From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #201 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Thursday, July 17 2003 Volume 03 : Number 201 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords [OT] ["Jackie M. Young" ] Re: Fw: Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords [] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #192 [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #192 [IfeRae@aol.co] Re: Fw: Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords ["Cheryl Ande"] Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords ["Cheryl Ande" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords [OT] On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:29:27 -0400 (EDT), cande@sunlink.net wrote: > She just has >to stay away from sitcoms - they are the killers of comedy. (Henry >Irving, the great English actor on his deathbed when asked about >dying said: "Dying is easy; comedy is hard.") - --*Ermmm*....as an aspiring actress (and who's studied with another British actor who was in the original National Theatre), I think that what Irving meant was that _playing_ dying is easy, but _playing_ comedy is hard (which it is). I could never understand this as an actress because I was always so serious; for me, the tragedies were easy. But finding the right comedic moment or timing was very difficult. My teacher clarified this by saying that comedy actually requires more sensitivity/communication with the audience than does tragedy, which is why it's harder to do; it requires more of the actor. LL is a naturally instinctive and goofy person, so she found the comedies easier, but ROC is more serious like me so I think she found the comedies harder. Overall, I think comedy is harder to do because everyone's sense of humor is different. I personally didn't like ROC's brand of comedy; I thought she was trying too hard. But that's MO. ;P And I should point out that not all sitcoms are bad. Cheers was on for 11 (?) years and was well-liked. Everybody Loves Raymond can be quite good. Just because the majority suck doesn't mean they're all bad. ;P Just MO, - --Jackie ****************************************************** * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * * * * "I think New Zealand geographically comes from * * ... Hawai'i." --Lucy Lawless, Late Show, 4/9/96 * * * * JACKIE YOUNG, JYOUNG@LAVA.NET * * * ****************************************************** ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:12:21 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: FIN OT: Spirits On Wednesday 16 July 2003 01:12, Ribaud, Lynn wrote: > > > cr wrote: > > > > However, I would say that in past times, and probably right > > up until the 20th > > century, drinking was an accepted part of everyday life. > > Wine, or beer, was > > considered as essential as food. So I would say, that > > defense would have > > been quite valid, especially if the defendant could show that > > they had good > > reason to take a drink (being in mourning) and no reason not to (not > > anticipating trouble). > > True enough -- drinking was accepted, though drunkenness was not. > But it is probably important to recall why this was so. Wine and beer were > not lethal -- and the water often was. You drank spirits because, being > brewed (in the case of beer) or having (for microbes) a lethal > concentration of alcohol (in the case of wine), these would not carry, > e.g., cholera. The point is that drinking per se was not so much more a > part of > life than it is now. It was just staying alive. > > Lynn Ribaud > ribaud@bnl.gov Hmmm, yes, that's a good explanation for why (alcoholic) drinks were regarded as virtually essential. As regards 'drunkenness' not being accepted, I think there may have been a very different standard of what was regarded as 'drunk', too. These days 'drunk' is sometimes taken to mean anything over the legal limit for driving a car. I'd suggest that in the past, that level of consumption would hardly have been noticed, and that 'drunk' meant a person who was obviously, noisily incapable of functioning normally. Or falling down. One of the reasons for this would simply have been that, since as you say the water wasn't safe to drink, it would be quite 'normal' (I suspect) for people to drink quite large quantities of beer or wine, and many people were functioning normally with blood-alcohol levels that would be 'over the limit' today. By those standards, Xena was not 'drunk' on that occasion. Considering the ice, and the howling gale, she was doing about as well as anyone could. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:24:28 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords On Wednesday 16 July 2003 03:05, cande@sunlink.net wrote: > Well having said what I said I do agree Hudson did a good job. It was > just that as I watched the episode again I saw a lot of opportunities where > Lucy would have added a twist that would have juiced up the episode or so I > thought. Lucy has the ability to take a scene and add nuances that just > spice it up. For example when the warlords gang up on Xena at the castle > Hudson looke merely annoyed while Lucy might have played it with a touch of > annoyance but also with a touch of controlled rage. Hmm, yes. But in fact, I guess it must have been quite difficult for Hudson to play that, because with a little too much rage she'd look just like Psycho Barbie - Callisto - and of course the whole point was that she *wasn't* Callisto.... if you follow what I mean. Very difficult to set the right level. > "Didn't Lucy find the same thing with her singing? That voice training > kiled her enjoyment in just singing? Or something like that." > > Yeah sometimes the wrong teacher can definitely kill the joy one has in > doing something. I loved to write in high school one semester with by > composition class in college convinced me that I couldn'y write at all. Now > that is not saying I was a budding Shakespear but the criticism I got never > was constructive or helpful. So the same may have happened to Lucy and > Renee - they were told they were wrong but perhaps they never understood > why they were wrong or the teacher was so set in their ways they couldn't > adjust to the student. The thing with ROC was that she kept saying she > couldn't get the speech pattern down. She said she was told to say the > lines in the sitcom class in a monotone. She couldn't do it that way. > After reading her take on the class I now understand why the sitcoms are so > dreadful and lack any imgination. Not to mention, the one-camera setup. Low, low production values, only undercut by the daytime soaps. :( > Just think of it hundreds of young > actors sitting around thinking they can be funny by talking in a monotone > (by the way it explains why Ray Romano got his own series). > > CherylA It's probably a futile attempt to prevent them from over-acting. I expect somebody watched 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid' and tried to figure out why that movie was funny, and all they could see was that Butch and Sundance were laconic and deadpan. So, they reasoned, anything laconic and deadpan must be funny, but the nearest they could get was a monotone. Howzat for a theory? ;) cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:09:48 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #192 On Tuesday 15 July 2003 17:53, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: (Much snippage...) > > >Nope. However, as I said, this was the burden she put on herself when > > > she chose to live and fight for good. > > > > But she hadn't decided that at that time, anyway. So that's irrelevant. > > >> > > It's relevant because she judged her old self by the same standards as the > reformed one. We're talking about why she took responsibility for > something she unwittingly did in the past. Otherwise, what she did back > then would indeed be irrelevant and we wouldn't be having tortuous > discussions about it. True? Well, I was actually talking about whether *I* (or you) think she's to blame, not whether Xena thought she was at any stage. I agree, if we're talking about Xena's feelings towards it, then obviously her later standards are relevant. > > >Given her capacity for doing great harm, > > >I think it was an appropriate price to pay. "Out of control" Xena was > > > not a good thing under any circumstances. Ask Gabs. > > > > Now you're definitely trying to wind me up. You *know* what I think of > > Gabs' judgement. (Sorry, Gabfans, blame lfe :) >> > > I didn't mean Gabs' judgment. I meant Gabs' little injuries from being > knocked senseless in "Reckoning" and dragged over rocks, through fire, over > hill and dale in "Bitter Suite." I won't count that brusque little nudge > and shake Xena gave Gabs in "Price." None of that hurt me, of course, but > I can't deny it might've given Gabs a twinge or two. Ah, OK. This is from our point of view then, not Gabs' opinion. Of course, I wouldn't really expect Gabby to be enthusiastic about the Gabdrag.... > > > Xena would never have got drunk before a battle. > > > > > > >>But she had no reason to expect trouble on that occasion.>> > > > > > >Juvenile Delinquent Xena smoked opium, then wandered into Lao Ma's tent > > > and got her butt kicked (which probably would've happened anyway, but > > > Xena didn't know that). > > > > So? Maybe she should have expected trouble from Lao Ma. What that has > > to > > > > do with burying her friend I don't know. > > > > Oh, I see, my comment about not getting drunk before a battle. OK, I > > was wrong. But the opium didn't seem to slow her up much. In fact, > > considering the state of her legs, it may have helped her. >> > > LOL! Part of my point was that Xena was seldom slowed physically (even > when drugged or poisoned), that it was her emotional/mental state that > determined her degree of control and judgment. OK, yes, agreed. > > >Superior numbers weren't > > >exactly a problem for her. Superior (supernatural) powers weren't > > > either. These folk weren't any more dangerous than the ones she didn't > > > want to hurt in "Reckoning" or "Sacrifice." > > > > Errrm, remind me, but weren't the ones in The Reckoning and Sacrifice in > > the > > > > power of some god or other? Therefore, not responsible for their > > actions. > > > > The mob in Higuchi were entirely responsible for their actions. > > Different case. >> > > No, the ones in "Reckoning" thought she was a murderer. Neither she nor > they knew at the time that Ares was the culprit. Rather better justification, I would say, than the Higuchi mob had. > I didn't hear her make > such distinctions anyway. She avoided doing real damage to some attacking > villagers in "Altered States" as well. She regarded nonwarriors as > nonwarriors, regardless of why they might be threatening her, considering > it unfair to hurt them. Yes, that was Reformed Xena. However, I *still* maintain that a mob who attack an individual deserve anything that happens to them. > > There are no grounds for assuming that the mob knew anything of Xena's > > capabilities. Firstly, mobs rarely do know anything other than rumours. > > >> > > And that's enough. They apparently knew that Akemi had killed her father, > that she had died and that a strange woman was about to honor her ashes. And that's *all* that we know they know. > Sure, that's as far fetched as a lot on XWP, but it's no more far fetched > to assume the rumor mentioned Xena's role as well. Who did they think she > was? A foreign-exchange student Akemi met at school? I suppose we could > assume they did treat anyone like that who broke the rules. We > don't know. Exactly, and so we could imagine anything we like. That doesn't really prove anything. > > And do you *really* think, if Xena had been known to be harmless, the mob > > would have acted any differently? >> > > I don't know. I'm simply saying that, given what we do know, the mob > didn't necessarily act any less reasonably than Xena. Well, I obviously disagree. I don't like mobs. > > >They had every right to fear > > >such a person, to expect that a polite request would be rebuffed. If > > > they acted rashly out of fear and anger, I can't dismiss that as less > > > justifiable than Xena's drunken anguish. > > > > I can. A mob picking on one person is almost *never* justifiable. > > Since when did a mob ever make a polite request? >> > > I don't like mobs. I don't like drunk folks on the loose. I've > said that I hold both Xena and the mob accountable. If we're going to such > great lengths to excuse/explain Xena's behavior, I think it only fair to > explore possibilities for why the mob acted as they did. The only reason > I'm being so charitable toward the mob is because I think you're being > overly charitable toward Xena. Once we begin excusing the recklessness of > one person, we might as well excuse the recklessness of a collection of > persons. Well, no. One person, acting recklessly, is usually less dangerous, less objectionable, and more accountable for their actions than a mob. A mob allows - no, *encourages* - its members to act reprehensibly, protected by anonymity. And they outnumber their victims. I'll take the side of one person whether Xena or anybody else against a mob, any day. > > >I hold all responsible for the innocent lives lost as a result. > > >However, the stickwielders weren't the reasonYodoshi trapped those > > > souls. > > > > Well, other than the fact they were (IMO) the most blameworthy cause of > > the fire.... >> > > Which would've been a tragic loss of life, but not of souls, were it not > for Akemi and Xena. ... who had no way of knowing what Yodoshi was going to do, so how can anybody blame them? > > But as for the mob, they can rot in whatever passes for Hell in those > > parts so far as I'm concerned. At the very best you could call them a > > bunch of religious bigots. They were showing the nasty side of their > > nature and some > > of them paid for it. Just an unfortunate accident (yes accidents do > > happen) that the rest of Higuchi paid for it too.>> > > Good thing Xena wasn't consigned to hell for all her "accidents," eh? > Wouldn't have been much of a series. :-) > > -- Ife Xena's a fascinating personality. A mob is not, anybody in a mob loses their personality as soon as they become a member of one. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:29:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Meredith Tarr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Robert Trebor Hi, Jackie reported: > I just heard from Robert Trebor (Salmoneous) and he > tells me he'll > be in a movie with Martin Short, to be released in a > few months: Oh, my. Has anyone seen "Primetime Glick" on Comedy Central? I can't imagine that could possibly become an even marginally entertaining movie ... but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Meredith meth@smoe.org __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:01:01 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Titans--YAXIs I was catching up on checking my S1 DVDs and noticed in The Titans that there were some YAXIs I hadn't seen/heard before. ;) About 10 mins. in, after Crius has ripped off the roof from the tavern and he's talking to G, the boy-monk's robe top is blown around by the wind and you can see some white velcro stickies that are supposed to be holding it down. ;) Then, in the cave when the titans are washing up from their "chores", Hyperion goofs up and says "I want_s_ the warrior woman", or something like that. But the "want_s_" is clearly in there. ;P I was watching again for signs of jealousy when X sees G sleeping with the boy-monk, but I really didn't see it. It looked more like a reaction of disapproval/protection, rather than jealousy to me, but that's just MO. ;=/ After all, the theme of G's growing up and needing to prove herself was there throughout the ep. Although the plot's admittedly not strong, I thought the ep overall wasn't that bad because there were some really nice fight scenes in there, plus there was the underlying message that people, when under pressure, will do anything to advance their own interests. ;P Just FYI, - --Jackie ****************************************************** * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * * * * "I think New Zealand geographically comes from * * ... Hawai'i." --Lucy Lawless, Late Show, 4/9/96 * * * * JACKIE YOUNG, JYOUNG@LAVA.NET * * * ****************************************************** ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:35:59 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #192 In a message dated 7/16/03 6:32:00 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: << > But as for the mob, they can rot in whatever passes for Hell in those > > parts so far as I'm concerned. At the very best you could call them a > > bunch of religious bigots. They were showing the nasty side of their > > nature and some > > of them paid for it. Just an unfortunate accident (yes accidents do > > happen) that the rest of Higuchi paid for it too.>> > > Good thing Xena wasn't consigned to hell for all her "accidents," eh? > Wouldn't have been much of a series. :-) > > -- Ife Xena's a fascinating personality. >> As are many unsavory characters, most of whom I wouldn't give nearly the benefit of the doubt that I give Xena. I like her. I'm just not willing to say she was an ordinary grief-stricken person whose own prior actions had nothing to do with the tragic events that resulted. I'd feel the same if no one attacked her, and she accidentally set fire to the place. Or if one person attacked her and she somehow started the fire. To me, the mob -- reprehensible as their actions might be -- were a reaction to what Xena and Akemi set in motion. True, Akemi was responding to her father's reprehensible acts. But it's not like she and Xena came to free folks he'd enslaved. By continuing the cycle of vengeance with help from Xena's greed, I believe they shared in the responsibility for what happened. As Cheryl said, I guess this is one of those issues we'll continue to see differently. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:01:44 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords - ----- Original Message ----- From: "cr" > > Not to mention, the one-camera setup. Low, low production values, only > undercut by the daytime soaps. :( I though sitcoms use a tree camera set up. That was the innovation that Desi Arnez had for I Love Lucy. > > > It's probably a futile attempt to prevent them from over-acting. > I expect somebody watched 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid' and tried to > figure out why that movie was funny, and all they could see was that Butch > and Sundance were laconic and deadpan. So, they reasoned, anything laconic > and deadpan must be funny, but the nearest they could get was a monotone. > Howzat for a theory? ;) > I think it has less to do with overacting - which is a temptation in comedy - as it is an attempt to mimc shows like Seinfeld. TV is a dreadfully imitative. If something works it is just done to death. Also it is a convention that TV is a cool medium in that everyting should be low keyed and small - nothing over the top. Hence we have a lot very boring people on TV ie everyone on Law and Order. I think people have forgotten that classic shows like The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy had very strong elements of farce in them. I happen to like large emotions that's why I like opera, Shakespear and singers like Meatloaf and Etheridge. That is probably why I liked Xena - people had big emotions - they sufferred by screaming out their pain, they raged when angry and they were silly when happy. I found that exciting and interesting just as I find most of drama today on TV boring everyone is so controlled. CherylA ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:03:47 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernie" > Everybody e-mail Sharon Delaney and beg her to tell Renee not to give up on > comedic roles. The ROC's a natural in the field, and she shouldn't let > "those who can't do, teach" convince her otherwise. > > Ernie > Well I think ROC has regained her confidence. Remember the two movies she has signed for are comedies. Maybe she has discovered that the problem wasn't her but the script she had. CherylA ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:06:38 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Titans--YAXIs In a message dated 7/16/2003 2:02:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > I was watching again for signs of jealousy when X sees G sleeping with > the boy-monk, but I really didn't see it. It looked more like a reaction > of disapproval/protection, rather than jealousy to me, but that's just MO. > ;=/ After all, the theme of G's growing up and needing to prove herself > was there throughout the ep. > I always thought Lucy did a great job back then with her various "unreadable" expressions, which could be interpreted any number of ways. I felt many different thoughts could've been going through Xena's head -- unexpressed surprise being one of them. Xena was starting to get comfortable with Gabrielle, but I think the cuddling thing threw her off and reminded her she didn't know her new companion as well as she thought. Xena knew and liked that Gabs had a mind of her own, but it was like Xena was making a mental note that Gabs' independent streak could have its challenges -- confirmed later when Gabs sneaks off. BTW, nice to know I'm not the only one checking to make sure their DVD's are all in working order. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #201 **************************************