AOQ Review 2-19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
(or "I'm going to fuck you and kill you at the same time!")
Writer: Marti Noxon
Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
The core of this episode is basically one scene - disturbed kid, hot
for Teacher, goes all OJ on his lover. We see this in several
incarnations. "Eyes For You" is one of those shows where the rest
of the series' ongoing issues are set aside, deferred. or made to
dance to the tune of this story about the long-dead couple. (I
suppose you could try to draw parallels to Buffy and Angel, but it's
a stretch.) The first version of the central scene, with the unnamed
kids, has a lot of intensity, and looks like it'll set the tone for
the rest of the show (although I think the energy flags after that).
Fortunately, Buffy interferes and the subsequent confusion and
disappearance of the gun are well played. This also gives her
something to think about other than the usual angst and 1998-era dead
people.
Things start to take shape when not only do we get a Slayerdream, but
that's immediately followed up by a teacher going just a little bit
nuts, as our main scene pokes its head into the Buffyverse in smaller
bits as well as larger. The second full rendition (with the janitor)
isn't acted nearly as well, but at least the gun disappearing is a
really gorgeous effect.
So where do the regular cast fit in? The opening Buffy/Willow exchange
mainly just reiterates that Buffy's where we left her. She's still
way beyond thinking about things like dating, she's still a
workaholic Slayer, she still hasn't stopped blaming herself for
Angelus. Sometimes it's nice for the show to actually say that
stuff, as a heads-up to the viewer.
Speaking of reinforcing the ongoing character threads, I quite liked
this trilogy of facts: Giles gets irrational since he thinks Jenny's
involved, the others immediately realize that he's not so reliable in
this case, and he's able to notice the mounting evidence that he's
wrong.
The cafeteria scene serves a few purposes, none of which are really
related to the plot of the episode. One is to provide me with the
token reminder that Cordelia is still annoying. There's also a nice
bit of directing: closeup of the jiggling pasta to foreshadow the
snakes, but bury it in a montage of cafeteria food to keep it from
being too obviously foreshadowing. I have no clue what the deal is
with the snake attack (or the arm, or the quicksand, or...). The ghost
making people re-enact the lovers' quarrel makes some rudimentary
level of sense, but the rest seems pretty random. Was our favorite
Executive Producer on a "needs more snakes" kick?
(Also, Xander seems rather blasé about hanging with the snakes later.
Whassupwitdat?)
A more important role of the snake thing is setup for another little
Snyder/Bob exchange, which in turn feels like setup for something else.
The principal's earlier scenes are a little funny but I still think
his humor is too broad for this series (exception: "When She Was
Bad"). So I'm glad we're exploring his more serious side and
picking up that dangling plot thread from "School Hard." Not much
new here, but the idea that a lot of higher-ups are involved in trying
to downplay the Hellmouth's effects gets more explicit. Snyder being
here at SHS, and possibly his whole career as a principal, have a
purpose beyond his WSWB explanation that someone has to keep the little
bastards in line. It's intriguing, and I'm guessing it'll be a
part of the season's final chapter given that we're bringing it up
again so late in the year.
On to an exorcism ritual. Something that I know is going to annoy me
just a little about BTVS, so let's address it now: I'm not wild
about Calendar's "pagan sites" (at least no detail is given
beyond that) being a source for bona fide magic. (And is there some
Wicca later in the series too?) I'd rather if the show stuck with
the purely fantasy stuff rather than giving credence to or glorifying
real-world superstition. And before anyone asks, I'm not enamored
with all the crosses either, and would prefer the show without them,
but I've grinned and borne it (in part since fear of crucifixes is
such a longstanding part of vampire lore). Same as I intend to do with
the pagan stuff, actually.
At least this solution doesn't end the problem; it's a shame the
preparations take up so much screentime when it's clear that we're
too early in the episode for it to work. As a result it ends up as a
bunch of weird action scenes whose only real highlight is Carpenter's
delivery on "I shall totally confront..."
The whole climax is something of a highlight. After some extremely
cool visuals of the cursed school, the ghost picks Buffy and Angel as
its last actors, and we cut back and forth between the original and the
reenactment. I actually didn't notice right away that Buffy was the
one playing James... well, like dialogue later suggests, she's easier
to relate to than the vampire. Both actors slip quite well into their
parts, Gellar in particular. This whole time I'd assumed that
letting James be an angry ghost was too easy - there had to be a plot
twist, something more that'd make us rethink the earlier scenes. I
actually said "and here comes the plot twist..." out loud. I was
thinking of major contradictions of our heroes' assumptions (the
ghost is really someone else, etc.), so it caught me off guard that the
"unexpected" bit was something as simple as the gun going off
accidentally. This episode didn't really need to be any more
complicated than that, so I'm glad it went with a route that fit its
premise. The fact that Grace Newman can't be killed by a gunshot
this time means the spirit moves on purely through dumb luck, but
that's fine. The end result, of course, is that Buffy's head can
now get even more screwed with after she wakes up and remembers having
been that close to Angel again.
A nice touch: Before playing out the story, Buffy can't imagine that
Grace could ever forgive her killer. Afterward she still feels partly
the same way, but is willing to allow that it's not so simple. Fits
pretty well with what we've seen of her moral compass.
The final scene seems to be setting up for more, besides just the
amusing visual of Angel frantically trying to wash the Slayer off him
(and providing something for the ladies). The idea that Angelus is
afraid of love seems like the potential for cheese, but let's not
knock it until we see what they do with it. Spike kicking away the
wheelchair, on the other hand... uite the ending. I don't know what
he's planning, but am quite interested. And I'd noticed that he
seemed to getting frailer since S/I for some reason...
I was almost done with this review and I realized that I still hadn't
actually said anything about the 1950s story that's the center of the
episode. There's surprisingly little to say. I think the kid was
badly unbalanced and a danger to the innocent, but it's hard to say,
since we don't get to know much about the love story per se or the
principals involved. I can't say whether or not he "deserves" to
be forgiven, because the show doesn't give us enough information.
IOHEFY is flawed show, in large part for the three reasons I mentioned
(lack of sense of what ghosts can and can't do, slow middle, and that
James' story isn't fleshed out enough to make as deep an impact as
it could). But in the end, what one remembers most about the episode
is that it's an interesting concept told in an interesting way.
Ain't nothin' wrong with that.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- The scapula/spatula gag.
So...
One-sentence summary: A strange story that's worth a look.
AOQ rating: Good
[Season Two so far:
1) "When She Was Bad" - Good
2) "Some Assembly Required" - Weak
3) "School Hard" - Decent
4) "Inca Mummy Girl" - Good
5) "Reptile Boy" - Decent
6) "Halloween" - Good
7) "Lie To Me" - Good
8) "The Dark Age" - Good
9) "What's My Line (Part One)" - Good
10) "What's My Line (Part Two)" - Good
11) "Ted" - Excellent
12) "Bad Eggs" - Bad
13) "Surprise" - Decent
14) "Innocence" - Excellent
15) "Phases" - Decent
16) "Bewitched, Bothered, And Bewildered" - Bad
17) "Passion" - Good
18) "Killed By Death" - Decent
19) "I Only Have Eyes For You" - Good]
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> The whole climax is something of a highlight. After some extremely
> cool visuals of the cursed school, the ghost picks Buffy and Angel as
> its last actors, and we cut back and forth between the original and the
> reenactment. I actually didn't notice right away that Buffy was the
> one playing James... well, like dialogue later suggests, she's easier
> to relate to than the vampire.
Buffy was seeing herself in James all through this, so much so that even
Cordelia noticed it ("Over identify much?" while munching on a cracker.)
> Both actors slip quite well into their
> parts, Gellar in particular. This whole time I'd assumed that
> letting James be an angry ghost was too easy - there had to be a plot
> twist, something more that'd make us rethink the earlier scenes. I
> actually said "and here comes the plot twist..." out loud. I was
> thinking of major contradictions of our heroes' assumptions (the
> ghost is really someone else, etc.), so it caught me off guard that the
> "unexpected" bit was something as simple as the gun going off
> accidentally. This episode didn't really need to be any more
> complicated than that, so I'm glad it went with a route that fit its
> premise. The fact that Grace Newman can't be killed by a gunshot
> this time means the spirit moves on purely through dumb luck, but
> that's fine.
I don't think it was dumb luck. The ghosts (probably Grace, since James
clearly wasn't the brains of the outfit) set it up that way. She
deliberately chose Angel so that she could survive getting shot, and
have the chance to tell James that she forgave him.
All the other stuff, the arms out of lockers and snakes and such, was
there to drive everyone else out of the school, so that James and Grace
could get Buffy and Angel alone inside it.
And of course there is the best line of the episode:
Yes, well, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. In fact I
encourage you to always challenge me when you feel it's
appropriate. You should never be cowed by authority. Except of
course, in this instance, when I am clearly right and you are
clearly wrong.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
KenM47
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
>(or "I'm going to fuck you and kill you at the same time!")
>Writer: Marti Noxon
>Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
>The core of this episode is basically one scene - disturbed kid, hot
>for Teacher, goes all OJ on his lover. We see this in several
>incarnations. "Eyes For You" is one of those shows where the rest
>of the series' ongoing issues are set aside, deferred. or made to
>dance to the tune of this story about the long-dead couple. (I
>suppose you could try to draw parallels to Buffy and Angel, but it's
>a stretch.)
Um. No it isn't. That's kind of the point. There's a ton that's B/A.
> The first version of the central scene, with the unnamed
>kids, has a lot of intensity, and looks like it'll set the tone for
>the rest of the show (although I think the energy flags after that).
A tad, but it picks right up with the Buffy dreams, and particularly
when the janitor is possessed and DOES shoot the teacher. Later it
goes off the chart with the possessed Buffy and Angel and the gender
switch.
Oh . The earlier scene with Dru and Spike is great. Ms Landau dances
weirder than Elaine Benitz, and in a good evil way. :-)
>Fortunately, Buffy interferes and the subsequent confusion and
>disappearance of the gun are well played. This also gives her
>something to think about other than the usual angst and 1998-era dead
>people.
>
>Things start to take shape when not only do we get a Slayerdream, but
>that's immediately followed up by a teacher going just a little bit
>nuts, as our main scene pokes its head into the Buffyverse in smaller
>bits as well as larger. The second full rendition (with the janitor)
>isn't acted nearly as well, but at least the gun disappearing is a
>really gorgeous effect.
Obviously, UI found the janitor more effective, mainly because real
harm IS done.
>
>So where do the regular cast fit in? The opening Buffy/Willow exchange
>mainly just reiterates that Buffy's where we left her. She's still
>way beyond thinking about things like dating, she's still a
>workaholic Slayer, she still hasn't stopped blaming herself for
>Angelus. Sometimes it's nice for the show to actually say that
>stuff, as a heads-up to the viewer.
Also nice to see Willow is still teaching Jenny's class. Hmmmm?
>
>Speaking of reinforcing the ongoing character threads, I quite liked
>this trilogy of facts: Giles gets irrational since he thinks Jenny's
>involved, the others immediately realize that he's not so reliable in
>this case, and he's able to notice the mounting evidence that he's
>wrong.
Yes. Delusional sad. Followed by rational sad when he realizes it
isn't Jenny.
>
>The cafeteria scene serves a few purposes, none of which are really
>related to the plot of the episode. One is to provide me with the
>token reminder that Cordelia is still annoying. There's also a nice
>bit of directing: closeup of the jiggling pasta to foreshadow the
>snakes, but bury it in a montage of cafeteria food to keep it from
>being too obviously foreshadowing. I have no clue what the deal is
>with the snake attack (or the arm, or the quicksand, or...).
I'm guessing they were thinking "Poltergeist."
>The ghost
>making people re-enact the lovers' quarrel makes some rudimentary
>level of sense, but the rest seems pretty random. Was our favorite
>Executive Producer on a "needs more snakes" kick?
>(Also, Xander seems rather blasé about hanging with the snakes later.
>Whassupwitdat?)
A man minion's got to do what a man minion's got to do. He has a post
to get to and a task to perform as part of the Willow exorcism.
BTW, I think this is our first exposure to Willow being the prime
magic mover, gathering the magic stuff for the spell. In Witch, they
followed Giles' lead in the Expose a Witch spell. In Passion, the
disinvite spell was per the book Jenny found and gave to Giles. Here
Willow has dug up what is to be done on her own, and is even making
magic charms on her own.
>
>A more important role of the snake thing is setup for another little
>Snyder/Bob exchange, which in turn feels like setup for something else.
Time will tell. I won't fall for this come on spoil me crude effort.
> The principal's earlier scenes are a little funny but I still think
>his humor is too broad for this series (exception: "When She Was
>Bad"). So I'm glad we're exploring his more serious side and
>picking up that dangling plot thread from "School Hard." Not much
>new here, but the idea that a lot of higher-ups are involved in trying
>to downplay the Hellmouth's effects gets more explicit. Snyder being
>here at SHS, and possibly his whole career as a principal, have a
>purpose beyond his WSWB explanation that someone has to keep the little
>bastards in line. It's intriguing, and I'm guessing it'll be a
>part of the season's final chapter given that we're bringing it up
>again so late in the year.
See above.
>
>On to an exorcism ritual. Something that I know is going to annoy me
>just a little about BTVS, so let's address it now: I'm not wild
>about Calendar's "pagan sites" (at least no detail is given
>beyond that) being a source for bona fide magic. (And is there some
>Wicca later in the series too?) I'd rather if the show stuck with
>the purely fantasy stuff rather than giving credence to or glorifying
>real-world superstition. And before anyone asks, I'm not enamored
>with all the crosses either, and would prefer the show without them,
>but I've grinned and borne it (in part since fear of crucifixes is
>such a longstanding part of vampire lore). Same as I intend to do with
>the pagan stuff, actually.
Well, sometimes the genre just needs a certain amount of props.
To me the annoying thing there is that Willow does not mention Jenny's
computer at her office or her home or something, because we pretty
much saw the computer in class get wrecked by Angelus. So what Ms.
Calendar's computer is she talking about?
>
>At least this solution doesn't end the problem; it's a shame the
>preparations take up so much screentime when it's clear that we're
>too early in the episode for it to work. As a result it ends up as a
>bunch of weird action scenes whose only real highlight is Carpenter's
>delivery on "I shall totally confront..."
Cordelia gets THE line of the episode:
"Giles: To forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It’s, it’s
not done because people deserve it. It’s done because
they need it.
Buffy: No. James destroyed the one person he loved
the most in a moment of blind passion. And that’s not
something you forgive. No matter why he did what he
did. And no matter if he knows now that it was wrong
and selfish and stupid, it is just something he’s gonna
have to live with.
Xander: He can’t live with it, Buff. He’s dead.
Buffy: <She just looks back at them all for a moment, then stalks
off into the kitchen.>
Cordelia: Okay. Overidentify much? <munches her
cracker>"
>
>The whole climax is something of a highlight. After some extremely
>cool visuals of the cursed school, the ghost picks Buffy and Angel as
>its last actors, and we cut back and forth between the original and the
>reenactment. I actually didn't notice right away that Buffy was the
>one playing James... well, like dialogue later suggests, she's easier
>to relate to than the vampire.
I too was dense on this. I missed the whole point until the Whedon
commentary on the DVD. Loved the episode, yet missed the point. The
point is we think the whole forgiveness thing is Buffy forgiving
Angel/Angelus for turning into that absolute shit after the
deflowering. That's not it. The point is Buffy forgiving herself for
"killing" Angel and not killing Angelus. It's a little guilt removal
time.
>Both actors slip quite well into their
>parts, Gellar in particular.
Makes me tear up.
> This whole time I'd assumed that
>letting James be an angry ghost was too easy - there had to be a plot
>twist, something more that'd make us rethink the earlier scenes. I
>actually said "and here comes the plot twist..." out loud. I was
>thinking of major contradictions of our heroes' assumptions (the
>ghost is really someone else, etc.), so it caught me off guard that the
>"unexpected" bit was something as simple as the gun going off
>accidentally.
That and that undead Angelus becomes the vehicle for Grace to keep
James from offing himself yet again, by forgiving him for killing her.
>This episode didn't really need to be any more
>complicated than that, so I'm glad it went with a route that fit its
>premise. The fact that Grace Newman can't be killed by a gunshot
>this time means the spirit moves on purely through dumb luck, but
>that's fine.
Dumb luck? Hello! Hellmouth! Slayer there and available for possession
as is demon vampire former lover of Slayer.
Maybe something a tad other than luck?
>The end result, of course, is that Buffy's head can
>now get even more screwed with after she wakes up and remembers having
>been that close to Angel again.
Actually, she's a bit less screwed with. She gets to move on.
>
>A nice touch: Before playing out the story, Buffy can't imagine that
>Grace could ever forgive her killer. Afterward she still feels partly
>the same way, but is willing to allow that it's not so simple. Fits
>pretty well with what we've seen of her moral compass.
>
>The final scene seems to be setting up for more, besides just the
>amusing visual of Angel frantically trying to wash the Slayer off him
>(and providing something for the ladies). The idea that Angelus is
>afraid of love seems like the potential for cheese, but let's not
>knock it until we see what they do with it.
Not afraid. Angelus is pure evil. No good. Love of any kind will never
touch him. Lesser purely evil vampires like Spike can Bizarro world
love. Angelus is incapable of even that. Obsession and lust are the
closest he can muster.
>Spike kicking away the
>wheelchair, on the other hand... quite the ending. I don't know what
>he's planning, but am quite interested. And I'd noticed that he
>seemed to getting frailer since S/I for some reason...
Actually to the contrary. Lots of effort in showing the wounds on his
face healing over the last few times we had seen him.
>
>I was almost done with this review and I realized that I still hadn't
>actually said anything about the 1950s story that's the center of the
>episode. There's surprisingly little to say. I think the kid was
>badly unbalanced and a danger to the innocent, but it's hard to say,
>since we don't get to know much about the love story per se or the
>principals involved. I can't say whether or not he "deserves" to
>be forgiven, because the show doesn't give us enough information.
See above:
"Giles: To forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It’s, it’s
not done because people deserve it. It’s done because
they need it."
A lot of people have had problems with the adult female teacher and
the presumably 17 y.o. James. I didn't.
>
>IOHEFY is flawed show, in large part for the three reasons I mentioned
>(lack of sense of what ghosts can and can't do, slow middle, and that
>James' story isn't fleshed out enough to make as deep an impact as
>it could). But in the end, what one remembers most about the episode
>is that it's an interesting concept told in an interesting way.
>Ain't nothin' wrong with that.
>
>This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
>- The scapula/spatula gag.
>
>
>So...
>
>One-sentence summary: A strange story that's worth a look.
>
>AOQ rating: Good
Excellent IMO.
Liked it the first time. Loved it upon the repeated rewatchings and
Joss' commentary helped me here. One of the least funny episodes of
the show up to this point, and that too was fine.
Great use of a pop tune. Perfect for the story.
It also made me want to see if I could master any kind of "IOHEFY" on
my guitar. I can, but not that I would play in public.
Am I the only one that has a tear leak out in the big Buffy/Angelus
-James/Grace scenes?
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> On to an exorcism ritual. Something that I know is going to annoy me
> just a little about BTVS, so let's address it now: I'm not wild
> about Calendar's "pagan sites" (at least no detail is given
> beyond that) being a source for bona fide magic. (And is there some
> Wicca later in the series too?) I'd rather if the show stuck with
> the purely fantasy stuff rather than giving credence to or glorifying
> real-world superstition. And before anyone asks, I'm not enamored
> with all the crosses either, and would prefer the show without them,
> but I've grinned and borne it (in part since fear of crucifixes is
> such a longstanding part of vampire lore). Same as I intend to do with
> the pagan stuff, actually.
How does using real world superstition in a fantasy show glorify it?
Doesn't it make it clearer that all that stuff is just more fantasy?
(And "Wiccan" will get used a lot over the coming seasons, but any "real
Wiccans" will be quick to point out that Buffyverse Wiccas have little
resemblance to the "real" ones.)
As for crosses, their effect on vampires is never linked to Christianity
in Buffy. I've always figured that crosses work because they are an
ancient, predating Christianity, symbol for the sun, and in magic a
symbol has many of the properties of the real thing. Vampires fear and
are burned by the sun, so they fear and are burned by a sun symbol.
The cross won out over the fish in the early Christian debate over what
their symbol should be, because the meeting was attacked by a bunch of
vampires. The vamps just looked at the guys waving the fishes like they
were crazy before they ate them. Only the cross wavers survived.
(Minor bit of pedantry: It isn't a crucifix unless it's a cross with an
image of Christ nailed to it. Without the Christ figure, it's just a
cross. I don't think we ever see a crucifix used to repel a vampire in
the entire run of BtVS.)
KenM47
<Snip>
>
>As for crosses, their effect on vampires is never linked to Christianity
>in Buffy. I've always figured that crosses work because they are an
>ancient, predating Christianity, symbol for the sun, and in magic a
>symbol has many of the properties of the real thing. Vampires fear and
>are burned by the sun, so they fear and are burned by a sun symbol.
>
>The cross won out over the fish in the early Christian debate over what
>their symbol should be, because the meeting was attacked by a bunch of
>vampires. The vamps just looked at the guys waving the fishes like they
>were crazy before they ate them. Only the cross wavers survived.
>
If I had been drinking milk while reading that, my keyboard would be
wet, whitish and kind of sticky.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Great use of a pop tune. Perfect for the story.
Except historical pedants will tell you that the Flamingos didn't record
it until 1956.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Two, Episode 19: "I Only Have Eyes For You"
>(or "I'm going to fuck you and kill you at the same time!")
>Writer: Marti Noxon
>Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
>The core of this episode is basically one scene - disturbed kid, hot
>for Teacher, goes all OJ on his lover. We see this in several
>incarnations. "Eyes For You" is one of those shows where the rest
>of the series' ongoing issues are set aside, deferred. or made to
>dance to the tune of this story about the long-dead couple. (I
>suppose you could try to draw parallels to Buffy and Angel, but it's
>a stretch.) The first version of the central scene, with the unnamed
>kids, has a lot of intensity, and looks like it'll set the tone for
>the rest of the show (although I think the energy flags after that).
>Fortunately, Buffy interferes and the subsequent confusion and
>disappearance of the gun are well played. This also gives her
>something to think about other than the usual angst and 1998-era dead
>people.
I am very sorry to say this, but
Whoosh.
I'm not sure how, but you missed the major point of this episode, which is
arc-heavy, not a MOTW. You don't have to stretch to see parallels, the
ghosts are specifically designed to parallel Buffy and Angel, and the
raison de etre of the episode is to move Buffy to a place where she needs
to be for the season finale.
What we've seen since Innocence is where they couldn't really go with Ted,
but strongly suggested.
Buffy never really got over the Master killing her. When she returned to
Sunnydale, she had built up this wall to protect herself from emotions,
but it was too brittle and broke down by the end of Prophecy Girl. As her
next coping mechanism, she threw herself into school, and attacked Slaying
as a job. That broke down in What's My Line. Her next coping mechanism
was the romance with Angel, which she built up as 16 year old girl's
fanfic of Twu Wuv (note that in scenes we saw with Angel other than with
Buffy, he wasn't really exactly the way she saw him, even then.)
And then, Surprise/Innocence, and her world goes crash. She can't deal.
she puts up a front to get through the days, almost on autopilot, but
inside she's an emotional wasteland, buried in guilt and self-hatred.
You asked if she had the 'bad hair' on SNL that she had in the (then) last
couple of episodes, and I deliberately didn't answer then, because I
didn't want to get into this then. The answer is no, her hair was just
fine on SNL. Back when season 2 first aired, people were commenting on
how thin SMG looked, how broken and lifeless her hair looked (bad hair day
after bad hair day), and rumors started that she was anorexic or bulemic.
After the fact, it was obvious to me that these were deliberate make-up
and costume choices. Episode after episode, they have been making Buffy
look more worn down and haggard, more brittle, it's almost been
subliminal, and it was all building to this episode.
Buffy blames herself. She blames herself for Teresa's death, for Jenny's
death, for basically every death in Sunnydale over the last few months,
and especially she blames herself for Angel. At this point she's pretty
much blaming herself for the sun going down at night.
The anvil at which everyone should get the point is Buffy's rant about why
James shouldn't be forgiven. "No. James destroyed the one person he loved
the most in a moment of blind passion. And that's not something you
forgive. No matter why he did what he did. And no matter if he knows now
that it was wrong and selfish and stupid, it is just something he's gonna
have to live with." Even Cordy got the point ("Over-identify much?")
Buffy had to be James. From her point of view, she destroyed Angel, and
she can't forgive herself. And until she can forgive herself, she can't
move on and do what needs to be done. By the end of the episode, she
finally able to move on, to be ready to do what is necessary, to destroy
Angelus.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Don Sample
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> When she returned to
> Sunnydale, she had built up this wall to protect herself from emotions,
> but it was too brittle and broke down by the end of Prophecy Girl.
I think you mean "When She was Bad" there.
KenM47
>In article <rpmvv1lfor2727fsr...@4ax.com>,
> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Great use of a pop tune. Perfect for the story.
>
>Except historical pedants will tell you that the Flamingos didn't record
>it until 1956.
Alas!
Well, not in the Buffyverse!
Ken
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>In article <ltnvv1tj4t05boe4c...@4ax.com>,
> William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> When she returned to
>> Sunnydale, she had built up this wall to protect herself from emotions,
>> but it was too brittle and broke down by the end of Prophecy Girl.
>
>I think you mean "When She was Bad" there.
It's distinctly possible that I did.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I'm not sure how, but you missed the major point of this episode, which is
> arc-heavy, not a MOTW. You don't have to stretch to see parallels, the
> ghosts are specifically designed to parallel Buffy and Angel, and the
> raison de etre of the episode is to move Buffy to a place where she needs
> to be for the season finale.
Well, I can take solace in the fact that I'm not alone in that.
I like the charcaterization of the season up tot his point, although
it's easy to lose track of such things in such a show like this. With
all the killing giant snakes and robots and giant insects, there're a
lot of distractions.
> Buffy had to be James. From her point of view, she destroyed Angel, and
> she can't forgive herself. And until she can forgive herself, she can't
> move on and do what needs to be done. By the end of the episode, she
> finally able to move on, to be ready to do what is necessary, to destroy
> Angelus.
Let's just say that even after that explanation, the parallels between
the two characters are less muddy to Buffy (and presumably, to Joss)
than to me.
It's interesting that everyone's seeing the ending as the moment when
Buffy accepts herself and really comes to terms with what's happening.
I didn't read it that way. I'll probably re-watch that sequence and
stare at the facial expressions a little.
-AOQ
Daniel Damouth
news:rpmvv1lfor2727fsr...@4ax.com:
> Am I the only one that has a tear leak out in the big Buffy/Angelus
> -James/Grace scenes?
Those are powerful scenes, but what really gets me is Buffy's speech
expressing her self-hatred. She's so very messed up.
I love the show for several reasons, but Buffy being messed up inside
is probably top of the list. You may speculate as to why.
-Dan Damouth
vague disclaimer
> Am I the only one that has a tear leak out in the big Buffy/Angelus
> -James/Grace scenes?
Nope.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
kenm47
Buffy accepts herself and really comes to terms with what's happening.
I didn't read it that way. I'll probably re-watch that sequence and
stare at the facial expressions a little. "
This might be an earlier misdirection gone a bit awry requiring for
some (me) just a little more on screen explanation.
I think while it's in part of Buffy's expression, it's also Giles
reaction shots in this moment:
"<Giles goes back into his office where Buffy is resting.>
Giles: Are you feeling any better?
Buffy: James picked me. I guess... I guess I was the one
he could relate to. He was so sad.
Giles: <sits by her> Well... they can both rest now.
Buffy: I still... <exhales> A part of me just doesn't understand
why she would forgive him.
Giles: Does it matter?
Buffy No. I guess not."
Forgiveness is the thing. The why just doesn't count. My confusion is
it hardly seemed a self-forgiveness thing as much as somehow Buffy
forgiving Angel/Angelus. Perrhaps the clue is that Giles would not be
so calmly going along with forgiveness of Angel/Angelus for Jenny
himself at this point.
Maybe that's why we get the quick cut to still despicable Angelus being
rude and sadistic even to his "friend" Spike. We don't forgive Angelus,
so it can't be that Buffy was. Ergo, Buffy was not talking about
forgiveness of him but of herself.
It's also possible that the message just wasn't really successfully
conveyed.
As one who also did not get it the first time(s) around, I understand.
It's still requiring more examination and thought than one would
normally give to a silly little TV show.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> (or "I'm going to fuck you and kill you at the same time!")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
Yep. That pretty well sums up her writing style.
You mention in another post in this thread that there were a lot of
plot distractions that might have led to your missing the main theme of
Buffy needing to forgive herself (which, as Ken mentioned, wasn't
totally clear). The thing is, you have to learn to ignore the
unimportant things in Buffy episodes. Like the main plot. The
monster plot is almost never what is really going on in the episode
(unless it's Angel, then it gets all mythic and shit). It might help
when you watch to keep asking, as Joss did in story meetings, "Where's
the Buffy?" That is, where is she emotionally right now? The monster
plot will, when the show is well-written, help illuminate what's going
on with Buffy. Sometimes it's just a big bug.
> And before anyone asks, I'm not enamored
> with all the crosses either, and would prefer the show without them,
> but I've grinned and borne it (in part since fear of crucifixes is
> such a longstanding part of vampire lore). Same as I intend to do with
> the pagan stuff, actually.
Someone has religion issues. [singsong] You have religion issues, you
have religion issues! What? Freud would have said the same thing. He
wouldn't have done the little dance, though.
> At least this solution doesn't end the problem; it's a shame the
> preparations take up so much screentime when it's clear that we're
> too early in the episode for it to work. As a result it ends up as a
> bunch of weird action scenes whose only real highlight is Carpenter's
> delivery on "I shall totally confront..."
Speculation has been that her extraneous "totally" is what botched the
spell.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - The scapula/spatula gag.
Heh. Me too.
-- Mike Zeares
kenm47
spell. "
I wondered about that myself, but not quite to the "botched." Thanks
Mike.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > At least this solution doesn't end the problem; it's a shame the
> > preparations take up so much screentime when it's clear that we're
> > too early in the episode for it to work. As a result it ends up as a
> > bunch of weird action scenes whose only real highlight is Carpenter's
> > delivery on "I shall totally confront..."
>
> Speculation has been that her extraneous "totally" is what botched the
> spell.
I didn't think the word itself was extraneous. Old magic-type writings
are full of phrases like that. Don't know what the intention way, but
the scene is funnier if the words are all there, and it's the
inflections that're pure Cordelia.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140839521.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The core of this episode is basically one scene
One thing about that scene that always sticks out to me is that its
repetition, the melodramatic way it's written, and that it's played by I
think four different couples; makes me think of it as akin to a drama class
exercise. I'm not sure that's exactly a criticism, since I'm not sure that
it's bad. Indeed I suspect it's deliberate. But every time I see this
episode, I'm very concious of that sense. I imagine a dozen other actors
standing in the wings observing and thinking about how they'll play it when
it's their turn.
> "Eyes For You" is one of those shows where the rest
> of the series' ongoing issues are set aside, deferred. or made to
> dance to the tune of this story about the long-dead couple. (I
> suppose you could try to draw parallels to Buffy and Angel, but it's
> a stretch.)
Well... you got it wrong. As others have pointed out - and why. But,
you're not unusual. It tends not to hit people on the head with
understanding. As one looks at it in retrospect, the clues start seeming
more obvious. (Like Giles' remark, "To forgive is an act of compassion,
Buffy. It's, it's not done because people deserve it. It's done because they
need it.") But really, it takes some thinking through to draw out its
nuances. It did for me anyway.
Also, at the end, Buffy herself is still confused - hasn't put all the
pieces together quite yet. (It's not like she's thinking, "Oh, all this is
a metaphor for my own guilt. Eureka!) She's still stumbling on why the
teacher forgave. She knows now that the boy related to her somehow - which
disturbs her, but she hasn't worked out why yet. And she knows how sad he
was, which plays to her own compassion and maybe suggests to her that her
own prior hardline attitude mainly served to conceal the truth. But, again,
she's only beginning to puzzle this out. It's not a blinding revelation.
Indeed, it may never arrive as a revelation per se. When she says she
doesn't understand, Giles asks her if it really matters. Perhaps that
points away from cognitive understanding towards emotional. Whatever the
reason, forgiving came - and it was a good thing.
I think you have to assume that this experience will be working on her for a
while, perhaps to be seen later in a changed attitude. Meanwhile, the
audience, armed with the ability to see it as a metaphor, can mull it over
themselves between episodes and wonder what lesson Buffy will get from it.
Also, even though the purpose of the ghost story is to support the season
arc, the ghost story itself is still pretty cool and nicely done. It's very
easy to be drawn into that on its own terms. I think using a vampire as the
means of breaking the eternal cycle is very clever. Compare this solution
to the one used in the Dark Age. (Induce a demon battle within Angel.)
That was clever too, but in a pull the rabbit from the hat sense. This one
comes so much more naturally. Anyway, the quality of the ghost story serves
somewhat to misdirect your attention away from the season arc subtext.
> ...just reiterates that Buffy's where we left her.
> ...she still hasn't stopped blaming herself for
> Angelus.
So, now, you see that it's more than reiterating. Buffy's guilt is central.
> Speaking of reinforcing the ongoing character threads, I quite liked
> this trilogy of facts: Giles gets irrational since he thinks Jenny's
> involved, the others immediately realize that he's not so reliable in
> this case, and he's able to notice the mounting evidence that he's
> wrong.
Fourth fact. Giles gets slapped in the face with a dose of reality when he
has to save Willow. It was, in effect, a wake up call to stop clinging to
his own unreality. Buffy's not the only one struggling. Though I suppose
it wasn't clear until here how deep in it he was. I mean, taking an
unrelated event and imagining it as Jenny's ghost. Sheesh. That's pretty
out there for Giles.
> (Also, Xander seems rather blasé about hanging with the snakes later.
> Whassupwitdat?)
Snakes don't scare him that much?
> On to an exorcism ritual. Something that I know is going to annoy me
> just a little about BTVS, so let's address it now: I'm not wild
> about Calendar's "pagan sites" (at least no detail is given
> beyond that) being a source for bona fide magic. (And is there some
> Wicca later in the series too?) I'd rather if the show stuck with
> the purely fantasy stuff rather than giving credence to or glorifying
> real-world superstition. And before anyone asks, I'm not enamored
> with all the crosses either, and would prefer the show without them,
> but I've grinned and borne it (in part since fear of crucifixes is
> such a longstanding part of vampire lore). Same as I intend to do with
> the pagan stuff, actually.
There's only so much total invention they would want to do. They are trying
to pretend this is happening in real time U.S.A. after all. Not making that
kind of link I think would come off as a bad continuity. But even though
they make the superficial link, they tend to stay away from real world
religious doctrine and stick with their own fantasy when they get into the
details.
> ...so it caught me off guard that the
> "unexpected" bit was something as simple as the gun going off
> accidentally. This episode didn't really need to be any more
> complicated than that, so I'm glad it went with a route that fit its
> premise. The fact that Grace Newman can't be killed by a gunshot
> this time means the spirit moves on purely through dumb luck, but
> that's fine.
I'm glad you saw it that way. The simplicity of it gives it elegance I
think. Some have objected to the conclusion as stupid, trite, easy out, and
so on. But I think it simply reveals without a heavy hand. Just enough to
make it possible for the teacher to forgive. Who, after all, must have had
her own sense of guilt and responsibility, and as the adult of the two,
perhaps a better understanding of the tragedy.
> The end result, of course, is that Buffy's head can
> now get even more screwed with after she wakes up and remembers having
> been that close to Angel again.
The other aspects have been covered elsewhere, but being close to Angel
again. Hmmm. Kissing him. Even saved by him in a sense. Then shoved away
by him in rage. Sure is a deja vu element to that. What impact that
specifically has on her... I'm not sure. The physical reminder would
probably help link their personal story to the forgivenes message - help
eventually show Buffy what she has in common with James. But somehow that
seems inadequate to me. For a moment she breathed him in again and
tremulously uttered, "Angel?" I think that has to matter somehow.
> The final scene seems to be setting up for more, besides just the
> amusing visual of Angel frantically trying to wash the Slayer off him
> (and providing something for the ladies). The idea that Angelus is
> afraid of love seems like the potential for cheese, but let's not
> knock it until we see what they do with it.
Washing the Slayer off of him. I love the moment. He went to the school to
finish her off and ends up kissing her. Euuwww! Get her off me! Get her
off me!
Not quite the story arc level that Buffy's guilt is, but still, it shows
that Buffy's not so easy to get out from under Angel's skin either.
Everybody's got troubles.
> Spike kicking away the
> wheelchair, on the other hand... uite the ending. I don't know what
> he's planning, but am quite interested.
I guess we'll see.
> IOHEFY is flawed show, in large part for the three reasons I mentioned
> (lack of sense of what ghosts can and can't do,
Explained. It's a poltergeist. Physically manifested free floating rage.
His scenario got interrupted twice and then an attempt to expel him was
made. He lashed out.
> slow middle,
If you say so. I was ok with the pacing.
> and that
> James' story isn't fleshed out enough to make as deep an impact as
> it could).
Hopefully you see now that it wasn't intended to be more fleshed out. And
why.
Does he deserve forgiveness? "It's not done because people deserve it. It's
done because
they need it."
Why did she forgive? "Does it matter?"
> One-sentence summary: A strange story that's worth a look.
I came into Buffy in an awkward way. I couldn't pick up the WB on my TV, so
didn't have the opportunity to see it until S6. But I didn't really start
with S6. At the same time it was getting heavy syndication play, which I
followed multiple rotations of simultaneously (with many gaps) - far more
than S6. So in effect I was trying to absorb 6 seasons simultaneously.
Needless to say, things constantly didn't make sense. Through that almost
random jumping around I must have seen half the shows before I really got
much continuity.
But one thing that did do for me was to initially focus my attention on all
the stories within the single episodes - like this ghost story.
A lot of those stories are pretty good.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
> This might be an earlier misdirection gone a bit awry requiring for
> some (me) just a little more on screen explanation.
>
> I think while it's in part of Buffy's expression, it's also Giles
> reaction shots in this moment:
>
> "<Giles goes back into his office where Buffy is resting.>
> Giles: Are you feeling any better?
> Buffy: James picked me. I guess... I guess I was the one
> he could relate to. He was so sad.
> Giles: <sits by her> Well... they can both rest now.
> Buffy: I still... <exhales> A part of me just doesn't understand
> why she would forgive him.
> Giles: Does it matter?
> Buffy No. I guess not."
>
> Forgiveness is the thing. The why just doesn't count. My confusion is
> it hardly seemed a self-forgiveness thing as much as somehow Buffy
> forgiving Angel/Angelus. Perrhaps the clue is that Giles would not be
> so calmly going along with forgiveness of Angel/Angelus for Jenny
> himself at this point.
> It's also possible that the message just wasn't really successfully
> conveyed.
> As one who also did not get it the first time(s) around, I understand.
Call me literal-minded (which I do tend to be), but I initially assumed
the forgiveness discussion was about James.
But yeah, I can see how you could draw either of the above analogies
from those scenes. Part of the problem to me is that the circumstances
seem so totally different; I imagine Joss and Marti think the parallels
between the two couples are more self-evident. (Does anyone want to
vouch for Joss' comments on this episode as spoiler-free?)
BTW, now that I've watched that part again, I still don't see this as
the big turning point as far as setting Buffy free to fight Angel. The
end of the "does it matter?" scene conveys "food for thought" to me,
not "new clarity." I think "Passion" did more to make the situation
clear to Buffy than 'Eyes For You." (Remember? "I wasn't ready. But
I think I finally am. I can't hold on to the past anymore...") The
biggest problem since then hasn't been Buffy so much as that Angelus is
hard to get a hold of, and likes to pick and choose his shots.
-AOQ
KenM47
Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but I think it's safe. The "spoiler" was
that this was where he thought DB just might have the chops to carry
his own show someday. But you do know that an Angel series came to be.
Maybe you should wait for a "seconded."
>
>BTW, now that I've watched that part again, I still don't see this as
>the big turning point as far as setting Buffy free to fight Angel. The
>end of the "does it matter?" scene conveys "food for thought" to me,
>not "new clarity." I think "Passion" did more to make the situation
>clear to Buffy than 'Eyes For You." (Remember? "I wasn't ready. But
>I think I finally am. I can't hold on to the past anymore...") The
>biggest problem since then hasn't been Buffy so much as that Angelus is
>hard to get a hold of, and likes to pick and choose his shots.
>
>-AOQ
Except for the beginning of KBD she wasn't shown to be actively out
hunting him, and in KBD she certainly was not up to it.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Wes <3254716>
>"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>>kenm47 wrote:
>>
>>
>>But yeah, I can see how you could draw either of the above analogies
>>from those scenes. Part of the problem to me is that the circumstances
>>seem so totally different; I imagine Joss and Marti think the parallels
>>between the two couples are more self-evident. (Does anyone want to
>>vouch for Joss' comments on this episode as spoiler-free?)
>
>Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but I think it's safe. The "spoiler" was
>that this was where he thought DB just might have the chops to carry
>his own show someday. But you do know that an Angel series came to be.
>
>Maybe you should wait for a "seconded."
>
Can't vouch for IOHEFY but it sounds like a good reason to go home and
watch the commentary.
I do remember thinking the commentary for Innocence was ok to watch
once you got to the end of Season 2.
I don't know for sure, and can't find the web site which listed all
the dvd extras, but it sounds like it might have been Joss' first
full-length commentary. He talks about the ep but also about what he
wants the series to be.
The one major spoiler was about Jenny Calendar's life-span. Otherwise,
he makes some minor, IMO, spoilery comments which may or may not come
to be (and would not be a surprise either way to an astute viewer). I
don't know if you're aware but while the show was in production he had
a reputation as a liar about what was going to happen.
I'll put the spoilery comments at the bottom (ROT13) if anyone wants
to opine.
If I'm wrong, somebody stop him quick!
Wes
>
>>
>>BTW, now that I've watched that part again, I still don't see this as
>>the big turning point as far as setting Buffy free to fight Angel. The
>>end of the "does it matter?" scene conveys "food for thought" to me,
>>not "new clarity." I think "Passion" did more to make the situation
>>clear to Buffy than 'Eyes For You." (Remember? "I wasn't ready. But
>>I think I finally am. I can't hold on to the past anymore...") The
>>biggest problem since then hasn't been Buffy so much as that Angelus is
>>hard to get a hold of, and likes to pick and choose his shots.
>>
>>-AOQ
>
>Except for the beginning of KBD she wasn't shown to be actively out
>hunting him, and in KBD she certainly was not up to it.
>
>
>Ken (Brooklyn)
Bayl bgure guvat V abgvprq jnf WJ fnlvat gung eryngvbafuvcf va OgIF
jrer eneryl, vs rire, tbvat gb or fzbbgu barf.
Mel
I was kind of thinking the same thing, but then I wondered if maybe it
was just the monitor he threw on the floor. I'd have to go back and
re-watch that scene. Maybe the CPU was safely _under_ the desk as many
tend to be these days.
Mel
Clairel
--"Lesser purely evil"? Does that mean "not so purely evil"?
I bring this up because there's a question I've been wanting to ask
AOQ, and this is a good opportunity for it. So, AOQ, I hope you're
reading this.
In your reviews of "Surprise" and "Innocence," I don't think you
specifically mentioned the interesting scenes in which we found out
that the Judge could destroy not only human beings but also any
creature that is "tainted by humanity." Now you may have your own
definition of humanity, but for the purposes of these episodes
"humanity" seems to mean any emotions other than malice, rage, and
sadism; any emotions that don't actively cause destruction and
suffering.
Dalton, the scholarly vampire who worked for Spike, loved books and
reading for their own sake, and not just because he could get
information from them that could lead to destruction and suffering.
Thus Dalton was "tainted by humanity" and could be destroyed by the
Judge.
Then we find the Judge accusing Spike and Dru, too, of being "tainted
by humanity" because they "share affection and jealousy." Spike
doesn't mind that description a bit and simply says "Yeah, what of
it?". And the Judge agrees to let Spike and Dru go on living. But
it's clearly implied that if he had chosen to touch them, he could have
burned them to death as he did Dalton.
Then, very cleverly, Joss uses all this as a set-up to establish in the
next episode that Angel has indeed been drastically changed. The Judge
touches him, is unable to burn him, and pronounces him "clean of
humanity"! And so we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he isn't
just engaging in some sort of deception to infiltrate the vampire gang
or something of that sort. (As if his killing of the streetwalker
earlier wasn't a clear indication that he has lost all his ethical
inhibitions...)
What I'm saying is that even with the killing of the streetwalker, Joss
had to include something else really definitive, or else viewers would
probably have been speculating that Angelus might not really be so
*very* bad, etc., etc., etc. But the Judge's inability to burn Angelus
was definitive.
It's interesting, though, that in finding a way to demonstrate the
Judge's ability to burn any creature that possessed any of the tenderer
and finer emotions, the writers didn't choose to have the Judge burn a
human captive or something of that sort. Instead they chose Dalton the
Vampire. And they made it clear that Spike and Dru could easily have
suffered the same fate as Dalton. If the writers had wanted to, they
could have shown the Judge burning human beings while being unable to
burn Spike, Dru, Dalton, or any other vampire whatsoever. That would
have placed Spike, Dru, Dalton, et al. in Angelus's category: they
would all be vampires together, and all essentially the same. But the
writers didn't choose to go that route.
So here's my question, AOQ: Don't you find it remarkable that the
writers would choose to make distinctions between different sorts of
vampires in this way? Angelus is a stone cold monster without an ounce
of affection or compassion in him, yet other vampires such as Dalton,
Spike, and Dru -- while still being killers of humans who subsist on
human blood -- still have some capacity for tenderness in them (even if
it is a very selectively focused tenderness that excludes most of the
world's population)? Why do you think the writers chose to set off
Angelus alone in the category of "untainted" and "unburnable"? Would
any of the other vampires we've seen in the series fall into Angelus's
category if they had met the Judge? Would the Master? Would Darla?
Since there's no definite answer to that, we can only go by the
vampires we have evidence for. And going by them alone, we have
Angelus as unique -- in a category all by himself. Well, AOQ, what do
you think makes him that way? What accounts for it?
Please note, I am interested in the ideas of our NEW VIEWER AOQ on this
and would rather that others not weigh in with their own answers. Such
answers would be influenced by knowledge of later seasons of BtVS, and
what I'm interested in is how it all looks to AOQ right now. Thanks in
advance for letting him alone reply!
Clairel
Arbitrar Of Quality
Clairel wrote:
> KenM47 wrote:
> > Not afraid. Angelus is pure evil. No good. Love of any kind will never
> > touch him. Lesser purely evil vampires like Spike can Bizarro world
> > love. Angelus is incapable of even that. Obsession and lust are the
> > closest he can muster.
>
> --"Lesser purely evil"? Does that mean "not so purely evil"?
>
> I bring this up because there's a question I've been wanting to ask
> AOQ, and this is a good opportunity for it. So, AOQ, I hope you're
> reading this.
>
> In your reviews of "Surprise" and "Innocence," I don't think you
> specifically mentioned the interesting scenes in which we found out
> that the Judge could destroy not only human beings but also any
> creature that is "tainted by humanity." Now you may have your own
> definition of humanity, but for the purposes of these episodes
> "humanity" seems to mean any emotions other than malice, rage, and
> sadism; any emotions that don't actively cause destruction and
> suffering.
Yeah, it's not entirely clear what "humanity" means, but it creates a
moral dichotomy that I don't personally buy, between purely "good" and
purely "evil" emotions. Whereas I'd argue that there's nothing more
"human" than wanton cruelty. We're distinguished from animals by our
capacity for both selflessness and actual evil.
Anyway, I hadn't really thought about this thing with the vampires
before, but it's weird that by being black-and-white about it, the show
is still able to make some characters more "pre evil" than others,
> So here's my question, AOQ: Don't you find it remarkable that the
> writers would choose to make distinctions between different sorts of
> vampires in this way? Angelus is a stone cold monster without an ounce
> of affection or compassion in him, yet other vampires such as Dalton,
> Spike, and Dru -- while still being killers of humans who subsist on
> human blood -- still have some capacity for tenderness in them (even if
> it is a very selectively focused tenderness that excludes most of the
> world's population)?
Here it gets hard to say, since like the others, Angelus is able to
simulate "humanity" where necessary. For example, he appears to
genuinely like Drusilla.
> Why do you think the writers chose to set off
> Angelus alone in the category of "untainted" and "unburnable"? Would
> any of the other vampires we've seen in the series fall into Angelus's
> category if they had met the Judge? Would the Master? Would Darla?
>
> Since there's no definite answer to that, we can only go by the
> vampires we have evidence for. And going by them alone, we have
> Angelus as unique -- in a category all by himself. Well, AOQ, what do
> you think makes him that way? What accounts for it?
Hard to say with the Master and Season One vampires in general. They
tended more towards the style of business where you attack anything
that moves, or ocassionally throw in a ritual, and move on with "life"
as quickly as possible. So more animal-like unthinking "evil" rather
than the human-style love of suffering that Angelus thrives on. Of all
the vampires we've seen, the one most like him from what we know would
be the one who made him what he is - Darla. She seems to enjoy
blending amongst the humans and playing with her food the same way he
does, and takes the same irreverant pleasure in her work. And is great
at simulating human feelings.
As for why exactly Angelus is so special, I simply have no idea. One
could try to call it a side-effect of the soul re-removal, but no one
seems to have suggested that he's acting any differently than pre-20thC
Angelus did.
-AOQ
Espen Schjønberg
> Cordelia gets THE line of the episode:
>
> "Giles: To forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It’s, it’s
> not done because people deserve it. It’s done because
> they need it.
> Buffy: No. James destroyed the one person he loved
> the most in a moment of blind passion. And that’s not
> something you forgive. No matter why he did what he
> did. And no matter if he knows now that it was wrong
> and selfish and stupid, it is just something he’s gonna
> have to live with.
> Xander: He can’t live with it, Buff. He’s dead.
> Buffy: <She just looks back at them all for a moment, then stalks
> off into the kitchen.>
> Cordelia: Okay. Overidentify much? <munches her
> cracker>"
Well, I think the line of the episode was the one to Giles there: "To
forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It’s, it’s not done because
people deserve it. It’s done because they need it."
This is actually the core of the christian religion.
The point is not that the boy deserved forgiveness, but that the one he
loved wanted to give him it anyway. I assume she had stayed behind to
get to give him this forgiveness.
Buffy ended up, or should end up, (take your pick) much less hateful
after this episode.
--
Espen
Espen Schjønberg
> Well, I think the line of the episode was the one to Giles there: "To
> forgive is an act of compassion, Buffy. It’s, it’s not done because
> people deserve it. It’s done because they need it."
>
> This is actually the core of the christian religion.
>
> The point is not that the boy deserved forgiveness, but that the one he
> loved wanted to give him it anyway. I assume she had stayed behind to
> get to give him this forgiveness.
>
> Buffy ended up, or should end up, (take your pick) much less hateful
> after this episode.
And to add: I think the point was she realized she would have to forgive
herself here, as she was guilty in having killed Angel by a mistake in
the same sense (in her eyes) as this boy had killed his beloved. Of
course we see the difference, but Buffy did not.
Anyway, she didn't only realize this, and manage this: she also realized
alot about 'forgiveness and love and all of that', as opposed to hate
and bitterness and all of that'. She ended up way better than were she
started in this episode. It is another pivotal one, this!
--
Espen
Apteryx
news:dtt60b$v5u$1...@readme.uio.no...
I agree that there is a lot of heavy and important stuff in this
episode, especially this, which almost makes me forgive the melodrama
its wrapped in. But I'm probably a little prejudiced by the fact that
the episode of My So Called Life (Halloween) that Marti stole fr.... er,
was influenced by, is also my least favourite MSCL episode. Overall, I
rank IOHEFY as the 69th best BtVS episode, 13th best in Season 2.
--
Apteryx
Scythe Matters
> (I suppose you could try to draw parallels to Buffy and Angel, but it's
> a stretch.)
I'm just going to reiterate what dozens have already said: sooner or
later, you're going to realize that the subtext is usually more
important than the text. This episode is *all* about Buffy & Angel. Or,
more precisely, about Buffy. It moves her one step closer to where she
needs to be in the finale.
> A more important role of the snake thing is setup for another little
> Snyder/Bob exchange, which in turn feels like setup for something else.
> The principal's earlier scenes are a little funny but I still think
> his humor is too broad for this series (exception: "When She Was
> Bad"). So I'm glad we're exploring his more serious side and
> picking up that dangling plot thread from "School Hard." Not much
> new here, but the idea that a lot of higher-ups are involved in trying
> to downplay the Hellmouth's effects gets more explicit. Snyder being
> here at SHS, and possibly his whole career as a principal, have a
> purpose beyond his WSWB explanation that someone has to keep the little
> bastards in line.
Oh thee of little patience. ;-) Re: this and the corollary scene in the
finale, remember that we *did* try to warn you back when you were
ranting about "School Hard."
> On to an exorcism ritual. Something that I know is going to annoy me
> just a little about BTVS, so let's address it now: I'm not wild
> about Calendar's "pagan sites" (at least no detail is given
> beyond that) being a source for bona fide magic. (And is there some
> Wicca later in the series too?) I'd rather if the show stuck with
> the purely fantasy stuff rather than giving credence to or glorifying
> real-world superstition. And before anyone asks, I'm not enamored
> with all the crosses either, and would prefer the show without them,
> but I've grinned and borne it (in part since fear of crucifixes is
> such a longstanding part of vampire lore). Same as I intend to do with
> the pagan stuff, actually.
I'll suggest to you that this is a feeling you'll need to get over, soonish.
> AOQ rating: Good
Works for me.
hopelessly devoted
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
Wow, I go away for the weekend.......
> The core of this episode is basically one scene - disturbed kid, hot
> for Teacher, goes all OJ on his lover. We see this in several
> incarnations. "Eyes For You" is one of those shows where the rest
> of the series' ongoing issues are set aside, deferred. or made to
> dance to the tune of this story about the long-dead couple. (I
> suppose you could try to draw parallels to Buffy and Angel, but it's
> a stretch.)
Very much a parallel for Buffy and Angel. One thing that they had not
addressed up til this point was Buffy's true feelings on Angels
de-souling. She did the disbelief and the denial. However, she did
not do the "typical" anger associated with a bad breakup. On first
viewing it's kind of hard to see the almost complete crumble which
happened directly after Angel lost his soul. Buffy went down without a
fight.
The first version of the central scene, with the unnamed
> kids, has a lot of intensity, and looks like it'll set the tone for
> the rest of the show (although I think the energy flags after that).
> Fortunately, Buffy interferes and the subsequent confusion and
> disappearance of the gun are well played. This also gives her
> something to think about other than the usual angst and 1998-era dead
> people.
I see it as quite the opposite, gives her nothing else to think about.
> Things start to take shape when not only do we get a Slayerdream, but
> that's immediately followed up by a teacher going just a little bit
> nuts, as our main scene pokes its head into the Buffyverse in smaller
> bits as well as larger. The second full rendition (with the janitor)
> isn't acted nearly as well, but at least the gun disappearing is a
> really gorgeous effect.
>
> So where do the regular cast fit in? The opening Buffy/Willow exchange
> mainly just reiterates that Buffy's where we left her. She's still
> way beyond thinking about things like dating, she's still a
> workaholic Slayer, she still hasn't stopped blaming herself for
> Angelus. Sometimes it's nice for the show to actually say that
> stuff, as a heads-up to the viewer.
>
> Speaking of reinforcing the ongoing character threads, I quite liked
> this trilogy of facts: Giles gets irrational since he thinks Jenny's
> involved, the others immediately realize that he's not so reliable in
> this case, and he's able to notice the mounting evidence that he's
> wrong.
>
I also thought it was a very nice to so honestly make Giles human and
easily diluded by the heart as all of his younger counterparts.
> The cafeteria scene serves a few purposes, none of which are really
> related to the plot of the episode. One is to provide me with the
> token reminder that Cordelia is still annoying. There's also a nice
> bit of directing: closeup of the jiggling pasta to foreshadow the
> snakes, but bury it in a montage of cafeteria food to keep it from
> being too obviously foreshadowing. I have no clue what the deal is
> with the snake attack (or the arm, or the quicksand, or...). The ghost
> making people re-enact the lovers' quarrel makes some rudimentary
> level of sense, but the rest seems pretty random. Was our favorite
> Executive Producer on a "needs more snakes" kick?
> (Also, Xander seems rather blasé about hanging with the snakes later.
> Whassupwitdat?)
>
> A more important role of the snake thing is setup for another little
> Snyder/Bob exchange, which in turn feels like setup for something else.
> The principal's earlier scenes are a little funny but I still think
> his humor is too broad for this series (exception: "When She Was
> Bad"). So I'm glad we're exploring his more serious side and
> picking up that dangling plot thread from "School Hard." Not much
> new here, but the idea that a lot of higher-ups are involved in trying
> to downplay the Hellmouth's effects gets more explicit. Snyder being
> here at SHS, and possibly his whole career as a principal, have a
> purpose beyond his WSWB explanation that someone has to keep the little
> bastards in line. It's intriguing, and I'm guessing it'll be a
> part of the season's final chapter given that we're bringing it up
> again so late in the year.
>From Snyder: Halloween
Our core characters don't have any special interest in associating with
children until they're "volunteered" for the job by Snyder. Who
has responded to the events of "School Hard" by... exhibiting no
change whatsoever. Yeah, stuff really has major consequences on this
show.
There are so many different approaches, all of which would
be valid and wouldn't contradict anything seen before. There's
really only one premise that doesn't make much sense - that
everything would stay EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME.
As you progress, you'll learn which are the real clues and which are
decoys.
> On to an exorcism ritual. Something that I know is going to annoy me
> just a little about BTVS, so let's address it now: I'm not wild
> about Calendar's "pagan sites" (at least no detail is given
> beyond that) being a source for bona fide magic. (And is there some
> Wicca later in the series too?) I'd rather if the show stuck with
> the purely fantasy stuff rather than giving credence to or glorifying
> real-world superstition. And before anyone asks, I'm not enamored
> with all the crosses either, and would prefer the show without them,
> but I've grinned and borne it (in part since fear of crucifixes is
> such a longstanding part of vampire lore). Same as I intend to do with
> the pagan stuff, actually.
No comment. Yet.
> At least this solution doesn't end the problem; it's a shame the
> preparations take up so much screentime when it's clear that we're
> too early in the episode for it to work. As a result it ends up as a
> bunch of weird action scenes whose only real highlight is Carpenter's
> delivery on "I shall totally confront..."
>
You're watching with the lights on, aren't you?
> The whole climax is something of a highlight. After some extremely
> cool visuals of the cursed school, the ghost picks Buffy and Angel as
> its last actors, and we cut back and forth between the original and the
> reenactment. I actually didn't notice right away that Buffy was the
> one playing James... well, like dialogue later suggests, she's easier
> to relate to than the vampire. Both actors slip quite well into their
> parts, Gellar in particular. This whole time I'd assumed that
> letting James be an angry ghost was too easy - there had to be a plot
> twist, something more that'd make us rethink the earlier scenes. I
> actually said "and here comes the plot twist..." out loud. I was
> thinking of major contradictions of our heroes' assumptions (the
> ghost is really someone else, etc.), so it caught me off guard that the
> "unexpected" bit was something as simple as the gun going off
> accidentally. This episode didn't really need to be any more
> complicated than that, so I'm glad it went with a route that fit its
> premise. The fact that Grace Newman can't be killed by a gunshot
> this time means the spirit moves on purely through dumb luck, but
> that's fine. The end result, of course, is that Buffy's head can
> now get even more screwed with after she wakes up and remembers having
> been that close to Angel again.
It took me a couple of viewings to realize that Buffy's original anger
at James, was actually anger at herself for not allowing HERSELF to get
angry. "He did something that I can't do because....."
> A nice touch: Before playing out the story, Buffy can't imagine that
> Grace could ever forgive her killer. Afterward she still feels partly
> the same way, but is willing to allow that it's not so simple. Fits
> pretty well with what we've seen of her moral compass.
>
> The final scene seems to be setting up for more, besides just the
> amusing visual of Angel frantically trying to wash the Slayer off him
> (and providing something for the ladies). The idea that Angelus is
> afraid of love seems like the potential for cheese, but let's not
> knock it until we see what they do with it. Spike kicking away the
> wheelchair, on the other hand... uite the ending. I don't know what
> he's planning, but am quite interested. And I'd noticed that he
> seemed to getting frailer since S/I for some reason...
>
Don't piss off Roller Boy!
> I was almost done with this review and I realized that I still hadn't
> actually said anything about the 1950s story that's the center of the
> episode. There's surprisingly little to say. I think the kid was
> badly unbalanced and a danger to the innocent, but it's hard to say,
> since we don't get to know much about the love story per se or the
> principals involved. I can't say whether or not he "deserves" to
> be forgiven, because the show doesn't give us enough information.
>
Age old story of what forgiveness truely is and when to give it. It
ain't easy.
> IOHEFY is flawed show, in large part for the three reasons I mentioned
> (lack of sense of what ghosts can and can't do, slow middle, and that
> James' story isn't fleshed out enough to make as deep an impact as
> it could). But in the end, what one remembers most about the episode
> is that it's an interesting concept told in an interesting way.
> Ain't nothin' wrong with that.
>
Since this is one of my absolute favs, the emotion behind the story is
what drives it home. Not only for or characters, but in general.
While there isn't great detail regarding James and the
Teach, it is a universal story that could have been done with anyone,
anytime, on any show. Except of course the big arm grabbing Xander
through the locker. That could only be done on Buffy.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - The scapula/spatula gag.
Tearjerker and my S2 #2. But then again, I'm a romantic.
hopelessly devoted
KenM47 wrote:
> I too was dense on this. I missed the whole point until the Whedon
> commentary on the DVD. Loved the episode, yet missed the point. The
> point is we think the whole forgiveness thing is Buffy forgiving
> Angel/Angelus for turning into that absolute shit after the
> deflowering. That's not it. The point is Buffy forgiving herself for
> "killing" Angel and not killing Angelus. It's a little guilt removal
> time.
Interesting. Ok, now I have to go watch it again. I need to get S2.
hopelessly devoted
> Well... you got it wrong. As others have pointed out - and why. But,
> you're not unusual. It tends not to hit people on the head with
> understanding. As one looks at it in retrospect, the clues start seeming
> more obvious. (Like Giles' remark, "To forgive is an act of compassion,
> Buffy. It's, it's not done because people deserve it. It's done because they
> need it.") But really, it takes some thinking through to draw out its
> nuances. It did for me anyway.
Yeah, I think I'm going to have to rewatch for the "forgive thyself"
theme here. I always got the "feel the full weight (anger and all),
deal and move on" story. Nice, relevation though.
John Briggs
> In article <rpmvv1lfor2727fsr...@4ax.com>,
> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> record it until 1956.
No, the historical pedants will say that the Flamingoes recorded it in 1959
:-)
--
John Briggs