March 2003 posts
The Disapproving Father: Electra and Oedipus (Spoilers Release) -- s'kat, 09:32:28 03/13/03 Thu
It's been a while since I've read the Greek plays centering on Electra and Oedipus but vaguely I remember they centered on characters who were struggling with how to deal with their fathers. Electra wants to gain her father's approval, even if it's from beyond the grave. Oedipus wants to subplant his in his family's life. Oedipus' journey if I recall is one of vengeance against his father. Electra's is one of vengeance against those who robbed her of one and the possible reunion with. (I hope my memory isn't wrong on this, and well, I'm too lazy to figure it out.)
The reason I bring this up, is as I was watching Release last night, I thought...ohhh Daddy Issues. Everyone with the possible exception of Fred/Gunn and Lorne had Daddy Issues big time. Of course I could just be projecting (not that I have them - very good relationship with both my parents, thank you) but I have been knee deep in Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire and that book, whoa boy, chock full of Daddy Issues. Both major villains kill their fathers in it and do it because their fathers' disapproved of them. It is through their fathers deaths or suppression that both villains in Harry Potter come into their own dark power. While it is through Harry Potter's dead father's acceptance and encouragement that Harry is able to escape them and triumphe.
(Bear with me, this post might seem somewhat disjointed and rambling...but I'm trying to figure something out that I saw last night and writing a post and sharing it seems to be the best way of doing it. Let me know if I'm wacked. ;-))
In ATS - we have several characters struggling with the Disapproving Father or finding a sort of peace with their Father.
We have Connor who is attempting to either kill or subplant his father and is terrified of becoming just like him.
Wesely - who is still attempting to obtain his father's approval and in the process may in fact be becoming just like him and the ruthless edge of the Watcher's Council that represents that father figure in Wes' head. Wes' rage at not being able to obtain that approval or atone, maybe what is driving him. Angel/Angelus who has never gotten past the fact his father disapproved of him and the fact he killed him for it, because he killed him and never obtained that approval, Angel/Angelus has been replaying his relationship with his Father his entire life, taking turns being Wes and Connor in the process. In fact that may be the best way of looking at these three characters come to think of it.
Wes = becoming like his father in order to obtain approval, enraged that he can't get that approval for whatever reason.
Connor = rebelling against his father, attempting to subplant him, but terrified of being like him and suppressing or rather repressing the desire for his approval. Attempts to kill Dad and become like surrogate Dad. Oedipus in a nutshell.
Angelus = wants Dad's approval, but rebells and becomes the prodigal because he can't get it, kills Dad, and becomes like surrogate Dad as a reaction against the father who did not approve of him and he killed.
Then of course we have Faith - who is in the role of Electra and fighting between two father figures: Angel/Angelus and Wesely/Watcher. These are the two men outside of the Mayor who have affected her the most.
1. Angel/Angelus - is the dark forgiving Daddy, that she wanted romantically, he may in a way represent for Faith the same Electra issues he represented for Buffy. He forgives Faith in Five by Five and Sanctuary and Faith seeks redemption. Now Faith is fighting him - to save him to bring him back to the Angel who saved her (Electra's attempt to clear Daddy's name and bring him back). Meanwhile Angelus is attempting to turn Faith back to the dark side, make her evil again. (Possibly representing Electra's dark course to bring her fathers attackers to justice?) In the Angel/Angelus fight - Faith is caught once again between the two fathers: hence the reason Angel mentions the episode titles Choices and Consequences from Season 3 Btvs. Consequences is when Angel attempted to get Faith to choose redemption, instead at the end of that episode - partly due to Wes' actions(will get to him in a moment) - Faith seeks out the Mayor and becomes the Mayor's right hand man. She subplants Angel with The Mayor. In Choices - We have Faith standing with the Mayor and Buffy standing with Angel. Faith chose the dark father. Angelus is reminding her of that choice and possibly suggesting she make the same one again. Her decision not to - has a lot to do with what happened in Five by Five and Sanctuary, where once again Angel attempts to get her to reach deep inside and find the good. It is important that Angel forgive and attempt to redeem Faith, because Angel is the one Faith tried to kill and turn in Season 3.
Angel and Faith. In Enemies - Faith attempts to turn Angel into Angelus and making him her lover. Angel and Buffy pretend to go along with her plan and Angel acts like Angelus in the episode. (This btw causes a brief rift between Buffy and Angel, b/c Buffy is somewhat squicked by how well Angel plays Angelus...hmmm, maybe that beast is still there soul or no soul?) Faith briefly has everything she thinks she wants. The Mayor - father figure.(Superego) Angelus - dark lover father figure.(ID) But she discovers she's the victim of an elaborate scam and Angel was just pretending. Enraged, she decides to take Angel out of the picture with a poisoned arrow in Graduation Day Part I.
This leads to the battle to the death between Faith and Buffy. Buffy wants to feed Faith's blood to Angel, because Angel requires the blood of the slayer to heal. Unable to get Faith's blood, Buffy gives Angel her's.
Now, years later, in Release - we have Faith fighting Angel once again. But this time he's Angelus and he gets the upper hand and when he bites Faith - it's not to heal himself, it's to feed off her and sire her - turning her into his dark daughter. Just as Faith attempted to turn and Kill Angel, Angelus attempts to Kill and turn Faith.
2. Wes. Wes oddly enough has the same father issues Faith does. Wes has been fired from the Watcher Council because of Faith. Faith was betrayed by the Watcher Council because of Wes. (Wes is the one who calls the Watcher Council to come and get Faith in Consequences, kidnapping her from Angel's care - the whole thing blows up in his face and Faith as a result goes and joins the Mayor. This results in Wes being fired from the Council and becoming a rogue demon hunter.) Wes was Faith's Watcher/Father figure - which got subplanted by The Mayor in Season 3 Btvs. Just as Giles is Buffy's Watcher/Father figure. Father as super-ego or guardian. Needless to say these two have a lot of issues to be worked out.
Wes, due to his rejection by both his biological father and the Council (I'm assuming here that Wes' father like Giles' was a Watcher...it appears to be a family thing.)has a great deal of repressed rage. Also due to his training by both the Council and Daddy, Wes is a little ruthless. (I'm beginning to wonder about the Watcher Council...they seem to have some well questionable ideas when it comes to saving the world - perhaps the First did everyone a favor when it blew them up?) This rage is being "released" on to Faith, Angel, and just about everyone around him. But he is directing it with some sense of purpose.
His relentless pushing of Faith's buttons in the demon bar scene was actually in retrospect an effective means of showing Faith what Angelus would put her through. I realized how effective it was when Angelus asked if Wes had given her the stiff upper lip, stand firm speech. Uhm no, actually he did the same thing your doing. Seems you've underestimated old Wes, Angel. So has Cordelia for that matter. Wes' ruthlessness and own needs for approval both from Angel (his dark father figure) and his own father, tend to steer him in a direction that goes against EvilCordy's wishes. Wes like Faith, needs to get Angel back.
Wes like Faith needs Angel's approval in some way. Wes, in some ways, has come to embrace Angel as a role model.
A father figure. And we see Wes' own father issues play out both in his relationship with Angel/Angelus and with Faith.
Whoa...wait a minute. Is Wes seeing Angel as a substitute for his own Father? Has Angel inadvertently become the father figure for the whole AI team? No. But maybe he has become one for Wesely and possibly poor Fred? He's certainly Connors.
It is interesting that of all the characters on the show, it appears to be the most important to Wes and Faith to save Angel. The others care, but Gunn and Connor seem to have less problems just staking Angelus - which makes sense considering where both characters are coming from. Fred doesn't want Angelus killed either. But Wes/Faith really seem to be anxious about it. Both of these characters really want Angel's approval. And in a sense each others.
They are all still inside that room with Faith torturing Wes, when Angel suddenly breaks in and saves Wes, but only to save Faith as well. At that time, Five By Five S1 Ats,
both Wes and Faith wanted Angel to kill Faith. Now in Release both Faith and Wes, don't want Angelus to kill Faith, they want Angel back. They want the good father.
**************
Leaving Faith for a minute, Connor, Cordelia, the little bundle of fetal joy, and Angelus.
Connor - has managed inadvertently to take on Angel's role of last year. He is in the same place Angel was when Darla returned 9 months pregnant with him and everyone was frightened he was evil. He has literally taken on Daddy's role. Nothing like walking a mile in Daddy's shoes to get a better understanding of him, is there?
Connor also has an incredible fear of becoming his father.
Cordelia misunderstands this to mean he's afraid he's a demon. But Connor's facial expressions in the bathroom mirror reminded me a great deal of Angel's facial expressions in that same mirror in Spin The Bottle. Except unlike Angel - Connor couldn't change his face. Am I like my father, wonders Connor? And which father? Like Oedipus, he has returned to his home - only to discover his real father is nothing like the man the surrogate described yet at the same time everything like the man the surrogate who raised him described. A true Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
What's more? His father is a lot like he was as a child.
A prodigal. A rebellious boy wanting approval or some atonement. Like Angelus - Connor wishes to kill his father.
Like Angel - Connor desires some sort of reunion or atonement.
Then we have the fetal bundle of joy - which appears to be controlling Cordelia. At least that's my current theory.
My theories change episode by episode regarding Cordelia.
Fetal Bundle of Joy appears to be the demon child. It may accomplish what Connor and Angelus haven't which is subplanting the father and taking over the world. The father may have to kill the child in this story. So not looking forward to seeing this thing being born.
The whole Connor/Cordelia arc - seems so similar to Angel/Darla that I can't help but wonder if they are inversions. Angel/Darla - two vampires who are related by blood, and have a big time Oedipal thing going - have a good human child/vampire slayer. Connor/Cordelia - two humans who have been demonized in some way and have big time Oedipal thing going - have an evil demon child.
Both children have one thing in common = kill daddy.
evil demon child will want to kill Connor, good father, and partner up with Angelus, evil grandfather. Connor wants to kill Angelus ...his grandfathers are dead.
I'm wondering if Connor's kid may help Connor see Angel's point of view as well as help Angel figure out something about his own father issues? Is the beast inside Angel, the part of him Cordelia states is buried deep inside and has been whispering to him - the result of those long buried father issues? And did that beast first get woken by Darla?
Does that same beast lurk inside Connor? And has it been passed onto to Cordelia like a virus and is now about to be born?
Cordelia's threats to Angelus, got me wondering about that voice. The id. The dark self. Now that the id has gotten out and is having fun - it truly doesn't want to get tucked back inside with the old Super-ego in control. At the same time it doesn't particularly like being told what to do by an outside force, any outside force. Id's like free-reign.
No bosses. Doesn't really matter if the super-ego is good or evil - the id wants to have fun and NOT be told what to do. So watching the battle unfold first with the evil super-ego and soon with the good super-ego should be interesting, particularly when the evil super-ego is emanating from the id's grandson. Jeeze. good super-ego = son, evil-super ego=grandson. id= father. That has to be a wacked theory. Or a delightful ironic twist. Take your pick.
Until the super-ego/ego comes to terms with the id's issues, I seriously doubt there will be much intergration - although Cordelia's birth of evil fetal bundle of joy may cause a psychological break for both Angel and Connor regarding this problem.
I certainly see a psychological breakthrough happening on the Wes/Faith front. They seem to finally be dealing with all these long suppressed Watcher/Slayer issues. Faith recognizes finally that there is darkness in Wes and he is willing to go a bit too far, and that she maybe isn't?
Faith has moved past these issues somewhat. She's finding herself again. Wes? Has a ways to go, I think. But the fact that he's dealt with and confronted her on her torture of him, is a start. (Although I can't help but think the whole Wes/Faith Watcher/Slayer relationship is another little hint that ME is shooting our way about how there is something very rotten at the heart of the Council. That the Council is not as nice as we think. Just a hunch. I could be wrong. But it's been a very long time since I've seen anything really positive regarding Watchers and the Council. And I've seen a ton of negative images from the whole Holtz/Justine thing, to Principal Wood, to the Council trying to kill Buffy and Faith in different episodes, to the whole Checkpoint ordeal. Hmmm.)
Well running out steam here. Hope this post made a lick of sense and wasn't a rambling mess.
Agree? Disagree? Comments?
SK
PS: I loved this episode. The only parts I had problems with the Cordy/Connor scenes - they just squick me for some reason. Outside of that? Very good. Looking forward to watching it again today. Rest? Agree with cjl's review.
[>
Re: The Disapproving Father: Electra and Oedipus (Spoilers Release) -- Arethusa, 09:53:47 03/13/03 Thu
Whoa...wait a minute. Is Wes seeing Angel as a substitute for his own Father?
Yes! I suggested that a while back, even wondering why Wes picked Angel instead of Giles, seemingly the more natural choice. I think its because of Angel's darker nature. Wes is afraid of Angel, and that triggers a certain response in him. He is drawn to him and driven to seek his approval. If he gains it, he is both conquering his fears and gaining something his own father won't give him.
I'm running out of superlatives with which to praise your posts, so I'll just say I enjoyed it immensely and will be kept busy thinking about all the issues you analyzed.
[> [>
Giles vs. Angel = Why Wes/Faith chose Angel -- s'kat, 12:07:35 03/13/03 Thu
First off, thanks for the praise!
even wondering why Wes picked Angel instead of Giles, seemingly the more natural choice. I think its because of Angel's darker nature. Wes is afraid of Angel, and that triggers a certain response in him. He is drawn to him and driven to seek his approval. If he gains it, he is both conquering his fears and gaining something his own father won't give him.
Interesting point. Why did Wes and for that matter Faith - take more to Angel as father than Giles? Well, let's look at how Buffy deals - for Buffy, Angel always gave her more emotional comfort than Giles did, he wasn't a disciplinarian and he was more accepting of her faults. In Consequences Buffy goes to Angel for help with Faith, not Giles.
(First off: a disclaimer, I'm not trying to tear down Giles here. Giles actually is amongst my favorite characters and one of the main reasons I watched Btvs for 7 seasons. So no need for tons of "defending Giles" posts. Just trying out a theory. End disclaimer.)
I think Giles is meant to represent the reluctant father. Duty comes first. His duty as Watcher. Through-out the series we see Giles struggling against the whole father role. When Jenny suggests he is like Buffy's father - he denies it outright in S1/2. He resists an involvement with Joyce also partly due to this role. And in S3, he loses his job because of the fatherly affection he feels for Buffy, an affection that the Council condemns him for and fires him because of. In S4 he struggles with but seems to come to terms with this role somewhat, only to break with it completely at the end of S5, where he demands Buffy take sole responsbility for Dawn and kill Dawn if she has to. When Buffy dies? Giles leaves. He does not stay for Dawn. He returns briefly for Buffy, only to depart again believing he has nothing more to teach her and is merely standing in her way. When she suggests he could be like her mother or father in Flooded, he states, how about rakish uncle. Giles does have strong feelings for Buffy, but they go against his training as a Watcher, they go against what he believes he is - Giles, does not see himself as a father and does not want to be one. The fact he loves Buffy as a father would has been something that he's always struggled with. It is this emotion and struggle that has brought out the best in Giles.
But it is also this struggle - that is the reason Giles has not allowed himself to take on a father role for other characters. Xander and Willow have sort of inflicted it on him, but he doesn't really accept it if you think about it.
He doesn't show up at Xander's wedding. And he does not aid Willow until well he has no other choice. He acts the role of reluctant father with them as well.
He refuses to take the role for either Wesely or Faith. Both ask in their own way, Giles ignores them. Wes asks for Giles advice off and on in S3 and is somewhat upset when Giles keeps leaving him out of the loop. Giles does see to Wes' injuries in Graduation Day Part II, but Giles does not follow up with Wesely. Once the council breaks things off with Wes, Giles does too. Contrast this with what happens when Wes appears in LA in Parting Gifts S1 ATs. Angel allows Wes to help. Even goes so far as to make Wes and Cordy breakfast at the end of the episode. Wes -- gets accepted into Angel's little family of oddballs. Wes in a sense becomes Angel's surrogate son.
Same thing with Faith. Faith comes back first in Btvs, but Giles and SG are firmly against her, for good reason. Giles even meets with the Watcher Council who kidnaps her. After Faith switches with Buffy - she finds out pretty quickly that there is no love there. Giles at no point ever tried to reach Faith. Angel on the other hand does try, repeatedly. He tries in Consequences, preventing Faith from killing Xander and trying to connect with her, he comes pretty close before the Council screws things up. Then again in Five by Five and Sanctuary - it's Angel who reaches her.
Angel is in a way the forgiving father. An odd contrast to his own father - the disapproving one. The reason Buffy fell for Angel is partly b/c he represents the forgiving/accepting Dad. Buffy desperately needed that in seasons 1-3, her own father abandoned her and Giles just kept demanding things from her, Angel granted the closest thing to unconditional love that she could find at that point from a father figure. Got to give Angel credit, he really does not forsake any of the women in his life. Daughters - Angel appears to forgive. Sons - whole other issue. Although I'd say Angel was far more forgiving and accepting of Wes and Connor than his father was of him.
At any rate - I think that may be why we have Faith and Wes both seeking Angel out as a sort of psuedo father figure.
I may be reaching a bit on some of this. So feel free to poke holes!
SK
[> [> [>
I don't think you're reaching (spoilers) -- Scroll, 12:24:04 03/13/03 Thu
I love Giles too, but I totally agree that he's a reluctant father. Only Buffy, and to a certain extent Dawn and Willow, can make him put on the Daddy hat. Xander, as much as I think Giles loves and cares for him, is not a responsibility Giles wants.
Faith is a perfect demonstration of this, I think. Giles already had a daughter in Buffy. He didn't really want or need another one in Faith. Personally, I think one of Giles' worst failures was Faith. While Wesley certainly made things worse, he was only in Sunnydale a total of two days before the Faith situation blew up in his face. Giles had Faith under his care for months, and he never really paid any attention to her. It took the evil Mayor to notice that Faith had no business living in a dirty, dangerous motel without vamp protection.
Like the Mayor, Angel is a nurturing, forgiving father figure. He feeds and clothes people. He gives Faith a sanctuary, he makes breakfast for Wesley (and we get hints that Wesley is pretty broke and perhaps going hungry), he houses Fred the refugee. Angel is all about caring for the cast-outs, the ones Sunnydale didn't want. Though I think you may be on to something about his double standard for daughters vs. sons.
[> [> [>
Wow -- Alison, 13:15:33 03/13/03 Thu
really interesting...honestly, I've always loved Giles as a character SOOOO much that I never thought about him that way..I have the whole knee jerk "But its..Giles!" reaction.
Fascinating stuff...doesn't make me love him any less though :)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Giles as dog owner - treading water in left field -- Brian, 13:26:36 03/13/03 Thu
To defend Giles in his neglect of Faith:
It's like owning a dog that you really love. You worry if the dog will be ok, learn well, not get into trouble, not get run over, not get hurt. You love this dog so much that you begin to realize just how driven you've become when you think about it. So, in an idle moment, you think that having another dog might lessen your concern for this loved one. So you get another dog and find that your worries have not decreased by half but have doubled. Now you have two creatures that see you as the center of their universe, and you realize that your love, attention now has to be divided, equally. Hard to do. So no matter how much you want to equal, you end up favoring one of the another.
Buffy was the one "mom liked best!"
[>
Wow, brilliant post, s'kat! (spoilers) -- Scroll, 10:20:03 03/13/03 Thu
I was reading this and going, "hmm, I have something to add to that point," or "that's interesting, but what about this?" -- until I got through the entire post and realised you'd ended up saying everything I wanted to say! And much better too.
Wes like Faith, needs to get Angel back. Wes like Faith needs Angel's approval in some way. Wes, in some ways, has come to embrace Angel as a role model. A father figure. And we see Wes' own father issues play out both in his relationship with Angel/Angelus and with Faith. Whoa...wait a minute. Is Wes seeing Angel as a substitute for his own Father?
Wesley definitely sees Angel as a father figure. At least, he did in Season 1. After Angel fired the crew in S2, Wes seemed to grow into role of leader and maintained that role even after Angel came back. But I think a part of Wesley will always remember Angel as the father figure who first gave him approval, who first saw value in Wes as a person. Like Faith, Wes sees Angel as his "saviour", the one who renewed his sense of purpose, who originally gave him the mission. In "Sanctuary", Wesley rejects his old father figure, the Watcher's Council, in favour of his new father figure, Angel.
Another thing about "Choices": Faith's knife. Unlike Buffy and Kendra whose weapon of choice is the stake, Faith's weapon of choice has always been the knife. The Mayor gives her this beautiful knife, a gift of love and of murder. So what you wrote here is interesting:
Faith seeks out the Mayor and becomes the Mayor's right hand man. She subplants Angel with The Mayor. In Choices - We have Faith standing with the Mayor and Buffy standing with Angel. Faith chose the dark father. Angelus is reminding her of that choice and possibly suggesting she make the same one again.
In "Choices", Faith stands by the Mayor, she chooses the dark father. But when Wesley's life is in danger, Faith thows the knife, kills the demon spider, and saves him. She gives up her dark father's gift to save her "good" father's life.
Then in "Release" Wesley gives Faith his knife. He tells her to embrace her darkness, to become the vicious animal again in order to defeat Angelus. I'm not really sure if that makes Wes the dark father or still the "good" father but with a little grimness thrown in. If Wes is the dark father, then what about Angelus? Or can they both be the dark father?
Of course, Faith ends up rejecting both Wesley and Angelus' encouragement to embrace the darkness. She refuses to let that darkness control her, she won't do evil to stop evil.
Here's another thought. I agree Wes wants his father's approval. But what if taking away Angel's soul is tied to the fact that he's become so dark? What if Wesley pushed for Angel to give up his soul because Wes needed approval but knew there was no way in hell he (Connor's kidnapper and morally ambiguous guy who sleeps with Lilah) would ever get it from good, souled Angel. So bring back evil Angelus! Perhaps he will approve of Dark!Wes. Perhaps Angelus will be able to fulfill the father role and give Wesley some sign of approval, not in spite of Wesley's darkness, but because of it. Of course, this would all be Wesley's subconscious desire; I doubt Wes would consciously bring back Angelus simply so he can get approval : )
Fetal Bundle of Joy <-- I like this!
Like what you say about Connor and Cordelia, I'm just not sure I have anything to add on that front. But I had to laugh at Connor trying to make his forehead go "wrinkly" in the mirror. Poor, poor little boy! That scene reminded me of Faith in Buffy's body in "Who Are You?"
[> [>
Some good points I didn't see, that knife for instance -- s'kat, 11:41:57 03/13/03 Thu
Thanks, Scroll. But you came up with quite a few points, I missed, that knife for instance:
Another thing about "Choices": Faith's knife. Unlike Buffy and Kendra whose weapon of choice is the stake, Faith's weapon of choice has always been the knife. The Mayor gives her this beautiful knife, a gift of love and of murder.
I wondered why Faith was tossing the knife as opposed to a stake. And what's interesting in this episode is it is the knife that Wes gives her after he stabs the poor drug addict at the demon bar. Faith accuses him of being too brutal, he tears her to smithereens with words and gives her the knife. When Angelus makes fun of Wes' speech and
says what could Wes possibly give her to help her - Faith pulls out that knife and stabs him.
Compare this to the scene in Graduation Day Part I, where Buffy confronts Faith and Faith says what can you possibly have to hurt me - voila the knife that Faith lost killing the spider threatening Wes' life. The same knife the Mayor gave her. The same knife that Buffy uses to stab Faith.
And uses to taunt the Mayor.
Knives have very male connotations to them, like stakes.
But unlike the stake - the knife doesn't kill a vampire unless you cut off it's head. Hence the reason she uses it over the stake, doesn't want to kill him. Does want to wound him. Hence the reason Wes gives it to her. Contrast this to the Mayor's rational - which is to kill humans. The knife may not kill the Mayor, whose invulnerable or demons necessarily - but it will kill humans.
Wes - gives it to her to maim.
Mayor - to kill.
Then in "Release" Wesley gives Faith his knife. He tells her to embrace her darkness, to become the vicious animal again in order to defeat Angelus. I'm not really sure if that makes Wes the dark father or still the "good" father but with a little grimness thrown in. If Wes is the dark father, then what about Angelus? Or can they both be the dark father?
I don't think Wes is nearly as dark as The Mayor. He still doesn't want Faith to kill Angelus. Note Wes is carrying the stakes, not Faith. Wes has a shotgun not a stake as his prinicipal weapon. Also the weapon he gives Faith is unlikely to do more than just wound or weaken Angelus, not kill him as a stake would.
So bring back evil Angelus! Perhaps he will approve of Dark!Wes. Perhaps Angelus will be able to fulfill the father role and give Wesley some sign of approval, not in spite of Wesley's darkness, but because of it. Of course, this would all be Wesley's subconscious desire; I doubt Wes would consciously bring back Angelus simply so he can get approval : )
I agree, I think part of the reason Wes brought forth Angelus was to commune with the dark father - one who might give him some approval. Angelus doesn't of course. All he does is tear Wes down more. Point out all of Wes' failings.
Almost applaud them. Wes is forced to confront his own arrogance in the face of the dark father he's brought forth.
And may even be being forced to confront his own darkness as a result.
I doubt any of it was conscious. I get the feeling Wes' father issues run so deep that he may not truly be aware of any of them. I think the experience of going up against Angelus, losing Lilah, and almost losing Faith due to this arrogance...may force Wes to come to terms with some of those issues and may be reassess what he's been doing. It will be interesting to see how Wes deals with a re-ensouled Angel, when and if that happens.
Thanks for the response, some things to ponder.
SK
[>
Re: The Disapproving Father: Electra and Oedipus (Spoilers Release) -- Rob, 10:23:45 03/13/03 Thu
"I loved this episode. The only parts I had problems with the Cordy/Connor scenes - they just squick me for some reason. Outside of that? Very good."
I agree. The C/C scenes really give me the creeps. Although with all the psychological manipulation, I assume we're supposed to feel that way. But still...very uncomfortable to watch.
Rob
[> [>
Poor Connor -- cjl, 10:54:20 03/13/03 Thu
Now that we know Evil!Cordy (and perhaps her Devil!Baby) are behind all the mayhem, my C/C "squickiness" has eased somewhat. The poor kid. He has to deal with potential demonhood, impending fatherhood, and his own toxic father issues all at the same time, while his knocked-up Jocasta substitute jerks him around like a puppet. And yet, he's dealing with this bizarre situation with warm-heartedness and optimism for the future that I would find touching if it weren't so pitiful.
I wonder what his reaction will be when he finds out he's been played?
[> [> [>
Re: Poor Connor -- Masq, 11:17:24 03/13/03 Thu
I wonder what his reaction will be when he finds out he's been played?
My suspicion? What happens to all angry young men who find out they've been naive. They attempt to go to the opposite extreme. To be worldly, in-the-know, cynical. Connor is cynical of his father right now, seeing him as evil. Connor is even cynical of himself somewhat, fearing he has his parent's evil in him.
A truly cynical Connor will see potential evil in everybody, including and especially himself. He will no longer trust people who say they are fighting for Good. He will no longer trust people who say they have his best interests at heart. He may even become what he fears--nasty, brutish, no longer the "hero"--because he is cynical of any good intentions, including his own.
Of course, he might find a way around being cynical of all people and being cynical of good in general by simply becoming cynical of women, especially of those who show an interest in him.
Either way, not good.
[> [> [> [>
Connor's character flaw -- Tyreseus, 19:13:10 03/13/03 Thu
I think these posts caught my eye, because I've been having a problem think "poor Connor" lately. I've been seeing Connor more and more as a brat in need of discipline.
Then I started questioning why I feel that way. Certainly cjl brings up great points about how Connor's life has basically sucked. And there are even more - being raised in a hell dimension, his adopted father dying, etc.
But I think I can't say "poor Connor" because I'm just waiting for him to take some responsibility for his own fate. Things happen TO him and he reacts. The boy needs to start making decisions and accepting the consequence.
However, part of that means asking the questions he's been avoiding since day one (what am I?). I cheered when he finally went to Wolfram and Hart to get some answers, it's a shame they were zombified before he got any.
And I also have a problem with him because he's let his trust issues stand in the way of his own search. Why would Wolfram and Hart provide better answers than, say, Fred/Wes/Lorne in full research mode?
The people who've shown him that he can trust them are getting their hands bitten by the brat boy (Angel, Fred, Gunn - we won't get into Cordelia just now).
Anyway, maybe I just feel like Connor's poor life is too reminiscent of BtVS until "What's My Line, Part II." The teenager thrown into a path he didn't choose, feeling sorry for himself and too wrapped up in his own drama to get the bigger picture or understand the people around him. I'm looking forward to a time that Connor "decides" to be a champion.
Although, I suspect that he'll need to get very dark first. He needs to do something he regrets (like Wesley, Angel, Faith, Gunn/Fred -- hopefully Cordy soon) before he can fit into the family at AI. So far, Connor hasn't expressed regret over anything he's done, including trying to kill his father.
Okay, so I'm losing train of thought now, but I'm still trying to make sense of Connor and my personal reactions to him. A friend of mine suggested that maybe I'm just annoyed because it's not so long ago that I was a self-indulgent teenager, but as the characters of AtS have grown into adulthood (and I, with them) I've lost some tolerance for the problems of a younger generation.
[> [> [> [> [>
That brat! ....and why I like him -- Masq, 21:14:18 03/13/03 Thu
I am constantly snarking at Connor on the television set. "Get over yourself, you little brat!" And yet I can't help but like him. Maybe it's because I'm a helpless Connor-Angel shipper and I still hold out hope that Connor will find the answers he's looking for in the father he was raised to despise.
Yes, I get frustrated with him when he dismisses Angel out of hand, and I get REALLY frustrated with him when he turns into Cordelia's lap-puppy.
But he's so gosh-darn cute with that bashful smile and that desperate-for-approval "look what I can do!" thing he puts on for Faith and Gunn and others he admires.
And I fear for him if he discovers something about himself that will make him hate himself. He's already on the verge of that, just having vampire parents, and now, if this Sanctorium mojo really has responded to some demon inside him, he's going to question his moral worthiness even to live.
And I do want him to live. I do want him to be a hero. I do want him to reflect his father's better nature and his mother's good looks.
And of course, I want him to have the continued angst that is a prerequisite for membership in the Jossy-verse.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I think he's getting set up .... -- WickedBuffy, 21:30:49 03/13/03 Thu
I keep feeling that the "Sanctorium mojo" is part of the evil plan to undermine/control/lead Connor and it only affects Connor. Something isn't right tthere.
:Lorne is a step off.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Yeah, but... -- Masq, 22:10:22 03/13/03 Thu
That would be one more mind fuck/twist/viewer mislead in a whole gigantic season of mind fucks/twists/misleads.
I'd like a few actual facts. Especially about bratty-boy. ; )
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Completely agree on all of the above -- s'kat, 22:24:16 03/13/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Love Connor to an unnatural degree.... -- Rahael, 03:34:42 03/14/03 Fri
It kind of crept up on me! Damn, Vincent Kartheiser is one to watch!
[> [> [> [>
Re: Poor Connor -- WickedBuffy, 20:52:55 03/13/03 Thu
When it was just Cordy in the picture, I'd agree 100% to all that. She was all he felt he had and all he looked to. But now that Faith is in it, and seeing Connors face and attitufe towards her - that just might be what makes the difference in the depth of his disillusionment.
It sure will be interesting to see who he is for and who he is against when the farce is revealed.
[>
Re: Wes/Angel (Spoilers Release) -- Kenny, 14:49:46 03/13/03 Thu
Really liked that post. I've got differing thoughts on Wes/Angel, and thoughts are coelescing as I think about it more, so I'll try to get this to make some sense, but it may ramble.
Anyway, Wes/Angel has always been a brother relationship to me. While the show doesn't support it(although it doesn't specifically deny it), I've always pictured Liam as having an older brother that Liam couldn't live up to. Said brother was always loving to Angel and was able to school him in ways their father couldn't. He'd try to explain why their father would be so rough, and as long as older brother was there Liam was fine. But older brother grew up and left to pursue his own life, was no longer the buffer for Liam and dad, and things quickly degraded. I have a hard time seeing Liam want his father's approval if there had never been this voice to humanize his father. Maybe it was his mother, but my mind's eye pictures this brother taking Liam out after being yelled at by dad, telling him that he's still a good person, dad's not able to express that though, etc.
And to me, this is the older brother that Angel is to Wesley. At this point I don't believe that Wesley is capable of thinking that a father figure could approve...it's too strong an image for a kinder surrogate to exist. I don't think Wes could have taken over AI when Angel came back after the "Beige Angel" period of season 2 if he perceived him more as a father figure. In fact, that's where the image of them as brothers really gelled in my head.
As I write this, I find it important to define the different between brother/father. Because I just realized Liam's imaginary brother could himself be seen as a surrorage father, basically meaning that I totally agree with SK, but I just frame things a bit differently. But while I see older brother as needing father for his role to exist, he's not a surrogate of, for one important reason.
Younger Brother actually has the chance of becoming an equal with Older Brother. That could never happen with father. Wesley has been in the position of Angel wanting Wesley's approval (again, see season 2). Father could never exist like that. He will never seek for approval. Angel knows that. Until his dying breaths, Liam's father was looking for approval from the Lord (to Liam's family, the ultimate father?)--he could never stoop so low as to ask it from his son. Yet Wesley's had to give it to Angel. At that point the Father/Son relationship is, to me, forever abandoned.
I believe Wesley is so interested in saving Angel because he wants to make sure that he's saved himself. He's seen that Beige Angel doesn't work...it's too dangerous, and it's what evil powers want. But Angel's important. Incredibly important. Wesley knows how vastly important (he did the translation, you know), and he's made it his own responsibility to make sure that Angel's on the side of good when the big battle happens. I don't think he kidnapped Connor to save Connor's life...he did it to save Angel's soul. He's determined to make sure Angel doesn't go beige again. And lately that's meant going dark himself. I don't think he wants Angel's approval as much as Angel's understanding. But he still needs Angel to make sure he doesn't go too far. Angel's the older brother giving him a light to follow.
To me, Wes doesn't want approval anymore. He realizes that people won't approve what he has to do, because he walks too closely to that line, sometimes over it. But he does it because he feels he has to (in huge contrast to Liam). But he wants understanding from the others, most notably Angel, that there's a reason he has to (now, whether he is just imagining this reason is a whole other thread). And forgiveness when he does cross over the line.
[> [>
I so totally agree, Kenny -- Scroll, 19:17:42 03/13/03 Thu
At this point I don't believe that Wesley is capable of thinking that a father figure could approve...it's too strong an image for a kinder surrogate to exist. I don't think Wes could have taken over AI when Angel came back after the "Beige Angel" period of season 2 if he perceived him more as a father figure. In fact, that's where the image of them as brothers really gelled in my head.
I think you're right here. (If you want, please see my "Angel/Wesley Parallels" thread up above.) In Season 1, we get the father/son vibe, but after Angel breaks from the group, we see Wes come into his own. They settle more into a brother relationship. Angel often does want Wes' approval, but I think we still see Wes wanting Angel's approval even in early Season 3. And I do think they have the opportunity to become equals (and for a while they were).
I believe Wesley is so interested in saving Angel because he wants to make sure that he's saved himself. He's seen that Beige Angel doesn't work...it's too dangerous, and it's what evil powers want. But Angel's important. Incredibly important. Wesley knows how vastly important (he did the translation, you know), and he's made it his own responsibility to make sure that Angel's on the side of good when the big battle happens. I don't think he kidnapped Connor to save Connor's life...he did it to save Angel's soul. He's determined to make sure Angel doesn't go beige again. And lately that's meant going dark himself. I don't think he wants Angel's approval as much as Angel's understanding. But he still needs Angel to make sure he doesn't go too far. Angel's the older brother giving him a light to follow.
To me, Wes doesn't want approval anymore. He realizes that people won't approve what he has to do, because he walks too closely to that line, sometimes over it. But he does it because he feels he has to (in huge contrast to Liam). But he wants understanding from the others, most notably Angel, that there's a reason he has to (now, whether he is just imagining this reason is a whole other thread). And forgiveness when he does cross over the line.
Just one big UH-HUH to all of this. I really think Wes feels he needs to be dark, to do all those morally ambiguous things he does, so that Angel and the Fang Gang -- who he admits are Champions -- don't have to. Wesley knows Angel is on the side of Good, just as Lilah was on the side of Evil. Now, I think Wesley is still on the side of Good, but he's prepared to do the things a true Good Guy, a real Champion, wouldn't do because it goes against what being Good is all about.
Wesley is on the side of Good, but he's not a Good Guy himself (best way I can explain my meaning). And at this point, I'm not sure Wesley even feels the need to become that Good Guy again. Grey works for him, it's worked so far, and he probably feels it's necessary to have somebody on the Good Side who's willing to get his hands dirty from time to time. Of course, I have a feeling Wesley's gonna get taught a lesson very soon. Somebody (my vote is Angel) has got to straighten him out, hopefully with a little tough love.
[> [>
Good points ...but.(Spoilers Release) -- s'kat, 21:25:25 03/13/03 Thu
Good points, Kenny. But I'm still on the fence about this. Since I only recently ran into the theory that there might be a little projecting on Wes' part regarding his father issues on to Angel, (I don't think Angel is aware of them btw or he would have used it against Wes by now), I'm not entirely sure how wacked or valid it is. I do believe that Angel sees Wes as a brother. But not so sure how Wes views Angel.
Hmmm...bear with me...I need to ponder this in writing, (the side of the fence I jump to will appear at the end of the post).
Would it surprise you to learn that up until mid-way through my post, I'm thinking Wes is Angel's brother, his best friend - no father relationship there, then whammo, hence the "whoa" I realized maybe there was a father-son thing going on, I hadn't noticed. This is a new realization as in only about five or six hours ago new. Before that?
Took your view completely.
Younger Brother actually has the chance of becoming an equal with Older Brother. That could never happen with father. Wesley has been in the position of Angel wanting Wesley's approval (again, see season 2). Father could never exist like that. He will never seek for approval. Angel knows that. Until his dying breaths, Liam's father was looking for approval from the Lord (to Liam's family, the ultimate father?)--he could never stoop so low as to ask it from his son. Yet Wesley's had to give it to Angel. At that point the Father/Son relationship is, to me, forever abandoned.
Actually I don't think I agree with you here. This is where your argument fell apart for me. Here's why - Connor. Both Holtz and Angel seem to desire in some odd way Connor's approval. Angel certainly does when Connor first returns. I think part of him still does. He wants his son to seem him as a hero not a monster. He wants in a sense to be equals with Connor but never believes this can be the case, actually he may want more than that, he may want Connor to be better than him. All fathers want their sons approval. While it may be true that Liam's father may not have sunk so low to seek Liam's approval, I don't think this is true of Liam himself.
Also I think you're being a bit harsh on Liam's dad here.
Remember Dear Boy and Prodigal? We see Liam's father beg Liam to reconsider leaving. He did not kick Liam out. He was asking Liam to take responsibility for his actions, to stop being a layabout, to stop brawling and drunking all the time and womanizing, to basically grow up. Hmmm reminds me a little of Giles' speech to Buffy in Tabula Rasa and Angel's to Connor in Deep Down. And Angel did kick out Connor. And Giles did leave Buffy. Liam's father didn't do either of those things. And what did he get for attempting to get Liam to grow up, to take responsibility? Stolen silver and death. That scene haunts me. It's until Spin the Bottle that we learn that Liam's father was incredibly religious and upset with Liam on that score. But again this is Liam's pov, so we don't know how much of that is true.
At any rate, my impression of the scene in The Prodigal, Angel S1, was that Liam's father did want some sort of respect or acceptance from his son.
The difference between Brothers and Father/Son, is brothers could care less about approval. Also most siblings aren't really into the being equal thing - they are more into the one-upmanship thing. Or the rivalry. As they grow older? Maybe equals, or just don't care. I have a brother - believe me, I know. I don't think siblings really hunt for each others acceptance or approval the way they do from their parents. They may look up to each other, but I can't see a brother caring that much what his younger brother thought of him - at least not in the same way.
Of course I don't know for sure, being a sister. So back to Btvs.
I just keep circling back to the relationship between Gunn and Wes, and Connor and Angel. Gunn and Wes are friends and somewhat like brothers, they don't seem to need each other's approval or care that much. Not like Wes cares about Angel's. Gunn also seems to look at Angel more like a leader or brother, no approval issues. Connor however looks for approval from Angel, just as Angel looks for from Connor. While I don't really see Angel hunting much approval from Wes, he seems more concerned about it than with Gunn, also at the table in Angel's dream in Deep Down, Wes is at the other end of the table - or other head - a spot often reserved for eldest son. Connor and Cordelia sit at Angel's right and left. Wes also saves Angel - feeding Angel from his own wrist - another father/son image. More father than brother. No, the relationship between Wes/Angel seems deeper than brothers. There are cases where an older brother takes on a father role with a younger brother.
And this could be that.
Oh and Wes/Angel S2 reminds me a lot of Angelus/Connor S4
and towards end of S3. Angel seeks Connor's approval when Connor returns from hell dimension, thinks he gets it, Connor betrays him and now seeks Angels. Angel seeks Wes' approval in S2 Angel after Wes had gotten shot and hurt because of Angel, Wes betrays Angel in S3, and seeks Angel's approval partly by saving him in Deep Down, but doesn't want to admit it.
Also your theory about Liam having an older brother? Again don't think so. He would have sought him out and killed him.
Remember Angelus makes a point of telling us he killed his entire family. The only two emphasized are Daddy and the little girl. While it's possible the brother existed and died, the writers themselves never refer to it. So I don't think you can use that...without reading way too much into the story. Unless of course you can find textual or metaphorical reference points in flashbacks or even present day stuff...then maybe, I don't know. Perhaps this is a case where we will never know for certain.
Okay I think I just argued myself off the fence and reconvinced myself of my new theory. That of course does not mean I can't be swayed back the other way again.;-)
Thanks again for the comments and your post, made me think through a few things, I hadn't considered.
SK
[> [> [>
Liam's Dad -- Darby, 05:37:12 03/14/03 Fri
shadowkat, I absolutely agree with you. When we have had a chance in flashback to see Daddy Dearest, what we hear, for the most part, is disappointment and abuse, but what we see, through a very good performance, is a father restrained by his own limitations and unable to express his love for his son, but hurting at the idea that Liam would not fulfill his potential - not an uncommon feeling in fathers. If Angel had lived a normal life, I believe that he would have understood his father better, even if he never became the man his father hoped he would.
It makes one wonder how our opinions might change if we were able to meet Wesley's pop. Just hearing his side of a phone conversation isn't enough.
What would our image of Hank Summers (I'm not saying he's like Wes' father, just drawing a loose analogy) be if he had never had screen time?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Liam's Dad -- Kenny, 07:54:16 03/14/03 Fri
I kind of covered this in my response to SK, but a bit more on it here. I don't disagree at all that Liam's father loved him. But I do blame him for being so intractable that he couldn't see it was possible for Liam to be a good man without accepting the same things he did. It's not just a matter of being unable to express himself, it's a matter of having a very narrow view of what is acceptable. Liam may have had a hard time understanding where his father was coming from, but Liam's dad was probably just as unable to see the good things in Liam because he didn't believe they were good, which would, in turn, cause Liam to not see them as good. And when you can only see everything you do as wrong, you're much more likely to end up doing things that are wrong, much as Liam did.
[> [> [>
Re: Good points ...but.(Spoilers Release) -- Kenny, 06:06:55 03/14/03 Fri
(OK, not sure how to do quotes, so you just get "" instead of the fancy-schmancy italicized thing:))
"At any rate, my impression of the scene in The Prodigal, Angel S1, was that Liam's father did want some sort of respect or acceptance from his son."
Respect, certainly. Approval? As a person? I don't think so. As the representation of how to lead a moral, decent life? Sure. In the cases of Holtz and Liam's father, the approval they sought was never on a personal level. It was about their "sons" accepting a way of life, the way of life that God intended. Connor accepted it, whereas Liam definately did not. My gut is that Wesley's father fits into this category. He doesn't need any approval from his son to justify his own life; acceptance is for his son's own good.
Angel/Connor is actually similar to this. Angel just has a tougher job to do because he's Dad #2. And just so happens to represent everything that Dad #1 (who Connor did accept) rejected and saw as evil. But it's still about wanting acceptance in a role, not as a person, which is the type of acceptance Angel needed from Wes (and others) S2 and Wes needs right now.
"The difference between Brothers and Father/Son, is brothers could care less about approval. Also most siblings aren't really into the being equal thing - they are more into the one-upmanship thing. Or the rivalry. As they grow older? Maybe equals, or just don't care. I have a brother - believe me, I know. I don't think siblings really hunt for each others acceptance or approval the way they do from their parents. They may look up to each other, but I can't see a brother caring that much what his younger brother thought of him - at least not in the same way.
Of course I don't know for sure, being a sister."
Gotta strongly disagree here. I believe that, quite often, older brothers and younger brothers do seek out each other's approval (and it's not just brothers, but I think it is stronger when the siblings are of the same gender). The important thing to note is that siblings are the closest thing one has to peers in one's own family. One example: I have a friend who cares much more what her sister thinks than what her parents think. There's definitely some idolization going on there. More to the point, though, she believes she'll never really have her parents approval. It's not even something she tries for anymore. But she can get her sister's approval, because they are more on the same level, and so she tries for that. And there's definitely been approval-seeking in my relationship with my sister (granted, that's over now, since I pretty much don't seek approval from anyone anymore).
Here's how I see it. Older brother wants approval from father that he's leading the right life and approval from younger brother that he's right as a person (because father cannot see him as a person at the same level that younger brother/peer can). It's like a balancing act.
The key to me is that the approval sought by a son from the father has to be gained without changing who the father is; he is immutable, he is the law, and so his approval means quite alot. It's approval from a higher power. Not to say that Wes doesn't see Angel as an important figure; quite the contrary, Wes is doing what he is because he sees Angel as an important figure. But he does what he does to protect Angel, to keep Angel from having to do the ambiguous things. The son cannot offer the father help in leading the moral life, but that's what Wesley's trying to do with Angel. That's where the father/son thing breaks down for me with Angel/Wes. Wes is trying to protect Angel; he's taking on the darker aspects for Angel's benefit. That's a responsibility that the son doesn't believe he can take on for the father. And that's what cements them as brothers to me. At least in Wesley's mind, they're a yin/yang--there is goodness and there is darkness. If Wes takes on the darkness, Angel will, by default, have most of the goodness, and he'll be prepared for the final battle. In my mind, the acceptance that Wes wants from Angel is Angel's acknowledgment that this is the case.
[> [> [> [>
Leaning towards you on Wes, still disagree on Liam's Dad.(Spoilers Release) -- s'kat, 08:59:36 03/14/03 Fri
If Wes takes on the darkness, Angel will, by default, have most of the goodness, and he'll be prepared for the final battle. In my mind, the acceptance that Wes wants from Angel is Angel's acknowledgment that this is the case.
Possibly. Not sure. Will have to wait on this one. The difficulty is I just don't know if that may be both father and broth relationships might be going on with Wes and Angel at once. Climbing back on to the fence.
As for seeking approval from siblings - this may have a lot to do with whether you ever considered peer approval necessary? Hmmm, removing personal views on this and looking at it objectively through Angel's eyes....
Does Angelus care about his peers? Okay, I agree with you on this point - Angelus does care a great deal about his reputation amongst peers. Often someone who can't get approval from parents will seek it through siblings and peers, those who do get approval from parents could care less what their siblings and peers think, they don't need the outside acceptance. Of course the best route is not to seek it from anyone but yourself - but that then there's no conflict, no drama...no story. Unless of course the story is your conflict with yourself? One man play. ;-)
To determine if Angel looks for it in peers - we have to go outside siblings, because outside of his little sister? I seriously doubt he had one. Again I see absolutely no evidence in the text or narrative that Liam ever had anything resembling an older or younger brother. His behavior suggest he didn't. But that may be irrelevant, since he does hunt for approval in his peers which as you state is pretty much the same thing. In episodes as early as S1 Btvs - we get evidence of Angel needing approval from peers. He feels like an outcast in the vampire community with a soul, and sits alone in the gutter in flashbacks in S2 Becoming. In S1 Btvs, Angel and
other episodes - he seems to want Buffy's approval in some way yet is terrified she can never give it to him. Something Darla makes clear to him in Angel. Later we keep getting the whole framing technique - where Angel is stuck on the outside looking in on the family.
I think Angel's problem is he looks for approval from both siblings and parental figures, probably because he can never get the approval from within, bit hard to do when you're a ensouled vampire.
Back to Liam's Dad - I don't think this is as clear cut as you make it. I went back to the shooting Script of Prodigal, in the episode the writers do an interesting job of paralleling Liam's story with the cop Kate. In both stories the child is struggling with a father relationship.
Kate's father has become a stooge in retirement, trading secrets to demons. He was a cop. Now he's a crooked cop.
When we first meet him - we see him through Angel's eyes, as the bad horrible father, but the story twists a bit, and we begin to see that he's fallen on hard times gotten involved with bad people and part of the reason he's put up barriers between himself and Kate is in a misquided attempt to protect her from himself. We even get an odd feeling that he wishes in some way for Kate's forgiveness and approval - something he never gets because a vampire kills him. Just as a vampire kills Liam and Liam's father before he could ever really make peace with his son.
It's easy to assume that the disapproving father would never sink low enough to seek approval from the son, but I don't think this is necessarily the case. Parents often have a tendency to see themselves in their children, and see their children as a chance to even potentially redeem themselves or more likely a means of living on.
This section from Prodigal haunts me and Angel as well, it is a conversation between Kate's father and Angel:
Trevor: "Protect my daughter. From what?"
Angel: "From finding out the reason you were there today wasn't because you cared about her."
Trevor: "You got any kids, Angel?"
Angel: "No."
Trevor: "Right. Then don't think you know how a father feels, or why he does the things he does."
How ironic. Now, Angel does know how it feels. He's been confronted with Connor. And I do believe he wants Connor's approval as much as Connor wants his.
Here's another interesting sequence, that actually works better on screen as Darby mentions above than on paper:
Dad: "It's a son I wished for - a man - instead God gave me you! A terrible disappointment."
Angel: "Disappointment? A more dutiful son you couldn't have asked for. My whole life you've told me in word, in glance, what it is you required of me, and I've lived down to your every expectations, now haven't I?"
Dad: "That's madness!"
Angel: "No. The madness is that I couldn't fail enough for you. But we'll fix that now, won't we?"
Dad: "I fear for you, lad."
Angel: "And is that the only thing you can find in your heart for me now, father?"
Dad: "Who'll take you in, huh? No one!"
Angel: "I'll not lack for a place to sleep, I can tell you that. Out of my way."
Dad: "I was never in your way, boy."
Upon first watching this scene, I came to your conclusion.
But then i met Holtz and I rewatched the episode this summer after meeting Holtz and I caught something I hadn't the first time I saw it. I encourage you, if you can, to also rewatch it and watch the father's performance, also note that both in the script and in the filming this scene took place immediately after Kate's father's line about
"not knowing what it's like to be a father, how can you possibly guess how a father feels." The father in the scene looks worn out, much like Kate's. Fearful of what will become of his son. His eyes appear to be begging Liam to reconsider, to stay back, to not do this. But Liam rebells.
Also he never tells Liam to leave. He tries to get him to stay by stating - "no one else will take you" - threats.
He denies disliking Liam for the reasons Liam states. It's almost ironic, since Connor has similar scenes with Angel, but since we are in Angel's pov in those scenes we see Connor as the brat. Since we are in Angel's pov in the scenes with Dad, we see Dad as overbearing Holtzlike figure.
Neither is a fair representation - but then you must remember you are looking at both through the eyes of Angel.
POV is very important in these shows - particularly when the writers are so obsessed with the idea of screwed perception and unreliable narrator.
Why is Dad upset with Liam? Not because he won't follow God's path - he never says that (he just says God gave me you - there's nothing there on that, although Liam may think there is), but because Liam spends all his time drinking and womanizing, and does nothing else - something Liam refuses to acknowledge as a problem.
Here's two more quotes from that episode, which establish that Liam's drinking and womanizing was becoming a problem and it is in fact what leads him into Darla's arms:
Angel: "Anna."
Anna: "Master Liam?"
Angel: "Anna, come closer."
Anna: "Master Liam, your father..."
Angel: "Will be off to church by now, repenting of his sins, and well he should. Closer, Anna."
Anna: "Why do you keep to the shadows, sir? Are you not well?"
Angel: "The light. It bothers my eyes just now."
Angel's dad: "And I know the reason why. (Pushes Angel out into the sunlight of the courtyard) Up again all night, is it? Drinking and whoring. I smell the stink of it on you."
Angel picks himself up: "And a good morning to you, father."
Dad: "You're a disgrace."
Angel: "If you say so, father."
Dad: "Oh, I do. I do say so. Have you not had enough debauchery for one night? Must you corrupt the servants as well?"
Angel: "Servant, father. We have *one* servant. Anyway, - everyone gets corrupted, - but I find some forms of corruption - are more pleasant..."
His Dad hits Angel hard across the face, making him spin around.
Dad: "I am ashamed to call you my son. You're a lay-about and a scoundrel and you'll never amount to anything more than that."
Now just in case you think Dad's being a little harsh on poor Liam and this isn't true, the writers take us into another point of view, it is the only time in the flashbacks that we are outside of Angel's pov. We are now in Darla's. And it explains I think why Darla turned Liam.
Cut to Darla watching Angel in a tavern fight.
Darla to maid: "Who is he?"
Maid: "Who, that one?"
Angel takes a drink from his mug of ale and goes back to fighting.
Darla: "Yes. - He's magnificent."
Maid: "Oh, yeah, God's gift, alright."
Darla: "Really? I've never known God to be so generous."
Maid: "Oh, his lies sound pretty when the stars are out. - But he forgets every promise he's made when the sun comes up again."
Apparently Dad's description of Liam wasn't that far off the mark. If we are to believe the other pov. Just as Angel's description of Connor and anger at him in Deep Down is not off the mark.
I think Liam's relationship with his father was extreemly complicated. I think they both, father and son, wanted something from the other they could never quite get or express. With Connor - Angel has a second chance. Wes is a different kettle of fish. I think Wes may have both father/brother issues regarding Angel. I'm not sure. Still on the fence on that one.
Quotes courtesy of psyche transcripts.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Leaning towards you on Wes, still disagree on Liam's Dad.(Spoilers Release) -- Arethusa, 10:00:28 03/14/03 Fri
Parents can be extremely hard on their children when they see the same traits in their children that they see in themselves. If Liam's dad is obsessed with his own struggles with sin, he might overreact if he sees the same tendencies in Liam. He'll spend Liam's entire life warning and threatening him about becoming a bad person, and create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Liam becomes so angry at his father for harping on Liam's negative traits that he tries to punish his father by living down to his expectations. Liam's dad wants Angel to be a good person, by his definition. Lam wanted his dad's approval. I thought it very curious that Angelus would take the time out to brag in front of other vampires, but Liam/Angel/Angelus needs others' approval very much-and that includes Connor. He didn't even want AmnesiaCordy to know he was a vampire, because he wanted to get her to like him for himself before she found out what he "really" was.
Wes might have had a similar problem with his father. It's quite clear in Belonging that his father is hyper-critical, and never misses an opportunity to criticize Wes and point out his faults. He is afraid to get close to anyone, for fear they will "find out" what a failure he is.
Okay, enough rambling!
[>
Re: The Disapproving Father: Electra and Oedipus (Spoilers Release) -- Matlack73, 19:06:05 03/13/03 Thu
Great post! Discussion of an Angel/Buffy topic isn't complete without your views. Shadowkat you are the bomb.
[>
the mythical aspects -- anom, 21:34:09 03/13/03 Thu
"It's been a while since I've read the Greek plays centering on Electra and Oedipus but vaguely I remember they centered on characters who were struggling with how to deal with their fathers. Electra wants to gain her father's approval, even if it's from beyond the grave. Oedipus wants to subplant his in his family's life. Oedipus' journey if I recall is one of vengeance against his father. Electra's is one of vengeance against those who robbed her of one and the possible reunion with. (I hope my memory isn't wrong on this, and well, I'm too lazy to figure it out.)"
The myths themselves aren't that similar; it's mostly that Freud used them that way. Oedipus didn't even know till after the fact that the man he'd killed--who, at least in the versions I've read, provoked the fight--was his father & that his wife was his mother, so there was no vengeance motive or intent to supplant his father (in the myth, not the psychological concept). I don't think he even knew the woman he married had been the wife of the man he'd killed. (They'd left him exposed as an infant to die because it was prophesied that he'd do...well, just what he's known for; he was rescued & adopted by another couple.) As far as I know, there's no indication that he had any problems w/his adoptive parents. Of course, his ignorance of his biological parents' identities fits in well w/the idea that the Oedipus complex is unconscious.
Electra didn't have that excuse. Her story has the vengeance, but not the sex. Not on her part, anyway. Her mother had a lover, & they killed her father. Electra & her brother, Orestes, took vengeance by killing them. I don't know of any suggestion of a sexual relationship between her & her father--Freud (as usual) added that idea. But there also isn't anything in the original story (again, just the psychological concept) about her seeking her father's approval.
Now, I read the myths rather than the plays based on them, so there may be elements I'm missing that support shadowkat's memory of them. (See? You can be "lazy"--there'll always be someone on this board to fill things in! & if I got anything wrong, I'm sure someone [Caroline? leslie?] will chime in w/a correction.)
One thing I didn't understand in the part I quoted, s'kat: the "possible reunion with." Is something missing in that sentence?
[> [>
Re: the mythical aspects -- s'kat, 22:21:43 03/13/03 Thu
Thanks for filling in the gaps. Yep I'm confusing my Freud with my Greek plays. Oedipus Rex pretty much runs the way you state. So does Electra. Hmmm I think I like Freud's take on it better - far more melodramatic and tragic. Hmmm both stories remind me of a Shakespeare play, wonder if Shakespear combined Oedipus and Electra in his play King Lear - nooo probably over-reaching, I'm good at that.
Regarding you're question:"Electra's is one of vengeance against those who robbed her of one and the possible reunion with."
Should probably be: Electra's story was one of vengeance against those who robbed her of her father. It is also the story of her desire for a possible reunion with her father.
(I think I just liked the vague sounding poetry of the prior one, not clear, but sounded cool. Sucker for poetic phrasing, even if it makes no sense. LOL! That and well, I don't proofread my posts very well. I just write, push send, glance over it, change a few things, push approve.
Hmmm come to think of it, it's amazing these things make as much sense as they do.)
Oh the above sentence on Electra? Again more Freud than play.
Problem with reading all this stuff together in college is that they've managed to merge together in my brain, so I can no longer distinguish the plays from the psychologists who referenced them. Annoying but true. And I'm far too lazy to hunt the info down. (Problem is I get writing and I don't want to lose the train of thought and the post searching for stuff...yep, I'm not copying and posting these babies or saving them. This board has the only copy.)
So Thanks a bunch for taking the time to do it for me. ;-)
This desire not to research stuff yet still these things that pop up from my memory banks, however foggy and missfiled they are, is, I'm afraid, a Typical posting flaw of mine, one that has annoyed many an academic poster in the past. I think the lazy research is a rebellion against all those years I had to do so much of it, either that or I just despise research. Prefer the writing part. Weird I know, but there you go.
Thanks again.
SK
Masq... (Release spoils) -- Rob, 11:16:02 03/13/03 Thu
I was responding to your post about fixing analyses but it archived before I could!
So here's what I wrote:
Just thought of something. You're gonna have to go back and change your description of Connor as a human child with superpowers, what with the whole demony revelation.
Rob
[>
Exactamundo -- Masq, 11:20:00 03/13/03 Thu
He is still (mostly) human. He's just hybrid-y.
The problem is, I call him "human" in individual episode analyses from Season 3 and early Season 4. It would be spoilery for me to say "the almost human" Connor in those episode analyses. Probably what I'll do is create a link on the word "human" and have it go to my "Release" analyses where I qualify that with more detail.
[> [>
Oh yeah, biggie Release spoiler in above post -- Masq, 11:21:39 03/13/03 Thu
[> [>
Re: Exactamundo (spoilers for Release) -- CW, 15:01:41 03/13/03 Thu
Frankly, the way the audience is being jerked around this season on Angel, I'm not sure it's safe to say Connor is part demon. It might be just the result a 'glamour' to get Connor feeling closer to Cordelia as the gang begins to find out she's not the old Cordy. I hope Rufus is right about this being worth it in the end, because last night's ep. left me with a lot of negative feelings about AtS again.
[> [> [>
I suspect it's real -- Masq, 15:28:08 03/13/03 Thu
Early in the Season, we were set up with Connor's identity crisis: what is he? This was dropped for a while as other story lines were fleshed out, but last night we seemed to get the beginning of an answer.
Now it could be the case that Evil!Cordelia messed with the protection spell mojo so that Connor would be repelled by it. But what could she hope to gain from doing that? She already has the boy wrapped around her finger. Would believing (falsely) that he is part demon make him more likely to join her evil side? I doubt that very much. He is easily dazzled by what he assumes is the real Cordelia, but once her true nature is exposed, he will not be so easy to manipulate. He will be angry.
I prefer to think that they are starting to give us some explanation for what Connor is and why he possess the powers he does. The larger question--who is responsible for his birth in the first place--remains to be answered.
I prefer to think of him as the PTB's secret weapon. When Evil!Cordelia gets revealed, Connor will be there as prophecies hinted, to help his father defeat her.
[> [> [> [>
I hope you're right. -- CW, 15:36:59 03/13/03 Thu
[> [> [>
I think you will enjoy next week's ep -- Rufus, 17:51:12 03/13/03 Thu
Release isn't my favorite Angel ep this year, it has it's moments, but it's just the appitizer before the main meal next week......and just when you will think you know what will happen, something else will arise to make things more interesting.
[> [> [> [>
How long will they keep this up, Rufus? -- Masq, 18:04:00 03/13/03 Thu
You can at least tell us that. Is there an episode that will at least answer some of the questions? Scenes being more than they appear to be and twist endings are all well and good, but they need to answer at least the majority of the questions they raise, if perhaps not all of them, for the viewers to have a satisfactory experience in the end.
So tell... from what you know of what's go come, do we get ANY answers at all?
[> [> [> [> [>
Starting in ep 17 you will have more questions than ever. -- Rufus, 22:51:07 03/13/03 Thu
But it's all connected....;)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm about fed up with 'more questions than ever' on Angel -- CW, 05:40:02 03/14/03 Fri
Also with Wesley flip flopping from week to week on whether they absolutely must kill Angelus or absolutely must capture him alive. Corkscrew plots are one thing, but this is turning into a tangled lump of barbed wire.
But, Rufus, thanks very much for responding. If it weren't for folks like you on the board, I wouldn't think of watching any more of this season of AtS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm about fed up with 'more questions than ever' on Angel -- Jay, 16:01:20 03/14/03 Fri
I'm finding it almost impossible to rate or grade any individual episode on either show at this point. I can't remember if I read it here or somewhere else, but someone wrote a great essay about how team ME have seemed to have abandoned episodic television. Judging individual episodes at this point, is fast becoming pointless. That said, Storyteller is still leaving a bad taste in my mouth, but Release will have a chaser soon enough.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm about fed up with 'more questions than ever' on Angel -- Rufus, 03:54:23 03/15/03 Sat
Thanks CW....it's hard to answer some questions without revealing a bit too much about what is going to happen...but in the end there will be a connection to Buffy, so pay attention to what is going on in Angel.
As for Release....I'm not that fond of that ep and the reason is I've had a bit too much of Angelus....I think that to preserve the character of Angel they have had to limit just how deranged Angelus can be. Angelus is all about contests and winning them, so as soon as he starts a contest...like with the Master...he does things that on the surface make not much sense and certainly don't directly help him. Killing the Beast was something Angelus did as much to test Angel's "retarded dreams" as it was to get the Master's attention. Again a contest against Angel and against The Master....Angelus and Angel, their biggest fault can be in how distracted they can become when it becomes a contest...and that's why Wolfram and Hart drove Angel nuts....they pushed enough buttons they eventually found the loony button (copyright to beast91670 for that term). The Beast was a minion, period. As the Uber-vamp was strong, the Beast was....both easy to kill when you knew how.
I will say one thing....pay attention to how people act, and when it doesn't make sense, wonder why instead of just deciding the person is just a jerk.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
In case AtS isn't renewed, are they going to answer everything before it's over?!? -- Rob, 08:13:28 03/14/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
If the WB makes its decision in May... -- Masq, 10:17:25 03/14/03 Fri
ME won't know whether to wrap up all story lines or not until it's too late. My guess is they'll play it safe and try to answer everything they can.
But then again, they're ME. They might decide to leave us dangling with things for the rest of our un-lives. ; )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
They'll probably just wrap any loose ends up in an 30 min. AOL interview. -- WickedBuffy };>, 15:03:28 03/14/03 Fri
[>
I brought that thread back from the archives... -- Masq, 11:37:25 03/13/03 Thu
Not sure how long it will stay.
The voynok demon has nine lives!
[>
Anyone else noticed this? -- Briar Rose, 17:36:43 03/13/03 Thu
The producers for Angel have incorporated a whole heck of a lot of Matrix effects into all the fighting this season on AtS.
I was finally used to Connor and his "super hero" fast moves, kick spins and high jumps - but now they have Angel doing it, Faith doing it when fighting with Angel and they even added a touch to Wesley and Gunn in the fight scenes.
IMO - it's a little over the top to have so many characters doing the Charlie's Angels/Matrix/Crouching Tiger.... thang. Especially when it is not used on Buffy in any major way and they are tying the two shows together in some way soon.
[> [>
I liked it when The Beast ..... (slight spoilers to Salvage) -- WickedBuffy, 18:03:21 03/13/03 Thu
and Faith were fighting .... and Faith went Matrix. I had to admire the form of whoever her stunt-double was in that sequence. It was more like watching a gymnist when she tucked and somersaulted into the wooden crates. It seemed more dancelike.
Maybe it's good for ratings.
I don't understand how people keep falling from great heights, land flat on their backs, then get up to walk away. Do their recuperative powers wax and wane?
Angel/Wesley & Faith/Wesley Parallels (spoilers up to Release) -- Scroll, 11:26:24 03/13/03 Thu
I posted something about Wesley as Beige Angel 2.0 to Masq in cjl's thread below, but thought it made more sense to expand upon it as a new subject.
Masq was saying Wesley didn't care any more about consequences, that he had fully adopted the noble ends justifies ruthless means. I agreed with her, but then wanted to ask why Wesley believes that the noble ends justifies the ruthless means. Sure, it's probably part of his up-bringing, his Watcher training... but somehow it feels more than that. I could be totally off-base, but I really feel we're seeing Wesley paralleling Beige Angel from Season 2.
Wesley began his downward spiral with Connor's kidnapping, then went on to cut his ties with the AI crew. The end of Season 3 culminated in Wesley falling into bed with Lilah the way Angel fell into bed with Darla in "Reprise".
Like Beige Angel, Wesley has cut off his emotions, he's distanced himself from his former friends. The cause (bringing down W&H/Angelus) is a noble one, and Angel/Wes feel that crossing a few moral boundaries is worth it. They beat up snitches, get the intel, infiltrate the enemy, pull on the gloves, get on that elevator to Hell -- all for the sake of a suicide mission they believe will end the Bad Guy forever. (In Wes' case, ending Angelus just means bringing back Angel.)
I see Reprise-Angel in Release-Wesley. Faith would then be Cordy/Wes/Gunn -- someone dedicated to doing good (bringing down Angelus) but who remains unwilling to lose sight of her morals, who isn't willing to cross the line in order to get it done.
At first I was questioning whether Wesley was being the anti-thesis of Buffy. It all depends on how you interpret what he says to Faith. He says, be the animal, be vicious, be dark. Take it all the way. Do we see this as echoing Buffy in "Get It Done" when she tells Spike to be dangerous, to be the vamp that nearly killed her a few times? Or do we see this Wesley as contradicting Buffy's "We don't stop evil by doing evil" line in "First Date"? Personally, I'm not sure yet. We'll see after next week, hopefully.
But I think even more importantly is that Wesley is echoing Angelus. Like Angelus in the cage, when all he had for a weapon were his words, Wesley pushes all of Faith's buttons. He ruthlessly taunts her with her failures, how everybody hates and distrusts her. (Also interesting that everything Wes says to Faith can also be applied to himself; I think he's not unaware of the irony.) But Wesley keeps niggling at Faith's doubts until she snaps.
Like Gunn who reflexively lets loose with the flamethrower, Faith goes for the violence. She becomes the animal for a split second -- but she stops herself. I think if she'd really wanted to beat Wesley there, he wouldn't have been able to stop her. But what we have here is Wesley taking on Angelus' role not because he's evil and wants to hurt Faith -- but because the ends justifies the means. Pushing Faith to recognise her own darkness, to know it's still there in her, is Wesley's ruthless means to the end of keeping Faith alive and bringing Angelus down (in his mind, at least).
And Wesley prepares Faith to face Angelus. During their fight, Faith tells Angelus, "Wes prepared me for you, he told me you'd try to get under my skin." And Angelus goes, "What, he gave you the stiff upper-lip speech?" No, he didn't. Wesley prepared her by being Angelus. He gave her a taste of what was to come.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this except that while Wesley is like Faith, wanting the good father (Angel)back and wanting his approval, I also see Wesley as Angel V 2.0 -- somebody willing to be ruthless, who wants "total war", who wants to get on that elevator to Hell. Wes believes that the only way to defeat Angelus is to embrace the darkness within. Whether that darkness is evil (just like whether Buffy's demon spirit is evil, or just dark) is a question I hope the writers will answer very soon.
I'm sure more can be said about Faith too. If Lilah was Darla's parallel, and Faith has taken over for Lilah in Wesley's mind, then I'm going to assume Faith is the catalyst for Wesley snapping out of this dark phase. Ugh, I've run out of ideas. Anyone else want to comment on this?
[>
I'm just not sure what Wes hopes to accomplish -- Masq, 11:56:28 03/13/03 Thu
By goading Faith towards ruthless action. Does he think Angelus will win if Faith holds back to the least degree? Does he think Angelus will get under Faith's skin psychologically if she doesn't have his "ruthless" attitude?
All I can see is that if Faith fully adopts this attitude, she will very likely kill Angelus, and then what will that get them? It'll kill the bad guy, but it won't bring Angel back.
[> [>
Faith has a fine line to walk (spoilers) -- Scroll, 12:09:47 03/13/03 Thu
I'm just not sure what Wes hopes to accomplish...
I don't know for sure, but I guess Wes is banking that Faith, as vicious as she might become by embracing his ruthlessness, will still be able to keep from killing Angelus. You're right, it's a pretty darn risky move: get Faith vicious and get Angelus dead, or leave Faith restrained and get Faith dead. Not a good trade-off.
But Wesley has always been about Angel. Nearly everything he does is about helping Angel -- Wes and Cordy, particularly Cordy, are notorious for sublimating themselves for Angel's sake. Even Wesley's hallucination of Lilah wasn't about redemption for Wesley himself, but for Angel. I don't think Wes believes he is redeemable.
And I think Wes really does believe Angelus will win if Faith doesn't give "take it all the way". I can understand why he thinks that way. But I suspect he's about to be proved wrong, just as Buffy (in my interpretation) was proved wrong in "Get It Done". Despite Angelus' teeth in Faith's neck, I think we're going to see Faith's attitude win out in the end. Hopefully! Though it might be interesting to see a vamped Slayer.
[> [> [>
Re: Faith has a fine line to walk (spoilers) -- Masq, 12:33:01 03/13/03 Thu
Even Wesley's hallucination of Lilah wasn't about redemption for Wesley himself, but for Angel.
Explain this. I don't have a clue what it means. How was it about Angel?
[> [> [> [>
Wesley's belief in redemption (spoilers) -- Scroll, 12:51:29 03/13/03 Thu
Um, I'm not really sure but I think I was trying to say that, while Lilah reminded Wesley that he still believed in redemption, she also reminded Wesley that he believes in Angel. Wesley believes that Angel is important, not just to the world but to Wesley himself. Because Angel is the Champion, he's the one who gives other people the hope that redemption is possible. Angel gave it to Faith, to Darla, and he gave it to Wesley.
So Wesley doesn't take Lilah's words to mean that Wesley himself can find redemption, but that Angel is the key. Wes needs to bring Angel back because he's important, because he gives hope. Only after Angel is back can Wesley find redemption -- through Angel's forgiveness. (Caveat: I'm still not convinced Wesley believes he himself can be redeemed. I'm not even sure if he consciously wants to be redeemed, though subconsciously he may want forgiveness.)
Ooh! Thought! Angel is Wesley's Darla! He wants to save Angel because Angel symbolises forgiveness and redemption to Wesley... Maybe?
Hope that clarified things. Probably didn't. I'm more confused myself, I'm afraid! : )
[> [> [> [> [>
Scroll... -- Masq, 16:28:59 03/13/03 Thu
Look at my reply "But.." to Gyrus below. It seems to me that Wesley's advice about getting dark, getting ruthless is exactly what led to Faith losing the fight.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I don't think so -- Doug, 17:28:47 03/13/03 Thu
She lost the fight when she stopped her assault; before that she was pounding Angelus. She lost the beast, and the strength it gave her, and her resolve and ruthlessness slipped away. She is beating Angelus, but when she gets control of herself she slacks off and leaves herself open.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That actually makes some sense... -- Masq, 17:52:18 03/13/03 Thu
In light of dub's great theory in a thread below about what is REALLY going on in that scene.
I'm mostly just hunting around for theories about what happened in that scene that fit the observable facts without claiming (as dub does) that what appears to be going on is not in fact what's going on.
But dub is probably right, because "what appears to be going on is not in fact what's going on" is the theme for this season of AtS!
[> [> [>
Re: Faith has a fine line to walk (spoilers) -- WickedBuffy, 19:21:21 03/13/03 Thu
I think Wes is counting on Faiths determination to save Angel to work hand in hand and at equal strengths, as the ruthlessness. He wants her to be able to use ruthlessness as a tool, not a way of life. If she can gain control of being out of control - her strength would be immense. It's quite a gamble, though - and Wes is putting alot of faith in Faiths mantra "I'm not giving up on him." The Beast saw Faith didn't have any power yet - perhaps Wesley is trying to teach her what he's learned about power using ruthlessness.
Then again, why wouldn't Wesley want Angel dead?
[> [>
Re: I'm just not sure what Wes hopes to accomplish -- Gyrus, 14:47:48 03/13/03 Thu
Does he think Angelus will win if Faith holds back to the least degree? Does he think Angelus will get under Faith's skin psychologically if she doesn't have his "ruthless" attitude?
I'd say yes to both. Right now, Wesley is behaving very much like Buffy in "Get It Done" -- he doesn't want Faith to be held back by her new-found self-control any more than Buffy wanted Spike or Willow to be held back by theirs. He also knows that Faith's caring for Angel and lack of experience with Angelus will make her especially vulnerable to Angelus' psychological manipulations.
All I can see is that if Faith fully adopts this attitude, she will very likely kill Angelus, and then what will that get them?
Wesley already knows that Faith will do everything she can to get Angel back alive. I think what he wants is that, if it comes to life or death, Faith will kill Angelus rather than die herself. The world is better off with a live Faith and a dead Angel than it is with a dead Faith and a live Angelus.
[> [> [>
But... -- Masq, 16:27:21 03/13/03 Thu
Looking back at the episode, it appears as if Wesley's advice leads to Faith losing the fight with Angelus. She gets primal, she gets angry, she loses control.
Remember Buffy told the proto-slayers that in a fight, you must do everything deliberately, everything with a specific goal. If you start to just lash out, if you lose control, you give your opponent a chance to unbalance you.
And that appears to be exactly what happened. Faith lost control and she lost. Angelus gets Slayer blood for dinner.
[> [> [> [>
Actually, I kind of agree with you, Masq -- Scroll, 17:52:03 03/13/03 Thu
I think in the end, ME will prove that "ruthless" and "animal" and "power" aren't what is needed to get the job done. Something more is necessary. I think Buffy was right when she said to Giles, "You don't stop evil by doing evil." So I do think Wesley's attitude is wrong, or at least flawed and insufficient.
But I'm not sure that you've got the right sequence of events when you said: "She gets primal, she gets angry, she loses control. [...] If you start to just lash out, if you lose control, you give your opponent a chance to unbalance you. And that appears to be exactly what happened. Faith lost control and she lost. Angelus gets Slayer blood for dinner."
When Faith pulled out the knife, that was when she stopped being just tossed around; that's when the fight became more evenly matched. Later, she lost the knife and got tossed around some more. Then when Faith really lost control, she started beating up on Angelus pretty well. She was winning. But then she deliberately stopped. She pulled back, said, "No. I don't do this anymore." And that's when Angelus manages to get the upper hand and sinks his teeth into her.
Now, if dub's speculation is correct, then it doesn't matter that Faith stopped her "animal" fighting style. But if everything is exactly as it seems, then perhaps Wes had a point -- that Faith needed to use all her powers, even if they were dark, if she wanted to survive Angelus.
Still, I want to reiterate that I think ME is going to prove how power alone is not the key to saving the day. Or at least, that's my theory : )
[> [> [> [> [>
I'm actually coming around to dub's way of thinking, too -- Masq, 18:01:04 03/13/03 Thu
Although I'm trying to also make sense of the scene as if it is exactly what it appears to be, too.
Guess we'll know next week!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Ok then, heres my take -- Doug, 19:16:30 03/13/03 Thu
Right this is what I saw:
Faith is fighting with Angelus; he starts doing the bad boy version of Giles's speech from "Lessons", ending with the words "You're an animal, just like me." Faith gets medieval on him and starts pounding him. She gets him stunned and on the ground; and starts beating him in a scene reminiscent of her beating herself in "Who Are You", as well as Buffy beating Spike in "Dead Things". She continues pounding him, but then backs away, stopping her assault.
Faith: I'm not like you
She turns away from him, and he takes the opportunity to trip and grab her before biting her.
Faith wasn't going all out in the first part of the fight; she was holding back, because of her fears of her own violence but also because it's Angel's form she has to fight. Then he makes his little speech (could someone please do an analysis of the similarities between his speech and Giles? thank you) and she loses it. He pushes at her fears about herself and she responds with an aggresive assault, she has regained her killer instinct, that she tried to bury. As he reels under the assault she regains control of herself and backs away, once again denying the violence. She loses the bloodlust, and with it her killer instinct, and gives Angelus his opening.
dub's theory is a really neat one; and if it's true then it paints an interesting portrait. Faith as someone who would rather risk death rather than go back to being what she was, and giving in to the bloodlust. Faith turning away from Angelus, and giving him the opening to strike, is in fact her turing away from her own violence.
JMHO
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Fine Mucking -- WickedBuffy (vague speculating spoilers to Release), 19:57:17 03/13/03 Thu
It seems as if in both shows, it 's not about just power - it's how the power is used. And how you psychologically let the power affect you. Faith doesn't want her power to be like Angelus, so she pulls back. That's letting her own power psych her out. If she accepted and was confident about who she is and understood her power - then Angelus's words would mean nothing. She would be in charge of her power. Her power would not be in charge of her.
Same as Willow. In both of them. as in others, they are letting their power define them instead of them defining their power.
"Oo, if I do this then I'll be labeled as that. I better stop." "Oh no, if I fight this hard then I'm just like him. I better pull back." Illusions getting in the way of their goals. Like the illusions the FE sends out to play with peoples minds. Playing on their fears and weaknesses. But these are the personal illusions these people create themselves to play with their own heads.
Maybe the SITs would have a better chance of surviving if they put as much energy into knowing themselves as they do knowing sword stances.
A fine showing of what "fine-mucking" can do to weaken and destroy.
Who actually trusts themselves in either of these shows? Maybe Wes comes close since he's walked both sides of himself. Tara seemed the most self-aware in the deepest sense. This sound ridiculous, but even Harmoney seemed to be more fully aware of herself than most of the Scoobies.
[> [> [> [>
Or maybe she was deliberate (spoilers Release, plus unspoiled speculation) -- Tyreseus, 18:13:35 03/13/03 Thu
I'm not so sure that Faith "lost" the fight.
Remember the junkie, when they explained that vampires use the junkies as a filter for drugs, and how they feel the effects of those drugs? Why was that particular piece of information in this episode?
I remember thinking, at the time, that it was a new bit of vampire trivia and I was curious why it was dropped so casually into the episode.
I also remembered the mystical poison Faith used on Angel in BtVS season 3. At first I thought, maybe she's laced the knife with a strong mystical sedative (like she did the arrow in BtVS s3). I mean, who uses a knife on a vamp, even one you're not really trying to kill? Then it occured to me, maybe she laced herself - as in her blood.
It would fit the sacrifice-redemption idea. Faith poisons herself ("I don't remember you bleeding like this before") and puts up a believable fight, but ultimately has the back-up plan of being bitten. She loses her life, but Angelus is stopped and posibly restored.
As much as I'd love to know what a vamped vampire slayer is capable of, I'm not feeling it in my gut. Besides, wouldn't that activate the next potential back in Sunnydale? Too much cross-show plotting to sound like the way the writers have been operating.
Of course, I could be wrong, but I like my theory.
[> [> [> [> [>
minds thinking alike (me and dub) -- Tyreseus, 18:18:25 03/13/03 Thu
Wow, I hadn't even worked my way down to Dub's thread yet.
[> [> [> [> [>
Nice! I like that one!~ -- WickedBuffy ::jumping up and down::, 20:11:35 03/13/03 Thu
That makes sense! The junkie bit was a little overinformative for the scene it seemed at the time.
Maybe Wes and Faith are counting on the "drug" to knock Angelus out before he finishes her off. Or, it could be a mystical drug that doesn't affect humans in the same way it works on vampires. Faith dying to capture Angelus doesn't make sense. And she would have to get beat up pretty bad for Angelus to fall for it all (which she was) - and it explains her pulling back as she was "winning". Also, those quick shots of Wes laying on his back on the scaffolding. Yes, he was probably hurt badly, but he also could have been just staying out of the way to make the plan play out fully. His eyes were very lucid - he wasn't knocked out.
[> [> [> [> [>
Very clever! -- Gyrus, 20:14:33 03/13/03 Thu
Brilliant thought, Tyreseus and Dub!
The sedative wouldn't even have to be mystical, since we know that regular tranquilizer darts will knock Angelus out. Faith could simply have stuck herself with one before Angelus grabbed her.
[> [> [> [> [>
This would be so cool if you're right! -- Scroll, 02:08:22 03/14/03 Fri
[>
New theory: Wes is Faith from '5 x 5' (spoilers) -- Scroll, 22:01:02 03/13/03 Thu
Actually, maybe Wesley is like Faith in "5 x 5". He's the one crying out "Kill me, I'm evil!" to the universe at large. He's just doing it subconsciously. He keeps pushing for people to just let him be dead. I dunno, maybe I'm grasping at straws. There's no doubt about the fact that I've got a fixation on Wes and maybe it's screwing with my objectivity. But I really do get suicide-by-cop -- or in this case, suicide-as-collateral-damage -- vibe in Wesley throughout "Release". I've had it before in previous eps, but it came through pretty strong here.
Brief thoughts on last night's Angel -- Spike Lover, 11:41:12 03/13/03 Thu
I liked the previews better than the actual ep.
Looking forward to next week, though wondering how they will explain it.
Theories (Spoilery only if they are true..)
What do you want to bet that Cordy is really still in Heaven?
That Willow will become a permanent member of the AI next year?
About the ep:
Wes was right. Faith was not in the game. I did not see it at first (last week), but it is exactly her desire to 'hold' back from actually killing Angelus or from drawing on all her dark power that puts her in jeapardy.
Really felt the ole presence of Angelus last night, particularly with 'I like my girls to lie still' comment. As compared to Spike---- :)
Really liked the rough and ready Wesley. Stab her in the shoulder again, Wes! (I still miss Lilah.) (By the way, this may be the first inmate show I have ever seen where the inmate in prison becomes nicer, gentler after incarceration.)
I was thinking about Btvs and A last night and how the plots mirror each other. On Angel, the characters may have to realize that this is going to have to be down and dirty, no holds barred type, street dog fight. (Kind of what Buffy has come to realize- which is why she needs bad Spike and dangerous Willow.)
I have a request. Since this is the last of Btvs, I request a reunion of characters between the 2 shows. I request that Cordy, Wes, Faith, and Angel all show up to fight in Sunny'd. (If Faith is still alive, that is.) Then you really do have a show about maturity. You can show clearly how Wes, Cordy, Angel, Buff, Spike, Will, Xan have all really REALLY Changed and matured and contrast them to Dawn, the s-i-l's, and Andrew. (Has Giles actually changed much? He didn't really need to. He was pretty much perfect.)
[>
A kinder, gentler inmate -- Gyrus, 12:03:22 03/13/03 Thu
By the way, this may be the first inmate show I have ever seen where the inmate in prison becomes nicer, gentler after incarceration.
It made sense to me. Most inmates, one assumes, get meaner and harder in order to avoid and/or deal with being beaten, raped, and ripped off by their fellow prisoners. Since Faith is more than a match for anybody she might meet on the inside, she doesn't need to worry too much about that.
[> [>
My empathy-ribs were so sore this morning.... (slight spoiler) -- WickedBuffy ... ouch ...ow, 17:55:03 03/13/03 Thu
There was too much Faith-beating for me last night. I found it hard to concentrate on the other parts of the story seeing those fight sequences. Maybe because it was Faith ::sigh:: - or maybe because I'm so non-violent oriented. But did anyone else think the punching and backbreaking and pummeling scenes went much farther than needed in order to show Faith wasn't totally "in the game"? I got "that" after the first few closeups of her face. Then it kept going and going and going.
Maybe it is my fan affinity with Faith that made it so excruciating to watch. Anyone know the length of the longest fight scene in Angel? (c'mon, someone must have that journeled someplace!)
[> [>
Re: A kinder, gentler inmate -- anom, 18:22:31 03/13/03 Thu
Good point, Gyrus. I also think that the change in Faith happened before she went to jail--in fact, was the reason she turned herself in.
[> [> [>
Re: A kinder, gentler inmate -- Gyrus, 19:52:47 03/13/03 Thu
I also think that the change in Faith happened before she went to jail--in fact, was the reason she turned herself in.
Absolutely. [Long, boring dissertation on Faith's understanding of good and evil omitted. :) ]
I imagine that, for Faith, prison was kind of like a Buddhist monastery -- a featureless, routine environment with few distractions (apart from the occasional one-sided fight) from the task of bettering herself through introspection.
[> [> [> [>
A little Gyrus-fic promotion here: -- HonorH, 21:10:19 03/13/03 Thu
Oh, come *on*, good buddy, you didn't think I could let the opportunity pass, did you?
Gyrus has written what I consider by far the best Faith-in-prison story out there (and that's saying a lot, as there are some darn good ones). "Inside" has it all--a cool plot, dead-center characterization, and a truly Jossian dream sequence. Take a look, my friends, and marvel at the talent:
Inside
[> [> [> [> [>
Welcome back, HH -- Scroll, 21:49:39 03/13/03 Thu
Were you on vacation or something? I vaguely remember something about going somewhere away. Hope you had a good time!
Thanks for the fic recommendation, I'll read it soon as my homework's done, promise!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Just haven't been on the board much. -- HonorH, 21:59:08 03/13/03 Thu
As a matter of fact, I was out of town last weekend (church retreat--had a perfectly wonderful time), but I've been back since Sunday afternoon. I've just been rather quiet, as I haven't yet seen the current Angel eps everybody's been talking about. Won't for at least a month, darnit. Thanks to Dochawk, though, I can at least get caught up through "Salvage", and Honorificus will (of course) have Things To Say when I do.
'Normal Again' just showed on BBC and ... -- Robert, 12:07:59 03/13/03 Thu
the BBC reviewers really hated it. Check out their reviews at; http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/indetail/normal/reviews.shtml
Two of the reviewers complain that Mutant Enemy ripped off or borrowed the premise from ST:TNG, thus suggesting that ME had no right to use the premise. The third reviewer accuses ME of conceit for even attempting to use such a premise.
I found these reactions somewhat puzzling given that Normal Again seemed to be the high point artistically last season. As I recall, the reviews last year of the episode were generally very positive. I personally have fond memories of it, because this is the episode that convinced my brother to take BtVS seriously.
Anyone have an idea why the BBC reviewers took such a view of Normal Again? Might there be cultural reasons? If so, what might they be? As an aside, they apparently liked Doublemeat Palace.
[>
Re: 'Normal Again' just showed on BBC and ... -- Indri, briefly delurking, 12:27:57 03/13/03 Thu
Am I right in thinking that the "which world is real?" plot is actually much older than Star Trek? I think many of Phillip K. Dick's stories hinge on this premise, which is why I thought those Trek episodes were derivative when they first aired.
But here I think the execution is more important than the originality of the plot (or else why would we still have threads on Othello and Oedipus?).
[>
There's no accounting for taste ? -- Sophist, 12:32:55 03/13/03 Thu
Seriously, I can't possibly explain the judgment of someone who would prefer DmP to NA.
[> [>
They also seemed to prefer 'As You Were' over 'Dead Things' -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:57:33 03/13/03 Thu
See for yourself at www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy
[> [> [>
Then they are Insane -- Doug, 17:37:09 03/13/03 Thu
[> [>
Hey Sophist ( partial thread hijack) -- KdS, 04:57:26 03/14/03 Fri
Firstly, the BBC showed As You Were last week, so I just saw it for the second time. I remember you saying a few weeks ago that you planned to watch it again to see if you liked it any better. Don't bother, it's worse the second time ;-)
Secondly, I'd like a quick legal consult on California law for a recently-broadcast AtS ep. I know you don't watch AtS, so here's a hypothetical situation in legal textbook style:
X1 supplies X2 with a weapon (the possession or transfer of which is not in itself a crime) knowing that she intends to use it to commit the first-degree murder of V. X1 then drives X2 to V's house so that she can kill him, but leaves and takes no hands-on part in the crime. Is X1 guilty of murder, consiracy to murder, or some less significant crime?
[> [> [>
LOL. Murder. Don't look at me like that -- Sometimes, I'm callous and strange. -- Sophist, 09:07:18 03/14/03 Fri
First, LOL re AYW. It should be shown on FX re-runs in the next week or so. Of course, my only promise was to re-watch before the universe ends, so I still have some time left.
Under your "hypothetical", X1 is guilty of murder one if V is actually killed. CA uses the term "principal" to refer to anyone concerned in the commission of a crime, whether they directly commit the act, or aid and abet its commission, or advise, encourage, or compel its commission, whether present or not. Given the facts you described, X1 would be a principal to the commission of murder one.
Bonus points to the first person to identify the BtVS paraphrase (speaker and episode) in the subject line.
[> [> [> [>
It's definitely Willow. Can't remember the ep, but its early -- Rahael, 09:26:58 03/14/03 Fri
[> [> [> [>
Thanks! -- KdS, 09:30:28 03/14/03 Fri
Thanks for the legal advice.
Willow in The Zeppo, when the others react squickedly to her suggestion of a marshmallow roast at the demon pyre.
[> [> [> [> [>
We have a winner. -- Sophist, 10:48:31 03/14/03 Fri
And more importantly ... nah, that's too mean.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Yeah. Be nice, Sophist. -- Random, 12:08:52 03/14/03 Fri
[>
Re: TNG parallel -- Rob, 12:34:16 03/13/03 Thu
Yeah, they had a similar story, but very different, and IMO, without a 10th of the depth. Buffy imagines (perhaps) herself in an institution and herself finding out that basically her entire world was an illusion. Riker's situation is different. If he woke up in the 20th century in a hospital and all the doctors and nurses found him ranting and raving about starships and warp speed travel, it would be synonymous. But, no, it was different. Riker just imagined he wasn't the first officer on the Enterprise, but someone lower down on the ladder and not on any ship.
Also, NA was used as an exercise in metanarration whereas the TNG ep did not do this. Further, NA had Buffy creating a fantasy that spoke to issues she'd been dealing with all year. TNG seemed to choose Riker arbitarily as the one who would be affected by this madness. It was more a total mind-f*&! episode than one that actually delved deep into the psyches of the characters, which I believe NA did.
And whether or not NA was inspired by a similar idea, I think it was far superior to TNG, (and I'm a TNG fan), because on TNG it came off, IMO, as just another "weird thing of the week" whereas with Buffy, it gave her the chance to see her mother again, wrestle with her "is something wrong with me?" issues. The metaphor was very strong, and I thought it was written and directed well enough to avoid being just a xerox of the same story.
Also, whether it was taken from TNG or not, there is no story that is completely original. BtVS borrowed from Trek, Trek I'm sure borrowed from science fiction works from others. Where a source comes from isn't important, but how the story is molded and presented. IMO, it had enough distinction to stand on its own.
If it is a cultural thing, I wonder what it is culturally about the episode that would have the BBC reviewers judge it harshly.
Rob
[> [>
Re: TNG parallel -- s'kat, 12:57:41 03/13/03 Thu
It may be that they are comparing it to the wrong series.
Normal Again was actually more based on the whole St. Elsewhere season finale, which pre-dates St:TNG by at least five years. Not sure it made it across the Atlantic or not. In St. Elsewhere - the whole hospital, the whole series is in the imagination of a 10 year old autistic boy looking at his father's snow globe. It's all in his head. That's the parallel, Btvs was going for, except they did the reverse, the aslym was all in Buffy's head and then they did something that was just unforgiveable to some Btvs fans - they didn't resolve it. They ended the episode with the question mark - is the Btvsverse just in Buffy's head or is the aslymverse in Buffy's head? Will we ever know??
Normal Again is a weird episode, you either loved it, like I did, or hated it like some of the people I noticed on the boards did. It depends on whether you like mind-altering/perception episodes? Lots of people don't. Also unlike TNG - NA wasn't a comforting episode. TNG - comforts the audience by showing that clearly Riker's insane aslym visit wasn't real, he was kidnapped by aliens and yes he's really on the Enterprise and life as we know is safe and secure. NA isn't that nice to the audience - it ends with a question mark. Btvs unlike TNG doesn't give us a nice comforting ending or unambigous moral. It doesn't provide any answers just more questions. Some people hate that.
They consider that - well bad writing. Everything should be wrapped up in a nice neat little ball. Beginning, Middle, End - the episodic structure of TNG. Btvs isn't that top of narrative. Now DoubleMeat Palace? It was wrapped up in a nice neat little ball, could stand alone. No nasty threads untied. No ambiguous questions left unanswered. Doesn't require much brain power. Slapstick comedy, some absurdity.
Normal Again wasn't comedy, it wasn't easy. And at the end, we didn't know if Buffy was really in the asylum imagining the Buffyverse or really in the Buffyverse and had just hallucinated the aslym. Nor did we know if we'd ever end up back there. It was left unresolved. I haven't read the criticism from BBC on this, but all the other criticism I read on this episode, pretty much circled around that complaint. People HATED the fact that ME could end things with Buffy imagining the whole seven years. They HATED the fact she was in an aslym. And because of this emotional reaction - were unable to see some of the irony and interesting concepts brought up about reality in the episode.
PErsonally I thought it was a great twist that the realverse was the Buffyverse, where she's a super hero and the fakeverse, the place she'd rather be, was the comforting insane aslym where she didn't have to be the slayer. Again, it depends on how you look at it.
SK
[> [> [>
Agree with s'kat (so what else is new?) -- cjl, 13:10:14 03/13/03 Thu
The idea of a "St. Elsewhere" ending--even the possibility of it!--has been known to drive even the most rational of Buffyphiles into a frenzy. I know I've read a number of posts threatening to do everything short of smashing the TV set if Buffy wakes up in the asylum, with Hank and Joyce waiting to take her home.
Me, I've never had a problem with that possibility. As you might remember from my Joss v. Buffy fantasia, it might be Joss' last gift to his favorite creation, his acknowledgment of the cruelties of his art, and the willingness to let Buffy be happy, despite the cost to that art.
As for DoubleMeat Palace, I don't find it curious that the Brits really liked that one. It tweaked a vaguely sinister aspect of American life that's so pervasive (fast food) that most of us Yanks barely think about it anymore. Satire on topics like that tend to come off as strange and jarring to U.S. audiences (David Cronenberg's "Videodrome"--the only truly visionary cultural critique of the video age--got pretty much the same puzzled reception). Outisde the U.S., though, critics can look at the piece with a bit more objectivity. (Doesn't mean they don't have their own blind spots...)
[> [> [>
I agree. NA is actually one of my all-time favorites. -- Rob, 13:10:23 03/13/03 Thu
[> [> [>
Grant Morrison's comic Doom Patrol ended in a similar way -- ponygirl, 13:15:42 03/13/03 Thu
Final issue of the series had Jane, one of the lead characters, in an asylum in a normal non-superhero reality. In the end she appears to be rescued by her friends but we're left with the question of whether she really went back to her world or committed suicide. Morrison's excellent twist was in suggesting such ambiguity is necessary. We can't have the answers to everything, the mystery is what allows us to maintain our fictions, our dreams, and our hopes for a better world.
In any case I think the "it was all a dream, or was it?" device is as old as the hills, Normal Again just did it very well IMHO.
[> [> [>
That isn't what the complaints really seemed to be directed at. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:14:24 03/13/03 Thu
They seemed more focused on what they saw as a bad job of directing the ep and overly melodramatic/angsty dialouge.
A complaint they've shown through a lot of Season Six is its almost complete lack of humor. Another episode they disliked that I found good was "Dead Things". Their complaints were that it was entirely gritty drama, with no comedy or fantasy tied in. "Normal Again" is much the same. There are a couple bits of humor, but those come from Xander, who is a little hard to laugh at/with immediatly after "Hell's Bells". I think the BBC reviewers probably would have given "Normal Again" a higher rating if it hadn't been a Season Six episode, as they have not liked the show's path there.
Also, I must admit, "Normal Again" does go down in my opinion since it had one of the only two times I found Dawn whiny (the other being in "Gone").
[> [> [> [>
I tend to feel the same way -- matching mole, 15:16:48 03/13/03 Thu
Although I wouldn't phrase it quite the same way I have basically the same feelings as attributed to the BBC in Finn's post. In fact I wrote a post stating that sometime late last spring. The events of S6 while different in nature are certainly just as absurd and melodramatic as those of previous seasons. One of the great things about BtVS (and AtS) at their peak is that the absurdity is acknowledged, either directly or indirectly and co-exists in a marvellously mutualistic manner with the grimmer aspects of the story. In a lot of S6 (and to a certain extent in S5 as well) there is a certain monochromatic greyness to the show. It seems overly obvious that we are supposed to take this all very seriously (unlike Giles who thought it was all very amusing).
There is a lot of good stuff in S6, don't get me wrong. But the general tone does tend to make me rate DmP higher and NA lower than I might otherwise had they appeared, say, in S3 or S4. And I do think that DmP gets a bum rap in general.
[> [> [> [>
Maybe S6 is better in retrospective -- luna, 17:14:30 03/13/03 Thu
Some of those complaints sound familiar. I was really just getting hooked during that season, and thought it incredible, but had only past reruns to compare it to, which never have quite the same impact, even when new to the viewer. But S6 takes on a much deeper significance in relation to the whole, esp. S7, so maybe part of what goes on is that reviewers are judging episode by episode, while we're looking back at the whole series. But there are those who might agree with them...
[> [> [> [> [>
S6 individual eps vs. season as a whole -- meritaten, 01:45:56 03/15/03 Sat
I, for one, found S6 far more satisfying in retrospect than when I watched the individual episodes. Partly, I missed the comedic that provided relief after a long day of studying. I didn't "need" the comedy as much when watching my tapes over the summer. Granted, this isn't a strong criteria for good writing, but it did affect my enjoyment of the show. However, I think a big part of my warming to the season was when I was able to se how each episode developed the seasonal story. I didn't find the seasonal story to flow as well in S6 as it did in other seasons. I didn't care for the troika - they were just lousy villians to follow the likes of Glory. I see now how that was a part of the seasonal story - and I love how this was addressed in NA, but ... it just seemed like I expected more from each new episode than was delivered. Maybe this is a failing on my part, but the story didn't flow as smoothly in S6. When watching the reruns, it was easier to pick up on the ties between the episodes and the development of the grand seasonal story. I have come to appreciate the overall story of the season, but think that it didn't flow as well as it should have.
[> [> [> [>
Re: That isn't what the complaints really seemed to be directed at. . . -- s'kat, 20:37:28 03/13/03 Thu
A complaint they've shown through a lot of Season Six is its almost complete lack of humor. Another episode they disliked that I found good was "Dead Things". Their complaints were that it was entirely gritty drama, with no comedy or fantasy tied in.
Hmmm that's the same criticism the show got in the States when it was first broadcast. I think the problem was they shifted the show from quippy tongue in cheek gothic fantasy to gritty/dark edged gothic reality. Whedon even admits in interviews that his decision to drop the metaphorical aspects of the show as a means of emphasizing the shift from childhood to adulthood may not have worked quite as well as he'd hoped. He felt that in childhood we see things more metaphorically while adults deal with the grim realities. It didn't quite work as well as he thought.
Another difficulty which was brought up repeatedly in criticism - is the audience did not find the Trioka as funny as the writers did. I call this the anti-Mary Sue scenario - the writer creates a villain based on themselves, basically makes themselves the supervillain and all the jokes are the inside jokes they use all the time.
The villains as a result become a sort of parody of them.
Which is hilarous to the writers, but may not be so hilarous to the audience. This only works if the audience strongly identifies with where the writers are coming from and well is in on the jokes. If the audience say is a bunch of fanboy/fangirl nerds writing a tv show. If the audience isn't? Probably doesn't play so well. Examples of where this came into play - are jokes about James Bond, the whole Star Wars/Star Trek jokes, the comics jokes, etc. If you didn't find the nerds funny or amusing - you probably didn't find most of S6 funny or amusing, because that was the source of most of the humor.
The other problem was well - they couldn't make Buffy herself quippy - since she was supposed to be overwhelmed and depressed. Spike wasn't given as many funny lines or physical comedy, since he was supposed to be darker this season. Xander and Anya - the usual sources of comedy, were often either on back-burner or were struggling with break-up of their marriage. And of course Willow...not funny at all - they were turning her dark. So that left the nerds.
Now, I NEVER watched the show for it's comedy. I'm not a big situation comedy fan and I have a pretty dark sense of humor. I consider Btvs a dramedy and the episodes I've enjoyed the most actually are the more dramatic ones. I like the comedy episodes, but they aren't that memorable and my favorite comedy episodes tend turn most people off.
Ex: Intervention - I still think this is one of the funniest episodes of the series
Him - hilarous even with the squicky Dawn moments
Something Blue
Pangs
Parts of Halloween (Willow walking through the wall and scaring the bejeezus out of Giles )
Doublemeat Palace makes me laugh on repeat viewings
Life Serial - that mummy hand scene and the kitty poker get me every time
Tabula Rasa - I found the Giles/Anya scenes hilarous
Smashed - where Spike threatens the nerds with removal of the Boba Fett head and the whole: rat/dead bit.
OMWF - the Xander/anya number, some of Spike's number, the whole ticket lady number
I don't find Go Fish, The Zeppo, Superstar, and a lot of other episodes very funny at all. So humor truly is a subjective thing. And I loved S6, but I can see why others didn't.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
Guess you needed to be... -- Rob, 21:54:56 03/13/03 Thu
..."in" on the joke to get their humor. Luckilly for me, I'm the same type of geeky, drooling fan boy so I got just about every casual "Red Dwarf," Bond, etc reference. Um...or maybe it isn't such a good thing that I got their humor all the time. LOL.
Rob
[> [>
DS9 parallel -- Indri (again), 13:00:14 03/13/03 Thu
There's also a DS9 story that might be a better parallel, in which, IIRC, Sisko finds himself back in the 1950s. It's unclear whether he's a space station commander dreaming that he's a science fiction author or a science fiction author dreaming that he's a space station commander.
So I suppose the conceit must be at least as old as Chuang-tzu's story about the man and the butterfly.
Both the Riker episode and this DS9 one are amongst my favorite Trek epsiodes.
[> [> [>
Excellent parallel, Indri: 'Far Beyond the Stars' -- cjl, 13:18:15 03/13/03 Thu
"You are the dreamer and the dream."
Unlike the more pedestrian TNG episode, "Far Beyond the Stars" was a thing of rare beauty, combining the sweet sounds of post-WWII jazz, the ethereal imaginings of the pulp sci-fi magazines of the 50s and the pop humanist philosophy of Roddenberry into a poetic treatise about our dreams for a better future. Avery Brooks was magnificent as Sisko and Benny, but his impassioned direction and his attention to detail in creating both worlds was an even more impressive feat. (Every time AB got off his butt and got involved with the series, the series got better.)
[> [> [> [>
Finally going to see it March 18! -- Scroll, 14:03:28 03/13/03 Thu
Yes, I think "Far Beyond the Stars" is a much closer companion to "Normal Again". I've yet to see this episode though I do know all about it, and I am greatly anticipating seeing it in SPACE (love SPACE -- six hours of Trek every single day).
Personally, I always felt the ambiguity of who exactly is dreaming made the episode and the series more beautiful, more significant. If it really was Benny simply dreaming it all, then he had hopes and dreams surpassing that of any normal human being. To be able to dream of an Earth with peace, prosperity, justice, equality, all of it -- especially when faced with such injustice himself -- seems to indicate a remarkable spirit in Benny. And I see this with AsylumVerse Buffy -- that this Buffyverse she had created (if that is what she'd done) was more beautiful and profound than anything we have in the regular real life world.
Also, agree about Avery Brooks. When he worked it, he *really* worked it!
[> [> [>
Worth noting -- Gyrus, 14:10:50 03/13/03 Thu
In a later episode, Sisko briefly returned to his 1950's reality where he, as Benny, had been institutionalized because of his obsession with the 'fictional' universe that Benny had created. Very close to the NA scenario.
[> [> [> [>
Yes, that's the exact situation -- KdS, 05:07:06 03/14/03 Fri
Yeah, the direct DS9 parallel is with the ep Shadows and Symbols, early in DS9's final season. Essentially, the character Sisko (who had the visionary return to the 1950s described in earlier posts) is on the point of retrieving a mystical artifact when the mystical Bad Guys zap him with a vision in which he's a 1950s SF writer in a lunatic asylum after a mental breakdown in which he imagined himself in a his fictional universe. A sinister doctor tries to persuade him of all this, but he finally breaks out of the vision by writing the story of reality on the wall of his cell (if I remember rightly). I think that's what gives rise to the accusations of plagiarism.
(It's far less ambiguous in DS9 - IIRC they signal it by having the doctor played by the same actor as one of the alien villains in the series, but minus the alien make-up. Sort of if the doctor in NA had been played by Hinton Battle.)
[> [> [> [> [>
The writing on the wall -- Rahael, 05:50:00 03/14/03 Fri
That bit about writing the reality on the wall rang a bell, KdS - was the writing on the wall in "Birthday" another ref to this DS9 ep?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Ezri Dax Syndrome and Buffy S7 -- cjl, 06:41:08 03/14/03 Fri
Since we're discussing DS9 Season 7, I thought I'd bring up an interesting parallel with BUFFY S7.
When I was watching DS9's S7, I noticed that after the whole immediate crisis about Sisko and the closing of the Bajoran wormhole had passed, the DS9 writing staff went on a couple of very strange tangents, mostly involving the newest incarnation of the Dax symbiont (sorry non-Trekkers, it would take too long to explain), Ezri. We had Ezri's initial crisis of confidence, Ezri getting to know the DS9 crew (again), Ezri's family, Ezri hunting down a serial killer...you know. Stuff.
Meanwhile, some long-time DS9 fans were a little non-plussed by the diversion. "Excuse me," they cried, "Don't you guys realize there's a WAR going on? Why are we spending all this time with Ezri? Why are we devoting an entire episode to a Ferengi playing buddy-buddy with a holographic representation of a 1960s Vegas lounge singer? Have you lost your minds?"
They might have had a point. There were at least THREE Ezri-centric episodes during the first half of S7 and a little too much Vic (the holographic lounge singer played--quite effectively--by James Darren) for a wartime situation. But looking back on DS9's last season in the context of Buffy's last season, you realize what a gift new characters are to a jaded and overworked writing staff. Through their eyes, you gain a fresh perspective on the characters you've known and loved for the previous six, and the writers get a jolt of energy as they prepare for the unpleasant task of ending the series.
Just as Ezri and Vic didn't really detract from the cataclysmic end to the Dominion War, Andrew isn't going to muck up the climactic battle with the First Evil, either. (In fact, he might have a more important role than you might think. Wink.) In the meantime, we got a new look at the Scoobs through his eyes in "Storyteller," and Tom Lenk has obviously given the writers a dose of good cheer as they slog their way towards...the End.
So, Andrew-haters, give our new character a little slack, OK?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The writing on the wall -- Arethusa, 08:43:11 03/14/03 Fri
Or Fred's writing on the Hyperion walls, trying to hang on to her sanity?
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Possible but unlikely -- KdS, 09:02:24 03/14/03 Fri
The symbolism's different - the writing on the wall in Birthday was a reminder of the real world. The writing on the wall in the DS9 ep was more a conscious, almost magickal act of actual recreation of the real world within the hallucination, through which Sisko managed to channel his mental power to escape it (or at least that's how I see it).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Then the Fred example Arethusa quotes fits better -- Rahael, 09:12:56 03/14/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Yes, that's the exact situation -- skyMatrix, 14:14:47 03/14/03 Fri
Yes, it was Casey Biggs who usually played Damar, who by then was the head Cardassian villain (but things would change yet again!). In "Far Beyond the Stars," of course, every actor was a hero or villain from the show, many out of makeup for the first time on the show, so this ep continued it with a character who hadn't been important enough to show up on the last ep.
And also, thank you for bringing this up. When I saw "Normal Again" I assumed the doctor would be played by an actor who'd portrayed someone already on Buffy, and it took a while for me to convince myself that no, I'd never seen him before. Now I finally realize why I was so stuck on that idea!
Finally, I may be only 22, but I know that anyone who thinks Star Trek invented the evil twin story, the time travel story, the "it's all a dream" story, or any other archetypal scifi-esque tale doesn't have a good enough sense of history! It may have popularized these archetypes, but that's still not the same thing.
[> [> [>
That's the exact point that needed to be made, Indri -- Random, 14:27:47 03/13/03 Thu
I was trying to think of an appropriate historical example and you hit on the one that was eluding me. Chuang-tzu and the butterfly. Great ideas are not always original, and original ideas are not always great. What NA did was take a premise -- original or not -- and craft a powerful and compelling episode. If Shakespeare could steal most of his plots and still be known as the greatest dramatist that ever set stylus to paper, surely we can make allowances for the fact that sometimes the genius is in the execution. I'd far rather watch a brilliantly staged version of a time-worn concept than a mediocre flash of originality. Anybody can come up with a new idea...it takes true intelligence to disseminate an idea that -- original or not -- in a manner that makes it worth thinking about.
[> [> [>
Thanks, guys! -- Indri, cheerfully waving from her seat in the balcony, 17:43:00 03/13/03 Thu
[> [> [>
Re: DS9 parallel -- s'kat, 20:46:37 03/13/03 Thu
Thanks for remembering the title of that. Yes - one of my favorite episodes. I actually had the pleasure of meeting the writer of that episode once at a party in NYC in 1995.
Can't remember what he said about it. Except that he liked the idea of a sci-writer writing himself into his story and wondering if the writer or the story was real. And while he'd seen the St. Elsewhere and TNG episodes, he hadn't based it on them.
What's that saying? There are no new ideas, just new ways of telling them?
For the record, I know the writers were referring to St. Elsewhere, though because of the commentary. Marti says in her SFX US TV interview regarding S6, that they'd deliberately referenced St. Elsewhere, and kept making snow globe jokes.
Personally of the three - I prefer the Far Beyond the Stars, DS9 episode, you mentioned. This episode also dealt heavily with racial prejudice - a central theme throughout the DS9 series - with it's focus on the Dominion/Cardissian/and blanking on the third one races.
Since Jane Espenson actually wrote for DS9, I'd be surprised if she hadn't seen it or knew about it. So they probably referenced it as well.
SK
[> [> [> [>
I think you mean the Breen -- Scroll, 21:06:05 03/13/03 Thu
As the third species of the Dominion Triumverate. The Breen came in late to the war, and took over second dog much to the displeasure of the Cardassians. Heh, I've been watching a lot of Deep Space Nine lately. It's my new favourite Trek. Love Sisko, love the Bajorans, love the Cardassians. The Trek with the best characters and story arcs, IMNSHO. Very happy TV watcher -- just grumbling cuz I have to put Trek on hold until midterms/papers are done. *grumblemumble*
[> [> [> [> [>
Nope was the Bajorans...but thanks! -- s'kat, 21:33:06 03/13/03 Thu
Haven't seen any episodes for two years. You are very lucky.
Dang channels won't re-run them. Don't know why not? They re-run Voyager and Charmed. ugh. Television.
Friend told me tonight I forget I'm an anomaly and most people just don't like or seek out cult tv like I do. They prefer far less escapist and more realistic fare such as the Sopranos and Law and Order...sigh.
SK
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Because DS9 is arc-heavy -- Scroll, 21:47:26 03/13/03 Thu
So it's difficult for syndication... at least that's the excuse I've heard bandied about. Yeah, I love the SPACE station here in Canada. We've got Original Trek and Voyager twice a day, and TNG and DS9 once a day, from Monday-Saturday. That's a hell of a lot of Trek!
Friend told me tonight I forget I'm an anomaly and most people just don't like or seek out cult tv like I do. They prefer far less escapist and more realistic fare such as the Sopranos and Law and Order...sigh.
I will ocassionally watch L&O, I don't get Sopranos, but either way I can't see how either can compare to cult hits like Buffy, Buffy, Farscape, and heck, even Trek! Well, maybe we are anomalies after all. I don't mind as long as I get my Wes-fix every week :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Because DS9 is arc-heavy -- Rob, 22:13:25 03/13/03 Thu
"...cult hits like Buffy, Buffy, Farscape, and heck, even Trek!"
Buffy...the show so nice, you said it twice. ;o)
Rob
p.s. I assume ya meant Angel for the second.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, I meant ANGEL, then Buffy, cuz y'know... the alphabet ; ) -- Scroll, 22:36:57 03/13/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL! -- Rob, 07:05:24 03/14/03 Fri
If I did the list I would have added "Alias" to the front of that, too, in keeping with all the um...alphabetics. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Standing up as a Sopranos fan -- KdS, 05:14:59 03/14/03 Fri
If I had to choose between Sopranos and BtVS/AtS I'd have great difficulty. I once tried to explain my fondness for BtVS to a Sopranos fan by saying that both are soap operas which actually have an excuse for the characters trying to kill each other every other week...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sopranos fan (with reservations) here (4th season spoilers) -- Rob, 07:20:24 03/14/03 Fri
I love "Sopranos," but I do think it's overrated. I don't see it as having as much of the depth that most critics say it does. I think it's a fun, old-fashioned mob opera, but it doesn't get under my skin the way my other shows do, including Six Feet Under, another HBO hit, which is underrated, IMO. It's just this season started to get true respect, critically speaking, but...I'm driting off-topic. But back to "Sopranos," I would never want to miss an episode, although I will admit to really not enjoying the fourth season that much. It had its moments, and a few totally up-to-standard, and some brilliant episodes (No Show, The Weight, Whoever Did This, The Strong Silent Type, Whitecaps) but I found most of the episodes to be very uneven, spending too little time on important storylines like Uncle Junior's trial, too much time on either silly, frivolous ones like the Janice/Bobby affair or boring ones, like the whole real estate scheme. Characters disappeared for weeks at a time. At one point, for example, I think Meadow was gone for 5 or 6 episodes in a row, except for perhaps a fleeting appearance here or there. Especially after it seemed from the second episode that she'd have a big story arc coming, that just seemed to fizzle and die. Now, I'm not an impatient viewer usually. I understand that sometimes a plot will seem to be dropped but then picked up in another season. But with the epic-length breaks, I'd expect a more balanced season. In each episode, I believe there was at least one brilliant element, but only 5 out of the 13 episodes I think were great or brilliant. And even they each had their problems here and there. This is the only season where no one at work or school was chatting about the show the next day, except for the episode where Adriana puked on the FBI agents (still one of the best moments in the show's history), the episode where Ralphie was whacked, and the season finale. The creators of Sopranos claim that they purposefully put in some story threads that are never picked up, because that's like real life. I see it like this...a writer has a choice of crafting a story and there's only an hour a week in which to tell it, so the choices of what make it on-screen have to be very well-thought out ones. Red herrings are one thing, but leaving a multitude of dropped story threads, IMO, is just sloppy writing.
Oh, and I still haven't forgiven them for killing poor little Cosette, Adriana's dog.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sopranos fan (with reservations) here (4th season spoilers) -- s'kat, 09:32:45 03/14/03 Fri
Regarding Sopranos. I loved it for Season 1 and 2. Got bored in Season 3 and missed probably the best episode of the whole series, because well I lost interest before it aired and kept getting the less interesting episodes.
This episode was directed by Stephen Busciemi and won an emmy. sigh. It's the two men in the woods, lost episode.
The problem with most character-driven dramas - is after the first two seasons, they run out of steam. The writers either get big-headed with all the praise and/or ratings or they just get bored for some reason. I've seen this happen with West Wing, LA Law (although it's last two seasons were sort of fun), Hill Street Blues, NyPD Blue, Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc. For some reason, by the third or fourth season I start to grow weary of the show, the plots start becoming predictable, the characters don't appear to be growing so much as repeating themselves and plotlines, and the writing gets tired at least to me. I gave up on the Sopranos in Season 3-4. Saw the first two episodes of 4, tried another one. Was bored silly - kept getting distracted by other things. And well I could literally predict everything within the first fifteen minutes of the show. So when the choice came down to watching Angel or the Sopranos on Sunday nights? I chose Angel. No problem. And when the choice came to whether or not I should cut costs by dropping my premium channels? No problem. But the first two seasons of Sopranos? Really really good. There's one episode where Tony(the mob boss) takes his daughter's to colleges that does an amazing job of examining the insidious nature of violence.
Sopranos, btw, has gotten the same academic attention as Btvs. There are essays published on it. Books. Academic courses given. It's being analyzed in the same manner we analyze Buffy, according to one of my friends.
So, to each their own obsession, I guess.
SK
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Go DS9! -- skyMatrix, 23:43:02 03/13/03 Thu
When I was young trekkie I watched TNG, but when I got older, I put aside childish ways and became a DS9 fan! (bad paraphrasing of St. Paul, heh) I like to think of DS9 as the almost-Whedon Trek, because of its moral ambiguity, character development, arc plots, and mixture of humor and darkness (although some of the humor was tired and jarring i.e. most Ferengi eps). DS9 does indeed have quite a few fans who consider themselves "Niners" rather than general Trekkies because the show set itself apart so much.
(No offense to TNG fans, it is only my personal opinion that DS9 is far deeper. I look at TNG as soemething for my younger days, and when it comes to childhood shows I remember Darkwing Duck a lot more fondly to be honest! Heh.)
Anyway, I posted my DS9 cheerleading bit here b/c I wanted to tell s'kat (and you others) that I've read DS9 will join TNG on the TNN cable network (in the US, of course) in 2004. Also, they have just released the S1 DVD and are coming out with S2 next month. Too bad they are three times as expensive as Buffy sets! We may not like Fox too much, but I think Paramount is far eviller overall. :P
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL! Nice co-opt of St. Paul -- Scroll, 02:05:33 03/14/03 Fri
When I was young trekkie I watched TNG, but when I got older, I put aside childish ways and became a DS9 fan! (bad paraphrasing of St. Paul, heh)
Very nicely done, skyMatrix! While I like that verse, your version has more pizzazz : )
I like to think of DS9 as the almost-Whedon Trek, because of its moral ambiguity, character development, arc plots, and mixture of humor and darkness (although some of the humor was tired and jarring i.e. most Ferengi eps). DS9 does indeed have quite a few fans who consider themselves "Niners" rather than general Trekkies because the show set itself apart so much.
Yup, that's why I like DS9 too -- it's like the Whedon version of Star Trek. Plus Jane Espenson also wrote for DS9, which makes it close enough for government work for me. Yeah, a good many of the Ferengi eps are annoying, but even in those there's something special and fun that just makes it worthwhile -- just like a Buffy ep. (Hey, I kinda liked "Bad Eggs".)
I'm not a total Niner cuz I still like TNG (and some individual episodes of Voyager and Enterprise), but DS9 is my new TV love. Right after Buffy and Angel, of course.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: LOL! Nice co-opt of St. Paul -- Shiraz, 09:57:01 03/14/03 Fri
Just want to add my "Me too" to this thread.
DS9 is still my favorite Trek incarnation, mainly because all the problem's didn't end in the last five minutes with the ship warping away. It also got into the idea of what it meant to be living in the Federation, something I always wanted to see more of in Trek.
In fact, I beleive that it would be a good idea if the Angel writing staff contacted Avery Brooks and asked for his advice on the portrayal of Gunn; because it seems to me that David Greewalt et. al. don't really have much of a clue as to how to portray Gunn as a character. ('the guy who gets beaten up every episode' is NOT character development IMHO)
-Shiraz
"Younger wizards in particular went about saying that it was time that magic started to update its image and that they should all stop mucking about with bits of wax and bone and put the whole thing on a properly-organised basis, with research programmes and three-day conventions in good hotels where they could read papers with titles like "Whither Geomancy?" and "The role of Seven-League Boots in a caring society.""
-Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic" (with some suggestions for Willow.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Blasphemy and African-American characters -- skyMatrix, 13:41:02 03/14/03 Fri
Scroll, I'm glad you like my co-opt. It's ironic that I actually am a Christian, yet look how I misuse the Bible and all? Bwhaha. Of course, any religious person short of a fundamentalist usually finds him or herself more free to speak one's mind outside of a religious group. :P (That's kinda circular but you get the idea).
As for Gunn, I wonder sometimes what the problem really is. It's been said by others and by J. August Richards himself that the actor doesn't at all have the same dialect or social class of the character. Some think this is a problem but I'd point out that it is the job of actors to portray different social classes and use different dialects. Maybe they need a consultant for Gunn?? I don't know, that sounds too absurd somehow.
But the other problem would be making him an equal character in the show. They introduced him alright in "War Zone" then threw him into the gang without any adequate explanation in Season 2, which defnitely makes up some of the worst character development in either series. Even Cordy's gradual integration into the Scooby Gang, pre "What's My Line," was done better, as strange as it was. They did try to retcon Gunn joining up with AI as a loss of confidence after his sister Alonna's death in "That Old Gang of Mine," but that's apparently one of Tim Minear's least favorite eps ever, so I guess it didnt' work out so well.
So the question is, is Gunn's inconsistency, incoherency, and lack of presnece due to some weird racial thing? Did the writers finally introduce a black character not slated for death (see Kendra, Trick, Forrest, etc) into the Buffyverse and then realize their ignorance was such that they didn't know how to write him without pissing someone off somewhere, so they didn't really try for the longest time? Or is it just that they were so distracted by Darla in S2 that they really honestly had no time for Gunn? My answer would probably be somewhere between those two.
Gunn finally did get fleshed out in S3 when they hooked him up with Fred, but this it itself could be taken amiss by some. You may be familiar with Eriq LaSalle on ER, who asked the writers to end his character's relationship with a white character (I'm only familar with this controversy through TV Guide, not through the show). He felt that they wrtiers had fallen into the trap of pairing a black man, who had previously been somewhat antagonistic and then having him be "tamed" into someone more restrained and amiable through the love of a white woman. Now you see how insidious this could be, and how this could be the sort of thing you might write without even meaning do just because you didn't think about the implications clearly enough. So you can ask, did they do this with Gunn and Fred? There are disturbing undercurrents in that Fred is able to make Gunn "softer" and also to make him crazy remarkably easily (another stereotype). They also needed her to make him closer to a full character.
This is not to say that I subscribe 100% to these theories, or that I am against interracial relationships! I'm merely pointing out some disturbing race-relations patterns displayed in fiction, the validity or applicability of which, you are welcome to contest amongst yourselves. ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Insidiousness of writing & casting -- Scroll, 14:20:46 03/14/03 Fri
I've been reading posts on a Trek board re: why DS9 cast Sisko's girlfriend, Kasidy Yates, as a black woman. There were long debates about giving black women opportunities in science fiction, about how it fit with Sisko's character to date strong black women, and some accusations that the writers were too scared to do an interracial couple (Dax & Worf don't count, they're aliens). Basically, I ended up agreeing mostly with those who said Sisko's character demanded a black woman, just because of his deep investment in his culture/heritage, and not because of any racism on the part of Sisko, Avery Brooks, or the writers.
But my point is that race is still an extremely tricky subject for writers, especially when it comes to romantic relationships. On one hand, if we didn't have Gunn/Fred, we wouldn't have been able to use "Othello" parallels. In fact, I think Joss explicitly pointing out the "Othello" helped to sort of diffuse the situation. Because then it became less of a stereotype, and more of a deliberate writerly choice, which they ultimately subvert.
However, I do think the ME writers are wishy-washy when it comes to Gunn. His characterisation is often contradictory -- in "That Old Gang of Mine" he tells Angel that they're not friends. Then a couple of episodes later, he joins the rest of the Fang Gang in telling Angel they love him because the world might end? The tension from "Old Gang" is ignored completely. Up until the introduction of Principal Wood on Buffy, I would've said the writers just don't know how to (consistently) write black characters. But Wood feels okay to me, seems consistent if a bit creepy. Maybe they're just getting better at it? The days of badly-accented Kendra are long gone; long live Beverly Hills boy, Robin Wood!
It's ironic that I actually am a Christian, yet look how I misuse the Bible and all? Bwhaha. Of course, any religious person short of a fundamentalist usually finds him or herself more free to speak one's mind outside of a religious group. :P (That's kinda circular but you get the idea).
Yup, I totally understand : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Insidiousness of writing & casting (small 'First Date' spoiler) -- skyMatrix, 15:36:07 03/14/03 Fri
If there's anything I don't like, it's reactionary claims of "reverse racism" by white people! Mostly because it reminds me of my parents, I suppose. So if (white) people were actually complaining that Sisko dated and then married Kassidy, who was also a great character played by a great actress, Penny Johnson (now seen on 24, or so they tell me) then first let me say that they have no right to complain in the first place! Second, let me point out that if they really looked around at movies and TV, they would see that a TV 'ship like Sisko/Kassidy was the rule rather than the exception in many, many ways. S/K filled an important, glaring hole in TV without ever seeming like an agenda in itself.
And Scroll, thanks for reminding me about Robin Wood, who is a great, developed and sympathetic character! I think maybe Joss & Co were wise to make him more middle class b/c that way he's more within their realm of experience. I'm basing this on the line where Buffy ignorantly assumes Robin grew up "in the hood," I forget which ep but it was on a par with Cordy's line in "Judgment" about how "Gunn" was a street name. ;) I am very relieved that he hasn't turned evil (not entirely) although he could still end up dead and keep the BtVS trend going! :P
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Another thing about FD-- -- HonorH, 23:38:36 03/14/03 Fri
Xander goes out with Lissa, a black woman, while Buffy goes out with Wood. Nothing is made of it, either--just Buffy and Xander going out with people they find attractive and interesting. One turns out to be a demon fighter, and the other turns out to be a demon, which is the only place race comes in at all. I like that.
[> [> [>
Re: DS9 parallel-Yup! I wrote here about DS9 and NA about 2 months ago -- Silky, 10:15:14 03/14/03 Fri
Guess no one read it.
[>
Very nice responses. -- Robert, 15:13:56 03/13/03 Thu
I want to thank all for your insightful responses to my posting. And while they didn't exactly answer my question, they explored other interesting subjects.
I was struck by what Random had to say about the skillful execution of old (and possibly well used) plots. A science fiction author who currently interests me is Stephen Gould. He writes "coming of age" novels, and he is particularly good at breathing new life into what otherwise would be stale plots.
His first novel Jumper follows a teenage runaway boy who discovers that he can teleport, thus making him of interest to the CIA.
Wildside follows a teenage boy who discovers an parallel worlds portal on his deceased uncle's farm. He tries to capitalize on his discovery while keeping it out of the hands of the CIA.
Helm is a strange story about a glass helm that provides yet another teenage boy with vast knowledge, dragging him into a huge power struggle.
In Blind Waves, Gould diverged slightly. Instead of a teenage boy, here he follows a young women struggling against a government conspiracy in a post-deluge floating city. There is some fascinating submarine action in this novel.
All these ideas are well known plot-lines (teleportation, parallel worlds, teaching machines, floating cities, conspiracies, etc.). Gould does a good job in providing a fresh and interesting treatment of them. For those interested in such stories, I recommend you give them a try.
[>
This IS the BBC we're talking about, right? -- Kitkat, 01:16:37 03/14/03 Fri
The BBC have never 'got' Buffy. Hence their bad scheduling and cutting and taking ages to show it and generally having no respect for viewers who fall within a 'cult' label. Most of the time they interrupt Buffy for snooker.
And don't get me started on terrestrial networks and Angel...
Kitkat
frustrated in England because she doesn't have Sky at University and is missing series 7/4 and will have to wait for years to the episodes
[> [>
BAD bbc -- MsGiles, 02:47:46 03/14/03 Fri
And the next four eps have been postponed due to some lame not-exactly-robotwars type thing which no-one is that desperate for and which could have been shown at any time *froth*
[> [>
Whether or not the BBC shows good scheduling to Buffy. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 04:41:02 03/14/03 Fri
A weekly habit of mine is to go over to their site on Thursday and read their new Buffy review. The reviewers are usually pretty positive about the show. It's pretty clear that they themselves are fans, so the attitude of the BBC as a whole can't be attributed to them.
[> [> [>
buffy and the beeb -- MsGiles, 05:59:49 03/14/03 Fri
Maybe it's the slot, rather than Buffy itself: Farscape (alas no more) and all the Star Trek variations are shown at the same time on c2 and all get disrupted.
BBC 2 has a kind of 'alternative' remit which seems to include sport, cults and humour. I wonder if they see a male 20-30 demographic here. Perhaps their audience breakdown goes no further than this, and they assume that a c4 audience will watch any of their programming indiscriminately. Alternatively, I wonder if they've spent a bundle on sports (snooker, and now this robot sports thingy) and they say to themselves, here's a loyal audience, let's poach it for our expensive sports stuff...
[> [> [>
Re: Whether or not the BBC shows good scheduling to Buffy. . . -- Shiraz, 09:15:12 03/14/03 Fri
I have to say that I more or less agree with their review. As shown above, the "all this is just an illusion of a demented mind" story has been used to death in sci-fi/fantasy.
This in itself could have been overcome, but there was too much else wrong with the episode. First I do have to agree that this was probably the most depressing episode of the season, so dark that it was painful to watch. Secondly, the whole "you must kill your freinds" side of it seemed over-done and unnecessary except to get in the show's violence quota. (I wonder if she would have had to fly to England to get Giles killed once she was done with all of her local "figments")
Finally, there's the problem with POV. Both the TNG and the DS9 episodes mentioned above were careful to stay directly in the POV of the primary character. Here we have a clear scene of Spike and Xander interacting with each other with Buffy nowhere about. (incidentally, this is the only time we see a non-posessed scooby using a regular firearm)
I'd have to say it was my least favorite episode of the season.
-Shiraz
[> [> [> [>
Xander had a tranquiliser gun, not a regular firearm -- Scroll, 13:38:16 03/14/03 Fri
[>
Hi, I'm a Brit, I liked it! -- MsGiles, 02:31:58 03/14/03 Fri
Hand up! Brit! I post on cult, had been waiting till i see the uncut NA tonight before tho' as i've been caught out before by sneaky cuts. Hasty post, maybe a bit incoherent
Have to say I REALLY liked NA. I thought it was Buffy subversiveness at its best. Blurring dualism, black/white views. Sane/insane, imaginary/real.
i particularly like narratives that challenge the concept of absolute reality. Everything we see and know is made by us, in a sense. Our mind is built to construct patterns out of the random data input through our senses. We make different patterns according to where we are, culturally and personally. We live within the patterns we make.
The film Total Recall comes to mind: it's never clear, even at the end of the film, whether Arnie's vision of himself as a spy is real or a memory transplant gone wrong. Brazil also comes to mind: a blackly comic 1984-like treatment by Terry Gilliam, where the happy ending has to be an escape into madness (sorry for spoiler if you haven't seen it)
One way of looking at NA choices: one world view, safe, sedated, full of physical and mental restraints. The other reality, rich in metaphor, symbolism, movement, challenge, pain and development. I don't think any other TV programme would dare suggest, using the metaphor of mental health, that the second should be chosen over the first. I was so glad that the camera didn't pull back at the end to reveal, say, Warren looking in: it kept the balance between the reality nof the two worlds uncommitted.
I'll have to think about Brit vs US takes on Buffy. Giles and Spike being Brit I think has a slightly different resonance: they not 'other' in quite the same way. When Spike woke up in TR and didn't know he was Brit until he heard himself was really weird! Would an American waking up with memory loss in England not know they were American until they heard themsleves speak?
[>
Re: Normal Again -- Celebaelin, 04:05:12 03/16/03 Sun
Hurrah, Voy is (ahem) Normal Again!
Well, I've watched NA enough times over the past couple of days to comment now I guess. I think that fact alone must mean I'm in the 'like' faction despite the challenge to the underlying premise. While I'm on this point I don't think anybody really enjoys having their vision of a show challenged to this extent but the fantastical nature of the programme made this more or less an inevitability. I may be wrong about this but I seem to remember a S1 line from Joyce about Buffy going into a hospice or some such and thinking "Ah ha, Thomas Covenant, Connecticut Yankee at the Court of King Arthur, Aladdin - pretty much the old 'knock on the head scenario', I'll stick with it for the moment and see what they do!" Anyway, six seasons later I've made notes on NA and despite having written recently on the advantages of ambiguity in holding audience attention and in allowing leeway for plot development I've found it necessary to assess my observations as either Avir, for Assylumverse is reality, or Bvir, for Buffyverse is reality.
This assessment was supposed to be in order through the ep. but there's one observation that isn't part of the plot and I'm going to put it at the beginning. In the scene where Willow is rehearsing asking Tara on a date again, as we see Tara approaching there is a 'cross-hair' device seen just below Willows left shoulder. This is unlikely to be a 'real' object filmed by the camera in the usual way, as it looks to be lying on the floor but it appears perpendicular to the sides of the screen. If the object was real then the strictures of compensating for perspective would, I think, dictate that Tara would have trodden on, and therefore obscured, part of this device as she walked by. If the grid/cross-hair was on or near the lens then it would have moved when the camera panned and it would not have been obscured by Willow when she moved relative to the camera. I deduce that it is either a minor bit of CGI or that it is on a vertical plate in front of Willow, say in the apparently empty arch through which we first see her. Now, "What the blue bloody blazes has this got to do with the price of cheese?" you may ask. Well, go on then, altogether now "WTBBBHATGTDWTPOC?", thankew, you're very kind, thing is you see the conspiracy theorists who think that NASA didn't go to the moon cite a photograph that purports to be from the Apollo 11 mission (I think it was 11, I may not have that totally) in which a grid/cross-hair placed on the lens, to allow referencing of image areas presumably, is OBSCURED by a rock which appears to be in the foreground implying that the image is a construct, a fantasy if you will. The interpretation of this wrt Avir or Bvir is tricky, I don't think it really falls within that debate - it's more of a RL reference to whether Buffy is real or not. Some people think the X-files are documentaries y'know? So in the interests of not ignoring any evidence let's put that in the box marked "Dontfreakoutverse" or if you're really aggressive about it, reluctantly in the Avir box.
The rest of my observations are more easily assignable
1 The demon disappears after poking Buffy, that's very nice of it don't you think? Rather than say, oh, I don't know, ripping her head off and spitting down her throat.
Avir
2 Hank does not appear in the Buffyverse, (?ever? That was an illusion wasn't it?) despite this he is not dead in the Buffyverse, and there are plenty of ways that could happen let's face it.
Bvir
3 The insertion of a familial tie within the Buffyverse occurs whilst Joyce is still alive. I would have thought that within a delusional reality the limiting Mother Figure would first be killed off or at least incapacitated in some way before the insertion of a Little Sister/Daughter Figure.
Bvir
4 Buffy is re-assured by the hated vampire lover that it is alright to leave the 'fictional world', in fact she is encouraged to do so. From a delusional construct that is a creation of a troubled mind designed to act as a cushion from reality? Personnaly I think not, it depends how you perceive Spuffy, or rather how Buffy does. There is a counter argument that Buffy's desire to escape Spike is a reflection of her desire to escape her illness. In this regard it is perhaps unfortunate that Spike is not present in the final battle to reassure her that the Scoobs can deal with the demon without her.
On balance Avir
4 All the internal references to the Assylumverse whilst in the Buffyverse.
Bvir
4a If you interpret 3 as Bvir then the Scoob's comforting negative references to the Assylumverse could be counted as Avir, but would they 'lie'?
5 Slayers, Scoobies, Vampires and Demons seem to be blurring to some extent even at this early stage. The world is becoming grey and uncertain, much like the real world.
Avir
5a External to this one episode but possibly worth considering. When evil Willow appears wouldn't you think a put the breaks on the Buffyverse we've reached my stop moment would occur?
Bvir
6 Her Watcher. That kind of Merlin-like archetype doesn't die. It can't be killed. Similarly it will likely appear, disappear and reappear several times without warning or explanation. Giles is Buffy's second watcher (feature film) ergo
Bvir
7 All the dramatic developments of the Buffyverse and the psychological symbolism eg Cordelia and Wesley leave together and are not referred to again.
Avir
8 Angel is, as are his adventures in LA.
Bvir
No conclusions, but we like watching Buffy principally for one reason, we enjoy the escapism of the milieu. It's not surprising that any episode which challenges that will generate a guardedly negative response.
C
[>
Normal again, again thoughts -- MsGiles, 01:19:13 03/17/03 Mon
I really apologise if this is a nono, but I already posted this review once somewhere else, I just wanted to see what anyone round here thought, as I say, I hope no-one minds.
Back down again on the s6 rollercoaster. The nerds, so distanced from reality themselves, managed to propel Buffy into a shadowland where reality no longer seemed so real. Waking in a white enviroment peopled by oh-so-caring doctors and her pre-Sunnydale parents, she found herself being gently persuaded, in the careful, patronising tones people use to those whose unpredictability they fear, to stay in the real world.
What was reality? The place where superheroes fight demons, where vampires fall in love, where the pushers deal in magic? Or the white room with the bed, the restraints, the caring, anxious adults? As the doctor explains to Joyce, in Buffy's mind she is a hero ..
'The Slayer, right, but that's only one level. She's also created an intricate latticework to support her primary delusion. In her mind, she's the central figure in a fantastic world beyond imagination. (Buffy staring into the distance, frowning) She's surrounded herself with friends, most with their own superpowers ... who are as real to her as you or me. More so, unfortunately. Together they face ... grand overblown conflicts against an assortment of monsters both imaginary and rooted in actual myth. Every time we think we're getting through to her, more fanciful enemies magically appear- '
As the episode progresses, Buffy flips to and fro between the different worlds, struggling both with logic (which world seems more likely?) and with her duties (where does she feel she should be?) and her inclinations (where does she want to be?). meanwhile, we the viewers are also being made aware of our paradoxical interest in the buffyverse, the suspension of belief we are prepared to practice as we watch, the doublethink that enables us to identify with the characters, to feel deeply for and with them, fear and hope for the future, but also to accept Dawn, as the doctor says:
'A magical key. Buffy inserted Dawn into her delusion, actually rewriting the entire history of it to accommodate a need for a familial bond. (to Buffy) Buffy, but that created inconsistencies, didn't it? (Buffy staring at him) Your sister, your friends, all of those people you created in Sunnydale, they aren't as comforting as they once were. Are they? They're coming apart. '
And that is our experience as well. Buffy is not such a comfortable series to watch as it used to be. Emotionally wrenching and distancing by turns maybe, but no longer providing kick-ass resolution to adolescent angst, the up at the end of the down doesn't feel certain any more. The blacks and whites get greyer and greyer, nothing is quite as it first seemed.
We at first assume that Buffy will want to hang on to the reality we have shared with her for six years, the reality of metaphor and symbolism, of challenge, pain, loss, and change. It soon becomes clear that this is not necessarilty the case. The world in which she is schizophrenic may patronise and contain her, but is also safe, caring. It is like heaven, with restraints and drugs. It is an escape. And her parents are there, the dream of a normal family, alive, unfractured. A reality where perhaps a happy Buffy could grow, not weighted by impossible tasks and irresolvable conflicts.
So suddenly things turn around. the world of the 'sick girl' is the escape, and the world of monsters, the duty. Buffy draws strength from her mother's presence, and bids her goodbye. Sets off to save the friends she has, rather unfortunately, tied up in her basement with a furious monster, in an effort to demonstrate how she can free herself from the illusion of her duty to them.
As we leave her, she is in the clinic, catatonic. The doctor sadly declares her gone beyond recall. Which world is real? The ending gives us no unequivocal answer. But clearly the world she has chosen, with the struggles, the conflicts, and the progress, is the vital one on any level that truly matters
Current board
| More March 2003