May 2004 posts
Soul question --
buffyguy, 12:34:18 05/06/04 Thu
I dont know if this was ever discussed but i am curious. Do people
have their "own" personal souls that are only theirs,
meaning, did angel receive 'a' soul or 'his' soul when he was
cursed?
Replies:
[> Re: Soul question -- buffyguy, 13:06:52 05/06/04
Thu
btw...i only ask this cause of how people on the show say it...ilona
costa-bianchi says "the gypsies, they gave you 'your' soul"
and buffy says about spike "he has 'a' soul now"....just
wanted to know if there is a distinction between the two.
[> [> Re: Soul question -- Mighty Mouse, 20:27:24
05/06/04 Thu
Hmmm ... it depends on what your definition of a soul is in the
Whedonverse. There is a theory that souls are merely the conscience
of people. Without it the evil in human nature reigns free, with
it the evil is suppressed (which would sort of make the Angel
/ Angelus thing make sense on occasion). Then there is the traditional
one - your soul is an entirely different personality from the
demon that takes over your body (which would go hand in hand with
the whole "that's not really your friend, but a demon that
has inhabited his/her body and has their memories, etc."
speech that is usually given). So with the prior, the soul is
not personalized by merely something everyone can get to enhance
one aspect of themselves (hence your "a"), and the latter
is the entirely different personality (hence "your").
[> [> [> My theory on the souls -- Duell,
21:05:04 05/06/04 Thu
I have a theory about the nature of souls in the Buffyverse. I
believe that there are two basic factions at work in the supernatural
world: good & bad. Humans are connected to the benevelant force,
which is presided over by the PTBs. The Powers of Darkness rule
the malevolent force, which connects the demons. This explains
why the human soul provides people with a moral compass, the conscience,
and why demons on Angel and BtVS are constantly talking about
feeling connected to some great dark power. The individuality
of a person is merely contained within their mortal (or immortal)
minds and forms. The way these personalitites interact with the
world depends on which side of the neverending battle they are
connected to and wish to fight for.
[> Re: Soul question -- skeeve, 08:49:42 05/07/04
Fri
Human souls, like sweaters can be mixed and matched.
It's clear that human souls affect the human conscience.
It's not clear what else is included.
Some suggest that the human soul is the entire
non-corporeal part of a human, that it includes
a copy of one's memories, and is basically one's identity.
The Buffyverse seems to make a bit more sense if that
role is held by another non-corporeal part.
It's hard to explain Living Conditions otherwise.
Like sweaters, not all human souls are created equal.
Compare the souls of Buffy, Snyder, Ryan Anderson,
and the Georges Bush.
As noted, it's explicit that Angel got his original soul back.
Spike's demon was also explicit: "Your soul is returned to
you."
That human souls can be mixed and matched was made
clear by the influence of Conner's soul on Darla.
Living Conditions makes clear that human souls can
even be mixed with the bodies of demons.
LC also made clear that human souls can be divided.
It's never made clear where human souls come from.
Can I Just Say... --
buffyguy, 07:02:47 05/06/04 Thu
My new favorite character is Ilona Costa-Bianchi...lol...
Ptoo! We shall speak of them NO more!
Replies:
[> Yup -- Gyrus, 14:35:54 05/06/04 Thu
My new favorite character is Ilona Costa-Bianchi...lol...
There were exactly 2 things I liked about that episode, and she
had both of them. :)
Wes can kill her now (Spoilers
for The Girl In Question) -- skeeve, 08:59:49 05/06/04
Thu
Illyria made what might be a fatal mistake.
Before that mistake, Illyria's resemblence
to Fred seemed a matter of happenstance. Wes
gave the evil powerful thing that killed Fred
a pass because that was all he had left of Fred.
Angel said find a way to kill her.
Wes found a way to depower her without killing her.
Now Wes knows that Illyria's
appearance is what she wants it to be.
Illyria used that power to look exactly like Fred.
Wes isn't giving her a pass anymore.
She's alive because Wes doesn't have an excuse to kill her.
Two open questions:
What did Illyria learn while imitating Fred?
When, if ever, will the Burkles
learn that their daughter is dead?
Regarding complaints that Angel and Spike
were out of character this episode:
Since when do Angel and Spike play well together?
They are not good influences on each other.
The bomb was definitely an example of cartoon violence.
Holes in their clothes and not a dent in their bodies.
It was, as another noted, a Wile E. Cyote moment.
BTW see The Villain. 'Tis a wonderful movie. It actually
has a charcter called Handsome Stranger.
Angel was right about his new coat.
This one has previously suggested that ME might have an
eighth season of Buffy without recasting and without SMG.
Buffy would just be offscreen a lot.
Her presence would be signaled by things
like airborne vampires coming out of alleys.
The stuntwoman scenes wouldn't have to be changed at all.
Replies:
[> Re: Wes can kill her now (Spoilers for The Girl In Question)
-- Ann, 09:32:10 05/06/04 Thu
"What did Illyria learn while imitating Fred?"
I was amazed that she was insightful enough to do this. And not
to be cruel. She was testing herself and used Fred's real shell
to do it. She was kind and loving to the Burkle's. This showed
major growth from where she was before. She was empathetic to
them. That is a huge step. Maybe she was just wearing the mask
of empathy, but she was still kind.
How this will play out with Wes, is still to be told.
"Wes found a way to depower her without killing her."
I am wondering this made her became one of the "helpless"
that AI is so fond of saving. She is lost and alone now without
her powers so she is turning to them. Are they her only hope?
Wes inadvertently, by removing her power, gave her the very thing
that that AI needs to feel useful. Helping the helpless. He can't
kill her now, can he?
[> [> Empathy -- Gyrus, 12:16:09 05/06/04 Thu
Maybe she was just wearing the mask of empathy, but she was
still kind.
On the contrary, Illyria possesses empathy in the truest sense
of the word -- she feels Wesley's grief and finds it unpleasant.
It's going to be hard for her to be cruel to people if their pain
hurts her, too.
Illyria reminds me a lot of 7 of 9 from STAR TREK: VOYAGER. Both
characters once considered themselves better than human but now
must cope with being One Of Us. Like Seven, Illyria questions
everything that human beings do and believe, and that (IMO) makes
for good drama.
Family and Destiny (spoilers
The Girl in Question) -- Lunasea, 10:26:07 05/06/04 Thu
First a huge shout out (did I actually just say that) to Masq
for getting me to see this. The key to this episode is how you
see certain things.
I'm a determinist IRL, so I have no problems with prophecies.
I don't see them as the PTBs dictating what will happen. I see
them as understanding cause-effect beyond what us mere mortals
can, so they can predict what is going to happen. We call it chaos
theory. The Powers know what the effect of the butterfly's wings
are going to be and can factor that in. In the Buffyverse there
are things that exist outside of time. Giles tries to contact
the Spirit Guides in "The Zeppo, Buffy does in "Intervention"
and who can forget Wesley and the Talking Hamburger. I have no
problem with the idea of these. I have no problem with these sorts
of things being right.
I have no problem with the Scroll of Aberjian. I don't mind knowing
how the story is going to end, because other than knowing the
heroes are going to win (duh), we don't know much. I have no problem
with Angel being a major player in the Apocalypse or knowing he
will Shanshu at the end. These are just part of the story and
I accept them as such.
I love the ambiguity. I don't think it is will Angel be UberEvil
or UberGood, but rather his role itself is ambiguous. What he
is doing now can be seen as compromising with evil or doing greater
good. Is he good or evil? Season 2's Dark!Angel was in the same
position. His ambiguity isn't will he be evil, but what is evil?
I also have no problem with Buffy and Angel forever. It isn't
just the romantic in me that wants this. They are mythic and their
relationship is important to their stories. ME doesn't write turgid
supernatural soap operas for no reason. This isn't just Dawson
Creek with Demons or Party of Five with Monsters. This is the
modern mythos.
I go into "The Girl in Question" with the answers to
two questions already
1. Buffy and Angel are destined to be together.
2. Angel is destined to be a major player in the apocalypse.
Using symbolic language
A = Buffy and Angel together
B = Destiny
C = Angel major player in apocalypse
A = B
C = B
Therefore the episode is really A = C.
On the surface it seems to be about Angel's feelings about Buffy.
This season has been about Angel's destiny. This episode is also
about that. The words of Andrew about moving on apply not just
to A, but to C as well.
When we last left our hero, he was throwing the baby out with
the bath water. We are even reminded of that by Gunn/mission.
Now he has a new mission, retrieve the capo's capo. Head of the
family. That is how Angel has viewed himself. He is the head of
the family that he has created. That family has grown older and
the head has fallen off. It isn't dead yet and a new family can
sprout from the head. Connor may be gone. Cordy and Fred may be
dead. Harmony is now in the credits. Spike is now part of the
team. Where there is life there is hope.
The bulk of this episode takes place in Italy. Italy is Angelus'
home. Ireland is where Darla sired him. Dru and Spike are sired
in England, but Italy is a reoccurring place in Angelus' story.
In "Somnambulist," Penn mentions that he was supposed
to meet Angelus there. What stood in between Angelus and Italy
was Romania and their gypsies (puh, we will not speak of them
again). When Darla leaves the Master to go with the stallion,
Angelus suggests they go to Naples. When Darla leaves Angelus
in France in 1765, he meets up with her in Vienna, where she has
to "pay for my sins again and again."
In 1771, Holtz captures Angelus in Rome. Holtz is after Angelus
and Darla with a vengeance because they murdered his family. Holtz
didn't get there in time to save his own. He became a head without
a family. Darla loves Rome because of Boticelli's Frescos in the
Sistine Chapel, specifically the leper in The Temptation of Christ.
Darla was a social leper in her own society. Souled Angel becomes
a leper in his.
Italy is all about family. Things that have to do with family
and reconnecting happen in Italy. Darla leaves him in France.
Angelus reconnects with her in Vienna. Angelus means to meet Penn
in Italy, but is prevented by gypsies in Romania. Holtz chases
Angelus and Darla all over. The elude him in France and North
Africa. It Rome, Darla rescues Angelus. In France, she takes their
only horse and leaves him to face Holtz. In France, Angelus tells
Holtz where to find Darla. In Romania, Darla abandons Angelus.
She fails at getting him unsouled. In China, Angel is unable to
do what she requires. It is only in Italy that they are a real
family.
Angel, now souled, goes back to Italy in order to retrieve the
capo's capo. This time instead of reconnecting with his family,
it allows him to move on. He has to go home in order to be able
to leave it. He once loved Italy. Now he can't wait to leave it.
The ritual to revivify the capo has to be performed by his family.
Angel's family is now Gunn, Wesley and Lorne. They are in LA.
Italy is no longer Angel's element. LA is. In Italy, they have
to turn to Wolfram and Hart, Rome branch.
Wolfram and Hart, Rome is identical to LA, except for the flavor
there and all the demons walking around. In LA, most of the lawyers
are human. We don't get quite the demon flavor in LA. Wolfram
and Hart, Rome handles things differently than Angel/Spike want
to. They are willing to play the games in order to remain civilized.
Rome's ways result in Angel and Spike going boom. Their wonderful
jackets are destroyed. Spike is reclothed the same way, but Rome
tries to redress Angel. It is so not him. Rome no longer fits
Angel.
He went through this season 2 with Darla. It was important for
her to be in a very brief scene. This episode wasn't about Angelus,
but had to take place in Angelus' home. It is similar to Lorne
going back to Pylea. It was also important for Fred's parents
to be in this episode. Family is an important theme in this episode.
The Girl in Question is the answer, that question being who is
my family.
Buffy is Angel's family, eventually. What to do in the mean time?
Spike wants to put her in a box like Pavayne. Angel points out
that Buffy is too strong. They forget that this won't allow her
to bake. Then Spike suggests mind control. Angel points out that
Buffy is too smart for that. This forgets what Wesley has learned.
They don't want Buffy's shell. They want Buffy. Mind Control Buffy
isn't going to cut it.
What they really want to put in a box is themselves. They want
to stick a sign on saying "Wake me up for the Apocalypse."
If Angel is to be a major player, what does he do in the meantime?
He no longer has the PTBs giving him busy work to train him for
what he has to do. Now he has to figure it out himself.
It is part of growing up. I like the metaphor of a butterfly,
but a butterfly doesn't just leave the cocoon and fly. It has
to dry his wings before he can fly. That is what moving on, both
from Buffy and from his biggie destiny is. Angel has become one
heck of a butterfly. He still needs to sit on his cocoon and let
the sun dry his wet crumpled wings so he can fly.
The capo's capo will generate another body. Angel can rebuild
his family. Angel can move on from Buffy and his role in the apocalypse
and if they truly are his destiny, they'll be there.
If they aren't, that's another story.
Replies:
[> Sweet! -- MaeveRigan, 11:39:41 05/06/04 Thu
[> [> Thanks, though I did make a mistake -- Lunasea,
12:42:48 05/06/04 Thu
As someone kindly pointed out in the LJ, Vienna is not in Italy.
Can I blame it on the medicine I'm on? Verona, Vienna, they sound
the same, right?
[> Baking Cookies when the Oven Light Goes Out (spoilers
The Girl in Question) -- Lunasea, 13:20:12 05/06/04 Thu
I was going to do a post on "Underneath." Actually post
isn't the right word. Humongous monstrosity that dissected the
episode from the Jungian perspective. It was supposed to have
three parts and I only got to two, so I never posted it. Instead
the conclusion is somewhere, since "Underneath" related
to "Origin," or at least my analysis of "Origin"
related to my analysis of "Origin."
Here is what I wrote for "Underneath" about the kitchen
and the oven light bulb, that I never posted:
Kitchens are places to gather in as a family. This is important
on BtVS. Spike has conversations with Joyce in the kitchen. Darla
tries to get Angel to feed off Joyce in the kitchen. Dawn leaves
through the kitchen when she is taken by Harmony's gang. She is
also in the kitchen when the First starts to approach her in "CWDP."
Tara makes funny shaped pancakes in the kitchen. Lindsey and Gunn
are helping their "son" in the kitchen. They both have
to go to the basement because of a malfunction in the kitchen.
That malfunction is a burned out light bulb in the oven. This
is symbolic on two levels. A show about vampires is conscious
of how it uses light and dark. Dark tends to represent the unconscious,
as done earlier in the episode with Fred's apartment. The light
bulb in the oven is smaller than normal bulbs. The second layer
is what an oven does. It bakes things, such as cookies. It still
works without a bulb. You just cannot see what is baking.
That is what I thought of when I saw "Underneath." TGIQ
made me think about that burned out light bulb a little bit more.
Lindsey/Gunn have to go into the basement because:
WIFE: Hey, hon. Oven light just went out. I need a bulb from the
cellar.
LINDSEY: There should be some in the hall closet.
WIFE: Just regular ones. Little ones are downstairs.
There has been some discussion about big v little picture. The
oven takes a little light bulb. It is the little picture
that allows us to see how we are baking. It is incredibly difficult
to measure ourselves in the big picture. That is Angel's mistake.
Not that he is looking at the big picture, but that he is using
that to measure himself. Those big light bulbs are the "regular
ones." They are the ones that light the kitchen. Without
them, you may know when the cookies are done, but you can't see
the counter to put them on and they will have to be eaten in the
dark.
Angel has lost sight of the little picture. Because of this, he
has to go to the basement (unconscious) to find a little light
bulb that will work. Because of what he has done, once down there
the Wrath rips out his heart. He thinks he deserves this. Then
he gets his little light bulb, which will show him the little
picture, but tomorrow it will be burnt out again, continuing poor
Angel's never ending cycle.
The only way out is to turn the Wrath on itself and go out not
through the front door, but the unconscious.
When Angel and Spike are trying to figure out what Buffy sees
in the Immortal, they focus on how many times they have saved
the world. That isn't why Buffy loves Angel. She didn't tell him
how "Helpless" she felt because he saved the world.
She didn't tell him how much her mother's death affected her because
he was a Champion.
Angel can't look at the little picture though. In that picture
he sees Connor gone. Fred and Cordy and Doyle are dead. His little
picture is full of failures. He has to get beyond this somehow.
He has to keep one eye on the big picture, but measure himself
by the little picture. He has to put his family back together
so they can all bake. They can all show each other how they bake.
One of my favorite quotes is by Edith Wharton: There are two
ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects
it. That is what family is. Angel's little light bulb is seen
by him in their reflection. That is why he needs them. They are
the mirror that spread his light and he becomes theirs. That makes
their world a lot brighter. To get out of the basement, they have
to go through fire.
He'll do it and I look forward to watching him do it. Next episode
he will have to go through the fire somehow. He will have to find
a way to turn Wrath on itself. He may have to be Heartless to
do this. Mission will be saved and cookies will continue to bake.
(if anyone wants to see the rest of what I have for "Underneath,"
let me know)
[> [> Raises hand -- Traveler, 16:33:10 05/06/04
Thu
I'd love to see the rest of your essay...
[> [> [> Me too! -- Jane, 18:46:45 05/06/04
Thu
[> [> Count me in -- Cheryl, 21:26:38 05/06/04
Thu
That is what family is. Angel's little light bulb is seen by
him in their reflection. That is why he needs them. They are the
mirror that spread his light and he becomes theirs.)
Very interesting look at things, especially considering Angel
doesn't *have* a reflection and thus *can't* see himself without
his friends. Love to read more of what you have on this.
[> [> [> Reflections -- Lunasea, 05:53:40 05/07/04
Fri
Angel has had a reflection since becoming a vampire, in Pylea.
In a world of extremes, he can see himself. Perhaps that is the
secret to understanding Angel. Angel is not only two parts, but
those parts tend to go to extremes. In a world of extremes, he
can see what he is. Back on the gray world of Earth, he still
sees himself as the extremes, but that isn't what he is. He can't
see what he is.
Everytime we see Angel through Angel's eyes it is almost a caricature.
He tends to focus on one facet of himself and blow it up to larger
than life. He wants to be larger than life. He wants to be Uber
something, souled or unsouled. The use of mirrors shows how he
isn't what he sees himself as. He can't see his own reflection.
His friends see him. They can mirror this back to him, if he lets
them.
No wonder I identify with him. I tend to go to extremes as well.
It is a hard existence with the gradiant of psychic energy constantly
shifting because no extreme can be maintained. There is always
that voice in the subconscious/shadow/Spike telling you that you
are wrong. It gets louder and louder until it can't be ignored.
As we grow up, the pendulum's arc isn't so large and we come closer
and closer to balance.
That is what I see with Angel.
[> [> The lens we view the show through (The Preface)
-- Lunasea, 06:27:17 05/07/04 Fri
I went to bed happy that people mentioned that they wanted to
see this. I felt like Sally Field, though instead of "You
like me. You really like me," it was "You read me. You
really read me" or maybe even "You like what you read."
I know I speak from a perspective that few have. Most people don't
think about the things I do and don't have much to say. It gets
a little frustrating thinking I'm writing into a vacuum sometimes.
When I'm posting I wonder if the analytical psychology perspective
I bring to my posts is appropriate for this board.
I woke up this morning excited that I would be posting this partially
finished essay that I worked pretty hard on. It had a disclaimer
originally, but before I even get to that, I wanted to give another
one.
This is the lens I view the show with. I study photography. I
hope to become a professional one in the next few years. The thing
about a lens is it has limitations. It isn't the human eye and
brain. It is just some pieces of glass that bring one plane into
focus. In front and behind this plane may be in acceptable focus,
but actually only one plane is in perfect focus. How much is in
acceptable focus and how acceptable that is depends on a number
of things (focal length of the lens, distance from the subject
and aperature). A photographer can just take a snapshot or she
can make a picture. When we make pictures, we consciously decide
on things like the lens we put on the camera and the aperature
we use. We frame our subject and think about things like how perspective
changes with our distance from the subject.
A picture should not be confused with the object that the photographer
was looking at. All photographs are interpretations of the object.
It is easy to compare photography to other forms of art and say
that photography is more objective, but it isn't. What makes a
photo isn't the object or the camera. It is the photographer,
her eye, her brain and her heart.
All our posts are the same way. The lens I chose to look at the
show with should not be confused with the show itself. The essays
I make using this lens are not objective. They are my interpretation
of the show. That interpretation may directly contradict someone
else's interpretation using the lens she chooses. This is not
to say that I am negating what she is saying. I'm not really thinking
about it. I'm focusing on what I want to, say the flowers in the
foreground. Someone else may be looking at the forest in the background.
A picture of flowers does not negate a picture of the forest.
I like to see all the photos that others make. There are all sorts
of variables that go into making a picture even if everyone is
looking at the same object. Some use an intensifying filter. Some
use a polarizing filter. Extension tubes can be a lot of fun.
Some take black and white photos. There is a big difference between
all sorts of colored film. From these I see the world through
other eyes. I may not have even noticed the bees on the flowers
I am concentrating on. Someone else can show me that. Then I can
appreciate another layer of the scene I am looking at. I might
even incorporate that in photos I make in the future.
I said all that because I love seeing other perspectives and want
to encourage discussion as much as possible. Because I am very
conscious of the lens I use (including its faults) and how the
show looks viewed through it, it does not mean I wish to belittle
anyone who makes pictures other ways or even takes snapshots.
I've seen some really beautiful snapshots that have more emotion
to them than planned out photos.
Now I have to organize what I wrote last month. I'll be posting
all that shortly. I will break it up, since it is so long. Jungians
analyze symbols. We can explain why a certain object means certain
things. I don't really do that here. Instead I say X means Y.
If you feel that X means something else or want to know how I
came up with Y, let me know. That is where the debate lies for
me and I find this sort of interaction incredibly fun. There is
no Rosetta Stone for this. Instead, we have to look at all the
times X was said and see if a common message fits them. It is
fun to see what messages people come up with. I am more than willing
to discuss what I came up with.
[> [> [> What lies"Underneath" (spoilers
Underneath): Disclaimer and Intro -- Lunasea, 06:31:14
05/07/04 Fri
Disclaimer, nonstandard: I am at a place in my life where I am
most interested in figuring out what I feel/think/believe. I haven't
been reading that much commentary on Angel episodes since "Hole
in the World." If I repeat what has been said, I apologize.
If I directly contradict something that has been said, this is
not a reaction against either the position or the holder of that
position. I don't even know what has been said, so I cannot react
against it.
What follows is not only my interpretation of a specific episode,
but the overall Buffyverse. It contradicts things I have written
in the past. I am not sure what I believe about much of anything,
whether that is in regards to the shows we all love so much, my
own life, or the universe in general. What follows in an essay
in the truest sense of the word. It is me trying to figure things
out. I hope you enjoy it. As usual feedback is welcome. If you
would like my comments on something else that has been written,
please feel free to ask. It is by doing things like this that
I figure stuff out, so any contribution you make is greatly appreciated.
This essay was started on Thursday at my in-laws. This was an
interesting place to watch the episode on Wednesday. First, we
actually watched it in a basement. Second, the resemblances to
Wolfram and Hart's waiting room are too many to list. The easiest
way to explain the family my husband comes from is to explain
that I married Riley, or better yet Wally Cleaver. The Hell-That-Is-Suburbia
is very much a part of my in-laws existence. It IS their existence.
I'm not sure if I will get to post this before the next episode
airs. It is very unlikely that I will. I want to actually write
a well written essay, not just something off the top of my head.
It is long, but since it is a departure of the standard party
lines, I felt it needed a great deal of support. The conclusion
is the important part. I will break it up, so that if you want
to skip to that, it will be easy to do.
**********
I approach my analyses of the episodes/overall series similarly
to the way a Jungian analyst approaches a dream. According to
Jungian theory, both come from the same place, the Transcendent
Function, and are speaking the same language. I can translate
them both using what I know about that language. This makes an
episode entitled "Underneath" a dream come true for
me, pun completely intended. This episode shows what lies underneath
each character and even the Buffyverse itself. This is accomplished
in three areas, the location/setting of each scene, the objects/characters/symbols
within a scene, and the transition from one scene to another.
That should let you know if you want to continue.
[> [> [> [> Location, location, location (spoilers
Underneath): First section -- Lunasea, 06:39:31 05/07/04
Fri
First location. Joss Whedon learned how important the setting
was when he filmed "Innocence." Originally the confrontation
between Buffy and newly desouled Angel was written to take place
in front of her house. They even filmed it here, but everyone
realized the scene was falling flat. The scene was moved to the
more intimate setting of Angel's bedroom. This made the scene
much more powerful and showed Joss what he was capable of doing
with the series.
Location, location, location. Imagine how different any scene
would be if it took place somewhere else. How different would
it have been if Buffy had found Joyce's body in her bedroom or
the kitchen? What if Drusilla or Darla had been vamped outside?
What if Connor hadn't been born in an alley? Location makes these
scenes mean what they did.
"Underneath" takes place in very specific locations.
Angel is first shown around the conference table in his office.
It is empty. Heart (Fred) has been transformed into Heartless
(Illyria). She is at her old apartment because she doesn't know
where to go. Mind (Wesley) has been transformed into raw emotion.
He is supposed to be teaching Illyria, but cannot get Fred out
of him enough to be able to do this. He tries to drown her in
whiskey. Just like Lorne who is at a bar trying to forget. Mission/Spirit
(Gunn) is in a hospital, wounded but not fatally. He knows he
can't forget. Spike joins Angel in his office. Eve is at Lindsey's
apartment, for protection just like Illyria is at Fred's. Lindsey
is in Wolfram and Hart's holding cell, Suburbia. This is where
the bulk of the episode takes place.
Every scene would feel different if it took place somewhere else.
Angel is not sitting behind his desk when Spike comes in. He is
sitting at the empty table. Underneath, Angel has not recovered
from losing Fred. He is not in touch with heart, mind, spirit.
Instead he needs Harmony to tell him where they are.
This is just one component of location/setting. Another that Jungians
are particularly interested in is elevation. The Buffyverse uses
this in line with traditional Jungian theory. The surface represents
the conscious. Anything subterranean is the unconscious. The deeper
you go, the deeper into the psyche things come from. The deepest
levels are more collective. Things from higher elevations, such
as the roof of buildings or in the air, represent the Transcendent
Function. This is a very specific part of the unconscious often
projected as the numinous.
Angel's modes of transportation reflect this. He had two main
ways to get around LA prior to season 5, the rooftops and the
sewers. Now he also has a fleet of cars and a helicopter. How
Angel gets to a place shows where Angel is coming from, not just
literally, but psychically. "Conviction" opens with
Angel on the rooftops. He swoops down to save the girl. He beats
Hauser to the school by using his helicopter. In "Destiny,"
he races Spike across the desert in fancy cars.
"Underneath" uses elevation even more than a typical
episode. The obvious symbol is the basement in Lindsey's hell.
His house also demonstrates this. We first see him on an upper
level of the house. The outside where he gets his paper in a "perfect"
sunny world is on the surface. So is the kitchen where he is helping
his "son" study about the layers of the earth. The living
room where Angel confronts him and releases him from the spell
is also on the ground floor. This is same level that his "wife"
will attack them on. When this fails, Lindsey's "son"
comes down the stairs with his gun blazing. The exit to this dimension
is not out the front door, where yet another gun toting "friend"
is waiting. It is in the basement, the unconscious.
Wolfram and Hart is another place where elevation is important.
Angel's office is not on the ground floor, but it isn't the highest
place in the building. He takes an elevator from his office to
reach his penthouse where he lives. Above that is the roof and
presumably a helo pad. Below all of this is the garage with his
motor pool. Earlier in the season, Angel has been confronted by
Spike in his bedroom and in the motor pool. Spike wanted an office
earlier, but Angel wouldn't give him one. When Puppet!Angel beats
Spike, it is in an elevator. All of these settings fit the symbolism
of the scene.
In Eve's flight from the new Liaison to the Senior Partners, which
means her eventual death, elevation is also important. It starts
at Lindsey's apartment. When the protective runes disappear, she
goes with Spike and Angel out the window and down a fire escape
to Angel's waiting car. Then it is up to Angel's office. When
the new Liaison shows up, Lorne flees with Eve back down to the
motor pool. There she runs into Lindsey, Angel and Spike. This
is also where the Liaison catches up with her. She has to sign
away everything in the garage. Back in Angel's office, on the
same couch she made out with Angel in "Life of the Party,"
she cuddles with Lindsey.
Another place elevation was used in the episode is between Illyria
and Wesley. There are two conversations between these characters.
The first in in Fred's apartment. Even though it is above the
surface, it is darkened to give it a cave-like feel. Caves are
indicative of the womb which gives birth to things, psychically
the unconscious. Wesley also dreams of Fred here. Dream!Fred wonders
if Wesley wants to know how deep she goes. Fred's power to stay
has manifest itself not just in Illyria, but in Wesley. Fred has
stayed in the hearts of those who loved her, who underneath are
having a tough time with her being gone, really gone. The other
conversation is on the roof. Neither conversation could have taken
place where the other did.
Location/setting is a powerful symbol all by itself. The flow
of surface to subterranean to higher shows the flow of libido
(psychic energy, not just sexual in analytical/depth psychology).
The elevation of the chain of events at Lindsey's hell or Eve's
flight from death shows the location of things things in the human
psyche. The settings of conversations adds another layer to those
conversations. These cannot just be dismissed if one wants to
understand these layers.
[> [> [> [> [> Symbolism of the Character (spoilers
Underneath): Second section, Part A -- Lunasea, 06:48:08
05/07/04 Fri
Symbols are the main focus of depth psychology. Dr. Jung's book
written for lay people is entitled Man and His Symbols.
Symbols are the language of the unconscious, the language in which
the Transcendent Function expresses things. Location is one layer
of symbolism "Underneath" uses. The characters are symbols
that lead us to a deeper story than the plot can. There are also
objects and motifs that carry throughout an episode or even across
episodes, season and series that give us further layers.
A lot has been written about the archetypes the various characters
give form to. Angel as hero/main character is the self, the totality
of the psyche. His development is often called the hero's journey
(as explored by Joseph Campbell especially in Hero of a Thousand
Faces) and symbolizes the process of individuation. This is
how the unconscious contents gain enough libido to be incorporated
into the conscious. This process is elaborated on by the secondary
and tertiary characters. Each character represents various archetypes
and their relationships to each other show how these components
inside of us relate.
Much has been said about Fred and the men in her life. Fred is
the heart or in a male hero, anima. Her relationship with Gunn,
Wesley and Knox not only speak about Fred, but the overall story,
the hero's journey that is focused on Angel. Wesley is told by
Fred not to come back season 3 as Angel is losing reason because
he is overwhelmed by the grief of losing his son. There is a lot
to Fred's romances, both why she as an individual would be attracted
to certain characters and how this mirrors Angel's psychic state.
This carries over to Illyria. Fred's role in the story did not
change when she became Illyria.
In "Underneath" we see what is underneath each character,
but we also see what is the flip of each form of the archetype
the show normally uses. Fred, who was heart, has been transformed
into heartless. She shows no compassion for Wesley. She doesn't
even understand feelings. Season four, Fred said that she couldn't
shut her feelings off and become an empty shell. That is just
what she is now. ME chose to contrast the heart of Fred not with
mind/logos as is traditionally done in the patriarchy. Fred was
portrayed as even smarter than Wesley. Instead, underneath feeling
is the coldness of Illyria. She isn't spiteful and doesn't go
out of her way to hurt others. She doesn't get off on hurting
others. She is not Angelus. She is just completely cold and doesn't
understand.
Wesley, however, as mind has been transformed into raw emotion.
Underneath the man who makes the hard decisions is the guy that
dreams about the girl he loves. Underneath Wesley is Fred. Just
how deep she goes will be shown later (unspoiled speculation).
In order to make the hard decisions, Wesley has had to suppress
this side of him. That does not destroy it. It just shoves it
to the shadow, where it's effects cannot be controlled.
Gunn's character is about the mission. Even when he was out for
a thrill, it was still thrill related to the mission. He didn't
go bungee jumping. He grabbed a vampire and threw it into Wolfram
and Hart. In "That Gang of Mine," we saw where this
could have led him. It didn't. Instead Charles Gunn became a "Player."
Underneath all that was a man who wasn't just about the mission.
In "Smile Time," we see how much being a player is about
his self-image and not just the mission.
He can still justify his actions based on the mission, but alone
in a hospital room, he is faced with what he has done and why.
Angel comes to see him at the hospital for help with Eve. In a
truly beautiful moment, Angel calls him a good man. Gunn does
not believe this underneath. Wolfram and Hart can only punish
someone as much as he thinks he deserves it. Gunn will face more
than Lindsey did. What exactly he will face will have to do with
the hell that Gunn is in. The waiting room did not change for
Gunn. He just stepped into Lindsey's, even giving the same lines.
Lindsey's paradise that covers up hell is also Gunn's. Underneath
that is what Gunn wants, the life in the 'burbs away from the
mission.
What is underneath Lorne was the subject of an earlier episode,
"Life of the Party." Lorne as an empath represents empathy.
Underneath this is someone who this burden has worn thin. Underneath
he doesn't want to feel. Illyria can't feel and Lorne doesn't
want to. Hulk!Lorne even struck out at others. Lorne is the first
character to shove everything back underneath and put the bells
back on. He thinks he has to.
Spike is Angel's foil, specifically a general shadow. This shadow
is ready to be part of the team, but without the others, there
is no team to be part of. During this episode, Spike is always
with Angel. In the basement, they fight together. More importantly,
the react the same throughout the episode, except for one thing.
Spike mentions Angel's Avengers derisively, but Angel likes the
idea of that. They both fear the sun when Gunn opens the car door.
Spike wants to stay with Angel when he is fighting Hell!Wife.
Spike and Angel both vamp out when fighting the Wrath. This is
an infrequent occurrence for either of them. In the basement/unconscious,
they both resort to their demonic visage and the strength it brings
them. It is useless. Both are tossed around like dolls. The important
thing is that at this point, Angel and his shadow/Spike are trying
to connect and are fairly successful.
Spike isn't Angel's only foil. That role also belongs to Lindsey.
We first see Lindsey in bed with a blond female who is filmed
to make the audience think it is Darla. Lindsey even has a son.
He plays baseball and has friends. This Lindsey is a family man.
This isn't the Lindsey we saw season 1, 2 or even 5 up to this
point. In the fantasy that is underneath Lindsey the viewer is
familiar with lies Lindsey's punishment.
The Wrath can only punish someone as much as they think they deserve.
Ultimately retributory punishment that is psychically inflicted
comes from us and what we believe we merit. A clue to what Lindsey's
crime was lies in the punishment itself. There are some that think
that Lindsey is only using Eve. In "You're Welcome,"
Lindsey and Eve are shown in bed together. It is a very sweet
and tender moment that contradicts the idea that he has no feelings
for her. At the end of "Underneath," Lindsey teases
Eve, but he is also holding her. There is genuine affection and
maybe even love there. He has used her. For this, he deserves
to have his heart ripped out. In his perfect happiness, he is
unfaithful to her. He has forgotten her. Underneath, he believes
he should be punished for this.
Underneath Eve is interesting. She herself is the flip of the
Biblical Eve. There are two trees in the Garden of Eden, the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. Eve eats from
the first and is kicked out of Eden so she cannot eat from the
second and become truly Godlike. Angel's Eve is not made by God,
but by the Senior Partners. The forbidden fruit she eats is Lindsey/love.
This makes her change allegiance. She doesn't care about good.
It isn't stated that she is soulless, but it would make no sense
for the Senior Partners to create her with one. All she cares
about is Lindsey. Because of this, even though she was made immortal
unlike Biblical Eve, her immortality is taken from her. This not
only echoes Biblical Eve, but Giles expulsion from the Watcher's
Council because he has "developed a father's love" for
Buffy.
The creature that was made by the Senior Partners to connect them
with Angel underneath wants a connection herself. This goes well
with Lindsey's relationship with the Senior Partners. He didn't
want to be their puppet. She doesn't want to be their strings.
Both unite to fight this and find something special in the process,
each other. Contrasting with the Biblical Eve, who gave the apple
to Man, which gets them both kicked out of Eden, it was Lindsey's
rebellion and getting Eve to be his accomplice that gets Eve removed
from the favor of the Senior Partners. Eve was created to tempt
Angel, but ends up being the one that is tempted by what Lindsey
offers her. In the Bible, this is a bad thing. In the angry atheist
world of the Buffyverse, it is not.
Even in her brief appearance, what is underneath Harmony is shown.
The empty headed self-centered vampire is willing to fight the
Liaison so that Eve can get away. The vampire that wanted to know
why they didn't kill Illyria protected another person that should
also have been killed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Objects(spoilers Underneath):
Second section, Part b -- Lunasea, 06:51:01 05/07/04 Fri
Characters aren't the only powerful symbol "Underneath"
uses. Spike approaches Angel carrying a briefcase. This shows
how is willing to change to work with his new environment. Inside
is a beer. This shows he hasn't changed completely. In this scene
Spike mentions one of the most important symbols of the Buffyverse,
the Scoobies. He does this sitting down at a symbol that is important
to them, a table.
Seasons one through three, the Scoobies met at the Sunnydale High
School library around a large table. Their placement around the
table and who was even there spoke volumes. Sitting around that
table made one a Scooby. Two good examples of this are Jenny Calendar
and Cordelia Chase. Their changing relationships with the Scoobies
is illustrated by their placement in library scenes. Season four,
there is no table. The group is experiencing disconnection, so
there is no table to gather around. Season five, the Magic Box
has a circular table. The fate of Dawn is discussed around a table.
Season six, there are a few Scooby meetings around the table.
Season seven, there is no Magic Box. The table becomes Buffy's
dining room table. Various scenes are done around this.
Spike's relationship with the Scoobies has been push-pull. When
they were willing to accept him, he wasn't willing to conform.
Now that Spike is willing to, he comes to a new table to do that.
He belittles the Scoobies as he does. This echoes the beer he
opens. He is willing to change, but only as much as he sees is
necessary.
Tables are also important on Angel. In "Deep Down,"
Angel's hallucination dinner happens around a long table. This
is revisited in "Home," where Connor has dinner with
his new family. Table are things to gather around.
Kitchens are places to gather in as a family. This is important
on Buffy. Spike has conversations with Joyce in the kitchen.
Darla tries to get Angel to feed off Joyce in the kitchen. Dawn
leaves through the kitchen when she is taken by Harmony's gang.
She is also in the kitchen when the First starts to approach her
in "CWDP." Tara makes funny shaped pancakes in the kitchen.
Lindsey and Gunn are helping their "son" in the kitchen.
They both have to go to the basement because of a malfunction
in the kitchen.
That malfunction is a burned out light bulb in the oven. This
is symbolic on two levels. A show about vampires is conscious
of how it uses light and dark. Dark tends to represent the unconscious,
as done earlier in the episode with Fred's apartment. The light
bulb in the oven is smaller than normal bulbs. The second layer
is what an oven does. It bakes things, such as cookies. It still
works without a bulb. You just cannot see what is baking.
This relates to another symbol in Lindsey's hell. There are a
great many viewers that want the memory wipe to be addressed,
preferable with horrible consequences to Angel. Lindsey is wearing
an amulet that makes the wearer forget. If the wearer truly forgets
everything, he couldn't believe he merited punishment and therefore
couldn't be punished. The light bulb and the memory wipes don't
allow the characters to see what is cooking. They don't actually
affect the cooking.
The amulet is tied to a door. It is also tied to the Wrath. The
Wrath is the monster in the basement who punishes someone as much
as he thinks he deserves. The Wrath is also there to keep the
wearer of the amulet trapped. The door opens when the wearer remembers.
It closes when he forgets.
These symbols are powerful when deconstructed and taken individually.
They become even more powerful when seen together. The characters
combined form a more complete illustration of the self. The empty
conference table is more powerful when combined with the tables
the Scoobies used. A burned out light bulb combined with an amulet
starts to address the most talked about loose thread from last
season. These symbols give more layers to the episode
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Transitions (spoilers
Underneath): Third section intro only -- Lunasea, 06:55:44
05/07/04 Fri
My apologies for not finishing this section. It would involve
me watching the show through again keeping an eye out for how
they transition from one scene to another or even edits within
a scene and the flow of lines. I haven't had time to do that properly.
Here is just the intro for this section. As I said, this episode
felt disjointed and the transitions made me feel it wasn't written
as one piece, so it was hard to do this section.
**********
Another layer is how these symbols transition to each other. This
is shown most expertly in the Buffyverse by Stephen S. DeKnight.
His dream sequences aren't just random symbols, but a visual word
association that plays with not only the symbols themselves, but
how symbols relate to each other. Through this, he gives form
to various themes the Buffyverse is built on.
This is accomplished in every episode, even those without dream
sequences, by how one scene leads to another. This episode felt
a little off (to me) because the scenes between Wesley and Illyria
were much different than the rest. This is not a rare occurrence
in a show that is written by many people, with several having
creative control. It is amazing that it doesn't happen more often.
This isn't a single dream that is one individual's Transcendent
Function speaking. It is many. The director's vision helps to
unify an episode and the actors' help to unify the characters
throughout the show's run.
The transition from scene to scene cannot be ignored. Something
as simple as the word "believe" can make the reprises
of "Under Your Spell" and "Standing" into
a beautiful duet in "OMWF." The visual word association
of DeKnight can be accomplished in a well filmed segue between
scenes. The parallels between story lines are often shown in scenes
that are next to each other. The emotional arc is fed by changes
of scenes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Evil of conformity
(spoilers Underneath): Conclusion -- Lunasea, 07:05:27
05/07/04 Fri
This has been posted before because it related to my analysis
of "Origin."
*******
The ultimate goal of depth psychology is not to deconstruct a
dream or in this case a television show. The ultimate goal of
depth psychology isn't even to aide the process of individuation.
Underneath these is something much broader. The symbolism of location/setting,
characters, objects and themes is ultimately part of a greater
story. Underneath every story every told, every symbol ever dreamed
is our humanity. For five years on Angel, Joss has explored
just what this is. It isn't about Angel's quest to be a real boy.
It is an exploration of just what it means to be a real boy. Then
armed with that knowledge, real boyness/humanity can better be
expressed.
Angel's conflict appears to be between man and demon, good and
evil. The entire mythology of the slayer is built on fighting
demons. Some groups see this in a very black and white manner.
Demons are evil, the heroes are struggling to be good. Some see
the universe as very grey. This is still looking at the Buffyverse
along a continuum of good and evil. This is furthered by the importance
of the soul, which determines with a character is oriented to
good or to evil.
The demons, for the most part, inflict harm on others. This harm
is the typical standard that good/evil is measured by. This is
why demons, with some exceptions, are considered evil. It is also
why they are said to be soulless and oriented to evil. The evil
of the demonic word is not harm for harm's sake though. Demons
in the Buffyverse mirror the issues of the characters. Those demons
cause harm because those issues harm the characters. They cause
harm because they live in the dark subterranean world of the unconscious.
As the characters deal with their issues, they physically defeat
the demons.
In "Underneath," what is underneath each character is
shown. This is not necessarily evil, even in the case of Illyria.
The bad guys this season have been human for the most part. The
show is moving away from good/evil as represented by demons and
darkness. Illyria is an Old One who is being incorporated into
the team. Angel and Spike are protected by necrotempered glass
and alternate realities so they can go into the light.
Angel's conflict between man and demon has been transformed. "Underneath"
doesn't just show what is underneath the characters. It shows
what is underneath the Buffyverse at this point. According to
Lindsey, the apocalypse has already begun. Angel says he
can philosophize all night. They have been, for eight years. It
is time to get underneath that. A season about corruption involves
the characters being corrupted. Lindsey explains how a hero is
corrupted.
The harm to others that gets labeled good/evil has been transformed
to the harm done when we conform/work with the system. The hell
that is underneath Angel isn't the Hellmouth. It is Suburbia.
Lindsey's perfect family covers up his punishment in the basement.
It shows the wrath people inflict on themselves living in Suburbia.
When the spell is broken by Angel, Lindsey's "family"
turns on him, much as Sharon Stone did on Arnold Schwartzenegger
in Total Recall. What is necessary to become part of this
perfect world is to forget, but even that can't protect us against
the Wrath in the basement.
The memory wipe that Angel did on the gang did not rob them of
feelings or growth. Their cookies still baked. What it did was
make them vulnerable. Lindsey feels that he shouldn't go in the
basement. He doesn't know why. Gunn could not remember and therefore
learn from the mistakes Wesley made season three. Instead the
gang got caught up in the day-to-day of running Wolfram and Hart.
When people get caught up in the day-to-day that makes up Suburban
life, they forget about what is important and lessons they learned.
From this the apocalypse forms.
Holland in "Reprise" tells Angel that Wolfram and Hart
are in the hearts of everyone. They were there when the first
human clubbed his neighbor. That sounds like they are involved
in the clubbing. Equating the Senior Partners with evil and therefor
harm to others supports this. Evil is now being equated with conformity
itself. As such Holland's words need to be reexamined. There are
three parties involved in an attack. There is the attacker, the
victim and the witness. It is the reaction of the witness that
forms society.
Illyria is dismissive of the Senior Partners. To her, they are
a second rate power. They are not an Old One. They have risen
in stature greatly since the Old Ones walked the earth. They are
now the ones driving the apocalypse. They have becomes greater
as the witness who works with the system, thus fostering a particular
system.
This is not something completely new to the series. Season one,
Lilah tries to get Angel to work with the system in "The
Ring." In "Blind Date," Lindsey questions whether
to work with the system. In "Dead End," he decides that
the price to himself is too high to stay with the system. This
makes him the perfect foil for Angel. Season two as Angel is going
through is "dark" phase and is breaking completely from
any sort of system good or evil, Lindsey is working with that
system. When Angel rejoins the gang and tries to conform to a
system of good, Lindsey leaves and advises Angel on how to beat
Wolfram and Hart.
Much of Lilah's arc rests in her ping-ponging between working
with Wolfram and Hart and working against their plans for Angel.
Season three, she is willing to work with Sahjan. Season four,
she allies herself with the gang after Wolfram and Hart are destroyed
by the Beast. This results in her death. In "Home,"
Wesley tries to free her, but she has committed herself to the
system with an eternal contract. Lilah's commitment to her own
ends is used to bring her into Wolfram and Hart/the system and
keep her there. When Lindsey leaves, he recommends they promote
Lilah because she really know how to work the system. Lindsey
know this is what the Senior Partners value because he is capable
of seeing the big picture.
All the symbolism of "Underneath" is to set up this
message about the evil of conforming to the system. The evil of
the system isn't the overt harm of people like Fries who was willing
to destroy LA. The evil is the harm done to the individual by
conforming and playing a game that isn't your own. Wolfram and
Hart win and the Senior Partners gain in stature every time someone
agrees to their rules at the expense of himself and what he believes.
Even if Angel does manage to help more people with the resources
of Wolfram and Hart, the Senior Partners have won because he is
now part of the system. He hasn't become overtly evil, but he
has been corrupted.
What is underneath the characters can be considered selfish and
that is labeled evil by some. Illyria is heartless and cannot
sympathize with Wesley. Wesley who makes the hard decisions is
drowning in his grief. Gunn who is dedicated to the mission is
feeling the effects of his selfish decision to get lawyered-up.
Lorne is admitting that he wants to be selfish. Typically this
attitude is seen as evil. Angel needs to reconnect with others.
Building a family is an important theme to the Buffyverse. Being
selfish would hinder this.
This idea can be taken to extremes. A table is something to gather
around. It unifies a group. It also allows people to maintain
some space from each other. This gives them a work space. The
goal of individuation isn't for everyone to be the same It is
to becomes who people are. Conforming to how society is does not
allow this. Selfishness can be taken to an extreme. It can also
be used to protect our identity.
Because Lindsey is out for himself and sees nothing wrong with
going against either the Senior Partners or Angel, the Wrath cannot
hurt him much. We see in "Life of the Party" the toll
everything is taking on Lorne. Gunn will be at the Wrath's mercy
(or lack of it) because he suppressed this side and it exploded
causing his friends a lot of harm. Angel cannot achieve balance
without this side. Before he can ask out werewolf girl, he has
to believe that he deserves some happiness. The gypsy curse has
had a similar effect that Spike's chip had. It conditioned him.
Like's Spike's conditioning, it can be undone by taping into what
is underneath him.
"Underneath" through location/setting, characters, objects
and themes starts a more overt exploration of what is underneath
the Buffyverse. It is not the harm that we do to each other that
has driven five seasons. It is the harm we do to ourselves by
pushing things underneath. One reason is to conform to the life
we believe we are told we should have, the hell of Suburbia. Angel's
enemy isn't Spike or Lindsey. It is Everyone Loves Raymond.
[> [> [> Re: The lens we view the show through (The
Preface) -- Jane, 19:44:59 05/07/04 Fri
Thank you for posting these, Lunasea. I find them fascinating.
I really like the idea that we all see these shows through our
own viewfinders, and that what we take from the shows depends
on what we focus on. I must admit that my mind is much less attuned
to the philisophical world than yours, but I do enjoy reading
stuff like this. It pushes me to consider things through another
lens, even if sometimes it makes my head hurt a bit :)
That is the marvellous thing about this board. Where else could
I meet so many interesting people without leaving home? I'm going
to go reread your posts now, and I hope, form some coherent response
to them. Thanks again.
[> [> [> Re: The lens we view the show through (The
Preface) -- Cheryl, 10:16:03 05/08/04 Sat
I felt like Sally Field, though instead of "You like me.
You really like me," it was "You read me. You really
read me" or maybe even "You like what you read."
Funny, I immediately thought of Lilah's conversation with Lindsey
in Dead End when I saw this. It always comes back to Angel, doesn't
it? ;-)
Thanks for posting your essay. It was an excellent analogy. And
it's one of the reasons I love listening to the commentaries on
the DVD's - to hear the director and/or writer explain why a scene
was shot a certain way or why a certain type of lens was used
- that's how they get across their perspective of the character
or the scene. We're left to interpret it, but as we all know (especially
after this last week's episode), a viewer's perspective or take
on a character, scene, or entire episode can be completely different
from what others think -- and from what the writer/director intended.
S7 and S4 -- ghady, 10:54:26
05/06/04 Thu
Ok, i just saw Lessons and Deep Down.
1) Lessons was a BIG disappointment (except for the end)
2) Deep Down is BRILLIANT
3) When do they reveal to us that Sahijan played around with the
prophecies? S3 or S4?
Replies:
[> Re: S7 and S4 -- ghady, 11:30:03 05/06/04 Thu
Ok, now for a more detailed opinion.
1) Lessons: LAME. Very lame. Too lame. Too campy. TOO stand-alone
(MOST of it), too meaningless. There were no shocks (except for
the end), no twists, no parts that made me say "WOW",
no parts that SHOCKED me, NOTHING. It was a lame old horror flick
with BANAL zombies and TRITE ideas.. The ONLY things i liked were
Anya/Hallie, Willow/Giles, Spike/The First.. I HOPE the entire
season isn't like this. IS it???
2) Deep Down: WOW. VERY WOW. This was just a work of ART! It SHOCKED
me. It made me laugh (esp. w/ cordy at the end, all heavenly and
divine, and her big "I'm bored" line--GENIUS.) The way
Frend went up to Connor's room pretending to be all motherly,
then BAM attacking him (i was SERIOUSLY SHOCKED, and i thought
for a second this was a hallucination), the way Lilah became the
BOSS [i actually CLAPPED and CHEERED (well, only clapped) when
she decapitated that ex-boss guy and finished her speech.] The
whole bucket thing in the cage (the bucket was meant for urine
and feces, was it not?), the whole CAGE thing.. The whole speech
Angel made, and then telling Connor "I love you, now get
out of my house." SERIOUSLY.. WOW.. I hope the season remains
this way.. Does it??
[> [> Re: S7 and S4 -- ghady, 12:09:31 05/06/04
Thu
Ok it's me again, but i keep on forgetting everything i wanna
say.
There's ONE part of Lessons i thought was BRILLIANT.. When the
First morphed into Buffy on the "It's about power" line..
Very reminiscent of Willow towards the end of S6, and also AMAZING..
I thought the camera was gonna zoom in on the Master or something,
but i was SHOCKED and DELIGHTED when POOF it was Buffy (but there's
nothing else that's brilliant here.)
And in Deep Down: the was Wesley made Angel feed on HIS OWN blood..
WOW.. That was GENIUS.. again, it was VERYYYY SURPRISING to watch..
plus, how i actually believed that Wesley had turned DARK at first,
only to say like a mintue later "oooohh... this is interesting.....
pretty!" this episode REALLY goes and examines EACH character
in DETAIL.. it's DARK and FASCINATING and EPIC.. unlike Lessons..
that was a VERY shallow episode, which showed NO character development..
well, there was a bit, but COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE level
of development and DEPTH found in Deep Down.. Xander/Anya had
no purpose.. It should have been DARKER, more EPIC.. and willow
should've been suffering from nightmares and visions of the great
evil and such.. VERY average episodes (lessons, not deep down)..
Ok, that's all (I HOPE)
[> [> [> Re: S7 and S4 -- ghady, 12:45:47 05/06/04
Thu
Ok, THIS is the end.. HONESTLY.. just wanted to say that i LOVED
the Buffy/Dawn relationship in Lessons.. that's VERY good character
development.. but that's about it..
[> [> [> Re: S7 and S4 -- ghady, 12:50:07 05/06/04
Thu
Ok, THIS is the end.. HONESTLY.. just wanted to say that i LOVED
the Buffy/Dawn relationship in Lessons.. that's VERY good character
development.. but that's about it..
[> [> [> [> Re: S7 and S4 -- skpe, 05:12:44
05/07/04 Fri
S7 does not improve and was a disappointment (that is the general
consensus - see archives) angel s4 is good but s5 is better
[> [> [> [> [> Was not a consensus -- Finn
Mac Cool, 14:06:58 05/07/04 Fri
Studies have been done that show people who are upset or dissapointed
about things are more likely to comment on it then people who
are satisfied. Hence a large number of negative posts, while it
may point in the general direction most people felt, will tend
to exaggerate what percent did and didn't like the season.
Also, ghady disliked "Lessons", whereas, during the
first nine episodes of Season Seven, these boards were seeing
lots of positive comments, including how good "Lessons"
was. I fall into that camp myself. As such, judging whether ghady
will like the remainder of the season based on what other people
felt is probably not wise, as many of those other people liked
"Lessons".
[> [> Re: S7 and S4 -- DorianQ, 13:07:24 05/06/04
Thu
1) Well, it's a lot less standalone, but basically yeah. (a grain
of salt, I'm still bitter about it and there are a couple of pretty
good episodes like Conversations, Him, and Same Time.)
2)Yes! Hell Yes!!! In my opinion, the best season arc of either
show and second episode wise only to B2, and as good as B6, A2
and possibly this current season.
[> [> Painful Contrast -- dmw, 19:00:52 05/09/04
Sun
Agreed. It was a painful contrast to be watching AtS at its peak
and BtVS at its nadir last year. AtS4 was a flawed gem: some of
the grand plan just didn't make sense, and evil Cordy was a poor
rehash of the good guy goes bad plot that ME has overused, but
overall, it worked better than BtVS5, which is the season I think
it's most similar to.
Arrivederci, Roma (on ANGEL
5.20, "The Triangle" and the Perils of Self-Parody)
-- cjl, 11:04:24 05/06/04 Thu
Before I say anything else: I liked the episode. Didn't love it,
but DeKnight, Goddard and Greenwalt (yay!) did everything they
had to do and got out relatively unscathed. There were lots o'
laughs ("Gypsies--ptui!"), and lessons to be learned
by all, especially the audience. I must add, however, that I felt
uncomfortable for the length of episode, and this goes to the
perils of a long-time genre series exploring self-parody. (But
I'll deal with this later.)
First, the good stuff. Ah, (rolling "r") Roma! [Insert
expressive Italian gesture here] In this case, the legendary city
of decadence, the world capital of sybaritic night life and romance
curdled by cynicism. What a perfect locale for this week's shenanigans!
The flash of Spike and Dru dressed in 1959 Fellini chic was perfect,
as this entire episode fit in with the Maestro's fantasmagorical
epics about the lives of impossible men with their impossible
needs and the impossibilities of romance (see: La Dolce Vita,
8-1/2).
The episode was structured beautifully, with scarcely a wasted
moment. The concepts of chasing down past loves, of clinging to
a romantic ideal long gone, and the possibility (or impossibility)
of "moving on" was built into both the A and B plots
(with Buffy and Fred as the lost loves), each strengthening the
other. Just when the cartoonish antics of Angel and Spike threatened
to send my eyeballs rolling to the back of my head, DeKnight and
Goddard switched to the serious business of Wes and Fred/Illyria
in L.A., and reminded me that "yes, we do have a theme--pay
attention."
Is there any doubt now that Wes and Illyria are a bizarre sort
of love story? Usually, modern cinematic love stories are pallid
affairs, with painfully artificial barriers separating the couple
in question until the inevitable happy ending. (Love stories were
much easier in the days of classic cinema, when societal mores
were a more effective barrier.) But Wes and Fred/Illyria have
all the markings of a classic tragic love story, with a typically
pitch black Joss Whedon twist: Wes is mourning the death of the
woman he loved, even worshipped, and he cannot move on while the
thing that killed her is wearing his beloved's face. On the other
side, Illyria is lost, alone, and stranded in a world she doesn't
comprehend. She's still a pompous, arrogant god-thing, but she's
also infected with the memories of the woman she killed, and in
this episode, she reached out to Wes through her act of kindness
(there's no other word for it) for the Burkles. Wes apparently
has no hope of recreating Fred in Illyria; but Illyria sounded
a bit like T'Pol on Enterprise, willing to explore the feelings
she's picked up from Fred as a way of fitting in to her brave
new world. So who's really in control of Winifred Burkle's body?
Is Fred completely gone? Could this romance possibly work? I don't
know--it's dark, it's sick, and it makes Wes and Lilah look like
Ward and June Cleaver. But if this was supposed to be the payoff
for the boring Wes/Fred non-flirtation through S5, it was almost
worth it. (If only we had an S6 to explore this relationship fully.)
Now, on to the main love story....
No, not Buffy/The Immortal. Angel and Spike.
I've noticed that a number of fans are complaining about the placement
of a farcical episode in the antepenultimate slot. ("Couldn't
we have done this earlier? Shouldn't we be building up to the
conclusion of the freakin' series instead of wasting our time
watching Spike and Angel act like a couple of dickwads chasing
after Buffy?") While I sympathize with the sentiments, there
was no other place for this ep. The rivalry for Buffy's attention
was the last point of contention between Angel and Spike; now
that she's moved on and they've moved on (maybe), they can dive
into the coming apocalyptic battle from a position of complete
trust. (Unless, of course, Angel goes evil again.....)
Still, the "dickwad factor" does bother me. I've been
watching the adventures of Buffy and her crew for the past eight
years, and--apart from Xander--Spike and Angel are my boys. They're
tremendously complex characters, and watching them wander around
Rome, reduced to whiny, petulant adolescents pained me a little.
Yes, I realize that, when it comes to Buffy, Spike and Angel ARE
whiny, petulant adolescents--but this is something the writers
have built into them (perhaps as a hostile reaction to the 'shippiness
of Buffy fandom) to the detriment of the characters. It usually
doesn't grate on my nerves as much as it did this episode, but
such are the dangers when you exaggerate in the servce of self-parody.
Genre self-parody (in TV sci-fi/fantasy) is a tricky business.
You usually see it some time after Season 5, when the series creators
have blazed through their fecund creative period and have hit
the limits of their creation. They start to look at their brainchild
and notice the absudities of their fictional world. The trick,
of course, is to note these absurdities in a way that shows respect
for the characters; otherwise, the audience might assume that
the writers are simply getting sick of these characters--and if
that's the case, why should anybody bother watching anymore?
The history of self-parody in our favorite genre TV shows is a
mixed bag in this regard. "Storyteller" is a sore subject
for many Buffyphiles who feel that "little things" like
plot and screen time for BtVS regulars were sacrificed for jokey
self-referentiality and Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. True, "Storyteller"
could have tighter, and the winks at the audience did get out
of hand. But I thought it worked, mainly because the character
of Buffy wasn't treated any differently than in any other episode,
even through the funhouse lens of Andrew's camera. Xander, Anya
and Spike also had wonderful moments in this episode, moments
that fit their characters and even explored new ground. (I can't
say that about some of the other episodes in Season 7.)
Similarly, Stargate SG-1's "Wormhole X-Treme" (the 100th
episode--talk about tempting fate!) nearly drowned in pointless
self-referentiality, but was saved from Jump the Shark-ness by
the writers' respect for the main quartet. It helped that it's
part of Colonel Jack O'Neill's character to observe the preposterous
events of the series with a cocked eyebrow and a withering remark.
Watching the cheap-o cable TV knockoff of his own adventures was
no different, if a little weirder than usual...
On the other hand, I thought "Hollywood A.D." was the
beginning of the end of the X-Files. Written and directed by Duchovny,
it displayed (in gruesome detail) his mental exhaustion from the
daily grind of production and his intellectual divorce from the
concept of the series. The Frank Tashlin-style split-screens weren't
anywhere near as funny as they were in "Him"--and Skinner
in a bubble bath, talking production deals? Could somebody please
get a scouring pad in there and scrub the image out of my brain?
[Note: I don't remember Star Trek ever doing self-parody. Voyager
came close with "Bride of Chaotica!", but that parodied
the style of Trek's immediate predecessor, the Flash Gordon movie
serials of the 30s and 40s. Maybe Berman and his cohorts didn't
think the overly complicated mythology of the Federation could
take the hit.]
So where does "The Girl in Question" fall in this continuum?
Better written than "Storyteller" and "Wormhole
X-Treme" but not quite as respectful of its main characters,
although nowhere near as disrespectful as "Hollywood A.D."
Oh, one more thing....
The whole "moving on" theme? DeKnight specifically said
at Bronze Beta that he didn't mean to mock the fans' end-of-series
grief, but it was hard not to interpret it that way. Spike and
Angel ended the episode telling themselves they're ready to move
on--but even they didn't believe it.
I'm not ready, either.
Replies:
[> On further relfection... -- Pony, 11:34:41 05/06/04
Thu
I still didn't like it.
I think what we were seeing was a Xena style comedy episode
- where the series' regular rules of tone and characterization
are ditched for an episode to bring in the wacky. It exists apart
because it's supposed to be, you know, funny. The problem is ME's
always been known for blending in the comedy fairly seamlessly:
Storyteller has the points you mention and also used the device
of the video camera to move to broader comedy styles; Smile Time
had genuine horror; The Zeppo had big physical and emotional stakes
for Xander; Superstar offered an explanation for any out of character
behaviour within the episode and actually advanced the plotlines
of the season.
The trouble with farce is that it discourages emotional connection
with characters. It's hard not to wonder if this episode was DeKnight
and Goddard calling it a day, literally and emotionally.
[> [> Re: On further relfection...Spoilers through TGIQ
-- Arethusa, 11:59:29 05/06/04 Thu
We definitely are being pushed backwards from the tv screen to
take a different look at the characters. Maybe one point is while
Angel is saving the world in LA the world is chugging along without
them. Breaking the intense emotional connection the audience has
with the characters reveals that our world-saving Champions are
also a couple of guys who squabble over a girl who's made a new
life for herself, and who even forget that they're not the only
W&H office in the world. There's a bigger world out there than
the world of Angel and Spike's affairs (business and romantic).
And it's passing them by. In the bigger world they have no control,
they're manipulated and dismissed and dressed up in funny-looking
jacket. There's no place for them. I'm not sure if there's anything
to this, but when the persepective of the audience is widened
to include the whole world, Angel and Spike are revealed to have
a rather small place in it, much smaller than they should.
[> [> [> Re: On further relfection...Spoilers through
TGIQ -- Plin, 16:01:55 05/07/04 Fri
I absolutely agree with you here, Arethusa. And we get that same
benefit of a different lens focused on the past as well. In other
flashbacks we've seen, the Fanged Four were a fearsome group,
masters of all they surveyed, on top of the world (thinking of
the awesome power walk in Darla/Fool for Love).
Yet when we pull back a bit, we see that these same fierce vampires
could also be hamstrung in their skivvies while the Immortal had
his all-too-voluntary way with their womenfolk, and weren't cool
enough to get into his club. And there was also that bit with
the nuns... apparently, not everyone fell to his knees trembling
before the great and powerful Oz Angelus.
We're all the protagonists of our own world, seen through our
eyes. Storyteller showed us a different view of BtVS, but
one in which Buffy still remained at center stage. In The Girl
in Question, Angel and Spike aren't the protagonists at all,
at any stage of their long history. It makes us wonder just what
that means in terms of the apocalypse in progress: just how big
a role do they really have, on a global scale?
And from a meta standpoint, I think that's part of what has many
fans disturbed. They want to see their favorite characters running
the show, not playing Keystone Vamps, especially this late in
the game.
(Me, I liked it fine, once I could get past the horrifying accents.
Well, except Ilona, she was very good. As for the others, let
us speak of them no more. Spit.)
[> [> [> [> Re: On further reflection...Spoilers
through TGIQ -- Pony, 06:56:17 05/08/04 Sat
And from a meta standpoint, I think that's part of what has
many fans disturbed. They want to see their favorite characters
running the show, not playing Keystone Vamps, especially this
late in the game.
I'm all for knocking 'em down and I get your other points. However
the style of slapstick and nudging asides in this episode calls
attention to the show for what it is, a tv show - it demonstrates
the artificiality of the construct. Coming this late in the game
the dive into self-parody came as a big splash of cold water.
[> [> [> [> Re: On further relfection...Spoilers
through TGIQ -- Arethusa, 07:32:28 05/11/04 Tue
(I love the laissez-faire attitude of Ilona. I haven't giggled
so much in ages.)
The worst fate Angel imagined for himself during his parasitic-induced
hallucinations was to become unimportant and uncool. And that's
what happened in TGIQ. Angel's defined himself by his supernatural
identity for a long time, but who is he really? That's not a question
he's been willing to ask. He's paralled with Illyria here, with
her vaiglorious boasts and now-empty threats. Who is she without
her power? She isn't Illyria the goddess, but she's still a person,
and a member of the team, as potentially important and valuable
as anyone else. And so is Angel, Champion or not.
I'm getting the same feeling here that I had before Chosen. Then,
Buffy's power, which had always been the source of her strength,
was now her weakness. She had to give it up to reclaim it. And
now Angel's in a similar position; being a Champion has been the
source of his mission, his strength, but he's being swallowed
by it.
[> [> Re: On further relfection... -- Tyreseus, 16:31:11
05/06/04 Thu
I have to agree with you here, Pony.
I think what I personally disliked about the episode was that
there was nothing whatsoever subtle about it. The characters,
the message, the symbols (like "losing their head..."
I mean, come on), the Italian stereotypes and jokes... All of
it so blatant, over-the-top and obvious that I just couldn't connect
with the emotional truth of Angel & Spike.
On the other hand, I couldn't tear my eyes off Wesley and Illyria.
The episode left me wanting for so much. Did Angel and Spike ever
question the wisdom of working with W&R's Italian branch?
I mean, supposedly, Angel's the only one in the world not trying
to do evil. Did they ever question that they were being double
crossed by W&R Italy?
I can't excuse it as simply being a fun episode, Angel and Spike
were out of character. Even when the characters hated each other
the most in the past (BTVS season 2, the final episodes of BTVS
season 7), they still had more self-awareness than they showed
in this episode. I think cjl is right, this is self-parody - and
it sacrifices the character through line.
If this episode was meant to provide closure, it failed. But I
don't think closure was what they were aiming for.
Unanswered questions: So, did Andrew tell Buffy about Spike? Does
Buffy know he's back? Wouldn't a highly trained slayer have noted
the bar fight between two vampires and a couple of demons in the
club she was partying at? Wouldn't Buffy have been super-pissed
to find her two ex-boyfriends fighting? Does Buffy know that The
Immortal retrieved the head and sent it to Angel and Spike? (I
kept hoping we'd end with a one-sided conversation where Buffy
called up and we saw Angel's reaction as she chewed his ass out).
Were those women Andrew's fag hags? Who beat up Angel's agent
that was following Buffy?
Anyway, got all that out of my system, next I'll try seriously
breaking down the deeper meaning as Masq suggests.
Tyreseus
My updated
blog Site
[> [> [> Re: On further relfection... -- angel's
nibblet, 23:02:38 05/07/04 Fri
Were those women Andrew's fag hags?
Heh :-D Most probably...
[> Thanks for this -- Masq, 12:05:58 05/06/04 Thu
Let's get what this episode's trying to be out in the open so
we can move on with the deeper analysis.
Only it's hard to move on.
The whole "moving on" theme? DeKnight specifically
said at Bronze Beta that he didn't mean to mock the fans' end-of-series
grief, but it was hard not to interpret it that way.
Word.
[> Necessity of Buffy? (Spoiler - ANGEL 5.20, "The
Triangle") -- Dlgood, 12:15:22 05/06/04 Thu
The rivalry for Buffy's attention was the last point of contention
between Angel and Spike; now that she's moved on and they've moved
on (maybe), they can dive into the coming apocalyptic battle from
a position of complete trust.
As far as the external relationships they each have with Buffy,
nothing's changed since "Damage". Neither of them have
Buffy's attention before this episode, so the rivalry within
it, is as always, directed at each other such that she's not necessary
at all.
The real interesting issue, is why they need to know she's seeing
somebody before they can "move on". Which, BTW, wasn't
explored.
Because whether or not she's seeing somebody, she wasn't there.
The only new thing is that apparently they now get something it
seemed they already knew. That's why it felt like a waste.
[> [> Re: Necessity of Humor -- Buffalo, 19:50:53
05/07/04 Fri
Listen to the words of the Dean Martin tune that was the background
for the fight scene. Buffy did blow off Angel at the end of BTVS,
and Spike hesitated too damn long, if there was ever a chance.
Their leftover dislike for the Immortal One, whose moral character
was left as ambiguous as Andrew's sexual orientation, had made
them look silly when they were unambiguosly evil. As far as I
know really bad guys don't spend 150 years in a Tibetan Monestary.
Gut reaction: worked for me. The tear ducts will probably get
a good workout on the Wes Fredlyrriah storyline.
[> Uhm cjl? The jacket??(on ANGEL 5.20) -- s'kat, 14:11:02
05/06/04 Thu
And no, not Spike's "jacket", Angel's new one. That
bright multi-colored shiny red jacket that he felt uncomfortable
in and people rolled their eyes at?
Did it remind you of anything?
It was bugging me through the episode, until finally it hit me.
The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinquo - Angel is wearing the same
color scheme and same type of jacket that Cinquo wore when he
was a hero, similar design. Both Latin. One Spainish, One Italian.
Could be coincidence. But it was interesting.
[> [> Never a coincidence -- Ann, 14:30:30 05/06/04
Thu
Angel felt shame for that new jacket. That jacket of many colours.
Like Joseph and his techni-colour jacket. The four colours also
may represent the fanged four. It also reminded me of Michael
Jackson during the 80's with his one glove. A contrast of hands
and gloves and souls. One with a soul, one without. Angel wanted
to be part of the "fashionistas" (sp?), enjoying what
Italian W&H had to offer (and she certainly did), but once again
he is alone in his shame. At least, Spike's new jacket was basic
black. He wouldn't be embarrassed by it. Angel feels shame still
loving Buffy. He is embarrassed by his adolescent self. He wants
to be the hero but he is held back by trivial vain concerns. He
even mentions, that he has a girlfriend. See, I am valuable. This
episode that so many are divided on, represents Angel's need to
be one with himself. He doesn't want to be vain, he doesn't want
to be weak. He is a stranger in a strange land, again, and in
the end, as the camera angles showed so well, alone. The ghost
on the left hand of the father can't help either. He has his own
issues.
[> [> [> Another Jacket -- mamcu, 14:58:30
05/07/04 Fri
Good points.
Actually "The Triangle" brought to mind yet another
ME jacket--the one in "Him." Like "Triangle,"
that episode showed herioc characters reduced to silly teenagers
when they should have been past that. And to me, "Triangle"
was closer to "Him" than to "Storyteller"
in terms of being a break in plot and a dimunition of character
at a time that was perhaps not idea from a fan POV, but perhaps
in the big, big picture makes a kind of sense.
We're coming not only to the end of AtS but the end of the Jossverse
as we know it--no Buffy, no Firefly (until the movie!!!), no Angel.
It's a big loss, and maybe we need a little distancing to be ready
for the break. Maybe the writers do, who knows?
[> [> Good catch! -- Chani, 14:53:04 05/06/04
Thu
This episode was a comedy too, and kinda tragic at the same time...
I need to go to bed now, it's late here.
[> [> Honor and being a Champion(on ANGEL 5.20) and some
speculation -- Rufus, 17:38:17 05/06/04 Thu
The Cautionary tale of number five is always in my mind with this
season. One thing that I figure is that this year is all about
earning the honor that comes with being a hero or champion. I
watched The Last Samuri recently and could bring some ideas from
that movie over to this situation, number 5, and Angel. People
can f*ck up royally in their lives and the dreams the soldier
in Last Samuri and Angel's constant flashbacks make me remember
what the Watanabi character from Last Samuri said about not having
bad dreams unless you've done something you are ashamed of.
Number five is ashamed that he walked away from what his brothers
stood for, Angel is ashamed that of what he has done as a vampire
and some of what he has done ensoulled when he has walked away
from certain situations where he could have done the right thing
instead of just walking away (think about Judy from Are you now
or have you Ever Been and the lawyers he left to die). The soldier
in Last Samuri was involved in situations where the innocent were
killed and drank himself into what could become an early grave.
What happens to each man is that at some point they make the choice
to do the right thing and earn back their honor, be a real champion.
Number five stands up to the demon in a suicidal gesture that
was enough to have his brothers come take him home, Angel is in
the process of making choices that will become more clear in the
last episode (it could go either way folks), and the soldier in
Last Samuri stands up for a belief instead of running. Most characters
earn back their honor, become real heroes....except maybe Angel
of course....we'll know soon enough.
[> [> Re: Uhm cjl? The jacket??(on ANGEL 5.20) --
Dandy, 05:37:21 05/08/04 Sat
Taechnically, what Spike wears is not a 'jacket', it's a coat.
Jackets are short, coats are long.
Sheesh. I suppose I am the only one bothered by this but it sort
of goes to the sloppy feel of the episode.
Buffy's eyes aren't blue and I think 'the road' is a closer translation
for la strada than 'street'. especially with the ep's Fellini
references. The Fellini film "La Strada" is in the tradition
of road movies.
[> [> [> You're right Dandy -- Chani, 10:25:08
05/08/04 Sat
They kept doing mistakes in that episode...Does it mean
that their perception of reality is altered?
It's a coat not a jacket. In WWF Spike also wanted a jacket btw...and
there was the "jacket effect" of Him in BTVS, the one
that put the girls under a love spell so maybe there's a connection
here.
And "Strada" means road indeed...the word for street
is "via".
And Buffy's eyes are green!
[> [> [> Sheesh, nit-picky aren't we? (on ANGEL 5.20)
-- s'kat, 14:53:57 05/08/04 Sat
Sheesh, you people are nit-picky. And for a TV show no less, which
is written quickly, filmed quickly and edited quickly. Honestly,
we can nit-pick at every episode in the series. They aren't perfect.
And we can also nit-pick at every single post on this board -
no one writes perfect posts.
I call coats - jackets interchangably. That was my term, I don't
think they used that in the episode. I've seen it three times
and don't remember it. Does this matter? And see my response below
on blue eyes. (Basically I have hazel eyes which to me and friends
always appear green, but I have numerous people insist they are
blue directly to my face, doesn't surprise me that Angel would
think or remember Buffy with blue eyes - happens to me all the
time.)
[> [> [> [> Let's say for a moment that the writers
at ME aren't stoopid. -- Dandy, 05:01:44 05/10/04 Mon
The more I think about this the more I think the mistakes may
have been intentional. As a former wardrobe person I know I would
have pointed out the difference between a coat and a jacket to
the powers that be. ME translates everything from Chinese to Swahili
so a very common word of Italian should pose no problem. A good
script person or at the very least JM, who has done a load of
love scenes with the woman, should know the color of SMG's eyes.
So, why the mistakes?
Let's start with the difference between jacket and coat. A quick
google brings up second meanings besides the short/long difference
in outergarments. A jacket is also "an outer wrapping or
casing", while coat also means "to form a coat over,
furnish with a surface."
The difference is that a jacket always remains a seperate entity
while a coat fuses with the object it coats, becomes one with
it.
Spike's 'coat' is part of his identity, his slaying of slayers
as the unsoulled Spike is fused to him. By it's destruction and
replacement with a 'jacket', he is freed from his past identity
as the slayer of just defenders. He now wears his outergarment,
it does not wear him.
Angel is given the colors of a champion, a fighter, the Number
5 as his jacket. He is suited for battle.
The La Strada mistake points to the Fellini film, the story of
a bumbling macho entertainer who cannot see the love in front
of his face becasue he is so clouded with ego and macho posturing.
Isn't this what we see with Angel and Spike? Is this really about
the 'real' Buffy? Or is she simply a prize, a point of contention
between them like the cup of Mountain Dew?
What is the tip-off that both are involved with a fantasy of Buffy?
Neither one can remember her eye color correctly! Angel calls
her blue-eyed and Spike, always ready to one-up Angel doesn't
correct him. He doesn't know either! They are so involved in the
process of competing for Buffy that neither one of them stops
to take stock of their real feelings for the woman. Do they even
know who she is anymore? Would they like who Buffy is now or do
they really want her to remain that shining blond head in the
distance, sparkling and unattainable like the pot of gold at the
end of the rainbow?
[> [> [> [> [> It's Glaucus vs Lorenzaccio!
-- Chani, 06:21:13 05/10/04 Mon
Spike's 'coat' is part of his identity, his slaying of slayers
as the unsoulled Spike is fused to him. By it's destruction and
replacement with a 'jacket', he is freed from his past identity
as the slayer of just defenders.
Thank you Dandy, you said it better than I could! Also a jacket
would be just a prop whereas the coat was his second skin. The
coat was the metaphor of Spike's evil side, he left it when he
went to fight for his soul and put it on again when Buffy asked
him to. The jacket can be easily taken off...no big deal. That
makes me think of the dichotomy between Glaucus by Plato and Lorenzaccio
by Alfred de Musset!
On one hand, there's the statue of Glaucus. The condition of the
soul is allegorized in the myth of the sea-god Glaucus, in the
Republic (611b-612a). Here the soul, in the figure of Glaucus,
is spoken of as fragmented, maimed, and covered with the briny
deposits of the sea, just as the soul is, in its lifetime, covered
by the clinging and demanding flesh of the body. In order for
the soul to see itself as it truly is, and most of all, to see
divine Reason, it must be lifted up out of this "barbaric
bog". The point is that the bog can be removed, that the
statue can be restored. Redemption is possible!
"to know [the true nature of the soul] we must view it.
. .in the light of reason. . .when it is purified, and then you
will find it to be a far more beautiful thing and will more clearly
distinguish justice and all the matters that we have now discussed.
But though we have stated the truth of its present. . .condition
as we have contemplated it. . ..[its appearance] resembles that
of the sea-god Glaucus whose first nature can hardly be made out.
. .because the original members of his body are broken off and
mutilated and crushed. . .marred by. . ..accretions of shells
and seaweed and rocks. . .[made to] look more like any wild creature
than what he was by nature--even such, I say, is our vision of
the soul marred by countless
evils. . ." (Republic, X:611b-c).
Angel was very Glaucus-like until season 5, and he also has been
in the bottom of the sea as the statue of the god!
On the other hand, Lorenzaccio tells the journey of a tragic
hero who has lost himself and claims spiritual dirt for himself
alone. In Musset's romantic play, Lorenzo de Medici made a scheme
to kill the Duke, Alexandre de Medici, and thus liberate Florence
from tyranny. But the price to pay was staggering. Lorenzo's moral
and even physical integrity are definitely lost. To gain the confidence
of the Duke, his perverse cousin, Lorenzo has had to live in the
intimacy of an obscene man, wallowing in universal promiscuity
and becoming himself a panderer for the sexual pleasures of the
master. The mask he had to wear has became his face. Now the murder
of the Duke is his exclusive, secret affair, and his last chance
to regain virtue and honor, at least in his own eyes.
Lorenzaccio's confession to Philippe Strozzi (Act III, iii) reminds
me of Spike who knew he couldn't undo what he has done ("Beneath
You"), who told Buffy what he was capable of ("Never
Leave Me") and who said eventually that he had to do the
cleaning alone in "Chosen".
The old Lorenzo was pure once upon a time but dreamt of an "effulgent"
destiny: being a new Brutus! Now he is lost, unlike Glaucus, because
of what he has done and seen, and Lorenzaccio has a beautiful
way to say that it's too late: "Le vice a été
pour moi un vêtement ; maintenant il est collé à
ma peau" ("vice was an outergarment for me, now
it sticks to my skin")
By destroying the coat and getting a "jacket" (numerous
jackets), Spike stop being Lorenzaccio-like.
He now wears his outergarment, it does not wear him.
LOL! Shall I tell you the OutergarmentWoman?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, my new motto --
Dandy *I wear my outergarment, it does not wear me*, 11:53:52
05/10/04 Mon
Thank you, Chani for your lovely and eloquent tales of yore.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you for those two
in-depth and wonderful posts, Dandy and Chani -- s'kat (who
won't use jacket/coat interchangably again), 13:58:23 05/10/04
Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> Great posts, Dandy, Chani!
Love your new motto ;) -- Jane, 17:45:19 05/10/04 Mon
[> Well said! -- Chani, 14:49:33 05/06/04 Thu
May I just share a few thoughts about the epi and the so-called
triangle? Sorry in advance for my bad English.
There might be a deeper meaning under the farce.
Ats isn't about Buffy. With that episode, JW reminded us that
truth, both characters may have the same Dulcinea (That episode
calls to mind Shakespeare and S'Kat pointed it out wonderfully
but it also reminds me of Don Quixote by Cervantes) but their
current life, their actual journey isn't about Buffy. By the way
they kept losing their head in Italy, putting their head in "great
danger", making fools of themselves and they only found their
head back when they came back to W&H in L.A! What a pun!
It isn't the right time to dream about their lady love, it's time
to keep one's head on one's shoulders (sorry for this awful translation
from the French phrase "avoir la tête sur les épaules"
which means to be well balanced, reasonable)and face The Apocalypse.
Andrew plays the voice of reason here...or maybe it's the voice
of a "higher power"...as the buxom CEO of W&H hinted!
Angel is totally wrong when he says "it isn't about us"during
the flight...au contraire! It isn't anything but about them and
about their relationship. Saving Fred-in-distress in THOTW was
the first step towards this partnership, saving "a"
Buffy-in-supposed-distress
was the second step. Twice they failed but the goal wasn't what
really mattered...the journey is only what matters!
Another interesting bit...look at the way Darla and Dru described
the Immortal, their perception of him...it's just like the sum
of Angel AND Spike, Angel PLUS Spike, both their skills and their
journeys in one being called the Immortal.
The Immortal was an archetype built from their stories and from
the fans' analysises on boards (the expression "wild card"
has been used a lot about Spike on several boards for instance!).
The Immortal is Angel and he is Spike, hence his orgy with Darla
and Dru...he could do them at the same time because basically
he's both vampires. So they couldn't meet him nor see him because
they couldn't face themselves!
Joss is playing with mirrors again...
And now it makes sense for me that "a" Buffy fell for
him and I don't see it anymore as a lame plot or a bashing against
Buffy's character, or even a betrayal. The * Buffy/The Immortal
couple that cannot be seen in this episode* is a simple "mise
en abîme" of her
relationship with our heroes. She loved them both, Andrew gave
us a clue there, so she's with the Immortal.
Once more this episode turns out to be better than what I thought
when I read the sides and the summary. It's probably even better
than if SMG had appeared!
One last thing...about Andrew.
Don't you think that the Italian Demon sounds a bit like Andrew
btw?
I mean he's like a demony italian version of the old Andrew (having
a crush on the Immortal as Andrew had a crush on Spike).
I also wonder if Andrew could be like the new conduit to the PTBs
ala Doyle...he seems to know a lot of things and to hide things,
he seems to tell them only what they need to be told...in order
to make them fight together instead of fighting against each others.
At the end of the day, by joining their strength they're becoming
the sum of their skills, beyond than simple vampires so they're
turning into The Immortal! And one day, one of them might get
the girl...
and in the end only one of them will survive!!! Oops sorry wrong
show! *g*
Chani
[> [> Excellent points! -- Traveler, 16:50:12
05/06/04 Thu
It's particularly interesting how you related Spike/Angel to the
Darla/Dru orgy and the reason for their hatred of the Immortal.
I have an alternative idea, though. Maybe Spike and Angel are
jealous of the Immortal because he represents the quality to each
of them that the other has. In other words, Angel is jealous of
Spike's wildness and unpredictability, while Spike envies Angel's
culture and poise.
[> [> Excellent points! -- Traveler, 16:52:40
05/06/04 Thu
It's particularly interesting how you related Spike/Angel to the
Darla/Dru orgy and the reason for their hatred of the Immortal.
I have an alternative idea, though. Maybe Spike and Angel are
jealous of the Immortal because he represents the quality to each
of them that the other has. In other words, Angel is jealous of
Spike's wildness and unpredictability, while Spike envies Angel's
culture and poise.
[> [> The bash against Buffy's character? -- dlgood,
10:25:53 05/07/04 Fri
And now it makes sense for me that "a" Buffy fell
for him and I don't see it anymore as a lame plot or a bashing
against Buffy's character, or even a betrayal. The * Buffy/The
Immortal couple that cannot be seen in this episode* is a simple
"mise en abîme" of her relationship with our heroes.
She loved them both, Andrew gave us a clue there, so she's with
the Immortal.
But that is the bash. Because, if we recall, the lesson of "Chosen"
was that Buffy wanted to take time to explore who she was, and
that Angel and Spike had to learn to accept that she had the rights
to choose who she wanted to be with, or with nobody at all.
If she is supposed to be moving on, pairing her with a character
that represents both Angel and Spike doesn't seem to do that anywhere
better than having her content on her
own would.
And it subverts the messages Angel and Spike absorbed in "Chosen"
and "Destiny" to have them only accept independence
and "moving on" from the already absent Buffy when they
can once again define her in terms of which man possesses her.
Rather than in terms of Buffy, independent in and of herself.
[> [> [> Re: The bash against Buffy's character?
-- Dandy, 05:21:52 05/08/04 Sat
So essentially, nobody has moved on, not Buffy, Spike or Angel.
[> [> [> Maybe they weren't supposed to move on
-- Chani, 10:36:45 05/08/04 Sat
I don't think that the lesson of Chosen was about moving on, but
about free will. Buffy got rid of the Calling by sharing her power,
she chose instead of being the Chosen One, the girls became what
they could be instead of being called, but that didn't
mean that at the end of the day Buffy was meant to move on or
change.
Besides TGIQ is more about Spangel and about the way they all
"picture" Buffy than about her character (for instance
Angel sees her with blue eyes while her eyes are green!). It would
be different if Buffy/SMG had actually made an appearance.
Well...just my opinion of course.
[> [> [> [> Regarding blue eyes.. -- s'kat,
14:45:57 05/08/04 Sat
Besides TGIQ is more about Spangel and about the way they all
"picture" Buffy than about her character (for instance
Angel sees her with blue eyes while her eyes are green!).
This controversary amuses me. Why? Well throughout my life people
have told me, actually insisted while looking into my eyes that
they are blue. (They aren't - when I look in the mirror they are
the exact same shade as SMG/Buffy's eyes, green flecked with brown
- or gray.) Other's see green or gray. And no I'm not color blind
nor are they.
Hazel eyes take on the color of what you are wearing often.
They change color - and depending on the viewer can appear gray,
blue, green at any given moment. So it does not surprise me that
Angel may have remembered blue eyes.
Believe me - I have on my license - "green", but friends
and family like to insist at different points gray or blue.
If you have "blue eyes" or "brown eyes" that
don't change you have no clue what this is like.
[> [> [> [> This is totally silly, possibly pointless,
and probably inflammatory, but... -- Ixchel ;), 17:28:04
05/08/04 Sat
Aren't _Darla's_ eyes blue?
I know, I'm evil. ;P
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> Ohh.... I thought the same thing
-- JM, 17:45:45 05/08/04 Sat
I always thought after Angel S2 that one of the reasons for Angel's
love at first sight was that she was a redeemed Darla. Totally
kick-ass and in charge, mothering his new state of being, but
totally good. How Oedipal.
PS OT I'm so envious of green eyes. It's so recessive. My mom's
green, my dad blue. All four of us kids have blue. (Three pretty
blue, mine kind of changeable by outfit not very pretty blue.)
The first thing we look for in the grandkids is the green eyes.
(After ten fingers, etc.) So far no green nieces but we keep hoping,
next one in a couple of months. Of course we'll never tell them:-)
They're all beautiful.
[> [> [> [> [> [> JM, that makes all kinds
of sense... -- Ixchel, 09:15:00 05/09/04 Sun
I think I've thought something similar, but in a fuzzier, less
concise way. I agree with you completely.
OT - The most dazzling eyes I've ever seen are a coworkers, a
pale, icy green - like a color from inside a glacier. They're
very beautiful.
Ixchel
[> [> [> why assume (spoilers for "the girl in
question")... -- anom, 19:24:28 05/08/04 Sat
....that Buffy's involvement w/The Immortal means she's finished
exploring who she is?
"If she is supposed to be moving on, pairing her with a character
that represents both Angel and Spike doesn't seem to do that anywhere
better than having her content on her own would."
I'm not so sure The Immortal represents Spike & Angel so much
as what they both wish they could be: accepted everywhere, loved
even; immortal, not just undead; apparently more mysterious than
they ever managed to be (after all, we never see him either)...& with
Buffy when they can't be.
"And it subverts the messages Angel and Spike absorbed in
'Chosen' and 'Destiny' to have them only accept independence and
'moving on' from the already absent Buffy when they can once again
define her in terms of which man possesses her. Rather than in
terms of Buffy, independent in and of herself."
Being cookie dough doesn't mean Buffy can't let someone have a
taste before she's done baking. Angel & Spike may think in terms
of The Immortal's "possessing" Buffy, but Buffy doesn't
necessarily; that may be the very attitude they need to "move
on" from. She never said she was going to save herself for
whoever she decided would enjoy her warm, delicious cookie self
until she was done baking. "Buffy, independent in & of herself,"
can decide who to be with & for how long. If her exes can't imagine
that, that's their problem. Plenty of people think they've accepted
something they don't like but find they haven't absorbed that
message as well as they thought when they're faced w/the consequences.
[> [> [> [> Good point, anom. My thoughts as well.
-- Jane, 21:39:14 05/08/04 Sat
[> [> [> [> Some agreement -- Dlgood, 22:56:22
05/08/04 Sat
Being cookie dough doesn't mean Buffy can't let someone have
a taste before she's done baking.
Oh, I agree with your opinion about the situation, Anom.
The episode is very clear to keep linking Buffy as "moving
on" and "baking" to the confirmation that she's
linked to a love interest. She can bake single, she can bake alone.
Given what ME seemed to indicate were Buffy's priorities at the
close of S6 and S7 - it's odd that they prioritize a romantic
relationship to Buffy simply getting to spend time with Dawn,
and in helping out new slayers.
Further, I just don't know that what you comment on is what the
episode is saying (though I wish I could) - because it didn't
actually address Spike or Angel facing the issues in their relationship
with Buffy that actually cause them to be seperate when they would
wish to be with her.
Angel is not with Buffy because, even if she announced that she
was "done baking" and wanted him, he still suffers the
curse. And with Spike, the fundamental obstacle seems to be that
she doesn't really seem to want to be with him all that much.
In showing them wrapped around the axle over who owns the rights
to Buffy, ME never gets around to the question of -What Buffy
actually wants- (something they seemed to have largely avoided
exploring since early BtS-5). Nor does ME get back to the primary
factors underlining why Angel and Spike aren't with her.
It's not simply that A & S don't seem to get it. The writing can't
seem to get it either.
[> I hated Storyteller more than this episode (whatever
it was called) bored me -- Jay, 20:57:05 05/06/04 Thu
I'll probably re-watch it at some point. But I have no idea when.
I do know that I'll never waste my time on Storyteller again.
As Johnny Carson used to say, "they all can't be winners,
folks."
Kill Andrew.
[> Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head (spoilers for ANGEL
5.20) -- cjl, 22:51:22 05/08/04 Sat
Tyreseus said: "I think what I personally disliked about
the episode was that there was nothing whatsoever subtle about
it. The characters, the message, the symbols, the Italian stereotypes
and jokes... All of it so blatant, over-the-top and obvious that
I just couldn't connect with the emotional truth of Angel & Spike.
"Angel and Spike were out of character. Even when the characters
hated each other the most in the past, they still had more self-awareness
than they showed in this episode. I think cjl is right, this is
self-parody - and it sacrifices the character through-line."
****************************************************
When discussing "The Girl in Question" during out usual
bull session, I was trying to explain to shadowkat why I was so
uncomfortable with parts of the episode. What made my discomfort
so difficult to explain was that none of the usual excuses applied:
it wasn't Angel and Spike tripping all over their mutual blind
spot (Buffy), because that's always been part of their characters;
it wasn't their "continuity porn"-laden arguments over
who saved the world the most (because that was freakin' hilarious);
and it wasn't the ripping of the 'shipping, because I've been
waiting for THAT for a loooooong time.
I think Tyreseus' comments come closest to hitting the mark. There
was absolutely nothing subtle about this episode; it was loud,
obvious, and yes, occasionally hilarious, but the farcical style
of the Spike/Angel scenes precluded an emotional connection with
the characters. Goddard, DeKnight and Greenwalt needed to "dial
it back" a notch because Spike and Angel were going through
an unlife-altering experience, and it would have been nice to,
you know, share it with them.
Perhaps a comparison is in order. (Spoilers for "Butch Cassidy
and the Sundance Kid" ahead; if you've never seen the movie,
and you think you might want to watch it, maybe you should skip
the next section.)
Channel 13 in New York showed George Roy Hill's 1969 classic "Butch
Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" tonight. (In widescreen format--yee
hah!) Butch Cassidy is probably my favorite western, beating out
"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" and "The Searchers."
It's a magnificently shot, bitingly witty elegy to the outlaws
of the Old West. (And Newman and Redford ain't bad, either.)
The movie is basically the final year in the lives of the title
characters. Their glory days of robbin' banks and railroad cars
are recapped over the credits, projected as faux newsreel footage
on a tiny movie screen within a screen. From there, it's all downhill.
Early on, Butch and Sundance take shelter with an old friend,
now a sheriff, who hides them from a frightening, relentless sextet
of lawmen who have been hunting them down since their last train
robbery. The sheriff incredulously listens to Butch and Sundance
blather about a possible "truce" with the U.S. government,
then gives his brutal assessment of the situation: the boys have
their talents, but their time is over. The world has moved past
them. (Any of this sound familiar?) They've accumulated too much
bad karma and they don't have the savvy to adapt. A bloody death
awaits them--it's just a matter of where.
Butch and Sundance's fate is set: The rest of the movie simply
fills in the details. Our heroes devote an enormous amount of
money and energy to shift their base of operations (to Bolivia!),
but they're only postponing the inevitable. They recapture a dim
reflection of the glory years, but their revisiting of old patterns
and old vices eventually leads to the bloody shootout with the
Bolivian police that sends them off into history.
Throughout the movie, Butch and Sundance are consistently outsmarted
and outmaneuvered. Every move they make slides them further into
their coffins, i.e., the final battle in Bolivia. But even though
the characters' limitations and self-delusions are on display
in every frame of the movie, I never lose empathy for Butch and
Sundance. I feel their discomfort and aggravation when they realize
the rules of the game have changed; the love and respect they
feel for Etta Place; and the subtle terror behind the bravado
when the metaphorical walls start closing in.
I wanted to feel the some of those same emotions for Angel and
Spike, but DeKnight, Goddard and Greenwalt simply would not let
me in.
[> [> Exactly -- Pony, 09:18:34 05/09/04 Sun
[> [> raindrops? felt more like anvils -- anom, cowering
under a tiny, inadequate umbrella, 09:19:37 05/09/04 Sun
"I think Tyreseus' comments come closest to hitting the mark.
There was absolutely nothing subtle about this episode; it was
loud, obvious, and yes, occasionally hilarious, but the farcical
style of the Spike/Angel scenes precluded an emotional connection
with the characters."
That's pretty much what I meant when I said it was a cartoon.
We may love Bugs & Daffy, but do we feel an emotional connection
w/them? (OK, maybe some of us do....)
That connection was also closed off by the characters' own weird
attitude toward the whole situation. I certainly didn't get any
feeling of the 2 vamps' love for Buffy, or even of any real emotional
hurt they were feeling at the thought that she'd "moved on"
from them...hell, not even that they were using the funny to cover
up the hurt. That's why anvils are funny in real cartoons: not
an ounce of subtlety to them, but nobody really gets hurt. That
foot-high lump on the top of the head goes away by the next scene.
Maybe they should've gone all the way, like in Smile Time, & actually
made those scenes animated...I might've liked to see that, just
to see if they could pull it off. (No, not really.)
At least this episode's anvils were metaphorical. The bomb was
all too literal (although from some viewers' reaction, it may
have been a metaphor for the ep itself). A digital time bomb...nice
to see Acme Corp. has kept up w/the times.
[> [> [> I thought I saw some of their emotional bond...
(spoilers AtS 5.20) -- Ixchel, 21:32:28 05/09/04 Sun
With Buffy in their final scene with Andrew. When Andrew stated
that Buffy loves them both, there are reaction shots from Angel
and Spike that seem to have far more depth than the rest of the
episode (exclusive of the Wesley/Illyria portion). Angel seems
sad and thoughtful (and something else, ashamed?) and then glances
toward Spike. Spike appears sad also with some tentative, underlying
happiness. I believe this brief moment speaks more to their respective
feelings about Buffy than the earlier posturing and bickering
does (JMHO).
Otherwise, I agree with your (and cjl's, and Tyreseus') comments.
Ixchel
[> [> Numero Cinco and Elements of Farce(spoilers for
ANGEL 5.20) -- s'kat, 15:14:18 05/10/04 Mon
On another forum I discovered two quotes that I believe explain
why I loved this episode and continue to disagree with what is
stated above.
Numero Cinco: This is how my brothers are remembered, what
their good deeds earned. They sacrificed their lives as heroes,
and it is played out as a farce.
(From The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco, ATS 5.6, an
episode if you will recall that had the audience equally split
- half despised it with fiery vengeance and half adored it. Several
people had no idea what the point of it was. Check the archives.
This again proves our personal experiences and background play
a huge role in how we view things and criticism largely is just
a matter of opinion.)
Numero Cinco's comment reminds me of the comments stated in the
posts above about how the characters of Angel, Spike and even
Buffy come off in a negative, out of character way.
Are made to be fools or dickwads or idiots. In a sense, you are
stating the same thing Numero Cinco is stating in that auditorium
watching the play of his brothers' lives:"This is how our
writers want us to view our favorite characters in the third to
final episode? As a farce? How dare they!"
The comments by cjl and Tyserus about how this is self-parody,
you can't connect, you are laughing at, echo Numero Cinco's annoyance
and disdain for how his brothers are remembered, not as heros
but fools. In fact it is almost as if you are Numero Cinco, watching
the screen looking at Angel and Spike the way he looks at those
wrestlers in the ring, as Angel stands beside him echoing the
champion speech from Deep Down. So annoyed. Again, how dare they!
Are they making fun of us? Mocking themselves? Is this self-parody?
It must be! Ah, but is it? Or is it something else?
Why did the writers put the audience in the position of Numero
Cinco?
A definition of farce:
As applied to drama the term derives from the OF farce, 'stuffing'.
The object of farce is to provoke mirth of the simplest and
most basic kind: roars of laughter rather than smiles. It
is a matter, therefore, of humour rather than wit..... The
basic elements of farce are: exaggerated physical action (often
repeated), exaggeration of character and situation, absurd situations
and improbable events (even impossible ones and therefore fantastic),
and surprises in the form of unexpected appearances and disclosures.
In farce, character and dialogue are nearly always subservient
to plot and situation. The plot is usually complex and events
succeed one another with almost bewildering rapidity.... The
first plays to be described as farces were French and belong to
the late Middle Ages. The 'stuffing' consisted of comic interludes
between scenes in religious or liturgical drama.....The English
Mystery Plays also contain comic interludes and these (as, occasionally,
in France) were provided with demonic and grotesque figures behaving
in a buffoonish manner, gambolling about and letting off fireworks.
(The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory,
4th Edition)
Farce is often employed to show us the hilarity of what we take
oh so seriously. Our heros. Our ideals. And it has always been
controversial - since farce if done well will equally offend and
amuse the watcher. Some watchers can be so offended they will
turn away as does Numero Cinco in abject pain. No one ever said
comedy came without pain. The best comedy is the most painful.
That's why every comic on earth has had to deal with hecklers
at one point or another.
Something that pushes one person's funny bone will likely offend
another. Just as the wrestlers in the ring in The Cautionary Tale
of Numero Cinco, who seemed so silly, so absurd, out of character
in fact in regards to who these people really were, amused you
but insulted Cinco because Cinco knew the real thing and was mourning
its loss. Insults - Cinco states. Comedy if you think about it
is more often than not insulting. It pokes fun at the sacred.
If you watch farce with the view of connecting to the character
or even honoring them, you are bound to be offended. Farce is
not wit. It is not subtle. It is not nice. It is meant to be overblown.
And it is not for everyone. The playwrite, Moliere was an expert
at farce. Tom Stoppard certainly dabbled with Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern. Mel Brooks did it quite a bit with films such as
The Producers and To Be or Not to Be. And the old WB cartoons
have elements of farce as well.
So why did ME do a farcial episode this late in the game? Why
at all? Well..I think the answer is in the Cautionary Tale
of Numero Cinco. And in Connor's line at the end of Origin:
"You really need to lighten up." The point of
farce is to lighten up. If you can laugh at it - you can see how
ridiculous the situation is, then you can go on that one more
day. That's how the episode worked for me at least, it made me
realize how farcial our situations are, how ridiculous life truly
is, and how taking it so seriously ...just ends with you playing
mail room guy slouched, depressed drinking yourself to sleep each
night without enough heart for even a demon to grab.
Sometimes when we stand outside the characters and outside our
own situations, we can see them more clearly. Numero Cinco certainly
began to. But he had to first get past the feeling of being insulted.
He had to get outside his longing for what might have been or
used to be. Angel and Spike are not unlike Numero Cinco in this
respect, nor is Wes, they are longing for what might have been
or used to be, they, like Numero Cinco are running in place, rehashing
the same plots over and over again in their heads making them
more glorious with each retelling. In Girl in Question we are
shown just how silly this truly is and how farcial.
That's my view of the episode for what it's worth. I seriously
doubt I'll change anyone's mind this late in the game, assuming
people are still reading. Comedy is an odd thing. And as another
wise soul mentioned on another forum - explaining a joke that
someone else didn't get is well-nigh impossible. And futile. If
you didn't find it funny - the joke did not work. If you did,
there's no way you can explain why to those who didn't get it.
The above is my somewhat futile attempt at explaining what I felt
and still feel is a very funny joke. But I accept the fact that
it may be impossible to explain.
Comedy hits everyone differently. Tolerating the fact it does
is the tricky part, I think. But then tolerating each others differences
is always tricky. ;-)
[> [> [> Re: Numero Cinco and Elements of Farce(spoilers
for ANGEL 5.20) -- Jane, 17:51:40 05/10/04 Mon
Oh, thank you s'kat! This is good. I feel much better about liking
the episode now; I was beginning to wonder if I was totally out
of it. I agree that the best comedy has an underlay of pain, and
that what one person finds funny and/or farcical may fall completely
flat for someone else. As you say, if you don't get the joke,
no amount of explanation will make a difference.
[> [> [> Re: Numero Cinco and Elements of Farce(spoilers
for ANGEL 5.20) -- Arethusa, 07:07:13 05/11/04 Tue
That's a great and I think accurate observation.
After the episode I found myself thinking how Angel thinks he
has the weight of the world on his shoulders, but the world is
progressing without him. Maybe he will need to realize that he
isn't Atlas, and Lorne was right when he said "how
about a shrug"?
And there was another mindwipe that might not have been necessary-IWARY.
Angel thought he was too important to become human. The game he's
playing-is it the Champion game, where he's a bone or a puppet
to be fought over by the Higher Powers/Demons? And will he do
what Lindsey did-remove himself from their game?
[> [> [> Addendum regarding citations -- s'kat,
19:43:21 05/11/04 Tue
The quotes from Numero Cinco (which came from ATS 5.6)
and the definition of farce were first cited in a post
by macha on www.teaatheford.com.
Here's the cite - which hopefully will be public soon.
http://www.teaattheford.net/viewpost.php?id=19715
The bit about a joke being impossible to explain was mentioned
by Klymenstra also on teaatheford.
Hypothetical question to
all board members -- Traveler, 20:57:21 05/06/04 Thu
How much would you pay, if it would guarantee another season of
Angel?
Personally, I'd pay $50 without blinking, and I might even go
up to $100. (This is not a competition; please be honest).
Replies:
[> Re: Hypothetical question to all board members --
Duell, 21:06:53
05/06/04 Thu
I might actually double that. There has been too much brought
up this season and I fear that they will never be able to wrap
everything up.
[> Hypothetically, -- mrsubjunctive, 22:38:56 05/06/04
Thu
$35ish, but on the condition that I would then get the DVDs for
free. My logic being that I am already willing to buy the DVD
sets, which is me paying for a season of "Angel," and
if this plus me being willing to sit through their ads
isn't enough, then phooey on them.
[> [> $50 - %100 -- Seven, 06:31:53 05/07/04 Fri
that would be money well spent, but anything more....
[> [> [> ha! I meant $100 of course! -- seven,
06:33:05 05/07/04 Fri
[> [> Re: Hypothetically, -- Traveler, 10:18:36
05/07/04 Fri
No offense, but I'm counting that as "$0." I'm trying
to get an idea of what the show is worth to people as it is (on
the air, with commercials, etc). In other words, what would you
pay to continue getting exactly what you have been getting?
[> [> [> None taken. -- mrsubjunctive, 10:27:20
05/07/04 Fri
But counting it as $0 is probably about right.
Maybe $1.50 if I'm in a really good mood.
[> When the cancellation was first announced, I seriously
suggested that... -- OnM, 07:55:16 05/07/04 Fri
.... season 6 be issued direct-to-DVD, bypassing the network entirely.
And, the averge seasonal boxed set has been about $50 -$60 dollars
US, so I'd certainly pay that. Plus, bonus-- no commercials!
But a lot of folks would have to buy the DVD for that plan
to work, considering the cost of the show, and so to help offset
that I'd probably go up to $75 or $80.
[> [> Re: When the cancellation was first announced,
I seriously suggested that... -- Traveler, 10:15:26 05/07/04
Fri
I'm trying to get a consistent idea of what monetary value the
show has for people. When you throw in DVD's, etc, it clouds the
base issue. Let me rephrase the question: how much would you pay
for Angel to stay on the air, commercials and all?
[> [> [> In that case, I'd have to say I pretty much
agree with Bjerkley's response -- OnM, 17:03:12 05/08/04
Sat
The whole point of the commercials is to pay for the show. It's
similar to the intense dislike I feel when I go to see a movie
(which I pay for right up front) and then get forcibly subjected
to 20 minutes (or even 5 minutes) of commercials prior to the
screening. (Trailers are OK, I'm talking actual advertisements).
Now, if the show moved over to Showtime or HBO, I would say that
I'd be willing to subscribe to said network even if the only
show I watched was Angel. So, what would that be-- 24 or
so eps would be about $12/month x 6 months = $72.
Is that any better?
[> [> [> [> Re: In that case, I'd have to say I
pretty much agree with Bjerkley's response -- Traveler, 18:11:09
05/08/04 Sat
I'm still counting you at $0, although ironically Bjerkley has
modified his response. The issue at stake is not one of fairness.
WB is not an organization of philanthropists. It is a business,
and this cancellation means that it thinks "Angel" isn't
worth the cost. Quality is irrelevant.
Thus, we are the vocal minority in an age of demographics and
mass voting. The only thing that would give "Angel"
an edge over shows like "Friends" is if its fans were
willing to put their money where their mouth is. In essence, I
believe the only way we could save "Angel" is by lobbying
for it the old fashioned political way. Don't get me wrong; I
understand where you are coming from and I respect your views,
but I'm just calling it how I see it.
[> [> [> [> [> Politics, War, and Perky Nipples
-- OnM, 09:57:57 05/09/04 Sun
A fair warning right up front-- this post could be seen
as being a) very negative and b) possibly politically
ranty. Kindly procede at your own risk!
Also, to Traveler: Be assured that I am, in no way shape or form,
picking on you for any reason. Actually,
I admire your attitude. Recent headlines and news reports mean
that I'm just feeling like I need a little medication
at the moment, and my keyboard happens to be my drug of choice.
- - - - - - -
*** The issue at stake is not one of fairness. WB is not an
organization of philanthropists. It is a business, and
this cancellation means that it thinks "Angel" isn't
worth the cost. Quality is irrelevant. ***
Your last three words are, unfortunately, representative of the
crux of the matter. I'm afraid that I mostly adhere
to the admittedly cynical view that for the major commercial TV
networks, quality is indeed of no importance
unless it accidentally accompanies a successful program. At such
time that it does, 'quality' become merely
another handy marketing tool.
The kicker is, what you and I and others may think of as 'successful'
often bears no relation to how the person or
persons in charge of getting actual programming on the air define
the term. My strongly held belief, which I freely
admit is formed by primarily watching shows come and go over the
course of 40+ years, is that if the real
controlling interests want a show on the air, it will go on, and
if they don't, it won't. The publically stated reasons
they cite usually relate to the financial success or failure of
the program, but I believe that it can just as easily be as
simple as a whim. I believe that there is an unstated presumption
among most viewers that the powers-that-be in
TV land are rational creatures who base decisions on rational
data. This makes no sense to me-- people, by and
large, aren't rational, so why should these particular people
be different than anyone else?
The 'offically' stated reason why Angel was canceled is
that the show was expensive to produce and was
not bringing in enough money to offset production costs. This
makes no sense to me, when you consider that
there are other shows on the WB network that also must cost a
great deal to produce, because of the need for
special effects, fancy sets, and/or costly actor's paychecks.
Take, for eaxample, Charmed, which as you
probably know has already been renewed for yet another year.
Why does Charmed stay on the air? I doubt it is a cheap
show to produce technically, and I suspect the
principle actors are fairly well paid. Do the sponsors pay much
higher rates than they do for Angel?
Possibly, but I suspect it is about the same; both are prime-time
shows and both seem to easily fill their 20
minutes of commercial time with well-known advertisers. Are the
Charmed actors or production people
easier to get along with and the ones on Angel grumpy and
bitchy? Well, I have no idea (and really don't
care), but maybe we are getting a little closer to why a show
is go or no.
Personally, I think it's the nipples. No, I'm not kidding. While
I do not watch Charmed on a regular basis,
I have collectively seen maybe 20 or 30 episodes more or less
randomly over the course of the last several years,
and the one visual theme that keeps 'standing out' is the pert
nipples pressed against thin (and sometimes
not-so-thin) fabric worn by the various female leads and guest
actresses. This happens so often that it
can't be a coincidence, or a fashion choice of the actresses.
Somewhere in the upper levels of the
production personell of Charmed, there is a breast fetishist,
and this person is one who has serious clout,
and whose word goes. Thus, the show continues until this person
runs out of either money or influence in his (I'm
presuming 'his') industry. Quality doesn't matter-- attractive
female breasts matter (and certainly don't hurt with
the show's het male demographic, do they?)
Before you dismiss this theory as ridiculous, consider the situation
with the war in Iraq. I do not intend to go into
the pros or cons here, I only wish to note that it is indisputably
a matter of public record over the last
one-year-plus time period that the current administration has
'evolved' its reasons for initially implementing the
conflict as the previous reasons given were proven invalid or
specious. None of this matters, because the people
in charge are the people in charge, and they do what they want
because they can. What the public thinks is
irrelevant, because if the public agrees you trumpet the fact
to high heaven and if they disagree you simply ignore
them, or if possible, make their life more difficult to punish
them for 'disloyalty'. Illyria had it right about what
defines 'power', and I happen to think that the particular PTB
at the WB responsible for Angel's fate
canceled the show because he (I'm presuming 'he') wanted to, and
could. QED, to use a few more initials.
Supporting this argument are a few subtle, but notable remarks
that have surfaced since the cancellation, and the
interpretations that could be assigned them. The first were the
ones (there were several, over time, from different
Angel creative honchos) thanking the fans profusely for
their devotion and encouragement, but asking said
fans to 'save your money', that 'it's a done deal, barring a miracle,
and we aren't expecting one'. The phrasings
were very careful, if you pay attention-- it's the classic read-between-the-lines
sitch. The speaker could not admit
publically (likely for fear of serious reprisals that could doom
their future in the industry) that the show was
canceled because of some personal/political vendetta by a higher-up,
and not because of financial reasons, but
wanted to subcode the truth for those who already had suspicions.
Second, there was the more recent public admission by David Boreanaz
that he was tired of doing the show. As
such, he was not terribly unhappy that it was discontinued, although
he took pains to state that he would have
been perfectly willing to return had the show been renewed, and
that he appreciated the efforts of the fans to
support the series. Is it possible that Boreanaz happened to comment
in passing one day on the set on how he
was getting tired of doing the show, and a network person happened
to overhear and decided that they would
'give him what he wants'? (That disloyalty thing, again, and
after all we pay him! Huh!!) Please note that I
am NOT trying to blame David. Sarah was tired of doing
Buffy, and also didn't care for the 6th season
story arc, and said so to Joss on a number of occasions. As Joss
points out in his commentary on S7's
Chosen (and thanks to the noble transcriber for making
this track available to Region 1-ers ahead of
time!), Sarah and David and James and everyone kept showing up
day after day, doing their job, and giving
110%, and that's why Joss kept at it himself. But that's Joss--
someone who obviously appreciates that you can do
your job well even if you'd rather be doing something else. To
other people, it's a simple black and white issue. You
either do your work and be a proper fawning sycophant, or shut
the hell up and get out.
*** Thus, we are the vocal minority in an age of demographics
and mass voting. The only thing that would
give "Angel" an edge over shows like "Friends"
is if its fans were willing to put their money where their mouth
is.
In essence, I believe the only way we could save "Angel"
is by lobbying for it the old fashioned political way.
***
So, I would like to believe that this would be true, but I just
don't. After the events of the 1960's had passed into
history, I naively thought that Americans would learn from them
and so not engage in repetition, but it's rapidly
becoming the '60's all over again, in ways both subtle and grandiose.
The average person is becoming
increasingly impoverished and powerless and the men and women
'in charge' are becoming increasingly ruthless
and disdainful of the 'common people' they purport to speak for.
Lobbying is now an activity limited to those
who already bear massive influence, not to the masses themselves.
When your real life is literally governed by men who've got money,
influence and a big-time fetish for warfare,
you learn to be appreciative of another man who's happy just to
look at erect nipples and make a TV show
featuring them. You also learn to be happy that we've had five
good years of Angel, and that the people
who create the show know that we enjoy their work.
I won't even begin to get into the fetishes required to explain
the various 'reality shows'. Even I have limits.
Thanks to the board for letting me indulge in this rant, and cheer
up!
"It's only life, after all"
............ Indigo Girls
[> [> [> [> [> [> Very well stated --
tomfool, 11:43:00 05/09/04 Sun
I agree completely with your analysis of the situation, both ME
specific and big picture. (Interestingly, I'm in your same demographic.)
Someday we may hear of some of the behind the scene nits that
contributed to the cancellation decision, but we may never have
more info than we do right now. In the end, it's a somewhat arbitrary
decision made by a human(s).
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sleep, Corn Pops, Abject
Pessimism -- mrsubjunctive, 13:50:24 05/09/04 Sun
First of all. OnM, that is certainly competitive for best subject
line ever. Or at least most-likely-to-get-read subject line ever.
My contribution to the analysis is to point out that most TV doesn't
engage the imagination, or the critical faculties. Nor does it
try to. My guess is that advertisers depend, in part, on the audience
being half-asleep when they watch. If you're inclined to be thinking
while you watch, if you're inclined to be critical and suspicious
("What's Lindsey trying to say here? What's his angle? Can
he be trusted?" etc.), you're not exactly in a receptive
state of mind for the commercials.
I don't know whether they still air it, but at one point there
was a commercial for, I think, Kellog's Corn Pops that consisted
of nothing more than a bunch of low-detail, red animated "dancers"
on a yellow background. It started off with one, then there were
two, then the screen was covered with them. At the end, there
was a shot of a box of Corn Pops, and no doubt some kind of vapid
but catchy slogan about how Corn Pops were the best thing ever.
This is not a form of advertising that's going to work if you're
thinking critically about it at all. It tells you nothing about
how Corn Pops taste, whether they have any edible content, etc.
But that's not the point. The point is to make you more likely
to buy Corn Pops. The commercial was inoffensive, the red cartoon
people were smiling and dancing, the music was happy and upbeat,
if repetitive, and the whole business was just about putting the
viewer in a good mood, and then leading them to associate the
good mood with the product. Which I believe it probably did. (I
use this as the specific example of a commercial because it's
memorable for me. I was watching a tape of "Angel" or
"Buffy" with a friend, and this ad came on, and my friend
got all excited and announced to me when it was over, "That
was the best commercial ever.")
Which I don't mean to get into conspiracy theories (Another friend,
on politics: "When you see people resorting to consipracy
theories to justify their opinions, this is as clear a sign as
you could possibly need that they've gone too far to one side
or the other of the political spectrum."). But we all know,
when we watch TV, that it's only free because of the ads. The
ads are there to influence our behavior. If the ads fail to do
this cost-effectively, they are replaced. My only addition here
is to note that some shows may be more effective than others
at framing ads.
And I would posit "Angel," if the posters here are at
all representative of the fan base, is not one of the shows likely
to disengage the critical response and lead to increased profits
for the advertisers. "You have to sit forward and think about
it," as the James Marsters quote on the main board goes.
I could be wrong. Maybe advertising on "Angel" does
wonderful things for companies which try it. But it's also possible
that the results aren't really the point, that there's a push
from somewhere within the WB, or the advertisers, or whatever,
to provide safer, less challenging entertainment, because however
profitable it might be to advertise on "Angel" now,
it could be, theoretically, even more so to replace it with another
reality show about pretty people rehashing ten-year-old high school
traumas in a beach house in Hawaii. The latter would certainly
ask for much less from the audience. None of that nasty thinking,
which is so difficult. Plus, more nipples. Which "Angel"
is somewhat short on.
And so, abject pessimism. I lean toward being done with television
as a medium, personally. I'd be there for another Whedon show,
if someone sees fit to produce one, but I'm not interested in
what they're giving me these days. The reality thing is all about
people becoming famous for trying to get famous, which I suppose
is admirably direct, but I don't relate. I don't want to be famous,
I'm dreadfully suspicious of people who do. Sitcoms are funnier
if I turn the sound off and make up my own dialogue. Dramas, I
have a tough time getting into; I don't know why this is, it just
is. "Buffy" and "Angel" were exceptions. Daytime
talk shows make me vomit. Nighttime talk shows are parades of
celebrities with new projects to promote, like I don't catch enough
hype accidentally anyway.
So screw 'em. Screw all of them. I'll take my chances with real
life, where sometimes people are sincere, where bad acting is
amusing and useful instead of just sad, where people, from time
to time, care about things beyond themselves, where I can participate,
where it's useful to be awake and critical.
Apologies for the tone. But I've got some strong feelings about
this.
Suggested reading, if anyone's interested:
Coercion, by Douglas Rushkoff (The most directly relevant
to what I've been writing about)
"E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction," essay
by David Foster Wallace, printed in A Supposedly Fun Thing
I'll Never Do Again
Branded, by Alissa Quart
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I personally don't
mind the nature of ads -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:18:55 05/09/04
Sun
I tend to make many of my decisions based on gut impulse. For
example, I buy Coke instead of Pepsi, even though I've never personally
compared the taste or nutrition of the two. As such, positive
association is the sort of ad most likely to work on me. I'm also
more positive on TV in general, simply because I enjoy it more.
To me, people who say "This is the only show on TV I watch"
are really missing out on a lot.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I personally
don't mind the nature of ads -- DorianQ, 15:48:58 05/10/04
Mon
I agree. I would go even further in saying that the difference
between most products (like Coke and Pepsi and most cars) is negligible
(does it quench your thirst? does it get you from point A to point
B? then the products work). Regarding advertising, the only way
it usually influences me is with its ingenuity. For instance,
my favorite car company is Volkswagon simply because the cars
it makes have a disticntive look and they run the best commercials
(by far). Same with Apple and Coke and Burger King. And it's the
same reason why I like Buffy and Angel. They're different even
from other similar shows that have been on and have very high
quality overall. I guess I'm saying that originality matters more
to me than being the best when it comes to considering purchasing
a product. With advertising, I think anything is okay as long
as it is done well, doesn't get overplayed, and doesn't feature
those hideous rat things from Quizzno's.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm....
what about.... -- AngelVSAngelus, 00:28:47 05/13/04 Thu
Constant sexualizing of inanimate objects, the objectification
of both men and women, and spackling a layer or shiny paint over
the exploitation underneath (for an example pertinent to your
beverage of choice, see killercoke.org)?
Advertising just involves too much insincerity, too much coercion
for me to approach from any sort of not-cynical perspective.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But
are Pepsi's business pracites any better? -- DorianQ, 00:39:38
05/13/04 Thu
I am admittedly not familiar with their bottling practices either,
but I doubt that they are saints. If I ever found a company that
ran things in a completely moral way and put out a product that
I liked, I would definetely suppport it, but right now, I have
yet to hear of a company with global influence that fits the bill.
Not excusing Coke by any means but not seeing how Pepsi is that
much better. They both just following a profit margin.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
no, no, I've many reasons to believe they're evil too..
-- AngelVSAngelus, 16:26:28 05/13/04 Thu
And believe me, it really hurt when I found out these things,
but I gave it up. I'm no longer a consumer of any of either's
beverages.
[> [> [> [> [> [> OnM, I agree with most
of your points, but I must note one other factor in the WB's decision...
-- cjl, 22:22:31 05/09/04 Sun
They don't own the show.
Any ancillary profits from DVDs, merchandise and the like go to
Fox, not Warner Brothers. Charmed, One Tree Hill, and all the
other borderline series the WB decided to keep instead of ANGEL
are co-produced by the WB. If the WB owned ANGEL, they might have
kept the series. As it is, the production costs were bound to
have increased for Season 6, and Fox would have no doubt upped
the license fee. Would the WB have earned enough in ad bucks to
counteract the increase? Perhaps. But Levin and the big shots
at the WB decided the profit margin for ANGEL was, um, marginal
and wanted to build new franchises o&o'ed by the network.
OTOH, never underestimate the power of pert nipples.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> While I'm a big believer
in Nipple Power, -- Sophist, 09:16:58 05/10/04 Mon
cjl's right. The economics of the situation are a little different
than OnM's post implies.
The most important fact to remember is this: a programming exec
is not making a decision on a show purely on the basis of how
much money it makes. What s/he is doing is comparing how much
money this show makes to the (unknown) amount of money a new show
might make. A promising show in the pipeline might knock out even
a profitable existing show.
The WB has gotten about as much as it can get from AtS, economically
speaking. A new show might lose those existing viewers, but it
might not. And it might well bring in new viewers in addition.
If nothing else, novelty itself helps in marketing.
That's not to deny the validity of the factors OnM cites. Networks
do make decisions about which shows will appeal to the widest
audience (or perhaps the widest audience within a previously defined
demographic group). Pert nipples may well be a significant factor
in that appeal, all the more so if they belong to Mischa Barton.
Sadly, though, the all sex all the time network has yet to find
it's time slot.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, what s/he said.
-- Gyrus, 08:55:30 05/13/04 Thu
My strongly held belief, which I freely admit is formed by
primarily watching shows come and go over the course of 40+ years,
is that if the real controlling interests want a show on the air,
it will go on, and if they don't, it won't.
I must agree. As we have seen with FIREFLY, FREAKS AND GEEKS,
and several other good shows that died early, programming execs
can sabotage shows they don't like by preempting episodes without
warning, showing eps out of order, and moving shows from time
slot to time slot so that viewers can't find them. Then they can
use the "low ratings" excuse to axe the shows.
Quality doesn't matter-- attractive female breasts matter (and
certainly don't hurt with the show's het male demographic, do
they?)
As I said years ago after watching the CHARMED premiere, "There
are exactly six things I like about this show." (Of course,
even that wasn't enough to keep me watching it.)
there was the more recent public admission by David Boreanaz
that he was tired of doing the show...Please note that I am NOT
trying to blame David.
I don't blame him, either. He's been playing the same role for
what, 8 or 9 years now? That's a long time for an actor in an
hour-long drama.
[> Honestly? Nothing -- Bjerkley, 15:35:59 05/07/04
Fri
So far, this isn't the way TV works. Shows don't succeed on the
basis on how much the fans pay for them, and to a large extent
I think this is a very good thing.
Maybe if TV shows were made on the basis of subscription, then
I would reconsider.
But really, there are so many more worthwhile things to donate
money to, that, no matter how much I like Angel, giving money
to it wouldn't be a priority.
Sorry for getting all serious.
[> [> It's a serious question. No need to apologize...
-- Traveler, 18:55:39 05/07/04 Fri
[> [> Slight revision -- Bjerkley, 03:01:11 05/08/04
Sat
Meant to say for me there are things I think are more worthwhile
to spend my money on; not to imply that everyone else should feel
the same way :-)
Although that doesn't quite gel with the fact I own all the DVDs.
Slight contradiction there.
I think my answer is that since this isn't usually the way TV
shows were funded, if such a situation arose I would be annoyed
at the networks and producers for fleecing the fans in such a
way when ultimately it would make them the profits. The
fans better get the DVDs for free if that were the case!
If all TV worked on that basis though, then I guess I'd spend
however much they asked, since it would be the only TV show I
watched. Wouldn't surprise me if this happens one day though.
[> [> [> What if it were as a show of devotion?
-- Finn Mac Cool, 08:41:50 05/08/04 Sat
Something people always bring up to support cult TV shows is the
highly devoted fan base. What if the WB or FOX set some amount
(let's say $500,000), that, if fan donations could equal, would
guarantee the return on "Angel" due to evidence of its
fans' devotion to it.
[> [> [> [> If that were the case, I'd probably
pay -- Bjerkley, 11:31:55 05/08/04 Sat
It's not that I don't think Angel is worth it, I do, and if that
guaranteed a sixth season then I'd be all for it since I desparately
want to watch a sixth season.
I guess it depended on how such a system worked. I just wouldn't
be keen on the idea of Fox and the WB fleecing the fans for even
more money because they can't be bothered to keep quality TV on
air.
[> [> [> [> This is exactly the kind of senario
I'm thinking of -- Traveler,
17:55:49 05/08/04 Sat
Nobody is asking the fans to pay this money. But if the issue
is, "the show is too expensive for the advertising money
the network gets in return," the solution is obvious. If
fans really want to see season six made, we can do it. There are
4 million of us. If we each chip in $20, it would cover more than
the cost of an entire season. No network would turn that down.
More than that, we would have a lot of leverage in setting the
terms! We could say to the network: "Joss gets full creative
rights (within reason). If you don't like it, I'm sure another
network will happily take our $80 mill..." Finally, it would
be a huge publicity stunt for whatever network takes the bait
and for the show itself. Sounds like a winner all round to me,
but what do I know?
[> Hmmm... -- Masq, 16:09:37 05/07/04 Fri
I was gonna say a couple thou.
Does that make me seriously pathetic?
[> [> Considering it's the only show you watch when it
airs...Nah! :-) -- Rob, 16:34:13 05/07/04 Fri
[> [> [> It's the story-teller in me -- Masq,
12:42:56 05/08/04 Sat
I hate to see a story go away before its proper ending. The story
of "Angel: the Series" is being cut off before the final
chapter. Imagine reading a really good novel and having it taken
away before you find out how it ends.
I love stories. This one in particular is very important to me.
I want to see how it really ends.
[> [> [> [> Agreed completely... -- Rob, 14:55:27
05/08/04 Sat
Plus, I was bad and read this article from I believe Jeff Bell
about what was being planned for the next season, and some of
the stuff sounded majorly cool. If you want, I can give you the
link after the season's over. There's nothing major, but there
are a few things re: Illyria and things like that that you may
not want to hear until the last two episodes, which I'm not spoiled
at all for except for the vague implications in this article,
air. Then again, hearing what might of been but now isn't is frustrating...unless
some of these things can play out in TV movies, I hope.
Rob
[> I wouldn't mind paying, just like for movies or books...
-- Ixchel, 17:34:15 05/07/04 Fri
As for amount, considering how much I love the show and will miss
it and still miss BtVS, $50.00 easily (if you think about it,
five trips to the movies would cost you this).
I would probably go as high as $220.00 without flinching too much,
as that's $10.00 per episode - not too bad for entertainment that
I really enjoy.
To be completely honest, I'd feel vaguely guilty, but would probably
cough up $500.00 if that would definitely get me a S6.
Ixchel
[> [> Okay, I really meant movies only... ;) -- Ixchel
(Huh, what was the question? ;P ), 17:47:48 05/07/04 Fri
Not books, as the comparison only applies to something you (in
theory) see only once (like a movie in a theater) and not something
you then own (like a book).
Ixchel
Feeling Foolish
[> [> [> Heck, I'd cough up some money.. -- Jane,
18:18:43 05/07/04 Fri
for another season of Angel. Might even go as high as $500 (Canadian
of course!),without flinching. I spend way more than that on books,
so I could free up some of that cash. Hell, I'm so desperate for
more Jossverse stuff, I might even pay $500 U.S. :)
[> [> [> [> I hear you; it's going to be a long,
excruciating wait for "Serenity"! -- Ixchel (Fellow
book-buying fiend ;), 09:09:45 05/08/04 Sat
[> $100 without blinking -- Matlack73, 18:51:48 05/07/04
Fri
I won't be watching much tv next Fall. I would pay that amount
without hesitation.
[> We already pay for the DVD sets -- Ames, 19:40:17
05/07/04 Fri
I guess that's as good a measure as any of how much people who
like the show will pay. Why be hypothetical when there's an actual
example. Check Amazon and see where Angel DVD sets rank in sales,
then find out what portion of the market Amazon sales represent.
[> [> I would personally pay much more than the DVD sets
charge... -- Rob, 20:04:04 05/07/04 Fri
The prices for the Buffy and Angel sets are relatively
low, compared to some other sets, the HBO series for example.
Each of their hour drama full season sets, which btw are only
13 episodes each, usually go for between $75-90 and have an suggested
price of $100 each. And although they've come down in price, The
X-Files and the Star Trek sets used to go for (non-sale
price) $150 each. Angel is worth at least that.
Rob
[> [> [> And in the UK it costs more or less that
too -- Bjerkley, 03:07:10 05/08/04 Sat
Buffy and Angel DVDS sell for around £80 at full asking
price, which is close to $150.
So that's how much I would pay I suppose, taken on that basis.
I think I'm looking at it from the perspective that it would feel
like an additional slap in the face if having cancelled the show
(in part due to the massive costs Fox are asking, when they make
more than enough money from the show to subsidise it) if they
were to ask the fans to finance it. Would we then get a share
from the profits? I hope so.
I'm really taking this too seriously :-)
Then again, I've heard that there might be a trend of shows being
made for DVD. Not sure what I think about that - part of what
I like about the shows is the fan community that builds up around
them. Unless everyone brought and watched thier DVDs at the same
time (and at $150 that's not going to happen), it just wouldn't
have the same feeling of shared experience.
[> [> [> [> Then again -- KdS, 03:30:19
05/08/04 Sat
Very few people in the UK who are the fan demographic (IT-literate,
comfortable with the web) buy DVDs at full price. Web stores can
often give as much as a third off RRP.
[> [> [> [> [> True -- Bjerkely, 04:44:25
05/08/04 Sat
I certainly can't remember the last time I paid full price for
them. Always good to shop around (and on a related note, Buffy
DVDs now available for under £40 at certain websites). Consumer
power!
That said, if they weren't available more cheaply, I would still
pay full whack for them.
[> Re: Hypothetical question to all board members --
Katrina, 10:38:57 05/08/04 Sat
I've been paying $55 a month. But for another season? After this
season? Not a penny.
Alas. I think I'm too bitter for this board.
[> $500 -- JM, 17:31:51 05/08/04 Sat
If I thought it were a real deal and could figure out how to hide
the cost from my husband another 5 C-notes. At least. I'm a bad
wife.
Current board
| More May 2004