June 2002 posts
Question- Please Answer! -- Wizardman, 02:29:55 06/07/02 Fri
Okay- here goes: hypothetically, which member of the Scooby Gang is most likely to be the first to forgive Spike for his attempted rape of Buffy- or at least look beyond it? None of them will excuse it- it cannot be excused. But my question is for next season when he returns.
To me, it seems to be one of the ladies. Buffy knows that even as she was almost Spike's victim, he was her victim as well. Dawn, who has always liked Spike, is perhaps best able to look beyond the darkness because of their unique friendship- she was the only Scooby with whom he was actually friends and who treated him as more that just a soulless thing (perhaps if they had ALL done so then maybe... but that's a rant of it's own). Anya is the most like Spike. She knows what it is like to be very powerful and to live by her own rules, only to have her legs cut right out from under her. She also knows what it is like to be hurt by one whom she loves very much, and what it is to hurt the ex-lover in return. Willow has always been sympathetic to chipped Spike, and the two share a bond. In many ways, he understands her more than the others- he knew she was still upset in "Something Blue," and he put the Willow- Tara relationship together on his own in "The Yoko Factor," whereas Willow had to come out to the rest of the Scoobies, who certainly knew her better. I don't think it a stretch to imagine the understanding to go both ways, especially now that Willow has had her own journey into darkness and revenge. As for the men... nothing short of an act of God will make Xander stop wanting to stake Spike. As for Giles, well, he was able to forgive Angel for Angelus' murder of Jenny, so who knows?
At any rate, any forgiveness/understanding will (and should) come after both: A) the Scoobies learn that Spike is now souled; and B) they learn that he is indeed very truly sorry for what he almost did, and was so even before he was souled. This has been said before, but I will say it again: for someone without a soul, he could give a damn good impression of one. Not that that excuses what he almost did, may I add.
But all of this is just my opinion- what do you think?
[> Re: Question- Please Answer! -- Alvin, 03:05:40 06/07/02 Fri
For what it's worth, I think that the one to reach out to Spike will be Xander, kind of a "Only Nixon could go to China" kind of thing. As for the ladies, I don't see how any of them can. Buffy can't because of what others will think, that she's so desperate for sex with him that she'll forgive anything, even an attempted rape. Anya can't because she's trying to live down a table varishing incident, and for Dawn, well, not only has her hero who she had a crush on fallen off the pedestel, he fell off by trying to rape a family member. Dawn, I think, will be dealing with feelings of anger and betrayal so I don't think she'll be able to reach out to him. So how can the good in him be reached and shown to the others? By having someone who's hated him all along see that he's now different and changed which means the most likely canidate is Xander.
[> [> Re: Question- Please Answer! -- Lyonors, 06:49:16 06/07/02 Fri
And for what its worth, Xander has always pushed the "soulless" thing. And if he is suddenly faced with the concept of Spike a la Soul, his black and white view of morality might take a while to absorb it. It could really go either way, IMO, either, "Wow, I can finally accept you." or "Okay, so my concept of morality SUCKS. STAKE SPIKE." who knows, i sure as heck dont.
Ly
[> [> [> Re: Question- Please Answer! -- Robert, 07:01:52 06/07/02 Fri
>> "And for what its worth, Xander has always pushed the "soulless" thing."
Maybe, but Xander also detested Angel. Xander hated Angel because he was competition for Buffy's attentions. Now that Xander knows all the dirty little secrets between Spike and Buffy, I'm not sure that a soul makes any difference in Xander's opinions.
[> [> [> Re: Question- Please Answer! -- maddog, 08:09:01 06/07/02 Fri
See that's where I think this theory falters. Xander sees vampires as just that...vampires...soul or not. He hated Angel from Day 1. When he was good and bad....and when he came back and was good Xander still hated him. So no, I don't think the addition of a soul would do any good.
[> [> Re: Question- Please Answer! -- Marie, 06:53:15 06/07/02 Fri
You know, the season motif, we're told, was "Oh, grow up!". So I think that to say Buffy can't forgive Spike because of what her friends might think would negate that. I know that, in my experience, it doesn't do to condemn friends for the choices they make. While you may not agree with those choices, surely the job of a friend is to stand by and catch you when you fall, if you fall. To be there when things are bad or sad, and to try and understand why you do the things you do, make the choices you make.
I think that, of them all, Dawn, as the youngest and also as the sister, might find it the hardest to come to terms with what she'll surely see as Spike's betrayal of her trust.
Anya, of course, is not exactly in a position to say much about Spike to anyone, while Willow has her own demons to fight. Xander, on the other hand... well, I'm just waiting to see if he can offer the same love to Buffy, no matter what she decides to do with regards to Spike, as he offered to Willow when she wanted to kill him, his friends and, um, well, the world...
Marie
[> Re: Question- Please Answer! -- JM, 07:16:09 06/07/02 Fri
Well, it's possible that no one will forgive him. It's also possible that they will not consider the actions of unsouled Spike against the souled version. He is bound to be in some ways a very different creature with a conscience than without one. It seems unjust to hold an animal to an immoral choice that it completely lacks the guiding capacity make. Possibly the Scoobs will treat souled and unsouled Spike as distinctly as Angel and Angelus.
Remember only three people currently know about the AR. Possibly only Buffy will feel that she has the authority to absolve him. It's difficult to feel that you have the right to forgive someone an injury that they did not do to you, even if you are so inclined.
[> Re: Question- Please Answer! -- maddog, 08:00:06 06/07/02 Fri
Well rule Xander out first. No way. He hates him to begin with. I'd have to narrow it down to Buffy or Dawn. Dawn seems more willing to overlook his lesser qualities. But Buffy was the one that went through it. And even she knows what she's put Spike through this year. Not that it absolves him in the least bit. But she knows there's more back there then just a lusting ex vampire. Yeah, so I'd say Buffy.
To the Dark Ones -- Magus777, 07:50:53 06/07/02 Fri
Hello everyone.
I've dedicated this Posting space to yours trulys, the Witches and Sorcerors of Buffy.
Here, you talk about them and discuss what you love much about them. Here's a following list of our Beloveds.
Catherine Madison
Ethane Rhyne
Willow Rosenberg
Jenny Calender
Doc
Enyos
Zoo-Keeper (Episode -The Pack-)
Rack
Gwendonolyn Post
Amy Madison
Jack O'Toole
Clerics (To the Knights of Byzantium)
Khul
(Though this isn't on Buffy, but on Angel, I liked this character quite alot. I was hoping she would stay for another two or three episodes but I she won't be here again.)
Mistress Meerna
[> I love(d) every one of these characters -- cjl, 08:47:05 06/07/02 Fri
Catherine Madison -- The first witch we ever encountered, and she's still one of the baddest. (Only Dark Willow could match her in attitude and pure evil mojo.) She was the parent who literally lived her life through her children, and I could actually sympathize...when I wasn't being extremely creeped out. I hope we get some mother-daughter action with Amy in Season 7.
Ethan Rayne - The clown prince of Chaos, who could casually turn your life inside out with a wink and smile. He has one of my all-time favorite lines (in "A New Man") when he gloats evilly about how he's pulled the wool over Giles' eyes--except Giles hasn't quite left yet: "Oh bugger!' Ethan shouts, "I thought you'd gone!" It always amused me that Giles thought Ethan was a complete waste of space, but he was also his old mate and drinking buddy. That tension always gave Ethan's appearances an extra kick. Would love to see him back, but since ASH isn't going to be around much, it seems unlikely.
Willow Rosenberg - My Willow worship is on record.
Jenny Calendar - Everybody's favorite teacher. Joss was just starting to scratch the surface of her character when he killed her off. As the resident technopagan, she would have been a perfect role model for Willow and the flowering of her romance with Giles would have been a thing of beauty. But this is BtVS, and happiness is not on the menu.
Doc - an enigma. A follower of Glory, but never fully involved in her Season 5 plans. Was he in Sunnydale to worship the Skanky One, or did he set up shop in town for other reasons? How could he shrug off a skewering wth ease and die from a simple fall? (Is he really dead, or just lying low?) And what the hell was all this talk about Rocco and dominoes? Will he come back, or would Joel Grey's salary bust the Season 7 budget?
Enyos - a showcase for Vincent Schiavelli, one of the best character actors in the biz. (Remember him in "Ghost"?) Another great character who, unfortunately, had to go to drive the plot forward...
The Zoo-Keeper - Look, it's Mr. Hart from "The Paper Chase"! (James Stephens could live to be 100, and that'll still be the first item on his resume.) Facing down an angry slayer and a horde of hyenas was probably nothing compared to staring down John Housman in full puffed peacock mode....
Rack - Jeff Korber. Love that voice. He was given better lines as Kralik in "Helpless," but he had some great moments here too. Whenever he put his hands all over Willow and called her "Strawberry," I wanted to take a bath...queasy/sleazy in extremis.
Gwendolyn Post - Serena Scott Thomas' Gwendolyn would have made a great British version of Stephanie Romanov's Lilah Morgan: smart, efficient, sexy, evil...BITCH. Angel is getting so much mileage from Wes/Lilah, it makes me wonder what Joss could have done with Giles/Gwen....
Amy Madison - she has to come back in Season 7. She's been around from the beginning, and I get the feeling that if Xander can't have Willow as a g/f, there's another pretty young witch out there waiting for him. Yes, she's probably going to be heavily into vengeance (especially against Willow), but as Anya proved in the last few episodes of Season 6, that doesn't have to be a permanent condition.
Jack O'Toole - Duuuuuuuuuude! The "Walker, Texas Ranger" line is a classic.
The Clerics - As an old cartoon buff, I had to laugh when Willow referred to them as Heckle and Jeckle....
And as for Mistress Meerna--
More! (If ME can nail her down, that is.)
[> [> Re: I love(d) every one of these characters -- Magus777, 11:26:55 06/07/02 Fri
Each of them are my favorite to. My top three are...
Willow Rosenberg
Rack
Amy Madison
Willow Rosenberg- I loved her even before she had super powers. Almost everything about Willows life, I can relate to. We all seen her go mousy geek Willow to (As Andrew qoutes)
A TRUCK DRIVING MAGIC MAMA!
=)
Rack- Please Rack, don't be dead! First time I saw Rack, it was like, GOSH, BE IN BTVS FOR TWO MORE SEASONS! I love his sleezy behavior with Willow. I would really like to know the story behind him. On the paper previews, it said he was a FAUSTIAN Black Magician, but there was no story about that on television.
Amy Madison- Amy just wants to have fun! Thats the best thing about her! Plus shes a quick learner, we thought the only Magic she could do was Ritual magick, but it turns out, she can do Direct Magick also, as shown in BBB.
[> What about The Mayor?! -- Eric, 15:06:34 06/07/02 Fri
Before he opted for invulnerability in preparation for becoming A Giant Snake, Mayor Richard Wilkins III was THE Sunnydale Sorceror. He gave sinister new meaning to being THE MAN (in the old Afro American slang). I think the scariest thing is that (if ignorant of his Black Magician status) I'd have voted for him.
Classic Movie of the Week - June 7th 2002 .... ( *Warning: Religious Themes* ) -- OnM, 21:43:16 06/07/02 Fri
*******
My mind is my own church.
............ Thomas Paine
*******
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has
intended us to forgo their use.
............ Galileo Galilei
*******
I read the book of Job last night-I don't think God comes out well in it.
............ Virginia Woolf
*******
Choke me in the shallow water / Before I get too deep
............ Edie Brickell
*******
Late last Sunday, I started off to do a review on a movie that was about young women on the verge of
entering adulthood, and the trials and tribulations that they face in doing so. It was a good choice, as it fits
the overall theme of both Season 6 and the BtVS universe in general, but then along came Tuesday and the
rebroadcast of Bargaining Pt. II.
Oh dear, now I'm all super-angsty again and filled with the need to get really religious on yer asses. Sorry.
This weeks' selection is unusual in many ways. First off, it's a film dealing with faith that isn't either a
Hollywood-ized treacle or a dry historical treatise on whatever sect. Second, it clearly has a point of view,
and you have to pretty much take it or leave it, although it allows for quite some significant debate on
many matters leading up to the point. Third, while the specific story events take place in or around the
1970's, it appears to have a somewhat timeless quality that extends it's relevance both forward and
backwards within the recent realm of human experience.
Lastly, it doesn't mind if it pisses you off, in fact it seems to want to do so. Religion is always a touchy
matter under the best of circumstances, and this film in fact thematically reminds me of The
Rapture, a film I reviewed last fall, and which I stated at that time 'manages to offend both
fundamentalist and atheist alike'.
One of my own personal religious conceits (if an 'unchurched' individual such as myself can even have
one) is that I tend to doubt that we really know just what God wants, if in fact s/he wants anything from us
at all. Many people claim to know, some even insist that they have a 'personal relationship' with the deity
in question, but I remain rather skeptical. There is a very thin line, easily crossed, between faith and
delusional behavior.
Whether or not that line is being crossed by the lead character in Breaking the Waves, a
young woman named Bess McNeill (played in an sheer acting tour de force by Emily Watson), is a matter
for debate up until the very last minute of the film, when the director, Lars von Trier, finally tips his hand
and renders judgment. I won't state what that judgment is, nor will I enter actively in a debate as to
whether he should have done so, because, hey, it's his vision! A number of reviewers of this film have
pondered that von Trier should have allowed the earlier ambiguity to remain intact, but I for one admire his
courage in making a statement-- ambiguity has it's benefits, but sometimes it's a cop-out. This film
challenges it's viewers to identify with the heroine, even when she engages in very dubious behavior, and in
truth achieves that goal. While the film utilizes religious faith as a vehicle to carry us into the minds of the
characters, it is really about arrogance as a foundation of belief systems that von Trier seeks to explore.
The character of Bess is a kind of child-woman, and right from the start this can spell trouble for even the
very best screenwriters and actors. Played as it should be, with the idea of making us empathize with the
child-like qualities without simultaneously (and irrationally) demanding that they leave them behind and
'grow up', this kind of personality is a desirable one for cinematically debating matters of faith. I say this
because no matter how we try, nearly all 'real' adults inevitably bring some kind of baggage with them
either psychologically or experientially that make 'simple' belief in that-which-is-greater-than-onself
impossible. It's not about lacking intelligence-- it's about lacking dogmatism. ( Speaking of raison
d'canine, what we should really be looking for is the kind of sensibility that Edie Brickell was
speaking of when she penned the line 'Religion... is the smile on a dog.' )
Bess lives in a small northern Scottish town where the primary religious institution is a fundamentalist style
church that is so emotionally fettered in it's ways as to proclaim the fact (with what otherwise would be
pride) that 'we have no bells on our church'. Bess likes bells, and her willingness to admit to the
appreciation of such frivolities causes the church elders to regard her with great suspicion as to the fate of
her immortal soul. They would be likely to take greater action to 'guide' her more firmly, except for the
general belief that she is not quite 'all there' mentally and so it would be unfair to press the point. Also,
Bess openly professes to have a close personal relationship with the Almighty, and although her 'devotion'
may not be quite down the straight and narrow, it does appear sincere.
Bess decides to marry an 'outsider', also something the insular population frowns upon. Again, one gets
the idea that this marriage would never be approved of by the church elders if it were not for Bess's
'special circumstances'. The marriage goes through, and the groom, a kind-hearted fellow named Jan
Nyman (Stellan Skarsgård) appears to be a perfect match for Bess, and their relationship blooms both
physically and emotionally. Trouble comes about, though, when Jan, who is a worker on an off-shore oil
rig, has to return to his job after the honeymoon, and Bess has great difficulty handling the extended
seperation. In one of her regular conversations with God (yes, I said, it's a special relationship!), Bess
pathetically laments that she simply can't bear to be away from Jan for this long a period of time, and begs
God to 'send him home'. She gets her wish, although not in anyway remotely like she hoped for.
I won't give away any more details, since part of the joys of this provocative film are watching the events
unfold with a bizarre combination of incredulity and acceptance.
From a photographic standpoint, the filmmakers worked to enhance the believability of the unbelievable by
shooting the film on conventional stock, then transferring the print to video, then back to film again. This
results in a flattish, somewhat grainy look that makes for a 'documentary-like' feel to the picture. Nearly all
of the camera work was hand-held, as opposed to the normal crane, dolly or other more 'fixed' methods of
controlling camera movements. This is a tremendous gamble technically-- the result could have been a
disaster, especially considering the very wide 2.35:1 aspect ratio and the fact that on a really large screen,
the graininess could easily become excessive and detract from the intended effect instead of creating it. It's
an attempt at cinema verite without actually being that, and it not only seems to work, it creates an
ongoing, underlying mood of remote detachment that sharply contrasts with a series of 'chapter breaks'
which are deliberately digitally enhanced to present insanely happy and beautiful (metaphorical?)
landscapes as 'punctuation' to the story's unfolding events.
Like the audacity of the religious topic itself, these technical 'tricks' are pretty much a 'love-it-or-hate-it'
scenario. Many critics apparently strongly disliked the 'chapter breaks' and/or the pop music that always
accompanies their display, but I thought they were rather clever-- the hyperrealism of the 'perfect'
landscapes surely suggests the viewpoint of Bess-- or maybe the 'real' God of the story, while the dour
directness of the rest of the film's lighting and style speaks to the unforgiving and cold 'life isn't bliss,
life is just this-- it's suffering' attitude of the 'official' theology of the town.
I do have some serious issues with the 'message' von Trier wants to impart, however, and it's my one real
caveat with Breaking the Waves. Again, to avoid spoilers, I won't detail it here, since there is no
way to do so without revealing critical information in advance, but at the end of the column in the
'Miscellaneous' section, I have reprinted one of the few negative reviews of the film, which addresses
exactly my core misgivings.
I don't have to agree with the filmmakers' conclusions to recommend this movie to you, since in practice
you may very well disagree with them also. This isn't important-- what is important is that this is a
story wonderfully told, with a serious message at least worth pondering at length, and I suspect that you,
like I, will not forget Breaking the Waves anytime soon.
Oh, I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean...
Philosophy... is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion... is a light in the fog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know, if you know what I mean
Do ya?
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical sacrificial lambs:
Breaking the Waves is available on DVD, which is the format I strongly recommend you see it on if
at all possible. The film was released in 1996, and running time is 2 hours and 39 minutes, perhaps slightly
less depending on the version you see. The original cimematic aspect ratio is 2.35:1, which is why the
DVD recommendation-- please try to avoid the pan'n'scan (cropped) versions, they will be
seriously visually altered, as Von Trier constantly utilizes the entire widescreen frame in his
compositions. The review copy was on laserdisc.
Screenplay and writing credits go to Lars von Trier and Peter Asmussen. Cinematography was by Robby
Müller with film editing by Anders Refn. Art direction was by Karl Juliusson, and costume design was by
Manon Rasmussen. The general musical 'score' was arranged by Joachim Holbek, with a lot of
contributions from 'popular' musicians for the 'chapter cards' between the different parts of the film. The
original theatrical sound mix was Dolby Digital, presumably retained on the DVD. (The laserdisc version
was mixed down to standard Dolby Surround).
Cast overview:
Emily Watson .... Bess McNeill
Stellan Skarsgård .... Jan Nyman
Katrin Cartlidge .... Dodo McNeill
Jean-Marc Barr .... Terry
Adrian Rawlins .... Dr. Richardson
Jonathan Hackett .... Priest
Sandra Voe .... Mother
Udo Kier .... Sadistic Sailor
Mikkel Gaup .... Pits
Roef Ragas .... Pim
Phil McCall .... Grandfather
Robert Robertson .... Chairman
Desmond Reilly .... An Elder
Sarah Gudgeon .... Sybilla
Finlay Welsh .... Coroner
*******
Miscellaneous
A quick (or not so quick!) visit to the movie review collection site, rottentomatoes.com, will show that
Breaking the Waves is a film highly regarded by a large majority of both serious and casual film
critics and reviewers, including the very casual me. However, as I brought up in my review, there are
elements in this work that are very seriously disquieting to me personally about the story that is
presented for our consideration.
I did find one negative review in the Tomatometer database, that I would like to reprint here, since it very
thoughtfully addresses many of my issues. It's not by any stretch a 'slam' of the film, the reviewer
appreciates the craft that von Trier evokes, he's just not sure that he appreciates the message it may be
sending. In many cases, I agree wholeheartedly.
Please note that this review contains extensive spoilers, so if you wish to remain mostly
unspoiled, do see the film first and then come back, OK?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Breaking the Waves - A Film Review by James Kendrick
"Breaking the Waves" is a complex and disturbing look at what one woman would do for the sake of love,
and how her desire to be her husband's salvation runs head-to-head with the moral tenants of her strict
Christian upbringing. It is at once a religious allegory and an attack on Christian fundamentalism, wrapped
up in art house pretension and grainy, hand-held camerawork.
The first English-language film from Danish writer/director Lars von Trier, "Breaking the Waves" forces
concepts on the viewer that must be absolutely accepted or rejected. Depending on how you deal with
those concepts will determine whether this film is a masterpiece or a lot of anti-establishment blathering.
The film opens with Bess (newcomer Emily Watson in a painfully intense performance) explaining to her
church elders why she is going to marry an "outsider," a large but lovable Danish oil rig worker named Jan
(Stellan Skarsgard). Bess is an almost childlike woman with a history of emotional instability who lives in a
small, coastal Scottish town sometime in the mid-70's. The town is dominated by the fundamentalist church
and its repressive Calvinistic ideals. The church can make you into a village outcast, women are not
allowed to speak during services, and the elders don't mind standing at a funeral intoning that the recently
deceased is on his way to hell.
Once Bess and Jan are married, she is so excited to consummate their relationship that she allows Jan to
deflower her in a church bathroom upstairs during the reception. "What do I do?" she asks him quietly.
While this sounds a bit odd, it is actually a touching scene. It is quickly evident in Bess's eyes that she has
found a new, loving experience, and the film makes a strong argument for the power of sex between two
people who love each other.
Bess and Jan's marriage is characterized by their erotic pleasures. Their scenes of lovemaking are
graphically portrayed in their naturalism, but they are touching because you realize that love is being shared
and not just physicality. One of the film's best scenes involves Bess seeing Jan naked for the first time, and
the sheer wonderment on her face. In her innocence, she is the epitome of true, selfless love.
But then Jan has to leave to go work on the oil rig, and Bess is suddenly thrown into hysterics, the first
true hint of her obsessive personality. Ten days before Jan is to come home on leave, he has a serious
accident on the rig, and winds up paralyzed. Bess blames herself because she prayed for God to bring him
home, and He did (she has an intense relationship with God where she speaks for both of them while
praying). She believes that God is testing her and Jan's love, much the way He tested Job. This makes her
more determined than ever to be faithful to Jan and sacrifice whatever she can for him.
The film takes a bizarre and inexplicable turn when Jan, who fears that he will never be able to make love
to his wife again, asks her to find a lover and tell him the details about it. He tells her that this is the only
way he can live, and without it, he will die. At first she refuses, but when Jan's condition worsens, she
ultimately agrees.
First she tries to seduce a friendly doctor (Adrian Rawlins), and when that fails, she is reduced to fondling
a stranger on a bus, and then dressing like a prostitute and picking up men at bars. Every time she has a
sexual encounter, Jan's condition improves. Soon she learns that she doesn't even have to tell him about it,
that he somehow knows when she is having sex with someone else.
Soon whispers are going about the village, and Bess's sister-in-law (Katrin Cartlidge) is questioning her
activities. "Are you sleeping with other men to feed his sick fantasies?" she cries. "His head's full of
scars--he's up to his eyeballs in drugs." The church casts her out, children throw stones at her in the street,
but no matter. Bess believes that her willingness to sexually debase herself for Jan is his salvation, so much
that she is willing to be with men that seasoned prostitutes are afraid of. She doesn't care what others think
because inside she believes that what she is doing is right, and she will endure physical pain and
depravation for her husband.
Von Trier described his film as a simple love story, but it's obviously much more than that. "Breaking the
Waves" wants nothing more than to turn the entire Christian sense of morality upside down, and ask what
is right? What is salvation? Of course, Jesus did the same thing, so the film makes Bess into its Christ
figure while branding the church elders as the misguided Pharisees. Bess's obsessive love for Jan is above
their petty rules, and she understands what they cannot because she has a direct line to God.
The first half of the film makes such an effective and intimate argument for the beauty and power of sex
between a husband and wife, that it undermines that second half of the film. If von Trier really believes in
the spirituality of lovemaking, how can he find Jan's salvation through Bess sexually debasing herself?
The idea might have been plausible if Jan asked her to find another man who she could truly love, so that
he would know that she was actually "making love" and not being systematically and willfully raped, but
this is not the case. As it stands, his request is perverse, cruel, and twisted.
(Note: Italics mine, for emphasis on the key point for me. --OnM)
But because von Trier is determined to make Bess into a Christ figure, he has to make her suffer for her
love. What destroys the analogy is that mankind did not ask Christ to suffer for mankind. Christianity is
based on the notion that God offered Jesus to suffer and die for us, not for God. In "Breaking the Waves,"
Jan asks Bess to suffer for him, and she does, for him. Therefore, she is simply fulfilling his selfish desires,
thus diminishing his ultimate redemption. If God had asked Bess to suffer in order to save Jan, the analogy
would have been more complete.
Philosophical arguments sides, Von Trier's cinematic treatment of the material is fascinating. He used a
process where the film is transferred to video and then back to film again in order to achieve a grainy,
diluted look, like a videotape that has been watched too many times. He shot all the scenes with handheld
cameras, giving a kind of strange, unsteady documentary feel that heightens the reality, almost like viewing
someone's home movies.
Unfortunately, he felt compelled to insert nine chapter-stops in the film that break up the steady pace. The
stops amount to computer-enhanced pastoral stills that are punctuated with awful 70's rock music from the
likes of Elton John, David Bowie, and Deep Purple, to name a few. I will never understand von Trier's
decision to start the epilogue with Elton John's melodramatic tearjerker "Your Song," thus destroying the
film's previously successful attempts to avoid sappy melodrama.
Although certain scenes succeed with great heart and emotion, "Breaking the Waves" as a whole does not.
Von Trier's' strange mix of religion and sexuality ultimately falls short because his ideas are either too
simplistic or too far-fetched. In today's open world, it's easy to take slaps at rigorous fundamentalism and
call it close-minded and archaic. On the other end, von Trier's' notions of depraved sexuality as salvation
are illogical and ineffective. To praise both the saving beauty of loving sex and the saving beauty of
depraved sex is conflictive. He simply can't have it both ways.
(c)1997 James Kendrick
*******
The Question of the Week:
This presumes that you have seen Breaking the Waves.
OK, I couldn't possibly have phrased it any better, so I won't try. From the section of Mr. Kendrick's
review that I took special note of, I hereby repeat:
The first half of the film makes such an effective and intimate argument for the beauty and power of sex
between a husband and wife, that it undermines that second half of the film. If von Trier really believes in
the spirituality of lovemaking, how can he find Jan's salvation through Bess sexually debasing herself?
Well, how indeed? This strikes me as very similar to the dilemma constructed by Joss Whedon as regards
Tara and Willow, and the subsequent death of Tara. Yes, it expresses the writer's point of view and his
way of telling the story, and as viewers we are expected to accept and deal with it. That doesn't mean we
like it, or some of the implications that inevitably extend from it. What is your take on von Trier's
'message'?
So until next time, I hope I have provided a couple of rubberbands to shoot at the stars. Please post 'em if
you've got 'em (and I know you do!), and I'll see you next week, in all probability with my riff on the film
that I had originally scheduled for this week. But then, ya never know... ;-)
Take care!
******
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 7th 2002 .... ( Spoilers for the movie and end of S6 ) -- Dichotomy, 07:16:12 06/08/02 Sat
I agree with both you and Mr. Kendrick about the main problem with the movie. I found Jan's requests so horrible and out of character for a loving husband, whether induced by drugs and physical and psychological pain or not. It was't so much the implication that Bess suffered for another's redemption that bothered me, but the way that she suffered (for the reason you highlighted). That being said, however, there was some small comfort for me that Bess' suffering was not in vain. I wonder if Bess could have sacrificed herself in some other way that still would have portrayed her as Christ-like and fit in with the rest of the movie. I don't have an alternative scenario right off the top of my head--does anyone else?
I haven't seen the movie in a few years, and it's funny I didn't remember the chapter breaks until I read this review. So for me they obviously weren't jolting enough to take away from my enjoyment of the movie. I'll have to watch it again and see how I feel about them. Plus, Emily Watson's performance was so intense and disturbing and real that it alone is reason enough to view the movie, whether for the first time or again.
As for the Willow/Tara tie-in, I'm not so sure that Joss was trying to imply anything with Tara's death. Rather, it was an unfortunate occurence that spurred on Willow's descent into evil. I hate that Tara died, but I didn't feel that Joss was doing anything other than moving the plot along and adding drama with this tragedy. This to me was not like the more obvious suggestion that Bess' suffering was condoned by God. Of course, I may be wrong and we may find there are more layers to it once we see how Willow deals with Tara's death and her own horrible actions next season.
Summer is soooo long!
Why so much rape thematics this season ? -- Etrangere, 06:49:31 06/08/02 Sat
Season 6 has been overled with violation metaphores and rape imageries, more or less openly.
In Bargaining first, Razor raises the topic with such sweet sentence as :
"RAZOR: (swinging a length of chain) I'll service ya, girl toy!"
and
"RAZOR: (OS) You might even live through it. (Buffy walks forward) Except that certain of my boys got some... anatomical incompatibilities that, uh, tend to tear up little girls. So, who wants to go first?
Buffy comes over to stand directly in front of him.
RAZOR: I was really hoping it'd be you."
Of course, "tearing up" is exactly what they did to the Buffybot, re-enacting the sacrifice Buffy did in the Gift, to make a new order of the world (that's exactly how Razor describe it at the time) and maybe, divising the scoobies (seen as the parts of a same body, as in Primeval/Restless)
Then, there's Willow violation of Tara's mind, threatening her mind like Glory did. Willow is there surprised that Tara saw it as a violation when she told it that, but it didn't prevent her from doing it again in Tabula Rasa. (hum again, the violation brings a new beginning)
After that there's Wrecked and Willow's violation by Rack, metaphroricly suggested by the Strawberry comment and the shower scene.
Dead Things has again that striking spelling of what happened / was to happen by Katrina that surprised most of her would be violators. This one also mix mind control with the very obvious rape reality, making the previous metaphores stronger. It's about control.
At the same time, the ambiguous balcony scene between B/S nuance it with a "no mean yes" behaviour from Buffy that's totally opposite to Katrina's. Still it's all about control.
Still more nuance, the handcuffs are linked with the idea of trust, making the difference between S/M and rape.
The dream makes obvious that the rape is the betraying of this trust, not it's consomation.
Seeing Red was again about that betrayal of trust. But was it about control ? Hardly. Again, it's not a self-aware attempt, and the realisation of what he almost did sends Spike in a processus of remaking himself.
Funnyly enough at the same time as so many rape themes flows, there's also a lot of castatric images, like DmP and Willow agains the big killing Penis, or Buffy smashing Warren's balls.
What I wonder is, why ? Is rape linked to the idea of "growing up" ? Is rape a necessary step to change of one's world and identity ? Or is that only because rape represent an attempt at controlling one's reality as 'kat brillant essay tended to link ? Any other idea ?
[> Re: Why so much rape thematics this season ? -- Arethusa, 07:26:05 06/08/02 Sat
The little bads this season were more realistic this season than other seasons-money shortages, plumbing problems, horrible relatives. So it makes sense that the bigger bads would be realistic, too-betrayal, drugs, rape, out-of-control grief.
I doubt ME has growth-through-rape as a subtext. In fact, sexual abuse often freezes the victim in a state of arrested development-the victim can't grow as a person until they deal with the abuse issues. Like a vampire, who is also arrested emotionally, in an adolescent state of development-one of my favorite Buffy metaphors.
Equating magical violation with rape, however, was done several times, as we know-Willow/Tara, Willow/Rack, etc. I think it's a little clumsy, as a metaphor, and so unpleasant that I don't enjoy picking it apart like I do most metaphors.
[> [> Re: Why so much this season ? -- aliera, 17:52:29 06/08/02 Sat
I agree. And the portrayl of magic as an addiction didn't really ring true for me. I viewed it more as a talent and would have seen power issues more easily as the problem with misuse of the gift.
I'm not sure on the rape angle although mistreatment of people as your growing through your twenties feels right. Some of us experience this in different ways earlier of course. And it does link into power and violence.
One of the writers mentioned that the bathroom scene was decided on and added in very quickly because they needed something horrible to clarify the problems with the realtionship and act as the impetus for Spike's realization. It could also have been done to create a further parallel between the main storyline and Willow's.
[> [> Not the rapes so much as reactions interesting -- shadowkat, 21:01:42 06/08/02 Sat
Agree with you and aliera.
I too have troubles with the rape metaphor and have avoided trying to pick it apart it makes me wince. But here goes.
Rape has been shown in many ways this season. Does it bring about renewal? Not necessarily. It's violent. It usually results in ripping off a layer of emotional skin. In AR scene - it destroyed the remaining trust between B/S.
After that scene - Spike no longer could trust himself with Buffy without changing in some way. And Buffy could never trust herself physically with him. It succeeded in two things: demonstrating that the being involved with a demon is not a good thing. and to grow and be with Buffy, Spike needed to move past the demon's arrested development. Epsenson in her Succubus club interview says that they dealt with the rape scene as a demon's act not a human's. Spike looked deep into his soul after it and saw the demon there and realized he needed to change that.
So is Willow human when she goes around violating or raping things in Villains - Grave?? She molests Rack, (revenge),
rapes Warren with a bullet and rips off his skin, she molests and rips power from Giles (ugly metaphor that one),
she considers molesting Dawn and turning her back into energy, she tries to rape the earth to drain it of energy.
Or is Willow also demonic?
Rape is how we control something through violence. The rapes I've heard about are not all physical. Probably why I struggle so much with the metaphor...Anyway, from my experience this is an act that occurs when the actor has lost control over his or her reality just as the characters in Btvs have. Willow does what she does because of Tara's loss - she has lost control of her reality and she agressively and violently tries to regain it. Instead of altering her own view of reality she forces her will on it. I can make you do this.
Spike does this in the bathroom. "You loved me when I was inside you. I know you did. I can MAKE you feel it again. I will MAKE you." He can't accept that he has lost control,
so he loses control over himself.
Think about it - what is your first response when you lose control over a situation? You try to find a way of regaining it. And the more you try to force it to go back to what it was, to bend - the more it resists until you risk breaking it. The best approach is to sit back and look at it, be quiet, be patient, and interpret the reality as it has changed. See what it represents. Willow didn't do that - she panicked and acted. Or reacted. Buffy did do it.
Buffy who had been shot...sat down and thought for a while.
She rested. Willow ran off to the magic box and sucked up magic, she refused to stand still, to discuss, to think.
Spike is the same way - when Dawn sees him - he reacts, he goes to Buffy, and when she tells him what he doesn't want to hear, he reacts. He doesn't think.
Spike and Willow's acts do change them and the people they inflict them on - the acts themselves don't cause positive
renewal or negative. The characters interpretation of those acts and how those acts have affected their reality is what causes renewal. It's not the "act" itself that is important so much as how we handle it, interpret it, deal with it,
and make it part of our reality.
If you choose to intepret the act as one that must be revenged - then vengeance becomes your reality.
If you choose to interpret it as something you can put behind you and work to overcome without seeking vengeance, then renewal may become your reality.
The only thing we can control is how we react to what is thrown at us. How we choose to handle it. How we choose to
intepret it. We cannot control what others do or how they reacte.
So I think...and hope I'm not being repetitive...that it's not the AR scene or the bad acts we should be analyzing but the characters interpretations of them and reactions to them, because I think that's far more important. Actually
come to think of it I've found the people on the boards reactions and interpretations and ways of dealing with these acts equally fascinating...and worth analysis.
[> [> [> Re: Not the rapes so much as reactions interesting -- aliera, 18:53:03 06/10/02 Mon
shadowkat wrote, "So I think that it's not the AR scene or the bad acts we should be analyzing but the characters interpretations of them and reactions to them, because I think that's far more important. Actually come to think of it I've found the people on the boards reactions and interpretations and ways of dealing with these acts equally fascinating...and worth analysis."
Which leads me to wonder if this wasn't part of the reason for the type of violence they chose to use.
They are often seeking to turn the expected scenario on it's head and I believe I've seen more discussion on this than any other type of violence in the show this season. It says things about our culture. I know I'm probably in the minority here but I was equally disturbed by Dead Things.
They really made me question the "safe place" this season.
[> [> [> [> Not a minority - disturbing images of Dead Things -- shadowkat, 19:28:53 06/10/02 Mon
"They are often seeking to turn the expected scenario on it's head and I believe I've seen more discussion on this than any other type of violence in the show this season. It says things about our culture. I know I'm probably in the minority here but I was equally disturbed by Dead Things."
Three episodes this year and there are at least three every year that I find highly disturbing and hard to watch or rewatch are:
Dead Things
As You Were
and Seeing Red
Why? Because all three dealt with violations and violence in safe places. They showed the dark side of a relationship.
The writers did an excellent job of showing that neither Buffy nor Spike were healthy here. Nor was anyone else.
Dead Things made me cringe. The worst scene was the humorous by-play between the three nerds and their cereberal dampening and attempted rape of Katrina. Horrifying on any level. Not funny. This followed by the disturbing Bronze scene that made me want to look away.
Followed by the violent beating of Spike which was apparently worse, before Joss told them to soften it. I still can't rewatch it without fast forwarding. Anyone who says Buffy was not manipulative, violent and cruel in this relationship - needs to rewatch the episodes. Yes Spike was as well. But you can literally watch it two ways. I did.
I watched it from Spikes. Then from Buffys. Both were at fault. And neither are capable right now of a healthy love relationship with anyone. It was probably the most dysfunctional relationship I've seen successfully portrayed on tv and you could not quite look away.
As You Were - yes, Spike was painted as the villain. But the way they shot it - I was rooting for the wrong party the first time I watched it. I hated Riley. The second time
I saw it from Buffy's point of view - yep still hated Riley.
Third time impartial - Riley not so bad. Still cringe when Riley finds them in the crypt and he and Buffy blow it up.For some reason - Riley's entrance felt like a violation to me. Just as Buffy's coming to Spike like to a robot for comfort. Giving him hope and yanking it away.
Some people appeared to like Riley in it - so could just be
me. The episode just feels weird to me.
Seeing Red. Painful to watch. Can't rewatch that scene
without looking away. Very disturbing. Why? We are in Spike's pov and his actions feel so self-destructive and so tragic...that you're not sure who you hurt more for, him or her. Risky to do. Did they pull it off? Oh yeah. It's spawned heated discussions on the internet for four months.
[> Re: Why so much rape thematics this season ? -- Akita, 08:23:05 06/08/02 Sat
The dominant theme of BtVS for 5 seasons was female empowerment: the little blonde girl in the alley who kicks the monster's ass. "Take back the night" at a whole new level of metaphor. Rape, or sexual violation, is the antithesis of female empowerment. Season 6 was, as a friend of mine terms it, AntiBuffy!; the characters were deconstructed to the point that they largely lost power over the monsters in themselves. Hence the rape or violation/castration motif.
I didn't like it, but then I didn't like most of this season -- and have been consoling myself with large doses of Seasons 5 and 3. Feel much better now.
Akita
[> [> Hopefully, next season will be the rebirth/rejoining after all this, uh, entropy. -- cjc36, 05:48:19 06/10/02 Mon
Hopefully, next season will be the rebirth/rejoining after all this, uh, entropy.
[> [> Re: Why so much rape thematics this season ? -- alcibiades, 12:56:08 06/11/02 Tue
Hey Akita,
If you think about it, Season 6 starts out with two violent images, Buffy being raped from her GRAVE, and losing control over her life and death in every meaningful sense and Destructorama -- in which everyone around her implodes and loses meaningful control over their lives.
I think more in this season than in any other, these two themes appear openly in the Season Opener and stay thematically significant throughout the entire Season.
Season 6 certainly has faults, in particular the lapses in characterization to fit plot and story-telling, but thematically and metaphorically, I really find it perhaps the richest Season yet. Just one example, is the Grave tone it starts with in Bargaining I until the reversal of this tone throughout Grave. I love the fact that this is even highlighted by title choice.
[> Rape of Innocence -- Kerri, 09:07:57 06/08/02 Sat
Let's not forget what seems to another, significant example of metaphorical rape: Buffy's ressurection. She is pulled out of the safety of innocence and peace into the reality, maturity, and fear of reality unwillingly. Because of this example I also tend to equate the rape motif as being intertwined with innocence. The fact that innocence is forcibly taken from you, but that you can reclaim control over your life by accepting what has happened and maturing.
Katrina is even able to regain control from Warrn and while she does die she is in a way in control and has changed Warren while retaining herself. Buffy regains control from Spike in SR, kicking him away after struggling. It is interesting that SR is when we begin to see the old Buffy really reemerge, and I'm not sure it is a coincidence that thgese two events are linked. Buffy regains control from the rape of her ressurection in "Grave" when she matures and embraced life as an adult, crawling out of her grave. So what do you think? Way off?
[> [> Wasn't that more a Caesarian re-birth? Wasn't she "from her mother's womb untimely ripp'd"? -- Sophist, 15:56:31 06/10/02 Mon
[> [> [> Re: Wasn't that more a Caesarian re-birth? Wasn't she "from her mother's womb untimely ripp'd"? -- Myra Jean, 09:01:09 06/11/02 Tue
"from her mother's womb untimely ripp'd"
From Macbeth, right?
God bless
Myra Jean
[> [> [> [> Yes. -- Sophist, 09:39:49 06/11/02 Tue
[> Including of Spike. -- LeeAnn, 09:58:07 06/08/02 Sat
Excellent points. I hadn't noticed there were so many attempted and metaphorical rapes this season.
I think I would have to add Buffy's rape of Spike during Smashed and Gone to that list. It's not like he wasn't pleased but she was at least as rough with him as he was with her during Seeing Red. Especially the scene in Gone where she comes to his crypt, invisible, and assaults him when he doesn't even know it's her, that was very rapey. Imagine the reverse, imagine invisible Spike came into Buffy's room, threw her up against a wall, ripped her blouse open and fondled and caressed her without her even knowing who it was. That would be pretty heavy. Worse, to me, than the AR.
Despite all the attempted and metaphorical rapes only Spike seemed to have been subjected to intimate sexual contact after saying no, after he told her to put on her clothes and get out in Gone.
[> [> Re: Including Spike. -- Traveler, 13:16:55 06/08/02 Sat
Interesting point, although I wouldn't include "Smashed" in that list. The violence in that episode seemed pretty mutual. Also, although he told her to leave in "Gone," he didn't protest very hard when she stayed. However, I would add the scene where Buffy is on top of Spike, beating the crap out of him and telling him how evil he is. That had the feel of a rape to me.
[> [> There is a huge difference! -- Kerri, 15:32:20 06/08/02 Sat
Big difference! Spike wanted to have sex. Buffy didn't. Period. I find it sort of offensive to compare tyhe Bathroom scene with any of the times Buffy initiated sex. Spike was happy to sleep with Buffy both times. Buffy screaming and crying for Spike to get off her can NOT be equated to them having mutal consentual rough sex.
[> [> [> Re: There is a huge difference! -- LeeAnn, 15:46:40 06/08/02 Sat
I don't know. I was squicked by how Buffy treated Spike when she came to his crypt in Gone. She is stronger than him and was manhandling him and taking off his clothes and he didn't even know who it was or what was happening. He looked stunned and upset until he realized it was Buffy. I found it hard to watch. I assume they meant it to be erotic but it was disturbing to me. True that Spike was more than willing once he recognized Buffy but before that point it was assault.
[> [> [> [> Stronger? Please! -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:30:58 06/08/02 Sat
Why, exactly, do you assume Buffy is stronger than Spike? I get so tired of this "Buffy could easily kill Spike if she wanted to" idea.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Stronger? Please! -- SpikeMom, 22:10:25 06/08/02 Sat
In the episode where Buffy goes to L.A. to pursue Faith and confronts Angel (Sanctuary?) they get into a "slap fight" (I haven't seen the ep. just read transcripts). When they talk about it rationally afterward, Angel reminds Buffy that she is stronger than him, so who was really beating up whom. So it would be safe to assume that if Angel thinks Buffy can take him, surely Buffy could take Spike as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Stronger? Please! -- KSJ, 07:43:09 06/10/02 Mon
It has been demonstrated a number of times that Buffy is stronger than Spike, most particularly during Season 5. In "Blood Ties", Spike cannot heft the troll hammer Buffy was slinging around with ease in "Triangle." This is re-emphasized in "The Gift." Buffy also tumbles from the tower in "The Gift", pulling Glory with her, and jumps right up and starts swinging again, whereas Spike is incapacitated by his fall from the tower.
Based on the textual evidence of the show, yes, it's safe to say that Buffy is stronger than Spike.
KSJ
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fanwanking and Rape -- LeeAnn, 08:16:45 06/10/02 Mon
Buffy also tumbles from the tower in "The Gift", pulling Glory with her, and jumps right up and starts swinging again, whereas Spike is incapacitated by his fall from the tower.
Yet in SR Buffy is so badly injured by much less that she can't effectively resist Spike? Makes no sense. Yet another reason the AR scene just doesn't hold up.
The only way I can accept Buffy's crying and begging during the AR is by believing that Buffy loves Spike and that made his betrayal so emotionally painful that she couldn't bring herself to physically fight him for several minutes. Pure fanwanking I know. But I have to do something to explain why she could fight Glory and Warren and the Hyena!Xander and the Swim Team but with Spike she cries and begs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fanwanking and Rape -- JM, 14:30:04 06/10/02 Mon
Actually that's what I thought the writers were deliberately suggesting. In the sense of violating Buffy's sense of trust, which she did have when it came to Spike, the attempt was as significant to her as his chance of success.
Her emotional reaction was as much that she didn't want to admit that this was happening and actually face the necessity of fighting off someone that she has essentially been depending on for unconditional love.
I am sure that she was also shocked and off-balance and afraid because she did have to muster some effort to fight Spike, whose not that far from being her match. But I thought the struggling and pleading had more to do with emotional duress than physical force.
[> [> [> [> [> And... -- Doriander, 22:38:54 06/08/02 Sat
remember the troll hammer? Spike couldn't lift it up, Buffy did so effortlessly as if the thing was a prop!(Oops, did I say that? ;))
[> [> [> [> [> And also -- CYdney, 07:11:05 06/10/02 Mon
Doc defeated Spike on the tower in The Gift, but Buffy brushed Doc aside like a gnat. (great moment!)
[> Re: Why so much rape thematics this season ? -- Caroline, 06:54:20 06/10/02 Mon
Even in the myths that ME has made references to throughout the season, there is the element of rape - Persephone, Inanna etc (I'm talking about rape as physical as well as emotional violation). I think that it's intimately linked to the overarching season them of growing up.
I think that there are two important elements to why the rape/castration theme has been so notable this season. The first is in terms of the victim. Rape, even metaphorically or mythically, tends to strip away one's defences and one's innocence. Persephone loses her innocence and ignorance when abducted by Hades but she gains so much in terms of her knowledge of life and her knowledge of self. Inanna is stripped of all the trappings of queendom and identity when she descends to the underworld but when she is rescued, she returns imbued with a stronger sense of who is is and what she is capable of. Being stripped of the non-essential means a greater focus is brought to bear on the essential elements of self and that is part of growing up, one of the main themes of the season.
There is an intimate link between the him/her and the victim. Hades is led to Persephone when she picks the flower of the underworld, Inanna comes to Ereskigal and then is stripped and killed by her sister. There is an element of complicity with the perpetrator on the part of the victim born of ignorance and innocence that it is no longer wise to have in the grown up world. Tara learnt this when Willow did the forgetting spell and Buffy did this in the AR scene which occurred after the repeated ambiguous signals that she sent to Spike.
As for the perpetrators - Willow, Spike, Warren etc, they have a different lesson to learn. Their immaturity is not innocence and ignorance, it is knowledge and power that they wield without thought to the needs or concerns of another. It is what occurs when we want what we want with no thought to the effect on another. Warren strayed too far onto this path, Spike and Willow managed to pull back. Willow did this in classic Ereshkigal style - Xander was her Enki's mourner and appeased her by fully accepting her right to feel the way she did. Spike tried to fully own and control Buffy but perhaps he will come to accept the lesson that Hades learns - he must let the woman he loves return to the light for half the year. Buffy and Xander gave Spike and Willow the gift of recognition, of understanding and compassion and throught that gift, Spike and Willow will learn their own compassion.
(I do NOT want to leave the impression that I think that I excuse actual physical violent rape - I do not. I am merely talking about how the theme is used to further the main thematic element of the season psychologically and mythologically.)
[> Conceptual issues -- Sophist, 10:14:48 06/10/02 Mon
I'm having a problem collecting my own thoughts on this question. I think it's a great question, but hard to answer in a general sense because too many different types of incidents are being lumped together. I find it hard to mix metaphor with the actual crime, and to see a rape metaphor at all in some of the incidents. I'm posting this in order to clarify my own thoughts; suggestions are welcome.
I see 3 cases in which the writers indisputably intended a rape theme:
Dead Things: A serious message brilliantly delivered.
Bargaining 2: A hit-the-audience-with-a-brick scene. I don't see any important message here, just bad writing.
Seeing Red: A very complex scene endlessly discussed (mostly by me). No further comment.
There were 3 other scenes which have been suggested as metaphorical rape:
AtW and TR forget spells: I doubt the writers intended us to see this as rape. There was no connection with sex, especially in TR. A number of posters have talked about the "violation", but violation and rape are not the same thing. Trust can be violated, for example, with no hint of rape. I'm a little leery of treating too many "violations" as metaphorical rape; I'm concerned that we'll end up diluting a really serious crime with much lesser offenses.
Wrecked: Creepy scene, but it's not clear rape is involved. Sex traded for drugs, sure, and that's a hard issue to call even in Real Life. The reasons I wouldn't treat it as rape are: Rack asked permission first ("mind if I take a little tour?"); Amy, who had been through it before, told Willow beforehand to go ahead; Willow consented (without knowing the actual consequences, though she could have asked); and, most important, Willow went back to Rack later on.
The balcony scene and the scenes suggested by LeeAnn (Gone and Smashed) don't strike me as rape either metaphorical or real, intended or implicit.
Anybody else able to connect the dots better than I can?
[> [> Re: Conceptual issues -- auroramama, 11:03:57 06/10/02 Mon
Tara and Willow make love after the forgetting spell in OMWF. They wouldn't have done so if Tara had remembered their argument. Isn't that a pretty close parallel to what Katrina rightly named as rape in DT?
Evidence for Tara's opinion of mind-control as rape: Tara is the one who uses the term "violate." And we know that she fears tampering with her mind more than physical death. Before Glory ever touched her, she expressed a preference for vampiric blood-sucking over Glory's sanity-sucking. (I don't think this is unrelated to what her family did to her, lying to her about what she was in order to control her.) After what happened to her with Glory, she felt even more strongly about it.
auroramama
[> [> Re: Conceptual issues -- redcat, 11:11:23 06/10/02 Mon
Sophist- I agree with you in everything you've said above, except for the case of Willow's two
mind-wipes of Tara.
I think the writers deliberately had Tara use the word "violation" in describing what the first
incident felt like to her *because* that word is so often associated with rape. My sense is that,
in this case, the writer's are trying to suggest the parallel although also leaving the incidents
open to broader and equally useful (in structural or plot ways) interpretations. Such
interpretations are a matter of personal preference, of course.
However, I also see control as the critical issue in the two W/T mind-spell cases which, as
shadowkat and others have pointed out, is a major, even perhaps the most critical, factor in
the overt rape scenarios, but I don't see control so directly active in the other cases that you
argue above don't quite work as 'rape.'
Also, as Caroline notes, two important structural factors in the use of rape as a metaphorical
device in literary or mythic works, especially those referenced in the show, are, first, that the
victim generally loses a type of innocence and gains wisdom or grows in some way through
*surviving* the rape; and second, that the victim must somehow acknowledge their own *even
if very slight* complicity in the rape. It seems to me that both of these conditions exist for Tara.
Acknowledging that her lover has consciously manipulated and violated her against her will
causes Tara much pain and tears, but her response to that violation is mature. She does what
is necessary and leaves behind (at least for awhile) the illusion that her relationship with Willow
had become. And in some ways, I think one of the reasons that Tara takes Dawn's initial
accusatory rejection of her on the front porch scene at the end of TR so deeply, is that she
realizes she bears some responsibility for letting things with Willow get this far out of hand.
We see Buffy acknowledge that same failure in herself at different times after Wrecked.
Surely Tara must also feel similarly responsible. It's true that she kept urging Willow to stop,
even finally demanded that Willow stop using magic to control events and people. However,
she also helped Willow perform the critical spell that serves as the primary metaphor of
improper magic use for the season, the spell to bring Buffy back in Bargaining. Tara even
argued that this spell was against all the laws of nature, but she participated in it anyway,
because she had allowed her love for Willow to blind her to her own true knowledge *and
practice* as a Wiccan. I'm not suggesting here that Tara is responsible for her own mind
violations by Willow, nor that ANY real world woman is responsible for her own rape. And I
think its sad that we all still live in a world in which so many real women are raped that both
Caroline and I have to write such disclaimers. But like Caroline, I see the structural and
metaphoric uses of rape in a fictional text as providing the audience with a wide range of
insights into characters and their motivations, desires and actions. For these reasons, I would
place the W/T mind spells within the rape-metaphor category, and for these same reasons not
include the other scenes as you detail in your post.
[> [> [> Conceptual issues and a suggested resolution -- Sophist, 12:38:36 06/10/02 Mon
Thanks to both redcat and auroramama for such thoughtful responses.
Let me respond first to the issue of sex following the forget spell. I don't doubt that using drugs to obtain consent to sex (a real life equivalent) constitutes rape. In such cases, however, the rapist intends that consequence. I don't see that as Willow's intent here. She had the general intent to end an argument, not the specific intent to have sex. As far as the sex in OMWF goes, my assessment is that some time passes between AtW and OMWF. The sex in OMWF is more or less connected to the spell, depending on how much time you believe has passed. But it's pretty hard, no matter how much or how little time has passed, to see the OMWF scene as intended by Willow at the moment when she cast the forget spell.
The larger problem, though, is how to distinguish the 2 forget spells. The TR spell didn't affect just Tara, nor did it lead to sex with Tara. Willow certainly violated all the SG (including Spike), but she surely did not rape them. Since it's the same spell in each case, I'm reluctant to call one spell rape unless both are.
Violation of trust was a big theme this season. It affected every member of the SG, starting with the concealment of the resurrection spell. I see Willow's forget spells as consistent with that theme, but not as rape.
Maybe the answer to Ete's original question is that rape is one kind of trust violation, and the references to it fit within that overall context. If we look at it this way, we can easily incorporate the SR scene (no matter how you characterize Spike's behavior), both forget spells, and the scene with Rack (Amy violates Willow's trust by telling her to go ahead). The only scene that doesn't fit is Bargaining 2, which we should attribute to heavy-handed writing.
What do you think?
[> [> [> Re: Conceptual issues -- dream of the consortium, 12:41:34 06/10/02 Mon
I agree with Sophist that too many incidents are being brought into the discussion as being metaphorical rapes, but there is definitely a difference between something being a rape, something being a metaphorical rape, and rape imagery or connotations being used to connect another an issue to the actual and metaphorical rapes of the season. I would say that the three rapes Sophist listed are the actual rapes (actually attempted rapes) of the season. I agree with redcat that the two instances (beyond the deliberate rapes mentioned by Sophist) that were clearly intended to be to be considered metaphorical rape in the viewer's mind were the Tara mind-swipes. As has been mentioned above, Willow and Tara clearly have sex after the first mind violation. Although that fact alone does not make the incident a rape, there definitely seems to be an attempt on the part of the writers to invite the comparison. The mind-control rape of Katrina makes the comparison obvious - controlling someone's mind to make them willing to have sex with you is rape. And then, of course, the use of word violation - as redcat says, the word is chosen specifically because of the connotations with rape. Willow tries to take away Tara's autonomy by taking from her what should only be freely shared - in this case, it is her thoughts and memory, not her sexuality, but the invasive quality, the issues of power and control, the lack of respect for boundaries, are all there. To my mind, those incidents become metaphorical rapes, because the metaphor seems complete. To say that Willow was not after sex make those incidents not actual rapes is to miss the point, because in the sense that rape is not as much about sex as about power and control, and in the sense that one's mind is the ultimate intimate place, even more so, one might say, than one's body, the comparisons seem too complete to ignore - these are metaphorical rapes.
I think the Willow shower scene is meant to underline the connection between the certain types of mind-spells and sex. I don't think it counts as a rape, for just the reason that Sophist puts forward - Rack asks permission, Willow agrees (though possibly without knowing what she's agreeing to - informed consent could come into the picture), and she returns for more. But the scene of Willow showering and crying is certainly meant to have shades of sexual disgust/shame about it. In this case, I believe the use of the rape imagery is to underscore the connections between mind spells and sex and so to emphasize and reflect the metaphorical rapes of Tara and the actual attempted rape of Katrina.
The only other scene which has some definite overtones of rape is the strange InvisibleBuffy/Spike scene. Spike is of course absolutely willing to sleep with Buffy once it's clear who she is. This is not a rape, nor an attempted rape, nor a metaphorical rape. However, it is a disturbing act of sexual aggression that, as someone pointed out above, could not have been played so lightly if the genders were reversed. If a woman were sexually assaulted by an invisible man, even if that man were to turn out to be her lover, we would find the scene very problematic. And Buffy does not approach Spike in a gentle or flirtatious manner- she does assault him. In this case, the overtones of rape are very light, comparatively, but can not be disregarded. I believe the writers are linking Buffy's disregard for Spike's person, her willingness to use him for her own amusement, to the power and control issues other characters exhibit.
I don't see the beating scene, disturbing as it was, as having any overtones of rape, or Willow's stealing power from Giles, or some of the other scenes mentioned.
Getting back to the original post, I have wondered about the castration images and what to make of those (crushing Warren's balls, the penis monster, I think there were others. Aren't bulls often castrated? I don't know if that would count). I'm not sure how those fit in.
[> [> [> [> Re: Conceptual issues -- redcat, 12:52:39 06/10/02 Mon
Wonderful clarity, dream, in this post! I was going to suggest to Sophist that the W/T mind-
swipes might be a case of Godel's theorem at play - that the scenes might both be rape and
not-rape simultaneously. Your post, however, places the three types of and uses for rape *in
text* much more cogently.
You also say: “back to the original post, I have wondered about the castration images and
what to make of those (crushing Warren''s balls, the penis monster, I think there were others.
Aren''t bulls often castrated? I don''t know if that would count). I'm not sure how those fit in.”
I think as Caroline (and others, Exegy and Ixchel, if my memory serves) has suggested in
different posts, the bull imagery ties into Persephone and Innana, Osiris/Isis/Set, and perhaps
even Jason/Medea. Would love to hear folks thoughts on how the imagery works at different
levels in the show.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Conceptual issues -- aliera, 19:44:32 06/10/02 Mon
The mythological tie-in was my first thought also, especially because the scenes in Bargaining with Buffy/the Buffybot. Osiris' first death is a coffin created for him by Set (Buffy/Spike) which is nailed shut and then thrown into the Nile (also seen in Angel finale with the role reversal of the son not the brother).
The Buffybot experienced a version of the second death forshadowed also by the training scenes in which the symbols of death and life (painted on the rooms walls) were shot repeatedly over her shoulders. Set tore Osiris's body into fourteen pieces scattering them to winds. we also have a version of this in some older mytholgies in which life is created from pieces of the goddess's (Tiamat) body. Osiris's sons were instrumental in his reconstruction and inthis case it is Dawn the *daughter* who finds Buffy, is instrumental in Buffy's choice of life this time on the Tower, and is with her during the finale epiphany.
The symbology appears in variations in other mythologies castration/ripping apart or impalement by a boar or spear Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, Dionysis, and the Fisher King in the Grail stories. One of the more consistant myth's. On our continent there is an old story of how the origin of the cultivation of corn came from plants that grew from the body of the god...from death, life.
The bull is associated with the Goddess or the moon which later we then have the Horned Gods of which Osiris is one. The later mythologies (although they are the earliest written mythologies we have often deal with this change in roles). The Goddess in the agrarian societies being the older associated with the cycle of life and death. The role being reversed in the herding societies and than city oriented ones. The theory being also that women had a more important role originally.
Which leads me to my second thought which was much more mundane relating more to Buffy's portrayal as a superpowered young woman who is consistantly physically stronger than the men around her. We often have the mythological parts assumed by the opposite sex in this 'verse. Here again we have the roles being flipped as the beautiful girl takes back the night and assumes the more powerful position.
[> [> Re: Conceptual issues -- mostholy, 13:22:39 06/10/02 Mon
I had mentioned this after villians.
I'm pretty sure the writers wrote Warren's death scene to be a bondage and rape scene. Willow is essentially raping him with the bullet that he shot Buffy with. Even the dialog used in the scene mimicks that of the Spike/Buffy bathroom scene.
I don't have the exact quotes from both scenes, but it goes something like this:
Spike: "I know that you felt it when I was in you. (rips buffy's robe) I'm going to make you FEEL IT."
Willow: "No, I don't think you know how it feels to be shot. I think you need to....(dramatic pause) FEEL IT (forces bullet into warren)."
I don't think it's a coincidence that the writers wrote the scene that way and it was clearly their intentions to portray the Warren scene as a rape scene.
[> [> [> Re: Conceptual issues - rape literal vs. metaphorical? Additional metaphors(Spoilers to Grave) -- shadowkat, 18:43:44 06/10/02 Mon
"I'm pretty sure the writers wrote Warren's death scene to be a bondage and rape scene. Willow is essentially raping him with the bullet that he shot Buffy with. Even the dialog used in the scene mimicks that of the Spike/Buffy bathroom scene. "
I agree. I think they meant to do the same thing with the molestation scene in Wrecked with Willow and Rack and
the molestation scene/attack in Two to Go with Willow and Rack.
It's set up by Clem who warns Dawn that Rack likes payment and he particularly likes little girls. (pedophile comes to mind.)
Then when we see Willow show up, Rack comes onto her, says she's now "ripe" and he can't wait to taste her - and she says in a sharp, voice - "first I'm going to take a little tour" - the same words he said to her in Wrecked. "first I have to take a little tour" - putting his hand on her breast.
I think the confusion arises from distinquishing between the legal literal interpretation of "rape" (Sophist's arguement and initial post) opposed to the metaphorical use of the word (Caroline, mostholy, dream of consortium, and redcat's posts). It can be used both ways and has been in both literature and in non-fiction. Rape generally means a volition not necessarily a "sexual one" (although that obviously is the one we are most aware of and the most affected by in our society - unfortunately),
although I believe sexual connotations are implied in
both the Rack scenes as well as the Warren scene. Yet literal in SR. This is risky on the part of the writers - to mix literal meaning of sexual rape with a metaphorical one. But I believe both are intended and valid.
Redcat is right when she states Control is an issue here.
Who has it. Who wants it. And Who is trying to take it by force. If you take something from someone's body by force or rip them of mental or emotional control that is a type of rape, whether it be a "sexual assualt" or a mental or a emotional one. Thus Willow's taking of Giles power - violently could be described as a type of "rape". This should not be confused with the chip - which is castration, preventing someone from acting. Spike was put on a leash - his ability was not ripped from him. His control over his ability to attack others was limited
but not removed. He was as he puts it - castrated or neutured.(A metaphor that is furthered by the fact that he only has sex with Buffy after it is discovered he can hurt her. Whether this is a coincidence in timing or the fact that the chip no longer activates around her, isn't really clear. But it is interesting that she asks Tara in Dead Things - specifically if nothing is wrong with her - why can Spike hurt her?Implying rough sex? Also she does tend to equate the words impotence with his ability to bite people - which leads me to believe that the writers are still using the bite metaphor sexually.) Same with the smashing of Warrens orbs - power limited but not removed. A different metaphor - just as violent and disturbing but also very different. The similarity between the two? Is again I think control. Buffy takes control from Warren when she smashes his orbs - emasculating him. So he takes the phallic symbol of the gun (used as a phallic symbol in lots of movies and literature...) to shoot her and does shoot two women near the heart - taking back his control. He even tells her before he shoots her that she can't do this to him without paying.
Now this is interesting - each rape metaphor deal with a rip near the heart:
1. Willow places the forget flower near Tara's heart in ATW
and Tara is wearing it there in OMWF.
2. Rack touches Willow's heart in Wrecked
3. Willow touches and drains Rack's power from his heart in
Two to Go
4. Willow drains Giles' power from his heart in Grave
5. Willow rapes Warren with bullet near his heart in Villains
6. Buffy and Tara are shot near the heart
7. Willow pulls the bullet she tortures Warren with from Buffy's heart.
8. Spike tears Buffy's bathrobe near her heart
9. Spike gets his soul by the Demon placing his hand over his heart. (not rape - sort of inverse of it - his soul was ripped from his heart now its implanted in it?) But Dru seduces William by having him place his hand over her heart, before biting him.
So what's with the heart placement? Is this part of the rape metaphor as well?
Sorry a bit rambling...hope above made sense.
[> [> [> [> Re: Heart issues -- Brian, 07:41:55 06/11/02 Tue
Don't forget that demon Buffy slew in her basment by ripping his heart out.
[> Maybe, it's more a violation theme? -- Ixchel, 18:05:03 06/10/02 Mon
Starting with Xander and Anya's protests about Willow's mind-speech (Anya: "It's kind of intrusive.") and ending with Willow's attempt to destroy the world?
I've thought about a post delineating all the violations of this season (or at least the ones I perceived) and some explanation for each, but my ideas are still vague.
Ixchel
[> [> thanks everyone for your answers -- Etrangere, 01:39:35 06/11/02 Tue
Ethnic origins: David Boreanaz -- Yellowork, 11:38:58 06/08/02 Sat
After the recent discussions of the ethnic origins of Sarah Michelle Gellar, Michelle Trachtenburg and Juliet Landau, I would like to know if anyone knows if Boreanaz is a real or assumed name and whether David is of Hispanic American or continental Spanish descent. I presume Alyson Hannigan is of Irish descent, judging by her name and her appearance: 'fraid I have never really taken the 'Jewish' thing seriously. The bright auburn hair color just makes this too obvious! How common is red hair in Jewish families? I suppose it must exist, as you even see the occasional redhead in North Africa and the Middle East.
[> Re: Ethnic origins: David Boreanaz -- Tracey, 13:30:02 06/08/02 Sat
I've read that Boreanaz is his real name and his parents are Italian and Czech(?). Also read Dad changed name to David Roberts-weatherman in Philly.
[> Re: Ethnic origins: David Boreanaz -- Ronia, 14:08:21 06/08/02 Sat
I think David Boreanaz is Italian and Czech.
[> Red Hair? -- LeeAnn, 15:31:11 06/08/02 Sat
I presume Alyson Hannigan is of Irish descent, judging by her name and her appearance
I think she is even though her hair is not really red. They have slowly colored over the years. In Season 1 it was dark brown.
How common is red hair in Jewish families?
A Jewish friend told me that red hair was not uncommon amoung eastern European Jews. She felt the red hair of Hadass (Amy Irving) in Yentl was very accurate even if it did not fit the generally held stereotype.
[> [> Re: Red Hair? -- j.nina, 16:55:39 06/08/02 Sat
Red and strawberry blond hair was/is pretty common in my Jewish/Eastern European family.
[> [> [> Re: Red Hair? -- leslie, 21:37:20 06/08/02 Sat
This is a constant point of contention between me and my red-headed best friend--both of us Jewish. She insists that red-headedness is very rare in Jews and therefore she is terribly, terribly special, and I point to the numerous red-heads in my family and say "not so much." I don't know if this is related to the fact that my family is Polish and Russian Jewish and hers is German German German all the way. (Of course, on the other side, my Austrian--and Catholic--grandmother was also a red-head.)
[> [> [> [> Re: Red Hair? -- anom, 22:28:11 06/08/02 Sat
Red hair is not that uncommon among Jews. Just how common it is would be hard to say, but it's not a rarity. Esau & King David are both described in Hebrew as "admoni," which can be translated as either red-haired or ruddy. Yes, of course Esau wasn't a Jew, or even an Israelite, but he was certainly closely related! Red hair is known among other Semitic peoples; a Palestinian woman once told me about her cousin (I think) who had red hair & freckles.
[> [> [> [> Re: Red Hair? -- auroramama, 10:09:40 06/10/02 Mon
On the other hand, if she's your best friend, you should probably agree that she's terribly, terribly special, even if her hair isn't.
Is the rest of her family dark-haired? There's something about a recessive trait popping out that causes older relatives to remember people long gone, as in "My father's mother had blue eyes..." This can give a child a sense of specialness. My husband and I are both blue-eyed anomalies in Jewish families with brown or hazel eyes; our twins (7 months now!) are a blue-eyed girl and a boy whose eyes are still changing -- they may end up gray, or green, or hazel.
Remember also that red hair is associated with witchcraft, especially when accompanied by green eyes. (See Diana Wynne Jones, =The Tough Guide to Fantasyland=, for more on eye color as character label.) In Willow's case I think not only of witchcraft but of her role as (Vital) Spirit, Fire, the flame of the soul.
Auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Red Hair? -- leslie, 11:05:16 06/10/02 Mon
Well, this is the thing--her father is a red-head, too. (But of course she's very very special. Just sometimes a little *too* special....like so special, I have to do all the driving....)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Red Hair? -- auroramama, 11:06:30 06/10/02 Mon
Hee! Okay, I know the type. You're on your own...
[> [> Re: Red Hair? -- shygirl, 18:38:26 06/08/02 Sat
i believe the red hair is of celtic and pict origns which may have evolved into the teutonic and slavic cultures... there is another group I can not remember the name of but it essentially covered all of northern Europe at one time...
[> [> [> Re: Red Hair? -- Yellowork, 16:57:09 06/10/02 Mon
Thanks for all the responses. I've been looking at other sites and it seems that everywhere with Causasoid peoples has a minority of redheads. The biggest minority is in Scotland, where they form one in ten, but they are no more or less 'Celtic' than Scots with brown, blond or black hair. It seems all Caucasoid sub-races show some sort of diversity, although Latin and Semite countries obviously have a lot less blonds and redheads in relation to dark individuals. BTW, do you think Willow is supposed to dye her hair? It seems oddly out of character; no judgment of people who dye their hair, but somehow the redness has sort of been worked into her character, what with the occult links and so on. Of course, this does involve our distrusting the evidence of our own eyes in the first season. I think Buffy is supposed to color her hair, as she always looks more 'done' than Willow in other respects, although I feel that in the Buffyverse, Buffy is a dark blond / light brunette rather than a raven-haired sort like Sarah Michelle Gellar.
BTW my friends in the UK have an irrational prejudice against the red-haired. Conversely, my African-American class-mate informs me that naturally occuring red hair is quite saught-after in the Black community. Throwback to the Arawak Indians or something ...
Is Carpenter Out Of Angel? (and who else is having site problems?) -- LeeAnn, 07:12:49 06/09/02 Sun
Is Carpenter Out Of Angel?
Charisma Carpenter, who plays Cordelia in The WB's vampire series Angel, may or may not return next season, according to columnist Watch with Wanda on E! Online. Carpenter disappeared from the series for a month last season, and her character ascended onto another plane of existence in the season finale.
"Last week, a WB source (whose scoops have always been dead-on) told me it had not been decided yet whether Charisma Carpenter would return to Angel, as she has been struggling with a personal problem that affected production this season," Wanda reported. "Charisma was allegedly told to take a month off to take care of it, and if she didn't, she'd be out."
But Carpenter's agent denied a personal problem, telling Wanda that "Charisma is coming back next season. We received her pickup orders today. Maybe they're confusing her with [Witchblade star] Yancy Butler." Butler took a month off in the middle of production on the TNT show's upcoming second season to deal with alcohol addiction, but will reportedly return to work next week.
*******************
I've been having trouble connecting to voy sites all morning - usually followed by a browser crash. When I try to connect to other sites, no problem, no crash. Anyone else having trouble?
[> Re: Is Carpenter Out Of Angel? (and who else is having site problems?) -- wiscoboy, 11:07:27 06/09/02 Sun
The only thing I've heard is that Charisma is off to make a steamy(STEAMY) movie, with more than just a little skin showing(about time).
[> Site Problems: This is the 1st time I've been able to open the discussion board in about 24 hrs. -- SpikeMom, 22:25:20 06/09/02 Sun
[> Let's keep spoilers (even rumors) out of subject lines. -- Maroon Lagoon, 22:48:00 06/09/02 Sun
If I can make a tiny request on behalf of the spoiler-allergic, a more appropriate subject line would be something like "Rumor regarding S4 cast (possible spoilers)."
I don't care if this is even true or not; I don't want to find out about Cordy until fall.
Thanks!
[> Repost: Tim Minear posts on Angel Spoiler Board (Spoilers for next season re cast only) -- d'Herblay, 23:41:29 06/09/02 Sun
What Rahael posted at 10:53:03 06/04/02 Tue:Re Wanda's comments that Cordelia may not be back and 'unfortunate circumstances', Tim Minear said:
"Okay, kids. Calm down, just calm down. I, for one, haven't the slightest idea where Wanda is getting her information. I don't know if she has some "source" that's feeding her this stuff, I don't know if CC is working out her deal with Fox, don't know if there's an Act Of God in play or what -- just don't know. Having until very recently been an executive producer on tv's "Angel," (and currently a consulting producer, and being very involved with the story breaking for season 4), what I can tell you is that we've been breaking stories for season 4 with Cordelia *in* them. That's what I know. Breaking. Stories. With. Cordelia. In. Them. That is not some "code," by the way -- so please don't try reading anymore into it than it says.
And each time I've been in the room with Joss and the writing staff -- Wanda hasn't been there. That's what *I* know.
So I wouldn't panic at the moment."
The link is here.
http://www.voy.com/14810/73706.html
I for one am reassured.
Not that writers don't lie.
How did I get to be an Archivist?
[> [> re: Tim Minear post........ -- Rufus, 01:30:43 06/10/02 Mon
I got the Minear news up withing minutes of him posting, proving that neither of us sleep very much...there was a bit more than that one quote you have.....
Minear quote
Why I'm surprised is that anyone would take seriously much of what has been going on other to just guess as to the return of Cordy next season.
Also, AngelX, who has the most reliable spoilers out there and hosts An Angel's Soul board has declared the Cordy issue dead. All indications are that she is coming back and there has been no official word that CC wouldn't be back for season four. Wanda has made mention of Charisma Carpenter but I don't hold much faith in her accuracy of information.
[> [> [> Re: re: Tim Minear post........Oh yes, spoilery for cast news -- Rufus, 01:46:25 06/10/02 Mon
[> [> [> Speculation/Spoilery -- LeeAnn, 04:05:59 06/10/02 Mon
Except...CC was off for a month and they never gave an adequate explanation why which makes the story more credible. And it was kind of dirty for her agent to defend her by attacking another actress and revealing her problems.
[> [> [> [> Wasn't revealed by CC's agent ... -- Earl Allison, 05:17:59 06/10/02 Mon
Actually, the Yancy Butler item is old news -- released originally, IIRC, by the NETWORK she (Yancy) works for. Maybe CC's agent shouldn't have made the comment, but it wasn't breaking news.
As for "never gave an adequate explanation," why in hell should they?
Is CC not entitled to privacy? And if not, what would have been "adequate?" Celebrities aren't morally obligated to answer every charge, accusation, and comment any more than any of the rest of us are ...
Take it and run.
[> Re: Is Carpenter Out Of Angel? (and who else is having site problems?) -- Ronia, 07:03:47 06/10/02 Mon
I couldn't get on here yesterday either
[> Couldn't get on this board yesterday, or any others. -- Dariel, 07:07:08 06/10/02 Mon
Dont' know if those were voy forums or not, though.
[> Re: Is Carpenter Out Of Angel? (and who else is having site problems?) -- yabyumpan, 07:14:40 06/10/02 Mon
Just read fan feedback at Stranger Things board from the Eclipse convention in London. She was asked if she was going to be back in season 4 and she said YES. More feedback on
http://server11.alwayswebhosting.com/~stranger/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=7
Current board
| More June 2002