From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #202 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 Friday, July 18 2003 Volume 03 : Number 202 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Fw: Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords [] [ Re: [chakram-refugees] Titans--YAXIs] ["Mark B." ] RE: [chakram-refugees] Friend In Need Part 2 ["Ann Reddecliffe" Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Random Thoughts: Intimate Stranger & 10 Little Warlords On Thursday 17 July 2003 11:01, Cheryl Ande wrote: > ----- 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. No, it's Flintstones that use the tree camera. Oh, you mean *three* camera ;) Well, maybe so, but the cameras never zoom, never move, never change focus... in other words, as uninteresting (and cheap) as it's possible to make it. (Or do they actually move and I never noticed?) > > 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. Oh yes, we know that. That's why we get three of everything - the NBC version, the CBS copy, and the ABC ripoff. Or the other way around. > 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. Actually, I disagree. I happen to like Law & Order simply because, I think, it's well-written and the plots are ingenious. Certainly the regular cast aren't great heroes, but then they're not supposed to be. I contrast that with Miami Vice which was so obsessed with being cool and trendy it made me want to throw up. Preferably all over the cast's designer suits. ;) > 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 For me, whether the show is 'controlled' or way over the top isn't really a determinant of whether I like it or not. I think originality and (in the case of comedy) a good delivery and sense of timing, are what matters. For example, (and going waaaay back), I loved The Frost Report, a series of comedy sketches hosted in completely deadpan fashion by David Frost. It was very controlled and absolutely hilarious. And I also love (when they bring it off) Monty Python, more way-out than which it is not possible to be. For drama, again I think originality, good writing, and actors who carry conviction and are interesting, are the key. And for my 'low-key' example I'd choose 'The Power Game', which was a long-ago British series about a merchant banker and his boardroom struggles - yes I know this sounds like watching paint dry. *But* it was so well-written that whether this guy got his chosen works manager appointed rather than the chairman's favourite seemed just as dramatic and important to the viewer as whether Xena would defeat Ming Tien. Oh, and one other thing - we didn't know if he'd win or not. He sometimes lost. That's very important. Okay, for my example of 'way out there', obviously Xena will do just fine ;) 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: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:48:17 -0500 From: "Mark B." Subject: [ Re: [chakram-refugees] Titans--YAXIs] Jackie M. Young wrote: > 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. ;) This is a good example of what I would categorize as a 'snoozable' ep and yet, like all the others, there are always a couple of great lines, looks or raised eyebrows! > > 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. ;) I didn't catch that one, but do remember X or G saying 'the horse' when referring to Argo. I hope Argo was not impacted by that slight! And this, just a few episodes after being called, 'boy'! > > 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 still can't help but see at least a *little* pang of jealousy, but I agree with you about the disapproval. Was there a little defiant look though from G? > {OT, but...) I just watched 'The Mummy' last night and was struck by the similarity of the woman reading from the book of dead when the mummy was awakened - -- part of the chant sounded very similar to that read aloud by G when she awakened the Titans. Mark ========================================================= 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 20:37:55 +0100 From: "Ann Reddecliffe" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] Friend In Need Part 2 Just catching up on an overflowing mailbox! I was very struck by this part of the discussion about FIN2. >> I however see Gabrielle as the hero because she puts the souls of the 40,000 and Xena's need for atonement before her own desires. Gabrielle heroism isn't fighting Morimoto but letting Xena go. Gabrielle, I believe, knows that neither Xena nor she could have a life knowing that they ignored the suffering of others. Gabrielle allows Xena to finally be at rest - she allows her the atonement she has so needed for her own peace. Gabrielle does suffer for this but that is what makes her a hero. Actually that is why I liked the original ending of FIN. In the broadcast version Gabrielle stands proudly alone on the ship facing the future by herself. She now is on a hero's journey that was begun on the side of Mt. Fuji when she accepts Xena's sacrifice. The DVD ending with the two women together suggests nothing has changed and it negates in some way the sacrifice both women made.>> I also prefer the original ending of Gabrielle standing on the ship "alone" and felt that the "new" ending actually diminished what had been achieved. In some respects I could never really understand the outcry about the original ending. I heard, but didn't take on board, the issues about Gabrielle was seen to be abandoned or soulmates being separated. None of the arguments seemed to fit, but it was interesting how perspectives differed, especially where people emphathised with one character rather than the other. The overall concepts seemed to revolve around the idea that one or both of the characters (or their relationship) was diminished by the ending. I saw it as full circle. That Gabrielle had now learned everything from Xena. She had grown as a person and become her own person with that knowledge and growth. She had not, nor would she ever, become Xena 2. In that sense Xena would never leave her and she would always have Xena with her. It was what she had learned, what she had taken inside her from the experience. Yet she was her own person. For me the solo ending was a validation of everything that had been achieved. For Xena too, she had handed on the mantle to Gabrielle - a successor, but not a replacement. In the same way that Gabrielle was now mistress of the chakram. In taking on Xena's weapon she had really achieved everything that she had set out to achieve from Sins of the Past. In that sense I saw the ending as a really bold move on RT's part. In some ways I saw, even the "ghost Xena" part as too much. I suppose it was a way of doing the "even in death I will never leave you" concept. Yet, the idea of things coming full circle was too powerful to need that. When you change someone's life as Xena changed Gabrielle's, then you never do leave them. You might not be physically there, but the legacy always is. I can't imagine a more powerful legacy than Xena's to Gabrielle. Over the six seasons, we initially saw the people who had influenced Xena - Hercules, Ares, Lao Ma, M'Lila etc. Then we started to see the people that Xena had influenced Borias, Satrina, Grunhilda, Akemi etc, but each of them saw Xena as an opportunity. They could get something they wanted from Xena. Gabrielle got the most from her relationship with Xena because she was willing to risk everything and change. That is what I saw in the solo ending and why I felt it was so much more powerful that the amended version. Ann ========================================================= 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 #202 **************************************