From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #161 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Tuesday, July 25 2000 Volume 02 : Number 161 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/comments7/16 [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/Becoming ["Berni Phillips" ] Friends of Don [Dawn Friedman ] o/rerun dreaming [meredith ] Re: b/comments7/16 [meredith ] Re: Friends of Don [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:53:45 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 In a message dated 7/23/00 11:34:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << One of the definitional qualities of greatness in literature is that a book (yea, even a film or tv show) should be equally if not more enjoyable on second reading. Now this is meant to apply to those who at least have a memory of a first reading in the proper way, but should it not also apply to those who did not? >> It should. But personally, I think that what happened subsequent to "Becoming" blunts the impact of the re-experience even for those of us who experienced it "right" the first time. The anti-climactic return of Angel and the whole "Angel" series come at a major cost to what was at the time probably one of the all-time dramatic peaks on the large or small screen. I have not yet been convinced that the "Angel" series is worth that cost. (Especially given that Angel has IMHO turned out to be a rather dull character in his own series.) So being pre-blunted is even worse. But, also, you didn't experience the impact because you thought you knew what was going to happen -- Buffy was going to kill Angel because she didn't believe that he had changed -- and thus you simply =ignored= a lot of the actual content and the actual subtleties. There is a difference in experience between "getting" a joke and then going back and experiencing the joke again, or even analyzing how the punch line was set up, and never getting the joke and then having the joke explained to you. Going back to watch it again, those of us who experienced it the first time can get even more. Not knowing what is going to come, we don't pick up the first time on the moment that Buffy makes her decision. But -- I recommend this to everyone here who was blown away when they first watched B2 -- go back and watch that scene again, and see the moment in which Buffy knows what she has to do, when the decision flashes through her eyes. It's only a fraction of a second, but it is perhaps the most powerful fraction of a second of acting, well, maybe ever. She starts passionately kissing him right after this. The first time, we (at least I) actually briefly wondered if she was really going to let the world go to hell. (Part of Joss's art that he could actually make us doubt the fate of the world, even briefly!) But when you see her decide what she is going to do and =then= kiss him so desperately, knowing the decision that is set in her mind, it is a whole new emotional experience. << You say that what I called red herrings and you call misleading signposts, a la Xander's omission, are common on _Buffy_. Perhaps you could give examples of others on this level, because I cannot offhand think of any. >> I can't think of any as big as that one, but, remember, this story of Angel's change and Buffy's killing Angel had been carried around in Joss's head for ten years and the entire series up to Becoming was intended to lead to it, so he invested a lot into that story line. However, after Joss successfully faked me out with the Faith storyline in season 4, I studied how he did the Faith storyline very carefully during the reruns. The Faith storyline is another example of "Unpredictable beforehand, inevitable in retrospect." Faith's change was set up from the beginning, yet there were misleading signposts throughout in order to lull us into non-suspicion. An example that comes to mind is Giles' statement to Buffy that with Faith there to take care of the slaying duties, Buffy could go away to college. Who didn't think at that point that things with Faith would continue to be hunky-dory? The signs foreshadowing Faith's actual path had already begun to be laid down before that point, but the misleading signposts like Giles' statement drew our attention because they were explicit -- like a magician's patter, intended to distract us from what the magician's hands are really doing. I studied Joss's technique in Season Three minutely, and I realized how much of this magician misdirection technique he uses while setting up his plotlines. It is no accident that Buffy is so notoriously difficult to predict and so full of surprises. But Season Four was sloppier and showed much less care -- less Joss, really -- than the previous seasons. It's not worth as much study, and I haven't even been watching most of the reruns, except for a few highlight episodes. So my memory is a little fuzzy on many specifics of misdirection (most of which, as I said, don't stand out as dramatically as the Xander incident). (And, no, I agree, deliberate misdirection of our expectations is not the same as plot threads that simply are not followed up on. Misdirection is intended to misdirect our expectations re plots that =are= being developed. Misdirection results in our being =surprised= when the plot takes a twist that has actually been foreshadowed all along. Undeveloped plot threads merely cause us to say, "How come they never did anything with that?") And, yes, Joss loves thematic parallels. That is part of his art. It's not an either / or between thematic parallels and magicians' sleight-of-hand techniques. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:14:35 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/Becoming >From: Dori >David said: >> We >>do not see Angel physically harming Giles, but nor do I get the sense, as >>I often do with later incarnations of Bad Angel, that he's all talk and no >>action. > >Well, the blood dripping off Giles' fingers sort of told me that. > >I'm puzzled, though--we didn't actually see Faith doing the major >damage to Wes, either. I seem to remember her backhanding him once, >but the Blunt and the Sharp, those were off-camera. I never noticed the blood dripping off Giles' fingers. I think a lot of the difference may have to do with the lighting and camera angles. As I recall, Wesley was tortured in the kitchen. I think the light was stronger and very focused on his face, which was brightly colored with all the lumps and bruises. Giles' torture was in much dimmer lighting. Giles' torture was basically over by the time we saw him; Wesley's was still in progress or at least intended to be so. (Plus you know that Wesley is no Giles. How well he actually held up was his turning point in turning from a whatever-he-was into a man.) Perhaps it's also the difference in the characters of the torturers. Faith is so in-your-face about everything that her torture scenario would be much less subtle than Angel's. Faith was playing with her sharp objects; Angel was playing with Giles' broken glasses (if I'm recalling correctly). You can take this back to third season, too. It's Faith who displays all the sharp objects which she intends to use on Buffy when Angel was pretending to be bad. Angel is much better at the psychological torture which isn't Faith's style. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:16:17 -0400 From: Dawn Friedman Subject: Friends of Don At 02:27 AM 7/24/00 -0400, David wrote: >Dawn: One thing you might not know is that this is not technically a >_Buffy_ list. It's a Friends of Don Keller list, a status I've been >privileged to hold for over 20 years. When it was on Genie, at which >time a lot more people casually dropped in, there were various other >topics besides _Buffy_ that occupied a lot of space, notably music and >baseball. But it seems to be mostly the _Buffy_ fans who've followed Don >over here. Ah! I understand. But then how did I stumble in? I'm only a Person to Whom Don Keller Was Nice Years Ago, and not a faithful GEnie topic denizen. >Especially because I'd be surprised if there are any other _Buffy_ lists >like this one. The level of thorough analysis, the tolerance of it from >others (no "gawd, why can't you just enjoy the show and stop analyzing it >so much"), the absence of random gushing and other chaff, is unique in my >limited experience of media lists of any kind. Well, yes. But it isn't a fair comparison. The level of _Buffy_ discussion here is best compared with that on other lists evolved from the GEnie topics of bright people with bright and talkative friends. It's still impressive. >(It is, of course, true believers who are apt to be most crushed by >disappointment, as you noted. I may never forget the fan of the original >Star Wars movie who declared that in _The Empire Strikes Back_ Lucas had >ruined, yes _ruined_, the SW universe - apparently because Luke suffers. >BTW, who is Chris Carter?) I never met one of those! All the SWars veterans I know had the opposite opinion. It just goes to show that there is no point of view so bizarre that *someone* doesn't hold to it. >If I seem critical at times, you are lucky you haven't seen me on recent >fantasy novels. I love fantasy, but even the most highly-praised novels >coming out these days are mostly utter trash. If this has been discussed to death already, I'd be happy to be directed to archives. But I'm curious. Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:06:21 -0400 From: meredith Subject: o/rerun dreaming Hi! My, we've been busy this weekend, haven't we? :) I just had to share this. I spent the weekend where we can be found every third weekend in July, the Falcon Ridge Folk Festival. (Don: there was actually a moment you would have appreciated! One performer, participating in a workshop on harmony, explained that she was trained as an ethnomusicologist, and as such had to take a lot of music theory. Therefore, said she, she knew that the song she was about to play "is wrong. But it's all about parallel sixths, so that makes it all right." ;>) Anyway. It was a weekend of way too much sun and very little sleep, so as soon as we got home last night I crashed. Throughout the night I found myself having a very odd dream. It took place on a rather different third floor of the main building of the high school I attended, and I was talking to some old faculty members about fiction. I turned around at one point and saw the Gentlemen gliding through the classroom we were standing in front of, and then the faculty member I had been talking to suddenly became Joss Whedon. We started talking about plotlines and Willow's wardrobe, and Joss noted that the thought that Don Keller guy has some rather interesting things to say (I am NOT making this up). The conversation died when I told him I went to Wesleyan too. Then the alarm went off. So is that Jungian or Freudian, I wonder? +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:33:28 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 Hi! David inquired: >BTW, who is Chris Carter? The creator of and creative mastermind behind _The X-Files_. +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 23:24:35 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Friends of Don In a message dated 7/24/00 6:12:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dsf@world.std.com writes: <> Dawn didn't answer this, so I will. Chris Carter is exec producer of the X-Files. (Append IMHO on all the following:) As a writer and director he is brilliant at creating atmosphere, but he is an incoherent mess at plotting. That was not too apparent during the first two seasons of X-Files, when there were some brilliant, inspired and careful writers on the staff. For the first two seasons, the X-Files topics on Genie were full of as much intense analysis as the various places on Genie where Buffy was discussed. X-Files used to be the highlight of my week (I like having one TV show I can look forward to all week). But when the best writers left, it became increasingly obvious that what appeared to be a long-term story arc as carefully constructed as the arcs on Buffy was really an un-thought-out mess with "clues" tossed in with no thought and then forgotten. And what seemed like flat-out stupidity and lack of thought really was. Some fans caught on sooner than others. The Genie fans, being of course the smartest fans in the universe, began to catch on very early. I was one of those who lost interest in the arc during third season (think it's in sixth or seventh now) and I only continued to take an interest in the standalone episodes and the character interaction. But a lot of X-Files fandom continued in denial. There were heated arguments between the disillusioned and those who continued to have faith. But the longer a fan stayed in denial, the greater the crash of disillusionment when denial was no longer viabe. And the pain of faith betrayed is not a pretty sight. Hence, it's understandable that many who feel burned by the X-Files are ready to lose faith in Buffy at the slightest hint that it is going downhill. But there is a big difference between these two. Chris Carter never =did= have the ability to plot. Joss Whedon, OTOH, is a brilliant plotter. The past season of Buffy seems to have been neglected by Joss -- though I'm sure he outlined the season arc, he left most of the writing in lesser hands (not to say that they aren't good writers, but they aren't Joss). In this past season it is clear he wasn't giving Buffy the thorough attention he used to (surely because his time was divided between Buffy and Angel). The key question about next season is whether Joss will return his full attention to Buffy or not. If you want an idea of what I am talking about, rent the big screen X-Files movie, script by Chris Carter. Anything that appears not to make sense plot-wise, or that seems un-thought-out (such as -- it's summer in the northern hemisphere and they go to Antarctica and it's full daylight, or there is corn whose nefarious genetically engineered pollen is supposed to be spread by bees, though corn is wind-pollinated) is exactly what it appears to be. (All IMHO, remember.) Gayle PS Oh, now I see Meredith answered who Chris Carter is. Well, maybe this will explain better the connection between Chris Carter and the attitude of the Buffy fans that Dawn cited. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #161 *****************************