ANGEL: "Epiphany"
David Hines
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then
I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the
terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve
them? So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and
unfairness of the universe."
-- Marcus Cole, in BABYLON 5's
"A Late Delivery from Avalon"
(written by J. Michael Straczynski)
"If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters,
then all that matters is what we do. . . . Because, if there isn't any
bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing
in the world."
-- Angel, in "Epiphany"
(written by Tim Minear)
ANGEL
"Epiphany", by Tim Minear
review by David Hines
rating: ***1/2
Y'know, if only Lindsey weren't evil, I think he and Xander could *really*
get along.
("Oooooooklahoma... where the sledgehammers whistle down the plain...")
The second part of ANGEL's first all-Minear two-parter takes a lighter
tone than the first. After the heavy intensity of "Reprise" and the
"Angel goes dark" storyline, "Epiphany" is surprisingly relaxed,
especially when it comes to the title character. Mutant Enemy two-parters
tend to save the heaviest stuff for part two, so, while "Epiphany" isn't
as *good* an episode as its predecessor, it's still very much worth
watching, and much more fun than I had expected.
Which isn't to say that it doesn't have serious content; it does. David
Boreanaz is at his funniest when Angel is trying to do the serious
business of making up to Wesley et al., and failing miserably to do a good
job of it. There might have been the risk that the awkwardness between
Angel and the others could get annoying and make the characters'
reconciliation (of sorts) harder to swallow at the end; but the script
takes the interesting tack of playing the awkwardness honestly, but
humorously. Angel has dished out a lot of crap to his friends, and now
he's got to eat some... and he eats some all episode, with his attempts to
prove his worth to them making him look like a schmuck more often than
not. It's cute, it's fun, it's always good to take Angel down a peg...
and in the end, when Angel rejoins the others, not as their boss but as
their *employee,* it's touching and appropriate, and a major step for the
character and the series. And along the way to that conclusion, we get a
taste of what it may mean to have Angel in more of a supporting capacity
in the firm. If this holds up, then ANGEL, the series, may be on its way
to becoming more of an ensemble show than it has been... which I think is
good; it means more substantive stuff for the other regulars, more
Cordelia scenes, and maybe an extra couple hours sleep a week for David
Boreanaz, which can only be good for the man's health.
By their contrast with the general sense of fun (which begins with Angel's
realization that he did *not* lose his soul in boinking Darla, and her
reaction: "But we --" "We did." "And you --" "Yeah." "And I --"
"Three times..."), the *really* serious moments are even more jarring.
I've found the bizarre relationship between Lindsey and Darla interesting
for a while, because there are some really strange personal dynamics there
that have a real bearing on the identities of the characters. I go back
and forth on whether Lindsey's obsessed, in a deluded kind of love, or
just a hellaciously misguided knight-errant (emphasis on the *errant*).
As for Darla, there must be *some* reason she hasn't snapped him in half,
especially after this episode, but I'm damned if I know just what it is, I
think she actually may kind of like him, in a way. Like a pet. Or a rare
bottle of wine she's keeping on the shelf until a very special occasion.
For myself, though, while I've enjoyed Lindsey's villainy on occasion,
I've never really *dug* the guy.
"Epiphany" changed that. The episode puts Lindsey pretty firmly in the in
love/obsessed camp. When he figures out that Darla and Angel got it on,
he angrily demands the gruesome details from her -- and then he stews for
a bit, then puts on his shit-kickers and goes out to get 'em from *Angel,*
for good measure, so he can hit the person he *really* wants. To hit,
that is.
I've always thought Christian Kane was good as Lindsey, but he'd never
scared me before. The scene in which he demands the story from Darla
creeped the living hell out of me. Kane gives *convincing*
obsession/jealous rage, and that scene alone would be enough for me to
vote him the star supporting performance trophy that Alexis Denisov took
for part one... but Cowboy Lindsey sealed it, and won my heart. In a
delightfully scripted and *perfectly* shot bit of ultraviolence, Lindsey
leaves his big-city lawyer duds on the couch, slips back into his
small-town uniform of shit-kickers and wife-beater, and goes out to kick
some Angel ass.
You have to have some sneaking regard for a villain whose attitude, when
it comes to facing a physically-superior hero, is "Fair fight? Screw
that, hit 'im with a truck."
I really do think that Lindsey's the evil older brother Xander never had.
Maybe it's the Xanderista in me, but I have to admit that I *cheered* when
Lindsey ran Angel down and then threw the truck in reverse to back over
him again. (And after Lindsey limped home after Angel came back to kick
his ass and steal his truck only to find Darla gone, I bet you he laid
down and listened to country music. The music of pain.)
There are two scenes, though, that really seal the episode's status as
quality work for me. The first is the scene with Kate, whom Angel *does*
manage to save from suicide. I've been a Kate fan for a long time now,
and I like the quiet scene near the end in which she and Angel bond -- not
only because I very much dig the idea of a real Kate/Angel friendship, but
because Minear's articulation of Angel's new perspective is excellent and
*right.* It's *exactly* where Angel, and ANGEL, should be going... and the
issues of morality are the same things I've kicked around a bit, online
and in the privacy of my own head, and it's nice to see that the writers'
thoughts have led them in some similar directions. I'm very curious to
see what *new* questions they come up with, now...
The second comes early in the episode. It's also funnier. In the scene
between Angel and the Host in the closed Caritas, Angel gets a
reassessment of his behavior and its implications; he realizes what he's
done, but the host's perspective helps him realize just *how* he was
wrong, and in what directions he needs to go. Some of the interpretation
the host gives (most notably, that Angel didn't kill the lawyers, as they
were fated to die before he defied the Powers and intervened) doesn't
square with my personal interpretation, which you may recall put an
emphasis on Angel being responsible only *because* he defied the
prophets... but that's okay. Minear's interpretation isn't the one I'd go
with, but it's certainly an acceptable one that fits squarely with the
text. It lets Angel off the hook with the Powers a little too easily for
my taste, but I can live with it.
Because along with that, Minear slips in the single most important
observation in the entire episode, and something that ANGEL's progenitor
series would do very well to heed:
HOST
It's called a moment of clarity, my
lamb. And you've just had one. Sort
of appalling, ain't it? To see just
exactly where you've gotten yourself.
ANGEL
I don't know how to get back.
HOST
Well, that's the thing -- you don't.
You go on to the new place. Wherever
that is.
*Exactly* right.
Dramatic television characters are like chess pieces. If you want to
continuously develop one's position, you have to keep moving him to new
places. If you just shuffle him back and forth between the same two
squares, he's not actually going anywhere... and you're wasting turn after
turn.
Minear and the other ANGEL writers aren't wasting their turns.
These guys know what they're doing. ANGEL is currently beating its
progenitor series; right now, given the sad state of BUFFY, that's not
hard. But the host's observation gives me a new kind of confidence in the
rest of the season, and a new hope for the future of the series.
ANGEL has shown it can beat BUFFY.
Now let's see if it can *surpass* it.
--
David Hines
my bet for Lindsey's depression music: Faron Young, "Hello, Walls"
akmo...@icok.net
<snip excellent review that I enjoyed immensely>
>my bet for Lindsey's depression music: Faron Young, "Hello, Walls"
How about "Whiskey River"?
Whiskey river take my mind
Don't let her memory torture me
Whiskey River don't run dry
You're all I've got to take care of me
I am drowning in a whiskey river
Bathing my memoried mind in the wetness of a soul
Feeling the amber current flowing through my mind
And warm an empty heart she left so cold
Amy
"Excuse me, sir, but can you please direct me to
the location of where I may locate some eggs - for
I would like to purchase them - so that they can
travel home with me and I can eat them today...
and maybe tomorrow." - Mojo Jojo
BOOPSIE51
Epiphany--Tim Minear simply gets better and better. Wouldn't it be wonderful to
see what Tim could do with an episode of Buffy?? That's been my ongoing
fantasy--Tim Minear writing at least one episode of the Buffy series this
year!! Guess I'll have to keep on dreaming!! Most sincerely, Angela
mikekan
(David Hines) wrote:
> You have to have some sneaking regard for a villain whose attitude, when
> it comes to facing a physically-superior hero, is "Fair fight? Screw
> that, hit 'im with a truck."
It was a fair fight and Lindsey lost.
His mistake was in not parking the truck on top of Angel.
::: mike :::
Christopher Rickey
"David Hines" <hra...@mib.org> wrote in message
news:8KGn6.101475$GV2.22...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
> -- Angel, in "Epiphany"
> (written by Tim Minear)
>
>
> ANGEL
> "Epiphany", by Tim Minear
>
> review by David Hines
> rating: ***1/2
>
>
> Y'know, if only Lindsey weren't evil, I think he and Xander could *really*
> get along.
Are you sure you didn't like it just because Angel got the snot beat out of
him?
> The second part of ANGEL's first all-Minear two-parter takes a lighter
> tone than the first. After the heavy intensity of "Reprise" and the
> "Angel goes dark" storyline, "Epiphany" is surprisingly relaxed,
> especially when it comes to the title character.
Relaxed?!!!! I don't want you ever to complain again that Buffy is at fault
for waving a hand dismissing consequences. In some respects, this episode
was an extended version of the group hug in the elevator shaft you found
repugnant.
Actually, that would sum up my feelings on "Epiphany": a good story on its
own, but too "relaxed" to measure up to the dramatic arc it was supposed to
climax.
Also, what do you think of the simultaneous embrace and repulse of your
thesis that it's all about Darla and that Buffy was a Darla substitute? They
managed to do both in the opening scene.
Micky DuPree
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Christopher Rickey" <cri...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
: Also, what do you think of the simultaneous embrace and repulse of
: your thesis that it's all about Darla and that Buffy was a Darla
: substitute? They managed to do both in the opening scene.
It's been pretty clear since "Dear Boy" that all along Darla has been a
Buffy substitute even though it would be two centuries before Angel met
what he really wanted.
-Micky
Shawn Hill
: Also, what do you think of the simultaneous embrace and repulse of your
: thesis that it's all about Darla and that Buffy was a Darla substitute? They
: managed to do both in the opening scene.
Darla can't subsitute for Buffy, because she's just a whore. According to
this episode, anyway.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: "You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then
: I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the
: terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve
: them? So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and
: unfairness of the universe."
: -- Marcus Cole, in BABYLON 5's
: "A Late Delivery from Avalon"
: (written by J. Michael Straczynski)
I was thinking about Marcus the other day. I miss him. I'm sorry that he
and Susan never got together. What a great character, and used so well in
Bab5's best season.
: "If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters,
: then all that matters is what we do. . . . Because, if there isn't any
: bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing
: in the world."
: -- Angel, in "Epiphany"
: (written by Tim Minear)
You know, Boreanaz really hit that one home this week. Some weeks (the
dreadful coed time stopping machine comes to mind), he's way dead and dry.
But this week, getting back in touch with both his power and his
powerlessness as Angel, he did a great job.
: and in the end, when Angel rejoins the others, not as their boss but as
: their *employee,* it's touching and appropriate, and a major step for the
: character and the series. And along the way to that conclusion, we get a
Loved the way he caught Cordy during her vision so effortlessly. Still
bummed that she's Vision Girl, though. Couldn't Doyle have given that big
smackeroo to Wesley instead? :)
: taste of what it may mean to have Angel in more of a supporting capacity
: in the firm. If this holds up, then ANGEL, the series, may be on its way
: to becoming more of an ensemble show than it has been... which I think is
: good; it means more substantive stuff for the other regulars, more
: Cordelia scenes, and maybe an extra couple hours sleep a week for David
: Boreanaz, which can only be good for the man's health.
I hear ya. Yay ensemble!
: By their contrast with the general sense of fun (which begins with Angel's
: realization that he did *not* lose his soul in boinking Darla, and her
: reaction: "But we --" "We did." "And you --" "Yeah." "And I --"
: "Three times..."), the *really* serious moments are even more jarring.
Though the heartless re-enactments of Buffy's less joyous post-boink
experience with Angel were rather manipulative.
: a bit, then puts on his shit-kickers and goes out to get 'em from *Angel,*
: for good measure, so he can hit the person he *really* wants. To hit,
: that is.
Yeah. *That's* what he wants. As if he wouldn't come running if Angel
decided to pet the puppy rather than kicking it. Maybe he's a vamp
fetishist like Riley?
: You have to have some sneaking regard for a villain whose attitude, when
: it comes to facing a physically-superior hero, is "Fair fight? Screw
: that, hit 'im with a truck."
He's a crafty little lawyer, huh?
: I really do think that Lindsey's the evil older brother Xander never had.
Does he seem older? He's more like the evil kid brother, who could accept
mentoring from Angel but won't.
: Maybe it's the Xanderista in me, but I have to admit that I *cheered* when
: Lindsey ran Angel down and then threw the truck in reverse to back over
: him again. (And after Lindsey limped home after Angel came back to kick
: his ass and steal his truck only to find Darla gone, I bet you he laid
: down and listened to country music. The music of pain.)
A little Hank and Patsy always helps. Not to mention Loretta and Dolly.
: and I like the quiet scene near the end in which she and Angel bond -- not
: only because I very much dig the idea of a real Kate/Angel friendship, but
: because Minear's articulation of Angel's new perspective is excellent and
: *right.* It's *exactly* where Angel, and ANGEL, should be going... and the
Kate really worked for me here, too. I hope they have another plan for her
now that the cop job is out. Hmmm, ex-cops usually go private detective,
don't they?
: Minear and the other ANGEL writers aren't wasting their turns.
This week, at least. And, you could as easily view this episode and say
Angel is exactly where he started. The darkness was too dark, he's back in
the light again. The chess piece is on the same old white square. Which is
how I tend to view it, actually, only I don't mind, because I liked him
better with the A-Team than without.
: These guys know what they're doing. ANGEL is currently beating its
: progenitor series; right now, given the sad state of BUFFY, that's not
: hard. But the host's observation gives me a new kind of confidence in the
: rest of the season, and a new hope for the future of the series.
: ANGEL has shown it can beat BUFFY.
: Now let's see if it can *surpass* it.
Beat and surpass mean two different things? Not even going to go into this
part, because we were doing so well there for the rest of the review. :)
Shawn
thomas jorgensen
Shawn Hill wrote:
Whore, maybe. *Just*???
Linda
most I've ever laughed. Good going, keep it up :-) I'm enjoying this series
more than I've ever enjoyed any other TV series. Thank God I accidentally
turned the channel to BtVS sometime during S3 and wanted to find out more
about Angel.
--
Best Regards,
Linda
Lindsey - "How did you think this would end?" - The Trial
David Hines
>
>>my bet for Lindsey's depression music: Faron Young, "Hello, Walls"
In article <3a9fa04b...@news.exotrope.net>, <akmo...@icok.net> wrote:
>
>How about "Whiskey River"?
>
>Whiskey river take my mind
>Don't let her memory torture me
>Whiskey River don't run dry
>You're all I've got to take care of me
Maybe, but:
Hello, walls.../ how'd things go for you today? / Don't you miss her /
Since she up and walked away? / And I'll bet you dread to spend /
Another lonely night with me/ Lonely walls/ I'll keep you company.
(Thought briefly about "I Still Miss Someone," but Darla never held him
when "all that love was there.")
One thing for sure: Lindsey's *definitely* a real-country type. None of
this modern 80s-pop-with-twang crap for that boy. If he owns a Faith
Hill CD, he uses it as a coaster.
--
David Hines
hmmmm... could Lindsey be an actual Okie from Muskogee?
Marie Braden
>On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 06:04:52 GMT, hra...@mib.org (David Hines) wrote:
>>
>>>my bet for Lindsey's depression music: Faron Young, "Hello, Walls"
....He's OBVIOUSLY been listening to David Allen Coe. Possibly Human
Emotions...the album with a Happy Side and a Sui-side.
Or maybe the Louvin Brothers. Something good and dark and almost
gothic in feel.
But yeah, none of this "new country" for him. You know he's all about
Gentleman Jim and Kitty Wells and stuff like that
(BTW, although the lyrics don't fit, for some reason, the title of a
particular KW song strikes me funny in this context: "Will Your Lawyer
Talk to God?")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
sscrumb
>
>David, I always enjoy your reviews. Glad your doing them again.
thew...@unagi.cybernothing.org
Jaime was there to save you last time.
<evil grin> You won't be so lucky next time...
David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote:
> Y'know, if only Lindsey weren't evil, I think he and Xander could *really*
> get along.
Agreed.
> ("Oooooooklahoma... where the sledgehammers whistle down the plain...")
> The second part of ANGEL's first all-Minear two-parter takes a lighter
> tone than the first. After the heavy intensity of "Reprise" and the
> "Angel goes dark" storyline, "Epiphany" is surprisingly relaxed,
> especially when it comes to the title character.
As well as the supporting cast, IMO.
> Mutant Enemy two-parters
> tend to save the heaviest stuff for part two, so, while "Epiphany" isn't
> as *good* an episode as its predecessor, it's still very much worth
> watching, and much more fun than I had expected.
After "The Body" we all needed it.
> Which isn't to say that it doesn't have serious content; it does. David
> Boreanaz is at his funniest when Angel is trying to do the serious
> business of making up to Wesley et al., and failing miserably to do a good
> job of it.
To me the acting seemed forced. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the ep,
but, overall, I was highly unimpressed.
> There might have been the risk that the awkwardness between
> Angel and the others could get annoying and make the characters'
> reconciliation (of sorts) harder to swallow at the end;
<blink> "harder"? Try impossible. See this is why I'll have to draw
that mustache, David. I agreed (on an intellectual level) with your
review of The Body, because of that I fully expected you to tear
"Epiphany" to shreds.
I'll grant you there was a story and much needed comic relief. But
believable? Not a chance in hell.
Over the course of this season Angel has:
1. Left his friends high and dry in terms of gainful employment
2. Ignored them completely while they struggle to find themselves (all
the while hoping Angel will come back and help them out)
3. Stolen from them
4. Threatened them.
Doing any one of these would have explained them accepting him back with
reservations. Doing *all* of these things and them accepting him back
leads me to believe that either Wes, Cordy, and Gunn are all secretly in
some form of 12 step program and must accept an amends sincerely made, or,
much more likely, the writing was sloppy and people didn't want to devote
at least another episode in order to make it genuinely convincing.
"I had an epiphany" is a lame excuse even if it's true, and a couple of
rescues *shouldn't* cut it with the rest of the gang. The only response
that was convincing was Cordy's "No, I'm not ok, you hurt my feelings".
And Kate. What possible reason does she have to trust Angel, let alone
buddy up to him? Because of his behavior, she lost the thing that meant
the most to her, not to mention the fact that she blamed him for her
father's death. Given what's happened to her since she met him, he would
fit much more logically into the "shun at all costs" category.
And back at the beginning, what was that whole thing with Angel acting as
if he lost his soul? Was he in pain, or was it a cheap promotional
ploy? If the former, why didn't we get an explanation?
You wrote that "The Body" was nothing more than emotional manipulation,
and I agree. (I happened to like said manipulation, but that's beside the
point <g>)
I'm a lot more offended by the first few moments of "Epiphany's" opening
scene than I was by the entirety of "The Body". And I'm surprised that
you weren't.
Yes, there were funny moments, yes there were touching moments, yes,
the shit-kicking scene between Angel and Lindsey was lots of fun, but
as a resolution to an arc, it leaves monumentally huge amounts to be
desired.
--
TheWitch (looking for her indelible marker)
"These experiences have confirmed that ours is a strong and vibrant
newsgroup, full of people whose mouths are bigger than even our most
bountiful harvest."
- Blackhawk, President Erect of alt.fan.tom-servo
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill wrote:
: Whore, maybe. *Just*???
Well, you'll not catch me drooling over her like some people are wont to do.
She's not my type, and totally third-rate compared to Buffy herself.
Shawn
Andy Walton
<sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
::(And after Lindsey limped home after Angel came back to kick
:: his ass and steal his truck only to find Darla gone, I bet you he laid
:: down and listened to country music. The music of pain.)
:
:A little Hank and Patsy always helps. Not to mention Loretta and Dolly.
Hank and Patsy, mix in a little Billie Holliday and Sarah Vaughan, and a
bottle of brown liquor. I wouldn't say it "helps" in the short term, but
wallowing in misery is part of the process.
--
"Web pages are like babies -- creation involves a level of enthusiasm
that does not necessarily carry over into maintenance." --Joe Chew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * att...@mindspring.com * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Linda
<thew...@unagi.cybernothing.org> wrote in message
news:983641158.840234@news...
> Yes, there were funny moments, yes there were touching moments, yes,
> the shit-kicking scene between Angel and Lindsey was lots of fun, but
> as a resolution to an arc, it leaves monumentally huge amounts to be
> desired.
Who said this was the resolution to the arc? We still have 6 episodes to go
in this season. I doubt that it's going to be resolved that fast. At least I
hope not. Angel has to face retribution for his Attitude. I just hope the
writers are up to it.
David Hines
Christopher Rickey <cri...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[Cowboy Lindsey]
>Are you sure you didn't like it just because Angel got the snot beat out of
>him?
No, I was enjoying it before that. But there's no question that was a
highlight of the episode. (It actually got me chanting, "Go, Lindsey,
go!" Like I said, I think it's my latent Xanderista...)
>Relaxed?!!!! I don't want you ever to complain again that Buffy is at fault
>for waving a hand dismissing consequences. In some respects, this episode
>was an extended version of the group hug in the elevator shaft you found
>repugnant.
Disagreed, because:
1) The rift on ANGEL actually was effectively dramatized (whereas on
BUFFY, the reconciliation was as much about explicitly stating the
existence of a problem as it was about solving it);
2) The solution involves an actual change in character interaction, unlike
the elevator shaft scene, which reinstates the status quo. Angel's
not giving orders again; he's taking them, now. Everything isn't
perfectly okay between him and the others, as evidenced by Wesley's
statement that they're not ready. There's still work to do, and I'm
hoping we'll get to see more of it done in future episodes, but this
is a good intermediate step.
>Also, what do you think of the simultaneous embrace and repulse of your
>thesis that it's all about Darla and that Buffy was a Darla substitute? They
>managed to do both in the opening scene.
Not sure yet. With respect to Darla, Angel's changed considerably as a
person; remember, a century ago he crossed the earth and tried to actually
practice evil to win her back. His attitude and his feelings for her have
both changed.
I'm actually curious to know how his feelings about Buffy have
changed. Of course, to find that out, we'd have to see them interact
again, and dammit, I don't want another BUFFY cross-over. *grin*
--
David Hines
David Hines
>>
>> Now let's see if it can *surpass* it.
>
>Beat and surpass mean two different things? Not even going to go into this
>part, because we were doing so well there for the rest of the review. :)
Yeah. "Beating" in terms of episode-by-episode, and season-by-season. To
surpass the heights BUFFY has reached as a series is something I think
ANGEL still has to do.
--
David Hines
David Hines
>I should have drawn a mustache on you when I had the chance. Be glad that
>Jaime was there to save you last time.
Ooh, a mustache'd be good. I need something to twirl villainously.
>"I had an epiphany" is a lame excuse even if it's true, and a couple of
>rescues *shouldn't* cut it with the rest of the gang. The only response
>that was convincing was Cordy's "No, I'm not ok, you hurt my feelings".
See my response to Chris.
>And Kate. What possible reason does she have to trust Angel, let alone
>buddy up to him?
Well, he *did* kinda save her life, apparently with some little divine
intervention. To somebody with even a little faith, that last is bound to
make a little bit of an impression. I don't think it'd be easy for Angel
and Kate to be good buddies, and wouldn't expect it immediately -- Angel's
made things hard for Kate, and she went dang near psycho on him a couple
of times. But they do share battles, and common problems... and both of
them, frankly, *need* a friend at this point. (Miles more than either
needs a romantic relationship, which is why I think an Angel/Kate romance
should be avoided like the plague.)
--
David Hines
Christopher Rickey
> In article <6OZn6.265$w4....@newsfeed.uchicago.edu>,
> Christopher Rickey <cri...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >Relaxed?!!!! I don't want you ever to complain again that Buffy is at
fault
> >for waving a hand dismissing consequences. In some respects, this episode
> >was an extended version of the group hug in the elevator shaft you found
> >repugnant.
>
> Disagreed, because:
>
> 1) The rift on ANGEL actually was effectively dramatized (whereas on
> BUFFY, the reconciliation was as much about explicitly stating the
> existence of a problem as it was about solving it);
>
> 2) The solution involves an actual change in character interaction, unlike
> the elevator shaft scene, which reinstates the status quo. Angel's
> not giving orders again; he's taking them, now. Everything isn't
> perfectly okay between him and the others, as evidenced by Wesley's
> statement that they're not ready. There's still work to do, and I'm
> hoping we'll get to see more of it done in future episodes, but this
> is a good intermediate step.
I meant more than just the reconciliation with the A-team. I meant most of
all his finding peace with himself and his newfound philosophy. I meant the
neat tidying up of the detritus of the arc. (Yeah, sure, there are five
(six?) more episodes to go, but unless they are really yanking our chains,
Angel's development just plateaued.) Helpless, which I thought had a
beautifully realized and emotionally consistent ending, bothered you to no
end, but here, you praise a literal deus ex machina as the resolution to the
arc.
Corwin2
> If you just shuffle him back and forth between the same two
>squares, he's not actually going anywhere... and you're wasting turn after
>turn.
Exactly. Giant Reset Button.
>Minear and the other ANGEL writers aren't wasting their turns.
Wrong. Unless you are talking about and only about Lindsey.
(J)
Shawn Hill
: Who said this was the resolution to the arc? We still have 6 episodes to go
: in this season. I doubt that it's going to be resolved that fast. At least I
: hope not. Angel has to face retribution for his Attitude. I just hope the
: writers are up to it.
he's back in the fold, and everyone's making nicey nice already. It's unclear to
me whether "I'll work for you" means anything at all, or is just a cosmetic nod
to change.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: In article <97q864$t3g$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
Are they in a contest each week? I don't think so. They're too very different
flavors a priori, the question is not how well they stack up against each other
but how well they achieve their individual, in-show aims. Buffy mis-steps from
time to time in plot, but always stays true to character. Angel didn't even know
what those aims were in season one, and has only touched on what they may be this
season.
Which is why I liked this episode and certain aother parts of the
Darla/Dru/Lyndsey arc, because Angel seems to know what matters a little better
than before. I loved when he caught Cordy mid-swoon. And I really liked most of
AYNOHYEB, where his failure was so clear.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Over the course of this season Angel has:
: 1. Left his friends high and dry in terms of gainful employment
: 2. Ignored them completely while they struggle to find themselves (all
: the while hoping Angel will come back and help them out)
: 3. Stolen from them
: 4. Threatened them.
: Doing any one of these would have explained them accepting him back with
: reservations. Doing *all* of these things and them accepting him back
: leads me to believe that either Wes, Cordy, and Gunn are all secretly in
: some form of 12 step program and must accept an amends sincerely made, or,
: much more likely, the writing was sloppy and people didn't want to devote
: at least another episode in order to make it genuinely convincing.
Omigod. Angel's the alcoholic, and the investigators are all his co-dependents.
It's starting to make sense now. They've token over from Buffy after Angel
forcefully weaned her away.
: father's death. Given what's happened to her since she met him, he would
: fit much more logically into the "shun at all costs" category.
Well, he saved her life. Was she calling him to vent, or as a cry for help? Her
feelings for him are not just disgust, apparently. She also trusted him
immediately when he pretended to bite her in The Shroud. Uh oh. Could she be the
one to bring Angelus back, to succeed where Darla failed?
: And back at the beginning, what was that whole thing with Angel acting as
: if he lost his soul? Was he in pain, or was it a cheap promotional
: ploy? If the former, why didn't we get an explanation?
It was a cheap gimmick. Or maybe his tummy hurt.
: You wrote that "The Body" was nothing more than emotional manipulation,
: and I agree. (I happened to like said manipulation, but that's beside the
: point <g>)
: I'm a lot more offended by the first few moments of "Epiphany's" opening
: scene than I was by the entirety of "The Body". And I'm surprised that
: you weren't.
: Yes, there were funny moments, yes there were touching moments, yes,
: the shit-kicking scene between Angel and Lindsey was lots of fun, but
: as a resolution to an arc, it leaves monumentally huge amounts to be
: desired.
Angel apparently earns a certain latitude that Buffy does not. I always get in
trouble when I speculate as to why, so I won't.
Shawn
Linda
Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:980n5p$n2q$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
I didn't see everyone making nicey nice. I did see Cordy getting a vision
just as Angel asks if he can work for them. Kind of like TPTB were telling
them to give Angel a chance and let him get back to work. Angel caught
Cordy, kept her from falling. This is a very slight (underline slight)
beginning on the concept of trust. Which he stated that he needed to earn
from them. I'll be severely disappointed if all is forgiven that fast.
Ed Rutherford
news:DPZo6.2844$AG3.6...@news.uswest.net...
I could "buy it" if both Wes & Cordy warmed up to the hopefully reformed
Angel fairly quickly. I think that both of them wanted him back to being
"nice" so badly they could hardly stand it. Now Gunn strikes me as the kind
of guy that won't let Angel get off too easy. They weren't that close to
start with and Gunn doesn't seem like he's that big into forgiveness.
Cindy
Ed Rutherford <eruth...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I could "buy it" if both Wes & Cordy warmed up to the hopefully reformed
>Angel fairly quickly. I think that both of them wanted him back to being
>"nice" so badly they could hardly stand it. Now Gunn strikes me as the kind
>of guy that won't let Angel get off too easy. They weren't that close to
>start with and Gunn doesn't seem like he's that big into forgiveness.
Well, considering how they mangled his character after Shroud of
Rahman, I'm not optimistic. But I hop you're right. A bout Gunn, at
least. I still want to see Angel really working on this trust and
humility thing. He can backslide, but Cordy and Wesley (and Gunn)
should give him hell if he does.
--Cindy
RA ritchie
Group: alt.tv.angel Date: Sat, Mar 3, 2001, 5:43pm (EST+5) From:
thew...@unagi.cybernothing.org
that Jaime was there to save you last time.
<evil grin> You won't be so lucky next time...
David Hines <hra...@mib.org> wrote:
Y'know, if only Lindsey weren't evil, I think he and Xander could
*really* get along.
Agreed.
("Oooooooklahoma... where the sledgehammers whistle down the plain...")
The second part of ANGEL's first all-Minear two-parter takes a lighter
tone than the first. After the heavy intensity of "Reprise" and the
"Angel goes dark"
<Angel was never going "dark", not even close. He wasn't grey, or off
white. And the biege comment was just to show how dumb the color wars
actually were>
storyline, "Epiphany" is surprisingly relaxed, especially when it comes
to the title character.
<Not surprising considering his "moment of clarity">
As well as the supporting cast, IMO.
Mutant Enemy two-parters
tend to save the heaviest stuff for part two, so, while "Epiphany" isn't
as *good* an episode as its predecessor, it's still very much worth
watching, and much more fun than I had expected.
After "The Body" we all needed it.
Which isn't to say that it doesn't have serious content; it does. David
Boreanaz is at his funniest when Angel is trying to do the serious
business of making up to Wesley et al., and failing miserably to do a
good job of it.
<There's a whole lot of making up for to be done. It's painfully
apparent he hasn't done that kind of thing much, either before or after
he was turned.>
To me the acting seemed forced. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the ep,
but, overall, I was highly unimpressed.
There might have been the risk that the awkwardness between Angel and
the others could get annoying and make the characters' reconciliation
(of sorts) harder to swallow at the end;
<blink> "harder"? Try impossible.
<Nothing is impossible on TV. And what makes you think the awkwardness
is going to continue?>
See this is why I'll have to draw that mustache, David. I agreed (on an
intellectual level) with your review of The Body, because of that I
fully expected you to tear "Epiphany" to shreds.
I'll grant you there was a story and much needed comic relief. But
believable? Not a chance in hell.
<Not believable because it did not meet your expectations does not make
it unbelievable>
Over the course of this season Angel has:
1. Left his friends high and dry in terms of gainful employment
2. Ignored them completely while they struggle to find themselves (all
the while hoping Angel will come back and help them out)
3. Stolen from them
4. Threatened them.
<The kind of thing that happens when a friend starts down the wrong
road>
Doing any one of these would have explained them accepting him back with
reservations. Doing *all* of these things and them accepting him back
leads me to believe that either Wes, Cordy, and Gunn are all secretly in
some form of 12 step program and must accept an amends sincerely made,
or, much more likely, the writing was sloppy and people didn't want to
devote at least another episode in order to make it genuinely
convincing.
<Them accepting him back, with reservations, leads me to believe that
they are truely his friends and that there is hope for him yet.>
"I had an epiphany" is a lame excuse even if it's true, and a couple of
rescues *shouldn't* cut it with the rest of the gang. The only response
that was convincing was Cordy's "No, I'm not ok, you hurt my feelings".
<Considering what they do for a living, "I had an epiphany", if it's
true is the best excuse, because they of all people (especially Wes),
would know what a true epiphany means. Do you?>
And Kate. What possible reason does she have to trust Angel, let alone
buddy up to him? Because of his behavior, she lost the thing that meant
the most to her, not to mention the fact that she blamed him for her
father's death. Given what's happened to her since she met him, he would
fit much more logically into the "shun at all costs" category.
<She knows what lives in the underworld of L.A.. Try telling that to
your captain or chief. She knows deep down he didn't kill her father. As
for his behavior, what about the behavior of W&H? She had alot of denial
going on. But who did she make her final phone call to?
And back at the beginning, what was that whole thing with Angel acting
as if he lost his soul? Was he in pain, or was it a cheap promotional
ploy? If the former, why didn't we get an explanation?
<You got the explaination all through the ep. "I HAD AN EPIPHANY". Do
you think it's easy to face the fact that the path you chose was not
just the wrong one, but could have had far reaching consequences?>
You wrote that "The Body" was nothing more than emotional manipulation,
and I agree. (I happened to like said manipulation, but that's beside
the point <g>)
I'm a lot more offended by the first few moments of "Epiphany's" opening
scene than I was by the entirety of "The Body".
<Obviously because you didn't understand the first few moments. The
first few moments were the reason the ep was called "Epiphany">
And I'm surprised that you weren't.
Yes, there were funny moments, yes there were touching moments, yes, the
shit-kicking scene between Angel and Lindsey was lots of fun, but as a
resolution to an arc, it leaves monumentally huge amounts to be desired.
<Except for Angel's "moment of clarity", and his tenuous reunion with
Cordy, Wes, and Gunn, nothing was resolved. And now Lindsey is even
slightly more miffed with him. And there is a Darla loose somewhere.
Also the partnership of W&H has not dissolved. There is much more to
come.>
"Patience is a virgin" - Archie Bunker
Maxie Maxwell
>>3. Stolen from them>>
I can't say I agree. It was always my impression that Wesley & Co. had taken
the book from AI's original headquarters to begin with; clearly he expected to
find it in the hotel. Recovering your own property is not stealing.
"In the middle of the journey of my life,
I found myself in a dark wood
Where the straight way was lost.
O, it is hard to describe what I saw
In that desolate forest,
Which even now in recall renews my fear."
Dante Alighieri
Sarah Trombley
Maxie Maxwell <skald...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
>The witch wrote:
>
>>>3. Stolen from them>>
>
>I can't say I agree. It was always my impression that Wesley & Co. had taken
>the book from AI's original headquarters to begin with; clearly he expected to
>find it in the hotel. Recovering your own property is not stealing.
Wesley said he stole it, and Angel didn't disagree. We know Wesley has books
of his own.
--Sarah T.
H.G.Hettinger
Trombley) wrote:
Yeah, Angel didn't disagree, but do you seriously think that he would
have protested against anything Wesley chose to accuse him of at that
moment, whether true or not, given that he felt like a heel for the
way he had been treating them and was determined to crawl over hot
coals if he had to in an effort to get them to even talk to him again.
I still think that if it had been Wesley's personal property, not one
of the books that was bought for the agency or out of Angel's personal
library, that Cordy would have used that to keep Angel from just
taking it instead of the lame excuse that she was in the middle of
reading it. ::shrug::
I guess it is possible that Cordy didn't know that it was Wesley's
book. But unitl we get something a bit more definte I would say that
whether or not Angel stole one of Wesley's books or just retrieved one
of his own could go either way, depending on how bad the writers want
Angel to look for taking it the way he did.
hgh
Sarah Trombley
H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 9 Mar 2001 17:20:48 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>Trombley) wrote:
>
>>In article <20010309104605...@ng-fl1.aol.com>,
>>Maxie Maxwell <skald...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
>>>The witch wrote:
>>>
>>>>>3. Stolen from them>>
>>>
>>>I can't say I agree. It was always my impression that Wesley & Co. had taken
>>>the book from AI's original headquarters to begin with; clearly he expected to
>>>find it in the hotel. Recovering your own property is not stealing.
>>
>>Wesley said he stole it, and Angel didn't disagree. We know Wesley has books
>>of his own.
>
>Yeah, Angel didn't disagree, but do you seriously think that he would
>have protested against anything Wesley chose to accuse him of at that
>moment, whether true or not, given that he felt like a heel for the
>way he had been treating them and was determined to crawl over hot
>coals if he had to in an effort to get them to even talk to him again.
True, but why would Wesley lie?
--Sarah T.
H.G.Hettinger
Trombley) wrote:
>In article <ucgiatcolq2qpt5rp...@4ax.com>,
>H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>On 9 Mar 2001 17:20:48 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>Trombley) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <20010309104605...@ng-fl1.aol.com>,
>>>Maxie Maxwell <skald...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
>>>>The witch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>3. Stolen from them>>
>>>>
>>>>I can't say I agree. It was always my impression that Wesley & Co. had taken
>>>>the book from AI's original headquarters to begin with; clearly he expected to
>>>>find it in the hotel. Recovering your own property is not stealing.
>>>
>>>Wesley said he stole it, and Angel didn't disagree. We know Wesley has books
>>>of his own.
>>
>>Yeah, Angel didn't disagree, but do you seriously think that he would
>>have protested against anything Wesley chose to accuse him of at that
>>moment, whether true or not, given that he felt like a heel for the
>>way he had been treating them and was determined to crawl over hot
>>coals if he had to in an effort to get them to even talk to him again.
>
>True, but why would Wesley lie?
If it was purchased for the Agency Wesley may not have consider it a
lie to say that Angel stole the book from them since they (at least as
far as Wesley seems to be concerned) took over the Agency when Angel
didn't show any more interest in it. So if the book belonged to the
Agency and the Agency now belonged to the A-team, Wesley may have
considered the book to be theirs by extention.
Or he may simply have used the term 'stole' because of the way Angel
took the book without asking and because he wanted to hurt Angel?
As I said, the case of just who that book originally belonged to is
now so muddled that it could go either way. ::shrug::
hgh
Sarah Trombley
H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 9 Mar 2001 21:50:13 GMT, trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>Trombley) wrote:
>
>>In article <ucgiatcolq2qpt5rp...@4ax.com>,
>>H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>On 9 Mar 2001 17:20:48 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <20010309104605...@ng-fl1.aol.com>,
>>>>Maxie Maxwell <skald...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
>>>>>The witch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>Yeah, Angel didn't disagree, but do you seriously think that he would
>>>have protested against anything Wesley chose to accuse him of at that
>>>moment, whether true or not, given that he felt like a heel for the
>>>way he had been treating them and was determined to crawl over hot
>>>coals if he had to in an effort to get them to even talk to him again.
>>
>>True, but why would Wesley lie?
>
>If it was purchased for the Agency Wesley may not have consider it a
>lie to say that Angel stole the book from them since they (at least as
>far as Wesley seems to be concerned) took over the Agency when Angel
>didn't show any more interest in it. So if the book belonged to the
>Agency and the Agency now belonged to the A-team,
But it wouldn't. They took over the name, but the agency's assets would
have belonged to Angel. You'll notice that they each left with a small
box of personal goods in 'Redefinition.'
If it were Cordelia or Gunn who had said 'stolen,' I'd be inclined to
chalk it up to hyperbole, but Wesley is persnickety enough not to use
that word carelessly, and he'd know who owned which book.
--Sarah T.
H.G.Hettinger
Spoilers for "Epiphany"
On 10 Mar 2001 07:35:47 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
Trombley) wrote:
>In article <k2qiatck80rqq88ah...@4ax.com>,
>H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>On 9 Mar 2001 21:50:13 GMT, trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>Trombley) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ucgiatcolq2qpt5rp...@4ax.com>,
>>>H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>On 9 Mar 2001 17:20:48 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>>Yeah, Angel didn't disagree, but do you seriously think that he would
>>>>have protested against anything Wesley chose to accuse him of at that
>>>>moment, whether true or not, given that he felt like a heel for the
>>>>way he had been treating them and was determined to crawl over hot
>>>>coals if he had to in an effort to get them to even talk to him again.
>>>
>>>True, but why would Wesley lie?
>>
>>If it was purchased for the Agency Wesley may not have consider it a
>>lie to say that Angel stole the book from them since they (at least as
>>far as Wesley seems to be concerned) took over the Agency when Angel
>>didn't show any more interest in it. So if the book belonged to the
>>Agency and the Agency now belonged to the A-team,
>
>But it wouldn't. They took over the name, but the agency's assets would
>have belonged to Angel. You'll notice that they each left with a small
>box of personal goods in 'Redefinition.'
They must have come back later and gotten other stuff that they
thought htey needed once they decided to set up their onw Agency.
That bookshelf downstairs was almost empty and Angel said in "Reprise"
that they had taken all the books. Neither Cordy nor Wesley
contradicted that statement. Cordy only told him that he got to keep
the waffle iron as if that made it alright for them to have taken the
books.
>
>If it were Cordelia or Gunn who had said 'stolen,' I'd be inclined to
>chalk it up to hyperbole, but Wesley is persnickety enough not to use
>that word carelessly, and he'd know who owned which book.
He was rather upset and certainly not feeling charitable towards Angel
at the time. But you could be right, it's just that the evidence so
far seems contradictory.
hgh
Andy Walton
trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
:In article <k2qiatck80rqq88ah...@4ax.com>,
:H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
:>If it was purchased for the Agency Wesley may not have consider it a
:>lie to say that Angel stole the book from them since they (at least as
:>far as Wesley seems to be concerned) took over the Agency when Angel
:>didn't show any more interest in it. So if the book belonged to the
:>Agency and the Agency now belonged to the A-team,
:
:But it wouldn't. They took over the name, but the agency's assets would
:have belonged to Angel.
Nothing does, or can, legally belong to Angel. In the eyes of the law, he
does not exist. If Angel Investigations was ever formally incorporated,
the prinsipal officers would be Wesley and Cordelia. Wesley is not a U.S.
national, but he has the advantage of being a living human being, which
Angel lacks. And, lest we forget, Angel is an illegal immigrant.
You'll notice that they each left with a small
:box of personal goods in 'Redefinition.'
It's not worth delving too deeply into property law. Angel, erm, Liam, has
been legally dead for a couple hundred years, and cannot own property
under US law nor under English common law.
Legalisms aside, we don't know if the book he sought was one he brought
into the partnership, or one Wesley brought. I think we can safely exclude
Cordy and Gunn as the most recent owners. If the book was bought on behalf
of "Angel Investigations, Inc.," it's Wesley's and Cordy's.
:If it were Cordelia or Gunn who had said 'stolen,' I'd be inclined to
:chalk it up to hyperbole, but Wesley is persnickety enough not to use
:that word carelessly, and he'd know who owned which book.
Which would make his statement deliberate and pointed, if not legally
accurate. As it turns out, it is both.
--
"I do not believe in using women in
combat, because females are too fierce." -- Margaret Mead
Sarah Trombley
H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>Spoilers for "Epiphany"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 10 Mar 2001 07:35:47 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>Trombley) wrote:
>
>>In article <k2qiatck80rqq88ah...@4ax.com>,
>>H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>On 9 Mar 2001 21:50:13 GMT, trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>
>>>If it was purchased for the Agency Wesley may not have consider it a
>>>lie to say that Angel stole the book from them since they (at least as
>>>far as Wesley seems to be concerned) took over the Agency when Angel
>>>didn't show any more interest in it. So if the book belonged to the
>>>Agency and the Agency now belonged to the A-team,
>>
>>But it wouldn't. They took over the name, but the agency's assets would
>>have belonged to Angel. You'll notice that they each left with a small
>>box of personal goods in 'Redefinition.'
>
>They must have come back later and gotten other stuff that they
>thought htey needed once they decided to set up their onw Agency.
[God, we _are_ in Rerun Hell if we're arguing over this...]
It still wouldn't be theirs. Although it's not clear whether AI ever
actually incorporated, it was certainly bankrolled by Angel. He's the
owner and the boss. They couldn't just help themselves to his stuff.
>That bookshelf downstairs was almost empty and Angel said in "Reprise"
>that they had taken all the books.
Interesting question, actually, the size of Angel's own book collection.
Not too many books visible in his home(s) in "Buffy," but I honestly
can't remember whether there were shots of his books in pre-Wesley S1
Angel. There must have been. (Also, are there bookshelves in Angel's
suite in the Hyperion, as well as downstairs?)
> Neither Cordy nor Wesley
>contradicted that statement. Cordy only told him that he got to keep
>the waffle iron as if that made it alright for them to have taken the
>books.
I wasn't saying that they could only possibly have had the personal effects
in the boxes--I was trying to point out that they could only take their own
belongings (whether they had to come back for some later or not--you're
probably right that they must have). The AI assets would belong to the AI
owner, and that isn't Cordy, Wes, or Gunn.
>He was rather upset and certainly not feeling charitable towards Angel
>at the time. But you could be right, it's just that the evidence so
>far seems contradictory.
I'm not sure where the contradiction is supposed to lie. Angel busts into
AI's new office and high-handedly takes a book that neither Cordy nor Wes
feels he has a right to take. (This during a period when he's quite clearly
presented as riding roughshod over everyone's feelings and using any
rationalization he can get hold of to justify his behavior.) Later on,
Wes tells him that he stole the book. The only contradiction apparent to
me is Angel's statement to the effect that they had taken all the books--
but if the book was actually his and he knew it, why wouldn't he just say
that? The fact that, when challenged, he _doesn't_ actually say, "I bought
that book, it's mine, you have no right to it," seems to actually confirm
that it's not his. It's not like he was in a state of mind where he'd mince
words about it.
--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <98clgj$87g$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah Trombley) wrote:
>
> :In article <k2qiatck80rqq88ah...@4ax.com>,
> :H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> :>If it was purchased for the Agency Wesley may not have consider it a
> :>lie to say that Angel stole the book from them since they (at least as
> :>far as Wesley seems to be concerned) took over the Agency when Angel
> :>didn't show any more interest in it. So if the book belonged to the
> :>Agency and the Agency now belonged to the A-team,
> :
> :But it wouldn't. They took over the name, but the agency's assets would
> :have belonged to Angel.
>
>Nothing does, or can, legally belong to Angel.
Irrelevant. No one's talking about prosecuting Angel for theft. Morally,
it's quite simple: the person who gave the firm its capital and has been
helping to pay its expenses all along owns the firm's assets. Wesley,
Cordelia, and Gunn have all received fair recompense for their work at
the firm: they get paid salaries.
>In the eyes of the law, he
>does not exist.
Actually, we don't know this. He may well have a false identity and false
papers to match. It'd be pretty darned hard for him to operate in this
day and age without them, actually.
--Sarah T.
Don Sample
<trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> In article <m60kat8i0p4caf3jq...@4ax.com>,
> H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >That bookshelf downstairs was almost empty and Angel said in "Reprise"
> >that they had taken all the books.
>
> Interesting question, actually, the size of Angel's own book collection.
> Not too many books visible in his home(s) in "Buffy," but I honestly
> can't remember whether there were shots of his books in pre-Wesley S1
> Angel. There must have been. (Also, are there bookshelves in Angel's
> suite in the Hyperion, as well as downstairs?)
He had quite a few books in his apartment. We didn't see many in his
mansion, but that was a pretty big place, and we probably just never
saw its library.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Linda
Sarah Trombley <trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:98d0gp$906$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
I have to agree with you here Sarah. Cordy mentioned the Mortgage on the
giant hotel in "Dear Boy". The only way to get a mortgage is by submitting
tons of paper to the mortgage broker or holder including identification. (I
was a loan secretary for over 15 years .) Whether the mortgage is in the
company's name i.e. AI, the prinicipal company holders, Wesley and/or
Cordy's name, or the name of Angel Jones " IGYUMS" is the question.
>
> --Sarah T.
Micky DuPree
"Guise Will Be Guise," "Reprise," and "Epiphany."
In article <100320011553457332%dsa...@synapse.net>, Don Sample
<dsa...@synapse.net> writes:
: [Angel] had quite a few books in his apartment. We didn't see many in
: his mansion, but that was a pretty big place, and we probably just
: never saw its library.
We saw Cordy and Doyle doing demon research in books that belonged to
Angel in "Lonely Hearts." Quoth Angel: "Go downstairs and use the
library." Angel got the ghost-binding spell out of a book in "Rm w/ a
Vu," and given that Doyle couldn't speak Latin, I doubt it was one of
his. We saw Angel show Doyle what an ano-movic demon was out of one of
his books in "Bachelor Party." They found the Mohra demon in one of
Angel's books in "I Will Remember You," and took a book on their way to
kill the Mohra. Wesley was seen doing occult research from Angel's
books in "Parting Gifts," "Expecting," "I've Got You Under My Skin," and
"She." There were probably other such examples from the first season,
but those were the ones I turned up just string-searching for "Doyle"
plus "book".
Add to that the fact that reading seems to be Angel's idea of what to do
with his spare time. Doyle would try to pry him away from his reading
to go out, and Cordelia made fun of him in "Guise Will Be Guise" by
spinning in his chair and pretending to read instead of wanting to go
out and have fun.
The way the squabbling over the book seemed to go to me in "Reprise" was
that they had been through something functionally similar to a divorce
where the property was hastily divided up. The book was probably
originally Angel's whether acquired personally or through the agency,
but he hadn't paid any attention to what the threesome took when they
set up shop elsewhere. The threesome considered that to be like him
giving tacit consent to the division of the property. Angel hadn't
originally cared that they took most of the books until he realized that
he wanted a specific one for a specific reason, so he retroactively
contested the division: "You took all the books." Since he hadn't said
boo about any of the books at the time they were taking them, though,
the threesome considered the books they took to be theirs. It reminded
me of one ex-spouse complaining, "You took my out-of-print vinyl record
and I'm taking it back," while the other says, "Then why didn't you
bring this up at the settlement?"
-Micky
Sarah Trombley
Micky DuPree <mdu...@tiac.net.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>Many little spoilers from season one and a specific spoiler each from
>"Guise Will Be Guise," "Reprise," and "Epiphany."
>
>
>
>that they had been through something functionally similar to a divorce
>where the property was hastily divided up.
Yes, I thought of that, too, but the agency wasn't exactly joint property;
the show went out of its way several times to show that Angel was the boss,
and AI not a cooperative endeavor. Sloppy writing?
> The book was probably
>originally Angel's whether acquired personally or through the agency,
The problem is: it could have equally easily been Wesley's own. We know
he brought a book collection to the States with him. And it was Wesley
who said "stole."
If he weren't involved, I would think it almost certainly _was_ Angel's,
and Cordelia just being moody.
--Sarah T.
H.G.Hettinger
Trombley) wrote:
>In article <m60kat8i0p4caf3jq...@4ax.com>,
>H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>Spoilers for "Epiphany"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 10 Mar 2001 07:35:47 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>Trombley) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <k2qiatck80rqq88ah...@4ax.com>,
>>>H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>On 9 Mar 2001 21:50:13 GMT, trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>>>>Trombley) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>If it was purchased for the Agency Wesley may not have consider it a
>>>>lie to say that Angel stole the book from them since they (at least as
>>>>far as Wesley seems to be concerned) took over the Agency when Angel
>>>>didn't show any more interest in it. So if the book belonged to the
>>>>Agency and the Agency now belonged to the A-team,
>>>
>>>But it wouldn't. They took over the name, but the agency's assets would
>>>have belonged to Angel. You'll notice that they each left with a small
>>>box of personal goods in 'Redefinition.'
>>
>>They must have come back later and gotten other stuff that they
>>thought htey needed once they decided to set up their onw Agency.
>
>[God, we _are_ in Rerun Hell if we're arguing over this...]
>
>It still wouldn't be theirs. Although it's not clear whether AI ever
>actually incorporated, it was certainly bankrolled by Angel. He's the
>owner and the boss. They couldn't just help themselves to his stuff.
But they could justifiy it to themselves by saying that Angel didn't
need the books anymore since he was no longer interested in saving the
innocents and they needed the books to research that fire farting
dragon-demon and the third eye on the kid's head.
I don't think that it would be totally out of character for them to go
over to the Hyperion and 'borrow' the books that they thought might
contain the required information while researching either of those
cases.
No, legally it wouldn't be right of them to do so, but there is at
least as much moral justification for doing so as there is for Buffy
'approriating' the things she needs to keep humanity safe (like that
rocket launcher needed to defeat the Judge, for example).
Sure, taking it from the army base was against the law and therefore
not right, but neither would it have been 'right' for them not to take
it and so letting the Judge kill countless humans and grow stronger
and more dangerous in the process.
Sure, taking those books from the Hyperion was most likely against the
law (assuming they were indeed either Angel's personal books or those
belonging to the Agency), but neither would it have been morally right
not to make use of them if they needed them to save Stephanie.
yes, they should have asked Angel for permission, but given how things
stood between them and Angel I'm not really surprised that they
didn't.
>
>>That bookshelf downstairs was almost empty and Angel said in "Reprise"
>>that they had taken all the books.
>
>Interesting question, actually, the size of Angel's own book collection.
>Not too many books visible in his home(s) in "Buffy," but I honestly
>can't remember whether there were shots of his books in pre-Wesley S1
>Angel. There must have been. (Also, are there bookshelves in Angel's
>suite in the Hyperion, as well as downstairs?)
There were lots of bookshelves in his old apartment as well as
upstairs in his old office. I don't know how many of them would have
survived the explosion, but I would think that even if a good
percentage of them had been destroyed that they active demon fighting
(and the related research) they engaged in over the summer (remember
that white board in "Judgement"?) would have had them buying a lot of
books to help with the research.
(snip)
>
>>He was rather upset and certainly not feeling charitable towards Angel
>>at the time. But you could be right, it's just that the evidence so
>>far seems contradictory.
>
>I'm not sure where the contradiction is supposed to lie. Angel busts into
>AI's new office and high-handedly takes a book that neither Cordy nor Wes
>feels he has a right to take. (This during a period when he's quite clearly
>presented as riding roughshod over everyone's feelings and using any
>rationalization he can get hold of to justify his behavior.)
But if Cordy knew that that book *didn't* belong to Angel, why would
she have resorted to such an utterly lame excuse as that he couldn't
take it because she was in the middle of reading it as a reason for
why he couldn't have *that* book, then shoved another one at him
instead?
To me, that pretty clearly indicated that at least *Cordy* thought
that that book belonged rightfully to Angel, only reinforced by the
waffle iron remark, which made it sound like she went through all the
stuff that they had bought since starting the Agency and divided them
up into what should be theirs and what Angel should get to keep - kind
of like you when you divide the stuff you aquired before your marriage
broke up.
Now, it's quite possible that Cordy simply didn't know that that
particular book belonged to Wesley instead of Angel (which would make
Wesley's remark about Angel stealing the book factually correct
instead of it being simply descriptive of they way he took it), but it
seems pretty clearly implied that they did indeed take stuff from the
Hyperion (particularly books and possibly weapons or magical supplies
as well) that didn't really belong to them.
>Later on,
>Wes tells him that he stole the book. The only contradiction apparent to
>me is Angel's statement to the effect that they had taken all the books--
>but if the book was actually his and he knew it, why wouldn't he just say
>that? The fact that, when challenged, he _doesn't_ actually say, "I bought
>that book, it's mine, you have no right to it," seems to actually confirm
>that it's not his. It's not like he was in a state of mind where he'd mince
>words about it.
Neither was he in a very talkative state of mind (or one even less so
than is usual for him). During that whole exchange he said exactly
three short sentences.
"You took all the books." - "Dont' make me move you." and the parting
shot of "I'm a vampire. Look it up." on his way out.
And if they all knew that they had taken books from the Hyperion that
didn't really belong to them, why would he feel it necessary to
restate the obvious to them?
You have a better argument that that book could have been Wesley's
because he didn't protest Wesley's accusation in "Epiphany" that he
stole it, but as I pointed out, that can be explained away by saying
that Angel was not about to start a fight over something so
insignificant as whether taking the book back in such a rude manner
could be rightly be called stealing or not when he was trying to patch
things up with Wesley and was already feeling like a heel for the way
he had treated them all lately.
I'm not trying to say that that book was clearly Angel's, because I
don't see no clear evidence that it was, only that neither is there
any clear evidence that lets us say that the book clearly *wasn't* his
either.
I don't see that he was right to do it the way he did even *if* that
book *was* his. But because of that uncertainty as to the actual
ownership of the book I will reserve judgement on just how badly in
the wrong Angel was for barging in and taking that book the way he
did.
hgh
>
>
>--Sarah T.
Sarah Trombley
H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 10 Mar 2001 10:40:02 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
>Trombley) wrote:
>
>>In article <m60kat8i0p4caf3jq...@4ax.com>,
>>H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Spoilers for "Epiphany"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>least as much moral justification for doing so as there is for Buffy
>'approriating' the things she needs to keep humanity safe (like that
>rocket launcher needed to defeat the Judge, for example).
Sure, until Angel came and asked for it back. I don't blame them, or think
Angel should blame them, for taking it when he wasn't using it--but that
doesn't mean it's not his, and shouldn't be given back to him when he asks.
(Assuming he owns it.)
>But if Cordy knew that that book *didn't* belong to Angel, why would
>she have resorted to such an utterly lame excuse as that he couldn't
>take it because she was in the middle of reading it as a reason for
>why he couldn't have *that* book, then shoved another one at him
>instead?
I'll bet Cordy didn't know, either way. It's Wesley who would.
>>Wes tells him that he stole the book. The only contradiction apparent to
>>me is Angel's statement to the effect that they had taken all the books--
>>but if the book was actually his and he knew it, why wouldn't he just say
>>that? The fact that, when challenged, he _doesn't_ actually say, "I bought
>>that book, it's mine, you have no right to it," seems to actually confirm
>>that it's not his. It's not like he was in a state of mind where he'd mince
>>words about it.
>
>Neither was he in a very talkative state of mind (or one even less so
>than is usual for him). During that whole exchange he said exactly
>three short sentences.
>
>"You took all the books." - "Dont' make me move you." and the parting
>shot of "I'm a vampire. Look it up." on his way out.
Two words: "It's mine." That saves three whole words on what he actually
did say.
>You have a better argument that that book could have been Wesley's
>because he didn't protest Wesley's accusation in "Epiphany" that he
>stole it, but as I pointed out, that can be explained away by saying
>that Angel was not about to start a fight over something so
>insignificant as whether taking the book back in such a rude manner
If we had an expressive actor, we might be able to tell from his expression
whether he was biting back a comment...
>could be rightly be called stealing or not
I really, really don't think that Wesley would use the word "stole" if he
didn't mean it. The others, yes. Wesley, no. He's very precise, and that's
a very unpleasant thing to say.
>I don't see that he was right to do it the way he did even *if* that
>book *was* his. But because of that uncertainty as to the actual
>ownership of the book I will reserve judgement on just how badly in
>the wrong Angel was for barging in and taking that book the way he
>did.
If it was his, I have no problem with his taking it back, and I can't even
get too worked up his not sugarcoating it. They didn't want to talk to
him, anyway. He had already expressed concern over Wesley, so it wasn't
even like he walked in and ignored the fact that he was in a wheelchair.
(Though, of course, it would have _looked_ that way to Wesley...)
--Sarah T.
Christopher Rickey
"H.G.Hettinger" <h...@digitalexp.com> wrote in message
news:j5fmatg5cqoghpl0o...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Mar 2001 10:40:02 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
> Trombley) wrote:
>
> >In article <m60kat8i0p4caf3jq...@4ax.com>,
> >H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Spoilers for "Epiphany"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On 10 Mar 2001 07:35:47 GMT, trom...@is06.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
> >>Trombley) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <k2qiatck80rqq88ah...@4ax.com>,
> >>>H.G.Hettinger <hett...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >>>>On 9 Mar 2001 21:50:13 GMT, trom...@is08.fas.harvard.edu (Sarah
> >>>>Trombley) wrote:
> >It still wouldn't be theirs. Although it's not clear whether AI ever
> >actually incorporated, it was certainly bankrolled by Angel. He's the
> >owner and the boss. They couldn't just help themselves to his stuff.
> No, legally it wouldn't be right of them to do so, but there is at
> least as much moral justification for doing so as there is for Buffy
> 'approriating' the things she needs to keep humanity safe (like that
> rocket launcher needed to defeat the Judge, for example).
Well, *legally* Angel has no title to anything, so far as we know. (In whose
name, for instance, is his car registered?)
If bankrolling is the key, might what's-his-name-multi-billionaire own the
business? I'm not certain if he funded the hotel or just set up a shell for
Angel.
Prestorjon
as if he lost his soul? Was he in pain, or was it a cheap promotional
ploy? If the former, why didn't we get an explanation?>>
I think that was just him realizing what he had done and how far he'd sunk as a
human being.
-----------------
He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things
We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do,
The fears of years, like a biting whip,
Had cut deep bloody grooves
Across our backs.
-Etheridge Knight