From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #77 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, April 10 2000 Volume 02 : Number 077 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/superstar2 ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/superstar3 ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/superstar2 [Todd Huff ] Re: b/ "five by five" [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 23:09:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/superstar2 A couple times through "Superstar" again, taking some notes: One more bit about the credits: the very end, with Jonathan in his long coat walking =towards= the camera, is an amusing parody of the end of the =Angel= credits, where he walks =away= from the camera. In the first scene, it's amusing to see Xander =and Buffy= practicing their staking moves. And to hear Jonathan call her "Buff" (Evil Angel's method of address). The scene between Buffy and Jonathan, discussing Riley, has many points of interest. I had been remarking on how much sugar Buffy was putting in her coffee...and then she hands it to Jonathan. (I'll get to the gender politics of the episode later.) Notice that the "look in the eyes" motif from "A New Man" (4/18 rerun) and reiterated in "Who Are You" is brought up again. And how Jonathan zeroes in on Buffy's =real= problem, not Faith but Riley. (Which of course connects to the end: the "worth working for" motif.) As I said, I think they could have done a little more with the "anti-paragon" monster, Jonathan's dark double. When the monster provided the 2nd quarter break as well as the 1st quarter break, I thought it was a sloppy repetition; but when it caused the 3rd quarter as well, I realized it was deliberate, and was willing to go with it. Also, the monster was =very= ineffective; Tara and Karen-with-a-K are neither of them, on the face of it, able to fight much; but both of them got away from it. (True, Tara confused it with her "obscuritam" spell.) Buffy was able to fend it off fairly easily, and even Jonathan reverted mostly to his former self was able to rush it and knock it into the pit. I did like the idea, though, of Jonathan "blinking" when confronted with evidence of the monster, and the way he got more and more ineffectual as Buffy hurt the monster. And the way Karen and Buffy both drew the symbol in a very rough way, and only when Willow found it in the book did we find out how geometrically precise it was (the tatoo was a little rough). A tiny trivium: what was the poster on the back of the door of Buffy & Willow's room? Different from the chocolate poster in reality. And another: the passing joke of =Being Jonathan Levinson= on the movie marquee was a stitch. (Even funnier than him being in =The Matrix=.) Xander setting the book on fire was hilarious. OK: how do we take the very last line of the episode? It was set up, of course, by the conversation between Anya and Xander at the Bronze; but with the spell gone, was it a joke on Buffy's part? Or a Freudian slip? Along that same line, Jonathan indicated at the end that his memory of "his" reality was fading; will it go completely? Or will he remember, like Xander does his soldier-info? Will everyone else forget, too? Then there's the question of what was "real" and what "illusory" in the episode. I agree with David that Super-Jonathan knew things that the "real" Jonathan never would have, and so I think we can take the Initiative scene--the new CO (who we've been awaiting) and the debriefing about Adam and his uranium pack--as real evidence that will contribute to future episodes. Adam's role in the episode was (as Gayle pointed out) actually pretty interesting. Anyone recognize the building he's holed up in? The fact that his awareness made him immune to the spell is another item that will make him a formidable opponent. And what of that talk about Chaos? Remember Ethan talking about Chaos in "A New Man" (to be rerun, as I said)? Will Ethan return? And Spike. As Dori points out, his two scenes were really terrific. Thought I'd die laughing when he called Buffy "Betty." And Spike's reaction to Buffy is quite complex. We've known for a long time that he fancied her looks (remember him greeting her in "Becoming" with "Hello, cutie"? And searching for her in the first place?). And though they professed disgust for one another in "Something Blue," that had followed them being betrothed(!). That's another element hanging fire that might come into play in the rest of the season: Spike losing his chip. "No--but then again, I'm probably lying" was one of my favorite lines from the episode. Answering a couple questions: David, no, I don't think shrimp figured in "The Wish." Seems like a random thought of Anya's. And Dori, no, I don't think we got any info about who Jonathan's (tall) date in "The Prom" was. David: Briefly re =Angel=, I believe that was =A Doll's House= Cordelia was acting in. (I get it a bit confused with =Hedda Gabler=.) And the reason that Evil Angel talked so much about what he was going to do is that, remember, he likes to torture and toy with his victims before he kills them. Annoying Villain Trait, true, but in character. Allen: I have to say it's a clever conceit to conflate "Little Miss Muffett"/"Little Sister"/"Karen-with-a-K" and decide since she (that singular person) was also attacked by the monster that she's Important. But in the end it seems too outlandish to me. (I still think "Little Sister" was Faith.) I remain open to being proved wrong. Gayle: "Superstar" was Episode 17. The corresponding episode of the 3rd season was "Enemies." At that point we still had =no= clear idea of what was up with the Mayor (just hints about the Ascension). In the 2nd season, the 17th episode was "Passion." At that point we knew Angel was the main problem, and the disc with the curse had been set up, but the final threat of Acathla was unguessable. So in both seasons, much of what we remember as the important events happened in the last four or five episodes; in fact a great deal happened just in the final two-parters. So though I'm as prepared as you are to be disappointed (if Adam is the main course), I'm not quite as pessimistic. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 23:12:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/superstar3 Perhaps the =most= remarkable aspect of the episode (which I neglected to mention at my last opportunity) was its gender politics. Those of you who actually pay attention to my long posts may remember I remarked on the difference between =Buffy= and =The Maltese Falcon= in that area; by a curious coincidence (but Jung says there are no coincidences) this very difference was demonstrated in the Jonathan-fantasy version of the Buffy universe. Skimming through Slotkin this morning, I verified (as I'd imagined) that he posits a continuity of mythology/symbolism between the Western, the gangster film, and the detective story (and note that Bogart made several instances of each kind in his early career): the hero frequently being an outlaw/outsider, also frequently taking the side of the downtrodden (not only Native Americans but the working class and the slum dwellers) against the Establishment (to use a 60s word). And there's no question (Slotkin says this himself in the =Wesleyan= article on Joss Whedon, thanks Meredith) that =Buffy= is the sort of contemporary American narrative haunted by these old patterns. Much to my surprise, however, Slotkin does =not= deal with the spy story; there's no entry for "James Bond" or anything else related in the indices of the two books of his I have. Is the spy story too British a form? Back up a step: what I'm =starting= to drive at here is that the older kind of gender politics (the role of women in these narratives) goes back =at least= to the 30s detective story (and further back, to be sure), and at least as far forward as the 60s spy shows. Here's an interesting twist on that particular body of work: on one end you have the Bond stories, which are "serious" (not in the sense of literary: they're "entertainments," romances in the broadest sense) at least in that they take themselves seriously; on the other end you have =Get Smart!=, as broad a farce as imaginable; but in between you have =The Man from U.N.C.L.E.=, =The Avengers=, etc., whose degree of seriousness is quite questionable (=I= certainly took =The Avengers= pretty seriously as a teenager). (The case of =The Prisoner=, a sort of meta-spy story that took itself beyond seriously, is unique.) You find a very similar uneasy sense of serious/comic in =Remington Steele= (a detective show, but clearly part of the same tradition), my favorite early-80s show (and explicitly about gender politics!), and =Buffy= brazenly oscillates between the serious and the comic, never more so than in "Superstar." Although we tend to think of Emma Peel as the epitome of what soon after came to be called the "emancipated woman," my suspicion is that if we went back and watched old =Avengers= episodes (I do have a set of them around here...have to take a look), we'd be surprised how much of a "sidekick," a competent but =second-class= operative she actually was, compared with John Steed; how often did he have to save her in the end? (A lot.) Same with Laura Holt in =Remington Steele=: very smart, very competent at her job, a quick thinker on her feet very like Buffy...but not a fighter, and out of her depth in real danger. From which Mr. Steele often rescued her. (The case of =Austin Powers= illustrates this by reversal-humor: the female agents are =only= more competent than Austin because he merely =thinks= he's at James Bond's level.) I think the equation Emma Peel:Steed::Laura Holt:Steele::Jonathan:"Betty" is very clear. So the whole 40s-60s styling of the episode (the swing music, the tuxes, the reverb-guitar music etc.) just underlines the fact that we're in a world that adheres to those older values. Jonathan appropriated for himself, in short, Buffy's position in Sunnydale (and more besides, of course); leaving Buffy in a role where, it makes believable, she never would have gained the confidence to take up her "lone hero" role; the kind of deference she pays to Giles and Willow (and sometimes Xander) in their specific spheres of competence in the "real" Sunnydale becomes a blanket deference to Jonathan in all things. It's really quite shocking, isn't it? to see Buffy so unsure of herself, to the point where Jonathan (courteously, encourangingly, but ultimately condescendingly) has to frequently bolster her self- esteem (and the others, aping him, do the same). And very eerie to see the other characters trying the phrase "Buffy was right!" and finding it strange, when it's an almost annoying constant of the show that Buffy =is= always right. And it's not only Buffy; note the way Jonathan treats Willow when she's at the computer, and the way he treats Giles; note that =they= defer to him just like Buffy does. And interesting that Willow and Tara have a "teen fan" attitude towards Jonathan, which seems to be the bond between them in this reality! As Hilary and David and others point out, there's no malice in Jonathan; he treats everyone with as much respect as this version of interpersonal politics, and his own super-competence, allows him. He =likes= these people, cares about them even, and wants them to be happy...on his terms, admittedly. Even at the end, when his world is exploded, he still finds it in him to care about Buffy's problem as well as his own. Maybe he's growing up bit by bit. And it =is= interesting that he doesn't take Buffy for himself (as her line about him looking like he was going to ask her to the prom in "Earshot" certainly suggested); maybe the lure of the Bond/Playboy ideal was more appealing. The whole question of Xander (second in "loser-being," as Cordelia would put it, only to the "real" Jonathan) and his reaction is quite fascinating; it gave him a kind of hope, and coming back to reality was a depressing shock. One hopes he learned a lesson from Jonathan's failure... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:34:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/superstar2 >The whole question of Xander (second in "loser-being," as Cordelia >would put it, only to the "real" Jonathan) and his reaction is quite >fascinating; it gave him a kind of hope, and coming back to reality >was a depressing shock. One hopes he learned a lesson from >Jonathan's failure... I'd missed this totally. Giving him hope, heh-heh. > > And another: the passing joke of =Being Jonathan > Levinson= on the > movie marquee was a stitch. (Even funnier than him > being in =The > Matrix=.) > Also the poster of "Dingoes Ate My Baby" showing up after the magical reset. I'm guessing the band has a gig in Sunnydale in a couple of weeks? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:18:00 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ "five by five" I'm watching "Fail-Safe" right now and they keep using the phrase "five by five" -- to refer to clear reception, apparently. Evidently these characters are possessed by the spirit of Faith. ;-) Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #77 ****************************