|
Post by Nickim on Oct 10, 2003 16:33:00 GMT -5
Spring, thank you for defending your interpretation with such a comprehensive and easy to follow scenario. It would convince me but for two things. One, Angel's "More or Less" response to Wesleys query about whether Spike had come to him with his plan. If Spike had filled Angel in on all the details in his bedroom then why, when Wesley asked him if Spike came to him with his plan did Angel reply "More or Less?" Wouldn't he have answered with a simple yes? "More or less" still seems to me to be a deliberately vague response meant to deflect Wesley away from the knowledge that Spike had acted alone. I still think that Spike's motivation for witholding his plan from Angel was anger over the lack of faith Angel demonstrated in asking Spike how he had responded to Hainsley's offer. Keeping Angel in the dark, letting him think he had decided to act according to his own selfish interests by going along with Hainsley, and then surprising him with decisive proof of his loyalty served to make a more impressive show. Spike knew damn well that Angel was in denial about the sincerity of his reform and the extent of his role in defeating TF and saving the world. Spike knew just how easy it was for Angel to slip back into the comfortable belief that Spike would revert *true to form* and act only according to his own selfish interests. I'm having a very hard time articulating my thought but I just think it would appeal to Spike to let Angel believe the worst of him so that his act of faith would be that much more dramatic and powerful. If someone can intuit what I'm trying to say would you please post with a better, more precise statement for me? But Angel didn't seem to think he needed to let anyone in on their plans. I need to watch again to be absolutely certain, but Wesley says something about 'letting us in on the plans' and Angel just gives him a look--like I'm not answerable to you. Could be Angel's thinking about how Wesley didn't let anyone in on his plan to take Connor. Of course, since Connor never existed, that never happened and Wesley doesn't know that--as someone said earlier, my head is spinning.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Oct 10, 2003 19:41:50 GMT -5
Nan, I enjoyed your great review of Just Rewards...it was a fun read, in keeping with the episode. Glad you mentioned the 'downsize' line and Angel's 'resourceful use of assorted tableware'! I loved the spoon scene, but hadn't thought about the serving plate .... Just thoroughly entertaining....and I appreciate that you stress that whether or not Spike ever truly intended to go along with Hainsley's plan is left ambigous. I think we are meant to wonder for a bit longer if Spike is truly on the side of the Angel(s) or not. We can interpret it either way. (for the record, I'm in the 'Spike and Angel plotted together' camp)
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 11, 2003 9:20:10 GMT -5
But Angel didn't seem to think he needed to let anyone in on their plans. I need to watch again to be absolutely certain, but Wesley says something about 'letting us in on the plans' and Angel just gives him a look--like I'm not answerable to you. Could be Angel's thinking about how Wesley didn't let anyone in on his plan to take Connor. Of course, since Connor never existed, that never happened and Wesley doesn't know that--as someone said earlier, my head is spinning. Even tho Connor never existed (to the FG), he did exist in Angel's memory. And everything that happened, he remembers and knows what Wesley did in that situation. I don't know if Angel would have consciously kept Wesley in the dark. Maybe he was afraid that Wesley would try and talk him out of his (or Spike's) plan.
|
|
|
Post by rhyane on Oct 11, 2003 22:12:17 GMT -5
Oh bliss-- finally found really wonderful analysis of the latest Angel episodes... I've been looking for this since BuffySearch evaporated years ago!
Raving aside, I am really fascinated by the different takes on Spike's potential conspiracy. I originally thought it went right along the lines of what you all hypothesized-- with Spike filling in Angel after the end of the bedroom scene, but the posts of Nan and others have really made me wonder about the essential nature of Spike.
Spike is impulse personified... we see this time after time but most classically in Fool for Love where he almost shoots Buffy until he gets a good look at her face. I think I almost prefer an interpretation that has Spike really, truly intending to betray Angel. After all, when we think about the issues fermenting between Spike and Angel for literally years, when we think about Spike's anger toward Angel a mere eighteen days ago it starts to seem a little naive to think that Spike would pass up the chance for payback. Until, of course, it dawns on him just what such an act would cost him. I was really surprised (and delighted) by Nan's interpretation of the "deserve" line, but this really makes sense to me. Spike hears in an instant the reminder of his own desire never to sink into selfishness and evil. If giving it good to Angel really is Spike's ultimate temptation, what does it mean that he resists it so early? Is it the thought of taking over Angel that is so difficult for Spike to stand? The knowledge that, even if Buffy were to "love" him, it really would still be all about Angel?
Thinking about Spike's decision as more last moment impulse rather than refined plan makes me very optimistic about the path of the character on Angel. It seems that the writers have chosen to remember Spike's history and issues and yet have returned to what made the character interesting: his moral ambiguity.
On the note of helplessness-- I was also quite impressed (for the first time, actually) by Harmony. If Angel is helpless as a pawn of W&H and the Powers, and Spike is helpless due to his "ghost" status, then Harmony also exposes some real vulnerability beneath her comic exterior. I find it interesting that she has not at all gotten over Spike-- helplessness to change the feelings and impressions of others? What about Wes, who is still being judged by Angel for actions he does not remember committing? Or even the physical helplessness of Angel and Spike in the hands of a necromancer?
It is delightful to find that Angel so strong this season. So much more to talk about!
--Rhyane
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 11, 2003 23:43:44 GMT -5
Oh bliss-- finally found really wonderful analysis of the latest Angel episodes... I've been looking for this since BuffySearch evaporated years ago! Raving aside, I am really fascinated by the different takes on Spike's potential conspiracy. I originally thought it went right along the lines of what you all hypothesized-- with Spike filling in Angel after the end of the bedroom scene, but the posts of Nan and others have really made me wonder about the essential nature of Spike. --Rhyane Oh what a nice compliment to Nan--and we all bask in her glow. On my third watching of the episode I became convinced that the writers very very carefully and very deliberately left this issue wide open to interpretation. I'm pretty sure we are meant to wonder who double-crossed whom and at what point. I guess time will reveal whether Angel begins to trust Spike or not.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 12, 2003 9:05:23 GMT -5
All I said in the review was that it was left ambiguous whether Spike went along with Hainsley at all. I maintain that it IS left ambiguous. One can suppose to their heart's content what Spike *might* have said to Angel offscreen, but we didn't see that happening. So I contend that it's left open according to the current screenplay. I read the evidence differently than you do Spring, and although you're surely entitled to disagree with my judgment, we're not about to persuade one another, I'm afraid. I say it's left open, and I believe it is. Enquiring minds are free to come down on either side of the fence with some evidence on their side. I don't think it is left open; I think what Angel says to Wes (and it goes on after the "more or less"), seals the deal. HOWEVER - definitely, my intent is not to persuade anybody -just voice my thoughts - if it persuades, it persuades, if it doesn't, it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 12, 2003 9:33:06 GMT -5
I don't think it is left open; I think what Angel says to Wes (and it goes on after the "more or less"), seals the deal. HOWEVER - definitely, my intent is not to persuade anybody -just voice my thoughts - if it persuades, it persuades, if it doesn't, it doesn't. Here's what Angel says after "more or less" : Once Spike learned that Hainsley uses himself as a conduit in the body transfer, our trap fell in place.I think Angel was a little embarrassed that Spike was the one to come up with the plan to foil Hainsley, even tho he says "our" trap. So he said "more or less" to as to not give Spike the full credit for the plan. If that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Spring Summers on Oct 12, 2003 9:37:04 GMT -5
Here's what Angel says after "more or less" : Once Spike learned that Hainsley uses hisself as a conduit in the body transfer, our trap fell in place.Right. OUR trap. They - Angel & Spike, trapped Hainsley. Also, Spike is good now. He's not perfect and he takes delight in the "Angel suffering" side-effect of their plan. But he's good now.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 12, 2003 9:40:17 GMT -5
Right. OUR trap. They - Angel & Spike, trapped Hainsley. Also, Spike is good now. He's not perfect and he takes delight in the "Angel suffering" side-effect of their plan. But he's good now. Basically good - but still a vampire, like Angel.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 12, 2003 23:40:55 GMT -5
Basically good - but still a vampire, like Angel. I agree that being "good" will always mean something different for Spike than it would a human being. But the fact that he is still a vampire doesn't mean that, immediately after saving the world, he's willing to pair up with the likes of extremely evil Hainsley - and even consider something as slimy and reprehensible as deceiving Buffy into being his (that's what he says to Angel - he'll get anything, anyONE he deserves, obviously making reference to Buffy). Spike is saying that stuff to make it look good to Hainsley. He doesn't mean it - rewatch The End of Days and Chosen, and tell me that you can believe Spike would ever consider doing such a thing to Buffy.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Oct 13, 2003 16:52:58 GMT -5
I agree that being "good" will always mean something different for Spike than it would a human being. But the fact that he is still a vampire doesn't mean that, immediately after saving the world, he's willing to pair up with the likes of extremely evil Hainsley - and even consider something as slimy and reprehensible as deceiving Buffy into being his (that's what he says to Angel - he'll get anything, anyONE he deserves, obviously making reference to Buffy). Spike is saying that stuff to make it look good to Hainsley. He doesn't mean it - rewatch The End of Days and Chosen, and tell me that you can believe Spike would ever consider doing such a thing to Buffy. Better late than never (I hope).... I'm behind you on this, Spring, 100%. Spike's done w/being evil, and his innate honesty wouldn't allow him to deceive Buffy in such a way. Besides, it wouldn't be as sweet if Angel weren't around to taste defeat.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Oct 13, 2003 17:01:13 GMT -5
Here's what Angel says after "more or less" : Once Spike learned that Hainsley uses himself as a conduit in the body transfer, our trap fell in place.I think Angel was a little embarrassed that Spike was the one to come up with the plan to foil Hainsley, even tho he says "our" trap. So he said "more or less" to as to not give Spike the full credit for the plan. If that makes sense. This makes perfect sense to me. It fits right in w/Angel's lame attempts to cover when the gang realizes he hasn't told them everything (not by a bloody long shot) about Spike; having a soul, saving the world, etc. Much as I hate Spike's current incorporality(?), it does serve a useful purpose. Spike has to use his intellect, 'cuz it's all he's got right now. We've always known he's smarter than the image he projects. I'm hoping (once he's corporeal again) Spike will be more complete in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by ldelrossi on Oct 13, 2003 17:07:47 GMT -5
Wonderful review Nan as always. Everything is laid out clearly and even though I may go "No I don't agree with that statement," you give me a point of reference to discuss.
I agree that it is left ambiguous purposely by the writers. They never want us to be totally clear on what happens. That is Joss' mantra - the grayness of it all - the grayness of morality and the uncertainty of the characters' motive and behavior.
That said, I'm in the Angel knew camp for a couple of reasons, most of which Spring said beautifully.
Spike and Angel do have a complex history; more than 100 years together. As we saw in that mine scene, Angel, Darla, Drusilla and Spike travelled as a family. Even then Spike, the ADD one, caused danger for them with his impetuousness. But Angel didn't kill him then either.
Angel is playing that sibling rivalry game in not telling the FG all that Spike did. Spike was on target when he said Angel didn't feel special anymore. He continued with vagueness with the "more or less" when Wes asked him about the plan. But he relented a bit and said it was "our plan."
Angel had to "sleep on" the decision to kill Spike even though he was all blustery about getting rid of him. In the bedroom scene Angel says "What do you want from me?" Angel knows that Spike has a soul. He knows Spike sacrificed himself. Buffy had to have told him that. The fact that Spike was in Buffy's life had to tell Angel even more. Angel decided "to be someone" when he saw the slayer. He knows how being with her can change a man/vampire. But to make sure, and perhaps to get his own digs in, he asked Spike whether he was going to go with Hainsley's plan, forcing Spike to admit his "good decision."
I agree with Spring that Angel and Spike talked off camera, maybe in the car over to the cemetary. But Spike does likes drama and excitement, hence his comment about Angel being his grandsire. Hinting, as others have said on the main board, that Spike's existence as a vampire is Angel's fault.
Angel's face on the table at Hainsley's house is too calm. To me, he doesn't look like he's trying very hard to move. It's almost a look of resignation since he knows that intense pain will be a part of it. (Of course Spike enjoyed Angel's pain.) They had to have discussed Spike jamming up the transfer in Hainsley's body just to make sure they both knew how to react after.
Spike is blustery too. Just like the little brother trying to outdo the older brother. But there are incidences of Spike's vlunerability. His depression in Angel's bedroom had to have touched Angel. Later when he talks to Fred, he says he is terrified and wants her help. His life has changed. Maybe he hopes to get back with Buffy. That's almost the first word out of his mouth when he first reappears. But he mentions the word hero and few times. I think he likes the way heroic actions and the soul make him feel. He just can't let everyone know it yet.
|
|
|
Post by ldelrossi on Oct 13, 2003 17:08:54 GMT -5
Sorry, I forgot to say Welcome to Rhyanne. We're glad you found us too!
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Oct 13, 2003 17:19:17 GMT -5
Angel: "Fair? You ask for fair? You asked for a soul; I didn’t. It almost killed me. I spent a hundred years trying to come to terms with infinite remorse. You spent three weeks moaning in a basement and then you were fine! What’s fair about that?"
OK, once again I risk offending (ah, well)....
Put two and two together, you bleeding great pillock! You didn't ask for a soul, you didn't want to be good, and you didn't want the soul back after you'd lost it. Why shouldn't Spike's time of suffering be shorter? And is it fair to say that Spike's time of suffering is really over? You certainly don't know that.
|
|