January 2003 posts


Previous January 2003  

More January 2003

'Potential' Revisited, with spoilers -- Darby, 14:17:25 01/29/03 Wed

Is it significant that in the opening shot the cherub does not have angel wings? (There is a winged angel in the second shot)

Is it really logical to have a "live ammo" drill with Spike right after he's had the kidnapped stuffing knocked out of him? Maybe they were leftover plastic stakes from Riley...

Why didn't I know until reading the board the next day that Chloe was mysteriously missing? Can we say, "Cookie cutter," boys and girls?

Giles missed an opportunity to wish it on her, but Buffy seems to be suffering from the, "I hope when you have kids that they're just like you!" syndrome. He did the exposition better, though.

When did Buffy buy into the Watchers' Council version of what a Slayer is? Most of the stuff she's telling them is pretty much the opposite of her own approach.

Anya's told them about the First's current plans but not about Ominous Eyeball Guy's claims for its motivation???

Channeling Honorificus - what's with the big flappy thing on the front of Buffy's slacks?

So Giles went to Shanghai? Hope he took a time machine (didn't we lose a Slayer in Constantinople?). Hope somebody told him that just "Picking up that girl" from mainland China isn't really a round-trip-flight kinda thing.

Is it significant that Buffy is an inept councillor? Is it worth it to have her spew these silly monologues as distracted responses to troubled students?

There's a plant in her cubicle. A new one.

So let's spend half the show addressing the suspicion all the online folks have that Dawn is a closet Slayer. Yeah, that's the ticket...and then she won't be! What fun!

If there are Bringers all over town, why not take the girls out to, um, kill as many as they can find?

Hey you can never have too many lesbians-rejecting-wood jokes, right? Shiver me timbers!

I'm not sure I remember an episode with a decent-length scene that wasn't in the shooting script - here, it's the prep for Willow's spell. Hey, they couldn't have used the time to give the girls some scent of personality?

I suspect that the wonky nature of the early Potential-locating spell is rife with portent. What, how often can you use that?

It is neat that on rewatching, the glowball definitely goes through Dawn and the door.

Love the metanarration on the shared blood thing - "Yeah, I never got that." Me neither.

Dawn's terrified that the Bringers will find her but goes out for a midnight walk? How does this make any sense except...not? At least she wore a coat.

Is Andrew right, is the Slayer power a metaphor for Womanhood? Giver of Death, Giver of Life...nah.

How did Buffy know that Clem could do a Beetlejuice take? Maybe she asked for something general and he picked what. Gotta admit it was funny, though.

Okay, here's where things go to Hellmouth. How klutzy does a vamp have to be to bite someone on the forehead? Hello, sharp nails, too!

She wants to set a vampire on the marching band in an empty school in the middle of the night? There might be a joke embedded in there somewhere, but they whiffed clean on it there.

How exactly do you trap someone in a room with a bunch of windows in it? Okay, second floor, might stop a person, but not a vampire. And why wasn't the door locked if Amanda locked it? And why was the vamp still there, in an empty school, hanging from the rafters? It couldn't know that Amanda was coming back! Possible explanation - it had gotten out, but heard the girls and went back to the room to lay in wait for them. Geez, pretty iffy.

Dawn realizes there's danger only when the vampire isn't in the room?

Are there any schools in the country that have exit door you can't exit through?

Our local outlet screwed up the commercial break - missed significant parts of the Dawn-Amanda fightage. Feh!

So Xander is with the "seeing, knowing." ...Watching?

- Darby, done watching now.
[> Lots of goodies here. Thanks Darby. -- CW, 15:12:22 01/29/03 Wed

About Buffy's view of Slaying. I don't know that she and the Council really disagreed ever about what a slayer was, just whether a slayer was a person besides. The Council had a bad tendency to look at them as things, or worse live stock. I'm not too disturbed by "The Slayer is this and this" pronouncements from Buffy. Just as I can tell others how a great lover ought to be, it would be a lot more effective to hear it from someone who actually was one.

Trapped? - Well, maybe the vamp just felt like 'hanging around?'

I can forgive Dawn for being more afraid of something she cannot see, when she expected to see it.

Dawn passing the torch. - If you saw the end of the fight, particularly the moment Dawn insists its Amanda's fight, you didn't miss much.
[> It's Istanbul, not Constantinople. -- HonorH (ducking and running), 15:57:02 01/29/03 Wed

[> [> Take me back to Constantinople... Oh, you can't go back to Constantinople anymore! -- CW, 16:07:02 01/29/03 Wed

Sorry old songs bubbling up again.
[> Re: councillor/teacher Buffy (SPOILERS for Potential) -- Robert, 17:42:17 01/29/03 Wed

>>> Is it significant that Buffy is an inept councillor?

I don't see her as a bad councillor so much as inexperienced. The first thing she needs to do is stop giving advice. Her job as councillor is to listen with empathy and nod at appropriate moments. The instance I recall seeing her giving advice, it was very conventional advice that an adult might give. Buffy was unsure of her role. Should she be an empathetic peer or a responsible adult? In this case, she needs to be the empathetic peer.

Just the fact that students are willing to open up to her, even though they may think her a high-functioning schizophrenic, suggests that she is quite a bit more than inept. Plus, she has already helped two students with supernatural problems, if maybe not with normal problems. Still, even if she does nothing more than listen, that is helping.

In my horrible public school years (those being grades K through 12 inclusive), I saw a councillor exactly once. I was sent their by my asshole P.E. coach, because one of my asshole peers punched my in the side of my head (for truly no reason). I was unwilling to punch him back and coach apparently felt that pacifists should be punished. So, what sage advice did the councillor blessed me with? I should have punched back. I shudder to think, in this post-Columbine era, that school councillors might still be giving out such advice.

>>> When did Buffy buy into the Watchers' Council version of what a Slayer is? Most of the stuff she's telling them is pretty much the opposite of her own approach.

This is an interesting point, and I don't believe that I agree with you here. Let us take a look at some extractions from the shooting script.

BUFFY

Don't fight on his terms. If your
gut's telling you to run, run.
Regain the higher ground. Make the
fight your own.

and

BUFFY
Instinct. Understand his, but trust
yours.
(to the girls)
You're chosen for a reason.

and

BUFFY (cont'd; V.O.)
In the hands of a Slayer, everything
is a potential weapon. If you know
how to see it.


I don't believe that a proper watcher would have so taught a new slayer. These are the ways that Buffy operates. Recall School hard when Spike is studying her technique and comments on her resourcefulness with weapons and killing techniques. Recall Bring on the Night when she trusts her instincts to know when to run away from the turok-Han. The watchers seem to teach a more systematic approach. They train the slayers on specific weapons and in specific techniques.

BUFFY
(to the girls)
Look, if I come here, it usually
means I've gotta wring some
information out of something large,
scary, drunk and with a roomful of
friends who don't care for the
Slayer. Remember that. There's not
a being in here who wouldn't gladly
rip out your throat.


This is exactly the technique Buffy has used for the past 5 or so years. How many times has she threatened or beaten information out of Willy or his patrons? I doubt such techniques were included in the slayer's handbook.

BUFFY
You're all going to die.
The girls are startled.
BUFFY (cont'd)
But you knew that already. 'Cause
that's the cool reward for being
human. The big dessert at the end of
the meal.
BUFFY (cont'd)
Don't kid yourselves, you guys, this
whole thing is all about death. You
think you're different because you
might be the next Slayer? Death is
what a Slayer breathes; what a Slayer
dreams of when she sleeps. Death is
what a Slayer lives.
BUFFY (cont'd)
My death is what could make you a
Slayer.
BUFFY (cont'd)
Oh goody. Rapt attention. I love
that so much. So where are we? If
we go with what Anya's sources are
saying, The First is in remission.
We think that's advantage us.


Isn't this a pretty good description of Buffy's life for the past 6-1/2 years, and is a loyal watcher likely to be teaching such points?

Actually I enjoyed Buffy's lectures to the slayers-in-training. I saw it as a summation of her life and herself. I hope we are treated to more lectures in the remaining episodes.
[> [> Watcher Buffy (SPOILERS for Potential) -- Peggin, 17:52:54 01/29/03 Wed

Actually I enjoyed Buffy's lectures to the slayers-in-training.

I like the lectures, too. I actually think Buffy makes a better Watcher than Giles did in terms of teaching the girls how to stay alive. When Buffy first came to Sunnydale, Giles basically told her, "It's your sacred duty, here's a stake, go kill things," but he didn't give her any real advice on how to stay alive while doing that. Most of the time when he attempted to train her in different types of combat, she just wiped the floor with him.

Giles was great as a research and as moral support. He was great at getting Buffy motivated her to do her job, but he really did little for her in terms of teaching her how to be a Slayer.
[> [> COUNSELOR!!!!!! -- HonorH, 19:05:59 01/29/03 Wed

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of my system, let me just say: I agree completely with Robert on Watcher!Buffy. She's teaching these girls how *she* survived, not spouting the Watchers Council line on Slayers. I didn't think there was any contradiction at all between the way she's lived and what she is teaching the Potentials.
[> [> [> Re: COUNSELOR!!!!!! -- Darby, 20:00:58 01/29/03 Wed

It's the "Council" thingee, I get confused (of course, I could claim it's a clever word game, but you'd see through that).

I think that the Slayer advice was less this particular episode than a continuation of the "depend just on yourself" thread that's wound through the last few eps.
Taking occam's razor to Buffy myths: Plan 1: SELL THE SHOW -- aquaman, 14:26:22 01/29/03 Wed

I've been reading for a couple of weeks now - heardd about the sight and wondered what other people were thinking. There are a LOT of very creative models being generated here - amazing. The 7 chacras thing by manwitch was worth this month's internet cost, easily. And manwitch must be an awesome dude, as evidenced by the fact that he seemed to take his own theory LESS seriously than anyone else. To be honest, I wondered if there was going to be a bunch of idiots trying to figure out the "REAL" structure of the series, or the "REAL" intent of the writers. I had hoped not, and glad to say there seems to be little of that. Just cool people sharing allegories and deconstructions and other isomorphisms and doing it explicitly and intelligently. I'm hooked!!

However, to say that there IS NO intent we can theorize about, that all of our littlle metaphors and representations weren't planned for in detail by the writers may seem kinda open-minded and all, and it is, except with Buffy's writers the intent seems clear:

***If you choose VERY simple and archetypical stories as your basis, the kinds of themes (like good vs. bad, the growth and maturation of a person, physics theories like relativity, or, in our culture, the bible, and in our
gen. X subculture, all the eastern mystic nonsense we encounter constantly) that permeate all of society, that have lasted and been greatly influencial on other creative works, sciences, institutions, biological processes, etc., then have cute, likable characters act these stories out in a context that is attractive to the demographic you are targeting (The Buffy universe is definitely a turn-on to college-age poets, deadheads, goths, trekkies, sci-fi/fantasy readers, new-age junkies, the whole 'gen. x, celebrate diversity, unrepress yourself crowd - which i am a prototype of!) and---voila!!

Since those basic themes are already the basis for much of what exists in our culture, OF COURSE the intelligent little subculture will see EVERYTHING in the show, every thought they've ever thought that they thought was deep or profound will almost certainly fit like a glove, or squeeze in easily enough!!

This is the simplest explanation for the rightness, to varying degrees, of EVERYONE. And it ain't far fetched to assume that a guy ambitious enough to get Buffy made in hollywood/tv land - can you imagine plugging this idea to the folks that bring you 'friends?' - would be smart enough to manipulate little me and you, much to our liking. Think of the first season, in terms of the demographic, the sales pitch, the desire to hook a loyal, 'cult' following among the young rock-n-roll crowd: A group of friends to the end, teens, being heroic, having experiences we all have, but in mythic format. Computers - cool! Overbearing parents (Amy)- right on. The alienated geeks, the pack-predation of bullies (how close was the hyena episode to Columbine??), the older woman who uses the sex drives of young men (When was that teacher in washington in the news??), overlaid by a recurring plot of basic good vs. evil, which itself is overlaid with biblical overtones and pop-psyche platitudes.

You don't sell the series to the studios - you sell your plan for selling the show to the demographic to the studios. They DID have a plan, whether they've deviated or not. They had to - part of the sell was definitely the possibility of a steady fan base, which would require the studios to ask 'ok, if that works, what's your plan for 2 or 3 year's from now??' Answer: K.I.S.S.

That means, keep it simple, stupid. Let the demographic supply its own endless meanings. Appeal to everybody that likes to connect-the-dots. and do so in a way that they can know what you're doing, and just like it all the more. right on, joss!!!!

(chances are, these web sites were part of the sell, and the writers have monitored them in order to get new ideas - which would mean that any of us who made a 'prediction' that came true a season or two later may not be prophets at all - just uncredited writers!)
[> Re: Taking occam's razor to Buffy myths: Plan 1: SELL THE SHOW -- whatever, 15:58:10 01/29/03 Wed

gee, you mean a theory of a tv series that involves selling it to the networks?? How realistic of you..
[> Re: Taking occam's razor to Buffy myths: Plan 1: SELL THE SHOW -- luna, 16:18:24 01/29/03 Wed

But of course the creators of all those others things that have been endlessly analyzed (Gilgamesh, Winnie the Pooh, etc) had the whole mythos clearly programmed before they ever set pen to paper or chisel to stone? What the creators intend doesn't control what the perceiver sees--for good or bad. So what if ME was just looking to make a buck--so was Shakespeare. I'm sure he had no clue about the levels of interpretation his plays would evoke, but we have fun doing it, regardless.
[> aquaman, I agree with many of your points, but... -- Ixchel, 21:20:54 01/29/03 Wed

I'm going to be brave (for me) here and say that some people might feel that with your above post you are criticizing their discussions or BtVS.

I don't feel that was your intent at all, but some may.

I hope this doesn't discourage you.

Welcome, and I hope you enjoy it here as much as I do (mostly lurking in my case).

Sincerely,
Ixchel
[> [> Re: aquaman, I agree with many of your points, but... -- aquaman, 00:08:35 01/30/03 Thu

dear ixchel: If your experience of my words gives you to feel a friendly, or at least benign intent, what part of my posting - and what attributes are you supposing 'some people' have that you do not - do you feel might lead to feelings of resentment or whatnot in 'some people?' This is not an indictment of your opinion - on the contrary, i value your opinion and your feelings, and would be grateful if you could explain to me how you feel i may have given an unintended impression...

I am not one to be discouraged - but am one to learn if i am ignorant, especially if i am ignorant of other people's experience of my behavior.

To luna, et al: First, I'm not at all sure what your point was about gilgamesh and pooh. Did you think I implied Buffy was different somehow, or were you implying this?? To clarify, I intended not to say Buffy was a special case, but rather that this world has practical concerns that often override aesthetics. Books and films and even clothes, cars, whatever, have a dual (at least) existence, aesthetic and economic. The extent to which gilgamesh and pooh and shakespeare were true to their vision is a factor of how autonomous they were - often, artists have been purely in the service of the patrons who support them.

Creators rarely control what they create - editors, investors, consumers, social morays - all combine to MEDIATE what is produced. Likewise, though the product truly cannot control the consumer's perceptions and conceptions, the artist MEDIATES the experience of the art-experiencer.

Now then - not only did i NOT imply that ME was "just making a buck" when I used the word "sell," I think I explicitly said the opposite - that he had a VISION he wanted produces and transmitted. "Sell" isn't a dirty word, even in art. It just means that someone else owns the press, the stores, the studios, the broadcast frequencies, etc., and THESE people are generally in it for the buck, though many do want to make the buck in the most quality way possible. When I said "sell" i meant "convince," not "sell-out." Besides, I respect someone who can turn their vision into not just a cool thing for people to enjoy, but get rich in the process.

To make it more clear, let me inform you that I AM an artist, and i make a living off of it, for the most part. I design jewelry that I handcraft completely by myself - no machinery, just hand tools. I don't always make what I want - I have to consider the tastes of my customers, the price of materials vs. the price i can sell at, whether the product is renderable given my tools, maybe i get a deal on some rocks and design around the stones...which, by the way, is how shakespeare's plays arose - they were never written as final by the bard, they were performed, and fluid - a new political order could make a joke into a sin in his day!!

Now, finally, I know I made it EXPLICIT several times that i have nothing but respect and joy for the disscussions going on here. if there is something in my practical view of how shows are produced and aired that bothers anyone, or if anyone is disturbed by the notion that their musings are truly creative and not "true" in any way but just more or less valid and more or less fun, well, that's not my problem really. I think it's cool to do deconstructions and share them, and i think it's coolest if you do that explicitly and with awareness of the meaningless, futile, and therefore purely creative and joyful nature of the act.
Isn't that what life is all about, after we finish that drab 'making a living' crap??

To anyone who is overly attached to the ideal of the pure artist, let me say that, in my experience, an artist who doesn't mediate his work by infering the effect it will have on the experiencers of it generally produces a big pile of crap that noone wants to see or hear or smell. artist or not, we mediate our behavior by the other's behavior, which we experience when they experience our behavior - round and round.

If i could figure out a way to get a check for generating these words, you bet your butt i'd let that check signator do some editing!! Money doesn't make a thing profane, and poverty isn't profound. Neither does futility or lack of value in one sense of a dialogue detract from the purpose and joy it fulfills and creates in so many other senses.

Now, my question, and i beg an answer from any of the 'some people' who felt criticized or whatever:

Why??? Did I break an unwritten rule? Is it only valid to enjoy a dialogue about Buffy, here at least, by enjoying it within the constraints of 'allowable' enjoyment, the parameters of which I am asocialized to??

Perhaps I spend too much time in charge of my world, or alone in it. Such is the nature of solo art work, and my other job, which involves great danger to people who's safety and training i am absolutely responsible for. That's why i try to be explicit - I'm mediating!!

(I still think the 7 chakras theory is deconstruction at its whimsiest, AND that it was one of the coolest poems about btvs or ANYTHING that i have read in a long while. Manwitch can have a sandwich at my house anytime!!! Unless, of course, he requires me to take him, his theory, or pretty much anything 'seriously'. When you are in 18 meters of water with me, and you panic and spit out your regulator and try to bolt to the surface (an action that would likely KILL you), and i have to hold you down and replace the air source and keep you immobilized and brething until you chill and thusly protect your life while still monitoring the other five students with us - THAT I will take VERY VERY seriously. Otherwise, whatever...)
[> [> [> You are a bit on the blunt side, but i for one enjoy it... -- prometheus, 00:39:08 01/30/03 Thu

After all, this is a forum, and if you shook anyone up a bit by not following the standard approach to btvs discussion that exists here - then right on!!! I think we could do with a cynical critic - what a new point of view that would be, such food for thought. But you obviously aren't either.

Actually, as far as criticism goes, I thought you were being playful (in an overbearing kind of way - were you in the military, or a school teacher??). I thought it was luna who appeared to be somewhat critical of you, and a bit petulantly. A sentence that begins "so what if..." always sounds defensive to me, in a kind of offensive, 'right back at you..' manner. And you're right, you never said anything about money or 'making a buck,' just about 'selling' the show to the studio and network.

So I second your question, as I am new to this board, as well: Is there an unwritten rule ixchel intuits that was broken by aquaman?? are you offended or feel aquaman was offensive? This is a much more important discussion than anything he actually said, to me at least.

Why are we here, and does aquaman's bluntness and the non-metaphysical nature of his idea bother you? Do you feel it doesn't belong here?? Let's discuss....
[> [> [> [> Leaping in feet first -- Tchaikovsky, 03:47:21 01/30/03 Thu

That would be me, not anyone else in this thread. I'm going to be very slightly presumptuous in this post, inasmuch as, despite not necessarily being a member of the odd clan, 'Some People' who appear to have been invented, I am just going to raise a few points as to why the post(s) could be seen as inappropriate.

Whether posts are critical or not is neither here nor there- as long as it is critical of the thoughts expressed in the post, rather than the person themselves. On top of this, there is the unwritten rule of posting, which is that one has to be deeply careful to be almost supernaturally polite at every moment.

I have often tried to write a one line response to posts in a really positive way, and ended up giving up because no matter what form I put the words in, they always seemed glib or condescending or just plain insulting. Many of the posters on this board astound me with their incredible good humour, and ability to express clearly how their opinions differ without any overtones, undertones or anything else of slur to the other person.

In this regard, I would refer anyone who wants to have this argument better to Masq's FAQ, in which one of the sections reads:

'I want the ATPoBtVS/AtS Posting Board to be a place where people can freely exchange ideas about the shows and relate them to real life if they choose. Let's just remember the limitations of the medium, though. All the internet boards I've ever been to suffer occasional problems of (apparently) rude posters, mud-slinging, and extremist views. It's the nature of the beast. You can be as anonymous as you want on the internet and people tend to speak more freely (which is good) and more cavalierly (which often isn't). And we don't have body language and intonations to help us interpret their meaning [beyond emoticons anyway-- : ) ]. '

In relation to this, I would claim that a few things in aquaman's post could, under the limitations of this medium, be construed (misconstrued), as offensive.

1) 'all the eastern mystic nonsense we encounter constantly'

Well, I personally can understand if this phrase, in relation to universal platitudinal culture, is meant ot suggest a kind of un-thought-through reliance on some unexplored undigested aspects of Eastern religions. However, to be that dismissive of something that some people on this board find spiritually enlightening and helpful could be perceived as being callous, and is at least careless.

2)'college-age poets, deadheads, goths, trekkies, sci-fi/fantasy readers, new-age junkies, the whole 'gen. x, celebrate diversity, unrepress yourself crowd'

I wonder here whether, despite aquaman claiming that he/she is a prototype of this group, this could easily be construed as somehow demeaning people who fit into certain characteristics. For example, 'new-age' does not necessarily imply 'junky' and putting 'deadheads' in amongst 'goths' and 'trekkies' could at least be seen as implying a lack of intelligence in these areas.

3. I wondered if there was going to be a bunch of idiots trying to figure out the "REAL" structure of the series, or the "REAL" intent of the writers

I think I understand your point, which is that sometimes we look for a hidden meaning which is not there, or which is not implied by the writers, or which imposes our own meta-narrative upon something which has no relation to it. However, implying that people are 'a bunch of idiots' because they want to consider the 'intent of the writers', is a non sequitur. While I can comprehend a problem with finding a hidden secret to the structure of the series, the writers' intentions should surely be analysed in some form. Surely we should not allow someone who considers the programme to be about racial superiority, (as vampires are an under-race), or as a rabble-rousing fascist tract, (because Buffy is superior, and should tell everyone what to do), to have the opportunity to share their internally composed allegories unchallenged. Sometimes the writers' intentions, and the creator's intentions are important in dismissing ideas that are harmful, both personally and collectively.

I repeat again that I didn't find this post offensive personally. If somebody spoke the words of this post with relevant intonation and so on, I think it would be clearly playful and humourous. I'm just claiming that due to the restrictions of the medium, sometimes posters need to consider really carefully exactly how they phrase things. Of course, this isn't a one-way deal. We need to read posts VERY carefully before we take offence. But writing carefully doesn't negate the need to read carefully. Reading carefully does not negate the need to write carefully, [OK, I'm copying]. It's going to be an eternal problem.

TCH- hoping but doubting he made any sense, or that this will clarify anything
[> [> [> [> [> aquaman, I hope you stay -- KdS, 04:46:25 01/30/03 Thu

Some of your phrasing might have been a little provocative, but there was genuine thought behind it (the fact that I agree with a lot of what you said about art vs. money in the follow-up might bias me). (Is this the Malcolm McLaren theory of BtVS?)

Oh, and TCH, I think the phrase "new age junkie" was meant to imply enthusiasm for the New Age rather than an actual allegation of heroin abuse ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed -- Tchaikovsky, 05:53:25 01/30/03 Thu

I wasn't trying to frighten anybody off or discourage posting, just answer the genuinely posed question by Prometheus as to whether aquaman had written anything which could be seen as inappropriate.

I more or less agreed with the argument, and certainly enjoyed reading it, although I wonder whether the suggestion that Joss Whedon allows unusual, intelligent cliques to deconstruct Buffy for fun, while he himself merely caters to a story within a culture which reflects its own philosophical questions, is perhaps not giving Whedon enough credit. But Joss obviously pitched it well, and of course money is a big motivating factor at every stage of development.

And I didn't think it meant heroin abuse! I was just suggesting the word 'junky' next to 'New Age' gives negative connotations to this type of person.

TCH
[> [> [> [> Agreeing with Ixchel and TCH -- Sophist, 09:26:51 01/30/03 Thu

The hardest thing to accomplish with internet dialogue is tone of voice. Intended jokes fall flat; comments never intended to cause offense sometimes do. Passion adds vigor to the debate, stridency not so much.

It's hard to maintain the right mix of controversy and courtesy that will sustain an extended discussion forum like this. I think Ixchel and TCH are right to suggest that posters can usually find a way to make strong points without commenting about other posters or their beliefs.

At the same time, it's important for all of us to recall that someone else's different opinion, no matter how strongly stated, need not be taken as a personal insult and need not affect our own. Such expressions of opinion, in Thomas Jefferson's words (from memory), "neither pick my pocket nor break my bones."
[> [> [> money and art -- luna, 13:52:30 01/30/03 Thu

I thought (and perhaps misunderstood)that you were saying that many of our analyses were overblown, that we're looking for connections and meanings that aren't really there, and that really most of the choices on the show are market-driven. And I was saying that both can be true--artists make conscious decisions, but anther part of them is making the choices for different reasons.
[> [> [> aquaman, Tchaikovsky and Sophist explained my intent perfectly. -- Ixchel, 14:15:37 01/30/03 Thu

I read your post and liked it. Then I saw that whatever (who I didn't recognize) seemed offended and that luna (who I did recognize) seemed, not offended, but slightly put-off (no offense intended, luna). I thought you might be a first time poster and might be discouraged (I'm glad you weren't). So I wanted to welcome you and offer a suggestion why your post might not have been well-received (a presumption on my part). Others were very kind to me when I began posting here (Sophist, Rahael and Solitude to name a few) and I wanted to follow their example. Again, I hope you enjoy the board. It's wonderful and it's nice to realize you're not the only person who analyzes BtVS (and AtS).

A special thanks to Tchaikovsky and Sophist for explaining my nebulous post.

Ixchel
[> [> [> I think I might have an idea -- Deb, 21:23:44 01/30/03 Thu

To anyone who is overly attached to the ideal of the pure artist, let me say that, in my experience, an artist who doesn't mediate his work by infering the effect it will have on the experiencers of it generally produces a big pile of crap that noone wants to see or hear or smell. artist or not, we mediate our behavior by the other's behavior, which we experience when they experience our behavior - round and round.

I soooooooooo agree with you here, but there are some on the board that truly believe that what ME says in the shows, interviews, etc. create the show's dogma. That's ok. That is how they deconstruct: Using ME's words. Just another method of critical analysis. But everything, even the inflection of a single word, can have as many meanings, or interpretations, as there are people who hear the inflection, determine the definition of the word as used within its contxt, and/or see the body language or non-verbal communication attached to the word. The actual number of possible interpretations is greater than the number of receivers of the communication.

If you have a personal interpretation of an episode or scene that runs counter to the "dogma", created by the fans, then there is an argument. I have a problem with people who keep referring to JW as a "genius" as if it is part of his name. The man had wonderful contacts within the industry, understood Campbell and Jung, wrote for Disney (they have a template for storytelling based upon Campbell that all writers follow, and have done so since "The Little Mermaid."), and understood the business end of the "business." Even in art, there is always a "business" (i.e. political) end. He also took advantage of a network that was floundering and in the process of rebuilding itself, and they needed something totally different that appealed to their preceived market.

This is just good business. ABC's Monday Night is an example of where the WB was when Buffy premiered. They have put a stable show inbetween two "cutting-edgey" shows of the type that a major network has always been disinclined to telecast. I really don't care for The Practice, but I think most people have no problem turning the channel to and from their favorite shows anymore. I'm really interested in seeing what happens over at ABC, especially since they are Big Brother of UPN.

Welcome!
[> Quote from 'THE HERO'S JOURNEY - NOT' by cjl fits here -- steven, 00:59:05 01/30/03 Thu

I notice that, a few strands above, 'cjl' says....

"There were times tonight when i felt as if Joss and ME peeked in on the atp board and wrote the episode around our posts just to tease us..." Then mentions Joe Campbell.

Isn't this aquaman's posting, paraphrased? Isn't the theory proposed by Campbell that all or most myth has the same elements, so all relate to all?

If YOU were writing Buffy, wouldn't you peek in here? People pay big money for marketing research. This is free feedback from fans - I would, for sure. and if i found a good idea, i'd use it. and if my idea got used this way, i'd be jazzed! how much cooler would that be than just guessing or predicting correctly??
[> [> Re: Quote from 'THE HERO'S JOURNEY - NOT' by cjl fits here -- I & I, 01:09:16 01/30/03 Thu

I, for one, think aquaman is rude and pretentious. How dare he just come into a conversation and say 'you're all dumb consumers being manipulated by media for money.' We all know that's what he was saying, just nobody wants to have to say it. If we don't pay too much attention to the bad energy, it will go away. Sorry if this slows that down.
[> [> [> ME think I&I a bit US&THEM -- ME, 01:50:48 01/30/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> WE think AQUAMAN is ALL WET -- WE, 01:53:29 01/30/03 Thu

[> [> [> troll alert!! (not you aquaman, deconstructing is one of my favourite hobbies) -- Helen, 02:01:05 01/30/03 Thu

I don't think anyone here is rude or pretentious (either that or we all are). Challenging posts are good. Bring it on!
[> [> [> [> HEAR HEAR -- skpr, 06:44:14 01/30/03 Thu

I agree totally I like cage-rattling posts. Listening to some one preach to the quire is boring
[> [> [> [> A little history lesson -- d'Herblay, 09:06:18 01/30/03 Thu

Almost exactly one year ago, this board suffered a rash of posts from variously named sources, all picking fights with each other when not criticizing the lack of critical acumen shown by the other posters. (Check out this for an example. A lot of this activity seems to have been deleted rather than archived, but a jaunty scroll through early February should turn up some more. It came to a head pretty much here and finally petered out here.) It turned out that all of these whimsically confrontative posts were the product of one Jim Boke Tomlin ("Boke," as he signed himself), who had some bizarre (self-describedly postmodern) theory about reengineering the way people communicate and was using this board as a proving ground for his theory. (You can get a sense of his self-importance, if not a grasp of his theory, here.)

I thought I'd mention that, because it seems there is a similar outbreak this year. At least, "aquaman," "steven," "prometheus," "Sigmundi Freud," "whatever," "I & I," "ME" and "WE" (the last being perhaps the most accurate) all share an Internet Protocol address, which means that they are all using the same computer. This is not to say that they're all the same person -- it could be a huge commune all gathered around one shared terminal -- but it is a dial-up connection and I did hear Occam's razor mentioned. I am certainly not suggesting that this is our old friend Boke back like a spring crocus, just pointing out that there has been precedence for this sort of behavior. And I am definitely not insisting that the cast of characters be banished; rather, I ask that the polynymity come under control, and the cloud of possible personalities resolve itself into one coherent identity. I'm digging prometheus most, myself. If it's aquaman, though, he and I will probably just end up discussing underwater video housings.
[> [> [> [> [> I remember it well -- Helen, 09:21:49 01/30/03 Thu

There was a similar outbreak around 9/11 - when a thread which everyone was using to check whether each other were okay (being largely unaware of geographical locations) was hijacked by some very strange militant types (who turned out to all come from the same IP address).

But if any of these posting names are actually a person with something to say to everyone - posting a conversation between oneself and the voices in one's head is just so strange, if they are all the same person - then I for one would like it/him/her to stick around. But I'd like everyone to stick around.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: someone is playing a joke on me, and you are bystanders - sorry! -- aquaman, 10:49:23 01/30/03 Thu

This is aquaman, and i am one person, and not any of the rest. I'm using a free computer at the dive shop where i teach part-time, and there are at least two others there who watch btvs regularly, including steven, who turned me on to this site. I don't know who else steven is, or if the other 'beer & buffy' mate here is one or more people. But i suspect steven set me up all along by getting me interested just so he could screw with me. Oh well, i like it. I apologize for my friend(s) messing with my head thru this board, which i really am truly impressed by, in friendliness and intelligence. They have been being very passive/aggressive towards me, in a very comradely way, to be sure, because they tell me I'm rather a control freak on the job, and I am their superior/supervisor. To his/their credit, they or he only seemed to be doing their thing on each other's postings, and mine. No, they aren't weird social theorists, but steven does have a very conspiratorial/jocular way of, as they say in England, taking the piss out of people. I suspect he is a long-time contributor under a different name from his home comp. since we are all well-versed enough in computer ops to know that emails are tagged, i suspect half the joke was being found out. But rest assured, i will keep him from logging on here by some ruse, until i work out a proper pay-back!! We have ways of dealing with insubordinate divemasters!!! (lack of air pressure is a good stress test for a dm...)

as for my posting, I have not only not ever taken part in a chat room of any sort EVER, I actually have only been back in America for half a year, and my social skills are oriented towards solo artwork, or else being a control-freak, which means that my principal manner of conveying my personality is thru a highly structured program which I am in charge of. My (i hope!!) skill and concern are seen in my actions, and as a result i suppose i don't give much thought to CONNOTATIONS, as opposed to just taking words at face value or in ironic jest. Just call me Mr. Asocial.

I thought i was being careful to convey respect explicitly. The few things pointed out by a REAL person i totally understand, and would like to respond to mostly by saying that the 'idiot' line and several other 'judgy' things were meant to be self-deprecating, not critical of others - unless we're two of a kind, in which case i ask you to believe that the terms were endearing, friendly jabs, of the kind macho, adolescent-esque dive dudes, etc. habitually bandy about to pass time.

As for "eastern mystic nonsense," that was silly, just a personal idiom. I actually speak Thai and Japanese, and majored in East Asian Lang. and Culture at Kansas U.(1984-88). I live in Thailand four months a year diving. Everyone i know knows that I am obsessed with things Eastern, and so i say things like that, knowing the irony will be granted - but you don't know me. I was on auto-pilot at that point.

I also, by the way, make jewelry that i sell mostly thru new-age and nature-type stores, as part of my gig is that i use lots of crystals. I started selling jewelry in the 80s while on tour with the Grateful Dead - Which makes me a 'deadhead' - that isn't a slur or indictment of mental abilities, it's a statement of fan-ship, as in 'buffy-head.'

My overall point in the original posting was to say i intend to hang here when i can, that I spend ten hours a week watching Btvs, which I only discovered this year but get 2 a day on FX, + new year's 'slay-a thon,' etc. As for the "sell" - I am personally just impressed as heck at THE MAN that this show ever got on the air, given that it ain't "law and order." - which i also enjoy, but not so much!!

Sorry to do a bio here - but a 'bio' was highly relevant, giving the situation. For more, about btvs rather than just l'il ol' me, please read my new posting, i will compose it after this. And i will pop on a bio, and also check the others to see if i recognize any boys there.....
[> [> [> [> [> Aha -- Tchaikovsky, 09:44:21 01/30/03 Thu

That makes sense. I was confused by this entire thread. The people seemed quite intelligent, and weren't coming up with the same troll nonsense as usual, but none of the responses quite seemed to make tally, (apart from the regular posters' responses, obviously). Whoever's doing it really ought to be asked to come out and speak in their real voice. It's a hard thing to do, but rewarding.

TCH- who, having just read your examples in the archives, wonders whether this is such a good idea.
[> [> [> [> [> Ewww. I'm paranoid now. I'm going to bed. : )? -- Deb., 23:46:31 01/30/03 Thu

Thoughts on 'Help', 'Amends' and the First Evil (Probably spoilers) -- Purple Tulip, 14:51:18 01/29/03 Wed

I rewatched both Help and Ammends last night, Ammends being one of my faves ever, and I had some flashes of thought, but now they're probably gone, so I'll just see what I can remember.

Ok, well first of all concerning Help: Cassie tells Spike, "She'll tell you...someday she'll tell you," and upon first viewing, I really thought that what she meant by that was that Buffy would tell Spike that she forgives him, or that she loves him. But after watching it again, and watching more recent episodes, I have to wonder if what she meant by that was that Buffy would tell Spike that she believed in him. If that is what was meant, then that has already happened---but does anyone think that it could be something else, like she loves him?

Ok, on to my thoughts on the FE after watching Ammends: The FE seems to try to take Buffy down through people who love her. But what really struck me, was that the FE only showed up after Angel got his soul back, at a time when he was extremely weak, both physically and mentally. The FE also showed up after Spike got his soul back and was extremely weak. They were easily manipulated at this point, but is this why the FE targeted these two as a vessel through which to toment Buffy? Did the FE show up at these two times to get some sort of revenge for losing two warriors of evil? Are Spike and Angel more connected than we think?

Also having to deal with the FE: who has seen the FE thus far? Buffy saw it in Ammends, but didn't see it this season until it was in the form of Eve. Spike, like Angel, has had the most exposure to it, Willow saw it as Cassie, Dawn might have seen it as her mother, we still don't know on that one, and I believe that Xander and Anya only saw it in the form of Eve. Which brings up another question: Buffy had been in the same room a couple of times with Spike and the FE pretending to be Spike, so why couldn't she see it then? And how could Giles not know that the real Eve is dead and that the FE was pretending to be her? And what IS Giles anyway? I posted here before, that I don't think that Giles is the FE because he had been in the same room with the FE as Eve, so unless the FE can be two different entities at once, I really think that it's ruled out.

But I don't know, that's just my ramblings...anyone got anything?
[> Re: Thoughts on ... First Evil (SPOILERS for Amends, Help) -- Robert, 16:27:27 01/29/03 Wed

>>> I have to wonder if what she meant by that was that Buffy would tell Spike that she believed in him.

I had assumed that this was exactly the case. This was a tremendous change in their relationship. I think that it will lead to true affection, though I am still hoping that they do not return to a sexual relationship.

>>> I posted here before, that I don't think that Giles is the FE because he had been in the same room with the FE as Eve, so unless the FE can be two different entities at once, I really think that it's ruled out.

I agree that Giles is not the First Evil, though I think he is still dead. I am thinking that Giles is a manifestation of the coven of witches he is working so closely with. This would also answer your question;

>>> And how could Giles not know that the real Eve is dead and that the FE was pretending to be her?

If the coven didn't know, then neither did Giles.

>>> Buffy had been in the same room a couple of times with Spike and the FE pretending to be Spike, so why couldn't she see it then?

As far as I can remember, we aren't told why. I could speculate that the manifestations of the First Evil are strictly hallucinations which can be targeted to an individual or a group. Regardless, this property of the First Evil is consistant with the First Evil of Amends. There was the scene with Giles and Angel where Angel saw the manifestation but Giles did not.

I also watched Amends again yesterday and loved it. Unfortunately, I fell asleep just before the wonderful emotional finale. I am so pissed with myself.
Personal to Cactus Watcher -- d'Herblay, 19:09:32 01/29/03 Wed

I know that you have principled reasons for your abstention from Angel-watchery, and I respect those, but please, please make an exception tonight. Do it as a favor to me, or, as you don't really owe me any favors, do it as a favor to yourself.

(This recommendation applies for anyone in the Mountain or Pacific time zones. Except Sophist. There's no reasoning with Sophist.)
[> Thanks, I appreciate the gesture -- CW, 20:29:33 01/29/03 Wed

Don't hestitate to ask if you need a real favor.

Someone here had already asked me to watch it with them. I enjoyed the structure of the episode. But most of the things I've been saying for the past couple weeks still apply. I think I've been too vocal about what are just my opinions. I hope no one (other than me) would stop watching Angel just because of what I feel. It is, as others have been saying about the unnecessary bickering between the Buffy and Angel camps, a matter of personal taste.

Thanks again, for giving me a heads up. It never hurts to try. ;o)
[> [> Re: Thanks, I appreciate the gesture -- Dochawk, 22:21:50 01/29/03 Wed

CW - I'm not far from you, certainly I am not going to wax rapsodious about it (though I do think that DB might have done his best acting ever). But, I think we need to watch Angel to totally appreciate the finale - on Buffy (which I still think will be a two hour crossover, with no info at all to back that up).
[> [> [> Parallels on the two shows (Spoilers for Btvs 7.12, Angel 4.10) -- shadowkat, 22:52:57 01/29/03 Wed

But, I think we need to watch Angel to totally appreciate the finale - on Buffy (which I still think will be a two hour crossover, with no info at all to back that up).

I've stopped trying to convert people to Angel...it's pointless. We like what we like. The fact I have my Mom taping it now is enough for me. And I may have gotten my brother to watch it instead of West Wing - we'll see. (he used to prefer it to Btvs.);-) Gave up on my off-line friends who don't get why I'm into either show. One will occassionally watch Buffy but will not do Angel. Sometimes letting it go is for the best.

If you are an ardent/obsessive fan of either show? I'm thinking you won't get half of what's going on - on either show if you don't watch both this year. I figured out a lot of what was going in Angel - just from the parallels it drew to Buffy and a lot from Buffy from the parallels it drew to Angel.

Parallels

Bring on The Night (episode 10 Btvs) Awakenings (Episode 10 Ats)

In both episodes the main character appears to be asleep half the time and has to wake up to something they don't see. People keep seeing the parallel as between Spike and Angel, I think that's a mislead. I think it's between Buffy and Angel and that's the meaning of Angel's comment: "buffy, no!" in tonight's episode. He may have seen her path...which is echoing his.

Bring on The Night - Long Days Journey (Into Night)
Echo each other

Two episodes where the evil character initiates it's plan, horribly defeating the main character. Ubervamp almost kills Buffy. The Beast blocks out the sun.

Awakenings - Sleeper

Two vampires waking up to what they are in different ways.
Both dreaming of something else. Neither remembers their deals with the big bads.

As I watched Tonight's episode - certain things hit me.
Angel's whole - champion speech and thing about being chosen paralleling Buffy's similar speechs. The whole - I have to take down the Beast myself deal - very similar to Buffy's whole I have to take down the Ubervamp by myself deal in Showtime. The difference? Angel's was a dream. Buffy's was real.

Also the whole - the Beast inside. "What is it about evil that makes it smarter than us?" Has echoes in Buffy.
In some weird way Ats is metanarrating on Buffy - showing us some of the silliness, the pride and where it can lead. It's actually oddly enough ahead of Btvs I think in the plot.

Finally I think both shows are showing the evil inside their characters - one is a bit lighter about it (btvs) and one darker (ats) but the echo is there.

At any rate echoing D'H here - check it out and be patient with it. It's getting good.
Thoughts, reactions, and spoilers for 'Awakening,' AtS 4.10 -- d'Herblay, 20:02:07 01/29/03 Wed

Whoooooooooooo!

Ok, I don't know how many of you remember my Minority Report theory from this past summer, nor do I know how many of you will tolerate my tendency to couch my thoughts with reference to some obscure post I wrote back in the Pleistocene Epoch, but let me just review: many, many people thought that Minority Report was a great film through the first two-thirds, when the visions of Philip K. Dick and Stanley Kubrick held sway, but went off the rails at the end, when Steven Spielberg coated the whole damn thing in a truckload of confectioner's sugar. I attempted to resolve this with the sophistical idea that everything that happened after Tom Cruise went into the deep-freeze was his happy little fantasy; meanwhile, back in the real world, justice was not done, power got on with its own corruption, candy was taken from babies, and life, in general, went on.

Now I'm not suggesting that Steve DeKnight is reading this board (or listening to the same Talk of the Nation broadcast from which I stole my Spielberg-spackle idea), but I think that I've just had my moment of perfect happiness in seeing an episode built to my own specifications -- without realizing I had done the specifying. The perfection of the mind-fuck in "Awakening" was so great, so perfect, that I, who cut my teeth on the collected works of Philip K. Dick, who tends to regard all reality as mere recommendations, who has reduced paranoia to the status of a parlor game, never saw it coming! Oh, I knew that they would turn Angel bad -- that irony was as belled as the booby traps they took from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- they couldn't give him the respect of his son, the love of Cordelia, even an apology from Wesley without making sure that all that glitters is just pyrite, y'know what I mean? But the practical, structural twist they gave it -- that slid right by me. I think Rah could provide a transcript of my commentary on the episode: "This seasonal arc seems to be wrapping up quickly." "Someone's been watching Indiana Jones." "He just saved Cordelia. That should give him, say, a moment of perfect happiness." "'My bad.' Hey! I got one!" "Boy, this arc is really wrapping up really quick!" "No, Cordy! You'll make him happy! At least make him sleep in the wet spot!" [Episode ends.] "That is so coooooooool . . . "

All in all, let me repeat: Whooooooooo! I know I'll regret this in the morning, but right now I'm willing to consider "Awakening" a serious contender for the title "Best. Episode. Ever." (And I know that some people will regard this qualifier as almost inexpressible, but that's on either show. Hell, I think this may have just knocked out episode two of The Shield out of my best show of the season slot.) In fact, while I don't think this will go down with the tearjerkers like "Becoming," "The Gift" and "Lullaby" (and doesn't even contend with the laugh-riots of "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" and "Disharmony"), I think it just trumped some all-time gaspers like "Innocence" and "Sleep Tight."

(One minor cavil though: so there's this one guy who can take away Angel's soul -- and he's the only guy who can return it [discounting Willow]. I've got a plan! Let's lock him into a steel cage with the evil, soulless thing! Ummmm . . . if this is necessary to the restoration, so be it, but I'd expect at least Cordy to comment on the utter boneheadedness of that plan. But we're getting into that territory known as "speculation," so I'll desist.)
[> Re: Thoughts, reactions, and spoilers for 'Awakening,' AtS 4.10 -- OnM, 20:26:55 01/29/03 Wed

Had to admit they really suckered me too, even though I knew something was off, I just didn't know what. Even at the last moment, I was thinking Hey, what gives? Is that the twist? Cordy's somehow come back Evil, and everything that happened before was all just a grand scheme to get Angelus back? Does this mean that Skip really isn't one of the good guys? Is the FE involved? Then, of course, the answer.

So, definitely seconding your Whoooooooooo!

Not sure it's the best ep ever, but certainly, easily, the best one of this Angel season, hands down.
[> [> Re: Thoughts, reactions, and spoilers for 'Awakening,' AtS 4.10 -- gds, 20:44:59 01/29/03 Wed

Agreed. It's a great episode. I swear that was Joss laughing at the end, not Angelus. I immediatly re-watched it and checked for the writer. Joss wasn't listed, but I still hear his voice.
[> [> [> Who wrote it -- shadowkat, 21:36:53 01/29/03 Wed

It was written by Stephen Deknight (who wrote Deep Down and Seeing Red and Dead Things) and David Fury (who wrote Disharmony, Sleeper, Showtime and Helpless).
[> [> [> [> Bloody hell -- KdS, 04:58:46 01/30/03 Thu

Now there's the real world ME equivalent of Angelus and the Beast. Someone must have wanted really twisted

(And if anyone's confused I'm being complimentary here)
[> [> [> Re: Thoughts, reactions, and spoilers for 'Awakening,' AtS 4.10 -- Deb, 20:39:20 01/30/03 Thu

I believe that was the best Angel ep I have seen. The Wesley apology didn't click, but I started wondering if they were going to end the season (and show) when Conner turned into "dream" son. I started yelling at Cordie and Angel: "Not safe sex! Not safe sex! You've already killed the Beast!" Then Angelus awakens.

A question flittered about my mind today: We saw, basically, Angel's "perfect happiness" dreams. He never dreamed of becoming human. He dreamed of having sex with Cordie (They just don't have that chemistry. Sloppy kissing in my opinion.) and turning into Angelus while he was still dreaming. One could argue that the Shaman (Same dude who was introduced to his wife by Giles?) lead him through the dream to reach the point of perfect happiness, but the Shaman could not control the content of the dream.

Really wonderful episode. I'm totally into Angel now.

Now when are they going to explain why Cordie has a basketball around her middle?
[> Never saw Minority Report, but... (spoilers for 4.10) -- Scroll, 20:37:46 01/29/03 Wed

...I think I understand your point about "everything that happened after Tom Cruise went into the deep-freeze was his happy little fantasy; meanwhile, back in the real world, justice was not done, power got on with its own corruption, candy was taken from babies, and life, in general, went on."

In the "Angel/Canadians" thread below, I described everything that happened after the monk did his whammy on Angel to be a form of fanfic.

To quote myself: For a good deal of this episode [...] I was totally and completely fooled. But looking back, I realise everything -- the characters, the handy coincidences, the research, the relic hunt, even the fight scenes -- were playing out like somebody's fanfic. A really well-written fanfic, but a fanfic nonetheless. Because everything was being wrapped up so neatly. [...]

I have to say, I loved the fact that everything happening was really just in Angel's mind because this ep laid out so wonderfully Angel's perspective on family, on lovers, on who has done who wrong. Notice that it's Wesley, Cordelia, and Connor who come to him and ask for forgiveness. They're the ones who realise that they've done wrong and want to be taken back. [...] Angel has put his family back together.

This episode played like fanfic, because in Angel's mind, "fanfic" is the only way he will ever have a happy ending. Angel's fanfic isn't reality, but it's the closest he'll ever get. And he believes in this fanfic enough that the illusion sets free his soul.

What I really didn't understand, and would love to have clarified, is why Angel mutters, "Buffy, no!" right before he loses his soul. Sure, maybe he connects losing his soul to that night with Buffy. But Cordelia is right in front of him! If he's supposed to be so much in love with her, why does he say Buffy's name? Now, please don't label me as a B/A shipper who can't let go -- honestly, this is a very valid question and I'm quite confused. I accept B/A is over (on the shows) -- what I don't get is what Joss is doing bringing up Buffy now?
[> [> Re: the wrong name (spoilers for the ep) -- CW, 20:46:20 01/29/03 Wed

I think that was just another 'gentle' reminder, that we never were told what exactly happened when Angel and Buffy met just after she came back from the grave. Personally I'd still like to know. Good thing it was in Angel's mind and Cordy didn't hear it!
[> Most taut episode ever (spoilers for 'Awakening,' AtS 4.10) -- Jay, 21:17:23 01/29/03 Wed

My thoughts are all over the place, but first I want to point out the Buffy team behind this episode, DeKnight, Fury, and Contner. DeKnight and especially Contner have worked on AtS lately, but I believe this is Fury's first adult swim in almost a season.

I like how the internal conflicts were front and center at the beginning at the episode helped the big mislead for me. If they were never addressed, I'd have been onto it a lot earlier. As it was, they addressed them, so I'm buying the mindfuck as it goes along.

The hardest thing for me to figure out is was the whole alternate storyline a total fabrication on Angel's part, or is Angel borrowing from Angelus's memory to build them. I'm mostly talking about this sword existing. I have no idea.

Back to Angel's hallucination, I love how Angel made things better. One by one, with Wesley, Cordelia and Connor. And they were the ones that he spent the most time with. I was inadvertently spoiled to know that Angelus was going to make some kind of appearance this year. So, I kept watching trying to figure out how he was going to be brought out. It kept me sucked into the last second.

I thought it was fascinating in retrospect that Wes was bossing Gunn around and Gunn was doing what he said. This must be how Angel sees Wes and Gunn. But I was saying before that I thought it was fascinating that it was Angel, Cordy, Wes, and Connor on the seeking trip. Everyone, except for Xander, from Cordy's, god help me, pov, (trademark Shadowkat). I would have guessed that Angel would have preferred Lorne to Cordy, Fred to Wesley, and Gunn to Connor. But since it was Angel's hallucination, and he was making things right with everyone, the way it was made sense.

Did'ya notice how all the booby traps in the tunnels were made out of wood? I did, but it didn't mean anything to me until the big "oohh" at the end of the episode. Cordy talking to her breasts is always good. And Gunn just wanting to play with the sword. Is that really how Angel sees Gunn? I'm thinking Gunn may be hurt most by Angelus's ultimate verbal attacks on the unit, if these little clues mean anything. Oh, and the Angel/Buffy like moment that Angel and Cordy shared right before the Beast broke in, how did I not see that for the farce it was?

Basically, I believe we just saw a preview for what it's going to be like for AI with Angelus. Connor is a little boy that Angel can dominate. But I think Holtz did a better job of raising him than that. Cordy is the love jones that Angel will fixate on. But I don't believe Cordy will be as hurt as Buffy was. Wes is the corruptible brother, that Angel might be able to fool. Fred, Gunn, and Lorne are those who Angelus doesn't respect at all, but will make him wish that he did.
[> [> And you know what this means... (spoilers for 'Awakening,' AtS 4.10) -- Rob, 21:28:56 01/29/03 Wed

...when they actually do get to the climactic episode, it's going to have to beat this one! Or it would be, um, anticlimactic. ;o)

But seriously, you can't have the "dream-of-defeating-the-villain" episode surpass the actual defeat-the-villain episode, so I really can't wait to see what's in store.

I was buying the ruse the whole time until the last scene with Cordy. Something felt off. I got a vibe similar to the B/A scene in "Zeppo" like this was almost a parody version of a romantic B/A or B/C scene, and started thinking, okay the Beast is defeated, without any real explanation about who he was or why he was there or his connection to Angelus, everything is happy for everyone again, the sun is back...Something has to be wrong.

I didn't quite make the jump to guessing that it was all a dream, but I knew that there had to be a catch. Not patting myself on the back too much, though, since I figured out there had to be a catch...only about a minute or less before we realized that there was.

What an evil, evil episode! I can't wait to see what significance it will have overall when I view it again after the season is over. I'm betting there'll be a lot of links and foreshadowing to the rest of the year.

Rob
[> [> good post, agree saw the same things -- shadowkat, 21:50:50 01/29/03 Wed

[> Agree...well mostly. ;-) -- shadowkat, 21:32:38 01/29/03 Wed

Best Episode ever? Not sure. But certainly a keeper.
Just because it did something I've always wanted to see network tv do - take the perfect ending, the fan's wet dream (sorry for the metaphor) and show it to be just that.
Then of course Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep is a favorite and IMHO much better than Bladerunner. Not a happy ending person, the cynic in me I guess. While Minority Report's ending was nice and warm and fuzzy - it was also flat and predictable and just took the nudge off the story. Spielberg just can't help himself - he does it in every movie he's ever directed. Give me Kubrick, Scorsese,
the dark poets. But digress.

I actually figured it out when Cordy started asking for Angel's forgiveness - this has got to be a dream. Then went...uh no, maybe not.
Then Connor asked for his forgiveness...hmmm. I thought. Let's think about this for a minute here, why is everyone apologizing to Angel. Plus Lorne, Gunn and Fred barely register. And there's no sexual tension any more between Wes/Fred and Gunn?? But the kicker was the bit when he killed the Beast - I knew it then. It's a dream.

We had our first hint of this actually with Wes' apology and Angel's enthusiasm over it. Such an interesting experience to finally see what Angel wants - to get inside his head. Been a while. And it was a fascinating look-see.
Note it was Wes who did all the apologizing. Angel never apologizes or askes forgiveness from anyone.

Hint number two - it's Angel, Wes, Connor and Cordy who go down into the cave. Not surprising - I decided, okay, they did this because this little group has to bond before Angel loses his soul - so big agnst...but a little voice in the back of my brain was saying what? that makes the type of sense that it's not. Besides, lame. But I'm a pessimist - so i doubted the little voice.

Then Hint number three - the metanarration on The Trial and all the comic book touches - methinks either Angel or the writers are reading too many comic books or watched Raiders of the Lost Arc and the Last Crusade one too many times.
The hebrew words. The words tattooed on the shaman, the
sword of damocles - was I the only one who thought this?
It's the sword of fate?? right? But hey, they do that all the time, I thought so dismissed it.

Then Hint number 4 - Cordelia and all her desire to be forgiven and please be with me and I love you for the good you've done and you're not really Angelus.

(Interesting side note here - apparently Angel really does see Angelus as a separate persona, sort of like the beast, he keeps telling Connor - Angelus isn't me, Angelus wasn't your father - almost as if when he loses his soul another soul jumps in - a la Buffy and Faith in Who Are You. Which is why it is sooo important for Angel to face Angelus and Angelus to face Angel. Very parallel to Buffy actually. And the difference between spike and Angel - why Spike is still called Spike, While Angel does not go by Angelus. Makes sense - the curse has given Angel the ability to separate the two in his head. I think if he admitted to himself that Angelus is him, he'd break apart - like Spike did. Just a hunch. Although - it could be more the parallel that Buffy has with the First and the concept that evil is in us all they are going for? It seems to be in both shows - each character is discovering what evil they are capable of - first Wes, then Gunn and Fred, then Cordy, now finaly Angel?)

Hint number 5 - see aside - Angel sees Angelus as separate from himself and Cordy who said this wasn't entirely true prior to the shaman, now is saying this? Just as Connor finally admits it??

Hint number 6 - Connor asking for forgiveness. (Although it is interesting to see in Angel's head that Connor is a reflection of Angelus - Cordy is mine and the arrogance - he even says he's like Angelus.)

Hint number 7 was killing of the Beast - Angel said he'd give up everything, make the true sacrifice - that it's not about redemption, its about helping everyone...and he sets off to do it alone b/c killing the beast will incinerate anything human. (Interesting that he has Wes take Cordy out)
But it doesn't it just incinerates the beast.

Final Hint - cue the Summer Place - romantic cheesy music with everyone frolicing...of course this you can explain away because you know Cordy and Angel will do it then there's Angelus - a wonderful episode long mislead that was so good it didn't matter whether or not you were spoiled regarding Angelus' return. Hence the reason they let that one out.

But there's so much info on Angel's mindset and how he views things in this episode - that we can pull it apart for weeks.

Really loving Season 4 Angel.

SK
[> Re: Damn.. I was spoiled.. (Spoiler for AtS 4.10) -- Sang, 22:01:00 01/29/03 Wed

I read just one spoiler that Angelus will be brought back by a Shaman, and that was it. It completely spoiled this ep for me. At the moment that shaman was killed, I knew it is not real.

I knew, in his imagination, all things will work for Angel and he will be happy. Everything happens as I expected, and I was just waiting and waiting until Angel wakes up as Angelus and hoping to see something more than I alread know. And that was the end! Nothing else happend. Damn.. I liked S. DeKnight's writing in S6 Btvs.

It is like watching '6th Sense' while you already know how it ends. I would have enjoyed this ep 10 times more if I was not spoiled.
[> [> OTOH.... Why I love SpoilerSluts! (spoils Angel 4.10, mention w/ no spoilers for next 7.12(?)Btvs) -- Briar Rose, 11:13:48 01/30/03 Thu

I am always more interested in HOW an idea is pulled together and whether they can pull it off.

I had read the ENTIRE plot line of this ep and it still was so brilliantly played that I was even more involved in how it was going to work out than if I'd known nothing about what was to happen.

For one thing, I would have wondered when ME had turned all soppy and "happy ending-ish" and whether there was any reason for the show to continue, now that they'd wrapped up all the hanging bits.

I would say the same thing about the coming ep of Buffy. I already read what happens, as much as is available yet - and it gives me a great way to anticipate the real brilliance of ME yet again, and the actor's portrayals of what could be a really cheesy plot.
[> I want my friends to die. My REAL friends. (spoilers 4.10, and lots of swearing) -- Calvin, 22:17:03 01/29/03 Wed

See what I did there? With the spoiler labelage? That was WAY FUCKING MORE than my so-called friends did when they e-mailed me saying the episode reminded them of "An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge." Which, yeah, good point, but I HADN'T SEEN THE GOD DAMN EPISODE YET. I can't tell you how mad I am. I realized .00000034 seconds after the break what had happened.

God damn it. Fuck.

Calvin
[> I just want to know.... (Spoiler) -- Liq, 22:18:27 01/29/03 Wed

... why he said Buffy's name at his perfect moment of happiness?

;) L

p.s. howdy kids! how's tricks?
[> [> Re: I just want to know.... (Spoiler) -- Peggin, 22:47:24 01/29/03 Wed

I think it was just a flashback to the last time he lost his soul. Kind of a moment of realizing "Oh, fuck, I should have remembered this would happen".
[> [> The long version (big time spoiler speculation) -- CW, 06:49:12 01/30/03 Thu

I gave a hint-hint version of this to Scroll above, but maybe it needs a little exposition.

The fact that Angel said the wrong name obviously can have various possible explanations. One of them is that he actually is still in love with Buffy. That's not as insane as it sounds since Buffy was his first true love, just as he was hers. (For those who aren't still a little in love with their first love, I feel a little sorry for you). The next explanation is the one Peggin gave. It's just as valid, and probably more likely, than the first. I explanation, I like, is that at the moment he was turning into Angelus he remembered why he was still a vampire at all.

Remember back to "I Will Remember You" in the first season. Angel had the oportunity to walk away from it all. He was no longer a vampire and had no reason to fear Angelus ever again. But, he figured out there was a catch. He would be normal. The oracles told him Buffy would die in the apocalypse to come. Whether or not the oracles meant her death closing the dimensional rift (and I don't think they did) Angel chose to go back to being a vampire so that he could fight by her side when the time came. By becoming Angelus again he betrayed the inherent promise he made to fight at her side. Removing Angel from the side of good was what the appearance of the demon was supposed to accomplish in the first place. The senior partners of Wolfram and Hart aren't out of the game yet.
[> fooled, but worth it (spoilers for the ep in question) -- anom, 00:24:47 01/30/03 Thu

Oh yeah--great episode, once you get to the end. All the quibbles I had were resolved by the ending. OK, except 1...maybe 2. On the other hand, the idea that Angel thinks in all those clichés does kinda bother me (although I did like the Indy Jones paraphrase).

I liked Angel's wry little smile as he watched the people out in the restored sun...didn't need Cordelia's spelling it out for me, followed by the little side trip to clichéville: "I don't want to be anywhere but here."

The whole part about the Hebrew letters was confusing. But the only way the leap could be made to the patriarchs of Genesis is if it was in Angel's mind. Even Wesley's not getting it right can be explained by Angel's not knowing the correct info. (Seth, not Cain? & Canaan was Noah's son, 10 generations later--but now that I look it up, there was a Kenan who was Seth's...grandson, so it's still wrong.) And it's RA-shi, not ra-SHI, script, & as far as I know it's used only in Talmudic commentary (I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong). I suppose the mispronunciation is explained by Angel's ignorance too, but for some reason it just bugs me.

I thought when Connor survived the Beast's destruction it was gonna raise questions about whether he was really human...actually I'm a little disappointed that was only part of Angel's fantasy.

So maybe the only objection I'm left with is Angel's trying to jerk the sword out of the Beast's hand instead of pulling it along its own length (there's gotta be a better way to say that--y'know, so you slash its palm)--even in his dreams he should know better.
[> I fell for it Hook Line and Sinker!! and loved it! -- neaux, 04:30:34 01/30/03 Thu

Since I was unspoiled.. lemme say that last night's ep was absolutely great. What was even more great was how my wife actually watched this episode with me. She bitched through the whole episode. She complained about how hokey and soapy it was. And to be honest it was, but that didnt deter me from watching it.

But when we saw the ending, it made the whole episode freaking awesome. My wife even thought so.
[> [> Hey, I was spoiled and still fell for it! -- A8, 17:18:22 01/30/03 Thu

I read the spoilers a couple weeks back, skimmed through the wildfeed, and tucked somewhere into the back of my mind the image of an evil-grinning Angelus from last week's preview. Then I had a bout of temporary amnesia which did not lift until the second Angel had his true moment of happiness in hallucination-land. Boom! All that spoilage came rushing back, "oh yeah--not too shabby!" I enjoyed it completely.

OT--by the way Neaux, weren't you the Utada Hikaru fan who responded to my music recommendation last year? I think it was you who recommended the MTV Unplugged DVD (which I purchased). If so, and in case it is of any interest to you, she just released a new single called "Colors." Additionally, she is scheduled to perform the song on the Japanese pop show "Hey Hey Hey" sometime in February (it is broadcast here in San Francisco on channel 26, regular-old fasioned non-cable, Sunday nights at 11pm). This should be a big year for her since she is supposed to be working on her "English only" debut CD for Def Jam records.
[> Adding a hooo to the whooo -- ponygirl, 08:46:05 01/30/03 Thu

Very cool indeed, though I took the ending as more of a shoutout to Terry Gilliam's Brazil than Minority Report. In any case I think this answers the question of Angel did with his time pre-Buffy-- that boy was watching a lot of tv and movies. And how great was Lorne's "Kolchak" line?

My one quibble: if you're going to have the mystic sorta look like the guy from Enemies why not have him really look like the guy from Enemies?
[> [> Probably the blue skin... (spoilers 4.10) -- Scroll, 10:10:47 01/30/03 Thu

...of the demon shaman from "Enemies" would've been too difficult to create on the actor's entire body, and then it would've been even more difficult for Wesley to read Chinese script on the guy's dead ass. :) BTW, that was just a fun idea, having the shaman have books written all over him. In a weird way, it reminded me of the novel Fahrenheit 451. Except the books were visible (if the shaman-types were unclothed), whereas in F 451 it was all memory.

And I have to add, I was the very first person on this board saying "Whoo-hoo!" to this episode. Y'know, getting Angel one whole day in advance at least gives me the time to rewind and watch again for nuances before the rest of the board starts talking about it... Gotta look on the bright side of things :)
[> [> [> Praise to the New VR -- ponygirl, 10:24:03 01/30/03 Thu

'Tis good to be in Ontario though the winds are nippy, for not only do we get AtS a day before, but next week we'll get to watch new episodes of BtVS and AtS back to back as they are meant to be seen!

(I'm assuming you're watching on VR, Scroll, you're in Mississauga right?)
[> [> [> [> Mississauga and Waterloo -- Scroll, 12:40:27 01/30/03 Thu

So when I'm at school (University of Waterloo) I'm watching the New PL. And at home in Mississauga, it's the New VR. Where are you watching from? And yes, it's damn cold!
[> [> [> [> [> shivering away in T.O. -- ponygirl, 06:59:12 01/31/03 Fri

[> Totally fell for it and here's why -- xanthe, 10:04:49 01/30/03 Thu

Just a warning: this is going to end up being mostly positive, but I have to work through some not-so-good stuff first.

'Awakening' completely led me down the garden path. I didn't figure it out until the end even though I was constantly shouting criticisms at the screen about how out-of-character I felt everyone was being. I am not a fan of the Angel/Cordelia pairing. I admit I have some personal hang-ups that have nothing to do with the current storyline, but I would like to believe that my dislike comes mostly from how unconvincing their relationship is. I adored their S1/S2 friendship and truly believed that Cordelia would never see Angel in that way and vice versa. The change in Cordelia's character over the past few seasons has been also disappointing to me, but perhaps allows for the turn in their relationship. I have felt that the insistence that Angel and Cordelia really do love each other to be forced and out of character. I just don't see it. The Connor/Cordelia coupling in 'Apocalypse Now' ruined an otherwise great episode for me. I felt that the writers had taken an already unbelievable development and completely run it off the road. I have my disgust to thank for being mostly unspoiled because I knew that I needed something to get me excited about the show again.

Enter the prospect of Angelus. I knew that Angel was going to lose his soul in order to catch the Beast and I'd seen the promo so I was pretty sure it would be done through some kind of mystical means. So when the shaman-type drew the sword on Angel at the second act break I was pretty surprised, but I went with it given that the show has been known to say "Ha, ha! You think you know what is going to happen! Well, think again!" Little did I know...

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Wesley's apology and Angel's willingness to extend it to cover a multitude of wrongs. I've been wanting these two to reconcile all second, but I was waiting for them to *earn* it. I've been on Wesley's side, taking the tack that though he acted from a place of mistrust, his kidnapping of Connor was done out of deep caring. This too easy reconciliation was hollow, echoing Angel's try in 'Ground State' (?) when he goes to Wesley for help locating Cordelia with a perfunctory what-were-we-all-fighting-about? shrug.

But after that...I cringed through every moment of the Cordelia/Angel moment after he rescued her from the circle of fire that she could have simply turned and walked away from. Once his hand was on hers to guide her, she quickly realized how wrong she had been. I'm cringing again as I write. But given my disbelief and disappointment with the the development of the Angel/Cordelia relationship I never thought that this was *deliberately* out of character. I mean, the people who brought us Connor/Cordelia sex are totally capable of inflicting this on us.

And it just got worse. The Champions speech. Yah, so I liked the bit about how Angel thought everyone there was his equal or whatever (I'm a bit fuzzy on the details), but there was that word again. But I never thought "Hey, this can't be right...Cordelia/Conner/Wesley/Angel would *never* say/do anything like that" because I had learned that, well, yes they would.

So I watch to the bitter end. ("He's having *sex* with Cordelia? Hasn't he learned *anything*?") I was miffed that perfect happiness was being equated with sexual bliss again. I had hoped that their were other ways to our boy's heart, but by that point I was past caring.

Then came the gasp, the look of understanding and *poof* we were back in the cage. "Oooohhhh," I said. "Thank Joss." And now I feel guilty for doubting. Was that a betrayal? I read other people's posts about how they guessed at some point that we were being led astray. You all had more faith than I did. I enjoyed 'Habeas Corpses' and 'Long Day's Journey' and I was on the point of moving past my disgust at earlier developments. This episode restored a lot of my trust in the story, but it also exposed how easily I accepted the out-of-character behavior of our heroes, which is something I think I have to share the blame with the writers for. I think I've written off developments that just don't add up too often to know when they're deliberate. I'll pay attention from now on.
[> [> thank you - much better said than I! -- Solitude1056, 15:36:55 01/30/03 Thu

[> [> right on Xanthe! -- Q, 21:24:32 01/30/03 Thu

You are so right about *everything*. The Angel/ Cordelia pairing is so sappy and horrible, it has ruined the show. I didn't think this was any more out of character than many episodes, they have done stuff this cheesey in the last few seasons and had it been for real.

The "champion" shit sure is getting beyond old, too!

The point I would differ from you is actually speaking positive of the episode. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw how well people like this tripe!

Sure, it was a breath of relief to see that all of that HORRIBLE stuff was not real. But it didn't make it any better to watch! Don't you think that a truly good writer could have shocked us with that ending--tacked on to a DECENT episode? The Cordelia/Angel scenes underground after claiming the sword were so far beyond hokey I don't have words for them! This, as is usual for Angel the last few years, was FAR cheesier than ANYTHING Dawsons Creek, 90210, or even Everwood has ever come up with!!!!

Sorry to rage so, I am just devastated that a show I once considered to be on the short list of "best of all time" has sunk to being not even CLOSE to the best on the air now! The character assassination of Cordelia has made sure of that.

Boo!
[> [> [> Hang in there Q -- xanthe, 06:56:21 01/31/03 Fri

I feel your pain - but I want to encourage you to give the show another chance. I worked through my disappointment and while I'm still hurting and confused over just who this "Cordelia" person is, I so glad that I haven't missed out on some of the other bits. To name a few: Wesley and Lilah, Angeleus (!), *spoiler*...Faith...*end spoiler*, Lorne, and the hope for the future. When this show is good, it is very good - but when it's bad...

I want to love this show and I want to love the characters. I am just saddened when I am thwarted by the very people who I think should be taking advantage of my open heart (the writers). But there're still things to love and I hope you can find them too. :)
The Opposite View (spoilers for Awakening) -- Solitude1056, 21:17:20 01/29/03 Wed

I'm not nearly as cranky as I was, but I got crankier after the most recent episode of Angel. I can't put my finger on it, but it seems to revolve around the following issues:

1. Why is it always about Angel?
2. Why must "champion" be used at least once every episode?

(And this episode we got it twice. I threw peach pits at the television.)

I get the idea of what it's telling us about Angel's POV, even if it feels cheap - but at the same time, it also feels like The Wish. Who learns from this? How does Angel benefit from this fantasy? Cordelia never benefited from The Wish, but died halfway through it; at least in IWRY Angel could remember and use any character development from his lost day. Not seeing much chance of that here. And since when did Angelus laugh like a creeped-out jack-in-the-box? Oh, please. Angelus is much more heebie-creating when he's being silent, broody, poker-faced, and up to no good. Laughing maniacally? Sheesh, that's for second-rate Evils, not masterminds of torture and mayhem.

Grump, grump, grump.

I'll keep watching, because I hold out hope, but I'm sure not finishing the hour with the same sort of excited satisfaction. Perhaps, though, I'm just a little more sensitive these days to having my chain jerked around by a Bobby in the Shower.
[> Some agreement, Solitude. I liked it, but I prefer LDJ. (spoilers) -- Ixchel, 22:14:48 01/29/03 Wed

I don't mind it being All About Angel. So that aspect didn't bother me.

OTOH, I don't care for the word "champion" either. It brings to mind dog shows, or sports, or (occasionally) mushrooms (champiñón). I just try to ignore it.

I did enjoy the insights into his character and maybe he will benefit from this illusion (possibly gain some perspective on his relationships with Cordelia, Connor and Wesley)? Of course, after he is resoulled. Even if not, it was amusing (to me) to have the thought that Angel's seen the Indiana Jones movies _way_ too many times.

I agree on the maniacal laughing, but I always thought he was creepiest when smirking (which he did right before the laughing and it was just as creepy as before).

Some parts really worked for me, though. During the conversation in the garden Cordelia seemed to be gaining more and more "Cordelianess" (for lack of a better term). The Angel and Connor interaction before the "dream" was well done also (IMHO).

Ixchel
[> Re: The Opposite View (spoilers for Awakening) The laughing -- mackrowe, 06:35:31 01/30/03 Thu

First off, I do agree they took the laughing way to far into the end of the episode. But I also thought it was an interesting way for us to see Angelus's reaction to the goings on in this episode. He knows exactly what the AI gang has done and probably also saw Angel's "dream" of how the soul losing happened I would have laughed out loud too. He knows what they have unleashed. He also thinks his souled self is a whimp and also could have been laughing at the fantasy he just witnessed.
P.S.
I can't wait to see what Angelus is going to do. I love Angel but sometimes it feels good to be bad!
[> [> Agree -- KdS, 07:19:56 01/30/03 Thu

Won't see the episode for a few weeks, but I can imagine Angelus laughing at his alter ego's slushy idea of a perfect day.
[> [> [> There's also relief -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:55:42 01/30/03 Thu

For Angelus, the whole dream must have been like a nightmare. His laughing was relief that not only wasn't it real, but he's FINALLY FREE!!!
[> [> [> [> Re: There's also relief -- Malandanza, 09:21:48 01/30/03 Thu

I'd like to offer utter disbelief as a rationale -- Angelus must be thinking something like:

Angel's friends brought me back? To help them? To turn the sun back on? I love this world!

So while he tries to maintain his composure, it's just not possible -- all the possibilities for mayhem and mischief stretching out before him must be exhilarating, especially after so many close calls in the past few seasons where he almost gets free, but gets yanked back into his cage.

I'm still not sure why anyone thought bringing Angelus back is a good idea. I can't imagine a creature less likely to help AI, even if it were in his best interests to do so, he'd try to find so way to make them regret his assistance.

And I thought Angelus was most disturbing in Phases:


ANGEL: Everything okay?

THERESA: I- thought I heard something. Behind me.

Angel scopes out the area. Whatever was there is gone.

ANGEL: No one there.

THERESA: Oh... I guess not. I could have sworn-

ANGEL: It's okay. It can get pretty scary out here, all alone at night.

THERESA: (uneasy) Yeah.

Angel looks at her.

ANGEL: Hey, do I know you from somewhere? Don't you go to school with Buffy?

THERESA: You know Buffy?

ANGEL: I do. Very well.

She smiles, feeling a bit safer.

ANGEL (cont'd): Come on, I'll get you home.

Part of it was probably the actress who played Theresa -- her relief when Angelus mentioned Buffy was palpable. And not showing the killing made it more horrific -- at least if your imagination is as active as is mine :)
[> [> [> [> [> There is torture -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:06:14 01/30/03 Thu

Inflict enough pain and Angelus might spill the beans. And if that doesn't work, there's the fact that Angelus and the Beast seemed to be opposed in Cordelia's flashback, so he might have his own reasons for wanting to hurt the Beast.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There is torture -- Q, 21:44:27 01/30/03 Thu

Which one of them is going to get close enough to torture him? I just don't see it working, AT ALL!

And like the original poster said, even if it's in his best interest, he would find a way to pay himself off, and ruin the world for EVERYONE else.

Stupidest idea EVER!

(ME just loves to see Angelous, and lets face it, they are out of ideas to do it. Enemies AND Eternity were weak as well. They should just let sleeping dogs lie and let us remember the sweetness that was season 2 of BtVS!)
[> [> [> Re: Agree -- Darby, 09:10:10 01/30/03 Thu

I think the laugh is wrapped up in the realization that the events never happened - Angel never really got that day, it was just a hallucinogenic means to an end - and probably exaggerated by the added realization that the laughing was creeping everybody else out. Angelus is all about attacks on the psyche.
[> [> [> [> Plus (Spoilers for Awakenings) -- Rahael, 09:54:00 01/30/03 Thu

Isn't he laughing at the audience ?
[> Don't agree here (spoilers for Awakening) -- Robert, 10:50:28 01/30/03 Thu

Usually I don't like episodes of AtS nearly as much as those of BtVS. For me this has been a difficult show to watch sometimes. But, this episode truly captivated me.

>>> I get the idea of what it's telling us about Angel's POV, even if it feels cheap - but at the same time, it also feels like The Wish. Who learns from this? How does Angel benefit from this fantasy?

Not every episode must force growth upon the characters. On the other hand, I do believe that Angel (when or if his soul is returned and if he remembers it) will benefit from this experience. The process of losing his soul is made metaphorically equivalent to ascending the steps towards the gallows. If the prospect of being hung concentrates one's thoughts, then apparently so does the prospect of losing one's soul. Maybe the point here is that, in losing his soul, Angel is also losing his "self". Angel is now dead, at least until he gets his soul back.

These images were Angel's expression of regret and longing. He desparately wanted Cordelia's love, his son's love and respect, reconcilliation with Wesley, and of course the apocalyse to be ended. They were not dreams or hallucinations. This is what Angel's thoughts were entirely concentrated upon. When Angel's soul is finally returned, I believe that he will remember these thoughts and I believe that his futures feelings and behavior will be influenced by them. But, more importantly, we (the viewing public) got so see a glimpse at the things that are most important to Angel now.

So, who learns from this? We do and maybe Angel does too. No one else needs to know anything about it, unless Angel decides to bring them into his confidence. And, maybe after this experience, he will finally decide to do so.

>>> 1. Why is it always about Angel?

The name of the show is Angel. If I wasn't interested in Angel, I sure wouldn't bother watching.

>>> 2. Why must "champion" be used at least once every episode?

I can't get too excited about this. Champion is a word that has been diminished by overuse, but I can't think of a better alternative right now. We need a word with a more biblical connotation.
[> [> Thing is, I agree but still... dunno. -- Solitude1056, 13:45:14 01/30/03 Thu

I read Jay's comments, and they proved to be the most insightful in terms of explaining Angel's interpretation of the people around him. I get that, to use an over-used phrase. I also get the idea that, on the face of the statement, yes, the show should be about Angel. And yes, I get that if it's Angel's mind running the newsreel, then yes, it's probably still going to be about Angel.

The problem is that what was in Angel's head didn't seem all that different from what I've seen for the majority of the season. The word champion gets tossed around at least once an episode (hasn't ME ever heard of a thesaurus?), and every problem is viewed, by Angel, in terms of what it does to him and his own place in the world. He's become, over the past year, an unbelievably self-involved character - and we don't even have the alleviation of Doyle or (BtVS) Cordelia to burst a few Angel bubbles as needed. At each point, I see that Angel has reason to be cranky - strangling a throat-slit Wesley or shutting out a post-Conor Cordy - but what we're missing is someone who can remind Angel that there's another side to the issue. Not that the second part necessarily makes the two wrongs into a right, but just to remind him there's another interpretation to the issue. At the very least, the prior episodic element of the series meant Angel was forced to interact with other folks of new and various stripes - now it's just the same characters, slowly working their way into and out of more conflicts that risk soap opera quality if they keep it up for too much longer...

I dunno. BtVS didn't make me feel like this - except for a few times during season 4, and a few more during season 7. Perhaps it's just a thing about the fourth season.
[> [> [> And I can agree with you too, but I still liked what I saw! -- Robert, 15:13:11 01/30/03 Thu

>>> I dunno. BtVS didn't make me feel like this - except for a few times during season 4, and a few more during season 7. Perhaps it's just a thing about the fourth season.

Season 4 BtVS was my least favorite season, though I was still captivated by every episode. I know many people have difficulty with the current season of BtVS, but it is becoming my favorite thus far. Likewise, season 4 AtS is also my favorite. I like the fact that AtS has become incredibly dark (metaphorically and literally). I also like the fact that this is part 2 of a multi-season story arc. Similarly, I see this season of BtVS as part 3 of a multi-season story arc.

>>> At each point, I see that Angel has reason to be cranky - strangling a throat-slit Wesley or shutting out a post-Conor Cordy - but what we're missing is someone who can remind Angel that there's another side to the issue.

Not so! Cordelia is not entirely gone. Some of the old Cordelia is still there. In Long Day's Journey, she told Angel to "get over it", and properly so.

There are still the difficulties between Angel and Wesley, but this is a harder problem. Wesley royally screwed the pooch, and I don't believe that he has yet entirely taken responsiblity for his actions. He is angry with Angel and the rest of the AI gang, because they rejected and isolated him at his moment of greatest vulnerability. Neither party is yet ready to apologize, though I believe the reconliation will happen eventually.

The issues between Angel and Conner are classic. How often do we hear about broken homes where children are brainwashed by one parent against the other? I have personal experience of this problem. I hope we never see full reconciliation between Angel and Conner, because I don't believe that such is possible in reality. The damage Holtz did to Conner is just too large. Angel will always be the blood-sucking killer in Conner's eyes.

>>> now it's just the same characters, slowly working their way into and out of more conflicts that risk soap opera quality if they keep it up for too much longer...

Yes, but Mutant Enemy also avoids the alien/demon-of-the-week problem that can plague episodic shows. Besides, we don't just have the same old characters. The secondary or incidental characters tend to stay with us longer and move through the show more slowly. We just saw the demise of Gavin in Habeas Corpses, and I'm sure that we will have new secondary characters introduced as the show marches forward. Plus we still see tertiary characters nearly each episode.
[> [> [> my comments were insightful? -- Jay, who won't be letting that happen any time soon, again, 18:00:42 01/30/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> Yeah, you watch it, Jay! ;o) LOL! -- Rob, 21:48:36 01/30/03 Thu

'The Hero's Journey' -- not! (spoilers for 'Awakening') -- cjl, 22:26:43 01/29/03 Wed

And heeeeeeeeeeere we go........

There were times tonight when I felt as if Joss and ME peeked in on the ATP board and wrote the episode around our posts just to tease us. There was so much about the prototypical hero's journey according to Joseph Campbell (complete with deliberate Lucas/Spielberg flourishes!) that I imagine Fury, DeKnight, Jeff Bell and Joss were rolling around the floor laughing while breaking the story.

Everybody's going to be talking about the surprise ending, and rightfully so. I was spoiled, so I knew the whole thing was in Angel's head, but that didn't detract from my enjoyment of the episode in the slightest. For the first time (ever?), we got to see Angel working through his problems entirely from his point of view--and it was interesting to watch what his subconscious mind came up with. Where does Angel think everything went wrong? Where does he place the blame for the current mess? The demon churning inside of him, driving him with its irrational passions? The petty human emotions that have screwed him up more times than we can count?

Nope.

It's everybody else's fault. (D'Herb and s'kat have covered this in another thread, but what the hell--it's fun to go down the list:)

1. Wesley and his stubborn pride. In Angel's perfect day, his dream scenario, Wesley eats humble pie and apologizes for his screw-up. From that moment on, Wes is back as Angel's loyal second in command, his go-to guy for arcane knowledge, and the quiet (emphasis on quiet) strength behind the family.

2. Connor's teenaged hormones. Connor has the same relationship with Angel as Liam did with his own father, but Angel sees a way to break the cycle--if Connor would just acknowledge that he's a stubborn brat and embrace the glorious future as a champion Dad has planned for him. Barely ten minutes after Connor is ready to kill Angel for stealing Cordelia, the kid has a sudden burst of maturity, comes back and helps Dad to kill the Beast. He also realizes that Cordelia never loved him, and she's destined to be with Angel. She's also "too old" for him. The kid finally realizes Cordy is the Mommy of the family--and for Daddy Angel, all is right with the world.

3. Cordy's bad decisions. Angel's subconscious REALLY massages the facts here. Cordy's mattress pumping with the kid is equated with Angelus' wide-screen panaromic history of death and dismemberment? MUTUAL forgiveness? Whew.

4. The Gunn/Fred/Wes triangle and their intense personal pain barely registers in Angel's head. If anything, he sees Fred and Gunn as the babies of the family, even more so than Connor. Fred is the sweet, young precocious daughter, and Gunn is the overeager junior achiever, swinging around the Mystic Sword as if playing with a new toy. ("Oops. My bad.")

And how about that sword! What a rollicking adventure Angel conjures up for us, complete with dark underground caverns, booby-trapped walls, sliding stone panels, arcane inscriptions, a cliche-spouting arch-villain and a collapsing ceremonial chamber with ornate columns nearly crushing the damsel in distress. (How many times did Angel see Raiders of the Lost Ark, anyway?) Angel has this amazingly romantic self-image, the Warrior in Darkness who brings the light to the rest of the world. Gosh. What a swell guy.

OK, I'm being sarcastic. Angel fans might ask: come on, isn't a lot of Angel's dream scenario true-to-life? Granted, the guy's not perfect, but isn't Angel usually the victim of cruel fate, screwed over by the PTB and the passions of his friends and family? Doesn't he just need a few breaks to go his way to be happy?

No.

If Angel was the enlightened individual protecting the world from darkness he thinks he is, his scenario for perfect happiness would have far different. Perhaps meeting Angelus' victims in the hereafter, humbling himself before them and receiving their forgiveness. Perhaps The Powers That Be granting him his humanity, and Angel gladly laying down his sword and loving his family as the man he never was. But Angel still has too much pride, too much invested in his role as the Undead Champion to consider these scenarios. As s'kat says, Angel pays lip service to Angelus, but deep down, he doesn't believe Angelus is part of him.

Angel imagines that his saga takes the linear path of the Hero's Journey in Western literature--Beowulf, the Arthurian legends, and the modern incarnations like Star Wars and Indiana Jones; but in reality, he's stuck in "samsara," the Eastern cycle of birth and death, his karmic debt returning him to Square One until he finally learns to meet his demon head on and cast off the vanity and pride that weigh down his soul.

Next week--the King is back. Boreanaz looks so happy to be evil again. I'm with him all the way.
[> Great post...here's my first impressions (spoilers Awakening) -- shadowkat, 23:47:40 01/29/03 Wed

Unlike you - I was completely unspoiled for this episode.
The only thing I knew for sure was that Angel would lose his soul...how, shrug. The promo gave some of it away I guess, but that didn't occur to me until later.

So They had me up until the moment where Cordelia and Angel started forgiving each other, then I started thinking wait a minute this is a dream, but maybe not, maybe not...then Connor forgave Angel and told him that Cordy should be with him. And it was no problemo to kill the Beast and I thought - yep a dream. You explain why perfectly above.

1. Wesley and his stubborn pride. In Angel's perfect day, his dream scenario, Wesley eats humble pie and apologizes for his screw-up. From that moment on, Wes is back as Angel's loyal second in command, his go-to guy for arcane knowledge, and the quiet (emphasis on quiet) strength behind the family.

Wes and Angel - lord are they two of a kind, brothers who took separate paths. Wes decided to be head boy to impress Daddy, didn't work, so he became Watcher, got fired, joined AI, still no cigar, got fired, bad news, became boss, yep still nothing, we see how deeply this damages Wes in two episodes both of which give us a clue into Wes' dark side - a dark side that has echoes of Angelus - Billy and I've Got You Under My Skin. Blood Brothers - these two are. Wes is what Angel might have been as a human.

One can't help but wonder if in Wes' fantasy, Angel eats humble pie and apologizes to Wes. But tonight's episode is all about Angel because for the first time in months we are in Angel's pov and Angel's head and Angel like every other character is an unreliable narrator.

Also I love the touch in which Angel gets to prove Wes' idea is really insane in his fantasy - he can't handle the idea of accessing the beast within and hates Wes for pushing him there.

2. Connor's teenaged hormones. Connor has the same relationship with Angel as Liam did with his own father, but Angel sees a way to break the cycle--if Connor would just acknowledge that he's a stubborn brat and embrace the glorious future as a champion Dad has planned for him. Barely ten minutes after Connor is ready to kill Angel for stealing Cordelia, the kid has a sudden burst of maturity, comes back and helps Dad to kill the Beast. He also realizes that Cordelia never loved him, and she's destined to be with Angel. She's also "too old" for him. The kid finally realizes Cordy is the Mommy of the family--and for Daddy Angel, all is right with the world.

Is Connor reflective of Angel's inner child? And oh boy do I get cordy's comment "like father, like son" now or is that just inside old Angel's head? If so it's very interesting. Angel sees Connor in some ways as a reflection of himself. Yet he can't quite admit to it. It festers at the back of his head. He has too much pride to quite access it.

4. The Gunn/Fred/Wes triangle and their intense personal pain barely registers in Angel's head. If anything, he sees Fred and Gunn as the babies of the family, even more so than Connor. Fred is the sweet, young precocious daughter, and Gunn is the overeager junior achiever, swinging around the Mystic Sword as if playing with a new toy. ("Oops. My bad.")

This was a big clue. And I have to congratulate the writers for remembering to do it. If this love triangle had come up at all during this portion of the episode - it wouldn't have worked. Notice how it is subtly implied in the first part with Fred mentioning she misses Wes and Gunn irritated by it? Angel isn't present. Angel has been clueless about this forever and clearly sees Fred and Gunn as his underlings. You can tell this sort of in Grounded and House Always Wins - he misses Cordy and Wes...Fred and Gunn just don't quite make it for him. Hmmm...since we are mostly in Angel's pov in this series, maybe the reason Fred and Gunn aren't as fully developed at times - is because that's how Angel views them??

There were times tonight when I felt as if Joss and ME peeked in on the ATP board and wrote the episode around our posts just to tease us. There was so much about the prototypical hero's journey according to Joseph Campbell (complete with deliberate Lucas/Spielberg flourishes!) that I imagine Fury, DeKnight, Jeff Bell and Joss were rolling around the floor laughing while breaking the story.

I saw this too...very evil and fun. They made fun of every horror adventure movie/tv show out there. It was a risky gambit. And they also put a sly twist on the whole hero's journey motif. The fantasy we all have...

And how about that sword! What a rollicking adventure Angel conjures up for us, complete with dark underground caverns, booby-trapped walls, sliding stone panels, arcane inscriptions, a cliche-spouting arch-villain and a collapsing ceremonial chamber with ornate columns nearly crushing the damsel in distress. (How many times did Angel see Raiders of the Lost Ark, anyway?) Angel has this amazingly romantic self-image, the Warrior in Darkness who brings the light to the rest of the world. Gosh. What a swell guy.

Pride my dear Angel, beware of pride. People are sick of the word champion which interestingly enough is mentioned more times by Angel than anyone else and constantly in this episode. I'm thinking that's deliberate. We're supposed to cringe. Just as you might cringe a little at all the times Buffy goes on about being "chosen" in Potential. Titles.

Here's a little something I've learned about titles this week in James Carse's Finite and Infinite Games:

Finite - is well what we saw in tonight's or rather last night's episode, where Angel won, the Beast lost. The world was saved. Angel earned the title of Champion. Champion means winner and savior. It was first grabbed when Angel Championed the pregnant woman whose guardian he killed way back in Season 2 Ats - I think.

"What one wins in a finite game is a title. A title is the acknowledgement of others that one has been the winner of a particular game. Titles are public. They are for others to notice. I expect others to address me according to my titles, but I do not address myself with them - unless of course, I address myself as an other. The effectiveness of a title depends on its visibility, its noticeability to others." It is important for Angel to refer to his friends and himself as champions and for others to refer to him as such. Same with Buffy as chosen one.

"Since titles are timeless, but exist only so far as they are acknowledged, we must find means to guarantee the memory of them."

"It is a principal function of society to validate titles to assure their perpetual recognition." (pp.19-20)

Carse goes on to state that in the finite game - there is always a winner and a loser and the winner is determined by a terminal move - " a final act within the boundaries of the game that establishes the winner beyond any possibility of challenge. A terminal move results in other words in the death of the opposing player as player. The winner kills the opponent."

In finite play like what we saw in Angel's fantasy - immortality is in the title not what you've done, not in others following you, "Victors live forever not because their souls are unaffected by death but because their titles must not be forgotten." - "What winners of finite games achieve is not an afterlife but afterworld" - not a continuing existence - they have not moved to a higher plane of being, no they just earned a title and have continuing recognition of it.

Carse is a bit dense at times, I have to sort of apply his words to examples to make sense of them. But what I think he is saying is in essence what the writers have been trying to say for quite some time - killing the vampire doesn't mean you get a reward, your not the "chosen one".
As Joyce tells Buffy in Gingerbread - they keep coming, your slaying doesn't change that, they aren't all dead. There's no end. Buffy - what's your point? of course they keep coming. There isn't supposed to be.

Angel - we're champions. We are important. We save the world. Once I make the big sacrifice - which should kill me, odd that it doesn't - since he was pretty close and it should incinerate anything remotely human, this makes me redemed. Like winning a prize. A title. He wants to end the game. Just as Buffy wants to end the game - obliterate the FE, and be the "champion".

But what if Joyce is right? And evil can't be obliterated?
There's evil in all of us and all our characters as the writers have pointed out - in both shows. None of the characters are all good or all evil right now. (they haven't completed the rounds with BTvs yet...so be patient)
In Btvs - it's evil. In ats - it's the beast.

This Angel can't face. He never has been able to face the fact that Angelus is him. They aren't separate entities really. Until he faces this and deals with it - i'm not sure he can handle the Beast. This is the reason he can't remember - it would require admitting to something that he can't psychologically handle. His subconscious gives him hints throughout the fantasy: Connor who is reflecting some of Angelus' behavior to the point both Cordy and Angel comment on it. "You're like Angelus - arrogant." Arrogance stems from insecurity and pride. Angelus also liked titles.
Remember Becoming? Angelus couldn't just be a vampire - he had a vision, he had to be worthy. He had to destroy the world - win the game. Angelus plays games. Finite games.
And he needs opponents - so he gets them. He must have adored Holtz - the perfect opponent.

Angel = Champion
Angelus = Most Evil Vampire Alive
there is no in between.
(They used Spike deliberately in Season 2 as a contrast - his speech in Becoming emphasizes the point - 'we talk a good game, but most vamps aren't that into destroying the world'. Although Spike liked titles too.)

Now i could be completely off on this - I'm not spoiled - but I have this odd feeling that part of the message this season is facing the beast within and saying no to the winning the title. Realizing life is not about winning or losing or champions...and we don't need titles. The heros journey doesn't end with a huge sword through the villains head or an explosion...but rather..quietly in some way I can't quite fathom.


Must go to bed now...it is almost 3am. ugh. Hope it made a lick of sense.

SK
[> [> Re: Great post...here's my first impressions (spoilers Awakening) -- Arethusa, 04:44:24 01/30/03 Thu

It makes a lot of sense-both are very good posts. I think you're right about the ending, and its ties to BtVS.

I'm sure Angel saw Raiders a lot! but note he fantisizes about Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where teen Indy (about Connor's age) is frustrated and hurt by his father's impossibly high standards and lack of positive attention-he even changes his name like Angel, from the one his father gave him (Henry junior) to the dog's name. Adult Indy is still smarting from his father's percieved lack of interest, but during the course of their rolicking adventure they solve most of their differences and are reunited.
[> [> [> Dealing with Daddy, with allusions to Btvs characters for comparison purposes(Spoilers 4.10) -- shadowkat, 10:02:42 01/30/03 Thu

Agree with what you said above. And it is interesting that people keep thinking Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade as opposed to Raiders of the Lost Arc. Last Crusade was a story about a neglected son coming to terms with his father.

Upon re-watching the episode I started seeing all sorts of interesting father imagery.

The whole blotting out the sun thing - the sun is a patriarchial image and the Egyptians and other desert religions often associated God the Father with the harsh beating Sun which provided them with life and death. Same with Angel - as a vampire - he can never come out in the sun, God the Father won't abide him without literally burning him up. So I'll blott out Dad?? Or rather the Beast does in the same apartment that Angel's son Connor slept with Angel's love, Cordelia.

Then the dream/fantasy - interesting that the code isn't numerical but rather the top patriarches from the book of Genesis - the creating of the world. Judaisim - also tends to be a patriarchial religion - from the land of the burning sun and desert. The heads of the houses - patriarches. Remember in flashbacks - we never meet Angel's mother - only his father. His father is mentioned. His father casts him out. His father is amongst the first that he kills. Then as Darla states - because he's killed him, that relationship will always burn and it does. Who is Angelus' main opponent in the flashbacks? A religious man, who spouts scripture much like Liam's father must have.
Holtz in a way is a substitute for the Dad. How ironic it is that Holtz is the father who ends up raising Angel's son.
To replace the son - angel took from Holtz? Or is Connor - Angel - being raised by substitute Dad in hell? And who assists in Holtz's capture of Connor? Wes - who also can't quite please Daddy or the Council - which is also portrayed as patriarchial, is the one who takes Connor because Wes is afraid "the father will kill the son" and Angel has started looking at Connor as food due to the spiking of Connor's blood (by oddly enough the femme fatal - or evil matriarch of the law firm). When the son returns - he sends the Father to the bottom of the sea and uses his surrogate Mom/Sis Justine to help - or Justine convinces him to do it.
(Justine is the surrogate Mom - Holtz picks but leaves behind, she is unimportant...remember we never see Angel's mother. A big difference by the way between Angel and Spike - William mentions "mother" but never father and develops relationships mostly with mothers and is most effected by mothers - Joyce (his consolation chat in Lover's Walk and the taking care of Joyce in Checkpoint), Prof Walsh (who captures and places an artificial soul in his brain), Drusilla who sires him and sleeps with other men using him. Big contrast to Angel - who deals with more patriarchial figures - even through Darla - he is rejected by the Master - his grandsire and he takes Darla away (same prodigal son pattern, yet very important to him to be a better more vicious bastard - he wants the Master's approval and he gets it - the Master says he wanted Angelus at his right side after all - was the most vicious vamp. But cursed Angelus or Angel - kills Mom and helps buffy (possibly surrogate daughter/lover?) kill the Master. When Angelus returns he takes fiendish delight in really destroying and torturing one main person - Giles - who he considers Buffy's old man. (Like Kralik's Mommy issues, Angelus has Daddy issues.) And it is Giles in Amends and Revealations whose opinion is the most important to Buffy and to Angel. Angel goes to Giles - no one else to ask for help in Amends. And in Pangs - again it is Giles that Angel goes to.

Last night - the father references were numerous. We have the whole Last Crusade thing. The whole battle with Connor and making up with Connor and Connor struggling with his Daddy issues. Then the Beast in Angel's fantasy describes Connor as being like Angelus - Arrogant and Connor says his name is Angel. Connor does what Angel has never been able to do - asks forgiveness from his father and recieves it.
Angel wants that desperately. But he wants his father to forgive him, to accept him and it can't happen. He killed his biological one.

In the battle between Connor and Angel = we have Angel saying "you think you're the only one who has father issues" and Connor replying - "my father is dead". Yet the issues continue. Perhaps in Connor's heart - Holtz's suicide is also on his head? and in a sense hasn't Connor also tried to kill and torture Daddy - when he sends him to the sea?

(Another interesting note - in Becoming - Buffy has two issues: one Daddy - with Angel being the comparison and having taken hostage of Giles and two Mommy (her reluctance to see what's going on) - with Spike being the comparison and assisting Buffy, albeit reluctantly, and asking if Mom knows. Spike is representative of the mother issues, issues with Willow, issues with Dawn, glory, Cordelia - while Angel in Btvs is representative of father issues, issues with Xander, Riley, Giles, authority, the Council. That's the mirror between the two vamps and possibly the biggest contrast and it may also be at the root of the fans conflict with them. It also explains why Spike sought the soul and Angelus had to be cursed with one and how each happens. One gets it by going into the desert but down deep into the bowls of the earth. Getting eaten out by beetles - all images of Isis of the earth, of the maternal. The other by a shaman or the air - above ground. One lives in a crypt and below ground, one above ground in houses, hotels. One is about emoting and one is about thinking. Mother/Father.
One desperately want "HER" forgiveness and One desperately wants "HIS". Also I have a hunch that Cordy and spike are being paralleled this year - two people impregnated with powers - her's demon, his a soul, how much you want to bet Cordy's the sleeper here not Angel?? Also both Cordy and Spike have the maternal side or role at times. And both have been the source of the child connor/dawn romantic imaginings. Buffy/Angel are also being paralleled and both of these have the father role, the disciplinarian.)

Back to Becoming - in Becoming, Angel becomes a vamp by closing his eyes. And gets his soul but goes to hell by closing his eyes. In last nights episode the first thing the shaman says to Angel is "close your eyes".
Wonder if Angle's comment - "buffy no" has to do with the fact that it was with a sword that she sent him to hell?
That after all is Angelus' last memory before he got cursed again - was Buffy standing over him with a sword - so maybe it was Angelus who spoke?

One final thing - interesting that Angel picks a sword as the weapon to kill the beast - after all wasn't it a sword with Angelus' blood that opened Acathla, a sword through Angel's chest that sent him to hell and closed Acathla??
Is that a link?

SK
[> [> [> [> Re: Dealing with Daddy, with allusions to Btvs characters for comparison purposes(Spoilers 4.10) -- Arethusa, 11:41:51 01/30/03 Thu

Who is Angelus' main opponent in the flashbacks? A religious man, who spouts scripture much like Liam's father must have.

Yes, Angel comments to Connor in Spin the Bottle:

Liam: "Say one thing then... 'be good. Fear God. Do as you're told.' And all the while I know good and well he's had his share of sinning."


One final thing - interesting that Angel picks a sword as the weapon to kill the beast - after all wasn't it a sword with Angelus' blood that opened Acathla, a sword through Angel's chest that sent him to hell and closed Acathla??
Is that a link?

Yes, it probably is. (I really need to watch Becoming again with this arc in mind.) I also thought of King Arthur, the one true king, champion of Britain, pulling the sword out of the stone-Angel's vanity and overcompensation for insecurity at work. Only Angel can save mankind, yadda yadda. It's so exciting to see this glimpse into Angel's mind-and a conventional one it is, too, complete with adoring weeping lover, accepting son, and loyal subordinates.
[> [> Perceptive as usual, sk. But now that I've watched this episode... -- cjl, 07:44:23 01/30/03 Thu

How can I ever take the opening credits seriously again? When the sun came back out in Angel's fantasy, and the good people of L.A. basked in the light, I half expected a group of them to walk up to Angel's window and cry: "Oh, bless you, Undead Champion! How sad that you cannot enjoy the golden sunshine you've restored to us! But know, in your still, unbeating heart, that you will always have our gratitude."

Then I thought about the credits sequence, with the power cello music, and all those poor bedraggled souls looking upward, searching (searching!) for a Champion to bring light to their lives, and an end to their suffering. I doubt ME is going to change anything (except adding Andy Hallett--yay!), but I hope they realize last night's episode has completely undercut the whole "Champion" bit--if any of us on the board took it seriously in the first place...
[> [> [> Re: Perceptive as usual, sk. But now that I've watched this episode... -- Peggin, 08:52:10 01/30/03 Thu

I hope they realize last night's episode has completely undercut the whole "Champion" bit--if any of us on the board took it seriously in the first place...

I've been thinking about the constant use of the word "champion" and I had a thought that may make me not mind their constant use of that word. I'm wondering if this is a "The Princess Bride" kind of thing -- "you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means." It might be significant that people tend to call Buffy a "hero", but they call Angel a "champion". A hero is a person who risks his life for a *noble* cause. A champion is an ardent defender of *any* cause -- no requirement that the cause be a noble one. Maybe it's going to turn out that the "cause" Angel is "championing" isn't all that noble after all.

As many times as Buffy has saved the world, I have never seen her asking anyone to thank her for it. But with Angel, part of his dream, his "perfect happiness", involved not simply being the champion of the people, but having everyone else see him that way, too. This is not to knock Angel, I just think that his pride is the major obstacle he is going to have to overcome before he can ever make the transition from mere "champion" to true "hero".
[> [> [> Re: Perceptive as usual, sk. But now that I've watched this episode... -- slain, 18:14:05 01/30/03 Thu

Unfortunately I've never been able to take the word 'champion' seriously, coming from a place where it's more commonly used as an abjective. Still it is an interesting question - the show has always undercut the seriousness of its villains, and when Angel was a supporting character on BtVS his seriousness ('billowy coat, king of pain' - was that Cordy or Xander?). But on AtS, they've allowed his role as a hero to be a little more serious.
[> [> [> [> I think that was Riley. (NT) -- Doug, 18:46:32 01/30/03 Thu

[> LOLOLOLOLOL -- KdS, 04:53:06 01/30/03 Thu

Hilarious and perceptive. Unfortunately hearing about all these episodes makes me want to personally do a Rogue Male on Rupert Murdoch. Why do we have to wait all these extra weeks?
[> Reality's homage vs Fantasy's fun (Awakening spoiler) -- neaux, 05:13:02 01/30/03 Thu

Lemme start out by saying that the episode was great.. but as soon as they started building a cage for Angel I told my wife that this episode would play out like "Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs"

Boy was I wrong.. it was like you said, an Indy inspired event.

But since all of that was dissolved.. we get back to what most likely will be the "hannibal Lecter" storyline. So are you guys ready for it?
[> The Absurdity of Existence -- slain, 19:21:51 01/30/03 Thu

Everyone knows the seat of your emotions is in your stomach, not your heart or your head, and looking back I think the most significant moments in that episode were the ones which made me feel slightly queasy.

In probably non-chronological order:

Gunn playing with the incredibly sharp sword right next to Fred, in a crowded room. Watch where you point that thing!

Wesley apologises, but Angel doesn't and Wes doesn't seem to expect him to. The line "I've never actually heard you apologise before" was something I'd expect Wes to say to Angel, not the other way around.

Cordy being submissive, clearly in Angel's power both romantically and sexually. Angel doesn't even need to win her back. If anything it's a reversal of reality.

Connor relinquishing any claim to Cordy's love - very odd, because he shares with Angel the same jealousy and possessiveness.

Angel and Cordy having sex was, obviously, a "are you bloody STUPID!?" yelling at the TV moment (metaphorically speaking, as I find people who shout at televisions deeply frightening).

All of these things are out of the ordinary - yet, despite this, I can't claim I had any inkling of the ending. On a purely superficial level, this was a brilliantly constructed episode, speaking as someone who laps up writerly gimmicks. It's doubly good because it used the most cliched trick in literature (...And it was all a dream) successfully, which I don't think I've seen, ever. Perhaps it's something about the TV format - while a book or film ending in this way, where everything is a complete fabrication, seems like an immense betrayal, in this format it's used differently; as a way of looking into an established character's psyche.

I don't think we should be so harsh with Angel's fantasies, though. The episode shows succinctly how human Angel is; and, implicitly, how the heroic ideal is something he strives for, rather than something he is. I always understood the distinction between champion and hero in the Buffyverse to be that a champion is essentially human and perhaps less invested in the morality of his cause, so much as in the quest itself; whereas a hero is completely emotionally tied to their calling. That is, Angel (a champion) fights good for the specific purpose of redemption and/or humanisation, whereas Buffy (a hero) fights and repeatedly lays down her life because she feels she has to. The hero has a kind of moral security which I don't think the champion does, and a deeper attachment to their calling. The champion is an instrument of the PTB; perhaps a hero, as in mythology, is a part of the Powers.

Sidetracked, there. Angelus' laughter at the end of the episode is the perfect ending for me; he's laughing at Angel, for believing in a myth, and at existence itself for once again proving that life is absurd and doesn't follow along heroic paths. He's also laughing at the audience, I think, for ever accepting (even for a moment) this myth. Or maybe we're laughing with him; I think I was.

Angel's dream represents the ultimate impossible fantasy for an existentialist, and Angel's world is definitely a very existential place. In the dream, instead of putting any of his own problems right, other people solve them for him. Wes apologises and restablishes Angel's leadership, Cordy gives herself up to Angel and discounts Connor's feelings, Connor gives up Cordy and accepts his role as Angel's pupil and son. Other people do these things for Angel. He sits there, something literally, and has his life put back together by other people. Which, existentially speaking, is impossible. No one can help you through your own existence.

What the episode is about is the roles Angel percieves himself in (a trinity of Leader, Father and Lover) being affirmed by other people and ultimatedly paying off as Angel becomes these things. But the point is they're roles - they're not what he truly is, because no one fits into an external ideal. These roles are things Angel uses to avoid coming to terms with himself. With Connor, for example, he doesn't want to talk to his son, and to act like a father - he just wants to become Ideal Dad.

But I don't think Angel is as self-deluded and self-centred as the dream makes him seem; that's missing the point. It's not the case that the dream represents Angel's thoughts, but rather his absolute ideals. It is, after all, a fantasy, and no one's fantasy would include (for example) Angel eating humble pie and accepting Wes as an equal. The dream removes all the barriers that, consciously, Angel is aware of. In reality, Angel is a lot more cynical than the Angel in his dream; he's cynical about the powers that be, about his quest and his own redemption, and about his own role as a champion.

After all, he's already been granted everything he wanted once, way back in Season 1, and he turned that down out of a sense of duty and a realisation that, in life, things are never as simple as the basic hero's journey. Angel is (probably from reading all that Satre) an existential character who's aware of himself; that's why the dream is such a complete fantasy. Rather than simply his subconscious getting its way, the fantasy removes all of the existential barries that prevent Angel from achieving his fantasy Roles. It's not just reality going well or reality going badly (as in 'The Wish'); it's complete unreality, a world apart from the complexities of Angel's existence in which all his problems are solved by others; but that's not the world Angel lives in.
[> [> Another thing I loved was...(Awakening spoiler) -- Rob, 19:49:57 01/30/03 Thu

Cordy's admission that she had had sex with Connor, basically because Angel wasn't there, it was the end of the world, and she thought his son would be the next best thing. Uh, no ego there. LOL.

Just kidding. I actually do agree with you completely, especially regarding the idea that Angel shouldn't be judged too harshly for his fantasies. As usual, fascinating post, slain! :o)

Rob
[> [> Giving Angel the benefit of the doubt (warning--comic book geekdom ahead) -- cjl, 20:41:44 01/30/03 Thu

This response was so well-written, I'm almost willing to give Angel the benefit of the doubt, just because you say so.

But I can't help but think that, despite his awareness of the existential barriers to his ultimate happiness, he has too much of his ego invested in his role as "Champion," and that's the source of the problem.

Do any comic book fans out there remember Alan Moore's classic Superman story, "Whatever Became of Superman"? DC Comics was ending the run of Action Comics, and the Powers that Be at DC commissioned Moore to tell the "last" Superman story--resolving all of the continuing plotlines, bringing back his worst villains, tying up everything in a nice, neat bow.

I won't bother you with the details, but Superman was forced to kill one of his arch enemies, breaking his vow never to kill another living being; he voluntarily exposed himself to gold kryptonite (stripping his powers), and retired to suburbia with Lois Lane and lived happily ever after. At the end of the story, a reporter for the Daily Planet interviewed Lois on the tenth anniversary of Superman's disappearance, and bumped into her husband--an ordinary mechanic who didn't have anything more ambitious in mind than puttering around his garage and playing with his son. The reporter asked this non-descript greasemonkey what he thought of the great, lost hero.

The mechanic was nothing short of contemptuous of the Big Red S: "He thought the world couldn't go on without him."

You see, I can't imagine Angel doing what Superman did--giving up the power and glory of the superhero on principle. Angel feels the world needs him, needs his strength and talents, feels he's absolutely indispensible if the world isn't going to slip into chaos. But he's wrong. The world will always find someone else to take up the fight; the Slayer, the one girl in all the world, is replaceable (at least until the end of this year) and champions are a dime a dozen.

Ah, you say, but isn't Angel unique? Isn't the vampire with a soul destined to play a role in the apocalypse? Well, he's not unique anymore. I wonder how Angel would react to Spike's re-souling. Would he be happy for his old comrade? Or would he feel uneasy that his glorious, solo turn in the cosmic spotlight had been taken away?

"[H]e's already been granted everything he wanted once, way back in Season 1, and he turned that down out of a sense of duty and a realisation that, in life, things are never as simple as the basic hero's journey."

If Angel is an existentialist, then he must realize he is what he is because he chooses to be what he is. He can't blame his current state of being on his friends, the PTB, or whatever. He could have walked away in IWRY, or fought the good fight as a normal man, but he stayed on as the Vampire with a Soul because he thought the world couldn't go on without him. An admirable sense of duty? Of course. But also, a sense of pride and vanity that have always been his undoing.

Now that Angelus is back, let's see how it all plays out.
[> [> [> Re: Giving Angel the benefit of the doubt (warning--comic book geekdom ahead) -- slain, 10:05:11 01/31/03 Fri

As Peggin points out below also, Angel didn't have to give up his reward, it's true. That Angel doesn't choose humanity does say a lot about his character, but perhaps how you view it depends on your view of heroism. I'm personally inclined to think of it as a heroically stupid (but nevertheless heroic) guesture. Existentially speaking it's perhaps not very good pratice; instead of focussing on his own self, Angel instead pours his energies into the role of the champion.

If we look back to Angel's past, before he met Buffy, he didn't feel like he had a place in the world. He was alienated from human society; the PTB, through Whistler, gave him that place, and the role of the champion. But I think he has come to resent that role, to an extent, and to view it (as an existentialist would) as a burden imposed by external forces. But I think he's complicit in creating that burden, as IWRY (I've now completely forgotten what this abbrevaition stands for) shows; even when he's given the opportunity to become Angel the Mechanic or maybe Angel the Hairdresser (night appointments only), and to make his own choices, he resorts to the champion role.

It seems to me that maybe Angel has been reading a bit too much existentialism; he focuses on the burdens of society, rather than on his ability to make his own choices. He considers his role as a champion not to be his own choice any longer, but to be something imposed on him by the PTB.

In 'Awakening' the role of champion that he's chosen pays off; through his being a champion, everything goes right for him. All he has to do is slay the beast and he'll get the girl, the son who looks up to him and the loyal subordinate. So perhaps the episode is a hint that Angel's problem is that he's made the mistake of many existential thinkers; he's blaming society and others for his own choices, rather than himself. Whereas Spike (unless I'm remembering wrongly) no longer feels that Buffy has a responsiblity to him because he got a soul 'for her', Angel seems to feel in this fantasy that because he's a champion, everyone owes him greater consideration. It's a dark impluse which makes up his character, like Buffy's superiority complex, but it's not the defining part. I don't think any other character's fantasy would be any more self-effacing, after all. I was idly imagining what Wesley's fantasy might be the other night...


FRED: Oh, Wesley, you know I could only love someone as smart as you!
GUNN: Yeah, man. It's okay. I can see you're meant to be together - I'm far too dumb for her.
FRED: And it's okay about you sleeping with Lilah, you know she's quite attractive really...
(WESLEY raises eyebrow, Roger Moore-fashion.)
[> [> [> [> 'I just want to be loved -- is that so wrong?' -- cjl, 11:21:51 01/31/03 Fri

Poor Angel. He's trying his best, he really is. And here we are, judging him for being too wrapped up in his image as a "champion." I can imagine Fred alerting him to this thread on the board, and Angel shooting back a response:

Message subject: "Re: The Hero's Journey -- not!"
Name: Liam
e-mail address: liam@fanggang.com

"What the hell is the matter with you people? Do you have any idea what I have to go through day after day? Don't you nimrods realize that, because of my "selfishness," I've saved your loser butts more times than you can count? Where would you be if I didn't stop that that scientist guy from destroying the world? Where would you be if I didn't keep parasites like Wolfram and Hart from feeding off your carcasses and then speeding away in their Mercedez Benz convertibles? Do you think I enjoy get shot, stabbed, and mutilated?

So I want a little acknowledgement from my friends, my family. Is that really so much to ask? Why does everybody think this is some huge f***ing karmic sin that needs to be worked through in my next 200 incarnations?

[And why, WHY does everybody say Angelus is more honest than I am?!]

I could have had Buffy. And let me tell you, if you'd had the day with Buffy I did, most of you losers never would have considered giving that up. Not for second. But I gave up her up, because I knew the world needed me for a higher purpose. Why doesn't anybody on this stupid board understand that? Ah, screw it."

Then a second note:

Message Subject: I don't understand you people...
Name: FredB
e-mail address: Burkle@fanggang.com

"You have no idea how upset he is. He's such a wonderful man. How could you say such terrible things?"

Response to Liam: "Happy Anniversary" aside (and thanks for saving the world there), would any of the bad things that have happened in the last three seasons have happened if you weren't around?

[Thanks to Jon Lovitz (imitating playwright Harvey Fierstein) for the message subject quote.]
[> [> [> [> [> LOL - I love it! -- ponygirl, 11:42:08 01/31/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> Re: Giving Angel the benefit of the doubt (warning--comic book geekdom ahead) -- JM, 20:04:30 01/31/03 Fri

I love Wes, and I'm certain his fantasy world would have been far more self-aggrandizing and toxic. (I mean, he betrayed his friends and stole his hero's child's childhood, and he still feels like the aggrieved party. I'm imagining a lot of groveling and abasement in his perfect world.) I'm giving Angel a pass. His best day was as much consumed with giving his friends perfect happiness too, as it was with stroking his ego. His big problem in practical terms is that he seems to imagine that he can do Something that will fix everyone's problems, when they're much more complicated than that and actually have very little to do with him. And that includes Cordy/Connor.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: -- Angela, 05:04:08 02/01/03 Sat

I agree, the ep gave me a different perspective, especially contrasted with the hallucinations of Deep Down. Hopes. Fears.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Deep Down vs. Awakening -- oceloty, 11:38:32 02/01/03 Sat

Running with what Angela said: comparing the hallucations in Deep Down and the dream in Awakening, the contrast is pretty nifty.

In Deep Down, Angel fears he's destroying the things that matter most -- his family -- and will kill Cordelia and Connor. He is responsible for all the bad things that happen, and yet he has no power to stop them or make them better. Awakening is just the opposite: all the problems in Angel's life (and those of his friends) are miraculously righted, Angel really can make a difference. Angel gets everything right, and the world is a better place for his efforts.

If Awakening shows Angel's perfect day, Deep Down shows his worst nightmares. In DD, Angel is the terrible person he fears he is. In Awakening, Angel is the perfect noble hero he wishes he could be. In reality, he's somewhere in between, a flawed person trying to be a good one. It's the two sides of the theme that runs through both episodes: the contrast between the world as it is, and as it ought to be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Deep Down vs. Awakening -- Peggin, 12:35:52 02/01/03 Sat

If Awakening shows Angel's perfect day, Deep Down shows his worst nightmares. In DD, Angel is the terrible person he fears he is. In Awakening, Angel is the perfect noble hero he wishes he could be. In reality, he's somewhere in between, a flawed person trying to be a good one.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I also think this is the major flaw that Angel is going to have to overcome before he can ever truly be the Champion he aspires to be. He can only see the world in black and white. IMO, he doesn't seem to be able to conceive of anything in between. It's like he believes that either he must be 100% responsible for all the wrongs of the world, and if that's the case then he doesn't believe that he can ever be forgiven; or he must not be responsible for anything, in which case there is no need for him to be forgiven. Either way, this is a kind of hubris.

IMO, there is no evil so great that it can't be forgiven if the person (1) admits that they were wrong, (2) expresses remorse, and (3) honestly resolves to change his ways. For Angel to see his evils as so great that they are unforgivable is definitely a form of hubris.

Angel has to realize that there is a middle ground. A place where he can admit that he has done some horrible things, but still believe there is a chance for him to be forgiven. I think the threat of Angelus "emerging" only exists because Angel treats Angelus as some kind of "other" -- no, it's not him, he's not the one who did those things. If he can admit that *he* is responsible for those acts, then he can forgive himself and allow others to forgive him. As long as he continues to convince himself that Angelus is some seperate person, then he will never be able to truly be sorry, and forgiveness will be impossible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Of course, how forgiveness works varies for each person. -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:06:29 02/01/03 Sat

For some, an actual sign from the people they hurt must be given before forgiveness is real. Since almost everyone Angelus hurt is dead, this point of view would make forgiveness all but impossible for Angel unless he gets help from the spirits of the dead.

For others, putting all your faith in a certain deity(ies) is the only possible way forgiveness can be achieved.

Then there is the Puritan belief in limited atonement, where after a while of falling back into bad ways, forgiveness is closed off.

For some people, forgiveness is achieved when someone's evil actions are repaid through karma (note: by this same belief, doing many good acts can earn forgiveness by aquiring enough good karma to compensate the stored up bad karma).

Then there is the belief that the world is too harsh and cruel for anyone to ever be truly forgiven.

Not to mention the belief in right and wrong being entirely imaginary concepts, in which case forgiveness is not needed.

Lastly, there's the belief that you are forgiven as long as you forgive yourself, and that no one else can forgive you.

Given these many ways of looking at forgiveness and redemption, it's no wonder that Angel often seems to flounder in his quest. He's never really sure which way to go about it. At times he believes that by constantly saving lives and souls and doing good in this world, the evil he did is compensated. Then there's trying to earn redemption by serving the Powers That Be, or seeking self-forgivness, or trying to make it up to the people he harmed. But Angel also has his dark moments where he believes redemption is impossible in this world, and can even descend into the belief that maybe the whole notion of sin and salvation is meaningless.

I wouldn't call Angel expressing hubris by believing he can't be forgiven. Rather, he is unsure what forgiveness truly means, or how to get it, or whether it even exists at all.
[> [> Re: The Absurdity of Existence -- Peggin, 05:11:15 01/31/03 Fri

After all, he's already been granted everything he wanted once, way back in Season 1, and he turned that down out of a sense of duty and a realisation that, in life, things are never as simple as the basic hero's journey.

This is the exact reason why I do see Angel's fantasy as demonstrating just how egotistical he is. When he was "granted everything he wanted" back in IWRY, he couldn't deal with it. Being the normal human? It wasn't enough for him. He was human, he had a chance for a happy relationship with Buffy. So, he finds out that there's a demon that needs killing, and very logically, he wakes up the Vampire Slayer, who is asleep in his bed in the next room, so that they can go and hunt it together.

Oh, wait, no, that's what he *should* have done. But, no, he had to be the Hero, and go out on his own, and get himself hurt. This led him to the Oracles, who told him that the "End of Days" was coming, and that the Slayer would die, as all mortals do, although in her case it would be sooner. *Nothing* the Oracles said to Angel indicated that turning Angel back into a vampire would have any effect on that outcome. The only thing that told Angel that turing him back into a vampire would make a difference was Angel's own ego.

Angel thought the world couldn't go on without him. Compare this to Buffy at the end of The Gift when she gave her life to save the world. She not only believed the world could go on without her, she expected it. She expected someone else to take her place and she was disappointed that it hadn't happened. She does not see herself as indispensible. Angel does see himself that way.

If Angel ever does Shanshu, I have a feeling that it is not going to be the "reward" he thinks it will be. Being forced to live his life as an ordinary person, to watch the world spin on its axis and to watch humanity do just fine without him as their "Champion" -- well, I think that will be Angel's own personal hell.
[> [> [> Re: The Absurdity of Existence -- ponygirl, 09:10:24 01/31/03 Fri

Oh yes, you and cjl make great points, Peggin. While Angel has never been my favourite character one of the things I do love about him is his desperate seeking for external validation of his own importance (and one of the things that makes me crankiest about AtS is when he gets it too easily). Flaws make characters interesting, and I think the true existentialist journey for Angel would be trying to find significance in his life without the assurance of prophecy or PTB. Angel showed progress towards that with his champions speech to Connor at the beginning of the season, but his fantasy seems to say that he still has a way to go on his journey. And I for one think that's a good thing, lots of salty yet flawed goodness to come!

The one thing I'm really having a hard time with is trying to picture Buffy's version of the fantasy. What would constitute her perfect day? Absolute victory? Self-sufficient friends and a respectful Dawn? A return to heaven? Or are Buffy's true desires so contained that even in a fantasy she wouldn't be able to reveal them, or more likely figure out that it was a dream in five minutes?
[> [> [> [> Liam always sought approval from his father--and can never get it... -- cjl, 09:38:59 01/31/03 Fri

That need for approval, for validation, has been transferred through all of Liam's incarnations.

Angel craves approval and validation from his friends, from his son, maybe even from the public, if it were possible. (When he looks out the window at the citizens of L.A. basking in sunlight, you can tell he wants to step outside and take a few bows. And in "Supersymmetry," he did like the thought of being the hot topic on the "chatty" rooms...)

But in a deeper sense, Angel is searching for validation from another father--God the Father. (The mention of the Hebrew Patriarchs in the dream could be an indication of this.)

Unfortunately, he's never going to get that either. Which is probably why he's brooding most of the time.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam always sought approval from his father--and can never get it... -- Rufus, 08:40:29 02/01/03 Sat

Unfortunately, he's never going to get that either.

Yeah, and he has noone to blame but himself and his limited way of thinking. I can go on about why I like the development of Angel but my first impressions of him is as someone who had so much going for them and proceeded to piss it away. This season will hopefully have him finally work that out through his interactions with his son, who, surprise is in a contest for everything, including the girl, with his father.
[> [> [> [> Re: The Absurdity of Existence -- Peggin, 20:24:48 01/31/03 Fri

The one thing I'm really having a hard time with is trying to picture Buffy's version of the fantasy. What would constitute her perfect day?

I think Buffy had a moment of perfect happiness at the end of The Gift. It wasn't a perfect day, just a perfect moment, but I think that's how she felt. Death, her own death, really was her gift. Not just a gift that she could give the world, but also a gift the world could give to her. Her reward for all her years of constantly putting her life on the line to save others.

She just had such a look of total peace cross her face the moment it occured to her that she could save the world, keep everyone she loved safe, and leave the constant death and fear and uncertainty behind her, along with her belief that someone else would come along to take her place. It's the one time I ever remember seeing Buffy look totally at peace with herself.
[> [> [> Doubts on Angel's existentialism. -- Caroline, 20:16:48 01/31/03 Fri

Peggin, ponygirl and cjl you all make very powerful points. Since I've already commented in another thread about the psychological aspects of Angel's behaviour, I'd like to look at the philosopical issues slain brought up.

It's been a long time since I studied philosophy and I'm a bit rusty through lack of use but the notion of Angel as an existential individual has been brought up, and given the views that manwitch has graced us with I have lately been delving into my old philosophy books. I'd appreciate any corrections that people may have.

From what I understand of existentialism, the major themes are the fact of individual existence, the importance of individual freedom and choice, using that to create one's own nature and taking responsibility for all of one's actions and self-creation. By contrast, from what I remember about Kant, the main activity of the mind is synthesis, where new concepts are applied within a certain already existing framework that results from previous experience. To me it seems as though the idealization in the illusion that Angel has is really Kantian rather than existential. He takes his previous experience as given and in this thought exercise creates a world where his moral sense of duty has been adversely affected by his family members and they should each atone to make him happy. Existentialism is hard to define but that does not fit any attempt at defining it that I have ever seen. Angel, in a Kantian sense, created a world purely depended on the structure of his mind and not on the external world. He remains an unchanged man, filled with his sense of moral duty. If Angel was an existential man, surely he would delve a little more into his own choices and take responsibility for whatever of his own choices and behaviours helped to create these situations.

I am also persuaded by manwitch's points that since Angel is chosen to live and have a certain role by the powers that be, he is more of a Kantian being than an existential one. He has a much more limited range of choices in this Kantian world, by virtue of his relationships to the powers that be and the role he has. He cannot get away from it - snow prevents it and even at the moment that he has an existential choice to become human, he rejects it. I know he rejects it because of a prophecy (but who says his interpretation of the prophecy is the right one?) but I would also argue that becoming an existential being would be very difficult for him - he gains his identity from the Kantian mould.
[> [> Re: The Absurdity of Existence -- lunasea, 08:48:24 01/31/03 Fri

I liked this.

"Awakening" just reinforced the hallucinations from "Deep Down." "Deep Down" was the harsh, cruel world where Angel didn't fit. "Awakening" was what if everything went right and the world bent to accomodate him for a change.

Even Cordy. Her hair and clothes changed to look more like Buffy when they finally consumated things. Her words were more like Buffy the entire fantasy. I am surprised they didn't pull actual lines that Buffy said.

The thing that got to me was Angel's reactions to all the apologies. David did an amazing job. That was a hard role to play. He was trying to be magnanimous, but it came off as not quite genuine. It was so Angel.

Next view we will see is Angel's more realistic view of evertyhing and his role in it. Probably episode 19 or 20.
[> Re: 'The Hero's Journey' -- not! (spoilers for 'Awakening') -- Silky, 06:17:57 02/01/03 Sat

Dial-up is to slow to read the whole thread, but to cjl's original post...I agree if you look at the literary, philosophical, metaphorical, etc., meanings.

But I have to say I saw something different - something the psychologists say is normal and universal - that we are all the hero in our own dreams. That we save the world, or come to the rescue. That those who we feel have wronged us, apologize - or get what they deserve!- and everyone gets along, sees eye-to-eye, and love is there for the taking. The sun shines and everything is good.

In this ep, I saw what Angel wants. And what we all want supposedly. I saw Everyman.

Silky
[> [> Agree, to a certain extent. But what was interesting to me about Angel's dream... -- cjl, 10:45:14 02/01/03 Sat

...was what was LEFT OUT of his dream scenario.

If you had Angelus (or an equivalent) nestling in your breast like a viper for 250 (350?) years, don't you think finally dealing with the demon would be a part of your "perfect happiness"? I thought that if Angel was going to put together his perfect day, it would go according to his Indiana Jones fantasy, THEN end with the PTB calling down from above and shanshu-ing him, or mystically exorcising his snarky tenant.

But Angelus doesn't show up at all. He's not acknowledged. Take away Angel's antipathy to daylight, and (as you said) he could have been any male comic book geek/movie buff on this board, dreaming about grand adventure and finally getting the girl of his dreams. We learn there's a serious psychic split between Angel and his alter-ego, a split that's deeper and more disturbing than we ever knew. Angel refuses to see how his inner passions, his inner demons (i.e., Angelus) bleed through into his life as Angel. "Angelus is not part of me" is the company line, but it's denial--and that ain't just a river in Egypt.
[> [> [> True if take Angelus and the vampire into account, but... -- Silky, 11:05:06 02/01/03 Sat

I was only thinking of how it relates (as everything in both series does) to our lives as plain old ordinary humans. But, we don't want to acknowledge our faults, bad sides, or mistakes either, so you might think that is why Angel ignores that side of himself in his 'perfect' dream.

Current board | More January 2003