July 2002 posts


Previous July 2002  

More July 2002

Strange cryptic Paige Moss (Veruca) remark -- JCC, 10:56:23 07/27/02 Sat

In an interview from the Watchers Guides, Paige Moss, who plays Veruca said:
"Veruca & Oz are soulmates... Soulmates always find their way back to each other. And only a silver bullet can kill a werewolf."
The silver bullet comment was a Veruca line from the show. Why did she use it here?


JCC
[> Weren't there whole story lines that went bust... - - Rochefort, 12:05:39 07/27/02 Sat

when Seth Green left the show? Too bad, especially if they involved varuka cause she was pretty cool. Wouldn't have minded that at all.
[> [> Re: Weren't there whole story lines that went bust... -- JCC, 12:13:05 07/27/02 Sat

The Veruca/Oz storyline was supposed to go on longer, but Seth Green went on a leave of absense and was supposed to return full time later in the season.
[> [> [> Veruca can come back with or without Oz... -- ZachsMind, 19:36:17 07/27/02 Sat

If the writers find a reason to bring a werewolf back into the storyline, but can't get Seth Green to work them into his "busy" schedule, they could still bring in Paige Moss if she's more accomodating.

Now wouldn't a little Willow/Veruca shippage late in the season be deliciously ironic?
[> [> [> [> Willow/Veruca? Hmmm... -- VR, 21:52:55 07/27/02 Sat

Might be interesting, but I doubt it would ever happen. Of course, that's where dreaming and fanfic come in.
[> Only silver? -- VR, 21:59:15 07/27/02 Sat

Is there anything else in the book? I don't have one. Could never find one.

But, if that's all that's in there, then, is that it? Just silver. If only silver makes them check out real estate companies in rural areas, then, do they even grow any older?
[> [> Re: Only silver? -- MysticalMuesli, 06:29:29 07/28/02 Sun

But werewolf Oz killed werewolf Veruca to protect Willow.
[> [> [> As far as we know she's dead. -- VR, 07:55:18 07/28/02 Sun

They've never said in the show how a werewolf can be killed. But, it definitely looks like they can be killed that way.
O/T Whingeing -- dubdub, 15:22:47 07/27/02 Sat

Okay, this could only happen to me: I work up my courage for two months (after my surgery) to get my nose pierced, then I see all kinds of pictures on the 'net of the whole operation and freak out and say, NO WAY!; then I calm down for another two months and finally try for a week and a half to find a place that looks clean and efficient to have the deed done, and talk to people about recommendations, and finally find a place, make an appointment, go there today, listen to 1/2 hour presentation on the art and science of nose piercing, have the deed DONE (YOW! YIKES!! OWWWWYYYY!!), only to be told, "Oops, not quite straight--I've taken the hoop out. Well, would you like me to do it again or just forget it?"

So, I went through the incredibly painful process of having my nose pierced TWICE within five minutes...(breathe, breathe, breathe) okay, I feel better now but I went into chat and there was no one there to listen to me rant, WAHHHH!

:Q(
[> Re: O/T Whingeing -- Rahael, 15:26:36 07/27/02 Sat

One extra person in chat now!
[> Further OT - Tattoos -- Darby, 16:32:07 07/27/02 Sat

A less personal-experiencey warning: there is a growing body of evidence that hepatitis virus (the C, if I recall) can survive in the ink used for tattoos. The needles can be sterilized, but not the inks. The incidence of hep in people with tattoos has jumped way up, especially in areas with a high base rate (more people to contaminate the ink). The evidence is preliminary but convincing.

Just sayin'!
[> [> Re: Further OT - Tattoos -- dubdub, 16:58:09 07/27/02 Sat

Interesting...I suppose it's possible but ideally the ink should only be extracted from the bottle once during the process for each colour, so a potentially contaminated needle would never come into contact with ink that might be used on someone else...

My tat was done ten years ago, so I guess I'm off the hook, but a valid warning, none the less...

:Q)
[> [> [> Re: Further OT - Tattoos -- anom, 21:38:26 07/27/02 Sat

Couldn't they clear the needle of ink & run bleach through it to sterilize it after each use? Or would they have to do that each time they refilled the needle, because it's going back to the same bottle? Maybe they could take out as much as they need for each person & then do the bleach before the next one.

BTW, dubdub, sorry it hurt so much. Hope you're pleased w/the results once the pain goes away. Love your swollen/pierced Q-nose smily!
[> [> [> [> Thanks! :Q) -- dubdub, 21:43:58 07/27/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> Re: Further OT - Tattoos -- Darby, 21:53:25 07/27/02 Sat

There are precautions that could be taken, but not enough evidence to support regulations at this time. From the report I ran across, the suggestion was to use very small separate units of ink. I don't know enough about tattooing to know if that's reasonable, or whether your suggestions are. All I know is from ink cartridge pens and air brushes, where it's tough to use something too close to when it's been cleaned, and that stuff isn't being injected into somebody's dermis.
[> [> Re: what a way to brighten my day! -- neaux, 17:22:35 07/28/02 Sun

so... since my tats are 5 to 7 years old.. does that mean I'm in the clear?

I really would like to avoid waking up one day with Hepatitis on my stomach and leg.
[> [> [> This won't help... -- Darby, 06:40:39 07/29/02 Mon

I did some more checking, and I've got good news and bad news.

The good news is that the Hepatitis C rate in the US has been dropping pretty dramatically (probably because precautions against AIDS work against Hep C as well) - this means the chances of getting it from a recent tattoo in this country are pretty small. The bad news corollary is that your risk was higher 7 years ago.

Hep C won't reveal itself at the site of the tat - it's a disease of the liver, commonly very prolonged, maybe 20 years between infection and serious symptoms. The symptoms, eventually, can become life-threatening as the liver becomes too damaged or cancerous to keep doing the dozen or so major things that a liver does.

Found a pretty good primer at

http://www.epidemic.org/theFacts/essentials/whatIsHepatitisC .html

Other sources, more recent and detailed, confirmed the suspicion against ink, but there are so many other much worse risk factors, I don't think that this is drawing much attention. Interestingly, it was mentioned that many places bar people with tattoos from giving blood.

Just some stuff to think about. I've never understood why injecting a variety of chemicals permanently under the skin wouldn't have some sort of nasty side effect, rare enough to have been missed anecdotally but otherwise legitimate. I mean, is anybody really surprised that lighting up pesticide- laced dried plants and then sucking the smoke into your lungs is bad for you in a bunch of ways?

In previous eras, it would have been tough to isolate an effect, too - the demographic group typically getting tattoos was also commonly putting themselves in harm's way from a bunch of other...er, chemicals and infectious agents. The current broad demographic is where we'll really tease out side effects, over the course of the next decade or so.

So how's it feel to be an epidemiological guinea pig? Ahh, don't feel singled out, we all are for one thing or another.
[> [> [> Perspective on this -- Wisewoman, 09:44:54 07/29/02 Mon

Okay, I agree that some risk exists, but let's look at this objectively.

The risk of contracting HIV from a needle previously used to inject heroin by an HIV-positive individual is extremely high. The risk of contracting HIV from a new, single-use needle used in a doctor's office for injecting Vitamin B (as an example) is nil.

Similarly, if you got your tats while serving time in the local pen and they were applied by someone using a sharpened spoon handle and ink made of burnt match ends and saliva-- hey, you're probably in trouble! If you got them at a reputable, established tattoo parlour the standards of hygiene were probably equal to those of a hospital emergency room; ink supplies were not re-used, and certainly needles were not, and you have no problem.

There seems to be an unspoken comment here as well: "Anyone stupid enough to get themselves tattooed at all pretty much deserves Hep C, or whatever else they get."

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but hey, the whole tattoo "industry" has come a long way since the days when drunken teenagers had Betty Boop tattooed on their biceps to prove how "brave" they were before shipping out to active duty. I know some individuals may still find tattooing distasteful (not to mention piercing and branding!) but lets keep things in perspective.

Young people may still be getting and sporting tattoos as an act of rebellion, but there are thousands of tattooed adults out there to whom their tattoo represents something very powerful: a spiritual connection, a mid-life passage, a religious symbol, a tribal connection, a statement of ownership of one's body, etc, etc. It can represent a belief in one's own human body as a sort of canvas, an opportunity to create art. It does represent a lifetime commitment, at the very least to identification with a particular image, and as such deserves a modicum of respect. JMO.

;o)
[> Re: O/T Whingeing -- LadyStarlight, 17:59:43 07/27/02 Sat

Oh, poor baby!

I can empathize a little, I went & repierced my ears about a month ago. (small babies, dangling earrings, you do the math...)
[> Re: O/T Whingeing -- aliera, 14:10:28 07/28/02 Sun

Ouch! Hope you feel better soon. I wouldn't have the nerve anymore. My tattoo was long enough ago and not in a sensitive spot, but still. Best wishes.
[> [> um...that's not the question -- anom, 21:12:38 07/28/02 Sun

[PSA]It doesn't matter where the tattoo is, as far as risk of hepatitis C is concerned. And it doesn't occur at the site of the tat--it's a liver disease transmitted through blood, these days mainly among IV drug users who share needles. I don't think 10 years is necessarily long ago enough (Darby, check me on this?) to put anyone in the clear- -it was transmitted for years through the blood supply before a test was developed to detect it. And the effects may not show up for 20 years. I've edited material on hep C, & tattoos don't seem to be a major route of transmission, but they are a possible route. It might be worth asking your doctor about. However, the CDC (US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) doesn't seem to think the risk is very high:

"Although some studies have found an association between tattooing and HCV infection in very selected populations, it is not known if these results can be generalized to the whole population. Any percutaneous [through the skin] exposure has the potential for transferring infectious blood and potentially transmitting bloodborne pathogens (e.g., HBV, HCV, or HIV); however, no data exist in the United States indicating that persons with exposures to tattooing alone are at increased risk for HCV infection. For example, during the past 20 years, less than 1% of persons with newly acquired hepatitis C reported to CDC's sentinel surveillance system gave a history of being tattooed. Further studies are needed to determine if these types of exposures, and the settings in which they occur, are risk factors for HCV infection in the United States. CDC is currently conducting a large study to evaluate tattooing as a potential risk."

For more info you can check this page.[end PSA]
[> [> [> Yeah, what she said. -- Darby, 06:46:43 07/29/02 Mon

I should read all of the new posts before I respond - I pretty much just dittoed everything up above.
Another Returning Tara Idea.. (S7 spec/spoilery) -- ZachsMind, 19:22:54 07/27/02 Sat

This is just one of perhaps a dozen ways to write Tara back in. And believe me there's at least a dozen ways the writers could do it. My personal favorite is "Ghost Tara" because I think the Scoobies need a ghost. However, I've recently learned they already did that with Cordelia and Dennis over at the Angel tv series a couple seasons ago. I dunno if Whedon's gonna wanna repeat himself again like that. He's already got people comparing Souled Spike to Angel. However, if Whedon does what I'm suggesting here, people won't be comparing Spike to Angel. Oh no. They'll be too busy.

Remember the second episode in the fourth season? "Living Conditions" was about Buffy's dorm roommate Kathy, and how it turned out she was really a demon. A demon who wanted a human's education, but her family would hear nothing of it so they sent her back home. There are as many different kinds of demons as there are snowflakes in the winter's sky. Some demons may have different ways of interacting with "Family". Tara showed up at UC Sunnydale about the same time that Kathy did. It's just that Kathy got found out.

There's something that's always bugged me about Tara's back story. Maclay female children are told they grow up to become demons when they're 20. Tara's mom was over 20 before she died. Tara told the Scoobies that her mother was a powerful witch, but she never told us whether Mrs. Maclay was demon or human. It always felt to me that the episode "Family" wasn't telling us everything. There were just too many gaps in Tara's past that were purposefully being left open. Why would Tara have believed her 'kind' turn from human to demon at the age of 20 unless her own mother was one?

Perhaps her mother managed to work up a magic spell that allowed her daughter to remain human after the age of 20, hoping a better life for her. Perhaps this was the same spell that killed Tara's mother when Tara was 17. Perhaps this spell is dispelled when Tara's human self dies. Perhaps we'll find out.

Okay. So if this is the case, how come Spike's chip kicked in when he punched Tara? Simple. Spike's chip is not a magic thing. It's based on The Initiative's technobabble technology. It works on Spike's BRAIN and God love'm, Spike just ain't the smartest vampire in the crypt if ya know whut ah'm a sayin' an' ah thunk ya dew. It only knows as much as his brain knows, so it only triggers when he THINKS something is human. It's like a lie detector. As he punches at something, the chip watches what he's doing with the conscious mind and the chip talks to his subconscious mind. If the subconscious mind tells the chip that what he's punching is human, the conscious mind gets a shock.

It's also why Spike can punch Buffy now. She's come back from the dead. In Spike's subconscious that means on a technicality Buffy's no longer human. Spike BELIEVED Tara to be human because his unconscious mind saw no legitimate proof otherwise. So he got a migraine when he punched her. Tara could still have been/be/will be a demon who had been hidden in human form until now.

You think Angel/Angeles was bad. Wait till you get a load of Tara/Terror.
[> my problem with "Family"... -- celticross, 19:56:00 07/27/02 Sat

Tara was told that McClay women become demons when they turn 20. Ok. And then she's told her mother was. BUT...Tara's mother was not born a McClay (unless there was some, shall we say, interesting marriages going on...yeah, yeah, insert Tennessee joke here). So, if McClay women become demons, it's carried in the male line.
(A story with a similar problem is ST:TNG's "Sub Rosa", but now I'm being a geek, so I'll hush :)
[> A nice theory, but unfortunately.... -- cjl, 06:51:21 07/28/02 Sun

Spike's chip is often SMARTER than he is.

Remember when Buffy was fighting the muggers (of the human variety) and Spike joined in? He genuinely thought the muggers were demons, and got a whopping headache for his assumption. You might say his subconscious figured out the muggers were human, and fed that information to his chip-- but then, why wouldn't his subconscious do the same about Tara in the reverse situation?

As for the Maclay ancestry problem, that's Joss' goof. Tara simply could've said the demon infects women in her mother's line, and that would have solved it. I think ST:TNG did just that in "Sub Rosa." It's clear that the "Howard women" in Beverly Crusher's family viewed their heritage in a matrilinear, not patrilinear fashion. (Which brings up the question: why did Beverly take Jack Crusher's last name if she saw herself as part of a matriarchal bloodline?) Anyway, I loved that ep. With the exception of the Halloween ep, "Catspaw," from the original series, it's the closest thing to Buffy Trek ever did. (Besides...Gates McFadden...mmmmmmmmmm....)
[> [> Re: A nice theory, but unfortunately.... -- Darby, 10:17:32 07/28/02 Sun

The chip thing is easy to explain on a sensory subconscious level - vamps can detect humans when they're trying, mostly through smell, but the brain would be picking up the signals whether they were consciously trying to or not. But not every demon registers pheromonically, as the Initiative found out. Spike would have the muggers' pheromones and Buffy's "No!!!" to kick the chip in.

The problem with the chip is that it needs to be explained technologically, but everybody's used to magical explanations. Warren, and to some extent Dru, has confirmed that the chip almost certainly isn't magical. From a technological standpoint, the chip's only interface with the outside world is through Spike's perceptions. I agree that his preconceptions affect it, too, and that might explain the Buffy exception. Or it might not. Was it Shadowkat who saw the current arc as 2 seasons long? That might explain all the still-dangling plot threads...

The thing about magic that's convenient is that it can be used to cover things that make no sense, like the Maclay family (what the hell kind of name is that?) curse. But the chip isn't magic and requires explanations that at least get into the neighborhood of what a brain implant could reasonably be expected to do.

The thing about Tara is that Joss has said a couple of times that she won't be back, although Amber will be. They've done the suddenly-appearing younger sibling thing, is it time to do the identical cousin thing? But they'll probably avoid doing that if only to not have to deal with the really bizarro name they gave them (notice Tara didn't mention it even during the ID discovery in Tabula Rasa!). As Spike/Randy might say, why not just call them the MacShags and get it out in the open?

Hematologic Perdition!
[> [> [> Re: A nice theory, but unfortunately.... -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:52:55 07/28/02 Sun

When Joss said that, I think he ment that Tara wouldn't be returned as a character. She would stay dead. However, that doesn't mean they can't do a guest appearance, similar to what they did with Jenny Calender in Becoming and Amends, or Joyce in Normal Again. They didn't bring the characters back in the usual sense, but did use them again.
[> [> [> Re: A nice theory... -- aliera, 14:02:43 07/28/02 Sun

To do Zach's post credit, I think they've left themselves enough room to move on the chip that many things would still be possible...

Re: Amber, the guide feels right for Tara especially considering Restless. Also, depending on how they truly feel about the outcry, there may be some things they hesitate to do, like returning the character as evil. The number of contracted episodes seems to indicate it's not just an incarnation of a shapeshifting demon. I'm not sure how they would make a potential guide that not-Tara though. If we interpreting his statements literally, a ghost is still an aspect of Tara.

Thanks for your take on the chip it makes a lot of sense.

The thing about magic that's convenient is that it can be used to cover things that make no sense... But the chip isn't magic and requires explanations that at least get into the neighborhood of what a brain implant could
reasonably be expected to do.

Exactly. It's a little harder to suspend disbelief in the science arena. Although the world according to Joss has been around long enough that we've seen some pretty long interesting debates on the "rules" magick too.
[> [> [> About the 'Maclay' name... -- KKC, 15:44:03 07/28/02 Sun

--Darby writes: The thing about magic that's
--convenient is that it can be used to cover
--things that make no sense, like the Maclay
--family (what the hell kind of name is that?) curse.

Maclay is, of course, a Scottish name. Possible related names are MacClay, MacLeay, and MacLeigh (as in Archibald Macleigh, Pulitzer-prize winning American poet.) You can find more information about the Clan Maclay at http://members.fortunecity.com/kgoofy7/EarlyMaclayHistory.ht m but make sure you have a pop-up ad killer turned on. :)

-KKC, who in spite of his first name has no Scots for ancestors. :)
[> [> [> [> Not the Point - "Randy" is a real name too... -- Darby, 17:17:55 07/28/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Sorry, I'm slow today. What's the objection to 'Maclay?' -- KKC, 17:55:54 07/28/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, I'm slow today. What's the objection to 'Maclay?' -- d'Herblay, 18:09:10 07/28/02 Sun

I can't remember how it was pronounced in "Family," but the two choices are "muh-clay" or "mack-lay," and Darby finds the second embarrassing, for much the same reason I became a little abashed to realize my posting pseudonym was a combination of slang for marijuana and slang for sex. Of course, my Grandmother's maiden name was "Adcock," so embarrassment runs deep through my veins.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OOOH! I understand now! I didn't get it before either! lol -- Rahael, 18:11:36 07/28/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OOOH! I understand now! I didn't get it before either! lol -- KKC, 03:52:23 07/29/02 Mon

Without making any judgements... Does the misinterpretation of a name say something about the name, or something about the interpreter? If I say 'Roth IRA' to you, do you immediately think of a retirement fund or of Irish independence? In the same way, assuming something is sexual about the name 'Maclay' says more to me about the influence of one's culture on the person making the assumption. Have I stopped short enough of saying that people think of sex too much? :)

-KKC, first the Scots, now the Irish... Any more UK minority groups we can work into this thread? :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So you're saying we have Saxon the brain? Interesting Angle -- d'Herblay, 04:20:50 07/29/02 Mon

You trying to Pict a fight with me? What Gael! There is not woman Norman who can say that and get away with it.

Welsh it. I guess I've been Celt worse.

Over to you, anom.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fair play for Jutes! -- CW, 08:34:20 07/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: About the 'Maclay' name... -- leslie, 13:50:44 07/29/02 Mon

Huh. Interesting. I have always perceptualized Tara's last name as McClay, and somehow thereby contrasted her with Adam (whose name means "red earth").

Incidentally, I think the poet you're talking about is Archibald MacLeish (don't know if it's etymologically related to Maclay, but the house I grew up in, we bought from his son, and everyone in town still knew it as "the MacLeish place" so the spelling is pretty much burned into my head!)
[> [> [> [> Are we sure it was MacLay?. -- darrenK, 14:10:40 07/29/02 Mon

If all of you say it was then I doubt I'm right, but I remember it as MacIay with an [eye], not an L, then it's pronouced either McEYE or McAYE.

Truthfully that's the way I remember it.

Joss loves bawdy, but I doubt he'd name her MacLay, make her sing a song that ends in an orgasm, then kill her after she's just spent the night on a sex romp with her Lesbian lover. That's too much even for a show called Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Oh. S-lay-er. I think I'm starting to see a pattern...

dK
[> [> Re: A nice theory, but unfortunately.... -- ZachsMind, 12:27:51 07/28/02 Sun

"Remember when Buffy was fighting the muggers (of the human variety) and Spike joined in? He genuinely thought the muggers were demons, and got a whopping headache for his assumption. You might say his subconscious figured out the muggers were human, and fed that information to his chip-- but then, why wouldn't his subconscious do the same about Tara in the reverse situation?"

I got a simple answer to that. Spike lied. It's just as easy to assume Spike had been tailing her for some time and knew exactly what they were, but figured if he jumped in and pretended to not know who they were, it would make him look more chivalrous to Buffy. Remember, this is the same guy who made a point to show her he wasn't taking advantage of fallen victims at the Bronze. "No drinkin'. Not a nip. Know you wouldn't like it." Sure. Fine. Spike's adorable. Whatever. He was still evil. Lying's definitely not against his nature.

Heh! I could re-engineer canon any way I'd like! I'm simply amazing! Whedon really should put me on the payroll. *smirk*

"As for the Maclay ancestry problem, that's Joss' goof. Tara simply could've said the demon infects women in her mother's line, and that would have solved it."

Whedon's fixed his own goofs before. This could be kinda like a few years ago when Whedon got the math wrong & said at one time Spike was just as old as Angeles but then renegged on that a little bit in the actual show's dialogue. There's still people out there arguing over just how old Spike really is. Eventually Whedon pretty much cinched it, but it's wonderful cannonfodder for us diehards to contemplate.

Re-engineering canon again, I can see how one can take what already exists and put a much darker slant on it. We all think Tara was sincerely sweet and buttery, but what if it was all an act? What if the reason she was always so unsure and careful in her word choices and shy was cuz she really honestly was hiding something. It kinda puts a whole new slant on every sweet innocent smile and giggle doesn't it? She honestly thought she was gonna turn into a demon and didn't want her human friends to find out about it. That's a given. She must have had conclusive proof of some sort to be that certain of it.

Maybe it's not just a bloodline thing but a specific demon type kinda thing? Maybe Tara's 'kind' are supposed to only fraternize with others of their kind. In order to bring in someone from outside to mate with, that human has to *become* a demon of her 'kind.' Sorta like when Cordelia had to turn half demon to keep the visions from killing her.

Or maybe they never mate outside their own 'kind.' This would further explain Tara's sexual proclivities. She wasn't interested in human males. They literally could do nothing for her. They were beneath her figuratively speaking. Or maybe what appeared in "Family" to be a staunchly sexist patriarchal family structure was actually enslaved human males who had signed their souls to female "Maclay Demons" in order to mate with them and be their slaves. Anya's proven that one can be a vengeance demon and also a witch. She was a witch before she was a demon. So a demon can also be a witch, which makes explaining Tara's mother much easier.

Yeah I know. A lot of maybes, but that's the fun-ness of reverse engineering canon. "Family" was on the surface a poorly written episode. It felt to me the first time I saw it that Whedon was purposefully leaving a bunch of stuff out, making it look like he was giving us a glimpse into Tara's past but really not telling us anything at all except what he wanted us to believe. Again, he's been guilty of this before. When Faith's new Watcher showed up, she was always evil and power hungry, but we didn't KNOW that until the very end when Gwen had a chance to get her hand on the glove. Also throughout the last two or three episodes of season six, Whedon purposefully made us think Spike was doing all those tests to get the chip out, when he was really after his soul.

He's a tricky bugger. He's got everyone guessing about Tara over the summer. No matter what he cooks up it's gonna be a surprise to all of us. No matter how one paints it though, we haven't seen the last of Tara. Ghost, Demon, or whatever.
[> [> Similar goof in "The Witch"... -- Rob, 11:25:59 07/29/02 Mon

...where Catherine's cheerleading trophy read "Catherine Madison," even though, by that point, she hadn't been married to Mr. Madison yet. Amy says they got married "right afte high school."

Speaking of "The Witch"...complete sidenote. The character who spontaneously combusts at the start is named "Amber." One of the other girls mentions that Amber's coach is named "Benson." Amber Benson! It's as if TPTB planned out that she would be on the show one day...

Or I'm just a total geek, also. ;o)

Rob
[> Re: Another Returning Tara Idea.. (S7 spec/spoilery) -- skeeve, 08:30:00 07/29/02 Mon

The are at least two possible explanations for Tara not having seen her mother as a demon. She might have been told that her mother was a human-shaped half-demon. like Doyle. She might not have seen her mother at all. Her mother might have been locked up.

As another has noted, ghost-Tara is still Tara. If Joss wants to bring Tara back, she can simply walk out of heaven. Heaven being optional, she wouldn't need any special power.

To bring Amber Benson back as a different character is more difficult if one doesn't want to use a conspicuously convient plot element. Bring her back as a gelf. On Buffy its chameleon-like characteristic would probably be the result of magic instead of genetic engineering, but the result would be similar.
[> Amber as Marty Feldman's hump -- Darby, 11:31:27 07/29/02 Mon

...she can come back as a character who some people think looks like Tara, while others don't see it at all. The show has gotten an Emmy for make-up, after all...

I'm not sure that's exactly like the moving hump of Young Frankenstein ("What hump?"), but how could I not go with the title once it occurred to me?
[> [> Great title... -- Rob, 12:46:20 07/29/02 Mon

But, if you need a better example for the "why can't anybody see her resemblance?" it might be better compared to the "Friends" episode entitled, "The One With Russ." It took place shortly after Rachel broke up with Ross. She dated a guy who looked exactly like Ross (played by the same actor) and had the same personality, but he was named Russ. All of the characters noticed the resemblance between the Ross and Russ, except, of course, for Ross, Russ, and Rachel. And, of course, it drove the others crazy that none of them could see the obvious.

Rob
[> [> [> And, of course, there's Twin Peaks (spoil/spec/whatever).... -- mundusmundi, 14:11:46 07/29/02 Mon

Which began with Sheryl Lee dead as Laura Palmer, only to bring her back to play Laura's cousin, who was also brutally murdered not long after. Would Joss have the gall to kill Tara twice? One shudders.
Promethea, Primeval and assorted ramblings -- ponygirl, 23:18:50 07/27/02 Sat

Been having a wild weekend with volumes 1 & 2 of Alan Moore’s comic book series Promethea. So many different ideas, it’s a bit mind-rattling. In some ways it’s a bit like reading the board – all the different myths and theories rolling around: look there’s the myth of Inanna! Here’s Little Red Riding Hood! Colour symbolism! Tantric sex! A history of the universe told through the Tarot! Let’s just say there’s a lot to think about.

Promethea had been mentioned recently by Rahael as being cited in the dvd commentary on Primeval as an influence by both David Fury and Joss. Having read some of Alan Moore's work before, and experiencing that oh too rare phenomenom known as payday, I took myself off to the comic book store to track the series down. I originally only intended to buy the first trade paperback which collects issues 1-6. Unfortunately for my bank account vol.1 a) ends on a cliff- hanger; b) is really good. So I ended up buying the quite pricey second volume in hardcover. I’ll probably get vol. 3 and the subsequent issues eventually, but right now I have enough in my brain.

I’ll try not to give away too many plot details of Promethea, which actually won’t be too hard since Moore himself pretty much abandons the plot by the end. The man likes his exposition.

Essentially Promethea is an actual human girl in 4th century Alexandria who is taken by the gods to live in the realm of myth and imagination – the Immateria. By living in this land she herself becomes a story, a part of the collective unconscious. Occasionally people are able to tap into this idea of Promethea, and imagine her so strongly that they themselves become an incarnation of this demi-goddess or project her onto another person. Each incarnation manifests different aspects of Promethea depending on their own personality, but they are also part of a larger idea. For Promethea represents the imagination, the power of metaphor itself.

The newest incarnation, Sophie, a modern-day student, becomes Promethea in the course of researching her. In learning about her new powers, Sophie comes into contact with her predecessors and various other forces that seek to either control or free the imagination.

It was pretty fun reading this. While not a Rosetta stone for deconstructing Buffy, the Promethea series is quite similar in tone and execution. There’s a strong feminist sensibility at work, a generous mix of fairy tale, myth and pop culture, and dialogue that can shift from the grandiose to the snarky within a sentence. It is quite easy why Joss would appreciate the series, and it's easy to see Promethea’s direct influence on the episode Primeval.

In Primeval we see the Scoobies come together to form the SuperSlayer, each representing a different attribute: Xander the heart, Willow the spirit, Giles the mind, and Buffy the hand. The tarot is used to symbolize these different aspects. In Promethea, Sophie is instructed in the four weapons of Promethea, each embodied by one of her predecessors and symbolized by the different suits of the tarot: the cup, the sword, the pentacle and the wand.

The cup is said to represent compassion, in Primeval that would be the heart or Xander. The sword, reason and intellect – the mind, Giles. The pentacle or the coin is physical existence, manifest in Primeval as the hand and our Buffy. Finally there is the wand, in Promethea the representation of the will, and the symbol of creativity and magic – Willow most definitely.

The book puts it this way, "Four elements, four magical weapons, four essential human qualities… they’re all the same thing in a way. Spirit, compassion, intellect, and physical existence. You need them all to be Promethea… or to be human."

Sophie’s incarnation of Promethea is seen as combining all of these elements, creating a better version of Promethea than had gone before. However to battle her enemies Sophie calls forth these predecessors – they are both separate personas and still share the common essence of Promethea while physically distinct beings. In Primeval, the Scoobs combine their essences and identities to form the SuperSlayer within Buffy herself. They share one body, one mind, personalities subsumed into their new entity. The powers the SuperSlayer yields seem taken from Promethea as well, most particularly the idea that matter and mind are not separate, that the imagination can control reality, or rather there is no reality beyond what is imagined. Thus the SuperSlayer can change bullets into doves or detonate power cores harmlessly.


It’s interesting reading these books and seeing ideas and images that have echoes in Buffy. I’m left wondering what ideas or germs of ideas stuck with Joss and grew into something completely different. It’s fun to imagine how one thing led to the other, or simply coloured a perspective here and there. Among the things that stick with me is the image of Sophie’s red-haired friend weeping in the dark woods overwhelmed by the pain of the entire world, much as Willow would be unable to put the world's suffering into perspective in Grave. Little Red Riding Hood pulling a machine gun out of her basket reminded me of Buffy’s basket full of weapons in Fear Itself.

And then there was the completely board-related thrill I had to see the stripping of Inanna myth (so beloved of the Caroline) briefly touched upon. And I believe it was shadowkat who had mentioned the symbolism of colours in relation to Buffy and Spike. Here in Promethea was an explanation of Tantric sex complete with a colour chart. Who knows what Joss will take or leave, but it did warm my Spuffy heart to see that according to Moore the colour red representing fire and destructive passion led to the calmer more reflective green and into the gold of the chakra of the heart and the soul.

Well, this was a bit of a ramble. Don’t know if any of this made sense, eventually I may be able to do a more coherent analysis. Or at least throw random and annoying Promethea references into future posts!
[> You came in 5x5, pg. I sense another hit on my budget coming on... -- cjl, 07:01:08 07/28/02 Sun

I'm going to have to pick up the Promethea volumes and check it out for myself. Factor in my car problems and my vacation ticket...oh well, who says I have to eat this week?
[> Re: Promethea, Primeval and assorted ramblings -- aliera, 13:23:09 07/28/02 Sun

Great post, ponygirl...I will definitely have to look for it now. You made it sound wonderful. And from the way you described it very similar to Buffy in some ways. Thanks.
[> [> Thanks cjl and aliera -- ponygirl, 07:37:21 07/29/02 Mon

I look forward to hearing your opinions when and if you read the series! There were a couple times I wanted to toss the book aside and say "enough with the tarot cards already!" but it was definitely worth it. And at least we know that some of the references made on the board are ones that Joss would be familiar with.
[> [> [> Re: Thanks -- aliera, 09:14:15 07/29/02 Mon

Oh funny! Probably my posts too! I kind of like discussions about the cards and other stuff; but, I can see where it gets to be a bit much. I always look for the posts by people with other interests, although I may not respond...

It a humidity wave here today so I won't get out to the bookstore but I definitely will read it. I'll also bear in mind not to many tarot card evaluations! Take care!
You know you watch too much Buffy when... -- change, 11:46:59 07/28/02 Sun

I saw the new Austin Powers movie today. Britney Spears has a cameo as a Britneybot. When I saw it, the first thing I thought of was that it was an insider joke for Buffy fans. I wonder if Joss has connections with the Austin Powers screen writers.
[> Even if it's not for BtVS or AtS, PLEASE announce all spoilers! -- Wizardman, 22:36:52 07/28/02 Sun

[> [> Sorry. Minor spoiler that occurs within 1'st 5 minutes of the Austin Powers film (NT). -- change, 03:45:45 07/29/02 Mon

Classic Movie of the Week - July 27th 2002 -- OnM, 18:27:29 07/28/02 Sun

*******

Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.

............ Anais Nin

*******

The surest defense against Evil is extreme individualism, originality of thinking, whimsicality, even—if you
will—eccentricity. That is, something that can't be feigned, faked, imitated; something even a seasoned
impostor couldn't be happy with.

............ Joseph Brodsky

*******

Reality is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.

............ Phillip K. Dick

*******

This above all; to thine own self be true.

............ William Shakespeare

*******

At what point does preconception turn into prejudice?

Earlier this week, or maybe it was late last week, I read a letter to a syndicated medical advice column in
my local newspaper where the letter-writer took the doctor who writes the column to task for something
he had previously advised. Said advice was that, in the doctor’s opinion, it makes for a generally safer
household to keep any guns you might happen to own in an unloaded and/or locked-up condition. The
letter-writer pretty much took the position that the doctor must be a complete and total idiot, because he
rather sarcastically pointed out that if his house were being invaded by a criminal, precious moments would
be lost while he unlocked and loaded his weapon, thereby allowing the crook time to get the drop on him
or a family menber.

On the one hand, it might make perfect sense to ignore this kind of thing. After all, just how many actual,
real-world crimes are prevented by the homeowner confronting the burglar or whomever and
pointing a pistol at him/her? Statistically, I suspect the number is very small. Every time I read this kind of
comment from a gun-lover, I try very hard to recall the last time I read about such an occasion in the
paper, or heard about it on the electronic news, and I can never recall any. Oh, I’m sure it does
happen, it’s a big ol’ world, after all. On the other hand, a single day doesn’t go by that I don’t
read or hear about someone, somewhere, injured or killed by a carelessly utilized firearm, often right here
in my ‘little’ hometown. (~sigh~) God, guns and guts makes America paranoid. At any price, let’s get a
life, already.

It’s kind of like the ‘full moon’ theory of wacky behavior. Several years ago, I read an article about a
university-level research group that wanted to find what the actual causes were for this widely-accepted,
presumed-to-be-true belief. They decided to make a year-long survey of local hospital emergency rooms,
and analyze ‘cause and effect’ to the degree that it could be determined by studying patient case histories.
Most of the researchers frankly expected a ‘null’ result, or a slightly positive one that could be based on the
inherent psychological outlook of the patients. What they found out shocked them-- the incidents of crazy
behavior were statistically less on the three nights centered around the full moon. Now, not only did
they have to find a reason why this happened, but it seemed the whole preconception was faulty in
the first place, at least in the locality being surveyed.

I mention this full moon thing because a fellow I worked for some years ago was an individual who quite
regularly presented me with what I saw as a serious contradiction in intellectual behavior. Like myself, he
was trained as a service technician, and also enjoyed science-fiction stories and films (mostly the latter, I’m
unsure just how much literary SF he indulged in). For me, it is impossible to divorce my technical abilities
from having a fundamental understanding of basic science and the scientific method. While I like to keep an
open mind, if the data strongly suggest a certain conclusion in any given matter, I accept that conclusion
untill someone can satisfactorily prove otherwise. I can enjoy SF and fantasy as fictional creations, but if
too much ‘real’ science gets conveniently contradicted, I tend to tune out, at least if the creator of the
fictional work is purporting to ‘get real’ with his or her work.

But my associate really believed in things like the ‘full- moon’ effect on human behavior, alien abductions,
astrology, ‘creation-science’, psychic abilities, and all of that sort of pseudo-scientific babble that I
personally only accept as a fantasy scenario for purposes of entertainment. He would usually attempt to
justify his beliefs by citing some ‘expert’ opinion that tried to define a ‘logical, scientific’ explanation for
the phenomena, or failing that, fall back on the ‘so many people believe this, is must be true’ line of
reasoning.

Huh? I don’t think so. What I found so hard to believe is that he was able to divorce the knowledge base
that he used to repair electronic equipment from any and all other related scientific disiplines. I mean,
people, it’s all tied together, you know? Physics, chemistry, biology, most of the other related ologies, and
mathematics, the common language of the known universe. You can’t pick and choose. If you choose to
selectively believe, then there is no particular reason for your car to keep running or your computer to
compute. They might stop at any time, for pretty much any reason-- phases of the moon, because ‘the signs
aren’t right’, because an angry co-worker cast a spell on them.

Proof, please. And kindly don’t go around casually redesigning the universe until you have at least
a reasonable understanding of how it works ‘down on paper’ (or equivalent), objectively verifiable by
disinterested others. Be humble-- the universe is a big ol’ place, discovering its secrets will take a long,
long time, maybe more time than we will ever have as a species. Don’t read one book, and presume you
grok. And most of all, try to avoid preconceptions, they can make for trouble, big-time.

By now you are probably saying, ‘Gee, Mr. Philosophical Movie Man, we know all this, why the riff de la
obviousness?’. A fair question, I grant you. The point that I’m eventually wending my way toward has to
do with the fact that while the scientific method can be reliably applied towards figuring out how the
universe works, or applying the tools of logic and reason and statistical analysis to problems or perceptions
in general, it tends to work far less accurately when the subject is the interpretation of personal human
experience. Emotions and feelings don’t really exist on a literal, corporeal basis, they exist only as a mental
construct of a sentient mind. This construct is by its nature a tenuous structure, and typically ‘lives’ in a
state of constant flux.

And this line of thinking comes about because (again) earlier this week, I happened to read a series of posts
on the board that returned to the discussion of the death of the Tara character on BtVS this last season.

I first thought of posting a detailed response, but having already done so several months ago, I figured I’d
mostly be rehashing, and anyway there were already several other posters basically arguing exactly what I
would argue. However, I will reiterate here the one key point of my earlier post on the subject, which was
that the dilemma is unsolvable. You can argue effectively for either side because either side has
merit when logic and reason are applied in the most careful fashion possible. Depending on one’s
individual human experience and perceptions, Tara was either a victim of a ‘cliche’ perpetuated by
poor or insufficiently-creative writing, or the failure of the creative people involved to be honest with their
intended audience, or else just doing what ‘they had to do’ to tell the story they wanted to tell. All of
these things are likely true.

The only thing that was different about this series of posts was the suggestion that some fans of the show
who have been recently disappointed should consider actively not watching it when Season 7 starts
in the fall.

Huh? I don’t think so. Yes, I understand that it hurts. A character or situation that meant a lot to a lot of
people was destroyed, but I don’t recommend allowing one bad experience to prejudice oneself towards all
future experience. If this were true, there would be plenty of good doctors who stop the practice of
medicine the first time they lose a patient when they ‘shouldn’t have’, or lawyers who stop defending the
innocent because one of them got convicted despite their best efforts. For sure, the audio/video industry I
work in is chock-full of stupidity, short-sightedness and greed, but they also manage to make some pretty
cool toys on occasion that bring a lot of pleasure into the lives of millions of entertainment-starved
working-folk.

So what’s the very worst case scenario here? Joss screwed up? He made a bad decision and made the other
writers go along with it because he’s the boss? He killed off a character that a lot of people loved
(including yours truly) and was less than convincing with the reasons for doing so? So, is he suddenly a
hopeless, insensitive idiot and all his future works will now be worthless?

You gotta move on. Even if the decision was a bad one (and I’m not saying it was, but again, I understand
how it could be seen that way, I really do), one, or even two or three or ten instances of questionable
creativity doesn’t even begin to negate the vast amount of superior work that has been
presented for our entertainment and (bonus!!) enlightenment over the past six years. An artist’s work is
their child, at least if they care about it, and you need to be careful with the preconceptions when the child
does ‘a bad thing’. Past isn’t automatically prologue. Because BtVS Season 6 was a mega-bummer for
many doesn’t mean it had no value for others, or won’t even turn out to be pleasing to the currently
dismayed when the next year’s story takes off and runs. Don’t tune out-- if you watch Season 7 and don’t
like it, at least you’ll be able to argue your point from actual experience. If 90% of the viewers were
profoundly unhappy with the show (such as may have been with the last season or two of The
X-Files), that might be one thing, but no such situation exists with Buffy (or Angel), not even close.
Hey, I wasn’t a big-time fan of Angel Season 3, but I assure you I’ll be watching every ep next season
before I decide whether the show has run its course of creativity or not.

And finally, this whole prior discussion serves to preface my recommendation for this week’s Classic
Movie, La Vita è bella (Life Is Beautiful), directed by Roberto Benigni. This is a film that,
while securely in the plus column as regards worldwide critical opinion, nonetheless generated some
equally vehement detractors because of its particular treatment of certain subject matter.

At this point, I would like to issue a caution, one that I don’t usually do. Part of the job of ‘reviewing’
usually entails providing some description of the events that take place in the film. If the reviewer does a
proper job, s/he will not give away any critical plot points or other aspects of the film that would seriously
‘spoil’ the audience that has yet to see it, particularly if the film has been just newly released and is playing
in theaters.

The situation is slightly different for a film that is out of current release, and is available on video. I have
never seen any actual statistics on this subject, but my instinctive guess is that the majority of video rentals
(and certainly purchases) are of films that the renter/purchaser has already seen. Or, they may have
been intending to see it while it was in the theater, but didn’t get time, etc. etc. Or, it may be a film directed
by someone whom the viewer is familar with and likes. Or, the film may feature an actor or actors that
provide consistantly excellent work, even if the film itself is less then exemplary overall. Whatever the case,
most viewers know at least something about the movie before they see it. Certainly, I fit in this
category. So, I adjust the anount of ‘spoilage’ in my reviews according to the degree of familiarity I expect
my readers to have with the particular flick I’m discussing.

In this case, I happened by plain, random circumstance to be completely unfamiliar with either Life Is
Beautiful or Roberto Benigni, with the exception of ‘having heard the names’ and the awareness that
the film was highly regarded as a creative work. I was browsing the used laserdisc bins at one of my local
video vendors and came across it, and thought ‘hummm, did a kinda cynical film last week, might be
nice to do a more light-hearted one this week for contrast. Understand this Benigni guy can be pretty
funny, supposedly sort of an Italian Chaplin’. I plucked the disc from the bin, and then on Thursday
night after work popped it in the player without even reading the dust jacket.

I would suggest if you have not seen this film, and want to, that you might stop reading here and go
rent it, or else just skip to the Miscellanous section or the Question of the Week. I say this because I
was completely taken by surprise at the sudden and unexpected turn this film makes about half-way
through. Enough surprise, that you may wish to keep your own impressions distinct from mine until after
you’ve seen it for yourself. Whether you end up agreeing with me or not, I guarantee that the viewing
experience will be worth your time, because this is a very heartfelt and emotionally affecting film. Whether
you agree with the way the director realized his story may be up for debate, but his effort is a sincere one,
and so it’s a worthy debate to enter into if you wish.

Still here? OK, then on to the particulars.

Benigni not only wrote and directed Life is Beautiful, he also plays the lead role, a character named
Guido Orefice who does indeed recall visions of Chaplin’s ‘Little Tramp’ and his essentially humorous,
good-hearted, albeit slightly askew view of the rest of the world.

Benigni’s Guido is a jovial young man who moves to Tuscany, Italy in the late 1930’s to take a job as a
waiter in an elegant restaurant owned by his uncle (Giustino Durano), and who eventually wants to open a
bookshop. The car in which he is driving has its brakes fail while going down the long hill into town, and as
it goes careening along one of the main streets, gradually slowing to a halt, he is mistaken for a visiting
dignitary. This case of mistaken identity leads him to a chance meeting with Dora, a village school teacher
(played by Benigni’s real-life wife, Nicoletta Braschi) whom he immediately falls in love with. After
securing the waiter’s job, a series of comic misadventures ensue, during which time he appears destined to
run into Dora over and over again, each time accompanied by some event that seems to imply that their
love is more fated than a matter of random chance. Every character in the film is ‘colorful’ to say the least,
and those viewers who are fans of this type of ‘classic’ old- style film comedy will no doubt feel right at
home.

Midway though the film, the time changes to 1945, and the overall tone changes abruptly. This is
disconcerting at first, but when the film ends and you start to think back over what you have seen, it makes
perfect sense. One of the reasons why ‘good men do nothing’ and so ‘allow evil to triumph’ is that evil
often sneaks up slowly, and wears a disguise of easy dismissibility. The fascists must seem so ludicrously
bereft of sensibility to anyone possessing actual sense, that it is inconceivable that anyone would take them
seriously enough to provide them with any real political power. Guido may be a ‘clown’ but he has ‘sense’,
one reason why Dora finds him so honest and beguiling compared to the man she was previously engaged
to, who often espoused sympathy with the fascist line. The first half of the film is the world as Guido sees
it-- a beautiful, happy world, full of delightful possibilities, and the ‘villains’ that are present are foolish and
mockable, easily defeated by anyone with heart and will. Now it is made clear that for the moment, this is a
pipe-dream, but it also represents the world as it could be, and will be again in time.

Guido has married Dora, and they now have a 5-year-old son, Giosué (Joshua). The Fascists have risen in
prominence, and the town is now very inhospitable to Jews. Guido, a Jew, is inwardly terrified of what is
happening, but he tries to shield his son from the ugliness around him by concocting fanciful tales or
seemingly ‘logical’ explanations of things like the signs in the windows forbidding Jews to enter. ( For
example, when the boy asks why a store sign forbids entrance by ‘Jews and dogs’, Guido laughs it off,
suggesting they post a sign on their own bookshop, restricting entrance to ‘Visigoths’.)

Near the end of the war, all the Jews in town are rounded up by the Fascists and shipped by rail to a death
camp. Guido and Joshua are loaded into a train, and Guido instinctively tries to turn it into a game to
comfort his son. Dora, a gentile, goes to the train station and insists on being made a passenger along with
her husband and son. At first the soldiers refuse her, but finally give in and allow her to board. They travel
to the camp, where the men and women are quickly seperated and lead off to different barracks.

Once interred in the concentration camp, Guido spontaneously creates an involved and ever-expanding
fictional story to continue to protect his son from true awareness of the actual horror of the place. He
pretends that everything that is happening to them is part of a game, and the first ‘player’ to get 1,000
points will win. The ‘prize’ is a tank, a real one, and Joshua will be able to drive it anywhere he wants to
go. (Joshua had a toy tank that we see earlier in the picture, apparently a favorite toy.)

This is the point where one has to remember that this story is not an attempt to depict the reality of a
concentration camp-- the chance of pulling off a stunt like this is of course close to zero. The point is that
Guido doesn’t have any other way to fight back at his oppressors-- he doesn’t have a gun, or money for
bribes, or friends in the underground resistance, or anything but his quick wit and creativity. His primary
mission is to protect his family and try to keep them from almost certain death. I simply cannot agree with
those critics who seem to feel that this is an Italian version of ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ and that it is impossible to
utilize humor in conjunction with the Holocaust. While the ‘final solution’ subject itself certainly isn’t
funny, fascism is assuredly more than ripe for being seriously mocked, and this is exactly what Guido is
doing, as he has always done, although the primary practical effect now is to work towards survival.

A key scene that makes this intent very clear takes place shortly after Guido and Joshua arrive at the camp.
A pair of agressively intimidating German officers/guards stomp into the men’s barracks and demand to
know if any of the prisoners speak German. Guido doesn’t, but volunteers that he does, and walks over to
the guards, who eye him contemptuously. Ordered to translate into Italian, the one guard barks a long and
involved series of rules that the prisoners are to follow. After each pause, Guido ‘translates’ the ‘order’
into the ‘rules of the game’ that everyone must follow to win the ‘first prize’. Joshua stares at his father in
fascination, taking everything in as if it were completely true. Guido has no idea what the real ‘rules’ are,
and in fact there is no need to. The one obvious real rule doesn’t need translation-- it is to stay alive by any
means possible.

Life Is Beautiful is not a story about fascists, or concentration camps or even the Holocaust. It is a
story about the need to provide hope and the sense that life can transcend the horrors of the moment and
come out the other side with spirit intact or recoverable. It is not about finding humor in the land of the
humorless, it is about destroying that negativity with positive actions.


E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,

OnM


*******

Technically subjective objectivity:

La Vita è bella / Life Is Beautiful is available on DVD, the review copy was on laserdisc. The film
was released in1997 in Italy, and in 1998 in the USA. Running time seems to vary slightly with the
particular version, but is somewhere between 1 hour, 54 minutes / 2 hours, 2 minutes. The original
theatrical aspect ratio was 1.85:1, which was preserved on the laserdisc edition and presumably also on the
DVD version.

The screenplay was written by Roberto Benigni and Vincenzo Cerami. The producers were Gianluigi
Braschi, Mario Cotone and Elda Ferri. Cinematography was by Tonino Delli Colli with film editing by
Simona Paggi. Production design, art direction and costume design were all by Danilo Donati, with set
decoration by Luigi Urbani. Music was by Nicola Piovani and Jacques Offenbach. The original theatrical
sound mix was Dolby Digital, DTS and other standard digital film formats.

Cast overview:

Roberto Benigni .... Guido Orefice
Nicoletta Braschi .... Dora
Giustino Durano .... Guido's uncle
Sergio Bini Bustric .... Ferruccio Papini
Giuliana Lojodice .... School principal
Amerigo Fontani .... Rodolfo
Pietro De Silva .... Bartolomeo
Francesco Guzzo .... Vittorino
Raffaella Lebboroni .... Elena
Giorgio Cantarini .... Giosué Orefice
Marisa Paredes .... Madre di Dora
Horst Buchholz .... Dr. Lessing
Claudio Alfonsi .... Amico Rodolfo
Gil Baroni .... Prefect
Massimo Bianchi .... Man with Key

*******

Miscellaneous:

Here’s an interesting article about M. Night Shyamalan’s new film Signs and what he attempts to
provide for his audience in all of his films to date:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/entertainment/3752354.htm

(c) 2002 / The Philadelphia Inquirer

***

Hey! It’s (almost) the end of July! (Almost) the beginning of August!! So soon it will be time for:

The Second Annual Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures Month o’ Reviews here at
CMotW!

( Yes, I had such a ball doing this last year, that I decided to do it all over again for 2002. Wow, tradition
is kewl!! )

These are those strange little flicks (or great big epic-y ones) that you really kinda like, but are not so sure
you want to share that fact with your friends, family or co- workers. They can be B-flicks that are way
better than expected, or A-flicks that seemingly no one out there in movie-land liked but you. They can be
stuff that never even made it to the movie theater despite being intended for same, but got released directly
into the video market.

While I’m sure I can come up with another four or five ‘film fatales’ to add to my choices from last year,
I’d be more than happy to accept some ‘guest host’ reviews from ya’all on this topic. We’re a pretty
accepting buncha semi-intellectual philosophical dweebs here at ATPo, so if you want to come out with a
GP/BT film of your very own, then be aware that there is no place like this place near this place, so this
must be the place!

Pick a flick, write up a review in the general style of this weekly column, and send it to me at:

objectsinmirror@mindspring.com

as a .txt or Word RTF file. If you have a Mac, you may also just send it as the body of your e-mail if your
Mac doesn’t like to format WP files for Windows. You don’t need to do the ‘technical stuff’, Misc. or
QotW if you don’t want to, but if you do, please do!

Any questions, same addy. Get those guilty feelings out in the open, you’ll feel better and maybe clue the
rest of us in to a worthwhile and overlooked cinematic gem, or even just a good Saturday night’s mindless
entertainment!

;-)


*******

The Question of the Week:

Is there any subject matter that you thought was impossible to treat in a humorous fashion, either
directly or satirically, but then saw a film that managed to do so? While normally I’m looking for films
here, in this case I’ll bend the rules a mite to accept TV movies or shows, since TV-land has traditionally
been a home for satire and parody (for example Monty Python or SNL).

Post’emifyou’vegot’em, and as always, take care! See you next week, and maybe on time, this time!

*******

~ ~ ~

Classic Movie of the Week

Best Picks in Flicks for the Philosophically Inclined or Just Plain Bored

- for over -

0.015 Century

Yee-hah!

~ ~ ~


*******
[> On a lighter note,one of my personal favourites would have to be "Strictly Ballroom" -- AurraSing, 18:54:49 07/28/02 Sun

I dare anyone who watches this movie and then runs across one of those PBS ballroom dancing specials not to guffaw even contemplating sitting there and watching the contestants dance with a completely straight face.

It turned what appears to be a boring and straight-laced sport into a wonderful comedy about not wanting to conform anymore,about the sadness of being an ugly ducking but most of all it's about love and how it turns up in the most unlikely places.
[> [> Re: On a lighter note,one of my personal favourites would have to be "Strictly Ballroom" -- fresne, 11:57:28 08/01/02 Thu

And of course it contains some darn nice dance sequences. Personally, I love it when Dad and Grandma show the young man a thing or two about Spanish dancing.

Then again, I love Baz Luhrmann's stuff.
[> A thoughtful review, thank you -- Rahael, 18:59:12 07/28/02 Sun

I haven't seen Vita e bella yet, because I find that such films just hit too hard for me.

I avoid a lot of films - about war, about genocide, and any play/film which advocates hatred of other human beings.

Mostly, my problem with war films is that we spend so much time in the head of the soldiers. The second category is too harrowing. And the third just frightens me. I have no problems with films about hatred - that's a different category for me.

I think anything can have humour in it, or be treated with humour. Gallows humour in the face of tragedy is a very important part of human survival. It is of course, a matter of careful handling. Many films treat murder humorously. I think Vita e bella is one of the riskier films, and I can't comment on its effectiveness because I haven't seen it. I have a feeling that its humour would make it even more gut wrenching for me.

Just a minor nitpick - you quote Shakespeare as having said "to thine own self be true" - that isn't true. The creepy Polonious says that. It's doubly ironic that he makes this statement in Hamlet, a play which questions the nature of self. It's frequently attributed to Shakespeare as a wise maxim - though it's a bit like attributing a bit of dialogue by the Mayor to Joss (though the Mayor is of course, far more likeable than Polonious). Reminds me of the scene in Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" where Mr Deasey says:

"As Shakespeare says, 'Put money in your purse,'" and Stephen mutters "Iago."
[> [> You're welcome. As to quotes and attributions... ( Note: *Spoilers* for film ) -- OnM, 20:34:34 07/28/02 Sun

... the source of the quote was the one I most commonly use, a website somewhat portentiously titled "On Matters of Most Grave Concern", but which harbors a stunning collection of quotes from sources both old and new, all nicely grouped by general topic.

http://www.mostgraveconcern.com/

If a quote is one made by a character in a play, film, book, TV show, wouldn't the 'author' of the quote be, in fact, the writer of said work? Is there a conventional method for how such a quote should be presented?

I'd be interested to know, if so-- this seems like a grey area to me.

Whether Vita e bella is a film that you will find to be an enriching or depressing experience is a tough call to make, and I certainly wouldn't presume to suggest anything other than my own reactions, as stated in my review. One thing for sure, there is very little time spent in the 'heads of the soldiers'-- the story is very clearly told from Guido's perspective, and Guido intends to be a survivor, or at least try to achieve survival for his beloved wife and child. In this regard, it's a very life- affirming film, despite the darkness that shifts the tone of the second part. The director's intentions seem very honorable to me, and I appreciate the risk he took by structuring the film the way that he did.
[> [> [> quotation convention -- Solitude1056, 21:08:14 07/28/02 Sun

The quotation convention that I see most often in academic works is that of the quote, followed by the title of the piece, and the author's name. The assumption is that in the fiction piece, the author had a character say the line, which is different from the author himself saying it. I have seen quotes where it's simply quote and author, but I prefer quote, title, and author, myself, and that's how I usually do it in my own academic pieces. I've noticed that Ded also does the same, in the essays he's sent me.
[> [> [> [> Re: quotation convention/ War films -- Rahael, 05:55:26 07/29/02 Mon

I avoid if at all possible watching any film about war or its effects. I might, I think read a novel about war – only I haven’t.

Of course, I read any amount of poetry about war, though actually, I do not share many people’s fondness for poetry of the first world war, though there are some individual poems I like a lot. I should probably count Greek, Indian and Icelandic epics about warriors and wars. And I always keep forgetting that my main historical interest has been the New Model Army, and looking at English politics purely through their heads! (Okay, there is some great irony here – I only remembered this as I was writing this out.)

I guess I am interested in the following questions: why do people watch films about war? What do you get out of it? This is not a rhetorical question, but one which I am genuinely interested in finding out. Is it, like Buffy, an examination of human beings under unusual circumstances, an extended metaphor? Is it a personal interest because it has touched you in some way?

Perhaps my reaction is affected by the different experience I have when watching the visual medium and the act of reading. I’ve mentioned before that ‘watching’ is a phenomenon that was new to me. I did not grow up with a television, and when I was little, I had heard of it, and tried hard to imagine what it might be like.

I find that reading gives me a control that watching does not. I am one of those horrendous people who underline and make little notes when reading things. I can stop at any point. I can put the book down. I can pick it up when I am feeling differently. I can look things up. It’s just looking at text itself – I can feel a distance from it. I can critique it, agree with it, disagree with it, understand what the writer wants me to feel and how she achieves it.

I most often read things twice. A particularly good passage gets reread often as five times. I may stop and copy it out. Most importantly, books leave a lot to the imagination. Words, groupings of words, descriptions of texture, colour smell, these unleash flashes of memories, ideas, concepts. Reactions which are yours alone.

Film, the visual medium I find inserts itself into my mind, ready made. I do not feel the same critical distance from it. I find myself insidiously, uncritically taken along with the narration of the film, and if that particular film depicts brutal and random violence, spectacular explosions and the like, I find it disturbing. I lose the control to imagine things the way I want. I’m told how to see things.

This is not to say I don’t love films, nor that I cannot watch violent films. The best films speak visually to me as words do sometimes. Convince me that there is no better way to see what is being depicted, and for some reason keep me thinking, questioning all the way through. Miller's Crossing, by the Coen brothers for example is a particularly violent film. There are many terrible scenes where men are humiliated by others with the use of violence/guns. It successfully depicted to me both the viewpoint of the man holding the gun, and the man trembling on his knees. Most importantly, it is not emotionally manipulative, a quality I cannot value highly enough.

Also, a counterpoint to your question about difficult subjects being handled with humour. What about great films about distasteful subjects? D.W Griffiths ‘Birth of a Nation’ which I have never seen. Leni Riefenstahl’s ‘Triumph of the Will”, which I understand to be enormously influential.

As for quotations, in written essays, and academic work, if I were to quote something for any special reason, I’m more likely to quote because of the context. In other words, I would quote “To thine own self be true” as an ironic statement. But that’s because I’m aware that it is probably the second most common mistake people make with Shakespeare (the first is the quote “Lead on Macduff”, which really should be “Lay on, Macduff”).

Like Sol, in essays, I'd always footnote every quote with the title and author. I'd also add page number, date of publication.

In posts/ordinary conversations, I am more often circumspect. Often novelists most quoted phrases tend to happen in the narrative, so I have no problem someone saying “as Forster said, Only Connect”. Also, Oscar Wilde is a playwright whose aphorisms tend to be distributed indiscriminately among his characters as amusing and witty lines, and can be taken safely out of context. But this is only my point of view – more discerning readers of Wilde might have a different one.
[> [> [> [> [> Learn something new every day. -- matching mole, 08:54:54 07/29/02 Mon

I had no idea that the term New Model Army refered to anything other than a punk band. A quick search on google revealed the earlier NMA - a military group during the English Civil War. Thanks for broadening my horizons.
[> [> [> [> [> Reading vs. watching -- Sophist, 09:20:12 07/29/02 Mon

I find that reading gives me a control that watching does not. ... Film, the visual medium I find inserts itself into my mind, ready made. I do not feel the same critical distance from it.

I think yours is the most common experience. I've always found it odd that I get far more emotionally involved in books than I ever do watching TV or movies. I almost always feel somehow distant in the theater; horror movies don't work for me because I simply don't get scared. There are exceptions to this -- Schindler's List, for example, had a profound effect on me. With books, in contrast, I can lose myself completely.

I'm just curious whether anyone else experiences this "opposite" reaction.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I do... -- Rob, 10:28:40 07/29/02 Mon

I am an avid reader. I adore reading. I do it all the time. And yet I never find myself with the emotional reactions that I do when I watch a stirring film. I have never cried reading a book; I have watching a movie. I have never truly been scared by a horror book; I have by horror movies. I am a very visual person. When I'm reading a book, I find myself very capable of distancing myself from the action. I can look up and away from the book; a great deal of the time I read in crowded places. I just find it very easy to not get too involved if I don't want to. That is not to say that there are not some books I adore. As I said, I love reading. And there are some exceptions to this rule--#1 being Neil Gaiman. But then, going with my visual preference, a great deal of his best works are comic books, except for his novel, "American Gods."

When you are in a movie theatre, there is no way to escape the film. The sounds surround you. The picture fills almost your entire field of vision. Even when I watch a film at home, I can shut out the entire world by turning on a DVD. There are films that make me cry or feel sad or happy or make laugh every time I see them. (There are a lotta Buffy eps that do that for me too.) A great background score helps a lot, too, whether it's playfully dark, like a Danny Elfman piece, or sweepingly epicy like John Williams.
And no film or book has ever touched me, in my entire life, the way that "Moulin Rouge" did (with the exception of "Buffy" and "Six Feet Under," which I hold in equal regard to each other, and to "Moulin Rouge").


Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Emotional Involvement -- Rahael, 12:37:38 07/29/02 Mon

Thanks for these - made me think some more.

I'd say I had a more instinctive emotional reaction to films - I often cry when watching films, which doesn't really happen when I read books.

But I'd also say that I tend to forget visual images pretty quickly. Words have more power for me. Whole books take root in my mind, creating a whole world, an atmosphere that stays with me forever. I know lines of poems by heart - they become part of me. Each powerful book I read is kind of like a whole new room in my mind. A room which gains in depth with each rereading.

Thanks for the recommendation of Das Boot, Mundus. It is actually one of the films I have on my 'must watch' list. Perhaps it's because I am so politically opinionated that I have such trouble with so much film making about wars. There still seems to be this residual glamour surrounding guns/killers/soldiers. Even if it's a kind of anti-hero glamor. Can I just mention in passing that I loathe James Bond? lol. A quirk of mine.

Mole, the New Model is a fascinating army because it was made up of volunteers, not conscripts. They saw themselves as fighting for certain values - anti the tyranny of the Crown, safeguarding the constitutional freedoms of England. And as a side note re the whole issue of anti-semitisim, Cromwell argued in the 1650s to formally welcome Jews to England. His fellow councillors argued him down, but only formally. Informally, the welcome remained. But best not mention the anti-Catholicism!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Emotional Involvement & Memory -- shadowkat, 13:01:07 07/29/02 Mon

Interesting discussion regarding emotional involvement and memory.

Sophist tends to react more to books, less to movies, Rob more to movies, Rah more to movies but also to books, which appear to resonate more.

For me - my emotional reaction depends on the film and/or book. Most horror novels don't scare me but the movies do.
Example - The Shining as a novel - no impact. The movie?
Scared the wits out of me.

I too am an avid reader and tend to read just about everything. But I can't remember lines or lyrics or poetry.
I can tell you play by play everything I saw on film and if I read the book closely? I can tell you the entire plot, characters, theme, exactly what happened of a book I read twenty years ago. I can still relate the Great Gatsby, and I read that at least twenty years ago as an example.
Of course I read the book and saw the movie. But I can also tell you the plot of C.S. Lewis NArnia books which I read over 25 years back. (okay I feel old now.)

My memory is more visual than auditory. If I can see the story in my head, I'll always remember it. If I see it, write about it, and read it aloud - it's ingrained forever.
Some episodes of Buffy will never leave my head. I think I have Seeing Red and OMWF imprinted on my brain for example.

Does the way we remember something affect our enjoyment of it? I don't remember anything I hear - song lyrics go right through my head, poetry is the same way - yet I truly love it. So maybe it doesn't affect enjoyment. No my enjoyment and emotional attachment is more linked to whether I can relate to what is happening in the story in a personal way.
If I can't relate - it's unlikely to move me. If I can - it will.

I tend to avoid slapstick comedy for example because it makes me cringe, not laugh. I love dark, black comedy. But slapstick - where we laugh at someone who is being humilated is very painful to me. I find myself identifying too closely to the person being humilated - ex: Meet The Parents. Yet - I loved the first Pink Panther movie. So perhaps it is the type of humilation? Or maybe my own experiences?

YEt, I can be affected emotionally by something I've never experienced myself - if I can relate to the metaphor.
Schindler's List affected me deeply for instance. So it doesn't have to be an exact experience.

I think part of creating art is hunting a way of expressing yourself on an emotional level to your audience. In a way it's like walking a tight rope - you don't want to manipulate the audiences emotions (at least not obivously, you'll lose them) on the other hand you want to affect them emotionally - whether that is to scare them or make them cry. And you want to be true to the story. How artists manage to pull that off continues to fascinate me.

yes...another ramble. hope made some sense. Nice thread.
Thanks OM et al.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Emotional Involvement & Memory -- Sophist, 13:35:08 07/29/02 Mon

My memory is more visual than auditory. If I can see the story in my head, I'll always remember it. If I see it, write about it, and read it aloud - it's ingrained forever

That's a good point. My visual memory is much better than my audio one (though I do remember song lyrics well, just not, say, college professors :)).

But I'm not sure that affects the immediate emotional impact of a work. Maybe it does; much of our emotional reaction depends on how something resonates with things we remember. OTOH, you'd think the emotion of a movie would be apparent within the confines of the movie itself.

This is a long-winded way of saying I'm clueless.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Emotional Involvement & Memory -- Dead Soul, 14:19:52 07/29/02 Mon

I'm so heavily verbal, i.e., left-brained vs/ right-brained that I've had dreams that are nothing more than me reading, that is actually seeing on the page, a "new" book by a favorite author that my subconscious has made up.

Scariness/gore in neither books nor movies actually scares me but in books something really extreme can make me a little uncomfortable - although I think books are allowed to be more extreme than movies simply because a.) they aren't visual, and b.) in general, any given book has fewer readers than a given movie (e.g., how many more people saw "Hannibal" than read the book - I might be completely wrong, I have no idea what the box office vs. book sales score is).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Emotional Involvement & Memory -- aliera, 16:40:57 07/29/02 Mon

Hey, you're younger than me, so no grousing.

I think my experiences are different from most (even on this board). I can easily go a long, long time in the summer with no TV not even a day without a new book, although as I've gotten older it tends more and more towards non-fiction. About the emotional or intellectual resonance, I tend to manipulate this more for myself now by my choices in material.

Let me ask you this instead...what types of scenes do you remember most vividly?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Scenes remember most vivdly? Going back to Btvs (Spoilers through Season 6) -- shadowkat, 18:35:56 07/29/02 Mon

Since we are on the ATPbtvs board - I figure I'll take this back to Buffy.

"Let me ask you this instead...what types of scenes do you remember most vividly?"

Interesting question. Hard to answer. Here are a few examples of the scenes I remember from Buffy vividly at this moment in time:

I remember Buffy on the floor of the darkened hallway, Angelus just attacked Willow and she barely saved her. Someone askes if she is alright. For some reason this scene is the most vivid of Innocence/Surprise. Next to the incredibly painful scene in his apartment when he tells her that she didn't quite cut it.

I will never forget the scene in the bathroom. If I close my eyes, I can see it replayed in black and white. Just as I see Spike back at the crypt breaking a glass in his hands.
I also will never forget Willow sitting on the floor, her eyes glowing red.

The scene from the Gift...when Buffy tells her Sister why she must jump and does jump.

Willow throwing knives at Glory.

Buffy and Spike having sex as the building came down around them in Smashed.

The scene from I will Always Remember You - Buffy is in tears screaming that she will never forget Angel being human.

In movies? I vividly remember Jack Nicholson knocking an AX through the wall in the Shining and saying here's Johnny.
I also vividly remember Malcom McDowell singing "Singing in The Rain" as he attacks the family in his white tights and black bowler hat in A Clockwork Orange. I remember the scene in The Searchers where John Wayne has finally found the Apache Scar. Or the scene in the Wild Bunch where the children torture a scorpion.

More positive images...the dance in Pride and Prejudice, the proposal and the scene where Colin Firth dives into the pool then encounters Elizabeth outside his grounds, his awkward embarrassement (version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle), the scene where Dustin Hoffman rips off his whig and exposes himself as a man in Tootsie.

I think the images that resonate, that I remember are the ones that hit me on a gut level. Violent scenes. Scenes that scare me. That make me turn away. Or scenes that intrigue me, make me think, turn me on.

I remember renting the film The Haunting - the 1960 film with Clair Bloom, Julie Harris based on Shirly Jackson novel. As a child my brother and I watched a version on PBS.
When I re-watched the movie version with him, he suddenly exclaimed during one particularly horrifying scene - "oh! It's a movie. I always thought that memory was from a re- occuring dream I had." (The image/memory that he remembered was of a woman running out of the old house in terror almost to get hit by a car. The woman couldn't say what frightened her...and we never found out.)

I think the types of scenes we remember may be different for all of us.

I was reading a thread from the Feb archive on what everyone thought of Season 6 so far. It was fascinating - people loved different episodes and placed them in different categories.

Everyone voted OMWF as excellent.
But some put OAFA as mediocre, some as excellent. Some loved Smashed. Some hated it. Some preferred DMP, some thought it was the worste. What delighted me - is all the opinions were valid, the variations had to do with what resonated with each person. What images were vivid to them.

So my question - assuming anyone reads this rambling post or makes it this far:
Which images are most vivid from Season 6? Which resonated for you? Without re-watching the episode, which images will stay with you? Haunt you? And why?

For example: Seeing Red will haunt me...because the scene in the bathroom and in the crypt immediately thereafter - hit me where I lived. It brought up images and feelings about things that I hadn't really thought about. From a pov that never occurred to me. I'm still wrestling with these images and feelings. Just as Smashed
did. And Dead Things. I'll never forget that scene in the Bronze or the crypt door scene. Why? I think because the sex scenes and relationship between Spike and Buffy was so different than what I'd seen before. It was seductive and
racy and violent. And intense. Neither character was portrayed in a good or bad light. It was like watching two people caught up in a hurricane of emotion, attraction, and addiction. Feeding off of each other. It brought up questions in my head about the nature of human relationships, sexuality, love, physical and emotional attraction, desire, and domestic violence. These were disturbing questions but ones that continue to buzz in my head unanswered.

Then there was the vividness of Willow sucking the text into her. Going dark. This brought up questions of vengeance of how far we are willing to go. What breaks us?
More questions that hum in my head unanswered. Probably why I keep writing essays. My attempt to answer them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Scenes remembered most vividly? -- OnM, 20:40:56 07/29/02 Mon

The two most vivid scenes that I recall from S6 both involve Buffy, and both are intensely painful to watch.

One, the scene where Buffy confesses to Tara that she's been sleeping with Spike, and Tara accepts this non-judgmentally, which horrifies Buffy even more.

Two, the scene at the end of Bargaining Pt II where Buffy is on the tower and wants to kill herself, and knowing why, which we didn't the first time around, but did later on at rerun time.

Both of these images are steeped in real horror, not the traditional gory, fantasy kind. But they also clearly illustrate why Buffy is a creature of the light, because in both cases she goes through the pain and comes out the other side.

There are many other scenes, but these are the first two that come to mind. Perhaps I'll try to do a list at greater length tomorrow.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Scenes remember most vividly? Going back to Btvs (Spoilers through Season 6) -- aliera, 05:34:57 07/30/02 Tue

Season six
Buffy digging out of the grave and crouching in an alley...Buffy framed by stone angel wings...Buffy sitting on her bed surrounded by a barrier of garlic...Buffy in the alley in DT...

Willow bargaining...in Wrecked...Willow with the bramble of lethe...crouched on the floor holding her legs against herself when Tara leaves...Willow in the Bronze with Amy...her eyes going black in SR...crying in Xander's arms

Spike in Buffy's house in B2 as she stands above him on the stairs and sitting with her in the 'living room', crying by the tree...in the crypt 'I saved you everynight'...in the grave holding up a look-a-like vamp in front of himself as an offering...his face in DT...his face in SR...barefoot in the demon's cave.

Xander with Willow in the woods...xander in the kitchen 'I have tools'...his face as Anya does her dance of capitalist joy...dancing with Anya in OMWF...his face in Hell's Bells...with the ax...standing in front of Proserpexa offering.

But my most vivid memory of Buffy is from season two...cruched before Angelus holding the sword between her two hands like a prayer...realizing she has herself and it's enough.

Sorry would like to respond further, but I just looked up and realized I'm late for work. Perhaps more later!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Scenes remember most vivdly? Going back to Btvs (Spoilers through Season 6) -- ponygirl, 06:36:09 07/30/02 Tue

There are many scenes from BtVS that stick with me. I can remember describing Becoming 2 to a friend and both of us actually getting goosebumps. S6 will probably have the lion's share of such moments just because of its emotional intensity, but Dead Things really got to me. Watching the alley scene between Buffy and Spike I choked a bit, it was though I had forgotten to breathe. I'm usually pretty conscious of my responses to movies and tv especially when I'm watching with other people it's rare that I get caught off guard by my own emotions, but in that scene? I completely forgot that I was watching something separate from myself. I've had that happen on occasion with movies and books but never with tv.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Emotional Involvement & Memory -- mundusmundi, 08:46:24 07/30/02 Tue

Both movies and books resonate with me. Though I'd have to say that I prefer books that read like movies over movies that play like books. The novels I love the most are usually very visceral, along the lines of Martin Cruz Smith or Michael Connelly. I'm presently reading Laura Hillenbrand's marvelous Seabiscuit, and the prose is so lean and muscular, so cinematic, that I find myself playing a movie of it in my mind. (Gary Ross, the writer-director of Pleasantville, has reportedly snatched up the screen rights, to which I've mixed feelings.)

I tend to dislike static films, which is why I'm not a fan of the Dogme '95 or low-budgie digital Sundance flicks. I like movies that engage me on a variety of levels. Steven Soderbergh is, right now, the filmmaker who does that better than anyone else. He makes movies the way people breathe -- so naturally. (In fact, he got his start with a low-budget indie, sex, lies and videotape, but that film is very organically made, as a friend recently said, and only seems static at first glance.) The new Ocean's Eleven will never be mistaken for one the all-time great movies, but I get jazzed watching it. Soderbergh tosses off complex scenes so casually it makes me laugh. That's the kind of film that stays with me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I love Soderbergh too.....esp. Out of Sight -- Rahael, 11:14:39 07/30/02 Tue

I watched it in during a wonderful December in 1998. You have reminded me that it is one of those films that has stayed with me - all spine chilling, romantic and complex.

In fact, I can't think of that Christmas without remembering it. It was just the right film at the right moment. Magic!

Vertigo, North by Northwest, Bad day at Blackrock, The Apartment are other films that stick in my memory.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Out of Sight...great flick -- mundusmundi, 12:44:18 07/30/02 Tue

Although it did disappointing box office when initially released, Out of Sight really launched Soderbergh's comeback and Clooney and Lopez's careers. I love the editing in all his movies, and especially in OoS, which features Anne V. Coates' brilliant work. She's the genius who edited Lawrence of Arabia four decades ago, practically inventing the jumpcut. (Remember the famous shot of Lawrence blowing out a candle, that cuts away to the sun rising over the desert? Ahhh, beautiful.)

Save for Traffic, which is disappointingly lacking in goodies, nearly all his DVDs are stuffed with extras. The commentary tracks are particularly fun, since they usually include some of the stars needling each other (and possibly drunk), and in the case of The Limey, Soderbergh tangles half-jokingly with his screenwriter, Lem Dobbs, who accuses him of ruining the movie. Mwahaha.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There are at least 2 versions -- mundusmundi, 13:10:41 07/29/02 Mon

of Das Boot, both of which are worth seeing. The shorter version, "only" 2 1/2 hours, is the one that premiered in the States back in 1981. The longer version clocks in at around 4 1/2 hours and is the one that was initially released in Germany as a TV miniseries. As somebody else wrote (I think at the IMdB), the former plays more like an "adventure," while the latter feels like a "mission." The short version gives a more general depiction of the characters and compresses the action scenes so that they offer more thrills and chills. The longer one is more character-oriented, draws out the cat-and-mouse games between the U-Boat and the British destroyers to riveting and nearly unbearable extremes, and is ultimately more satisying, I think. Needless to say, watch it on DVD.

You indirectly reminded me of another inherent flaw of war movies, which Das Boot shares: No girls allowed. Save for the stereotypical sweetheart back home, prostitute in port or French lass rolling in hay, war films are invariably about boys. 'Tis the nature of the beast.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Emotional Involvement -- matching mole, 14:01:43 07/29/02 Mon

I think that film (especially in the theatre) has a much more immediate emotional impact. However, although I generally don't react as strongly to books, the effect is generally more subtle and more long lasting. My imaginative memory is not terribly visual and I can't really conjure up the effect of a film or a painting when I'm not looking at it. With a book I'm imagining it as I go along and it works its way more deeply into my subconscious. I can recall the effect even when I'm not reading it. That's not to say that I can recall all the details of the plot - I have a terrible memory for such things unless I've read or watched multiple times.

For example - yesterday I went and saw 'Minority Report' based on a short story by a favourite author of mine, Philip K. Dick. The visual style and imagery of the film had an impact that none of Dick's written work could duplicate. I waited for the conclusion with much greater anticipation, I was more worried for the immediate safety of the characters than I ever would be reading something he wrote. However when I read a really good PKD novel I'm left with the sense of quiet unease. I'm not moved to tears (or even close to it) by the plight of Dick's characters. But the book insinuates things about society, human interaction, the nature of reality itself in a way that would be very hard to do in a film. That feeling will always be with me while the impact of Minority Report is already fading. That's not necessarily a comment on the quality of the film but on how my mind works.

Reading poetry to myself generally has almost no effect on me. Hearing it read aloud (even if I'm the one reading) or listening to song lyrics can have a very strong effect on me. In fact I'd guess that songs have moved me to tears (or close to it) more than all other forms of art combined. And I can remember lyrics really well. It's too bad I'm tone deaf!

Thanks for the info on the New Model Army. Next I'll find out that Captain Sensible and Johnny Rotten were the names of important advisors to Cromwell.

Like Rah, I think my own anti-war bias is strong enough to make watching war films difficult. The war movie that had the strongest positive effect on me was 'The Grand Illusion'. I recognize its rather naive idealism but I can't help but get carried away by it (much like John Lennon's Imagine).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "I was a male war bride" - my favourite War film! -- Rahael, 14:36:50 07/29/02 Mon

Mundus, you reminded me of the above Cary Grant film which I love, with your comment 'no girls allowed'. You know, I hadn't even thought of that? lol. How startlingly obvious now.

Anyway, I recommend it to anyone who might be inexplicably unaware of it. It's excellent.

And Mole, I too love Philip K Dick, and he has exactly the same uneasy effect on. His world is both so real, and so utterly strange all at the same time.

And I think your comment about the interaction of your imagination and the book, working its way deeper into your consciousness is exactly my experience.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're quite the exception... -- Darby, 19:55:08 07/29/02 Mon

I've been doing a classroom / laboratory exercise to help students figure out how their minds process information (and to figure out whether they share compatabilities with professors, an incredibly useful ability) for a number of years, and I find that science majors are overwhelmingly visual.

Did you see the posts here about the "hidden message" in Minority Report that changes the ending dramatically? I think it went up about a week ago in the middle of a huge thread on another topic (wish I could remember what), and I think D'Herblay originated it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're quite the exception... -- matching mole, 08:50:02 07/30/02 Tue

Interesting - the visual memory thing. Maybe my left brain is visual (I do understand abstract concepts better if they're presented as an image) but my right brain isn't?

I haven't been checking the board very regularly of late so I missed the Minority Report discussion. I'll look it up.

Thanks
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're quite the exception... -- mundusmundi, 09:03:27 07/30/02 Tue

Did you see the posts here about the "hidden message" in Minority Report that changes the ending dramatically? I think it went up about a week ago in the middle of a huge thread on another topic (wish I could remember what), and I think D'Herblay originated it

Terry Gilliam performed a similar feat in Brazil (another movie Minority Report is incredibly derivative of and which none of the critics deigned to notice), except Brazil plays for keeps and at the end shows you what actually happened to poor Jonathan Pryce. Spielberg, as usual, wants to have it both ways, to be a "serious" filmmaker without having the stones to back up this new trend toward seriousness. I liked him better in the 70's and early 80's when he was unabashedly populist. And when he bothered to employ an editor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speilberg -- matching mole, 09:23:03 07/30/02 Tue

I tracked down the thread and I have to say that it seems a most Dickian conclusion. I really enjoyed MR even though I certainly agree that the ending was completely gratuitous. Mostly I liked seeing an sf film that wasn't an endless series of explosions.

I think that mundus' comment about Speilberg wanting to have it both ways is very interesting given his tendency to make films based on work by authors that seem (to me at any rate) to have completely different world views from his own. Ballard and now Dick.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not to mention Alice Walker. -- mundusmundi, 12:35:13 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reading vs. watching -- aliera, 15:14:28 07/29/02 Mon

I, also. My imagination is more fully engaged.
[> [> [> [> [> Not wild about war films. -- mundusmundi, 11:46:37 07/29/02 Mon

I think because most of them fall into a pulverizing dichotomy: pro or anti. The former tend to be jingoistic and the latter pendantic. From John Wayne to John Milius, pro- war movies can give you a temporary charge that makes you hate yourself in the morning, while highly praised anti-war films like Platoon or Paths of Glory often strike me as "thesis movies" that don't give you any room to think or breathe. If anything, the glut of war movies since Saving Private Ryan is even worse, mimicking the jittery, washed-out style and piled-on carnage of Spielberg's film (a movie that, in and of itself, is deeply confused about what it's trying to say). My favorite war movies usually use war as peripheral to the subject. Das Boot, for example, takes you so deeply into its German characters that you can't help but have empathy. It's held up remarkably well after 20 years. Ditto Patton, which is over 30 years old and manages to refrain from becoming the usual glorifying biopic to deliver a compelling portrait of an enigmatic personality. The movie somehow balances Patton's love for war (the battle scenes themselves are horrifyingly beautiful) with the bigger picture of blood and destruction.
[> [> [> [> [> Wow. This deserves a better response than I can formulate at this late hour. -- OnM, 20:45:43 07/29/02 Mon

As do many of the other responses! Great stuff here, try to get some thoughts together tomorrow before work and post 'em.

Thanks guys, and especially Rah.

BTW, seconding mundus's recommendation of Das Boot. If you are only ever going to see one single war movie in your life, this is the one.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 27th 2002 -- Cactus Watcher, 20:43:27 07/28/02 Sun

"The surest defense against Evil is extreme individualism, originality of thinking, whimsicality, even—if you
will—eccentricity. That is, something that can't be feigned, faked, imitated; something even a seasoned
impostor couldn't be happy with."

Talk about things that strangely can be funny. This quote from nobel prize winner, Joseph Brodsky, makes me grin. He wasn't talking in generalities here. He was talking about himself. He was a great poet. He was definitely eccentric. Yes, I met the man, and he is one of the reasons I firmly believe in separating what you think about an artist's work from what you feel about them personally. No, I didn't hate the guy, but he certainly was a different person when he was writing.
[> My pick for best comic depiction of non-comic topic is... -- Rob, 22:58:10 07/28/02 Sun

...what I consider to be one of the best black comedies ever put to film, and bar none, the best film ever about high school...the cult classic...(drum roll please)..."Heathers." Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever thought that a movie could find the humor about teenage suicide, but, honest to God, this movie does. Somehow it is able to brilliantly satirize the situations and people's reactions to the deaths, and yet not make light of suicide itself.

To attempt to describe the movie to anyone who hasn't seen it is hard, because it is impossible to convey just how truly, genuinely funny it is. In fact, when my friend first tried to describe it to me, all I could wonder was how that could ever be funny. But it was.

Basically, it's about a girl, Veronica, played by Winona Ryder, who, with her boyfriend, Jason, played by Christian Slater, in one of his first (if not his very first) film role, accidentally murders her best friend (very loose term- -the friend was cruel to her, and everybody else), and then pens a suicide note in the girl's handwriting. This girl, who had been the most popular girl in school, suddenly gains "depth." Although everyone used to hate her, they all begin looking back on her fondly. Suddenly, committing suicide becomes the new fad in the school--something the cool kids are doing.

In fact, when one of the dorky kids tries to kill herself by jumping in front of a car, she is injured but does not die. A popular girl says, "Just another example of an unpopular kid trying to be cool and failing miserably."

This movie, yes, is seriously warped...but, for all its over- the-top elements, at its heart is a great deal of truth about the pressures of high school, regarding school work, peer torture, bullies, and just plain survival. In many ways, it is like "Buffy"--it is a horror-ific portrait of high school that uses exaggeration to comment about the truths and pains of growing up.

And, as I said, it finds the funny in suicide, which is a hard thing to do...

Veronica: "I just killed by best friend."

Jason: "Or your worst enemy."

Veronica: "Same difference."

Rob
[> [> Heathers -- sunshine, 05:31:34 07/29/02 Mon

I saw Heathers again recently (after a gap of several years) and was knocked out by it. It's all too rare for such black comedy/vicious satire to reach the big screen.

Also, I think this was one of the first films that really tried to re-invent teen slang (the language is just so *very*) - in this respect it's hard to imagine Buffy without Heathers. In other respects the two are quite dissimilar - Heathers is terribly cynical, whilst Buffy is essentially optimistic about what young people are capable of (one of its great virtues in my book).
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 27th 2002 -- Rufus, 00:55:09 07/29/02 Mon

Huh? I don’t think so. Yes, I understand that it hurts. A character or situation that meant a lot to a lot of
people was destroyed, but I don’t recommend allowing one bad experience to prejudice oneself towards all
future experience.

I'm with you on that one. I like many characters in BTVS but I understand that at any moment any of them could be gonners. On the Succubus Club interview with David Fury he admitted that he didn't consider the lesbian cliche til it was pointed out to him and then he could understand where people would have read that into the death of Tara. He also said that Joss may have done things a bit differently, but the end result would have been Tara dead. I also have said that I didn't think the story around Tara was over and hinted at such when I posted on the Symbolic use of Tara. I can see where the lesbian cliche could be seen by some, but until pointed out to me, I didn't. I saw the results of vengeance, be it for the death of a love one,and Warrens actions due to the slight to his ego in regards to his ego and the perception that his failures were the fault of the other gender.

Because BtVS Season 6 was a mega-bummer for
many doesn’t mean it had no value for others, or won’t even turn out to be pleasing to the currently
dismayed when the next year’s story takes off and runs. Don’t tune out-- if you watch Season 7 and don’t
like it, at least you’ll be able to argue your point from actual experience. If 90% of the viewers were
profoundly unhappy with the show (such as may have been with the last season or two of The
X-Files), that might be one thing, but no such situation exists with Buffy (or Angel), not even close.
Hey, I wasn’t a big-time fan of Angel Season 3, but I assure you I’ll be watching every ep next season
before I decide whether the show has run its course of creativity or not.

I thought many episodes of Angel were very good this year, only the season end left me a bit cold. I will watch every episode of both shows. I read the article on Signs and found a bit I quite like.....

"I focus on loss because when you lose someone, the paradigm shifts," Shyamalan reflects. "Then the story becomes about moving from darkness to epiphany."

The marketer in him knows that audiences respond to the journey from dark to light more intensely than they do the return trip. But the shaman in Shyamalan also believes that the passage into illumination is more healing.

All you have to do is look at the character development of Angel and Spike to see that the trip from evil to good gets us every time....well almost......now all we have to do is wait for Joss to illuminate us in season seven Buffy....I was going to mention Angel but then I'd be spoiling you all....;)
[> Train of Life (complete spoilers for the film) -- ponygirl, 07:13:10 07/29/02 Mon

I thought that was a great review OnM, I do however have a few problems with Life is Beautiful. I understand all the points you were making, but I couldn't help but long for Benigni's mask to slip a bit, to show that his character was a bit more vulnerable to the horror.

The only other Holocaust "comedy" I've seen (a fortunately small genre) was Train of Life, a French film that came out a couple years ago. This film concerned Jewish villagers who steal a train and attempt to escape to Russia in it by posing as Nazis and their prisoners. Along the way they meet up with a group of Gypsies who are doing the same thing - there's a great scene when the fake Nazi leaders of each group commiserate with each other about how everyone resents them for playing Nazis so well. The whole film has the feel of a folktale, and is quite funny and life-affirming. However, and here's where I spoil the end of the film, in the final scene the narrator tells of the happy endings for all the characters and saying his story was all true. More or less. And then the camera pulls back and we see that he's in a camp, that the whole story was just that, a story. The effect is like a punch to the gut. It made me realize both the necessity of stories for us to survive and also ultimately that some horrors are too great for fiction or for comfort. That was what I felt was missing from Life is Beautiful.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 27th 2002 -- aliera, 14:45:51 07/29/02 Mon

Well, it may not be popular but I am going to once again thank you for you post. I'm not a movie person (or rather my movie tastes tend to be on the lighter side) but I read them for your essays and this is to thank you for the (again) thoughtful essay on Tara.
[> How about "Cancer Boy" and "flipper babies" in Kids in the Hall's "Brain Candy"? -- A8, 15:44:01 07/29/02 Mon

[> [> I love that movie! And, wouldn't ya know? It just came out on DVD!! -- Rob, 09:30:01 07/30/02 Tue

[> or just about anything on South Park - it's kinda their raison d'etre -- Dead Soul, 17:05:55 07/29/02 Mon

[> You want proof, I'll give you proof -- Caroline, 07:26:53 07/30/02 Tue

Read the works published by Michel Gauqelin, a French mathematician who set out to disprove astrology using common statistical methods in the 1960s. Instead, he ended up proving the validity of a set of predictions that astrology makes concerning the placement of planets in a horoscope (e.g. a prominent Mars near an angle would indicate a greater likelihood of one's profession as an athlete, a prominent Jupiter would indicate a politician, etc). He went on to do much statistical work on other aspects of the birthchart. You may also wish to read Robert Hand's Essays on Astrology for more information.

You may also note that in the field of medicine, many of the old wives' tales and local folklore previously dismissed by the medical profession in an effort to make their craft a science are now being looked at anew, with researchers finding that certain herbs, teas, bodywork are actually of benefit. My allopathic doctor has now completed his course in medical acupuncture (based on the Chinese 5 element theory) to the benefit of many of his patients who suffer from allergies, asthma, and other chronic medical problems. (Now if I broke a bone, I'd want an allopathic doctor, but there are maladies best treated by traditional means). And just try to prove the 'existence' of 5 element theory! So, I know that sticking this needle into this place will have this benefit but the why is what is up for grabs. The same with astrology, magick, alchemy, and many other crafts. You're right, the universe is all tied together. And you shouldn't pick and choose. Very good advice. But since I have not as yet, in my extensive, amateur readings of physics and how the universe is put together (two favorite authors are Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking) haven't seemed to contradict what I know of Buddhist philosophy, or 5 element theory or astrology, I'll maintain my openness of mind to all these traditional crafts.
[> [> Re: science and nonsciense -- aliera, 12:41:04 07/30/02 Tue

I enjoy science (what I consider science I'm not really sure how OnM or Darby or others would consider, I liked Gould, I'm reading Pollen now the Botany of Desire) as well as reading in areas that are considered by many to be dubious. The love finding out the history and the "why" of things. But it's the inexplicable (among other things) that brings me back to more non-tradtional reading.

Also the synchronicity...

No, there's no proof, of course. It's just interesting.

For example you mention the five elements and last night I'm reading a short downloaded history of celtic myth, religion, etc. and there are the five elements, again. I can't imagine that we will ever fully understand everything. Simply can't imagine it. And I have a pretty overactive imagination.

I'm pretty accustomed to trying to explain and understand other views. My father was/is a scientist, my mother a nurse, the rest of the family consists of business people and several lawyers and one lone music therapist. I also have to throw out the mention that my statistics professor impressed upon me pretty early the importance of looking closely and in a questioning frame of mind at tests and studies. None the less, OnM had good points and a great essay-both points are valid and I like to think that they depend somewhat on the circumstances or the context. Thanks for another interesting mini-subthread, Caroline.

PS Any chance of another myth essay? Hint, Hint.
[> [> [> Imagination -- Sophist, 13:23:01 07/30/02 Tue

I can't imagine that we will ever fully understand everything. Simply can't imagine it. And I have a pretty overactive imagination.

If you haven't seen it before, I'm sure you'll like this quote by J.B.S. Haldane:

"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine."
[> [> [> [> Thanks for that quote - it's wonderful! -- Caroline, 09:44:56 07/31/02 Wed

[> [> Michel Gauqelin -- Darby, 13:32:50 07/30/02 Tue

It's interesting to see this name show up, since his statistics categorically found no correlation between astrological signs and...anything, really.

He did seem to find correlations between planetary positions at birth and occupations and what has been called "soldier success," on which he based a fairly wacky non-astrological planetary theory, but no one has been able to replicate even those findings. And it ain't science if it ain't reproducible.

I'm not one to out-of-hand dismiss medicinal knowledge from other eras, but I'm amazed at how blindly accepting people can be about pretty much anything folksy or old. I'm a huge believer that our ancestors were very intelligent, but can't ignore the fact that they were woefully ignorant and way more limited in useful experience (first, second and third- hand experience was a much tighter circle in the past). Just ask some modern people what they believe and you'll find the world still hasn't changed that much.

And y'know, with lots of potential money at stake here, way more of this stuff has been tested than you would suspect, and it very, very rarely amounts to anything.
[> [> [> Sorry, Snarky -- Darby, 08:56:48 07/31/02 Wed

My response was much nastier than it should have been. Sorry, it's a reflex that I control a lot better in person, really! This can be a problem when sitting alone just facing a screen.
[> [> [> [> Re: -- aliera, 09:39:22 07/31/02 Wed

Darby: I admire anyone who can apologize; it's a rare,rare quality.

Here, chuckle: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/laughed.html

And thanks to Sophist, I'll be reading Haldane and Norse mythology tonight...I'm sure I'll be different in the morning.

I am very,very fond of this board. :-)
[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, Snarky -- Caroline, 09:40:53 07/31/02 Wed

Sad to say that being interested in astrology (both Hindu and western) as well as eastern medicine, philosophy etc does leave me open to these sorts of attacks and the snarky tone you yourself picked up on. As one trained in the western traditions of science and quite deeply in statistical methods (I build lots of economic models in my work), yet also exposed to much traditional knowledge from my own family, I see much less opposition between the two approaches than apparently seen by you and OnM.

Replying to your points on astrology - MG's work has been reproduced by others and there is a rather vibrant astrological research community out there using standard statistical methods - of which Robert Hand, a world-renowned astrologer - is one of many. This type of work is important if one wants to get out from under the weight of circular or ridiculous explantions (this bad thing happening to you is caused by your actions in a previous life!). And, any decent researcher would never posit that plantery position is 'causal', it's just 'consistent with'.

As for traditional medicine and bodywork - the fact that so many people in my yoga classes are there because of an allopathic doctor's recommendation makes me extremely happy. Or that menopausal women I know use St John's wort and black cohosh and dang qui to such good effect for their symptoms they no longer need HRT. Or that many people are using traditional bodywork to deal with stress and the problems it creates in terms of the health of the immune system. I could go on and on and on. And the benefits of all of these therapies and many others are being verified by western scientific methods. And that requires no disparagement.
[> [> [> [> [> Paradox -- Rahael, 10:14:41 07/31/02 Wed

I think the human brain is very good at holding two quite divergent models of thought at the same time.

I think belief in astrology, magic etc a 'different scheme of thinking', and we must seek to understand those belief systems much as anthropologists approach the belief systems of cultures different to us.

I myself was born into a different culture with a deep belief in a certain view of life, that of a recurring cycle of death and rebirth, the idea of astrology guiding human lives. Even though my family was Christian, they happily continued to hold a belief in a Hindu world view, while also entering into a Christian scheme of belief. It's not hard to find scientists who continue to believe in God and in western scientific methadologies.

When I was born, I had a detailed horoscope done at my birth - a horoscope that I will one day have reread.

This is why I find Wittgenstein's theory of 'language games' so attractive and so compelling. These different language games have different satisfactions.

In a word, there are multiple self consistent systems of thought and belief, which is why I can believe the usefulness of Western medicine and scientific thought, while continuing to consider myself at least a strange kind of Christian. Somehow the story of Christ's ressurrection etc etc still has power for me.

To say that certain belief systems are superstitious, mistaken, irrational and wrong is to deny the complexity of human social interaction and thought. I simply find the existence of these beliefs, and their power, for me and for others fascinating. It's a very useful point o