September 2003 posts


Previous September 2003  

More September 2003

Classic Movie of the Week - September 21st 2003 -- TCH & OnM, 15:23:17 09/21/03 Sun

********

Haven't we met ? / You're some kind of beautiful stranger
You could be good for me / I have a taste for danger
If I'm smart then I'll run away / But I'm not so I guess I'll stay
Heaven forbid / I take my chance on a beautiful stranger

I looked into your eyes / And my world came tumbling down
You're the devil in disguise / That's why I'm singing this song
You're everywhere I go / And everybody knows
I pay for you with tears / And swallow all my pride

Haven't we met ? / You're some kind of beautiful stranger

............ Madonna Ciccone, summarising a cliché.

********

So no one told you life was gonna be this way
Your job's a joke, you're broke, your love life's D.O.A.
It's like you're always stuck in second gear
When it hasn't been your day, your week, your month, or even your year, but

I'll be there for you / (When the rain starts to pour)
I'll be there for you / (Like I've been there before)
I'll be there for you / ('Cause you're there for me too)

No one could ever know me, no one could ever see me
Seems you're the only one who knows what it's like to be me
Someone to face the day with, make it through all the rest with
Someone I'll always laugh with, even at my worst, I'm best with you

............ The Rembrandts, being Friendly


********

I've got / mercury poisoning
It's fatal / and it don't get better, no
.
........... Graham Parker, being short and sweet-- err, maybe not sweet. Well, you get the idea. Moving on...

********

If you're travelling in the north country fair
Where the winds hit heavy on the borderline
Remember me to one who lives there
For she once was a true love of mine

I'm a-wondering if she remembers me at all
Many times I've often prayed
In the darkness of my night
In the brightness of my day

............ Bob Dylan, who covered his own song with the wonderful Johnny Cash, who died this past week.

********

Hello everyone! This week's review is cross-continental, a game that I have never played before, and that I
hope ends well. One of a few reasons that the Dylan lyrics appear above is that they too are a North
American/European hybrid, having been adapted by Dylan from Scarborough Fair, an old English folk
song still much heard across England from folk musicians and ten year old recorder players.

So let's give this review a little bit of an English flavour to complement OnM's cool, rugged American-ness. In
order to find the video for the movie I am reviewing, I nipped down to my local rental to pick one up. Mist
was growing over the river, and the September air, melancholy with the memory of recently past warmth,
hung like a blanket over the surrounding spaces. Sadly, this unusual beauty, this autumnal streak that also
characterises the nature of the film I eventually found, was largely lost on me at the point where the surly,
slightly angry tender told me that they "didn't have the video", and anyway they "were closing". It seemed a
far cry from the 'Have a nice day' stylings of a certain superpower.

Undaunted, I walked , past couples pining for past glories, and dancing, perfectly synchronised with the
weather's nostalgia, to Embraceable You. At the train station, the train was delayed ten minutes, and
the ticket collector seemed nonplussed by me offering him a ten pound note for a 1.80 ticket. It was turning
into a long evening. Trowbridge Blockbuster was a little more forthcoming, and I felt positively Americanized
(with a 'z') as I set off back over the fields, stopped at the pack bridge, over which scaffolding had been
constructed-- once again something that appeared to be yearning for past glories. The church I passed, where
I sang for ten years, reached skywards towards inestimable stars, yearning for the days when it was not just
aesthetic beauty it encapsulated, but something that people found spiritual.

And so England seemed a little wistful yesterday evening, curmudgeonly about the present, and lost a little in
the past. How nice, thought I, to escape to where the lights are big and flashy, where people smile and enjoy
being in the 21st century-- where comforting endings and happy families skirt superficial beauty for a happy
ending. I'd forgotten which film I was watching.

****

One of my bugbears with American TV output is Friends. It took a while for my dislike of
Friends to be overcome with the obvious genius of a lot of the other programming imported to us--
South Park, Frasier, Deep Space Nine, and those funny programmes with vampires and stuff I
sometimes catch part of. The premise is painful to me. Basically, life's cool-- there's big apartments, beautiful
people. Comic hilarity ensues as someone does something a bit silly, and the badinage keeps it all worth living.
Friends denies any spiritual life, any genuine soul-searching, any darkness, any possibility that things
might go wrong. It may be that I'm looking for Jane Austen to write Wuthering Heights here, but at
least Austen touched on the despair of classes who, even if they weren't in touch with poverty or pain, did
have concerns. And there was that satire, that suggestion that the goldfish bowl which was being populated
has some amusingly unconsidered immutable laws-- 'It is a fact universally acknowledged .. '

The theme tune to Friends cuts a little bit deeper for me. Although it has the same theme, there's a
touch more heartache. It's eventually about the idea that companionship can override very real difficulties in
life. That premise, repeated often throughout literature, soap opera and countless millions of lives, is part of
the ideas being considered in this movie. A movie where the prime example of the brainless, tedious
character, Rachel, (who is routinely upstaged by the obsessive Moncia and the genuinely brilliant Phoebe), is
redrawn. Where Jennifer Aniston gets to live her life, rather than in constant vernal chirpiness, in a spirit of
autumnal pain and despair. Like a Tuesday evening in England, in fact.

The Good Girl is set in one of those vaguely Southern places in America, and starts off with
such a feeling of ennui that only the most remedial Buffy fan wouldn't see the comparisons to Doublemeat
Palace. We begin with a monologue, to be returned to throughout the film and eventually to finish it on a
note of aching ambiguity. We are confronted immediately by the staleness of existence, through the
monologue, through the smooth directing, and by the excellent, half-dead lighting, more Walmart than
Hollywood. The monologue states that, once we come into the world, "we believe it's a candy store."
And so we see the rows of shelves, uncomfortably stable and boring, lacking any of the elan with which
sweets should be greeted. The inevitable follows-- "Then we realise that it's a prison." Everything at
this point is understated. The titles are just simple black on white. The soundtrack is rarely more than a couple
of twangs on a guitar or some reinforced atmosphere. And we tend to hold on frames just that second too
long.

And yet in this world, we have to be ever so careful. Because, as critics of 'Doublemeat Palace' might agree,
there is nothing so boring as being in the same situation as the person who's bored. A spark of interest needs
to exist in the viewer's mind, if not in the protaginists'. Between them, the superb writing of Mike White and
the competent directing of Miguel Arteta help steer round this looming pitfall.
Partly, the boredom is eased as we see our lead character, Justine Last (Jennifer Aniston), become interested
in something for the first time in quite a while. Partly, it's done by the supreme eloquence of the monologues,
where the position of Justine is set up so clearly as to draw immediate empathy. And partly, it's because it is
such a wonder to see that pretty woman off of Friends do dead eyes, sulky mouth, and a harassed
face so very well. It's a beautiful acting performance, one that improves as the character's journeys become
ever more cloying and tricksy.

Meanwhile, we're having other things set up for us. We are starting to see other people's lives. In White's
imagined small-town American world, everyone has to find a reason to carry on, develop a creed for life of
some kind. This hint is presented very early on, in a scene where Justine is confronted by the head of a prayer
group, and asked if she wishes to join. There is one of the funniest religious jokes I've seen in a good few
years in this scene, spinning beautifully off the idea that if love doesn't work, the threat of damnation may do
the trick. "Other than the usual ways", the canvasser remarks archly, "we don't like scaring
people". Religion, the most obvious creed, is just a signpost to other coping mechanisms, mechanisms that
later on are suggested as even being a place to escape to. Justine's co-worker Gwen (Deborah
Rush), whose creed is the need to escape meat and dairy products, commonly berates Justine, telling her that
she 'is ten years older, but has ten times as much energy'. In a cosmic joke of beautifully large proportions, it
is Gwen's lack of caution with her food that eventually does for her. Other people cope by literally escaping
from their role, as yet another co-worker, Cheryl (Zooey Deschanel) does. She embellishes her store P.A.
announcements of price cuts with sly innuendoes or even outright obscenities, uses a temporary stint in the
cosmetics department to make people up to look like clowns, and routinely insults her clients. It's a way of
disowning the horrifically boring life that she really leads.

And finally we see Justine's home, where we discover that she is married to a pothead named Phil (John C.
Reilly), and almost additionally encumbered with some kind of pet in Phil's friend Bubba (Tim Blake Nelson).
Bubba is a good example of how well all of the characters are used in the film. One might expect him to be
utilised as only a background prop, no more important than the television aerial flickering on and off, but
acutally he becomes an integral part in themes of salvation, redemption, and the infallibility of characters in life.

The aerial itself, never fixed, is used deftly. What is so impressive about much of the film is the obsessive,
almost rabid attention to detail. Nothing is given without later being used for some reason or other-- it's
almost a puzzle to see why certain references are made. The faulty aerial allows the television screen to
flicker, an early suggestion of Justine's state of restlessness. Televisions become important for a rather
different reason later. Yet also, when the difficulty of reception is mentioned one evening in bed, Phil responds
with the seemingly innocuous line-- "The wind's comin' in different lately". Instead of being left at that,
just an excuse through which Justine can slowly build up her resentment to Phil as a 'pig', we instead cut to
the wind outside, blowing through trees. There is a stark visual variation here, as the blunt light that has
characterised the lighting to date is suddenly demolished by a dark screen. It's a visual prompt to consider
what is being said. Those winds aren't merely literal, they're real winds of change, about to be swept through
Justine's life.

Other tiny details seem apposite and beautiful. When asked how long she has been married, Justine replies,
with a sense of agitation, "Seven years". The seven years bad luck that has ensued from the
'mirror-breaking' of her not going to college, of her not being honest enough to her own reflection, of needing
to stay with Phil. But also, that seven years of bad luck may just be ending as for once she appears to be
'gotten' for the first time. Then there's the supermarket badges, useful narrative devices which avoid
unnecessary inclusions of names, and allow naturalistic dialogue, with believable pauses.

Out of this hodgepodge comes something surprisingly coherent with the input of just one more character-
Holden. Holden's real name is Tom-- he has renamed himself after the character in Salinger's iconic
American novel, and he lives his life as if he was the character of a novel. This is a problem that is never
overcome. To start with, we see the slow relationship build between Justine and Holden. Suddenly, instead of
being confronted with other people's creeds-- marijuana, Jesus, vegetarianism, Justine becomes something
similar to one herself-- she becomes a reason by which Holden gains a reason to live. We start to see how
much they enjoy each other's company. And, when we remember they are working at a shopping mall
entitled 'Retail Rodeo', and that bright, moronic caricatures beam out from 'Chucky Cheeses' and other such
wonders, we see that they really are connecting. Because they know that the world in which everyone
pretends they're not living, by finding their spurious, escaping creeds, is a world which is phony. A world
where people pretend life is what it is not. But, unlike Holden Caulfield, they have someone to share their pain
with, to understand what's going on. So that one can say to the other, "I saw in your eyes that you hate
the world. I hate it too."

When the relationship finally verges on adultery, Justine recoils. She has always been the servant to this
bulbous, half-forgotten dunderhead, and she is not going to give up her status as simple Justine, Phil's
wife so easily. But the trajectory of the story here is very much different. As Holden, verging on despair,
storms out of the car after failing to kiss her, the camera follows. At the moment, we are with Holden,
rejecting Justine's cries to be able to stay where she is, and instead striking out for the new relationship, a
relationship which has the verisimilitude of truthfulness, of something powerful. It's looking like a lot of
alternative relationships that have cut through insipid suburbia recently in ostensibly daring indie films-- the
weird boy and girl pairings of American Beauty and Donnie Darko for example.

And so, the consummation happens. It's the anti-Lolita, though it's not age so much as the subversive mind of
Humbert that is summarised in the relationship. The motel, with half its lights missing, is a visual connotation of
Nabokov, but here we have the older woman and the younger man. Holden is on top, the person who is
writing his own story, offering ultimata at every stage to Justine in order to make the process work. And he's
getting closer. While she believes it's the difficult thing to do to escape, she's starting to think it may be the
difficult and right thing.

During the consummation we have paralleled consumption. Death and sex are often paralleled in film, yet here
it is a little less gothically simple than normal-- it is not simply a 'petit mort' pun. Justine has lost her 'Good
Girl' status, in her own mind at least, by leaving her seriously ill friend Gwen alone at the hospital. Gwen's
creed of naturalistic health has forsaken her, and now she is forsaken by another near-certainty, that her
trusted work colleague will stay with her, a thought as mundane and obvious as that the sun will rise the next
morning, and that a marriage will survive another day. Instead, Justine leaves. The filmmakers deliberately
leave it ambiguous as to whether her continued presence at the hospital would have made any difference. I
personally do not believe we are supposed to consider Justine responsible for Gwen's eventual death in any
way. Instead, it is used as a symbol of Justine's slow-bubbling metamorphosis and also used to set up a
parallel later on. Interestingly, the Retail Rodeo staff are allowed a day off to think about Gwen, the person
whose creed gave up first of all.

All these creeds appear to be subjective. Although the prayer group man could plausibly despise Halloween,
he instead mutters cheerfully "I'm not a Pagan, but thanks all the same". Justine, in an attack of worry
brought on by a casual reference to the Ten Commandments, calls Phil to attend the a prayer session one
evening. Here, although they end up in the centre, the Lasts are definitely, and deliberately, the least. Phil is
still stoned, they forget their Bibles, and worst of all, Holden's parents, the threatening anodyne presences
who more than anyone else metaphorically sum up the place that the others all try to escape from, turn up,
prompting the couple to escape 'like vampires into the night'.

Meanwhile, there appear to be alternate stories playing around in Justine's mind. Yet while Holden appears to
be narrating his, Justine is faced with living hers. Holden, a man who it becomes clear is little more than a boy,
is gradually becoming less sympathetic. At the same time, helped out by a brilliant performance by John C.
Reilly that had me in tears, White and Arteta skillfully shift the balance of sympathy away from Holden and
back towards the formerly useless Phil, who now begins to change at just the wrong moment for Justine's
burgeoning ideas. We start to see Holden as merely a puppet writer, still in need of Justine to do what he says
to make things work. It's a game about narration and authorship, for you cannot impose a story on a living
person. As a result of this, Holden becomes more and more dependent on Justine. He says "I'm starting
to think you don't get me" in a threatening way, but actually, as the audience now appreciates, it's just
one more cry for attention. If Justine hadn't come along, his original story-- where he ate bug poison and
comitted suicide, his narrative for himself as Holden-- would have come true. She, the ultimate deus ex
machina, changes all of that, and makes a happy ending just possible.

And so, as the television still flickers, and the digital clocks teach time with long staticity followed by sudden
staccata of movement, so this sleepy American town starts grinding, with excellent pace, towards its
conclusion. And as this happens, we need to see comparisons. What we get is one of the more unlikely yet
beautiful comparisons in the film. Bubba has espied the adultery between Holden and Justine, and it has
changed his life. His paragon has always been Phil, or more specifically Phil and Justine and their relationship.
Bubba was always being resigned to the fact that he could never have Justine, and so he effectively lived as a
slave, experiencing love vicariously through their love. But as he sees Justine with Holden, he realises it ain't
necessarily so. His creed starts to fall apart as well. Suddenly, it's not only his ferocious dog, over whom he
must exert such powerful control, that he can command. He can have his dream. As is suggested in the most
talentedly written of the sections of Aniston's monologue, he both blames Justine 'for poisoning the well of
perfection from which he had supped for so long', and also remains in awe of her for giving him salvation, for
opening his eyes and freeing him from his singular creed. The sexual contact that he briefly gains is cold and
unmutual, but it's not really what it's all about anyway. It's all about positions changing.

Bubba though, is a useful and beautifully utilised narrative device to show us what Holden really is. For
Holden still, deep down, considers Justine the paragon. He doesn't quite understand this, he thinks he is
writing his own story. Even his parents can't control him, as he proved by giving himself a new name. Yet it is
Justine's power over him which means that she is the creed and not him. At the same time as all this,
and as Justine is starting to consider whether she can leave with Holden, we are again shown the television.
We see Atlantis, we see old films, and hear old music. And the call to escape rings loud in the head. All these
other places, eventually synchronised in that one too-cliched open road, which Justine rejects. And yet these
hints of other places-- of Englands, and Coastal Americas, is a stimulus that just hints at what lies beyond the
old goldfish bowl.

Justine flirts with various kinds of moral ambiguity. She considers getting rid of Holden by sending him to a
mental hospital, the classic femme fatale bluff move, and also by 'innocently' killing him with the same tainted
blackberries that previously brought an untimely end to Gwen. But eventually, her love of him, or maybe by
this stage just her simple pity for him, stops her from doing this. And so eventually, she is offered her final
ulitmatum, to meet at the motel at midday. There's something almost of the American Western genre about
it-- that somehow larger-than-life blink of time when human insecurities will be resolved. And indeed, violence
does ensue, ahead of schedule at the drive-in. But I'm leaping ahead of myself.

Meantime, we get to see some really beautiful scenes between Reilly and Aniston. Phil, though needing to
escape, is basically a simple but loving man, one whom you could easily see a younger Justine falling in love
with. And he fixes the television. Ironically, it just gives Justine a better view of possible escapes, but,
as they say shortly after, the wind is changing again. This wind is the balancing wind-- the wind that blows
away from Holden and back to Phil. When Justine becomes pregnant, the aspirations of Phil are unbearable,
and I found his speed to apology after slapping her, when she admitted her unfaithfulness, to be an utterly
transcendant moment of human strength and forgiveness. Suddenly, Phil understands one of the major
messages of the film. "I'm sorry I use pot. I've just got to escape". And, understanding so much of
herself in him, Justine, equally powerfully, allows him to do so. She has identified and allowed his creed, his
escape, to function. It is the acceptance that lets her make her final decision.

Meanwhile, the gentle and unobtrusive parallels run on. When we find out that Justine is pregnant, we see
Bubba and Phil share a joke that 'it doesn't matter which sex the baby is, as long as it plays for a football
team'. And we flash back, if we remember, to Tom's parents, who wanted him to be a football player, and
feel just gutted for the child, for that unthinking imposition.

And eventually we see Justine, literally and metaphorically at a crossroads (or at least a T-junction). And we
see the open road. And we see ennui. It is so simply set out that the escape route is better that it comes as no
surprise when she takes the left path. It's also no surprise by this stage that the writing is clever enough that
she leaves the right path behind, choosing the left one. The double meaning of 'right' is very important here.

Given Justine's decision, what happens as a result of it could be said to be her fault, but it is indeed the worst
case scenario. Eventually, Justine decides she cannot be responsible for Holden, and he, like Bubba, must
realise that she is not his God. Narrative relies on characters to be pawns, but when they are real as you, they
become the author's writer.

Ultimately, the cliché of the weird outsider making an insider see the light is subverted, but at the cost of guilt
and death. Nothing is simple in life, even ironing out a misconception prevalent in films, and Arteta's ending
leaves enough ambiguity to satisfy even the least prescriptive viewer. The quartet of Arteta, White, Aniston
and Reilly make the film for me, with Gyllenhal supporting nicely. This is truly a well-timed, non-over-bloated
film, with powerful writing and good directing and acting performances. If you haven't seen it, by all means,
please do so.


E Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

TCH & OnM

********

Technical Whole Wheat:

The Good Girl is available on DVD, which was also the format of my review copy. (Not sure about
TCH's). The film was released in 2002, and the run time is 1 hour and 33 minutes. The original cinematic
aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which is preserved on the DVD, although it's a double sided-disc with a pan'n'scan
version on the second side. Whichever side you choose, the choice of music and graphic design of the disc
main menu is one of the coolest that I have ever seen, and I've seen a lot of 'em-- so kudos to whomever is
the responsible party. Extras include a commentary track by the writer and director, with some additional
selected scene commentary by actor Jennifer Aniston.

Screenwriting credits go Mike White. Cinematography was by Enrique Chediak with film editing by Jeff
Betancourt. The film was produced by Carol Baum, Kirk D'Amico, Shelly Glasser, Matthew Greenfield, Gina
Kwon and Philip von Alvensleben. Production design was by Daniel Bradford with art direction by Macie
Vener, and set decoration by Susan Emshwiller. Costume design was by Nancy Steiner. Original music was
by Stephen Thomas Cavit, Andrew Gross, Tony Maxwell, James O'Brien, Mark Orton and Joey Waronker.
The original theatrical sound mix was in Dolby Digital.

Cast overview:

Jennifer Aniston .... Justine Last
Zooey Deschanel .... Cheryl
Jake Gyllenhaal .... Holden Worther
John Carroll Lynch .... Jack Field
Tim Blake Nelson .... Bubba
John C. Reilly .... Phil Last
Deborah Rush .... Gwen Jackson
Mike White .... Corny
John Doe .... Mr. Worther
Lalo Guerrero .... Blackberry Vendor
Roxanne Hart .... Mrs. Worther
Michael Hyatt .... Floberta
Jacquie Barnbrook .... Heavy Set Woman
Annie O'Donnell .... Haggard Woman
Jon Shere .... Lester

********

Miscellaneous Department:

I wasn't listening, though. I was thinking about something else-- something crazy. "You know what I'd like to
be?" I said. "You know what I'd like to be? I mean if I had my goddam choice?"

"What? Stop swearing."

"You know that song If a body catch a body comin' through the rye? I'd like..."

"It's 'If a body meet a body coming through the rye'", old Phoebe said. "It's a poem, by Robert
Burns."

"I know it's a poem by Robert Burns".

She was right though, it is 'If a body meet a body coming through the rye'. I didn't know it then
though.

"I thought it was 'If a body catch a body'", I said. "Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some
game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around-- nobody big, I mean--
except me. And I'm standing on the end of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if
they start to go over the cliff. I mean if they're running and they don't know where they're going I have to
come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye
and all. I know it's crazy, but it's the only thing I'd really like to be. I know it's crazy".

............ Holden's unconventional dream of being a hero, from, of course The Catcher in the Rye

****

When I first started out to do this CMotW co-writery thing this month, I envisioned something along the lines
of what Sol 1056 and I did with a Buffy episode review earlier this year. So far, it hasn't happened that way,
which is perfectly all right-- I had no particular expectations that my expectations for any given format would
be met, I intended to just wing it, ya know?

The original back-and-forth, call and response format didn't pan out because of time constraints (mainly
mine), so after TCH first submitted his analysis of the film, I figured I'd just jump in every few paragraphs with
some comments on his comments. I've since decided that that won't work properly either, because it would
interrupt the flow of TCH's thoughts.

Besides which, he neatly overs pretty much all the major points, including some that I hadn't thought about
before, which is one of the great things about working within a community like ATPo. As such, my 3 cents
will be the following observations, regarding the thought of and the naught thought of:


TCH: One of my bugbears with American TV output is Friends. It took a while for my dislike of
Friends to be overcome with the obvious genius of a lot of the other programming imported to us--
South Park, Frasier, Deep Space Nine, and those funny programmes with vampires and stuff I
sometimes catch part of.

OnM: Just to show how out of it I can sometimes be, when TCH sent his first draft to me, I momentarily
failed to make the connection between the Rembrandts tune and Aniston, even though I knew she was a
regular on Friends. This is probably because I have only seen small portions of Friends at
far-spaced, essentially random intervals. No, I don't watch the show. It is entirely possible that I might like it if
I did, or perhaps not. Ironically, if I did start to watch it, it would be because I was just completely stunned
and delighted by the caliber of acting Jennifer Aniston displayed in The Good Girl. At this point, it is
entirely possible that I might venture out to see a future film simply because she has some significant role in it.
Personally, I admit that approaching an unknown work of art (or an artist) with low expectations and
departing later with a far higher regard in mind is one of the pleasanter pleasures that life sometimes springs on
me. You know, like when this vampire movie I thought was funny and modestly clever came over to the little
screen 8 years ago, and I figured it'd probably never survive the transition, but... what the hell, right?

TCH: We are confronted immediately by the staleness of existence, through the monologue, through the
smooth directing, and by the excellent, half-dead lighting, more Walmart than Hollywood. The monologue
states that, once we come into the world, "we believe it's a candy store." (...) The inevitable follows-- "Then
we realise that it's a prison."

OnM: God, that's really horrible, isn't it? What a way to start a movie, with such a depressing subject, even
though it's a classic reality for literally millions of people everywhere on the planet. While TCH correctly
points out the amazingly skillful work by the writer, director, cinematographer and editor, it's also Aniston
who has to convey a character who is sympathetic in her pain, and not off-putting. Earlier today I was reading
this marvelous analytical post by sdev on Buffy Season 6, and how different viewers connected differently
with Buffy's internal suffering and the resultant externalizations of that suffering. Some viewers came to
actively dislike Buffy, while others were sympathetic. This makes me consider that part of the reason
we are more sympathetic to Justine in The Good Girl is that (a) We never met her before, and
therefore have no preconceptions as to what she is like and (b) The movie is only an hour and a half long, not
an entire TV season.

TCH: Religion, the most obvious creed, is just a signpost to other coping mechanisms, mechanisms that
later on are suggested as even being a place to escape to. Justine's co-worker Gwen, whose creed is the
need to escape meat and dairy products, commonly berates Justine, telling her that she 'is ten years older, but
has ten times as much energy'. In a cosmic joke of beautifully large proportions, it is Gwen's lack of caution
with her food that eventually does for her.

OnM: The way this film treats all of its characters with compassion is one of its hallmarks. It is so very
common to divide people into dipolar camps of the heroic and the villainous that to see great effort paid to
avoid this cliche is delightful. For example, we start out seeing Gwen as being at least somewhat annoying,
one of those 'always-happy life-is-wonderful you oughta try it sometime' individuals that we chronically
depressed types tend to revile. Like, who the hell are they to be so damn satisfied with their lives? Why aren't
they miserable, like me? But by the middle of the film, Gwen's fate fills us with nothing but sadness, and there
is even a certain anger directed at Justine for 'failing' her 'friend'. It's also interesting how Justine feels exactly
the same way, blaming herself even though technically it wasn't her fault, just an odd juxtaposition of
circumstances, as TCH notes later on.

TCH: The aerial itself, never fixed, is used deftly. What is so impressive about much of the film is the
obsessive, almost rabid attention to detail. Nothing is given without later being used for some reason or
other-- it's almost a puzzle to see why certain references are made. The faulty aerial allows the television
screen to flicker, an early suggestion of Justine's state of restlessness. Televisions become important for a
rather different reason later.

OnM: Yeah, this is one of those things that I missed, and yeah, it's so true. The editing work is brilliant
throughout this movie, but this is a textbook case of visually stating a greater meaning if ever there was one.

TCH: When the relationship finally verges on adultery, Justine recoils. She has always been the servant to
this bulbous, half-forgotten dunderhead, and she is not going to give up her status as simple 'Justine, Phil's
wife' so easily.

OnM: This is an interesting take, but I'm not sure I see Justine as Phil's 'servant'. I think that Justine saw
something very worthwhile in Phil at one time in the distant past, and now she has mostly forgotten what that
was. Phil's problem is that he isn't doing much of anything to remind his wife what that original spark was all
about. It really is all about communication. Justine plainly has a basically moral outlook on life, but her
staggering boredom and lack of future life opportunities has made her soul ripe to test that morality and see if
it still holds value for her. As we see, it very much does. This is also very Buffy S6-ish, don't you think?

TCH: Meanwhile, there appear to be alternate stories playing around in Justine's mind. Yet while
Holden appears to be narrating his, Justine is faced with living hers. Holden, a man who it becomes clear
is little more than a boy, is gradually becoming less sympathetic. At the same time, helped out by a brilliant
performance by John C. Reilly that had me in tears, White and Arteta skillfully shift the balance of sympathy
away from Holden and back towards the formerly useless Phil, who now begins to change at just the wrong
moment for Justine's burgeoning ideas.

OnM: This is indeed the 'turning point' of the film's story arc, and I especially like the part that I've underlined
above. Storyteller, anyone? I often wonder how commonly writers confuse fiction with reality, as
opposed to their readers. Could be some interesting research!

TCH: Justine flirts with various kinds of moral ambiguity. She considers getting rid of Holden by sending
him to a mental hospital, the classic femme fatale bluff move, and also by 'innocently' killing him with the same
tainted blackberries that previously brought an untimely end to Gwen. But eventually, her love of him, or
maybe by this stage just her simple pity for him, stops her from doing this.

OnM: I loved the bit with the blackberries, and how TCH noted that there was this 'innocent' quality to the
act. After all, there's no real guarantee that the blackberries were going to be fatal to Holden, is there? And in
fact, they don't seem to hurt him, but Justine can't go through with it anyway. Once again, we see Justine as
basically moral, if not yet openly heroic.

TCH: And he fixes the television. Ironically, it just gives Justine a better view of possible escapes,
but, as they say shortly after, the wind is changing again. This wind is the balancing wind-- the wind that blows
away from Holden and back to Phil. When Justine becomes pregnant, the aspirations of Phil are unbearable,
and I found his speed to apology after slapping her, when she admitted her unfaithfulness, to be an utterly
transcendant moment of human strength and forgiveness. Suddenly, Phil understands one of the major
messages of the film. (...) And, understanding so much of herself in him, Justine, equally powerfully, allows him
to do so. She has identified and allowed his creed, his escape, to function. It is the acceptance that lets her
make her final decision.

OnM: Well said. And does anyone else besides me think that Phil probably gave up his pot smoking habit by
the time the baby was born? It's a question that's never definitively answered (or to be honest, even asked),
but for some reason it seems to be implied. I could venture the opinion that if Justine never emotionally
accepted the reasons for Phil's 'escape', that he would never have acknowledged to himself that he
could do better. Phil, like his friend Bubba, saw Justine only as a paragon, a perfect, virtuous human being.
Phil's true nature is revealed when upon learning that she is not, he doesn't revile or reject her for her
weakness, but understands that she is simply in the same life boat as he is, trying to watch for sharks and just
stay afloat.

TCH: Ultimately, the cliché of the weird outsider making an insider see the light is subverted, but at the
cost of guilt and death. Nothing is simple in life, even ironing out a misconception prevalent in films, and
Arteta's ending leaves enough ambiguity to satisfy even the least prescriptive viewer.

OnM: On one of the DVD commentary tracks, possibly Aniston's, it is noted that the original screenplay was
written over six years before the film was finally made. During that time and the subsequent production of the
film, the commentator notes, nothing was changed in the script. How often do you think that happens?

****

And that's all I have to say right now, except for some odd reason I want to see Mike White pen a script for
Angel, Miguel Arteta direct it, and Jennifer Aniston guest star.


********

The Question(s) of the Week (One for each of us):

TCH: In the film's ending, how much of the monologue can we take as an alternative ending? It is not as open
to all interpretations as, for example Mulholland Drive, but may have slightly more room for
manouevre than some trick films like The Usual Suspects and the new and interesting, particularly if
you're interested in authorial intent Swimming Pool. All ideas welcome!

OnM: Do you hate your job? If so, why do you stay? ( I suspect the reasons are never simple-- I know mine
aren't ).


That's all for this time around, and before I do the usual P'EIYG'E ( No, that's not Klingon ), a big thanks to
TCH for his great work here!

So post 'em if you've got 'em, and I'll see you next week.

Take care!

********

Replies:

[> Beautfully done! -- shambleau, 09:55:40 09/22/03 Mon


[> Great review! And yet... -- Ponygirl, 11:32:10 09/22/03 Mon

I still can't get over my initial impression of The Good Girl - that it was unrelentingly dreary and had contempt for its characters. How much of a challenge is it for a screenwriter to write characters who are less clever and self-aware than himself and then expose their faults? It seemed too easy to me, and too cruel.

And for the record I love Doublemeat Palace. :)

[> [> One note on this -- Tchaikovsky, 11:41:15 09/22/03 Mon

Thanks.

I see what you mean- in some ways, attempt at satire on ordinary people, rather than satire on celebrity, is always going to come across as a bit of an assassination. Finally, though, I believe in that scene between Reilly and Aniston, Justine and Phil, that they achieve something that the writer considers a great achievement for anyone, great or small, they connect with and understand each other. Even this grind can be lightened by shards of other people's real, non-artificial empathy.

This for me compensates for some of the more snidely written cariacatures.

TCH

[> Preserving -- Masq, 06:14:45 09/23/03 Tue


[> [> Pickling -- Random, 08:15:49 09/23/03 Tue


[> [> [> formaldehyde, anyone? -- anom, 11:40:16 09/24/03 Wed


[> The real bugbear.. -- Random, 06:56:13 09/23/03 Tue

...of modern art -- not-so-modern art too, but it's less obvious because the victims of this bugbear tend to be relegated to obscurity -- is the problem of the function of the genre. We take the Shakespearean "mirror up to nature" issue (or was it Aristotle? I think Hamlet had the line) and are caught in a rather deep quagmire of ambivalence. I have re-heard the arguments in favor of Double-Meat Palace lately, and find myself almost convinced that my personal loathing of the episode is misguided. This is art, this, despite personal lack of enjoyment, is the genius of BtVS. The episode delves into our psyche and explicates the human condition better than OMWF or Hush ever could hope to do.

Almost convinced. But I still can't like it. I really tried, swear to God.

So the issue of the banality of existence being addressed by art is counterpointed by something like Friends, which is played for laughs and bathos and sometimes one isn't sure which is supposed to be which. But, logically, shouldn't one embrace Friends and its sanitized perspective if one rejects the opening of The Good Girl? Or does the phrase "happy medium" apply here? I haven't watched the movie, but from what I'm reading, I get the distinct impression that the movie accelerates from its beginnings and transforms into a more typical genre flick -- to the pleasure of the average audience member. So I wonder what the purpose of all this is...does the art live or die on the merits of what its (unspoken) assumption about its own purpose is? Do we need to embrace banality as being as, if not more, valid an artistic expression as the high-flying muddle of epic themes that a Bosch or a Singer gives us? (And don't get me started on Tarantino, who is, in my completely personal opinion, the most overrated director in a generation. Sigh...sometimes I wonder what I'm missing when I watch his stuff and think, "Hmm, interesting, but it's no BtVS.")

[> [> Another unnecessary lash for 'Friends' -- Tchaikovsky, 09:00:48 09/23/03 Tue

Well, the whole 'holding up a mirror to reality' thing is a bit of a game, isn't it. The thing is, the necessity for non-naturalism is overpowering. To watch half an hour Big Brother highlights of a day is one thing, to watch them in real time is another. And this is a simulated life full of exciting 'events'- eviction night, task night, nomination day.

And so the question becomes: how can the brainy auteur use short-hand to play with ideas about life, while still conencting with people living real, photo-realistic lives down on the dusty, half-forgotten floor of a first-world suburb. It ain't easy, green or not. But look at Shakespeare. We may not be able to sympathise with the exact experience of being terrorised by witches, having poison poured in our ear or getting our eyes stabbed out, (cheery man that Shakespeare, I should have mentioned fairies), but we can empathise with the human in the character's, and the very real emotions they convey, the dilemmas which we have all seen, even if, in our tiny microenvironments, there aren't going to be such gigantic repercussions.

The same for Buffy I think. I think Doublemeat Palace might have some problems because of the 24/7 Big Brother syndrome. Life at normal pace with normal people may not be that interesting to watch. By contrast, for all the sparks and ribbons of Hush and OM,WF, how much does 'I'll Never tell', 'Walk Through the Fire', Olivia's terror, and Xander and Anya's consummation tell us about what it is to be human. More than a giant penis? You betcha.

Hey, I haven't dissed 'Friends' yet. Well, if I want my mirror, I actually don't mind too much if it's convex, concave, at an angle, blue, or the mirror of Erised, (Tim Minear, if you're interested). All that would irritate me is if I see a picture of me where there's a section missing- or nose, or a certain vitality. In 'Friends', that's what I see- sterilised life that never happens. Great escapism, but not art. Which considering the creator's don't consider 'Friends' to be art, is 'just fine'. As long as they let me watch Aniston in 'The Good Girl', and then let me Buffywatch in peace.

TCH

[> [> [> Oh dear god, I can't believe I'm going to do this..... -- cjl, 15:51:30 09/23/03 Tue

I'm going to defend "Friends."

Not all of it. Not even most of it. But enough to warrant my typing these words.

But first....

I hate the title credits. Passionately. Not the theme song; the theme song is actually good. It's the artifically sweetened wackiness of our sextet frolicking in the fountain, dancing crazy, making goofy faces, telling us there's fun, fun, fun! if you just keep it where it is. Makes me want to break out the flamethrower.

There's not a smidgen of New York authenticity in this series. (But that's not a deal-breaker; there wasn't any in "Taxi" or "Seinfeld" either, and I enjoyed those sitcoms.)

I can't stand Ross and Rachel most of the time. Monica gets on my nerves when Courtney Cox forgets to turn down the shriek in her voice. Matthew Perry is funny as Chandler, but you can see it when he's coasting on mannerisms. Lisa Kudrow looks like she's resigned herself to a role that's two sizes too small for her talent. At this point, Matt LeBlanc is the only one who's still entertained by his character. (Bodes well for the spinoff.)

And yet, I watch. Because these six people (multi-multi-millionaires all) still look like they enjoy each other's company. The depth of their friendship comes across on the screen like almost no other series on TV. After nine years, that is no small accomplishment, and no small comfort in a fractured world. No, the series and its situations are not realistic. (Does anybody have a spectacular New York apartment like Monica and Chandler?) Friends, in many ways, is even more of a fantasy than Buffy. But the camaraderie is real. They look like they're having a blast. And even if it isn't and the six stars hate each other, then they've done a damn good job of faking it.

Favorite group moment: the contest between Joey and Chandler and Rachel and Monica for the apartment. Ross' geeky enthusiasm for his quizmaster role. The dozens of little pieces of trivia that make up their lives.

And then there was the original Ross and Rachel romance of the first three seasons. (You know, when they were still human beings.) The initial flirtations and missed opportunities. The episode with the video tape displaying Ross' love for Rachel for all of his friends to see, and the joyous moment when we knew his years of longing and his self-sacrifice would not go unrewarded. And the break-up episode, which startled even David Schwimmer with its emotional kick.

Will Ross and Rachel get back together? Will Phoebe get married? Will Monica and Chandler adopt? Don't really care THAT much. But I will watch. I'd be amazed if they actually managed to pull out an emotionally moving moment after all this time, but it's not essential. The program promises "Friends." They've never failed to deliver.

[> [> [> [> cjl in 'I adore 'Friends' shocker -- Tchaikovsky, 16:14:56 09/23/03 Tue

You know how these things start. You give them an inch, they take a mile. Before you know it, Courteney Cox Arquette will be asking you to take a part in trailers for the new series.

I don't think I really disagree with what you've written at all actually. There really are friends. Maybe that's what I can take out of it. No real rifts, admittedly. No 'Dead Man's Party', or 'The Yoko Factor' and 'Empty Spaces'. No consequently more satisfying re-integration. Hey, stop rationalising brain, it's fine fare. Now where's that popcorn...?

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> Drama, Comedy, and Empathy -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:26:24 09/23/03 Tue

Drama has a relatively simple method: you get people to empathise with the characters, then but them through varying degrees of emotional turmoil, taking the viewer along for the ride. In comedies, however, you have to figure it out a bit more carefully.

I think part of what bothers you about "Friends" might be its goal: to be a comedy where people empathise with the characters. You see, the hard thing about writing a comedy is that people will begin to wonder where the characters' emotional turmoil is, where their requisit angst is. After all, the viewer has to deal with these things in their lives, so they expect fictional characters to have to deal with it, too. However, emotional turmoil in comedy can be difficult to mix. There are, I feel, three methods that can accomplish it, and they are:

1) Dramatize. This is where the writers insert emotional angst by incorporating drama into their comedy programs. "M*A*S*H" is a good example of this; by setting it during a war, including death, heartbreak, and pain was almost essential. So the writers kept a balance of humorous scenes/episodes and dramtic scenes/episodes. This turned "M*A*S*H" into a dramady rather than a straight forward comedy.

2) Un-empathetic characters. This is where the writers deal with the tragic problems of life by making the characters into complete asses, to such an extent that, as heartbreak falls upon them, the audience not only doesn't feel bad for them, they cheer it on. Just take a look at "Married with Children". The characters had almost no hope of moving beyond their lower class lifestyle, no hope of finding love, and no hope of avoiding the misfortune that continuously befell them. But it was still a comedy because everyone was so boorish that they were hard to empathise with; viewers ended up laughing at the Bundys' tragedies rather than pitying them.

3) Simple problems. In this method, instead of adding drama to the story or making the characters unlikable, the writers tone down the characters' problems to the point where we feel free to laugh at them since we know, in the end, it's not really a big deal. This is the method most often used by "Friends".

I actually think method 3 has some worth. In method 1, you get to have characters people care about and still be funny, but you may not want those dramatic elements sprinkled in there. You may want something you can always rely upon to generate chuckles and not tears. Method 2 also has some problems: watching characters you don't like can get dull after a little while; without people you empathise with, the draw to tune in is less. Method 3 resolves both of these flaws, as it gets to be consistently funny, but still manages to let people like the characters. Granted, it isn't perfect either, as some people don't like the idea of fictional characters leading, as you call it, "sterilized lives". However, none of the methods are perfect, and, in my view, none are superior to the others.

(Of course, it could be you just don't empathise with the characters, in which case the lack of real life problems probably loses all purpose on you.)

(This all reminded me of "Same Time, Same Place" a little bit. After it aired, some people complained about Buffy and Xander making jokes about Crazy!Spike. That's because their natural state was to extremely empathise with Spike, which meant the jokes came off as hurtful rather than amusing. You have to be very careful with how you handle empathy in comedies.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting schematic -- Tchaikovsky, 07:37:12 09/24/03 Wed

If I accept it, which I pretty much do, and find myself overhwlemingly in favour of option one.

Option two is sheer schadenfreude. It's OK to empathise with an unlikeable character, but tuning in to watch somebody you don't like being humiliated is just a sanitised version of witch burning.

Option three, I think is glossifying, and just leaves me angry. It's like watching lots of advert breaks, (or at least advert breaks before they got all post-modern and self-deprecating). It portrays a life with no hint at reality, and just enough humanity to make this portrayal annoying.

Option one is where all my favourite comedies live. I don't know if it's ever shown in America, (I doubt it, it's quintessentially British, but the most successful British comedy of the last twenty years is called 'Only Fools and Horses'. One of its great strengths is that, as well as being incredibly funny well-acted and well-directed, the writer David Sullivan, at one point decided that he'd tried to add pathos into the show's range with real drama. And it really worked nicely. Rodney went through a divorce, Del had a child, and 'big' and potentially disastrous things happened, treated as if they were such. It's a conedy but it doesn't seek to hoodwink its audience into believing life is simple, easy and cool. It's uplifting, and never more than a minute away from a life, but it has twinges of real feeling for life. If that's a 'dramedy' give me dramedy. If a dramedy is, as I suspect, a whisky glass, I'll have one of those anyway.

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting schematic -- Vickie, 09:46:54 09/24/03 Wed

Hee! TCH said:

Option two is sheer schadenfreude. It's OK to empathise with an unlikeable character, but tuning in to watch somebody you don't like being humiliated is just a sanitised version of witch burning.

Or reality TV?

[> [> [> [> Okay, confusion is my world... -- Rendyl, 21:34:11 09/23/03 Tue

***(Does anybody have a spectacular New York apartment like Monica and Chandler?)***

Are New York apartments really that small? I have always thought theirs was kinda small and a little worn.

I don't have anything against Friends, but I do have the problem that all the seasons seem to blend together. If I catch an episode I am sometimes unsure which season it is from.

Ren

[> [> [> [> [> Two bedrooms, enormous living room space, located just off Central Park... -- cjl, 21:44:17 09/23/03 Tue

Monica is a Master Chef, but at a small and not-so-high profile restaurant, and Chandler is an advertising intern.

No. Freaking. Way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Two points: -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:33:57 09/23/03 Tue

First, it's been revealed a couple times in the past that Monica is actually subletting the apartment from her grandmother. She even says there's no way she could afford it otherwise.

Second, there's never been any indication it is near Central Park. It is only about a hundred paces from Central Perk, the required sitcom bar/coffee shop/watering hole, but those are hardly the same thing.

To me, a more confusing issue has always been where Willow's money comes from. I can easily believe she got enough scholarships to go to college for free, but how does she afford living expenses and the occasional luxury items when, to my knowledge, she's never had a job in her entire life. The only explanation I can think of is that her parents don't know she's got full scholarship and so keep sending her tuition checks she doesn't need.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Finn is right... -- s'kat, 23:31:31 09/23/03 Tue

It's in the episode called: The One With The FlashBack, we see how the Friends first met more or less.

Monica inherited her Grandmother's Rent Controlled apartment not "subletting" - so much as inherited when her Grandmother died. Rent Control basically means for those people out there who do not live in NYC and have never heard of it - that the landlord can't raise the rent ever.
If it started at $400 - it will stay forever at $400.
I have a friend who lives in Columbia University area near Riverside in Manhattan not far from Central Park, in a beautiful three bedroom apt with a decent view, a huge kitchen and large bath/shower and it costs a whopping $400 a month.

Another friend who lives in Brooklyn in a one bedroom with a closet size kitchen, a closet size bath with shower stall is not rent stablized or controlled and is 1100. It started at 975. A third friend has a rent stabilized apt in Brooklyn with a large kitchen and two rooms leading to bedroom that is 500$. Rent stabilized goes up maybe 5%.

Fair? Nope. But welcome to life in NYC. Where Woody Allen rents for a measley 500$ and his neighbors for 1 million.

Agree - Willow's living expenses were never ever explained.
Always bugged me. IF you're going to bring up finances like ME did in S6 - then bloody well resolve it, don't just forget about b/c it bores you - you introduce it in the story? It stays in the story. TV writers...always do this, they introduce things in an episode, get bored, and think hey the audience won't notice if we just drop it. Right? Wrong!! Just b/c the writers never see the episode again does not mean the audience doesn't. Do they understand the concept of reruns?? (BTVS is not the only tv series to make this stupid mistake, believe me.)

PS: The only reason I know it was in this episode of Friends is the NYTimes wrote an article on it, I used the article to support my TV pitfalls essay - that's why I know it. (Feeling the need to make sure no one jumps to the conclusion that I'm a Friends fanatic...I just watch it occassionally. I prefer the British hybrid on BBC America - Coupling - much darker and more realistic.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> waaaaay off topic, re: Coupling -- Miyu tVP, 11:05:08 09/24/03 Wed

I haven't watched Coupling because I haven't had access to it, but it sounds wonderful and I generally love all things British (In the middle of a Fawlty Towers marathon this week!) But now they're remaking it for the US??? I heard they are working from the exact same scripts.... what's the point? Why wouldn't they just run the original series? Are they afraid the US audience will be thrown by the accents or something?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> From what I heard -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:24:03 09/24/03 Wed

It's got to do with British shows having a really low number of episodes a season, like six. They're also rewriting them for cultural content and are putting in some original scripts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> U.S series/season = 22-24 eps; BBC series/season = 6-8 eps. -- cjl, 11:49:25 09/24/03 Wed

The British "Coupling" is broadcast on BBC America (and on local PBS stations), so it's already on U.S. cable and public TV channels, where six to eight episodes per series/season is the norm. The producers of the U.S. "Coupling," however, have a much bigger target in mind: network TV, and the possibility of a mammoth syndication jackpot down the road. This requires 24 episodes a year.

Now, technically, NBC could broadcast the first three seasons of the British "Coupling" and it would hit 24 eps right on the mark. But if the show is a success, what do they do after that? Suppose some (or most) of the British cast can't commit to the far-more-intense schedule of American network television? What if series writer/creator Stephen Moffet tells NBC: "24 episodes? You must be joking! I'd be dead in two months!"

NBC probably didn't want to be bothered with these details, and simply licensed the name and general concept. They brought in Moffet to touch up the pilot script. They could then cast the American version without having to worry about coordinating with the Brits.

So, if we're lucky, we could wind up with two series with the same name and both will be funny. Even if we're not lucky, the American version will die a horrible death, but the British version will continue on, undisturbed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: U.S series/season = 22-24 eps; BBC series/season = 6-8 eps. -- RJA, 12:15:11 09/24/03 Wed

Similar to the Queer as Folk situation. The original British version had a very limited run of a few episodes. The American version is now in its 4th(?) long running season.

Its standard practice for Americans to remake British shows, usually with a new cast, writers and even title. However, few are sucessful whatsoever (whatever happened to Roseanne Barr's version of ABFab?). The real difference here, it seems, is that Moffat was involved at all.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Didn't know about Moffat, agree, good sign -- sdev, 12:24:28 09/24/03 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> US remaking Brit shows and vice versa (note on AbFab) -- s'kat, 14:50:42 09/24/03 Wed

Absolutely Fabulous was re-done by Cybil Shepard as the situation comedy - Cybil.

Whoopie Goldberg is re-doing Fawlty Towers as the situation comedy - Whoopie.

Trading Spaces is the American Version of Changing Rooms (pre-dates it by two years)

the Brits meanwhile...

made Manchild as the British male version of US Sex in The City, and Coupling as the Brit version of Friends.

We do borrow from each other...don't we? ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've watched moe Coupling than Friends but -- sdev, 12:01:04 09/24/03 Wed

I don't see anything but the most superficial similarities. I find Coupling very funny. And I think it is much more about sexual relationships, and especially the dynamics between men and women, than Friends. It is a sort of comic enactment of Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars (did I reverse this?). There is definitely some sexual stereotyping going on there, so if that offends you, beware. It also has a more slapstick humor than Friends. There are no serious moments. Like Friends there is a lot of relationship swapping though.

I don't think BBC Coupling would work in primetime network USA because of the explicit sexual jokes. It is aired here late at night on BBC cable. I am curious what the US does with it. Unfortunately, I predict a very toned down version. And Finn is right-- limited number of episodes.

In defense of Friends, I think they handled the subject of a lesbian relationship, marriage and child bearing very nicely from my limited exposure.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I've watched moe Coupling than Friends but -- RJA, 12:10:19 09/24/03 Wed

The Friends tag was just a way to market it on its first showing, and yes, its superficial tag, based mainly on the idea that both have 3 women and three men, and there are jokes about sex.

And British comedies never have serious moments (or very rarely, I cant think of any). It was something that always struck me when I first started watching American sit-coms that from time to time the last 5-10 mins were joke free while we were meant to be touched and affected by their issues (and sometimes were).

Unrecogniseable to someone brought up on English sit-coms where its unlikely to even like the characters :-)
Buffy vs Gunn -- JBone, 20:13:46 09/21/03 Sun

Somebody have an apocalypse and forget to invite us?

http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html

I'm excited about finally getting to the Regional Semi-Finals. But I'd like to reflect on some Second Round numbers.

Most votes - Angel with 41. Largest margin of victory - Faith over Riley 36 to 7 for a margin of 29. Fewest votes - Riley with 7. Fewest votes in a win - Xander with 22 to beat Kate. Closest match - tie between Wesley vs Mayor Wilkins 30-27 and Fred vs Oz 25-22, with a margin of 3 votes each. Most votes in a match - 61 with Angel beating Andrew 41 to 20. Lowest seed to win and highest seed to lose are Lilah, a 6 seed, over Connor, a 3 seed.

I must say that I am surprised that Lilah was the only one of the 6 and 7 seeds to win in this round. And I'm really surprised that none of the number 5 seeds won. I figured at least one if not two or three would have snuck in.

But that is all old news. Onto the new and improved Regional Semi-Finals, where only sixteen characters are still alive. You may ask, "JBone, how are the Regional Semi-Finals new and improved?" Well, they're not. You are the unwitting victim of splashy propaganda. Don't beat yourself up too much, I'm much smarter than I write. At least I hope so.

This weeks Tiebreaker Council consists of Rob, TCH, and Dub. But I'm starting to wonder if someone or some people out there aren't steeling the thunder of my Tiebreakers. Three times in the last two weeks, I observed a matchup not being decided by more than two votes coming down to the deadline locked up, only for the eventual winner to pull ahead by three to five votes. Could some nefarious organization be behind this, or more likely a conspiracy of two or three voters? Or am I just overly paranoid? Whatever, let the bloodsport resume!

Replies:

[> Buffy is really, really impressed. -- cjl, 20:25:23 09/21/03 Sun

Gunn's got moves, Gunn's got stones, and he doesn't quit, not even when Buffy is pounding his kidney into paste. Buffy shatters his jaw and cracks his fibula in two places, and he still won't go down. It's only when Buffy breaks ten of his ribs and practically drives his nose into his skull that Gunn realizes a reputation for standing up to a Slayer isn't worth the two years in intensive care, and (with his remaining good hand) throws in the towel...

[> My favorite character is Buffy.....but I'll be nice and console poor Gunn...;) -- Rufus, 21:46:10 09/21/03 Sun


[> [> that *is* nice of you, rufus--after the "impression" they made on each other, he'll need it! -- anom, 08:35:55 09/22/03 Mon


[> Buffy vs Gunn, with the Hardcore Title on the line. -- Apophis, 23:08:05 09/21/03 Sun

Let's be honest: Buffy's going to win this. Heck, Buffy probably SHOULD win this; the show's named after her for a reason. The thing is, I respect Gunn too much to vote against him. So, feeling confident that the universe will balance out on its own, I voted for him. At the end of the day, taking a beating and not giving up is more hardcore than giving a beating to someone who's not anywhere near your strength class; just ask Mick Foley. So, here's the breakdown: Buffy wails on Gunn for several minutes, with Gunn getting in a respectable number of shots. Eventually, Buffy mistakes Gunn's inablility to move for unconsciousness and leaves the area. However, Gunn was merely paralyzed and thus wins by countout. Afterward, magic fixes Gunn's spine so he can fight another day and Buffy wins a new pair of shoes as a consolation prize.

[> Re: Buffy vs Gunn -- MaeveRigan, 07:21:50 09/22/03 Mon

First of all, Buffy can't believe you're asking her to fight one of the good guys. But Gunn thinks it's an interesting experiment, though obviously a hopeless cause. They both put their all into it, because that's the kind of people they are, but of course, Buffy wins. Gunn knows he did his best, so (after W&H's infirmary patches him up), they go out and trade vampire-slaying tips over a beer (not the Cave-Buffy inducing type).

[> Gunn versus Buffy? Depends on the contest... (caution: mild Angel Season Five spoiler within) -- ZachsMind, 14:26:24 09/22/03 Mon

If you're talking no holds barred physical fight to the death, then yeah. No way Gunn could beat Buffy without outside assistance. He might be able to outsmart her, but she's died three times and come back. He's died like, no times. At best, Gunn on his own could only postpone the inevitable. Buffy would take him out.

However, if we're talking COURT battle, the new and improved Gunn would have Buffy on the ropes in less time than it takes to feed a cat. So. It all depends on the contest.

[> [> Gunn did die that one time. -- Apophis, 15:35:12 09/22/03 Mon

Gwen shocked him to death, then restarted his heart.

[> [> [> Ow. That is true.. -- ZachsMind, 19:56:40 09/22/03 Mon

And come to think of it, that's a bad comparison. Because Buffy didn't come back to life without help, all three times. Xander saved her in Prophecy Girl. Willow brought her back in Bargaining (with help from Xander, Anya and Tara) and Two To Go (in the hospital when Dark Willow took the bullet out of Buffy, who had flatlined just as the doctors were leaving.)

Likewise, Gunn needed Gwen to both kill him and bring him back. So for both individuals, their deaths and resurrections are not technically miraculous events that they had anything to do with. These happened despite their mutual efforts to remain dead.

This doesn't change the fact that thanks to her slayer powers, in a physical competition, Buffy is way better than Gunn, and after that talk with the big kitty, Gunn's an intellectual superior to pretty much everybody.
OT: Reports from Hurricane Isa-ugly -- Diana, 07:15:09 09/22/03 Mon

For those who have expressed concern about my safety, thank you for your well wishes. We evacuated to my parents' house which is outside of DC on Wednesday night. I am not sure about the national coverage of the devastation down here, so I thought I would pass on a few local links that people may find interesting.

First is Dominion Electric Outage Map

If you want to know where I live, see all those red blobs that say Hampton and those red blobs that say Williamsburg? I live in between them. Since I live along a primary delivery circuit, we got power back Saturday evening around 5. Not one other person my husband works with had power back as late as Sunday evening. The map keeps changing, so hopefully by the time you see it, those red blobs are orange blobs.

If you believe in a god and even if you don't, can you pray that the power around Richmond gets restored completely by Thursday? Maybe even sacrifice some really nice smelling candles and a goat or two? Pretty please? I am supposed to take a train somewhere and Amtrak currently is looking at up to 3 hour delays in that area. I'll get where I'm going, but I really want to do so awake.

Back to local links. The best news station is:

Wavy TV

What I want to draw attention to is:

Emailed Photos

The first one is of the Virginia Beach Visitor's Center. Labor Day Weekend, my family and I were there. It is where we purchased tickets for the Goo Goo Dolls concert that was held on the beach Sunday. If you watched any coverage of the hurricane, you saw that beach. It was underwater.

The next story I want to draw your attention to is:

Midtown Tunnel Flooded

For those who read my LiveJournal (which will have a more interesting recap of the devastation hopefully by this afternoon), you may remember me talking about getting lost in Portsmouth. To get unlost, we took this tunnel to cross into Norfolk. Can't do that now.

Another interesting thing is:

Area Closings

What I would like to draw attention to is the one at the very end of School closings: York County Public Schools - closed until further notice. Guess where my older daugher goes to school. Luckily the weather is nice, so I can kick her out of the house to play with her friends who don't have school either.

So that is life here from Hurricane Isa-ugly. My apartment only received aesthetic damage and we had no flooding. We had phones when we came back Friday evening, but they went dead Saturday while they were working on the power lines. We left our apartment to find some food Saturday afternoon. Luckily the strip in Williamsburg was operational, so we continued the tradition my husband's family set after surviving Hurricane Andrew (they lived near Ft. Lauderdale at the time). We had our post hurricane meal at IHOP. Since not all the cooks reporteded for work, it took an hour to get our food, but it tasted sooooo good. As we approached the main road by our house, we were greated by the most beautiful sight, not 1, not 2, but SIX trucks working on the power lines. Cable wasn't restored at that time. We got that back Sunday afternoon.

Three more notes: Gas lines? For those who remember the gas crisis of the 70s and even those who have only seen pictures, that is exactly what we have here. Everything is closed, as those links show. It was the weekend anyway. Where are people going? To church? Heaven forbid that they miss Mass on account of the natural disaster. God might smite us down with a natural disaster or something...oh wait...He did that already. :-)

Next: When a traffic light is out, it is to be treated as a four way stop sign. No matter how much the radio stations keep emphasizing this, nobody seems to listen. We almost got run over by trucks behind us because we actually followed the law. This happened more than once.

Last, but not least: Curfews. We are actually under curfews. Since Hubby is the only one with power back, he got to go into work to try and turn the magots into sailors. We had to check when the curfew ended to see when he could get to work. It ended at 6 AM. We need these. With all the crazy drivers and the plethora of power trucks out trying to fix things, these are good.

Actually, one more thing. It is nice to see all the other states chipping in to help us get back on our feet. We have personally seen trucks from Lousianna and Florida. If anyone out there knows of anyone that is helping with Hurricane clean-up, thank them for me and my family. Thanks.

Hope everyone is having a nice week.

Replies:

[> Very glad to hear everyone's OK -- KdS, 14:16:53 09/22/03 Mon

Transcendentalism and Spike in Chosen -- Masq, 09:27:06 09/22/03 Mon

I got this email in my inbox this morning. Since my knowledge of Transcendentalism is sketchy, I thought I'd pass it along to you guys.
=======

Hi
Do you think I am going anywhere useful with *this* thread?

http://forums.buffydownunder.com/showthread.php?p=516951#post516951

As you can see, it was started mid Season 7 (BtVS shows later in Australia than in US)

We have picked it up again now, but I think we really need an educated American input. None of us know anything about the Transcendental movement, really.

Regards

Buffyfan

Replies:

[> Re: Transcendentalism and Spike in Chosen -- ZachsMind, 10:09:06 09/22/03 Mon

Like I know what I'm talking about. The following is arguably arguable. It's my take on the topic. Others will have different opinions. Your Mileage May Vary.

Transcendentalism in America was arguably based on the dialogues between Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. This was in the late 1800s of rural America. Emerson was the more conservative and mature individual to whom Thoreau admired, though the two men didn't always show their appreciation for one another. Thoreau endeavoured to reject modern society and all its materialistic trappings. Emerson struggled to keep Thoreau connected in his own way. I don't know if a balance was ever found. Actually I find more in common with Angel and Doyle (or later his other liasons with humanity like Wesley, Cordelia, and strangely enough Lorne!) than Spike when one looks at Thoreau. Well, rather the reverse actually. Angel rejected humanity and didn't fare very well, so Doyle showed him how he needed to connect with humanity by helping individuals.

It boils down to a difference between reason and understanding. Emerson once said reason is "the highest faculty of the soul--what we mean by the soul itself; it never reasons, never proves, it simply perceives; it is vision." By contrast, "The Understanding toils all the time, compares, contrives, adds, argues, near sighed but strong-sighted, dwelling in the present the expedient the customary"

Understanding is what the mind does with the senses. Reason is what the higher soul does with what the mind has learned. So if transcendentalism were utilized in Whedon's world, a common soulless vampire would be incapable of reason, only understanding. A vampire couldn't see the bigger picture. Actually based on the Holden/Buffy conversation in "CwDP" Buffy season seven, we learn that vampires are capable of reason, but that while normal humans are (in theory) generally more prone to embrace order, vampires embrace chaos. This is not always the case. Spike embraced order, in a manner of speaking, after he got chipped. Slowly over time he came to depend more on the Scoobies and less on his warmongering and reckless ways.

Emerson was accused of "transcendental selfishness" by his peers. Emerson's take on the concept appeared at times to put the soul in the center of the universe. Something was only of value if it contributed to the well-being of the soul. "I am everything; all else is nothing, at least nothing except what it derives from the fact that it is something to me.." accused Brownson of Emerson's philosophy.

In that context, Emerson fits Spike to a tee, before and after the chip.

Emerson's take on transcendentalism was also related to the Romantic concept of Sublimity, as it pertains to the works of William Wordsworth and Edmund Burke.

Thoreau? Well, that's a whole 'nother kettle o' fish altogether. I strongly recommend the works Civil Disobedience, Walden, and Life Without Principle.

"Pray, let us live without being drawn by dogs, Esquimaux-fashion, tearing over hill and dale, and biting each other's ears."

I'd go further but am out of time.

[> [> Re: Transcendentalism and Spike in Chosen -- sdev, 18:04:44 09/22/03 Mon

My understanding is that Transcendentalism was intimately connected to a reconnecting with Nature, the soil, not human nature, philosophy. By communing with Nature people could transcend their senses and experience real truth and beauty. Hence Walden and other Utopian communities were founded.

On a practical plain, it was also associated with the anti-slavery and abolitionist movements and equality of women's rights.

How that connects to Spike I can not imagine.

[> [> [> Re: Transcendentalism and Spike in Chosen -- ZachsMind, 19:19:29 09/22/03 Mon

Well, in my youth I connected with Thoreau, until I realized that what he was really saying was no computer. no Nintendo. no sega genesis. no television. no car. no fast food restaurants. no air conditioning. no junk food like snickers bars. no cassette tapes. etc.. I mean Thoreau's idea of communing with nature meant denying human technology and progress from the industrial revolution forward. That's fine for maybe a two week vacation, but Thoreau believed that was a way of life.

Emerson was much more practical. So in my old age I kinda prefer his approach to transcendance. It's not about trying to deny living. It's about using life to better the soul. There is no higher being and lower being. It's a symbiotic relationship. We're here to learn. Our lives are journeys, and whatever we learn in this life is (theoretically) going to prepare us for whatever comes next. If you believe in that sort of thing of course.

And in that respect, perhaps it does coincide with Spike. When we first met him he was a survivor. A predator. The only thing he cared about was himself, and Drusilla. Over seven years we saw him change and grow and occasionally regress. His is a journey from base feral creature to enlightened being.

If it wasn't for this pesky Angel business this fall, I'd say he transcended. However, it appears the writers don't think his journey is quite over. One thing I can say though, considering where we last saw the sacrificial lamb? Spike's got nowhere to go now but DOWN...

[> [> [> [> getting far afield -- sdev, 22:42:41 09/23/03 Tue

but blaming Masq for preserving (kidding here).

I'll take my Transcendentalism in the derivative from Whitman and Dickinson. Emerson is a hard read. Not to be shallow here but Dickinson's biggest problem is her poems have no names.

Yes I don't fancy life at Walden Farm either, but you can kind of feel it in the poetry of those two and still have your a/c. And I never could feel anything transcendent in Emerson's words.

And LOL on Spike's downward spiral.

[> [> [> [> [> How Do You Know? -- Claudia, 12:03:32 09/24/03 Wed

["If it wasn't for this pesky Angel business this fall, I'd say he transcended. However, it appears the writers don't think his journey is quite over. One thing I can say though, considering where we last saw the sacrificial lamb? Spike's got nowhere to go now but DOWN..."

"And LOL on Spike's downward spiral."]


Are you two getting ahead of yourselves? How do you know this will be Spike's fate on ANGEL? Did you read some spoilers?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Spoiler free here -- sdev, 18:32:43 09/24/03 Wed

I interpreted the joke to mean Spike had transcended, gone up, in Chosen and therefore had nowhere to go but down upon reapearing on AtS.

[> [> [> [> Re: Transcendentalism and Spike in Chosen -- Casi, 14:01:36 09/24/03 Wed

I have to agree that Spike is more easily, and logically connected with Emmerson. He has always been more connected with the things considered human and everyday than other characters on the serious, notably Angel. If you recall the epsidode "I Will Remember You" from Angel season 1, Angel comments that Buffy never explained chocolate to him, and she says she didn't think his vampy tastbuds could handle it. We never see this from Spike. He seems more than willing to partake in human food, though it brings him no nourishment and, it can be argued, no real enjoyment at all due to the lack of taste.
But that is only a vague example to back up my point. Spike has been more a part of the world than any other vampire we've witnessed. At times, he seems to be even more in the world than the human characters.
As the series progressed and he moved beyond the realm of disposable villian to our most beloved angsty vamp, it is clear that this connection to the real is still there. And to jump straight to season seven, this trend is played upon again and again, particularly by Willow constantly proclaiming it's all connected. Spike is the most connected of all the characters, and is set up that way from the very beginning. Therefore, based on these facts and, if we look through Emmerson's eyes, I think it would be clear that Spike did indeed transcend.

As to why the writers feel differently, I think that has more to do with Angel's falling raitings than philisophical banter.

[> Preserving for a little bit longer... -- Masq, 10:19:01 09/23/03 Tue


[> Spike, Nietzsche, and the Atman -- mamcu, 11:40:58 09/24/03 Wed

Here are a couple of possibly relevant thoughts, but my knowledge of all this is really fuzzy:

First, Emerson got a good bit of his thinking from Carlyle and Kant, directly and via Carlyle. Kant's sense of self was different from that of Nietzsche, whom sevral on this board have argued as Spike's true philosophical antecedent. manwitch did such an excellent job of explaining the Spike/Nietzsche connection that I won't even attempt to paraphrase:

"Spike was vamped during the time of Nietzsche, and there are certainly some implications that he embodies aspects of that thought. Spike lives by his own values. He seeks out that which elevates his own stature, namely Slayers. While others fear them, Spike measures himself by them. One again thinks of Nietzsche's claim that there is no better adversary than one in whom there is much to esteem and little to despise. The fact that Spike ultimately gets chipped and souled in a way that is just uncannily Foucauldian, again makes one think of Nietzsche. Foucault was explicitly elaborating on Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals when he wrote about this formation of the soul that seems so applicable to Spike. And Foucault's argument, like Nietzsche's, was that this soul must be overcome. It is not the glorious godly soul of Kant's thought, but a human creation that narrows experience and possibility.

Moreover, in Beyond Good and Evil, which takes its name from the quote I have previously mentioned, Nietzsche spends the first umpteen pages doing one of Western Culture's first true "deconstructions." And it seems to be aimed pretty squarely at Kant. Kant had described his a priori soul in grammatical terms. As any predicate requires a subject, so an action requires an actor behind it. The "I" of "I think." We can see this reflected in Angel's soul. His soul exists behind the actions of his body, and at least in terms of moral responsibility, is free to intend and culpable for its intentions. Nietzsche attacks this idea head on, claiming that it is only due to the constraints of grammar that we have belief in this "actor" behind the "act." To Neitzsche, no such actor exists. There is no doer behind the doing, free to pretend it could have acted differently. The doing is everything. This seems much more akin to Spike, who requires no soul for his actions, whether good or ill, and who lives very much in the immediacy of expression rather than in brooding intent." (manwitch, 2/19/03, http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/feb03_p26.html)

I'd be inclined to agree that this is a better fit than Emerson and Kant for explaining Spike.

The other influence on Emerson, especially, was ideas of the Atman that he learned from the then-new translations of Hindu scripture. And I know little about the Atman, but it seems, like Kant's soul, to be something that exists, not something that is made.

So to me the question about Spike is whether he found himself (Kant/Emerson/Hindu thought) or created himself (Nietzsche et al).

Somebody else can explain about selves and souls and which one he got.
slightly OT: Interesting article in NY Times re:Buffy -- Calvin, 12:47:10 09/22/03 Mon

I assume some have already seen this, but if not, there is article in today's NY Times about all the new shows featuring god, and how they relate to Buffy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/arts/television/22WATC.html

Us lurkers want to know what you think.

Calvin

Replies:

[> Inner strength vs. external guidance -- Gyrus, 11:02:43 09/25/03 Thu

The article seems to suggest that women's wish for power (as embodied by Buffy, Xena, etc.) has been replaced by a wish for guidance -- or at least that the people at the networks believe this is true. Personally, I have no idea.

It make me think about the contrast between BTVS and ANGEL in this regard. Most of the supernatural guidance Buffy has had over the years has come either from her very infrequent Slayer dreams or from beings she has sought out herself (ex. the First Slayer, the Shadow Men). Angel, on the other hand, has had tons of guidance in the form of Doyle and Cordelia's visions and Lorne's readings. Yet Angel keeps straying from the path, while self-directed Buffy usually stays on it.

What, do you think, is up with that?

[> [> Because the guidance itself is untrustworthy and he doesn't trust it -- KdS, 16:04:39 09/25/03 Thu

Since the S2 epiphany, I don't see Angel as seeing prophecy as anything to run your life by - more like very questionable hints about what might be coming down the pike. In fact, in S3-4 most of the problems would have been less serious or non-existent if the people around Angel hadn't been so impressed by prophecy and destiny (in particular Cordy and Wes).

[> Re: slightly OT: Interesting article in NY Times re:Buffy -- RJA, 17:00:11 09/25/03 Thu

Interesting article, although I'm not sure how accurate. For a start, we have no idea why Tru in Tru Calling has these powers (unless something has changed), so its not necessarily God. If they want to make that assumption, then the Slayer herself could be directed by God. A big leap to make I think.

I also object to the quote that We have moved into a more conservative moment, searching for deeper meaning, a moral compass, for I dont think that hearing a voice from God indicates any such search. Thats an answer, not a question. If you want to look at the search for what is right, what meaning there is, then Buffy would serve you equally as well as these new shows. They force you to consider questions that are very relevant to a bigger picture.

It seems to me that this is another assumption of some that you can only have a moral compass if you acknowledged the existence of God. Buffy was one of the most fundamentally moral and questioning shows I've seen, and it didnt need a gimmick of hearing God in which to do so.

[> [> Agree -- sdev, 17:22:55 09/25/03 Thu

For a start, we have no idea why Tru in Tru Calling has these powers (unless something has changed), so its not necessarily God. If they want to make that assumption, then the Slayer herself could be directed by God. A big leap to make I think.

Precisely the flaw I saw in this article. These shows are in some sense derivative of Buffy in their premise. I can't speak for execution because I haven't seen them. But per the article's description they are about young women with special powers (from god?) who try to do good in the world. Sounds familiar to me. It then jumps to this is a Buffy backlash. Huh?

Current board | More September 2003