AOQ Angel Review 2-2: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?"
Arbitrar Of Quality
episodes in these review threads.
ANGEL
Season Two, Episode 2: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?"
(or "Have you no sense of quality, show? At long last, have you left
no sense of quality?")
Writer: Tim Minear
Director: David Semel
Weird opening this week, as Angel leaves his cinnamon blood and rushes
off to an old hotel without explaining things to either his staff or
his viewers, leaving us to learn about things through flashback. The
rest of the teaser is, figuratively speaking, kind of a slow pan over
the area, to give us a sense of the story. The scared bellhop's walk
does a good job of building a sense of impending doom for him, and then
averts it momentarily when we see that the scary tenant is just Angel,
in a non-killing mood.
This is strange and gets the viewer thinking, given that it heavily
modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996. To me the
implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter, investing
effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding people. Now we find
out that as recently as the '50s, he was living in the city, passing
for human, and being basically decent, yet consuming irreplaceable
human blood in neatly brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later
driven to the edge, possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by
something else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier
version was narratively tidier, you know?
Two phrases that I'm fighting the temptation to use over and over are
"mood piece" and "period piece," since there's a lot of stuff
in this episode that exists to evoke the sense of the period. Any
backstory amongst the actors and the scriptwriter, for instance, or the
hotel not renting a room to the black family. The colors in the '50s
sequences certainly make it look like, well, that look that TV shows
get when doing stuff "fifty years ago."
The story could almost be an AI case. There's a woman, Judy, who
needs to be protected. She's mysterious and morally ambiguous, but
Angel can't help but be sucked into the case. Meanwhile, there's
something supernatural going on. This version of Angel is more
avoidant than the present day character, as we see both here and with
his lack of reaction to the gunshot. But once he decides he's
interested in something, it's investigative time. I thought the
scenes between him and Judy dragged quite a bit, with a little too much
of her obsessively following him and talking his ear off to provide the
exposition, and a little too much bland dialogue.
My biggest problem with this episode, besides it not being tremendously
exciting (it could've been one of the quietly-fascinating ones,
though, if it'd been better) is that I don't know whether it's
trying for a message deeper than "paranoia and scapegoating are
bad" or just a theme... and I'm not convinced that the writer knows
either. Besides the external source of paranoia, the story is set in a
place obsessed with appearing "normal" to the point of hiding
corpses, all against a backdrop of McCarthyism, racism, and general
mistrust of anything that's different. What does it all "mean?"
I don't really know. The whole racial element in particular, despite
the fact that it reflects on both the rest of the episode and on Angel
himself (ZOMG!! they both dabble in two worlds they can't be part
of!) still feels awkward. And I don't really get, dramatically
speaking, why Judy dies at the end either. The only layered meaning I
can think of for that scene is people afraid to step outside their
worldviews and dying in a small place, which I don't think is all
that strong an image.
There are strong images in "Are You," though, even if they don't
really congeal into a great show. Judy giving up Angel to the mob is a
pretty intense moment of panicked betrayal. Boreanaz does a lot with
his facial expressions in that scene, and when his eyes pop open after
the hanging, and when he returns the favor, stalking out and leaving
the people in the Hyperion to their fate. Later learning that the
demon has kept Judy there all this time, slowly leeching off her...
well, that's pretty twisted.
"You did notice that Angel neglected to tell us the, for instance,
point of all this." "Ah, well, I mean, clearly he has us compiling
incidents - ah, arranging data, organizing information in such a way
that... yes, I did notice that, the no point thing." Heh. I also
liked Cordelia identifying the demon while holding the phone behind her
back.
Missed the line about paging Gunn until I browsed over a transcript.
On first viewing, I had no idea why he'd just show up, and wondered
if a scene had been cut at the last minute or something.
I got a kick out of the Thesulac, who's quirky enough to work as a
one-episode villain. It kinda has a black-southern-preacher thing
going.
Wesley's obsession over paranoia is really stupid, but I laughed
anyway.
Old guys setting up shop in buildings with dark histories seems to be
recurring theme this week in the Buffyverse.
So...
One-sentence summary: A mood piece with mixed success.
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season Two so far:
1) "Judgment" - Weak
2) "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?" - Decent]
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
Angel has done many things and been many places. Don't forget that he
likes "Mandy." Maybe that has something to do with it???
Paranoia is part of it. But it's also about forgiveness. Angel wants to
make right what he left unfinished 50 years before. But he also has the
chance to forgive Judy, which maybe he needed to do even more.
As for why she died, Minear says in the commentary that Judy and the
demon had what turned into a symbiotic relationship. He kept her safe
and alive, she kept him fed. Once he was killed, her body could no
longer support itself. But thematically, maybe she needed to stay alive
just long enough to be forgiven.
I guess I'm not surprised you didn't like this one more. It's one of my
favorites of the season though. And, it introduces the gang's new digs.
Mel
Apteryx
news:1149464259.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads.
>
>
> modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
> seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
> soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
> homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996. To me the
> implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter, investing
> effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding people. Now we find
> out that as recently as the '50s, he was living in the city, passing
> for human, and being basically decent, yet consuming irreplaceable
> human blood in neatly brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later
> driven to the edge, possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by
> something else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier
> version was narratively tidier, you know?
Is tidyness really enough on its own to condemn Angel to a 100 years with no
change in his character, living the whole time as we saw him in Becoming 1?
This version allows us to see that it was not the curse itself that reduced
him to living off rats in alleys. It gives us a view of the depth of Angel's
character, seeing what he has tried and failed at before.
> Two phrases that I'm fighting the temptation to use over and over are
> "mood piece" and "period piece," since there's a lot of stuff
> in this episode that exists to evoke the sense of the period. Any
> backstory amongst the actors and the scriptwriter, for instance, or the
> hotel not renting a room to the black family. The colors in the '50s
> sequences certainly make it look like, well, that look that TV shows
> get when doing stuff "fifty years ago."
It gives it a difference and distance from the average Angel episode. We
have to work out how much of the 1952 Angel has survived to the 2001 Angel.
> My biggest problem with this episode, besides it not being tremendously
> exciting (it could've been one of the quietly-fascinating ones,
> though, if it'd been better) is that I don't know whether it's
> trying for a message deeper than "paranoia and scapegoating are
> bad" or just a theme... and I'm not convinced that the writer knows
> either. Besides the external source of paranoia, the story is set in a
> place obsessed with appearing "normal" to the point of hiding
> corpses, all against a backdrop of McCarthyism, racism, and general
> mistrust of anything that's different. What does it all "mean?"
Much more than that. It is at least an example of an earlier attempt made by
Angel to "help the hopeless" and its eventual failure because he could not
overlook their betrayal of him, even though that betrayal was under the
influence of the demon he was trying to save them from. It's also of course
a chance to have fun with something halfway to film noir - sort of film
gris.
>
> There are strong images in "Are You," though, even if they don't
> really congeal into a great show. Judy giving up Angel to the mob is a
> pretty intense moment of panicked betrayal. Boreanaz does a lot with
> his facial expressions in that scene, and when his eyes pop open after
> the hanging, and when he returns the favor, stalking out and leaving
> the people in the Hyperion to their fate. Later learning that the
> demon has kept Judy there all this time, slowly leeching off her...
> well, that's pretty twisted.
>
> "You did notice that Angel neglected to tell us the, for instance,
> point of all this." "Ah, well, I mean, clearly he has us compiling
> incidents - ah, arranging data, organizing information in such a way
> that... yes, I did notice that, the no point thing." Heh. I also
> liked Cordelia identifying the demon while holding the phone behind her
> back.
>
> Missed the line about paging Gunn until I browsed over a transcript.
> On first viewing, I had no idea why he'd just show up, and wondered
> if a scene had been cut at the last minute or something.
>
> I got a kick out of the Thesulac, who's quirky enough to work as a
> one-episode villain. It kinda has a black-southern-preacher thing
> going.
I thought he was a little OTT myself, one of fewer quibbles I have with the
episode than you do.
> Wesley's obsession over paranoia is really stupid, but I laughed
> anyway.
I especially liked "I've been accused of a great many things in my time, but
"paranoid" has never been one of them ... Unless people have been saying it
behind my back". But I would have been happier if they left it at that.
>
> One-sentence summary: A mood piece with mixed success.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
Definitely a Good to me. It is the early epsiode I mentioned in the Judgment
thread as being better than the 5th (which is when I said the season starts
to be mainly good) but not indicative of the season. For me its the 11th
best AtS episode, 5th best in season 2.
--
Apteryx
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is strange and gets the viewer thinking, given that it heavily
> modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
> seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
> soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
> homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996. To me the
> implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter, investing
> effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding people. Now we find
> out that as recently as the '50s, he was living in the city, passing
> for human, and being basically decent, yet consuming irreplaceable
> human blood in neatly brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later
> driven to the edge, possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by
> something else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier
> version was narratively tidier, you know?
It's starting to become clear from this, and what we've seen and heard
said about Angel's past, that Angel has had his ups and downs. This
showed one of his up phases, and maybe the trigger for a down phase.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
One Bit Shy
news:1149464259.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 2: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?"
> This is strange and gets the viewer thinking, given that it heavily
> modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
> seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
> soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
> homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996. To me the
> implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter, investing
> effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding people. Now we find
> out that as recently as the '50s, he was living in the city, passing
> for human, and being basically decent, yet consuming irreplaceable
> human blood in neatly brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later
> driven to the edge, possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by
> something else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier
> version was narratively tidier, you know?
This is my first big issue with the episode. That is *not* the image we've
been given of Angel's suffering years.
Related to that is the nice convenience of ending up with a bag of money.
There are a few other continuity things that bothered me a bit, but the
overall feel is a honking big retcon.
> The story could almost be an AI case. There's a woman, Judy, who
> needs to be protected. She's mysterious and morally ambiguous, but
> Angel can't help but be sucked into the case. Meanwhile, there's
> something supernatural going on. This version of Angel is more
> avoidant than the present day character, as we see both here and with
> his lack of reaction to the gunshot. But once he decides he's
> interested in something, it's investigative time. I thought the
> scenes between him and Judy dragged quite a bit, with a little too much
> of her obsessively following him and talking his ear off to provide the
> exposition, and a little too much bland dialogue.
That's my second big issue. The show drags. One of the longer 45 minutes
of either series.
> My biggest problem with this episode, besides it not being tremendously
> exciting (it could've been one of the quietly-fascinating ones,
> though, if it'd been better) is that I don't know whether it's
> trying for a message deeper than "paranoia and scapegoating are
> bad" or just a theme... and I'm not convinced that the writer knows
> either. Besides the external source of paranoia, the story is set in a
> place obsessed with appearing "normal" to the point of hiding
> corpses, all against a backdrop of McCarthyism, racism, and general
> mistrust of anything that's different. What does it all "mean?"
> I don't really know. The whole racial element in particular, despite
> the fact that it reflects on both the rest of the episode and on Angel
> himself (ZOMG!! they both dabble in two worlds they can't be part
> of!) still feels awkward. And I don't really get, dramatically
> speaking, why Judy dies at the end either. The only layered meaning I
> can think of for that scene is people afraid to step outside their
> worldviews and dying in a small place, which I don't think is all
> that strong an image.
The rest of the episode, however, I think is pretty strong. As I take it,
the theme of the general story is the evil of McCarthyism. That's the main
social commentary part. You can tell partly because the climax is the girl
terrorized through insinuation and accusation throwing false charges upon
another. And also because the demon's trick is to play on people's
paranoia.
I take the racial aspect as a contributing mix of several things. Partly
adds to the period atmosphere. Partly provides a link with Angel for him to
identify with and offer him motivation to act. Partly provides her weak
point to be attacked. leading her to succumb to less than honorable choices
as an escape.
Angel's personal story, though is both atonement and forgiveness. He needs
to forgive her (just as she needs to be forgiven), for she is more victim
than criminal. (How true that is for a bank robber of her magnitude is
debatable, but that seems to be the show's intent. And, besides, who's
Angel to get too moralistic about that?) The atonement is because Angel
shares some responsibility. He left everybody to their torment even though
he knew the kind of demon that was there - and had been specifically told by
that demon how he had fatted up the girl.
That, however, is more into the symbolism than one really needs to dwell on.
To me it's mainly a pretty cool period piece loaded with atmoshpere and a
pretty good, albeit slow moving, story. I think there are some homages
worked in their too - like the pathetic souls wasting their lives hanging
out in the hotel lobby. Couldn't tell you which movies offhand though.
> Old guys setting up shop in buildings with dark histories seems to be
> recurring theme this week in the Buffyverse.
Heh. I missed that connection. I do wonder why the heck Angel needs a
vacant 65 room hotel though. Seems kind of over the top just to give more
room for the camera crew.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A mood piece with mixed success.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
I'll push it up to a low good.
OBS
Don Sample
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149464259.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > ANGEL
> > Season Two, Episode 2: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?"
>
> > This is strange and gets the viewer thinking, given that it heavily
> > modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
> > seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
> > soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
> > homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996. To me the
> > implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter, investing
> > effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding people. Now we find
> > out that as recently as the '50s, he was living in the city, passing
> > for human, and being basically decent, yet consuming irreplaceable
> > human blood in neatly brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later
> > driven to the edge, possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by
> > something else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier
> > version was narratively tidier, you know?
>
> This is my first big issue with the episode. That is *not* the image we've
> been given of Angel's suffering years.
Before this, we'd seen about 5 minutes out of a century. It would be
foolish to presume that that 5 minutes was typical of the entire century.
> Related to that is the nice convenience of ending up with a bag of money.
> There are a few other continuity things that bothered me a bit, but the
> overall feel is a honking big retcon.
It wasn't that big a bag of money. Especially if you're going to try to
support 3 or 4 people with it. (And buy an old hotel, no matter how run
down it may be.)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> the theme of the general story is the evil of McCarthyism. That's the main
> social commentary part. You can tell partly because the climax is the girl
> terrorized through insinuation and accusation throwing false charges upon
> another. And also because the demon's trick is to play on people's
> paranoia.
story external mccarthy is still a big deal among screenwriters
there are periodic efforts to rehabilitate mccarthy
i dont remember if this show coincide with one of those or not
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
One Bit Shy
news:dsample-98AA83...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <128762v...@news.supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1149464259.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > ANGEL
>> > Season Two, Episode 2: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?"
>>
>> > This is strange and gets the viewer thinking, given that it heavily
>> > modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
>> > seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
>> > soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
>> > homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996. To me the
>> > implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter, investing
>> > effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding people. Now we find
>> > out that as recently as the '50s, he was living in the city, passing
>> > for human, and being basically decent, yet consuming irreplaceable
>> > human blood in neatly brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later
>> > driven to the edge, possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by
>> > something else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier
>> > version was narratively tidier, you know?
>>
>> This is my first big issue with the episode. That is *not* the image
>> we've
>> been given of Angel's suffering years.
>
> Before this, we'd seen about 5 minutes out of a century. It would be
> foolish to presume that that 5 minutes was typical of the entire century.
We saw the beginning and end of that period - and they looked a lot alike.
Plus, of course, that Buffy finally gave him purpose to pull himself out of
his hole.
Technically, that of course provides tons of time for something else to have
happened. But the impression the show has previously given us is that
nothing else did happen. That it took Whistler to show Angel how to live in
the world. Basic stuff like blood from butcher shops instead of rats. And
we saw Angel tell Whistler that he wanted to learn from him.
So, sorry, I don't feel foolish for going along with what the show seemed to
have told us.
>> Related to that is the nice convenience of ending up with a bag of money.
>> There are a few other continuity things that bothered me a bit, but the
>> overall feel is a honking big retcon.
>
> It wasn't that big a bag of money. Especially if you're going to try to
> support 3 or 4 people with it. (And buy an old hotel, no matter how run
> down it may be.)
Still mighty convenient.
OBS
One Bit Shy
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-7F7AF...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> The rest of the episode, however, I think is pretty strong. As I take
>> it,
>> the theme of the general story is the evil of McCarthyism. That's the
>> main
>> social commentary part. You can tell partly because the climax is the
>> girl
>> terrorized through insinuation and accusation throwing false charges upon
>> another. And also because the demon's trick is to play on people's
>> paranoia.
>
> story external mccarthy is still a big deal among screenwriters
>
> there are periodic efforts to rehabilitate mccarthy
> i dont remember if this show coincide with one of those or not
I don't care to rehabilitate him, but I would say that HUAC was probably
worse. McCarthy got the era named after him because he was the bigger
blowhard.
For whatever reason, screenwriters were one of the central targets, and
suffered a goodly amount of black listing. I imagine they still consider it
a big part of their heritage.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Much more than that. It is at least an example of an earlier attempt made by
> Angel to "help the hopeless" and its eventual failure because he could not
> overlook their betrayal of him, even though that betrayal was under the
> influence of the demon he was trying to save them from. It's also of course
> a chance to have fun with something halfway to film noir - sort of film
> gris.
Both of which work okay for me on a character level, but I think the
episode's also stumbling towards a theme or moral too.
-AOQ
jil...@hotmail.com
One Bit Shy wrote:
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-98AA83...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <128762v...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> >
> >> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1149464259.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> we've
> >> been given of Angel's suffering years.
> >
> > Before this, we'd seen about 5 minutes out of a century. It would be
> > foolish to presume that that 5 minutes was typical of the entire century.
>
> We saw the beginning and end of that period - and they looked a lot alike.
> Plus, of course, that Buffy finally gave him purpose to pull himself out of
> his hole.
>
> Technically, that of course provides tons of time for something else to have
> happened. But the impression the show has previously given us is that
> nothing else did happen. That it took Whistler to show Angel how to live in
> the world. Basic stuff like blood from butcher shops instead of rats. And
> we saw Angel tell Whistler that he wanted to learn from him.
I seem to remember Whistler telling Angel he'd been sent to intervene
because Angel could go either way. Also, remember Whistler told... I
think he told Buffy they'd thought they were sending Angel to Sunnydale
to stop Acathla. That would be one apocalypse the souled vampire of
prophesy would have cut off. This is another bit of evidence that
those mighty Powers may see much of the big picture, but they tend to
not know the details. "Hey, apocalypse coming! We've a souled vampire
who's prophesied to stop that sort of thing! Send in the damned
critter!" "But boss, he's aimless, a loser, crawling in alleys and
all!" "What, you were so much better? Go get him, clean him up."
"Well... maybe if he sees that someone needs his help...."
Apteryx
Well, I think on the issues of racism and McCarthyism, the show comes down
against. It seems to be fairly flexible on the issue of receiving stolen
property. You could probably say that it contends that when someone (demon
or politician) is trying to set people against one another, you should
resist, even when people have already succumbed and been set against you.
But that's not the point of the episode. I think the point is to show that
in an earlier attempt to earn redemption, Angel faltered through his
unwillingness to help people who had lynched him, even though they did so
under the influence of the demon that he should have saved them from. Now,
he clearly thinks he should have helped them, as evidenced by his now saving
Judy. He earns belated credit for that. But that was comparatively easy when
the injury to him is 50 years old, and she is in her last days.
--
Apteryx
Wes <>
wrote:
>"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
>news:dsample-98AA83...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <128762v...@news.supernews.com>,
>> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>>
>>> This is my first big issue with the episode. That is *not* the image
>>> we've
>>> been given of Angel's suffering years.
>>
>> Before this, we'd seen about 5 minutes out of a century. It would be
>> foolish to presume that that 5 minutes was typical of the entire century.
>
>We saw the beginning and end of that period - and they looked a lot alike.
>Plus, of course, that Buffy finally gave him purpose to pull himself out of
>his hole.
>
Buffy was the motivation which finally enabled him to "live in the
world", doesn't mean he hadn't tried before. We learned generally what
Buffy learned for the purposes of her story. Now it's Angel's story
and we learn more.
>Technically, that of course provides tons of time for something else to have
>happened. But the impression the show has previously given us is that
>nothing else did happen. That it took Whistler to show Angel how to live in
>the world. Basic stuff like blood from butcher shops instead of rats. And
>we saw Angel tell Whistler that he wanted to learn from him.
>
Whistler's comment implies that Angel didn't know about butcher shops.
Doesn't make all that much sense for a being with the nose of a
(hungry) vampire.
Angel's comment about learning from Whistler could go either way.
Either Angel has never tried to live in the world, or he has tried and
failed.
Wes
sienamystic
I think the moral questions of the show were interesting, especially
with Angel leaving the people to be demon-chow after they turn on him,
but for me the big problem was the excruciatingly slow pace of the
episode. By the time they got to the big scene, my attention was
wandering, which diminished the punch. Plus, the James Dean stuff
didn't work for me.
Siena
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:Both of which work okay for me on a character level, but I think the
:episode's also stumbling towards a theme or moral too.
"If you want to send a message, go to Western Union"
-Samuel Goldwyn
I think people are trying to hard to find a
message or moral to this episode, when that's not
really the point. It is a moody, cinematic story. It
doesn't have to tell you drugs are bad, m'kay?
Just because it's about distrust doesn't mean it's an
afterschool special.
:
:-AOQ
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
KenM47
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads.
>
>
>ANGEL
>Season Two, Episode 2: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?"
>(or "Have you no sense of quality, show? At long last, have you left
>no sense of quality?")
>Writer: Tim Minear
>Director: David Semel
>
<SNIP>
>
>One-sentence summary: A mood piece with mixed success.
>
>AOQ rating: Decent
>
>[Season Two so far:
>1) "Judgment" - Weak
>2) "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?" - Decent]
I found this one played better in the rewatching than as I remembered
it. In part that's because I've started to relish almost all of the
back story episodes.
Fun to see what Angel was doing pre-Buffy and pre his mission. Also
makes you wonder if this is the event that sent him spiraling down to
the street bum Whistler found in about 1996 I guess.
Yes, there's a lot of trite, but I realize now they're playing on the
audience having a brain and even if many of them did not grow up in
the 50s like some of us, the audience has some knowledge what it was
like back then.
And besides how can a show be less than "Good" almost "Excellent" when
it has a line :
"Don’t you dare use alliteration with me, you hack!"
And I thought Denver was an interesting new character let in on Angel
being a Vampire. And, I suppose, Angel now has a war chest of the bank
money to work with.
So definitely Good(+) for me on the rewatching.
Ken (Brooklyn)
peachy ashie passion
Okay, I give.
I surrender.
I simply cannot be bothered to try to decipher your meaning from
whatever mangled english you choose to drop on us.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I think people are trying to hard to find a
> message or moral to this episode, when that's not
> really the point. It is a moody, cinematic story. It
> doesn't have to tell you drugs are bad, m'kay?
> Just because it's about distrust doesn't mean it's an
> afterschool special.
That's a fair comment. I'm as happy as anyone to let a story be a
story, but in ways that're hard to describe, I feel like AYNOHYEB
"wants" to be thought of as something more. The choice of video clips,
and hey, even the title, made me feel like I "should" be pondering
themes and messages beyond the stuff particular to these characters.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
news:gmq782paank1fh6tf...@4ax.com...
Yes, everything - anything - can be rationalized. Hell, this whole
newsgroup is a convention of master rationalizers. It's a lot of what we
do. I have and will get my licks in on that front too. So, yes, I
understand how Angel's life might have gone to fit this story in. And, no,
I don't care all that much that it was done. They're just stealing an
unclaimed moment in time and place outside of today's story so they can
advance what they want to within it. Even if done poorly, the damage is
minimal.
But their choice and the way they handled it still is a substantial
contradiction to what his lost years have been presented to us as like for
more than two seasons. Nothing subtle about it either. It's bloody
obvious. Without any explanation or setup or even acknowledgement that this
isn't quite the rat sucking Angel we knew before. It's just the abrupt
insertion of a new back story without foundation. I'm not terribly inclined
to award creativity points for that.
I think it's funny that the insertion of Dawn is occurring simultaneously in
BtVS - with some superficial similarities. But Dawn has been foreshadowed
for a year and we've been provided in-story recognition that she's out of
place. Not the same thing.
OBS
KenM47
Or, you just have to be patient, cross your fingers, and hope that ME
will show us what, if anything, further knocked Angel on his ass
between 1952 and 1996.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Espen Schjønberg
Vf guvf jrnygul Natry n qnjairefr pbafgehpg? Jr ernyyl qvqa'g frr uvz
guvf evpu va nal cerivbhf fubjf. Creuncf gung vf gur rkcynangvba sbe
guvf frrzvatyl ergpbaavfuyl rcvfbqr? Gur cbjref arrqrq gb trg Natry trg
guvf qrzba, naq whfg nqqrq uvz -naq gur jbzna, naq gur srj bgure
fheivibef- univat guvf zrzbel vagb gur zbax-fcryy?
--
Espen
Noe er Feil[tm]
Elisi
> This is strange and gets the viewer thinking, given that it heavily
> modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
> seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
> soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
> homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996. To me the
> implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter, investing
> effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding people. Now we find
> out that as recently as the '50s, he was living in the city, passing
> for human, and being basically decent, yet consuming irreplaceable
> human blood in neatly brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later
> driven to the edge, possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by
> something else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier
> version was narratively tidier, you know?
Well who wants a tidy narrative? Certainly not a writer for Angel (the
Series) who has 240 years of background story to play with. They've
already expanded Angel's history twice (in 'Somnambulist' and 'The
Prodigal'), although both of those were during his evil days. Now
they've turned their attention to that big empty century between the
souling and the mission. Personally I love anything like this that
fleshes out the character. :)
Can't comment much more, since this (sadly) remains the only episode of
AtS I've never seen, although I've read what happens.
Don Sample
Espen Schjønberg <ess...@excite.com> wrote:
Angel has always surrounded himself with objet d'art. Even before Cordy
decided he should go into the detective business he'd gotten himself a
place that had large office space, with an apartment underneath it.
That car he drives is not cheap. (A 67 Plymouth GTX in good shape goes
for about $50,000 these days.) Angel has never been shown to have money
problems. I think that he has always had resources (ill gotten gains
from his evil days) but he uses them sparingly, and has never let Cordy
know just how much he has, because then she'd start spending it.
Stephen Tempest
>This is my first big issue with the episode. That is *not* the image we've
>been given of Angel's suffering years.
>
>Related to that is the nice convenience of ending up with a bag of money.
>There are a few other continuity things that bothered me a bit, but the
>overall feel is a honking big retcon.
I felt the same way on first viewing, but I've become reconciled to
it. When Angel was a character on _Buffy_, it was simple enough to
imply (though not actually *say*) that he spent that entire century in
the gutter - until he met the girl of his dreams. That story gives us
the teen-romance fairy tale element that was important to S1-2 of
_Buffy_.
But now Angel has his own show - and a greyer, more adult one than its
parent. And there's a hundred years of backstory to fill in. I'm
sure the writers thought they could do a lot more interesting stuff
with it than assume Angel was eating rats all that time...
Stephen
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads.
>
>
>ANGEL
>Season Two, Episode 2: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?"
>(or "Have you no sense of quality, show? At long last, have you left
>no sense of quality?")
>Writer: Tim Minear
>Director: David Semel
>
>Weird opening this week, as Angel leaves his cinnamon blood and rushes
>off to an old hotel without explaining things to either his staff or
>his viewers, leaving us to learn about things through flashback.
I don't know if you picked up on it, but we first saw the Hyperion, and saw
Angel have a little deja vu moment, when he was mistakenly chasing the
demon protector in Judgment. That would be what triggered him to follow up
this episode.
>This is strange and gets the viewer thinking, given that it heavily
>modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
>seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
>soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
>homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996.
Actually, the alley scene was in New York City (according to the helpful
Chyron label over the scene). Whistler then took him to LA.
>To me the
>implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter, investing
>effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding people. Now we find
>out that as recently as the '50s, he was living in the city, passing
>for human, and being basically decent, yet consuming irreplaceable
>human blood in neatly brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later
>driven to the edge, possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by
>something else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier
>version was narratively tidier, you know?
There had been a couple of very minor references prior to this (a comment
about Angel having fought in wars, a reference to being in Montana), but
absolutely no detail. A lot of people viewed Angel as having spent the
entire century eating rats in alleys, but it isn't Whedon's fault if we go
making donkeys.
>Two phrases that I'm fighting the temptation to use over and over are
>"mood piece" and "period piece," since there's a lot of stuff
>in this episode that exists to evoke the sense of the period. Any
>backstory amongst the actors and the scriptwriter, for instance, or the
>hotel not renting a room to the black family. The colors in the '50s
>sequences certainly make it look like, well, that look that TV shows
>get when doing stuff "fifty years ago."
While the hotel not renting to the black family appeared to be just
period/scene setting, it did turn out to tie in, since a plot driver was
that Judy was 'passing'.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
One Bit Shy
news:32q8825p7efseupmk...@4ax.com...
Oh, I'll watch and see what comes up. This really is just a gripe of the
moment for me, not some big to do. And now that this has been done, they
can insert most anything into those years. The old construct has been
broken.
OBS
Mike Zeares
One Bit Shy wrote:
> But their choice and the way they handled it still is a substantial
> contradiction to what his lost years have been presented to us as like for
> more than two seasons. Nothing subtle about it either. It's bloody
> obvious. Without any explanation or setup or even acknowledgement that this
> isn't quite the rat sucking Angel we knew before. It's just the abrupt
> insertion of a new back story without foundation. I'm not terribly inclined
> to award creativity points for that.
I think it's your version of his backstory (i.e. "Stink Guy" for 80
years, with ironclad evidence for thinking so) that has no real
foundation. You (and many others -- yours is one of the most common
arguments about the show) took a moment in Angel's recent past, shown
once in "Becoming," and extrapolated that into his entire ensouled
history. One episode doesn't equal "presented... for more than two
seasons" in my book. People just jumped to conclusions and made
assumptions based on limited information. Common enough, happens every
day in real life. But when AYNOHYEB shows you additional information,
it doesn't contradict the information from "Becoming." He was still
Stink Guy in 1996. He just wasn't in 1952. For all we know, he became
Stink Guy right after he left the hotel. Or maybe he'd just recently
fallen into that condtion in '96. We don't have enough information to
make blanket statements about Angel's entire past based on one episode.
It could still be considered a retcon. There are different types of
retcons (I think George Ferguson did a post on them once). This is the
type that just presents new information that might change one's
previously held assumptions. It does NOT actually contradict what
we've already been shown, though.
-- Mike Zeares
KenM47
Michael Ikeda
news:ck1982l6sal4hj917...@4ax.com:
> On 4 Jun 2006 16:37:39 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality"
> <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>>episodes in these review threads.
>>
>>
>>ANGEL
>>Season Two, Episode 2: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?"
>>(or "Have you no sense of quality, show? At long last, have you
>>left no sense of quality?")
>>Writer: Tim Minear
>>Director: David Semel
>>
>
>>To me the
>>implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter,
>>investing effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding
>>people. Now we find out that as recently as the '50s, he was
>>living in the city, passing for human, and being basically
>>decent, yet consuming irreplaceable human blood in neatly
>>brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later driven to the edge,
>>possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by something
>>else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier version
>>was narratively tidier, you know?
>
> There had been a couple of very minor references prior to this
> (a comment about Angel having fought in wars, a reference to
> being in Montana), but absolutely no detail. A lot of people
> viewed Angel as having spent the entire century eating rats in
> alleys, but it isn't Whedon's fault if we go making donkeys.
>
And it isn't as if this is the first time Joss has started by
presenting an initial simple picture and gradually filled in the
complexities.
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Stephen Tempest
> But when AYNOHYEB shows you additional information,
>it doesn't contradict the information from "Becoming." He was still
>Stink Guy in 1996. He just wasn't in 1952. For all we know, he became
>Stink Guy right after he left the hotel. Or maybe he'd just recently
>fallen into that condtion in '96.
He may not have been stinky rat-eating guy in 1952. But he was
*definitely* mopey, broody guy back then. So the characterisation is
intact. :)
Stephen
Kevin
KenM47 wrote:
> I found this one played better in the rewatching than as I remembered
> it. In part that's because I've started to relish almost all of the
> back story episodes.
It's the most fascinating thing about the series for me -- the fact
that Angel has been around for so long, giving many opportunities for
juxtaposition of his past and his present, the writers enriching both
as they go. Did Joss or David discuss their initial brainstorms about
the potential spinoff? (I don't remember what's been said in the
commentaries or elsewhere.) I imagine them jumping around excitedly,
with big eyes, oohing about Darla and Ireland and gypsies and the Boxer
Rebellion...
S1 of Buffy, much as I love it, was rather primitive, and even S2 was
feeling its way through Angel's story. I rewatch Boreanaz in some of
those scenes and feel struck by the mix of strong & weak, and wish all
of it had been solid and assured like he usually is on ATS, but such is
the growth of a show.
--Kevin
One Bit Shy
news:1149540297....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>> But their choice and the way they handled it still is a substantial
>> contradiction to what his lost years have been presented to us as like
>> for
>> more than two seasons. Nothing subtle about it either. It's bloody
>> obvious. Without any explanation or setup or even acknowledgement that
>> this
>> isn't quite the rat sucking Angel we knew before. It's just the abrupt
>> insertion of a new back story without foundation. I'm not terribly
>> inclined
>> to award creativity points for that.
>
> I think it's your version of his backstory (i.e. "Stink Guy" for 80
> years, with ironclad evidence for thinking so) that has no real
> foundation.
It's not my version of anything. It's limited to what has been shown. And
I do not, did not, and will not claim anything like "ironclad evidence".
Read back two posts of mine and you'll see that I described it like this:
"Technically, that of course provides tons of time for something else to
have happened. But the impression the show has previously given us is that
nothing else did happen."
So I have both allowed for the possibility of something different and spoken
of the prior story as an impression, not a hard fact.
> You (and many others -- yours is one of the most common
> arguments about the show) took a moment in Angel's recent past, shown
> once in "Becoming," and extrapolated that into his entire ensouled
> history. One episode doesn't equal "presented... for more than two
> seasons" in my book. People just jumped to conclusions and made
> assumptions based on limited information.
The total running time of both series combined consumes approximately 8
days, which covers roughly 8 years of ongoing events plus 200 some odd years
of back story. Everything is told in brief, and it is routine for critical
information to be conveyed in moments, heavily relying on impression rather
than just stated fact. It's the nature of the medium to depend on
impression. Exposition is too dull and way too time consuming to be relied
on for everything. Extrapolating a lot from a little is not only normal -
it's necessary.
I'm not claiming a deliniated fact. I'm claiming a clear impression.
> Common enough, happens every
> day in real life. But when AYNOHYEB shows you additional information,
> it doesn't contradict the information from "Becoming." He was still
> Stink Guy in 1996. He just wasn't in 1952. For all we know, he became
> Stink Guy right after he left the hotel. Or maybe he'd just recently
> fallen into that condtion in '96. We don't have enough information to
> make blanket statements about Angel's entire past based on one episode.
For all we know, Willow has been carrying on a secret affair with Parker.
There's certainly plenty of time and opportunity. But physical capability
isn't enough to explain that. Who knows, maybe there could be a good story
with a rational reason for that state of affairs. But we would expect an
explanation - or at least some kind of in story recognition of the mystery
of it. Just suddenly showing them boffing in Parker's room with the
explanation that we shouldn't presume to know what all Willow does in her
spare time wouldn't be very satisfying.
If all I noted was the stink, we wouldn't be having this conversation. What
we saw in Becoming was Whistler tracking Angel down - clearly knowing in
advance who and what he was and why he was in the state he was. Twice he
spoke to Angel of living in the world - both times in a context implying
that Angel didn't know how. Once he even lectured Angel on getting blood
from a butcher shop - again implying it was something Angel didn't know.
Ultimately Angel states that he wants to learn from Whistler. (Though not
dress like him.) Those conversations reinforce the idea that the rat eating
Angel was an enduring condition of his souled self, that he was not equiped
to live as depicted in 1952, and that Whistler was the agent of his change -
his teacher. No, that's not explicit, nor claimed to be, but it's a heck of
a lot more than just seeing him eat rats once in 1996 and assuming it had
been that way for 90 years. **I believe the viewer was led to that
impression.** That's what we were seeing. What life for ensouled Angel was
like before he got a purpose.
That is the point, after all. How purpose - specifically the desire to help
Buffy - pulled him from his soul enduced squalor. Not a lot of room in
there for the notion of Angel in a clean hotel room getting bottles of human
blood delivered to him. So, pardon me, but I think there's a lot of
foundation for my impression found in that moment.
This impression is also somewhat reinforced in Five By Five when we see the
other end of the 90 year ordeal with the recently ensouled Angel appearing
to be in the process of sinking towards squalor as he finds he can no longer
feed off of humans. Again, not specifically stated, but an impression of
how the ensouling manifests itself in Angel, and one that matches well with
the New York scene.
> It could still be considered a retcon. There are different types of
> retcons (I think George Ferguson did a post on them once). This is the
> type that just presents new information that might change one's
> previously held assumptions. It does NOT actually contradict what
> we've already been shown, though.
Retcons aren't inherently bad. They're very useful - even essential - in
lots of situations. I'm not taking any kind of stance against retcons.
Indeed, I'm actually quite open to the idea of expanding upon those 90
years. I'd be open to including something like the 1952 depiction. Even
within the framework of the impression I described, there are tons of
unanswered questions. How did Angel cope those 90 years? Why didn't he
suicide by going into daylight? How did he ever get to New York? (Or
Montana?)
Furthermore, I can see how the show might want access to those 90 years as a
vehicle to bring more nuance to his character and his background. Even just
to dress Angel up in something other than 18th and 19th century clothes.
I'm not objecting to the episode changing our prior understanding. I'm
objecting to its lack of integration with his life story and the impression
that it was constructed more as a convenience for giving him a building and
a bag full of cash than for adding to the whole that is Angel.
The type of retcon you referred to where new information is simply added,
generally depends on it fitting naturally into the world it's placed.
Perceptions will change - why else make a retcon? But the result should
still naturally fit without further explanation. The problem here is that,
at least on the face of it, this one contradicts the idea of Buffy being the
singular cause of pulling Angel out of his miserable existence. IMO, that's
too fundamental to just toss in something different unexplained.
Could it be explained? Of course it could. Innumerable ways I think. But
it's not. It's just dumped. Hell, even something as simple as the
following would have helped a lot.
Wesley: Your story puzzles me, Angel. All our watcher's lore suggests that
your time in America was lived in - well - squalor.
Angel: (Looking around the lobby) People don't know me as well as they
think they do, Wesley.
At least that would provide some mystery to it, while acknowledging that the
story had changed.
--------
I've gone into this way beyond what I ever intended or that it really
deserves. For that I apologize. Hopefully this can stand as explanation of
where I'm coming from. But not with the intensity that all that detail
might suggest. I can live with this story just fine. I'll work out my own
rationale for it. Imagine the possibilities it offers. But I expect that
I'll also always feel that it was a bit unartfully inserted. No big. I've
already seen far worse. (Just look at all the Nazi stuff in Hero.)
OBS
Cheryl bhg bs npnqrzvp vagrerfg, vg zvtug or vagrerfgvat gb pbzcner guvf hfr
bs n ergpba jvgu jung vf qbar va Abezny Ntnva. Ohg gung'f engure n jnlf
vagb gur shgher.
Mel
In the commentary, Minear says he imagines that Angel didn't keep the
money but actually sent it back to the bank. I don't really think I
agree with that, but hey, he's the writer.
Mel
Mel
Denver? The book shop Bible-tossing guy? When did his name get
mentioned? And since when does holding a Bible cause vampires to get
steamed?
Mel
Mel
Elisi wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>
>>This is strange and gets the viewer thinking, given that it heavily
>>modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
>>seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
>>soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
>>homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996.
Wasn't he was a ratsucker huddled in a NY alley and Whistler took him to
LA??
Mel
Mel
Maybe all we're getting there is Whistler's limited knowledge of Angel.
How long as he been watching him? A few months? Certainly not 40 years
or more.
There is no Watcher record of Angel once he came to America. Giles tells
us as much in Buffy season 1. He apparently fell off the Watcher radar
since he wasn't killing anyone. You'd think they'd be interested in
knowing what happened to him, though, eh?
Mel
KenM47
"Denver: They keep calling her a zany redhead.
Could be a brunette for all I can tell. I guess I’ll just
have to take their word for it.
<He looks up and there is Angel standing on the other
side of the counter.>
Angel: You Denver?
Denver: No other cat but me. What can I do you for?"
And why not have the bible burn them if crosses and holy water can?
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
PS: I always figured "Denver" was a little tribute to Bob Denver's
beatnik Maynard G. Krebs.
Ken (Brooklyn)
George W Harris
:In the commentary, Minear says he imagines that Angel didn't keep the
:money but actually sent it back to the bank. I don't really think I
:agree with that, but hey, he's the writer.
So you think it's more reasonable for Angel to
assume that, hey, since a wrong was committed so long
ago no one should worry about it? Does that fit with
our understanding of how Angel thinks?
:Mel
--
"The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
which the physical world is turbid and confused."
-Eulogy for G.H.Hardy
KenM47
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:11:15 -0700, Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>
>:In the commentary, Minear says he imagines that Angel didn't keep the
>:money but actually sent it back to the bank. I don't really think I
>:agree with that, but hey, he's the writer.
>
> So you think it's more reasonable for Angel to
>assume that, hey, since a wrong was committed so long
>ago no one should worry about it? Does that fit with
>our understanding of how Angel thinks?
>
>:Mel
I don't see the money equating with souls. No big if Angel keeps it
IMO.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Mel
George W Harris wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:11:15 -0700, Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>
> :In the commentary, Minear says he imagines that Angel didn't keep the
> :money but actually sent it back to the bank. I don't really think I
> :agree with that, but hey, he's the writer.
>
> So you think it's more reasonable for Angel to
> assume that, hey, since a wrong was committed so long
> ago no one should worry about it? Does that fit with
> our understanding of how Angel thinks?
>
> :Mel
Angel didn't give any indication of thinking it was wrong in the
flashback. He just commented that fear makes people do stupid things.
Judy thought he was talking about her, but he says he was talking about
the bank for firing her. Maybe in his mind, the bank got what it deserved.
He said he was going to help her. How? He hid the money so the cops
wouldn't find it. Was he going to help her return the money to the bank?
Or was he going to help her get away with the money once the cops were
done with the "murder" investigation? We don't know. And while Minear
says he _imagines_ Angel gave the money back, there's no indication in
the story whether he did or not. Coming up with the money to lease with
option to buy the hotel, indicates not, but as others have mentioned, he
may have a stash. Somehow I think Cordy would know, though, since she
has such a nose for money.
Mel
One Bit Shy
news:3Yedndb-XNeTQhnZ...@uci.net...
>
>
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>> Could it be explained? Of course it could. Innumerable ways I think.
>> But it's not. It's just dumped. Hell, even something as simple as the
>> following would have helped a lot.
>>
>> Wesley: Your story puzzles me, Angel. All our watcher's lore suggests
>> that your time in America was lived in - well - squalor.
>> Angel: (Looking around the lobby) People don't know me as well as they
>> think they do, Wesley.
>
> There is no Watcher record of Angel once he came to America. Giles tells
> us as much in Buffy season 1. He apparently fell off the Watcher radar
> since he wasn't killing anyone. You'd think they'd be interested in
> knowing what happened to him, though, eh?
The information Giles has is limited, but I seem to recall that Wesley has
indicated that he did special research into Angel and has more information
than Giles did. Perhaps it includes some on the later years.
Anyway, it's only a general concept. One thing I'm sure not going to claim
is any talent as a script writer. My attempts at dialog pretty much suck.
OBS
One Bit Shy
Really? That's pretty funny. Somehow I don't think that notion would be
widely picked up on.
OBS
Mel
One Bit Shy wrote:
> "Mel" <melb...@uci.net> wrote in message
> news:3Yedndb-XNeTQhnZ...@uci.net...
>
>>
>>One Bit Shy wrote:
>>
>>>Could it be explained? Of course it could. Innumerable ways I think.
>>>But it's not. It's just dumped. Hell, even something as simple as the
>>>following would have helped a lot.
>>>
>>>Wesley: Your story puzzles me, Angel. All our watcher's lore suggests
>>>that your time in America was lived in - well - squalor.
>>>Angel: (Looking around the lobby) People don't know me as well as they
>>>think they do, Wesley.
>>
>>There is no Watcher record of Angel once he came to America. Giles tells
>>us as much in Buffy season 1. He apparently fell off the Watcher radar
>>since he wasn't killing anyone. You'd think they'd be interested in
>>knowing what happened to him, though, eh?
>
>
> The information Giles has is limited, but I seem to recall that Wesley has
> indicated that he did special research into Angel and has more information
> than Giles did. Perhaps it includes some on the later years.
We know Wesley researched Angel, but that doesn't mean he knows more
than Giles or had resources other than official Watchers Council stuff.
The only thing he mentioned was what was relevant to the pope murders
(ie stuff pre-curse). The only ones we know for sure were keeping tabs
on Angel post-curse were the gypies and I don't take them for the
sharing type.
Mel
Don Sample
Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
Information on Angelus seemed to be part of the standard Watcher
package. Giles didn't take long to find him, once he started looking,
and came up with a fair amount of stuff (including nailing puppies to
doors on Valentines Day.) Kendra had read about him too. But it seems
that they had nothing on him getting his soul, or what happened after
that.
George W Harris
:
:
:George W Harris wrote:
:
:> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:11:15 -0700, Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
:>
:> :In the commentary, Minear says he imagines that Angel didn't keep the
:> :money but actually sent it back to the bank. I don't really think I
:> :agree with that, but hey, he's the writer.
:>
:> So you think it's more reasonable for Angel to
:> assume that, hey, since a wrong was committed so long
:> ago no one should worry about it? Does that fit with
:> our understanding of how Angel thinks?
:>
:> :Mel
:
:Angel didn't give any indication of thinking it was wrong in the
:flashback.
And Angel's such an open book.
:He just commented that fear makes people do stupid things.
:Judy thought he was talking about her, but he says he was talking about
:the bank for firing her. Maybe in his mind, the bank got what it deserved.
I just don't see Angel as a bank-robbing vampire.
He seems a lot more of the returning things to their rightful
owners type.
:
George W Harris
Yeah, but Angel's perhaps a little less fast and
loose with the morality than you.
:
:Ken (Brooklyn)
--
/bud...@nirvana.net/h:k
KenM47
>On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:19:23 GMT, KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>:George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>:
>:>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:11:15 -0700, Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>:>
>:>:In the commentary, Minear says he imagines that Angel didn't keep the
>:>:money but actually sent it back to the bank. I don't really think I
>:>:agree with that, but hey, he's the writer.
>:>
>:> So you think it's more reasonable for Angel to
>:>assume that, hey, since a wrong was committed so long
>:>ago no one should worry about it? Does that fit with
>:>our understanding of how Angel thinks?
>:>
>:>:Mel
>:
>:I don't see the money equating with souls. No big if Angel keeps it
>:IMO.
>
> Yeah, but Angel's perhaps a little less fast and
>loose with the morality than you.
>:
>:Ken (Brooklyn)
Oh, I'm so cut, How will I ever recover from this rhetorical blow?
Geeesh!
Ken (Brooklyn)
Lord Usher
> George W Harris wrote:
>
>> I think people are trying to hard to find a
>> message or moral to this episode, when that's not
>> really the point. It is a moody, cinematic story. It
>> doesn't have to tell you drugs are bad, m'kay?
>> Just because it's about distrust doesn't mean it's an
>> afterschool special.
>
> That's a fair comment. I'm as happy as anyone to let a story be a
> story, but in ways that're hard to describe, I feel like AYNOHYEB
> "wants" to be thought of as something more.
Well... that's because it *is*. :)
AYNOHYEB is not just a moody homage to 1950s film. It's not just an
indictment of McCarthyism, or an illustration that racism is bad.
Indeed, according to writer Tim Minear, earlier versions didn't feature
any of these elements. Originally the story was to be set in the 1940s,
not the McCarthy era. Originally the female guest star was to be a
little girl who reminded Angel of his sister, instead of a young woman
whose need to pass reminded him of himself.
But, according to Tim, the central idea of the episode was always the
same -- to have Angel revist a painful moment in his past, and to make
us think he wants to atone for something horrible he did to someone,
only to reveal in the end that he actually wants a chance to forgive
someone for something horrible she did to him.
And that's a concept that resonates very deeply with the themes and
characters of the series, concerned as they both are with questions of
atonement and the moral nature of man.
For instance, Angel is someone who's come to see humanity in a somewhat
idealized light. It represents for him the innocence he lost when he was
turned, and through the promise of Shanshu it represents his hope for
redemption. And now in AYNOHYEB we see him face a horrifying
possibility: What if humans can't be pure and innocent, no matter how
earnestly they try? What if they're so frail that they can never earn
redemption?
Is mankind worth saving? Is a man something Angel really want to become?
Those aren't small or insignificant questions. And while the episode's
uplifting end suggests that he's decided on the answers and found some
peace... we'll see how long that lasts him.
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
Lord Usher
> While the hotel not renting to the black family appeared to be just
> period/scene setting, it did turn out to tie in, since a plot driver
> was that Judy was 'passing'.
Tim Minear once pointed out another possibility -- what if the manager is
telling the truth and there really *aren't* any vacancies, and thus the
father's angry suspicion is yet another example of the way in which the
pervasive evils of society turn good people against one another?
Doesn't come through on the screen as much as Tim had probably hoped, but
it's an intriguing idea.
KenM47
KenM47
It doesn't play like that, and the times being the times, that's
hardly something that would jump out at anyone. Especially since later
we get no reason to trust the manager.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Espen Schjønberg
Did any of you see any black hotel-guests? (No?)
How many do you think it should have been (I don't know) of those we
see, if they had rented rooms to blacks?
--
Espen
Noe er Feil[tm]
Kevin
One Bit Shy wrote:
> Cheryl bhg bs npnqrzvp vagrerfg, vg zvtug or vagrerfgvat gb pbzcner guvf hfr
> bs n ergpba jvgu jung vf qbar va Abezny Ntnva. Ohg gung'f engure n jnlf
> vagb gur shgher.
Yes. And don't call me Cheryl.
--Kevin
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Kevin" <kl...@ucsc.edu> wrote:
melanie harper?
audrey farber?
betty jo bialowski?
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
One Bit Shy
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-C0B5C...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <1149625735....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Kevin" <kl...@ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> One Bit Shy wrote:
>> > Cheryl bhg bs npnqrzvp vagrerfg, vg zvtug or vagrerfgvat gb pbzcner
>> > guvf hfr
>> > bs n ergpba jvgu jung vf qbar va Abezny Ntnva. Ohg gung'f engure n
>> > jnlf
>> > vagb gur shgher.
>>
>>
>> Yes. And don't call me Cheryl.
>
> melanie harper?
>
> audrey farber?
>
> betty jo bialowski?
Everyone calls her Nancy.
OBS
William George Ferguson
tomys des anges <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <1149625735....@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Kevin" <kl...@ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> One Bit Shy wrote:
>> > Cheryl bhg bs npnqrzvp vagrerfg, vg zvtug or vagrerfgvat gb pbzcner guvf hfr
>> > bs n ergpba jvgu jung vf qbar va Abezny Ntnva. Ohg gung'f engure n jnlf
>> > vagb gur shgher.
>>
>>
>> Yes. And don't call me Cheryl.
>
>melanie harper?
>
>audrey farber?
>
>betty jo bialowski?
Oh, you mean Nancy!
--
"And then it hit me, like the hot kiss at the end of a wet fist."
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
William George Ferguson
[snip discussion of Angel not being 'stink-guy' for the entire 100 years]
>It could still be considered a retcon. There are different types of
>retcons (I think George Ferguson did a post on them once). This is the
>type that just presents new information that might change one's
>previously held assumptions. It does NOT actually contradict what
>we've already been shown, though.
Okay, you made me go back and look at when I would have said it (it did
sound like me so I assumed I really had), and it turns out it came up in a
thread on Angel's backstory, including this very issue (hooda thunk it).
I classified Angel not just being stink-guy for a 100 years as a green
retcon in my post. V pynffvsvrq Qneyn xvqanccvat Qeh vafgrnq bs Natry nf
n tbyq ergpba.
It wasn't original with me of course, so I dug up a source (there are
several, but all quote the same original, lost in antiquity) from the
rec.arts.comics heirarchy
=======================================================================
From article <v915ktsg3im4uf49t...@4ax.com>
From: "Allen W. Wright" <p...@istar.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.dc.universe
Subject: Re: What the Hell is a "Retcon"?
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:08:38 -0400
I think I'll recycle my several year old post on this subject.
A retcon is a noun (to retcon, a verb) which is short for retroactive
continuity. Like Pre-Crisis Kryptonite, it comes in several exciting
flavour and colours.
1. Green Retcon. This was the original retcon. It's when some previous
unknown element is inserted into a character's past. "Jen, why it's been
ages! I haven't seen you since we broke up in high school!" This old
girlfriend would never have been mentioned before. But she'd probably
become a major plot element for future stories. It doesn't invalidate
previous issues and sets up new stories.
2. Jewel Retcon. These retcons come from fragments of the fabled Jewel
Mountains of Krypton. These are continuity patches. For example, when
Captain America was found by the Avengers, the comic said he'd been frozen
in an iceberg since 1945. But there were Captain America stories in 1946
and the 1950's. So, Roy Thomas and Steve Engleheart wrote some stories
explaining who those Captain Americas were. Once again, this kind of
retcon doesn't damage continuity. Of course, these stories can be
somewhat clunky.
3. Red Retcon. These retcons passed through meteor clouds and have
unpredictable effects on a character's past. Red retcons establish that
what we thought and what the characters thought isn't true. For example,
it was long-held that the Vision was constructed from the original Human
Torch android. But in West Coast Avengers, John Byrne had the heroes
discover that this wasn't true at all. [Addendum: This was re-retconed in
Avengers Forever.] The Spidey clone stuff could be considered a red
retcon, but I think it's more retcon-type 5.
4. Gold Retcon. This is the most deadly form of retcon. It takes away a
character's past. For example, editor Denny O'Neil declared that Batman
was never in the JLA. So, just ignore those pesky issues with Batman in
them. They never happened. [Addendum: Except now, they did happen ... sort
of.] Gold retcon was created by the Crisis on Infinite Earths and Zero
Hour.
5. Blue "Bizarro" Retcon. This type could be more deadly than gold. That
is, if anyone could figure out what the heck was going on. Iron Boy.
Spidey Clone. Nuff Said. [Addendum: Hawkman .... still!]
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> story external mccarthy is still a big deal among screenwriters
>>
>> there are periodic efforts to rehabilitate mccarthy
>> i dont remember if this show coincide with one of those or not
>
> I don't care to rehabilitate him, but I would say that HUAC was probably
> worse. McCarthy got the era named after him because he was the bigger
> blowhard.
In my opinion, McCarthy was worse, and being a bigger blowhard is actually
what made him so. For one thing, his grandstanding probably added more to
the national atmosphere of hysteria than HUAC's more restrained
committee-style grandstanding. Also, at least when HUAC harrassed and
persecuted people, they had *some* sort of reason for suspecting them,
however flimsy. They would investigate someone who had been a Communist
back in the 30s, or had once written a screenplay that was considered
pro-Soviet, or who had hired a guy who later dated a woman whose uncle's
neighbor's dog had chewed a rug into the shape of Stalin's mustache, or
SOMETHING. They rarely if ever found any real traitors, but at least they
operated semi-rationally. Joe McCarthy, on the other had, would routinely
fling wild accusations at everybody and anybody, without ANY basis
whatsoever. That strikes me as worse in a moral/ethical sense, even if
the results were just the same for the victims. It also made the
witch-hunt atmosphere even worse by showing that anyone could be accused
at any time. McCarthy was allo the worst aspects of the era distilled
into their purest form, and well deserved having this blot on our history
named after him.
By the way, Are You Now... is my favorite episode from the early part of
season 2. I'd give it a high Good.
--Chris,
catching up on a month's worth of AoQ threads
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
reld...@usa.net
One Bit Shy wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149464259.8...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > ANGEL
> > Season Two, Episode 2: "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?"
>
> > This is strange and gets the viewer thinking, given that it heavily
> > modifies the previous story we had. As far as I recall, we've never
> > seen anything about how he spent the first century of his time with a
> > soul. "Becoming" took us straight from the curse to Angel as a
> > homeless ratsucker huddled in an alley in L.A., circa 1996. To me the
> > implication was that he'd spent all this time as a drifter, investing
> > effort only in self-preservation and in avoiding people. Now we find
> > out that as recently as the '50s, he was living in the city, passing
> > for human, and being basically decent, yet consuming irreplaceable
> > human blood in neatly brand-labeled bottles. So he was only later
> > driven to the edge, possibly by the events of AYNOHYEB and possibly by
> > something else. I'm not sure how to feel about that. The earlier
> > version was narratively tidier, you know?
>
> This is my first big issue with the episode. That is *not* the image we've
> been given of Angel's suffering years.
>
> There are a few other continuity things that bothered me a bit, but the
> overall feel is a honking big retcon.
>
>
> > needs to be protected. She's mysterious and morally ambiguous, but
> > Angel can't help but be sucked into the case. Meanwhile, there's
> > something supernatural going on. This version of Angel is more
> > avoidant than the present day character, as we see both here and with
> > his lack of reaction to the gunshot. But once he decides he's
> > interested in something, it's investigative time. I thought the
> > scenes between him and Judy dragged quite a bit, with a little too much
> > of her obsessively following him and talking his ear off to provide the
> > exposition, and a little too much bland dialogue.
>
> That's my second big issue. The show drags. One of the longer 45 minutes
> of either series.
>
>
> > My biggest problem with this episode, besides it not being tremendously
> > exciting (it could've been one of the quietly-fascinating ones,
> > though, if it'd been better) is that I don't know whether it's
> > trying for a message deeper than "paranoia and scapegoating are
> > bad" or just a theme... and I'm not convinced that the writer knows
> > either. Besides the external source of paranoia, the story is set in a
> > place obsessed with appearing "normal" to the point of hiding
> > corpses, all against a backdrop of McCarthyism, racism, and general
> > mistrust of anything that's different. What does it all "mean?"
> > I don't really know. The whole racial element in particular, despite
> > the fact that it reflects on both the rest of the episode and on Angel
> > himself (ZOMG!! they both dabble in two worlds they can't be part
> > of!) still feels awkward. And I don't really get, dramatically
> > speaking, why Judy dies at the end either. The only layered meaning I
> > can think of for that scene is people afraid to step outside their
> > worldviews and dying in a small place, which I don't think is all
> > that strong an image.
>
> The rest of the episode, however, I think is pretty strong. As I take it,
> the theme of the general story is the evil of McCarthyism. That's the main
> social commentary part. You can tell partly because the climax is the girl
> terrorized through insinuation and accusation throwing false charges upon
> another. And also because the demon's trick is to play on people's
> paranoia.
>
> I take the racial aspect as a contributing mix of several things. Partly
> adds to the period atmosphere. Partly provides a link with Angel for him to
> identify with and offer him motivation to act. Partly provides her weak
> point to be attacked. leading her to succumb to less than honorable choices
> as an escape.
>
> Angel's personal story, though is both atonement and forgiveness. He needs
> to forgive her (just as she needs to be forgiven), for she is more victim
> than criminal. (How true that is for a bank robber of her magnitude is
> debatable, but that seems to be the show's intent. And, besides, who's
> Angel to get too moralistic about that?) The atonement is because Angel
> shares some responsibility. He left everybody to their torment even though
> he knew the kind of demon that was there - and had been specifically told by
> that demon how he had fatted up the girl.
>
> That, however, is more into the symbolism than one really needs to dwell on.
> To me it's mainly a pretty cool period piece loaded with atmoshpere and a
> pretty good, albeit slow moving, story. I think there are some homages
> worked in their too - like the pathetic souls wasting their lives hanging
> out in the hotel lobby. Couldn't tell you which movies offhand though.
>
>
> > Old guys setting up shop in buildings with dark histories seems to be
> > recurring theme this week in the Buffyverse.
>
> Heh. I missed that connection. I do wonder why the heck Angel needs a
> vacant 65 room hotel though. Seems kind of over the top just to give more
> room for the camera crew.
--Okay, here I am now working my way through the AOQ Angel Reviews that
I didn't have time to read when they first were posted. Fortunately
this thread is less than a month old, so Google will still let me reply
to posts on it. There were some AOQ Buffy Reviews posted more than a
month ago that I wanted to reply to, but couldn't.
In defense of AYNOHYEB, I have to say that this was one of the very few
AtS episodes that riveted my attention at a time when I was a very
desultory and unenthusiastic viewer of AtS. I should explain that I
liked very few episodes in AtS season 1, and when AYNOHYEB first aired
I had no idea that season 2 was going to get as good as it eventually
did. So in early autumn of 2000 when season 2 got started, I had no
notion that I would ever get deeply involved with AtS.
But I remember that I was so fascinated with AYNOHYEB, when I happened
to be traveling somewhere later that week and there was a TV station in
another town that for some reason was airing AYNOHYEB a few days later
than the normal airdate, I made a point of sitting in my motel room and
watching AYNOHYEB all over again. (Of course I hadn't taped it because
I didn't know it would be so fascinating, and I just wasn't taping AtS
episodes at that time.)
My overall impression of AtS fandom is that AYNOHYEB is one of the most
widely admired of all AtS episodes, certainly one of the most widely
admired before the appearance of Drusilla and Darla's revamping.
(That's when AtS really became "must watch TV" for me.) So once again,
as with certain widely admired BtVS episodes, AOQ has really surprised
me with his lack of enthusiasm. I would give a more detailed defense
of AYNOHYEB's significance and dramatic successfulness, except that
Lord Usher has already posted pretty much what I would have said
myself.
AOQ, I would recommend that when you finally get to the end of both
series, if you go back and listen to any of the directors' commentaries
at all, make sure you listen to Minear's commentary on AYNOHYEB. It's
one of the most interesting director commentaries on either of the two
series, and is very illuminating. But I don't want to make it sound as
if one *needs* the commentary in order to enjoy the episode. I enjoyed
it right off the bat, and I certainly can't agree that it was a slow
and draggy 45 minutes -- quite the opposite, in fact. At that point in
time there weren't many AtS episodes that I would have wanted to watch
twice in the same week.
Finally, I was taken by the comment that both AtS 2j-2 and BtVS 5-2 had
to do with setting up a new business in buildings that had dark
histories. I guess that's a reference to Giles buying the Magic Box?
I started wondering what its dark history was, and then I remembered
that Dru killed one of the former owners in BtVS season 2, and Spike
killed another owner or employee in season 3. Then I remembered that
of the BtVS episodes that AOQ has seen thus far, there's one, "Family"
(BtVS 5-6), in which Spike shows up in the Magic Box in a helpful
capacity. Here's my point: while I know that in "Family" everybody
was preoccupied with Tara's problems, and not terribly interested in
Spike's presence other than for the light he could shed on Tara's
identity, I also find myself speculating about whether it crossed any
of the characters' minds, even if only fleetingly, that this was the
very spot where Spike was known to have killed somebody.
Now, this may not be terribly important given that all of Sunnydale was
Spike's hunting ground for the first half of season 2, and what does it
matter whether one pinpoints the exact locations of his kills or not?
But somehow there's something gripping and dramatic about the return to
the scene of the crime, so to speak. For instance, when everybody
went to the ruins of the old high school in "Doomed" (season 4), that
was the very location where Spike had wreaked havoc back in "School
Hard."
I don't know where I'm going with this exactly, but it's just something
I started thinking about. And it doesn't apply only to Spike. What
about all of Angelus's Sunnydale kills in the second half of BtVS
season 2, and then good-guy Angel returning to Sunnydale again the next
year? I wonder if he was ever taken aback by a specific location and
the bloody memories he had of it?
I'm pretty sure bad memories are the reason why Angel left the Old
World for the New World not many years after his 1898 ensoulment.
Clairel
George W Harris
:But somehow there's something gripping and dramatic about the return to
:the scene of the crime, so to speak.
Or, sometimes, something funny. "We killed a
homeless person on this bench. Good times."
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Clairel
George W Harris wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2006 12:11:28 -0700, reld...@usa.net wrote:
>
> :But somehow there's something gripping and dramatic about the return to
> :the scene of the crime, so to speak.
>
> Or, sometimes, something funny. "We killed a
> homeless person on this bench. Good times."
--Heh. I thought about that incident in "Lovers Walk." The ironic
thing is,
nf bs frnfba frira Fcvxr jbhyq ab qbhog rkcrevrapr trahvar cnva
guvaxvat nobhg gur onq gvzrf ba gung cnex orapu.
Clairel