who has the body theme.) Lilah attempts to shoot it - but it gets her - doesn't immediately kill her - instead drills it's finger in her stomach - pulls out something and grins then dumps her for a moment. She tries to get away - if it weren't for Wes showing up? Methinks Lilah would be a zombie as well. Everyone at W&H is killed by Lilah who is ironically taken out by WEs. Wes has custody of her body, not the other way around. And Wes tells her to save herself by leaving town. She gives up Connor's whereabouts in return.
W&H - who as lawyers usually take custody of the clients in criminal actions have been taken custody of themselves literally. The Beast has taken W&H corpses literally. It has sucked the life from the evil thing that holds the corporate entity of W&H together.
Now onto Cordelia and who has the Body.
We return to the scene of Cordy and Connor - which Angel has seen. It is clear from Cordy's view of things - this was only a physical act. Again body. She let Connor take her body. Angel clearly blames Cordelia not Connor for it.
So Cordy believes she's in control - up until the ending where Angel tells her to "take your boyfriend and go" Again the take the body image. Also he insists she stay behind while Fred go with them - ironic. Does he want to protect Cordy from the Beast or himself? Is he afraid if Cordy comes it will put his son in danger? Who is Angel protecting here? I'm not convinced it's the slamn against Fred it appears - rather a slamn against Cordelia - who he clearly can no longer trust.
Then we have the relationship between Wex/GUN/ and Fred.
Gunn whose life was saved by Wes in the last episode isn't all that thankful, or maybe I misinterpreted it. Note to self - rewatch Apocalypse Nowish tomorrow. If anything he's brimming with jealous rage - at the chemistry between Wes and Fred. While Wes is brimming with jealousy and irritation at the relationship between Fred and Gunn - Fred physically embraces Gunn when he enters, enveloping him with her body. Later when they are in the law firm and separated - it is Fred and Wes in one room and Gunn enveloped by zombies. The separation is interesting, prophetic? maybe.
Fred also shows interest and admiration for Wes' ability to have learned what was going on at W&H before they did.
Going back to Lilah's telling black and white speech - which in some ways is a summary of the writer's view of the Ats universe and a reminder that often the grey/evil characters are the truth-tellers in these shows - these writers love irony. If the character is remotely grey or slightly evil? Trust them to give us the uncomfortable truth. She tells Wes, can't remember exact words - that life isn't white or black - it's gray and the more you try to mix white into it the grayer it becomes. (which is the uncomfortable truth) Then she makes a racial slur on Fred and Gun - how Fred prefers black, which could have a double-meaning - ie. that Wes is darker in soul and Fred will go to him eventually? (that was just to remind us that Lilah is an evil bitch).
Then we enter the white room with the evil thing disguised as a little girl getting it's dark life sucked from it. Oddly enough the thing sends Angel and company home as it's last act. Is this a good? evil? or grey act? Hmmm. No doubt about it - the Beast would have killed them or most of them.
What's interesting is the reactions: Fred - did you see that horrible thing it did to that little girl. Wes - that wasn't a little girl - it was an evil thing disquised as a little girl. Gunn - so why'd it feel the need to kill evil little red riding hood and why'd evil little red riding hood send us home??
The little girl told Angel way back in The Price - that it despised chaos. Preferred order. Things nice and neat.
It liked W&H for that reason. And had made Saijhan non-physical for a similar reason. The corporeal Saijhan killed non-discriminatly and caused too much chaos. So does the Beast come to think of it. The Beast is most likely an agent of chaos - wants total disarray, sloppy Apocalypse. W&H wanted an orderly one. I'm wondering if the fight in Ats may be between Order and Chaos as opposed to clear good and evil?? Order and Chaos makes things a tad grayer after all since evil and good can literally be both.
The key to all of this may lie with that little girl. Or possibly with Connor's birth. It may be a parallel to BTVS - the idea of a disruption to the infinitie game. Something someone did disrupted the interdimensional time line and set things out of wack causing the birth of the Beast and Connor to occur. And clearly they are connected. Can't have one without the other?? Connor keeps saying - The Beast was at W&H because it was following him. And Connor is the only one outside of Lilah originally in W&H when it arrived that it did not kill...
Don't know the answers just some guesses. Cool episode.
RIP Gavin - you'll be missed. Hoping Lilah will return - I love her. Was very happy they did not kill her. Was just a tad worried.
Agree? Disagree? Comments?
Just my ten cents.
SK
[>
Oops sorry - it's spoilers for 4.8 only NOT 4.9...HB (TONIGHT's Episode) -- shadowkat, 21:04:09 01/15/03 Wed
I think I'm losing count of the Ats episodes again.
Can we use the title soon??
4.9 is next week.
[> [>
Love you, love your comments -- JM, 21:46:42 01/15/03 Wed
Sigh, guess it will be another day of fake work. Please let the boss go home early. Yes, totally on the chaos vs order thing. Not too worried about W&H, not until the Beast takes out the Muncie office.
Those Spuffy vibes couldn't have been a coincidence. Wes did his AYW off screen, but it amounted to the same thing. He spent the night with an ex-boy friend and realized it was time to break things off. (Or perhaps that was the fanfic talking.) But in the end, he *came* for her. Wes, you may not love Lilah, but you need her. She loves you and she knows you. No one else does.
Um, that's it for now, will be back tomorrow.
[> [> [>
Definitely the fanfic : ) -- Scroll, 22:15:36 01/15/03 Wed
For having saved his life, Gunn doesn't seem to afford Wes the slightest measure of gratitude. But I do love their little exchange about being willing to kill the other if they get turned into zombies. Now that's brotherly love.
I don't know how I knew... I should've really been afraid for her life after seeing Gavin bite the big one... But somehow (perhaps it was the 'shipper within) I knew that Wes was going to come swooping in to save Lilah. And how much did I love seeing Lilah pull out that handgun and load it? Forget grey "Him" and "Her" towels. Those two need matching semi-automatics. Maybe a pair of those bazookas Buffy seems to have lying about.
OT: considering how much I detest firearms and fully support gun restriction laws, I really, really enjoy seeing Wes and Lilah pulling out their pieces. These are two very civilised individuals, prone to delivering orders and performing speech-acts rather than physically attacking, and to see them channel their energies into such small, deadly devices... I get such a raw and visceral reaction...
[> [> [> [>
Totally get that -- JM, 18:47:01 01/16/03 Thu
Not really about the laws, but I am terrified of guns. Never held, one rarely been in the same room as one. But Wes's armament is one of my favorite elements of continuity in the series. There just seems something that some one with his type of mind would have an affinity for cold, metal, mechanical weapons. And it seems so right that Lilah would choose something that equalize the strength differential between her and any man that gave her trouble. It's both continuity and non-verbal characterization. And it is troublingly, viscerally appealing.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Totally get that -- Jay, 20:37:02 01/16/03 Thu
I hesitate to admit this since I know there are a lot of anti-gun people visiting this board, but I grew up in gods country. Where going on a hunting trip is as normal of as an extracurricular activity after school. I probably started using a BB gun when I was 6; A .22 rifle when I was 10 or 11; and a 20 gauge shotgun and a 270 deer rifle when I was 12 and 14. I don't hunt anymore, mostly because I've moved so far south, that I consider the game, small, and the costs to do it, ridiculous.
Handguns and automatic weapons aren't a very big thing where I come from. Small handguns, maybe, but not that much of that 9mm crap. I've seen 10 times as many big game bows as I've seen handguns. I can say without doubt, that I've never seen an automatic weapon.
Enough of the background, my point is, guns in the hands of those who respect and know how to use them is no big deal. Of the thousands of times I was around people with guns in their hands, I've never seen anyone even point one at anyone else, not even as a joke. I think that this is why it's so easy for me to believe that "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Totally get that -- Scroll, 20:46:40 01/16/03 Thu
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you uneasy. I have to admit, we don't have many guns where I come from, except cops and what we consider "bad guys" (criminals). I'm sure there's plenty of hunting outside the city but I can't say I've ever gone, nor has anyone else I know. And I totally agree with you that it's people that kill people, not guns. But considering how many accidental deaths occur with small children and handguns, I tend to be (maybe overly) cautious. Like, you can't fall off a flagpole if you don't climb it in the first place. (Okay, bad analogy :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Totally get that -- shadowkat, 13:04:47 01/19/03 Sun
And I totally agree with you that it's people that kill people, not guns. But considering how many accidental deaths occur with small children and handguns, I tend to be (maybe overly) cautious. Like, you can't fall off a flagpole if you don't climb it in the first place. (Okay, bad analogy :)
I remember when I was in college - an army cadet once asked me if I had ever seen let alone fired a gun. I said no.
The closest I've come to seeing a gun outside of a store is the one we used in a moot criminal trial, a friend got an unloaded gun to use as an exhibit and placed it in a plastic bag. It was to be the murder weapon. That's the closest.
What I can't get away from is the fact that a gun's sole purpose is to kill. It is designed as a weapon. Unlike a knife which has numerous purposes - the original probably being to cut through something, whether it be rope, skin, meat, wood, or thread, a gun was designed to shoot a hole through a living thing. If you own a gun - it's probably for the following reasons: 1) you collect them 2) you like to hunt deer or animals, 3) for protection. The thing about having a gun for protection is they don't really protect you - most people in the cases I've seen regarding using guns for protection - got hurt or killed because they owned the gun. Or a member of their family did. Or a friend did. Is there anything wrong with owning a gun? No. But unlike owning a collection of flagpoles or a collection of swords or a collection of comic books or even a collection of knives - the gun's primary purpose is to kill. (Although I think knives may be more dangerous, since technically speaking you can disarm a gun by never having any ammunition on hand, knife...well pretty hard to disarm - otoh, you can run from a knife and you're chances of survival against someone with a knife and a gun are far higher.)
It's the "purpose" of the gun that makes me uneasy and is the reason I'll never own one or fire one. This could be due to how I was raised, where I've lived and my legal background. Once you sit across from a man who is doing life plus 20 years for using a gun to kill people...it's sort of hard to see guns in any other way.
That said - my Uncle owns a gun. And has gone hunting. I respect his right. But...it doesn't change the fact that I believe we'd all be better off if guns did not exist or were more restricted then they currently are.
Just my ten cents.
Oh taking this back towards Buffy - I too got a visceral thrill out seeing Lilah and Wes use guns. But once again the writers' are making an interesting point - in both series, note that the only people ever hurt or killed by guns are our heros. In Thin Dead Line - Wes is nearly killed by a gun. In Seeing Red - Tara is killed by one. In every other episode - the point is made repeatedly that guns can't kill demons or do much. In Season 1, Btvs - Darla uses a gun and fires on Angel and Buffy - hurting Angel. Buffy to Riley in AYW - these things? Never useful - it misfires. To the Security Guard in Flooded - "never useful". Wes and Lilah don't make a dent. The gun did not help them. Perhaps the message is - the "gun" has never helped anyone?
[> [> [>
Why thank you -- shadowkat, 06:50:55 01/16/03 Thu
Not sure if I qualify as a shipper - I tend to ship for the relationships the writers put the characters in - well with the possible exception of A/C and maybe G/F (although they are growing on me a little). I do however love Wes and Lilah together. And their scene in this episode I found far better written than the one in AYW - perhaps the difference is it was more adult. But then Lilah and Wes are adults and their relationship was from the get-go shown as an adult mature relationship in contrast to B/S which while adult seemed lacking in maturity on both sides. While I was one of the people who actually liked parts of S/B (can't stand the shipper term), I preferred W/L.
I don't believe W/L is over. Nor do I believe Lilah is the type of person to hide and change her name. That woman is not only persistent, she's a fighter. I also think she and Wes understand each other on a level that none of the other characters currently appear to. Wes' decision not to play with her physically any more - may be what saves the relationship or advances it. The mere fact that he went out of his way to rescue her says something. I think Lilah may have initially thought the same thing I had - That Wes was there for Connor - hence her surprise that a) he's there and b) that he's not asking about Connor or hunting for him.
Overwhelmed by the fact that he put himself in a great deal of danger, risked his life, to save her and get her out, she tells him Connor's in there too and needs saving.
In case you missed how important this is - check out Gunn's reactions to Wes' news about W&H as well as the others. They don't appear to really understand why he went in there.
Gunn in fact doesn't get why anyone would be upset about those lawyers being killed. (Which is partly why I enjoyed seeing him almost devored by them...I'm having a love/hate relationship with this character - felt karmic)
In many ways - Wes sort of redeems himself - he gets help for Connor, he stops using Lilah for sex, when he cares more about Fred, and he saves Lilah from the Beast. Go Wes!
(I guess I'm more of a Wes fan than a shipper. Same goes for Spike actually...;-) )
SK
[> [> [> [>
On Gunn and personal connections -- ponygirl, 08:45:00 01/16/03 Thu
I think Gunn's reactions at W&H were interesting. It almost made me forgive a lot about his attitude that he took the time to kill Gavin just because he knew him. That along with his conversation with Wes about doing each other the favour of killing each other, makes me wonder if we were seeing some foreshadowing. Are those zombie bites infectious?
So much in this episode was about the personal. No one questions following Angel into W&H to save Connor. It's not as clearcut as teaming up to stop the Beast but Angel never even asked if they were coming with him to save his son. Wes saves Lilah but no one else from W&H (understandable). Gunn only takes out the zombie he has a personal connection to... Angel way back when the series started had a good sense of the larger picture but a tough time connecting with people. Has the AI team gone too far in one direction? Has it become all about the personal for them? I keep thinking of the last episode where they literally had to step back to make sense of their map to the Beast.
[> [> [> [>
Ok, now I have to ask -- Spike Lover, 10:14:28 01/16/03 Thu
Who is the better MATCH for Wesley?
Let's see. We have seen him in S'dale w/ Cordy. We have seen him infatuated with Fred. And we have seen his raw, sexual power with Lilah. Previously, last season? we saw him turn into a chauvenistic womanhater in one episode. He stalks Fred thru the hotel with an axe.
Ok.
Superficially speaking, Fred ran. In a similar situation, Lilah stood her ground. She is able to handle the sexual darkside.
It could be that Ats is going to preach at us (again) about healthy relationships as BTVS did, but it is a waste if they do. Part of a healthy relationship is self-knowledge, that which BTVS is sorely lacking.
You have to understand who and what you are. You may want the ideal picket fence house, but you have to realize if you belong in that dark castle on the top of that hill. At one time, perhaps when he had just come over from England, Wes and Fred might have been ideal together. The white picket fence dream might have been ideal.
But I don't think that is Wes anymore. There is no prisoner in a closet on her knees inside the white picket fenced house. Nor do I think that the prisoner in the closet, kick ass attitude is a phase Wesley is going through. He has changed. He has experienced things. He looks at things differently, reacts to them in a very 'gray' way.
So I think Lilah may be a much better match for him than Fred -as long as she can continue to keep her work for the most part out of their relationship. I think if Wesley and Fred had offed the professor, Wesley would not feel guilty (self-defense) and would not understand why she had a problem with it.
Thus, for Wesley to long for black and white again, (symbolized by Gunn and Fred), is rather naive of the character and the writers if they mean it. And to have him cut loose something sensible for an ideal (I am going to go back to be near Fred, because I like her, because she is innocent and I wish I was again, and even though I don't have a real chance in hell with her, I am going to tread water until the world ends- is pointless.) It sort of reminds me of that very early episode of the guy who built the machine to freeze time because he knew his girlfriend was about to break up with him... But that is not healthy.
[> [> [> [> [>
Why does everyone insist Fred is an 'innocent'? -- cjl, 10:37:26 01/16/03 Thu
Compared to Lilah, maybe. But Fred has been mixing up some "grey" herself ever since she got back to L.A. Remember when she icily threatened to kill one of Gunn's old compadres in "That Old Gang of Mine"? Remember her survival skills and talent for constructing sharp, lethal weapons in "Billy"? Remember her....uh, enthusiastic use of a taser on Connor in "Deep Down"? And I'm sure Anya was giving her a vicarious "you go, girl!" when Fred plotted her vengeance on Oliver Seidel in "Supersymmetry."
Our cute little Winifred is potentially lethal, doesn't mind the idea of killing when the occasion calls for it and holds grudges like nobody's business. Lilah mocks her because she's Wesley's idea of purity--but IMO, neither Wesley's view of Fred or Lilah's has anything to do with Fred HERSELF. The killing of Prof. Seidel definitely puts Fred and Gunn in the dark grey territory, and I'm sure once the whole truth about it comes out (oh come on, you know it will eventually), I don't think her A.I. mates will see Fred as such a cute li'l sweetie pie.
So why is Wes "too dark" for Fred?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I am trying to make allowance for Fred's <recent> guilt? -- Spike Lover, 10:52:09 01/16/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [>
We see what we want, maybe (spoilers for 4.8) -- Scroll, 11:07:29 01/16/03 Thu
Spike Lover wrote: for Wesley to long for black and white again, (symbolized by Gunn and Fred), is rather naive of the character and the writers if they mean it. And to have him cut loose something sensible for an ideal (I am going to go back to be near Fred, because I like her, because she is innocent and I wish I was again, and even though I don't have a real chance in hell with her, I am going to tread water until the world ends- is pointless.)
While being with his old friends again (including Fred) might've played a small part of Wesley's decision to break it off with Lilah, I really do think he came to a mature, rational decision that, when the chips are down and the apocalypse is nigh, he's going to be fighting the good fight as a White Hat. No matter what his feelings are for Lilah (it's clear he does care for her), Wesley must choose a side, and he knows Lilah's on the wrong one.
As for why we see Fred as innocent, it's probably because her flashes of ruthlessness are hidden pretty deep -- or perhaps I should say she's gentle and innocent until pushed too far (i.e. Connor, Prof. Seidel). Then she acts out of self-preservation and for vengeance. But these instances are rare.
OTOH, Wesley and Lilah are ruthless because the situation calls for it, not for vengeance or self-preservation (well, maybe Lilah in some circumstances). So Wesley's "dark" is different than Fred's "dark". I see Fred's "dark" to be much like Veiny!Willow in S6, and Wesley's "dark" to be like Watcher!Giles in "The Gift". Can I make the distinction that Wesley, Giles, and sometimes Buffy are ruthless, but that Fred, Willow, and sometimes Buffy (with Faith) are vengeful?
Gunn and Wesley (and Angel et al.) don't want to see Fred as dark. Okay, to be fair, only Gunn and Wes have any real reason to see Fred as dark. Nobody else knew how far Fred was willing to go with Prof. Seidel. Gunn is worse than Wesley at turning a blind eye to Fred's vengeful streak. He totally believes in Fred's "purity". That being said, I don't think Wes and Fred are a good match. Don't know why except I'm a biased W/L shipper. Also, I can't see Wesley actively pursuing and dating his (ex-)best friend's girlfriend. Just not his style.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Excellent points, Scroll. I agree regarding Wesley. -- Ixchel, 17:37:21 01/16/03 Thu
I think you have some very insightful observations about Fred. As an aside, I was pleased (because I liked her big sister relationship with Connor hinted at in DD) that she seemed very happy that Connor was alive. Maybe this indicates a softening on her part toward him?
Regarding ruthless vs. vengeful, I would note that Giles was _consumed_ with vengeance for a short time in Passion. OTOH, Buffy did get through to him after getting his attention.
Again, great post.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Working my way slowly through S3 again at the moment... -- KdS, 03:33:00 01/17/03 Fri
Early flashes of Scary!Fred:
Casually talking about tossing the Captain's body in the ravine with "the others" in Plrtz Glrb. How many times has she done that before?
Going into great detail about the effects of a crossbow bolt in the throat in That old Gang of Mine
Working out how you could kill someone with your arms cut off before you bled to death in Fredless
Bashing the possessed Angel with a baseball bat for luck when he's already unconscious in Carpe Noctem
Setting a lethal trap for the possessed Wes in Billy
Holding a dagger to Darla's belly in Quickening - OK, she wouldn't and couldn't have done anything with it, but still pretty cold-blooded
I'll be looking out for more as the season continues...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
'lethal'? -- anom, 21:52:25 01/18/03 Sat
"Setting a lethal trap for the possessed Wes in Billy"
Gotta question why you say this. 1st, it didn't kill him, & it's not like she couldn't have set a trap that would have if she'd wanted to. 2nd, she wouldn't have wanted to, because she knew Wes was under the influence of Billy's blood & that it might wear off or they could find a cure. So, trap, yes; lethal, no.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You have an optimistic view of the human skull -- KdS, 09:32:00 01/19/03 Sun
I did a little bit of first aid, and all I can say is that a full fire extinguisher swinging down under gravity from about a three foot distance can definitely inflict fatal damage to a normal human skull.
Most TV and film greatly underestimates the hazard of head injuries.
[>
Re: Stuff 4.8 (Major Spoilers for Tonights AtS & season 7 for BtVS) -- Jay, 21:41:41 01/15/03 Wed
It's occurred to me that Wesley, as a former Watcher, would have been a prime target for the First Evil and its Harbringers. But, his dalliance with evil, more specifically, with Lilah, has brought him under their radar. So while I eagerly anticipate evidence why Angel (vampire with a soul previously targeted by the FE) hasn't been more obviously targeted, I can accept Pryce's apparent exclusion.
It's clear to me now that the writers intended to destroy Wolfram & Hart all along this year, once they put Lilah in charge of it. It was way to risky to do it before, when they had to make her somewhat sympathetic. But once they knew the firm had a limited shelflife, everything became doable.
Mostly, I amazed at how quickly you continually cut to the heart of things. An hour after the episode ends, you are at a point that would take me the better part of a week, if not some hindsight to achieve. Keep writing.
[> [>
First Evil and Angel's Gange - why it leaves them alone -- shadowkat, 06:35:38 01/16/03 Thu
First thanks for the compliment - I think it's partly my legal training that enables me to do this - you're taught to look at a problem and within ten minutes analyze it and spot the main issues - then of course tested on it. No matter how far away you move from practicing law - that ability stays with you.
It's occurred to me that Wesley, as a former Watcher, would have been a prime target for the First Evil and its Harbringers. But, his dalliance with evil, more specifically, with Lilah, has brought him under their radar. So while I eagerly anticipate evidence why Angel (vampire with a soul previously targeted by the FE) hasn't been more obviously targeted, I can accept Pryce's apparent exclusion.
I think whomever wrote the First Evil Live Journal came up with the best explanation for this. The FE is behind the BEAST and doesn't need to send its harbringers - it has the BEAST and Connor to torment the AI gang. HEck it probably figures that Beast can take out the gang as well if not better than it's harbringers and ubervamp can. OR - the Beast has territorial rights and First Evil recognizes this. OR - the FE really doesn't see Angel and his co-harts as much of a threat. Angel may think he has a role in the final Apoclapyse and W&H may think this - but FE may not (a) care or b) think it's true. So - it's really never bugged me that Angel and his gang have been left alone.
What's the difference between ensouled Angel and ensouled Spike? Angel was cursed with a soul - he would be very evil without one. Spike chose a soul and was going against his evil nature continuously without one. Hmmm...if you were the First Evil which vamp would you go bug right now?
Also Angel stopped being involved with the Buffster and slayers a long time ago. As did Wesely. FE seems to have a score to settle with slayers. Since Wes and Angel are no longer in any way involved with slayers - why bug them? PArticularly when there's a nifty Devil Like Beast pestering them for you?
Agree with you on W&H - although I did not see that one coming.
thanks again. SK
[> [> [>
On the First Evil and why Stephanie Romanov = Emma Caulfield -- Darby, 07:48:38 01/16/03 Thu
First off, glancing down through the thread, I found myself wondering why the First Evil wanted Angel's ganja (It's probably Fred's stash)...
I think the balance tilt that brought the FE to Sunnydale is restricted to the Slayers - for a universal entity, the First seems a single-item micromanager.
But I've got to take this opportunity to say how impressed with Stephanie Romanov I'm becoming. Her character has followed an arc similar to Anya's and Spike's: the writers have found that whatever they toss at her, the actress can handle. One of the neatest turns is how she can go from Lilah to !Sunny! Lilah instantly and fairly subtly during her conversations with Wes - that more than anything else conveys his effect on her. She has been almost the only W&H character inhabited by an actor capable of doing Whedonesque villains that you can like while you hate them - the others have been too slimy (except for Lindsay, he he started a bit slimy), while Lilah, once they gave her some dimension, has inhabited the role. The problem became the monolithically evil attitude of the company office, which apparently is changing...
Now, of course, we have to wonder how her role will change as well. It seems out of character for her to slip to the AI side - I'd envision her trying to reconstitute LA W&H from outlying office staff, using AI as pawns to help her consolidate her power. It would very much change the dynamics of the show if she really controlled the local Axis of Evil franchise.
[> [> [> [>
Throwing a stick into the works -- Spike Lover, 10:26:35 01/16/03 Thu
Does this say anything about... female empowerment? Is Lilah female empowerment gone too far? (Say it isn't so...)
[> [> [> [> [>
female or feminist? -- Flo, 16:26:30 01/16/03 Thu
Lilah might represent FEMALE empowerment, but she certainly doesn't represent FEMINIST empowerment. In fact, her rise to power pretty much epitomizes a patriarchal pattern of empowerment. Her power is based completely on self-interest and exists solely as power OVER others rather than the "we all become powerful when we work together" model that Buffy exhibits. Lilah wouldn't have the kind of power she does if she weren't committed to keeping her interests separate from those of others (look at how easy it has been for her to turn her alliances around within W&H when they no longer serve her), and if she weren't committed to keeping her emotions completely separate from her work. Again, Buffy provides the contrast of a more feminist approach, which is to acknowledge and own the power of emotion -- to weave together work, relationships, and emotions.
So, perhaps Lilah represents female-empowerment-through-patriarchy gone too far.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: female or feminist? -- leslie, 16:35:29 01/16/03 Thu
"So, perhaps Lilah represents female-empowerment-through-patriarchy gone too far."
Hmm, am I the only one old enough to remember this? What she represents is the classic woman who succeeds in a man's world by being more masculine than they are and who specifically does not form any kind of solidarity with women because that would threaten her position as the token female. A very common pattern up to the 1980's, still present but not quite so noticeable. Margaret Thatcher is a perfect example. These women were/are an incredible thorn in the side of feminists, since they're very happy to be token females that the patriarchy could point to and whine, "But we do hire women, just look at Mary!" (the only woman in an administration consisting of 149 men and one woman)--it was, of course, simply a coincidence that the best person suited for the job was a white male, because see, when they found a woman who acted exactly like a white male, they were more than happy to hire her!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: female or feminist? -- Danielle, 17:41:41 01/16/03 Thu
Feminism actually suffered a setback under Margeret Thatcher because she wouldn't hire women as she saw them as a threat to her. Feminists were thrilled at having a female Prime Minister as well. I could see just Lilah finding a lot in common with the "Iron Lady" of Britiish politics.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Agree -- shadowkat, 08:37:11 01/17/03 Fri
Agree. Unfortunately this trend did not end in the 80s- women in business also exhibit these traits. I've met Women bosses who treated their female secretaries and underlings worse then men in an attempt to be ballsy or the same. Often they felt that the female secretary or female assistant was a threat.
Several popular movies in the 80s explored this theme:
Most notably Working Girl - where the boss from hell is Sigourney Weaver and the secretary who provides all the ideas and is horribly used is Melanie Griffif. Can't think of any in 90s - specifically. But that does not mean you don't still run into it in real life.
In some ways the Lilah's of the world have made it even harder for women to climb the corporate ladder - they provide a negative view of women bosses to both women and men.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
When I think of a feminist, Lilah comes to mind... -- Spike Lover, 12:16:51 01/17/03 Fri
So feminist is not the right word? Or is it? (As Rush Limbaugh describes them?)
Well, actually, now that I think about it, Lilah may be more human than an actual feminist. I think the actual feminist mantra says that sex is a dirty act 'done' to women by horrible men. (Every act of copulation is rape.) (Lilah, we know, likes sex.)
Ok, now I am completely confused. Forget I brought it up. But I do remember the 80's. Let me remind you of some 80's movies... Aliens w/ Sigorney again, where a woman is finally tough enough to kill the biggest baddest alien out there. Another... Terminator, where an unstoppable, killing machine is finally stopped by a regular woman. In T2, (90's) the same woman has become so tough, she has lost her femininity & humanity.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: When I think of a feminist, Lilah comes to mind... -- Scroll, 12:55:35 01/17/03 Fri
I think the actual feminist mantra says that sex is a dirty act 'done' to women by horrible men. (Every act of copulation is rape.)
Um, I don't really know much about feminism, but I would assume this idea of "all sex is rape" is a belief held by very few, likely extreme, feminists. This seems like a very inflamatory belief that I think most feminists would not agree with, though perhaps many would say sex is often turned ugly by power struggles or somesuch. I don't really know...
In T2, (90's) the same woman has become so tough, she has lost her femininity & humanity.
I've never seen Terminator 1 or 2 but I think movies/television have begun moving away from the idea that a woman must sacrifice her femininity to be a hero. I do know that earlier female heroes depended on the woman standing alone and being stripped of her "female-ness". Joss Whedon, via Buffy, Cordelia, et al., seems to portray women as both heroic and feminine. They don't always have to stand alone, they have friends and lovers. Though to be fair, their sex lives are horrendous. But then again, I don't equate femininity with just sex.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sarah Connor and Sarah Connor-veers OT a bit -- Arethusa, 14:03:06 01/17/03 Fri
I've seen both movies many times; they're two of my favorite movies, and their feminist message is a huge part of my fondness for them. Their brand of feminism was appropriate to their time, when the idea of a female action hero was very new. Young Sarah Connor was very 80s-tougher than she realized, but still loking to be rescued by someone stronger. Ten years later, she had transformed herself into a strong, knowledgeable fighter, who rescued herself. To stay strong she became harder and tougher mentally and emotionally, stripping herself down to her essence. Then, in BtVS, the female hero begins to tentatively reconstruct herself, finding a compromise between fighter and female (as society defines it). T1 and T2 were part of a continum, as the roles of females in movies slowly started to change.
Don't know if this makes any sense but it was fun writing it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: When I think of a feminist, Lilah comes to mind... -- yabyumpan, 15:14:58 01/17/03 Fri
"Well, actually, now that I think about it, Lilah may be more human than an actual feminist. I think the actual feminist mantra says that sex is a dirty act 'done' to women by horrible men. (Every act of copulation is rape)(Lilah, we know, likes sex.)"
Well I'm Human, Female, Feminist, love sex with men....
Feminism has gone through various stages but none of it is actually about 'hating' men or sex, although it's been interpreted as such by some sections of the media and a few insecure men. It's about equality in all areas of life, the right to live without being victimisd or becoming a victim and being accepted as valuble in our own right with out reference to the men in our lives or men in general.
Still a ways to go sadly but we're getting there ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: When I think of a feminist, Lilah comes to mind... -- shadowkat, 22:00:56 01/17/03 Fri
Perhaps I should share what I think a feminist is? And why I haven't used the word in ages.
To me it's a woman who can be herself, do what she dreams of and does not allow people to walk all over her. Nor does she feel the need to hurt people to get her way. So many woman seem to think the only way to get to the top is to "kick ass" or "grow balls" or "be a bully". I went to a school where there was a radical feminist sect who gave us a bad name - they were violent about it. This is an image portrayed heavily in the 80s.
The women heros were ballsy and I loved them. Aliens movies. Terminator. etc. But it wasn't until Xena and Buffy and Relic Hunter came along that you started to see that image didn't have to be rock hard. There's a middle ground.
You don't have to kick everybody and be an Iron Maiden or a "bitch" to get ahead. Nor do you have to be a soft little girl. You can be yourself. It's hard but possible. Believe me - I just left a job with a misogynist bully as boss.
And being a single working woman in NYC - I've seen my share of chavinists and misogyny. Feminism today...is about being a woman and being proud of that, not feeling like you have to act tough like a man or weak like the stereotypical girl.
What I've always liked about Btvs was how Buffy is portrayed. She's portrayed as a woman first and the superhero second. She's strong but also female. Willow was the same way. As is Anya. (Ats actually has less of this right now - but I'm hoping the new character of Gwen might add something. Cordelia in past seasons felt very feminist, as did Kate, and to a smaller degree Darla. Even Lilah promotes a not entirely negative image - she has not given up her sex appeal or her female characteristics to take over that firm - she's used them.)
In the movies Aliens/Terminator - the women were almost interchangable for the guys. Almost. Aliens had a very strong female/mother image all the way through. But both felt like aesexual fighting machines after awhile. I actually preferred to some extent the image Jodi Foster portrayed in Silence of The Lambs.
This subject is I think a tricky one to examine and I always get into trouble when I jump into it. Because my take has been - I'm a woman, but I don't want to a) defend that fact, b) apologize for it, or c) analyze it. Why does being a woman mean that I have to go out and examine the roles of females in film and get pissed if they don't fit a certain norm? I don't know the answers...but as I said, it's a tricky topic - sure to hit peoples' buttons.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Irritating shadowkat ;0) -- Arethusa, 06:17:29 01/18/03 Sat
To me, feminism means never being less than you are, to fit in with others' concept of who you should be. It's Aya thinking for herself, wearing comfortable pants and shirts instead of her 50s-era dresses. Buffy wearing platform shoes to fight vampires. Willow being unabashedly gay, smart and shy. ("Strong like an Amazon.") Kennedy flirting with Will, and helping rally the troops. Dawn slicing the head off of Root Monsters and singing odes to anchovies. Xander following orders and taking care of his chosen family. And all of us being able to be people first, and a certain gender next.
Gwen's not like that yet. She's still role-playing, trying to manipulate, and get revenge for her bad luck to be a freak. In her eyes, she's still a victim (perhaps). (Of course, part of that is the comic tradition of scantily dressed overendowed women ME is spoofing/indulging in.) I hope she changes. She's my MtP pic and I want to be proud of her.
Just my unsolicited, semi-serious opinion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well said. -- shadowkat, 12:03:24 01/18/03 Sat
I'm hoping for Gwen to succeed as well - the one - one-shot character I'm dying to see more of.
I agree with your take - it's what I was attempting to say above but couldn't find the words, thank you for finding them for me.
What frustrates me in our society is we often see the race, size, color, gender, height of a person first and who they are inside second. What's wonderful about posting boards and the internet is we are forced to see who the person is conveyed through their writing first...(of course are perceptions of who people are can be affected by how they write, grammar, word choice, pseudynomes, and likes...but in some ways I feel this is a far better way than judging people on skin tone, nose shape, accents, gender, height and weight.) I think the tendency to do that - judge on looks or appearences is what has always irritated me the most about gender politics. I want to be a person first and a woman second - is that so bad?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Colour blindness on the net? -- Rahael, 17:07:53 01/18/03 Sat
Or does it simply enable us to assume that everyone else is just like 'us' however that is constructed, in terms of culture, race and gender?
Personally speaking, my self identity, which is not ever-fixed, but subtly shifting, is made up of my experiences, my history and my gendered identity as a woman. I am a woman, thus I am a person. I belong to that school of feminism which says that to be a woman is to have a multiplicity of identities, histories and voices. I am woman, thus I am a unique individual. I cannot divorce these two ways of being.
I do not think we fail make unfair judgements about people, and judgements, indeed beyond grammar and fluency of expression. I don't think we leave the politics of society and the inequalities of society by retreating to the internet. (Or you won't, at least, when you're speaking to me ;) ) For example, there are preconditions to being on this board - you'd need to have the wherewithal to be on the net in the first place! Rather than wishing that the visible expression of 'difference' disappear, I would prefer that the prejudice that targets difference be eroded. And that isn't something necessarily promoted by 'invisibility'.
I can empathise with your opinion, but my own very personal (and therefore making no claims for authoritativeness or certainty!) one is that it isn't that simple.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Colour blindness on the net? -- shadowkat, 21:56:31 01/18/03 Sat
I wrote a post and voy ate it.
Trying again...my own view really isn't as simple as it sounds. I can't find the words to express this well but will try. Apologize for below rambling attempt.
It's not that I'm ashamed of being a woman. I'm not. I love that I am, well most of the time;-) I guess I object to the fact that being one excludes me from certain occupations or that that people judge my views based on that alone. But it's not just that - it's the feeling that we forget there's more. We think oh she said that because she's a woman or she's catholic or she's white. You can't understand because you're white. Or you're Catholic. Or you're female. You can't be this ...you're opinion is sluffed off... (not you personally of course).
A moment in The Gift always gets me - its in the beginning, when a boy looks at his savior Buffy and sees a petit, white, blonde girl and he states: "But you're just a girl"
and she states: "That's what I keep saying." But she's not just a girl, she's so much more, just as that boy is so much more. Being a girl might be important yes...but in the list of Buffy's traits - I wouldn't rank that as the first.
Or maybe that's the problem, ranking them. We as human beings catergorize and rank everything, even subconsciously. We don't want to...but somehow we do.
Being all these things makes you who you are - but sometimes your opinion is taken more seriously when they are stripped away --- and that should offend you. Because after all none of us are just souls floating about. We are the sum of our parts. Right? Not sure this is making a whit of sense.
But no - I don't see it as simple...my own feelings on this have always been quite complex, created by experiences, interactions, and readings, etc...but never as simple as my post above suggests. But then I've come to think that anything that has do with human beings is far from simple - we are such complicators or maybe it's just that the world we live in is complex?
I'll stop now before I confuse myself and everyone else more. At any rate... hope the above made some sense.
SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Colour blindness on the net? -- Rufus, 02:24:13 01/19/03 Sun
A moment in The Gift always gets me - its in the beginning, when a boy looks at his savior Buffy and sees a petit, white, blonde girl and he states: "But you're just a girl"
and she states: "That's what I keep saying." But she's not just a girl, she's so much more, just as that boy is so much more. Being a girl might be important yes...but in the list of Buffy's traits - I wouldn't rank that as the first.
Or maybe that's the problem, ranking them. We as human beings catergorize and rank everything, even subconsciously. We don't want to...but somehow we do.
I thought that mention in The Gift was so fitting. Buffy has at time tried to run from who she is, trying for that normal life where she is just a girl...it's clear that for her that is just a dream that she is no longer even clear on what she desires so much about it. So, when that guy says Buffy is "just a girl" she echo's his words in a way that you can see that she no longer believes it herself and her status as a hero is WHO she is and running away from it couldn't change that. Ties in with Giles statement in Lessons
GILES: You are. In the end, we all are who we are ... no matter how much we may appear to have changed.
Buff is still just a girl, but that is only a part of who she is, her quest to find the safe comfy place with a tea cozy doesn't seem destined to become true for her. Buffy is a girl, but she is also a hero. I think that even the most brave, long lasting heroes long for a time where they can be who they were not realizing they aren't that different at all as who we are stays the same, what we do is what makes the difference.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Colour blindness on the net? -- Rahael, 06:50:55 01/19/03 Sun
Yes, it made perfect sense.
I guess, from my point of view, I don't believe in souls floating around. I don't believe that my consciousness is separate from the physical processes of my body.
Why should the fact that society is unfair make us deny part of who we are? Why does the onus lie on us rather than changing the unfairness of society?
After replying to you, I thought quite a bit last night. Why am I disagreeing, wouldn't I want to say "Why do you only see my skin colour, not me as a person?" And my response was a resounding no. I wouldn't ever want to say "don't see the colour of my skin. Pretend it isn't there", because if anyone said that they didn't see it, I'd say, "look again, mate". I am not 'more' despite being an Asian woman, I am more because of it. Buffy is more because she's just a girl. She is wonderful, and that statement is part of the very humanistic message of the Gift - just us humans, just us girls, boys, men and women. We can save the people around us.
When I was younger, after having returned from living in England for 2 years, the girl in my internal story, my imaginative world became white. Can you imagine how destructive this was? Even then I was acutely conscious of it. I was ashamed. I tried to change the colour back, and yet, the skin was white. Perhaps it was the urge to 'fit in'. Perhaps because I no longer believed that the person who I really was could take part in the story, perhaps it was because I too had started believing that white was the default normality. This is the first time I've ever admitted this.
And that's what I imagine I become to others on the internet when they don't 'see' who I am. After all, someone in chat once said to me "you're not white?? I thought everyone on the board was white!". I started posting more on race after that conversation.
Obviously I know exactly what you mean when you say your opinion isn't taken seriously because you're a woman. I grew up in a society where women can be forced into arranged marriages, get thrown out of the house if they get raped and where they are dependent on male relatives, economically and socially. My mother was called a whore for many reasons, but one of them was wearing ankle length skirts. 'How' to be a woman was strictly defined. I remember when I turned up to school on a non uniform day wearing a knee length dress with spaghetti straps. A perfectly innocent one, especially considering I was 8. Apparently there were murmurs in the classroom about how 'I wasn't a proper woman', and 'what do you expect from her daughter'? I've never been prouder!
So for quite a long time now, I've rejoiced in being an improper woman. And it's a pretty important part of my self identity. It really means something to me, and I'm never going to hide it away. If people make prejudiced judgements about me, I really don't care. It doesn't reduce me, it reduces them. And it's pretty dangerous to underestimate people.
But there is no right way to 'react' to prejudice, there are many legitimate ways. So I understand your wishes, and can empathise.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
why should either be 2nd? -- anom, 10:16:24 01/19/03 Sun
"I want to be a person first and a woman second - is that so bad?"
Why not both at once, along w/everything else you are? Can any of us be a person without being all the things that person is, all at once?
There've been lots of posts on this board talking about Buffy's need/attempts to integrate the different aspects of her personality: "Buffy" & "the Slayer." In Primeval she integrated her own role as the hand w/those of Willow, Xander, & Giles--spirit, heart, & mind--as well as integrating w/all the Slayers who've ever lived.
This is what we all work to do in our lives: integrate our different aspects. Job & personal life. Light & dark. Interests, talents, emotions. All that our ancestors have passed down to us, consciously or not. So that we needn't be anything "1st," but we can be all of those things at the same time.
...OK, now I've got "All the Things You Are" playing in my head.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Not personal integration-societal integration -- Arethusa, 11:57:14 01/19/03 Sun
It's not a case of accepting who one is-it's getting others to do it. It isn't wishing or thinking that the differences aren't there either. I like how infinite in variety people are. Here, we often don't know the other posters' sex, nationality, race, size, occupation etc. We get to know each other for our ideas and personality first. I think that makes us much more accepting of each other. I could be wrong, though; I don't know. This issue is such a quagmire. Sigh.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Not personal integration-societal integration -- Rahael, 14:51:57 01/19/03 Sun
I'd certainly agree that none of us make superficial judgements here - And in real life, I'm pretty shallow. I sit on the tube to work entertaining myself by giving points for stylish outfits. Here, I open a new poster's post and am jolted with pleasure whenever I read a really well written/insightful post. Something that makes me laugh or think. We get to a point here with other people we rarely do in real life. We talk to each other about things we might not mention to casual acquaintances.
And some of us get to meet people we never ever would have met ;) That is all certainly very true.
But I feel as out of joint, as odd, as other here, as anywhere else; and that may be a comment on my personality. Sometimes, the accultration of oddness and dislocation that is layered on you; that stays with you, where ever you go. A few years ago, I would have said that I sought acceptance. Now I know that it is not something I need, but sometimes want. I think I have begun to find it, but the person who has started being accepting is me. Of myself, of others.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The 'sex is rape' thing -- KdS, 14:03:39 01/18/03 Sat
I haven't read the primary sources, just commentaries, but I understand that this is a (deliberate?) oversimplification of the argument in Andrea Dworkin's book Intercourse. The argument was that the way we conceptualise heterosexual intercourse, as something men do to women, in terms of the active male and passive woman, promotes sexual inequality in a deep philosophical manner. The point is supported to an extent by the "buttmonkey" issue recently on the board, where the fact that in slang it is terms for being sexually penetrated that provide our most powerful metaphors for powerlessness and victimhood came up. It's not a case of women never truly consenting to sex (although a very few people do argue, dubiously, that society is so institutionally sexist that no woman can ever "truly" consent to anything), it's more asking why sex is so often seen in metaphorical terms of the man invading the woman, rather than, say, the woman engulfing the man or Anya's preferred gender-neutral concept of "interlocking".
[>
Questions on Habeas Corpses (spoilers AtS 4.8, BtVS 7.8) -- Ixchel, 23:10:06 01/15/03 Wed
Great post shadowkat, though I don't have anything insightful to add, just some questions.
I wasn't sure where to post this, but I didn't want to push any posts off the board so...
I agree it's a great episode, it made me realize just how much I'd missed AtS.
Regarding the zombies, Angel's explanation to Connor seems to contradict Giles and Anya on their nature, while Wesley's remarks to Fred seem more in line with what we know from BtVS (I know some fans perceive the two shows as completely separate, but I think of them as operating in the same construct). I'm thinking of this as Angel not knowing as much as Anya (she _is_ older) and Giles and Wesley (CoW classes: Voodoo 101 - mastering zombies, spirit possessions and make your own gris-gris bags) or having only come across zombies instructed to feed on human flesh?
Also, interesting that the term "Big Bad" was used quite a few times in this episode. I don't remember it being used on AtS before (of course my memory could just be faulty), does anyone? And interesting that Willow used "Big Bad" in Sleeper (BtVS 7.8). So a related question, does anyone remember the first time this was used on BtVS? I know Spike uses it in reference to himself in WAH, but I can't remember an instance before that.
I have to say, I was fairly indifferent to Lilah before this season, but I found myself feeling sympathy toward her before the break. And the end of this episode just _made_ me like her. She seemed... sad.
Ixchel
[> [>
Good to see you again, Ixchel : ) -- Scroll, 23:36:00 01/15/03 Wed
[> [>
Regarding the questions... -- shadowkat, 06:21:20 01/16/03 Thu
I was going to put zombies in the subject line but I think that's too much of a spoiler.
1.Regarding the zombies, Angel's explanation to Connor seems to contradict Giles and Anya on their nature, while Wesley's remarks to Fred seem more in line with what we know from BtVS (I know some fans perceive the two shows as completely separate, but I think of them as operating in the same construct). I'm thinking of this as Angel not knowing as much as Anya (she _is_ older) and Giles and Wesley (CoW classes: Voodoo 101 - mastering zombies, spirit possessions and make your own gris-gris bags) or having only come across zombies instructed to feed on human flesh?
Anyways - I think the zombies used in this episode are used as much as a metaphor as they were in Dead Man's Party and interestingly enough - both times - they want to feed on human flesh.
Anya doesn't state that they don't feed on flesh - so much as that they only feed on flesh if the person or entity that raises them instructs it. In DEAD MAN'S PARTY - they were raised by an evil mask in Joyce's den - the Mask more likely than not instructed them to feed on flesh - and they worshipped the mask. Zombies have no thought process of their own - they are empty vessels reanimated by an outside party. Angel describes them to Connor as undead dimwitted things that feed on flesh - Connor glances at Angel and says well, isn't that what you are? In a sense Connor is right - see the wonderful takes on devoring by the other people on the board (JM, Rahael, yourself, and TCH) - the difference of course is the Vampire feeds on blood not flesh and the vampire more or less has a will of its own, it has a brain, it is not completely empty - there may be no soul (unless your Angel or Spike) but their is the remanants of the human personality and thought behind which the demon that took the body animates. Zombies don't have a creature inside animating so much as they are animated by a tailsman or outside source - they are literally just "animated flesh" - hence the title - "you have the body" or "habeaus corpses" . The irony of course is usually W&H is animating others flesh or controlling the "bodies" of its clients. In fact in this instance - they wanted to control The BEAST and CONNOR - but the BEAST killed and (may have) reanimated their corpses, taking custody of their bodies after death - making them walking automatons to do its will. A fate worse than death for a lawyer - since they have no will any longer, no mind, and have literally become nothing more than a machine the feeds on life.
Dead Man's Party's zombies aren't nearly as creepy as Habeas Corpuses. In Dead Man's Party - the zombies are about what's buried coming up and biting you in the end. (Which is true here as well - what is buried doesn't stay buried - Cordy's one night stand with Connor which she attempts to bury and hide. OR Gunn's jealousy of Wes - which almost causes him to be devored by zombies. Or Lilah's evil plans...). But the better metaphor in this one is who controls the body - W&H was all about corporeal control - and corporeal punishment (the legal term for the death penalty) - when someone messed up - they were literally "axed" and devored by whatever entity controlled W&H. So the reanimated corpses stuck in a sealed building are in a sense a commentary on W&H's practices and W&H's arrogance that they could control chaotic forces and evil ones - that they could make a deal so to speak and remain in control - when in the end, they neither have control over their own bodies or the building that traps them inside.
Also, interesting that the term "Big Bad" was used quite a few times in this episode. I don't remember it being used on AtS before (of course my memory could just be faulty), does anyone? And interesting that Willow used "Big Bad" in Sleeper (BtVS 7.8). So a related question, does anyone remember the first time this was used on BtVS? I know Spike uses it in reference to himself in WAH, but I can't remember an instance before that.
Not sure about this one. I never really noticed Ats using it, maybe because Ats really hasn't had a singular Big Bad so to speak until maybe Season 3, although I'm not sure they ever truly considered Holtz to be one. The Big Bad was first brought up in Season 1 Btvs in reference to the Master, in either the beginning episodes, one just after them or in Never Kill A Boy on the First Date. (I think)
The difference between Angel and Btvs - is Btvs' very structure is Little Bads, Big Bad, and turncoat. Ats has actually less structure to begin with since they wanted to start it as more anthology and less serial - when they got forced into serial format by network and fans...we started hearing the big bad reference.
Another interesting difference between the two shows - less pop culture references in Ats. Not sure why. Did notice it last night - maybe because the pop culture refs in Btvs, while always entertaining, are beginning to get on my nerves.
SK
PS: Agree with the others on the board, Ixchel - nice to see you back, you were missed.
[> [> [>
My vote for best line of the episode... -- ponygirl, 08:13:56 01/16/03 Thu
"security voodoo"
I loved that, and Wesley's delivery of it. No matter how cool he gets there's still the Watcher geek inside ready to jump in with an explanation.
Most upsetting line: Lilah uttered the dread "I get that". Like an infection the phrase has spread over from BtVS. Argh.
Great posts SK!
[> [> [>
Thanks Scroll and shadowkat. You're both very kind. -- Ixchel, 09:14:44 01/16/03 Thu
I've been lurking steadily since October, but I haven't had much time for posting (also, many times my contributions don't extend much past "brilliant post" because of the fascinating and thoughtful ideas already expressed). And, these people actually expect me to work at "work" (I just don't understand this).
shadowkat, I agree with you completely about the metaphorical nature of the zombies in both HC and DMP (great point about Cordelia wanting to bury her "encounter" with Connor). And regarding Anya's statement about the zombie master instructing the zombies, that's what I believed Wesley was hinting. Basically, that W&H could have some sort of spell in place that would reanimate dead employees and "instruct" them to eat human flesh or that the Beast could have done something similar. This is why I believe Wesley's comments are more in line with what we know from BtVS than Angel's. Also, I don't recall the zombies in DMP biting anyone, just killing. I thought the general idea was the mask/demon was instructing them to kill to have more corpses and so more zombies (I could be wrong, of course). Really intriguing thoughts about W&H and their hubris in their attempts to control evil.
I suppose I've thought of W&H as AtS's on-going "Big Bad", at least until Holtz (though he is a somewhat strange one). I'll have to look for the reference next time I'm watching S1 BtVS, thanks. I have to say, I don't believe I'd be as much of a fan if they had retained an anthology format for AtS. I remember feeling somewhat disconnected from the show at the beginning. As if I was mostly waiting for something to draw me in and if I missed an episode, well, it wasn't the end of the world. My feelings changed so that by the latter part of S2, AtS became a show-that-I-do-not-miss. Now it is (with BtVS and Farscape) a show-that-I-tape-and-buy-DVDs-of, so I suppose I prefer the serial aspect.
Regarding popular culture references, I enjoy them when (IMHO) they're well done (in both shows). I'm not sure what constitutes a well done pop culture reference (according to my completely subjective opinion), but I know it when I see it. Some of them _do_ seem to fall very flat.
Once again, excellent post and thanks for the welcome back.
Ixchel
[>
Brava, sk! Will have to read over once or twice more to mull over all the issues you brought up. -- Rob, 23:25:52 01/15/03 Wed
Hopefully tomorrow, I can come up with a longer response. But I really loved the symbolism you uncovered here!
Rob
[> [>
Re: Sems like you can't have one without the other (Spoilers for Angel & Buffy) -- Brian, 08:20:28 01/16/03 Thu
It has always been my belief that the two shows compare and contrast either other, that there is always point and counterpoint to each show that reflects on what is currently happening on each show. Therefore, you really should be watching both of them.
Last night W&H got destroyed. Two eps ago on Buffy, the WC got destroyed. Giles appears to have survived. Lilah appears to have survived. And each may have gone rogue to their stated beliefs. Good and Evil take a hit, and the "Big Bads" just keep movin' on.
[> [> [>
Watchers & Lawyers:Comparisons between Btvs and ATs (Spoilers for both) -- shadowkat, 08:49:12 01/16/03 Thu
I agree - I think the two shows really do parallel each other in the most interesting ways.
In Btvs - the patriarchial and well established, centuries old establishment of the Watcher's Council is blown up.
But first Giles robs it of needed documents (which the Watcher's assumed were taken by the First Evil) and gathers the remaining SIT's. Before it is blown - the Watcher's arrogantly believe they are in control.
In Ats - the well-established and at this point matriarchial centuries old establishment of Wolfram & Hart is blown up. But first - Angel gets Lilah to give him all the infor she has on the Beast and Connor tries to get info on how he's connected to it. Also Lilah tells Wes where Connor is and how to get him out. Lilah and the lawyers arrogantly believe they are in control and safe.
Note in Btvs - the hero is a woman - the Watcher Council supports her - with links to world of men and humanity, she's good, and it is patriarchial in structure or at least appears to be. It governs order - but good order. Neat, clean, orderly.
in Ats - the hero is a vampire and guy - the Law firm is otherworldly controlled with links to the vampire/demon world, although is run by men and women, Angel while trying to be good is more grey, and the law firm is matriarchial in structure or at least appears to be with a little girl and a woman at it's head. It governs order too - but for evil purposes. Neat, clean, white..orderly.
In Btvs - the FE seems somewhat chaotic - it takes the council out with explosion - all at once, destroying everything and decapitates the watchers.
In Ats - the Beast seems somewhat chaotic - it takes out the lawyers by breaking their necks and tearing them apart and turns them into zombies.
(Actually I see the Beast as more chaotic than the FE)
FE vs. the Beast
The FE - is noncorporeal - manipulates psychologically, tempts - btw, I could be wrong here, but aren't these traits typically associated with female villains in our culture? Women tend to hurt by words and manipulation, a la Lady MacBeth, while men do it with fists. Also note that Watcher Council focuses on physical training as warfare and the Law Firm focuses on words and intellectual warfare?
Anyways...it is interesting that the FE feels like a female entity and it destroys male organization and may be after the corruption of it's female enemy the slayer (I'm thinking it's more into corruption then destruction of the slayer ...but could be wrong here).
The Beast is a physical and male creature. It is overwhelmingly corporeal in form. It destroys bodies more than minds. Often ripping them apart. Like the FE it focuses its attention on organizations - the rich and beautiful club in Apocalypse Nowish and the Law Firm in Habeas Corpus. FE on the watchers and slayers. It also seems to want to keep the hero Angel alive...so corruption? Or does it want Angel dead and destruction - physical destruction. Visceral as opposed to mental?
Both come from underneath the surface. Both are connected in some way to something that happened that was impossible.
Connor's birth And Darla's sacrificial death to provide it in Season 4 Angel, Spike getting a soul and Buffy's rebirth in Season 6 Btvs.
Finally we have Lilah and Anya. Two female villains who fell for male heros and have become grey. Also Cordy and Spike - two characters similarly changed by experiences with the hero - one becomes connected to demons and has headaches and appears to burn at times, one becomes connected to humans and has headaches and burning.
Both have a yen for the hero, but neither can really have the hero. (Although I seriously doubt they will parallel Spike/Dawn to Cordy/Connor...)
Lots of interesting things to note.
SK
[> [> [> [>
Excellent points! (spoilers for all aired eps) -- Scroll, 09:31:59 01/16/03 Thu
I had a vague notion that the FE was being portrayed as a "female" evil, but you're right that the Beast is quite strongly "male".
Also, while the FE is a more interesting villain, I really like the comparisons we can make between FE and the Beast. Personally, I think the FE is about Order. Or rather, it used to be In Order and now wants to step out of line to change things (or at least take advantage of the change Buffy's resurrection has wrought). The FE talks about Buffy being out of order. It's very orgainsed: it has harbingers and the UberVamp as minions; it scouts enemy territory (as Eve); it systematically attacks the Scoobies to weaken them. The Beast has an agenda as well -- to destroy the White Room Girl -- but everything else it does seems like he did it just because he could. He's an 800 lb gorilla, as Lilah says.
So if the White Room Girl represents Order, and if the FE works with Order, then could the Beast actually be against the First Evil? Will we see the two Big Bads come into conflict? Or is the Beast simply a minion/partner of the FE?
[>
Re: First Impressions on Ats Episode 4.9 (Major Spoilers for Tonights ATS) Plus Wild Speculation -- Arethusa, 08:29:18 01/16/03 Thu
Some thoughts, comments:
I think you're right about Order/Chaos instead of Good/Evil. Whom has the Beast killed? Trust fund party animals. W&H lawyers. Little Red in the White Room. Who doesn't it kill? All the good guys, even though it had ample opportunity. I'm bad at predictions, so I can't guess what will happen, but it's very interesting that it's just "eliminating the competition" at this point. Which means that it's not competing against the forces of Good. Also, is it feeding on the evil essense of others to gain strength?
Lilah-how cool is she? She's right about the graying process, but so is Wes-at times like these, you have to pick a side, no matter how gray you've become. This is especially important if the Beast is sucking out the evil essense of others. Will Wes's unexpected return help save Lilah's soul, and maybe therefore her life? And gosh, the look on her face when he returned-she really does love him.
I think the "she prefers black" remark was just a dig at how Fred chose Gunn over Wesley-but-the last few episodes have shown Fred begin to show more interest in Wesley. What a clear correlary between the badness of Spike and Buffy's relationship, and Lilah and Wes. Is that a hint that Lilah will get her soul back too? I'm rather fond of evil Lilah.
Just had a new thought. Did the Beast send Angel to Connor because he wants Angel's soul to go dark? That's what W&H wanted, and that might be the exact source of competition between W&H and the Beast. Does he want to suck out the black heart of Angelus, the worst vampire who ever lived? But that would mean that.... Uh oh.
The key to this all-the prophesies re. the apocalypse, and Connor and Angel's roles in them??
[> [>
Been wondering the same things -- shadowkat, 09:00:26 01/16/03 Thu
I've been wondering why the Beast has been killing the decadent and morally deprived over the good people. And he tends to pick organized evil groups.
First - he goes the local flesh-spot of the richly decadent and morally deprived in Apocalyspe Nowish - destroys everyone and uses their bodies to create an eye of fire.
Next he sends Angel to see Cordy and Connor together.
He doesn't kill Cordy or Connor...odd. Nor does he kill Wes, Gunn, or Angel.
Then - he follows Connor to W&H and kills everyone but Lilah and Connor. Not sure if he just got distracted and let Lilah go away injured or if that was deliberate? Thinking distracted. But could work either way?? He hits Connor away from him - but pointedly does not kill him.
He kills everyone here and turns them into zombies.
Then sucks the evil out of the little girl - literally at the top. The little girl helps the good guys escape.
So is the Beast after evil? After Orderly evil specifically?
Does evil make it stronger? (Sort of like the FE who says you just make me stronger - maybe both feed off of evil, but one off corporeal evil and the other off of mental??)
What does this mean regarding Connor and Angel? Does the Beast want what W&H wants - Angel's dark heart - the vicious demon inside him?? And to get that - Angelous must lose his soul??
Hmmm. Maybe the price Darla paid for Connor to be born. Must be paid by Angel for the Beast to die or live??
[> [>
And more wild spec re the FE -- Arethusa, 09:03:09 01/16/03 Thu
The Beast could "kill" the FE if it really does suck up evil essences. But what would kill the impervious beast?
[>
You have gotten me thinking... (Spoilery speculation) -- Spike Lover, 09:41:57 01/16/03 Thu
Twins.
Far-fetched, admittedly.
Darla had twins. One with a soul, one without. One with a human body, one without. That interdimensional being who was bringing the Avenger across time... perhaps his constant dimensional jumping caused the other 'child' to be pulled into another dimension as well.
If so, this would explain a connection to Conner (and his birthplace). It would explain why Darla could crave vast amonts of blood and destruction during her pregnancy, (although it was pretty much already explained adequately with her carrying a souled child.)
[>
A bit more to chew on... (spoiler, spoiler) -- PepTech, 10:04:12 01/16/03 Thu
This is kind of random thinking based on all the stuff everyone has posted; thanks for all the good thoughts....
- With regards to W&H, keep in mind that this was only one office. They've shown themselves to be interdimensionally powerful (think Pylean books). I have a suspicion that the Senior Partners may pay AtS a visit.
- Lindsay is still kicking around somewhere. Wonder if Lilah going out of town/into hiding might mean she looks him up? Sure, they feuded, but it was a healthy feud...
- I didn't get the impression the Beast "let" Lilah go; rather he couldn't find them after they fell down the chute. He still had several floors worth of W&H to zombify, after all. I am leaning towards the thought that the zombification is in the security voodoo camp, actually.
- There was some hope that Cordy had been mind-controlled or something to explain her giving it up, but looks like even that longshot has been taken away. Instead it's just a puzzling inconsistency in her character. They should have left her as Queen!Cordy of Sunnydale, or at least reverted to S1 Cordy.
- Gunn getting out of the zombie room,as written, was silly. That would have been a nice noble sacrifice (especially after the pact made with Wes) of a character that's become a shadow of his former self. The guy *is* a sidekick now.
[> [>
Re: Cordy (title spoiler for upcoming Angel ep) -- Rob, 10:21:21 01/16/03 Thu
I think it's still to early to tell whether the C/C grossness was a "puzzling inconsistency in her character" or whether it will be explained. I am leaning towards the latter. Things that seem out of the norm on Buffy or Angel usually end up being explained, sometimes when we'd least expect it.
There's an ep coming up entitled "Heaven Sent," and I'd be willing to bet that we get some insight into Cordy when that happens. That's of course just my own interpretation of the title. Could be about something else altogether. I thought that "Him" would be about Spike, so I don't have the best track record for guessing!
Rob
[> [> [>
Re: Cordy (title spoiler for upcoming Angel ep) -- wiscoboy, 05:50:06 01/19/03 Sun
I still think the whole C/C grossness, as you put it, was used solely to explain Charisma's pregnancy(the writers had to do something) and to possibly revisit the "father will kill the son" prophesy(since they kept saying prophecies are not always translated correctly).
[>
Re:black and white and grey -- leslie, 11:09:38 01/16/03 Thu
I had a slightly different take on Wesley's black-and-white speech--perhaps I am just too much of an optimist, but it seemed to me he had come to the realization that even when it seems that everything is grey, everything is mixed up, there is still a very fine line that divides good from evil. That it's a mistake to say "oh, it doesn't matter what I do because it's all just shades of grey anyway." That, it seems to me, is what Lilah has done.
Although we don't see many instances of her human side, there are a few, and the one that sticks with me is the time we see her on the phone with her obviously Alzheimered or otherwise senilely demented mother. First of all, given the way Lilah is generally portrayed, would we even have expected her to talk to her mother in such a state? At the very best, maybe she would be paying for her care, but still, it would be in order to keep her out of sight so she wouldn't have to deal with her at all. And that's the best case scenario--I don't think we would have been surprised to find out that Lilah had simply abandoned her ailing mother altogether. The fact that she hasn't--that she even takes calls from her at the office--makes me think that Lilah is one of these people who started out idealistic and when she discovered that the world was venal and corrupt went 180 degrees in the other direction--my ideals are shattered, there's no black and white, only grey, so it doesn't matter what I do.
Yet, oddly, that itself is a very black-and-white stance. Life isn't perfect, so there's no hope whatsoever and nothing matters, I might as well be out for myself and screw everything and everyone else. I think that Wesley is coming from a different angle--in a way, the only way he can justify what he did to the baby Connor and what Angel and AI have done to him in return is to hold onto the belief that even within a largely grey world, it is still possible to discern good from evil. The line may be almost indistinguishable, but it's there, and he sees that he is just over the edge on one side and Lilah is just over the edge on the other. I think this is why they make such an interesting couple, actually, because it's all just tiny shades of nuance that distinguish them, but they are still on opposite sides of the line.
And again, this also is an interesting contrast with Angel, who really does see things in black and white. Even while he realizes that the world as it exists is grey, he believes that, philosophically, black and white are the rule, and he wildly resents anyone challenging that. Yet the blacks and whites that he sees are completely within his own frame of reference--if someone doesn't see the same black and white that he does (when Wesley, for instance, decides that kidnapping Connor and removing him from the dangers in LA will have better long-term results even if it means taking him away from Angel and turning his back on all his friends), Angel wants nothing more to do with them. You're either with me or against me. He is now in the process of behaving to Cordy exactly the same way he behaved to Connor before her, and Wesley before him. Is he ever going to realize that he has to accept the shades of grey in people he loves if he is going to keep them around at all? He is now in a position where he has effectively banished his oldest friends--Wesley and Cordy--and his only family--Connor--and is left with Fred, Gunn, and Lorne, all of whom are nice enough people, but who are not as important to him, whom he does not love, and who are rapidly turning into minions rather than comrades-in-arms.
[> [>
Very good post...largely agree -- shadowkat, 13:18:50 01/16/03 Thu
Always enjoy your take on things. I didn't catch that but when I think back on it? I think you're right - it's subtle in Wes' speech but there. He's not so much telling Lilah that things are black and white, so much as saying that even within grey there's a line and you have to choose where you should go. He'd almost gone too far in one direction and now realizes the cost of that.
You get the slow realization of this over numerous episodes. In Supersymmetry he seems to suggest it to Fred - stating that there are certain things that are hard to come back from.
In a way - Wes has advanced beyond Angel - he's realized what Tara more or less realized last year when counseling Buffy - life isn't simple. We need to decide and take responsibility for that decision, not excuse it, but by the same token, we need to be more understanding of those actions by people we love?
The comparison of Wes to Lilah and Angel both is very apt. I think Lilah and Angel have taken similar stances in their lives. Life is crap Angel decides way back in Ats Season 2, so he goes 180 gray and doesn't care. Then he realizes that doing good has it's own reward - so tilts back the other direction. In his own actions he's not black and white - but how he regards others is - in terms of with me or against me. Lilah is similar - what's the point of doing good, she thinks when everyone is crap and we'll lose anyway (not unlike Anya or Hallie's take in Btvs.)Or for that matter unlike Angel's own occassional take on things and Holtz's. In this way Lilah has a lot in common with Holtz and Justine.
[> [> [>
Re: Very good post...largely agree -- leslie, 14:42:25 01/16/03 Thu
"Life is crap Angel decides way back in Ats Season 2, so he goes 180 gray and doesn't care. Then he realizes that doing good has it's own reward - so tilts back the other direction. In his own actions he's not black and white - but how he regards others is - in terms of with me or against me."
I think there's also an element that Angel regards his own greyness as part of his curse, as a sign of how "fallen" he is, and he thinks that the people he regards as "good" must be purely good, because they are not vampires-cursed-with-a-soul like he is. He regards his greyness as the mark of his unique position; he can still think that for other people, good and evil, black and white, is an easy choice. Which really, really, really makes me want to see an encounter between Angel and Spike now. What on god's green earth is that going to do to Angel's self-image? It may be quite like Buffy's response to finding out about Kendra--at first she was incredibly defensive about her solo Slayer status, but by the time Kendra left, Buffy was kind of glad that she wasn't the only person in the world who knew what it was like being a Slayer. (But no hugging.) I don't think it would be as mind-boggling for Spike, since he knew souled Angel as well as Angelus.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Very good post...largely agree -- shadowkat, 14:58:20 01/16/03 Thu
Which really, really, really makes me want to see an encounter between Angel and Spike now. What on god's green earth is that going to do to Angel's self-image? It may be quite like Buffy's response to finding out about Kendra--at first she was incredibly defensive about her solo Slayer status, but by the time Kendra left, Buffy was kind of glad that she wasn't the only person in the world who knew what it was like being a Slayer. (But no hugging.) I don't think it would be as mind-boggling for Spike, since he knew souled Angel as well as Angelus.
Me too! Me too! I wonder if anyone ever explained to Spike how Angelus got the soul and how he lost it? Does he know?
I've wondered about this since even Lover's Walk - where he appears to assume that B/A are still shagging. He may think that Angel just went out and got one - wasn't cursed. Which would explain a lot. I also wonder if anyone ever told Spike Buffy killed Angel when he regained his soul and sent him to hell - and is still dealing with that trauma.
I really really wonder what these two would tell each other.
I'd love to see a scene of them getting drunk and discussing among other things: souls, being vamps with them, drinking blood, and Buffy. Won't ever happen. But it is the one meeting between characters on Btvs and Ats that I'd pay to see.
[>
Legal vs. Literal: Habeas Corpus -- Sol 1056, 19:25:05 01/16/03 Thu
HABEAS CORPUS :
According to my handy Barrons law dictionary (The Black's is in Hilton Head unfortunately) - the writ of habeas corpus also known as the Great Writ is the procedure for obtaining a judicial determination of the legality of an individual's custody. Technically, it is used in the criminal law context to bring the petitioner before the court to inquire into the legality of his confinement.
The Latin meaning of Habeas Corpus is " you have the body"
Literally this is true, but the legal definition might be better considered produce the body. In that case, it's not a question of who "has" the body in this most recent episode, but showing the body - or, more precisely, producing the accused for examination.
If you look at it from the legal aspect, then the best (and perhaps only) example I can think of from the episode is Conor and Lilah. Conor's appearance at W&H is, in effect, an act of habeas corpus, if self-incriminated. Conor believes he is is at fault for a crime (read: the beast), so in his self-production he is asking Lilah to help him determine whether it is his fault, who he is, the impact of his origin, etc.
[> [>
Writ of Habeas Corpus Explained -- shadowkat, 08:23:33 01/17/03 Fri
Interesting. Not sure I can agree with this. PArtly because I think I was discussing habeas corpus both literally and metaphorically regarding "having the body". (Actually more metaphorically - literal would be Angel coming with a lawyer and fighting with Lilah over the custody of Connor.) You appear in your example to be exploring another literal interpretation that I don't think is a true legal use of the term either literal or figurative. I'm drawing a blank here - but I'm pretty sure that there's another legal term for "producing the body" - when someone does not appear for court. (I may be completely wrong of course - it's been close to 8 years since I studied this.)
Literally this is true, but the legal definition might be better considered produce the body. In that case, it's not a question of who "has" the body in this most recent episode, but showing the body - or, more precisely, producing the accused for examination.
If you look at it from the legal aspect, then the best (and perhaps only) example I can think of from the episode is Conor and Lilah. Conor's appearance at W&H is, in effect, an act of habeas corpus, if self-incriminated. Conor believes he is is at fault for a crime (read: the beast), so in his self-production he is asking Lilah to help him determine whether it is his fault, who he is, the impact of his origin, etc.
I was actually thinking of the latin meaning - which is "you have the body" not "produce it" which means you don't have it. And in metaphorical terms - of who has possession. Not sure how you can read a metaphorical meaning of "produce" in "have" - maybe you can.
However, since I'm getting confused, here's more from the definition (which may help us both - sorry I didn't do this earlier)-
The writ of habeas corpus is actually often used to determine if "due process of law" have been used - ie. did you have the right to obtain custody or do you have rights over the body of the criminal. (Has the individual been read their rights?
So it's not really for "producing the body" as it is meant to determine whether the court has the right to take possession of the individual.) It is a writ produced by the defense not the prosecution.
- in civil proceedings - the writ is used to challenge the validity of child custody, deportations, and civil commitment to mental institutions. That is about who has possession. If you have been committed to a mental institution against your will - someone can get you out with a writ of habeas corpus. (An example is the Gange going after Connor, maybe). Or if someone has custody of your kid and you want to challenge the validity of that - you use a writ of habeas corpus.
To produce the body - is a different legal term I believe - wish I could remember it b/c that would help clarify things.
In summary:
I'm not sure you can interpret the writ of habeas corpus as "producing the body" metaphorically or literally since it is used to get someone out of custody not to produce them. Hence my and the writers somewhat liberal use of the metaphor - If I was using it literally - the only good example would have been Angel's coming to get Connor. Although I guess you could also use Connor's questions to Lilah regarding his connections to the Beast as another literal interpretation - ie. Am I quilty? Does someone else have rights over my body - since I've done wrong? At different points in the episode - custody is considered - first who has custody of Lilah, who has custody of Connor, who has custody of the Beast...again that's more metaphorical than literal reading of the writ. (And a liberal one at that).
Hoping this clarifies things. SK
[> [> [>
A little more about habeas corpus as reinforcemet, and a couple comments -- Arethusa, 08:59:45 01/17/03 Fri
HABEAS CORPUS - Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.
The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969).http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
Or arbitrary and lawless Beast and W&H actions. Angel gets Connor's body away from imprisonment in W&H's offices. The Beast is also released from imprisonment. Was Cordy its habeas corpus-the method by which it was released? Also, Cordy now has the body of Angel-the mother oedipally taking custody of the boy from his father.
[> [> [> [>
Correction-Cordy has body of Connor -- Arethusa, 09:02:45 01/17/03 Fri
[> [> [> [>
Thanks for this... -- shadowkat, 09:51:27 01/17/03 Fri
Was beginning to wonder if I'd forgotten all my criminal law training. ;-) That's it - it's not produce or really have per se - it's a writ that allows for the potential release of the body, so who has custody - so who can release it.
Or arbitrary and lawless Beast and W&H actions. Angel gets Connor's body away from imprisonment in W&H's offices. The Beast is also released from imprisonment. Was Cordy its habeas corpus-the method by which it was released? Also, Cordy now has the body of Angel-the mother oedipally taking custody of the boy from his father.
Another example would be the "security voodoo" - the Beast by killing the lawyers - releases them from their committment to the firm, but the firm, possibly with security voodoo maintains custody of the bodies? Maybe Cordy released the beast? Or did Darla release both the Beast and Connor from their mutual imprisonment by staking herself? And Angel released Connor, the Beast and Holtz by the spell - which was given to him by the evil thing at the head of W&H? Writ of Habeas Corpus can release a guilty or innocent person from custody...
[> [> [>
Now I've seen it all 'Habeas Corpus' for Dummies..<g>...;) -- Rufus, 05:07:52 01/18/03 Sat
the first evil and the slayer connection -- masio, 23:41:32 01/15/03 Wed
i think i got something
I was just watching season 3 on dvd and i noticed something while watching Amends and Graduation Day part 2.
In Amends, Buff reads that "It will be born of goat and man and one will only speak in riddles"
In Graduation Day part 2, in the dream, Faith speaks only in riddles and Buff even points this out. Keep in mind, Faith is very close to death at this point. She may be privy to past slayer knowledge
whatdayaguysthink?
[>
Means I'm going to have to hurry up and watch my DVDs LOL -- JM, 18:00:47 01/16/03 Thu
[>
Re: the first evil and the slayer connection -- Flo, 22:13:11 01/16/03 Thu
I really, really like this whole idea that the FE and the FS are linked or, heck, maybe even one and the same thing. So, your observation has me wondering where on Earth the goat fits in. Is it representative of the devil and, therefore, of evil? Then maybe "man" represents good? Or, is "man" representative of the greys, and adding in the goat-devil makes the FS just a darker shade of grey in the Lilah model of black and white?
Or is the whole goat and man thing just ME's way of making the book she was reading from sound old and important by mimicing The Bible's terminology?
Hmmm...
[> [>
i think i figured some kind of connection to the goat -- masio, 10:23:47 01/17/03 Fri
i think it might be Kalkistos
In faith hope and trick, a HOOVED vampire named Kalkistos (or something) is after faith. We have no real backstory on this guy. We know that he's real old--hence the goat-like hooves, but could there be a bigger connection? Perhaps Faith's ancestor?
Hmm...
Keith Topping's tender parts (for CW and Maeve) -- KdS, 02:52:37 01/16/03 Thu
You know, I've realised Keith Topping's (of Slayer) blindspot that hamstrung him dealing with S6. He's something of a Mens' Movement type paranoid about the evils of radical feminism. He reacted very badly to Beauty and the Beasts in S3 because he thought it was arguing that all men are naturally evil - newsflash: even at this stage of S3 Faith is *not* the authorial voice. Admittedly it isn't the most subtle of eps but it isn't as extreme as that.
His hostile response to Seeing Red and downright venomous comments on Dead Things seem to be because he thinks the Troika are meant to be a criticism of men. Unfortunately he completely misses the evil=adolescence theme of the season and that the Troika are meant to be a criticism of not men but *boys*. A couple of revealing comments:
While there is something inherently amusing about Jonathan and Andrew chanting "BAZOOMBAS!", the fact that this occurs in a scene where they are aiding Warren to procure an an intended rape victim renders this somewhat tacky.
Um, I don't think we were meant to just laugh. And later:
Sadly, elsewhere, the episode plays dangerous, disturbing games with what this season seems to have as its central theme. It's all very well to say "Oh, grow up" to fat immature fanboys who live in the basement with their comic collection and Star Wars figures. But when that growing up process turns them into Jeffrey Dahmer, is it really such a good idea to pick at this raw scab?
I find it hard to believe that anyone could imply that rape and murder are to be considered adult acts, and the fact that Topping can suspect that possibility makes we worry about his personal development.
There's another problemn for me with his attitude towards male characters. He praises Xander's actions at the climax of Grave, but over eggs it by a final comment "When I grow up, I want to be Xander Harris." Now, I must admit I felt that some of the recent Xander-is-a-bastard posts on this board have been one-sided and overstated, but after the other events of S6, in particular Hell's Bells and Entropy, such a eulogy seems very imperceptive. Add the fact that he has a very anti-Buffy and pro-Spike view of Spuffy (the tone of his comments on Seeing Red suggest that he views the rape scene as a crude means to bounce the fans into viewing Spike as the bad guy) and you wonder about his general sexual attitudes.
[>
Sorry Rah -- KdS, 02:54:24 01/16/03 Thu
I seem to have bounced your food topic off the board. Does seem to be archiving very quickly again.
[> [>
nah, it got dropped off before! Voy is archiving crazy -- Rahael, 03:11:47 01/16/03 Thu
[>
Re: Keith Topping's tender parts (for CW and Maeve) -- JM, 05:37:27 01/16/03 Thu
Well, it had a nice run.
And this is an interesting post and helpful post. I had considered buying Topping's book before, but went for Fighting Forces and Reading the Slayer instead. It's amazing the difference that perspective can make. I'm often shocked when watching television with my husband to hear that he got something completely different about the point of a scene than I did. (Course, I just think that means he's wrong.)
[> [>
LOL .....but of course he is....;) -- Rufus, 04:18:27 01/17/03 Fri
Disinterested parties can be a source of great amusement when it comes to Buffy...my husband knows more about the show than he'd like to admit to....he wasn't much fond of Angel.....he likes Giles.
[>
I guess that's another reason for just using Topping as a quick reference. -- Cactus Watcher, 05:52:07 01/16/03 Thu
He does seem to get easily distracted by his own personal politcal issues. Then he assumes everyone will agree with him without a substantial defense of his positions.
O/T It always seems that the board goes bananas just when topics Masq wants to see most (this time a new Angel) are about to appear on the board. Oh, well. She's fixed these problems before. I'm sure when she's got time she'll fix this one.
[>
Re: Keith Topping's tender parts (for CW and Maeve) -- Miss Edith, 14:38:36 01/16/03 Thu
You say that Keith Topping is wrong when he suggests Marti used the AR to cause fans to sympathise with Buffy but in fact Marti has said as much. The rape was used to reiterate the writers views because of the amount of feedback Marti was receiving (some of it quite abusive apparently) claiming Spike was getting a raw deal and Buffy was being a bitch. That was why there was such an outcry because Marti admitted the scene was an indirect result of fans response to characters. It was felt fans were getting the wrong message but the AR just caused many to feel manipulated when it was revealed it had been filmed in order to change people's views.
I haven't purchased his latest book yet but I have the paperback covering the first 5 seasons. I agree that he overreacted to Beauty and the Beasts. To be honest I was confused at his summoning up as he seems to believe that Faith's "all men are beasts" speech is very offensive and somehow a statement from the writers. The fact that it was put into the mouth of Faith a very volatile and confused character suggests we should not take it at face value. The hero of the show Buffy argues agaisnt Faith's cynical views and tells Willow "It is an awful generalisation" so I'm not sure what the problem is.
I would have thought the Troika would be offensive to geeky people perhaps? A lot of people connected to Jonathon in Earshot and wanted more from him than a life confined to the basement reading comics. From the beginning the show was supposed to relate to outsiders in high school which is what viewers latched on to. It does strike some as unfair that Cordy the snobby popular bully goes on to do better than Jonathon. I'm not saying it's a view I personally hold but some people did find the portrayel of the Troika offensive in that way as it felt almost like certain sections of the audience were being mocked. With Ats there was a similiar character David Nabbit who wanted to hang with the group and was pretty rudely snubbed I felt. Cordy calls him a big nerd and it is revealed he plays dungeons and dragons (a role-playing game right?). Sometimes the writers are seen by viewers as making statmements that they had perhaps not intented.
And I'm surprised to hear that Keith Topping approved of the drug metaphour. With the crass lack of subtlty most people felt the story arc could have been handled better. I'm getting the feeling I'm going to disagree with a lot of the opinions in his latest guide.
I am intrigued by CW saying he isn't well versed in American life. In what way does he slip up? I'm English myself and I've always related to his sniggering comments about how the English are portrayed on Buffy.
[> [>
Re: Keith Topping's tender parts (for CW and Maeve) -- CW, 16:17:59 01/16/03 Thu
The one instance that sticks in my mind was his objection to the birthday 'cake' scene at the end of Innocence in Season 2. I'm not sure that there's anything at all strange in it for most Britons. But, Topping doesn't seem to get it. For reference, Angel has just turned evil because they slept together, and Buffy has come to realize it's her fault. Topping calls the birthday 'cake' a muffin, and refers to it as 'affectionate and stupidly pointless.' It's not what Americans would call a muffin. From the kind of icing on top, it's clear, it's a cupcake (made from exactly the same kind of batter as a full-sized cake). A birthday cake (or other dessert) is always an expected part of any birthday celebration, even a late one with family, so it cannot be pointless. A cupcake or two would be both a nice gesture and appropriate for a small late birthday celebration. Plus Topping seems to have entirely missed the significance of Buffy not blowing out the candle (after the events of the preceeding days she was afraid to wish for anything).
[> [> [>
Re: Keith Topping's tender parts (for CW and Maeve) -- JM, 17:58:33 01/16/03 Thu
Actually, I think cupcakes are also kind of symbols of growing older. As your group grows larger and includes other than family, birthday celebrations become more fragmented. The big party gets replaced by peer sponsored parties. I know when I was getting older, there were a number of birthdays where my mother made me birthday cupcakes instead of cake. But maybe it's just me.
Angel devours the board! (Angel Odyssey 1.6-1.10) -- Tchaikovsky, 03:25:53 01/16/03 Thu
OK, I've got quite a lot to write about here. First a few points which are off-topic to my main points.
Burn the heretics! Lord of the Rings the book is much better than the film. It's complete with culture and humanity, which the film, while as visually stunning as the work of Kurosawa, lacks, and needs to make up by having a stupid comic dwarf, (Book Gimli's not that silly). Some of the plot changes, (Sam casually dismissing a Nazgul at Osgiliath; Faramir being less trusting and noble) make both the threat of evil and the compassion and wisdom of good people less powerful. And there was that highly dubious bit where Sam explained, (as if straight to the audience), exactly what relevance this film had to the world post September 11th. End rant.
I feel slightly less guilty now that I've read that Rob watched the whole of Angel in two weeks, but nonetheless feel a little naughty in confessing that I watched five Angel episodes yesterday. I'll take them one at a time.
1.6 Sense and Sensitivity
Love this, and, going by 'Hero' as well, love Tim Minear's writing. He's got the same ability as Joss Whedon and Doug Petrie to write an engaging story with an optimal balance between humour and pathos. OK, he's more on the pathos side, but whatever. The great set-piece scene with Kate talking about her Father is genuinely heart-rending, which is powerful writing considering how little we have seen of her. The ending scene, where in a traditional series the Father would open up, and realise how much he'd ignored his child while grieving for his wife, is instead consumed with the really tragic little conversation where he reprimands Kate for her actions. Also in this episode, the non-relationship between Cordelia and Doyle just begins to be mutual, with the very nicely written shoe-scene. It was interesting if not fascinating to see Angel as someone very much in touch with his emotions. But, once again, the character I'm really interested in is Kate.
1.7 The Bachelor Party
I wanted to know more about Doyle, because it appeared up to this point that his lack of back-story was hindering any character development. It's not enough to have a character just as comic relief when you have his companions, Angel and Cordelia, with three seasons of characterisations, (even if these were somewhat cariactatured while the two were on Buffy.) His ability to let go of his former wife shows a commendable generosity, although I didn't really appreciate this being bolstered by the 'Doyle used to be a teacher and a volunteer and is really nice', scene with Cordelia, which struck me as a cheap and jaded dialogue from a stable versed in subversion. I wasn't exactly entranced by this episode, but it certainly didn't get me shaking with rage in the manner of
1.8 I Will Remember You
Let's clear a few little points here, just to show I have no vested interest. I am not a shipper of any kind (except my Giles/Dawn ship, which I keep quiet). I am neither strongly pro or anti Buffy and Angel as couple. It is good to see Buffy on the show as her actress can act the rest of the cast off the screen.
But this was one of the most contrived and awful hours of television I have ever scene from Mutant Enemy. You know, worse than 'Beer Bad' bad. The 'happily ever after' ending was clearly not an option. The events of the day after Angel was humanised were tediously obvious and badly written. Angel's revelation that he can't live as a human was not believable. Thus far, he has been at most just about satisfied with his job as 'Dark Avenger'in Los Angeles. To suggest this matyrdom, this unlooked-for giving is more important to him, emotionally and just with the brain, than the torturous love of his life, is not a credible plot twist, based on what we have seen. And it has the most hideous of 'deus ex machina' endings, where it appears that some hitherto unmentioned power (The Oracle) can play with the rules of the universe.
So what did I take out of the episode which was postive? Angel's inability to play second fiddle to Buffy, and his reluctance to wake her up to go fight, is a rather beautiful foreshadowing of the Buffy/Riley relationship which was just about to be consummated (their first kiss is in Hush which is 4.10). Angel very quickly realises that he would not be able to play a support role to Buffy's slayerdom. Metaphorically and literally, he needs his own show, and he needs to be the boss of it. The same, after a season's relationship is to be true of Riley. It's the same weakness, and lack of 'dark' force which eventually make him feel inadequate.
1.9 Hero
Deeply distressed at the incompetence of 'I Will Remember You', I turned to 'Hero' hoping for a little bit of light relief. Not exactly what I got, but a fantastic episode, which left me in tears for the first time in response to an Angel episode, (I won't deign to list all the episodes in Buffy which have made me cry, it would be too long). There's a wonderful theatrical symmetry between the beginning and end of this episode. At the beginning, we see Angel's (contrived I'd say), sacrifice. At the end, we see Doyle's very real one. At the beginning we see an excellent comedy scene between Cordelia and Doyle, and think of them as a couple. At the end, we see the same scene, but now (almost in the style of a slightly less glib Pulp Fiction)in a completely different light, and it seems deeply tragic.
And, as with all of the best episodes, the symmetry is reinforced by a couple of lines of excellent dialogue. Angel's line 'You never know your strength until you're tested' is echoed by Doyle as he commits his matyrdom. And Doyle's scripted lines about saving in his commercial with Cordelia are repeated on the video sounding really raw and emotional.
Also, to this episode's credit, it has a genuinely scary evil, (The Scourge), whose marching awakens in me the strongest type of revulsion at (para)military organisations with a hierarchy focussed entirely on one aim.
This episode is written by Tim Minear, with Howard Gordon, and it's wondeful how many funny lines there are in a nevertheless tragic episode.
1.10 Parting Gifts
A serviceable episode, where I was just about happy with the amount of time paid to Doyle's death. It's better than the essential lack of memory of Tara at the end of Season Six, but still falls somewhat short of 'Forever', a really scary and powerful episode, in my opinion. However, this amount of coverage would not be appropriate to the show's style at this stage.
I just about enjoyed Wesley, although the one-joke character is wearing a little thin, and I will look forward to seeing him develop through the next few seasons. The twist in the plot was OK if a little banal, and only the most iron-hearted person is not going to find Cordelia kissing everyone funny. There were a couple of moments of real beauty- Cordelia's speech to Angel about not retiring into himself was really well written- both paying off the criticisms Cordelia had of Angel at the beginning of 'Sense and Sensitivity' ('now those two Vulcans are going to mindmeld'), and showing how Cordelia is beginning to develop friendships which may be more than superficial, (as she did with Doyle). Of course, the way she actually can't stay with Angel is funny- but doesn't undermine the sentiment. The other moment for me is the ending, which is a really powerful and understated one. Wesley, (even if mainly comically) doesn't want to leave the basis of a family. Cordelia seems unperturbed either way, but it is Angel's character who is really interesting. The very act of cooking when he doesn't eat, is a symbol both of hospitality and of his matyrdom to the human cause. It is this moment, rather than any in 'I Will Remember You' or before, which makes me believe that he really is searching for the redemption of himself and others. Also, here again we have three people clearly seeking re-integration. Cordelia still trying to become an actor. Wesley trying to find a place for himself, (and knowing deep down that 'Rogue Demon Hunter' ain't gonna work), and Angel trying to become his own character, not Buffy's shadoww. They may be outside of society and LA's structures, (which, through Wolfram and Hart, the doctor and the police have been shown to be undesirable anyway), but they are journeying towards ties of a familial kind with each other- finding a place where they belong. I start to see how alicibade's [come back alicibades] framing metaphor which has been discussed a lot will be so important when I finally, if ever, reach Season Four.
Overall? Doyle's death was beautifully done. I'm not a fan of the Buffy crossovers at all, (but will hold fire until the high reputation of the Faith crossovers has washed over me). I'm almost more of a fan of the stand-alone episodes in Angel than the ones where we are clearly learning something about charcaters or plot- as they seem a little contrived. There is no real plot arc, so I am happy to see characters reacting to a new situation each time.
Thanks all for your comments on my Angel posts. The writing and reading on Voy is as good an experience as the watching of the episodes. And I think, (with the help of 'Habeas Corpses'), that the board is being slowly taken over by Angel threads. Maybe we'll have as much, (and as interesting) discussion of Angel as Buffy one of these days. I'm starting to think it just might deserve it.
TCH
[>
Re: Angel devours the board! (Angel Odyssey 1.6-1.10) -- Helen, 03:43:41 01/16/03 Thu
Enjoyed reading your thoughts. I also liked these early Angel episodes, I really liked the early eps when it seemed that each one would be a stand alone story, albeit allowing for character developments. Have dropped away from watching Angel now that it is more in the style of Buffy, with slow boiling season or mini season arcs - don't have enough energy or time to get so invested in TWO shows (and I know I would be crazy about Angel, if I devoted the time to it).
Would love to know what you thought of "In the Dark", I particularly enoyed Spike being very Season 2 Buffy in that ep, rather then the deranged Angel susbtitute he shortly became.
[> [>
Go to... -- Tchaikovsky, 03:52:19 01/16/03 Thu
http://www.voy.com/14567/2/83236.html
These being my thoughts on Angel 1.1- 1.3, although somewhat short on 'In the Dark'. I did really like it, I just thought it was a little bit regressive to litter the third episodes with the story of characters who came and returned to Buffy. The final scene between Doyle and Angel is, I think, beautiful. The sheer wonder of the sunset, and then the symbolism of the light being something Angel cannot enjoy. He starts to feel that he has been called somwhow.
TCH
[> [> [>
Don't you think that Angel giving up the Gem of Amara. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 04:28:38 01/16/03 Thu
Foreshadow's his sacrafice of his own humanity in "I Will Remember You"?
[> [> [> [>
Yes and no -- Tchaikovsky, 05:59:25 01/16/03 Thu
Finn
I would agree that Angel's destruction of the gem was a step along the road to accepting his destiny- in a way that has deep and lasting implications for him, and which is intended to go the next tricky step in 'I will Remember You.'
At the end of 'In the Dark', Angel realises an important truth about himself. He is still a vampire. No matter how many human traits he has- having a soul and being able to walk in sunlight included- he is still not human, and he still has both a need of blood and one hundred years of torture to atone for. His place, at this stage in the series, is not to effect the life of a human being, but to affect others' lives. He denies himself the opportunity to pretend that he's something that he isn't. Simultaneously, he realises that there are people 'in the dark', and that he has as much responsibility to fight them as anyone, possibly even more, as he both has knowledge of and has been part of the horrors of the world for so long.
It is supposed to be the same kind of idea in 'I Will Remember You', and in this sense, I would agree with the word 'foreshadowing'. Simplistically, Angel has the opportunity to lead a superficially better [more normal?] life, and he turns it down. But my real bugbear is the specifics on this occasion. In 'In the Dark', Angel has the opportunity to be a counterfeit human. In 'I Will Remember You' Angel IS a real human. In 'In the Dark', the materialistic aspect is also difficult. The Gem itself would presumably constantly be coveted by other vampires, and so the idea of normal humnanity is false, and Angel sees right through it. In 'I Will Remember You', no such negative side exists.
I cannot honestly think that, considering his actions and motivations throughout the first three seasons of Buffy, that Angel does NOT want a normal human life with Buffy, more than anything in the world. Remember that one of the reasons Buffy and Angel broke up was Angel hearing the Mayor talking about his mortal wife shrivelling up and dying while he remained young. Angel could not take that idea. But remember that for two years, Angel is trying to make this patently impossible relationship work, and he lieaves because he realises it is all a daydream while he is a vampire with a soul. If he were to regain humanity- without any of the downsides, then I believe personally that he would take up the idea, and leave the 'Dark Avenger stuff'
The reasons given for Angel deciding upon what he does are multiple. First, he fears not being strong enough for Buffy, (like Riley). I don't believe that in the long run, his knowledge and experience wouldn't (like Giles) have been invaluable and equal to Buffy's physical strength in many ways. Second, does he still feel he has a duty to those 'in the dark'? Yes, but I would argue that it's not too analogous to 'In the Dark', because
1) In 'In the Dark', he was still a vampire with his curse, so Buffy was not an issue.
2) It was a false humanity in 'In the Dark'.
Thirdly, he does it to safeguard the prefection of the day that he spent together with Buffy. So that their love could never become banal. Becuase Angel and Buffy is about shallow adolescent love, and allowing it to mature would render it somehow mundane. This is possibly the best argument for Angel's decision- albeit probably a subconscious one. I just can't see him not fantasising about himself growing old as Buffy does, and leaping at the possibility of it being true.
So 'In the Dark' does foreshadow his decision in 'I Will Remember You', but I would argue that in the latter episode, the specifics are different enough that the objective correlative, (like in TS Eliot's criticisms of Hamlet), is false. The actions do not follow from clear, psychological motivations. And regardless of this, the very fact that the Orcales can turn back time is a horrnedous 'deus ex machina'.
Hope this clarifies some.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
I don't know -- KdS, 08:10:54 01/16/03 Thu
The impression I got from I Will Remember You (don't remember the details, and not interested enough to go check) is that what the Oracles told Angel convinced him that at sometime in the future he'd need to fight alongside Buffy, and that if he were a human his strength would be insufficient and she would be killed. Hence the main reason why he gave up his humanity was so that he'd be able to save her at this prophesied point.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
This is why the end made no sense to me at all -- Rahael, 08:16:52 01/16/03 Thu
He wouldn't bally well be able to save her if she lived in Sunnydale and he in LA, now would he, no matter what Vamp strength he had!
I could have taken a more meta, more complex answer than the ostensible one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Agreed -- Tchaikovsky, 13:57:57 01/16/03 Thu
And I tried to come up with a more meta answer in reply to Finn, but I think I was giving the episode too much credit!
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Yes and no -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:52:18 01/16/03 Thu
Let me ask: what has been Angel's mission statement as set forth at the beginning of the show? While I haven't seen pre-Season Three Angel, I've read quite a bit about it and know that Angel's goal was to save lives in order to make up for the thousands he killed as Angelus. As a human, Angel didn't have the strength or abilities to be a truly effective fighter of evil. Thus, by becoming a vampire once more, he was accepting the curse of seperation from Buffy, never seeing the daylight, and forever being an outsider from society, just so he could pursue his quest to redeem himself. When I read about ep summaries of "I Will Remember You", this seemed to be what everyone was thinking as to Angel's motivation.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Disagree on your premise here -- Tchaikovsky, 13:49:52 01/16/03 Thu
From Masq's review of 'I Will Remember You':
"Angel's Calling: It is increasingly clear that when Angel was returned to Earth, it was an act of The Powers That Be (PTBs). The PTBs were not just giving him an opportunity to redeem himself. They want him to use his vampire powers to fight evil. Hence, it no longer makes sense that Angel is doing his good deeds to atone for Angelus--he can now escape the demon any time he wants (OK, by finding another Mohra Demon), and it's the demon half of him who did all the evil things in his past. He is now doing good deeds because he has been asked to be a warrior of good, and he needs the demon's strength to be an effective one."
My bone of contention is that I don't entirely believe that Angel wouldn't abandon his 'Warrior of Good' role if humanised, in search of happiness with Buffy. Possibly I'm just misjudging. It's an opinion thing. I think that one thing that is clear from the tone of the series is that Angel is not trying to atone for Angelus' sins, just as the newly ensoulled Spike's intention should not be to somehow try to atone for what his old self did. He needs to understand himself, and then try to live a good life, as we all try to.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Even if you don't buy into the redemption angle. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:17:21 01/16/03 Thu
Angel at least obviously has a deep motivation to help people and to fight various forces of evil, otherwise he wouldn't still be doing what he does. While he might have tried to keep fighting evil even though he was human, without the benefit of vampiric powers, he wouldn't be very useful. In fact, he'd probably end up getting himself killed pretty quickly. Only as a vampire with a soul can Angel be the Champion the Powers want him to be and, most importantly, that he wants himself to be.
[>
Re: Angel devours the board! (Angel Odyssey 1.6-1.10) -- Rahael, 03:48:05 01/16/03 Thu
Nice post! I'm enjoying reading about your first encounters with AtS. Could I agree with you more about Sense and Sensitivity, I will Remember You and Hero?
I was hit by the exact scenes you mention in Sense & Sensitivity. The scene where Kate gets up and makes that speech to her father is so *true* that it hurts. The same wtih the end.
And I like the positive remarks you do make about IWRY - very astute.
Looking forward to reading more!
[>
Don't know if I could forgive ya for the IWRY diss, but besides that, good reviews. ;o) -- Rob, 07:44:42 01/16/03 Thu
The brilliance of IWRY is that it gave our heroes everything they ever wanted, and then took that away in the blink of an eye. I love when ME messes with our beloved characters, because they make for the most emotionally stirring hours. But I think it was important also for this fantasy that Buffy and Angel both had to finally be shattered, not just for the on-going health of the two of them, but for the fans. It very clearly showed that even if Angel became human again, Buffy and he could not reunite. The importance of the episode is that Angel gave up his one chance to fulfill his dreams in order to protect Buffy and the world. Was the episode emotionally manipulative? Perhaps, but I loved it.
And don't mention your dislike of this ep to Masq. She might cry. ;o)
Rob
P.S. Speaking of crying at "Buffy" episodes, I rewatched "The Prom" yesterday for the 900th time, and gosh darn if I didn't start tearing up when Jonathan presented Buffy with the Class Protector Award. Most of the great Marti Noxon eps leave me a weepy mess.
[> [>
Re: Don't know if I could forgive ya for the IWRY diss, but besides that, good reviews. ;o) -- CW, 08:20:18 01/16/03 Thu
Have to agree with Rob. When it comes to being contrived I don't think the oracles and the turning back of time are in the same league with say the appearance of Dawn, the birth of Connor, the rapid aging of Connor, and Angel standing outside in a storm of fire to watch Connor and Cordy together. Sometimes you have to put things in perspective.
[> [> [>
I (almost) take the Fifth -- Tchaikovsky, 10:59:44 01/16/03 Thu
I don't think I have the right to the Fifth being British, but I haven't seen any of these except the first, which had a whole season to make it clear why something surprising and amazing had happenned.
TCH
[> [>
Crying, no crying and TCH feeling guilty -- Tchaikovsky, 10:54:35 01/16/03 Thu
Don't want anyone to cry, honest!
Except, perhaps, at the end of emotionally truthful and interesting episodes. I almost always cry at the end of 'Innocence', 'Becoming', 'Amends' [it's the snow thing], 'The Prom', 'New Moon Rising', 'Family', 'The Body' [actually Anya's bit mostly] and even 'Grave'. Oddly enough, I've never cried at the end of 'The Gift' for some reason. I'm more filled with a sense of awe and wonder.
Now I cried at the end of 'Hero', which I watched straight after 'I Will Remember You', so it's not that I was in a non-cry-y mood, (I don't think I have those). It's just that it was such a poor and unengaging episode. If I may: (beware Masq!)
>The brilliance of IWRY is that it gave our heroes everything they ever wanted, and then took that away in the blink of an eye. I love when ME messes with our beloved characters, because they make for the most emotionally stirring hours.
The brilliance of the Buffyverse is the moments of agony which follow the happy moments. I know, call me a sadomasochist. In 'I Will Remember You', too much time was devoted to a sappy, fanfic-esque Buffy/Angel happiness, and not enough to the souring of it to make it great drama.
>But I think it was important also for this fantasy that Buffy and Angel both had to finally be shattered, not just for the on-going health of the two of them, but for the fans. It very clearly showed that even if Angel became human again, Buffy and he could not reunite. The importance of the episode is that Angel gave up his one chance to fulfill his dreams in order to protect Buffy and the world
Fans are fans- it's the show that's serving the show. Joss Whedon has never compromised to want fans want to happen, and rarely deems it necessary to spell out in ridiculous detail that two people are soul mates but will never live together. For me, the look at the end of Graduation Day said it all, and, like I've heard about 'Showtime', silence often says it better. Because sometimes there aren't words.
>Was the episode emotionally manipulative? Perhaps, but I loved it.
My problem was that it wasn't emotionally manipulative enough, except perhaps for Buffy/Angel shippers who had deliberately blocked out the knowldege that the two crazy kids had their own shows to be on. However, I respect your opinion, and deeply admire your enthusiasm!
I wanted to cry, and I wanted to feel that I was watching something beautiful or true, or, like Whedon sometimes achieves, both. But I couldn't.
NB I like 'Angel' ('Somnambulist' review coming tomorrow) and I love Buffy, and I love this universe. Just trying to avoid any allegations of trolling.
TCH
[> [> [>
Of course you're not a troll. -- Rob, 11:27:46 01/16/03 Thu
A negative review to an ep is allowed. I don't know if you remember this, but I gave my first (and only) horrible review to a Buffy ep this year for "Him." It sent the board in shock, since I usually give reviews that range from good to glowing for every Buffy ep, because I always try to find the good in every ep. On subsequent viewings, btw, "Him" has risen for me on the like-o-meter. But that's neither here nor there.
I'm just writing to let you know that you don't have to worry about being considered a troll b/c you didn't like an episode. In fact, you gave a very fair and balanced review, even explaining what you did like about it, or at least understood was necessary or important about it. Not all of us can be in love with every episode. Although, for me, I was a wreck the second they turned on Christophe Beck's dang Buffy/Angel love theme at the end. It gets me every time! I think what I liked about it so much is exactly what turned you off--that it WAS an over-the-top fanfic. I think that was basically the point, and revealing by the end why this could never ever happen.
But enough said about this ep, I'm really enjoying your reviews of the ep. It's very cool to hear your opinions of the show, experiencing it for the first time (especially since my initiation into Angel has been similar to yours) and I think you'll be quite delighted and surprised by some of the plot twists and turns coming your way. I sure was a few months ago.
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Thanks Rob -- Tchaikovsky, 12:46:01 01/16/03 Thu
And the Christophe Beck theme usually starts me off too.
TCH
[> [> [>
Belated support -- matching mole, 11:17:34 01/17/03 Fri
Probably no one is reading this thread any more but I would just like to point out to Tchaikovsky that he (she?) is not alone in strongly prefering LOTR in print to celluloid although I have decided to shut up about this for at least a month.
More pertinently I would also like to say that I really didn't like IWRY either although perhaps not for the same reasons. The crossover episodes in AtS season 1 seemed very distracting to me. The show was taking form as something quite distinct from BtVS and then a cross-over would come along and seem like a step backward.
My bias here is that I didn't find Angel a particularly interesting character on BtVS. However I did like the rather subtle way the Buffy/Angel relationship wound down at the end of BtVS S3. I found it a nice counterpoint to the melodrama of S2. Then Angel had his own show and seemed to finally taking on some sort of independent existence. IWRY seemed unecessary to me and contrived.
I am really enjoying the AtS reviews. Haven't seen any of those episodes for three years now and it is quite the nostalgic experience.
[> [>
oh, The Prom, total sob fest -- Helen, 07:34:28 01/17/03 Fri
Don't usually find SMG crying very tear inducing (her face screws up, and yes, I know everyone looks funny when they cry. But when Buffy's having a weep and I tend to stare at SMG's ability to weep copiously on demand - not easy.), but the Prom gets me every time.
"I'm sorry , it must be horrible"
"I think horrible is still coming, right now its worse. Right now I'm just trying to keep from dying."
Whoever wrote that (was it Joss?) has been majorly dumped at some point, and still feels the pain.
[> [> [>
What gets me actually is not Buffy's crying... -- Rob, 08:40:21 01/17/03 Fri
...although it is heartbreaking, but that moment where we see Willow's eyes fill with tears, right before Buffy puts her head in her lap.
Rob
[>
Somnambulist (Angel Odyssey 1.11) -- Tchaikovsky, 06:20:19 01/17/03 Fri
Just a quick few thoughts, as I went rather overboard on annotating 'Inca Mummy Girl'.
I'm a really big fan of Tim Minear. Who else (even Joss), can claim to have written their first three episodes as well as Sense and Sensitivity, Hero and Somnambulist? This guy alone will keep me watching.
The episode is about the residual drakness inside Angel- the problems with his demon urges, and his inability to entirely supress them. This is played out nicely in the final scene with Cordelia, where she posits that people change. This is one of the most encouraging and well-thought out speeches I've ever heard her utter- without any of the usual insults mixed in with the helpful words. My interest, (and even respect), of her as a character increases by the episode.
Wesley plays almost entirely in a Giles role in this episode, coming up with the research at the time needed, before being taken momentarily hostage by Penn. I need to see some more individuality please.
Kate again in this episode is perfectly written and acted. Her initial disbelief in fantasy lands quickly changes to a grudgung acceptance and frantic research. I'm really interested to see how any further relationship (in the broadest sense) between Angel and Kate develops.
Here comes a hiatus while I swap box sets with yab, (thanks again for your generosity), but I should be back with the second half of Season One in a week or so.
TCH
[> [>
Re: Somnambulist (Angel Odyssey 1.11) -- Rob, 10:20:27 01/17/03 Fri
"Wesley plays almost entirely in a Giles role in this episode, coming up with the research at the time needed, before being taken momentarily hostage by Penn. I need to see some more individuality please."
I promise, the deepening of Wesley's character will continue to the point where you won't even recognize him by the time you get to the fourth season! And that's a good thing. IMO, Wesley has had one of the best character arcs of anyone in the Buffyverse so far.
And again, oooh, you have some amazing episodes coming. I can't wait for you to get to the middle of the second season!!
Rob
I think you'll also appreciate Cordy's arc as you progress through the seasons. You probably have heard rumbling at the board here and there that the writers messed up Cordy's character this season, what's wrong with her, etc., but I can say that her character development can be appreciated and understood more when seen in a condensed period of time.
[>
On IWRY and Noir -- slain, 12:57:30 01/17/03 Fri
I certinaly agree about LoTR - I kind of feel like a snob for disliking the humour in the film and some of the more silly action flourishes, but there really is not excuse for stealing jokes from Terry Pratchett. Though I wish someone would make a film of maybe 'Moving Pictures' or 'Small Gods'.
IWRY is my favourite episode of the season after Joss' opener, but I agree with matching mole below; I think the episode does more damage to the season than it helps it, a little like OMWF for some people in Season 6, as its intensity makes the rest of the season a little pale for me. In my above thread (which you probably can't read, at it's got some minor Angel S4 spoilers!) I try and fit Buffy in this episode in with the Film Noir style that Angel represents; the episode is supposed to be emotional, but more importantly it has to end very bitterly and unhappily - Buffy represents the human life that Angel finds unattainable. While it is incongrous with much of the rest of the season, it's done so deliberately to show the contrast. Angel has to be the embittered, lonely hero who's prevented from taking redemption even when it's offered him; in BtVS, Angel could look for redemption and possibly find it, but in AtS the world is more morally ambiguous, and redemption is apparently impossible.
Current board
| More January 2003