From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #101 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Saturday, May 6 2000 Volume 02 : Number 101 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary [allenw ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/Christian virtues ["Susan Kroupa" ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary [Micole Sudberg ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary [GHighPine@aol.com] m/YesSongs [klh@technologist.com] b/Wesley-Torture-Tea Parties [klh@technologist.com] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/Christian virtues ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/Wesley-Torture-Tea Parties ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/Christian virtues ["Susan Kroupa" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:15:29 -0500 (CDT) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary On Thu, 4 May 2000 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > Oz didn't leave Sunnydale though, did he? They might still kill him, since > Seth Green apparently is leaving the show permanently. > I thought it was pretty explicit that he *was* leaving Sunnydale. He was "taking off", and Willow talked about meeting him again in some far-off corner of the world. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:59:55 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary I wrote: > And did you notice in _Angel_ that we learn that > Angel and Faith did not > do the dirty back in the Mr. Lightshow episode? Todd wrote: > I'd always assumed that they hadn't. I remember a > discussion in which some people seemed to think there > might be a chance otherwise. >> And Gayle wrote: > I assumed that they hadn't because the tone of the interaction between > Buffy and Angel afterward did not suggest they had. But that still leaves > unanswered the question of how Angel managed to avoid it without tipping his > hand to Faith. This is all extremely interesting, because what I remember from Donald's Genie topic at the time was general agreement that the cryptic conversation between Buffy and Angel at the end of that episode was exactly about Angel apologizing for having had to have sex with Faith to keep in character, and Buffy accepting his apology, but with overtones of trouble in their relationship, a premonition later justified -- which tended to reinforce the original interpretation. The original discussion even went so far as to generate a speculation or two about why Angel hadn't had his "moment of perfect happiness" therein, the answer being of course readily supplied: he didn't love Faith. The question may have been a little slow, but it wouldn't have come up without the assumption that sex happened. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:14:39 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/Christian virtues I, for one, think it's perfectly logical to condemn all Nazis while not condeming all Germans. Ursula Hegi, btw, has an interesting book out (the title escapes me) filled with interviews of Germans who had grown up in the U.S. and how they dealt with the guilt of being German after what happened in the Nazi regime. Don made a good point about the lack of black or other ethnic characters on the show (being in California, you'd think Sunnydale would have a few more Hispanic students at least), and I agree with Gayle and David that stereotypes often exist because the loudest or most obnoxious part of a group (any group) spoils the image for the rest. Yes, Wesley did show "Christian values" in forgiving Faith--or at least in postponing judgement, and actually the whole arc of Faith being redeemed could be seen in a Christian light if one wanted to view it that way. What I hate even more than stereotyping is Message, whether I agree or not with whatever's being preached. That's what ruined IRON GIANT for me--the Message was so blatant it killed the story, and I thought last week's BUFFY nudged a toe over the line on the didactic meter with the speeches on tolerance. I wanted to echo David's words and say to the scriptwriter: "Just show us by the story and by the way the characters behave and spare us the speeches." Even though I agreed with the message, I find it annoying. Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: David S. Bratman To: Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:21 PM Subject: b/Christian virtues > Before I go into any of this, I should say, since most of you probably > don't know, that I'm not a Christian of any description and never have > been. I'm Jewish, a group with long reason to be suspicious of Christian > love. But, especially because I know a number of intelligent, thoughtful > Christians (including the one I'm married to), some of them (but not the > one I'm married to) even being fundamentalists, I do not condemn all > Christians. (Unlike some Jews, I don't condemn all Germans either. I do > condemn all Nazis, though. I hope that's not inconsistent.) > > Interesting stuff, especially from Gayle, about what Christians can do to > knock out the stereotype. She mentions writing their own scripts ... not > to scoff at this, but it's ironic that Berni and I do know a conservative > Catholic who spent a long time in Hollywood trying to hawk a script of > Connie Willis's _Doomsday Book_ ... good script, too ... but now she's > back in Detroit trying to earn a living. > > Gayle goes on, in another message, to mention how Wesley's actions this > week impressed her even more than last week. I agree, though I wouldn't > say that last week he had no choice. He had the choice to break down and > whimper, and he didn't do it. Of course if he had, it would probably > have gone even worse for him ... but people don't usually break down > because they think it'll make things better: they do it because they're > incapable of doing anything else. Wesley was not incapable. > > But what he does this week is -- after being markedly tempted not to -- is > forgive and counsel others to forgive. Surprise! El Primo #1 Christian > virtue! This, IMHO, makes up for a lot of stereotyping before, and I > think it's exactly what Gayle is asking the Christians to do to counter > the "That's all that I remember"-about-Baltimore problem. This is what I > tell my fundie friends when they try to preach Jesus at me: don't preach. > Show your values in action: it will sell your package [I don't phrase it > quite that way] much more effectively. > > Wesley can also act, btw. Notice how he fooled the Owsla (the Council > thugs) into thinking he was on their side. I'm beginning to think that > when he told them "you're the best" that he was being sarcastic, trusting > they're too stupid and egoistic to notice. Showing up unexpectedly and > sinisterly saying "Hello, [your name here]" seems to be the only thing > they do well. They sure can't shoot straight. > > Re the book about the Columbine girl: the real irony is that she wasn't > the one who "said yes". That came out of an early confused report, was > published and still circulates. (The story was first told by another > student in the room, who could hear but not see what was going on, and > misidentified the voice.) The one who was asked if she believed in God and > said yes _wasn't shot_. She's not going around identifying herself as > such, though, because what good would it do? It would only look like > defaming the other girl's memory. > > On yet another topic, Gayle is still trying, with apparently limited > success, to explain to Donald what's bothering her about this year's > arc. Gayle, I want to assure you that I, for one, understand exactly what > you're on about here, and I mostly agree with it. > > Donald wrote: > > > Which leads me to David: Yes, you're right, the Christian woman was a > > stereotype. The show sometimes has a problem with this: not very many > > black characters, most of whom die (Mr. Trick, Mr. Platt the guidance > > counselor), for example. I just wanted to emphasize that, stereotype or > > not, she wasn't insane or dismissible, but based on reality. > > I'm bothered less by the blacks, simply because it's clear that Sunnydale > doesn't have a lot of them (as Santa Barbara doesn't, but why aren't > there more in Angel's LA?), and they're not all janitors or the like. > > > With those models in mind, how do you feel =now= about Faith > > always running away (until just this last episode)? > > That reaction will have to wait for re-watching. They handle this > subtly; it's not a matter of "Oh watch, Faith'll run away again like she > always does." > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:16:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Micole Sudberg Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary On Fri, 5 May 2000, David S. Bratman wrote: > I wrote: > > > And did you notice in _Angel_ that we learn that > > Angel and Faith did not > > do the dirty back in the Mr. Lightshow episode? > > Todd wrote: > > > I'd always assumed that they hadn't. I remember a > > discussion in which some people seemed to think there > > might be a chance otherwise. >> > > And Gayle wrote: > > > I assumed that they hadn't because the tone of the interaction between > > Buffy and Angel afterward did not suggest they had. But that still leaves > > unanswered the question of how Angel managed to avoid it without tipping his > > hand to Faith. > > This is all extremely interesting, because what I remember from Donald's > Genie topic at the time was general agreement that the cryptic > conversation between Buffy and Angel at the end of that episode was > exactly about Angel apologizing for having had to have sex with Faith to > keep in character, and Buffy accepting his apology, but with overtones of > trouble in their relationship, a premonition later justified -- which > tended to reinforce the original interpretation. > > The original discussion even went so far as to generate a speculation or > two about why Angel hadn't had his "moment of perfect happiness" therein, > the answer being of course readily supplied: he didn't love Faith. The > question may have been a little slow, but it wouldn't have come up without > the assumption that sex happened. Uh ... does everybody else have a scene my tape is missing? In the version of "Enemies" I've got, Faith attempts to seduce Angel, Angel refuses, and Faith (believes she) steals his soul with the help of Mr. Lightshow and some dark goop she dumps on Angel's chest. Oh -- are you thinking that Faith and Angel had sex *after* that, before seeing the Mayor or after seeing the Mayor but before seeing Buffy? Because the timeline of episode (even aside from the discussions in "Sanctuary") didn't seem to allow for that. It hadn't even occurred to me, in fact; I'd always taken Buffy's doubts to be about whether Angel was tempted, not whether he'd fallen. And he was, I think, based on the evidence of "Angel"; but by the violence, not the sex. Huh. That was helpful -- they're even more broken at the end of "Enemies" than I thought; they're not only not able to talk to each other, each didn't actually hear what the other just said. - --m. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:38:45 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary In a message dated 5/5/00 9:18:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, micole@speakeasy.org writes: << > > I assumed that they hadn't because the tone of the interaction between > > Buffy and Angel afterward did not suggest they had. But that still leaves > > unanswered the question of how Angel managed to avoid it without tipping his > > hand to Faith. > > This is all extremely interesting, because what I remember from Donald's > Genie topic at the time was general agreement that the cryptic > conversation between Buffy and Angel at the end of that episode was > exactly about Angel apologizing for having had to have sex with Faith to > keep in character, and Buffy accepting his apology, but with overtones of > trouble in their relationship, a premonition later justified -- which > tended to reinforce the original interpretation. >> By "afterward," I meant the next episode. The episode that was postponed because of Columbine. Once we saw that episode, the interaction between Buffy and Angel made it pretty clear that Angel and Faith had not had sex. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:09:49 -0400 (EDT) From: klh@technologist.com Subject: m/YesSongs So we go to Potbelly's in Chicago for lunch (in the midst of a business trip, where my only other time outside was visiting with Jennifer: K: Don got his hair cut. J: Great! Has he gone to the dentist yet?), where there is often "live music." Indeed, there is a solo performer on hammer dulcimer, above the crowd. After a few minutes, we all realise that he is playing..."Roundabout." Effectively as a madrigal. Somewhat later (after "Eleanor Rigby," which we always knew was a madrigal), he removes the sublimely from the sublimely ridiculous by performing "Owner of a Lonely Heart." The food was good, though. - --------------------------------------------------- Get free personalized email at http://iaf.iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:28:33 -0400 (EDT) From: klh@technologist.com Subject: b/Wesley-Torture-Tea Parties David -- It was Jennifer who made the tea parties comment. Otherwise, I'm with you as far as the torture scene being gratituous. But, were I Wesley, I would like to believe I would have done the same thing he did; I just suspect you have the motivation wrong. Wesley didn't appear to actually "forgive" Faith. Wesley realised--when the Goon Squad told him they ALSO believed that Faith could be redeemed--that Angel was her best, and probably only, chance. At that point, better the devil who appears to know something than the ones who bollixed up the capture in the first place. (Of course, New Moon and Sanctuary are both episodes where the writers sat down and said, "We have no ideas. What should we do?" and the answer was, "How about make the characters do things they've never done before (Cordy & Wesley), never indicated that they would do (Kate), change their attitude abruptly in the middle of a scene (the "Sour Girl" guest appearing on _Angel_), or be so cliched (General Custer, or whatever his name is) that even Riley will seem to have a personality." And everyone sat around, rubbed their Wesleyan class rings, went for the hookah pipe, and said, "Yeah. Ain't we clever.") - --------------------------------------------------- Get free personalized email at http://iaf.iname.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 20:09:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary Gayle and Michole - The way I remember the "Mr. Lightshow" episode (sorry, I can never remember episode titles), there is a longish period in which, as far as anybody can tell, including the first-time viewer, Faith has "turned" Angel. He makes his toothy face a lot and talks about how he'd like to sink his fangs into Buffy. In particular, there's one scene where they visit the Mayor, in his office, where he smiles paternally at this nice vicious boy his little girl has brought home. I also vaguely recall a scene, probably soon after the initial "turning", in which Faith and Angel roll on the floor making out. Somewhere during this period is where sex presumably occurred. Angel is pretending not to have a soul any more: there is therefore no apparent reason for him to refrain from having sex with his new girlfriend. If anything that happened in any subsequent episode up until this week's _Angel_ ruled out the sex, I do not recall this fact being mentioned in either Donald's Genie topic or on this list. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 20:19:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/Christian virtues On Fri, 5 May 2000, Susan Kroupa wrote: > Don made a good point about the lack of black or other ethnic characters on > the show (being in California, you'd think Sunnydale would have a few more > Hispanic students at least) There are dismayingly few Hispanic students on UC campuses. Asians: what they should have is lots and lots of Asians. > What I hate even more than stereotyping is Message, whether I agree or not > with whatever's being preached. That's what ruined IRON GIANT for me--the > Message was so blatant it killed the story I tend to get pretty annoyed at Heavy Message, but _Iron Giant_ didn't have that problem for me. Most of it was just A Boy And His Robot, and the message was background. Also, it took pains to be charming. And if the message was "People tend to mistrust the unknown," that's not what I call a heavy message. (This isn't intended as a conclusive argument, merely as a stab at explaining why I wasn't bothered.) A few writers are so hamhanded they can make me disagree with anything they say, even if I entirely agreed with it up until a moment earlier. Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand are the most notable inhabitants of this category; I suspect all libertarian writers go there. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 18:14:51 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/Wesley-Torture-Tea Parties from klh@technologist.com: >(Of course, New Moon and Sanctuary are both episodes where the writers sat >down and said, "We have no ideas. What should we do?" and the answer was, >"How about make the characters do things they've never done before (Cordy & >Wesley), never indicated that they would do (Kate), change their attitude >abruptly in the middle of a scene (the "Sour Girl" guest appearing on >_Angel_), By "Sour Girl," do you mean the tall woman who works in the Wolfram & Hart office? Does anyone know who the actress is? I know I've seen her in things before and I like her, but I can't place her. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 21:25:25 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/newmoon/sanctuary In a message dated 5/5/00 5:07:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << If anything that happened in any subsequent episode up until this week's _Angel_ ruled out the sex, I do not recall this fact being mentioned in either Donald's Genie topic or on this list. >> The tone of the Buffy / Angel conversations about the matter in "Earshot" definitely and definitively convinced me that there had been no sex (and I had been inclined before to believe that there had been, if only because it would have been hard to convince Faith if Angel refused), but "Earshot" was not discussed in either forum because it was aired when Donald's topic was inactive due to Donald's absence and this list did not as yet exist. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:41:19 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: Re: b/Christian virtues "Guns bad. Guns kill." That message, which was repeated too much for my taste in Iron Giant. And I'm not pro-guns or anything--I just wish the message hadn't interfered with The Boy and His Robot, which did have charm. TOY STORY, both 1 and 2, otoh, managed to have a message without preachy moments and contained within a great script. Imo, of course. :) Sue - ----- Original Message ----- From: David S. Bratman To: Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:19 PM Subject: Re: b/Christian virtues > On Fri, 5 May 2000, Susan Kroupa wrote: > > > Don made a good point about the lack of black or other ethnic characters on > > the show (being in California, you'd think Sunnydale would have a few more > > Hispanic students at least) > > There are dismayingly few Hispanic students on UC campuses. Asians: what > they should have is lots and lots of Asians. > > > What I hate even more than stereotyping is Message, whether I agree or not > > with whatever's being preached. That's what ruined IRON GIANT for me--the > > Message was so blatant it killed the story > > I tend to get pretty annoyed at Heavy Message, but _Iron Giant_ didn't > have that problem for me. Most of it was just A Boy And His Robot, and > the message was background. Also, it took pains to be charming. And if > the message was "People tend to mistrust the unknown," that's not what I > call a heavy message. (This isn't intended as a conclusive argument, > merely as a stab at explaining why I wasn't bothered.) > > A few writers are so hamhanded they can make me disagree with anything > they say, even if I entirely agreed with it up until a moment earlier. > Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand are the most notable inhabitants of this > category; I suspect all libertarian writers go there. > > ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #101 *****************************