January 2003 posts
All
We Want is Life Beyond - Thoughts on *Showtime* -- OnM, 20:17:36
01/13/03 Mon
*******
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
............ Tina Turner
*******
Right at the moment, we are exactly half-way through the current
season, and in comparison to where we were lastyear at this time,
there is a world of difference in our Buffy. Episode 6.10 was
the famous (or infamous, depending onviewer POV) Wrecked,
where Willow nearly gets Dawn killed, and Spike and Buffy finally
bring down thehouse, almost literally. Then, in the 11th outing,
we had Gone, where Buffy found refuge in invisibility.
Forpurposes of a 'then & now' analysis, I'm going to crib one
paragraph each from my 'reviews' of those shows andreproduce it
here. First, from Wrecked, where I used a mock-fanfic construction
to get into what I thought might be going on in Buffy's head:
Of course, he would argue that the soul has nothing to do with
anything. It only predisposes one to follow the path of good,
it doesn't assure it. By the same token, the lack of a soul doesn't
guarantee that one will inevitably follow the path of evil. Serial
killers can have souls, and I once referred to him as being a
serial killer who happens to be in prison, thanks to that chip
in his head. For that matter, why don't I just keep him literally
locked up? The police may use criminals as informants, that doesn't
necessarily mean they have to let them run free. I could force
him to stay in the crypt, and just beat the information out of
him when I needed it. Not that he might not like that. It's occurred
to me on more than one occasion that maybe I'm approaching this
relationship all wrong, that he wants me to control him,
be his superhuman mistress or some other sick thing. I still recall
that comment he made back after Dru left him the first time, that
he would 'find her and torture her until she loves him again'.
What was scary was that it made sense to me in some perverse fashion.
But why would he think I'm capable of such a role? I'm not really
a bitch, I just play one in order to serve my calling.
Now, from Gone:
Buffy, initially retreating into fear/isolation after her first
sexual encounter with Spike, has apparently realized that sitting
alone in her room surrounded by crosses and garlic bunches won't
hack it either. Even in a world without supernatural evils to
battle, there are still the mundane matters of human existance
to ferret out solutions to, such as dealing with the child welfare
authorities, gaining some form of regular employment, and assisting
her friends in dealing with their own particular difficulties.
In between then and now, Buffy appears to have either re-discovered
her calling, or else evolved a greater understanding of herself
and what she is capable of. Buffy has always been at her weakest
when she allows her fears and insecurities to inhibit her actions.
This weakness is the same one that we all deal with from time
to time, but the greater weight of duty that rests on Buffy's
shoulders strongly amplifies the effect. She seems to gain the
same degree of 'amplification' in the other direction when events
force her to narrow her focus and concentrate on 'saving the day'
to the exclusion of all else, even if it's only one single day
that needs to be saved and not the entire future universe of days.
Since the very first season, nothing makes Buffy more powerfully
dangerous to the forces of evil than attacks directed at her friends
and family, a cogent point which the supposedly all-knowing First
Evil manages to gloss over time and again.
Buffy's new dynamic with Spike is a perfect illustration of this--
last year at this time she hadn't a clue as to what kind of balance
she could strike in dealing with conflicting feelings, both her
own and the ones that Spike appeared to exhibit. After some initial
uncertainty at the beginning of this season, Buffy has apparently
decided that the proper course of action is to reward Spike for
his positive actions without simultaneously giving the impression
that she loves him in other than a comrade-like fashion. In fact,
Buffy is doing exactly the same thing with Spike that she is doing
with the proto-Slayers and even the Scoobies-- trying to lead
by example, and work to inspire mutual trust and loyalty. While
a kind of hierarchy is clearly being put into place that somewhat
resembles a military-style chain of command, there is a greater
(matriarchal?) emphasis on it being more family-like, flexible
and forgiving than the rigid structures typical of a patriarchal
military order. Is this new focus having greatly beneficial effects?
It certainly appears that way to me.
In Showtime, I was struck by two things above all else.
First, the time frame of the ep couldn't have been more than a
few days at most since the Uber-Vamp nearly killed Buffy, giving
her what very well might have been the worst physical beating
of her life. Despite this, her physical body seems to have recovered
completely, other than a few faint scars here and there-- astoundingly
remarkable even for her normally accelerated healing abilities.
Even more significantly, Buffy's personal interactions have returned
to the way she was in the current season's first few shows, where
she could effortlessly switch between HumanBuffy and SlayerBuffy
modes without missing a beat.
Second, the First Evil now seems to be a far less formidible foe
in terms of its physical manifestations, and far more formidible
in the way that it weakens its prey by psychological means. The
fact that Buffy has begun to understand this means that the initial
part of the battle has alreadly been won. The question (in my
mind) that remains is whether or not Buffy can come to accept
that the First Evil cannot be literally killed or destroyed, as
the Beljoxa Eye (and the FE itself) have declared. (If the Joyce
visitations are the real thing, and not the FE, Joyce has also
stated as such).
I accept this last contention to be true, by the way. The reason
that Willow's locator spell caused the FE to 'invade' her body
and mind was simply because it has a portion of itself within
her already, and always has. I believe that the writiers will
eventually reveal that the FE resides in all of the Scoobies,
and in fact in nearly all sentient creatures. Therefore, Buffy
needs to come up with a plan that somehow prevents the FE from
having such a pervasive influence on it's potential victims, rather
than trying to beat it out of literal existence. She needs teflon,
not artillery to keep the First at bay.
Look at the tools that the FE routinely employs to work its will.
As it stated when it was crucifying Spike to open the seal and
release Ubee from captivity, it's a sucker for the 'classics'--
fear, pain, loneliness, despair. In Showtime, it uses these
tools to not only continue to batter Spike psychologically, insisting
that his hopes that Buffy will come to save him are for naught,
but to plant the fears of certain death in the minds of the proto-Slayers
that are gathered at the Summer's house. Notably, it (temporarily)
succeeds in the latter case, and fails in the former case. Holding
on to the single thought that Buffy 'believes in him', Spike has
refused to switch his moral allegiance back over to the side of
evil, as the First seems to (desperately) need him to do. Failing
in this, the FE tries to break his will by convincing him that
his faith in Buffy is misplaced, that she will not save him. He
quietly repeats, "she will come for me" over and over,
like a mantra or a prayer. The FE is openly disturbed by this,
and even more disgusted when it ultimately turns out to be prophetic,
in one of the best closing moments of this season or any. (And
more on that later on).
There has been ongoing speculative discussion in the fan community
about whether or not Spike will turn to evil again before the
end of the season, possibly betraying Buffy or the other Scoobies.
At this point, I think that the answer would be emphatically no,
although of course this doesn't mean that Spike could not still
be tricked or manipulated into causing unintentional harm. At
the end of the 'Thunderdome' sequence in the fourth act, we get
to see the First Evil (in the momentary guise of ex-proto-Slayer
Eve) standing up in the upper reaches of the scaffolding, glaring
angrily down at the triumphant Buffy and her now reinvigorated
and reassured 'army'. That ravaging anger isn't simply because
Buffy managed to dust the 'unkillable' Ubee, but for a far greater
triumph-- Buffy can now rescue Spike, and the First knows it can't
do a damn thing about it. Spike's fervent prayer has been answered,
and nothing convinces the faithful like undeniable evidence that
the Almighty has come through after all. This makes Spike exponentially
more dangerous than he was before. It's bad enough that an
evil vampire falls in love with his mortal nemesis. It's worse
yet when his love grows to the point where he seeks out a soul
to 'make himself worthy' to his love. It's The End of The Evil
World As We Know It when 'mere' eros transends into agape. The
new Joan of Arc is assembling a band of warrior disciples, who
watch her deeds in awe and decide that if the world is
going to end, they're going to be at her side. (Just like Xander
and Evil!Willow). This is the heaviest of the possible heavy stuff,
and if the FE is capable of fear, this is a clear realization
of that fear.
Speaking of fears, Giles and Anya's journey to the dimension of
the Beljoxa Eye adds a few new, and highly debatable
ones to the ongathering mystery. If we believe the statements
that the Eye has made, then the FE has been able to take its current
course of action because there has been 'a disruption in the line
of the Chosen One', who of course we immediately assume to be
Buffy. Giles presumes that the 'disruption' is due not to Buffy's
previous death (or deaths?), but because she is still living after
it (them). Anya latches onto this line of reasoning, and becomes
even more despondent as she points out to Giles that Buffy is
alive because she, Willow, Xander and Tara brought Buffy back
to life. "Things would have been better if Buffy had just
stayed dead", she tells him, and walks away mournfully into
the night.
As we all know, there's always a talisman, and there's also always
a list. Here's one of mine on some of the possibilties for what
the 'disruption' might be that the FE 'took advantage of', in
the words of Beljoxa's Eye:
1. Buffy's first resurrection, way back in season 1. This lead
to the calling of another Slayer, even though Buffy was living
again. Everything from that point forward has made things progressively
worse for the cause of Evil.
2. Buffy's second resurrection 4 months after her death in The
Gift. The 'price' for that one appeared to be Tara's death,
but maybe that was only the sales tax.
3. Spike willfully getting his soul back. This just doesn't happen,
but then Buffy seems to make the impossible possible at regular
intervals.
4. Buffy saving Dawn's life. Perhaps in cosmic terms, the Key
was meant to stay the way it was, or at least be returned to its
original state. Dawn should have 'died' in the dimensional portal,
not Buffy.
5. The mere existence of the Scooby Gang. The Slayer is supposed
to work alone, other than of course with her Watcher. The First
Slayer insisted that this was Buffy's proper destiny, but Buffy
thought otherwise.
6. The 'Chosen One' in question isn't Buffy-- it's Faith. The
'disruption' may have been Faith's fall from grace, and subsequent
seeking of redemption, leading to her voluntary imprisonment.
When you think about it (and several other posters have already
brought this subject up), Faith could be considered to be the
current Slayer, not Buffy. The situation for Faith, from a prophecy
standpoint, could be much like Angel's-- he is expected to play
a role in the coming apocalypse (the 'big one', I guess), but
it's unknown on which side he would serve. Perhaps the First Evil
is sparing Buffy because they forsee doing so as a way to bring
Faith back into action, and thus restore whatever the original
'path' for her was supposed to be-- I'm guessing it was the evil
path, not the redemption-seeking one. BTW, anyone like to bet
that the FE will reappear in the image of Mayor Wilkins when Faith
gets back into the game?
To date, I have been leaning strongly towards the idea that the
Giles we have been seeing recently is still the real thing, maybe
a bit shell-shocked at the turn of events with the Council getting
destroyed and his inability to offer any significiant help to
Buffy and the gang. Now, I am once again far less sure. If ?Giles?
is really some kind of puppet of the FE, the visit to Beljoxa's
Eye could be part of the setup to deceive the good guys. Anya
strongly resists Giles' desire to visit the Eye, but we are never
told the specifics of why. On the surface, it appears to be about
hating 'vortex dimensions', but there could be other reasons.
On a metanarrative level, there is the Eye's name itself. Other
boarders have already noted that 'joxa' could mean 'joke', and
I think also mentioned that 'bel' is Italian for 'pleasant' or
'fine'. I might be stretching here, but 'Bel' (with a capital
'B') is also a measurment unit for sound-- it's where the word
'decibel' is derived from. Is what the Eye says just a 'fine joke'
or a 'sound joke'? Could it be that the Eye always speaks the
literal truth, but that the 'truth' conveniently leaves
out a few important little details? Something like the politician
who states that "67.5 million people voted for me in the
last election" and conveniently fails to mention that
252.7 million people voted for the other guy. Interesting...
If ?Giles? and/or the Eye are in cahoots with the FE, then we
have to assume that Anya spreading the word that Buffy should
have remained dead has the potential to stir up serious trouble--
even Buffy herself might lose some of her new-found confidence
if she thinks that the FE could win simply if she remains alive.
I have little doubt that if Buffy seriously thought she could
'seriously hurt' the FE by virtue of her death, she'd martyr herself
in a heartbeat. This could even be another possibility as to the
meaning of the 'Buffy won't choose you' line that ?Joyce?
presented Dawn with. Buffy might become convinced that her death
would set everything right, and Dawn would be convinced that it
isn't true.
I very strongly suspect that regardless of the Eye's literal
implications, Buffy needs to stay alive. I think anything
that suggests otherwise is exactly what the FE is hoping
for. The FE knows that Buffy is too smart and morally strong to
fall for its traditional despair and pain inducing tricks, but
Buffy does have a martyr complex (for the best of reasons, but
a martyr complex nonetheless) that could be easily exploited.
***
OK, I'll shift gears here and ramble on a mite about the 'Thunderdome'
ref that permeates the fourth act of *Showtime*. Being a serious
fan of the Mad Max film trilogy, I couldn't help but chuckle that
I thought "Two men enter, one man leaves" at just about
the same exact instant that Andrew spoke the words onscreen. It
was an additional chuckle of a more philosophical sort when I
considered that Andrew, always stuck with the inability to see
beyond the barest surface of any situation, did not see the real
connections between the film and the videodrome that Buffy inhabits.
Note: In the event that you have never seen the film Mad
Max: Beyond Thunderdome or the first two films of the trilogy
(Mad Max and The Road Warrior), I will be making
several critical spoilers for it/them known during the next several
paragraphs. If you wish to avoid these, please scroll down to
the next '***' mark. BTW, I can recommend any of these films very
highly-- they are right up there on an creative, layered artistic
level with the ME Buffyverse. If you've never seen them, please
consider doing so.
( . . . Mad Max Trilogy Spoilers below . . . )
In the Mad Max universe, Max is a member of an Australian police
force in a time after a global nuclear apocalypse has devastated
the world's civilizations. Vicious gangs roam the roads of the
remaining cities and towns, terrorizing the populace, spreading
violent, dog-eat-dog anarchy in the traditional meaning of the
word. (Think of the demon biker gang in Bargaining, but
with cars). Max is honest, strong, courageous, a loving husband
and father, who does his job as best he can (and does it rather
well, in fact) despite what seem to be an endless series of pyrrhic
victories. At the end of the first film, one of the gangs kill
his wife and child for the sheer joy of it, and Max becomes a
'broken, burned out shell of a man', as the opening narration
to the second film aptly states the situation.
Several years ago, I was reading a story-- I believe it was in
Time magazine, but I'm not sure-- that was discussing the
role of religious images in contemporary arts and culture. In
answer to those people who were constantly bemoaning the 'complete
lack of spiritual thought' in popular entertainment, the author
wrote that there was just as much, if not more religious imagery
and metaphor as there had been previously, it's just that it wasn't
traditional imagery or metaphor. The author went on to
illustrate that, for example, there were still messianic figures
present everywhere, but because they may not be overtly Christian
or Judaic or Muslim or whathaveyou, they tend to be dismissed
or ignored. Like Campbell, this writer looked for the enduring
mythology underneath the surface, and saw it everywhere. One of
the author's observations floored me, because I-- 1) had never
thought of it before and-- 2) recognized immediately that he was
absolutely right. How could I have missed it?
Well, I missed it because for the most part I wasn't used to looking
at movies on more than a surface entertainment level. Now, I did
know that there was more going on than just your typical action-adventure-with
lots-of-car-chases when I saw The Road Warrior for the
first time, but it really didn't occur to me that Max wasn't just
a burned-out cop looking for some kind of redemption or meaning
to life, but was a kind of modern messiah.
If there are any doubts about this, they tend to be assuaged by
the time that you have watched all films. It's very clearly there
if you look for it. Whether the writer of Bring on the Night
deliberately referenced it or whether it is just a general synchronicity,
the scene where Buffy gives her "One thing more powerful
than Evil..." speech to the disheartened proto-Slayers is
perfectly analogous to the moment when Max, who has been so badly
battered by a horrific car crash (while trying to evade the anarchist
gangs) hobbles out into the embattled camp compound of the 'good
guys' and states, with ironic John Wayne-like bravado,
"If it's all the same to you... I'll drive that tanker."
Max is so beat up that he doesn't look like he could drive a wheelchair,
let alone a giant tanker truck, but the desperate people around
him sense something about him that makes them willingly acquiesce.
The decision makes no sense objectively, but yet somehow it makes
perfect sense. This is irrational behavior unless you feel in
your gut and your heart that Max has been sent by God, and carries
with his person the chance to achieve the impossible, which in
fact he does (with the help of his new 'followers').
Max is a reluctant messiah, just as Buffy is. He has faced death
(psychologically/metaphorically in Max's case) just like Buffy
and somehow has to come out the other side and reach a kind of
enlightenment. It is a harrowing journey, and does not conclude
until the third film, although a serious step forward does take
place in the second film.
In the third film, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, Max is traveling
through the desert wastelands when he is robbed of his pack animals
and wagon. He follows the thief to a place called 'Bartertown',
where a powerful woman named 'Auntie Entity' gives him the chance
to regain his stolen possessions if he will do her one favor--
kill a man. It turns out that Auntie is ruler in appearance only--
the real power behind the throne is a tiny dwarf-like man who
was apparently an engineer in 'the old world'. This man has protected
himself against the people who want to steal his knowledge for
their own purposes by allying himself with a powerful, seemingly
mutant creature that literally carries him on its shoulders. The
'creature' always wears a hood that covers his entire head, so
we cannot see his face.
Auntie wants this man-creature killed, so that the engineer will
lose his 'leverage' and so serve her needs as ruler without interference.
Max agrees to the deal, and the two are ushered into a metal latticework
dome-- the 'Thunderdome' of the title-- to duel to the death.
A huge crowd of people gather and climb all over the lattice of
the dome, eager to see a little state-sanctified carnage. (The
situation as depicted makes a number of satirically biting and
dead-on references to nasty game shows and 'professional wrestling'
events, likening them all to the overriding political implications
of Bartertown in specific, and capitalism in general).
The duel begins, and Max is getting beaten rather badly, but he
has a trick available-- he has discovered previously that the
'creature' experiences agonizing pain when he hears loud, high
pitched sounds, such as a whistle. Max starts blasting away on
a whistle he concealed on his person, and begins to win the fight.
In one near-final, brutal blow, he strikes the creature so hard
that he breaks the straps holding its helmet in place, and the
helmet goes flying, revealing the face of 'the beast'. The crowd
gasps-- apparently no one has ever seen the true visage of this
being. Max strides up, weapon in hand, about to swing it down
on the creature's head for the death blow, then stops short in
horror.
The 'creature' is not a creature at all-- the face is revealed
to be that of a severly retarded man, retardation likely caused
by exposure to radiation. Max understands immediately what the
truth is-- the engineer takes care of the 'monster' as much or
more than the monster takes care of the engineeer. There is no
actual malice in the 'beast'-- he doesn't have the intelligence
to even form the thought. He may be physically powerful and imposing,
but in reality he is no more than a very young child. Max is appalled
at what he has almost done, and drops his weapon, refusing to
kill what he sees as an innocent life.
This does not go over well with Auntie or the crowd. The rules
state that 'two men enter, one man leaves'. There are no exceptions--
there cannot be, according to Auntie, or the system will fall
apart. (One of the many delightful perversities of this film is
that, one a certain level, she is right-- the purpose of Thunderdome
is to solve disputes with a 'little war' rather than allow them
to slowly build into the great ones that nearly devastated the
planet. What is the alternative?) Of course, Max doesn't agree,
and from there on the story takes Max to what might be a solution,
or maybe just another serious dilemma to solve.
I think this little summary points out the similarities between
Showtime and Thunderdome, but as usual ME has put
a sideways spin on things. The scaffolding of the construction
site might mimic the steel lattice of the Thunderdome, and Buffy
has to engage in a fight to the death within it, but the comparison
breaks down in that Ubee is presented as being completely vicious
and evil, whereas Max's opponent is an 'innocent' who is defending
the person who takes care of him, and doesn't really understand
the violence that he inflicts or what it really means. Does this
mean that Buffy only thinks of the surface level of the nature
of 'Thunderdome', that controlled violence is a reliable way to
keep the smaller conflicts from becoming larger ones?
This might seem to be the case, but we know that Buffy understands
the difference between necessary violence and when it is more
appropriate to rely on other means to resolve conflicts. Buffy
refused to kill Glory because it also meant killing Ben, an 'innocent'.
(Giles, you will note, took up the Auntie Entity 'greater good'
position in that situation). Buffy gave her own life to close
the dimensional rift in The Gift rather than sacrifice
Dawn, even though it could be argued that Dawn wasn't 'really
human'. Buffy has spared Spike, and now even looks out for his
welfare, and the same with Anya.
I think the main comparative point deconstructs into the concept
that Buffy, like Max, seeks a better way, and so instinctively
works to find a path away from despair and towards hope. The Thunderdome
itself is just a structure, like the law-- it cannot cover every
possible contingency. Ultimately, it not power, it's how you wield
it. Is Max a 'hero'? Perhaps. Perhaps he just understands that
there isn't always a 'way home', when the home that you once knew
is gone forever. Max comes into his own power and passes that
power on to others when he becomes a force for change, for showing
many of the residents of Bartertown that there is an alternative--
that life 'beyond' is possible. Buffy has gathered her 'disciples'
in the same way, and I suspect she will teach them the same lesson.
( ... End Mad Max spoilers ... )
***
So much for 'Thunderdome' analogies and the primary diversions
of the review. Now on to various secondary diversions! ~~~ Some
fans have been wondering if BtVS S7 is going to turn out so as
to reveal that Buffy's visit to the 'Asylumverse' in last year's
Normal Again was actually the reality, that Buffy has been
delusional all along, that ME will pull some version or variant
of the last episode of St. Elsewhere. I don't think so,
myself, but I find that I am anticipating the shows of May to
a far greater extent than in any of the previous six seasons.
In any event, just like with my ?Giles? / is-he-or-isn't-he dilemma,
I'm also back to wondering whether or not my original conjecture
that we have been watching events take place in more than one
parallel Buffyverse is back to having possible merit once more.
After the first two or three shows, I was pretty sure this was
the case, then I tended to change my mind, now the telepathy thing
with Buffy is flipping me back.
Other possible explanations? Well, we already know that Willow
has telepathic abilities, presumably as a result of her magical
abilities. But, we've never seen Buffy initiate contact the way
she did in this episode. I really doubt it's a goof-up, it's just
too big a one to assume that. Did Buffy get Willow to magically
gift her with telepathy, as a possible way to converse with the
core Scoobies and not have the FE 'overhear'? The appearance of
the ability did appear right after the revelation that the
FE was masquerading as Eve. It'll be interesting to discover
whether or not the shooting script reveals an answer, or of course
we may get an explanation in a future ep.
~~~ It's kind of neat to see Dawn finding her place as the go-between
(age and experience-wise) among Buffy and the collection of proto-Slayers.
Now they get to be whiny and annoying and she gets to be
the one who is more confident and experienced. In all fairness
though, the SIT's have a right to be at least a little whiny--
this evil thing is all pretty new to them, Buffy just had the
living crap beat out of her, the one remaining Watcher seems lost
in some kind of ineffectual fog half the time, the witch is on
the twitchy side, the construction guy is always making with the
dark funnies, and who the hell is this Spike dude, anyway? I'm
guessing that in a few more weeks, if they get a little action
behind them, the whininess quotient will decline.
~~~ Has Andrew accepted Buffy as his new leader, or will he continue
to do the Dr. Zachary Smith bit for the rest of the season? Even
if he does cleave to the straight and narrow, he did kill Jonathan,
and Buffy and all of the Scoobies know that, and he is still a
human. Buffy wanted Faith to go to jail, which of course she eventually
did. Will Andrew eventually end up there also?
~~~ ME is still playing it cool on the possible Kennedy-Willow
shippage. Regardless of where they go with that, I am liking Kennedy
more and more each ep, and so am fervently hoping that this doesn't
mean she'll turn out to do a Nina on 24 kinda thing-- that
would be a mega-bummer. I like her confidence, the way she studies
Buffy (for real, not the suck-uppage kinda studying Annabelle
affected to anyone with authority), the fact that she worries
that she's 'too old' to become the new Slayer. Perhaps Buffy might
point out that a good age to become a Slayer is like just after
never? If she's called though, I think she could handle it.
~~~ One of the other things that had popped into my head when
I first heard what the title of the ep was going to be was that
"It's showtime!" was the phrase that Joe Gideon
(the Roy Scheider character) repeated every morning in Bob Fosse's
All That Jazz. At the end of that movie, something happened
to him that might also have some bearing on Buffy and season 7.
Or it might not. Buffy surely fits the definition of potential
workaholic, though. Hummm...
~~~ Sometime, perhaps in the long pause after the season ends
this summer, I think I might feel the urge to go back over each
episode of the past year and collect all the numerous movie references
for a bit of analysis. Maybe I'll do a special Classic Movie
of the Week or maybe I'll still be in awe/shock/surprise/
(and hopefully not) disappointment at whatever transpires in episode
7.22, and I'll need to talk about that first. Knowing me, it'll
likely be both, but if I recall correctly, there hasn't been a
single episode presented so far this season that hasn't had at
least one movie reference dropped into it somewhere.
~~~ As I mentioned earlier on, I really really liked the way the
end of the episode played out. Like many of the best BtVS ep enders,
there was very little speech, just well chosen camera angles,
good lighting, and first rate work by the actors. The scene nicely
linked to the one from season 5 where Spike has been tortured
by Glory, and it attempting to recover in his crypt when what
appears to be the Buffybot comes in, and instead turns out to
be Buffy herself. Here, of course, he initially assumes that the
FE has returned to torment him some more, but then discovers that
once again Buffy has come through. There is also additional mirroring
in that I could see this scene as a thematic bookend to the one
in Fool for Love where he sits soundlessly next to Buffy
on the back porch of the Summers' house, trying to confort the
devastated Buffy with his simple presence.
I especially enjoyed the subtle little detail that when Buffy
cuts down the first restraint and his arm and hand fall onto her
shoulder, she doesn't move, not even slightly. It's quite a feat
to convey the impression of 'solidity' both in the concrete and
the abstract at the same time, all without words. Nice job, guys.
~~~ I liked Anya's hair.
*******
Out of the ruins
Out from the wreckage
Can't make the same mistake this time
We are the children
The last generation
We are the ones they left behind
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change
Living under the fear, till nothing else remains
Looking for something
We can rely on
There's gotta be something better out there
Love and compassion
Their day is coming
All else are castles built in the air
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change
Living under the fear till nothing else remains
So what do we do with our lives
We leave only a mark
Will our story shine like a light
Or end in the dark
Give it all or nothing
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond
Thunderdome
*******
Thus endeth the review.
............ OnM
*******
[> ***Spoilers*** for BtVS
S7.11 and before, the *Mad Max* film trilogy, and S1 *24*
-- OnM, 20:31:29 01/13/03 Mon
[> [> For all those interested
in More Mad Max-- link inside to CMotW 01.25.2002 -- OnM,
08:52:20 01/15/03 Wed
Go here:
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/jan02_p13.html#12
for my CMotW review of the original Mad Max film (No. 1 in the
trilogy. Also where I put 'February' in the thread title instead
of January-- sheesh!
***
Sidebar for Sol, if you happen to read this-- Why when I search
in the archives for my CMotW's and such, does it never find any
results? What am I doing wrong?
I put in either 'Classic Movie of the Week' or even just the word
'Classic' and it returns zero results.
Just wondering.
[> Re: All We Want is Life
Beyond - Thoughts on *Showtime* -- Jay, 22:15:18 01/13/03
Mon
As always, your review is well worth waiting for.
I thought I might suggest another possibility to your list of
disruptions. I was thinking about Evil!Willow taking the bullet
out of Buffy in surgery. They made it seem that she was moments
away from death, only to be rescued by darkest magics. It just
occurred to me as another possibility.
I was wondering if you would considered Spike de-programmed now
or could that song still be his trigger? Because, he might still
steal a submarine if it is.
Finally, and I'm really digging here, I was thinking about your
movie comparisons and Andrew's remarks about Dalton as Bond. I
forget exactly what he said, and I'm too tired to dig it up right
now, but it was something about how Dalton came in at the end
of an old regime, the Broccoli's were just mailing it in or something
like that, and Dalton made Bond rogue. Now, I think I know who
the Broccoli's are, but who is Dalton?
[> [> Timothy Dalton,
Bond #4 (pre-Brosnan) -- HonorH, 22:59:06 01/13/03 Mon
[> [> [> That's not
what I was going for -- Jay, 17:49:08 01/14/03 Tue
I was actually going for some clues about the end of Buffy, or
this version of it. First the scene I was referring to (transcribed
by me):
DAWN
Buffy said if you talked enough,
I'm allowed to kill you.
ANDREW
Not even.
DAWN
Even.
ANDREW
Licence to kill, huh?
Pretty cool.
You know, Timothy Dalton never got his props
'cause he came in at the end of an old regime.
But, he had it going on.
He went rogue with the Broccolis,
they were just treading water, stylistically.
DAWN
I-is there a language that you're speaking?
What I'm shooting for here, and I'll admit it's a long shot at
best, is that I believe the end of the old regime is the end of
Buffy. The Broccolis are Sarah, Alyson, Emma, and maybe a producer
or two. What I'm having trouble with is who is suppose to be Dalton.
Is it the character of Andrew himself? Or might it be whoever
the rumored spinoff might be centered on, or a character that
we haven't even met yet?
When I first watched this episode last week, I was wondering if
there was any point at all to this scene, and then I saw it wasn't
in the shooting script. Which makes me think that Joss added it
himself. And this would indicated that it does have some kind
of "other" meaning.
[> [> [> [> Ah...well
in addition to my post below (Well Known Future Casting Spoiler)
-- shadowkat, 19:53:08 01/14/03 Tue
Well...if you already know this - you probably wouldn't be asking
the question.
I think this is what they were talking about. You'd have to be
a big Bond geek to get it or spend too much time in low-rent video
and comic book stores. The whole Bond thing is inside joke amongst
the writers and popped up three times last year with Warren, Jonathan
and Andrew.
The joke is more about the changing of the lead - Buffy would
be Connery, who never really went away and even came back during
Moore's turn in the non-Broccoli produced Never say Never Again.
Kendra is probably Moore. Faith - Dalton - who went rogue and
took the License to Kill literally.
Dalton was in the movie with the same name: License to Kill hence
the reference.
Or it could be Kristy Swanson - Connery, Sarah - Moore,
Kendra - the guy in Her Majesty's Secret Service (one note wonder)
and Faith is Dalton.
"Licence to kill, huh?
Pretty cool.
You know, Timothy Dalton never got his props
'cause he came in at the end of an old regime.
But, he had it going on.
He went rogue with the Broccolis,
they were just treading water, stylistically."
Faith came in but never got her props because she came in at the
end of high school. She had it on. But went Rogue with the Scoobies,
they were just treading water being ready to graduate and all.
It's also may be read to mean this season. But Dalton is definitely
Faith. The question remains who is Bronsan??
Does that help?
SK (who clearly knows way too much about James Bond films)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Ah...well in addition to my post below (Well Known Future
Casting Spoiler) -- Jay, 21:06:38 01/14/03 Tue
I think that initially, that the writers were poking fun back
and forth with all the Bond references last year. But this last
one had some real meaning behind it. Last year it was just one
big "ha ha" joke that we all were in on. This one, they
tried to sneak it past us.
I concede that Faith may be Dalton, but I definitely do not recognize
that she is for a fact. I reserve the right to consider (gasp)
Dawn a possibility on top of all other ones that I have thrown
out there. At least for me, the question that remains is who is
Dalton? Bronsan is obviously Wesley (Earshot).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Bronsan is Wesely??? Not following your logic here.
-- shadowkat, 06:19:37 01/15/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I believe Jay is referring to Xander's comments
-- Rahael, 07:08:16 01/15/03 Wed
with regard to Wesley having his Pierce Brosnany eyes all over
his Cordy.
Personally, I think Alexis Denisof is far more handsome than PB.
[> [> Bond, pop culture,
and other ME references - the vengeance theme? (Spoilers Life
Serial and 7.11) -- shadowkat, 19:34:44 01/14/03 Tue
Okay bear with me - very stream of consciousness post.
First Bond stuff:
Timothy Dalton made Bond rogue - probably refers to Dalton's more
theatrical approach to the role and series take on it since Roger
Moore. The films Dalton was in are Living Daylights and License
To Kill. There is an ongoing debate amongst Bond film addicts
on which actor played the
best Bond. Warren believes it was Connery (as do most high level
geeks - and it's the popular view of Ian Fleming buffs), Jonathan
believed it was Moore. But Andrew? Dalton which made Warren want
to pummel him. (This whole riff is done in Life Serial while Spike
and Buffy are in the bar and the geeks are in the fan outside
watching them.)
I personally see this as an on-going inside joke amongst the writing
staff - clearly one of the writers loves Dalton (my bet is on
Petrie) while the others are fighting on Moore and Connery. Go
into a small video store some time - bring it up and see how long
the debate lasts - it can be quite amusing. Oh and the people
who love Connery? Think Bronsan is the next best.
Broccli's are the producers of Bond and have held the rights to
Flemings books since the 60s I believe.
Andrew believes Dalton did a great job and gave us a darker, more
serious Bond but the Broccoli's failed him in the scriptwriting
so he never had a chance. Another inside joke on the part of the
ME writers. If you watch the shows closely - the writers continuously
make fun of themselves, their geek obsessions, their fanbase (which
shares these obsessions) and their writing. They also love to
make fun of pop culture. Hence all the references.
You could make a drinking game out of the number of times Andrew
or some other specific character references a pop culture item
- be it a comic book, movie, or tv show.
Not all the characters mind you. They're very careful to limit
it to the comic relief characters or geeky ones.
Notice Buffy and Spike rarely reference pop culture any more.
Yet occassionally you'll get a reference. Same thing on Ats -
it's usually Gunn, Wes or Cordy. Lately Lorne.
Here's the references - assuming you're still with me and didn't
get bored by all the James Bond stuff (yep I'm a film/pop culture
geek - I admit it):
Beyond Thunderdom - the third in the Mad Max triology. Well known
by Whedon and company because well Whedon worked on the Kevin
Costner rip-off of the Mad Max movies Waterworld.
Thunderdom is seen by Mad Max fans as the worst of the three movies
and the cheesiest (same as fans see Return of the Jedi in Star
Wars). All three starred a young Mel Gibson who was the anti-hero.
A former cop who turned dark in the first film and left the force
after his wife and children were horribly murdered by a street
gang. After enacting vengeance against the gange - Max goes off
on the road seeking some sort of solace or meaning. He becomes
a type of Clint Eastwood Anti-Hero (which is seen in the Spaghetti
Westerns by Sergio Leon). In the film - Mad Max takes on a series
of deformed and monsterous fighters under the watch of Tina Turner's
control. When he wins - the captives of the city - the children
enslaved by it - are freed.
The three villains Andrew mentions in either Showtime or BoTN
- can't remember which:
Voldemort - the villain of the Harry Potter Books
Doom - Dr Doom from Fantastic Four (which is movie Petrie is writing
at the moment)
Apocalypse - the X-Men's worste villain
The uniting factor for these villains? They all become villains
because of vengeance. Voldemort was treated horribly as a child,
felt ignored, and left out by friends - so became evil. Doom -
felt like an outsider and was horribly disfigured by an accident
caused by Mr. Fantastic, Reed Richards, so he became Doom and
sought Fantastic's destruction, and he wanted to rule the world...but
hey have to start with a goal. Apocalypse was a tortured Egyptian
slave who sought vengeance against the Pharoah who tortured and
enslaved him. All become horrible villains. Think Holtz times
10,000.
License to Kill - reference to the movie License to Kill starring
Timothy Dalton when Bond went rogue, Bond felt betrayed and against
the advice of MI6 went after the man who killed his friends. He
sought vengeance - in the same way that Mad Max seeks vengeance.
Give ME pointers for being consistent in their pop culture references.
License to Kill is mentioned by Andrew to Dawn, he references
two items after uttering "cool you have an license to kill"
1. The movie where Bond turned rogue - explained above. Bond goes
on a vengeance spree.
2. The license Bond has which means he can kill without being
charged or imprisoned, basically he is a government sanctioned
hit man. This is similar to what Andrew might regard Buffy's powers
regarding vampires. It also references how Buffy keeps saying
she does not have a license to kill - a common theme in superhero
comics - what separates the villains from the heros is the villains
can kill and the heros can't.
It can be said that Buffy's slaying of Ubervamp - in some ways
fits the Mad Max motif - I'll slay you because a) you hurt me
and my friends bad, and b) because you stand in the way of freedom.
As opposed to the Bond motif in License to Kill - which is I can
kill you for being a rat bastard so I will.
See - pop culture can be cool!
Now aren't you happy you read this? ;-)More than you ever wanted
to know on Bond wasn't it?
SK
[> [> [> Sorry -Typos!
Spoilers: Mad Max Beyond Thunderdom, License to Kill, Harry Potter
in above post -- shadowkat, 19:40:40 01/14/03 Tue
Typos abound - major one was series - should be serious. Sorry
didn't proofread.
Also spoiler for Harry Potter Prisoner of Azkaban but not overly
serious spoiler.
[> [> [> I have a
different interpretation of the Life Serial Bond scene...
-- KdS, 02:55:44 01/15/03 Wed
May make me just as geeky as the trio but I see it this way:
Connery: Widely praised by hard-core spy buffs and Fleming fans
because he has a real hint of the cruelty and violence that was
in the original novels - hence Warren likes the brutality and
wants to be that guy.
Moore: Far lighter, more cartoonish and entertaining, more about
jokes than really nasty violence - translates to Jonathan's rose-tinted
view of villainy at this point.
Dalton: Often contemptuously dismissed - hence Andrew.
[> [> [> [> 'kat,
KdS-- You guys are amazing. No sh*t. -- OnM, 08:43:24 01/15/03
Wed
Never thought to make much of the Bond references, thought they
were just mostly offhand drops to enhance the 'geeky' nature of
the Troika.
KdS, I think this is exactly what was intended-- I can't
see it presented any more clearly, and it makes absolutely perfect
sense.
'kat, your insights on the writers are fascinating, and very logical.
I always love it when what seems like a largely offhand remark
by a Buffyverse character has some far more involved resonance
with some other series event-- especially as possible foreshadowing.
Now I'm thinking about the Dawn/Andrew interaction completely
differently.
Very cool.
One minor quibble though, 'kat-- the children that Max saves at
the end of Thunderdome weren't slaves of the city-- they originally
lived in a paradise far away from Bartertown, but approximately
half the tribe wants to return to the 'city' that they came from
originally, something they see as part of a prophecy. The other
half wants to stay in the protected, beautiful valley they currently
live in.
Max is trying to get the group that wants to leave back to the
'old world' where they can ultimately rebuild it, but they need
Master, (the dwarfish engineer guy) to pull it off. Thus, the
trip back to Bartertown is to free Master and send him off with
the kids.
( Yeah, yeah, I know-- details, details... )
;-)
Great stuff, everyone, and thanks again one and all for
all the kind comments about my 'reviews'-- I really appreciate
it!
-- OnM
[> [> [> [> [>
more with the Bond (spoilers I guess) -- fresne, 10:00:03
01/15/03 Wed
Well, okay the funny thing about the Bond references is that I've
had that conversation. Heck we had that conversation after the
episode last week.
Last Tuesday it boiled down to
· Male A liked Moore best because he grew up watching the
Saint. So, he always thought that there were black and white Bond
movies until he realized the difference. Likes Dalton least.
· Male B liked either Connery or Brosnan (it was a conversation
I don't really remember). Liked Dalton least.
· Females A and B (I get to be A because I'm writing this)
liked Dalton the best, because er, he's a hottie and intense with
it. Although, the last Bond movie, the first scene with M, does
make me see Brosnan's points. Liked Moore least, cause of personal
preference ew factors.
Which goes back to my personal theory (possibly completely off
base) that in most discussions that I've had, the men liked the
Bond that they most want to be. The women liked the Bond that
they most want to be a Bond chick with, if you're not a prosterior
kicking, science quoting, gun toting Bond chick there's no point.
Heck, I have Bond chick costumery, but you know, of course I do.
So, I kind of wonder, is Andrew be Bond or date Bond? Be or Date,
I find his preference particularly interesting because it's one
of the few times in the series that Andrew states an opinion in
opposition. Most importantly he disagrees with Warren. That's
singular.
To then pick the Bond that goes rogue, well interesting. I mean
Dalton's not the one that only did one movie, whose name I can
never remember, who really is Andrew, you know Tucker's brother.
However, with only two movies, a brief appearance in the Bondverse,
Dalton makes enough of an impression to generate controversy.
I love it when "throw away" pop culture references get
me to thinking.
[> [> [> [> Books
and Computers -- Arethusa, 09:21:35 01/15/03 Wed
It's interesting that the Troika don't seem to read the books.
Bond is more a grim civil servant doing his job because he's really
good at it than a glamorous babe-magnet with cool gadgets in the
books. In fact, in BtVS we tend to see the good guys reading and
surrounded by books (including Angel) and the bad guys watching
tv or on computers. The monks in I Robot, You Jane use a book
to imprision a demon, but a computer releases him and is his conduit
for evil. The Troika and Tucker in The Prom watch too much tv
and get bad ideas. Jenny, a computer teacher, ends up betraying
the Scoobies and Willow, a hacker, uses magic she learned from
Jenny's websites to feed her insecuities. The adults in Gingerbread
take away all the books, but Sheila doesn't take away Willow's
computer. The too-human Dalton is criticized by the judge for
being fond of reading. Ted sells computer software. Riley was
introduced in a bookstore, but Walsh was often shown in front
of her computer and video monitors. Spike used a computer to track
down Buffy in her dorm in The Initiative. Spike is often shown
watching tv, but is shown reading when his character begins to
move from black to gray.
Of course, there are many instances of good guys on computers
or bad guys with books. The Scoobies watched tv, and Jenny and
Willow were usually good. So, take it or leave it.
[> Excellent, OnM! --
HonorH, 22:57:47 01/13/03 Mon
Might just have to rent me some Mad Max now. Always look forward
to your reviews, and for once, I've nothing to contribute. So
I'll just stick with "Excellent!"
[> My Theory About Giles
(SPOILERS for Showtime and before) -- Robert, 00:03:00
01/14/03 Tue
First, you review and analysis were very nice. I really appreciateed
the opportunity to read it.
>>> To date, I have been leaning strongly towards
the idea that the Giles we have been seeing recently is still
the real thing, ...
My theory is totally mad, but then again so am I. I suggest that
Giles is not the real Giles and is also not a manifestation of
the First Evil. Rather, the Giles we see is a manifestation of
the coven of witch's, back in old England. The real Giles is dead.
The coven knew that the gang would need the moral and psychological
support of their old mentor to make it through the coming crisis.
The shooting script for Bring on the Night was too specific
that Giles must not physically interact with objects. Obviously,
this could be deliberate obfuscation by Mutant Enemy to screw
with our minds. But, I don't think so. I think that Giles is a
manifestation, but of what?
If Giles were really the First Evil, I would think that the coven
would have figured it out and revealed said discovery to Willow.
Plus, despite the oddness of Giles' behavior, he does seem to
be working on the side of good. I am also guessing that the coven
is the only other entity with the resources to create such a manifestation.
So, how mad am I?
[> [> Re: My Theory About
Giles (SPOILERS for Showtime and before) -- genivive, 07:31:33
01/14/03 Tue
Has Giles changed his clothes since he got there? He is always
wearing that cordouroy coat.
[> [> Re: My Theory About
Giles (SPOILERS for Showtime and before) -- CW, 07:57:17
01/14/03 Tue
The only thing working against your theory is that if Giles is
dead, it is almost beyond belief that the First wouldn't use his
image to foment fear, doubt, and mistrust. The appearance of two
Giles, one from the coven and the other from the First Evil, could
create chaos especially since neither could prove it was 'real.'
I think the First would love that. So I think to make your idea
work, the real Giles would have to be alive in a coma somewhere
under the protection of the coven. That's kind of a stretch, but
far from impossible.
[> [> [> Re: My Theory
About Giles (SPOILERS for Showtime and before) -- masio1000,
08:31:56 01/14/03 Tue
Giles is way too corporal to be dead. They did a good job at confusing
us. I thought for sure he was dead from the moment that axe went
down near his neck, but i've learned something about this show--that
no matter how clever i think i am, the writers are two steps ahead
of me. so....In the end i think he's alive maybe. He had the only
records of the FE with him when he came to the house. Buffy and
the others have taken a look at them. The FE wouldn't be able
to touch them. that 's the only "real" proof, except
that there are way too many reasons to justify him being dead...or
at least the writers pointing us in that direction. On the other
hand, my original theory is more complex. Everyone who's dead
is honest to goodness dead. the FE is manipulating Giles (maybe
half-dead?) body and the only thing that may get you to bed tonight
is the belief that if (when?) Buffy wins, TPTB will grant Buffy
some wishes:
How about these?
All killed by the FE mininons come back to life
Spike is made into a man again
Buffy looses her powers (as a wish or as consolation)
waddayathink?
[> [> When Things Changed
(SPOILERS for Showtime and before) -- Darby, 09:17:25 01/14/03
Tue
They HAVE told us, and it was specifically laid out in the script.
When Giles and Anya are in the vortex dimension, they have to
interact with the physical nature of wind; they also emerge with
hair and clothes disheveled. Either this is a huge mistake (always
a possibility, but there was no real need to make it windy), or
this was purposely put in to show us that Giles really is corporeal.
Maybe that's why when Giles inadvertantly touches Anya on the
way out, no one bothered to reshoot or edit...
[> [> [> I noticed
that too, but (Spoiler for Showtime) -- Sophist, 09:30:38
01/14/03 Tue
The shooting script posted by Psyche contains this express direction:
ANGLE ON GILES and ANYA emerging from the kitchen. (Note again:
Giles can not touch anyone or anything.)
Seemingly inconsistently, it later says:
GILES and ANYA emerge from the SHIMMERING GATEWAY, which promptly
vanishes. They're a little unbalanced at first, having been standing
in a swirling vortex, and their clothes and hair are in some state
of disarray.
They look at each other, straightening themselves
[> [> [> [> Re:
I noticed that too, but (Spoiler for Showtime) -- slain, 14:24:06
01/14/03 Tue
I didn't noticed much dishevelment (coming very close to writing
deshelvement there), but to me the fact that Giles was capable
of being transported suggested that he's real. I think what I
would find to be effective proof of his realness (before the show
proves it by someone touching him, that is) would be a scene when
we're in Giles' POV, or just one where he's alone for any length
of time.
I always suspect characters when we aren't given their POV; they
were very careful in BoTN to avoid showing Giles' POV shot as
he sees Buffy climbing out of the hole pursed by Ubee - instead
we're given a fairly unconventional low angle show of Giles appearing
in front of the sun, from either Buffy or the Ubee's POV - when
we expect to see Giles rushing forward to help Buffy, and to be
in his POV as he does it. But the extent to which this is done
suggests to me that M.E. are deliberately highlighting the fact
that Giles isn't touching things or being given POV shots, to
distract from another character; Giles' potentional F.E.ness is
made obvious and sometimes awkwardly so, but for the purpose of
misdirect.
[> [> [> [> [>
i was just thinking this -- masio, 18:10:19 01/14/03
Tue
That is so right
Giles is such a red herring---and i don't mean in the FE department.
the obvious thing to look for if Giles is not the FE is who is,
but we should be asking, is there something else entirely that
we are missing because we are speculating on Giles and the is
he or isn't he?
[> [> [> You know
I have to agree -- shadowkat, 20:00:00 01/14/03 Tue
In BoTN I wasn't really sure, but Showtime? I think he's corporeal
just damaged. Or the writers and producers are screwing up big
time in the editing. I mean fouling up on blowing up a clear replica
of the same building in Never LEave Me is one thing but it's quite
another when you show someone whose not corporeal either touching
or acting corporeal. Particularly when you go out of your way
to do other things.
OTOH - it is possible they goofed. After all we see Spike's reflection
twice in HIM but no reflection in later episodes.
Editing is not as easy as it looks apparently and they film these
things under tight deadlines. Sometimes literally in 48 hours
- so you don't have lots of time to get everything right.
Structurally and Theme wise? I think it makes more sense that
Giles is alive and coporeal because I have a feeling the evil
this year is more well insidious and less obvious. Hence Joyce's
comment - evil is inside all of us. Be less interesting if Giles
wasn't Giles. Just my hunch.
[> [> [> Wouldn't
it be typical...(SPOILERS for Showtime and before) -- Darby,
08:58:01 01/15/03 Wed
First, my credentials: when the storyline didn't come straight
back to Giles after the axe incident, I predicted that he'd show
up in Sunnydale eventually and we wouldn't know for sure if it
was him, and no one would know to suspect.
A wilder prediction: very soon, he will have to make contact
with someone (catch someone during a fight, say) and he will just
do it. We in the obsessive viewing public will jump from out seats,
but it will never be addressed on the show, perhaps beyond
an offhand remark from Giles that he had been attacked in London
and needed a corrective haircut afterward.
Just remember, you can't win the Insane Troll Logic Speculation
Game if you don't play!
If I were on Angel, the demons would have my soul, my truck,
and Sara...
[> Just wanted to say thanks!
-- neaux, 04:34:57 01/14/03 Tue
I've been waiting all week for your review, because I just knew
your were going to elaborate on the Mad Max connection.
While I got the reference and the visual connections to the movie,
I had never really sat down to watch a whole movie in the Mad
Max series.
Heck when, Thunderdome came out I was young. Maybe 8 or 9, and
a movie with Tina Turner was a movie NOT worth seeing. But Now
I really want to check these movies out!
Thanks
[> All we Want... All we
Dream... Beyond thunderdome.... -- aliera, 05:18:33 01/14/03
Tue
~~~ I liked Anya's hair.
~~me too...and many other things. I may post a little later if
there's time but if not, thanx muchly on the essay. Always a keeper
from you.
Out of the ruins
Out from the wreckage
Can't make the same mistake
this time
We are the children
the last generation
We are the ones they left behind
And I wonder when we are ever gonna change it
Living under the fear till nothing else remains
We don't need another hero
We don't need to know the way home
All we want is life beyond the thunderdome
What do we do with our lives
We leave only a mark
Will our story shine like a life
Or end in the dark
Give it all or nothing
All that really matters is the light in your face
In you I see the longing of the whole human race
I've been running from the truth
I've been running since my youth,
tired of running
I will stand here till you see
I am you and you are me,
tired of running
There really is no difference
when you look beneath the skin
Someday I know we'll go beyond
this world we're living in
Now when I lay me down to sleep
I will be dancing in my dreams
Seeing the way it all should be
I will be dancing
All that really matters is the light in your face
In you I see the longing of the whole human race
Now when I lay me down to sleep
I will be dancing in my dreams
Seeing the way it all should be
I will be dancing
Now when I lay me down to sleep
I will be dancing in my dreams
Seeing the way it all should be
I will be dancing
Dancing in my dreams
On and on the story goes
Or it's the passing of the torch
With one small voice it all begins
Then there are millions more,
millions more
-*-*-*-aliera-*-*-*-*-
From the album "Wildest Dreams"
-Dancing in my Dreams
(B. Russell, M. Cawley, K. Fleming)
Producer: Trevor Horn
Album: Wildest Dreams (96
[> Worth the wait! --
ponygirl, 07:28:34 01/14/03 Tue
I think I actually enjoyed your review more than the episode!
I really hope you do your analysis of the movies referenced this
year, I think- beyond pop culture cuteness- there are some real
clues being given. I hadn't fully thought of all the implications
of the Thunderdome reference -- it's been years since I've seen
that movie-- but you've certainly provided a new angle on it.
The twist in Max's battle - that he hadn't grasped the big picture,
and Showtime's flashback, where the same scene is seen twice but
with vastly different meanings... it all makes me think that we're
headed for some sort of big reversal, and one that may not come
at the traditional midpoint, but be saved for the end. Ah the
torture of a week without BtVS!
[> The meaning of 'Beljoxa'
-- slain, 14:10:49 01/14/03 Tue
First, great post - I'm also a big fan of the Mad Max trilogy,
for many of the same reasons I like BtVS, I think.
In Swedish, "beljoxa" means (depending on how you transliterate
the bel part) "ball-fiddle" or "part-fiddle"
or, if you stretch it a little, "electricity fiddler"
- perhaps a reference to Enron or the Californian energy crisis?
Yes, I am being silly, but that's not to say I'm not right.
[> As always, nicely done
-- Sarand, 14:47:23 01/14/03 Tue
I always look forward to your analyses. And I, too, loved the
references to the "Mad Max" series. I always think of
"Road Warrior" when I watch "Bargaining."
And please do a review of the movie references for this season.
Being something of a movie buff, I usually get the more obvious
references but would love to hear about the less obvious ones.
[> Bleeding of Realities
-- Yoda, 08:07:34 01/15/03 Wed
Wonderul review OnM! Loved your Mad Max comparisons. One other
thing you mentioned perked my interest. That was the speculation
that we have been watching events take place in more than one
parallel Buffyverse.
My theory is that the disruption that Beljoxa's Eye mentions was
caused by Buffy jumping into the portal instead of Dawn. Her blood
may have been enough like Dawns to close the door but since she
isn't the Key she wasn't able to lock it. The door might be slowly
creeping open and alternate realities of the Buffyverse might
have been bleeding into each other ever since then.
This would explain why Buffy & others have acted so out of character
at times. We would have been seeing alternate reality versions
of themselves bleeding into this reality.
In Normal Again Buffy might have been made aware of one of these
alternate realities. She believed one was real and one wasn't.
But maybe both realities were real. That would explain why we
have never heard of Buffy being in a psychiatric ward until Normal
Again. In our reality Buffy might never have been in a psychiatric
ward but in an alternate reality she was and still is. Her memories
from two different realities bleeding into each other.
This bleeding of realities would also explain why time has been
so wonky. Since some things happen one way in one reality and
a different way in an alternate reality. So if you placed one
on top of the other they wouldn't match up. This bleeding of realities
would mess up the time sequence of events. More food for thought.
[> [> Wow! -- OnM,
09:42:54 01/15/03 Wed
I really, really like this!! As I mentioned in the ep review,
I've been going back and forth and forth and back on this whole
'parallel Buffyverse' theory, but you've opened an additionally
fascinating-- and very logical-- tangent.
Closed the door, but didn't lock it. The universes are still
(slightly/occasionally) bleeding into each other.
So, for example, Buffy can initiate telepathic contact in one
reality, but not in another.
Yeah. Very nice!
[> [> Re: Blending of
Realities -- aliera, 09:59:25 01/15/03 Wed
I have to agree and hope for something along these lines Yoda...it
was such a strong feeling of mine last season.
I watched the eps in a unusual (for me) way. I didn't watch any
until after Hells Bells aired and then watched them all in one
fell swoop on tape...that was when I started visiting the boards,
I couldn't figure out where the feeling was coming from.
Questioning posts along these lines met with some...disparagement,
and I dropped mentioning it; but, it's been a leafy niggle ever
since. Thanks for chiming in. ;-)
[> [> question concerning
Normal Again -- masio, 10:15:41 01/15/03 Wed
I have not talked to one person who noticed what i did in this
ep. (Normal Again)
When Buffy is chasing Dawn, Dawn hides in a locked bathroom. Buffy
knocks down the door and Dawn isn't in there, and there is no
indication of how she got out of a second floor room. Buffy looks
in the room, sees shes not there and immediatly turns to her left
and sees a creeping dawn. How the Hell did she get out!!!? I rewound
a million times but ended up assuming it was a hint to the asylum
universe being true.
what do you guys think?
Couple of
thoughts on early Angel -- Tchaikovsky, 04:11:28 01/14/03
Tue
Via the kindness of yabympan, I was able to sit down last night
and watch the first three Angel episodes, 'City Of, 'Lonely Hearts'
and 'In the Dark'. Below are just a few, largely unconnected thoughts.
I suspect many of them are very old news to most Angel watchers,
and apologise in advance for this. My only real claim is coming
at the series with fresh eyes.
'City Of...'. Exactly how long did it take me to realise that
this show was fundamentally Whedon-esque in style? How long before
I knew it couldn't be anyone else? About two minutes. The most
obvious criticism which could have been thrown at the series opener
was that it contained long patches of boring exposition, necessary
for a new audience, tedious for Buffy fans. Whedon side-steps
the 'spouting my entire history' cliche so beautifully, by making
the stranger, (Doyle) do the exposition for him. While the explanation
is got out of the way, the more fanatical viewer is wondering
just how he knows this, what it purports, and just generally cheering
at the trademark Whedon subversion.
Other thoughts about this episode. It's made clear right from
the start that the position of the characters in relation to society
is entirely different from that in BtVS. In Buffy, it's about
children growing to be adults, rigidly within society, and growing
up through it, even if it sometimes seems alien. In a sense, the
original idea of the episode is people stuck within a society
being led to someplace else. Buffy, Willow and Xander are all
normal people who become invested in an abnormal society. But
metpahorically, it's just all about growing up.
In Angel, all the characters are transparently aiming for re-integration.
Angel wants 'forgiveness', and he is persuaded to stop brooding
in the dark by Doyle, who contends that everyone has their issues.
Of course, Cordelia has become a social isolate in a really painful
way. I admire the fact that in BtVS Season Three, Cordelia's fall
from grace is tragic, rather than being a simple example of the
popular, unsympathetic person getting their comeuppance. At the
beginning of 'City of', Cordelia is trying to become a part of
the showbiz community, but is having trouble. The theme bringing
them together is a need to re-integrate into society- to define
themselves once again.
Of course, standing against these outcasts is the very scarily
done patriarchy of Wolfram and Hart. No such element exists in
Buffy up to this points, (if we can discount the excellent appearance
of the police at the end of 'Out of Mind, Out of Sight', and this
patriarchy somehow ties in both with the contrast to the outcasts,
and with the city itself, a place with a hierarchical structure,
and with skyscraper structures.
The style of Angel is quickly defined as different from Buffy,
which is something I appreciated. There are many more smash cuts
and white-outs. The series quite quickly positions itself as,
at a surface level, an antidote to lawyer shows. And I can see
the more left-wing aspect of Angel, which some have mentioned.
I thought 'City of' was a really excellent episode. 'Lonely Hearts
I had less time for, once again succumbing to my lack of interest
in Fury episodes, with long, draggy scenes at the bar. But there
were a couple of interesting points above the transparent AIDs
metaphor. Loneliness was done well, and I really admired the construction
of Kate, a character I want to (and I think will) see more of.
The whole vibe of this episode reminds me strongly of the portrait
of LA painted in Buffy's excursion in 'Anne'. There's that feeling
of underclass, of dinginess, of loneliness and walls. The hierarchical
structure of Wolfram and Hart reminds me of Greenwalt's aversion
to structured privilege which he vents in his commentary for Reptile
Boy.
'In the Dark' was an interesting episode, if really mostly about
the excellently written and acted Spike until the last few scenes,
which I really enjoyed. In some sense, Angel is admitting that
an attempt at simplistic re-integration to society without pennance
is useless. He needs to look after the people of the dark, but
also to grow from out of the darkness, rather than merely transplanting
himself. My problem wiht this episode is the swamping of the nascent
characterisation of Cordelia and Doyle by the arrivals of Spike
and Oz. It seems like an obvious backwards step.
I don't like it as much as Buffy yet, for several reasons. Boreanaz
and Carpenter have only one tenth the acting skills of Gellar
and Hannigan, which makes me less invested in the character. But
the season hasn't built to a crescendo, nor the character interactions
yet, so I am much looking forward to giving it more time.
TCH- begging to be told 'Shut Up' if these points are obvious
to regular Angel watchers.
[> Re: Couple of thoughts
on early Angel -- Rahael, 05:04:41 01/14/03 Tue
Well, I think these are very good thoughts, and since Angel isn't
as well discussed here as Buffy, you may indeed be pointing out
many things for the first time - such as the imagery of high rise
towers, and structured privilege, contrasting btw with Angel in
his basement.
I'd like to point out to the Angel fans that I did some posts
about eating and food in early S4 but didn't get any replies ;)
[> Re: Couple of thoughts
on early Angel -- Flo, 05:19:12 01/14/03 Tue
Thanks for these insights, T. I've just seen a few episodes of
AtS, so I generally feel in the dark when it's discussed on the
board. You've given me at least a bit of something to chew on
(food reference for you, Rahael!) in terms of placing AtS into
the context of my Buffy obsession.
I must say, if I develop an addiction to two TV shows, I'll have
to find a place to live and get myself a TV. As my life currently
consists of couch-surfing, it's hard enough to find a free television
every Tuesday!
[> Re: Couple of thoughts
on early Angel -- JM, 05:40:31 01/14/03 Tue
Glad you are enjoying Angel. Was surprised to find myself a fan
so quickly when it first started. Am looking forward to getting
the S1 DVDs. Since I haven't seen these eps in over three years.
Liked Kate too right from her introduction. Miss her a bunch,
I bet Angel does too.
One thing to keep in mind, Angel really doesn't have the same
arc structure at all as Buffy (especially S1). Buffy very definitely
has a more season over arc, where as Angel seems to have three
fairly distinct mini-arcs, with a set of spectacular episodes
marking the exit from each arc.
S1: "Hero" and "I Will Remember You"
S1: "Five by Five" and "Sanctuary"
S2: "The Trial" and "Reunion"
S2: "Reprise" and "Epiphany"
S3: "Offspring" thru "Lullaby"
S3: "Loyalty" and "Sleep Tight"
(And despite what some people accused last year, I think that
they have ended every season so far on a cliff hanger, S1 Darla,
S2 Buffy, and S3 an actual cliff.) Season 3 was actually the first
time the three arcs were even actually all connected, by the topic
of Connor, and the majority of the first arc had almost nothing
to do with him.
The one thing similar between the shows' season-long formats is
that Buffy seems to me to have three movements within the season,
with the intensity rising, then falling within each movement,
then rising to a pitch at the end of each movement, with the greatest
crescendos at the end of the second movement and the end of the
third (the finales). Angel doesn't have to my eyes the same kind
of deterministic, ominous forward motion. More of a dormant volcano
with occasional eruptions, that then goes back to muttering. And
the eruptions may set things in motion, but they actually don't
move the narrative closer to any denouement. Because Angel never,
ever gets the big victory. There are no big, concrete wins in
LA.
Not sure that I prefer one format to the other. Angel's has more
freedom, and unpredictability, the march to the finale less telegraphed
I guess. But Buffy's does give one a sense of victory/sacrifice/triumph
or something. Anyway YMMV and probably does.
[> [> Logging this
-- Tchaikovsky, 06:02:48 01/14/03 Tue
Will keep this is mind while watching. So much to learn, so much
to see.
TCH- feeling as happy as a Rob
[> [> [> S1-3 Spoilers
Above -- JM, 06:18:45 01/14/03 Tue
So, so sorry TCH. Meant to indicate that in the original message
subject line. Hope it doesn't detract from your viewing. Would
love to hear more of your thoughts as you watch.
[> [> [> [> Don't
worry. -- Tchaikovsky, 07:11:11 01/14/03 Tue
Your post didn't really have the kind of spoilers I object to,
just vague patterns, and anyway, I must admit to being a bit self-spoiled,
having haphazardly watched a few episodes of Season Two. But I'm
sure they'll make more sense second time round.
TCH
[> [> Ah! 'Five by Five'
and 'Sanctuary' - my two personal favourite... -- Marie, 08:33:27
01/14/03 Tue
...AtS episodes. The fight scene between Faith and Angel has to
be one of the best in either of the two series (BtVS and AtS,
I mean), and Elisha Dushku's acting as she fell to pieces just
about blew my mind.
Marie
[> Re: Couple of thoughts
on early Angel -- Darby, 05:40:54 01/14/03 Tue
One of the great things about Angel over the long haul
is watching the development of the actors. DB, especially, has
come a long way in the chops department, but CC has gotten better
(if a bit inconsistently). AD may have always had the chops, but
has been given more and deeper (and more fun for us!) things to
do - like JM, he seems to be able to handle anything thrown at
him. It's odd to think that if the BtVS Wesley was all that we'd
seen, we'd have a very different impression of his abilities!
I sometimes feel sorry for actors whose best-known character required
broad / over-the-top / camp expression, done spot-on but looking
like lack of ability or sophistication.
[> [> Acting a cliche
-- Tchaikovsky, 07:17:22 01/14/03 Tue
Agree with the acotrs only being able to act what they are given.
I have this problem with Clare Kramer. I never know whether I'm
unimpressed by her acting because of her, or just because she's
really given nothing to do.
On the other side of the argument, the Mayor of Season Three was
really beautifully acted. I wonder whether the actor really invested
more in the role than was even written for it. But I suppose that
kind of thing is really beyond the call of duty.
Looking forward to seeing Alexis Denisof stretched anyway.
TCH
[> [> [> Harry Groener's
Mayor Wilkins -- tomfool, 09:37:19 01/14/03 Tue
I just watched the S3 DVD extra that provides an overview of S3.
It confirms that although Joss may have a general outline for
the season, there is a lot of organic evolution at work each season
too. The interview with the writers seems to imply Harry Groener's
initial portrayal of Mayor Wilkins was more straight-arrow and
therefore more delightfully perverse than they'd originally envisioned.
So yeah, I think the role evolved with the ability of the actor
to go places they had never imagined. I don't know if they originally
envisioned him so much as a father figure to Faith and with so
many layers of complexity. I don't think they foresaw Eliza D
taking over all of her scenes so completely either. When they
saw the chemistry between the two actors, they knew that the father-daughter
undertones would work. Although the major arc of S3 was predetermined,
the actors' abilities and decisions helped it evolve to a different
and better place.
And of course we've all heard about JM's Spike being a short-term
character that grew into much more. Any other characters come
to mind that grew way beyond their original purpose/role?
[> [> [> [> Re:
other actors -- tim, 10:10:21 01/14/03 Tue
"And of course we've all heard about JM's Spike being
a short-term character that grew into much more. Any other characters
come to mind that grew way beyond their original purpose/role?"
For what it's worth, I once read an interview with EC in which
she said both she and DB had simlar experiences.
--th
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: other actors -- Darby, 12:09:58 01/14/03 Tue
And the story goes that Tara and Willow's dalliances with magic
were supposed to be only metaphorical lesbian "experimentation,"
but the scenes were so charged right fron the first one in Hush
(plus Seth Green was leaving) that they decided to go from subtext
to text.
[> [> [> Harry Groener:
Yes, he really is that good. -- cjl, 09:51:28 01/14/03
Tue
I know Harry Groener from three specific roles:
Nerdy loser Ralph on "Dear John" (U.S. sitcom)
Psychologically unbalanced Betazoid on "ST:TNG" ("Tin
Man")
Oily politician on "BtVS" (S3)
He doesn't exactly disappear into each role, because a certain
degree of innate empathy is common to all three. But that's his
strength: he finds what's sympathetic about difficult characters
and makes the audience like the character as well. (In "Dear
John," you like Ralph's kind heart even though you're afraid
he's never going to break out of his neurotic patterns; in "Trek,"
you like his xenopsychologist, because you empathize with his
loneliness; and in "Buffy," you like Mayor Wilkins--despite
yourself--because his belief in family isn't just campaign speeches.)
It's a good strategy, and it pays off big dividends when the character
is supposed to be a villain.
What's amazing about the above description is that Harry Groener's
background is in muscial comedy, and he's an amazing dancer--something
you never saw on Buffy, and only once on "Dear John."
We love his work, yet most Buffy fans are probably unaware he's
entertaining us with one foot metaphorically tied behind his back.
Not that I'm complaining about Hinton Battle, but HG could have
played Sweet. With no problems.
Buffy Finale
just got a little more Angelic? -- glowy, 04:24:59 01/14/03
Tue
http://enquirer.com/editions/2003/01/13/tem_TVPIX13.html
Regardless of Angel's fate, Mr. Levin says he's given Mr. Whedon
permission to reunite Buffy and Angel on UPN for Ms. Gellar's
finale, if she's quitting the role.
"I told Joss that if it was creatively justified, and in
the best interest of the show's storytelling, and something he
feels is necessary, I certainly wouldn't stand in the way,"
Mr. Levin says.
[> AAaaaiiiieee!!!!
-- bl, 04:29:58 01/14/03 Tue
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NONOnonononononoooooooooo!
[> [> "no way!"
...WAY. -- ZachsMind, 07:51:21 01/14/03 Tue
[> Re: Buffy Finale just
got a little more Angelic? -- Rufus, 08:07:38 01/14/03
Tue
Gee isn't that magnanimous of that guy at the WB to give ME persmission
to have "their" star of Angel do a crossover, only if
it is the last Buffy and only if. I bet that got the writers sharpening
their pencils to see what they could do about a "reunion"....;)
[> [> Re: Buffy Finale
just got a little more Angelic? -- CW, 08:37:17 01/14/03
Tue
It would make a good joke on the WB if in the last Buffy episode
they sleep together, turn Angel evil and leave it that way. Of
course it would also be interesting, if in a perverse way, if
they sleep together, turn Buffy evil this time, and leave it that
way!
[> [> [> Re: Buffy
Finale just got a little more Angelic? (speculative spoilers)
-- KKC, 13:07:46 01/14/03 Tue
Just for the sake of broad representation of viewpoints... I always
thought that it would end up being the other way around. I always
imagined that if the show were to end this year, there would be
a scene at the end of the finale which occurs a few years after
the final victory. Buffy would be just settling on the couch,
having a phone conversation with Dawn (who's presumably off at
college at this point) and reminiscing about old times before
life became normal. A knock at the door would turn out to be Angel,
standing on the porch in full daylight, fresh from his Shanshu
experience. Fade to black off Buffy's stunned reaction.
That way, you get a nice happy ending without infringing on the
ability of the Angel series to continue. Of course, this is Mutant
Enemy we're talking about, so a happy ending may not be quite
what we expect or want...
-KKC, trying to find a serial cable for his cell phone that doesn't
cost $60. :(
[> Re: Buffy Finale just
got a little more Angelic? -- Juliet, 18:52:02 01/14/03
Tue
Well, that's only his permission, not a guarantee.
I don't want to see Buffy/Angel reunited, but I think some closure
would be nice. They have a lot of issues to solved and questions
left to be answered...and I think the usual ME angst can be achieved
as long as a few are left untouched.
And (buffy/angel future spoilers..highlight)since
the big bads are connected this year, maybe Buffy and Angel will
have to fight together, or at least say hi. (all
done now :-))
Juliet
Some
recent Buffy-related reading -- KdS, 07:59:08 01/14/03
Tue
Just thought that you might want to know that the S6 edition of
Keith Topping's Slayer has just come out. This one isn't
quite as good value as usual, as it only covers S6, but one can't
really complain as the previous S1-5 edition was getting towards
the limits of a single paperback volume. Most of the information
will be on the web somewhere, but if anyone's like me and would
still rather pull a book of the shelf than boot the computer up,
dial up, and pay phone bills, it's still much better value and
less cheerleading than the official Watcher's Guides. Unfortunately,
Topping's sometimes controversial artistic judgements have really
gone haywire this year. Not only do I not sympathise with, but
I can't even comprehend, the mental processes of someone who can
praise the drug material in Wrecked and dismiss Dead
Things as mere sex 'n' violence sensationalism. He does, however,
incorporate the most thorough and balanced review of all sides
of the DeadEvilLesbian controversy I've ever read into the pages
on Grave. Honorificus will also enjoy the fashion judgements
on each episode ;-)
I also recently acquired the comic strip Tales of the Slayer
collection (stories about past Slayers, scripted by regular BtVS
authors and one former actor) and was very impressed, even if
it still seems a tad overpriced to me. All the stories fit into
an overarching theme of the Slayer's dual nature as protector
of society and outcast from it (if you have a big library near
you, get a copy of John Clute's Encyclopaedia of Fantasy
and look up the entry PARIAH ELITE) but quite a few of them overtly
or subtextually grapple with the issues of dehumanisation being
discussed in luna's topic below. The most important of these will
be discussed in a long essay to follow later today, but I can
also recommend Amber Benson's very dark French Revolution piece,
Jane Espenson's wonderful twist-ending Jane Austen parody, and
Joss Whedon's genuinely horrible medieval piece, which leaves
me in no doubt whatsoever that any positive references to Christianity
in BtVS are totally accidental ;-).
While it wasn't good enough for me to spend money on it, I also
dipped into the second prose Tales of the Slayer collection,
which includes a Jane Espenson story about Buffy and the Scoobies
that still fits into the historical theme (wink). Fortunately,
it's less overpoweringly grim than the first volume. It intrigued
me that the comic strip collection written by the ME team members
had its tragic moments, but left room for heroism, while the first
prose collection written by regular BtVS prose spin-off writers
could only have been grimmer if it had come with a free bottle
of sleeping pills and a big plastic bag. Volume Two fortunately
has a few sympathetic characters who survive to the end of their
stories. If you have a spare ten minutes in a bookshop that isn't
too paranoid about browsing, you'll enjoy the Buffyverse Christmas
Carol parody, in which a particularly smug and unfeeling Watcher
gets edifying visits from Slayers Past, Present, and Yet To Come
(guess who).
[> Re: Some recent Buffy-related
reading -- CW, 08:26:53 01/14/03 Tue
I'm not sure the season 1-5 version of Toppings' Slayer ever
came out in North America. I have a season 1-3 version which I
studiously avoid looking at when I'm doing referents for Rob's
Annotated Buffy. It's a decent quick reference, but it's far from
perfect. Topping isn't as well versed in American daily life as
he'd like to believe, and sometimes criticizes things about the
show that are perfectly realistic. Also, as KdS hints, his analysis,
at times, would get just ignored or even get chewed up if he posted
it here.
[> [> Slayer, seasons
1-5 -- MaeveRigan, 11:59:40 01/14/03 Tue
Topping's Slayer, Seasons 1-5, did come out in the states,
because I bought it in the US at B&N; my copy has prices in pounds
and dollars.
Agree that it's not quite all that, but it's a pretty good reference
for guest-stars, Brit-speak, and episode music, and a one-stop
source for Jossian commentary--though that isn't documented very
well.
Why The First
has chosen NOW to end the Chosen Line. (post Showtime S.7 speccy
& spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 08:33:54 01/14/03 Tue
Why has the First chosen NOW to end the Chosen Line? Because it
realized this is the first time that it CAN.
"John" [mailto:fidhle at iamdigex dot net] said in response
to a post of mine that's since scrolled off the front page while
I slept:
"I think the change that occurred is that Faith is in
prison, and thus can't participate in the great battle FE is setting
up and also most likely will not die anytime soon, thus she will
not call forth the next slayer. A perfect time to try to get rid
of the SIT's and end the chosen line forever."
Ooh! I like this idea. First, the Eye Guy said it was the Slayer
that caused the disruption of the Slayer line. If we assume Faith
to be THE Slayer that the Eye Guy was talking about, it means
that there's a specific reason why Slayers are supposed to die
as often as they do. If the Slayer power doesn't keep moving around,
it's no longer a difficult target for any Evil (First or otherwise)
to get hold of. So the reason why the power of the Slayer is not
genetic and seems to follow no logical consistency other than
to target young maidens, is to make it difficult for anyone (evil
or otherwise) to interfere with its mission.
However, since unlike any Slayer before her, Buffy's been pretty
obvious and longlasting as a Slayer, completely failing to hide
what she is, it's made it easier for The First Evil to forumulate
a plan to take the Chosen Line out. It's like Buffy's painted
a big bullseye on her butt and told every evil force on the planet
to come & get it. With her being relatively stationary and out
in the open, evil has been able to thrive near the hellmouth.
She's put all this effort into squelching evil, and instead she
has been quenching its thirst.
Oh, but irony is a harsh mistress.
Obviously The First has WANTED to take out the Chosen Line since
the beginning, but hasn't had enough time to try before now, because
the power of The Chosen One kept moving around, and not even the
next Slayer knew who would be next. The First Evil was unable
to formulate a plan and put it into action fast enough before
The Slayer would die and the next one would be called on the other
side of the planet.
In fact it's possible that the real reason why the Hellmouth was
there in the first place was to encourage the Slayer to stay in
one place to defend it, making it easier to put the Chosen Line
into this trap. The Master. The Hellmouth. The Initiative. This
could all be an elaborate plan, by The First, to try and coerce
the Chosen Line into a stationary position long enough for it
to get a bead on it to take it down.
One could argue that by trying to determine who the next Slayer
would be, the Watcher's Council was inadvertently actually helping
The First. Somehow The First got info about all the remaining
SITs from the Council and then destroyed it, while hunting down
all the SITs it could find. It couldn't do any of this before
now, because it's only been recently that there was a finite number
of potentials to take out, and a Slayer who has lived long enough
to keep the variables from changing.
Which brings us back to Faith. Like Buffy, Faith a long lasting
Slayer. Unlike Buffy it's because she's been incarcerated, probably
in such a way as to make it difficult for anyone to kill her.
Although it might be interesting if we learn later this season
that Faith's now on death row. That The First has had the ability
to kill Faith for a long time now, but is staving off the execution
until its completed its business with the SITs. The First can't
kill Faith - and can't allow Faith to die - until AFTER the last
of the SITs is dead.
What THIS means is, Angel & the gang have to go into whatever
prison Faith's being held, and break her out. This will probably
happen the moment Faith is on the electric chair because that's
super dramatic, which explains why they introduced that electric
powered babe earlier in the season. All this will of course have
to happen after the present storyline where Angel & the gang have
to stave off their own apocalypse, but that shouldn't take long.
Then once she's out of jail, Faith will make her way to Sunnydale
for the final showdown with The First.
Or as usual I could just be full of mud.
[> very good theory
-- masio, 09:04:37 01/14/03 Tue
I like your theory Faith is obviously the key (no pun intented)
to the whole thing. I don't see why Angel an company has to break
her out (when she is fully capable of getting out on her own)
but the idea that she is the "real" slayer is without
a doubt the truth.
The whole idea of slayers not living long may come into play as
well, especially considering Spike's speach about killing the
NY slayer in the 70's and what that might mean for Spike in coming
weeks...
"Every slayer has a death wish"
Appearently the problem is that Buffy has a life wish---she cant
die--or doesn't know how.
[> My knowledge of the American
penal system comes mostly from Oz ;-) -- KdS, 09:15:29
01/14/03 Tue
Which would make it seem that if you really want someone dead,
prison is one of the easiest places to have them done and get
away with it.
[> [> Death Row --
Helen, 09:27:56 01/14/03 Tue
Is Faith likely to be on Death Row? I don't know very much about
the American penal system, but what happened with the Deputy Mayor
would probably be called manslaughter in UK (unlawful killing
without malice aforethought), and that was never a capital offence
in this country when we had the death penalty.
Like the theory about the Slayer line, and tend to agree that
as far as most of the Big Bads are concerned, Faith is the Slayer
not Buffy (Kaky trousers in Faith, Hope and Trick didn't seem
to be aware Buff was still around, he described Faith as THE slayer).
So her incarceration provides both fracture the the powers of
goodness, and excellent opportuinities for the FE.
[> [> [> Two Slayers,
no waiting. -- cjc36, 09:49:44 01/14/03 Tue
The fact that there are TWO now when in all recorded history there
had only been ONE Chosen may be the 'deal breaker' with the principalities
that the FE is seizing on. Perhaps the UberGood/PTB decided he/she
liked having two slayers around for a while, thus disrupting the
balance of good and evil, disrupting the 'slayerline' and creating
this newfound 'in' the FE is going with.
Or, as some have suggested, perhaps Spike getting resouled was
the thing....if not for Buffy being back from the dead, he'd never
gone to Africa to see a man about a girl.
[> [> [> Re: Death
Row -- CW, 11:04:22 01/14/03 Tue
Remember Faith also did in Lester, the geology professor, and
that wasn't manslaughter. Chances are since she turned herself
in and confessed, she wouldn't be facing the death penalty. For
the purposes of the story it wouldn't be impossible though. In
reality, a smart lawyer could probably have had her just tell
the truth about her slayer self to the authorities, and she'd
be spending her time in a hospital prison's mental ward instead
of behind bars.
[> [> [> Seems that
death row would be unlikely -- Vickie, 14:30:56 01/14/03
Tue
Faith probably wouldn't have gotten a death sentence. Even though
we still have it in California (hey, we're working on it!), you
usually have to be pretty depraved (or a minority) to get it.
While we know Faith is depraved and a serious danger, the authorities
might not.
Here are Faith's crimes as we know them:
- Accidentally killed Allan Finch. This would probably be considered
manslaughter, or at most second degree murder.
- Killed Lester Wirth in cold blood, as CW mentioned.
- Killed "box man" in Choices. These last two on
the orders of Mayor Wilkins.
- Assaulted at least three people in LA. The leather jacket
guy, the guy at the club, and Lee at Wolfram and Hart. Lee probably
wouldn't press charges.
- Seriously assaulted Wesley. There could probably be other
charges: kidnapping or false imprisonment, special circumstances
here--which is pretty much what you need for a death penalty.
On the other hand, Faith turned herself in. Presumably confessed
to some charges. If Wesley didn't testify against her (and I really
cannot believe he did), she might be in jail for very few years,
getting anger management therapy and in medium security.
[> [> [> [> I was
under the impression. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:17:51 01/14/03
Tue
That someone couldn't get the death penalty unless they were guilty
of first degree murder. This does change if the country is at
war, in which case the death sentence is handed out more freely
for lesser crimes if they concern the war in any way, like the
Rosenburgs or soldiers executed for mutiny.
[> Re: Why the First....
(spolier/spec S7) -- cjc36, 09:41:17 01/14/03 Tue
"Obviously The First has WANTED to take out the Chosen Line
since the beginning, but hasn't had enough time to try before
now, because the power of The Chosen One kept moving around, and
not even the next Slayer knew who would be next. The First Evil
was unable to formulate a plan and put it into action fast enough
before The Slayer would die and the next one would be called on
the other side of the planet.
In fact it's possible that the real reason why the Hellmouth was
there in the first place was to encourage the Slayer to stay in
one place to defend it, making it easier to put the Chosen Line
into this trap. The Master. The Hellmouth. The Initiative. This
could all be an elaborate plan, by The First, to try and coerce
the Chosen Line into a stationary position long enough for it
to get a bead on it to take it down."
>>My problem with this theory is...what if any of the past
BB's had succeeded? Post Prophesy Girl, it would have meant nothing
in regards to the passing of the torch. <<
"One could argue that by trying to determine who the next
Slayer would be, the Watcher's Council was inadvertently actually
helping The First. Somehow The First got info about all the remaining
SITs from the Council and then destroyed it, while hunting down
all the SITs it could find. It couldn't do any of this before
now, because it's only been recently that there was a finite number
of potentials to take out, and a Slayer who has lived long enough
to keep the variables from changing."
>>But Buffy didn't keep the variables from changing. Buffy
died in S1, calling Kendra, who went home, I assume. Then Kendra
was killed a year later, calling Faith. The Slayer line is not
Buffy's concern. She's really *not* the Slayer in regards to torch-passing.
She's already passed the torch.<<
>>The finite number angle: Has this been said in the show's
dialog? Do we know that, for some reason, *now * is different
than the past in that the number of potential slayers is now quantifiable?<<<
"Which brings us back to Faith. Like Buffy, Faith a long
lasting Slayer. Unlike Buffy it's because she's been incarcerated,
probably in such a way as to make it difficult for anyone to kill
her...."
>>It is not unheard of for someone to die in prison. Dhalmer
was killed there. Sure, he was newsworthy. But Faith, being someone
who's broken some limbs there, I'm sure, would quickly become
a target to whatever old prison yard power base is there. All
it would take is a lot of them and a shank, and she'd be dead.
The First could motivate a gang of prisoners. She isn't any safer
being behind bars, IMHO.<<<
>>Why it matters to wait until the SITs are dead puzzles
me, but this is because I haven't heard everything from Joss about
how this whole thing works. So what if Faith is killed? Does this
make a whole buncha new SITs? I wouldn't think so myself, but
I, of course, am probably wrong. Okay, Faith dies and one of the
newbies is now the Slayer and no new group is made/called/visited
by Ed McMahon. All FE's gotta do is kill the rest of the SITs
and a newbie Slayer and the job's done.
I just don't know where - at this moment - they're heading with
this. I do think the Buffy Barganing thing being the problem is
a red herring, though.
[> Nice theory -- Random,
14:40:36 01/14/03 Tue
Good theory. Something like that has been germinating in my own
thoughts, but I couldn't quite formulate it.
Technical notes:
While killing the Deputy Mayor would be manslaughter at best,
and thus probably rate no more than 10-20 with possibility of
parole, killing Professor Worth was deliberate, premeditated murder,
and who knows how many others she's killed (that chickenhawk she
encountered upon arriving in L.A. must have died -- Angel could
enter his apartment.) Plus California has a rather draconian system
of 3 strikes/you're out. And if any, I mean, any of her
murders were commited in conjunction with another felony, she's
eligible for murder one even without the premeditation. Thus she
could very well be on death row...which actually makes life a
helluva lot safer for her, because death row inmates are generally
segregated from the main prison populace. She's not hitting the
electric chair anytime soon, though (does California even have
the death penalty?) Appeals are almost mandatory and take several
years to exhaust (ironically, many prisoners who have tried to
drop their appeals were stymied for years, the ultimate conflict
of justice versus injustice.) Small points: when Angel went to
visit her, she was obviously a part of the main prison population
(she spoke of resisting the temptation to slap down a challenger)
and thus was not likely on death row. And, as a Slayer, she's
probably not exactly vulnerable to being killed. Ask all the vampires,
demons, Big Bads, et cetera on BtVS how hard it is to take out
a Slayer.
Darker Than
Fiction - Rebecca Rand Kirshner's "Sonnenblume" (comic
spin off) -- KdS, 09:22:15 01/14/03 Tue
As I described in a post earlier today, I just acquired a copy
of the comic collection Tales of the Slayer Vol. 1. One
particular story in it conjured up such a powerful and conflicted
response in me that I have to write something on the board to
get some clarity about my own ideas and see what other people
think. The story in question is Sonnenblume, scripted by
regular BtVS scriptwriter Rebecca Rand Kirshner and drawn (?)
by Mira Friedman.
(The following paragraph consists of a detailed synopsis of the
story and can be skipped if you've read it). The story opens with
Slayer (we correctly assume) Anni discussing in voice-over captions
her standard teenage confusions and desire to be part of something
bigger than herself. Shockingly, however, the pictures reveal
that she is part of something bigger than herself - she's marching
in the ranks of the Bund Deutscher Maedel (the female version
of the Hitler Youth) at the Nuremberg rally. A tiny Adolf Hitler
(shown in extreme long view) delivers what I assume to be a genuine
quotation about the need for Germans to be strong, fast and tough
given their destiny as rulers of the world. Anni's Hitler Youth
brother Karl sends her to buy bread for the family, and she buys
from a local bakery owned by a family named Green. Mr. Green is
disturbed when his young daughter praises Anni's uniform and a
final shot of the bakery reveals a Star of David. On the way home
Anni kills a brown-shirted vampire attacking a young woman, the
voice over describing how she wants to be like everyone else but
isn't. When she gets home she is upbraided by her mother for dropping
the bread and breaking her mother's rolling pin (with which she
staked the vamp). Her mother upbraids her again when she tells
her that the bread was from the Greens' bakery, telling her not
to buy from Jews. We then see Anni training with her Watcher,
an elderly wheelchair-using man of paternal aspect. He appears
to have no problem with the fact that she is wearing a prominently
swastika-emblazoned singlet. In voice over, she asks him if there
are evil human beings, and he tells her that there is evil all
around them, and that she must learn to recognise it in her gut.
At school, a blond, cigarette-smoking Nazi (with an intriguing
hint of Spike about the face) tells Anni and her class that Germany's
blood is under threat from Jewish contamination. At home, Anni
dreams confusedly of Green, the vampire she killed, and the caricature
poster Jew from her school lesson. We then see Anni walking with
two other BDM girls. Mrs. Green greets her and the other two girls
are disturbed by her friendship with a Jewish family. Anni bows
to peer pressure and shockingly insults Mrs. Green, saying that
she'd rather eat shoes than anything touched by a Jew. Anni blows
out the candles at her fifteenth birthday party. Karl complains
about the cake, saying it tastes of old shoes, and leaves for
his Hitler Youth meeting. A little while later, Anni climbs out
of the window to go patrolling, wearing a dress patterned with
sunflowers (sonnenblume - the nickname Mrs. Green used to her
at the beginning). She walks into the midst of the infamous Kristallnacht
pogrom and sees the Green family being beaten by a group of Nazis.
While the Nazis laugh at a joke, the Greens sneak into a building.
An SS officer orders the Jews loaded into a truck and asks where
the Greens went. In voice over, Anni decides that she must "do
her duty". She walks over to the building the Greens entered.
The SS man asks her if she knows where the Greens are. She says
yes, points to the door of the house, then snaps the SS man's
neck with a Slayer powered uppercut. In voice over, she explains
that she has recognised the real evil and decided to fight it,
because she can't be like everyone else. She lets herself into
the house and cautiously calls to the Greens, announcing herself
as "Sonnenblume".
During World War Two itself and shortly afterwards, there were
quite a few stories in which typical American superheroes fought
the forces of the Third Reich on the battlefield itself or the
home front. While most of these stories were unambiguously propagandistic,
the authors were simply reflecting the crisis of their era. As
the last survivors of the period enter old age and the Third Reich
becomes for better or worse part of history, such stories appear
more disturbing and less defensible. If we have any deep feeling
at all, we can't simply enjoy a story in which some superhero
figure goes off to intervene, save the Jews and biff the Nazis.
We can't forget that neither Superman nor Captain America flew
down, that no Chosen One arose, that a large proportion of the
population of Europe were tortured and murdered in circumstances
that most of us are lucky enough to find unimaginable (and my
greatest sympathy and admiration goes to the people on this board
who have survived something close to such circumstances). I find
it hard to read Sonnenblume without wondering about the
circumstances in which it was written. Were the various writers
given freedom to write about any period they wished? Or was there
some ill-formed feeling of necessity that someone write a "Nazi
story" in a spirit of conscious Confrontation of Issues and
quest for Significance? It's hard not to speculate about Kirschner's
and Friedman's own national and religious backgrounds, and I make
no apology for suggesting that they are relevant. If one has a
personal connection to a certain subject, it does give one greater
leeway in writing about it.
Given the obvious and frightening potential for a monumental lapse
of taste, the contrasts between Sonnenblume and the other
stories included in the collection are remarkable. While the other
stories are drawn in styles variously naturalistic, impressionistic
or in the standard issue DC/Marvel tradition, Sonnenblume
is drawn in a stylised manner reminiscent of woodcut and Central
European children's book illustration, announcing that we are
reading something in the style of fable rather than naturalistic
storytelling. Even given the usual Buffyverse suspension of disbelief,
the climax of the story is hard to credit, as the Greens slip
effortlessly away from the Nazis and Anni beats an SS officer
to death in the street without attracting any hostile attention.
The wish-fulfilment is so overt that it seems to acknowledge that
this is a dream of what should have happened in a decently-ordered
universe. Moreover, the small-scale and provisional nature of
Anni's victory saves the story from seeming to deny real-life
horror. Some notable choices are taken to universalise the situation
so that we can't dismiss it as taking place in a safely alien
society. All the characters speak standard English, with no stage
Teutonicism in the manner of the gratuitous high school French
that mars Amber Benson's story. Similarly the Jewish family are
given a name that is not even Germanic, but thoroughly Anglo-Saxon.
The division between human and demonic evil is also blurred in
the story in a disturbing manner. The vampire Anni kills is drawn
in a manner less reminiscent of the standard ME vampire than the
typical cartoon vamp, human but for outrageously extended fangs.
There is a hint of the ME vampire's exaggerated brow ridges, but
it may simply be the blocky nature of the art. (This is also in
contrast to the other stories in the volume and other BtVS/AtS
comic strips I've seen, in which vamp-faced vampires are usually
drawn as even more bestial and inhuman than the TV versions).
By contrast, the street Nazis are drawn with subliminally fanged
teeth. It is unclear (although it's the impression I get) whether
Anni kills the SS officer on the story's final page. If so, it
would seem to be a breach of the Buffyverse's usual rigid prohibition
of killing humans. However, this prohibition usually operates
in societies where human miscreants are subject to some form of
justice system however flawed. In a truly lawless society, or
one where the law is thoroughly perverted to evil ends, is the
Slayer's jurisdiction extended? Another disturbing issue is the
nature of Anni's Watcher. Is he speaking guardedly of Nazism when
he discusses evil around them, or is he himself a Nazi talking
about the menaces of Jews and Communism? Before you reject the
idea, there are aspects of the presentation of the Watchers' Council's
philosophy that would not be incompatible with fascistic political
beliefs.
My key problem with the story, though is the necessity of its
writing. It seems that the writer and artist themselves are treading
with desperate delicacy, struggling with conflicting ideas and
the potential for aesthetic and moral disaster. Again I have to
ask the question, what was the driving force for this story to
be written? To explore the dangers of conformity, the dangers
of myths featuring dehumanised Evil? Or just because a Third Reich
story seemed necessary to attract readers? Are there subjects
so inherently massive that any fantastic approach is too inherently
frivolous? Any ideas?
[> Re: Darker Than Fiction
-- Rahael, 09:45:19 01/14/03 Tue
An excellent, thought provoking post.
The question of whether such horrifying historical periods like
Nazi Germany should ever be tackled by Art, or only be tackled
by certain kinds of art is a pretty huge question.
What's your gut feeling? Were you repulsed, or was it genuinely
thought provoking?
[> [> Maus was the way
to do it -- luna, 11:27:40 01/14/03 Tue
If art is going to deal with that period, I think the two volumes
of Maus, by Art Spiegelman, were the best way a graphic novel
could approach it. No heroic saviour, but a way of seeing the
truth. A lot more tasteful than Life Is Beautiful, too.
[> I loved "Sonneblume."
(spoilers) -- Rob, 10:26:10 01/14/03 Tue
It was my favorite story in the collection, precisely because
of these controversial issues. I don't think it's tasteless. Just
look at perhaps the greatest book ever written on the Holocaust.
It is a comic book named "Maus," by Art Spiegelmen,
writing about his parents' experiences in the Holocaust. The Jews
are depicted as literal mice, and the Nazis as Cats. While this
may seem simplistic, such visual symbols make for an extremely
powerful book, because it turns the stereotypes on their heads.
The Nazis called the Jews vermin, so this book turns it around
by making them mice. In fact, I think the style of this comic
was meant to be a direct homage to "Maus," which has
similar blocky cartooning. I found "Sonneblume" to be
thought-provoking and brilliant, the way it has metaphor collide
with real life. The Slayer is meant to protect society from evil.
But what happens when the society the Slayer is meant to protect
is more evil than any legendary monsters that may be lurking on
its outskirts? I think the point of this story is that the Holocaust
was such an awful, unthinkable situation that it transcends all
rules. The reader must make the judgment for her/himself whether
this Slayer is justified in slaying humans, but the important
thing is that Anni decided for herself that it was the only thing
she could do.
Rob
[> [> Re: I loved "Sonneblume."
(spoilers) -- Rahael, 10:35:35 01/14/03 Tue
Thanks for confirming something for me Rob - I thought that every
tale in that book was an homage to another story/book/novel -
i.e Jane Espenson's was an homage to Jane Austen. I thought when
I read it that Sonneblume was an hommage to Maus.
Another point is that when 'society' is so uncohesive, dysfunctional
and at breaking point as it is depicted in that particular Tale
- Sonneblume is still protecting society. Still protecing the
values of 'society'. The Vamps she is meant to fight become suddenly
less threatning than human beings doing terrible wrongs, and it
is explicitly highlighted here that we cannot simplify 'humans'
and 'demons/Vampires' into actual political and historical situations,
cos here we have as series of historical events where the demons
and vamps are not 'politicised others'. They are still there.
They are just suddenly put into perspective, just as our normal
fears and emotional 'demons' suddenly seen part of ordinary life.
[> [> [> to finish
typing my last sentence! -- Rahael, 10:38:50 01/14/03 Tue
They are just suddenly put into perspective, just as our normal
fears and emotional 'demons' suddenly seem to be just a part of
normal life. When society breaks down so badly, we get plunged
into a world where the fears and demons of ordinary life would
seem like a blessed relief.
[> [> [> [> Great
thoughts, Rah. -- Rob, 11:05:25 01/14/03 Tue
[> [> D'oh. Should have
read the whole thread. -- luna (Anyway, we agree), 11:33:39
01/14/03 Tue
[> The Slayer vs. society
(spoilers for Tales) -- ponygirl, 12:33:17 01/14/03 Tue
I'd say the theme throughout Tales was the idea of the Slayer
standing apart from the world. She fights to protect society even
when it seems the values of that society aren't worth perserving.
The Slayer of the Middle Ages is killed by the superstitious townspeople,
the French Slayer is unknowingly used in the complicated class
struggles pre Revolution. The Jane Austen era Slayer is hampered
by gender roles, and the vampire in the Western story suggests
that she has more in common with the Hispanic/Native American
Slayer than the white men of the Council. Nikki's tale has hints
of the Black Power movement of the '70s.
Yet despite many reasons for the Slayer to oppose or at least
turn away from her duty, Sonnenblume is the only story where she
does. As it is made clear in the opening story with the First
Slayer, the Slayer's job is to battle monsters, then move on,
leaving society's non-supernatural concerns alone. One can imagine
the temptation of the Slayer to change society, to impose herself
on history. It seems the Council has its own version of Star Trek's
prime directive, for its own protection, and, it is made clear
in the Middle Ages story, for the Slayers.
In Sonnenblume, though this all changes. I agree that the difference
between it and the other Tales in both drawing and tone is striking.
It is also notable that Ani is far younger than any of the other
Slayers we see. I agree KdS, this does come across as a fable
or a children's story. The time the Slayer found an evil so great,
an issue so clear, that she had to take a stand against human
society. And it seems clear to me despite the hopeful ending,
that she failed and ultimately died in the attempt. Just as all
the other Slayers did or will.
I agree with your points KdS about Anni's Watcher. We don't know
if he is encouraging her to fight Nazis or support them, he is
telling her to use her judgement. And there is much in Anni's
depiction to suggest that she could have just as easily made a
very different decision.
I think finally the lesson we can take from Sonnenblume is that
the job of the Slayer is perhaps not truly to protect society
or change society but to look at evil, recognize it, and use everything
in her power to destroy it.
Sonnenblume wasn't my favourite story in Tales, nor my least favourite,
but I do appreciate its inclusion. And I do prefer the approach
taken with it, some stories we can only look at in a more definite
frame of fiction. Like Maus, it needs some distancing for the
story not to collapse under the weight of its subject.
[> The Sight of Evil
-- Sara, 16:20:35 01/14/03 Tue
I'm coming out on the side of loving "Sonnenblume."
I think we need to be careful of being too sensitive about certain
things - can only Jews write about the Holocaust? Only those that
survived it? Can only African-Americans write about slavery or
segregation? Only women about patriarchal oppression? If we limit
what times, events and voices are fair game we limit the ideas
that we're exposed to, because we shut down people who might speak
of, and to them. The only restriction I would put on any sensitive
topic that it be handled with truth, and respect.
I think "Sonnenblume" meets my critieria. It uses the
setting to show a fascinating window into recognizing evil. The
slayer has been taught to understand demonic evil, and yet will
she be able to identify human evil when it's all around her? She
is being taught that Jews are evil, not just that they're dangerous
politically, not just that they're damaging the financial stablity
of Germany but that they are evil. As a child, will
she recognize that this lesson is evil? Not necessarily. We see
children of many backgrounds learning that entire groups of people
are evil, should be eliminated. A friend of mine that visited
family in Israel during one of the suicide bombings in Tel Aviv,
saw 7 year old Palestinan children calling for death to the Jews
and celebrating those murders. And sadly, we know that this is
only one example that's happening in the world today. Plenty of
different groups to hate, and plenty of hate to go around.
The thing I liked best about the story was that it didn't matter
which choice Anni made at the end. I think it would have been
just as powerful a story if she had walked away, because the whole
point was about the choice. It wasn't about some revisionist fairy
tale of super powered heros winning World War Two, it was about
how evil looks, and will you recognize it when it's the face of
your brother, your neighbor, your friend, your country?
- Sara
Buffy-related
reading recommendation. -- Rob, 11:31:16 01/14/03 Tue
I remember a while back people speaking here about Sarah Vowell,
the essayist/columnist, who also happens to be good friends with
Doug Petrie. An essay in her newest book, "The Partly Cloudy
Patriot" is especially interesting, in that it incorporates
an interview/conversation she had with Doug. The article, ostensibly
about the Gore/Bush election campaigns, manages to touch on everything
from "Revenge of the Nerds" to "My So-Called Life"
to American history to..."Buffy"! There is an extensive
section in the article examining the nerds of the Buffyverse (Willow,
Giles, Wes), and how effectively Joss and the ME writing staff
have created the postmodern nerd. The article argues that had
Gore taken a hint from Joss (mixing self-deprecating humor while
at the same time embracing his nerdiness for all the world to
see), he might have won the presidency. This is quite an article,
and quite a book, on the whole. I highly recommend it to everybody
here.
Rob
[> P.S. -- Rob, 11:32:47
01/14/03 Tue
The article is called "The Nerd Voice."
Rob
"The
slayer" -- Ferthepoet,
11:33:54 01/14/03 Tue
About the Eyes guys refeering to the slayer there has been a discussion
about wheter he meant Buffy or Faith, now there´s a third
possibility he may had been refeering to the First Slayer...
My Theory is that the First Slayer had been protecting the candidates
before impending the First Evil to know who they were but now
that Buffy had rejected the First Slayer and her ways now she
had simply decided to walk away and don´t care any more
about prorecting her candidates from the FE
[> That's a very interesting
idea. More to mull over! -- Rob, 11:54:25 01/14/03 Tue
[> [> The eyes have it!
-- Hauptman, 14:09:34 01/14/03 Tue
Interesting point. Josh, Inc. is shuffling the cards here. I have
no idea where the red queen is, but I know it's probably not going
to be where I thought. I doubt this has anything to do with Buffy's
resurection. I mean, the girl dies all the time. I don't remember
exactly what the eye said ( I have given up on recording every
episode as I never watch the tapes, or watch them too much and
ruin my appetite for the DVDs) but I think it could be Faith,
evil-evil Faith who is the problem. If the slayer line lies with
an evil thing, or at least questionable thing, that may be enough
to turn the balance. Also, Giles is a murderer, Willow is a murderer,
Anya is a murderer a thousand times over, Angel murderer, Spike
Murderer, Andrew murderer, Dawn is a clepto (which is equivalent
to murder according to Three-Strikes laws in California). Buffy
isn't surrounded by the best people in the world. Karma, people,
Karma. The first evil has been seeping in for a long time.
Buffy/Whedon
trivia tidbit -- Arethusa, 12:10:26 01/14/03 Tue
I watched "Blind Fury" recently, as part of my deep
and abiding interest in Rutger Hauer's career (which incidentally,
led me to discover "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). Two
characters in the movie were violent but comically stupid cowboy
types called Lyle and Tector Pike. Lyle and Tector Gorch were,
as most of you guys know, two violent but comically stupid cowboy
characters in Bad Eggs and Homecoming, and Pike was the named
of Buffy's boyfriend in the movie. Whedon isn't in the movie's
credits, but I think I detect his script-doctor fingerprints.
Does anyone else know of a movie from the early nineties that
just screams "Whedon was here"?
<