AOQ Review 3-4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Three, Episode 4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
(or "In wildness is the preservation of the world")
Writer: Marti Noxon
Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
Well, this one wasn't what I was expecting. And it's full of all
sorts of stuff, some really cool and some, uh, not. It'll be a bit
of a tough one to write while I sort it all out in my head here.
There are a bunch of beasts running rampant in this episode. There's
Oz, who looks less like a bear and more like a monkey. I guess it's
a slight improvement. There's Angel, who's become a beast (yet he
had the presence of mind to find himself a pair of pants and put them
on properly in the time since F/H/T. Funny, that). And then we get
another beast about midway through too, the one responsible for the
killings we'd considered pinning on our regulars.
It seems that Seth Green hasn't had the chance to do much serious
acting thus far. Well, here's his chance to shine. Watch his
delivery on "get away from me," early on, or the 'I'm a little
scared, but mostly for your sake' vibe he gives off during the
confrontation with Pete. While it may not compare to, say, killing
your boyfriend after finally getting him back, being a werewolf pretty
much sucks. Since the ravaging brutality (and any metaphors for
bad-machismo you want to throw in) are so antithetical to whom Oz is,
he seems so deeply ashamed to let anyone see it (which in itself makes
him act meaner...). Some really nice moments.
Didn't much enjoy Xander's nonchalant attitude towards his Ozwatch,
both before and after it becomes clear that Oz might've escaped.
What's up with that? Why volunteer in the first place if you're
not interested in doing your job?
Buffy runs into Angel again sooner than I'd expected, sees that
he's crazed, and without much explanation to the viewer decides to
break out the bondage gear and keep him isolated. Um, huh. We do get
an explanation for Angel's reappearance, and you know what? It's
a pretty good one. He didn't die, cuz vamps can heal from sword
wounds, and he's fought his way out Hell... after several hundred
years. The events of "Becoming" have been kinda undone, but they
can't be brushed aside, and things can't go back to the way they
were before Angelus and Alfalfa. I think my sense of moral outrage can
stay muted here.
Not much to say about the stuff with the counselor; too much
pop-psychology for my tastes, and I was groaning at Buffy spilling her
guts to him when he was clearly dead.
With the reemergence of Angel, it looks like the guy Buffy's been
hanging out with, Scott, is in danger of being left by the wayside.
This episode suggests that he's a worthwhile character in his own
right. Or just that the writers are interested in giving him good
lines like "that's what I stopped you for, basically -
'hey,'" and "I hope you realize that I don't actually know
these people, I just thought you'd like me better if I had
'friends.'"
And out of nowhere this episode becomes a story about Debbie and Pete.
After maybe two minutes of screentime, they become the most important
players in the last twenty minutes of the show. It's enough to make
you go "wha?"
This plot, in which Pete is driven to turn himself into a violent
monster, is one of BTVS's most overt metaphors ever. That's not
even the best word choice, since stuff like a guy tearfully telling his
girlfriend that he didn't mean to hurt her (he's so sorry, he just
loves her, it'll be different from now on) or Debbie putting on
makeup to disguise a black eye aren't actually metaphorical at all.
It seems people think that Marti Noxon has a pattern of idealizing
twisted or abusive relationships, but this particular episode does the
opposite: by denying that there's a problem, Debbie only achieves the
deaths of several people, and ultimately herself. Pretty
straightforward. If anything, people like Pete (or the monster he's
become) need help, but they're dangerous individuals who absolutely
do not deserve our sympathy or our tolerance.
So is it a good thing that the episode is so direct? A bad thing? By
itself, neither; it depends on the execution. And here it struck me as
a fairly pedestrian story about a couple of characters I have no real
reason to care about. I think there was also probably an attempt to
reflect things on Buffy (i.e. the irony of Buffy being the one to
preach about abusive boyfriends), but this time I really can't go
along with that. Totally different situation in every relevant way.
But then the episode makes things interesting at the end and throws a
wrench into the basic morality play. Angel, a creature of pure
violence, kills in the name of protecting someone to show that he's
civilized and capable of love. Well, that complicates our analogies.
If I can throw in a dash of pretension, it's more _White Fang_ than
_Call Of The Wild_. Both Boreanaz and Gellar do a tremendous job with
the mostly nonverbal scene.
Some short takes:
1) Our heroes generally seem pretty smart this week, rationally
considering the various candidates for killer early on, and rationally
dismissing Debbie and focusing on Pete at the end based on the
evidence.
2) I'm sorry, but Pete's transformation ritual is hilarious,
funnier than both incarnations of the Ozwolf costume combined.
3) Nice to see that someone can tear apart the library cage like the
cheap-looking stuff it is, even if our regulars are wusses.
This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
- Faith listening to her discman while on Ozwatch
All right, I've worked it out. BATB isn't such a great episode as
a whole, but certain individual scenes are quite good, enough to make
the whole thing at least worth a look. That's my story and I'm
sticking with it.
So...
One-sentence summary: A weaker episode bolstered by some strong
moments.
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season Three so far:
1) "Anne" - Decent
2) "Dead Man's Party" - Excellent
3) "Faith, Hope, and Trick" - Good
4) "Beauty And The Beasts" - Decent]
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
> (or "In wildness is the preservation of the world")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
> Well, this one wasn't what I was expecting. And it's full of all
> sorts of stuff, some really cool and some, uh, not. It'll be a bit
> of a tough one to write while I sort it all out in my head here.
>
> There are a bunch of beasts running rampant in this episode. There's
> Oz, who looks less like a bear and more like a monkey. I guess it's
> a slight improvement. There's Angel, who's become a beast (yet he
> had the presence of mind to find himself a pair of pants and put them
> on properly in the time since F/H/T. Funny, that).
Ah yes, Angel's magic pants. He managed to get them on, back at the end
of 'Surprise', when he was losing his soul too.
> Not much to say about the stuff with the counselor; too much
> pop-psychology for my tastes, and I was groaning at Buffy spilling her
> guts to him when he was clearly dead.
He was a smoker. Smokers rarely come to a good end on Buffy. (Amy the
spontaneously combusting cheerleader was a smoker. The girl who got
beat up in the school basement by the ugly man was a smoker. The lady
smoking in the alley had her throat torn out by Angel, the smoker at the
DMP had his neck broken...)
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
William George Ferguson
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Three, Episode 4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
>(or "In wildness is the preservation of the world")
>Writer: Marti Noxon
>Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
>Well, this one wasn't what I was expecting.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
>And it's full of all
>sorts of stuff, some really cool and some, uh, not. It'll be a bit
>of a tough one to write while I sort it all out in my head here.
My take, not a very good episode as an episode, but with sparkling bits,
pretty much the same as your take.
>There are a bunch of beasts running rampant in this episode. There's
>Oz, who looks less like a bear and more like a monkey. I guess it's
>a slight improvement. There's Angel, who's become a beast (yet he
>had the presence of mind to find himself a pair of pants and put them
>on properly in the time since F/H/T. Funny, that).
Oh yes, the magic pants. I think the newsgroup finally agreed that Angel
has the mystic ability to summon pants (he also used this ability at the
end of Surprise, remember?).
>It seems that Seth Green hasn't had the chance to do much serious
>acting thus far. Well, here's his chance to shine. Watch his
>delivery on "get away from me," early on, or the 'I'm a little
>scared, but mostly for your sake' vibe he gives off during the
>confrontation with Pete. While it may not compare to, say, killing
>your boyfriend after finally getting him back, being a werewolf pretty
>much sucks. Since the ravaging brutality (and any metaphors for
>bad-machismo you want to throw in) are so antithetical to whom Oz is,
>he seems so deeply ashamed to let anyone see it (which in itself makes
>him act meaner...). Some really nice moments.
The two best ones, "I may be a cold blooded jelly donut, by my timing is
impeccable." and "Times up, rules change"
>With the reemergence of Angel, it looks like the guy Buffy's been
>hanging out with, Scott, is in danger of being left by the wayside.
>This episode suggests that he's a worthwhile character in his own
>right. Or just that the writers are interested in giving him good
>lines like "that's what I stopped you for, basically -
>'hey,'" and "I hope you realize that I don't actually know
>these people, I just thought you'd like me better if I had
>'friends.'"
>
>And out of nowhere this episode becomes a story about Debbie and Pete.
>After maybe two minutes of screentime, they become the most important
>players in the last twenty minutes of the show. It's enough to make
>you go "wha?"
The aggravating thing is that, while you might not know or figure the
specific details, you pretty much know that Pete is the bad guy behind the
killings within literally seconds of him being introduced.
>Some short takes:
>1) Our heroes generally seem pretty smart this week, rationally
>considering the various candidates for killer early on, and rationally
>dismissing Debbie and focusing on Pete at the end based on the
>evidence.
And didn't you love Willow's Scooby lunchpail forensic kit?
>This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
>- Faith listening to her discman while on Ozwatch
Oh come on. You also laughed at "Bloody priceless.", admit it.
>All right, I've worked it out. BATB isn't such a great episode as
>a whole, but certain individual scenes are quite good, enough to make
>the whole thing at least worth a look. That's my story and I'm
>sticking with it.
And a final meta- commment, it generally isn't good when the characters
themselves comment on the plotholes.
Cordelia: "Where have I been?"
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
hopelessly devoted
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Season Three, Episode 4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
> Well, this one wasn't what I was expecting. And it's full of all
> sorts of stuff, some really cool and some, uh, not. It'll be a bit
> of a tough one to write while I sort it all out in my head here.
I have been trying to keep everything on a "on first viewing" level and
will do my best here as well.
First off I loved Willows expression on the "part about rabbits".
Never could figure out why the mention of rabbits drove wolfOz nuts but
the whole discussion including the full monty was a nice opening.
The slayer bonding and the "all men are beasts" speech turned out to be
a nice setup for the story.
> It seems that Seth Green hasn't had the chance to do much serious
> acting thus far. Well, here's his chance to shine. Watch his
> delivery on "get away from me," early on, or the 'I'm a little
> scared, but mostly for your sake' vibe he gives off during the
> confrontation with Pete......
Loved Oz response to Giles suggestion to have a slayer watch him. Seth
does indeed shine. At this moment in the series, I realized how
perfect he and Willow are together, the easy and comfortable way it
happened starting mid S2.
> Didn't much enjoy Xander's nonchalant attitude towards his Ozwatch,
> both before and after it becomes clear that Oz might've escaped.
> What's up with that? Why volunteer in the first place if you're
> not interested in doing your job?
Along with pure adolescent testosterone filled bravado, this girl
obsessed teenage boy is also the typical slacker at times. More about
Xanman when it becomes relevant.
> Not much to say about the stuff with the counselor; too much
> pop-psychology for my tastes, and I was groaning at Buffy spilling her
> guts to him when he was clearly dead.
I love it when shows can introduce us to new people and don't feel that
they have to play it safe. Counselor worked for me on that respect.
Also, this gives Buffy someone to trust at this point in her suddenly
confused world. Also seemed to me that along with Principle Flutie,
Buffy doesn't have a whole lot of luck with positive authority figures.
I also had a problem with the dead part. First boy was ripped apart by
a big wild animal but the counselor was "instantly" killed and didn't
drop his cigarette. Bullet in the head and no reaction would be hard
for me to believe, but those wounds, I'm not buying it for one second.
> With the reemergence of Angel, it looks like the guy Buffy's been
> hanging out with, Scott, is in danger of being left by the wayside.
> "I hope you realize that I don't actually know
> these people, I just thought you'd like me better if I had
> 'friends.'"
> (yet he had the presence of mind to find himself a pair of pants and put them
> on properly in the time since F/H/T. Funny, that).
The Pants and the growling were, and still are, the two most irritating
things about this ep, IMO. The pants I can't explain but it felt like
Angel was sucked into the K9 Hell dimension and bit his leash off to
escape.
> And out of nowhere this episode becomes a story about Debbie and Pete.
> After maybe two minutes of screentime, they become the most important
> players in the last twenty minutes of the show. It's enough to make
> you go "wha?"
My first response to them appearing was whoa!!!!! After the big
reveal, there was a kind of Aha!!!! Felt like old school Star Trek to
me.
W was a big whao in the morgue. Very in control, business first, faint
later. Very nice switch from the usual meek and mild.
> This plot, in which Pete is driven to turn himself into a violent
> monster, is one of BTVS's most overt metaphors ever. That's not
> even the best word choice, since stuff like a guy tearfully telling his
> girlfriend that he didn't mean to hurt her (he's so sorry, he just
> loves her, it'll be different from now on) or Debbie putting on
> makeup to disguise a black eye aren't actually metaphorical at all.
> It seems people think that Marti Noxon has a pattern of idealizing
> twisted or abusive relationships, but this particular episode does the
> opposite: by denying that there's a problem, Debbie only achieves the
> deaths of several people, and ultimately herself. Pretty
> straightforward. If anything, people like Pete (or the monster he's
> become) need help, but they're dangerous individuals who absolutely
> do not deserve our sympathy or our tolerance.
Pretty much sums it up. I did think the "He does love me" "He does
love me" "He does love me" part was a bit much.
> So is it a good thing that the episode is so direct? A bad thing? By
> itself, neither; it depends on the execution.
The Giles/Buffy scene discussing Angel's "possible" return. ASH gave
me chills. Each time I watch the scene, I can't take my eyes off of
his face, his searching eyes. The many emotions, questions. 1000
volumes. Discussing the two types of demon that are in fact one in the
same: Angel/Angelus. And ASH's slowly coming out of his own personal
hell. He's clearly still suffering from Angelus many forms of torture.
Also, this scene was the only explanation I had to justify the Hell
dimension in Anne.
> Some short takes:
> 1) Our heroes generally seem pretty smart this week, rationally
> considering the various candidates for killer early on, and rationally
> dismissing Debbie and focusing on Pete at the end based on the
> evidence.
I felt that the jump to the boyfriend as the monster a bit of a
stretch, but hey, tiime's short and we got to get this wrapped up the
old fashioned way. Check the shirt.
Nice to see the teamwork of the scoobs and slayers before (and
especially after Giles is shot in the tush) LOL. W/F on Oz, Buffy on
the vericose man.
> This Is Really Stupid But I Laughed Anyway moment(s):
> - Faith listening to her discman while on Ozwatch
Still more responsible than Xander.
Faith: "What are you doing here?"
Buffy: "Bleeding internally"
The ending segment of Cordy just there all of a sudden was a little
interesting. However I did love the on-screne theories, especially
about the 8 iced cafe mochas. The Angel drop the knees and final scene
of poor tortured A were a little much. Not my favorite, but still
better than my "not my favorites" from S1 and S2.
hopelessly devoted
Hadn't considered that about the smokers. However that doesn't explain
Spike. Great! Now I'm going to be stuck with serious thoughts all day.
Apteryx
news:1141881915....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
> (or "In wildness is the preservation of the world")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
>
> both before and after it becomes clear that Oz might've escaped.
> What's up with that? Why volunteer in the first place if you're
> not interested in doing your job?
Men are beasts. Although Buffy falls asleep the 2nd night after volunteering
to stand in for Faith, so maybe women are too. Or Slayers.
>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: A weaker episode bolstered by some strong
> moments.
Pretty much. Not much to see here. If it had to stand on its main story,
this would be one of the worst ever epidodes. But there is the getting to
know Faith bits, the whatever happened to Angel bits, and some good dialogue
(my vote goes to "Great. Now I'm gonna be stuck with serious thoughts all
day.") Overall, my 101st favourite BtVS episode, and 20th best in Season 3.
--
Apteryx
shuggie
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> There are a bunch of beasts running rampant in this episode. There's
> Oz, who looks less like a bear and more like a monkey.
Yeah, werewolves on a TV budget? not really gonna look good.
>I guess it's
> a slight improvement. There's Angel, who's become a beast (yet he
> had the presence of mind to find himself a pair of pants and put them
> on properly in the time since F/H/T. Funny, that).
Yep again. Well it is TV.
>And then we get
> another beast about midway through too, the one responsible for the
> killings we'd considered pinning on our regulars.
>
> It seems that Seth Green hasn't had the chance to do much serious
> acting thus far. Well, here's his chance to shine. Watch his
> delivery on "get away from me," early on, or the 'I'm a little
> scared, but mostly for your sake' vibe he gives off during the
> confrontation with Pete. While it may not compare to, say, killing
> your boyfriend after finally getting him back, being a werewolf pretty
> much sucks. Since the ravaging brutality (and any metaphors for
> bad-machismo you want to throw in) are so antithetical to whom Oz is,
> he seems so deeply ashamed to let anyone see it (which in itself makes
> him act meaner...). Some really nice moments.
>
Yes. It's interesting because the character of Oz relies on him not
doing very much most of the time, but when he is required to do
something, Seth brings it.
> Didn't much enjoy Xander's nonchalant attitude towards his Ozwatch,
> both before and after it becomes clear that Oz might've escaped.
> What's up with that? Why volunteer in the first place if you're
> not interested in doing your job?
>
Teenage attention span?
> Buffy runs into Angel again sooner than I'd expected, sees that
> he's crazed, and without much explanation to the viewer decides to
> break out the bondage gear and keep him isolated. Um, huh. We do get
> an explanation for Angel's reappearance, and you know what? It's
> a pretty good one. He didn't die, cuz vamps can heal from sword
> wounds, and he's fought his way out Hell... after several hundred
> years. The events of "Becoming" have been kinda undone, but they
> can't be brushed aside, and things can't go back to the way they
> were before Angelus and Alfalfa. I think my sense of moral outrage can
> stay muted here.
>
Hmm. You took that better than expected. I was still asking questions
at this stage.
> Not much to say about the stuff with the counselor; too much
> pop-psychology for my tastes, and I was groaning at Buffy spilling her
> guts to him when he was clearly dead.
>
> With the reemergence of Angel, it looks like the guy Buffy's been
> hanging out with, Scott, is in danger of being left by the wayside.
> This episode suggests that he's a worthwhile character in his own
> right. Or just that the writers are interested in giving him good
> lines like "that's what I stopped you for, basically -
> 'hey,'" and "I hope you realize that I don't actually know
> these people, I just thought you'd like me better if I had
> 'friends.'"
>
BtVS isn't stingy with the good dialogue. You can't judge who's a minor
character based on that. One of my favourite lines was given to a
one-shot villain.
("Qbrf guvf fjrngre znxr zr ybbx sng?"/"Ab gur snpg gung lbh'er sng
znxrf lbh
ybbx sng, gung fjrnere whfg znxrf lbh ybbx checyr")
> And out of nowhere this episode becomes a story about Debbie and Pete.
> After maybe two minutes of screentime, they become the most important
> players in the last twenty minutes of the show. It's enough to make
> you go "wha?"
>
Is it? As long as the villain isn't introduced in the final few minutes
then I'm ok.
> So is it a good thing that the episode is so direct? A bad thing? By
> itself, neither; it depends on the execution. And here it struck me as
> a fairly pedestrian story about a couple of characters I have no real
> reason to care about. I think there was also probably an attempt to
> reflect things on Buffy (i.e. the irony of Buffy being the one to
> preach about abusive boyfriends), but this time I really can't go
> along with that. Totally different situation in every relevant way.
>
I'd probably agree. I must admit I've been waiting to see your take on
this. A couple of years back I spent some time arguing with a guy who
thought that all three relationships were in some way abusive. I have a
hard time seeing Oz as abusive but substitute the word 'dangerous' for
abusive and it starts to make a case. I mean Pete may be the extreme
example but both Oz and Angel need to be restrained to protect their
women from their violent inner nature. I'd dismiss this if I didn't
happen to know that the working title for this ep was "All Men Are
Beasts". (naq gura bs pbhefr gurer'f "Ovyyl")
Of course they changed the title so someone in ME decided to pull back
from that radical a statement. Still it leaves me uncomfortable. One of
BtVS's main strengths for me is that it gives a positive image of
female empowerment without (usually) denigrating men.
> But then the episode makes things interesting at the end and throws a
> wrench into the basic morality play. Angel, a creature of pure
> violence, kills in the name of protecting someone to show that he's
> civilized and capable of love.
Yes. Well I think it's also an opportunity to show that he's slowly
recovering from his time in Hell and getting back to something like his
former self.
> AOQ rating: Decent
That's fair. I might give it more for some nice Oz moments and various
bits of dialogue etc.
KenM47
KenM47
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Three, Episode 4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
>(or "In wildness is the preservation of the world")
>Writer: Marti Noxon
>Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
<SNIP>
>
>One-sentence summary: A weaker episode bolstered by some strong
>moments.
>
>AOQ rating: Decent
>
>[Season Three so far:
>1) "Anne" - Decent
>2) "Dead Man's Party" - Excellent
>3) "Faith, Hope, and Trick" - Good
>4) "Beauty And The Beasts" - Decent]
OK. I have not yet rewatched yet. My memory is that "Decent" is right.
What everyone still seems to miss is this is another homage episode.
(or I'm the only one who thinks so because I never see anyone else
pick up on this). I don't know how much of this is Marti projecting,
but I'm guessing her assignment was to watch the old "House of ....."
movies (Frankenstein, Dracula, etc.), show that it's really Angel not
Angelus, and otherwise given carte blanche. Maybe it's a leftover idea
from season 1?
Everything is set up for the big battle at the end with the wolfman,
vampire and Mr. Hyde (I guess they could not figure how to bring a
Frankenstein monster in).
Looked at from that angle, I remember the ep as harmless enough fun
with a bunch of great little moments. In retrospect, yes it does seem
that Marti herself had relationship issues.
Maybe more later. I have to rewatch it now.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Kevin
AOQ wrote:
> Buffy runs into Angel again sooner than I'd expected.....
> .....The events of "Becoming" have been kinda undone, but they
> can't be brushed aside, and things can't go back to the way they
> were before Angelus and Alfalfa. I think my sense of moral outrage can
> stay muted here.
Angel's return came way too soon for many critics here. However, given
that they had to bring him back into the story before long -- with
spinoff in the works -- this episode does do a nice job of holding him
at a distance from Buffy. The final scenes leave her situation
unresolved, with appropriate fear and confusion, and the episode is
neither a bland uneventful placeholder nor a hasty
let's-get-Angel-back-to-normal whirlwind. Either of those options
would have been reviled; as it is, other major aspects of BATB already
repel many fans.
I quite liked the voiceover at the end, and the accompanying images of
B/A in the dark mansion; a good way to cadence this tense chapter. I
wonder if these voiceovers strike the same nerve with fans as did those
in Passion -- the technique seems to earn strong reactions. Curiously,
not only Boreanaz but Gellar too is far less convincing as a
voice-performer than as an actor in general... I'm right on board with
every positive comment about SMG's marvelous skill in performing her
role, right from the series premiere (excepting only her
18th-century-lady in Halloween, which was almost as distracting as
Julie Benz' patently American voice in every single !@#$^% flashback on
TWO series)... but maybe the youthful voice just isn't cut out for
audio-only. Still liked this ending, though.
--Kevin
KenM47
>"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>>threads.
>>
>>
>>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>>Season Three, Episode 4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
>>(or "In wildness is the preservation of the world")
>>Writer: Marti Noxon
>>Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>>
>
><SNIP>
>
>>
>>One-sentence summary: A weaker episode bolstered by some strong
>>moments.
>>
>>AOQ rating: Decent
>>
>>[Season Three so far:
>>1) "Anne" - Decent
>>2) "Dead Man's Party" - Excellent
>>3) "Faith, Hope, and Trick" - Good
>>4) "Beauty And The Beasts" - Decent]
>
<SNIP>
>
>Maybe more later. I have to rewatch it now.
>Ken (Brooklyn)
OK. Rewatched. All-in-all, I still think decent, maybe decent plus.
Yes, heavy handed re abusive men, but hey, it was just the one
episode.
A few things noted:
1. When Buffy returns to the mansion to chain Angel, she knocks Dru's
dolls off the chest.
2. Giles approach to sleeping Oz-watch Buffy a lot different than when
he heard how Xander fell asleep.
3. Angel's "Buffy" toward the end mirrors the reensouling in Bec2. SMG
gets to nail another moment.
4. In the F,W and wolfman scene, Willow gets "Ox" off Faith by pulling
his tail - funny in the midst of tense.
5. I think Willow's "super mas macho" comment at the end referred to a
bit that was running in those days on SNL "Quien es mas macho?"
6. Everyone talks about Angel's pants, but no one mentions the
magically appearing socks (in Buffy's first run in in the woods) or
the magically appearing shoes on chained Angel.
As for the pants, we're still talking about a show that aired at 8
p.m., that attracted a young audience, that pushed the censors in
various ways, and you can't have Angel running around nude. I say, cut
them some slacks!
Lots of great lines, great Scooby lunchbox, nice monster fights, a
decent plus "Buffy" (and SMG looked healthy).
Ken (Brooklyn)
BTR1701
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
Snvgu fzbxrq naq fur pnzr bhg bxnl.
kenm47
Zhpu, zhpu yngre, jura fur ab ybatre fzbxrq be ng yrnfg jnf abg fubja
fzbxvat VVEP.
Ken (Brooklyn)
shuggie
KenM47 wrote:
> As for the pants, we're still talking about a show that aired at 8
> p.m., that attracted a young audience, that pushed the censors in
> various ways, and you can't have Angel running around nude. I say, cut
> them some slacks!
Heh. Nicely done.
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Three, Episode 4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
> (or "In wildness is the preservation of the world")
> Writer: Marti Noxon
> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>
> Well, this one wasn't what I was expecting. And it's full of all
> sorts of stuff, some really cool and some, uh, not. It'll be a bit
> of a tough one to write while I sort it all out in my head here.
I have basically nothing to add, detract, or challenge in your review.
I usually skip this ep when I have my marathons, and if I do watch it I
FF through all the Pete/Debbie scenes. The continuing character
subplots are strong (something S3 does well in general), but the A plot
is total dullsville. Well, moving on. You're about to get to the good
stuff now.
Something to watch for: S2 was built around some long storylines that
played out over the whole season. S3 has those too, but also has some
shorter "mini-arcs" that play out over 2-3 episodes, especially in this
early part of the season. These subplots are often more important (or
at least more interesting) than whatever the MOTW is, and tie episodes
together in a more serial-like manner.
-- Mike Zeares
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
> Buffy runs into Angel again sooner than I'd expected, sees that
> he's crazed, and without much explanation to the viewer decides to
> break out the bondage gear and keep him isolated. Um, huh.
Easy explanation. Marti Noxon wrote this episode. It is odd that
Buffy knew where to find the chains, or even that there were chains at
the mansion. "Huh," indeed. But, we can't let logic get in the way
of a chained-up shirtless Angel. Full speed!
> It seems people think that Marti Noxon has a pattern of idealizing
> twisted or abusive relationships, but this particular episode does the
> opposite: by denying that there's a problem, Debbie only achieves the
> deaths of several people, and ultimately herself. Pretty
> straightforward.
For what it's worth, I don't think she idealizes such relationships.
She likes to write them because she likes the angst and horror they
bring. Also, she just likes kinky imagery. She's pretty much admitted
as much, and Joss has given her the credit for bringing that to the
show. Weird chick, but she seems nice enough. Also, she's kind of
hot.
-- Mike Zeares
Mike Zeares
Kevin wrote:
>
> I quite liked the voiceover at the end, and the accompanying images of
> B/A in the dark mansion; a good way to cadence this tense chapter. I
> wonder if these voiceovers strike the same nerve with fans as did those
> in Passion -- the technique seems to earn strong reactions.
I was annoyed by the VO in "Passion," but I liked it here. Maybe
because I've always liked _Call of the Wild_. Although I don't know
that it really fits, wrt Angel.
-- Mike Zeares
kenm47
were chains at the mansion. "Huh," indeed. But, we can't let logic
get in the way of a chained-up shirtless Angel. Full speed! "
This is the mansion where the vamps were "living," where she fought
Angelus, where Giles was tortured. She might not have known exactly
what she would find in Dru's chest (at least one doll on top of the
chest was gagged a la Ms. Edith), but it was reasonable to think she
would find something.
"For what it's worth, I don't think she [Marti] idealizes such
relationships."
Fixated or obsessed might be better words.
"Weird chick, but she seems nice enough. Also, she's kind of hot."
IMO: Yes, no opinion, not all that much.
Ken (Brooklyn)
kenm47
I liked the voiceovers in both, although I thought DB's reading in
Passion a little stiff.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Scythe Matters
> Julie Benz' patently American voice
Jnfa'g fur Nzrevpna jura gur Znfgre ghearq ure? V nqzvg V qba'g erzrzore
gur eryrinag NGF rcvfbqr jryy rabhtu, naq V'z gbb ynml gb purpx.
shuggie
I hope you don't mind me mentioning this but I've noticed (from looking
at headers etc) that like me, you sometimes post from Google and
sometimes not (using Agent in that case). On the occasions when you
post from Google you quote using a simple " at the beginning and end of
the quoted block - which to be honest I find hard to read. However, the
fact that when you post using Agent you use a more standard form of
quoting (">" at the beginning of each line) leads me to think that this
is not preference on your part but the perceived limitations of Google.
Perhaps you didn't realise but it is possible to do the same kind of
quoting on Google. Instead of clicking the Reply link at the bottom of
a post, first click "more options" at the top, then click the (newly
revealed) "Reply" link at the top. This will generate a form in which
you can type your reply and which already has the replied-to post text
inserted with ">" quoting.
If you were already aware of this and simply prefer the " method then
feel free to ignore this post.
cheers
Shuggie
kenm47
Hi Shuggie,
Pretty much I forget about the other way to do it through Google
sometimes. Other times I'm just looking to quote a short snatch out of
a longer post and the blank "Reply" box seemed simpler. I'll try to
remember to do as you suggest in the future - I was unaware that the
other way made things difficult to follow at times.
Least I can do for someone who appreciates any of my feeble jokes (or
puns) :-)
Ken (Brooklyn)
vague disclaimer
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Xra (Oebbxyla)
Fur jnf zbfgyl qrsvavgryl fzbxvat jura pbmlvat hc gb Fcvxr va Qvegl
Tveyf.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
Scythe Matters
more important of the two allegories.
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> There's Angel, who's become a beast (yet he
> had the presence of mind to find himself a pair of pants and put them
> on properly in the time since F/H/T. Funny, that).
Here's something else you missed: did you notice that Hell apparently
has a really good supply of razors and styling gel?
> It seems that Seth Green hasn't had the chance to do much serious
> acting thus far. Well, here's his chance to shine. Watch his
> delivery on "get away from me," early on, or the 'I'm a little
> scared, but mostly for your sake' vibe he gives off during the
> confrontation with Pete.
Green, as others noted, "brings it" when necessary. It's not often
necessary, but when it is, it really stands out. Green absolutely
inhabits that character...though from what I understand, it's not that
far afield from his actual personality. Werewolfing aside. I think.
> Didn't much enjoy Xander's nonchalant attitude towards his Ozwatch,
> both before and after it becomes clear that Oz might've escaped.
> What's up with that? Why volunteer in the first place if you're
> not interested in doing your job?
Imagine that...Xander doing or saying something impulsive and selfish
without considering the consequences. We've never seen *that* before.
> We do get
> an explanation for Angel's reappearance, and you know what? It's
> a pretty good one.
No we don't. He didn't fight his way out of Hell. I'm not saying whether
or not there will be an explanation, but we didn't get one in this episode.
> Not much to say about the stuff with the counselor; too much
> pop-psychology for my tastes, and I was groaning at Buffy spilling her
> guts to him when he was clearly dead.
The interesting part about the scenes were how "correct" they play even
though Buffy and the counselor are inhabiting two completely different
universes. What she's talking about is not what he's talking about, yet
the advice is good (albiet, as you say, pop-psych). This is interesting
because it fairly clearly shows how the mystical problems of the
Buffyverse really *are* metaphors for real problems; it's a peek behind
the curtain, if you will.
> And out of nowhere this episode becomes a story about Debbie and Pete.
> After maybe two minutes of screentime, they become the most important
> players in the last twenty minutes of the show. It's enough to make
> you go "wha?"
They're not the most important players in the show, even in the last
twenty minutes, which is why it's not important to make them important
from the beginning. That's the metaphor that you missed. But more in a bit.
> This plot, in which Pete is driven to turn himself into a violent
> monster, is one of BTVS's most overt metaphors ever.
Yes, but there's a bigger one lurking in the background.
> It seems people think that Marti Noxon has a pattern of idealizing
> twisted or abusive relationships
I don't agree that she idealizes them, but this was the point where I
started to be very wary of the Noxon influence.
BTW, did you notice the continuity -- when Buffy got the chains -- of
Dru's dolls? Miss Edith, and such. I've often wondered if the chains
were actually Drusilla's.
> Pretty straightforward. [...] So is it a good thing that the episode
> is so direct? [...]
> I think there was also probably an attempt to
> reflect things on Buffy (i.e. the irony of Buffy being the one to
> preach about abusive boyfriends), but this time I really can't go
> along with that. Totally different situation in every relevant way.
It's not. Let's look at a few things:
----
Faith: All men are beasts, Buffy.
[...]
Faith: It's not cynical. I mean, it's realistic. Every guy from...
Manimal down to Mr. I-Love-The-English-Patient has beast in him. And I
don't care how sensitive they act. They're all still just in it for the
chase.
----
This is the surface metaphor, which as you note is painfully obvious.
Pete is a beast, Oz is a beast, Angel is a beast. But there's much more
here, and it relates -- big surprise -- to the Buffy/Angel relationship:
----
Buffy: He was my first... I loved him, and then he...
Mr. Platt: ...changed.
She looks up at him, surprised again.
Buffy: Yeah.
Mr. Platt: He got mean.
Buffy: Yes.
Mr. Platt: And you didn't stop loving him.
----
Bringing in the "Surprise"/"Innocence" metaphor, which is a clue that
this episode isn't really about Pete or Oz, it's about Buffy and Angel.
Or, more correctly, it's about all those things.
----
Mr. Platt: Look, lots of people lose themselves in love. It's, it's no
shame. They write songs about it. The hitch is, you can't stay lost.
Sooner or later, you... you have to get back to yourself.
Buffy: (considers) And if you can't?
Mr. Platt: If you can't... (inhales) Well, love becomes your master,
and you're just its dog.
----
We know Buffy's not over the whole Angel experience, even after the
"goodbye" that ended the last episode, and in "BatB" we see that Giles
doesn't think she's over it either. But what sort of relationship is
Platt describing here? Co-dependency at best. And possibly emotionally
abusive? Well, there's a physically abusive relationship portrayed in
the episode, but there's also an emotionally abusive one: Buffy and Angel.
Some of it is Buffy's self abuse, but there's a very real and carefully
drawn parallel between the Pete/Debbie relationship and the Buffy/Angel
relationship. First of all, Debbie's dominant reaction is to hide what's
going on from everyone:
----
Buffy: What's going on, Debbie? I'll bet the farm you know.
Debbie: (shakes her head) You're wrong. I don't know anything.
----
When Angel returns, what's Buffy's reaction? That's right, hide it from
everyone...except Platt, who doesn't know what's *really* going on
(separate universes, etc.) and thus can't interfere:
----
Buffy: There's something going on. (her voice shakes) I mean, th-this
whole entire story is probably gonna convince you that I'm loony-bin
material, but... (shrugs) there's nobody else that I can talk to.
(inhales nervously) Not Willow and... not Giles. Nobody. (starts to pace
again) [...]
----
What's Debbie's big concern? That "they" will take Pete away:
----
Debbie: Would they take him someplace?
Buffy: Probably.
Debbie: (shakes her head, sobbing) I could never do that to him.
(Willow sighs) I'm his everything.
----
And what's Buffy's big concern?
----
Buffy: (con't) If they, if they found out, they'd freak on me or they'd
do something, and... [...]
----
Now, what's the lesson Buffy learned from "Passion"? That despite her
love for Angel, her inaction led rather directly to people dying. So
what does she tell Debbie?
----
Buffy: Normally, I'd say, you wanna play 'I have a secret'? Fine. But
people are dying here.
Debbie looks at her and Willow.
Debbie: It... it's not his fault. I mean, he's not himself when he gets
like this.
----
"Not himself"...just like Angelus, in Buffy's confused-by-love heart,
last season. And, probably, now. First love is (in stories) like a fairy
tale, and that's what the Buffy/Angel relationship was, to Buffy. But
what's her advice to Debbie?
----
Buffy: (disgusted) Great. So what, you two live out your Grimm fairy
tale? Two people are dead.
Debbie just shakes her head and says nothing.
Buffy: Who's gonna be next?
----
The same could certainly have been said to Buffy many times last season.
And, actually, *was*...by Xander.
So: Debbie doesn't want to tell anyone, wants to protect Pete from
consequences, and wants to help him *herself*. Buffy doesn't want to
tell anyone, wants to protect Angel from consequences, and wants to help
him *herself*. Like I said, parallel stories. And this is the *real*
metaphor at work in this episode.
There's even a visual component to it. We see Debbie actually getting
hit and physically abused. We also, initially, see animal-Angel hitting
Buffy (and vice-versa, of course). But watch Buffy's reactions when
she's chained Angel and he growls and lunges at her...or in the final
confrontation at the end. She *flinches* and *winces*...just as if she
were being struck. Just like Debbie.
At one point, Buffy shows Debbie the way out of her troubles:
----
Buffy: It's tricky, covering a fresh shiner like that. You know what
works?
Debbie: What? (puts away her makeup)
Buffy: Don't get hit.
[...]
Buffy: You have to talk to us. (Debbie shakes her head) We can't help
you until you do.
Debbie: I didn't ask for your help!
Willow: Well, when are you going to? I mean, if Pete kills you, it'll
pretty much be too late.
[...]
Buffy: Look at yourself. Why are you protecting him? Anybody who really
loved you couldn't do this to you.
----
But back in her own grim (or Grimm) fairy tale, Buffy doesn't say
anything to anyone (that matters, and now Platt's dead anyway).
Anyway, it's not as straightforward and direct as you first thought.
There's much more going under the surface. And the two abusive
relationship most definitely *do* resonate with each other.
I'm not saying that the entirety of Buffy's relationship with Angel is
about abuse. Certainly, it's not. There's real love there, or at least
there was, and on Buffy's part it's rather obviously never gone away.
Pre-"Surprise" Buffy/Angel were, aside from the age and vampire issues,
a pretty good couple (NB: I'm not taking a position on *liking* them or
not, so the anti-B/A faction should hold off on the angry retorts),
without any of this sort of abuse. But now, knowing what we know from
"Surprise" and knowing what desouled Angel has done, things are
different. They *have* to be different. The question is, will Buffy see
that?
Jeff Jacoby
Fur jnf sebz 17gu praghel Ivetvavn. Ohg V unir ab vqrn
jura na Nzrevpna npprag qrirybcrq naq qviretrq sebz Ratyvfu.
Jeff
Scythe Matters
> Fur jnf sebz 17gu praghel Ivetvavn.
Thanks.
kenm47
Gurer lbh tb. V'z oybpxvat frnfba frira ntnva!
Ken (Brooklyn)
kenm47
Scythe Matters wrote:
<BIG SNIP>
> The interesting part about the scenes were how "correct" they play even
> though Buffy and the counselor are inhabiting two completely different
> universes. What she's talking about is not what he's talking about, yet
> the advice is good (albiet, as you say, pop-psych). This is interesting
> because it fairly clearly shows how the mystical problems of the
> Buffyverse really *are* metaphors for real problems; it's a peek behind
> the curtain, if you will.
>
<BIGGER SNIP>
Something occurred to me, literal me, as I rewatched those scenes,
possibly taking me back to my mindset when first run: it wasn't that
Buffy's adventures were a metaphor for the real non-Buffy world, as
much as those in that "real" world, like the psychologist, could not
help dealing with "real" life situations (a "real" world that could not
tolerate the idea that things like vampires existed) which were the
metaphors for what Buffy was going through.
That's probably not as clearly stated as I would like. It's a looking
glass view.
Ken (Brooklyn)
EGK
>
>Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>> threads.
>>
>>
>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>> Season Three, Episode 4: "Beauty And The Beasts"
>> (or "In wildness is the preservation of the world")
>> Writer: Marti Noxon
>> Director: James Whitmore, Jr.
>>
>> Well, this one wasn't what I was expecting. And it's full of all
>> sorts of stuff, some really cool and some, uh, not. It'll be a bit
>> of a tough one to write while I sort it all out in my head here.
>
>I have basically nothing to add, detract, or challenge in your review.
>I usually skip this ep when I have my marathons, and if I do watch it I
>FF through all the Pete/Debbie scenes. The continuing character
>subplots are strong (something S3 does well in general), but the A plot
>is total dullsville. Well, moving on. You're about to get to the good
>stuff now.
That's basically my view of this episode. The heavy-handed metaphor with
Pete and Debbie was pretty poor, in my opinion and made this episode my
least favorite of season 3. The ongoing character sub-plots are what saved
episodes like this for me.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)
One Bit Shy
news:1141916477.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Ken, I think that's something really important to remember when you get to
that place you hate so much.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:j8udncvFYuq...@rcn.net...
> We agree on the rating. The episode is...fine. But boy, did you miss the
> more important of the two allegories.
Really, really good analysis. Kudos.
But after all that, I'm curious why you leave it so low rated.
OBS
kenm47
I'll probably forget, if we do ever get there. :-) You'll remind me,
right?
Ken (Brooklyn)
One Bit Shy
news:1141893584....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> I'd probably agree. I must admit I've been waiting to see your take on
> this. A couple of years back I spent some time arguing with a guy who
> thought that all three relationships were in some way abusive. I have a
> hard time seeing Oz as abusive but substitute the word 'dangerous' for
> abusive and it starts to make a case. I mean Pete may be the extreme
> example but both Oz and Angel need to be restrained to protect their
> women from their violent inner nature. I'd dismiss this if I didn't
> happen to know that the working title for this ep was "All Men Are
> Beasts". (naq gura bs pbhefr gurer'f "Ovyyl")
>
> Of course they changed the title so someone in ME decided to pull back
> from that radical a statement. Still it leaves me uncomfortable. One of
> BtVS's main strengths for me is that it gives a positive image of
> female empowerment without (usually) denigrating men.
Well, Beauty and the Beast is a story of taming the beast - which hardly
denies that it exists in all men to begin with. It's probably a better
title simply because it goes to the relationship between the women and the
men, and because here the taming sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
Faith's philosophy is a nice challenge, but insufficient in the end.
As for the denigration of men, I think the show rides the edge of that
sometimes. It's hard not to with the empowerment theme. But it usually
restrains itself from the extreme. However, I think the greater restraint
is in not over-glorifying the empowerment. It wouldn't be hard to convert
the show into a feminist polemic. Thank heavens it didn't go there.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:1141890140.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> The Pants and the growling were, and still are, the two most irritating
> things about this ep, IMO. The pants I can't explain but it felt like
> Angel was sucked into the K9 Hell dimension and bit his leash off to
> escape.
Maybe he spent the last couple hundred odd years running with a pack of
Hellhounds.
One Bit Shy
One way or the other, I'm sure. heh-heh
OBS
Scythe Matters
> Really, really good analysis. Kudos.
Thanks.
> But after all that, I'm curious why you leave it so low rated.
A good question. ;-)
The effects for the Pete transformation are ridiculous. The notion that
Pete's capable of the potion isn't set up, but only referred to after
the fact. Pete's too cartoony, and the Pete/Debbie relationship is a
little too cliché for me. Buffy covers for Angel far too smoothly; given
the shock of his return, it shouldn't be so easy to fool her friends
(though there's a suggestion that Giles may suspect). Even after all the
stuff I've just written about the Buffy/Angel metaphor, there's not even
the slightest hint that Buffy's realizing any of it. And finally, I
generally find it a little tiresome to watch...and occasionally
unpleasant (I'm not fond of the Pete/Debbie violence).
It's an example, for me, of an episode that gets us where we need to go,
but does it in a somewhat ham-fisted way. As a piece of the Buffyverse
and the greater arc, and as metaphor, it's at least "good" on AoQ's
scale. As a self-contained work, it's less good.
Don Sample
"hopelessly devoted" <cry...@cinstall.com> wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
> > He was a smoker. Smokers rarely come to a good end on Buffy. (Amy the
> > spontaneously combusting cheerleader was a smoker. The girl who got
> > beat up in the school basement by the ugly man was a smoker. The lady
> > smoking in the alley had her throat torn out by Angel, the smoker at the
> > DMP had his neck broken...)
>
> Hadn't considered that about the smokers. However that doesn't explain
> Spike. Great! Now I'm going to be stuck with serious thoughts all day.
Smokers generally fall into one of three categories:
1) Victims (see above)
2) Evil guys (Spike, Angel without his soul, Wbanguna, nsgre ur
wbvarq gur gevb.)
3) People under the influence of mind altering magic (Tvyrf naq
Wblpr va Onaq Pnaql.)
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Don Sample
Jr qba'g frr ure fzbxr hagvy nsgre fur'f pbzr onpx sebz gur qnex fvqr,
va frnfba 7.
Don Sample
BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <dsample-1408ED...@news.giganews.com>,
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> > He was a smoker. Smokers rarely come to a good end on Buffy. (Amy the
> > spontaneously combusting cheerleader was a smoker. The girl who got
> > beat up in the school basement by the ugly man was a smoker. The lady
> > smoking in the alley had her throat torn out by Angel, the smoker at the
> > DMP had his neck broken...)
>
> Snvgu fzbxrq naq fur pnzr bhg bxnl.
Hence the "rarely" instead of a "never."
kenm47
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <1141906875.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > BTR1701 wrote:
> > > In article <dsample-1408ED...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > He was a smoker. Smokers rarely come to a good end on Buffy. (Amy the
> > > > spontaneously combusting cheerleader was a smoker. The girl who got
> > > > beat up in the school basement by the ugly man was a smoker. The lady
> > > > smoking in the alley had her throat torn out by Angel, the smoker at the
> > > > DMP had his neck broken...)
> > >
> > > Snvgu fzbxrq naq fur pnzr bhg bxnl.
> >
> > Zhpu, zhpu yngre, jura fur ab ybatre fzbxrq be ng yrnfg jnf abg fubja
> > fzbxvat VVEP.
>
> Jr qba'g frr ure fzbxr hagvy nsgre fur'f pbzr onpx sebz gur qnex fvqr,
> va frnfba 7.
>
> --
OK. I stand corrected, and don't know what else to say about it now,
bgure guna shegure cebbs bs vapbafvfgrag onq jevgvat va frnfba frira
:-)
Ken (Brooklyn)
Don Sample
"hopelessly devoted" <cry...@cinstall.com> wrote:
> First off I loved Willows expression on the "part about rabbits".
> Never could figure out why the mention of rabbits drove wolfOz nuts but
> the whole discussion including the full monty was a nice opening.
Ozwolf: predator. Rabbits: prey.
I've often wondered about this exchange in 'Phases':
Giles: Several animal carcasses were found mutilated.
Willow: You mean, like bunnies and stuff? No, don't tell me.
Oz: Oh, don't worry. I mean, they might not look it,
but bunnies can really take care of themselves.
Did Oz have some subconscious recollection of attacking a bunny, and did
that bunny put up such a strong defence that from then on, the Ozwolf
carried a deep down hatred/fear of bunnies? (Znlor Naln xarj jung fur
jnf gnyxvat nobhg.)
Don Sample
"shuggie" <shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd probably agree. I must admit I've been waiting to see your take on
> this. A couple of years back I spent some time arguing with a guy who
> thought that all three relationships were in some way abusive. I have a
> hard time seeing Oz as abusive but substitute the word 'dangerous' for
> abusive and it starts to make a case. I mean Pete may be the extreme
> example but both Oz and Angel need to be restrained to protect their
> women from their violent inner nature. I'd dismiss this if I didn't
> happen to know that the working title for this ep was "All Men Are
> Beasts".
>
> Of course they changed the title so someone in ME decided to pull back
> from that radical a statement. Still it leaves me uncomfortable. One of
> BtVS's main strengths for me is that it gives a positive image of
> female empowerment without (usually) denigrating men.
Buffy episodes titles were never generally available to the public.
They aren't included as part of the broadcast version. If you weren't
one of the people cruising the Internet looking for Buffy information,
you'd never know that the episodes had titles at all. For the first
couple of years they were really only there so the production people
could have something other than a number to call an episode. Hence the
run of ...Girl/Boy episode titles.
Stephen Tempest
>Fur jnf sebz 17gu praghel Ivetvavn. Ohg V unir ab vqrn
>jura na Nzrevpna npprag qrirybcrq naq qviretrq sebz Ratyvfu.
From what I remember, it's the other way around. 400 years ago,
people in England spoke with what we'd think of today as an American
accent. The home country dialect changed while the colonials went
right on speaking in the old-fashioned way... :)
Stephen
Don Sample
private little smile in the background when Willow is celebrating the
news that it's a "kill in the day" monster that they're looking for,
because it means that Angel's off the hook, too.
cry...@panix.com
> I've often wondered about this exchange in 'Phases':
>
> Giles: Several animal carcasses were found mutilated.
> Willow: You mean, like bunnies and stuff? No, don't tell me.
> Oz: Oh, don't worry. I mean, they might not look it,
> but bunnies can really take care of themselves.
My reaction to this line has always been "Awww, he knows just what
to say to make her feel better. That's sweet." :-)
-Crystal