From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #380 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Friday, December 19 2003 Volume 03 : Number 380 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [chakram-refugees] Season 3 Amazon Bonuses [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo [KTL ] Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show [KTL ] Re: [chakram-refugees] OAAA [KTL ] [chakram-refugees] The full horror of season five starts again [Liz << Season Three Bonus Material includes: > > *Season 3 Photo Gallery Official Xena photographers shooting on set and on > location created this spectacular gallery of action and portrait shots of all > your favorite Xena characters, beasts and demons. > *Direct Access Scenes Gain instant access to your favorite battles, fights, > love and hot tub scenes. > *Director and Actor Bios Get personal and career information on Lucy > Lawless, Renee ObConnor, Kevin Smith, Executive Producer Rob Tapert, and the whole > cast and crew! [I suspect this is the same as in previous sets] > *Xena Chronicles An interactive guidebook to all the characters of Xena > with video clips, biographies, and photos. [Another possibly duplication] > *Series Trivia Xena mavens reveal a world of little known details, secrets > and pranks from the cast and crew! [Could be another duplication] > *Interactive Games Test your mettle in Xenabs world with these fun and > challenging digital games. > *Interactive Animated Menu Screens > Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound > *Newly discovered alternative scenes [This sounds promising] > *Commentary with Lucy Lawless and Renee ObConnor [Wonder why it doesn't > list which eps?] > *Sacrifice - One and Two Retrospective featuring interviews with cast and > crew > *Over 700 Original productions sketches and drawing [Anybody know what this > involves?] > > > Price: $48.99 with free shipping in the US >> - -- 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: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:08:51 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:56, KTL wrote: > > > > > Oh absolutely. Lucy as Xena hooked me. But I remember looking up at the > > screen the first time I saw Hooves and Harlots and suddenly realizing with > > a real frisson of joy that the screen was filled with women. (Half naked > > women, sadly, but still, women all the same.) > > I'm trying to figure out which attribute occasioned your regret. The > 'naked' or the 'half' ? > Hardy har har. I just for some reason imagined a woman being half naked by having only say the right side of her body clothed and the left side unclothed. Wouldn't THAT look strange? > > > > > In about seven years on line I haven't seen much variation to discount > > this belief that if you're not saying anything new after three posts or so > > it ain't gonna happen in the fourth nor the twenty-fourth. > > I do my very best to liven things up by veering wildly Off Topic at every > opportunity. Hadn't you noticed? :) Yes, dear, I have. > > > > I have to say that I NEVER heard any discussion on that point. The tavern > > was just a tavern to me. > > It was a fairly substantial building, from what we saw in Haunting of > Amphipolis. Check out the size of Gabrielle and Lilla's room in Sins of the Past. It's HUGE! I think we could conclude that Cyrene probably wasn't rich, but > reasonably affluent by local village standards. (Assuming the place wasn't > owned by the bank, which would have been much less likely in those days). > Yes but Cyrene works in her tavern. So even the merchant class in Xena is still "hands on". They aren't sitting on their butts watching other people work. Except for maybe Lord Seltzer. > > I really didn't see any difference in any of the > > taverns-they pretty much all looked alike as I remember. They all had the > > same wooden mugs, the same wooden bar in the same place, the same table > > and chairs-and I mean the SAME. Grin. > > Came out of the same prop store, after all ;) I think they were literally the same. (As Gabrielle notes in A Day In The Life--"This is like every other village we've ever been in. You think someone would try something new for a change.") LOL! > > > > I always wonder if anyone noticed the propane tank under the table in > > Girls Just Wanna Have Fun on their first viewing. > I've never managed to spot it yet! > Well Thel, I know it'll be hard for you, but you're going to have to TEAR your eyes off Gabrielle. It's in the scene where she runs down to the courtyard because she hears a girl screaming and sees her being abducted. There's a long shot of Gabrielle crossing the courtyard. Look in the background and watch for a table with a torch above it. The propane tank is under the table. It's hilarious. > Ife wrote: > > > 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. > > KT: > > I think Tarzan did too. The mere fact that something is on the set means > > that a choice was made to put it there. > > By somebody. But the decision to put it there may have been very carefully > taken to convey the exact impression the director wanted; or it may just have > been that the director said 'we need a couple of tables' and someone grabbed > the nearest ones out of the prop store, with no more significance than that. Yes, BUT they had to be sure to grab the poor people's chairs, not the king's palace chairs. There IS a difference. Tear your eyes off Gab and look around. (Heh heh heh) > Just like the propane tank under the table. That sure wasn't intended to > convey something to us. :) > > It's a visual metaphor for Xena's bottled rage. Strong enough to blow up the whole damn tavern if she loses her tight grip on her on/off coupling! (Do you know that at 40 below propane liquifies and no longer makes fire?) > > > > > And I'm thinking, Xena wore red to seduce Caesar in Destiny. Then she wore > > red at his party in When In Rome. And of course she is dressed in a red > > robe by the ghosts in FIN. (I'm kind of surprised Xena the Conqueror > > didn't wear red.) The Furies wear red too, don't they? I LOVE realizing > > things like this. Like when I just recently realized that she didn't have > > her chakram in The Debt. > > Hmmm. I've noticed that in the comedies they tend to use brighter colours > than in the dramas. (OK, this *could* just be a subjective impression!! > I certainly wouldn't want to push it too far and there are exceptions.) > Bitter Suite was saturated with colors. I don't remember OH YES! Xena's skeleton dress is red! And her breast plate courtesy of Ares is red too. Is Ares in red also? > But certainly, some episodes seem to have a distinctive 'look' or even colour > to them - maybe the influence of the director's choices. Sin Trade for > example, has (at least in my memory) a predominant colour of browns. Many > Happy Returns is full of bright colours, though it could just have been that > the weather smiled on them while they were making it. And so on. > > cr > > Lot's of blue. They ALWAYS used blue. 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: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:17:26 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show > > LOL! Ife, you know, I honestly feel that if I had come out complaining > > about Fates by sobbing hysterically snip snip > > fluttering a hanky as I dab at my weeping eyes and wailing that Fugate did > > it just to torment ME), then you would be defending me against all comers. > > > > Note-I KNOW I couldn't do that with a straight face and I know even more > > fully that my buds wouldn't let me get away with it. > > Oh, KT, we all know you're a timid, sensitive, moose-like creature who needs > care and protection in the cruel world of mailing lists. :) WHAT! Who gave you a picture of me? > > cr > ... What? Oh, sorry, I meant *mouse*-like of course. > Bonnie Rideout was just up here. (Claims she's a famous fiddle player.) The guy playing the harp with her was from Scotland. And he said that someone had taken him for a ride outside town. (He's telling this story with a VERY thick Scottish accent.) "And a very odd looking creature crossed the road in front of the car. So I said to him, 'What was THAT?' And he said, 'It's a moose'." (Now the way he said it was something like, "Mewse") And he continued, "And I said to myself, 'If THAT'S a mewse, I'd hate to see the size of their cats!" 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: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:47:08 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo > > KT: > > >>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. >> Whoops! I didn't mean to say that! Art WITH AN AUDIENCE is always interactive. But art exists on it's own. Which is why I think the artist is more important because they generate the work which then, if anyone else sees it, generates a response. Which does not mean that it generates the same feeling that the artist had and was trying to convey. KT > > Well the generate is the most important part because without it there's > > nothing. >> > > > KT!!! There's imagination! There's whatever inspired our ancestors to tell > stories, draw pictures, make music, decorate themselves and their > surroundings, etc. before they'd experienced that from someone else. There's whatever is > in us that causes us to want to listen or look, applaud or want to be > different. Ife, again, that's what *I'M* saying. (After a false start in THIS post.) But it's what I was saying all along--that the artist who creates is the most important part of the equation. And yes everyday people make art in some of the most mundane tasks they do. And everyday people see "art" like in the view outside their window. Now that's an interesting question. Is an asthetic appreciation of a gorgeous landscape a response to art? Or is the awareness of the beauty of the scene an act of art itself. > > > But anyway, you gotta start with someone's creation. If not, there'd be no > > such thing as "artists". Nor those of us who critique them. >> > > Sorry, I've got to start with what was in their heads that caused them to > create what they do. I think there are countless artists living alone, who > produce for themselves, with no one ever seeing the results. I can think of many > people with mass audiences, whom I regard more as good marketers than I do as > "artists." Yes again, we're in total agreement. The artist is the most important person in creating art. Go argue with yourself for awhile. Leave me alone. Grin. Snip snip snip > > In XWP we pretty much had low class > > homes or palaces. Since there was no middle class then, there was nothing > > in between. They had "rich and powerful" and they had "poor". > Wow. Not me. I didn't think of "class" in that way and certainly not > one extreme or the other. I saw a range of folks -- some apparently > self-sufficient and/or able to buy or barter what they didn't have. > I saw loads of merchants, farmers, tradespeople, mercenaries, > officials. I saw laborers and servants, some of whom apparently > worked or lived at the whim of someone else, someone not necessarily > "rich." I didn't see that. The people whom I saw working for people who didn't work for themselves were all people working for kings, lords or warlords. The tradespeople and mercenaries were working for themselves, as I said to cr. Did Falafel own his own shop? We don't know. But he did have to sell the stuff himself. I believe that all the warlords we saw mostly had their own strongholds or big tents when they were in the fields. And they had people waiting on them when they weren't off fighting. Officials also were doing their own work. The only people I saw sitting on their butts were the "landed gentry" like Princess Diana. Who of course, had a cold butt. > I guess I mainly looked at the structures to get a sense of the > culture, whether this was a thriving village or more cosmopolitan > city, what the inhabitants did for a living. I saw a continuum, with > Gabs and Xena coming from communities that seemed more or less > prosperous/stable than others I saw, with Amphipolis and Xena's life > being a little more "sophisticated" than Poteidaia and Gabs' life. > But I didn't think of either of them being "low class." I didn't think from the show that Amphipolis was more sophisticated than poteidaia. I believe that Amphipolis was a minor coastal city but a bigger place than Poteidaia--someone at one time said that on the lists--that they were real places. I think Xena was more "sophisticated" than Gabrielle because she was older and had been living away from home for at least ten years. And lord knows, traveling the way she did is SO broadening. Also, she wasn't a virgin like Gab was so she was certainly more "experienced". Boy howdy! But I didn't see much difference between Cyrene and say Hecuba. In fact, Hecuba has somewhat fancy clothes for a hard-working farmer's wife. One who tends to "get the water alone" as Gabrielle mentions. Lower class people in the show wore "homespun" garments. "Lords and ladies" wore furs, crowns, flowing robes. And the warrior class wore leather. > > People did not usually describe Xena as a "peasant" as they did Gabs. I don't remember Gabreille being called a peasant? Besides, Xena was a warrior formerly a warlord and that's what people knew her as. It > wasn't that Cyrene's tavern was different from other taverns, but that > she had one at all. It was a meeting place where things got discussed > and Cyrene (and possibly her daughter) had a somewhat unique position > and influence. It said something to me about Cyrene's strength, > independence, savvy. The inn/tavern gave me a different impression of > Xena's background, than the more farm country I pictured Gabs coming > from. Hmmm. What I remember is the women singing as they gather hay as Xena rides into Amphipolis. Bit yeah growing up in a tavern is different than growing up on a farm. But again, Cyrene is a single working mom. She's not well off or she wouldn't be out there serving drinks to farmhands. > > Again, I thought it significant that they chose a tavern/inn for > Xena's background, as opposed to her living on a farm. It didn't > matter to me what the inn looked like, so much as imagining what Xena > might've been exposed to because of it. I certainly though of Cyrene > a little differently than Hecuba, because the former was running a > business. Maybe it's because I identify with that. > > I think that's true. But I just don't think that there isn't that much class distinction between a person who runs a farm and one who runs a tavern. Now if they had shown Cyrene sitting around while people waited on her rather than her waiting on people, that would have been different and would have indicated that Cyrene was more wealthy. Though even absentee tavern owners wouldn't be considered part of the ruling class. > > I truly believe that we eventually do take, if not all, then at > least most > > of it in. > > I think of all the times we didn't "see" something after several > viewings, until someone else pointed it out to us. In some cases, it > changed someone's idea of what they saw -- of what was "actually" > happening. Even then, some people would say it didn't matter to the > "main" story, while it might've mattered to someone else. One scene > that stands out for me is in Deliverer, when Xena and Boudica are > arguing about Gabs. I hadn't noticed the bit where Xena tosses Gabs' > staff back to Boudica, until somebody said that's why Gabs didn't have > the staff in the temple. They thought it significant (and somewhat > thoughtless) that Xena didn't bring the staff with her, so she could > give it to Gabs after the rescue. BWAAHAAHHAH! That's hilarious. That darn, inconsiderate Xena! Not sure I entirely agree with > that, but TPTB might've been trying to at least establish that Gabs > didn't have the staff when it came time to fight Dahak's folks, which > could somewhat explain her resorting to a knife. Again, I saw some > heated discussions around Xena's culpability because of the staff > thing. That's a riot. Yup, it was all Xena's fault. I remember the posts that claimed that Xena hadn't "minded" Gabrielle well enough and so it was all her fault that she fell in with bad companions. Of course many of these people were the same ones who had complained in the past that Xena didn't trust Gabrielle on her own. Grin. You know, I forgot about Boudiccea being in that one--I should watch that one again. That's a GREAT ep. I remember that I actually gasped out loud when Gabrielle knived Meridian. What an incredible moment. Luckily, it was one of the very few important bits that hadn't leaked out on the lists. Unlike Gabrielle's presence in the Debt which was broken on the Xenaverse list by someone putting in the subject line of a post, "How did Gabrielle beat Xena to Chin?" Hisssssssssssss. > > I always wonder if anyone noticed the propane tank under the table in > > Girls Just Wanna Have Fun on their first viewing. >> > > Oooo, under what table? I sure never noticed. Good lord grrl! No wonder you have so little respect for "objective" reality--you gotta LOOK at the screen, Ife! See what's there! It's fun! It REALLY helps you to understand what's going on. (GRIN) > > And we all saw the exact same physical appearance. There's no arguing that > > for example, Xena is a brunette and Gabrielle is a blond with sometimes > > red highlights. > > >From my understanding, that was partly to make Lucy look different > from other characters she'd played in Herc. I've heard Lucy talk > about wanting to look like the tennis player Gabriella (?) Sabatini, > in terms of a "warrior" image, but I can't recall them initially > thinking about highlighting the contrast between X&G beyond > superficial "look." Originally, they were going to make Xena blond. But Lucy objected to bleaching her hair. And as you say, she did think Sabatini was a good visual model. And it's true in our culture (as a brunette once pointed out to me) that the good girls are usually blond but the bad girls are dark-haired. I think that's true 50% of the time. What do you think? Did Tapert control what people > thought of Gabs as a semi-redhead vs. when she became blond? Some > people saw her as clueless before she became a blond, while others saw > her character as somehow changing (or reinforced) when she did become > a blond. But people did notice the change. And that change precipitated a discussion on WHY the change occurred. It wasn't something I worried about very much. Other than thinking it was silly since Renee's eyebrows weren't bleached to match. I wonder if Lucy dyed her eyebrows of if they just pencilled them dark. About four years ago I suddenly realized how strange Lucy must look nude--because I doubt she dyed her crotch. Of course, anyone who dyes their head generally wouldn't dye their crotch. Just shows I don't know a lot of people who dye their hair. At least not intimately. > > Nope, I was distinguishing between a "house" and a "home." The latter can be > just about anywhere someone feels welcome. I called Cyrene's > place/Amphipolis "home" because that's what Xena called it. It suggested a place where she > had roots and some good memories, which was all the more poignant because of > her initial reception and choice to live on the road. IOW, she gave up > something to wander around, as opposed to not having anywhere to go. Well, I guess she COULD have sat around the tavern hoping that someone needing somebody to fight for the Greater Good would come wandering in. But yeah, I agree. She definitely chose a simple life with very few material comforts and I think that was part of her atonement. > > > > Uh-that's what *I* said, how I interpreted that. That when she was > > "naughty", she used to live luxuriously compared to how she lives now. > > That was exactly my point. >> > > > LOL! Yes, I was agreeing with you. However, I arrived at that based on Evil > Xena's luxuries, not simply becase Reformed Xena traveled lightly. I don't see much difference in stating it that way. When Xena was Evil Xena she was part of the warlord set and so for the first time in her life was able to have luxuries. And was therefore no longer part of the poor class. But she went back to the poor class when she left all that behind. EXCEPT she kept her weapons and she kept Argo. > > > << But > > what's wrong with using the word "spartan" in its accepted usage to > > describe a minimal life style? I'm not using it as a pejorative, just as > > an adjective. << > > > Not a thing. I didn't take it as pejorative. I just think it's more > interpretive than listing the things she traveled with. I'm saying it's very > difficult to use adjectives, descriptions, etc. of "immutable facts," without also > making a judgment of some kind, based on one's own knowledge or experience > (assuming it's not stated in the show). I see what you're saying. But all it means was that she had a simple life style. Would saying it that way be more acceptable to you? Because we don't usually list things people own to state what their life style is. Unless we are trying to prove that they have a simple or a luxurious life style which can be done by describing what they have. > > > > Yep. Once you start talking about what the things there mean, that goes > > beyond the immutable fact that they're there. But first they gotta be > > there. >> > > > Agreed, as long as the "immutable fact" is what people are actually > discussing. Usually they aren't. They're talking about the > interpretation as if it were the "immutable fact." It's not just > "Gabs picked up the sword." It's "Gabs picked up the sword eagerly," > or "Gabs picked up the sword when she didn't need to," or "Gabs picked > up the sword because she thought she had to," or "What made Gabs think > she could handle a sword?" It'll be an "immutable fact" to them that > Gabs looked tentative or silly or whatever, because that's what the > person "saw," just like they "saw" her pick up the sword itself. You're right. Assigning a motive is interpretation. And I KNEW "Immutable" would get to you. Grin. > > Yes, at least they can rewatch that image and point to why that's what "is," > which I believe is the main point you're making. At least we have some > semblance of a common starting point. My point (jeez, lots of "points" in here) is > that we so quickly draw conclusions (based on what we bring to, say, seeing > early Gabs picking up a sword), that we automatically dismiss or give > significance to what is "really" or "actually" being shown. And we'll argue about the > factualness of that until the cows come home. Moooooo. > > -- Ife Why are you mooing? What's your motive? (Or moooootive, as the case may be...) 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: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:39:53 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OAAA On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 sgitzou@periaktoi.gr wrote: > > And as she says, "He's coming for us" she's looking off to the side in a > > close-up, with a real serious and fearless look on her face. And hokey as > > that line is, she never even breaks a smile. > > > > KT > > You have to scare your own self if you want to avoid laughing. When you get > so much energy to avoid laughing in a difficult line only two things can > happen later... > > Sophia Hooo-hoooo! So THAT'S where all Xena's sexual energy came from, eh? It was those lousy line the writer's gave her! Then perhaps that was a deliberate choice on the part of the writer. "Hmmmmmm. Think I'll give Xena a sucky line to say. Then I'll write a scene that shows her flirting with the latest adversary-no WAIT! I'll write a flashback so we can see her FORNICATING with various people so Lucy can get rid of the inherent tension of having to keep a tight hold on her hysteria. Yeah, that'll work! ....Again." Uh...that WAS one of the choices, exploding into sexual release, yes? And fighting, right? Fighting. I knew that. 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: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:43:43 +0000 From: Liz Subject: [chakram-refugees] The full horror of season five starts again Here in the UK, XWP is playing on the Bravo cable channel - best of all it plays 3 times a day, 4 days a week. Heavan you might think? Alas we have just dived into the trash that is seasaon 5, post Them Bones. What pearls, if any, should I endeavour to catch? Or should I just hunker down and wait for season 6? I may actually try to watch Married with Fishsticks.... perhaps with chemically altered neural patterns? Perhaps Antony and Cleopatra? Amphipolis Under Seige? That's not much worth salvaging from a whole season...... aaarrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Liz ========================================================= 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, 19 Dec 2003 14:32:22 -0600 From: "S. Wilson" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The full horror of season five starts again Full horror, indeed. :> Weeell, I'm partial to Fallen Angel, Chakram, Looking Death in the Eye and Motherhood. To a lesser extent, I like Amphipolis Under Siege, followed by the "Lolita scene" in Fishguts (the rest of the fish goes to the trash), Kindred Spirits, and Eternal Bonds. Out of the first 4, I think Fallen Angel and Motherhood are tops and should be in a Best-Of for the whole show. Didn't care for most of the rest. Didn't Tapert himself say something about wishing Purity or something was never done? Or was I smoking crack that day? So you might keep an eye out for those. S. At 07:43 PM 12/19/2003 +0000, Liz wrote: >Here in the UK, XWP is playing on the Bravo cable channel - best of all it >plays 3 times a day, 4 days a week. Heavan you might think? Alas we have >just dived into the trash that is seasaon 5, post Them Bones. > >What pearls, if any, should I endeavour to catch? Or should I just hunker >down and wait for season 6? > >I may actually try to watch Married with Fishsticks.... perhaps with >chemically altered neural patterns? > >Perhaps Antony and Cleopatra? Amphipolis Under Seige? > >That's not much worth salvaging from a whole season...... >aaarrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! > >Liz ========================================================= 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, 19 Dec 2003 21:51:44 +0000 From: Liz Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The full horror of season five starts again Certainly Fallen Angel is rather thrilling. Chakram is one of my all-times faves. Motherhood - well I can really take or leave the whole mother-eve storyline. And even the twilight theme was a bit studied. At 14:32 19/12/2003 -0600, S. Wilson wrote: >Full horror, indeed. :> Weeell, I'm partial to Fallen Angel, Chakram, >Looking Death in the Eye and Motherhood. To a lesser extent, I like >Amphipolis Under Siege, followed by the "Lolita scene" in Fishguts (the >rest of the fish goes to the trash), Kindred Spirits, and Eternal Bonds. >Out of the first 4, I think Fallen Angel and Motherhood are tops and >should be in a Best-Of for the whole show. Didn't care for most of the >rest. Didn't Tapert himself say something about wishing Purity or >something was never done? Or was I smoking crack that day? > >So you might keep an eye out for those. > >S. > >At 07:43 PM 12/19/2003 +0000, Liz wrote: >>Here in the UK, XWP is playing on the Bravo cable channel - best of all >>it plays 3 times a day, 4 days a week. Heavan you might think? Alas we >>have just dived into the trash that is seasaon 5, post Them Bones. >> >>What pearls, if any, should I endeavour to catch? Or should I just hunker >>down and wait for season 6? >> >>I may actually try to watch Married with Fishsticks.... perhaps with >>chemically altered neural patterns? >> >>Perhaps Antony and Cleopatra? Amphipolis Under Seige? >> >>That's not much worth salvaging from a whole season...... >>aaarrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! >> >>Liz ========================================================= 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, 19 Dec 2003 19:59:46 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo In a message dated 12/19/2003 5:50:23 AM Central Standard Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > >>KT: > >>>>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. >> > > > > Whoops! I didn't mean to say that! Art WITH AN AUDIENCE is always > interactive. But art exists on it's own. Which is why I think the artist > is more important because they generate the work which then, if anyone > else sees it, generates a response. Which does not mean that it generates > the same feeling that the artist had and was trying to convey.>> Whew! I'm with you now. > > > KT > >>Well the generate is the most important part because without it there's > >>nothing. >> > > > > > >KT!!! There's imagination! There's whatever inspired our ancestors to > tell > >stories, draw pictures, make music, decorate themselves and their > >surroundings, etc. before they'd experienced that from someone else. > There's whatever is > >in us that causes us to want to listen or look, applaud or want to be > >different. > > > > Ife, again, that's what *I'M* saying. (After a false start in THIS post.) > But it's what I was saying all along--that the artist who creates is the > most important part of the equation. > > And yes everyday people make art in some of the most mundane tasks they > do. And everyday people see "art" like in the view outside their window. > Now that's an interesting question. Is an asthetic appreciation of a > gorgeous landscape a response to art? Or is the awareness of the beauty of > the scene an act of art itself. >> Yes! You're helping me get at what's been at the back of my mind. I think I'm saying that we're all artists, in the sense of sometimes using the original to create something unique to us. Whether we think of trees as "art" or not, we can see it as that, whether we try to reproduce our vision through words, visuals, music, dance, etc. I'm not discounting artists whose own vision stirs new concepts or feelings in us. I love how the entirety of XWP (e.g., visuals, music) provoked such a range of responses in us. I love the "production" itself and would never deny that it stands as an "immutable fact" on its own. I'm simply saying that it's what *we* create and take away from it that gives the shades of meaning we argue about, which is based to a large extent to the experiences, biases, openness, etc. (the "lens") through which we view the art. Our discussion is about the *interaction* that took place between us and the work, because none of us can possibly convey exactly what we saw, without interjecting some of ourselves into the communication. > > > > >But anyway, you gotta start with someone's creation. If not, there'd be > no > >>such thing as "artists". Nor those of us who critique them. >> > > > >Sorry, I've got to start with what was in their heads that caused them to > >create what they do. I think there are countless artists living alone, who > >produce for themselves, with no one ever seeing the results. I can think > of many > >people with mass audiences, whom I regard more as good marketers than I do > as > >"artists." > > > Yes again, we're in total agreement. The artist is the most important > person in creating art. Go argue with yourself for awhile. Leave me > alone. Grin.>> LOL! Why does one have to be more important than the other? If we're talking about communication/interaction, you need both artist and viewer. I emphasized the latter only because of the context of this forum, where I think it's dangerous to think our view is somehow capturing the totality ("true meaning) of any image or artist's intent. Sorry, but arguing with myself hurts my brain a lot more than arguing with you. Go figure. > > >>In XWP we pretty much had low class > >>homes or palaces. Since there was no middle class then, there was nothing > >>in between. They had "rich and powerful" and they had "poor". > > > >Wow. Not me. I didn't think of "class" in that way and certainly not > >one extreme or the other. I saw a range of folks -- some apparently > >self-sufficient and/or able to buy or barter what they didn't have. > >I saw loads of merchants, farmers, tradespeople, mercenaries, > >officials. I saw laborers and servants, some of whom apparently > >worked or lived at the whim of someone else, someone not necessarily > >"rich." > > > I didn't see that. The people whom I saw working for people who didn't > work for themselves were all people working for kings, lords or warlords. > The tradespeople and mercenaries were working for themselves, as I said to > cr. >> Okay, perhaps I imagined barmaids or helpers in some of the stores (e.g., in Animal Attraction). Still, you didn't see the tradespeople or merchants as in the "middle," between those working for others and the power folks? > > Officials also were doing their own work. >> You mean the judges, council folks, etc.? They were like public servents, working for their community, not themselves or a power person. Same for some of the religious/cult folks, who called themselves working for "higher" authorities. I guess I saw a richer diversity, more of a continuum, rather than two extremes. > > >I guess I mainly looked at the structures to get a sense of the > >culture, whether this was a thriving village or more cosmopolitan > >city, what the inhabitants did for a living. I saw a continuum, with > >Gabs and Xena coming from communities that seemed more or less > >prosperous/stable than others I saw, with Amphipolis and Xena's life > >being a little more "sophisticated" than Poteidaia and Gabs' life. > >But I didn't think of either of them being "low class." > > > I didn't think from the show that Amphipolis was more sophisticated than > poteidaia. I believe that Amphipolis was a minor coastal city but a bigger > place than Poteidaia--someone at one time said that on the lists--that > they were real places. >> Well, back to my point -- we both got something very different from the same scenes of people, dress, buildings, etc. > > > > >People did not usually describe Xena as a "peasant" as they did Gabs. > > > I don't remember Gabreille being called a peasant? Besides, Xena was a > warrior formerly a warlord and that's what people knew her as. >> Except in Remember Nothing. Wonder how she'd be described by townfolk then. "Cyrene's daughter" or "Mathias' betrothed"? Heh. > > >Again, I thought it significant that they chose a tavern/inn for > >Xena's background, as opposed to her living on a farm. It didn't > >matter to me what the inn looked like, so much as imagining what Xena > >might've been exposed to because of it. I certainly though of Cyrene > >a little differently than Hecuba, because the former was running a > >business. Maybe it's because I identify with that. > > > > > > I think that's true. But I just don't think that there isn't that much > class distinction between a person who runs a farm and one who runs a > tavern. Now if they had shown Cyrene sitting around while people waited on > her rather than her waiting on people, that would have been different and > would have indicated that Cyrene was more wealthy. Though even absentee > tavern owners wouldn't be considered part of the ruling class. >> Again, I wasn't looking at this through the lens of "class." I was trying to get an idea of what Xena might've been exposed to growing up. In SOP, Cyrene had the authority to throw out anybody she wanted from her place (which was public, not like a house), without necessarily resorting to mob action. When she said whom and what was welcome there, she wasn't just speaking as Xena's mother, but as the proprietor. To me, that put her in a different position than the others, regardless of whether she was Xena's mother. But it made it doubly influential (and poignant) that she was. > > >>I always wonder if anyone noticed the propane tank under the table in > >>Girls Just Wanna Have Fun on their first viewing. >> > > > >Oooo, under what table? I sure never noticed. > > > Good lord grrl! No wonder you have so little respect for "objective" > reality--you gotta LOOK at the screen, Ife! See what's there! It's fun! > It REALLY helps you to understand what's going on. (GRIN) >> Yeah, yeah. You still didn't tell me where to find it. How do I know you're not making it up? If it didn't pop out to cr (Mr. Objective Reality), maybe it's not there. Heh. > Originally, they were going to make Xena blond. But Lucy objected to > bleaching her hair. And as you say, she did think Sabatini was a good > visual model. And it's true in our culture (as a brunette once pointed out > to me) that the good girls are usually blond but the bad girls are > dark-haired. I think that's true 50% of the time. What do you think? >> Um, hair color isn't one of the physical aspects I've given more than passing thought to. Or want to. I'll go with whatever you come up with. > > > Did Tapert control what people > >thought of Gabs as a semi-redhead vs. when she became blond? Some > >people saw her as clueless before she became a blond, while others saw > >her character as somehow changing (or reinforced) when she did become > >a blond. > > > But people did notice the change. And that change precipitated a > discussion on WHY the change occurred. It wasn't something I worried about > very much. Other than thinking it was silly since Renee's eyebrows weren't > bleached to match. I wonder if Lucy dyed her eyebrows of if they just > pencilled them dark. About four years ago I suddenly realized how strange > Lucy must look nude--because I doubt she dyed her crotch. Of course, > anyone who dyes their head generally wouldn't dye their crotch. Just shows > I don't know a lot of people who dye their hair. At least not intimately. >> Okay, that's waaaay more attention to the subject than I'm prepared to give. Jeez, Louise. > >LOL! Yes, I was agreeing with you. However, I arrived at that based on > Evil > >Xena's luxuries, not simply becase Reformed Xena traveled lightly. > > > I don't see much difference in stating it that way. >> As I said earlier, I didn't see much difference between how Xena traveled and others I saw on the road (which you disagree with). I did see a difference compared to the costumes, tents, servants, etc. she traveled with as Evil Xena. > >>< >>what's wrong with using the word "spartan" in its accepted usage to > >>describe a minimal life style? I'm not using it as a pejorative, just as > >>an adjective. << > > > > > >Not a thing. I didn't take it as pejorative. I just think it's more > >interpretive than listing the things she traveled with. I'm saying it's > very > >difficult to use adjectives, descriptions, etc. of "immutable facts," > without also > >making a judgment of some kind, based on one's own knowledge or experience > >(assuming it's not stated in the show). > > > > I see what you're saying. But all it means was that she had a simple life > style. Would saying it that way be more acceptable to you? Because we > don't usually list things people own to state what their life style is. > Unless we are trying to prove that they have a simple or a luxurious life > style which can be done by describing what they have. >> It's not about what's "acceptable" to me. I have no problem at all with people using descriptors, as long as they understand it might not mean the same to everyone. I also believe people do list things when they're not trying to prove anything one way or the other. "What did she have?" One person might say. "Nothing." Another might say, "More than most" or "The usual." Another might say, "A horse, saddle, saddle bags, and weapons," which leaves it more up to the listener to answer the question for herself. Even then, the last person might not have thought it important to add, "and a companion." > >> > >>Yep. Once you start talking about what the things there mean, that goes > >>beyond the immutable fact that they're there. But first they gotta be > >>there. >> > > > > > >Agreed, as long as the "immutable fact" is what people are actually > >discussing. Usually they aren't. They're talking about the > >interpretation as if it were the "immutable fact." It's not just > >"Gabs picked up the sword." It's "Gabs picked up the sword eagerly," > >or "Gabs picked up the sword when she didn't need to," or "Gabs picked > >up the sword because she thought she had to," or "What made Gabs think > >she could handle a sword?" It'll be an "immutable fact" to them that > >Gabs looked tentative or silly or whatever, because that's what the > >person "saw," just like they "saw" her pick up the sword itself. > > > You're right. Assigning a motive is interpretation. And I KNEW "Immutable" > would get to you. Grin. >> Yep, I do tend to wear that hot button on my sleeve. > >Yes, at least they can rewatch that image and point to why that's what > "is," > >which I believe is the main point you're making. At least we have some > >semblance of a common starting point. My point (jeez, lots of "points" in > here) is > >that we so quickly draw conclusions (based on what we bring to, say, seeing > >early Gabs picking up a sword), that we automatically dismiss or give > >significance to what is "really" or "actually" being shown. And we'll > argue about the > >factualness of that until the cows come home. Moooooo. > > > >-- Ife > > > Why are you mooing? What's your motive? (Or moooootive, as the case may > be...) > I perferred that to "oink." I don't think cows "oink" anyway. Mooooo. - -- 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 #380 **************************************