From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #334 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 Sunday, November 9 2003 Volume 03 : Number 334 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) ["Jackie M. Young" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] O/S Tarzan [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Kate Clayton and stairs ["Jackie M. Young" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) Yes, I've scanned the digests, so I know I'm more than a little *late* with this, as well as more and more OT, since the show's been put on "hold" (who're we *fooling*, here??), but some of us are having *fun*, so please indulge us (WTH....;) ).....;) On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:41:36 -0700, "abqbeach" wrote: >Let's see ... out of all the participants - two trials for Auntie Xena, >and one each for Uncle Skinner and Maid Mary - I'll go for Mary on form. >She's really got the arm action going :-) - --*Thanks*, Angie, for doing this!! Quite excellent, as md says!! ;) I agree with you on Maid Mary--I thought the "arm action" was "characteristic". ;P LOL A maid _should_ be _action_-oriented, a little on the panicky side. But not the matron of the house, who, IMO, should be in more "control". ;P On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:04:32 -0500, "mirrordrum" wrote: >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. - --*Well*.....the nay-sayers are "naying". ;P LOL OK, I'll admit the 1st trial, taken all by itself, was "heh". But taken with the rest of the scene/episode, and upon repeated viewings, it still got my "spidey" sense up. ;P I still think Kate was lacking too much control, was too limber up them those 'cases, and looked like she was Ms. World (or, Known- ;) ), than a well-brought-up, wealthy heiress concerned about her nephew. But, that's just MO. ;) (And was Ife's, too, at the beginning ;P ) On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:07:19 EST, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: >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. - --;=) Ya *see*, Ife, ya *contradict* me, but ya always *see* this stuff even before I comment on it!! ;P ROTL It was *you* who saw the stair-run and commented first, and now its *you* who saw the just-push-me-around-in-my-own-house-why-don't-you scene between Kate and Dick and _knew_ there was something *wrong, wrong, wrong*. ;P Kate should be a *stronger* character than LL's letting her be, IMO; or, if her acquiescense to Dick is for a reason, then by all means, LET US SEE IT. But if _I_ were the head of the house, I certainly wouldn't let ol' Bad Brother push _me_ around! ;P Especially if I _knew_ he was hurting and trying to take my nephew away from me......;P Just MO, ;) - --Jackie (Part II to follow ;) ) ****************************************************** * 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: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:38:21 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] O/S Tarzan [Same disclaimer for lateness/OT-ness as in previous post. ;) ] On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:07:27 EST, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: >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.... - --OK, I can see your point, here. You want to say LL is playing Kate as "flexible"/"manipulative" (in a sense), rather than entrenched or dogmatic. The problem with that is, this is _not_ Chekov. ;P Hour-long TV dramas need to *pull* in the audience immediately. Drama thrives on *conflict*. If LL's not showing how she fits into that conflict, then the audience will lose interest in her character. Showing range is one thing; being _unclear_ is another. ;P I think of Robin Williams as showing range. Right now, all I see is LL being unclear. Really, will the *average* viewer be able to dissect the show as well as we've done and *see* that Kate is one way with John and another way with Richard and Jane?? Again, *clarity* is of the utmost importance. We're motivated to pay attention simply because she's LL. The average viewer will just see pictures and turn the channel. You need to *hook* the viewer into buying into your character first with something *strong*; the subtlety and layers can come later, as they did with XWP. >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. - --I agree she can't yet speak for John, but she needs to *show* us that she's making efforts to move towards that. If she doesn't, then we will lose interest (and apparently have, from the ratings ;=/ ; I'm NOT saying it's LL's fault because obviously there are other weaknesses in the show, but I'm just speculating that _all_ aspects might be contributory). In more than small ways, she needs to show us that she's struggling with her role in John's life. Yes, some of this is the burden of the writing, but the actor has choices to make, too, in how to play the scene. I'm just saying, I think LL should make stronger acting choices. >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. - --Yes, I can see that they are both "intuitive" (or think that they are). But I still think her initial reaction to seeing him remained her "permanent" reaction to him, and if she's as "astute" as you say, then she'd continue to study him and evaluate his way of being in the world. I'd like to see more discernment on her part of his character, rather than taking him for granted or just accepting him as he is. > 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." - --I disagree. "Obvious" doesn't have to mean stereotyped or blatant. "Obvious" can mean clear, focused, and incisive. It's true the "camera sees all", but there are viewers on the other end of that camera, and they don't always "see all". An actor has to communicate his/her character's *intent* to the audience. Yes, admittedly, LL doesn't have much screen time in which to develop her character. But, she needs to make lemonade when given lemons. ;P I don't believe she would play a character so poorly that _no one_ would believe her; but it's possible she's playing her character now too subtly that what she's trying to do is not coming across to some......;( As always, just MO, ;) - --Jackie (your faithful TZ critic ;) ) ****************************************************** * 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: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 02:13:09 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan (oh the irony) In a message dated 11/7/2003 9:51:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > I still think Kate was lacking too much control, was too limber up them > those 'cases, and looked like she was Ms. World (or, Known- ;) ), than a > well-brought-up, wealthy heiress concerned about her nephew. But, that's > just MO. ;) (And was Ife's, too, at the beginning ;P ) >> I may be old and opinionated, but I cling to my female right to change my mind. > > > > On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:07:19 EST, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > >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. > > --;=) Ya *see*, Ife, ya *contradict* me, but ya always *see* this stuff > even before I comment on it!! ;P ROTL >> Well, once I see something from another POV, it's hard to get out of my head. I pretty much know what some folks'll think now, even if I end up disagreeing. > > It was *you* who saw the stair-run and commented first, and now its *you* > who saw the just-push-me-around-in-my-own-house-why-don't-you scene > between Kate and Dick and _knew_ there was something *wrong, wrong, > wrong*. ;P >> Like I said, "double vision." I happened to watch Maternal Instincts the other day and was reminded that I always had a chuckle watching Lucy run. Try as she might to look tough, she looked "girly" to me. I'm not saying that was bad or wrong. It just looked odd to me to see that grim face along with that cute, gangly lope. For some reason, that's the one aspect that never looked as "natural" (as Xena) to me. Lucy could throw, punch and kick with the best. I wondered if maybe she thought her "real" run wasn't Xenaish, so tried harder to give it extra oomph. It could be because of how she's built, especially her height. Or maybe it was the costume. I was into track and field way back when, so maybe that's why I can't help noticing something as picky as how somebody runs. I keep thinking, "Stop swinging those arms out like that! Get those knees up!" Anyway, I decided to put the stair thing in the same category with the run -- something that makes me smile, but which I wouldn't let get in the way of the impression she seems like she wants to project. Sheesh! Happy now? - -- 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: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:00:03 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] O/S Tarzan In a message dated 11/7/2003 10:39:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:07:27 EST, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > >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.... > > --OK, I can see your point, here. You want to say LL is playing Kate as > "flexible"/"manipulative" (in a sense), rather than entrenched or > dogmatic. >> Um, I think I'm saying more that Lucy was allowing herself room to be flexible, which fits the reserved, observant persona Kate shows to everybody but John. > > The problem with that is, this is _not_ Chekov. ;P Hour-long TV dramas > need to *pull* in the audience immediately. Drama thrives on *conflict*. > If LL's not showing how she fits into that conflict, then the audience > will lose interest in her character. >> I agree that it's risky in "here today, gone tomorrow" TV Land, especially in a show with not much redeeming value. > Really, will the *average* viewer be able to dissect the show as well as > we've done and *see* that Kate is one way with John and another way with > Richard and Jane?? Again, *clarity* is of the utmost importance. We're > motivated to pay attention simply because she's LL. The average viewer > will just see pictures and turn the channel. >> I can't argue with that either. > > You need to *hook* the viewer into buying into your character first with > something *strong*; the subtlety and layers can come later, as they did > with XWP. >> No doubt Lucy recognized she could only do so much and might not have that much time to do it in. Nevertheles, I believe she chose to play it as though Tarzan was good and would last. I think she saw the character as an opportunity to show and try some more of what she could do. I thought she did a wonderful job under the circumstances, which I think those who do casting will indeed note. As a fan, I'd much rather she show subtle, progressive development that's appropriate (which I thought it was) over the long term, than do something to have obvious impact in the short term, but doesn't show much range at the time and doesn't leave much room for development even if the show didn't get canned. (Boy, that was a mouthful. I think I know what I was trying to say. < g>) > > In more than small ways, she needs to show us that she's struggling with > her role in John's life. Yes, some of this is the burden of the writing, > but the actor has choices to make, too, in how to play the scene. I'm > just saying, I think LL should make stronger acting choices. >> See, as you say above, we're probably the only casual viewers who have her under the microscope like this. Both of us want her to do well. I'm getting a lot from the small things she's doing, possibly because I'm paying so much attention to her few moments. But you're possibly seeing problems for the same reason. Most other folks tuned in to see Tarzan or Tarzan/Jane. What Lucy does is irrelevant or only incidental to them. > >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. > > --Yes, I can see that they are both "intuitive" (or think that they are). > But I still think her initial reaction to seeing him remained her > "permanent" reaction to him, and if she's as "astute" as you say, then > she'd continue to study him and evaluate his way of being in the world. I'd > like to see more discernment on her part of his character, rather than > taking him for granted or just accepting him as he is. >> But I do see that. She'd like to protect his core "purity" (e.g., honesty, desire to help, innocence of modern shenanigans), but she'd also like him to wear suitable clothes, use a knife and fork, not throw furniture, etc. She's seen what a double-edged sword his impulsiveness can be -- physically and verbally. But rather than try to "tame" him, she's trying to help him understand this new world so that he can make his own choices. She accepts him as "different" and takes for granted that he has the right to grow in his own way. > Yes, admittedly, LL doesn't have much screen time in which to develop her > character. But, she needs to make lemonade when given lemons. ;P I don't > believe she would play a character so poorly that _no one_ would believe > her; but it's possible she's playing her character now too subtly that > what she's trying to do is not coming across to some......;( >> You're probably right that it's not coming across to some. I would question whether many of those viewers tuned in to see Tarzan's aunt anyway. However, she's quite possibly making a favorable impression on many of the older viewers and talent scouts who'd care about what Kate does. I know at least one "mature" viewer that's true of. :-) What I respect about Lucy is that she values each moment for itself and focuses on what *she* needs to do to make it as good as she can. She doesn't dwell on the negatives or what she can't control (like ratings, other actors, or production/creative decisions). I think that's what made her treat Xena so seriously and risk being dour, "unfeminine" and monotone for a good part of the first season. It was right for the character at that time, but she could've been stereotyped that way forever if the show had been cancelled after eight eps. This time she risked being understated and didn't worry about making too much of a secondary role. As I said, I think she gave some fine moments, which she will deepen and expand in the next three eps. I think it'll give her the kind of exposure which should help her career long term. I think she'll feel good about what she did with most of the moments she had, which I think is what really matters to her. - -- 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: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:27:02 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Kate Clayton and stairs On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:08:02 EST, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: >Apparently I still need to work on my form, though, if I'm going to win >points at the upcoming Stair Climbing Contest of the Known World. I hear >a couple of the judges are really picky. - --Thanks, Cheryl, for forwarding that article! ;) Can't believe it was actually *real*?!? ;P What are the odds of having someone named "John" and "Dick" in her family?!? ROTFLOL!! ;=) You talkin' to *me*, Ife?!? You talkin' to *me*??!? ;=) Yes, it's _true_, a couple of us judges still have some *standards* left for Stair Climbing (and have not taken bribes nor been *seduced* by Lucy Lawless' blue eyes and lithe figure ;P ). LOL ;=) - --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: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:31:16 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Xenaverse alumni in "The Matrix Revolutions"... On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 20:31:22 +1300, cr wrote: >Nathaniel was also Cyrus (Lucy Liu's boyfriend and no mean fighter) in >the early Herc ep March to Freedom, but I never recognised him because I >always thought of Nathaniel Lees as Nicklio, who looked like an old man. - --*Huh*?? Was _Lucy Liu_ on Herc?? I never heard of that?? - --Jackie (did I miss something??) ****************************************************** * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * * * * 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #334 **************************************