August 2003
posts
"The Puppet Show" Revisited -- Darby, 21:21:36 08/08/03 Fri
First, an assertion: I really believe that in this episode, the intent was to twist a few subgenre stories, but almost totally lacking in purposeful metaphor. The closest it gets is the use of another demon hunter who doesn't die young but doesn't exactly live, either.
Although I can't really say what the oedipus stuff is at the end. With the gender reversals of the show, I'm not sure I want it to mean anything.
Anyway...
Learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all. I think we can all agree that Cordelia manages to get that down. I'm not sure it works later when she claims to not really know what the song is about, though.
Which is harder, an actress who can't sing getting out there and showing it to the world, or an actress who can sing getting out there and doing it just bad enough to be convincing? I suspect Charisma is the 2nd - it's almost talent, and close enough that Cordy - who we'll find out is fairly self-aware - might think it's legitimate.
Snyder's description in the script: "In years and schools past, he has ruled with unwavering confidence and was able, despite his size and appearance, to strike fear and respect into his students. But that was then and this is Sunnydale."
One of the hardest things to figure out through the next two seasons is what Snyder knows and when he knows it. I think it's clear that he comes in with an understanding of Sunnydale's unique circumstances, but it would seem from early shows that he doesn't know what the Scoobies are, even though he seems to have - has been directed to have? - a special interest in them.
"I saw a dummy, it gave me the wig. There really wasn't a story there." Very Whedonesque twist.
Tom Wyner, the voice of Sid, has quite an interesting resume.
The monster's POV shots are all from close to knee-level, obviously to make us suspect the dummy. But it isn't the dummy. Does the demon tend to crawl around while pursuing victims?
Willow's stage fright, introduced here, has been used to great effect over the years. Three major appearances.
Now, if Snyder knows that Giles and the crew are a group, he gives Giles a heads up to keep a low profile, which could be the plan. It's hard to believe that if he knows Buffy, Xander and Willow are a gang, that he wouldn't know that Giles has some connection to that gang. Maybe he's just telling us...
Sara chimes in with something she just realized - none of the group like it when people die, but Xander gets the most upset about it usually. She also notes that Buffy's dress is better described as a shirt. Yikes!
The demon = pure evil definition continues.
Lots of great uses of that creepy dummy face in this episode - the look as Morgan closes the box is maybe the creepiest.
Snyder actually grabs Buffy when she's poking in Morgan's locker. She's intimidated by him, and breaks contact, but somewhat sheepishly, but the Buffy we've come to know would somehow have made it clear that grabbing and holding are unacceptable.
Weird fact: my suspension of disbelief is bothered by women in nightclothes and bras - I'm not a woman, but the ones I've known well enough to ask seem to all agree that the comfort lack kinda precludes doing that. Joyce is in a dark earthtone jammy that makes such an observation difficult - if an actress doesn't feel comfortable sans undergarments, why not put them in something that at least hides it? Does Buffy have to be Lolita 24/7?
Interesting that Joyce makes a point that Buffy not sleep with the window open, which through the Angel era she does all the time. Or is it just the window by the light that Joyce is concerned about?
Having a long list of bit players appearing through the episode ("This week, we hire speaking roles with the money from doing no dustings.") does a great job of hiding who the real demon is. And, of course, we suspect Snyder, too.
Giles dealing with Cordelia by using Xander's advice is a little bit of equalization within the group. There will be several of these Giles-Xander tweaks, because otherwise what good is Xander from Giles' point-of-view?
Okay, everyone look at me like I'm in a bunny suit. First, Xander might have imagined her in a Playboy Bunny suit (but is probably too young). Then the writers realized later that they needed to take the image to the next level with Anya.
I like it better when the class lecture material can be connected in some oblique way to the episode. Can anybody connect Sid the Dummy to the Monroe Doctrine?
Xander's "Redrum!" with Sid was not in the shooting script. Added later, or that rarity, the improvised line that makes it into the edited show?
One should be grateful that there were no lines about "Morgan's organs." Until now.
Buffy backstage shares the screen with one of those Halloween wall-mounted dayglo demon faces, which has a definite Buffy demon feel. Could one of their creature creators have produced it and slipped it in?
Buffy asserts herself with Snyder backstage, and he backs down. Maybe that grab just needed to percolate in her head for a while...
Interesting that Sid hooked up with Morgan because he was already a bit nuts.
Giles: "It's a welcome change to have someone else explain all these things." A bit of metanarration on Giles' role in the series.
Giles backstage walks away from Cordelia and past a violinist whose bow is in another zip code from the violin, "playing."
We get a first mention of other Slayers - one in the 1930s, Korean. Eventually, through Spike, there will be two more...
Giles' power circle is meant to specifically check for missing performers - and there aren't any. But moments later, when the magician tells him that his assistant is sick, he accepts it (maybe he figures it's stage fright).
More disbelief suspension quandaries, but not so weird this time - Buffy continues to wear these big clunky rings, quite the no-no for anyone whose avocation is punching things.
The Morgan file that Willow checks is formatted the same way as the Buffy file the previous week, except that the image looks like a printout on 3-hole lined paper. Eh-?
The follow-up medical file actually says what Willow says it does, although it's only partly visible onscreen for a fraction of a second.
How did the situation get from "needs brain" to "needs really good brain"? And how does slicing through Giles' cranium release an intact brain?
Brain tumors are quite the common condition on the show - here, Lie to Me, Joyce...what is it with these threes???
The script has the test guillotining with a lettuce, but a melon was a much better choice - gets you thinking noggin rather than salad.
Good thing the bad guy can't get a sharp hatchet to match his butcher blades!
The curtain opening on them is a cool touch, but who opened it, and why? It is reminiscent of tableau performance of the late 1800s, though - I guess that's old enough to be avant garde.
So whaddaya figure they did with Sid's, um, body? Maybe bury it with Morgan?
The script has the Oedipus lines, but no stage directions, except for the audience to look stunned.
A fun episode, with hints of things to come, but not a very thick onion this week. Ah, but next week...!
[>
Re: "The Puppet Show" Revisited -- CW, 08:36:37 08/09/03 Sat
Sid the dummy, is probably one of my all-time least favorite Buffy characters. As soon as Morgan walked on stage with him in the teaser and long before the act starts, I'd guessed the jist of the story; Living dummy seems to be the bad guy, but isn't... In this case it was way too obvious they were going to twist the evil dummy stereotype around. Sid, the person in the dummy, like Whistler and Doyle is a stock character out of the 1950's. The only way Sid could be more hackneyed is if he'd referred to women as 'dames' more.
Buffy's attire - yes, it's pretty obvious, that in season 1 they were doing all kinds of things to get people to watch, besides just working hard on scripts, and acting. It's interesting that in season 4 Buffy's wardrobe is dramatically more conservative. Although she doesn't wear bras all the time anymore, she rarely shows cleavage either. Her sleep attire becomes more consistantly pajamas and sweats. Fortunately ME felt the audience had grown up a little as well as Buffy.
Actually I thought Snyder grabbing Buffy and her reaction was perfectly normal, but then I come from an era that wasn't as concerned with teachers touching the young innocents.
Buffy's rings never bothered me, but her multiple earrings always did. After all those fights you'd think her ears would start looking like Clem's.
Tableau - That's exactly what I was thinking when Glory sends Buffy crashing through the empty cobra cage at the zoo. Buffy is beaten and lies limply. Glory cries out "Scene!" but I think "Tableau!" would have been more appropriate.
The dramatic reading - Joss says in the interview with the episode on tape, that it was hard to film because people would keep laughing. The final product does represent some pretty convincing good "bad acting," but I have to say it isn't all that funny. I think this was the one time the show could have benifited from showing out-takes instead of the finished product.
[>
The metaphor is the message -- Sophist, 10:19:51 08/09/03 Sat
I'm not sure if it qualifies as a metaphor, but there is an obvious lesson for Buffy: Sid continues to slay demons even though it will inevitably cost him his "life". It's exactly the choice Buffy will have to make in PG.
I'm really gaining new appreciation for S1 in looking for details like this.
[> [>
Shadows -- mamcu, 08:57:08 08/11/03 Mon
All these shows with robots, dummies, possessions, alter egos seem related to me, in that they all remind me of the Jungian shadow idea. Since Caro just explained that on the AAS board, I won't repeat, but often the shadow self contains the darker or emptier side (EvilWillow, Buffybot, etc). Sid as the shadow of Morgan is living although his body is dead; Morgan is about to die. But as Sophist says, the real shadowing is Buffy. In this case Sid carries a lot of negatives for Buffy: he's physically weaker, cursed, a horny old guy, etc. But they share that choice of self-sacrifice. And more--Sid looks at death as a good thing, like Buffy in early S6.
i gotta know (o/t to a certain albany family)... -- anom, 23:42:53 08/09/03 Sat
...how did Graffiti's bar mitzvah go? Did everyone survive the ordeal, um, festivities?
Let me know as soon as you're done w/the nervous breakdown!
Oh yeah...and: MAZEL TOV!!!
[>
Mazel Tov, Graffiti! And congratulations to Sara...the long nightmare is over... -- Random, 09:19:15 08/10/03 Sun
...and another one is just beginning. Ooops. Anyway, congratulations to all!
[>
It's official - I have the best kid in the world -- Sara, 12:17:50 08/10/03 Sun
I know that you all have very good kids out there, but someone had to have the very, very best kid, and I just happened to be in line the moment that the best kid was being given out. Graffiti was truly amazing in his performance, singing his way into everyone's heart.
For the Jewish members of this audience, I will tell you that in addition to his Maftir and Haftorah, Graffiti davened Shacharit, the Torah Service and Musaf. For the non-Jewish members who that means nothing to, I'll just say that the boy/man actually led 90% of an over 2 hour service, in Hebrew by the way. And yes I am blatently and without shame bragging, but it was just so cool, how could I not? I did a prayer, called an aliyah, and I was petrified! About 2 minutes in the entire service and I thought I was going to die! But somehow I survived, and Graffiti excelled.
The lunch in the Synagogue afterwards went well `- too much food, but hey, better than too little! I got to hear from lots of different people how fabulous the Graffiti monster was, which is something a mother never minds listening to. And Graffiti gots lots of envelopes which made him very happy. Everytime we looked at him he had this goofy smile on his face, as he contemplated his new found riches. "Oh Graffiti, do you have a couple of bucks I could borrow?"
Afterwards, friends and family went back to the house for a nice backyard party. No rain, lots of chatting and munching, and it would have been perfect if I remembered to put out the angel food cake and spice cake I made, and didn't drop a tray of sandwiches. But if it had been perfect, it wouldn't have been a party made by Sara.
Now I'm sitting around watching the West Wing marathon, eating leftovers and wondering if I have enough energy to get out of my pj's. Probably not. Everything went so well that I've decided to take Random's advice and put off my nervous breakdown until Graffiti is introduced to his first keg. I was really looking forward to having a nice meltdown, but I probably shouldn't waste a good breakdown until I really need it.
Thanks to everyone for their interest and good wishes!
[> [>
Well of course, he's had practice... -- dub ;o), 13:31:06 08/10/03 Sun
Singing along to OMWF for hours at a time!
;o)
[> [> [>
We knew our obsession would come in handy sooner or later -- Sara, humming "I've got a theory...", 11:24:50 08/11/03 Mon
[> [>
You guys must be so proud! -- Scroll, 23:13:44 08/10/03 Sun
And mazel tov, Graffiti! I bet you were terrific. There's only one problem that comes out of all this... Now your mom will actually expect you to live up to this wonderfulness 24/7!!! I don't know how you'll take the pressure!
Heh. Congrats again :)
[> [> [>
Proud but realistic -- Sara, who only likes to visit fantasy land, not live there!, 11:21:53 08/11/03 Mon
Now your mom will actually expect you to live up to this wonderfulness 24/7!!!
24/7 wouldn't that be great? That is so never going to happen!
...but a mom can dream, can't she?
[> [>
well, i'm officially impressed! -- anom, 10:28:17 08/11/03 Mon
Sounds like he did great! And you're his mom, you're supposed to brag! As for me, I'm e-kvelling from here (for non-Jews who haven't read The Joys of Yiddish, kvell means "to beam with immense pride and pleasure, most commonly over an achievement of a child or grandchild [hey, it doesn't say it has to be your own child!]); to be so proudly happy that your delight is uncontainable." I'm glad Graffiti did excellently, & it went so well, & you didn't even need that nervous breakdown!
[> [> [>
Thanks! -- Sara, 11:29:53 08/11/03 Mon
I love the concept of e-kvelling!!!! I'm glad that I'm supposed to brag, because I really can't help myself on this one!
Now that I'm back to work, I'm kind of regretting the postponement of the breakdown...
[> [>
Congrats -- sdev, 15:55:53 08/11/03 Mon
Mazal Tov to you and your family. What chapter did he read and what was it about?
[> [> [>
Deuteronomy -- Darby, 17:01:10 08/11/03 Mon
Passages about the establishment of Israel through the booting of the locals and Moses' instructions to the folks before they went in.
...Then he did his discussion about how they had been promised the land but had to go to war to get it, and they were told to take land in the same section as the Commandment that instructs not to covet your neighbor's things. And the rabbi's speech (it's a tiny congregation with a parttime student rabbi) was about how Graffiti's constant questioning has helped him to clarify some issues, which led to a sermon about how each person gets the God that makes sense to them.
I think. It was mostly Hebrew to me.
[>
Congrats to Graffiti Darby! -- Masq, 13:01:02 08/10/03 Sun
[>
Mazeltov, Graffiti! -- cjl, 20:34:46 08/10/03 Sun
[>
Adding my congrats! -- Marie, 01:29:14 08/11/03 Mon
Glory and Spike's chip -- Ray, 03:12:50 08/10/03 Sun
If Glory was basically contained in a human form, why was Spike able to hit her?
[>
Re: Glory and Spike's chip -- Rook, 04:10:25 08/10/03 Sun
Because she's not a demon. She's a God.
[>
What does the chip do? -- dmw, 08:15:27 08/10/03 Sun
How can a complex microchip distinguish between demons and humans? One obvious difference is appearance which works in most cases, but vampires look like people much of the time. The next obvious characteristic for the chip to examine in order to determine demonhood is behavior. Glory displays nonhuman abilities, has demonic allies, and acts like a demon so the chip classifies her as one.
This type of analysis is also why Spike could strike Buffy after her resurrection. Humans do not die, get buried, then emerge from the grave with superhuman strength. Vampires do. I suspect that's the conclusion at which the chip arrived. The chip doesn't have an antenna or anything but Spike's senses to determine whether something is human or demon, so while Buffy may have a molecular suntan, there's no way for the chip to perceive it. Tara's lack of knowledge of computers doesn't offer much credibility to her hypothesis either.
Thinking of Tara, Spike's chip couldn't provide a definite determination of whether she was a demon or not. It's not a magical demon detector. Tara looked human and acted human (other than in casting spells, but we assume Willow is fine and I'm not sure that Spike's seen Tara cast a spell by this point in time), so why would it think she was a demon?
[>
Re: Glory and Spike's chip -- Cleanthes, 09:56:13 08/10/03 Sun
Unbeknowst to the Initiative's designers, the chip determines "humanness" teleologically from all the evidence at the end of time. If, at the end of time when all that is knowable is known, the entity was, at the point in time when Spike hit the entity, not human, then the chip did not fire. Thus, the chip always worked perfectly as a plot determinant, which is a darn good thing inasmuch as Spike always found himself wrapped up in fictional stories.
More interestingly, what would have happened if Spike had hit Ben?
[>
Because Glory *wasn't* contained in a human form. -- HonorH, 10:19:47 08/10/03 Sun
As General Exposition said, she'd learned how to come forward from time to time. Ben didn't have any of Glory's special abilities; he was human. Glory, however, was invulnerable and extremely strong. That doesn't sound human to me.
[>
How Spike's chip worked... -- ZachsMind, 11:17:04 08/10/03 Sun
I've gone round and round on this topic with people before. It's a fun topic to argue. These are my findings.
The chip did not have a separate database from which to pull information regarding lifeform types. It did not have a sensory array separate from Spike's own perception. It was just a little mechanism that monitored Spike's own brain activity and then gave him a shock whenever Spike himself perceived he was attacking a human being. So Spike's own brain activity was operating this chip. If he believed something to be human, whether his scruples believed it okay to hit the human or not, the chip would fire. He was being betrayed by his own psychological makeup.
Now, although Willow is a witch, she's still human, so when he tried to bite her in season four immediately after getting the chip, naturally he couldn't do it, because of the programming of the chip. This set the precedent. A normal human cannot be attacked by Spike when the chip is active. Some episodes later, Spike learns almost by accident that he CAN attack demons. That the chip restricts him from attacking homo sapiens. Anything that's not a normal run of the mill human therefore, becomes fair game.
Spike received a shock when he hit Tara because Spike believed she was human. This was sufficient apparently for everyone in the room, to convince them that Tara was in fact human, because never did Tara behave in a demonic way around Spike. Naturally he'd believe her to be human, because her family's argument that she was sounded incongruous to Spike. Tara actually could still have been some kind of demon/human hybrid. Spike had no perception of that and so the chip fired.
Spike did NOT receive a shock when he hit Glory, because Glory exhibited actions in his presence that proved to Spike she was something other than human. The chip allowed him to hit humanoids - just not normal human beings. Granted, she was spending half her time inside Ben, and Spike knew that when no one else did, but Glory was still more than merely a human. Now, whether or not Spike could have killed Ben? That's left open to speculation.
When Buffy came back from the dead, the only reason Spike could hit her was because his own psychological makeup unconsciously could no longer define Buffy as a normal human. She had come back from the dead after three months buried under ground. By Spike's objective definition, given his own personal experience in the matter, that qualified Buffy for undead status. Maybe she wasn't a vampire or a demon but she definitely was no longer human. Humans, by definition, stay dead after they have died. Unconsciously, Spike didn't know what she was, so he could punch her all he wanted. Now, after getting his chip doublechecked, he consciously assumed this meant Buffy came back _wrong_ when objectively it's the fact that she came back at all which made her inhuman in Spike's mind. Tara proved in her own research later that IF Buffy came back _wrong_, it's at such a perceptively low level as to be irrelevant. She really wasn't different at all - Spike's perception of her changed.
The same would have been the case in regards to Anya. Spike's perception of Anya was that she was more than a mere human, because Anya herself admitted in Spike's presence that she was an ex-demon. I hear the argument now being that ex-demon means she was human again. That would have been irrelevant to Spike's unconscious mind, where the chip was quantifying its function. Although I don't recall Spike ever punching Anya or trying to bite her, he could have, even when she was powerless and humany - because she had lived for a thousand years. Though she was human now, unconsciously Spike would have been able to attack her, because in his mind she was most decidedly not a normal human. In hindsight, it may have been a conscious decision on the part of the writers never to get Anya and Spike in a position where he'd be tempted to punch her or bite her. He assumed he couldn't hurt her and therefore never tried, when in actuality he could have if he'd wanted.
So in summary, the chip worked by examining Spike's accumulated knowledge in his subconscious, and comparing it with the sensory input coming in at any given instant. If the chip saw that Spike was causing (or in some cases threatening) violence upon what his own accumulted knowledge perceived to be a normal human, it'd fire off the electrical impulse. So if Spike attacked something he perceieved to be a monster, but was in fact human, he'd get a jolt. And the chip was very black & white about it.
This is also why the chip began to malfunction and slowly kill him. It was his own guilt gone wonky. He realized after the fact, that he had turned all these humans, because of the sleeper trigger melody that temporarily turned off the chip, placing him in The First's thrall. After all that was over, he could not reconcile within himself the guilt he felt over killing all those people. So the chip began firing at random intervals, probably coinciding with irrational flashbacks as his mind drifted towards contemplating the horror he had done.
[> [>
Drusilla was able to deactivate the chip -- Deacon, 14:51:23 08/10/03 Sun
S5 "crush":
Dru: Naughtt shh. you needn't make up stories. I already know why you are not coming, poor boy, tin solders put litle nick nacks in your brain. Can't hunt, can't hurt can't kill. You've got a chip.
Spike: right so you've heard spike, become a cautionary tale for vampire's, you better be good kiddeys or they will wire you up some day.
Dru: I don't believe in science. All those bits and molecules that no one has ever seen. I trust eyes and heart alone. And you know what mine is singing out. Right now your a killer born to slash and bash and bleed like beautiful poetry no little tinker toy can stop you from flowing.
Spike: But the pain love, you don't understand it sering, blinding.
Dru: All in you head, I can see it little bits of plastic spiderwebbing nasty bits of blue shocks, and every one is a lie. Electricity lies spike it tells you that your not a bad dog but you are.
**************************
I agree with ZachsMind's findings, very good points, I especially like the reasoning on why the chip started to malfunction.
Is there any other evidence that buffy came back wrong besides Spike being able to hit her. There is the fact that the First Evil was able to take buffy's form, but was that because there was something wrong with her or just because she had died, if it was the latter the FE would have been able to do that after she died the first time.
[> [> [>
Re: Drusilla was able to deactivate the chip -- sdev, 15:38:19 08/10/03 Sun
I too like this explanation of the way the chip operated. But there is a problem-- in Smashed, in the alley, Spike goes to attack the muggers who he later says he thought were Demons, and the chip zaps him. I could spackle a little here and say that in between going to hit them and getting zapped he realized they were human.
The other really suggestive support for this theory is in FFL when Spike throws a punch at Buffy as a demonstration. He tells Buffy he is able to take a swing at her because he is aware she will never allow him to connect. I think he says"since there is no intention" the chip doesn't go off.
Were the writers just inconsistent in Smashed? I just watched the DVD commentary by Marti Noxon from Suprise and she talked about them making consistency errors and doing the equivalent of spackling whan they caught them. So I think that is possible. I think any mystical explanation of the chip very unlikely as the Initiative was not involved in that kind of experimentation.
Where in this quote do you see that Drusilla was able to deactivate the chip? I don't think she was. She was just willing to work around it until maybe they found a way.
[> [> [> [>
Intention vs. species -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:51:13 08/10/03 Sun
In "Smashed" and "Family" (moreso in "Smashed"), it is presented that the chip is able to tell who is and who isn't human on its own accord, without having to rely on Spike's senses. However, in "Fool For Love", when Spike throws a punch but knows Buffy will dodge it, he doesn't get any pain. The answer, to me, seems somewhat obvious: the chip senses who is and who isn't human, and then shocks Spike if he forms an intention to hurt them. So it's a mixture of working through Spike's brain and analyzing events itself. I don't really have a problem with it sensing whether someone's human or not; the Initiative had lots of protein sensors that could track demons and the like, they probably built one like that into the chip, only had it geared towards demons. Yes, it seems impossibly advanced for such a small piece of machinery, but, then, a high school student once brought his dead brother back to life and a college student built an android that could reasonably simulate human behavior. If a couple of guys with virtually no resources can do this, imagine what a giant, government organization can do.
[> [> [> [> [>
Intention vs. species-Yes that makes sense -- sdev, 16:08:21 08/10/03 Sun
This is consistent and believable. I could also see it as something the Initiative would want to do- build a demon detector. The intention part is critical as well though since it comes into play several times.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Drusilla was able to deactivate the chip -- Deacon, 16:16:01 08/10/03 Sun
About the guestion you asked "where does it say in the quote that Drusilla was able to deactivate the chip"
It does not say in the quote but in the episode, "Crush" dru does help spike and then the go to the bronze and the both kill someone, then later on Spike tells buffy that with Dru he is able to feed again.
[> [> [> [> [>
I don't think so -- sdev, 17:12:01 08/10/03 Sun
I think in that scene in the Bronze, Drusilla first kills the woman by breaking her neck then hands the woman off to Spike so that he can feed. Spike feeds after she is dead. It is not his act of feeding which kills the woman.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Sdev's right. -- HonorH, 19:03:25 08/10/03 Sun
It's even in the shooting script, I believe--the girl's already dead by the time Spike bites her. Can't harm her after she's dead.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I see you point -- deacon, 19:07:39 08/10/03 Sun
I carefully watched the scene again, I had always thought that she just passed her of to him, but I see now where Dru snaped her neck, I thought she was able to sort of hypnotize him, and later spike calls her the face of his salvation
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I think the "salvation" thing referred to when she turned him 120 years ago -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:24:05 08/10/03 Sun
[>
Re: Glory and Spike's chip -- Kenny, 14:40:03 08/10/03 Sun
Well, people have a lot of theories as to how the chip worked. At the end of the day, though, they're all theories. So little is said that any theory can be shaped around it.
My own take is that they found a demon that could distinguish between human and demon, or, more to the point, human from non-human. I bet Spike could hurt animals. Perhaps they ran across a demon that human-detecting as some kind of adaptation to aid in the human-hunting process. They extracted the organ (maybe a gland in the brain) and were able to put it on a chip, then tied it into Spike's brain in such a way as to cause pain when the organ fired.
That said, there's no evidence for this theory, just like there's no evidence for any other theory. I like it, though. We've seen the Initiative use technology to mix and match demon parts, so that totally falls within their MO. Heck, maybe vampires themselves have that capacity without realizing it (for instance, Darla could smell Angel's soul). Anyway, I like the idea that the basis for "human determination" is supernatural, not technological, and that the technology part is was bridges the gap between detection and deterrence.
[> [>
disagree about animals...probably -- anom, 21:45:19 08/11/03 Mon
"My own take is that they found a demon that could distinguish between human and demon, or, more to the point, human from non-human. I bet Spike could hurt animals."
He shows up starving in Pangs. It sure doesn't look as if he's been drinking animal blood, & if it came down to survival, I don't think Spike would be too proud to. And in The Initiative, Riley says, "The implant works. Hostile 17 can't harm any living creature, in any way, without intense neurological pain." That doesn't sound like he can hurt animals. (Of course, it doesn't sound like he can hurt demons either....)
[> [> [>
Re: disagree about animals...probably -- Kenny, 22:00:29 08/11/03 Mon
Honestly, when Pangs was written, I couldn't even conceive of Spike attempting to drink on anything other than a human. The thought just wouldn't occur to him. He'd just silently swear at the bunny rabbits bouncing by as he made his way to the Slayer's house. He's fairly one-track as far as those things go.
He at least played Kitty poker. He survived from the end of season 6 to the beginning of 7, and that's with a soul. You'd think chip+soul combo would keep him from feeding on any living thing. And no one was giving him bloodbags. If only we had seen him step on a cockroach in his crypt! Then this damned questioning would be over.
[> [> [> [>
Re: disagree about animals...probably -- anom, 22:32:43 08/11/03 Mon
Well, I think he'd try killing animals for food before he'd go to the Slayer for help--that'd be an even worse blow to his pride! As for surviving btwn. S6 & S7, he had enough means to get to Africa for a soul; he could have either bought animal blood or hunted animals. On the other hand, we see him trying to sneak up on a rat in the school basement in (I think) Beneath You. Hmm...blood bags...picture Spike digging through containers labeled "Biohazard" for human blood discarded as unsuitable for transfusion after testing!
"If only we had seen him step on a cockroach in his crypt!"
Heehee--I was actually thinking the same thing when I wrote my previous post! Well, not a cockroach--what would they find to eat in a vampire's crypt, until Clem moved in w/his Bugles? But under your interpretation, the chip would go off even if Spike stepped on a bug without realizing it, right?
[> [> [> [> [>
Why did he play poker for kittens, then, if he couldn't take a bite? -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:52:46 08/11/03 Mon
Also, in "Pangs", Spike didn't even know he could hurt demons. You can see that very clearly when he's afraid of Harmony. So odds are he thought all violence would set the chip off; probably didn't try animals until after "Doomed".
scythe -- chris, 14:37:10 08/10/03 Sun
i was wondering if anybody knew where i can find a picture of the scythe if anybody knows can you email me it would be great to find one kkindred187@aol.com
[>
They're selling one at www.buffyauction.com -- Darby, 20:20:27 08/10/03 Sun
Look for the "Axe" and click on the code for a picture.
Classic Movie of the Week - August 10th 2003 - Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures Pt. II -- OnM, 19:24:29 08/10/03 Sun
*******
A slight touch of friendly malice and amusement towards those we love keeps our affections for them from turning flat.
............ Logan P. Smith
*******
ìI f**ked up...î
ìYes, but you gave it a 100% effort.î
............ dialog excerpt from this weekís film
*******
I am a part of all that I have met.
............ Alfred, Lord Tennyson
*******
If youíre a movie fan, youíre certainly aware that films can be classed or categorized into a wide variety of different
genres. Oh, I donít mean like ëcomedyí or ëscience-fictioní or ëwesterní, I mean in terms of how you remember them
and like to view them. This wasnít always the case, at least not to any great extent, because at one time there was only
one way to see a movie, and so your options were inherently pretty limited. I think that Iíd like to talk about this idea for
a little while, because something has been happening here, and Iím not sure we think much about what it is.
Iíll start out by noting that this occasional movie column wouldnít even exist if not for the past presence of one Buffy
the Vampire Slayer, and not merely because I have been given kind leave to post it on a Buffy-centric website.
Buffy changed my television and film viewing habits irrevocably, all because of one opportunity it presented to
me that I had seldom appreciated before-- the ability to enjoy multiple viewings of the same program. In virtually all
cases, I discovered that I could re-watch a given episode several, perhaps even many times, without getting tired of
doing so. In fact, my pleasure in experiencing the story often grew with subsequent involvement. While there have
always been a number of favorite movies that will typically get me to stop whatever Iím currently doing and watch them
should they pop up on the tube, it was extremely rare that I would see a movie in the theater and then go back a second
time and see it again within a few days to a week.
I still rarely do that, but itís nearly always a time constraint issue as the cause, not a lack of desire, and this is whatís
new for me. Of course, if I really didnít like the flick all that much, itís only reasonable not to go for a repeater, but I
mostly venture out to see movies that I have at least some interest in seeing. As long as the film is adequately entertaining
or thoughtful in some way or another, I almost always buy a copy when it comes out on video. The film I recommended
last week, Charlieís Angels, was a perfect example of this-- on the surface level of the initial viewing, it
appeared to be a fairly mindless but nevertheless energetic and happy romp. A later, second runthrough on video with
the DVD commentary track engaged, and it turns out there is more than meets the eye-candy. Go figure.
Well, I wouldnít have ëfiguredí at all six or seven years ago. Even other past TV shows that I dearly loved, like
Northern Exposure or Hill Street Blues, seldom got me to do more than tune in the occasional summer
reruns and I know for a fact that most other people out there do likewise. Iíve long since lost track of how many times I
have pitched the concept to customers of including some software storage for tapes or DVDs in a home theater setup
and heard the response ìWe never watch a movie more than onceî. It seems an inescapable conclusion that many
people treat TV and movies very differently from books or music, especially the latter. Why? Iíll now venture some
possible answers.
Even though the significant majority of us ëmodern folkí exist in a technologically driven world, technology is something
that carries with it an inherent degree of suspicion, sometimes even a degree of fear or loathing. Machines have
improved our daily lives in many ways (cars, telephones, and computers for example), but they also have a dark side
just like we do, or perhaps because we do. Cars, telephones and computers, to use the three examples just
cited, make many of us as miserable as they make others happy, and (perversely) the ëotherí is often us, just at a
different point in time and space.
Art that derives from a technologically based mode of creation is very often saddled with a form of suble distrust, a
distrust that only fades into insignificance with the passage of time and the complete absorption of the technology into
social ënormalityí. So, take a piano, for example. Pianos and their variants have been around for over several hundred
years now, and few music lovers would ever even think of them as a machine, let alone ëtechnologyí. But of course they
are-- do a little time travel and park a Bosendorfer down in ancient Greece or China, and check out the reaction. Some
musicians would get all enthused at this new invention, many or most others would denounce it as a tool of the devil, or
wonder why it needs to be so damn big and complicated-- you know, why canít I carry it on my back or whack the
strings directly with something?
Consider how long electric guitars have been around now, yet youíll still find ardent defenders of the concept that only
an acoustic musical instrument is a ërealí musical instrument. At least, electric or not, you can see that there is still a
nominal guitar entity underneath the pickups and amplification and stuff. What about purely electronic instruments, just
transistors and ICís and hard drives, digital bits and such? Agghh! Heresy! For a few generations, anyway, then after a
while what was new and in the way becomes old hat and part of the established tradition.
The visual and written arts are the same way. Theatrical plays are OK, because you have a very ëhumaní structure and
audience interface. You go into a building, park yourself down in a chair, and other humans walk out on a stage and do
the entertainment thang. There might be sets, props, lights, but itís all very corporeal and immediate. Books have been
around for millenia, but they werenít widely available to the masses until the printing press was developed. Anyone care
to bet that wasnít viewed as a universal good when it did first appear? Next thing you know, the Earth wonít be the
center of the universe anymore, and then what?
Itís easy to make fun of these attitudes now, but history is a continuum of repetitive behavior on our part when some
traditional art form mutates with innovation. We trust the old, question the new, and so it goes. Theater was updated
when motion picture photography came into being, and movies were updated when television showed up. In the last 30
years, video and computer technology have updated TV and movies.
The theater clan was certain that movies would destroy them. The movie industry knew without the slightest doubt that
television would do them in, shutter all the studios forever. The TV and film establishments fought a long, protracted and
expensive legal battle to keep VCRs and the legal right to record their programming from the world in the 1970ís,
because there was no question that no one would actually pay to see programming if they could get it ëfor freeí.
Hey, hereís an idea, someone said. Why not sell your programs to people on video? You retain the
copyright and all, and you could even make additional money once the original film was released or TV show
broadcast?
Pfffttt..., they collectively snarked. What a ridiculous idea! Whoís gonna watch a movie or TV show more than
once, let alone buy it?
Well, what about music?, the persistant types persisted with. Lots of people buy records, and they often
listen to them over and over again, even collect them. How would this be different?
It just is. Go away.
Move forward a few decades, and DVDs are selling like crazy, and renting at such a level that most video stores now
stock them in preference to VHS tapes. Besides the reliable, ongoing release of recent films, the catalog of older works
going back for decades is growing almost geometrically, and-- even more amazing-- video re-issues of both new and
classic TV shows are in high demand by thousands of ardent fans. The video industry is rolling in money, and
thereís no sign of things slacking off. Best of all, people still attend movies and plays and even watch TV, although the
ëfreeí broadcast networks are hurting for viewers as the main demographic shifts toward cable and satellite.
Because of this, itís really tempting to blast the entertainment industry for crying wolf over and over and add in some
additional scorching on behalf of not recognizing a new business opportunity when one was handed to them, but to be
fair, the dire predictions were based on the evidence they had before them at the time. What I donít think they thought
about back then was that they were faced with circumstances that represented a chicken-or-egg paradigm. It was true
that very few people watched a TV show or a movie more than once, but why was that? Stop and think about it... how
could they have done so if they wanted to?
Before TV came on the scene, once you saw a movie upon its first release, there was no simple way to see it again in
the future. There was no mass market operation in place to provide the public with films in a consumer-level format,
which would have been 8mm or later on maybe Super8. 16mm prints would have been expensive to buy, or even rent.
16mm projectors werenít cheap either, and in any case the viewing room had to be dark, and you needed a screen, and
so on and so on. Sometimes a town might be lucky enough to have a school, college or museum that had a ëfilm seriesí,
where you could see some past favorites again, but overall, the pickinsí were mighty mighty slim.
TV changed all that, and movie reruns became a staple part of almost every networkís and stationís program lineup.
This brought in extra income for the studios (what with the licensing and all), but it also did start to keep some
moviegoers from attending original theatrical screenings. The technology of the ëlittle screení was becoming mainstream
enough that, indeed, ìwhy pay when I can watch it for free?î did begin to have a chilling effect on film production. The
industry countered by promoting the increasing use of color vs. B&W, stereo sound instead of monaural, and one of the
true innovations that TV back then just couldnít touch-- widescreen aspect ratios for that really grand scale, involving
visual experience.
Time warp again to the present day, where as entertainment consumers we are in a pretty delightful situation. No matter
what kind of program choice rings your bell, you can very likely find it out there somewhere. If you have a TV set and a
VCR or DVD player, you all but have entertainment on demand. If you donít want to buy, you can rent. Increases in
internet connection bandwidth could add even more selection in the near future. I personally donít think we are more
than a decade away from the time when you can log on to something like an offshoot of the IMDb and select from
almost any still existing film or program ever made and download it in about 5 or 10 minutes.
Quantity of choice is no longer an issue, not even in the here and now. But one issue very much is, and this topic loops
me back to riffage square one where I was talking about the desire to categorize movies (and TV) by how you
watch it, and why. Because after you have quantity, quality becomes the final frontier. Quality is what makes you
want to spend the time to really delve into a work repeatedly, whether itís an hour or a day later, or once every several
years for a period of decades.
This weekís Classic Movie, Mystic Pizza by director Donald Petrie, is a truly wonderful movie, one
that I always enjoy a great deal as long as I only dig it out once every couple years, viddy it, and then put it away again.
I came to realize this interesting fact during the second viewing I made prior to composing this column, and itís what got
me to thinking about the transition weíve made into this newly video-saturated world, so radically different from a mere
few decades ago. Thanks to BtVS, Iíve gotten into the habit of repeat viewings of my favorite video art, and the vast
majority of the films Iíve recommended over the past three years are ones that I can watch many times over and still
enjoy and/or find enhanced.
But that doesnít always mean repeating several times in one day or even one week, you see. I can do that with, say,
Fool for Love, or Desperately Seeking Susan, or The Road Warrior or The Gift. Why? I
donít really know, itís a question of the particular connection those creations or others like them make with my head, or
maybe itís because they have a larger metaphorical depth that is lacking in a more ëslice-of-lifeí kind of story. (Yes,
there is metaphorical depth in Desperately Seeking Susan, and itís mighty damn funny besides.) TV and film on
video has become the New Music for me, and I suspect it has for a lot of other peeps also.
More conventionally categorized, Mystic Pizza definitely fits the ëslice-of-lifeí genre of film, a category that rises
or falls on how honestly the slice is depicted. This story revolves around three young women, in a time not too long after
their high-school graduations, and how successfully or unsuccessfully they have been able to meet lifeís challenges so
far. Two of the women, Katherine (ëKatí) Arujo (Annabeth Gish) and her sister Daisy (Julia Roberts) are employed as
waitresses in the pizza shop of the title, located in the town of Mystic, CT. While their mutual best friend, JoJo (Lili
Taylor) works there with them, the films opens not in the shop but in a church. Itís a wedding scene and JoJo is the
bride, except she seems more queasy and lightheaded than blushing.
We know weíre in for something different right off when the camera shifts from a wider shot of the large gathering of
friends and family members to show us JoJoís increasingly ëfuzzyí POV of the proceedings by shooting through what
appears to be her veil. As the minister begins his solemn oratory regarding the ëpermananceí of the institution of
marriage, emphasising in several increasingly onerous ways about how once it has been entered into, it cannot be set
aside ëuntil one of you no longer draws breathí, JoJo faints and collapses in the aisle. There may be commitment issues
here, you see.
We cut to the interior of the pizza shop, the first of many scenes there that will punctuate the events of the story at
regular intervals. Using a workplace as a pivot point for balancing a series of interlocking character story arcs is a
common storytelling device, since it makes for an easy way to bring the characters together and then let them move
apart again in a natural fashion. What elevates this use of the convention beyond the average is that the pizza shop isnít
just a convenient location, itís almost a character in and of itself. A lot of the credit for this goes to the actress playing
Leona, the shop owner (Conchata Ferrell) and to the excellent screenwriting work by head writer Amy Holden Jones.
Leona is proud of her pizza, which is made from a special recipe taught to her by a family member from the ëold
countryí and that she keeps secret even from the shopsí staff. Not only is the name of the shop ëMystic Pizzaí, the
aforementioned house specialty carries the same title. Mystic is a very small town, largely employing workers in the
fishing/lobster industry, many of whom are of Portuguese ancestry and/or Catholic. Heritage aside, the people we meet
are clearly later-generation descendants who have become more connected to the new country than the old. I have to
appreciate the writer and director understanding that the univeral love of ëcheesy cuisineí makes a nice metaphor for a
community that enjoys commonality despite the different backgrounds and personalities of the inhabitants. Call it a
melting pot, or a salad bowl, the idea of a Portuguese variant of an Italian dish radically popularized by Americans and
(in this instance) happily coexisting with lobsters presents a portrait of a U.S. I still like to pretend exists somewhere out
there. It may be a fantasy, but itís a pleasant one to visit, and makes for a large part of Pizzaís quiet charm.
JoJo is still troubled by her failure to marry Bill, whom she is loves very much but passionately dreads settling into the
classic kids, house and husband routine with. She really isnít quite sure what she wants to do with her life,
except maybe eventually take over the pizza shop when Leona retires, but weíre left unsure whether this is a real desire
or just a better sounding way of saying ìI have no ideaî. Bill, played by Vincent D'Onofrio, is typical of the male
characters in this story in that heís basically a nice guy without any really dark secrets to hide. This in itself is a pleasant
change-- a film where the normal challenges of living are made to be interesting and involving, and neither male nor
female genders become demonized along the way. For his part, Bill is steadfastly trying to cut JoJo some slack, but at
the same time he is baffled at her wanting to hold off on marriage-- to him, they love each other, there ainít no doubt, so
whatís the deal?
The two sisters, Kat and Daisy, are very different people in many ways, which of course causes a degree of friction,
although there is far more tension between Daisy and her mother than between her and Kat. Kat, the younger sister, has
just graduated from high school and has been accepted at Yale, where she plans to start in the later semester, money
willing. She has just begun a very pleasant babysitting job, taking care of the 4-year-old daughter of an architect/builder
(Tim Travers, played by William R. Moses) who is currently rehabbing a classic home in the area. Timís wife is away in
England for several months for her job, thus the need for the babysitting duties. Heís a Yale graduate, talented,
handsome and charming, perfect for Kat, except for the being married part. Kat dutifully tries to keep an emotional
distance from Tim, but the attraction is powerful between the two, and soon she will be faced with a decision that would
profoundly affect her so-far perfectly orderly life.
Katís mother is (quite naturally) very proud of her daughterís academic achievements, and Daisy keeps getting the
impression that this translates into additional disapproval for her already ëquestionableí lifestyle. Daisy, we see, is the
more worldly, assertive and outgoing child-- she drinks, smokes, curses and worst of all-- has occasional sexual
relations with men she isnít married to, all of which deeply disturbs the very conservative and religious Mrs. Arujo. Her
latest romantic interest is the son of a wealthy local man, who is ëtaking some time offí from law school. (Thereís far
more to it, and him, of course, but I wonít spoil things for you.) Mrs. Arujo distrusts the young man, presuming that he
will dump Daisy after a brief sexual fling with her, further sullying what she already sees as Daisyís ëtarnishedí
reputation.
Here again, we have a not-so-secret recipe for ëformulaí that doesnít ever occur. It would be typical to turn the parents
of these young women into cartoon stereotypes, but it doesnít happen. There is no real malevolence involved, no one
goes ëpsychoí (no one even enters therapy, unless you count the pizza), and while the parents may grumble they also
realize that their children will have to live their own lives and take responsibility for their own mistakes.
I could go on reciting the various plot details, but I think you already get the general outline. There are a goodly number
of both genuinely touching and very funny moments on an ongoing basis throughout the entire film, and the ending is
almost Whedonesque in its oddball/heartwarming way. This film certainly qualifies as a buried treasure, and I would
additionally like to suggest to my readers of the male persuasion not to write this off as a standard ëchick flickí, because
it isnít, even though the central stories revolve largely around women and relationship issues. The greater relationship
issue in Mystic Pizza has more to do with humanityís frailities and strengths in a non-gendered sense, elements
that describe a greater, more universal human story about becoming ëpart of all that we have metí.
So there you have it, and let the pepperoni fall where it may!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically, finding the Pope in the pizza very well might be a mystical experience:
Mystic Pizza is available on DVD, which was also the format of the review copy. The film was released in 1988,
and run time is 1 hour and 44 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio was 1.85:1, which was preserved on the DVD
edition.
The film was produced by Samuel Goldwyn Jr., Mark Levinson, Scott Rosenfelt and Susan Vogelfang. Writing credits
go to Amy Holden Jones, Perry Howze, Randy Howze and Alfred Uhry. Cinematography was by Tim Suhrstedt, with
film editing by Don Brochu & Marion Rothman. Production design was by David Chapman, with art direction by Mark
Haack, set decoration by Clay A. Griffith and costume design by Jennifer von Mayrhauser. Original Music was by
David McHugh and Barry Coffing. The original theatrical sound mix was provided in ëUltra Stereoí.
Cast overview:
Julia Roberts .... Daisy
Annabeth Gish .... Kat
Lili Taylor .... JoJo
Vincent D'Onofrio .... Bill
William R. Moses .... Tim Travers
Adam Storke .... Charles Gordon Windsor Jr.
Conchata Ferrell .... Leona
Joanna Merlin .... Mrs. Arujo
Porscha Radcliffe .... Phoebe (Tim's daughter)
Arthur Walsh .... Manny
John Fiore .... Jake (crewman on fishing boat JoJo)
Gene Amoroso .... Mr. Barboza
Sheila Ferrini .... Mrs. Barboza
Janet Zarish .... Nicole Travers
Louis Turenne .... Hector Freshette (the ëEveryday Gourmetí)
Lauren O'Brien .... Serena
John Cunningham .... Charles Gordon Windsor Sr.
Ann Flood .... Polly Windsor
Suzanne Shepherd .... Aunt Tweedy
Matt Damon .... Steamer
*******
Miscellaneous Dept: (Part I) (aka - giving it a 100% effort)
I orignally had incorporated this paragraph as part of the main review, but decided to move it here because it kind of
broke up the flow there. I didnít want to delete it altogether, because it said something I thought was important to say, so I modded it a bit and added some extra value here and there:
I would like to say a few things about Julia Roberts. Mystic Pizza was, for all practical purposes, her first
venture into feature films, and watching this debut itís not even vaguely difficult to immediately see how special she is.
Every actor in this movie does a wonderful job and are a joy to watch as they inhabit the characters and bring them to
life. As good as they all are, Roberts brings a stunningly effortless quality to her work here that makes my mind boggle
when I consider how young she was and how relatively little practical experience came prior to her starring in this
movie. It isnít just a fluke, either. People talk about her as ëAmericaís sweetheartí, and she seems to be a very likable
person, but I sometimes think that people donít go beyond that impression, and fail to put her in the same class as
ëseriousí actors like Meryl Streep or Robert DeNiro, and she so deserves to be. Consider this list of her major film
work from 1988 to today, only about 15 years, and how many of these were really good films, and then try to think of
any of them, even the weaker ones, that she ever gave a bad performance in. Gives you pause, doesnít it?
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) .... Patricia
Full Frontal (2002) .... Catherine/Francesca
Grand Champion (2002)
Ocean's Eleven (2001) .... Tess Ocean
America's Sweethearts (2001) .... Kathleen 'Kiki' Harrison
Mexican, The (2001) .... Samantha Barzel
Erin Brockovich (2000) .... Erin Brockovich
Runaway Bride (1999) .... Maggie Carpenter
Notting Hill (1999) .... Anna Scott
Stepmom (1998) .... Isabel Kelly
Conspiracy Theory (1997) .... Alice Sutton
My Best Friend's Wedding (1997) .... Julianne 'Jules' Potter
Everyone Says I Love You (1996) .... Von
Michael Collins (1996) .... Kitty Kiernan
Mary Reilly (1996) .... Mary Reilly
Something to Talk About (1995) .... Grace Bichon
PrÍt-ý-Porter (1994) .... Anne Eisenhower
I Love Trouble (1994) .... Sabrina Peterson
Pelican Brief, The (1993) .... Darby Shaw
Hook (1991) .... Tinkerbell
Dying Young (1991) .... Hilary 'Hil/Hils' O'Neil
Sleeping with the Enemy (1991) .... Sara Waters/Laura Burney
Flatliners (1990) .... Rachel Mannus
Pretty Woman (1990) .... Vivian 'Viv' Ward
Steel Magnolias (1989) .... Shelby Eatenton Latcherie
Blood Red (1989) .... Maria Collogero
Mystic Pizza (1988) .... Daisy
Satisfaction (aka ëGirls of Summerí) (1988) .... Daryle Shane
***
Misc. Part II: (aka - STOP!! THIEF!!!)
A quote from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, 08/10/2003: (Underlined portions mine)
With reports of further declines in CD sales and news of lawsuits against illegal downloading, it's gotten so that music
technology has become a kind of all-purpose, amorphous villain. If you believe the hype, the genie is now out of the
bottle and on a campaign of mass destruction. Yet no matter what the label lawyers say, technology itself isn't the
problem. The problem is how the technology is used, and how copyrights are protected with those new uses.
Along with that comes the challenge of rebuilding relationships with consumers who are increasingly treated like
criminals. Sooner or later, companies will have to shift their emphasis from policing and throwing up roadblocks to
their exclusive material and move toward inspiring listeners, engaging them, bringing them into more active modes of
listening and interacting with music.
No guarentee how long this will stay up, but at the moment you can see the full article via this link at:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/entertainment/6496528.htm
I realize that there may be far more troublesome issues in the world today, but isnít it the little things that really bug you
way out of normal proportion? It is extremely irritating to be presumed a criminal before you have done anything
at all to suggest that you might be. The article cited above is talking about the music business, but things are pretty much
the same for the TV and film business. Probably half of the DVDs I buy, no matter what store I buy them from, are not
only shrink-wrapped without any easy way to get the wrap off short of a knife or other tool, but there are as many as
three seperate tamper-proof seals tenaciously holding the disc case closed. I keep an X-Acto handy by my video
system, but it still takes me several minutes to wrestle the damn stuff off of the box without damaging it or leaving any
glue residue behind, and finally get to the disc. Then, while I donít have to remove it, I usually see the magnetic anti-theft
device stuck inside the disc case somewhere.
While I donít have to physically un-theft-deterrent my TV, I am still constantly infuriated by the ever-growing and
ever-more obnoxious cluttering of the screen with channel and network ID logos, weather announcements that donít
come and go but stay on for hours at a time, news ëbannersí scrolling here and there, and other pointless, insipid crap.
The next thing you know, weíll find ourselves sitting through 20 minutes of commercials before the movie starts up even
when we actually go out to the theater instead of just watching flicks on TV!
Oh wait, theyíre already doing that. Never mind.
:-(
***
Misc. Part III: (aka - you gotta start somewhere!)
ìHey mom, you want my green stuff?î
............ Matt Damon, with his only line in Mystic Pizza
Something like ten years later, Damon wins an Academy Award for his work in Good Will Hunting
***
Misc. Part IV: (aka - oh yeah, thatís where I remember her!)
Annabeth Gish played the recurring role of Special Agent Monica Reyes on later seasons of The X-Files.
***
Misc. Part V: (aka - you win some, you lose some)
If only director Donald Petrie had had as much cinematic success as Julia Roberts, he would be... much less obscure.
He has done a lot of TV stuff over the years, though. You can check out he IMDb for a complete list, but here is most
of his feature filmography. In the meantime, please understand Iím not being critical about his success rate, since at
minimum he has made at least one really good film more than I have, and my boss thinks that Grumpy Old Men
is absolutely hilarious.
Miss Congeniality (2000)
My Favorite Martian (1999)
Associate, The (1996)
Richie Rich (1994)
Favor, The (1994)
Grumpy Old Men (1993)
Opportunity Knocks (1990)
Mystic Pizza (1988)
*******
The Question of the Week:
Every movie fan has one, or likely several underappreciated actors who are laboring in obscurity that they like to talk
about and encourage people to see. So, hereís a harder question to answer:
What well-known, highly famous and talented actor do you think absolutely deserves every nice thing
everyone has ever said about him or her?
Thatís all for this week, gentle viewers! Post ëem if youíve got ëem, and Iíll see you next week!
Take care.
*******
[>
Hey, OnM! I'm gonna give you two--Tom Hanks and George Clooney. -- cjl, 20:30:08 08/10/03 Sun
I'm still waiting for Tom Hanks to take a role where's he's evil incarnate (his oily record producer in "That Thing You Do!" is close, but not quite)--other than that, I have absolutely no complaints about the man's choice of movies, his performances, and his refusal to play into the Hollywood star-maker machinery even though he's probably the biggest male movie star on the planet.
Did you hate Forrest Gump? Did you think it misrepresented two crucial decades of American history, and was a conservative's wet dream about how a simple country boy knew better than all them dirty hippies about living right? Don't blame Hanks. His performance as Forrest was warm, unique, indelible. Did you hate Philadelphia? Did you think Hanks' queer martyr was an unbearable cliche? Don't blame Hanks. He played the character with clear eyes, compassion, and without excess sentimentality. Are you sick of Hanks being up for an Oscar every twenty seconds? Tough. Most of the time he deserves it, even when he's not nominated.
Loved him on Bosom Buddies, and it gladdened my heart when I saw old buddy Peter Scolari as a TV Emcee in That Thing You Do!--Hanks doesn't forget his friends.
I'm not a sentimental sap, and even I bought Sleepless in Seattle. I love a shaggy dog story, I'm a big fan of John Patrick Shanley, and I love Joe Versus the Volcano, even if everybody else thinks it's nonsense. (Which it probably is.) However, I do admit that after You've Got Mail, I never want to see Tom and Meg together again. Ever.
In the last year, Hanks has done Road to Perdition and Catch Me If You Can, and he was great in both. He can be warm, funny, romantic, joyful, angry, bitter, cynical. We should enjoy this guy while he's at his peak. The new Henry Fonda? The new Jimmy Stewart? No comparisons, please. He's the original Tom Hanks, and that should be good enough for everybody.
Favorte Hanks performance: Punchline.
Least favorite Hanks performance: The Man with One Red Shoe.
******************
As for George Clooney...
After struggling for decades in show biz, he finally hit it big and the first thing he did with his newfound clout was David Russell's stinging Persian Gulf war farce, Three Kings.
He did Ocean's Eleven for laughs (and I laughed), and followed it up with Solaris, which nobody saw, not even me. (Shame on me--I've read the original Lem novel and loved the 1972 Tarkovsky adaptation.) He did it for love.
His first directing job was the astounding, criminally ignored Chuck Barris biopic, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. He was goofy and charming in "O Brother Where Art Thou?"--so much so, that the Coen Brothers invited him back for this summer's Intolerable Cruelty (that's the title, not what the Coens are doing to him on the set). "Batman and Robin" WASN'T HIS FAULT.
He could have turned his crooked half-smile into an annoying money-making quirk, like the Afflecks of the world, but I have no desire to bludgeon Clooney every time he turns up the charm on screen. He continues branching off in weird and fascinating directions, far too weird for a major motion picture icon. Frankly, if given the choice between Sean Penn and George Clooney giving up acting for directing, I'd rather see Clooney slip behind the camera. He has a better nose for good material.
Favorite Clooney performance: Confession of a Dangerous Mind
Worst Clooney performance (coasting on charm): Ocean's Eleven
[> [>
I liked "You've Got Mail", and I fell asleep during "Solaris" does that count? -- Rufus, 21:56:23 08/10/03 Sun
[> [> [>
No problem, Ruf. Book or movie, Solaris defines the word "meditative"... -- cjl, 07:04:32 08/11/03 Mon
No surprise that some folks would take a nice, restful nap in the middle.
I still consider You've Got Mail one of Hanks' rare mistakes over his last 20 years of film-making. Compares poorly to the original (The Shop Around the Corner) and Sleepless in Seattle blows it out of the water. Hanks and Ryan should have quit while they were ahead, or waited for a completely different type of project. ("Joe Versus the Volcano," for example, was a complete curveball, something radically different from SiS.)
[> [> [>
Re:"Solaris" The original Russian version is also a sure cure for insomnia -- CW, 08:34:21 08/11/03 Mon
Can't figure out why they wanted to remake it.
[> [> [> [>
neither are quite the book, not to condemn them for that -- MsGiles, 07:54:03 08/12/03 Tue
Tarkovsky's Solaris, like his other films, uses the plot as a way of musing on his obsessions: memory, nostalgia, the lost past, the hearts desire, life's mistakes, the possibility of redemption or retrieval. It's full of a kind of peaceful regret, an ache of loss. The leaving of earth for the Solaris research station (cut back cinematically for financial reasons) seems like just another level of loss, of leaving. The end offers a kind of healing, of forgiveness - but it's his parents, his childhood home, that are the empty space within him, the lost Eden, and the forgiveness, if it is forgiveness, is alien, somehow detached.
Soderburgh/Clooney's is surprisingly acceptable. Surprising to me, anyway. I'd just seen Clooney in 'Oh Brother Where Art Thou', and had him down as a Clark Gable remould, all dry rogueishness. His 'Solaris' has much more of a romantic emphasis than Tark's, but it's not fluff. It's less about the lost purity of childhood, than about the lost relationship between Kelvin (the Clooney character) and Rheya, his wife. Here, the Solaris effect is a means of examining guilt, loss, wrong turnings in life, and the closure offered by the conclusion is more overt than either the other film or the book.
I re-read Lem's story after seeing the Soderburgh film, and was surprised how much my memory of it had been usurped by the Tarkovsky version. Lem was interested in the intellectual and philosophical rather than the emotional ramifications of his idea, the conflict between objective science and subjective experience, mediated through the observations of the psychologist Kelvin. Kelvin finds himself, because of the Solaris effect, experiencing that conflict, trying to understand what makes a person's identity, finding his own unresolved issues suddenly very present.
Much of the book deals with 'research' into the Solaris phenomenon, and the scientists' attempts to understand it, and in that respect it relates more to science fiction than fantasy, unlike either film. There's a lot of quite 'dry' philosophical speculation, phrased as researchers theories about the sentience or otherwise of Solaris itself, and the reasons for its many manifestations.
Essentially Tarkovsky used the plot of the book as a hook on which to hang his own semi-mystical preoccupations, and Soderburgh/Clooney have made it into something much closer to a conventional (though quite interesting and not unbearably syrupy) romance.
Finally, the book's conclusion is not the quasi-religious healing of either Tarkovsky or Soderburgh's films, but more a personal revelation on the part of Kelvin, as he makes his final choice.
[> [>
Hanks and Philadelphia -- KdS, 16:01:02 08/11/03 Mon
Sorry, but Hanks never, for one moment, convinced me in Philadelphia that he was sexually attracted to men. Every time he had to show Banderas's character affection, or receive it, he went rigid and looked as if he was desperately trying not to run screaming.
[> [> [>
Have to agree there. -- Rob, 13:30:10 08/12/03 Tue
Willow and Kennedy had more chemistry. ;)
Rob
[>
Nicolas Cage and Renee Zellweger -- s'kat, 22:37:01 08/10/03 Sun
Nicolas Cage has done it all - bad guys, good guys, nerds, he has even made himself appear ugly onscreen. He has appeared in unknown independents to huge action movies.
(A little antecdote on Cage - somewhere in the early 80's,
the son of my parents friends hung out at Coppola's house with Coppola's nephew - they used to watch movies on Coppolas huge movie screen. Both were struggling actors. The son (person I've met) was waiting tables, working on scripts - then the nephew (who at the time I'd never heard of) some guy named Nicolas Coppola got a few bit parts including a role in one of his uncle's SE Hinton adaptations. The nephew became Nicolas Cage. Yep - it's who you know, BUT - how many actors who are relatives of celebrity directors or actors truly make it? Cage deserves his career, and has worked hard for it.) His first role was a bit part on TV and a cameo in Fast Times At Ridgemount High.
Filmography: Current to past - look at the range!
1. Ghost Rider (2004) (in production) .... Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider
2. Land of Destiny (2004) (announced)
3. National Treasure (2004) (pre-production) .... Benjamin Franklin Gates
4. Matchstick Men (2003) (completed) .... Roy
5. Adaptation. (2002) .... Charlie Kaufman/Donald Kaufman
6. Sonny (2002) .... Acid Yellow
7. Windtalkers (2002) .... Sgt. Joe Enders
8. Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001) (voice) .... Jacob Marley
9. Captain Corelli's Mandolin (2001) .... Captain Corelli
... aka Capitaine Corelli (2001) (France)
10. Family Man, The (2000) .... Jack Campbell
11. Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000) .... Randall 'Memphis' Raines
12. Bringing Out the Dead (1999) .... Frank Pierce
13. 8MM (1999) .... Tom Welles
... aka 8mm - Acht Millimeter (1999) (Germany)
14. Snake Eyes (1998) .... Rick Santoro
15. City of Angels (1998) .... Seth
... aka Stadt der Engel (1998) (Germany)
16. Face/Off (1997) .... Castor Troy/Sean Archer
... aka Face Off (1997)
17. Con Air (1997) .... Cameron Poe
18. Rock, The (1996) .... Dr. Stanley Goodspeed
19. Leaving Las Vegas (1995) .... Ben Sanderson
... aka Leaving Las Vegas (1995) (France)
20. Kiss of Death (1995) .... Little Junior Brown
21. Trapped in Paradise (1994) .... Bill Firpo
22. It Could Happen to You (1994) .... Charlie Lang
23. Guarding Tess (1994) .... Doug Chesnic
24. Deadfall (1993) .... Eddie
25. Amos & Andrew (1993) .... Amos Odell
26. Red Rock West (1992) .... Michael Williams
27. Honeymoon in Vegas (1992) .... Jack Singer
28. Zandalee (1991) .... Johnny
29. Industrial Symphony No. 1: The Dream of the Broken Hearted (1990) (TV) .... Heartbreaking Man
30. Tempo di uccidere (1990) .... Enrico Silvestri
... aka Raccourci, Le (1990) (France)
... aka Short Cut, The (1990)
... aka Time to Kill (1990)
31. Wild at Heart (1990) .... Sailor
... aka David Lynch's Wild at Heart (1990) (USA)
32. Fire Birds (1990) .... Jake Preston
... aka Wings of the Apache (1990)
33. Vampire's Kiss (1989) .... Peter Loew
34. Never on Tuesday (1988) (uncredited) .... Man in Red Sports Car
35. Moonstruck (1987) .... Ronny Cammareri
36. Raising Arizona (1987) .... H.I. McDonnough
37. Peggy Sue Got Married (1986) .... Charlie Bodell
38. Boy in Blue, The (1986) .... Ned Hanlan
39. Birdy (1984) .... Sergeant Al Columbato
40. Cotton Club, The (1984) .... Vincent Dwyer
41. Racing with the Moon (1984) .... Nicky/Bud
42. Rumble Fish (1983) .... Smokey
43. Valley Girl (1983) .... Randy
... aka Bad Boyz (1983)
... aka Rebel Dreams (1983) (video title)
44. Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) (as Nicolas Coppola) .... Brad's Bud
45. Best of Times (1981) (TV)
Best Role? Hard to pick - I'd say Adaptation and Leaving Los Vegas
Worste Role: Con Air
But then I haven't seen all his movies. He has the uncanny ability to play the comedy in very dark characters. Bring out all those nervous little ticks we all want to hide and make us laugh at them. He also can play pathos and conflict.
The idea of Cage as Ghost Rider...hmmm, interesting.
I considered doing John Cusack (another favorite...but I'll suggest a lady instead : Renee Zellweger.
She also has the ability to make dark characters sweet and funny and endearing. Her recent turn as Roxy in Chicago was a wonder to watch. I still think she was better than Catherine Zeta Jones. And her little known part as the woman who believes she's a nurse in a soap opera is a tour de force. She's new on the scene - hasn't quite had the number of roles Cage, Clooney and Roberts have had...but watch her begin to take off. Her next role is in Cold Mountain as a mountain woman.
Actress - filmography
(In Production) (2000s) (1990s)
1. Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004) (announced) .... Bridget Jones
2. Cinderella Man (2004) (pre-production)
3. Sharkslayer (2004) (filming) (voice) .... Angie
4. Cold Mountain (2003) (post-production) .... Ruby Thewes
5. Down with Love (2003) .... Barbara Novak
6. Chicago (2002) .... Roxie Hart
7. White Oleander (2002) .... Claire Richards
8. Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) .... Bridget Jones
... aka Journal de Bridget Jones, Le (2001) (France)
9. Me, Myself & Irene (2000) .... Irene P. Waters
10. Nurse Betty (2000) .... Betty Sizemore
... aka Nurse Betty - Gef”hrliche Tr”ume (2000) (Germany)
11. Bachelor, The (1999) .... Anne Arden
12. One True Thing (1998) .... Ellen Gulden
13. Price Above Rubies, A (1998) .... Sonia Horowitz
14. Deceiver (1997) .... Elizabeth
... aka Liar (1997)
15. Jerry Maguire (1996) (as Renee Zellweger) .... Dorothy Boyd
16. Whole Wide World, The (1996) .... Novalyne Price
17. Low Life, The (1995) .... Poet
18. Empire Records (1995) (as Renee Zellweger) .... Gina
... aka Empire (1995/II)
... aka Rock & Fun (1995)
19. Shake, Rattle and Rock! (1994) (TV) .... Susan
20. Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The (1994) (as Renee Zellweger) .... Jenny
... aka TCM 4 (1994) (USA: abbreviated title)
... aka Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4 (1994) (abbreviated title)
... aka Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation, The (1997) (USA: reissue title)
21. Love and a .45 (1994) .... Starlene Cheatham
22. 8 Seconds (1994) .... Prescott Motel Buckle Bunny
... aka Lane Frost Story, The (1994)
23. Reality Bites (1994) (as Renee Zellweger) .... Tami
24. My Boyfriend's Back (1993) (uncredited)
... aka Johnny Zombie (1993)
25. Murder in the Heartland (1993) (TV) .... Barbara
26. Taste for Killing, A (1992) (TV) .... Mary Lou
Her best role? Nurse Betty in my humble opinion
Worste? Me Myself and Irene...but then I just wasn't fond of the movie. Haven't seen all of them. Her best stuff seems to be more recent.
Source for flimography is imbd.
sk
[>
Paul Newman -- Anneth, 10:00:27 08/11/03 Mon
Good actor, good man.
Plus, his Newman's Own Soccaroni Pasta Sauce is my favorite marinara sauce ever. It may not be his recipie, but it means a lot to me that his company uses organic ingredients and donates the proceeds to charity.
Oh, and Cool Hand Luke turns me into warm jelly. Every time.
[> [>
Ditto. And, if the dead qualify, Jimmy Stewart. -- dream, 11:03:33 08/11/03 Mon
Personally, I think the quality of movie choices matters. Julia Roberts may have wonderful qualities, but she also chooses a lot of really bad films - Pretty Woman, anyone? To my mind, a great actor has to care about the final product - the whole thing, not just their part in it, enough not to make a pile of crappy movies. I avoid all movies that star Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, and Sandra Bullock, among others, not because the actors are that bad, but because I have pretty much hated everything they have ever chosen to be involved in. Now, I think Andie McDowell is about the worst actress in Hollywood, wooden and stiff. Compared to Julia Roberts, she's a robot. But I have enjoyed a few movies she's been in (Shortcuts, sex lies and videotape, even Four Wedding and a Funeral), so I won't avoid an otherwise-recommended film because she's in it. Tom Hanks, yes.
That's not to say that a great actor can't make bad movies. I can't think of one that hasn't, and some have made many, many terrible films (Elizabeth Taylor comes to mind). But I just can't consider someone a great actor who has consistently chosen cheap roles.
Paul Newman also makes a really nice microwave popcorn, with no scary ingredients, just popcorn and oil. Bless him.
[> [> [>
Paul Newman is a great actor but... -- sdev, 15:52:57 08/11/03 Mon
he insists on dim lighting and less than sharp focus to disguise his age. Or so I heard. That is kind of creepy.
[> [>
Re: Paul Newman -- Haddock, 12:07:15 08/12/03 Tue
The recipe may not be his own, but Mr Newman does have other talents besides acting - he is also the oldest man ever to win an international status 24 Hour motor race at the grand old age of 68
Doesn't he have a clothing line as well ?
[>
Vanessa Redgrave -- mamcu, 18:44:06 08/11/03 Mon
She is wonderful. I've never seen her in a movie I didn't like--from Blow Up to Girl, Interrupted. She remains real.
However, she's made a lot of things I haven't seen, so there may be some clinkers in there.
[> [>
Re: Vanessa Redgrave -- mamcu, 18:48:56 08/11/03 Mon
She's been so incredibly good for so long--from Camelot and Blowup through Julia and Howard's End to Girl, Interrupted. She remains real.
But I haven't seen everything she's done.
Re: Question about scythe -- Tyreseus, 19:38:16 08/10/03 Sun
Someone was asking how to get a picture of the scythe. Well, it's on sale at buffyaction.com & there's a pic. Bids are up to over $2000.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2550724717
[>
Well, it is so shiny... -- Pathfinder, 20:03:39 08/11/03 Mon
But feeling the need to go into Giles mode and furiously clean my glasses here. "Good lord, who on earth would pay that much for a show prop. Admittedly, a very shiny show prop, but still..."
GILES: It appears to be paranormal in origin.
WILLOW: How can you tell?
GILES: Well, it's so shiny.
Faith vs Kennedy -- JBone, 20:17:22 08/10/03 Sun
Faith would totally do that. Faith was built to do that. She's the 'do that' girl!
http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html
I haven't heard from everyone, but I believe we have a new tiebreaker Council. All new. I'm not too worried about it for the first match this week. I'm a little hesitant in naming them until I hear back from them all, but they will take us through the remainder of the first round. Second round shifts and on will only last a week. Since things really get shaking then anyway. I guess I could make up a schedule for the second round and send it out to make sure everyone is ready and willing. I'll put that on the must do list. I'm still accepting volunteers for the Council, but they won't have much of a chance on serving in the final rounds. I'm saving that for people who bothered to volunteer in the first round.
There is a place to post comments at the voting site, but I'll continue to include those posted here or emailed to me.
[>
The probable scenario.... -- cjl, 20:47:14 08/10/03 Sun
After anchoring Willow's "nifty" spell, and kicking Ubervamp booty from here to Cleveland, Kennedy is pumped and ready to take on the world. Her GF gives her the enthusiastic thumbs up, and the newbie Slayer is practically swaggering. Then, two minutes before the match, reality sets in: Willow goes over to Faith's corner and begs her not to beat up Kennedy too badly. Faith, a sucker for lesbian romance (she saw a lot of it in prison) has mercy on Da Wonder Brat and leaves enough of Kennedy intact so W/K can enjoy a little post-bout consolation. (Drop and give me twenty, maggot! Faith and her mad skillz, all the way.)
[> [>
Faith and Kennedy would make a swell oil-wrestling match -- Masq, 22:09:26 08/10/03 Sun
[>
Hmm...what a tough choice. -- deeva, 21:25:18 08/10/03 Sun
Not really. Faith can so kick Kennedy's ass. Even with her activated slayerness Kennedy is no match. Sorry, K but you're not even in the same league as Fathie-poo.
[>
Faith and Kennedy in Faith's motel room . . . -- HonorH, 22:26:23 08/10/03 Sun
Am I the only person thinking slashy thoughts here? JBone, what *were* you thinking?
[> [>
Just looked at the stats-- -- HonorH, 22:29:20 08/10/03 Sun
Either there are a lot more Kennedy fans than I thought there were, or more people really hated Faith than I thought. Kinda expected this to go the way of Darla vs. Trick with Faith playing Darla. Huh! Guess you never know.
[> [> [>
You know what's weird? -- deeva, 22:33:24 08/10/03 Sun
When I looked at the stats earlier it was Faith that was ahead, 6-0.
[> [> [> [>
It's getting steadily weirder. -- HonorH, 23:10:58 08/10/03 Sun
This, btw, is coming from someone who *liked* Kennedy, but I'm having a hard time believing she's leading Faith as much as she is. Is something going funky with the votes? Who's voting for Kennedy over Faith, anyway? Just so I can see the why.
[> [> [> [> [>
I'm gonna leave it up for now... -- Jay, 04:54:08 08/11/03 Mon
but I'm highly suspicious. There's stuff all over the comments page that I can barely read.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Yeah, you've come down with a troll, all right. -- HonorH, 10:34:57 08/11/03 Mon
The Netspeak almost made my eyes bleed. I'd wager someone's stuffing the box with Kennedy votes just to be annoying.
[> [>
there are immoral liasons going on there (the fleabag hotel) -- Jay, 16:45:33 08/11/03 Mon
[>
My shameful admission.....I don't like Faith very much.....sob! -- Rufus, 01:28:26 08/11/03 Mon
I just can't help myself...her posturing and horrible dialogue make me think that we saw enough of her in season three. I did however like her interaction with Wes on Angel this year...I bet for her he'd monogram a bucket...;)
[>
The man from the tiebreaker council- he say... -- Tchaikovsky, 02:17:10 08/11/03 Mon
I do really like Kennedy.
But Faith inspired the best cross-show period ever, (This Year's Girl, Who Are You?, Five by Five, Sanctuary).
So I vote Faith.
TCH
[>
Uh, JBone -- KdS, 02:52:43 08/11/03 Mon
I think you have a polyvoting troll on your official comments page.
[> [>
Agreed. I smell another attempted rigging. -- cjl, 06:51:23 08/11/03 Mon
[>
I voted for Faith, and Kennedy was leading! -- Scroll, 08:05:38 08/11/03 Mon
I mean, I like Kennedy and all, but I adore Faith. Maybe I've got the wrong impression but I thought most people on this board preferred Faith over Kennedy. How is it that Kennedy is leading by 50%, with Faith trailing at 49%?
Faith is the original bad girl; Kennedy is just a rich kid who plays at being bad, tongue-ring and all. Faith is the true Slayer and the greatest survivor, the street kid from the rough side of Boston, the one with the snark and the attitude and the jaded, old-before-her-time outlook on life. Faith is the one with the best lines, like "five by five", "want. take. have.", and "because it's wrong". She taught us the five torture groups. She showed us it's possible to find peace in prison. What has Kennedy ever taught us except that she's a verbally abusive drill sergeant?
Faith may have made mistakes in the past, that's true, but she has faced up to the consequences of her actions and continues even now to pay the price. She understands what it means to strive for redemption, knowing that it is something one must work at day after day. Kennedy is a self-proclaimed "brat" who doesn't have the charisma or life experience to tries to emulate, but doesn't quite pull off, Faith's old lust for power and Faith's newer confidence in being the leader. Kennedy, even more than Gwen, is Faith-lite.
Besides, when it comes to sheer sexual magnetism, Kennedy pales in comparison to our girl Faith. Faith is sex on toast. And she will so kick that rich bitch's ass!
[>
Faith all the way! -- AngelVSAngelus, 09:51:45 08/11/03 Mon
Both in terms of which character I vastly enjoy more, and who I objectively think would win hands down in physical combat.
I never really felt that there was any dimension to Kennedy's character beyond hitting on Willow. Faith's 'broken-goods' story of traumatic events leading a person down the wrong path make her an extremely sympathetic character, even at her most villainous.
[>
Repost from comment place. -- ApOpHiS, 17:56:56 08/11/03 Mon
This is more than a simple fight between two young women; this is a living metaphor for the eternal struggle between the valiant Proletariat and the corrupt, vile Bourgeois. Kennedy, the spoiled little rich girl, represents the forces of oppression and greed, while Faith, who lived much of her life on the streets, is the heroine of the working class who must scrape together their livings from the scraps of their despotic masters. It is Faith's destiny to defeat Kennedy, just as it is the Proletariat's destiny to violently overthrow the yoke of the Bourgeois' oppression. A vote for Faith is a vote for the People! Viva la causa! Viva la revolution!
[> [>
Ah, but both switched around -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:17:37 08/11/03 Mon
When given the opportunity, Faith gave up her noble, proletariat caste to join with the corrupt and evil establishment of Mayor Wilkins. She helped exploit the working class people of Sunnydale in order to be provided with the enormous extravangences of the Bourgeois.
Meanwhile, Kennedy redeemed her capitalist upbringing by coming to live in the communal environment of the Summers' house and being part of a low income, hard working group.
While they began as you described, their positions reversed during their lives.
[> [> [>
True, but... -- ApOpHiS, 20:31:10 08/11/03 Mon
Faith's choice to turn her back on the People led to severe reprecussions; she has since seen the error of her ways and returned to the correct side of the struggle. Kennedy, despite helping the People's cause, also spent much of her time engaged in selfish, counter-revolutionary actions, such as sowing disent amongst the Scoobies (ie, suggesting everyone listen to Willow, her lover, rather than Buffy due to Willow's raw power). Her political manuveurings were designed to place her in a position of power, much like the one she was born into but was forced to leave due to the war on the First.
[> [> [> [>
Re: True, but... -- Kenny, 21:51:10 08/11/03 Mon
And let us not forget the finality of these matters. How was each motivated? Faith realized the balance of personal power with the balance of social power. The Potentials (read Slayers) only had power as a group if each believed in herself as Persyn. Kennedy, by the end of Chosen, had not learned the power of freedom through individuality through responsibility that Faith had achieved. Her justification for being "right" was still through privilege. While her alteration of goals is commendable, her justification for such actions is still extremely suspect.
Our Random -- RobBit, 22:20:35 08/10/03 Sun
--secretly needs to check a pocket dictionary when re-reading his own posts
--does not know what "Pip" from Great Expectations is short for...
--...and doesn't care
--has a crush on TCH, for being one of the few who can hold his own in a Poetry Smackdown against him...
--Öbut keeps it to himself
--isn't random at all but quite specific
--likes snuggling a bit too much, if ya know what we mean
--never gets sick. ever.
--always gets to places on timeÖ
--...but then inexplicably stands outside for 5 minutes before going in
--secretly wants to get inside Robís cheerleader outfitÖ
--...Rob still being in at the time would be an added bonus.
--thinks that Caleb and Eveís Southern accents actually werenít too far-offÖ
--Öbut would never admit it, even on threat of death
--falls asleep at the most inopportune moments
--knows Alice in Wonderland by heart, but still kicks himself at night for not being able to commit Buffyís Earshot speech to memory
--never uses Cliff Notes
--wouldnít mind being the middle of a Masq-díH sandwich
--has already been the middle of an Umberto Eco-John Steinbeck sandwich. Long story!
--has a schoolboy crush on Rah
-- Once had a non-naughty thought, but was puzzled by it and tossed it in the "Philosophical Dilemmas" out-box
-- Likes to be a mediator, aspires to be a gladiator...
-- Öbut really likes the control aspect
-- likes to have his hair flowing freely down his back
-- has a master's degree in literature...
-- Öbut starts philosophical threads based on shampoo bottle instructions
--snarks, therefore he is
--is a great friend
Rob and 'Bit
[>
Random can snark? I must have missed that. -- Rufus, 22:25:01 08/12/03 Tue
likes to have his hair flowing freely down his back
Öbut starts philosophical threads based on shampoo bottle instructions
If Random wants to become the 5th Cordette along with me he is going to have to write that post on "conditioner"...it's the next step after shampoo.
[> [>
Pointing out that nowhere in this post does Rufus say "a thing" -- LittleBit, 13:17:44 08/13/03 Wed
[> [> [>
That was that other post, but then I couldn't help myself, things just popped out...;) -- Rufus, 14:07:18 08/13/03 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Re: That was that other post, but then I couldn't help myself, things just popped out...;) -- LittleBit, 15:17:36 08/13/03 Wed
I looked carefully and nowhere in any of your posts in this thread did you use the phrase "a thing" ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: That was that other post, but then I couldn't help myself, things just popped out...;) -- Rufus, 16:18:11 08/13/03 Wed
Okay no things....just conditioner...and you know after conditioner there are these easy to use hair serums that make your hair more silky and shiny...not that I'm saying that Ran needs it.....;)
[>
Preserving... -- Rob, 08:28:37 08/11/03 Mon
[>
Must be preserved! -- Sara, laughing and missing chat, 11:15:28 08/11/03 Mon
[>
LOL! Definitely preserving this! -- Scroll, 20:51:34 08/11/03 Mon
[>
Doing the hokey pokey of preservation. -- Rob, 07:41:19 08/12/03 Tue
[>
Joining in the dance of preservation -- Anneth, 09:32:27 08/12/03 Tue
[>
I never thought it could happen to *me*!! -- Random, 16:57:44 08/12/03 Tue
There I was, blissfully meme-ing other board posters and what should I see but Rob and Bit striking back. What did I ever do to deserve th...oh, right. Nevermind. Love you both.
[> [>
awwwww...[more hugs] -- LittleBit, 21:52:24 08/12/03 Tue
[> [>
Notice....I haven't said a thing.....not a thing.......;) -- Rufus, 22:21:03 08/12/03 Tue
[> [>
awww <hugs> -- Rob, 20:31:24 08/12/03 Tue
My Angel/Buffy/Spike -- Diana, 09:11:23 08/11/03 Mon
Memes aren't really my forte, but I wanted to share how I see this turgid supernatural triangle. It's my story (actually book at this point), so naturally Buffy and Angel are together (though why is the whole point of the story). Spike is still dead because I don't want to have to deal with guessing how he will be brought back, so as VR suggested, this takes place before he comes back. This passage takes place about 1/3rd way into the story and is after Buffy comes back from a shopping spree that Angel had Buffy go on in order to replace what she lost to the Hellmouth. Fred went with her. Also throughout the story, Buffy is acting a bit out of character and Angel is trying to find out what is going on. At one point he suggests having Lorne read her, but this really hurts Buffy, so he takes it back.
Any comments are fine.
******
When they got up to Angelís penthouse, the guards brought Buffyís packages into the living room. They covered the couch and table. Buffy had to go to the bathroom and left as they were doing that. When she got back, she saw Angel in the living room looking over what she got.
ìDid you leave anything at the mall for other people to buy?î he wondered out loud as she came in.
ìItís not all for me,î she said indignantly. ìThis thing is amazing,î she said holding the credit card. ìJust take it out, wave it around and people are falling all over themselves to help you. Itís like magick.î She handed it back to him. ìIt isnít really magick, is it?î Buffy asked.
ìNope. Just good ole basic human greed.î Angel said putting it away. ìSeems you have that down pretty well yourself,î he teased.
ìYou said to do this. Besides, like I said. It isnít all for me. I hope you donít mind. Iím not the only one that lost everything in the line of duty and this would look just perfect on Dawn,î Buffy said holding up a peach sweater. ìCleveland gets really cold, Iíve heard. REALLY cold.î She shivered at the thought. She had only seen snow once in her lifetime.
ìThatís fine,î Angel said taking the sweater and putting it down. Leave it to Buffy to have to get presents for all her friends. It was cute and she was right. They had all lost everything. He was glad that he got the Watchers Councilís funds released for them. Having your own law firm had advantages. They had Giles declared the head of the organization as the only surviving member. It didnít take long, well as long as it should have. His people were still working on insurance claims from the Hellmouth devouring Sunnydale. Buffy had no idea just how powerful the name Wolfram and Hart really was, even without resorting to the supernatural or unethical methods.
Buffy moved some bags and plopped down on the couch. Her exhaustion from the day was starting to really catch up with her. She kicked a few more bags aside and put her feet up on the table. She looked around at everything and started to laugh.
ìI went a tad overboard, didnít I?î she confessed.
ìMaybe,î Angel admitted looking through things, ìbut it looks like you had fun.î
ìI did,î Buffy said finding a little more energy to sustain her a bit longer. ìI havenít done that, well since I became Slayer almost. There was that one time, I went to stay with my father in LA. You remember that summer?î Buffy threw a couple of bags on the floor to make room for Angel. He sat next to her.
ìWould that be after the Master killed you?î Buffy nodded. ìI remember what you were like when you came back,î he said.
ìWell, Iím not like that any more,î she said as she snuggled next to him. ìMy father didnít know how to talk to me, so he just kept buying me things. I canít remember how many shoes I got out of him that summer.î Buffy just sighed contentedly as she snuggled closer to Angel. He closed his eyes and wrapped his arm around her. ìYouíre not doing that, are you?î she asked him.
ìWhat?î he wanted to know.
ìLetting me buy things because you donít know how to talk to me,î Buffy said looking at him. ìíCause Iíll take it all back. Iíd rather you talk to me, Angel. Fred knows more about you than I do. I want to know stuff.î
ìWhat sort of stuff?î Angel responded.
ìAnything. Why did you give me the credit card today? And none of this, thank you gift from the world hallmark crap. The truth Angel.î
ìHonestly?î Angel looked at her. She nodded. ìYou looked sad about the stuff you had lost this summer. I figured this would help a little.î
Buffy stood up and walked away from everything she had just bought. The living room had a nice view of the city. She looked at it for a while, contemplating all that she had lost. Then a smile spread across her face.
ìThatís really sweet,î she said turning around. Angel was standing right behind her and this startled her. ìYou are too good at that, you know,î she scolded him.
ìI guess there are worse things than being too sweet,î he said smiling at her. Buffy laughed a little.
ìNot that. That sneaking up thing you do,î she said. ìXander wanted to tie a bell on you.î They both laughed at that, but Buffyís was forced and didnít last long. She sighed and let Angelís arms envelope her. It felt so good. Still, it couldnít wash away the pain of this past year completely.
ìWhatís wrong?î Angel asked. His voice was sweet and warm and tender and it didnít matter. Buffyís body tensed and she pulled away.
ìNot this again,î she said through clenched teeth. Her arms were folded in front of her and Angel was severely lucky that one of the Slayerís powers isnít the evil eye. Angel was taken aback.
ìWhat?î Angel asked totally confused. Buffy started to storm out, but Angel grabbed her arm. When she glowered at him, he let it go and took a step back with his hands up. ìI didnít mean to upset you like this. Canít we just talk, instead of you running away?î
Buffy walked over to the phone and picked it up. ìCall Lorne,î she ordered him. ìI am sick of this. It stops NOW.î
Angel came over and took the phone from her. He put it back down. He shook his head and started to laugh.
ìIím glad you find this so amusing,î Buffy said, clearly not amused herself. ìI donít and if you donít call him, I will find out his number myself and. . .î Buffy was off on her own rant. Angel managed to contain himself.
ìSorry,î Angel got out. ìI didnít know what else to do. It wasnít ëwhatís wrong,í as in ëwhat deep seated psychological issues is making Buffy flip out.í It was just what was making you sad.î Buffy managed a small giggle herself.
ìSorry,î she said embarrassed that she jumped to conclusions about what Angel meant.
ìSo, whatís making you sad?î Angel asked. Buffy looked at all the stuff she had just bought.
ìI really used to be quite the material girl,î Buffy admitted. She walked over to the couch and sat back down. Angel stayed where he was still looking at her. She looked straight ahead and sighed deeply before continuing. ìThen that all changed.î She looked over at Angel. ìWant to know when?î
ìSure,î he told her.
ìMy seventeenth birthday.î Angel looked down and Buffy looked at the piles in front of her. ìMom was going to take me out for a mom-sponsored shopping spree, but it just didnít seem to matter any more.î She walked over and stood in front of Angel. ìYou mattered, and,î she couldnít go on. She closed her eyes. When she opened them, they were glistening with the tears that wanted to fall. She tried to hold them back. Angel hugged her tightly and she wrapped her arms around him.
ìIím sorry,î he told her. He considered what he did to Drusilla to be his greatest crime. That didnít compare to the simple act of losing his soul with Buffy. If he had tried, he couldnít have devised a worse way to hurt someone. They never spoke of it. What could either of them say? I lost my soul and tormented you and your friends for months, you sent me to hell for a hundred years. Letís call it even? Angel was so grateful that she was there and squeezed her tighter. Buffy returned the squeeze before she pulled away.
ìItís not your fault. It isnít anyoneís.î She could see in Angelís eyes his regret. ìThat isnít why I brought it up. I just wanted to say that I realized what was important then and all that,î she turned around and motioned to the damage she had done to the mall, ìisnít it.î She leaned back into Angel and he put his arms around her waist. She sighed long and deep before she brightened just a little.
ìI wish I could go to the mall and just replace people like I did all those clothes,î Buffy told him still feeling his arms around her.
ìI bet they could do that downstairs,î Angel tried to joke. Buffy tried to laugh at it. She knew Angel was joking and was just trying to make her feel better. It didnít work. She pulled away and walked over to the table loaded with all her purchases. She turned around and looked at Angel.
ìAnya was the definition of materialistic,î Buffy started. ìIn the dictionary, right next to the word capitalist is a picture of Anya. Actually, there is. Willow taped it there one day. Well, not any more. That got sucked into the Hellmouth, too.î Buffy sighed and sat down. Angel came over and sat next to her. He put his hand on hers. ìI think she just wanted some sort of security and maybe could get that through owning things. Maybe?î
ìWere you two close?î Angel asked her.
ìNot sure,î Buffy told him. ìI had to kill her once, so I guess that puts her in the ëBuffy Friends, Family and Loved Onesë category.ì She managed a weak smile. ìOnly one I never had to think about killing was Xander, at least not in the actually way. I sure thought about it when he told Riley about you. And I didnít know it was Giles, so I guess he doesnít count either.î
ìIf itís any consolation, Iím not sure how I feel either,î Angel said.
ìI didnít know you even met Anya.î Buffyís surprise showed. ìDid she come to ëAngelís Workshop for the Formerly Evilí or something?î Angel laughed.
ìNo. I think I met her briefly once or twice,î Angel admitted. ìShe wasnít who I was talking about.î
ìAnd you donít know how you feel?î Buffy looked at him incredulously. îYou hated him Angel.î Now it was Angelís turn to stand up and walk away.
ìHate might not be the right word,î Angel admitted. ìI really didnít think about him much at all. He was more of an annoyance than anything, well except for that time he had me tortured.î Angel thought about it for a beat. ìActually hate might be a very good word.î
ìHe hated you,î Buffy said. ìA lot. Willow told me that he even had the Buffybot programed to insult you.î
ìWhatís the Buffybot?î Angel asked.
ìYou donít want to know,î Buffy said. It took Angel a moment, but he figured out just what it was.
ìYouíve got to be kidding,î he said. Buffy shook her head. ìI donít know why it would surprise me.î Buffy interrupted before Angel could say anything else.
ìThat was before he got his soul,î Buffy said to defend him. ìHe did a lot of good and he died to. . .î Buffy tried, but she just couldnít hold back the tears any more. The floodgates opened and her whole body was racked with the sobs she wouldnít let herself have earlier.
Angel came over to her and put her head on his shoulder. Her tears got him wet, but she just couldnít stop. He said nothing, but sometimes words werenít the best way to comfort someone. When her tears had slowed to a babbling brook, rather than the tsunami that overwhelmed her, she pulled back and looked at Angel.
ìYouíre just loving this, arenít you,î she accused him.
ìNo!î Angelís shock was genuine. ìYou think I like seeing you like this?î She tried to get up, but Angel held her there.
ìYouíre glad heís dead,î she said. Angel looked her straight in the eyes.
ìI said Iím not sure how I feel and I meant it,î by his tone she could tell he did. She didnít know what to say to that. Luckily Angel continued. ìDo you think I liked the idea of the two of you together, souled or unsouled? Hell no. I didnít even like him with Dru. He ALWAYS annoyed me. The curse probably saved his life because I know I would have staked him sooner or later. He was THAT annoying.î
ìNot getting a whole lot of mixed feelings there, Angel,î Buffy said.
ìYou said he had a soul. He had to for the amulet to work.î Angel started trying to figure out how he felt so he could explain it to Buffy.
ìYeah. You went all school yard on me when I told you, if I remember correctly.î Angel remembered it.
ìI donít even know why I did that,î Angel admitted. Buffy was going to say why, but he continued before she got a chance to. ìI knew him without a soul. I didnít know what he was like with one. Well, he seemed to be a loser as a human, but it wasnít like I really knew the guy. If you saw something worth something, I would say it was probably there. He was willing to sacrifice himself like that, so I just donít know how I feel. I didnít know him.î
Buffy had to agree with that. She was going to say something, but Angel continued.
ìBut I still feel like I did. He was that annoying guy that hung all over my little girl and couldnít give her what she needed. They both annoyed the hell out of Darla.î That really made Buffy think. Drusilla as Angelís ìlittle girlî? Talk about creepy, but she could understand it, sort of. ìI mean, I tried to make him into something, but. . . ì Angel didnít know what to say. ìThen again, that wasnít exactly me either.î He looked at Buffy. ìSee, told you I didnít know how I felt.î
ìI know how he felt,î Buffy admitted. ìHe wanted one thing in the entire world, one thing I couldnít give him.î Tears started falling again. It looked like they would make permanent lines on Buffyís face as they eroded away the river bed they traveled in. Angel tried to comfort her, but she pulled away. ìPlease donít,î she said as she got up.
Buffy went back to the window and looked at the bright lights of LA. Then, she looked up at the sky. She couldnít see a single star. Was he up in heaven like she had been? The thought made her smile. The smile was short lived.
ìI actually said it,î she said quietly, still looking out the window. Angel came up silently behind her and put his hands on her shoulders.
ìWhat?î he asked as quietly as she had spoken earlier.
ìI love you,î she said even more quietly.
"I love you, too,î he said hugging her from behind. She turned around to look at him. Her tears were no longer flowing, but her eyes still glistened and her cheeks were still wet.
ìNot that,î she said. ìI mean I do love you,î she started crying again. Angel tried to hug her, but she pulled away and started looking out the window towards heaven. ìHim,î she said. Angel could tell the tears were still flowing. ìI told him ëI love you.íî
ìOh,î was all Angel could say. He forced himself to stay there for her. She turned around.
ìI did love him,î she let Angel know. Angel didnít know how to react to that. Buffy in love with. . . he couldnít even think it. ìLike I do Xander.î Angel wanted to breath a sigh of relief, but figured that was in poor taste, so he didnít. Buffy was still upset and he turned all his attention to her.
ìThat wasnít what he wanted,î Buffy continued. ìI was so proud of him and more than a little overwhelmed by the whole thing. It just seemed like the right thing to say.î Buffy wasnít crying any more. ìWant to know what he said?î
Angel actually did and told her so by nodding his head.
ìNo you donít, but thanks for saying it.î She even did the accent when she said it, but there was just a hint of anger to her voice. She shook her head and let Angel draw her into his embrace. She closed her eyes and just absorbed how she felt.
ìItís ok not to know how you are feeling,î Angel let her know.
ìMakes sense,î Buffy admitted. ìIt wasnít like I had a clue when he was alive. Why should his death be any different?î She managed a small laugh. She looked behind Angel to all those packages and shook her head. Had she tried to cover up the grief she wouldnít let herself feel by buying all of that? Well, she did need it and she did have a blast with Fred tonight. Maybe you could go to the mall and replace people. Not replace exactly, but make new friends.
Buffy brightened tenfold. She stood on her tip toes and gave Angel a kiss that let him know how much she appreciated him. He responded in kind.
[>
great post NT -- Deacon, 15:02:55 08/11/03 Mon
,
Sid the demon-hunting dummy -- purplegrrl, 09:29:36 08/11/03 Mon
"The Puppet Show" is one of the few episodes that I didn't totally get. Maybe because I never had to participate in a high school talent show. Or maybe because I never really understood why Sid the ventriloquist's dummy with a consciousness was also a demon fighter, and why he had to kill a certain number (or certain demons) to be released from his "karmic duty."
Of course, I liked the theme that you can't judge anyone by their appearance, or even sometimes by their actions. And I liked the part where Giles almost gets the top of his head guillotined off [I'm sort of "off" that way ;-)] and the way the curtain opens on this surreal tableau that Snyder just doesn't get. But I really loved the bit over the end credits of Buffy, Willow, and Xander butchering "Eudipes" (spelling??).
[>
Why Sid was a demon fighter... -- ZachsMind, 11:27:53 08/11/03 Mon
From Puppet Show:
SID: This is what I do. I hunt demons. Yeah, you wouldn't know it to look at me. Let's just say there was me, there was a really mean demon, there was a curse, and the next thing I know I'm not me anymore. I'm sitting on some guy's knee, with his hand up my shirt.
WILLOW: And ever since then you've been a living dummy?
SID: The kid here was right all along. I shoulda picked you to team up with. But I didn't because...
BUFFY: Because you thought *I* was the demon.
SID: Who can blame me for thinking? Look at you! You're strong, athletic, limber... nubile... I'm back! In any case, now that this demon's got the heart and brain, he gets to keep the human form he's in for another seven years.
GILES: I must say, it's a welcome change to have someone else explain all these things.
SID: There were seven of these guys. I've killed six. If I can get the last one, the curse will be lifted and I'll be free. I'm sure it's someone in that stupid talent show...
And it was. And they did. And it was lifted. And he was free. The end. =)
[> [>
Re: Why Sid was a demon fighter... -- purplegrrl, 11:55:49 08/11/03 Mon
Yeah, I know what they said in the episode. But it seemed such a throwaway line to focus an episode on a sentient ventriloquist's dummy that fights demons. Maybe some backstory or a flashback would have helped more.
Maybe it's just me!! ;-)
Besides, if there was ONE demon that cursed Sid, why does he have to kill SEVEN demons to be able to move on?? Is that the curse?? Sid just needed to be a little more forthcoming with the info. But it seems that Giles knew what was going on -- he accepted Sid's vagueness as an explanation.
I guess we just got better explanations (for me at least) for stuff like this in other episodes.
[> [> [>
Well... -- ZachsMind, 12:54:28 08/11/03 Mon
I think the writer just liked the concept of a ventriloquist dummy being either a demon or a demon hunter, and only put as much thought as necessary into getting the premise to work for that episode. It was hurried exposition towards the end there. I liked Giles' flippant comment about how for once he wasn't the one who had to explain everything just before the climactic finale.
I personally always thought it a shame they let Sid 'meet his maker' so to speak at the end of that episode. Seeing Sid show up once every other season woulda been kinda cute. There's a handful of other characters who I woulda liked to see again, like the invisible girl, or Amy's mom (still trapped in that little cheerleading statue last we knew). I guess some questions will just never get answered. *shrug*
[> [> [> [>
Re: Well... -- DEN, 17:02:54 08/11/03 Mon
And there's something both poignant and foreshadowy aboutthe climax, with Sid suddenly slumping forward, nothing any more but a ventriloquist's dummy. That memory stayed with me long after the rest of the ep faded.
[> [>
"The end." - or is it? (Spoilers for Chaos Bleeds, the upcoming videogame) -- whistler, 08:04:43 08/12/03 Tue
I don't know exactly how or why, but Sid will appear in the next videogame that should come out this month - and takes place in the 5th season.
[>
Re: Sid the demon-hunting dummy -- neaux, 05:24:33 08/12/03 Tue
well maybe your questions will be answered with the next Buffy the Vampire Slayer Video Game.
Sid will actually be part of the storyline!
Who Is Angel? -- Claudia, 14:19:11 08/11/03 Mon
Who is Angel? Is he part of the Liam/Angeleus personality? Or is he a construct that is a result of the 19th century Romany gypsies' curse? Since his soul is cursed, doesn't that make all the good that Angel has achieved, meaningless? At least for him?
[>
Re: Who Is Angel? -- skeeve, 12:07:06 08/13/03 Wed
What do you mean by "who"?
What data are you asking for?
On what matters of taste or morals
are you asking for a decision?
Regarding the reality of Angel: Fragility is not the same as
unreality.
[>
Re: Who Is Angel? -- ZachsMind, 15:07:25 08/11/03 Mon
My theory is that "Angel" is a composite of sorts, and one of definitely two and potentially more alternate personalities which comprise the Liam/Angelus personality merger. The souling of the vampire Angelus by the gypsies was a traumatic event - moreso because it happened without any warning and against the wishes of the vampire. "Angel" is the psyche's attempt to attain sanity amidst the maelstrom. Liam is no more, really. he died when Darla sired Angelus. However, when Angelus was resouled, the evil personality became recessive - ever-present but unable to control the host body. The human soul took dominance. It can be argued that this is Liam returned, but I beg to differ. IF it's Liam, it's a Liam who is bombarded with a century of cruelty done in his stead, for which he must take responsibility. The Liam personality alone was obviously incapable of withstanding the guilt, and so this third personality was built by the psyche, to work as a bridge between the extremes.
He's still trying to figure out who he is even over two hundred years later. Doesn't give much hope to those of us who get about half that much time to figure things out. You can see many of the pieces of this puzzle over at Masq's place.
[> [>
Re: Who Is Angel? -- Claudia, 15:14:51 08/11/03 Mon
[""Angel" is the psyche's attempt to attain sanity amidst the maelstrom."]
Again, this doesn't make sense, especially if Angeleus became Angel against his will in the first place.
[> [> [>
Angel as a case of Multiple Personality Disorder -- ZachsMind, 18:18:39 08/11/03 Mon
Of course it makes sense.
Multiple Personality Disorder, aka Dissociative Identity Disorder, is a condition of the mind in which two or more personalities appear to inhabit the same body. Technically, these different personalities are actually facets of the same personality. From the perspective of the individual affected they are separate entities. This is widely believed to be a coping mechanism that the average human brain is capable of doing, in an attempt to sort of partition the brain and separate memories about traumatic events. It allows the conscious mind to distance itself from these memories, so that it can attempt to live a normal life. However, and this cannot be emphasized enough, these are not separate people. They're different manifestations of the same psyche, and the overall mental identity itself splits itself into pieces, in order to separate the part of itself which cannot cope from those memories causing it too much stress.
Angel and Angelus and Liam are the same guy. They're just separate manifestations of the same psyche, and there may be other manifestations as well that we have not yet seen.
Scientists believe real MPD/DID occurs most often due to childhood trauma. An example is parental abuse or neglect of a physical or emotional nature that is so great it's not possible for the individual to fathom the memories. So the unconscious mind invents a separate entity that is better able to cope, gives those memories to that individual, and then locks that personality away, allowing a more dominant personality to handle every day activities in the present.
We do not know if Liam's father was abusive, but it's probable considering their mutual attitude in the flashbacks before we see Liam sired by Darla and turned into Angelus. So it's very possible that Liam was a MPD/DID type before the bloodletting. If so, vampirism just exacerbated it. If not, then the trauma that occurred when Angelus was resouled by the gypsies was so great, it caused the psyche to schism.
Here's the deal. Angelus couldn't deal with feeling good things and wanting to do good deeds. However, when the soul returned, he began to feel revulsion at the very things he had been enjoying. He began to feel guilt. He began to feel pain and frustration and doubt and a bunch of other stuff. The evil in him was repulsed by this revulsion. He hated himself for hating himself and this started a feedback loop. He could not be both evil and good in one psyche. So rather than allowing himself to completely accept and forgive himself, Angelus kept the darkness of his psyche together and partitioned