"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsmtsm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0a4ace79-ff76-473d-976d-5b073cd7a025@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Feb 12, 10:27 pm, "One Bit Shy" <O...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>
messagenews:6659dcab-5eab-4788-a2e7-6522c9e759d1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > From [our] Stephen: "One theory
>> > I've heard is that Connor is, in many ways, the opposite of Buffy &
>> > Co. On that show, our teenagers often have to cope with adults
>> > apparently being willfully stupid or blind, failing to understand
them
>> > and their concerns, and generally being obtuse. Here it's Angel, the
>> > adult, who's our protagonist - and it's his turn to be baffled by the
>> > actions and feelings of his teenage son."
>>
>> I wonder how much we're supposed to empathize with both Angel and
Connor.
>> We can certainly see how Angel is baffled by the teenager. But can we
>> perhaps perceive on the teenage level too? In other words, Angel, the
>> adult, still can be obtuse and non-understanding - making the mistakes
>> adults make. And it surely is adults that screw Connor up. Or to put
it
>> yet another way, is Connor someone for teens to relate to and attract
>> them
>> to the show? I've wondered sometimes what they had in mind making him
>> such
>> a major cast character. But the circumstances of his creation plus
next
>> year's exploitation by Cordy dooms him to be the screwed up kid headed
>> for a
>> bad end.
>
> The reason I can't see that kind of design is that in his earliest
> episodes, Connor's an enigma. The show works hard to keep us in the
> dark along with Angel - even when we're following Connor in ANW for
> instance, we don't find out how thoroughly Holtz has shaped him until
> almost the end of the episode. This is a character who starts out
> from an alien position far removed from any young viewers, no matter
> what issues they may have with their parents, and begins with an
> entrenched desire to hurt our protagonist. So it seems pretty clear
> to me that as far as We The Viewer are concerned, we're intended to
> want to save him, not to identify with him.
Admittedly I was thinking more of the decision to keep him as a major S4
character than how he's used at the end of S3. And, even if they did have
something like that in mind, the story foundation couldn't accommodate it.
However, there is also this from Benediction.
Fred: Wait a minute. Wow. Something here is pretty (looks up see Connor
standing in front of her) hot.
I don't think that's a line they'd use if they didn't think there was
potential as a heartthrob.
>> I muse about that for a couple of reasons. Angel may be the
>> protagonist -
>> the star - but for close to two years (depending on when you think his
>> influence starts in S3) the series revolves around Connor nearly as
much
>> as
>> Angel. Perhaps more in the sense that he is so often the object of big
>> events. I enjoy it a lot through the end of this season, but then it
>> wears.
>> Not just because of the characterization, but because it feels like
Angel
>> is
>> diminished as a character too long.
>
> Never bothered me, because I never lose the sense that it's Angel's
> show, no matter who's "central."
Oh, they keep turning the light onto Angel and sometimes even go into
special Angel territory like with Orpheus. It's not that it stops being
Angel's show. But to me the character is still side tracked and commonly
not driving the story, which sure isn't Connor's problem. Hell, Connor
even
gets to be the one to kill Jasmine. I don't want to over emphasize this -
I've got bigger issues with S4 than that. But the season does feel to me
like it took the wrong exit somewhere and got lost.
>> Anyway, secondly, with Connor such a big part himself, I wonder if the
>> comparison to Buffy et al might also be that they cope and he doesn't.
>> Their's is a story of growth. His of being beaten down.
>
> Things are... different. The best way I can think of to frame it is
> that BTVS's cast members tend to have a strong sense of who they are
> before this life grabs them (not always the best thing to have, in
> Willow's case) - the vivid personality comes from the start. No one's
> been manipulated or indoctrinated from day one to the extent that
> Connor has. I think most of the conscious parallels are to make
> Connor a bit of an anti-Dawn, although that doesn't lend itself to an
> obvious trite moral or anything, to me.
Well, he is another magical creation used as the object of contention by
everyone up to the level of a God. I get reminded of the Dawn parallel
pretty often. I just don't get much out of it - which I suppose is pretty
much what you said.
>> > as
>> > Lilah gauges Wesley's reaction to Justine's peril while Angel and
>> > Connor are discovering the infectious joy of fighting as a team. I
>> > nominated those five minutes or so as among my favorites of the
series
>> > originally, and they still are.
>>
>> The praise is well earned. It's a beautifully constructed scene that
>> brings
>> everyone together in one shared moment where each observes something
>> different - something critical - and the conversations themselves are
>> about
>> seeing what has been hidden. Even Cordy turns out to have watched in
her
>> vision world. You mention the infectious joy of fighting as a team - a
>> worthy observation - but I think it is superseded by the joy of them
>> playing
>> in the alley after when for just a moment - a rare moment as it turns
>> out -
>> they really feel like father and son.
>
> I mis-wrote, because that's what I was thinking of most with the
> infectious joy. The alley scene is when it's just a thrill to watch.
> The actors completely sell me that these characters have a connection
> that can't be denied or destroyed, and is the most convincing of the
> various teases that this could possibly end well. Holtz believes that
> what he sees here has the potential to overcome everything that he's
> quote-unquote-accomplished, unless he takes drastic action, and he's
> probably right.
I tend to think that Holtz wanted that bonding (why he pushed Connor onto
Angel to begin with) so as to make his revenge perfectly painful. But I
don't know. That's one of the examples where I'm tantalized by Holtz's
thinking. How much is plan? How much is improv? How much in control was
he? His plotting seemed to walk a thin line. Maybe he'd really lose
Connor. Or maybe Connor would so antagonize Angel that he'd never find
that
sweet spot for his revenge. Yet, at the same time, he seems to have such
a
perfect handle on both Angel's and Connor's emotions that he might have
been
in control all along.
>> > and after
>> > "Loyalty," well, I've gushed before, but it'd be hard to exaggerate
>> > how much I love this period of the show. It feels the most _Angel_-
>> > like because the whole team, as Chris has pointed out, is in place:
>> > Fred has arrived, Cordy hasn't left (or turned amnesiac/possessed)
>> > yet, Lorne moves in, and teen-Connor drops in at the end of the year.
>>
>> I can only partly agree with that. It was an outstanding period, and
is
>> closest to the whole team being in place. (Though Wesley isn't exactly
>> in
>> place.) But I think it's a little thin on core Angel themes and
>> behavior.
>> This season does a nice job of expanding upon the Gypsy curse and
showing
>> it
>> as Angel's natural fate....
>>
>> Connor: Killing is to good for you. You don't get to die. You get to
>> live -
>> forever.
>>
>> But S2 is much stronger at presenting his great redemption battle - in
>> theme, in object (Darla) and in extremes of behavior. S2 - and
somewhat
>> reprised in an S5 which also repeats the theme - has the character of
>> Angel
>> that most thrills me. I love what's done with Wesley in S3 and S4, and
>> even
>> Connor at times, and the cast in general - especially Lilah. But the
>> core
>> of the series never stops being about Angel. Angel as dad just isn't
at
>> the
>> top of what I appreciate about the character no matter how much they
>> hammer
>> the family theme.
>
> The thing abut S2, though, is that as the beige period goes on, Angel
> becomes harder for me to understand in an empathize-able way. We
> talked about it some, but I never entirely grasped the flow there,
> between episodes especially. I like a lot of the Darla arc, of
> course, but I feel like arguing, or at least suggesting, that it
> doesn't play to all of Angel's strengths as a character either. After
> all, Angel's arc in S2 is a story of defeat (and moving on); one of
> the climaxes is when he gives up completely. The found family thing
> may get repetitious when one watches lots of ME shows, but the
> relation****ps with the people they love are a big part of their
> protagonists' personalities.
>
> I wish Season Two held up better for me, because of how good its best
> parts are. Recently one of the threads on Whedonesque, about a
> passing comment from Joss suggesting that _Dollhouse_ would be his
> most "morally ambiguous" show, led to everyone agreeing that they
> wanted to see lots more moments like "that wasn't Angel... wasn't
> Angelus either..."
I can't argue with any of that - it goes to how I see AtS as a flawed,
albeit fascinating, series. (And why the attributes of S3 are enough for
me
to consider it roughly equal in quality to S2. They're both good seasons
for me.) Still, the season, in several fa****ons, sticks to the torment of
his soul, good vs. evil, monster and man, redemption and damnation, and so
on. You can really point back to the inception of his character and the
refining of it in Amends and connect it powerfully to his S2 arc. For all
the flaws and confusions of its depiction, that's still the heart of the
Angel concept for me, and S2 is the best effort at ****traying it.
> Which brings up another memory which I've told in pieces before but
> never concisely. This is probably a result of simply spending a lot
> of time with the show more than a reflection of any particular
> episode. But when Angel briefly went evil in "Eternity," it was one
> of the highlights for me not only of a bland episode, but of the whole
> (admittedly not stellar) series thus far. Much like back in
> Sunnydale, Angel seemed almost too good as a villain to waste as a
> hero. As Season Two of ATS constantly teased me with having him lose
> his soul, I kinda wanted it to happen, although I certainly
> appreciated them doing something murkier instead, and letting the
> character have a nasty streak that his soul only theoretically keeps
> in check. By the time the show got around to S3 and the Excellent
> Trilogy, my reaction to "this isn't Angelus talking to you, it's me,
> Angel," was "well, I'm glad. Angel's ten times more interesting than
> Angelus."
I can't really argue with that either - except to note how S2 serves as
foundation to that realization.
OBS
|
