Re: Hard Landing...
mazonmac
> MICHAEL: Come back to the Section. Let me bring you in.
>
> [Translation: Hm, you have a point. Well, since you ask, OK, yes: I do
> want to keep seeing you. That wasn't a one-night stand last night.
> Also, you saved Section's ass last week; this has reminded me that you
> are one hell of an op, wasted slinging hash in some coffee shop in
> Toronto.]
LOL! What was that episode in s4 about M&N going to retrieve the satellite
in the weird town? She could've worked there.
>
> MICHAEL: --snip-- After the
> explosion, I'd started to believe that you hadn't made it out in time.
> I thought you were dead. When I saw you in Lyons, it brought me back.
> I never knew I needed you so much.
>
> [Translation: OK, fine. You want explicit statements? If that's what
> it takes to bring you back, I can do that. The fact that it is all
> true makes it a leetle harder to say, of course.]
and Nikita Thinks: Uhhh...more explicit, please. No pain, no gain!
> Which is a pretty adolescent reason for suicide--the guy I have a
> crush on doesn't love me, wah!
Well, I don't really want to label suicide, but isn't the point that it is
extremely personal and, therefore, extremely irrational to all but the one
that attempts or completes suicide? Having said that, I don't think the
unrequited love was what pushed her into the razor's edge, either. And I
don't think it was a "cry for help." There is no help inside Section
(except for cancellation) and it is clear Mikey tells the truth in that he
can't help her anymore.
Here's AZ:
> Must weigh in here ladies. I have long had a problem with Nikita's
> "problem" in Mercy. Why now (other than we need a set-up for the season
> ending cliff-hanger) is she suicidal? She's seen and done worse things
> earlier in S1. Granted, she's "recently" come through the Phasing Shell
> addiction, which I suppose could leave her more emotionally vulnerable
> than usual, but other than that (to me at least), the Shays mission
> wasn't much different/worse than others. I've always assumed the
> writers were trying to show her decision was the culmination of all that
> she'd endured, in training and S1. Still, for me, it wasn't as
> compelling as I believe they intended.
Now Mal:
> But if what really bothers Nikita (as
> expressed in her suicide note) is the fact that no one believes she
> was really innocent, then what makes her change her mind is what
> Michael says to her: "It doesn't matter what you did. It's what you do
> now [that matters]." In Michaelspeak this probably means something
> like: "I am beginning to believe that you were, in fact, innocent, and
> are a more decent person than the rest of us. I also believe that you
> can continue to be a decent person and turn your considerable skills
> to good use in future.
I tend to agree with AZ in her post on the subject in that I think the
writing could have done better to convey her sense of desperation and
despair. In the previous episodes, we get a sense that Nikita is becoming
increasingly angry, but we don't get a strong sense of her utter despair
until that scene in Maddie's office. In fact, in the DVD's commentary,
Surnow (I think) says that they'd been working on the finale for at least
half of the season (or six months...I forget the words.... just substitute
*one seriously long time*...) so you'd think they'd have tried to make her
descent much much stronger. So in that respect, I'll go with AZ in that
there wasn't a whole lot emotionally to really back up Nikita's suicide fit.
(stops to ponder: could this actually be a non-Michael post?...)
Having said that, though, I have to go back to my question from a few weeks
back - What is it that keeps people who at least appear to be somewhat
normal (as opposed to complete sociopaths without a sense of some sort of
moral code) in Section without going totally berserk? One cannot be so
totally emotionally oppressed for years without something cracking (like
Michael - he's already starting to crack and I've just finished Darkness
Visible - episode 208). I just don't buy the life inside Section that
opposes your every core value is a better alternative than suicide. Could
it be that *even* in Section there's a squeamish (and, I'd say, unrealistic)
attitude that suicide is equivalent to weak? A moral code inside
Section?... I guess, though, if all the characters were dead, there
wouldn't be a show.
>That is, I think the future matters, and I
> think you have one. I'm not gonna say more about that, but don't
> despair. I am (oddly enough) an optimist--I never look back; only
> forward, and you should too. And I think it's now clear that I care
> for you and hate to see you in this desolate state.
You're going to have to help me here, Mal. Season 1 Mikey an optimist?
Survivalist, yes. Pragmatist, yes. Expecting the best possible outcome or
the light at the end of the tunnel? Not so sure about that. Maybe that
light is from the train heading our way and the tunnel is too long to turn
back and try to beat the train...
(stops to answer my own question: could this actually be a non-Michael
post?...guess not.)
>In
> s2 or maybe s3 he gets a suit to die for, with 4 useless slash pockets
> on each side, at the waist. It is very stylin' but I can't imagine
> that he has taken out the threads that keep the pockets closed,
> because that would ruin the hang of the jacket. Hence the need for
> sexy black thigh strap for holding luger, bowie knife, lip balm, and
> Captain America decoder ring
Hey, if he's *anything* like me (and don't you think he is? ;-D ), he's
got lip balm stashed all over the place, and probably at least three in that
thigh strap - one just in case he drops the other two. Could you imagine
trying to concentrate on a mission with dry lips?! Ack! (looking for my
own hit of the lip stuff now) Know that scene in Choice where Nikita drops
down into the super-secret computer room and has to stay there on the floor
all night until the security system is disabled in the morning? Forget
about if she has to go to the bathroom - I get all antsy watching that
because I just know she's wishing she had a hit of lip balm, too.
>
> All I really meant to imply is that I think in the first meeting of
> Michael and Nikita, he is going through a routine that he's done many
> times. Her reactions are about what he expects. He thinks she's a fox,
> and this is going to be a fun assignment, but it's nothing too
> exciting to him. There are some subtle shifts in the course of the
> scene, but the first lines are pure Section Method (similar to
> Stanislavsky Method acting, only in reverse).
Yeah, I know what you mean - totally routine. Here's what I think goes
on...
Michael: Good Morning...
Translation: Actually, not really. This 5am thing really sucks. *Please*
don't pull that crying thing you all do when you first get in here. I'm too
tired.
Michael: I'm not going to hurt you...
Translation: I'm not going to hurt you... physically...today. I'll just
start the emotional turmoil with this picture of your headstone. Tomorrow,
though - 5 a.m. - we really start with the good stuff. Then every day after
that, pretty much.
I know...It really sounds better in my head without so many words...
cin
--
To email, remove ".no_spam" from the address.
CAPTANNE
satellite
>in the weird town? She could've worked there.
That would be "Catch a Falling Stereotype."
AZ about Nikita's "suicide" attempt: >Still, for me, it wasn't as
>> compelling as I believe they intended.
I agree, AZ. However, I just felt that Nikita's tolerance for Section had
built up to a point where she saw no other way out.
Mal about Michael's reaction: >something
>> like: "I am beginning to believe that you were, in fact, innocent, and
>> are a more decent person than the rest of us. I also believe that you
>> can continue to be a decent person and turn your considerable skills
>> to good use in future.
Most apt translation and certainly how I saw it.
>(stops to ponder: could this actually be a non-Michael post?...)
Heaven forfend!
> What is it that keeps people who at least appear to be somewhat
>normal (as opposed to complete sociopaths without a sense of some sort of
>moral code) in Section without going totally berserk?
This is one of the fundamental reasons no real "Section" exists. (At least,
that's my story and I'm sticking to it.) Henry Vth of England knew that the
only way you can effectively "conquer" a people is to make them love you.
Treat them well. Convince them they are doing the right thing. Feed, clothe,
and shelter them.
If you take over a community (as Section "takes over" malcontents) and they
hate you it's only a matter of time until they rebel.
Added to the toxic mix is that Section seems to recruit "bad eggs". That is
not very conducive to peaceful coexistence.
Like the Wookie Defense, it makes no sense.
But it made for a damned good television show. Hee.
>Darkness
>Visible - episode 208)
Now, this was a very controversial episode. Mal? Did you like it? The boy
was called Mr. Bean for-bloody-ever. LOLOL
Personally, I loved the whole thing.
And it had NOTHING to do with the Blue Parka.
Not. One. Thing.
>(stops to answer my own question: could this actually be a non-Michael
>post?...guess not.)
Well. At least we had a bit of a reality check. LOLOL
>> scene, but the first lines are pure Section Method (similar to
>> Stanislavsky Method acting, only in reverse).
He's SO using Method Acting. (Actually, if I remember correctly, the creator
of method acing was Lee Strasburg.) He's got Michael Samuelle so deeply into
Minimalism it's painful.
Works well in small venues. Need to see the eyes emote.
>Michael: Good Morning...
>Translation: Actually, not really. This 5am thing really sucks. *Please*
>don't pull that crying thing you all do when you first get in here. I'm too
>tired.
ROTFLMAO!
Anne :):):)
Malsperanza
> > MICHAEL: Come back to the Section. Let me bring you in.
> >
> > [Translation: Hm, you have a point. Well, since you ask, OK, yes: I do
> > want to keep seeing you. That wasn't a one-night stand last night.
> > Also, you saved Section's ass last week; this has reminded me that you
> > are one hell of an op, wasted slinging hash in some coffee shop in
> > Toronto.]
Cin:
> LOL! What was that episode in s4 about M&N going to retrieve the satellite
> in the weird town? She could've worked there.
I am slipping in my goal of answering every post by you guys with 3
new ridiculously long obsessive ones. It's this pesky full-time job
gets in the way...
> > MICHAEL: --snip-- After the
> > explosion, I'd started to believe that you hadn't made it out in time.
> > I thought you were dead. When I saw you in Lyons, it brought me back.
> > I never knew I needed you so much.
> >
> > [Translation: OK, fine. You want explicit statements? If that's what
> > it takes to bring you back, I can do that. The fact that it is all
> > true makes it a leetle harder to say, of course.]
>
> and Nikita Thinks: Uhhh...more explicit, please. No pain, no gain!
Definitely!
> > Which is a pretty adolescent reason for suicide--the guy I have a
> > crush on doesn't love me, wah!
>
> Well, I don't really want to label suicide, but isn't the point that it is
> extremely personal and, therefore, extremely irrational to all but the one
> that attempts or completes suicide?
Yes, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that people who feel
suicidal should be judged by some external standard of seriousness.
What I meant was that when adolescents try suicide, it is frequently
triggered by an unrequited love situation. Undoubtedly most of the
time there are also much deeper reasons.
> Having said that, I don't think the
> unrequited love was what pushed her into the razor's edge, either. And I
> don't think it was a "cry for help." There is no help inside Section
> (except for cancellation) and it is clear Mikey tells the truth in that he
> can't help her anymore.
Agreed. Also, if he hadn't knocked on the door, she'd be dead. A cry
for help usually involves pills or standing on a bridge--something
visible and public where there is room and time for an intervention. A
gun in the privacy of one's own home is not a cry to anyone; it's the
real thing, IMO.
> Here's AZ:
> > Must weigh in here ladies. I have long had a problem with Nikita's
> > "problem" in Mercy. Why now (other than we need a set-up for the season
> > ending cliff-hanger) is she suicidal? She's seen and done worse things
> > earlier in S1. Granted, she's "recently" come through the Phasing Shell
> > addiction, which I suppose could leave her more emotionally vulnerable
> > than usual, but other than that (to me at least), the Shays mission
> > wasn't much different/worse than others. I've always assumed the
> > writers were trying to show her decision was the culmination of all that
> > she'd endured, in training and S1. Still, for me, it wasn't as
> > compelling as I believe they intended.
>
> Now Mal:
>
> > But if what really bothers Nikita (as
> > expressed in her suicide note) is the fact that no one believes she
> > was really innocent, then what makes her change her mind is what
> > Michael says to her: "It doesn't matter what you did. It's what you do
> > now [that matters]." In Michaelspeak this probably means something
> > like: "I am beginning to believe that you were, in fact, innocent, and
> > are a more decent person than the rest of us. I also believe that you
> > can continue to be a decent person and turn your considerable skills
> > to good use in future.
Cin:
> I tend to agree with AZ in her post on the subject in that I think the
> writing could have done better to convey her sense of desperation and
> despair. In the previous episodes, we get a sense that Nikita is becoming
> increasingly angry, but we don't get a strong sense of her utter despair
> until that scene in Maddie's office. In fact, in the DVD's commentary,
> Surnow (I think) says that they'd been working on the finale for at least
> half of the season (or six months...I forget the words.... just substitute
> *one seriously long time*...) so you'd think they'd have tried to make her
> descent much much stronger. So in that respect, I'll go with AZ in that
> there wasn't a whole lot emotionally to really back up Nikita's suicide fit.
In defense of the script, I think some of the blame may fall to
Wilson. She is not a, er, nuanced actor in s1, not fully in command of
her instrument, as they say. If she knew from mid-season on that she
needed to show a gradual sense of being driven to a wall, then she had
ample time to develop that progression. Instead she is sometimes
chipper and feisty, sometimes gloomy and lost. It wavers.
> (stops to ponder: could this actually be a non-Michael post?...)
*grudgingly types a few parsimonious lines of Nikita analysis*
> Having said that, though, I have to go back to my question from a few weeks
> back - What is it that keeps people who at least appear to be somewhat
> normal (as opposed to complete sociopaths without a sense of some sort of
> moral code) in Section without going totally berserk? One cannot be so
> totally emotionally oppressed for years without something cracking (like
> Michael - he's already starting to crack and I've just finished Darkness
> Visible - episode 208). I just don't buy the life inside Section that
> opposes your every core value is a better alternative than suicide. Could
> it be that *even* in Section there's a squeamish (and, I'd say, unrealistic)
> attitude that suicide is equivalent to weak? A moral code inside
> Section?...
A couple of possible answers--though I agree that the show does not do
a great job of making a strong case about this.
1) Michael to Nikita at the end of "Simone": If it weren't for the
Section, none of us would have a life.
Some ops may feel a sense of obligation, commitment, even gratitude.
Some may be having fun. If you're a killer, then license to kill might
make you quite happy and fulfilled. (Yuck)
2) Michael stays in Section because he is an idealist and his ideals
(in s1 and s2) match those of Section. He is an ascetic--in another
age he'd be a Trappist monk or a ronin or something. Dedicating
himself to [what he believes is] the Greater Good is a huge incentive,
especially since he doesn't miss the fresh air, jolly social life, and
ski vacations in Telluride anyway.
3) Those ops who, like Nikita, stay in Section *only* because they are
coerced and would be hunted down if they tried to flee are probably
only a percentage of the whole staff. And they are probably the ones
who tend to have a short life span, either on missions, or in
abeyance, or through suicide.
> >That is, I think the future matters, and I
> > think you have one. I'm not gonna say more about that, but don't
> > despair. I am (oddly enough) an optimist--I never look back; only
> > forward, and you should too. And I think it's now clear that I care
> > for you and hate to see you in this desolate state.
Cin:
> You're going to have to help me here, Mal. Season 1 Mikey an optimist?
> Survivalist, yes. Pragmatist, yes. Expecting the best possible outcome or
> the light at the end of the tunnel? Not so sure about that. Maybe that
> light is from the train heading our way and the tunnel is too long to turn
> back and try to beat the train...
Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said "idealist." But I
would call Michael an optimist in the sense that he does believe the
Good can beat the Evil. He never falters in his commitment to that.
Each task can be completed, each battle won, and each is worth the
fight. (I love watching his face in "End Game" when he thinks Nikita
might choose to side with Adrian and destroy Section. He is still
utterly convinced that this would be a terrible tragedy. At the same
time he knows that if she doesn't side with Adrian, and lets Section
win, she herself will be unbuttered toast. His Blank Stare in that
scene is quite rich with [invisible] inflections.)
Also, until GOH, we never see Michael act suicidal; he is always
willing to support the risk of torture and death, but he *always*
intends to survive. His driving, urgent lesson to Nikita is: "Stay
alive! I *will* find you!" ...Or no, that's Daniel Day Lewis in "Last
of the Mohicans." Well, almost the same thing.
Cin:
> (stops to answer my own question: could this actually be a non-Michael
> post?...guess not.)
Not for damn long; not while I'm around.
Me:
> >In
> > s2 or maybe s3 he gets a suit to die for, with 4 useless slash pockets
> > on each side, at the waist. It is very stylin' but I can't imagine
> > that he has taken out the threads that keep the pockets closed,
> > because that would ruin the hang of the jacket. Hence the need for
> > sexy black thigh strap for holding luger, bowie knife, lip balm, and
> > Captain America decoder ring
Cin:
> Hey, if he's *anything* like me (and don't you think he is? ;-D ), he's
> got lip balm stashed all over the place, and probably at least three in that
> thigh strap - one just in case he drops the other two. Could you imagine
> trying to concentrate on a mission with dry lips?! Ack! (looking for my
> own hit of the lip stuff now)
You know, that stuff is addictive. I had a friend once who wrote to
Blistex, complaining of the addictive nature of their product. They
sent her a case of Blistex. Me, I am addicted to Carmex. Mmm,
camphor-flavah wax...
But can we talk about that jacket? Hm? That jacket can act.
Cin:
> Know that scene in Choice where Nikita drops
> down into the super-secret computer room and has to stay there on the floor
> all night until the security system is disabled in the morning? Forget
> about if she has to go to the bathroom - I get all antsy watching that
> because I just know she's wishing she had a hit of lip balm, too.
And there's that scene in s5 (last episode, I think), when she and M
are tramping about in the snow in some park in Toronto, meeting the
SOTW in the public bathrooms (which itself is worthy of a dissertation
on implied sexual perversity). And later, the bridge scene--all that
bleak wind. Yes, lip balm definitely a part of the Cold Op's necessary
equipment.
Me:
> > All I really meant to imply is that I think in the first meeting of
> > Michael and Nikita, he is going through a routine that he's done many
> > times. Her reactions are about what he expects. He thinks she's a fox,
> > and this is going to be a fun assignment, but it's nothing too
> > exciting to him. There are some subtle shifts in the course of the
> > scene, but the first lines are pure Section Method (similar to
> > Stanislavsky Method acting, only in reverse).
Cin:
> Yeah, I know what you mean - totally routine. Here's what I think goes
> on...
>
> Michael: Good Morning...
> Translation: Actually, not really. This 5am thing really sucks. *Please*
> don't pull that crying thing you all do when you first get in here. I'm too
> tired.
>
> Michael: I'm not going to hurt you...
> Translation: I'm not going to hurt you... physically...today. I'll just
> start the emotional turmoil with this picture of your headstone. Tomorrow,
> though - 5 a.m. - we really start with the good stuff. Then every day after
> that, pretty much.
Oh, I love your version--fits perfectly! And in between being very
very funny, it is spot-on. "I'm not going to hurt you" is therefore
either the first or the second lie he tells Nikita. The bastid, he
lies every time he opens his mouth in s1, and most of the time when
his mouth is closed, he is lying too.
So Michael is not a morning person, eh? Actually, ops seem to do their
work at any hour of day or night, especially since they cross time
zones every time they go through the wormhole--I mean the Van Access.
So they must have the most messed-up circadian rhythms on the planet.
Poor Madeline and Ops, struggling to insist on breakfast, whether it's
6:00 am or 6:00 pm or midnight.
But he does seem more together in those late-night dance-club scenes.
~Mal
Malsperanza
> This is one of the fundamental reasons no real "Section" exists. (At least,
> that's my story and I'm sticking to it.) Henry Vth of England knew that the
> only way you can effectively "conquer" a people is to make them love you.
> Treat them well. Convince them they are doing the right thing. Feed, clothe,
> and shelter them.
>
> If you take over a community (as Section "takes over" malcontents) and they
> hate you it's only a matter of time until they rebel.
>
> Added to the toxic mix is that Section seems to recruit "bad eggs". That is
> not very conducive to peaceful coexistence.
>
> Like the Wookie Defense, it makes no sense.
Remind me: What is the Wookie Defense? Lord, to think I've forgotten
anything from the Star Wars canon.
Anne:
> >Darkness
> >Visible - episode 208)
>
> Now, this was a very controversial episode. Mal? Did you like it?
It isn't among my favorites, though I like the use of real war footage
and the situation in which saving the kids conflicts with the Greater
Good. And it is yet another facet of the constant exploration of the
theme of parents and children, which is interesting. I felt, though,
that both Wilson and Dupuis were a little lackluster in the episode,
for some reason I can't quite pin down. A couple of things I loved in
it: Michael saying leave the kids behind, and the next shot is them
all in the car, like a family starting on a vacation and they got a
late start and Dad is mad. Michael killing the SOTW without a word,
but after a looong assessing moment. Nikita and Michael crossing the
checkpoint with the kids, not looking back, leaving the parents
behind. Michael refusing to assist the desperate CIA agent's local
contacts--who are being massacred for having helped. Very painful and
rather realistic, I thought.
>The boy was called Mr. Bean for-bloody-ever. LOLOL
Oh the poor child, he did look like a wee Rowan Atkinson. Oh dear.
*removes image from brain with steel wool and bleach*
> Personally, I loved the whole thing.
>
> And it had NOTHING to do with the Blue Parka.
>
> Not. One. Thing.
Blue parka? What blue parka? Someone was wearing a parka? I was too
busy noticing the jeans. Ack. I have now reached a new low in
groveling, slavering fandom by admitting that.
> >(stops to answer my own question: could this actually be a non-Michael
> >post?...guess not.)
>
> Well. At least we had a bit of a reality check. LOLOL
>
> >> scene, but the first lines are pure Section Method (similar to
> >> Stanislavsky Method acting, only in reverse).
>
> He's SO using Method Acting. (Actually, if I remember correctly, the creator
> of method acing was Lee Strasburg.)
You remember correctly. :-) Strasberg was Russian originally and based
his method on the work of the Russian director Stanislavsky, who wrote
a very influential book called "An Actor Prepares." Strasberg's
"Method" was his version of Staslavsky's "Method" of stylized realism.
Strasberg was the teacher of folks like Marlon Brando, Rod Steiger,
Eli Wallach, Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro--and I think the style of
those actors has a lot in common with what Dupuis does. Which is one
more reason why I wish Dupuis would do some stage work again sometime.
I'd drive to Montreal and learn to decipher the Quebecois accent to
see that.
Oh, and btw, against all advice, I spent $7 and ordered "Hemoglobin,"
out of pure curiosity. Have not mentioned this before, because,
really, what is there to say? Even the sex scene was curiously
uninteresting and distasteful. And as for the rest, ick. I'd watch
"Screamers" before I'd watch it again, and that's saying a lot.
~Mal
CAPTANNE
>out of pure curiosity. Have not mentioned this before, because,
>really, what is there to say? Even the sex scene was curiously
>uninteresting and distasteful. And as for the rest, ick. I'd watch
>"Screamers" before I'd watch it again, and that's saying a lot.
>
>~Mal
>
>
>
>
>
>
Now, now, now.
Did I not say this was the worst. film. ever?
Trust your friend.
Anne
CAPTANNE
>Did I not say this was the worst. film. ever?
I mean, he didn't even brush his teeth.
Eww.
I'm just saying.
Anne
mazonmac
>He is an ascetic--
I just have to say good word, Mal. Very appropriate.
> Also, until GOH, we never see Michael act suicidal; he is always
> willing to support the risk of torture and death, but he *always*
> intends to survive.
This is a good distinction. Read my post about Half Life - we may have to
discuss further....
>His driving, urgent lesson to Nikita is: "Stay
> alive! I *will* find you!" ...Or no, that's Daniel Day Lewis in "Last
> of the Mohicans." Well, almost the same thing.
Oh don't even go there. I may never come back. That was a *great* scene.
Hawkeye says: "Listen. Submit. You hear me? You're strong. You stay alive. I
will find you ... no matter how far, how long it takes ...I will find you."
Man, people just don't talk like that - probably a good thing 'cause we'd
all keep hitting our heads as we swoon. Oh, great scene and I think *very*
appropriate here. Thanks for reminding me. I'm almost embarrassed to admit
I think I saw that 10 or more times in the theater way back when. (Now, I
just have to ruin everything by saying that all of the special effects in
that movie were pretty poor and very distracting overall - Bad Michael Mann
- he should have done better. I mean, c'mon...that waterfall was
*hor_i_ble*!)
I just have to ask, didn't you just weep when Alice goes to the edge of the
cliff after Uncas is defeated. It cuts between close-ups on Magua and Alice
as she gets closer and closer to the edge. Finally Magua motions her to
step away and then...well...you know. That single gesture from a fierce,
fierce enemy and warrior...man...speechless and writeless. Great, great,
great scene. I wish they had developed Uncas and Alice a little more, no?
This is me:
>> Hey, if he's *anything* like me (and don't you think he is? ;-D ), he's
>> got lip balm stashed all over the place, and probably at least three in that
>> thigh strap - one just in case he drops the other two. Could you imagine
>> trying to concentrate on a mission with dry lips?! Ack! (looking for my
>> own hit of the lip stuff now)
Now Back to Mal:
> You know, that stuff is addictive. I had a friend once who wrote to
> Blistex, complaining of the addictive nature of their product. They
> sent her a case of Blistex. Me, I am addicted to Carmex. Mmm,
> camphor-flavah wax...
>
Uh-huh. Just check out lipbalmanonymous.com - a friend of mine put this
together and even got on The Daily Show back in the day. I've been a member
since, I'd say, '95-ish, but I've been using since '90. I've tried
literally everything under the sun, but I always go back to Carmex. Thank
the gods they *finally* put it in stick form (you did know about that,
right?). I agree, though. Anyone reading who may be influenced to start
using - ban the balm! Avoid at all costs! You will *never* break free.
That's all the Torture Twins would have to do to me - take away my lip balm.
Ack! The horror!
> But can we talk about that jacket? Hm? That jacket can act.
LOL!
>So Michael is not a morning person, eh?
Well, I did say *if* he's anything like me...and we've already established
the lip balm link. So...
And just because he's got to do Section things at all times of the day or
night doesn't mean he has to be happy about it (a la: You don't have to
*like* the job, you just have to do it).
mazonmac
>
> Anne:
>>> Darkness
>>> Visible - episode 208)
>>
>> Now, this was a very controversial episode. Mal? Did you like it?
>
> It isn't among my favorites, though I like the use of real war footage
> and the situation in which saving the kids conflicts with the Greater
> Good. And it is yet another facet of the constant exploration of the
> theme of parents and children, which is interesting. I felt, though,
> that both Wilson and Dupuis were a little lackluster in the episode,
> for some reason I can't quite pin down. A couple of things I loved in
> it: Michael saying leave the kids behind, and the next shot is them
> all in the car, like a family starting on a vacation and they got a
> late start and Dad is mad. Michael killing the SOTW without a word,
> but after a looong assessing moment. Nikita and Michael crossing the
> checkpoint with the kids, not looking back, leaving the parents
> behind. Michael refusing to assist the desperate CIA agent's local
> contacts--who are being massacred for having helped. Very painful and
> rather realistic, I thought.
I'm just going to invite myself in and chime in with 4 things:
1 - It wasn't apparent to me (I'm still slow on the uptake, as AZ would say)
why it was more likely that they would have a better chance getting across
the boarder if M&N took the kids rather than the parents? Is it because
they'd have the better papers? I thought in the beginning when there
medical relief vehicle got stopped their papers weren't in order...
2 - If Section is the most clandestine and covert government agency on the
planet, then why would Mikey tell the CIA guy who's shredding documents both
his security code and that he's from Section One? We'd likely have to
assume if they're *that* covert then average Joe CIA-Shmoe wouldn't know
about Section One. Why not just lie and say he's CIA or UN or WTO or WHO or
something? Who'd know the difference?
And C - I loved the part where Mikey stops little Bean from getting to his
parents, saying that he'd have to "be smart" if he wanted to protect his
sister and see his parents again. This has to be something he learned from
his own experience (Half Life) with his own sister. Only nobody gave him
that advice and now look - he's Section's #1. I guess hind-sight is 20/20.
And now #4 - Eerie just how disposable Nikita and even Mikey are, in
reference to the part where their evac priority got downgraded.
ok, expanding to 5 points: Birkoff really is cute in this episode. It
looks like the hair and the glasses has done a little for his image. The
chain makes him look a little more buff than he did in s1 with a larger neck
and all - less like a disaffected computer geek. Our little Birky's growin'
up!
CAPTANNE
>will find you ... no matter how far, how long it takes ...I will find you."
>Man, people just don't talk like that - probably a good thing 'cause we'd
>all keep hitting our heads as we swoon. Oh, great scene and I think *very*
>appropriate here. Thanks for
This is what bubble wrap is for.
Back when Michael was doing his thang on a weekly basis, I had stock in the
bubble wrap company.
Solved many problem bruises.
>Bad Michael Mann
>- he should have done better. I mean, c'mon...that waterfall was
>*hor_i_ble*!)
It's the only bad Michael Mann movie I can think of. But, that scene of Daniel
Day Lewis running......
Good gravy.
And to think I ~just~ rewatched My Beautiful Laundrette.
Come back, Daniel! Stop cobblering in Italy!
sigh
When my best friend and I go golfing I swear to God she's going to lip balm us
into tomorrow.
I've never used the stuff (Lancome lipstick is my addiction....to the great
pleasure of bees.)
>> But can we talk about that jacket? Hm? That jacket can act.
>
>LOL!
I would like to take full faith and credit to announce that I know the owner of
the "jaguar" jacket.
Yes.
Yes I do.
You know the one.....The Gaultier with the jaguar silk lining.
Anne
CAPTANNE
>up!
>
>cin
>--
>To email, remove ".no_spam" from the address.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
In my opinion, Birkoff is the character who does the most maturing in the
entire series.
He begins as a self serving prat and ends by giving his all for his friends.
I love that child.
Anne
mazonmac
>But, that scene of
> Daniel
> Day Lewis running......
>
> Good gravy.
>
> And to think I ~just~ rewatched My Beautiful Laundrette.
don't know this one...
>
> Come back, Daniel! Stop cobblering in Italy!
>
> sigh
yes! come back! (sigh)
> I would like to take full faith and credit to announce that I know the owner
> of
> the "jaguar" jacket.
>
> Yes.
>
> Yes I do.
>
> You know the one.....The Gaultier with the jaguar silk lining.
so, how do you guys know so much about this jacket and how did you go about
appropriating it? Is it _a_ jacket or _the_ jacket?
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
<<...I have to go back to my question from a few weeks back - What is it
that keeps people who at least appear to be somewhat normal (as opposed
to complete sociopaths without a sense of some sort of moral code) in
Section without going totally berserk? One cannot be so totally
don't buy the life inside Section that opposes your every core value is
a better alternative than suicide. Could it be that *even* in Section
there's a squeamish (and, I'd say, unrealistic) attitude that suicide is
equivalent to weak? A moral code inside Section?... I guess, though, if
all the characters were dead, there wouldn't be a show.
Yeah, kind of hard to have a show about "dead to the world" ops. who are
actually corpses. Then the show becomes Forever Knight or one of the
other vamp epics. :-))
But to answer your question, the survival instinct in very strong.
Also, the average Section denizen isn't portrayed as possessing the
same core values as "the man on the street", so to equate their
motivation in terms we can comprehend may not work too well. And, I
suspect many may be berserk, in a controlled way; there was Karen
(Recruit), Vizcano (First Mission), Andrea (Off Profile), Jerome (HCFF),
The Torture Twins (various), not to mention Maddie.
Also, there was much physical training ongoing constantly. That may
well have been a calculated deterrent to keep the peace within Section;
let them expend excess energy in either exercise (to exhaustion) or
sanctioned aggression (martial arts, sparring, etc.). This served the
dual purposes of keeping the natives from getting too restless while at
the same time maintaining physical conditioning needed for missions.
AZ
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
<<...And I don't think it was a "cry for help." There is no help inside
Section (except for cancellation) and it is clear Mikey tells the truth
in that he can't help her anymore.
Mal:
Agreed. Also, if he hadn't knocked on the door, she'd be dead. A cry for
help usually involves pills or standing on a bridge--something visible
and public where there is room and time for an intervention. A gun in
the privacy of one's own home is not a cry to anyone; it's the real
thing, IMO. >>
Just to be a devil's advocate: Nikita could have assumed, known even,
that the cancelled surveillance of Escape was back in force. That the
privacy of one's own home was non-existent, a mere illusion for a
Section op.
In fact, she could even have been testing the surveillance, and
Michael's response time. Hmmm.
Mal:
<<In defense of the script, I think some of the blame may fall to
Wilson. She is not a, er, nuanced actor in s1, not fully in command of
her instrument, as they say. If she knew from mid-season on that she
needed to show a gradual sense of being driven to a wall, then she had
ample time to develop that progression. Instead she is sometimes chipper
and feisty, sometimes gloomy and lost. It wavers.>>
Agreed. Compare her lack of decent into despair in S1 with Ops. growing
insanity in S5. His was, IMO, some of the best (non RD) acting in the
series; a tour de force of the first order.
Mal:
<<...Some ops may feel a sense of obligation, commitment, even
gratitude. Some may be having fun. If you're a killer, then license to
kill might make you quite happy and fulfilled. (Yuck) >>
Giddy serial killers. YIKES!!! Makes Maddie seem positively benign.
cin:
<<Could you imagine trying to concentrate on a mission with dry lips?!
Ack!...Know that scene in Choice where Nikita drops down into the
super-secret computer room and has to stay there on the floor all night
until the security system is disabled in the morning? Forget about if
she has to go to the bathroom - I get all antsy watching that because I
just know she's wishing she had a hit of lip balm, too.
And there's that scene in s5 (last episode, I think), when she and M are
tramping about in the snow in some park...And later, the bridge
scene--all that bleak wind. Yes, lip balm definitely a part of the Cold
Op's necessary equipment.>>
Careful, you'll have these former criminals turned Section ops. going
soft; no creature comforts for Section personnel. I would suspect that
Maddie doesn't even allow the use of lip balm while on down time. These
ops. need to stay 'tough'; if they're coddled with soothing lip balm,
they might not be ruthless enough to get the job done. The above does
not apply to Valentine Ops., of course.
AZ
mazonmac
> that the cancelled surveillance of Escape was back in force. That the
> privacy of one's own home was non-existent, a mere illusion for a
> Section op.
>
> In fact, she could even have been testing the surveillance, and
> Michael's response time. Hmmm.
Hmmm... this is an interesting idea. I always thought they dropped the ball
on this idea of in-home surveillance. I like your idea, except that it
isn't supported later in the script. You'd think they'd turn it back on
when she comes back after her 6 month vacation - and having the cameras
there definitely supports Section being able to use her burgeoning
relationship with Jurgen against him. But here we are (or rather her I am)
6 months later at mid-season 2 when Mikey comes in to tell her Rene is one
of his weaknesses and doesn't know if he can hack the job. So, wouldn't he
know that the cameras were back in place and chose a different location for
spilling his emotional beans (that coffee shop they go to all the time,
maybe)? Or maybe we go back to my theory and say that the only reason he's
telling Nikita because he doesn't expect to come back at all, therefore,
Section knowing he's slipping doesn't matter.
Interesting Idea, you little devil...
Malsperanza
> > And to think I ~just~ rewatched My Beautiful Laundrette.
Cin:
> don't know this one...
His first big movie, I think. He plays a tough, gay, working-class
young thug who has a very nice romance with a well-to-do Pakistani kid
in London. It's a very charming movie about race relations in Britain
in the 1980s, directed by Hanif Kureishi. Worth renting.
> > Come back, Daniel! Stop cobblering in Italy!
?? What is he doing in Italy??
Anne:
> > I would like to take full faith and credit to announce that I know the owner
> > of
> > the "jaguar" jacket.
> >
> > You know the one.....The Gaultier with the jaguar silk lining.
Cin:
> so, how do you guys know so much about this jacket and how did you go about
> appropriating it? Is it _a_ jacket or _the_ jacket?
I can't think of which jacket this is. Anne: what season or episodes
is it in? Michael wears a different black coat or jacket each season,
but I don't recall one with a patterned lining. I think the one I
covet with the 4 slash pockets on the sides is from s3, but I will
have to do a little deep research to confirm. ;-) I once had an Armani
suit; I loved it passionately. I would have run away to Tahiti with
it, if it had asked me.
Fans buy stuff from movies and TV shows at charity auctions run by the
big Hollywood studios. Is that where your friend got this one, Anne?
~Mal
CAPTANNE
>
>
>?? What is he doing in Italy??
Cobblering!
No!
Really!
He was learning to make Italian shoes.
I guess if a father can be the Poet Laureate of England, a son can be an Oscar
winning actor and can learn to make shoes in his spare time.
LOLOL
(In some universe that last sentence made sense but you get my point. I think
the family is a little eccentric.)
>I can't think of which jacket this is. Anne: what season or episodes
>is it in? Michael wears a different black coat or jacket each season,
>but I don't recall one with a
This jacket is the one he stalks Tycho in in I Remember Paris. As he struts
around a stairwell corner, the hem of his jacket flips open and you can see a
jaguar imprinted on the lining.
An old acquaintence of mine bought it at the charity auction at Close Quarters
Standby #3.
It's a beautiful suit. In seasons 1-4, Laurie Drew did some amazing work with
costuming. Before she decided that the world should be depopulated by a cow or
three.
>I once had an Armani
>suit; I loved it passionately. I would have run away to Tahiti with
>it, if it had asked me.
LOL I had a Chanel suit like that. Unfortunately, it finally bit the dust.
The funeral was lovely, though.
Believe it or not, I now have a suit from Talbot's I love. It's all black and
I call it my "Michael Suit." It always looks good, always fits, and is
amazingly comfortable.
While we're on personal notes, here, my suit is taking a bit to get used to my
"new" natural hair colour. I've been a honey blonde for 25 years and finally
got tired of doing my roots every frelling month.
SO, I'm now back to.......
Ready?
Yes.
"Medium brown."
I almost cried when my hair dude told me that's the name of my real hair
colour.
GAH!
Oh, well. Medium brown looks better with a tan anyway.
LOLOL
Anne
Malsperanza
> > Also, until GOH, we never see Michael act suicidal; he is always
> > willing to support the risk of torture and death, but he *always*
> > intends to survive.
>
> This is a good distinction. Read my post about Half Life - we may have to
> discuss further...
I've corrected myself on this in another post. You're right--*always*
is not accurate. In fact, I am now completely reversing myself. I am
beginning to think Michael is *frequently* fatalistic (that is, one
step short of suicidal), and only interested in staying alive because
he believes in the job he's doing. So as long as he believes in the
job, and that belief isn't interrupted by some other personal
commitment (Rene, Elena), he'll stay alive to do it. This means that
he doesn't hesitate to run back into the building to fix the bomb that
didn't go off (Rescue & Approaching Zero ... boy, with all those
detonation failures, you'd think Walter would have been canceled by
s3), even though it's suicidal to do so.
The 19th-century sociologist Emile Durkheim wrote a famous book on
suicide, in which he identified 3 different kinds. Sorry to get all
academic here, but it's actually pretty interesting re LFN, because
there is so much suicide and near-suicide in the story. The categories
are pretty out-of-date by modern therapeutic standards, but for
purposes of analyzing a ridiculous TV spy show, they work pretty well
<g>. They are: egoistic suicide, altruistic suicide, and anomic
suicide. "Egoistic" isn't meant in a harsh or critical sense, but a
psychology sense--Nikita's suicide attempt because she can't bear her
life any more is egoistic--it's a private feeling of depression, being
trapped, unable to resolve her life so that there is any chance of
future happiness.
Jurgen's suicide is a mixture of egoistic (he can't face the future)
and altruistic (he prevents Michael from dying and completes the
mission). "Altruistic" suicide is the guy who falls on a grenade to
save the other people nearby. When ops put themselves in harm's way in
the course of a mission, they are being altruistically suicidal, like
soldiers.
"Anomic" suicide is a more difficult category to define--it means,
basically, suicide by someone who has gotten out of sync with society,
become detached from the structures that organize life and make
happiness possible. This may be because of economic problems--e.g.,
the bankers who jumped out of windows when the stock market crashed in
1929, who weren't really personally depressed or despairing--that is,
the day before, they had been just fine. Or people who get widowed or
divorced sometimes experience such disorientation from the life they
once had and cared about that they can't reorganize it in a new way.
In a way, everyone in Section lives an anomic life, detached from
society and operating under a set of structures and rules so distorted
and strange that they are almost impossible to conform to or be happy
in. But everyone tries, and as long as they can make it work fairly
well, they survive (e.g., Walter and Birkoff, who tune out whatever
bits are morally problematic for them).
Madeline's suicide is a perfect example of anomic suicide: she isn't
an unhappy person, and she isn't depressed. In fact, Section suits her
well. But the day Section changes its structures, and her past
behavior is questioned, she can't tolerate it. She'd rather be dead
than live with the new rules.
As usual, the real cipher is Michael. When he is suicidal, is it
because he is desperately unhappy and depressed? (I.e., are his
motives for dying personal, "egoistic"?) In GOH I think that's clear.
In FLYF it is also mostly clear, though he manages to use his own
despair for the Greater Good by requesting an abeyance mission (very
Utilitarian of him, LOL). But in other instances, it's altruistic.
(Although, when he prepares to run into the building in "Approaching
Zero," I wonder if he is partly motivated by the knowledge that Nikita
hates him and has transferred her affections to Jurgen.)
His brush with death in FLYF isn't a cancellation, but a suicide,
since he refuses Walter's offer of escape equipment. He only changes
his mind about dying when Nikita shows up and pretends that she will
escape with him. Earlier, outside the bank, when she had suggested
they make a run for it, he was not willing to risk death, because he
saw the possibility of a future for the two of them. He becomes
suicidal only when he learns of Nikita's personal betrayal of him.
Which means that for Michael by the end of s4, love (Nikita) has
replaced Section as his one necessary social structure.
Michael is someone who has always survived with a very meagre sense of
society. He's antisocial (hardly ever says "thank you," or "hello").
He's not given to luxuries--even his farmhouse is pretty barren--a few
bits of music, a little good food. The furniture looks like stuff that
was there when he bought it. Good tailoring is practically his only
self-indulgence. Oh, and French poetry, apparently, and wine. He likes
a decent restaurant meal, but probably only because it gives Nikita
pleasure. He spends his down time (when he has any) sitting in a car
observing people he once loved. What structures his life is The
Mission: he goes from one to the next. His ambitions are all directed
toward inheriting Section, not because he gives a hoot about power,
but because he wants to run better missions, fix the world.
There's no depth to his life at all--which is why Dupuis describes him
as a "ghost." When he loses his commitment to Section, he simply
replaces it with Nikita. Still very little depth: It's hard to have a
full life when your whole happiness and reason for living are utterly
dependent on another person.
I imagine that the only reason he doesn't kill himself at the end of
FLYF, when Nikita refuses to go with him is that he knows she's lying
and he intends to come back and get her out. And of course, there's
Adam.
So there are times when Michael's suicidal streak seems purely
altruistic, and other times when I think he feels that he was wrong to
believe in Section, and has lost his ideals so thoroughly that he just
doesn't see the point in living any more.
There's a great scene in ITLG when Madeline warns him (I'm not sure
why) that Ops is considering canceling him. "You're not afraid to die,
are you, Michael"? she says. "No," he replies with his usual complete
lack of affect. "You've seen to that." Hard to say if he means "you,
Madeline," or "you, Section." And this is at a moment when he should
be quite un-suicidal, since he has a job to do: rescuing Nikita from
the G Process. If he means "you, Section" (as I believe he does), then
this is *the* moment when he acknowledges that his social structure
has collapsed. His belief in Section is now gone for good. From here
on, he will continue to carry out missions, because they are always
worth doing, but his reason for living has been transferred to Nikita.
And indeed, at the end of ITLG, he says it, explicitly: "I can't live
without you." He means it quite literally.
* * *
Back to the Mohicans:
> >His driving, urgent lesson to Nikita is: "Stay
> > alive! I *will* find you!" ...Or no, that's Daniel Day Lewis in "Last
> > of the Mohicans." Well, almost the same thing.
Cin:
> Oh don't even go there. I may never come back. That was a *great* scene.
> Hawkeye says: "Listen. Submit. You hear me? You're strong. You stay alive. I
> will find you ... no matter how far, how long it takes ...I will find you."
> Man, people just don't talk like that - probably a good thing 'cause we'd
> all keep hitting our heads as we swoon. Oh, great scene and I think *very*
> appropriate here. Thanks for reminding me. I'm almost embarrassed to admit
> I think I saw that 10 or more times in the theater way back when. (Now, I
> just have to ruin everything by saying that all of the special effects in
> that movie were pretty poor and very distracting overall - Bad Michael Mann
> - he should have done better. I mean, c'mon...that waterfall was
> *hor_i_ble*!)
LOL. I'll have to watch it again. I remember thinking the landscape
photography was gorgeous--filmed in the Blue Ridge mountains, I think,
in North Carolina, though it's supposed to be upstate New York.
> I just have to ask, didn't you just weep when Alice goes to the edge of the
> cliff after Uncas is defeated. It cuts between close-ups on Magua and Alice
> as she gets closer and closer to the edge. Finally Magua motions her to
> step away and then...well...you know. That single gesture from a fierce,
> fierce enemy and warrior...man...speechless and writeless. Great, great,
> great scene. I wish they had developed Uncas and Alice a little more, no?
Yes. A wonderful scene. I gather Anne is not so fond of this movie
(eh, Anne?) and I would admit that it is a bit OTT. But sooo romantic.
Hawkeye shooting fast during the siege of the fort, switching rifles
and shooting again. Daniel Day Lewis with massive hair extensions
running through the woods. Thank god they changed his name from the
book, where he is called Natty Bumppo.
In fact, IIRC, I watched that movie on video at the home of the same
friend who first made me watch an episode of LFN, back when it was
first airing. I wish I could remember which one. She tried to describe
who everyone was, and I remember a shot of Michael in the Perch,
looking down at Nikita in a menacing, eerie way. I think it must have
been s3, maybe AGT. Didn't watch LFN again for the next 4 or 5 years,
because I didn't have cable...
> This is me:
> >> Hey, if he's *anything* like me (and don't you think he is? ;-D ), he's
> >> got lip balm stashed all over the place, and probably at least three in that
> >> thigh strap - one just in case he drops the other two. Could you imagine
> >> trying to concentrate on a mission with dry lips?! Ack! (looking for my
> >> own hit of the lip stuff now)
>
> Now Back to Mal:
> > You know, that stuff is addictive. I had a friend once who wrote to
> > Blistex, complaining of the addictive nature of their product. They
> > sent her a case of Blistex. Me, I am addicted to Carmex. Mmm,
> > camphor-flavah wax...
> >
>
> Uh-huh. Just check out lipbalmanonymous.com
OMG, this is the funniest thing ev-var: "[Carmex] is probably the
strongest lip balm around... with a rush that rivals crack cocaine
when you first apply it."
*mops coffee off screen*
How true. Ah, I remember when it still had that effect. Now, it's just
... a maintenance drug. :-(
I've been a Carmex junkie since back when it was only available in the
Midwest (where I grew up--yeh, those rough winters). I used to make my
mother ship a supply to me every year... and I used to save those
little glass pots, I must have dozens of them somewhere.
Recently, though, I've become fond of a rival product called Lip
Rescue, made by an organic products company called Desert Essence and
available in health-food stores. Every bit as addictive, of course.
Nice for a change now and then, like a glass of white wine when you
usually drink red. *And* I have a colleague who makes homemade lip
balm, the real boutique stuff, very hardcore.
Sheesh, if I could imagine *anything* sillier than writing a massive
ultraserious post about the suicides of a lot of badly written
long-since-cancelled TV characters, it would have to be an in-depth
discussion of lip balm addiction. I have now officially lost all
credibility in the world.
~Mal
Alex
>society. He's antisocial (hardly ever says "thank you," or "hello").
>He's not given to luxuries--even his farmhouse is pretty barren--a few
>bits of music, a little good food. The furniture looks like stuff that
>was there when he bought it. Good tailoring is practically his only
>self-indulgence. Oh, and French poetry, apparently, and wine. He likes
>a decent restaurant meal, but probably only because it gives Nikita
>pleasure. He spends his down time (when he has any) sitting in a car
>observing people he once loved. What structures his life is The
>Mission: he goes from one to the next. His ambitions are all directed
>toward inheriting Section, not because he gives a hoot about power,
>but because he wants to run better missions, fix the world.
>
>There's no depth to his life at all--which is why Dupuis describes him
>as a "ghost."
When he loses his commitment to Section, he simply
>replaces it with Nikita. Still very little depth: It's hard to have a
>full life when your whole happiness and reason for living are utterly
I love this analysis of Michael. It fits perfectly with the way he progresses
through the series. He is initially exposed to Nikita's anti-Section
sentiments in S1 and at first tries to sway her, correct her, get her to
conform. Then the process of inner change (for him) begins. He starts to
slowly doubt his own steadfast belief in Section, but wavers back and forth in
that maddening S2 way. Then eventually, it's Michael and Nikita against
Section and she becomes the complete raison d''etre, the source of everything.
It always fascinates me how people (women in particular I think, myself
included) are completely captivated by this sort of romance -- the lover who is
totally riveted on the beloved. In real life this kind of thing always seems
to get messy and weird, but fictionally it is so compelling.
***
Re: lipgloss....I have tried Desert Essence and do believe it has the most
effective, longterm anti-moisture effect (shea butter type only). I mostly use
Neutrogena lip moisturizer though, since I can't get the DE anywhere nearby. I
have a tube within five feet of me at all times. :)
Alex
Malsperanza
> He was learning to make Italian shoes.
Good grief.
> I guess if a father can be the Poet Laureate of England, a son can be an Oscar
> winning actor and can learn to make shoes in his spare time.
>
> LOLOL
>
> (In some universe that last sentence made sense but you get my point. I think
> the family is a little eccentric.)
My universe has no problem with that sentence, which may be a reason
for me to worry, I suppose.
> >I can't think of which jacket this is. Anne: what season or episodes
> >is it in? Michael wears a different black coat or jacket each season,
> >but I don't recall one with a
>
> This jacket is the one he stalks Tycho in in I Remember Paris. As he struts
> around a stairwell corner, the hem of his jacket flips open and you can see a
> jaguar imprinted on the lining.
OK, so I had to watch IRP again to see this. The jaguar is quite
visible when he leans over to inspect a hole in the wall where Tycho
has ripped out some wires. Besides that, you mostly just see glimpses
of a black-and-white striped pattern in the lining. I'd never have
figured out that that was a picture of a jaguar. Pretty. I also like
the way the sleeves on M's jackets always come down to the first
knuckle--a style I am fond of.
Now I just have to watch 20 or 30 episodes to try to find the ones
with the 4-pocket jacket.
Stalker Michael as "The Angel of Death": I love that! Walking so
calmly through the green light in his elegant suit--very much like a
black cat. (Well, not like the black cat I used to have: she was fat
and glossy, and the closest she ever came to stalking anyone was when
she whapped the other cat upside the head for coming too close.) Well
said!
> It's a beautiful suit. In seasons 1-4, Laurie Drew did some amazing work with
> costuming. Before she decided that the world should be depopulated by a cow or
> three.
I like the obsession with black leather. I think it's half-cool and
half-funny (except when Walter wears leather pants; then it's just
gross). It's like a parody of itself--the biker badass thang, the
faint S&M/B&D stuff that is sprinkled throughout the series--it all
comes to a culmination in s5, with the all-black, all-leather wedding.
(Not to mention the Michael and Nikita Go Shopping scene in VOTG,
which I still think is one of the funniest moments in the whole
series--plunked right in the middle of one of the grimmest episodes.)
My DVD program allows screencaps, and somewhere I have one that is a
shot from s1, Michael and Ops in the Perch, seen from behind. Michael
is wearing a jacket so wasp-waisted and with such sharply tailored
shoulders that it gives him a weirdly feminine silhouette, especially
with the long hair. Dupuis was still very thin then. It's an odd,
unsettling image, which is why I saved it.
The costuming is full of little gender-switch notes like that--Nikita
in jacket and tie, a couple of times, or Michael and Nikita in nearly
matching long black topcoats and sunglasses, like blond and dark
twins. It's quite clever.
The clothes I don't get are a) Nikita in plaid pants; b) a big lumpy
brown coat Michael wears in MITM and again in s5; c) Any of the
clothes Jurgen wears. Since the show invites us to pay attention to
the clothes, when they go wrong (floppy hats, panties on the head)
it's really noticeable.
> Oh, well. Medium brown looks better with a tan anyway.
Definitely. And besides, one of my favorite actors has hair that
color, as it happens.
In any case, congratulations on kicking the chemicals. Now, dear,
wouldn't you like to try some of this nice lip balm? Just a little?
Gwan, try it, it can't hurt...
~Mal
CAPTANNE
>is wearing a jacket so wasp-waisted and with such sharply tailored
>shoulders that it gives him a weirdly feminine silhouette, especially
>with the long hair. Dupuis was still very thin then. It's an odd,
>unsettling image, which is why I saved it.
Fun facts to know and tell:
Roy Dupuis has a 10 inch "drop."
Out of the gutter, ladies. Out of the gutter.
Apparently a "drop" in the tailoring business is the inch difference between
the shoulders and the waist.
During S1, Dupuis was making a film.....either Bleeders (hork) or Screamers
(not so good) and he was thin as a rail.
I noticed that in "Love".
Not that I would notice.
Anne ;-)
CAPTANNE
>
>Remind me: What is the Wookie Defense? Lord, to think I've forgotten
>anything from the Star Wars canon.
Actually, the "Wookie Defense" is one of the funniest things ever.
Most people find South Park an acquired taste but I think it's hilarious.
In one episode, "Chef" is suing someone for stealing one of his songs, "Salty
Balls."
Just don't even ask.
ANYway, the ~defense~ attorney (played by a really funny rendition of Johnny
Cochran) gets the ~plaintiff~ (Chef) convicted (in a civil suit, thank you) by
using the "Wookie Defense."
It goes accordingly: If it makes no sense, you must acquit. (If the glove
doesn't fit......)
Wookies live on Endor. Endor is populated by Ewoks who are only 2 feet tall.
Wookies are 8 feet tall.
This makes no sense.
Therefore you must acquit.
The Wookie Defense.
The best EVER.
Anne
mazonmac
> Actually, the "Wookie Defense" is one of the funniest things ever.
>
> Most people find South Park an acquired taste but I think it's hilarious.
Well, I'd say true - the original Christmas episode (was this the pilot or
just an internet movie?) was *so* funny and the first season was pretty
good. I lost interest after certain things started to dance and sing and
got kind of grossed out.
Having said that, every time the holidays roll around, I stop to remember
Brian Boitano and that the most important thing to remember about Christmas
is ham.
mazonmac
> During S1, Dupuis was making a film.....either Bleeders (hork) or Screamers
> (not so good) and he was thin as a rail.
You know, as far as sci-fi goes, Screamers wasn't all that bad. I quite
liked it - saw it in the theater when if first came out - *before* I knew
about LFN (and just to defend myself - no, I haven't scene anything else RD
has done). Screamers, granted, is a B-movie, but it was interesting and had
a few good twists. I'd rather watch that than, say, something like
Independence Day which was way over-hyped, had poor, poor acting and about
zero plot line of any interest (not to mention "uploading a computer virus
to the alien ship"... puh-lease! ...gagging... yuck... pthhh.)
cin
jus' my $0.02
CAPTANNE
>> (not so good) and he was thin as a rail.
>
>You know, as far as sci-fi goes, Screamers wasn't all that bad. I quite
>liked it -
I've loved Peter Weller since Buckaroo Bonzai.
I was totally cool with this film until we had the "kiss" designed to attract
every 15 year old boy who has played WAY too much Playstation.
LOL
I just rolled my eyes and was immediately drawn out of the film.
I loved watching Becker spout Shakespeare, though. LOL
Anne
mazonmac
Good stuff in this post. Must take time to process. In the meantime, back
to the important stuff...
Here's me:
>> Uh-huh. Just check out lipbalmanonymous.com
And now you:>
> OMG, this is the funniest thing ev-var: "[Carmex] is probably the
> strongest lip balm around... with a rush that rivals crack cocaine
> when you first apply it."
>
> *mops coffee off screen*
>
> How true. Ah, I remember when it still had that effect. Now, it's just
> ... a maintenance drug. :-(
>
> I've been a Carmex junkie since back when it was only available in the
> Midwest (where I grew up--yeh, those rough winters). I used to make my
> mother ship a supply to me every year... and I used to save those
> little glass pots, I must have dozens of them somewhere.
I used to send my empties to Kevin, the lipbalmanonymous guy, through
intra-office mail. You think it's a coincidence the we used that word -
"pot?" I don't think so... Can't you just hear the subtle clinking,
sliding sound as the metal lid turns against the porcelain pot? (sigh)
Kevin is the *only* person out there I know who broke the habit. And all
you lipstick users out there - you're no better than us. ;-D
>
> Recently, though, I've become fond of a rival product called Lip
> Rescue, made by an organic products company called Desert Essence
I'll have to keep my eye out for it. I'll try anything. But Carmex... it's
The One.
cin
P.S. Mal, I trust you've found Carmex comes in stick, now. Beware of the
accidental toss trough the washing machine. The sticks melt in the dryer
and, unlike the pots, leak out the plastic lid.
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
<<Hmmm... this is an interesting idea. I always thought they dropped the
ball on this idea of in-home surveillance. I like your idea, except that
it isn't supported later in the script. You'd think they'd turn it back
on when she comes back after her 6 month vacation - and having the
cameras there definitely supports Section being able to use her
burgeoning relationship with Jurgen against him. But here we are (or
rather her I am) 6 months later at mid-season 2 when Mikey comes in to
tell her Rene is one of his weaknesses and doesn't know if he can hack
the job. So, wouldn't he know that the cameras were back in place and
chose a different location for spilling his emotional beans (that coffee
shop they go to all the time, maybe)? Or maybe we go back to my theory
and say that the only reason he's telling Nikita because he doesn't
expect to come back at all, therefore, Section knowing he's slipping
doesn't matter. >>
I think your second sentence, above, says it all. Surveillance of ops.
is one of several interesting plot devices which appeared sporadically;
when it served the particular plot, there was in-home surveillance,
otherwise it was apparently non-existent.
<<Interesting Idea, you little devil...
cin>>
Heheheh!! :-)))
AZ
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
Actually, Michael often says "Thank you", but virtually always at
inappropriate times, so that it becomes comic relief. Ex: To SOTW who
surrender without killing most of his team or who go quietly, so as not
to alert their bodyguards to attack.
Your position still holds true. His usage is in such extreme cases, it
serves to further underscore Michael's remoteness from 'normal' society.
AZ
mazonmac
> <<He's antisocial (hardly ever says "thank you,"... >>
>
> Actually, Michael often says "Thank you", but virtually always at
> inappropriate times, so that it becomes comic relief. Ex: To SOTW who
> surrender without killing most of his team or who go quietly, so as not
> to alert their bodyguards to attack.
Or, or another example, in Gray when Benko gives to Michael a box with
what's left of a Section op and Michael says "Thank you."
cin
mazonmac
> <<Hmmm... this is an interesting idea. I always thought they dropped the
> ball on this idea of in-home surveillance. I like your idea, except that
Here's AZ:
>
> I think your second sentence, above, says it all. Surveillance of ops.
> is one of several interesting plot devices which appeared sporadically;
> when it served the particular plot, there was in-home surveillance,
> otherwise it was apparently non-existent.
I just wished they didn't drop the ball on things like this - in-home
surveillance, watchers, etc. I agree, though, when they did keep these
balls aloft as a mechanic for a particular story it underscored the
voyeurism and the seeming omnipotence of Section 1 and its monsters. Had
they used these things all the time in the script, I suppose we viewers
would have become wise to it and would have doubted the stories more
frequently. Guess you just can't have everything...damn it.
And while we're on the subject of dropping things (or not having
everything), can anyone explain to me why sometimes mission discussions can
or can't be heard by everyone else on the team? For example, I don't
remember specific episodes, but some one (let's just say M&N) will say
"switch to B channel" for a private discussion. Well, why wouldn't everyone
(like Birky, Maddie, Ops) just switch to the B channel and listen in? I
seem to remember this happening frequently in s3 and in s5, esp. when
Nikita's wearing that necklace through which Michael talks to her, but I'll
have to confirm that when I get there.
CAPTANNE
>From: AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
>Date: 8/8/2004 2:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <406-4115...@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net>
Also remember when he deadpanned "Thank You" as the SOTW's henchman slid the
Head in Box across the table to Michael. LOLOLOL
Michael took great humbrage when he was accused in TPR about never saying Thank
You to the operatives. Nikita chimed in and defended him.
I remember this vividly because it told me that (most likely) even though
everyone was scared out of their minds of Michael, they also looked up to him
and respected him. "When you lead. We survive."
Plus, that was Davenport's finest moment. He handled the awkwardness with
Michael's demotion and disciplined the other operative all while keeping the
Team and the Mission foremost. Davenport ROCKED in that scene.
The writing was outstanding.
Anne
CAPTANNE
>Date: 8/8/2004 9:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <BD3BA1C3.1386%mazo...@adelphia.net>
ARGH. You beat me to it! LOLOL
Anne
CAPTANNE
>From: mazonmac mazo...@adelphia.net
>Date: 8/8/2004 9:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <BD3BA99A.1389%mazo...@adelphia.net>
There's another occasion, Cin. When Nikita is entering an old barn in Inside
Out, Michael hears Operations tell them not to because it's contaminated with
some deadly contagion.
Nikita doesn't hear the exchange and Michael stops her himself.
The other ball they dropped badly was the "tracker" concept. Either they could
find the kids in TTBH or they couldn't. Sheesh.
Anne
Malsperanza
> <<Hmmm... this is an interesting idea. I always thought they dropped the
> ball on this idea of in-home surveillance. I like your idea, except that
> it isn't supported later in the script. You'd think they'd turn it back
> on when she comes back after her 6 month vacation - and having the
> cameras there definitely supports Section being able to use her
> burgeoning relationship with Jurgen against him. But here we are (or
> rather her I am) 6 months later at mid-season 2 when Mikey comes in to
> tell her Rene is one of his weaknesses and doesn't know if he can hack
> the job. So, wouldn't he know that the cameras were back in place and
> chose a different location for spilling his emotional beans (that coffee
> shop they go to all the time, maybe)? Or maybe we go back to my theory
> and say that the only reason he's telling Nikita because he doesn't
> expect to come back at all, therefore, Section knowing he's slipping
> doesn't matter. >>
AZ:
> I think your second sentence, above, says it all. Surveillance of ops.
> is one of several interesting plot devices which appeared sporadically;
> when it served the particular plot, there was in-home surveillance,
> otherwise it was apparently non-existent.
Especially since one of the things the show does *brilliantly* is the
whole voyeur-thing. We could make an index of all the different
*kinds* of Covert Watching (not only surveillance), in and out of
Section. Someone probably has.
There is In Section, and Out of Section.
There is video surveillance and local (live) surveillance.
There is Listening (comm units, tapped phones, and the like) and
Looking (cameras, gun scopes, night-vision goggles, video screens,
binoculars, peepholes).
There is business (surveillance during missions)
There is personal (Nikita watching the lights go out in Michael and
Elena's bedroom window, Michael watching Corliss with Elena, Nikita
watching Michael with Vizcano, Ops watching Madeline with valentine
ops, Michael watching Nikita with Jurgen, Nikita watching Michael meet
Rene)
There is Section Paranoid (Hillinger tapping into Birkoff's programs
to spy on him, Madeline and Ops watching Michael and Nikita invite
each other out for coffee)
Here are a few of the *forms* Covert Watching can take:
In Section:
The cameras and listening devices that Michael must screen out with
his little keypad in his office, or with a small white button stuck to
the wall.
The scene in Before I Sleep where Nikita and Madeline watch on a
screen as Michael talks to Sarah about Nikita.
The scene in Half Life where Michael watches Madeline interrogate Rene
on a screen (and the one where he watches Fake Nikita get shot in Cat
and Mouse).
The observation room in the White Room (many scenes, a favorite being
all the men watching Nikita interrogate sexy Lesbian SOTW in s2)
Madeline and Ops in the Perch looking down at Nikita (or Michael, or
both) crossing the floor. (Many scenes)
Videotape of Nikita captive of the Freedom League in HL; similarly,
but with less sexual innuendo (no underwear), tape of captive Madeline
in Mandatory Refusal
Nikita and SOTW watch Fake Nikita and Michael make love in Cat and
Mouse. (And there's that great moment near the end when Michael
removes the camera hidden in Abby's glasses--her "spectacles," viewing
devices themselves!--and rather symbolically crushes it under his
boot.
Explicit voyeurism in the interrupted lovemaking scene in Love, with
Bauer and girlfriend and strawberries watching M & N and leather
underwear via closed-circuit TV
Eric in "Escape" telling Nikita "I've been watching you"--surveillance
isn't seen, but is nonetheless Peeping-Tom creepy
Michael watches Nikita undergoing treatment in the Slinky on a screen
in ITLG
Sunglasses used as a comm unit
Sunglasses used to hide eyes so that we can't tell who is watching
whom (and so no one can tell this about each other either)
Out of Section:
Michael in a car watching his sister and later Elena and Adam through
binoculars. Similarly, Nikita watching Michael come home in LFM.
Michael obsessively re-watching videotapes of Adam playing. (This
isn't surveillance, but it is a kind of covert
Watching-without-being-seen --and is weirdly parallel to our activity
as an unseen audience.)
SOTWs watching Michael and Nikita in their fake house in PP.
One of the most complicated, layered ones: Madeline reviewing the
tapes of Nikita watching Michael and Andrea dance in Off Profile, and
counting the number of minutes Nikita spent doing so.
Nikita watching Michael and Michael watching Nikita, trying to figure
each other out.
Nikita's video screen over her apartment door (the tops of people's
heads).
Various scopes on rifles (e.g., Michael and Gelman being watched
through crosshairs by a Section assassin)
Operatives follow Michael and Nikita (supposedly) to the Love Boat in
s4, and stake them out all night.
Michael creeping around Elena's house, looking at her and Adam as they
sleep in KTPG.
Michael using satellite cameras to watch Nikita, newly married to
Johann in LHAC, come home.
A couple of moments that aren't technically surveillance but that put
us, the audience, directly in the tole of a peeping Tom: Nikita in the
shower at the beginning of "War" (meant to be a sort of citation of
"Psycho," I think); Nikita and Michael whispering in hallways during
the Jurgen arc and during late s3; Nikita water wrestling with other
chick (and her own hair extensions) in Hand to Hand, while Michael
watches (not surveillance, because not covert, but definitely creepy).
And of course the bathtub scene.
It's interesting that the camera never really lets us watch a sex
scene between Michael and Nikita--just the first moments and a glimpse
of the aftermath. It's one more way in which we are made to take the
role of Section-like illicit observers. We creep around watching them.
When they finally grab a few moments of private intimacy, it is even
kept private from us.
E.g., in TTBH, when they are living together and in charge, and have
real privacy, we do not see them in any moment more private than a
fully clothed footrub and brief conversation. When M & N finally take
their 11 days of vacation, all we see is a tent. (I must say, Michael
might have taken her to someplace nicer--the Hotel Plaza-Athene in
Paris, or the Gritti Palace in Venice, or something, instead of a
puptent in the Ontario regional park system.)
Tons more, of course. Favorites, anyone?
~Mal
Malsperanza
> <<He's antisocial (hardly ever says "thank you,"... >>
AZ:
> Actually, Michael often says "Thank you", but virtually always at
> inappropriate times, so that it becomes comic relief. Ex: To SOTW who
> surrender without killing most of his team or who go quietly, so as not
> to alert their bodyguards to attack.
>
> Your position still holds true. His usage is in such extreme cases, it
> serves to further underscore Michael's remoteness from 'normal' society.
Good point! My favorite Michael "thank-you" is when SOTW hands him a
box containing a Section agent's head, expecting to shock him.
When Michael needs Birkoff or Walter to risk their lives to do
off-profile things for him, he never says thank-you. He might say,
"Just do it." More often he just hands them a disk and walks off.
Walter once responds "Nice chatting with you, Michael," but they
mostly seem used to it. In Hard Landing, I love the moment when
Michael holds a gun to SOTW's head and says, "Please come with me."
So it's a kind of inversion of good manners--one more way in which
Michael lives an Alice-through-the-looking-glass life in Section, in
which all the rules of society are reversed. Everyone leads that life,
really, but Nikita fights against it, Walter and Birkoff keep their
heads down and find the best middle path they can, and Madeline and
Ops behave (macabrely) as if Section's rules *were* completely normal,
just like outside ("Would you like more tea?" "No, thank you." "Good
morning, Mr. X. How are you?" to a captive in the White Room, etc.).
Only Michael lives in an openly "reversed" way: black is white, bad is
good, and one says please and thank-you only to people one is about to
torture, kill, and destroy.
~Mal
mazonmac
> When Michael needs Birkoff or Walter to risk their lives to do
> off-profile things for him, he never says thank-you. He might say,
> "Just do it."
Actually, that would be "Juusssss' do it" all with that little inflection
on the "do" part and an ever-so-sublte lift of the eyebrows... (not that
I've really noticed, though).
cin
laughing to self
Ivor Jones
"mazonmac" <mazo...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:BD3BA99A.1389%mazo...@adelphia.net...
[snip]
> And while we're on the subject of dropping things (or not having
> everything), can anyone explain to me why sometimes mission discussions
can
> or can't be heard by everyone else on the team? For example, I don't
> remember specific episodes, but some one (let's just say M&N) will say
> "switch to B channel" for a private discussion. Well, why wouldn't
everyone
> (like Birky, Maddie, Ops) just switch to the B channel and listen in?
I
> seem to remember this happening frequently in s3 and in s5, esp. when
> Nikita's wearing that necklace through which Michael talks to her, but
I'll
> have to confirm that when I get there.
More to the point, where's the channel change switch on those
covert-in-the-ear type radios..?! Or the transmit switch, come to that..?!
There must *be* a TX switch or M & N's chats would be heard by Birkoff,
Ops and everybody else on the satellite..!
Ivor (Mr. Jones..!)
mazonmac
> It always fascinates me how people (women in particular I think, myself
> included) are completely captivated by this sort of romance -- the lover who
> is
> totally riveted on the beloved. In real life this kind of thing always seems
> to get messy and weird, but fictionally it is so compelling.
>
Doesn't this make sense, though, from an evolution perspective? Female must
attract highly functioning, resourceful male to expand and maximize
resources in order to adequately protect and provide for offspring. What
better way to do this than having the male form an *intense* and
all-consuming emotional bond?
cin
CAPTANNE
>Date: 8/8/2004 3:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <BD3BF26E.139A%mazo...@adelphia.net>
Totally.
And it's the classic Gothic Romance formula.
FarScape only spun it on its head because it's the "ordinary joe" who falls for
the tall dark and handsome Woman o' Danger.
Anne
(If by "ordinary joe" I can mean an unbelievably handsome PhD in astrophysics
astronaut. But, you get the idea. He thinks of himself as the boy next door.
Aeryn is the Peacekeeper Soldier who no one can get near.)
mazonmac
Mal here:
>
> Especially since one of the things the show does *brilliantly* is the
> whole voyeur-thing. We could make an index of all the different
> *kinds* of Covert Watching (not only surveillance), in and out of
> Section. Someone probably has.
--snipping a whole bunch any good LFN-er should know to save some room--
>
> Tons more, of course. Favorites, anyone?
Mal, I give up. I declare - You are resident LFN queen. How exactly do you
remember *all* of this? I just can't keep up with you...
cin
always the dame, never the queen
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
viewers would have become wise to it and would have doubted the stories
more frequently. Guess you just can't have everything...damn it. >>
LOL I would guess the surveillance was intermittent for two reasons
(~if~ TPTB ever really thought about it, at all!!): Constant use of the
in-home surveillance would have dulled the eerie effectiveness of it on
those times when it really was important to the plot. And, equally
important, to avoid said constant surveillance, the characters desiring
privacy for whatever reason would have to find alternative meeting
places. This was done, starting heavily in S3 as I recall, using "the
bowels of Section". Easy, cheap (production wise), but ultimately
boring if over used. Their only other alternatives were other,
non-Section building - costly and time consuming to build the sets - or
outside locations - time consuming to manage and frequently
uncomfortably cold for filming.
<<And while we're on the subject of dropping things (or not having
everything), can anyone explain to me why sometimes mission discussions
can or can't be heard by everyone else on the team? For example, I don't
remember specific episodes, but some one (let's just say M&N) will say
"switch to B channel" for a private discussion. Well, why wouldn't
everyone (like Birky, Maddie, Ops) just switch to the B channel and
listen in? I seem to remember this happening frequently in s3 and in s5,
esp. when Nikita's wearing that necklace through which Michael talks to
her, but I'll have to confirm that when I get there.
cin >>
Now this is a gem of a question, IMO. I often recall "the switch to
channel B" order. I think I wondered about that, too, back in the day.
Off the top of my head, I would guess that either not all receivers were
created equal, or - most likely - the alternate channel had very limited
range and others couldn't pick it up. As a former law enforcement
dispatcher, I can attest that that is a technically correct situation.
Now cin, your assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to evaluate
the relative positions of all comm-equipped ops. when a "switch to
channel B" order is given. You are to determine the correctness of my
supposition and report back at your earliest convenience. This message
will self-destruct in about two weeks.
AZ
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
but with less sexual innuendo (no underwear), tape of captive Madeline
in Mandatory Refusal >>
Let me get this straight. Maddie isn't wearing any undies???? And just
how, missy, do you know this???? LOLOL
<<Tons more, of course. Favorites, anyone?
~Mal >>
You pretty much covered the spectrum there. One that I thought a bit
odd, at the time, was in BTP. At the end when Michael is "repaying"
Zalman in the White Room, he asks about hidden cameras that Zalman
placed within Section. How'd they remain undetected? And, if they were
undetected, how'd Michael know about them?
AZ
P.S. I ~know~ what you really meant about the undies, just couldn't let
that one pass. :-))))
mazonmac
>
> Now this is a gem of a question, IMO. I often recall "the switch to
> channel B" order. I think I wondered about that, too, back in the day.
> Off the top of my head, I would guess that either not all receivers were
> created equal, or - most likely - the alternate channel had very limited
> range and others couldn't pick it up. As a former law enforcement
> dispatcher, I can attest that that is a technically correct situation.
>
> Now cin, your assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to evaluate
> the relative positions of all comm-equipped ops. when a "switch to
> channel B" order is given. You are to determine the correctness of my
> supposition and report back at your earliest convenience. This message
> will self-destruct in about two weeks.
Well, AZ, I have been payin' some attention to these little issues, but not
as much as requested in my mission assignment. Will get back to you on
that...
I do think that you're right that some receivers/transmitters were different
for different ops. Sometimes it seems that Mikey is the go between - he can
talk to the ops on the mission and to Birky, but they can't talk directly to
each other and have to use Michael to relay messages. Other times, though,
this isn't the case. Just another LFN thing to ponder for eons to come, me
thinks.
Malsperanza
> but with less sexual innuendo (no underwear), tape of captive Madeline
> in Mandatory Refusal >>
AZ:
> Let me get this straight. Maddie isn't wearing any undies???? And just
> how, missy, do you know this???? LOLOL
Some people just have twisted minds. I leave you to decide whether I
mean you or me.
Actually, I bet Madeline favors the same brand of leather underwear
worn by Sage in "Love," Most uncomfortable looking stuff I've ever
seen.
>
> <<Tons more, of course. Favorites, anyone?
> ~Mal >>
>
> You pretty much covered the spectrum there. One that I thought a bit
> odd, at the time, was in BTP. At the end when Michael is "repaying"
> Zalman in the White Room, he asks about hidden cameras that Zalman
> placed within Section. How'd they remain undetected? And, if they were
> undetected, how'd Michael know about them?
Because Zalman was a level 6 op or something--he had skillz. Or
something. This is right up there with Ivor's question about "Open
Channel B"--which, BTW, is the same line they used to say in "The Man
from U.N.C.L.E." about 300 years ago. Or maybe it was "Get Smart" when
he was talking to his shoe. But I do like the idea of this
example--the idea that an infiltrator could also create a voyeur
situation, in which the master voyeurs (Ops and Madeline, or even
*Oversight*--and note that name, ahem) are themselves under covert
surveillance.
As far as I can tell, none of the LFN technobabble made a whole lot of
sense or held up under scrutiny. The fancy code they were always
scrolling on those screens looked like normal DOS code to me.
I did like that after s1 they stopped wearing those little earpieces
in the field. I mean, if you're going to pretend to have superfancy
tech stuff, you might as well have nanotechnology as well, and wear
your comm unit in a freckle on your earlobe.
~Mal
Malsperanza
> >
> > Especially since one of the things the show does *brilliantly* is the
> > whole voyeur-thing. We could make an index of all the different
> > *kinds* of Covert Watching (not only surveillance), in and out of
> > Section. Someone probably has.
>
> --snipping a whole bunch any good LFN-er should know to save some room--
> >
> > Tons more, of course. Favorites, anyone?
Cin:
> Mal, I give up.
No, no! You can't give up! I am counting on you!
> I declare - You are resident LFN queen. How exactly do you
> remember *all* of this?
1) Sheer neurosis.
2) Being stuck in front of the computer for long hours at work
(including most of this weekend), and having the "complete LFN
transcripts" website bookmarked.
3) Having watched the whole effing series all in one gulp in about 2
months, and then immediately rewatched them (skipping most of s5 and
all the Birkoff/Hillinger ones).
4) I have a fairly visual memory. So I can picture the scenes, though
I don't always remember which episode they come from. This is where
the Michael Seasonal Hair Index comes in so handy.
5) The two themes that fascinate me the most are the
voyeurism/surveillance theme and the androgyny/ambiguity theme. So I
remember a lot of those bits. Also the parent/child themes and related
stuff. But ask me about Walter's love life or the Operations/George
relationship or any of the tech stuff (like the names of the nuclear
devices, or what those green liquids all were), or exactly what any of
the missions were actually *about*, and I will fail utterly. Clueless.
~Mal
CAPTANNE
>From: malsp...@yahoo.com (Malsperanza)
>Date: 8/9/2004 2:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6a41a349.04080...@posting.google.com>
Mal, I love your insight into intense paranoia.
If you ever see The Prisoner I can't wait to read your opinion. But I would be
careful. Someone with your clever mind might end up with a brain like a Mobius
Strip.
Cin? Have you started it yet?
The Prisoner. Not twisting in to a Mobius Strip.
I'd be happy to watch along with ya. The discs were a gift last year for
Christmas and I haven't watched them since then.
Anne
CAPTANNE
>months, and then immediately rewatched them (skipping most of s5 and
>all the Birkoff/Hillinger ones).
Now, this is very interesting to me.
I did the same thing, Mal. I caught that bit of Brainwash in Belgium. Then I
saw Looking For Michael two years later. I missed SES and caught Opening Night
Jitters. By GOH, I didn't miss an episode as it aired.
I found this newsgroup (and the other old one) and a bunch of message boards.
Now, mind you, people had been raving about the show for two years before I got
into it so there was plenty out there to find.
(And some are still there....though the most active ones now are simply devoted
to Peta Wilson and/or Roy Dupuis. Watson's page is pretty active. But the
show is no longer the focus of most of the busy message boards.)
Anyway, I found a tape fairy who sent me all of S1 and S2 on four tapes and I
mainlined them.
WARNING PERSONAL EXPOSITION ENSUES: NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH.
Now, I also had my life crashing down around me at the time......and the
darkness of LFN combined with the darkness in my own life.....well, that was
not a healthy mix.
Hoping that your life was going along swimmingly, did you still feel any
emotional effects of firehosing LFN at yourself? I usually warn people not to
do that.
Then again, maybe I'm the only one who had the dubious pleasure of experiencing
my own personal Perfect Storm. Life and LFN colliding to create one mightily
depressed human being.
No worries, guys. I write about that time in my life with no regrets. It
can't all be rose petals all the time. Ya live and ya learn and ya get through
it.
PERSONAL EXPOSITION NOW TERMINATED. YOU CAN GO BACK TO YOUR REGULAR READING.
hee
Anne
Ivor Jones
"CAPTANNE" <capt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040809113823...@mb-m23.aol.com...
[snip]
> >Actually, I bet Madeline favors the same brand of leather underwear
> >worn by Sage in "Love," Most uncomfortable looking stuff I've ever
> >seen.
What an intriguing thought (male stereotype thoughts coming to the fore
here, sorry people..!)
[more snips]
> >Because Zalman was a level 6 op or something--he had skillz. Or
> >something. This is right up there with Ivor's question about "Open
> >Channel B"--which, BTW, is the same line they used to say in "The Man
> >from U.N.C.L.E." about 300 years ago.
Half right, it was the Man from U.N.C.L.E. but it was Channel "D" - what
A, B and C were used for is anyone's guess..! OT, while we're on TMFU (why
is it this group seems to get people using acronyms..?!) why is it they
had that secret entrance in the tailors shop when the view out of Mr.
Waverley's office window clearly indicated they were in the UN
building..?!
> Or maybe it was "Get Smart" when
> >he was talking to his shoe.
Can't remember that, I do have a few episodes on tape somewhere, time to
do some digging..! My fav moment in Get Smart BTW has to be when Max and
the Chief talk to one another with the "Cone of Silence" over their heads
LOLOL..
> >As far as I can tell, none of the LFN technobabble made a whole lot of
> >sense or held up under scrutiny. The fancy code they were always
> >scrolling on those screens looked like normal DOS code to me.
I could never get the freeze frame to work well enough to see what it was
at all. And why did those reel to reel tape spools behind Birkoff never go
round..?
> >I did like that after s1 they stopped wearing those little earpieces
> >in the field. I mean, if you're going to pretend to have superfancy
> >tech stuff, you might as well have nanotechnology as well, and wear
> >your comm unit in a freckle on your earlobe.
But again, how do you switch to transmit or change channel..?!
Ivor (Mr. Jones..!)
Malsperanza
> >> One that I thought a bit
> >> odd, at the time, was in BTP. At the end when Michael is "repaying"
> >> Zalman in the White Room, he asks about hidden cameras that Zalman
> >> placed within Section. How'd they remain undetected? And, if they were
> >> undetected, how'd Michael know about them?
Me:
> >Because Zalman was a level 6 op or something--he had skillz. Or
> >something. This is right up there with Ivor's question about "Open
> >Channel B"--which, BTW, is the same line they used to say in "The Man
> >from U.N.C.L.E." about 300 years ago. Or maybe it was "Get Smart" when
> >he was talking to his shoe. But I do like the idea of this
> >example--the idea that an infiltrator could also create a voyeur
> >situation, in which the master voyeurs (Ops and Madeline, or even
> >*Oversight*--and note that name, ahem) are themselves under covert
> >surveillance.
> >
> >As far as I can tell, none of the LFN technobabble made a whole lot of
> >sense or held up under scrutiny. The fancy code they were always
> >scrolling on those screens looked like normal DOS code to me.
> >
> >I did like that after s1 they stopped wearing those little earpieces
> >in the field. I mean, if you're going to pretend to have superfancy
> >tech stuff, you might as well have nanotechnology as well, and wear
> >your comm unit in a freckle on your earlobe.
Anne:
> Mal, I love your insight into intense paranoia.
Ahem, EXACTly what do you really mean by that remark? *rummages for
tinfoil anti-death-ray hat*
> If you ever see The Prisoner I can't wait to read your opinion. But I would be
> careful. Someone with your clever mind might end up with a brain like a Mobius
> Strip.
Hah, I have seen the whole thing many times. They were the first DVDs
I bought when I got a DVD drive. Such a relief to finally see all the
episodes. And yet, so impossible to piece it all together. Someday I
shall visit Portmerion. I adore The Prisoner, even more than Emma
Peel. (Which were the second DVDs I bought, before even my favorite
movies. So much for my high-culture claims!) Thank god no one has
tried to do a remake of it. Can you imagine? Echh. Wouldn't mind doing
a re-watch, though...
~Mal
Malsperanza
> "CAPTANNE" <capt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040809113823...@mb-m23.aol.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > >Actually, I bet Madeline favors the same brand of leather underwear
> > >worn by Sage in "Love," Most uncomfortable looking stuff I've ever
> > >seen.
>
> What an intriguing thought (male stereotype thoughts coming to the fore
> here, sorry people..!)
Well, it was high time we gave the gentlemen on the list something
fun. ;-)
> > >Because Zalman was a level 6 op or something--he had skillz. Or
> > >something. This is right up there with Ivor's question about "Open
> > >Channel B"--which, BTW, is the same line they used to say in "The Man
> > >from U.N.C.L.E." about 300 years ago.
Ivor:
> Half right, it was the Man from U.N.C.L.E. but it was Channel "D" - what
> A, B and C were used for is anyone's guess..! OT, while we're on TMFU (why
> is it this group seems to get people using acronyms..?!) why is it they
> had that secret entrance in the tailors shop when the view out of Mr.
> Waverley's office window clearly indicated they were in the UN
> building..?!
OMG, imagine remembering that! I think it was a Chinese laundry, with
tailor, which is a sort of New York in-joke. Half the NY Jewish
comedians of the 1950s and 1960s told terrible jokes that began, "A
man walks into a Chinese laundry..." As for the architecture, ... uh,
well, Mr Waverly (the estimable Leo G. Carroll, IIRC) obviously was
too classy to live underground like the rest of them. There was a very
fast elevator somewhere, like the one in Section.
>
> > Or maybe it was "Get Smart" when
> > >he was talking to his shoe.
>
> Can't remember that, I do have a few episodes on tape somewhere, time to
> do some digging..! My fav moment in Get Smart BTW has to be when Max and
> the Chief talk to one another with the "Cone of Silence" over their heads
> LOLOL..
Heavens, yes... The sekrit phone was in Max's shoe, so he had to take
it off and twist the heel to talk to the office. Which was often
socially awkward.
>
> > >As far as I can tell, none of the LFN technobabble made a whole lot of
> > >sense or held up under scrutiny. The fancy code they were always
> > >scrolling on those screens looked like normal DOS code to me.
>
> I could never get the freeze frame to work well enough to see what it was
> at all. And why did those reel to reel tape spools behind Birkoff never go
> round..?
Details, details.
> > >I did like that after s1 they stopped wearing those little earpieces
> > >in the field. I mean, if you're going to pretend to have superfancy
> > >tech stuff, you might as well have nanotechnology as well, and wear
> > >your comm unit in a freckle on your earlobe.
>
> But again, how do you switch to transmit or change channel..?!
You scratch a different freckle, or, in Michael's case, you touch your
chin with one finger. Now we know what *that* little gesture meant.
~Mal
Ivor Jones
"Malsperanza" <malsp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6a41a349.04080...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> > If you ever see The Prisoner I can't wait to read your opinion. But I
would be
> > careful. Someone with your clever mind might end up with a brain like
a Mobius
> > Strip.
>
> Hah, I have seen the whole thing many times. They were the first DVDs
> I bought when I got a DVD drive. Such a relief to finally see all the
> episodes. And yet, so impossible to piece it all together. Someday I
> shall visit Portmerion. I adore The Prisoner, even more than Emma
> Peel. (Which were the second DVDs I bought, before even my favorite
> movies. So much for my high-culture claims!) Thank god no one has
> tried to do a remake of it. Can you imagine? Echh. Wouldn't mind doing
> a re-watch, though...
Mal,
You're talking to a Prisoner fanatic here..! And an Emma Peel one, come to
that. Oh **** we're back to black leather again LOL..
If you ever do manage to visit Portmeirion, *please* let me know, and I'll
give you the guided tour. I'm *very* fortunate in that I live within 3
hours of the place so it's a favourite destination if I ever get time for
a couple of days away on my motorcycle :-)
Ivor (Mr. Jones..!)
mazonmac
>
> It's interesting that the camera never really lets us watch a sex
> scene between Michael and Nikita--just the first moments and a glimpse
> of the aftermath. It's one more way in which we are made to take the
> role of Section-like illicit observers. We creep around watching them.
> When they finally grab a few moments of private intimacy, it is even
> kept private from us.
Ummm... I'd say, actually, it's the censors that won't let us watch.
cin
laughing
(sorry Mal...just couldn't pass this on up ;-D )
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
LOL Read that as a title, like to a '60s Disney movie. Perhaps a
sequel to If It's Tuesday, It Must Be Belgium. Hee
AZ
CAPTANNE
>From: AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
>Date: 8/10/2004 2:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9023-411...@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net>
LOL I thought the same thing upon rereading the post but left it in anyway.
Given all the typos I've been using lately, y'all are probably surprised that I
actually try to proofread.
LOL
Anne
Malsperanza
> >
> > It's interesting that the camera never really lets us watch a sex
> > scene between Michael and Nikita--just the first moments and a glimpse
> > of the aftermath. It's one more way in which we are made to take the
> > role of Section-like illicit observers. We creep around watching them.
> > When they finally grab a few moments of private intimacy, it is even
> > kept private from us.
Cin:
> Ummm... I'd say, actually, it's the censors that won't let us watch.
>
> cin
> laughing
> (sorry Mal...just couldn't pass this on up ;-D )
Heh, good point. You're thinking of the famous deleted explicit sex
scene in LNMPA? Which we are all hoping makes it onto the s5 DVD (if
it ever gets issued), because, ya know, director's cut... blah blah,
integrity of the original vision blah blah... auteur cinema, yadda
yadda...
But the show makes the most of necessity, doesn't it? The bedroom
scenes of Michael with other women and Nikita with other men are
almost always more detailed and longer. The show leaves viewers in a
permanent state of frustrated expectations (hey now, no prurient
comments, please :D).
I think that's a major reason one gets obsessed and hooked on
rewatching: the feeling that if we watch it all just *one* more time,
we'll a) figure out what was really going on; and b) see more
stuff--either stuff that we missed before or stuff that literally
wasn't there before.
It's irrational, but there's always a lingering sense of the shadowy
existence of some deleted scene, some bit of dialogue that's missing
and that, if we had it, would straighten out the whole show, clarify
and resolve M & N's whole relationship. What that might be, we can
never quite say. But we feel it. It's a very effective story-telling
device--to leave the viewer wondering, puzzled, a little frustrated.
Which is why I approve of both endings to the series, FLYF and ATFEP,
both of which end the story without resolving the relationship (one
more than the other). It's that ambiguity thang again--the open
ending, the doubt, the constant urge to re-think the whole story from
scratch.
And of course the sexeh stuff is part of that: the interrupted (or
incomplete) consummation of M & N's relationship is in some sense
paralleled by our own incomplete understanding of the story. As Anne
says elsewhere, there's nothing so alluring as the Mysterious Dark
Stranger to keep you romantically engaged, curious, interested,
hooked. Whether the Mysterious Stranger is Michael (for Nikita), or
the show as a whole (for us), it's still the Heathcliff Syndrome in
action. AZ or Alex remarked a while ago that Section One is a
character in the show.
I think that's true--Section itself is another sort of Mysterious Dark
Stranger. It always wears dark gray and black (with occasional glowing
green neon accessories, but let that pass). It withholds its true
plans and thoughts. It is a master manipulator, and it keeps its
denizens enthralled, literally and figuratively ("in thrall" = in
bondage). It is very parallel to Michael: we keep trying to figure out
if it means well or is really evil underneath. In the end, we think we
have resolved that, more or less--more with Michael than with Section.
Of the two, Michael does a better job of sustaining his essential
mystery, his Cloak of Unknowability--even after we think we have come
to know his true feelings, desires, and purposes in life. Section is
done in by bad writers, who strip away the Cloak all too carelessly in
s4 and s5, in order to lend it first to Oversight and then to Center,
leaving Section too visible, too clear, too knowable. Perhaps the
worst crime the writers commit--worse even than the character
assassination of Operations and Madeline.
~Mal
mazonmac
>> Mal here:
>>>
>>> It's interesting that the camera never really lets us watch a sex
>>> scene between Michael and Nikita--just the first moments and a glimpse
>>> of the aftermath.
> Cin:
>> Ummm... I'd say, actually, it's the censors that won't let us watch.
>>
>> cin
>> laughing
>> (sorry Mal...just couldn't pass this on up ;-D )
Mal here:
> Heh, good point.--snip--
> But the show makes the most of necessity, doesn't it? The bedroom
> scenes of Michael with other women and Nikita with other men are
> almost always more detailed and longer. The show leaves viewers in a
> permanent state of frustrated expectations (hey now, no prurient
> comments, please :D).
Actually, you make a really interesting point here about Michael's sex
scenes get more air time than the others. I think the reason goes back to
the target audience - Natalie has it on good authority that the intended
audience was men 18-34. In another post, we already talked about the target
audience getting to relate to philandering Michael all while thinking Nikita
is fairly innocent by comparison.
On the other hand, women are almost always expected to identify with both
the heroine and the hero - that's why there are the "chick flicks" about
feminine experience and ideals, wherein women are inherently marginalized by
this phrase and men aren't expected to "relate" to anything, and are
actually dissuaded not to. But there is no similar colloquialism about the
more masculine experience or masculine ideals - it's all called heroism.
In LFN, both men and women are titillated by Michael's philandering. Men
relate to it. However, women are expected to believe Michael's philandering
serves a higher purpose, that he probably really doesn't like doing it, and
they're supposed to pine away for consummation between M&N. It only makes
sense that Mikey gets more air time - everybody "gets some", so to speak,
and Nikita gets to remain "innocent" as the girl next door.
On the same subject, but from a different point of view - One thing about
the sex scenes with Michael and other non-Nikita characters is that it is
totally voyeurism. The sex is supposed to be intimate, but the fact that
we're watching it highlights the fact that it isn't true intimacy. On the
other hand, the fact that sex scenes between M&N are short highlights the
fact that for them sex isn't true intimacy either. True intimacy is all
those unsaid things between them that they can never quite verbalize,
specifically Michael's inability to verbalize. And because of the
machinations of Section and the fact that Mikey can't break down his walls,
they are rarely able or allowed to achieve true intimacy - comfort, yes
(particularly in HL and LNMPA); sexual satisfaction, yes; connectedness,
yes; but not intimacy. I don't even think the after-sex discussion in HL
was really all that intimate in the sense I'm using here. I think the first
time we get real intimacy between M&N is in ITLG, and then maybe not again
until ATFEP. Isn't the "I can't live without you" and the "I love you, too"
somehow more satisfying to them and to us than any of their heretofore sex
scenes?
cin
Malsperanza
*applauds*
Really I don't have much to add. This is dead-on.
TTBH has an odd scene in it that is halfway between intimacy and
estrangement. Nikita spends most of mid and late s4 being cool and
distant; Michael spends it giving her longing lost-puppydog looks.
There they are, together alone, running the farm--no missions, no
Boris and Natasha, no Type 1 Directive, no surveillance. And are they
cuddly? Are they intimate? Not really. In that footrub scene, Nikita
is all business, worried about the kids, and Michael is plaintive and
almost desperate.
Nikita: "Well, if this is for real, we're going to be here forever."
Michael: "Is that so bad?"
Scene cuts there, which is a perfect example of how to keep the
viewers frustrated. What do we think is Nikita's answer?
They are visibly out of synch with one another, somehow--unfulfilled,
on edge, unhappy. This could be because life in Section is just really
hard, or because of the Stupid Mole Story (TM), but it also has to do
with the fact that by mid s4 they are pulling as much against each
other as together. Michael is detatching himself from Section, bit by
bit; Nikita is growing embedded in the place and its culture. I think
that scene is quite sad, really.
BTW, the footrub scene ranks, IMO, as the worst piece of sleazy
shameless pandering to the female audience in the whole run of the
show. Worse than Michael the Brilliant Cook in BTP. My, Mr Footrub has
come a long way since the days when he was the sort of irritating guy
who leaves the toilet seat up.
~Mal
Malsperanza
Emma was the *original* Black Leather Babe! Nikita and that skinny
Alias chica can only aspire. How lovely to live near Portmerion. Are
you in Wales, then? Jones is a Welsh name, is it not? I get to London
now and then for work, but rarely anywhere else in England, more's the
pity. Someday...
~Mal
mazonmac
>True intimacy is all
> those unsaid things between them that they can never quite verbalize,
> specifically Michael's inability to verbalize. And because of the
> machinations of Section and the fact that Mikey can't break down his walls,
> they are rarely able or allowed to achieve true intimacy - comfort, yes
> (particularly in HL and LNMPA); sexual satisfaction, yes; connectedness,
> yes; but not intimacy. I don't even think the after-sex discussion in HL
> was really all that intimate in the sense I'm using here. I think the first
> time we get real intimacy between M&N is in ITLG, and then maybe not again
> until ATFEP. Isn't the "I can't live without you" and the "I love you, too"
> somehow more satisfying to them and to us than any of their heretofore sex
> scenes?
So what do you guys make of the sex scene between Michooool (as Nikita says
it) and Abbey. In my opinion, there is two ways to read this one.
1- Michael knows it really isn't Nikita and he's figured out that the real
Nikita must be watching in order to feed fake Nikita answers and
(mis)information. Michael thinks the only way to protect real Nikita is to
make it look to Red Cell guy like he is behaving normally with (fake)
Nikita. And since Section needs time to lock on to the signal from Abbey's
glasses in order to locate RC, he has to do what fake Nikita suggests even
though he risks hurting the real Nikita by doing so. When Section gets a
lock, they make the "Jacque" call.
and B - Michael knows it really isn't Nikita, but he's in such an emotional
state after Adam that he's willing to over look that fact just so he can
have some closeness and comfort with his love. So he sleeps with fake
Nikita out of purely selfish reasons knowing that real Nikita despises him
at this point. When Section gets a lock, they make the "Jacque" call.
ok, three ways to read it:
3 - Mikey doesn't know for sure it isn't Nikita. So, he goes along with her
suggestion and finds out for a fact she isn't Nikita. He then organizes a
mission after he gets the fake "Jacque" call for him to return to Section
that he set up with Birkoff before going of to Nikita's apartment (kind of
like saying "if you haven't heard from in in x number of
minutes...umm...hours....umm.... let's just say a certain amount of time,
call me in" kind of thing).
Or is it a combination of all 3?
Lastly, what do you make of the very last scene where Abbey gets shot but it
isn't clear if Nikita or Maddie shot her. Did Nikita actually do it, as in
Double Date where Mikey tells Lisa she'll never be free if she doesn't kill
Fanning herself or does she let Maddie do the deed? And what do you think
Michael is doing watching the whole thing? Is he hoping Nikita did or
didn't pull the trigger? Or is he happy to see the fake Nikita dead,
because there can only be one real Nikita?
CAPTANNE
think Michael and Nikita showed oodles of affection and intimacy in the bathtub
scene in TPR.
Before anyone screams about how she has naked Michael and all she wants to do
is talk shop.....To that I say "bosh." Any horseplay has already taken place.
Nikita is worried about Michael and she knows he's as emotionally vulnerable as
he's ever going to get. Naked, in love, and exhausted from Section mind games.
So, she goes for the kill and asks him if he's okay.
True to her instincts, she actually gets an answer out of him.
I lurved that scene. I thought it was perfect.
I would also add that they showed a certain amount of affection in that scene
where they are in Nikita's bed and woken out of a deep sleep by a call to come
into Section.
Except, weirdly, we come upon a gently sleeping Michael and Nikita has her eyes
open. That was a HUGE mood breaker, for me.
The Cat and Mouse sex? I think Michael was suspicious of Abby when she
mysteriously lost the cold and wore glasses all the time.
I can perfectly well see Madeline saying to Michael, "Well, you know her
intimately. That's the surest way to discover if she's Nikita or not. Go for
it." Of course, Michael could also have figured that out on his own.
However, why anyone would be suspicious and then LEAP to the conclusion that
this person MUST, therefore, be a doppelganger surgically enhanced to perfectly
imitate a top level operative........that's kinda ludicrous.
I thought it was a fun episode, though. And, many, many women enjoyed billing
and cooing about the "thong" Dupuis wore during the "behind the screen" shadow
dance. Personally, I never saw it. Then again, I never really looked for it.
LOL
See? Yet another important reason to lobby for S3 on DVD'S!
hehehe
As far as whether Nikita or Madeline pulled the trigger? I think we are
supposed to debate that for years to come b/c I don't believe there is a
definitive answer.
In my VOTS, Madeline did it. It's much more in character and I don't know
about you guys, but even if I was the biggest psychopath in town, I'd have a
hard time shooting my own self dead. Which is, in many ways, what Madeline was
asking Nikita to do.
Was Michael hoping Nikita did it? Again, I don't think Dupuis gave us an
answer to this question. Personally, given where Michael is at this point in
the series, I rather think he'd hope Nikita ~didn't~ do it. He is trying to
cling to her innate goodness and sense of righteousness at this point. Having
just lost Elena, Adam, and his "normal life."
Anne
Malsperanza
> So, can we go back to this topic for a bit?
> >True intimacy is all
> > those unsaid things between them that they can never quite verbalize,
> > specifically Michael's inability to verbalize. And because of the
> > machinations of Section and the fact that Mikey can't break down his walls,
> > they are rarely able or allowed to achieve true intimacy - comfort, yes
> > (particularly in HL and LNMPA); sexual satisfaction, yes; connectedness,
> > yes; but not intimacy. I don't even think the after-sex discussion in HL
> > was really all that intimate in the sense I'm using here. I think the first
> > time we get real intimacy between M&N is in ITLG, and then maybe not again
> > until ATFEP. Isn't the "I can't live without you" and the "I love you, too"
> > somehow more satisfying to them and to us than any of their heretofore sex
> > scenes?
Cin:
> So what do you guys make of the sex scene between Michooool (as Nikita says
> it) and Abbey. In my opinion, there is two ways to read this one.
>
> 1- Michael knows it really isn't Nikita and he's figured out that the real
> Nikita must be watching in order to feed fake Nikita answers and
> (mis)information. Michael thinks the only way to protect real Nikita is to
> make it look to Red Cell guy like he is behaving normally with (fake)
> Nikita. And since Section needs time to lock on to the signal from Abbey's
> glasses in order to locate RC, he has to do what fake Nikita suggests even
> though he risks hurting the real Nikita by doing so. When Section gets a
> lock, they make the "Jacques" call.
Yes. This is what happens, I think.
> and B - Michael knows it really isn't Nikita, but he's in such an emotional
> state after Adam that he's willing to over look that fact just so he can
> have some closeness and comfort with his love. So he sleeps with fake
> Nikita out of purely selfish reasons knowing that real Nikita despises him
> at this point. When Section gets a lock, they make the "Jacques" call.
Yes. This is what happens, I think.
> 3 - Mikey doesn't know for sure it isn't Nikita. So, he goes along with her
> suggestion and finds out for a fact she isn't Nikita. He then organizes a
> mission after he gets the fake "Jacques" call for him to return to Section
> that he set up with Birkoff before going of to Nikita's apartment (kind of
> like saying "if you haven't heard from in in x number of
> minutes...umm...hours....umm.... let's just say a certain amount of time,
> call me in" kind of thing).
Yes. This is what happens, I think.
> Or is it a combination of all 3?
Indeed. I like the way you've broken down the three versions. They all
work. The key, IMO, is the fact that Nikita clearly intends Michael to
have sex with Abbey because it is the surest way to signal to him in
clear terms that she's a fake. She *chooses* that scenario, even
though Red Cell Guy thinks it will be "painful" for her to watch.
Which is a rather amusing bit of cleverness on the part of the writers
(although everything else about the story line is beyond absurd)--it
implies that Michael and Nikita know each other well sexually by now.
So one can imagine a range of interesting reactions going on in
Michael's head. Cin, you've outlined most of them above. I'd also add:
Michael wondering what to make of Nikita's deliberately setting him up
in yet another distasteful valentine mission--one with all sorts of
weird overtones. Is it painful for Nikita to watch, or on the
contrary, is she exacting some small revenge for the way he jerked her
around in s2? Or both?
Cin:
> Lastly, what do you make of the very last scene where Abbey gets shot but it
> isn't clear if Nikita or Maddie shot her. Did Nikita actually do it, as in
> Double Date where Mikey tells Lisa she'll never be free if she doesn't kill
> Fanning herself or does she let Maddie do the deed? And what do you think
> Michael is doing watching the whole thing? Is he hoping Nikita did or
> didn't pull the trigger? Or is he happy to see the fake Nikita dead,
> because there can only be one real Nikita?
In my LFN (*pays AZ royalty*), Nikita would not shoot anyone in cold
blood, strapped to a chair. Michael watches because she has to watch,
and he is with her. (OK, I am being excessively romantic; so sue me.)
But he can't bear to watch the actual shot. I wonder if Nikita had the
same difficulty or not.
Great post, Cin.
~Mal
mazonmac
> First of all, I missed the post you're responding too. Huh. Second of all, I
> think Michael and Nikita showed oodles of affection and intimacy in the
> bathtub
> scene in TPR.
>
> Before anyone screams about how she has naked Michael and all she wants to do
> is talk shop.....To that I say "bosh." Any horseplay has already taken place.
> Nikita is worried about Michael and she knows he's as emotionally vulnerable
> as
> he's ever going to get. Naked, in love, and exhausted from Section mind
> games.
>
> So, she goes for the kill and asks him if he's okay.
>
> True to her instincts, she actually gets an answer out of him.
>
> I lurved that scene. I thought it was perfect.
To be honest, Anne, I can't comment or retort. I just don't remember enough
of s3. I'm half way through it now and it is like watching an entirely new
show. First time around, I really hated it. But, thanks to a little
maturity and taming (ok, canceling) my youthful optimism, I'm really
enjoying it now.
As to what I was referring - that M&N rarely have opportunity for real
intimacy, meaning that there's no Section, or death threats, or power plays,
no doubletalk - it's just M&N (I know, it sounds mushy). I postulated that,
at least as far as I recall, the real intimacy (not sex, not affection, not
comfort, but instead real emotional nakedness) is not seen until ITLG and
then not again until AFTEP. Maybe this is not an informed opinion
considering I can't remember a lot of little details from the last half of
the series. I'm willing to admit there are more occurrences, I just have
forgotten about them. One such occurrence may be when Michael lays it out
on the table for Nikita in Half Life regarding his past life, his sister,
and Rene. For me, even the Hard Landing love boat scene wasn't intimate in
that sense. He says "I thought I lost you." She replies "You never had
me." Tell me this isn't a power play, here. Yeah, they get comfort and
satisfaction - he finally knows she's still alive and she finally gets
verification of his feelings, but he can't come close to say what he wants
or needs to, and she wants to tell him that she's not going to be his
plaything (you know - toy to bat around like a cat). Then there was this
spiel about how even their body language was used to demonstrate that they
weren't on an even keel.... you know, it was late when I wrote the
original... and we know what happens when I start contemplating so late...
> The Cat and Mouse sex? I think Michael was suspicious of Abby when she
> mysteriously lost the cold and wore glasses all the time.
>
> I can perfectly well see Madeline saying to Michael, "Well, you know her
> intimately. That's the surest way to discover if she's Nikita or not. Go for
> it." Of course, Michael could also have figured that out on his own.
>
> However, why anyone would be suspicious and then LEAP to the conclusion that
> this person MUST, therefore, be a doppelganger surgically enhanced to
> perfectly
> imitate a top level operative........that's kinda ludicrous.
Well, how 'bout a latex mask disguise as in Gambit? Anyway, if they're
going to have sex, hopefully someone's at least thinking about latex or
otherwise we'll have to have episode 223 - Soul Sacrifice Redux.
>
> I thought it was a fun episode, though. And, many, many women enjoyed billing
> and cooing about the "thong" Dupuis wore during the "behind the screen" shadow
> dance. Personally, I never saw it. Then again, I never really looked for it.
Thong? You can actually see it?... And I thought I had too much time on my
hands.
Malsperanza
> First of all, I missed the post you're responding too. Huh. Second of all, I
> think Michael and Nikita showed oodles of affection and intimacy in the bathtub
> scene in TPR.
>
> Before anyone screams about how she has naked Michael and all she wants to do
> is talk shop.....To that I say "bosh." Any horseplay has already taken place.
> Nikita is worried about Michael and she knows he's as emotionally vulnerable as
> he's ever going to get. Naked, in love, and exhausted from Section mind games.
Agreed, Anne. What's odd about the bathtub scene is that it *looks*
like a total cliche of a romantic idyll, all bubblebath and cuteness.
But they aren't happy, they aren't romantic; they're frightened and
discouraged and on the ropes. There's a strange disjunction between
what we see and what we hear, and that's what makes the scene
interesting, instead of saccharine.
> I would also add that they showed a certain amount of affection in that scene
> where they are in Nikita's bed and woken out of a deep sleep by a call to come
> into Section.
>
> Except, weirdly, we come upon a gently sleeping Michael and Nikita has her eyes
> open. That was a HUGE mood breaker, for me.
Yes, I didn't find much affection in that scene. It's one of those
moments when Michael seems far more in lurve and dependent on Nikita
than she on him. (Similar to the gas-chamber scene in TTBH, when he
reaches for her hand and she doesn't look at him.) There's no
fulfillment there, no comfort or satisfaction, and certainly no sign
of plain old pleasure. There's only a sort of refuge, as if bed were
the only safe place in the world. And barely that.
If LFN could have pursued and explored these elements more, instead of
the Boris & Natasha thing, they might have been able to avoid
Moonlighting syndrome through at least the end of s3. Maybe. Though I
still don't know how they'd have justified or explained Michael and
Nikita still being out of synch with one another--without pulling yet
more rabbits out of hats.
>
> The Cat and Mouse sex? I think Michael was suspicious of Abby when she
> mysteriously lost the cold and wore glasses all the time.
> I thought it was a fun episode, though. And, many, many women enjoyed billing
> and cooing about the "thong" Dupuis wore during the "behind the screen" shadow
> dance. Personally, I never saw it. Then again, I never really looked for it.
>
> LOL
>
> See? Yet another important reason to lobby for S3 on DVD'S!
Gaah. I don't think I want to know any more about this...
> As far as whether Nikita or Madeline pulled the trigger? I think we are
> supposed to debate that for years to come b/c I don't believe there is a
> definitive answer.
Agreed.
> In my VOTS, Madeline did it.
VOTS = Version of the show?
> It's much more in character and I don't know
> about you guys, but even if I was the biggest psychopath in town, I'd have a
> hard time shooting my own self dead. Which is, in many ways, what Madeline was
> asking Nikita to do.
>
> Was Michael hoping Nikita did it? Again, I don't think Dupuis gave us an
> answer to this question. Personally, given where Michael is at this point in
> the series, I rather think he'd hope Nikita ~didn't~ do it. He is trying to
> cling to her innate goodness and sense of righteousness at this point. Having
> just lost Elena, Adam, and his "normal life."
Definitely.
~Mal
mazonmac
>> 1- Michael knows it really isn't Nikita and he's figured out that the real
>> Nikita must be watching in order to feed fake Nikita answers and
>> (mis)information. Michael thinks the only way to protect real Nikita is to
>> make it look to Red Cell guy like he is behaving normally with (fake)
>> Nikita. And since Section needs time to lock on to the signal from Abbey's
>> glasses in order to locate RC, he has to do what fake Nikita suggests even
>> and B - Michael knows it really isn't Nikita, but he's in such an emotional
>> state after Adam that he's willing to over look that fact just so he can
>> have some closeness and comfort with his love. So he sleeps with fake
>> Nikita out of purely selfish reasons knowing that real Nikita despises him
>> at this point. --snip--
>> 3 - Mikey doesn't know for sure it isn't Nikita. So, he goes along with her
>> suggestion and finds out for a fact she isn't Nikita. --snip--
>> Or is it a combination of all 3?
Here's Mal with eloquence to which I can only aspire:
> Indeed. I like the way you've broken down the three versions. They all
> work. The key, IMO, is the fact that Nikita clearly intends Michael to
> have sex with Abbey because it is the surest way to signal to him in
> clear terms that she's a fake.
Ok, I did say in another post that I have cancelled my optimism. But,
really, it's more like Adrian - just hanging out in cryogenic stasis and it
tends to rear it's ugly head at rather inopportune times. Mal, do you
really think Nikita intended for Michael to take it all the way? I just
thought that the upfront invitation to go out that night from Michael would
have been a big enough clue. This is why I think Michael had his own
selfish, yet ultimately unfulfilling, goals in sleeping with Abbey.
>She *chooses* that scenario,
Which is kind of weird in itself. She could have thrown other hints to
Michael that wouldn't have led him to sleep with her. Anything would have
worked, really... say like - "Since I came back from my 6 month "vacation"
from Section, I didn't have the chance to thank you for taking down those
gawd-awful cockroach-like sconces I had on my apartment wall." Michael, I'm
sure, didn't do that for her (though *I'm* very happy someone did), so I
think he would have gotten the point that something was amiss.
> even
> though Red Cell Guy thinks it will be "painful" for her to watch.
> Which is a rather amusing bit of cleverness on the part of the writers
> (although everything else about the story line is beyond absurd)--it
> implies that Michael and Nikita know each other well sexually by now.
Yes, which is kind of absurd anyway. They've only consummated on two
occasions that we know of - HL and PP.
>
> So one can imagine a range of interesting reactions going on in
> Michael's head. Cin, you've outlined most of them above. I'd also add:
> Michael wondering what to make of Nikita's deliberately setting him up
> in yet another distasteful valentine mission--one with all sorts of
> weird overtones.
I see your point, but I think it depends on if you think Nikita thought
Michael would take it as far as he did. I'm just not sure about that.
Michael has to be really slow on the uptake of Nikita's hints, or he had
ulterior motives (see 1, B, and 3 above at the beginning of the post). I
think this is confirmed at the end of the episode when she asks if Abbey was
really that convincing, to which he replies "yes." Should we discuss the
many ways in which that can be interpreted?
>Is it painful for Nikita to watch, or on the
> contrary, is she exacting some small revenge for the way he jerked her
> around in s2? Or both?
This is something I never thought of... but on whom is the joke being
played? Wouldn't Nikita just be hurting herself? Mikey doesn't seem to
have much of a problem with philandering.... Maybe it isn't painful to
Nikita either - she gets to sense his true feelings for her.
Mal here:
> In my LFN (*pays AZ royalty*), Nikita would not shoot anyone in cold
> blood, strapped to a chair.
Anne here:
> In my VOTS, Madeline did it. It's much more in character and I don't know
> about you guys, but even if I was the biggest psychopath in town, I'd have a
> hard time shooting my own self dead.
I think I can write for us all - we hope it doesn't come to that, Anne.
I agree with you both. I *hope* Nikita didn't do it... but I have to say,
it plays with my feeble mind.
Now Mal:
>Michael watches because she has to watch,
> and he is with her. (OK, I am being excessively romantic; so sue me.)
> But he can't bear to watch the actual shot. I wonder if Nikita had the
> same difficulty or not.
Really interesting. I talk about a double-edged sword. I wouldn't even
know how to begin to sort that one out.
As for Michael's perspective - one has to wonder if he thought maybe Section
pulled a switcheroo. Abbey makes a better op, at least from an emotional
standpoint, than Nikita. Besides, it's not really above Section to do
something like that.
I always thought Michael had to see for himself that the evil Nikita was
gone - it would mean that there really is only One Nikita, and it means that
he'd wash his hands of his "infatuation" with her, sort of like a voodoo
doll - he slept with her, now "she's" dead, and, hopefully, she's out of
his system.
I also think he wants to see if Nikita really does pull the trigger on
Abbey. If she did do it, it means Nikita has taken one step closer to being
like "them" (read as "like him"), which would mean she'd be better off if
they did replace her with Abbey. If she didn't do it, she's still has that
precious innocence thing, but she's one step closer to Row 8 plot 30 because
"They" will know she's still weak, which would still mean she'd be better
off if they did replace her with Abbey. Clearly, the only person not better
off, really, is Michael.
Man... can't anything be simple in Section?
Malsperanza
>
> I just don't remember enough
> of s3. I'm half way through it now and it is like watching an entirely new
> show. First time around, I really hated it. But, thanks to a little
> maturity and taming (ok, canceling) my youthful optimism, I'm really
> enjoying it now.
I just rewatched the first 4 eps of s3--the MMWK arc, and really loved
them this time. In spite of all the problems (continuity with s1 and
s2 motives, Elena being a bit of a doofus, etc.), I think these are
LFN at its best: very dark, grim, a good balance between the personal
crises and the mission(s), well-plotted, slowly constructed climax
over several eps. Just a knockout at all levels (except the trivial
Birkoff/Walter shennanigans, which I just fast-forwarded past).
Anchored, of course, by Michael as the character whose conflicts are
both personal and, in some sense, emblematic of Section's own
conflicts. Poor man, he is pulled in every direction in this set, by
every divided loyalty and obligation. And he chooses this moment to
discover that he has a heart and can lose it (or break it) at the very
moment when Section discovers that it has none.
That is, Section itself would probably not take the drastic actions it
does (both the poisoning of the innocent Elena and the forcing of
Michael's loss of his child) if the stakes were not so high. So just
as Michael learns the depths of his own ability to feel, Section, in
parallel, learns the depths of local evil to which it is prepared to
sink in order to achieve its purpose.
I say "Section" here, not Ops and Madeline, because I think AZ's (or
Alex's?) statement that Section is a character is nowhere more
apparent than in the MMWK story.
All of it leads to a truly extraordinary pivotal moment between
Michael and Ops--perhaps the best of their several wonderful duels--in
which Ops says to Michael what Michael once said, cruelly and
callously, to Nikita: Get over it. And Michael has his epiphany: that
some things cannot be gotten over. It's from this point forward that
Michael's universe is realigned away from the political and toward the
personal.
No other event til then has brought him to that revelation--not though
he has suffered an extraordinary series of losses: not the loss of
his sister, not the death of Rene (the loss of his youthful ideals),
not all the lessons of Nikita, nor the decision to give her up in
Mercy, nor the decision to regain her love in HL, nor her threatened
deathr in the Adrian arc, nor the loss of Elena.
I think this is because what Michael learns, when he falls in love
with his child, is that a child is not a hostage to the future, but an
investment in it. What had always been abstract for him (saving the
world) has suddenly become shockingly, powerfully concrete: Saving the
world *for Adam*. (And now we can consider the resonant symbolism of
the boy's name, eh? Firstborn of a new world to come.)
So when Ops says, "Get over it," Michael reads this as, "Get over the
idea that there is any *reason* at all to save the world. Just do it
blindly, mindlessly, because it is your duty and your charge."
Perhaps Michael's reading of that message is a misreading. Ops
probably doesn't mean anything so drastic. But in his disoriented
state, Michael has equated his love for Adam with his reasons for
being Superspy. Without the one, the other is pointless. And so he has
no reason to live at all, and no duty to be good at his job. If
Operations is right, and one *can* "Get over it," then it doesn't
really matter if his fellow ops live or die, succeed or fail. And so
when Nikita asks, "Do we attack?" we see him asking, "Why not?" He
means it both ironically *and* literally. He doesn't know.
BTW, a while ago we were talking about Michael's tendency to say
"Thank you" only at inappropriate moments, which is one of my favorite
LFN/funny/sad Michael tics. In GOH he says it twice. The first time is
the best of these--better even than the head-in-a-box scene in "Gray."
Michael arrives late and unshaven to a briefing. "Nice of you to join
us, Michael," says Ops, irritated. "Thank you," says Michael. The
exchange is bizarrely funny--Michael out-ironizing Ops--but also
totally disoriented. It's hard to figure out what either of them is
saying, if anything.
The second time is--if I'm not mistaken--the first time Michael ever
says thank-you sincerely. Nikita meets him by the elevator and offers
to talk to him, says she's there for him if it will help. "It won't
help," he says, but she persists. As he is leaving, having rejected
her, he manages to say thank-you. So that's a nice
compare-and-contrast moment.
Cin:
> As to what I was referring - that M&N rarely have opportunity for real
> intimacy, meaning that there's no Section, or death threats, or power plays,
> no doubletalk - it's just M&N (I know, it sounds mushy). I postulated that,
> at least as far as I recall, the real intimacy (not sex, not affection, not
> comfort, but instead real emotional nakedness) is not seen until ITLG and
> then not again until AFTEP. Maybe this is not an informed opinion
> considering I can't remember a lot of little details from the last half of
> the series. I'm willing to admit there are more occurrences, I just have
> forgotten about them. One such occurrence may be when Michael lays it out
> on the table for Nikita in Half Life regarding his past life, his sister,
> and Rene. For me, even the Hard Landing love boat scene wasn't intimate in
> that sense. He says "I thought I lost you." She replies "You never had
> me." Tell me this isn't a power play, here.
Definitely. One that Michael wins (temporarily). In the writer's
commentary on the DVD, someone remarks that at the end of that love
scene M and N are still completely at cross-purposes, though they
don't entirely realize it yet.
> Yeah, they get comfort and
> satisfaction - he finally knows she's still alive and she finally gets
> verification of his feelings, but he can't come close to say what he wants
> or needs to, and she wants to tell him that she's not going to be his
> plaything (you know - toy to bat around like a cat). Then there was this
> spiel about how even their body language was used to demonstrate that they
> weren't on an even keel....
There are a few other moments of real intimacy in s1 and s2: In Mercy,
when Michael comes to Nikita's apartment: "Why can't you just do the
job? ... Then I can't help you" ... "Why did you ever?" To which he
answers only, "I wish things could have been different." Their embrace
is half comfort, half goodbye.
> Well, how 'bout a latex mask disguise as in Gambit? Anyway, if they're
> going to have sex, hopefully someone's at least thinking about latex or
> otherwise we'll have to have episode 223 - Soul Sacrifice Redux.
And then we'd have a NMWK (Nikita Married With Kid) arc. Gah.
Actually, it occurs to me that one of the Romance/Sexual Conflict
cliches LFN managed NOT to fall into is a pregnant Nikita. For which I
thank the gods with all my heart. If there is one TV cliche I loath,
it's Strong Heroine Faced with Baby/Abortion Crisis. Almost always
resolved via a) natural miscarriage, b) was mistaken, not pregnant
after all, or c) gives baby up for adoption. (We did get a version of
it with Terry in Soul Sacrifice, but the gloops who wrote s4 could
well have decided to saddle Nikita with the same story line.)
Again, one of the things I like about the MMWK arc is that this cliche
is transposed from the Strong Heroine to the Strong Hero, which is
very unusual, and not a cliche at all. Michael gives up his child to
adoption (more or less), but most rebelliously and unwillingly, not at
all in the usual TV style of noble sacrifice.
~Mal
Malsperanza
> >> 1- Michael knows it really isn't Nikita and he's figured out that the real
> >> Nikita must be watching in order to feed fake Nikita answers and
> >> (mis)information. Michael thinks the only way to protect real Nikita is to
> >> make it look to Red Cell guy like he is behaving normally with (fake)
> >> Nikita. And since Section needs time to lock on to the signal from Abbey's
> >> glasses in order to locate RC, he has to do what fake Nikita suggests even
> >> though he risks hurting the real Nikita by doing so. --snip--
>
> >> and B - Michael knows it really isn't Nikita, but he's in such an emotional
> >> state after Adam that he's willing to over look that fact just so he can
> >> have some closeness and comfort with his love. So he sleeps with fake
> >> Nikita out of purely selfish reasons knowing that real Nikita despises him
> >> at this point. --snip--
>
> >> 3 - Mikey doesn't know for sure it isn't Nikita. So, he goes along with her
> >> suggestion and finds out for a fact she isn't Nikita. --snip--
> >> Or is it a combination of all 3?
BTW, have I complimented you on your astute Section-style numbering
system, Cin? Always keep 'em guessing, is what I say.
Me:
> > Indeed. I like the way you've broken down the three versions. They all
> > work. The key, IMO, is the fact that Nikita clearly intends Michael to
> > have sex with Abbey because it is the surest way to signal to him in
> > clear terms that she's a fake.
Cin:
> Mal, do you
> really think Nikita intended for Michael to take it all the way? I just
> thought that the upfront invitation to go out that night from Michael would
> have been a big enough clue. This is why I think Michael had his own
> selfish, yet ultimately unfulfilling, goals in sleeping with Abby.
Hard to say. She may not have wanted it to go that far, but she must
have known that it probably would. For the event to be persuasive to
the watching Red Cell Guy, Michael would have to see it through. Kind
of like Operations choosing to actually be given the poison in
Slipping Into Darkness, rather than faking madness.
That doesn't mean that Michael didn't have some selfish aims as well.
At this stage, his relationship with Nikita is even more than usually
messed up. Both of them are up to their, er, eyeballs in desire,
anger, possessiveness, need, dependency, and love. Both *still* want
the other one to come round to their way of thinking, and both are
subtly shifting their way of thinking toward the other's, without
quite realizing it. They are both manipulative enough at this point to
use the arrival of Abby on the scene as a convenient means of
expressing a rather stunning range of emotions and ideas--some
intentional, others perhaps not.
Both Michael and Nikita are in full passive/aggressive mode toward
each other. They can't really say what they feel (Michael because he's
repressed; Nikita because she's confused.) So they use Abby to say a
great many things. Here is a partial list. I will leave it to youall
to decide if one or both of them is thinking each of these things:
-I want you
-I'm furious at you
-I miss you
-You have been treating me as an object, interchangeable and
meaningless
-You have been accusing me unfairly of treating you as an object
-You are still the most beautiful thing (object) I have ever laid eyes
on and I would happily watch you make love with someone else just for
the chance to watch you make love and pretend its me [ambiguity as to
*who* is pretending is intentional here]
-You are still the most beautiful thing (object) I have ever laid eyes
on and I would happily make love with someone else just for the chance
to pretend I am making love with you, knowing you are watching
-Rescue me
-You are unique
-I am unique
-But do you know it?
-Look at me
-Remember me
-I love you
-Do you?
> >She *chooses* that scenario,
>
> Which is kind of weird in itself.
Voyeurism! Voyeurism! Voyeurism! Voyeurism! Voyeurism! Voyeurism!
It isn't just for viewers anymore!
> She could have thrown other hints to
> Michael that wouldn't have led him to sleep with her. Anything would have
> worked, really... say like - "Since I came back from my 6 month "vacation"
> from Section, I didn't have the chance to thank you for taking down those
> gawd-awful cockroach-like sconces I had on my apartment wall." Michael, I'm
> sure, didn't do that for her (though *I'm* very happy someone did), so I
> think he would have gotten the point that something was amiss.
Exactly. So why did she do what she did? And why did Michael go along
with it? Because they are both absolutely sick at this point--sick
with desire, sick with confusion, sick with the stunted, stymied,
crippled inability to express themselves in normal ways.
> > even
> > though Red Cell Guy thinks it will be "painful" for her to watch.
> > Which is a rather amusing bit of cleverness on the part of the writers
> > (although everything else about the story line is beyond absurd)--it
> > implies that Michael and Nikita know each other well sexually by now.
>
> Yes, which is kind of absurd anyway. They've only consummated on two
> occasions that we know of - HL and PP.
Well, they probably had a couple of weeks' worth in PP. Hard to say
exactly how much time passed after Madeline issued her Type Two
Directive (the opposite of Type One, apparently: Go forth and mate
like bunnies).
> > So one can imagine a range of interesting reactions going on in
> > Michael's head. Cin, you've outlined most of them above. I'd also add:
> > Michael wondering what to make of Nikita's deliberately setting him up
> > in yet another distasteful valentine mission--one with all sorts of
> > weird overtones.
>
> I see your point, but I think it depends on if you think Nikita thought
> Michael would take it as far as he did. I'm just not sure about that.
> Michael has to be really slow on the uptake of Nikita's hints, or he had
> ulterior motives (see 1, B, and 3 above at the beginning of the post). I
> think this is confirmed at the end of the episode when she asks if Abbey was
> really that convincing, to which he replies "yes." Should we discuss the
> many ways in which that can be interpreted?
Yes, we should.
Aside from the inherent unlikeliness of there ever *being* an Abby,
Michael clearly does have doubts about whether she is fake or the real
Nikita. She is convincing not only physically, and in her manner (tone
of voice, etc.), but in the effect she has on him.
I think, here, we run into one of the puzzles about Michael's
attachment to Nikita in s3. AZ has argued that his feeling for her in
s1 was almost purely physical. Anne thinks it was dazzled delight and
romantic affection as well. In s2 it became (gradually) something like
love--real love, which knows how to sacrifice self-interest for the
sake of the beloved's well-being, as Michael does at the end of the
season, in Mercy, when he releases her and loses her at one blow.
In s3, after the MMWK arc, he is finally free to love Nikita openly,
and does so. This is clearly (IMO) real love, similar to what he felt
in "Mercy" and HL, but *without* the baggage and constraints and
necessary lies consequent on his involvement with Elena, and *with*
the newly learned lessons about love learned from Adam. So: real love,
true love.
But it is also an intense physical obsession. Michael acts as though
Nikita is the first person he has ever really been physically
attracted to. And here we begin to see an imbalance in their
relationship that will get much worse in s4. Because love and sexual
attraction are two separate things, and for Michael (Mr.
Compartamentalized), the confusion or blending of the two is a matter
of immense confusion. Or so I read it. Whereas for Nikita, the
emotional attachment is always the thing that matters. To love and be
loved is all that concerns her. I wouldn't say that she's cold or
frigid at all, but she is less sexually driven, less hungry, less
overwhelmed by the physical need.
So I can certainly imagine that she would be able and willing to set
up the Abby/Michael night both because it's necessary and because she
thinks she might learn something more about him--discover some aspects
of him that are still hidden from her. And perhaps toss in a little
payback at the same time.
For Michael, OTOH, I should think the Nikita/Not Nikita situation was
deeply unsettling, as it brought into sharp focus the difference
between loving her and desiring her. Abby could fulfill desire, but
not love.
Me:
> >Is it painful for Nikita to watch, or on the
> > contrary, is she exacting some small revenge for the way he jerked her
> > around in s2? Or both?
Cin:
> This is something I never thought of... but on whom is the joke being
> played? Wouldn't Nikita just be hurting herself? Mikey doesn't seem to
> have much of a problem with philandering.... Maybe it isn't painful to
> Nikita either - she gets to sense his true feelings for her.
See above. I don't think Michael viewed his night with Abby in the
same light as nights with Andrea, Karen, Vizcano, or anyone else he
might have valentined in the past. It would have been, for him, much
more disturbing than that. Not philandering at all, but a kind of
forced self-analysis: What do I really want from Nikita, to get laid
or to be loved? (Or both, of course.) The tip-off is that he finds it
impossible to watch Abby being executed, though he tries. He would not
have had any difficulty watching Andrea get canceled, I expect.
> Mal here:
> > In my LFN (*pays AZ royalty*), Nikita would not shoot anyone in cold
> > blood, strapped to a chair.
>
> Anne here:
> > In my VOTS, Madeline did it. It's much more in character and I don't know
> > about you guys, but even if I was the biggest psychopath in town, I'd have a
> > hard time shooting my own self dead.
Cin, in Compassionate Mode:
> I think I can write for us all - we hope it doesn't come to that, Anne.
LOL
Cin:
> I agree with you both. I *hope* Nikita didn't do it... but I have to say,
> it plays with my feeble mind.
As it does Michael's. IIRC, he cannot see who pulled the trigger any
more than we can.
> Now Mal:
> >Michael watches because she has to watch,
> > and he is with her. (OK, I am being excessively romantic; so sue me.)
> > But he can't bear to watch the actual shot. I wonder if Nikita had the
> > same difficulty or not.
Cin:
> Really interesting. I talk about a double-edged sword. I wouldn't even
> know how to begin to sort that one out.
Who the hell knows. But that's what makes it waycool, no?
Cin:
> As for Michael's perspective - one has to wonder if he thought maybe Section
> pulled a switcheroo. Abbey makes a better op, at least from an emotional
> standpoint, than Nikita. Besides, it's not really above Section to do
> something like that.
Well, but Abby is Red Cell. She'd be disloyal at the first
opportunity. I wonder, though, why they didn't think it might be
useful to keep her around--a Nikita doppelganger would be handy. I
guess the answer is: Latex. We get 3 Nikita doubles in VOTG. I guess
they're fairly easy to make after all. And they fool Michael in VOTG
too, which suggests that in LFN World, The Only Way To Truly Know
Someone Is Biblically.
Still, if Michael doesn't wonder, *we* might. Did people speculate
about that possibility at the time? It's sort of what happens to
Birkoff/Jason, later.
Cin:
> I always thought Michael had to see for himself that the evil Nikita was
> gone - it would mean that there really is only One Nikita, and it means that
> he'd wash his hands of his "infatuation" with her, sort of like a voodoo
> doll - he slept with her, now "she's" dead, and, hopefully, she's out of
> his system.
I think there is an element of that, yes.
Cin:
> I also think he wants to see if Nikita really does pull the trigger on
> Abbey. If she did do it, it means Nikita has taken one step closer to being
> like "them" (read as "like him"), which would mean she'd be better off if
> they did replace her with Abbey. If she didn't do it, she's still has that
> precious innocence thing, but she's one step closer to Row 8 plot 30 because
> "They" will know she's still weak, which would still mean she'd be better
> off if they did replace her with Abbey. Clearly, the only person not better
> off, really, is Michael.
>
> Man... can't anything be simple in Section?
From here on in, Michael is *never* better off, no matter what happens
or why. He has started his long slide down into Greek Tragic Herodom.
~Mal
mazonmac
> Alex's?) statement that Section is a character is nowhere more
> apparent than in the MMWK story.
I totally agree with this - Section as it's own character. It is
particularly effective when Section just appears to be running itself,
unlike the trouble M&O get it in with Oversight and Center.
>
> All of it leads to a truly extraordinary pivotal moment between
> Michael and Ops--perhaps the best of their several wonderful duels--in
> which Ops says to Michael what Michael once said, cruelly and
> callously, to Nikita: Get over it. And Michael has his epiphany: that
> some things cannot be gotten over. It's from this point forward that
> Michael's universe is realigned away from the political and toward the
> personal.
So sad. So cruel. Dare I ask if anyone actually felt sorry for Ops? I
wonder how Michael felt being on the receiving end of that comment.
>What had always been abstract for him (saving the
> world) has suddenly become shockingly, powerfully concrete: Saving the
> world *for Adam*. (And now we can consider the resonant symbolism of
> the boy's name, eh? Firstborn of a new world to come.)
The names authors/writers chose for their characters are never arbitrary.
You have an interesting interpretation of Adam. I always read that as the
downfall of perfect order and the introduction of chaos. Maybe this just
shows my pessimism.
Speaking of names... Michael is an interesting choice here. I think I'm
going to show my lack of knowledge in the religious realm, but wasn't
Michael one of the archangels who has a role to play in the Apocalypse? I
looked up the name once a long while ago - Michael means "who is like god."
IIRC, doesn't Michael guard Eve, as well as others? (I just don't know
these things...). Nikita means "unconquerable" or "victorious." Madeline
comes from Magdalene and means "tower." Seymour refers to a saint. Walter
refers to commanding an army. You guys are probably better informed on
history and things like this...
> And then we'd have a NMWK (Nikita Married With Kid) arc. Gah.
Actually, it would be NNWK - Not-married Nikita with kid. I'm pretty sure
Section's not up on the Equality of Marriage thing going on these days and
wouldn't let her get married, at least not to Michael. And I'm pretty sure
the baby shower wouldn't be much fun, with all the infant-sized glocks and
all. And certainly no baby pink or blue - only shades of grey. Balloons
strictly prohibited. Exactly where is the maternity ward in Medical? Do
they have a NICU? (now, I'm just humoring myself. We can move on...)
Any guesses on what ever did happen to pTerry in Soul Sacrifice?
> Actually, it occurs to me that one of the Romance/Sexual Conflict
> cliches LFN managed NOT to fall into is a pregnant Nikita. For which I
> thank the gods with all my heart. If there is one TV cliche I loath,
> it's Strong Heroine Faced with Baby/Abortion Crisis.
Ack! Thank the gods for the writers' restraint!
mazonmac
> BTW, have I complimented you on your astute Section-style numbering
> system, Cin? Always keep 'em guessing, is what I say.
(giggling ;-D )
Yes, think these all appear in the subliminal closed-captioning at one point
or another in this episode. Seriously, Mal. The above is very good and
center of the bulls-eye if you ask me. Between all the BTP talk and these
few lines, I'm feeling a little sad.
--snip--
>> She could have thrown other hints to
>> Michael that wouldn't have led him to sleep with her. Anything would have
>> worked, really... say like - "Since I came back from my 6 month "vacation"
>> from Section, I didn't have the chance to thank you for taking down those
>> gawd-awful cockroach-like sconces I had on my apartment wall." Michael, I'm
>> sure, didn't do that for her (though *I'm* very happy someone did), so I
>> think he would have gotten the point that something was amiss.
Ok, I just have to respond to my own comments here - So did *anyone* hate
those sconces as much as I did?
--snip--.
>
> Well, they probably had a couple of weeks' worth in PP. Hard to say
> exactly how much time passed after Madeline issued her Type Two
> Directive (the opposite of Type One, apparently: Go forth and mate
> like bunnies).
I realize you're being facetious here, but this does bring up the birth
control issue. I used to think about this during s1 and assumed ops were
either sterilized or on forced contraception. But then came along SS and
MMWK arc and my theory went right out the window.
I digress....
Back to the matter at hand.
--snip--
> For Michael, OTOH, I should think the Nikita/Not Nikita situation was
> deeply unsettling, as it brought into sharp focus the difference
> between loving her and desiring her. Abby could fulfill desire, but
> not love.
I totally agree with that. See- you're more succinct than I was. I wasted
letters again in my other post. Hope you all have enough letters left to
use for yourselves.
>I don't think Michael viewed his night with Abby in the
> same light as nights with Andrea, Karen, Vizcano, or anyone else he
> might have valentined in the past. It would have been, for him, much
> more disturbing than that. Not philandering at all, but a kind of
> forced self-analysis: What do I really want from Nikita, to get laid
> or to be loved? (Or both, of course.) The tip-off is that he finds it
> impossible to watch Abby being executed, though he tries. He would not
> have had any difficulty watching Andrea get canceled, I expect.
Yes, yes. I think you're right.
--snip--
>
> Cin:
>> I agree with you both. I *hope* Nikita didn't do it... but I have to say,
>> it plays with my feeble mind.
>
> As it does Michael's. IIRC, he cannot see who pulled the trigger any
> more than we can.
Correct. The monitor only shows Abbey - Maddie and Nikita are both off
camera.
--snip--
> Cin:
>> As for Michael's perspective - one has to wonder if he thought maybe Section
>> pulled a switcheroo. Abbey makes a better op, at least from an emotional
>> standpoint, than Nikita. Besides, it's not really above Section to do
>> something like that.
>
> Well, but Abby is Red Cell. She'd be disloyal at the first
> opportunity.
hmmm... I guess you're right about that. She *is* Red Cell - I always seem
to think of her as a machine, not as a person loyal to her own group's
ideals. When Section tried to recruit BsOTW, they weren't affiliated with
any group, right? They were all independent/free-lancers, huh? (examples:
Bauer, the woman Sarah was brought in to replace, BsOTW in TOP...)
Malsperanza
> > I say "Section" here, not Ops and Madeline, because I think AZ's (or
> > Alex's?) statement that Section is a character is nowhere more
> > apparent than in the MMWK story.
Cin:
> I totally agree with this - Section as it's own character. It is
> particularly effective when Section just appears to be running itself,
> unlike the trouble M&O get it in with Oversight and Center.
> >
> > All of it leads to a truly extraordinary pivotal moment between
> > Michael and Ops--perhaps the best of their several wonderful duels--in
> > which Ops says to Michael what Michael once said, cruelly and
> > callously, to Nikita: Get over it. And Michael has his epiphany: that
> > some things cannot be gotten over. It's from this point forward that
> > Michael's universe is realigned away from the political and toward the
> > personal.
Cin:
> So sad. So cruel. Dare I ask if anyone actually felt sorry for Ops?
Not I. I remember thinking: Some father; his kid was better off
without him. In contrast to Michael. OTOH, he may be taking a cold
posture now in order to try to shake Michael out of his zonked state.
If so, it's not an effective tactic.
> I wonder how Michael felt being on the receiving end of that comment.
Perhaps he acknowledged the punitive justice of it--after all, it's
exactly what he said to Nikita, and he must have learned the phrase
directly from Ops, who is to some degree his own mentor (though less
so than Jergens). But I suspect that it simply made him feel the more
detached and alienated from Ops's worldview at that point.
Me:
> >What had always been abstract for him (saving the
> > world) has suddenly become shockingly, powerfully concrete: Saving the
> > world *for Adam*. (And now we can consider the resonant symbolism of
> > the boy's name, eh? Firstborn of a new world to come.)
Cin:
> The names authors/writers choose for their characters are never arbitrary.
> You have an interesting interpretation of Adam. I always read that as the
> downfall of perfect order and the introduction of chaos. Maybe this just
> shows my pessimism.
Or the pessimism of the show: Innocence destroyed. Works well. I'm
happy to leave several alternative interpretations of the name
hovering in the air.
> Speaking of names... Michael is an interesting choice here. I think I'm
> going to show my lack of knowledge in the religious realm, but wasn't
> Michael one of the archangels who has a role to play in the Apocalypse? I
> looked up the name once a long while ago - Michael means "who is like god."
Correct. *puts on art history hat* The Archangel Michael is the most
powerful of the 4 archangels, who are themselves the most powerful of
the Angelic Host. (The other 3 are Gabriel, the Messenger angel of the
Annunciation, who conveys God to Mary at the Immaculate Conception;
Raphael; and Uriel. Gabriel is the angel of Mercy, as Michael is the
angel of Justice and Judgment. Raphael and Uriel are less important in
Catholic tradition; Raphael is a healer, like Gabriel, and Uriel is
also an angel of punishment and God's anger, like Michael.)
Here's a Baroque painting of Archangel Michael that I especially like:
http://www.artonline.it/opera.asp?IDOpera=1294 (He's shown with his
foot on the head of the fallen angel Lucifer, whom he is driving out
of Heaven. He's almost always painted as very beautiful, usually with
long fair hair.)
Here's a medieval painting that shows Michael weighing the souls:
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/m/memling/1early3/index.html (Scroll
down to the detail of the central panel that shows the angel with
sword and scales and some leetle nekkid people in the pans of the
scales.)
Michael is the "supervisor" of the Apocalypse, so to speak, because he
is the Archangel of Judgment. He wears armor and holds a sword in one
hand and a scales in the other: he weighs the souls at Judgment Day
and divides the Saved from the Damned. He is (in the Bible and in
religious art) the figure of a warrior angel. He is also in some sense
the Right Arm of God, administrator of God's Wrath. He can be a figure
of righteous vengeance.
It's very appropriate to our Michael, even though if M were really
French he would be Michel, which would sound all girly and confusing.
I don't recall Michael protecting Eve per se, but it could be. That
would come somewhere in the biblical book of Revelations, I expect.
> Nikita means "unconquerable" or "victorious."
From the Greek word Nike, meaning "victory." Nike in ancient Greece
was a winged goddess, patroness of battles. Nikita would be "little
Nike." Of course, this name was chosen by Luc Besson, back in the day,
not the authors of the TV show.
>Madeline comes from Magdalene and means "tower."
Or it simply means "from the city of Magdala." (Mary of Magdala in the
Bible.)
Here, I'd guess that the reference is not so much to the original
meaning of the name, but either to the Magdalene's role as the Sinful
Woman who finds God through Christ, or else (more likely) is just
meant to sound all French and super-sophisticated. (In the two movies
she is named Amanda.)
>Seymour refers to a saint. Walter
> refers to commanding an army. You guys are probably better informed on
> history and things like this...
I think Seymour is just meant to sound dorky. Walter is a solid old
Norman French name (Gaultier), that got anglicized in the Middle Ages.
I think it is meant simply to sound uncle-ish.
The other name that is resonantly symbolic is Paul Wolfe.
Adrian is a name that can be either a man's or a woman's. I think
there is a mild game being played there about her role as the most
powerful of the upper level administrators of the Sections--the
Powerful Woman In A Man's Role thingy, which LFN uses so often.
> > And then we'd have a NMWK (Nikita Married With Kid) arc. Gah.
>
> Actually, it would be NNWK - Not-married Nikita with kid. I'm pretty sure
> Section's not up on the Equality of Marriage thing going on these days and
> wouldn't let her get married, at least not to Michael. And I'm pretty sure
> the baby shower wouldn't be much fun, with all the infant-sized glocks and
> all.
OK, this time there is actual real coffee on the screen and the
keyboard. I nearly choked to death just now.
> And certainly no baby pink or blue - only shades of grey. Balloons
> strictly prohibited.
Can you imagine? The child pops a balloon at a Section birthday party,
and everyone immediately draws weapons and starts shooting. Would be
very problematic. One of the parody links I posted the other day is to
the "Section Times," an in-house newsletter. On the front page is an
article about the dismal failure of Section's first "Bring your child
to work day."
~Mal
mazonmac
>> I wonder how Michael felt being on the receiving end of that comment.
>
> Perhaps he acknowledged the punitive justice of it--after all, it's
> exactly what he said to Nikita, and he must have learned the phrase
> directly from Ops, who is to some degree his own mentor (though less
> so than Jergens).
Hmm... what other situations would Michael have been in to elicit such a
comment from Ops? I'm not sure he would have heard this from Ops before,
unless it was as a third party listening in on a conversation with another
less capable and less emotionally-restricted op. Maybe he got the talking
to over Simone?
--snipping much stuff about writers' choices in names==
>> Nikita means "unconquerable" or "victorious."
>
> From the Greek word Nike, meaning "victory." Nike in ancient Greece
> was a winged goddess, patroness of battles. Nikita would be "little
> Nike." Of course, this name was chosen by Luc Besson, back in the day,
> not the authors of the TV show.
True, true. But, it was a good choice, esp. when you consider Nikita's
mentor's name was "Bob" in the movie. Ack! I seem to remember you, I
think, Mal, talking about how this was a nod to some other fictional
character, but really... Bob?! (No offense to all the Bobs or Bobbies out
there - it's just hard for me to think of Michael's character as anything
but "Michael." Michel? Nope, doesn't work either.)
--snip--
> Can you imagine? The child pops a balloon at a Section birthday party,
> and everyone immediately draws weapons and starts shooting. Would be
> very problematic.
LOL!
>One of the parody links I posted the other day is to
> the "Section Times," an in-house newsletter. On the front page is an
> article about the dismal failure of Section's first "Bring your child
> to work day."
Yes, I saw that. I'm going to have to keep a copy of that one! LOL!
Back to the name thing:
All the information you posted was great. (Oh, the things I don't know....)
Really, very insightful.
I think that it's time some one sits down and creates A Viewer's Guide to
LFN that includes information like this and all the 500 or so posts we've
been proliferating around here for the past few months. If I ever watch LFN
start to finish again, I'm gonna' need all this information at my finger
tips. Any takers?
CAPTANNE
>LFN that includes information like this and all the 500 or so posts we've
>been proliferating around here for the past few months. If I ever watch LFN
>start to finish again, I'm gonna' need all this information at my finger
>tips. Any takers?
>
>cin
>
>--
LOL Chris Heyn has been working on a book about LFN for 5 years now.
For updates, see
http://p203.ezboard.com/binsidesectionone
I used to practically live there. For the most part it's great fun.
Anne
Malsperanza
> Here's me talking about the "Get over it" from Ops:
> >> I wonder how Michael felt being on the receiving end of that comment.
> >
> > Perhaps he acknowledged the punitive justice of it--after all, it's
> > exactly what he said to Nikita, and he must have learned the phrase
> > directly from Ops, who is to some degree his own mentor (though less
> > so than Jergens).
>
> Hmm... what other situations would Michael have been in to elicit such a
> comment from Ops? I'm not sure he would have heard this from Ops before,
> unless it was as a third party listening in on a conversation with another
> less capable and less emotionally-restricted op.
Agreed. I don't imagine Ops--or anyone else--has *ever* dared say "get
over it" to Michael before. And there wouldn't have been any reason
to. (Although you're right about a Simone connection. We do hear
Operations say to Madeline in HL, "He got over Simone, he can get over
Nikita."
But in any case, I meant just what you've said above: that Ops
probably said it to dozens of operatives and recruits at one time or
another, and Michael liked the concept and used it himself on occasion
on his trainees, including NikiTa.
Or else the other way round: the concept of "Get over it" was
Michael's own, and Operations heard *him* use it on occasion (on
hapless lesser operatives, recruits, etc.), and threw it back in his
face in the scene in the Perch. Either way works. I guess my only
point was that both of them use it, callously, and that suggests that
one picked it up from the other. To my mind, it's a sentiment typical
of the impatient and cold-blooded Ops, whereas when I heard Michael
say it to NikiTa, it seemed jarring--as if he was making an effort to
be as cold as possible (Opslike). But that could well be wishful
thinking on my part.
> > Nikita would be "little
> > Nike." Of course, this name was chosen by Luc Besson, back in the day,
> > not the authors of the TV show.
> True, true. But, it was a good choice, esp. when you consider Nikita's
> mentor's name was "Bob" in the movie. Ack! I seem to remember you, I
> think, Mal, talking about how this was a nod to some other fictional
> character, but really... Bob?!
It does sound silly and I am forever grateful that they didn't try to
stick to the original in the TV version. I think "Bob" may have been
Besson's tip of the hat to a famous French film noir of the 1950s (the
kind Anne thinks our Michael would enjoy watching on his 50" plasma TV
during his downtime, LOL), "Bob le Flambeur," Bob the Trickster. (A
flambeur is something between a man about town and a flimflam man.)
http://www.reelmoviecritic.com/2002/id1949.htm
I suppose in France in the postwar period a name like Bob sounded very
American, and therefore ultra kewl. Anyway, I saw the movie a million
years ago--IIRC it was a sort of French version of a hard-boiled
Hollywood 1950s movie. Besson's La Femme Nikita is in some ways an
updating of that French take on American gangster culture, so it would
fit as a small hommage to the older film, which was immensely popular
in its day, I believe. But I could be just imagining this. Anyway,
IIRC the character of Bob in the movie is quite different from
Michael--much more like a normal tough-guy spy type.
Actually, if Dupuis modeled his Michael on any Besson character, I
think it might have been the hitman in "The Professional," which is my
favorite Besson movie, The professional assassin, played by the
wonderful Jean Reno, is a cold, affectless, nameless (but possibly
secretly tortured) killer is befriended by a kickass 10-year-old
moppet (played to a "t" by the young Natalie Portman). He hardly
speaks throughout the movie and has very limited facial expressions.
Reno doesn't have Michael's elegance or Dupuis's physical grace and
strange, ethereal looks, but he's an interesting actor and the
character is riveting.
It's stylish and funny and weird: psycho hitman with heart of gold
adopts little girl and teaches her how to be psycho hitgirl, very
heartwarming, very big on family values. Cute little Natalie could
give our Nikita quite a run for her money, and the relationship
between the two has some of the same odd quirky charm as our M & N
(though of course it is not a sexual relationship, but a sort of
father/daughter story).
Also, several scenes are shot in what was once my favorite NYC
restaurant (which closed this year, alas), the secret and mysterious
Supreme Macaroni Company. In the days when I used to work near there,
when it was still a divey neighborhood, there was always a grandmother
in the front, with a hairnet and a black dress like a bad Italian
joke. And about 6 immensely fat cats in the back room (Board of Health
bedamned).
~Mal
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
remember you, I think, Mal, talking about how this was a nod to some
other fictional character, but really... Bob?! (No offense to all the
Bobs or Bobbies out there - it's just hard for me to think of Michael's
character as anything but "Michael.">>
Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser; in LFN 'Bob' isn't Nikita's mentor,
'Bobbie' is her mother! Never drew that connection until this current
discussion.
<<I think that it's time some one sits down and creates A Viewer's Guide
to LFN that includes information like this and all the 500 or so posts
we've been proliferating around here for the past few months. If I ever
watch LFN start to finish again, I'm gonna' need all this information at
my finger tips. Any takers?
cin >>
Well, there is the LFN Encyclopedia at:
La Femme Nikita Forever!
http://lfnforever.tripod.com/index.htm
Not nearly so comprehensive as the intel on names, etc. but it may have
some of the data you require for quick reference.
The site's webmaster, Jason Manning, is most receptive to suggestions.
You might contact him with the suggestion of adding this material on the
name derivations. Just a thought.
AZ
Malsperanza
>
> - So did *anyone* hate
> those sconces as much as I did?
Which ones? The lighting in Nikita's apartment is always awful--my
personal least favorite is the s1 colored neon tubes. I mean, her
general taste in decor suxx. Do you mean those bare bulb clamp lights
on a kind of wiggly stick in her bedroom? They're pretty nasty, but
not as irritating as the little red glowing heart where a window used
to be, which is surely the most clumsy of all possible Symbolic Nikita
Decorative Objects (close second being the carved winged horse thingy
in HL). It always seems to be in the background when Michael is
visiting.
Or were there some other even worse sconces?
Me, I'm still trying to figure out which season had Michael wearing a
black suit with 4 pairs of slash pockets on either side of the jacket,
like a shark's gills. I am in love with that jacket. I think it's s2,
but I can't find a clear view of it.
>
> --snip--
> > For Michael, OTOH, I should think the Nikita/Not Nikita situation was
> > deeply unsettling, as it brought into sharp focus the difference
> > between loving her and desiring her. Abby could fulfill desire, but
> > not love.
>
> I totally agree with that. See- you're more succinct than I was. I wasted
> letters again in my other post. Hope you all have enough letters left to
> use for yourselves.
I lved yr trnsltions. Hwevr, I will hav to spn th wheel and buy a few
mor vowls.
> > Cin:
> >> As for Michael's perspective - one has to wonder if he thought maybe Section
> >> pulled a switcheroo. Abbey makes a better op, at least from an emotional
> >> standpoint, than Nikita. Besides, it's not really above Section to do
> >> something like that.
> >
> > Well, but Abby is Red Cell. She'd be disloyal at the first
> > opportunity.
>
> hmmm... I guess you're right about that. She *is* Red Cell - I always seem
> to think of her as a machine, not as a person loyal to her own group's
> ideals. When Section tried to recruit BsOTW, they weren't affiliated with
> any group, right? They were all independent/free-lancers, huh? (examples:
> Bauer, the woman Sarah was brought in to replace, BsOTW in TOP...)
True, though I suppose even a Red Cell person might potentially be
turned.
~Mal
mazonmac
> Cin:
>>
>> - So did *anyone* hate
>> those sconces as much as I did?
>
> Which ones? The lighting in Nikita's apartment is always awful--my
> personal least favorite is the s1 colored neon tubes. I mean, her
> general taste in decor suxx. Do you mean those bare bulb clamp lights
> on a kind of wiggly stick in her bedroom? They're pretty nasty, but
> not as irritating as the little red glowing heart where a window used
> to be, which is surely the most clumsy of all possible Symbolic Nikita
> Decorative Objects (close second being the carved winged horse thingy
> in HL). It always seems to be in the background when Michael is
> visiting.
>
> Or were there some other even worse sconces?
You can see 'em all throughout s1. One scene for sure is the suicide note
scene. Put Mercy back in. The gawd-awful thing is behind the computer.
Ack! Tell me *that* is not a cockroach. With one that big hanging on my
wall, I'd be suicidal too.
>> --snip--
>>> For Michael, OTOH, I should think the Nikita/Not Nikita situation was
>>> deeply unsettling, as it brought into sharp focus the difference
>>> between loving her and desiring her. Abby could fulfill desire, but
>>> not love.
>>
>> I totally agree with that. See- you're more succinct than I was. I wasted
>> letters again in my other post. Hope you all have enough letters left to
>> use for yourselves.
>
>
> I lved yr trnsltions. Hwevr, I will hav to spn th wheel and buy a few
> mor vowls.
LLRTF!
cn
mazonmac
horse is really startin' to stink)....
Anne here:
> First of all, I missed the post you're responding too. Huh. Second of all, I
> think Michael and Nikita showed oodles of affection and intimacy in the
> bathtub
> scene in TPR.
>
> Before anyone screams about how she has naked Michael and all she wants to do
> is talk shop.....To that I say "bosh." Any horseplay has already taken place.
> Nikita is worried about Michael and she knows he's as emotionally vulnerable
> as
> he's ever going to get. Naked, in love, and exhausted from Section mind
> games.
>
> So, she goes for the kill and asks him if he's okay.
>
> True to her instincts, she actually gets an answer out of him.
>
> I lurved that scene. I thought it was perfect.
Just watched this today. I'd have to disagree that they're being intimate
(emotionally naked and available). Clearly Michael is not. He's even
telling himself to "get over it (his demotion)". That's the phrase one
person in the conversation uses to get the other to suck it up and take one
for Section. Instead of Michael using it to shut down Nikita in Spec Ops,
or Ops using it to shut down Michael in GOH, it's Michael using it against
himself. Michael's either just giving NIkita what she wants to hear merely
because he thinks he'll be able to keep her if he does so, or he's trying to
convince himself that he can actually get over his demotion. He's not
really out there on an emotional limb putting his guts and heart on the
table... he's hiding. He's at the crossroads again where he realizes he
can't have her and his value of "Whatever I do, I need to do it well - the
best I can". I'd hide too, frankly. He got burned by Nikita in the
beginning when he did say he wanted to be with her and she said "too bad,
so sad" because he was a changed man, in her eyes, after AGT. Just what was
she expecting after BTP? A sudden lobotomy for Mr. Compartmentalized?
Do you ever wonder if Nikita's standards are unrealistically high?
Do you ever wonder why they didn't call the show Le Homme Michel? ('xcuse
my French. Did I translate it correctly?)
Anne again:
> I would also add that they showed a certain amount of affection in that scene
> where they are in Nikita's bed and woken out of a deep sleep by a call to come
> into Section.
>
> Except, weirdly, we come upon a gently sleeping Michael and Nikita has her
> eyes
> open. That was a HUGE mood breaker, for me.
Hmmm... I read this as a total role reversal on M&N's part. Before (as in
HL, PP, even CAM), I could totally see Michael not resting well afterward.
He's always thinking... calculating... even regretting, just as I could see
Nikita being totally comforted and relaxed. In TPR, this is a real
switcheroo for them - Michael seemed to have settled on some peace and
comfort for once, now Nikita is left awake to contemplate... wonder... even
regret.
Anyone want to talk about Madeline's ever changing s3 hair? Why was it
changed so often? Was AW in a movie during the s2-s3 hiatus? Which cut did
you like the best/least?
Can we jump back a little to AGT? I don't remember if it is "explained"
(literally or implied) later in s4 or s5, but is the Type One Directive
against M&N really issued as a retaliation against the Bergomi mission M&N
successfully pulled off for George against M&O's wishes?
Malsperanza
> >>
> >> - So did *anyone* hate
> >> those sconces as much as I did?
Me:
> > Which ones? The lighting in Nikita's apartment is always awful--my
> > personal least favorite is the s1 colored neon tubes. I mean, her
> > general taste in decor suxx. Do you mean those bare bulb clamp lights
> > on a kind of wiggly stick in her bedroom? They're pretty nasty, but
> > not as irritating as the little red glowing heart where a window used
> > to be, which is surely the most clumsy of all possible Symbolic Nikita
> > Decorative Objects (close second being the carved winged horse thingy
> > in HL). It always seems to be in the background when Michael is
> > visiting.
> >
> > Or were there some other even worse sconces?
Cin:
> You can see 'em all throughout s1. One scene for sure is the suicide note
> scene. Put Mercy back in. The gawd-awful thing is behind the computer.
> Ack! Tell me *that* is not a cockroach. With one that big hanging on my
> wall, I'd be suicidal too.
*Puts Mercy in DVD drive*
*Watches*
Man, that Roy Dupuis was a stone fox when he was young. Damn. What is
it about him in s1? The hair? The eyes? The arrogance? The angst?
*Watches*
I'd forgotten how well-written this episode is. Tight pacing too. And
just overall looks good. I actually think I'm getting to like Depeche
Mode... insteresting choice of music for that scene, anyhow... I am
more than ever convinced that Michael absolutely did expect to see
Nikita come round the corner for the abeyance mission, and the look he
gave Madeline was one of complete confidence that he was gonna beat
her at her own game. Also some blazing anger in there...
What? Oh... oh, right... the sconce.... WAHHH!! WHAT IS THAT THING???
EWW WHAT IS IT WHAT IS IT??!!THAT THING IS HORRIBLE GET IT OFF ME GET
IT OFF I CAN'T ECCCHH EWW YAHHH GLGHH
Me:
> > I lved yr trnsltions. Hwevr, I will hav to spn th wheel and buy a few
> > mor vowls.
Cin trumps me:
> LLRTF!
*coffeescreen*
~Mal
mazonmac
>>> Or were there some other even worse sconces?
>
> Cin:
>> You can see 'em all throughout s1. One scene for sure is the suicide note
>> scene. Put Mercy back in. The gawd-awful thing is behind the computer.
>> Ack! Tell me *that* is not a cockroach. With one that big hanging on my
>> wall, I'd be suicidal too.
>
> EWW WHAT IS IT WHAT IS IT??!!THAT THING IS HORRIBLE GET IT OFF ME GET
> IT OFF I CAN'T ECCCHH EWW YAHHH GLGHH
told ya.... now you must be thinking just how could you not have noticed
them the first time around...
cin
Malsperanza
> > I think Michael and Nikita showed oodles of affection and intimacy in the
> > bathtub scene in TPR.
> >
> > Before anyone screams about how she has naked Michael and all she wants to do
> > is talk shop.....To that I say "bosh." Any horseplay has already taken place.
> > Nikita is worried about Michael and she knows he's as emotionally vulnerable
> > as
> > he's ever going to get. Naked, in love, and exhausted from Section mind
> > games.
> >
> > So, she goes for the kill and asks him if he's okay.
> >
> > True to her instincts, she actually gets an answer out of him.
> >
> > I lurved that scene. I thought it was perfect.
Cin:
> Just watched this today. I'd have to disagree that they're being intimate
> (emotionally naked and available). Clearly Michael is not. He's even
> telling himself to "get over it (his demotion)". That's the phrase one
> person in the conversation uses to get the other to suck it up and take one
> for Section. Instead of Michael using it to shut down Nikita in Spec Ops,
> or Ops using it to shut down Michael in GOH, it's Michael using it against
> himself.
Good observation. Does he actually say "I'll get over it"? That's
quite striking, considering how hard it was to hear when Ops said it
to him in GOH.
> Michael's either just giving NIkita what she wants to hear merely
> because he thinks he'll be able to keep her if he does so
I don't think he's doing that here. In this sense, I think Anne is
right that the scene is one of real intimacy and trust--that is, the
conversation does not have the usual defensive barriers between M and
N. The defenses, as you point out, are all within Michael himself, and
Nikita is trying to break through them, to get him to face the problem
more honestly. I felt, when I first saw this scene, that it was
another example of Nikita not being as hooked on Michael as he is on
her--she has her back to him, as she does all too often in their bed
scenes, and is not exactly showing great warmth and affection. But it
is unlikely that our Michael would respond to cuddles and cuteness. He
has a hard time with any but the most resraint, confined, restricted
gestures of affection... two fingers stroking a shoulder, or an ear.
Sensuous, yes, but also rather straitjacketed.
>, or he's trying to
> convince himself that he can actually get over his demotion. He's not
> really out there on an emotional limb putting his guts and heart on the
> table... he's hiding. He's at the crossroads again where he realizes he
> can't have her and his value of "Whatever I do, I need to do it well - the
> best I can". I'd hide too, frankly. He got burned by Nikita in the
> beginning when he did say he wanted to be with her and she said "too bad,
> so sad" because he was a changed man, in her eyes, after AGT. Just what was
> she expecting after BTP? A sudden lobotomy for Mr. Compartmentalized?
If anything, she's apologizing--both for having doubted him in AGT
(for the 3,456th time) and for presenting an insoluble dilemma for him
(a choice with no right answer).
> Do you ever wonder if Nikita's standards are unrealistically high?
She's just a little quick on the draw. The most irritating example is
in Sleeping with the Enemy, when she assumes (against all reason) that
Michael is betraying Section through young Satin, the Red Cell
hostage. Silly Nikita: Tricks are for kids.
> Do you ever wonder why they didn't call the show Le Homme Michel? ('xcuse
> my French. Did I translate it correctly?)
Yep. (L'Homme Michel would be slightly more correct.)
> Anne again:
> > I would also add that they showed a certain amount of affection in that scene
> > where they are in Nikita's bed and woken out of a deep sleep by a call to come
> > into Section.
> >
> > Except, weirdly, we come upon a gently sleeping Michael and Nikita has her
> > eyes
> > open. That was a HUGE mood breaker, for me.
>
> Hmmm... I read this as a total role reversal on M&N's part. Before (as in
> HL, PP, even CAM), I could totally see Michael not resting well afterward.
> He's always thinking... calculating... even regretting, just as I could see
> Nikita being totally comforted and relaxed. In TPR, this is a real
> switcheroo for them - Michael seemed to have settled on some peace and
> comfort for once, now Nikita is left awake to contemplate... wonder... even
> regret.
I also read it that way. The sex scene showed real feeling (what we
saw of it), but the aftermath shows a disjunction between them, as
usual. Poor sods, they are never quite on the same page.
> Anyone want to talk about Madeline's ever changing s3 hair? Why was it
> changed so often? Was AW in a movie during the s2-s3 hiatus? Which cut did
> you like the best/least?
Anne would know, but I think her hair was very short at the beginning
of s3 because she had had treatment for cancer between seasons(?) and
lost her hair. After that, though, it couldn't seem to sit still for
more than 2 weeks. I liked her with several of those haircuts, but the
constant fiddling got on my nerves.
Blond Ops was just wack. OTOH, since everyone else was getting a new
cut, why shouldn't he go all Las Vegas too? Only thing missing was the
single diamond ear stud.
> Can we jump back a little to AGT? I don't remember if it is "explained"
> (literally or implied) later in s4 or s5, but is the Type One Directive
> against M&N really issued as a retaliation against the Bergomi mission M&N
> successfully pulled off for George against M&O's wishes?
In TPR it's described as being a response to the fact that Michael is
increasingly willing to break mission protocol to protect Nikita,
which will sooner or later (according to Boris and Natasha) lead to a
huge disaster. Michael himself (in FLYF) calls this a "betrayal" of
Section: "I put your well-being ahead of everything else." Would he
save Nikita if it meant blowing a mission? I think by late s3 the
answer is yes. That's one lesson he's absorbed (much against his own
will) from Nikita, who would *always* save Michael first, even if it
meant wrecking the effing mission, from s1 onward, straight through
s5. (You gotta give it to Nikita: she's completely consistent on this,
except when Gelmanized.) The problem with this concept is that Michael
has never, ever shown the least sign that he cannot protect Nikita and
carry out an effective mission every time. So it looks rather like
personal vindictiveness on Madeline's part. In TPR Operations seems
willing to let Moose and Sqvirrel have their fun. It's Madeline who
doesn't like it.
But later, in TTBH, the idea recurs to both Ops and Madeline. There,
the attempt to ruin the romance is a general preemptive strike against
a (goofy) perception that M&N might retaliate for the G Process and
other past mindless persecutions (such as the embarrassingly named
Hard Wedgie). As if M and N could be bothered to waste their time on
such high-schoolish behavior. Here's the dialogue from the beginning
of TTBH:
OPERATIONS: Michael and Nikita. If they succeed, George may want them
[at the Farm] for good.
MADELINE: I don't see any reason why they won't accept. This way,
Michael and Nikita can get their fix of spending time together. And it
distances them from us.
OPERATIONS: Think of it as some breathing room. After all we've put
Nikita through lately, I can't help but think they're planning some
type of retaliation.
MADELINE: You trained them well. [end scene]
Silly Wabbits! Tricks are for kids!
~Mal
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
<<- So did *anyone* hate
those sconces as much as I did?
note scene. Put Mercy back in. The gawd-awful thing is behind the
computer. Ack! Tell me *that* is not a cockroach. With one that big
hanging on my wall, I'd be suicidal too.>>
Ah ha...finally when this thread surfaced I've had time to put Mercy in
the drive and check out the roach sconce. Cin, you are
ABSO-FRELLING-LUTELY correct; that's one hideous sconce. I must have
noticed it at some point in time, then immediately banished it from my
memory bank - for self-preservation.
Mal:
<<...I mean, her general taste in decor suxx...not as irritating as the
little red glowing heart where a window used to be...>>
Well, I'm going out on a limb here and defend "Nikita's tastes". I liked
many of the details in "her" decorating, they were "kewl", though the
overall scheme always lacked...continuity.
I didn't mind the lights (blue vase and red heart) sitting in the dining
room windows. While not my personal taste, the light in the window
theme has been popular for centuries. That the objects on the deep
window sills were illuminated served well for night time scenes, and the
bright colors added a Nikita-esque ambiance to the flat.
Would the lights have been less annoying if they were all geometric
shapes, rather than the one being heart-shaped?
AZ
Malsperanza
> <<- So did *anyone* hate
> those sconces as much as I did?
> You can see 'em all throughout s1. One scene for sure is the suicide
> note scene. Put Mercy back in. The gawd-awful thing is behind the
> computer. Ack! Tell me *that* is not a cockroach. With one that big
> hanging on my wall, I'd be suicidal too.>>
AZ:
> Ah ha...finally when this thread surfaced I've had time to put Mercy in
> the drive and check out the roach sconce. Cin, you are
> ABSO-FRELLING-LUTELY correct; that's one hideous sconce. I must have
> noticed it at some point in time, then immediately banished it from my
> memory bank - for self-preservation.
>
> Mal:
> <<...I mean, her general taste in decor suxx...not as irritating as the
> little red glowing heart where a window used to be...>>
>
> Well, I'm going out on a limb here and defend "Nikita's tastes". I liked
> many of the details in "her" decorating, they were "kewl", though the
> overall scheme always lacked...continuity.
>
> I didn't mind the lights (blue vase and red heart) sitting in the dining
> room windows. While not my personal taste, the light in the window
> theme has been popular for centuries. That the objects on the deep
> window sills were illuminated served well for night time scenes, and the
> bright colors added a Nikita-esque ambiance to the flat.
>
> Would the lights have been less annoying if they were all geometric
> shapes, rather than the one being heart-shaped?
To my mind, yes. I liked the colored lights, but the heart was just
soooo blatant. Always in the background behind Michael (esp in End
Game). Like, we get it already guys. No need to use a sledgehammer.
I loathed Nikita's s1 apartment (murky colors, ugly rug, and
apparently giant cockaroaches on walls), but I liked its later
incarnations, especially after they moved the building from Paris to
wherever in s3. I liked the shelf with individual vases, though
whether any flower except an Exotic Green Calla would have looked good
in them is dubious. The geometric art didn't thrill me (except when it
was used for Evil Nikita Mind Control Technique #47), but the glass
kitchen counter was stylin'. That white plastic chaise longue thing
was a bit dorky (and she seems to have swiped it from her hotel room
in Section).
Speaking of which, has anyone commented on the fact that the Really
Ugly Sweater that Nikita wears in SFTD turns up on Blonde
Lollipop-sucking Nikita Substitute in TTBH? Is it possible that this
was a subtle, intentional way of connecting Nikita to Little Blonde
Chica? Or were they merely cutting the budget? Seems odd, considering
that s4 is the season when they crashed a new black Mercedes. (Unless
that was very clever editing and they used a Merc that someone else
had already crashed.)
~Mal
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
apparently giant cockaroaches on walls), but I liked its later
incarnations, especially after they moved the building from Paris to
I agree for the most part about S1 flat, although by the end of the
season, some changes were emerging. By Mercy, the graffiti was gone
from the inside of the front door and the adjacent closet doors. In
fact, those ever changing closet doors were sporting the beautiful
embossed metal plaques in Mercy.
<<...the glass kitchen counter was stylin'. That white plastic chaise
longue thing was a bit dorky (and she seems to have swiped it from her
hotel room in Section).>>
Oooh, yeah; that glass counter...I'd love to recreate that countertop if
I ever re-do my kitchen. At least the furniture changed virtually every
time we saw the flat, so when it was "dorky" - which was at least half
the time - it didn't last long.
I've always wondered if Nikita was on a first name basis with the local
Rent-a-Center furniture dealer. She was so rarely home, she wouldn't
actually get bored with the furniture; guess she must have had a
"furniture of the month" plan with them. First Tuesday of every month,
they let themselves in and switch out all the living room furniture.
Wonder if they did the laundry and dusting, too. Guess if the furniture
changed that often, it didn't really get all that dusty.
<<Speaking of which, has anyone commented on the fact that the Really
Ugly Sweater that Nikita wears in SFTD turns up on Blonde
Lollipop-sucking Nikita Substitute in TTBH? Is it possible that this was
a subtle, intentional way of connecting Nikita to Little Blonde Chica?
Or were they merely cutting the budget? Seems odd, considering that s4
is the season when they crashed a new black Mercedes. (Unless that was
very clever editing and they used a Merc that someone else had already
crashed.)
~Mal >>
Seems like a fair trade-off to me...save on second ugly sweater so we
can crash new Mercedes. LOL
AZ
mazonmac
> <<I loathed Nikita's s1 apartment (murky colors, ugly rug, and
> apparently giant cockaroaches on walls), but I liked its later
> incarnations, especially after they moved the building from Paris to
> wherever in s3...>>
>
> I agree for the most part about S1 flat, although by the end of the
> season, some changes were emerging. By Mercy, the graffiti was gone
> from the inside of the front door and the adjacent closet doors. In
> fact, those ever changing closet doors were sporting the beautiful
> embossed metal plaques in Mercy.
Does anyone remember the red-washed walls late in s1? Loved those....
rather symbolic.
I also liked the 2-toned checkered doors from s3 (but for different reasons
than the red-washed walls) - they were just plain cool.
CAPTANNE
Top Post: Remember, though, it was a running joke that every time Nikita got
upset she "renovated." LOLOL If she was slingin' sledgehammers the viewer
knew to hang on for a ride. LOL
As far as the grafitti, et all, I think the writers (if they had a single
thought between them) were aiming at telling us Section was quashing her
creativity. It was slowly making her numb.
Anne
Anne
>Subject: Re: Cat and Mouse (was Re: Hard Landing...)
>From: AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
>Date: 8/25/2004 3:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <27782-41...@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net>
Malsperanza
> Oooh, yeah; that glass counter...I'd love to recreate that countertop if
> I ever re-do my kitchen. At least the furniture changed virtually every
> time we saw the flat, so when it was "dorky" - which was at least half
> the time - it didn't last long.
>
> I've always wondered if Nikita was on a first name basis with the local
> Rent-a-Center furniture dealer. She was so rarely home, she wouldn't
> actually get bored with the furniture; guess she must have had a
> "furniture of the month" plan with them. First Tuesday of every month,
> they let themselves in and switch out all the living room furniture.
> Wonder if they did the laundry and dusting, too. Guess if the furniture
> changed that often, it didn't really get all that dusty.
Um, isn't that what the Housekeeping dept. is for? No? Huh? What'd I miss?
~Mal
Ivor Jones
"Malsperanza" <malsp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6a41a349.04082...@posting.google.com...
ROTFLMAO..!
Ivor (Mr. Jones..!)
mazonmac
that refrigerator in the grand hall of Section? I swear! It's there.
Check out the scene where Abbey comes into Section and she's trying to find
Walter's area. She lingers just inside from the hallway when Nikita tells
her to look for hippie guy with pony tail and bandana. Right there behind
Abbey is a white fridge.... Maybe that's why Birkoff never seems to get his
lunch break - he doesn't have to go far to get his leftovers.... hope he
likes cold pizza.... I didn't see a microwave.
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
rather symbolic.
I also liked the 2-toned checkered doors from s3 (but for different
reasons than the red-washed walls) - they were just plain cool.
cin>>
Don't remember the red-washed walls; I've got to replay S1, obviously.
It may click when I see an ep.
Oh yes, the inside door...loved those squares. They were there in S2,
too; just watched a bit last night.
AZ
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
<<Um, isn't that what the Housekeeping dept. is for? No? Huh? What'd I
miss?
~Mal>>
LOL Somehow, I don't think light dusting and body/blood removal go
together. Hee
AZ
Malsperanza
> Remember, though, it was a running joke that every time Nikita got
> upset she "renovated." LOLOL If she was slingin' sledgehammers the viewer
> knew to hang on for a ride. LOL
>
> As far as the grafitti, et all, I think the writers (if they had a single
> thought between them) were aiming at telling us Section was quashing her
> creativity. It was slowly making her numb.
Also, IIRC, that is lifted from the movie. Doesn't young Nikita in the
Besson flick cover her cell/room with graffiti? And there too it is
meant as a sign of her independent spirit and creativity.
~Mal
CAPTANNE
>Date: 8/26/2004 10:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6a41a349.04082...@posting.google.com>
Yep!
And, for the truly paranoid.....Nikita from the film listens to
Nina
Simone
records.
Hee.
Anne
AZ-Kit...@webtv.net
Besson flick cover her cell/room with graffiti? And there too it is
meant as a sign of her independent spirit and creativity.
~Mal >>
Right you are; it was used in PoNR also, I believe. Used to signified
her rebellious nature as well, IIRC.
AZ