From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #125 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Tuesday, May 4 2004 Volume 04 : Number 125 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Josie - A Bitter Song ["abqbeach" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Lucy Lawless: Charity Champion ["mirrordrum" >I'm not understanding why you think she should've spent time on some other > >action, when the most likely answer was right in front of her. It seems > >you believe protecting her image should've been more important to Xena than > >achieving her larger goal. "Me beat up Caesar. That the only thing me > >care about." Sorry, but "my" Xena was more strategic (smarter) than that. > > What's this 'protecting her image' business? Since when did I mention > *anything* about that? That's idiotic. >> Image: Concern for appearing weak to self or others. "Me tough broad. Me show toughness by beating people up. Not beating people up is sign of weakness." Reason: Identifying and weighing options in light of one's capacity and the circumstances. "I don't have to prove I'm tough, certainly not in the fighting area. If the situation calls for something other than fighting, I'll do it without concern for appearing to be weak to myself or other people." Perhaps you have some other reason for saying Xena "would never" submit to Caesar? > > You think it was 'smart' for Xena to meekly allow Caesar to crucify her? > The one thing that was sure to achieve was Xena Dead, Caesar Alive. > Geez, my worst enemy should be 'smart' like that >> You don't accept the premise of Fates, which means you don't accept that the ending establishes Xena was "smart" or right. I choose to go along with the premise, which means the ending was proof that Xena's decision was smart. I'm quite content to leave our differing conclusions at that. > > (She had no way of knowing Alti was going to off Caesar. And while I'm at > it, why in Tartarus did Alti do that? That was utterly illogical, there > was no conceivable reason why she would do that.) >> Again, it only makes sense if you accept what you saw and the premise it was based on. Xena's crucifixion in Destiny ultimately contributed to Caesar's assassination by a close ally. For dramatic purposes, it happens more quickly in Fates. In Tony&Cleo we learn that Brutus has political aspirations. Although I don't remember this, Fugate points out that Caesar publicly says that Alti is now his woman, presumably next in line if anything happens to him. So offing Brutus doesn't stop Caesar from being offed by another supposed ally. > >She was willing to surrender to that same daughter, rather than fight > back, > >when she was about to let Eve skewer her. She surrendered to those folks in > >Reckoning and Locked Up. She surrendered to Devil Callisto in Fallen > >Angel. She was willing to surrender to death in Sins, to join Gabrielle. > > In each case she had a very good reason. She had absolutely _no_ reason > (IMO) to let Caesar walk all over her in WFC. >> Premise again. "Good reason" depends upon accepting the premise and what we saw. E.g., maybe she had a good reason to save her daughter, but what "good reason" did she have to think that praying to Eli would keep Eve from killing her? Faith in Eli's preachings? Maybe she had a good reason to want to pay for past crimes in Locked Up, but what "good reason" did she have to think she wouldn't be condemned to death? Her extraordinary good luck? In Fates, she had a good reason to repudiate the world Caesar created. The visions gave her a good reason to *believe* it would be by getting on that cross. For me, belief in one's instincts isn't a better or worse "good reason" to do something than faith or luck or any other way we decide to leap into the unknown. > > >I submit she essentially surrendered to Lord Morimoto (?) in AFIN. > > Absolutely not. She took out as much of his army as she possibly could. > But look at the contrast with WFC - in FIN, she needed to get dead. But > she > didn't quietly off herself, she chose to go down fighting. >> I already said her mission in AFIN was different -- that it made a difference that she lived to decimate Lord M's army. After that, she needed someone to kill her. Lord M was the last one in line at that point. She'd just managed to kill off who knows how many soldiers, despite mortal wounds. In some other ep, she might well have killed Lord M anyway. In this ep, he strikes the fatal blow. It's unclear as to whether she was too dazed to kill him or whether she let him kill her . Either way, she'd knowingly gone into the situation with the intent of not letting herself die until the right moment. To me, that's a form of "surrender" in contrast to the other situations when she didn't go into battle with the *intent* (vs. the possibility or even probability) of dying. Admittedly, I probably wouldn't use "surrender" if it was anyone other than Xena. However, the show pretty much established that she controlled her own life and death. We saw her almost die from a freak mishap in Destiny. (I still snort when I see her running from, rather than ducking, that log.) We saw her rendered helpless in another freak situation (when Cally "cheats" in Ides), which leads to her death. Other than those "freak" scenarios, I can't recall a time when Xena succumbed to someone else unless she chose to. I assumed *she* had a good reason, whether I agreed with it or not. If the ep showed her as successful, then I assumed she was "right" and that her reasoning was good whether I understood or agreed with it. Again, what I saw and what I might've wanted to see are separate issues to me. I didn't want to see no more crosses. Xena didn't want to see no more crosses. I saw her decide it was "right" to accept the cross. I saw her defeat Caesar as a result, with the added benefit of being able to ride off with Gabs back in her "real" world. I still don't like crosses or that she had to accept them, but my conclusion is that she made the right decision for *her.* > What I'm saying is, I don't swallow Fugate's argument that the crucifixion > > was obviously (to Xena) the really important thing. I can't see it. >> That's because Fugate doesn't say that. Am I speaking Martian again? > > Caesar set up that world when he messed with the loom>> Yes. Caesar decided that the crucifixion was an important moment in *his* life. (did Xena know he > > messed with the loom? I can't recall). >> Yes. Don't ask me how either she or Alti got that info, but Xena does see a vision of Caesar taking out that particular thread and deciding it's the "defining moment." You won't hear any argument from me if you say that was way too improbable and convenient. I would also agree that it's used to justify sticking Xena up on a cross again. Regardless of how I feel about that, I do believe it established why Xena had "good reason" to believe letting Caesar crucify her was the best way out of the conundrum. > >> Hmmm... in practical terms, I'd define 'exploitative' as putting in a > >>scene > >>or showing a scene in a particular way, 'just for effect'. IMO, if the > >>scene or theme is an integral part of the story, it's not really > >>'exploitative'. And in many ways, it's not *what* you do, it's *how* > >>you do it, that affects how 'exploitative' it is. It's not just > >>*whether* you have scantily-clad Amazons, for example, but how you shoot > >>them, that defines > >>how 'exploitative' that factor is. >> > > > > I'm not even going to ask you to 'splain that. I might snort, which isn't > >conducive to a respectful discussion. > > I would have thought it was obvious.>> Obviously. Contrast one brief long shot of > > scantily-clad Amazons dancing round their campfire, vs three minutes of > slow-motion close-ups of same.... would you reckon Version Two was no more > > 'exploitative' than Version One? >> Does scenario one exclude aspects like quick scans up their bodies, a slight lingering on breasts and navels or sensuous gyrations -- all of which I saw occur in a few blinks of the eye? I'm assuming where talking "long" shots close enough to surmise they were women (as opposed to the male stunties who posed as women during some action scenes). And of course we all know that the presumed women we saw were most likely representative of dancing Amazons, who naturally come in the shape/age/appearance presumed most likely to exploit -- oops, sorry -- I meant *appeal* to a particular audience's ... um ... aesthetic sensibilities and desire for ... um ... "realism" in their Amazons. Hmmm, I do like nuances, but I fear they ain't "obvious" to me in terms of the Amazons' exploitation quotient. Now should we drop this? Maybe chalk it up to another example of differing premises? > Put it this way - if the first episode (The Debt) was a big production and > an > amazing artistic achievement (which most agree), and the sequel (Purity > / > BITB) was a very average episode i.e. not up to the standard of the original > > (which most agree), then they're 'cashing in'. Just as Family Affair was > cashing in on Sacrifice, IMO, or Them Bones on Sin Trade. There's several > other eps of which the same could be said. Vanishing Act was mostly just > Royal Couple of Thieves, revised, for example. > > OTOH, if the sequel is as good or as dramatic as its precursor then I don't > think that charge of 'cashing in' applies. For example, The Debt was > building on a storyline begun in Destiny, Maternal Instincts was building > on Gabs' Hope and Orphan of War, and Sacrifice was building on MI and the > previous Callisto eps.... but I don't think 'cashing in' applies in any of > > those cases. > > Does that clarify it? >> Well, it seems that you see some eps as definitely derivative of othere eps. The ones you assess as "good" aren't "cash ins." The eps you assess as not so good are "cash ins." The latter are more "exploitative" to you because they don't exhibit a purpose, standard or plot in their own right, but "live off" the quality (existence) of their predecessors. Yes? If so, that makes sense to me. > I don't mean the Romans stuck a pin in the interesting-ways-to-kill-people > wallchart>> Okay. Yes, I agree the cross has religious signficance because it was used in that situation. > >I suspect what they thought they could get away with at the time was a > >factor. As I said, I don't make distinctions between degrees of > >crucifixions, but you are explaining how you do. > > It's *how* it's portrayed that plays a large part in its shock value. I > can illustrate better if I digress for a moment.... > > This is why Sam Peckinpah Westerns were notorious for their > bloodthirstiness > - it wasn't that he killed more people, but that he dwelt on the bullets > hitting people, blood spurting out, yadda yadda... > > Or, to take the opposite, the James Bond film 'Goldeneye' that I was > watching > the directors' commentary of a couple of days ago. They had some > interesting comments to make on the subject of how they showed violence - > they blew lots of things up and James Bond shot (or shot at) quite a lot of > people in the course of escaping the KGB, blowing up the villain's command > centre, etc - but they noted they never showed any blood, just stunt men > falling off things and crashing through windows etc. It gives an entirely > different tone to the film. >> I think my hesitation about this is that I'm getting some implications, which I might be misunderstanding, of course. Are you saying there's some "standard" for "shock value" which has some predictability, that we can generally agree on? That how they're shot determines the exploitation quotient, perhaps moreso that the subject matter or purpose? > >No "shock value" to seeing Xena hanging there like that? Impotent and > >defeated? Mind you, I think it accomplished -- quite visibly for all the > >world to see -- what crucifixions are supposed to. I'm surprised you don't > >think it had "shock value" regardless of religious aspects. > > It did have an inherent shock value, yes. But TPTB were content to let it > > stand by itself so to speak. They could easily have increased the shock - > e.g. by putting in lots of gory details - but they didn't. The scene was > very short - cut to Xena on a cross, 'Break her legs', soldier swings > hammer, > Xena screams - cut. Given the plot point that Xena got crucified, they > could hardly have made it any less melodramatic unless they did it > offscreen. >> Whew! Okay, I'm with you there. > > > >> The next occasion - Ides. That was foreshadowed right through Season 4 > >>in > >>'the Vision'. It was a dramatic device, I think it escapes the > >>'exploitative' charge because, whenever it cropped up, it was subtly > >>edited to emphasise some aspect of it that suited the episode and the > >>circumstances > >>of its appearance. In other words it was woven into the plot in such a > >>way > >>as to make it an essential part of the story. So, not exploitative IMO. > >>>> > > > >But why? Why did Xena's tie to Caesar have to be on the cross? Why not > >some battle where they fought a duel? Why not some situation where one of > >them outmanuevered the other to gain key territory? Why did they add all > >the obvious religious (and heavily Christian) references? > > What religious / Christian references? In Season 4? Oh yeah, Eli. Yeah > I > agree, Eli was exploitative and shoulda been omitted entirely. But he > didn't get crucified and he wasn't party to the Vision, so I don't see the > connection. >> I initially thought you were talking about repeating certain themes/plots as being inherently exploitative. I think I understand now why the crosses in Destiny and Ides were appropriate for you, because you saw their use in those eps as integral to the story (i.e., not "cashing in"). In terms of Eli, I saw him as representing religious themes surrounding the cross. If you don't see that connection, then that answers my question. > > [Just personally, in fact, I have to thank TPTB. I had a lingering > queasiness about crucifixions (quite unrelated to their inherent nastiness) > which was undoubtedly a subconscious hangover from Sunday School. Even > several viewings of Monty Python's Life of Brian didn't make it go away. > But watching XWP cured me of it.] >> Shhhh. You trying to get all things Xena banned? We'll keep that little admission between us on the list> > > >>The actual crucifixion - did they over-dramatise it? I don't think so. > >>In > >>fact they 'softened' it, if anything, by inter-cutting with Caesar > >>getting his, and without that it might have been too intense for anyone > >>to watch. So, again not exploitative. >> > > > >More blood and violence to "soften" the blood and violence. Interesting > >theory. Less "shock value"? I'm not feelin' it, but okay. > > Just think for a moment. Imagine that scene with the 'Caesar' bits edited > out, so all you have is Gabs and Xena being crucified, uninterrupted. I > think that might have been just too intense for many people (including me) > to > watch. Intercutting with *anything* diluted the intensity. Caesar > getting stabbed was a less 'painful' scene than the crucifixion. And in > fact, they didn't show that particularly graphically - the togas hid most of > > the action.>> Sorry, I was watching that with friends who had the opposite reaction. They felt close to "overload" -- not just from one scene of violence, but a second one with multiple instances of violence (Caesar being stabbed repeatedly). Their emotions were intensified with anger that X&G's sacrifice and "moment" got diluted with what they saw as pointless scenes of political violence which could've been shown separately. (Please note that I said "pointless" to them. I do understand why it was "pointless" for the show or to you or me.) There's no question TPTB tried to accomplish a lot in those moments. Perhaps for some it diluted -- even numbed. I personally felt a lot like my friends upon first viewing, even though I tend to be more analytical and was far more familiar with the show than my friends. I didn't even have to see the actual nails pounded in, to feel the emotions of knowing what was about to happen. Once it began, I was annoyed by having to watch stupid Caesar, but it didn't lessen the intensity of what I felt about what was going on with X&G. (My imagination supplied what I didn't see.) Later on, with some distance, I could appreciate how TPTB tied things together, in terms of the vision, Xena's history with Caesar, etc.. But that will always be one of the most violent, disturbing, painful (and questionable) images I have of the series. I understand that XWP is an action show. I understand that the "love" aspect was unique (even unexpected) in many ways. I understand that, in such a scenario, love and violence might accompany each other in ways I don't like. Having them blended in the X&G crucifixion scenes was bad enough. Overlaying them with scenes of pure violence may have diluted the "love" represented in X&G's sacrifice, but it didn't dilute for me the violence associated with it. > >>Oh yeah, "I love you Gabrielle" (cringe). Subtext too. Everything > >>_including_ the kitchen sink. ;) >> > > > >We had that in Ides too. > > I knew you'd say that :) But there was a good reason for it in Ides. >> We weren't talking about "good reason." We were talking about having everything including the kitchen sink, regardless of whether we thought it should be there or not. > << I always found the Amazons - or the scantily-clad dancers - > more a distraction than an attraction. >> Grrrrr, now I'm back to those brief, distance shots you mentioned above as being less exploitative because of how they were shot. I'm thinking, "Okay, he barely noticed the SCD (scantily-clad dancers) -- sort of like interesting pieces of scenery." Now you're saying they were a distraction, which suggests you paid some attention to them whether you wanted to or not. Are you saying they weren't worth looking at in those scenes, that you were distracted for other reasons (e.g., they were unnecessary, out of place, dressed "wrong")? - -- 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, 2 May 2004 22:51:09 -0600 From: "abqbeach" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Josie - A Bitter Song > Has anyone else here seen Lucy's debut "A Bitter Song"? She plays Nurse1. > I'd seen it a long time ago and have an awful copy on tape somewhere, but I > recently bought the DVD for it (it comes with "Peach" as well). So, I'm > watching the credits and I'm surprised to see JOSIE RYAN (Lucy's little > sister) played Nurse2. Well...hmmmmm. There's two other nurses in the movie. > I'm guessing that Nurse2 is NOT the one serving food (as she has no lines), > but must be the head nurse with the red stripes on her shoulder. The thing > is, that woman looks much older than Lucy. I, unfortunatly, have only ever > seen ONE picture of Josie, and I don't have it to compare. Anyone have a > shot of Josie? Katherine Fugate has a couple pictures of Josie Ryan on her site from the 2002 con - http://www.katherinefugate.com/kathworld/xena/pasadena/pasadena_a.htm I'd guess Josie must be the silent food serving nurse, although neither nurse looks very much like these more recent pictures. angie in NM http://xenawp.org ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 19:03:09 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:32, KTL wrote: > > This really seems to me to be a graphic allusion to Xena's internal > landscape. A presentation of her feelings about her life and her soul. > Blasts of guilt, regret, anger with herself and the choices she made, some > twinges of despair and probably a wish that none of it had ever happened, > all these things are swirling around in that erupting background. This is > a place where she's assessing her life and making a decision on whether to > go on or not. How she acted in the past is a major part of that decision, > as we see when she brings up how evil she's been to M'Lila. Heck, how > else would Xena's holding ground appear? It's perfect for her, it's Xena's > unique holding ground. > I thought it was some sort of volcano 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: Mon, 3 May 2004 20:56:55 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again On Sun, 02 May 2004 14:14, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > Image: Concern for appearing weak to self or others. "Me tough broad. Me > show toughness by beating people up. Not beating people up is sign of > weakness." Reason: Identifying and weighing options in light of one's > capacity and the circumstances. "I don't have to prove I'm tough, > certainly not in the fighting area. If the situation calls for something > other than fighting, I'll do it without concern for appearing to be weak to > myself or other people." Perhaps you have some other reason for saying Xena > "would never" submit to Caesar? I most certainly have. What does Xena care what other people think? She would never submit to Caesar simply because she's Xena. > Again, it only makes sense if you accept what you saw and the premise it > was based on. Xena's crucifixion in Destiny ultimately contributed to > Caesar's assassination by a close ally. For dramatic purposes, it happens > more quickly in Fates. In Tony&Cleo we learn that Brutus has political > aspirations. Although I don't remember this, Fugate points out that Caesar > publicly says that Alti is now his woman, presumably next in line if > anything happens to him. So offing Brutus doesn't stop Caesar from being > offed by another supposed ally. And what would that gain Alti? 'Presumably' next in line? Hardly very likely that anybody would accept a female priestess as the next ruler, even if she *wasn't* the last person to be seen with Caesar alive and hence No 1 suspect. Alti wasn't stupid, she'd know all that. Xena, now, might have stood a chance of succeeding Caesar, if she had the army behind her. (I'm not suggesting she wanted to, just that she probably could have). (Huge snippage) > Yes. Don't ask me how either she or Alti got that info, but Xena does see > a vision of Caesar taking out that particular thread and deciding it's the > "defining moment." You won't hear any argument from me if you say that was > way too improbable and convenient. I would also agree that it's used to > justify sticking Xena up on a cross again. Regardless of how I feel about > that, I do believe it established why Xena had "good reason" to believe > letting Caesar crucify her was the best way out of the conundrum. And, obviously, I don't. We'll just have to leave it at that. > Does scenario one exclude aspects like quick scans up their bodies, a > slight lingering on breasts and navels or sensuous gyrations -- all of > which I saw occur in a few blinks of the eye? I'm assuming where talking > "long" shots close enough to surmise they were women (as opposed to the > male stunties who posed as women during some action scenes). And of course > we all know that the presumed women we saw were most likely representative > of dancing Amazons, who naturally come in the shape/age/appearance presumed > most likely to exploit -- oops, sorry -- I meant *appeal* to a particular > audience's ... um ... aesthetic sensibilities and desire for ... um ... > "realism" in their Amazons. Hmmm, I do like nuances, but I fear they ain't > "obvious" to me in terms of the Amazons' exploitation quotient. Now should > we drop this? Maybe chalk it up to another example of differing premises? (Sigh) What I'm saying is that _some_ possible ways of filming a scene are way more 'exploitative' than others. > Well, it seems that you see some eps as definitely derivative of othere > eps. The ones you assess as "good" aren't "cash ins." The eps you assess > as not so good are "cash ins." The latter are more "exploitative" to you > because they don't exhibit a purpose, standard or plot in their own right, > but "live off" the quality (existence) of their predecessors. Yes? If so, > that makes sense to me. Yes, that's what I'm getting at! At last! :) > I think my hesitation about this is that I'm getting some implications, > which I might be misunderstanding, of course. Are you saying there's some > "standard" for "shock value" which has some predictability, that we can > generally agree on? That how they're shot determines the exploitation > quotient, perhaps moreso that the subject matter or purpose? I wouldn't say there's a 'standard' for shock value, any more than there's a 'standard' for morality or pornography. Nevertheless, some films/scenes are demonstrably more shocking / violent / pornographic than others, and censors do draw a line between what's 'acceptable' and what isn't. It's a shades-of-grey thing and people argue over it, but there is a real difference. As to 'how it's done' vs 'what is done', I would say *both* play a part in determining how exploitative a scene is. In _some_ situations, how it's shot may indeed be more significant than the subject matter. Umm, consider for example Xena and Borias 'getting it on' under the furs at the start of Sin Trade. I don't think the actual plot point (of Xena having it off with Borias) was exploitative at all. (In fact it was necessary to explain Solan). Nor do I think the brief scene we saw was exploitative. OTOH, I suppose it could have been filmed like a soft-porn scene - which IMO could have been quite exploitative - but it wasn't. (snip) > I initially thought you were talking about repeating certain themes/plots > as being inherently exploitative. I think I understand now why the crosses > in Destiny and Ides were appropriate for you, because you saw their use in > those eps as integral to the story (i.e., not "cashing in"). Yes. :) > In terms of > Eli, I saw him as representing religious themes surrounding the cross. If > you don't see that connection, then that answers my question. In viewing the eps, I never made that connection. Eli was obviously disconcertingly Christ-like, and (now you bring the point up) he was indeed scheduled to die on a cross along with Amarice and Gabs and all his followers. BUT, because the crosses were introduced by Alti in Sin Trade, long before we saw Eli, I always associated them exclusively with Xena and Gabs. > Shhhh. You trying to get all things Xena banned? We'll keep that little > admission between us on the list> I'm sure Sister Mary KT will have words to say to me about it.... (snip) > Sorry, I was watching that with friends who had the opposite reaction. > They felt close to "overload" -- not just from one scene of violence, but a > second one with multiple instances of violence (Caesar being stabbed > repeatedly). Their emotions were intensified with anger that X&G's > sacrifice and "moment" got diluted with what they saw as pointless scenes > of political violence which could've been shown separately. (Please note > that I said "pointless" to them. I do understand why it was "pointless" > for the show or to you or me.) That's interesting. As I said, my reaction was the opposite. Maybe your friends weren't Xena/Gab fans so didn't feel for Xena and Gabs so much? Because, for me, Xena is the hero, what happens to her is what really interests me, what I 'feel', and Caesar getting stabbed is just a nasty little villain getting his come-uppance. So, while Caesar's scene in isolation might have struck me as violent, compared with the crucifixion it was just background noise so to speak. > There's no question TPTB tried to accomplish a lot in those moments. > Perhaps for some it diluted -- even numbed. I personally felt a lot like > my friends upon first viewing, even though I tend to be more analytical and > was far more familiar with the show than my friends. I didn't even have to > see the actual nails pounded in, to feel the emotions of knowing what was > about to happen. Once it began, I was annoyed by having to watch stupid > Caesar, but it didn't lessen the intensity of what I felt about what was > going on with X&G. (My imagination supplied what I didn't see.) As I said, I found Caesar a momentary relief. > Later on, with some distance, I could appreciate how TPTB tied things > together, in terms of the vision, Xena's history with Caesar, etc.. But > that will always be one of the most violent, disturbing, painful (and > questionable) images I have of the series. I understand that XWP is an > action show. I understand that the "love" aspect was unique (even > unexpected) in many ways. I understand that, in such a scenario, love and > violence might accompany each other in ways I don't like. Having them > blended in the X&G crucifixion scenes was bad enough. Overlaying them with > scenes of pure violence may have diluted the "love" represented in X&G's > sacrifice, but it didn't dilute for me the violence associated with it. Hmmm. Of course, there was a certain irrestible symmetry in Caesar getting killed at the exact same moment that X&G did. But I felt that, if one takes the set-up as a given (i.e. X&G get crucified), and that they were going to show _some_ of it, that the way it was shown was about as well done as it could be. I don't think they could have done much better. Now that's how it struck _me_. Obviously it struck you differently. The one bit I really cringe about was the Touched-by-an-angel moment right at the end, which I found so incongruous it actually made me want to laugh. > We weren't talking about "good reason." We were talking about having > everything including the kitchen sink, regardless of whether we thought it > should be there or not. Hey, don't snip what I said! Especially when it's relevant. In Ides, Gabs was right there. In WFC, she was nowhere to be seen. Therefore, in Ides, Xena had good reason to say it. In WFC it was just a bit of gratuitous subtext stuck in for no reason. > Grrrrr, now I'm back to those brief, distance shots you mentioned above as > being less exploitative because of how they were shot. I'm thinking, > "Okay, he barely noticed the SCD (scantily-clad dancers) -- sort of like > interesting pieces of scenery." Now you're saying they were a > distraction, which suggests you paid some attention to them whether you > wanted to or not. Are you saying they weren't worth looking at in those > scenes, that you were distracted for other reasons (e.g., they were > unnecessary, out of place, dressed "wrong")? Ummm. Now we're discussing distraction, not 'exploitation', OK? ;) To me, it all depends if the scene fits with the general tone of the ep or the series. Amazons dancing round a campfire usually fits. Even scantily-clad Amazons dancing round a campfire. (Not that I care, though some might, but who's to say _what_ Amazons wore for ceremonial dances? Amazons were a Greek invention, IIRC, and I believe the Greeks were fairly relaxed about nudity). OTOH, if the camera unduly lingers on them, as it did on the (non-Amazon) dancers at the start of Sacrifice, I find it very slightly disturbing or distracting. Not for any moral reasons, just because it doesn't seem to quite 'fit' the tone of episode. (Again, even though Dancers For Dahak might well have chosen to wear very little :) However, as I said before, I certainly liked the Furies (at the start of that ep) - and they were _very_ sexy. ("You ladies certainly dress the part" - Xena). But it just seemed to fit. 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: Mon, 3 May 2004 22:10:24 -0400 From: "mirrordrum" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Lucy Lawless: Charity Champion i just thought this was kind of cool and so very, very lucy. the actual bit about her is admittedly small but it's naturally the very best bit!!! goofy photo, though. that funny, lopsided "for the camera" smile she has. no disrespect intended, dear xenahos. http://starship.org.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=1071 md ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 19:31:39 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy Lawless: Charity Champion On Mon, 3 May 2004, mirrordrum wrote: > i just thought this was kind of cool and so very, very lucy. the actual bit > about her is admittedly small but it's naturally the very best bit!!! goofy > photo, though. that funny, lopsided "for the camera" smile she has. no > disrespect intended, dear xenahos. > > http://starship.org.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=1071 > > md Hey--that's just a very PRACTICAL maneuver. She's giving that lopsided grin as a balance for her dipping right boob. (I suspect her right boob has been jealous of her left boob since it got to go out and play at that hockey game. It too, wants fame, and a chance to be endlessly showcased on computer screens the world over.) 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #125 **************************************