September 2002 posts


August 2002  

More September 2002

Speculative Season Seven Survey (itsy bitsy spoilers) -- Darby, 10:11:42 09/01/02 Sun

Joss is famous for not giving we, the Buffy People, what we want so much what he, the Buffy God, decides we need. But what do the characters need in this upcoming season, probably a wrap-up season even if the show continues in some capacity? Here's my list - feel free to critique or just jump in with a list of your own (like I need to say that here!).

Buffy - although it's supposedly a return to "Year One Buffy" this season, I feel that her year of angst can't be just brushed off. Her leanings toward the kinkier side of the street should not be ignored, but dealt with in a responsible manner. And all of the heavy hints about the Nature of the Slayer need to be addressed. Not necessarily resolved, but addressed. She needs to continue to include Dawn as an semi-equal partner in dealing with Real Life, or lock her in the basement for extended periods. Maybe both. My wife Sara's take: she needs to find some sort of honest-to-Osiris love. But she may need a new Giles more than a new boyfriend - a mentor.

Willow needs to have her true problems addressed, but I've kind of given up on this. How can you write about a character with security and power issues for seven years and continue to ignore it? I fear we'll find out. Obviously a role needs to be found for the de-magicked Will, something that is in keeping with the incredibly bright person we were introduced to way-back-when. And, needed or not, she should have new love interests, just to address the "is she or isn't she?" problem that is unavoidable now. Sara's take: Willow needs to address her inner control-freak and get a job as a computer programmer, where it will benefit her. And destroy the world. Or better yet, Bill Gates.

Xander needs to continue on his course of real-world success and Buffy World semi-usefulness. He needs to quickly stop challenging Dawn for the Queen Whiner crown and make some sort of solid decision about his relationship with Anya. I'd love to see him sort out his problems with the New and Different Spike and actually realize what the underlying problem is enough to articulate it. Sara's take: Xander needs to find and accept his place in the group, just accept himself.

Giles needs enough of an England backstory to convince us that he really needs to stay away from Sunnydale for extended periods - something to substitute for the "you need to be on your own" crap. If the early-season Brit locations scenes don't give an indication that Giles really has a Life there, the original awkwardness of the extraction continues (maybe ASH's real family, as his heretofore-unknown-and-previously-estranged family, need to guest star, since it's the best reason for him to be there). Or he actually needs to be around. Sara's take: Giles needs to be around. At least ASH does.

Anya cannot continue to be a Vengeance Demon without some implications or at least explanations or how much autonomy she has. She needs some legitimate reason to stay in Sunnydale. She needs some connection to the Buffy group other than Xander, or (as would probably happen if this was Life) she would just wander off and make her own way. She needs to continue to fill her role as sort-of Knowledge Girl in Giles' absence. Sara's take: she either needs to be a Vengeance Demon and go away or give it up to stay. Her continued "employment" makes no sense, there are too many issues to deal with.

Spike really needs to be changed by this soul thing. How do the two personalities coexist, and how does that change his attitude toward others? He needs to have the chip removed, it adds too many confusing levels to his motivations. His relationship with Buffy needs to be clarified somewhat. Sara's take: We need to know if the soul makes "Spike" go away or if he's in there with William.

Dawn needs to be better integrated into the core group. The group needs a magic adept, and as a Key to Dimensions it just makes sense that she would have abilities in this direction (she raised Joyce, right -?). She does not need to be a new Slayer, it's just too lame a concept. She needs her own circle of friends, even if we never see them. And of course, she needs to stop whining. Or to do it from the basement. Sara's take: she needs to stop being a generic teenager and actually develop a personality. Get her a Life, stat!

Tara needs to not be dead. Sara's take: She was the most interesting, developing character last season. If she comes back - or Amber does - as a different character, the resemblence needs to be acknowledged in how the characters relate to the New Gal. Me again: Okay, she's dead. Given that, she needs to stay that way - connections to departed loved ones raises way too many problems.

Sara's take on what Joss needs: Joss needs to realize that he can't insist that we need anything, and that we won't respond well to having his ego-fueled messages shoved through our tv screens. The connection between a creator's vision and an audience's comfort factors cannot be completely severed in any medium where the creator needs the audience to keep coming back. He doesn't need to pander, he can challenge us, but he can't totally ignore us either. There is a reason why mass entertainment is called escapist. Why would we choose to continue to experience something that makes us feel bad? The show needs some hope and optimism even as it throws bleakness at us.

- Darby, who may just hide under the desk now.

- Sara, who after finishing a Bob Fosse biography doesn't trust any kind of Hollywood-creator-type. But who still loves Fosse.
[> Re: Speculative Season Seven Survey (itsy bitsy spoilers) -- Damien, 10:24:35 09/01/02 Sun

I think that if Joss is going to give us what he thinks we need, he might as well do it himself, because he's really the only one who can actually pull it off.
[> Re: Speculative Season Seven Survey (itsy bitsy spoilers) -- Cactus Watcher, 10:37:08 09/01/02 Sun

I generally agree with one or both of you. I'm sure that Anya ending last season as a demon is a strawman, a set up to make her choose to be human at some point next year. Since, she already kept Spike from making a vengeance wish in her presence, the next step is clearly for her to accually refuse to grant a vengeance wish. At that point either she gets kicked out of the union or she figures out away to resign.

I agree very much with Sara about Joss and his "give the audience what it needs" conceit. After the very mixed reception last season, it's time to forget that, and get back to be more entertaining. Let's hope they finish off this part of the epic in style!
[> Re: Speculative Season Seven Survey (itsy bitsy spoilers) -- leslie, 12:43:05 09/01/02 Sun

In general I agree, except:

"Spike really needs to be changed by this soul thing. How do the two personalities coexist, and how does that change his attitude toward others? He needs to have the chip removed, it adds too many confusing levels to his motivations. His relationship with Buffy needs to be clarified somewhat. Sara's take: We need to know if the soul makes "Spike" go away or if he's in there with William."

Ya know, I think Spike needs to remain exactly the same. And not just because he's such a great character as Spike. Last season we saw that being human and having a soul was no guarantee of good/moral behavior with Warren, and then with DarkWillow. I think we need to see the flip side of that coin with Spike. The "person" he has always been is the same, soul or not. And, even more, that "William" can become "Spike" and still be the same "person;" if he can change in the one direction, he can change in the other, and still be himself.
[> [> Re: Speculative Season Seven Survey (itsy bitsy spoilers) -- Dru, 15:34:45 09/01/02 Sun

My message was under the wrong Title Sorry



I think Joss needs to clean house a bit.

-Get rid of Anya. Sure she was funny in the begginning but they ran way to long with her. She lacked the emotional depth to really work as a sympatetic
character

-Keep Tara dead. Every character needs flaws, and Tara was either two flawed, or not flawed enough. She was an interesting tool to use with willow, but she
simply had no bad in her. She was the anti-faith. She was cute but she had no fun preversities at all. For a show that was essentially about humanity, she
was to cute to be human. She was like a fuffy bunny. Who needed to be run over.

-Make Dawn more solid, or kill her off. Bring everything together in her identity. Currently I would not even notice if she left the show.

-Give Willow more air time. They opened a pandoras box last season. Thhey should not ignore it. Give her a ballance between light and dark. Play on her
sense of humor.

-Give buffy more action. And less whining.

-Spike. Boy do I hope they knew what they were doing when they gave him that soul. I hope they give him more oppertunities to become part of the Gang,
and to do what he does best- he fills the badass spot very well.

And most of all----No more Buffy/Spike! For the love of everything unholy no more buffy/Spike!

Thank You for Your Time
Dru
[> [> Candy tastes good, but if you eat it all the time, you're gonna get sick (Season 6 spoiler) -- Apophis, 18:05:48 09/01/02 Sun

You know something? I really, really hope that souledSpike is radically different. Do you want to know why? I'll tell you.
The last year has been so Spike-centric (on and off the show) that I've become sick of him. Lest I be accused of heresy, I would like to say that I greatly like both the character of Spike and the acting skills of James Marsters. Despite this, I've been so inundated with Spike, good Spike, bad Spike, practically human Spike, rapist Spike, Buffy/Spike, Spike/Everyone else in the universe, that he's become anathema to me.
Personally, I like the idea of him being driven batcrap crazy by his soul, talking to people who aren't there, constantly disheveled, swinging between personas, etc. It would be a nice change of pace. Grant you, this would get old, but we've got a whole season for him to pull himself together.
[> [> [> Re: Candy tastes good, but if you eat it all the time, you're gonna get sick (Season 6 spoiler) -- leslie, 18:42:02 09/01/02 Sun

Oh, I would greatly enjoy BatshitNutsSpike, as long as we don't get into "this bit over here (that we approve of) is William and this bit over here (baaaaaad boy!) is Spike." Seriously. For my part, I'm fed up with the whole "he's an evil soulless thing and therefore we have to come up with an excuse for anything good he appears to do" routine.
[> [> Re: Speculative Season Seven Survey (itsy bitsy spoilers) -- celticross, 09:18:39 09/02/02 Mon

Agreeing with you re: Spike's soul, leslie. I think that would be a wicked twist. And while we're on the soul kick, if even once we have a himan baddie next season and the gang expresses disbelief that someone with a soul could do that, I will throw something at the screen. If *any* lesson was learned last season, it ought to be that humans, with their shiny souls, can do terrible things just as easily as demons. Of course, there are other lessons that need to be learned, but I'm not holding out for *everything* touched on last season to be explored in Season 7.
[> Dawn's character development in S6 (long) -- HonorH, 13:37:58 09/01/02 Sun

I'm an official Dawn Defender, so at this point, I have to point out that Dawn doesn't really whine that much. Compared to the fine whines the Scoobies churned out in S1 and S2, in fact, she's downright average. If she'd been introduced then as their contemporary rather than as a little sister (who obviously must whine a lot), I doubt anyone would have called her a whiner. Let's look at where her character's gone this season:

In the first ep, she seems okay on the outside. She draws comfort and security from Willow and Tara's presence and Spike's protection and friendship. Still, sometimes at night, she crawls into bed with the BuffyBot. Things are frightening in her world. She's lost so much, and she's afraid to lose more.

Then Buffy returns. On the outside, it's a dream come true. Dawn is very mature at this point, dealing with traumatized Buffy, and even smacking down the Scoobies when they get overwhelming. Only at one point does this maturity crack: when reversing the spell that brought Buffy back is mentioned. Then she instantly reverts to a frightened 15-year-old. But the crisis is averted and things seem fine--but they're not.

Financial disaster looms, something Dawn was heretofore unaware of. Spike all but disappears from Dawn's life. Buffy's back, but she's not really *back*. Tara and Willow are quarreling. Dawn gets caught up in teenage prankstering that ends disastrously.

Then the other shoe drops: Buffy was in heaven. She didn't want to be brought back. She doesn't even want to be alive. Perhaps the only thing keeping her from committing suicide is the fact that Dawn needs taken care of. It's not unreasonable to assume that Dawn, at this point, feels Buffy must resent her.

After this, we get the exodus of Tara and Giles, the two most secure adults in Dawn's life. Buffy sinks further into depression and starts spending more and more time away. Willow also withdraws, and then nearly gets Dawn killed. This is when we start to see real resentment on Dawn's part. She's 15, and all the adults in her life are imploding. She's got no one to help her out with growing up. At this point, Dawn starts lashing out at Buffy, who, after all, obviously resents her as well.

Buffy's birthday takes place right after Buffy's abortive attempt to turn herself in. Dawn's desperate enough by now to try an obvious ploy for attention: getting caught stealing. What with one thing and another, the problems get exposed, and Buffy and Dawn reconcile. They're almost back to their old loving selves for "As You Were" and "Hell's Bells."

It's not coincidental that Dawn's insecurity makes an encore appearance after Xander and Anya's spectacular breakup. Another seemingly-steady couple has gone blooey, and now Buffy's acting crazy. In Buffy's asylum world, where her parents are alive and together, Dawn doesn't exist. Learning this cuts Dawn deep. She'd hoped things were getting better, but apparently somewhere in Buffy's mind, Dawn's not a part of her world. Hence the anger.

It's at this point that all Dawn's worst fears come true: her protector turns into her attacker, insisting Dawn isn't real, just like she feared all along. But then Buffy makes the decision that makes all the difference: faced with two worlds, one of which is comfortable and secure and the other of which is frightening and hard, but includes Dawn and her friends, Buffy chooses this world. She chooses to stay with Dawn. Thus, the rebuilding relationship we see in "Entropy."

In "Entropy," Buffy and Dawn and Willow and Tara are paralleled. Buffy's trying hard to win Dawn's trust and love back, which is exactly what Willow is doing with Tara. The only thing is, both Dawn and Tara are all too eager to be caught. Just as Tara re-enters Willow's territory--the Summers house--at the end, Dawn wants to enter Buffy's world: patrolling. Buffy's still caught in the trap of believing she needs to--and can--protect Dawn from the world, however.

SR puts paid to that. Buffy is attacked twice in her own home, and Tara is killed. Willow, a friend, turns out to be a tougher opponent than Buffy's faced all year. "People I love are dying, and you can't protect me," Dawn tells Buffy in "Grave." Buffy doesn't want to believe this, but she's got no choice.

The final straw comes when Buffy starts crying with relief that the world isn't ending, and Dawn mistakes it for crying with disappointment. Buffy finally realizes just what a toll her depression has taken on Dawn, and she resolves to change that. She resolves to show Dawn not only the world, but that she herself is no longer afraid of life. As they climb out of the earth together, the reconciliation is complete. Dawn's secure in her sister's love, and she's now ready to journey on toward womanhood with Buffy's guidance.
[> [> Re: Dawn's the cypher -- Darby, 14:35:30 09/01/02 Sun

You've kind of nailed the problem - Dawn exists to move the plot along and to be the insecure, self-centered kid. She doesn't come close to being as fully realized a character as Buffy, Willow, Xander and Cordelia were in Season One.

She's been with us now for two seasons; compare what you could tell someone about her personality to what we knew of the Scoobies by Becoming or even Prophecy Girl. They were nowhere close to the valley girl, nerdy wallflower, wisecrackin' dude or popular bitch personas they were grounded in, but how much of Dawn's personality is different from the "bratty little sister" stereotype? Some, but not much, and most of the differences have appeared as quirks merely to move various plots along. I would just like to see them do more with her. Hope that actually having to write her dealing with a high school environment somewhat free of the Scooby influence will help that.
[> [> [> Re: Dawn's the cypher -- Dru, 15:29:05 09/01/02 Sun

I think Joss needs to clean house a bit.

-Get rid of Anya. Sure she was funny in the begginning but they ran way to long with her. She lacked the emotional depth to really work as a sympatetic character

-Keep Tara dead. Every character needs flaws, and Tara was either two flawed, or not flawed enough. She was an interesting tool to use with willow, but she simply had no bad in her. She was the anti-faith. She was cute but she had no fun preversities at all. For a show that was essentially about humanity, she was to cute to be human. She was like a fuffy bunny. Who needed to be run over.

-Make Dawn more solid, or kill her off. Bring everything together in her identity. Currently I would not even notice if she left the show.

-Give Willow more air time. They opened a pandoras box last season. Thhey should not ignore it. Give her a ballance between light and dark. Play on her sense of humor.

-Give buffy more action. And less whining.

-Spike. Boy do I hope they knew what they were doing when they gave him that soul. I hope they give him more oppertunities to become part of the Gang, and to do what he does best- he fills the badass spot very well.

And most of all----No more Buffy/Spike! For the love of everything unholy no more buffy/Spike!

Thank You for Your Time
Dru
[> [> [> Re: Dawn's the cypher -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:20:09 09/01/02 Sun

I think I know where the problem is: by this point in the show, the cast of characters has grown to enormous proportions. These past two seasons you've had Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, Anya, Spike, Tara, and Dawn all clammering for story space. Dawn, the most recently added character, thus has little room to develop because the established characters dominate. Add the fact that, because she's several years younger than the main cast, she can't have the same group interaction and developement.
[> [> [> Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of what I was trying to say. -- HonorH, 16:41:55 09/01/02 Sun

Dawn's a human being who's being affected--sometimes badly--by what's going on around her, and who tried to take control the only way she knew how. She's a tough, resilient kid who's also badly messed up by what her life has become in the past two years. She wants to move into more of an adult role, but she's been hampered by either neglect or overprotection. I'm very much looking forward to where she's headed as she moves into her own.
[> [> [> [> Re: Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of what I was trying to say. -- shambleau, 17:20:47 09/01/02 Sun

I agree with HonorH completely. There's far more to Dawn than the bratty kid stereotype. There's a mental toughness that gets overlooked. In fact, there would have to be, to go through all she has without cracking up. You see examples of it from time to time. Telling the Scoobies to back off when they're pressing the traumatized Buffy in After Life, staking Justin, even though she liked him, throwing Xander a stake to take out the vamp that was attacking him in TR, kicking the demon in the stomach in Wrecked so that she and Willow could get away, and, of course, fighting the earth demons.

You see tenderness, loyalty, and genuine decency in her too. There have been far more examples of those qualities this season than the whining, which basically only takes place in half a dozen middle episodes. I think we'll see someone much like Buffy described in Grave next year and I'm looking forward to it too.
[> [> Defender of Dawn -- Robert, 21:14:04 09/01/02 Sun

HonorH, I completely agree with this posting and your follow-up posting to Darby. I have, for a season and a half, been reading on this board about what an obnoxious whiny teenager Dawn is, and I just don't see it. I see a wonderful maturation of Dawn since the episode Real Me. She moved from the 14-year old daughter of Joyce to a 16-year old nearly self-reliant sister of Buffy. Dawn is the kid sister I never had. In addition, I never really felt like she was whining.

Let us take a look at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

whine verb
1 a : to utter a high-pitched plaintive or distressed cry b : to make a sound similar to such a cry <the wind whined in the chimney>
2 : to complain with or as if with a whine
3 : to move or proceed with the sound of a whine <the bullet whined... across the ice -- Berton Roueché>

The second definition appears to best fit the usage as it relates to the discussion at hand. I submit that a person (or character) is perceived as whining only when they are presenting a complaint we don't want to hear. Since I find Dawn's journey to be personally fascinating, I don't see her as whining. Spike, on the other hand, just gives me a wicked case of psoriasis. When he complains about how the Initiative or Buffy or the gang or life in general is mistreating him, I perceive it to be whining. When we hear Buffy complaining about her travails, I love it. Her journey is interesting to me.


[> [> [> Re: Defender of Dawn -- Slain, 12:14:54 09/02/02 Mon

It's still a mystery to me why people dislike Dawn. She has emotions, after all, and has suffered mental tramua surely more severe than any other character in the show, bar Angel; after all, she had to find out 13 years of memories were all lies, and that her entire personality and everything about her was a construct. She lost her entire childhood, so it's not like she's just going to sit quietly in the corner and embroider! ;-)
[> [> [> [> Dawn and what the writers are up to (spec and Season 6) -- shadowkat, 14:55:59 09/02/02 Mon

I remember reading in a JM interview - I think it was on the marsters web site - that Joss Whedon wanted us to dislike Dawn. To get across that feeling of alienation as a teenager. In Dawn it is far more realistically portrayed than (and I'm sure I'm going out on a limb here) but any other teen shown on TV. I don't know about others out there but when I was 14/15 I felt alone, unnoticed, and alienated from everyone. Buffy has her friends. Dawn feels she has no one. This is so clearly portrayed in OAFA. But remember - this is the only time in Season 6 that we are in Dawn's pov, really. Most of Season 6 is in Buffy's pov and when Buffy first comes back - she despises Dawn. Dawn is a duty, a responsibility, forcing her to work and to deal instead of just retreating from the world. If it weren't for Dawn, Buffy may have been able to postpone adulthood a bit longer. She resents Dawn in Season 5 for the same reasons.

The reason we are shown such negative aspects of Dawn is because we are in Buffy's pov. I find it interesting how we often decide a certain vision of a character is the most valid, yet forget the pov we're in. If you think Dawn is whiney? That's because Buffy or Willow thinks so - you are in their pov. If you step back from it? Maybe watch an episode from Season 5 with Dawn and Spike or see Dawn in Bargaining with Buffbot when we are in dawn's pov? She's not whiney. The pov tells us as much about the character being seen as the person we are looking at the character through. Dawn's whininess says a lot about Buffy's resistence to taking responbility for her. I think Dawn will seem less whiney as Buffy begins to change her view of Dawn.

Personally Dawn fascinates me as a character. Because she appears out of thin air at the end of Buffy vs. Dracula and her presence subtly changes everything. Her presence increases the problems with Buffy and Riley. IHer presence keeps Giles in Sunnydale, when he may have left much earlier. HEr presence may even be partially responsible for Joyce's brain tumors which do not appear until after Dawn has appeared. I noticed in re-watching BvD that Joyce finds the house more silent when Buffy is gone and is sort of asking Buffy to stay. Buffy is going back to college. Has the good life, slaying, boyfriend, school - but hasn't really grown up, hasn't had to be the adult. And then Dawn arrives.

The next episode? Buffy wishes she was an only child. Misses being "pumpkin belly". Misses her mom wanting her more. The previous episode before dawn? Buffy barely spends time with Mom and says maybe we should make these dinners a monthly thing.

Dawn forces Buffy to acknowledge family and to become an adult. To the extent she literally jumps off a metaphorical tower of adolescence to get there. Coming back the equivalent of a singel mom. In Season 6, Buffy starts sounding like Joyce. And the audience suddenly finds itself, like Buffy, looking at the Btvs universe from the opposite end of the periscope. No longer are the adults: Joyce, Principal Snyder, Giles - the adults with no clue and the kids the cool ones. Suddenly we are in the adults pov, Xander, Willow, Buffy, are the adults struggling to make ends meet and dealing with the "teenager". We've been flipped. And gee, wasn't high school more fun and so much easier? And I don't remember them whining that much? Evil
ME. Of course not. We were in the teens pov. Now we're in the adults (young adults). Great ironic twist and all done through the addition of Dawn.

Dawn also adds that other variable - what would the Btvs universe be like if she was never introduced? Did Dawn cause B/S to occur? Or would it have regardless? How much effect does one person have on the lives of others? How much effect does one person's existence have? How would it change us if they never existed? Through Dawn, ME has done the opposite of It's A Wonderful Life or The Wish, instead of showing what would happen if a character never existed, they show what happens when a character suddenly appears and it seems as if they were always there - the other characters' memories (however implanted)do affect what they do next. Xander's new memories of Dawn have changed him.
As have Willow's, Buffy's, Giles', Tara's, Riley's, and Spike's. We the audience and of course the writers are the only one's who know what life was like before Dawn existed in Season 5. The Btvs characters don't have that luxury. To them Dawn was there from the moment Buffy entered Sunnydale. Dawn was there even before. Which to me makes Dawn a lynchpin in the series and a fascinating character .

Oh for more of my thoughts on Dawn see: Dawn- Buffy's Inner
Child, and Dawn, Spike, Warren - What is Real essays on
my website (won't take up more board space reposting them):

www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs

SK
[> [> A Short Note on Where I'd Like to See Dawn Go Next Year -- HonorH, 22:55:02 09/01/02 Sun

I do agree that Dawn needs character development outside of her relationship with Buffy. It's time for her to step out of big sister's shadow. She's now as old as the other Scoobies were when we first met them, so it's a good time to show this process beginning. I want to see Buffy train Dawn to defend herself. Dawn's already got a pretty good lock on what to do in a crisis situation, but she needs some formal training in fighting. I'd also like to see Dawn develop some outside relationships. We only got one episode with Dawn's friend Janice, and then a few off-screen references to her later. I also want to see how Dawn reacts to Willow and Spike when they return. That in itself should be very interesting.
[> [> [> Re: A Short Note on Where I'd Like to See Dawn Go Next Year (Spoilers) -- Dochawk, 09:56:49 09/02/02 Mon

When Joss tells us that the theme for this year is "Back to the Beginning" I think it is meant in two ways, 1st quippy, more upbeat Buffy, but I also think it means Dawn, where Buffy was in the first year. I think you'll be getting much more of Dawn with others. Additional spoiler space just in case anyone cares:










We know that Dawn will be getting two new friends (Kit and Carlos supposedly their names) and have adventures with them. Which fits with the above.
Season 6 and Season 3. Is there a reason for Similarities? Spoilers for both seasons. -- Artemis, 22:36:25 09/01/02 Sun

I'm sure it's been discussed, how in the alley scene of "Dead Things" Spike's rational to Buffy is very similar to Faiths justification in Consequences. But I wonder if anyone has noticed just how many things from Season three of Buffy, have either been further developed in Season 6, touched on again or have been mirrored. Here are just few that I noticed:

Season 3-(Anne-Season Premiere) Buffy is nowhere to be found, Scoobies left to patrol alone, Willow is creating bad puns, Buffy visits a Hell dimension.
Season 6 (Bargaining Season Premiere) Buffy is nowhere to be found , Scoobies left to patrol alone, Willow is creating bad puns for Buffybot, Buffy visits a Heavenly dimension( though we don't know it yet)

Season3 (From "Beauty and the Beast" through "Revelations") Buffy hides her relationship with Angel from Scoobies
Season 6 Buffy hides her relationsip with Spike from scoobies.


Season 3 Willow first attempts Dark magic to suppress Xanders feelings (LoversWalk)
Season 6 Willow crosses line and uses dark magic to change Tara feelings(Halloween episode and TR)

Season 3 One Scooby cheats on another Scooby with another
Scooby (Xander,Willow, Cordy "Lovers Walk")
Season 6 One Scooby cheats on another Scooby with another Scooby. (Anya, Spike, and Xander) Yes I know Spikes not really a Scooby and Xander and Anya were broken up,but it feels the same.

Season 3 Anya changes from Demon to Human
Season 6 Anya changes from Human to Demon

Season 3 Buffy explores Darker side of her nature(Bad Girls and Consequences) And It's hinted by Faith
that Buffy is supressing a darker sexual side.
Season 6 Buffy explores a darker side of her nature and releases a darker sexual side.

Season 3 Vamp Willow introduced. "Bored now" (The Wish and Doppelgangland)
Season 6 Dark Willow introduced. "Bored now"

Season 3 Amy turns into a rat
Season 6 Amy stops being a rat

Season 3 Alternate realities introduced (The Wish & Dopplegangland)
Season 6 Alternate realities explored ( Normal Again)

Season 3 Nearing the end of Buffys relationship with Angel. He dreams that fire will consume her (The Prom)
Season 6 Nearing the end of Buffys relationship with Spike she dreams that she will Stake him

Season 3 A violent act by Buffys lover crosses a boundary that solidifies his decision to move on ( Graduation day, Angel drinks Buffy)
Season 6 A violent act by Buffys lover crosses a boundary that soliidifies his decision to move on (Spike's AR in Seeing Red)

Season 3 Buffy fights an ex friend she once tried to save from going to the dark side (Faith and Buffy in Graduation)
Season 6 Buffy fights a friend and tries to save her from going to the dark side.( Buffy and Willow)

Season 3 Xander saves the world ( The Zeppo)
Season 6 Xander saves the world ( Grave)

I know there are probably some more, like Buffy working in the food industry in "Anne" and her working at the DMP. She even mentions the waitress job in season 6. And I know that Buffy has taken things from other seasons and touched on them in the next.But it seems like season three and six connect more than any others I can think of. So my question is does anyone think there is a reason or point that ME was tryin to make.
Also please excuse the bad typing. It's one of the reasons I rarely post. Though I love this board. So many intelligent people.
[> Re: Season 3 prophecies of Season 6. Spoilers for both seasons. -- Liam, 06:44:03 09/02/02 Mon

Artemis,

I was very interested in reading what you had to say about connections between seasons 3 and 6. In fact, it could be argued that there are a couple of inadvertent prophecies in season 3 of what Buffy would be doing in season 6:

1. Buffy working in the fast food industry: In 'Dead Man's Party', Buffy and Joyce meet Snyder to discuss the former's return to school. Snyder is hostile, Joyce complaining at what his actions are doing to her daughter's future.


Snyder: I'm quite sure that a girl with the talents and abilities of Buffy will land on her feet. In fact (leans towards Buffy) I noticed as I came in this morning that Hot Dog on a Stick is hiring. (Buffy gives him an angry stare) You will look so cute in that hat.


What do we see in Season 6? Buffy working in a fast food restaurant, wearing a funny hat! Snyder might have been a rodent, but he was a good prophet.:)


2. Buffy's relationship with Spike: While Faith did not predict the relationship as such, she figured out that Buffy had a thing for vampires, possibly evil ones. This is what she said in 'Consequences':


Faith: I've seen it, B. You've got the lust. And I'm not just talking about screwing vampires.

Buffy stops in her tracks.

Buffy: Don't you *dare* bring him into this.

Faith: (taunting her) It was good, wasn't it? The sex? The danger? Bet a part of you even dug him when he went psycho.


Faith (correctly) identified Angelus as a hot villain, and that Buffy, like so many of the show's fans, was inadvertently attracted to him then. I'm sure that she would regard as no surprise the news that Buffy had a relationship with Spike, because it was again partly due to 'the sex' and 'the danger'.
[> [> Ironic -- Artemis, 16:29:44 09/02/02 Mon

You're right. I don't think Faith would be too surprised by the news of Buffy and Spike. Though I've always found it ironic that Buffy who is the supposed good girl has had what many would consider the darkest sexual experiences.Sex with two Vampires. While our bad girl Faith has not. Though I guess not for lack of trying.
[> [> [> It's all Faiths fault, maybe -- Q, 17:07:58 09/02/02 Mon

some would argue that Spike has been in love with Buffy as far back as Becomings when Drusilla smelled it on him.

but if not, the whole thing could be Faith's fault. The sexual taunting Faith gives Spike while in Buffy's body may have hurried him towards the realization. It did happen before his dream in "Outa my mind".

Therefore, not only should Faith not be "surprised", she should be blamed!
[> [> [> Re: Ironic -- leslie, 19:55:38 09/02/02 Mon

I don't know that it's that ironic. Buffy only has sex with "good" vampires, and part of their goodness is appreciating her goodness. Faith is what they're trying to get away from. And Faith could hardly have sex with bad vampires, as they would be too likely to kill her with Hickeys from Hell. Though I suppose there are bondage scenarios that I'd frankly prefer not to contemplate.
[> [> [> [> Re: Ironic -- Artemis, 22:53:13 09/02/02 Mon

Yeah I know you're right.The Vampires she's been with are good.( Spike is questionable) and they do appreciate her goodness. This is not a statement against Buffy.As an audience we know the story and the history,but from the world that Buffy lives in and our world, having sex with two vampires is pretty dark. And most people would assume that of the two, Faith given her character not Buffy would have been the one to go in this direction. It would have been Faiths' picture in the yearbook that read "Most likely to sleep with two vampires." It's ironic that it wasn't
[> Re: Season 6 and Season 3. . Is there a reason for Similarities? Spoilers for both seasons. -- shadowkat, 09:38:30 09/02/02 Mon

I've thought for some time that Season 6 and Season 3 strongly parallel each other. They are both the darkest
seasons of the series and the riskiest in the sexual content. See my S&M post below on B/F for some of that.

But overwhelmingly they also hold a similar theme: grow up.
In Season 3 - it's about graduating from high school, moving past a world that is structured by authority to one that you have to build more or less on your own. Finding your own way. Reference the Mayor's final speech. About
how they are ascending and the fears they all have about it.

In Season 6 - it's about dealing with responsibilites of adult hood. That actions have serious consequences and you have to live with them. etc.

Both seasons lead back to the idea of school. In Season 4, they go to college and now in Season 7 - apparently high
school for Dawn.

I think structurally and thematically the two seasons echo each other and the writers clearly expanded on themes introduced in Season 3 in Season 6. Often taking what had just been a fantasy or a humorous take and making it a full-blown reality. In season 3, we're protected by metaphor. The characters think about going there, but don't. VampWillow. The kissing scene in lover's walk. The spell.
In Season 6 - they do go there. Willow becomes DarkWillow
it's not just an evil doppelganger. Anya sleeps with Spike, they don't just talk about it. Willow does do a spell with serious consequences. She doesn't just discuss it.
And Angel just bites Buffy (it's metaphor more) while Spike attempts to violate her in the real-life way. Angel's is coaxed by Buffy (you could argue same about AR, but I REALLY don't want to go there.) Angel just moves to LA.
Spike goes to get a soul - a far more advanced step.

So clearly in adulthood - our actions can have far more serious consequences than they did in high school. The horrors are more real.

Just some ramblings. Good post Artremis. And your typing is no worse than mine in most of my spontaneous posts. ;-)
[> [> Shadowkat I Love your ramblings. -- Artemis, 11:45:24 09/02/02 Mon

" So clearly in adulthood- our actions can have far more serious consequences than they did in high school. the horrors are more real"

I love this. I think you hit the nail on the head. I wasn't sure before, but I do think this was ME's point.
You always state so clearly exactly what I am thinking.

Also, I just read your essays below. Once again great work.
[> Could there be season 4/7 thematic similarities? (spoilers) -- Quentin Collins, 03:37:30 09/03/02 Tue

Totally fascinating thread. I hadn't noticed the seasons 3/6 connections before and now I feel that they have to be much more than coincidence. Could there be connections such as these between seasons 4 and 7? With so few spoilers and vagueness abound in those we do have, this is all merely the ravings of an insomniac.

Season four: New school -- UC Sunnydale
Season seven: New school -- rebuilt Sunnydale High

Season four: Spike gets chipped
Season seven: Spike gets chip removed or deactivated?

Season four: Anya grudgingly accepts human identity
Season seven: Anya chooses to regain humanity?

Season four: Faith returns after time in coma
Season seven: Faith returns after time in pokey

Season four: Emotional pain causes Willow to unconsciously cast spell ("Something Blue")
Season seven: Emotional pain causes Willow to unconsciously cast spell ("Same Time, Same Place")?

Season four: Ends with disturbing and seemingly prophetic dreams ("Restless")
Season seven: Ends with these prophecies fulfilled?

Season four: Mysterious new authority figure -- Prof. Walsh
Season seven: Mysterious new authority figure -- Principal Wood

Season four: Mysterious villains hinted at in episode one
Season seven: Mysterious villain hinted at in episode one

Of course, as you see, the vast majority of this is pure speculation. With no season seven episodes having actually aired yet, I can pretty much put a spin on anything for my purpose. However, it will be interesting to see if any of this stuff plays out.
[> It is possible to go as far as to say... -- xanthe, 10:15:30 09/03/02 Tue

... the show may run on a three year cycle. I've noticed parallels between Seasons 1 & 4, Seasons 2 & 5, as well as the one between 3 & 6 that people are bringing up.

This may hold true for S7, wait and see, but the first seasons in the cycle, so far 1 & 4, have been identity/regrouping seasons. S1 obviously had to set up the show, the relationships, and the whole mission. S4 was very much a redirection. Key cast members had left and Buffy & the gang were starting their post-high school life. Both seasons had to (re)define how the show was going to be. They had big bads and climaxes that were perhaps the least personal. They were also the seasons that were the least dark in terms of story.

S2 & S5 both had definite arcs that involved all the characters in very immediate and gripping ways. Buffy perhaps the most directly affected by both the Angel and Dawn plotlines than by others. At the end of both seasons, she had to make a hard choice. Her decision to save Dawn and sacrifice herself seemed to be in part to be a reaction to her anguish at having to send Angel to hell to save the world.

S3 & S6 seem to me to be partly reaction to or clean-up for the preceeding events, though they both brought their own complications. S3 begins as Buffy and the gang rebound after Buffy's absence and Angel's bad behavior. The arrival of Faith sends the season further into darkness. S6 is obviously a resolution of the Buffy-is-dead problem - well, not a resolution, but a immediate result.

As for specifics, I think they are mostly coincidence. The general themes and overall tones definitely seem to repeat. It's far to early to know if S7 will be a reforming/identity season, but from interviews with Joss that I've read, it does seem that he intends to follow some of the patterns of S1. Here's hoping that it will be compelling as well as reaffirming.
[> [> Re: Parallels continued -- Artemis, 11:50:38 09/03/02 Tue

Duh... I had been so focused on season three and six. that I hadn't noticed the parallels between 1&4, 2&5. Some very good points and I think you're right.
The most obvious parallel you mentioned in 2&5 is that Buffy has to deal with "The Key" I find it interesting that ME chooses to use the same name for both major conflicts. It's one thing to repeat a theme but it seems more than coincidence when you choose to use the exact same name.Or maybe they realize people like me won't get the parallels unless they do something that obvious. Seems they mayhave been right if that's the case.But in my defense,I may be slow but I eventually get there.

Also heres a thought if we are going "Back to the beginning" in season 7 which should then parallel with 1&4 ( If theory is corect)
How much you enjoy season 7 will in part depend on how much you enjoyed the themes in those two seasons. Of course there will be other factors.
So judged as a whole, which two parallels worked the best for everyone.This is diferent than what season you liked the best.
For me : Season 2&5 comes first then 3&6 then 1&4.Though I probably enjoyed the themes of 3&6 more. As a whole the execution of 2&5 flowed better. JMHO
[> [> [> oops.. Double post ..sorry -- Artemis, 12:04:51 09/03/02 Tue

[> [> [> Re: Parallels continued -- xanthe, 12:10:22 09/03/02 Tue

Yeah, it was a bit of a jolt rewatching Becoming during Season 5 and hearing the line "Angel is the Key." I think that phrase itself was unintentional, but there are definite echoes of the two stories.

It's interesting that you should mention the season preference, because my favorite is S3, then S5 & S2 followed by S6, S1, & S4. (Gee, I really hope that doesn't mean I'm going to hate S7!) I love the darkness, but darn! this season was depressing! My reason for preferring S3 is the overall quality of every single episode. I won't go into detail, but almost every single one is completely rewatchable. For the other seasons, I find myself skipping quite a few, which I think influences my ranking. I didn't hate, S6 or even S4, I just enjoyed the others more.
[> [> Re: Parallels continued -- Artemis, 11:53:40 09/03/02 Tue

Duh... I had been so focused on season three and six. that I hadn't noticed the parallels between 1&4, 2&5. Some very good points and I think you're right.
The most obvious parallel you mentioned in 2&5 is that Buffy has to deal with "The Key" I find it interesting that ME chooses to use the same name for both major conflicts. It's one thing to repeat a theme but it seems more than coincidence when you choose to use the exact same name.Or maybe they realize people like me won't get the parallels unless they do something that obvious. If that's the case seems they may have been right. But in my defense,I may be slow but at least I eventually get there.

Also here's a thought if we are going "Back to the beginning" in season 7 which should then parallel with 1&4 ( If theory is corect)
How much you enjoy season 7 will in part depend on how much you enjoyed the themes in those two seasons. Of course there will be other factors.
So judged as a whole, which two parallels worked the best for everyone.This is diferent than what season you liked the best.
For me : Season 2&5 comes first then 3&6 then 1&4.Though I probably enjoyed the themes of 3&6 more. As a whole the execution of 2&5 flowed better. JMHO
[> Three year cycles in BtVS? -- matching mole, 10:55:40 09/03/02 Tue

This hadn't occurred to me before but it seems like BtVS has had, in addition to the season plots, two longer 'stories' each three seasons long. The first of these is "BtVS - The High School Years" and the second is "BtVS - What the Hell of We Do Now?"

Not only does does the end of season 3 coincide with high school graduation but in marks major transitions for the 4 four major characters and approximately a major transition in the supporting cast. At least some of these patterns are repeated in season 6.

Buffy in high school knows what she wants out of her high school experience - she wants to be a normal, popular teenager. Instead she gets to be slayer and have a doomed romance with a vampire with a soul. Over the three years slaying goes from becoming a job and nuisance to something that she accepts is part of herself. By the end of season 3 she seems to accept that she can't ever be a normal high school student and symbolically destroys the high school. In turn she is accepted by her peers who award her at the prom and then assist in defeating the mayor.

The Buffy of S4 to S6 lacks a goal. She attends university but never seems to know what she wants from it. Being the slayer goes from being a conflict with her desire for a 'normal life' to being the anchor of her life. The end of S6 seems to indicate her acceptance of her 'slayerness' and that it need not prevent her from seeking out other aspects in her life (specifically her relationship with her sister and getting a job).

Willow in seasons 1-3 is helpful Willow who increasingly comes to value herself more and more as she receives affirmation from Giles and Buffy for her help and from Oz as a romantic partner. Willow in seasons 4-6 is the more assertive Willow who increasingly strikes out on her own to explore magic outside of the context of helping the Scoobies. In constrast to all the other main characters her transition from high school is one of fulfillment. She loves college.

Xander and Giles face transitions similar to Buffy's. Their roles were fairly clearly defined in S1-S3 and lead to Giles rejecting the Watcher's authority over him and Xander increasing his own sense of worth within the Scoobies (e.g. the Zeppo and his kindness towards Cordelia at the end of S3). During S4-S6 Giles comes to the realization that he can't remain Buffy's watcher as his only role in life, forever. Xander, of all the Scoobies, makes the most abrupt change after S3. He doesn't return to school but gets a full time job and embarks on a steady, long term relationship. But being a Scooby is the thing he seems to really value in life and this is his downfall in S6. His embrace of Willow as a friend (rather than a fellow battler against evil) seems to indicate that he may be broadening his perspectives. Xander's trajectory through high school and then through S4-S6 seems the most similar to Buffy's.

The main characters all seem to have arrived at a second turning point or whatever you want to call it. However we will have to wait for the events of S7 to see (at least those of us, like myself, who are trying to remain unspoiled will have to wait.

It is worth noting that the S3/S4 transition marked an almost complete change in the supporting cast. Cordelia and Angel left at the end of S3 and Oz left early in S4. Riley and Tara are introduced in early in S4 and Anya and Spike make the transition from adversaries to regulars at the same time.

You could extend this further and point out numerous parallels between S1 and S4 and S2 and S5. The Master and the Initiative represent the same type of old-fashioned supervillain trying to raise an army of evil doers. Angelus/Spike/Drusilla and Glory aren't nearly so goal directed - they are mostly reveling in chaos for its own sake (and in the end want to break down dimensional barriers). In S3 and S6 the foes are human (Mayor/Faith and the nerds). Warren like the Mayor makes himself invincible. Willow mirrors Faith in being a 'good guy' who goes bad. Who knows if this means anything but it is darned interesting.

My apologies if this has been repeated elsewhere - I was called away mid-post and am completing it several hours later.
[> [> I knew it -- matching mole, 11:28:55 09/03/02 Tue

I must apologize to xanthe for my post which has the same basic thesis as hers/his. Like I said I was away from the computer for a while and didn't want to lose my text by reloading the main page (now that I think of it I could have just opened a second page but there's hindsight for you).

I was originally inspired to think about this by shadowkat's comment that S3 and S6 were the two grimmest seasons. This is obviously a subjective issue (unless someone has a grimmometer) but S3 has generally struck me as one of the least grim seasons. I would consider S2 and S5 (the furious middles of each cycle) as definitely being grimmer what with Angel losing his soul, going to hell and all and Riley's frall from Grace, Joyce's illness and death, and Buffy's retreat into catatonia and eventual self-sacrifice at the end.
[> [> [> no problem... -- xanthe, 11:57:58 09/03/02 Tue

You said it better anyways. :)

I hadn't noticed the progression of Buffy's character as much as the obvious break between high school and real life. There's clearly a lot there if examined.
[> [> [> Not grim, dark...difference -- shadowkat, 12:56:50 09/04/02 Wed

"I was originally inspired to think about this by shadowkat's comment that S3 and S6 were the two grimmest seasons. This is obviously a subjective issue (unless someone has a grimmometer) but S3 has generally struck me as one of the least grim seasons. I would consider S2 and S5 (the furious middles of each cycle) as definitely being grimmer what with Angel losing his soul, going to hell and all and Riley's frall from Grace, Joyce's illness and death, and Buffy's retreat into catatonia and eventual self-sacrifice at the end."

Uh, semantics debate. My apologies I should have been clearer. Didn't mean dark = death, grim, sad. I meant dark = gritty, underbelly, seeing the dark edge of the characters, complex issues

I'd agree that S2 and S5 were far sadder and grimmer. But for dark metaphors? And dark sex? S3 and S6 take it.

Compare Joyce's death to Buffy engaging in S&M sex?
One is grim. One is sort of sexy/and dark. (dark isn't necessarily meant as grim.)

or Killing Angel - to Killing Faith to save Angel?
Or VampWillow and The Wish as compared to What's My Line?

Maybe a better way of putting it is S3 and S6 are tad more adult in their depictions of sexual situations and themes?

Not sure I'm making myself clear..jumping out now. And giving brain a rest. ;-) sk

oh good analysis of three year arcs xanthe and mm.
[> I wrote this at the tail end of another thread; I think it still applies.... -- cjl, 15:41:09 09/03/02 Tue

Huh. Again with the threes in the Buffyverse -- 1, 4, 7 with new beginnings, the mirroring of 2 and 5, and now the link between 3 and 6: in Season 3, the gang's viewpoint broadened from their inner circle to the community of Sunnydale, where they found entirely new levels of menace from the authority
figures they had taken for granted their entire lives.

The perfect symbol of this threat, of course, was Giles. Giles was the authority figure everyone trusted without question despite his checkered past--and perhaps even BECAUSE of his checkered past. The confrontation with his wicked days in Oxford only brought him closer to Buffy and the gang because they saw he was a human being, despite all his erudition.

How much more shocking, then, when Giles actually went through with the Cruciamentum--simultaneously submitting to the Council's worst tendencies and abusing his authority with Buffy.

In a strange, sideways fashion, this theme is picked up again in Season 6, after Giles has left, and the gang is forced to define their relationship to the community on their own. Distracted as they are by their own personal problems, and taking their cue from an emotionally distant Buffy, Sunnydale gets royally screwed over. For the S6 Scoobys, patrolling was a perfunctory task at best and ignored at worst; there was all sorts of irresponsible mojo flying around everywhere, and the one good witch who could stop it was trying to distance herself from the carnage; and the Legion of Dorkness--don't get me started. If Buffy and the gang had their heads screwed on straight for two seconds, those guys would have been toast right after Life Serial. But the Scoobs keep letting the nerds slip under the radar, kept brushing them away like evil lint instead of taking them seriously, and Warren's monomania had room to grow and thrive. We know where that led. The SG's irresponsibility nearly set armageddon in motion.

So, just like Season 3, the authority figures, the people responsible for the safety of the community, screwed up.

In this case, though, the Gang had no one to blame but themselves.
[> A few more parallels? -- Sebastian, 10:48:20 09/04/02 Wed

grimmometer - that made me laugh.

It's been awhile since I've posted anything significant, so I hope A: you all remember me :-) and B: this makes any sort of sense.

Also....I apologize ahead of time of this has already been repeated...

....but to touch upon prior comments - I always saw S2 and S5 written in an 'epic' format. Both seasons always reminded me of Greek tragedies regarding how they were constructed. They dealt with very serious moral conundrums that had no easy solution. And in both seasons, the origin point lay with Buffy (S2: sleeping with Angel; S5: Dawn being created as Buffy's 'avatar').

From the moment 'Surprise' and 'No Place Like Home' was aired - there was an underlying theme that ran in every episode for the rest of the S2 and S5 (even if the ep. was stand-alone). The underlying theme for S2 was, of course, being 'how/what to do about Angel?' and S5 being 'how/what to do about Dawn?'

Also, S2/S5 seemed to get into the 'meat' of the characters and what they are about. The rather UNexpected killing off of a parental figure (S2: Ms. Calendar; S5: Joyce). Also there was the UNexpected development of quasi(?) romantic relationships in both seasons (S2: Xander and Cordelia; S5: Buffy and Spike)

S3 and S6 seemed to consist of more individual eps. There wasn't a major story arc that was running through most of the season. Yes, there were the arcs of The Mayor/Faith and The Evil Trio to deal with, but there wasn't the sense of urgency there was in both 2 & 5. They also seemed to focus more on the individual crises the characters were going through (S3: Angel's reintegration back into the world, Faith's descent into sociopathic behavior, Xander's growing feeling of uselessness, Anya's newly emerged humanity; S6: Buffy's reintegration back into the world, Willow's descent into magi addiction, Xander's feelings of inadequacy, Anya's struggle to maintain 'normal' human behavior). Also, S3/S6 were more about the investigation into the darker motivations of the characters, be they good or bad. And an unexpected departure/murder of a 'significant other' (S3: Angel/Cordelia, S6: Tara)

S1 and S4 seemed more very much like jumping-on points (S1: Buffy starts high school; S5: Buffy Starts college). And a great deal of the season seemed to be very focused on the romantic relationships of the characters (S1: Buffy-Willow-Xander-Angel box; S5: Buffy and Riley, Willow/Tara, etc...)

Anyway ... just my thoughts.

- S

Classic Movie of the Week - August 31st 2002 *Guilty Pleasures/Buried Treasures Pt. V* -- OnM, 20:48:59 09/01/02 Sun

*******

We live in a world in which politics has replaced philosophy.

............ Martin L. Gross

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning
of words, you can control the people who must use the words.

............ Philip K. Dick

Or, of course, the manipulation of images. This is, after all, the video age.

............ OnM

Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.

............ Gilbert K. Chesterton

*******

Humans, as a rule, are very suggestible creatures. For persons such as myself, who depend on selling
either physical/intellectual labor or material things for income, this is generally a beneficial characteristic.

In my situation, things tend to work out for the best if the potential buyer already tends to know just what
it is that they want, and so if you have it, or know where they can get it, great. If you donít, they donít
waste your time (or their own) hanging around, they move on to the next place in pursuit of the goal,
whatever it might be. Statistically speaking, most shoppers donít fit into this category, itís just one end of a
bell-curve. At the other end of the curve is the customer/client who is every salespersonís / professionalís
worst nightmare. These are the folks that really havenít a single clue what it is that they are looking for--
they have only a vague, very fuzzy notion that they need to get ësomethingí, and they want you to tell them
what it is.

Alas, while I have a number of mostly useful skills, telepathy or divination are not among them. Instead, I
end up asking questions and making suggestions until hopefully there is a meeting of the minds and a
suitable positive result is achieved. However, this latter tactic only works well if the person is a secure
individual who is looking for a ësolutioní, and if they find it, they stop right there-- goal accomplished. In
some cases-- mercifully, only a moderate number-- providing a ëgoodí solution is not enough for certain
customers. They not only need to have their problem solved, they need to know with absolute certainty
that it is also the best possible solution of any and all available solutions, not only for right now
but for an indefinite future period. This might seem perfectly reasonable, and it would be, except for
one annoying little fact.

Itís almost never possible to provide the ëbest solutioní, at least in my business. Why? Because there are
just too many variables to take into consideration. Customers ask me all the time, after I suggest a certain
brand and model of, say, a DVD player, ìWhat about Brand S? Do you think that would be a better
choice? Or how about Brand P?î

Here comes the problem. If I answer them honestly, they usually wonít be happy. If I answer them
evasively or dishonestly, they might either be happy or think I was lying to them, and itís largely a
crap-shoot to guess which it will be.

The truth is, there are umpteen-leventy-leven brands/models/etc.of equipment available. No store, no
matter how big, can handle all of them. Unless I have personal experience with a given brand/product, the
only honest answer to the customerís question is going to be ëI donít knowí. This is not an answer that the
customer normally wants to hear. They want reassurance, not ambiguity. So, most salespeople in this
position do what needs to be done to save the sale-- they lie, or at least make something up that
corresponds with what the customer expects to hear. Depending on largely hard-to-define characteristics
such as ëpersonalityí or ëcharismaí the customer will accept the ëexaggerationí or not. Since I seem to have
what could best be described as an ëoddí personality, and rather little charisma, I generally just tell the truth
and hope that I get lucky and they buy the thing anyway.

And sometimes they do, but itís frustrating nevertheless. I make no claim to be all-knowledgeable about
things audio or video related, but I do know a lot-- easily enough to reliably guide folks to sensible,
practical solutions to their needs. As an audio guru, I pass muster. But if what the customer wants is a god
and not a guru, thatís not going to be me. I can only suggest, I canít pontificate.

And therein lies the rub for the buyer-- whom do they place their faith in? If the buyer doesnít understand
what he or she needs from the ëpurchaseí, and the seller lacks omniscience, the result will have to allow for
a level of ambiguity.

So far, I have assumed that the ambiguity just described is a ëbenign tumorí of sorts. You really donít need
it, but it doesnít really hurt you, either, itís just there. Suppose the ambiguity falls from a suggestion that
comes from a hidden agenda, one not in keeping with balancing the honest needs of both buyer and seller.
This kind of ëtumorí might very well turn out to be malignant, and devolve in a number of nasty ways. So
far, Iíve been using the retail industry as an example, but for real potential malignancy letís go back to
those two ëdemonsí I mentioned in last weekís column, organized religion and politics.

Are there honest politicians and religious leaders? Of course, just as there are evil, disingenuous ones. At
the one end of the bell curve we have Clem and Lorne, and on the other we have Sahjhan and Angelus. In
between, we have Merle and Anyanka, who arenít necessarily outrightly ëevilí in the usual sense, just
mostly self-interested and/or opportunistic. These mid-vector dwellers are examples of beings that could
go either way-- darker or lighter, benign or malignant-- depending on circumstances. While external factors
might play a significant role in determining the direction taken, there is another consideratrion of equal
importance, a consideration that all of the major characters in both BtVS and A:tS have been working with
in this last season.

Who am I really? What do I want? On whom or what do I rely upon for moral guidance? Whatís the
bottom line?

This is exactly the dilemma that faces the main protagonist of this weekís Classic Movie and ëguilty
pleasureí, director David Cronenbergís 1983 release, Videodrome, when he unwittingly
becomes a pawn for two warring political/religious factions.

Max Renn (James Woods, in one of his earlier but still very memorable roles) is a television programmer
for ëCivic-TVí, a tiny cable station in Toronto, Canada. Since his station needs a way to make its presence
felt among the larger competitors in the region, Max and his two partners specialize in shows emphasizing
violence and soft-to-moderate level porno material. Max understands what his audience wants, because itís
what interests him, although he tells himself itís just ëa business decisioní.

Early on in the film, Max is a guest on a local talk-show along with Nicki Brand, a radio ërelationship
consultantí (Deborah Harry of ëBlondieí fame) and a mysterious man named Brian OíBlivion (Jack Creley)
who never appears in public, but only on a television screen. Max is immediately attracted to Nicki, and
makes a pitch to her for a date right there on the talk-show set. The host, who attempts to return the
subject of conversation to the topic at hand-- the effects of television sex and violence on the viewing
public-- gets a cryptic and tangential response from OíBlivion, and a much shorter and more sound-bitey
answer from Max-- ìBetter on TV than on the streets.î

Maxís simple and somewhat self-serving answer begins to gradually deconstruct when a techno-geek friend
named Harlan (Peter Dvorsky) pirates a satellite broadcast carrying a program named ëVideodromeí. Max
correctly interprets the name as meaning ëThe Video Arenaí, but what kind of conflict is being resolved?
All the broadcast consists of are shots from a single video camera placed in a room, recording scenes of
torture, rape and murder. Max is fascinated-- is this the ëharder stuffí he is looking for to push Civic-TV
ahead in the ratings? Max assumes that what he is seeing is only acting and special effects, but the scenes
look so real that they are even more disturbing than they would otherwise be. He ignores the
disquieting feelings, and directs Harlan to capture more of the broadcasts, while he has a business
associate, Masha (Lynne Gorman) try to track down Videodromeís producers to see if he can purchase the
rights to it for his station.

Max goes on his date with Nicki, and as they become more intimately aquainted, it turns out that sheís a
perfect match for Max -- while assertive and commanding in her public life, in private Nicki is a sexual
submissive with a taste for pain, and coaxes Max into feeling free to explore his fantasies with her. When
she discovers Maxís tapes of the Videodrome transmissions, sheís becomes fascinated with them and even
tells Max that she wants to become a ëcontestantí on the show.

Max has been warned away from pursuing Videodrome by his friend Masha, who informs him that
Videodrome is ëpoliticalí, and that the scenes he is seeing arenít acted-- theyíre real. But itís too late. It
turns out that the Videodrome program contains a piggybacked transmission that somehow stimulates
growth of a tumor in the brain, causing bizarre hallucinations on the part of the viewer. After Max begins
hallucinating, he seeks out the elusive Brian O'Blivion, whom he suspects is behind it all. Naturally, it isnít
as simple as that.

The visions continue in both increasing frequency and intensity, until Max is no longer sure what is real and
what is not. On the face of things, the movie seems to be asking that age-old question of to what degree
we define reality as internal or external, but this is a red herring. What is really taking place is that Max has
been effectively turned into a warrior for first the forces who have created Videodrome, and then for their
enemy. But are either of these shadowy groups interested in furthering any agenda beyond their own? The
final scene of the film answers this question, and itís not a happy ending.

ìLong live the new flesh!î are the last words that Max speaks in the film, but the irony is that the ënew
fleshí is an illusion and that the same old method of suggestion which repeats a lie over and over again until
it becomes ëthe truthí-- or the ënew fleshí-- is still the time-tested tool of the patently despotic.

Videodrome is a cautionary tale, and one that, sadly, rings as true today as it did almost 20 years
ago. Max Renn didnít start out to be evil, and in fact does not finish as an evil man, but it hardly matters.
First Words, and now Images shape our interpretation of ërealityí, and so the determination of the moral
issues of the day increasingly rest with those who choose the images we base our current inner reality
upon.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.


E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM


*******

The New Technical Flesh:

Videodrome is available on DVD, which was also the format of the review copy. The film was
released in 1983, and running time is 1 hour and 29 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1,
which is preserved on the DVD. The screenplay was written by director David Cronenberg. The film was
produced by Pierre David, Claude HÈroux, Lawrence Nesis and Victor Solnicki. Cinematography was by
Mark Irwin with film editing by Ronald Sanders. Art Direction was by Carol Spier, with set decoration by
Angelo Stea and costume design by Delphine White. Special visual effects design was by industry veteran
Rick Baker. Original music was by Howard Shore. The original theatrical sound mix was in plain olí mono.

Cast overview:

James Woods .... Max Renn
Sonja Smits .... Bianca O'Blivion
Debbie Harry .... Nicki Brand
Peter Dvorsky .... Harlan
Leslie Carlson .... Barry Convex
Jack Creley .... Brian O'Blivion
Lynne Gorman .... Masha
Julie Khaner .... Bridey
Reiner Schwartz .... Moses
David Bolt .... Raphael
Lally Cadeau .... Rena King
Henry Gomez .... Brolley
Harvey Chao .... Japanese Salesman
David Tsubouchi .... Japanese Salesman
Kay Hawtrey .... Matron
Sam Malkin .... Sidewalk Derelict
Bob Church .... Newscaster
Jayne Eastwood .... Woman Caller
Franciszka Hedland .... Bellydancer

*******

Miscellaneous:

Reality can get pretty strange without any help from television-induced tumors and such. True story here:

Last week, when I recommeded Election, I had to resort to digging up my tape-off-satellite copy to
review the film, since I couldnít find my DVD copy. I looked all over the place, but no DVD. Did I
hallucinate ever having one? Did it go wherever the socks in the dryer go? Whatever the case, this is
certainly a disc that I want in my collection, so I resigned myself to getting a (new?) copy.

My two regular DVD stores didnít have a copy of Election in stock, so I went back to another
store, a chain that I used to shop regularly at because they had a good selection at good prices, but who
have since had steep price increases, along with an annoying physical display layout and an
overly-aggressive sales staff. These changes caused me to eventually avoid buying there unless there was
no other choice to find a disc locally.

So, I meander in the store and after checking out some new releases, I go looking for Election.
While I am passing by the ëSci-Fi/Horrorí section on the way to the ëComedyí section, I catch a certain
disc cover out of the corner of my eye, and I stop. There, right out in the front of an assortment of discs is
none other than a DVD copy of Brian Yuznaís Return of the Living Dead III. I looked for this title
for close to half a year, and finally gave up, since no one seemed to have it in stock or ever had it in stock.
And now, there it was, and at a good price, too.

So whatís the relevance? Well, yesterday was August 31st, and exactly one year ago to the day, I
posted a review/recommedation here at CMotW for this very film. And there it was. Freaky, man. I
understand that itís just a coincidence, but still... a very strange little bend in reality, I would suggest.

Oh, yeah, I not only got a copy of Election, but also found Freeway, a film starring Reese
Witherspoon that several other ATPo movie fans recommended when I spoke highly of her acting work in
my recent review of Legally Blonde. For $9.95, no less!

Freaky, I tell ya.


*******

The Question of the Week:

Whether or not my film-related analytical skills have improved by watching and writing about all these
flicks over the last one and a half years (not to mention 122 Buffy eps and 66 Angel eps), I was somewhat
surprised to note that while Iíve seen Videodrome several times since it was first released, this last
viewing prior to writing this weekís column was the first time that I really felt I understood what
Cronenberg was trying to say with it.

The question: Do you tend to pretty much ëgetí a film (or TV show) the first time you watch it, or do
you need repeated viewings or the passage of time to do so?

Post ëem if youíve got ëem, dear friends, and Iíll see you next week. Summer may be officially over, but
the cinema goes on forever.

Or at least as long as thereís electricity. Bye!

;-)

*******
[> It took 4 viewings of "Donnie Darko" to really "get" everything-and I still have some questions.. -- AurraSing, 21:30:23 09/01/02 Sun

My husband and I rented it one night on the recommendation of a fellow Buffy boarder and were in total awe by the time the movie ended,but I still had so many unanswered questions rolling around in my mind that night I could not sleep.I had to get back up and watch the director's commentary version of the film to make more sense of what I had seen.

Since it was a rental,we took it back the next day but vowed to buy a copy.The night I managed to find a copy (and it took some looking),I played the movie for my brother and some friends....I watched their reactions as much as I watched the movie and the most telling thing I saw was how much it bothered them.One woman (an emergency psych nurse) was so disturbed by some of the imagery she kept leaving the room but I urged her to come back,pointing out that it was her perception of what was going to happen that was driving her out,not the actual reality of the movie.

I then went home the next day and watched the "cast commentary" version and got even more answers from their feelings/discussions as the film played-leaving me with answers to pretty well everything.But it still bothers me to think of Katherine Ross' character:what exactly *was* she doing????? Did Patrick Swayze's character change at all??? What really made Donnie laugh at the end???

Some other examples of movies that I have watched at least three or 4 times before I "got" everything would be "The Conversation" and "Blade Runner",both movies that have become cult classics because there is so much more theree than than first meets the eye.I only hope I can still find movies that demand repeat viewings before I can get everything,otherwise some of the challenge of loving films will be lost for me.
[> [> R: It took 4 viewings of "Donnie Darko" to really "get" everything-and I still have some questions.. -- Rufus, 21:42:49 09/01/02 Sun

I finally got a copy of Donnie Darko....it's packed away with my other stuff. I get a movie watch it then rewatch with the commentary. A good commentary will make me want to buy a movie........then there are bad commentaries....a note to movie makers...don't have the actors or directors in a commentary get so off topic that they are talking about everything and one but the film they are watching. One of the worst commentaries was for the recent release of Resident Evil....they would do well to go and redo that one it was a waste....unlike the commentary for Donnie Darko. There are two for Donnie Darko..one with the lead actor and director and a second with some of the other actors...both were enjoyable though the second one did get a bit off topic.
I can understand why your friend would want to leave the room when it comes to DD because it can seem so bleak and futile in the end, but Donnie is the hero in that he saves the world by sacrificing himself...maybe he was laughing because for being so powerless (being in therapy and generally misunderstood)he made the most powerful choice to live or die on his own....sometimes the joy of life can only be totally appreciated when you are about to leave it.
[> [> [> On "leaving the room"...(spoilers for Donnie Darko) -- AurraSing, 10:14:25 09/02/02 Mon

I think Jake and the director did a great job of making Donnie appear to be psychotic,so much so that in certain scenes,Colleen would anticipate mayhem ensuing and would walk out thinking the screen would be gore-filled.........which of course makes the little incident outside Grandma Death's house with the car all that more shocking,because you have been sitting there thinking Donnie will be going off the deep end any moment and when he does,then tells the friend in a caring manner to go home and talk to his parents,that everything *will* be alright,it really reinforces the fact that Donnie was never insane-just lost and bewildered.
The fact that somehow Frank subtly nudged him into going upstairs and finding that gun indicates Frank knew he had to die;that his death and the death of Gretchen were the impetus Donnie needed to help him make his final decision.

I'm more shocked by Dr. Thurman's (Katherine Ross) actions than anyone else in this picture.Sure,Jim Cunningham is a sleaze ball but you know by Donnie's reactions to him that he has been seen through and his day will come....but Thurman not only gained Donnie's trust but also his family's trust,while all the while betraying them cruelly.Jim woke up in tears-what should her punishment be??

I'd like to think that Donnie was laughing over the fact that everything he went through those last few days would be forgotten,that he would be free of his sadness at last.Perhaps in those last few seconds his burden was indeed lifted and life was good again.
[> [> Huge fan of "Donnie Darko" here...(spoilers) -- Rob, 15:14:13 09/02/02 Mon

I was absolutely blown away by this film in the movie theatre, and, when I first bought it on DVD, I watched it the first night. The second night, I watched it all the way through again, then watched it all the way through with one of the commentaries. The next night, I watched the whole movie again, and then with the second commentary. I watched it again for the next three nights, and each time I noticed another detail that enriched the viewing experience. This is a film that does not easily spell out everything to its audience, and it takes some work on the audience's part, not to mention repeated viewings, to pick up on the implications of even some of the most seemingly unimportant moments. For example, some of the extended musical sequences, most especially the camera sweep of life at the high school early on in the film and the ending montage of everybody waking up to see the world returned to "normal", are loaded with meanings, and small references that only gain more meaning when you learn more about each character. A particular favorite of mine is the enigmatic, quiet, overweight Asian girl (her name escapes me for the moment) who seems to be the only one able to truly, on some level, understand Donnie.

It took me four viewings to figure out that Frank was Donnie's sister's boyfriend, and that Frank's eye was the vortex into the next dimension, which opened when Donnie shot it out. (That part, incidentally, if you hadn't reached that conclusion, I got from the scene in the bathroom when Donnie tries to pierce his way into Frank's dimension with the kitchen knife, each time causing a ripple. Finally, when Frank's demonic face mocks him, that he'll never find the way in, Frank's eye flashes and glows for an instant. Later Frank loses that same eye to a bullet from Donnie's gun. The second that happens, we hear a faint, subtle wind starting up in the background, which later grows into the huge vortex that sucks up the plane wing.) It wasn't until my fifth viewing that I noticed how Roberta Sparrow almost getting hit by Frank's car, and later walking back to her house, with a satisifed smile on her face, when her theories of time travel finally come to fruition. On subsequent viewings, I figured out more and more about the story...about Donnie's status as a comic-book-style superhero, about the relevance of the banned short story to the greater themes of the film, about how each event that occurred fit like a puzzle piece into the grand scheme of how Donnie would end up being the one to create the split in time. I loved how Donnie had to sacrifice himself in order to stop this cycle. If he hadn't the world most literally would have ended, as Frank had told him it would, because it would have been stuck forever in a constant loop for all of eternity. Every time it reached Halloween, it would have rewound again to the night of the accident. I loved the magical realism of this story. Science fiction, yes, but almost completely occurring in a realistic environment.

I do have one question, though. I'm not sure about exactly what questions you had regarding the psychiatrist's behavior. You made mention in your next post about her "betraying Donnie and his family cruelly". In exactly what way did she do this? I must confess that, although I've seen the movie many times, it's been many months since my last viewing, and, while, I seem to remember something strange about Katherine Ross' character's behavior, I don't remember the specifics? Can you fill me in? I'm sure when you tell me, I'll just have to hit myself on the head and go "D'oh!" but for the moment I don't remember what she did to Donnie.

Rob
[> [> [> (Smacks Rob's forehead for him) Here is your "d'oh!" -- AurraSing, 15:38:55 09/02/02 Mon

All the drugs she had Donnie on were placebos.

So all the pill popping he was doing was not helping his anxiety/anger/disturbed feelings at all.This is why you see her in the segment at the end where all the other characters are awake right after Donnie dies (but not Cherita,who sleeps the sleep of innocence),because she knew she was letting Donnie down and yet had done nothing about it.
[> [> [> [> D'oh! -- Rob, 16:51:10 09/02/02 Mon

I knew I would have to do that!

Yeah, I remember the whole placebos thing now! And that was such an integral thing, too, I'm surprised I forgot it, while I remembered a lot of other minute details about the film.

Thanks for the smack on the head. ;o)

Rob
[> [> [> [> Oh...and thanks for supplying Cherita's name...I think I may need to watch it again soon! -- Rob, 16:52:37 09/02/02 Mon

[> [> Huge fan of "Donnie Darko" here...(spoilers) -- Rob, 15:18:26 09/02/02 Mon

I was absolutely blown away by this film in the movie theatre, and, when I first bought it on DVD, I watched it the first night. The second night, I watched it all the way through again, then watched it all the way through with one of the commentaries. The next night, I watched the whole movie again, and then with the second commentary. I watched it again for the next three nights, and each time I noticed another detail that enriched the viewing experience. This is a film that does not easily spell out everything to its audience, and it takes some work on the audience's part, not to mention repeated viewings, to pick up on the implications of even some of the most seemingly unimportant moments. For example, some of the extended musical sequences, most especially the camera sweep of life at the high school early on in the film and the ending montage of everybody waking up to see the world returned to "normal", are loaded with meanings, and small references that only gain more meaning when you learn more about each character. A particular favorite of mine is the enigmatic, quiet, overweight Asian girl (her name escapes me for the moment) who seems to be the only one able to truly, on some level, understand Donnie.

It took me four viewings to figure out that Frank was Donnie's sister's boyfriend, and that Frank's eye was the vortex into the next dimension, which opened when Donnie shot it out. (That part, incidentally, if you hadn't reached that conclusion, I got from the scene in the bathroom when Donnie tries to pierce his way into Frank's dimension with the kitchen knife, each time causing a ripple. Finally, when Frank's demonic face mocks him, that he'll never find the way in, Frank's eye flashes and glows for an instant. Later Frank loses that same eye to a bullet from Donnie's gun. The second that happens, we hear a faint, subtle wind starting up in the background, which later grows into the huge vortex that sucks up the plane wing.) It wasn't until my fifth viewing that I noticed how Roberta Sparrow almost getting hit by Frank's car, and later walking back to her house, with a satisifed smile on her face, when her theories of time travel finally come to fruition. On subsequent viewings, I figured out more and more about the story...about Donnie's status as a comic-book-style superhero, about the relevance of the banned short story to the greater themes of the film, about how each event that occurred fit like a puzzle piece into the grand scheme of how Donnie would end up being the one to create the split in time. I loved how Donnie had to sacrifice himself in order to stop this cycle. If he hadn't the world most literally would have ended, as Frank had told him it would, because it would have been stuck forever in a constant loop for all of eternity. Every time it reached Halloween, it would have rewound again to the night of the accident. I loved the magical realism of this story. Science fiction, yes, but almost completely occurring in a realistic environment.

I do have one question, though. I'm not sure about exactly what questions you had regarding the psychiatrist's behavior. You made mention in your next post about her "betraying Donnie and his family cruelly". In exactly what way did she do this? I must confess that, although I've seen the movie many times, it's been many months since my last viewing, and, while, I seem to remember something strange about Katherine Ross' character's behavior, I don't remember the specifics? Can you fill me in? I'm sure when you tell me, I'll just have to hit myself on the head and go "D'oh!" but for the moment I don't remember what she did to Donnie.

Rob
[> Re: "Getting" movies -- mundusmundi, 07:13:24 09/02/02 Mon

The question: Do you tend to pretty much ëgetí a film (or TV show) the first time you watch it, or do
you need repeated viewings or the passage of time to do so?

Hehehe. Well, wont to snap judgments as I am, I rarely change my mind about a movie. I'm especially resistant of the ones that seem deliberatley opaque. Much has been made about the genius of David Lynch, for example, so this is probably heresy, but I detest his work. For me, his films are about as "dreamlike" as XXX is an accurate depiction of spying. After watching one of them, I always want to wash myself off with Living in Oblivion, a great buried treasure in its own right, which skewers movies about dreams and dwarfs -- or more precisely dreams about dwarfs -- among other things.

OTOH, I recently watched The Royal Tenenbaums on DVD, a movie I was pretty luke-warm to when it came out in theaters, and I couldn't believe how much better it seemed! The jokes were somehow funnier, the pathos more inexplicably moving. How in the world did I choke up at Ben Stiller saying, "I had a rough year, Dad," the second time when it didn't affect me the first? Maybe it's a sign that I finally got it.
[> Getting movies the first time? -- Cactus Watcher, 07:54:07 09/02/02 Mon

I usually get movies the first time at the video store... Oh, that's not the question? Guess I was distracted (tee hee).

Seriously, whether or not you understand a movie or story the first time is often a matter of mind set. The more open you are to anything that comes, the more likely it is to ring true the first time. When you're preoccupied with something in your real life, it's often the case that stories that don't fit what you're experiencing either don't make sense or just seem false. Seeing it again when you're not preoccupied may change your whole outlook. The opposite is also true. A mediocre film that fits precisely with what you are experiencing can seem great at the moment and not-so-hot when your situation changes.

This isn't the same thing as not catching every reference the first time. Virtually no one does, especially when the story is really complex or the writer, screen writer or director has his own agenda beyond what's being told at the moment.

People with set opinions and strongly held world views frequently miss things in stories or put things in stories that aren't really there. This isn't necessarily good or bad but it can interfer with understanding. If any two intersecting lines, or a character with his arms spread wide immediately suggest a Christian cross to you, you'll see Christian themes (or anti-Christian themes) in stories with no intended relation to Christianity. If every thin cynlinder suggests a male sexual organ, or every cavity a female sexual organ, a person is going to see tons of sexual themes no one intended. When these themes aren't carried through it's no wonder people don't 'get' the story.
[> [> Re: Getting movies the first time? -- redcat, 08:47:12 09/02/02 Mon

CW: ìPeople with set opinions and strongly held world views frequently miss things in stories
or put things in stories that aren't really there. This isn't necessarily good or bad but it can
interfer with understanding. If any two intersecting lines, or a character with his arms spread
wide immediately suggest a Christian cross to you, you'll see Christian themes (or anti-
Christian themes) in stories with no intended relation to Christianity.î


Interesting observations, CW. I think I agree with you in general that what we bring to a film
affects our experience of it. But I wouldnít discount the power of authorial intent completely,
nor the broader cultural contexts within which filmic images work.

For example, judging by this board at least, I think itís fair to say that the majority of Buffy
viewers ìgotî the Christic imagery of Buffy jumping off the tower in The Gift. A season later, I
see few (and perhaps even no) viewers claiming a similar imagistic connection to Warren
being strung with his arms spread wide while Willow tortured and killed him. Personally, when
I watch that scene, I always have the sense of an odd interplay between referential images of
Viking sacrifice and the display of war criminals in certain Papuan cultures. (Both of which, of
course, lead to oddly comforting cross-images of Willow, but thatís for a different thread....)

Iím certainly someone (as the recent existentialism thread demonstrates) who tends to read
visual culture at the symbolic level, among many others, and I certainly see the subtle interplay
between the two sets of symbols being called upon in the two charactersí death scenes. But I
think even a person ìwith set opinions and strongly held world viewsî would have a hard time
making the argument that the images of Warrenís and Buffyís deaths ìworkî the same way
simply because both bodies create a visually-similar graphic image. The contexts within which
those images occur, created through authorial intent, both suggest certain interpretations of
the images and, just as surely, limit other interpretations.

While interpretation is clearly an active process, itís also an interactive one. Both artist and
viewer take part in the dialog.
[> [> [> Agreed -- CW, 09:23:05 09/02/02 Mon

But, we've all seen instances when either the artist or the viewer can't get a word in edgewise. The artist gets so heavy handed or the viewer's mindset is so fixed there is no dialogue.

Re. Buffy and the swan dive. When an avowed non-Christian like Joss knowingly shows something that clearly is going to be symbolically charged to a large group of people, you have to be a little sceptical about it. Was his intent to convey a Christlike figure? Probably. Was his intent to manipulate the feelings of people who don't think along the same lines he does? Probably. As I said in the first post, I think one might get into trouble trying carry the Christ theme too far in examining The Gift. The story doesn't really fit. What does the Christlike symbolism add to The Gift? It really depends on your point of view. If you are not Christian and Buffy's arms spread wide means absolutely nothing to you, would you miss the fact that Buffy is sacrificing herself? I doubt it.
[> [> [> [> Agreed -- Rahael, 09:33:33 09/02/02 Mon

You're right CW. I think Joss *Plays* with Christ like symbolism but doesn't carry it through all the way. If one looks at the connections and *disconnections* in the use of a particular narrative I think you receive a far more subtle and meaningful message.

A very long time ago, I suggested that Joss makes a crucial turning point away from the Christ Myth. Because Dawn, the innocent, the spirit turned into flesh, the immortal made into human, who would have died for the world was *not asked to sacrifice herself*.

In contrast, it is Buffy the human being who dies to save the world, not for its sins, but for the preservation of its morality. She dies to prove that humans make good, moral choices (though I know there are many who claim that Buffy not killing Dawn was a selfish decision). So it's a replay of the NT story, but this time, instead of sinful humanity being saved by God, we have a complex human being who saves humanity. Buffy is not untainted morally by the time she dies, as the controversy of the morality of her decision proves. In fact, the difficulty of her choice contrasts with the inevitable choice that Jesus made - he knew he had to do this, it was what he was born for. I think BtVS talks profoundly against this idea of a fate which imprisons mankind. And I think Buffy's surprise decision, her impulse kind of shows a triumphant humanism.

And I get this message by the resonance and conflict I perceive in the use of the Christ myth. And Buffy's death doesn't promise 'new life' for those she died. The message is: "life is still hard. We all have to be our personal saviours. We all have to be our own heroes. And we are, for suriving with our humanity intact".

I don't claim this is the only reading. But it's my reading.
[> [> [> [> [> Well put, and hope you feel better soon. -- CW, 09:37:29 09/02/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Rahael, 10:36:23 09/02/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Masq -- the part after 'In contrast...' definitely needs to be on your site somewhere, IMHO. -- OnM, 20:31:50 09/02/02 Mon

*** I think BtVS talks profoundly against this idea of a fate which imprisons mankind. And I think Buffy's surprise decision, her impulse kind of shows a triumphant humanism. ***

I really love this, and I must confess it never occurred to me before! I really think it can co-exist perfectly with the 'traditional' Christian interpretation that many people place on The Gift.

Thanks, Rah. Likewise hope you're feeling better soon. As I said before, no rush for other things.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Got it... -- Masq, 10:37:42 09/03/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> oooh! -- Rahael, 10:44:26 09/03/02 Tue

Now I'm honoured and anxious all at the same time.

Can I strike off the inelegant 'kind of' in that quote?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But of course.... -- Masq, 12:45:09 09/03/02 Tue

The above said in a French waiter's accent as I get all excited about my upcoming Med cruise vacation....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, and, what does the "NT story" stand for? -- Masq, 12:49:02 09/03/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's a sign I've been on the board too long . . . -- d'Herblay, 12:59:33 09/03/02 Tue

. . . that I start considering the ramifications of a story without a text.

The "NT story" (here NT stands for New Testament rather than No Text) Rah refers to is the Passion. It's another sign I've been on the board too long that my own explanation just makes me think of strewn rose petals . . .
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> d'H, are you home now?? -- Masq, 15:15:27 09/03/02 Tue

It was really great meeting you and having an extended opportunity to chat to and from San Jose!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I am indeed -- d'Herblay, 15:38:18 09/03/02 Tue

And I entirely share the sentiments! Maybe we can do it again in, perhaps, May. I truly enjoyed meeting everyone, and hope to see all from both meets again.
[> [> [> [> [> Rah, You are turning into my posting Savior! -- Dochawk, 20:50:48 09/02/02 Mon

I see many of the things you do, but you say it with so much eloquence and tact, in a way I never could. I loved your conclusions (and it put unclear thoughts about the Gift into much better order, because I never saw Christ and Christian imagery in Buffy's sacrifice [being Jewish may have something to do with that though])

I also hope you feel better, but I am unclear where we were told you were ill.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Aww, thanks OnM, Doc (It's all about choice) -- Rahael, 09:32:58 09/03/02 Tue

Now I'm going hugely off tangent from this thread, but On Topic for Buffy. Which makes a change!

The theme of challenging 'cruel fate' first shows up in that wonderful scene in Prophecy Girl, where Buffy overhears Giles and Angel talking.

Not only are prophecy and destiny shown consistently as a double edged sword, the very idea of a life without *moral choices*, and 'inevitable decisions' is one that is constantly shown as being impoverished.

The harder life gets, the only power anyone has in BtVS is to make the best choice they can, and I think both Prophecy Girl, and its revisitation, the Gift, exemplify this. In fact, those terribly moving lines that Buffy speaks to Giles, about how terrible life is, that these are the choices that she's left with, that everything is being stripped away - it also shows her where her power lies. Where her Gift lies.

Purple Tulip asked a question about what the precise meaning of "Love will lead you to your gift" was. I started wondering why ME made that phrasing so ambigous, so cryptic. Why the used that word 'gift', the emphasis on the word 'love'. It's to emphasise Choice. It's that marked contrast with that prophecy in PG. Death is not inevitable in the Gift. And the word Gift in itself underlines that Buffy made a choice. It's free, gratis, to the Universe. (Wonderful wordplay/contrast with the next ep, 'Bargaining' as well).

It also goes to the heart of another mysterious and much debated process in Sunnydale - 'choosing' nor 'not choosing' to become a Vampire. We've had heated debates about this! But its sufficiently controversial and ambiguous to show that even something that is very inevitable for us in RL, to die or to live, is *not* in Sunnydale. There's another choice to escape the terror of death - in the Buffyverse, one can become a Vamp. Which we here, and in other places, have associated with being a permanant adolescent.

So it's interesting that the Gift could be seen as a metaphorical death of childhood/entry into adulthood for Buffy. And since it's the responsibility of Dawn which marks the sudden start of Buffy's entry into adulthood, it's fitting that Buffy's choice is inextricably bound up with her.

There have been choices aplenty in Season 6 - big mistakes, in contrast to Season 5's age of heroism. There was a stand out one for me, a moment which allowed me to overcome the paradox of Dark Willow - is she responsible or not for what she did? She most emphatically is, and this was highlighted very much earlier in Season 6 - in OaFA. Willow very strongly stands against a suddenly chilling Xander and Anya - she will not use dark magic, even to save them all. It's quite clear she is aware of the danger. Thus, the two different choices she made (to use magic, to not use it) underline the importance of choices, and moral responsibility.

I don't even need to enumerate how important this idea of choice is to characters like Warren (every choice made him more evil), Spike (the AR, the journey to Africa), Buffy (shagging Spike etc), Anya (demon vengeance) and Xander (Jilter) in Season 6. It's why I regard it as the most moralistic of all Buffy seasons, where others have seen more grey. Suffice to say, I see a huge difference from being a morally responsible person (the world is full of tough decisions) to being a person who sees the world in black and white (the decisions are easy. The good guys wear white hats. They'll always win, and wrong doers end up punished).

"The stars be hid that led me to this pain
Drowned is the reason that should me comfort
And I remain despairing of the port."
[> [> [> [> [> saving the world by human, not divine, love -- anom, 22:16:05 09/04/02 Wed

"A very long time ago, I suggested that Joss makes a crucial turning point away from the Christ Myth. Because Dawn, the innocent, the spirit turned into flesh, the immortal made into human, who would have died for the world was *not asked to sacrifice herself*.

Beautiful, Rah!

"In contrast, it is Buffy the human being who dies to save the world, not for its sins, but for the preservation of its morality. She dies to prove that humans make good, moral choices (though I know there are many who claim that Buffy not killing Dawn was a selfish decision). So it's a replay of the NT story, but this time, instead of sinful humanity being saved by God, we have a complex human being who saves humanity."

I think a similar distinction can be made between the crucifixion story & Xander's saving the world in Grave (aside from the fact that he survives). It is human, not divine, love for one person, not all of humanity, that saves that very humanity. And it's their lives he saves; there's no reason to think the state of the soul of anyone outside the main characters is changed by what happens. The world is at risk of ending because of humanity's pain, not its sins. If Xander had died, his death (as far as we know) wouldn't have saved the world, although it's possible that killing him would have shocked Willow back to her senses.

To go back to the 1st point, it's not only Xander's individual love for Willow but hers for him that saves the world. Even though she feels the pain of all humanity, it doesn't seem to be individualized to her. It's not until Xander puts a specific face--a face she loves--on that mass of humanity she plans to kill ("Start with me.") that Willow is unable to follow through. I think she had easily enough power to kill him--her bolts of magic that gashed him in nonfatal places were more like "Get away from me" than like "Die." Deep down she didn't want to kill him. (If she didn't have enough power to kill him, how could she have had enough to destroy the world?)

If there were only a way to make people who order or carry out large-scale killings see the face of someone they love between them & their intended victims....Maybe that's why most of them pick on someone they can cast as the "other."
[> [> [> [> [> [> Willow's saving grace -- Rahael, 04:53:06 09/05/02 Thu

You put it far better than I!

"If there were only a way to make people who order or carry out large-scale killings see the face of someone they love between them & their intended victims....Maybe that's why most of them pick on someone they can cast as the "other." "

Exactly!!

That's always my point when people make the point that only loving those near to you is selfish. When you truly love your neighbours, the people who surround you, when you love yourself, you'll always be able to appreciate the humanity of all human beings.

The Gift illustrated that most beautifully. By saving Dawn, Buffy went from one person to the whole of humanity.

Willow truly made a huge step in that moment on the cliff top. Willow, who'd been able to empathise for the Chumash people, but able to mind wipe her lover.

Season 6 was full of pain because it was full of characters hurting the person they loved most. Aggravating them. Pushing them to the limit. Buffy looked into the faces of her friends and decided to kill them in NA. She looked into Spike's face and beat him up even harder. Spike looked at Buffy, vulnerable in her bathroom and tried to rape her.

The most painful moments in the Buffyverse - Gift, Becoming, involved Buffy looking into the faces of the people she loved the most, and trying to decide whether to kill them. And we can add Faith to the list too - because I think that Buffy's feelings for her ran very deep, and hate was akin to love there.

Human beings are so complex. We demonise whole groups of people, so that we can kill them. And yet the family is the arena for shocking crimes of violence and hate. Perhaps Willow's dark power, her magic was also powered by Love. Both when it destroyed, and when it healed. Perhaps Love was also *her* gift. And it's been associated with the death - of endings/ tragedy/abuse - but also the ability to offer the death of old selves, and bring new life and new beginnings.

And that's why it's human, rather than divine love. The ways of the human heart are both dark, and amazing.
[> [> Re: Getting movies the first time? -- ponygirl, 08:39:31 09/03/02 Tue

I once heard that that everyone should read a book three times: once when you're young, again when you're an adult, and finally when you're the same age as the author was when s/he wrote it. I think that applies to movies as well. Of course if I love a book or a movie it's going to be more than 3 times, but it is amazing how, as CW says, your own circumstances effect what you get out of the experience.

I saw that Gwyneth Paltrow movie Sliding Doors in the theatre a couple years ago, three times in fact because I was at such a crossroads in my life I was fascinated with the possibility of seeing the different paths chance could put us on. Caught the movie on tv a few weeks ago and it was ho-hum - I liked Gwynnie's hair, that was about it. The premise seemed a pointless exercise in what could have been's.

The movie Chasing Amy I still adore but now I see it as more of a wistful rememberance piece rather than the tragedy of lost love that it seemed when I saw it in the same theatre as a former love of my life and his girlfriend.

No one can go into a movie with a completely open mind, the best we can do is try to be aware of how our perceptions are shaping our experience and allow for the possibility of changing our opinions. Donnie Darko will always rock though.
[> Getting movies -- Rahael, 08:57:39 09/02/02 Mon

I think my answer to this would be the same if the question was: do you get a poem the first time? an event in your life? a book? an episode of Buffy?

It reminds me of the discussions we had some months ago about the validity of multiple readings of products of art.

I think movies, like other works of art have different layers of 'getting'. And even the most inconsequential film, only viewed once, will get absorbed into your mental world, flavoured by memories of that day, coloured by little connections (not intended at all) to other works of art.

I know for a fact that there are some films I only get one way: that superficial first viewing. And that one time prejudices me from ever attempting another! I think Batman and Robin falls into that category. Then there are others which not only get viewed a number of times, but might get discussed with friends - in real life, or on the board. Films might evoke memories of other films; of books I've read. Particular emotions will remind me of my life. Of things I've been thinking about. Out of that mush arises a complex gut reaction.

This is more marked in terms of literature, poetry and history than movies, but only because the former play a larger part in my life. Reading a poem by Thomas Wyatt, about a giant predatory cat that prowls around in the Court, a danger to country mice, reminded me of Henry VIII, and the danger he posed to Thomas Wyatt the courtier. So my knowledge of that period gives me a second reading. Then, another poem of his, a translation of the Psalms, asking God to "build inward Zion Lord,/Jerusalem of the Heart" - that reminded me of the rich complexity of religious culture on the eve of the Reformation, and gave me some insight into why people converted to the newer forms of worship. Then my whole knowledge of his work, my attitude toward literature, my study of history - that all coalesces to give me a deeper understanding of a different world, a different culture, a structure of thought both familiar and alien at the same time. And that just enriches my life.

I've long been familiar with Keats' Ode to Autumn, and a Thomas Hardy poem about the passage of time. On a summer course on Modern English literature, I read a poem which was obviously linked to both - it was written by a very learned don, one of the best English poets writing now. That last poem gave me new readings of the older poems, readings that Keats and Hardy could never be aware of. It deepened the understanding of the message that Geoffery Hill was talking about - about the tragedies of the 20th century, and man's inhumanity to man. Finally, that poem, functioning as a sorrowful elegy to the terrible death imposed upon a ten year old girl, helped me come to some kind of understanding of events in my life. Reading upon reading upon reading.

This question reminded me of Wordsworth's poem about Daffodils, where he talked about how experience gained its greatest meaning when it was contemplated, and refracted through the 'inward eye'.

"For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils."

I'd like to claim that I contemplate the universe in the bliss of solitude - unfortunately, I'm more likely to be planning my dinner. I sift through my experiences in the most unlikely and noisy places - the ride to work for instance. Or in the midst of composing a reply to a post here.

(btw, very very sorry at my crapness in not having completed my guest column yet. I've fallen back ill again, and I have a big Conference to attend next week. However, I am very keen to do it, and will get cracking before I go.)
[> [> Drifting smoothly OT, of course,... getting poetry and Buffy and maybe movies -- aliera, 10:40:29 09/02/02 Mon

ah! bright wings.

"The eyes roll asleep as if turned by the wind
and the lids flutter open slightly like a wing.
The world is an iceberg, so much is invisible!
and what was an is, and yet the form, it may be sleeping too."

CWs, Redcats, and your post, Rah remind me again of this book I carry around lately (looking for that osmosis effect)which I quoted from again last week. In fact, oddly I think I was reading reading Hopkins as you were posting something of his or a least on the same day and I came across your post later and it gave me quite a start. By the way, I do hope your feeling better soon.

As Robert Koch notes in his preface to ìSleeping on the Wingî, a book that is really about reading, talking and writing about poetry, its fine to read an book to watch Buffy or experience any piece of art on your own (you're OK-I'm OK) and come to know what you know about it. In one sense, I would say I 'get' it immediately and then I may 'get' it a different way later and then when I talk to you about it... boy, I really 'get' something else about it. And then as my life goes on if I come back to it I may 'get' something else; or as sometimes happens the piece no longer speaks to the older me...I can't relate to what it's trying to say or maybe it's no longer true to my experience (may still be able to apreciate the technique of it though.)In another sense though, I never 'get' all that was intended and what about those works that transcend the creator's intent? Perhaps, even he/she didn't fully 'get' it. LOL.

"Those features etched in the ice of someone
loved who died, you are a sculptor dreaming of space
and speed, your hand alone could have done this."

Koch goes on to say that when something affects us to bursting point then we may go out into the world and try to learn more about the work (and through it ourselves.) This type of communication helps in gaining a broader understanding of the piece, helps me to understand the piece better myself and sometimes to know even more clearly what I think (if this confused you; sometimes I will feel something but not really know why it evoked that feeling.) With a work like BtVS, I am also fortunate to come to understand a great deal about the world and the people that live in it and through it, for Buffy speaks often to those deeper parts of ourselves and provides an excuse for not just discussion of the show; but through the show our thoughts on ourselves and our world. Itís not necessarily the final truth about the work or ourselves or our world. With a really good work I'm never sure there is a final truth.

"Curiosity, the passionate hand of desire.
Is there speed enough?
And swooping, you relinquish all that you have made your own. The kingdom of yourself sailing,"

To draw on Koch again, sometimes people think that they must define the ìreal meaningî of a piece, ìsome truth that they think must be behind it. But there isnít such a truth. A poem is all itís words and music and and lines and meaning and it canít be reduced to some single truth any more than can a novel or symphony or statue. If a statue could be reduced to, say, ìfriendshipî or ìlove of natureî, you wouldnít need the statue, with all itís curves and angles, the smoothness and color of the stone, the weight of itís shoulders, the gesture of itís hand. (p13) Likewise, a work such as Buffy some literature some art etc. is large enough to evoke certain memories in me and others in you, all a piece of itís truth or perhaps our truth.

"Sometimes you may get a strong insight into a poem and this can seem like it's whole meaning. But if you keep on reading the poem, and talking about it, you'll probably get other insights too, which will also be part of the meaning. What a poem makes you feel helps you make sense of it by making the peom part of your experience. What it makes you feel, of course can be affected by what you're feeling at the time you read it: you may be sad, happy, in love, afraid; or you may be preoccupied by certain thoughts. It's hard to tell sometimes whether it's the poem that's sad or whether you are sad, in which case almost any poem might seem sad to you."

"for you must awake,
and breathe your warmth in this beloved image
Whether it's gone or mearly disappearing,
as space is disappearing and your singularity."
--Frank O'Hara "Sleeping on the Wing"

And the flip side of this is I tend to seek out certain things depending on where I'm at and where I what to be at. Especially if I'm having a challenging day I'm going to pop in some music or a movie that I know will be mood enhancing, lift me up...I know others who sometimes seek the catharsis of a sad movie or book, that hasn't at least yet been my thing. I'm sure he's not saying that all is in the reader; some poems are about sad things. It is true that my mood can affect my interpretation of poetry, pictures and sometimes posts! Also, the artist (for example long ago) may make references that would be shared references for the readers of his time but not mine. In that case, it is especially fun to learn about the piece and be able to more fully appreciate the piece. Some books, movies, etc are so full of these references and that I don't feel like I get it; I feel a very strong need to learn about them in order to enjoy the work. Sometimes, such as with Buffy, it simply adds to the piece. For example after Bargaining, I sought out info on the symbols in the training room that we keep seeing over the Buffybot's shoulders (I'm not particularly sensitive to this stuff thank goodness others on the boards are; but even I picked up on those) and info on the spell that Willow used with deer. I didn't need these pieces to enjoy Bargaining but it really added to the richness, the fullness of watching the episode.

Postscript: OnM haven't actually read your post yet hoarding it with my Godiva for tonight...And yet again, thanks to everyone on the board; always taking something interesting and making it even better. Contented sigh.

"And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward,
springs--
Because the holy ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings."

Hopkins
[> [> [> Bursting points -- Rahael, 08:50:08 09/03/02 Tue

"Itís not necessarily the final truth about the work or ourselves or our world. With a really good work I'm never sure there is a final truth."

What a great point! In this world of irreducible complexity, the search for a single truth, that 'figure in the carpet' is doomed to failure. (But a search I feel compelled to try. Is this why I love detective fiction I wonder??)

By the way, that book by Koch sounds wonderful. Consider it on my 'to be read' list.

I liked that wording of his you quoted - bursting point - a feeling I recognise, and call to myself 'uncontainability'. Moments, works of art, novels, bits of Buffy, poems that leap free from their moorings, into my life, into my mind, into the way I see the world itself.

Thank you, for your kind wishes as well.
[> OnM...didja watch "Freeway" yet? And if you did, what did you think? -- Rob, 15:16:39 09/02/02 Mon

[> [> Yes, saw it yesterday. I join the others in strongly recommending it. -- OnM, 20:13:42 09/02/02 Mon

Strange, twisted, does the unexpected repeatedly, and of course, more brilliant work from Reese W.

3 1/2 stars.

:-)
[> [> [> Glad ya liked it. -- Rob, 21:34:42 09/02/02 Mon

I was very pleasantly surprised when I first found it at my local DVD store, although, if I remember correctly, I got an even better deal than you on it. I think my copy was $6.99. Amazing how sometimes these great movies slip through the cracks. You really could never tell from the box art or presentation what a great movie it is!

And Reese is rapidly becoming my very favorite actress. In this movie, in particular, I loved how she was able to create a comedic character that was also real to life. She perfectly struck the right balance in finding the funny in her character (the kind of funny that the character herself doesn't realize), and yet at the same time taking her character seriously and creating true sympathy for her. In all her film roles I have seen, she has been able to do this. Tracy Flick, for example, was, i many ways, an over-the-top comedic character, and yet Reese never made her into a cartoon, but someone that (gasp!) at times, I actually felt sorry for, maybe even just a little bit. Elle Woods may have been a bit more cartoony, but Reese is such a great actress that she also made the audience find the humanity in her, too. Reese is a genius at taking characters that other, less talented actresses might have played for camp value alone, and instead crafting real flesh and blood characters with true heart and soul. That is why we don't laugh at her characters but with them. Her character in "Freeway" might be "trailer trash," but she's street-smart and resourceful, and even when she comes off as a bit less than educated, we love her. And yet at times, this character does some very dark things, like Tracy Flick. Reese is great at playing the irony of a character like this, and I can't wait to see the work she does in the future, because she is one of the few Hollywood stars who I believe is also a true artist.

Which reminds me...It's really high time I bought "Legally Blonde" already.

Rob
[> [> [> [> Speaking of Reese, she just signed on to star in the sequel to "Legally Blonde"! -- Rob, 08:09:53 09/04/02 Wed

"Ryan Phillippe wasn't joking when he remarked at the Academy Awards last March that wife Reese Witherspoon makes more than him. Witherspoon will earn a career-high $15 million to reprise her role as a sorority girl turned legal eagle in Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde, Variety reports. The follow-up is slated for release next July."

http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/inthenews/020904.asp#A

Rob

Current board | More September 2002