February 2002 posts
Guilt, the ultimate refuge of scoundrels? -- abt, 02:10:28 02/01/02
Fri
I read this article by a self-help Rabbi, and thought of Angel's
situation. I've heard this Rabbi come out with some (IMO) weird
ideas, but I thought this one was interesting.
purpose of guilt
selected section:-
"Guilt is an emotion which allows people to do bad things
and still feel like they are good people. Guilt is the ultimate
escape clause from the human obligation to be a good person and
do the right thing. Indeed, guilt becomes the justification for
bad behavior because it tells us that we are still good no matter
what evil we do just so long as we feel remorseful.
Imagine this: A man knocks on your door and tells you he is hungry.
He asks for something to eat. You look at him and decide he doesn't
look poor enough. "Come back when you really look emaciated,"
you tell him. You slam the door and he leaves. At first, you feel
good, really proud of yourself. "There, I didn't give in
to that parasite. Let him get a job, the lazy loafer." But
a few minutes later, suddenly and unexpectedly, you are racked
with guilt. You feel bad. Now what does this emotion achieve?
Why do you suddenly feel bad about what you have done when just
a few moments before you had no qualms whatsoever?
Because this way you can avoid giving money to the poor and still
feel like you are a good person. If you had simply turned the
guy away and not felt any pangs of conscience, then that would
be proof that you are selfish, insensitive, and basically wicked.
But now, since you feel guilty about your actions, you can get
away with not giving and still be good. After all, you felt bad
that you turned him away, right? Doesn't that show that deep inside
you are a caring person? It is in this way that guilt actually
serves as a barrier between you and your ugliness. It dresses
up your selfishness and painlessly converts it to goodness. Now
you can be good and still keep your money in the process! What
guilt does, in effect, is assuage the conscience. It lets you
have your cake and eat it too. Because it is goodness without
sacrifice, being good without doing good, guilt is the ultimate
form of hypocrisy. That's also why guilt is the ultimate refuge
of scoundrels."
What do you think? Does feeling guilt allow us to deceive ourselves
that we are good? He goes on to say that it isn't a productive
emotion. I disagree with that part, I think guilt can make one
change one's ways for the better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Guilt, the ultimate refuge of scoundrels? -- Rufus,
05:53:23 02/01/02 Fri
Guilt is productive only if you do something about it. Angel didn't
for the first few decades or so. He hid from his responsibility,
hid from the pain of the wrongs he had done. He ended up sprawled
in an alley drinking from rats. When Whistler found him it was
the first step in many that caused Angel to do more than sit on
his ass feeling guilty, or actually sorry for himself. His actions
in setting up AI at least do something to balance the scale by
helping potential victims instead of ignoring their suffering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The rabbi seems to want people to feel guilty about
feeling guilty. Bizarre. -- Cactus Watcher, 07:02:19 02/01/02
Fri
There are simpler ways to say don't do things you'd feel guilty
about. ;o)
Rufus' point seems self-evident to me. But, it is a good point,
and she didn't ramble on and on to make it. If I needed advice
I'd rather go to her than this rabbi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: productive guilt and Angel -- yez, 09:39:29 02/01/02
Fri
I agree it can be productive when we take action because of it.
Re: Angel, while I can understand how he might feel guilty if
he experiences the memories of what the demon did in the first
person (i.e., he sees everything that happened *literally* through
the demon's eyes), in actuality, the human Angel is *not* resonsible
for anything the demon Angel did. I can understand him trying
to reclaim his body, so to speak, by correcting the wrongs that
were done using it as a tool or otherwise trying to make up for
it. But technically, he isn't responsible. How could those who
sit in judgment (if they exist in the Buffy- and Angel-verse)
hold those things against him, if he were able to come to terms
with the fact that, while the memories may be confusing, he didn't
actually do those things?
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: productive guilt and Angel -- Rufus, 12:56:54
02/01/02 Fri
I can't agree with you that Angel is technically not guilty because
"he" wasn't there....I think the point is that he was
there but lacked enough empathy to care about what he was doing.
The vampire is a demon/human hybrid that results from a bite that
infects the host with the original demons soul....an infection,
possession. The person is still there, acting on their most base
emotions.
If it was true that Angel was not there in any way why say this....
Transcript from Angel(season one)
Buffy: Why? (gets up) Why didn't you just attack me when you had
the chance? Was it a joke? To make me feel for you and then...
I've killed a lot of vampires. I've never hated one before.
Angel: Feels good, doesn't it? Feels simple.
Buffy: I invited you into my home and then you attacked my family!
Angel: Why not? I killed mine. I killed their friends... and their
friend's children... For a hundred years I offered ugly death
to everyone I met, and I did it with a song in my heart.
Buffy: What changed?
Angel: Fed on a girl about your age... beautiful... dumb as a
post... but a favorite among her clan.
Buffy: Her clan?
Angel: Romany. Gypsies. The elders conjured the perfect punishment
for
me. They restored my soul.
Buffy: What, they were all out of boils and blinding torment?
Angel: When you become a vampire the demon takes your body, but
it doesn't get your soul. That's gone! No conscience, no remorse...
It's an easy way to live. You have no idea what it's like to have
done the things I've done... and to care. I haven't fed on a living
human being since that day.
Add to that Liams first act as a vampire in The Prodigal:
Cut to Angel's father nailing up his window from the inside.
Angel: "You're no different from the rest of them, - are
you, father? (His father spins around and stares at him) Cowering
in their houses - boarding up the windows - smearing that foul
herb in the doorways. You'd think something evil - and vile -
and monstrous - had taken to terrorizing this village -and everyone
in it."
Dad: "Be gone, unclean thing! A demon can not enter a home
where it's not welcome. He must be invited!"
Angel: "That's true. - But I was invited."
Angel looks to the doorway. His father turns and sees little Kathy
slumped against the wall.
Dad: "Och!"
Angel: "She thought I returned to her - an angel."
Dad spins around and charges Angel with the hammer in his hand.
Dad: "Murderer!"
Angel easily pushes the attack aside, making his dad fall to the
ground.
Angel: "Strange. - Somehow you seemed taller when I was alive."
Dad flattens himself up against the wall: "Lord, bind this
demon now."
Angel: "To think I ever let such a tiny, trembling thing
make me feel the way you did."
Dad crosses himself: "I pray ye, give me your protection,
Father."
Angel: "You told me I wasn't a man. (Slowly stalks closer
to his dad) You told me I was nothing. - and I believed you. You
said I'd never amount to anything. (His dad stares at him with
wide-open eyes) Well, you were wrong. (Angel morphs into vamp
face) You see, father? - I have made something out of myself after
all."
Angel puts a hand over his father's face and bites him. They slowly
slide down the wall and out of the picture.
Darla: "This contest is ended, is it?"
Angel has his feet up on the table playing with his father's pipe.
His family lies dead around him.
Angel: "Now I've won."
Darla: "You're sure?"
Angel puts his feet down and picks up a mug of ale: "Of course.
I proved who had the power here."
Darla: "You think?"
Angel: "What?"
Darla: "You're victory over him took but moments."
Angel looks over at the body of his father and gets up: "Yes?"
Darla: "But his defeat of you will last life times."
Angel: "What are you talking about? He can't defeat me now."
Darla: "Nor can he ever approve of you - in this world or
any other. - What we once were informs all that we have become.
(Angel looks at his father's body) The same love will infect our
hearts - even if they no longer beat. (Angel looks at his mother's
and his sister's body) Simple death won't change that."
Angel: "Love? - Is this the work of love?"
Darla steps closer and smiles up at him: "Darling boy. -
So young. Still so very young."
(Again beautiful score music through this whole scene)
For any of Angel's current deeds to have true impact it has to
be because he is truly guilty of the acts he says "he"
did. Without that being true his quest for redemption is false
and meaningless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: productive guilt and Angel -- yez,
13:44:22 02/01/02 Fri
Rufus wrote: "I can't agree with you that Angel is technically
not guilty because "he" wasn't there....I think the
point is that he was there but lacked enough empathy to care about
what he was doing. The vampire is a demon/human hybrid that results
from a bite that infects the host with the original demons soul....an
infection, possession. The person is still there, acting on their
most base emotions. If it was true that Angel was not there in
any way why say this...."
My understanding of how a vampire works is slightly different.
I've understood that the demon is a parasite that takes over the
body -- including whatever memories may be burned into the neural
pathways -- but doesn't get the human soul. As you quoted: "Angel:
When you become a vampire **the demon takes your body, but it
doesn't get your soul. That's gone!**"
And in the scene you cited, you can see that Liam's father doesn't
appeal to his son, because Angel is no longer his son -- instead,
he treats the demon he faces as a stranger.
As far as Angel's action go, from what I understand, the demon
*is* informed by the human's past -- it inherits all the human's
memories, and so Angel takes "revenge" on his father
because he can feel the anger and pain that Liam felt. However,
the human's soul, his core self, is no longer present in the body.
When the gypsies first reinstate Angel's soul in the curse, I
believe they have to reclaim it from "the ether" ("Becoming,
Part I). When that's done, there's a moment before that human
soul has access to the memories the demon created.
Another example is when Angel's "moment of true happiness"
with Buffy breaks the curse, he loses his soul again, and the
demon is back in control. The demon retains the obsession with
Buffy, but its distorted by the demon's nature, and he proceeds
to torment her.
You also said: "For any of Angel's current deeds to have
true impact it has to be because he is truly guilty of the acts
he says "he" did. Without that being true his quest
for redemption is false and meaningless."
I have to admit that I'm only caught up to season 3 of BtVS, and
I've only been watching Angel for this last season. So, I imagine
it's possible that the writers have tweaked things so that Angel's
story has become a redemption saga -- that's a theme that always
resonates. However, based on what I have seen of how things began,
IMHO, it isn't *technically* one because Angel's human soul could
no more guide Angel's behavior than anyone else could.
As I said before, I can understand how, after getting his human
soul back, Angel would *feel* somehow responsible (and therefore,
guilty) even if he technically wasn't: he may experience the demon's
memories in the first person, he may rebel against the feelings
of being out of control and helpless by wanting to take responsibility,
he may want to reclaim his body by taking responsibility for the
things it was involved in while he wasn't in it. But I would think
that after so many years, he would have made peace with the fact
that he was not in control, and so, not responsible.
I guess I just thought Angel's mission now was to fight for good
because he's specially suited for it and he wants to make a difference.
Not because he was trying to seek redemption. Please correct any
of my misconceptions. As I said, I'm a relative newcomer to the
shows.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Remember you asked for it.............:):):):)
-- Rufus, 15:09:19 02/01/02 Fri
Season one....
Creation of the Vampire ....The Harvest....season one
The library. The globe is spinning. Giles stops it while he lectures
and makes his way down to where Buffy, Willow and Xander are at
the table.
Giles: This world is older than any of you know. Contrary to popular
mythology, it did not begin as a paradise. For untold eons demons
walked the Earth. They made it their home, their... their Hell.
But in time they lost their purchase on this reality. The way
was made for mortal animals, for, for man. All that remains of
the old ones are vestiges, certain magicks, certain creatures...
Buffy: And vampires.
Xander: Okay, this is where I have a problem. See, because we're
talking about vampires. We're having a *talk* with vampires in
it.
Willow: Isn't that what we saw last night?
Buffy: No. No, th-those weren't vampires, those were just guys
in thundering need of a facial. Or maybe they had rabies. It could
have been rabies. A-and that guy turning to dust? Just a trick
of light. (Xander gives her a look) That's exactly what I said
the first time I saw a vampire. Well, after I was done with the
screaming part.
Willow: Oh, I, I need to sit down. Buffy: You are sitting down.
Willow: Oh. Good for me.
Xander: So vampires are demons?
Giles: The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed
off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed,
infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and
so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing their
blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the
animals to die out, and the old ones to return.
I was very specific about the vampire being the result of an infection
a possession because that's what the transcripts say. I think
this is very important because I see the infection as a negative
supplement. What is gone is the soul, what is left is the rest
animated by the demon supplement. If it was just a case of the
soul being the only thing that makes one human then Angel would
have been redeemed by the return of his soul. I think it's more
than him feeling guilty over what the resident demon infection
has compelled him to do, I see it as a direct metaphor for an
addiction such as alcoholism where the demon infection acts in
a similar way to liquor...lowers the inhibitions allowing for
a vampire to act without guilt and remorse.
The scene with Angel's father is one to look carefully at. His
father never saw Liam as anything but a demon, a womanizer, layabout,
waste of space. When Angel/Liam arrives back on his doorstep,
his father doesn't really treat him much differently than before
except that he is now afraid of the power of the demon that Liam
has become. Angelus still see's his father....as his father, dying
didn't change who he was but how he interacted with the world.
Angel has always been about redemption all you have to do is listen
to what Doyle said in the beginning. If the return of Angel's
soul is all that was needed for the world to be right, then why
go through all this pain to redeem himself......I feel that it's
because he is a dry drunk atoning for what he did while drunk.
The vampire surely becomes drunk with new physical power, the
ability to take what they want. Then add in that demon need to
feed and kill, you have quite the monster. Angel was the worst
of them shaped by his insecurities in life, doomed to follow a
pattern of killing to finally win the contest he lost to his father
when he killed him.....he can only win for the moment that a victim
dies, quickly losing the thrill as the realization that the victim
can no longer appreciate the outcome of the contest.
Don't get me started on how evil the curse the gypsies did on
Angel was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Remember you asked for
it.............:):):):) -- yez, 15:29:22 02/01/02 Fri
"Don't get me started on how evil the curse the gypsies did
on Angel was."
And don't get me started about murkiness and potential inconsistencies
the Buffy and Angel writers/creators have left regarding what
exactly vampires are, what exactly the soul is, why vampires are
evil, etc. :)
Thanks for citing that opening explanation, I didn't remember
it. However, I actually don't think it contradicts my understanding.
It's not clear that "human form" means the demon took
on the human's body, took human shape, or whether both souls existed
in the "form" simultaneously, as they do in Angel right
now.
The point where I think we do agree is that the gypsy curse was
"evil." I think it would be clear why I felt that way
(Liam's soul is tormented equally with the demon's), but I'm not
sure why you do.
I was just thinking yesterday when I saw "Becoming, I"
how ironic Buffy's resurrection and her problems with it are,
considering she led the charge to do the same to Angel, theoretically
-- pulling his soul from wherever it was and recursing it. Actually,
for me, that situation would be your most compelling argument.
After all, why bother saving Angel (without his human soul)?
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fuel for the fire
-- MrDave, 23:05:02 02/01/02 Fri
This is from the 2nd Season Ep "Lie to Me"
BUFFY: Let me explain this to you. You're what we call the bad
guy.
FORD: I guess I am. Cool.
BUFFY: These people aren't gonna get changed, are they? You, maybe,
in exchange for me, but the rest of them -- they're just fodder.
FORD: Technically, yes. But I'm in. I will become immortal.
BUFFY: I got a newsflash, braintrust. That's not how it works.
You die. And a demon sets up shop in your old house. It walks
and talks and remembers your life but
it's not you.
FORD: It's better than nothing.
Clearly, Buffy has had some more "training" since the
first season. Giles is doing his job in keeping her up to date
on how things work. It really seems rather intuitive to me. You
die. Your Soul moves on to whatever next dimension you have tickets
to. A demonic essence (I kind of like the idea of it being a "contagion")
takes over. Your body is re-animated and transformed by the demonic
essence. Body and mind remain, soul is departed. The mind with
no ethical compass (soul) is influenced by the demonic essence
(and is therefore motivated by "evil")
Restoration of the soul (ala Angel) just suppresses the demonic
nature (but does not eliminate it) and restores the soul to the
body. In the Jossverse the Hellenistic ideal of the Body/Mind/Soul
is in full force. The mind and body remain...the soul only changes
the ethics of the perception.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Soul, ugh, what
is it good for? Absolutely nothing? -- yez, 05:50:20 02/02/02
Sat
Yes, good example. That's what I had understood. Good points.
Where it gets confusing for me is in trying to grasp what Whedon
et al think the soul does. At first, it was easy to say that,
as you put it, the soul is the "ethical compass." Angel
is a perfect example of that, because we've seen him before and
after. Or at least afterlife and after...
But the problem for me comes with what seems to be the connection
between lack of ethical/moral compass and evilness. Vampires,
again and again, are described as inherently, unalterably evil.
Yet, what are we supposed to do with Spike's behavior over the
last 2 seasons? He's been a good boy -- he's been better than
many humans -- and it isn't the function of a soul. And what about
the humans who are acting in "evil" ways?
So, if the human soul is the moral/ethical compass, how do we
explain humans (presumably with souls) who act in "evil"
ways, and a vampire who works in good ways?
Also, what do we do with vampires who work more or less ethically,
who love and are loyal, who suffer, etc., to their own kind --
even if they aren't to their food source? Humans, generally, don't
treat their own food sources a hell of a lot better.
And can it really be argued that the human soul is in some ways
an *inherent* compass for morality? That we're born with morality
and it's not a product of what we're taught or what we experience
to a large extent?
Lot-o-questions.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Soul,
ugh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing? -- Rufus, 16:14:33
02/02/02 Sat
The Paley Festival, March 30, 2001
Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of
a soul is? And what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires,
because it becomes clear from both Buffy and Angel that vampires
have human emotions and human attachments. So is that a conscience?
And then what separates vampires from humans if it is a conscience?"
JW: "Um, very little. (laugh) Essentially, souls are by their
nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are
guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be
good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided
simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe
in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people
believe in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to
someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that
person happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has
sort of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting
more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural
bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos
where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's
really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but
they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're
all sort of somewhere in the middle."
So, if the human soul is the moral/ethical compass, how do we
explain humans (presumably with souls) who act in "evil"
ways, and a vampire who works in good ways?
The above comments from the Paley Festival were made last year
by Joss in reaction to a question from the audience. The point
is that their simple explanation of the soul wasn't cutting it
for me when you consider just how much of the person who once
was still existed in the vampire. Then tack on the capacity for
evil that lives in each one of everyones little hearts then the
divide between the demon and human is smaller than you'd think.
A soul isn't a guarantee that other elements such as hate, greed,
and lust can't enter the situation and cause a person to become
every bit as evil as a demon, more so if you think about the head
start the inner compass of the human. But when you think of both
demon and human behavior starting at the similar mid point of
a spectrum of good and evil you can see that the potential exists
for either to become attracted to the opposite star to what their
inner compass directs them to. As you don't find many truly evil
humans, you wouldn't find many truly good souless demons. But
the potential is there. To me it's only human conceit that refused
to acknowledge that fact. The same sort of singular thinking spawns
racism ect, and the isolation that the vampire is the metaphor
for. Just my opinion...:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Soul, ugh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing? -- yez, 07:52:27
02/04/02 Mon
I agree that would be a more complex portrayal and exploration.
But I just don't think that's what we're seeing or meant to see
onscreen.
Thanks for sharing tha answer, though.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Guilt - an emotion, a choice -- Eric, 10:46:07
02/03/02 Sun
I think the rabbi is full of it. Guilt is an emotion. Its an emotion
a person feels after realizing they did something bad. If they
use the feeling itself to boost their self image, its a choice
they make. Good people that do REALLY bad things and realize it
are too overcome by their guilt to worry about self image. In
fact, their self image itself is so degraded they often contemplate
suicide. They might do that, or they could re assess who they
really are. Doing that they assume responsibility for their action,
suffer whatever punishment is offered and change their life for
the better. Their behavior becomes based on what they're doing
NOW rather than what they did in the past. (Sound familiar, AtS
fans?) Also a choice.
Either is SO much better than a person who commits a crime and
buries the guilt and even the memory in denial. They torment themselvses
and even open the possibility for more crimes. (Sound familiar
Faith fans?) Some people, sociopaths, have no guilt at all. They're
scary people, but few and mostly working as elite commandos types
or rubber room occupants. Worse are those who deny the guilt and
even try to pretend their denial gives them the "advantage"
of a sociopath. The ability to kill without remorse often seems
powerful to the immature. They may be tempted to "prove"
their "advantage" further.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Guilt, the ultimate refuge of scoundrels? -- Rufus,
05:54:29 02/01/02 Fri
Guilt is productive only if you do something about it. Angel didn't
for the first few decades or so. He hid from his responsibility,
hid from the pain of the wrongs he had done. He ended up sprawled
in an alley drinking from rats. When Whistler found him it was
the first step in many that caused Angel to do more than sit on
his ass feeling guilty, or actually sorry for himself. His actions
in setting up AI at least do something to balance the scale by
helping potential victims instead of ignoring their suffering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMG news (slightly OT) -- vampire hunter D, 12:49:16 02/01/02
Fri
OK, here's a little thing I found on Sarah's latest project:
"Real life couple Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze
Jr. provide voices for the animation feature Happily N'Ever After.
The story is about a young princess whose real love is a dishwasher.
Sigourney Weaver voices the evil stepmother who tries to rain
on everyone's parade. The film is directed by Gerhard Hahn and
written by Rob Moreland"
I fear for Sarah now. She's been reduced to doing movies for her
(soon to be) deadbeat boyfriend. Let's face it, Freddie's career
is already breathing it's last gasps. It will be over before he
is 30. And if Sarah keeps doing project like this, her's will
be over almost as soon. And then, maybe we will be able to go
into a burger place and find Buffy the vampire Slayer asking us
"Do you want fries with that?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: SMG news (slightly OT) -- Sebastian, 13:19:05 02/01/02
Fri
i agree. although outside of 'btvs', SMG's latest movies have
not been well-received. she wrapped a movie called 'harvard man'
that was released as an indie - and the few reviews it has generated
have been rather dismal.
here's hopin' that the live action version of 'scooby doo' she
is starring in (as daphne!) doesn't turn out to be a disaster.
but i digress......
its rather ironic, considering that the expectation was that FP's
career was going to be brighter than SMG's (only because of the
fact that he does movies, opposed to say, to doing a TV show.)
also, SMG was featured as an 'up & comer' in entertainment weekly's
annual 'power in hollywood' issue a few months ago.
- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> lone person with opinion -- Liz, 13:34:31 02/01/02
Fri
I really liked _Cruel Intentions._ It was interesting, it was
well acted, and it was a damn good adaptation of the original.
And the sound editing was lovely.
In fact I started watching Buffy because of that movie. I knew
nothing about any of the actors ahead of time and I quickly said,
"Sarah Michelle Gellar, who is that? I must see more of what
she does. Oh, she's in that Buffy show that people at work keep
talking about."
Though I have to agree that I haven't liked any of her other movies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: lone person with opinion -- Rattletrap,
14:05:28 02/01/02 Fri
SMG was great in Cruel Intentions, though I thought the movie
was on the whole a bit lacking. She did a good job doing Glenn
Close's part without trying to do it like Glenn Close did. I would
have liked to see a bit more interaction between she and Reese
Witherspoon's character, just for the opportunity to see two of
the most talented young actresses in the business playing directly
opposite each other.
SMG, and most of the Buffy crew, will have problems w/ movie careers
for a long time to come because of BtVS. TV stars can only very
rarely produce long-running and successful movie careers, often
because everyone irrevocably associates them with one specific
character. The problem is worse for women than men because Hollywood's
obsession with youth and beauty makes it much more difficult for
women, however talented, to maintain careers after 35 or so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: lone person with opinion -- Sebastian,
14:28:48 02/01/02 Fri
dont get me wrong...i liked 'cruel intentions'. i, too, thought
it was a clever adaptation.
i was referring to her stint in 'simply irresistible' along with
'the harvard man' as her latest movies that have not received
popular or critical acclaim.
her other movies ('cruel intentions' and 'i know what you did
last summer') were very well-received either commerically or critically.
'scream 2' doesnt count since she died after the first five minutes
she appeared. :-P
as a sidebar.....which ties into 'trap's comments about character
association....it was an odd experience to watch SMG get 'beat
down' in both 'scream2' and 'iknowwhatyoudid' only because i expected
her character to open up a can of buffy-whup-ass and trounce the
attacker.
because the cast does *such* a good job as these characters -
its going to be hard for viewers to see them as anyone else (i
remember reading that SMG colored her hair to further distance
herself from looking like 'buffy'.)
also, and correct me if i'm wrong, the actors from 'buffy' tend
to be very distinctive looking people and cant just play *any*
character despite their acting prowess - because certain physical
charcateristcs are *so* heavily associated with who they play.
although, it seems out of all of the main scoobs - alyson hannigan
seems to be having the easiest time in doing other stuff with
(the 'american pie' movies and frequent guest stints on mtv shows).
- S (clearly bored at work and waiting for that damn last hour
here to wind down). :-P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: SMG news (slightly OT) -- Eric, 14:10:10 02/01/02 Fri
SMG has beauty, talent, and brains. Some of her movies may suck
and disappoint BtVS fans, but every star has those. Tom Hanks
in Joe vs. the Volcano, etc. Freddie Prinz Jr. should have nothing
to do with it. If her career peters out, its only due to a lack
of ambition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: SMG news (slightly OT) -- Celialite, 14:59:18 02/01/02
Fri
It's more than likely that doing a voiceover is the only thing
she has time for at this point. She is the star of a TV show with
outrageous shooting scheduled and she just finished post-production
on a major feature film.
Odds are, she took the voiceover job to (1) earn a few more bucks
and (2) more importantly, to have some extra time with her love.
I thought she was excellent in Cruel Intentions also, and really
had fun with Simply Irristable even though it wasn't the best
film.
Buffy is not my favorite character, but I do have quite a bit
of respect for SMG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> SMG future -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 00:01:04
02/03/02 Sun
There are precedents for actors being so identified with a single
character it damages their future careers. Leonard Nimoy has fought
Spock for three decades -- unsuccessfully, despite his substantial
talent, stage and screen credentials, and years in the business.
Dana Delany, also someone I think is quite good, has been stuck
in McMurphy of China Beach for about a decade and seems to have
disappeared.
Becoming too successful too soon may be a long-term problem. Oddly
enough, being an ensemble actor or receiving second billing may
be a relative plus; you can build a track record of versatility
BEFORE you become a household word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: SMG news (slightly OT) -- Andy, 18:53:38 02/01/02 Fri
This animated film holds no indication of what her career might
become. Animated movies like this are things that actors practically
just spit out when they're bored and want easy money. They're
all over the place and none of them really affect the voice actors'
careers one way or another (unless maybe it's really, really high
profile, like Robin Williams in Aladdin). Scooby Doo will be vastly
bigger for Gellar than this. Even then, it's kind of premature
to make any judgments on her career until Buffy ends and she's
able to make movies more steadily, instead of just doing one per
year during her summer break.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What happens to JM after Buffy ends? -- LeeAnn,
01:38:22 02/02/02 Sat
I'm much more concerned with what will happen to James Marster
than SMG. Hope he has a lot of opportunities..but that doesn't
seem to be happening for him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What happens to JM after Buffy ends? --
Dyna, 09:38:19 02/02/02 Sat
Generally in interviews when James is asked what he'd like to
do after "Buffy," he talks about returning to the theater.
He was well-regarded as an actor and director in live theater
before he switched to TV, something he did mainly (he says) for
financial reasons.
As for why we don't see more of him now in other roles, the impression
I've gotten is that the "Buffy" shooting schedule is
so rigorous that the actors don't have much time for outside work.
I'd love to see James more in other roles, but it sounds like
from a quality-of-life perspective, he's better off using his
free time to catch up on sleep and have a life!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What happens to JM after Buffy ends?
-- Lyn, 10:54:16 02/02/02 Sat
I think James spends a lot of his "off" time on his
music.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What happens to JM after Buffy
ends? -- Deeva, 22:19:23 02/02/02 Sat
OK not to sound all stalker-like or anything but I gathered from
the interviews and updates over at Jamesmarsters.com, (before
it closed temporarily, course.) that he was quite busy during
hiatus. He shot a role on the syndicated show Andromeda while
he was in Vancouver filming another movie. It happened to fit
into his schedule while he was up there. (According to Kevin Sorbo,
he's the lead, James didn't come cheap!) And doesn't he have a
part in the movie that Amber Benson wrote, directed and, I think,
showed at Sundance? In addition to the music that he likes to
do and maybe 1 or 2 convention appearances. That's quite a schedule
to have on hiatus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What happens to JM after
Buffy ends? -- grifter, 02:14:40 02/03/02 Sun
"And doesn't he have a part in the movie that Amber Benson
wrote, directed and, I think, showed at Sundance?"
Sure does. But "Chance" sadly didn´t show at Sundance,
there was a sucky film with Amber Benson in it shown there though.
It´s a psychothriller - thing, she probably took the role
for the same reason SMG was in "I know what you did...":
publicity!
Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Copper, 13:10:20 02/01/02 Fri
It occurred to me that we need to look at Buffy and sexual relationships
in a different way. As has been discussed here, Buffy has terrible
luck with her relationships. Perhaps there is a reason for this
beyond those mentioned.
Prior to the late 20th century it would have been dangerous for
a slayer to have sex: she could get pregnant and/or get a disease,
both of which would be deadly for a slayer's abilities to vanquish
evil. Even in the late 20th/early 21st century, sex is not without
risk of pregnancy and/or disease. Therefore, it would seem that
slayers are meant to be celibate.
If we examine the history of warriers or warrier/heroes going
into battle (or athletes going into a game) celibacy is usually
required or preferred. Romantic love can fracture your concentration
and sex can deplete your energies. Although this last is usually
thought to be related to sperm loss.
Buffy's destiny is to save the world, or at least her small corner
of it. She cannot do this if she is concerned about having or
maintaining a sexual relationship. She loses focus and she loses
energy. As a slayer, she must be celibate to be effective.
So, it would appear that Spike will lose her and that no one will
have her. She may have friendships, but not lovers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Sophist, 13:26:36 02/01/02
Fri
I'm not so sure slayers before Buffy didn't have active sex lives.
After all, slaying sure made Faith "hungry and horny"
and it seems to have a similar effect on Buffy. I see no reason
to assume that this is a recent phenomenon.
If slayers weren't having sex before, it probably had more to
do with social mores than the risk of pregnancy or disease. Their
life expectancy would make both risks fairly minor.
The loss of energy supposedly associated with pre-game sex is
an Old Slayers Tale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Copper, 13:51:37
02/01/02 Fri
Sophist, I am not disagreeing that "no sex before a game"
is an old whatever tale, but the point is that having sex does
drain one's energy, which is why Faith has it. She is still so
revved up after slaying that she needs to be drained of some of
that energy and finds that sex works for her. Note, Faith does
not have relationships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Faith without love -- Sophist, 14:11:35 02/01/02
Fri
I guess that if Faith has enough energy left over after slaying
to need to be drained (nice irony :)) by sex, it wouldn't hurt
the slayer much to have an active sex life. Most of the coital
would probably occur post-slayage anyway, rather than vice versa.
I don't see sex as being the slayer's problem. Love may well be,
and if that was your point, I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Faith without love -- Copper, 14:23:45
02/01/02 Fri
I believe I emphasized relationships. There is so much discussion
over the B/S ship: will it work out?, etc. The point of my post
is that the Slayer is not meant to have relationships, and in
that sense is meant to be celibate. Casual sex that uses others
for personal relief (a la Faith) is ultimately destructive and
not what a hero would engage in. If the slayer is a hero and warrier,
then the slayer should remain celibate. I don't say I like that
conclusion. It would be nice if Buffy could have a relationship,
but it does not fit the reality Joss has created. Think of Buffy's
choice of name in Tabula Rasa: Joan. Joan of Arc was celibate
and a "slayer".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith without love -- Sophist,
16:08:53 02/01/02 Fri
I completely agree that a slayer may find it impossible to have
a long term relationship. Putting aside life expectancy issues,
the job requirements may preclude it. In fact, it's odd how often
great achievers are failures in their personal relationships.
It may be that the commitment to success interferes with the time
or emotional commitment necessary for personal relationships.
Buffy, of course, is different than other slayers, so she may
succeed where others failed. I'd like to think that JW is showing
us that part of her journey.
I personally hope that we will not be subjected to the "hero
must be celibate" nonsense, but your comment about Joan of
Arc certainly suggests that as a possibility within the confines
of the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Liz, 13:36:30 02/01/02
Fri
Considering that Kendra couldn't even _talk_ to Xander, I'd agree
with that for most slayers. But Buffy has always been one for
having it all. She wants to be the slayer and have a normal life
at the same time. This has never really worked out perfectly,
and possibly when it comes to the complexities of a close, sexual
relationship, she's in trouble. Actually she's dropped the ball
a few times just maintaining friendships, but luckily her friends
call her on it and she fixes things. Her lovers don't seem to
be able to do that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sex beneficial to the slayer? and the role of the watcher's
council -- Kerri, 14:37:21 02/01/02 Fri
I disagree with saying that having sex will hurt a slayer or she
wasn't meant to. On the contrary, I think that being fully in
touch with the more instinctual side of her personality would
strengthen a slayer, and fits in will with Buffy needing to intergrate
all aspects of herself.
However, in the past slayers may have been discouraged from having
sex because of the watchers council, which represents a male dominated
society that trys to oppress the slayer's sexual power and freedom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- Anneth, 14:41:41 02/01/02
Fri
"She loses focus and she loses energy. As a slayer, she must
be celibate to be effective."
That's a good point. The author Mary Stewart, in explaining why
she made Merlin celibate in her book _The Crystal Cave_ (the Arthurian
legend from Merlin's perspective - a very good book, with good
sequels), made a similar argument. She didn't feel that she could
legitimately make Merlin a magical being if she also made him
a sexual being.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy without sex (spoilers?) -- fresne, 15:08:19 02/01/02
Fri
Hard to say. After all, while people in the past didn't have as
effective or as varied methods of birth control as we do now,
it's not like they didn't have them. Malnutrition, sheep guts
and vinegar sponges all had a certain amount of success. Not really
up on ancient medicines so, in a women had no Renaissance kind
of way, hard for me to say what kind of herbal remedies were used.
Once we get into literate eras (with an increased emphasis on
higher reproductive rates and male doctors), well they had some
really interesting and bizarre ideas about women's body.
Its specifically difficult to say with female warriors because
they tended to occur in nomadic horse cultures (i.e. illiterate),
where a small body weight and strong thighs (especially sans stirrups)
were more important than the upper body strength required by foot
soldier in (often literate) sedentary cultures. However, given
the Roman descriptions of both the Scythians and the Kelts, they
didn't seem that abstemious.
And as to warrior/hero celibacy in general. Again depends on the
culture. Different cultures perceive casual and for that matter
relationship sex differently. There are heroes like Irish Cu Cuchulainn,
who learned (in at least one version) self control in battle through
learning self control during sex. Come to think of it his teacher
was a vampire (although he slept didn't sleep with her), whose
immortal sister Aoife (not a vampire, just immortal) he defeated
after a long battle and then you know the sex. And then you know
a son, but that was later. Sampson's problem wasn't casual sex,
although really it should have been. There was a phalanx in ancient
Thebes, Greece, that was comprised entirely of male lovers. The
theory being that you were less likely to break ranks in battle
if your lover was your shield mate. Let's not even get into all
the Greek, Roman, Norse and German heroes.
Contrasting to which we have a whole tradition of French/Arthurian
knights pining for a ribbon from their pure lady fair. And only
so and so was pure enough to get the grail, pluck the rose, and
my favorite, defeat the black knight at the sacred well. All of
which has a whole not enough heiresses to go around social dynamic
in addition to religious thinking.
Also, the Watcher's Council seems so very pip, pip Victorian that
it's hard to guess what they were like in earlier, more licentious,
eras.
Mainly, I think it might be very difficult to keep a 15 year old
hormonal girl who faces life and death situations on a constant
basis from having sex or falling in love. Parents think about
teen pregnancy. Teenagers, not always so much.
Problem is we have a limited base of information here. Both Buffy
and Faith (didn't really get to see enough of no I'm not repressed
Kendra, 1st Slayer, New York or Chinese Slayers) seem to have
a strong association between violence and pleasure (food or sex).
Makes sense really. If I were designing a Slayer, I would want
the association between pleasure and doing the duty, which might
kill you. However, that's really not enough information.
Buffy and Faith's relationship problems seem to stem from psychological
issues that aren't necessarily related to being the Slayer. Nothing
for it really, we need more episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What about Buffy teaching Kendra to have passion? The whole
message of "The Yoko Factor"? -- yuri, 17:57:05 02/01/02
Fri
It's been implied and shouted time and again on BtVS that Buffy's
relationships and passions and emotions make her a stronger, more
capable slayer.
"She cannot do this [save the world] if she is concerned
about having or maintaining a sexual relationship. She
loses focus and she loses energy. As a slayer, she must be celibate
to be effective"
The point I've always seen made is that Buffy is strengthened
and reinforced by her relationships, be they friendly or romantic.
To my understanding, that's why she's been such a successful slayer,
and, if I have my facts right, has done more and lived longer
than many slayers before her. (granted, she died twice.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sex and the Successful Slayer -- LeeAnn, 23:57:00
02/01/02 Fri
"To my understanding, that's why she's been such a successful
slayer, and, if I have my facts right, has done more and lived
longer than many slayers before her. (granted, she died twice.)"
But in both cases her friends brought her back. Without relationships
Buffy would still be...in heaven.
Till 40-50 years ago the reasons for celibacy were pregnancy and
disease. Birth Control for most women was limited to ineffective
methods or dangerous ones like self induced abortion. Even informing
people about birth control methods was illegal. Hard to be any
kind of warrior if you have to care for an infant, for children.
Can't imagine a pregnant slayer..or one with an infant in her
arms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> what does that say about Angel? (NT) -- Maxwell,
11:52:12 02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shooting Script for Doublemeat Palace -- Artemis, 19:25:32 02/01/02
Fri
Hadn't seen this posted yet.And the old address for the the shooting
script is obsolete. Here's the new one in case you don't have
it .
www.studiesinwords.de/shooting/index.html
I found interesting the counter scene with Spike and Buffy. Wish
it had been filmed like scripted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Shooting Script for Doublemeat Palace -- yez, 05:36:09
02/02/02 Sat
Thanks for the link.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Do you mean the alley scene? -- Sophist, 09:50:17 02/02/02
Sat
The script for that scene is very interesting. It reads the exact
opposite of what we saw. Wonder what's going on here.
I liked a lot of the bits that were cut from the script. They
should have left those in and cut others. Maybe there were future
episodes to account for.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Do you mean the alley scene? -- Chris, 18:03:33
02/02/02 Sat
I hope you don't mind this lurker jumping in here to ask what
you thought of the description in the shooting script (Spike and
Buffy's sex scene) where it says "...only effort and need..."?
How do you read that? Effort = Spike; Need = Buffy (or both)?
Actually the description provided me with some hope (I am one
of those that likes the S/B relationship) since I found that scene
out by the dumpsters disturbing due to Buffy's vacant expression.
I have been wondering just what JE was trying to convey. Theories,
please!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spoilers here and in the post above for DMP
-- Sophist, 19:02:25 02/02/02 Sat
You hit the nail on the head. Buffy looked lifeless and detached
in the scene, the very opposite of "effort and need".
Obviously, the scene did not play how it was written. I don't
know why, but my guess is that the change was either (1) part
of a continuing disparity in the writers' view of B/S (a relationship
that I also like, but that many don't), or (2) necessary to lead
to already-written future eps. Since I remain spoiler free, that's
the best I can do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Do you mean the alley scene?(Spoilers) --
Artemis, 19:25:20 02/02/02 Sat
What I got from the description of "efort and need"
and I actually thought it was conveyed, was that it mostly described
Buffy. When you are in a position where you are drained emotionally
and physically the ability to get lost in a sexual act is not
necessarily easy and might require effort whether you want it
to be be easy or not . Yet because of where you are emotionally
you "need" the act.
I don't think the scene says much about there relationship per
se . But more about where she was emotionally, because of the
job. In a way I find the description more hopeful . JMHO
I too would like the relationship to work. Their chemistry explodes
off screen . I don't know if it will . But I tend to think it
has more to do with Spike. He's not redeemed yet. I understand
why Buffy tries to stay away and I understand why she can't .
That's why I love this show.
I also wish they had left in some other lines that were cut. There
was some funny stuff in the script. Probably had to do wtih time.
Or like someone else said it might have effected other episodes
to come .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The alley scene didn't bother me. -- bookworm,
09:43:12 02/03/02 Sun
Blink and you miss it, for one thing. Here's my interpretation
of the look. Buffy is dead on her feet after a double shift; she's
dirty, smells of grease and meat; is depressed about money and
having to take that dead end job in the first place; she doesn't
know what else to do; she is still disgusted with herself for
not being able to resist the lure of undead sex. She just feels
bad. Spike comes slinking by the window and gives her a look.
She takes her silly chicken hat off, maybe because she doesn't
want him to see her with it on, and heads out to the alley for
a little oblivion. She's thinking, "Oh, hell, why not?"
and "Make me forget." We don't see what transpires between
them after she goes into the alley. Maybe he just grabs her and
backs her against the wall without saying anything and they go
at it. She looks at him, he buries his head in her neck, she stares
into space. Her expression could convey anything from exhaustion
to depression to forgetfulness to shame to pleasure. My guess
is that Buffy was feeling all of those things while he's working
her and Spike may be thinking, "What else can I do for her?
I like it, and if sex can make her feel better ..." What
I noticed is that Buffy is actually pretty animated and energetic
the next day AFTER the sex with Spike, which suggests to me that
he's still waking her up. At that point in time, sex in the alley
may have been what she needed. He offered her an outlet and a
way to try to forget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The alley scene didn't bother me.
-- Lilac, 10:24:07 02/03/02 Sun
This was pretty much my take on the scene. You can almost hear
her thinking, as she sees Spike and whips that silly hat off,
"oh good, here's my break". Probably didn't work the
way she had hoped it would, based on that sad expression, but
I don't think it necessarily says big things about the relationship
over all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Movie of the Week - February 1st 2002 - First Anniversary
Special Edition Pt. I -- OnM, 19:38:35 02/01/02 Fri
*******
But I just had to look / Having read the book
I'd love to turn you on...
............ Lennon/McCartney
*******
Evil Clone: So you made it. I must confess that I'm impressed,
I didn't think you had it in you.
OnM: Well, for once I won't argue with you, I'm kinda surprised
myself. But here we are, it's fully one year later, and I've cranked
out a new 'Classic Movie' column each and every week, without
a single miss.
E.C.: So why bring your dating life into this? I thought we were
going to talk movies?
OnM: Wiseass.
E.C. Yes, daddy. You made me what I am today, for which I am sooooo
grateful.
OnM: I'm not your daddy. And we are going to talk movies.
E.C.: So, go dude. Time's a wastin'. (leans back in Barcolounger,
sighing contentedly)
OnM: In honor of the first anniversary of the column, I've come
up with some special features and ideas to both honor the past
and look forward to the future. Some of these will involve showcasing
the talents of my fellow ATPo boarders, and act to get them more
involved in the BtVS/cinema component of the website.
E.C.: Oh, you mean this idea you came up with a while ago to solicit
the writing of Classic Movie guest columns by some of the other
posters?
OnM: Yup, that's one of them. One of the facts of televised Buffylife
is that you have sweeps and you have the intervening hiatus times
between them. Since the main topics of fan discussion inevitably
die down after new eps come and go, it's important to give people
a good reason to visit the board and contribute. Rowan elegantly
QED'ed that theorem last summer with her wonderful idea of the
ATPoBtVS Character Posts, and then there was Solitude1056 and
LiquidRAM with their work done to coordinate, edit and eventually
produce the magnificent Dark Alchemy, which I feel represents
a watershed fanfic event in the halls of Buffy fandom.
E.C.: Yes, it was violent, dark and erotic. Just the way we like
'em!
OnM: Uhhm, yeah, well... the point being, there is no reason we
all need to dry up and blow away like so much vamp dust just because
there's no new ep on the horizon for a few weeks or months. There
is simply too much talent lurking at our board to waste it. I
feel certain that the weekly cinematic musings I provide would
only be enhanced by the addition of regular contributors besides
myself.
E.C.: (smirks) Not to mention that it's been a year now and you
feel entitled to take a vacation, right?
OnM: Hey! Don't go there!
E.C.: I've offered to write a few columns, but noooo..... Mr.
Obsessive Perfectamundo can't relinquish the keyboard for a paltry
week or so, now can he?
OnM: You're not ready for prime time yet. Some weeks I'm not even
sure that I am, and I've been around a lot longer than you have.
Consistent creativity is far harder than it looks, ya know.
E.C.: (gestures at own self): Yeah, dig it!
OnM: Don't get me started. Now, where was I? Oh yeah... In addition
to the guest columns, I'm also going to be re-reviewing a few
of my very earliest columns, since at the time I started this
endeavor last February, I really wasn't sure how well it would
be received. Even by linking the column themes to the current
philosophical goings-on in the Buffyverse, it was still somewhat
OT-ish for a Buffy-centric website and discussion board. I was
very conscious of taking up too much of Masquerade's space, so
I deliberately kept the initial offerings very short in length,
and in fact hardly discussed the film or it's philosophical issues
in anything but the most cursory terms.
E.C.: (sporting evil grin): Well, glory be! That must've really
hurt, O Most Loquacious One!
OnM: (ignoring the jibe) It was a balancing act. Also, it took
a while to come up with a style that seemed to suit both my intent
and my writing abilities. Not being a professional writer or reviewer,
I ended up just attempting to present sort of a personal vision,
and leave it at that. The essay/review/miscellaneous format was
the eventual result. Of course, I'm always open to input from
my fellow ATPo-er's. The Question-of-the-Week idea came from another
poster, in fact.
E.C.: Then there's the occasional techno-babble segment. Do you
really think anybody cares besides us? I'm not sure that stuff's
a real benefit to most of the readers even though, ironically,
you're far better qualified to give that kind of advice than the
actual movie reviews, you know?
OnM: Well, that is entirely true, but as I said, I try different
stuff and wait for feedback on it. DVD's are becoming very popular
now, and good home theater systems are showing up in more and
more 'average' homes. You know how rarely the technology gets
installed or operated correctly; I spend a good part of every
year of my professional life fixing problems that many people
don't even know they have. It's depressing to see someone spend
several grand on good electronic gear and have it set up so poorly
that they're lucky to get $300.00 worth of performance out of
the thing. Just this last week, I did a service call for a customer
who complained that the tapes she played on her VCR didn't sound
very good, especially in the surround sound mode. Turned out the
VCR setup menus had been set to access the older, standard soundtrack
on the tape, instead of the hi-fi track. She was listening in
monaural!
E.C.: (laughs): Whatta doofus! Why didn't she just read the damn
book? Nobody reads anymore!
OnM: (becoming agitated): She's not a doofus! I had to spend nearly
ten minutes scouring through the owner's manual for the VCR just
to find out how to switch it from the tuner to the line input
so she could record programs from her satellite receiver. Once
I found it, it was an easy procedure, but the directions for same
were buried in some ludicrously obscure section of the manual.
If an experienced tech can't intuitively figure out how to use
a feature, what chance do normal people have?
E.C.: Well, the ATPo people are pretty smart. They aren't 'normal',
as you so wittily put it.
OnM: People are smart in many different ways. The power behind
the board is the representation of intellectual and experiential
diversity. That doesn't mean everyone is good at everything. Just
because someone, for example, can code HTML or take great photographs,
or play a musical instrument, doesn't make them hip to anamorphic
widescreen DVD's or that having Dolby Digital doesn't automatically
mean a 5.1 channel soundtrack. So, once in a while, I try to add
a little enlightenment.
E.C.: And more than once in a while, you get off the track. Like
now. Back to the anniversary specials of the month?
OnM: Oh, yeah. Sorry. Got off on a rant there... So there will
be the guest columns, a few selected re-writings of some very
early CMotW's, a review of my choice for the best film of 2001,
and of course this week's offering, a review of Lord of the Rings.
There is another possible big, new item that may some to fruition
in the next few months, but it's still very much a work in progress
at this point. I need to confer with LiquidRAM a bit regarding
it, but I'm hoping it will mean still more good stuff for my friends
here at ATPo to enjoy.
E.C.: You don't mean the...
OnM: (abruptly): Shhh! No spoilers here! Mum's the word for now!
E.C.: (smirking) Yes, daddy. (eyes roll upward) You'll probably
never get it done anyway, knowing your miserable track record
for completing personal projects.
OnM: Yeah, well, I finished high school many years ago, and that
really sucked. Now, thirty long years later, I just finished a
whole damn year's worth of movie review columns, and that really
doesn't suck. And I owe it all to my loyal fans, and their ardent
support.
E.C.: (bigger smirk) Suckup.
OnM: Bite me.
E.C.: (still-bigger smirk) That's right, quote Buffy. Real original!
OnM: You wouldn't get to spend your days eating, sleeping and
surfing the net without me, dude. So I get the last word, remember?
E.C.: (gets up and heads back to the basement): A long one, no
doubt. Ta-taa.
OnM: (sighs wearily, shakes head) Why, oh why do I do this? (flips
on switch to computer, waits patiently for the word processor
to boot, pauses for several long minutes staring blankly at the
screen, then starts to type) Oh, yeah, birds gotta fly...
******* ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Classic Movie o/t Week - February 1st 2002 - First Anniversary
Special Edition Pt. II -- OnM, 19:47:27 02/01/02 Fri *******
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Written by: Screenplay by Frances Walsh, based (of course) on
the novels by J.R.R. Tolkien
*******
One of my primary web surfing habits, which I'm very sure will
come as no surprise to any of my regular readers, is checking
out movie and DVD related websites. I have several favorites that
I visit regularly, usually weekly, and still others that I check
out from time to time as the mood strikes me.
At a recent drop-in to one of the 'occasional' sites, I came across
an angry letter/e-mail from a reader who blisteringly excoriated
the site's recent listing of 'desert island DVD's' because they
didn't include a number of films that, paraphrasing the reader's
words, 'were obviously classic films because they sold a lot of
tickets at the box office and also lots of copies on video'.
Uh..... huh. Yeah. Right.
Which was pretty much the response not only of the site owners,
but also in reply after reply after reply of the subsequent e-mail
respondents. Clicking over to study the list in question for myself,
I found that I pretty much agreed with the vast majority of the
site's evaluations. To this humble movie-man, the films listed
were indeed worthy of 'classic' status in all true and righteous
senses of the word, and I had no reason to dispute the assertions
of high quality DVD renderings/packagings of same. Great films,
great videos. What else do you want?
It would be a mistake, however, to write off the letter of one
apparent 'crank' as an aberration, because I can assure you he
isn't alone. Just recently, we were having some discussion on
the board as to how to best deal with those unfortunate souls
who are apparently born 'metaphor-blind', forever incapable of
seeing even slightly below the surface of any artistic effort.
The same arguments are equally applicable to those who judge the
worth of any art by it's commercial success. I personally know
any number of people who absolutely will not go out to see any
movie that is not 'popular', no matter how ardently you attempt
to convince them of the worthiness it may bear.
Now, before anyone reading this starts to panic and assume that
I am about to give the big ol' opposable digit downward to Lord
of the Rings, please quietly return to your seats, for I intend
to do no such thing. I very much enjoyed this movie, but on the
other hand, I feel it is extremely important to address why quite
a number of professional film critics do not place this movie
on their personal 'best of all time', or even 'best of the year'
lists. The need to do so lies less in wishing to nitpick the movie's
relatively minor faults, then in acting to help stem a growing
tide of opinion that film is supposed to be a simple commodity
created by a 'workforce' to appease the 'wishes' of the moviegoing
public, much as if a film were a bottle of shampoo that is OK,
but could use a more pleasant fragrance or come prepackaged with
a cents-off coupon.
In fact, this is the exact tree that the website complainant was
barking up. He felt that 'the director's job is to meet my needs',
and 'if a film isn't popular, then obviously the public's needs
aren't being met'. I don't recall any comment on this particular
subject in the letter, but I strongly suspect that this fellow
is exactly the same type who bitches and moans endlessly about
the horrors of letterboxing on DVD's, and 'when are the damn studios
gonna give me back my whole TV screen?'
Well, at the risk of being rude, you witless nit, it's because
it's art, it's not a bar of soap. You are free to choose what
movies you go out to see, you are free to like or dislike them.
You are equally free to see the same films re-edited and cropped
to fit your TV if you want them, I will even stand up for you
and suggest that the marketplace try to meet your needs in that
regard, because frankly it isn't that hard to do. What I will
not do, is encourage the entertainment industry to pander to the
lowest common denominator, and turn one of our century's greatest
contributions to the world's culture into nothing more than money-grubbing,
pedestrian hack-work.
Returning to The Lord of the Rings, I fully believe that director
Peter Jackson both started out intending to, and will eventually
complete his work as, a labor of love for a classic story he feels
immense reverence for. On the whole, I enjoyed his vision, and
look forward to experiencing it again. That being said, what is
so dangerous in the attitude that I was elaborating on in the
last few paragraphs is that it can not only infect the average
movie-going public, it can infect the creative staff of a film
as well. There is clear evidence of that infection here, perhaps
just a mild swelling at this point in time, but if the antibiotics
don't get applied before the next two chapters in this trilogy
make it to the theaters later this year and in 2003, a tremendous
opportunity for cinematic grandeur and greatness will have been
squandered.
The film follows the book reasonably closely, althought admittedly
it has been several decades since I read the Rings trilogy. I
do recall that it was not a tome for a reader in a hurry, the
story kind of meanders, which is fine with me since I recognize
that the journey is the story, not the eventual resolution. It
is also necessary that viewers recognize the necessity for filmmakers
to work in their own language, not just copy word-for-word from
the text of a book. In this regard, I feel that Jackson has succeeded.
While I felt some small degreee of impatience as I waited for
things to 'get going' in the first 20 minutes or so, the film
did beome more involving after that time, and nicely held my attention.
Unlike comments I've heard from some other patrons, I did not
have a sense that the movie was running on overly long, in fact
I was surprised to leave the theater and find it a much later
hour than I subjectively guessed.
I also didn't find the ending to be disconcerting, knowing in
advance that the film was just the first of three parts. Again,
I puzzle at the expectations of the almost willfully uninformed
who appeared to expect that everything would be 'all tidied up'
at the conclusion of the film. Trilogy, people? Three parts? Over
three years? When didn't the marketing machine not make this clear
over the last 6 to 8 months? Sheesh...
The photography, as the trailer had strongly implied, is quite
wonderful, and even if the results do not happen to match your
own personal vision of Middle Earth, the vision rendered is a
valid and beautifully realized one. My only minor caveats here
were that there were occasions when the CGI work seemed just a
little obvious, but perhaps this is a factor of it becoming both
so common and so normally seamless that we now notice small glitches
where we would not have before. These errors are more than amply
compensated for by some truly glorious scenes, the most dynamic
and startling one of which is the scene depicting the battle between
Gandalf and the evil Balrog-- there is no other word for this
but Whoa! The costumes, set design, art direction are all equally
excellent, although I have to admit the Hobbits feet often looked
fake to me. Along that same line, I realize that in the original
story the Hobbits normally went without shoes, but did they in
fact never wear them? This was, strangely enough, one of those
moments that would jar me out of my otherwise fairly effortless
suspension of disbelief, wondering how come his feet aren't freezing
in the snow? or getting cut to ribbons on the rocks?
The other main problem I had that also was a repeat offense was
the soundtrack, which was 1) excessively utilized and 2) mixed
in way too loudly compared to other sound elements. Whether this
was a misguided attempt to make up for the perception of lack
of visual action (and if so, was unnecessary, see 'journey-not-resolution'
above) or an attempt to 'goose' the audiophile participation in
the eventual video/home-theater release, I don't know, but it
was a very bad choice either way. I found it distracting, and
at times even moving past that perception into being actively
annoying. It's a faint hope, but this could be corrected in time
for the video release-- if not fully remixed, at least having
the overall levels properly rebalanced would bring about a big
improvement.
The remaining complaint that I've heard from several professional
film critics has been that in the original story, the Hobbits
were clearly the soul and the center of the tale, and the elven
and human characters took less of the spotlight. In this film
version, they protest, the elves and especially the humans appear
to be grabbing most of the attention, with the Hobbits kind of
accessories to the journey, ringbearers in name only, not in deed,
thus diminishing the central point of Tolkien's theme, that fame
or stature does not dictate nobility of purpose, or provide inherent
claim to becoming a champion.
While I can see the point being made, I intend to wait for the
next two films to be issued and viewed before finally deciding
on the merits of this assumption. I did not personally perceive
the Hobbits as 'sidekicks', the fact is that this early on in
the entire, very lengthy journey, the Hobbits have had insufficient
time to fully assert their worth. It has been clearly stated both
in the book and in this film that Hobbits are not 'action-oriented'
individuals, and in fact typically exhibit quite the opposite
characteristics. To expect Frodo or Sam to suddenly get all Schwarzeneggar-ian
is ludicrous, so I see nothing wrong with their behavior to date.
So, does LOTR/tFotR qualify for 'classic movie' status? Yes, it
certainly does. If by some chance you have not seen it yet, or
have been holding back due to some of the negative comments of
a few major reviewers, please don't miss an opportunity to see
it while it's still available theatrically. The visuals alone
are worth the price of admission ( a comment I made about Final
Fantasy: The Spirits Within a few months ago, and FF/tSW is a
vastly inferior film in all other regards compared to this one),
and despite the minor weaknesses I detailed, you should thoroughly
enjoy yourselves. There is also the possibilty that with the substantial
box-office success of the film, that the director and creative
staff will have to tolerate less external influence by the studios
or other sources, and so raise the chances that the next two films
could be even better. Some sequels are better than the original
creation, and this one is off to a decent start already.
Hey, it worked for George Lucas and Star Wars!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically, one to bind them all, or at least mostly:
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is still in current
release at a whole big bunch o' theaters all over the damn place,
and so is obviously not available on DVD, laserdisc or even VHS,
at least not legally, and we won't go there. Run time is just
shy of three hours, at 178 minutes, with no intermission, so for
heaven's sakes don't load up on beverages just before heading
out to the theater. The film is rated PG-13, mostly for the violence
of the combat scenes and some fairly scary-looking evil creatures.
(Really loved the way you couldn't initially see the faces on
the 'dark riders', all black pools of vacuous emptiness, nicely
fear-inducing).
The aspect ratio of the film is 2.35:1. Cinematography was by
Andrew Lesnie, with film editing by John Gilbert and production
design by Grant Major. Art direction was by Joe Bleakley, Dan
Hennah, Philip Ivey, Rob Outterside & Mark Robins. Set decoration
was by Tanea Chapman, Dan Hennah, Alan Lee and Victoria McKenzie.
Costume design was by Ngila Dickson & Richard Taylor.
The theatrical sound mix was provided in all standard cinema formats,
namely DTS, Dolby Digital, Dolby EX 6.1 and SDDS. Original music
was by Enya, who provided the songs, with orchestral and other
music by Howard Shore. The Internet Movie Database amusingly notes
that the language of the film is 'English / Elvish'. Uh, yep,
that it is.
Cast overview, primary characters:
Elijah Wood .... Frodo Baggins Ian McKellen .... Gandalf Billy
Boyd .... Peregrin 'Pippin' Took Dominic Monaghan .... Meriadoc
'Merry' Brandybuck Viggo Mortensen .... Lord Aragorn 'Strider'
Elessar Sean Astin .... Samwise 'Sam' Gamgee Liv Tyler .... Arwen
Undómiel Ian Holm .... Bilbo Baggins Orlando Bloom ....
Legolas Christopher Lee .... Saruman the White Cate Blanchett
.... Queen Galadriel Sean Bean .... Boromir John Rhys-Davies ....
Gimli Andy Serkis .... Gollum/Smeagol Hugo Weaving .... Lord Elrond
of Rivendell
*******
Miscellaneous and the Question of the Week
Wellsir, the conversation between me and my clone at the column
start-up pretty much spelled out what's in store for this month.
I'll now detail some of the details, though, for those Hobbits,
Elves or Humans out there in Atpoboardland who bravely wish to
take me up on my offer to guest-host a 'Classic Movie of the Week'
column.
C'mon, you know you want to! It isn't that hard, you just need
1) a reasonably functional brain, 2) a love for movies, 3) an
opinion thereon and 4) the ability to type. If you hang at this
board, and read this column regularly, you obviously have already
qualified, so git them fingers a-clickin', OK?
The procedure:
Write up your column. Length should be at least one normal 8 1/2
x 11 inch page if printed out, you may make it longer if desired,
of course. You do not need to emulate my style, in fact I hope
you do not-- please do your own thing in your own way. You do
not need to include the 'Technical yada yada...' or 'Miscellaneous'
or 'Question of the Week' if you do not wish to. The movie should
not be one in current release.
I prefer a 'positive' review. By this, I do not mean to exclude
negative aspects of the film in your review, but there will only
be so much room to fit these into the schedule as the BtVS season
progresses, so I don't want to see a film chosen just to bash
it. What's the point? Pick something you like, and tell us why.
That's really what this is all about.
Send your completed review to me in either .txt or .rtf format.
I will select my favorites from among all submissions, and publish
them during the weeks that Buffy is on hiatus up until the end
of the current season. After that, if there are still submissions
left over, I will publish one a month through the summer until
the new Buffy season starts up again in the fall. The guest columns
will be posted at the usual Friday night, 10:00 PM to 2:00 AM
time slot each week. You should include your return e-mail address
so that I may contact you regarding any revisions needed, which
would be primarily for spelling or grammar issues. (I will correct
any trivial errors I find).
You will have the final say as to the publishing of your submission,
and I will inform you by e-mail of the projected date of posting.
You are a guest in my normal column space, I make absolutely no
claims of any kind over, or assert any rights to subsequent 'ownership'
of anything you write. It remains your work. My CMotW column,
in fact, exists in Masquerade's 'space', and I continue here by
her permission, for which I am extremely grateful.
*******
The Question of the Week:
So, do you wanna be a star?
Send your 'Classic Movie' reviews to:
objectsinmirror@mindspring.com
*******
Thanks to one and all of my 'Classic Movie' readers for your many
kind and encouraging words over the last year. It has been my
sincere pleasure to write for you.
Peace!
******* ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ooooh... now we just need a list so we don't... --
Solitude1056, 22:30:13 02/01/02 Fri
...inadvertantly "redo" any of the movies you might've
reviewed before some of us stumbled on this haven of the 'net.
Or you could just tell me, here, with a yes or no, and then I'll
volunteer to do a review of one (or more) of them, if you're interested.
- Performance
- The Devils
- The Last Wave
- The Lover
- Walkabout
- Angelheart
- If
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ooooh... you really *are* The Second Evil, aren't
'cha?? -- OnM, 22:58:44 02/01/02 Fri
You mean someone else besides me has actually seen The Devils?
(I'm presuming you are speaking of the Ken Russell film from '71
with Vanessa Redgrave, that was banned in like, several countries?)
To date, I have not reviewed any of these films, so have at it.
Walkabout is a magnificent film, and would be an excellent choice,
plus it's also available on DVD, which is a bonus. (Likewise for
The Last Wave.)
I will arrange for a list that can be e-mailed to anyone interested
in doing a guest review. Give me until tomorrow night to update
my index on what I've done over the last year, it's already about
90% up-to-date. (amazingly!)
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I've seen The Devils, too. Not exactly
a jolly romp. ;o) -- Cactus Watcher, 06:50:43 02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The Devils--Wota Movie--Oliver Reed--Oh
My! Yes, Please Review the Devils! -- Duquessa des Essientes,
15:21:11 02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Walkabout and The Last Wave-two of my
top 20 favorites. -- A8, 17:09:12 02/02/02 Sat
By the way, is The Devils out on DVD?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> According to the IMDb, it is not
- VHS only. -- OnM, 20:35:57 02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Drat. Oh well. I'm sure they'll
get around to it eventually. Thanks for the info. -- A8, 16:58:36
02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> and someone needs to get off her butt & get
the CMotW Archive up on the ES site...Email me OnM! -- Liq, 01:01:04
02/02/02 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> We have OnM's posts and discussions in
the regular archives -- Masquerade, 11:45:01 02/04/02 Mon
And November and December are now on the cyber-presses.
Or were you just going to link to ours to get the archives of
the discussions of OnM's posts??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Some LOTR Comments -- matching mole, 15:29:38
02/02/02 Sat
Congratulations on one year of reviews, although I've only seen
the last few months.
As I hadn't seen the film at the time of the great LOTR discussion
in December I thought I would weigh in on a couple of points that
your review triggered in my memory.
Exactly how I evaluate LOTR:FOTR depends on the perspective I
choose to take. If I compare it to other action/adventure films
I would have to say that it is probably the best I have ever seen.
I don't know what you or anyone else would make of my statement
as I am generally not a big fan of the modern action/adventure
film. Action (explosions, gun battles, light saber battles, etc.)
as spectacle generally bores me when it is prolonged beyond what's
necessary to establish the plot point.
So then, fairly predictably, when I look at the film from the
perspective of the book I am somewhat disappointed. While I certainly
appreciate that film and the written word are different media
with different requirements I also find the film lacking in many
of the qualities that made the book so appealing to me particularly
the way that the everyday was mixed in so skillfully with the
wonderful.
So to me the film was both a classic and a disappointment which
was no more and no less than I expected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> LotR and the difference between movies and books (Warning:
SPOILERS and LONG) -- vandalia, 10:14:35 02/04/02 Mon
Oh, you've finally picked a movie I've seen that has a background
with which I am wholly familiar! I can actually participate!
DISCLAIMER: There will be spoilers for the current movie and possibly
the sequels in this posting. I feel slightly silly making a spoiler
disclaimer for a book that's been out for roughly twice as long
as I've been alive, but there you go.
I was very lucky (or unlucky, as the case may be, see below) to
have been allowed to read The Hobbit as part of schoolwork in
the sixth grade. I had already made my way through all the K-12
books (remember those, with the clever names like _Dreams and
Decisions_, all color-coded with accompanying workbooks and tailored
to grade?) and there was nothing else left for me to do in English
class (this at a magnet school, natch -- otherwise I'm sure I'd
have been told to pace myself with the class and turned into some
kind of troublemaking juvenile deliquent). So my sixth grade teacher,
Mrs. Gates, turned to some classic children's literature, the
first being _The Hobbit_. I devoured this book as I am wont to
do with books then and now, and absolutely, utterly and completely
fell under Tolkien's spell. I asked her if there were any more
books like this one and she told me about LOTR. Turns out a friend
of mine was reading _Fellowship_ at about this time, and I borrowed
it from her. I have been hooked on Tolkien ever since, and every
other fantasy author has had to live up to the standards set in
my twelve-year-old brain by Tolkien. (Robert Jordan? Bah! Man
is in desperate need of an editor. Don't even get me started on
Terry Brooks...) I reread the books at least yearly, wearing out
two copies in the process (my friends' and my own) and even went
so far as to read _The Silmarillion_ (and that was hard, let me
tell you. Like diving for pearls: immerse yourself down, down,
down, holding your breath, pushing through dense forests of disjointed
threads of stories and verbiage, sometimes coming up with an oyster,
sometimes not, but always gasping for breath) and _Leaf by Niggle_
(which is, I think, Tolkien's best work and the most autobiographical).
I've even delved into learning Elvish on occasion, and it was
Tolkien who inspired me to take a linguistics course in college
(but the less said about that particular endeavor, the better.
Suffice to say I escaped with my GPA intact).
Given this background, you can imagine with how much anticipation
and dread I awaited this movie. Some reporter said this was a
movie that fans had been waiting fifty years for, and I would
not disagree. The shameful animated feature that cut off right
at the battle of Helm's Deep and seemingly consisted of a bunch
of the animator's friends dressed in rubber masks, filmed, then
painted over did not engender paroxyms of delight. The rather
silly animated version of the Hobbit (which was actually quite
good and faithful to the book, though the elves looked rather...
icky) and The Return of the King didn't help much, either. People
were panning the movie before a foot of celluloid had gone into
its production. But such is the nature of fans; these people had
been burned once before and Peter Jackson was more well-known
for his scare-filled gorefests like Dead Again and The Frighteners
(both wonderful movies which I absolutely love for totally different
reasons) than his more critically-acclaimed _Beautiful Creatures_.
Speculation ran rampant. Not less than three fan sites were set
up to speculate, spy and report on the progress of the movies
up to two years before its scheduled release. Hopes would be raised
(the stills look great!) and dashed (Liv Tyler as Arwen?) from
day to day.
And then it was released. And it was Good.
My main beef before seeing the movie was the absense of Tom Bombabil.
Now for the vast majority of Tolkien fans, old Tom was a welcome
deletion, a holdover from the children-skewed and more than a
little patronizing tone of _The Hobbit_. But Bombadil held a very
important role in the quest of the hobbits, one that many people
outright overlook in their hurry to condemn the man for his silly
songs and caperings. You see, Tom Bombabil was responsible for
getting the Hobbits their blades of Westernesse. This is very
important later in the books. They go around this in the movie
well enough (though I thought it a bit of a cop out, it made sense,
though they didn't explain a thing about their significance in
the movie) by having Aragorn give the Hobbits their blades on
Weathertop. Just why Aragorn was carrying around a bunch of Hobbit-sized
knives rolled up in a blanket is not explained. But that's just
a pet peeve of mine, would've made a three-hour movie already
longer than it was, and wouldn't have added very much to the narrative
(though I can't wait for the DVD and all those deleted scenes).
My other two beefs after the movie was released related to the
two main female characters: Arwen and Galadriel. Arwen's role
in the movies is much, much greater than her role in the books.
In the books, Arwen was Elrond's daughter and greatly desired
by Aragorn. She was his impetus to reclaim his long-lost family
throne of Gondor and Arnor, reunite the two kingdoms, and otherwise
prove himself worthy of her hand to her father. A true princess
even among the elves, she speaks almost no words directly in the
books, and mostly sits at home and looks pretty, though she also
makes the standard Aragorn bears into battle the first time he
reveals himself at large as who he truly is. Her role in the movie
was that of Glorfindel in the books, an elf lord of the House
of Elrond, and it was he who finds the hobbits and Aragorn and
rescues Frodo, having him ride his horse over the river and into
Imladris. It was Elrond (and Gandalf, to a lesser extent) who
called upon the fury of the river to wash the Nazgul away, as
he was the lord of his lands and had great power over them and
that within them, including the river that marked its boundaries.
Some laud the expanded role of Arwen, arguing that there was no
reason for Aragorn to be attracted to her and that she would otherwise
be a rather two-dimensional character, an object, a prize to be
won rather than a mate equal to his abilities. I personally hated
it with a fiery passion, and I'm a feminist of the first water.
You see, Tolkien didn't just write an epic fantasy novel. He wrote
in many ways a history of a place he created, Middle-Earth, a
mythology to explain it. Peter Jackson did, of course, have to
edit, combine and exclude small roles in order to make his movie
fit some modern idea of running time. But to take Arwen's role
and expand it as he has done (and rumor has it that she has an
even bigger part to play in later sequels) is treading on PC revisionist
history on an gross scale. The example I use most is Betsy Ross.
Who was Betsy Ross in the mythology of the United States? She
was the woman who made the flag which came to represent our country.
How would you feel about seeing a 'faithful reproduction' of the
American Revolutionary War that included Betsy Ross in the role
of Paul Revere? There goes mighty Ms. Ross, riding her horse through
the night, crying about how the British are coming. It was her
idea for the lanterns in the window of the Old North Church, and
of course she battled those British trying to stop her quite admirably
as well, without once breaking a nail or a hair out of place.
The only problem is, anyone with any passing remembrance of grade-school
history knows that Betsy Ross made a freakin' _flag_, and any
revisionist history of that fact would be met with deserved derision
(keep in mind I talk about the mythology of the United States,
not necessarily the history. I know Paul Revere didn't make his
ride any more than Betsy Ross did). Many people argue that Tolkien's
view of the world was male-dominated and needed more powerful
female figures. My response is Tolkien wrote these stories over
a period of many years from at least the early twenties to the
mid to late fifties. This was not the most enlightened time for
women. Yet even in an atmosphere of male dominance there are not
one but two powerful women in Tolkien's stories: Galadriel and
Eowyn. Eowyn is a 'shieldmaiden' and goes to fight disguised as
a man. Galadriel is a ruler of her own kingdom and has a male
consort. There are also a few minor characters (such as Ioreth
the healer) that are women and in roles of importance. Yet we
still feel the need to expand Arwen's role? This makes no sense.
If Aragorn wanted the kind of woman who liked to ride into battle,
he'd have picked Eowyn. He didn't, (to his credit, because Eowyn
saw in him a glorious leader and royalty, an escape from her dreary
existence rather than for the man he was, which Arwen knew) and
his spurning of her is a factor in her decision to go to war (and
seek an honorable death).
Then you have Galadriel, one of the Wise, a ruler of a hidden
kingdom of what once was, a paradise, a heaven on earth for elves,
an island of light in a sea of darkness, beset on all sides and
largely kept in check by her power. 'On the land of Lorien there
was no stain.' Quite the compliment in a time when the Dark Lord
was ascending. And how does Jackson choose to portray her? As
a screeching half-mad seer. _This_ is the ruler of a besieged
nation? They actually did this part much better in the cartoon
than they did in the movie. The Temptation of Galadriel could
have been on a level of Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog.
They missed the swan-boat on this one.
That said, I liked the rest of the movie immensely. Hobbiton was,
to my mind, absolutely perfect down to the tools hanging on the
walls. I loved the beginning, didn't feel it dragged at all, and
felt it was necessary to establish just how placid and tranquil
and bucolic the setting from which came Sam and Frodo, Merry and
Pippin, and show just how far they had to go to become formidable
warriors on a life-and-death journey of salvation for the whole
world, and just what it was they were willing to risk all for.
The flight from the Shire was good (though I missed old Farmer
Maggot and his dogs) and the perspective in the town of Bree was
amazingly well done. (I think they could've done well with Frodo
'having as much ale as was good for him' and jumping up on a table
to sing to distract from Pippin's blathering about their story
and revealing the Ring that way, as they did in the books, but
lots of people hated the songs in the books, so that was that).
The flight with Strider was good, Frodo looked quite ill (and
creepy with the bloodshot eyes) and the Nazgul were well done
indeed (thought Bilbo's 'gimme the ring!' face in Imladris scared
me more than either Nazgul or Balrog). The less said about Arwen's
role the better, and I justified and enjoyed the flight to the
Ford in my mind by translating Arwen's murmurings before the river
rose to crush the Nazgul as 'Help me Daddy, I'm in deep sh*t here,
help help help me Daddy.' (I say this because having Arwen able
to call up the waters of the Ford takes away from the acceptance
of magic as a natural and normal, though limited, aspect of the
elves, whose magics were subtle and not flashy (think Legolas'
walking on top of the snow while everyone else plowed through
it). Elrond could control the ford because he was master of the
land, not because he was an elf. Having Arwen do it there made
it look like elves had control over nature, which raises the question
later of why didn't Legolas just tell the storm to get lost or
raise some kind of protective snow-barrier in the attempt to cross
Caradhras). Also, it takes away from the book scene where Frodo
is sent on alone over the river on the horse while Glorfindel
builds a fire to try to keep them at bay while he makes it to
Imladris. It was Frodo who raised his sword and said 'you will
have neither the Ring, nor me!' in a show of defiance to the Nazgul,
even sorely wounded as he was. This showed that he had some reserves
of strength of will that had not yet been tapped. In the movie
he's just made to look like baggage and many people complain about
why anyone would choose this guy to go to the supermarket, much
less take a Ring of Power to the Enemy to cast it into the Fire.
It would have been better to leave this scene in, though I have
a feeling Jackson left it out in order to make Frodo's strength
of will even more impressive and surprising later, though I think
he runs the risk of making it too surprising.
The journey through Moria was my favorite part of the book, inspired
games like Dungeons & Dragons, and held one of my favorite passages
in the trilogy; that between Gandalf and Frodo on why Bilbo hadn't
killed Gollum. That was one of my earliest lessons in the death
penalty, couched as it was in fantasy, and my earliest lesson
in the role fantasy could play in teaching values. 'Deserved death?
I daresay he does. And many of those that die deserve life. Can
you give it to them? Then be not so quick to deal out death in
punishment. Even the Wise cannot see all ends.' In the book, this
conversation was held back in the Shire, before Gandalf left the
second time, but it fits here quite well, and I don't mind the
change. Of course, the flight of the party, the finding of Balin's
tomb, the fight on the bridge between Gandalf and the Balrog,
were enough to make me wish I hadn't read the books before I saw
the movie, as it would have been so much more exciting and shocking
had I not known what was coming. I had a small problem with Aragorn's
'get them up, Boromir' and showing no grief over Gandalf's death
while even Boromir was saddened, and he hadn't known Gandalf near
as long as Aragorn. I thought they could have had Aragorn crying
when he turned his back and started running instead of looking
forward to getting to Lorien like a Griswold on a Lampoon vacation.
Lorien was very pretty, but not what I had envisioned in my mind's
eye. Still, it fit the description of the book, but I missed the
whole interaction of Gimli, the hobbits, and the elves (which
in the books didn't speak a word of English and Aragorn and Legolas
had to translate, and even Legolas had problems because they spoke
an accented dialect of Elvish to which he was unused. It established
the dwarves and elves as hostile to each other, the Lorien elves
as insulated and distrustful of outsiders, even their own kin,
and showed how Lorien was beseiged by orcs from Moria). I also
thought they could have showed Gimli's adoration of Galadriel
and the request for a strand of her hair (very romantic gesture
for a dour dwarf!) as the gift she gave him and an example of
his 180 in attitude towards elves. The river ride was nice, and
the battle with the orcs at the end was very climatic (as well
as Boromir's betrayal and subsequent redemption and death). I
too had to listen to ignorant moviegoers complain about the 'trick'
ending (and also who made fun of any and all drug references,
intentional or no, and anything they interpreted as homosexual
subtext, even to the extent of snickering when one man took another's
hand).
I do look forward to the rest of the movies, as any fan of Tolkien
would, but I am glad that they escaped the gross overexpectation
and hype that plagued the first Star Wars movie in over twenty
years (and that richly deserved the panning it got, in my mind).
Oh and also, I think I'm going to have to go to New Zealand at
some point. The scenery in this movie was absolutely breathtaking
(literally) and should have made the Kiwi Tourist Board proud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Great post! Your comments on Arwen and Galadriel
are dead on. -- Sophist, 13:00:30 02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Evil Clone! Welcome back! OnM - Happy Anniversary! -- Marie,
02:28:52 02/04/02 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theology in BtVS? -- MrDave, 23:58:23 02/01/02 Fri
I have read the opinion on this board that JW seems to have skimmed
over the idea of "positive" forces in the world. God,
Heaven, true Angels, all seem to be conspicuously missing throughout
the Buffyverse. While I will admit that the demonic, Evil, and
negative forces seem to have sway, I think that while not explicitly
named, God is very evident, as is Heaven. But it is not the theistic
vision of God you might expect in a show where demons and even
Satan (aka "The First Evil") are manifested in such
a tangible way.
Paul Tillich (1886-1965), Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976), and more
recently John Shelby Spong (1939-) have all stated as theologians
that a theistic vision of God actually robs God of any power in
our lives. God exists in all things and is omnipresent as well
as omnipotent. We cannot meet God in person nor can we pray to
a deity expecting a personal response. Such idolatry is a sure-fire
way to set oneself up for disappointment, disillusionment, and
eventually a loss of faith and atheism (literally "without
God"). Rather it is the presence of God that we can experience
through living that connects us with the reality of God.
Paul Tillich writes:
"The being of God is being-itself. The being of God cannot
be understood as the existence of a being alongside others or
above others....Many confusions in the doctrine of God could be
avoided if God were understood first of all as being-itself, or
as the ground of being. Ever since the time of Plato it has been
understood that being as being, or being-itself, points to the
power inherent in everything, the power of resisting nonbeing.
"
(Systematic Theology Vol. 1, 1964)
In this statement Tillich asserts that even in the experiences
of pain, death, guilt, fear, and brokenness we can experience
God in the power of renewal. The demonic forces can threaten but
never overwhelm the reality of healing, no matter how tenuous,
that keeps us clinging to life. The very fact that Buffy, Willow,
Tara, Dawn, Xander, Anya, Giles, and all of the other "positive"
characters in BtVS do not succumb to despair and death is a witness
of the power of the divine being at work. God shows through the
"show".
There are also symbols at work. Symbols representing God are not
empowering themselves, but are in fact transparent to us and show
God through themselves.* Crosses, holy water, even the Slayer
herself are symbols for the power of God. Even little touches
like Faith wearing the "Buffy-suit" and staring into
a mirror saying, "Because it's wrong" become symbols
showing us God in the act itself.
So the assertion that God isn't represented in BtVS is actually
a lack of perception on our part. The demons, and the "big
bads" distract us from the true focus of the show, which
is the power of God in our (and Buffy's) life. Our struggle to
overcome the evil that clutters our lives as we "grow up"
is the divine of the universe at work.
* OT NOTE: Paul Tillich described Jesus as the "ultimate
self-removing symbol". He removed himself from our perception
by his death allowing us direct access to God...affirming he was
the Christ. The Messiah).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- yez, 06:16:12 02/02/02 Sat
Mr. Dave wrote: "... God shows through the "show".
"There are also symbols at work. Symbols representing God
are not empowering themselves, but are in fact transparent to
us and show God through themselves.* Crosses, holy water, even
the Slayer herself are symbols for the power of God. Even little
touches like Faith wearing the "Buffy-suit" and staring
into a mirror saying, "Because it's wrong" become symbols
showing us God in the act itself.
"So the assertion that God isn't represented in BtVS is actually
a lack of perception on our part. The demons, and the "big
bads" distract us from the true focus of the show, which
is the power of God in our (and Buffy's) life. Our struggle to
overcome the evil that clutters our lives as we "grow up"
is the divine of the universe at work."
Interesting, and well put, BUT.
This sounds like the argument for the prime mover, or however
that goes -- we know there has to be one god because something
had to set in motion the first cause that we are all effects of.
And also the argument for god as the orderer of chaos, so all
the proof you need for god is to look around you and see that
there is order. By order, the meaning is just "existence."
It seems that, following your logic, vampires and other demons
are as much proof of god as the slayer and everyone else. They
exist. They are "ordered." They are part of the "being."
Besides, god is referred to on the show as The Powers That Be,
right? I always thought that was clever. We use TPTB for the writers,
creators, producers, and those above them who remain more or less
invisible to us. Yet we see the effects of their decisions on
the show each week -- and sometimes, on shows not airing that
week, as the case may be. And the characters use TPTB, too. It
ocurrs to me how clever it is to not have the show characters
able to talk directly to TPTB.
********SOMEWHAT SPOILERY FOR THE LAST ANGEL EP.*********
The last Angel ep. where he can't talk directly to TPTB, but hears
their crazed whispering was a great example.
***********END SOMEWHAT SPOILER****************
The characters may want something and try desperately to make
that wish known. Yet they can't talk to TPTB because TPTB are
the writers, etc., who exist in a different plane, yet who guide
the characters' actions.
Sorry... got carried away with that idea for a second.
I think the concern over the lack of angels and angel-type creatures
is legitimate. Why should there be so much diversity in the forms
evil takes (i.e., all different kinds of demons), and so little
in the forms good takes (i.e., humans with perhaps a few demon
allies)?
Personally, I think the plight of humans vs. demons is too piddly
a thing for TPTB to get involved with. It matters to us because
we're us.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- MrDave, 11:17:51 02/02/02
Sat
I am beginning to appreciate that there is a different theology
on Angel than the theology of Buffy. AtS has a "named"
God in the TPTB. It is identified as a being (or beings) that
can be reached, and who respond (albeit in obscure and not always
aparent ways).
On BtVS the charcters make no mention of the TPTB. They do not
make vain appeals to the collective hoping for a response. They
just live. They struggle and they usually succeed.
This whole train of thought came from OMWF. When Buffy was singing
"I live in Hell/'Cause I've been expelled/From Heaven/I think
I was in Heaven/So give me something to sing about./Please Give
me something..." and the only (and best response) she got
from Spike was "The pain that you feel/ You only can heal/By
living". This is the essence of what I was trying to capture.
Here we see that there is no appeal, no being to answer her "prayer".
Only the divine power that comes from fighting the "chaos"
(as you put it) and moving on.
The appeal Angel makes to TPTB is answered. His is a theistic
world. Where the divine has agents and power, and manifests in
miricles. Life is the miriacle in Buffy. Her struggle to avoid
nonbeing (and the nonbeing of the world) is the manifestation
of the divine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Theology in BtVS and Angel -- OnM, 15:44:36
02/03/02 Sun
*** I am beginning to appreciate that there is a different theology
on Angel than the theology of Buffy ***
Good point, and I think you are absolutely right. Wonderful posts,
BTW. I do find it intriguing that your description of Christianity
sounds so similar to more Eastern-leaning theosophies, or for
that matter to Wicca, which also postulates the 'God is in everything'
concept.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Also ... -- Dedalus, 11:33:16 02/03/02 Sun
I would like to point out that Tillich's argument for the Ground
of Being is not in any way linked to the "Prime Mover"
argument. It is actually the antithesis of it, as he lays that
same line of thinking to rest in the book MrDave was quoting from.
Being-Itself would NOT be the Prime Mover for the simple reason
that Being-Itself IS the Moving motion rather than the thing being
moved. There is a strong degree of differentiation there.
Tillich does a fabulous job of taking down the which came first,
the chicken or the universe, reasoning. He is not spouting a theology
of causality, rather one of correlatives, which is quite different.
Correlatives arise mutually, whereas causality dictates there
must be a separate cause and then a separate effect. Tillich shows
in Systematic Theology that labeling God as First Cause does you
no good, because every cause was an effect once itself. Cause
and effect are rather interchangeable. They are not a straight
line going in one direction, but extend in both directions back
and back and back. Causality is distinctly non-linear though on
the surface it appears that it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- Eric, 11:13:41 02/02/02 Sat
I thought JW skimmed over the idea of "positive" forces
in the show because they might provide unnecessary controversy
and they might limit plot development options. The last is the
most important, since once you put the show on a theistic biased
path it can get predictable. I might add that slayer powers have
yet to be proven divine. In fact, they seem a powerful, even primal
force that may even have links to the demon dimensions. In that
sense they are no more divine than the gun in Anya's dresser drawer.
(I do hope she got rid of that-its so irrelevant based on potential
threats).
Idolatrous prayer doesn't automatically lead to dissillusionment
or atheism. Millions have, do, and will live believing in prayer.
Even if God doesn't exist or doesn't answer them most will never
become atheists. Oddly, many will even feel more religious in
hard times where God's phone is busy. And if God is in everything
- such as a well brewed cup of hot cocoa, isn't some sort of preconceived
notion of God necessary to appreciate Him - at least as something
other than a hot beverage? Sounds too complicated. The Zen Buddhist
would just sip the cocoa, ditto the wise theist after a short
prayer of thanks. Which leads to another thing. If everything
is a divine manifestation, then everything is sacred. And if everything
is sacred, then really nothing is sacred. The Chartre Cathedral
in Paris is certainly more sacred than a gas station bathroom
off Highway 101.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Slight tangent: slayer powers and demonic force? --
yez, 11:48:09 02/02/02 Sat
Eric, you wrote: "... slayer powers ... seem a powerful,
even primal force that may even have links to the demon dimensions."
This suddenly made me wonder about the current "Buffy came
back wrong" situation. Is it possible that Spike has been
capable of hurting Buffy *all along* for this reason, but hadn't
actually tried it till just now because he just assumed that it
would hurt to strike her? In other words, could it be that Buffy
has *always* been superhuman and so not covered by the chip, not
just since she was resurrected?
I can't remember if Spike has done the wince thing with Buffy,
or just with others. Does anyone know?
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Slight tangent: slayer powers and demonic
force? -- robert, 13:17:51 02/02/02 Sat
"Is it possible that Spike has been capable of hurting Buffy
*all along* for this reason, but hadn't actually tried it till
just now because he just assumed that it would hurt to strike
her? In other words, could it be that Buffy has *always* been
superhuman and so not covered by the chip, not just since she
was resurrected?"
Good question! The answer is no. In "Fool for Love",
Spike winced in pain when he hit Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spike can't hurt pre-dead Buffy -- Liz, 14:13:09
02/02/02 Sat
The one in "Fool for Love" was a bit complicated because
he was also able to try to hit her when he knew he couldn't, and
he was also playing around a bit.
A better example is "Out of my Mind" when he thought
the chip was out and tried to bite her. Spike definitly couldn't
hurt Buffy before she died.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't hurt pre-dead Buffy --
yez, 20:56:12 02/02/02 Sat
Well, I took my best shot. :)
Thanks to both of you.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike can't hurt pre-dead Buffy --
JM, 20:56:19 02/02/02 Sat
Hope I'm not requoting anyone, not finished the thread, but the
answer is no.
He was absolutely convinced he was fixed in "Out of My Mind"
but one lunge at Buffy nearly incapacitated him. He was absolutely
convinced on punishment in "Smashed" but it never came.
Something is different. I'd wager a cosmic factor. We don't know
if God exists, but there are more than just the forces of evil,
else there wouldn't be the Slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- yez, 12:02:43 02/02/02 Sat
Since both shows not only share the same creator but the characters
in Angel originated on BtVS, doesn't it follow that TPTB also
exist in the Buffyverse -- even if the characters don't subscribe
to them, have direct dealings with them, etc.?
As far as theism leading to predictability on Buffy, I guess I
disagree. As far as I've been able to tell, TPTB aren't quite
based on traditional religions (thank god!) and so allow for a
lot of maneuverability. Also, I think dealing with the big questions,
the why questions, would be a good challenge for Whedon et al,
and would be interesting for the rest of us.
As far as religion on Buffy goes, the use of Catholic paraphenalia,
which Mr.Dave referred to earlier, makes a statement, doesn't
it? Not that I know what the statement is... Perhaps the power
of the cross and holy water rests solely in the power that's imbued
through belief, not in an divine power channelled through the
Catholic Church. In other words, it's a spell. Maybe a Star of
David would work the same way?
Of course, if the Star of David or similar wouldn't work, then
it would seem that the power was related to the Catholic religion,
and therefore, to the Catholic god. And so wouldn't every use
of a cross or holy water on Buffy be an invocation of that god?
Buffy does wear a cross on her neck.
yez
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- robert, 13:27:40 02/02/02
Sat
"Since both shows not only share the same creator but the
characters in Angel originated on BtVS, doesn't it follow that
TPTB also exist in the Buffyverse ..."
No. As a logical argument, it does not follow. You may assume
that the BtVS and Angel universes are the same, and many people
do. They may be correct. However, unless Mr. Whedon has stated
that the universes are the same, I don't think we can logically
conclude that they are.
I personally believe that they aren't. The nature of the powers,
magic, demons, and evil are subtly different. It might be interesting
if someone more literate than I were to analyze the differences
in an essay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Well traditionally (mild exageration) the Catholic
and Jewish god is the same -- Charlemagne20, 14:29:59 02/02/02
Sat
However there's also the fact the cross is a Solar Symbol and
it represents Life and ressurection while the Star of David isn't
really a religious symbol at all but a reflection of the Nationhood
of Israel as far as I can tell.
Though the spiritual covenant aspects with the Chosen people might
be included I suppose.
Reminds me of a Doctor Who episode where a man's faith in communism
drives off an evil vampire
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: another possibility - slightly ot
-- Valhalla, 16:29:18 02/02/02 Sat
I hope bringing up other vampire shows isn't sacrilegious (hee
hee), but on Forever Knight, vampires are only affected by religious
symbols that already existed and that they had some relationship
to when they were made vampires. So the older vampire (LaCroix?
can't remember his name, quite), who was an early Roman general
or something when he was turned, was entirely unaffected by symbols
of Christianity, but Nick, who became a vampire during one of
the crusades (I think -- it's been a long time), was burnt by
crosses, holy water, etc.
I always thought that made a lot of sense, although it could get
kind of complicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: another possibility - slightly ot
-- Valhalla, 16:41:21 02/02/02 Sat
I hope bringing up other vampire shows isn't sacrilegious (hee
hee), but on Forever Knight, vampires are only affected by religious
symbols that already existed and that they had some relationship
to when they were made vampires. So the older vampire (LaCroix?
can't remember his name, quite), who was an early Roman general
or something when he was turned, was entirely unaffected by symbols
of Christianity, but Nick, who became a vampire during one of
the crusades (I think -- it's been a long time), was burnt by
crosses, holy water, etc.
I always thought that made a lot of sense, although it could get
kind of complicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- MrDave2176, 15:30:32
02/04/02 Mon
Yez stated:
And if God is in everything - such as a well brewed cup of hot
cocoa, isn't some sort of preconceived notion of God necessary
to appreciate Him - at least as something other than a hot beverage?
Sounds too complicated. The Zen Buddhist would just sip the cocoa,
ditto the wise theist after a short prayer of thanks. Which leads
to another thing. If everything is a divine manifestation, then
everything is sacred. And if everything is sacred, then really
nothing is sacred. The Chartre Cathedral in Paris is certainly
more sacred than a gas station bathroom off Highway 101
If God is in the being...the "Ground of all Being":
then the cup of cocoa isn't being, it just is. Being is an act.
God is in the brewing, God is in the enjoyment, God is in the
prayer of thanks. The act of brewing, enjoying and being thankful
is the reflection of the divine showing throught the process.
If the brewing was arduous, painful, and hard. If the cocoa was
nasty or rancid, and the monk spilled it all over his orange robes,
then his reflection "God as being-itself" is clouded
by the experience. This is why the struggle is part of the experience.
The Cathedral is a celebration. It was hard, it was expensive,
it was largely superfluous, but the labor and time and effort
lavished on it inspires others...the divine effort placed into
it shines through and brings others closer to God. I doubt that
the same effort was lavished on that Gas station. But who hasn't
been inspired at one time or another while pumping gas or uninating
into a roadside lavatory. Yeah, God is there too, it is the symbols
that are not equal.
The Cathedral is a symbol that is designed to be transparent to
the being-itself. The gas station may be transparent under the
right circumstances, but it wasn't designed for that.
Since both shows not only share the same creator but the characters
in Angel originated on BtVS, doesn't it follow that TPTB also
exist in the Buffyverse -- even if the characters don't subscribe
to them, have direct dealings with them, etc.?
I respectfully disagree. Angel and Buffy have different messages.
Why wouldn't they have different cosmologies, internal logic,
metaphysics, and theologies? These elements serve to futher the
show's message, not the other way around. So they can be emphasized,
altered, or eliminated as needed to convey this message. Not to
say that their two separate environs are incompatable...they aren't.
From the storytellers POV they are more like the comicbook continuity
that Marvel and DC have perpetrated. They cross over only as much
as needed to tell the tale, the rest of the time they are self-contained
and separate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- manwitch, 15:30:09 02/02/02 Sat
"The appeal Angel makes to TPTB is answered. His is a theistic
world. Where the divine has agents and power, and manifests in
miricles.
Life is the miriacle in Buffy. Her struggle to avoid nonbeing
(and the nonbeing of the world) is the manifestation of the divine."
This I like.
"So the assertion that God isn't represented in BtVS is actually
a lack of perception on our part. The
demons, and the "big bads" distract us from the true
focus of the show, which is the power of God in
our (and Buffy's) life. Our struggle to overcome the evil that
clutters our lives as we "grow up" is the
divine of the universe at work."
This not so much.
The problem with talking about God is that no two people are ever
talking about the same thing. It sounds like we are, cuz we're
using the same word, but...
I think your distinction between Buffy and Angel is exactly right.
In Buffy, the divine is the eternal divine power of life itself,
transcendant of time and place. That is the essence of Buffy's
realization and sacrifice in The Gift. She recognizes the one-ness
beyond forms.
Angel's is a theistic world as you say. For my way of thinking,
a lot of people put the cart before the horse with Angel. They
see the Powers That Be as calling Angel to some sort of performance
or purpose. But really its the other way around. Angel's quest
is what calls the Powers That Be into existence.
Boring Philosophical Explanation as to why this is so: Angel is
from the 18th century, the time of the enlightenment and the moral
thought of Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that the purpose of moral
behavior was not happiness, which could never be achieved, but
virtue, or what Kant called the "worthiness to be happy."
In order for such a quest to be possible and meaningful, Kant
argued that it presupposed a power capable of distributing happiness
in accordance to worthiness. Or in Kant's words, it "must
lead to the supposition of the existence of a cause adequate to
this effect; in other words it must postulate the existence of
God." Kant also argued, that since this worthiness could
not be achieved in a human life time, this quest was "only
possible on the supposition of the immortality of the soul."
The parallels to Angel should be obvious. End Boring Philosophical
Explanation.
So the Powers That Be are part of Angel's quest, not Buffy's.
I would argue that they follow Angel whether he is on his own
show or in Buffy. The Buffy episode "Pangs" comes to
mind.
But I don't think the divine in Buffy is a Christian or even personal
divinity. The christian symbols seem to have no more efficacy
than the pagan ones. And the show quickly articulated that Buffy
was not in "the" heaven, but any one of a million heavenly
dimensions. That they are regularly drawing on divine powers from
any number of traditions is clear, from sacred circles to incense,
to latin or sumerian chants, to Mayan symbols etc. etc. So in
your first post I hear a suggestion that Buffy is transparent
to the Christian God, which seems to me limiting. In your second
post I hear Buffyas transparent to the divine nature of life in
any of its costumes, including Christian. Which I like.
I am not even sure that our task is to overcome evil, but perhaps
to overcome the dualistic good/evil thinking of our childhood.
Perhaps that is reflected in Buffy's relationship with Spike.
Who knows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- MrDave, 19:35:50 02/03/02
Sun
I can see why the appeal to a Christian philosophy as opposed
to a more universal philosophy might be assumed from the first
post, becasue the Theologians I am quoting and deriving the essay
from are Christian theologians.
I (because I am Christian) see a Christian entity. I am also open
minded enough to see that there is a universal God implied in
Buffy. Many philosophies are represented and the being-itself
of God need not be limited to Christian theology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Theology in BtVS? -- Darby, 20:12:31 02/02/02 Sat
Point by point:
The positive forces of Buffy's world are people willing to fight
the negative forces. It isn't that they don't exist, it's that
some sort of higher powers sometime get invoked to explain the
motivations of the &qu