|
|
Post by Queen E on Sept 9, 2004 20:35:25 GMT -5
please feel free to share thoughts or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Sept 15, 2004 15:59:23 GMT -5
Erin, thanks for the excellent review of Somnambulist. You captured the ....chill? the tension and the spine chill in this episode. And also the pain.
"Angel cashes in all his chips with Kate in this episode and finds their relationship utterly bankrupt."
Yes - and even though I was not particularly smitten with Kate ever, for Angel, she worked so well in the role she played - their hopeless helpless doomed relationship managed to pain me anyway. and Angel's helplessness to escape the effects of his past on his present. All the threads coming together.... And you captured that in your review - This was a very effective review of a great episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Sept 16, 2004 10:18:37 GMT -5
Erin, thanks for the excellent review of Somnambulist. You captured the ....chill? the tension and the spine chill in this episode. And also the pain. "Angel cashes in all his chips with Kate in this episode and finds their relationship utterly bankrupt." Yes - and even though I was not particularly smitten with Kate ever, for Angel, she worked so well in the role she played - their hopeless helpless doomed relationship managed to pain me anyway. and Angel's helplessness to escape the effects of his past on his present. All the threads coming together.... And you captured that in your review - This was a very effective review of a great episode. Thank you! And I was shocked at the amount of times Angel asked for or inquired about Kate's level of trust, only to expose the truth in the most brutal fashion. Tough love, anyone? Geez. |
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Sept 20, 2004 20:28:10 GMT -5
Erin, the thing I enjoyed most about this very fine analysis was the theme of being unable to break out of an emotional cycle, endlessly repeating it unless there is massive intervention or massive refusal (in Spike's case).
Santayana's famous line, which I can only paraphrase, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, is something played out again and again in the Jossverse--like Penn endlessly murdering his family by proxy; like Spike wooing Buffy (in Crush) with a scenario appropriate to Drusilla: chains, threatened torture, and the offer to kill someone for her as a "gift." He knows no other pattern, and it's desperately hard for him to accept that the old ways, the ways he knows, are utterly counterproductive, yielding exactly the opposite effect than the one he intends.
Oops. We're talking about Angel here. Something must have distracted me....
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Sept 20, 2004 20:46:50 GMT -5
Hey, Erin - nothing useful to add, except to say, yet again, that I read and enjoy all of your analyses. I love how you see so many things in the episodes that I just let slide by my awareness.  |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Sept 20, 2004 21:47:18 GMT -5
Erin, the thing I enjoyed most about this very fine analysis was the theme of being unable to break out of an emotional cycle, endlessly repeating it unless there is massive intervention or massive refusal (in Spike's case). Santayana's famous line, which I can only paraphrase, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, is something played out again and again in the Jossverse--like Penn endlessly murdering his family by proxy; like Spike wooing Buffy (in Crush) with a scenario appropriate to Drusilla: chains, threatened torture, and the offer to kill someone for her as a "gift." He knows no other pattern, and it's desperately hard for him to accept that the old ways, the ways he knows, are utterly counterproductive, yielding exactly the opposite effect than the one he intends. Oops. We're talking about Angel here. Something must have distracted me.... But your example is beautifully apt. Perhaps that is the real Achilles heel of any demon; the lack of adaptability. Even Angel, ensouled as he is, still retains some of that demonic brittleness in his reactions to life's events. His penchant for broad sweeping heroics is in many ways the other side of the coin from Angelus' elaborate torture games. There is even some indication, in Amends that he repeated, as Angelus in Season 2, the "kill the family" pattern of his old days with that businessman whom The First appears as. And Spike, distracting? I'm shocked!  |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Sept 20, 2004 21:48:32 GMT -5
Hey, Erin - nothing useful to add, except to say, yet again, that I read and enjoy all of your analyses. I love how you see so many things in the episodes that I just let slide by my awareness. Wow! Thank you, that is a wonderful thing if something I write can add to your enjoyment of the episodes. I'm amazed at how many things slid by me the many times I've seen these episodes, until I actually really concentrate. That's what I love about these shows... |
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Sept 24, 2004 23:23:01 GMT -5
Nice review, Erin!
Sins of the Fathers. It always comes back to fathers in the Jossverse, doesn't it?
How appropriate in our second Wesley ep and in an important Kate ep. Lots of folks here with daddy issues.
Liked how you have the comparison of the different perspectives that Wes and Cordy have, followed by the paragraph talking about Cordy and Angel's relationship, followed by the implosion of Kate and Angel, followed by . . . . Penn. And all of it wrapped up with the summary about changes - because Penn is really just the catalyst for all the change that happens. A nice irony considering he's the one who doesn't want to change at all. But the ep is all about people changing, relationships changing, and we can never go back to the way things were before. Kate can never go back to her initial trust of Angel. Penn can never really go back (in the short time he has left) to his earlier certainty and smugness. Cordy will never be able to go back to her Sunnydale high school life. Wes can never go back to his black and white Watcher view of the world.
As you said at the start of the analysis,
So Penn is the device that is used in this ep to bring out all the character's thoughts about responsibility and consequences.
Lola
|
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Sept 25, 2004 19:56:52 GMT -5
Nice review, Erin! Sins of the Fathers. It always comes back to fathers in the Jossverse, doesn't it? How appropriate in our second Wesley ep and in an important Kate ep. Lots of folks here with daddy issues. Liked how you have the comparison of the different perspectives that Wes and Cordy have, followed by the paragraph talking about Cordy and Angel's relationship, followed by the implosion of Kate and Angel, followed by . . . . Penn. And all of it wrapped up with the summary about changes - because Penn is really just the catalyst for all the change that happens. A nice irony considering he's the one who doesn't want to change at all. But the ep is all about people changing, relationships changing, and we can never go back to the way things were before. Kate can never go back to her initial trust of Angel. Penn can never really go back (in the short time he has left) to his earlier certainty and smugness. Cordy will never be able to go back to her Sunnydale high school life. Wes can never go back to his black and white Watcher view of the world. As you said at the start of the analysis, So Penn is the device that is used in this ep to bring out all the character's thoughts about responsibility and consequences. Lola So, of course, he had to die! Excellent thoughts, all, Lola. It's amazing the interconnections in this episode, and how brutal Angel was to Kate...almost Angelus-like, except Angel didn't really seem to enjoy it. Much like what we'll see with Rebecca later in the season. No slow intro for her. It did save her life, but did no favors for her soul; she seemed to drift and sink for the rest of her time on the show, until she finally leaves LA altogether. One wonders what would have happened had she never talked to Angel at D'Oblique? |
|
