From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #126 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 Wednesday, May 5 2004 Volume 04 : Number 126 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again [cr ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 01:31:52 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again In a message dated 5/3/2004 5:27:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > She would never submit to Caesar simply because she's Xena. >> I believe we could agree on that. (Quite an example of reasoned discourse, by the way. ) We apparently disagree on whether she submitted as an end or as a means. >> 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.>> Your opinion is all well and good, just not necessarily Fugate's view. Why else do you think Alti killed him? > >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. >. Okey dokey. > > >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. >> LOL! I got that part. It's the "some possible ways of filming" part I was having trouble with. And still do. > >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! :) >> Progress. > 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. >> Sounds like a "standard" to me, otherwise we couldn't tell the "real difference." But I'm ready to move on. > > 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). >> Um, okay. There might be children watching who might not understand "I'm pregnant with your child," without some visual representation to explain how that happened. 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. >> I'm always intrigued by the term "soft porn." But I digress. So, we (or somebody) needed to learn how Solan got produced, in order to understand the plot. Therefore not exploitative. But if we'd seen (and heard) a little more about what was happening under the bearskin, that would have been a little too educational, in terms of learning how Solan got produced. Unnecessary, so therefore exploitative. And possibly "soft porn," whatever the heck that is. Okey dokey. > >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. :) >> More progress. > > >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. >> Understandable. > > >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.... >> It's the censors (who may or may not care about the good Sister's opinion) I'm more worried about. :-) > >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? >> Quite the contrary. They cared *only* about Xena/Gabs. Caesar's assassination did nothing for them but needlessly bloody (heh) the Xena/Gabs story. > >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. >> I got that. I was explaining why others (including myself) didn't. > 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. >> Out of curiosity, how would you have preferred to see it end? > > >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. >> Good reason to say what? "I love you?" You're saying the subtext only existed if the two were together physically? It vanished if one of them wasn't there? > > 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. >> Therefore not exploitative or "soft porn" I presume? > -- 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: Tue, 4 May 2004 01:31:55 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question In a message dated 5/2/2004 8:33:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > 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. > There! I knew you could do it, if you put that fertile mind of yours to work. Now, that makes sense. I didn't see some unique "holding ground" created by some unknown force solely for Xena. Maybe I misunderstood you about that because of the "assigning" thing. However, I do see that what you describe could well have been where Xena's mind was during that initial in-between stage. It could very well be the place Xena created for herself -- in that sense, her unique holding ground. I'm not sure others wouldn't have experienced that, if we'd been privy to their thoughts. E.g., in Doctor, Gabs could've created a similar in-between stage where she chatted with her uncle in her concept of the Elysian Fields. Frankly, I don't care whether what happened to Xena was unique. I simply wondered where she was and what it might mean. I tried to associate it with the closest thing I could see, which I thought (perhaps mistakenly) RT confirmed. You thought "outside the box." Whatever Xenastaff's intent, I like your interpretation best because it could involve a place Xena created for herself (vs. the gods), which is what I thought most intriguing about the show -- her self-responsibility, self-judgment, self-redemption. And it certainly beats "we needed an appropriate dramatic background, so we picked flames. Bravo! - -- 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: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:07:55 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again On Tue, 04 May 2004 17:31, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/3/2004 5:27:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > cr@orcon.net.nz > > writes: > > She would never submit to Caesar simply because she's Xena. >> > > I believe we could agree on that. (Quite an example of reasoned discourse, > by the way. ) We apparently disagree on whether she submitted as an > end or as a means. Unfortunately, my wording was unintentionally ambiguous. I think, not quite the way you read it. I meant, Xena would _never_ submit to Caesar, period. > >> 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.>> > > Your opinion is all well and good, just not necessarily Fugate's view. Why > else do you think Alti killed him? Because KF thought it was a cool idea? Because the producer thought it looked good on screen? From Alti's point of view, why on earth would she choose to murder Caesar at that particular moment? All she would achieve (IMO) is to destroy her source of power, viz. her influence over Caesar - which was set to become enormously greater with Xena out of the way. Things were going exactly right for her and she chooses to capsize the boat? (I was going to say 'rock the boat' but killing Caesar rates as rather more drastic than that :) > > (Sigh) What I'm saying is that _some_ possible ways of filming a scene > > are way more 'exploitative' than others. >> > > LOL! I got that part. It's the "some possible ways of filming" part I was > having trouble with. And still do. Oh well, forget it. > > 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. >> > > Sounds like a "standard" to me, otherwise we couldn't tell the "real > difference." But I'm ready to move on. Maybe it's just in the wording. To me, a 'standard' implies a fairly precisely defined criterion, whereby something either complies with the 'standard' or fails to. There are so many different ways to be 'shocking', and so many different degrees of shockingness, that I really don't think 'standard' is an appropriate word. > > 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). >> > > Um, okay. There might be children watching who might not understand "I'm > pregnant with your child," without some visual representation to explain > how that happened. That's not what I said at all. Are you being facetious? (And IMO Xena is *certainly* not a show for children). > > 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. >> > > I'm always intrigued by the term "soft porn." But I digress. So, we (or > somebody) needed to learn how Solan got produced, in order to understand > the plot. Therefore not exploitative. But if we'd seen (and heard) a > little more about what was happening under the bearskin, that would have > been a little too educational, in terms of learning how Solan got produced. > Unnecessary, so therefore exploitative. And possibly "soft porn," > whatever the heck that is. Okey dokey. Well, no, that's not what I said and you're twisting my meaning by introducing a lot of things I *didn't* say. Just forget it. > > >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.... > > >> > > It's the censors (who may or may not care about the good Sister's opinion) > I'm more worried about. :-) Which censors? > > >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? >> > > Quite the contrary. They cared *only* about Xena/Gabs. Caesar's > assassination did nothing for them but needlessly bloody (heh) the > Xena/Gabs story. Hmmm. Interestingly opposite reactions. > > 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. > > >> > > Out of curiosity, how would you have preferred to see it end? Cut out the last ten seconds. Just end with them hanging on the crosses and fade to black. An enormously powerful ending, which that 'angel' moment just kicked the legs out from under. > > >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. >> > > Good reason to say what? "I love you?" You're saying the subtext only > existed if the two were together physically? It vanished if one of them > wasn't there? So Xena is so taken by this bit of fluff she's only met a few days ago that she finds time while dying in agony to parrot out "I love you Gabrielle"? Sounds like a subtexters' wet dream to me. > > 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. >> > > Therefore not exploitative or "soft porn" I presume? Not to me, but I'm not interested in arguing definitions. 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 V4 #126 **************************************