Does Michael's no actually mean no?
mazonmac
Nikita asks four very important questions in s2.
1- In Soul Sacrifice, she asks Michael if he's the father of pTerry's (read
as "Terry"... the "p" is silent) baby. After a *long* hesitation, Mikey
says no.
2- In Old Habit (one of my favs of s2), Nikita asks Mikey if Section gave
the tamest-looking prostitute ever depicted on TV, Danielle, to Formitz.
Again, he says no.
C - In Not Was, Nikita basically asks Michael if he remembers anything from
when he wasn't quite himself do to the memory desensing, to which he replies
with a diatribe about how he has to debrief regarding the earlier mission.
(read as "no.")
And 4 - In Last Night, Nikita asks if he'll leave the weird little girl's
family alone, to which he replies "We'll see." (read as "no.")
So, in which of these things is he telling the truth? And how do these
answers affect the interpretation of the other more ambiguous answers?
1- I'm really not sure about this. I know what I'd like to think, but Mikey
is really good at lying...and the hesitation doesn't help. If he is lying
he has *every* reason to do so. If he isn't lying, what's the hesitation
about?
2 - definitely not. The only reason to lie is to keep Nikita from killing
Formitz. But Formitz dies anyway, so...at least Mikey can say he tried.
C - definitely not! The roll of the eyes tells it all.
And 4 - Don't know. Aside from making him look a little less like a monster
in Nikita's eyes (which he really isn't likely to do since they're in the
"push" side of the "push me, pull me" game they've been playing this whole
season), what reason is there to lie?
Wha'd'ya'll think?
cin
trying to get a new conversation started.
--
To email, remove ".no_spam" from the address.
Malsperanza
> Header says it all - does Mikey mean it when he says no?
Ooh, fun topic, Cin.
> Nikita asks four very important questions in s2.
>
> 1- In Soul Sacrifice, she asks Michael if he's the father of pTerry's (read
> as "Terry"... the "p" is silent) baby. After a *long* hesitation, Mikey
> says no.
>
> 2- In Old Habit (one of my favs of s2), Nikita asks Mikey if Section gave
> the tamest-looking prostitute ever depicted on TV, Danielle, to Formitz.
> Again, he says no.
>
> C - In Not Was, Nikita basically asks Michael if he remembers anything from
> when he wasn't quite himself do to the memory desensing, to which he replies
> with a diatribe about how he has to debrief regarding the earlier mission.
> (read as "no.")
>
> And 4 - In Last Night, Nikita asks if he'll leave the weird little girl's
> family alone, to which he replies "We'll see." (read as "no.")
>
> So, in which of these things is he telling the truth? And how do these
> answers affect the interpretation of the other more ambiguous answers?
>
> 1- I'm really not sure about this. I know what I'd like to think, but Mikey
> is really good at lying...and the hesitation doesn't help. If he is lying
> he has *every* reason to do so. If he isn't lying, what's the hesitation
> about?
It seems likely to me that he is telling the truth, if for no other
reason than that I don't see Michael taking pregnancy risks. But I
also think he is already emotionally engaged with Nikita at that
point, and unlikely to be having an affair with Terry, whom he clearly
respects and likes. Since she is not showing her pregnancy yet, she
can't be more than 3 or 4 months pregnant. Which means that she got
pregnant around the time when Nikita came back into Section, or --even
more unlikely--during the 6 months when Nikita was gone and Michael
was desperate with longing for her.
The long pause? Three possible meanings--or a mixture of the three. 1)
He is weighing whether to tell her she has no business asking him, and
deciding that in fact it is her business. 2) He is angry or hurt that
she would suspect him of this at all.(Cf. previous paragraph: when
does she think he was having this affair? During the Jurgen arc??
Humph.) He is therefore controlling his anger in typical fashion, by
staring blankly at her til he can speak calmly. 3) He is messin' with
her head. Because, hey, it's always fun to mess with Nikita's head,
and also he is intent on keeping her off-balance and on-hold til the
whole Elena situation is resolved.
> 2 - definitely not. The only reason to lie is to keep Nikita from killing
> Formitz. But Formitz dies anyway, so...at least Mikey can say he tried.
Lying lying lying. He doesn't want to hear about it. He did something
ugly, and there's no point in discussing it. The lie is so blatant
that it's almost a challenge. He seems to be saying: What kind of fool
are you to ask me a question to which you know I will not give an
honest answer? Grow up. (Or: Get Over It.) I like the fact that Nikita
(who is learning fast) gives him his own back again, by also lying
with an equally blatant challenge in it.
> C - definitely not! The roll of the eyes tells it all.
You think? I'd say probably lying. Of course the whole premise of
drug-induced mmmmemowy-loss is goofy, but the idea of a drug-induced
mmmemowy-retrieval is even sillier. There's no earthly reason why he
wouldn't remember at least some fragments of what happened in between.
But the whole situation--not least, the fact that he thoroughly
exposed himself emotionally to Nikita the minute his guard was
down--would probably have Michael breaking out in hives. So he has
every reason to pretend to remember nothing. Simpler all round.
> And 4 - Don't know. Aside from making him look a little less like a monster
> in Nikita's eyes (which he really isn't likely to do since they're in the
> "push" side of the "push me, pull me" game they've been playing this whole
> season), what reason is there to lie?
I'd say he's waffling. He's giving her the answer that Section would
want him to give--that s1 Michael would have given without a
blink--but he's having Doubts about it himself. He doesn't want to
look like a monster in her eyes--and even more, he doesn't want to
*be* a monster. S1 Michael would not have worried about being a
monster, but late s2 Michael has begun to worry about the moral
repercussions of wiping out a kid's family. He's on the road to the s3
Michael who can say to Gelmanized Nikita: "Nikita, there are children
inside the embassy."
The thing that is so enjoyable about s2 is that even when Michael is
telling the truth, he seems to be lying. The atmosphere of Section has
become so tainted, so inverted and perverse that we wouldn't believe
him if he said the sky is blue.
~Mal
mazonmac
> It seems likely to me that he is telling the truth, if for no other
> reason than that I don't see Michael taking pregnancy risks. --snip--
Good point. But, you know, nothing's 100% effective... Somebody's goalie
didn't have a good game... ;-D
>
> The long pause? Three possible meanings--or a mixture of the three. 1)
> He is weighing whether to tell her she has no business asking him, and
> deciding that in fact it is her business. 2) He is angry or hurt that
> she would suspect him of this at all.(Cf. previous paragraph: when
> does she think he was having this affair? During the Jurgen arc??
> Humph.) He is therefore controlling his anger in typical fashion, by
> staring blankly at her til he can speak calmly. 3) He is messin' with
> her head. Because, hey, it's always fun to mess with Nikita's head,
> and also he is intent on keeping her off-balance and on-hold til the
> whole Elena situation is resolved.
>
Whew (wiping brow). I didn't want to be the only one around who thought he
was angry and trying to weigh the repercussions of telling Nikita and / or
Nikita not being likely to believe him. But, every time I see this episode,
it messes with my mind. I'm *very* good at playing the What If game.
Mal here about Michael lying or not about giving Formitz the prostitute
Nikita was protecting:
> Lying lying lying. He doesn't want to hear about it. He did something
> ugly, and there's no point in discussing it. The lie is so blatant
> that it's almost a challenge. He seems to be saying: What kind of fool
> are you to ask me a question to which you know I will not give an
> honest answer? Grow up. (Or: Get Over It.) I like the fact that Nikita
> (who is learning fast) gives him his own back again, by also lying
> with an equally blatant challenge in it.
Yeah, Mal. Nikita really grew up in this one. This is one of my favorite
episodes of s2. Yes, the idea of Formitz is *so* over the top grotesque,
one wonders how this would have played if LFN was on a national network
instead of an up-and-coming cable channel. But I really think this is where
Nikita becomes equal with Michael - for the first time she's successfully
(if you negate the fact that the prostitute is missing and probably dead)
able to manipulate an outcome to serve her own greater purpose and it's one
of the first times she convincingly lies to Mikey. As Adrian would say:
Bravo, NikiTa.
>(Or: Get Over It.)
You know, we should really get that on a bumper sticker - Get over it....no?
That's single-handedly one of the greatest lessons from Section that can be
applied in so many instances in the real world.
Mal here about if Mikey really remembers anything from Not Was:
> You think? I'd say probably lying. Of course the whole premise of
> drug-induced mmmmemowy-loss is goofy, but the idea of a drug-induced
> mmmemowy-retrieval is even sillier. There's no earthly reason why he
> wouldn't remember at least some fragments of what happened in between.
> But the whole situation--not least, the fact that he thoroughly
> exposed himself emotionally to Nikita the minute his guard was
> down--would probably have Michael breaking out in hives. So he has
> every reason to pretend to remember nothing. Simpler all round.
You asked me and now you'll get my answer - no, I don't think... I *know* he
was totally lying. Walter doesn't know how his little pharmaceutical
concoction it's supposed to work. For me, it is totally believable - why
would a drug that can "reverse" amnesia then leave amnesia in its place?
Mikey remembers *everything.* That's why we get the ever so subtle eye roll
(you know the one - the eye roll from HL where he's just come back from
Lyons and is emailing Nikita just hoping she'll answer). He knows he's told
Nikita he loves her and willingly used those very words. Ack! We don't
hear those again until s5 (s4 if you're an optimist). Now he's got to
protect himself at all costs. Remember, he says he can't let her become his
weakness in Mandatory Refusal. In my LFN world (hey AZ, your royalty check
for that phrase is in the mail), that's how it is. Besides, it's really the
only thing that saves this episode from being the worst of s2 (ducking
behind chair to avoid being pelted by electronic rocks). That distinction,
my friends, goes to Inside Out.
...On to s3!
cin
mazonmac
>
>Besides, it's really the
> only thing that saves this episode from being the worst of s2 (ducking
> behind chair to avoid being pelted by electronic rocks). That distinction,
> my friends, goes to Inside Out.
After thinking about it...Open Heart was worse than Not Was. Inside Out was
definitely the worst, though.
Malsperanza
> Here's me in my oh so humble ways commenting on Not Was:
> >
> >Besides, it's really the
> > only thing that saves this episode from being the worst of s2 (ducking
> > behind chair to avoid being pelted by electronic rocks). That distinction,
> > my friends, goes to Inside Out.
>
> After thinking about it...Open Heart was worse than Not Was. Inside Out was
> definitely the worst, though.
>
> cin
Inside Out is the one where Michael wears a ski cap and looks like a
dork? And everyone else has the flu? Dull. Fuzzy Logic is also not so
great--the whole Hillinger/Birkoff thing irritates me: like watching
teenage boys squabble over video games. Probably meant to appeal to
teenage boys, come to think of it.
But Open Heart is like a Roger Corman movie (Women Behind Bars! Sex
Kittens in Chains!). Except that it has that hilarious scene with all
the guys covertly watching Nikita flirt with her prisoner in the White
Room, and getting all sweaty about it.
I'm not crazy about Not Was either, because watching Michael bumble
about ineptly is almost painful--though awfully funny as well.
Though I enjoy all the Hopeless Romantic bits, I feel thoroughly
manipulated and pandered to, which always bugs me. Still, I like
watching Nikita deal with the situation, and make the grim, necessary
decision to return Michael to his Cold Op self. One intriguing aspect
of the M-m-m-mmmemowy loss idea is that it is a mirror opposite of the
Gelman Process. Brainwashing humanizes Michael--breaks down his
defenses. Brainwashing dehumanizes Nikita. One can almost imagine
Nikita saying to Michael in the infirmery: "I *don't* want you to come
to your senses." And Michael, waking after his ordeal, realizing
what's happened and thinking, "You had me emotionally, Nikita, and you
blew it." You could practically reverse the dialogue of ITLG and make
it work here.
~Mal
Malsperanza
> > The long pause? Three possible meanings--or a mixture of the three. 1)
> > He is weighing whether to tell her she has no business asking him, and
> > deciding that in fact it is her business. 2) He is angry or hurt that
> > she would suspect him of this at all
[snip]
Cin:
> Whew (wiping brow). I didn't want to be the only one around who thought he
> was angry and trying to weigh the repercussions of telling Nikita and / or
> Nikita not being likely to believe him.
Exactly. No matter how he answers, she's not going to believe him. And
one can't help wondering if that is beginning to bother him, even
though he continues to create and maintain such an air of ambiguity
that she is bound to mistrust him. What's his motive? Aside from the
dubious MMWK idea, I can only think he is doing this because he is
genuinely ambivalent about whether it will be dangerous for him and
for her to follow through on a romantic attachment. Clearly he feels
culpable in Simone's death and unwilling to go down that path twice.
And clearly he can't resist her. So rather than giving a firm, quick
response: "No, of course not," he is weighing the pros and cons of
every possible permutation of his answer.
> But, every time I see this episode,
> it messes with my mind. I'm *very* good at playing the What If game.
Just as Michael is messing with Nikita's. I love the way that works:
that we are really in her shoes much of the time in s2--in her pov,
and struggling to decide what we think is going on. It's not as
dangerous for us as it is for her, of course, but the effect is pretty
creepy.
> Yeah, Mal. Nikita really grew up in this one. This is one of my favorite
> episodes of s2. Yes, the idea of Formitz is *so* over the top grotesque,
> one wonders how this would have played if LFN was on a national network
> instead of an up-and-coming cable channel. But I really think this is where
> Nikita becomes equal with Michael - for the first time she's successfully
> (if you negate the fact that the prostitute is missing and probably dead)
> able to manipulate an outcome to serve her own greater purpose and it's one
> of the first times she convincingly lies to Mikey. As Adrian would say:
> Bravo, NikiTa.
>
> >(Or: Get Over It.)
>
> You know, we should really get that on a bumper sticker - Get over it....no?
> That's single-handedly one of the greatest lessons from Section that can be
> applied in so many instances in the real world.
When Michael says it to Nikita, it's completely shocking. You want to
smack him. And then when Ops says it back to Michael--throwing his own
coldbloodedness back in his face, in GOH, it is even more startling.
One can't help feeling that Michael had it coming. (How does it feel
to be on the other side, Michael? Are you in pain?) At the same time,
the loss Michael has sustained at that moment is so severe that Ops
just looks like a complete sadist. "Get over losing my son?" Michael
asks, and Ops says, "I did." And you really do want to murder the guy.
Dupuis does a wonderful, understated job of conveying his complete
disorientation and wretchedness in that scene.
~Mal
CAPTANNE
>about ineptly is almost painful--though awfully funny as well.
***I'm one of those people who so identifies with a character that if they get
embarrassed, I actually squirm until I'm allowed to just leave the room.
I felt this way during parts of Not Was. It has nothing to do with the
performances. I think they were very successful and got what they were going
for.
But so does chewing on tin foil.
On the other hand (or molar as the case may be) Roy Dupuis was quoted as saying
the Michael in Not Was was as close to his own personality as he ever allowed
Michael to get.
Interesting, huh? Or TMI?
Anne
WickeddollŽ
"CAPTANNE" <capt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040813000438...@mb-m11.aol.com...
I figured as much
*ducking the Royettes*
Natalie
mazonmac
> Inside Out is the one where Michael wears a ski cap and looks like a
> dork? And everyone else has the flu? Dull.
Pretty much. The problem with this episode was that it was totally
unbelievable - not that any of them really are believable, but some are
better constructed than others. Where's the incubation period, for example?
Even if LFN is 5 minutes into the future as Surnow says on s1 disc
commentary, they should have known to give everyone an antibiotic cocktail
to at least try to disrupt the cell membrane of the bacterium in question -
even if the bacterium is genetically modified, it still has a cell wall.
And for Section to be working on creating a specific antibiotic in-house
before M&N come back with the one BOTW had already made...that takes *years*
not hours, and then you've got the whole bioavailability, dosing, and tox
studies...blah, blah, blah....
I tend to get caught on these types of details. It's like that horrible
movie Medicine Man where Sean Connery is out in the jungle trying to find a
natural isolate to cure cancer. He's got some nifty machinery, but he uses
what's called "a sugar baseline" on a gas chromatograph without any carrier
gas and then it spits out the chemical structure...who was their
consultant?! It just doesn't work that way.
Or like that other really bad Bruce Willis movie (I think it was him and,
no, I don't remember the name of the movie - I'm pretty sure I've blanked it
from my memory) where they're trying to use carbon dating to pinpoint the
historical timeframe of some gold bars they found. Well, guys, gold is an
element, and so is carbon. There is no carbon in gold.
Now, for all that computer stuff going on in LFN, well, beyond relational
databases and very basic Unix, they could be talking about storing the
secrets to the X-Files on their drives and I'd never know it.
One thing I really found interesting in the episode, though, was that M&N
had a chance to get out and they didn't take it. It seems odd that "family"
is a term applied to Section, but I liked the concept of sticking it out
with the ones you "love." This is actually a reoccurring theme and an
interesting one. But I secretly think they save each other's keisters (at
least pre-s3 or so) only because the alternative to Ops/Maddie/Section 1
could be a lot worse (which, I guess, was sort of the point to New Regime).
>Fuzzy Logic is also not so
> great--the whole Hillinger/Birkoff thing irritates me: like watching
> teenage boys squabble over video games. Probably meant to appeal to
> teenage boys, come to think of it.
I didn't mind Fuzzy Logic so much, though I thought Hillinger was a little
grating on the nerves. I think in a way this episode humanized Birkoff and
made him seem less perfect than he had been portrayed. As much as I
appreciate Anne's (I think) assessment that he had the best development, at
times he just seemed too good (or maybe other characters seemed to lack
basic Comm skills). Even Ops said he was too valuable to lose. Couldn't
you just imagine the anguish of growing up in Section only to discover that
you're not the best there is? It's sad, really. I felt for Birky.
Mal here:
> But Open Heart is like a Roger Corman movie (Women Behind Bars! Sex
> Kittens in Chains!). Except that it has that hilarious scene with all
> the guys covertly watching Nikita flirt with her prisoner in the White
> Room, and getting all sweaty about it.
Hated this episode. I thought the portrayal of Nikita was really lacking
here. She seemed awkward and I don't think the idea that she was
manipulating Jenna worked. I still don't get the White Room scene - the "I
loved you" was so *unbelievable*, nevermind what Ops, Birky, and Mikey were
supposed to be doing or thinking during that scene. I just don't get this
one. And, why didn't they scan Jenna in the first place? She was
supposedly present at the surgery where the target had the bomb implanted.
Unless she's a terrorist who's also taken the Hippocratic oath after her
Medical Board Reviews, why would she be at the surgery?
Mal here:
> I'm not crazy about Not Was either, because watching Michael bumble
> about ineptly is almost painful--though awfully funny as well.
>
> Though I enjoy all the Hopeless Romantic bits, I feel thoroughly
> manipulated and pandered to, which always bugs me.
Now Anne:
> I'm one of those people who so identifies with a character that if they get
> embarrassed, I actually squirm until I'm allowed to just leave the room.
>
> I felt this way during parts of Not Was. It has nothing to do with the
> performances. I think they were very successful and got what they were going
> for.
>
> But so does chewing on tin foil.
(LOL. Tin foil... that's a new White Room technique they could use.)
Well, I identified with the issue at hand and think I even squirmed a bit in
my own chair. But, I also felt it was awkward and pandering, as Mal says.
Would anyone who can't remember who they are just ask their caretaker for a
dance? Totally obvious pandering and totally, gratingly unbelievable. The
first scene (Anne, is this what you call the teaser?) - *totally memorable*
(how'd they get that visual symbolism past the censors, huh?). Last scene -
*totally memorable*. Middle stuff - this was no double-stuffed Oreo...
Mal here:
>Still, I like
> watching Nikita deal with the situation, and make the grim, necessary
> decision to return Michael to his Cold Op self. One intriguing aspect
> of the M-m-m-mmmemowy loss idea is that it is a mirror opposite of the
> Gelman Process. Brainwashing humanizes Michael--breaks down his
> defenses. Brainwashing dehumanizes Nikita. One can almost imagine
> Nikita saying to Michael in the infirmery: "I *don't* want you to come
> to your senses." And Michael, waking after his ordeal, realizing
> what's happened and thinking, "You had me emotionally, Nikita, and you
> blew it." You could practically reverse the dialogue of ITLG and make
> it work here.
Ack! You have a lot of really interesting comments here - new things to
think about, you LFN god, you. I'm still stunned at the thought of Mikey
saying "You had me emotionally...and you blew it." Yeow!
Interestingly (maybe only to me), though, Maddie says that what was found in
Mikey's blood stream were various "limbic suppressors." So, if they were
suppressing his limbic system which, if I recall correctly from human
anatomy, is the emotional center, wouldn't Mikey have become
Super-duper-Section-Mikey not super-mushy-Mikey? Why would you need to
inhibit the emotional centers to extract information anyway? One would
think it would be easier to do so if the emotional centers were
hyper-susceptible and the analytical centers were not. I don't remember how
they said the G-process worked, but I'd buy that it involved limbic
suppression, which is why we get super-Section-Nikita.
Anne here:
> On the other hand (or molar as the case may be) Roy Dupuis was quoted as
> saying
> the Michael in Not Was was as close to his own personality as he ever allowed
> Michael to get.
>
> Interesting, huh? Or TMI?
A little of both, I think. This is why I don't read interviews because it's
hard for me not to blur the real person with the character. Next you'll be
telling me RD smokes, does crack, or golfs, or something. In my LFN world,
Mikey doesn't do that and I'd hate for him to start developing bad habits.
CAPTANNE
>telling me RD smokes, does crack, or golfs, or something.
Well.
Two outta three ain't bad.
According to Meatloaf.
Nix the crack but he does smoke and play golf.
Anne
mazonmac
Ack! I could've gone all day without that news. Golf?! (just kidding.
I'm not really against golf...I just don't get the point of it.)
I *so* don't believe the smoking thing one bit because he looked *very*
unnatural doing so in Soul Sacrifice. I suppose one could argue he had to
be very gentle with that cigarette because it was "actually" an explosive,
but this was no James Dean leanin' against his car with a stick.
Malsperanza
> > Inside Out is the one where Michael wears a ski cap and looks like a
> > dork? And everyone else has the flu? Dull.
Cin:
> Pretty much. The problem with this episode was that it was totally
> unbelievable - not that any of them really are believable, but some are
> better constructed than others. Where's the incubation period, for example?
> Even if LFN is 5 minutes into the future as Surnow says on s1 disc
> commentary, they should have known to give everyone an antibiotic cocktail
> to at least try to disrupt the cell membrane of the bacterium in question -
> even if the bacterium is genetically modified, it still has a cell wall.
> And for Section to be working on creating a specific antibiotic in-house
> before M&N come back with the one BOTW had already made...that takes *years*
> not hours, and then you've got the whole bioavailability, dosing, and tox
> studies...blah, blah, blah....
>
> I tend to get caught on these types of details.
The thing is, it's not that hard to verify a few basic facts & either
get them right or invent something so completely fictitious that no
one will be bothered.
Cin:
> Or like that other really bad Bruce Willis movie (I think it was him and,
> no, I don't remember the name of the movie - I'm pretty sure I've blanked it
> from my memory) where they're trying to use carbon dating to pinpoint the
> historical timeframe of some gold bars they found. Well, guys, gold is an
> element, and so is carbon. There is no carbon in gold.
Good grief, even I know that much. LOL!
Cin:
> Now, for all that computer stuff going on in LFN, well, beyond relational
> databases and very basic Unix, they could be talking about storing the
> secrets to the X-Files on their drives and I'd never know it.
I know Zero about computer languages etc but my impression is that
they use terms that they have invented themselves--sweeping the data,
mirroring, backstopping, etc. That leaves them free to do whatever
absurd stuff they want. I still can't get over the idea that Section
keeps all its most precious sekrit info in one <DIR> file. Heh.
Back to Inside Out:
Cin:
> One thing I really found interesting in the episode, though, was that M&N
> had a chance to get out and they didn't take it.
Michael seems determined to keep Nikita at arm's length. He is all
business in the van. Though I suppose a necking session when Section
is listening and everyone there is dying might seem a bit... well,
tacky.
Cin:
> It seems odd that "family"
> is a term applied to Section, but I liked the concept of sticking it out
> with the ones you "love." This is actually a reoccurring theme and an
> interesting one. But I secretly think they save each other's keisters (at
> least pre-s3 or so) only because the alternative to Ops/Maddie/Section 1
> could be a lot worse (which, I guess, was sort of the point to New Regime).
Also, in Nikita's case, she is always willing to try to save the lives
of individuals--people she knows. What she has trouble with is the
abstract notion of X number of faceless Innocents out there being
saved, at the expense of one guy like Stanley (in "Mercy.")
Cin:
> I didn't mind Fuzzy Logic so much, though I thought Hillinger was a little
> grating on the nerves. I think in a way this episode humanized Birkoff and
> made him seem less perfect than he had been portrayed. As much as I
> appreciate Anne's (I think) assessment that he had the best development, at
> times he just seemed too good (or maybe other characters seemed to lack
> basic Comm skills). Even Ops said he was too valuable to lose. Couldn't
> you just imagine the anguish of growing up in Section only to discover that
> you're not the best there is? It's sad, really. I felt for Birky.
That's true. I don't have much feeling for Birkoff either way, so his
growth as a character is only marginally interesting to me. He's a
fairly shallow stock character: Young Computer Geek. To paraphrase
what Dorothy Parker said once of Katharine Hepburn's acting ability:
He runs the gamut of emotions from A to B.
> Mal here:
> > But Open Heart is like a Roger Corman movie (Women Behind Bars! Sex
> > Kittens in Chains!). Except that it has that hilarious scene with all
> > the guys covertly watching Nikita flirt with her prisoner in the White
> > Room, and getting all sweaty about it.
Cin:
> Hated this episode. I thought the portrayal of Nikita was really lacking
> here. She seemed awkward and I don't think the idea that she was
> manipulating Jenna worked. I still don't get the White Room scene - the "I
> loved you" was so *unbelievable*, nevermind what Ops, Birky, and Mikey were
> supposed to be doing or thinking during that scene.
Pure pandering again--this time to the male audience. No logic to it
at all.
> Mal here:
> > I'm not crazy about Not Was either, because watching Michael bumble
> > about ineptly is almost painful--though awfully funny as well.
> >
> > Though I enjoy all the Hopeless Romantic bits, I feel thoroughly
> > manipulated and pandered to, which always bugs me.
>
> Now Anne:
>
> > I'm one of those people who so identifies with a character that if they get
> > embarrassed, I actually squirm until I'm allowed to just leave the room.
> >
> > I felt this way during parts of Not Was. It has nothing to do with the
> > performances. I think they were very successful and got what they were going
> > for.
Agreed.
Anne:
> > But so does chewing on tin foil.
Cin:
> (LOL. Tin foil... that's a new White Room technique they could use.)
Yep, it's the stage before Tiny Evil Cheekbone Cuts. Of course, if you
have no metal fillings, the Forcible Tin Foil Chew doesn't really work
all that well. In that case they fall back on Fingernails on
Chalkboard, or Madeline cracks her finger joints. And if that doesn't
work, they play tape loops of Rush Limbaugh obsessing about Bill
Clinton.
Cin:
> Well, I identified with the issue at hand and think I even squirmed a bit in
> my own chair. But, I also felt it was awkward and pandering, as Mal says.
> Would anyone who can't remember who they are just ask their caretaker for a
> dance? Totally obvious pandering and totally, gratingly unbelievable. The
> first scene (Anne, is this what you call the teaser?) - *totally memorable*
> (how'd they get that visual symbolism past the censors, huh?).
Censors are fine with salacious innuendo; what bothers them is literal
images. What I don't quite understand is what *Michael* was up to,
teasing Nikita like that. It's a very funny scene, but also rather
weird.
Cin:
> Last scene -
> *totally memorable*. Middle stuff - this was no double-stuffed Oreo...
>
> Mal here:
> >Still, I like
> > watching Nikita deal with the situation, and make the grim, necessary
> > decision to return Michael to his Cold Op self. One intriguing aspect
> > of the M-m-m-mmmemowy loss idea is that it is a mirror opposite of the
> > Gelman Process. Brainwashing humanizes Michael--breaks down his
> > defenses. Brainwashing dehumanizes Nikita. One can almost imagine
> > Nikita saying to Michael in the infirmery: "I *don't* want you to come
> > to your senses." And Michael, waking after his ordeal, realizing
> > what's happened and thinking, "You had me emotionally, Nikita, and you
> > blew it." You could practically reverse the dialogue of ITLG and make
> > it work here.
Cin:
> Ack! You have a lot of really interesting comments here - new things to
> think about, you LFN god, you. I'm still stunned at the thought of Mikey
> saying "You had me emotionally...and you blew it." Yeow!
Heh.
*Dons LFN Mantle of Godhood; immediately hurls thunderbolts at Warner
Home Video and smites them to small heap of smoking ash*
I seem to have memorized much of the dialogue in ITLG. Watched Not Was
again because you had been talking about it, and noticed how much the
two episodes have in common. In both cases, it's vital that the
brainwashed person be restored to him- or herself asap, and in both
cases to do so means that the lover must take terrible personal
risks--not only physical ones, but emotional ones as well. And in both
cases, the message is that however difficult the person might be when
not brainwashed, the lover desires the real beloved, not some modified
version. (After all, Gelmanized Nikita is in some ways the very person
Michael was trying to create back in s1.)
Cin:
> Interestingly (maybe only to me), though, Maddie says that what was found in
> Mikey's blood stream were various "limbic suppressors." So, if they were
> suppressing his limbic system which, if I recall correctly from human
> anatomy, is the emotional center, wouldn't Mikey have become
> Super-duper-Section-Mikey not super-mushy-Mikey? Why would you need to
> inhibit the emotional centers to extract information anyway?
The limbic system controls emotion, hormonal response, pain and
pleasure, and mood, so it makes absolutely no sense that Cuddly
Romantic Not-Was Michael had a suppressed system. The writers were
just being lazy, and choosing a term that sounded kewl. It would have
made more sense to reference the primitive brain, where aggression and
self-preservation are located, and to make Not-Was Michael reckless
and foolish. But that area of the brain is called the archipallium,
which just doesn't sound as nifty.
Medically, LFN was pretty subpar. The low points, I think, were the
milk I.V., which would have killed Nikita inside 5 minutes, and the
time when Michael had to synthesize some Green Liquid (TM) to save
everyone in Section. (Why are mysterious Section liquids always green?
I suppose the obvious answer is that Section One is a Slytherin
domain--hence that green light in IRP. And Red Cell, which nearly
injects some Red Liquid into Michael's neck in "War" are Gryffindors.)
For that matter, why was Walter the one who came up with the antidote?
Isn't he the guns and bullets guy? When did he get an advanced degree
in molecular biochemistry?)
Cin:
> One would
> think it would be easier to do so if the emotional centers were
> hyper-susceptible and the analytical centers were not. I don't remember how
> they said the G-process worked, but I'd buy that it involved limbic
> suppression, which is why we get super-Section-Nikita.
Now that makes sense. Apparently, though, the G Process is a
combination of 19th-century Mesmerism and an MRI.
> Anne here:
> > On the other hand (or molar as the case may be) Roy Dupuis was quoted as
> > saying
> > the Michael in Not Was was as close to his own personality as he ever allowed
> > Michael to get.
> >
> > Interesting, huh? Or TMI?
Cin:
> A little of both, I think. This is why I don't read interviews because it's
> hard for me not to blur the real person with the character. Next you'll be
> telling me RD smokes, does crack, or golfs, or something. In my LFN world,
> Mikey doesn't do that and I'd hate for him to start developing bad habits.
For me, it's borderline. I really don't want to know whether Roy
Dupuis is a bumbling cuddly fellow or not. But what's interesting is
that the actor saw Not-Was Michael as more human, more like a real
person. That is, I'd interpret the comment as not revealing very much
about whether Dupuis resembles Not-Was Michael, but rather as a
statement by Dupuis that the character of Michael does *not* resemble
him--is a complete invention. One would hope so, indeed, since Michael
in RL would be some sort of autistic sociopath.
~Mal
mazonmac
>> Or like that other really bad Bruce Willis movie (I think it was him and,
>> no, I don't remember the name of the movie - I'm pretty sure I've blanked it
>> from my memory) where they're trying to use carbon dating to pinpoint the
>> historical timeframe of some gold bars they found. Well, guys, gold is an
>> element, and so is carbon. There is no carbon in gold.
> Good grief, even I know that much. LOL!
I said it was a bad movie. Maybe even worse than Hemoglobin, but I haven't
seen that, so I can't say for sure, though the word around here is that it
sucked pretty much, too. Anne said it was the worst. movie. ever. (I
liked the punctuation on that, Anne). When's your copy coming?
>I still can't get over the idea that Section
> keeps all its most precious sekrit info in one <DIR> file. Heh.
Yeah. Get this though: Remember the coordinates *weren't* encrypted?
Uh...hello?!
> Back to Inside Out:
>
>> Cin:
>> One thing I really found interesting in the episode, though, was that M&N
>> had a chance to get out and they didn't take it.
>
> Michael seems determined to keep Nikita at arm's length. He is all
> business in the van. Though I suppose a necking session when Section
> is listening and everyone there is dying might seem a bit... well,
> tacky.
I said "get out" as in "get out of Section"...not "make out." ;-D
>>> Anne in red:
>>> But so does chewing on tin foil.
>
>> Cin:
>> (LOL. Tin foil... that's a new White Room technique they could use.)
>
> Yep, it's the stage before Tiny Evil Cheekbone Cuts. Of course, if you
> have no metal fillings, the Forcible Tin Foil Chew doesn't really work
> all that well. In that case they fall back on Fingernails on
> Chalkboard, or Madeline cracks her finger joints. And if that doesn't
> work, they play tape loops of Rush Limbaugh obsessing about Bill
> Clinton.
Don't forget lip balm withdrawal.
> Cin:
>> Well, I identified with the issue at hand and think I even squirmed a bit in
>> my own chair. But, I also felt it was awkward and pandering, as Mal says.
>> Would anyone who can't remember who they are just ask their caretaker for a
>> dance? Totally obvious pandering and totally, gratingly unbelievable. The
>> first scene (Anne, is this what you call the teaser?) - *totally memorable*
>> (how'd they get that visual symbolism past the censors, huh?).
>
> Censors are fine with salacious innuendo; what bothers them is literal
> images. What I don't quite understand is what *Michael* was up to,
> teasing Nikita like that. It's a very funny scene, but also rather
> weird.
>
"Up to," Mal? Is this another double entendre? (Sorry...it's late...I'm
punchy...). You know... I, for one, didn't find anything funny about that
scene.
> I seem to have memorized much of the dialogue in ITLG. Watched Not Was
> again because you had been talking about it, and noticed how much the
> two episodes have in common. In both cases, it's vital that the
> brainwashed person be restored to him- or herself asap, and in both
> cases to do so means that the lover must take terrible personal
> risks--not only physical ones, but emotional ones as well. And in both
> cases, the message is that however difficult the person might be when
> not brainwashed, the lover desires the real beloved, not some modified
> version. (After all, Gelmanized Nikita is in some ways the very person
> Michael was trying to create back in s1.)
(bowing down before the Great One.) Mal, you rock... and you, my friend,
are dead-on. Question is, though - which one is the "real" Michael?
> For that matter, why was Walter the one who came up with the antidote?
> Isn't he the guns and bullets guy? When did he get an advanced degree
> in molecular biochemistry?)
Hey, it's not the Cold War anymore. Bio-warfare is the future (flashing
peace sign with both hands). Which actually makes another point - isn't it
telling that the hippie is the munitions expert? (That's me again - slow on
the uptake...AZ, another royalty check comin' you're way).
> For me, it's borderline. I really don't want to know whether Roy
> Dupuis is a bumbling cuddly fellow or not. But what's interesting is
> that the actor saw Not-Was Michael as more human, more like a real
> person. That is, I'd interpret the comment as not revealing very much
> about whether Dupuis resembles Not-Was Michael, but rather as a
> statement by Dupuis that the character of Michael does *not* resemble
> him--is a complete invention. One would hope so, indeed, since Michael
> in RL would be some sort of autistic sociopath.
uh-huh...You've put things in perspective again... Still, Michael swinging
clubs at the local municipal course in silly golf shoes with plaid knickers
and knee-highs makin' small talk with Tiger? Uh... no.
cin
ducking all the "Mulligans" aimed in my direction. Hey, somebody at least
yell "Fore," will ya? Really... I'm not against golf. I was just trying to
make a point...
Malsperanza
> >> telling me RD smokes, does crack, or golfs, or something.
Anne:
> > Well.
> >
> > Two outta three ain't bad.
> >
> > According to Meatloaf.
> >
> > Nix the crack but he does smoke and play golf.
> >
> > Anne
Cin:
> Ack! I could've gone all day without that news. Golf?! (just kidding.
> I'm not really against golf...I just don't get the point of it.)
LOL, Cin, I was just about to say the same thing myself! Hard to
picture Our Michael out on the links in plaid pants. Operations and
Madeline, OTOH... and definitely George from Accounting. Walter might
knock a few balls around on his downtime. But Michael (on the rare
occasions when he spends his downtime doing something other than
surveilling former family members from cars and/or jumping Nikita's
bones) surely is a fan of the NFL. Otherwise, why on earth would he
want that huge TV? As for sports: No, I don't feature it. Too
frivolous, too pointless. Unless maybe he's an amateur boxer
(All-Section Golden Gloves 1989, 1990, and 1992).
I know, I know, one mustn't mix the actor with the character. But the
image of Golding Michael is just *too* funny. Actually, if you put
Michael in almost any normal RL situation, he looks funny. In BTP,
watching him carry a bag of groceries (IIRC a totally inaccurate
American-style paper grocery bag, at that) had me in stitches, even
though there was an Exotic French Baguette sticking out the top. A box
of cornflakes would have ruined the Air of Impending Doom, I suppose.
Michael should only carry groceries if they are baguettes, caviar,
rounds of camembert, or bottles of pouilly fusse (a wine I shall never
take seriously again). If he ever does actually eat a meal, I am sure
it is small, undecorated portions of fugu, the pufferfish sushi that
if prepared incorrectly is fatally poisonous.
> I *so* don't believe the smoking thing one bit because he looked *very*
> unnatural doing so in Soul Sacrifice. I suppose one could argue he had to
> be very gentle with that cigarette because it was "actually" an explosive,
> but this was no James Dean leanin' against his car with a stick.
Seems odd, but IIRC he smokes like a trooper in Les Invasions barbares
and that odd biker TV movie that I saw part of. Don't remember if he
smokes in Screamers, but given his character it seems unlikely. He
might chug a pint of WD-40, though. So the awkwardness in Soul
Sacrifice may well be good acting, since I also do not picture Michael
having a smoking habit; he'd consider it a weakness.
Although, as we know, he does like coffee. But then, that's not a
weakness; it's a sign of superior intelligence.
~Mal
More addicted to coffee than to carmex even
CAPTANNE
>> in RL would be some sort of autistic sociopath.
***I've said this for years, "Michael on LFN is sex on a stick. Michael in
real life? Wicked bad scary and I don't want to be anywhere in his vicinity.
Ever. I don't even want to be on the same continent."
>
>uh-huh...You've put things in perspective again... Still, Michael swinging
>clubs at the local municipal course in silly golf shoes with plaid knickers
>and knee-highs makin' small talk with Tiger? Uh... no.
>
>cin
>ducking all the "Mulligans" aimed in my direction. Hey, somebody at least
>yell "Fore," will ya? Really... I'm not against golf. I was just trying to
>make a point...
>
***You are just SO going to make me go through the old dusty archives in my den
and find the picture I have of RD with his friend and a dog from the charity he
supports www.mira.ca on the golf course. In plaid knickers. RD, not the dog.
God only knows if I can get my scanner to work. Then I have to figure out how
to post it.
HAA! I'm a software feeb so THAT'LL never happen. But, I may be able to email
it. Assuming I can a) find it and b) successfully scan it.
sigh
Anne
Software FEEB
Stop laughing, Nat. :-P
CAPTANNE
>From: malsp...@yahoo.com (Malsperanza)
>Date: 8/14/2004 2:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6a41a349.04081...@posting.google.com>
>
>> > Cin: >real person with the character. Next you'll be
>> >> telling me RD smokes, does crack, or golfs, or something.
>
>Anne:
>> > Well.
>> >
>> > Two outta three ain't bad.
>> >
>> > According to Meatloaf.
>> >
>> > Nix the crack but he does smoke and play golf.
>> >
>> > Anne
>
>Cin:
>
>> Ack! I could've gone all day without that news. Golf?! (just kidding.
>> I'm not really against golf...I just don't get the point of it.)
>
>
>LOL, Cin, I was just about to say the same thing myself! Hard to
>picture Our Michael out on the links in plaid pants. Operations and
>Madeline, OTOH... and definitely George from Accounting. Walter might
>knock a few balls around on his downtime. But Michael (on the rare
>occasions when he spends his downtime doing something other than
>surveilling former family members from cars and/or jumping Nikita's
>bones) surely is a fan of the NFL. Otherwise, why on earth would he
>want that huge TV? As for sports: No, I don't feature it. Too
>frivolous, too pointless. Unless maybe he's an amateur boxer
>(All-Section Golden Gloves 1989, 1990, and 1992).
***I see him watching 40's French film noir on that television. When he's
relaxing. If that actually ever happens.
>
>I know, I know, one mustn't mix the actor with the character. But the
>image of Golding Michael is just *too* funny. Actually, if you put
>Michael in almost any normal RL situation, he looks funny. In BTP,
>watching him carry a bag of groceries (IIRC a totally inaccurate
>American-style paper grocery bag, at that) had me in stitches, even
>though there was an Exotic French Baguette sticking out the top.
***LOLOL EFB is a new trademark. I'm sure of it.
Now, I would have been more upset by the paper bag if I hadn't been SCREAMING
AT TIIC THAT MICHAEL WOULD NEVER WALK IN THE OPEN LIKE THAT ENCUMBERED BY A BAG
OF FRELLING GROCERIES WHEN HE'S ON THE FRELLING RUN FROM SECTION FRELLING
ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ahem. Was there a paper bag in the scene?
GAH.
Stupid writers.
>> A box
>of cornflakes would have ruined the Air of Impending Doom, I suppose.
***See above.
Stupid writers.
>
>Michael should only carry groceries if they are baguettes, caviar,
>rounds of camembert, or bottles of pouilly fusse (a wine I shall never
>take seriously again).
***Er, I take pouilly fusse very seriously considering that the only kind I can
find here in the District of Col-um-bee-ya is $25. For those of us who are
resigned to CWW (cheap white wine), a $25 bottle of wine raises eyebrows.
>> If he ever does actually eat a meal, I am sure
>it is small, undecorated portions of fugu, the pufferfish sushi that
>if prepared incorrectly is fatally poisonous.
***Michael would eat it without flinching.
I, on the other hand, would politely refuse.
(What with not being a fictional character and all, death is kinda.....well,
final.)
>
>> I *so* don't believe the smoking thing one bit because he looked *very*
>> unnatural doing so in Soul Sacrifice. I suppose one could argue he had to
>> be very gentle with that cigarette because it was "actually" an explosive,
>> but this was no James Dean leanin' against his car with a stick.
>
>Seems odd, but IIRC he smokes like a trooper in Les Invasions barbares
>and that odd biker TV movie that I saw part of. Don't remember if he
>smokes in Screamers, but given his character it seems unlikely. He
>might chug a pint of WD-40, though. So the awkwardness in Soul
>Sacrifice may well be good acting, since I also do not picture Michael
>having a smoking habit; he'd consider it a weakness.
>
***Cin. He's a chain smoker. He doesn't drink. He doesn't do drugs. But he
is a chain smoker. Just trust me on that. Or, do a google search for images
of him and look for candid shots.
>Although, as we know, he does like coffee. But then, that's not a
>weakness; it's a sign of superior intelligence.
>
>~Mal
>More addicted to coffee than to carmex even
>
>
***When I was younger, I was addicted to caffiene. They I grew up and found
other things to get me in trouble. LOLOL
Now I'm back to caffiene. hee
See? I must be intelligent. I knew it, I just knew it. It must be all the
FarScape and the LFN. Or........it could just be the company I keep. ;-)
Anne
>
>
>
>
Malsperanza
> I said it was a bad movie. Maybe even worse than Hemoglobin, but I haven't
> seen that, so I can't say for sure, though the word around here is that it
> sucked pretty much, too. Anne said it was the worst. movie. ever. (I
> liked the punctuation on that, Anne). When's your copy coming?
It arrived. I watched it. Once. Natalie was right: at $7 it's a
ripoff. It's hard to explain just how bad this movie is--I mean, it's
not the sort of bad movie one can enjoy. It's gross and graphic and
distasteful, and at the same time dull. The only actors who have even
baseline competence are Rutger Hauer and Dupuis and an old lady; and I
have to say, Dupuis ain't great. He does the Lost Tousled-Hair
Not-Was-Michael thing endlessly and conveys illness by looking like
he's about to fall over all the time and wearing terrible almost
clownish white pancake makeup. Everyone drags themselves from scene to
scene as if it were slave labor and they were never gonna get out of
this saltmine. The explicit sex scene, which should have been worth a
dollar or two, was just awkward and gratuitous, with absolutely no
chemistry at all. The monsters were muppets. I'd say the best moment
was the intro, a flashback to 17th c. Holland with a scene of
brother-sister incest, both siblings played by the same actress, once
with small moustache, once without. An unintentionally very funny
little vignette.
> > Back to Inside Out:
> >
> >> Cin:
> >> One thing I really found interesting in the episode, though, was that M&N
> >> had a chance to get out and they didn't take it.
> >
> > Michael seems determined to keep Nikita at arm's length. He is all
> > business in the van. Though I suppose a necking session when Section
> > is listening and everyone there is dying might seem a bit... well,
> > tacky.
>
> I said "get out" as in "get out of Section"...not "make out." ;-D
Oops. For some reason I was thinkin' "get out" as in Go out on a date.
Well, at this stage, Michael doesn't want to leave Section, does he?
He's completely loyal. I think through most of s2 he's just keeping
Nikita on hold til the Elena blood cover ends, because he can't quite
handle being involved with both of them at once. Or he knows that
Operations would say getting involved with Nikita when he has to
convince Elena daily that he loves her would be a big risk.
As for Nikita, she has already said she won't leave Section again
without him. (Ignoring Stupid Mole Story as alternative motive for
staying.)
> > Censors are fine with salacious innuendo; what bothers them is literal
> > images. What I don't quite understand is what *Michael* was up to,
> > teasing Nikita like that. It's a very funny scene, but also rather
> > weird.
> "Up to," Mal? Is this another double entendre? (Sorry...it's late...I'm
> punchy...). You know... I, for one, didn't find anything funny about that
> scene.
Really? I thought it was clearly meant as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink at
the fans. You know, like the old Mae West line, "Is that a pistol in
your pocket or are you just glad to see me?" "Well, actually, Nikita,
it's a pistol."
Once in a while the directors do something that shows they don't quite
take the whole thing so seriously, usually smack in the middle of a
very serious moment. E.g., when Michael, on the run and in danger,
arranges to meet Nikita, whom he loves and knows that she plans to
kill him--I mean, what could be more angsty? So they meet in an
upscale boutique where all the clothes are black. That shot of Michael
browsing the racks of all-black clothes is priceless.
Or at the end of IRP, when Michael says with his usual affectless
tone, "It's been a strange week." Even before Nikita's line ("I don't
know which is stranger, Operations blowing up Section or you coming to
dinner"), that's funny, though the moment is full of unresolved sexual
tension.
> > I seem to have memorized much of the dialogue in ITLG. Watched Not Was
> > again because you had been talking about it, and noticed how much the
> > two episodes have in common. In both cases, it's vital that the
> > brainwashed person be restored to him- or herself asap, and in both
> > cases to do so means that the lover must take terrible personal
> > risks--not only physical ones, but emotional ones as well. And in both
> > cases, the message is that however difficult the person might be when
> > not brainwashed, the lover desires the real beloved, not some modified
> > version. (After all, Gelmanized Nikita is in some ways the very person
> > Michael was trying to create back in s1.)
Cin:
> Question is, though - which one is the "real" Michael?
And this is what makes "Not Was" better than the G Process as an idea
(and maybe also in how the performance is executed, and the writing):
we can't really say. At most, I suppose Not-Was Michael is the man he
might have been if he hadn't gotten mixed up in terrorism. And the
hint is that there is still some of that sweetness, gentleness, and
whimsy in him. We don't see it again til UTRH, when he gets a huge
kick out of building a competent bonfire on the beach.
Whereas we know which is the real Nikita. (Even if we buy the colder,
tougher Nikita of the Stupid Mole Story, she is not a robot killing
machine.)
But the Section Op Michael (real Michael, I think) would be as
impatient with that sweet guy as any of us would be with our younger
selves.
Also, we don't see Not-Was Michael in a normal state. He's confused
and disoriented by the m-m-memowy loss, *and* he's in mortal danger.
Without any chance to stop and figure out where he is or what's
happened to him, a stunning blond puts a gun in his hand and says, "If
you don't start killing people, you'll be killed, and p.s., you
mustn't let anyone know what's happened to you."
Dupuis does a good sketch of what that experience might be like.
(Though I find it hard to believe that a man in such a situation would
worry about love.) Hard to say if, in other circumstances, Not-Was
Michael would show some of Real Michael's competence, self-assurance,
arrogance, quickwittedness, and critical judgment.
The possibility that he might is alluring, and makes Nikita's decision
all the harder. If it weren't for Section, Michael might literally
have the chance to remake his life, beginning from the point when he
became a terrorist. What has been wiped out of his memory is all the
killings--the very thing that turned him into an emotionally repressed
ghost. Of course, one can't help suspecting that his competence and
wit were also wiped out, which would make him a ghost-Michael of
another kind.
In "Half Life" Rene tells the others that, "With Michael aboard you
will know the meaning of the word 'commitment.' There's no one like
him, there never was." And later, "You once said that a man defines
himself by what he is willing to die for."
This is the most we will ever know about what Michael was like back in
the day. And "After my parents died, I took care of [my sister]. She
was still very young. When I was arrested there was no one to help
her. I was angry at everything, at the world around me. [Rene and I]
shared similar beliefs, mostly that a change was needed."
I must say, this is nicely written stuff--very brief, just enough to
paint the portrait of a person with some pretty remarkable skills
already: young and angry, alone, but taking responsibility for an even
younger and well-loved sister. ("What did you tell her about me?" is
the first thing he asks Rene.) But young Michael is willing to risk
everything--including his sister's well-being--for a cause he is ready
to die for. That's a far cry from Not-Was Michael, isn't it? Young
Michael already has unusual charisma and dedication to abstract
ideals, and a willingness to take concrete, even extreme action to
fulfil them, no matter the cost to himself. Which is why Section
snagged him.
In Section, Michael remains willing to die for a cause, or even for
the ghost of a cause, long after he has gained control of his anger
and left his youth behind. But I think we can believe that Section Op
Michael is still very angry at the injustices in the world and very
motivated by dedication to an abstract ideal.
The fact that he has given up everything else makes that commitment
all the stronger: he's abandoned his sister and failed in his
obligation to her, leaving her with strangers; he's betrayed his
friends, his comrades, and his personal honor; he's used love to
further political ends; he's forgotton the value of the individual
human life; and now he's dragged the woman he loves back into a
terrible, dangerous life for selfish personal reasons.
So you could look at Not-Was Michael as his own moment of private
wish-fulfillment: This is who I wish I could be: someone who would
never do any of those things. This is what I wish I could forget: the
things I've done, and the horrible place I work, to which I have
mistakenly pinned my honor and faith.
> Still, Michael swinging
> clubs at the local municipal course in silly golf shoes with plaid knickers
> and knee-highs makin' small talk with Tiger? Uh... no.
Of course, he'd be good at it if he did it, so I suppose he and Tiger
would have something to say to each other. But I should think Michael
would be an uneasy golf partner, always looking over one's shoulder
between shots, scanning the treeline for snipers.
~Mal
mazonmac
>>> If he ever does actually eat a meal, I am sure
>> it is small, undecorated portions of fugu, the pufferfish sushi that
>> if prepared incorrectly is fatally poisonous.
>
> ***Michael would eat it without flinching.
He's probably purposefully built up a tolerance level to it. That way, no
matter how many times the BOTW changes poisoned plates with him, he'll
always be the one left standing...
> ***Cin. He's a chain smoker. He doesn't drink. He doesn't do drugs. But he
> is a chain smoker. Just trust me on that. Or, do a google search for images
> of him and look for candid shots.
>
Anne, I really appreciate how you're looking out for my best interests here
- trying to expand my horizons. But really, I've been taught *very* well by
Section, and denial is a valuable thing. I'm really not above it.
Really... no google searches necessary.
And I really didn't need to see that. My LFN world (AZ - $) Michael with a
beard and a stick? Ack!... Can someone fix my Matrix? (rocking in fetal
position)
>> Although, as we know, he does like coffee. But then, that's not a
>> weakness; it's a sign of superior intelligence.
>>
>> ~Mal
>> More addicted to coffee than to carmex even
Now let's talk about denial. Dehydrating caffeine offered in a hot mode
that will whisk away your natural oils and force you to lick your drying
lips after every sip... you'll need the carmex more than the coffee. I've
seen it, Mal. Lip balm without caffeine must be hard, I'll grant you that.
But caffeine withdrawal without lip balm is *so* beyond Torture Twins cruel.
I understand your pain. Lip balm addiction is *so* misunderstood. It's ok
to admit it. I'm here for ya... I went cold turkey on the caffeine 3 years
ago, but the lip balm...(sigh)... impossible.
cin
CAPTANNE
>
>And I really didn't need to see that. My LFN world (AZ - $) Michael with a
>beard and a stick? Ack!... Can someone fix my Matrix? (rocking in fetal
>position)
***Cin! You've got email. By the way, that's one of the sexiest pictures of
Roy Dupuis I know. Then again, I like the grittiness of it.
I can see that you need a little The Last Chapter viewage. RD plays a mafia
biker in Quebec. The show was very controversial (some loved
it....me....others hated it.) Lucky for me it was successful enough that they
made a sequel. hee
Anne
Malsperanza
> ***You are just SO going to make me go through the old dusty archives in my den
> and find the picture I have of RD with his friend and a dog from the charity he
> supports www.mira.ca on the golf course. In plaid knickers. RD, not the dog.
Auuuggh!!! That photo of Dupuis in *red* plaid pants is horrifying. I
think you have ruined Cin's life. ;-) I shall have red plaid
nightmares for a week. Where are the fashion police when they are
really needed?
Hm. *pauses. Looks again*
Though he certainly was cute as a button back in the day.
~Mal
Malsperanza
> >occasions when he spends his downtime doing something other than
> >surveilling former family members from cars and/or jumping Nikita's
> >bones) surely is a fan of the NFL. Otherwise, why on earth would he
> >want that huge TV? As for sports: No, I don't feature it. Too
> >frivolous, too pointless. Unless maybe he's an amateur boxer
> >(All-Section Golden Gloves 1989, 1990, and 1992).
>
>
> ***I see him watching 40's French film noir on that television. When he's
> relaxing. If that actually ever happens.
Well... OK...
*concedes great likelihood of film noir as opposed to Monday Night
Football*
The idea of Michael watching "Pepe le Moko" or "Rififi" on his home
entertainment center is both apt and in itself kind of bizarre.
(Though I do wonder if the original Michael character in the Besson
film of LFN was named "Bob" as a tip of the hat to Bob le Flambeur.)
The fact is, Michael's not a 3-dimensional character; he's more like
Batman or Philip Marlowe or Zorro, an archetype, a figure. A home life
is impossible to imagine, even if he does cook a mean boeuf bourgignon
and give a mean footrub.
> >I know, I know, one mustn't mix the actor with the character. But the
> >image of Golding Michael is just *too* funny. Actually, if you put
> >Michael in almost any normal RL situation, he looks funny. In BTP,
> >watching him carry a bag of groceries (IIRC a totally inaccurate
> >American-style paper grocery bag, at that) had me in stitches, even
> >though there was an Exotic French Baguette sticking out the top.
>
> ***LOLOL EFB is a new trademark. I'm sure of it.
Are you suggesting--most indelicately!--that Michael himself is
something of an Exotic French Baguette?
What? What? *looks around innocently* Hey, if Cin can make perverse
innuendos and ascribe them to me, why can't I do it to Anne?
> Now, I would have been more upset by the paper bag if I hadn't been SCREAMING
> AT TIIC THAT MICHAEL WOULD NEVER WALK IN THE OPEN LIKE THAT ENCUMBERED BY A BAG
> OF FRELLING GROCERIES WHEN HE'S ON THE FRELLING RUN FROM SECTION FRELLING
> ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Ahem. Was there a paper bag in the scene?
Two, alas. Of the kind one never finds in France, and most certainly
not in rural France (or Belgium or wherever the farmhouse is).
TIIC = The Idiots In Charge? (I'm guessing?)
Not that I want to defend TIIC, because BTP has a fair number of goofy
plot holes, but isn't the point that Michael planned to be
captured--arranged it with Operations in advance? Admittedly, if
Zalman was less of a nitwit, he'd notice that catching Michael
happened too easily.
> >Michael should only carry groceries if they are baguettes, caviar,
> >rounds of camembert, or bottles of pouilly fusse (a wine I shall never
> >take seriously again).
>
> ***Er, I take pouilly fusse very seriously considering that the only kind I can
> find here in the District of Col-um-bee-ya is $25.
But will you ever be able to order it again without thinking of lemon
chicken, grey tee shirts, and romantic betrayal?
~Mal
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
weakness; it's a sign of superior intelligence.
~Mal
More addicted to coffee than to carmex even>>
ARGGGH! I'm hopelessly irredeemable. :-(((
I do like my caffeine jolt, but not from anything to do with coffee,
thank you very much - UNLESS it's Kaluha, of course. :-)
And, while I do use lip balm regularly, it's not that fancy designer
stuff; just plain ol' Avon Lip Dew.
AZ
CAPTANNE
>From: malsp...@yahoo.com (Malsperanza)
>Message-id: <6a41a349.04081...@posting.google.com>
>
Hee!
Did you like the hair?
LOL
Anne
CAPTANNE
>something of an Exotic French Baguette?
>
You better believe it.
>TIIC = The Idiots In Charge? (I'm guessing?)
Absolutely.
>Not that I want to defend TIIC, because BTP has a fair number of goofy
>plot holes, but isn't the point that Michael planned to be
>captured--arranged it with Operations in advance?
>Admittedly, if
>Zalman was less of a nitwit, he'd notice that catching Michael
>happened too easily.
My point exactly. You answered your own question.
Zalman should have smelled a set up a mile away.
Anyone should have. God willing, had I been one of the (surely) abeyance
operatives who shot him, even ~I~ would have smelled a rat.
Michael Samuelle is caught in the daylight in the middle of a parking lot
buying groceries? Come ON, people.
Great episode, though. hee One of my faves.
Snafus galore, though. No electricity so we get Gourmet Michael over the
Franklin stove, we get a fire in the fireplace, we get candles everywhere, we
get "I'm cold" and the infamous blanket throw.
But, we get Francois Hardy singing cheesy 60's French guitar music on the
electric turntable.
Right.
We get a production team who can't decide if Michael and Nikita play hide the
salami ~even though~ this is the first episode where their personal
relationship is absolutely on the front burner. (Michael escapes from
Section....but not without taking Nikita with him......)
Et-bloody-cetera.
I'm not complaining. I'll take an episode with Michael in natural light any
day o' the week.
Handsome fellow that he is.
Sigh.
Anne
mazonmac
> Oops. For some reason I was thinkin' "get out" as in Go out on a date.
> Well, at this stage, Michael doesn't want to leave Section, does he?
> He's completely loyal. I think through most of s2 he's just keeping
> Nikita on hold til the Elena blood cover ends, because he can't quite
> handle being involved with both of them at once. Or he knows that
> Operations would say getting involved with Nikita when he has to
> convince Elena daily that he loves her would be a big risk.
You are absolutely right here. One has to wonder how entrenched in Section
Michael is because of his son and at what point he's realized it himself.
I've suggested in other posts that he doesn't really know what he has with
Adam until it's on the verge of being lost, and also that Nikita, in the 3+
years of knowing Michael has put enough chinks in his armor that by mid-s2
he's less likely to have just walked out on Adam in a plausible escape
opportunity (Elena?... not so much. Maybe only that she is the mother to
his son). Not that I'm saying Michael ever would abandon Section at this
point, regardless of having a son. But had he entertained the idea, he
would have found some other way to justify not escaping (for example, he
could say that even if Section 1 was incinerated, the other Sections would
have found them sometime, somewhere...or even that Nikita's cesium tracker
would have given them away) instead of admitting he didn't want to leave his
blood cover.
What I was actually thinking when I suggested that they had the opportunity
to run is that that Nikita didn't even bring it up, which I can see s-2
Nikita doing. And now I'm afraid that after having written (and since
deleted) an eloquent essay about why I thought this to be true, I now have
to reverse myself and say I was spilling a load of trash. In the end, the
Nikita we know, mole or otherwise, never would have knowingly left her
friends in a lurch and would have done what she could have, even at her own
peril, to help them... which is basically what happens. Hey, I can admit
when I'm wrong.
Mal here on the first Scene of Not Was:
> Really? I thought it was clearly meant as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink at
> the fans. You know, like the old Mae West line, "Is that a pistol in
> your pocket or are you just glad to see me?" "Well, actually, Nikita,
> it's a pistol."
Well when you put it that way... yeah, it's funny.
>
> Once in a while the directors do something that shows they don't quite
> take the whole thing so seriously, usually smack in the middle of a
> very serious moment. E.g., when Michael, on the run and in danger,
> arranges to meet Nikita, whom he loves and knows that she plans to
> kill him--I mean, what could be more angsty? So they meet in an
> upscale boutique where all the clothes are black. That shot of Michael
> browsing the racks of all-black clothes is priceless.
You guys bring this scene up all the time. I think it could possibly be the
most hated scene of all time. As ridiculous as it was, it was shot really
well with the breaks with the mirrors and such...no? It looked cool. Isn't
that more important? ;-D
> Cin:
>> Question is, though - which one is the "real" Michael?
>
> And this is what makes "Not Was" better than the G Process as an idea
> (and maybe also in how the performance is executed, and the writing):
> we can't really say. At most, I suppose Not-Was Michael is the man he
> might have been if he hadn't gotten mixed up in terrorism. --snipping--
> Also, we don't see Not-Was Michael in a normal state. He's confused
> and disoriented by the m-m-memowy loss, *and* he's in mortal danger.
> Without any chance to stop and figure out where he is or what's
> happened to him--snipping--
> I must say, this is nicely written stuff--very brief, just enough to
> paint the portrait of a person with some pretty remarkable skills
> already: young and angry, alone, but taking responsibility for an even
> younger and well-loved sister. ("What did you tell her about me?" is
> the first thing he asks Rene.) But young Michael is willing to risk
> everything--including his sister's well-being--for a cause he is ready
> to die for. That's a far cry from Not-Was Michael, isn't it? Young
> Michael already has unusual charisma and dedication to abstract
> ideals, and a willingness to take concrete, even extreme action to
> fulfil them, no matter the cost to himself. Which is why Section
> snagged him.--snipping--
> So you could look at Not-Was Michael as his own moment of private
> wish-fulfillment: This is who I wish I could be: someone who would
> never do any of those things. This is what I wish I could forget: the
> things I've done, and the horrible place I work, to which I have
> mistakenly pinned my honor and faith.
You've made some really good points, Mal and I think you've hit the problem
right on the head - Not Was Michael was a far cry from what I think the
"real pre-Section Michael" would have been. We've already discussed that
the BOTW used limbic suppressors which would probably yield a more
Gelman-like effect. But you can chalk that up to bad research on the
writers' part and just assume that his rational brain gave way to a higher
degree of emotive levels revealing more of Michael's true nature - the Not
Was Effect.
But you must consider that most disaffected college students don't become
terrorists, regardless of how dedicated to ideals and abstract political
thinking or how committed one's personality might be. One has to look at
pre-Section Michael in a different way - probably that he had at least some
tendencies toward sociopathy. If this is the case, portrayal of Not Was
Mikey was *way* off as a super-cuddly normal guy. Sociopath Michael
probably would have been a lot like Section Michael, maybe just to a less
refined degree. Sociopath Michael would have alienated viewers as well as
the basic story we've all come to appreciate: Even though he can still do
things for a "greater good," Michael's is essentially a self-punishment for
getting mixed up with the wrong people in a turbulent adolescence after Mom
and Dad died leaving him to care for baby sister and the family pets (just
where is the family dog, huh?). How do you resolve
decent-at-the-buried-core Section Michael with Sociopath Michael?
Having said all that, I'm still writing hogwash because what I really think
is that I just didn't like the awkwardness of super-cuddly normal Not Was
Guy, even though we all took a sigh of anguished relief when super-cuddly
normal Not Was Guy said he loved Nikita (anguished relief because we all
believed it to be true and knew that the state of things as they were
couldn't last).
I've got to stop writing these silly thoughts so late at night. I beginning
to think I don't understand LFN at all... and I *really* don't like the idea
of Sociopath Guy.
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
and disoriented by the m-m-memowy loss, *and* he's in mortal danger.
Without any chance to stop and figure out where he is or what's happened
to him, a stunning blond puts a gun in his hand and says, "If you don't
start killing people, you'll be killed, and p.s., you mustn't let anyone
know what's happened to you."
~Mal>>
You've mentioned the Not Was scene with the one glaring problem for me.
Nikita rescues Michael from Perez's lab, throws him the gun, and they
take off down the hallway into a firefight. Michael handles the gun
like it's the proverbial hot coal and has to be directed to shoot at the
baddies, BUT he knows how to "assume the position" of cover wherein he's
properly situated to fire. Most "civilians" would be head first, as
deep as possible into the farthest corner when the bullets start flying.
Not m-m-memowy impaired Michael. He's in an action crouch, back to the
wall, able to peek around the corner and fire without exposing himself
(his bo-dy to bullets!!!)). Seems to me Section conditioning showed
through there. Actually, I thought it might have been a careless
oversight by the director; yet it's always struck me as odd that RD
wouldn't have caught it.
AZ
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
become terrorists, regardless of how dedicated to ideals and abstract
political thinking or how committed one's personality might be. One has
to look at pre-Section Michael in a different way - probably that he had
at least some tendencies toward sociopathy. If this is the case,
portrayal of Not Was Mikey was *way* off as a super-cuddly normal guy.
Sociopath Michael probably would have been a lot like Section Michael,
Having said all that, I'm still writing hogwash because what I really
think is that I just didn't like the awkwardness of super-cuddly normal
I've got to stop writing these silly thoughts so late at night. I
beginning to think I don't understand LFN at all... and I *really* don't
like the idea of Sociopath Guy.>>
cin, cin, cin; I'd say you understand LFN quite well. First, remember,
you're entitled to your own version of the LFN world, so whether or not
it meshes totally with everyone else's version, should be immaterial.
Next, let me propose a somewhat different vision of pre-Section Michael,
which would have perhaps led to a Not Was Michael more true to the LFN
concept. Rather than a sociopath, he may have been a typical teen,
believing firmly not only in ideals but in his own immortality. As
young people are wont to do, he could not see consequences of his
actions. Consequences like people dying in an explosion, like his being
caught and convicted, like his sister left without 'anyone'.
Now, had that brash, idealistic young man been shown in Not Was, I think
we would have all felt it a breath of fresh air. And, my proposed Not
Was Michael would have been very much in lust with Nikita, though he
probably would have called it 'love'.
<<...leaving him to care for baby sister and the family pets (just where
is the family dog, huh?).
cin >>
LOLOL Well, that poor old mutt must be long dead, Michael was arrested
in 1984. OTOH, Section may have also recruited him, for their K-9 op
program. Prior to horticulture, Maddie may have tried her hand at
animal husbandry.
AZ
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
~Mal>>
They were replaced by the Sex Police after Maddie got rid of her S1
office/dress barn.
AZ
mazonmac
> is the family dog, huh?).
> cin >>
>
> LOLOL Well, that poor old mutt must be long dead, Michael was arrested
> in 1984. OTOH, Section may have also recruited him, for their K-9 op
> program. Prior to horticulture, Maddie may have tried her hand at
> animal husbandry.
>
> AZ
>
Actually, it could've worked. Elena and Mikey say they had a dog named
Watson sometime before SES. Say the Samuelle family just got a puppy just
before Michael gets captured. Maddie, thinking about that upstart K9
program, also recruits the dog. Baby sister Samuelle posts "Lost Dog" signs
all over the place to no avail. Section clicker-trains the dog to run up to
women off leash (clicker training is positive reinforcement form of
training. The animals are treated better in Section the humans,
apparently)... Elena and Mikey meet, get married... then MMWK scenario.
Fast forward to SES where Mikey says to Elena - "I wouldn't have met you if
it weren't for him. He was a good dog." Little ol' Watson gets to be the
coolest dog in the neighborhood because he's a section Op *and* he gets to
live out his life in happiness with his real owner. ;-D
How's that for plausibility?
cin
LOL to self
CAPTANNE
>wall, able to peek around the corner and fire without exposing himself
>(his bo-dy to bullets!!!)). Seems to me Section conditioning showed
>through there.
***First of all. LOLOLOL
Second of all, I always thought it was his conditioning coming out. Perez
could wipe his mental Sectionizing but the muscles and reflexes still
remembered.
The problem with this idea, then, is why he's such a doofus on the mission.
Personally, I love this episode and can overlook that minor inconsistency. I
love almost every episode that gives us insight into Michael's past
unconditionally. LOL
However, I do cringe with empathy during the mission.
Megan and I call this "Robin with his foot and the clam" Syndrome.
Please. Allow me to explain.
I've always, always, always been super sensitive to the embarrassment of my
hero characters. There is an episode of Star Trek where Spock gets emotions,
falls in luuuuurve, and swings from a tree. Even when I was 11, I had to leave
the room. Spock starts naming clouds, for Gawd's sake, and I'm gone. Poof.
Well, I had this very slight crush on Burt Ward's 1966 version of Robin.
(Paired with Adam West's Batman.) In one episode, the SOTW takes Robin away
from Batman and threatens to kill him.
Almost killing 11 year old me in the process.
He sticks poor little Robin in a basement room with the biggest clam you've
ever seen. Which then eats
I said EATS
Robin.
The cliffhanger happens as we zoom in on Robin's little foot wriggling out of
the Giant Clam's mouth.
I was traumatized.
Ever since then, the nail biting agonizing danger to my heroes and/or their
grave embarrasment.....not the same, mind you.....but two very strong
emotions.....just about sends me out of the room.
Hence the "Robin's foot and the Clam" Syndrome.
That's what happens to me during the mission scene in Not Was.
Therapy. I'm signing up on Monday. I promise.
Anne ;-)
CAPTANNE
Some like him, some don't.
Me? I'm fine with him until he turns into a doofus on the mission. ("Robin's
Foot and the Clam" Syndrome....see previous thread.)
AZ about Teen Michael: >Rather than a sociopath, he may have been a typical
teen,
>believing firmly not only in ideals but in his own immortality. As
>young people are wont to do, he could not see consequences of his
>actions.
Yes, yes, and more yes.
Do you guys remember the 1984 student riots in Paris? I do. They were
international news and pretty violent.
I have a feeling that Michael got caught up in the moment.
Just because he was hangin' with Rene and L'Heure Sanguine before the riots
doesn't mean he was a sociopathic killer.
However, it's very easy to gain a mob mentality when it's all going to hell
around you. Shove a bag of TNT in someone's hand and it's all over.
I do think, however, that the seeds of Section One's Greatest Level 5 Operative
Ever couldn't just be planted. They had to be there to begin with.
The tragedy of Michael's story is that he might very well have grown into the
man Elena married had he been left alone.
But Section got him and cultivated those seeds. This is the Monster that
Michael has to stare at every time he shaves in the morning.
It's what makes him fascinating.
How can he live like this? How can anyone live a life knowing that they can
kill other human beings better than anyone else?
By convincing yourself it's for the greater good.
Thomas Harris used a very similar dilemma in Red Dragon. Not so much in the
later books. His character Will Graham (played in the Michael Mann film,
Manhunter, by William Peterson of CSI fame), walked a very fine line between
"understanding" serial killers and being frightened by his very insight.
Multiple nervous breakdowns later, we find that Graham has left the service.
That parallels with Michael's own nervous breakdown.
These characters are rather fragile, now that I think about it.
Anne
Malsperanza
> > So you could look at Not-Was Michael as his own moment of private
> > wish-fulfillment: This is who I wish I could be: someone who would
> > never do any of those things. This is what I wish I could forget: the
> > things I've done, and the horrible place I work, to which I have
> > mistakenly pinned my honor and faith.
Cin:
> [snip]Not Was Michael was a far cry from what I think the
> "real pre-Section Michael" would have been. We've already discussed that
> the BOTW used limbic suppressors which would probably yield a more
> Gelman-like effect. But you can chalk that up to bad research on the
> writers' part and just assume that his rational brain gave way to a higher
> degree of emotive levels revealing more of Michael's true nature - the Not
> Was Effect.
the Not Was Effect(TM)
> But you must consider that most disaffected college students don't become
> terrorists, regardless of how dedicated to ideals and abstract political
> thinking or how committed one's personality might be. One has to look at
> pre-Section Michael in a different way - probably that he had at least some
> tendencies toward sociopathy. If this is the case, portrayal of Not Was
> Mikey was *way* off as a super-cuddly normal guy. Sociopath Michael
> probably would have been a lot like Section Michael, maybe just to a less
> refined degree. Sociopath Michael would have alienated viewers as well as
> the basic story we've all come to appreciate: Even though he can still do
> things for a "greater good," Michael's is essentially a self-punishment for
> getting mixed up with the wrong people in a turbulent adolescence after Mom
> and Dad died leaving him to care for baby sister and the family pets (just
> where is the family dog, huh?). How do you resolve
> decent-at-the-buried-core Section Michael with Sociopath Michael?
>
> Having said all that, I'm still writing hogwash because what I really think
> is that I just didn't like the awkwardness of super-cuddly normal Not Was
> Guy, even though we all took a sigh of anguished relief when super-cuddly
> normal Not Was Guy said he loved Nikita (anguished relief because we all
> believed it to be true and knew that the state of things as they were
> couldn't last).
>
> I've got to stop writing these silly thoughts so late at night. I beginning
> to think I don't understand LFN at all... and I *really* don't like the idea
> of Sociopath Guy.
AZ and Anne have responded to this already with an alternate scenario
in which young Michael is an idealist and has a kid's exaggerated
sense of his own immortality, rather than an incipient sociopath. Let
me offer a slightly different spin, which is also an alternative to
Sociopath Michael. (I'm not sure that a kid who had lost both parents
before age 19 would necessarily feel the usual sense of immortality of
teenagers; rather, he might feel somewhat fatalist--a kind of
late-adolescent depression).
But more than that, let's look at the college kids who became members
of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. The well-to-do kids who blew
up their parents' house in NYC making bombs in the basement weren't
sociopaths. Some were not caught, and went on to live for years as
model citizens, before they turned themselves in. Similarly, a number
of the people who are serving life sentences for Red Brigades
activities are model prisoners: working on prison reform, education,
etc. Dangerous, and perhaps even evil people, but not mad.
In the heat of a highly politicized culture (e.g., America in 1968),
some students joined Students for a Democratic Society, and had
sit-ins, and were involved in riots. Others became more radicalized,
and joined the Weathermen (Weather Underground). Many volumes have
been written about the reasons they took that one irrevocable step
from protest to what they saw as armed struggle.
I think it was indeed more than misguided youthful ardor, but it
wasn't insanity. It was, in part, a rage born of frustration at the
(perceived) immovability of the Powers That Be (the real ones). And in
part an adoption of the climate of extreme violence that was rampant
in the culture at the time (with nightly kill reports--real ones--on
the evening news, and governors and mayors callling out the National
Guard to quell race riots at gunpoint; tanks in the streets of Chicago
during a political convention, etc.) What does it take for an angry,
isolated, parentless, rootless young man--one who, moreover, is a
whole lot smarter than everyone around him--to lose patience and pick
up a gun? Did he regret it later?
Did Bobby Sands, who died in a hunger strike in Northern Ireland,
regret the bombs he planted? Does Gerry Adams regret his close
association with the most violent branch of the IRA (and possibly more
than "association")? Were they justified? Was Che Guevara? They all, I
think, saw themselves as parallel to Nelson Mandela, who took up
guerrilla tactics and armed struggle only after unarmed resistance had
failed. Perhaps politically motivated terrorists always see themselves
as romantic heroes and martyrs.
One of the things I like about LFN is that it does make an attempt
(albeit a waffly attempt) to think about when politics does/does not
justify extreme violence. And less waffly is its rather serious
attempt to examine what that idea does to the people who carry it out.
Madeline is a sociopath. Operations is a heartless sonofabitch who
believes in a particularly cold, technocratic version of realpolitik
(reminds me a little of Kissinger and Robert Macnamara). Michael
is--and I think has always been--dedicated to an ideal, but one that
grows ever more distant and abstract, the deeper he gets into the grim
reality of carrying out missions. By the time he wakes up and realizes
that there is an unbridgeable gap between that ideal cause and the
reality of what he's done, it's too late. His hands are permanently
stained with blood. And so he becomes what Dupuis describes as a
"ghost,"--the man we meet in season 1.
By s5, he has discovered the only form of atonement (if not
redemption) possible for him: to take a leaf from Nikita's book and
concentrate only on the personal: to abandon the wider political
world; to take care of one child, and raise him well. Because
redressing the past is impossible, but a child is a commitment to the
future.
There's that old adage, which I love: Our children do not inherit the
world from us; we borrow it from them.
To me this makes sense as a vision of young Michael, and it's
consistent with what we see in Half Life. As for Not Was--it's not so
very inaccurate. Young Michael is an angry, intelligent, idealistic
young man who wants to stop talking about problems (is sick of all
those late nights with friends, volumes of Sartre, and packs of
Gauloises); he wants to take action. He picks up a gun. Any young man
like that is likely to have a core of shocking naivety. To think that
picking up a gun in Paris in 1984 (or making a bomb in the basement in
NYC in 1970, as Bernadine Dohrn did at age 28) could possibly be a
solution isn't just stupid and vicious, it's childish. It's very
narcissistic: it's a failure to imagine the harm done to the
individuals who will be the victims, or a refusal to think of them,
much less to imagine how much harm to the cause itself such actions
will cause.
So maybe Not Was Michael is still a form of denial: an acknowledgment
by Michael of his old naivety (long since burned out of him), but a
refusal to acknowledge that he was capable, even back then, of picking
up a gun. Because the thought is unbearable to him now.
The only false note, I think, is one line in Half Life, when Rene
says, "plant the bomb [in the clinic] where it will kill the most
people." That's meant to signal us viewers as clearly as possible that
we aren't supposed to sympathize anymore with Rene, so that when he
dies we will feel that Nikita did the right thing.
But it's a bit of lazy writing. Rene would never talk that way. He'd
say something like: "Plant the bomb where it will draw the most
attention," or "plant the bomb where it will stop the bastard pigs
from doing X." (Hard to figure out why he is bombing a clinic, which
is surely the dumbest thing a terrorist can do, from a PR point of
view. Au contraire, terrorist organizations often *run* clinics, as a
means of garnering local support and highlighting how much TPTB have
failed to meet the needs of their people.)
Sorry this got so long, and I hope I didn't open a can of worms. I've
no interest in discussing whether the IRA, the Weathermen, the Red
Brigades, or the African National Congress were totally different
groups or had something in common; or which ones were (or are)
justified. That would be inappropriate here. But I think LFN raises
this question, without trying to offer a cheap, clear answer, and I
applaud that. Shades of gray, indeed.
~Mal
mazonmac
Oh, goody, goody! TM status. That's pretty cool!.... Where's my royalty
check? ;-D
So here's me from an earlier post:
>How do you resolve
> decent-at-the-buried-core Section Michael with Sociopath Michael?
Hey Anne, AZ, and Mal: Thanks *so* much for helping out with this little
problem I came up with late last night. Your posts (not copied here only to
save space because all had valid points worth noting in their entirety) have
helped restore LFN to my good graces. Even though I didn't really like
Super-Cuddly Normal Not Was Guy all that much, I for sure didn't like
Sociopath Guy *at all* and I was really doubting my LFN world (AZ - $) there
for a minute when he crept in to it. So thanks for alternate viewpoints - I
think my Matrix has been restored.
cin
(whew! wiping brow)
mazonmac
>> Auuuggh!!! That photo of Dupuis in *red* plaid pants is horrifying. I
>> think you have ruined Cin's life. ;-)
Well... quite possibly....
Stripes with plaid? Where are the Garanimals when you need them?
Anne here:
> Hee!
>
> Did you like the hair?
>
> LOL
Uh.... no.
cin
(holding hands over eyes and *clearly* not LOL. I know, I know... "Get over
it.")
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
<<Second of all, I always thought it was his conditioning coming out.
Perez could wipe his mental Sectionizing but the muscles and reflexes
still remembered.
The problem with this idea, then, is why he's such a doofus on the
mission. >>
Precisely; one way or 'tuher, but not one minute Section responses and
doofus the next.
<<Personally, I love this episode and can overlook that minor
inconsistency. I love almost every episode that gives us insight into
Michael's past unconditionally. LOL
However, I do cringe with empathy during the mission.
..I've always, always, always been super sensitive to the embarrassment
of my hero characters. There is an episode of Star Trek where Spock gets
emotions, falls in luuuuurve, and swings from a tree. Even when I was
11, I had to leave the room. Spock starts naming clouds, for Gawd's
sake, and I'm gone. Poof.
Anne ;-)>>
I, too, love Not Was; but then y'all knew that, just 'cause it's LFN.
Nuff said, in my book.
Another (unusual) parallel between us, Anne. I, too get overly
embarrassed for misbegotten characters. The Spock thang was OK for me;
being older, it was "just oh soooo ro-man-n-n-tic" - AZ bats eyelashes
whilst sighing mightily.
OTOH, I cannot bear to watch I Love Lucy. The thought/sight of that
intelligent, creative, and talented actress and businesswoman acting the
buffoon just sends me into fits (not of laughter). Once past the age of
seven, I do believe I-L-L seriously impacted my distaste for, and
disdain of, most sit-coms ever since.
AZ
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
to Sociopath Michael. (I'm not sure that a kid who had lost both parents
before age 19 would necessarily feel the usual sense of immortality of
teenagers; rather, he might feel somewhat fatalist--a kind of
late-adolescent depression). >>
Depends, to a certain extent, on what type of parent-child relationship
existed, I suspect. The "freedom" of being completely on his own at
nineteen (sis notwithstanding) may have fed his idealism, prompting him
to (finally) be able to express himself with Rene, et al. I have never
believed that Michael saw Rene for what he truly was - the sociopath of
the group.
You mentioned the subsequent "regrets" of actual 1960s and '70s
"domestic terrorists". I would think, for the most part, that's
accurate. Yet in Half Life we find Rene still operating in the same
ways, with the same "ideology" as he had some fifteen years prior. The
violence, the life-style had to have served more for Rene than just his
ideals.
<<What does it take for an angry, isolated, parentless, rootless young
man--one who, moreover, is a whole lot smarter than everyone around
him--to lose patience and pick up a gun? Did he regret it later?>>
As Anne mentioned in another post, if may have been a simple instance of
"mob mentality". And we know he had major regrets, and guilt; guilt -
for things real and imagined - was a very real aspect of Section
Michael.
<<One of the things I like about LFN is that it does make an attempt
(albeit a waffly attempt) to think about when politics does/does not
justify extreme violence. And less waffly is its rather serious attempt
to examine what that idea does to the people who carry it out.>>
Very true. We certainly weren't spoon fed the "Washington party line",
fairly common in TV (less so in films, I feel). The broader issues, and
their impact - individually and globally - were explored, discussed, and
for the most part left unresolved; left for each viewer to resolve as
he/she saw fit.
<<The only false note, I think, is one line in Half Life, when Rene
says, "plant the bomb [in the clinic] where it will kill the most
people."...But it's a bit of lazy writing. Rene would never talk that
way. He'd say something like: "Plant the bomb where it will draw the
most attention," or "plant the bomb where it will stop the bastard pigs
from doing X." >>
I see the distinction you're going for; however the Rene of my LFN world
is, as noted above, essentially a sociopath, so the distinction is
unnecessary (for me). In fact, the statement accurately conveys the
thinking of "my" Rene.
<<Sorry this got so long, and I hope I didn't open a can of worms...But
I think LFN raises this question, without trying to offer a cheap, clear
answer, and I applaud that. Shades of gray, indeed.
~Mal>>
Absolutely; on that we are in full agreement. Thanks for a well
thought-out and presented position paper. Whether we accept or reject
your postulation, the journey you afford is always worthwhile reading.
AZ
Malsperanza
> I have never
> believed that Michael saw Rene for what he truly was - the sociopath of
> the group.
>
> You mentioned the subsequent "regrets" of actual 1960s and '70s
> "domestic terrorists". I would think, for the most part, that's
> accurate. Yet in Half Life we find Rene still operating in the same
> ways, with the same "ideology" as he had some fifteen years prior. The
> violence, the life-style had to have served more for Rene than just his
> ideals.
You make a good point. That works for me, though I'm not sure the
actor playing Rene really aimed to convey a Jim Jones-level charisma
or fanaticism. Rene seemed gentler and somehow sweet, almost naive
himself.
Michael assesses Rene to Madeleine as someone who has been left behind
by changes in the world and is seeking to reestablish his importance.
It's a pretty contemptuous evaluation. Later, Rene claims to Madeleine
that he is involved with Red Cell, an organization that presumably has
few shared goals with l'Heure Sanguine. (Though he could be boasting
or lying as a tactic, as Madeleine believes.) In any case, a person
who becomes a terrorist out of political beliefs or ideals (or
"ideals" in quotes) doesn't just switch to a different set of beliefs
or ideals one day out of convenience. So it's likely that Rene is mad.
Which I think is a bit of a cop-out on the part of the show.
But that would not really explain Rene's followers. They can't all be
sociopaths, can they? And if Rene was really the brilliant recruiter
he is said to be, he'd still speak with greater subtlety, and he still
wouldn't be likely to bomb a clinic (an act that one sees sometimes in
the course of massive genocide such as Rwanda, Cambodia, when the goal
is to kill everyone as fast as possible, but doesn't really fit in
with the goal of social change that Rene claims to have). IMO it's
still a bit of sloppy writing, but YMMV. ;-)
Michael's comment that Rene's strength is in recruitment is
interesting and perhaps a little suspect. I see it as part of his own
self-assessment: How could I ever have gotten entangled in this man's
world? Was I so gullible, or was he a genius at persuasion? It's
either a cold self-assessment, or slightly self-excusing, depending on
how you read Michael.
In fact, we see Rene's skill in operation: Michael and Rene are
fleeing in the car. (Later, we realize that Michael's aim is to find
Rene's complete group so they can all be wiped out.) Rene appeals to
Michael to rejoin him: "Give your life some meaning again, or your
death some purpose." It must be a rather powerful idea to someone,
like Michael, who has recently begun to wonder if his life's purposes
have all been disastrously, horribly misguided.
Michael's answer, "It's not possible," is spoken in that patented
choked whisper that is a signal of his sincere emotion. But what
exactly is not possible? To rejoin the group? To return to a simpler
past when everything was clear? ("We were young then; everything
seemed good.") Or, indeed, to give his life some meaning or his death
some purpose? All of these, I think.
Again, here is Michael contemplating his own impending suicide--a
death, he believes, that will serve no purpose but to wipe out his
dishonor. Because if his actions within Section were to turn out to
have had no higher purpose, his life would be unbearable.
In Nikita's apartment we see him struggling to explain his past
choices, his former faith in Rene. The subtext is probably an attempt
to explain to her his present choices and his present faith in
Section, which she has always questioned. But I also think one reason
he goes to Nikita's apartment is to ask her for some kind of
absolution--he sees her as still innocent enough to speak for all the
innocents who were (presumably) his past victims--and even perhaps his
more recent ones.
Hence, I think, that odd posture of his, crouching, almost kneeling,
before the candles on the low table, as if it were a kind of altar.
It's a small touch, and fortunately it's not too heavy-handed (unlike,
say, the goofy "Section Black Wedding" church scene in LNMPA).
Though she offers comfort and help, Nikita doesn't give him
absolution--she's shocked and disgusted about the bombs. (To me this
desire for some kind of forgiveness strengthens the idea that he is
already planning his own death at that point.)
> <<The only false note, I think, is one line in Half Life, when Rene
> says, "plant the bomb [in the clinic] where it will kill the most
> people."...But it's a bit of lazy writing. Rene would never talk that
> way. He'd say something like: "Plant the bomb where it will draw the
> most attention," or "plant the bomb where it will stop the bastard pigs
> from doing X." >>
>
> I see the distinction you're going for; however the Rene of my LFN world
> is, as noted above, essentially a sociopath, so the distinction is
> unnecessary (for me). In fact, the statement accurately conveys the
> thinking of "my" Rene.
Yes, my objection has more to do with the fact that it wouldn't be
persuasive to his followers--still less to Michael, whom he is trying
to recruit. He might think and believe it, but he wouldn't say or do
it. But this is a very minor point, really. That is, I think Rene is
more interesting if he's a more subtle and attractive character. If
he's merely a vicious lunatic, then Michael can have no doubts, no
regrets, and no problem killing him. It just weakens the story line a
little.
~Mal
CAPTANNE
>Date: 8/16/2004 12:26 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <15939-41...@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net>
I've never been able to enjoy a sitcom and I think you may have helped me
finally put my finger on why.
I just don't find the humour amusing. I find it embarrassing and grating.
It's not that I don't mind being taken for a ride myself. I'm not that proud,
certainly, to get offended by a practical joke that I'm the butt of. (And
paybacks are hell.)
But I ~never~ play them myself and don't like the results of them a'tall.
Anne
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
Jones-level charisma or fanaticism. Rene seemed gentler and somehow
sweet, almost naive himself.
So it's likely that Rene is mad. Which I think is a bit of a cop-out on
the part of the show.
But that would not really explain Rene's followers. They can't all be
sociopaths, can they? And if Rene was really the brilliant recruiter he
Your mention of the actor playing Rene, the late, great Denis Forrest,
got me to thinking - duck, the sonic shock wave will hit any second. I
believe all of Denis' prior work - wherein he played almost exclusively
a kook, from just being "a bit odd" to raving, drooling lunatic to mad
Martian scientist - may have actually colored my view of the character.
I expected him to play 'idealistic terrorist' as a sociopath; I did not
expect gentleness of nature of subtlety of any kind.
I doubt Rene's followers were sociopaths, yet we don't see enough really
to make an absolute judgement. Are not most sociopaths are loners, at
least when in pursuit of their objectives? Too many sociopaths spoils
the thrill of the deed, etc.
The followers seemed, to me, to be a rag-tag group of folks from the
margins of society who banded together because they could all live in
one apartment and talk of the ills done them by society till all hours.
The fact that they all seemed closer in age to Rene than to youngish
twenty-something students also struck me as odd. If Rene were either a)
very dedicated to some illusive ideal or b) a great recruiter of like
minded people, wouldn't he have a more organized, effective group after
all these years.
'My' Rene needed nothing more than the limelight and to espouse his
rhetoric, with a bunch of ardent followers raising the well-timed 'Amen'
every so often. Rene, for me, was about the concept of terrorism rather
than achieving any particular goals. Of course, he had to lead a
'mission' every so often, otherwise even his 'groupies' would drift away
either from boredom or disgust.
<<Michael's comment that Rene's strength is in recruitment is
interesting and perhaps a little suspect. I see it as part of his own
self-assessment: How could I ever have gotten entangled in this man's
world? Was I so gullible, or was he a genius at persuasion? It's either
a cold self-assessment, or slightly self-excusing, depending on how you
read Michael.
--snipping again--
..But I also think one reason he goes to Nikita's apartment is to ask
her for some kind of absolution--he sees her as still innocent enough to
speak for all the innocents who were (presumably) his past victims--and
even perhaps his more recent ones.>>
I agree totally on both of your points, above.
<<...I think Rene is more interesting if he's a more subtle and
attractive character. If he's merely a vicious lunatic, then Michael can
have no doubts, no regrets, and no problem killing him. It just weakens
the story line a little.
~Mal>>
And, as I stated above, I see Rene ~now~ as that vicious lunatic; what
he was in Michael's past, we can only guess at. I have always held that
Michael regretted betraying the Rene he knew back in the day (or he whom
he thought he knew), but had no qualms - beyond momentary flashes back
to 'the good ol' days' - when it came to viewing Rene through Section
eyes.
I think the regret Michael ultimately felt was that Rene would not
renounce terror, thus "forcing" Michael to bring him down. Michael did
not like to be coerced into a particular action by other than himself.
Mal, this relates back to your idea of Michael's frequent two-pronged
approach - his goals and Section's, often at odds, yet doable for
Uber-op. Mikey. He hated that Rene's recalcitrance would not allow him
to be both soldier and savior.
AZ
Malsperanza
> got me to thinking - duck, the sonic shock wave will hit any second. I
> believe all of Denis' prior work - wherein he played almost exclusively
> a kook, from just being "a bit odd" to raving, drooling lunatic to mad
> Martian scientist - may have actually colored my view of the character.
> I expected him to play 'idealistic terrorist' as a sociopath; I did not
> expect gentleness of nature of subtlety of any kind.
Was the late, great Denis Forrest a regular on TV shows? I didn't know
that.
> 'My' Rene needed nothing more than the limelight and to espouse his
> rhetoric, with a bunch of ardent followers raising the well-timed 'Amen'
> every so often. Rene, for me, was about the concept of terrorism rather
> than achieving any particular goals. Of course, he had to lead a
> 'mission' every so often, otherwise even his 'groupies' would drift away
> either from boredom or disgust.
I guess that works, but for my taste it seems like a standard,
predictable TV cliche character--Generic Evil Insane Badguy. I mean,
are there such people? Is there any validity outside of TV shows to
that character? Even Hitler and Pol Pot claimed (and probably
believed) to have political and idealogical purposes. There was method
to their madness, too. Random acts of terrorist violence would not be
useful.
The closest I can come to something like a plausible scenario
("plausible" within the LFN universe, that is) would be the
guy--whoever he is--who put anthrax in the US postal system. Or the
person who put cyanide into aspirin bottles about 10 years ago. A
private power trip. (Though in the case of the anthrax event, there is
one theory that the perpetrator was not trying to kill people but to
show the govt that its protective measures were woefully inadequate.
Even so, still an insane thing to do, but in terms of seeing the idea
from a fictional-character perspective, it's more interesting than the
random cyanide poisoner.)
> <<...I think Rene is more interesting if he's a more subtle and
> attractive character. If he's merely a vicious lunatic, then Michael can
> have no doubts, no regrets, and no problem killing him. It just weakens
> the story line a little.
> ~Mal>>
>
> And, as I stated above, I see Rene ~now~ as that vicious lunatic; what
> he was in Michael's past, we can only guess at. I have always held that
> Michael regretted betraying the Rene he knew back in the day (or he whom
> he thought he knew), but had no qualms - beyond momentary flashes back
> to 'the good ol' days' - when it came to viewing Rene through Section
> eyes.
Perhaps. And yet we see absolute anguish in his body language when he
bends to close Rene's eyes, in that classic mourning gesture. Is it
only nostalgia for the lost Rene that he feels?
'My' Michael is more tempted by Rene than yours, AZ. He is still
attracted to Rene's promise of rebellion, freedom, direct action that
could really make a difference. And the idea of taking personal
responsibility for fixing the ills of the world. It's why he always
liked Section, but Section is turning out to have a whole lot of other
baggage. Rene offers moral clarity. To a naturally black-and-white
thinker like Michael, there is (I suspect) something appealing about
shedding all of Section's endless shades of gray.
Because Rene's vision of the world is romantic, and Michael, for all
his cynicism and coldheartedness, is a romantic, a true believer in
causes. He hasn't changed at all since the old days, in that respect.
> I think the regret Michael ultimately felt was that Rene would not
> renounce terror, thus "forcing" Michael to bring him down. Michael did
> not like to be coerced into a particular action by other than himself.
That is definitely true.
> Mal, this relates back to your idea of Michael's frequent two-pronged
> approach - his goals and Section's, often at odds, yet doable for
> Uber-op. Mikey. He hated that Rene's recalcitrance would not allow him
> to be both soldier and savior.
Beautifully put, and very persuasive. I think that is absolutely
right.
He doesn't really try to persuade Rene to change his mind, does he?
All he asks is for Rene to stop doing what he's doing. And Rene
answers that to stop taking action would be a kind of moral death, or
betrayal. The painful aspect of this story is that Rene and Michael
are still very much alike. They both believe in bringing about change
through personal commitment and action; they are both idealistic and
self-aggrandizing; and they are both rather absolute (black-and-white)
in their thinking. The difference is that Michael is racked with
regrets, doubts, and a hunger for human contact, while Rene is quite a
happy person. And that is what makes Rene a madman and Michael (more
or less) sane.
Well, sort of sane.
~Mal
Malsperanza
> got me to thinking - duck, the sonic shock wave will hit any second. I
> believe all of Denis' prior work - wherein he played almost exclusively
> a kook, from just being "a bit odd" to raving, drooling lunatic to mad
> Martian scientist - may have actually colored my view of the character.
> I expected him to play 'idealistic terrorist' as a sociopath; I did not
> expect gentleness of nature of subtlety of any kind.
Was the late, great Denis Forrest a regular on TV shows? I didn't know
that.
> 'My' Rene needed nothing more than the limelight and to espouse his
> rhetoric, with a bunch of ardent followers raising the well-timed 'Amen'
> every so often. Rene, for me, was about the concept of terrorism rather
> than achieving any particular goals. Of course, he had to lead a
> 'mission' every so often, otherwise even his 'groupies' would drift away
> either from boredom or disgust.
I guess that works, but for my taste it seems like a standard,
predictable TV cliche character--Generic Evil Insane Badguy. I mean,
are there such people? Is there any validity outside of TV shows to
that character? Even Hitler and Pol Pot claimed (and probably
believed) to have political and idealogical purposes. There was method
to their madness, too. Random acts of terrorist violence would not be
useful.
The closest I can come to something like a plausible scenario
("plausible" within the LFN universe, that is) would be the
guy--whoever he is--who put anthrax in the US postal system. Or the
person who put cyanide into aspirin bottles about 10 years ago. A
private power trip. (Though in the case of the anthrax event, there is
one theory that the perpetrator was not trying to kill people but to
show the govt that its protective measures were woefully inadequate.
Even so, still an insane thing to do, but in terms of seeing the idea
from a fictional-character perspective, it's more interesting than the
random cyanide poisoner.)
> <<...I think Rene is more interesting if he's a more subtle and
> attractive character. If he's merely a vicious lunatic, then Michael can
> have no doubts, no regrets, and no problem killing him. It just weakens
> the story line a little.
> ~Mal>>
>
> And, as I stated above, I see Rene ~now~ as that vicious lunatic; what
> he was in Michael's past, we can only guess at. I have always held that
> Michael regretted betraying the Rene he knew back in the day (or he whom
> he thought he knew), but had no qualms - beyond momentary flashes back
> to 'the good ol' days' - when it came to viewing Rene through Section
> eyes.
Perhaps. And yet we see absolute anguish in his body language when he
bends to close Rene's eyes, in that classic mourning gesture. Is it
only nostalgia for the lost Rene that he feels?
'My' Michael is more tempted by Rene than yours, AZ. He is still
attracted to Rene's promise of rebellion, freedom, direct action that
could really make a difference. And the idea of taking personal
responsibility for fixing the ills of the world. It's why he always
liked Section, but Section is turning out to have a whole lot of other
baggage. Rene offers moral clarity. To a naturally black-and-white
thinker like Michael, there is (I suspect) something appealing about
shedding all of Section's endless shades of gray.
Because Rene's vision of the world is romantic, and Michael, for all
his cynicism and coldheartedness, is a romantic, a true believer in
causes. He hasn't changed at all since the old days, in that respect.
> I think the regret Michael ultimately felt was that Rene would not
> renounce terror, thus "forcing" Michael to bring him down. Michael did
> not like to be coerced into a particular action by other than himself.
That is definitely true.
> Mal, this relates back to your idea of Michael's frequent two-pronged
> approach - his goals and Section's, often at odds, yet doable for
> Uber-op. Mikey. He hated that Rene's recalcitrance would not allow him
> to be both soldier and savior.
Beautifully put, and very persuasive. I think that is absolutely
CAPTANNE
>attracted to Rene's promise of rebellion, freedom, direct action that
>could really make a difference.
Yes, and I sensed a palpable wistful nostalgia in Michael's attitude toward
Rene and his college days. A sense of....."Oh, Rene.....we were so naive then.
If only you'd seen what I've seen (and done) since then."
A sense of innocence (albeit ~relative~ innocence) lost. :-(
I found "Half Life" to be a very sad episode all the way around but
particularly in Michael's "recherche des temps perdu."
Anne
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
<<Was the late, great Denis Forrest a regular on TV shows? I didn't know
that.>>
Oops, misspelled his name: Denis Forest.
The only series on which he was a regular (that I'm aware of) is the
second season of (198-89) War of the Worlds. He was the Mad Martian
Scientist, experimenting to try and turn humans into Martians, ala Body
Snatchers. That series was Canadian made, but for US syndication. He
may have done other, solely Canadian, series. Of course, he guested in
many series - mostly Canadian produced for the US market; Friday the
13th: The Series and Sweating Bullets come immediately to mind. Complete
filmography:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0286111/
<<...And yet we see absolute anguish in his body language when he bends
to close Rene's eyes, in that classic mourning gesture. Is it only
nostalgia for the lost Rene that he feels?>>
The lost Rene ~and~ young Michel. There but for the grace of Section...
<<'My' Michael is more tempted by Rene than yours, AZ. He is still
attracted to Rene's promise of rebellion, freedom, direct action that
could really make a difference. And the idea of taking personal
responsibility for fixing the ills of the world. It's why he always
liked Section, but Section is turning out to have a whole lot of other
baggage. Rene offers moral clarity. To a naturally black-and-white
thinker like Michael, there is (I suspect) something appealing about
shedding all of Section's endless shades of gray.
Because Rene's vision of the world is romantic, and Michael, for all his
cynicism and coldheartedness, is a romantic, a true believer in causes.
He hasn't changed at all since the old days, in that respect. >>
Hmm. Tempted, perhaps; or just thoughtful? Michael is already looking
at Section slightly more askance than prior to Nikita's arrival; Rene's
resurrection is adding clarity to that assessment. But, this is still
very early in S2, Section's pull remains strong. Using a Michael
gesture for analogy: Rene's allure causes Michael to do one of his long
range, momentarily unfocused stares. The moment passes quickly, and
Michael is again in the present and focused on (Section's) end game.
<<He doesn't really try to persuade Rene to change his mind, does he?
All he asks is for Rene to stop doing what he's doing. And Rene answers
that to stop taking action would be a kind of moral death, or betrayal.
The painful aspect of this story is that Rene and Michael are still very
much alike. They both believe in bringing about change through personal
commitment and action; they are both idealistic and self-aggrandizing;
and they are both rather absolute (black-and-white) in their thinking.
The difference is that Michael is racked with regrets, doubts, and a
hunger for human contact, while Rene is quite a happy person. And that
is what makes Rene a madman and Michael (more or less) sane.
Well, sort of sane.
~Mal>>
AZ quotes a very wise woman here: "Beautifully put, and very
persuasive. I think that is absolutely right." :-)))
AZ
Malsperanza
> <<...And yet we see absolute anguish in his body language when he bends
> to close Rene's eyes, in that classic mourning gesture. Is it only
> nostalgia for the lost Rene that he feels?>>
>
> The lost Rene ~and~ young Michel. There but for the grace of Section...
Indeed. How very poignant. Has anyone commented on the title of this
episode? It has a nice multiple, layered meaning, I think--very LFN.
First, of course, is the "half-life" anyone leads who takes part in
clandestine activities--whether terrorism or counterterrorism. (In the
fictional realm. In RL they tend to be unnervingly normal people with
unnervingly normal lives.)
Second is the "half-life" of radioactive material: dangerous,
poisonous, volatile stuff that remains half-active and lethal for
thousands of years, long after its original purpose has been met or
abandoned or even forgotten.
And third is the "half of life gone" (to use the words of the poet
William Morris): The dividing line between youth and full adulthood,
between the past and the present. Michael at the crossroads.
Me:
> <<'My' Michael is more tempted by Rene than yours, AZ. He is still
> attracted to Rene's promise of rebellion, freedom, direct action that
> could really make a difference. And the idea of taking personal
> responsibility for fixing the ills of the world. It's why he always
> liked Section, but Section is turning out to have a whole lot of other
> baggage. Rene offers moral clarity. To a naturally black-and-white
> thinker like Michael, there is (I suspect) something appealing about
> shedding all of Section's endless shades of gray.
> Because Rene's vision of the world is romantic, and Michael, for all his
> cynicism and coldheartedness, is a romantic, a true believer in causes.
> He hasn't changed at all since the old days, in that respect. >>
AZ:
> Hmm. Tempted, perhaps; or just thoughtful? Michael is already looking
> at Section slightly more askance than prior to Nikita's arrival; Rene's
> resurrection is adding clarity to that assessment. But, this is still
> very early in S2, Section's pull remains strong. Using a Michael
> gesture for analogy: Rene's allure causes Michael to do one of his long
> range, momentarily unfocused stares. The moment passes quickly, and
> Michael is again in the present and focused on (Section's) end game.
I think this is one of those judgment calls that has more to do with
the viewer's tastes than with any objective determinant. I don't think
I can say, really. Perhaps what I really mean is that *I* find Rene's
words attractive: Give your life purpose and your death meaning.
~Mal
CAPTANNE
>Date: 8/18/2004 12:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <6a41a349.04081...@posting.google.com>
I think there is even a fourth meaning in "Half Life".....it's one more little
nail in the MMWK coffin...Michael is reminded how much he has shut himself down
as a human being. He's really leading only half a life.....Not because he's in
clandestine affairs....but because it's how he's managed to not only survive
but excel in Section one.
I love "Half Life" but I think it's one of the saddest things I've ever seen.
Hey, AZ? It's not so easy to surf on this laptop...please, could you tell me
who wrote it?
;-)
Anne
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
tell me who wrote it?
;-)
Anne >>
207. Half Life
Written by: Maurice Hurley
Directed by: Rene Bonniere
Guest Cast: Denis Forest, Martine Rochon, Genevieve Langlois, Tannis
Burnett
AZ
CAPTANNE
>Date: 8/18/2004 4:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <27380-412...@storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net>
Thank you kindly!
I lurve Maurice Hurley......
Anne