|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 11, 2005 14:43:22 GMT -5
The "kindness of strangers" line is a direct quote from "Streetcar Named Desire;" Blanche Dubois says it when the guys in the white coats come to take her away. I'm trying to relate that to the Logan and Leo dynamic, and having problems. I mean, Logan is the one that Veronica left Leo for...and yet that can't be a throwaway... The whole ep is about kindness.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 11, 2005 14:44:10 GMT -5
Whiplash. One second: Meg is dead. Next second. Yay, Wallace. =========== Lamb working out, just a head shot. Me to Carolyn: "he'll be shirtless." Nope Oh, now yep. Then he adjusts his sweatpants, looking like they are coming off too. We just whooped! The "adjusting the sweatpants" moment was just too too good! I practically rolled on the floor! ;D I practically fell onto the floor.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 11, 2005 14:45:33 GMT -5
I've no doubt we're supposed to interpret something from the reference. Sadly, I haven't a clue what it could be. Perhaps just meant to suggest some link between Blanche's vulnerability and Logan's? A hint to the fact that he didn't get the tape for monetary reasons, but emotional ones? Definitely - many examples of people acting out of "desire," i.e., emotion, leading with their hearts.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 11, 2005 14:50:55 GMT -5
I hated the way they killed off Meg. She deserved better than that. I think the episode should be called Death Stalks the Pregnant Comatose Patient or How I survived a Horrific Bus Crash only to be slain by an Evil Blood Clot in honor of Meg's soap opera, albeit off-screen death. Hee hee!! Well, as you can tell from my post above, I liked the episode more than you did, but I completely agree with this part of your post. Killing off Meg is so hokey and over the top! And the way Meg asked Veronica to make sure her parents don't take the baby "if anything should happen to me." Puh-leez. Why wouldn't she ask Duncan, the father of the child and the son of a rich, powerful family? This does not compute. She wouldn't ask Duncan because she knows Duncan, and she wants someone who will actually take charge and make things happen: VERONICA. Duncan is the guy who just said to her, "What are we gonna do?" Meg is right to count on Veronica. Duncan let her down once before; she's smart not to entrust this to Duncan. Keith & Logan scenes were wonderful!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 11, 2005 14:53:03 GMT -5
Whiplash. One second: Meg is dead. Next second. Yay, Wallace. =========== Lamb working out, just a head shot. Me to Carolyn: "he'll be shirtless." Nope Oh, now yep. Then he adjusts his sweatpants, looking like they are coming off too. We just whooped! I like Michael and I like Lamb but the scene just didn't work for me. I too felt he was going to strip there for a minute. He was being awfully nice to Keith too - I missed his snark. I wonder if Woody was behind that. I almost felt like he was going to break the wall and ask the audience what they thought about his magnificent bod? Yes - I too thought that Don's "extra-cooperative" attitude had to do with Woody. I get this feeling that it is Woody to whom Don actually asks, "How high?"
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 11, 2005 14:55:49 GMT -5
And the way Meg asked Veronica to make sure her parents don't take the baby "if anything should happen to me." Puh-leez. Why wouldn't she ask Duncan, the father of the child and the son of a rich, powerful family? This does not compute. I think it computes perfectly, actually. Of the people involved who can find a way to honor Meg's wishes, Veronica is the logical candidate to get it done. Meg knows Veronica well enough to trust her in this regard; she's going to save that baby by any means necessary. No doubt Duncan's money and family influence will be hugely involved...but I think Meg instinctively didn't trust him to be in charge of the operation. I'm not as down on Duncan as some, but there's definitely some precedent to back up those instincts. If Meg wasn't willing to share her pregnancy with Duncan pre-bus crash, she surely isn't going to trust her baby's long-term fate to him...at least, not primarily. Veronica would be the one to find a way. I actually liked the little touch of asking Veronica alone; Meg waited for Duncan to be out of the room to spare his feelings. I'm really going to miss Meg. One other thought: if there's one thing the show has clearly foreshadowed, it's Lamb's involvement. However things play out in the operation to save this baby, the sheriff will have a role to play. Probably something along the lines of looking the other way while Veronica and Duncan do whatever has to be done. Yes, I had the same feeling - Don is going to play a part in saving baby.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 11, 2005 15:03:17 GMT -5
As you'll see in my review, I liked the episode.
I thought the jury thing was well done, and it was a wonderful "holiday season" episode. Nothing seemed off to me, especially when it came to the character's behavior and decisions.
Well - lemme know what you think when the review goes up.
Loved all your discussions!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 11, 2005 17:23:03 GMT -5
Well I've just spent an hour analyzing 12 Angry Men in relation to One Angry Veronica for my analysis over on the LoVe Shack and I am extremely interested to see if Spring interprets things the way I do. And honestly, after doing all my analysis there, I now like the show better than I did. I still think the exposition and jury scenes were a bit clunkily staged and I still dislike the Meg preggers/dead storyline but honestly - the intricate detail involved in the story mysteries has given me more respect for the show. On an entertainment level - just didn't hit all the bells and whistles. On a hey they are giving us lots and lots of clues here level - I liked it far more. It probably helps that I adore 12 Angry Men. Seriously - I adore it. The acting by every single actor in that movie is so wonderful, so classic, so textbook that it makes the actor/teacher in me jump up and down in glee. So after immersing myself in 12 Angry Men - hee, hee Rob. You sneaky little devil. 12, One and Logan's case are all intertwined in numerous ways. Far more than I initially thought before I jumped headfirst into 12 Angry Men. Veronica - plays Martin Balsam's role. The Knitting lady - plays Henry Fonda's role. Baseball guy - plays the Jack Warden obsessed baseball fan role Black college professor - E.G. Marshall role Old guy - Joseph Sweeney role CEO - seems to be a combination of the Lee J. Cobb bigoted role and the Rober Webber businessman role. Waitress - seems to be the Edward Binns working class role though more outspoken than him in the movie. And those are the only ones who stand out from the jury room in my mind. Do you remember the defendant in 12 Angry Men is also Hispanic? And the weapon in that movie - also a switchblade knife is a key factor. Huge amounts of testimony on the angle used which is acted out in the jury room. The angle in Thumper's version of the murder is the same angle portrayed in 12 Angry Men. I've already posted about the false witness, the way the weapon is gotten rid of in other posts. Little things like this make me take a few pins out of my Rob Thomas Voodoo doll (he still has to keep a few for inflicting the duncanage on me). This is interesting stuff, but, well, you're going to be disappointed if you're looking for Twelve Angry Men comparisons - I don't even mention the movie in my review, though I think there were obvious plot and thematic simiarities. I refreshed myself about the movie by googling (I haven't seen the movie in years), but it just didn't inspire me. I do mention the fact that I think there are overall clues for us in the episode, to the VM Season 2 continuing mysteries, but I don't go into any character-by-character, event-by-event comparison or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Dec 12, 2005 4:03:44 GMT -5
Wallace!!!!!
Wallace!Wallace!Wallace!Wallace!Wallace!Wallace!
That is all. (For now.)
Linda, mostly brain dead, but: Wallace!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Dec 12, 2005 6:20:45 GMT -5
Hi all!
Miss you guys!
I just got finished watching the re-run of the episode tonight.
Thanks for all of the great posts! You guys have given me a lot to think about.
Count me as one of those who *liked* this episode.
A lot.
I completely understand why people *didn't* like the episode, and I agree with a lot of points -- especially Deputy Leo's turn to the semi-dark side. (Honestly, why did he need to steal *all* of the copies if he was just going to sell it to the tabloids? Either that was sloppy writing or he's part of some larger plot.)
But still, this episode got me emotionally. The reason, surprisingly enough was not Wallace's last second appearance (or not *just* that ;D). It was Kristen Bell's Veronica. She just got to me. This was such an emotionally bruising time for her -- Meg's pregnancy, Duncan's "doesn't affect us" distancing attitude (*thank you*, Erin, for the Duncan analysis! #bid#), being caught in the middle of Neptune's class warfare, having no vacation, having no money, being stuck on jury duty. And all of that was just from the teaser.
I believe that Kristen Bell is just as good as Jason Dohring in conveying the anger and pain going on underneath the surface snark. Except that Veronica is much, much better at concealing, compartmentalizing and chanelling than Logan.
She's had so many pressures and disappointments of late, that by the time she heard the news about Meg's death, with the huge responsibility and guilt it put on her shoulders, she had me in tears right there along with her.
Wallace's surprise appearance had me in tears, too. But happy tears. (Wallace! Yay!)
Thank goodness for Wallace and Keith.
A couple of other things that made me go "huh":
RT and co. keep on flip-siding elements from the pilot episode. One of the things that sorta bugged me about the pilot was the blithe, casual evidence tampering Veronica did on Wallace's behalf. Here, Leo did something similar on behalf of his sister, but it's clearly *wrong*. And the consequences are more dire -- Aaron's possible acquittal, not to mention the fact that Veronica will now have to testify at his trial. Which means that Aaron's lawyers will try to tear her apart.
Veronica has been distant & disengaged this season compared to last season. I'm sure she would have been Henry Fonda instead of Martin Balsam (Thanks Pixi!) if she had been on the jury last year. (But eetah! with Erin that it's a realistic reaction to the physical and emotional traumas she's had to endure.)
Veronica doesn't let herself go emotionally with Duncan at all. She visibly swallowed all of her immense hurt and anger in the ep's opening scene. I suspect it's not only because they were interrupted, but also because she knows he wouldn't really deal with it unless she forced the return of batshit!Duncan. ;D (She has no such problem with Logan, however.)
Logan can still love the people who betrayed him. And their betrayal still hurts. Poor woobie.
Things that made me go "YAY!":
Any Keith and Veronica scene "Presents, presents, presents!"
Wallace!Wallace!Wallace!
Linda, Wallace!Wallace!Wallace!
P.S. Wallace! Yay!
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Dec 12, 2005 8:12:27 GMT -5
The "adjusting the sweatpants" moment was just too too good! I practically rolled on the floor! ;D I practically fell onto the floor. ;D So, basically I admitted that I was already on the floor, didn't I?
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Dec 12, 2005 8:14:16 GMT -5
Wallace!!!!! Wallace!Wallace!Wallace!Wallace!Wallace!Wallace! That is all. (For now.) Linda, mostly brain dead, but: Wallace!!!!! Yes!!!!!!! Squeeeeeeeeee! Wallace! ;D Ahem. I meant, I understand how you feel Linda.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Dec 12, 2005 8:22:24 GMT -5
Hi all! Miss you guys! I just got finished watching the re-run of the episode tonight. Thanks for all of the great posts! You guys have given me a lot to think about. Count me as one of those who *liked* this episode. A lot. I completely understand why people *didn't* like the episode, and I agree with a lot of points -- especially Deputy Leo's turn to the semi-dark side. (Honestly, why did he need to steal *all* of the copies if he was just going to sell it to the tabloids? Either that was sloppy writing or he's part of some larger plot.) But still, this episode got me emotionally. The reason, surprisingly enough was not Wallace's last second appearance (or not *just* that ;D). It was Kristen Bell's Veronica. She just got to me. This was such an emotionally bruising time for her -- Meg's pregnancy, Duncan's "doesn't affect us" distancing attitude (*thank you*, Erin, for the Duncan analysis! ), being caught in the middle of Neptune's class warfare, having no vacation, having no money, being stuck on jury duty. And all of that was just from the teaser. **nods nods nods** The combination of her situation and then the subject of the case and the examples of different levels of Neptune society on the jury - all making the point very clear. They really do have very similar coping mechanisms, don't they? Very nice point. I like how RT will show Veronica doing questionable or innapropriate behavior and then show consequences. Wallace calls her on her attitude; sometimes her assumptions on cases turn out to be tragically wrong; etc. I think we're supposed to make the connection between what Leo did and what Veronica has sometimes done. Yes!! Wallace! Yay!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Pixi on Dec 12, 2005 9:34:56 GMT -5
Well I've just spent an hour analyzing 12 Angry Men in relation to One Angry Veronica for my analysis over on the LoVe Shack and I am extremely interested to see if Spring interprets things the way I do. And honestly, after doing all my analysis there, I now like the show better than I did. I still think the exposition and jury scenes were a bit clunkily staged and I still dislike the Meg preggers/dead storyline but honestly - the intricate detail involved in the story mysteries has given me more respect for the show. On an entertainment level - just didn't hit all the bells and whistles. On a hey they are giving us lots and lots of clues here level - I liked it far more. It probably helps that I adore 12 Angry Men. Seriously - I adore it. The acting by every single actor in that movie is so wonderful, so classic, so textbook that it makes the actor/teacher in me jump up and down in glee. So after immersing myself in 12 Angry Men - hee, hee Rob. You sneaky little devil. 12, One and Logan's case are all intertwined in numerous ways. Far more than I initially thought before I jumped headfirst into 12 Angry Men. Veronica - plays Martin Balsam's role. The Knitting lady - plays Henry Fonda's role. Baseball guy - plays the Jack Warden obsessed baseball fan role Black college professor - E.G. Marshall role Old guy - Joseph Sweeney role CEO - seems to be a combination of the Lee J. Cobb bigoted role and the Rober Webber businessman role. Waitress - seems to be the Edward Binns working class role though more outspoken than him in the movie. And those are the only ones who stand out from the jury room in my mind. Do you remember the defendant in 12 Angry Men is also Hispanic? And the weapon in that movie - also a switchblade knife is a key factor. Huge amounts of testimony on the angle used which is acted out in the jury room. The angle in Thumper's version of the murder is the same angle portrayed in 12 Angry Men. I've already posted about the false witness, the way the weapon is gotten rid of in other posts. Little things like this make me take a few pins out of my Rob Thomas Voodoo doll (he still has to keep a few for inflicting the duncanage on me). This is interesting stuff, but, well, you're going to be disappointed if you're looking for Twelve Angry Men comparisons - I don't even mention the movie in my review, though I think there were obvious plot and thematic simiarities. I refreshed myself about the movie by googling (I haven't seen the movie in years), but it just didn't inspire me. I do mention the fact that I think there are overall clues for us in the episode, to the VM Season 2 continuing mysteries, but I don't go into any character-by-character, event-by-event comparison or anything. Well, I like my analysis. ETA: I meant, even if you don't agree with me, I've actually had alot of nice feedback (elsewhere)and enjoyed doing it as I love 12 Angry Men. I'm sure your analysis is much more insightful but I don't feel disappointed at all.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 12, 2005 11:37:43 GMT -5
This is interesting stuff, but, well, you're going to be disappointed if you're looking for Twelve Angry Men comparisons - I don't even mention the movie in my review, though I think there were obvious plot and thematic simiarities. I refreshed myself about the movie by googling (I haven't seen the movie in years), but it just didn't inspire me. I do mention the fact that I think there are overall clues for us in the episode, to the VM Season 2 continuing mysteries, but I don't go into any character-by-character, event-by-event comparison or anything. Well, I like my analysis. I like your analysis too. Your post suggested you might be expecting comments about the movie in my analysis, so I was letting you know that I didn't do that. That was all my post was meant to convey. I get the idea that you took my post as a criticism somehow, of your analysis or approach, but believe me, saying "I didn't do it that way," isn't meant to be translated as "So that way isn't as good." The title of the ep practically invites the movie comparison, and you did a good job with it.
|
|