March 2002 posts
That infamous Scene...Lasting impressions in NA
(spoilers) -- curious, 18:30:05 03/17/02 Sun
Hey all. It,s been a really long time since I last participated
in any serious posting. Not since last year,s finale, but after
last week,s ep., I just had to find the time to lurk again. I,ve
seen some seriously interesting post and some are just plain brilliant.
Thank you all for such interesting read.
Anyway, I saw a lot of posts concerning the last scene which is
fast turning out to be "that infamous shot in the Buffyverse.
So just to pitch in my .02 cents worth, as if we don,t have enough
to consider already, here goes.
Bear in mind that I,m attempting to analyze this scene from the
point of "film language, which in itself leaves a lot room
for interpretation, as well subjective interpretation.
Where to start.
In visual story telling, the luxury of the written narrative isn,t
readily available, and the best the visual story teller can do
is to guide, the viewer through it using the camera, the angles,
the form, the lighting, ect., ect. Most of this is unconsciously
perceived by the viewer, though any viewer who watches a lot of
TV and film are already quite well versed in film language. For
some are more conscious of it that others. (Like our resident
film expert, OnM : 0) )
After Buffy does her He-Man thing and refuses to rest until she
has the anecdote we cut to the Asylumverse. We cut to a CU (close-up).
CU,s are frequently used by directors and editors to establish
intimacy with the subject, and at first, I thought it was a point
of view CU. Buffy,s POV as her last perception in that reality
before she fades into her catatonia. But then I realized it couldn,t
be, because the screen direction is all wrong when we reverse
the POV. Buffy was ALREADY catatonic at this time, so I,m forced
to return to seeing it as storybook narrative. The CU of the doctor,
then Buffy and back to the doctor along with the dialogue guides
the viewer to disconnect from asylum Buffy. The verdict is that
she is gone; she retreated so far into herself that the asylumverse
no longer exists for her. She has chosen to live this side of
Sunnydale. So resolution #1. The choice is made.
But ME,s resolution #2 is so deliberately ambiguous that my first
instincts (well, first after a lengthy pause where my synapses
simply stopped firing all together), was to call it a stunt to
provide climatic shock value, a "cheap shot. I was indignant.
"Are you trying to tell me Buffy & Co. aren,t real. "?
Damn you all to hell, ME, I,m thinking. Off course, that,s probably
what they want me to think and feel. So I contained those irrational
feelings and watched the scene again to get a clue. It,s the Pavlov
effect we BtVS viewers have been conditioned to.
The last shot is a CU of Buffy. The camera starts to move out
and we see the grieving parents of a tragic event, leaving us
all with the impression that this tragedy is the real deal. For
some viewers, it may have left the impression of her consciousness
leaving her as she floats away. (But this doesn,t fit either,
as Buffy,s world is inward and not outward bound.) I strongly
suspect that this shot comprised of 2 or 3 steadycam zoom shots
edited together and played in reverse for its final edit as it
is physically impossible to move the camera through a wall. (I
could be completely wrong too, since there are many ways to skin
a cat.
I wondered why if ME merely wanted to create a shocking ending
to this ep, bothered to move the camera at all. Why not just use
a simply LS (long shot) to establish the reality of the asylumverse.
The LS is frequently used to establish the subjects with their
environments and its intended to be an objective POV. This would
be way more cost and time effective and gets the job done very
effectively. Why go to the trouble of a more complex dynamic shot.
Why am I making a big deal of a moving shot? 2 reasons. Good filmmakers
usually make use of moving camera shots deliberately and with
motivation. Secondly, moving shots introduces new information
and draws attention to itself. When coupled with the fact that
this moving shot also happens to the final frame, it becomes highly
significant. The final shot of a film is the most important shot
of the entire movie. It is powerful in that it can put an entirely
new spin on a film or provide clarity to the message of the show.
And didn,t ME do both here? It is entirely possible that it,s
just me, but I feel there is a subtle message here that supports
the message of this season. What subtlety? What information?
As the camera moves out, it doesn,t just zoom out to that final
frame. I wondered why not? It moves, changes course and direction
and more importantly, it CONTINUES to move WITHOUT a final static
image. My feeling is that the camera move is itself a metaphor
for the changing psychological course for Buffy, especially as
it finally rests outside of the room where all the action has
just taken place. The "hullucination confined. Furthermore,
it rests of a point of light near center of the field of vision.
I,m inclined to believe that light is associated with Buffy, representing
the "light at the end of her tunnel. I mean, if the light
wasn,t significant, why bother to have turned on for the scene.
Its was definitely off the last time we saw it.
Isn,t it interesting that the candescent lamp is essentially pointed
in the direction of Buffy? If you notice the use of lighting,
the first window and the lamp cast in Buffy,s corner separates
her from the harsher blue light cast on the Doctor, Joyce and
Hank. The proximal window to the viewer is lit with a blue light,
the proximal window to Buffy is a simulation of sunlight. Why?
No way do you expect to find a parallel light source with such
qualities in the real, world. Cross lighting is often deliberately
used to generate a sense of surrealism, and it was abundantly
use in the Asylumverse. Is the Asylum then, "the hallucination?
Rather than an alternate reality, and we should just move on as
the camera suggests? Back to the true course this side of Sunnydale
where Buffy may finally be in touch with her center, her light?
Will she now be able to redirect her life in a positive direction?
Isn,t this the message of the show this season where Buffy is
concerned. This is my redirected "Last Impression.
Off course, I could be just insane and talking rubbish or just
seeing things where there are just plain continuity errors. Perhaps
I,ve just had to many "Don,t use fancy moves and techniques
gratuitously and without motivation unless you want to work for
MTV lectures. I completely acknowledge the possibility that I,m
reading way too much into this.
Anyway, I,ve waffled a lot and provided no illuminating answers
to support either interpretation, but hopefully, I may have provided
some tidbits of information about "film language. And I hope
I have not unintentionally insulted anyone,s intelligence.
I just have to add though, that I find the possibility of Asylum
Buffy to be a fascinating idea, not as an end, but as a beginning
to another tale.
[> Re: That infamous Scene...Lasting
impressions in NA (spoilers) -- Traveler, 19:36:02 03/17/02
Sun
"I just have to add though, that I find the possibility of
Asylum Buffy to be a fascinating idea, not as an end, but as a
beginning to another tale."
You mean the tale of Buffy's life in Sunnydale?
[> Great post. I know nothing
of these technical details, and this helps a lot. -- Sophist,
19:55:08 03/17/02 Sun
Growing
up and growing apart- -thoughts on the core Scoobies in S6, so
far. (Spoilers through NA) -- Dyna, 18:35:04 03/17/02 Sun
What with five weeks of reruns ahead and all, I've been sharing
in the general "what's up with S6 so far" contemplation,
and I've had a few ideas about how the season's theme of "growing
up" is being played out in the plots involving the core Scoobies.
Since if I wait for myself to come up with a better topic sentence
than that, I'll never get this out, I'll just dive right in:
First, the "growing up" part: Part of the process of
growing up is figuring out where we belong, taking our place in
the adult world that awaits us. Sometimes, in the course of that,
we lose our connection with our childhood friends--this is inevitable,
and an experience most of us have had.
In the case of the core Scoobies there's a fundamental complication
in this process: Buffy's "world"-- her nature, her fate,
her destiny--isn't the same as Willow and Xander's. As much as
they love and help her, they are not supernatural; they're ordinary
humans who by chance have been given the opportunity to play a
role in a world that's not theirs. If the process of growing up
means moving more definitely into your adult world, it would seem
that what awaits the Scoobies in the future is a widening of the
very real gulf between Buffy's fate and that of her friends. Buffy
will move more fully into her Slayer world, and Willow and Xander
into their human ones.
It seems to me that part of what we're seeing this season is Willow,
Xander, and Buffy's reactions to this inevitability. Someone last
week posted a script snippet from "Doomed," in which
Spike tells Willow and Xander that they're "still the 10th
grade geeks they always were" and that they slow Buffy down
because she's always having to save them. The "rift"
between the Scoobies was a big conflict in S4 that a lot of people
complained was resolved too easily, with the gang joining up their
various strengths to defeat Adam at the end. I would argue, though,
that the conflict wasn't actually resolved then, and now we're
seeing more of its fruition.
(It's notable that "Primeval" didn't end with the defeat
of Adam. The gang had their moment of union that affirmed how
important each member's strengths were to the "team,"
Adam was defeated, and then--Spike reappears. Spike, who *is*
of Buffy's world, whose main contribution to the S4 was to give
voice to and aggravate the real divisions among the Scoobies--and
he's been with them ever since. Note too, that the first episode
of the next season brought Dawn, another supernatural character,
made out of Buffy, and as such, closer to her than Willow could
ever be. Are Spike and Dawn supernatural foils for Xander and
Willow? Two characters closer to Buffy--in kind, if not always
in affection--than her human friends can be? I think the timing
of Spike and Dawn's ascendance, following a season that promised
so much conflict between the Scoobies, but seemed to sweep it
under the rug at the last minute, wasn't accidental, but another
step in what's turned out to be a multi-season arc about the core
Scoobies becoming divided from each other. At least, that's my
theory!)
Anyway, this season, we've had two really dramatic plot turns
with Willow and Xander: First, Willow's abuse of magic. Willow
got into magic as a way of helping Buffy, and was fueled to go
deeper and deeper into it by the sense of worth and importance
it gave her--as she says to Buffy in "Wrecked," "If
you could be plain old Willow, or Super Willow, which one would
you be?" But, she adds, "I guess you don't have an option
on the whole 'super' thing." What becomes clear in Willow's
arc this season is that she still sees herself as the "10th
grade geek" Spike called her in S4--she even tells Tara she
was a "total spaz" when she was 15, perhaps not coincidentally
the year she met Buffy. Willow's remark that Buffy doesn't have
an option on the "super" thing expressly connects Willow's
desire to become "super" through magic with the fact
that Buffy is already "super"--Buffy doesn't have a
choice, because it's her fate, her life. Willow seems to believe
that it's her ability to participate in Buffy's fate, her role
in Buffy's "mission," that gives her worth as a person.
The prospect of losing that--whether by losing her magical abilities,
losing Buffy herself, or losing her connection to Buffy as they
grow up and apart--is terrifying to her.
On to Xander: As we saw in Xander's visions, he too carries deep
insecurity about what he would be without Buffy. In his imaginary
future world without Buffy, Xander is no longer a "man"--he's
his father. He's unable to work, abusive to his wife, possibly
impotent, definitely sexually inert, cuckolded (by Clem?), hated
by his children, maybe an alcoholic. Xander, like Willow, seems
to have hung his self-esteem almost entirely on being valuable
to Buffy, and he clearly fears that when that's gone, there will
nothing worthwhile left in him. It also seems significant that
Xander backed out of marrying Anya. If growing up often means
becoming divided from our childhood friends, it makes sense that
Xander would have cold feet about this, the most obvious rite
of passage into adulthood. I don't think it's necessary to think
Xander is carrying a torch for Buffy. It's probably enough to
say that he realizes that marriage to Anya will mean putting her
needs ahead of Buffy's mission, and it scares the hell out of
him. It's a catch-22 for Xander: The thing that makes him feel
like enough of a man to believe he can get married (his ability
to help Buffy) is the same thing he stands to lose if he goes
through with it. No wonder he backs out!
Both Xander and Willow need to grow up and realize that they have
value beyond just helping Buffy. It doesn't seem like either of
their storylines have reached anything like a conclusion--Willow's
abstention from magic hasn't gone very far toward addressing the
underlying issue of her discomfort with her own "normality."
Willow still wants to be "Super Willow," just like Xander
still needs to believe he's Buffy's only "go-to guy"--a
need that comes bursting out in his incessant, almost hysterical
blathering about Spike. I think that Xander recognizes there's
a strong connection between Buffy and Spike, and even though he
may be in denial about its nature, he's way too obsessed with
the possibility that it's sexual for me to believe he doesn't
get it, at least on some level. Spike is a threat to Xander because
he's a part of Buffy's world in a way that an ordinary human man
can't be. Even if they wind up enemies, Spike will always have
a connection to Buffy, a means to understand her that Xander doesn't
share.
It's not just Willow and Xander that seem to be having a growing
up/growing apart freakout--Buffy's getting it too. I would argue
that this season, between her resurrection and her inexplicable
(to her) relationship with Spike, Buffy's already several giant
steps past the fork in the road where her world diverges from
that of her friends. But Buffy's having just as hard a time accepting
this as Xander and Willow are--after all, we're talking about
a character who has invested huge amounts of energy in longing
for, creating, and holding onto the appearance of a "normal
(read conventional) life." Buffy's friendship with Xander
and Willow has always represented a tie to normality for Buffy,
just as Buffy has represented a tie to some higher purpose for
her friends. Also, we've had many reminders that Buffy is unusual
for a Slayer in having these "ties to the world," and
that these have kept her alive and been a source of strength for
her. The possibility that growing up will mean increased distance
between herself and her friends must also frighten Buffy, and
probably has a lot to do with her seemingly overblown fear of
them finding out about Spike. If Buffy lets her friends see how
"different" she is from them, she fears it will mean
the end of the friendship, and with it, the support that has kept
her (mostly) alive and functioning up to now.
At the same time, on some level I think Buffy is aware of how
important being important to her is to her friends. Over and over
again, she's been called upon to reassure them that she needs
them, that they're vital to her mission, that they "always
come through." The problem with this, though, is that they
don't always come through--sometimes they *are* liabilities. Willow
and Xander's willingness and *need* to be part of Buffy's world
has led them at times to put themselves, Buffy, and others in
danger--and Buffy always forgives them, with almost no discussion,
as if she takes the responsibility on herself for their mistakes.
Even just this season, we've seen Buffy forgive Willow for attempting
to erase her memories of heaven--a violation of her mind that
Tara took seriously enough to break off their relationship; she's
forgiven Xander for summoning a demon who would have made her
dance herself to death were it not for Spike's intervention; she's
let the entire Scooby gang off the hook for resurrecting her,
venting her emotions only to Spike, while maintaining the fiction
to the others that she was "in hell" until forced by
Xander's demon to admit otherwise. When Willow crashed the car
and injured Dawn, Buffy even took responsibility for that--"You
were drowning," she tells Willow, even though Buffy herself
had been suffering unnoticed by her friends for weeks by that
time.
In "Normal Again," we have a crisis point for Buffy.
Since her calling, she's been holding on to a wish to be "normal
again"--to be free of the responsibilities and obligations
and plain abnormality of her existence as the Slayer. It's interesting
that it's not only the vampires and demons that are gone from
her Asylumverse delusion; it's also her friends. In Buffy's hallucination,
her parents refer to her as "our little girl," talk
about taking her home to take care of her. She's free of responsibilities,
removed from the role of caregiver, no longer obliged to take
care of Dawn *or* to support her friends. She's reduced to a childlike
state again. The Asylumverse, where Buffy is schizophrenic, ought
to be a vision of hell for her, but it's actually compelling.
By erasing six years of history, the Asylumverse frees Buffy from
her anxiety about growing up and away from her friends by removing
not only the friends but the need to grow up. Also absent are
the characters who most represent what Buffy fears about growing
up--Dawn, who represents Buffy's responsibilities, and Spike,
who represents her fears about who and what she is, what kind
of world she's really destined to inhabit.
When Buffy chooses to return to the Buffyverse, it seems to be
a sign that she's chosen, that she's ready to give up the wish
to be "normal" that's been holding her back from living
her life. It's important to note, though, that simply returning
to the Buffyverse isn't the same as finding and accepting her
adult self. Buffy's made a move in the direction of letting go
of unhealthy regrets and trying to live her life as it is, but
it's still a life in transition, and her story feels just as unresolved
as Willow and Xander's do at this point.
It seems to me there's a lot of denial and fear going on among
the core Scoobies, as these three friends find themselves facing
approaching adulthood unsure of what they are without each other.
At the same time, they seem to be either unaware of or unable
to articulate these fears--a situation that's bound to increase,
rather than decrease, the likelihood that their worst fears will
be realized, and they'll wind up separated and estranged. I don't
know how or even if this conflict will be resolved this season--it
hardly seems like something that can be wrapped up in a few episodes,
so my money is on it continuing into S7.
Phew!
[> Wow. Great analysis!
-- Dariel, 19:12:28 03/17/02 Sun
[> First rate, Dyna. Nice
work! :-) -- OnM, 19:31:50 03/17/02 Sun
[> Nicely put. -- Traveler,
19:45:37 03/17/02 Sun
[> Great job Dyna! --
Sophist, 19:49:53 03/17/02 Sun
One point I would add to reinforce your comments about Xander.
Riley went through the very same process you describe about Xander
-- let's hope Xander finds a better way to deal with Buffy's connection
to the dark side.
I need more time to process the rest of your comments. The trouble
is, we've had so many great posts over the last week, I feel like
I'm running at 366 megaherz in a 1.6 gig world.
[> I second that "WOW".
-- curious, 20:25:16 03/17/02 Sun
--"and Buffy always forgives them, with almost no discussion,
as if she takes the responsibility on herself for their mistakes.
Even just this season, we've seen Buffy forgive Willow for attempting
to erase her memories of heaven"---
And she automatically takes the blame for Willow's "addiction"
too. Is Buffy a messianic figure that takes upon herself the 'sins
of the world'? I've always thought her speech to the Scoobies
at the end of Afterlife the most selfless, compassionate thing
I've seen the entire series.
Really great read, thanks.
[> Great Work Dyna!
-- LeeAnn, 04:55:03 03/18/02 Mon
[> The core of a scooby
-- manwitch, 06:07:50 03/18/02 Mon
Fantastic.
One of the things Buffy and the scoobs have always done is find
a way to forge a new existence, a new "normalcy." They
do not feel themselves a failure if they need to make new "conventions."
While I agree that Willow and Xander see/feel the tension between
their normal human lives and the life of helping Buffy, I think
its (uh-oh, school flashback) a false dichotomy.
I think Buffy does have a choice. Maybe not in whether she was
the slayer, but definitely in how she was the slayer. We have
seen her decline slayerhood a number of times because of the terms
on which it was based. And she only takes up the mantle again
when she is comfortable with the "interpretation," one
might say, of her slayerness. What I find significant about that
is that Buffy is not really so different from Willow and Xander.
She must decide who she will be, what she will do. And she chooses
love of her friends over being The Slayer. She makes being a slayer
accommodate the fact that she cares deeply for these people. She
doesn't care about them because she has superpowers. Or one might
argue that they are her superpowers. So I don't think Willow and
Xander need superpowers either. They don't help buffy through
super strength (sometimes they do, but I don't think that's the
point). They help her through love. They help her through choosing
to be part of Buffy's life and Buffy's fight, regardless of whether
or not they have superpowers, just as Spike does regardless of
the fact that he's evil.
My guess would be that the conflict you describe will need to
be resolved by the forging of a new space, in which you can have
Anya, and be a normal geek, and fight with Buffy.
Cuz Buffy's fight isn't about punching someone in the face, its
about doing the right thing. The kind thing. Xander and Willow
are intrinsically kind. They should be able to find a way.
It makes me wonder though, what would happen to Spike, how would
he react, if Xander and Willow embraced him? If he found not just
a lover in Buffy, but a whole family? How would he respond?
[> [> Great posts Dyna
and manwitch -- Caroline, 07:40:12 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> Re: X / W / S
-- Darby, 10:05:54 03/18/02 Mon
Just a general question: if an acquaintance of yours had put you
through the events of Lover's Walk or the attempted events
of The Initiative, how quick would you be to forgive them
and be all warm and cuddly? I might be able to push it to the
back of my mind if I was working with the person a lot (between
The Gift and Bargaining), but the less I saw of
someone, the more the dramatic negative interactions I had had
with them would color my reaction to seeing them. I'm more of
a grudge-holder, like Xander; I can see Willow being a bit more
magnanimous, but I totally understand Xander's attitude toward
Spike without interjecting a lot of jealousy or the repression
of current observations (those certainly could be part of the
mix, though). I might be inclined to blame / link my friend's
lingering darkness to his dark influence on her, though...fairly
or not.
I'm just sayin'...
[> [> [> Re: X / W
/ S -- manwitch, 10:17:25 03/18/02 Mon
I would be all warm and cuddly with Willow in a heart beat.
Oh, you mean what Spike did in Lovers Walk. Yeah,
I agree with you.
I just wonder. Xander is passionate, but he can do the right thing
when its required. I love his little speech to Angel in Prophecy
Girl. That to me is Xander. It reaches a point for him, where
it isn't about his feelings about Angel, its about trusting someone
else's feelings. Xander loves Buffy, and if Buffy loves Spike,
maybe Xander can find a way.
But my question is, what would Spike do? I think being loved by
Buffy would be one thing for him. But would being accepted by
Willow and Xander be too much for him? I wonder if he wouldn't
be like Faith, and find that realizing the love people have for
Buffy doesn't make him feel loved, but just isolates him all the
more.
I guess its not a very important question til it happens. You
are right. Now it seems a pretty long way off.
[> [> [> Re: X / W
/ S -- Sophist, 10:26:00 03/18/02 Mon
I might agree with this argument, except that there is evidence
aplenty that Xander has never accepted good deeds from vampires.
His attitude toward Spike today differs little from his attitude
toward Angel in S1. Kill first, ask questions later.
Sure Xander has reasons to be suspicious of Spike. He also has
reasons to be grateful to him. It's the fact that Xander ignores
the latter entirely that makes his conduct hard to justify.
Interestingly, Xander adopts a very different attitude toward
others. He forgives Anya for trying to alter their reality in
horrific ways, as well as for encouraging vampires to kill Willow.
With full humans, he is even more forgiving. In IOHEFY, he agrees
with Giles about forgiveness: "You don't forgive someone
because they deserve it. You forgive them because they need it."
I guess he used this standard for Cordelia.
[> [> [> I agree,
in principle... -- Dyna, 10:28:13 03/18/02 Mon
..that Xander has reasons from the past to be unfriendly to Spike,
but I don't actually see Xander raising those issues. His badgering
of Spike is obsessive on a few specific topics--Spike's "pathetic,"
no reasonable woman would be sexually attracted to him, his love
for Buffy is "obsessive" and not real, etc etc. When
was the last time Xander (or any Scooby actually) mentioned Spike's
past history of wrongdoing, let alone cited it as a reason they
dislike him? I'm not saying those motives can't be there, but
what the writers are surfacing this season in Xander's response
to Spike seems to be very much centered on Spike as a sexual threat,
and very little on Spike as a bad influence or malign presence
in their midst. This could change, of course--the writers are
quite capable of hiding one issue under another in order to surprise
us with our own complacency later. Maybe what they have in store
for Xander will be some kind of comeuppance where he realizes
that his obsession with keeping Spike away from Buffy sexually
caused him to misjudge some other danger. It will be interesting
to see, whatever it is. :)
[> [> [> [> Re:
I agree, in principle... -- leslie,
12:24:48 03/18/02 Mon
Except that Xander seems to see *every* male as a sexual threat.
Even though he does seem to develop a bit of hero-worship for
Riley, he was the one who first raised the question of whether
it was a good thing for Buffy to be dating Initiative-guy, and
he did it specifically in the context of Buffy's romantic/sexual
relationship with Riley. Even the episode where we see Giles singing
in the coffee bar and Willow, Tara, and Anya all commenting on
how unexpectedly sexy Giles is, Xander reacts with panic--he just
Does Not Want To Hear It--Giles sexy?! Ack! No! To go even further,
when Xander gets split in two, he sees HIMSELF as a sexual threat!
To Xander, all threats are sexual threats.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I agree, in principle... -- ponygirl, 13:43:20 03/18/02
Mon
Good points! Talk about a neurosis! Threatened by an aspect of
himself. I wish we could see more of Xander at work, here's a
person who has no male friends and is generally threatened by
the presence of other men thriving in a traditionally macho workplace.
I get the feeling that Xander compartmentalizes his life a great
deal. His comments to Buffy in Life Serial about demons aren't
supposed to come to his job, and his quick abandonment of Buffy
to another supervisor makes me think that he would not react well
to having these two worlds colliding.
It's interesting that Xander's greatest strength, his compassion,
does occasionally peer through all the hang-ups -- his conversation
with Spike in Spiral, his sympathy for Spike after the beating
in Intervention, his expression of pity to Buffy just before he
gets smacked with the frying pan in NA. In all those cases he
needs Spike to be weakened in some way -- physically wounded,
or the possibility that Spike might be crazy -- before he can
let any other emotions come out.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I agree, in principle... -- Ian, 19:35:19 03/18/02
Mon
Excellent points!
While I'm just jazzed about Willow's lesbian awakening, I must
admit I was suprised that it was she, and not Xander, that turned
out to be bisexual or gay. Hopefully I'm not simply projecting
here (I'm gay as it turns out), but Xander's near obsessive preocupation
with sex and his own discomfort with being a sexual being seems
to me a big flashing question sign. I think that the degree to
which Xander finds men a sexual threat signals deeper conflicts
than simply "that guys moving in on my turf."
While it is not at all uncommon for straight men to be uncertain
of where and how they "fit in" to the realm of sexuality
(especially if they are sensitive), Xander's attractions have
always come across as somewhat strained or forced to me. Perhaps
he is trying too hard? From personal experience and just watching
people around me, Xander is strongly reminiscient of people not
only uncomfortable with sex, but uncomfortable with their own
sexual identity. I can't build the strong cases I've seen posted
here, but there are a few things I've noticed that just force
me to raise an eyebrow.
From his obvious attraction to strong personalities (Faith, Cordellia,
Anya anyone?) who act as the aggressors and initiate sexual contact,
it seems safe to say that Xander seems most comfortable taking
a more passive role in any relationship. Being with these woman
who have such highly developed sexual identities lets Xander reciprocate
affection and prop up his own insecurities, without ever having
to initiate. Although his affection for Cordelia and unmistakable
love for Anya are genuine, his terror at even hearing about the
desirability of another man seems telling. I wonder if Xander
doesn't see the men as competition with the girls so much as a
threat to his own fragile sense of sexual identity.
I think that Xander may identify not with the men seeking out
the affections of Buffy, Cordellia, etc. but with the girls who
are being sought out. I know that came out clumsily, but Xander
rarely seems threatened by other men "moving in on his turf,"
so much as he is threatend by how attractive and strong HE perceives
them to be.
Let me know if I'm just completely off base here, but this could
be another slice of the complicated pie that is Xander.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Not at all ... -- verdantheart, 19:47:08 03/18/02
Mon
Takes me back to the little discussion we had recently about the
writers occasionally bringing out things like Larry's assuming
Xander was gay, Xander's comments about Spike in "Intervention,"
etc.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I think you're right on. -- Sophist, 20:08:02
03/18/02 Mon
Joss even said that they considered having Xander be the one to
explore his sexual identity, but decided on Willow for essentially
social reasons (viewers).
[> [> [> Xander vs.
vampires -- skeeve,
11:56:37 03/18/02 Mon
Xander took a stand and said that vampires are bad.
IIRC Buffy never told Xander nor anyone else why Angel fed on
her. Xander doesn't know that Buffy beat Angel into submission.
It's possible she no longer remembers. Xander appears not to have
noticed that Angel took Buffy the hospital, behaviour not part
of the normal vampire-victim relationship.
An interesting question is why Xander hasn't staked either Angel
or Spike.
[> [> Interesting post,
Dyna and great response, manwitch! -- Ixchel, 14:22:31
03/18/02 Mon
I agree there is a false dichotomy implied, a normal world that
Xander and Willow must inhabit and a supernatural world that Buffy
must inhabit. IMHO there is just the one world, and being both
normal and supernatural (often at the same time) is its nature.
Some of those in this world only see half of it, either through
luck (the reality has never touched them) or willful denial. That
Willow and Xander have been touched by this reality (the true
nature of their world) has fundamentally changed them (WTTH and
TH). Being Buffy's support is not all they are (and it shouldn't
be), but it is an important part of how they react to the truth
of their world. They don't get a permanent resident visa for denial-land
(as the majority of people in the Buffyverse seem inclined to
do), they ask Buffy how they can help.
I really liked manwitch's statement about how the Scoobies forge
their own normalcy. They've had to, those around them refuse to
see the entire world.
Also, IMHO, they are more than friends, they are a family. Bound
together by acceptance of the truth, profound experience and a
deep love.
In response to manwitch's question regarding Spike, I would like
to think he would respond positively (his interactions with Dawn
in general, and with Willow and Xander in Spiral, TWOTW and TG
seem to support this).
Ixchel
[> [> [> Thanks, all!:)
A few more comments, in reply to manwitch.. -- Dyna, 19:26:11
03/18/02 Mon
Manwitch said--
"One of the things Buffy and the scoobs have always done
is find a way to forge a new existence, a new "normalcy."
They do not feel themselves a failure if they need to make new
"conventions." While I agree that Willow and Xander
see/feel the tension between their normal human lives and the
life of helping Buffy, I think its (uh-oh, school flashback) a
false dichotomy."
I totally agree! I think a big part of what ails the Scoobies
right now is the result of misplaced fears-- their own insecurities,
unshared, that have fueled a sense of separation that doesn't
have to be there. This is a group of people whose dedication to
and love for each other have enabled them to integrate the unknown
and unthinkable into their world and make something new--a "normalcy"
that encompasses not only demons and vampires and Buffy's mission,
but can accomodate an imaginary sister, a sexbot-turned surrogate
Buffy, an ex-vengeance demon, a neutered vampire, wrinkly demon
party guests and a wedding full of "circus folk!" This
is especially clear in the period between Buffy's death and her
resurrection. When we first see the Summer's household at the
start of "Bargaining," we're given a firsthand view
of the way that the world of the Scoobies shapes itself to the
needs of its members--with Willow and Tara taking over as "parents,"
the Buffybot reprogrammed to impress teachers and conceal Buffy's
death, both so Dawn can remain with her sister's friends as she
wishes; we see Spike given purpose in his role as Dawn's protector,
and everyone working together to continue Buffy's work. (Not to
mention Willow tackling the incredibly complex task of reprogramming
and maintaining the Buffybot, without so much as a hint of magic.)
What seems to be wrong at the moment isn't that there really is
a binary opposition between the "normalverse" of Willow
and Xander and the "slayerverse" of Buffy--it's that
the Scoobies fear there is, or will be in the future, and are
reacting to this fear in counterproductive ways. The longer they
bottle up their fears instead of sharing them, the more likely
they are to become self-fulfilling. Willow seems to believe that
without magic, she is ordinary, boring, a geek. "Tara doesn't
even know that girl," she says, and she's not talking about
the Willow of yesteryear, the "spaz" that Tara never
met. Willow believes "that girl" is who she really is,
and that Tara wouldn't love her if she "knew." It feels
wrong to us, and sad, because we see Willow's goodness and worth,
and know what her love and friendship have meant to Buffy. Something
similar is also the case with Xander--he's the "heart"
of the group, the loyal friend, the steadying influence. But what
does his vision of the future tell him about his value to Buffy?
It's as a body, an inadequate body that's not strong enough and
gets injured and "couldn't save her anyway." Both Willow
and Xander seem to be struggling with distorted self-image, where
they each exaggerate their own "ordinariness" and underestimate
their real value to Buffy.
Buffy has similar fears, but in her case it's that she might be
the one who's too different, who can no longer live in the world
she and her friends have created. What if she's so different now,
so "wrong" that even the broadest of the broad Scoobie
minds can't accept her? (I'm reminded of Buffy's remark to Willow
and Xander during their big blowup in S4: "If I was any more
open-minded about the choices you two make, my brain would fall
out!" Yet when it comes to herself, Buffy's afraid to risk
asking the others to extend that kind of open-mindedness to her.)
Buffy's fears are one of the things that give Spike so much power
to affect her--if she wasn't already worried that she "came
back wrong," or that she may actually be a "creature
of darkness," Spike's words wouldn't carry so much weight.
It's significant that after Buffy shared these fears with Tara,
Spike's influence seemed to diminish. But Buffy is still struggling,
because she's allowed her fear of what she might be--of her "nature,"
her Slayerness--to fester, afraid of what she might learn if she
looks too closely. But, as we've learned over and over again,
in the Jossverse denial is never the right path, and I think what
we're seeing now are some of the consequences of that denial.
Thanks for your insightful comments!
[> Brain food for the dry
spell! Thanks! -- Kimberly, 06:14:58 03/18/02 Mon
[> Very nice -- thanks.
-- yez, 09:29:33 03/18/02 Mon
Versus
-- JM, 19:10:14 03/17/02 Sun
I'm posting this here in a response to a continuing argument on
the TWoP boards about the comparative characterization methods
on Angel and Buffy. The argument broke down largely over taste
lines. One faction found Buffy stagnantly soap-operatic because
issues progressed incrimentally from ep to ep. Other's found Angel
sloppily erratic in their lower level of intense character exploration.
I'm sharing here because I think you're the most intellectually
rigorous and dispassionate audience and because there aren't space
restrictions. I'm using you. Hate me if you must.
OK, just wanted to put in my one or two cents. I,m a little out
of step since I,ve decided to approach the "versus in the
thread title as comparison instead of competition. I,m sure I
won,t throw off the vibe too bad though.
I think that the shows are linked and related but slightly different
approaches to similar concepts and concerns. They share similar
worldviews but different perspectives on exploring them. For starters
they are based around different settings and basically different
age groups of characters. I posit that BtVS uses monster settings
and monster metaphors to primarily explore characters and emotions.
Exploring how humans deal with certain situations and how internal
and external factors lead to certain reactions to the events of
life. AtS seems more focused on exploring concepts, such as honor,
responsibility, and redemption and uses the characters to express
this exploration. I am not saying that the writers are manipulating
them into situations, simply that the focus is slightly adjusted.
The characters and their relationships are also distinctly different.
On the BtVS the core characters have intimately shared six formative
years together, the spheres of home, family, romance, school,
work, and vocation mixing haphazardly. Although they are not psychically
linked and keep personal secrets, I think that there is very little
in each other,s fundamental characters that they are not privy
too.
In AtS, the characters are largely out of physical adolescence.
The people they perceive themselves to be have largely been formed.
They of course continue to change, even dramatically, in adulthood,
as we all do, but not as self-awarely as one does during the physically
and culturally demarcated crossroads of adolescence. They have
know each other closely for much less time and their sphere of
interaction is mostly work, with only some overflow into their
minimal social lives. They are also each very private people,
each in their own way, and, as is common in work-place interactions,
share with each other only a face of their own choosing. Each
character has parts of themselves they hold private for their
own reasons, the survival of their own psyches, and the construction
of the person they consciously choose to be.
Although we the audience know a lot about each of the characters
on AtS there is more that we don,t know. And in some ways they
know each other even less intimately than we do. A different version
of dramatic irony? The most distinctive example was Cordelia,s
situation as it was revealed in "Birthday. The revelation
was to both the audience and to her companions. Although her reaction
to her wounds in "That Vision Thing makes it in character,
it means that all of us are now forced to reevaluate every interaction
with Cordy. For possibly the past year, every thing she has said
and done has been overshadowed by her knowledge that she has a
possibly fatal condition. Whether it was denial or her literally
religious faith in the PTB or her terror of conceiving of herself
in a position of disempowerment, she has chosen to keep this horrible
secret. A personal privacy that contrasts with the familiarity
she assumes as her right with all the other characters. She,s
not a saint (she can still be very caustic with her friends),
she,s a convert. And it,s a mostly private religion. Wonder how
much her friends know about her deal with Skip.
And even though Angel is our protagonist, we,re often reminded
that there,s two-centuries of experiences we know little about.
He,s the guy who goofs over hockey or broods about Buffy. He,s
also the guy who has the occasional sweet dream about perpetrating
atrocities and didn,t think it signified much that his beloved
son was looking tasty. Makes you wonder how much other horrible
stuff is bopping around casually in his brain any given moment.
Wesley, more than any character in the Jossverse, has severe parental
issues. We know little, his friends know even less. The most important
influence of his life is one I can,t imagine him ever explaining.
Everything he is, good and bad, has its source in that man. His
unflinching code of conduct, his loyalty, his chivalry. His ruthless
single-mindedness, his shrouded misogyny, his self-doubt, his
self-loathing.
Gunn has a central, horrible incident in his past. One whose memory
causes incapacitating grief and a complete break with all the
people from that past. One he never talks about. And his behavior
in "That Old Gang of Mine shows that his instinctive reaction
to a conflict between his past and present is to betray everyone
equally in an attempt to keep the one from invading the other.
Fred hid within herself, coping by creating a fantasy life that
completely negates the reality of her existence. A dichotomy she
expresses to no one. I think she continues to live in the world
of her own mind not out of deceptiveness but because she thinks
on a level that she can,t communicate to anyone around her. Lorne
is outgoing and inviting, but it was nearly a year before we penetrated
his veneer of cool and even learned his first name.
My convoluted point is that the differences in characterization
are not necessarily a lack of skill, but a conscious stylistic
choice. Also, it seems that there is more time implied between
Angel eps than Buffy eps. BtVS is closer to a continuous narrative,
AtS, a periodic visit to a consistent universe.
If I had to choose I would prefer AtS, mostly because AD just
blows me away. His acting is marvelously subtle. Wes is a painfully
tragic character. Full of potential, full of regrets, full of
self- loathing, full of fatal flaws. AtS is not necessarily darker,
but somehow emotionally more austere. However, BtVS has provided
me some of the most amazingly effective artistic emotions I,ve
ever experienced on television. Do I have to choose?
[> Luckily, you don't have
to choose :) -- Traveler, 20:22:32 03/17/02 Sun
This hasn't been my favorite season of Angel. I liked season two
better by far. It's not that I think the plot/characterization
is worse; I just haven't liked the execution as well. However,
I agree with you description of the differences between the shows.
Angel has always struck me as a little darker and more mature.
Wesley is also one of my favorite characters. I've discovered
that I like Angel a little evil. Silly/happy Angel just seems
wrong somehow.
I've been thinking a lot about the age difference between the
characters on the two shows, and I haven't come to any hard conclusions.
However, I might suggest that the characters on both shows are
dealing with the same issues, just from different perspectives.
Wow, thinking about it, I see a LOT of comparisons.
Buffy/Angel (single parents, with huge responsibilities)
Xander/Wesley (social misfits screwed up by their fathers)
Anya/Cordelia (somewhat superficial, but open and honest)
Willow/Fred (socially awkward, low self-esteem, prodigies)
Spike/Gunn (sensative artist hidden under bad boy exterior)
Tara/Lorne (compasionate, insightful, and supportive)
What do you think?
[> [> Re: Luckily, you
don't have to choose :) -- JM, 21:16:31 03/17/02 Sun
Can't think too much a litle blown away by your comparisons. The
best description I ever heard of AtS is as a show constantly reinventing
itself. The writers' central mission is exerting control of tone
and emotion over the audience. In this regard every season has
been rewarding. Plus I suspect that we are being shown that giddy
Angel is just not artistically wrong, but cosmically inappropriate.
His greatest personal revelations have always been gained through
moments of pain. I suspect that this season will not result in
fun times with Connor. (If it does, then more power to the writers
for bucking conventions. What, I'm easy. Haven't you figured that
out yet?)
I loved the mirror characterizations. B and A are obviously appropriate.
X and W I think was accurately expressed in one of the anniversary
posts. The only difference is the extent of the damage and the
potential for recovery. Xander I find much less deadly to those
he cares for. To me your grand slam was G and S. There's something
there. The cool badass as completely inaccurate reflection of
the delicate romantic within. Just not capable of going farther
right now. Also like T and L. The personal is equally self-contained
but no less delicately vulnerable.
I wonder if mirror characters are another expressioon of the existence
of only seven vital plots in Western literature.
[> Re: Versus -- gds,
20:26:33 03/17/02 Sun
I don't choose. In fact I have always considered them perspective
A and perspective B of the same show. I loved the fact they used
to be shown back to back, and am looking forward to the time they
will be again. It is also why I especially love the crossovers
- even the implied ones (e.g. the one this year where both shows
referred to a B/A rendezvous). I love the fact that they frequently
are in counterpoint. When one is seriously depressing, the other
is probably very comical. Together they strike a balance.
[> [> Back-to-back
-- clg0107, 12:15:58 03/18/02 Mon
I used to enjoy them back-to-back for the same reasons. I recall
how ... stunning it was to watch the AtS gang return all happy
and laughing from Pylea at the end of last season, to find Willow
at the Hyperion with the worst news ever.
Buffy's death hit me all over again, even though I'd just watched
it an hour before -- because I'd gotten sucked into the next story
and forgotten for a while.
As with so many things in Whedon-verse...nicely done!!
~clg0107
[> Re: Versus -- Apophis,
21:52:35 03/17/02 Sun
No comments, no criticisms; just want to say that this was a bloody
marvelous post. Thank you.
[> Re: Versus -- manwitch,
05:38:46 03/18/02 Mon
You've described the differences well. I'm curious as to what
you think is the significance of the difference. If you are correct,
as I suspect you are, that the differences are not the result
of lack of skill but rather stylistic choice, then what do you
think is produced by that choice? Also, is the difference applicable
to a comparison of all seasons? Or just the current ones?
ps. my only point of difference here would be that, while Angel
is a great show that is fun to watch, Buffy is an event in the
history of American Film and TV, possibly in American Lit. The
characters on Buffy are great characters. The only new
character of interest and significance that AtS has produced is
Lorne. He could have his own show. I like Gunn, but I think they
could do so much more with him than they seem willing to do. I
know that argument has been handled here on the board before and
I don't claim to bring anything new to it. I just come down on
the side that, while I like him, I wish they would breathe a little
more life into him. Fred's cute, if awefully thin. But I watch
the show to keep up with Angel and Cordy, and occasionally to
shake my head at Wesley, either because of how far he has come
or because of how far he hasn't. And I see everything they do
through the prism of Buffy. I know why Angel is in LA. I know
why Cordy knows him and fights with him. I know why Wesley is
in the States at all, and why he ended up a rogue demon hunter.
No matter what they claim to dredge up in Angel, I was witness
to the most significant events of all their lives on another show
a few years back. Its hard for me sometimes to get into Angel,
because I feel like they are all stuck in neutral. The irony is
that they are supposedly the older, more adult characters, and
yet they are just trying to get back to where they were, to make
up for what they've done, to get another chance. Whereas every
step Buffy takes is gut-wrenchingly new territory. Because Buffy
doesn't need to make up for anything, she doesn't need to be redeemed.
I don't mean this as a knock on Angel. Its a lot of fun and certainly
this season has retained the quirky charm that Buffy is perilously
close to losing, along with its audience. But as long as Angel's
mission is the same one it was when he went to Sunnydale, not
much new is gonna happen. Let him be redeemed and see what
he does with it. That would be a twist, and something new
to watch.
Anyways, I got side-tracked. Probably the result of not getting
to the board as often as I might like. What I meant was, what
do you think is the significance of the stylistic differences
you describe? Why one and why the other? Just curious.
[> [> Perhaps Two Different
Methods of A Coming of Age Parable? -- AngelVSAngelus, 11:14:04
03/18/02 Mon
The two shows both strike me as coming of age stories, but from
two different perspectives. Buffy being the originator, and having
started during the youths of its characters, concerns itself with
the growth of adolescents into adulthood, and becoming. Where
as, it seems to me that Angel concerns itself with adults becoming
something else in spite of their pasts. The lead characters of
each show embody both of these themes.
Somehow I get the feeling that my post is kind of shallow and
doesn't at all address your question.... but I tried *shrug*
[> [> [> Very good
points and not shallow at all! -- Scroll, 11:16:59 03/18/02
Mon
[> [> [> Re: Perhaps
Two Different Methods of A Coming of Age Parable? -- JM, 17:09:10
03/18/02 Mon
No, Apophis, thank you.
gds and clg, I remember those nights. I used to be completely
useless Tuesdays. I miss the crossovers (those sly writers have
done a good job with sneaking references in though) and liked
the balancing of tone. However I've lately been enjoying the fact
that there is a little time to digest one show without immediately
being swept up in the next.
AvA, that's not shallow, that's exactly how Greenwalt has described
the differences and what I took as my jumping off point. Good
eye.
manwitch, the challenge. I'm pretty deep thoughted out but I'll
take a stab. I agree that BtVS is ground breaking TV. Not just
are the characters tremendous acheivements who have grown believably
like those on no other show, but the conventions of the medium
have been tested repeatedly. I can't think of any other show pulling
off a musical, a "Hush," a "Restless," and
a "Body." Few could pull off just one.
I think the differences have several possible sources. Although
AtS I think challenges the expectations of the genre (I'm thinking
particularly of the one-two punch of "The Trial" and
"Reunion" leading unexpectedly to the existentialism
of "Epiphany") but it does take the confines of the
medium more seriously than BtVS. BtVS is more self-consciously
meta, deliberately invoking the artistic experience.
Another difference I've noted is that the focus seems pulled back
a few steps on AtS. BtVS in intensely intimate. Spacially it feels
as if the stage of action is larger in LA than in Sunnydale, with
it's familiar main street. Contrast the Magic Box and the Summers
home to the soaring cathedral ceiling of the Hyperion.
The best way I can explain it, though probably completely innacurate,
is that BtVS is a hero's journey, AtS is an epic. The Odyssey
versus the Iliad. BtVS is really all about Buffy. Although one
of a long line the story is about how this responsibility affects
and changes her. On AtS, it seems less about the centrality of
Angel to how a pawn in an eternal struggle is functioning in that
mysterious role during his brief participation.
I think that the actual non-centrality of Angel was a core concept
of the show from the beginning, only growing stronger with time.
The original plan was a weekly case where Angel was simply the
agent of change in the guest star's life. It may be a necessity
for a show with character who's never allowed to participate in
a fully realized romance. I suspect it may have more to do with
the guiding light of each series though. Joss is involved in all
at a high level but BtVS is his brain child. David Greenwalt is
the Power That Is for Angel. Joss is a professed atheist. I've
heard rumored that DG is either a Catholic or raised Catholic.
A world in which the most important thing is what we do now with
the brief life we are given is fundamentally different than one
in which there is an involved higher power with designs that transcend
any one person.
On BtVS the personal is central, while on AtS it feels that the
quest is more important than the actors. I'd contrast the death
of Doyle with the death of Jenny. (Yes, I know that there were
backstage factors.) One was a acceptable sacrifice, right in the
eyes of the universe; the other was a disgusting perversion, an
unacceptable result of flawed intentions.
I do disagree about the lack of change in the character's lives.
I think that Angel actually rejected the quest for personal redemption
in "Epiphany." It's notable that his biggest opportunity
to address a past wrong -- the present existence of Holtz -- coincided
with the event that has turned Angel most in toward himself --
the birth of Connor. BtVS was the catalyst for the changes that
Cordy and Wes have experienced, but without their interaction
with Angel, they wouldn't have gone very far.
I suspect that some of Gunn's characterization has been a result
of the difficulty of writing for a black character when none of
the writers are. I think they've done a admirable job of subtly
developing though. I think his comforting presence was an unexpected
end point from someone who originally looked like the stereotypical
angry rebel. I've found the journey believable and contrary to
expectations.
[> [> [> [> holy
smokes! -- manwitch, 18:20:33 03/18/02 Mon
can't wait to hear what you have to say when you have the energy
for deep thoughts!!
many thanks. this is for me one of the most interesting posts
I've yet read.
VampRiley
- Have question for you -- Rynn01,
21:55:19 03/17/02 Sun
I read something in one of your posts that I would like to ask
you about. I don't know if my question ia allowed on the board
though. Would you contact me at Rynn01@excite.com so I can ask
you about something?
Thanks, Rynn
[> Re: Just ask your question,
do not worry about so-called rules! -- Sloan, 07:59:40
03/18/02 Mon
Internet is a free service, rules do not apply here, especially
on boards like this one! You're supposed to speak your mind on
boards, so bite me if you're not allowed to say whatever the heck
you want. But I know by experience that you should be careful
because those guys do not hesitate to shut your access down for
no reason (my access has been prohibited because I post a message
from somewell- known website's webmaster). Anyway yada yada and
I'll die for you LIBERTY!
[> [> Rules of Etiquette
-- Kimberly, 09:20:42 03/18/02 Mon
Internet is a free service, rules do not apply here, especially
on boards like this one!
In one sense, you are correct. As this is a free service, there
are few "rules" in the sense of "laws" which
apply. In another, more important, sense, however, you are missing
the point. The "rules" people here are discussing have
nothing to do with legal rules; they have to do with etiquette.
This is a forum attached to Masquerade's web site to enable those
of us who enjoy her site to discuss issues which are of mutual
interest. Those issues are primarily about BtVS and AtS in a philosophical
sense, but they are not limited to it. Although there are few
"legal" rules, there are certain rules of etiquette
that exist: some are stated in Masquerade's FAQ; some are fairly
common; some are specific to this board. Those who break the etiquette
rules are informed of this fact, in order to keep the experience
here an enjoyable one for all.
To give you an example of the etiquette of this board: Lengthy
posts are allowed, welcomed, enjoyed and wanted. Some of my favorite
posters here (and, judging from other's comments, I'm not alone
in my preferences) frequently post long, thought-filled and thought-provoking
essays. Some will break them up; others don't (seems to be a matter
of taste.) On other boards, long posts are not wanted and those
who would make them are discouraged. Both are correct for their
respective boards.
My favorite author, Robert A. Heinlein, was made a point about
rules of etiquette that I have remembered and have observed to
be true over the years: The more closely you interact with someone,
the more important good etiquette is (he actually said something
along the lines of "Moving parts require lubrication.").
In a forum such as this, in which posters get to know one another,
following the rules of etiquette becomes important: mostly to
keep our heads free to discuss different interpretations of the
shows we discuss here.
Differing opinions and interpretations are welcome. And company
manners are always appropriate. (And, yes, I AM a mother!)
[> [> First amendment
spoken here -- Masquerade, 09:58:12 03/18/02 Mon
Oooh, it would be truly scary to me if this were a board where
people did not feel free to ask whatever question they might have,
whether it is OT on BtVS/AtS episodes, or reflects the diverse
intellectual hooliganism we enjoy here on the board, or is completely
not OT.
I guess, like Kimberly, the only exceptions I can think of are
those involving questionable etiquette-- like those questions
posed by our late visitor, Jim Boke--thinly veiled insults meant
to "shake up the board" but having so little real content
that there is no way to respond them in any way that does not
involve negative emotions, personal insult and other fallacious
forms of so-called argument.
O.K., I think I've made that clear as mud. : ) : )
Bottom line, go ahead and post your question, whether it is off-topic
or addressed to one individual. It may be ignored, it may get
the response you wanted, it may start a long OT thread on differing
standards of etiquette and free speech--you never know. But if
someone tells you certain questions are no-nos, there will probably
be someone else (or several someone elses) you will jump in to
say otherwise.
: )
[> Ask away! I will respond.
(he typed, nodding his head definitively) -- VampRiley, 12:06:45
03/18/02 Mon
Attention
to the Illustrious First Evil - There is a New Potential Evil
for your Consideration! -- The Third Evil, 22:16:21 03/17/02
Sun
It has been duly voted upon by a legal consortium of ATPo members
on this day of March 17th/18th 2002
that ATPo regular Malandanza be elected to the honored
post of
The Eleventh Evil
We beseech your noble presence in the official confirmation of
this enactment.
Thank you very much.
[> 11th? Did we skip 5th,
6th, 7th, 8th, 9th & 10th? -- Masq, 22:46:51 03/17/02 Sun
'cause I'd be happy to name Malandanza the 5th evil.
[> [> Re: 11th? Did we
skip 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th & 10th? -- O'Cailleagh, 22:49:14
03/17/02 Sun
Mal wanted 11th so thats what we voted on......so he could stay
out of the top ten or somesuch
[> [> [> Who am I
to argue with that?! -- Masq, 22:58:59 03/17/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> Entirely
too much Evil here. ;o) -- Cactus Watcher, 05:47:13 03/18/02
Mon
The board is far too unbalanced with Evils. I have no problems
with Malandanza what-so-ever, but since I often am thinking contrary
to the general opinion of the board maybe I ought to be called
the 11th Virtue. Just kidding. Really just kidding!
I'd like to join in chats more often, but constantly getting kicked
off annoys the heck out of me. It's my Internet provider's fault
not the chatroom.
[> [> [> [> I do
believe that D'Herblay is the *Fifth Evil*... -- T3E, 07:35:29
03/18/02 Mon
And if I recall correctly, Humanitas is the Fourth Evil.
(Where the heck is Hu these days, anywho?)
Uhhh.... will the Fourth Evil please stand up??
Mal stated that he figured sometime or another someone might come
after the 'Top Ten' Evils, so if he was Eleventh, he'd escape
the big slaughter.
Such an optimist!
;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I do believe that D'Herblay is the *Fifth Evil*...
-- Malandanza, 09:50:04 03/18/02 Mon
"Mal stated that he figured sometime or another someone
might come after the 'Top Ten' Evils, so if he was Eleventh, he'd
escape the big slaughter."
I will lurk out of sight, just below the surface, like an evil
manatee avoiding the speedboats of justice.
On the second thought, maybe I need a different analogy.
But I'm in favor of an opposing group of Virtues, as CW says.
I'd vote for Masq as the First Virtue, in her benevolent aspect.
Who else? WW? or is she too morally ambiguous these days? (the
things she said to poor Boke!) :) Rufus should probably make the
list. Too bad Spotjon left us and Ryeui (sp?) has been gone for
awhile.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Rufus should be the First Virtue -- Masq, 10:01:11
03/18/02 Mon
She has been campaigning hard to be a board good-guy and all.
I can see it now, Ms. Kitty Fantastico with a little halo over
her fuzzy head....
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Should we make Rahael the Fifth Virtue to be the
equivalent of d'H ? :) -- Ete, 11:20:15 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> How sweet of you Ete! But........ --
Rahael, 14:55:47 03/18/02 Mon
When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Give Rahrah whatever title you like, but...
-- The Second Evil, 15:00:43 03/18/02 Mon
*I* will always think of her as Our Lady of Ultimate Exoticness.
Alternately, Our Lady of Unbelievable Eloquence. Hmm... OLUE for
short?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> awwww -- Rahael, 15:21:19 03/18/02
Mon
and you were the only person to get my belle dame sans merci reference!!
I always fancied being light of foot and wild of eye.
Unfortunately, I'm obviously not pitiless enough. The Chevalier
d'Herblay is neither wan or palely loitering. He's sunning himself
in the Carribbean!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Rahael as a faery's child, that's
ok for me :) -- Ete, 15:28:40 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> ah-hah, lurk all you like, D'h,
but when you leave a treasure like Rahrah unguarded... bwahahahahah!
-- The Second Evil, 18:47:54 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Careful, S.E., d'Herb's lurking...
-- Masq ; ), 15:22:01 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I second that nomination for First Virtue... err,
so to speak. -- The Second Evil, 14:58:23 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> LOL..........of course a Halo......I wouldn't be
complete without one......;) -- Rufus, 15:08:40 03/18/02
Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> What?! and I'm not evil enough for you? *sniff* --
Liq, 11:11:40 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Ah, but you are the *queen* of virtues abounding
-- Masq, 14:08:37 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> sheesh, being a WebGod isn't enough for ya, now
ya gotta be evul, too. (Heh!) -- Solitude1056, 15:11:14
03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I just wanted to fit in -- Liq, 15:55:35
03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> ROFL!! ;o) -- dubdub, 11:22:59 03/18/02 Mon
I'd settle for "The Prime Ambiguity." I'd like to be
virtuous, but some people just push my buttons!
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I had exactly the same idea !!! -- Ete, 12:03:06
03/18/02 Mon
But then I prefer the number Two so it is great ! ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Wait, aren't dubdub & Rufus already the Wonder
Twins... -- Solitude1056, 15:06:55 03/18/02 Mon
Something to do with grabby hands, chocolate, and Spike... ;-)
or is that Lady Starlight 'n Rufus, now that dubdub is a confirmed
Clemite?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Wait, aren't dubdub & Rufus already the
Wonder Twins... -- Rufus, 15:14:04 03/18/02 Mon
Rowan is the Grabby hands of Spike (or is that for Spike), and
I'm the Grabby hands of Chocolate......but I can have more titles
as I earn them...:)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Aha! Thanks for explaining that one...
where is your other Wonder Twin, anyway? -- Solitude1056,
15:16:57 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> I hear she is under the weather....leaving
me all the Grabby work to do on my own.... -- Rufus, 15:50:59
03/18/02 Mon
And it's a hard job being that Spike isn't my type...;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Hands, grabbiness, chocolate...sounds
like rowan to me! -- dubdub, 15:23:14 03/18/02 Mon
I believe it was she and Rufus. Rufus was grabby chocolate hands
and rowan was grabby Spike hands.
On another note, isn't there a paradox implied in having a Canadian
DEMON Cat Worshipper as the First Virtue? Or is this just part
of the graying of our Buffyverse?
;o) CLEM RULES 4EVER!!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> DubDub is the Grabby Hands of Clem
-- Masq ; ), 15:24:28 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, Masq...you've made me
so...so happy, I... -- dubdub, 15:48:27 03/18/02 Mon
I...can hardly type...*sniffle*
Thanks!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Understand that is officially
"Evil Grabby Clem Hands" -- Masq, 16:20:13 03/18/02
Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Grey.......I have loads of grey on
my head.....;) -- Rufus, 15:27:46 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Nope! D'Herblay is our TROLL SLAYER! ;-) -- The Second
Evil, 14:55:48 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> I think we need
a list of the evils, cause I don't know who's who -- vampire
hunter D, 12:37:30 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> See FAQ glossary
under "Nicknames" -- Masq, 14:23:26 03/18/02
Mon
Hero's
Journey article -- Sofdog,
07:19:56 03/18/02 Mon
A bit rough around the edges, but a capable analysis I think:
http://www.bibliora.com/Phase5/html/confluence.html
"The
Body" and me -- Sloan, 07:54:15 03/18/02 Mon
I was watching "The Body" the other night and let me
tell you something, this was, is and certainly will be the best
buffy episode ever. But why? I mean it's an episode all about
death, a mom's death. But then it got me thinking, thinking about
how I might react if my own mother should die. Would I react like
Buffy did? Would I cry my eyes off? I dunno but I think it's the
first time ever a television program has such a big influence
over me. And I don't know if I should be glad or worry about it.
Sloan, the girl people like to hate for no real reason, go figure!
:-)
[> Re: "The Body"
and me -- manwitch, 08:52:25 03/18/02 Mon
I think it will certainly be one of the best episodes.
I would include the Gift, Intervention, Tabula Rasa, Restless,
Prophecy Girl, Halloween, and probably about 80 other episodes
in a tie for best ep.
But I think part of why is the way the show leverages its past,
both in terms of its characters and even in terms of its camera
work. The Body is cool because of how they deviated from their
normal way of composing images. Things were off center, characters
were facing the wrong way, on the wrong side. The camera didn't
seem to be where it was supposed to be. It always seemed like
something was missing.
And, of course, it was. Joyce was missing.
My wife pointed out to me the number of times the camera follows
characters without cutting. Normally, Buffy would get up and walk
towards the Kitchen and it would be CUT TO Buffy entering the
kitchen. The expanse of space between is cut out. In the Body,
we follow Buffy every step of the way and linger as she drops
out of frame. The space seems to open up in an eerie emptiness.
Time drags out, as we actually have to experience the time it
takes to walk to the kitchen for the first time in our lives.
And of course, the absence of music, frequently used in film and
TV to enliven dead spots. But here, the whole point was the dead
spots.
Its a masterpiece. But it wouldn't be if it were the first episode.
It depends not only on the characters it has built, but our (conscious
or un) knowledge of how they film and construct Buffy episodes.
Because it deviates from the norm at every turn.
[> Re: "The Body"
and me -- Wisewoman, 11:16:38 03/18/02 Mon
I don't think anyone here hates you, Sloan...we don't even
know you, really.
My comment in the other thread was based on your rather abrupt
and seemingly rude comment that the post was "too long."
Also, you posted on the TWIZ board that ATPoBtVS "sucks big
time," so I'm a little surprised to see you here.
If you stick around here a while and get to know us I'm sure you'll
find that's not true.
;o)
[> [> Re: "The Body"
and me -- Sloan, 08:40:17 03/19/02 Tue
I said "sucks big time" because they shut my access
down for no reason, that's all.
[> [> [> Re: "The
Body" and me -- Malandanza, 11:53:18 03/19/02 Tue
I think part of your hostile reception was that you arrived at
our board right after even the most ardent free-speech advocates
had grown weary of Boke. So you picked up a little of the remaining
hostility. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the TWIZ site
-- it does have an archive of transcripts. I prefer Psyche, however,
because it has the shooting scripts and it is easier to get to
the scripts and transcripts for which I am searching.
[> [> [> But there
was a reason... -- VampRiley, 12:45:11 03/19/02 Tue
There has to be. Masq doesn't ban people for no reason. Maybe
you should go right to the source and talk to her.
VR
[> Re: "The Body"
and me -- TRM, 14:20:01 03/18/02 Mon
I think its interesting to see people differentiate between the
episodes, because what I've often seen on other message boards
is that after every single episode would be some comment along
the lines of "That's the best episode!" without a real
objective consideration of the episodes' placement within the
series and in fact the possibility (or even probability) that
not all the episodes are necessarily great.
With regards to the comment, my personal favorite episode was
"The Body" as well; this is fairly certain in my mind.
Indeed, much of the artistic work that went behind the body that
was mentioned -- the uncomfortable silences, the lingering shots,
my personal favorite being the silent shot of Buffy telling Dawn
-- contributed to the strength of this episode.
Aside from that, it was also unique in its literal realism. As
noted by manwitch, it would be less forceful without being couched
in the rest of the series. It also had the force of nonmagical
cause that BtVS has employed various times (though many argue
on how true these are) such as with Tara and Buffy's humanity,
comforting and discomforting in those two cases respectively.
Metaphors don't always represent the truth but sometimes misrepresent
them.
This force of truth is the permanence and impact of death. This
is perhaps one reason why I didn't cry at the end of the Gift.
I certainly was sad, but in some sense, knowing that Buffy would
be back, knowing that death wasn't permanent rather detracted
from the impact of this sacrifice.
Thus artistic direction, force of truth, and finally a certain
honesty in its portrayal -- again through the lack of magic and
fantasy. Certainly, this is not a speech against the wonderful
metaphors that we find through the fantastic elements of Buffy
but rather the brilliant placement of such utter realism among
the metaphors that make it so much stronger. In some sense, while
one may draw many conclusions as to what Joyce's death meant,
the strongest meaning that it carries is Joyce's death itself.
Her death was completely natural, completely of "our world"
and sometimes the best way to describe our world isn't through
metaphor but through the representation of itself.
On a different spin, I'm wondering what people's least favorite
episode(s) of the series are? Dangling near the bottom of mine
is "Buffy vs. Dracula" which, while I picked up on the
foreshadowing of the darkness of Buffy's nature, proved to me
largely non-comic attempts at camp with roughly filmed shots;
though certainly I may be missing much of the subtlety of the
episode.
[> [> Re: "The Body"
and me -- Rynn01, 19:53:45 03/18/02 Mon
As for my least favorite episode, it would have to be Superstar.
That's the only one I can't really watch w/o losing interest.
Even the first time I watched it, I kept doing other things. Usually
I won't even answer the phone, even during episodes I've seen
2 or 3 times.
I didn't notice all the effects during the Body, of course I never
do until I get on this board! That's why I come here, and to feel
less than intelligent reading all your in depth critiques! But
I agree, after you pointing it out to me, that the fact that it
was such a real episode in Buffy, where our real life can be considered
an alternant universe, defintely made a huge impact.
[> Re: "The Body"
and me -- Valhalla, 19:55:27 03/18/02 Mon
I don't have a literary or cinematic analysis for this one. But
my dad died 2 years ago and the characters' reactions were painfully
realistic. I've seen other shows where an important character
dies and not been nearly as affected. One thing is that although
each character reacted differently, I felt like I had each of
their reactions at one point, from Buffy's stunned shockiness
to Anya's painful questions about how it could even be.
My dad was the first person I've lost who I was really close to.
Of course I knew before it happened that to lose a parent would
be horrible, but after it happened I realized I had had absolutely
no idea how it just blows a hole through your heart. And I would
have said if you haven't been through it, you just can't know.
But the reason The Body blew me away was because there it was
all on the screen. And I never even liked Joyce, it's just that
The Body was so damned evocative of the real feelings that I sat
stunned for at least an hour afterwards.
I'm sure I'm like a lot of people on this board -- I read obsessively
and watch way too much tv, but I've come across few things in
print or on screen that could rival that episode for conveying
the real deal.
[> Re: "The Body"
and me -- anom, 21:43:46 03/18/02 Mon
You can never know how you're going to react until it happens.
And everyone reacts differently, but there's also something deep
underneath those reactions that I think is the same for everyone.
It depends on a lot of things, especially your relationship with
your mother. My mother died about 2 weeks before The Body aired.
(OK, yes I do know exactly how long it was: 2 weeks and 2 days.)
I had these strange contradictory feelings watching the episode,
of shock--that it actually happened in the episode, that they
were showing it this way--and anticipation--not the good kind,
but knowing the kinds of things that were going to happen afterwards.
They got so much right, except for the fact that real life isn't
written so well.
As they so often do, they gave Tara the wisest lines. It is always
sudden, even when it isn't. And it's always different. And you
find yourself thinking strange things. I found my time sense all
screwed up--what day or time was it, how many days ago did this
happen, when was that going to be. Now that I think of it, one
thing they didn't show was how you don't adjust right away in
the little things. You know the person is gone, but you don't
realize what that really means. My brothers & I split up the list
of people we had to call to tell them about Mom, & one of my brothers
was trying to decide who should call one of her friends & caught
himself thinking, "Mom should really make this call."
I think one thing the unusual camera angles conveyed was that
a parent's death really alters your reality. Everything seems
out of joint. And they caught how hard everything is, & gave it
an atmosphere that showed the pall that hangs over everything
you're doing.
If the episode gave you some feeling about what it's like when
a parent died, & made you think about it, I don't think it's something
to worry about. It's probably good to think about it before you
have to. It doesn't matter that it was a TV show that got you
thinking; what's important is that you are thinking about
it. And what you do about it. Is there something you want to change
about your relationship with your mother? How would you do that?
(I'm not asking for answers here on the board, just saying it's
something worth thinking about.)
Doctor's
Eggs (spoiler for Riley episode) -- Rochefort, 08:06:54
03/18/02 Mon
Can anyone explain to me exactly what Spike's intentions were?
What was his motivation? "i'm evil" isn't cutting it
for me. I was at a friend's, and so maybe I missed a line, but
it was not clear to me at all what Spike was thinking. Money?
Destruction? Didn't seem consistent to me with how he's been lately.
The risk to wrecking things with Buffy didn't seem to have a big
enough pay off for him and he hasn't been interested in mass destruction
in quite a while.
Also, can someone give me the writers for the last three episodes?
[> Re: Doctor's Eggs (spoiler
for As You Were) -- Darby, 09:05:03 03/18/02 Mon
First, the writers: As You Were, Douglas Petrie; Hell's
Bells, Rebecca Rand Kirshner; Normal Again, Diego Gutierrez.
The leading theory about Spike and the eggs was that he's raising
money to somehow deliver Buffy from her life of slime at the Doublemeat
Palace. Another leading theory is that he really didn't know the
whole story about the eggs, or he would have stored them someplace
a) safer for him; and b) someplace Buffy would be unlikely to
see them.
Buffy
grows up in Normal Again (possible small spoilers plus slight
speculation) -- purplegrrl, 10:28:34 03/18/02 Mon
In another thread Solitude1056 bemoaned that the Mutant Enemy
writers have been beating us over the head with Buffy's inability
to accept her life since her return from the dead. On one level
I can totally agree: in previous seasons we have seen Buffy (and
the other Scoobies) move on very quickly in their journey to adulthood.
So why the constant circling around and around, with Buffy unable
to deal with her life? I think it has to do with her continuing
to want what she can't (or thinks she can't) have: a "normal"
life.
I believe we have seen the end of Buffy's inability to accept
her return to life, being a parent to Dawn, etc. I've been watching
Bill Moyers' interviews with Joseph Campbell ("The Power
of Myth" filmed in 1987). Campbell makes a statement that
crystallizes and validates Buffy's decision to return to the Sunnydale
world in "Normal Again":
"It's childish to say no to life and all its pain."
The demon's poison gave Buffy her epiphany. Ever since she became
a Slayer, Buffy has expressed the fervent desire for a normal
life. And yet when she is truly offered that "normal"
-- two parents, no slaying -- life (although an illusion perhaps),
she turns it down. She decides she can no longer be childish.
She says yes to life and all its pain. This *is* a normal life.
How will the epiphany manifest itself? I don't know. Like everyone,
I have to wait another 4 weeks until we get a new episode. But
I do think we will see a Slayer with a renewed sense of purpose.
Buffy may still be working at Doublemeat Palace, dealing with
Dawn's feelings of inadequacy, adjusting to Spike's attraction
for her (and her possible attraction for him), and everything
else, but it will not overwhelm her as it has previously. She
has accepted what her life is. She has grown up.
[> Re: Buffy grows up in
Normal Again (possible small spoilers plus slight speculation)
-- Caroline, 11:13:53 03/18/02 Mon
I hope you are right in your predictions but knowing ME, I'm sure
there is more pain to come. As for Buffy going around and around
instead of growing up - it reminds me of the loop-the-loop time
thing in the Magic Box in Life Serial. She kept selling the mummy
hand until she satisfied the customer. That seems to be a metaphor
for Buffy and growing up this season. She's going to keep going
around in these circles until she learns the lessons. Also, there
is the possibility that Buffy may grow up but Xander is certainly
messed up and who knows about Willow? Much more potential for
pain from them.
[> [> Re: Buffy grows
up in Normal Again (possible small spoilers plus slight speculation)
-- Sophist, 12:58:03 03/18/02 Mon
Rather than say she's grown up, I'd say she made the decision
to grow up. The process itself undoubtedly will involve the pain
you predict.
[> "Normal Life"
(spoilers for Normal Again, Life Serial) -- Vickie, 12:41:06
03/18/02 Mon
You both make excellent points. On the "normal life"
topic, I'm reminded of another excellent show. In Babylon 5, one
character wants to postpone marriage until he can give his intended
"some kind of normal life." (He has a pretty serious
drinking problem.)
She tells him, "There is no normal life, Michael. There's
just life." This is, I think, what Buffy needs to learn.
That other people's lives may look "normal" from the
outside (whatever that may mean), but there is just life. Or saying
no to life.
As regards going around in circles until she learns the lesson,
this is the belief of many world religions. (Apologies to experts
and believers, I am just a student here.) Many who believe in
reincarnation believe that we keep getting the same life lessons
until we GET them. Then we can move on to others.
my $.02
Wesley's
motives in Sleep Tight -- Len,
10:49:49 03/18/02 Mon
Are Wesley's motives in meeting Holtz clear? If he meant ot take
Connor, why would he bother going to talk to Holtz first? Any
thoughts?
[> Note: my Sleep Tight
posting has spoilers! -- Len, 11:13:35 03/18/02 Mon
[> Re: Wesley's motives
in Sleep Tight -- JM, 13:49:10 03/18/02 Mon
It's never entirely clear. We the audience know only a little
more about what's going on in Wes's head than the other characters
do. It seems that the initial visit to Holtz was Wes taking advantage
of the opportunity that Aubrey presented. At that point he wanted
more information on Holtz and based on his interactions with grieving
mother Aubrey and Angel's characterization of Holtz, Wes has some
hope at least of diffusing the situation. A situation that is
already becoming dangerous to his people.
What he doesn't anticipate is that Aubrey has found out at least
enough to know that Wes is afraid for Connor's safety and that
Holtz is planning to manipulate Wes using that information. (Probably
why Aubrey was making a move on him at the office.) At the first
meeting Holtz plays up Wes's fear and expresses concern for the
child.
At the point of the second meeting, Wes has seen the signs and
figures Connor fate is virtually sealed. Before he meets with
Holtz, his comment of taking Connor for a couple of days indicates
that he has already formed the plan for taking Connor away. He
also knows that if he leaves with Connor, he won't be able to
return. He'll be leaving the people he is responsible for to fight
off whatever it is that Holtz has been planning. In his last act
as the leader of AI, he makes final appeal to Holtz and also indicates
that he may be willing to accomodate Holtz somehow if it will
protect his team. Holtz makes his ultimatum.
Holtz never demands that Wes bring him the baby, he knows that
would be a deal killer. He simply makes sure that that is the
end result. In a classic jujitsu move he offers his enemy something
he wants to do something he already wanted to do, but will now
do on Holtz's time-table. And Holtz isn't so lame after all. He
succeeded in getting the baby from Angel. Something that a vampire
cult, a paramilitary force, a biker gang, and some Lillith demons
had failed to accomplish.
Wes never gives any indication that he is handing Connor over.
His actions are a betrayal, but not that extreme a one. He doesn't
trust Holtz or the purity of his motives or his real intent. He
witnessed Holtz pull a knife on Justine, something I don't think
was staged for his benefit. He makes his move before his time
runs out, probably because he doesn't expect Holtz to keep his
word - - he just can't afford to assume he won't.
More evidence Wes is taking the baby himself, not bringing it
to Holtz: At some point between his visit to Holtz and his return
to AI (about the entire day) he changes clothes. So he's probably
been home to make long term plans. He's packed for himself. Apparently
he's purchased or rented a new vehicle. He draws on Justine and
doesn't lower the weapon until he sees she's injured. Doesn't
seem like he intends to take the baby to Holtz and like he expects
to be double-crossed. Just not triple- crossed. He knew that good-night
at AI was really a good-bye for him and his team, as much as for
Angel and Connor.
[> [> Re: Wesley's motives
in Sleep Tight -- Len,
14:20:15 03/18/02 Mon
A reasonable analysis JM. I just felt it was a little strained
that Wes would go back that last time. It worked more in terms
of setting op the finale than in terms of something Wes would
logically do.
I wonder if they were trying to imply that he was considering
giving Connor to Holtz and then changed plans once he saw how
irredeemable Holtz was?
I like the idea that Holtz was able to play on Wes' psychology
to push him into taking Connor in a manner in which Holtz could
ultimately get Connor.
Great stuff.
OT
to Ixchel -- Sophist, 10:57:43 03/18/02 Mon
The thread with your question about Gould's book got archived
before I saw it.
The book is written for a non-specialist. It is not a light
read, though. It's a detailed history of how evolutionary theory
got to it's current stage, a critique of certain interpretations
of it, and an offer of a future path. It would help if you're
familiar with Dawkins and Gould, as well as Niles Eldridge, and
with the sociobiology wars.
BTW, I haven't read it. It's 1343 pages long, with small print.
What I said above I gleaned from flipping through it in the bookstore.
I bought it, but it will take awhile to read it and process it.
[> Thanks, Sophist!
-- Ixchel, 12:20:52 03/18/02 Mon
It sounds like it'll be well worth the effort. But the commitment!
I probably know just enough to be utterly confused, but it seems
fascinating.
Thanks again for the information.
Ixchel
[> [> Let me know what
you think. I'm sure it ties in to BtVS somehow! -- Sophist,
12:51:58 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> "Season
6 and Punctuated Equilibria?" It's got potential. --
mm, 15:06:41 03/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> ROFL.
How about "The Spandrels of Sunnydale and the Redemptionist
Program"? -- Sophist, 16:19:25 03/18/02 Mon
A
Bit of Nostalgic Reminiscing -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:28:59
03/18/02 Mon
Ah the good old days. Not that these present days aren't good
(in regards to Buffy, I mean. Of course the present days of my
LIFE aren't), but my how watching mid season two episodes brings
a nostalgic smile to my face.
The other day, whilst on my way to the newest episode analyzation
on ATPOBTVS, I decided to take a look back at things of the past.
I went over the moral ambiguities of different characters, and
was struck by something.
While looking at the page devoted to Angel in particular, I noticed
a fan reaction to his still being alive, a vehemently passionate
reaction involving the fan's desire to see a vicious killer be
slain by the Scoobs.
I'm not entirely sure why this struck me as so amusing, really.
It seems to bear retrospective relevance to the current "heated
debate" of Spike's character in relation to a number of things,
Buffy the primary among them. I just find it interesting that
back then I seem to remember ALOT of people opposing my and some
others high (and still so) opinion of Angel in favor of his being
a vicious killer, and now I (in the vast minority, I think) tend
to oppose others' opinion that Spike is not one. (and don't worry,
despite my thinking he IS an unrepentant killer, I still love
his character and remain appalled by Buffy's beating him and whatnot.
No one, not even remorseless murderers, deserve that kind of treatment.)
Reminiscent meanderings. Sorry :)
[> Re: A Bit of Nostalgic
Reminiscing -- Masq, 14:05:05 03/18/02 Mon
Oh, I agree there is a double standard where Angel and Spike are
concerned. I'm not sure why. Both are played by attractive actors
and were respectively swooned over by fans during their respective
times with Buffy. I'm sure there are folks that will tell you
Angelus was just so much more horrible than Spike, but this is
a matter of debate and short memories. Likewise, they'll tell
you Angel could become Angelus any moment now and go on
a killing rampage while Spike dechipped would just never do such
a thing. And they'll have complex metaphysical arguments concerning
human predecessors and chips and souls and whatnot why this is
so.
It may boil down to the respective attitudes towards shades of
gray in earlier seasons than these later seasons. Fans now are
much more readily able to accept the presence among the Scoobs
of a domesticated ex-killer or two.
And there's that mysterious something that makes all of us, for
no apparent reason, find one of the two characters more compelling
than the other. It's like anything that's a matter of taste--no
accounting for it, it just is. And it's very difficult, if impossible,
to make someone change their mind.
For me, I've always liked Angel better, and I could give a long
list of reasons, but my reasons are as much a matter of taste
as the character I prefer. So I won't bore ya'll on why a brooding,
earnest, bookish, always-Angelus-lurking vampire appeals to me
more than a irreverent, vulgar, obvious, is- he-evil-or-isn't-he
vampire.
But if you want to engage in pointless debate about it, by all
means, do! It is the dry part of the season at the moment : (
: )
[> [> Just a little OT
note to AvsA -- Masq, 15:00:18 03/18/02 Mon
When are you going to submit a "meet the posters" profile,
young man? If having no favorite philosopher is stopping you,
remember it can be anyone with or without a pulse!
[> [> [> Re: Just
a little OT note to AvsA -- AngelVSAngelus, 15:50:26 03/18/02
Mon
Sorry! I really have wanted to do so for a long time, but I don't
actually know how... *shuffles feet* um... help?
[> [> [> [> Re:
Just a little OT note to AvsA -- Masq, 16:15:21 03/18/02
Mon
1. Go to http://www.atpobtvs.com/posters.html
2. See the section titled "Answer these questions, and email
Masquerade"
3. See many illuminating examples on pages
http://www.atpobtvs.com/posters.html
http://www.atpobtvs.com/posters2.html
http://www.atpobtvs.com/posters3.html
http://www.atpobtvs.com/posters4.html
http://www.atpobtvs.com/posters5.html
4. email Masquerade at masqthephlsphr@yahoo.com
a. give Masq your answers
b. tell Masq which unclaimed character you would like to have
represent you.
5. Wait a month or two, stewing vigorously
[> [> [> [> [>
Just emailed :) *stewing* -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:22:45
03/18/02 Mon
[> Re: A Bit of Nostalgic
Reminiscing -- Rendyl, 14:47:57 03/18/02 Mon
I like them both but I do agree with Masq that more seems to be
expected and less forgiven with Angel.
For me Angel is much harder to give any slack to because of the
nature of his relationship with Buffy. I don't want to step on
the B/A shippers toes but this was not a good thing. I won't recap
the enormous age and experience differences except to point out
how it affected the balance of power in the relationship. From
the first moment we (and Buffy) see Angel he is calling all the
shots. This never changes. I believe that he loved (and possibly
still loves) her, but the relationship was always about protecting
her and making choices for her. It was not an equal partnership.
He continually made decisions for her and the relationship. He
kept doing things to protect her but what he accomplished was
to shut her out of any input.
Much is made of how unhealthy B/S is but I don't feel her relationship
with Angel was any healthier.
And no, the above is not a good reason to grant Spike more slack
than Angel but it does affect how I see the characters. Spike
just seems more honest in some ways. He does worry about her but
he also seems comfortable letting her make her own choices. Or
maybe he just likes the subtle influence rather than the outright
choosing for her.
(of course I liked evil non-chipped Spike while Angelus just creeped
me out but that soooo obviously can't be the reason-grin-)
I also (many moons ago) had the "billowy coat of pain"
brooding, angst-ridden boyfriend and it finally became unendurable
so I may not be unbiased.
Ren
[> [> *hides billowy
leather coat of pain* um... yeah, hehe... those are ridiculous...
-- AngelVSAngelus, 15:52:56 03/18/02 Mon
New
Hellmouth Discovered in Florida! -- Buffyboy, 16:09:13
03/18/02 Mon
Looks like Buffy's needed on the other side of the country.
If you haven't already seen this story (I just saw it), you might
want to check out the New York Times website. The article is entitled
"Florida Town Finds Satan Offensive Unto It" by Rick
Bragg and it appeared on March 14, 2002. If you're not registered
with the Times you'll probably have to do so, but it's free. Search
"Florida Town Finds Satan" as www.nytimes.com.
[> Re: Oh that's just too
weird! ;o) -- WW, 17:30:49 03/18/02 Mon
[> Good lord. So weird it's
funny "..hasn't been what I would call a mathematical drop
in crimes" -lol! -- yuri, 17:59:25 03/18/02 Mon
[> Re: New Hellmouth Discovered
in Florida! article inside -- Rufus, 18:19:45 03/18/02
Mon
www.nytimes.com
March 14, 2002
Florida Town Finds Satan an Offense Unto It
By RICK BRAGG
NGLIS, Fla., March 13 " Carolyn Risher, the mayor of this
little town, never saw Satan riding in the back of a Cadillac
down U.S. 19.
She never saw him buying grapefruit at the curb market, or ordering
up a soft-serve chocolate and vanilla swirl at the convenience
store, or trying to trade in a stereo speaker at the pawn shop.
She never saw him buying shiners at the bait shop, or clinging
to a pole at the firehouse, or sunk down in a pew at the community
church.
She never saw him.
"Never," she said. "But I have felt his works."
She felt him every time she saw a molested child, or a burned
house.
"I can't see the wind blow, really," Mrs. Risher said,
"but I have felt its effects.
"People call and ask me, `Carolyn, is Satan there?' And I
tell them, `Satan is only where we let him.' "
So Mrs. Risher, the mayor in this town of 1,400 residents for
as long as many people can remember, sent him on down the road.
She has made international news by banning Satan, by mayoral proclamation,
from the Inglis city limits.
She has drawn praise and condemnation and has become the butt
of jokes.
"It doesn't bother me," she said, "either way."
To some people, it is a most heinous violation of the separation
of church and state. To others, there was too much separation
there already, and it took Mrs. Risher, a 61- year-old from Florida's
Gulf Coast, to pinch church and state together again. Mrs. Risher,
who is known to drive a wrecker for her husband's towing business
when she is not handling city business, did not plan on any of
that.
"I did what was best for my town and my people," Mrs.
Risher said. She did it, she said, because on a late night more
than four months ago, God told her to.
Inglis, about 75 miles north of Tampa, was in the grip of what
could only be surmised by religious leaders here as Satan.
To an outsider, cruising down this open stretch of U.S. 19, it
would not have looked that way. It would have looked as it always
does, slow, a little sleepy, a place where tall, slim palms jut
above the live oaks and pines, a place where vendors sell the
freshest oranges on earth and deep green creeks cut through the
unforgiving Florida scrub.
But people here had noticed a creeping presence.
It was Halloween, the season of the witch, and religious leaders
and some parents were dismayed at the way young people were dressing
and behaving. Some wore all black, painted their faces ghoulishly
" all the time, not just for the season " and it was
rumored that drug use was on the rise. There had been a rise in
spousal abuse and child abuse.
The Rev. Richard Moore, pastor at the Yankeetown Church of God,
told the mayor of his plan to help cleanse the town of its evils
by installing four hollowed-out wooden posts at the four entrances
to town. In the hollow of each post would be a prayer.
The mayor thought that was a good idea, but on Halloween night,
as she sat alone at her kitchen table, she was moved by the spirit
of God to banish Satan " by proclamation " and insert
that banishment into the posts, into the very ground. She takes
no credit for the words. God guided her hand, she said.
"Be it known from this day forward that Satan, ruler of darkness,
giver of evil, destroyer of what is good and just, is not now,
nor ever again will be, a part of this town of Inglis," she
wrote. "Satan is hereby declared powerless, no longer ruling
over, nor influencing, our citizens.
"In the past, Satan has caused division, animosity, hate,
confusion, ungodly acts on our youth, and discord among our friends
and loved ones. No longer!"
The language leaves Satan very little wiggle room.
"We exercise our authority over the devil in Jesus's name.
By that authority, and through His Blessed Name, we command all
Satanic and demonic forces to cease their activities and depart
the town of Inglis."
Other town officials would later say that the mayor was only speaking
for herself, but the proclamation was printed, signed by the town
clerk and stamped with the official seal, before being encased
in the posts and sunk into the ground.
The jokes started almost immediately.
The phone would ring in Town Hall and the caller would say, "Hey,
it's Satan." The city employees would just answer, "Yeah,"
and hang up.
One day the mayor walked into her office to find city employees
gathered around her desk, listening to a call on speakerphone.
"Carolyn?" the caller said. "This is Satan. I know
you want me, baby."
Then, last week, someone stole the posts and the messages buried
deep inside. The posts were resunk on Tuesday, again with the
prayers and proclamations inside. The mayor believes the proclamation
is working, though she cannot keep Satan from the hearts of all
1,400 residents, of course.
"There hasn't been what I would call a mathematical drop
in crimes," said Lt. Steve Morris of the Inglis Police Department.
But it has brought a unity to the community that will pay off,
said Lieutenant Morris and others.
While some residents disagree with the mayor's official stance
against Satan, most people seem to support her.
"I think the law-abiding citizens have banded together and
drawn some strength from what the mayor has done," Lieutenant
Morris said.
Pastor Moore agrees.
"We as Christians have got to take a stand for God, and reclaim
our town for God," he said.
Others in town were less enthusiastic. "Count me among the
embarrassed," one Inglis merchant said.
Most who disagreed with the mayor asked not to be named, afraid
that, by speaking out against the mayor, they would be perceived
as speaking for the Prince of Darkness.
Legal experts said the mayor might be headed for trouble. The
separation of church and state, they said, requires that the government
not take sides, even in what seems to be a simple choice, between
good and evil.
"On one level, it seems like something everyone would agree
on," said George Gonzales, professor of political science
at the University of Miami, "but it also seems aggressive
and threatening to others who don't specifically abide by that
belief."
The proclamation "would open up the town to accusations of
a preference of religions," said Jim Hashek, who teaches
First Amendment law at Loyola University in New Orleans, and is
a First Amendment consultant for the American Civil Liberties
Union.
Mrs. Risher is not worried that someone, guided by the hand of
Satan, will steal the posts again. They were sunk in reinforced
concrete.
"He ain't going to take them this time," she said, "without
some real work."
At dusk, in this small place, it is easy to believe that the devil
really has been banished. The sunlight fades to burnished gold
and the clouds darken to purple, and people who work with their
hands for a living drift peacefully into the stores and restaurants,
laughing, joking.
But it does make people here pause a bit, as dark falls, as they
head out of town and pass that city limits sign.
[> [> Re: New Hellmouth
Discovered in Florida! article inside -- O'Cailleagh, 18:51:23
03/18/02 Mon
Well done Mrs Risher...*that* oughta do it!
[> [> [> Re: New Hellmouth
Discovered in Florida! article inside -- Ian, 20:08:33
03/18/02 Mon
Just a thought to terrify the Mayor. What if Satan doesn't drive
into town? What if, crazy thought here, he simply walks in, and
not on the main highway?
Four posts, even set in concrete, may not be enough. She may be
righteous, but I don't think she's thought this thing out.
[> [> [> [> Re:
New Hellmouth Discovered in Florida! article inside -- O'Cailleagh,
07:59:32 03/19/02 Tue
Yeah.....she needs some kind of large wall or fence around the
entire town with 'No Satan Allowed" signs on it.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: New Hellmouth Discovered in Florida! article inside
-- Wicca-in-Training, 09:23:01 03/19/02 Tue
Wait a minute, 4 posts, one on each enterence to a town, (let
us assume one for each main direction), with ritual message encased
inside of them!
You could say that the Mayor is praticing Witchcraft! In trying
to ban the Prince of Darkness, she has unknowingly sucombed to
his will!
Ahhhhhhh!
Satan always wins!
Lol. But really fokes, if what she did brings comfort to herself
and the people that she serves, then what harm can it do?
WiT
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: New Hellmouth Discovered in Florida! article inside
-- O'Cailleagh, 11:17:59 03/19/02 Tue
the harm comes in accepting the existence of a being created to
act as a scapegoat for the 'wrongdoings' of people and then trying
to force her town into this belief. She should be accepting the
fact that people are responsible for their actions, not giving
them a way out....
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: New Hellmouth Discovered in Florida! article
inside -- Arethusa, 09:06:29 03/20/02 Wed
I taught at a middle school with a fundamentalist science teacher-go
figure. I can only guess he wanted a crack at teaching the kids
creationism before those dang secular humanists got ahold of them.
Anyway, one Halloween he handed out anti-witch tracts, scaring
the heck out of some of his pre-teen students. One came to me,
worried that Satan really wanted to steal her soul. People in
positions of authority shouldn't use that power to foreward their
own (nutty) agenda. The naive, weak minded, or very young could
be hurt by their actions.
I realize, of course, that some religions (including my own) believe
in the existance of Satan and I dislike offending anyone, but
people shouldn't be allowed to just do or say anything in the
name of their beliefs. A killer isn't allowed to murder in the
name of God or Satan (as Andrea Yates now knows), and lesser offenses
need to be examined too.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> The Mayor is nuts! -- VampRiley, 12:41:47 03/19/02
Tue
I saw on The Daily Show where one town like outlawed Satan or
something. Don't know if this is the same one. It's been a while.
If she knew just what Satan is and what he represents, she would
realize what she's doing is futile and that she is insane. She
wants to get rid of Satan in her town, then she should just go
from house to house with an AK-47 and same grenades and do the
same to herself.
Anyone who knows what Satan actually is can't help but feel one
of two things:
1) First, she's nuts.
and...
2) Laugh...laugh long and loud, like I did.
VR
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I had the same thought, WiT ;o) -- Wisewoman, 12:59:42
03/19/02 Tue
She'd be beside herself if she knew just how pagan-inspired her
little ritual is! LOL
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Separation of Church and State -- TRM, 14:32:47
03/19/02 Tue
And we are neglecting the ultimate purpose of separation of church
and state. What if (1) people who don't live in the town don't
believe in Satan or even to a higher degree (2) people who live
in the town believe in Satan?
Now, I personally have no idea behind the inner workings of Satan
worhship, but what I have heard about it is that most of these
fellas don't consider themselves to be particularly evil -- though
I could be wrong on this and just be fooled by a very clever ruse.
Evil or not, though, our government has no reason to dictate what
we choose to believe as long as we don't harm others. This mayor
claims that Satan is harming her constituents which is all fine
and dandy, except she's not only scape-goating the mistakes of
these people on Satan but she is placing the blame on what is
in fact an established religion, thereby hinging on religious
persecution. Imagine if she banned Jesus, Mohammed, Vishnu, or
Buddha from her town.
After writing that last sentence, I actually have realized that
it can be more serious. I know a very devoutly religious christian
who feels that "Hindi gods" exist to mislead people
from the right path. Is it too much of a jump for a mayor like
that to ban Vishnu as a practitioner of Satan's wills? Just food
for thought...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Separation of Church and State --
O'Cailleagh, 19:21:31 03/19/02 Tue
Yeah...this is where I was coming from.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> And Satanism has been declared a protected
religion under the First Amendment by the SC -- vandalia,
07:47:46 03/20/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> well said. -- yuri, 07:09:04 03/20/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: I had the same thought, WiT ;o) -- O'Cailleagh,
19:18:39 03/19/02 Tue
Yeah...I noticed it too.....sorry if I came across as snarky (I
think thats the right word...I'm British).
How
has Spike manipulated Buffy? -- LeeAnn, 19:02:47 03/18/02
Mon
A recent poster (can't locate the post) referred to Spike's manipulation
of Buffy but I can't remember that manipulation. How has Spike
manipulated Buffy?
He did get her to sleep with him but that seemed the working of
pure (impure) lust rather than any deep manipulation on his part.
(Many of us feel the same lust for Spike without him manipulating
us.)
He tried and tried to get her to talk to him and failed.
He tried to get her to let him in and failed.
He tried to pull her into the dark and failed.
He tried to get all of her and failed.
He tried to keep even their sexual relationship going and failed.
Spike may have tried to manipulate her but it was about like us
trying to manipulate a ten story builiing with a pair of pliers.
It just didn't work. The last successful manipulation I can rememer
him doing on anyone was in The Yoko Factor.
[> Re: How has Spike manipulated
Buffy? -- Anne, 04:47:58 03/19/02 Tue
First of all, LeeAnn, I'd like to say that I always like to see
your name on a post because we are similarly fond of Spike, so
I know even before I click on the link that I'm going to enjoy
your perspective.
However, I'm going to start by playing devil's advocate on this
one because I also have been troubled by this "manipulation"
charge and I'd like to really get to the bottom of it. In the
end, I do think that Spike can be said to have tried to manipulate
Buffy -- mostly or entirely during their sexual liaison -- but
in the end I would still maintain that one of the most striking
and hopeful things about Spike in relation to Buffy is his directness.
First of all we need a definition of manipulation in the context
of relationship. And one thing that needs to be clear is that
"trying to get someone to do something" is not
automatically manipulation. There are two ways in which we try
to get others to behave in a certain way: the first way is persuasion,
which involves presenting others with our point of view, and/or
pointing out to them certain features of their own beliefs and
feelings which we feel they may not have adequately recognized
or accepted, in such a way that they may of their own free will
and intelligence reassess their point of view and change their
actions accordingly. Of course, they also may not change their
perspective and actions: that's part of the deal. This method
is not only completely legitimate, but is one of the two or three
great maintstays of human communication and of our ability to
work together.
The second way to "get someone to do something" is to
bypass their consciousness, intelligence, and will, and instead
to play directly on their emotions: their fear, anger, resentment,
whatever, in order to make those emotions push them in the direction
that we want without the sanction of their free choice. That's
manipulation.
Was Spike's getting Buffy to sleep with him a manipulation? He
never made any bones about what he wanted. He was the one who
wanted to talk about it; she was the one who wanted to ignore
the whole business -- and therefore the one whose libido eventually
burst its bounds, expressing itself by violence rather than rational
speech, in Smashed, causing her to initiate the sex. So sorry,
no way that was his manipulation.
However, it does seem to me that once the sexual relationship
had been started, he did start being manipulative in his attempt
to pull her into the dark, and away from her friends. He knew
she was at emotional low tide, disposed to think ill of herself,
and I believe at some points he did try to play on this. In the
Bronze scene for instance I do think he was using sex to try to
promote this "you belong in the dark with me" schtick,
and playing on her negative emotions to try to move her in that
direction.
But throughout the seasons, including 6, there have been many
more scenes in which Spike unflinchingly tells Buffy uncomfortable
truths that, if anything, are more likely to make her angry at
him or drive her away from him than bring her closer. The whole
point of his talk in "Fool for Love" may also have been
"you belong in the dark with me", but it was not manipulative
precisely because it was completely up-front: an eloquent and
persuasive presentation of a point of view. The "you're better
than this" speech in "Doublemeat Palace", the "the
only reason you're here is that you're not here" speech in
"Gone", the "you're addicted to misery" speech
in "Normal Again", are all cases in which one adult
is speaking to directly to another adult with full respect of
their independent intelligence and will -- quite the opposite
of manipulation. Unfortunately, in many cases Buffy's reaction
to being spoken to in this way -- at least her first reaction
-- is to run and hide. Something she's going to have to change
pretty soon if this season is really about "oh grow up".
So bottom line I'd say: yeah, Spike sometimes tries to manipulate
Buffy -- there may well be more examples of it than I've cited.
But is he, in general, any more manipulative of her than most
people are with each other? I would argue, to the contrary, that
he is more than ordinarily straight on.
[> [> Re: How has Spike
manipulated Buffy? -- Spike, 08:41:12 03/19/02 Tue
I thought I'd join in here because I'm a B/S shipper as well.
I do disagree with LeeAnn about Buffy, but that's not the subject
at hand. I come to the same conclusion as LeeAnn about Spike,
but for a different reason.
Anne is right that we need to define "manipulation".
She said manipulation tries "to bypass their consciousness,
intelligence, and will, and instead to play directly on their
emotions: their fear, anger, resentment, whatever, in order to
make those emotions push them in the direction that we want without
the sanction of their free choice." I can't agree with this
definition.
Preliminarily, I don't agree that emotions and reason are separate
and distinct like this definition assumes. I am influenced in
this by a great book, Descartes Error, by Antonio Damasio.
Even apart from the science of it, I believe that an appeal to
the emotions is a legitimate form of communication. Virtually
all art appeals to our emotion. That doesn't make Michelangelo's
Pieta manipulative. A great deal of speech also appeals directly
to the emotions; for example, "I have a dream". In fact,
I doubt that any form of communication is devoid of emotional
content. Physicists who work with relativity theory speak movingly
(!) of the "beauty" of the equations. If something as
seemingly dry and rational as a mathematical equation inspires
this reaction, it's hard to think of a communication that would
not.
I think the concept of manipulation is much more limited. I would
argue it applies in 3 narrow circumstances:
1. When physical force is used to overpower someone. This does
not apply to B/S, though Spike hinted at it in Crush and maybe
Smashed.
2. When someone tries to induce a powerful emotional reaction
leading directly to the desired result without time for any reflection
at all. An example of this would be shouting "Fire!"
in a crowded theater (fear leading to panic).
3. When someone uses deceit under circumstances where the other
cannot reasonably learn the truth.
Based on this limited definition, I don't think the concept of
manipulation applies to Spike. Or to Buffy. But note that it also
doesn't apply to most things people today commonly think of as
manipulative, like advertising.
[> [> [> I'm an idiot.
That is my post above. -- Sophist, 08:43:44 03/19/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Aw,
gee, and I got all excited! ;o) -- dubdub, 09:28:25 03/19/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Sorry if I manipulated your hopes, WW -- Sophist, 10:35:35
03/19/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: How has
Spike manipulated Buffy?-veering off the topic a bit -- Arethusa,
09:54:28 03/19/02 Tue
Advertising appeals to emotions in a manipulative way, and so
do certain people. When Amy wants Willow to go on a magic tear,
she insinuates Willow is still as friendless and unwanted as she
was in high school. Amy uses her knowledge of Willow's insecurities
to manipulate her.
She knows she can get a powerful, immediate reaction from Willow
by saying certain things.
Advertisers appeal to people's insecurities and innate desires
in a similiar manner, hoping for a knee-jerk reaction at the sight
of a sexually desireable female, phallic-shaped car, or perfectly
presented food, and so on. So do television producers. Would we
be as interested in Buffy, Angel et al if they had average looks?
They are what most people want to be-exceptionally beautiful,
articulate, graceful (well, except for early Wes, and he was never
meant to stick around), and charming. Not to mention powerful
and mysterious. It's interesting that some posters on other boards
have said they are not interested in watching conflicted Buffy,
goofy Angel, gay Willow, or interracial G/F. I tip my hat to ME,
for giving us what we need, and not what we want. End of rants.
[> [> [> [> Manipulation
and moral responsibility -- Sophist getting the name right
this time, 10:34:13 03/19/02 Tue
I wouldn't use the term "manipulation" to describe any
of the acts you mention. To me, use of the term with this broad
sweep suggests that we are relieved of moral responsibility for
our own actions: s/he made me do it.
I can't say how we would all react to BtVS if the actors were
less physically attractive. Given the harsh reaction to Riley
compared to the favorable reaction to Clem, I think the answer
is not at all clear.
I've seen some of the posts you mention. We all have our tastes
that affect our enjoyment of the show. We're all willing to overlook
some flaws; we all obsess about others. I can't recall any TV
show which focused solely on people's virtues or strengths, and
I think the reason is that such a show would be boring.
[> [> [> Great definition
of "manipulation," Sophist. I completely agree.
-- Dyna, 12:33:15 03/19/02 Tue
Predicting
the Future based on mirroring between Season 5 and Season 6? (Spoilers)
-- LeeAnn, 19:42:12 03/18/02 Mon
I've expanded on my previous mirroring list and I've posted
it a couple of other places. Someone suggested I post it here
as well for those who don't read other forums.
Predicting the Future based on mirroring between Season
5 and Season 6?
Season 6 seems to be a deliberate mirroring of season 5, especially
where Spike is concerned. Let me list some of similarities and
make some predictions based on this mirroring.
Spike has a scar over his eye.
Riley now has a scar over his eye(really a more Warrenish scar).
Riley had Buffy's body but not her love.
Spike had Buffy's body but not her love.
Spike had dreams of kissing Buffy and fighting Buffy and having
sex with Buffy in Out of My Mind and in Family.
Buffy had a dream of sex and violence and Spike in Dead Things.
In Forever Doc directs Spike and Dawn to get the egg of
a ghora demon to use in Joyce's resurrection. Egg of the ghora
gives life.
In As You Were Spike is holding demon eggs for a friend
and Riley accuses him of being "The Doctor." The eggs
come to life.
Spike breaks up the relationship between Buffy and Riley by showing
Buffy Riley has been doing something bad.
Riley breaks up the relationship between Buffy and Spike by showing
Buffy Spike has been doing something bad.
When Spike approaches Buffy to show her the bad, she is naked,
vulnerable in the bed where she has sex with Riley.
When Riley approaches Buffy to show her the bad, she is naked,
vulnerable in a sort of bed where she had sex with Spike.
Buffy torches the house where Riley had been doing the bad.
Buffy bombs and burns the crypt where Spike had been doing the
bad.
In Crush Spike's old girl friend Dru returns to remind
him of happier times and try to pull him back into his old life.
This involves participating in the hunt together but is ultimately
unsatisfying.
In As You Were Buffy's old boyfriend Riley returns to remind
her of happier times and try to pull her back into her old life.
This involves participating in the hunt together but is ultimately
unsatisfying.
Buffy was chained and threatened and menaced in Crush.
Spike was handcuffed in Dead Things and tormented in As
We Were.
Spike allowed his old girl friend Dru to attack and insult Buffy
while she was chained and not able to fight and Spike threatened
her himself.
Buffy allowed her old boyfriend Riley punch and humiliate Spike
while she watched or participated and Spike wasn't able to fight
because of the chip.
Dru offers to kill Buffy.
Riley offers to kill Spike.
In Shadow when Joyce is in the hospital, Riley hugs Buffy
and tries to get her to trust him enough to depend on him, to
let go with him. She refuses.
BUFFY: I can't. (sniffles, pulls back) Not now. (glances toward
the hospital room) They need me. If I start now ... I won't be
able to stop.
In Into the Woods after Spike has taken Buffy to see Riley
getting a suck job from a vamp ho, there is a confrontation during
which Riley tries to get Buffy to hit him. She refuses and walks
around him.
So Buffy won't put it on Riley. She won't trust him with her grief
or her anger.
In Dead Things, Buffy trusts Spike to get her home and
to try to take care of Katrina's body. In her dream she and Spike
are tender. In the alley scene, Spike tells her tells her to put
it all on him and she does.
Buffy wouldn't let herself put it on Riley, she wouldn't depend
on him or trust him or physically hurt him but she put it on Spike.
And, like she promised, she wasn't able to stop, at least not
until Spike was broken and bloody.
Riley left town in Into the Woods and after Crush
Spike was isolated from both Buffy and the SG in the most hurtful
way. This resulted in his visit to Warren to have the Buffybot
made.
The relationship that Spike has with Buffy in Season 6 mirrors
the relationship he had with the BuffBot in season 5. He got what
he thought he wanted from Buffy except that it's Spike who gets
to be the sex toy in Season 6.
BUFFYBOT: "Spike, I can't help myself. I love you."
BUFFY: "Tell me you love me. Tell me you want me."
And Spike can't help himself.
SPIKE: "I love you, you know I do. I always want you."
But Buffy has mirrored the Buffybot too.
BUFFYBOT: You're evil.
SPIKE: And that excites you?
BUFFYBOT: It excites me, it terrifies me ... I try so hard to
resist you and I can't.
SPIKE: Yeah? (grins)
BUFFYBOT: Darn your sinister attraction.
Spike can't help loving Buffy and Buffy can't help wanting Spike.
She tried to resist him and can't so Spike got what he thought
he wanted, a Buffy that couldn't resist him sexually. But it wasn't
enough. And didn't last.
In Into the Woods Riley gives Buffy an ultimatum.
In Real Again Spike gives Buffy an ultimatum.
So what happens next?
After Riley gave Buffy the ultimatum, he left for Central America
to deal with a demon tribe in the rain forest.
Spoilers say that Spike will be dealing with a demon in Africa
to get the chip out.
Riley returned from the jungle a better more secure man.
Will Spike return a more self-actualized monster??
Riley returned with a wife ..but I REFUSE TO GO THERE.
Riley had some kind of sexual/thrill relationship with a demon.
Spoilers say that Spike will have a sex with ex-demon Anya.
Buffy saw Riley with his demon lover.
Spoilers say that Buffy will see a tape of Spike and his ex-demon
lover Anya.
Buffy killed the vamp that she saw Riley with.
Does this mean that Buffy will kill Anya, accidentally or on purpose?
Would human Anya becoming Vengeance demon Anya fulfill the mirroring?
Last year Spike foght for Buffy. This year will he fight against
her?
Last year Buffy made him feel like a man. This year does she make
him feel like a monster?
If the mirroring continues will Dawn end up on a tower again,
this time with Willow trying to use her keyness to breach the
dimensions. Will Willow try to make a gate between the world of
the living and the world of the dead to bring Tara home? Will
Buffy have to risk her life to save Dawn? And this time will Spike
succeed where he failed last year? Will he save Buffy and Dawn?
Instead of Buffy dying this time will Spike die? And will it be
Spike who is resurrectedwrong?
If a vampire comes back wrong, would he come backhuman?
[> Re: Predicting the Future
based on mirroring between Season 5 and Season 6? (Spoilers)
-- Rob, 20:46:28 03/18/02 Mon
"If the mirroring continues will Dawn end up on a tower again,
this time with Willow trying to use her keyness to breach the
dimensions. Will Willow try to make a gate between the world of
the living and the world of the dead to bring Tara home?"
What awesome ideas, LeeAnn! If the fates have it that Willow will
become an antagonist to Buffy, that would be a brilliant way for
it to happen. The only thing that would cause Buffy to kill or
fight one of her friends (on purpose) would be one of them threatening
Dawn. What if Willow finds that she needs to use the key to retrieve
Tara (if Tara is the BSD)? That would be an amazing plot...and
would make Willow as villian, should that happen, much easier
to understand.
The only thing that could cause Buffy to harm Willow is if Willow
threatened to harm Dawn, and the only thing that would get Willow
to harm Buffy or Dawn is if they stood in the way of her returning
to Tara.
I wonder if that really will happen. Either way, the idea is brilliant,
LeeAnn...I can't wait to see if you're right!
Rob
[> Re: Predicting the Future
based on mirroring between Season 5 and Season 6? (Spoilers)
-- Ishkabibble, 21:16:50 03/18/02 Mon
Great ideas, Lee Ann. And, I hope your predictions mostly are
right. Can I play too?
Your post "Last year Spike foght for Buffy. This year will
he fight against her?" Or, maybe he fights for himself (makes
it his priority to save/rescue/change himself?)
Your question "Last year Buffy made him feel like a man.
This year does she make him feel like a monster?" Or, maybe
he validates for himself that he is worthy as a man and ceases
to need Buffy's affirmation).
[> Re: Predicting the Future
based on mirroring between Season 5 and Season 6? (Spoilers)
-- lindabarlow, 23:15:22 03/18/02 Mon
Thanks, LeeAnn, for an intriguing and insightful post!
--Linda
[> Re: Predicting the Future
based on mirroring between Season 5 and Season 6? (Spoilers)
-- Kimberly, 07:57:49 03/19/02 Tue
Instead of Buffy dying this time will Spike die? And will it
be Spike who is resurrectedwrong? If a vampire comes back wrong,
would he come backhuman?
I like your entire post, but this is my favorite. You'll have
to repost this after the season's over so we can see how close
the two seasons match. (I think closely; it feels like
ME.)
Significance
of Spike's defense of Willow? -- verdantheart, 20:05:42
03/18/02 Mon
I've missed some posts lately, so please pardon me if this has
already been discussed at length. In OaFA, when Anya and (interestingly)
Xander were urging Willow to use magic to help them out of their
predicament, and before Tara jumped to Willow's defense, Spike
pipes in with a "Look--" and moves to help. However,
with Tara jumping in, he didn't have to follow up.
I'd be interested to hear what posters make of this. Dare we assume
that Spike is interested in Willow's welfare? It's interesting
that Spike defends her right not to act whereas her close friend
Xander is urging her to fall of the wagon -- albeit temporarily.
Is it that Spike has greater awareness than Xander does of the
cost of dark magic?
Is there some foreshadowing of the future here? Why involve Spike
in this scene at all? Why not just have X/A/W/T?
Anyway, thanks in advance for your thoughts.
- vh
[> Re: Significance of Spike's
defense of Willow? -- luvthistle1,
01:06:15 03/19/02 Tue
Spike has always supported Willow. When Oz first left town without
telling Willow (in "something Blue) Spike was the first to
point out to Giles and Buffy that she wasn't o.k with it, that
she was hangin' on by a thread. He notice because he cared. He
also was one of the first to acknowledge her as a powerful witch
(besides Tara)and when he treaten to bite her after he was de-fang
in "lover walk" willow tried to make him feel better.
she also tried to stop him from killing himself in "in doomed"
. If there is someone in the group he cares about outside of Buffy
and Dawn it would be Willow. I think it is forshadowing of him
saving her life in the future.
[> [> Re: Significance
of Spike's defense of Willow? -- Malandanza, 13:10:10 03/19/02
Tue
"Spike has always supported Willow. When Oz first left
town without telling Willow (in Something Blue) Spike was the
first to point out to Giles and Buffy that she wasn't o.k with
it, that she was hangin' on by a thread."
I don't think Willow was "hanging by a thread" in Something
Blue. Oz wasn't the great love of her life -- he was the cool
boyfriend who made her feel good about herself. She rebounded
pretty quickly -- even before Tara, she was living vicariously
through the burgeoning Buffy/Riley relationship. In fact, I think
Willow came across as rather self-involved and self-pitying. Her
friends, in fact, had been through similar experiences
(Buffy and Angel, Xander and Cordelia, Giles and Jenny) and could
identify with her pain. I think the script supports the idea that
9/10 of Willow's pain was Willow wanting attention and 1/10 was
real:
WILLOW: No! Why should I? I've got pain here. Big time, legitimate
pain-
XANDER: We've all got pain, Will-
WILLOW: (cutting him off) Like what? Poor me, I live in a basement?
Oh, yeah - that's dire!
Xander's genuinely stung by this. Now Buffy moves to Willow,
takes her by the arm and leads her slightly away from the others.
BUFFY: I'm taking you home now.
WILLOW: I don't want to -
BUFFY: You'll thank me when you still have a friend left in the
morning.
**************
GILES: I only meant that you're grieving, and it might be best
if you took a break from doing spells without supervision.
WILLOW: So I get punished 'cause I'm in pain.
GILES: It's not punishment. I'm saying this because-
WILLOW: (cutting him off) You care. Right. Everybody cares. But
nobody wants to be inconvenienced. You all want me to "take
the time to go through the pain" as long as you don't have
to hear about it anymore!
GILES: That's not fair.
WILLOW: Isn't it? 'Cause I'm doing the best I can - and that doesn't
seem to be enough
for you guys!
GILES: And I see how you could feel that way. I do-
WILLOW: No! You don't. You say you do - but you don't see anything!
**************
BUFFY: Spike escaped.
WILLOW: (meekly)So you're going? Right now?
BUFFY: Sorry. Duty thing.
WILLOW: But - what's the rush? I mean. Spike can't hurt anybody,
right? I figured,
seeing as how I'm kinda grievey, we could have a girl night. You
know - eat sundaes and then watch Steel Magnolias and you could
tell me how at least I don't have diabetes-
************
WILLOW: ...I mean, I'm going through something - and you'd think,
every once in a while Buffy could make best friends a priority.
**********
WILLOW:: Spike's more important than Willow. I get it.
*************
WILLOW: It's just not fair.
**********
WILLOW: (sulks) Great. Now you're mad at me too.
**********
XANDER: (still thinking) Something about Willow and her grief-y
poor-me mood swings. So, so tired of it.
ANYA: You mean I don't have to be nice to her anymore?
BUFFY: We're all tired of it, but what's it have to do with what's
going on?
So why did Spike think she was unusually distraught? First, he
didn't see Willow as often as the other -- a consequence of being
chained in a bathtub in Giles' bathroom. Second, he is melodramatic.
The speech by the imaginary psychiatrist in the Asylumverse could
have easily been made to Spike -- Spike really did invent a larger-than-life
alter ego. He does imagine himself to be more important than he
is -- surrounded by mighty enemies, braving the world alone, sacrificing
everything for the women he "loves." Even his romance
with his dark princess, Dru, is pure, overwrought melodrama --
right up to the end where he offers to sacrifice her as a testament
to the new woman (and it's no wonder Spike loves soaps). Does
he care about Willow? I doubt it. He cares about Spike. He cares
about other people only to the degree that help or hinder his
plans. But with Willow, there is the added suspicion that she
is dangerously amoral -- remember his chat with Xander when he
discovered that he'd been left out of the resurrection plan --
that Willow would have been capable of destroying Buffy had she
come back wrong -- a statement that shocked Xander primarily because
he recognized it as true. Would he like to have sex with her?
Probably. He's threatened her twice -- in Lover's Walk
and in The Initiative:
SPIKE: I'll give you a choice: Now, I'm going to kill you.
No choice in that. But ......
Willow backs up against the far wall, cowering. Spike keeps
coming, slowly, all the time in the world.
SPIKE (cont'd): I could let you stay dead ..
He slides down the wall, brings his face close to hers. Speaks
in a soothing tone. Like a lover.
SPIKE (cont'd): Or bring you back. To be like me
He MORPHS into vamp-face. Fangs near her throat.
WILLOW: I'll scream.
SPIKE: Bonus.
Willow screams but can't be heard - Spike easily reaches over
to the volume knob of her CD player, turning it up full. Willow
breaks away. Spike grabs her. None of this is pretty or well-
choreographed. It's ugly and awkward and violent. Spike falls
on Willow hard, knees first. She bats at him. He grabs her wrists.
Smiling at his own power. Holds her down. Opens his mouth, rears
his head back, showing fangs, and flashes down. Sinks his teeth
right into her neck. Willow struggles. Spike feeds, sucking, deeply
and desperately with his raw animal strength ...
Looking at the "friendship" from the other direction,
Willow's perspective, I don't think there's much there either.
Most recently, Willow and Xander shut Spike out when he offered
to help with Buffy in NA after her collapse in the cemetery. He's
not their friend -- just someone who helps them out occasionally.
I don't think we can blame Willow and Xander for excluding Spike
-- in the past when they were being civil to him, he rejected
the Scoobies. Now he wants to be part of the gang and they're
the ones who aren't interested.
(quotes from Psyche's shooting scripts)
[> Re: Significance of Spike's
defense of Willow? -- Tillow, 06:25:19 03/19/02 Tue
I had also posted earlier that I thought the significant line
in OaFA was Tara's line to Willow "It's time to work without
the net" and perhaps we will see the continued metaphor of
"it's time to rely on your own power/make your own decisions"
with Spike if something happens to his chip. Perhaps he will have
the chance to prove that he isn't just a serial killer in prison
and it will be Willow who brings this out of him. She has been
willing to believe in him more so than the others and the emotional
baggage he has with Buffy wouldn't get in the way, or the guilt
of not saving Dawn. She is the closest thing he has to a friend.
My best guess..
[> [> Re: Significance
of Spike's defense of Willow? -- leslie,
09:24:24 03/19/02 Tue
Also noticed in rewatching The Gift that Willow can apparently
communicate telepathically with Spike--she's telling him to get
to Dawn up on the scaffolding and no-one can hear her but him.
Originally I had thought she was talking through some kind of
pipe that is directly behind his head, but then I realized that
when we see her giving him directions, her lips are not moving,
and she has her (what does she call it?) determined face on. Is
this simply because Spike is the one she wants to communicate
with, or is he the only one she *can* communicate with this way
(perhaps because of his nonliving status and supernatural sense
perception)? How exactly *did* Willow tell him about Buffy's birthday
party?
[> [> [> Re: Significance
of Spike's defense of Willow? -- T-Rex,
09:37:05 03/19/02 Tue
Hate to burst your bubble on this one. Willow was communicating
telepathically with the other Scoobies in the first ep of this
season, when she was standing on the crypt giving them directions
during patrol. Remember how they complained about feeling violated
when she "entered without knocking" later on?
[> [> [> Re: Significance
of Spike's defense of Willow? -- Kevin, 09:38:02 03/19/02
Tue
In Bargaining I think she talks to Xander 'telepathically' as
well (maybe others I've seen the ep once) while they're hunting
vampires in the cemetary. I think Willow chooses who she's talking
to and only they hear it in their heads.
In The Gift, she chose to speak to Spike because he was the one
who had a chance of saving Dawn.
Also on the Willow/Spike connection, he trusts Willow when he
runs at the tower. He has no way of knowing what she's going to
do, but he runs directly at Glory's minions without a second thought.
She blows the minions out of the way when he gets to them, but
again, he doesn't know she's going to do that for him. Spike and
Willow definitely having built a trusting relationship over the
last few seasons.
Now,
for something entirely different.....Zap2it.com article on Lorne......maybe
some spoilers -- Rufus, 20:26:22 03/18/02 Mon
tv.zap2it.com
The Host with the Most
Mon, Mar 18, 2002 12:42 PM PDT
by Kate O'Hare
On a recent Monday afternoon at the Santa Monica production offices
of UPN's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and its spin-off,
the WB's "Angel," series creator Joss Whedon was seen
entering the office of writer/producer Tim Minear ("Angel")
and singing songs from "Moulin Rouge!" During a subsequent
phone call, more songs were exchanged.
Outside later on, as Minear smoked a cigarette, he was accosted
by "Buffy" star Alyson Hannigan, who hurled herself
upon him, saying, "My fellow 'Moulin Rouge!' fan."
So, you see, when Whedon asked "Angel" cast member Andy
Hallett to accompany him to a screening of director Baz Luhrmann's
Academy Award-nominated musical on Cape Cod (Hallett's home, and
Whedon's vacation home) last summer, he could hardly say "no"
-- but he wanted to.
"I never watch movies, ever, ever," Hallett says, "because
I can't sit still for that long. My girlfriend gets so mad at
me. I hate going to the movies. But Joss made me -- made me --
go see 'Moulin Rouge!' That was the last movie I saw. I enjoyed
it, but it's only because it was a dark, rainy night on Cape Cod,
nothing to do."
Although this is his second season as a recurring character on
"Angel" (which returns to The WB's Monday-night lineup
on April 15), Hallett has retained his anonymity. Actually, that
isn't hard, since Hallett spends his working life underneath a
latex mask that transforms him from a tall, dark and handsome
guy into a red-eyed, green-skinned demon with a hooked nose and
horns.
The makeup -- which takes three hours to put on and 30 to 45 minutes
to take off -- so alters Hallett's appearance that he generally
goes unrecognized -- except at conventions. "I don't know
why," he says, "but they do. I guess it's because they're
pretty big fans of the show -- or good guessers."
Hallett plays The Host (aka Krevlornswath of the Deathwok Clan,
aka Lorne), a flamboyant, Rat Pack-esque demon from another dimension
who used to run Caritas, a Los Angeles karaoke bar for supernatural
creatures (until it was blown up, twice).
"I know," says Hallett of the second destruction. "Just
when I got it back up and going."
Lorne's demon knowledge and ability to read people's (or demons')
innermost feelings when they sing has proven useful to crusading
vampire-with-a-soul Angel (David Boreanaz) and his evil-fighting
cohorts (Alexis Denisof, Charisma Carpenter, J. August Richards
and Amy Acker).
Fans may get to see Hallett on film without the makeup, upon the
eventual release of "Chance," a black comedy written,
directed and produced by "Buffy" cast member Amber Benson
(Tara). The low- budget film also stars "Buffy" regulars
James Marsters (Spike) and Emma Caulfield (Anya), and series writer
David Fury.
"I haven't seen the finished product," Hallett says,
"but I spoke to Amber, and she says it's done. I'm dying
to see it, because I know she worked really hard on it. I'm sure
it's going to be a really fine piece of work."
"Watching her was amazing. She did everything. I worked on
that, and I worked on Mere Smith's project. She's one of the writers
on 'Angel.' She wrote a movie called 'The Enforcers.' I play a
real greaseball character in that."
"I'm a dirtbag who works at this sleazy motel. I'm stashing
money in the walls. It was funny. I get to swear in it, use nasty
words. My hair is all greased back. I've got a wife-beater T-shirt
on. It's a stretch from The Host."
Hallett's first career, as a singer, inspired Whedon to create
the Host character in the first place. Since the "Angel"
gig came along, though, Hallett has concentrated on acting, but
he hasn't abandoned music.
There may even be a way to combine his talents. "Joss and
I have been talking about doing a Host CD," Hallett says.
"We're working on it. I'm all for it, make it kind of Las
Vegas, lounge songs. We're in talks about it right now. Hopefully
it will materialize."
As for choosing between acting and singing, Hallett says, "I
love to do both. I would take either one in a heartbeat. I'm trying
to figure out which one people like better -- but that's not a
good way for me to decide. I should do what I like best, and I
like doing them both."
This season on "Angel," Cordelia (Carpenter) has found
romantic entanglements with Angel and Groosalugg (Mark Lutz),
a champion from Lorne's home dimension; and Fred (Acker) and Gunn
(Richards) have canoodled, to Wesley's (Denisof) dismay. Thus
far, though, Lorne remains romance- free (he did show some interest
in Cordelia, but believed her out of his league).
"I have to say, I've been so thrilled just to have gotten
what we've already done with the character," Hallett says.
"The next best thing I could recommend would be some kind
of romantic interest for him, which could be a hoot. It could
be anything -- creature, demon, any kind of human."
"I don't know what would work best. Joss was saying it would
be funny to have some sort of outrageous creature, but I said,
'I don't want it to be too outrageous.' I'd like it to be something
sexy."
"I don't know. Wouldn't it be hilarious if it was this gorgeous
bombshell of a girl? It would be his complete opposite."
CYBERSPATIAL ANOMALIES: To see the true face of "Angel"
cast member Andy Hallett, visit his official web site (www.andy-hallett.net),
which features a chatroom and posting boards. Among fan- run sites
are "Destiny's Voice: A Tribute to Our Favorite Host"
Destiny's voice; "The
Heart of the Host" HotH;
and "Love Lorne" LL,
which also features a fan-fiction archive.
[> Vickie....read this....(I
think it was Vickie anyhoo...or maybe Teri...) -- O'Cailleagh,
08:10:23 03/19/02 Tue
In the above interview, it has the name of Amber's film.....which
is 'Chance' if you can't be bothered to read it!!
[> [> Thanks! --
V, 10:04:21 03/19/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: Thanks!
-- O'Cailleagh, 11:05:26 03/19/02 Tue
don't mention it! looks like a good film...esp if Lorne is in
it too
Current board
| More March 2002