|
Post by fish1941 on May 1, 2006 17:01:03 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be negative, but I CANNOT see the good in Angel's actions regarding Connor, his friends and Wolfram and Hart. What Angel had done SICKENED me, even after three years. And if Connor's survival is supposed to be some kind of sign of Angel's "victory", it was one that was acquired in a sick and negative manner.
And his actions regarding Wolfram and Hart in the series' last two episodes had sickened me even further.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 1, 2006 17:15:02 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be negative, but I CANNOT see the good in Angel's actions regarding Connor, his friends and Wolfram and Hart. What Angel had done SICKENED me, even after three years. And if Connor's survival is supposed to be some kind of sign of Angel's "victory", it was one that was acquired in a sick and negative manner. And his actions regarding Wolfram and Hart in the series' last two episodes had sickened me even further. I guess this is one of those areas in which we'll have to agree to disagree. Because a Connor who is capable of even halfway integrating the "Destroyer" and "Connor Riley" is a victory, to me, in the context of this 'verse. As I said in my analysis, all of Angel's "victories" are pyrrhic. There is no black and white here; Connor's eventual fate and relative stability came at an enormously high cost, but he did, in fact, survive. That was the point I was making with the above statements.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 1, 2006 20:40:03 GMT -5
Lovely. Baby imagery is all over the show, highlighting (IMHO) the Angel-Connor relationship as the crux of the show. What you point out here is interesting saving the child and losing the family. Could get into natural selection here, about how some species die shortly after procreating, but it doesn't matter, because fitness is measured by successful reproductive rate, not lifespan...
Also intrigued by your speculations about Darla being the only one of the Fanged Four to be from the Americas. I've been wondering why the writing decision was made for Darla to be from the American Colonies. It's not really referenced, I understand the situation doesn't exactly stand up under scrutiny, and you have to wonder at The Master's decision to travel all the way across the ocean to sire Darla and then go all the way back.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on May 2, 2006 7:42:00 GMT -5
Lovely. Baby imagery is all over the show, highlighting (IMHO) the Angel-Connor relationship as the crux of the show. What you point out here is interesting saving the child and losing the family. Could get into natural selection here, about how some species die shortly after procreating, but it doesn't matter, because fitness is measured by successful reproductive rate, not lifespan... Also intrigued by your speculations about Darla being the only one of the Fanged Four to be from the Americas. I've been wondering why the writing decision was made for Darla to be from the American Colonies. It's not really referenced, I understand the situation doesn't exactly stand up under scrutiny, and you have to wonder at The Master's decision to travel all the way across the ocean to sire Darla and then go all the way back. It's a good question about "why America". I mean, from a practical TV show perspective, it was probably just so that JB could keep an American accent. Although, like much of the flashback stuff, there are holes. I mean, she has a modern American accent, but in reality back then she wouldn't have sounded like what we think of now as "American". But, if you look at story instead, it's an interesting choice. Did the Master come to America because he was being drawn to Hellmouthy vibes, even though he didn't stay the first time? Was it important that Darla was an American and the "head" of their little vamp family? Is that why they all end up staying in America as much as they do? And why/how was Darla picked by the Master? He sought her out as she was dying and turned her - he didn't just grab her as a meal and then turn her, she was selected. Why? He picked well, obviously, because she turned out to be a most excellent vamp and extremely loyal to him.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on May 2, 2006 7:52:58 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be negative, but I CANNOT see the good in Angel's actions regarding Connor, his friends and Wolfram and Hart. What Angel had done SICKENED me, even after three years. And if Connor's survival is supposed to be some kind of sign of Angel's "victory", it was one that was acquired in a sick and negative manner. And his actions regarding Wolfram and Hart in the series' last two episodes had sickened me even further. Well, everyone has different reactions to the Connor storyline. And it's certainly not an easy one to pick a good choice among all the painful options. I don't know if there would ever have been a way to "heal" Connor after all his experiences by the end of season 5. Growing up where he did, the emotional manipulation by Holtz and then Jasmine-in-Cordy, the final breakdown with the hostages and the bomb and . . . etc. Would he ever have been able to be, well, sane and alive? Possibly. But I don't know. I dislike the mindwipe extremely and know that it was wrong . . . but I also keep coming back to complicating factors. I mean, the gang all chose W&H on their own, for their own reasons. Granted, they were missing some of the facts, but . . . . And I keep thinking of Connor at the end. I mean, issues - yes! But re-integrated Connor, when the memories have come back and he now has two sets and understands what he is but also seems able to deal with it? Well. I can't help but see him as OK in the end. Not that there were no other paths, not that this path wasn't horribly destructive, but just - Connor himself, individually. At the end, I do see Connor as being salvaged. Was it worth all the other damage? Likely not. But, this is the world created by all the actions of everyone. That is where they all are now. But it's not an easy or an uncomplicated or totally right path. I don't know that there were any paths at the end that were totally right. Which is classic AtS to me. Pyrrhic victories indeed.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on May 3, 2006 12:00:08 GMT -5
I don't blame Angel for the others' decisions to join W&H. They made the choice on their own.
I do blame him for the mindwipe. I realize that parents will do anything for their children, but . . . I hated it. For the second time, he got away with this. He had got away with this for the first time in "I Will Remember You" and many fans tend to judge this episode as nothing more than a very romantic Buffy/Angel episode. I found it disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 3, 2006 12:58:30 GMT -5
Lovely. Baby imagery is all over the show, highlighting (IMHO) the Angel-Connor relationship as the crux of the show. What you point out here is interesting saving the child and losing the family. Could get into natural selection here, about how some species die shortly after procreating, but it doesn't matter, because fitness is measured by successful reproductive rate, not lifespan... Also intrigued by your speculations about Darla being the only one of the Fanged Four to be from the Americas. I've been wondering why the writing decision was made for Darla to be from the American Colonies. It's not really referenced, I understand the situation doesn't exactly stand up under scrutiny, and you have to wonder at The Master's decision to travel all the way across the ocean to sire Darla and then go all the way back. Hee! I like your thoughts on natural selection, although my skills and/or knowledge are very spotty on the subject (at least compared to some)! Also, very true about the strangeness of the Master's presence in America, although he seems to have been attracted to it in some respects, since he returned there in the 20th century. I would assume that if he was already there for other reasons, and saw something in "Darla" that intrigued him. Would be interesting to know what life was like for the two of them (among other assorted Aurelians), pre-Angelus...
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 3, 2006 12:59:11 GMT -5
Lovely. Baby imagery is all over the show, highlighting (IMHO) the Angel-Connor relationship as the crux of the show. What you point out here is interesting saving the child and losing the family. Could get into natural selection here, about how some species die shortly after procreating, but it doesn't matter, because fitness is measured by successful reproductive rate, not lifespan... Also intrigued by your speculations about Darla being the only one of the Fanged Four to be from the Americas. I've been wondering why the writing decision was made for Darla to be from the American Colonies. It's not really referenced, I understand the situation doesn't exactly stand up under scrutiny, and you have to wonder at The Master's decision to travel all the way across the ocean to sire Darla and then go all the way back. It's a good question about "why America". I mean, from a practical TV show perspective, it was probably just so that JB could keep an American accent. Although, like much of the flashback stuff, there are holes. I mean, she has a modern American accent, but in reality back then she wouldn't have sounded like what we think of now as "American". But, if you look at story instead, it's an interesting choice. Did the Master come to America because he was being drawn to Hellmouthy vibes, even though he didn't stay the first time? Was it important that Darla was an American and the "head" of their little vamp family? Is that why they all end up staying in America as much as they do? And why/how was Darla picked by the Master? He sought her out as she was dying and turned her - he didn't just grab her as a meal and then turn her, she was selected. Why? He picked well, obviously, because she turned out to be a most excellent vamp and extremely loyal to him. Or, what Lola says here!
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 3, 2006 13:06:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be negative, but I CANNOT see the good in Angel's actions regarding Connor, his friends and Wolfram and Hart. What Angel had done SICKENED me, even after three years. And if Connor's survival is supposed to be some kind of sign of Angel's "victory", it was one that was acquired in a sick and negative manner. And his actions regarding Wolfram and Hart in the series' last two episodes had sickened me even further. Well, everyone has different reactions to the Connor storyline. And it's certainly not an easy one to pick a good choice among all the painful options. I don't know if there would ever have been a way to "heal" Connor after all his experiences by the end of season 5. Growing up where he did, the emotional manipulation by Holtz and then Jasmine-in-Cordy, the final breakdown with the hostages and the bomb and . . . etc. Would he ever have been able to be, well, sane and alive? Possibly. But I don't know. I dislike the mindwipe extremely and know that it was wrong . . . but I also keep coming back to complicating factors. I mean, the gang all chose W&H on their own, for their own reasons. Granted, they were missing some of the facts, but . . . . And I keep thinking of Connor at the end. I mean, issues - yes! But re-integrated Connor, when the memories have come back and he now has two sets and understands what he is but also seems able to deal with it? Well. I can't help but see him as OK in the end. Not that there were no other paths, not that this path wasn't horribly destructive, but just - Connor himself, individually. At the end, I do see Connor as being salvaged. Was it worth all the other damage? Likely not. But, this is the world created by all the actions of everyone. That is where they all are now. But it's not an easy or an uncomplicated or totally right path. I don't know that there were any paths at the end that were totally right. Which is classic AtS to me. Pyrrhic victories indeed. I'm right there with you. Angel was always all about the grey. The Connor storyline was the greyest of all. How much responsibility does Connor himself have for his actions? How much responsibility belongs to Cordelia, or Holtz, or Angel himself? I need to rewatch "Home," but I think Angel was caught off guard by the mindwipe. In some respects, he should have known that any deal with W & H was bound to have ugly consequences, but here we see again the negative side of acting autonomously. As I mentioned in my analyses, working "alone" doesn't, well, work. Had Wes confided in anyone in Season 3, things would have played out differently. Had Angel not be so concerned about shielding his friends from his "darkness," he wouldn't have put their lives and his soul in so much danger. W & H played on that by letting him be "the decider" (sorry ) for the entire Fang Gang... Getting off track. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 3, 2006 13:16:26 GMT -5
I don't blame Angel for the others' decisions to join W&H. They made the choice on their own. I do blame him for the mindwipe. I realize that parents will do anything for their children, but . . . I hated it. For the second time, he got away with this. He had got away with this for the first time in "I Will Remember You" and many fans tend to judge this episode as nothing more than a very romantic Buffy/Angel episode. I found it disgusting. Well, you won't find those kind of fans here. I found that in that episode, his decision was high-handed at best, and proof that he, at that point, still does not view Buffy as an adult. Was it the right decision? Yes. Should it have been discussed with Buffy before? Hell yes. Note that it was him that: "wasn't sure if I could do it if I woke up with you one more morning." It was his own weakness he feared. I don't know; I like the fact that he makes the wrong decision for the right reasons, or the right decision for the wrong reasons, and sometimes the wrong decision period. Perfect characters bore me.
|
|
|
Post by Riff on May 11, 2006 15:10:14 GMT -5
Superb stuff! I think your critiques get better all the time. The true Darla is what we have at the start of this ep: she doesn’t know who she is, having played a role for so long, even during her first life as a human. I’ve always felt she suffers from overcompensation syndrome, because she smiles too much (never a good sign) and is always quick to demonstrate she is “strong”. Unless pushed to extremes, true strength is usually invisible or at least quiet, since it has nothing to prove. Darla, by contrast, strikes me as insecure, which would hardly be surprising, given her life. It’s a bit like someone developing a superiority complex to cover an inferiority complex. As you convincingly argue, Darla’s history is one of objectification. I’d forgotten about that word. Several philosophers are credited with the notion that humans, with self-awareness and a sense of morality, are “sick animals”. The story, then, works metaphorically. Angel is someone chasing humanity, the rational and “sick” part of us, while Darla seeks abandonment of selfhood in euphoric emotional states, what Freud calls the oceanic. The question is, would he have done rather too well in law school? Would those other circumstances and opportunities have led to the morally ambiguous Gunn seen in Season Five? I believe in an essential self that is stable throughout the change and social shaping of the personality, but it’s clear that on a surface level we are quite malleable. Perhaps Season Five shows us that Gunn’s excluded, underprivileged, and brutal life may have produced a more positive character than he might otherwise have been. Superficially. Excellent analysis. As you point out when discussing Wes’s concerns, there is a lot of foreshadowing in this ep. Thinking about it, there are a number of stories in AtS involving babies and moral choices. The baby is saved, but the family is lost. This is the kind of futility than undermines any moral message of the Angelverse, for me. But then, I would say that, wouldn’t I?
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on May 13, 2006 12:49:35 GMT -5
Well, everyone has different reactions to the Connor storyline. And it's certainly not an easy one to pick a good choice among all the painful options. I don't know if there would ever have been a way to "heal" Connor after all his experiences by the end of season 5. Growing up where he did, the emotional manipulation by Holtz and then Jasmine-in-Cordy, the final breakdown with the hostages and the bomb and . . . etc. Would he ever have been able to be, well, sane and alive? Possibly. But I don't know. I dislike the mindwipe extremely and know that it was wrong . . . but I also keep coming back to complicating factors. I mean, the gang all chose W&H on their own, for their own reasons. Granted, they were missing some of the facts, but . . . . And I keep thinking of Connor at the end. I mean, issues - yes! But re-integrated Connor, when the memories have come back and he now has two sets and understands what he is but also seems able to deal with it? Well. I can't help but see him as OK in the end. Not that there were no other paths, not that this path wasn't horribly destructive, but just - Connor himself, individually. At the end, I do see Connor as being salvaged. Was it worth all the other damage? Likely not. But, this is the world created by all the actions of everyone. That is where they all are now. But it's not an easy or an uncomplicated or totally right path. I don't know that there were any paths at the end that were totally right. Which is classic AtS to me. Pyrrhic victories indeed. I'm right there with you. Angel was always all about the grey. The Connor storyline was the greyest of all. How much responsibility does Connor himself have for his actions? How much responsibility belongs to Cordelia, or Holtz, or Angel himself? I need to rewatch "Home," but I think Angel was caught off guard by the mindwipe. In some respects, he should have known that any deal with W & H was bound to have ugly consequences, but here we see again the negative side of acting autonomously. As I mentioned in my analyses, working "alone" doesn't, well, work. Had Wes confided in anyone in Season 3, things would have played out differently. Had Angel not be so concerned about shielding his friends from his "darkness," he wouldn't have put their lives and his soul in so much danger. W & H played on that by letting him be "the decider" (sorry ) for the entire Fang Gang... Getting off track. Sorry. Ooooh, yes! I think Angel was surprised by the mindwipe - I think he asked for Connor to be "helped" without knowing how that would be accomplished and figuring he'd live with whatever consequences there were. But, Angel being Angel, he probably thought about consequences for himself, how he might be made to suffer. Not about how others might be affected. And then, once the deal was done, he had to live with it.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on May 13, 2006 12:59:14 GMT -5
Superb stuff! I think your critiques get better all the time. The true Darla is what we have at the start of this ep: she doesn’t know who she is, having played a role for so long, even during her first life as a human. I’ve always felt she suffers from overcompensation syndrome, because she smiles too much (never a good sign) and is always quick to demonstrate she is “strong”. Unless pushed to extremes, true strength is usually invisible or at least quiet, since it has nothing to prove. Darla, by contrast, strikes me as insecure, which would hardly be surprising, given her life. It’s a bit like someone developing a superiority complex to cover an inferiority complex. Which sets up a nice comparison of her to, gosh . . . Buffy! Who would have thought it! ;D Interesting idea. Because I've always thought that Gunn's story arc in season 5 contained some nice metaphor for issues that might face a black man in a predominantly white corporate environment. ;D I like to think of it as a bit of nasty reality poking its head into what would normally be a more straightforward and simple moral tale. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 20, 2006 12:55:46 GMT -5
Superb stuff! I think your critiques get better all the time. The true Darla is what we have at the start of this ep: she doesn’t know who she is, having played a role for so long, even during her first life as a human. I’ve always felt she suffers from overcompensation syndrome, because she smiles too much (never a good sign) and is always quick to demonstrate she is “strong”. Unless pushed to extremes, true strength is usually invisible or at least quiet, since it has nothing to prove. Darla, by contrast, strikes me as insecure, which would hardly be surprising, given her life. It’s a bit like someone developing a superiority complex to cover an inferiority complex. As you convincingly argue, Darla’s history is one of objectification. Thank you for the lovely compliment! I agree, and I think the perhaps Angel might suffer on similar lines; he does, at times, respond to emotional crises with brute strength rather than the quieter and more contemplative route...although when he tries to find a place to be quiet and contemplative, trouble generally follows. The trouble with being different: vampire, slayer, whatever, is that at times it hinders the formation of identity...because you are different from others, you can't really take your cues from society or others like you, and you struggle to figure out who you are outside of any normal context. Part of the tragedy of vampires is that they really are stopped at a crucial point of development. They won't progress, so Darla is really stuck, like Buffy, at that superiority/inferiority emotional juncture. And never the twain shall meet; Angel can't understand why Darla would give that up, and Darla can't understand why he would desire it. And it must be heartbreaking that two people who were once so connected are on such different paths. Advertisity can definitely create strength, and you may be correct; Gunn's embattled life could be in a mitigating factor in helping him survive the changes, heartbreaks, and betrayals of their time at W & H. In my analysis of "War Zone," I suggested that a vampire Gunn could have been just as, if not more, ruthless than Angelus, because of the rage and hatred he had inside. His attitude softens, in no small part due to the influence of Cordelia, and later, Fred. Having someone watch out for him, having someone who loves him, brings out the best, shows him another way to be. It all ends up being about the choices you make, both good and bad. Hee! Yes, you would. And I think you're right and that it is intended. When it comes to children, especially, there is, at times, a near-animal protectiveness that it engenders in certain individuals. For Angel, who has caused so much suffering and horror in his long life, that would be magnified. As you said regarding Gunn, the surface may change, but the essentials remain the same. Just as Angelus was single-minded and obsessive about causing pain, Angel is single-minded and obsessive about...well, in the end, saving Connor. Thank you again for your awesome comments!
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 20, 2006 13:02:51 GMT -5
Which sets up a nice comparison of her to, gosh . . . Buffy! Who would have thought it! ;D Hee! Right there with ya, scooter. Absolutely. There is a lot to be said about the compromises Gunn undergoes as being a metaphor for "making him white." The scene in "A Hole in the World" where he's singing Gilbert and Sullivan and then covers it up with hip hop. Damn, that could be a whole thesis: The Senior Partners put Gilbert and Sullivan in his head for "elocution"? Yikes! Hee! You're both right!
|
|