|
Post by deborah on May 11, 2004 11:09:26 GMT -5
I just printed off your review to take home tonight, and I look forward to reading it.
I couldn't help but notice that your reviews are now listed under your name without mention of the S3. Is that deliberate or did Slayage & Buffy.nu just start doing that on their own? Just curious.
deborah
|
|
|
Post by Abigail Young on May 11, 2004 12:52:45 GMT -5
I've been reading Nan's reviews for most of this season but this is the first one I've seriously disagreed with. I found this episode fascinating; for me it worked on both levels. I should try to explain.
Clearly there are two girls in question: Buffy and Fred. One is dealt with in comedy so broad it borders on farce, the other in tragedy that borders on melodrama. But from the moment Spike and Angel run off together without thinking or planning, as they did when they flew off to the UK to try to rescue Fred, the stories of the two girls intertwine.
In both cases, the lover (or lovers) are faced with irrefutable evidence that the beloved has changed in ways that are irreversible while also being brought up short by memory and desire. In each story, the crux is how the one who loves the girl in question is going to deal with that change.
It is better done in the Fred part, not because the Fred part is serious/tragic while the Buffy part is comic, but because Fred/Illyria actually appears on screen rather than just being talked about. Andrew explaining reality to Spike and Angel isn't as powerful as Illyria demonstrating how deeply changed what's left of Fred is.
But I thought it was still well-done, and a worthy entrant in the final four!
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 11, 2004 13:09:13 GMT -5
I've been reading Nan's reviews for most of this season but this is the first one I've seriously disagreed with. I found this episode fascinating; for me it worked on both levels. I should try to explain. Clearly there are two girls in question: Buffy and Fred. One is dealt with in comedy so broad it borders on farce, the other in tragedy that borders on melodrama. But from the moment Spike and Angel run off together without thinking or planning, as they did when they flew off to the UK to try to rescue Fred, the stories of the two girls intertwine. In both cases, the lover (or lovers) are faced with irrefutable evidence that the beloved has changed in ways that are irreversible while also being brought up short by memory and desire. In each story, the crux is how the one who loves the girl in question is going to deal with that change. It is better done in the Fred part, not because the Fred part is serious/tragic while the Buffy part is comic, but because Fred/Illyria actually appears on screen rather than just being talked about. Andrew explaining reality to Spike and Angel isn't as powerful as Illyria demonstrating how deeply changed what's left of Fred is. But I thought it was still well-done, and a worthy entrant in the final four! Huh. Now there's a viewpoint that hadn't occurred to me. Makes me like it a little more. I still have to argue that without SMG, they should have trashed the Buffy stuff - it just doesn't work without her.
|
|
|
Post by aria on May 11, 2004 13:13:56 GMT -5
Lurawan, Nan et al.
I don't know if you (or any of you) happened to glance at Steve DeKnight's comments on the Bronze Beta following the airing of 5.20 -- he was absolutely taken aback by the fans' reactions (which were coming through rather vehemenently and mostly with either supreme admiration or, more commonly, supreme disdain -- I guess you either had to love or hate this one). He firmly denied any intention of ridiculing the fans or implying that they should "move-on" -- he claims that his derisions were solely directed at Angel and Spike.
Poor DeKnight -- his comments reminded me of his attempts to deal with the backlash of "Seeing Red." Unfortunately, as with that catastrophic episode, the efforts to safeguard the auteur's intentions went awry in 5.20 of Angel as well.
I really liked Nan's review -- and could completely see where she was coming from -- although I have to admit that I did enjoy the ep. (sorry, my credibility rating has probably just plummetted).
The episode (5.20), like "Life of the Party" (Something Blue) and "Soul Purpose" (Restless) revisits an earlier theme or narrative technique used on Buffy. In this case, the episode in question is most clearly "Fool for Love" -- one topic for consideration might be, how does "Fool for Love" succeed where this ep, in so many people's estimations, falls short?
On the one hand, Fool for Love occupies a clear place in the Buffy, season 5 arc -- it explores the slayer's fascination with darkness and death (which was hinted at in Restless and started off the season with Buffy vs. Dracula) which culminates with Buffy's sacrificial leap at the end of "The Gift." Fool for Love plays out with a truly prophetic power, occupying a clear place in the arc that is both season 5 and the Buffy story in general.
It also does something else that's really incredible: it takes our bad-ass villain, and gives him a history even the delphic oracle couldn't have foreseen: Spike, aka, William the Bloody, was a namby-pamby bloody awful Victorian poet.
Now, what does it mean to revisit this narrative structure in a way that offers, instead of Spike's genesis, a story about the evolution of his relationship with Angel?
The only thing resembling a compelling "ship" that we've seen this season (not including Fred and Wesley) is Spike and Angel -- and I mean this more in the sense of homosocial than homosexual. So I guess I'm just wondering whether this episode may acquire more resonance if we look at it as not being about Buffy (in this sense, her absence is both important and completely intelligible) -- but about the dynamic between Spike and Angel?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 11, 2004 13:18:36 GMT -5
Huh. Now there's a viewpoint that hadn't occurred to me. Makes me like it a little more. I still have to argue that without SMG, they should have trashed the Buffy stuff - it just doesn't work without her. Nan made the point at the end of her review that there was, indeed, a continuous thread throughout the ep - she just decided against addressing that in her review. I do agree with Abigail (by the way - hello, and welcome Abigial! Nice post! in the sense that this ep, like all Jossverse eps, is layered and every scene is connected to the central theme, etc. It just didn't work for me - in that really subjective way that I find hard to put into words. I agree, Rachael, no-Buffy is better than this fake-Buffy. I am probably in a huge minority here, but I could probably be OK with recasting Buffy. But this "no-Buffy Buffy" approach is my last choice. SMG as Buffy, or recast Buffy, or no-Buffy - I'd prefer any one of those to this.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 11, 2004 13:23:54 GMT -5
Lurawan, Nan et al. I don't know if you (or any of you) happened to glance at Steve DeKnight's comments on the Bronze Beta following the airing of 5.20 -- he was absolutely taken aback by the fans' reactions (which were coming through rather vehemenently and mostly with either supreme admiration or, more commonly, supreme disdain -- I guess you either had to love or hate this one). He firmly denied any intention of ridiculing the fans or implying that they should "move-on" -- he claims that his derisions were solely directed at Angel and Spike. Poor DeKnight -- his comments reminded me of his attempts to deal with the backlash of "Seeing Red." Unfortunately, as with that catastrophic episode, the efforts to safeguard the auteur's intentions went awry in 5.20 of Angel as well. I really liked Nan's review -- and could completely see where she was coming from -- although I have to admit that I did enjoy the ep. (sorry, my credibility rating has probably just plummetted). The episode (5.20), like "Life of the Party" (Something Blue) and "Soul Purpose" (Restless) revisits an earlier theme or narrative technique used on Buffy. In this case, the episode in question is most clearly "Fool for Love" -- one topic for consideration might be, how does "Fool for Love" succeed where this ep, in so many people's estimations, falls short? On the one hand, Fool for Love occupies a clear place in the Buffy, season 5 arc -- it explores the slayer's fascination with darkness and death (which was hinted at in Restless and started off the season with Buffy vs. Dracula) which culminates with Buffy's sacrificial leap at the end of "The Gift." Fool for Love plays out with a truly prophetic power, occupying a clear place in the arc that is both season 5 and the Buffy story in general. It also does something else that's really incredible: it takes our bad-ass villain, and gives him a history even the delphic oracle couldn't have foreseen: Spike, aka, William the Bloody, was a namby-pamby bloody awful Victorian poet. Now, what does it mean to revisit this narrative structure in a way that offers, instead of Spike's genesis, a story about the evolution of his relationship with Angel? The only thing resembling a compelling "ship" that we've seen this season (not including Fred and Wesley) is Spike and Angel -- and I mean this more in the sense of homosocial than homosexual. So I guess I'm just wondering whether this episode may acquire more resonance if we look at it as not being about Buffy (in this sense, her absence is both important and completely intelligible) -- but about the dynamic between Spike and Angel? Hi, aria. Interesting thoughts; got me thinking. Definitely, the Rome-side of this ep is about Angel & Spike's relationship, primarily. That's the relationship we learn the most about; that's the relationship that grows the most - in fact, beginning to get along is part of the "moving past Buffy" thing. It doesn't make me like the episode any better, in the sense that I like learning more about the relationship, and I like the developments, but I would have much rather learned more, and seen the developments, in a different way than this. Fool for Love was of the highest quality - on of the best Jossverse offerings ever, on most everyone's top ten list. This one just doesn't have that quality.
|
|
|
Post by KMInfinity on May 11, 2004 18:12:41 GMT -5
Nan, I don’t know if your review is so very excellent on its merits, or if I think so because I agree so wholeheartedly with your views. I choose to think both. I’m coming late thanks to that thrice damned sasser worm. **Some suggest the reason TGIQ is disliked is because we don’t wanna move on. And that we have to accept this because Joss always says he doesn’t write stories to satisfy some simplistic yearning for sitcom/fairy tale “they all lived happily ever after.” I get that. But the point is that the relationships between Angel and Spike and Buffy are germane to the characters. It doesn’t “detract” from Angel’s ending to focus on those ‘ships. In fact, if Joss is honest, the story demands it. As Nan said, and so many have commented on, this issue has weight, gravitas. Therefore, it deserves, maybe not a happily-ever-after ending, but an ending with respect. I felt cheated. Not because I wanted a story that Joss can’t or won’t tell, but because Joss didn’t tell the story that really needs to be addressed. The dictates of the story were ignored because of time constraints, budget, actor availability, etc. And this is just sad. **I noted Aria-guest’s quote from DeKnight, suggesting he didn’t realize just how this episode would play. I wonder if this was one that was already written before the news of the cancellation broke. I know it’s a late ep, but they aren’t always done in sequence. Maybe it was wrtiiten, outlined at least much earlier in the season, and maybe the change in tone of the other late episodes being tweaked with the series ending is more jarring with TGIQ than was intended. I’ve said elsewhere that, if there was a season 6, I could enjoy this farce as an interlude before the meat of the matter was explored in the “next season.” **All the comments and connections about the Highlander makes me wish I knew what the heck it was all about. I am presently, tentatively allowing a twinge of pleasurable anticipation build because maybe there’s hours and seasons of something good lurking out there just waiting for me to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on May 11, 2004 18:48:59 GMT -5
I just printed off your review to take home tonight, and I look forward to reading it. I couldn't help but notice that your reviews are now listed under your name without mention of the S3. Is that deliberate or did Slayage & Buffy.nu just start doing that on their own? Just curious. deborah Last I saw, Buffy.nu was calling them "soulfulspike" reviews. I haven't seen them under my name, so far. Practice on slayage.com has been variable--first they were under my name, then they went to soulfulspike.com too. So I don't know what rationale they're using. I basically just get the review done and proofed and to Vlad and don't worry about the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on May 11, 2004 18:57:33 GMT -5
Nan, I don’t know if your review is so very excellent on its merits, or if I think so because I agree so wholeheartedly with your views. I choose to think both. I’m coming late thanks to that thrice damned sasser worm. **Some suggest the reason TGIQ is disliked is because we don’t wanna move on. And that we have to accept this because Joss always says he doesn’t write stories to satisfy some simplistic yearning for sitcom/fairy tale “they all lived happily ever after.” I get that. But the point is that the relationships between Angel and Spike and Buffy are germane to the characters. It doesn’t “detract” from Angel’s ending to focus on those ‘ships. In fact, if Joss is honest, the story demands it. As Nan said, and so many have commented on, this issue has weight, gravitas. Therefore, it deserves, maybe not a happily-ever-after ending, but an ending with respect. I felt cheated. Not because I wanted a story that Joss can’t or won’t tell, but because Joss didn’t tell the story that really needs to be addressed. The dictates of the story were ignored because of time constraints, budget, actor availability, etc. And this is just sad. **I noted Aria-guest’s quote from DeKnight, suggesting he didn’t realize just how this episode would play. I wonder if this was one that was already written before the news of the cancellation broke. I know it’s a late ep, but they aren’t always done in sequence. Maybe it was wrtiiten, outlined at least much earlier in the season, and maybe the change in tone of the other late episodes being tweaked with the series ending is more jarring with TGIQ than was intended. I’ve said elsewhere that, if there was a season 6, I could enjoy this farce as an interlude before the meat of the matter was explored in the “next season.” **All the comments and connections about the Highlander makes me wish I knew what the heck it was all about. I am presently, tentatively allowing a twinge of pleasurable anticipation build because maybe there’s hours and seasons of something good lurking out there just waiting for me to watch. KMI, I'm very fond of Highlander, particularly Methos (the oldest Immortal). The early seasons have the Tessa arc and the Ritchie arc, and the later seasons feature Methos among other recurring (but not constant) characters. They're rerunning Highlander on Spike TV (don't know the time they're showing the eps) and if you google or otherwise search Highlander episode guide, you'll get one you can copy to determine where Methos comes in. If you want, I can send you one (my e-mail addy is in my profile) if you want me to--it would be in Word 2000, if you can read that OK. Anyway, if you watch some eps and get into the lore (which is considerable), you'll know whether you'll like the series as a whole or not. Of course some eps are better than others, and the European versions (available on DVD) are reportedly a LOT sexier than those shown here, so you have considerable latitude of what materials to sample (including TONS of fanfic, much of it excellent).
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on May 11, 2004 19:00:02 GMT -5
I've been reading Nan's reviews for most of this season but this is the first one I've seriously disagreed with. I found this episode fascinating; for me it worked on both levels. I should try to explain. Clearly there are two girls in question: Buffy and Fred. One is dealt with in comedy so broad it borders on farce, the other in tragedy that borders on melodrama. But from the moment Spike and Angel run off together without thinking or planning, as they did when they flew off to the UK to try to rescue Fred, the stories of the two girls intertwine. In both cases, the lover (or lovers) are faced with irrefutable evidence that the beloved has changed in ways that are irreversible while also being brought up short by memory and desire. In each story, the crux is how the one who loves the girl in question is going to deal with that change. It is better done in the Fred part, not because the Fred part is serious/tragic while the Buffy part is comic, but because Fred/Illyria actually appears on screen rather than just being talked about. Andrew explaining reality to Spike and Angel isn't as powerful as Illyria demonstrating how deeply changed what's left of Fred is. But I thought it was still well-done, and a worthy entrant in the final four! Hello, Abagail. Your comments are cogent and well supported, though I happen not to have found the merit in the A plot that you evidently did. All the same, you put your case well and I'd like to see more of your thoughts on this ep or any other. Thanks for visiting us, and drop by the main board sometime to join the general discussion, if you'd care to. Instructions on how to move around this site are in the FAQ, on the SSS primary page, or in abbreviated form on the "If you're new to this board" comments I made here on the AI topic.
|
|
|
Post by aria on May 11, 2004 20:20:04 GMT -5
To KMInfinity:
Actually, TGIQ had not been written when the news of the cancellation broke. After Shells aired (which was some weeks after Feb. 13), I spoke with DeKnight via the Bronze and he said that he had just asked Goddard to co-write the episode with him and that he hadn't started to write it yet. I think Joss and the other writers did want to deal with the S-B-A triangle this season, but I don't think they knew exactly how (but then again, Joss works in mysterious ways).
Interestingly, DeKnight did say that at no point was there ever any plan (or intention to ask) for SMG to actually appear in this episode. So all the talk about SMG's absence being due to the fact that she was out of the country was just a rumor, according to him.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 11, 2004 21:29:07 GMT -5
To KMInfinity: Actually, TGIQ had not been written when the news of the cancellation broke. After Shells aired (which was some weeks after Feb. 13), I spoke with DeKnight via the Bronze and he said that he had just asked Goddard to co-write the episode with him and that he hadn't started to write it yet. I think Joss and the other writers did want to deal with the S-B-A triangle this season, but I don't think they knew exactly how (but then again, Joss works in mysterious ways). Interestingly, DeKnight did say that at no point was there ever any plan (or intention to ask) for SMG to actually appear in this episode. So all the talk about SMG's absence being due to the fact that she was out of the country was just a rumor, according to him. If that last is true, then it's even more lame than I imagined.
|
|
|
Post by TLV visiting on May 11, 2004 22:19:25 GMT -5
Hey Nan,
I was one of those who really liked this ep. I agree it was weird timing in terms of the season, but I liked the comedy. Laughing at myself is a way I deal with loss/love/life- so it didn't seem strange to me. I just watched the season 3 ep where angel is haunted by the first and thought, "This melodramic stuff was what turned me off buffy in those days. I can't imagine I took myself this seriously even in highschool."
Anyway- that's not why I'm writing...
I thought Darla said, "It was for an occasion. Really great for an occasion" It struck me as just old fashioned talk, like "You've been made the right cockold."
Anyway, interesting review. I didn't understand why people didn't like it. Now I understand better.
Thanks Daisy
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 11, 2004 23:19:54 GMT -5
Hey Nan, I was one of those who really liked this ep. I agree it was weird timing in terms of the season, but I liked the comedy. Laughing at myself is a way I deal with loss/love/life- so it didn't seem strange to me. I just watched the season 3 ep where angel is haunted by the first and thought, "This melodramic stuff was what turned me off buffy in those days. I can't imagine I took myself this seriously even in highschool." Anyway- that's not why I'm writing... I thought Darla said, "It was for an occasion. Really great for an occasion" It struck me as just old fashioned talk, like "You've been made the right cockold." Anyway, interesting review. I didn't understand why people didn't like it. Now I understand better. Thanks Daisy Pretty sure it was "fornication".
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on May 12, 2004 0:51:10 GMT -5
**All the comments and connections about the Highlander makes me wish I knew what the heck it was all about. I am presently, tentatively allowing a twinge of pleasurable anticipation build because maybe there’s hours and seasons of something good lurking out there just waiting for me to watch. Oh yeah. Highlander has been described by the writers as 'Talmudic discussion with swords'. If you want to watch for the semi naked martial arts or the unsubtly symbolic Quickenings or the romance (the hero has an actual girlfriend! Not just babe of the week!) you can, but if you want to dig deeper for the philosophical issues you can as well. The stories are told part in present day, part in flashback, and the theme of the story carries through both parts. It wanders all over the world and through large chunks of history (albeit on a small budget, and with sometimes odd contributions to history from the weather or the guy with the smoke machine being visible in the background). It filmed half in Canada and half in France every year, so there are a bunch of actors familiar from stuff like X Files and Stargate in the Vancouver half, and a bunch of UK actors in the Paris half. Which is also handy for conventions because whichever side of the pond you are there are some actors who are local. I'm a Richie fan so I like the early seasons even though it was kind of wobbly at the start, canon sort of inconsistent, and sometimes not so good. But Methos turns up in season 3 and it gets even better. Do not, even under threat of torture, watch season six. Except for Indiscretions, aka the Adam and Joe show. The entire season was used to showcase pilot episodes for the spin off chick demanded by money people. The spin off they actually went with used a character who had been around since the beginning. Sort of. It looked like her, it acted... different. But, ignoring season sux, Highlander totally rules. Oh, and the one episode at the end of season 5 that is neversawitdidnthappen. (The bad thing never happened to Richie. They never strung us along with promises he would be back only to give us a horrible sucky AU episode where he was evil. Never saw it, never happened.) Um, fandom politics, okay, less than useful for recruiting newbies... Do not buy from the Highlander store (again, this looks like trying to put you off, sorry) If you do it will be a minor miracle if your order arrives in one piece and containing everything it should. Also you will end up on their mailing and call list forever. And the sales people lie. The good news- Highlander DVD and video sets are available from Amazon and Best Buy among other places. DVD sets from Best Buy with a black band around the cover have extra footage in them. I have never seen it because it has been impossible to order these special sets online let alone overseas. But they have extra interviews. There is a best of Highlander set. I dont own it but a web search turns up the names of the episodes on it Band of Brothers, Legacy, The Samurai, Methos, Homeland, Something Wicked/Deliverance, Methuselah's Gift, Till Death, The End of Innocence, Comes A Horseman/Revelation 6:8, Duende and I agree that is pretty much a representative sample. Some funny, some dramatic, some where the hero goes evil which is less of a contrast if these are the only episodes you've ever seen, but good fun anyway. I dont have the best of because I have four seasons on DVD and season 5 on video, so got all these already. www.geocities.com/beccaelizabeth/Highlander/is my Highlander page, with links to all my favourite Highlander places. some of the links may not work right now because a lot of the fandom wandered off. They've changed the official page again and now I cant find anything on it that isnt just Highlander store trying to sell stuff. It used to have episode summaries and stuff. And a link to my page ;D because it listed everyone who asked. Eurominutes- not just sexier, make the episodes make sense. I have heard the Spike TV versions are snipping apparently at random from the Eurominutes version so the version broadcast is neither the short American version or the longer European (less advertising in the hour) version and makes much less sense. If you can get the Eurominutes versions, on Video or DVD, then they are much better. Or, sometimes, have what amounts to a little music video in them because the ep came up short anyway so they have DM driving around musing to the music for a bunch of minutes. Or doing sweatynakedkata, which was way more popular. um, I babbled. becca has a Highlander Watcher tattoo on her left wrist, is that much of a fan. Am booked for a convention next year because it has two actors who appeared in all of two episodes. Because I'm in the appreciation society for one of the actors (his fans throw the best room parties). My first fandom where I got in to the fanfic and cons and online message boards and mailing lists and everything. Still love it.
|
|