What is MillenniuM?
DJ Breslin
An excellent question... I gave my farewell to the group a while back due to the
consistently poor quality of EVERY episode this season. However, I'll re-enter
just to answer this question as I don't want to become one who complains without
offering a possible solution.
For me, these were the things that made Millennium so special:
1) From the start, I believed the show was trying to demonstrate the increasing
strength of evil across the planet as we approached 2000. To me, a great show
has to demonstrate directed & pure evil.
2) I always want to learn more & more about the Group. I want the mytharc shows
in Millennium, just like we want them in X Files.
3) I want a little bit of information at a time. I want hints about what is to come...
what we are building up to. I want misinformation, redirection and conflicting
information so that I can receive it in the same way Frank does.
4) I want to learn more about Frank's "gift." It intrigues me quite a bit and I want to
see him cope with it and learn how much understands it.
5) I want Catherine back. She was a great character and it kept the show somewhat
real. She was the vehicle for consequences to Frank's actions.
6) I want to lose Emma, the new FBI director and Baldwin... damn, I almost called
him Spender. I enjoyed focusing on Frank. I may be his character's target market
and therefore they needed some more people for other markets, but hey, I don't care.
It was "my" show... others can find "their own" show.
7) I want him to quit the FBI and move back to Seattle. I thought there was some theme
to the Northwest being the heart of evil that they were trying to tap into there.
I loved the pure evil from season 1. I even learned to appreciate the religious tones
of season 2 (as anti-religious as I am). Both seasons ultimately came back to one
thing... something's happening... evil is getting stronger... we need to figure it out.
Now I feel like I'm watching mystic!XFiles... and it sucks.
Farewell again... this was once who we were...
-DJ
Intel Corp.
Jmm0001 wrote in message <19990106215820...@ngol07.aol.com>...
>
>What makes a good Millennium episode?
>
>I remember when after the last credits rolled on Mikado last year I bounced off
>the couch to hit rewind so I could watch it all over again. After Luminary, I
>didn't want to ever let go the warm glow I felt afterward. Who could forget
>the creeping horror of the pilot, images that are burned into the brain.
>
>I'm curious. Most of us have been very disappointed with this season, and
>there's been a lot of griping about the lack of direction, about some stories
>being 'too X-files,' or even that some XF episodes should have been MM
>episodes. For all that we know what Millennium is not, do we know what
>Millennium is? This is not about the changes from season 2 (or even from
>season 1 to season 2), necessarily, though your answers may shed some light on
>what has gone wrong. I just want to ask everyone what they get (or past tense;
>got) out of this show. What was it about *your* favourite episode(s) that was
>so good? What attracted your attention at first and why did you keep coming
>back?
>
>It's fairly easy to point out faults, but I'm looking for some common ground
>where we can point and say: "That is Millennium." What element(s) does an
>episode HAVE to have?
>
>-jmm
John Corliss
the particular mood they invoked. Good plots make no sense as I go through it the first
time, but are perfectly clear upon study and reflection. Good episodes have something new to
notice each time I watch it. I want to admire seminal thinking on somebody else's part and
grasp new concepts never encountered previously in my life.
This season is about as thrilling as watching old episodes of Gilligan's Island.
Jmm0001
Jeanannd
1. The fight against evil...the show portrayed what we read of in the paper
every day..evil done often for what seems meaningless reasons. The fact that
Frank could provide a reason more then often, that his gift gave us insight.
2. That in the world of evil, Frank, Peter, lara and the group were the people
that would fight this evil. they seemed to stay above the evil.
3. The yellow house as a symbol of sanity in this insane world. Jordan and
Catherine to help Frank keep his head above water...there would be problems,
but I was certain they would over come them.
4. Peter's desire for good, and lara's journey to wisdom...she saw angels, and
I was hoping they would do more with her gift.
5. The old man who provided some history and some of the groups myth.
Then they killed Catherine, drove Lara insane, made Peter and the group
bad...and Frank's gift isn't functioning lately.
Emma was a fairly decent character...but they need to write good scripts for
her and Frank.
I hope the episodes will all be good, but so far we have lukewarm episodes, and
occasional gem that gives us hope and then another lukewarm episode. Season
one sometimes horrified me, season two mystified me...season three had often
frustrated me....am hoping it will improve.
I thought I could organize freedom - Bjork - The Hunter
jeanad (AKA) jeanannd
Enfilade
says...
>
>It's fairly easy to point out faults, but I'm looking for some common ground
>where we can point and say: "That is Millennium." What element(s) does an
>episode HAVE to have?
>
Many of the technical things I see in good Millennium are best summed under a
single descriptor: economy. A story should have just the right number of parts
- none missing, none spare.
But as I thought further, I decided that simply presenting a story with
perfect economy wasn't enough. The story had to have an underlying theme,
simple in description yet more complex as the viewer pondered it. And I think
that distinction was the key for me. Presenting the viewer with complexity
usually creates ponderance out of necessity. "What if this has something to do
with ancient secret societies?" "What if Jesus was actually the son of Jay
Leno?" etc, etc... It makes us think, yes, but it isn't good writing. Getting
someone to reconsider a fundamental concept *is* difficult. "Covenant" made me
think about guilt, responsibility, and loyalty - orders of magnitude more
interesting (at least to me) than whether the Group are Illuminati or Knights
Templar.
This is largely why I felt the mytharc exploring the MG and the "barnyard
nonsense" (a term coined by NJP) was superfluous to good writing. They often
added complexity to stories not needing it ("Anamnesis"), and episodes based
primarily on such content ("Owls"/"Roosters"), while entertaining, lacked a
soul or underlying message. Simple is good. Needlessly complex is bad. I
could care less about the MGs internal structure or who they are killing any
particular week. I want to know how the MG *affects* people like Frank, Peter,
Catherine, and yes, even Lara. As an old guide to writing good fiction said:
"Character, character, character, setting, character, character, character..."
Manipulation of agencies and forces through their effect on characters is
the basis for good writing. Questionable motives and mysterious conspiracies
are not. This is one reason I actually defended the *new* Catherine of season
2. We may not have agreed with her action toward Frank, but she was *doing
something*. She was a living, breathing character, and we understood more
about the MG and Frank via their effects on Catherine.
The Frank Black character, in my mind, was most successful when the theme of
a story could be reflected through him onto our own lives. Frank, in this
sense, functioned as a generic (albeit gifted) observer, and not as a detailed
character. A few folks here have made comparisons between Frank and the hero
of Campbell's journey, and I think that fits. Through Frank, we were seeing
our own journeys, not the same in reality, but comparable in moral concept.
The catch was that Frank, through his gift and understanding, could see
elements of the moral spectrum unknown to us. Episodes with Frank listening to
Bobby Darin or quipping about the latest pop group made me wince, as fleshing
out Frank necessarily distanced us in identifying with him.
-E
Horace LaBadie
> What makes a good Millennium episode?
>
>
> It's fairly easy to point out faults, but I'm looking for some common ground
> where we can point and say: "That is Millennium." What element(s) does an
> episode HAVE to have?
>
> -jmm
An excellent and provocative question. It is useful to define our critical
criteria, and, perhaps, it will goad the people who really count into a
discussion among themselves of what they think about our impressions of
their best work and how best they can return to it.
If one is asking, what are the technical features that are essential to
Millennium, I would say that they are the same as are essential to any
dramatic series: good stories, directing, music, lighting, photography,
sound, etc. Those are elements common to all good dramatic productions.
Millennium has been fortunate, or it's producers have been smart enough,
to employ people of genuine technical excellence. They have provided the
series with innovative and compelling visual and auditory expressions of
many intangible and non-verbal aspects of the stories, aspects that could
not have been expressed quite so well in dialogue or narration in the
compressed medium of TV drama. But technical excellence, however essential
it is to the series, is not the reason for the excellence of the series,
paradoxical as that may sound. Technical excellence exists this season,
but we all agree that the season to date has been disappointing. Technical
excellence is a contributing factor to the excellence of the series only
when it is the servant of an underlying dramatic unity of purpose.
The excellence of Millennium, then, arises from that fundamental dramatic
impulse. I would identify that impulse as Idealism. This is the singular
quality of Millennium and its most basic one. This Idealism is expressed
in many ways: when the show succeeds, that is the genius of it, the
variety of devices by which that Idealism is expressed. Sometimes it is
expressed in the simple, unflinching candor with which the show presents
the consequences of evil in human action. It does not shrink from
portraying any aspect of those consequences, both the physical and the
spiritual. At times, the graphic realism has been shocking, and this was
both necessary and encouraging: it showed the ugliness of evil acts in
particular instances and it demanded that the viewers have the courage to
face those realities. The show's Idealism was strong enough to face that
evil its ugliness and to strive against it. As often as it was courageous
in resisting evil head on, the show was just as frequently courageous in
asserting the good. It's Idealism was not content with simple denial of
the victory to evil, it insisted that good make an assertion of itself in
positive ways. This was often expressed in the simplest of manners: in
Frank's compassion for both the criminals and their victims. On more than
one occasion, he was the only person who stood up and said that simply
enforcing the law or exacting justice was not enough, that it could be, in
fact, destructive. The law must have its due, but it must not be used to
cloak personal or judicial vindictiveness or a cruel passion for
punishment. Frank recognized the humanity and the suffering of the
malefactors and was prepared to grant the forgiveness that they sometimes
sought. The show's Idealism was strong enough to make a positive
expression of goodness in the face of both evil and of self-righteousness.
It was often more difficult for Frank to do the right thing, when even the
police and the MG were interested only in the demands of the law or
revelation, but he never failed to assert the goodness of charity,
compassion, and a sense of common humanity. Frank always kept sight of the
distant light of the Ideal, even when a confusion of lesser lights was
flashing about him.
That these demands of Idealism sometimes seemed superficially in
contradiction, the need to stand against evil and yet to be compassionate
to the evil-doers, provided much of the dramatic tension of the series.
The best episodes were those in which the outcome was determined by
Frank's constant insistence on the Ideal and his intervention to salvage
something of that Ideal from the wreckage that evil has wrought, to fight
against the evil and at the same time to make a gain against it by doing
good.
The intelligence of the writing cannot be underestimated in this
excellence. The writers have been remarkably resourceful in finding
imaginative devices by which this creative tension could be examined and
exhibited. Storytelling is a craft: it can be learned just as stone
cutting and pottery throwing can be learned. Scott Fitzgerald taught
himself storytelling by reading and imitating the short stories in The
Saturday Evening Post. The writers for Millennium have shown high
craftsmanship in their work, and, when they have been given a clear
definition of what they were to accomplish, they have used that craft to
create moving and inspiring drama. But storytelling alone, writing
craftsmanship, is also only a servant of the underlying dramatic impulse.
When the story aims at that impulse, it has a value above its crafted
polish. It rises to art. Not all craftsmen are artists, of course.
Fitzgerald's stories have that impulse, and his craft serves it. O Henry's
stories are well-crafted, but they are essentially only scholastic
exercises. They lack the underlying impulse of an idea. And that brings us
to this current season.
All the craftsmen are in place, ready, willing, and able to do their
assigned tasks. What is lacking is the owner of the establishment, someone
to tell them what he wants accomplished. This season, the craftsmen have
been left to their own devices. They have been told to prepare to produce
a play, but none has told them what play they are to produce. Each one has
taken to performing his or her own job according to his or her own guess
about the play, without any reference to a common goal. Some think that it
is Lear, while others think that it Much Ado. In actuality, it is a
parodic skit written for the high school drama club. Everyone has done a
competent job, but it has been a pointless task for each. What have they
accomplished in the end? Each has done work, but the work has had no
general purpose. The episodes are assembled and they have no meaning. The
stage is set and lit and dressed for a play, but the set is made to no
plan, so it is featureless. The writers have no idea what play they should
adapt for the production, so they simply give the actors stage directions.
"Look pensive. Look surprised. Run here. Run there. Shoot something. Run
away. Fall down." The actors have no idea what play it is they will be
performing and are forced to improvise their lines. It is, in the worst
sense, play acting. The result is generic millennium, the discount store
brand version of the more expensive proprietary product. The consumers get
angry, because they are paying for the real thing.
Focus on the main character's Idealism, and Millennium will have the
"right stuff" again. Frank is the touchstone of the series. Everything is
measured against him, and at his core is Idealism. Everything else is
merely premise. The millennium is a great premise, but without the
Idealism of Frank Black, there is no series. So far this season, Frank has
no purpose. He reacts. He never asserts. The good is inactive. He makes
gestures, but they are wrong gestures. He is less heroic than Don Quixote.
Frank tilts at windmills, not because they might be giants, but because
they are in motion. Point him at a car, and he will chase it. Motion is
not plot. Noise is not content. Millennium is more than that: it is the
expression of Frank's Idealism. When we have that, everything else
follows.
HWL
Horace LaBadie
(Enfilade) wrote:
Subject: What is Millennium2
Date: 1/7/99 3:15 PM
> Many of the technical things I see in good Millennium are best summed
>under a single descriptor: economy. A story should have just the right
number of
>parts - none missing, none spare.
Economy is good, yes. That is one defintion of art. Michelangelo said that
removing everything that was not the statue was the defintion of
sculptor's art.
>
> But as I thought further, I decided that simply presenting a story with
>perfect economy wasn't enough. The story had to have an underlying theme,
>simple in description yet more complex as the viewer pondered it. And I
>think that distinction was the key for me. Presenting the viewer with
complexity
>usually creates ponderance out of necessity. "What if this has something
>to do with ancient secret societies?" "What if Jesus was actually the
son of Jay
>Leno?" etc, etc... It makes us think, yes, but it isn't good writing.
>Getting someone to reconsider a fundamental concept *is* difficult.
"Covenant"
>made me think about guilt, responsibility, and loyalty - orders of
magnitude more
>interesting (at least to me) than whether the Group are Illuminati or
Knights Templar.
Jay Leno? Perhaps Steve Allen, or maybe even Jack Paar, but definitely not
Jay Leno.
An underlying theme is the key to a powerful story, but it needs to be
even deeper than the particular episode, it needs to be a variation on a
theme running through the series.
I think that you are failing to appreciate that the devices, such as the
history of the Group, are instrumental in giving concrete form to the
ideas embodied in the stories. And often those details provoke a new
examination of a matter that we had thought settled. How much allegiance
does one give to a doctrine handed down by authority? What is the
legitimacy of the authority? Frank still wrestles with those. What is the
responsibility of the individual in a corporate entity? Only to play his
assigned role or to think and act according to his understanding of the
goal pursued by that entity? What part does faith play in the acceptance
of one's role? The Group becomes an icon for religious faith when it's
history is presented to us. It is only a device, but it has a purpose.
> This is largely why I felt the mytharc exploring the MG and the "barnyard
>nonsense" (a term coined by NJP) was superfluous to good writing. They
>often added complexity to stories not needing it ("Anamnesis"), and
episodes based
>primarily on such content ("Owls"/"Roosters"), while entertaining, lacked a
>soul or underlying message. Simple is good. Needlessly complex is bad. I
>could care less about the MGs internal structure or who they are killing any
>particular week. I want to know how the MG *affects* people like Frank,
Peter,
>Catherine, and yes, even Lara. As an old guide to writing good fiction said:
>"Character, character, character, setting, character, character, character..."
Lacked a soul? Here you are certainly being provocative for the sake of
provocation. Well, there was nothing really complex about any of those
episodes. They required nothing more than the attention of the viewer to
be understood, but an awareness of the background made them richer. What
was the underlying message of Owls/Roosters, you ask? Peter stated it
pretty clearly: when you forget your original purpose, you become weak and
self-destructive. The Group was no longer about the responsibility of
preparing the world for the coming event, it was about which faction was
right and which was wrong in its interpretation of that event. It was
about the seductiveness of power, control, prestige. Frank sensed that.
What was the message of "Anamnesis"? Surely the meaning is in the title
itself? Summarize Proust? What is the value of private enlightenment or
revelation? Who decides what is or is not true? What, as Pilate asked, is
truth? The ep gave Catherine a first hand experience with what Frank faces
every day. I hoped at the time more would come of the new understanding
she had gained, but it only seemed to confirm her suspicions of the Group.
But she and Frank did become closer. The actions of the Group in those
episodes, based upon the Group's mythology, did affect Frank, Catherine,
Peter, and Lara. Catherine was deeply traumatized by being caught in the
corssfire between ODESSA and the Group. She was reduced to a pawn in the
battle, one by which ODESSA could get to Frank. That had affects upon her.
It certainly affected the way that Frank assessed his relationship with
the Group and Catherine. Lara was certainly affected by the events of
"Anamnesis", events to which she would never have been exposed without the
Group's history as context.
> Manipulation of agencies and forces through their effect on characters is
>the basis for good writing. Questionable motives and mysterious conspiracies
>are not. This is one reason I actually defended the *new* Catherine of
>season 2. We may not have agreed with her action toward Frank, but she
was *doing
>something*. She was a living, breathing character, and we understood more
>about the MG and Frank via their effects on Catherine.
I agree with this, but I would go further and say that I fully understood
Catherine's feelings after Frank killed PM and was allowed to walk away
through the (implied) intervention of the Group. Frank needed to be called
to account for killing PM, and, if the Law would not do so, then someone
had to do it. There was a price to be paid, and Catherine demanded that
Frank and she both pay it. It was a mistake by the Group, and she knew it.
It made her suspect the Group's intentions, and rightly. They had
interfered in a process that was necessary for Frank's own salvation or
peace of mind.
>
> The Frank Black character, in my mind, was most successful when the theme of
>a story could be reflected through him onto our own lives. Frank, in this
>sense, functioned as a generic (albeit gifted) observer, and not as a
>detailed character. A few folks here have made comparisons between Frank
and the
>hero of Campbell's journey, and I think that fits. Through Frank, we
were seeing
>our own journeys, not the same in reality, but comparable in moral concept.
>The catch was that Frank, through his gift and understanding, could see
>elements of the moral spectrum unknown to us. Episodes with Frank listening to
>Bobby Darin or quipping about the latest pop group made me wince, as
>fleshing out Frank necessarily distanced us in identifying with him.
>
>-E
While the heroic journey is applicable, I don't think that we can identify
with an hero who lacks personality, and the traits that define personality
are emblematic of him. Look at Herakles, the archetypical hero. His
journey and labors are metaphorical and allegorical, but it is because he
has a well-defined personality that his story remains forceful and human.
It is his foibles and eccentricities that define him as human and make him
accessible to mortals. Some of the most loved stories of Herakles are the
ones in which he indulges his human side: he likes to drink a little too
much, to carry on with women, to boast and to play the fool, even sing and
dress up in women's clothes (just like his dear mama). All great heroes
have sharply defined personalities with attractive and repellent features.
I like seeing Frank's character fleshed out. I like knowing what is his
taste in popular music. Those personal details make him seem more human
and accessible. Without them, he is a unidimensional being. (And we all
know how you feel about Lara of Flatland.) The hero has to have at least
one of the thousand faces to make him human, and the accouterments of the
character give us hooks into his personality. In that regard, it is
immaterial to me if Frank's preference were for Robert Merrill or Rufus
Wainwright. Having a point of reference is the key. Think about Sherlock
Holmes. All of his foibles and eccentricities are beloved by fans of the
great detective. They make human and likable the Olympian, logical,
ratiocinating intellect. His Stradivarius and his slipper filled with Shag
tobacco are emblematic of him. (Besides, they are the sorts of things that
actors love to fasten upon to build up a character. Think of what Jeremy
Brett or Basil Rathbone did with them. Olivier used to say that he never
began to understand a character until he had worked out the makeup for the
role. And some charcters are composed of nothing but those external bits.
Hercule Poirot would vanish if the mustache were stripped off Suchet or
Finney or Ustinov. Frank is more substantial, and these bits add to him.)
And Frank's music selection adds to the background texture of an episode,
even serving as a commentary or marginal gloss. To that purpose, it does
make some difference whom Frank prefers, as it adds a slant to our
interpretation of his personality and to the scene. We would see things
slightly differently if Rufus Wainwright were playing on the radio. Think
how different the scene In "Goodbye, Charlie" between Kiley and Frank
would have played if Kiley had pegged Frank for a Rufus fan! That he had a
preference for Bobby, and that Kiley could divine it, was important to the
story and to the meaning of the ep. It's a point of contact.
HWL
Derek Gilbert
Horace LaBadie wrote in message ...
>
>The excellence of Millennium, then, arises from that fundamental dramatic
>impulse. I would identify that impulse as Idealism.
As in, "I Deal In...What?"
And what about Tony Blair's New Dealism? Not that we approve of nude eels,
of course, but...
Oh--sorry. Too many Mudslides.
-----
Derek Gilbert
Milluminati Conspiracy Theorist
-----
"Evil is just plain bad! You don't cotton to it, you gotta smack it in the
nose
with the rolled-up newspaper of goodness! Bad dog! Bad dog!"
--The Tick
Enfilade
HLaBa...@prodigy.net says...
>
>
>An underlying theme is the key to a powerful story, but it needs to be
>even deeper than the particular episode, it needs to be a variation on a
>theme running through the series.
>
Agreed, and the latter criterion is one I hold for quality in the entire
series. I was speaking to the story at the level of an individual episode.
I'm not trying to make the age-old "standalone" vs. "mytharc" argument here,
just that the thematic contributions can be both within the episode and
across the series. Both are important.
>I think that you are failing to appreciate that the devices, such as the
>history of the Group, are instrumental in giving concrete form to the
>ideas embodied in the stories.
Such history is certainly instrumental as you say, when they do function in
that role. Many times I felt such details weren't adding to ideas or theme,
but just spicing things up or making us spin our conspiratorial wheels. If
a particular idea is contributing to the story ideas, and happens to be
mystical or conspiratorial, more power to them. But too often the latter
goal seemed to have replaced the former.
>Lacked a soul? Here you are certainly being provocative for the sake of
>provocation.
Absolutely.
>Well, there was nothing really complex about any of those
>episodes. They required nothing more than the attention of the viewer to
>be understood, but an awareness of the background made them richer. What
>was the underlying message of Owls/Roosters, you ask? Peter stated it
>pretty clearly: when you forget your original purpose, you become weak and
>self-destructive.
That message was certainly there. But cosmic space bubbles? Nazi old guys
with blood spattered flags? Holy driftwood? We could have a lengthy and
interesting conversation about this two-parter alone, but I think that would
stray a bit from the focus in this thread. Suffice to say, enriching
background is one thing; distracting arbitrariness is quite another. It is
a question of establishing coherence in an efficient manner.
>
>
>I agree with this, but I would go further and say that I fully understood
>Catherine's feelings after Frank killed PM and was allowed to walk away
>through the (implied) intervention of the Group.
Of course you do, but you are a Meganic, after all.
>I like seeing Frank's character fleshed out. I like knowing what is his
>taste in popular music. Those personal details make him seem more human
>and accessible. Without them, he is a unidimensional being. (And we all
>know how you feel about Lara of Flatland.)
I don't mind fleshing out if it has a purpose. And Frank surely isn't a
unidimensional being. It is interesting to attend to character details if
they ultimately contribute to his overall role. The initial Darrin
references didn't accomplish this. Much like the overall story, all the
character's words and actions should have a function. I'd be remiss in
making this point without some positive examples. "Midnight of the Century"
gave details of Frank's childhood which were essential to the episode's
theme. Peter's personal history in "The Fourth Horseman" gave depth to his
motives and actions. Both were efficient use of character detail.
Although I am trying hard not to criticize Lara, it is relevant to this
point. Much of what Lara said and did wasn't contributing to character
development. Surely she had her share of speeches, but they lacked the
coherence and thematic relevance of Frank's, Peter's, or Catherine's
dialogue. Lara's shining moment came in "Anamnesis", where her soliloquy to
Catherine invoked ties to Frank, Claire, the Group, and her own future. At
the risk of sexual innuendo, Lara was rarely developed properly in places
she should have been, and laden with unnecessary baggage (in the form of
meandering apocababble) where she shouldn't have been. It all comes back to
economy.
>would have played if Kiley had pegged Frank for a Rufus fan! That he had a
>preference for Bobby, and that Kiley could divine it, was important to the
>story and to the meaning of the ep. It's a point of contact.
Exactly, and that was its purpose.
-E
Jmm0001
In article <#CLaa2eO#GA....@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "DJ Breslin"
<dj.br...@intel.com> writes:
>For me, these were the things that made Millennium so special:
>1) From the start, I believed the show was trying to demonstrate the
>increasing
>strength of evil across the planet as we approached 2000. To me, a great
>show has to demonstrate directed & pure evil.
Really? In every episode? I think we saw the limitations of that line in the
first season. One of the subtler shifts in season 2, even as the season
progressed, was away from the stories where Evil is the reason for everything,
to where the story asked questions of faith and belief, about ourselves and
about our relationship with God. Interesting that we don't see the two sides
in the same episode, eh? Either Evil-with-a-capital-E is there and man fights
alone against it, or God is there (in some form or another) and man fights to
understand him or measure up to him.
>2) I always want to learn more & more about the Group. I want the mytharc
>shows in Millennium, just like we want them in X Files.
>3) I want a little bit of information at a time. I want hints about what is
>to come... what we are building up to. I want misinformation, redirection and
>conflicting information so that I can receive it in the same way Frank does.
Let me summarize and rephrase. A good episode must have... an intriguing plot
that keeps you entertained. A mystery to be solved. The Group mytharc is just
one that carries on between episodes. I don't think the mytharc has to be part
of every episode.
>4) I want to learn more about Frank's "gift." It intrigues me quite a bit
>and I want to see him cope with it and learn how much understands it.
(snipped) A good episode must have... Frank Black. It must be related to
Frank in some personal way, where he learns something about himself, we learn
something about him, or (preferably and) the other characters learn something.
Is that it?
>7) I want him to quit the FBI and move back to Seattle. I thought there was
>some theme
>to the Northwest being the heart of evil that they were trying to tap into
>there.
And the name of the beast is Bill Gates, is that what you're getting at? ;-)
-jmm
Jmm0001
In article <36943967...@ccountry.net>, John Corliss
<jcor...@ccountry.net> writes:
>
>What DJ said. Also, good episodes make me want to watch them again and again
>to experience
>the particular mood they invoked. Good plots make no sense as I go through it
>the first
>time, but are perfectly clear upon study and reflection.
Granted. But good writing is good writing and though somewhat rare on
television it is not exclusive to Millennium. A good episode of Millennium
must have... good writing. Yes, absolutely. A good plot; something sensible
and well thought out that can stand up to repeated examination. Plot holes,
devices and contrivances are despised.
> Good episodes have something new to
>notice each time I watch it. I want to admire seminal thinking on somebody
>else's part and grasp new concepts never encountered previously in my life.
>
Ahh. Now you're asking for a lot. Layered depth to the writing as well as a
good plot. A good Millennium episode must have layered depth. I think that
would qualify it as a great episode.
-jmm
Jmm0001
>
> Many of the technical things I see in good Millennium are best summed under
>a single descriptor: economy. A story should have just the right number of
>parts - none missing, none spare.
>
Simplicity, E? Or elegance?
> But as I thought further, I decided that simply presenting a story with
>perfect economy wasn't enough. The story had to have an underlying theme,
>simple in description yet more complex as the viewer pondered it. And I
>think that distinction was the key for me. (snip) Getting
>someone to reconsider a fundamental concept *is* difficult. "Covenant" made
>me think about guilt, responsibility, and loyalty - orders of magnitude more
>interesting (at least to me) than whether the Group are Illuminati or Knights
>Templar.
A good episode of Millennium has to have an underlying theme. It has to ask,
make us think about, a fundamental question about... who we are?
> This is largely why I felt the mytharc exploring the MG and the "barnyard
>nonsense" (a term coined by NJP) was superfluous to good writing. They often
>added complexity to stories not needing it ("Anamnesis"), and episodes based
>primarily on such content ("Owls"/"Roosters"), while entertaining, lacked a
>soul or underlying message. Simple is good. Needlessly complex is bad. I
>could care less about the MGs internal structure or who they are killing any
>particular week. I want to know how the MG *affects* people like Frank,
>Peter, Catherine, and yes, even Lara. As an old guide to writing good fiction
said:
>"Character, character, character, setting, character, character,
>character..."
The old guide was right, but I think we have to know the 'character' of the MG
as much as we have to know the characters of Frank and Catherine, etc, to
understand how the MG affects them. Since we have already rebelled against
being told what and who the MG is, we have to be shown. And we have to be
shown with an intriguing plot and a mystery to be solved.
> The Frank Black character, in my mind, was most successful when the theme
>of a story could be reflected through him onto our own lives. Frank, in this
>sense, functioned as a generic (albeit gifted) observer, and not as a
>detailed character.
Frank Black as the distanced observer pretty much sums up Season 3 Frank Black,
as far as I can see. How satisfying is that?
> A few folks here have made comparisons between Frank and the hero
>of Campbell's journey, and I think that fits. Through Frank, we were seeing
>our own journeys, not the same in reality, but comparable in moral concept.
>The catch was that Frank, through his gift and understanding, could see
>elements of the moral spectrum unknown to us. Episodes with Frank listening
>to
>Bobby Darin or quipping about the latest pop group made me wince, as fleshing
>out Frank necessarily distanced us in identifying with him.
>
>-E
You can't possibly mean that you want Frank as a flat cardboard character. I
can understand if you found some of these details irritating, especially if
what he liked is not what you liked. How can fleshing him out be wrong? Did
it distance you from him when you found out he had a younger brother? When you
found out he was estranged from his father, and his mother died when he was a
child? There is an inherent contradiction in building up this character, any
character, in that the more you make him less like everyone and more himself,
his own person, the more real he becomes and the *more* we can identify with
him by identifying with what we have in common, though each of us is so
different.
-jmm
Jmm0001
In article <HLaBadieJr-07...@oclab102-13.splitrock.net>,
HLaBa...@prodigy.net (Horace LaBadie) writes:
>
>If one is asking, what are the technical features that are essential to
>Millennium, I would say that they are the same as are essential to any
>dramatic series: good stories, directing, music, lighting, photography,
>sound, etc. Those are elements common to all good dramatic productions.
A good episode of Millennium must have... good production. Absolutely, and I
think this must not be underestimated. This is television and unlike a novel,
for example, which is the product more or less of one hand, *A LOT* of people
work to produce the forty-something minutes of product we see on Fridays. If
everyone does their job, and does it well, we have a chance of getting a good
episode. If *one* person really FIU, sometimes everyone else still can't put
Humpty Dumpty together again.
(Big Snip)
>Focus on the main character's Idealism, and Millennium will have the
>"right stuff" again. Frank is the touchstone of the series. Everything is
>measured against him, and at his core is Idealism. Everything else is
>merely premise. The millennium is a great premise, but without the
>Idealism of Frank Black, there is no series. So far this season, Frank has
>no purpose. He reacts. He never asserts. The good is inactive. He makes
>gestures, but they are wrong gestures. He is less heroic than Don Quixote.
>Frank tilts at windmills, not because they might be giants, but because
>they are in motion. Point him at a car, and he will chase it. Motion is
>not plot. Noise is not content. Millennium is more than that: it is the
>expression of Frank's Idealism. When we have that, everything else
>follows.
>
Please forgive my trying to summarize what you spelled out so eloquently, but
what I think you're saying is the episode must be part of and add to the
series, and the series must follow its theme. I think you've hit upon something
here. There were changes from season 1 to season 2, but mainly they explored
new areas and added to rather than radically changed what had gone before.
With season three we seem to have reversed course, instead of just changing
tracks, and we aren't making any progress towards the theme, our destination.
-jmm
Enfilade
says...
>
>>Bobby Darin or quipping about the latest pop group made me wince, as fleshing
>>out Frank necessarily distanced us in identifying with him.
>>
>>-E
>
>You can't possibly mean that you want Frank as a flat cardboard character. I
>can understand if you found some of these details irritating, especially if
>what he liked is not what you liked. How can fleshing him out be wrong? Did
>it distance you from him when you found out he had a younger brother? When
you
>found out he was estranged from his father, and his mother died when he was a
>child?
I may have perhaps overgeneralized my initial statement (just to be
provocative, of course). I found every one of the details you mentioned
essential to Frank's character. The detail must have a purpose. Back to the
economy/elegance idea. If it has a place, and can enhance our identification
with a character, it should be there. But "cutesy" details are unnecessary and
distracting. I thought a lot of the Darrin stuff and Frank's occasional odd
humor fit in this category. They can be appreciated for their inherent
cuteness or humor, but fall flat in relation to the episode. That is, unless
we are talking about episodes themed around humor, such as "JCDD" or "13YL".
-E
Horace LaBadie
(Enfilade) wrote:
>
> Such history is certainly instrumental as you say, when they do function in
>that role. Many times I felt such details weren't adding to ideas or theme,
>but just spicing things up or making us spin our conspiratorial wheels. If
>a particular idea is contributing to the story ideas, and happens to be
>mystical or conspiratorial, more power to them. But too often the latter
>goal seemed to have replaced the former.
>
One has to decide for oneself the point where the details become
superfluous. Offhand, I can't think of any details of the Group's history
that I thought did not contribute, either immediately to the episode in
which they appeared or to a later episode in which they were developed
further, to the enlargement of an idea of faith, duty, authority, etc. in
the context of Frank's relationship to the Group. Often something will be
said that is not directly contributory but which turns out to be pivotal
later. At first, Frank could joke about the Group's long secret history,
but, when he began to see how much that that history embodied important
aspects of his own future with the Group, then he began to feel that he
had become involved unwittingly in something too large to comprehend and
which was, thus, unknowable and intimidating. It also opened to him the
possibility that being involved with the Group might be the reason why his
family were being threatened. The depth of the Group's roots only made
more frightening the power that was opposed to them. His question then
became, am I safer in the Group or out?
> But cosmic space bubbles? Nazi old guys
>with blood spattered flags? Holy driftwood? We could have a lengthy and
>interesting conversation about this two-parter alone, but I think that would
>stray a bit from the focus in this thread. Suffice to say, enriching
>background is one thing; distracting arbitrariness is quite another. It is
>a question of establishing coherence in an efficient manner.
Well, the devil is in the details, so let's digress and see if they were
germane or merely packing material. The cosmic bubble was inherently
silly, but the idea of inserting it was to establish the reason for the
rift between the factions. The factions were necessary as dramatic devices
within the episode, acting as a false trail for the Group, distracting
them from the real culprits, ODESSA. So the cosmic bubble was a
foundational necessity. It might have been replaced by some other
foundational detail, preferably one more believable, but a detail was
necessary. Axmann and his blood banner were other such details necessary
to establish the power and antiquity of the Group's enemies. The Nazis
traced their mythology back to pre-Christian antiquity, and ODESSA's
influence was illustrated by the attribution of the fall of the Soviet
Union to their machinations. The banner was supposedly the instrument or
guarantee of that victory. Thus, again, it was a necessary detail, since
it established Nazism and ODESSA as the enemies of the Group, powerful
enough enemies that they could bring down the Soviet Empire. Judging one
by one's enemies is the operative phrase here. The Group must be pretty
darn important to absorb the attention of such an enemy. The True Cross,
then, is the obverse of the blood banner's reverse, a blood stained relic
which was the guarantee of the Group's victory and the warrant of its
authority. Symbolizing a millennia old conflict in the persons of two old
generals and their blood-stained standards could hardly be called an
uneconomical use of details. All of this summed up to put Frank in the
crossfire between two archetypal powers of good and evil, and to bring
Catherine and Frank back together. The hero always has to come to that
point, where he is faced with making a commitment, and the size of the
commitment is aptly illustrated by the largeness of the powers striving to
win his allegiance, which competition was, in turn, very economically
symbolized by their respective chosen symbols. I don't find any of those
details any more distracting than the emblematic light saber of Luke or
the hermetic costume of Vader in Star Wars. So, if you found those details
distracting, perhaps you have a quicker wit than I or a lower tolerance
for symbolism.
> It is interesting to attend to character details if
>they ultimately contribute to his overall role. The initial Darrin
>references didn't accomplish this. Much like the overall story, all the
>character's words and actions should have a function.
> -E
This an example of the delayed or postponed development mentioned above.
The references had the immediate effect of fixing Frank in his time and
place, and of showing us something of his character: one could glean
something from the fact that he turned to Bobby when he was feeling
stress. But it all paid off in "Goodbye, Charlie." That ep would not have
had any real personal impact for Frank if the groundwork had not been laid
previously. While the intention to use BD in that manner might not have
existed at the time the references were made, the fact that they had been
inserted earlier provided an opportunity for something to be done with
them later. And they did have a use within the eps as a musical gloss.
They were shorthand for a part of Frank's personality, and developing that
is as important as moving the story ahead. An author doesn't rely
exclusively on actions or speeches to define character.
HWL
AST
What makes good writing? Imagery, characterization, ideas. But a film
requires more than writing--good acting, direction, cinematography.
These things are all only partially definable. I think the combined
effect on the viewer is a clue, but then that also involves the
intelligence and taste of the viewer.
What attracted me to MM from the first was its mythic quality, the quest
of the hero, and the clear distinctions between what Frank was trying to
protect and what he was fighting against. How much more mythic can you
get than Good vs. Evil?
I was able to identify with Frank, both in his personal struggles and
with his explorations each week of a different kind of evil. Evil has
myriad faces and methods, and we can't always recognize it at once. The
ep about the swimming coach that was killing young people is a good
example of a man who lost his personal fight to maintain right and
oppose evil. In S2 the MG itself became the question. Is it an
ancient Evil posing as the forces of Truth and Light? Or is it the
forces of truth and light? Is its secrecy and demand for control really
the way to save humanity? Can you serve Good by allowing innocent
people to suffer or be killed?
One theme that came up throughout S1 was Frank's doomed belief that he
could protect his family from the darkness in the world. By obsessively
trying to do this, he made his wife feel stifled and that he was keeping
things from her. The contrary theme was "You can't stop it!" Frank
showed his humanity when he told Catherine that he wanted her to pretend
that he could keep her and Jordan safe from the Evil in the world. We
never really got enough about the process he went through after learning
that he was wrong. I don't think he's ever really come to terms with
this yet.
The characterizations had depth and complexity. Peter Watts was
genuinely a hero in his own rights, struggling with fear,
responsibility, and a desire to impose order on a disorderly reality.
Going through my tapes, I saw the final scene of Skull and Bones, with
Ed, the man with all the books, scuttling across the street into hiding,
and I thought that characters like him were one of the things that made
it Millennium. And of all the eps this season, Skull and Bones felt
most like Millennium.
I'd have to add the looming presence created by the Ouroborous and the
countdown, and the sense of ancience in the MG and its rituals and
passwords. The many prophecies and traditions about the End of All
Things, doomsday, etc.
Lastly, action, danger, suspense, horror and mystery. :)
AST
Ruefrex
>provocative, of course). >>
Of course.
<< I found every one of the details you mentioned
>essential to Frank's character. The detail must have a purpose. Back to >the
economy/elegance idea. If it has a place, and can enhance our identification
with a character, it should be there. But "cutesy" details are unnecessary
>and
>distracting. I thought a lot of the Darrin stuff and Frank's occasional odd
>humor fit in this category. They can be appreciated for their inherent
>cuteness or humor, but fall flat in relation to the episode.>>
That's your opinion, of course. For many, it worked. The Bobby Darin stuff, for
instance, wasn't just "hey, let's stick a glib pop singer in there". Maybe it
felt that way to you but there was a lot more going on there, much of which was
manifested in Goodbye Charlie.
Simplicity is overrated. You can't know that unless you see it putting a
stranglehold on a story. If your mandate, say, would be to keep everything
simple, you'd lose the subtlety and subtext that you take for granted. There is
no possible way you can have an across-the-board mandate like "keep it simple".
This isn't a math problem; it's television. While some believe in a certain
formula, others realize that the believers in such formulas simply have no idea
how to create without a crutch. There must be certain rules but those rules
have to do with character and with the world you are attempting to set up. You
have to remember, however, to allow the stories to breathe and in a perfect
world, to take on the characteristics of the writers, show runners, creators
and even actors. There are different types of drama and they all require
different treatments. An episode like Luminary isn't going to get the same
treatment as Roosters. They are completely different constructs. It's bad
storytelling to take exposition out of Roosters because compared to Luminary,
Roosters had too much. It's like saying that all scenes should be no longer
than two pages or that every page of a sitcom script should contain three
jokes. I realize that you're trying to find a quick fix for the problems you
see in the show but what you don't realize is that "keep it simple", "make it
scary", etc. is what's got the show in this predicament to begin with. You
can't quantify those elements and you can't assign them to every story.
Some people are afraid of humor or a willingness to try new things, to invent
and to explore. To the credit of Fox, Chris Carter and Morgan and Wong, this
was not the case in this instance. Multifaceted is good. Really!
Enfilade
HLaBa...@prodigy.net says...
>
>Well, the devil is in the details, so let's digress and see if they were
>germane or merely packing material. The cosmic bubble was inherently
>silly, but the idea of inserting it was to establish the reason for the
>rift between the factions. The factions were necessary as dramatic devices
>within the episode, acting as a false trail for the Group, distracting
>them from the real culprits, ODESSA. So the cosmic bubble was a
>foundational necessity. It might have been replaced by some other
>foundational detail, preferably one more believable, but a detail was
>necessary.
But what dominated conversation about the episode afterward? Not the rift but
the cosmic bubble. The nature of the device distracted, and thereby detracted,
from its purpose, because it was silly. The essence of the split was
secularism vs. spiritualism, and this could have been conveyed using a much
less outlandish theory. These writers know that. The fact that a
simpler device wasn't used leads me to believe part of the cosmic bubble's
function was to attract attention on its own.
>Axmann and his blood banner were other such details necessary
>to establish the power and antiquity of the Group's enemies. The Nazis
>traced their mythology back to pre-Christian antiquity, and ODESSA's
>influence was illustrated by the attribution of the fall of the Soviet
>Union to their machinations. The banner was supposedly the instrument or
>guarantee of that victory. Thus, again, it was a necessary detail, since
>it established Nazism and ODESSA as the enemies of the Group, powerful
>enough enemies that they could bring down the Soviet Empire.
The Nazi imagery was standard textbook material. Big flags, mean looks, and
old films of Nuremburg rallies. This did nothing more than put a big black hat
on ODESSA to tell us they were Nazis. Nazism doesn't need to be established as
an enemy of the Group, since Nazis are universal enemies by default. They just
had to make them sexy, a la "Raiders of the Lost Ark". This isn't detail to
inform, but to titillate. What did this tell us about ODESSA, their motives,
or philosophy?
Judging one
>by one's enemies is the operative phrase here. The Group must be pretty
>darn important to absorb the attention of such an enemy. The True Cross,
>then, is the obverse of the blood banner's reverse, a blood stained relic
>which was the guarantee of the Group's victory and the warrant of its
>authority. Symbolizing a millennia old conflict in the persons of two old
>generals and their blood-stained standards could hardly be called an
>uneconomical use of details.
The obverse/reverse relic bit is crafty retrofitting, but other details don't
fall into place. How could this battle be millennia old when ODESSA only
existed since WW2? What characterized the personal nature of the conflict
between the Old Man and Axmann? Were ODESSA's only motives the age-old bad guy
bread-and-butter of ultimate power and world domination? None of these answers
would change the Owls/Roosters story, because in that story, ODESSA was simply
a cardboard villain off of which the Regrouped Group and Old Man could play
themes of goodness, honor, and vengeance. If they wanted to raise ODESSA to
the level of ancient organizations, they could have invoked Thulian mythology.
This would have clearly paralleled the group, and would have immediately
conveyed the idea you are suggesting. The fact that they barely scratched the
surface of the Boys (and Girl) in Black leads me to believe it wasn't their
intent.
All of this summed up to put Frank in the
>crossfire between two archetypal powers of good and evil, and to bring
>Catherine and Frank back together. The hero always has to come to that
>point, where he is faced with making a commitment, and the size of the
>commitment is aptly illustrated by the largeness of the powers striving to
>win his allegiance, which competition was, in turn, very economically
>symbolized by their respective chosen symbols. I don't find any of those
>details any more distracting than the emblematic light saber of Luke or
>the hermetic costume of Vader in Star Wars.
But a symbol must first fit seamlessly into the context of the story, and not
draw attention to itself. Star Wars is an excellent example. Apart from
symbolism, Luke's light saber is first and foremost a futuristic weapon, and
that function is constantly reinforced along with the symbolism. One of our
first exposures to the light sabre (and the Jedi's warrior code) is during
Luke's practice against the sphere on the Falcon. We relax scrutiny a bit with
futurism, but it isn't outlandish or distracting within Star Wars. Vader's
costume serves a life support function. Were this fact not established
somewhere along the line, we'd start wondering why the hell he's wearing it.
It would still have symbolism, but it would seem forced and artificial without
some manifest reasoning. Chaucer doesn't tell us the nun isn't wearing any
underwear, but instead tells us of her eating habits and fair, broad forehead.
Hemingway doesn't say his old man walks into a grocery story and turns wonder
bread into Chicken of the Sea, but instead tells us of wounds on his hands.
Both Chaucer and Hemingway make their points at both symbolic and story levels.
So, while cross fragments, bubbles, bloody flags, etc., may have had a
symbolic or thematic function, they were detrimental at the surface level of
storytelling. Cross fragments and bubbles called attention to themselves,
spinning our wheels: Is the Group therefore Christian? Is the Cosmic Space
Bubble theory real? What's the link between Christians and Space Bubbles?
What's the link between Space Christians and Bubbles? And on and on. This is
what happens when details are silly. Your logic about the "blood banner"
symbolism is appealing, but isn't supported by the other generic Nazi imagery.
>distracting, perhaps you have a quicker wit than I or a lower tolerance
>for symbolism.
I took far too many literature classes in college to have a low tolerance for
symbolism. Take away "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" or "The Ones Who Walk Away
from Omelas" from me for five minutes and my hand starts shaking.
-E
Enfilade
says...
>
>> I may have perhaps overgeneralized my initial statement (just to be
>>provocative, of course). >>
>
>Of course.
>
It worked, didn't it? ;-)
>Simplicity is overrated. You can't know that unless you see it putting a
>stranglehold on a story. If your mandate, say, would be to keep everything
>simple, you'd lose the subtlety and subtext that you take for granted. There
is
>no possible way you can have an across-the-board mandate like "keep it
simple".
I'm using the terms simplicity and complexity in a relative sense - relative to
what the story needs. Mandating absolute simplicity would make things
cartoonish and dull. Necessary details should be there; unnecessary ones
should not. This is what I meant by economy, or as jmm put it, elegance.
Personally, I like to define elegance as an instance of remarkable economy.
>This isn't a math problem; it's television. While some believe in a certain
>formula, others realize that the believers in such formulas simply have no
idea
>how to create without a crutch. There must be certain rules but those rules
>have to do with character and with the world you are attempting to set up. You
>have to remember, however, to allow the stories to breathe and in a perfect
>world, to take on the characteristics of the writers, show runners, creators
>and even actors.
I didn't suggest, and would disagree with anyone who would suggest, that
television or any other fictional medium is as deterministic as a math problem.
(I'll leave trashy romance novels out of the discussion for the moment.)
Stories have to breathe, and often take turns and develop momentum quite
different from that originally intended. If a story ends up taking the writer
on as much of a journey as the viewer/reader, so much the better, but that
story still has to obey the traffic laws and stay on the road. It might also
be advisable, as you suggest, to avoid certain terrain because of
production/creator/actor constraints. The writer's job is to take us along on
the journey, slowing down and pointing out important attractions, and speeding
up or bypassing unimportant scenery.
There are different types of drama and they all require
>different treatments. An episode like Luminary isn't going to get the same
>treatment as Roosters. They are completely different constructs. It's bad
>storytelling to take exposition out of Roosters because compared to Luminary,
>Roosters had too much. It's like saying that all scenes should be no longer
>than two pages or that every page of a sitcom script should contain three
>jokes.
I'm saying that details should serve a function and not add needless
complexity. I'm not saying that the functions served and amount of detail need
to be set up as benchmarks, and the same for all episodes. Each episode is
judged relative to its perceived goals, and how/whether those goals are met.
> I realize that you're trying to find a quick fix for the problems you
>see in the show but what you don't realize is that "keep it simple", "make it
>scary", etc. is what's got the show in this predicament to begin with.
Who's saying the fix is quick? The task of writing a good story or television
show isn't easy, and I'm not suggesting solutions to the problems I see are,
either. The original concept of this thread was to discuss general principles
of what makes a Millennium episode "good", and for me, the economy of detail is
paramount. Every detail should be supported by reason, and all reasoning
supported by detail. This isn't always an easy thing to accomplish. That's
why those that do it are called good writers.
-E
Horace LaBadie
(Enfilade) wrote:
> But what dominated conversation about the episode afterward? Not the
>rift but the cosmic bubble. The nature of the device distracted, and thereby
>detracted, from its purpose, because it was silly. The essence of the
split >was
>secularism vs. spiritualism, and this could have been conveyed using a much
>less outlandish theory. These writers know that. The fact that a
>simpler device wasn't used leads me to believe part of the cosmic bubble's
>function was to attract attention on its own.
>
The bubble was silly and poorly chosen for the part it was to play. It's
rather like casting the wrong actor for a role: people focus on the poor
performance, and they fail to see that the character actually was
necessary to the drama and would have manifested that necessity had a
better actor been cast. Granted. It was a poor choice, but something had
to be there, and it had to be BIG, something to rival the Biblical vision
of Doomsday. We know that the sun isn't going to nova any time soon
(although that story has been done and done well), and the asteroid thing
was over done even before Deep Armageddon, so they hit on this idea as
something new and original. Get past the thing itself and see it for its
symbolism, and it no longer is disproportionate. If you look at one detail
to the exclusion of its function and context, then you can make any detail
seem out of proportion. You are distorting the perspective by standing too
close to the canvas.
If something dominates the conversation, it doesn't mean that it was too
important, only that enough people were interested in it and knew either
too little or too much about it and wanted to ask questions or make
comments. By the criterion of amount of traffic, weiner dogs and kitty
cats would be details begging to be noticed. In a complete analysis of the
episodes, that detail would be mentioned in the middle of all the other
critical appreciation/depreciation. That is was mentioned a lot by the
viewers doesn't necssaily correlate to its importance, only that people
are observant.
> The Nazi imagery was standard textbook material. Big flags, mean looks,
>and old films of Nuremburg rallies. This did nothing more than put a big
black >hat
>on ODESSA to tell us they were Nazis. Nazism doesn't need to be
established as
>an enemy of the Group, since Nazis are universal enemies by default.
They just
>had to make them sexy, a la "Raiders of the Lost Ark". This isn't detail to
>inform, but to titillate. What did this tell us about ODESSA, their motives,
>or philosophy?
The imagery was choosen because it was standard and, therefore, full of
common reference, something readily and immediately accessible to
everybody watching. It was shorthand and economical, if a bit cliched. You
run the risk of seeming cliched when you use an image that has been turned
into a pop cultural reference point, but those were broad brush strokes
for the general audience. The "Raiders" reference should have been seen as
an advantage, not a disadvantage. What could be more cliched than devils
and angels, more black hat/white hat? Just because "Touched By An Angel"
is overworking that franchise, does that mean that MM must eschew the
simple angel/devil imagery and reach for something more obscure? Shall we
toss them, too? Just distractions? What counted was that we knew and that
Frank and Peter did not, and we had to wonder if Frank would pick up on
the more subtle hints, such as the cuff links and the water color
paintings, that were available to him. As for what it tells us about
ODESSA, what do you want or need to be told about them except that they
were the survivors of the inner circle of Nazism? Knowing that, we know
all that we need. Teutonic Knights, ancient evils, pagan gods, etc.
> The obverse/reverse relic bit is crafty retrofitting, but other details
don't
>fall into place. How could this battle be millennia old when ODESSA only
>existed since WW2?
ODESSA was core Nazism, and therefore, like the SS, a part that was
representative of the whole. When ODESSA was founded as an entity is
irrelevant. When the Franciscans were founded is irrelevant to their role
as a part of Christianity that represents the tradition. All
interpretation by the reader/viewer is retrofitting by your standards. How
can it be retrofitting to point to something that exists in the material?
Let's see, there's one pillar over on that side of the arch, and there's
an opposing pillar on this side of he arch, and one pillar has an angel
carved on it, and the other has a devil. Yeah, that's retrofitting.
> What characterized the personal nature of the conflict
>between the Old Man and Axmann?
You mean, aside from the Old Man saying that ODESSA had always been after
him, and Axmann calling him his enemy? And the fact that they were set up
in mirror positions with mirror symbols and mirror philosophies and
organizations? Gee, I don't know, that's a tough one.
>Were ODESSA's only motives the age-old bad guy
>bread-and-butter of ultimate power and world domination? None of these
answers
>would change the Owls/Roosters story, because in that story, ODESSA was simply
>a cardboard villain off of which the Regrouped Group and Old Man could play
>themes of goodness, honor, and vengeance. If they wanted to raise ODESSA to
>the level of ancient organizations, they could have invoked Thulian mythology.
> This would have clearly paralleled the group, and would have immediately
>conveyed the idea you are suggesting. The fact that they barely scratched the
>surface of the Boys (and Girl) in Black leads me to believe it wasn't their
>intent.
You have a gift for contradiction, but now you are contradicting
yourself. How would using details from Thulian myth have been less
distracting and more informative and have better served the purpose in the
dramatic context than the more accessible common references? I am certain
to know about Nazism, a little less certain to know that it was a state
religion, even a little less certain to know that it had ancient mystical
pretensions, and still less certain to know specifically the traditions
from which those mystical pretensions arsoe. If I do know that much that
deeply, then I am alerted to them by the broad reference, or, if I do not
know, I am invited to investigate to see what that broad reference leads
me to find. Starting with a particular reference would probably have had
little meaning and thus, no dramatic impact, for 99 per cent of the
viewers. Now, you don't have to be operating at the lowest common
denominator, but the effect has to be immediate in this case, and other
matter can be added as opportunity permits. Simply saying "Nazism" is
enough to alert the generally informed viewer that a broad and ancient
tradition is intended, especially when it is directly opposed to the Group
and its power is represented as worldwide.
> But a symbol must first fit seamlessly into the context of the story,
>and not draw attention to itself. Star Wars is an excellent example.
Apart >from
>symbolism, Luke's light saber is first and foremost a futuristic weapon, and
>that function is constantly reinforced along with the symbolism. One of our
>first exposures to the light sabre (and the Jedi's warrior code) is during
>Luke's practice against the sphere on the Falcon. We relax scrutiny a
bit with
>futurism, but it isn't outlandish or distracting within Star Wars. Vader's
>costume serves a life support function. Were this fact not established
>somewhere along the line, we'd start wondering why the hell he's wearing it.
>It would still have symbolism, but it would seem forced and artificial without
>some manifest reasoning.
OK, now you are one being silly, and I'll play along. The first time we
see Vader, he is the only dark knight in a sea of white-armored soldiers.
The suit is clearly the armor of a commander of the dark side. It's
life-support functions are then unknown. The symbolism is the first thing
that we meet: a looming menace. The life-support comes "along the line".
But at the time, it's a distracting detail, by your reasoning, just as the
unexplained introduction of Bobby Darin is a distraction, even though it,
too, is explained "along the line," and serves several immediate purposes.
But, all right, we must have some mechanical use for our symbols. They
can't be just symbols. No flags. A flag has no function off the
battlefield. And who knows what function the Swastika had. Toss it out as
a legitimate symbol in MM. Cuff links hold a sleeve together at the wrist,
but most people use buttons. Unnecessary and distracting details. Toss
them. Crosses were instruments of torture and execution. Jesus was
executed on one. But we don't execute criminals by crucifixion.
Inadmissible. Toss it as a symbol. What would be an acceptable symbol? You
toss out all the ones that are recognized as powerful symbols and replace
them with...what? The Group is looking for the first electric chair. Yeah,
that would be real symbolical. I get the connection to their Christian
roots from that. And how about a reference to Westinghouse? Sure, they
want the washing machine in which the Shroud of Turin was laundered. Great
symbolism. And Westinghouse was the alternating current guy, and
Westinghousing was the derogatory term for electrocution, and
electrocution takes us to execution, and that takes us...where? Much
better than that silly old Cross and Blood Banner stuff, don't you agree?
Yes, every time I see Frank with dirty laundry, I will think of
Christianity and the symbolic link to the MG. Perfect integration of
detail and symbol. And that big eye that keeps popping up this season is
really a very subtle reference to CBS, which was purchased by
Westinghouse. Yes, yes, I see what you mean, MUCH better. Overt symbols
that are nothing but symbols - out.
>Chaucer doesn't tell us the nun isn't wearing any
>underwear, but instead tells us of her eating habits and fair, broad forehead.
> Hemingway doesn't say his old man walks into a grocery story and turns wonder
>bread into Chicken of the Sea, but instead tells us of wounds on his hands.
>Both Chaucer and Hemingway make their points at both symbolic and story
>levels.
>
> -E
Now, as you have gone out of your way to hammer home this parallel between
Hemingway's Old Man and Chris Carter's, let's take a look at it.
Our Old Man suffers wounds of the hand and side. He is wounded with a Nazi
dagger. The Nazis used primarily Roman military and imperial insignia as
models for their own insignia. The watchword is "Rome lies on Tiber."
Jesus was executed under Roman direction and his side pierced with a Roman
spear by a Roman centurion. Gee, I wonder, is there anything being said
there? No, of course not, all retrofitting. And Hemingway's Old Man was
just a bad fisherman, so all that stuff about him being a Christ symbol is
all retrofitting. Glad we cleared that up. Toss the Cross, on which Jesus
died, despite the parallel between the Old Man and Jesus. Toss the Blood
Banner as a mirror image of the Cross, despite that it is stained with the
blood of Nazi martyrs. It's all detail that cries out to be noticed just
as fluff. Toss out Ax Man as a fascisti, "bearer of the fasces", an
executioner in Roman terms, and any possible link to the execution of
Christ. Toss it all. Fluff. Irrelevant distractions. Retrofits. Doesn't
say anything about the relationship of the Group to ODESSA. Doesn't link
up at all. If it's not spelled out, I'm day dreaming, and if it is, it's
just a distracting detail. Does that about cover the ground?
Parenthetically, there are those who might think of Hemingway, your
exemplar of economy, that he was incapable of real economy and made a
virtue of necessity, that what passes for economy in his sing-song prose
style is, in fact, poverty, that there is more economy in one sentence of
The Spectator or Hydriotaphia than in the entire corpus of Hemingway, that
Hemingway was a good example, indeed, of what to avoid. Some might very
well think that, but I couldn't possibly say it.
HWL
Horace LaBadie
(Enfilade) wrote:
>I'm using the terms simplicity and complexity in a relative sense -
>relative to
>what the story needs. Mandating absolute simplicity would make things
>cartoonish and dull. Necessary details should be there; unnecessary ones
>should not. This is what I meant by economy, or as jmm put it, elegance.
>Personally, I like to define elegance as an instance of remarkable economy.
SNIP
> The original concept of this thread was to discuss general principles
>of what makes a Millennium episode "good", and for me, the economy of
detail is
>paramount. Every detail should be supported by reason, and all reasoning
>supported by detail.
>
>
> -E
Since we started out by answering the question, what is good MM, the
answers must, inevitably, boil down to judgment calls when we discuss
matters of detail. What is necessary and unnecessary detail seems to fall
on the line where judgment comes into play. If the ball is on the line but
partially over the line, is it disallowed? Or do we call it in bounds if
it has chalk on it? Are we playing tennis or football? Valid arguments can
be made either way, but we haven't settled on what is necessary and what
unnecessary. And, sometimes, the egos of the debaters tend to over ride
their judgment. I didn't see that for myself, therefore, it doesn't exist.
Or, I am extremely clever, therefore, it is there because I say it is.
That is why I tried to frame my initial reply in the most finite and basic
terms, starting at the very root of MM and allowing everything else to
develop from that. What is the essential thing, the prime cause, the Idea
that must be present and without which MM does not exist, good or bad?
Economy doesn't seem to me to be the root of MM. It is necessary, but not
the essence. A machine to print the pages for the scripts is necessary,
but it is not the essence. Arguing about economy seems to me to be a side
issue of the real matter. What is good MM arises from what is essential
MM. When we know what is essential MM, we automaticaly know what is good
MM.
HWL
Horace LaBadie
>
> That's your opinion, of course. For many, it worked. The Bobby Darin
stuff, for
> instance, wasn't just "hey, let's stick a glib pop singer in there". Maybe it
> felt that way to you but there was a lot more going on there, much of
which was
> manifested in Goodbye Charlie.
I don't whether to play Peter or Frank when the voice of authority steps
in to settle the matter. Normally, I disdain authority. Here, I note that
we are fortuitously in agreement. <g>
HWL
Ruefrex
Nah. You haven't seen me provoked <g>.
>I'm using the terms simplicity and complexity in a relative sense - relative
>to
>what the story needs. Mandating absolute simplicity would make things
>cartoonish and dull. Necessary details should be there; unnecessary ones
>should not. This is what I meant by economy, or as jmm put it, elegance.
>Personally, I like to define elegance as an instance of remarkable economy. >>
As Horace says in an earlier post, you can't assign either elegance or economy
to every episode of the show. Umbrella words like economy and elegance wind up
being used as buzz-words, unfortunately, and end up categorizing each story
into a mundane little box. Different kinds of stories require different
treatments. Not all of them will be elegant and not all of them will be, well,
inelegant, I suppose. I realize you are not doing this, but I've seen too many
people seize on words like this and try to cram the stories into a form they
wouldn't naturally take. These are dangerous words... although by this point I
should just realize that the members of this newsgroup aren't going to fold,
spindle and mutilate them the way others would.
> I didn't suggest, and would disagree with anyone who would suggest, that
>television or any other fictional medium is as deterministic as a math
>problem.
> (I'll leave trashy romance novels out of the discussion for the moment.) >>
No, come on!! That's a GREAT discussion! did you know that in order to publish
a romance novel the novel must have a happy ending? I learned this a few months
ago and am still reeling.
>Stories have to breathe, and often take turns and develop momentum quite
>different from that originally intended. If a story ends up taking the
>writer
>on as much of a journey as the viewer/reader, so much the better, but that
>story still has to obey the traffic laws and stay on the road. >>
True, but the laws are a LOT more flexible than people might think. Personally,
I love the teaser/four act structure. Rather than feeling confining, it feels
more like a very strange puzzle.
It might also
>
>be advisable, as you suggest, to avoid certain terrain because of
>production/creator/actor constraints. The writer's job is to take us along
>on
>the journey, slowing down and pointing out important attractions, and
>speeding
>up or bypassing unimportant scenery.>>
And the show runner's job is to guide that journey, to make sure it fits into
their vision or view of the show. Unfortunately, it doesn't always happen that
way. When it does, though, it becomes transcendant television.
>I'm saying that details should serve a function and not add needless
>complexity. I'm not saying that the functions served and amount of detail
>need
>to be set up as benchmarks, and the same for all episodes. Each episode is
>judged relative to its perceived goals, and how/whether those goals are met.
>>
As Horace said also, each person has a different idea of what works and what
doesn't. Your idea of needless complexity is another person's idea of just
enough, or maybe not even enough. This is all completely relative and due to
make everyone tear his or her hair out if we even attempt to quantify it.
> Who's saying the fix is quick? >>
The fix is NOT quick but is apparent. However, it seemed that you were trying
to find a word that would illuminate and banish the problems. Based on your
explanations, it now seems that you weren't, so... crap. There's just no end to
that sentence.
The task of writing a good story or
>television
>show isn't easy, and I'm not suggesting solutions to the problems I see are,
>either. The original concept of this thread was to discuss general
>principles
>of what makes a Millennium episode "good", and for me, the economy of detail
>is
>paramount. >>
Okay. For you it's paramount. Gotcha.
<< Every detail should be supported by reason, and all reasoning
>supported by detail. This isn't always an easy thing to accomplish. That's
>why those that do it are called good writers.>>
You know, if there weren't so many people who had so much say over what gets on
the air, you'd have hit the nail on the head <g>.
Someone recently said to me that the difference between a show like Millennium
and a show like NYPD Blue is that with the latter, you've got a crime, an
investigation, an arrest, a conclusion, then you're done. But with Millennium
you start out with Frank and you have to find some way to go from there. Some
people think this is daunting. I think it's cool. It does illustrate the
differences between this show and others and makes it even harder to quantify.
Each episode of Millennium has different elements that make it work or fail,
and this thread is interesting to see what people think makes a good episode.
Enfilade
LaBadie) wrote:
>Granted. It was a poor choice, but something had
>to be there, and it had to be BIG, something to rival the Biblical vision
>of Doomsday. We know that the sun isn't going to nova any time soon
>(although that story has been done and done well), and the asteroid thing
>was over done even before Deep Armageddon, so they hit on this idea as
>something new and original. Get past the thing itself and see it for its
>symbolism, and it no longer is disproportionate.
My point is that the cosmic bubble wasn't just symbolism, and can't
be evaluated only by its purported symbolism. It was a poor choice.
At least you admit that. This poor choice makes it more difficult to
"get past", seeing its deeper meaning. The details should function on
both levels. We can't look the other way simply because we like the
symbolism. That's letting the writer off the hook.
> If you look at one detail
>to the exclusion of its function and context, then you can make any detail
>seem out of proportion. You are distorting the perspective by standing too
>close to the canvas.
>
Quite the opposite. Determing whether something is out of proportion
necessitates context, as without it, you must ask "in proportion to
what?"
>The imagery was choosen because it was standard and, therefore, full of
>common reference, something readily and immediately accessible to
>everybody watching. It was shorthand and economical, if a bit cliched.
<snip>
> What counted was that we knew and that
>Frank and Peter did not, and we had to wonder if Frank would pick up on
>the more subtle hints, such as the cuff links and the water color
>paintings, that were available to him. As for what it tells us about
>ODESSA, what do you want or need to be told about them except that they
>were the survivors of the inner circle of Nazism? Knowing that, we know
>all that we need. Teutonic Knights, ancient evils, pagan gods, etc.
>
Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. The images are standard,
and readily accessible, but they are also supposed to invoke the
concepts of Teutonic Knights, ancient evils, and pagan gods? These
things are not necessarily readily accessible to the common viewer.
The hints were so subtle, we were bludgeoned over the head with
them. Take the cuff links, for instance. Why would a secret
organization (so secretive that they'd set up a front company) turn
around and sport SS cufflinks? Anyone with a passing knowledge of WW2
or Nazi regalia would recognize the SS emblem. It was a clumsy way of
nudging the viewer in the Nazi direction, and didn't make sense in the
context of the story. ODESSA is wearing their heart on Clear Knight's
sleeve, and Frank is mystified by Nuremburg films running through his
head. Now I understand everything.
>
>> What characterized the personal nature of the conflict
>>between the Old Man and Axmann?
>
>
>You mean, aside from the Old Man saying that ODESSA had always been after
>him, and Axmann calling him his enemy? And the fact that they were set up
>in mirror positions with mirror symbols and mirror philosophies and
>organizations? Gee, I don't know, that's a tough one.
>
No, it isn't, and that's my point. One is good, the other is bad.
Mirror philosophies? What do we know of the MG's philosophy, as it
relates to ODESSA? What do we know of ODESSA's philosophy? Nothing
and nothing, respectively. As soon as the Nazi's show up, the MG's
philosophy becomes irrelevant as they default to generic goodness and
honor by opposing the evil Nazis.
> You have a gift for contradiction, but now you are contradicting
>yourself. How would using details from Thulian myth have been less
>distracting and more informative and have better served the purpose in the
>dramatic context than the more accessible common references?
I'm presuming your interpretation. If they did want to set up this
age-old millennial conflict, tossing out common references doesn't
establish it. Beyond a little gunplay and impassioned speeches, what
is the heart of the dispute between the philosophies? Presenting
Thulian mythology of the apocalypse would have placed ODESSA on par
with the Owl and Rooster factions, and allowed us to realize the
conflict was deeper than just two men and a piece of wood. It would
have had a function, been informative, and wouldn't be distracting
given the attention lavished on Owl/Rooster philosophy.
>>Chaucer doesn't tell us the nun isn't wearing any
>>underwear, but instead tells us of her eating habits and fair, broad forehead.
>> Hemingway doesn't say his old man walks into a grocery story and turns wonder
>>bread into Chicken of the Sea, but instead tells us of wounds on his hands.
>>Both Chaucer and Hemingway make their points at both symbolic and story
>>levels.
>>
>> -E
>
>Now, as you have gone out of your way to hammer home this parallel between
>Hemingway's Old Man and Chris Carter's, let's take a look at it.
>
I neither stated or implied an Old Man parallel. I just mentioned
OMATS because I referenced it before. Chaucer is actually the better
example.
>Our Old Man suffers wounds of the hand and side. He is wounded with a Nazi
>dagger. The Nazis used primarily Roman military and imperial insignia as
>models for their own insignia. The watchword is "Rome lies on Tiber."
>Jesus was executed under Roman direction and his side pierced with a Roman
>spear by a Roman centurion. Gee, I wonder, is there anything being said
>there?
>No, of course not, all retrofitting. And Hemingway's Old Man was
>just a bad fisherman, so all that stuff about him being a Christ symbol is
>all retrofitting. Glad we cleared that up. Toss the Cross, on which Jesus
>died, despite the parallel between the Old Man and Jesus. Toss the Blood
>Banner as a mirror image of the Cross, despite that it is stained with the
>blood of Nazi martyrs.
Let's run with this parallel between the Old Man and Jesus. Who did
the Old Man save? How did he put himself in danger, and what was his
sacrifice? Why wasn't the Jesus message taken further, and Axmann's
thug forgiven for the Old Man's murder? If the Old Man is Jesus, does
this mean the Group represents the Apostles? Oh, wait... now I get
it. Peter Watts is an Apostle! And their vengeance against ODESSA is
intentionally in opposition to Jesus' teaching! Hence, the BROKEN
cross! Its all making sense now! Again, it isn't difficult.
How do we know it is stained with the blood of Nazi martyrs? Was that
said in the episode? (I'm really asking.) If not, that is
retrofitting. Let's ask Merriam:
retrofit - "to furnish with parts not available at the time of
manufacture".
If there isn't such a mention in the episode, it is nothing more than
conjecture in favor of a particular interpretation, and the addition
of information which may be untrue.
>Parenthetically, there are those who might think of Hemingway, your
>exemplar of economy, that he was incapable of real economy and made a
>virtue of necessity, that what passes for economy in his sing-song prose
>style is, in fact, poverty, that there is more economy in one sentence of
>The Spectator or Hydriotaphia than in the entire corpus of Hemingway, that
>Hemingway was a good example, indeed, of what to avoid.
I used OMATS as an example, but not Hemingway in general.
-E
Jason Dorough
>Nah. You haven't seen me provoked <g>.
I have! Remember the "Single Blade" thread? <g>
>No, come on!! That's a GREAT discussion! did you know that in order to publish
>a romance novel the novel must have a happy ending? I learned this a few months
>ago and am still reeling.
... Which is why I gave up on Barbara Michaels. A friend who knew I
loved "dark" fiction force-fed me one of her books, and I really
enjoyed it. I enjoyed it until the last chapter or two, that is. About
fifteen pages from the end, ol' Barb slammed on the literary brakes,
threw the car in reverse, and everybody (except the mean old guy who
owned the gothic manor) lived happily ever after.
>True, but the laws are a LOT more flexible than people might think. Personally,
>I love the teaser/four act structure. Rather than feeling confining, it feels
>more like a very strange puzzle.
Gotta agree with you there. I wrote a radio play a couple of years
ago, and the producers had me fit a set format (X scenes with each
scene averaging Y minutes with Z characters in each scene). At first,
I was a little wary, but as I got into it, the process got more and
more fun. It was indeed like a strange puzzle.
>And the show runner's job is to guide that journey, to make sure it fits into
>their vision or view of the show. Unfortunately, it doesn't always happen that
>way. When it does, though, it becomes transcendant television.
How did that work this season? Did Chip, Michael, and perhaps Chris
sit down and decide how they wanted the general course of the season
to play? Or is it more of a "play it by ear" process, with the show
runners slapping wrists occasionally and pulling back on the yoke
every now and then? I seem to remember hearing that Morgan and Wong
planned the outcome of season two from day one.
>As Horace said also, each person has a different idea of what works and what
>doesn't. Your idea of needless complexity is another person's idea of just
>enough, or maybe not even enough. This is all completely relative and due to
>make everyone tear his or her hair out if we even attempt to quantify it.
And then there's the case of the XF mytharc, where *everybody* is
confused.
-Jason
Milluminati PR
Enfilade
>>It worked, didn't it? ;-)>>
>
>Nah. You haven't seen me provoked <g>.
>
Damn. I'll have to try harder next time.
> These are dangerous words... although by this point I
>should just realize that the members of this newsgroup aren't going to fold,
>spindle and mutilate them the way others would.
>
Don't overestimate us. :-)
>> I didn't suggest, and would disagree with anyone who would suggest, that
>>television or any other fictional medium is as deterministic as a math
>>problem.
>> (I'll leave trashy romance novels out of the discussion for the moment.) >>
>
>No, come on!! That's a GREAT discussion! did you know that in order to publish
>a romance novel the novel must have a happy ending? I learned this a few months
>ago and am still reeling.
>
In a creative writing course I took in college, we were given romance
novel "guide" pages as examples of fully scripted fiction. You
basically had standard lists of waif, hero, and supporting cast
characteristics, from which you checked things off. There were rules
about what stages of undress should be presented in which quarter of
the story, who could do who and when, etc.. An amateur computer
programmer could cut these novels off like hotcakes.
>True, but the laws are a LOT more flexible than people might think. Personally,
>I love the teaser/four act structure. Rather than feeling confining, it feels
>more like a very strange puzzle.
>
And I think much of that flexibility occurs when the writer goes off
in uncharted territory. When there are no rules, you make up your
own, as long as they don't contradict the rules for the road which
already exists. (Unless, of course, a misdirection or fundamental
change in a concept is part of the story.)
>Someone recently said to me that the difference between a show like Millennium
>and a show like NYPD Blue is that with the latter, you've got a crime, an
>investigation, an arrest, a conclusion, then you're done. But with Millennium
>you start out with Frank and you have to find some way to go from there. Some
>people think this is daunting. I think it's cool. It does illustrate the
>differences between this show and others and makes it even harder to quantify.
>Each episode of Millennium has different elements that make it work or fail,
>and this thread is interesting to see what people think makes a good episode.
>
>
I agree, and think the differing opinions in this thread are better
seen as different viewpoints on an art form rather than searches for
the ultimate "essence" of Millennium. If it was easy to quantify,
we'd find it, define it, and end our fun.
-E
Enfilade
LaBadie) wrote:
>Since we started out by answering the question, what is good MM, the
>answers must, inevitably, boil down to judgment calls when we discuss
>matters of detail.
The answers, it would seem to me, involve judgment calls when we
discuss anything.
> What is necessary and unnecessary detail seems to fall
>on the line where judgment comes into play.
On the line? Its well into judgment territory.
> If the ball is on the line but
>partially over the line, is it disallowed? Or do we call it in bounds if
>it has chalk on it? Are we playing tennis or football?
If the answer to the latter question were football, you also might as
whether we were the New York Jets or New England Patriots.
> Valid arguments can
>be made either way, but we haven't settled on what is necessary and what
>unnecessary. And, sometimes, the egos of the debaters tend to over ride
>their judgment. I didn't see that for myself, therefore, it doesn't exist.
>Or, I am extremely clever, therefore, it is there because I say it is.
>
But was is necessary and unnecessary is itself a judgment.
>That is why I tried to frame my initial reply in the most finite and basic
>terms, starting at the very root of MM and allowing everything else to
>develop from that. What is the essential thing, the prime cause, the Idea
>that must be present and without which MM does not exist, good or bad?
>Economy doesn't seem to me to be the root of MM. It is necessary, but not
>the essence. A machine to print the pages for the scripts is necessary,
>but it is not the essence. Arguing about economy seems to me to be a side
>issue of the real matter. What is good MM arises from what is essential
>MM. When we know what is essential MM, we automaticaly know what is good
>MM.
Ah, the search for essence is therefore a paragon of objectivity.
Well, then, if we find it, every episode after that would necessarily
be good, since we know what good is, and I suppose that good would
apply for everyone, since it is the de facto essence of Millennium.
Quick, send an email to CC with the subject line: "Millennium Rosetta
Stone". This one's in the bag.
As Ruefrex said, it is interesting to see what people *THINK* makes a
good Millennium episode. It is a search for aesthetics, not proving a
physical law. I'm enjoying this thread a great deal, and am hoping
others start chiming in with their thoughts and, yes, even their
judgments. The few (but excellent) contributors so far must mean I'm
being less shamelessly provocative than needed.
-E
Jmm0001
In article <HLaBadieJr-09...@oclab103-09.splitrock.net>,
HLaBa...@prodigy.net (Horace LaBadie) writes:
>In article <77717m$r2m$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, enfi...@cavalry.org
>(Enfilade) wrote:
>
>
>>I'm using the terms simplicity and complexity in a relative sense -
>>relative to
>>what the story needs. Mandating absolute simplicity would make things
>>cartoonish and dull. Necessary details should be there; unnecessary ones
>>should not. This is what I meant by economy, or as jmm put it, elegance.
>>Personally, I like to define elegance as an instance of remarkable economy.
I like to define elegance as sophisticated simplicity. "Curse of Frank Black"
was elegant, as was "In Arcadia Ego," but I don't think you could in fairness
call them simple. For all the discussion of detail, I think a bigger problem
were the episodes overstuffed with too many ideas, with not enough time spent
concentrating on any one of them.
>
>SNIP
>> The original concept of this thread was to discuss general principles
>>of what makes a Millennium episode "good", and for me, the economy of
>detail is
>>paramount. Every detail should be supported by reason, and all reasoning
>>supported by detail.
Yeaah, but... I like things a little messy. I like hints dropped in one
episode and picked up later in another. I like when a throwaway line is
reinterpreted to some completely other meaning down the line a little. I really
like it when the characters themselves remember what they've done from week to
week. The reasoning within an episode must be supported from within the
series, surely, but I don't believe the obverse is true.
>... we haven't settled on what is necessary and what
>unnecessary. And, sometimes, the egos of the debaters tend to over ride
>their judgment. I didn't see that for myself, therefore, it doesn't exist.
>Or, I am extremely clever, therefore, it is there because I say it is.
Both true, Horace, our recent discussions of Omerta and about the MG as
examples.
>
>That is why I tried to frame my initial reply in the most finite and basic
>terms, starting at the very root of MM and allowing everything else to
>develop from that. What is the essential thing, the prime cause, the Idea
>that must be present and without which MM does not exist, good or bad?
>Economy doesn't seem to me to be the root of MM. It is necessary, but not
>the essence. A machine to print the pages for the scripts is necessary,
>but it is not the essence. Arguing about economy seems to me to be a side
>issue of the real matter. What is good MM arises from what is essential
>MM. When we know what is essential MM, we automaticaly know what is good
>MM.
>
>HWL
>
Good MM is good drama, but not all good drama is good MM. Good MM is a subset
of good drama, including all things that go into making a good drama,
particularly a good mystery, that we've already discussed such as plot, theme,
characterization, and production values but also including the Idea, the
essence that makes Millennium separate from other television dramas. I don't
mean to try to put limits on what the show can and can't be in attempting to
define it. If the boundaries are too narrow then the show *will* suffocate.
Who would give up Darin Morgan's episodes last year because of some perceived
rule that MM wasn't supposed to be funny? On the other hand I don't think it
can hurt, in the middle of the third season, to have some idea in which
direction we're looking, even if we don't know where we're going. I think
everyone would agree MM is not X-files, and is not Profiler, for instance, but
I don't think we've narrowed in on what Millennium is. Is it Horace's
Idealism?
-jmm
Jason Dorough
>There were rules
>about what stages of undress should be presented in which quarter of
>the story, who could do who and when, etc.. An amateur computer
>programmer could cut these novels off like hotcakes.
And one did. A while back, somebody wrote a program that wrote in the
style of Jacqueline Susann (I believe that's the name... the person
who wrote the original Valley of the Dolls). Anyway, the computer
kicked out a novel that read just like one of her pieces.
-Jason
Milluminati PR
Ruefrex
Jason, Jason, Jason. THAT was not provoked. I shall now leave you to your
imagination as to what provoked would actually be like!
>... Which is why I gave up on Barbara Michaels. A friend who knew I
>loved "dark" fiction force-fed me one of her books, and I really
>enjoyed it. I enjoyed it until the last chapter or two, that is. About
>fifteen pages from the end, ol' Barb slammed on the literary brakes,
>threw the car in reverse, and everybody (except the mean old guy who
>owned the gothic manor) lived happily ever after.>>
Hmm... I'm actually a fan of Barbara Michaels (and her less gothic alter-ego,
Elizabeth Peters). Maybe you just got hold of a bad one. Neither Michaels nor
Peters is considered romance, actually. If you really look at her work, she
doesn't take romantic suspense too seriously. She DOES, however, take her
characters seriously, God love her!
>How did that work this season? Did Chip, Michael, and perhaps Chris
>sit down and decide how they wanted the general course of the season
>to play? Or is it more of a "play it by ear" process, with the show
>runners slapping wrists occasionally and pulling back on the yoke
>every now and then? I seem to remember hearing that Morgan and Wong
>planned the outcome of season two from day one.>>
M&W had a pretty good notion of where they were going but it didn't seem to
deter them from taking side trips, when the moment arose. They were incredibly
open to ideas.
I think that's all I'm gonna say on that subject <g>.
>And then there's the case of the XF mytharc, where *everybody* is
>confused.
Very true, but at least there's a consensus! Maybe not the kind of consensus
you'd want, but... I wonder if anyone can explain it. Regardless, it would be
nice to see someone try.
Ruefrex
>others start chiming in with their thoughts and, yes, even their
>judgments. The few (but excellent) contributors so far must mean I'm
>being less shamelessly provocative than needed.
>
I'm enjoying it a great deal too and agree that more should chime in! Since
creating a hit series is based so much on audience testing now, it's helpful to
see what people find intriguing in drama. Of course, the members of this
newsgroup probably don't fit the usual drooling test audience profile so maybe
this is all moot.
Do you know that you get a higher score if you put a DOG in your pilot? God
give me strength.
And honestly Enfilade, do you think being MORE provocative is gonna work??
Wait a moment... don't answer that...
EileenBan
I believe the Blood Banner (which did exist, having been stained in the
abortive Munich putsch, and which was trotted out on serious occasions) was
explained in the episode. If not, it still worked as a symbol that resonated on
different levels, depending on the amount of knowledge the individual viewers
bring with them when they sit down in front of the TV on Friday night.
And THAT, boys and girls, is what made a good Milennium. We, as viewers, were
trusted to make sense of a narrative that represented only a fragment of the
whole story; allusions and references could be followed (remember last year's
Templar hunt after "Anamnesis"?) or left alone; characters did not wear black
or white hats--when we first met the Old Man up in the woods, he had more than
a whiff of Ted Kacyznski about him, and seemed almost amused by people having
their throats torn out by wild dogs. Even Frank had a whiff of the demonic
about him--all that time staring into the abyss. With many episodes, the
viewing experience did not end at 10 o'clock. One had to work, and think, and
maybe even crack a book.
This season, everything has been made easy. We as viewers can reduce characters
to one-word tags, with an exclamation point. Nothing resonates. There is no
underlying theme to carry us from one episode to another, and where a theme
presents itself (is Frank still crazy?) it's dropped after one episode.
Somewhere in this thread, someone mentioned that characters used to remember
what they did last week, or last year. Now they all just show up each week in a
brand new world.
--
------------------------
Why did you come to Casablanca?
For the waters.
Waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
I was misinformed.
Horace LaBadie
(Enfilade) wrote:
>
> What do we know of the MG's philosophy, as it
> relates to ODESSA? What do we know of ODESSA's philosophy? Nothing
> and nothing, respectively. As soon as the Nazi's show up, the MG's
> philosophy becomes irrelevant as they default to generic goodness and
> honor by opposing the evil Nazis.
ODESSA's philosophy is core Nazism, expanded beyond the borders of
Germany, National Socialism with a global slant. It's objectives were core
Nazism with the same global slant. And what, pray tell, is wrong,
dramatically speaking, with knowing that, at the default level, the MG are
good and the Nazis evil? Peter and the Group did stray into the gray area
of "eye for an eye" at the end, so the default level was not actually
reached, any way. But knowing that the Group has a fundamental goodness
does not mean that they can't have dramatic value thereafter. And a
philosophy is a matter that is constantly tested by experience, so finding
the default level today doesn't mean that it can't be tested again and
again. It's happened with Frank over and again.
>
> I neither stated or implied an Old Man parallel. I just mentioned
> OMATS because I referenced it before. Chaucer is actually the better
> example.
Ooooo....Kay.
>
> Let's run with this parallel between the Old Man and Jesus. Who did
> the Old Man save?
Well, the Group, for starters. His death snapped Peter back to his senses.
The rift between the factions seemed to be placed in abeyance. Frank and
Lara were reconciled to the Group. By saving the Group, it is implied that
the World was given a chance, also. Billions?
> How did he put himself in danger, and what was his
> sacrifice?
Assuming that the OM was every bit as wiley as his counterpart Axmann, he
put himself in danger by coming out and visiting Frank. Axmann "knew that
he would go to that one." Well, the Old Man was smart enough to know that
he would be observed. What did he sacrifice? Oh, how about his life?
> Why wasn't the Jesus message taken further, and Axmann's
> thug forgiven for the Old Man's murder?
Do they have to paint an icon of the OM to make the point? How about the
outline on the floor? And Peter's homage to it?
St. Peter cut off the soldier's ear, against the orders of Jesus. Jesus
asked that "they" be forgiven in their ignorance. The OM didn't have time
to say much, but he acquiesced in his own death after seeing the angel of
death, a kind of acceptance of a divine plan. So, maybe He forgave them.
That's a question far out of our realm of knowledge. The law, of course,
executes criminals who have been forgiven not only by religion but by the
victim's family, so carrying out the "eye for an eye" sentence might not
mean much beyond carrying out the Biblical senetence.
> If the Old Man is Jesus, does
> this mean the Group represents the Apostles? Oh, wait... now I get
> it. Peter Watts is an Apostle! And their vengeance against ODESSA is
> intentionally in opposition to Jesus' teaching! Hence, the BROKEN
> cross! Its all making sense now! Again, it isn't difficult.
Peter betrayed Jesus' teachings several times, as noted, even going to the
extent of denying he knew Him. Do you think Peter Watts is accidentally
named, too? And how many were gathered at the funeral?
>
> How do we know it is stained with the blood of Nazi martyrs? Was that
> said in the episode? (I'm really asking.) If not, that is
> retrofitting.
Yes, it was stated by the OM. It's a part of Nazi lore. The Beer Hall
Putsch. The dead whose blood stained the banner were regarded as martyrs
by the party.
>
> If there isn't such a mention in the episode, it is nothing more than
> conjecture in favor of a particular interpretation, and the addition
> of information which may be untrue.
Not conjecture, but part of Nazi lore. See above.
>
> I used OMATS as an example, but not Hemingway in general.
>
> -E
Well, you did get the jitters when they tried to pry a couple of others
from your hands.
HWL
DORR 64OVI
essential elements of Millennium are or were. Distilling down what we perceive
to be the defining portions of a "good" MM episode goes right to the heart of
what has happened to this series since its inception.
Stripping away every other consideration, this series began as the story
of Frank Black, a fascinating and complex human being with a special
"gift/curse". The essence of evil and its relationship to the Millennium were
the framework for Frank's work. THe other defining element that drove the
episodes was Franks attempt to balance what his work showed him (and changed
him) as he tried to maintain his home & family. This latter element was of
course symbolized by the yellow house.
Without arguing the differences in the direction of season 1 vs 2, Frank
and his struggle/journey was still at the core. That to me, is what defined MM
and its virtual absence in this season, is what I find so frustrating. I have
looked in each episode this year (and I unfortunately have not seen Omerta),
for the Frank I identified with and he isn't there.
If one looks at a number of this seasons episodes, Human Essence being
the worst example,
the concept of Frank and his relationship/role in the coming Millennium are
nearly forgotten. At its worst, the character of Frank Black is nothing more
than a neat tool that Emma uses to solve this weeks crime.
IMHO, the entire dynamic of the internal & external struggle of Frank
Black and the Millennium has been replaced by a pointless conflict with
unimportant characters within the FBI.
If you think about it, MM now appears to be a show about the struggle of a
caring FBI agent (Emma Hollis) and her attempt to find and do what is right
versus the "system" represented on the two levels of Andy McClaren and the self
serving Barry Baldwin.
When Michael Duggan came on board last summer, I believe he said that the
reason Frank was going back to the FBI was that the audience couldn't
understand or relate to the MG. THe FBI was a safer and more comfortable
framework for Frank to do his thing. Unfortunately this change has been so
poorly done that I can't imagine how new viewers must relate to Frank at all.
And this says nothing about Jordan. She might as well have died in the cabin
with her mother.
I dont think any drama can survive this attempt to totally disregard (or
pay lip service to) what was brought forth in the previous seasons. Without the
soul of Frank Black, MM will continue to drift and ultimately die.
DORR64OVI
Jason Dorough
>Jason, Jason, Jason. THAT was not provoked. I shall now leave you to your
>imagination as to what provoked would actually be like!
Yeeshk... Even better than that, I'll try to imagine what one would
have to *do* to provoke you! I thought I had ya a while back ;)
>Hmm... I'm actually a fan of Barbara Michaels (and her less gothic alter-ego,
>Elizabeth Peters). Maybe you just got hold of a bad one. Neither Michaels nor
>Peters is considered romance, actually. If you really look at her work, she
>doesn't take romantic suspense too seriously. She DOES, however, take her
>characters seriously, God love her!
Well, yeah, I do like some of her work as Elizabeth Peters (those are
the Egyptian mysteries, right?). Perhaps I did get a lemon with the
one Michaels book I read. I can't remember the title of it, but I
remember that it was pretty standard gothic fare... A poor lass sent
to an old manor as a secretary / maid, a mysterious old guy who may or
may not have killed his wife, an even more mysterious and dashing
young rogue, etc, etc, etc.
>M&W had a pretty good notion of where they were going but it didn't seem to
>deter them from taking side trips, when the moment arose. They were incredibly
>open to ideas.
>I think that's all I'm gonna say on that subject <g>.
<chuckle> I get the idea.
>Very true, but at least there's a consensus! Maybe not the kind of consensus
>you'd want, but... I wonder if anyone can explain it. Regardless, it would be
>nice to see someone try.
My perfect XF episode (a 2-parter, actually): Part 1: Mulder attempts
to explain the entire conspiracy (including
what-the-heck-happened-to-Samantha) to Scully. She falls asleep. Part
2: Scully wakes up, and WOW! It's season two again! The past few
seasons were all a dream. That would put us back to when the
conspiracy was interesting, the aliens may or may not exist, and CSM
was intimidating. Those were the days...
-Jason
Milluminati PR
Jennifer Taylor
> Someone recently said to me that the difference between a show like
Millennium
> and a show like NYPD Blue is that with the latter, you've got a crime, an
> investigation, an arrest, a conclusion, then you're done. But with
Millennium
> you start out with Frank and you have to find some way to go from there.
Some
> people think this is daunting. I think it's cool. It does illustrate the
> differences between this show and others and makes it even harder to
quantify.
> Each episode of Millennium has different elements that make it work or
fail,
> and this thread is interesting to see what people think makes a good
episode.
>
>
>
Millennium is a journey(in many ways an archetypal night journey). I enjoy
watching Frank struggle with himself while trying to do the "right" thing
and protect his family.
--
jen
Official Milluminati Advisor for the Halloween Arts
Horace LaBadie
eile...@aol.com (EileenBan) wrote:
>
> I believe the Blood Banner (which did exist, having been stained in the
> abortive Munich putsch, and which was trotted out on serious occasions) was
> explained in the episode. If not, it still worked as a symbol that
resonated on
> different levels, depending on the amount of knowledge the individual viewers
> bring with them when they sit down in front of the TV on Friday night.
>
> And THAT, boys and girls, is what made a good Milennium. We, as viewers, were
> trusted to make sense of a narrative that represented only a fragment of the
> whole story; allusions and references could be followed (remember last year's
> Templar hunt after "Anamnesis"?) or left alone; characters did not wear black
> or white hats--when we first met the Old Man up in the woods, he had more than
> a whiff of Ted Kacyznski about him, and seemed almost amused by people having
> their throats torn out by wild dogs. Even Frank had a whiff of the demonic
> about him--all that time staring into the abyss. With many episodes, the
> viewing experience did not end at 10 o'clock. One had to work, and think, and
> maybe even crack a book.
The Old Man explained the blutfahne to Lara in the basement of the Yellow
House. I guess E was so infatuated with Lara that he missed it. Hints,
suggestions, brief visual references are enough, and the viewer has the
option of supplying or not supplying material.
>
> This season, everything has been made easy. We as viewers can reduce
characters
> to one-word tags, with an exclamation point. Nothing resonates. There is no
> underlying theme to carry us from one episode to another, and where a theme
> presents itself (is Frank still crazy?) it's dropped after one episode.
> Somewhere in this thread, someone mentioned that characters used to remember
> what they did last week, or last year. Now they all just show up each
week in a
> brand new world.
>
>
> --
One of things that really bothered me about TEOTWAWKI was the wholesale
backtracking that went on with the concept of the millennium. For two
years, we were given every evidence of a metaphysical realm impinging on
the physical reality, with a great evil soon to burst forth. Then, all of
a sudden, the approaching millennium is nothing more than a manifestation
of simple human error, fear, greed, and selfishness. The last millennial
scare was nothing more than hysteria, and this one is too, except that God
has been entirely removed from the equation and reduced to being a
spectator at the tragedy. I could have accepted the notion that the Y2K
problem was one more element in the coming event, perhaps the man made
component that was somehow a product of the human vices as exploited by
the evil, but TEOTWAWKI was presented as a substitute for the whole
experience of the first two seasons, as though they were a mistake. That
was a major irritant for me. We go from a world in which even the striving
for mediocrity is a part of the grand scheme of Legion, to one in which
the collapse of civilzation is just a big human screwup. That is not the
kind of retuning that I can take without protest.
HWL
Horace LaBadie
>
> Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. The images are standard,
> and readily accessible, but they are also supposed to invoke the
> concepts of Teutonic Knights, ancient evils, and pagan gods? These
> things are not necessarily readily accessible to the common viewer.
>
> The hints were so subtle, we were bludgeoned over the head with
> them. Take the cuff links, for instance. Why would a secret
> organization (so secretive that they'd set up a front company) turn
> around and sport SS cufflinks? Anyone with a passing knowledge of WW2
> or Nazi regalia would recognize the SS emblem. It was a clumsy way of
> nudging the viewer in the Nazi direction, and didn't make sense in the
> context of the story. ODESSA is wearing their heart on Clear Knight's
> sleeve, and Frank is mystified by Nuremburg films running through his
> head. Now I understand everything.
> >>
> >> -E
The general imagery suggests to those in the know and prompts others to
investigate. The general imagery solves the immediate dramatic problem and
serves to stimulate the little gray cells, which is exactly the effect we
have praised so often.
And if the camera focuses on the cuff links, that's for the benefit of
those who do not have HDTV yet. We have to be able to see the little
lighning bolt. How many people in real life would arm wrestle Ms. Knight
to get a close look at her cuff links? They would see some elegant silver
links with a stylized lightning bolt, if they noticed them at all. So what
would they make of that? Nothing. And nothing is what we would have made
of them had we not been given a closeup. You have to distinguish between
what we can see and what a normal person would see if he inhabited the
episode.
HWL
FLAtRich
>> them. Take the cuff links, for instance. Why would a secret
>> organization (so secretive that they'd set up a front company) turn
>> around and sport SS cufflinks? Anyone with a passing knowledge of WW2
>> or Nazi regalia would recognize the SS emblem. It was a clumsy way of
>> nudging the viewer in the Nazi direction, and didn't make sense in the
>> context of the story.
If I might interject: haven't the Nazis been historically unsubtle since
WW2? Skinheads marching around with Nazi flags, etc. It is part of their
rather demented conceit to advertise themselves, and not all that atypical
of political fringe groups to hide and boast at the same time. (The KKK wore
those sheets for a long time, but folks in their home towns knew who was KKK
and who wasn't.)
Enfilade
wrote:
>
>>In article <36982476...@news.msu.edu>, enfi...@cavalry.org
>>(Enfilade) wrote:
>>> The hints were so subtle, we were bludgeoned over the head with
>>> them. Take the cuff links, for instance. Why would a secret
>>> organization (so secretive that they'd set up a front company) turn
>>> around and sport SS cufflinks? Anyone with a passing knowledge of WW2
>>> or Nazi regalia would recognize the SS emblem. It was a clumsy way of
>>> nudging the viewer in the Nazi direction, and didn't make sense in the
>>> context of the story.
>
>If I might interject: haven't the Nazis been historically unsubtle since
>WW2? Skinheads marching around with Nazi flags, etc. It is part of their
>rather demented conceit to advertise themselves, and not all that atypical
>of political fringe groups to hide and boast at the same time. (The KKK wore
>those sheets for a long time, but folks in their home towns knew who was KKK
>and who wasn't.)
>
>
The difference is one of legality. Regardless of how hateful or
nonsensical one's message is, it is legal to parade around in
ridiculous outfits preaching it. ODESSA's raison d'etre is to protect
and conceal members of the SS from prosecution as war criminals. Nab
an ODESSA operative and you might get your hands on a list of SS
veterans and their current locations. Nab a Nazi skinhead and all
you'll probably find is a confused punk whose testosterone has boiled
a little too far up into his brain.
It is interesting that 1013 chose the ODESSA organization for
"Owls/Roosters", instead of a generic Nazi group. Although some of
the SS hierarchy were involved in the Nazi mysticism, I've not read
any evidence suggesting ODESSA had such ideas. They were only intent
on protecting members from capture after the war.
There is one faint link, however. Peter mentions something about
ODESSA being involved in the fall of the Soviet Union. Some
conspiracy theorists out there say he might be right. The US
supposedly "consulted" with ODESSA to gain intelligence on the Soviets
after the war. The Nazis weren't too fond of the Russians, and
considering the bitter conflicts on the Eastern front, this was
especially true of the SS veterans who fought in the region. Not sure
if the link was coincidental or intentional, but it was cute.
-E
Enfilade
LaBadie) wrote:
> How many people in real life would arm wrestle Ms. Knight
>to get a close look at her cuff links?
Do you really want my answer to this question?
>They would see some elegant silver
>links with a stylized lightning bolt, if they noticed them at all. So what
>would they make of that? Nothing. And nothing is what we would have made
>of them had we not been given a closeup. You have to distinguish between
>what we can see and what a normal person would see if he inhabited the
>episode.
>
I'll grant you that much. The camera has to surrogate our visual
curiousity, since we can't look around the room. Just like in horror
movies, where we seem to develop an awful case of tunnel vision and
the inability to see monsters right next to us. Of course, we feel
better because the character about to get hacked to death suffers the
same visual dysfunctions.
My point remains, however. Even though someone would have to look a
few times at the cufflinks to notice anything, it seems an undue risk
on ODESSA's part. There would be much less riskier ways of
identifying fellow members within the front company.
-E
Jeanannd
> The difference is one of legality. Regardless of how hateful or
>nonsensical one's message is, it is legal to parade around in
>ridiculous outfits preaching it. ODESSA's raison d'etre is to protect
>and conceal members of the SS from prosecution as war criminals. Nab
>an ODESSA operative and you might get your hands on a list of SS
>veterans and their current locations. Nab a Nazi skinhead and all
>you'll probably find is a confused punk whose testosterone has boiled
>a little too far up into his brain.
>
> It is interesting that 1013 chose the ODESSA organization for
>"Owls/Roosters", instead of a generic Nazi group. Although some of
>the SS hierarchy were involved in the Nazi mysticism, I've not read
>any evidence suggesting ODESSA had such ideas. They were only intent
>on protecting members from capture after the war.
> There is one faint link, however. Peter mentions something about
>ODESSA being involved in the fall of the Soviet Union. Some
>conspiracy theorists out there say he might be right. The US
>supposedly "consulted" with ODESSA to gain intelligence on the Soviets
>after the war. The Nazis weren't too fond of the Russians, and
>considering the bitter conflicts on the Eastern front, this was
>especially true of the SS veterans who fought in the region. Not sure
>if the link was coincidental or intentional, but it was cute.
>
=================
To be a member of the SS you had to be a member of the Nazi party, and not just
anyone was allowed to be a member of the Nazi party.
The Nazi party had already started eliminating christian churches, ministers
and anyone who stood against them (midway through the war).
Before the war they had already planned on elimating christianity and any
religion, save the one they were experimenting with. They researched several
ancient pagan religions and took what they wanted, and were starting to piece
together a make shift religion that they hoped to implement when they ruled the
world. Captured film from the SS and other NAZI sources had such interesting
things as having young teens practice certain pagan ceromonies. At one time
documents suggest Hitler planned on claiming he was Jesus....but they didn't
think they could move that fast.
The Nazi's also searched for a variety of holy objects from many religions,
like the Raiders of The Lost Arc...they did want what ever they could find in
the way of relics and artifacts.
I thought I could organize freedom - Bjork - The Hunter
jeanad (AKA) jeanannd
Ruefrex
>have to *do* to provoke you! I thought I had ya a while back ;)>>
Nah. That was nuthin'.
>Well, yeah, I do like some of her work as Elizabeth Peters (those are
>the Egyptian mysteries, right?).>>
Yup. She also writes the John and Vicky books, which I find more fun than the
Amelia Peabody Egyptian books. It's like reading terrifically entertaining
variations on Romancing the Stone... with irony.
<< Perhaps I did get a lemon with the
>one Michaels book I read. I can't remember the title of it, but I
>remember that it was pretty standard gothic fare... A poor lass sent
>to an old manor as a secretary / maid, a mysterious old guy who may or
>may not have killed his wife, an even more mysterious and dashing
>young rogue, etc, etc, etc.>>
That does sound like one of her more standard ones. Give Ammie Come Home a try
and see if you like it!
>My perfect XF episode (a 2-parter, actually): Part 1: Mulder attempts
>to explain the entire conspiracy (including
>what-the-heck-happened-to-Samantha) to Scully. She falls asleep. Part
>2: Scully wakes up, and WOW! It's season two again! The past few
>seasons were all a dream. That would put us back to when the
>conspiracy was interesting, the aliens may or may not exist, and CSM
>was intimidating. Those were the days...>>
Naturally, I must take the fifth on that one... but I am rather fond of the way
you think, Jason!
Quick movie recommendation -- go see THE GENERAL, John Boorman's new movie.
It's spellbinding, funny and tragic and Brendan Gleeson gives a remarkable
performance.
Ruefrex
>like the Raiders of The Lost Arc...they did want what ever they could find in
>the way of relics and artifacts.
At one point, Hitler stopped looking for ancient manuscripts and started
looking for paintings. It is nutty moments like this that make speculation
about what was really going on worthwhile!
Horace LaBadie
(Enfilade) wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:36:42 -0400, HLaBa...@prodigy.net (Horace
> LaBadie) wrote:
>
> > How many people in real life would arm wrestle Ms. Knight
> >to get a close look at her cuff links?
>
> Do you really want my answer to this question?
(bada rum bum, rimshot.)
I mean, the other matched pair on her wrists.
> My point remains, however. Even though someone would have to look a
> few times at the cufflinks to notice anything, it seems an undue risk
> on ODESSA's part. There would be much less riskier ways of
> identifying fellow members within the front company.
>
> -E
Like gang hand signals? Or Masonic hand shakes, ala Monty Python? Or
saying in public, "This is who we are?"
Anyway, the cuff links, like the paintings, were rewards to the over
achievers in the "company", not the means of identifying other agents.
HWL
Horace LaBadie
(Enfilade) wrote:
>
> It is interesting that 1013 chose the ODESSA organization for
> "Owls/Roosters", instead of a generic Nazi group. Although some of
> the SS hierarchy were involved in the Nazi mysticism, I've not read
> any evidence suggesting ODESSA had such ideas. They were only intent
> on protecting members from capture after the war.
They were also interested in protecting some of the billions in plunder
they had amassed.
> There is one faint link, however. Peter mentions something about
> ODESSA being involved in the fall of the Soviet Union. Some
> conspiracy theorists out there say he might be right. The US
> supposedly "consulted" with ODESSA to gain intelligence on the Soviets
> after the war. The Nazis weren't too fond of the Russians, and
> considering the bitter conflicts on the Eastern front, this was
> especially true of the SS veterans who fought in the region. Not sure
> if the link was coincidental or intentional, but it was cute.
>
> -E
>
>
"Consulted" is the proper way to put it, since they gave many former Nazis
haven in the US and other countries, even using them as agents in Europe
to set up intelligence operations. It had always been the goal of Nazism
to destroy Communism. It was the OM (not Peter) who mentioned that the
blutfahne conferred a guarantee of the victory over Communism, and that it
was ODESSA "not Reagan or Gorbachev" who brought down the Soviet Union.
HWL
Jason Dorough
>That does sound like one of her more standard ones. Give Ammie Come Home a try
>and see if you like it!
I located the one I read, and it's called The Master of Blacktower. I
just remembered that I have another one by Barbara Michaels around
here somewhere. I think it has the word "Wolf" somewhere in the title.
Son of the Wolf, maybe? I'll add Ammie to my TBR list.
>Naturally, I must take the fifth on that one... but I am rather fond of the way
>you think, Jason!
And don't even get me started on the notion of killing Skinner...
Mitch Pileggi is Da Man. If they're tired of him down in LA, why not
bring him back up to Vancouver and give McLaren a sidekick? ;)
>Quick movie recommendation -- go see THE GENERAL, John Boorman's new movie.
>It's spellbinding, funny and tragic and Brendan Gleeson gives a remarkable
>performance.
I hadn't heard of this one but will keep it in mind. Most of my recent
movie viewing has been via DVD. In the last week or so, I've seen
probably six or seven... Disturbing Behavior, U-Turn, Out of Sight
(for the fourth time), etc. The last one I saw at the theater was A
Simple Plan. While it was a good movie, I prefer the book. But doesn't
it always work that way?
-Jason
Milluminati PR
Derek Gilbert
Enfilade wrote in message <369a88db...@news.msu.edu>...
>
>You'd be surprised at how often people can look the other way when
>they are "happy".
Case in point: America, 1999.
Enfilade
>To be a member of the SS you had to be a member of the Nazi party, and not just
>anyone was allowed to be a member of the Nazi party.
It depends on who and when you are talking about. In the early days,
if you could hold your liquor and were willing to beat up rival
parties, the Nazis would be glad to have you. That is, of course,
until you actually believed the "Socialist" part of the "National
Socialism" tag, and declared a people's revolution. Then you became a
threat to the Prussian nobility in the Army, whom Hitler had promised
a place in Germany's future.
Once the Nazis had established some political clout and popularity,
there was less need for grass roots rowdiness, and more need for
money, money, and more money. There's where the industrialists come
in. Own a company, have some dough, and you'd be surprised how quick
the Nazis would beat a path to your door. Without the support of the
Army and private sector, the Nazis would have failed to secure power.
For all the high-minded racial nonsense, they were actually quite
pragmatic when it came to getting what they wanted. Being in a
position of economic power pardoned many a German for their "bad"
blood.
The SS was a different story altogether. They began as and remained
an elite organization modeled after the Roman Praetorian Guard.
Here's where much of the mysticism and pagan symbolism began, and
there's some question as to how much of it was actually believed and
how much was merely propaganda for morale. If you ever see an SS
poster from the era, it looks remarkably like the commercials you see
on TV now for the US Marines, with the warrior/sword/heroic
dragon-slayer imagery. The ceremonial SS daggers, strange rituals,
and runic nonsense were arguably only intended to foster unity and
fanatical devotion within the elite units.
>The Nazi party had already started eliminating christian churches, ministers
>and anyone who stood against them (midway through the war).
This actually began before the war, and was done primarily for the
purpose of securing political power, not because the established
religions presented any threat to Nazi paganism. Once the Nazis were
securely in charge, and Hitler had his run of victories, criticisms of
the Nazis from religious institutions within Germany became
suspiciously absent, as was the case with the people in general.
You'd be surprised at how often people can look the other way when
they are "happy".
-E
Jeanannd
>You'd be surprised at how often people can look the other way when
>they are "happy".
============
Esp,. it you are not happy something REALLY BAD might happen to you.
Jeanannd
>Case in point: America, 1999.
=========
Not really, here you can say Clinton sucks, Congress sucks and the Senate
sucks...and not have storm troopers or gestopo beating down your door to
violently adjust your attitude.
SEE I just said it...oh oh, is that someone in a black suit doing a "be seeing
you" salute? I'm outta here. ;)
Emdavis97
sucks...and not have storm troopers or gestopo beating down your door to
violently adjust your attitude.>>
No, I believe Monica Lewinsky was doing most of the sucking....
sorry, couldnt' resist.
Erk (emda...@aol.com)
------------------------------------------------
this is who I....was....?
------------------------------------------------
Horace LaBadie
> The essential nature of what makes Millennium is in my opinion is
>an intangible that transcends the craft by virtue not of the large or
>broad strokes of the plot line but in that the well oiled and smoothly
>running machinery allows us, the viewers to focus on the small aspects of
>a character that we in our lives would focus on in the people we know or
>in ourselves. Or would like to cultivate or that we have in common. A tone
>of voice when turning a particular phrase, an almost inaudible grumble,
>how quickly a character puts down a coffee cup to take a phone call, the
>merest barest, hesitation in a step or eyes lingering on something as the
>character's head turns to followed the required action. People are predators.
>Eyes in front: they hunt - eyes to the side: they hide.
> (IMHO) Maybe not.
>
> *********************
That is a part of the actor's craft, how he communicates the intangible.
If he has nothing to communicate, then the gesture or the glance becomes
simply an empty mechanical motion that simulates emotion or thought. You
can see the same thing in an animated feature. The "actors" have all the
"human" movements that simulate emotion or thought, and it is amusing, but
we don't for a minute believe that they are thoughtful or sentient. In the
best episodes of MM, we are convinced that the emotions and the unspoken
thoughts are genuine, because there is something genuine in the situation,
something essentially human, a loss or fear of loss, a love or hate that
we all have experienced or with which we can empathize vicariously. That
emotion becomes the matter from which the actor shapes his portrayal of
the character. If that emotion is genuine, and the actor skillful, then
the episode succeeds. If the emotion is false, contrived, forced, then the
actor, however skillful, cannot turn lead into gold. There is an alchemy
in the actor's craft, by which he transforms the intangible into the
palpable, but he cannot produce something from nothing. This season, the
emotions rarely have been genuine. The menace of forces beyond our
comprehension, which instilled an involuntary thrill of fear, has been
reduced to a clumsy apparatus called the Millennium Group, which had
formerly been the hope of salvation. What was there to fear in "Skull and
Bones"? That we might fall asleep. Not all the sinister looks of Mabus
could persuade me that the Great Battle between Good and Evil was being
played out before our eyes in human form. As a consequence, the looks were
the equivalent of a twirled mustache and the melodramatic flourish of a
cape. There was about as much real threat to Emma, either spiritually or
physically, as there was to Pearl White when she was tied to the railroad
tracks. And note this well, there doesn't have to be a physical threat: it
can be spiritual or emotional. Indeed, physical threats are probably the
least compelling. A threat, once carried into action loses it's power to
frighten us. It becomes merely a fact to be faced.
HWL
V.O.S.R.
>
> PamJ wrote
> >> The essential nature of what makes Millennium is in my opinion is
> >>an intangible that transcends the craft by virtue not of the large or
> >>broad strokes of the plot line but in that the well oiled and smoothly
> >>running machinery allows us, the viewers to focus on the small aspects of
> >>a character that we in our lives would focus on in the people we know or
> >>in ourselves. Or would like to cultivate or that we have in common.
>
> >On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:06:39 -0400, HLaBa...@prodigy.net (Horace LaBadie) wrote:
> <snip>
> >That is a part of the actor's craft, how he communicates the intangible.
> >If he has nothing to communicate, then the gesture or the glance becomes
> >simply an empty mechanical motion that simulates emotion or thought.
> > There is an alchemy in the actor's craft, by which he transforms the intangible into the palpable, but he cannot produce something from nothing. This season, the emotions rarely have been genuine. The menace of forces beyond our comprehension, which instilled an involuntary thrill of fear, has been reduced <snip>
> ***************************
> Correct. The point I was trying to make is not a refutation of any prior assessment. I tried to explain why I feel that there is a dimensions beyond craft and I suppose the point that I did not explain clearly enough is that technical craft as well as the craft of the actors/actress' is not the limit of the equation. I concede, advance even, that the technical component must reach certain levels of skill/proficiency in order to facilitate interest in the viewer. below:
>
> > -if the technical environment is doing what it is supposed to do in the way that engages us to the level of stimulation we like best
>
> One hopes that an overriding vision would guide the technical craft and if one wants a serial or episodic story line the vision must still be present. Someone should know what the effort is about. Given decent material and technical support a craftsman/woman should be able to translate the characters into empathetic vehicles. That is two separate fields of specialty.
> What I was attempting to say is that even though the technical component is present- and I will suggest that one of the problems with this season is the diversity of writers, writer's style, and lack of vision; even though the writing has been good for the kind of story being written the stories being written allow little or no character advancement or continuity- (the "vision" thing) one watches a finely drawn interpretation for reasons that have little to do with any technical aspect
> You have two stories, both begin episodically and develop storylines that become contiguous, both stories pose engaging questions, maintain the quest for answers and a viewer ends up being committed to one or the other story, or both, or neither. Why is that? Why is it that a story would lose that viewer commitment?
> I postulated that viewers are hooked by more than craft of any sort. That viewers are hard-wired to make decisions of this type based on out predisposition to be visual beings. What then is it that we look for? All other aspects of the storytelling being consistently adequate to satisfy a certain recognizable level, or platform, of skill why does a viewer cross over from respectful of the story's elements into committed to the fantasy?
>
> screen, given some tangible substance? So why aren"t we all Batman fans too?
> Now, I just ask these questions and answer them mentally to see if they form any kind of a working synopsis. Admittedly and certainly my answers may well be absolutely incorrect. Thinking that there is anything but craft and if a story is given good writing, good sets and good actors/actress' then that's all there is or need be is certainly a straight line and that is the shortest distance between question and answer, two points.
> Nature though meanders, and that is inevitably the path of least resistance because nature is inherently give to that path. Since people are only a member in one of natures kingdoms I tend to be drawn to examining the "wet" side of just about any question.
> There is the distinct possibility that my head is firmly up my ass. I'm just asking questions and giving my rationale for how I reached this place in my synopsis of understanding/answering. As yet I'm not ready to embrace a totally craft oriented approach to the art being discussed.
>
> PamJ
(((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dear PamJ:
Honest, I really enjoy your posts. But. . .Please-Please-PLEASE try to
keep these eye-challenging epistles to within a more reasonable margin.
. . The zig-zagging is kewl, but this time, the sentences ran clear off
my screen! (I can't be the ONLY one with this problem!) Missed the
point of some of the sentences that way!
V.O.S.R. {8-)
Horace LaBadie
>I postulated that viewers are hooked by more than craft of any sort. That
>viewers are hard-wired to make decisions of this type based on out
>predisposition to be visual beings. What then is it that we look for? All
>other aspects of the storytelling being consistently adequate to satisfy a
>certain recognizable level, or platform, of skill why does a viewer cross
>over from respectful of the story's elements into committed to the fantasy?
> I think that step is not something that is a direct, quantifiable
>result of the two kinds of craft discussed. If it were, every television
>project and movie would attract more viewers than could be accommodated.
>Since perception is egocentric why are we engaged. what would it take to
>get the image in the mirror back to a reflection we want to linger over?
>Craft aside. The craft work is just fine. It's not enough. Is there a
>cultural component wherein the stories we commit to must fill a need not
>otherwise addressed? Is it a need to have culturally driven "truths"
>reinforced? Is it that we all want to believe we are adequate crusaders
>against evil and like to see that self-image on a
>screen, given some tangible substance? So why aren"t we all Batman fans too?
>
> PamJ
Perhaps it's because I listen too much to the squirrel's opinions about
MM, but I confess that you have lost me. You appear to have leap-frogged
out of the discussion of the essential Millennium into epistemology. And I
am not sure what you are saying in that regard, either. You seem to take a
mechanically deterministic view of perception and reaction (hard-wiring).
(Perhaps true.) That seems to lead to the inescapable conclusion that it
IS all craft, simply knowing which perceptual buttons to push. If we are
hard-wired to perceive in certain ways and to react to those perceptions
in certain ways, then the artist is nothing more than a computer
programmer. He supplies certain inputs, known to produce certain
reactions, and we perceive and react as predicted. If the programmer makes
an error in his calculations, then we fail to react as expected. Even if
true, however, there would appear to be a base or quantum level of
uncertainty built into his calculations, meaning that even with a
perfectly calculated program there could be only a probability of success.
Individuals would probably react as predicted, but they need not always so
do. Success, then, would be measured in the number of persons whose
reactions fall into the predicted range. Is that what you are saying? If
that is what you mean, then I have questions.
Are you speaking in general or in particular terms? Are a certain
percentage of the population hard-wired to like MM? OR are the general
population hard-wired to be MM fans? In either case, what has that to do
with the creative control of those making the series? Are you speaking
about popularity or artistic excellence? The two are not necessarily
synonymous. How does the visual enter into an art that is not visual?
(Music, say? Literature can be imaginary, that is, evocative of images,
but what about its non-visual components?) Are the MM fans hard-wired to
respond to a particular set of visual images? How does that equate to
excellence, either in general or in the case of MM? Do we measure
excellence in this manner? If there is hard-wiring of the viewers, then
why don't all attempts succeed once the formula is known? The few
unpredictable reactions would seem to be merely statistical anomalies.
But you deny that craft is the factor which makes the essential MM. (As do
I.) So, what ARE your answers? You have confused me, you see, to the point
where I can't see the answers for the questions. Maybe that's my fault.
Leaving aside matters of brain vs. mind, perception vs. reality, genetics
vs. culture, popularity vs. excellence, let's return to the question of
MM's essence. We have agreed to set aside skill or craft. Happily, that is
given. What, then, is the essence of MM? What is its peculiar and
irreplaceable feature or quality, which, when properly expressed through
craft, makes the show unique? Is it the "vision thing"? (You seem to lump
that with craft, though.) Or something else? If so, what? I identified it
as Frank's Idealism. What do you call the essential MM?
HWL
AST
>
. . . Are a certain
> percentage of the population hard-wired to like MM? OR are the general
> population hard-wired to be MM fans?
If they were, the ratings would be higher.
Seriously, the whole business of the entertainment industry is to find
the images and words that will draw viewers. On the other hand, viewers
have many different reasons for watching: escapism, boredom, involvement
with characters, desire to laugh, suspense (What's going to happen?),
curiosity, etc. For this reason, it's impossible to get the entire
viewing public. There is no hard wiring for MM fans, but there are
commonalties among them. Maybe if the writers and producers understood
those commonalties, S3 would be better. But, I suspect, most writers
and producers create what they themselves like and hope that there are
others out there who will like it too. Most TV shows fail to find an
audience and get canceled.
Myth has power that might be called hard wiring. It has a universality
and patterns that speak to the large majority of humanity. Why? I can
only guess, but I think a few elements can be cited: the hero (Everyman)
with whom the audience can identify; the sense that there are greater
forces at work in our lives that is readily apparent; conflict between
light and dark, good and evil; the Hero as representative and savior of
his people; the victory of order and balance over chaos or injustice.
> In either case, what has that to do
> with the creative control of those making the series?
The successful shows reach out and occasionally strike a chord of
interest or identification or humor in the audience. Somehow this is
fed back to the writers and actors and the themes are reinforced. S1
struck one set of chords. S2 took those and added to them attracting
new viewers and fans. With any show that loses an actor and thus a
character, how do you keep the viewers? The wrong choice can ruin a
show, as can a change of producers to people who don't understand what
has gone on before. I think this is part of the problem in S3.
> If there is hard-wiring of the viewers, then
> why don't all attempts succeed once the formula is known?
Maybe because the correct formula is not really known. George Lucas
consulted Joseph Campbell when he wrote Star Wars, and consciously used
the mythic patterns in his stories. The first Star Trek movie lacked
this, but the Wrath of Khan was far more effective because it echoed
great themes, Paradise Lost, Moby Dick and the Ascetic Model embodied in
the Vulcans--The good of the many outweighs the good of the one, a man
giving his life for his friends.
>
> But you deny that craft is the factor which makes the essential MM. (As do
> I.)
I can't say that craft doesn't play any part. Poor craft, evidenced by
maudlin writing and characterization, ham acting, etc., can ruin a good
concept.
> So, what ARE your answers?
Two words: special effects! :)
> What, then, is the essence of MM? What is its peculiar and
> irreplaceable feature or quality, which, when properly expressed through
> craft, makes the show unique? Is it the "vision thing"? (You seem to lump
> that with craft, though.) Or something else? If so, what? I identified it
> as Frank's Idealism. What do you call the essential MM?
>
> HWL
Idealism , Fear of vast forces and standing against them (Star Wars),
Principle (Thomas More) , Uncertainty (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
or The Wizard of Oz--What is behind those curtains?), Hope against
experience (Job); Good vs. Evil, Doomsday (a very old mythic theme),
Small vs. Big and Powerful (David and Goliath), Cain and Abel: "Now I am
free!"
Allen S. Thorpe
AST
Enfilade wrote:
> . . . You'd be surprised at how often people can look the other way when
> they are "happy".
>
> -E
Allen S. Thorpe
AST
Jeanannd wrote:
> . . . Not really, here you can say Clinton sucks, Congress sucks and the Senate
> sucks...and not have storm troopers or gestopo beating down your door to
> violently adjust your attitude.
>
LEEE242
>
>AST
Seems to me that Larry Flynt is doing a very thorough job of exposing them for
the hypocrites that they are.
And let me state that I'm in no way defending Clinton for how he handled this
mess.
Lee
Allen S. Thorpe
after hearing them speak a few times. We'll never resolve some issues, but at
some point we have to get away from calling names and denigrating other peoples'
sincerity and motives. With Bill Clinton we have overwhelming evidence that he is
a liar and a phony. I think that this is why the press has given him such a hard
time. They've been around him enough to know that, so they were less than
sympathetic when Monica popped up. As to impeachment and removal, I agree with
Lindsey Graham. I'd have let lying in the Paula Jones suit go, but when he was
specifically warned that he'd better tell the truth in the grand jury and then
ratified the lies he told in the first suit, he went over the line. And I think
that obstruction of justice is very well proven and impeachable. The reason for
influencing witnesses is not important. What is important is the willingness and
efforts to do so, to lie to your friends to perpetuate the lie, to use your
connections to buy off witnesses, and to use the media access of the White House
to interfere with the operation of the Independent Counsel Law. You may think
it's a bad law, as I do, but that doesn't justify these tactics. People get away
with perjury quite often, but obstruction of justice will get you prosecuted.
AST
Doug Dunaway
>
--snip a bit--
> Who would give up Darin Morgan's episodes last year because of some perceived
> rule that MM wasn't supposed to be funny? On the other hand I don't
Uh, that would be me.
Doug Dunaway
Milluminati Security