|
Post by Queen E on Aug 2, 2004 8:54:45 GMT -5
Hi Erin! The first two episodes took me longer to think about than I had hoped. I am too brain-dead to remain undistracted by Spike in this episode. ( ;D...Spike...) I'll have to post comments for it later, I'm afraid. {{Erin}} Great job on your analysis, though! Linda, still thinking " ;D...Spike" He did look especially pretty in this episode. And just a smidge of slash. I surprised I could get one intelligent word out.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Aug 2, 2004 19:02:04 GMT -5
He did look especially pretty in this episode. And just a smidge of slash. I surprised I could get one intelligent word out. Yeah. Just ... a smidge. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Aug 5, 2004 2:01:45 GMT -5
Hi Erin!
Another great analysis! Eetah! You are so right about the concept of debt running throughout the series. And I've never thought about the thematic connections with the matching BtVS episode. And the crossing over theme of the crossover: Very *neat*!
Also neat: Spike's foreshadowed progress. Hee! I never noticed the light/chip connection.
So much to love about this episode. Spike. ;D Oh, and all the other really important stuff. (Have I mentioned that I tend to be distracted by Spike { ;D} in this episode? Almost like a hiccup.)
Okay, since I watched this episode so soon after Lonely Hearts, there are some specific theme continuations that jumped out at me:
1. Angel ends Lonely Hearts in the dark. And liking it. He ends up in the dark here as well. But we know more about the why. And he's not alone this time.
2. Fire: As was mentioned in Lonely Hearts, Angel's fatally allergic to fire (like Talamour). However, he will risk fire to get the bad guy. Fire in the Jossverse equals passion & feeling. (Which I mentioned, btw, in your Lonely Hearts Angelphile thread, although you didn't comment *pout.* -- err, I mean, which you found unworthy of comment oh Shining Plethorentiousness of ... thou?) So Angel's passion is not for love, but for beating the bad guy. Have I mentioned that the guy is remarkably consistent?
Side note: Spike, on the other hand, risks the fire for love. Come to think of it, Spike is the sunlightiest & flame retardant-est of vampires. He doesn't avoid it. He just endures it for as long as he has to. In the warehouse, Angel flinches from the bullet-hole sunlight. Spike doesn't even notice he's in the sun until he's in pain.
Did I mention that I get distracted by Spike ;D in this episode?
In any case, thank you for your analysis and for giving me a reason for watching Spike slo-mo the episode again.
Linda, ;D Spike ;D
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 5, 2004 9:03:20 GMT -5
Hi Erin! Another great analysis! Eetah! You are so right about the concept of debt running throughout the series. And I've never thought about the thematic connections with the matching BtVS episode. And the crossing over theme of the crossover: Very *neat*! Also neat: Spike's foreshadowed progress. Hee! I never noticed the light/chip connection. So much to love about this episode. Spike. ;D Oh, and all the other really important stuff. (Have I mentioned that I tend to be distracted by Spike { ;D} in this episode? Almost like a hiccup.) Okay, since I watched this episode so soon after Lonely Hearts, there are some specific theme continuations that jumped out at me: 1. Angel ends Lonely Hearts in the dark. And liking it. He ends up in the dark here as well. But we know more about the why. And he's not alone this time. 2. Fire: As was mentioned in Lonely Hearts, Angel's fatally allergic to fire (like Talamour). However, he will risk fire to get the bad guy. Fire in the Jossverse equals passion & feeling. (Which I mentioned, btw, in your Lonely Hearts Angelphile thread, although you didn't comment *pout.* -- err, I mean, which you found unworthy of comment oh Shining Plethorentiousness of ... thou?) So Angel's passion is not for love, but for beating the bad guy. Have I mentioned that the guy is remarkably consistent? Side note: Spike, on the other hand, risks the fire for love. Come to think of it, Spike is the sunlightiest & flame retardant-est of vampires. He doesn't avoid it. He just endures it for as long as he has to. In the warehouse, Angel flinches from the bullet-hole sunlight. Spike doesn't even notice he's in the sun until he's in pain. Did I mention that I get distracted by Spike ;D in this episode? In any case, thank you for your analysis and for giving me a reason for watching Spike slo-mo the episode again. Linda, ;D Spike ;D Linda: Just commented on your "Lonely Hearts" post; I can't believe I missed it! Very intriguing "crossover" thoughts between Lonely Hearts and In the Dark. And I think Angel is the king of sublimation; he funnels all the passion he once had for Buffy, and earlier, for torture and mayhem, into "the good fight." Perhaps that explains why he seems "stronger" in LA; all of his energy is directed on the fight. And Spike. Pretty Spike, leaning against the fence all nonchalant, wreaking havoc in Angel's apartment...believe, it was hard to be coherent with all that distracting pretty...
|
|
LindaWhyAmIStillAwake
Guest
|
Post by LindaWhyAmIStillAwake on Aug 6, 2004 6:25:42 GMT -5
Linda: Just commented on your "Lonely Hearts" post; I can't believe I missed it! Very intriguing "crossover" thoughts between Lonely Hearts and In the Dark. And I think Angel is the king of sublimation; he funnels all the passion he once had for Buffy, and earlier, for torture and mayhem, into "the good fight." Perhaps that explains why he seems "stronger" in LA; all of his energy is directed on the fight. And Spike. Pretty Spike, leaning against the fence all nonchalant, wreaking havoc in Angel's apartment...believe, it was hard to be coherent with all that distracting pretty... Mmm...Spike pretty... So then what you're saying is Spike's voiceover mockery is accurate: "Working up a load of sexual tension and then prancing away like a magnificent poof is truly thanks enough..." Mmm...Spike snarky-insightful.... Linda, 3 am dammit!
|
|
|
Post by Kate (K8) on Aug 6, 2004 9:49:52 GMT -5
Mmm...Spike pretty... So then what you're saying is Spike's voiceover mockery is accurate: "Working up a load of sexual tension and then prancing away like a magnificent poof is truly thanks enough..." Mmm...Spike snarky-insightful.... Linda, 3 am dammit! He probably gains a lot of satisfaction from playing hero and helping people out of the goodness of his heart (which is why selfless acts aren't completely selfless, and even if he's not working for the Shanshu thing he still gets the reward of feeling good about himself). Who was it who said something about how charging a fee makes the people he saves feel like they aren't as indebted to him and are on equal terms?
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 6, 2004 10:58:08 GMT -5
He probably gains a lot of satisfaction from playing hero and helping people out of the goodness of his heart (which is why selfless acts aren't completely selfless, and even if he's not working for the Shanshu thing he still gets the reward of feeling good about himself). Who was it who said something about how charging a fee makes the people he saves feel like they aren't as indebted to him and are on equal terms? That was Doyle, actually, in the very next episode "I Fall to Pieces." I talk about that a bit in my analysis, because Dr. Meltzer (the villian of the piece) shamelessly uses his ability to "save" people to emotionally manipulate one of his patients. Funny thing, when Anya suggests charging people for being saved in "Flooded," Buffy scoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Kate (K8) on Aug 6, 2004 11:54:36 GMT -5
That was Doyle, actually, in the very next episode "I Fall to Pieces." I talk about that a bit in my analysis, because Dr. Meltzer (the villian of the piece) shamelessly uses his ability to "save" people to emotionally manipulate one of his patients. Funny thing, when Anya suggests charging people for being saved in "Flooded," Buffy scoffs. Knew I'd read something about it! Read your analysis when it first went up but had less time to think about things then and couldn't remember if I'd seen the fee bit there, on one of the angel threads or the main thread etc. Might have another look now I have a bit more time to enjoy reading them. Bit about Flooded definitely emphasises difference between Buffyverse and Angelverse. Do you think it was intentional? Would have been really effective if Flooded and IFTP had aired at similar times.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 6, 2004 12:13:35 GMT -5
Knew I'd read something about it! Read your analysis when it first went up but had less time to think about things then and couldn't remember if I'd seen the fee bit there, on one of the angel threads or the main thread etc. Might have another look now I have a bit more time to enjoy reading them. Bit about Flooded definitely emphasises difference between Buffyverse and Angelverse. Do you think it was intentional? Would have been really effective if Flooded and IFTP had aired at similar times. I think it was intentional, because what it seems to me the Buffyverse is about "saving the world" and the Angelverse is about "saving a soul." Buffy doesn't really interact with anyone she rescues...it's part of a greater plan.
|
|
|
Post by Lola not here on Aug 6, 2004 12:40:56 GMT -5
That was Doyle, actually, in the very next episode "I Fall to Pieces." I talk about that a bit in my analysis, because Dr. Meltzer (the villian of the piece) shamelessly uses his ability to "save" people to emotionally manipulate one of his patients. Funny thing, when Anya suggests charging people for being saved in "Flooded," Buffy scoffs. Very interesting contrast between the two shows. Because Angel is being encouraged to interact, to get involved with people's lives. And therefore, taking money is the way to keep a balance while doing that. Making sure involvment doesn't become dependence. Whereas the role of the slayer has always been seen as deliberately unknown or hidden. The people she save should never even have known they were in danger, she is supposed to "save" them even from the fear. A more traditional superhero kind of thing. Therefore, taking that role into the light (as would have to happen if you sent out bills, etc.) would be to completely alter the slayer function. Although Buffy and friends see it simply as "you don't do that", it is because they are looking at the slayer as called to a mission, as supernormal, and therefore to be above such things. Not saying either is righter or wronger than the other. Just think there is a fundemental difference in perception of role and purpose here. Lola But if we think about it, society has no problem paying folks to protect us from fires, or crime, or illness, do we?
|
|
|
Post by Lola again on Aug 6, 2004 12:41:56 GMT -5
I think it was intentional, because what it seems to me the Buffyverse is about "saving the world" and the Angelverse is about "saving a soul." Buffy doesn't really interact with anyone she rescues...it's part of a greater plan. And this is a much more succinct way of putting it. Thanks, Erin.
|
|
|
Post by Kate (K8) on Aug 6, 2004 13:52:39 GMT -5
Agree. Buffy is always patrolling and killing random evil demons she encounters while from the first episode Angel is focused on potential victims.
More Slayer-superiority complex, or assuming Anya means even the poor have to pay and not paying means not saving?
Interesting that the group that charges ends up having lots of things such as a hotel and then Wolf Ram and Hart's LA branch (which wasn't due to profit from fees), while the other group that doesn't charge has trouble keeping one house together since they aren't given anything from Watcher's council etc (who should be more giving than evil law firms). Then at the end both groups have nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 6, 2004 15:07:33 GMT -5
More Slayer-superiority complex, or assuming Anya means even the poor have to pay and not paying means not saving? I think it's probably a combination of that and "action is [her] reward" mentality the COW try to inculcate the slayers with. That her calling is too "holy" to besmirch with money. And Anya rather went about it the wrong way, so the Scoobies could dismiss it as "money grubbing," whereas Doyle's knew precisely what to say to get Angel to agree. What a metaphor...regardless of how much you collect around you, nothing lasts...
|
|
|
Post by beccaelizabeth on Aug 6, 2004 17:52:17 GMT -5
But if we think about it, society has no problem paying folks to protect us from fires, or crime, or illness, do we? some people do basic services like that are funded on several different models. I can't currently think of an example of firemen who view their work as a religious calling, but there were hospitals that did. The church funded the hospital, and the people funded the church. Sometimes by everyone paying a percentage, sometimes by only voluntary donations. But people would donate to try and secure their place in heaven, so the church had a head start on the kind of charity that offers a single service. Plus once the church had land and people then they could work the land themselves, like monks being self sufficient off their own lands. Then they could offer their services, religious and otherwise, on the basis that their work was for god and his children, a gift or duty. But people still gave them stuff from gratitude. I cant think of anyone who did work like that secretly. If anyone did then it must have been a very good secret. Some charity work is funded by shops offering unrelated products, sometimes donated, sometimes made by people working for the charity. Research is funded this way, also stuff to help look after children and disabled people. Specialised interests. Can you imagine a Slayer charity store? protection from fire and crime in some places used to be based on insurance, and healthcare still is sometimes. The problem with that is only insured people get the help, which lets fires start in an uninsured house or criminals get practice on uninsured people, making the problem bigger when people finally go to tackle it. Or, if everyone is helped if they pay or not, people arent going to bother paying. So you either get help only to those who can afford it or you get very poor helpers. you could have people pay as they go, charging them every time you have to save their house or their body. But people who've just had all their stuff burned up or who are sick or who had someone steal their stuff are exactly the least likely to be able to pay. So what do you do? Leave stuff broken until they can? Mostly now fire crime and healthcare is paid for out of taxes. Everyone puts a little bit of money in, and gets the service out. Taxes provide for the government services that look after everyone, including armies to protect from external threats of violence, police forces to protect from internal threats, firemen and hospitals. There are private hospitals if people arent satisfied with the tax funded services, but for most people it is free at the time of needing it, no specific charge at your low point (except for dentists and opticians, but theres supposedly free versions of that available if you need it). No discrimination against poor people, everyone protected, all that good stuff. But lots of people cranky at how much they have to pay for a service they dont use, not particularly caring that fire or crime or disease doesnt spread to them thanks to this invisible service. If the Slayer was publicly funded out of taxes either it would have to be an unexplained/secret item (black ops) or some official who would have to run for reelection at some point in the future would have to explain to the public exactly where their money was going. That would be fun. If people bought Slayer insurance, that would mean only people who acknowledge the existence of vampires would be paying to support her work. Possibly worky, because the Slayer is only one girl. But people who paid for the service would expect her attention and if theres more than one of them you know sooner or later she would be double booked and then complaints and lack of cashflow. Pay as you go has to get past the fear and denial, convince the newly saved that the Slayer provided a unique service that the police could not have helped with, then get money from people who happened to be wandering down dark alleys. And not get arrested for demanding money with menaces. Doing the work out of the goodness of your heart leaves you poor. No one pays. Trying to be supported by donations would mean people knowing about what she did, having money, and feeling like giving it to her. Basically the only people that know are the Scoobies. And they do all donate money or services when they can. Giles gives her a huge great cheque one time. Maybe you could think of the Magic Box as that Slayer charity shop But we dont see Giles and the other job having people going 'hey, you save the world, lets put you on the payroll for a percentage of my income!' The Watcher's Council is funded by mysterious means. I figure probably combinations of long term investments, income from land and property, Watcher owned business, old money stuff. They might get government money in various ways. But we do know they fund the Watcher in the field. Giles gets paid by them (*cough*backdated). The Slayer does not. A Slayer is usually a child, and always female. Her Watcher trains her from an early age. Kendra was given to live with her Watcher. If we take that as the normal model, and add a little old fashioned mentality, then obviously as a child or woman the Slayer wouldnt have a paying job of her own and would be looked after by a man- her Watcher. Therefore part of his payment from the Council would be for the care and feeding of one superpowered girl. Buffy did not live with Giles. We know he gave her money in large chunks once, but we dont know if it was a regular event. Even if it was, the Council money wouldnt be calculated to pay for two girls, or a house of their own, or school, or pretty clothes, or anything past the basics for survival- food, shelter, coverings and weapons. Lots and lots of weapons. It is possible Giles didnt get the care allowance because his Slayer wasnt living with him. It is possible it is calculated on an old formula and not very useful. It is possible it adds up to income support / welfare levels, the kind of thing that is okay on paper as long as everyone eats beans and never needs anything replaced. It is possible that Buffy on her own could live comfortably on it. But I dont see the council being generous enough that she could also support Dawn. Part of Buffy being a child, and a rich child at that, is she never wondered where the money was coming from. She complained about having to spend her saved up allowance on tattoo removal (which personally I'd have thought should come under some Slayer healthcare package, unless they dont fund such things from expecting Slayer healing to take care of it all) but didnt ever have to worry where the next meal was coming from. So her world never worried about money either. Then Xander left home and got a job, and jobs and money and income got to be issues. Then Buffy was forced to be the grown up and responsible for everything without support, and money got to be crucial. Angel was theoretically the grown up the whole time. Cordy was having her money issues around the time Xander was, but while Xander was shown searching for a job and identity rather than just money, Cordelia has her identity and job all sorted in her mind. Now if she can just get someone to pay her for it... Same with Wesley once he arrives. Because Angel is more about trials of adulthood, money is an issue. Less so on BtVS due to different metaphor. I just woke up and whats the first thing I do? Sit down and write all that.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Aug 7, 2004 23:00:56 GMT -5
some people do <snipped for space> Because Angel is more about trials of adulthood, money is an issue. Less so on BtVS due to different metaphor. I just woke up and whats the first thing I do? Sit down and write all that. And I'm so glad you did! Excellent observations, thoughts, Be. And the final line really hits the nail on the head about the differing metaphoric models for the shows.
|
|