From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #194 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, December 10 2001 Volume 03 : Number 194 Today's Subjects: ----------------- o/Sixth Sense ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: o/Sixth Sense [meredith ] Re: o/Sixth Sense [Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury ] b/comments12/9 ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/comments12/9 ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 18:41:17 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: o/Sixth Sense Well, I've finally seen the fabled film, "The Sixth Sense". Perhaps unfortunately, I already knew the surprise before I saw the film. But perhaps not so unfortunately, because even with knowing it - and perhaps more for knowing it, because I knew what to look for - I did NOT think the filmmakers played fair with the audience over this. No, I did not misread the critical clues. I saw them correctly, and they work. My complaints are on different levels. I'll discuss this further only if nobody here minds spoilers. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 21:47:01 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: o/Sixth Sense Hi, >I'll discuss this further only if nobody here minds spoilers. I've seen the film, so I don't mind. I keep meaning to watch it again, so I can view it from the perspective of knowing what the surprise is from the beginning, but I haven't had the chance. (In the same vein, I want to watch _Memento_ backwards (from the perspective of scene order). Haven't had a chance to do that either.) ======================================= Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" -- mahatma gandhi ======================================= Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 20:42:49 -0700 From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: Re: o/Sixth Sense At 06:41 PM 12/9/01 -0800, you wrote: >Well, I've finally seen the fabled film, "The Sixth Sense". [snip] >I'll discuss this further only if nobody here minds spoilers. Please, go ahead, David. Phaedre/Kathleen workshop@burgoyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 00:46:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/comments12/9 Let's start with my possibly-getting-annoying watchdog agenda in re the reruns on Fox and UPN. I didn't notice any cuts in "The Wish" a couple weeks ago or the half of "Amends" I saw the following week (3rd season, Sundays, UPN), but that's possibly because I don't know those episodes as line-for-line perfect as I do earlier ones. (I'd forgotten just how interesting, and well-done, "The Wish" is; it's an episode that I underrate.) As for the 1st season episodes on Fox, I've been half- watching them while reading along in the script books. "Nightmares" last week (about which, more in a bit) was only missing a Xanderism or two (not crucial, but still too bad). Yesterday's "Out of Sight, Out of Mind," however, had a really damaging cut: in the scene where Angel shows up at the library to talk to Giles, he says it's too hard for him to be around Buffy, to which Giles muses: "A vampire in love with the Slayer. It's rather poetic, in a maudlin sort of way." Fox, in their infinite wisdom, cut the line. Now, this was important enough a line that, as I remember, they used it in "Previously on..." clips for some time afterward; it's one of the more important lines of the season, I'd say. (And how applicable to Spike, now!) An indefensible edit. And in the long and very funny scene where the Slayerettes are in the library discussing the invisible girl, Cordelia rushes in (on cue, at the mention of her name), begging for help while insulting the "losers" she's talking to (culminating in her hilarious comment to Buffy, "I was hoping you were in a gang"); one several-line speech where she's trying to claim she and Buffy share feelings is just gone, sad to say. Something one discovers reading along with the shooting scripts is that much of the dialogue is approximate: content the same, wording slightly but not materially changed. And there are definitely lines in the script that didn't make it into the filmed version. Conversely, there are occasionally insertions, lines added to the filmed version that were not in the script. I was surprised to discover, earlier in the same scene just mentioned, that the following line of Buffy's was just such an afterthought: "I think I speak for everyone here when I say, 'huh?'" David/Berni: Was that your first opportunity to see "Nightmares"? I'm curious to know your opinion of the episode overall. To my mind, it's the best episode of the 1st season (though "Prophecy Girl," the season finale, coming up soon, is very close), a significant milestone in my appreciation of the show. I'd already gone from "Gee, this is worth watching" to "Boy, this is really good!"; as of "Nightmares" I arrived at "Omighod!!" In particular, the scene between Buffy and her dad was a significant milestone in my growing appreciation for SMG's acting. David/Meredith: Verrry interesting stuff about "Buffy vs. Dracula," "Nightmares," "Restless" and the current situation with Buffy. I had started to write some comments pertinent to all this before, so I won't try to rewrite it here, but append my line of thought below. But this all tracks, it seems to me. (Among other things, in another vampire mythology "kindred" is a code name for vampire society.) Hilary: (sorry I seem to misspell your name on occasion): I'm kind of charmed by the idea of "Who's the Girl" as the portmanteau title for "This Year's Girl"/"Who Are You." It was in the latter episode that Faith-as-Buffy encountered Spike in the Bronze, and in answer to your question, no, I don't think Spike ever found out that that was (in essence) Faith, not Buffy. Also interesting to speculate on how that encounter (as well as the faux-engagement in "Something Blue") may have stuck in Spike's unconscious and fed into his dream-fantasy about Buffy (I can't remember now which 5th- season episode it closes) that got him into the present fix. Berni: Buffy an angel?!? That's it! She's one of the Valar! Buffy the White! After all, she =did= sacrifice herself by falling off a precipice and then came back...[insert long exposition of the Ego/Shadow on Brink motif, Frodo and Gollum on Orodruin etc. etc. etc.] And now some comments I wrote about two weeks ago, and stalled before I finished them. Re Todd's question: did Spike ever hit Buffy between getting his chip and her death? Answer: yes. In "Something Blue," when Buffy finds Spike "in two seconds" while he's looking for the vent he emerged from out of the Initiative, they get into a fight, and it's played for comedy: he hits her, he says "ow," she hits him, he says "ow." And in "Fool for Love" (5th season), during Spike's lecture in the Bronze about killing two Slayers, in the course of making a point he punches Buffy's stab wound, causing them both to yell in pain; and later in the alley he again makes a point by vamping and trying to bite her and suffering the consequences. We have no reason to believe he was faking on any of those occasions, especially since in "Smashed" he =expected= his head to hurt and was surprised when it didn't. So our best evidence is that his ability to hit Buffy now without pain is a post-resurrection condition. And just what =is= that condition? Berni suggests she has suffered some kind of =physical= damage; Hilary suggests Buffy is now more Slayer than human (whatever that means); David suggests that she is now (i.e. wasn't before) animated by a demon, and maybe she'll turn into a vampire later on (which, as he correctly notes, is one way for her to turn evil as I speculated wildly); Todd, most saliently, reminds us of a passage I hadn't thought of in this connection, the very mysterious and provocative "we're not demons"/"is that a fact?" exchange between Buffy and Adam in "Restless." And Marta reminds us that Slayer blood is not the same as human blood (nor the same as the Key's blood! he says, still on his hobbyhorse). All points worth pondering. To slightly restate David's speculation, he wonders if perhaps Buffy is now essentially a vampire: "dead" body, no soul, possessing demon. And for some reason the demon hasn't "manifested" yet. I think this is highly unlikely; I don't remember that we've seen Buffy eat, but we don't have evidence she hasn't, and vampires get really hungry really fast (when Buffy =did= turn into a vampire in "Nightmares," one of the first things she said was "I'm getting hungry"). Drinking liquor, of course, is no evidence either way. But I think this speculation is along the right track, and the exchange in "Restless" points toward a slightly different speculation. Let's consider a very inexact analogy with medicine: in order to counter a disease, you make a vaccine; and the vaccine is the same bacterium as the disease, rendered harmless. (Yes, yes, a vaccine prevents, not cures, the disease.) So if vampirism is the "disease," is the Slayer the "vaccine"? Is the Slayer possessed by a "good" demon (which we now know exist)? This would mean, in fact, that the Slayer and Angel are pretty exact equivalents, each having both a soul and a possessing demon; it would also explain the Slayer's super-strength. And both why the Slayer's blood is different from a normal humans...and why it would cure a vampire. Almost too neat. (The main argument =against= this theory is that demons are immortal and Slayers are not; super-strength aside, every Slayer dies eventually, and evidently sooner rather than later. Buffy died--and not once, but twice; what happened to her possessing demon if that was the case? Obviously, given the Second Slayer, there isn't just one Slayer Demon, either.) But =if= this theory holds water...it means that Buffy is now =equivalent= to a vampire, but possessed by a different demon (most likely a benevolent one), and you know what? We don't know =what= the hell that means. And would the "curse" cure the problem? Maybe. Hilary is not the first person to suggest that the "curse" be performed on Spike (it's something Deirdre would love to see), and I think (based on nothing but a hunch) that that is a reason why we =won't= see it used on Buffy, either: Joss Whedon, I'm guessing, doesn't want to go that route again. Whatever the actual situation (and we still don't know for sure) I suspect there will be a completely new solution. And now for an important issue I hadn't gotten to: David: I wrote a resounding "NO" in my notes next to your notion (good grief, such alliteration!) that Buffy having sex with Spike represents her finally expressing her "deeper feelings" for him; not unless by "deeper" you mean "baser" in the Freudian sense. In particular, if you mean to draw a parallel between Buffy & Spike and Buffy & Angel...I don't think it holds water at all. I'm still taking Buffy at her word: in "Wrecked" she calls Spike "convenient" and the experience as "the most perverted and degrading" of her life. (Admittedly, both those statements were made with malice aforethought to wound...but I still believe she meant what she said.) Buffy doesn't =pine= for Spike the way she =still= does for Angel. I think the model we need to look at here is not Buffy and Angel, but Faith and Xander: like Xander, Spike was (merely) physically attractive and "convenient" after a big fight... and of no particular interest (maybe even =negative= interest in Buffy's case) afterwards. (Well, I didn't manage to finish this today, either--I got some work instead, this is a =good= thing--but if I wait until I'm finished it's likely be another week or more before I get around to it. So I'll cut it off here and send it along. Next topic is Buffy mixing up violence and sex, with a reference to the teaser of "Something Blue." Soon, I hope.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 22:59:21 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/comments12/9 At 09:46 PM 12/9/2001 , DGK wrote: >(I'd forgotten just how >interesting, and well-done, "The Wish" is; it's an episode >that I underrate.) Although I'd seen parts of earlier 3rd-season episodes, I think that's the first one I sat down and watched in full when it first aired. I was impressed. >Fox, in their infinite wisdom, cut the line. Now, this was >important enough a line that, as I remember, they used it in >"Previously on..." clips for some time afterward; it's one of >the more important lines of the season, I'd say. (And how >applicable to Spike, now!) An indefensible edit. I know of serious butchering done by syndicators and TV stations to old Trek Classic episodes, and I'm sure it happens to all the shows. One hopes they're restored on video. Your sarcastic phrase "infinite wisdom" grates on me, though, because Mike Resnick has been going around for years complaining about my "infinite wisdom" as 1994 Hugo Administrator for moving a Connie Willis story into a category with his story, thus (as he sees it) depriving him of a Hugo. Well, my wisdom may not actually be infinite, but on Hugo matters it far exceeds Mike Resnick's. >David/Berni: Was that your first opportunity to see >"Nightmares"? I'm curious to know your opinion of the episode >overall. To my mind, it's the best episode of the 1st season >(though "Prophecy Girl," the season finale, coming up soon, >is very close), a significant milestone in my appreciation of >the show. I'd already gone from "Gee, this is worth watching" >to "Boy, this is really good!"; as of "Nightmares" I arrived >at "Omighod!!" In particular, the scene between Buffy and her >dad was a significant milestone in my growing appreciation >for SMG's acting. That was the first time I saw it, yes. In the hindsight of everything that has happened since (I'm thinking more of writing skills and production values than plot points), it doesn't stick out so outstandingly (I'm prepared to argue that this show has been going on too long for its own good as a series, however much I admire the individual episodes), but it certainly does hold up well. A number of the surprise nightmares must have been really shocking back when things like demon motorcycle gangs weren't de rigeur in Sunnydale. I did find the scene in which Hank crushes Buffy emotionally to be quite effective. It had some personal echoes, but enough about that. (Nothing to do with Mike Resnick.) >(Among other things, in another vampire >mythology "kindred" is a code name for vampire society.) Whose vampire mythology is that? >Berni: Buffy an angel?!? That's it! She's one of the Valar! >Buffy the White! After all, she =did= sacrifice herself by >falling off a precipice and then came back...[insert long >exposition of the Ego/Shadow on Brink motif, Frodo and Gollum >on Orodruin etc. etc. etc.] Long chortle. Almost as asperic as G----f at times, she is, too. "I think I was in Heaven": no, you were in Lothlorien, being cared for by the Lady of the Galadhrim. >All points worth pondering. To slightly restate David's >speculation, he wonders if perhaps Buffy is now essentially a >vampire: "dead" body, no soul, possessing demon. And for some >reason the demon hasn't "manifested" yet. I think this is >highly unlikely; I don't remember that we've seen Buffy eat, >but we don't have evidence she hasn't, and vampires get >really hungry really fast (when Buffy =did= turn into a >vampire in "Nightmares," one of the first things she said was >"I'm getting hungry"). Drinking liquor, of course, is no >evidence either way. If she is a vampire, she's an unusual one. For one thing, she can obviously bear the sunlight, so perhaps her thirst is in abeyance. Or she could be some other kind of demon: wouldn't change the point, though it'd be less shocking (we've had scoobies turn into demons before). >So if vampirism is the "disease," is the Slayer >the "vaccine"? As you say, almost too neat. So simple it can't be true. >(The main argument =against= this theory is that demons are >immortal and Slayers are not; super-strength aside, every >Slayer dies eventually, and evidently sooner rather than >later. I thought Slayers tended to die young because they were killed by vampires. If life is that tough for Slayers, there'd be no way of knowing whether they'd grow old or not. >Buffy died--and not once, but twice; what happened to >her possessing demon if that was the case? Obviously, given >the Second Slayer, there isn't just one Slayer Demon, >either.) The mechanistic way in which this operates, and how the Second Slayer was created, itself suggests that a demon, or something similar, is at work. The rule, as we knew it before the end of last season, is that the death of a Slayer creates a new Slayer. This suggests the automatic generation of a new demon, which then takes possession of the body of a girl who was not previously a Slayer, giving her the Slayer powers. Buffy's recovery from her first death was a glitch in these rules, but it does suggest that her demon didn't abandon her for Kendra, but lived or died with her. Thus: new Slayer, new demon. (And: invocation of First Slayer, that demon still around somehow as a separate entity.) Buffy's second death is more problematic. On one hand, she appears not to have died in the ordinary sense. (cf Willow's comments on raising her) On the other, maybe there is a Third Slayer now, and we just don't know about it. >But =if= this theory holds water...it means that Buffy is now >=equivalent= to a vampire, but possessed by a different demon >(most likely a benevolent one), and you know what? We don't >know =what= the hell that means. That may or may not follow. Buffy's soul survived her second death, why not her Slayer demon? But in that case, what's different about her now? >David: I wrote a resounding "NO" in my notes next to your >notion (good grief, such alliteration!) that Buffy having sex >with Spike represents her finally expressing her "deeper >feelings" for him; not unless by "deeper" you mean "baser" in >the Freudian sense. I'm sorry, but I've read (and seen) so much fiction - the kind that thinks it's expressing Deep Truths but is actually trashy, like D.H. Lawrence - in which repulsion is always a mask for a deeper desire - in fact that's how you get to desire, through repulsion - that I couldn't believe the writers weren't using that. There's too many similar trashy mock-Deep Truths that the show does usually buy in to, and which I accept because that's the way fiction works. By this token, Buffy can similarly be attracted and revolted at the same time. I don't buy this hot&heavy building-crashing sex scene as a mere convenient "consolation". If she is only repelled by him, then no desire for consolation would be enough to explain all this. And Spike keeps claiming they have an affinity, and for all we can see now, he's right. Finally, it's not inconsistent that she doesn't pine for Spike the way she does for Angel (though she does pine for Spike in a way) because this isn't that kind of a relationship. She doesn't have the kind of sex with Spike that she did with Angel either. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #194 *****************************