AOQ Review 3-17: "Enemies"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Three, Episode 17: "Enemies"
(or "I went in, killing the sun")
Writer: Douglas Petrie
Director: David Grossman
Back with the pithy one-word titles.
This one begins with a strange scene at the movies that tries to prove
that sometimes telling is funnier than showing. I classify it as such
an odd moment because it leads the characters to conclude that they
can't be sexually active. I thought the issue was happiness, not sex
per se? Well, the problem is that the show hasn't made it entirely
clear: if it's sex, then that establishes a clear set of boundaries
that can be adhered to, and Angel can say that he's totally in
control of himself. If it's an easy-to-achieve vague kind of
contentment, then they're a time bomb, real Forbidden Love. And if
it's a hard-to-achieve "true" happiness, then simply knowing the
danger should be enough to prevent any problems. I think the
non-sex-specific versions make for a better story, but all the
characters throughout this episode seem to be seeing it as a
cut-and-dry thing.
Alternatively, if you want to complicate things, the first scene could
also be read as Buffy and Angel being in denial about the possibility
of a more unpleasant truth, fooling themselves. I'm going to pretend
that was what the show was going for unless it's proven otherwise.
So apparently Faith has been reinstated with less fuss than I'd
expect. And more interestingly, it seems that somewhere in the
background, Wesley's observation of uncontrolled conditions has led
him to stop toeing the Watchers' line and to, highly unofficially,
start collaborating with Giles. When did he pick up a personality?
And technicalities be damned, he's no more in charge than Foreman was
of the Dept. Of Diagnostic Medicine. [Tangent: Why does Wesley seem to
inspire a first-name basis where other Watchers don't.] I should at
least mention Willow's continuing quest for forbidden knowledge and
Cordelia's continuing redefinition of flimsy excuses, so consider
them mentioned.
Meanwhile Faith slips farther into the realm of the disturbing, killing
a demon in cold blood. Here I really don't see any distinction
between this and a human being, and neither does she. Both scenes
where she goes to Angel for help are a great followup to
"Consequences," and well played by both actors. Yet again, Dushku
has us prepared to accept the possibility that Faith is starting to
come to her senses. We know she has the potential to be something
better. Even when she starts trying to put the moves on Angel, well,
we know that she doesn't relate to men very well. But then seeing
that it was all part of the Mayor's plan... boo. In a good way, I
mean. During the second visit, I commented to Mrs. Quality that it's
never possible to be totally sure how sincere she's being.
I was totally with Willow on her comment to Buffy: "Stop with the
crazy. Go talk to Angel." If more characters listened to advice
like that, TV and movies would be a lot harder to write.
So Angel was seeming like an unfortunate plot device here. Is every
story about him going to consist of him losing his soul and/or getting
it back? As much as I love Angelus, his reappearance does a lot less
the second time around. Especially with so little buildup, just a
hitherto unheard-of spell. (In and of itself, that could be considered
a clue to what's really going on... anyone get it the first time?).
But the show keeps this from becoming too much of a problem (and it
only needs to chase away such complaints for about twenty minutes,
after all) by putting Angelus in situations where he has other people
to play off, so it's not focused just on him.
For instance: despite the silliness, I quite like the letter-opener
scene and the accompanying feeling-out process to determine position on
the villain totem-pole. We've got three people who're menacing in
very different ways, and none of them are really stock characters. AOQ
aaaam haaappy [another videogame joke]. The approach to Buffy's
house is good for impending dread, as we "know" that unless Buffy
can make two important leaps of logic within a very short time, things
are not good. With both Faith and Angel working for the Mayor, and
them getting the jump on Buffy, the side of Good suddenly seems
desperately outmatched.
Xander is "right" about the reason he got punched out, but I think
he jumped to his conclusion without much evidence. But the concern for
Buffy certainly makes sense, and mirrors the viewer's.
Ultimately we come down to speechmaking, and pretty much all of
Faith's stated motives get boiled down to envy. A lot about this
speech doesn't sit right with me. Does all that's gone down
ultimately spring from this girly "you think you're better than
me" thing? This episode would seem to think so, and it's one of my
biggest problems with "Enemies." (Well, that and the idiot
plotting that demands that the villain reveal all her plans right
before the hero turns the tables.) I'd have run with the idea of
Slayer superiority rather than envy myself, but hey, Faith still
confuses me some at this point, so I may not be the best of judges.
How about our big plot twist? Nice. It completely blindsided me, and
I enjoy being fooled that way: it raises my opinion of how well an
episode is put together. Clever planning and acting going into that on
the part of the heroes, who've never seemed more capable. Talk about
taking the initiative rather than reacting. It also may say some
interesting things. It says something that the Good Guys saw fit to
use that kind of deception before Faith was a proven enemy. It says
something that Angel is so familiar with his nastier side that he can
mimic it so well (as also hinted in "School Hard"... and the
opposite was true back in late-S2...). And it says something that
neither Buffy nor Giles decided to fill in the Scoobie Gang on what was
going on. Willow seems fine with that, the others less so. [Tangent:
I've resisted the use of terms like "Scoobies" and such, since I
don't like them (they seem a little unfairly demeaning), but the fact
that "Scoobie Gang" has actually prominently appeared in a few
scripts would seem to give it a canon edge over the likes of
"Slaypack." What to do?]
"Enemies" answers some questions from "Band Candy" and raises
more. Wilkins is even more in control than has been made explicit
before - Sunnydale has been his from the beginning, and its very
existence is part of whatever he's trying to do. What we've been
seeing this season is the culmination of some very meticulous long-term
planning. This also means that we're more likely to accept that
whatever this Ascension/Graduation thing is, it's bad. As always, a
more mixed bag with the Wilkins humor - I didn't especially like
the jokes about his fatherly way towards Faith ("home by eleven,"
etc.).
Faith is last seen facing the prospect of mini-golf. For a long time
she fights it, almost making us think she'll come to realize "who
is this nutcase that I've aligned myself with?" but then she breaks
out into a grin. We've been losing her, bit by bit, over the last
few shows, and each little step is its own separate disappointment.
Nicely done, series.
So good prevails over evil, but our hero isn't happy. She's had
the fear of Angelus put into her, which also makes perfect sense.
Considering how emotionally immature Buffy and Angel can sometimes be,
they seem very understanding of each other here: from the start, they
knew that this plan could complicate things between them. Angel
"never wanted it to go that far," but it did, and they're
prepared to accept that.
No TIRSBILA moments that I remember, but a few not-quite-so-stupid bits
that came close: Xander and the receipt, "there *is* just the one
group," and "no, don't get up." The best line that I totally
missed originally but noticed when scrolling through a transcript:
"That could be hours. The girl makes Godot look punctual."
So...
One-sentence summary: Nicely conceived and full of nice tension.
AOQ rating: Good
[Season Three so far:
1) "Anne" - Decent
2) "Dead Man's Party" - Excellent
3) "Faith, Hope, and Trick" - Good
4) "Beauty And The Beasts" - Decent
5) "Homecoming" - Good
6) "Band Candy" - Weak
7) "Revelations" - Good
8) "Lovers Walk" - Excellent
9) "The Wish" - Decent
10) "Amends" - Good
11) "Gingerbread" - Good
12) "Helpless" - Excellent
13) "The Zeppo" - Decent
14) "Bad Girls" - Good
15) "Consequences" - Excellent
16) "Doppelgängland" - Decent
17) "Enemies" - Good]
eli...@gmail.com
>of the Dept. Of Diagnostic Medicine.
>Tangent: Why does Wesley seem to
>inspire a first-name basis where other Watchers don't?
Because Wyndham-Pryce is so long? Anyway, he's definitely just 'Wesley'
- unless someone is being very formal.
>the fact
>that "Scoobie Gang" has actually prominently appeared in a few
>scripts would seem to give it a canon edge over the likes of
>"Slaypack." What to do?
They're Scoobies. No getting away from it I'm afraid.
Nothing else to add really - you've pretty much expressed all of my
sentiments. Although "I introduced him to his wife." always makes me
smile.
KenM47
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Three, Episode 17: "Enemies"
>(or "I went in, killing the sun")
>Writer: Douglas Petrie
>Director: David Grossman
>
Thoughts:
1. It's not sex, it's sex with one's true love (in The Princess Bride
sense) that can be the problem. Of course, in light of the knowledge
of the potential repercussions, whether "true happiness" would ever
return is another issue.
2. First name because of youth and "Wyndham-Pryce" does not roll
trippingly off the tongue.
3. " And it says something that neither Buffy nor Giles decided to
fill in the Scoobie Gang on what was going on."
OK, here I felt something and not in a good way. How about giving the
audience a clue? This was the second time I think I mentally winced
when watching first run. The first was the strong implication in
Amends that "God" or something like it was available to step in and do
a miracle when things got really rough. This was another deus ex
machina, as we had no reason to suspect the counterspy plot; it's not
like a missed clue - there were no clues.
Yes, there was that light switch business and Faith just waltzing
inmto demon's room as if knowing the door was not locked (or
lockable), but where are we, the viewers, given a smallish hint that
blue demon owes Giles and the soul-endectomy is a head fake?
4. "The girl makes Godot look punctual" Good line. seemingly totally
out of character for Buffy. It's a Willow or Giles line IMO.
So, I felt stirrings of the story going out of control and a sense of
unease because of it, actually an increase of my personal unease as of
Amends.
I did not like a lot of this episode, but forgave it for need of plot
expediency.
For me, Good(-)
Ken (Brooklyn)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> expect. And more interestingly, it seems that somewhere in the
> background, Wesley's observation of uncontrolled conditions has led
remember that they dont know shes working with the mayor
that finchs death was almost certainly accidental
and that faith is perhaps acting more stable
with the death deemed accidental and a stable slayer
theres no reason not to release her to the wild
> Meanwhile Faith slips farther into the realm of the disturbing, killing
> a demon in cold blood. Here I really don't see any distinction
> between this and a human being, and neither does she. Both scenes
one of the series premises is that slayers
are allowed to slay any demon with impunity
buffy lets harmless demons go at her discretion
but she doesnt consider any dead demon worth calling the police for
shes disturbed by violence of the death scene not the death itself
whatever killed it she would likely have to face later on
(she perhaps already knew about the magician
and was disturbed by faiths handiwork)
note that when buffy and faith enter the apartment
faith turns on the hidden lightswitch without looking for it
i wonder if buffy noticed that
va -cevzriny- fur ernyvmrf svefg gung fcvxr jnf jnaqrevat nebhaq va nqnzf ynve
naq frpbaq gung fcvxr xarj nobhg gur tnatf zrygqbja nsgre ur unq yrsg
> I was totally with Willow on her comment to Buffy: "Stop with the
> crazy. Go talk to Angel." If more characters listened to advice
> like that, TV and movies would be a lot harder to write.
that would reduce -passions- to two minute episodes each day
> Xander is "right" about the reason he got punched out, but I think
> he jumped to his conclusion without much evidence. But the concern for
> Buffy certainly makes sense, and mirrors the viewer's.
xander assumes angelus is returned every other show
its his jealous jerk aspect coming out again
> biggest problems with "Enemies." (Well, that and the idiot
> plotting that demands that the villain reveal all her plans right
> before the hero turns the tables.) I'd have run with the idea of
faith is desperate for love
and she still wants to be accepted by buffy
but she also is badly hurt and defensive
and so also needs to assert her superiority
if buffy were a trained psychologist she could be expected to sort through it
but instead she deals with it the same way most people react to metnal illness
> scripts would seem to give it a canon edge over the likes of
> "Slaypack." What to do?]
buffy and the slayerettes
> "Enemies" answers some questions from "Band Candy" and raises
> more. Wilkins is even more in control than has been made explicit
> before - Sunnydale has been his from the beginning, and its very
> existence is part of whatever he's trying to do. What we've been
a lot of the series loose ends can be explained with this knowledge
wilkins possibly learned about the hellmouth in the 19th century
and decided to create a town on top of it full of walking human sacrafices
and to use that power for this ascension thingie (yet to be explained)
it was the mayor that crippled balthazar
it mightve been the mayor who trapped the master
vg zvtugir orra gur znlbe gung ohevrq gur grzcyr ba xvatfzna oyhss
sunnydale forgetfulness might be a spell cast by wilkins
> more mixed bag with the Wilkins humor - I didn't especially like
> the jokes about his fatherly way towards Faith ("home by eleven,"
> etc.).
its sad sick mutually codependent relation between wilkins and faith
and unfortunately happens in real life
> No TIRSBILA moments that I remember, but a few not-quite-so-stupid bits
> that came close: Xander and the receipt, "there *is* just the one
> group," and "no, don't get up." The best line that I totally
> missed originally but noticed when scrolling through a transcript:
> "That could be hours. The girl makes Godot look punctual."
the omninous -now the balance is set right-
explained by -i introduced him to his wife-
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Thoughts:
>
> 1. It's not sex, it's sex with one's true love (in The Princess Bride
> sense) that can be the problem. Of course, in light of the knowledge
> of the potential repercussions, whether "true happiness" would ever
> return is another issue.
The show up to this point, and "Enemis" in particular, doesn't seem
interested in making it clear. Anyway, Faith and Wilkins certainly
didn't see things that way. They could be wrong, of course, but their
plan seems to depend on the idea that orgasm is the key to Angelus.
So, that aspect is annoying.
> OK, here I felt something and not in a good way. How about giving the
> audience a clue?
Um, because it's a *plot twist*? You're not supposed to see it coming.
Why am I not objecting to an alleged deus ex machina that didn't get
signposts leading up to it? Well, my demands are basically that the
episode work both before you know what's happening and afterward in
retrospect. Which I thnk it does.
-AOQ
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> KenM47 wrote:
>
>> Thoughts:
>>
>> 1. It's not sex, it's sex with one's true love (in The Princess Bride
>> sense) that can be the problem. Of course, in light of the knowledge
>> of the potential repercussions, whether "true happiness" would ever
>> return is another issue.
>
> The show up to this point, and "Enemis" in particular, doesn't seem
> interested in making it clear. Anyway, Faith and Wilkins certainly
> didn't see things that way. They could be wrong, of course, but their
> plan seems to depend on the idea that orgasm is the key to Angelus.
> So, that aspect is annoying.
It's the "moment of perfect happiness" clause. It's not necessarily sex
that can trigger it. It was just that he happened to have sex with Buffy
and for one moment he felt perfectly happy. He could probably have sex
with someone he likes a lot and be fine. If he'd actually had sex with
Faith, he'd still end up being Angel and Faith would be all "Hey, aren't
you supposed to go all evil now?" Faith and Wilkins didn't truly
understand the curse.
MBangel10 (Melissa)
You really hate it when they throw in those plot twists, huh? :)
alphakitten
> Ultimately we come down to speechmaking, and pretty much all of
> Faith's stated motives get boiled down to envy. A lot about this
> speech doesn't sit right with me. Does all that's gone down
> ultimately spring from this girly "you think you're better than
> me" thing?
Not envy, self-loathing. Faith knows perfectly well that Buffy is better
than her.
~Angel
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I'll forgive the most blatant of trick endings if the
pay-off gag is funny enough and, for some reason, "I introduced him to
his wife" tickles me immensely.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
Mel
alphakitten wrote:
At the same time, she's convinced herself that all her problems are
Buffy's fault. She blamed her for Allen's death, now she blames her for
everything bad that ever happened to her. The denial is so deep she
believes it herself.
Btw, when did anyone _ever_ say to Faith, "Why can't you be more like
Buffy?" As far I remember, it never happened and it was never really
even implied. She's laying all her own insecurities and "self-loathing"
as you say, on other people because she can't come to grips with the
fact that she is what she is because of her own choices.
Mel
KenM47
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>note that when buffy and faith enter the apartment
>faith turns on the hidden lightswitch without looking for it
>i wonder if buffy noticed that
>
From my viewing she does. This last viewing also said to me that Buffy
reacts to Faith just opening the door to the demon's lair and waltzing
in.
Ken (Brooklyn)
gree...@gmail.com
> I think the
> non-sex-specific versions make for a better story, but all the
> characters throughout this episode seem to be seeing it as a
> cut-and-dry thing.
Eh, they walk a fine line with Angel. I mean, who really know what will
bring anyone "true happiness"? Or even what true happiness is in the
first place, but let's not dwell there. If they decide that now
*nothing* can retrun Angelus, Angel becomes just another vampire. But
he can't achieve true happiness with anything as banal as a
particularly pretty sunset either, or he'd be too dangerous to keep
around. So sex with Buffy; a specific act, easily avoided. Though not
without terrible amounts of melodrama.
> When did he pick up a personality?
Well, since you know about Wesley, though oddly, not the other
character, it's probably safe to tell you that originally Wesley was
going to die in DGL or thereabouts, but Whedon likes Denisof, so now,
Wesley's getting a personality. And a new job.
> How about our big plot twist? Nice.
Well, not so much a plot twist as a completely out of the blue
explanation for something the audience had no cause to know or suspect.
It's the first time Whedon employed the lie to the audience cheat to
one of his stories, and it was so unnecessary. You weren't fooled, you
were lied to. Ohg gung lbh'er vzcerffrq jvgu orvat yvrq gb naq gura
univat gur yvr erirnyrq gb lbh fcrnxf jryy sbe lbhe novyvgl gb chg hc
jvgu gur fubqqvarff pbzvat va shgher frnfbaf. Naq lbh'yy ybir frnfba
sbhe bs _Natry_; vg'f ohvyg ba yvrf gb gur nhqvrapr.
For an example of the difference, since you bring up _House_, that
House was speaking of himself in "Three Stories" was a plot twist. The
misdirection provided by Carmen Electra and the repeated mentioning of
House's need to hide the identity of the patient were hints to the
audience, and indeed, many people in the audience claim to have figured
out the twist before it was revealed. Even after, you can go back and
find the clues that led to the truth. On the other hand, anyone who
claimed to guess in advance that the demon was Giles' old friend, I
confidently call a liar, and there is no way to go back through the
episode and find those clues, 'cause they ain't there.
Anyway, that's the kind of plot twist that I appreciate, and that makes
"Three Stories" a classic, and is why "Enemies" is utterly forgettable.
The lie method is cheap. lazy writing, naq hasbeghangryl, orpbzrf n
unyyznex bs Zhgnag Rarzvrf.
> And it says something that
> neither Buffy nor Giles decided to fill in the Scoobie Gang on what was
> going on.
Double-edged sword at the best. It sure wouldn't have helped if the
gang burst in while "Angelus" was "torturing" Buffy.
> AOQ rating: Good
Barely watchable. I skip it now in hindsight.
-- Terry
KenM47
>KenM47 wrote:
>
>> Thoughts:
>>
>> 1. It's not sex, it's sex with one's true love (in The Princess Bride
>> sense) that can be the problem. Of course, in light of the knowledge
>> of the potential repercussions, whether "true happiness" would ever
>> return is another issue.
>
>The show up to this point, and "Enemis" in particular, doesn't seem
>interested in making it clear. Anyway, Faith and Wilkins certainly
>didn't see things that way. They could be wrong, of course, but their
>plan seems to depend on the idea that orgasm is the key to Angelus.
>So, that aspect is annoying.
Agreed.
>
>> OK, here I felt something and not in a good way. How about giving the
>> audience a clue?
>
>Um, because it's a *plot twist*? You're not supposed to see it coming.
>
>Why am I not objecting to an alleged deus ex machina that didn't get
>signposts leading up to it? Well, my demands are basically that the
>episode work both before you know what's happening and afterward in
>retrospect. Which I thnk it does.
>
>-AOQ
I know my love of the show generally kept me from feeling JtS cheated
(unlike say the stupidity of "Monk" after the first couple of
"seasons").
I have a different view of a plot twist. I believe the audience should
be provided with adequate information to either guess it just before
the reveal or simultaneously with the reveal. "The Usual Suspects"
comes to mind, or "The Sixth Sense."
This was, IMO, a cheat. The most we got was Giles "Be careful" which
was simply not enough. Maybe those with knowledge of behind the scenes
stuff know of a line of dialog dropped for time, or some other
explanation? I expected better from the show, and rewatching this one
has not removed the bad taste (unlike other episodes such as "Amends"
which is more tolerable to me now). The episode pretty much works for
me, but ....
Ken (Brooklyn)
BTR1701
<mair_fheal-FC46B...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > So apparently Faith has been reinstated with less fuss than I'd
> > expect. And more interestingly, it seems that somewhere in the
> > background, Wesley's observation of uncontrolled conditions has led
>
> remember that they dont know shes working with the mayor
> that finchs death was almost certainly accidental
> and that faith is perhaps acting more stable
>
> with the death deemed accidental and a stable slayer
> theres no reason not to release her to the wild
>
> > Meanwhile Faith slips farther into the realm of the disturbing, killing
> > a demon in cold blood. Here I really don't see any distinction
> > between this and a human being, and neither does she. Both scenes
>
> one of the series premises is that slayers
> are allowed to slay any demon with impunity
>
> buffy lets harmless demons go at her discretion
> but she doesnt consider any dead demon worth calling the police for
>
> shes disturbed by violence of the death scene not the death itself
> whatever killed it she would likely have to face later on
> (she perhaps already knew about the magician
> and was disturbed by faiths handiwork)
>
> note that when buffy and faith enter the apartment
> faith turns on the hidden lightswitch without looking for it
> i wonder if buffy noticed that
Of course she did. That's why she started suspecting Faith and set their
Angelus plan into motion.
KenM47
When they pull them from their collective butts? You bet!
Ken (Brooklyn)
BTR1701
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> 3. " And it says something that neither Buffy nor Giles decided to
> fill in the Scoobie Gang on what was going on."
>
> OK, here I felt something and not in a good way. How about giving the
> audience a clue? This was the second time I think I mentally winced
> when watching first run. The first was the strong implication in
> Amends that "God" or something like it was available to step in and do
> a miracle when things got really rough. This was another deus ex
> machina, as we had no reason to suspect the counterspy plot; it's not
> like a missed clue - there were no clues.
So it's your opinion that an author is supposed to drop clues for the
audience?
That would have made the big Keyser Soze reveal at the end of "The Usual
Suspects" much less spectacular.
KenM47
>Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> KenM47 wrote:
>>
>>> Thoughts:
>>>
>>> 1. It's not sex, it's sex with one's true love (in The Princess Bride
>>> sense) that can be the problem. Of course, in light of the knowledge
>>> of the potential repercussions, whether "true happiness" would ever
>>> return is another issue.
>>
>> The show up to this point, and "Enemis" in particular, doesn't seem
>> interested in making it clear. Anyway, Faith and Wilkins certainly
>> didn't see things that way. They could be wrong, of course, but their
>> plan seems to depend on the idea that orgasm is the key to Angelus.
>> So, that aspect is annoying.
>
>It's the "moment of perfect happiness" clause. It's not necessarily sex
>that can trigger it. It was just that he happened to have sex with Buffy
>and for one moment he felt perfectly happy. He could probably have sex
>with someone he likes a lot and be fine. If he'd actually had sex with
>Faith, he'd still end up being Angel and Faith would be all "Hey, aren't
>you supposed to go all evil now?" Faith and Wilkins didn't truly
>understand the curse.
>>
I used to think it was "perfect happiness," but Enyos says "moment of
happiness" in Surprise and "moment of true happiness, of contentment,
one moment where the soul that we restored no longer plagues his
thoughts" in Innocence.
Does anyone on screen ever say "perfect happiness"?
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
I would go with both, plus a sense of loneliness or aloneness that
Buffy usually, but not never, does not feel.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
As a gag, that's usually the reason for betrayal not loyalty. In the
Buffyverse with demons and what not, I have no idea.
Ken (Brooklyn)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> character, it's probably safe to tell you that originally Wesley was
> going to die in DGL or thereabouts, but Whedon likes Denisof, so now,
> Wesley's getting a personality. And a new job.
ner lbh fnlvat natry jrfyrl fhoyrgf sebz ohssl jrfyrl?
KenM47
Thank goodness someone sees it as I do and has the skills to say why
better than I did. A little less forgiving than I am for a Season 3
episode, but still.
Thank you.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
You were given the clues in TUS (and in The Sixth Sense too). They
just weren't easy to spot. Here there were no clues to Giles plot with
the blue guy (who often looks to me, especially in the scene with the
Mayor, like ASH himself heavily disguised).
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> it's probably safe to tell you that originally Wesley was
> going to die in DGL or thereabouts, but Whedon likes Denisof, so now,
> Wesley's getting a personality. And a new job.
Interesting.
> Well, not so much a plot twist as a completely out of the blue
> explanation for something the audience had no cause to know or suspect.
> It's the first time Whedon employed the lie to the audience cheat to
> one of his stories, and it was so unnecessary. You weren't fooled, you
> were lied to.
> Even after ["Three Stories"], you can go back and
> find the clues that led to the truth. On the other hand, anyone who
> claimed to guess in advance that the demon was Giles' old friend, I
> confidently call a liar, and there is no way to go back through the
> episode and find those clues, 'cause they ain't there.
Again, I see things differently. I don't think that clues per se are
so essential, as long as it makes sense in retrospect. To compare two
of the more famous movie endings of the last fifteen years, both _The
Sixth Sense_ and _The Usual Suspects_ both work because they make sense
given the rest of the movie. It doesn't matter that 6S's twist is full
of clues, to the point where once one knows it it's hard to imagine not
noticing, while TUS's comes enitrely out of nowhere: they both work.
Here, we know that Buffy has reason, if she's paying attention, to
suspect that Faith is playing her, and we know that Angel can do a good
Angelus impersonation when necessary. (Also, the sudden appearance of
a new hitherto unmentioned de-souling method is a little suspicious.)
That's all that's necessary.
-AOQ
KenM47
"while TUS's comes entirely out of nowhere"
I disagree. You are given those clues, and they are even more subtle
than 6S. Like the objective viewpoint versus the story as Verbal tells
it, for one.
Been a while, but I remember leaving the theatre and talking about it
for a long time with my superintelligent wife (even if she viscerally
hated SMG and AH) going over all the clues they had given us.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 17: "Enemies"
> (or "I went in, killing the sun")
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
> Director: David Grossman
It's time to say something about your future viewing of episodes, in
order to get the true first viewing experience:
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WATCH 'EARSHOT' NEXT!
You must first watch 'Choices,' 'The Prom' and 'Graduation, Part 1.'
If you live in Canada you are allowed to watch 'Graduation, Part 2'
immediately following Part 1. Otherwise you must wait a couple of
months before you watch 'Graduation, Part 2'
If you live in Canada you must now wait three months before watching
'Earshot.' Otherwise you may watch it after only waiting another month.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
kenm47
Don is making a historical joke. Just in case you did not know.
Ken (Brooklyn)
gree...@gmail.com
KenM47 wrote:
> Thank goodness someone sees it as I do and has the skills to say why
> better than I did.
I'm probably cribbing a lot from Micky Dupree on the subject. Google
her on the subject of "Enemies" for a real essay on the, and I use this
term loosely, writing technique.
> A little less forgiving than I am for a Season 3
> episode, but still.
I think I wouldn't care so much had it remained an isolated anomaly.
Ohg orvat nf gur zrgubq pnzr vagb jvqr hfr yngre ba naq onfvpnyyl
ehvarq _Natry_, it irks a lot more than it probably should.
-- Terry
eli...@gmail.com
>explanation for something the audience had no cause to know or suspect.
>It's the first time Whedon employed the lie to the audience cheat to
>one of his stories, and it was so unnecessary. You weren't fooled, you
>were lied to.
Hm, you could say that it was the same deal with the soul curse. There
was no indication that sleeping with Buffy would result in the loss of
Angels soul. The nearest we get is this (from 'Surprise'):
Enyos: "...Vengeance demands that his pain be eternal as ours is! If
this, this girl gives him one *minute* of happiness, it is one minute
too much!"
Not sure Joss lies, rather he withholds information.
Don Sample
gree...@gmail.com wrote:
They do not lie. They leave us in the dark about a few things, but when
you look back at it, the clues are there.
Faith's behaviour at the demon's apartment makes Buffy suspicious, and
we see that she's suspicious. Later we see Buffy leaving to go talk to
Angel. Several hours later, we see Faith return to Angel's and the
"desouling spell." There is a rather large block of time in which
*something* happened that we didn't see, and on looking back it is
rather conspicuous in its absence.
gree...@gmail.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> (Also, the sudden appearance of
> a new hitherto unmentioned de-souling method is a little suspicious.)
We don't know there isn't an alternate method of de-souling, so I can
hardly say from this sudden appearance that obviously this Ninja-demon
guy is Giles' old mate from back in the day.
> That's all that's necessary.
For me, it's important that the writer of whatever I'm watching or
reading be a better writer than I am. And while I could not have worked
out how to present the plot twist in "Three Stories," I can lie with
the best of them. So no, it really was necessary for Whedon to offer
hints to the audience. After all, ~we~ weren't going to slip up and let
Wesley in on the secret.
-- Terry
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
While there are no specific clues about the blue guy, there are lots of
clues about the rest of what's going on, telling us that things are not
as they seem. The biggest one is Buffy going off to talk to Angel about
what she saw, and then picking up the story several hours later, without
making any mention at all of Buffy having gone to see Angel.
That just screams "There's stuff going on here that we're not showing
you!"
gree...@gmail.com
> They do not lie.
Lying by omission. It's the backbone of "Xander Lied!". And it's a lie.
> They leave us in the dark about a few things, but when
> you look back at it, the clues are there.
There isn't even one clue before the reveal that hints at Ninja demon
guy not being exactly what the story said he was, let alone any hint
that he and Giles were acquainted.
-- Terry
Arbitrar Of Quality
>
> "while TUS's comes entirely out of nowhere"
>
> I disagree. You are given those clues, and they are even more subtle
> than 6S. Like the objective viewpoint versus the story as Verbal tells
> it, for one.
I don't know what you mean specifically. But my point is, 6S is a
story that gives plenty of subtle clues, so I'd believe someone who
said they figured out the secret in advance (I was spoiled, sadly).
TUS, it'd be much more difficult to convince me that someone figured it
out on first viewing.
And my greater point is that I simply disagree that it's necessary to
drop hints for the audience. Just make the story interesting and
sensible both "before" and "after," and I'm happy. [Anyone who's
trying to figure out how my stance here meshes with my love of
'signposts' in other cases, reread the preceding senntance.]
I'd agree with tthose who say that it's "witholding infromation" rather
than "lying." There are times (and the characters on BTVS would tell
you this, were they able... or real) when one simply cannot be expected
to arrive at the right conclusion if one isn't around to learn a
critical bit of information. In this episode, since we mostly follow
Faith, we're as surprised as she is. Nothing wrong with that.
-AOQ
KenM47
I disagree. It's no more missing time than any other episode. We never
see characters 24/7. That's no more a clue than not seeing each
character go to the bathroom every day.
Based on Giles' discussion with Big Blue, Buffy's suspicions are
irrelevant anyway:
"Mage: The task is finished.
Giles: Yes. Thank you for coming to me and for that
rather effective light show you put on.
Mage: This restores the balance between us, Rupert
Giles. My debt to you is now repaid in full. Do not
call upon me.
Giles: I shan’t. Peace with you.
Mage: And with you."
The key is that Mage comes to Giles in a scene we never see nor have
any reason to suspect occurred. Giles did not need Buffy's suspicions
at all.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
I responded to this on your earlier statement of it. It just does not
work for me. If it worked for you, fine. I don't think you'll ever
convince me this wasn't sloppy writing/plotting.
I get there was a need to move the story forward. I think the creative
skill of those involved could have done a better job.
Ken (Brooklyn)
gree...@gmail.com
> Hm, you could say that it was the same deal with the soul curse. There
> was no indication that sleeping with Buffy would result in the loss of
> Angels soul.
But Angel by his nature was a singularity. You have nothing to judge
happen what with a singular example by until a situation arises, so you
get more latitude. (This also allows you present a TV series about a
tiny blonde girl who can beat the crap out of demons bigger than she.
But once you establish a rule, it has to be adhered to.)
> Not sure Joss lies, rather he withholds information.
They come to the same thing, depending one when the withheld
information is revealed. Had Angel slept with Buffy a second time
before losing his soul, then the whole thing would become a cheat, or
at least, undermine the wisdom of leaving Angel free to roam the world.
-- Terry
BTR1701
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <85bd22l7omfegn1kg...@4ax.com>,
> > KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 3. " And it says something that neither Buffy nor Giles decided to
> >> fill in the Scoobie Gang on what was going on."
> >>
> >> OK, here I felt something and not in a good way. How about giving the
> >> audience a clue? This was the second time I think I mentally winced
> >> when watching first run. The first was the strong implication in
> >> Amends that "God" or something like it was available to step in and do
> >> a miracle when things got really rough. This was another deus ex
> >> machina, as we had no reason to suspect the counterspy plot; it's not
> >> like a missed clue - there were no clues.
> >
> >So it's your opinion that an author is supposed to drop clues for the
> >audience?
> >
> >That would have made the big Keyser Soze reveal at the end of "The Usual
> >Suspects" much less spectacular.
>
>
> You were given the clues in TUS (and in The Sixth Sense too).
No, not really. The clues (most of which were on Cujon's bulletin board)
weren't revealed until about five seconds before Soze's identity was
revealed.
BTR1701
> >For an example of the difference, since you bring up _House_, that
> >House was speaking of himself in "Three Stories" was a plot twist. The
> >misdirection provided by Carmen Electra and the repeated mentioning of
> >House's need to hide the identity of the patient were hints to the
> >audience, and indeed, many people in the audience claim to have figured
> >out the twist before it was revealed. Even after, you can go back and
> >find the clues that led to the truth. On the other hand, anyone who
> >claimed to guess in advance that the demon was Giles' old friend, I
> >confidently call a liar, and there is no way to go back through the
> >episode and find those clues, 'cause they ain't there.
I didn't guess the bit about Blue Man Demon being Giles's friend but the
first time I watched it, I did guess that Buffy and Angel were playing
Faith. I didn't know how Blue Man Demon's spell fit into the overall
plan but I did figure out the general gist of what was happening.
My big clue was the lightswitch and the way Buffy pointedly noticed how
Faith reached for it without even looking for it. Buffy's expression and
body language throughout the rest of that scene said to me, "She knows
something's going on here." And from that point, it was easy to see the
double-play.
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
But those other times aren't preceded by Willow telling Buffy to "go
talk to Angel about this really important stuff" and then never
mentioned again.
>
> Based on Giles' discussion with Big Blue, Buffy's suspicions are
> irrelevant anyway:
>
> "Mage: The task is finished.
> Giles: Yes. Thank you for coming to me and for that
> rather effective light show you put on.
> Mage: This restores the balance between us, Rupert
> Giles. My debt to you is now repaid in full. Do not
> call upon me.
> Giles: I shan’t. Peace with you.
> Mage: And with you."
>
> The key is that Mage comes to Giles in a scene we never see nor have
> any reason to suspect occurred. Giles did not need Buffy's suspicions
> at all.
We don't know who approached whom first. Giles might have gone to the
mage, and asked for the favour, after Buffy and Angel had told him about
what they thought Faith was up to.
KenM47
>KenM47 wrote:
>
>>
>> "while TUS's comes entirely out of nowhere"
>>
>> I disagree. You are given those clues, and they are even more subtle
>> than 6S. Like the objective viewpoint versus the story as Verbal tells
>> it, for one.
>
>I don't know what you mean specifically. But my point is, 6S is a
>story that gives plenty of subtle clues, so I'd believe someone who
>said they figured out the secret in advance (I was spoiled, sadly).
>TUS, it'd be much more difficult to convince me that someone figured it
>out on first viewing.
OK. You're missing my point, and that's most likely my inability to
state it clearly.
A plot twist does not IMO require that the audience actually figure it
out before or at the "aha!" moment, although that can be a big help in
making it a success. What's more important is the ability to think
back on it after you've been let in on it and be able to say they gave
me the clues, I just didn't see what was there right in front of me.
TUS is difficult, but when the viewer does the after viewing post
mortem, you start to realize how clever it was. What I'm saying
specifically as to TUS is when you are given the objective third party
perspective of events you can trust/believe what you see and hear.
When Verbal talks, it's all lies, or rather impossible to quickly know
what is a lie and what isn't - the narrative is "Suspect."
>
>And my greater point is that I simply disagree that it's necessary to
>drop hints for the audience. Just make the story interesting and
>sensible both "before" and "after," and I'm happy. [Anyone who's
>trying to figure out how my stance here meshes with my love of
>'signposts' in other cases, reread the preceding senntance.]
Again it's the ability to afterwards look back on it and not feel
cheated, to feel instead you were given the relevant information for
the big reveal. Otherwise the storyteller can just throw any garbage
at the viewer, the old "and suddenly they were all run over by a
truck" ("How to Write Good by Michael O'Donoghue";
http://www.nationallampoon.com/flashbacks/writegood/writegood.html).
We're also getting into the audience's willing suspension of
disbelief. Too many out of nowhere denouements lead to the audience
being taken out of the story. Again, IMO.
>
>I'd agree with tthose who say that it's "witholding infromation" rather
>than "lying."
I have to go with this much withholding is worse than lying. It's just
bad story telling. I've in the past brought up Stephen King's writing
lessons disguised as a suspense novel called "Misery."
Sadly, I have no idea where my copy is, so I'm going on memory. At one
point the narrator author tells us of a campfire storytelling game
where someone starts a story, creates a cliffhanger, and hands the
story off to the next person to get the hero out of the predicament.
Then they all decide if the new guy succeeded, "Did he?"
Here, as far as I'm concerned, Whedon et al., on this one, didn't.
> There are times (and the characters on BTVS would tell
>you this, were they able... or real) when one simply cannot be expected
>to arrive at the right conclusion if one isn't around to learn a
>critical bit of information. In this episode, since we mostly follow
>Faith, we're as surprised as she is. Nothing wrong with that.
>
>-AOQ
Agreed, and ED's acting in that scene, and the following scene with
the Mayor is terrific. But we should have been able to say to Faith or
at least ourselves: She/We should have seen that coming.
BTW, didn't SMG look great in most of this episode? The iconic Buffy.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
Let's say you're right, and I don't agree, but let's just say.
So afterwards when thinking about it you realize they were there. Not
so in "Enemies."
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
Inconclusive at best. In my book, a so what moment.
>
>
>>
>> Based on Giles' discussion with Big Blue, Buffy's suspicions are
>> irrelevant anyway:
>>
>> "Mage: The task is finished.
>> Giles: Yes. Thank you for coming to me and for that
>> rather effective light show you put on.
>> Mage: This restores the balance between us, Rupert
>> Giles. My debt to you is now repaid in full. Do not
>> call upon me.
>> Giles: I shan’t. Peace with you.
>> Mage: And with you."
>>
>> The key is that Mage comes to Giles in a scene we never see nor have
>> any reason to suspect occurred. Giles did not need Buffy's suspicions
>> at all.
>
>We don't know who approached whom first. Giles might have gone to the
>mage, and asked for the favour, after Buffy and Angel had told him about
>what they thought Faith was up to.
Don, what part of "Thank you for coming to me" don't you get? Mage
came to Giles. He owed him. THAT is what they tell us. All the rest is
off-screen speculation. If there was more, a line of dialog would have
been nice. There wasn't.
Ken (Brooklyn)
eli...@gmail.com
show. Most episodes center around trying to find a way to defeat the
Monster of the Week - I do not expect to be able to work out how this
is done, since most times the answer comes out of one of Giles' dusty
tomes.
Stephen Tempest
>1. It's not sex, it's sex with one's true love (in The Princess Bride
>sense) that can be the problem.
Even more: it's redemption for a century of atonement in the arms of
your True Love.
>4. "The girl makes Godot look punctual" Good line. seemingly totally
>out of character for Buffy. It's a Willow or Giles line IMO.
I don't think so, really:
Giles would come up with obscure facts about Beckett's sources and
influences when writing 'Waiting for Godot'.
Willow would get excited about the deep symbolic meanings hidden
within the play.
Buffy would know that it's about waiting for someone who never shows
up.
Xander would, at best, have heard of the play's title, but nothing
about what happens in it.
Faith would have never heard of it, and get defensive and aggressive
if the subject came up.
Buffy does come up with some fairly obscure cultural references from
time to time. (Episode 4.19 is probably the classic example, "Fgnl
onpx be V'yy qb n Jvyyvnz Oheebhtuf ba lbhe yrnqre urer! [...] Jnf V
gur bayl bar njnxr va Ratyvfu gung qnl?")
Stephen
eli...@gmail.com
Firstly, it's there right from the start and all through the show in
various degrees. (Very first scene ever with Darla and the teen boy is
a prime example. )
Secondly, Joss is prone to taking short-cuts and sometimes his world
building is full of holes. He admits as much himself:
"I don't know from science, I don't know - I never took any science; I
don't know how things work, I can barely tie my shoes - but I
understand emotions. So if we can get _past_ that by going, 'well these
things happen when you're on a Hellmouth' , um, then we can get to
what's important."
The important thing in this episode is to show which side Faith is on
and why. The how is just a tool (and in this instance possibly a bit
wonky) but I doubt it ever worried him one bit.
Jeff Jacoby
It *is* mentioned again, in the library, when Buffy
says she went to Angel's place and didn't find
him.
Wesley: Yes, let's, uh, let's try to stay on track.
We need everyone working together here. Where's Angel?
Buffy: I don't know. I went to the mansion but he wasn't there.
(Presumably Buffy's aware of, or fully engaged in,
"the plan" by now.)
I'm in agreement with Ken, a scene gap of a few
hours hardly constitutes a reasonable hint to the
audience of "something else" going on. If that
were true then every episode could have some kind
of sneaky plan going on, ready to be sprung at the end.
Jeff
kenm47
And most of the episodes do not play like this one with a big "Aha"
moment that the episode turns on and where we've been kept in the dark.
Let's take as an example DMP. FWIW. Long before Giles finds the picture
of the mask in the book and figueres out what is going on, we know the
mask is evil because of the red glow and what not.
Or take Revelations. At the same moment Giles learns who the Big Bad of
the episode is we do, on the same information, when we see her coldcock
Giles.
Or another example: in FH&T, what's this mysterious spell that Giles
has been going on about this episode and before this. Well, at the
right dramatic moment we learn, just when Willow learns, "There is no
spell." An extremely important moment but the episode does not turn on
that.
Here we can guess Buffy suspects something, but we have no info on the
doublecross until Faith learns "psyche" and here it is what the episode
turns on. Even when we get the Buffy reveal we still don't know how
they caught on until almost in epilog fashion we get the Giles/Mage
chat.
That's just not fun.
Ken (Brooklyn)
drifter
You thought that was historical? I found it merely amusing.
Humor really is subjective.
--
Kel
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
Jeff Jacoby
Agreed. All it would have taken is one quick 5 second
scene of Buffy walking away from the mansion, Angel watching
her leave from the shadows of the open doorway.
Take a scene like that, followed by her statement
later in the library ("he wasn't there") and you
have something to work with (i.e. why did Buffy lie?).
Jeff
KenM47
hopelessly devoted
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 17: "Enemies"
Welcome to my number 4.
> Writer: Douglas Petrie
Quickly becoming my favorite BTVS writer (next to Joss)
> So apparently Faith has been reinstated with less fuss than I'd
> expect.
Alot less since everyone seemed to be focused on her on duty accident,
rather than her off duty intentional.
> Meanwhile Faith slips farther into the realm of the disturbing, killing
> a demon in cold blood. Here I really don't see any distinction
> between this and a human being, and neither does she. Both scenes
> where she goes to Angel for help are a great followup to
> "Consequences," and well played by both actors. Yet again, Dushku
> has us prepared to accept the possibility that Faith is starting to
> come to her senses. We know she has the potential to be something
> better. Even when she starts trying to put the moves on Angel, well,
> we know that she doesn't relate to men very well. But then seeing
> that it was all part of the Mayor's plan... boo. In a good way, I
> mean. During the second visit, I commented to Mrs. Quality that it's
> never possible to be totally sure how sincere she's being.
>
> I was totally with Willow on her comment to Buffy: "Stop with the
> crazy. Go talk to Angel." If more characters listened to advice
> like that, TV and movies would be a lot harder to write.
A BTVS plus, definately.
> Xander is "right" about the reason he got punched out, but I think
> he jumped to his conclusion without much evidence. But the concern for
> Buffy certainly makes sense, and mirrors the viewer's.
Also, on the X theory, he jumps to the conclusion that Angelus back and
now with F, whom by the way tried to kill him. As I've said before,
because of recent circumstances, X seems to take and deliver this news
in a rather calm manner. No "Faster Pussycat. Kill, Kill."
> Ultimately we come down to speechmaking, and pretty much all of
> Faith's stated motives get boiled down to envy. A lot about this
> speech doesn't sit right with me. Does all that's gone down
> ultimately spring from this girly "you think you're better than
> me" thing? This episode would seem to think so, and it's one of my
> biggest problems with "Enemies." (Well, that and the idiot
> plotting that demands that the villain reveal all her plans right
> before the hero turns the tables.) I'd have run with the idea of
> Slayer superiority rather than envy myself, but hey, Faith still
> confuses me some at this point, so I may not be the best of judges.
Here is where my new theory actually makes sense. 2 things.
1 - I've asked repeatedly what her original role was to be. She was
contracted for 5 eps (not a problem) and then he contract lengthened.
But people have not mentioned that her path from the original 5 had
changed. Until recently, I saw Bad Girls as that renegotiation and
path switch. Not anymore.
2 - If her path did not change, then enemies has been in the works
since FH&T, but for some reason until now, I missed it.
The question has been asked why did F came to Sunnydale? And answers
have been given. Here's one. What if the obvious is the truth. Some
of this, I will be repeating myself.
FH&T -
Cocky vampire Kill. "Thanks B. I couldn't have done it without you."
Tall Tales of big Kills. "So, what was your toughest kill?"
And quickly picks a fight: "Did I just hear a threat?"
Someone also mentioned F killing Kakistos with a "much" larger stake.
Something that I had actually never taken into account before.
B&TB we get more of her philosophy and her playing with the team doing
the one thing that we know is probably the most important thing in the
world for her: Being a Slayer.
Revelations has her going after Angel as a part of her job. But I
would like to offer also to do something that B was unable to do. Stop
a potential problem. Angel/Angelus is a dangerous equation. The role
of the slayer is simple and even Kendra saw this. Vampire. Slayer.
Dead Vampire. She went after Angel to prove that she could succeed
where B failed. Doing her Job.
While the end of revelations can be seen as Faiths ultiimate loneliness
and considerable broken trust, but also a sense failing to prove
herself. Compounded with Post's "You're an idiot", Faith may also feel
like she failed twice.
Amends brings her back into the fold and maybe just for the sake of not
feeling alone. Maybe for the sake of tryiing again to trust. Quite
possibly for the sake of giving herself another opportunity to best B.
You can't beat em if you're not in the game.
The Zeppo, in battle side by side with B. Slayer with Slayer.
Bad Girls is where I had the most difficulty. Breaking and Entering,
Stealing, Want Take Have. Also add in, If you don't come, "If you
don't come in after me, I might die!" and her "on the count of three"
response. Faith is out to prove who the better slayer is. B is not
going to let F go in alone and once down there it becomes a side by
side test.
Faith's accident cuts in two ways. As Don has already pointed out, and
I believe is a valid point, Doppelgangland shows B's response and quick
reflexes when she "doesn't" stake VampWillow. Faith DID have equal
time. The killing of a human being is one thing in and of itself. And
though some have argued that it was not a failure, I would argue that
Faith thinks differently. As a Slayer she not only did not prove
herself better, but in the "competition" that she created, that failure
proved that she would be the lesser of the two. Faith considers
herself a failure. And it is that failure, along with the taking of a
life, that complicates matters even more. Again I have to include the
bedpost here.
Consequences is more than just a protection of herself as a human
being, it is also the survival of the Slayer within. If she goes to
jail, the Council is involved she stands to lose the only that she
truly knows and understands. Being a Slayer.
B is everything that F is not. Including, in Faith's mind, the better
Slayer. The one thing that she came to Sunnydale to prove otherwise.
> How about our big plot twist? Nice. It completely blindsided me, and
> I enjoy being fooled that way: it raises my opinion of how well an
> episode is put together.
Beautifully done. Just enough clues to keep you in the dark. And just
enough information to surprise you.
Enemies was my number 4. I may have to reevaluate it, along with the
rest of the season and move it to #1.
KenM47
<SNIP>
>
>Faith's accident cuts in two ways. As Don has already pointed out, and
>I believe is a valid point, Doppelgangland shows B's response and quick
>reflexes when she "doesn't" stake VampWillow. Faith DID have equal
>time. The killing of a human being is one thing in and of itself. And
>though some have argued that it was not a failure, I would argue that
>Faith thinks differently. As a Slayer she not only did not prove
>herself better, but in the "competition" that she created, that failure
>proved that she would be the lesser of the two. Faith considers
>herself a failure. And it is that failure, along with the taking of a
>life, that complicates matters even more. Again I have to include the
>bedpost here.
>
Interesting. I think also, unlike Kendra, there is a Faith resentment
in being called prematurely. There is no Chosen One where Faith can
write the rules as she wants and be the center of the good guys
attention.
Instead she has to share the spotlight with, and always get second
billing to, Buffy who refuses to accept that she has the right to do
whatever because she has saved who knows how many.
Ken (Brooklyn)
peachy ashie passion
>>he's no more in charge than Foreman was
>>of the Dept. Of Diagnostic Medicine.
>
> Bwhahahahaha!
>
And may I second your BWHAHAHAHAHA.
That was seriously funny!
>
>>Tangent: Why does Wesley seem to
>>inspire a first-name basis where other Watchers don't?
>
> Because Wyndham-Pryce is so long? Anyway, he's definitely just 'Wesley'
> - unless someone is being very formal.
>
> >the fact
>
>>that "Scoobie Gang" has actually prominently appeared in a few
>>scripts would seem to give it a canon edge over the likes of
>>"Slaypack." What to do?
>
> They're Scoobies. No getting away from it I'm afraid.
Besides, the thing about the scoobies is, they were all equals.
BTR1701
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
They weren't there in the sense that the audience could detect them.
Sure the name Kobayashi may have been stuck to one of those pieces of
paper the whole time but there's no way the audience could have read
that piece of paper until the very end when the camera zoomed into an
ECU.
Bill Reid
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-F46A0C...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <85bd22l7omfegn1kg...@4ax.com>,
> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 3. " And it says something that neither Buffy nor Giles decided to
> > fill in the Scoobie Gang on what was going on."
> >
> > OK, here I felt something and not in a good way. How about giving the
> > audience a clue? This was the second time I think I mentally winced
> > when watching first run. The first was the strong implication in
> > Amends that "God" or something like it was available to step in and do
> > a miracle when things got really rough. This was another deus ex
> > machina, as we had no reason to suspect the counterspy plot; it's not
> > like a missed clue - there were no clues.
>
it inappropriately in context...this in no way was a "deus ex machina".
Yeah, there were some "clues", but the setup for the scam took
place off-camera. That's all, no "lying", no "deus ex machina", and
certainly the writers of ANY show have the right to show you or
not show you any particular scene. One time I went to the trouble
of actually writing out all the scenes that they didn't include, and
frankly, I liked the way the real writers did it better, because it
really WAS "surprising", and just more entertaining overall.
Sure, their little scheme was a little half-baked and I'm not sure
why only Giles, Angel, and Buffy were in on it (that's a little chintzy,
I'll grant you that), but everything that happened could have
happened. And I particularly liked the way they had the "missing
scene" telegraphed: Willow tells Buffy to "talk to Angel" about
her concerns about Faith, we EXPECT that in the next scene
when somebody enters Angel's mansion it will be BUFFY,
but it's actually FAITH. THEY CLEVERLY "TRICKED"
YOU INTO FORGETTING THAT IF BUFFY WENT TO
ANGEL, ANGEL WOULD HAVE TOLD HER ABOUT
THE DEMON BLOOD ON FAITH'S HANDS, THEY WOULD
HAVE PUT THAT TOGETHER WITH BUFFY'S SUSPICIONS
AS TO WHY FAITH KNEW WHERE THE LIGHT SWITCH
WAS IN THE DEMON'S APARTMENT, AND BINGO,
NO DEUS EX MACHINA!!!
This does fall into the category of stuff I refer to as the "show don't
tell" policy of "Buffy" in the early seasons. They don't have endless
exposition and "clues" as to what's happening, they just show you
little slices of things that are happening, and you have to put the
pieces together yourself. Some people, like me, like that, other
hate it with a fiery passion...
> So it's your opinion that an author is supposed to drop clues for the
> audience?
>
That's exactly it...he wants his "surprise endings" to not be surprising!
> That would have made the big Keyser Soze reveal at the end of "The Usual
> Suspects" much less spectacular.
There were TONS of clues as to who "Keyser Soze" was. I knew
from the beginning there was no actual "Keyser Soze", and knew
exactly who it was half-way through the movie. The only reason
I didn't know how "The Usual Suspects" would end earlier than
I knew how "The Sixth Sense" would end was because they took
longer to introduce the whole "Keyser Soze" nonsense, but they
showed what happened to Bruce Willis in the VERY FIRST SCENE.
But I guess some people just aren't as good a "detective" as
I am...
---
William Ernest Reid
KenM47
Actually, IIRC, it was on the bottom of the cop's coffee mug, and
again IIRC, there was a shot of it before the reveal almost from
Verbal's angle. But I'm not pulling out the DVD to double check.
Enough OT discussion of TUS, IMO.
"Enemies" was, and always will be, IMO, a cheat. I can deal with that
for the greater good and a great season.
Ken (Brooklyn)
alphakitten
Mel wrote:
>
>
> alphakitten wrote:
>
>> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately we come down to speechmaking, and pretty much all of
>>> Faith's stated motives get boiled down to envy. A lot about this
>>> speech doesn't sit right with me. Does all that's gone down
>>> ultimately spring from this girly "you think you're better than
>>> me" thing?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not envy, self-loathing. Faith knows perfectly well that Buffy is
>> better than her.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ~Angel
>>
>
> At the same time, she's convinced herself that all her problems are
> Buffy's fault. She blamed her for Allen's death, now she blames her for
> everything bad that ever happened to her. The denial is so deep she
> believes it herself.
>
> Btw, when did anyone _ever_ say to Faith, "Why can't you be more like
> Buffy?" As far I remember, it never happened and it was never really
> even implied. She's laying all her own insecurities and "self-loathing"
> as you say, on other people because she can't come to grips with the
> fact that she is what she is because of her own choices.
Not only her own. Giles chose to volunteer as her watcher, then he chose
to completley neglect her. Everyone chose to convince themselves that a
seedy motel was a perfectly adequate place for a clearly troubled
teenage girl to live by herself. Faith eventually failed them, but they
failed her first.
~Angel
KenM47
>
>BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:btr1702-F46A0C...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <85bd22l7omfegn1kg...@4ax.com>,
>> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 3. " And it says something that neither Buffy nor Giles decided to
>> > fill in the Scoobie Gang on what was going on."
>> >
>> > OK, here I felt something and not in a good way. How about giving the
>> > audience a clue? This was the second time I think I mentally winced
>> > when watching first run. The first was the strong implication in
>> > Amends that "God" or something like it was available to step in and do
>> > a miracle when things got really rough. This was another deus ex
>> > machina, as we had no reason to suspect the counterspy plot; it's not
>> > like a missed clue - there were no clues.
>>
>Oh "God", look up the phrase "deus ex machina" before you use
>it inappropriately in context...this in no way was a "deus ex machina".
OK, snow was, this wasn't. I stand corrected. This was just bad
writing.
>
>Yeah, there were some "clues", but the setup for the scam took
>place off-camera. That's all, no "lying", no "deus ex machina", and
>certainly the writers of ANY show have the right to show you or
>not show you any particular scene. One time I went to the trouble
>of actually writing out all the scenes that they didn't include, and
>frankly, I liked the way the real writers did it better, because it
>really WAS "surprising", and just more entertaining overall.
To you perhaps. Since I have no idea what those scenes are, can't
comment.
>
>Sure, their little scheme was a little half-baked and I'm not sure
>why only Giles, Angel, and Buffy were in on it (that's a little chintzy,
>I'll grant you that), but everything that happened could have
>happened.
Yes. Not seeing why that matters.
> And I particularly liked the way they had the "missing
>scene" telegraphed: Willow tells Buffy to "talk to Angel" about
>her concerns about Faith, we EXPECT that in the next scene
>when somebody enters Angel's mansion it will be BUFFY,
>but it's actually FAITH. THEY CLEVERLY "TRICKED"
>YOU INTO FORGETTING THAT IF BUFFY WENT TO
>ANGEL, ANGEL WOULD HAVE TOLD HER ABOUT
>THE DEMON BLOOD ON FAITH'S HANDS, THEY WOULD
>HAVE PUT THAT TOGETHER WITH BUFFY'S SUSPICIONS
>AS TO WHY FAITH KNEW WHERE THE LIGHT SWITCH
>WAS IN THE DEMON'S APARTMENT, AND BINGO,
>NO DEUS EX MACHINA!!!
Nothing IMO justifies that particular order of events. Besides as I
noted elsewhere, what Angel and Buffy noted means little since the
Mage went to Giles and disclosed the plan to Giles off camera.
>
>This does fall into the category of stuff I refer to as the "show don't
>tell" policy of "Buffy" in the early seasons. They don't have endless
>exposition and "clues" as to what's happening, they just show you
>little slices of things that are happening, and you have to put the
>pieces together yourself. Some people, like me, like that, other
>hate it with a fiery passion...
This episode is different, IMO. There is a mystery. The mystery gets
solved without any emotional involvement of the viewer in the solving.
Unlike say, Willow solving that the murder in BatB was not a werewolf
or a vampire.
>
>> So it's your opinion that an author is supposed to drop clues for the
>> audience?
>>
>That's exactly it...he wants his "surprise endings" to not be surprising!
>
>> That would have made the big Keyser Soze reveal at the end of "The Usual
>> Suspects" much less spectacular.
>
>There were TONS of clues as to who "Keyser Soze" was. I knew
>from the beginning there was no actual "Keyser Soze", and knew
>exactly who it was half-way through the movie. The only reason
>I didn't know how "The Usual Suspects" would end earlier than
>I knew how "The Sixth Sense" would end was because they took
>longer to introduce the whole "Keyser Soze" nonsense, but they
>showed what happened to Bruce Willis in the VERY FIRST SCENE.
>
>But I guess some people just aren't as good a "detective" as
>I am...
Well we agree on TUS clues. I didn't get it until the reveal. And
enjoyed it immensely.
I guess I'm not as good a detective as you.
>
>---
>William Ernest Reid
>
>
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
Agreed. She was a kid with no ties. They all failed her.
Ken (Brooklyn)
vague disclaimer
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <1143382692.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> > threads.
> >
> >
> > BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> > Season Three, Episode 17: "Enemies"
> > (or "I went in, killing the sun")
> > Writer: Douglas Petrie
> > Director: David Grossman
>
> It's time to say something about your future viewing of episodes, in
> order to get the true first viewing experience:
>
> YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WATCH 'EARSHOT' NEXT!
>
> You must first watch 'Choices,' 'The Prom' and 'Graduation, Part 1.'
>
> If you live in Canada you are allowed to watch 'Graduation, Part 2'
> immediately following Part 1. Otherwise you must wait a couple of
> months before you watch 'Graduation, Part 2'
>
> If you live in Canada you must now wait three months before watching
> 'Earshot.' Otherwise you may watch it after only waiting another month.
Or if he pretends you're in the UK he can watch them in any damned order
he wants :)
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
Horace LaBadie
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
SNIP
> Here we can guess Buffy suspects something, but we have no info on the
> doublecross until Faith learns "psyche" and here it is what the episode
> turns on. Even when we get the Buffy reveal we still don't know how
> they caught on until almost in epilog fashion we get the Giles/Mage
> chat.
>
> That's just not fun.
>
> Ken (Brooklyn)
You really, really must have hated "The Sting" in that case.
HWL
KenM47
It's been a long time, and my pop culture critical skills were less
polished pre-ng's dissections, But I remember liking The Sting a lot,
especially the music.
Something in particular about that?
Ken (Brooklyn)
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> Why am I not objecting to an alleged deus ex machina that didn't get
> signposts leading up to it? Well, my demands are basically that the
> episode work both before you know what's happening and afterward in
> retrospect. Which I thnk it does.
I agree. I've always enjoyed the plot twist. I mean, how funny is it
that Giles introduced *that guy* to his wife? There might be a
question of when exactly Giles and Buffy set up the whole thing, but it
doesn't bother me.
When rewatching, a couple of things stand out. Buffy totally noticed
Faith reaching around blind to the light switch. And Giles' "be
careful" has a totally different meaning than it did the first time.
Other people have pointed out subtleties in Angel's performance that
hints that he's not really turned, but I've never seen them. I bought
it hook line and sinker the first time, so his "second best" was an
awesome moment.
The only thing that I've never quite bought was that Faith was suddenly
all fired up to torture Buffy. I can buy all sorts of theories about
what Faith's damage is (there are some good ones, and I'm not even
talking about the "because she actually loves Buffy" ones). I'm just
not sure any of them lead to premeditated torture. Although suddenly
I'm wondering what Faith actually wanted a dog *for*.
-- Mike Zeares
KenM47
P.S.:
Just rewatched Earshot today as it is next on the list.
V unq sbetbggra jung n terng rcvfbqr vg jnf. Shaal, grafr, shaal.
Ken (Brooklyn)
George W Harris
:The key is that Mage comes to Giles in a scene we never see nor have
:any reason to suspect occurred. Giles did not need Buffy's suspicions
:at all.
I seem to recall there's a brief moment in the library
where Giles behaves oddly (as though he hears someone
back in the stacks) early in the episode.
:
:Ken (Brooklyn)
--
/bud...@nirvana.net/h:k
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Apteryx
news:1143382692.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
threads.
One-sentence summary: Nicely conceived and full of nice tension.
AOQ rating: Good
There's a lot to like in this episode, especially The Mayor and Faith, and
the reveal at the end of Giles's connection with the Mage. There is
certainly a hint of the twist about a minute before it is finally revealed,
when Angel observes that he never asked why Buffy wasn't more like Faith,
but I don't think there is any clues as to the mechanism of the twist
(Giles's connection with the Mage). That doesn't detract from the episode
for me though, so long as they don't make a habit of it. I'd call it Good.
For me, its the 42nd best BtVS episode, 10th best in Season 3
--
Apteryx
Jeff Jacoby
There was a clear hint to the ending. As Hooker
(and Gondorff, IIRC) was dressing in his tuxedo
he reached into the top drawer, pulled something
out and fitted it in his mouth. It turned out to be
a blood capsule.
Hooker's guardian angel was also hinted at.
Jeff
Bill Reid
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:qe7e22liikrp1eabf...@4ax.com...
> Horace LaBadie <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
> >In article <1143404349.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >SNIP
> >
> >> Here we can guess Buffy suspects something, but we have no info on the
> >> doublecross until Faith learns "psyche" and here it is what the episode
> >> turns on. Even when we get the Buffy reveal we still don't know how
> >> they caught on until almost in epilog fashion we get the Giles/Mage
> >> chat.
> >>
> >> That's just not fun.
> >>
> >
> polished pre-ng's dissections, But I remember liking The Sting a lot,
> especially the music.
>
> Something in particular about that?
>
"Buffy" that you hate so much, with even fewer "clues" to the audience
to let them know there was going to be a "surprise" double-cross
at the end!
Criminy, I have no idea what gets people so unhinged about this
innocent little "Buffy" episode, it's not like the same basic plot hasn't
been used before. I do believe it stems from the malformed idea
that somehow it was IMPOSSIBLE for the events to have happened,
but that's only because you can't quite puzzle out from what you
were shown HOW it happened. So, from the writers and the people
who LIKED it, we'd just like to say...PSYCHE!!!
You know, it does bring up the whole idea of "tropes", because
"surprise" endings are such a staple of movies, books, plays, and
TV that when I say I KNEW how "The Usual Suspects" was going
to end, it's largely based on what I've seen writers do a billion times
before with murder "mysteries" and the like ("it's always the guy
you least suspect", "it's always the first guy that gets ruled out but
had first proximity to the victim", "no apparent motive until the 'surprise'
ending", etc., etc., etc.).
"Surprise" endings are generally so lame and predictable, and so
widely over-used, that it boils down to whether you like the stuff
that happens in the show despite the lack of "surprise". Now I
happened to like "The Sixth Sense" just as a supernatural drama
despite not being "surprised", I HATED "The Usual Suspects" because
it was a singularly unconvincing and dorky "crime drama" (where all
the criminals looked like GQ models), that I'm convinced was only
redeemed in SOME people's eyes BECAUSE of the ridiculously
predictable "surprise" ending. The best thing about "The Usual
Suspects" was it being spoofed at the end of "Scary Movie" when
we discover that "Droolie" was the "real killer"...
Now this "Buffy" episode, I was both genuinely surprised, and
I liked the stuff I saw in the episode; I mean, how can you not
love the casual sado-machocism of the Faith-Angelus "lover's
battle", the even more casual knife through the Mayor's hand
from Angelus' spontaneous assasination attempt, Faith mocking
Buffy's stupid Union Jack shirt...this episode had all kinds of
good stuff to "show" us, and who cares what they (wisely) "left
out"...
---
William Ernest Reid
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The ending comes completely out of left field, with a bunch of
characters being totally different from what we had been told they were
all along. There is no preparation for it. We were basically lied to
throughout the film.
Don Sample
Jeff Jacoby <jja...@not.real.com> wrote:
But there was no hint that the Feds were anything other than Feds, until
then end when it turns out they're more grifters working for Gondorff.
hopelessly devoted
Exactly. There is an interesting power play that has been going on all
along. Faith is victorious if she proves her self better than B OR if
she sways B to become more like her. If either of the two happens,
Faith proves her Way is The Way and she becomes the superior of the
two. Better. But when this doesn't happen (Allen's death) and B
refusing to accept her "superior" role, the two become polar opposites.
Polar opposites, in effect, could never share the spotlight.
Faith's calling, like Kendra's, puts Faith in a spotlight that is still
being used. Unlike Kendra, she is not willing to accept this and has
no where to go even if she did.
For me, this is why she revealed herself at the end of Consequences.
Again, B passed her by. Faith revealed herself. Last effort to prove
to B and to herself that she (the part of B that IS F) belongs in that
spotlight.
Faith: What are you gonna do, B, kill me? You become me. You're not
ready for that, yet.
And the competition continues......
KenM47
>
>KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:qe7e22liikrp1eabf...@4ax.com...
>> Horace LaBadie <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
>> >In article <1143404349.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >SNIP
>> >
>> >> Here we can guess Buffy suspects something, but we have no info on the
>> >> doublecross until Faith learns "psyche" and here it is what the episode
>> >> turns on. Even when we get the Buffy reveal we still don't know how
>> >> they caught on until almost in epilog fashion we get the Giles/Mage
>> >> chat.
>> >>
>> >> That's just not fun.
>> >>
>> >You really, really must have hated "The Sting" in that case.
>> >
>> It's been a long time, and my pop culture critical skills were less
>> polished pre-ng's dissections, But I remember liking The Sting a lot,
>> especially the music.
>>
>> Something in particular about that?
>>
>Yeah, it had the exact same double-cross plot as this episode of
>"Buffy" that you hate so much, with even fewer "clues" to the audience
>to let them know there was going to be a "surprise" double-cross
>at the end!
I can't really have a conversation with someone who feels a need to
misstate my position. I did not say I hate the episode. I said I don't
like the cheat but recognize it's need, and that better writing could
have dealt with it.
>
>Criminy, I have no idea what gets people so unhinged about this
>innocent little "Buffy" episode,
Who's unhinged? I said I didn't care for it and tried to explain why.
You're a tad defensive as if you owned the property and I was
impacting its DVD sales or something. Get a grip.
>it's not like the same basic plot hasn't
>been used before. I do believe it stems from the malformed idea
>that somehow it was IMPOSSIBLE for the events to have happened,
>but that's only because you can't quite puzzle out from what you
>were shown HOW it happened. So, from the writers and the people
>who LIKED it, we'd just like to say...PSYCHE!!!
You're arguing like a 12 year old.
>
>You know, it does bring up the whole idea of "tropes", because
>"surprise" endings are such a staple of movies, books, plays, and
>TV that when I say I KNEW how "The Usual Suspects" was going
>to end, it's largely based on what I've seen writers do a billion times
>before with murder "mysteries" and the like ("it's always the guy
>you least suspect", "it's always the first guy that gets ruled out but
>had first proximity to the victim", "no apparent motive until the 'surprise'
>ending", etc., etc., etc.).
>
>"Surprise" endings are generally so lame and predictable, and so
>widely over-used, that it boils down to whether you like the stuff
>that happens in the show despite the lack of "surprise". Now I
>happened to like "The Sixth Sense" just as a supernatural drama
>despite not being "surprised", I HATED "The Usual Suspects" because
>it was a singularly unconvincing and dorky "crime drama" (where all
>the criminals looked like GQ models), that I'm convinced was only
>redeemed in SOME people's eyes BECAUSE of the ridiculously
>predictable "surprise" ending. The best thing about "The Usual
>Suspects" was it being spoofed at the end of "Scary Movie" when
>we discover that "Droolie" was the "real killer"...
OK. We're all impressed with how sophisticated you are.
Geesh!
>
>Now this "Buffy" episode, I was both genuinely surprised, and
>I liked the stuff I saw in the episode; I mean, how can you not
>love the casual sado-machocism of the Faith-Angelus "lover's
>battle", the even more casual knife through the Mayor's hand
>from Angelus' spontaneous assasination attempt, Faith mocking
>Buffy's stupid Union Jack shirt...this episode had all kinds of
>good stuff to "show" us, and who cares what they (wisely) "left
>out"...
>
>---
>William Ernest Reid
>
>
More power to you. Sado-masochism doesn't do all that much for me.
Different strokes, and all that.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
Maybe some day I'll rewatch and consider that when and if I do. Like I
said, in the good old days, pre-internet, I was often more easily
amused and also more forgiving. Could be that now I would not care for
the movie.
Ken (Brooklyn)
KenM47
Mel
Well, I don't agree with that. Acting as her temporary Watcher until the
Council sends a replacement (which they never did, btw) in no way means
he's also her legal guardian and expected to provide for her.
Besides, when she is constantly off on "unannounced walkabouts" it's a
little hard to _be_ her Watcher in the first place.
Mel
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Mike Zeares" <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> what Faith's damage is (there are some good ones, and I'm not even
> talking about the "because she actually loves Buffy" ones). I'm just
its all very violent
if you get killed im telling
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
hopelessly devoted
Outside of PG and Helpless, can you give me example(s) of when Giles
has interferred where B was concerned. I can think of only one: with
Snyder in getting her back in school.
Just a thought.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> Council sends a replacement (which they never did, btw) in no way means
> he's also her legal guardian and expected to provide for her.
perhaps actually that was expected of him
we never actually get to see the watchers training manual
or learn exactly what their education and duties are
faith needed professional help
and perhaps watchers were expected to be trained to provide it
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
all fiction is lies
hence -fiction- rather than -truetion-
the question is whether you enjoyed being lied to or not
Jeff Jacoby
Granted there was no specific hint about the Feds (though
there was the smoke-filled room bit where Hooker looked
suspiciously nervous when he denied knowing Snyder).
But given that literally the entire movie is about, and filled
with, people NOT being who they really are, it's not that
big a surprise there was one more in on the con.
(And to be clear, "The Sting" is one of my all-time
favorite movies)
To bring this back to Buffy, prior to this episode, when
had Buffy (and whatever other conspiritors) so completely
cut out everyone else (including the audience) about an
ongoing plan?
Jeff
KenM47
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That sums it up nicely. :-)
Ken (Brooklyn)
Mel
I think the fact that Wesley has psychologists complete with ink blot
tests evaluating both Faith and Buffy in "Doppelgangland" says pretty
clearly that Watchers are not expected to be psychologists. Their job is
to train Slayers to slay and hone their skills. That Giles acts as
Buffy's father figure is, as Travers says in "Helpless," not the norm
and not encouraged at all.
Mel
Carlos Moreno
Oh COME ON!!! Enough with not liking "The Sting" ... That's the
all-time best movie. End of discussion!!! (well, ok, a tie with
"Cinema Paradiso")
:-)
Carlos
--
Don Sample
Jeff Jacoby <jja...@not.real.com> wrote:
But the Fed con is aimed at Hooker. He doesn't know that they aren't
real Feds. He doesn't learn that until the end, after the main mark has
been taken away. (If he was in on it, the whole thing becomes
completely pointless. (And keeping him in the dark about it was pretty
pointless all along.))
>
> But given that literally the entire movie is about, and filled
> with, people NOT being who they really are, it's not that
> big a surprise there was one more in on the con.
>
> (And to be clear, "The Sting" is one of my all-time
> favorite movies)
>
> To bring this back to Buffy, prior to this episode, when
> had Buffy (and whatever other conspiritors) so completely
> cut out everyone else (including the audience) about an
> ongoing plan?
>
Everyone else: the first half of season 3. The audience is usually
given a semi-omniscient view of what's happening, but I don't consider
it a cheat to slip away from that from time to time. We went a long
time with only being given a partial view of what the Mayor was up to.
Don Sample
Mel <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
>
> I think the fact that Wesley has psychologists complete with ink blot
> tests evaluating both Faith and Buffy in "Doppelgangland" says pretty
> clearly that Watchers are not expected to be psychologists. Their job is
> to train Slayers to slay and hone their skills. That Giles acts as
> Buffy's father figure is, as Travers says in "Helpless," not the norm
> and not encouraged at all.
And given how badly they screwed up their evaluation of Faith, they
couldn't even spring for competent psychologists.
jil...@hotmail.com
alphakitten wrote:
> >... who wrote this first paragraph?
> > Btw, when did anyone _ever_ say to Faith, "Why can't you be more like
> > Buffy?" As far I remember, it never happened and it was never really
> > even implied. She's laying all her own insecurities and "self-loathing"
> > as you say, on other people because she can't come to grips with the
> > fact that she is what she is because of her own choices.
>
> Not only her own. Giles chose to volunteer as her watcher, then he chose
> to completley neglect her. Everyone chose to convince themselves that a
> seedy motel was a perfectly adequate place for a clearly troubled
> teenage girl to live by herself. Faith eventually failed them, but they
> failed her first.
Actually, I think I can take issue with this. Giles mentioned to Buffy
onscreen that Faith wasn't willing to be taught, causing her to pout
and complain about having to be the "good" one. Buffy tells us
onscreen that Faith takes off without telling anyone where she's going
or when she'll be back. Faith IS sixteen or so, presumably. She's not
registered with the school, there's no one with legal standing to force
her to do any of this. Oh, and the seedy motel-thing? Yes, by all
means, the over-forty librarian at a high school is moving a teenage
girl who wears slutty clothes into his house. That's going to go over
really well with the community. Willow would never have offered.
Xander might have offered, but is there a place in his home? And Buffy
can't offer but her mother could have and obviously didn't. Certainly
Cordelia wouldn't have offered, and that might've been horror for Faith
even if she did.
Carlos Moreno
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thoughts:
>>>>
>>>>1. It's not sex, it's sex with one's true love (in The Princess Bride
>>>>sense) that can be the problem. Of course, in light of the knowledge
>>>>of the potential repercussions, whether "true happiness" would ever
>>>>return is another issue.
>>>
>>>The show up to this point, and "Enemis" in particular, doesn't seem
>>>interested in making it clear. Anyway, Faith and Wilkins certainly
>>>didn't see things that way. They could be wrong, of course, but their
>>>plan seems to depend on the idea that orgasm is the key to Angelus.
>>>So, that aspect is annoying.
>>
>>It's the "moment of perfect happiness" clause. It's not necessarily sex
>>that can trigger it. It was just that he happened to have sex with Buffy
>>and for one moment he felt perfectly happy. He could probably have sex
>>with someone he likes a lot and be fine. If he'd actually had sex with
>>Faith, he'd still end up being Angel and Faith would be all "Hey, aren't
>>you supposed to go all evil now?" Faith and Wilkins didn't truly
>>understand the curse.
>>
>
> I used to think it was "perfect happiness," but Enyos says "moment of
> happiness" in Surprise and "moment of true happiness, of contentment,
> one moment where the soul that we restored no longer plagues his
> thoughts" in Innocence.
>
> Does anyone on screen ever say "perfect happiness"?
Plenty of times, yes.
Fzvyr gvzr -- Jrfyrl lryyvat ng Natry sbe abg jnagvat gb fyrrc
jvgu Avan; avargl-avar cbvag avar avar avar... nq vasvavghz
bs gur orfg erpbeqrq ybirf va uvfgbel unq gb frggyr sbe
*npprcgnoyr* unccvarff... Qba'g erpnyy gur erfg bs gur dhbgr
(be jurgure gur nobir vf na rknpg dhbgr), ohg ur qbrf fnl gung
jvgu n ybg bs rzcunfvf ba gur *cresrpg* unccvarff.
V'z fher Qba jvyy pbzr hc jvgu unys n qbmra rknpg dhbgrf, naq
erzrzore rknpgyl juvpu rcvfbqrf gurl pbeerfcbaq gb :-)
V oryvrir nyfb va gur rcvfbqr bs gur npgerff jnagvat gb or
lbhat sberire (NgF frnfba bar), gurl qb gnyx nobhg cresrpg
unccvarff.
Naq qvqa'g gur pbairefngvba orgjrra Knaqre naq Evyrl, whfg
nsgre Evyrl ghearq uvf onpx ba gur Vavgvngvir, znqr na
rkcyvpvg zragvba bs cresrpg unccvarff?
Carlos
--
Don Sample
"jil...@hotmail.com" <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, and the seedy motel-thing? Yes, by all
> means, the over-forty librarian at a high school is moving a teenage
> girl who wears slutty clothes into his house. That's going to go over
> really well with the community.
Giles doesn't have to ask her to move into his place. He just has to
slip her the cash, under the table, so she can pay for a nicer place for
herself.
alphakitten
Maybe not legally, but morally, he failed her. As did Joyce.
>
> Besides, when she is constantly off on "unannounced walkabouts" it's a
> little hard to _be_ her Watcher in the first place.
She wasn't _constantly_ off on unnanounced walkabouts and if Giles had
given her an iota of attention, she wouldn't have gone on them at all.
He would have had her eating out of his hand, remember how quickly she
fell in line for Gwen and the Mayor?
~Angel
alphakitten
B had a mother, she didn't need Giles to interfere. Faith did.
~Angel
Ian Galbraith
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-F46A0C...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <85bd22l7omfegn1kg...@4ax.com>,
>> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>> OK, here I felt something and not in a good way. How about giving the
>>> audience a clue? This was the second time I think I mentally winced
>>> when watching first run. The first was the strong implication in
>>> Amends that "God" or something like it was available to step in and do
>>> a miracle when things got really rough. This was another deus ex
>>> machina, as we had no reason to suspect the counterspy plot; it's not
>>> like a missed clue - there were no clues.
> Oh "God", look up the phrase "deus ex machina" before you use
> it inappropriately in context...this in no way was a "deus ex machina".
Well if you're talking the literal meaning from Greek plays then no it
wasn't, but yes it fits the modern definition and yes it was a cheat taking
the whole episode down the drain in no way deserving of a good. Pity
because it is a pivotal episode.
The modern definition being:
"A. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event
introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or
untangle a plot.
B. person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a
difficulty."
> Yeah, there were some "clues", but the setup for the scam took
> place off-camera.
Irrelevant, I haven't seen the episode for years but IIRC the DEM is in the
fact that the sorcerer was a friend of Giles. I mean the Mayor just
happened to employ a friend of Giles? Give me a break.
[snip]
>> So it's your opinion that an author is supposed to drop clues for the
>> audience?
> That's exactly it...he wants his "surprise endings" to not be surprising!
No its that the ending should be built on what has gone before, this one
wasn't.
>> That would have made the big Keyser Soze reveal at the end of "The Usual
>> Suspects" much less spectacular.
No they just should have gone about it in a different way.
[snip]
--
You can't stop the signal
hopelessly devoted
Not my point actually. Giles, as far as I remember, up until Snyder,
did not interfere in b's life.
Is it your opinion that a Slayer with no family, no friends, no
personal relations and very few personal posessions requires a loving,
caring Watcher otherwise they go psycho?
alphakitten
Because it wasn't necessary.
>
> Is it your opinion that a Slayer with no family, no friends, no
> personal relations and very few personal posessions requires a loving,
> caring Watcher otherwise they go psycho?
>
It's my opinion that any teenage girl should not be left living alone in
a crappy motel. And that any teenage girl who has recently witnessed the
violent death of someone close to her should be cared for, not ignored
and neglected. And that *all* slayers at the very least require a
watcher who actually does his or her job.
Giles didn't just fail to be loving and caring, he failed to take the
slightest interest in her. He failed to give a crap about her well
being. If he'd paid the *slightest* amount of attention to her, he might
have noticed that she was genuinely unstable well before the deputy
Mayor got staked.
~Angel
Bill Reid
Ian Galbraith <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1m48506b5hcbb....@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:08:43 GMT, Bill Reid wrote:
>
> > BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:btr1702-F46A0C...@news.giganews.com...
>
> >> In article <85bd22l7omfegn1kg...@4ax.com>,
> >> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> >>> OK, here I felt something and not in a good way. How about giving the
> >>> audience a clue? This was the second time I think I mentally winced
> >>> when watching first run. The first was the strong implication in
> >>> Amends that "God" or something like it was available to step in and do
> >>> a miracle when things got really rough. This was another deus ex
> >>> machina, as we had no reason to suspect the counterspy plot; it's not
> >>> like a missed clue - there were no clues.
>
> > Oh "God", look up the phrase "deus ex machina" before you use
> > it inappropriately in context...this in no way was a "deus ex machina".
>
> Well if you're talking the literal meaning from Greek plays then no it
> wasn't, but yes it fits the modern definition
Well, I guess it's a not a problem of divinity but human logic being
able to divine the definition...
> and yes it was a cheat taking
> the whole episode down the drain in no way deserving of a good.
So YOU admit you "hated" it?
>
> The modern definition being:
> "A. An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event
> introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation
or
> untangle a plot.
> B. person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a
> difficulty."
>
Too bad that doesn't have anything to do with this episode. There
never was a situation or plot or difficulty that needed untangling.
Buffy and Angel were always in control of the situation and no
character, device, or event was introduced at all from their standpoint.
Now consider a TRUE "deus ex machina": it starts snowing in southern
California, saving Angel from suicide. Just like the Spanish Inquisition,
NOBODY expected that. Heck, for that matter, how did Angel get out
of "hell"? Betcha didn't see that one coming...
Can you see the difference? This is like shapes and colors, except with
simple logical concepts...
> > Yeah, there were some "clues", but the setup for the scam took
> > place off-camera.
>
> Irrelevant, I haven't seen the episode for years but IIRC the DEM is in
the
> fact that the sorcerer was a friend of Giles. I mean the Mayor just
> happened to employ a friend of Giles? Give me a break.
>
Giles had been previously shown to have had a "colorful" past with
sorcery his own self. Frankly, I didn't see it as that much of a surprise,
given he had the mark of a killer demon tatooed on his forearm
and whatnot...
> >> So it's your opinion that an author is supposed to drop clues for the
> >> audience?
>
> > That's exactly it...he wants his "surprise endings" to not be
surprising!
>
> No its that the ending should be built on what has gone before, this one
> wasn't.
>
See above, and have somebody read it to you if necessary...
> >> That would have made the big Keyser Soze reveal at the end of "The
Usual
> >> Suspects" much less spectacular.
>
> No they just should have gone about it in a different way.
>
So if they caught the sorceror and tortured him somehow to
fake the soul-sucking spell it would have been hunky-dory? "I have
performed the fake spell as you wished, please do not introduce me
to any more wives, Rupert Giles..." Somehow, I just don't think
that's really the problem here...
But let's keep a list of all the movies ruined by "deus ex machina":
* "The Sixth Sense" ("God" helped that boy get over his fear of ghosts)
* "The Usual Suspects" ("God" helped Kevin Spacey get away with murder)
* "The Sting" ("God" helped Butch and Sundance rob that shark hunter)
* "Oceans 11" ("God" helped Clooney and Pitt rob that casino)
"God" may be helping weirdo kids, robbers, and murderers, but
he's ruining the movies! And he ruined this episode of "Buffy"...
---
William Ernest Reid
hopelessly devoted
A couple of things to consider.
1 - the above description "Slayer with no family, no friends, no
personal relations and very few personal posessions" is Kendra.
Seeing as she had 1 shirt and had to ride in the cargo bay of the
plane,
I doubt if she was living in the Jamaican Taj Majal. So if the living
conditions and the friendly relations is your definition of a healthy
Watcher/Slayer relationship, I will argue that the Council, as well as
Kendra herself, would see otherwise.
2 - Giles has limited his influence in B's life however not completely.
It is that reason that he was fired, and unfortunately, rightfully so
if you look at it from the existing W/S relationship and the Council's
POV: gur zvffvba vf jung znggref
3 - On the occasion that G did get involved, it was at B's request.
Which is why I asked whose idea it was to contact the Council regarding
F staying. "The council has approved *our* request". Also, who put
two and two together and who contacted who in Band Candy. Also note
that at the end of Helpless there is no mention of realization. There
is simply the results: Quinten: "Not quite. She passed. You didn't.
The Slayer is not the only one who must perform in this situation."
The test was twofold. They were both tested together. B performed her
duty, G did not. He interfered: gur zvffvba vf jung znggref.
3 - The Council was correct. There is a war. And the Slayers are
soldiers.
Guvf vf fbzrguvat gung O yrneaf yngre jvgu Jbbq. Gur zvffvba vf jung
znggref.
Vg vf jung Avxxv yrnearq, vg vf hygvzngryl jung Snvgu, Jrfyrl naq Jbbq
uvzfrys pbzr gb ernyvmr: gur zvffvba vf jung znggref.
Giles is the only one who, when B's life is threatened, can not help
himself, and gets involved, interfering. PG and Helpless are just two
occasions but there are more.
Giles is not stupid and does know the rules. I also believe he tries
as much as he can to play by those rules. His affection for your
charge has rendered him incapable of
clear and ****impartial**** judgment.
4 - Faith's watcher, more than likely, also knew these rules. So in
effect, we can also assume that Faith knows them to a certain extent.
5 - In the circumstances that Giles did interfere, it was at B's
request. We can then assume that Faith, knowing how things are
supposed to work, to some extent, does not assume to cross that W/S
line. Faith does not request.
While I understand your real world take on the situation, you are
forgetting one very important thing: Gur zvffvba vf jung znggref. Rnpu
Jngpure naq rnpu Fynlre cynlf n ebyr va gung zvffvba. Ntnva, O, S,
Jrfyrl naq Jbbq nyy pbzr gb haqrefgnaq guvf.
It is the world they live in.
It is the world they fight to save.
Jeff Jacoby
I meant that Gondorff saw Hooker's anxiety--just as the
audience did--and acted on it. But it's a small matter.
The main point remains: the movie was *all* about people
lying and deceiving others, so it's not inconsistent with
the story, or a problem for me, that there was one more
deception the audience didn't happen to be in on.
[snip]
>> To bring this back to Buffy, prior to this episode, when
>> had Buffy (and whatever other conspiritors) so completely
>> cut out everyone else (including the audience) about an
>> ongoing plan?
>
> Everyone else: the first half of season 3. The audience is usually
> given a semi-omniscient view of what's happening, but I don't consider
> it a cheat
I wasn't the one who said "cheat", but I do think it
unnecessarily detracted from the story (IMO, of course).
> to slip away from that from time to time. We went a long
> time with only being given a partial view of what the Mayor was up to.
As you note or imply, clues and hints were being given
all along.
Jeff
Jeff Jacoby
[snip]
> I doubt if she was living in the Jamaican Taj Majal.
I doubt anybody "lives" in the Taj Mahal. :)
Jeff
hopelessly devoted
Mu englys nod su goot.
:->
Daniel Damouth
news:1143399441....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
> I'd agree with tthose who say that it's "witholding infromation"
> rather than "lying."
I can see this distinction. I prefer it when a show gives us clues
that we're not smart enough to appreciate until after; but still,
"Enemies" is not lying.
Rneyl va frnfba 5, jura jr qba'g lrg xabj jung Qnja vf naq vg'f
cbffvoyr gung fur'f na rivy guvat, gur fubj yvrf gb hf va gur fprar
jurer fur vf pneelvat grn gb Wblpr. Gur zhfvp vf bzvabhf, naq Qnja vf
znqr gb ybbx rivy. Qnja vf tbvat gb cbvfba Wblpr? Ohg vg'f whfg gur
fubj ylvat.
-Dan Damouth
Opus the Penguin
> It's time to say something about your future viewing of episodes,
> in order to get the true first viewing experience:
>
> YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WATCH 'EARSHOT' NEXT!
>
> You must first watch 'Choices,' 'The Prom' and 'Graduation, Part
> 1.'
>
> If you live in Canada you are allowed to watch 'Graduation, Part
> 2' immediately following Part 1. Otherwise you must wait a couple
> of months before you watch 'Graduation, Part 2'
Nonsense. He should feel perfectly free to download a crappy MPEG of
"Graduation, Part 2" and squint at it on his monitor.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet