April 2001 posts
Peter and the Wolf... -- Rufus, 13:39:06
04/18/01 Wed
The things that stand out for me are: Doc was humming Peter and
the Wolf,
canine and serpent can see the key, so do we have a demon with
canine
aspects here? Dawn seemed to see Doc in a different way than Spike
did, so
is there more to Doc than meets the eye?
The Gohra demon, sounds like the Mohra demon, they have the similarity
of
the Mohra having the blood of eternity, the Gohras eggs giving
life. So as
Spike was bitten by the demon what will happen will he get an
aspect of the
Gohra demon (I don't mean he will start laying really big eggs
here), if so
what?
Doc said that he saw Spike before, ramblings of an old man, or
did Doc see
the past, or how about the future?
Doc seemed to want to see Dawn again, is Doc the Wolf?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- The Godfather, 13:43:36 04/18/01
Wed
I don't think Spike will get anything from the demon because it's
life-giving was in it's eggs and not in it's saliva or blood.
I don't see
them basically repeating the been there done that story from both
BUFFY and
ANGEL..
I however do wonder about Doc's ramblings..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Doc's looks and a Possible Spoiler -- Scott L., 15:40:12
04/18/01 Wed
I thought that Doc's eyes looked a lot like Jinx's eyes. Coincidence?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
TV Guide said that Joel Gray played a hell-god in the 100th episode.
That
means that either Doc is the third hell god -- a part of the Glory,
Ben, ?
triptych, or the hell-god will be played by the same actor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Masquerade, 14:26:46 04/18/01
Wed
And does Doc know Dawn is not all she appears to be?
I also wonder if Glory will take her minion Jinx to Doc because
she said
something about "getting him fixed" after he died so
she could "hear the
story again without all that moaning" or some thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Rufus, 15:11:12 04/18/01
Wed
I think that the Doc knows that Dawn is more than a little girl....one
note....he did first offer a spell to make her grieving easier.
The bit
where he took a bit of her hair and commented on the DNA being
strong was
something to remember. I don't think that Doc is a dottering old
man, I
think he is way more. I considered the fact that as he is supposed
to be
well known for spells of reserection that his home may be his
place of
business so I considered that Spike wouldn't need an invite. I
also thing
that the bite of the demon should be considered because they made
such a
point of showing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Wiccagrrl, 14:30:16 04/18/01
Wed
Well, the tail Dawn saw poking out under the coat seemed pretty
reptilian.
And there was the thing with they eyes going all black. So, I'm
guessing
he's probably not just a mere mortal, not even a powerful and
knowledgable
one. There's more to this guy than meets the eye.
I would really love to know what the comment about knowing Spike
was all
about- sitting in the corner mart, playing Dominoes, but different
color
hair and not a vampire? Was this refering to William? Was it implying
he
could see the past, or that he was around back then, too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Solitude1056, 14:41:15
04/18/01 Wed
I would really love to know what the comment about knowing Spike
was all
about- sitting in the corner mart, playing Dominoes, but different
color
hair and not a vampire?
But even stranger, to me, was Spike's reaction - it seemed verging
on
defensiveness. (Someone else who taped it may need to re-watch,
'cause I
could be remembering or interpreting that wrong.) But he sure
seemed
insistent for some reason that no, no, he didn't know the old
man. And for a
bit there, perhaps I wasn't the only one wondering why Spike felt
it
necessary to insist this was his first meeting with the old man,
until the
old man suddenly changed tack completely & said something about
brown hair
(and glasses, too, I thought).
I may be reading way between the lines here, but it seemed to
me that Spike
had some sort of invitation, even if it was unnecessary... that
looked like
the guy's living room, and it didn't seem like the kind of place
that was a
storefront. Why else, then, would you just walk in - needing an
invitation
or no? Not knocking at all but just walking in implied to me a
"Spike's been
here before." On top of that, I took the old man's words
- and Spike's
testy, almost insistent negative reaction - to be that these two
had met
before. Perhaps the old man was not-so-subtly reminding Spike
to watch his
step, for some reason.
And as long as I'm at it, why so unsubtle a demonic touch? I mean,
come on -
usually the baddies don't go out of their way to broadcast that
they're
baddies unless it serves some sort of purpose. And Spike,
Mr-Notice-Everything, seemed to be quite impervious to Dawn's
nudges and
jumpiness at seeing Doc's repitilian side. It just struck me as
awfully
heavy-handed - one glimpse of the tail is intriguing, but the
eyes seemed a
bit of overkill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Wiccagrrl, 15:51:49
04/18/01 Wed
And as long as I'm at it, why so unsubtle a demonic touch? I mean,
come on -
usually the baddies don't go out of their way to broadcast that
they're
baddies unless it serves some sort of purpose.
Which sort of leaves me wondering how much of a baddie he really
is. I mean,
they left little question that he wasn't completely human. But
he seemed to
almost be trying to spook Dawn, and maybe he was. He made it awfully
clear
to Dawn that this was a bad idea. He warned of the consequences,
didn't in
anyway claim this would really be her mom coming back, etc. He
also told her
(accurately, apparently) how to break the spell if things didn't
go right.
But he was going to leave the choice to her.
I also find myself wondering, since the spell did technically
work, if Dawn
is going to find herself being held to what she was saying/offering
in that
spell. It did sort of sound like she was offering herself to Osiris.
Could
be wrong, but it would make things interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Rufus, 18:22:19
04/18/01 Wed
Consider Satan, he gives you the choice of selling your soul,
with complete
awareness of what you are doing. With vampires there is generally
no choice
you are made so that evil is easy to see. With darker evil there
is that
element of needing you to make the choice to follow the darkness
without the
light to guide your way. In the shooting script it says about
Doc:
"As he moves to another stack of papers and we see what Dawn
is seeing -
just a hint of Reptilian tail curling from under his bathrobe.
But before we
can really make it out, it's gone agian - disappearing into his
clothes.?
"As Dawn takes his hand - Doc's eyes go Dompletely Black
for just a moment,
another hint of unnerving evil."
Spike didn't see what Dawn saw. That was clear. So what type of
evil is Doc.
Ambiguous or very smart deliberate evil? What does he want from
Dawn...is he
the third hellgod or a bigger bad? I see alot of snake imagery
this year. If
Doc is the snake, what is he offering?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Check out my post below... -- Jen
C., 19:46:15 04/18/01 Wed
...on the corruption of Dawn. I really got an impression that
Dawn was
slipping down a path of corruption with this particular turn of
events. She
may have terminated the spell before we could see the outcome,
but she was
very determined to carry it out, regardless of the cost to herself,
Buffy,
and whatever shell of a mom the spell would have called up.
I think that Dawn is a plum waiting to be plucked by whatever
evil can
discern her true nature. It may be that that Doc is one of those
evils - who
knows what he may want?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Check out my post below...
-- June, 23:16:55 04/18/01
Wed
Dawn is all too easily enticed by evil given the right situation.
And at times she really scares me.
Or, to put it another way, she is just an ordinary teenager.
Dawn is basically a good kid, but there is the very real possibility
that
her darker nature might assert itself over the strong light of
goodness that
is within her. Just like there is with the rest of us.
Dawn is a very strong willed individual. She showed great strength
in this
episode, albeit in pursuit of an less than honourable objective,
but came
through in the end. People underestimate Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn gets a personality
-- Charlotte, 14:01:48 04/19/01
Thu
This is the first episode in which I felt Dawn really developed
a character
with a personality. In the past, I felt that she was just portraying
an
annoying, childlike and undeveloped personality. In this episode,
her
character grew. She knew what SHE wanted and what SHE had to do
to get what
she wanted. She spoke more strongly and acted more strongly. It
makes
perfect sense that this would be the episode where her character
and
independence are truly developed because she could no longer depend
on her
mother.
The only other times she started showing her own personality is
in her
interactions with and about Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn gets
a personality -- Sue, 10:21:58
04/22/01 Sun
All her life people have protected Dawn. Treated her as "the
baby" as the
immature one.
It is only natural for her to adopt, to a certain extent, the
role others
have placed her in.
Often our perceptions of ourselves, and therefore our personalities
are
shaped by how we perceive others perceiving us.
Dawn has always been treated as the baby, as immature, so we shouldn't
be so
shocked when she acts that way. Just fulifilling their expectations
of her.
She might have adopted the role assigned to her by others to a
certain
extent, by those around her, but as she grows she will be able
to fight this
to some extent. People underestimate Dawn. And that's a big mistake.
Dawn is
stronger than she even realizes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Eania Snow, 04:44:52
04/19/01 Thu
Just rewatched the scene over a few times. When Dawn see's the
Doc's tail
spike is lighting a cigrette when it happens and is not really
looking at
him. When his eyes change its kind of hard to tell if hes looking
in dawns
direction as well. As for him having evil intentions with the
spell I don't
really think there was. He tried to convince her not to do it
and something
bad would come out of it. As far as Spike knowing him im pretty
sure he
didn't his reaction is more along the lines of amuzed at the crazy
old guy.
I think that part was there also to show that he was not human.
Being able
to spot a vampire in less then 3 seconds is not a human triat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Dean, 21:35:37
04/20/01 Fri
Doc is evil of the worst type.
The type that comes to you appearing harmless, even friendly,
and helpful.
He is the corruptor!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Sue,
21:51:34 04/20/01 Fri
When I think of Doc the first thing that comes to mind is
ew!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Ramo, 18:25:05 04/18/01
Wed
I think this Doc guy is bad news, and I agree he's probably much
more than
what meets the eye.
First, it was mentioned that his tail and eyes seemed reptilian.
Doesn't
that mean that reptiles can see the key (like the snake), so he
may have
known what Dawn was?
Also, that thing with knowing Spike from before...it may have
been before he
was a vampire. He appears to be a demon, and since he's old, maybe
he's not
immortal but is slower in the aging process.
Another thing--he told Dawn there were problems with the spell,
but overall
encouraged it and gave her the information for free. Then, when
she shook
his hand, you could see a hint of evil in his demon eyes. Maybe
he had
different goals and plans to helping Dawn other than just being
nice.
The Peter and the Wolf humming I think symbolizes that though
the tune
sounds pretty innocent and cute, it shows evil is approaching
(not
necessarily a wolf, but something).
This guy seems very interesting, and I hope we find out more about
him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- purplegrrl, 14:33:57 04/18/01
Wed
Thanks for the thread, Rufus. I was going to mention "Peter
and the Wolf"
but it slipped my mind.
My take on Doc whistling "Peter's Theme" from "Peter
and the Wolf" was that
it was a prediction that Dawn was blithely entering into something
that she
was better off staying out of. Much like Peter, who goes into
the woods with
his toy gun because he wants to hunt the wolf. In the end, Peter
must be
rescued from his folly by the Huntsman. Just like Dawn had to
be rescued
from what she had wrought by Buffy's admission of fear and despair,
and
reassurances of family.
I guess that would equate Spike to the Duck who follows Peter
into the
woods!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Perfect analogy Purplegrrl! (N/T) -- estefena, 15:01:24
04/18/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- Tornado, 11:51:09 04/19/01
Thu
I guess that would equate Spike to the Duck who follows Peter
into the
woods!!
And the duck (Sonja) is eaten alive by the wolf (Ghorra demon?)
and comes
out alive(!).
Hmmm....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- LoriAnn, 13:25:19
04/20/01 Fri
"And the duck (Sonja)[Spike] is eaten alive by the wolf (Ghorra
demon?) and
comes out alive(!)."
Except Spike isn't alive to start with, so is he eaten by the
wolf
(whatever) and comes out ALIVE?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Peter and the Wolf... -- purplegrrl,
14:15:49 04/20/01 Fri
I think this was meant as an analogy, not literally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's not the story I know. -- Diana Michelle, 14:40:04
04/20/01 Fri
I've heard a different Peter and the Wolf:
Early one morning, Peter opened the gate and went out into the
big green
meadow next to his house.
The first friend he met was a little bird sitting on the branch
of the big
tree. The bird was chirping away happily, "All is quiet,
All is quiet....."
Soon a duck came waddling by she was glad that Peter had forgotten
to close
the gate. Now she could take a nice swim in the deep pond that
was in the
middle of the meadow.
Seeing the duck, the little bird flew down next to her on the
grass. "What
kind of a bird are you if you can't fly," said the bird.
To this the duck
replied "What kind of a bird are you if you can't swim?"
Then she dove into
the pond.
They argued and argued.The duck swimming in the pond and the little
bird
hopping after her along the shore.
Suddenly, something caught Peter's attention. It was a cat sneaking
through
the grass.
The cat thought; While the bird is busy arguing with the duck,I'll
just grab
him.
"Look out!" shouted Peter to the bird and he immediately
flew up into the
tree. While the duck swam as fast as she could to the middle of
the pond
where the cat couldn't touch her. And she quacked at the cat with
all her
might.
But the cat was more interested in the bird. So she walked round
the tree
and thought "Is it worth climbing up so high? By the time
I got there the
bird will have flown away."
While Peter was watching the cat, he suddenly saw his grandfather
standing
at the opened gate. His grandfather was very angry because Peter
had gone
out in a meadow. This is the dangerous place, he grumbled. "If
a wolf should
come out of the forest, then what would you do?"
But Peter payed no attention to his grandfather's words. Because
boys like
Peter aren't afraid of wolves.
But his grandfather took Peter by the hand, led him home and locked
the
gate.
No sooner had Peter gone,when a big grey wolf did come out of
the forest.
In a flash the cat climbed up the tree. The duck was quacking
louder than
before, and in her excitment she jumped out of the pond. But no
matter how
fast the duck tried to waddle away, she couldn't escape the wolf.
He was getting nearer and nearer, catching up with her then he
got her and
with one gulp he swallowed her.
And now this is the situation the cat was sitting on one branch
of the big
tree ..... and the bird on another, which was not too close to
the cat.
And the wolf, still famished, was walking round and round the
tree looking
at them with hungry eyes.
In the meantime: Peter, without the slightest fear, stood behind
the closed
gate watching everything that was going on.
Suddenly he got a brilliant idea. He ran home and found a strong
rope. Then
he climbed up the high stone wall that seperates his house from
the meadow.
The big tree in the meadow was so big that one of its branches
streched out
over the wall.
So Peter grabbed the branch and swung himself easily over on to
the tree
right next to the bird.
"Listen" he wispered to the bird. "Fly down and
circle round the wolf's
head, but only be careful that he doesn't catch you."
The bird came so closed to the wolf's head that he almost brushed
it with
his wings while the wolf snapped in every direction.
How the bird did worry about the wolf! And how the wolf wanted
to catch the
bird! But the bird was clever enough so that the wolf simply couldn't
do
anything about it.
Meanwhile, Peter made a lasso and he carefully let it down and
down, untill
he caught the wolf by the tail and pulled it with all his might.
The moment the wolf felt his tail was caught in the lasso, he
began to jump
wildly trying to get loose.
But Peter tied the other end of rope to the branch, and the wolf's
jumping
only made the rope round his tail tighter.
Just then, Peter saw some hunters coming out of the woods. They
followed the
wolf's trail and shot as they went.
But Peter sitting in the tree shouted to the hunters. "Don't
shoot! The bird
and I have already caught the wolf. Now help us take him to the
zoo."
So now you can just imagine the victory parade. Peter is of course
in the
lead. And following Peter, the hunters leading the wolf. And winding
up the
whole parade, grandfather and the cat.
Grandfather tossed his head discontentedly. "Well",
he said, "and if Peter
hadn't caught the wolf? What's then?"
Above them flew the little bird chirping merrily. "My,what
brave fellows we
are, Peter and I! Look what we have caught!"
And if you listen very carefully, you can hear the duck quacking
very softly
inside the wolf,of course. Because the wolf, in his excitment
and hurry, had
swallowed her alive.
The ending is actually creepy because no one realizes that the
duck is still
alive inside the wolf and that it's slowly going to die a torturous
death by
stomach acid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: That's not the story I know. -- purplegrrl,
14:56:59 04/20/01
Fri
You're probably right. It's been a *very* long time since I've
heard the
whole story. I just remember the music, especially "Peter's
Theme."
Could this story still work as an analogy for Dawn's and Spike's
actions in
"Forever"? Since very little in the Buffyverse/Jossverse
is done as a
"throwaway," I think it's very interesting that Doc
would choose to whistle
a tune from "Peter and the Wolf" when he was helping
Dawn. Both Peter and
Dawn scoffed at the consequences of their actions when they were
told of the
dangers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story I know. -- Diana
Michelle, 15:10:59
04/20/01 Fri
And does this mean that there will be a duck, An innocent who
suffers and
dies because of Dawn's impetuousness?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story I know.
-- purplegrrl, 16:07:44
04/20/01 Fri
I think the Spike-Duck analogy could still work. While not an
innocent (not
by a long shot!), Spike could suffer some sort of consequences
for going
along with Dawn's plan to resurrect her mother. He knows darn
good and well
that if Buffy finds out, he is toast, or dust as it were.
And the Peter-Dawn analogy could be more arcing rather than just
this single
incident. Dawn is young and unmindful of her own mortality. She
also wants
to play with the "grown-ups" - fight like Buffy, do
spells like Willow, have
a boyfriend like Anya. Dawn's bound to do something else where
the
consequences lead to someone being hurt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story I know.
-- Solitude1056, 17:28:47
04/20/01 Fri
And does this mean that there will be a duck, An innocent who
suffers and
dies because of Dawn's impetuousness?
I won't give the spoiler here, but I will say that it seems like
Spike isn't
the duck (in this version), he's the bird. He flies around, worries
the
baddie, and gets free. Someone else must be the one who suffers.
And while
we're at it, is the Wolf the Ghorra monster, or is it Glory?
(Also: several of the online references to the composer's original
narrated
version mention that it's specifically the "first day of
spring" on which
the wolf is outwitted. Hmm...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story I
know. -- Rufus, 18:21:16
04/20/01 Fri
I'm still thinking that perhaps the wolf could be the harmless
but
reptillian Doc.....or perhaps Sleepy, Dopey, or, sorry, wrong
story.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's not the story
I know. -- Sue, 19:19:16
04/20/01 Fri
"wolf could be the harmless but reptillian Doc."
Doc isn't harmless. Ew!
Dawn - Stay Away.
Faith, Joyce & Dawn -- Hauptman, 15:46:11 04/18/01 Wed
I think that Faith, if she even thinks about these things anymore,
will
mourn the loss of Joyce. As I remember it, before Fiath punched
her inthe
face and tied her up, Joyce was pretty supportive of the #2 Slayer.
Having
lost her mother, maybe she will feel even more connected to Buff.
Hey, Will Faith ever get to see Dawn? I wonder if Faith would
see something
different, after all she was the first perso n to know about Dawn
in a way.
I hope we get to see her this season, but chances are quite slim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith, Joyce & Dawn -- Max, 21:30:46 04/19/01 Thu
"Hey, Will Faith ever get to see Dawn? I wonder if Faith
would see something
different, after all she was the first person to know about Dawn
in a way. "
I don't believe that it was Faith coming to Buffy in her dreams.
Certainly
Buffy's subconcious was using her image, but that was no more
Faith, than it
was Tara in Restless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I hate to speak ill of the dead -- Kurt, 20:45:51 04/26/01
Thu
But I have always gotten the impression that Joyce used Faith.
"Joyce was pretty supportive of the #2 Slayer. "
Or so it seemed at first. But perhaps there was an ulterior motive
for that.
With Faith in the picture, there would be no need for Buffy to
be the Slayer
anymore. Let Faith handle the slaying stuff, then Buffy can forget
about it,
go off to College, and have an normal life.
Perhaps Joyce felt playing the Surrogate Mother role for Faith
was her Real
Daughter's ticket out of being slayer. Remember she asked Buffy
"Have you
ever tried not being the Slayer?" With Faith in Sunnydale,
Joyce hoped Buffy
could be her normal daughter again.
You can't blame Faith for feeling a bit used by being taken advantage
of
someone who was using her greatest need (that of family which
she finally
found in no less than the Mayor) for their own gain. I am sure
she was sad
to hear of Joyce's passing, but I am also sure she has mixed feelings
about
Joyce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith, Joyce & Dawn -- Jane, 06:39:02 04/27/01 Fri
I hope Faith does come back to either Angel or even Buffy. I don't
think
though hearing about Buffy's mom's death is going to make her
feel any more
connected to Buffy. I am sure she will be sad to hear about it,
and sad
about how it will effect Buffy, for despite her issues with Buffy,
she
generally sees her in a favorable light, but a part of her, mind
you a very
small part, will think -"Well now Buffy is going to get a
taste of what it
is like to be me. To be all alone."
Angel used to visit Faith. Does he anymore?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith, Joyce & Dawn -- Jane, 06:43:15 04/27/01
Fri
Mind you it will be "all alone except her sister and the
scooby gang" so
even there Faith will still have jealousy for what Buffy still
has.
Part of Faith, a small part, will think "well, you lost your
mom, tough, yes
I am sure it is, but you are still the lucky one."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> ESP -- Hauptman, 07:49:56 04/27/01 Fri
I guess you are right, Jane, Faith will always consider Buffy
the lucky one,
the one with the family, the scoobies, the fab, seemingly limitless
wardrobe, the pair of devoted (though absent) boyfriends and the
saucy kid
sister. And even if Buff has recently lost mummy, Faith will think
that at
least she will carry the memmory of the love Joyce had for her
like a warm
blanket rather than the shroud of broken glass Faith has to cuddle
up with
whenever she thinks about the past.
Okay, maybe that wasn't Faith talking directly to buffy when buffy
had those
visions, But it wasn't totally Buffy either. "Is this your
head or mine?"
Buffy asks. I can't remember Faith's answer exactly, but I think
it
indicated both or neither. Buffy seems to have ESP of a sort.
Her dreams
come true to some degree several times. I am not sure that other
slayers
have this ability, though Giles did say that Slayers could hone
in on
Vampires, but it wasn't clear if that is based on psychic ability
or if it
was because after a while you just know what to look for. The
scoobies have
been able to spot vamps and Riley did in the monster bar.
But if it is psychic, then shouldn't Faith have the same ablility?
And since
it was Buffy who, in a trace, saw through the spell that makes
Dawn appear
human, shouldn't Faith, who is a lsayer and, let's face it a little
crazy,
be able to see something other than what is on the mystical surface?
And, by
the way, since crazy people can see through Dawn's corporeal spell,
shouldn't Glory, who is borderline, have seen something? That
might be
nitpicking.
And will somebody tell me what the hell "730" means.
Gosh!
My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic Artistry
- (Spoilers)
also (Long)) -- OnM, 16:05:41 04/18/01 Wed
I thought I'd do something a little different this time around.
Usually I
stop by the board and read up on
the comments of others that are currently posted before setting
out to write
down my own thoughts and
post them. I do this mainly to avoid bringing up points that others
have
already made until I have had a
chance to ponder them. This time around, I'll volunteer my impressions
firstly, and put just a little different
spin on them, a spin created by just one of the things that struck
me most
strongly about this week's
wonderful episode of Buffy, 'Forever'.
The regulars here at ATPoBtVS who read my movie recommendation
column each
Friday night may recall
that when I started the feature, I made note that cinema has become
a sort
of common language that we
can utilize to share experience with one another. Humans tend
to think not
only with words, but with
images, and you could make a very good case that from an evolutionary
perspective our DNA even
orients us primarily toward understanding the essence of things
in a visual
manner.
I have quite a number of thoughts regarding this weeks episode,
but I think
that I'd like to start with an
appreciation of just how *cinematic* Joss' Buffyverse is, and
how the use of
that 'common visual
language' of the 20th century influences how we interpret an episode,
and
the emotions that spring from
that interpretation.
'Forever' opens with a shot of Buffy wandering through a room
that is
obviously at a funeral home, where
she is attempting the sad duty of selecting a casket for her recently
deceased mother. The first shot fades
up out of blackness, we see a small area of white light, which
turns out to
be a lamp, and then we begin to
recognize Buffy's face as she emerges from the darkness.
She walks slowly around the room, finally stops before a casket,
pauses,
then raises the lid partway, begins
to look inside. Suddenly the lights in the room come up and we
cut to a shot
of Dawn, Giles and the
funeral director entering the room. The two adults stop just shortly
inside
the doorway to the room, Dawn
continues walking forward until she is in between Buffy and the
two adults,
she on the one side of the
casket and Buffy at the other side.
The funeral director comments approvingly on Buffy's choice. Buffy
avoids
looking at Dawn and walks
over to stand with Giles and the director. She crosses her arms
in front of
her chest, speaks briefly with
Dawn, who while not disapproving of Buffy's choice, wonders aloud
if perhaps
her mom 'wouldn't like
something else better'. Buffy then responds to the director's
question about
taking some more time to
decide by stating no, she's made a decision . She looks up at
Dawn and asks
for her OK, but the question
really isn't a question. The scene ends with the camera close
up on Dawn,
watching the emotions playing
out on her face as the others leave the room.
Now, I had to play this scene back several times on my VCR just
to get the
modest level of detail described
in the paragraph above, because my memory isn't good enough to
recall it
that clearly. However, the
emotions and thoughts the scene brought about in my mind weren't
really any
different than when I saw
the scene as it happened the very first time. This is because
the emotions
of the story are laid out in the
visual shorthand of cinema, and even though the spoken word compliments
and
strengthens the impression
the storytellers intended, you can play the scene with the sound
turned off
and it still conveys the same
feelings.
Indeed, without even speaking a single word, the lighting alone
in the
beginning of the scene reflects what
must be Buffy's emotional mood at the moment. The scene lighting
makes use
of a great deal of light and
shadow, but even then the visual range is compressed, there are
initially no
very bright lights, only a range
of soft to somber. When the lights come up, the physical placement
of the
characters within the room and
their body language continues to tell the story without words.
This is the
essence of cinematic storytelling,
and here is how I interpret what happens in this space of a few
short
minutes:
Buffy appears out of darkness, the light is behind her. The way
ahead is
poorly lit. She is alone and
uncertain. She gains a small moment of focus by concentrating
on the task of
the moment, even attempts a
certain level of courage by lifting the casket lid, thus more
directly
confronting the painful reality of what
lies ahead. Her focus is broken by the arrival of the others,
especially her
sister, and now she is obligated to
include them in her thoughts, assume the responsibilities she
again has been
handed not out of choice but of
fate.
The rest of the scene shows the distance between her and her sister,
from
her sister's perspective. Buffy
avoids eye contact, moves over and stands with the other adults
in the room,
in a corner, leaving Dawn
alone out in the middle of the room. She crosses her arms in front
of
herself, a distancing gesture, and all of
the 'adults' are also standing in a shadowed area, while Dawn
stands in the
lighter spot, much of the light
ironically provided by reflection off the bright white casket
Dawn has at
her back. (The significance to me
of this minor detail is that Buffy sees herself as moving in and
out of
darkness, that it is something that one
must just accept and get through, while Dawn sees only that the
light behind
her is gone, and she sees no
future without that light).
Most adult viewers can easily see through Buffy's outward appearance
of
being 'in control' and see the
depth of pain and grief just under the surface. Dawn cannot, and
only sees
in her older sister's (apparently)
authoritative manner that someone supposedly close to her has
no
comprehension of her own level of pain.
Thus we have set up the beginning of the story, with the resolution
at the
end once again using lighting to
show the depth of emotion felt by Dawn and Buffy, this time fully
aware of
just how the other feels, as they
collapse together in deep shadow, holding each other tightly and
sobbing
uncontrollably.
I could go on and detail many scenes in the same manner, but I
think you get
the idea. You could even say
that I'm not really pointing out anything you didn't already know,
but the
fact of the matter is that this
level of care is very rare in television, and even among the better
shows on
the air, is almost never used this
effectively-- it's the difference between being merely a competent
craftsman
and being an artist.
Some other favorite scenes in this ep with a bent towards cinematic
artistry:
The scene that begins in the upstairs hall of the Summer's home
with the
camera panning the rows of
pictures on the wall and passing Buffy and Dawn sitting silently
and in the
same positions in each of their
rooms.
The transition from the above scene to the scene at the funeral,
where the
camera pans the rows of people
in the present day of the Summers' family in contrast to the pictures
that
represented the past.
The scene where Tara asks Buffy if she wants Willow and herself
to wait a
while longer for her, and the
lighting slowly changes from the warm light of afternoon to the
cold, blue
light of night, all the while Buffy
stands unmoving.
The appearance of Angel and the handclasp as they stand side by
side.
(Noting the visual irony of her in
white, him in black as they stand in the darkness).
The arrangement of the three sequences whereby the various characters
try to
deal with their grief in
varying manners and with varying degress of insight-- Buffy and
Angel,
Willow, Tara and Dawn, and
Xander and Anya.
And of course, the scene at the end with Buffy and Dawn, as mentioned
before, bookending the opening
scene. Speaking of bookending, it also struck me that this episode
is a
bookend for 'The Body'. Consider
that the tone is very different for each, the more 'reality based'
characteristics of 'The Body' vs. the more
conventional 'cinematic' aspects of 'Forever'. The former deals
with the
occurance of death itself, and the
sense of time suspending in the immediacy of the moment, and the
latter
deals with the aftermath of death
(the funeral preperations, the grieving, etc.) and the sense that
time drags
out or expands as the
consequences of the death settle in and the mind has time to dwell
on those
consequences. Take note of the
deliberate differences in sound and lighting between the two episodes,
and
how they each reinforce the
telling of each story in different ways.
If one thinks of the two shows as actually being one longer show,
in two
major acts or parts, then again
this appears to be a cinematic convention, since most films run
from 1 1/2
to 2 hours. It certainly isn't the
first time Joss & Co. have done this, as in 'Surprise/Innocence'
or 'Bad
Girls/Consequences' or 'This
Year's Girl/Who Are You?', for example. (I also believe I recall
that in an
interview Joss remarked that
one of the more restrictive/challenging factors he had to deal
with in
creating the show was the need to
work within the rigid 40-some minute time frame that television
practice
dictates).
Finally, it would be one thing if the cinematic tendencies of
the show were
an occasional thing, but as we
all know, themes and techniques like the ones I've described have
been
nearly constant throughout the
entire run of the show over the last 4 3/4 seasons, and 'Forever'
is just
the latest example of this dedication
to artistry. Quite a long time ago, I commented in a another post
here that
BtVS could very well rise out of
the collective mass of our history of popular entertainment and
become the
Shakespeare of the 20th
Century, given the passage of time, and with the understanding
that the
popular artists of the current day
sometimes turn into the classics admired by future generations.
If the next
five episodes keep to the same
standards as the last two, this season will surely become one
of the most
appreciated 'plays' by those who
come after us.
*******
So, there are some thoughts from my Little Brain to yours. As
always, your
comments and insights are
most welcome. Thanks for reading!
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic
Artistry --
Nina, 17:33:34 04/18/01 Wed
OnM, What a great post! Before "Forever" aired here,
I watched "The Body"
right before. I wanted to be in that special state and forget
about the 6
weeks of hell... I felt exactly what you described. One show is
the
aftermath of the other. Darkness and Light. Contrast. Not only
did they
surprised me with the plot, but the cinematography was very interesting.
I
was skeptic about ITW, I had many reserved towards MN as a director.
But I
was totally surprised with this one. She did a terrific job. I
love that
little scene with Giles drinking and listening to his music. Short
but
subtle!
The only thing that I still have a lot of difficulty with is the
music. I
tried to give that new comer a break (and I actually loved what
he did in
FFL) but most of the time he always takes the same music instruments
and as
far as I try to understand the logic of his themes (I am a musician
and I
should be able to understand!) I don't. If anybody does understand...
please
help me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic
Artistry --
Rufus, 18:50:24 04/18/01 Wed
And who can forget the scene where Buffy askes Dawn "who
is going to take
care of us now"? Buffy was finally stripped of the pretense
of strength.
Buffy is just as scared as Dawn but showed it very differently.
The Body of
Joyce may be in the ground but both girls now understand that
it is in their
hearts that Joyce will live forever. Tara had it right because
she lived
through loss and was in a different stage of grief. Dawns preoccupation
of
where the body would be ignored the fact that Joyce was no longer
with the
body. The Key is learning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic
Artistry --
OnM, 06:08:37 04/19/01 Thu
Thanks, Nina, so glad you enjoyed my humble thoughts!
Judging by what I've read from other posters, particularly on
the Cross and
Stake board, many people seem not to like Marti Noxon, or are
unsure of her
contribution to the stable of Buffyverse writers/directors. I
have three
comments in that regard:
1 > Joss thinks highly of her. Therefore lesser mortals such
as you or I
should always give the benefit of the doubt.
2 > Some years back a fellow I worked for made a comment re:
movie critics
that they weren't of any value because he went to see a film recommended
by
one and he didn't like the film. I was rather amused by this,
he seemed to
look at the service critics provide like it was a movie version
of *Consumer
Reports*, and therefore universally correct and infallable. I
didn't attempt
to explain the messy reality of one artist trying to interpret
and
discuss/recommend the work of another artist, it was obviously
a concept
beyond his ken.
3 > Years ago I read an interview with an actor who had been
in the film
scene for many decades (it may have been Marcello Mastroianni,
not sure) and
he commented in one part of the interview that Americans and Europeans
seem
to have very different expectations of movies/acting. He said
that Europeans
seem to accept that there will naturally be ups and downs over
the course of
a career, whether it be in acting or directing, that you can make
a great
film one time and a not-so-great one another time. Americans,
on the other
hand, seem to expect that every film will be an improvement on
the one
before, and an actor or director who is a hot commodity at the
moment is
yesterday's news after making only one poor film. He felt this
was
unrealistic, and I certainly agree. Even genius's have off-days--
or years.
Finally, I would love to hear your thoughts as a musician regarding
music on
BtVS/Angel. I love music, but, alas, do not have the coveted musician
gene.
(I do have a least a small bit of the photography gene, which
enables me to
comment at least partly intelligently on film and photographic
art).
Please detail what you mean by the music not doing the thing for
you, I'd
love to hear about it and I'm sure others would too. This is just
as valid a
topic as the cinematography, I don't get into it myself because
see above
re: music gene.
For example, why does the Buffy opening theme song still rock
my world even
though I've heard it now over 100 times? It never gets stale,
and always
gives me a charge. There must be something the band is doing technically
that causes this to happen. What is it?
Please post! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: OmN - Great Analysis (no N/T) -- Brian,
11:33:45 04/19/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> music in BtVS -- purplegrrl, 12:24:22 04/19/01
Thu
***why does the Buffy opening theme song still rock my world even
though
I've heard it now over 100 times? It never gets stale, and always
gives me a
charge. There must be something the band is doing technically
that causes
this to happen. What is it?***
Yeah, OnM, I know what you mean. While there may be something
actually in
the music (chords, arrangement of notes, rhythm, tempo) that causes
such a
response in us, it is probably more that we associate that theme
music with
the rollercoaster ride that is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
Meaning that we
know we will see and feel drama, comedy, horror, love, angst,
deception,
acceptance, friendship, betrayal, mystery, magic, and a hundred
other sights
and sounds - even if we know we will be watching a re-run. Personally,
I
have favorite movies and other TV shows that illicit a similar
response -
even if I've seen them dozens of times. The theme music sets off
our
anticipation of what is to come.
Does this help?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: music in BtVS -- Anthony8, 19:14:50
04/22/01 Sun
Being a struggling musician myself, and for some time, the whole
creative
process (where it comes from and why the end result affects people
one way
or another) is still a big mystery that I hope I never solve.
While there
are some formulaic things that can be done to evoke certain emotions
(for
example using a minor key to set a more pensive tone), in my opinion,
the
more profound stuff comes from somewhere very magical and, thankfully,
not
easily explained. As someone once said (I think it was Elvis Costello),
talking about music is like dancing about architecture.
The great thing about this show (and particularly the more outstanding
episodes like "The Body", "Restless" or "Hush")
is that like a good song, it
stands up to multiple viewings without getting old. That's a credit
to the
overall package--writing, directing, cinematography, scoring,
and song
selection.
As for the theme song, it's the fact that it so effectively compliments
the
collage of images in the opening credits, not its merits as a
stand-alone
composition (in my opinion at least) that makes it resonate so
well with the
viewer. It tells you: "Buffy's coming on--get ready for something
worth
watching." Without the show, I'm not sure if Nerf Herder's
song would jazz
you up the same way.
In contrast, The Smiths' song "How Soon Is Now" (used
as the theme for
"Charmed") has (once again, for me, at least) a lot
of power on its own, but
is misleading with respect to how it sets the tone for the show
(in my
opinion, the theme song is the best part of that show). When combined
with
the images in the opening credits, it makes you think "wow,
something good's
coming up." Unfortunately, what you get is "Sabrina"
on diluted steroids.
Anyhow, this is just my opinion. Notwithstanding my "dancing
about
architecture" comment, I look forward to a future music thread.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'll be working on that music thread OnM! Thanks!
:) -- Nina,
15:35:17 04/19/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Excellent tribute to cinematic artistry on BtVS -- curious,
22:32:12
04/18/01 Wed
I completely agree with your assessment of the long standing artistry
in
this series, and since there is nothing I could possibly add to
that
thoroughly, well, thorough analysis, I can't resist the temptation
to add a
few comments about the Buffy and Angel scenes and so it digresses
a bit to
their relationship.
When I was watching this episode, I was simply overwhelmed by
the lonely
graveside scene. It was pure visual storytelling with only one
line of
dialogue but speaking volumes about their relationship. I'm tempted
to write
an entire essay on just this scene, and it only lasted exactly
31 seconds of
screen time. I promise I won't though:)
I've always loved smg and db's portrayal of buffy and angel. In
fact, I've
come to the point where I pretty much take smg's dramatic acting
for
granted. But when she does the whole speaking volumes without
so much as
uttering a single word thing, I start to shake my head in wonder
and
admiration. That was one of the most affecting thing about this
Ep. A lone
figure having just lost her entire world standing lost in a world
of
emptiness. She's not grieving yet, she's not in a state of shock,
everything
seems bland and meaningless at this juction in time. Her most
important
source of comfort is gone. She can barely feel, there's just this
void, this
emptiness within her. She's numb. She stands there, doing absolutely
nothing. The complete numbness she feels is further emphazised
by day
turning into night. (I loved the transition. So much more affective
than a
simple cut.) And yet she still stands there, alone and empty.
I really don't
think the director meant to imply a dream seqence by this shot.
I truly
think it is an establishment of buffy's state of mind. To me the
'non
acting' was spot on. To carry a 30 second shot of doing absolutely
nothing
and conveying so much is no small achievment. (I mean try it guys.
Stand in
front of someone whose got their attention completely focused
on you and do
absolutely nothing for 30 seconds and see just how long that is.)
I thought Angel showing up after dark was expected. Not only by
the
audience, but by Buffy herself. She wasn't in the least bit shocked
by his
presence. She didn't move, didn't turn around to express any surprise.
Angel's solemn dialogue, " I'm sorry, I couldn't come any
sooner", is said
in such a way that he knew she would want him to be there and
knew she
thought enough of him to know he would be there. Her barely perceptible
nod,
her grasping of his hand in an understated gesture of gratitude
and somehow
of knowing that he would be come, would be there for her, spoke
volumes
about their relationship. They could have ended the Angel and
Buffy
interlude right there, and I would have understood. It kinda of
went like
this to me, but without so many words.
Buffy: "I knew you would come. I needed you to come and you
did."
Angel: "How could I not be here at a time like this? If you
didn't know I
would be here, I would have been dissappointed in what you thought
of me."
The scene under the oak tree was a real treat. I don't care what
anyone
says, but this scene put into words the undeniable companionship
that exists
between the two. I don't even care about the whole romantic issue.
It seems
to me that it goes way beyond that. Some fans say that this Angel
doesn't
mesh with the Angel of his own show. Well, that's true. He's a
very
different Angel there. He has a working relationship that is at
an unease
right now. He's trying to open up, but is still guarded, and leads
a
completely different life that Buffy is not part of. The thing
is, the Angel
on "forever" isn't so much a season 2/3 Angel, or a
currently out of
character Angel, but is "Buffy's Angel." The sweet,
caring non jugdeamental
Angel that worries for her, that always listens to her, that wants
shield
her from pain, that simply wants to comfort her. It's the Angel
that up to
now, no one is privy to but Buffy. Conversely, the Buffy sitting
underneath
the oak tree is "Angel's Buffy". The one who doesn't
put on a brave front
for everyone else all the while frightened on the inside. To the
scoobies,
her mom, her sister and even Giles, she frequently presents "slayer
Buffy".
She would never admit without any reservations whatsoever that
"I'm
seriously needy right now" without first fighting it and
asserting "I'm
fine" in front of anyone else but Angel. "Angel's Buffy"
has always been
very vocal and open about her inner feelings to Angel. These sides
of our
hero and heroine seems very much to be private to them and not
many, if any,
get to access that territory.
I don't think its a coincidence or an accident that this episode
is called
"forever". Its not just about the finality of Joyce's
death, but also about
a deep bond, be it romantic or not, that exists between these
two
starcrossed lovers. The romance many not be forever, but the love
that goes
beyound romance is 'forever'.
Sorry, I have rambled on far to long. If you have read this much,
thanks for
reading.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Long Posts 'r' Us -- OnM, 05:44:52 04/19/01 Thu
Many thanks for your kind words! When I was organizing my thoughts
on this
ep, the aspects of visual storytelling were the things that just
kept coming
to the forefront, and I figured that there would already be quite
a lot of
commentary already posted on other parts of the show (and I was
right), so I
thought this might be a good approach. The show has *always* been
'cinematic', but this ep just seemed to be extremely so. Even
a single
'perfect moment of cinema' (the phrase may not be his, but Roger
Ebert was
the first film critic I ever heard use it) in a film is a gift,
things just
simply don't always come together to make them, even if you intend
it, and
there was not just one, but *many* in this episode. (See my response
to
Nina'a post also re: Marti Noxon).
*** "When I was watching this episode, I was simply overwhelmed
by the
lonely graveside scene. It was pure visual storytelling with only
one line
of dialogue but speaking volumes about their relationship. I'm
tempted to
write an entire essay on just this scene..." ***
Please do. Make it long or short or in between, whatever feels
right and
gets across what your insights are.
*** "The complete numbness she feels is further emphazised
by day turning
into night. (I loved the transition. So much more affective than
a simple
cut.)" ***
See, that's the great thing. I interpreted the scene as evidence
of Buffy's
grief disassociating her with the passage of time, that what is
in reality
hours doesn't seem like that to her. Day, night, all the same.
Your comment
on her being numb presents an emotional context that didn't occur
to me, but
you are absolutely right, that fits perfectly.
*** "I don't think its a coincidence or an accident that
this episode is
called "forever". Its not just about the finality of
Joyce's death, but also
about a deep bond, be it romantic or not, that exists between
these two
starcrossed lovers. The romance many not be forever, but the love
that goes
beyound romance is 'forever'." ***
Very nicely put.
*** "Sorry, I have rambled on far too long." ***
No you haven't. Good post - please ramble again soon! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Long Posts 'r' Us -- Masquerade, 12:56:09
04/19/01 Thu
I think there is currently a thousand word limit on posts on this
board. I
can change it, but I figured it would be ample for the usual treatises.
Don't want anyone to get "dingoed" as they say on some
other Buffy board I
know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Long Posts 'r' Us -- OnM, 21:00:36
04/19/01 Thu
Thousand word limit? That's interesting! Just for grins, I started
up Word,
loaded in my post and did a word count (well, the computer did,
it's much
faster! ;).
It tells me that there were 1,802 words in my post. You don't
have a special
OnM subroutine in the board software, do you?
Not that I wouldn't appreciate it, but we do need to be fair to
all the
other verbosistos (and ta's) here!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> My bad. That's 1000 lines per post,
not words. Continue your
verbosting! -- Masquerade, 10:31:59 04/20/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Long Posts 'r' Us -- Rufus, 13:03:31 04/19/01
Thu
I call the OnM posts the "tree killers" cause I get
accused of deforesting
when I copy them out(by my husband). So last night I killed yet
another
tree....in a good cause of course:):):):) I use recycled paper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Trees are a renewable resource! --
OnM, 21:16:39 04/19/01
Thu
While I utilize electromagnetism whenever possible, sometimes
there is just
no substitute for the papyrus thang. I mean, what, you're gonna
park a
laptop on your stomach for summer reading at the beach? That wood
be a
beech!
And now... The Larch!!
(Sorry... M. Python attack...)
I buy live Christmas trees and then plant them in the spring,
so I've put
back what I've taken out. Mostly, anyway. I hope... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Excellent tribute to cinematic artistry on BtVS
-- purplegrrl,
12:32:56 04/19/01 Thu
Excellent analysis of Buffy and Angel's relationship. I think
this is the
heart of their relationship - that the other is the only one each
can and
will be truly open and honest with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Letting down the walls -- fresne, 16:36:09 04/19/01
Thu
I'm afraid after the endless angst of season 3, I had forgotten
what Buffy
and Angel could be like together.
Although I never had a problem with Riley, (a few of the guy's
choices/issues, but not the character himself) I was also going,
"Riley
who?" after this scene.
Which when I had a chance made me think.
1) It made me think about Buffy's javelin toss of a remark to
Angel last
season that she could share her thoughts and emotions with Riley.
The
implication being that she couldn't with Angel. Now since by that
time, I
had completely forgotten the era before "Oh, the angst, Angel
is leaving
me...star-crossed, angst, angst, angst," the remark didn't
have the sting that
it might have.
However, if Buffy only showed her soft inner self to Angel and
Angel only
showed the vulnerability of his soul to Buffy, well, it was a
statement that
completely invalidated all the sharing that had gone before. Buffy
was
saying all that sharing was a lie, that she never showed Angel
the real her.
2) Which made me think about how, for me, the scene wasn't as
if Riley or LA
or Angelus had never existed. It was just all that no longer matters.
Buffy
and Angel are now emotionally at a place where they can let down
the
barriers again for each other. They can be emotionally honest.
Things are now right between them again. Buffy was both relaxing
into an
earlier, less emotionally scarred Buffy, and remerging into something
new.
Buffy was able to display weakness and yet when they broke off
their kiss,
there was no teen angst, no recriminations, just comfort.
3) Which was important, because the other big issue in the episode
was that
Buffy was holding Dawn back. Building up emotional walls. Buffy
was, as is
typical, protecting herself. However, Dawn really needed to see,
to connect
with Buffy. By being weak together, holding onto each other in
front of an
open door, they could begin the healing process.
4) Good thing too, because in a "Joss is evil" sort
of way, I think they are
in for a bumpy end of season sleigh ride. After all they may have
been
sitting in shadows inside the house, but its really dark outside.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Letting down the walls -- Grace, 20:30:37
04/19/01 Thu
Sorry.
The whole scene really bothered me.
Especially when she told Angel about how she acted when she found
her mom
and how she didn't behave as an adult (Buffy is 21/22 now, going
to college
and is technically an adult, but still a Young Adult, the role
of being
"adult" is still new to her).
It just reminds me of how Buffy was still an developing child
when she met
Angel (ie a teenager). Liam was 26 when he was killed (he might
have not
acted like it, but he was an adult.)
Buffy was still becoming. She was then where Dawn will be soon.
The
Angel/Buffy relationship was sick! And not because of the whole
Vampire/Slayer thing.
I think it would have been so much better if at the end of the
scene "Angel"
would have disappeared into thin air. It wasn't Angel, it was
Buffy thinking
what it would be like to have him there at this critical time.
It was Buffy
imagining the Angel she would like to remember, not the Angel
that really
is. The Angel that she desperately craves to help her through
the pain, but
that Angel could never be. And as Buffy shakes herself out of
the daze the
realization that Angel never came shakes Buffy to the core, she
falls to the
mount of dirt on top of her mother's grave emotionally spent.
Tears flowing
she feels so empty, hollow and alone.
I think that would be much better. I don't want to see a real
Buffy/Angel
relationship. In fact I never did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Letting down the walls -- Ben, 06:35:58
04/20/01 Fri
You know what really would have been freaky.
After "Angel" has spent the whole night being supportive
and all.
When Buffy tells Angel of how if only she would have gotten there
faster or
used CPR better, for "Angel" to say "It is only
natural for you to feel
guilty and all. After all it's your fault. You should have been
able to save
her."
Buffy looks at Angel. Shocked. She can't believe Angel just said
that. Angel
transforms into his Angelus face. "Why didn't you save her
Buffy"? Buffy
screams "Angelus" disappears. Buffy wakes up lying upon
Joyce's grave in
tears. Angel never came. It was all a bad dream.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: They may have been sitting in shadows inside
the house, but its
really dark outside. -- OnM, 21:04:50 04/19/01 Thu
Oh, I really like that! Yeah!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Excellent tribute to cinematic artistry on BtVS
-- Luna, 17:10:27
04/19/01 Thu
Thank you for that Curious, I'm like in tears right now because
you couldn't
be more right about Buffy and Angel. I think the beauty of there
relationship is that it's deeper than they are, they are almost
servant's to
it. It would so much easier for them to move on (and they have)
but the bond
still remains, and I think that the only peace and resolve they'll
ever get
out of all of this is that even if they don't end up as a couple
the
connection that has grown between them will always exist, and
that when they
truely need eachother they can each BE there without the guilt
of being
romantically involved. B/A shipper's seem to drag this on and
on and on but
the truth is still there, and I believe that Joss is now a servant
to his
own creation: The Buffy and Angel phenomenon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on 'Forever' with a spin towards Cinematic
Artistry -
(Spoilers) also (Long)) -- purplegrrl, 12:40:50 04/19/01 Thu
Excellent analysis, OnM. I believe you are right about a common,
inate
symbolic language that we all share - whether we are aware of
it or not.
I think "Forever" was more "cinematic" than
most BtVS episodes because using
lighting, posture, expressions could more effectively convey the
emotions of
everyone involved. A lot of dialog might have "cheapened"
the emotions or
diluted them. To see Buffy standing looking lost and completely
oblivious to
the passage of time (even if she is waiting for Angel to appear)
was much
more effective than if there had been dialog detailing her feelings
or even
a voiceover describing how she felt.
Willow was irresponsible -- VanMoodySenior, 18:35:31 04/18/01
Wed
Willow was wanting to help Dawn and I appreciate her zeal, but
why give the
book to a nonwitch? If Willow really wanted to help Dawn, then
she should
have helped her do the spell instead of just giving her the book.
She was
too irresponsible. With power comes responsibility. Hopefully
she realizes
this before something really bad happens.
Does anyone wonder what Joyce might have been like if Dawn had
not ripped up
the picture? They left us hanging on that one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Rufus, 18:55:22 04/18/01
Wed
As I posted before, I think that Willow has the best intentions
but doesn't
understand consequences of the use of power. Tara is her guide,
and has the
history and knowledge that Willow lacks. I think their next fight
will be
over Wiccan ethics. Willow thinks if it is for a good cause go
ahead and do
it. What would have happend if Buffy had opened the door and seen
what was
her mother fresh from the grave. Willow has to learn to think
before she
leaps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible...spoilers for Tough
Love (ep 19) --
Wiccagrrl, 20:02:19 04/18/01 Wed
I think you're exactly right about where they are going with some
of this,
Rufus, and backing up your point, here is the TVGuide writeup
for ep 19.
(This was posted at the Kitten, Witches, and Bad Wardrobe board
by TVSurfer)
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Space
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Tough Love
60 min.
While Buffy is preoccupied with the pressure of being her obstinate
sister's
keeper, Glory and her minions set out to grab the person whom
they believe
to be the Key---Tara. Unfortunately, Tara is more vulnerable than
usual, as
both she and Willow are stunned from the aftereffects of their
first big
fight.
Tara: Amber Benson. Glory: Clare Kramer. Willow: Alyson Hannigan.
Cast: Sarah Michelle Gellar, Nicholas Brendon, Alyson Hannigan,
Anthony S.
Head, James Marsters, Amber Benson, Michelle Trachtenberg, Clare
Kramer,
Charlie Weber
Category: Drama
Release Year: 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible...spoilers for
Tough Love (ep 19) --
Eania Snow, 20:40:34 04/18/01 Wed
Shoot from the quickie I read they said one of the scobbies is
going to be
glory's victem. Im really hoping they don't kill her off I was
beginning to
really like her now. Take Xander he wants to die. Look at him
he has long
hair, TAKE HIM GOD DAMN IT.... TAKE HIM!!!!!
ummmmm tee hee sugar is good
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible...spoilers
for Tough Love (ep 19)
-- Wiccagrrl, 21:29:05 04/18/01 Wed
I don't think they're gonna kill her off. Amber's mentioned in
interviews
that she's coming back next year. (Please, please, please let
me be right- I
love Tara.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible...spoilers
for Tough Love (ep
19) -- Scott L., 06:54:24 04/19/01 Thu
Joss said that even if Willow and Tara weren't dating, he'd keep
Amber
around, she's become intregral to the heart of the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Anthony8, 18:30:28
04/19/01 Thu
Willow's magical recklessness was apparent as far back (farther?)
as the
Halloween "Fear" episode when, despite warnings from
Buffy and Oz regarding
her grasp exceeding her reach, she attempted to summon a friendly
guide
spirit and got a swarm of little nasties. Then again, it resurfaces
with the
wish spell gone awry (Buffy falling in love with Spike, Giles
losing his
sight,etc.)
She does not yet seem to appreciate the extent of her power or
the potential
negative consequences if it is exercised without discipline. Despite
a
couple close calls, so far no one has really been seriously hurt
by her
mistakes.
Probably not exactly on point metaphore-wise, but it reminds me
of Icarus
(Willow) and Daedalus (Tara).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Max, 19:06:54 04/18/01 Wed
"Does anyone wonder what Joyce might have been like if Dawn
had not ripped
up the picture? They left us hanging on that one."
I try not to think about it, but it does leave me wondering.
On one hand Joyce might have come back normal (albeit a bit confused).
Or
she could have come back souless. Or she could have come back
with a soul,
but within a decaying human body. Or she could have come back
without a
soul, and with a decaying body (which I believe wouldn't be really
bringing
her back) ie. a Zommy.
What I found so scary was how willing Buffy was to open that door.
I feel it
was at that point Dawn realized that she must be the strong one.
"Mommy?" That sent chills down me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Anthony8, 18:36:04
04/19/01 Thu
Yeah, I thought there was some good role reversal going on here
too. Dawn
played the Slayer this episode, from stealing the Ghora eggs (remember
Spikes "bitty Buffy" comment)to ultimately doing the
right thing in
terminating the resurrection spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> role Reversal -- Diana Michelle, 14:55:34 04/20/01
Fri
And she was highly impulsive. Also a Buffy trait.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Jen C did it, my turn now :) -- Solitude1056, 19:52:14 04/18/01
Wed
Check out my post under the Angel & Willow lies thread, about
Willow's
intentions. Now, that all said, I do wonder: it's been made clear
that
performing "magic" in the Wiccan sense, in the Buffyverse,
isn't something
that just anyone can do. Although I'm not sure if they've tried,
AFAIK
neither Spike nor Xander nor Cordy have any abilities. Knowledge,
yes;
abilities, no. It seems that some do, some don't. I'm wondering
if -
assuming Willow was even aware that Dawn was serious about the
idea - Willow
was acting under the impression that Dawn doesn't have the "juice"
that's
needed.
This is still putting a minus in Willow's column, for not having
the clear
head to stop and ask these questions. But like I point out elsewhere,
I
think Willow's headspace is full of emotional interference right
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> witchcraft in the Buffyverse -- purplegrrl, 09:53:08
04/19/01 Thu
***it's been made clear that performing "magic" in the
Wiccan sense, in the
Buffyverse, isn't something that just anyone can do***
I guess I'm not sure that it's clear that magic doesn't work for
just anyone
in the Buffyverse. There's a lot of magic and magical stuff floating
around
in the Buffyverse. Magic users include Giles, Jenny, Willow, Tara,
Anya (as
Anyanka and as a human), Angel, Buffy, Ethan, the Mayor, Amy,
Catherine
(Amy's mom), and now Dawn. Oz, Xander, and Cordelia have assisted
with
spells. Jenny had a techno-coven over the Internet. Giles' customers
may or
may not be doing "magic." And I think Spike has even
dabbled a little. This
is an awful lot of people if not just anyone can work magic. (OK,
granted,
they're on the Hellmouth, so maybe that helps.)
Which is not to say that all these people *should* be doing magic
- at least
not on a regular basis. But they have all shown they can at least
follow the
"recipe" in a spell book.
From what I've seen of magic in the Buffyverse, there are several
elements
that make it effective or work correctly - the correct incantation,
the
appropriate ingredients, desire for the outcome, strength of will
to
accomplish it, and magical ability. And the least of these seems
to be
magical ability. Tara, Amy, and Catherine are natural witches.
Giles and
Willow have learned how to use magic. Jenny and Ethan may or may
not have
any natural ability with magic, but at least are powerful "learned"
magic
users. Most of the rest use magic only when it is the only solution
-
destroying a magical object, entering into a trance, assisting
in fighting
evil, etc.
I think it's more appropriate to say that, at least in the Buffyverse,
magic
isn't something that just anyone *should* do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Xander's potential power -- Diana Michelle, 15:02:44
04/20/01 Fri
Well, he did set a book on fire just by speaking. And I have to
wonder if
him wanting Buffy to live so much helped her more than the CPR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Wiccagrrl, 19:53:41 04/18/01
Wed
I think Willow was very irresponsible, and I agree with the posts
talking
about how Tara has been the more grounded, moral one. OTOH, I
don't really
think that Willow intended Dawn to do the spell. As she said to
Tara, she
figured it would answer some of her questions, maybe help explain
why this
wasn't such a hot idea. But she didn't think it through- she was
putting a
book with some very dangerous info into the hands of someone who
wasn't in a
position to be thinking very clearly, and then left that person
to figure
out what to do with the information. It was careless and dangerous,
and
while I think she intended to help Dawn, that wasn't the way to
do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Jen C., 20:04:07 04/18/01
Wed
I've been thinking for a while that Willow seems really unsuited
to be a
Wiccan. She's always seemed a lot more sorcerer-like to me. (anyone
remember
the Techno-Mages from Babylon 5?). She doesn't seem so much into
the
religion part of it all, and seems to have very little appreciation
for the
"balance" that Tara finds all-important. Before she
discovered magic, she
used her computer skills to offer whatever help she could. Now,
magic is her
first recourse whenever faced with a problem. She uses magic as
a weapon, or
a solution to problems, not as any type of sacrament. I think
that this
utilitarian attitude towards magic may stem from her long association
with
Buffy and the necessities of backing up the slayer. It should
be interesting
to see where her relationship with Tara goes in relation to this
issue,
because I don't think that she shares Tara's attitude towards
magic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- Rufus, 21:11:47 04/18/01
Wed
I think that the problem with Willow is that she got power before
wisdom.
Tara was brought up with Wicca and was taught the ethical use
of magic.
Willow has the kindest intent but she uses magic like a dependable
tool that
will work the same way all of the time. She doesn't understand
that power
misused can go very wrong. Kind intent isn't enough when it comes
to power
you don't fully understand. Willow wanted to soften the blow of
Joyces death
for Dawn, but the only way to get over grief is to live through
it. I think
that's what Dawn realised at the end of the ep.
Willow is going to make a mistake due to her impatience. I think
of a quote:
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,
neat, and
wrong." HL Menkin
Willow was giving Dawn the lead to an easy solution, that was
very wrong.
Death and the grief after a death is a complex problem that has
no simple
solution. You have to grieve and spells won't make it better.
Willow is kind
but magic isn't always the answer to a problem. Tara understands
that and I
hope will be able to teach Willow to think before she casts a
spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow was irresponsible -- curious, 22:41:50 04/18/01
Wed
I used to really like Willow back in the highschool years, but
I seem to
have lost that emmotional connection to her over the last 2 seasons.
It's as if Willow regards use of Magic as a solution to life and
everthing
else, similar to solving a complex algebraic problem. She's been
reminding
me of a child playing with a new toy. She's like the quinessential
curious
scientist who experiments because she can, and never stopping
to ask if she
should. Again like a gifted child that is pleased with her own
abilities to
do remarkable things. To Willow, it appears that a successful
outcome is
justification enough for performing it.
It appears that Tara knows alot more than she lets on. It's obvious
now that
she has a very grounded sense of responsibilty towards her choosen
art. I
hope she imparts that wisdom to Willow before something really
horrible
happens to one or more of them. I think Willow is good person,
but her
softheartedness sometimes gets in the way of her good jugdement.
I can't help but shudder at the thought of the emotional damage
that might
have been done to the girls, especially Buffy, if "Pet Semetary
Mom" were to
have walked through the door. (The episode heavily implied an
unnatural
resurrection, so I'm going with it.) Not only would Buffy's last
images of
her kind, loving and gentle mother be replaced by an unnatural
abberation
from beyond the grave, but she would most likely have to destroy
it. How
psychologically devestating would that have been? I'm glad that
Dawn had the
strength to do the right thing. Kudos to her, because she also
would have
been terribly traumatized by having to witness such a scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Leaving us hanging -- verdantheart, 07:04:02 04/19/01 Thu
Which was exactly where they wanted us! We can imagine dozens
of scary
scenarios as to what Joyce might have been like (Pet Sematary
mom, indeed
(don't remember offhand how Mr. King misspelled that one ...))!
Often the
question is scarier than the answer. Very Val Lewton of them!
- vh
Willow's way v. Tara's -- Darrick, 20:14:40 04/18/01 Wed
As several people have pointed out below, Willow and Tara seem
to have
diverging opinions on what constitutes "proper" use
of magic. Tara seems to
take the view that there traditions and boundaries which shouldn't
be
violated. As someone said, she views her witchcraft as a religion
and
philosophy of life.
Willow is much different. She views magic as a science and doesn't
seem to
acknowledge any boundaries at all. This is true to her character
as it has
been written throughout the show's history.
So, the question is, who is correct? IS there one correct way
to deal with
magic? Tara's way has its advantages. Presumably, the rituals
evolved so
witches could have a reliable and safe means of using magic. Deviating
from
these prescribed methods is probably dangerous in the extreme...as
Willow
has shown time and again.
But I am suspicious of all arguments which claim that it is unwise
to "go
against the natural order" of things. It's just not persuasive
to me. Going
by that rule, very few of our technological or medical advances
would have
occured. And Dawn made an excellent point in "Forever",
when she accused
Tara of violating her own advice every time she floated something.
Tara says
that "life and death" are different. Does that mean
that if someone was
sick, they should just stand by and do nothing? How far is too
far? To me,
relying on a set of ancient beliefs to excuse inaction when you
have the
power to intervene is troubling. I compare it to the behavior
of certain
religious sects in relying on prayer, while rejecting medical
technology, to
deal with illness.
Having said all of the above, I feel that Willow still screwed
up. Her
problem isn't that she takes risks, it's that she lacks the confidence
to be
forthright and honest in what's she's doing. She tries to hide
everything
behind her facade of "nice-ness" in order to avoid confrontation.
I think
she's got the right idea, to experiment with magic and find new
ways of
applying it. Her execution is totally wrong and has led to many
unfortunate
consequences.
This resurrection business is a perfect example. If she were serious
about
treating magic like a scientific tool she would discuss with Dawn
the
possible consequences of such a spell. They could even do experiments
on
dead animals and such to get a feel for how it might work. If
it failed
miserably with them, then she could easily persuade Dawn of the
problems
with such a spell. Instead, she takes a sort of passive-aggressive
stance
and makes Dawn aware of the possiblity without informing her of
the dangers.
It's entirely possible that the risks of doing resurrection spells
outweighs
the possible benefits. Leaving aside Tara's customs, if Willow
was being
honest with herself she might have figured that out.
As I said, I don't have a problem with her goal, to gain a fuller
understanding of magic and how it works. The problem is in the
means she
uses. I think she has to overcome her doubts and fear of confrontation
in
order to really bring her interests out in the open. Giles, Buffy,
Xander,
and Tara, would certainly frown on those experiments, but if she
were open
and honest with them maybe she could discover some worthwhile
uses for magic
while avoiding the worst kind of unintended consequences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow's way v. Tara's -- Scott L., 07:01:44 04/19/01
Thu
Willow said that she wasn't sure it was possible to bring Joyce
back. I
don't think she was lying. I think she didn't know that it could
really
happen.
I think that she left the book out for the reasons that she stammered,
that
she wanted Dawn to understand the history of the decision. She
didn't
realize that Dawn would be resourceful enough to take a history
book and
find practical application of the knowledge found within.
That was where Willow messed up. Tara understands that Dawn is
capable of a
lot, through pure Summers tenacity, if need be.
Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!) -- Eania Snow,
20:35:01
04/18/01 Wed
WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read some info about the 2 up and comming episodes. Intervention
is going to
be the Buffy Bot with Buffy dealing with the first slayer again.
I really
really really hope they do something good and unexpected with
the buffy bot
because every time I think about it, the whole idea just seems
lame to me. I
mean real lame. However I do have faith in JM now im sure it will
be good
and unexpected.
Now for the biggy In tough love on of the scobbies gets it from
Glory. The
snipit I read is one of the Scobbies will be glory's next victem.
Victem to
me sounds like dead? Could also mean a mind sucking thing that
puts the
person out of commission till they kill glory a few episodes later.
If its going to be a death thing then I have my money riding on
Xander. As
has been noted before things are just going to well for him right
now. I
also think they have everyone else covered with killing him off
as well.
Willow would take it the hardest since she's his best friends
but she has
Tarra to help her though it since shes is very strong now. Buffy
I don't
know what they would do with her though? 3 People leaving in her
life in the
span 2 months is almost impossible to deal with she would snap.
Only thing I
could see preventing her from snaping is if Angel was there and
that is not
going to happen. However we would also have the benfit of having
Anya lose
it completely prehaps might even turn into next seasons badie.
Even though I
don't see her as a very scary or amuzing super badie yet anyways.
If its the mind sucking thing then I see Giles getting it. Having
giles out
of the picture for a few episodes would make for an interesting
no adult to
lean on type of plot line.
Anywho thats just my ranting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!) --
Eania Snow,
20:56:24 04/18/01 Wed
Arg! I lost before I even hit the post button. Tarra's the one
that gets it.
It better be a mild beating or something. They kill her off and
I will be
pissed. Even though if they have to kill someone shes the only
one they
could without it effect a bunch of other people seriouly. Kill
Xander you
have problems with Willow and Anya is out of the picture no Xander
no Anya.
Grrrrrrrrr. Im in a bad mood now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!)
-- Anthony8,
18:12:13 04/19/01 Thu
One of the spoiler sites said that someone dies, whoever you think
it is
think bigger, and that it is not Anya.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!)
--
Solitude1056, 19:57:30 04/19/01 Thu
Should I put in spoiler space?
I heard it's Faith.
(bummer.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Intervention and Tough Love (Spoilers BEWARE!!!)
-- Wiccagrrl,
21:29:51 04/19/01 Thu
Mostly speculation, probably fake rumors, but pretty major spoilers
if true.
Don't read if ya don't wanna know.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Space
Ok, I'm not really buying that any of the core four, or Anya or
Tara, are
going to die. BTW, that quote (think bigger) was a Wanda quote.
But when she
said that "Whoever you're thinking, you're most likely wrong,
think bigger"
line, the first one to come to mind, really only thing, that woulda
fit that
is Buffy herself. And rumors have been flying that Buffy'd die
in the season
ender. Maybe Wanda's been visiting one to many fannish boards/sites,
and
picked up a bogus rumor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Spoiler Personages -- Solitude1056, 21:00:33
04/20/01 Fri
Who is this Wanda person, anyway?
(I've heard her mentioned on other boards. Editorial comment censored.)
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoiler Personages -- Rufus,
23:51:39 04/20/01 Fri
Wanda at eonline.com...click on the gossip section...and you can
read about
Buffy moving to UPN as well.
Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers -- Wiccagrrl,
21:40:13 04/18/01 Wed
Ok, I may be really reaching here, but I was rewatching the funeral
scene,
and had a thought about the choice of color that they put Buffy,
and Tara,
(and Willow and Dawn, I suppose) in. So, everyone leaves, and
we are left
with Buffy, Tara, Dawn, and Willow. Dawn and Willow are in fairly
traditional black. But Buffy is in white, and Tara is in red.
Kind of odd
colors for a funeral, at least by western/US standards. and then
I had a
thought. The three colors (White, Red, and Black) are, at least
in Wicca,
symbolic of the lifestyle- the colors that represent the three
stages/faces
of the Goddess (Maiden, Mother, Crone) White representing youth
(Buffy,
whose childhood is ending) Red representing middle life/motherhood
(Tara,
who is the nurturing, mature one in this situation, trying to
care for Dawn
and Buffy) and Old Age/Death (The crone- Willow and Dawn- maybe
because they
are the ones of the four most allowing themselves to focus on
the grief?)
Am I completely out of it, or do you think I'm on to something
here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
-- Wiccagrrl,
21:44:22 04/18/01 Wed
The three colors (White, Red, and Black) are, at least in Wicca,
symbolic of
the lifestyle
Ok, even with having to approve posts, I manage to have typos-
sheesh-
pathetic much? Anyway, that was supposed to say Life Cycle, not
lifestyle.
Also, I'm not saying that Buffy or Tara chose the clothing because
it fit
the "role" they were in, but that maybe the writers/directors
chose the
colors because it did sort of symbolize the life cycle, and where
the
characters were at.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
--
Solitude1056, 21:57:56 04/18/01 Wed
Actually, I hadn't noticed what Buffy was wearing (altho I recognize
the
coat from several other episodes) - but I did notice that Tara
was wearing
that dark red burgundy. That did seem strange to me, since it's
not the most
usual color choice. The implication would have to be that she
either chose
it, or just doesn't own anything black.
Or we could say it was just the head stylist getting funky with
the
clothing, setting us up for the Angel/Buffy color contrast (thx,
OnM!). Or
we were supposed to focus on Tara for some foreshadowing reason.
On the
other hand, Joss is way too sneaky for songs to be just filler,
so I doubt
the colors, lighting, camera angles or any of the rest of it is
just filler,
either. Or Joss & crew was bored, and decided to have Tara wear
red just
'cause they knew there's a pocket of pseudo-philosophers on the
'net who
would go bonkers trying to figure out the deeper symbolism. Ah,
the easily
amused. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Easily amused? Ah, yes.. and a low philosophy
threshold to boot...
;) -- OnM, 06:35:43 04/19/01 Thu
I also very seriously doubt it was an accident to choose the colors
the cast
was wearing in that scene. I know little about Wicca, but I have
heard of
the Life Cycles concept, so that makes as much sense to me as
anything.
I also think that as a Wiccan, Tara might not just automatically
go with the
'conventions' of funerals in the United States, which are, after
all,
largely Christian/Judaic in nature, and Wicca is certainly not
Christian or
Jewish.
Whatever the reason for the choices, they certainly were effective
from a
visual standpoint, as I pointed out in my 'Cinematic' post which
you so
kindly referred to. The enjoining of the Buffy/Angel light/dark
symbolism
certainly wasn't lost on me, and I'm sure many others got the
same vibe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
--
Masquerade, 11:45:07 04/19/01 Thu
"Or Joss & crew was bored, and decided to have Tara wear
red just 'cause
they knew there's a pocket of pseudo-philosophers on the 'net
who would go
bonkers trying to figure out the deeper symbolism."
Oh, don't I wish Joss or one of the writers knew of our humble
little site
here?? I had this vain hope that the Host's line in "Reprise"
about the
"complementary nachos bringing in the morally ambiguous crowd"
was a
shout-out to us, but alas, that's just the ol' ego speakin' *sigh*
I can
dream.
and remember we don't philosophize for recognition or money, but
cuz... of
the fun!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
--
Rufus, 12:58:54 04/19/01 Thu
Masquerade, at least on Yahoo your site is highly recommended,
even has
little sunglasses beside the name. I found my way here by Yahoo...I
wonder
if any of the writers lurk here....I did long enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in Forever...spoilers
--
Solitude1056, 14:16:20 04/19/01 Thu
and remember we don't philosophize for recognition or money, but
cuz... of
the fun!
Money? What money?
(and if your friends & family laugh at you 'cause you hang up
on everyone
with a shouted, "not now! Buffy [Angel] is on!" for
two hours on Tuesday
evenings, this does not necessarily count as the kind of recognition
I think
is meant.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice in
Forever...spoilers --
Masquerade, 16:37:25 04/19/01 Thu
I was making 34K a year teaching philosophy to little undergraduate
grunts.
It's not big money, but it paid the bills. It also gave me NO
life
whatsoever. Much more fun doing philosophy as a side-line.
And I don't even answer the phone between 8 and 10 on Tuesday
nights.
Although, yeah, my sister laughed in my face one night when I
called her in
a panic at 7:55 because the power had gone out in my apartment
and I needed
her to tape the episode "Pangs" while I searched for
the breaker.
People just don't realize how deep and adult this show is. I guess
you have
to watch a few episodes all the way through to catch all the existential
angst and on-screen orgasms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thought on clothing color choice
in Forever...spoilers --
Rufus, 18:36:17 04/19/01 Thu
There is such a thing as an "existential orgasm"?
No one and I mean no one bugs me on Tuesday night. And I agree
that Buffy is
a very adult show with a kiddie name. They deal with alot of issues
in a way
that gets people thinking...one way or another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thoughts on What's in
a name? -- OnM, 20:45:05
04/19/01 Thu
I have always assumed that the name of the show is meant to be
ironic, in
that it mirrors the world of comics whereby it looks to be silly
kid stuff
on the surface but inside the stories deal with real thoughts,
emotions, and
certainly philosophy. (Not all of them, of course, but the really
good
ones.)
I stopped collecting comic books as I got into my teens, but there
is little
question that the themes they dealt with helped shape my thoughts
and the
way I approach the realverse. I'm still a huge fan of the regular
daily
comic strips that appear in newspapers, I remember that back in
the 60's it
was pretty much like talking to a wall to get people to understand
that
those 3 or 4 little b&w panels were art. Now, the creator of 'Calvin
and
Hobbes' retires the strip, it's front page news, and they're building
memorials to Charles Schultz and Snoopy. 'Dilbertization' is now
part of the
American lexicon. Gary Trudeau wins Pulitzers for 'Doonesbury'.
The beat
goes on...
It just takes the passage of time, sometimes, for people to appreciate
what's right in front of them.
BTW, Masq, maybe you should get a UPS like they have for your
computer and
hook it up to your VCR. If the power goes out you're still OK!
(I don't have
one of those yet, but I do record on two VCR's simultaneously
in case one
should throw a tantrum at an inopportune moment! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thoughts on What's
in a name? -- Eaia Snow,
22:24:11 04/19/01 Thu
Tisk Tisk people. Recording in DVD quality on your computer is
the way to
go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: In theory,
yes. Scroll down to... -- OnM,
06:07:34 04/20/01 Fri
JBone's thread of last Friday "In need of a fix" and
see my response in "Oh
yeah, I guess you could do that.. or maybe this".
Speaking as a videophile, I know where you are coming from, but
the
technology is still a little too dicey and expensive at this point
*for most
people*. (Hard drive recording and DVD recorders). What is truly
sad is that
VCR's *could* be much better than they are quality-wise, but the
entertainment industry has been doing their best for many years
now to
degrade, not improve the ability to copy their material. It is
the primary
reason that DVD took a good two to three years longer than necessary
to
actually reach the streets-- it wasn't technical issues, it was
about legal
wrangling and copyright protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy on tape -- purplegrrl,
09:54:25 04/20/01 Fri
***I do record on two VCR's simultaneously***
Gee, OnM, and I thought I was compulsive because I tape every
episode - even
the re-runs - after not being able to see the pivotal episode
where Angelus
kills Jenny until it came out in prerecorded video because I didn't
set the
VCR.
I'm not so worried about my VCR throwing a fit as I am with the
cable signal
going out - my local WB station tends to have a questionable signal
at
times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy on tape
II - Compulsives 'r' Me! ;) --
OnM, 22:54:59 04/20/01 Fri
LOL! Yes, pg, there is a certain compulsion involved.(I started
timer-recording the show almost every week after I missed 45 minutes
of
'Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered' after running very late on
a client
meeting one night, the *only* ep I ever missed viewing live since
day one
season one. This week I missed the first 10 minutes for the same
reason, but
both VCRs were humming along when I got home!)
The main reason though is that both VCRs have a lot of hours on
them, and
both have these little image quality quirks that show up at random
intervals
(and are therefore nearly impossible to pin down to repair). The
quirks are
different, though, and are unlikely to show up at the same time,
thus the
dual recording thang.
My cable's been pretty reliable, thankfully, and I used to have
access to
WGN on DirecTV, but they dropped Buffy a year or so ago, bummer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's a hard
row we hoe -- Brian, 08:50:45
04/21/01 Sat
I've been a fan of BTVS since the end of Season 2.(A friend finally
convinced me to give it a try). I instantly realized what superior
writing
the show displayed. Since that time I have tried to convert many
people to
the show, but have met with continued failure. Apparently most
people just
can't get past the name. Sigh!
On Tuesdays I do not answer the phone. I've let my family and
friends know
that I am always unavailable during those two important hours.
I tape all the episodes on my VCR, and try to get them in order.
I alternate
the Buffy and Angel episodes as there is usually a cross over
of characters,
themes, or deliberate counterpoint.
And, yes, why it is that the WB afiliate is the weakest station
on the cable
system, and it seems to tank only on Tuesday nights? Tornado season
is
especially hectic here in Kentucky. Thank Heavens for reruns!
Although there
are some episodes I've missed, and will have to wait until either
the DVDs
come out, or Buffy appears in syndication.
(I heard that this may happen this fall on FX. But I also read
an interview
with Joss that it will be chapped up with more commericals. Apparently
FX
won't treat the show like they treated X-Files and NYPD Blue)
Double Sigh!
Being a big comic book fan, on Wed nights I met with the only
other Buffy
fan who frequents the store, and over coffee, we rehash the episodes
which
is always great fun!
Of course, finding this board was the icing to cover and sooth
those BTVS &
Angel needs. Many thanks, Masquerade, and all the other great
contributors
to this board. You folks make my days all the brighter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
It's a hard row we hoe -- Masquerade,
13:31:42 04/23/01 Mon
I hear you. I used to live in Nebraska. I missed "Halloween"
due to a snow
storm in October (!) and "Band Candy" due to a wind
storm. I was able to get
a friend to tape Band Candy that same evening (the phones were
working, not
the electricity, go figure), but had to catch Halloween in reruns.
I've taped every ep from day one, but that's me, compulsive rerun
watcher.
Oh, no wait--it's necessary for research purposes. Yep, that's
what it is.
Transcripts? What transcripts?
Of course, there was the time I accidentally taped over "Choices"
getting
"Earshot" put in the one-hour slot I'd left for it for
six months. Try
replacing an episode when it's not the current season and when
season three
tapes are only on sale in the UK (What's up with that?)! But I
managed
somehow!
Thanks for joining in the board!
Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long) -- Solitude1056, 21:50:15
04/18/01
Wed
Been thinking about the Willow threads and...
It's been oft-repeated that Joss doesn't want to validate any
particular
religion with a "rightness" over another religion, especially
in the sticky
question of Xtianity with a predominantly Xtian-culture audience.
All along
we've seen both Giles and Willow using magic as a science: you
put in these
ingredients, you say these words, and presto, this happens. It's
a recipe,
not a religion, for them - or so it appears. The one digression
into any
appearance of a "religion" for Giles, thus far, has
been that E-demon
whatsahoosie, the one with the tattoo shindig. And if I recall
correctly,
Giles remarked at some point that at first he & his buddies weren't
aware
this was a "real" demon - to some extent, he'd thought
they'd faked a great
deal of it, albeit unconsciously. Group hysteria, something like
that.
But be that as it may, we've never seen any indication that Giles
holds any
particular religous beliefs. For the most part, religion has been
largely
absent from 99% of the discussions amongst the Scoobies - except
for Willow,
who seems to regularly bring up her Jewish heritage. I'm not certain
this is
a depth to which Joss has researched (tho I'd not be surprised,
frankly),
but Judaism does have a deep mystical current, which expresses
itself in
edgy traditions like the Qabalah and its numerological component,
Gematria.
Qabalistic studies are the basis of many modern ceremonial magick
traditions, and essentially boil down to more recipe following:
these
letters have this value, switch this around, visualize this, and
this is
what you get.
[An aside from the Peanut Gallery Inside Source: with enough skill
but
enough ignorance, you can turn just about any combination of letters
into
"666," but the validity of the results in the english
language (as opposed
to Hebrew) are a thread for another board. Regardless, the PGIS
suggests
Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco for an amusing take on the
practice, but
doesn't recommend mentioning it to any hardcore Masons or Qabalistics,
since
it's rather irreverent. Apparently his own decades of studying
Qabalah have
led him to believe that enough time on Gematria will lead you
to a final
ultimate statement, hidden somewhere in the sacred texts: "get
a life,
qabalah-dweeb."]
But back to the Judeo-magical/mystical traditions, and my impression
of
their influence on Willow's perspective. There is no assumption
in the
Qabalah that one must believe in a particular Divine entity or
an angelic
personage - many of the greatest scholars verged on Jewish heresy
- to
achieve a purpose: the words themselves have power in & of themselves.
Qabalah is a science, not a religion, really. So Willow treating
other magic
as a science, also, would not be a big step. Add into that Giles'
influence
- in terms of his treatment of magic & acts magical - and you've
got a pure
scientist, right down to using the Chem Lab in H.S. to do her
experiments.
Tara, on the other hand, seems to come from a religous background,
albeit
one that may be foreign to much of the audience. Ethically, this
gives her a
different perspective, but no less a valid one. Each has its pros
& cons. In
a religious framework, magic is positive if its intent is pure
(not colored
by personal self-interest), and its ends do not disrupt the 'natural
order'
of things - ie, screw up the world created, and run by, a Divine
Entity.
It's like having a landlord, and not the absentee landlord of
the Xtian
tradition (by that I mean non-participatory in the sense of everyday
reality). You can paint your walls, which is altering your reality,
but you
can't just haphazardly go knocking down walls if it pleases you.
It's a
matter of degrees, which you obey out of respect for, and worship
of, a
particular focus (read: divine entity).
Science, on the other hand, negates the influence of a divine,
and values of
positive/negative. Instead, its emphasis is on effectiveness.
"We don't know
how or why it works, but it does, so we do it." What doesn't
work, doesn't
get used, what does work, gets used. The side-effects, like post-spell
migraines, electrical blackouts, are noted as after-effects but
do not
necessarily negate the science-magic's usefulness. Instead, the
scientist
seeks to either further tweak the spell until the side-effects
are
minimized, or considers the after-shocks to be part & parcel of
the spell.
Either they're tolerable, and the spell is used, or they're not,
and
something else is found for a solution.
To an observer, it's hard to measure "bad" and "good,"
but for the sake of
argument let's say that personal discomfort (such as major headaches)
are a
bad. To the scientist, if the spell is successful, and the headaches
can be
treated with aspirin, then the recipe is effective with qualifications.
To
the theist, if the spell is successful, but there are headaches
afterwards,
this may be a sign that you just thwacked your paintbrush and
nearly knocked
down a wall... and that the landlord is telling you to back off.
Getting back to Joss' stance on remaining neutral concerning particular
mainstream religions, I'd be interested to see how the apparent
divergence
between Tara & Willow might resolve - or if the resolution will
happen
onscreen at all. A belief system, in & of itself, is appearing
to have more
& more strength (in the Buffyverse) in terms of successful
self-preservation, rather than the disinterested poking about
of a novice
scientist. "The operation was a success, even if the patient
did die."
I make that statement of self-preservation because so far it's
appeared that
Tara's had little to no backlash from the workings she's done,
and she's
mentioned none about any of her independent stuff previous to
meeting
Willow. That stands in stark contrast to Willow's history of treating
a
spell as a recipe and not realizing that more or less energy,
juice,
experience, or what-have-you may be needed, that's not listed
in the recipe.
So when things blow up, Willow doesn't have a measure for what
it was that
went wrong, she can only note the recipe's tangible ingredients,
determine
whether the side-effects were tolerable, and continue from there.
Ok, so a lot of this may be garbled, but it's just something that
occured to
me...
1056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long) -- Wiccagrrl,
22:05:01
04/18/01 Wed
I'm always a bit hesitant to really comment on the witchcraft
on Buffy,
because I'm Wiccan, and it really doesn't bear much resemblance
to the Wicca
that I practice, and I know my own views/experience color much
of how I view
it. One example- healing spells are very common in Wicca in my
experience.
Now, the results aren't usually as tangible as magic in the Buffyverse,
but
doing a spell to help give someone the energy/strength to help
fight an
illness isn't considered off bounds. According to Tara, in the
Buffyverse,
they are.
That said, I do think that with any power, there comes responsibility,
and
that there have to be limits and a sense of what your boundaries
are- and
that goes for science as well as magic, IMO. And Willow seems
to be lacking
that sense of what is crossing the line, or even that there is
a line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long) -- Rufus,
22:38:53
04/18/01 Wed
I'll repeat the quote:
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,
neat, and
wrong." HL Menkin
I love that quote. I agree that Willow sees magic as more of a
science
project than something more complex. There is a reason that Tara
warned both
Willow and Dawn about fiddling with the natural order of things.
Some things
aren't meant to be tampered with for good reason. Willow has good
intentions
but to see life and the bringing forth of life as a science experiment
is
folly. Too many things go wrong. Sometimes as humans we have to
suffer,
death and loss are things we have to suffer through not cure through
a
magical experiment. I hope that Tara shows Willow the way and
makes her
realise that the natural order is there for a reason. Float a
pencil, but
leave the dead alone. With magic comes responsiblilty and consequences.
Tara
and the Wiccans know this from experience passed down through
time, Willow
has power but lacks the maturity to use it wisely.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long) -- Solitude1056,
22:58:05 04/18/01 Wed
Discussing the Buffyverse type of magic doesn't bother me, because
it
appears to be logical extrapolation. Let's say that magic is a
musical
instrument - let's say it's a flute. In our universe, when we
try to play
the flute, most of the time we get nothing. Sometimes we think
we're getting
a sound, but we can't be sure. Other times a bunch of us together
are
convinced we heard a clear sound, but a disinterested observer
remarks a
train was passing in the next valley & it echoes... you get the
idea.
Now, in the Buffyverse, that flute makes quite a pretty sound.
It boils down
to two types of playing, as characterized (thus far) by Willow/Giles,
and
Tara. Science measures the pitch of each note, and determine logically
the
note that must follow in order that the notes be identified as
a melody.
Religion just plays whatever, but within a holistic (altho I hate
that word
in pop culture, it fits here) perspective. Ok, without rambling
into that
bad analogy tooooo far...
Tara's ethics concerning healing are consistent with her attitude
that this
verges on life-and-death situations, which are best left in the
hands of
some Greater Power. Although it's been mentioned elsewhere (a
while back)
that Willow's been more assertive since Tara came along, I'd say
Willow is
more self-confident, but she takes a backseat when Tara suddenly
stands up
about magic. Without Tara delivering the caveats, I suspect Willow
would
have tried a healing spell for Buffy, and may have even experimented
with
Dawn, even if only with the intent to demonstrate for Dawn that
it's not a
good idea - but she herself would have rationalized her own participation
as
being solely for the purpose of gathering information, and thus
having a
negligible influence in a scientific sense. In a religious sense,
she's not
justified IMO.
I do know Wicca, and I'm aware there's a mainstream trend in it
concerning
healing actions on behalf of others - particularly that you don't
do such
without the person's awareness and consent. As a Shinto Buddhist,
I don't
mind my Xtian father praying for my safety when I travel... but
if he got a
whole prayer group together at a tent revival, that might be another
matter.
*grin* That verges on the issue of the Buffybot: the idea that
someone
else's prayers/actions somehow, although perhaps unaffective upon
reality,
still emotionally transgress on your personal space.
Joss has messed with the Wiccan paradigm to some extent, although
with
Tara's introduction he's gotten more towards the mainstream system,
it
seems. Willow's got a long history of calling it "the black
arts," which to
me is a rather negative attitude. I've yet to hear Tara call it
such, tho I
could be wrong. Tara doesn't seem to be measuring things by the
same ruler -
back to the science vs. religion aspect. Essentially, Joss is
playing a huge
game of "let's pretend" when it comes to our reality's
understanding of
different religions.
Let's pretend that magic really does things, and that you really
can make
things float, become invisible, worship demons, turn snakes into
heat-seaking missiles, etc. Seen through the eyes of an audience
unused to
such power, Willow's nonchalant attitude towards the consequences
may not
ruffle too many feathers, ethically: we're so used to magic not
working that
we're unused to the idea that we should stop & consider what might
happen if
it did. This is where Tara comes in.
If there are God(s) who contain power and answer one's call, then
who's to
say that there might not be a backlash for interfering with one
God's plan?
And what about the idea that one God may see no reason to help
a sufferer
who isn't also a worshipper of that God? And what if modern medicine
is
doing just fine solving the problem, and your energy thrown in
the wrong
direction just makes it worse? Some stoves are way too hot to
touch, if we
continue with the premise that magic is effective. Energy thrown
in the
direction of a person about to undergo surgery, in the Buffyverse,
might be
effective - but is it really a positive thing to shove the surgeon
energetically right when s/he is about to perform a delicate maneuver?
But in the end, Willow's intentional blindness to the consequences
are
finally becoming clear as a negative trait. Without Tara's presence,
though,
we might not have had the chance to see her mistakes as more than
humorous.
We had no comparison other than Giles, and Willow doesn't yet
have Giles'
more mature ability to measure the possible consequences. Giles
doesn't
appear to have "religion," per se, but he does have
caution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ethics of Religion & Science (a bit long)
-- Wiccagrrl,
23:33:34 04/18/01 Wed
I do know Wicca, and I'm aware there's a mainstream trend in it
concerning
healing actions on behalf of others - particularly that you don't
do such
without the person's awareness and consent.
For many Wiccans, doing any magic on behalf of someone else without
their
knowledge or consent is considered to be baneful, going against
the "harm
none" creed, because it takes away/interferes with their
free will. You
don't really know, unless you've talked to them, what they would
want or if
they'd be comfortable with it. That's one of those "boundaries"
that I was
talking about. But I've rarely heard of healing magic in and of
itself as
being considered baneful, which is what Tara was basically saying
when she
said any healing magic was a no-no and would only make things
worse.
In the real world, I tend to view most spells as being a more
active form of
prayer- a way of focusing one's energy, calling on/connecting
with "the
powers that be" Now, whether we are really being aided by
powers larger than
ourselves, or whether we are really just focusing our own energies
and
tapping into our own inner resources is open to debate.
I do see your point that if spells really worked in the way they
do in the
Buffyverse, it would make things very, very different. That said,
the fact
that the results are more immediate, physical, and tangible makes
a careless
attitude towards those powers just that much more dangerous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> healing magic -- purplegrrl, 15:44:49
04/19/01 Thu
Perhaps "healing magic" in the Buffyverse and in the
Realverse are vastly
different. I got the impression that the healing magic Tara was
talking
about being a no-no was to make Joyce's tumor just go away, poof,
and she
would be well again. Whereas Realverse Wiccans who do healing
magic are
attempting to bolster the sick person's own healing abilities
and mental and
physical strength to either fight the illness or be at peace with
the
inevitable outcome.
I can still see where having the person's consent before performing
healing
magic on them would be considered prudent and respectful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Black Arts -- Malandanza, 22:09:41 04/22/01
Sun
***Joss has messed with the Wiccan paradigm to some extent, although
with
Tara's introduction he's gotten more towards the mainstream system,
it
seems. Willow's got a long history of calling it "the black
arts," which to
me is a rather negative attitude. I've yet to hear Tara call it
such, tho I
could be wrong...Let's pretend that magic really does things,
and that you
really can make things float, become invisible, worship demons,
turn snakes
into heat-seaking missiles, etc. Seen through the eyes of an audience
unused
to such power, Willow's nonchalant attitude towards the consequences
may not
ruffle too many feathers, ethically: we're so used to magic not
working that
we're unused to the idea that we should stop & consider what might
happen if
it did.***
It seems to me as though, in the Buffyverse, all magic is black.
There is
always a price to pay for power extracted (just ask Jonathan or
Wesley's
ex-girlfriend). Whether it is a quid pro quo with a demon or capricious
powers perverting the intent of the spell (be careful what you
wish for...),
spells seem inherently evil. Even with Buffy, the source of her
slayer
powers may ultimately be darker even than Dracula has alluded
to. In some
cases (like the curse she almost placed on Veruca), Willow has
directly
supplicated evil powers. In other cases, she has inadvertantly
attracted
their attention (D'Hoffyrn).
My theory is that if you want a spell to do exactly what you wish,
a price
must be paid (sacrifice goats or your daughter, become a demon
-- or even a
physical price such as Willow's chronic migraine after the teleportation
spell). If you allow the powers some leeway to fulfill the letter
of your
desires in a manner of their own choosing, the price is less significant.
The trade-off is that the demons granting your wishes aren't the
fairy
godmother variety -- they will create as much havoc as possible
while still
providing you with the literal fulfillment of your wishes. A Monkey's
Paw or
Evil Genie style of magic.
Thus, with healing magic, where a very specific result is required,
the
price might be too steep. Contrast that with the non-specific
"bring my dead
mother back" spell -- a relatively easy spell to cast because
it permits the
forces animating the body to wreak havoc.
Are there some spells that do not require a price and are not
inherently
evil? Probably -- spells like floating the pencil -- where the
power
required is minimal and the results trivial. Whatever powers these
spells
may do so to encourage young witches down the path of their own
damnation
(see how safe and easy magic is? why not try a trickier spell...?)
Ben Good, Glory Bad, Doc ???? (Possible Spoiler) -- Eania Snow,
04:48:51
04/19/01 Thu
Rumor around the camp fire is that the Doc is going to be the
third hell
god. Im currious to know what he is going to be like if this is
true. Ben is
seen as Good (even though some of his actions have been b