From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #329 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 Tuesday, November 4 2003 Volume 03 : Number 329 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) ["Jackie M. Young" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) ["mirrordrum" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:56:47 EST, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/1/2003 11:04:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, meth@smoe.org writes: >> Just had to share ... I just watched episode #3 of "Tarzan". This is >>the one with the oft-discussed Run Up The Stairs, right? Well, I didn't see >>it ... the WB's clock was off last Sunday and I didn't catch the first five > minutes of the episode. Damn. I was so looking forward to seeing this > scene that caused such an uproar here. ;)>> > >LOL! I believe the "uproar" consisted of two people (Ife an Jackie) who >thought the stair-run a bit odd, while a couple of other folks (including - --I second that LOL!! ;=) I didn't know that we were causing such an "uproar" with the Run Up The Stairs (though I do believe it's being odd to me won't be erased from my fated memory until LL does it "correctly" ;) )......;=) BG >Cheryl) wondered if some of us didn't have anything better to do than >nitpick at this fairly inconsequential (to them) scene. The answer to >that, of course, is "no," which is why someone must put this bit up on a >site somewhere so that you can judge it for yourself. I should add that - --*Yes, yes!!* This *must* be done!! ;=) Someone must be taping these *d*mn* things, right?? LeeD?? If someone has it on tape, I can probably get my bud Fourth Horseman (who's long gone from Xena lists, and might be totally *p.o.ed* at me for the private discussions we've been having about spirituality vs. science, but still might do it for old times' sake) to convert it to a video clip. Or, can anyone on-list do the conversion otherwise?? "Then I will be avenged". ;) LOL ;) BG - --Jackie, not a fan of *improper* runs up stairs ;=) ****************************************************** * 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: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 01:36:11 -0700 From: "abqbeach" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) LOL. A quick little project since I can't get back to sleep. ... The Run Up The Stairs http://xenawp.org/clips/Tarzan.1x03.stairsclip.mpg angie in NM http://xenawp.org > >Cheryl) wondered if some of us didn't have anything better to do than > >nitpick at this fairly inconsequential (to them) scene. The answer to > >that, of course, is "no," which is why someone must put this bit up on a > >site somewhere so that you can judge it for yourself. I should add that > > --*Yes, yes!!* This *must* be done!! ;=) ========================================================= 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: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:09:19 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] O/S Tarzan On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:56:55 EST, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 10/31/2003 10:11:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: >> --"Intentionality" to me is the same as "motivation". Maybe for you >>this equals "different personalities for different situations", and I >> >I actually meant "intentionality" in terms of Lucy's acting choices for >the character, which might not always seem "consistent" -- e.g., very >different reactions to John vs. other characters. It's just that she - --Ife, we are actually *agreeing* on this one. ;P "Motivation" for actors means what is driving the actor's choices in creating the character. I just don't agree that LL's doing this with an overall plan (regardless of what she says about finding the *luuuuuuuv*). ;P >> It's precisely because of these different ways of relating to others >> without a core consistency that leads me to believe Kathleen's >>character is "lost" (at least the way LL is portraying her). ;( >> >> >I do see a core consistency in her approach to the key characters we've >seen so far -- guarded, thoughtful, probing, and communicating she is not >to be messed with. It's like a mask (as Xena wore) when she's "working" >or in the presence of those who may have tricks up their sleeves. But >the first time she accepts that John is truly her nephew, she smiles >genuinely. She becomes protective with others, yet takes off the mask >with John, becoming more relaxed, playful, vulnerable -- almost a kindred - --OK, I can see what you're talking about here, if you're tracking her behavior 1) with John, 2) with Richard, and 3) with Jane separately (and maybe this is the flow of how the scenes were filmed, I dunno), she is being consistent. But if you _integrate_ the scenes to discover an overall personality for Kathleen, that's where I find it lacking. Is she primarily 1) playful, 2) ruthless, 3) protective, 4) strong, 5) angry, or 6) confused? Yes, she can show us all of these sides, but where's the "netting" to pull all these characteristics together? With Xena, there was her anger and her quest for redemption (and of course, her "job" as a warrior). But with Kathleen, there's no clear direction as to what that would or should be. If, as you say, Ife (*hahaha*--sorry, bad pun ;) ), she's showing us vulnerability and protectiveness with John, what's her overall goal in the larger picture? Even though LL's screen time is admittedly limited here, she still needs to show us this. And I was never clear as to why she'd suddenly drop her guard, even though she confirmed that John was her nephew. He might've changed while in the jungle; become "bad". Why did the fact that he was really her nephew change her need to be careful and suspicious around others? >> But to play the pro businesswoman in one scene, then a total wimp in >> another (who freaks out at loud crashing noises and her nephew--whom >>she _knows_ climbs trees--jumping down suddenly in front of her in the >> greenhouse), then a suspicious *b*tch* in another, does not make much >> sense to me, regardless of how "loose" LL wants to play it. ;P >. >> >Again, I now believe she's showing a different side of Kathleen at home, >with people she trusts -- showing that the "real" Kathleen is not the >hardened person her brother is, that she is not a "ho hum" mogol who has >underlings go check things out while she continues to go over P&L >statements in her living room. Sort of like the comfort level Xena had - --"Ho-hum mogul"--LOL!! ;) I actually did find it disconcerting that in one scene we had her getting all touchy-feely-oh-the-meeeemories with Johnnie-boy, and then in the next she's all businesslike and checking out slides or photos in her living room getting all snotty with Jane. I mean, if she knows Johnnie-boy-likee-Janey, then why not be more open to finding out exactly what Jane's all about, rather than *p*ssing* her off?? And I think my criticism above was about Kathleen's overall carriage of herself at home. If it's _her_ house and _her_ food, her sense of security would be stronger, not weaker. But when John "surprises" her by jumping down from a tree in her greenhouse, she, in "girly-girl" fashion, drops the tray. To me, she'd be more *p*ssed*, as in "Don't do that to me!". Nope, doesn't make sense to me. >Yes, that's what I'm saying -- that this is *not* what I would expect if >Kathleen was being developed as a carbon copy of her brother. We may be >dealing with our preconceived notions of her as a "hardened" >businesswoman. > > but she doesn't feel the need to promote that image all the time. >That's the part that I think is very intentional, not "lost." I'm not >sure if that's because she now has John in her life or not, but I do >think Lucy is establishing a "connection" between Kathleen and John that >goes beyond facade and image. - --Then I think what LL needs to do is to show _the audience_ that this is more intentional, than just coincidental, with John. I.e., change expressions more from defensive to vulnerable and vice versa when dealing with different individuals. Right now all we're seeing is a multiple-personality character in Kathleen, without an overall scheme. And I do admit I primarily have preconceived notions of how Kathleen should be. Maybe these are getting in my way, I dunno. But if LL plans to present a *different* "businesswoman" to me, then she needs to show me reasons why she is different in different situations and the reasons should make sense. >I think John will be her Achilles heel as Gabs was for Xena, and that >Kathleen will bolt up stairs or use roller skates if she has to, to make >sure John is okay. - --Well, it should be interesting if this turns out to be (*convincingly*) true. ;) We certainly don't need another discussion on this list about how LL used roller skates and whether they were used "properly" to go up the stairs.....;P LOL ;=) >I'm not saying the stair thing in itself was "right" or "wrong." I'm >saying I see it now as part of a pattern Lucy's developing that indicates >a very special and *genuine* relationship with John that is less >self-conscious, more "natural" and relaxed. It's consistently there with - --I guess there weren't that many XWP sets with stairs so that LL could practice.....;P LOL I'll give you the "natural" and "relaxed" part; but I want to see the "pattern" part.....;P Even Richard's climb up the stairs tonight (#4) was more in-character IMO than LL's.....*sigh*....;( >and give money to charity. Admittedly, if I listened only to her lines >and didn't know she was being set up as John's protector, I'd question >her motivation. The only reason they do have that "ring of truth" for me >is because of the little ways Lucy is showing vulnerability and genuine >affection for John. So if you don't believe what Lucy's doing, I can >certainly understand why Kathleen doesn't "ring true." - --Again, I guess it's just the cynic in me. I'm going like, "Where's the beef?" in the old TV commercial (K, I'm *dating* myself here), or from Jerry McGuire, "Show me the money". It's a new character, new show, and I want to see *obvious* (not subtle) reasons why Kathleen is the way she is. The subtlety can come later (IMO). 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 * * * * "Feel the fear and do it anyway." --Lucy Lawless, * * Evening Post, 7/4/98 * * * * 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: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:00:15 -0500 From: "mirrordrum" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) > In a message dated 11/1/2003 11:04:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, > meth@smoe.org writes: > > >> Just had to share ... I just watched episode #3 of "Tarzan". This is > >>the one with the oft-discussed Run Up The Stairs, right? Well, I didn't see > >>it ... the WB's clock was off last Sunday and I didn't catch the first five > > minutes of the episode. Damn. I was so looking forward to seeing this > > scene that caused such an uproar here. ;)>> > > > >LOL! I believe the "uproar" consisted of two people (Ife an Jackie) who > >thought the stair-run a bit odd, while a couple of other folks (including > "Then I will be avenged". ;) LOL ;) BG > > > --Jackie, not a fan of *improper* runs up stairs ;=) frankly, my dear, i thought the run up the stairs was the only worthwhile scene in the entire ep. damn it, i *liked* it!!! i just haven't bothered to weigh in till now. i ran up stairs two at a time when i was an associate prof at a large, though not distinguished, university. two at a time. every time. with vigour and zest. until life intervened. if i could, i would still run up stairs two at a time tho i be nigh 60. last night, i made it through lucy's opening scene in which she looked quite fine although she had nothing really of interest to do. i watched tarzie hunch on a ledge. i watched young actors being young actors. when lucy and ren were young actors they were already so much more interesting--especially lucy tho, being a gab roc fan, her spunk did catch my eye. and eventually her abs. these women on tarzie are so white bread. i keep having flashbacks to those days in the life and i can't stop the comparisons. luce looks good though. her basic class, now that she's getting a bit into the part such as it is, is so far above everybody else's it's almost embarrassing. she's just a very classy and classic woman. anyway, i made it till tarzie stopped lurking on ledges and bashed somebody's head in (again) and i waited and no lucy and then i was over it and did something else. there just isn't enough in her scenes to nitpick about and anway, i do believe lucy will eventually get hers. i really do believe it. she will. she just will. now that she's sort of there, lucy's really quite the only thing worth watching and she looks great but i'm blessed if i'll waste an hour of my life watching tarzie be tarzie, gorgeous young man though he is. i could be watching xena reruns. anyway, i liked the run up the steps. it was fun, it was lively, it was eye-catching, i could relate to it and it was (supposedly) lucy. that's enough for me. you know, while i'm on it, i've got to hand it to lucy--and ren too--for being willing to pay their US dues. they had such an incredible experience with xena--a not-to-be-repeated experience. and because they want to work at their craft, they're doing what they need to do. somewhere or other no less a light than stockard channing (whom i find highly compelling and always have) remarks about taking poor roles just to do the work she loves and pay the bills. lucky is she who can pick and choose, particularly at lucy's age. she's past cheescake (i hope) and while striking and talented may find it difficult to find parts that fit her. amy brenneman was lucky. she wrote herself a role and it sold. and she got tyne daly who can act anyone under the sink and does. to my mind, lucy is nearing that age and will need that kind of part: mature yet attractive while not being an acknowledged star among the illiterati. now how rare is that and how bad do you have to want it and how lucky do you have to be to get it? so major props to her for giving herself every opportunity. she's a gamer. md ========================================================= 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: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:04:32 -0500 From: "mirrordrum" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) now there ya go. i'd forgotten that there wasn't a cutaway. wtf is the matter with that run. it's GREAT--speaking just as a run up stairs! she's still got it. *contented sigh* and thank you angie. great quality. you rock, sister. i could watch it for hours. i do not know what's the matter with our nay sayers. that's a very fine run. of course, each to her or his own. celebrate diversity, i say, even when it's so clearly in error. md - ----- Original Message ----- From: "abqbeach" To: Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) > LOL. A quick little project since I can't get back to sleep. > > ... The Run Up The Stairs > > http://xenawp.org/clips/Tarzan.1x03.stairsclip.mpg > > > > > angie in NM > http://xenawp.org > > > > >Cheryl) wondered if some of us didn't have anything better to do than > > >nitpick at this fairly inconsequential (to them) scene. The answer to > > >that, of course, is "no," which is why someone must put this bit up on a > > >site somewhere so that you can judge it for yourself. I should add that > > > > --*Yes, yes!!* This *must* be done!! ;=) > ========================================================= > 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. > ========================================================= ========================================================= 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: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:15:21 -0800 (PST) From: Meredith Tarr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) Hi, - --- abqbeach wrote: > LOL. A quick little project since I can't get back > to sleep. > > ... The Run Up The Stairs > > http://xenawp.org/clips/Tarzan.1x03.stairsclip.mpg You people absolutely crack me up. And yet you rock at the same time. Thanks!! (And for the record, I don't see what the problem is either...) Meredith meth@smoe.org __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ ========================================================= 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: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:19:48 -0500 (EST) From: cande@sunlink.net Subject: [chakram-refugees] Ratings Ratings for Tarzan continue to decline. This Sunday Charmed had a 3.3 and Tarzan 1.9. This is not good. I think the show is getting better but it may need an earlier time or perhaps a better day. So you all better tape Lucy while this show is on. As for this week's episode there was a lot of improvement. Jane saved herself and beat the tar out a bad guy. There was more humor ( I liked when Tarzan leaped into Jane's room and was met by her screaming sister - Tarzan was so surprised he feel out of the window). Lucy had a nice scene where Kate confronts her brother and then actually looks sorry for him when Tarzan says he hates him. I actually love the fact Richard is so deluded that he thinks his sister has poisoned Tarzan against him (after locking Tarzan up, shooting him full of drugs, and generally treating him like an animal, Richard is just shocked that his nephew hates him). Also we are getting to see that Tarzan's interference can be a real pain for Jane. 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: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:43:58 -0500 (EST) From: cjlnh@webtv.net (Cheryl LaScola) Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Ratings This is probably a pointless question, but how did Tarzan do against the rest of the networks in the 9:00 pm slot? I always enjoyed Charmed (before Rose), and I must say I found Tarzan more interesting than Charmed this week. I guess that is where a proven entity carries the bad episodes..... ========================================================= 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: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:07:20 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) In a message dated 11/3/2003 9:01:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, aemoses@comcast.net writes: > to my mind, lucy is nearing that age and will need that > kind of part: mature yet attractive while not being an acknowledged star > among the illiterati. now how rare is that and how bad do you have to want > it and how lucky do you have to be to get it? so major props to her for > giving herself every opportunity. she's a gamer. > Gotta agree with you there. Between her extraordinary XWP experience (which she started at the ripe old age of 26) and raising her children, I think Lucy feels damned lucky to have work that pays, gives her continued exposure, shows a different side to her talents, is nonstressful (e.g, everything's not on her shoulders and it doesn't involve mud or crucifixions), and -- most importantly -- allows her the hours she wants. She wasn't known to look down her nose at opportunities before, so I'm happy to see that fame hasn't spoiled her willingness to take risks. - -- 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: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:07:19 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) In a message dated 11/3/2003 9:16:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, meredith_tarr@yahoo.com writes: > --- abqbeach wrote: > >LOL. A quick little project since I can't get back > >to sleep. > > > >... The Run Up The Stairs > > > >http://xenawp.org/clips/Tarzan.1x03.stairsclip.mpg > > You people absolutely crack me up. And yet you rock > at the same time. > > Thanks!! > > (And for the record, I don't see what the problem is > either...) > > Did you see the second stair run-up in the latest ep? Tee hee. Can't wait to see what Jackie thinks about this one. That's if she can get past Kathleen letting Richard take over her home, brush her off and run up the stairs first. I won't even bother saying why I thought that was all in character, as I'll be mighty surprised if Jackie will be pleased whether it was "characteristic" or not. - -- 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: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:07:27 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] O/S Tarzan In a message dated 11/3/2003 1:10:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > >I do see a core consistency in her approach to the key characters we've > >seen so far -- guarded, thoughtful, probing, and communicating she is not > >to be messed with. It's like a mask (as Xena wore) when she's "working" > >or in the presence of those who may have tricks up their sleeves. But > >the first time she accepts that John is truly her nephew, she smiles > >genuinely. She becomes protective with others, yet takes off the mask > >with John, becoming more relaxed, playful, vulnerable -- almost a kindred > > --OK, I can see what you're talking about here, if you're tracking her > behavior 1) with John, 2) with Richard, and 3) with Jane separately (and > maybe this is the flow of how the scenes were filmed, I dunno), she is > being consistent. >> Whew! Yes, that's essentially what I'm doing. > > But if you _integrate_ the scenes to discover an overall personality for > Kathleen, that's where I find it lacking. Is she primarily 1) playful, 2) > ruthless, 3) protective, 4) strong, 5) angry, or 6) confused? Yes, she > can show us all of these sides, but where's the "netting" to pull all > these characteristics together? With Xena, there was her anger and her > quest for redemption (and of course, her "job" as a warrior). But with > Kathleen, there's no clear direction as to what that would or should be. >> Okay, you're not going to like this, but I think Lucy is being intentionally enigmatic in most situations except with John. On one hand, I think she wants to allow herself room to develop in a direction that responds most to what's needed, which is very different than being the focal point where everyone else responds to her character's needs. She's already sown the seeds for the range you mention above, without being "stuck" in one.... > > If, as you say, Ife (*hahaha*--sorry, bad pun ;) ), she's showing us > vulnerability and protectiveness with John, what's her overall goal in > the larger picture? Even though LL's screen time is admittedly > limited here, she still needs to show us this. .. On the other hand, she's said she sees the character as a little like Gabrielle, in the sense of being the audience's window on what's really going on. I believe she's building a "core" person who observes and reflects before taking the "right" action, who is concerned about all the main players and how their interactions will affect things. She *is* the "larger picture" person, who as of the latest episode now has a better idea of how the pieces (i.e., John, Jane, Richard, herself, the family, Greystroke Industries) may come together or fall apart. She's shown empathy for all the personalities, even as she's come to understand their threat to each other, themselves and important entities. When we look at her expressions, they tell us not just what she's feeling for herself. They give us clues as to what *we* should look for in the other characters -- maybe even how we should feel about them. She's learning about where Richard or Jane stands, right along with us, but where we might not care about them one way or the other, she has to if she's going to be effective. Frankly, I think she's portraying an astute "player" who recognizes she's up against a formidable opponent in Richard. She couldn't "speak" for John or represent him. She can't control him or predict exactly what he will do. Even now that he's expressed his feelings about Richard, she can't negotiate on his behalf without being very clear about what she's got or is willing to bargain with. John's wildness will continue to pose challenges for her, but I think from now on Kathleen will exert herself more obviously and forcefully. > > And I was never clear as to why she'd suddenly drop her guard, even though > she confirmed that John was her nephew. He might've changed while in the > jungle; become "bad". Why did the fact that he was really her nephew > change her need to be careful and suspicious around others? >> In a way they are like kindred spirits coming from opposite sensibilities. Both of them care about what makes people "tick." They look into people's souls. She's studied John in her own way and found him to be "authenic." That's enough for her, just as it is for John. The difference is, he has the black-and-white moral view of a child. Either someone deserves to die or they don't. Richard has a similar stance. Either you are with him or you're against. Kathleen understands the "gray" areas, that you can feel love and fear for the same person at the same time. While she believes John's motives are "pure," she's also becoming aware of how dangerous that can make him. While she knows Richard's motives are selfish, she can't dismiss that in his mind he is doing exactly what he needs to for the "family" business. > << I actually did find it disconcerting that in > one scene we had her getting all touchy-feely-oh-the-meeeemories with > Johnnie-boy, and then in the next she's all businesslike and checking out > slides or photos in her living room getting all snotty with Jane. I mean, > if she knows Johnnie-boy-likee-Janey, then why not be more open to finding > out exactly what Jane's all about, rather than *p*ssing* her off?? >> I think that was her way of still testing Jane. Jane can love John all she wants, but if she "cracks" about where John is or his role in Boyfriend's death, she could still cause him to get locked up. Again, I see Kathleen's behavior as consistent, in terms of being a bit distant and not indulging in cozy chit chat unless she sees a reason for it. > > And I think my criticism above was about Kathleen's overall carriage of > herself at home. If it's _her_ house and _her_ food, her sense of > security would be stronger, not weaker. But when John "surprises" her by > jumping down from a tree in her greenhouse, she, in "girly-girl" fashion, > drops the tray. To me, she'd be more *p*ssed*, as in "Don't do that to > me!". Nope, doesn't make sense to me. >> To me, that suggested a little of what Kathleen had let herself in for, by inviting this unpredictable monkey man into her personal space. She wants him to feel free and accepted there, yet also to help him adjust to the world. She tries to set down a few rules (e.g., open, rather than crash through, windows), but doesn't want to drive him off. I don't think she sees it about her, so much as it is about him and his needs. She can replace broken furniture or spilled food. Overall, I think "You scared me" was more appropriate with that, than "You ticked me off." Heh, she'll probably need to save the latter response for when he *really* makes her regret letting him in her home life. BTW, I'm getting the feeling that where Kathleen lives may actually be "family" property, to which Richard properly has a key. If so, that could prove sticky later on. > And I do admit I primarily have preconceived notions of how Kathleen > should be. Maybe these are getting in my way, I dunno. But if LL plans > to present a *different* "businesswoman" to me, then she needs to show me > reasons why she is different in different situations and the reasons > should make sense. >> I agree, that "core" personality is important. I guess I'm building my impression of it from the outside in, based on her actions and my assumptions about why she might do that. I frankly don't know how much that has to do with my trust in Lucy, because her lines and scenes in and of themselves don't always give me much to work with. There could be more sarcasm, more anger, more forcefulness or openness, but she consistently chooses something understated -- restrained (heh, another "a la Jackieism"). Does it make sense to me because Lucy's doing it? Because it seems to "fit" the series? Both? I can't really say. At this point, all I can say is that I see it evolving in a way that's believable to me, which is admittedly not necessarily where I was a couple of weeks ago. > We certainly don't need another discussion on this list about how LL used > roller skates and whether they were used "properly" to go up the > stairs.....;P LOL ;=) >> Have you forgotten that this is the list which discussed the lice in "Sickness"? > Even Richard's climb up the stairs tonight (#4) was more in-character > IMO than LL's.....*sigh*....;( >> LOL! I wondered in another post if you'd notice that. I take it you didn't see any improvement. > --Again, I guess it's just the cynic in me. I'm going like, "Where's the > beef?" in the old TV commercial (K, I'm *dating* myself here), or from > Jerry McGuire, "Show me the money". > > It's a new character, new show, and I want to see *obvious* (not subtle) > reasons why Kathleen is the way she is. The subtlety can come later > (IMO). >> I doubt Lucy will ever get more than a total of maybe 10-minutes in "Tarzan." "Obvious" usually means some label like "bitchy," "whimpy," or "wishy washy." I'd be very disappointed if I had to see any one of those for most of Lucy's few moments. True, she could risk appearing "lost" by not playing to something obvious like that, but she could also risk being trapped to the point where subtletly looked "uncharacteristic" or "fake." - -- 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 #329 **************************************