5x22: The Short Review (S5 spoilers)
Niall Harrison
...is that it? Are we done?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Not Fade Away
Written by Joss Whedon and Jeffrey Bell
Directed by Jeffrey Bell
Finales - endings - have never been _Angel_'s strong
suit. With stories that don't sit neatly within
seasonal boundaries, and arcs that don't lend
themselves to clear-cut outcomes, it's occasionally
been tempting to think that the show simply lacks
follow-through. Sometimes issues have been dodged. At
least half the time, the end of the season has been
more about setup than resolution. As a result, it would
perhaps be easy to see 'Not Fade Away' as more of the
same - a cliffhanger ending from a show that the
writers were making up as they went along - but to me,
that would be a mistake. _Angel_ has never been about
answers, or endings, or victory. It's always been
about questions, and choices - and above all, about the
journey.
That said, and whatever you may think of that final
scene, a lot *is* wrapped up along the way. Everybody
gets a killer scene this week, and the majority of them
are definitive character moments. Wesley falls,
symbolically slain by Vail's false memories - by a lie.
Angel, in a perfect convergence of the literal and
metaphorical stories, turns Hamilton's power on itself.
He is also saved by his son, and then finally makes
peace with him. Lorne succumbs to disillusionment at
what the fight has become (and I *so* want to believe
that he's no headed for the Hyperion, to give us the
framing story from 'Spin the Bottle.' Of course you
can't draw a line in the sand and say 'it went wrong
here' - but of course Lorne's going to look back on his
own actions, and interpret one of them as The Start).
And Gunn? He rediscovers his inner vampire slayer,
inheritance of the wrist-stakes and all, and along the
way gives us the scene that I would peg as *the* key
moment of the episode: his trip to see Anne.
"What if I told you it doesn't help? What would you
do if you found out that none of it matters? That
it's all controlled by forces more powerful and
uncaring than we can conceive, and they will never
let it get better down here. What would you do?"
"I'd get this truck packed before the new stuff gets
here. Wanna give me a hand?"
"I do."
-- Gunn and Anne
This, of course, is an elegant reprise of the argument
presented in 'Epiphany'. It makes the point the episode
needs, and refers back to one of the key moments in the
show's history, but it doesn't spell anything out - and
without it, the episode would be vastly weaker, because
it sets up a vital debate: is Angel doing the right
thing?
The Good Fight goes on, that's clear. It cannot be won,
but it must be fought. That, also, is clear. The
question that remains, therefore, is this: how?
We know from the moment Angel's plan is proposed that
it's a suicide mission and that in the grand scheme of
things, all it will be for the forces of the apocalypse
is a setback. If nothing we do matters, then all that
matters is what we do, and maybe, says Angel, the fight
is what makes humanity great. Maybe a bright, shining
moment is the way to assert humanity's potential, to
make people like Hamilton understand why champions
fight. Maybe now that Angel *can*, he *should*.
And maybe, points out that scene with Anne, that's
wrong. Maybe this - persuading Angel to throw his life
away in service of a victory that, in the end, doesn't
mean a whole lot - is the Senior Partners' final
victory. Maybe it's really in the little stuff; maybe
the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in
the world.
And maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe you do what you can,
from where you stand. Maybe the simple fact that you
*do* fight is all that matters.
None of these options are conclusively shown to be
'right' or 'wrong', in the same way that Angel's last
stand is neither won nor lost. It's a question, frozen
in time. Even though it got them all killed, there's no
doubt that Angel's plan was heroic. Even though she's
never going to change anything, there's no doubt that
Anne is doing good work. Like most of the show's other
great episodes of, and like too few other episodes in
S5, 'Not Fade Away' presents a decision that may or may
not be right, but is completely understandable.
It's not perfect, of course. No episode is without a
few fluffs. For instance: Angel really should have some
idea what being human was like, given the events of 'I
Will Remember You'. Wes should arguably have been the
one to rescue the baby. Harmony should definitely be
dead. Lorne's actions had shock value mostly because
they cheated the audience somewhat earlier on - when
did Angel give the Host his instructions? And although
it's a pitch-perfect ending to the series, it's
debatable how well it works as an end to the season.
Do these things matter? Not to me. Not really. I think
it's still a damn fine episode; arguably the best
season finale, and it's probably in my all-time top
ten. This is simply because to me, what the episode
gets right far, far outweighs what it gets wrong. It's
intelligent. It's funny. It's moving. It's darky-dark
dark dark with a side of dark. It gets to the core of
who these characters are. And it gets to the core of
what this show is about.
"You're fading. You'll last ten minutes at best."
"Then let's make 'em memorable."
"And in terms of a plan?"
"We fight."
"Bit more specific?"
"Well personally, I kinda want to slay the dragon."
Not fade away, indeed.
Niall
--
A little charm and a lot of style.
kim
"I will return in kind every blow, every sting. I will shred my adversaries.
Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated
faces. I will make trophies of their spines."
kim :o)
Mattia Valente
> ...is that it? Are we done?
*sniff*
<SNIP>
What You Said. All of it.
Mattia
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>
>...is that it? Are we done?
>
Oh man, I haven't even read the review and I'm already upset...
<snip>
>It's not perfect, of course. No episode is without a
>few fluffs. For instance: Angel really should have some
>idea what being human was like, given the events of 'I
>Will Remember You'.
That's semantics. It was one day five years ago.
>Wes should arguably have been the
>one to rescue the baby.
Spike rescuing the baby echoes Angel's rescuing of the baby from Darla
during the Boxer Rebellion in "Darla".
>Harmony should definitely be
>dead.
Yeah, if I was going to be critical of something in the finale, this
would be it. But it's a minor, minor thing - I'm just so happy they
had her betray him.
>Lorne's actions had shock value mostly because
>they cheated the audience somewhat earlier on - when
>did Angel give the Host his instructions?
During the ad break. It's a legitimate way of misleading the audience
without actually cheating - it is alluded to that we didn't see the
whole meeting.
>And although
>it's a pitch-perfect ending to the series, it's
>debatable how well it works as an end to the season.
>
As you said earlier, because the seasons of Angel have never conformed
to beginnings, middles and ends such as Buffy had, I think it's
impossible to say it's one thing or the other - in reference to the
season.
They do definitively leave W&H's control, though. And David Fury has
said that Season 6 would have been about the fall-out from the
departure - whether or not it would have been executed the same way or
not.
>Do these things matter? Not to me. Not really. I think
>it's still a damn fine episode; arguably the best
>season finale, and it's probably in my all-time top
>ten.
Without a doubt the best season finale and, quite easily, top three
for me. Perhaps even the best episode of the run.
>This is simply because to me, what the episode
>gets right far, far outweighs what it gets wrong. It's
>intelligent. It's funny. It's moving. It's darky-dark
>dark dark with a side of dark. It gets to the core of
>who these characters are. And it gets to the core of
>what this show is about.
>
Perfectly put.
> "You're fading. You'll last ten minutes at best."
> "Then let's make 'em memorable."
> "And in terms of a plan?"
> "We fight."
> "Bit more specific?"
> "Well personally, I kinda want to slay the dragon."
>
"Let's go to work."
>Not fade away, indeed.
>
And on a technical level, the screen didn't *fade* to black - it most
definitively cut away. Subtle but damn effective.
-- Keith Gow --
Dan Hartland
news:10867285...@urchin.earth.li...
>
> ...is that it? Are we done?
The good fight, yeah? I get that now.
<snip>
> As a result, it would
> perhaps be easy to see 'Not Fade Away' as more of the
> same - a cliffhanger ending from a show that the
> writers were making up as they went along - but to me,
> that would be a mistake. _Angel_ has never been about
> answers, or endings, or victory. It's always been
> about questions, and choices - and above all, about the
> journey.
Absolutely. Reading cityofangel.com's boards, I was staggered by the number
of people who thought what we saw was a cliffhanger. Clearly, it could be,
but I think we must take it as an ending. The city's denizens came up with
so many ways to resolve the cliffhanger that they completely missed the
central point: that the episode *had* an ending, and that it was one that
said that endings in themselves don't actually matter all that much. It's
not the goal - it's the process.
<snip>
> And Gunn? He rediscovers his inner vampire slayer,
> inheritance of the wrist-stakes and all, and along the
> way gives us the scene that I would peg as *the* key
> moment of the episode: his trip to see Anne.
Gunn was excellent in this episode - genuinely glad a character that has
been with us for so long got some good lines at last (Lorne was possibly my
favourite character in the episode, but he has often got decent words to
say). Something about the scene in the senator's campaign office reminded me
of vintage Gunn, circa 'TSILA'. And yes, that exchange with Anne is
sublimely apposite.
<snip>
> And maybe, points out that scene with Anne, that's
> wrong. Maybe this - persuading Angel to throw his life
> away in service of a victory that, in the end, doesn't
> mean a whole lot - is the Senior Partners' final
> victory. Maybe it's really in the little stuff; maybe
> the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in
> the world.
Yes. There's something of the 'big victory' here, even though it's a
transitory 'big victory'. I like that even Angel's final action was
ambiguous - getting at Wolfram and Hart in an Important (if, as he now
recognises, temporary, way) was, after all, what beige Angel was all about.
At the same time, the *message* Angel's actions send is as important as the
*actual* effect it has ... and so there is no right answer. Just a difficult
choice, as there always has been on this show.
Dan
<snip>
Dan Hartland
The good fight, yeah? I get that now.
> .
<snip>
> As a result, it would
> perhaps be easy to see 'Not Fade Away' as more of the
> same - a cliffhanger ending from a show that the
> writers were making up as they went along - but to me,
> that would be a mistake. _Angel_ has never been about
> answers, or endings, or victory. It's always been
> about questions, and choices - and above all, about the
> journey.
Absolutely. Reading cityofangel.com's boards, I was staggered by the number
of people who thought what we saw was a cliffhanger. Clearly, it could be,
but I think we must take it as an ending. The city's denizens came up with
so many ways to resolve the cliffhanger that they completely missed the
central point: that the episode *had* an ending, and that it was one that
said that endings in themselves don't actually matter all that much. It's
not the goal - it's the process.
<snip>
> And Gunn? He rediscovers his inner vampire slayer,
> inheritance of the wrist-stakes and all, and along the
> way gives us the scene that I would peg as *the* key
> moment of the episode: his trip to see Anne.
Gunn was excellent in this episode - genuinely glad a character that has
been with us for so long got some good lines at last (Lorne was possibly my
favourite character in the episode, but he has often got decent words to
say). Something about the scene in the senator's campaign office reminded me
of vintage Gunn, circa 'TSILA'. And yes, that exchange with Anne is
sublimely apposite.
<snip>
> And maybe, points out that scene with Anne, that's
> wrong. Maybe this - persuading Angel to throw his life
> away in service of a victory that, in the end, doesn't
> mean a whole lot - is the Senior Partners' final
> victory. Maybe it's really in the little stuff; maybe
> the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in
> the world.
Yes. There's something of the 'big victory' here, even though it's a
Keith Gow
<dan.ha...@btinternet.com> waxed lyrical:
If we take the "recovering alcoholic" metaphor that the writers began
with all those years ago and basically stuck with throughout, it's
perfectly fitting - as most alcoholic's consider they on a continuing
road to recovery, they won't wake up one day and not be addicted
anymore.
-- Keith Gow --
Mary Gentle
(Niall Harrison) wrote:
I'm not going to put in a vote - it would skew things unnecessarily, I
think. And if I'm surprised by people's reactions to the finale, maybe in
some ways it was bound to happen; almost by definition, those who are
still around at the end of Season 5 are going to be mostly a self-selected
group of those whose tastes run to what ANGEL became in the latter days.
(What am I doing still here? Never did know enough to stop banging my
head against a wall; that's /my/ reason... :)
But. But, but, but.
If I were going to give it a score, it would be 0.
And as for why...
Well, a couple of points. Firstly, the straw in the wind:
> None of these options are conclusively shown to be
> 'right' or 'wrong',
That worries me. When the fiction itself says it's OK for Angel to kill
the innocent Drogyn for the 'greater good' - _when_ did the ends start
justifying the means?
Compare and contrast: Wesley and Gunn in Pylea - "If you try to get nobody
killed, you get everybody killed." Where's the equivalent statement of
the moral dilemma here? Why, nowhere very much; we're not supposed to see
it as a moral dilemma. Only a practical one.
But the key thing, for me:
> Lorne's actions had shock value mostly because
> they cheated the audience somewhat earlier on - when
> did Angel give the Host his instructions? And although
> it's a pitch-perfect ending to the series, it's
> debatable how well it works as an end to the season.
'Perfect' in _what_ sense?
From Day One, ANGEL has been about redemption. Can the evil make up for
what they've done; if they can't, what _ought_ they to do? And in
that respect, Angel and Lindsey have mirrored each other since "Blind
Date", at least.
If I'd been shown a conversation on-screen between Lorne and Angel when
the order to kill Lindsey was (supposedly) given, I _might_ be convinced
Lorne could be brought to that point. Maybe. 'Executioner acting under
orders' never struck me as a possible role for him. I don't see how it
could have been convincing, but we don't know what would have been
written; there's always a possibility.
_But_ - Angel can order what is essentially a gangland hit on someone who
he's just used for his own ends? Angel can see Lindsey on his own very
rocky road to redemption and...order him shot? Angel can _order_ someone
executed, rather than taking it into his own hands?
Perhaps all these things are true. If they are, and ANGEL stayed true to
its premise, then what we'd have would be a tragic ending of major
proportions: Angel is suckered into taking on the LA branch of Wolfram and
Hart, and less than a year later he's acting on the moral level of a Mafia
don. The Senior Partners have succeeded in corrupting Angel away from
seeing people as individuals, in need of saving or redemption, and brought
him to a point where everybody's a tool for some purpose. We're fucking
for virginity, in terms of morals and ethics. The Apocalypse is doing
very nicely, thanks, and the Senior Partners have got what they wanted all
along.
But, as you say, it's _not_ presented as wrong.
In the absence of any text or subtext raising the issues, or objections to
the issues, I think it probably has to be seen as presented as right.
I dunno what it is about Mutant Enemy and endings. BUFFY spent seven
years talking about female empowerment, and had the finale decided by one
man bringing in the Magic Gadget of Victory, and another man operating it.
(Can of worms about whether the undead count as men left firmly closed -
they're male, certainly.) And now ANGEL chucks everything about its moral
grounding and announces _that's_ a victory.
I don't think I'm going to bother with SERENITY.
Mary
Helen H
<snip>
>
>If I'd been shown a conversation on-screen between Lorne and Angel when
>the order to kill Lindsey was (supposedly) given, I _might_ be convinced
>Lorne could be brought to that point. Maybe. 'Executioner acting under
>orders' never struck me as a possible role for him. I don't see how it
>could have been convincing, but we don't know what would have been
>written; there's always a possibility.
I guess I saw the Lorne event rather differently. I didn't see it as
Lorne acting under orders but rather as Lorne returning to his Pylean
roots. His heritage is "Black and White", learned from Pylea, a world
of absolutes, and he's been trying to live in a world of black, white,
grey and beige. He was disillusioned with his lot and to an extent I
saw his behaviour as going back to his roots.
Lindsey was evil and dangerous and Krevlornswath of the Deathwok clan
was raised to eliminate evil, so that's exactly what he did. I saw
this as very much a case of stripping away the trappings of dandyism
and behaving as himself (or the "himself" that he wanted to be).
It honestly never crossed my mind that Angel had ordered Lorne to do
anything other than help Lindsey.
<snip>
Helen
Iain Clark
Gentle) wrote:
>If I were going to give it a score, it would be 0.
>
>And as for why...
>
>Well, a couple of points. Firstly, the straw in the wind:
>
>> None of these options are conclusively shown to be
>> 'right' or 'wrong',
>
>That worries me. When the fiction itself says it's OK for Angel to kill
>the innocent Drogyn for the 'greater good' - _when_ did the ends start
>justifying the means?
>
Does it say it's okay? Or does it simply show us what he did, and
why, and leave us to decide?
>Compare and contrast: Wesley and Gunn in Pylea - "If you try to get nobody
>killed, you get everybody killed." Where's the equivalent statement of
>the moral dilemma here? Why, nowhere very much; we're not supposed to see
>it as a moral dilemma. Only a practical one.
>
I do think that there are some moral contradictions in the finale.
We know that Angel is doing bad even as he does good. Drogyn dead,
Lindsey dead, and all to either facilitate Angel's grand statement of
purpose (surely tainted by the means?) or to make his actions have a
more lasting impact (by killing the man who might have done best as
head of the Wolfram and Hart LA branch.)
If all that matters is what we do, then it's not the scale of the
statement that should matter, and not how long it lasts, but the
purity of the statement. On that score, Angel failed.
>'Perfect' in _what_ sense?
>
>From Day One, ANGEL has been about redemption. Can the evil make up for
>what they've done; if they can't, what _ought_ they to do? And in
>that respect, Angel and Lindsey have mirrored each other since "Blind
>Date", at least.
>
>If I'd been shown a conversation on-screen between Lorne and Angel when
>the order to kill Lindsey was (supposedly) given, I _might_ be convinced
>Lorne could be brought to that point. Maybe. 'Executioner acting under
>orders' never struck me as a possible role for him. I don't see how it
>could have been convincing, but we don't know what would have been
>written; there's always a possibility.
>
I think it worked in the execution (if you'll excuse the pun). Last
year I'd have said it was completely out of character, but this year
Lorne has become bitter and disillusioned to the point where he's
prepared to do things he would never have conscienced before. He sees
the instruction from Angel as final evidence that this is not his
fight, but he's prepared to do this one last thing out of loyalty, and
out of recognition that if it's evil then it's a necessary evil.
I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but I can buy *this*
Lorne doing it.
>_But_ - Angel can order what is essentially a gangland hit on someone who
>he's just used for his own ends? Angel can see Lindsey on his own very
>rocky road to redemption and...order him shot? Angel can _order_ someone
>executed, rather than taking it into his own hands?
>
Now this takes some rationalising, I agree. I'm not convinced that
Lindsey presented the threat that's implied, and even if he did I'm
far from sure that the ends justified the means. One suspects that
this scene was driven more by the desire to give Lindsey a final
send-off than because it rang perfectly true.
I do think that, as a scene, and as a perfectly dark and ironic little
death for the character, it worked brilliantly. It's a triumph of
storytelling, even if it's a lapse of moral consistency.
>Perhaps all these things are true. If they are, and ANGEL stayed true to
>its premise, then what we'd have would be a tragic ending of major
>proportions: Angel is suckered into taking on the LA branch of Wolfram and
>Hart, and less than a year later he's acting on the moral level of a Mafia
>don. The Senior Partners have succeeded in corrupting Angel away from
>seeing people as individuals, in need of saving or redemption, and brought
>him to a point where everybody's a tool for some purpose. We're fucking
>for virginity, in terms of morals and ethics. The Apocalypse is doing
>very nicely, thanks, and the Senior Partners have got what they wanted all
>along.
>
>But, as you say, it's _not_ presented as wrong.
>
Well, except that Lorne is so disgusted by it he leaves the group.
And I think we get a range of opinions. Some of the gang do good for
its own sake, some are more grey, feeling the ends justify the means.
None are shown to be 100% right or wrong, they're simply shown to be
flawed but well-intentioned people, making choices, putting their
lives on the line, and doing the best they can.
If the episode has a 'message' it's not so much what the characters do
as why they do it. We're examining their motives, sacrifices and
dedication, not their moral purity.
>In the absence of any text or subtext raising the issues, or objections to
>the issues, I think it probably has to be seen as presented as right.
>
>I dunno what it is about Mutant Enemy and endings. BUFFY spent seven
>years talking about female empowerment, and had the finale decided by one
>man bringing in the Magic Gadget of Victory, and another man operating it.
>(Can of worms about whether the undead count as men left firmly closed -
>they're male, certainly.)
Aw, hey. I know you're talking about the amulet, but that wasn't the
deus ex machina that saved the day, just one part of the solution.
The *other* unlikely deus ex machina is entirely female: the 'scythe'
was signposted by a woman - the Guardian - and unlocked by a woman -
Willow. It was wielded by several women, and ultimately it empowered
many more women. Maybe we have a nice yin-yang balance between male
and female contrived plot devices. ;-)
> And now ANGEL chucks everything about its moral
>grounding
Chucks out? Or adjusts it into a darker, more practical, more morally
dubious version? Less idealistic, more realistic.
Maybe what the finale says is that you live as if the world were as it
should be... most of the time. There are also times when you have to
weigh small evils against the greater good. I can see how that is a
moral failure, and I can see why it would be seen as abhorrent, but
Angel's done it before (in That Vision Thing for starters). If that
undermines his accomplishments, fair enough. He's not perfect, but he
holds as close to his principles as he can. He still keeps
fighting... if not the good fight, then just the best fight he can.
It's a change from the Angel of old, and I might even agree that I
preferred the Angel of old. It may even indicate that W&H have worn
him down. But I don't think he's evil. He's a hero - just one who
stumbles and loses his way quite often. A hero with a dollop of
anti-hero.
>and announces _that's_ a victory.
>
It *is* a victory. It's also a failure. It's noble yet base,
idealistic yet tainted.
Actually, Joss has always been better at the powerful emotional
journey than either fine detail or consistency. He's good at
examining themes from different angles, but seems uninterested in
adjusting the story to preserve a single, coherent message.
How much of this episode is an accidental wobble in message based on
storytelling-over-message, and how much is deliberate moral ambiguity,
I'm not certain.
>I don't think I'm going to bother with SERENITY.
>
Suit yourself. I'm already queuing. ;-)
Iain
Iain Clark
>_Angel_ has never been about
>answers, or endings, or victory. It's always been
>about questions, and choices - and above all, about the
>journey.
>
That's exactly how I saw it - this episode was about the journey, not
the destination. It was about Why We Fight, not how we fight, or what
we accomplish.
>That said, and whatever you may think of that final
>scene, a lot *is* wrapped up along the way
Yup. Quite meticulously on a character level, if not a plot level.
>Angel, in a perfect convergence of the literal and
>metaphorical stories, turns Hamilton's power on itself.
Ooh, nice. I hadn't thought of it in terms of being a microcosm of
the bigger picture.
<Gunn and Anne>
>The Good Fight goes on, that's clear. It cannot be won,
>but it must be fought. That, also, is clear. The
>question that remains, therefore, is this: how?
> maybe, says Angel, the fight
>is what makes humanity great. Maybe a bright, shining
>moment is the way to assert humanity's potential, to
>make people like Hamilton understand why champions
>fight.
>And maybe, points out that scene with Anne, that's
>wrong.
>Maybe it's really in the little stuff; maybe
>the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in
>the world.
>
>And maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe you do what you can,
>from where you stand. Maybe the simple fact that you
>*do* fight is all that matters.
>
It's in this latter perspective that we see the ends justifying the
means - good spun from tainted actions is still good as long as you
fight. By any means necessary, and all that.
I don't think it's given any more weight than the other ideas (and
Anne is really contradicting it) but it's there.
>None of these options are conclusively shown to be
>'right' or 'wrong', in the same way that Angel's last
>stand is neither won nor lost. It's a question, frozen
>in time.
The "Butch and Sundance" ending. :-)
In a way, that's a fitting comparison, because it relates to stepping
out of the real world, and into myth.
We're shown what they're willing to lay on the line, and why. We
don't need to know the outcome, because that's not the point. It's
their choice to fight that will be remembered, not their
accomplishments.
> like too few other episodes in
>S5, 'Not Fade Away' presents a decision that may or may
>not be right, but is completely understandable.
>
True.
>It's not perfect, of course. No episode is without a
>few fluffs. For instance: Angel really should have some
>idea what being human was like, given the events of 'I
>Will Remember You'.
Pah! tat's much too literal a nitpick. He can still say he doesn't
really remember being human, because he's not talking about the
physical fact of being flesh and blood. He's talking about being an
ordinary mortal guy, living an ordinary mortal life. It's like saying
he doesn't remember what it's like to be innocent.
> s and Wes should arguably have been the
>one to rescue the baby. Harmony should definitely be
>dead.
Yes, but she was Eeeevil. Which was good. :-)
> Lorne's actions had shock value mostly because
>they cheated the audience somewhat earlier on - when
>did Angel give the Host his instructions? And although
>it's a pitch-perfect ending to the series, it's
>debatable how well it works as an end to the season.
>
I can't actually remember if Angel gave the order or Lorne took
matters into his own hands. I go back and forth on this point. Was
it clear in the dialogue?
If Angel did order it, I don't consider this kind of thing a cheat.
Authors are allowed to hold some cards close to their chest as long as
they later show them face up.
>Do these things matter? Not to me. Not really.
So we agree then. :-)
>Not fade away, indeed.
Indeed.
Iain
Niall Harrison
> And if I'm surprised by people's reactions to the finale, maybe in
> some ways it was bound to happen; almost by definition, those who
> are still around at the end of Season 5 are going to be mostly a
> self-selected group of those whose tastes run to what ANGEL became
> in the latter days.
Hmm. I can't speak for anyone else, but one of the reasons I like 'Not
Fade Away' so much is that it seems to me to be a return to the _Angel_ of
the early days. Of the rest of season five, I can name exactly four
episodes that I think are worth serious consideration; the rest is
something of a mess.
> Compare and contrast: Wesley and Gunn in Pylea - "If you try to get nobody
> killed, you get everybody killed." Where's the equivalent statement of
> the moral dilemma here? Why, nowhere very much; we're not supposed to see
> it as a moral dilemma. Only a practical one.
Lorne deserts. The most amoral member Angel's group has ever had -
remember, he ran a haven for demons - can't stomach what his friends
have come to stand for. His Pylean heritage will out? Perhaps.
I keep thinking about what Lindsey said when they broke him out of the
hell dimension. 'You're already two soldiers down.' At the time, it looked
as though he was talking about Fred and Gunn; actually, I think he might
as well have been talking about Fred and Lorne. Remember, Lorne spent the
aftermath of Fred's death drinking himself senseless. I think he was
broken even before the finale rolled around. Killing Lindsey is just the
manifestation of that change, and he knows it.
So yeah, I think there's a moral debate going on in the episode. On the
other hand, I don't think it's resolved. And I think that's a good thing.
For four years, we've been told that Angel is a major player in the
apocalypse, but that it wasn't clear which side he was on. In 'Not Fade
Away' he picks 'the nastiest fight since mankind drop-kicked the last
demon out of this dimension', and was it a good fight?
I don't know.
It's Schrodinger's Finale. I think your reading is entirely valid, and
intentional on the writers' part: Wolfram & Hart won. They got to Angel.
They manipulated him into throwing his life away for a temporary victory.
On the other hand, I think the more positive reading is valid too. Angel
did something *big* here; caused a major setback to the forces of the
apocalypse. He killed a good and pure being to get there but, well, how
many more lives did he save? He ordered the death of a souled human but,
well, how likely is it that Lindsey could ever change?
Is Angel a champion? Is he a hero?
I don't know. I tend towards the more negative interpretation - I tend to
think he isn't, I tend to think the Angel of 18 months ago would be
horrified - but I don't think the episode is conclusive either way, mostly
because the battle itself remains unresolved. The wave-function doesn't
collapse; we aren't told whether they lived or died, or whether they were
right or wrong. We have to decide for ourselves.
And here's where I think the episode knocks it out of the park: despite
the ambiguity surrounding the characters' actions, *it still has a clear
message.*
You fight the good fight because it's a worthy end in itself.
Hamilton couldn't understand that. Angel and Anne both did, even if they
applied the principle in completely different ways.
> But, as you say, it's _not_ presented as wrong.
>
> In the absence of any text or subtext raising the issues, or objections
> to the issues, I think it probably has to be seen as presented as right.
I guess this is the fundamental point of disagreement; I do see
debate. I see it in Gunn's scene with Anne - a reminder of how Angel
*used* to approach the good fight. I see it in the death of Lindsey.
I see it in every one of Angel's actions leading up to that alley.
GUNN: Still fighting the good fight, huh?
ANNE: That's the drill. How are things uptown?
GUNN: More fight, less good...
Angel and co aren't presented as wrong, but they sure as hell aren't
presented as right, either.
> I don't think I'm going to bother with SERENITY.
Ah, well. There's always the _Farscape_ miniseries, right? :)
--
Catch the sun, find where it goes.
Christy
news:memo.2004061...@roxanne.morgan.ntlworld.com...
I'm so glad you posted this as it covers pretty much how I felt about the
finale. I gave up on Angel half-way through season four as I began to find all
the characters I used to care about pretty worthless, so I haven't been
following season 5 at all apart from catching a couple of episodes by accident
but I wanted to see the end just to put a lid on it for me. I wondered if,
having missed a lot of season 5, this new attitude to the value of life was a
deliberate one being expressed in the season and a political statement about
present day America. You can be careless with the lives of a few individuals
(Drogyn, Lindsey) if it seems expedient to your goals. There is no cause for
guilt. It is just accepted as necessary course of action decided by the
Commander-In-Chief (here, Angel). I get the distinct impression that the value
of human life which was *such* a premium for the show in the early days, has
now been succeeded by valuing a cause. This is of course, not necessarily
condemnable - some causes *have* to be fought for and sacrifices made - BUT in
the face of any such sacrifice they needs to be questioning. Moral questioning
of the validity of that cause regardless of the final decision. That is what
was missing here for me. However, as I say it could have taken place earlier
in the season. Someone enlighten me.
> Compare and contrast: Wesley and Gunn in Pylea - "If you try to get nobody
> killed, you get everybody killed." Where's the equivalent statement of
> the moral dilemma here? Why, nowhere very much; we're not supposed to see
> it as a moral dilemma. Only a practical one.
>
> But the key thing, for me:
>
> > Lorne's actions had shock value mostly because
> > they cheated the audience somewhat earlier on - when
> > did Angel give the Host his instructions? And although
> > it's a pitch-perfect ending to the series, it's
> > debatable how well it works as an end to the season.
>
> 'Perfect' in _what_ sense?
>
> From Day One, ANGEL has been about redemption. Can the evil make up for
> what they've done; if they can't, what _ought_ they to do? And in
> that respect, Angel and Lindsey have mirrored each other since "Blind
> Date", at least.
This for me is the greatest fault of the episode. In season 1 we had "I wonder
if anything really ever changes."
"Of course it does. They do. You have." In season 3 even the hopelessly
corrupted Darla got her shot at a non-redemption on a borrowed soul. Here
there is no possibilty of Lindsey's change. Angel (and/or Lorne it doesn't
matter of this argument) is judge and jury on his moral character and his
future possibilities and Lorne is his executioner. Is it really for Angel
(Lorne) to decide whether a man can change, whether his life has worth? It's
very dangerous moral ground here, I think, and once again the lack of
questioning, not the action itself, is the greatest problem.
Lorne saw Lindsey sing, saw a future, but "Angel's" future's are not sent in
stone. Cordelia's visions can be changed. Prophecies can be false, or
fulfilled in the most unexpected of ways. If you were human you always had a
chance. There was always hope. "Not Fade Away" takes any chance from Lindsey
and gives one to Harmony. That's not the kind of message I would have expected
from "Angel". It *is* the kind of thing I believe is happening in the current
world political climate. Monsters are rewarded for assisting a cause deemed
right without question, and others are being condemned without recourse to
justice.
I hope that such a presentation on ME's part is either a) unintentional or b)
purposeful and satirical.
Christy
--
I'm going to make a suggestion which might help you out, but I don't want this
gesture to be mistaken as an indication that I like you.
Niall Harrison
> I'm so glad you posted this as it covers pretty much how I felt about the
> finale. I gave up on Angel half-way through season four as I began to find all
> the characters I used to care about pretty worthless, so I haven't been
> following season 5 at all apart from catching a couple of episodes by accident
> but I wanted to see the end just to put a lid on it for me. I wondered if,
> having missed a lot of season 5, this new attitude to the value of life was a
> deliberate one being expressed in the season and a political statement about
> present day America. You can be careless with the lives of a few individuals
> (Drogyn, Lindsey) if it seems expedient to your goals. There is no cause for
> guilt. It is just accepted as necessary course of action decided by the
> Commander-In-Chief (here, Angel).
> I get the distinct impression that the value of human life which was
> *such* a premium for the show in the early days, has now been succeeded
> by valuing a cause.
That tension has always been a part of the show - usually, the part
embodied by Wesley, from 'you try not to get anybody killed' through to
keeping Justine locked in a cage for three months. Wesley has been
ends-justify guy; here, Angel takes that path as well. I don't think we're
meant to endorse their actions in either case...only to understand them.
You're right: it's a shift from the early Angel. Then and now he fought
for the same reason - because it was worth fighting - but the emphasis has
changed. Then, he put emphasis on the smallest act of kindness being the
greatest thing in the world; now he puts it on the idea that all that
matters is what you do, now, today.
This is the part of the debate that baffles me.
----start quotes---
From 'Power Play':
ANGEL:
There are...there are thing that I have
to do. Things that I've already set in
motion that...
[beat]
I know I've spent years fighting to get
somewhere. To accomplish something. And
now that I'm close to it...I don't like
what I see. What I am.
NINA:
You're a hero.
ANGEL (quietly):
Oh, that word.
NINA:
You're *my* hero.
ANGEL:
I may not always be.
From 'Not Fade Away':
HARMONY:
What are you going to do?
ANGEL:
One more thing I don't want to.
[...]
GUNN:
Still fighting the good fight, huh?
ANNIE:
That's the drill. How are things uptown?
GUNN:
More fight, less good...
[...]
LINDSEY:
No, I mean me saying "team" and meaning it. I kind of like
the feeling.
LORNE:
Yeah, today.
LINDSEY:
You really done with them?
LORNE:
It isn't my kind of work anymore. It's...unsavory.
LINDSEY:
Gee, I think it's just getting interesting.
LORNE:
Yeah, I bet you do.
---end quotes---
If Lorne hadn't walked away; if Lindsey hadn't commented that he thought
things were just getting interesting; if Gunn hadn't gone to see Anne; if
Angel hadn't said that he didn't like what he'd become - if all those
things hadn't happened, you might have had a point.
But...they *did* happen. How are they not commentary? How do they not make
it clear that the actions we saw were dubious at best, unforgiveable at
worst, and that the characters aren't entirely convinced themselves? From
where do you get the impression that we're meant to think, unambiguously,
that Angel did the right thing?
Don't get me wrong, I think you can argue it: as you say, some causes have
to be fought for. But I don't think we're given an answer, either way.
Niall
--
Verbing weirds language.
Niall Harrison
> I get the distinct impression that the value of human life which was
> *such* a premium for the show in the early days, has now been succeeded
> by valuing a cause.
That tension has always been a part of the show - usually, the part
embodied by Wesley, from 'you try not to get anybody killed' through to
keeping Justine locked in a cage for three months. Wesley has been
ends-justify guy; here, Angel takes that path as well. I don't think we're
meant to endorse their actions in either case...only to understand them.
You're right: it's a shift from the early Angel. Then and now he fought
for the same reason - because it was worth fighting - but the emphasis has
changed. Then, he put emphasis on the smallest act of kindness being the
greatest thing in the world; now he puts it on the idea that all that
matters is what you do, now, today.
> Is it really for Angel (Lorne) to decide whether a man can change,
> whether his life has worth? It's very dangerous moral ground here, I
> think, and once again the lack of questioning, not the action itself, is
> the greatest problem.
This is the part of the debate that baffles me.
Andrew Poulter
> ...is that it? Are we done?
Indeed, indeed.
I am inclined to agree with all of that; but at the same time, I remain
disapointed with the (lack of an) ending.
> That said, and whatever you may think of that final
> scene, a lot *is* wrapped up along the way. Everybody
> gets a killer scene this week, and the majority of them
> are definitive character moments.
Yup.
> Wesley falls,
> symbolically slain by Vail's false memories - by a lie.
That is poetically accurate - but the truth is Wesley falls because he
goes into the wrong fight, the wrong way, with the wrong weapons.
> Angel, in a perfect convergence of the literal and
> metaphorical stories, turns Hamilton's power on itself.
I did like that.
> He is also saved by his son, and then finally makes
> peace with him. Lorne succumbs to disillusionment at
> what the fight has become (and I *so* want to believe
> that he's no headed for the Hyperion, to give us the
> framing story from 'Spin the Bottle.'
Oh, yes please. Was he wearing the same clothes? Can someone with more
time than me, go check that?
> None of these options are conclusively shown to be
> 'right' or 'wrong', in the same way that Angel's last
> stand is neither won nor lost. It's a question, frozen
> in time. Even though it got them all killed, there's no
> doubt that Angel's plan was heroic. Even though she's
> never going to change anything, there's no doubt that
> Anne is doing good work. Like most of the show's other
> great episodes of, and like too few other episodes in
> S5, 'Not Fade Away' presents a decision that may or may
> not be right, but is completely understandable.
It is, I can see that part of it, and I liked it
> It's not perfect, of course. No episode is without a
> few fluffs. For instance: Angel really should have some
> idea what being human was like, given the events of 'I
> Will Remember You'.
Yup.
> Wes should arguably have been the one to rescue the
> baby.
That would have been elegantly poetic; but would have made it hard for
him to have been killed.
> Harmony should definitely be dead.
On that one, I don't really care.
> Do these things matter? Not to me. Not really. I think
> it's still a damn fine episode; arguably the best
> season finale, and it's probably in my all-time top
> ten. This is simply because to me, what the episode
> gets right far, far outweighs what it gets wrong. It's
> intelligent. It's funny. It's moving. It's darky-dark
> dark dark with a side of dark. It gets to the core of
> who these characters are. And it gets to the core of
> what this show is about.
Derspite my reservations, yes - I agree.
> "You're fading. You'll last ten minutes at best."
> "Then let's make 'em memorable."
> "And in terms of a plan?"
> "We fight."
> "Bit more specific?"
> "Well personally, I kinda want to slay the dragon."
>
> Not fade away, indeed.
Indeed - but I'd have liked to have seen the end.
--
AJP
Linda
> hell dimension. 'You're already two soldiers down.' At the time, it looked
> as though he was talking about Fred and Gunn; actually, I think he might
> as well have been talking about Fred and Lorne. Remember, Lorne spent the
> aftermath of Fred's death drinking himself senseless. I think he was
> broken even before the finale rolled around. Killing Lindsey is just the
> manifestation of that change, and he knows it.
Here I thought he was talking about Doyle and Cordelia. It never crossed my
mind that he was talking about any one else. Just the ones who had died
while on Angel's side or if you like TPTB's side.
The reason I thought this was Cordelia's comment about "one soldier down" in
*You're Welcome*. It seemed like a continumum because then she died and it
was two soldiers down.
--
Best regards,
Linda
Mmmmmm.......Angel