AOQ Angel Review 1-6: "Sense And Sensitivity"
Arbitrar Of Quality
episodes in these review threads
ANGEL
Season One, Episode 6: "Sense and Sensitivity"
(or "That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to
getting eaten in the ratings")
Writer: Tim Minear
Director: James A. Contner
This one starts weird. We join one plot in media res and another in
non-res. Starting off with Kate, Slightly Crazy Action Hero, is a
little unorthodox. Are we sure she doesn't have special powers or
something, what with that jump-kick and stuff? Anyway, she arrests a
guy who's involved in one of those gangster storylines where people
toss around lots of names. This is another in the line of funny
teasers: highlights include "[he shot himself] in the back of his head?
He wrapped himself in plastic and he locked himself into the back of
his car?" "He'd been depressed." From there, we go to a less
successful (but still okay) joke scene in which our heroes slay a
calamari monster, apparently as part of another day at the office.
There are a few more good lines here and there to (barely) keep our
attention as the plot generally slows to a crawl, as we pretend to be a
normal uneventful detective show for awhile. "So I'm a little
reserved. It doesn't mean I don't care." Like Kate's bit in
the teaser about not expressing herself well verbally, it'd be a good
enough deadpan in itself, even if it weren't part of the theme of the
show. "Pensive[er] Face" might be worth trying to work into casual
conversation too.
I totally didn't recognize Angel in that hat at the pier.
And we introduce our main plot device, disguised as just another in a
string of jokes. The sensitivity-training guy does a dead-on
impersonation of a clueless psychologist. But then Kate's behavior
in the moment right afterward... she's still clearly herself at this
point, but those who know her immediately realize that there's
something off, and the viewer quickly realizes that we're doing a
show about an evil sensitivity trainer. It's a funny concept, or at
least it sounds like it should be funny.
The rest of the episode, though, has the right ideas but they don't
seem to work. Part of it is that phenomenon I love so much where the
whole episode gets reduced to one basic premise, which loses its appeal
sooner or later. For example, did we really need twenty-eight "room
full of sensitive cops" scenes? But beyond that, there's also a
lot of stuff that's just not clicking. It's time once again to
play scene-as-microcosm-of-show (I think I need an acronym for that).
I'd like to focus on Kate's speech at the bar. It gradually
transitions into something very wrong, and everyone gets gradually more
uncomfortable. Fine in theory. But the execution, and I don't
really know whether to blame Rohm or the script here, turns into a long
unpleasant drone. Parts of this speech, and the aftermath with
everyone analyzing it, should be funny, but aren't. Like this
episode, it somehow fails to rise to the level of its premise.
Not the best of writing debuts for Co-Producer-Or-Something Minear; Tim
would of course go on to better and brighter collaborations with JW.
Still, there's a good episode trying to get out. For example, Angel
confronting the sensitivity guy is good dumb fun ("my parents were
great. Tasted a lot like chicken"), and then it's a bit stunning
to see that the guru's gotten to him too. Like our other bland
episode, "Lonely Hearts," S&S is also relevant for continuity
purposes, what with the reappearance of Mercer and the offscreen Senior
Partners, and a look (however ham-handed) into a character's
back-story. And I'd assume the growing closeness between our hero
and his cop friend is going somewhere. S&S could've earned a Decent
from me with no trouble if it weren't for the painfully bad final
act. We see Angel being more sensitive, but he just spouts the same
psycho-babble as everyone else about an act after it got old. And then
every scene goes on about an hour too long, in case we don't get the
hilarity of the joke. For example, not only does Angel complain about
breaking the window, but he has to stand there and s l o w l y ponder
whether to leave a note. And so on. This builds up a fountain of dumb
which explodes in the climax in which Angel and Kate save the day
through the power of touchy-feely. Bleah.
At this point I also realized how much the show would have benefited
from more snarkines from Doyle and Cordelia. Episodes like this one in
which the hero becomes a moron have at least the chance to suck less if
they're aided by a character who's on the audience's side, who
can be the sensible one, a counterpoint to the stupidity (i.e. Xander
in his few relevant scenes in "Beer Bad"). Said stand-in can start
by cracking jokes once the main joke wears thin, and then can channel
the viewer's growing annoyance as the routine grows thin. C&D would
be in the perfect position to save the show if the roles were reversed:
they shouldn't have been the straightmen to Angel being "funny."
They should've been providing the witty Whedon-speak while Angel
played the goofiness totally straight. The few good lines they do get
(Cordelia's "we're dead" is nice) only whetted my appetite for
more.
We close with a few good moments (Little Tony's fate, Kate's dad
sweeping the whole thing away without the talking or the hugging), to
remind us of the episode that S&S might have been, had it not kinda
sucked.
Other notes:
1} This is the first episode in which I can't recall any direct BTVS
nods.
2} Another O.J. Trial joke this week, as well as Cordelia referencing
not one but two beloved geek franchises with "Star" in the name. I
may have to subscribe to the suggestion that too much time around a
certain ex-boyfriend has permanently damaged her.
3} Rohm has been in almost every episode since the pilot. Given that
her dad survived S&S, Kate's at the top of my ATS death pool now.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- "Great shoes. New?"
- The discussion of whether Little Tony is planning something.
So...
One-sentence summary: It coulda been a contendah.
AOQ rating: Weak
[Season One so far:
1) "City Of" - Good
2) "Lonely Hearts" - Weak
3) "Into The Dark" - Good
4) "I Fall To Pieces" - Good
5) "Rm W/ A Vu" - Decent
6) "Sense And Sensitivity" - Weak]
angelbuffy0
"You know, you could be a rainbow and not a painbow."
And you MUST include the airquotes. LOL
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:It's time once again to
:play scene-as-microcosm-of-show (I think I need an acronym for that).
Just a wild idea, totally blue sky here, but how
about 'SAMOS'?
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2006 20:53:34 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality"
> <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> :It's time once again to
> :play scene-as-microcosm-of-show (I think I need an acronym for that).
>
> Just a wild idea, totally blue sky here, but how
> about 'SAMOS'?
samos jet car that thx 1138 drove after escaping from prison
to get to the shell and thence out of the city?
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Apteryx
news:1145678014.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads
>
> non-res. Starting off with Kate, Slightly Crazy Action Hero, is a
> little unorthodox. Are we sure she doesn't have special powers or
> something, what with that jump-kick and stuff? Anyway, she arrests a
> guy who's involved in one of those gangster storylines where people
> toss around lots of names.
Is that what she's doing? Arresting him? We learn later in the interrogation
that Kate does not suspect the guy of any offence, she just wants to
question him as to the whereabouts of a third party. Any legal experts care
to comment on whether arrest for that reason is legal in California? Because
she doesn't seem like she's just asking him to voluntarily accompany her to
the police station (the handcuffs give it away). Maybe she needs legal
training rather more badly than sensitivity training.
> I totally didn't recognize Angel in that hat at the pier.
Just the hat? No hat is an Angel hat, but that definitely isn't an Angel
shirt.
> And we introduce our main plot device, disguised as just another in a
> string of jokes. The sensitivity-training guy does a dead-on
> impersonation of a clueless psychologist. But then Kate's behavior
> in the moment right afterward... she's still clearly herself at this
> point, but those who know her immediately realize that there's
> something off, and the viewer quickly realizes that we're doing a
> show about an evil sensitivity trainer. It's a funny concept, or at
> least it sounds like it should be funny.
And hence you probably should have stopped watching at that point ...
> The rest of the episode, though, has the right ideas but they don't
> seem to work. Part of it is that phenomenon I love so much where the
> whole episode gets reduced to one basic premise, which loses its appeal
> sooner or later. For example, did we really need twenty-eight "room
> full of sensitive cops" scenes?
Here I do agree with you. There is basically just one joke here, and
although it is worth seeing it working its way out in different characters
in different situations, there really isn't any need to see so much of it
with characters we don't know. Dont think its 28 times though.
> But beyond that, there's also a
> lot of stuff that's just not clicking. It's time once again to
> play scene-as-microcosm-of-show (I think I need an acronym for that).
> I'd like to focus on Kate's speech at the bar. It gradually
> transitions into something very wrong, and everyone gets gradually more
> uncomfortable. Fine in theory. But the execution, and I don't
> really know whether to blame Rohm or the script here, turns into a long
> unpleasant drone. Parts of this speech, and the aftermath with
> everyone analyzing it, should be funny, but aren't. Like this
> episode, it somehow fails to rise to the level of its premise.
At this point Kate is not just parodying sensitivity as we see at other
times. She is laying bare emotions she never knew she had. And while that is
amusingly inappropriate for her speaking to her hard-bitten father, its not
laugh out loud funny.
>
> At this point I also realized how much the show would have benefited
> from more snarkines from Doyle and Cordelia.
Even though I like the episode much more than you, I agree that would have
improved it.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
First time I saw AtS S1, this was my favourite episode. It's fallen a little
since then (the humour isn't good enough to stand up to repeated viewing),
but I'd still call it Good. It's my 34th favourite AtS episode, 4th best in
Season 1
--
Apteryx
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> that Kate does not suspect the guy of any offence, she just wants to
> question him as to the whereabouts of a third party. Any legal experts care
> to comment on whether arrest for that reason is legal in California? Because
> she doesn't seem like she's just asking him to voluntarily accompany her to
> the police station (the handcuffs give it away). Maybe she needs legal
> training rather more badly than sensitivity training.
like anywhere else you can hold someone as material witness
or simple hold them without charges or arraignment
before shrub these tactics were of limited duration
arraignment had to be within 24 hours or you had to release
after shrub the usa is doing away with pesky rules against preventive detention
eli...@gmail.com
>getting eaten in the ratings"
Hehehehehehe! Can't think of anything else to say... one day I'll buy
S1 of Angel, because there are _some_ episodes which are truly
spectacular. And the show really beigns to pick up in S2 (just like
BtVS!), but for very different reasons.
Apteryx
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-91A18...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> Is that what she's doing? Arresting him? We learn later in the
>> interrogation
>> that Kate does not suspect the guy of any offence, she just wants to
>> question him as to the whereabouts of a third party. Any legal experts
>> care
>> to comment on whether arrest for that reason is legal in California?
>> Because
>> she doesn't seem like she's just asking him to voluntarily accompany her
>> to
>> the police station (the handcuffs give it away). Maybe she needs legal
>> training rather more badly than sensitivity training.
>
> like anywhere else you can hold someone as material witness
> or simple hold them without charges or arraignment
Wouldn't she need a warrant from a court to arrest a material witness? (I'm
not familiar with that, because here in New Zealand police don't have that
power, except of course via a subpeona issued by the court requiring
attendance once a trial has started, but I assumed that a warrant would be
required for that). Of course she may have a warrant, and may even have
produced it to him before he started to run. And wouldn't he need to be
someone with evidence for the court on the trial of an offender, and not
just someone thought to know the whereabouts of an offender?
As to holding without charges, I'm sure the police anywhere could arrest
someone on reasonable grounds and hold him for a short time intending to
charge him, and then deciding they lacked the necessary evidence, release
him. But are you saying that even before 9/11 police in the US could hold
anyone they liked for 24 hours even though they never had any thought of
charging him with anything, and incur no liablity for false arrest?
--
Apteryx
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> not familiar with that, because here in New Zealand police don't have that
> power, except of course via a subpeona issued by the court requiring
> attendance once a trial has started, but I assumed that a warrant would be
> required for that). Of course she may have a warrant, and may even have
police can detain people without charge or warrant or indictment
before shrub and his ploy of saving the constitution by ignoring it
there were strict time limits of like 24 or 48 hours
before a person had to be brought before a judge for an arraignment or released
nowadays if shrub declares you to be a bad man
you can be dropped in an oubliette forever
Arbitrar Of Quality
> At this point Kate is not just parodying sensitivity as we see at other
> times. She is laying bare emotions she never knew she had. And while that is
> amusingly inappropriate for her speaking to her hard-bitten father, its not
> laugh out loud funny.
Oh, agreed; I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Parts of that scene
should be darkly comic, and other parts should be an outpouring of
pain. I just don't think it works on either level.
-AOQ
Slayah
> 2} Another O.J. Trial joke this week, as well as Cordelia referencing
> not one but two beloved geek franchises with "Star" in the name.
Kate and Angel go to his office to confer. Cordy: "Mr. and Mrs. Spock
need to mind-meld now."
Opus the Penguin
> We join one plot in media res
Aha! I get to pet peeve you! "In media res" does not mean "in the
middle of things," it means "INTO the middle of things." It's the
accusative of motion towards, you see. You'd use the dative if you just
wanted to BE in the middle of things.
Hence, the verb "join" and other static verbs, especially verbs of
being, do not couple well with the expression. One "plunges" in media
res. Or in the example above, "We follow one plot in media res" would
be fine.
I'll remind you of this on May 22, the one month anniversary of our
little discussion.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> We close with a few good moments (Little Tony's fate, Kate's dad
> sweeping the whole thing away without the talking or the hugging), to
> remind us of the episode that S&S might have been, had it not kinda
> sucked.
I don't see the final scene with Kate's dad as anything good. To me, it
just made him seem like a total ass. Even though Kate had the whammy put
on her when she was babbling about growing up, the pain behind it was
absolutely real. For dear ol' dad to say "it never happened" is a slap
in the face, not only denying she is in pain, but denying he is the
cause of it.
If Cordelia thinks Angel is insensitive, she has no idea what the word
means. Kate's dad perfectly embodies the concept. Maybe that's the point.
>
> Other notes:
> 1} This is the first episode in which I can't recall any direct BTVS
> nods.
>
> 2} Another O.J. Trial joke this week, as well as Cordelia referencing
> not one but two beloved geek franchises with "Star" in the name. I
> may have to subscribe to the suggestion that too much time around a
> certain ex-boyfriend has permanently damaged her.
>
> 3} Rohm has been in almost every episode since the pilot. Given that
> her dad survived S&S, Kate's at the top of my ATS death pool now.
>
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - "Great shoes. New?"
> - The discussion of whether Little Tony is planning something.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: It coulda been a contendah.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
>
> [Season One so far:
> 1) "City Of" - Good
> 2) "Lonely Hearts" - Weak
> 3) "Into The Dark" - Good
> 4) "I Fall To Pieces" - Good
> 5) "Rm W/ A Vu" - Decent
> 6) "Sense And Sensitivity" - Weak]
>
I like this one but it's not anything great so I'd give it at least a
decent rating on your scale.
Mel
Arbitrar Of Quality
And so the Internet is used for the good of language instead of for
evil. If these AOQ threads imprrove the word choices of everyone who
reads them, they'll have done a good thing, albeit a totally different
one than intended.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I don't see the final scene with Kate's dad as anything good. To me, it
> just made him seem like a total ass. Even though Kate had the whammy put
> on her when she was babbling about growing up, the pain behind it was
> absolutely real. For dear ol' dad to say "it never happened" is a slap
> in the face, not only denying she is in pain, but denying he is the
> cause of it.
>
> If Cordelia thinks Angel is insensitive, she has no idea what the word
> means. Kate's dad perfectly embodies the concept. Maybe that's the point.
Yeah, that's the point. This episode shows us the excesses of
"sensitivity," and Kate's dad is the polar opposite, a total rejection
of those values.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
news:1145678014.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> episodes in these review threads
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season One, Episode 6: "Sense and Sensitivity"
> (or "That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to
> getting eaten in the ratings")
> Writer: Tim Minear
> Director: James A. Contner
>
> This one starts weird. We join one plot in media res and another in
> non-res. Starting off with Kate, Slightly Crazy Action Hero, is a
> little unorthodox. Are we sure she doesn't have special powers or
> something, what with that jump-kick and stuff?
I thought Kate running was kind of sexy. (Actually she's frequently
attractive in this episode. And a lot of different, sometimes quirky
expressions. When things got slow I'd just watch her.)
I rather liked the high voltage opening. Early in the series I thought they
were going to try for that approach as contrast to BtVS, but that seems to
have faded - until this scene. Here I think it works for me partly for just
being different. The scene is also visually striking. Kate's silhouette in
the alley with steam/smoke in the background is wonderful. That too was
something I thought was intended to be an ongoing characteristic of the
series, but has faded since - as it does in this episode, thought there are
a few more good moments.
> Anyway, she arrests a
> guy who's involved in one of those gangster storylines where people
> toss around lots of names. This is another in the line of funny
> teasers: highlights include "[he shot himself] in the back of his head?
> He wrapped himself in plastic and he locked himself into the back of
> his car?" "He'd been depressed."
A lot of good energy in this scene, even if it is kind of standard cop show
fare. I note that there are a lot of character actors in this episode.
Several of them are very good. Spivey in this scene. Little Tony. Kate's
Dad. And especially the sensitivity trainer, who nails the role. As
someone who's been compelled to sit through multiple variations of that,
I'll attest to it. Mercer I'm not sure about. He was suitably cold, but so
even tempered at it as to be almost bland. Maybe we'll see more of him?
It's about time for Wolfram & Hart to get an ongoing face.
So they did a good job with the main side roles, but there are so many in
this episode that depth of quality became a problem. I don't think the
problem with the mass sensitivity scenes was too many, too long, but rather
poor performances and suspect dialog.
> From there, we go to a less
> successful (but still okay) joke scene in which our heroes slay a
> calamari monster, apparently as part of another day at the office.
A nice excuse to get muck on Cordelia.
> There are a few more good lines here and there to (barely) keep our
> attention as the plot generally slows to a crawl, as we pretend to be a
> normal uneventful detective show for awhile. "So I'm a little
> reserved. It doesn't mean I don't care." Like Kate's bit in
> the teaser about not expressing herself well verbally, it'd be a good
> enough deadpan in itself, even if it weren't part of the theme of the
> show.
Gee, after your complaints about Cordy last episode, I'd think you'd at
least appreciate how this mocks her self centered manner.
Of course she seems beyond redemption on that score. I had to laugh at her
dismissive, "Lame," when Angel stumbles through an attempt to be sensitive.
I also realized something about my reaction to Cordelia. I would have
noticed the new shoes.
> "Pensive[er] Face" might be worth trying to work into casual
> conversation too.
>
> I totally didn't recognize Angel in that hat at the pier.
I loved this scene. The timing was slightly askew since the boat never
showed up, which means Little Tony wasn't really that close to escaping.
But that aside, the scene is really well staged. Good humor. (I like how
the heavy repeats Angel's greeting that he's Herb Saunders - like that
explained everything.) Good energy and pacing. Short, sweet and visually
pleasing. The burst of action was just right, and Little Tony running away
nicely setting up Kate's later line about letting him run longer. Kudos to
the direction here.
Oh, I also got a kick out of the talking to the plants line.
> And we introduce our main plot device, disguised as just another in a
> string of jokes. The sensitivity-training guy does a dead-on
> impersonation of a clueless psychologist. But then Kate's behavior
> in the moment right afterward... she's still clearly herself at this
> point, but those who know her immediately realize that there's
> something off, and the viewer quickly realizes that we're doing a
> show about an evil sensitivity trainer. It's a funny concept, or at
> least it sounds like it should be funny.
>
> The rest of the episode, though, has the right ideas but they don't
> seem to work. Part of it is that phenomenon I love so much where the
> whole episode gets reduced to one basic premise, which loses its appeal
> sooner or later. For example, did we really need twenty-eight "room
> full of sensitive cops" scenes? But beyond that, there's also a
> lot of stuff that's just not clicking. It's time once again to
> play scene-as-microcosm-of-show (I think I need an acronym for that).
> I'd like to focus on Kate's speech at the bar. It gradually
> transitions into something very wrong, and everyone gets gradually more
> uncomfortable. Fine in theory. But the execution, and I don't
> really know whether to blame Rohm or the script here, turns into a long
> unpleasant drone. Parts of this speech, and the aftermath with
> everyone analyzing it, should be funny, but aren't. Like this
> episode, it somehow fails to rise to the level of its premise.
I think your analysis here is accurate, but I'm not quite there as to matter
of degree. I think I got more amusement out of it than you. But I may be a
sucker for the concept. I've always been a bit -uh- skeptical of
sensitivity programs and such. (Motivational stuff too.) (My favorite
politically correct moment - being lectured on how I should use the term
"chronologically gifted" rather than "old".)
The scene you focused on is I think Kate's worst. It does drone. But she
more than makes up for it, IMO, in the later scene at Angel's office. I
think she's a stitch there.
Kate: ...but you see I have this..
Cordy: Personal problem that you're going to share until dawn?
Kate: ..gun, and I don't want to come off as insensitive, but if either of
you tries to stop me I'm gonna have to blow you the crap away, because I got
to go find my Daddy.
> Not the best of writing debuts for Co-Producer-Or-Something Minear; Tim
> would of course go on to better and brighter collaborations with JW.
> Still, there's a good episode trying to get out. For example, Angel
> confronting the sensitivity guy is good dumb fun ("my parents were
> great. Tasted a lot like chicken"),
Another good line and moment. Angel taking charge can be impressive.
> and then it's a bit stunning
> to see that the guru's gotten to him too.
The group hug I think is intended to be a moment to make the audience howl
in laughter, but it actually fell a bit flat for me. I'm not sure why. It
did surprise though.
> Like our other bland
> episode, "Lonely Hearts," S&S is also relevant for continuity
> purposes, what with the reappearance of Mercer and the offscreen Senior
> Partners, and a look (however ham-handed) into a character's
> back-story. And I'd assume the growing closeness between our hero
> and his cop friend is going somewhere. S&S could've earned a Decent
> from me with no trouble if it weren't for the painfully bad final
> act. We see Angel being more sensitive, but he just spouts the same
> psycho-babble as everyone else about an act after it got old. And then
> every scene goes on about an hour too long, in case we don't get the
> hilarity of the joke. For example, not only does Angel complain about
> breaking the window, but he has to stand there and s l o w l y ponder
> whether to leave a note. And so on. This builds up a fountain of dumb
> which explodes in the climax in which Angel and Kate save the day
> through the power of touchy-feely. Bleah.
Hmmm. Again I differ in degree. I don't think much of most of the police
moments. But I do like the breaking and entering and the final take down.
Short sharp action again that worked well. Rainbow/Painbow (w' air quotes).
You. No, You. Hug. I thought it was good entertainment.
> At this point I also realized how much the show would have benefited
> from more snarkines from Doyle and Cordelia. Episodes like this one in
> which the hero becomes a moron have at least the chance to suck less if
> they're aided by a character who's on the audience's side, who
> can be the sensible one, a counterpoint to the stupidity (i.e. Xander
> in his few relevant scenes in "Beer Bad"). Said stand-in can start
> by cracking jokes once the main joke wears thin, and then can channel
> the viewer's growing annoyance as the routine grows thin. C&D would
> be in the perfect position to save the show if the roles were reversed:
> they shouldn't have been the straightmen to Angel being "funny."
> They should've been providing the witty Whedon-speak while Angel
> played the goofiness totally straight. The few good lines they do get
> (Cordelia's "we're dead" is nice) only whetted my appetite for
> more.
Now do you want bitchy Cordelia or don't you? Make up your mind. heh-heh
Actually I think that's a really good idea and could have elevated the show
to a higher level. But I still think the weak assorted cop moments is the
greater problem.
> We close with a few good moments (Little Tony's fate, Kate's dad
> sweeping the whole thing away without the talking or the hugging), to
> remind us of the episode that S&S might have been, had it not kinda
> sucked.
>
> Other notes:
> 1} This is the first episode in which I can't recall any direct BTVS
> nods.
>
> 2} Another O.J. Trial joke this week, as well as Cordelia referencing
> not one but two beloved geek franchises with "Star" in the name. I
> may have to subscribe to the suggestion that too much time around a
> certain ex-boyfriend has permanently damaged her.
>
> 3} Rohm has been in almost every episode since the pilot. Given that
> her dad survived S&S, Kate's at the top of my ATS death pool now.
Well, I suppose it's hard to give Angel a romantic interest - though I'm
curious how or if the show will handle that question.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - "Great shoes. New?"
> - The discussion of whether Little Tony is planning something.
>
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: It coulda been a contendah.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
For me the problems with the episode take something that might have been
Excellent and drag it down to Good. There's too much humor, sharp action
and sometimes sharp dialog to drag it below that. I also really liked all
the attention on Kate, who remains for now the most entertaining character
for me.
I still have very little sense of what the series is about - which may
become a problem if that goes on too long - but the last two episodes have a
kind of verve to them that have kept me entertained.
OBS
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season One, Episode 6: "Sense and Sensitivity"
> (or "That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to
> getting eaten in the ratings")
> Writer: Tim Minear
> Director: James A. Contner
Until this week I had only watched this episode twice, maybe even just one
and a half times, and didn't really care for it. But knowing the AOQ
review was coming up, I decided to re-watch it the other day, and actually
kind of enjoyed it. I still saw its flaws, but they no longer mattered as
much to me, so I could enjoy the humor more. Apparently Sense &
Sensibility is my equivalent of Beer Bad, for those of you who said they
appreciated BB more on repeat viewing.
My biggest single problem with S&S is the final fight scene, when Angel
and Kate take on Tony and his new minions. At the beginning they're more
or less crippled by the sensitivity spell, but then they're suddenly able
to fight effectively, with no apparent reason for the transition. On
first viewing I thought Angel would then reveal that he had been faking
the whole time; but no, even at the end of the scene he's still under the
spell. It's never really explained, and it bothers me.
This scene might have worked better if Tony had shot Angel and the gunshot
brought out the vamp in him, giving him enough demony viciousness to
overcome the spell. That would have required either revealing his inuman
side in front of Kate, or else getting her out of room or maybe knocking
her unconscious. But I think it would have worked.
Clearly Tony never saw The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, or at least he
ignored Tuco's words of wisdom: "When you have to shoot, shoot -- don't
talk!"
> I totally didn't recognize Angel in that hat at the pier.
DB over-acts here just a bit, to show us that he isn't playing Herb
Saunders, he's playing Angel playing Herb Saunders. It's a bit like his
slightly overdone drunken spiel in the bar at the beginning of City Of.
BTW, Tony's henchman here is played by Steven Schirripa, who plays Bobby
Baccalieri on The Sopranos. (Thank you, IMDB.)
Re: the main plot, I did think the gradual introduction of the sensitivity
spell was pretty skillfully done, though at the cost of making the middle
of the episode a bit slow. I didn't mind the multiple repetition of the
sensitive-cop scenes, but I agree that part where Angel and Co. break into
the police station moved too slowly.
> unpleasant drone. Parts of this speech, and the aftermath with
> everyone analyzing it, should be funny, but aren't. Like this
> episode, it somehow fails to rise to the level of its premise.
I think the aftermath of the speech was supposed to be funny, but NOT any
part of the speech itself. (BTW, the speech, and ER's delivery of it, was
the part that I disliked most on first viewing, and that improved the most
on repeat viewing.) The aftermath would have worked better if most of the
cops hadn't started *physically* fighting: that was a bit too over the
top, and it didn't really fit with the pacifying effects of the spell as
seen elsewhere in the episode.
> At this point I also realized how much the show would have benefited
> from more snarkines from Doyle and Cordelia.
Did you notice how Cordy's hair was all mussed up when she was called to
the office in the middle of the night? She complained about these
late-night crises ruining her chance for a social life, but she *looked*
like she had just been called away from a night of sitting in front of the
TV in her sweat pants with a bowl of ice cream.
I also liked Doyle's pathetic little look of hope that Kate's psychobabble
would make Cordy suddenly discover that she was attracted to him.
> We close with a few good moments (Little Tony's fate, Kate's dad
> sweeping the whole thing away without the talking or the hugging), to
The bit with with Kate's dad at the end was another good one. By
insisting on pretending it never happened, he prevents Kate from
explaining or even apologizing, locking her into her "disappointing child"
role. Quality parenting there, Trevor. Ironic that the cop who most
needed the sensitivity training retired just in time to miss it.
> 3} Rohm has been in almost every episode since the pilot. Given that
> her dad survived S&S, Kate's at the top of my ATS death pool now.
But maybe ME realizes you're thinking that, so they'll kill someone you
aren't expecting while Kate proves to be immortal.
> AOQ rating: Weak
I would've agreed after my first viewing, but now I'd bump it up to
Decent.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
Could this have been a nod to Current 93's song "The Seven Seals Are
Revealed at the End of Time as Seven Bows: The Bloodbow, The Pissbow, The
Painbow, The Faminebow, The Deathbow, The Angerbow, and the Hohohobow"?
Okay, probably not.
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145678014.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>> episodes in these review threads
>>
>> This one starts weird. We join one plot in media res and another in
>> non-res. Starting off with Kate, Slightly Crazy Action Hero, is a
>> little unorthodox. Are we sure she doesn't have special powers or
>> something, what with that jump-kick and stuff? Anyway, she arrests a
>> guy who's involved in one of those gangster storylines where people
>> toss around lots of names.
>
> Is that what she's doing? Arresting him? We learn later in the interrogation
> that Kate does not suspect the guy of any offence, she just wants to
> question him as to the whereabouts of a third party.
I think Kate must have had enough evidence to charge him with *something*.
She was hoping to use the threat of going to jail for that something as
leverage to force the guy to talk. Unfortunately for her, he apparently
considered Tony more of a threat than jail.
>> I totally didn't recognize Angel in that hat at the pier.
>
> Just the hat? No hat is an Angel hat, but that definitely isn't an Angel
> shirt.
I'm surprised he even allowed it into his car.
One Bit Shy
news:124kpbu...@corp.supernews.com...
> My biggest single problem with S&S is the final fight scene, when Angel
> and Kate take on Tony and his new minions. At the beginning they're more
> or less crippled by the sensitivity spell, but then they're suddenly able
> to fight effectively, with no apparent reason for the transition. On
> first viewing I thought Angel would then reveal that he had been faking
> the whole time; but no, even at the end of the scene he's still under the
> spell. It's never really explained, and it bothers me.
Kate: Some people just really need to live in the problem.
We saw cops fight each other at the party. And we saw Kate pull her gun at
Angel's office in order to go see her daddy. And we saw Angel explain the
cursed talking stick even while under its influence.
I would think that a spell of this sort would horribly skew judgment - with
a strong leaning towards touchy feely techniques. But I wouldn't expect it
to remove physical capabilities. Nor remove their care for their friends.
So if the judgment ends up the guy's going to shoot anyway - or he really
needs to live in the problem - then I don't think it's inconsistent to reach
for their fighting skills as the best way to defuse the situation. Even
though Angel and Kate are overdosed on sensitivity, they still know Little
Tony is out to kill. So they settle for it being sad that Little Tony made
that choice. Rainbow/Painbow.
OBS
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> much to me, so I could enjoy the humor more. Apparently Sense &
> Sensibility is ...
Ooops.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Now do you want bitchy Cordelia or don't you? Make up your mind. heh-heh
Weren't you one of the ones trying to argue last episode that
bitchiness/confidence wasn't an either-or thing?
For the record, I liked it best what they were doing with the character
circa "I Fall To Pieces," with the mix of pragmatism, wisecracking
jadedness with the supernatural (hey, she's from Sunnydale), some
residual SHS Cordy, and traces of Hopeless Cordy from "City Of."
"I'm not comfortable asking people for money." "Then get over it! I
mean that in a sensitive way."
-AOQ
Apteryx
news:Xns97AD7677C9D54op...@127.0.0.1...
> Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
>
>> We join one plot in media res
>
> Aha! I get to pet peeve you! "In media res" does not mean "in the
> middle of things," it means "INTO the middle of things." It's the
> accusative of motion towards, you see. You'd use the dative if you just
> wanted to BE in the middle of things.
But isn't "res" feminine? In which case, since to say "the middle of things"
in Latin you need the adjective "medius" rather than the noun "medium", it
should be "In medias res" ("medias" being the feminine plural accusative of
"medius", to agree with "res" which here is plural accusative).
"In media res" would be correct if "res" was neuter.
--
Apteryx
Opus the Penguin
D'oh! In going for the obscure peeve, I missed the blatant one.
Proving that gender has nothing to do with sex, "res" is indeed a
feminine noun in Latin. "In medias res" is the correct expression.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> D'oh! In going for the obscure peeve, I missed the blatant one.
> Proving that gender has nothing to do with sex, "res" is indeed a
> feminine noun in Latin. "In medias res" is the correct expression.
Then why is the incorrect version so prevlanet in ninth-grade English
classes and such?
-AOQ
Opus the Penguin
Oddly enough, 9th-grade English teachers aren't required to know a lick
of Latin.
For what it's worth, I'm happy to report that googling the correct
phrase produces more than three times as many hits as the incorrect.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
> > Opus the Penguin wrote:
> >
> >> D'oh! In going for the obscure peeve, I missed the blatant one.
> >> Proving that gender has nothing to do with sex, "res" is indeed a
> >> feminine noun in Latin. "In medias res" is the correct expression.
> >
> > Then why is the incorrect version so prevlanet in ninth-grade English
> > classes and such?
> >
>
> Oddly enough, 9th-grade English teachers aren't required to know a lick
> of Latin.
if youre trying to say in the middle of things
theres a perfectly serviceable english phrase to express that
Arbitrar Of Quality
> if youre trying to say in the middle of things
> theres a perfectly serviceable english phrase to express that
Linguistic vareity is the spice of type.
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
if yure trying to say amidst sundry items
theres a perfectly serviceable english phrase to express that
la seule raison d employer le latin est une pretention de la education
KenM47
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads
>
>
>ANGEL
>Season One, Episode 6: "Sense and Sensitivity"
>(or "That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to
>getting eaten in the ratings")
>Writer: Tim Minear
>Director: James A. Contner
<SNIP>
>
>AOQ rating: Weak
>
>[Season One so far:
>1) "City Of" - Good
>2) "Lonely Hearts" - Weak
>3) "Into The Dark" - Good
>4) "I Fall To Pieces" - Good
>5) "Rm W/ A Vu" - Decent
>6) "Sense And Sensitivity" - Weak]
I would go for Decent (+). It's a very uncomfortable show because the
emotions that are brought out, particularly Kate's speech, are too
real. They seem wrong somehow to be made part of the plot of this
little vampire detective hero show.
Also, sensitive Angel came across a tad gay,
There is humor ("My parents were great. Tasted a lot like chicken."
And "Cordelia, do you have any idea just how precious you are?").
And Wolfram & Hart foreshadowing/foreboding. And Kate's father gets to
remain a jerk. And a little Kate/Angel smoldering seems OK - he's got
to move on from Buffy, right?
And rewatching did get me to realize a Buffy/Angel - Sopranos
connection I never realized before (Steve Schirripa, "Bobby
Baccalieri", on the pier with Little Tony)
Ken (Brooklyn)
Apteryx
In fact I notice that at least several sites on the first page returned by
"in media res" (in quotes) actually know it should be "in medias res" but
have included the incorrect version somewhere on their site to catch what is
evidently a common misquote. Website designers staying one step ahead of 9th
grade English teachers.
And one on that 1st page is a pun - a Harvard International Review Article
about the Russian news media. They apparently felt that "In Media Rus" would
have been labouring the point - either that or their spell-checker killed
it.
--
Apteryx
BTR1701
"Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145678014.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> > episodes in these review threads
> >
> > This one starts weird. We join one plot in media res and another in
> > non-res. Starting off with Kate, Slightly Crazy Action Hero, is a
> > little unorthodox. Are we sure she doesn't have special powers or
> > something, what with that jump-kick and stuff? Anyway, she arrests a
> > guy who's involved in one of those gangster storylines where people
> > toss around lots of names.
>
> Is that what she's doing? Arresting him? We learn later in the interrogation
> that Kate does not suspect the guy of any offence, she just wants to
> question him as to the whereabouts of a third party. Any legal experts care
> to comment on whether arrest for that reason is legal in California?
If he was a material witness to a specific crime, then yes. Otherwise,
no.
Of course, the few times Whedon's shows have delved into the niceties of
either the legal world or the military/spec ops world, everything goes
to hell in terms of plausibility. These areas are not the man's forte.
He seems to employ a comic book view of those subjects.
BTR1701
<mair_fheal-91A18...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > Is that what she's doing? Arresting him? We learn later in the
> > interrogation that Kate does not suspect the guy of any offence, she just wants to
> > question him as to the whereabouts of a third party. Any legal experts care
> > to comment on whether arrest for that reason is legal in California?
> > Because she doesn't seem like she's just asking him to voluntarily accompany her to
> > the police station (the handcuffs give it away). Maybe she needs legal
> > training rather more badly than sensitivity training.
>
> like anywhere else you can hold someone as material witness
> or simple hold them without charges or arraignment
No, you can't. I'm a cop and if I just walked up to someone on the
street and attempted to "hold them without charges or arraignment",
being fired would be the least of my worries.
BTR1701
"Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
> "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mair_fheal-91A18...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> Is that what she's doing? Arresting him? We learn later in the
> >> interrogation
> >> that Kate does not suspect the guy of any offence, she just wants to
> >> question him as to the whereabouts of a third party. Any legal experts
> >> care
> >> to comment on whether arrest for that reason is legal in California?
> >> Because
> >> she doesn't seem like she's just asking him to voluntarily accompany her
> >> to
> >> the police station (the handcuffs give it away). Maybe she needs legal
> >> training rather more badly than sensitivity training.
> >
> > like anywhere else you can hold someone as material witness
> > or simple hold them without charges or arraignment
>
> Wouldn't she need a warrant from a court to arrest a material witness?
Don't listen to what this "mariposas" person is telling you. He/she is
just spouting nonsense in order to make a political commentary on the
Bush administration.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> street and attempted to "hold them without charges or arraignment",
> being fired would be the least of my worries.
that has more to do with you being a wanker
than how the police and prosecutor can use the legal system to harass people
BTR1701
<mair_fheal-EFE54...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > No, you can't. I'm a cop and if I just walked up to someone on the
> > street and attempted to "hold them without charges or arraignment",
> > being fired would be the least of my worries.
>
> that has more to do with you being a wanker
> than how the police and prosecutor can use the legal system to harass people
Yeah, sure. You keep telling yourself that. Better tighten your tinfoil
hat. The black helicopters are circling.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
>> > Opus the Penguin wrote:
>> >
>> >> D'oh! In going for the obscure peeve, I missed the blatant
>> >> one. Proving that gender has nothing to do with sex, "res" is
>> >> indeed a feminine noun in Latin. "In medias res" is the
>> >> correct expression.
>> >
>> > Then why is the incorrect version so prevlanet in ninth-grade
>> > English classes and such?
>> >
>>
>> Oddly enough, 9th-grade English teachers aren't required to know
>> a lick of Latin.
>
> if youre trying to say in the middle of things
> theres a perfectly serviceable english phrase to express that
Well? Don't keep us in suspense.
Espen Schjønberg
To read makes our speaking English good.
--
Espen
There is Something Wrong[tm]
HeKS
"Apteryx" <apt...@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:C%k2g.15866$JZ1.6...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> "mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
> news:mair_fheal-91A18...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>> Is that what she's doing? Arresting him? We learn later in the
>>> interrogation
>>> that Kate does not suspect the guy of any offence, she just wants to
>>> question him as to the whereabouts of a third party. Any legal experts
>>> care
>>> to comment on whether arrest for that reason is legal in California?
>>> Because
>>> she doesn't seem like she's just asking him to voluntarily accompany her
>>> to
>>> the police station (the handcuffs give it away). Maybe she needs legal
>>> training rather more badly than sensitivity training.
>>
>> like anywhere else you can hold someone as material witness
>> or simple hold them without charges or arraignment
>
> Wouldn't she need a warrant from a court to arrest a material witness?
Hey Apteryx,
I'm in Canada and I'm gonna be visiting Australia and New Zealand for a
month at the end of year. Any suggestion on where I should visit in New
Zealand? I'll be there for about a week. : )
HeKS
Apteryx
news:VH43g.598$fx.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Hey Apteryx,
>
> I'm in Canada and I'm gonna be visiting Australia and New Zealand for a
> month at the end of year. Any suggestion on where I should visit in New
> Zealand? I'll be there for about a week. : )
>
> HeKS
I saw a Lonely Planet Guide for New Zealand on the weekend, and was rather
surprised at how little of the country tourists would get to see if they
followed their map for even a 4 to 6 weeks tour.
For a week I think you need to base yourself in one place and see as much as
can from there rather than trying to do the length of the country in a mad
dash.
If it is mountain and lake scenery you want then I suggest Queenstown. If I
stay in that area, I stay in Arrowtown because it's cheaper, more laid back,
and just nicer than Queenstown, but you are left with a 20km drive (to
Queenstown) for the views, so you might prefer to stay in Queenstown itself.
From there you have the lake itself, and the drive along it to Glenorchy
(nothing to see in Glenorchy, its just for the drive). You can go to the
Kawarau River to jump off the bridge (preferably with bungy cords attached)
or ride in a jet boat. For longer trips you can get to Milford Sound (a very
long but scenic trip by road, shorter by air), Lake Pukaki/Mt Cook, Lakes
Wanaka & Hawea. On the trip to Wanaka/Hawea, if you have a rental car, a
strong capacity for driving, and a travelling companion with a similar
capacity, you might consider carrying on over the Haast Pass and up the West
Coast as far as the Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers. But that is a very long
round trip from Queenstown, and I wouldn't recommend it if you are doing all
the driving yourself.
If you are more interested in traditional Maori culture, then Rotorua should
be your base (you won't notice the smell of sulphur after the first day, but
if that is likely to bother you, base yourself in Hamilton - 100km from
Rotorua, but pretty central for touring the area). Rotorua has the bonus of
several lakes, plus geysers and boiling mud (hence the sulphur).
--
Apteryx
Apteryx
news:btr1702-D0983C...@news.giganews.com...
Thanks for that. It's possible of course that an expert on any area that the
series touches on would find the same thing. Like what I say about
newspapers - 98% of the time they are completely reliable, but in the 2% of
the time when they write about something I happen to know about, they get
everything cockeyed :)
--
Apteryx