From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #366 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, December 7 2003 Volume 03 : Number 366 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [KTL ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Back to "Reality" (Was Re: Peekabo, I see you) [If] Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show [IfeRae@a] Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [cr ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:49:33 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ribaud, Lynn wrote: LOL! I LOVED this post. Especially for the last line in the paragraphs below. KT Well, for that matter, how > many of us are that well defined to *ourselves*? So -- where do we draw the > line between here and there? Where is the 'new dolly'? And yes, I > recognize that this is the crux of much of the discussion. Obfuscation > happily supplied... > > As I said at the start of my comments, I'd like > to see what Fugate had in mind more fully explained. But with the > limitations of working only with what was shown, I'd now have to say there > are internal inconsistencies (at least, if not outright contradictions). > I reserve the right to change my mind as many times as I like, > without warning... ========================================================= 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, 6 Dec 2003 21:15:34 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo, I see you Thel--watch this--you can SNIP parts out...grin > > Compare it with a _written_ > > > > > passage (about a skirmish in a Finnish forest in the very early morning): > > > > > > "It wasn't one of those tall, dark, cathedral-like forests; no northern > > > forest is. The trees were small and thin and sparse, and didn't stop > > > much of the dim, misty light from the low clouds overhead. The mist > > > itself had pretty well stopped at the edge of the forest; all that was > > > left was a faint blurriness and weird bottom-of-the-sea light that had no > > > source and cast no shadows and faded off not into darkness but > > > uncertainty. ... You would see a man stand up thirty yards away, in > > > this light, but he might not stand up; he might be sitting on the other > > > side of the rock you're leaning against." > > > > > > > I dispute that you couldn't film that. I think you could. AND once it was > > filmed, then everyone would think of that forest in exactly the same way. > > Well, no. You could film it, but it would look absolutely useless on > screen. (Even more, of course, a scene where everybody's floundering around > in the dark). Thing is, you can describe it in print as easily as you can a > full-daylight scene. > > TV is even worse than movies for that, because TV is not normally watched on > a big screen in a darkened room. So all you see on your set is a dim blur. > The atmosphere gets completely lost. > > It's a purely practical limitation of the technology. Yes but expert film/TV producers can get around that. They would show the evil in the forest by say tracking really fast across the fog (smoke machine made) shrouded forest and stopping suddenly and by zooming in and out. This is an absolutely understood technique that translates in the audience's mind as a way of showing us how the eyes of the main character are darting nervously around as he takes in his scary surroundings. Also, there would be shots "looking" at the hero from behind tree branches or olther hidey holes which we would understand as the bad guys watching the hero or getting him in their sites. Tapert could easily sell this, so could Chris Carter of X-Files. I've seen them do things like this. For example, in FIN, remember how the camera runs along the forest floor showing us the monster coming from the monstor's point of view? We KNEW this was the monster coming though we didn't see him in the shot. > > I think Bitter Suite was obviously one of XWP's finer visual creations. > > And BOY are there LOADS of interpretations to hang on just about > > everything in that ep. I had no idea that they were dressed as Tarot > > cards. THAT was WAY kewl to find out about on line. > > Now you're talking about something rather different, I think. You're > talking about particular symbolism of the scene. It requires a knowledge of > tarot to fully understand it. Yes. But nobody would have thought about the symbolism of the tarot had it not been used on the screen. This was an argument for "What's on screen matters". > > Whereas, a scene such as the one I mentioned earlier where Xena went to > behead Akemi, has implications of Xena and Akemi's thoughts that you can read > into it, but requires no special knowledge to interpret. > Welllllll no, because Seppuku has symbolic and ritual meaning. Akemi asked Xena to behead her because of Japanese traditions and beliefs. One of which is that ritual suicide is honorable and necessary for certain situations. NOT knowing this you can still interpret that scene. But you'd be missing a lot of potential in understanding fully what Tapert and Stewart are saying about Akemi. KT ========================================================= 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, 7 Dec 2003 03:03:12 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Back to "Reality" (Was Re: Peekabo, I see you) In a message dated 12/6/2003 3:12:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > What's on screen *doesn't* matter to me, so much as what I make of it. > >What "matters" is what it *means* to me -- how I interpret it, what I focus > >on, what I ignore, how it compares with what I "know" and believe, what > value I > >place on it. I bring that with me to everything, and it is unique to me, > >regardless of how similar it might be to what someone else sees. > > > Absolutely true. But what's on screen does matter or else Wonder Woman > would have been perfectly acceptable to you. Just ignore that Steve! > Ignore those heels and that girly gait as she skittered down the sidewalk! > PRETEND she's what we know women can be! >> Well, actually that's what I did all those years I got part of what I wanted to see. I'm used to "making do" with what I have. Yes, I loved seeing Lucy's portrayal of Xena. Yes, for once I had so much more to work with on the screen than I ever did before. The "spirit" of what I carried in my head has a face now, but it will still have other faces as well. While it'd be great to have maybe 5 TV shows I found to be inspirational, it would still be connected to what was important to me generally or at that time in my life. > But for women of a certain age, (like you and I, Ife) what we saw on > screen in XWP we had never seen in anything before. >> Absolutely. In her way, Emma Peel was "it" for me before Xena, but I had to spend half the time looking at Steed, with little of the moral complexities of XWP to occupy me until Emma came on again. > It strikes such a cord in those of us who lusted over seeing women > portrayed this way and never got to. I KNOW there were some strong women > pictures, but for me nothing ever came anywhere near Lucy's Xena in being > "right". >> True, but I realize now that it was not just Xena, but the fact that her world was so woman-centered. There are plenty of shows where men go about their business with passing reference to "the little woman." But to see a show where women relied on themselves, drove the action, and didn't spend at least half the time caring for or discussing men? Where their emotions, thoughts, behavior, and every little thing they did was significant? Where it was okay to express every side of themselves without being seen as "too masculine" or "too feminine"? Now *that's* what I didn't see in Emma Peel's world. > IFE: > >That's all I'm saying above. I'm saying "perception" is sort of like > >the chicken and egg. I don't mean to dismiss the very show I love, or > >the actress who brought Xena alive. But (being the fossil I am) I > >remember when I relied on my imagination to do that, as I read books > >or listened to radio dramas. However "lost" I got in Xena, I knew it > >was an interactive process, not one where I was completely under the > >influence of what was being projected. > > > Art is always interactive. Art is communication and without an audience, > there's no art. Without an artist there's no art either though. THEY > generate the response we bring to the event. >> Yes, I'm emphasizing the "we bring," while you're emphasizing "generate," but I think we're both agreeing you need both for the "communication" to occur. > >> Ife, you cut out important parts of my paragraph above. > >> > > > >Sorry. I figured we agreed on that part. :-) > > > > > LOL! I cut out the parts we don't agree on in this thread, the parts > where we're doing nothing but repeat ourselves. >> Ah, it's the agree parts I experience as more repetitive.. With the disagree parts I feel we might still have something to discuss and learn from. Every now and then I find gems I overlooked in stuff that's been repeated -- sometimes because it's said differently or somebody else has said something that made me interpret it differently. Interesting difference of perspective. > >If you're simply saying that visual media can give us a more commonly > shared > >and defined starting point, I'm with you. If you're saying it gives us > >something we can show other people, I'm with you. We didn't "make up" > seeing Xena > >do certain things. We saw her do it, even if we disagree about what it > means. > > > Yes, that's what I'm saying.>> I almost snipped this, since we agreed, but I'll keep it this time. Happy? < g> > (Note: Never having seen any of the Hong Kong female action films that Rob > based Xena upon, I can't say if those women were as valid and believable > as Lucy's Xena. My genre buds say they are. For them.) >> The movie "Crouching Tiger" blew my mind. Michele Yeough (?) is phenomenal. She seems to *live* what she's doing, more than making it believable. And when I saw some of the films Tapert referenced, I understood why he was so attracted to them and how much he used them for Xena. Not simply the action sequences, but the seamless connection between the action and themes of honor, moral ambiguity and spiritual quest. I don't think he's being modest in crediting them for their contribution to his vision. > > > < Are you also saying that visual art > >produces more "objective" data or interpretation, since presumably we're > all looking > >at the same "board"? That what we take away from the visual image is less > >subjective than if we'd read it in a book? > > > >> -- Ife > > > Yes. But only in terms of the fact that onscreen we see the artifact and > therefore it is the same for everyone. Unlike in a book where we each see > our own imagined artifact. > See, that's why I hesitate putting emphasis on the thing itself. Yes, the thing itself is the same, but that doesn't mean it is the same for everyone. We see/perceive it differently. A structure we see in XWP could be viewed as a home, a shack, a "quaint" abode, or something else that influences our "take" on things, regardless of what the characters say or do. Based on Cyrene's inn, some folks think Xena's family wasn't well off, while others think the family did pretty well. Some of us don't even notice a particular person, object, expression, while others do. I have art in my home that I've looked at for years and suddenly "see" something I'd missed before. To me the richness of XWP has come from all the varied perspectives on the "same" thing, which each person will argue is based on "what we all saw." > For example, Tarzan's Aunty Kathleen lives in a very lush apartment in a > very expensive part of town. This tells us things about her. It tells us > not only that she's rich but that she wants to live rich. And that tells > us things about her character. AND it's an immutable fact about her.>> Funny you mention that. I thought she seemed a bit helpless in her home, certainly given her supposed social status. It occurred to me that Kate's place had been a family (or her dead brother's) home, possibly owned jointly with Richard or by some family entity. If so, then she couldn't necessarily stop Richard from barging in when he pleased or sending in police he'd made payoffs to. She could possibly lose it in some legal battle with him. We have no idea how financially stable her newspaper is or what she'd be left with in a battle with Richard. I didn't find her place to be all that "lush," but I'll grant it was supposed to project wealth. In other words, it didn't tell me much in the way of "immutable facts" about Kate except that she stayed in a nice place. What happened in it left me questioning just how much wealth, power and independence from Richard she actually had. Or whether her nice place was actually hers. Mind you, I didn't hurt my brain too much with that, because I never knew what was intended or accidental in terms of what I saw in Tarzan. > > Xena is homeless. Xena has relegated herself to a spartan life. No more > fancy yurts nor big tents with servants for her. This also is absolutely > true. Differing interpretations come in when we think about why it's true.>> Yes, with XWP I had confidence that every critical aspect about Xena -- from her armor to what she traveled with -- had been given careful consideration. I had confidence that the structures I saw, the objects in dwellings, the clothing of villains, etc. "meant" something. The only thing above that I might quibble with is "Xena is homeless." No, she didn't live in a "house." But though she didn't know how she'd be received in Amphipolis at the beginning of Sins, she called it and Cyrene's place "home." She chose to leave, once welcomed, yet knew she could return. > Now I would further say that Xena denying herself creature comforts is > part of her "atonement thing". THAT absolutely gets into speculation. That > has never been stated directly in the series. And that is where the > interpretation of what we see onscreen comes in. >> KT, I just think it's too difficult to say where an "immutable fact" ends and interpretation begins. Take "spartan." That's an interpretation of how many somethings would have been more or less than or equal to other somethings. I saw a lot of migrant folks -- especially warriors -- living/traveling like Xena. Hercules seemed more "spartan" than Xena. The main reason it means anything vs. anybody else is because we compare it to what she gave up, and we know she could have more if she wanted. We might feel she was "denying" herself creature comforts, not just being practical, because we saw a propensity for her to be hard on herself. To me, the bare "thing" would be a description like, "She traveled with a bedroll, her weapons, a saddlebag that could hold a department store," etc. So what? How many people will argue that she also carried a cell phone? Once you get beyond detailing what somebody can point to (which usually requires words, which can mean different things to different people), you're probably already in the realm of interpretation. - -- 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: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 03:03:14 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show In a message dated 12/6/2003 3:02:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > >>In fact, one of the most moving posts I ever read about FIN was written > by > >>a woman who had lost her partner to death a number of years ago. And she > >>talked about how FIN validated for her that the love between her and her > >>partner transcended the death of one of them. And that the sight of Xena's > >>spirit at Gabrielle's side was incredibly heart fulfilling and satisfying > >>for her as an emblematic image of the never ending love in her own life. >> > > > > >I'm sure it was. I just wonder how eagerly she would've chosen that image, > >over the chance to have her partner with her in the flesh, healthy and > alive. > > > Oh Ife, that is TOTALLY a stalking horse. Of COURSE she'd prefer not to > have her partner gone from her life. But she refuses to agree that the > death of a partner totally negates the good things about their life > together. Which is what people were trying to say.>> As I said in a response to cr, I heard as much complaint about the *choice* for Xena to die, not simply her dying. Sure we (including the complainers) may focus on the positives of someone's life afterwards, but we usually don't want her to die just so we can be inspired. > They claimed > this as if it were an absolute truth for everyone. And that is ALWAYS > bogus. That is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. They refuse to > accept the validity of other peoples' lenses. And THAT'S what many of us > objected to. Not their opinons. But the fact that they discounted ours. >> Yes, it drives me nuts when folks do that. I just don't think it changes anything by discounting theirs in turn. That's what I felt was happening, so my own little "fairness" meter made me jump to their defense. Unnecessary, I know, but it's a knee-jerk response. I got in a few fights in grade school for the same reason, and half the time I didn't even like the person I was sticking up for. > > md by the way also has a absolutely fabulous post on FIN in which she > states how Xena dying did nothing to destroy the life she and Gabrielle > had lived together and how positive that life had been portrayed. And that > if md had had the chance to live Xena's life, why, they could behead her > all they wanted to. BWAHAHAHAHHAAH! She wrote that one also in response to > the EVERYBODY (i.e. all REAL fans) should hate FIN brigade. >> Yes, I agree with that. Bottom line, those fans had valid reasons for wanting to see a different ending. I believe they felt someone else's ending had been imposed on them, so they wanted to impose their ending on everybody else. This is where your "immutable facts" come into play, as we were presented with Xena's headless corpse and fading image. I kinda feel sorry for those folks, because they had to deny what they obviously saw. > < for me is that it does. grin. >> > BUT when they failed abysmally as for me in the presentation of Xena in > Fates, while I still refuse to think I should kill Rob over it, I also > refuse to go so far as to say, "Nope. Not a failure. Let me figure how I > can make this work..." > Understood. - -- 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: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:39:53 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:39, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/6/2003 1:53:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > Mind, I didn't like Caesar, from the first time I saw him. I kept > > wishing > > to see Xena kill him, every ep he was in. I guess she couldn't, though, > > without clashing in a big way with history. As it was, TPTB had to > > settle for Xena 'setting up' Brutus to do the deed, which is next best > > thing as far as I'm concerned. > > > > As for Caesar being a major influence, how many eps was he in? Umm, > > Destiny, The Deliverer, When in Rome, A Good Day, Endgame (just, though > > nowhere near Xena), Ides. (I may have forgotten one). That's 5 eps > > (ignoring Endgame and WFC). Dahak was in as many. And Caesar Julius > > Caesar wasn't the major influence in When in Rome or A Good Day either, > > he was just background opposition. >> > > I've said before that I believe you and KT are giving far too much weight > to Caesar in terms of "making" her. Hey, not me. I don't like the guy. I give him nuisance value only. Yes, I wanted to see Xena kill the creep, the way one swats a fly. I didn't want to see him attain any more importance than that. A bit like Dahak, actually. Malevolent, but not very interesting. Ares, and Callisto, and Alti - now *they* were interesting. > Even "small," one-time occurrences can > have a major determination on the direction our lives take, sometimes > despite and sometimes because of what's inside us. Well now you're going all metaphysical on us again. Yes, I remember minor incidents too. But it does not necessarily follow that the minor things that stick in our memory - because they're odd, or quirky, or embarrassing - have a major influence on our lives. Example: I've alsways had a phobia about sharp pointy things (like hypodermics). I know why, at the age of four of five I stood on a nail, and was hauled off to the quack for a tetanus shot which in those days was given intramuscularly (= hurts like hell) with a bloody great needle in the butt (oh the embarrassment, having to take my pants down for a stranger). And I was so tensed up the needle stuck and the doctor had to go and find some pliers to pull it out. The noise must have been incredible. But anyway, has that phobia about needles had any effect on my life? Not that I can tell. I've still had all the jabs I needed to have, just with rather more apprehension and gritting of teeth than most. (Oddly enough, the New Zealand TV stations' censors seem to have a similar phobia, since the one thing they're guaranteed to cut in Xena is anyone getting stabbed with a knife or a sword. For example they cut Callisto stabbing herself with her sword in A Necessary Evil. They showed her pulling it out again though. Odd.) > I'm reminded of people > who still remember the second-grade teacher who encouraged (or ridiculed) a > particular talent. To me, Tapert wanted a dramatic, symbolic way to show > why Xena went from bad things as a means for ostensibly practical purposes, > to pursuing that as an end in itself. Tapert picked Caesar and the cross, > at a time when youthful Xena was still vulnerable and trusting, open to > deception. > > I can remember a host of "small" things that had a tremendous impact on me > when I was younger, but now have less impact because I've been exposed to > so much more. I wouldn't say those experiences "made" me, but they > definitely shaped my responses and views later on. If you ask me why I am > a certain way, I can usually point to an experience that stands out from > all the others. I can't. I don't think it works that way. I think what you're remembering is just one incident among many that would have influenced you at the time. I do know that memories are often inaccurate and are often composites of a number of things that happened to be noticed at around the same time. I'm sure it's that way for me. > Caesar's the one that stands out for Xena. I like that it > wasn't Ares, since that fits with Xena's self-determination and mistrust of > gods. I like that she was seduced because of her own desires, rather than > because she was tricked by the magic of somebody like Alti. I liked that > at least the catalyst for her evil was someone of stature and even greater > ambition, whom she would continue having to deal with on the mortal plane > after her reformation. I didn't. I just didn't like Caesar one bit. Egocentric twit. The guy had no breeding. ;) > I've always found it interesting that Reformed Xena never attempted to > "off" or go after Caesar for what he did in the past. She didn't seem to > regard him as more despotic or evil than others threatening humankind. She > fought him only when he directly threatened an area where she happened to > be, people she cared about or herself - except for Britannica. Britannia. Britannica's the encyclopaedia. I think it's probably the difference between a noun and a verb in Latin. :) > This was > the one time she did allow her personal feelings about him to be her > primary motivation, with the threat to others being secondary. As a > result, she was blinded to the real threat from Dahak and to Gabrielle. This raises the question, did Dahak need Gabby specifically? Couldn't he find an equally naive and innocent person more readily to hand? Was it just chance that Gabby happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? This was never really explained. > Other than his impact in the past, I didn't see Xena as obsessed with him > or going out of her way to avenge his betrayal. What happend was > significant in her life, but it was done with, over, a regrettable bad > memory. She didn't constantly talk or dream about him. She didn't live > her life around him. She effectively dismissed his having any more > influence on who she would be *now.* Well yes, I agree with you. What are we arguing about? > He was simply a major catalyst for the > rage, mistrust and twisted goals that drove her as Evil Xena, but never > credited for who she became as Reformed Xena. What Fates seemed to be > showing was that Reformed Xena grew out of Evil Xena, with the height of > Reformed Xena's deeds directly connected to and measured by the depths of > Evil Xena's deeds. > > As Xena accepted her dark side in Dreamworker, she recognizes in Fates that > she must accept Caesar's role in bringing out her darkness. I said in > another post that I didn't understand Fugates' comment about Xena forgiving > herself by accepting crucifixion. I think now that maybe Fugate meant Xena > replaced her negative feelings of self-disgust about Caesar, with a sense > of peace about "That's how it was. That experience gave me lessons that I > used for positive purposes. If the bad never happened as it did, the good > wouldn't have happened in the same way either. I must accept both, if I am > to truly accept who I am and want to be." In a way, that means she also > forgives Caesar. Okay, I concede. You are now the supreme unchallenged rationaliser on this list. I'm not even in the same league. :) But as I see it, Xena felt disgusted (as she should) for having ever trusted the creep. I cannot see that letting him crucify her could do anything but increase that feeling of disgust to absolute self-loathing. > I'd seen Xena as triumphing over Caesar by rejecting his fake life. As I > said in my "confessional" post, I value self-determination -- focusing on > how I will respond according to what's important to me, rather than on > "beating" or worrying about the other person. It's a form of "letting go," > but not the same as forgiveness. Fugate's comments suggest she was focused > on the latter, with Xena's return to the life she wanted as an unwitting > secondary result. I can now understand why those who focus on love and > forgiveness (often tied to "the relationship") viewed Fates as so > supportive of those themes -- as "right" in a way that I found many of > Xena's responses to be uncharacteristic -- "wrong." > > If I'm willing to entertain that view, I could see Xena as triumphing > beyond what I'd imagined. I usually fight against any notion of her > "giving up" in terms of her will, a view you and KT share. However, in my > own > rationalization, she rejects Caesar's world -- a triumph of will that is to > me "characteristic." In the forgiveness scenario, she "lets go" of the > hatred for Caesar and his crosses, as well as of the self-loathing > associated with them. Yes, that's "uncharacteristic" of my Xena in a way > that's not particularly comfortable, but I can also see it as her evolving > to a higher (more positive) acceptance of herself. I can appreciate a > different perspective on "giving up," where I shift my focus to it as > active rather than passive, to what she gained, rather than to what she was > willing to lose. > > Crap, now I *am* arguing with myself. Unbelievable. You're doing so well, I think I'll just let you get on with it. You don't need me. > You, KT and I share > similar views on so much. Now I find myself in her nightmare of the > Interminable Fates Discussion, far from where I started, yet at nearly the > opposite end from her (and probably you). Does it get any better > than this? > > -- Ife I don't know. If I could figure out which end you're at I'd know better. :) 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: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:24:50 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:59, KTL wrote: > > > > I'm sure it was. I just wonder how eagerly she would've chosen that > > image, over the chance to have her partner with her in the flesh, healthy > > and alive. > > Oh Ife, that is TOTALLY a stalking horse. Of COURSE she'd prefer not to > have her partner gone from her life. But she refuses to agree that the > death of a partner totally negates the good things about their life > together. Which is what people were trying to say. That Xena's death > somehow contaminated everything that had gone before. They claimed > this as if it were an absolute truth for everyone. And that is ALWAYS > bogus. Agreed. Something I always deplore is people trying to view the story exclusively in the light of their own narrow interests (or causes, or whatever). And assuming the show must be sending a Message. That's crap, IMO. The fact that Gabrielle got bitten by a rather futile brand of extreme pacifism in Season 4 does *not* mean (so far as I can tell) that Renpics were either endorsing pacifism or trying to make fun of it. They were trying to show the problems Gabrielle was having in her own personal life and I'm sure they would have been amused or appalled or both if they'd seen some of the posts that tried to read some universal Message into it. (I could quote a dozen other items over the series, that was just the first and possibly least controversial that came to mind). > That is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. They refuse to > accept the validity of other peoples' lenses. And THAT'S what many of us > objected to. Not their opinons. But the fact that they discounted ours. What I always object to most strongly is the implicit argument that runs: TPTB just did something I didn't like. Therefore TPTB are evil / malicious / incompetent / trying to con the fans. > I have no problem with saying that the creators of XWP screwed up > sometimes. They made mistakes. Rob admits they made mistakes in a number > of interviews and in the commentaries he's been doing. I don't feel I have > to swallow everything they gave us and try to rationalize it. They are too > good to have to be patronizing towards. > (snip for bandwidth only - I agree with ya 100%) > BUT when they failed abysmally as for me in the presentation of Xena in > Fates, while I still refuse to think I should kill Rob over it, I also > refuse to go so far as to say, "Nope. Not a failure. Let me figure how I > can make this work..." > > KT Hmm, I always like to try and rationalise these things. Which is not to say I would ever call them a success. I would just rather like to rationalise them away (Married with Fishsticks, for example, which is not only impossible but embarrassingly bizarre). I can only assume that Gabrielle had scored some ancient Greek LSD (Zeus knows what the writers had scored); but that still doesn't account for her prescient knowledge of 1950's TV sitcom culture. (Umm that's a YAXI too, they didn't have LSD back in X&G's day. Magic Mushrooms, maybe. Morning Glory seeds. Psilocybin and peyote. Ergot. Whatever....) 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: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:28:29 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:39, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/6/2003 1:53:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > >LOL! Sorry, but it was more a matter of not feeling the need to argue > > > > with > > > > >myself. > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > Ah, like Deimos at the end of 'Fade Out'. > > (Sorry for the Herc reference but I can't think of a Xena one) > > Didn't see that, as I watched very little non-Xena Herc. Anyway, I'd > prefer comparison to Xena's conflicted pacing back and forth in OAAA. > (Apologies to KT, who includes that among her Never Would've Happened > scenes. ) > > -- Ife Mine too. You do recall Deimos though? He was the blond Strife lookalike and he did appear on Xena, if only to get blitzed in Motherhood. And no, from Deimos I could believe it, not from Xena. :-> 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: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:59:00 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo, I see you On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:15, KTL wrote: > Thel--watch this--you can SNIP parts out...grin > Yeah, I know, I forgot to do some massive snippage earlier. So shoot me :) (snip :) > > > > > > I dispute that you couldn't film that. I think you could. AND once it > > > was filmed, then everyone would think of that forest in exactly the > > > same way. > > > > Well, no. You could film it, but it would look absolutely useless on > > screen. (Even more, of course, a scene where everybody's floundering > > around in the dark). Thing is, you can describe it in print as easily > > as you can a full-daylight scene. > > > > TV is even worse than movies for that, because TV is not normally watched > > on a big screen in a darkened room. So all you see on your set is a > > dim blur. The atmosphere gets completely lost. > > > > It's a purely practical limitation of the technology. > > Yes but expert film/TV producers can get around that. They would show the > evil in the forest by say tracking really fast across the fog (smoke > machine made) shrouded forest and stopping suddenly and by zooming in and > out. This is an absolutely understood technique that translates in the > audience's mind as a way of showing us how the eyes of the main character > are darting nervously around as he takes in his scary surroundings. Also, > there would be shots "looking" at the hero from behind tree branches or > olther hidey holes which we would understand as the bad guys watching the > hero or getting him in their sites. *But* that would give an impression of movement. It would not (IMO) give an impression of stillness, half-light where you're not sure whether you're looking at a tree or a man, and spookiness. And it can never convey the locations of things. You cannot (on film) convey the feeling of something looming behind you. I've seen plenty of 'darkness' scenes on TV, where two people are hunting each other, and all you get is a general feeling of confusion, of not being sure *what* the camera's looking at (which is quite different from what I described above where you can see things apparently clearly in the half-light, you just can't quite make out what they are). And invariably I'm unsatisfied because I don't know what's a shot of the hero, or what's a shot of what he's seeing... such scenes on TV are inherently unsatisfactory for the viewer. IMO. > Tapert could easily sell this, so could Chris Carter of X-Files. I've seen > them do things like this. For example, in FIN, remember how the camera > runs along the forest floor showing us the monster coming from the > monstor's point of view? We KNEW this was the monster coming though we > didn't see him in the shot. Oh, agreed. But there was lots of movement in that shot, and plenty of lighting. > > > I think Bitter Suite was obviously one of XWP's finer visual creations. > > > And BOY are there LOADS of interpretations to hang on just about > > > everything in that ep. I had no idea that they were dressed as Tarot > > > cards. THAT was WAY kewl to find out about on line. > > > > Now you're talking about something rather different, I think. You're > > talking about particular symbolism of the scene. It requires a > > knowledge of tarot to fully understand it. > > Yes. But nobody would have thought about the symbolism of the tarot had it > not been used on the screen. This was an argument for "What's on screen > matters". I wasn't disputing that in the least. > > Whereas, a scene such as the one I mentioned earlier where Xena went to > > behead Akemi, has implications of Xena and Akemi's thoughts that you can > > read into it, but requires no special knowledge to interpret. > > Welllllll no, because Seppuku has symbolic and ritual meaning. Akemi asked > Xena to behead her because of Japanese traditions and beliefs. One of > which is that ritual suicide is honorable and necessary for certain > situations. > > NOT knowing this you can still interpret that scene. But you'd be missing > a lot of potential in understanding fully what Tapert and Stewart are > saying about Akemi. > > KT I didn't mean the actual 'beheading' scene, I agree there's a lot to be gained in that one by knowing a little of Japanese traditions. I was referring (and sorry if I was obscure) to the scene at the grandfather's grave, where Xena (in annoyance) went as if to whack Akemi. I don't think Japanese traditions featured in Xena's actions or Akemi's response, in that scene. 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #366 **************************************