July 2002 posts


Previous July 2002  

More July 2002

Doing the Right Thing: Absolute Truths or True Love of Buffy? -- K-Dizzy, 13:04:52 07/12/02 Fri

Heya! Was reading a post on another board that made an interesting reference to Proserpexa (and I agree 100%), and she made a fascinating comment about Spike doing good because it is “the right thing” and not for personal gain or approval. This is an extremely common argument with regard to Spike’s redemption. On one hand, this suggests that love of a mate/partner is a decent, but not sufficiently consistent moral compass. But don’t people love their children, beloved leaders of a cause, a country, and take actions- positive or negative- for their sakes? When one begins to break things down, isn’t “the right thing” a relative concept? How many absolute truths ARE there in this world?

For example, in the real world, some people are 100% convinced that for love of their families, countrymen, the concept of freedom and religious salvation itself, it is absolutely “the right thing” to strap explosives onto their bodies, wade into crowds, detonate said bombs and kill people. A majority of the world does not agree and condemns such actions. We identify such actions as completely evil, and we frame them accordingly, giving them labels with negative connotations.

In the fictional world, we can reference Angel’s actions. He is a Champion, and has elected to fight the good fight, and in doing so, he’s left lawyers/humans to die (wine cellar), killed the good demon protector of a prophesy baby, killed two noble guardians of the key to a hell dimension, etc. etc. But we take out the scorecard and enter “Well, his intentions were good, greater good and all that. No penalty.”

Funny, but I recall a STNG episode (“The Hunted”) where the crew is asked to help hunt down an escaped “criminal.” Turns out that this man was a war hero- he’d been subjected to extreme physical and psychological conditioning (a la Riley) and made a superior warrior, which he was. But having so used their soldiers, his government was afraid these men were too violent to be re-integrated back into normal society, and so forcefully “resettled” them. When the Enterprise crew asks this government if they tried to deprogram their soldiers, they were told, “It probably wouldn’t work… And besides, we might need them again.” Hence, the idea being that having trained killers loyal to a cause/people- not the hazier absolute of doing the “the right thing” – was the better, if not necessary option for this society.

In "Buffy" we see such choices played out when in “the Gift” Buffy insists that Dawn not be harmed. The absolute “right thing” is to sacrifice her, and this is the choice Giles makes. But for the love of her “child” Buffy refuses to do so, and turns to Spike. And Spike promises to protect Dawn at the cost of his own unlife, until the end of the world. His sense of “right” is fundamentally centered on Buffy’s judgment. And maybe her judgment is intellectually or emotionally weak. This is certainly the core of the argument re: Xander’s sin of omission (about Willow's intent to resoul Angel) in Becoming. Which truth is better? Buffy always goes with her own.

So no, I don’t think that Spike’s romantic love for Buffy- hoping to gain her love or seeking her approval, makes his contributions any less significant. In fact, I think they are a precious gift. Recall the lesson of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”… when societal institutions (government, church, military) are decayed and corrupt, the only “right thing” is the honest and true love in a person’s heart, even if they’re a monster in some people’s eyes. On Buffy we’ve seen decay and corruption in the school and government (Snyder/the Mayor), the Watcher’s Council, and in the military Initiative. So, you know, I’m happy Buffy has a warrior in her life who loves her dearly, and has made her causes his raison d’etre…. For Spike, "the mission" is Buffy's happiness, and that's a truth as golden as any other.
[> Wow...triple Kaboom! -- shygirl, 13:28:38 07/12/02 Fri

[> I agree completely (NT) -- Doug the Bloody, 14:16:22 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> Oops! Ignore above post. -- Doug_the Bloody, 14:19:24 07/12/02 Fri

[> I agree completely, wonderful post (NT) -- Doug the Bloody, 14:16:33 07/12/02 Fri

[> Re: Doing the Right Thing: Absolute Truths or True Love of Buffy? -- JBone, 19:53:14 07/12/02 Fri

From the season 5 episode Crush

Tara: No, see, it can't, it can't end like that, 'cause all of Quasimodo's actions were selfishly motivated. He had no moral compass, no understanding of right. Everything he did, he did out of love for a woman who would never be able to love him back. (They come to a vending machine and stop walking. Tara digs in her purse. Willow looks in hers as well) Also, you can tell it's not gonna have a happy ending when the main guy's all bumpy.
[> [> Re: Doing the Right Thing: Absolute Truths or True Love of Buffy? -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:43:36 07/12/02 Fri

First off, defense of my boy Angel:
Your list of instances of Angel's transgressions omit a few important details. You make it sound like Angel murdered that Buddhist demon protector, and I got the impression from his battling the protectors of the dimensional key pieces that he finished the battle by knocking them unconscious, not killing them. I would have thought that Wesley and Gunn would object alot more had that been the case.
Yeah, we all know about the wine cellar, and condemn it. But, his transgression there was motivated by the same thing that I feel does make Spike's artifice of morality insufficient: selfish feelings and ties. His obsession with Darla and Dru, his girls.
The ideas of the right and wrong thing are in fact relative in the real world, but in a world that was originally conceived to contain absolutes, there IS a set path, a righteous way and an evil one.
[> I'll be controversial and disagree -- Caesar Augustus, 22:24:12 07/12/02 Fri

This may seem weird given that I am a Spike fan and do think that his contributions are MAJORLY sifnificant. But the problem I see with your logic is that the only 2 options you present are: absolute truth ; or relative truth. There is in fact a gradation.

In the real world, there are no absolute truths. But some moral viewpoints are nonetheless MORE absolute than others. Murder = bad is more absolute than, say, eating unkosher food = bad. What you're really saying without realising it is that Spike's good actions, if only dependent on love for Buffy, are on the same level of morality as Arab suicide bombers. They are based on blind faith rather than one's own personal morals. They are both based on relative truth.

But it's pretty clear to me that Spike's actions are not comparable to suicide bombers.

When Buffy chose to kill Angel to save the world, was that choosing an absolute truth? Willow claims that the true way to save the world from its pain is to end it. If Buffy had chosen to sacrifice Dawn, (which I believe she would have actually done in the end if there was no other option) it would have still been a relative truth, but one which is simply higher up on the scale of 'absolutism'. The fact that Spike's actions are based on Buffy's love DO make them less significant than if they were based on his own moral compass, simply because it is MORE of a relative truth. But the real question is: how significant are they nonetheless?
[> [> Spike loves Buffy, but I don't think they share the same cause. -- Erica24, 00:52:53 07/14/02 Sun

I am a big Spike fan and I certainly don't think that his love for Buffy takes away from his actions on her behalf.

However, I think that Spike's good deeds are somewhat tainted by his love. Buffy's mission in life is to save the world. Her friends partake in that mission. Spike's mission is to love Buffy. Even if Buffy were to let the world fall into hell, as she was prepared to do rather than kill Dawn, Spike would follow her. Contrast that to Giles' confrontation of Buffy at the Magic Shop in The Gift and I think the difference becomes clear. At the point where Buffy was willing to betray her own mission, Giles and the Gang called her on it. I don't think Spike would have understood the greater importance of stopping someone you love from making a huge mistake. I think that's where his demon moral compass is off. It seems to lack an objectiveness that human moral compasses have. For Spike "good" is always selfish, subjective or absolutely relative to what he as an individual wants or needs. Buffy's morality is based on what is good for humanity. Spike doesn't understand that kind of selflessness without reward, or the benefit of it. IMO, Spike's inability to see outside his own wants and desires didn't allow him to be "good" in the Classic Buffyverse "we need to save the world" way.

Just like Buffy killed Angel in the end of Becoming 2, I think she would have sacrificed Dawn, if necessary. If that's true, I don't think that Spike's attempts to save Dawn no matter what would have ultimately been what Buffy wanted, no matter what she said. I think Giles realized that, but Spike was unable to. If a soul does provide him with an objective moral compass, I hope that he'll be able to finally understand this.

JMO.

Erica
[> I agree: if nothing else, it's a good start! -- Juliette, 11:06:24 07/13/02 Sat

Funny Buffy Reference -- Majin Gojira, 06:30:44 07/13/02 Sat

On the most recent Episode of "Farscape" John Criton says the line:

"Kryptonite?...Silver Bullet?...Buffy?...What does it take to keep you in the ground?"

I burst out in laughter when he said it.

Sorry, don't want to spoil the situation he's in when he says it.
[> Re: Funny Buffy Reference -- MaeveRigan, 06:47:21 07/13/02 Sat

Omigod! I must have blinked because I totally missed it! What a hoot!

Thanks for posting this one!
[> [> actually, that's not the first Buffy reference there... -- Direwolf, 08:45:04 07/13/02 Sat

in the second season there was an episode where Crichon said something along the lines of:

"When I'll get home, everybody I know will be dead: my Dad, my friends, Cameron Diaz, Buffy the vampire slayer..."

Haven't seen this one yet, but looking forward to it.
[> [> [> It was last night's ep, "Promises," and MG, you beat me to posting it! -- Rob, 09:12:51 07/13/02 Sat

...although, of course, he has to be referring to the time she died in "Prophecy Girl," cause he's been in space for the past 4 years and wouldn't have seen "The Gift." Too bad! ;o)

And any "Farscape" fans here, last night's ep was amazing, on top of the Buffy reference. So try to catch it in reruns!

Rob
[> [> [> [> Farscape timeline? -- MaeveRigan, 12:27:08 07/13/02 Sat

Are we sure Crichton's timeline & the realverse timeline are synchronous? Just because Farscape started 4 years ago, does it necessarily follow that Crichton left Earth in 1998? I don't think so.

It seems like a fairly general reference--Buffy's killed a lot of vampires--but it's still as likely to be to "Prophecy Girl," as to any specific ep., I guess.

And I could be wrong--I admit I'm not totally geeked out on Farscape, though I like it a lot. If there's a definite reference to prove that John got sucked into the wormhole in 1998, I concede, smiling and murmuring, "Never mind!"
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Farscape timeline? -- Rob, 13:03:48 07/13/02 Sat

Interesting, I never thought of that. Actually, I don' t think they ever said what year it was. It wasn't supposed to be too far into the future, if it was at all. The only evidence we have that it is playing in "real time" basically, is that his pop cultural references usually aren't as current as this "Buffy" one. Most of them are about early 90's-and-earlier things, like, for example, the "Pulp Fiction" reference in this ep, and the Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner, Roger Rabbit, etc references in "Revenging Angel" (the animated ep). So it's possible...but I just wonder why he hasn't made that may current references before this, which would lead me to assume that he's referring to the "Prophecy Girl" death, but ya never know...

Any other "Farscape" fans here that might remember any other references Crichton might have made to things that he couldn't have known, had he been sucked into the wormhole in 1997, his time?

Rob
[> [> [> [> Umm, if he's referring to people who were dead when he left . . . -- d'Herblay, 23:37:31 07/13/02 Sat

. . . have I missed Cameron Diaz on the obit pages?
[> [> [> [> [> I guess he had to have been referring to... -- Rob, 08:26:29 07/14/02 Sun

...Buffy's death in "The Gift," then...since, I think, that Cameron Diaz thing was a reference to the movie, "Vanilla Sky," which also came out too recently for him to have seen it, if the show didn't take place a few years into the future.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I guess he had to have been referring to... -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:08:17 07/14/02 Sun

I haven't watched the show, but from the comment it sounds like he's worried that by the time he gets home all those people will be dead, implying they weren't dead when he left.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes. It sounds like the classic heartbreak of time dilation to me -- d'Herblay, 09:58:30 07/14/02 Sun

Age difference between Angel and Buffy -- meritaten, 13:10:47 07/13/02 Sat

I've only just discovered this website, so please forgive me if this is addressed elsewhere....

I was recently telling a non-watcher about the Buffy series. I was describing the curse on Angel, and how he lost his soul when he slept with Buffy. She asked if this was related to their age difference. This got me thinking. Is there a deeper message there? I remember Buffy learning (although perhaps not remembering when Parker came along) that rushing into sex was not wise. ...but I don't remember any judgement against Angel for sleeping with a 17 year-old girl. I mean, legally, that would technically be rape. I'm not condeming Angel here. It was obvious that his love was genuine. However, does this justify his actions in sleeping with a minor? I'm not clear on his exact age, but he must have been in his early to mid-twenties when he became a vampire. Even if you consider that as his "age", it doesn't seem right for him to sleep with a minor. I've always been so catch up in the tragedy of their love, that I never considered the age difference. Was Angel wrong? Was his curse also a punishment for this action?

Any thoughts?
[> Re: Age difference between Angel and Buffy -- Vickie, 13:29:48 07/13/02 Sat

I don't think so. In this world, Angel would have been wrong. But in the Jossverse, the only disapproval of their relationship on the basis of age was from Joyce. And her disapproval was based on his apparent age (twenty- something). Even Giles said no word on the subject.
[> [> Re: Age difference between Angel and Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:02:14 07/13/02 Sat

Legally, it's wrong.

However, Angel, being a vampire, is not subject to human law. Therefore the issue is really a moral one for those concerned. Since both of them were willing, it obviously wasn't morally wrong for them.
[> [> [> agree on the legalitites -- Vickie, 14:20:43 07/13/02 Sat

But legal sanction seldom seems enough in the Jossverse to make our characters avoid an action. (I'm excepting murder here, which seems to be in a different category.) Buffy and Angel's night of passion may have been statutory rape, but the show has never criticised the characters' behavior on that ground.
[> [> [> [> Sorry, but I dis-agree on the legalitites -- redcat, 15:04:54 07/13/02 Sat

Correct me if I'm wrong, (where is Sophist when we need him?) but in California, 17 is above the age for statutory rape. I always assumed Joss made the characters wait until exactly that first moment when the sex would NOT be statutory rape, Buffy's 17th birthday, for exactly this reason. I guess I just assumed neither ME nor the WB wanted to open that can of worms. "Smart" plotting has myriad components, one of which is not lighting fires you can't put out...

Any lawyers out there who are NOT gone for the weekend and can put this to rest (and hopefully do so without mixing their metaphors)?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, but I dis-agree on the legalitites -- meritaten, 15:28:07 07/13/02 Sat

I didn't know that the age was 17 in CA. It is 18 where I'm from.

I'd never thought about this until my friend - who has never watched the show - asked if the age difference was a part of the curse in some way. I had never picked up on any criticism of Angel's actions in the show. I was wondering if I'd missed it.

I didn't mean to put an emphasis on the legal aspect, either. It is just - I'm assuming he is about 25 years old, physically if not actually. Once I started thinking about it, I can't help but question the wisdom of Angel's action. His love and sincerity aren't in question. Maybe I'm just realizing for the first time that it pretty much breaks a taboo in US culture. Angel was an adult, but Buffy was not really an adult yet.

In Season 3, Joyce asked Angel to break it off with Buffy because it wasn't fair to her. Buffy was a teenager, with teen age thoughts, perceptions, and aspirations. Angel decided she was right. Buffy was planning a future with Angel, but was not yet emotionally prepared to truly understand all of the future implications. Even though she was the Slayer, she was still a teenager. Maybe this explains my question a bit better.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Age of consent in California is 18 -- Vickie, 15:33:31 07/13/02 Sat

I still do not think the age taboo figures into the story. Certainly, Joyce's concern had something to do with the age discrepancy. But even she never said anything like "you were wrong to sleep with her, it was technically rape."

I agree that Angel was unfair. I think it's a measure of his immaturity. Emotionally they were pretty much age-mates, if Buffy wasn't more mature.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Age of consent in California is 18 -- meritaten, 15:45:45 07/13/02 Sat

Interesting point. He isn't the most emotionally stable or mature person around.

Still, Buffy and Angel both suffered as a result of a poor decision. When I say this, I mean a poor decision on both sides. Essentially, Buffy watched people suffer and die as a result of her actions. It was pretty clear that she felt this. What about Angel?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The B/A Breakup -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:22:33 07/13/02 Sat

One problem with their relationship is that they could never have sex because of Angel's curse. And it's possible that he could reach the moment of happiness to lose his soul just by being around Buffy too much.

But maturity isn't a problem since Buffy will grow older and continue to mature, while Angel shall remain the same. And, if someone's thinking about what happens as Buffy gets too old for Angel, remember that she probably has at most a few more years before some vampire or demon gets lucky and kills her. This does raise the problem that it's unfair to expect Buffy to remain celibate until she dies. That's why the relationship with Angel couldn't work.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Age of consent...OT -- Drizzt, 20:50:39 07/16/02 Tue

The age of constent in Hawaii is sixteen; it was 14 about five years ago. Hawaii is one of several states where it is legal for an adult to marry a fourteen year old, but it does require parental consent for the minor. There is also emancipation for minors; I think that the minor must be at least fifteen for that. Emancipation=full legal rights and responsibilities of an adult.

I am in Hawaii currently. One week after I got here I met a girl who at fourteen has a modelling contract. She is very obsesssed with her appearance, and my mom commented that she "radiates sexuality" She said she is a virgin. Her dad had a bizzar midlife crisis; he spent his entire 40 grand retirement account in three months, was a serious drunk, & worst of all he was hitting on his own daughter...I saw him fondle her but & also some sexual comments to her;(

Poor girl; went from a nice middle class life, and her dad said he would bring her to Hawaii for vacation...but when she got here he told her she would never go home.

I cannot finish this story; someone is waiting for the computer I am using.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Age of consent...OT -- Drizzt, 21:44:05 07/16/02 Tue

I am back on the internet.

My second part of this story did not post?

I do not have time to try again;(

This girl looks like a Philipino version of the woman from Legaly Blond, she says her personality is similar also. My impression is that her natural personality is to be just as perky and cute as the Buffybot; she is simply adorable. She is now back in her middle class and normal life:)

Happy ending for her after lots of weirdness here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Consent or Majority? -- auroramama, 12:44:24 07/14/02 Sun

Usually the age of consent is lower than the age of majority (voting rights, for example.) In fact, I didn't know there was any state that had the age of consent higher than 16. If I remember correctly, a few states have age-difference contingencies (how much older the guy is), or don't charge minors with statutory rape.

Other Californians -- if the age of consent is 18, you might see cases where parents charge their 17-year-old's 18-year- old boyfriend with statutory rape. Has anyone heard of this?

I believe most states allow minors 16 or older to marry, sometimes with parental permission required.

auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> California Penal Code -- J, 15:59:40 07/14/02 Sun

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 261.5, "[u]nlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age." The penalties change in relation to the age discrepancy of the parties, but the crime is always "either a misdmeanor or a felony" if there is at least a three-year age difference between the parties (note--I know that doesn't seem to make any sense; I'm an Ohio lawyer, and it sounds nonsensical to me!). At any rate, it seems fairly clear that the sex between Angel and Buffy violated California law--unless Angel is not a "person" as described in the statute, that is!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: California Penal Code -- auroramama, 16:50:56 07/14/02 Sun

Wow. It really is 18. Well, at least now there's something -- breaking the law -- that can be pointed at as "reckless" or "a bad choice". That had always bugged me -- how long was Buffy supposed to wait? Would 18 have been OK? How about 21?

It's a pretty weird idea that 17 is too young to fool around but old enough to get married, though. Imagine Buffy making that choice! Come to think of it, imagine anyone doing it.

auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: California Penal Code -- meritaten, 17:45:59 07/14/02 Sun

My concern was not whether or not Buffy should have been sexually active. My concern was in regard to Angel, either 25-ish or 240-ish, engaging in sexual intercourse with a 17 year-old girl. I've no doubt that his INTENTIONS were honorable, that he truly loved her, etc.. However, why did we see buffy acknowledge that she had been rash (conversation with joyce and in constant feelings of guilt and responsibility), when Angel was never reproached? Angel was criticised for his actions when souless, but not for the way in which his soul was lost.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: California Penal Code -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:39:21 07/14/02 Sun

One of this culture's excepted philosophies is that women can and are expected to control their sexual urges, while men, if presented with the opportunity, can't help but obey their hormones. I don't agree with this, but it's a widespread belief (though many won't admit it).
[> [> [> [> [> Age of consent -- Sophist, 09:26:39 07/15/02 Mon

Just got back and am catching up.

The age of consent in CA is 18. However, if the other person is no more than 3 years older than the minor, the offense is only a misdemeanor.

Obviously, if we count Angel's vamp years, this point is irrelevant. If we count his age at vamping, however, the "offense" may have been a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, the shows are inconsistent about Angel's age. He seems to have been about 20 and may qualify.

I can also say that the offense is rarely prosecuted in CA relative to its occurrence (snicker). Every so often some ridiculous case comes along that generates calls to amend the statute, but there is no current prospect of amendment.

The fact that the age is lower in many other states may have made the issue less significant for the WB (which likely cared more than JW). BTW, the TV division of the WB is headquartered in GA. I don't know the age of consent there, but if it's less than 18, they may not have realized the issue.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Age of consent - Waaay OT (or maybe not...) -- redcat, 11:37:17 07/15/02 Mon

Just to add a touch of perspective and some support for what Sophist said above, I think it’s
important to remember that notions about the appropriate age for sexual consent vary widely
by culture and society. I would urge caution in clothing the choice of any particular age or
perspective on the issue with the cloak of absolute moral authority.

Last year (and importantly before the Catholic Church sex scandals broke into the dominant
media’s consciousness), Hawai’i’s governor and state legislature duked it out over the issue of
raising the age of both sexual consent and consent for marriage from 14 to either 16 or 18. A
lobby group of (mostly) recent haole (white foreigner) Republican transplants from the US
mainland had raised a very public stink about what were, to them, the pedophilac implications
of the current state statutes, which had been on the books since the early plantation-era days
of statehood in 1959. They convinced the conservative minority in both the state Senate and
House to bring bills aimed at raising the age of consent (some on the original committee
wanted it to be 20 - they settled for 16). Their rhetoric cast anyone who opposed them as
supporting pedophilia and child molestation. Heavily supported by funds from conservative
and fundamentalist Christian groups outside Hawai’i, they mounted a massive and ultimately
quite effective television, radio and print advertising campaign, using many of the same tactics
they had used five years earlier to defeat the same-sex marriage ballot proposition.

The governor, echoing the sentiments of at least a *very* large portion of the state’s populace
(and perhaps the majority - we never got a chance to vote on it), dismissed their arguments as
an attempt to impose conservative, white-American, fundamentalist Protestant values on a
mixed-ethnicity, mostly-non-Protestant and mostly-non- conservative local population. The
governor, BTW, is the son of Filipino immigrants, among whom, in Hawai’i during the
generation in which the governor grew up, cultural traditions based on more than a century of
capitalism-imposed plantation labor and immigration practices sanctified the marriages of
young women (14 or so) to much older men (typically in their 30s). Contemporary Hawai’i-
Filipino culture readily accepts teen-age marriages and has elaborate cultural structures for
helping to care for children born of them. The governor was also heavily supported in his
opposition to the bills by many Native Hawaiian cultural activists, a large majority of whom are
Protestant, but within whose cultural norms teen-age sexual unions and marriages are also
quite readily accepted, and who also have elaborate internal family structures for caring for the
children of teen parents. They were joined by some groups of South-East Asians, for similar
reasons, and what appeared to be a fairly large proportion of kama’aina haole (long-term white
residents, mostly originally from the US mainland, but generally thought of as having
established “local” roots), who are historically pretty far to the left of the American mainstream
political spectrum. The governor’s stance was opposed by several groups who chose not to
join the original proposers of the bill (mostly due to their perceived bad manners and overly-
negative political style), but who sincerely believed that a 14-year-old should not be allowed to
make such a life-changing decision as marriage without parental consent.

The pro-change group aggressively and rapidly pushed their bills through the state legislature,
the governor threatening all the while to veto the bill if it came across his desk. The group
ramped up both its level of invective, publishing “case studies” of violent child molestation and
serial child murderers in the daily papers, and its threats of political fall-out for the gov if he
vetoed. With extraordinary pressure being put on centrist and liberal legislators, the bills
passed by a very slim majority, and the governor vetoed as promised. He went on TV that
night on all three major local news stations, arguing that Hawai’i already had what were among
the nation’s most stringent laws against actual sexual assault, and had earned the FBI’s
highest ratings for successfully and vigorously prosecuting sexual assault crimes. He noted
that under the law he had just vetoed, an 18-year-old high- school senior would be permanently
branded as a “sex crimes felon” for having sex with his 15- year-old girlfriend. Within days of
the veto, millions of US-mainland dollars had poured into the coffers of the bill’s supporters,
who used it to exert even more pressure on the legislators, who were themselves at that
particular point also fighting with the governor about several other critical issues (education
money, the state budget, etc.). About two weeks later, and for the first time
in Hawai’i state history, the state legislature over-turned a sitting governor’s veto and the bill
became law, under which we now live. The state attorney general’s office has announced that
while they will not break the new law, they will continue to most vigorously prosecute crimes of
sexual assault and sexual violence, and will get around to prosecuting non-violent
transgressions of consent laws when the legislature gives them the manpower and money to
do so.

All of this was to raise the age of consent just to 16. Regardless of what other morals this
political tale may offer, may I suggest that one important lesson is that if there are any non-
culturally-bounded moral absolutes, the age of consent is not one of them. Our reactions to
violent sexual crimes may well be one such absolute, however, and IMVHO it would behoove us to remember the
difference.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Liam died at age 26 -- Masq, 16:37:18 07/15/02 Mon

According to his grave stone in "The Prodigal"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks. Does that match with the chronology in Angel and Becoming? -- Sophist, 17:22:29 07/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks. Does that match with the chronology in Angel and Becoming? -- Masq, 18:49:28 07/15/02 Mon

The Prodigal shows the events leading up to the death in the alley "Becoming" and both have the date of Liam's death at 1753. Liam I think was born in 1727 (I get that date and thus his age from his tombstone), but Angel, like Spike, counts his age from the year he died, not the year he was born as human.

Cheaters.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ME needs better arithmetic -- Sophist, 08:58:52 07/16/02 Tue

In Angel, Angel is described as 240 (b. 1757). This is reinforced in Halloween when Buffy sees the noble lady in the watcher diaries -- the picture is dated 1775 and Buffy comments that Angel was 18 at the time. These dates seem inconsistent with Prodigal even if we start counting from the vamping rather than human years.

Oops.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The dates are also inconsistent with "Becoming", which puts his vamp birth at 1753 -- Masq, 09:01:58 07/16/02 Tue

To quote Joss on the issue, "I suck at math"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ME also changed Spike's age 3 times -- Masq, 09:03:59 07/16/02 Tue

Originally, he's almost 200, then he's "126" in Season 4, then he's vamped in 1880 which means he was 126 in 1996, not 2000.
[> Re: Age difference between Angel and Buffy -- Rahael, 14:02:22 07/13/02 Sat

You might want to look at this post by Shadowkat, which has been archived now, on the similarities to Lolita.

http://www.voy.com/14567/2/56032.html
[> [> Re: Age difference between Angel and Buffy -- meritaten, 15:36:20 07/13/02 Sat

Thank you!!!!

Those were the very issues that were bothering me. Do you think that in any way the PTB were punishing angel for his romance with Buffy (either the curse or his time in the hell dimension)?
[> Re: Age difference between Angel and Buffy -- Darby, 16:09:38 07/13/02 Sat

You certainly could read the age difference into the metaphors of the show, but there doesn't seem to be much support from Joss on it. The curse was a way to show how guys can change once they've gotten sex, but I've never seen the age difference brought up by ME people (not even in the DVD commentary, where you'd expect to hear it) in that context, although they do acknowledge the difference from time to time.

The hidden message you mention is disturbing, though, I agree, but the show can't very well allude to Angel the Child Molester. Well, they could, but I doubt they'd want to.

And, by the way, welcome!
[> [> Lolita was just 14, not 16 -- Dariel, 17:00:05 07/13/02 Sat

And she was Humbert's stepdaughter. (Ick!) So I agree; ME was not trying to parallel Nabokov's story in any real sense.

Also, I think Joyce's appeal to Angel's being older was about maturity. She's not suggesting Angel should leave Buffy because of the age difference; it's because he's a vampire who can't give her a normal life.
[> [> [> Normal Life -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:43:30 07/13/02 Sat

Buffy's never gonna have a normal life. Do the titles "Chosen One", "Vampire Slayer", "And Girl With Low Life Expectency" lend their bearer to having a normal life?
[> [> [> [> Re: Normal Life -- KKC, 20:53:12 07/13/02 Sat

Could an argument be made that Buffy's life is no less 'normal' than anybody else's? Whether they realize it or not, many people all over the world suffer the same burdens... They rebel against authority, struggle with change, have great responsibility thrust upon them before they think they're ready for it, and keep terrible secrets.

From a thousand feet up, Buffy's life doesn't appear to be that different from anybody else's. The show is supposed to be a metaphor for certain common life experiences, after all. Except perhaps for the magical hair stylist and fashion coordinator who appear and disappear as needed. :)

-KKC, who attained this level of enlightenment through meditation and tomato juice.
[> [> [> [> [> Exactly! Couldn't agree more -- Rahael, 04:42:44 07/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> 1000 feet up may be too far away -- auroramama, 13:03:36 07/14/02 Sun

I used to read a mailing list for a friend of mine who wanted selected information but got too depressed if she read it herself. It was a list for people with metastatic cancer. There was a thread once that discussed the things friends and family say, meaning to be helpful, and someone brought up the comment, "I could get hit by a bus tomorrow myself." I don't recall specific arguments, but the general feeling on the list was that this was taking *too* broad a view of the situation.

Of course, it's possible for the people most concerned to take too personal a view. For example, most countries don't permit the family of a victim of violent crime to determine the sentence, even though they and the victim might seem to have the greatest right to do so, because criminals might be punished even more severely than they deserve ("Muggers deserve to be eaten" would probably sound reasonable to me if they'd frightened someone I love.)

But it doesn't hurt anyone if we allow people with short life expectancies to determine how they wish to view their situation. Some may prefer to think of themselves as just like the rest of us; some are annoyed by being referred to that way. For me, when Buffy complains of her lot, it's not time for the rest of us to point out that we are all mortal, and there's a chance we may predecease her. I'd respect her view of the situation, whatever my own thoughts.

auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> The hardest thing -- Rahael, 15:23:26 07/14/02 Sun

What I thought KKC was saying (feel free to correct me!) was that Buffy isn't meant to be seen as someone 'other' from us, someone who isn't an 'everyman' figure, someone whose problems are so different and so special, that we cannot identify with them.

She is meant to be a person we can identify it. If her problems feel like the end of the world, its because *our* problems often do feel that way. If Buffy feels that some days she has no one to understand her, and faces the dark alone, that's because it's a common, human perception.

Buffy wants a 'normal' life, regrets that "everyone who isn't currently Buffy" is able to enjoy things. But how many of us has not felt this way with regard to particular situations? Our unique responsibilites, our own fears - those feel to us as weighty as Buffy's.

And the final component is that Buffy feels that she might just be a monster, separate from everyone else. Abnormal. Wrong inside. And those are feelings that others have shared. The point is, Buffy is normal. We are normal. These feelings can result simply from living, because the hardest thing in life is not to be a superhero, but just to live it. To survive it, to be the best person you can be. That's our story.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The hardest thing -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:44:24 07/14/02 Sun

The prime difference is that for Buffy that stakes are raised. When our problems feel like the end of world, and things go wrong, we often find ourselves surprised that life goes on. Buffy is different in that she can't afford to fail. Messing up at the critical moment will get her killed, and maybe everybody else on the planet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, it works as a metaphor, as many things on Buffy does. -- Rahael, 15:50:29 07/14/02 Sun

There are many layers.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> oh, I can't be that brief! -- Rahael, 15:57:38 07/14/02 Sun

it's against some personal law or something.

Life will go on, despite disasters. Life goes on, inexplicably after Joyce dies. After Buffy dies, after Tara dies, after Willow saves the world. I thought that was one of the most powerful messages of BtVS.

When Buffy fails to stop Joyce dying, when she fails to stop the ritual starting in the Gift, when she fails to finish University, when she fails.......oh, at so many things. Her world goes on. And part of her is eternally bemused.......why aren't I dead? why do I have to keep on living?

dH reminds me that I haven't quoted any poetry in my above response. As Dorothy Parker once said:

"for tomorrow we may die
but alas, we never do"

(the flaw in paganism)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: oh, I can't be that brief! -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:18:46 07/14/02 Sun

Unless she failed to kill the Master or Angel, the world would have ended. And on other cases.

What's with the "flaw of paganism" thing?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's the name of the poem quoted -- Rahael, 16:21:31 07/14/02 Sun

Not believing in Vampires and such myself, I can't take the whole "world is ending" (again!) that seriously. The Body is far more affecting, and a beautiful dramatisation of how a world can end emotionally.

I always thought that's what the show had been talking about.
[> [> [> [> Re: Normal Life -- Dariel, 18:55:28 07/14/02 Sun

I should have put "normal life" in quotes. Joyce, being a mother, believed her daughter was entitled to a normal life. And, being a mother, it's not surprising that she maintained some level of denial about the realities of slayerhood.
[> [> [> Lolita was 12, not 14 (ickier and ickier) -- Valhalla, 22:28:56 07/14/02 Sun

[> [> Re: Age difference between Angel and Buffy -- meritaten, 12:57:58 07/14/02 Sun

Thank you!

I hadn't seen a hidden message, but then I started watching the show during season 3 , while I've now seen most of the early episodes, there are still episodes I haven't been able to see.

I do remember Buffy dealing with, and acknowledging, that she had made a mistake in sleeping with Angel. Was that simply a message to impressionable young viewers?

Also, that mistake didn't make Buffy a slut. Acknowledging that Angel had exercised poor judgement would not make him a child molester. ...but I agree that it would be a rather grey line.
[> Just a point - Spike is only about 30 years younger than Angel!!! -- Rahael, 05:17:33 07/14/02 Sun

[> [> Re: Just a point - Spike is only about 30 years younger than Angel!!! -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:06:48 07/14/02 Sun

Actually, Angel was sired in either 1753 or sometime in the 1770's (part of Joss's "suck at math" thing). Spike was sired in 1880. So he's at least a hundred years younger.
[> [> [> Angel is at least 245 and Spike 129 = 116 age diff. -- shadowkat, 10:12:25 07/15/02 Mon

According to the Initiative - Spike was 126, that was 1999,
so he's 129 now. According to an episode of Ats, earlier
this year and the episode Angel = Angel is 245.

Therefore - Angel is 116 years older than Spike. Makes Angel
old enough to be Spike's ancestor.

Oh and Buffy was 21 before she and Spike slept together.
She's barely 17 with Angel which is statutory rape in Kansas, I think. One of the points of the whole Angel/Angelus was that they had pulled an Lolita.
Older father figure sleeps with fetching girl and grows dangerously obsessed and tries to destroy her. They did it
well, made my jaw drop the way they did it. The Spike/Buffy
relationship was about something else...I think possibly
the bad boy - you're attracted to but can't be with theme.
[> [> Re: Just a point - Spike is only about 30 years younger than Angel!!! -- meritaten, 13:05:13 07/14/02 Sun

Yes, but by the time that Buffy and Spike get together, Buffy has crossed that invisible, but crucial, line into adulthood.
[> [> [> Age of consent in Britain is 16 -- Rahael, 15:10:42 07/14/02 Sun

and Buffy seemed to me years and years more mature than most people at 20, so I never had problems on that score. Indeed, I went to school with girls who were in sexual relationships at the age of 12/13.

If we are talking about the ick factor of teenager with a centuries old adult, well, that's a different matter.....not to mention, undead centuries old adult. I think what Shadowkat's post points out is that the writers were aware of this, and did a couple of knowing winks. We aren't meant to think of Angel as Humbert Humbert, but as potentially being seen that way. At the end of the day, they did B/A, and S/B because, to invoke Slain's principle, 'it was cool'.
[> [> [> [> Re: Age of consent in Britain is 16 -- shadowkat, 10:19:46 07/15/02 Mon

"I think what Shadowkat's post points out is that the writers were aware of this, and did a couple of knowing winks. We aren't meant to think of Angel as Humbert Humbert, but as potentially being seen that way. At the end of the day, they did B/A, and S/B because, to invoke Slain's principle, 'it was cool'."

Yep. That's exactly it. They did use the metaphor though.
In a big way in IOHEFY - with the teacher and student.
But they were very careful about it...it was clever, b/c
all these teenage girls had the hots for DB who was
close to 30 and the writers did a storyline showing exactly what would happen if they got that much older guy. And just to make sure you got the point - they did clever little episodes like Reptile Boy, IOHEFY, Surprise/Innocence,
School Hard. I don't think it was literally Lolita,
but the metaphor is definitely there. That said, I too thought B/A was cool still do. My jaw dropped when they did it.

B/S isn't about that. It's another metaphor. They've purposely made Spike less fatherly, less adult than Angel.
[> [> [> [> [> Buffy is also an "adult" in B/S -- meritaten, 14:08:58 07/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: Age of consent in Britain is 16 -- Miss Edith, 10:58:03 07/15/02 Mon

I am also from Britain and sadly there are indeed plenty of 12 and 13 year olds boasting about their sexual exploits. One 12 year old girl was dating a man in his early 30s which we all agreed was icky at the time and now that I am an adult it revolts me. She is 20 now and they are living together so he is still attracted to her*shrug*. Young girls having sex usually get away with it. Prosecution only happens if there is a pregnancy and the parents often go to the police wanting the male charged.
When considering 15 year old Dawn dating Xander or Spike it also gives me the creeps and most viewers would dismiss the idea of Dawn having a serious romance with an older guy. But as Sarah was 19 when the series began she never looked like a 16 year old like Dawn does.
As a sophomore Buffy had presumedly only turned 16 very recently and Buffy did come across as a pretty regular teen to me and I would not agree that she seemed more mature than Willow for instance. I remember in The Witch when she was desiring to be a cheerleader and we saw her skipping around, sassing Giles and commenting on how the grown-up Giles should get a girlfriend "if he wasn't so old".
Therefore I had a problem with the B/A romance in season 1. But in season 2 when Buffy slept with Angel it was more acceptable to me as she did seem pretty mature at that point (and again the actress looked older than 17).
I guess my only real problem was why Angel was ever interested in such a young girl in the first place. Remember when Xander was upset that Dawn no longer had a crush on him but preferred Spike. We laughed because the idea of Dawn dating an adult seemed absurd. She actually complimente Spike on treating her as an equal rather than a child as others did. Spike's brothely relationship with Dawn was very sweetly handled.
But seeing Angel lurking in a darkened car like some old tramp peering at Buffy does remind me of a passage in the Lolita book where Humbert is lurking outside a school. And I found it disturbing when Angel tells Buffy in Helpless he fell in love with her at first sight because he could see she had a big heart and he wanted to protect her. That strikes me as shallow at best. Buffy was skipping down the steps sucking a lollipop and babbling about being over a guy and when she met her watcher she was confused and begun talking about how she never really meant to shoplift a lipstick. Hardly the mature Chosen One. She was just beginning to grow up in that instant.What was Angel's attraction?
And often the couple had little to talk about. For instance in Helpless Angel is reading some French philosophy book and gives Buffy a present that is clearly inappropriate and of little interest to her (a book I think? And it's out of Buffy's reading range?). That is why I never brought the romance with the large age gap. I couldn't see what they had in common. About the only time I was sold on the romance was in I Will Remember You when Buffy was a college student and on more equal footing. Just my perspective.
[> [> [> [> [> How did you feel -- Sophist, 12:20:22 07/15/02 Mon

about Xander/Faith (looking at it either way)? What about Willow/Oz?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How did you feel -- Rosie, 12:58:24 07/15/02 Mon

Sorry if I am not getting your point but are you addressing the age gaps? I presume that's what you mean but wasn't Oz only a year older than Willow? Therefore they were both high schoolers with roughly the same life experience so an attraction was to me more natural than Angel liking Buffy. The idea of B/A being soulmates was simply presented to us as a fact rather than showing us what drew them together. In Angel (the episode) Xander was not the only one reacting in disbelief when Buffy indicated she was in love with Angel after the two of them had shared just one kiss. Buffy was a young girl at the time and had a crush on Owen just recently. Therefore I was sceptical when the idea of the great love was presented. Perhaps it's just a lack of imagination on my part but I did simply find B/A shallow. Yes the kiss at the end was romantic but I couldn't see the depth behind it. The two of them hardly knew each other and it came across as all flash and no substance.
The way Buffy didn't address Angel's past until she had to again indicated immaturity to me. In Halloween Buffy looks throught the watchers diaries but happily skips over any parts detailing the savegery of Angel's part and is instead concerned with the type of girls he was interested in.
In Amends she makes the astounishing claim "I know everything that you did because you did it to me". Angel had raped and destroyed entire families. We are reminded of the cold artistry of his kills by the grieving father who found his children dead in bed. Dru was tortured and driven insane. Yes Buffy suffered at Angel's hands and he was certainly more than just an unpleasant ex as he did kill Jenny leaving Buffy with unbearable guilt. But I still can't reconcile that with Buffy dismissing Angel's past crimes and forgiving him on behalf of his victims.
There were plenty of melodramatic speeches and angst but I don't recall them sharing many regualr conversations or having much in common and I just don't understand what Angel's attraction was to Buffy. It seemed to be the case that Buffy was a nubile young girl attracted to the handsome older man and I personally didn't feel the show ever took them much beyond that.
I am just the type of person who cannot take things at face value and would have prefered the connection between the characters to be explored and expanded on. In Surprise Buffy moves from kissing to sex? Surely heavy petting comes first for a vigin in high scool? We see that she is emarrassed when Angel approaches her when she has taken her top off. But afterwards we are told Angel achieved true happiness and it is implied the night was perfect for them both. Again we are shown a flashy sequence showing the perfect night with an expression of ectascy on Buffy's face. And this is getting a bit O/T but I am just trying to explain why the age gap did bother me and I couldn't accept the relationship based on what we were shown.
Xander/Faith didn't have much of an age gap did they? I know Eliza was in her teens and Nicky was about 30 but in the show Xander was 17 and Faith wasn't meant to be much younger than Buffy surely?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re Ooops sorry this is Miss Edith -- Miss Edith, 13:02:25 07/15/02 Mon

Rosie is my actual name but I decided having the nickname Miss Edith would be slightly cooler (big Dru fan). Sorry if I confused you but both posts are from me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, didn't make my question clear -- Sophist, 17:38:22 07/15/02 Mon

What I was trying to do was sort out among several possibilities that occurred to me on reading your original post:

1. You just didn't care for the B/A ship.

2. You were bothered by the age gap between the two.

3. It was the fact that Buffy was 17 which alone gave you a problem.

It was to cover the last point that I raised the issue of Xander, Faith, and Willow. The ages of all three are unclear, but they could well have been under 18 at the time of "first contact". It seems like those scenes themselves didn't bother you, so it must be the apparent age gap which was the problem (and, you just didn't like B/A anyway). If I've jumped to a conclusion here, let me know.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, didn't make my question clear -- Miss Edith, 05:41:30 07/16/02 Tue

The B/A relationship just didn't have much depth to it in my eyes. The first time Angel spies Buffy in Helpless is an example of this as we are supposed to accept his attraction to Buffy was natural love at first sight because they are soulmates and meant to be together. I am just the kind of boring person who starts wondering hang on what was the attraction. He was looking at a girl he didn't know and we are supposed to accept cosmic forces of fate are pulling them together or something? I didn't have a problem with Willow and Oz having a relationship and sleeping together or Xander losing his virginity to Faith. I just questioned B/A from the beginning really. But in seasons 2 and 3 I accepted they looked good together and the age gap didn't jump out at me as much. It was only in season 1 that I really felt Angel's interest in such a young girl was questionable. It wasn't just the age gap that troubled me, I just couldn't see the appeal beteen them. It seemed like we were only ever told they were soulmates and had to accept that premise and carry on from there. I would have liked to have been told why they were soulmates in order to relate to the relationship more. Just my perspective.
So basically I wasn't entirely comfortable with the age gap and didn't feel the relationship was convincingly presented so that I could overcome that. And I know B/A are supposed to be the big love affair in Bts so sorry if my views offend anyone. I'm not saying B/A were necesserily bad or the most unconvincing couple ever. I just wasn't able to get emotionally invested in the romance.
[> [> [> [> [> Consequences -- meritaten, 14:16:47 07/15/02 Mon

So, I've heard only one opinion on why Buffy was depicted as bearing the guilt over the consequences of her night with Angel - in our culture, men will always want sex and it the is female's responsibility to say no.

Any other thoughts on this? (I'm not dismissing this interpretation, just trying to gather other readings as well.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequences -- Sophist, 17:26:29 07/15/02 Mon

At the relevant time, Angelus wasn't inclined to feel any regret. By the time Angel returned for good, it seemed a little late for regrets (if they were necessary). Besides, he'd just spent hundreds of years being tortured (punishment enough, I'd say). Whether regret over Buffy was part of his angst in Amends is hard to say.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequences to Meritaten -- aliera, 09:02:49 07/16/02 Tue

I am still catching up on Season 3, so take this with the appropriately sized grain of salt.

Which of us has not make a remark or taken an action that led to unforseen consequences or even pain for someone we care about because we did not have all of the possible information? (And how rarely do we have all the right information to make the best choices LOL.) This too is part of growing up. Knowing that we make the best choices we can given the information we have and understanding that our partner shares in this.

But at 17 years, would this have been my viewpoint? I doubt that very much. I too felt much guilt from the fallout of some of my choices that were made while I was young...and even today, if someone is hurt because of my words or actions, even if unintentional, I would be saddened.

I do understand I think, your point about saying "no". I have been very lucky to have known men (not necessarily in the biblical sense) who do not fit into these sterotypes. As a young woman, it is a very difficult situation. I see many young girls, much younger than Buffy, having to address this issue and other difficult issues in the area where I live. In days ago parents were perhaps more involved and protective, not so today in our neighborhood. And I have to say that it worries me. To ahve to make choices that may alter your life for many years at the age of twelve? And to think that in many ways our culture has come so far, and yet has so far to go.

I am grateful though, that we have shows like this. To make us think and question and hopefully work for a better place for all people. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequences to Meritaten -- meritaten, 12:49:51 07/16/02 Tue

So, your position is that Buffy's feelings of guilt were really about growing up, not about the consequences of early sex?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Positions -- aliera, 14:34:57 07/16/02 Tue

I rarely have a position (many positions, yes) since I like to hear others views not caring so much about the winning of debates.

I think what I was trying to say earlier is that part of the guilt was from what ended up happening to Angel, not the having sex. Of course, the eps are most often considered to be a metaphor for the "morning after realization-he was so nice *before* but now he's a monster" combined with Joss's admission that it was in part a plot device. His intent being to bring them together and then immediately break them apart. Sorry, if it was confusing.
[> [> [> [> [> That's not really the way I looked at it -- Rahael, 05:53:37 07/16/02 Tue

My tendency is to strongly stay away from other people's choices in the bedroom. If I thought a friend of mine was being exploited, I'd have said something, but as far I was concerned, it was their relationship, their business, and perhaps their parents. As far as I figured, if I could make the choice to say no, they had a right to say yes.

I remember a friend who had an extremely prolific sex life. I used to get quite angry when other people sneered at her (the only reason why so many men wanted to go out with her, some girls said, was because they knew she would put out). Wheras I saw a beautiful, charming and intelligent girl who made the choice to behave just as boys her age did (this was around the ages 14/15/16). Two years younger than me, she is now very happily married, a career as a model and fashion photographer and with children on the way. I always respected her choices, and am glad that she has confounded her doubters.

As for partners, I always hope that they'd give me books out of my reading range. Is that ever an inappropriate present? Good taste in Buffy, I always said. Though I did fall for Angel when I saw him reading La Nausee. (Which I read when I was younger than Buffy. I think Buffy's pretty smart. She's just learnt to hide it). I always thought that Buffy was a hundred miles more mature than Angel, always. I haven't seen the movie, but it looks like she did a hell of a lot of growing up between the time Angel first saw her, and the start of Season 1.

I think redcat made a very important point - let's not confuse legalities with real maturity. I mean for years, the gay age of consent in Britain was 21!
[> [> [> [> [> [> O/T rant -- Arethusa, 06:34:19 07/16/02 Tue

I used to teach 13 and 14-year olds. Many of them were just becoming sexually active-they talked about it sometimes in class because they couldn't at home. Very, very few of them were sophisticated enough to make informed, healthy choices about their sex lives. Many of the girls seemed to base their notions of what a sexual relationship was like on the movie "Pretty Woman." (Gary Marshall is the devil.) Their sexual choices included getting pregnant and dropping out to marry, being caught by the police prostituting themselves with old men who most definitely were not Richard Gere, and worrying themselves sick that they'll get AIDS because they have unprotected sex. There are plenty of people who are mature and sophisticated enough as teenagers to make informed decisions about their sexuality, but I've only seen a few out of hundreds, and the rest just aren't ready.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: O/T rant -- Rahael, 07:21:45 07/16/02 Tue

I think I went to an unusually mature school - we certainly discussed issues regarding HIV, protection, pregnancy etc during our lunchbreaks. In fact, of all the times we did discuss sex, it was only in this light. That's all the perspective I have on this.

One thing I do know - we certainly did not romanticise relationships! In fact, my conversations with girls at school made me make up my mind definitely the other way. Either way, I had the highest respect for their judgement and intelligence. To go slightly OT, all this talk of high school as hell - High school (or the British equivalent) was the first place I ever found understanding, sympathy and kindness. The girls allowed me be the person I was, and I reciprocated. University on the other hand - I found bitchiness, duplicity, shallowness and bullying aplenty. Conformity was the rule. I found far more respect for my intelligence, and more of a peer pressure to do the best I could do at my state comp.

I remember with fondness the one person I really did not get on with slipping me cheery, pep up notes during our 48 hour art exam, because I was ready to just give up and not bother completing. At University I met girls who coolly had dinner with the guy who had only the week before raped a good friend of theirs. Just because he was in the 'in' crowd and it wouldn't do to piss him off. At my school, that would never have happened, we would never have allowed that to happen. If one of our classmates was deciding to have an inappropriate relationship with a man far too old or predatory, we'd have advised her don't even go there, that's just nasty. There was a strong sense of our self respect, and our dignity - we definitely saw ourselves, and our work as worth more than any boy.

I certainly remember them cautioning me when I related how I'd gotten this crush on a 24 year old man (he seemed so grown up!). But at the end of the day, they wouldn't have looked down on me if I'd set their advise aside - not that I did.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pretty woman, and other thoughts -- Rahael, 07:46:08 07/16/02 Tue

Okay, Pretty Woman is the most confusing movie I'd ever seen. It was hugely popular in Britain when I first arrived, and I just never quite got why a relationship between a prostitute and a man who employed her services could in any way be romantic at all.

What's even more surprising is that older women, not just young girls seem to think of this movie as such.

As to the sexual maturity of young girls, this is really difficult, a hugely difficult question for me. My class (single sex school) with whom I stayed with for 6 years, were composed largely of middle class white girls, black girls from strict backgrounds, and Asian Muslim girls. We were fed a steady drip drip drip, by our teachers that we should work hard, because as girls, as black women, as Asian women, British society was not going to be all that fair. Some parents bought their daughters very liberal sex education books, which they brought into class to share (lol, I don't think the Muslim parents who sent their girls to nice single sex schools knew what they were getting!). I'd have no hesitation in saying that most of us had very strong opinions on feminism, sex, and the double standards that operated between men and women.

Personally I think 16 is quite the right age, for British society. And so much of the sexual, and indeed emotional immaturity of some young people rests with parents who just don't care, or don't pay attention to the needs of their children.

Buffy? she was mature enough. Dawn? no. Not because of the actual age of the actresses, but contrast "get out get out get out" with Buffy who in WTTH decides to take up the mantle of responsiblity she seems to be hiding from. Either way, it is our responsibility, as parents, as relatives, as members of society to ensure that young people are both mature, and make good decisions, because the "just say no" campaign doesn't work (going on my experience of the colourful sex lives of some of the Asian girls I knew).

My cousin, now age 14, always had always been informed. She's strictly forbidden to date, by her parents (she's been ignoring that rule for years). But I, and my sister (and her peers) tried to infuse into her what we had learnt at school. And she dumped the boy who tried to pressure her into sex.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Pretty woman, and other thoughts -- Arethusa, 08:57:49 07/16/02 Tue

The girls I taught were seldom encouraged in any way. Texas has very high rates of teen pregnancy, children in poverty, and drop-out rates. But hey-we have lots of tax-payer funded, very expensive sports stadiums.

My perceptions of teen sexuality are, of course, based on my experiences as a teen and secondary teacher in Texas, and are quite negative. I realize these experiences are not representitive of all, or even most teens, and certainly not of fictional teens! But...
Remember Buffy saying "Was it me? Was I not good? after Angelus taunted her? And her words to her mother, when Joyce asked what she did on her birthday-"I got older."
Buffy matured very quickly after she slept with Angel, but it was a difficult initiation. Look at her behavior with Parker-not too mature. Cordelia had more of a mature, matter-of-fact attitude towards sex, I think-based on a stronger sense of self.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "You still look the same" -- Rahael, 10:01:03 07/16/02 Tue

I think Innocence was a very complex episode. I thought Joyce was a very uncaring mother not to notice that Buffy had gone through this enormous sea change. But watching the commentary track by Joss made me see that conversation in a totally different light.

He reiterated that he did not want to promote the message that sex was bad. But that he had to punish each character, emotionally for every decision they had made, good or bad. When Joyce says "you still look the same", Joss said he wanted Buffy to know that she was still "innocent", and that despite Angel's attempts to degrade, she had not been degraded. Angel treated her terribly, but he would have not changed his behaviour if she had been older. And when Buffy was older, she slept with Parker, and he reacted the same way. In both instances, the person who reacted with maturity, was Buffy, not Angel or Parker. (on a side note re the Buffy/Angelus talk in Innocence - Joss said that he couldn't believe that he could write those words, that he felt sickened).

Cordelia's first experience of sex was equally bad, actually, even though she waited longer - she had the mysterious pregnancy thing happening. We are led to believe that that was her first experience of full intercourse, though its never made clear.

I think we are basically in agreement - it is essential for young teenagers/ young women to be properly educated and given choices. The terrible thing is when they are left alone, and then demonized/pilloried (pun intended) for the choices they do make.

Btw, my cousin's comment to me when she said that she had dumped her boyfriend was : "what pleasure would I have got out of it anyway, at this age? It's better to wait". That's the reaction I hope all young teenage girls have! But in the Buffyverse, whatever age seems to be the wrong one!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "You still look the same" -- redcat, 10:13:46 07/16/02 Tue

Rah & Arethusa,
This is a really fascinating conversation. It brings to mind some recent research on American
education that has been quite startling to some feminist scholars while confirming the gut
feelings of many others. Studies done on teen-age girls in same-sex educational institutions
**conclusively** demonstrate that girls enrolled in girls- only schools, and *especially* girls who
begin such schools in their early teens (12-13), have:

significantly higher levels of self-esteem and self- confidence, better feelings about their own
bodies, express less of a desire for plastic surgery, and have fewer incidents of incidental
suicide from advanced anorexia/bulimia;

generally do better by about 20% on standardized tests than girls from similar socio-economic
strata in mixed-gender schools, much of that increase in math/science;

have lower rates of teen pregnancy, suicide and serious drug/alcohol abuse/overdose,
although their use of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana is “about the same” as girls in mixed-
gender schools (I’ve not seen any research that specifically compares serious drug use
[heroin/cocaine/methamphetamine] among both sets of female teens, only death from
overdosing, so don’t know the stats on actual use for those drugs);

on the whole report being very comfortable with competition and in leadership roles, and
actually DO better in competition with boys (all sorts of competition, from science fairs to
debate club contests) than girls from mixed-gender schools;

graduate at rates significantly higher than girls in mixed- gender schools;

and enter college at rates even higher than that (although some of the research on this last
fact comes from the private schools themselves and is a bit self-promotional, so take with a
grain of salt).

Early interpretations of this evidence suggested that it was the “protected”atmosphere of
same-sex schools that produced these differences. Further investigations, especially those in
which the researchers actually went to the schools and interviewed both students and
teachers, indicate instead that the girls themselves attributed their strengths and successes to
the proto-feminist attitudes common among their peers and especially their teachers (even
those teachers who were nuns! - the female religious of the Catholic Church have been
undergoing a mini-feminist revolution in the last 20 years and it shows up most assertively in
their educational efforts with young girls). The students’ perceptions that such schools
encouraged them to flourish and pushed them to express their best personal levels of
achievement were supported in interviews with both female and male faculty/administration
across a wide range of types of girls’ schools. Many faculty report they chose to teach in all-
girl schools because they deeply believe in fostering the total range of young girls’ abilities,
understand the potential gender-specific obstacles that will be in their way as adults, and see
themselves as mentors/guides who can specifically help the girls overcome those gender-
based obstacles.

Thus it is not surprising that sexual exploration and experimentation, for these girls, occurs
within a context of self-positive social and peer values that 1) assumes a level of self-
responsibility and self-directedness unfamiliar to many girls in mainstream American public
schools, and 2) often conflicts, as Rahael notes, with parental, familial and/or cultural values
about female sexuality, a tension that certainly leads to some quite serious problems for some
girls and their families. Perhaps not surprisingly, while these girls are often more “successful”
in high school than their mainstreamed peers, they often hit a huge wall once they begin
attending mixed-gender colleges and some statistics indicate that they actually see a greater
fall in their initial (first semester) GPA than girls from mixed-gender schools do. Their dismay
at the “real” world may account for the high transfer rate into women’s colleges of female
students who have some experience in mixed-gender college settings.

Arethusa, your experience with the Texas public school system is, unfortunately, statistically
not uncommon in American public education. While I’m not sure that the research suggests
that *all* girls will do better in single-sex institutions, it does perhaps help explain a small part
of Rah’s very different set of experiences/attitudes. One difference not accounted for by the
research, however, is the issue of parental involvement in teen’s lives. I think one has to
assume that at least a high proportion of parents who bother to pay for their daughters to go to
private high-quality schools are also very involved in their daughters’ lives. One cannot,
however, assume that parents of public-school students are not as involved, but a common
complaint among American teachers is that their students report an enormous sense of
alienation from their parents. Personally, having taught college for a dozen years, I find a
great deal *less* alienation from their parents among my students than I felt at their age, and in
general I’m always a bit suspicious of the “it’s all the parent’s fault” strain of analysis. But what
the research may indicate is that girls who receive a positive view of themselves from both
parents and teachers - who are told *and shown* that they matter - make better, more mature
and more “self-true” choices for themselves at earlier ages than do girls who don’t get such
encouragement. While being strong may initially make their lives harder once they have to
deal with the realities of mixed-gender adult life, hopefully they will be strong enough to make
their world that much better!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "You still look the same" -- Arethusa, 10:54:39 07/16/02 Tue

We do agree. I just see sexuality through a glass, darkly- my bad.

Re Cordelia: I'll point this out because your opinion seems to be the consensus, and I disagree: (quotes by psyche)

From "Phases"
Cordelia: Excuse me? We didn't come here to talk about Willow. We came
here to do things I can never tell my father about because he still
thinks I'm a... good girl.

I think Cordy substituted "good girl" for "virgin," although she could have meant heavy petting.
But...from "Bad Eggs":

Mr. Whitmore: ...through your bodies, compelling you to action, it's
often difficult to remember that there *are* negative consequences to,
uh, having sex. Would anyone care to offer one such consequence?

Cordelia raises her hand, and Mr. Whitmore indicates to her, giving her
the floor.

Cordelia: Well, that depends. Are you talking about sex *in* the car or
*out* of the car? (Mr. Whitmore looks confused) Because I have a friend,
not me, that was in a Miata at, parked at the top of the hill, and then
she kicked the gearshift, and, and...


And thanks for the info, redcat. Some school districts in the US are starting to talk about single-sex, public schools.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, I'm never sure about Cordy -- Rahael, 11:00:40 07/16/02 Tue

they seem to have left it up in the air - that comment in the classroom could just have been to annoy Xander. And, Cordy may have a broad definition of 'sex'!

redcat, thanks that's fascinating - it's a pattern repeated in the UK, too. I can remember that we had a debate about this at an English lesson (of course we were strongly in favour, though with the qualification that we wanted to go mixed at Sixth Form - we weren't about to put off boys forever! just for a little while!).

Research here also indicates that boys do significantly better at mixed schools, rather than single sex ones.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordy & Same Sex Schools -- Brian, 11:19:59 07/16/02 Tue

I always thought that Cordelia was "everyone's next one," assuming that "everyone" was rich, goodlooking, had a cool car, and money to spend (on her). My assumption for the Xander exception was that Xander may have been thinking about sex all the time, but he had a deep respect for Cordelia and wouldn't allow their relationship to go that far.

I taught at a single sex girl's school for 9 years. The students certainly were more independent, more confident, more willing to express their intellectual opinion, more in tune with themselves and their peers. However, about boys? They were clueless. It was frightening what they thought boys were like or what they did or said. In artifical social situations with boys (dances, etc), there was a lot of reckless behavior. I always imagined that when they got to college they were in for a rough time trying to understand boys as boys who were now in classes with them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordy & Same Sex Schools -- rc, 12:01:10 07/16/02 Tue

I have such great respect for all teachers, especially! for middle and high school teachers like you and Arethusa, Brian. I've only ever taught kids once they're out of high school, which is a different ball of wax entirely. But I have witnessed the often-times HUGE drop that happens during the first and sometimes second semester for girls from private single-sex schools when they hit college. Their grades drop, they can get caught in unhealthy relationships, and they seem especially vulnerable during what's called the "Red Zone" period, the first seven weeks of the fall semester, when date rapes and other sexual assaults against 1st and 2nd-year female students peak on most American college campuses.

However, I've also witnessed the phenomonon in many, many of those same young female students that the skills and self- reliance they've learned stand them in good stead in the long run. Life continues, they pick themselves up and go on, wiser and sadder, perhaps, but generally not "made weak" by their struggle and often they do so as well as or better than their public-school peers.

Adult life hits all kids hard, as our beloved characters have been finding out for themselves this past year. It hits kis from different circumstances hard in different ways. Each kid, male and female, will hit some wall some day, they'll have to fight through some set of preconceptions or some range of interlocked social expectations of them that don't match what they know of themselves. What skills and strengths they bring to that challenge, and what they take away fom it, are at least as important as the nature of the challenge itself, which they cannot control. As parents and teachers, we cannot control the nature of the challenges our students will meet, either. We can only work to help them find their own best way through, which is, I think, what drives all of us teachers to keep on doing what we do. For modern American girls, same- sex schools are certainly not some fantasy ideal, and they have many problems, as you rightly point out. But they are perhaps better at providing some essential parts of the educational spectrum than mixed-gender schools currently are, among which is a broader sense of the internal tools that one can use to go about the business of surviving adult life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordy & Same Sex Schools -- aliera, 15:01:47 07/16/02 Tue

Agreeing; but, thinking any school solutions are only part of the answer. Much of what I see goes on away from school and starts when they are very young...we have some societal issues that our schools are not going to be able to address, nor necessarily should they.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, I'm never sure about Cordy -- redcat, 11:30:52 07/16/02 Tue

Thanks, both! And LOL, Cordy is listed on my poster's bio as "my favorite philosopher." She always says the things I wish I had the guts to say!

BTW, the evidence for American boys is somewhat different than in the UK, because such a huge percentage of US private all-boy schools (by enrollment) are of only two types: military and Catholic, and a larger portion of the latter are the pre-seminary type than in previous generations. Secular "academics-only" boys schools are actually fairly uncommon here; most integrated (and liberalized, BTW) in the mid-70s during a wave of "progressive" attitudes that swept Am. education. Research shows that boys do better in them than in single-gender institutions, just as Arethusa says. Girls-only schools, however, are increasing in both number and total enrollment nationwide, in part because of the research I noted. This is also one of the reasons that some feminists who might otherwise be opposed to school vouchers support them, because in areas that do have such schools, they allow lower-income parents to send their daughters to private girls' schools, where they tend to get a better education than in local public schools. It's a complicated issue. I just wish we could find a way to support ALL girls and boys equally in all schools, then they might be able to create a society in which both women and men can live richer, fuller and less squashed lives than their teachers have.

As an aside, I do think things are getting better. I cannot count how many times growing up I heard the mantra, "The only reason women go to college is to get an M-r-s degree." (No wonder I didn't get my doctorate till I was 42.) But I've never met a single student, either male or female, in any college classe I taught from 1990 to the present, who could make heads or tails out of that sentence without me having to explain it to them. And that's a very good thing, I think.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "You still look the same" -- Miss Edith, 13:21:10 07/16/02 Tue

Well there isn't any proof that Cordy was talking about herself. Maybe she really did mean a friend. It could have been Harmony and Cordy was just passing on the tale and covering up for her friend. I find that more plausible than the idea that Cordy had sex freely until she dated Xander at which point she didn't sleep with him for a year. All her talk of possibly being in love with Xander suggests that she was a virgen and nervous about sleeping with a boy for the first time even though she was in a serious relationship.
Anyway Cordy's car wasn't a miata was it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "You still look the same" -- Arethusa, 13:41:58 07/16/02 Tue

Like Horton the Elephant, Cordy says what she means and means what she says-remember "Earshot"? And I think the not- having-sex-with-Xander was a contrivance, because ME wanted Xander to lose his virginity under the worst possible circumstances. "The Zeppo" takes place about a year after Xander dates Cordelia, but we know ME plans at least a year ahead, based on what the writers have said in interviews.
Not that it really matters....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "You still look the same" -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:37:31 07/16/02 Tue

Were we ever told that Xander was a virgin up to that point? Yes, he seemed surprised that he had had sex, but he's not exactly the kind of guy that has an extremely hot girl he's never had a relationship with pounce on him. I'm thinking that he was more surprised that it had happened at that moment, in that way, with that person.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "You still look the same" -- Arethusa, 15:25:36 07/16/02 Tue

The Evidence:


Teacher's Pet (S1.4)

Willow: I'm really glad you're okay. It's so unfair how she only went
after virgins.

Xander laughs and looks back and forth between the girls.

Xander: (to Willow) What?

Willow: I mean, here you guys are, doing the right thing, the smart
thing, when a lot of other boys your age...

Blayne: Flag down on that play, babe. I am *not*...

Giles: (interrupts) Well, you see, that's the She-Mantis' modus
operandi. Uh, she only preys on the pure.

Xander: Well, isn't this a perfect ending to a wonderful day!

Blayne: My dad's a lawyer. Anyone repeats this to anybody, they're
gonna find themselves facing a lawsuit.

Xander: Blayne! Shut up!

Willow: I don't think it's bad, I think it's really...

Xander holds up the machete.

Willow: ...sweet! It's certainly nothing I'll ever bring up again.



The Zeppo (S3.13)

Xander: I can't believe I had sex.

The Verdict

It's clear that he was a virgin in Season 1. Two years later, who knows? I'm beginning to realize that unless ME spells something out specifically, the audience will interpret it a hundred different ways, depending on their experiences, perceptions, and biases. And ME would rather be subtle and metaphorical than spell things out. I think it's clear they did have sex, based on Xander new self- assurance afterwards, but that's based on my own perceptions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Above quotes by psyche -- Arethusa, 15:32:16 07/16/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, rats. I suddenly remembered -- Arethusa, 16:02:15 07/16/02 Tue

Faith: (smiles sexily) You up for it?

She runs her other hand down the back of his neck.

Xander: (nods) Oh, I'm up.

She smiles at him and gets closer. She stops rubbing his chest and
lowers her hand to his crotch.

Xander: I'm suddenly *very* up. It's just, um... (grins sheepishly)
I've never been up with people before.

Faith grabs his jaw and kisses him full on the lips with plenty of
tongue.

Faith: Just relax... And take your pants off.

Virgin it is. Quote by psyche.
[> Re: Age difference between Angel and Buffy -- Arethusa, 11:49:48 07/15/02 Mon

When Dangerous Liaisons was filmed twice in the late 80s, the teenager seduced by Valmont was played by 19-year-old Uma Thurman, and 15-year-old Fairuza Balk. Our local paper's review expressed disgust as seeing Balk seduced by a much older man, but not Thurman, even though the girl's age did not change (IIRC). Why? People are creeped out by the idea of 16-year-old Dawn having sex with an adult man, but not 16 + one day-year-old Buffy-her affair was seen as deeply romantic to some. Why? Is it because when we see MT's young face we can't fool ourselves that a 16-year-old is old enough to have a sexual relationship with an adult?
[> [> What I find interesting in this -- Sophist, 12:32:29 07/15/02 Mon

is that, so far, all the discussion has focused on teenage girls; what the age of consent should be, whether having a relationship with an older man is "icky". No mention yet of teenage boys.

Under current law, wrongly decided IMHO, it does not violate the equal protection clause to define only underage girls as the "victims" of statutory rape. If we had to apply the same standard to boys and girls, would we still wonder about Buffy and Dawn?

It's also interesting that 2 posts have mentioned the apparent age of the actresses, as judged by their facial appearance. This is interesting psychologically, but should it be legally?
[> [> [> Re: What I find interesting in this -- Arethusa, 13:00:41 07/15/02 Mon

There's no question that sexually active teenage boys are seen very differently than sexually active teenage girls. Many boys, preteen and older, are "seduced" by adult women, according to a criminal lawyer I know. The women are almost never charged, since the boys seldom tell any adults until they are adults themselves. I don't know if anyone has bothered to find out how such boys are affected.


"It's also interesting that 2 posts have mentioned the apparent age of the actresses, as judged by their facial appearance. This is interesting psychologically, but should it be legally?"

No.
[> [> [> [> Re: What I find interesting in this -- Miss Edith, 13:09:17 07/15/02 Mon

Of course the age of the actors or actresses doesn't make a difference legally but it does regarding audience acceptance. For instance Dawn and Spike would as I said in my post be largely frowned upon. Because Sarah Michelle Geller doesn't look 16 the writers could get away with presenting the romance with Angel which is the idyllic relationship to many young teenage girls without to many people mentioning the ethics of the relationship.
Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2002 -- OnM, 21:47:46 07/13/02 Sat

*******

Beware the fury of a patient man.

............ John Dryden

*******

Revenge is an act of passion; vengeance of justice. Injuries are revenged; crimes are avenged.

............ Joseph Joubert

*******

Patience and time do more than strength or passion.

............ Jean de la Fontaine

*******

I’d like to start off the column this week by first making the rather modest suggestion that people should
stop picking on Britney Spears. I think it’s only fair, really, for several very good reasons, which I shall
now duly enumerate.

One, she’s still very young yet, something which I tend to think people forget, largely because of her
somewhat assertively sexualized behavior. It’s very rare for someone her age to have any really developed
talent or artistry. People often compare her to Madonna, but Maddie was in her mid 20’s when she first
came to the world’s attention, and those extra years count. La Diva Ciccone was 31 when she
released Like A Prayer, the first album she had ever created that ‘serious critics’ took seriously, and
seemed genuinely shocked to even have to do so.

Two, there is obviously a place for what she does, as evidenced by her legions of fans. The fact that I’m
not one of those fans is irrelevant, I’m also not a fan of a lot of other people. Not everyone’s musical tastes
run to people like Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell, Pink Floyd (the vintage stuff anyway), Kate Bush, Bruce
Cockburn, Sandy Denny, Stan Rogers, Jackson Browne, REM, Leo Kottke, Suzanne Vega, Leonard
Cohen, The Doors, Bonnie Raitt, John Prine, Joan Armatrading, Ralph McTell and all those other kinda
complex/quirky or just plain ol’ unique kinda individuals. Each to their own, ya know?

Three, people seem inclined to diss her because she’s making money. Huh? What the hell is more American
than making tons of money? It’s practically our national anthem. It’s be in the Pledge of Alligence if God
hadn’t got there first. You know, now that I think about it, Madonna started this whole trend too, so I
reckon it’s her fault, the greedy slut. Women with money, what next... the fall of the empire can’t be far
behind.

So do I think Britney is just misunderstood? Possibly, it’s too soon to tell. What I do know is that people
like to jump to conclusions that sometimes turn out to be unwarranted, and that often has the side effect of
keeping other people away from interacting with some artistic variance that they might actually enjoy. Take
Buffy Season 6, for example. Many fans deeply admire and respect what ME attempted to achieve this last
year, myself among them. Just as many others loathe and despise it with a passion. Neither camp is
necessarily ‘right’, because when you are dealing with an interpretation of art, you cannot seperate the
objective and the subjective completely. A computer can’t successfully ‘interpret’ a Van Gogh painting; not
because it couldn’t be programmed to analyse shadow, light, form, texture, all that stuff, but because it
lacks sentience, and the subjectivity that comes along with that characteristic.

Reviews of this week’s pick for ‘Classic’ status fell along divided lines also. What I found absorbing as I
read through them was not whether the review was positive or negative overall, but the reasons
that were sited for the praise or pan respectively. The positive factors cited by the opposable-digits-upward
crowd as to why they liked the film seemed to be the exact same determinants cited by the digits-down
bunch as to why they didn’t. A matter of expectations? Or just a personality clash?

The director of this week’s Classic Movie recommendation, Legends of the Fall, is a
fellow named Edward Zwick, who is probably best known for his work on the TV series
Thirtysomething from a few years back. Right away, this provides a clue as to where some critics
will be coming from, because Thirtysomething was one of the most beloved/reviled TV series that I
can think of in recent memory. The primary attitudes aimed at Zwick’s detailed examination of the lives of
his generational contemporaries seemed to be divided along mostly political boundaries, at least from my
own observations. The right wing saw it as “a colossal Yuppie whinefest”, savaging the protagionists for
being so g**damn introspective and self-involved that they didn’t pay just and proper fealty to the need to
get out there in the ‘real world’ and support the real captains of humanity’s destiny, namely the military
and big industry. The left wing, on the other hand, saw it as “a colossal Yuppie whinefest”, and excoriated
the protagionists for being so f**king introspective and self-involved that they didn’t pay just and proper
fealty to the need to get out there in the ‘real world’ and support those pathetic working-class masses at
the bottom of the social ladder who were ever yearning to breathe free.

The remaining portion of the viewing audience was either bored or enraptured, for reasons that hinge on
the correct interpretation of the phrase, ‘go figure’. Taking all this into account, Legends of the Fall
will probably continue Zwick’s artistic/political legacy.

Being an anarchist myself, I have the fortunate ability (yay, me!) to just enjoy a good story without the
need to always weight it down with political baggage, and this, dear readers, is a wonderful story,
wonderfully told and presented in glorious cinematic form. It is true that there are some melodramatic
aspects to the presentation, but they are very unapologetic, and deserve to be-- this is a big, sweep-you-up
in the moment kind of movie, and despite running somewhat over two hours in length, the film never drags
or bogs down as the story moves forward.

If you go by ‘seniority’, the movie stars Anthony Hopkins as Col. William Ludlow, who served in the U.S.
army, but eventually left in disgust over the shabby to horrific treatment of the Indians that he openly
admires and respects. William is the patriarch of a family of three sons; Alfred (Aidan Quinn), the oldest
and most ‘responsible’; Tristan (Brad Pitt), the middle child who seems to share a spirit more akin to those
same Native Americans, and Samuel (Henry Thomas), the youngest and most naive/idealistic. All of the
roles of the brothers are very well acted, but it is Tristan who serves as one of the central figures around
which most of the plot points of the story unfurl, and Pitt is superb throughout.

The other central figure has somewhat less screen time than the brothers, but has a profound effect on all
of their lives. Susannah Fincannon, played by (at the time) film newcomer Julia Ormond, arrives on a train
with Samuel, whose intention is to marry her. Susannah is intelligent, cultured, forward-thinking and
strikingly beautiful, and in the space of mere days manages to impress and enchant every member of the
Ludlow household.

Besides the Ludlows, the household is home to the Colonel’s most trusted friend, an Indian guide and
warrior named ‘One Stab’ (Gordon Tootoosis). One Stab is the first voice to appear in the film, serving as
a narrator over the events that take place over the span of most of a century. He speaks English only
during the narrations, the remainder of the time either speaking his native language or most commonly not
saying anything at all.

One of the many engrossing aspects of Legends is the counterpoint of sound and silence. The
musical score, among the most engaging and beautiful ones I’ve heard in my movie-going experience,
works in conjunction with a great deal of verbal restraint from the screenwriters and director. It is not
unusual for several minutes to pass by without a single word of dialog being spoken, leaving the actors to
carry the scene with facial expressions and body language, which they do with aplomb.

The other, perhaps most expressive actor in the film is the photography. Legends was one of the
very first film titles to be released in the DVD medium, and quickly became one of the staples for
demonstrating high-end home theater systems to potential purchasers, at least among dealers with an
appreciation for more than incessant loud bangs and crashes. While the action scenes where the Ludlow
brothers join the conflict in World War I will certainly give your speakers a good workout, the stunning
depth and detail of both outdoor shots in the western countryside and indoor sequences in the realistically
reconstructed sets and buildings serves as a reminder of just how effective striking visuals can be in
conjuring powerful and primal emotions. Costume design, makeup and art direction are rendered with
equal craftmanship and care, and all the production elements work synergistically to make it effortless to
sink into the fantasy and live it out along with the cast.

Getting back for a moment to my previous semi-satirical natterings about why people did or didn’t care for
Edward Zwick and his miserable boomer generation, I must admit quite frankly that I am at a loss to see
why anyone would not enjoy and admire this film. Have ‘typical’ film viewers today become so
cynical that they can no longer see the appeal of a grandiose, old-style ‘operatic’ Western such as this one?
Is it just that Brad Pitt is so damn good looking that no one expects him to be able to really act, and so
they stay away? Are they afraid that the gorgeous cinematography is likewise a cover for the lack of
something else, and wish to avoid the possible tainting of their delicate critical capacities with the horror of
high-fructose ‘eye candy’?

Whatever the reason, if you have previously avoided Legends of the Fall, then please give it a
chance. Don’t go with the prospect of intellectual over- analysis, go with your heart and soul open to a
grand experience, and you will be rewarded. They don’t make films like this very often anymore, and so
you need to remind yourself of why that’s a damn shame.

And one last thing... let’s stop picking on Britney until she’s at least thirtysomething, OK? Opie eventually
turned into Ron Howard, you know, and Madonna eventually turned out Ray of Light.

Go figure.


E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM


*******

Technically not here to sell Pepsi (not that there's anything wrong with that!):

Legends of the Fall is available on DVD, and in fact there was a brand new edition re-released
within the last year that adds a number of worthwhile extras, including two (count ‘em, 2!) commentary
tracks, one by Ed Zwick and Brad Pitt, the other by cinematographer John Toll and production designer
Lilly Kilvert. The film was released in 1994 and run time is 2 hours and 13 minutes. The original cinematic
aspect ratio is 1.85:1, not so wide that it will get lost when letterboxed on a smaller TV, and don’t even
think about getting a pan’n’scan version of this movie! (The ghost of cinematographers past,
present and future will surely rattle their scroogely chains at you in the midst of some dark and gloomy
night if you crop this sucker, so don’t say I didn’t warn you! ;-)

The film was produced by Edward Zwick, Bill Wittliff, and Marshall Herskovitz. Writing credits go to Jim
Harrison for the novella the movie was based on, and Susan Shilliday and William D. Wittliff for the
screenplay. Cinematography (as already mentioned) was by John Toll, with film editing by Steven
Rosenblum. Production Design was by Lilly Kilvert, with art direction by Andrew Precht and Rick
Roberts. Set decoration was by Dorree Cooper, and costume design by Deborah Lynn Scott. Original
music was by James Horner (and mighty mighty fine it is). In addition to the great musical score, I want to
mention that all the Foley work (sound effects) is absolutely incredible on this soundtrack, and adds
significantly to the suspension of disbelief in it’s realism. The original theatrical sound mix was Dolby
and/or SDDS, with Dolby Digital 5.1 on the DVD version.

Cast overview:

Brad Pitt .... Tristan Ludlow
Anthony Hopkins .... Colonel William Ludlow
Aidan Quinn .... Alfred Ludlow
Julia Ormond .... Susannah Fincannon Ludlow
Henry Thomas .... Samuel Ludlow
Karina Lombard .... Isabel Decker Ludlow (a.k.a. Isabel Two)
Gordon Tootoosis .... One Stab
Christina Pickles .... Isabel Ludlow
Paul Desmond .... Decker
Tantoo Cardinal .... Pet
Robert Wisden .... John T. O'Banion
John Novak .... James O'Banion
Kenneth Welsh .... Sheriff Tynert
Bill Dow .... Longley
Sam Sarkar .... Rodriguez

*******

Miscellaneous:

Julia Ormond has not been overly prolific so far as a film actress, but she has done some work since
Legends. A film that I might not grant ‘classic’ status to yet, but that I still found very enjoyable
overall and visually enchanting in particular would be director Jerry Zucker’s 1995 production, First
Knight. Ormond plays Guinevere, and does it very well. Also, check out some of the other acting clout
in the partial cast list below:

Sean Connery .... King Arthur
Richard Gere .... Lancelot
Julia Ormond .... Guinevere
Ben Cross .... Prince Malagant
John Gielgud .... Oswald

I mean, Connery as Arthur. How can you go wrong? (OK, you could, but it doesn’t. This is another
generally critically dissed film, and I think unfairly. Go root for the underdog, and rent this one also!)

***

OK, now this is just plain freaky.

You have been warned!

http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm


*******

The Question of the Week:

What is the most visually beautiful film you can ever recall seeing? Did you see it in a theater or at home on
TV? Did you enjoy the film otherwise, or was it just ‘pretty’ and (mostly/entirely) nothing else?

All for this time around, so until next Saturday night, post ‘em in fashion grand or non, and take care!

*******
[> Interesting you brought up "First Knight"...(some spoilers for CMotW) -- Rob, 21:54:36 07/13/02 Sat

...since I took a college class that analyzed "Legends of the Fall" (the movie and short story it's based on) as a modern reinterpretation of the Arthurian myth of Tristan and Isolde, also with shades of Arthur and Guinevere. I'll try to find my notes to fill in on the details...but I do remember that, with this interpretation "Legends of the FALL" refers to the fall of Camelot. Also the business of two best friends in love with the same woman (in this case, two brothers...actually three brothers...but later in the movie, on the two, one of whom was married to the woman, like Arthur was to Guinevere).

They even mention the myth of Tristan and Isolde in a scene where the family is at dinner, somewhere around the earlier section of the movie.

Rob
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2002 -- Rob, 22:04:00 07/13/02 Sat

I think that the most visually beautiful piece of filmwork I have ever seen would probably be the fantasy/dream sequences of Sam in Terry Gilliams' Brazil. Absolutely breathtaking, especially the early ones when he is flying with the mechnical wings, seeing his fantasy woman, with blonde hair, being captured by the villain.

Rob
[> "Lawrence of Arabia." I refuse to watch it on TV. Meaty film too. Britney ROOLZ! -- d'Herblay, 23:34:55 07/13/02 Sat

[> [> Dr. Zhivago -- Arethusa, 11:21:10 07/14/02 Sun

Didn't like any of the characters in the movie, but oh, it was beautiful.
[> [> Re: "Lawrence of Arabia." -- ponygirl, 08:44:49 07/16/02 Tue

I saw Lawrence of Arabia for the first time in a newly re- furbished Art Deco movie palace, when the restored version of the film was released. The ushers all dressed up like sheiks (tacky but fun) and the popcorn was in old school boxes. Utterly life-altering experience about what movies could do and say.

I'd also like to throw in Snow Falling On Cedars for most visually stunning. A lot of people didn't like the movie, but for me it was some of the purest visual poetry around. Some of the shots had me gasping.
[> [> Seven Pillars of Wisdom -- fresne, 11:22:39 07/16/02 Tue

And in a related way, let me put in a plug for Lawrence's autobiography upon which the movie is (at certain points somewhat loosely) based, The Seven Pillar's of Wisdom.

It's an incredibly complex book, in part because of Lawrence's deceptively transparent authorial voice. He had such an incredible personal voice that you actually feel like you're stumbling around in his head. And yet, well, he was a complex person, with complex motivations. History merges into adventures segues into introspection as the war ground on, grinding Lawrence with it.

The Lawrence that comes through the book is somewhat different than the one in the movie, if possible he seems more messed up. And you know, shorter and not so good looking. However, the same magnetism twines its way off the page.

And if anyone finds the size of the book off putting, at least check out the photos. Anthony Quinn was a dead ringer for Auda.
[> [> [> Lawrence -- Rahael, 11:29:46 07/16/02 Tue

I've been quoting Robert Graves here v. frequently of late. An interesting thing about Graves is that he knew Lawrence of Arabia, and was friends with him - Graves wrote an excellent and evocative biog, which is pretty famous "Goodbye to all that" (1929).

I like Goodbye, and his poems far more than the Claudias novels (v. enjoyable, though) and "The White Goddess" (too mystical for my tastes)
[> [> [> [> Re: Lawrence -- fresne, 15:51:34 07/16/02 Tue

Which really ought to be the point where I respond with an amusing vignette on how Graves and Lawrence met, but I can't quite remember it. Something about Lawrence acting typically eccentric, Oxford housing, and everyone being hopelessly over educated. Perhaps, it's only amusing in vague memory.

It's in Lawrence by his Friends (and I'm guessing the bio, so, perhaps you know it.), which is a series of essay/vignettes gathered from just about everyone who knew him (or so it seemed) after his death. The guy who bunked next to Lawrence/Ross in India, Churchill, flight mechanics, Syrian archeologists, Graves, his mother, B. Shaw, etc.

What's interesting (in relation to the earlier discussion of identity and perception) is that not all of the essays present the same Lawrence/Ross. The pictures painted in words often vary widely based on background, education, personal bias, and who Lawrence was being at that point in time.

Oddly enough, since I've read both bios and some Graves, I've never read the Graves bio on Lawrence. However, if it's both excellent and evocative, well then, light summer reading.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Lawrence -- Rahael, 16:03:13 07/16/02 Tue

Oh! I should make just one thing clear, it's an autobiography by Graves.

It's a great picture of society just before the first world war, boarding school life (confirms all my prejudices) and Graves' eccentric life in Oxford, where he meets Lawrence.

It's a classic in the autobiography field. Graves writes extremely well.
[> Days of Heaven -- MaeveRigan, 04:25:45 07/14/02 Sun

Too bad you'll have to see it on video now. "Days of Heaven" is amazing, dir. by Terence Malick. One of Richard Gere's first films. Also stars Sam Shepard and Brooke Adams. As a tragic love triangle, it's got "First Knight" beat all hollow.

By the time he appeared in "First Knight," 20 or so years later, Gere either felt like an idiot in the armor, or maybe he had bad direction, or maybe he just thought he was God's gift to cinema and didn't have to act any more. Connery's Arthur is fine, but Gere's Lancelot is just a pretty face.

Many people who already know anything about the Arthurian legend and/or medieval times diss "First Knight" because it alters the story in ways they find unacceptable (can't say how without spoiling it) and because of the endless supply of period anachronisms. Personally, I love anachronisms if I'm clearly not expected to take them seriously--"A Knight's Tale" was a lot of fun; "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is one of the greatest movies ever made--but in "First Knight" (for example) we're supposed to seriously believe that *everyone*, even the commoners, turns up for a trial in color-coordinated outfits? Very pretty visually; completely mind-boggling historically. This is only one example; others would spoil the story too much.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2002 -- LadyStarlight, 06:32:37 07/14/02 Sun

Far and Away is right up there on my list of eye candy films. The last 15 minutes still give me chills, so there must have been something else going on there.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2002 -- Cactus Watcher, 07:03:20 07/14/02 Sun

I'd have to say Gone with the Wind. I really don't like heavy soap opera, so the story is a total bust for me. But, the artwork, costuming and cinematography make it worth watching. Before I saw GwtW I would have told you those three things could never be enough reason for me to watch a movie again. There are better looking movies, but it's certainly the one that the beauty alone makes the biggest difference in my reaction to it.

Being a charter member of IBE (I bash everybody) I stand on my constitutional rights to laugh at Britney. She's pleasant enough to look at. She's certainly not the first or the last woman to throw her body around for profit. Her singing isn't really an issue. Like most pop singers it's more about hype and fan frenzy than talent. Let her make her bucks. Let the record company make its bucks. I haven't spent a dime on popular music in 25+ years. So, I say live and let live. But, sit and watch her act? Ho, ho, ho! You've got to be joking!
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2002 -- matching mole, 08:43:21 07/14/02 Sun

General Comments - Haven't seen Legends of the Fall but did see First Knight. I liked it well enough but like MR thought that Richard Gere's performance was a major detriment to the movie.

Most visually beautiful - The film that struck me as the most beautiful at the time I saw it was 'Nostalgia' by some Russian director (Tartovsky I think his name was) that I saw at a campus film series (so 'sort of' in a theatre) in the mid-80s. I actually found the film way too slow moving and I even fell asleep briefly at one point. But it was filmed in an ancient Italian village and the film looks like a series of impressionist paintings (not really but that is the closest approximation I can think of).

And finally Britney - I think your points are well taken OnM re her age and her audience. However I don't recall any other pop musician selling their image as enthusiastically as she has. Using your artistic image (not just your name) to sell a product that has nothing to do with you, that no one really needs, is actually bad for the people consuming it, and for which you are paid vast sums that you don't really need may not be the most reprehensible act in the world. However I don't think it should really be viewed as a positive step in anyone's artistic career.

stubbornly idealistic mole who is still horrified by the idea of commercials as entertainment.
[> Re: Article on new Kathryn Bigelow film from today's Phila. Inquirer -- OnM, 10:10:35 07/14/02 Sun

Here's the link, think you might find it interesting:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/entertainment/3661222.htm
[> [> Re: Article on new Kathryn Bigelow film from today's Phila. Inquirer -- aliera, 11:44:06 07/14/02 Sun

Hmmm...Probably not why you cited it; but, I liked this...

"In the post-Sept. 11 world, Bigelow feels the film has particular relevance because it illustrates something that has become all too clear: that small groups, even individuals, possess the power to cause or prevent incredible destruction."

and...

"This is a story about how people step up and become heroes. "

Certainly been on my mind. Thank-you kind sir for the link.
[> Legends/Britney/Julia -- tomfool, 10:43:43 07/14/02 Sun

Thanks for the wide-ranging review. I remember when watching Legends having a very split view of it, largely along the lines you describe. Part of me loved that beautiful cinematography and epic story, and part was repulsed by the obvious melodrama. I think you perfectly captured the dicotomous nature of a Zwick production.

As someone who was never really a fan, but over the years gained a grudging respect for Madonna, I don't think young Britney will ever have the stuff to fill out her elder's pointy-missle bra. Say what you will about Madonna, but I think she's brilliant. Very few preformers can effectively read the cultural climate and morph so many times, while still keeping it interesting (artistic, even?) and commercially viable. The only time I've ever liked a BS song is over at the Headtilt site, where they used BS's 'Sometimes' for a video with scenes of the Buffybot. Why? 'Because it's the Buffybot's favorite song.' It's strangely affecting. (Go to http://www.headtilt.com/ and look under videos by Cap). While you're there, check out 'Everybody Went Low.'

One Julia Ormond gem that many may have missed was her starring role in 'Smilla's Sense of Snow.' As this was one of my all time favorite novels, I was extremely sceptical about this casting choice. But I was pleasantly surprised by how well she pulled off this very complex role. I thought it was one of the better movie/novel conversions I've ever seen.

Thanks for the review.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2002 -- Wisewoman, 11:48:24 07/14/02 Sun

Okay, I'm inexplicably ashamed to admit this, but visually I just adore Legend (I'm pretty sure that's the name of it; Tom Cruise, Mia Sara, Tim Curry, unicorns?).

I've only ever seen it on the small screen, so that might affect my perception. I recognize the glory of Lawrence, Zhivago, Ryan's Daughter, those sorts of epics, but Legend has a special place in my heart.

;o)
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2002 -- Brian, 12:40:17 07/14/02 Sun

Bergman's Smiles for a Summer Night - It may be in black and white, but the cinematography is luminous.
[> Tous les matins du monde -- Akita, 17:59:04 07/14/02 Sun

Of course, I see about 2 movies, or less, per year. So I do not have a large universe to draw from.
[> *groan* -- Solitude1056, 09:47:57 07/15/02 Mon

Sorry, but gotta weigh in... the movie came across as a boatload of bombast and "aren't-we-making-an-epic" a la Sergio Leone's self-conconcious "this-is-an-epic-you- pinheaded-audience-so-pay-attention" Once Upon A Time In the West, or whatever it was. Ormond was supposed to carry a lot of the film - despite her lesser screen time - by virtue of being the catharsis that drives so much of the film. But she was script-schizophrenic, swinging from disruptively anachronistic (read: hyperfeminist) to ultra- period-appropriate (read: spineless). And beyond that, it grated on my nerves that no one blinked an eye at the fact that the fiancee would stick around at her future father-in- law's house after her fiance heads off to war - as if she had nowhere else to go! Sorry, her wardrobe was way too nice to be someone who didn't have a home.

Frankly, when we saw it in the movie theater, our first (and final) impression was that Montana should've gotten star billing. Seemed like to us that everytime the director was at a loss (which seemed to be often), he just focused on the scenery. "Here, look at this, maybe you'll forget the pathetic acting and forget about the complete unliklihood of something like this *ever* happening."

*sigh* Sorry to rant. I suppose it doesn't help that I was predisposed to dislike the movie when I saw the previews - the music in the previews, after all, was lifted wholesale from Last of the Mohicans - a movie where everyone runs the whole time but the cinematography outstrips Legends of the Fall by seventeen miles. I mean, really. The studio was so broke it just stole someone else's easily recognizable theme song for its previews, because it couldn't afford to pay Trevor Jones to come up with something new?
[> Barry Lyndon. Cinematography was about all it had, though. -- Sophist, 10:56:33 07/16/02 Tue

[> not that kind of film, but still... -- anom, 22:43:35 07/16/02 Tue

...that is, not a standard plot-&-actors kind of film. It was "To Fly," about the history of, yes, flying--the 1st film shown on the Smithsonian Institution's Imax screen. It started w/hot-air balloon flight, & from the moment the balloon rose from its moorings, I was sitting forward (like to watch "Buffy"!), fully involved in it. It was the 1st time I ever cried for the sheer beauty of something. Sitting right in the middle of the theater let the picture take up almost my whole visual field, so I really felt like I was in the balloon &, later, the planes. The only point where they lost me was in the loop-the-loop during the barnstorming sequence!
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2002 -- Purple Tulip, 10:36:17 07/17/02 Wed

First of all---why are we talking about Britney here? I can deffinately say that I am NOT her biggest fan, or a fan at all for that matter. I have nothing against her making all of the money that she can---good for her---I would be too if I had the chance. What I don't like about her is pretty much everything else. I don't think she's really all that talented, accept as a dancer. She really can't sing at all, and all of her songs have this awful digitalized nazal sound to them---this is most likely why she doesn't sing live at her concerts. I'm sorry, but if I'm gonna pay upwards of $50 to see a concert, I don't care how well the person can dance, I wanna hear them sing. I think she's all show and no substance and I really have no respect for her at all- and I think she's a horrible role model for young girls.

That being said, I have recently seen one of the most visually beautiful movies I have ever seen. "Deeply" starring Kirsten Dunst, Lynn Redgrave, and Alberta Watson (Madeline from La Femme Nikita---which made me very happy cause I love that show), is one of the best movies I have ever seen, and I've seen a lot. It's such a beautiful story, and unlike any Hollywood production I have ever seen. I would reccomend this movie to anyone who wants a good cry or to watch a beautiful and tragic lovestory unfold, and another one come to rest.
Renewed attack on season 6. Why was it off? -- Caesar Augustus, 05:58:09 07/14/02 Sun

Because there was simply no-one to root for. For 5 years we have come to love the characters for their endearing qualities: Buffy's good, Xander's bravery and loyalty, Willow's shyness and cuteness, Spike's cool insight, Anya's delicious "forthrightness", and Dawn's ummm ... well she's a kid, let's give her a break. What season 6 does is break down every endearing quality and deliver quantities of evil from each character.

Buffy ignores her friends, escapes to Spike but lands up beating him horrendously in DT, then goes back to her friends only to try kill them in NA. Xander, who should know better, raises Sweet rather pointlessly, shows no interest in his friends' lives, and then destroys Anya, only to wander about aimlessly afterwards feeling sorry for himself instead of