March 2003 Archives

March 2003 posts

Previous March 2003
More March 2003

Angel and Othello: a literary analysis -- But not by me (Masq), 16:47:04 03/08/03 Sat

The link to this article might have been posted before, but it seems pretty recent:

Othello and Angel

Long, and intriguing.

[> Yes it's been on the Trollop board since it was first posted. -- Rufus, 18:31:17 03/08/03 Sat

M'Lyn posts at JossBTVS.

[> Some disagreements with the essay -- Scroll, 19:56:07 03/08/03 Sat

Pretty interesting essay, but I have to admit I found some of M'lyn's arguments to be kind of a stretch. In particular, I found her attempt to parallel Wesley with Iago a little tenuous (though maybe I'm a nit-picker when it comes to Wes). She says:

"Angelus' lack of belief in Wesley's conviction, coupled with Angelus' additional remarks on Wesley's poor relationship with his unloving father, shows Wesley's resemblance to Iago. Wesley shares Iago's inferiority complex and need for attention.

[...] Over the course of the five seasons Wesley has been on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, he saw that his passive behavior wasn't getting him anywhere. He then turned to achieving goals purely for his own success, such as kidnapping Conner as an infant in "Sleep Tight," a third season episode of Angel."

Perhaps I'm remembering Othello incorrectly, but I never read Iago as ever having an inferiority complex. In fact, I always believed Iago had a superiority complex, which is why he was so offended that he'd been passed up for promotion. And I don't see anyone, even Wes-haters, saying that Wesley kidnapped Connor was a goal "purely for his own success".

Also, I didn't agree with her about Fred's motivations in "Supersymmetry". M'lyn wrote:

Furthermore, Desdemona's attempt to make things right between Cassio and Othello is the tool Iago uses against the group. In "Supersymmetry," Fred made an attempt to accept Wesley back to the group by asking him to help her kill her mentor, Professor Seidel, who sent her to a hell dimension for five years. It was this act of reaccepting Wesley that ensnared Fred in the love triangle with her, Wesley, and Gunn.

Yes, Fred wanted Wesley's help to get revenge on Seidel, but I never saw this as "an attempt to accept Wesely back to the group". In fact, if Angel and Gunn had found out about Wesley's intervention, I think Wes would've been even futher ostracised.

OTOH, I did like M'lyn's parallel of Gunn to Brabantio. I'd never considered their similarities since I always saw Gunn as only being Othello. And I also liked that M'Lyn doesn't try to shoe-horn Fred into Desdemona's role entirely; Fred isn't the innocent that Desdemona was.

Something I found surprising was, "Many fans have occasionally praised Wesley for "making a move" on Fred and especially have criticized Gunn for being irrational."

I didn't realise anyone praised Wes for making a move on Fred. I know I didn't, and I'm a huge Wes fan. I found him very selfish and ungentlemanly (so I'm old-fashioned; sue me!). I strongly sympathised with Gunn at that moment, even though he did end up hitting Fred. Gunn seemed to me like the most innocent party -- irrational and possessive, yes, but still the injured party because it is his trust that's been betrayed.

Anyway, that's my take on things. YMMV. : )

[> [> I agree, Scroll. There were quite a few stretches. Still, on the whole, an interesting essay. -- Rob, 21:29:26 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> Quite right...(and a hurrah for gentlemanliness) -- Random, 09:29:55 03/09/03 Sun

...especially the inferiority/superiority complex. What makes analogies tenuous is the point where one must rationalize one text or the other to make them fit. It was an excellent essay in many points, but the morphing of analogous roles strikes me as something of a stretch. If Wesley and Angelus play the role of Iago, Wesley also playing the role of Cassio, then the motivations become incredibly complex. Wesley as Cassio fits perfectly into the mold...except he doesn't. He possesses -- at least in this particular case -- very few of the attributes that distinguish Cassio. Faithful lieutenant, noble, self-sacrificing. But that doesn't make him Iago either. Iago was not in the thick of the love triangle of Othello. He was a treacherous backstabber -- which, to his credit, Wesley wasn't. Dishonorable? Absolutely. Treacherous? Not in the least. His motivations are rather pure, in fact, if not laudable: he follows his passions. I'm not entirely certain I buy the selfish aspect, no matter what the show appears to be, well, showing. Wesley clearly has some deep issues -- power and self-image issues -- that Iago possesses only in a modern, Freudian interpretation. What makes Wesley compelling is precisely the fact that we can see that he acts under a self-imposed duress.

Gunn as Othello/ Fred as Desdemona. Fairly obvious (though I didn't think about it at the time -- silly me) on the racial aspect...but I would like to note an important paradigm shift between Othello and Soulless: the role of power. Othello, of course, was a general and the clear leader of the group. Gunn, while militant, faces a much more complicated arrangement. His leader -- Angel's leadership, while often superficially subverted, has generally been de facto because, let's face it, he's the most powerful member of the group -- is gone, and, adding salt to the wound, the replacement is actually actively working to sow discord as the Iago figure. Gunn's relationship to Wesley must needs be considered in this light. Unlike Othello, the story of a tragic fall by a great leader brought about by a subordinate, the power dynamics of AtS allow for a new element: the dangerous nature of a struggle between the henchmen and sub-bosses over what is clearly an emotional issue, not one of rank or power. When a power void is supplanted by an emotional conflict...well, fill in your own conclusions (really, I'm too lazy to actually follow through here. Plus I'm really not certain where I'm going with this, heh.)

~Random

New Joss Biography -- Rob, 17:36:00 03/08/03 Sat

http://benbellabooks.com/cgi-bin/merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=BB&Product_Code=JOSS&Category_Code=JW

It's unauthorized, officially speaking, but according to the blurb on the website, Joss was interviewed for the book, and did contribute to it, as were cast and production teams from BtVS and AtS.

Joss himself added a review:

"Possibly the finest book of the century; It's exactly like A Tale of Two Cities, but with 30% more me."

Heh, heh. I love that guy!

Rob

[> requesting quotage -- cougar, 20:01:42 03/08/03 Sat

Thanks, book spinning is a definate perk of the scoobieverse.

If anyone reads this can we get a review, yummy insights and yes even "spoilers"? I personaly am swamped by Hec's non fiction list for the next, um, little while.

My analysis of 'Salvage' is up -- Masquerade, 19:12:37 03/08/03 Sat

Here.

And can I just bitca about how difficult it's been to do explanatory analyses of AtS this year?? ME is rationing out the clues and answers very slowly, leaving us to go back months later and re-interpret things. I love a good mystery just as much as the next person. As a fan, I love speculating and being surprised and going back and rediscovering old episodes all over again with new eyes. But as self-appointed Explainer of All Things Confusing in the Buffyverse, it's... aggravating to be kept in the dark about the correct answers.

Guess I could always become a Trollop.

Nah.

[> Being a Trollop won't end the confusion.... -- Rufus, 19:17:46 03/08/03 Sat

If you think you have any idea what is going on, well be prepared to be surprised a few more times.

[> [> Well, you seem to know more than I do! -- Masq, 19:23:12 03/08/03 Sat

Which would be an advantage in my situation. Alas, my episode analyses will only make real sense at the end of the season.

And maybe, give the meta-seasonal arcy-ness of AtS, not even then. : )

[> [> [> I think you will be happy with what you see... -- Rufus, 19:26:44 03/08/03 Sat

But there are a few jaw dropping moments yet to come....Angelus is the least of the problems left to deal with. A scenario that will remind you of season five Buffy will arise after ep 17.

[> [> [> [> I hate being teased! (Actually, I love it) -- Masq, 19:34:54 03/08/03 Sat

You mean Connor was made by monks and is the key for Evil!Cordelia to get back to the heavenly dimension??

You mean the Dracula will come to town and help Faith explore her darkness?

You mean that Wesley will get a brain tumor and spend all his time getting CAT scans and surgery and will be found dead on that circular couch in the Hyperion lobby?

You mean Gunn will get brain-sucked by the Beast's Boss and Fred will go all black-eyed and lash out vengeful magicks at her even though she and Gunn had been estranged and fighting?

[> [> [> [> [> LOL! -- AurraSing, 19:46:37 03/08/03 Sat

Thank you for laying out almost all the possibilities...heh heh heh!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I hate being teased! (Actually, I love it) -- s'kat, 20:53:29 03/08/03 Sat

Or maybe Cordelia is housing a godlike being like Ben did Glory? That would actually explain a lot, come to think of it.

[> [> [> [> [> Or -- ponygirl, 09:11:17 03/09/03 Sun

The team hits the road in an RV for some quality bonding time.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Or... -- Rob, 10:02:57 03/09/03 Sun

When Connor is kidnapped by Cordelius, Angel completely shuts down. With a little help from Lorne with the magicks, Fred is able to jump into Angel's unconscious mind, where she sees him smothering Connor with a pillow over and over again!

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, you know about Angel and smothering with pillows... -- Masq, 10:18:48 03/09/03 Sun

He's had practice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I do believe in going with what you know......;) -- Rufus, 14:53:39 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> More like -- KdS, 10:23:01 03/09/03 Sun

The BeastMaster (so named to avoid confusion with the dead bald guy) must be destroyed to save the world, but there's no way to get rid of him/her/it without killing Cordy as well. Most obvious S5 parallel I can think of.

[> [> [> [> [> [> So if that's right, it ends like this.... -- Masq, 10:34:36 03/09/03 Sun

There's a moving and troubling scene in which Cordelia is weak and beaten and lying on the ground after a Big Fight with Angel. Angel is unable to kill her, because it's Cordelia. So ex-Watcher Wesley comes over to her and suffocates her to death with his hand to kill the Cordelius inside her.

Oof, I knew Wes could be ruthless for the greater good, but wow!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Wouldn't that make it more like... -- Isabel, 12:13:13 03/09/03 Sun

the end of Season 2? What with Angel (or Connor) having to kill someone they love to save the world. To make it like Season 5, Cordy would be throwing herself into a flaming portal.

[> [> [> [> That was an interesting way to phrase it -- lunasea, 11:49:43 03/09/03 Sun

So this won't happen until after the resouling. That makes it even more interesting and frustrating. I want to see THAT now, damnit.

[> [> loving surprises -- cougar, 19:36:54 03/08/03 Sat

this is very encouraging to hear from an emisary of the beyond.

I've been wondering if my silent frustration is because of the pacing and direction of this season, or the heightened standard of insight this board demands! Before finding this place I used to leisurly look at Buffy a layer at a time. Now I bite the whole onion and worry if I haven't tasted every ring. Sometimes the tension of wanting to understand tempts me to the dark side.

Oh dear, I'll be speaking in lame metaphors all week after the invocation I recieved today (see below, but be aware that it may lead you to ambiguity and surprises)

[> [> [> Quote of the week -- Masq, 19:41:52 03/08/03 Sat

"Sometimes the tension of wanting to understand tempts me to the dark side".

I hear you. But stay strong. The answers will come to those who wait. If not on the show, than surely here, where great minds can come up with a coherant narrative behind the most mysterious ME plot ploys.

[> [> [> [> more quotage -- cougar, 19:54:19 03/08/03 Sat

I am honoured Masq, but my favorite quote today (from my awesome seminar) is "childhood obedience is a complex"

Another point stressed was the level at which we can tolerate ambiguity, so we can comfort ourselves that by not giving in quick answers, we are advancing human consciousness.

But does this make a trollop essentially a fundementalist? (in the nicest sence of course ;o)

[> [> [> another worthy quote -- Jay, 17:35:18 03/09/03 Sun

Before finding this place I used to leisurly look at Buffy a layer at a time. Now I bite the whole onion and worry if I haven't tasted every ring.

It's like a board theme quote.

[> Thanks for the quotage! -- s'kat, 20:51:02 03/08/03 Sat

One minor change, but nothing major - "gonna to" should probably just be "gonna" or "going to" - it's in the first quote.

No biggie. As you know, I'm really not much into the grammar details on posting. ;-)

Do wholeheartedly agree about dragging the mystery on too long. I think this a mistake they are making in both shows regarding big bads - it's driving some people to spoilers.
I'm staying away from them, but it is painful.

Here's hoping we get some answers soon.

SK

[> [> Re: Thanks for the quotage! -- Rob, 21:11:02 03/08/03 Sat

"Do wholeheartedly agree about dragging the mystery on too long. I think this a mistake they are making in both shows regarding big bads - it's driving some people to spoilers. I'm staying away from them, but it is painful."

Don't know if I'd call it a mistake, but I am totally with you on how painful spoiler-avoiding is this year. I haven't been this insanely spoiler-needy since the summer after "The Gift"!

Rob

[> [> [> Rob, Rufus can take all the pain away.....<g>..;) -- Rufus, 18:32:24 03/09/03 Sun

All I can say is that I've seen many guesses and so many of them aren't even close...:):):):):)

[> [> [> [> Well, you're not counting our joke guesse above, right? -- Masq, 18:52:33 03/09/03 Sun

'Cause they weren't meant to be.

Masq

Spoiler-free and proud
Marching in the spoiler-free pride parade
Strong-willed and waiting for Wednesday
Mocking you weak-willed trollops with my Monkey pants

[> [> [> [> [> What is yet to come just may get you to fill your Monkey pants.....<g> -- Rufus, 19:14:16 03/09/03 Sun

Again with the teasing....;) but it's true.

[> [> [> [> [> [> But you said I'd like it... -- Masq, 20:21:21 03/09/03 Sun

So you're assuming I like to fill my Monkey pants...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The question is, afterwards, do you get your Monkeypants dry-cleaned or just throw them out? ;o) -- Rob, 20:44:47 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Rufus, here's my final guess -- Masq, 06:33:50 03/10/03 Mon

Came to me in the wee hours of the morning after my neighbor to decided to wake me up by playing basket ball on my head.

Angel and Angelus have a conversation with each other just like Ben and Glory in "The Weight of the World"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ooh! That's a good one! -- Rob, 12:40:56 03/10/03 Mon

And that's one of the few I can actually see possibly happening. That would be very Jekyll and Hyde. Don't know how they'd exactly maneuver it...perhaps a remove the soul/restore the soul/remove the soul/restore the soul dealie so each can get a word in edgewise lol. Still, actually a cool idea, if they could pull it off plotwise.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's actually not that complicated -- Masq, 13:28:38 03/10/03 Mon

"Angel" goes away when the soul is gone, but really, most of what makes up Angel--personality, consciousness, memory--is still present in Angelus. All that is gone is the conscience. Likewise, when the soul is present, everything that makes up Angelus is present.

So give Angelus back is soul, then have Angel have an internal dialogue between the better part of his nature and the worse part of his nature. Let him realize that Angel and Angelus are really the same person, one with the best intentions intact, one with the worse traits emphasized.

Rufus has a point about her multiple personality disorder analogy. Sometimes, Angel admits that he is Angelus, sometimes he wants to pretend that it's someone else who inhabits his body.

Give that boy some therapy, he's needed it for 100 years now.

a knife: spoilers for salvage/showtime -- anne, 23:30:53 03/08/03 Sat

I noticed the knife that buffy picked up from the bringer at the beginning of showtime was the same blade that the woman who jumped faith in the prison used. for a while i suspected that the beast's mysterious master was the first, which would tie angel and buffy together again, and if you accept that cordelia or whoever is not that mysterious master, it very well could be; although a slight possibility is that cordelia is possessed by the first - perhaps she picked up a hitchhiker on her road back to humanity

[> Re: a knife: spoilers for salvage/showtime -- anne, 23:35:43 03/08/03 Sat

another possibility that just occurred to me is that the first is merely trying to eliminate first, across shows - though sending one woman armed only with a knife after a slayer seems a slight amount of underestimation.

[> [> Re: a knife: spoilers for salvage/showtime -- CW, 06:39:44 03/09/03 Sun

True, but sending a dozen bringers into the prison might aggravate the WB, as well as the prison guards. Thankfully, the First seems to have no taste for firearms.
;o)

The Lord Giveth...(Angel Odyssey 3.1-3.3) -- Tchaikovsky, 02:37:03 03/09/03 Sun

Well, you know what? Three day season hiatuses [desperate desire to put 'haiti'] really work for me. Nice and speedy. Of course, I don't get as much of the painful anticipation thing, but that's something I'm completely willing to sacrifice, being a child of the Eighties whose worldview is definitely one complete with instant gratification. Which almost leads to the question of why I'm posting these threads at all. Just want to say before I start out on the final third of the journey that I've got three times as much pleasure out of watching 'Angel' than watching 'Buffy' before I discovered this board. Not cos it's three times better, but because I get to watch the episode, (be receptive), write about the episode (be received), and then reply to the replies, (doing the whole communication thing). So thanks to everyone who reads- it's a real pleasure to be able to write these- and thanks to everyone who has responded with super-insightful points. And of course thanks to yabyumpan.

These three episodes were all marvellous. Perhaps not quite as superlative as the run in the Darla arc from last Season, but all very strong, setting up a great Season already.

3.1- 'Heartthrob'

I am in love with the message of this episode, because it re-affirms something that I thought might be considered unsuitable for the noir style of Angel. But as usual, ME make the Buffyverse consistent and tidy, and the themes echo across from all over the place. I'm referring to Angel's struggle with Buffy's death in this episode. He's attempted to brood with monks, and failed because they were demons. Then he meets someone for whom a true love was the most important aspect in his life- that is willing to die for that love. Against all odds, Angel denies the Romeo and Juliet twist- the eternal devotion of death- and instead is strong enough to carry on by living. Just as Buffy's message to Dawn in 'The Gift' postulated (if that isn't too academic for something so beautiful), Angel comes to the conclusion that the greatest way to honour Buffy's memory is to fight on, continuing what she did in LA, and helping AI. It's not just a fancy trick to allow the status quo to return to the series, it's a powerful message on the strength of overcoming grief.

Greenwalt writes and directs this episode extremely elegantly. There is a lot of setting up going on, but at the same time, each element refers back to some parallel within the cast. It's unusually tidy for a Greenwalt episode, and actually has relatively few moments of blindingly weird hilarity.

To mention a couple of the parallels I saw. First of all, we see Fred parallelled with Angel. We set up that for her, Angel is the Knight, the man who saved her from the nightmare world. We are supposed to consider Angel as Fred for a while. What would happen if Angel stored himself away from the world, and became a hermit, brooding over loss and the agony of his life? It would be a slip back into the slow-burning depression of the flashbacks in 'Becoming, Part One'. This time, of course, he has his Family to ground him, and there is continual play on how important this is in keeping him going. The group dynamic works as well in this episode as any in a while, reminding me of the familial aspect of the Scooby Gang in early Season Five.

James and Elizabeth are fascinating characters, who do several jobs in the episode. They represent the star-crossed lovers of the Angelus/Darla days. It's interesting to consider just how the love between Angelus and Darla operated. We've already seen the time when one betrayed the other in 'Dear Boy'. This time, Angelus claims that he can give them James, Elizabeth and Darla. The Angelus/Darla love is clearly a conditional one- one that still takes the individual first, and partnership second. It appears possible that even in the 150 years of rampaging across the world, Angelus perhaps never really loved Darla, and vice versa. They were eternal playmates, but they never achieved the devotion of Elizabeth and James, or, indeed, Angel and Buffy.

So we have the comparison between Buffy and Darla, and also the quite obvious one between Angel and Spike. Repeat three time: 'Angel does not negate Spike. Spike does not negate Angel.' OK. Here we have a subway referencing 'Fool For Love' very clearly. One defining moment of Spike's development is the killing of Nikki. It highlights his punk 'tude, his rebelliousness and his physical prowess. Now here on the subway Angel shows something quite different. Spike's love for the Slayer developed out of violence and obsession with the idea of killing the symbol of Good. Angel's was just love. The whole scene is note perfect. James has seen that Angel's relationship with Darla was not love, just convenient. But Angel really has had true love, and she has just died. How, in that case, thinks James, can you possibly live on. James plays Juliet to Elizabeth's Romeo, realising that with the death of his lover there is nothing left. But Angel does something quite differet. He knows that his love for Buffy is fiery and powerful, but he doesn't let it consume him. James, ultimately, makes the wrong decision for Angel to make. It is not necessarily the wrong decision for him- his vampiric nature makes that ambiguous. But it is certainly not the right choice for Angel- to symbolically show that in having his hear- his love- removed, he is no more than dust, echoing the old 'Dust to dust' theme of the Funeral Service.

And then a quite beautiful scene between Angel and Cordelia. They have a superb relatiobship developing so far this Season, one of mutual respect and support. I think the immaculately delivered line from Charisma Carpenter [not a big ChCa fan, but this was perfect], really made the line: 'I'm Cordelia. I don't think [pause] I know', one of my favourite character lines ever. She realises her impulsiveness, and there's a reference back to 'Earshot', but she also happens to be deeply right. Self-deprecating, self-assured and supportive, all at the same time. Wonderful.

A couple of other bits:
-Cordelia's pain, obviously pre-figuring 'That Vision Thing', links in to Angel's suffering. She just feels as if life is a great burden, and that being chosen has massive drawbacks. But she goes on anyway.
-Lorne singing 'I lfet my heart in San Fransisco'. Give him a medal, please. My favourite lounge lizard. (Did I ever mention the 'Bonanza' reference in the Pylea arc? No? Loved it.)
-There's the interchange of 'I know yous' between Angel and Cordelia. It's a very mature adult relationship. Both support the other. Neither is the Hero. Neither is the Parent. Neither is the Child. Lovely.
- The Darla double mislead. I may be over-interpreting her [what's the odds?!], but I liked the way I was fooled by Julie Benz's use in this episode. I saw her name on the credits and was amazed. Then I saw her in the flahsbacks and assumed she wouldn't be in the episode. And then I was certain that the episode was to end, thematically tidily, on Wesley's gang going off on another mission. It made good sense in a nicely sturctured episode. Instead, there was the 'Nicaragua' twist. Darla is deeply threatening. The last line has perfect music by Robert Kral and directing from David Greenwalt. Lovely cliffhanger to set up the Season.

A very good opener. It's weird how Angel's openers tend to be better than Buffy's. 'City Of...', 'Judgement' and 'Heartthrob' have all been great.

3.2- 'That Vision Thing'

Well, I'll say this for Jeffrey Bell. He managed to write an episode before Tim Minear this Season. How did he get away with that? In any case, he did an excellent job with a difficult episode to make cohesive. There's an awful lot of setting up in this episode. Darla seeing the shaman. The mystery man being released, (is the point that we never know what evil he commits, or will he re-appear?). We have the slow growth of Fred. It all seems a little bit like a desk tidy epsiode in theory. In practice, it comes off a little better, partly because of some sizzling writing. Bell's writing of Fred with Cordelia is one of those moments where you feel you're getting to know a character for the first time, just as Cordelia is. The two's chemistry is utterly fantastic and hilarious. Fred comparing Cordelia to Lassie really did make me laugh. I think it's symptomatic of the way the interpersonal relationships are really being explored this season so far.

Here's some random musings:
-I don't understand the action or fight scenes. They ain't my bag. But was that a 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' reference in there somewhere? I don't know.

-What's going on with Lilah's hair? Very Amelie.

-Cordelia's injuries were really well realised visually, I thought. I really felt her pain.

The main ideas of this episode were about Cordelia and Angel again. Angel's anxiety over Cordelia was lovely. His warning to Lilah at the end of the episode was somewhat like Buffy in 'Choices'. Buffy realises that keeping the box will save more lives, but frankly doesn't care, because WIllow's chance of survival comes first. Here, Angel sets a man free despite the consequences. I loved Skip looking so Egyptian and threatening, and the line 'I commute. Takes about 20 minutes', was perfect. the mundane-ness of everyone's existence sometimes surprises us. Buffy's slaying becomes almost casual. People adjust to extraordinary circumstances. Skip is just a guardian demon 'like everybody else'.

I'm not a big fan of Gavin Parks, although I suspect this may be deliberate. Certainly, as Lilah contends, shutting down the Hyperion because of termites doesn't sound particularly threatening. Whether he becomes a threat to Lilah's authority will be interesting.

There's the reference to the Book of Job which is quite telling. Cordelia questions her ability to be the Powers' vessel. She considers that not wanting the visions any more has made them angry. Angel, in their new symbiotic relationship, casts aside the fear. But there's certainly a resonance with the man whose life was good and whose faith was pure, having everything taken away from him and being tested to see how strong his faith will stand. How can Cordelia deny the supposed Powers there will to save? 'What is man, that thou art mindful of him?' If this is what is intended, must she continue to suffer, even while other non-afflicted, without faith, go about their daily secular lives. Cordelia's ending isn't quite as dramatically poignant as Job's 'The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the lord!', but, with the knowledge that the physical pain was the open brain man, (pretty direct, yucky symbolism), and with the memory that they may save lives, she continues. She has been tested by the devil (W+H) and survived her test, so now God will reward her. I wonder what with? I suspect this may play out later in the Season.

The episode ends with Darla again, pointing out that in a lot of ways, this is a pretty straight-ahead action episode, and appears to be building towards something rather than having a self-contained structure. But Bell's dialogue and writing (the Key Shop, Lorne 'helping' with Julie Andrews) helps from keepingit to ploddy.

3.3- 'That Old Gang Of Mine'

Shock horror, I've lost my envelope for this episode, so I'm going to have to ad lib it. Might not turn out well. Here's my best shot.

First of all, I feel compelled to consider the dating of this show, which aired shortly after September 11th, and was possibly the first show conceived after it. I find it impossible to believe that there isn't some global relevance here, as Gunn's gang are basically acting as terrorists, and the Whedonverse certainly doesn't operate in a complete vacuum. What exactly was Minear trying to say here?

It's extremely easy to over-interpret here. Do we take Gunn's old gang as the Islamic fundamentalists, and the demons as the diverse Americans some of whom are bad, but who often live together? I think that this view just attracts controversy for no real gain in understanding. This is not a straight ahead allegory for the World Trade Center. The message is what counts. We are not to judge beings on prejudice. Even where there is a chance or a likelihood of evil in a being, action is best taken as a result of a previous action, rather than in gruesome pre-emptive strikes [sorry, I'm finding it hard to stay apolitical here]. But what is really wrong with Gunn's old gang is that they are not killing truly for altruistuc protection of others, or even themselves. They are using this as an excuse for an element of fun. And this is an action which cannot be condoned. Angel is many times the man the leader of the Gang is, because since re-ensoullment, he has both attempted to atone for wrongs, and set about killing only demons who have caused damage to others. There is no joy in his brutality, only occasional necessity. Race or breed is not enough to guarantee what you do is right. It's intention and action. I don't think I can entirely discount the fact that Gunn's gang is entirely black. There's the subversion going on somewhere that the oppressed have become the oppressors.

The ultimate point is how terrorism harms the innocent. There's Fred, singing with beautiful vulnerability, and starting to re-gain confidence, when her feeling of safeness is torn to shreds again. Cordelia, very guilitily feels responsible, but it's not her fault. And there is the demon on the other side, repeating 'Oh God, Oh God, Oh God'. His life has been wrecked as well. The innocents are those who suffer from terrorism, even if the cause may be just.

What else? There's the compelling sturggle of Gunn's old and new identity, culminating in a couple of wonderful scenes with first Wesley and then Angel. Wesley shows the same tough love that Angel did while inside Caritas. He gave Gunn the stark decision, not the watered-down version. If Gunn is to kill Angel because he is a vampire, then it is crucially important that he is in vamp face. Gunn must conquer any remnants of prejudice, not pretend Angel is human really. He must realise that action and intention conquers all. And here with Wesley, he is reminded of what his mission is. Alexis Denisof's acting this season, despite the fact he hasn't been centredon in an episode yet, (probably coming), has been magnificent- underplayed, threatening, in control. He's come a long way from his campy pratfalls in Buffy. And so Gunn has to decide that his mission is the right one, not the mission of his old gang. He has not only to ignore his past, but refute it- a terrible action to commit. But it's the reality of life.

And then, finally, with Angel. Angel's giving attitude to not being a friend is great to see. He knows they are not yet friends but he is willing to give it time- the exact opposite of what he tried to do with Doyle in the premiere. He has grown too. When Angel tells Gunn he will earn Angek's respect when he needs to be killed and is, it's a direct echo of Cordelia's 'Oh, I'd kill you in a second' in 'Somnambulist', which is obviously deliberate as Minear penned both episodes. There's a lot of trust to be worked out between Gunn and Angel, but it could just happen.

You may have noticed I'm just a bit excited by this Season! Now with five regulars and Lorne, the cross-parallels are firing in the same way that the best of Buffy did, and there's more of Darla to come. I'm sure the rather respectful aspect of the group to each other will suffer some hefty blows in the year ahead, but for the moment it's nice to see them together.

RIP Merl. The reveal on him instead of Darla at the start of the episode was priceless.

Thanks for reading. Hope that final section wasn't too random, although I know I missed out a few things I wanted to remember. C'est la vie.

TCH

[> Nice comments -- KdS, 04:23:12 03/09/03 Sun

Personally I saw Judgement as a comment on Spuffy in S6. The whole issue of vampire love as selfish and all-consuming - compare Angel's and Cordelia's lines on James to the argument between Buffy and Spike in SR that ends with him trying to rape her. AtS got it all covered in one ep - as AtS puts less importance on the romantic relationships and more on the moral dilemmas.

And I also noticed, and was slightly disturbed by, the fact that Gunn's gang seem far more homogeneously black in this episode, while in earlier eps they were more multi-racial. Are we intended to suspect that the new leadership of Gio and Rondell are not merely prejudiced against the non-human, but also sufficiently anti-white that the non-black members of the crew were forced out?

[> Excellent analyses, TCH -- Scroll, 08:03:25 03/09/03 Sun

Wonderful stuff, TCH, and I also enjoyed KdS' response to you above. I never noticed that James/Elizabeth could be a parallel to Spike/Buffy, but it makes sense now that it's been pointed out.

So we have the comparison between Buffy and Darla, and also the quite obvious one between Angel and Spike. Repeat three time: 'Angel does not negate Spike. Spike does not negate Angel.'

Hee hee, I just had to laugh at this. S'kat did us all a favour when she came up with that line!

First of all, we see Fred parallelled with Angel. We set up that for her, Angel is the Knight, the man who saved her from the nightmare world. We are supposed to consider Angel as Fred for a while. What would happen if Angel stored himself away from the world, and became a hermit, brooding over loss and the agony of his life?

You know, you just keep coming up with stuff I've never thought about. I never saw Fred as a parallel for Angel but it seems clear that Angel, having suffered something tragic and traumatic, would want to hide away in a sanctuary much like Fred has. The knowledge that Cordy, Wes, and Gunn are there to support him is what keeps Angel from holing up in a monastary, just as Angel's gentle encouragement to Fred are what gets her out of her room.

Angel rejecting the easy way (hiding from the world, or committing suicide like James) of dealing with his grief is quite powerful. Similar to your point, I think that Angel deciding that fighting to protect the world, to help people, and living his life the best way he can, is not simply him "getting on" with his life, but actually a way of grieving for and remembering Buffy. I wonder if Dawn ever passes on Buffy's last words to the Scoobies and to Angel? We never get to see any immediate post-Gift scenes but it would seem likely that Dawn would be honouring Buffy by making sure everybody knew Buffy's last message to them all.

I haven't watched "That Vision Thing" in a good while, but I think Cordelia's relationship with the Powers That Be is one of the most subtlely played and easily overlooked plot lines. Cordelia has steadily matured since (I would say) Doyle's death. She knows how important family is, and she clings to her visions because they allow her to contribute to the good fight. There's more I want to say about Cordy, but I don't want to spoil you!

This is not a straight ahead allegory for the World Trade Center. The message is what counts. We are not to judge beings on prejudice.

Yes, that's it exactly. Plus, indiscriminate killing of demons is no less evil than indiscriminate killing of humans. When you take pleasure in ending life, you're starting that slippery slope to Faith-ville. You start to feel like a god, powerful and arrogant, with control over who lives and who dies. That's not what the Fang Gang represents. Their fight is a defensive action -- killing demons that actively harm innocents -- whereas Gio and his friends are being way too pro-active. They kill for the fun of it. Actually, this episode really reminded me of "Bad Girls" and "Consequences" over on Buffy.

Thanks for your analyses, TCH. I love reading them and remembering past Angel episodes through unspoiled eyes.

[> [> Re: Excellent analyses, TCH -- Rob, 08:54:53 03/09/03 Sun

"Their fight is a defensive action -- killing demons that actively harm innocents -- whereas Gio and his friends are being way too pro-active. They kill for the fun of it. Actually, this episode really reminded me of "Bad Girls" and "Consequences" over on Buffy."

This ep also reminded me of "Gingerbread." Although it isn't about "killing for the fun of it," we do have the indiscriminate squashing/killing of any and all things supernatural or magic.

Rob

[> Oh good!! -- Rahael, 08:17:52 03/09/03 Sun

I'm getting addicted to these reviews.

I loved Hearthrob so much for exactly the reasons you give. It takes a necessity (having to show Angel get over Buffy's death and move on) into a triumph - affirming the right of the grieving to move on, to live on, to love again, without ever negating the value of the love that has been lost.

I love the fact that James had an operation to protect his heart. Illustrated that his heart was closed, his love was static and stultifying. Not free to love again. A strength that was ultimately weak, compared to Angel's openess to life. Angel's heart may not be throbbing, but it's open to the possibility of life after Buffy. It is also perfect in showing the difference between mature, abiding love, and immature, showy, dramatic ones. Angel's love for Buffy is all the greater, because it gives life to him - Elizabeth and James' love is barren, and truly is dead. The unbarren-ness of Angel, the fact that he is able to give life, to the people around him, is underscored by the last shot of Darla. He has shansu in the best way possible. Accepting mortality (Buffy's death), accepting life.

I thought the whole episode was steller, including Cordelia's reply to the mention of Buffy "We try not to say her name" - a hilarious comment that works on a meta level, because the WB obviously don't want AtS to have cross overs or mention the parent show too much.

There was much discussion over the significance of the names of Elizabeth and James. I think it's ME's old trick of naming characters after crew members - Elizabeth James is named in the credits.

I loved Cordy's line on getting her present from Angel "brings out my breasts". LOL. Cordy seems to have a fascination for unusual necklaces - she steals one from the musuem in the Shroud of Rahmon. And there's a link between Angel giving Cordy the gift of a necklace, and James smashing in a window to give a necklace to Elizabeth.

More thoughts later

[> [> Ah, yes -- Tchaikovsky, 03:10:19 03/10/03 Mon

The unbarren-ness of Angel, the fact that he is able to give life, to the people around him, is underscored by the last shot of Darla. He has shansu in the best way possible. Accepting mortality (Buffy's death), accepting life.

Dead on, as usual. I hadn't seen that. It's an extreme irony that we almost leave the show on how great it is that Angel, the vampire who could have accepted a James-like death, is living, drawing strength from the memories of his love with Buffy rather than letting it 'consume until there's nothing left'. And then to have it turned into the super-liveliness of Angel. He is so alive that he has helped give life to something quite impossible. Perhaps Angel is a little too alive. This thought certainly allows the final scene to parallel the rest of the show though.

TCH

[> Angelus and Darla -- Masq, 08:26:58 03/09/03 Sun

There's a lot of ME writer lip-service to the effect that Angelus and Darla didn't love each other, were not capable of it, and were just playmates for 150 years. But, you know, it was 150 years. They probably had plenty of other playmates-on-the-side in those years, but they stuck it out with each other, and there has to be a reason for that, seeing as they are evil demons and all.

Love it may not have been, but a certain amount of devotion was required. Devotion that could be dumped when the going got especially rough, but devotion that brought them back together again nevertheless.

Now it could just be the connection between sire and vampire childe that kept them together, but we have seen cases where sires especially had no feelings of connection to their offspring.

Despite the number of flashbacks of Angelus and Darla, we are given so little about what did kept them together. We see them hunt together, we see them enjoying an active sex life together, but of course much more was going on under the surface. Hints of it in things like Darla playing doting mentor-mother to a boyish Angelus. Darla saving Angelus from Holtz. Angelus taking his sire's lessons of evil and outdoing the teacher.

And I make this assumption because of what finally came out between them when each was ensouled. All the things they experienced together, all the things they may have felt but would not own up to or let themselves feel came to the surface once they had souls. Angel was torn and angry and frustrated by Darla's taunting in the first BtVS Season episode "Angel". He killed Darla off with seeming dispassion, but it was the first season of Buffy, and the writers had not gone far with these two characters yet.

Jump ahead to season 2 Angel. Angel gets a second chance to make things right with Darla and for Darla, and he becomes obsessed with doing so. Darla, now with a soul, becomes very hurt by the idea that Angel found more happiness with Buffy in a few short years than he did in 150 years with Darla. These two are a bitter old divorced couple with years and years of history and issues behind them.

At the same time, Darla is the human damsel in distress, she's the evil mother Angel wants to redeem her to redeem himself, she's the ex-lover Angel falls into bed with after he's had a REALLY BAD DAY.

And on the somewhat spoilery hinty side...

Season 3 of AtS will bring a whole new set of lover's archetypes for these two...

which also speaks of the depths of this relationship. One of my favorite of both shows, because it keeps growing and changing and reflecting back on the way it used to be.

Darla was mother lover mentor friend damsel symbol spurned-ex-wife temptress-unto-evil, the person Angel judged both his capacity for evil and his capacity for redemption against. And soon, Darla will be even more to him.

[> [> 'Dear One' -- Rahael, 08:54:45 03/09/03 Sun

Very good points.

It's also poignant that early Souled Angel so desperately wanted to get back with Darla.

Perhaps within their relationship, to admit tender feelings would have been taboo. Instant derision. Maybe they got really really good at not caring, and being cynical and hedonistic.

It's also clear, from the name that the Master gives Darla, that she was capable of arousing feelings of affection and devotion. Compared to every other vamp we have met, apart from Holden (and perhaps Sunday), the fanged four shine out in their charisma, power and intelligence.

[> [> [> Fanged Four -- Scroll, 09:47:01 03/09/03 Sun

I've always had a special place in my heart for our four vampires. I think they really were devoted to each other as a family -- though of course there was also selfishness, twisted incestuous sex, and murder/mayhem. So I don't find it hard to believe that Darla, as unhealthy as her idea of love was, really did love Angelus, adored the Master as her father figure, felt a kinship (sister & mother) with Drusilla, and maybe even laid claim to Spike as the bratty pseudo-son.

It's this dark reflection of a family that makes the Fanged Four so powerful. They're a mirror to Buffy/Xander/Willow/Giles and their chosen family, and to the Fang Gang. Darla, Angelus, Drusilla, and Spike were deadly, powerful, reknowned, a cut above the average vampire. And they stayed together for centuries/decades out of devotion and love. Twisted love, but love.

Perhaps within their relationship, to admit tender feelings would have been taboo. Instant derision. Maybe they got really really good at not caring, and being cynical and hedonistic.

I think this is very true. While I do think it appears that Angelus cared less for Darla than she did for him, I also think we can see Wes/Lilah as Angelus/Darla 2.0. In which case, I think the feelings are definitely there, but that the type of relationship forged precluded mushy love and hearts and flowers. Without that strong element of selfishness, I think we'd all be crying out-of-character for Angelus and Darla.

[> [> [> [> Re: Fanged Four -- Rahael, 09:56:28 03/09/03 Sun

Funnnily enough, that's exactly who I had in mind - Wesley&Lilah - when I made that description.

[> [> [> Don't forget Trick... -- KdS, 09:49:52 03/09/03 Sun

Who always struck me as the most human and least supernatural of all the vamps we've seen except Harmony. Unlike Harmony, though, he did have a clear idea of who he was, which was a clever, hedonistic, amoral crook who just happened to drink blood.

[> [> [> [> Good point! I loved Mr Trick. -- Rahael, 09:54:08 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> 'Darling Boy' (Spoiler for later S. 3 with spoiler space) -- Masq, 10:15:41 03/09/03 Sun

Whatever they called their feelings, whatever they would admit to, it is clear Darla was quite enamored of Angelus. Worshipful, even. And no matter how crude and rude and deceitful Angelus could be, he respected her.

S. 3 Spoiler below

I also loved that moment when pregnant Darla is lying on Angel's bed. Angel is sitting on the bed with her. This is after the ultrasound where they find out the child is a human boy. Darla runs her hand over her very pregnant abdomen. She says, "My darling boy". Is she talking about Connor, or Angel? Or both?

[> [> [> [> Re: 'Darling Boy' (Spoiler for later S. 3 with NO spoiler space) -- Arethusa, 14:27:32 03/09/03 Sun

Since Darla had syphilis (the unfunny kind), she probably wouldn't be able to give birth to a healthy child. Siring Angelus was the closest she could come to being a mother. If Darla had a strong maternal drive, and I think she did, her ties to Angelus would be much stronger than those of just a lover.
I love that moment you mention too, because Darla is finally able to truly feel love for the first time. The stunted and twisted love she felt for Angelus becomes an overwhelmingly deep and protective love for their child, one of greatest gifts life gives us.* It was also a cathartic moment for Angel, too, because in a very ironic, Whedonesque way, Angel was finally able to help Darla redeem herself.

*Just pausing to recognize that having kids is also one of the most demanding, frustrating and expensive gifts-with-purchase life gives us.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: 'Darling Boy' (Spoiler for later S. 3 with NO spoiler space) -- Masq, 15:11:26 03/09/03 Sun

Just pausing to recognize that having kids is also one of the most demanding, frustrating and expensive gifts-with-purchase life gives us.

I don't think you'd get any argument from Angel about that!

[> [> Re: Angelus and Darla -- Dannyblue, 09:34:29 03/09/03 Sun

I've always likened Angelus and Darla to two wolves, both powerful and ruthless enough to lead their own packs. When these two wolves come together, one of two things are going to happen.

1. Feeling their power is threatened, they will attack each other, each determined to be the only leader on the block.

2. They will find a connection, a kinship, with each other that they can't find with anyone else.

Angelus and Darla found things in each other that it was probably impossible to find in other vamps. Each admired the others cruelty, ruthlessness, cunning, intelligence, etc. Having someone so similar to themselves to pass the decades with probably made unlife less lonely.

[> [> Absolutely -- Tchaikovsky, 01:03:24 03/10/03 Mon

I think the point is that it is a kind of co-dependence- but not a once-in-a-lifetime true love. Because James/Elizabeth and Angel/Buffy parallel so easily, we are then left with the immutable conclusion that James and Elizabeth's love was something quite different than Angelus and Darla's, and hence Angel's true love of Buffy cannot have been matched by his relationship with Darla.

However, I still find the Darla/Angel(us) relationship as compelling as the greatest relationships on either show, (which usually for me are non-shippy, like Buffy-Dawn and Buffy-Giles). And it is, at least partly, for the reasons you state. That they play all sorts of different roles on each other. They don't ever find one true voice in their relationship. Theiir role-playing may actually reflect the idea that it isn't love, in a sense. They are never comfortable enough to be just who they feel they are. They must always be playing into a type of relationship.

TCH

[> [> [> Not quite what I meant -- Masq, 06:47:35 03/10/03 Mon

I always saw those as very real aspects of their relationship. Darla WAS Angelus' mentor. She WAS his vampire mother. She WAS his lover. I mean, wasn't she?

In "Angel", she WAS the spurned ex who was killed by Angel when Angel found love with a much younger woman, as evidenced in their conversation in "Dear Boy". She WAS the damsel-in-distress Angel tried to save from Wolfram and Hart's machinations in Season 2, at least while she was human. She WAS also very the symbol for him of his evil that he was trying to redeem by the end of "The Trial".

TCH, these aren't roles they're "playing", looking for something real with each other. These are the REAL layers of their relationship. Now, I personally am a Buffy/Angel shipper, but I have come to appreciate that Angel(us) and Darla have a much more complex and layered relationship with each other, and it comes from centuries with each other, it comes from the complex metaphysics of them going from vampire to human to souled to unsouled.

Season 3's events add even each richer layer to this relationship, and it's all real. None of it is playing. Even when they were soulless vampires who seemed into games with each other, they were also each other's worlds in a very large way. Maybe in ways they would never admit to, but that was how it was with Angel(us) and Darla.

[> [> [> [> I think you put your finger on it -- lunasea, 08:09:26 03/10/03 Mon

What I loved about Angel/Buffy was that with each other they could completely be who they were. There were no real games. It might not be as layered or complex as Darla/Angel/us (and lord knows how much I LOVE them, even just as evil Darla and evil Angelus. Add in all the later stuff and they are just too delicious for words. Even when they are in one particular relationship to each other, the baggage of prior ones and the potential for later ones is still there), but it was deeper. It actually cut to the core of each. It layed their hearts bare for the audience to see. I think I liked watching how they were when they were together even more than I did how they interacted with each other. To me that is what was the purpose of Buffy/Angel, it really showed the audience who Buffy was, both the heart and the doubt.

It is also what I hate most about Spuffy. It is completely an act. They are both so confused that they don't know who they are, let alone how to be that person/vampire. Spike is trying to be who/what he thinks Buffy would want and Buffy is still trying to be who she thinks the world wants her to be.

Not a criticism of Spuffy, maybe just why I don't like watching it. Then again, we learn who we are by discovering what we aren't as much as we do what we are. We have something inside of us and it lets us feel good when we are being true to ourselves and makes us feel bad when we aren't.

I don't look for reality in my fantasy, but I do want their journey to be about how to be real in their universe. To thine own self be true.

[> [> [> [> [> Good comparison -- Tchaikovsky, 08:47:24 03/10/03 Mon

I personally enjoyed watching both of the relationships. The clarity of genuineness in Angel/Buffy, and the pain that knowing that the love is so true and requited brings. And yet the Spike/Buffy relationship where they are trying to work out who they are. Where Spike invents a darker Buffy for his fantasies- and Buffy allows herself to believe that she is 'wrong', and act into that role. Where Spike allows himself to believe that the relationship is workable, even when subconsciously knows that it isn't.

Then again, we learn who we are by discovering what we aren't as much as we do what we are.

Great point.

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- lunasea, 09:41:16 03/10/03 Mon

I like puzzling through these things because it makes me a better writer and a better person, not necessarily in that order. The most important thing to me is to be able to look in the mirror and sleep at night. In order to do that, I have to be true to myself and speak my mind. Seeing Buffy S6 just hit too close to home sometimes. I remember doing similar things (metaphorically speaking of course, except for...never mind). I really felt her pain and was dying along with her. ME is good at not just showing me things, but making me feel them along with the characters. I have cried almost every time Buffy has, whether it was out of joy or sadness.

Another good example is the beginning of Habeas Corpses. Like I ever needed to see *that* again. As CC says about it "Ewwww!" Thing is, by showing it as long as they did I was disgusted just as much as Angel was. I became Angel. I wanted to smash things. It was incredibly well done.

The actors are talented enough that they show us what the characters are feeling. It isn't that often that they can really make us the characters though. The disgust of Spuffy was what Buffy felt and I felt it with her having to watch it. That was great writing.

Where Spike allows himself to believe that the relationship is workable, even when subconsciously knows that it isn't.

That could be something interesting to explore. Was Spike getting his soul just a form of denial?

Also Spike and Buffy seriously used each other S6. I have refered to it as mutual rape, but I know that is too strong a term for most. They aren't working out who they are by sharing the journey together. They were using each other. Buffy learned that she wasn't a user and being one was killing her. She got out of that relationship what she needed. What did Spike get out of it? I think what Spuffy shippers are hoping for is if they stop using each other something else will result that will be mutually beneficial. What?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks -- Arethusa, 11:44:39 03/10/03 Mon

First, let me say that the only 'ships I'm conscripted by are friendships.

Interesting question: What does Spike have to offer Buffy? To answer that question I think we first need to look at what Angel had to offer Buffy.

He could not give her a normal life in the sun, with children and fifty or so years to grow old together, but neither could Spike. Until she talked to Wood, I don't think Buffy thought she could have those things either because she's the slayer. At that time, Angel didn't know he was destined to shanshu, but when he found out he would become human some day in I Will Remember You, why didn't he go back to Buffy until that happy day arrived? They didn't just give up on their relationship, they had very good reasons for ending the affair. The most important one is that both had destinies to fulfill fighting the forces of evil, and those destinies diverged. The Powers That Be were not at all concerned with the size or fulfillment of Buffy and Angel's hearts-the two warriors were soldiers to fight in its/their army, and valuable only if they could protect others. They dismissed Angel when he became human, and only when he reminded them that he would be far less effective fighter as a human did they decide to turn back time, to get back their Champion.

Cut to the Oracles.
Man: "You again."
Woman: "What have you brought me?"
Angel: "Famille Rose vase. (Throws her a black vase) Ching dynasty. Circa 1811."
Woman: "Lovely."
Man: "Why are you here, lower being?"
Angel: "The Mohra demon said the end of days had begun. That others were coming, soldiers of darkness. I need to know if he was telling the truth."
Man: "As far as such things can be told."
Angel: "What happens to the Slayer when these soldiers come?"
Woman: "What happens to all mortal beings. Albeit sooner in her case."
Angel: "She'll die? - Then I'm here to beg for her life."
The Oracles turn and walk away: "It is not our place to grant life or death."
Angel: "And I ask you to take mine back. (The oracles stop walking and turn back to him) Look I can't protect her or anyone this way, not as a man."
Woman: "You're asking to be what you were, a demon with a soul, because of the Slayer?"
Man turns to leave again: "Oh, this is a matter of love. It does not concern us."
Angel: "Yes, it does. The Mohra demon came to take a warrior from your cause - and it succeeded. I'm no good to you like this. I know you have it in your power to make this right. Please."
Man: "What is done can not be undone."
Woman: "What is not yet done can be avoided."
Man: "Temporal folds are not to indulge at - the whims of lower beings."
Woman: "You are wrong. This one is willing to sacrifice every drop of human happiness and love he has ever known for another. He is not a lower being."
Man: "There is one way. But it is not to be undertaken lightly."
Woman: "We swallow this day, as though it had never happened. Twenty-four hours from the moment the demon first attacked you, we take it back."
Angel licks his lips: "Then none of this happened and Buffy and I.. What - what'll stop us from doing the exact same thing again?"
Woman: "You. You alone will carry the memory of this day. - Can you carry that burden?"

Buffy: "Where have you been?"
Angel: "I went to see the Oracles. I asked them to turn me back."
Buffy: "What? - Why?"
Angel: "Because more then ever I know how much I love you."
Buffy backs away from him: "No. No, you didn't."
Angel follows her: "And if I stayed mortal one of us would wind up dead, maybe both of us. You heard what Mohra said."
Buffy: "Mohra is dead. We killed him."
Angel: "He said others would come."
Buffy: "They always come. And they always will. But that's my problem now, not yours, remember?"
Angel: "No, I won't just stand by and let you fight, maybe die, alone."
Buffy: "Then we fight together."
Angel: "You saw what happened last night. If anything I'm a liability to you. You take chances to protect me, and that's not just bad for you, it's bad for the people we were meant to help."
Buffy: "So what? You just took a whole 24 hours to weigh the ups and downs of being a regular Joe and decided it was more fun being a superhero?"
Angel: "You know that's not it. How can we be together if the cost is your life, or the lives of others? (Buffy just stares at him and after a moment he takes her into his arms) I know. I couldn't tell you. I wasn't sure - if I could do it if I woke up with you one more morning."
quotes by psyche

Until Angel shanshus-if he shanshus-Angel and Buffy can't be together. Afterwards is a different story. All we know is that one of the writers (can't remember which one) said it would be like someone going back to his ex-wife-time and circumstance has changed them both, and who knows if they would still want (not love-they will always do that-but want) to be together. It's clear from Espenson's interview that the writers feel Buffy and Spike do have a relationship, and it's clear this year that Buffy does have feelings for Spike. I don't know if she loves him, but I think we are supposed to be able to consider that as a possibility.

So does Spike have anything to offer Buffy? It is a well-established fact that Spike loves Buffy very much, and I think he would not leave her unless she asked him to. That is tremendously important for Buffy, who has been left by all the important men in her life. He also has made her life his, working by her side and under her instruction. True, he can't give Buffy a normal life anymore than Angel could, but he could give her the kind of support and devotion she needs right now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> small correction -- Arethusa, 14:51:22 03/10/03 Mon

Angel found out about the shanshu in To Shanshu in LA (of course). The episode quoted is I Will Remember You.

[> [> [> [> Sorry- you're quite right -- Tchaikovsky, 09:05:42 03/10/03 Mon

I mis-read you, with your line on Season Three,
'bring[ing] a whole new set of lover's archetypes for these two...'
And yes, Darla and Angel aren't 'role-playing' as I put it- they actually physically keep changing identity, from Darla vampire and Liam human, to both vampires, to Angel ensoulled, to Darla human, to Darla vampire. So the different relationships are due to actual differences rather than a desire to try out new false roles. They are constantly re-negotiating their identities, and how their relationship functions within those identities.

My only thought was that in the period between 1753 and 1898, where both are your normal run-of-the-mill vampires, (not quite, but anyway), Darla and Angelus are perhaps still trying out different ways of behaving around each other, even though they are not really changing. Sometimes Darla is the mother to Angel, sometimes the lover. Sometimes they seem extremely intimate, sometimes aloof enough to leave the other in danger for personal gain. Angelus has his project of Drusilla, which introduces more complications. It just appears through this stage of their relationship that there is still an discomfort with finding their 'true' selves, whatever that means. I mean, it's 145 years, so I suppose it's understandable. But that was my point. Sorry to mis-interpret your original one.

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> Archetypes -- Masq, 09:37:07 03/10/03 Mon

And just to clarify my point a bit further, from flashbacks to the past through BtVS season 1 and AtS Seasons 2 and 3, these two embody a large number of "lover's archetypes", or more broadly, archetypes of relationships men and women have in relation to each other, since they also have mother-son and mentor/student relationships.

Using words like "archetypes" is tricky, because it implies they are playing out roles, but hell, I play the role of daughter to my mother, and it doesn't make our relationship any less real. She IS my mother.

So what I mean to say is, pick a classic way in which men and women relate to each other--anything as wide-ranging as "the spurned ex-wife", "the temptress", "Mrs. Robinson", "the mother of my child"--and that has been a REAL aspect of Angel(us) and Darla's relationship. On a meta-level, on the literary level, these are archetypes. In the universe of the show, these are very real facets of their very complex relationship.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Archetypes -- lunasea, 09:51:59 03/10/03 Mon

To complicate things the archetypes are the psychic components of instincts. As their metaphysics change, so do their instincts. This can explain the changing nature of their relationships with regards to their changing forms.

I think one of the most interesting changes was Darla from Dru's Grandmummy to her daughter.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely (spoilery for later S. 3) -- Masq, 10:55:40 03/10/03 Mon

Becoming human, becoming a vampire, gaining a soul, losing a soul, changes in the metaphysics drives the changes in the archetypes their relationship embodies. It doesn't completely determine what these archetypes will be, because outside forces also play a part (e.g., Wolfram and Hart's interference, Buffy entering Angel's life, etc.)

And may I add to that list of metaphysical changes, "becoming parents". It's a series of physical changes--conception, pregnancy, birth--that puts them into classic roles (mother, father), but also changes their relationship to each other, as they both become vampires with souls ever so briefly and face off with the unexpected arrival of a symbol of the evil of their past, Holtz.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely (spoilery for later S. 3) -- Scroll, 15:58:14 03/10/03 Mon

"[B]ecoming parents" [is] a series of physical changes--conception, pregnancy, birth--that puts them into classic roles (mother, father), but also changes their relationship to each other, as they both become vampires with souls ever so briefly and face off with the unexpected arrival of a symbol of the evil of their past, Holtz.

Personally, my favourite incarnation of Angel/Darla is this one, where for a brief moment in time, they finally connect in a human, souled way over their mutual love for their child and their mutual regret over Holtz. Connor represents everything good and wonderful and beautiful Angel and Darla ever had together, while Holtz represents everything evil and horrendous and ugly.

It's an interesting dichotomy, especially now that Angel and Darla are in Holtz's place. They've become the parents while Holtz has lost his family. It seems unjust that two evil vampires can have this miracle while a good man (well, he's still kinda good though dedicated to vengeance) is forced to kill his own child.

And while I'm still a B/A 'shipper (hmm, I've got to get over this need to defend my loyalties!) I personally think Angel's best and truest connection is with Darla during these three episodes. After all the metaphysical changes, soul-losses and resurrections, etc., these two are finally on the same page. Much as I loved Darla's sacrifice in "Lullaby", another part of me wishes we could've seen her struggle to raise Connor with Angel. For a woman who had such a love/hate relationship with family/children, it would've been a fascinating journey.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> More Darla and You-know-who (spoilers for later S. 3 & S. 4) -- Masq, 16:53:04 03/10/03 Mon

More on Darla and Connor

Personally, my favourite incarnation of Angel/Darla is this one, where for a brief moment in time, they finally connect in a human, souled way over their mutual love for their child and their mutual regret over Holtz. Connor represents everything good and wonderful and beautiful Angel and Darla ever had together, while Holtz represents everything evil and horrendous and ugly.

This is why I am content to say this was the end of the whole Angel-Darla arc that started so long ago in the episode "Angel". That while it would have been nice to see Darla react to Connor as an infant and even a teen (!), this moment out in the rain with Darla finally coming to terms with her past with Angel(us) and the future ready to be born from her body (an outgrowth of her complex relationship with Angel(us)), is a great ending to the story.

I have fantasies about possible episode scenes where Darla re-appears to Connor in a dream or something and he has some kind of interaction with his mother. He seems to want to know about her. To know her. She is as much a part of his uncertain, demonic heritage as his father is. Plus he got her looks. And maybe she'd be able to deal with his impossible teen-aged attitutude problems....

Maybe.

[> Preserving this thread from the evil voynok demon -- Masq, 13:43:41 03/09/03 Sun

Who seems to be stalking the board with powerful magicks these days!

[> Help! Forgot my favourite bit! -- Tchaikovsky, 00:12:40 03/10/03 Mon

Fred standing up to Gunn's gang towards the end of 'This Old Gang Of Mine'. It was obvious due to the trajectory of the storyline that she wasn't going to kill him, but I loved it anyway. She was the only person who could credibly gain the extra time. No-one would believe Wes or Lorne killing Angel, but Fred's newness kept her loyalties somewhat up in the air to the gang. Lovely moment.

TCH

[> [> Me too! That was my favorite part of the episode... -- Rob, 11:23:12 03/10/03 Mon

...and where I really started to adore Fred, a love which grew even stronger by "Fredless"!

Rob

[> [> [> Yup, right there with you! -- Tchaikovsky- newest Fred lover, 13:03:40 03/10/03 Mon

Another Slice at Storyteller 7.16 (spoilers) -- was Just Visiting, call me Calamus, 09:43:21 03/09/03 Sun

Personally, I like fan negativity- it's a welcome bi***slap from the cosmos that makes me sit up and take notice, scrutinize the irksome episode in more detail. The thing that has me intrigued at the moment is the criticism of "why focus on Andrew right now, when we only have a few more episodes to tell Buffy's story." Made me realize that I too was assuming that the focus really is on Andrew in "Storyteller," perhaps too much.

IMO, Andrew's not a tool in this episode. The knife is. Andrew's a person whose fate is deeply intertwined with Buffy's. Both make choices in this episode, but it's not Andrew's choices, or needs, that drive it. This is a story about Buffy, framed around an homage to a movie that (though flawed in some major ways) is a masterpiece of misdirection and subversion of traditional narrative structure (complete with an homage to "Pulp Fiction")- "The Mexican."

Note: I'm firmly of the belief that more is merrier, that an episode can homage 100 movies/books/myths at once, and have each homage be meaningful in its own way. This episode plays with a multitude of toys, but the shot of Andrew pulling the knife from the wooden box to show Warren, and his tale of how he got it, reminded me of the trailers for the Brad Pitt/Julia Roberts vehicle. Curious, I rented the movie, and "Storyteller" totally homages "The Mexican. Plus it takes on the same twisted narrative structure. I'll try and make my point here with minimal spoilage from the movie.

In terms of narrative structure, there's a lot going on. But # 1.) One can't assume the most prominent character, who's the most active, is the protagonist, # 2.) it does feel a bit interminable, yet it's worth waiting through to the end, when one may realize the journey was more important than the end and maybe it's time to rewind and watch again, and # 3.) the story of "The Mexican" (the gun, the knife consecrated to evil in Tuwaric) is a legend that bends and shapes to the will of the storyteller, and gets retold several different times. Although the stories seem thrown in for comic effect, or to make one simple point, each different telling takes on more significance if one examines it more closely with hindsight, and each telling is about Samantha/Buffy, not just about the mythical beloved/Jonathan and Jerry/Andrew.

In "TM" Jerry (Brad Pitt) is a screw-up on the level of Andrew, a flunky for a mafioso who sends him on a final errand. Nominally, Jerry's the hero, but in the end, he's just a guy who we've watched do a bunch of stuff, trying to deny what he knows in his heart of hearts: he's a total screw-up, and he's blowing a really good thing that's happened to him- his relationship with the heroine. Why? Because he never takes responsibility for his actions; he lets other people tell him what he should do, except, of course, the one person who really cares about him. He's been sacrificing her to scum. (As Andrew sacrificed Jonathan to the First.)

Samantha (Julia Roberts) is the heroine, the good guy, the wronged woman, everybody's friend and confidante, and ultimately, the one who has to make the choice that matters. Buffy. The thing is, the choice she makes seems so natural, so obvious, and so "how could there be another choice" that we miss the fact that it's a choice, mostly. But it's the key action of the movie/episode, and signals a turning point for a character that's been on the fence, indecisive, in deep denial, resisting the inevitable. You're meant not to notice, to take it for granted, buried in all the sound and fury- that's the whole point.

Interestingly, Samantha accuses her man, Jerry, of blame-shifting, then proceeds to do exactly that throughout the flick, until the end, when she takes the ritual weapon into her own hands. The stories told of "The Mexican" could be said to mirror her "take" on the possibilities of love with Jerry, as they change throughout the movie. Here, Andrew's stories about Buffy mirror some of Buffy's slightly delusional views of herself (his 'stories' about the other characters mirror their own self-indulgences). There's also something about his views of himself- he does seem like a mirror for Buffy here. Watching "TM" makes me wonder whether, in "Storyteller," it's Buffy (the one who wields the ritual weapon in the end) who's less obviously, but more profoundly, avoiding reality with her own "story-telling." Her whole speech to Andrew is, like, what she needs to get it together to do. She's been able to kick the First's incorporeal butt so far, but it's time for her to dig deeper and bring out the big (mythopoetical) guns.

Two key lines from "The Mexican" that seem to resonate with "Storyteller"-

-"You know, some are under the impression you choose who you love."

-"When you love someone, how do you know when enough is enough?" -"Never."

(Note: when I refer to "love" here, I'm not talking about romantic "being in love." I don't subscribe to the shipping news.) Also, comparing "Storyteller" to "The Mexican" made me think that a Betrayal of Love opened the seal, not just the blood of a human. Why Andrew, and not just any flunky? Why Jonathan? Because Andrew loved Jonathan, and took advantage of Jonathan's love for him- something he spends the whole episode avoiding, even beyond his own responsibility for killing Jonathan. That makes the murder a betrayal of what may be the only "true love" Andrew ever gets to know, if apocalypse is now. The not-so-hidden secret in both the movie and the episode is that one of the guys is gay, but there's also a more subtle "secret" in "TM"- that that someone also has much more in common with Samantha than she realized. Does Andrew have something significant in common with Buffy?

(Note: the rest is purely speculation based on extrapolating from "The Mexican." I am a trollop but not for spoilers, and I don't care about casting, only couches.) On the couch: What is it Buffy needs to face up to- who or what did she "kill," because it seemed like the right thing to do at the time? Has she let some "accident" control her fate for too long? What does that mean about her, that she's so far been unwilling to recognize, or accept? And, perhaps, in what key relationship is she viewing herself as "the victim," when she's as much "the perpetrator" as the other person is? (Spike? Council of Watchers & Slayers? Life?) Is someone gonna die unless she makes a crucial choice? Is it (sadly) time for Buffy to grow up and stop telling herself all those bedtime stories about things that go bump in the night? Sigh. Tune in next month, gentle viewers.

[> Very interesting post - much food for thought -- Rahael, 10:30:32 03/09/03 Sun

[> So was Buffy's choice then... (spoilers up to Storyteller) -- Scroll, 11:11:26 03/09/03 Sun

IMO, Andrew's not a tool in this episode. The knife is. Andrew's a person whose fate is deeply intertwined with Buffy's. Both make choices in this episode, but it's not Andrew's choices, or needs, that drive it. This is a story about Buffy, framed around an homage to a movie that (though flawed in some major ways) is a masterpiece of misdirection and subversion of traditional narrative structure (complete with an homage to "Pulp Fiction")- "The Mexican."

Was Buffy's choice then to kill or not kill Andrew? At the end of the school basement scene, Andrew asks Buffy, "Would you have killed me if the tears didn't work?" She answers with just a "look". So maybe Buffy has considered all the options, and her choice of sparing Andrew and allowing him his epiphany and remorse actually says something about her rejecting the do-evil-if-necessar-for-good stance.

Buffy has always been able to avoid the necesary evil part of being a hero. She rejected killing Ben in "The Gift", but Giles took on that duty to spare her as "the hero". Season 7 has certainly tested Buffy's resolve. First Spike, then Anya, and now Andrew. All give her valid reasons that they should be slain (well, maybe not Andrew since he's human) and Buffy seems prepared to slay.... but she holds back. She scares them with death, but doesn't follow through. (I'm of the opnion that Buffy was only going to kill Anyanka as a last resort; she wanted Anya to "repent".) So are we to see this choice of not-killing as, what you say, "the choice she makes [which] seems so natural, so obvious, and so "how could there be another choice" that we miss the fact that it's a choice, mostly"?

I haven't seen "The Mexican" so I can't really elaborate further on any parallels. But excellent analysis, Calamus. Are you new to the board? Welcome : )

[> [> Re: So was Buffy's choice then... (spoilers up to Storyteller) -- Calamus, 17:35:00 03/09/03 Sun

I don't know- maybe it's that Buffy gave Andrew a chance to make the choice himself, gave him a second chance without assuming what he was or was not capable of doing. In a way, she chose to believe in him, his potential. That would probably be the most direct parallel to the movie. Not killing vs. not-killing- that wouldn't work as a direct parallel with the movie, at least.

[> Excellent post, and... movie ref! Please do read this one, folks! -- OnM, 12:39:35 03/09/03 Sun

Haven't seen this film, but now I want to. Can't ask for more than that! Good insights into Andrew and Buffy.

Thanks, and if you're new here, Calamus, hang around for a while!

[> And the beat goes on (spoilers, S7 -- primarily GID and Storyteller) -- Random, 13:15:22 03/09/03 Sun

Well, that's just...neat. Never saw the movie. Probably won't any time soon -- something about matching up both Pitt and Roberts makes my skin crawl at the thought of watching it -- but your points stand out well on their own merit.

In terms of narrative structure, there's a lot going on. But # 1.) One can't assume the most prominent character, who's the most active, is the protagonist, # 2.) it does feel a bit interminable, yet it's worth waiting through to the end, when one may realize the journey was more important than the end and maybe it's time to rewind and watch again, and # 3.) the story of "The Mexican" (the gun, the knife consecrated to evil in Tuwaric) is a legend that bends and shapes to the will of the storyteller, and gets retold several different times.

The problems with perspective...ah, that's a key observation for "Storyteller." The so-called "thing itself" is, in reality, a plethora of associations that happen to be bound into a single item. Andrew's twisting of his own limited perspective offers, if I understand you correctly, a more universal insight into how everyone does this -- especially, in this case, Buffy.

My question is this: what exactly do you perceive Buffy's avoidance issue to be? In what specific manner is she being (subconsciously) recalcitrant?

Watching "TM" makes me wonder whether, in "Storyteller," it's Buffy (the one who wields the ritual weapon in the end) who's less obviously, but more profoundly, avoiding reality with her own "story-telling." Her whole speech to Andrew is, like, what she needs to get it together to do. She's been able to kick the First's incorporeal butt so far, but it's time for her to dig deeper and bring out the big (mythopoetical) guns.

In previous episodes (GID, specifically) she has been rather harsh in her reprimands to the other Scoobies about holding back. Your last paragraph asks some wonderfully penetrating questions; I wonder what the answers are...or whether they are aimed in the right direction. The theme of empowerment has been fairly prominent of late, and Buffy seems to be trying to take charge against a rather overwhelming foe. She jumps in the portal in GID -- but rejects the ultimate "reward" for having done so. If her past liasons and actions are coming back to haunt her, what specifically should we be looking for? The idea of "victim of fate" with regards to Buffy's mentality is a fascinating one that should be explored further. She has always, superficially, been a take-charge type, especially this season. Is it just an illusion? a show to conceal a fundamental indecisiveness and insecurity? Of course, they're facing the First Evil -- rather disheartening in and of itself. And Buffy has wavered between "we can all survive this" and "some of us are gonna die." Though one does notice that the former is generally done as a morale-booster, the latter as an acknowledgement of a stark truth. But is it true? Is Buffy guilty of just giving up, even if on a very slight, very realistic level? I mean, the odds are somebody or another will die. Three somebodies (Chloe, Eve and whatshername, Annabelle?) have already done so, in fact (not even counting all those who never even made it to Sunnydale.) So she's being realistic. More than realistic, in fact. But reality is what's at stake here, after all. So perhaps it should have less importance than she gives it.

Great essay...even though I haven't seen the movie. You make good points over and above the analogies.

~Random

[> Re: Another Slice at Storyteller 7.16 (spoilers) -- dms (frequent lurker, 2nd-time poster) Spoilers for 7.5/7.7, 15:03:08 03/09/03 Sun

Very interesting post. I especially liked this: "What is it Buffy needs to face up to- who or what did she "kill," because it seemed like the right thing to do at the time? Has she let some "accident" control her fate for too long? Is it (sadly) time for Buffy to grow up and stop telling herself all those bedtime stories about things that go bump in the night?"

My speculation, in short, is that for Buffy it all comes back to Becoming II, and sending Angel to hell. In my opinion, Buffy's behavior in the last few years has been shaped and controlled by that one event more than any other. Like Andrew pre-Storyteller, she hasn't really dealt with the emotional fall-out. She's boxed it away and has ostensibly moved on from it, even though she's never really forgiven herself for having to "kill him" when he had a soul (and I think it's interesting that in Selfless and Faith, Hope and Trick she says she killed him, when she really didn't. Angel, as far as I know, has never said she killed him). Regardless, I believe the result for Buffy is that she fears letting herself love and thus avoids connecting with people and risking the pain that she might lose them. And let me add that I mean all kinds of love, I'm not just talking about Spike, and I don't 'ship!

I also thought your point about Buffy feeling like a "victim" was very interesting. My first instinct is to say that it has to do with her Slayer-hood. IMO, even as she embraces being a Slayer more and more, she still sees herself as a victim of it. In earlier seasons, she didn't want to be one, and thus felt that something had been done to her. Now, I think she derives great satisfaction and her sense of identity from being the Slayer, while at the same time she uses it as a way to justify/explain her behavior. In other words, she thinks that being a Slayer has helped make her who she is and there's not much she can do about it. In particular, I'm thinking about CWDP and her conversation with Holden. My impression from those scenes was that Buffy thinks her superiority-inferiority complex is something that she can't change, that being "chosen" automatically/naturally sets her apart from everyone, and while she feels bad about it, there's not much she can do to change things. I have to think about this some more, though.

No time for an in-depth post on these issues now, but maybe later I'll have time to get back to this. Does anyone agree? Disagree?

[> [> Re: Another Slice at Storyteller 7.16 (spoilers through it) -- Calamus, 16:59:48 03/09/03 Sun

..."I also thought your point about Buffy feeling like a "victim" was very interesting. My first instinct is to say that it has to do with her Slayer-hood. IMO, even as she embraces being a Slayer more and more, she still sees herself as a victim of it. In earlier seasons, she didn't want to be one, and thus felt that something had been done to her. Now, I think she derives great satisfaction and her sense of identity from being the Slayer, while at the same time she uses it as a way to justify/explain her behavior. In other words, she thinks that being a Slayer has helped make her who she is and there's not much she can do about it. In particular, I'm thinking about CWDP and her conversation with Holden. My impression from those scenes was that Buffy thinks her superiority-inferiority complex is something that she can't change, that being "chosen" automatically/naturally sets her apart from everyone, and while she feels bad about it, there's not much she can do to change things. I have to think about this some more, though."

Yeah, I like this. I'm unsure what I was trying to get at about Buffy, but your comments make me realize I think her issues are about the Slayer role, the source of her power, who or what she really is and what that means. GID really gave me pause, and I keep wondering what the caveat "If you're willing to make the exchange" was really referring to- a simple instruction to throw a demon into the vortex, or a reference to what Buffy maybe should have done? Yet her choice in GID seemed so "right." Head scratching time.

It makes sense that you mention CWDP. I missed it, but recently read the transcript. It's also got references to "The Mexican"- the El Camino, the mistakes about Spanish words, the music. Plus, like "The Mexican," it's full of pop psychology, and Buffy's clearly the one on the couch in CWDP. I found CWDP interesting because of the parallels in the First's visits to the others. The First focuses on death and power, telling Andrew that death is a source of power, trying to talk Willow into offing herself. The First's exploration of their psychological weaknesses (and strengths) parallels Holden's exploration of Buffy's. It tries to mislead both Willow and Andrew about the source of their power and how to avert disaster.

It's clearer in CWDP than in later episodes that much of what the First says to folks is not only "wrong" or "evil," it's twisted. (It's unclear if the First "gets" that, or not. That may just represent its worldview and how it sees the world- blood-covered glasses. Hair pulling time.)

In CWDP the First's use of movie references in talking to Andrew is twisted- using movies that are black-and-white stories of good's triumph over evil to convince Andrew to kill Jonathan (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark.) Andrew himself chooses "Hellraiser," which is not only queerer but more shades-of-grey, "bad" as a way to say "cool."

Similarly, the First's use of musical references to fool Willow flunk Women's Music 101. The First tries to convince Willow she's different and special by quoting "Strong, strong, like an amazon"- a Phranc song, about normal human sportswomen who are capable of extraordinary feats. The First also envisions Willow's suicide to the sounds of the Indigo Girls- the usual stereotype of the Indigo Girls is as the ultimate in hopeful, spiritual, believing in the possibility of redemption and love. Marilyn Manson they ain't. Shoulda just gotten her drunk.

Continuing with the twisted theme, like the "bad guys" in "The Mexican," the First is doing the Scoobies a serious favor, making them all deal with their issues in the process of dealing with it. For Willow, at first it's just the flaying. By "TKIM" that's just the easy part. Kennedy's little quip about "Gone With the Wind" harks back to Spike's comment about GWTW in "Tabula Rasa." (In TR, Spike says kissing Buffy was like GWTW. The nature of Rhett's "sweeping Scarlett off her feet" is a matter of much debate. These two references are not "innocent" of the whole rape issue, or metaphor.) By GID, sucking the juice out of her pals is highlighting Willow's treatment of her lover(s) & friends in daily life. The First is better than a therapist- it hasn't charged for its services and it makes house calls.

Buffy's s. 6 issues seem to be re-emerging in a similar fashion. I can't point to anything solid, heh, but in "Doublemeat Palace," there's an interesting exchange between Buffy and Spike where she's very clear about one thing- she's not a demon. S.7 and especially GID spatters a little mud on that s. 6 clarity. The questions surrounding the Potential Slayers are like a stake aimed at the heart of Buffy's self-concept. Perhaps the First is a pretty good spirit guide, too. Not as a role model or motivational speaker, but as a rubber wall to bounce off of.

[> [> [> Re: Another Slice at Storyteller 7.16 (spoilers through it) -- dms, 20:40:30 03/09/03 Sun

[quote]I keep wondering what the caveat "If you're willing to make the exchange" was really referring to- a simple instruction to throw a demon into the vortex, or a reference to what Buffy maybe should have done? Yet her choice in GID seemed so "right." Head scratching time.[/quote]

I keep turning this over too. My first instinct is to say that Buffy doesn't absolutely need what the Shamans offered, that she can find another way to 'get it done'. But, I also feel that her current path (the constant talk of war and battle, in particular) is not the correct one and that she doesn't know right now how to fight the FE.

Where I think Buffy made a mistake is when she demanded that Willow and Spike embrace/integrate the parts of themselves they fear (the magic and the demon respectively) while not setting herself to the same standard. In her case, however, I think she needs to integrate her humanity with her slayerness. IMO, she is now more comfortable with the latter than the former. The problem, perhaps, isn't that Buffy needs to embrace her dark side, her "demon". It's that she needs to embrace her humanity and connect with people. This is what I think the First Slayer was talking about in GID when she said "it's not enough". Buffy the Slayer, concerned primarily with the fight and the kill, is not enough and cannot defeat the First. She needs to deal with her human side, to deal with her fears and connect with those around her. I thought it was ironic that Buffy told the portal-men that she didn't want to be less human, but that it's arguably her humanity that she's more scared of.

What I think is interesting about this season is that so many people are talking about power, and no one is defining what it is. I think right now Buffy sees power as physical, as action. But, there are many kinds of power. The men in the portal gave her knowledge, a kind of power (and she separated the two in GiD, did she not?). Her friends' and Dawn's love for her and willingness to back her up, to support her, is power as well.

I think the Buffy/Spike conversation in GID illustrates that Buffy is 1) not integrating the Slayer/Buffy parts of herself and that 2) she has a narrow view of power.

For example, perhaps Buffy was simply speaking out of anger or was trying to goad Spike into action, but I still thought it was a mistake on her part to tell Spike that the soulless version who tried to kill her was more useful to her. I'm not arguing that she was being "mean" to him, but rather that it implies that Buffy doesn't truly understand that Spike is more than just muscle or someone to watch her back; his ability to love, and his desire to connect with humanity, with the world, is a power in itself. And, I think in the end this will come in more handy than him being able to kill things for her. [Xander is, of course, another example of someone whose power doesn't stem from the physical].

Furthermore, I think Buffy has been swinging between her slayer and "human" sides all season; vis-a-vis Spike, for example, she acknowledges that she needs him for more than muscle in First Date, and then backs away from the idea in GiD. Buffy digging Chloe's grave and then shouting at the SG and the SiTs is another example. I think the swings partly happen when she opens up, feels scared (or just vulnerable). Finally, I think 1 and 2 are closely connected.

I hope it doesn't seem that I'm being too hard on Buffy here! I'd love it if she grappled with her issues (her S6 ones, and I agree with you Calamus that they are re-emerging. I think it's happening because she hasn't fully dealt with them) and actually resolved them. My big worry is that ME will give Buffy a last-minute epiphany at the end of the season, right before she saves the day. For me, this has real potential to ring false (rather like her sudden realization in Grave that she wants to show Dawn the world).

[> [> [> [> Re: Another Slice at Storyteller 7.16 (spoilers through it) -- Calamus, 06:20:57 03/10/03 Mon

A hearty "yes!!!" to all the above, dms. Thanks for putting it into words. Especially this:

"In her case, however, I think she needs to integrate her humanity with her slayerness. IMO, she is now more comfortable with the latter than the former. The problem, perhaps, isn't that Buffy needs to embrace her dark side, her "demon". It's that she needs to embrace her humanity and connect with people. This is what I think the First Slayer was talking about in GID when she said "it's not enough". Buffy the Slayer, concerned primarily with the fight and the kill, is not enough and cannot defeat the First. She needs to deal with her human side, to deal with her fears and connect with those around her. I thought it was ironic that Buffy told the portal-men that she didn't want to be less human, but that it's arguably her humanity that she's more scared of."

This makes a lot of sense. She's good with the potentials when she's in touch with their humanity and her own. She's a real wet blanket when she's not. (Reminds me of more than a few managers I've had, who don't realize the practical effect of "oh yeah, some of you suck at this and will probably die!") Funny, 'cos part of being in touch with her humanity in front of the Potentials has probably been admitting her feelings about Spike while trying to show them how to be Vampire Slayers. I'm gonna have to think about what you said here; I get lost in all the twists and turns.

I realized this I said was wrong:

"In CWDP the First's use of movie references in talking to Andrew is twisted- using movies that are black-and-white stories of good's triumph over evil to convince Andrew to kill Jonathan (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark.) Andrew himself chooses "Hellraiser," which is not only queerer but more shades-of-grey, "bad" as a way to say "cool.""

Andrew and Jonathan pick the black-and-white movies, not the First. oops. There's been some great posts about how their comic-book outlook on life and relationships is part of the reason why the trio could get more-than-skin-deep in "doing evil." But there's something really super creepy about the way their comic book and movie references begin to sound when the First is around. I can't put my finger on it, but it's like the First latches on to this mode of thinking or acting that's already creepy and makes it more twisted, turns the amp up to 11.

I just noticed how CWDP and especially the scenes with A & J are a way of seeing how the First works, how it talks people into doing things. Usually we get the end result- Chloe dead and an off-hand "I talked to her all night;" bringers wandering around; students going off the walls.
There's something important about what Buffy says in Storyteller about how the Hellmouth makes things people just feel become "real." It seems related to what Anya and the vengeance demons do- they turn people's "wishes" into reality, in literal terms. (Her penchant for literal interpretations making her a real pro at it, yet also maybe what makes her able to step back and see the bigger picture about what she's been doing.) Not sure how this works really, but thought I'd mention it.

[> Kudos...you've managed to get me to relook at both -- s'kat, 21:11:36 03/09/03 Sun

And that's saying something - since I hated Storyteller...also wasn't that fond of The Mexican, hmmm wondering if that might be connected in some way?? Did Like Pulp Fiction, though.

At any rate, your post is making me rethink both. Maybe come April - I'll rent the Mexican and watch Storyteller, back to back and relook at this in a new way. April b/c that's the rerun basement for Btvs and I want to watch First Date - episode 7.17 together as an arc.

Printed this one off for closer reading, but from a couple of scans? I think you might be on to something here.

I think we are forgetting that the story is about Buffy and the writers often use the device of another character to tell that story.

What has Buffy been dwelling on? What event does she bring up? It's interesting that Xander accuses her of shutting down after Angel way back in Into The Wood S5, and everyone made light of it. But in a way she has. Perhaps we've always been inside the story she's telling herself and Buffy has been our unreliable narrator since the very beginning. The story we've been seeing stops once she stops telling it and wakes up to the reality that is happening around her?

Interesting. Thanks for making me think about this episode in a new more positive way. Definitely worth re-looking at.

SK

[> wow.. very interesting -- neaux, 04:32:27 03/10/03 Mon

Great post.

I must be honest though and say that I've never seen The Mexican and was told it was utter crap.

but if Storyteller really plays out like The Mexican, I just might have to take a look!! Thanks for the report!

[> Good post- stick around -- TCH- who posts when it is damp, drizzly November in his soul, 05:30:34 03/10/03 Mon

Current board | More March 2003