From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #221 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, November 27 2000 Volume 02 : Number 221 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/faithawake ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/glorysnake ["marta grabien" ] Re: b/glorysnake [Dawn Friedman ] o/charlie's angels [meredith ] Re: b/glorysnake [meredith ] Re: b/glorysnake [meredith ] Re: o/charlie's angels ["marta grabien" ] Re: o/charlie's angels [Todd Huff ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:12:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/faithawake What I =ought= to be doing is finishing the revision on my essay; what I =want= to be doing is joining in the discussion here; but what I =need= to do, first, is get down the latest =idee fixe= that won't leave me alone. Being at work when I'm blindingly tired with nothing to do and stimulating reading matter on hand is a pretty sure formula to get my unconscious a-boil. I've been slowly reading Gerhard Adler's =The Living Symbol=, a 400- page Jungian case history (of which there are very few) largely made up of the interpretations of over 100 dreams (and the associated fantasies and paintings) of one of Adler's patients. It's pretty fascinating stuff. The other night when I was reading it at work I was struck by the fact that the analysand had a three-part dream which seemed (in my quasi-feverish state) to strongly parallel the progress of Faith's three-part dream in "This Year's Girl." In the brief first part the dreamer was weaving something with a shadow-figure; in the second she had a more conflicting relationship with the shadow, and in the end fled; in the third, she thought she was awake, and tried to write down her dream by the light of the moon. And as we remember, in Faith's dream, she first was making a bed with Buffy; then in conflict with her, trying to flee as Buffy killed the Mayor; lastly "waking" from the grave, in a rainstorm (and here I'll point out that both the moon and rain are symbols of the unconscious). Vague enough for you? Well, I ended up getting even more abstract, because I began thinking about alchemy, and Jung's sense that the alchemical process was a parallel to the life-process of the psyche: where alchemy spoke of "solve et coagula," to separate substances all mixed together then combine them again in a more felicitous manner (chemically speaking, separate a mixture and then make a compound of it), Jung saw the progress of the psyche as the conscious ego separating itself from the unconscious, then reconciling itself with the rest of the unconscious by bringing the unconscious material to consciousness and achieving a new integration. Relevant here is the first sentence of Jung's summation of alchemy, =Mysterium Coniunctionis=: "The factors which come together in the coniunctio are conceived as opposites, either confronting one another in enmity or attracting one another in love." This applies to the conscious (ego) and unconscious, and also, in a Jungian fantasy like =Buffy=, to the protagonist and the shadow (most especially Buffy and Faith). A reminder as well about the difference between Freudian and Jungian dream interpretation: Freudian dream interpretation concentrates on the past, on material the conscious mind has suppressed: childhood trauma, inappropriate feelings (almost always sexual), unacknowledged motivations (usually base). What is hidden is what is most important. Jungian dream interpretation, on the other hand, while acknowledging the =partial= relevance of Freudian interpretation, concentrates much more on the present and the future, and prefers to take the dream material (and its symbolic associations) at face value, rather than seeing it as a cipher for the repressed. From this point of view, dreams tend to give a symbolic representation of the dreamer's current state, and suggest what the dreamer needs to do next, psychically speaking: not a prediction, but a prescription (a diagnosis plus a recipe). That is, it =prefigures= the path the psyche--including the unconscious--feels is appropriate to follow. From a Freudian point of view, Faith's dream-trilogy is pretty clear: she wanted to be a part of Buffy's life, Buffy rejected her, tried to kill her, and Faith wants to kill her in return (leave her behind in the grave) and take over as =the= Slayer. That's a perfectly legitimate interpretation... ...but it's only partial; there's a lot more to it than that. Let's start by seeing the three parts of the dream alchemically: 1. Faith offers Buffy her cooperation, but in the naive, identifying sense of a younger sister ("little sis coming"!) or a daughter; Buffy violently rejects her overture. (Inappropriate mixture of the elements.) 2. The conflict is re-staged with the participation of a mediating parental figure (the Mayor). Buffy kills the Mayor, and Faith flees. (Separation of the contrasting elements.) 3. Buffy pursues Faith into the grave; there is a suggestion of a confusion/combination of the two, and inundated by rain, Faith emerges alone. (Recombination of the contrasting elements into something new.) Taking it from a prospective Jungian point of view, what this suggests is that Faith needs to 1) get free of her identification with Buffy 2) resolve the conflict between them 3) make her own place in the world. (Easier said than done, of course.) The problem is that, when Faith wakes up, =she reads the dream wrong=. She reads it more or less in the Freudian way ("...some stuff about cigars and tunnels," she jokingly finishes her interpretation during the campus confrontation), and Buffy's statements in that same scene ("you had it coming," "things you don't understand," lamenting that Faith did not "reflect and grow") suggest that Faith is taking the wrong path. The rest of "This Year's Girl"/"Who Are You," implementing the usual Jungian fantasy strategy, replays the script (pre-script-ion?) of the dream; but Faith, getting it wrong, =switches roles= with Buffy, feeling that she's entitled to revenge: call it the Way of Payback. 1. This time it's Buffy who offers cooperation; remember her speech to Giles and the others about what Faith might be feeling, allowing the "reflect and grow" possibility. Buffy is disappointed and angered when Faith violently rejects her overture. 2. Faith uses the mediating figure of Joyce (Buffy's parental figure) to re-stage her conflict with Buffy; however, Buffy does not flee (as in the dream), but resists. 3. Still, Faith (making use of =her= parental figure, the Mayor) has the body-swapping (identity-blurring) device, and the first part ends with her apparent victory (just as in her dream). But that's only =seemingly= the end of this iteration of the dream-script. Most of "Who Are You" is an interlude, a kind of "dream" itself, or more accurately a what-if scenario where Faith-as-Buffy gets to experience from the inside what Buffy's life is like (very much, it occurs to me now, as Jonathan did in the what-if episode "Superstar," and as we were able to observe, in the what-if episode "The Wish," how Buffy might have turned out if her life had been more like Faith's). However, Faith's victory was an "ill-gotten gain," and the price of the Way of Payback proves to be more payback: "Who Are You" "rhymes" with "This Year's Girl" in the sense that both episodes end with Faith and Buffy fighting and blurring identities; it's really the "same" fight, or two rounds of one fight. Faith's temporary victory is turned back into defeat, as Buffy wrests her own body (and life) back. The ultimate failure of the "script" to work out for Faith causes a severe psychic blow; and, more like the result of the second dream, she flees. Faith is back to square one, now, and has to start working through the dream-script again. In her despair, she once more chooses the wrong path: call it the Way of Suicide. 1. Casting Angel (who had also rejected her inappropriate identification, in "Enemies") in Buffy's role in the process, she offers a mocking, false "cooperation": "let's play a game," with plenty of sexual innuendo; Angel (gently, mind you) rejects this new "cooperation" as well. 2. Faith again makes use of a mediating parental figure (Wesley, her former Watcher) to re-stage the conflict with Angel; and once more, her antagonist, Angel, doesn't flee, but resists (as gently as he can). 3. Their fight in the alley (inundated with rain) "rhymes" with the third dream =and= the two parts of the =Buffy= iteration, and the result is the same as in "Who Are You": psychic shock, this time facilitated by Angel's passive resistance. The "blurring identity" idea comes in over the first half of "Sanctuary," where Angel =accepts= an =appropriate= identification between him and Faith, as signaling her recognition of her problem and willingness to change. But that's still not the end of it: Faith's acceptance of the situation is still provisional and fragile, a process that has just begun; and the rest of "Sanctuary" runs another iteration of the "dream-script" just to underline the process, this time with Buffy re-assuming her dream-role(!). And this time we can call it, from Faith's point of view, the Way of Awakening: 1. Faith offers Buffy "cooperation" (apology/reconciliation); Buffy furiously and threateningly rejects it. (It's "inappropriate" because it's not enough.) 2. Buffy (verbally =and= physically) attacks Angel, who has been promoted (in relation to Faith) to mediating parental figure; Faith flees. 3. Because of the situation with the Council thugs, Buffy and Faith have their "identities" "blurred" because they're thrown together on the same side of this new conflict. What Faith takes out of all this is a new realization: she flees again, not =from= anything, but =to= a new sense of responsibility for her own actions: she confesses her crimes and accepts her punishment. Obviously, this isn't the end of the process, but only the beginning; but I think that the whole "Faith tetrology" from this point of view can be seen as Faith gradually working out the implications of her three-part dream and taking the necessary next step in her life. And that's the Jungian interpretation dramatized. Footnote: I'm not sure whether this belongs in my revised essay or not, because it's more about the =result= of the dream(s); and in any case it would burst the bounds of the (relatively) close-focused essay. I'm curious as to what the multitude might think. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:18:23 -0800 From: "marta grabien" Subject: Re: b/glorysnake > Back to Riley: what =was= he up to with Sandy? Had he simply made his mind > up to stray and then changed his mind? Or--a point Deirdre also brought > up, which hadn't even occurred to me--did he have the momentary impulse > (after the conversation with Spike) to get himself changed into a > vampire?? And then changed his mind, of course.) But he had the stake ready. How much munching makes a vampire? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:02:12 -0500 From: Dawn Friedman Subject: Re: b/glorysnake At 02:43 AM 11/26/00 -0500, Robert wrote: > That solo return to the vampire-occupied crypt could have been >handled differently: crack the door, toss in the grenade, and run. >Riley chose a chancier stance, confronting and taunting the occupants >before he laid that explosive egg on the floor. The man's proving stuff >to himself in a way that will get him killed if he keeps it up . . . and >he's feeling the absence of that link, that connectedness, that's kept >the real Slayer alive thus far. I agree completely -- but I noticed on rewatching it that it wasn't random confronting and taunting: he wanted an up-close-and-personal kill of the vamp that nearly killed Buffy. *Then* he threw the grenade. So that was more or less of a piece with his previous (reckless, self-destructive) behavior. What isn't, of course, is the way he took out Sandy. Have we ever seen him use entrapment before? What did he tell her, I wonder, or did he just look vulnerable? I don't know how seriously he was considering letting her turn him, but he must have known how he would have to stop her, and he was armed for it. Not exactly Captain America behavior, no matter how just the outcome. Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 21:02:21 -0500 From: meredith Subject: o/charlie's angels Hi! Just wanted to pop in with a glowing recommendation for _Charlie's Angels_. I went to see it over the weekend with a couple of sisters-in-law, and I haven't had that much fun at a movie since ... gee, I can hardly remember. At least since _Mystery Men_. From opening frame to closing credits, the thing is one constant laugh riot - -- and the best part is, it's *supposed* to be. It's a brilliant satire of the entire action-movie genre. And the fight scenes ... oh, gods. They took the most over-the-top of the Hong Kong action fights (think _The Bride With White Hair_ or other Michelle Yeoh hits), and ran them unapologetically through _The Matrix_. It's an absolute HOWL. I think _Xena_ fans may find it even more satisfying, but those of us who find happiness in the kick-butt parts of _Buffy_ will appreciate it on exactly the same level. (Or, if you're like Harry from Ain't It Cool News and just want to watch it for, as he put it, "Cameron Diaz's swirling ass", I guess that's okay too. :) +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:55:27 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/glorysnake Hi, A couple more responses on this: Hilary noted: >Loved the Giles and Buffy >chase after the snake bits. His car has improved. Indeed. It can even absorb a hard impact with a dumpster, and emerge with nary a scratch. Must be that German engineering. ;> David commented: >BTVS is a show about people and >their problems, not about demon battles per se, and it is both relevant >and significant for Buffy to have mundane problems. She's had them >before: school problems, non-supernatural boyfriend problems (there was >nothing supernatural about the Parker catastrophe, for instance). Exactly. But since Buffy has had so much success vanquishing supernatural foes, that makes it all the more frustrating when she finds herself up against a mundane adversary. She can't just work a spell and make it better, or kick some demon ass and make the problem go away (as much as she showed she's going to try). Rob turned to me during this episode and said, "You know, this show would be so much better if Buffy got killed. She's rapidly getting very annoying." His point was that she shouldn't be brought down so far by such a mundane thing. She expects to be able to fix everything, and she's got to get over herself and realize that she's not a god - there are some things she *can't* fix. "When will she learn?" he asked. Of course, in the very next scene Buffy quite thoroughly got her clock cleaned by Glory (again), so I turned to him and said, "I think she's starting." :) +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:47:53 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/glorysnake Hi! Don posted: >A very heavy =Buffy= episode this past Tuesday; I guess. Though I must say it was *extremely* difficult for me to feel any dramatic tension where the cobra demon was concerned. I kept thinking, "BUT IT'S ONLY A RUBBER SNAKE!!!" >I'm intrigued by the >fact that they are clearly going to keep Joyce's health crisis >entirely in the realm of science/medicine, and not involve the >supernatural (and are we disappointed that, for the second time this >season, a mundane explanation applies?). I'm not entirely convinced of that. I don't think it's going to turn out to be pure coincidence that the illness came on just as Dawn appeared. >And boy, did Spike cause trouble! As is frequently the case, what he said >to Riley had =just= enough truth in it to be plausible, and really sent >Riley into a tailspin. Then add to that what Dawn said to him, surely >thinking she was telling him things he'd be glad to hear, but which we are >aware he would read between the lines of and corroborate his feeling that >Buffy doesn't love him--at least not as much as she did Angel. The question I have is, when did he change his mind about becoming a vampire? He had obviously come prepared. That wasn't too clear ... though it was no less affecting. I was sitting there going, "Holy @!&*" throughout that scene. >Here's an interesting angle that Deirdre brought up when I discussed the >episode with her yesterday. (Actually it was her flatmate Eileen who had >the thought.) Doesn't the retroactive presence of Dawn in Buffy's life >change =all= of Buffy's relationships? Wouldn't it have been much more >difficult for Buffy to lead her clandestine life the first two seasons >with a (then-10-year-old) sister in the house, too? Doesn't it change the >dynamic of her relationship to Willow and Xander, as well? Their bond is >based partly on the fact that they were all three only children; if Buffy >has a sister that changes things. I don't know what I think about this >just yet, but it's a point worth pondering. The thing to remember as you ponder is, Dawn *really wasn't there*. They only *think* she was there. >Back to Riley: what =was= he up to with Sandy? Had he simply made his mind >up to stray and then changed his mind? Or--a point Deirdre also brought >up, which hadn't even occurred to me--did he have the momentary impulse >(after the conversation with Spike) to get himself changed into a >vampire?? And then changed his mind, of course. Wow. How did that not occur to you? The minute she showed up in the bar, I knew what he was going to do. (I don't mean that to sound snippy, but usually I'm the one who's pitifully slow on the uptake, so I figure the fact that I picked up on it means it was all blatantly obvious. :) >And a good scene where Xander confronts Riley about going it alone. The >mild conflict of their relationship is one of the good things the show had >been doing this season. In this sense, Xander has taken over the role of "chorus" from Cordelia. (Anya's got it the rest of the time, usually.) >More good Anya stuff. She had the best line of the episode: "Thank you >=very much= for =those= nightmares!" I think I liked it so much because I >half-anticipated it when Xander mentioned bunnies: I flashed on Anya's >bunny-suit in "Fear, Itself" and her admission that bunnies scare her. Me, too. That one had me ROTFL. >And it's working very well to have Anya and Tara as part of the team: note >the way that they were first and second lead in solving the mystery this >episode (with Willow just behind and Giles well behind). The magic shop as >base for operations was a swell idea. Is Tara working at the magic shop now, too? It seemed odd that she was there before Willow was. Or were they just going to be meeting there? (Not a big point, but it was something that occurred to me.) >Incidentally: did they say the ancient snake-cult priest was named Kull >(as in Robert E. Howard)? (Not the guy in the episode--he was called Dreg, >forsooth.) It sure *sounded* like Kull. Rob and I rolled our eyes at one another when we heard it, at least. I'll have to check the tape with the captioning turned on and see for sure. >I found myself wondering if they used a real cobra in any of those shots >in the zoo; I'm pretty sure it wasn't real when Glory was handling it on >camera. The effects for the creature were an improvement on the >Mayor-snake, but still obviously computer-generated. Oh, the snake effects were LAUGHABLY awful. So much so, in fact, that as I mentioned above, it affected my perception of the entire episode. I just found it impossible to take the thing seriously, particularly when Buffy was sitting astride it, pummeling it like she were a little kid bashing on a beach ball in the pool. Her fists were bouncing off it, and all I could do was sit there and laugh, though I knew I was supposed to be moved by the emotion she was expressing. To think back to my other favorite show: _Buffy_ has it all over _Xena_ when it comes to plotting, writing, and acting, but when it comes to FX, the _Buffy_ crew really should give the folks down in New Zealand a call. A cobra demon attacking Xena and Gabrielle would have looked like a fearsome cobra demon. >Good (but easy to miss) line by Willow, wondering why the snake was >"afraid" of Dawn; and an effectively dramatic line where Buffy says =sotto >voce= to Giles, "It knows!" I missed Willow's line. Was it before or after Buffy's line to Giles? >And effective use of Buffy's well-known tendency to take out her stress >("kicking ass is comfort food," remember?) in combat, battering the >snake-thing to death and beyond in a rather Faith-like manner. See above for my thoughts on how that actually came across. +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:37:49 -0800 From: "marta grabien" Subject: Re: o/charlie's angels > Just wanted to pop in with a glowing recommendation for _Charlie's Angels_. > I went to see it over the weekend with a couple of sisters-in-law, and I > haven't had that much fun at a movie since ... gee, I can hardly remember. > At least since _Mystery Men My son and daughter in law loved it too. I just haven't had time to see it yet. Perhaps tomorrow/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:51:17 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: o/charlie's angels - --- meredith wrote: > Hi! > > Just wanted to pop in with a glowing recommendation > for _Charlie's Angels_. > I went to see it over the weekend with a couple of > sisters-in-law, and I > haven't had that much fun at a movie since ... gee, > I can hardly remember. > At least since _Mystery Men_. I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected to as well. Like a live-action cartoon. Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #221 *****************************