Thoughts on "Wide Open" (Millennium)
Nick Pedicini
(Pardon me for posting this here, but not many here have access to
alt.tv.millennium yet and you can set your phile-asers on "kill" if it
bother you....)
Though I thought this ep had some very interesting touches, I think it
falls in to the SKOTW category. Done well, like 522666, it is fascinating,
this had it's moments but overall, though I liked it, I think there were
some things that might have been better.
First off, I like that Catherine is becoming more integral to the show.
Even though she figured in the plot movement only as the voice of
restraint, her involvement with the child was a nice counterpoint to the
rest of the action. The final shot on the pictures echoed sinisterly with
Frank's comment about the circle being unbroken. (was it?) I was a little
shaky on Megan Gallagher when I read the previews--boy
was I wrong.
Second, I think Blech is becoming increasingly important to my liking of
the show. He is a nice counterpoint to Black. (Blech and Black--mirror
images?) Sancho to his Don Q. In this respect, he serves the same purpose
as Scully in TXF, though without the personal involvement.
The M group has been virtually absent for a number of weeks. Some have
cited this as evidence that CC is moving away from the Millennial aspect of
the show. I prefer to think that he has been spending time developing some
of the characters around Black. Catherine is certainly more rounded than
earlier on. So is Blech. The preview trailer would seem to indicate that we
are heading back into the M group concept in future weeks.
Oddly, this was an ep where I felt that Frank was a little too distant, a
little too cold. I could have done without the discussion on locking doors
on the steps--though the shared joke was a nice touch. Same for the brief
conversation with Blech in the hospital. A little too obvious. A nice hug
between the Blacks at the end. Another shared moment. Need more of that.
The X factor simply must have been a wink and a nod. I hope this is an
indicator that we are comfortable enough with the concept to begin to have
the kind of direct creator-to-audience play that we enjoy so much in TXF.
NJP
Gia Gittleson
JN Cotton wrote:
>
> In <01bbf9f6$f2a82f00$2bd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
> <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> >(Pardon me for posting this here, but not many here have access to
> >alt.tv.millennium yet and you can set your phile-asers on "kill" if it
> >bother you....)
> >
>
>
> Is this the episode that aired last night, about the small child whose
> parents were murdered?
>
> If this was it, I couldn't stomache it. In fact, that's been my general
> reaction to Millenium lately. I find it so utterly dark and hopeless
> that it is repulsive.[snip]
> It's bad enough to read, hear, view, and at times even be touched by
> the REAL horrors that surround us. I find it hard to watch a show week
> after week that expects me to somehow be "entertained" by them.
Repulsed is the word. To use a tape of a woman pleading for her life---and replay said
tape over and over again----smacked of the same societal sickness the protagonist
purports to try to irradicate. Nancy, I agree with you. This is not entertainment. This
is aural voyeurism for the debased among us.
No matter how poignant the closing scene was, no matter how platitude-ridden the
conversation on the porch was, no matter that MG got to play the crayon-wielding
child-advocate/Madonna, no matter that Jordan was once again paired up w/ another
cherubic innocent, that recording is not erased from our minds.
Is *that* what you were trying to achieve here, CC? Yeah, you may have pushed the
envelope, but who was pushing what envelope towards you?
Now I realize why Frank Black behaves likes he's roused from a vat of formaldehyde. LH's
lifeless delivery is no accident. This directorial choice sets up the juxtaposition to
what's truly center stage here.
The star of MLLNNM is Evil. Not Frank. (yeah, yeah, yeah, I've read "Paradise Lost")
Good will never win over Evil in MLLNNM's cosmology. All the bitchen art direction ain't
gonna cover that fact up. And I've gotta say, the characterisations of Evil are pretty
damn flat too.
Well, perhaps, CC believes the triumph of Evil over Good is reality. But not in my
cosmology. pal.
And, next time, CC, don't have my birthday flashing on the VCR. 'Kay?
best,
Gia
JN Cotton
In <01bbf9f6$f2a82f00$2bd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
<jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>(Pardon me for posting this here, but not many here have access to
>alt.tv.millennium yet and you can set your phile-asers on "kill" if it
>bother you....)
>
Nick:
Is this the episode that aired last night, about the small child whose
parents were murdered?
If this was it, I couldn't stomache it. In fact, that's been my general
reaction to Millenium lately. I find it so utterly dark and hopeless
that it is repulsive.
Frank Black is to me a sad, sympathetic character who is fruitlessly
trying to stem the tide of evil that WILL (in this philosophy) swallow
humanity. Last night's episode was the straw that broke the camel's
back for me. For the first time in a long time, I turned off a TV show.
Why? Because it was literally too painful for me to watch. As I lay
there late at night with my husband and my own 3 yr-old daughter
sleeping next door, I couldn't look at the little girl on that screen
and not think of my own. My husband had the same reaction. Neither one
of us wanted to watch it through to the end, and we didn't. (Ironically
enough, we plugged in an old XF episode instead....)
It's bad enough to read, hear, view, and at times even be touched by
the REAL horrors that surround us. I find it hard to watch a show week
after week that expects me to somehow be "entertained" by them.
I have this same reaction to XF episodes such as "Home." I know these
episodes have redeeming values (wonderful writing, exceptional
cinematography, messages regarding good and evil) but I personally
can't get past the sheer horror of it all. I don't find that
entertaining or even thought-proving, only disturbing and discouraging.
I find little else of value in Milleminum. In XF, there seems to be so
much more. At least, there's friendship, respect, trust (between M&S)
and hope.
Sorry friend, after last night's episode (which I admit I didn't watch
all the way through...) I'm bowing out.
Nancy (no clever sig)
Coleen Sullivan-Baier
In <5an3g5$c...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> jnco...@ix.netcom.com(JN
Cotton) writes:
>
>Sorry friend, after last night's episode (which I admit I didn't watch
>all the way through...) I'm bowing out.
I'm STILL approaching "Millenium" much as I first approached
Camembert Cheese....eventually, I'll get used to the smell and the
texture, and learn to enjoy it...or else I'll throw up......
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Nick Pedicini
JN Cotton <jnco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5an3g5$c...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <01bbf9f6$f2a82f00$2bd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
> <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> If this was it, I couldn't stomache it. In fact, that's been my general
> reaction to Millenium lately. I find it so utterly dark and hopeless
> that it is repulsive.
I think one of the first things I posted on this show was that I felt that
it was not for everyone. In particular not for the majority of people who
watch and like The X Files. We've discussed here the promo job that Fox did
and the apparent mis-read of the potential audience. While I think there
are episodes that could be enjoyed by a broader group--and let's face it,
"Irresistible" and "Paper Hearts" are on a par with a lot of what's gone
on, admittedly a little less intensely, in Millennium. It seems to me that
people have had more than adequate time to come to understand what this
show is all about. I don't see the sense in continuing to subject yourself
to it.
> Why? Because it was literally too painful for me to watch. As I lay
> there late at night with my husband and my own 3 yr-old daughter
> sleeping next door, I couldn't look at the little girl on that screen
> and not think of my own. My husband had the same reaction. Neither one
> of us wanted to watch it through to the end, and we didn't. (Ironically
> enough, we plugged in an old XF episode instead....)
Oddly enough, this reaction was, in part, what I think was expected. (I am
cobbling together an impossibly long post that elaborates on this so I
won't go into it here except to say that about the third time the video
tape was played I was sweating....)
>
> It's bad enough to read, hear, view, and at times even be touched by
> the REAL horrors that surround us. I find it hard to watch a show week
> after week that expects me to somehow be "entertained" by them.
>
I don't think "entertainment" quite covers it. Unless you are of a purely
Aristotelian mind.
> Sorry friend, after last night's episode (which I admit I didn't watch
> all the way through...) I'm bowing out.
>
So I won't be seeing you on alt.tv.millennium anytime soon?
Look, it's very easy to like Claude Monet. Pastoral, sunwashed, colorful.
It's a bit harder to like Matthias Gruenewald. More stylized. Raw clashing
colors. Unpleasant subjects.
It's very difficult to like George Grosz. Primitive. Grotesque. Purposely
repellent.
What can I tell you? They are are all great artists and they've all
produced masterpieces. I like and appreciate each after his fashion but I'm
not foolish enough to think that everyone does.
NJP
Merna/Michael Anderson
In <32CF30...@earthlink.net> Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net>
writes:
>JN Cotton wrote:
>>
>> In <01bbf9f6$f2a82f00$2bd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
>> <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> >alt.tv.millennium yet and you can set your phile-asers on "kill" if
it
>> >bother you....)
>> >
>>
>> Nick:
>>
>> Is this the episode that aired last night, about the small child
whose
>> parents were murdered?
>>
general
>> reaction to Millenium lately. I find it so utterly dark and hopeless
>> It's bad enough to read, hear, view, and at times even be touched by
>> the REAL horrors that surround us. I find it hard to watch a show
week
>> after week that expects me to somehow be "entertained" by them.
>
Guess to CC, "POLICE PROCEDURAL" is old hat. He's made a "HORROR
PROCEDURAL". Wonder if guys like Richard Speck watch MILLENNIUM.
Holm Alone
On 5 Jan 1997, Coleen Sullivan-Baier wrote:
> jnco...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> >Sorry friend, after last night's episode (which I admit I didn't watch
> >all the way through...) I'm bowing out.
>
> I'm STILL approaching "Millenium" much as I first approached
> Camembert Cheese....eventually, I'll get used to the smell and the
> texture, and learn to enjoy it...or else I'll throw up......
Which begs the question; why do we feel we have to eat the cheese?
CrazyCatLady lisa...@csd.uwm.edu VillagerWithTorch
also: holm...@aol.com _v_ h
n (. .) h
yagottafigurewhatthehellyouknow????----ooo--0--ooo-------
Alan Hurshman
> If this was it, I couldn't stomache it. In fact, that's been my general
> reaction to Millenium lately. I find it so utterly dark and hopeless
> that it is repulsive.
>
> trying to stem the tide of evil that WILL (in this philosophy) swallow
> humanity.
I don't think so. Frank is just a character trying to do good.
He is not such an optimist that he thinks he can stop evil
in its tracks. This is just be my take on his character but
I think Frank represents the typical American. At one time, he
fought the good fight and expected to win the war (stop evil,
cure cancer, end poverty, whatever). When it became obvious
that he would not achieve a final win he retreated from the
world seeking to protect his own by hiding in his private
fortress. Now, he has come out from behind the wall. He does
not expect to win the war but he knows that if he does not
do good he will surely lose it. His actions are not fruitless.
snip....
> It's bad enough to read, hear, view, and at times even be touched by
> the REAL horrors that surround us. I find it hard to watch a show week
> after week that expects me to somehow be "entertained" by them.
Depends on what you mean by entertainment. I find the
show very interesting but I haven't had any belly laughs
during it. (Something tells me CC is not planning on going
into the sitcom business any time soon.) But not all
entertainment is pleasant. I love Hitchcock movies but
I have rarely laughed or giggled during one of them.
Milleniuumm is a very stylized exploration of one form of
evil - the serial killer. There is very little 'reality'
in the plot lines - serial killing sprees are rare, serial
killers are usually of below average intelligence, most murders
are not performed by stragers. So I don't think we have a
show that is exploring the detailed _reality_ of violence or
evil.
Instead I think CC has created a stage on which he can place
characters and manipulate them much in the way Hitchcock laid
out his movies. These characters are not ment to evolve into
well rounded, complete people or to be viewed as such. Frank's
daughter is not a little girl living in Seattle, she is the
image of perfect good. You will never see her angry. She will
not jump on the dogs tail or beat Frank over the head with
her Barbie. In fact, she is too good to even have a Barbie.
The little girl in 'Wide Open' is also not a little girl
who has recently seen her parents murdered and has therefore
been scarred for life. We are not ment to examine the details
of her emotional state, to feel her pain. Rather, she is there
to embody and focus the conflict that is at the heart of this
episode (i.e. - how does one evil act lead to others, how are
we all affected when the past reaches out to touch us). If you
watched the episode you would have seen the great care they
took in filming her. There are no hysterics, no tears. Instead
you are given a very gentle portrayal of a somewhat withdrawn
young girl whose future is clouded. Even at the end you are
not sure what will happen to this otherwise perfect little
child. I don't think it was an accident that they ended the
episode the way they did - Bletcher walking down the corridor
with Jordan on his right and the 'victim' on his left then
the scene switching to Frank and Catherine and the disturbing
drawings - (what will the future be?).
Admittedly, characters in television shows never have the
depth of real people. They are always there to fill a role.
But more than most television dramas I think the characters
on Millennuum must be viewd as agents acting to carry out
their mission, to fulfill their part in the play. We will
not see Frank dancing on tables, Catherine chasing that damn
paper boy down the street or the Milleniuum gang drunk at
Puffy's bar. For that, go watch ER.
Millenuumm seems something of a Greek morality play. I
wonder if we are the chorus?
--
Alan Hurshman,
The Spa, X-Ville.
(Halifax, Nova Scotia)
laura capozzola
Alan Hurshman wrote:
>
> Admittedly, characters in television shows never have the
> depth of real people. They are always there to fill a role.
> But more than most television dramas I think the characters
> on Millennuum must be viewd as agents acting to carry out
> their mission, to fulfill their part in the play. We will
> not see Frank dancing on tables, Catherine chasing that damn
> paper boy down the street or the Milleniuum gang drunk at
> Puffy's bar. For that, go watch ER.
>
I hate to "me too" Alan's post here but I would have to agree. I really
like Millennium's plots and I've always liked Lance Henriksen's movies.
But, I can't seem to get attached to any of the characters like The
X-Files which is why I don't love Millennium. One of the reasons that I
really like the X-Files conspiracy episodes is because I look forward
to seeing those recurring characters (Krycek, CSM, Lone Gunmen, Big
Necked Alien Guy, etc.). I feel that I need to be, let's say, invested
in a character or characters. I think there must be other people who
think like me because there wouldn't have been such a public outcry when
Deep Throat was bumped off. I just can't seem to feel that way about
any of the Millennium characters. Does anyone else feel this way?
-Laura-
Or one of them, anyway
campbell
I'm STILL approaching "Millenium" much as I first approached
>> Camembert Cheese....eventually, I'll get used to the smell and the
>> texture, and learn to enjoy it...or else I'll throw up......
>
>Which begs the question; why do we feel we have to eat the cheese?
>
> CrazyCatLady lisa...@csd.uwm.edu VillagerWithTorch
> also: holm...@aol.com _v_ h
> n (. .) h
> yagottafigurewhatthehellyouknow????----ooo--0--ooo-------
>
Eat it, smell it, enjoy it ... just don't CUT it. ;)
cog2 deep undercover
btw, yea, why do you feel you HAVE to like it at all??
Tallyman
jnco...@ix.netcom.com(JN
> Cotton) writes:
> >
> >Sorry friend, after last night's episode
> >(which I admit I didn't watch all the way through...)
> >I'm bowing out.
You threw away your investment when you switched off before the end.
There was the ray of hope in the end.
I find watching 'Millennium',
is much like listening to a tortuous blues song being rendered
by a very heavy-handed, string-bending guitarist.
You "suffer" with him thru the "story" he is soulfully telling you,
and there you sit, emotionally-involved, pierced, stung, twisted,
craving resolution, just dying for that 'sweet note',
that you know will come and give you satisfaction
in the end.
Talley
Bernardine
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>(Pardon me for posting this here, but not many here have access to
>alt.tv.millennium yet and you can set your phile-asers on "kill" if it
>bother you....)
Uh yeah, same goes for me <sneaking in on little cat feet>
>Though I thought this ep had some very interesting touches, I think it
>falls in to the SKOTW category. Done well, like 522666, it is fascinating,
>this had it's moments but overall, though I liked it, I think there were
>some things that might have been better.
I didn't mind the Sermon From the Steps as much as I minded the
strategy scenes with Frank *teaching* the little cops his ways. There
seemed to be a lot of hemming and hawing while we all watched Frank's
mind move in slow motion, rather than an aggressive hunt for this
criminal. Typical example is Frank pulling the guy's image off the
video which should have been analysed to death in a lab a dozen times
before then, and announcing with certainty that the Millennium crew
had *SOMEONE* who could probably sharpen up the image. Well, I
CERTAINLY hope so ... if not I could probably do it with a scanner and
some freeware.
IOW, I thought there was a little too much narrative which was almost
reorganizing or even backtracking -- revisiting what it is that Frank
does, is and offers. Probably concurrent with a similar introspective
on the part of the series itself.
I've now read several articles posted under Nancy's follow-up to this
one and in terms of the overall meaning of the show/series, I agree
with Alan. There are only two major characters in this series which
we have yet to really meet: good and evil. What we see are icons that
represent these two players in their ongoing embattlements. While
episodes of TXF are often multi-layered in their messages and impacts,
Millennium is much more straightforward. Each episode appears to have
a strong but singular moral or message -- a commentary. Wide Open was
pretty clearly related by Frank in the Sermon From the Steps: That
when we see evil and darkness (the fall of society) all around us we
simply retreat into our caves. We do not confront it or try to
overcome it -- to set right again the wrongs -- but rather we try to
protect ourselves from it by installing locks, bolts and computers
that create our havens. We no longer feel safe in society (in the
streets, parking lots, etc.) so we content ourselves with feeling safe
in our locked homes. But what if the evil is getting closer all the
time? What if it could pick the last locks?
Can we defend ourselves from evil when we meet it face to face?
And of course there was the secondary message of children in
particular being affected by this violence (I wonder how this
particular moral relates to community charges that Carter is warping
minds with the violence and gore of Millennium?)
>The X factor simply must have been a wink and a nod. I hope this is an
>indicator that we are comfortable enough with the concept to begin to have
>the kind of direct creator-to-audience play that we enjoy so much in TXF.
I got two things from the *X*, both of them over-cerebralized (it's my
gift, it's my curse). The first more spiritual import was an echo of
Exodus Passover where the Israelites were instructed to mark their
houses with blood so that the Angel of Death would pass over them and
kill only the Egyptians. The bloody X in this story may well be the
killer's twisted version of himself as an angel of vengeance.
But the other interpretation I got was that it was more simply a mark
of being touched by violence, a psychic blemish. The killer had
annointed the children who he chose to, like him, become tainted with
the rage and anguish of violence.
- Bernardine
Nick Pedicini
Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<32CF30...@earthlink.net>...
> JN Cotton wrote:
> >
> > In <01bbf9f6$f2a82f00$2bd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
> > <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>
> Repulsed is the word. To use a tape of a woman pleading for her
life---and replay said
> tape over and over again----smacked of the same societal sickness the
protagonist
> purports to try to irradicate. Nancy, I agree with you. This is not
entertainment. This
> is aural voyeurism for the debased among us.
>
You know, G, there is a "medical" channel on my cable network that runs
some of the most disgusting images I've ever seen. As I flip around and
avert my eyes as muscle and bone and tissue are manipulated, I think, if ER
really showed this stuff, they'd be off the air in five minutes. But that's
the reality of it. I don't expect that Millennium will deal with these
horrors in a pleasant, ameliorative way. So there's no sitting back after
"Wide Open" and hiding behind a facade of aliens or mutants or grand
conspiracies.
> No matter how poignant the closing scene was, no matter how
platitude-ridden the
> conversation on the porch was, no matter that MG got to play the
crayon-wielding
> child-advocate/Madonna, no matter that Jordan was once again paired up w/
another
> cherubic innocent, that recording is not erased from our minds.
>
I've expounded on this elsewhere but that was, I think, one of the points.
> best,
> Gia
>
You have a nice day too
NJP
Nick Pedicini
Merna/Michael Anderson <my...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5ank6e$p...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, watch television.....
NJP
Nick Pedicini
Holm Alone <lisa...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.91.97010...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
>
> Which begs the question; why do we feel we have to eat the cheese?
>
Not for anything would I try to convince someone to down, say, chunks of
raw herring with shots of aqua vitae and beer chasers. I will only say that
I awoke the next morning (in my skivvies in the back yard) a changed man. I
knew I had spent the night in conversation with the Almighty. He was about
three foot high and made out of porcelain......
NJP
Canticle
Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article <
: Repulsed is the word. To use a tape of a woman pleading for her
life---and replay said
: tape over and over again----smacked of the same societal sickness the
protagonist
: purports to try to irradicate. Nancy, I agree with you. This is not
entertainment. This
: is aural voyeurism for the debased among us.
And why is that? Personally, I've always been a fan of entetainment which
doesn't force sickly sweet happy happy endings on the viewer and in which
you know everything is going to turn out ok. It takes away all the reasons
for actually watching a show, unless you enjoy an evening of mindless
entertainment.
As for the tape? It's entertainment. It was chilling, yes, but it was just
a TV show. Frankly, if more people reacted like this to the horrors of real
life, things would be a lot better.
: Now I realize why Frank Black behaves likes he's roused from a vat of
formaldehyde. LH's
: lifeless delivery is no accident. This directorial choice sets up the
juxtaposition to
: what's truly center stage here.
Lance Henrickson acts much like I'd expect anyone to act if they were in
criminal homicide and had spent close to a decade tracking down serial
killers.
: The star of MLLNNM is Evil. Not Frank. (yeah, yeah, yeah, I've read
"Paradise Lost")
: Good will never win over Evil in MLLNNM's cosmology. All the bitchen art
direction ain't
Uh...no. Nobody wins, much as in real life. Good triumphs in the end, evil
triumphs because its still around. Evil doesn't 'star' any more than Good
does in Millenium. It's Good vs. Evil for eternity, and unless there is an
apocalyptic change in the way humanity behaves on a whole, that's the way
its going to be.
People can live with the illusion in their world that somehow good always
wins over evil, but spend some time in the real world, and that just isn't
the case. And if you want candy coated entertainment where you can be
assured that your cosmology won't be upset, there are plenty of options out
there.
Jeff-boy
Alun Bell
In article <5an3g5$c...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, JN Cotton
<jnco...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>Nick:
>
>Is this the episode that aired last night, about the small child whose
>parents were murdered?
>
lots of sensible stuff snipped...
>
>Sorry friend, after last night's episode (which I admit I didn't watch
>all the way through...) I'm bowing out.
>
>Nancy (no clever sig)
>
Couldn't agree more.. too much depression with no hope of redemption.
Count me out.
--
Alun
Debra J. Bedore
"Too much depression with no hope of redemption" This comming from an
xfile:-)
Laura Osgood
I do feel vested in the character of Frank Black. I view Millennium as
a kind of Rorschach impression of the darkness in our society. And in
the midst of all of this darkness and dispair, there is Frank: a
thoughtful, gentle, fragile, decent man who can look into the darkness
and still stand against it.
Another character that I'm also very fond of is Peter Watts. He's a
great contrast to Frank, seemingly very assured, very strong and
certain of himself. If he were to be killed, ala Deep Throat, I'd be
quite bummed. I'm warming to Catherine and I hope that we continue to
see more of her, too.
-The Other Laura-
(or one of them, at any rate...)
In <32CFAC...@erols.com> laura capozzola <laur...@erols.com>
writes:
Merna/Michael Anderson
In <01bbfb04$a00a6f60$27d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
>> JN Cotton wrote:
>> >
>> > In <01bbf9f6$f2a82f00$2bd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick
Pedicini"
>> > <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>
>>
>life---and replay said
>> tape over and over again----smacked of the same societal sickness
the
>protagonist
>> purports to try to irradicate. Nancy, I agree with you. This is not
>entertainment. This
>> is aural voyeurism for the debased among us.
>>
>
runs
>some of the most disgusting images I've ever seen. As I flip around
and
>avert my eyes as muscle and bone and tissue are manipulated, I think,
if ER
>really showed this stuff, they'd be off the air in five minutes.
Yes, but I'm assuming here that this medical channel is doing this for
educational purposes.
But that's
>the reality of it.
Yes, Nick, that's what REALLY goes on. When you slice a person open
there will be blood and puss and bone and internal organs and STUFF.
Which some people will be able to handle. Some people are cut out to
be surgeons...and some aren't. ER has both in its audience. There's a
reason they don't show it all.
I don't expect that Millennium will deal with these
>horrors in a pleasant, ameliorative way.
Do you expect that it will deal with them in a way that horrifies and
mortifies, and if so, why?
So there's no sitting back after
>"Wide Open" and hiding behind a facade of aliens or mutants or grand
>conspiracies.
Nope, you're as "in the moment" as if Jeffrey Dahmer were operating
right out of your living room. Which in a way, I suppose he is.
>
>> No matter how poignant the closing scene was, no matter how
>platitude-ridden the
>> conversation on the porch was, no matter that MG got to play the
>crayon-wielding
>> child-advocate/Madonna, no matter that Jordan was once again paired
up w/
>another
>> cherubic innocent, that recording is not erased from our minds.
>>
>
>I've expounded on this elsewhere but that was, I think, one of the
points.
O-kay, that was one of the points...for the purpose of????
I mean, perhaps I'm mis-reading your post, but it seems almost as if
you're saying that Chris Carter is doing this FOR OUR OWN GOOD. The
scenario I'm getting here is of Chris Carter saying, as he did at the
time of the MMLLNNM premiere, that he was alarmed over the amount of
violence he's seeing on C-Span; as an antidote he's throwing MORE
violence into the mix. More horror, more paranoia, more glimpses into
the twisted psyche of the killer... That's why I call MLLNNM a "HORROR
PROCEDURAL". Chris Carter seems determined to demonstrate how
horrifying horror can be when it's done from the point of view of the
horrifier. And the purpose of this is...? (Also, seemingly at odds
with his concern over violence, is his oft-repeated desire to create
something that will scare people.)
I understand that Frank Black and co. are depicted in juxtaposition to
all of this horror. We are to view them, I suppose, as the redemptive
element in this dark scenario. (Not as three people living in a yellow
house that's WAY TOO BIG FOR THEM.) Judging by the premiere episode,
which was all I could bear to sit through, the gang up at Chateau 1013
was MUCH more interested in saying: "Wow, looky, we got us a cool
mutilated, half-dead and buried guy with his eyes sewn shut. Let's
make more!" The only thing I was saying "Wow, looky," about was the
way Frank comforted the now-liberated (but still very-much mutilated)
guy.
And, again I come back to the purpose. Why? Why? Why? What possible
ameliorative effect can be had by showing AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE how
Jeffrey Dahmer would do it if they gave him a T.V. show? "Look, you
can't run away! You can't hide behind alien conspiracy on this one!
YOU HAVE TO SEE HOW IT'S REALLY DONE!!! That way you can.... I mean,
that way you will see that.... I mean...that way I can demonstrate
how... Well never mind...LOOKY I GOT A COOL HALF- DEAD AND BURIED
MUTILATED GUY WITH HIS EYES SEWN SHUT!!!
Thus sayeth Chris Carter.
To which I reply:
"Yeah, and I have the REMOTE!"
MYRKE
Nick Pedicini
> In <01bbfb04$a00a6f60$27d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
> <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> >Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> ><32CF30...@earthlink.net>...
> >> JN Cotton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In <01bbf9f6$f2a82f00$2bd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick
> Pedicini"
> >> > <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> Yes, but I'm assuming here that this medical channel is doing this for
> educational purposes.
>
For who? What percentage of doctors sit home on Sunday and say "gee, I'll
pass on the Cowboys-Carolina game 'cause there running a "femoral
popalectomy" over on the medical channel." And what percentage of the cable
viewing audience (this is a "basic" chanel) consists of medical
professionals, anyway?
>
> But that's
> >the reality of it.
>
> Yes, Nick, that's what REALLY goes on. When you slice a person open
> there will be blood and puss and bone and internal organs and STUFF.
> Which some people will be able to handle. Some people are cut out to
> be surgeons...and some aren't. ER has both in its audience. There's a
> reason they don't show it all.
>
Fair enough, but I would put it to you that that IS what Millennium is
after. It doesn't bother me that some people can't "handle it." The trick
for them is not to watch.
> I don't expect that Millennium will deal with these
> >horrors in a pleasant, ameliorative way.
>
> Do you expect that it will deal with them in a way that horrifies and
> mortifies, and if so, why?
>
Yes, yes, and that's what the show is about. Evil vs Good pure and simple.
Call it want you want. In your face confrontation. Catharsis of pity and
terror. The unvarnished face of terror.
>
> So there's no sitting back after
> >"Wide Open" and hiding behind a facade of aliens or mutants or grand
> >conspiracies.
>
> Nope, you're as "in the moment" as if Jeffrey Dahmer were operating
> right out of your living room. Which in a way, I suppose he is.
>
No, I don't buy the voyeur factor. I find no pleasure in Millennium except
in an artistic sense. I was as ravished by the soundtrack on "Wide Open" as
anyone here. My reaction was not to turn the knob but to look in myself and
ask why is he doing this and why am I reacting this way. That leads to
contemplation and thought and consideration which is something that most
television shows don't produce, at least, not in me. If the ratings for
this show were in the 10's, If the bodies were flying like some Tobe Hooper
film, I could buy the rubbernecker factor. In the meantime, I'm put in mind
of the quote, ably delivered by Jeremy Irons (though the source eludes me)
in "The Civil War" regarding a book by Matthew Brady of his photographs.
Paraphrasing "if he has not gathered up the dead and delivered them to our
doorsteps, he's done the very next thing."
> >
> >> No matter how poignant the closing scene was, no matter how
> >platitude-ridden the
> >> conversation on the porch was, no matter that MG got to play the
> >crayon-wielding
> >> child-advocate/Madonna, no matter that Jordan was once again paired
> up w/
> >another
> >> cherubic innocent, that recording is not erased from our minds.
> >>
> >
> >I've expounded on this elsewhere but that was, I think, one of the
> points.
>
> O-kay, that was one of the points...for the purpose of????
> I mean, perhaps I'm mis-reading your post, but it seems almost as if
> you're saying that Chris Carter is doing this FOR OUR OWN GOOD.
Follow me on this........
Which of these two exploits animals?
A. "The Lion King"
B. "When Animals Attack."
Did you pick "B"? Most people I know would. Yet which of these two portrays
animals in a wholly unrealistic manner? Which creates impossible
expectations and might lead to inappropriate interactions between humans
and animals? "B" is terrible and painful to watch but it is animals doing
what animals do and that is not pretty. Now, which would you show to a
neophyte headed out into the undomesticated wild? Hmmm?
I'll grant you that this is hardly the motivation for the networks who ran
"B" but then we're not talking about Fox's reasons for running Millennium
but Carter's reasons for creating it.
> I understand that Frank Black and co. are depicted in juxtaposition to
> all of this horror. We are to view them, I suppose, as the redemptive
> element in this dark scenario. (Not as three people living in a yellow
> house that's WAY TOO BIG FOR THEM.) Judging by the premiere episode,
> which was all I could bear to sit through, the gang up at Chateau 1013
> was MUCH more interested in saying: "Wow, looky, we got us a cool
> mutilated, half-dead and buried guy with his eyes sewn shut. Let's
> make more!" The only thing I was saying "Wow, looky," about was the
> way Frank comforted the now-liberated (but still very-much mutilated)
> guy.
>
I would only say that I think there were SOME excesses in the pilot that
have had LESS of a place in subsequent eps. As I posted, I think the gore
factor has been reduced to more anticipated than realized. Still, I think
the images were there for a reason. Carter would have been doing no one a
service by springing the kinds of horrors he has unannounced. I think you
got exactly what you should have from the Pilot, Myrke, that it wasn't for
you.
NJP
Alan Hurshman
Bernardine <pett...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote in article <5ap3ul$c...@news.istar.ca>...
> "Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >(Pardon me for posting this here, but not many here have access to
> >alt.tv.millennium yet and you can set your phile-asers on "kill" if it
> >bother you....)
>
> Uh yeah, same goes for me <sneaking in on little cat feet>
>
After reading the latest posts in this thread a revelation
has come unto me. We are not watching the 'Lucy Show'.
Thoughtful television. Thoughtful USENET post. Who'd a thunk
it?
Merna/Michael Anderson
In <01bbfb5a$08ff5440$23d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
<jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Merna/Michael Anderson <my...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><5ap3mp$b...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
>> In <01bbfb04$a00a6f60$27d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
>> <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> >Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
>> ><32CF30...@earthlink.net>...
>> >> JN Cotton wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > In <01bbf9f6$f2a82f00$2bd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick
>> Pedicini"
>> >> > <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but I'm assuming here that this medical channel is doing this
for
>> educational purposes.
>>
>
>For who? What percentage of doctors sit home on Sunday and say "gee,
I'll
>pass on the Cowboys-Carolina game 'cause there running a "femoral
>popalectomy" over on the medical channel." And what percentage of the
cable
>viewing audience (this is a "basic" chanel) consists of medical
>professionals, anyway?
I didn't say the channel existed as a Doctors' home study course. I
said it existed for educational purposes (for those who can stomache
it) ER exists for entertainment purposes for a far larger audience.
>
>>
>> But that's
>> >the reality of it.
>>
>> Yes, Nick, that's what REALLY goes on. When you slice a person open
>> there will be blood and puss and bone and internal organs and STUFF.
>> Which some people will be able to handle. Some people are cut out
to
>> be surgeons...and some aren't. ER has both in its audience.
There's a
>> reason they don't show it all.
>>
>
>Fair enough, but I would put it to you that that IS what Millennium is
>after. It doesn't bother me that some people can't "handle it." The
trick
>for them is not to watch.
Uh huh?
>
>> I don't expect that Millennium will deal with these
>> >horrors in a pleasant, ameliorative way.
>>
>> Do you expect that it will deal with them in a way that horrifies
and
>> mortifies, and if so, why?
>>
>
>Yes, yes, and that's what the show is about. Evil vs Good pure and
simple.
>Call it want you want. In your face confrontation. Catharsis of pity
and
>terror. The unvarnished face of terror.
>
For the purposes of...
Again, for the purposes of...?
I mean, as you are lead to (and through) contemplation and thought and
consideration, have you reached any conclusions about that question
you're asking: "Why is he doing this?" Or is the question sufficient?
>
>> >
>> >> No matter how poignant the closing scene was, no matter how
>> >platitude-ridden the
>> >> conversation on the porch was, no matter that MG got to play the
>> >crayon-wielding
>> >> child-advocate/Madonna, no matter that Jordan was once again
paired
>> up w/
>> >another
>> >> cherubic innocent, that recording is not erased from our minds.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I've expounded on this elsewhere but that was, I think, one of the
>> points.
>>
>> O-kay, that was one of the points...for the purpose of????
>> I mean, perhaps I'm mis-reading your post, but it seems almost as if
>> you're saying that Chris Carter is doing this FOR OUR OWN GOOD.
>
>Follow me on this........
Gosh, I'll try....
>
>Which of these two exploits animals?
>
>A. "The Lion King"
>B. "When Animals Attack."
neither
>
>Did you pick "B"? Most people I know would. Yet which of these two
portrays
>animals in a wholly unrealistic manner? Which creates impossible
>expectations and might lead to inappropriate interactions between
humans
>and animals?
So , now you're afraid that the Disney tendency to anthropomorphise
animals (and sacharinne-ise everything) is going to lead to the
mauling of benighted toddlers by meerkats? Okay, that's unfair.
Have there been incidents of children being led astray in their
perceptions of animals by Disney films and having innapropriate
interactions with animals because of it?
"B" is terrible and painful to watch but it is animals doing
>what animals do and that is not pretty. Now, which would you show to a
>neophyte headed out into the undomesticated wild? Hmmm?
I'd show him The Lion King in the hope that he'd bring me home a live
meerkat to play with! Nah, okay, I'd show him "B". So, is the
parallel that supposed to use MLLNNM as a training film for those going
into SERIAL KILLER COUNTRY. Oh, I know, I know, we already LIVE in
serial killer country! In that case, if CC is truly upset about
it, why doesn't he offer some swell public service announcements:
"If you see a man, dressed as an old woman and sitting in your unlocked
parked car asking for a ride, don't give it to him.
This is a public service announcement from our station and CITIZENS
AGAINST SERIAL KILLERS."
>
>I'll grant you that this is hardly the motivation for the networks who
ran
>"B" but then we're not talking about Fox's reasons for running
Millennium
>but Carter's reasons for creating it.
Which were/are?
>
>> I understand that Frank Black and co. are depicted in juxtaposition
to
>> all of this horror. We are to view them, I suppose, as the
redemptive
>> element in this dark scenario. (Not as three people living in a
yellow
>> house that's WAY TOO BIG FOR THEM.) Judging by the premiere
episode,
>> which was all I could bear to sit through, the gang up at Chateau
1013
>> was MUCH more interested in saying: "Wow, looky, we got us a cool
>> mutilated, half-dead and buried guy with his eyes sewn shut. Let's
>> make more!" The only thing I was saying "Wow, looky," about was the
>> way Frank comforted the now-liberated (but still very-much
mutilated)
>> guy.
>>
>
>I would only say that I think there were SOME excesses in the pilot
that
>have had LESS of a place in subsequent eps. As I posted, I think the
gore
>factor has been reduced to more anticipated
Yeah, I was surprised after all of the hype.
than realized. Still, I think
>the images were there for a reason.
WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
Keep coming back to the same question.
I'm sorry, Nick, (if I'm not being presumptuous in using your first
name) but, for me, CC has always been a guy who fails to make his
point. (Must be all the peyote he smoked getting The Blessing Way
ceremony just right!)
Carter would have been doing no one a
>service by springing the kinds of horrors he has unannounced. I think
you
>got exactly what you should have from the Pilot, Myrke, that it wasn't
for
>you.
>
>NJP
>
>
Got any idea who it (and WHAT IT) is for?
MYRKE
>
Denise A. Agnew
In article <32CFAC...@erols.com>, laura capozzola
<laur...@erols.com> writes
>Alan Hurshman wrote:
>>
>> Admittedly, characters in television shows never have the
>> depth of real people. They are always there to fill a role.
>> But more than most television dramas I think the characters
>> on Millennuum must be viewd as agents acting to carry out
>> their mission, to fulfill their part in the play. We will
>> not see Frank dancing on tables, Catherine chasing that damn
>> paper boy down the street or the Milleniuum gang drunk at
>> Puffy's bar. For that, go watch ER.
>>
>> Alan Hurshman
>
>like Millennium's plots and I've always liked Lance Henriksen's movies.
> But, I can't seem to get attached to any of the characters like The
>X-Files which is why I don't love Millennium. One of the reasons that I
>really like the X-Files conspiracy episodes is because I look forward
>to seeing those recurring characters (Krycek, CSM, Lone Gunmen, Big
>Necked Alien Guy, etc.). I feel that I need to be, let's say, invested
>in a character or characters. I think there must be other people who
>think like me because there wouldn't have been such a public outcry when
>Deep Throat was bumped off. I just can't seem to feel that way about
>any of the Millennium characters. Does anyone else feel this way?
>
>-Laura-
>Or one of them, anyway
I watched the first two episodes (they've only had three episodes in
Britian) of Millennium and really enjoyed them, but when I read posts
here about how Millennium is too dark, I realized that I was starting to
feel the same way. Last night I decided not to watch it because I
didn't want that particularly potent "creeped" out feeling I had the
last time I watched it. I think I'll try it again next week. But I
have to agree that I don't feel as attached to the characters as I do
those in X-Files. Possibly it's because there is humor in the X-Files
and most fans feel there's always a chance for the "truth" in the end.
What I'm hearing on this ng about Millennium is that people feel there's
not "good" end possible.
--
Denise A. Agnew
Louis Kokoros
JN Cotton <jnco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5an3g5$c...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
> Nick:
>
> Is this the episode that aired last night, about the small child whose
> parents were murdered?
>
> Sorry friend, after last night's episode (which I admit I didn't watch
> all the way through...) I'm bowing out.
>
> Nancy (no clever sig)
>
>
I have to agree with you Nancy:
My sister and I have been watching X-Files and Millenium since both shows
inceptions, and both of us came to similar conclusions regarding that
Millenium episode. It''s just too damn nihilistic in tone, too often.
Now, I suppose some might say there are threads of hope or redemption woven
into some plots...put plodding through most of the disturbing <if not
disturbed> storylines just isn't rewarding enough. Yech, you need a bath
after watching.
David Sugarman
Nick Pedicini wrote:
> In the meantime, I'm put in mind
> of the quote, ably delivered by Jeremy Irons (though the source eludes me)
> in "The Civil War" regarding a book by Matthew Brady of his photographs.
> Paraphrasing "if he has not gathered up the dead and delivered them to our
> doorsteps, he's done the very next thing."
NY Times, I think, and thanks for remembering this because it neatly
creates an image for me of why I like Millennium.
--David
Nick Pedicini
> >Fair enough, but I would put it to you that that IS what Millennium is
> >after. It doesn't bother me that some people can't "handle it." The
> trick
> >for them is not to watch.
>
> Uh huh?
>
And your question is?
> >
> >Yes, yes, and that's what the show is about. Evil vs Good pure and
> simple.
> >Call it want you want. In your face confrontation. Catharsis of pity
> and
> >terror. The unvarnished face of terror.
> >
>
> For the purposes of...
>
Look up the words "catharsis" "confrontation" and "to show"
>
> Again, for the purposes of...?
> I mean, as you are lead to (and through) contemplation and thought and
> consideration, have you reached any conclusions about that question
> you're asking: "Why is he doing this?" Or is the question sufficient?
>
I believe that "making" people think is a sufficient purpose in itself.
>
> >Follow me on this........
>
>
> So , now you're afraid that the Disney tendency to anthropomorphise
> animals (and sacharinne-ise everything) is going to lead to the
> mauling of benighted toddlers by meerkats? Okay, that's unfair.
> Have there been incidents of children being led astray in their
> perceptions of animals by Disney films and having innapropriate
> interactions with animals because of it?
>
I chose The Lion King for the exaggerated difference. But yes, there have
been incidents of kids (I don't have anything besides a vague memory) in
places like Yellowstone who misinterpreted what they'd learned in the
popular culture. (bears seem to be involved a lot)
>
> I'd show him The Lion King in the hope that he'd bring me home a live
> meerkat to play with! Nah, okay, I'd show him "B". So, is the
> parallel that supposed to use MLLNNM as a training film for those going
> into SERIAL KILLER COUNTRY. Oh, I know, I know, we already LIVE in
> serial killer country! In that case, if CC is truly upset about
> it, why doesn't he offer some swell public service announcements:
>
> "If you see a man, dressed as an old woman and sitting in your unlocked
> parked car asking for a ride, don't give it to him.
> This is a public service announcement from our station and CITIZENS
> AGAINST SERIAL KILLERS."
>
Some think that that is exactly what he *is* doing. After all, a message
that you should stay away from fat-eating mutants might not be taken as
seriously, no?
> >I'll grant you that this is hardly the motivation for the networks who
> ran
> >"B" but then we're not talking about Fox's reasons for running
> Millennium
> >but Carter's reasons for creating it.
>
> Which were/are?
You know, Myrke, talking with you I feel like the Graham Chapman character
in that great Python skit on the The Argument Shop.
> >> was MUCH more interested in saying: "Wow, looky, we got us a cool
> >> mutilated, half-dead and buried guy with his eyes sewn shut. Let's
>
> than realized. Still, I think
> >the images were there for a reason.
>
> WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
> Keep coming back to the same question.
> I'm sorry, Nick, (if I'm not being presumptuous in using your first
> name) but, for me, CC has always been a guy who fails to make his
> point. (Must be all the peyote he smoked getting The Blessing Way
> ceremony just right!)
>
Do you drive? When you took driver's ed, did they show you one of those
lovely half hour grand guignol films? Why did they do that? To help you
digest your lunch? No, to make you see exactly *what* the implications were
if you don't drive carefully.
Television has been bumping off large numbers of people since it was
invented. Most are just dramatic devices. Who cares about the stiff
bleeding all over the floor when they're can watch David Hasselhoff's flex
those dimples? Millennium won't let you do that.
> Got any idea who it (and WHAT IT) is for?
> MYRKE
> >
Well, Myrke. Obviously not you.
NJP
Canticle
Merna/Michael Anderson <my...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
: Yes, but I'm assuming here that this medical channel is doing this for
: educational purposes.
Probably a very safe assumption.
: be surgeons...and some aren't. ER has both in its audience. There's a
: reason they don't show it all.
ER doesn't show all of it because, dramatically speaking, it really isn't
necessary. One does not have to show a teenagers shattered ribcage and
oozing fluids to have a tragic scene involving a teenager accidently nailed
in a driveby.
: I don't expect that Millennium will deal with these
: >horrors in a pleasant, ameliorative way.
: Do you expect that it will deal with them in a way that horrifies and
: mortifies, and if so, why?
Because it's horror, and that is what it is supposed to do. This is a show
about evil and how there are those who feel they have to confront it
despite what it brings upon them (which to me is far more admirable than
the premise on 98% of the shows on television today). You can't begin to
understand what these people are subjecting themselves to until you see it.
: Nope, you're as "in the moment" as if Jeffrey Dahmer were operating
: right out of your living room. Which in a way, I suppose he is.
Really bad analogy, as it is not only inaccurate, it distorts.
You want to understand serial killers? Go over to alt.true-crime where
Jen1Orbit will explain in great detail how he understands why serial
killers do what they do and how he can't blame them so on and so forth.
Reality is far more horrifying than anything anyone can put on the TV
screen.
When Frank Black responded to Bletch's statement,"I've never seen anything
so terrifying..." with,"Ever see your kid in a hospital emergency ward", I
understood him completely (no, I don't have a kid, but I'm the only
surviving member of my HS fine art class).
: time of the MMLLNNM premiere, that he was alarmed over the amount of
: violence he's seeing on C-Span; as an antidote he's throwing MORE
: violence into the mix. More horror, more paranoia, more glimpses into
Fewer people are killed on an episode of Millenium then on the evening
news. Or in any action/adventure flick in the theaters, hell, than on most
cop shows. Sorry, but this show has IMPACT...I can watch yet another
criminal get blasted on any other channel with no emotional imapct
displayed. THAT is numbing. Showing the absolute horror of what a bombing,
or a slaying, or sexual abuse can do is something else entirely.
: which was all I could bear to sit through, the gang up at Chateau 1013
: was MUCH more interested in saying: "Wow, looky, we got us a cool
: mutilated, half-dead and buried guy with his eyes sewn shut. Let's
: make more!" The only thing I was saying "Wow, looky," about was the
: way Frank comforted the now-liberated (but still very-much mutilated)
: guy.
And this is wrong because...?
Sorry, I've never been one for granola television or film. I watch very
little of it, and I want what I do watch to have some impact. Millenium
accomplishes this.
Maybe it's because I'm a cynic, or because I believe that 98% of human
beings are out only for themselves and what they can cheat, lie, or steal
out of others, but I find the pablum strewn across the networks far more
desensitizing and dangerous than any episode of Millenium I've seen to
date.
Jeff-boy
Bernardine
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>No, I don't buy the voyeur factor. I find no pleasure in Millennium except
>in an artistic sense. I was as ravished by the soundtrack on "Wide Open" as
>anyone here. My reaction was not to turn the knob but to look in myself and
>ask why is he doing this and why am I reacting this way. That leads to
>contemplation and thought and consideration which is something that most
>television shows don't produce, at least, not in me. If the ratings for
>this show were in the 10's, If the bodies were flying like some Tobe Hooper
>film, I could buy the rubbernecker factor. In the meantime, I'm put in mind
>of the quote, ably delivered by Jeremy Irons (though the source eludes me)
>in "The Civil War" regarding a book by Matthew Brady of his photographs.
>Paraphrasing "if he has not gathered up the dead and delivered them to our
>doorsteps, he's done the very next thing."
I just have to add to this. I think Myrke's ER/The Operation example
is elucidating. Is Millennium entertainment or is it a loosely
dramatized education? I have chosen to approach it as the latter
which is what allows me to force myself through the painful aspects of
the tales. I have a small child as well and his safety has sensitized
me so greatly to the horrors of the world that I usually actually shy
away from the NEWS (for example) but also avoid like the plague any
dramatizations of topics dealing with children in peril or being
otherwise victimized.
I have never watched Schindler's List because I knew it would cause me
too much grief by far. But I'm going to compare Millennium (at least
in the more recent episodes) to this type of docudrama. With Carter
there is much more if not total fabrication, of course, but I believe
he is trying to throw cold water in our faces. Worry. Wait. Who
Cares.
We worry about the world we see deteriorating around us, we worry
about keeping our children safe in it. We wait for someone else to do
something about it. Who cares? The people locked in their houses and
cars doing the worrying -- the ones who are too afraid or "busy" to do
anything about it. On an episode by episode basis, it's fair to look
at the detail of production in terms of critique. But as an overall
series concept I think the litmus test should be this: Carter *IS*
trying to shock us, I think out of our complacency or hiding. He will
go after the things that scare us most although I would argue that he
does soften the blow quite a bit (Alan and Nick have both successfully
illustrated this by demonstrating what Carter does _not_ show). So
the show is not graphic in terms of gore, but it *is* very graphic in
terms of fear. While no one could deny that Millennium is a product
for Carter, is his usage of this fear exploitational and cheap or is
it sincere and calculated to achieve a beneficial response?
Myrke wants to know WHY, which is a very fair question. I would say
that Carter is trying to get the Worry, Wait, Who Cares message out,
and speaking only for myself I can say that he is doing is
successfully. I have sat through things that I fear, even the things
I fear most and at the end of the show I have THOUGHT about it. Now,
WHY does he want to get this message out? Dunno, maybe he cares and
he doesn't want to just worry and wait.
- Bernardine
Rufie710
In article <01bbfb10$de79e6c0$461e...@devel1.Psychology.Dal.Ca>, "Alan
Hurshman" <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> wrote:
( I snipped some good stuff)
> Millenuumm seems something of a Greek morality play. I
> wonder if we are the chorus?
>
>
> --
> Alan Hurshman,
> The Spa, X-Ville.
>
> (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Nice post Alan -Now I want to see the episode -anyone got a tape they want
to send me???? Ruth , newly re-interested in Millenium.
--
rufie710
"I tried Reality once, I found it too confining"
Barbara Ruef
On 6 Jan 1997, Merna/Michael Anderson wrote:
> In <01bbfb5a$08ff5440$23d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
> <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> In the meantime, I'm put in mind
>> of the quote, ably delivered by Jeremy Irons (though the source
>> eludes me) in "The Civil War" regarding a book by Matthew Brady of
>> his photographs.
>> Paraphrasing "if he has not gathered up the dead and delivered
>> them to our doorsteps, he's done the very next thing."
>
> Again, for the purposes of...?
> I mean, as you are lead to (and through) contemplation and thought and
> consideration, have you reached any conclusions about that question
> you're asking: "Why is he doing this?" Or is the question sufficient?
>
Wow, this has become some interesting thread. I've been
wanting to jump in on it but I have way too much to say so I'll
concentrate on this one point for starters. To focus on the
question of "why is CC doing this?", it recalls to mind the
release of Lynch's "Blue Velvet". I remember reading several
critiques of the movie and in some discussions there was an
exchange that basically went, why is DL showing us this depravity,
to which he replied, because it exists, to which was further
questioned, but is it necessary for us to see it?
My final analysis is that it is not "necessary" for us
to see this and it is certainly not for everyone to see but,
as with most of Lynch's work, I know I would have missed out
on an experience by taking a pass. I watch TV and movies for
one reason...to feel something. Yes, I also watch to be
entertained and educated (I spend most of my time on TLC and
Discovery channels since I joined the 20th century and got
cable). But the thing I really seek from the medium, and from
any medium including books and radio, is some level of feeling.
I want to be moved. Almost all TV, including educational
shows, lacks this quality.
In the specific case of Millennium, I've stuck with
the show because I feel it's well executed and intelligent
for the most part and because it does make me feel. In the
case of "Wide Open", the feelings may be uncomfortable and
to some repulsive, but it does conjur feelings which is
more than most TV can claim. If this is disturbing to you
than you should take a pass. For me, the fact that these
situations are variations on reality is disturbing, but I'd
rather feel disturbed and uncomfortable than switch channels
and soak up some mindless drivel on another station.
There is another factor that strengthens Millennium.
Watching the news and accounts of real events that Millennium's
drama mirrors is something we do every night when we watch
a recap of the day's events on the news. It's such a common
occurrence that we've become desensitized to most of it.
When the circumstances hit close to home or are so horrific
that they get past our shell of tolerance, they may finally
make an impression. But watching these horrors through the
eyes of Frank Black is a way of personalizing all the events.
They aren't simply another block of time on a newscast, they
are a case that Frank has to deal with and so the depravity
becomes something we are forced to confront along with him
and his family. I'm not suggesting that the drama is more
real to me than the reality of the murder and death on the
nightly news, but by learning about these victims and by
seeing through the eyes of the killers, the acts take on a
context that is missing when it is simply another statistic
to tally on the news.
The bottom line is that Millennium strikes a chord
with me and I appreciate it for that. The fact that it is
visually inspired and well acted is a bonus. To answer the
question "Why?", I think a simple answer is because it is
out there and there is no use denying it but that's just a
partial answer. For me it is because too much TV lacks any
thought provoking or feeling inspiring qualities. I may
enjoy watching X-Files more (when it's at its best) and
look forward to XF's new episodes with more anticipation
but I think Millennium offers something that I can't say
I find often on TV. A show that can occasionally combine
thought provoking dialogue with an intriguing visual
landscape and use its story to conjur a visceral reaction
that lasts beyond the final credits. I may be in the
minority, but when Millennium has been very good, I think
it is easily classifiable as worthwhile TV.
Barbara
************************************************************
[No offense intended.] "None comprehended." - The Tick -
<bjr...@unix.tamu.edu>
************************
Gia Gittleson
Nick Pedicini wrote:
> Yes, yes, and that's what the show is about. Evil vs Good pure and simple.
> Call it want you want. In your face confrontation. Catharsis of pity and
> terror. The unvarnished face of terror.
No doubt, I've made it clear that I take offense to the audio tape of the woman pleading
for her life. But my argument is that MLLNNM fails as a drama and as advocacy.
Nick, if CC is presenting such a take on terror, what's he out to prove as a
storyteller? That we are inured to such reality? That MLLNNM provides a wake-up call for
us to react to such terror? Yes, perhaps, CC is exhorting us to react. He may even be
cosnidering the show as a dramatic vehicle to get a real-life message across under the
rubric of "television."
I don't buy this idea that Cc may be an advocate. There's no room for reaction. He made
it dammned clear in the pilot w/ CB's "catcher in the rye" metaphor." When he posited
that evil will just keep going and going and going, he made it clear that not only is
evil omnipresnet, we are powerless against it. No wonder Fox lost 2/3 of the pilot
audience. Not only is that message a bummer, it's a bummer delivered on a Friday night.
So long Frank, hello Sabrina.
What we've got a play by play devoted to evil. I'm fascinated by evil. MLdy MacBeth,
Paradise Lost, Christiane Amanpour, you name it. What I'm not fasinated is a lame
dramatization of evil. Trip-Cam and other f/x aside, the character dev. is
two-dimensional week after week.
In light of the hype, I expected a bang-up look at the "unvarnished face of terror." If
MMLNNM deliver this, I'd be a happy camper. (I see the possiblity of faith in the face
of evil.) But I'm bored. And I feel like I was sold a bill of goods. Damn am I relieved
that I didn't pick up the gauntlet when a Fox publicist asked if I could pitch a CC
story to Wired. I was buying the same line Details, etc. bought, but thankfully lacked
the time to react.
THis show is flawed at its core premise. Underused dramatic devices, (Polaroids, the
Group) and and flatly drawn leads going mano-a-mano w/ garden variety seriel kilers
spells BFD. When you want capital E Evil slashing and burning its way across the tube,
you gotta have more than a plastic wife n kid and a big yellow house---for us to buy the
pitched high-stakes portrayal of Evil.
Now Fox has requested that CC carterize his own show (insert paranormal stuff here). Is
it gonna work? Is more White Zombie music licensing, T&A shots, etc gonna galvaniZe the
viewers? Maybe. HE, we hacks feel used. James Wolcott ain't the only one. This show may
be past the ressurrection stage promo-wise.
Please note: I didn't want to dislike this show. I wanted more than just CC's Trip-Cam
and scary tapes replayed. I wanted an intersting, powerful story to be told in 43
minutes. It's been done. It's possible. Gee, I can name one show on Fox that does and it
isn't called "When Animals Attack."
Graybill
"Threads of hope?" There is nothing hopeful about Millennium. It is a
show about the apocalypse, a show of utter despair and CC has lied to the
public saying that there is hope. There's no hope. Not in Carterland.
-Linnea
Merna/Michael Anderson
In <01bbfbc9$680e8180$37d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
<jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>
>> >Fair enough, but I would put it to you that that IS what Millennium
is
>> >after. It doesn't bother me that some people can't "handle it." The
>> trick
>> >for them is not to watch.
>>
>> Uh huh?
>>
>
Who's Graham Chapman now? Don't have a question. Just reacting.
>
>
>> >
>> >Yes, yes, and that's what the show is about. Evil vs Good pure and
>> simple.
>> >Call it want you want. In your face confrontation. Catharsis of
pity
>> and
>> >terror. The unvarnished face of terror.
>> >
>>
>> For the purposes of...
>>
>
>Look up the words "catharsis" "confrontation" and "to show"
Okay, just to show you that I'm a reasonable individual, I DID look
them up. Just because you asked me to. (Don't ask me to feel your
hair.) Actually, I'm glad you asked me to because while I was reading
your last e-mail, I thought: "If I weren't so lazy, I'd try to puzzle
out what NJP means by catharsis of pity and terror." If, Mr. Pedicini,
you are using "catharsis" in the Aristotlean sense, that is: "the
effect of art in purifying the emotions (applied by Aristotle to the
relief or purgation of the emotions of the audience or performers
affected through through pity and terror by tragedy and certain kinds
of music)", I'll have to take your word for it that that is, in fact,
what MLLNNM does. As I said before, I only watched the pilot. Taking
your assessment of MLLNNM as my guide (just because I'm a reasonable
person) I am still left pondering the question, "Why does CC seem to
lavish so much production value on the horror? He seems, as a
producer, to strive to make the act of ritual killing as much a work of
art AS A SERIAL KILLER DOES. This is why I made the crack about
Jeffrey Dahmer operating out of your living room. Does MLLLLNNNM
really purge the emotions"? How can it do so while it is
simultaneously fondling the horror?
Most people that grow disillusioned with MLLNNM seem to post things to
the newsgroup about how they don't want to carry the mood of the show
around with them while they go about the business of living. When does
this "purging" take place? How can it motivate people to live in such
a was as to avoid the serial killers among us? That there are serial
killers among us, most people know. That the possibility of running
into one is extremely remote they also know. How does living in a
state of extremely paranoid gloom protect one from a serial killer? If
one of Richard Speck's brethren gets his hands on ya, I'm pretty sure
you'll feel that spending every moment up 'til then DRIPPING WITH DREAD
was well worthwhile. The people who might really find MLNM a worthy
expenditure of T.V.-watching time are the people who have always wanted
to practice the MANLY ART of serial killing but don't know how. So
far, there are no training manuals, and most of the possible mentors
are either in prison or trying to evade the law.
Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I'm headed somewhere with this. I
remember reading about a young strapping lad of a serial killer who
said he began his career one fine day when this thought occurred to
him: "I wonder what it would be like to kill Grandma?" I thought to
myself, reading this, what would make that thought occur to him? I
don't know. Something like...SEVEN? Something like...SILENCE OF THE
LAMBS? Oh, MYRKE, you poor naive booby, you cry (I'm banking on you
crying this) ART doesn't motivate people to committ crimes... or
sins...or... Well, I'm going to have to refer you to the copycat
killings attributed to NATURAL BORN KILLERS. Yes, people who claimed
that they went on killing sprees to be "like Mickey and Mallory." AND,
if ART doesn't motivate people to committ crimes, can we be sure it
triggers any kind of cathartic effect?
Actually, I suspect the reverse is true. See, NJP (I'm struggling with
what to call you) I believe there is a reason we instinctively turn
from the horror. It's to protect us from becoming accustomed to it.
If we force ourselves to watch anyway, we may be eroding a barrier
that's there for our protection. Even the writer of pusher (which I
didn't see) apparently subscribes to this theory. Didn't the chief
profiler, through years of "getting into the mind of the killer",
become a killer himself?
>
>
>>
>> Again, for the purposes of...?
>> I mean, as you are lead to (and through) contemplation and thought
and
>> consideration, have you reached any conclusions about that question
>> you're asking: "Why is he doing this?" Or is the question
sufficient?
>>
>
>I believe that "making" people think is a sufficient purpose in
itself.
I don't believe that CC is able to do anything BUT raise questions.
>
>>
>> >Follow me on this........
>>
>
>
>>
>> So , now you're afraid that the Disney tendency to anthropomorphise
>> animals (and sacharinne-ise everything) is going to lead to the
>> mauling of benighted toddlers by meerkats? Okay, that's unfair.
>> Have there been incidents of children being led astray in their
>> perceptions of animals by Disney films and having innapropriate
>> interactions with animals because of it?
>>
>
>I chose The Lion King for the exaggerated difference. But yes, there
have
>been incidents of kids (I don't have anything besides a vague memory)
in
>places like Yellowstone who misinterpreted what they'd learned in the
>popular culture. (bears seem to be involved a lot)
SURELY you know I was having fun here? Anyway I took on your animal
film parallel because I don't think CC created MLLNNM as a public
service announcement to warn people about the dangers of living in a
society full of sick, sometimes ritualistic violence.
>
>>
>> I'd show him The Lion King in the hope that he'd bring me home a
live
>> meerkat to play with! Nah, okay, I'd show him "B". So, is the
>> parallel that supposed to use MLLNNM as a training film for those
going
>> into SERIAL KILLER COUNTRY. Oh, I know, I know, we already LIVE in
>> serial killer country! In that case, if CC is truly upset about
>> it, why doesn't he offer some swell public service announcements:
>>
>> "If you see a man, dressed as an old woman and sitting in your
unlocked
>> parked car asking for a ride, don't give it to him.
>> This is a public service announcement from our station and CITIZENS
>> AGAINST SERIAL KILLERS."
>>
>
>Some think that that is exactly what he *is* doing. After all, a
message
>that you should stay away from fat-eating mutants might not be taken
as
>seriously, no?
Okay, Mr. Pedicini, I'm not saying that YOU'RE saying MLLNNM is a
public service announcement. But to the people who think it is:
IF THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT, WHERE ARE THE SWELL TIPS?
That it's not good to hang out with a man who kills repeatedly, I think
people can figure out on their own. P.S. (I thought SQUEEZE and TOOMS
were two very dumb episodes back when I was watching the XF.)
>
>> >I'll grant you that this is hardly the motivation for the networks
who
>> ran
>> >"B" but then we're not talking about Fox's reasons for running
>> Millennium
>> >but Carter's reasons for creating it.
>>
>> Which were/are?
>
>You know, Myrke, talking with you I feel like the Graham Chapman
character
>in that great Python skit on the The Argument Shop.
I can see why you might feel that way, and believe me, I'm not trying
to annoy you. (Well, maybe a little) I really wanted you to address
the WHY(?)
>
>
>> >> was MUCH more interested in saying: "Wow, looky, we got us a cool
>> >> mutilated, half-dead and buried guy with his eyes sewn shut.
I stand by that statement. I think CC loves the art of horror even as
he decries it's constant appearance on CNN.
's
>>
>> than realized. Still, I think
>> >the images were there for a reason.
>>
>> WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
>> Keep coming back to the same question.
>> I'm sorry, Nick, (if I'm not being presumptuous in using your first
>> name) but, for me, CC has always been a guy who fails to make his
>> point. (Must be all the peyote he smoked getting The Blessing Way
>> ceremony just right!)
>>
>
>Do you drive? When you took driver's ed, did they show you one of
those
>lovely half hour grand guignol films? Why did they do that? To help
you
>digest your lunch? No, to make you see exactly *what* the implications
were
>if you don't drive carefully.
So, MLLNNM is there to help us live carefully (and gloomily) ? Okay, I
refer you to the things I said above about the probability of running
into a redundant murderer (got tired of saying "serial killer") It IS a
cautionary tale? It IS a PSA? Again, come on with the swell tips!
>
>Television has been bumping off large numbers of people since it was
>invented. Most are just dramatic devices. Who cares about the stiff
>bleeding all over the floor when they're can watch David Hasselhoff's
flex
>those dimples? Millennium won't let you do that.
It will allow you (if you choose) to view HOMICIDE AS ART reenacted as
realistically as possible and simultaneously watch Frank Black brood on
it. Mr. Pedicini, people KNOW that violence is bad. That's why they
turn away from it when it's realistically depicted on T.V.
Now, I'm going to give you my take on this, based solely on watching
the pilot. (Not that I think you want to hear it, but I jumped onto
this post because I thought your rebuttal to Gia regarding the medical
channel was...feeble. I don't watch EITHER show anymore. I'm on the ng
almost strictly to lurk and laugh nowadays.)
I think Chris Carter has a passion for realistically depicted violence-
for horror in general. If he had created a show based on this passion
it would have been a high quality TALES FROM THE CRYPT. Instead, he
introduced the character of Frank Black, and I think Frank Black is a
self portrait of CC. As are the Mulder/Scully characters combined. As
are both shows. A self- portrait of a man simultaneously seduced by
and repelled by horror.
I watched the pilot and thought: "Oh, goody. Yet another CC
production about a brave, gifted, albeit gloomy man trying in vain to
save the world and the woman who orbits (I mean LOVES) him. WITH
GORE!!! No thanks.
What CC IS good at is ATMOSPHERE. I refer you to James Wollcott, in
the Jan.6, 1997 issue of THE NEW YORKER:
"The doomy milieu of "Millennium is impressive. Like "X-Files," the
show casts a spell, looking and moving as if it were a prose poem of
infernal light, with embers still flickering under the toxic fumes."
May I most humbly submit it to you, Mr. Pedicini (who all the gals on
the ng consider the poster boy for SMART) that it is the atmosphere
that you are addicted to? After all, take away the atmosphere from XF
and you might really start to care about the lapses in continuity and
logic and the sometimes dopey writing. Take away the oboe-intensive
atmosphere from MLLNNM and you might find yourself yelling: Hey, don't
hack up that guy! That's totally unnecessary!
>
>
>> Got any idea who it (and WHAT IT) is for?
>> MYRKE
>> >
>
>Well, Myrke. Obviously not you.
>
>NJP
I guess this question can't be answered.
If you don't want to respond to this, I understand. I get the
impression that I'm annoying you. I only followed up on the original
post because it looked so vulnerable. Kinda brought out the predator
in me. So, if you want to quit, that's okay by me. I want to go back
to lurking and laughing anyway.
Lest any of the women here misconstrue my remarks about NJP's
brainpower above, let me state for the record. I THINK NICK PEDICINI
IS TRES SMART TOO!!!!
MYRKE
I kneel down laughing three times a day facing Vancouver.
>
>
Denise A. Agnew
In article <5ar313$e...@news.istar.ca>, Bernardine <pett...@fox.nstn.ca>
writes
(snip)
>
>I have never watched Schindler's List because I knew it would cause me
>too much grief by far. But I'm going to compare Millennium (at least
>in the more recent episodes) to this type of docudrama. With Carter
>there is much more if not total fabrication, of course, but I believe
>he is trying to throw cold water in our faces. Worry. Wait. Who
>Cares.
I think this is a very good point. It took me a long time to get myself
to watch Schindler's List because I knew it was going to be very, very
hard to stomach. I wanted to watch it because I'd heard the acting was
fabulous, too. Schindler's List had such an effect on me that at the
end I just cried and cried becaues it is so powerful. I'm not saying
Millennium is on the same level, but it could be that what Chris Carter
wants to illustrate in this program is that so few people care. The
fear factor is so great that many people see their only defense as
retreating from the evil. Facing the evil can often get you killed.
>
(snip)
>Carter *IS*
>trying to shock us, I think out of our complacency or hiding. He will
>go after the things that scare us most although I would argue that he
>does soften the blow quite a bit (Alan and Nick have both successfully
>illustrated this by demonstrating what Carter does _not_ show). So
>the show is not graphic in terms of gore, but it *is* very graphic in
>terms of fear. While no one could deny that Millennium is a product
>for Carter, is his usage of this fear exploitational and cheap or is
>it sincere and calculated to achieve a beneficial response?
I'd agree. Think of highly acclaimed movies such as "Seven" and
"Silence of the Lambs." They are effective in bringing us into the face
of the ultimate in horror (far more scary than anything Friday the 13th.
can offer). I'll admit, though, that they are very difficult to watch.
(snip)
>
> I have sat through things that I fear, even the things
>I fear most and at the end of the show I have THOUGHT about it. Now,
>WHY does he want to get this message out? Dunno, maybe he cares and
>he doesn't want to just worry and wait.
Sometimes that is what is the most difficult. Being forced to THINK
about our fear. While we can't live our lives in fear, it doesn't hurt
us to be faced with it (vicariously) sometimes.
>
>- Bernardine
>
--
Denise A. Agnew
Alan Hurshman
Bernardine <pett...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote in article <5ar313$e...@news.istar.ca>...
>
> I just have to add to this. I think Myrke's ER/The Operation example
> is elucidating. Is Millennium entertainment or is it a loosely
> dramatized education? I have chosen to approach it as the latter
Not sure I would view it as education. I do think
the stories are best watched from a 'distance'. It
is a show to be puzzled over and experienced not
entered into and squigged over. But even that is not
entirely true. Every time I see Frank with Jordan I
have to remind myself that she is not his daughter
in real life. The family is _very_ well constructed.
I think casting must be one of Carter's great talents.
snip....
> We worry about the world we see deteriorating around us, we worry
> about keeping our children safe in it. We wait for someone else to do
> something about it. Who cares? The people locked in their houses and
> cars doing the worrying -- the ones who are too afraid or "busy" to do
> anything about it. On an episode by episode basis, it's fair to look
> at the detail of production in terms of critique. But as an overall
> series concept I think the litmus test should be this: Carter *IS*
> trying to shock us, I think out of our complacency or hiding.
It would be interesting to give this 'decline' theme a bit
of a historical perspective. For all the talk of social break
down in the the latter half of the 20th centuary things are not
as bleak as you think (not in Canada, anyway). For example,
the murder rate in New Yor city was higher in 1860 than it
is today and the slums were far worse and much more dangerous.
A hundred years ago political corruption was much worse as
was street violence, even in Canada. People did not put shutters
on their widows as decorations, they were there for the same
reason some people bar their windows today. Maybe Carter
should do a Time Tunnel type show next.
Alan Hurshman
> <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
>
> reaction to Millenium lately. I find it so utterly dark and hopeless
> that it is repulsive.
While eating lunch and reading the paper I came across a
story about changes being made in the 'Pirate Island'
attraction at Disney Land. It seems that the pirates
on this island are now shown chasing buxom young
wenches about the tavern. This will soon be changed.
In future these rampaging beasts will only be seen
chasing food. Cutting edge entertainment, indeed.
How does this relate to Millennium and the X-Files?
Read on.
Maybe CC should do what some TV production houses do
in Canada, produce two versions of the same show. Here
they sometimes make both an English and a French version
of the same script. Not only is the language different but
the French versions usually have more nudity. Carter
could do the same with Millennium - a Fox and a Disney
version. The Fox version would be dark with an overlay
of tragic hopelessness. The Disney version would be bright
and oh so happy, happy, joy, joy! In the Fox version
Frank would track down evil murderers while in the Disney
version he would help Jordan catch and reform such serial
eaters as The Hamburgler (the rapscallion) and Dom DeLuise.
Good idea?
Bernardine
"Alan Hurshman" <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> wrote:
>No, I always locked my door. As for having your pocket
>picked or being stabbed for $10, the risks were always
>there. I think you underestimate how dangerous it was
>a hundered years ago, and over estimate how dangerous
>it is today. It has always been the case that when times
>are good we can usually live our lives in a fair amount
>of safety, when times are bad life become cheap.
It's not accurate to say that I overestimate today's dangers. I cited
specific cases. It is _not_ the case that 1 in 4 children are abducted
or abused but it is the case that 100% of parents have to be cautious,
have to fear this crime. It is not the case that if I drive down
Hollis Street or Gottingen at night that 1 time in 3 someone will
force their way into my car at a stop sign, but it is the case that I
have to have my doors locked 100% of the time because I have no
intention of playing odds. After the OK City bombing I was stricken
with anxiety every time I strolled my baby past the Central Post
Office building because I feared copycats. Was it going to explode?
Obviously it didn't, but that doesn't mean I wasn't afraid. Terror is
the new face of crime in our society. When someone blows up a
building or shoots up a McDonald's we all begin to live with that new
fear. What I'm saying Alan, is that it is not the crime specifically
that we fear, but rather that we learn that it could happen to us.
How about Marc Lepine -- there's an at-home example -- don't you think
that every woman who went back to her architecture or engineering
classes the next day had a new fear?
Comparison-wise, your point is made that society has always been
plagued with crime, victimization and corruption. The legal system
has advanced to the point where many more criminals are taken off the
streets (although I'm sure we could all come up with a couple of
examples where we feel that justice was not accomplished in favour of
good lawyering). So let's just say that I feel that our society is
failing because we continue to live in fear, and in a culture as
technologically advanced as ours, that should not be the case. I
believe in a society where I don't have to fear daycare bombings, and
even if my forefathers had all the same problems 150 years ago, I
don't want them today.
In 1876 Bell invented the telephone. 120 years later we have computers
that we can put in our pockets, world satellite systems, space travel,
a pill for what ails ya but we still have the same types of crimes and
predations that we (as you argue) had then.
And just to get back on topic, this is the kind of stuff that
Millennium makes me think about <eg>. I'm trying not to be
argumentative ... my original comments were not meant to reflect that
society has failed compared to 200 years ago, but rather that society
is failing us today. And the nature of unease that I'm referring to
are not crime statistics, but rather the fact that cime today is about
terrorism and predation or that it is random and causes us all to live
with fear.
- Bernardine
Barbara Ruef
Graybill wrote:
>
> Louis Kokoros wrote:
> > Now, I suppose some might say there are threads of hope or redemption woven
> > into some plots...put plodding through most of the disturbing <if not
> > disturbed> storylines just isn't rewarding enough. Yech, you need a bath
> > after watching.
>
> "Threads of hope?" There is nothing hopeful about Millennium. It is a
> show about the apocalypse, a show of utter despair and CC has lied to the
> public saying that there is hope. There's no hope. Not in Carterland.
I'd have to disagree on this point. I think there is hope though it is
almost lost in the flood of death and depravity. The hope is symbolic in the
Black family...they are an island, an icon of hope. But aside from Frank and
his desire to stem the flood of horror he witnesses, I think his family is the
real ray of hope. Not in a symbolic sense only, but in the way that Frank is
attempting to create a place of peace and stability for Jordan and Catherine.
If it is true that upbringing can shape the future of the killers that Frank
tracks (and apparently the correlations are real, especially since the profiling
usually includes the killer's childhood and the treatment for mentally unstable
killers often deals with instances of abuse and patterns formed in childhood),
then a loving environment for Jordan is a form of hope for the future. An
acceptance of the reality in the world and an attempt to create a difference
at the home level is the best that some people can do in fighting off the
seemingly down-spiralling nature of society.
Barbara
--
Mac Nooge
Bernadine and Alan's discussion was too fascinating not to comment. I
apologize for length.
Bernardine wrote:
>
> "Alan Hurshman" <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> wrote:
>
> >No, I always locked my door. As for having your pocket
> >picked or being stabbed for $10, the risks were always
> >there. I think you underestimate how dangerous it was
> >a hundered years ago, and over estimate how dangerous
> >it is today. It has always been the case that when times
> >are good we can usually live our lives in a fair amount
> >of safety, when times are bad life become cheap.
>
> It's not accurate to say that I overestimate today's dangers. I cited
> specific cases. It is _not_ the case that 1 in 4 children are abducted
> or abused but it is the case that 100% of parents have to be cautious,
> have to fear this crime.
If you can stand some comments from a dog who reads history---
What we are really discussing is a matter of expanding technology and
news. Bernadine's point:
that it is not the crime specifically
> that we fear, but rather that we learn that it could happen to us.
> How about Marc Lepine -- there's an at-home example -- don't you think
> that every woman who went back to her architecture or engineering
> classes the next day had a new fear?
...is really more about the fact that electronic media has increased our
KNOWLEDGE of crimes committed. In the days of slower spread of
information, an individual's judgement regarding the frequency of crime
was limited to his/her locale, word-of-mouth, and slow letters from
afar. None of these compare to the instaneous manner we learn of such
incidents as the OK bombings or the Lepine massacre.
>
> Comparison-wise, your point is made that society has always been
> plagued with crime, victimization and corruption. The legal system
> has advanced to the point where many more criminals are taken off the
> streets (although I'm sure we could all come up with a couple of
> examples where we feel that justice was not accomplished in favour of
> good lawyering). So let's just say that I feel that our society is
> failing because we continue to live in fear, and in a culture as
> technologically advanced as ours, that should not be the case. I
> believe in a society where I don't have to fear daycare bombings, and
> even if my forefathers had all the same problems 150 years ago, I
> don't want them today.
But I would suggest that you possibly underestimate the FEAR of the good
old days. We have replaced some of their fears---far fewer people
believe, for example, that political events will cause God's immediate
wrath upon their nation, or that the sins of the rest of the country
will result in our punishment. Those were real fears and axieties for
the English of the 17th century, as an examination of their pamphlet
literature will reveal.
Actually, the 16th and 17th centuries provide some very interesting
comparisons because it was a period of explosive growth in the print
media. People began to be able to read cheap, mass-produced accounts of
crime (among other things) and there was an increased fear of vagabonds
and other roving criminals probably not justified by their actual
numbers. Yet people were convinced that a thriving undergound of "sturdy
beggars" exited across England.
And the nature of unease that I'm referring to
> are not crime statistics, but rather the fact that cime today is about
> terrorism and predation or that it is random and causes us all to live
> with fear.
>
> - Bernardine
Here I think you've hit it---we now believe crime is *random.* Whether
or not criminal acts are rally on the increase, whether or not we live
in a more dangerous society than our forebears, we *do* live in a
society which is unable to pinpoint the cause of its troubles. In some
cases, we do try to rationalize---it happens to bad people, only sick
people cause crime---but we lack the certainty that once existed that
crime is understandable (no matter how repugnant the rationalizations of
the past regarding crime may seem today, they did provide a framework of
certainty about the world's workings).
And (following Bernadine's lead and desperately trying to get back on
topic:)) this very uncertainty about the world's workings drives both
MIllenium and the X-Files, although the two programmes have different
apporaches; the X-Files, in fact, suggests there IS something driving
seemingly "random" violence (the plots and undertakings of the
Consortioum and others) even though we can't fully fathom these schemes.
MIllenium is perhaps more frightening and more depressing because (the
few times I've watched the show) it tends to play up the very randomness
of crime and violence.
In short, the X-Files says "The Truth is out there---even if we can't
fully understand it."
Millenium says "Is there any truth at all?"
-Beagle
Gia Gittleson
> > Nick Pedicini wrote:
> > > Yes, yes, and that's what the show is about. Evil vs Good pure and
> simple.
> > > Call it want you want. In your face confrontation. Catharsis of pity
> and
> > > terror. The unvarnished face of terror.
> >
> woman pleading
> > for her life. But my argument is that MLLNNM fails as a drama and as
> advocacy.
> >
>
> obviously doesn't appeal to you and to many other people including many who
> write popular criticism of television. The acting out of the grand themes
> of good versus evil in such a fashion has an intellectual and emotional
> effect on me that I associate with apprehending art. That people who don't
> apprehend it thus might believe that it was some sort of ghoulish voyeurism
> doesn't bother me.
Funny, Nick, I'm always on the look-out for grand themes, allegory, metaphor WRT to arts
and culture. It's part of my job. I expected, at the very least, CC to work out some
Manechean cosmology in MLLNNM. But this is a poorly-developed show.
> As for the advocacy aspect, I think that it's a little too pedestrian an
> expectation. If you want to educate people against mass murderers, given
> the example of Dahmer, Berkowitz, Speck and all, it would probably be
> better to run an hour show devoted to hand-gun use and self-defense
> techniques. It would be cheaper and more effective. Carter is an artist, a
> creator.
So, there is no message, but in your book, there is allegory. As I see no allegory or
parables getting play here, I merely see boring TV. I think, Nick, you give CC too much
credit. Don't take offense, though, I used to as well.
>Like the artist in the marvelous Gahan Wilson cartoon, he paints
> what he sees. It may be damned depressing. It may be that evil triumphs
> (which it hasn't done in Millennium but *did* in "Sanguinarium") and if
> that is his vision then so be it. It isn't our place to tell the artist
> what to paint. Please note: I am speaking of Carter, not of Fox. I think
> there is a very valid discussion about the network's motives in presenting
> a show like this, particularly at 9pm on Fridays. Again, if you don't like
> the picture, don't look at it.
I'm getting to the point I might turn it off. But it's fun to get into CC's head. Couple
the posssible fact that MLLNNM articulates CC's POV w/ his oft-uttered statment: "I'm a
nonreligious person in search of a religious experience." This is why I watch. CC has
exhorted us in TXF to "Trust No One" and question authority. Needless to say, CC
represents a kind of authority, a man who's getting his meme, his cosmology, his POV
beamed out to the universe. (Funny, how TV works.) As a result, 1013 product and its
attendant fanaticism deserves analysis.
[snip]
best,
Gia
-Ezekiel Drive-
Alyssa Fernandez
Alan Hurshman wrote:
>
> Carter
> could do the same with Millennium - a Fox and a Disney
> version. The Fox version would be dark with an overlay
> of tragic hopelessness. The Disney version would be bright
> and oh so happy, happy, joy, joy! In the Fox version
> Frank would track down evil murderers while in the Disney
> version he would help Jordan catch and reform such serial
> eaters as The Hamburgler (the rapscallion) and Dom DeLuise.
>
> Good idea?
Susan "Stop the Insanity" Powter and Richard "Deal-a-Meal" Simmons.
(Susan admittedly makes people somewhat nervous, but Richard more than
makes up for it.)
Alyssa,
Thinking the "spooky" Disney opening could include fleeting images of
Cruella DeVille and Celine Dion.
Bernardine
"Alan Hurshman" <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> wrote:
>It would be interesting to give this 'decline' theme a bit
>of a historical perspective. For all the talk of social break
>down in the the latter half of the 20th centuary things are not
>as bleak as you think (not in Canada, anyway). For example,
>the murder rate in New Yor city was higher in 1860 than it
>is today and the slums were far worse and much more dangerous.
>A hundred years ago political corruption was much worse as
>was street violence, even in Canada. People did not put shutters
>on their widows as decorations, they were there for the same
>reason some people bar their windows today. Maybe Carter
>should do a Time Tunnel type show next.
I'm sure you're right Alan, statistically speaking. There was always
organized crime in some form, if it wasn't outlaws in the Wild West it
was gangs in the 20's. Political corruption we could argue about
though by large its true that free-wheeling despotism got its wings
clipped after Watergate. Social support networks have done much to
clean up the streets and at least try to solve a poverty problem (we
could see this pendulum back though).
No, what concerns me most about society today and what I see as a true
potential danger (and a change for the worse) are incidents like
Dahmer, OK City, Dunblane, the BC wedding killings, Australia had a
major mass-murder recently which led to a move to censor violence in
their media, subway gassings, even Waco and Jonestown .... I see the
root of these threats coming from two major sources: the fact that
the mental illnesses that cause many of these crimes still go
unrecognized and untreated and that the criminal-justice system has
become so outrageous that justice, penalty and rehabilitation are
long-lost concepts. Jack the Ripper is still one of the most
celebrated and gruesome crimes in the 200 year period we're talking
about but when you think about it, if you weren't a prostitute and you
weren't working the streets of Whitechapel, you were pretty safe from
him. Today children get picked off the streets and schoolyards.
These are the things that scare me today, and when I hear that
Clifford Olsen has at his disposal a little-known clause of the
Criminal Act that will allow him to apply for EARLY-EARLY release from
prision, I get REALLY scared.
Just in my lifetime (and I'm sure yours as well) I've gone from not
locking my house doors to locking my car door at stop lights. In the
1800's in London you had to worry about having your pocket picked, in
the 1990's in NYC you have to worry about being stabbed or shot to
death for $10. Which brings to mind the school system ... but lets not
go there <g>. I think the nature of the threat has changed to the
point where we all are vulnerable.
- Bernardine
The Bevins Family
MILLENIUM REPULSED ME TOO
Alan Hurshman
Bernardine <pett...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote in article <5au16f$4...@news.istar.ca>...
>
> No, what concerns me most about society today and what I see as a true
> potential danger (and a change for the worse) are incidents like
> Dahmer, OK City, Dunblane, the BC wedding killings, Australia had a
> major mass-murder recently which led to a move to censor violence in
> their media, subway gassings, even Waco and Jonestown .... I see the
> root of these threats coming from two major sources: the fact that
> the mental illnesses that cause many of these crimes still go
> unrecognized and untreated and that the criminal-justice system has
> become so outrageous that justice, penalty and rehabilitation are
> long-lost concepts. Jack the Ripper is still one of the most
> celebrated and gruesome crimes in the 200 year period we're talking
> about but when you think about it, if you weren't a prostitute and you
> weren't working the streets of Whitechapel, you were pretty safe from
> him. Today children get picked off the streets and schoolyards.
I think if you read enough history (no, not school history - the
history of generals, but real history - the stories of how people
actually lived) you will find things are certainly no worse today and
probably better. Mass murder is in the Bible, the Koran, and
in 19th century copies of The Times. Children were kidnapped off
the streets of London and murdered, forced into prostitution or
sold more often in the 1800's than today. As you note in the Jack
the Ripper, crime is selective. The poor and those on the margins
have always been the primary victems. The better off had footmen
not just for show, they were there for protection.
Remember one thing. You cannot compare what happened a hundred
years ago to what happens today by a simple resort to statistics.
It was much easier to get away with killing someone in rural
Canada in the 1820's than it would be today. There are numerous
cases of the bodies of travellers being found in rivers or at
the side of a road and no one knowing how they died. Without modern
science a lot of murders would go unreported. Today, priests
and hockey coaches who molest their young charges risk going
to jail. 50 years ago, that _NEVER_ happened.
snip...
> Just in my lifetime (and I'm sure yours as well) I've gone from not
> locking my house doors to locking my car door at stop lights. In the
> 1800's in London you had to worry about having your pocket picked, in
> the 1990's in NYC you have to worry about being stabbed or shot to
> death for $10.
No, I always locked my door. As for having your pocket
picked or being stabbed for $10, the risks were always
there. I think you underestimate how dangerous it was
a hundered years ago, and over estimate how dangerous
it is today. It has always been the case that when times
are good we can usually live our lives in a fair amount
of safety, when times are bad life become cheap.
--
Gia Gittleson
arthur brice wrote:
>
> In article <32D2F6...@earthlink.net>, Gia Gittleson
> <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >I see no allegory or
> > parables getting play here, I merely see boring TV.
>
> potential wasted. so much hype and so little follow through. i don't want
> just another cop show, no matter how stylized the videography and hip the
> music (i am getting sick of the aerial shot of the rainy police bldg,
> tho).
>
> i too do not see any great allegories or parables or bigger messages here,
> which is a real disappointment because the promise was there the first
> couple or three shows. now millennium has devolved into a typical cop
> drama with your neat bad-guy-gets-caught ending. how inspired. and that
> bit with the dog last week (1-3 ep) was totally ridiculous, as have been
> several other devices in recent episodes. i could forgive these lapses if
> they were part of a bigger message, of the metaphysical issues of good and
> evil and how it all ties in to the coming millennium that were hinted at
> in the early episodes.
>
> dropped subplots bug me too (the stalker, of course). why bother to
> introduce something to let it die? and why not add the broader and richer
> context and texture that subplots and related developments can bring to
> drama? also, character development has been mediocre, at best. do we
> really know that much more about frank than we did after two shows?
>
> and, yes, i know that it's only been eight episodes and it took x-files a
> while to get uncorked yada yada. doesn't matter. i expected (and was led
> to believe there would be) more with this show.
>
> give us some substance, cc. enough of this fancy-pants froufrou. and if
> you insist on feeding us empty-calorie meringue, give us something
> better-tasting. this dog shit i saw last week reminded me of lassie, for
> pete's sake.
>
> ever the optimist, tho, (read: sap) i continue to watch, hoping that i
> will be ever-so-pleasantly surprised.
>
> ab
ab--you've got sass appeal
best,
Gia
MoJo
In Article<32CF30...@earthlink.net>, <gi...@earthlink.net> write:
> Repulsed is the word. To use a tape of a woman pleading for her life---and
replay said
> tape over and over again----smacked of the same societal sickness the
protagonist
> purports to try to irradicate. Nancy, I agree with you. This is not
entertainment. This
> is aural voyeurism for the debased among us.
>
I have tried to express this myself, though nowhere near as eloquently
as you managed to say it. The characters in this program are nothing more
than a method of tying together the *real* stars of the show...the constant
gratuitous gore, both physical and emotional. This is the only *real* kind
of pornography that exists, and it has absolutely NO redeeming social value.
I turned on the TV Sunday night, expecting to see X-Files, and there was
Millennium instead. CC is clearly so determined to cram this
piece of garbage down our throats that he's (1) given it X-Files' Friday time
slot and then (2) when we wouldn't watch it THERE, he actually
*pre-empted* X-Files in its new time slot to try again to force us to watch
it.
Well, CC, it didn't work the first time, and it didn't work the second time.
I just did what I do every Friday at 9PM...I changed the channel.
This program is not entertaining, it is evil. I can see someone like Ted
Bundy enjoying it, but the kind of person it appeals to is clearly the kind
of person I am not...and for that I thank whatever power you care to name...
And no, folks, I am not a prude, nor am I a religious nut, nor am I just
'too unsophisicated to appreciate quality programming', as other posters
here have blathered. I enjoy well-made sci-fi, mysteries, and horror. I read
a LOT of books in all three genres.
This program does to me what I can't remember any other program doing, ever,
in my whole life. It makes me sick. The few minutes I saw on Sunday, before
I changed the channel, made me want to get up and take a shower...as if I'd
touched something long-dead and corrupt.
MJ
Nick Pedicini
David Sugarman <ok...@telepath.com> wrote in article
<32D0B5...@telepath.com>...
> Nick Pedicini wrote:
In the interest of accuracy, I got the exact quote:
"Mr Brady has done something to bring to us the terrible reality and
earnestness of the war: if he has not brought bodies and laid them in our
door-yards or along (our) streets he has done something very like it."
The quote is to an unattributed NY Times reporter and is the last sentence
of a much longer quote. It may be found on p. 161 of the companion volume
to the PBS Series "The Civil War."
NJP
Alan Hurshman
Bernardine <pett...@istar.ca> wrote in article <5audfc$b...@news.istar.ca>...
> "Alan Hurshman" <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> wrote:
>
> >No, I always locked my door. As for having your pocket
> >picked or being stabbed for $10, the risks were always
> >there. I think you underestimate how dangerous it was
> >a hundered years ago, and over estimate how dangerous
> >it is today. It has always been the case that when times
> >are good we can usually live our lives in a fair amount
>
> It's not accurate to say that I overestimate today's dangers. I cited
> specific cases. It is _not_ the case that 1 in 4 children are abducted
> or abused but it is the case that 100% of parents have to be cautious,
> have to fear this crime.
I'm not going to go into the details of the rest of your response
but I stand by my statement that you are overestimating the real
risks a person faces today. In fact, I would go a step further. You
(if I read your post correctly) are focusing your fears on the
least important sources of danger in our society.
People rarely die because of terrorist acts. They are rarely killed
by strangers. As a woman if you should fear anyone you should fear
your husband, your father, your male friends and increasingly,
your female friends. They are the people most likely to assuault
both you and your child. But does it make sense to live in fear
of every friend you have? Of course not. Nor does it make sense
to fear the explicit evils a show like Millennium deals with.
Getting back to Millennium, I think part of the 'art' of the
show is that the writers are dressing the real problems of the
world up in the guise of serial murders. In each case, if
you look behind the drama of the hunt and the horror of the
killings you will see that the plot deals with an evil that
is part of our everday life. Evils that we are all capable of.
arthur brice
Maria Vitale
In alt.tv.millennium Canticle <cant...@aratar.mb.ca> wrote:
: Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article <
: : Repulsed is the word. To use a tape of a woman pleading for her
: : life---and replay said tape over and over again----smacked of the
: : same societal sickness the protagonist purports to try to irradicate.
: : Nancy, I agree with you. This is not entertainment. This is aural
: : voyeurism for the debased among us.
: And why is that? Personally, I've always been a fan of entetainment which
: doesn't force sickly sweet happy happy endings on the viewer and in which
: you know everything is going to turn out ok. It takes away all the reasons
: for actually watching a show, unless you enjoy an evening of mindless
: entertainment.
: As for the tape? It's entertainment. It was chilling, yes, but it was just
: a TV show. Frankly, if more people reacted like this to the horrors of real
: life, things would be a lot better.
Yes but taken on another level, the tape is a very important piece of
the puzzle of what happened in that house. The little girl is a witness
but is unable to relay what she saw. Frank also saw flashes of what
happened but he has not as yet been forthcoming explicitly about what
he sees about any crime. In this instance we have a videotape. That it
was replayed several times is demonstrative of the process the police
and the FBI have to undertake in their investigations. Think it's easy
for them to have to view that damn thing over and over again?
: : Now I realize why Frank Black behaves likes he's roused from a vat of
: : formaldehyde. LH's lifeless delivery is no accident. This directorial
: : choice sets up the juxtaposition to what's truly center stage here.
: Lance Henrickson acts much like I'd expect anyone to act if they were in
: criminal homicide and had spent close to a decade tracking down serial
: killers.
Henriksen [n.b.: correct spelling :)] handles his portrayal of Frank
as best he can. I think he's dead-on right for the role. My only
objection is to the overall darkness of the show. Were Frank to truly
be so consumed by the horrors of the world, the evil that lurks in
the hearts of men, the general shitiness of life outside of his yellow
haven -- I doubt he'd be able to stay away long from a straight-jacket.
His bright spot in the universe is his family. All I ask is that the
men lighten up a little when he's at home. Leave the work at the office
and not talk glum and despair at home... even out on the porch.
: : The star of MLLNNM is Evil. Not Frank. (yeah, yeah, yeah, I've read
: : "Paradise Lost") Good will never win over Evil in MLLNNM's cosmology.
: : All the bitchen art direction ain't
Uh, sorry but I don't see it that way. Somehow, miraculously each time
48 minutes go past the bad man is caught or killed and Good triumphs
over Evil -- at least for this week. Next week: new bad man for the
good guys to track down. It is the "hope" that this will always be
so that is behind Millennium.
: Uh...no. Nobody wins, much as in real life. Good triumphs in the end, evil
: triumphs because its still around. Evil doesn't 'star' any more than Good
: does in Millenium. It's Good vs. Evil for eternity, and unless there is an
: apocalyptic change in the way humanity behaves on a whole, that's the way
: its going to be.
I guess it really comes down to faith. If you're the religious type
(which I'm not -- confirmed atheist) you believe in some sort of supreme
being(s). In which case you must also believe that evil exists in some
form: as a demon, devil, fallen angel, etc. But these things hinge on
faith. The entire concept of good vs. evil relies on faith and morals.
In the Millennium universe they deal with evil on a grander scale but
personalized so that it can be better understood and dealt with. While
some viewers can look at the show and become outraged by what they see,
others just become bored. I think this may be a clearer indicator of
just how far out of kilter our society has become. We're numbed by what
we see on the nightly news. Then for our entertainment we need something
even more shocking to even manage to draw our attention.
Is the show working on that level?? True shock value may work as a
controversial gimmick. More insightful writing however may spark a
more reasonable and rational response. The issues of good vs. evil
is an important one when society can no longer teach its children
the value of a human life.
: People can live with the illusion in their world that somehow good always
: wins over evil, but spend some time in the real world, and that just isn't
: the case. And if you want candy coated entertainment where you can be
: assured that your cosmology won't be upset, there are plenty of options out
: there.
I'm all for realism. If that's all you want then tune into the various
"real cop" shows and be content. If you long for a realistic drama that
deals with difficult issues then Millennium promises to bring that to
television but has so far only brought darkness, shock-schlock and a
slightly pedantic slant on evil. I like Henriksen very much. I don't
care much for CC's writing though. So far his have been my least
favorite episodes. Hopefully things will improve with time.
Maria.
Bernardine
Marcus Wiseman <MWis...@splb.scarborough.on.ca> wrote:
>Sadly, the program has turned out to be half of this; horriffic and
>violent without (seemingly) focus. Barbara said: "... aside from Frank
>and his desire to stem the flood of horror he witnesses, I think his
>family is the real ray of hope. Not in a symbolic sense only, but in
>the way that Frank is attempting to create a place of peace and
>stability for Jordan and Catherine..." I think this is very true but I
>have to say, "So what?" I don't mean this derisively - I mean, is this
>enough? Don't get me wrong, I love the show but I find I watch it
>because I'm hoping to gain insights into 'why' the crimes are committed,
>to what lengths the criminal will go, and most importantly why. But
>each time I'm disappointed, each time I find the reason I'm given is
>"the person is disturbed," or has "been abused," or is "psychotic."
>This doesn't give me more than what I started with and leaves me being
>little more than a voyeur. It leaves me disappointed.
I had the same preconception of what Millennium would be "about"
originally, I'm not sure where it hailed from either, I assume some
pre-publicity. As for focus, it's true that the show has already been
wavering in its focus since it's launch and with only 9 episodes in
(and given some resituation even in that period of time) I'm still
thinking that we have yet to see the fine-tuning. I think that will
come.
In regard to a documentary approach to the genesis of criminal
insanity/the serial killer/anti-social personality/psychotic you'll
never see the show do that (I hope). The show is not really about
serial-killers per se, but rather that they are used in symbolism of
threat, danger and violence (or so I believe, anyway). I did see a
great documentary on TLC or A&E recently about Dahmer and the
psychological analysis of his mental illness and the creation of his
criminal behaviour. This was more in line with the type of
enlightenment you're discussing.
- Bernardine
(who never ceases to be amazed by how MANY Canadians are on this
newsgroup)
DSchmouth
Way to go, Stephane. Actually, your script was far more enjoyable than
any Mil I have seen this far!
Danielle
whatever
***WARNING! Warning, Will Robinson! Snippage approaching!***
I really love this playground!
My turn! My turn!
deb...or whatever.
Merna/Michael Anderson wrote:
>
> In <01bbfbc9$680e8180$37d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
> <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:***snip***
> Okay, just to show you that I'm a reasonable individual, I DID look
> them up. Just because you asked me to. (Don't ask me to feel your
> hair.) Actually, I'm glad you asked me to because while I was reading
> your last e-mail, I thought: "If I weren't so lazy, I'd try to puzzle
> out what NJP means by catharsis of pity and terror." If, Mr. Pedicini,
> you are using "catharsis" in the Aristotlean sense, that is: "the
> effect of art in purifying the emotions (applied by Aristotle to the
> relief or purgation of the emotions of the audience or performers
> affected through through pity and terror by tragedy and certain kinds
> of music)", I'll have to take your word for it that that is, in fact,
> what MLLNNM does. As I said before, I only watched the pilot. Taking
> your assessment of MLLNNM as my guide (just because I'm a reasonable
> person) I am still left pondering the question, "Why does CC seem to
> lavish so much production value on the horror? He seems, as a
> producer, to strive to make the act of ritual killing as much a work of
> art AS A SERIAL KILLER DOES. This is why I made the crack about
> Jeffrey Dahmer operating out of your living room. Does MLLLLNNNM
> really purge the emotions"? How can it do so while it is
> simultaneously fondling the horror?
* Purging and Horror: Soapbox #384318
When I watch Millennium, I have a better appreciation
for those around me and makes me feel more protective for the
clients I serve. And yes, horrifies me that something like that
could be shown on TV for the next Dahmer-in-training to emulate.
Like CC, I'm fascinated by the horror. It makes me gag, and yet
I find I'm attracted to it as well. Humans are not that far
removed from animals except we have more motivation besides
hunger.
What does that say about me as a person? I don't know. I regard
MM as a stroll down the Road of Psychosis. Mental Illness has
always fascinated me since the first time I worked with an
Autistic boy 17 years ago. (Ouch! How the years do fly!) And
you have to have some serious dementia going on in order to do
some of those kinds of things. <As opposed to Humourous Dementia,
deb?> (Erika! Where are you? Help!)
As far as CC's fascination for realistic horror; Reminds me of a
8 year old boy's fascination for snot and poop. <Not that I have any
keen insight into the mind of the Most Honorable and Righteous
Chris Carter, I think I'm trying to justify it for my own peace of
mind.> I've never liked gratuitous violence. It's enought that the
gun goes "Bang!" and the bad guy falls down. I don't need to see
their heads splitting apart in slow motion from three different
camera angles. Eeewwwhhh! Bleah!
But with MM, I look at what CC COULD have shown and think, 'Hey!
That's pretty tame!' Instead of the bland, acceptance of things
hinted at and not seen, we have the in-your-face graphic
depiction of what it really is. And still it's dumbed-down for
Ma and Pa Kettle.
<By the way; I love the "fondling the horror" quote. It's a VERY
nice turn of phrase.>
> Most people that grow disillusioned with MLLNNM seem to post things to
> the newsgroup about how they don't want to carry the mood of the show
> around with them while they go about the business of living. When does
> this "purging" take place?
* For me, it's when I go to work.
> How can it motivate people to live in such
> a was as to avoid the serial killers among us? That there are serial
> killers among us, most people know. That the possibility of running
> into one is extremely remote they also know. How does living in a
> state of extremely paranoid gloom protect one from a serial killer?
* It doesn't. Nothing does. Unfortunately, we have no way of
predicting these things. (Thank you, Spirit. And various snide
comments about "Psychic Friends".)
> If one of Richard Speck's brethren gets his hands on ya, I'm pretty sure
> you'll feel that spending every moment up 'til then DRIPPING WITH DREAD
> was well worthwhile. The people who might really find MLNM a worthy
> expenditure of T.V.-watching time are the people who have always wanted
> to practice the MANLY ART of serial killing but don't know how.
* Er, uh, I'm not a Girly-Girl, nor am I all that Butch, either.
Like most humans, I'm somewhere in between. My reasons for watching
MM are listed previously. To reiterate, I'm fascinated by the
psychosis and mental illness involved.
> So far, there are no training manuals, and most of the possible mentors
> are either in prison or trying to evade the law.
* I don't know if anyone actually thinks, 'When I grow up,
I want to be a serial killer.'. I think it just happens when
the mind twists in on itself. <shrug> But that's my opinion.
> Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I'm headed somewhere with this. I
> remember reading about a young strapping lad of a serial killer who
> said he began his career one fine day when this thought occurred to
> him: "I wonder what it would be like to kill Grandma?" I thought to
> myself, reading this, what would make that thought occur to him? I
> don't know. Something like...SEVEN? Something like...SILENCE OF THE
> LAMBS?
* He wouldn't have had the thought and acted upon it if he
was a sane, rational person. It doesn't matter WHERE they get the
idea. It's the fact that these people get the idea and then ACT upon
it. Or that they'd even think about it in the first place. The average
Joe or Jane off the street deal with frustrations in a way they find
attractive. Music, books, art, atxf ;), or ... whatever. The
un-average Joe/Jane who deals with stressors abnormally are the
ones to look out for. They're the ones who will maim and/or kill.
* Never seen Natural Born Killers, nor do I care to. For one
Mental Health classes, I was given Fetishes as an assignment. (Yes.
Please laugh. I did.) In my conclusion, I wrote that viewing isn't
going to make you want to do it. You have to want to do it in the
first place. The examples I used were, well offensive. I like to
make my points with sledgehammers. ;) The least objectionable one
was homosexuality. Watching Gay pornos aren't going to make you gay
unless you want to be or are already turned on by that kind of
stimuli. *Thought break. Take a mental breath.*
Same thing with MM. You're not going to go kill someone just
because you watch the show. But you already know that, otherwise,
you wouldn't have said...
> Oh, MYRKE, you poor naive booby, you cry (I'm banking on you
> crying this) ART doesn't motivate people to committ crimes... or
> sins...or... Well, I'm going to have to refer you to the copycat
> killings attributed to NATURAL BORN KILLERS. Yes, people who claimed
> that they went on killing sprees to be "like Mickey and Mallory." AND,
> if ART doesn't motivate people to committ crimes, can we be sure it
> triggers any kind of cathartic effect?
* <shrug> Who knows? Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder.
I sincerely wish to pull out my hair and scream when listening
to Country music. Other people listen to nothing but. It's a
matter of taste. Or lack thereof.
***snip***
> If you don't want to respond to this, I understand. I get the
> impression that I'm annoying you. I only followed up on the original
> post because it looked so vulnerable. Kinda brought out the predator
> in me. So, if you want to quit, that's okay by me. I want to go back
> to lurking and laughing anyway.
* As your comments, brought out my reactions. Ain't this fun?
Kinda what the whole UseNet concept is all about. I DO love this
place!
> Lest any of the women here misconstrue my remarks about NJP's
> brainpower above, let me state for the record. I THINK NICK PEDICINI
> IS TRES SMART TOO!!!!
* Well, I've yet to see anyone who doesn't appreciate Nick.
Even when you disagree with him, you gotta appreciate him. (That's
a compliment, Nick.)
>
> MYRKE
>
> I kneel down laughing three times a day facing Vancouver.
deb...or whatever.
(Who just likes to laugh. Especially at myself.)
Marcus Wiseman
- Bernardine wrote:
> I had the same preconception of what Millennium would be "about"
> originally, I'm not sure where it hailed from either, I assume some
> pre-publicity. As for focus, it's true that the show has already been
> wavering in its focus since it's launch and with only 9 episodes in
> (and given some resituation even in that period of time) I'm still
> thinking that we have yet to see the fine-tuning. I think that will
> come.
>
> In regard to a documentary approach to the genesis of criminal
> insanity/the serial killer/anti-social personality/psychotic you'll
> never see the show do that (I hope). The show is not really about
> serial-killers per se, but rather that they are used in symbolism of
> threat, danger and violence (or so I believe, anyway). I did see a
> great documentary on TLC or A&E recently about Dahmer and the
> psychological analysis of his mental illness and the creation of his
> criminal behaviour. This was more in line with the type of
> enlightenment you're discussing.
>
> - Bernardine
> (who never ceases to be amazed by how MANY Canadians are on this
> newsgroup)
- Bernardine:
- I saw that program and yes, you're right. I don't suppose psychological insight is in store for me - well, no matter.
- I DO think OUR idea for the series might have been more interesting because it would have appealed both to short and long-term viewers, it has current cultural significance, AND it appeals to the conspiracy fears in us all (esp we X-Philes).
- Maybe if CC is reading ... we could get jobs writing a new treatment for him?? (LOL)
- MJW
- (still from Canada)
Marcus Wiseman
- I thought I might add a couple of my cents worth; I must say I am inpressed with the thoughtfulness of everyone's comments to date.
- When I first heard of Millenium, last year (before it was in production probably), I was under the impression that the show was more about the discovery of a dark, and possibly supernatural, underworld, working toward some gothic plan, as the world turns toward the new millenium. That is to say, the program would be about a supernatural conspiracy that is accidentally discovered by Black. The episodes would feature what seemed like isolated crimes (horrific murders, gore) that seemed to the police as merely the work of psychos, but were as Balck discovered part of an intricate plot. I don't have the foggiest idea where I got this idea - but this stuck wth me.
- Sadly, the program has turned out to be half of this; horriffic and violent without (seemingly) focus. Barbara said: "... aside from Frank and his desire to stem the flood of horror he witnesses, I think his family is the real ray of hope. Not in a symbolic sense only, but in the way that Frank is attempting to create a place of peace and stability for Jordan and Catherine..." I think this is very true but I have to say, "So what?" I don't mean this derisively - I mean, is this enough? Don't get me wrong, I love the show but I find I watch it because I'm hoping to gain insights into 'why' the crimes are committed, to what lengths the criminal will go, and most importantly why. But each time I'm disappointed, each time I find the reason I'm given is "the person is disturbed," or has "been abused," or is "psychotic." This doesn't give me more than what I started with and leaves me being little more than a voyeur. It leaves me disappointed.
- MJW
Marcus Wiseman
- LOL !
Bernardine
Mac Nooge <ssi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Bernadine and Alan's discussion was too fascinating not to comment. I
>apologize for length.
>Bernardine wrote:
>>
>> "Alan Hurshman" <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> wrote:
>What we are really discussing is a matter of expanding technology and
>news. Bernadine's point:
>that it is not the crime specifically
>> that we fear, but rather that we learn that it could happen to us.
<snip>
>...is really more about the fact that electronic media has increased our
>KNOWLEDGE of crimes committed. In the days of slower spread of
>information, an individual's judgement regarding the frequency of crime
>was limited to his/her locale, word-of-mouth, and slow letters from
>afar. None of these compare to the instaneous manner we learn of such
>incidents as the OK bombings or the Lepine massacre.
This is true, although the impact stays the same. It is arguable too
that our personal fields have expanded to the extent that (with air
travel, etc.) we know *live* in a larger personal geographic space.
So that what happens in the Middle East is still quite distant from me
in terms of personal impact, what happens in OK may be much closer to
"home". I might even have friends or relatives living in OK, and just
think about how the internet will facilitate this increasing space.
<snip>
>Here I think you've hit it---we now believe crime is *random.* Whether
>or not criminal acts are rally on the increase, whether or not we live
>in a more dangerous society than our forebears, we *do* live in a
>society which is unable to pinpoint the cause of its troubles. In some
>cases, we do try to rationalize---it happens to bad people, only sick
>people cause crime---but we lack the certainty that once existed that
>crime is understandable (no matter how repugnant the rationalizations of
>the past regarding crime may seem today, they did provide a framework of
>certainty about the world's workings).
And even with your population-based fears you mention above such as,
say, nuclear devestation -- somehow those types of fears were either
still within the individual's control, or they were so far beyond the
individual's control that they were impossible to be truly concerned
with. You built your bomb shelter, you stocked it with dry goods, you
hoped for the best. The attack (if it ever came) would be impersonal
and would kill everyone, not just you and your family.
I've failed to explain one thing well thus far, because Alan is still
trying to illustrate what we should _rationally_ fear: that fear does
not have to be rational and it certainly doesn't have to be based on
measurable risk. And when I say *fear* in terms of my experience, it
should be clear that I am not talking about some panic or anxiety
disorder where people (or I) live huddled in their homes. I am simply
talking about a new horror/threat that has been given life by someone
determined to terrorize and that that new reality (for someone) has
been incorporated into a realm of possibility.
In my lifetime (which you have to understand has been lived in toto
within a highly developed social world in a western society) it was
not within my realm of belief that someone would blow up an office
building and target a daycare on the second floor so as to wreak the
MOST horror and vengeance that they possibly could. If they had told
me this is grade school, I would have spent days and weeks crying over
it (actually I did when it happened). Now that it has happened, I have
to say to myself that it CAN happen, because it DID happen. It
doesn't mean that it will happen to me, it just means that
scientifically speaking, the danger and the threat are real (though
not measurable).
>And (following Bernadine's lead and desperately trying to get back on
>topic:)) this very uncertainty about the world's workings drives both
>MIllenium and the X-Files, although the two programmes have different
>apporaches; the X-Files, in fact, suggests there IS something driving
>seemingly "random" violence (the plots and undertakings of the
>Consortioum and others) even though we can't fully fathom these schemes.
>MIllenium is perhaps more frightening and more depressing because (the
>few times I've watched the show) it tends to play up the very randomness
>of crime and violence.
>In short, the X-Files says "The Truth is out there---even if we can't
>fully understand it."
> Millenium says "Is there any truth at all?"
Well done. And the other truth about Millennium (and real life) is
the terror that comes of not being able to defend ourselves. As you
note earlier, there is an increased horror in not knowing where the
threat emanates from or why and this also creates an inability to
protect ourselves. Perhaps this is also part of the allure of
Millennium, at a more subconscious level? Frank Black and Millennium
Group "protecting us" from the evils that we can't even see, can't
even measure. Maybe that's the sense of hope that some people are
gleaning from the show.
Beagle, you really are a very good (and smart) dog. I would be happy
to scratch your belly anytime, and if you ever have puppies let me
know :)
- Bernardine
Merna/Michael Anderson
In <32D3F0...@crs.loc.gov> Lee Burwasser <lburw...@crs.loc.gov>
writes:
>
>Stephen Beaupre wrote:
>
>[[snip ]]
>> I watched the first 3-4 and gave up as soon as I felt I could
>> sit down and write one myself. Here are the basic building blocks.
>
> [[ snip *wicked* send-up ]]
>
>> Have I forgotten anything?
>
>Not on the plotting level. There is also a characterisation problem.
>The star is a competent actor with a nice, lived-in face and an OK
>voice, and the character he plays is sympathetic. Hey, it's a good
>thing Frank is married and on the other side of the continent, because
>if I were Scully I'd ditch Mulder, Skinner and the whole
>testosterone-raging Bureau to follow a normal, mature man like Frank.
>(Normal? Well, compared to Mulder.) So why is Milennium so boring?
>
>Partly the serial-killer-of-the-week effect (pause while I giggle over
>Steve B's post again). But also because the only thing worth looking
at
>is our viewpoint himself; we're trying to study a pair of binoculars
>through those same binoculars. It doesn't work.
WOW! I love this!
Frank's wife is a
>stereotype Cop's Wife. His contact -- not close enough for a partner
--
>is never filled in enough to tell us whether we want to get into his
>head or not. His neighbor makes his wife look innovative. I can
>understand why Frank Black wants his surroundings to stay bland, but
not
>why anyone would think we want to watch them.
>
>
>Lee Burwasser lburw...@crs.loc.gov
>*working stiff--don't blame me for policy*
If there is anything I could enjoy as much as the send-up it's this.
Thank you, Lee.
David Sugarman
Bernardine wrote:
> So let's just say that I feel that our society is
> failing because we continue to live in fear, and in a culture as
> technologically advanced as ours, that should not be the case. I
> believe in a society where I don't have to fear daycare bombings, and
> even if my forefathers had all the same problems 150 years ago, I
> don't want them today.
It seems clear to me that the level of technological advancement in any
given society has no relation to the moral or ethical standing of that
society, and I think it may be naive to expect any correlation.
Technology is "easy" because it is the discovery and application of
rational principles to this world. Morality and ethics, however, have a
very large irrational and emotional component, making them more
difficult to deal with, and I don't really see very much real
improvement in all of recorded history. In fact, technological
advancement makes our moral and ethical deficiencies all the more
horrifying. (But I do believe in technological progress.)
As long as humans are mortal, we will be in fear--fear of death -- our
own and that of those we love. I have to say that I agree with Alan's
comments on this point; that is, we probably have less to fear today
than in the past. Perhaps having less to fear overall makes those fears
which remain that much more terrifying.
--David
achase
In article <NEWTNews.852670...@paprika.roch875.mc.xerox.com>, MoJo
> Millennium instead. CC is clearly so determined to cram this
> piece of garbage down our throats that he's (1) given it X-Files' Friday time
> slot and then (2) when we wouldn't watch it THERE, he actually
> *pre-empted* X-Files in its new time slot to try again to force us to watch
> it.
>
> Well, CC, it didn't work the first time, and it didn't work the second time.
> I just did what I do every Friday at 9PM...I changed the channel.
>
It's pretty naive of you to think that CC had anything to do with these
programming decisions. The guy does not run the Fox network, fer cryin'
out loud! He merely produces two shows out of the many that are aired on
Fox. A bunch of guys in suits were responsible for the Friday to Sunday
change and all other programming decisions. --anne
Gia Gittleson
Stephen Beaupre wrote:
>
> I say Millenium is not dark enough. I can still see it.
> Millenium is a just a boring piece of predictable product with
> nice production values. Nothing more. They are all the same.
>
> I watched the first 3-4 and gave up as soon as I felt I could
> sit down and write one myself. Here are the basic building blocks.
>
> that stalks video store clerks. Fine, sounds good.
>
> 2) Run the annoying 'what the killer sees, only in fast forward'
> special effect for the first time (repeat every 12 minutes).
>
> 3) Cut to Frank's house. He's putting the kid to bed, fixing the
> toaster, learning the Macarena, whatever. Frank is happy. Well,
> as happy as he gets. The phone rings.
>
> 4) Mucho serious eye contact with wife as he packs his carry-on
> luggage. Gotta go, yadda-yadda. Frank is not happy.
>
> 5) Frank tours crime scene. Sees some of those fast forward
> special effects. Frank is confused and, well, not happy.
>
> 6) Oh, almost forgot. Keep killing those video store clerks.
> You might also want to have the killer send Frank his own
> video -- yeah, that's the ticket.
>
> 6) Frank's in his home office busily downloading jpgs of murder
> scenes blowing them up, movin' them around . . hey, what's that!
>
> 7) Wife comes in. She's concerned, yadda-yadda.
>
> 8) Frank has a breakthrough! He has to, there is only 14 minutes
> left in the show. The killer is ________
>
> 9) Big exciting Frank confronts the killer scene. Bodies everywhere.
> Rando biblical imagery. Frank's just in time, or maybe he's not.
> Doesn't really matter. Dark. Wet streets.
>
> 10) Next week -- Someone is killing short order cooks! Call Frank!
>
> Have I forgotten anything?
>
> Stephen Beaupre
> Cat-Head Comics
> http://world.std.com/~cathead
ROTFLMAO!
best,
Gia
Gia Gittleson
Marcus Wiseman wrote:
>
> I thought I might add a couple of my cents worth; I must say I am
> inpressed with the thoughtfulness of everyone's comments to date.
>
> When I first heard of Millenium, last year (before it was in production
> probably), I was under the impression that the show was more about the
> discovery of a dark, and possibly supernatural, underworld, working
> toward some gothic plan, as the world turns toward the new millenium.
> That is to say, the program would be about a supernatural conspiracy
> that is accidentally discovered by Black. The episodes would feature
> what seemed like isolated crimes (horrific murders, gore) that seemed to
> the police as merely the work of psychos, but were as Balck discovered
> part of an intricate plot. I don't have the foggiest idea where I got
> this idea -
probably from the boatloads of hype this summer
>but this stuck wth me.
>
> Sadly, the program has turned out to be half of this; horriffic and
> violent without (seemingly) focus. Barbara said: "... aside from Frank
> and his desire to stem the flood of horror he witnesses, I think his
> family is the real ray of hope. Not in a symbolic sense only, but in
> the way that Frank is attempting to create a place of peace and
> stability for Jordan and Catherine..." I think this is very true but I
> have to say, "So what?"
No, no, the line is "who cares?" !!
>I don't mean this derisively - I mean, is this
> enough? Don't get me wrong, I love the show but I find I watch it
> because I'm hoping to gain insights into 'why' the crimes are committed,
> to what lengths the criminal will go, and most importantly why. But
> each time I'm disappointed, each time I find the reason I'm given is
> "the person is disturbed," or has "been abused," or is "psychotic."
> This doesn't give me more than what I started with and leaves me being
> little more than a voyeur. It leaves me disappointed.
>
> MJW
>
best,
Gia
-Ezekiel Drive-
David Sugarman
Pardon me for interjecting, but I feel compelled being from OK.
Bernardine wrote:
<snip>
> in terms of personal impact, what happens in OK may be much closer to
> "home". I might even have friends or relatives living in OK,
<snip>
> In my lifetime (which you have to understand has been lived in toto
> within a highly developed social world in a western society) it was
> not within my realm of belief that someone would blow up an office
> building and target a daycare on the second floor so as to wreak the
> MOST horror and vengeance that they possibly could. If they had told
> me this is grade school, I would have spent days and weeks crying over
> it (actually I did when it happened). Now that it has happened, I have
> to say to myself that it CAN happen, because it DID happen.
I live 20 miles from the bombing site. As a lawyer, I have friends who
could easily have been in the building when the bomb exploded
Fortunately, none were, though several felt and heard the blast, and I
can assure you that I was in fear for hours until I accounted for them.
It is possible that I could have had reason to be in the building at the
time. What struck me then, and still does, is how close all of us really
are to the horrors of tragedy. No matter how "highly developed" our
"social world" is, we are only an instant away from this abyss. For me,
knowledge of this fact, although uncomfortable, is a necessary part of
living. I think being reminded of this makes a lot of people very
uncomfortable, and I feel that this is exactly what Millennium is doing,
reminding us how close we are to the horror, with the consequence that
lots of folks are put off by it.
But I think this just goes back to what others like Nick and Alan have
said previously in this thread, so I will quit and defer and refer to
their wisdom.
--David
Denise A. Agnew
In article <01bbfcb5$0d59f520$461e...@devel1.Psychology.Dal.Ca>, Alan
Hurshman <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> writes
>Bernardine <pett...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote in article <5ar313$e...@news.istar.ca>...
>>
>> I just have to add to this. I think Myrke's ER/The Operation example
>> is elucidating. Is Millennium entertainment or is it a loosely
>> dramatized education? I have chosen to approach it as the latter
>
>Not sure I would view it as education. I do think
>the stories are best watched from a 'distance'. It
>is a show to be puzzled over and experienced not
>entered into and squigged over. But even that is not
>entirely true. Every time I see Frank with Jordan I
>have to remind myself that she is not his daughter
>in real life. The family is _very_ well constructed.
>I think casting must be one of Carter's great talents.
>
>snip....
>
>> We worry about the world we see deteriorating around us, we worry
>> about keeping our children safe in it. We wait for someone else to do
>> something about it. Who cares? The people locked in their houses and
>> cars doing the worrying -- the ones who are too afraid or "busy" to do
>> anything about it. On an episode by episode basis, it's fair to look
>> at the detail of production in terms of critique. But as an overall
>> series concept I think the litmus test should be this: Carter *IS*
>> trying to shock us, I think out of our complacency or hiding.
>
>It would be interesting to give this 'decline' theme a bit
>of a historical perspective. For all the talk of social break
>down in the the latter half of the 20th centuary things are not
>as bleak as you think (not in Canada, anyway). For example,
>the murder rate in New Yor city was higher in 1860 than it
>is today and the slums were far worse and much more dangerous.
>A hundred years ago political corruption was much worse as
>was street violence, even in Canada. People did not put shutters
>on their widows as decorations, they were there for the same
>reason some people bar their windows today. Maybe Carter
>should do a Time Tunnel type show next.
>
the horrors of the past and that not everything was so rosy in the "good
ole' days."
--
Denise A. Agnew
David Sugarman
The Forsaker wrote:
> fors...@gate.net
> "We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge
> of the desert when the drugs began to take hold." H.S.T.
Wow!! I thought that I was the only person who still liked H.S.T.and
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas......a *great* book. Glad there are more
of us around.
--David
Nick Pedicini
deering <dee...@superlink.net> wrote in article
<5avqh9$e7k$1...@earth.superlink.net>...
> Merna/Michael Anderson (my...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : In <01bbfbc9$680e8180$37d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
> : <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>
> too many dramatic departments to quite qualify there--:).
Well, again, I think we're confusing "high art" with art period. You can
argue that it's "bad" art, certainly, but not because it doesn't fit a
standard set of modern narrative parameters. It's difficult, if not
impossible, to "care" about characters in Le Mort D'Artur. That does make
it a work that doesn't play well in this century but it doesn't make it
non-art or bad art. Art isn't that limited. There is little point in
arguing that characters which are not meant to be sympathized with "aren't
sympathetic."
NJP
Alyssa Fernandez
Maria Vitale wrote:
>
> Henriksen [n.b.: correct spelling :)] handles his portrayal of Frank
> as best he can. I think he's dead-on right for the role. My only
> objection is to the overall darkness of the show. Were Frank to truly
> be so consumed by the horrors of the world, the evil that lurks in
> the hearts of men, the general shitiness of life outside of his yellow
> haven -- I doubt he'd be able to stay away long from a straight-jacket.
> His bright spot in the universe is his family. All I ask is that the
> men lighten up a little when he's at home.
Yes! Thank you, Maria! I share your opinion. While I understand that
the show needs to strike a realistic balance between the disturbing
world of Frank's work and the idyllic refuge of his family life, so far
the show has erred by coming down too strongly on the side of work. In
interviews, CC has indicated that the whole point in giving Frank an
understanding wife, an angelic child, and a yellow house was to provide
contrast with the evil outside. Yet the contrast is dulled--Frank
rarely cracks a smile, and when and Catherine talk, it is ALWAYS about
something deep and solemn. They act more like co-workers than Mulder
and Scully do. Why can't we see them sharing a laugh, flicking water at
one another as they do the dinner dishes, giggling together about
something surprising Jordan has done? Frank is a family man with a
beautiful little child and an attractive wife. CC should let him enjoy
a cold beer now and then when he is off-duty.
Alyssa,
Who would really rather seem them doing it on the kitchen table, but
figures we should start small.
David Sugarman
The Forsaker wrote:
> fors...@gate.net
> "We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge
> of the desert when the drugs began to take hold." H.S.T.
Wow!! And I thought that I was the only person left who liked H.S.T. and
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.....a *great* book. Glad there are still
some around.
--David
deering
Merna/Michael Anderson (my...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <01bbfbc9$680e8180$37d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
: <jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
: >> >Yes, yes, and that's what the show is about. Evil vs Good pure and
: >> simple. Call it want you want. In your face confrontation. Catharsis
: >>of pity an terror. The unvarnished face of terror.
[. . .]
: >Look up the words "catharsis" "confrontation" and "to show"
: If, Mr. Pedicini,
: you are using "catharsis" in the Aristotlean sense, that is: "the
: effect of art in purifying the emotions (applied by Aristotle to the
: relief or purgation of the emotions of the audience or performers
: affected through through pity and terror by tragedy and certain kinds
: of music)", I'll have to take your word for it that that is, in fact,
: what MLLNNM does.
. . .if one could call Mil. "art," that is, and I think it fails in far
too many dramatic departments to quite qualify there--:). Writer Lawrence
Block (whose thrillers display a realism and knowledge of severely-
flawed people who fight evil in the face of their failings--and that CC
would do well take
note of) noted awhile back that if a writer created a story in which a
reader couldn't care if the characters "lived, married, burned, died, or
went to the other side," then that writer had failed on the most
fundamental level of good storytelling. It's not enough to tell an
audience "Well, you should like these characters because they represent
`good,'" and automatically expect them to care. Mil. gives us absolutely
no reason to give a damm about the leads here because CC hasn't given them
enough personality or realism for us to see ourselves in them and relate
to them as people.
As I said before, I only watched the pilot. Taking
: your assessment of MLLNNM as my guide (just because I'm a reasonable
: person) I am still left pondering the question, "Why does CC seem to
: lavish so much production value on the horror? He seems, as a
: producer, to strive to make the act of ritual killing as much a work of
: art AS A SERIAL KILLER DOES. This is why I made the crack about
: Jeffrey Dahmer operating out of your living room. Does MLLLLNNNM
: really purge the emotions"? How can it do so while it is
: simultaneously fondling the horror?
_Exactly_. CC seems to have put way more effort into researching
methods of murder (and finding innumerable, interminable "heart of
darkness" literary references--:)) than he has into even making his evil
characters recognizable or interesting _people_.
He hasn't developed anything
enough so that Mil. is an effective expose "on the pathology of
evil;" as a result, the show seems to have nothing else on its mind _but_
showing gore.
C.
**
deering
Nick Pedicini (jny...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > . . .if one could call Mil. "art," that is, and I think it fails in far
: > too many dramatic departments to quite qualify there--:).
: Well, again, I think we're confusing "high art" with art period. You can
: argue that it's "bad" art, certainly, but not because it doesn't fit a
: standard set of modern narrative parameters. It's difficult, if not
: impossible, to "care" about characters in Le Mort D'Artur. That does make
: it a work that doesn't play well in this century but it doesn't make it
: non-art or bad art. Art isn't that limited. There is little point in
: arguing that characters which are not meant to be sympathized with "aren't
: sympathetic."
Er. . .in the definition I quoted from Lawrence Block, he didn't say the
characters had to be "sympathetic"--he said that for a piece of writing to
work, one had to be _interested_ enough in the characters to care about
what happened to them, whether they were good, bad, indifferent people, or
whatever. I bet you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who found the
characters in something like PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT or SHALLOW GRAVE
"sympathetic," but, boy, they
sure are interesting enough to hold one's attention for two hours.
We can argue artistic theory all night, but that still doesn't change the
fundamental fact that Mil. suffers from characters that severely
underdeveloped, and as a result are impossible to give a damm about. IMO,
CC has waited till _way_ too late in the game to start making his leads
interesting people instead of tediously world-weary/beatific stick
figures. The fact that these characters have (slowly) started to develop
reconfirms my suspicions that CC was more interested in the methodology of
gore to push the envelope instead of doing the hard work of dramatic
development.
C.
**
Mj Wells
Please take this discussion to ALT.TV.MILLENNIUM!!!!!
In <01bbfdc8$6218ce60$24d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> "Nick Pedicini"
<jny...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Stephen Beaupre <bea...@share.enet.dec.com> wrote in article
><32D2B3...@share.enet.dec.com>...
>
>
>> I say Millenium is not dark enough. I can still see it.
>> Millenium is a just a boring piece of predictable product with
>> nice production values. Nothing more. They are all the same.
>>
>>
>> Have I forgotten anything?
>>
>
>yes yes and Moby Dick is a boring yarn about a big fish and the Mona
Lisa
>is an ugly old picture of a fat italian lady and The Rite of Spring
sounds
>like a bunch of cats somebody dropped a buick on.......
>
>
>moral superiority?
>
>
>NJP
Nick Pedicini
> Nick Pedicini (jny...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : > . . .if one could call Mil. "art," that is, and I think it fails in
far
> : > too many dramatic departments to quite qualify there--:).
>
>
>
> fundamental fact that Mil. suffers from characters that severely
> underdeveloped, and as a result are impossible to give a damm about. IMO,
> CC has waited till _way_ too late in the game to start making his leads
> interesting people instead of tediously world-weary/beatific stick
> figures. The fact that these characters have (slowly) started to develop
> reconfirms my suspicions that CC was more interested in the methodology
of
> gore to push the envelope instead of doing the hard work of dramatic
> development.
>
You'll pardon me if I suggest that you missed the point. You're still
looking for standard 20th century dramatic characters to identify with and
feel for and criticizing the show for not having them. Is it really that
hard for people to understand that that may not be what is going on here?
That the "stick" figures are portraying a set of attitudes and ideas and
that the interest is in the interplay between them and not in some sort of
emotional attachment to Our Favorite Detective and his Wife, Kid and Dog.
Hell, I don't think this show will last, certainly not the way it started
out and I wrote that in the very first thing I posted. I don't think this
kind of approach will appeal to enough people or is sustainable over time
(I do agree with you about the character touches beginning to creep in.)
What I find abyssmally depressing is that so many people seem so
close-minded when it comes to the possibility that Carter may have tried
something different. Too many people want this to be some sort of NYPD Blue
version of The X Files. It may end up that way but, personally, I think
that would be a pity.
NJP
JN Cotton
In <Pine.A32.3.93.970108...@dakota.gate.net> The For
>Oh thank whatever power we care to name that you aren't so evil and
>depraved to enjoy this show, too bad about those of us hell-bound
>individuals who _do_ like it. I think the recent spate of IBM Santa
Claus
>commercials are evil too.
>
Well, I may not agree with you on Millenium, but I'm with you 100
percent on the IBM/Santa thing.
Please, Virginia, tell me there isn't a techno-geek Santa?
nancy (no clever sig)
Bernardine
David Sugarman <ok...@telepath.com> wrote:
>It seems clear to me that the level of technological advancement in any
>given society has no relation to the moral or ethical standing of that
>society, and I think it may be naive to expect any correlation.
David, my point was not that they should be correlated, but rather
that if we are capable of building such great things, we should be
_capable_ of growing things. That we have focussed our attentions on
industry and finance and ignored humanity. There's an Einstein quote
in the film Powder (starring LANCE HENRICKSON <staying on topic>)
which states (paraphrasing) *It is painfully apparent that our
technology has out-evolved our humanity.*
>As long as humans are mortal, we will be in fear--fear of death -- our
>own and that of those we love. I have to say that I agree with Alan's
>comments on this point; that is, we probably have less to fear today
>than in the past. Perhaps having less to fear overall makes those fears
>which remain that much more terrifying.
Absolutely agree on the last point. Still, if we had spent half of
the money we spend killing each other in scientific exploration of the
human spirit/soul/energy/essence, perhaps not. Perhaps we would know
what happens after death, and then would not fear it so much at all.
- Bernardine
Nick Pedicini
Gia Gittleson
Nick Pedicini wrote:
>
> Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> <32D2F6...@earthlink.net>...
> > Nick Pedicini wrote:
> > >
> > > Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> >
> >
> > Funny, Nick, I'm always on the look-out for grand themes, allegory,
> metaphor WRT to arts
> > and culture. It's part of my job. I expected, at the very least, CC to
> work out some
> > Manechean cosmology in MLLNNM. But this is a poorly-developed show.
> >
>
> well, one person's allegory is another person's anarchic cosmology, or so
> it would seem. (btw. I already know that you've got something to do with
> creative writing. I don't. I sell things for a living.)
>
> > So, there is no message, but in your book, there is allegory. As I see no
> allegory or
> > parables getting play here, I merely see boring TV. I think, Nick, you
> give CC too much
> > credit. Don't take offense, though, I used to as well.
>
> yup, no boring good versus evil here. Nothing to be found in the contrast
> of Frank's righteousness and Blecher's pragmatism. Dead air in the
> interaction between Catherine's empathy and Frank's stoicness. Forget the
> bomber as a symbol of the destructive path of the suicidal thrill seeker.
> The Judge? Hey, Magnum Force did it neater and had Eastwood too.
>
> i remember you being a little more positive about this show at the
> beginning. it seems to me that you were looking for a something much more
> oriented towards the biblical.
Actually, I had referred to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes (who had
their time in the sun exactly 2 millennia ago.) They were promoting some
heavy ideas about the Messiah (a man who could look into the hearts of
men)and Righteousness amid bat-shit crazy times.
(and people think my citing of allegory is
> arcane.....) (btw, I never take offense at ad hominem however thickly
> veiled. I just say to myself that it's one of those things that bankrupt
> debaters feel obliged to use.....)
>
> > I'm getting to the point I might turn it off. But it's fun to get into
> CC's head. Couple
> > the posssible fact that MLLNNM articulates CC's POV w/ his oft-uttered
> statment: "I'm a
> > nonreligious person in search of a religious experience." This is why I
> watch. CC has
> > exhorted us in TXF to "Trust No One" and question authority. Needless to
> say, CC
> > represents a kind of authority, a man who's getting his meme, his
> cosmology, his POV
> > beamed out to the universe. (Funny, how TV works.) As a result, 1013
> product and its
> > attendant fanaticism deserves analysis.
> >
> >
>
> Never said it didn't. Providing that it *is* analysis and not simply the
> down-crying of the mob.
>
> NJP
best,
Gia
-Ezekiel Drive-
Nick Pedicini
Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<32D2F6...@earthlink.net>...
> Nick Pedicini wrote:
> >
> > Gia Gittleson <gi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
>
>
> Funny, Nick, I'm always on the look-out for grand themes, allegory,
metaphor WRT to arts
> and culture. It's part of my job. I expected, at the very least, CC to
work out some
> Manechean cosmology in MLLNNM. But this is a poorly-developed show.
>
well, one person's allegory is another person's anarchic cosmology, or so
it would seem. (btw. I already know that you've got something to do with
creative writing. I don't. I sell things for a living.)
> So, there is no message, but in your book, there is allegory. As I see no
allegory or
> parables getting play here, I merely see boring TV. I think, Nick, you
give CC too much
> credit. Don't take offense, though, I used to as well.
yup, no boring good versus evil here. Nothing to be found in the contrast
of Frank's righteousness and Blecher's pragmatism. Dead air in the
interaction between Catherine's empathy and Frank's stoicness. Forget the
bomber as a symbol of the destructive path of the suicidal thrill seeker.
The Judge? Hey, Magnum Force did it neater and had Eastwood too.
i remember you being a little more positive about this show at the
beginning. it seems to me that you were looking for a something much more
oriented towards the biblical. (and people think my citing of allegory is
Hacikyan Stephen
Well Aren't you impressed like I am that this show was able to create such
controversy? I can't remember any other show that was able to do this. You
either love or you don't. That's what's so great about it. I respect your
feelings about it but I do think that you should judge after seeing more
than 5 minutes of it. They do it on purpose to capture the audience (or
lose it in your case) by making it so powerful in the first few minutes
before the first commercial. You should give it one more chance and dig a
little deeper in to the show. I have to say though that X-files is a
better show but don't you remember the beginnings of X-Files? I have to
hand it to Chris Carter... Only he can create such shows.
Respectfully,
Stephen
On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, MoJo wrote:
>
> In Article<32CF30...@earthlink.net>, <gi...@earthlink.net> write:
>
>
> > Repulsed is the word. To use a tape of a woman pleading for her life---and
> replay said
> > tape over and over again----smacked of the same societal sickness the
> protagonist
> > purports to try to irradicate. Nancy, I agree with you. This is not
> entertainment. This
> > is aural voyeurism for the debased among us.
> >
>
> I have tried to express this myself, though nowhere near as eloquently
> as you managed to say it. The characters in this program are nothing more
> than a method of tying together the *real* stars of the show...the constant
> gratuitous gore, both physical and emotional. This is the only *real* kind
> of pornography that exists, and it has absolutely NO redeeming social value.
>
> I turned on the TV Sunday night, expecting to see X-Files, and there was
> Millennium instead. CC is clearly so determined to cram this
> piece of garbage down our throats that he's (1) given it X-Files' Friday time
> slot and then (2) when we wouldn't watch it THERE, he actually
> *pre-empted* X-Files in its new time slot to try again to force us to watch
> it.
>
> Well, CC, it didn't work the first time, and it didn't work the second time.
> I just did what I do every Friday at 9PM...I changed the channel.
>
> This program is not entertaining, it is evil. I can see someone like Ted
> Bundy enjoying it, but the kind of person it appeals to is clearly the kind
> of person I am not...and for that I thank whatever power you care to name...
>
> And no, folks, I am not a prude, nor am I a religious nut, nor am I just
> 'too unsophisicated to appreciate quality programming', as other posters
> here have blathered. I enjoy well-made sci-fi, mysteries, and horror. I read
> a LOT of books in all three genres.
>
> This program does to me what I can't remember any other program doing, ever,
> in my whole life. It makes me sick. The few minutes I saw on Sunday, before
> I changed the channel, made me want to get up and take a shower...as if I'd
> touched something long-dead and corrupt.
>
> MJ
>
>
>
"The truth is out there"
David Sugarman
I think we really agree, but are just approaching from different
directions. I agree that we have focused on industry and technology and
ignored humanity, and that we are capable of better. But I just think
that this will require learning to deal with and control our own
irrational and emotional natures, and that this will be much more
difficult than developing technology. So far, we have failed miserably,
as the last century so eloquently proves. I am hopeful that this will be
achieved, and I believe most others hope for the same, but it looks to
be a long and painful process, and whether the human race has the
overall will to achieve it remains to be seen.
Well, at least we can watch X-Files and/or Millennium (for those who
like it) while we wait.
--David
Alan Hurshman
Nick Pedicini <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bbfdd5$1bdf48e0$24d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Hell, I don't think this show will last, certainly not the way it started
> out and I wrote that in the very first thing I posted. I don't think this
> kind of approach will appeal to enough people or is sustainable over time
I think this would work better in the format used
for some of the better British detective shows - 3
or 4 episodes a year with each episode being 2 hours
long. It would give them more time to play with the
relationships and atmosphere and the apparent sameness
of each episode would be less .... apparent.
--
Alan Hurshman,
The Spa, X-Ville.
(Halifax, Nova Scotia)
catherine yronwode
Lee Burwasser wrote:
>
> Stephen Beaupre wrote:
>
> [[snip ]]
> > I watched the first 3-4 and gave up as soon as I felt I could
> > sit down and write one myself. Here are the basic building blocks.
>
I loved that, too...
> > Have I forgotten anything?
>
> Not on the plotting level. There is also a characterisation problem.
> The star is a competent actor with a nice, lived-in face and an OK
> voice, and the character he plays is sympathetic.
I disagree. The character is NOT sympathetic. He is a depresso.
> So why is Milennium so boring?
> Partly the serial-killer-of-the-week effect (pause while I giggle over
> Steve B's post again).
Me too...
> But also because the only thing worth looking at
> is our viewpoint himself; we're trying to study a pair of binoculars
> through those same binoculars. It doesn't work. Frank's wife is a
> stereotype Cop's Wife.
Nah, she's more boring than the cop's wives/lovers/friends on "Homicide:
Life in the Streets."
> His contact -- not close enough for a partner --
> is never filled in enough to tell us whether we want to get into his
> head or not.
That's going some. I'd say (and i stopped watching after 3 1/2 episodes)
that he is a cipher with bad dialogue. Maybe things have improved since
i quit, but it doesn;t sound like it.
> His neighbor makes his wife look innovative.
My one hope was that the neighbor would turn out to be a serial killer
and would off the entire cast, starting with the Black family, allowing
the guys from "Homicide: Life on the Streets" to come in and solve the
murders.
That having failed to happen, i next hoped that the neighbor would turn
out to be paranormal and so would the Black child and they'd duke it out
on the astral planes, destroying the entire cast in the process and then
Fox Mulder and Dana Scully would be called in to nvestigate.
Well, i can dream...
--
catherine yronwode * mailto:c...@luckymojo.com * http://www.luckymojo.com
* The Lucky W Amulet Archive: http://www.luckymojo.com/LuckyW.html *
* The Sacred Landscape: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html *
* Karezza and Tantra: http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html *
for discussions about folkloric magic, ask your ISP for news:alt.lucky.w
Robb Albrecht
I dont think Chris Carter has anything to do with programming on FOX
Robb
Jason Chen
Hi,
Just wanted to voice a few thoughts about Millenium. As background, I've been
a fan of the X-Files for 3 or so years now, and think it's a great show that
keeps getting better. I saw all the advertising for Millenium, not only on
TV, but on public transportation (buses). I didn't know what to expect, but I
didn't think that the show would be able to compare with the X-files.
I did not see the first 4 or so episodes, and didn't bother to tape them. The
first episode I saw was the one in with the incest story in which Catherine is
the main figure in the episode. I've watched three other episodes after that
one.
I am completely mezmerized by Millenium. I think that it is one of the best
shows on television (I used to like Party of Five, but it's slipped a bit in
my mind). Yes, Millenium is dark, but that is precisely what makes it such a
great show. The X-files always remains in a fantasy world because of the
large number of supernatural/paranormal phenomena that occurs. While I am a
believer in UFO's and aliens, I still don't allow myself to be completely
immersed in the X-files. However, with Millenium, I am able to drink in the
darkness and sit after each episode saying to myself, "Wow..." Millenium does
not really engage in any type of supernatural phenomena--the crimes are
committed by ordinary, albeit psychologically impaired, humans. For this
reason, the show is tremendously believable.
Furthermore, I don't understand some of your critiques about not being able to
identify with the characters--I would and do think that this show offers a
MUCH closer look at the personal lives, i.e. families, of the characters.
Just a few of my thoughts.
Jason
Goat of Death
my...@ix.netcom.com (Merna/Michael Anderson) wrote:
I would just like to say one thing. Watch another fucking episode. You are
carrying on and blabbering about how Millennium sucks based on seeing the pilot
alone. You give people like me who hate it for 'real' reasons a bad name. You
come off as sounding close minded and foolish. Which you may be I don't know
but you can't damn a show on the basis of one experience with it. Get a clue
and watch some more. Then you'll really hate it.
Official X-Ville Network Admin
Crusader for government subsidized T3 spinal jacks and original founder
of the "Learn UNIX at Birth" movement.
Past Sorrow, Beyond Regret. Above Time and Eternity
All are Equal before Death
Demon
--
Step up to the Altar at (http://www.suba.com/~demon/)
Nick Pedicini
Goat of Death <de...@suba.com> wrote in article
<5b6rd7$3...@eve.enteract.com>...
> Okay, here is my main biff with Millennium. It is shitty. And I don't
mean
> that in an mood or tone way. I mean it quite simply.
I get no sense of mystery or wonderment. Just a cheap horror and a
> bad attempt at making me see a dark side that is very unconvincingly
portrayed.
>
> There are exceptions to this but as a rule Millennium is not a very good
show.
> I think the main problem I have with it is its attempt at . It was
> cheesy, it was easy, and it was pathetic.
>
> Also it just pisses me off that in standard X-Files fashion everybody
else but
> Frank is a fuckin' idiot. Frank's cop friend with Seattle PD couldn't
find his
> own ass if his head were up it. In Dead Letters that depressed to be
divorced
> guy was pathetic. His character was so transparent as to make me sick.
>
> This show takes a relatively decent idea and turns it into a piece of
shit. A
> piece of shit I have sat through many a night and may even continue to
sit
> through on that small hope that I'll get to see Jordan develop a bit of
her
> psychic ability and maybe feel a bit of the greatness I get from watching
the
> X-Files. Granted I didn't say like the X-Files. I want Millennium to be
its
> own show. I just want it to also be a good one.
Well, how does one deal with such a deep, eloquent analysis of the elements
of Millennium?
Does one point out the the title of the Pilot "Peste" recalls the Camus
novel "La Peste" and the comparison between Black and Bernard Rieux, the
stoic doctor who chronicles the Oran pestilence while he goes about his job
trying to hold the horror in check? And would I be remiss in citing the
phony neighbor character, so misread as a threat, as perhaps a humorous run
off of every boob irksome sitcom neighbor from Bob Crane to Valerie Harper
and Carter's way of looking over his shoulder at the perfect home that he
had created for Black?
Does one cite the Gehenna company as a bizarre admixture of the AUM cult
and modern American telemarketing stirred with a Nazi brush to make a
really very interesting comment on capitalism and give new meaning to the
term "corporate burnout?"
I suppose if one thinks that Jim Horn was not a believable character.
Frankly speaking (no pun intended) I thought this effort to give us an
"alternative" Frank was a little thin, but the clown bit and Frank's speech
on dreams to the little girls was an interesting take on horror on tv
versus horror in life? That maybe Horn's hallucinations were his version of
Frank's "gift" gone awry? (And I didn't care for this ep either.)
Well, Kaboom guy. I suppose I would be just flaunting my erudition if I
pointed out that the sexual angle of 5522666 was an interesting take on the
objectifying that masturbation requires--he objectified by turning them
into "art." Or that Morgan and Wong might be making a left handed comment
on the nature of taking horror and turning it into art--that would be what
Millennium itself is, isn't it?
Forget the Judge, I agree with you there.
I suppose Well Worn Lock was damn depressing even with the "happy" ending.
That Catherine, what a wash. Only fourty minutes of screen time. Damn
underutilized wasn't she? Maybe she should have gotten up and made a big
speech there at the end. Something weepy about how we are all at fault and
if we all try real hard maybe this will never happen again......
Bletcher, what a nonentity! No sense having him dog Frank around. That
whole end bit from Wide Open. What a dummy! He couldn't even remember *911!
And that business with the X? Couldn't be another left handed TV comment.
You know.
Or this ep tonight. Boring as hell. Much better to watch that much more
realistic take on the killers-in-flight "Born on the Fourth of July."
Nothing boring there. After all, no REAL killer couple would go on a
killing spree unless they were crazy and out to have a goooooood time.
Yeah, boring show, isn't it? Well, have you tried Profiler? (Not fair,
because I actually like that show)
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
NJP
Goat of Death
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Well, how does one deal with such a deep, eloquent analysis of the elements
>of Millennium?
Excuse me for not choosing to display the all so voluminous vocabulary you seem
to have so well mastered and often use :^| Please humble me more with the
wonders of your intellect.
>Does one point out the the title of the Pilot "Peste" recalls the Camus
>novel "La Peste" and the comparison between Black and Bernard Rieux, the
>stoic doctor who chronicles the Oran pestilence while he goes about his job
>trying to hold the horror in check? And would I be remiss in citing the
>phony neighbor character, so misread as a threat, as perhaps a humorous run
>off of every boob irksome sitcom neighbor from Bob Crane to Valerie Harper
>and Carter's way of looking over his shoulder at the perfect home that he
>had created for Black?
I liked the Pilot better than most being the one of two episodes I actually
watched more than once. I think it was excellently set up but unfortunately
could not be done justice in 44 minutes or so. But who the fuck cares if it
relates back to a novel? What does that prove? That they can steal ideas right
along with the rest of the world? Just because something has parallels with a
novel doesn't make it a good show.
>Does one cite the Gehenna company as a bizarre admixture of the AUM cult
>and modern American telemarketing stirred with a Nazi brush to make a
>really very interesting comment on capitalism and give new meaning to the
>term "corporate burnout?"
Another Pilot. Decent setup, completely forgetting that it is only a 42 min
show and therefore having to half ass the ending.
>I suppose if one thinks that Jim Horn was not a believable character.
>Frankly speaking (no pun intended) I thought this effort to give us an
>"alternative" Frank was a little thin, but the clown bit and Frank's speech
>on dreams to the little girls was an interesting take on horror on tv
>versus horror in life? That maybe Horn's hallucinations were his version of
>Frank's "gift" gone awry? (And I didn't care for this ep either.)
As I said I like Jordan because she has potential. I would like to see that
potential developed.
>Well, Kaboom guy. I suppose I would be just flaunting my erudition if I
>pointed out that the sexual angle of 5522666 was an interesting take on the
>objectifying that masturbation requires--he objectified by turning them
>into "art." Or that Morgan and Wong might be making a left handed comment
>on the nature of taking horror and turning it into art--that would be what
>Millennium itself is, isn't it?
Let's see bomber who is crazy. See's his work as art. A quote comes to mind,
"You spend your entire life preventing the bomb from becoming." I suddenly see
visions of Dennis Hopper and Tommie Lee Jones. I won't even begin to get into
the cheesiness of Catherine listening in over the phone as Frank talks to the
bomber.
>Forget the Judge, I agree with you there.
Funny. I actually liked that one. Mostly because I liked the stentorian actor
whose name escapes me but was in Fallen Angel. Also the distorted vigilante
aspect and the double cross at the end.
>I suppose Well Worn Lock was damn depressing even with the "happy" ending.
>That Catherine, what a wash. Only fourty minutes of screen time. Damn
>underutilized wasn't she? Maybe she should have gotten up and made a big
>speech there at the end. Something weepy about how we are all at fault and
>if we all try real hard maybe this will never happen again......
I could go on for hours about how horrible this episode was. Catherine is a
wash and I'm not talking about time I'm talking about character. I liked her
pulling the truck out in front of the father but I do not get a sense of real
strength from Catherine. Her cheesy motherliness overides any other admirable
qualities she may have. Not that motherliness is bad, her stereotypical version
of it however is. The well worn lock was not depressing it was just plain
stereotypical. Child molestation or the hurting of children is a theme which I
for some reason tend to latch onto and find personally compelling. When people
fuck it up and don't do it justice it makes me angry. Paper Hearts is a perfect
example of doing it right. But in this ep. I felt let down. They took a
situation and an everyday premise and left it just that, everyday. I also hated
the fact that the molested women were so physically unattractive. Not that I
want beautiful women everywhere (Mira Furlan is phenominal) but it just seemed
extremely contrived having these homely women whom had been molested and the
pure untouched little girl being so pretty. Where are the genetics of that?
>Bletcher, what a nonentity! No sense having him dog Frank around. That
>whole end bit from Wide Open. What a dummy! He couldn't even remember *911!
>And that business with the X? Couldn't be another left handed TV comment.
>You know.
Actually I was pretty bored by the end. It had zoned me out way prior to that.
one character besides Watts I actually like was Linsey. I liked her female
deadpan seriousness. She seemed like she would be an effective law enforcement
officer and in a very different manner than Scully. But she still got to play
the standard, come up with incorrect theories for psychic boy to shoot down.
>Or this ep tonight. Boring as hell. Much better to watch that much more
>realistic take on the killers-in-flight "Born on the Fourth of July."
>Nothing boring there. After all, no REAL killer couple would go on a
>killing spree unless they were crazy and out to have a goooooood time.
As someone pointed out here in this one we got to see the standard stupid naive
southern girl who gee so inventively and remarkably enough named her child angel
in the spirit of that good Christian upbringing that every southern girl gets
pounded into her along with the acent. Can we please be a little bit more
generic. Our standards for what passes as originality aren't low enough yet.
>Yeah, boring show, isn't it? Well, have you tried Profiler? (Not fair,
>because I actually like that show)
Pretty woman, bad show.
I guess really thinking about it my dislike of the show comes down to
stereotypes. They are used far too often. The characters seem to fall to
easily into their types and are rarely allowed to climb out of them. Everyone
has something which sets them apart and makes them unique. These characters
don't seem to and the aspects they do have are poorly developed.
Goat of Death
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>You'll pardon me if I suggest that you missed the point. You're still
>looking for standard 20th century dramatic characters to identify with and
>feel for and criticizing the show for not having them. Is it really that
>hard for people to understand that that may not be what is going on here?
>That the "stick" figures are portraying a set of attitudes and ideas and
>that the interest is in the interplay between them and not in some sort of
>emotional attachment to Our Favorite Detective and his Wife, Kid and Dog.
Tell me something. Why are your friends your friends? Why do you care about
them, because they provide interesting interplay of a set of attitudes, or
because they are individuals with which you have developed an emotional
attachment? If you ran into someone on the street would you rather talk to a
stick figure representing an idea set or an individual. If you cannot
personalize with a character your story is dead. People don't interact and
personalize with sets of attitudes, they interact with individuals.
You can have epic themes and giant clashes of good and evil. But the people
down there doing the dirty work, the ones who aren't going to sit back and hope
for a happy ending are the bread and butter of what makes those actions epic.
One should never think that an idea set can't be formed without the
individuality of those within that given set. To do so is perposterous.
Idea sets are simply not complex enough to maintain interest. And it is not the
fault of people for not being able to maintain interest in these amorpheous
sets. It is the fault of Millennium for not being able to properly personify
these sets within the characters to ground them in reality in such a way as to
effect the audience and people in general.
What is the thing that is most likely to be the largest factor in any given
individuals life. I would say their mate. Now does that person love their mate
because of some idea set or because of their individuality.
>Hell, I don't think this show will last, certainly not the way it started
>out and I wrote that in the very first thing I posted. I don't think this
>kind of approach will appeal to enough people or is sustainable over time
>(I do agree with you about the character touches beginning to creep in.)
>What I find abyssmally depressing is that so many people seem so
>close-minded when it comes to the possibility that Carter may have tried
>something different. Too many people want this to be some sort of NYPD Blue
>version of The X Files. It may end up that way but, personally, I think
>that would be a pity.
I don't think people are looking for the X-Files or NYPD. I think their looking
for a dynamic and groundbreaking show that maintians interest and provokes
thoughts. How is Millennium to do this by using to the letter stereotypes we
can yank for ourselves out of the news on any given day of the week.
Goat of Death
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I think one of the first things I posted on this show was that I felt that
>it was not for everyone. In particular not for the majority of people who
>watch and like The X Files. We've discussed here the promo job that Fox did
>and the apparent mis-read of the potential audience. While I think there
>are episodes that could be enjoyed by a broader group--and let's face it,
>"Irresistible" and "Paper Hearts" are on a par with a lot of what's gone
>on, admittedly a little less intensely, in Millennium. It seems to me that
>people have had more than adequate time to come to understand what this
>show is all about. I don't see the sense in continuing to subject yourself
>to it.
Okay, here is my main biff with Millennium. It is shitty. And I don't mean
that in an mood or tone way. I mean it quite simply. Millennium has yet to
produce and deliver in an hour time span an episode that really moves me. I
think a good friend of mine said it best when he stated that he felt like when
he was watching the show he should really feel like they were taking something
dark and changing it to make it extraordinary but he just never felt that way.
I do not dislike Millennium for squemish reasons. Seven was literally one of
the best movies I've ever seen. I dislike it because the characters (other than
Jordan of all people) don't move me and it is frankly not very well thought out
or written. I get no sense of mystery or wonderment. Just a cheap horror and a
bad attempt at making me see a dark side that is very unconvincingly portrayed.
There are exceptions to this but as a rule Millennium is not a very good show.
I think the main problem I have with it is its attempt at conveying a message so
blatantly. Storytelling requires a bit more subtlety than that. And again I am
not talking about the gore. To give an example (and I can't remember which
episode this was in) a bird flew into the Black house window and Jordan was
worried about it. You knew right off the bird was going to die and you also
knew that there would be some pathetic attempt at a life lesson by dear old
Frank to tell Jordan how to cope with this horrible life we lead. It was
cheesy, it was easy, and it was pathetic.
The basis of Millennium is good but it just doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Unfortunately the character of Catherine is a wash. But a hell of a lot can be
done with Jordan that just isn't being done. Her place as a apocalyptic child
we have seen bits of. Her dreams in which she sees things. How she collapsed
in the Pilot. All things that are intermixed in what one would expect from a
child that is going to mean something come the year 2000. To me Frank and his
relation specifically to his daughter is the most fertile part of the show that
is not being exploited even remotely properly or in a convincing manner.
Unfortunately, I think part of the fact is that they made the character of his
daughter too young. If she were say 11 or 12 or so it would be much better.
She would then be just into starting the cycle of becoming a young woman. Which
would be perfect for the conflict and dynamic of Frank wanting to protect her
from the outside world. Also it would make her stronger and more defined as a
character in that she is not as physically helpless as a 5 year old. But alas
she is 5 and that is not something that is going to change. In fact if she were
12 when the series started that would make her sweet 16 in the year 2000 and
that would be cool. Oh well. But then again maybe we'll all die in the year
2000 so it won't matter what happens in the show.
Also it just pisses me off that in standard X-Files fashion everybody else but
Frank is a fuckin' idiot. Frank's cop friend with Seattle PD couldn't find his
own ass if his head were up it. In Dead Letters that depressed to be divorced
guy was pathetic. His character was so transparent as to make me sick. Yet at
the same time I'm supposed to believe that this guy would actually be considered
as a member of the Millennium group. Not that anyone in the group seems to be
that bright anyway (with small exceptions shown by Peter Watts).
This show takes a relatively decent idea and turns it into a piece of shit. A
piece of shit I have sat through many a night and may even continue to sit
through on that small hope that I'll get to see Jordan develop a bit of her
psychic ability and maybe feel a bit of the greatness I get from watching the
X-Files. Granted I didn't say like the X-Files. I want Millennium to be its
own show. I just want it to also be a good one.
Goat of Death
Barbara Ruef <bjr...@tam2000.tamu.edu> wrote:
> In the specific case of Millennium, I've stuck with
>the show because I feel it's well executed and intelligent
>for the most part and because it does make me feel. In the
>case of "Wide Open", the feelings may be uncomfortable and
>to some repulsive, but it does conjur feelings which is
>more than most TV can claim. If this is disturbing to you
>than you should take a pass. For me, the fact that these
>situations are variations on reality is disturbing, but I'd
>rather feel disturbed and uncomfortable than switch channels
>and soak up some mindless drivel on another station.
Okay, I am just wondering if I'm the only one her who found "Wide Open" lame and
completely bland and unmoving. You have the kid whoes parents are killed okay.
Then we get to see the standard child psychology stuff of her drawing pictures
that gee low and behold show the bad guy. Gee, that's original. And gee she's
going to a foster home, how horrible. I am not saying this to be cold and I
agree with you about the usefullness and niftiness of something provoking
thought especially in a dark way and uncomfortable way.
After watching Seven I literally thought about that movie constantly for days.
To me it was one of the most stunning pieces of film I've ever seen. Just as a
side note I will have to say tonights episode right now has some damn fine
music. I noticed that in the pilot also. Anyway, as I was saying I kept
running through the concept of if I were detective Mills in my head over and
over and over and over. I personalized greatly with detective Mills. Imagine
if you just watched you love and your unknown child disappear as if into thin
air by the very creature you have been obsessively following for the past week.
I could put myself in Mills shoes and it was not a pretty picture.
In "Wide Open" I in no way shape or form could relate to this little girl.
Granted something could be said for age difference but I think more is to be
said for bad writing. To me an episode that could have been done even better
that was failed miserably was "The Well Worn Lock" Sure having your parents
killed off is bad but imagine living with one of them molesting you. To me, who
has experienced niether though, I would think the later. I liked the opening
and had hopes for the episode. But it turned out to be as generic and bland as
"Wide Open" Those of you who are effected by Millennium's bad horror and
darkness should go rent some good stuff of the same so you can see how bad
Millennium is in this genre. Seven is a great place to start. Paper Hearts is
another great example. Silence of the Lambs is cool but a little too clinical.
But those are of course just my thoughts on it.
Nick Pedicini
> Excuse me for not choosing to display the all so voluminous vocabulary
you seem
> to have so well mastered and often use :^| Please humble me more with
the
> wonders of your intellect.
Whoa, cowboy. What's the matter? Can't get the cap off the halycon bottle?
> relates back to a novel? What does that prove? That they can steal
ideas right
> along with the rest of the world? Just because something has parallels
with a
> novel doesn't make it a good show.
I guess that would first depend on whether someone understood the
connection.....
>
> Another Pilot. Decent setup, completely forgetting that it is only a 42
min
> show and therefore having to half ass the ending.
Well that *is* a fair criticism. I'm not all that happy with the fortuitous
coincidences that seem to plague this show
peste's killer works in the police forensics lab
gehenna's company is found by running a quick search on the net
the cops just happen to pick the right bar in searching for the judge's
killer
frank just happens to have a pen with the signature "s" from the company
where the boy is hiding
also a criticism that can be laid at another 1013 show. at least Frank
hasn't had to get back from siberia by flapping his arms and flying....
>
> As I said I like Jordan because she has potential. I would like to see
that
> potential developed.
Why don't you just go out and rent Firewalker.....
>
> Let's see bomber who is crazy. See's his work as art. A quote comes to
mind,
> "You spend your entire life preventing the bomb from becoming." I
suddenly see
> visions of Dennis Hopper and Tommie Lee Jones. I won't even begin to get
into
> the cheesiness of Catherine listening in over the phone as Frank talks to
the
> bomber.
>
?, ?, and ? yet again.
> >Forget the Judge, I agree with you there.
>
> Funny. I actually liked that one. Mostly because I liked the stentorian
actor
> whose name escapes me but was in Fallen Angel. Also the distorted
vigilante
> aspect and the double cross at the end.
>
> I could go on for hours about how horrible this episode was.
>
Well, where do we start, hmmm? Yes paper hearts was so "real" as you put
it. So MANY molestation cases in this country involve children kidnapped by
ramming a car into their house or involve sprightly lights dancing to
ethereal music. So MANY molestation cases involve psychic connections to
brothers and Alice in Wonderland back themes. Yup. Real. The only real
moment in that show was the one with the Father.
As for the "attractiveness" of the molested women in WWL.....got that cap
off yet?
>
>
> As someone pointed out here in this one we got to see the standard stupid
naive
> southern girl who gee so inventively and remarkably enough named her
child angel
> in the spirit of that good Christian upbringing that every southern girl
gets
> pounded into her along with the acent. Can we please be a little bit
more
> generic. Our standards for what passes as originality aren't low enough
yet.
>
You know, when someone who is as aware of his (and his writer's) work as
Carter is chooses to work with something thematically that has a long
established history (this particular theme can be seen in Born to Kill and
Sugarland Express) then I have to ask myself what is he using this to say?
the Judge was a run on the typical vigilante theme which, I felt, failed.
it added nothing new to the "stereotype" and gussied it up with a lot of
biblical hoo-haa (the judge was a fine actor named Marshall Bell, btw.) and
a confused ending. (did you find the pigs attractive?) I took this use of
the "generic" as Zamacona's effort to contrast a "real" couple-on-the-run
killing spree with the kind of gratutious nonsense that we got from
Spielberg and Stone. Oooooo. But they're stealing ideas again.......
> >Yeah, boring show, isn't it? Well, have you tried Profiler? (Not fair,
> >because I actually like that show)
>
> Pretty woman, bad show.
>
Hmmm. Hay you tried "Baywatch Nights"?
> I guess really thinking about it my dislike of the show comes down to
> stereotypes. They are used far too often. The characters seem to fall
to
> easily into their types and are rarely allowed to climb out of them.
Everyone
> has something which sets them apart and makes them unique. These
characters
> don't seem to and the aspects they do have are poorly developed.
>
Well I'm not even going to try to go back into the idea that these
stereoypes, as you call them, might be part of the point. You'll excuse me,
Goat, I've got to run. Got to find a "chair" for my giant intellect........
NJP
Alan Hurshman
Bernardine <pett...@istar.ca> wrote in article <5b2p5n$h...@news.istar.ca>...
> David Sugarman <ok...@telepath.com> wrote:
>
> >It seems clear to me that the level of technological advancement in any
> >given society has no relation to the moral or ethical standing of that
> >society, and I think it may be naive to expect any correlation.
>
> David, my point was not that they should be correlated, but rather
> that if we are capable of building such great things, we should be
> _capable_ of growing things. That we have focussed our attentions on
> industry and finance and ignored humanity. There's an Einstein quote
> in the film Powder (starring LANCE HENRICKSON <staying on topic>)
> which states (paraphrasing) *It is painfully apparent that our
> technology has out-evolved our humanity.*
But we have not focused _OUR_ attentions on anything because
we do not have a mechanism for making that decision. The reason
phoney economics and a destructive industrial policy dominate
our social agenda is because we as a people we have no control
over it. Regardless of which party we elect we still get a made
in Washington social/economic policy. Our lack of real democarcy
allows the few to make these decisions and as you might expect
the decisions made only benefit the few.
Our technology has not out-evolved our humanity. Our political
system has simply has given control to the narrow and the mean.
Brother Blaze
> In Article<32CF30...@earthlink.net>, <gi...@earthlink.net> write:
>
> > Repulsed is the word. To use a tape of a woman pleading for her life---and
> replay said
> > tape over and over again----smacked of the same societal sickness the
> protagonist
> > purports to try to irradicate. Nancy, I agree with you. This is not
> entertainment. This
> > is aural voyeurism for the debased among us.
Do you have that same attitude when a *real* 911 tape of a woman
pleading for her life is played on national news? It is usually played
several times, and has a transcript written out below it just in case
you can't understand all the voices. We are not using this tape to
solve a crime, we are not using this tape as evidence in a jury trial.
We are listening in on the terror of a victim and pretending it is
somehow our business.
In fictional television, we may be disgusted by what we see (or hear) at
times, but we can still say "At least it's not real."
In relation, if we are disgusted by the things we see on fictional
television, we must ask ourselves: Do I listen to the 911 tapes? Do I
want to see the crime photos the police have? Do I see headlines about
gruesome crimes, and read to find out the details? Do I read the
biographies of Bundy, Dahlmer, Geihn (sp?!), Koresh, and Jim Jones? And
most importantly we must ask ourselves one simple question: Why?
When I watch shows like MM, or movies like "Manhunter" or "Silence of
the Lambs", I am occassionally disgusted. But I also know that this
serves a purpose in life. It's called catharsis, and it has been a
major aspect of theatre (and by derivation, film and TV) since the time
of Aristotle, and before. By facing the horrors presented to us on the
stage (screen), living through them, and conquering them (after all,
it's only drama), we strengthen ourselves and become better able to face
the realities of life.
The scariest aspect of watching these shows (as opposed to the weirdness
of UFO's on TXF) is that the events portrayed are but a pale reflection
of the horrors that actually happen every day in the real world. Talk
to a victim of child abuse. Talk to a cult member who escaped. Talk to
a kidnapping victim. Talk to a Holocaust survivor.
The world is a disgusting and scary place. Shows like MM let me
pretend--for a while--that it's only fiction. Only characters on a
piece of glass. In the end, the Good Guys will win, the credits will
roll, nifty music will play, and someone will try to sell me Corn
Flakes.
--
Brother Blaze
(B.G. 2:15)
=========
Goat of Death
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Whoa, cowboy. What's the matter? Can't get the cap off the halycon bottle?
>I guess that would first depend on whether someone understood the
>connection.....
No, it doesn't matter if I know of or understand the connection or not. The
fact of the matter is good novels and good art evoke emotions and use common
themes in a unique and interesting way. The connection in the first place does
not make something good. It is interesting when you notice and understand the
connection but it alone cannot make a good piece.
>Well that *is* a fair criticism. I'm not all that happy with the fortuitous
>coincidences that seem to plague this show
>peste's killer works in the police forensics lab
>gehenna's company is found by running a quick search on the net
>the cops just happen to pick the right bar in searching for the judge's
>killer
>frank just happens to have a pen with the signature "s" from the company
>where the boy is hiding
>also a criticism that can be laid at another 1013 show. at least Frank
>hasn't had to get back from siberia by flapping his arms and flying....
I agree with you there. That happens mostly in conspiracy episodes which I
heppened to take a disliking to in general. The conspiracy ep's seem to to
often have the same old themes and the Mr. Wizard ending.
>Why don't you just go out and rent Firewalker.....
I don't want to rent Firewalker. I want to see Jordan become an individual.
>Well, where do we start, hmmm? Yes paper hearts was so "real" as you put
>it. So MANY molestation cases in this country involve children kidnapped by
>ramming a car into their house or involve sprightly lights dancing to
>ethereal music. So MANY molestation cases involve psychic connections to
>brothers and Alice in Wonderland back themes. Yup. Real. The only real
>moment in that show was the one with the Father.
Okay first off when watching the X-Files you have to assume that something
paranormal or at least psychotic is going on. So you cannot attack that about
xf. Second need I point out the a. he didn't ram his car into the house and b.
it was a dream sequence?
And in a way you kind of made my point for me. It was a unique incident as are
serial killings in general. They are uniquely the same. Same themes used in
different ways. And what is so unbelievable about a killer taking insipiration
and focus from a book. The serial killer Rosche acted stereotypically but in a
unique fashion. The way he was obsessive with the details. His reserved
retelling of the crimes yet at the same time you could see the joy just beneath
the surface. But then you add the elements that make it unique, the taking of
the hearts, his remembering the sprigs of mint, the way he remembers the vacuums
he sold exactly.
Same with john doe. You see the symbolism and fanaticism you would expect from
a serial killer and again the inspiration through reading. But the manner he
turns the sin against the killer, the fact that he sees himself as the sinner in
the envy of the Mills, his breaking his own rule by killing an innocent.
>As for the "attractiveness" of the molested women in WWL.....got that cap
>off yet?
God you are smug. Please feel free to ignore my points in that the women being
unattractive and the little girl being pretty was completely formulaic.
>You know, when someone who is as aware of his (and his writer's) work as
>Carter is chooses to work with something thematically that has a long
>established history (this particular theme can be seen in Born to Kill and
>Sugarland Express) then I have to ask myself what is he using this to say?
>the Judge was a run on the typical vigilante theme which, I felt, failed.
>it added nothing new to the "stereotype" and gussied it up with a lot of
>biblical hoo-haa (the judge was a fine actor named Marshall Bell, btw.) and
>a confused ending. (did you find the pigs attractive?) I took this use of
>the "generic" as Zamacona's effort to contrast a "real" couple-on-the-run
>killing spree with the kind of gratutious nonsense that we got from
>Spielberg and Stone. Oooooo. But they're stealing ideas again.......
All I saw were stereotypes and the same gratuitous nonsense. I liked the
opening sequence as I did in WWL. The narrative of the woman and the smoking
gun falling to the seat. Cool imagery. The soundtrack was phenominal also.
But alas the decent quickly began just as in WWL.
>Hmmm. Hay you tried "Baywatch Nights"?
Christ no. I may have caught bits and pieces of it here and there.
>Well I'm not even going to try to go back into the idea that these
>stereoypes, as you call them, might be part of the point. You'll excuse me,
>Goat, I've got to run. Got to find a "chair" for my giant intellect........
And I won't even bother to tell you that using stereotypes almost exclusively is
an ineffective way to tell a story and thereby gives the stories no point
whatsoever. Oh wait, but maybe I'm just not seeing it. Can I borrow your
chair?
Nick Pedicini
> "Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> personalize with a character your story is dead. People don't interact
and
> personalize with sets of attitudes, they interact with individuals.
Yes, there's just so much personality in Greek Tragedy but, of course,
that's only been around for, say, 6000 years. Flash in the pan.
Medieval tryptichs render the human form in such realistic accessible form
don't they? Forget it Goat, you're stuck in the 20th (soon to be 21st
Century.) There are thousands of hours of the kind of modern narrative
drama that you seem to want all over the tube. Why pick on this show
because it's making an effort to be different? (Although from the large
chunks of Frank's personality that were in evidence last night, I'd say you
may be getting more of what you want.)
>It is the fault of Millennium for not being able to properly personify
> these sets within the characters to ground them in reality in such a way
as to
> effect the audience and people in general.
If you added "all" in front of "people" and you were a critic for TV Guide,
I'd agree with you.
>
> I don't think people are looking for the X-Files or NYPD. I think their
looking
> for a dynamic and groundbreaking show that maintians interest and
provokes
> thoughts. How is Millennium to do this by using to the letter
stereotypes we
> can yank for ourselves out of the news on any given day of the week.
>
Yes, the news. One of the canards (ooops, there's that volumnious vocab
again!) about this show is that what's on it can be gleaned from the six
o'clock news. As if the twenty second bites between the clinton whitewater
saga and the elmo piece impacts at all.
Once again, you seem to think that my defense of this show somehow implies
a value judgement on those who don't like it. That I think that people have
to be more "intelligent" or "smarter." Maybe more well-read, maybe more
experienced in life, but neither of those implies any superior intellect.
Certainly willing to take apart the pieces of the show to look for meaning
in their juxtaposition rather than simply reacting to the show as plot and
character. I just think that it takes a different approach to appreciate a
lot of what's good here.
You seem to be looking for psychic pyrotechnics, a donna reed style home
life, and more "babes." Why do I think FOX is too?
NJP
Goat of Death
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yes, there's just so much personality in Greek Tragedy but, of course,
>that's only been around for, say, 6000 years. Flash in the pan.
>Medieval tryptichs render the human form in such realistic accessible form
>don't they? Forget it Goat, you're stuck in the 20th (soon to be 21st
>Century.) There are thousands of hours of the kind of modern narrative
>drama that you seem to want all over the tube. Why pick on this show
>because it's making an effort to be different? (Although from the large
>chunks of Frank's personality that were in evidence last night, I'd say you
>may be getting more of what you want.)
Millennium is not making an effort to be different or revolutionary. The thing
about storytelling is that it is timeless. Plain and simple. People make
stories. People make the world. Characters are a representation of that.
Romeo and Juliet is not of our time but was timeless and had characters with
personality. Don't even begin to tell me about the lack of personality in the
Greeks. The gods were all represented with distinctive personalities. Their
powers and standing were not the only things that set them apart from one
another. That is why their stories and mythology is still so intensely
interesting today. Medea I believe is a perfect example of personality in Greek
Tragedy. There is someone, not something, whom you don't want to piss off.
>If you added "all" in front of "people" and you were a critic for TV Guide,
>I'd agree with you.
Whatever (in my best Clueless voice)
>Yes, the news. One of the canards (ooops, there's that volumnious vocab
>again!) about this show is that what's on it can be gleaned from the six
>o'clock news. As if the twenty second bites between the clinton whitewater
>saga and the elmo piece impacts at all.
Hey, I watch the show and I can glean the same from the news. Doesn't sound
like a canard to me. And in reference to your voluminous vocab please explain
to me why misconception could not have been used instead of canard. Or why
earlier unlikely could not have been used in the place of fortuitous. All you
achieve is to put yourself on a different imaginary level than us "common" men.
And in response to the eloquence of my original viewpoint, I could have used
terrible, I could have used horrific, or jaunted around my theasaurus for an
apropos locution. Shitty however fit the purpose and obviously achieved the
appropriate effect as we are now entrenched in this argument. Actually that
sounded wrong, I do not mean that the intended effect was to enter into this
argument.
>Once again, you seem to think that my defense of this show somehow implies
>a value judgement on those who don't like it. That I think that people have
>to be more "intelligent" or "smarter." Maybe more well-read, maybe more
>experienced in life, but neither of those implies any superior intellect.
Experience in life. Hmm... I have a good friend whom was emotionally ravaged
by her parents and another whom was raped. Despite this life experience and
being especially close to the second case WWL did not have an effect upon me.
And I don't particularly see what well read has to do with it as I have already
explained.
>Certainly willing to take apart the pieces of the show to look for meaning
>in their juxtaposition rather than simply reacting to the show as plot and
>character. I just think that it takes a different approach to appreciate a
>lot of what's good here.
Simply reacting to a show as plot and character? Didn't you just name the two
basic elements of any story? Gee I'll try and ignore those more often so I can
get that really deep meaning. A story should make me react. I shouldn't have
to search and search and dig and dig to find that reaction. The X-Files, and
Seven, and other things have plot and character which further spurns people to
take apart the episode and find all the hiddens. Jose Chung is a perfect
example of a great scavenger hunt. Yet you can still like the episode without
the scavenger hunt.
>You seem to be looking for psychic pyrotechnics, a donna reed style home
>life, and more "babes." Why do I think FOX is too?
Yeah you're right. Because you know I'm so used to living in that perfect
magical world with a nice big house and a "babe" of a girlfriend/mistress. I
just can't stand it when reality intrudes upon me.
Rich Ahrens
David Sugarman (ok...@telepath.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
: The Forsaker wrote:
: > fors...@gate.net
: > "We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge
: > of the desert when the drugs began to take hold." H.S.T.
: Wow!! I thought that I was the only person who still liked H.S.T.and
: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas......a *great* book. Glad there are more
: of us around.
"There's nothing more depraved than a man in the depths of an ether
binge." But don't confuse liking his 20-year-old work with liking the
"work" he still does on occasion. Having spent an evening with him back
then, I'm amazed he is still alive. And not surprised how few brain
cells seem to have survived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |---------------------------------------------|
| "Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the |
| best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store |
| or farm." - C. Wright Mills |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Sugarman
Rich Ahrens wrote:
>
> David Sugarman (ok...@telepath.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
> : The Forsaker wrote:
> : > fors...@gate.net
> : > "We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge
> : > of the desert when the drugs began to take hold." H.S.T.
<snip>
>
> "There's nothing more depraved than a man in the depths of an ether
> binge." But don't confuse liking his 20-year-old work with liking the
> "work" he still does on occasion. Having spent an evening with him back
> then, I'm amazed he is still alive. And not surprised how few brain
> cells seem to have survived.
Yeah, it does seem to me that everything after, say, Fear and Loathing
on the Campaign Trail is kind of repetitive of his earlier work, but I
usually find it entertaining. I recently saw an interview of him in
Rolling Stone, and his brain cells did still seem to in working order.
At least he seemed fairly coherent.
Time to end this, since it is off topic, unless maybe we consider drug
induced hallucinations to be the reason for alien sightings, conspiracy
theories, and serial killings.
--David
Rufie710
In article <01bbffb5$e5854320$28d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>, "Nick
Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Whoa, cowboy. What's the matter? Can't get the cap off the halycon bottle?
>
uh ,Nick ........thats *Halcion* , Ruth , ducking.
--
rufie710
"I tried Reality once, I found it too confining"
Nick Pedicini
> "Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Okay first off when watching the X-Files you have to assume that
something
> paranormal or at least psychotic is going on. So you cannot attack that
about
> xf. Second need I point out the a. he didn't ram his car into the house
and b.
> it was a dream sequence?
Your original point, Billy, was that Paper Hearts was more real than WWL.
Now you say that (my point) TXF ep was grounded in unreality from the
start. (the comic book angle.) I've maintained recently that the creators
of MM are taking some of these tragic situations (a la the happy go lucky
murdering joyriding southern couple and Wild and Innocent) and have
purposely brought them down to reality. Damn depressing that.
>
> And in a way you kind of made my point for me. It was a unique incident
as are
> serial killings in general. They are uniquely the same. Same themes
used in
> different ways. And what is so unbelievable about a killer taking
insipiration
> and focus from a book. The serial killer Rosche acted stereotypically
but in a
> unique fashion. The way he was obsessive with the details. His reserved
> retelling of the crimes yet at the same time you could see the joy just
beneath
> the surface. But then you add the elements that make it unique, the
taking of
> the hearts, his remembering the sprigs of mint, the way he remembers the
vacuums
> he sold exactly.
>
I'm not arguing the "story" of Paper Hearts. I think it works internally
just fine. I'm saying that the comic book character of TXF allows the
viewer to turn off the set and be able to dismiss the horror as partially
unreal. (And now that doesn't mean that everybody does.) MM doesn't appear
to allow that. You can dismiss Jope Bangs as some kind of weird psycho
monster. He's a vicious, selfish bully pure and simple and he's completely
human.
>
>
> God you are smug. Please feel free to ignore my points in that the women
being
> unattractive and the little girl being pretty was completely formulaic.
>
If your original post had been like your last one, I wouldn't have been so
"smug."
>
> >Well I'm not even going to try to go back into the idea that these
> >stereoypes, as you call them, might be part of the point. You'll excuse
me,
> >Goat, I've got to run. Got to find a "chair" for my giant
intellect........
>
> And I won't even bother to tell you that using stereotypes almost
exclusively is
> an ineffective way to tell a story and thereby gives the stories no point
> whatsoever. Oh wait, but maybe I'm just not seeing it. Can I borrow
your
> chair?
>
Well, we're stuck on that "story" thing again. I still think as long as you
are looking for "a story" you're going to hate MM. You want a chicken and
MM is a duck. Quack quack.
NJP