|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 26, 2003 23:45:04 GMT -5
Hmmm...first of all, Vlad's reaction to this episode is exceptionally well written and thought out. I agree that "Restless" is not indicative of the dream experience. Once he said that, it got me thinking...what kind of (mass produced) films have approached that sort of territory with any real success? I think it's nearly impossible to come up with an example that works with everyone in the medium of film, big screen or small. One could make the argument that Fellini and Kubrick (just to name a couple of the more famous directors who took their shot at it) did a pretty good job on the silver screen. A lot of their stuff has a 'dream-like' quality to it...though there is a fine line between a dream sequence and something merely nonsensical (Eyes Wide Shut, anyone?), but I digress... In music, plenty of composers - past and present - have put their own personal dream experience to paper...and I'd have to say those are the most easily accessible because of (instrumental) music's fluid quality. You can make of the notes what you will...and there is nothing visual to distract you from going in whatever direction you prefer. The composer can simply say it's about the topic (Schumann's 'Dreaming,' is an obvious example) and set the listener free to visualize what they so choose. There is a common thread in many dreams (public nudity, falling, running like you're stuck in cement, rather unorthodox sexual experiences, etc.)...but no two are exactly the same. People tend to FEEL the experience differently; there is only one you. Odd as it may seem, a dream is just a funky way of talking to yourself...it logically follows that all dreams are unique. All people are unique. I'm stealing some thoughts (and paraphrasing hugely) from Stephen King's "The Stand" here, but I thought something one of the characters said was pretty apt: Sometimes dreams can tell us interesting things about ourselves...and sometimes the subconscious is just taking a good dump. We pick up all kinds of extraneous stuff in the course of a day...things we didn't even realize we heard consciously. Still, it's in there...and I think a dream has a useful purpose in that way. Ideally, you would retain the stuff your brain considers useful, and dispose of the rest. Mental digestion, if you will. Hence the stuff that makes no sense whatsoever...like the "Cheese Man" to use Joss's example. Your brain is expending the garbage. I think it's only natural to have a more familiar reaction to certain other Jossverse classics like "The Body." Grief is an unforgettable shared conscious human experience. I've heard people say that our reactions are all different...yet completely familiar. You think some very odd thoughts while in the throes of grief and shock; everyone who's been through it totally gets it. You remember the feeling of utter helplessness and despair. It's indelible and life-altering. Watching "The Body" literally pulls you back into that experience for a short time...because you were in that specific place in your heart and mind. It is an unescapable emotional nightmare from which you cannot awaken. Dreams, on the other hand, are almost universally shared unconscious experiences. There is a critical difference between the two. No one can quite get a handle on what goes on in the back of their mind. Some can relate their dreams perfectly, but no one can do it every time. Many are vague and have strange effects on us. Deja vu is a perfect example. How about this: have you ever suddenly remembered random flashes of a dream you had the night before for no apparent reason? Happens to me all the time...and I haven't a clue what triggers it. A bit unsettling, actually...probably like the vulnerable feeling some people get after being hypnotized. Your mental guard has slipped; the conscious got circumvented somehow. I keep moving away from my point, so let me get to it: "Restless" really can't be completely accurate to any individual, because the imagery is merely one person's vision of their subconscious. As I said, no two are precisely alike..simply familiar on occasion. More importantly, Joss had a story to tell while he explored this murky territory. It had to be at least remotely entertaining while it performed the experiment (it was a tool to further character development, after all). That is no easy trick...I can only speak for myself here, but in my view a lot of Warhol's little attempts at capturing that dreamlike feeling on film are a great example. There might be art there somewhere, but all I found was crushing boredom and rampant self-indulgence. A few people manage to make the dream world at least vaguely familiar while entertaining us. I recall M*A*S*H doing it pretty well once. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is really one big dream sequence/acid trip/descent into madness...though not everyone found that film entertaining; disturbing might be more appropriate. Short version? I consider dreams to be each person's internal art. Therefore watching someone else's version would naturally give one the vague impression of forgery. The brushstrokes aren't going in quite the same direction, the notes aren't played the same and the pictures have a different color and level of focus. That's the beauty of them. Does this make any sense, by the way? I hope so; took me an hour to write it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Dec 27, 2003 12:14:24 GMT -5
Hmmm...first of all, Vlad's reaction to this episode is exceptionally well written and thought out. I agree that "Restless" is not indicative of the dream experience. Once he said that, it got me thinking...what kind of (mass produced) films have approached that sort of territory with any real success? I think it's nearly impossible to come up with an example that works with everyone in the medium of film, big screen or small. One could make the argument that Fellini and Kubrick (just to name a couple of the more famous directors who took their shot at it) did a pretty good job on the silver screen. A lot of their stuff has a 'dream-like' quality to it...though there is a fine line between a dream sequence and something merely nonsensical (Eyes Wide Shut, anyone?), but I digress... In music, plenty of composers - past and present - have put their own personal dream experience to paper...and I'd have to say those are the most easily accessible because of (instrumental) music's fluid quality. You can make of the notes what you will...and there is nothing visual to distract you from going in whatever direction you prefer. The composer can simply say it's about the topic (Schumann's 'Dreaming,' is an obvious example) and set the listener free to visualize what they so choose. There is a common thread in many dreams (public nudity, falling, running like you're stuck in cement, rather unorthodox sexual experiences, etc.)...but no two are exactly the same. People tend to FEEL the experience differently; there is only one you. Odd as it may seem, a dream is just a funky way of talking to yourself...it logically follows that all dreams are unique. All people are unique. I'm stealing some thoughts (and paraphrasing hugely) from Stephen King's "The Stand" here, but I thought something one of the characters said was pretty apt: Sometimes dreams can tell us interesting things about ourselves...and sometimes the subconscious is just taking a good dump. We pick up all kinds of extraneous stuff in the course of a day...things we didn't even realize we heard consciously. Still, it's in there...and I think a dream has a useful purpose in that way. Ideally, you would retain the stuff your brain considers useful, and dispose of the rest. Mental digestion, if you will. Hence the stuff that makes no sense whatsoever...like the "Cheese Man" to use Joss's example. Your brain is expending the garbage. I think it's only natural to have a more familiar reaction to certain other Jossverse classics like "The Body." Grief is an unforgettable shared conscious human experience. I've heard people say that our reactions are all different...yet completely familiar. You think some very odd thoughts while in the throes of grief and shock; everyone who's been through it totally gets it. You remember the feeling of utter helplessness and despair. It's indelible and life-altering. Watching "The Body" literally pulls you back into that experience for a short time...because you were in that specific place in your heart and mind. It is an unescapable emotional nightmare from which you cannot awaken. Dreams, on the other hand, are almost universally shared unconscious experiences. There is a critical difference between the two. No one can quite get a handle on what goes on in the back of their mind. Some can relate their dreams perfectly, but no one can do it every time. Many are vague and have strange effects on us. Deja vu is a perfect example. How about this: have you ever suddenly remembered random flashes of a dream you had the night before for no apparent reason? Happens to me all the time...and I haven't a clue what triggers it. A bit unsettling, actually...probably like the vulnerable feeling some people get after being hypnotized. Your mental guard has slipped; the conscious got circumvented somehow. I keep moving away from my point, so let me get to it: "Restless" really can't be completely accurate to any individual, because the imagery is merely one person's vision of their subconscious. As I said, no two are precisely alike..simply familiar on occasion. More importantly, Joss had a story to tell while he explored this murky territory. It had to be at least remotely entertaining while it performed the experiment (it was a tool to further character development, after all). That is no easy trick...I can only speak for myself here, but in my view a lot of Warhol's little attempts at capturing that dreamlike feeling on film are a great example. There might be art there somewhere, but all I found was crushing boredom and rampant self-indulgence. A few people manage to make the dream world at least vaguely familiar while entertaining us. I recall M*A*S*H doing it pretty well once. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is really one big dream sequence/acid trip/descent into madness...though not everyone found that film entertaining; disturbing might be more appropriate. Short version? I consider dreams to be each person's internal art. Therefore watching someone else's version would naturally give one the vague impression of forgery. The brushstrokes aren't going in quite the same direction, the notes aren't played the same and the pictures have a different color and level of focus. That's the beauty of them. Does this make any sense, by the way? I hope so; took me an hour to write it. Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading Rob and Vlad's comments to Spring's great analysis. I hope you guys realized what treasures you are! I think The Wizard of Oz captured the dream world pretty amazingly. I wonder if it was the music in it that gave it that extra something. That being said, it probably didn't capture the same essence of everyone's dream world, because we are all different, like Rob said. I very rarely dream in color.  I think it's the feeling that I awake with that stays with me the longest. Sometimes good, but when it's bad, it's really bad, and it takes a while to shake the feeling. I think because Restless evoked many different feelings in me, the dream sequences did their jobs. Maybe it isn't visually how I dream, but the feelings that they all had of aloneness, embarrassment, shame, etc. came across and touched me. |
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jan 2, 2004 23:09:40 GMT -5
<snip> I didn't dislike [Restless] but I far from really enjoyed it. I rather dismissed it. I have seen others analyse portions of it and still it didn't do much for me. Then, I read your analysis and I enjoyed it. Through your eyes I began examining each of it's ingredients, watched how they blended together for you and it let me taste it again, anew. While the episode still doesn't make my Top Ten list, I am able to appreciate what it's doing and how. I see the hard work in it's preparation, and that it's a dish best tasted many times. It has found a place at my Buffy table. Perhaps it is the "soup"; jumbled bits floating in a savory broth. Not exactly filling, but there to stimulate the mouth and stomach in preparation for the entree and sides yet to come. I would like to thank you for helping me to appreciate the soup. No one else seems to quite have that knack in analysis. Excellent job! I think I'll return for seconds. Vlad ITA with Vlad. (Feel free to pretend that I can say it as creatively as he did, 'cause my own comments would be "Wow. Cool. I didn't notice that. THANK YOU!" -- To read makes our speaking English good  .) I just wanted to add that my interpretation of the Cheese Man is he's a straight visual pun: Joss has said in interviews that due to budget constraints, he and his production staff were not able to make the science/Initiative elements of the show look as good as they wanted it to be. His exact description was "cheesy". I think it actually bothered him quite a bit, and I've always thought that the Cheese Man was channeling Joss and speaking directly to the audience (as opposed to the dreaming characters), especially the remark "I wear the cheese, it does not wear me" which I interpret as, "We may look cheesy, but it is not what we are about." In Willow's and Xander's dreams respectively: "We needed to use this cheesy element as a plot device to move our story forward" and "Despite the cheesy element, we still go to dark, dangerous emotional places." Speaking of visual puns, I just wanted to go off on a tangent, since you mentioned it in your analysis: Land shark -- bleh! The land shark pun, although it tied in to an episode as significant as Restless, was one-dimensional, unconvincing, stiff, awkward, and most heinously: NOT FUNNY. It really distracted me from my enjoyment of Tabula Rasa. (end rant) On a separate note, I've always wondered if there was any significance to the fact that Riley only appeared in Buffy & Willow's dreams and Spike only appeared in Xander & Giles' dreams. Is it a girls / guys way of looking at things somehow? I can't quite see it, but I still wonder. THANK YOU again, for tackling such a complicated episode so insightfully and clearly. Linda, who is in awe of your discerning eyes |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 3, 2004 12:14:24 GMT -5
<snip> Speaking of visual puns, I just wanted to go off on a tangent, since you mentioned it in your analysis: Land shark -- bleh! The land shark pun, although it tied in to an episode as significant as Restless, was one-dimensional, unconvincing, stiff, awkward, and most heinously: NOT FUNNY. It really distracted me from my enjoyment of Tabula Rasa. (end rant) <snip> Linda, who is in awe of your discerning eyes I think the actual literal realization of the "shark on land" in Tabula Rasa may have been something of an afterthought. XANDER: You gotta have something. Gotta be with movin’ forward. BUFFY: Like a shark. XANDER: Like a shark with feet and ... much less fins. SPIKE: And on land! GILES: Very good! What's a shark known for? For being a killing machine, a predator, and for biting -right? What then, might be a "shark on land?" I'd suggest a vampire is a shark on land, and that may have been what this imagery was initially about - Xander dreaming of Buffy's interest in "sharks," as he dreams of Spike being like a son to Giles, etc. Backing this up is the fact that Buffy mentioned sharks once before this season - when she's actually protecting Spike by lying to Professor Walsh: WALSH: So, you like our little operation? BUFFY: Yeah. Yes. It’s very . . . clean. WALSH: We’ve made significant advances in reconditioning the sub-terrestrials. Bringing them to a point where they no longer pose a threat. BUFFY (thinking of Spike): So I’ve seen. Walsh and Riley give her a questioning look.BUFFY: . . . on the Discovery Channel. With gorillas and sharks. They-they made them all nice. You haven’t seen it? So - Buffy was really thinking of Spike, but she covers by saying she was thinking of "gorillas and sharks." Just an interesting tidbit. And thanks again, Linda, for your nice words about the analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Jan 3, 2004 12:46:27 GMT -5
I think the actual literal realization of the "shark on land" in Tabula Rasa may have been something of an afterthought. XANDER: You gotta have something. Gotta be with movin’ forward. BUFFY: Like a shark. XANDER: Like a shark with feet and ... much less fins. SPIKE: And on land! GILES: Very good! What's a shark known for? For being a killing machine, a predator, and for biting -right? What then, might be a "shark on land?" I'd suggest a vampire is a shark on land, and that may have been what this imagery was initially about - Xander dreaming of Buffy's interest in "sharks," as he dreams of Spike being like a son to Giles, etc. Backing this up is the fact that Buffy mentioned sharks once before this season - when she's actually protecting Spike by lying to Professor Walsh: WALSH: So, you like our little operation? BUFFY: Yeah. Yes. It’s very . . . clean. WALSH: We’ve made significant advances in reconditioning the sub-terrestrials. Bringing them to a point where they no longer pose a threat. BUFFY (thinking of Spike): So I’ve seen. Walsh and Riley give her a questioning look.BUFFY: . . . on the Discovery Channel. With gorillas and sharks. They-they made them all nice. You haven’t seen it? So - Buffy was really thinking of Spike, but she covers by saying she was thinking of "gorillas and sharks." Just an interesting tidbit. And thanks again, Linda, for your nice words about the analysis.
That being said -- I can't be the only one out there whose initial reaction to the "land shark" comment was -- Saturday Night Live! John Belushi! ("Uh, land shark?" ). I haven't brought it up before, but isn't it possible that this -- while not a "throw-away" line -- is just Joss messing with us?
Oh, come on! Somebody else out there had to have thought of "land shark"!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jan 3, 2004 16:06:08 GMT -5
I think the actual literal realization of the "shark on land" in Tabula Rasa may have been something of an afterthought. XANDER: You gotta have something. Gotta be with movin’ forward. BUFFY: Like a shark. XANDER: Like a shark with feet and ... much less fins. SPIKE: And on land! GILES: Very good! What's a shark known for? For being a killing machine, a predator, and for biting -right? What then, might be a "shark on land?" I'd suggest a vampire is a shark on land, and that may have been what this imagery was initially about - Xander dreaming of Buffy's interest in "sharks," as he dreams of Spike being like a son to Giles, etc. <snip> Spring, Thanks for pointing out all of the other, more interesting aspects of the shark image. I admit, I was distracted by the jarring cartoonishness of the Tabula Rasa shark (the poor guy's mask did not allow for any expression whatsoever.) And by the way, I hope I made it clear that the rant was aimed at ME and not you or your analysis in any way shape or form. And I sincerely apologize if I was not clear.  Spring, I know I haven't chimed in yet on your Restless analysis -- it's just that this is my favorite episode, and there's just so much that we can mine from this episode. You did a great job, and I'm still mulling it over.
That being said -- I can't be the only one out there whose initial reaction to the "land shark" comment was -- Saturday Night Live! John Belushi! ("Uh, land shark?" ). I haven't brought it up before, but isn't it possible that this -- while not a "throw-away" line -- is just Joss messing with us?
Oh, come on! Somebody else out there had to have thought of "land shark"!
;D
Laura, Hee. Now THAT would have been a funnier spin on the Tabula Rasa character. (Ok, ok, I'll try to let that go.) On a side note -- I thought it was Chevy Chase who did the Land Shark. Are you sure it was John? Admittedly, my memory may be faulty, 'cause it's been a LOOONG time since I've seen those SNL eps. <snip> Backing this up is the fact that Buffy mentioned sharks once before this season - when she's actually protecting Spike by lying to Professor Walsh: WALSH: So, you like our little operation? BUFFY: Yeah. Yes. It’s very . . . clean. WALSH: We’ve made significant advances in reconditioning the sub-terrestrials. Bringing them to a point where they no longer pose a threat. BUFFY (thinking of Spike): So I’ve seen. Walsh and Riley give her a questioning look.BUFFY: . . . on the Discovery Channel. With gorillas and sharks. They-they made them all nice. You haven’t seen it? So - Buffy was really thinking of Spike, but she covers by saying she was thinking of "gorillas and sharks." <snip> Spring, I noticed that in Destiny, Spike (our shark), called Angel "You big ape" and "signified monkey." I would be curious to know if you think there is any significance or tie-in to the gorilla & sharks pairing... Linda, who is becoming embarassed about her Tabula Rasa obsessive ranting, but still can't let it go |
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Jan 3, 2004 20:18:14 GMT -5
<snip> Laura, Hee. Now THAT would have been a funnier spin on the Tabula Rasa character. (Ok, ok, I'll try to let that go.) On a side note -- I thought it was Chevy Chase who did the Land Shark. Are you sure it was John? Admittedly, my memory may be faulty, 'cause it's been a LOOONG time since I've seen those SNL eps. <snip> Linda, who is becoming embarassed about her Tabula Rasa obsessive ranting, but still can't let it go
|
|
|
|
Post by thelittlestvampire on Jan 4, 2004 0:46:07 GMT -5
Spring, I noticed that in Destiny, Spike (our shark), called Angel "You big ape" and "signified monkey." I would be curious to know if you think there is any significance or tie-in to the gorilla & sharks pairing... Linda, who is becoming embarassed about her Tabula Rasa obsessive ranting, but still can't let it go Heya, Linda- your comment makes me think about Angel's description of Spike back in School Hard. I can't remember the wording, he says something like- once he starts in on something he justs keeps comming at it. I wish I was being more eloquent because something about Angel's description sounded kind've shark-like to me. (Although I know frome the discovery channel that sharks are not all that persistent, really.) Making little to no sense, TLV |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 4, 2004 21:56:49 GMT -5
Spring, I know I haven't chimed in yet on your Restless analysis -- it's just that this is my favorite episode, and there's just so much that we can mine from this episode. You did a great job, and I'm still mulling it over.
That being said -- I can't be the only one out there whose initial reaction to the "land shark" comment was -- Saturday Night Live! John Belushi! ("Uh, land shark?" ). I haven't brought it up before, but isn't it possible that this -- while not a "throw-away" line -- is just Joss messing with us?
Oh, come on! Somebody else out there had to have thought of "land shark"!
;D
Yes - I immediately thought of SNL and the "land shark" also. Put a smile on my face right off. I'm sure that pop-culture connection would not have escaped Joss, but I still don't think this was any kind of throwaway line. The comparisons between sharks and vampires are too strong, and of course, that image of an actual "shark with feet, and on land" in Tabula Rasa - that was surely deliberate. |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 4, 2004 22:01:02 GMT -5
Spring, Thanks for pointing out all of the other, more interesting aspects of the shark image. I admit, I was distracted by the jarring cartoonishness of the Tabula Rasa shark (the poor guy's mask did not allow for any expression whatsoever.) And by the way, I hope I made it clear that the rant was aimed at ME and not you or your analysis in any way shape or form. And I sincerely apologize if I was not clear. No problem - it was clear the rant was aimed at M.E. Well, I'd have to take a lot closer look at Destiny than I have, at this point. Maybe there have been Jossverse comparisons made all along with Angel as a "gorilla" and Spike as a shark . . . I don't know. Sorry to disappoint, but I just don't have many thoughts on that aspect of things. |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 4, 2004 22:02:18 GMT -5
Heya, Linda- your comment makes me think about Angel's description of Spike back in School Hard. I can't remember the wording, he says something like- once he starts in on something he justs keeps comming at it. I wish I was being more eloquent because something about Angel's description sounded kind've shark-like to me. (Although I know frome the discovery channel that sharks are not all that persistent, really.) Making little to no sense, TLV I'm going to have to start watching The Discovery Channel . . . |
|
|
|
Post by fredspuffed on Jul 18, 2004 8:53:34 GMT -5
could the cheese be connected to riley somehow? I think it could be or perhaps I'm probabley crazy - stuff is just - could it be a possibilty?  |
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jul 19, 2004 5:37:28 GMT -5
could the cheese be connected to riley somehow? I think it could be or perhaps I'm probabley crazy - stuff is just - could it be a possibilty? Well - earlier in the Season, Riley offers Buffy cheese at a party, and we see the Cheeseman in Buffy's dream wave cheese at her. We know that Buffy likes cheese. We know that Riley likes cheese. So I don't think it is crazy to wonder if the cheese could be connected to Riley. I wondered about this myself, but couldn't get anywhere with it. If you have any thoughts on how it might be connected to Riley, do share. No thoughts too crazy on The Cheeseman! |
|
|
|
Post by fredspuffed on Jul 21, 2004 3:57:15 GMT -5
I thought because well hes kinda a cookie cutter and the chese apeares to be mass produced- kinda like the initive is doing .
something to that extent i cant seem to find the words.
|
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jul 22, 2004 5:27:14 GMT -5
I thought because well hes kinda a cookie cutter and the chese apeares to be mass produced- kinda like the initive is doing . something to that extent i cant seem to find the words. So, the cheese represents the safe, "normal," low-risk choices in life? The temptation to take an easier way? Something along those lines? Not bad. Cheese is what is offered the rat as a reward for negotiating a maze - your thoughts make me wonder about that also. I mean - one theme we see repeated in the Jossverse is about the difference between doing something for the reward and doing it because it is the right thing to do. |
|
I think it's the feeling that I awake with that stays with me the longest. Sometimes good, but when it's bad, it's really bad, and it takes a while to shake the feeling.
.) 
