(no subject)
Aug. 29th, 2010 09:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatPosting here again, because lj is fighting Mozilla Firefox's adblock and no scripts programs, causing my computer to slow down to a crawl.
Really enjoying Covert Affairs at the moment. It's not great television - like Dexter or Buffy or for that matter even True Blood. But it is fun and far lighter than it's predecessors: Alias, La Femme Nikita (which was better written but far darker), and Dollhouse. Also a bit less sexist ( the lead dresses in a typical female business suite not a sex-kitten outfit). I'm already half in love with the blind hacker, Auggie, played by Christopher Gorham of Ugly Betty fame. Being Human while interesting, isn't blowing me away as expected. I think I've watched too many tv shows? Or maybe it's just my mood? Can't decide. I do like the Lucy/Mitchell relationship - and am wondering if naming the character after Lucy from Stoker's Dracula is coincidence or deliberate? Rather like the character of Lucy. The vampire hunter she's working with, Galvine, looks a bit like a dessicated Van Helsing - actually he looks more like a vampire than Mitchell. Annie's storyline is slow and sexist as all get out. (Sigh). But I like the actress. George - also slow and a bit dull at the moment. I've just watched Dexter - so this show doesn't seem that dark to me or that layered. Or that well written. But again I just watched Dexter S4. It's not really fair. It's like following Mad Men with well, True Blood. (It is worth noting that I think I am actually seeing an uncut version - the version that I'm seeing runs longer than an hour and airs on Saturday nights. Later showings on BBC America are trimmed down. Of course I could be wrong about that - since I have no idea what the version that aired on BBC was like.)
Posted the below comment in response to the following bit that I'd read in a friend's lj
This is from a recent Joss Whedon interview and was far from shocking to anyone who has read the writer's interviews in the past or spent much time analyzing the series:
Joss also spoke about Spike, who he felt ultimately became the most fully developed character in the Whedonverse, coming from the lowest rung in Season Six (when he forced himself on Buffy) to someone who literally earned his own soul, as opposed to Angel, "who had a soul thrust upon him for a hundred years and moped about it."
Here's my response:
Can't say I disagree with him, having literally written lengthy character analysis on every character on both series. Spike was by far the most developed, and the most complex. There were so many layers to him - and to this day, I'm not sure why that happened. For a while - I thought it was a testament to James Marsters acting, but I've watched Marsters in other things, and listened to him, and uh, no. What I think happened was as the show evolved, the character of Spike resonated on some level with the writers, who interacted with the actor, and felt comfortable exploring things..that they may not have with someone else. They reached a level of comfort in their collaboration with each other and the actor as well as the stunt double playing the role - that enabled them to dig deeper. I'm not sure they felt that same level of comfort with any of the other characters, outside of maybe Wesley.
Also, Angel and Buffy as lead characters - unfortunately, did not provide that level of comfort. They couldn't take the same level of risk. Angel they'd written into a corner - because of that great metaphor, and could not quite get around it. Buffy could evolve but they couldn't take her too dark or go too far with her, without losing the audience. Spike - being a supporting character, not one of the "scoobies", was unrestrained or restricted. They could experiment and play with the character. And as a result he became the most fun for the writers. You can tell the writers had a blast writing Spike. Often the character who is outside the main cast is the most fun. Because this is the character who surprises the writers the most. Spike unlike Xander, Giles, Angel, Cordelia, Buffy, Willow, and even Tara, OZ, Wesley, Faith, and Anya - was unknown entity. He was not set in stone. He did not have a clear set purpose. And this freed them. He was the trickster character - which means he could go either way. Xander - was set as the everyman, boy next door - the stand-in for the writer in a way, and the audience. They couldn't kill him or make him evil or do much of anything outside of what they did. Over time, I'm guessing they grew bored - because their options were so limited. He was meant to be straight man to the insanity. Buffy similarily - the heroine - only so much you can do. Angel - the cliche love interest - of so many vampire gothics...was similarily limited, even more so when they spun-him off into his own series. The anti-hero who wanted to be a hero, who also was trapped as the heroine's first love and possibly one true love (bleagh) - nothing is worse for a character in a tv series than that title - "love interest". In some respects Dexter Morgan is more interesting.
But Spike? Oh, the psychological depths they could explore. Here was a character they could play with. He was fun. And it's the "fun" characters...that most writers love. Spike unlike Angel was not introduced as Buffy's love interest. Actually, he never really was her "love" interest until possibly the end of the series - and that's probably why he got more developed and is a far more layered and interesting character. Poor Riley and Angel were developed primarily as love interests...and it was hard for the writers to push either past it. So as a result, neither really ever get to be explored in the same amount of depth.
I'm tempted to say more on this...but often I think I oversell my points and get clobbered for it. ;-) At any rate, I know there are people who vehementally disagree on the points I made above. If you do, please do us both the favor before posting to remember these are merely opinions posted in a personal blog - and really not worth getting hot and bothered over. We all see things in our own way. This is how I happen to see them. And no, you're not going to change my mind on what I stated above. And seriously, does it matter if you do? ;-)
Bitchy mood this weekend. I think the combination of work stress and personal frustrations that I won't bore you with are pressing down on me. Also the inability to find a fun activity to do with other people next weekend that isn't going to cost me over 200 dollars.
But lovely morning at church. The sermon was about taking time to play, which I don't get to do enough. So we played at church. Drew the person next to us. Shared our drawings and laughed at them. Then pushed balloons around. It was more fun than it sounds. And in between a very good singer sang the Beatles songs - Dear Prudence and Yellow Submarine (which we also all sang as hymn). You have to love a church where you get to sing the song Yellow Submarine. (I adore the Beatles). The final musical number was The Flight of the Bumblebee.
Really enjoying Covert Affairs at the moment. It's not great television - like Dexter or Buffy or for that matter even True Blood. But it is fun and far lighter than it's predecessors: Alias, La Femme Nikita (which was better written but far darker), and Dollhouse. Also a bit less sexist ( the lead dresses in a typical female business suite not a sex-kitten outfit). I'm already half in love with the blind hacker, Auggie, played by Christopher Gorham of Ugly Betty fame. Being Human while interesting, isn't blowing me away as expected. I think I've watched too many tv shows? Or maybe it's just my mood? Can't decide. I do like the Lucy/Mitchell relationship - and am wondering if naming the character after Lucy from Stoker's Dracula is coincidence or deliberate? Rather like the character of Lucy. The vampire hunter she's working with, Galvine, looks a bit like a dessicated Van Helsing - actually he looks more like a vampire than Mitchell. Annie's storyline is slow and sexist as all get out. (Sigh). But I like the actress. George - also slow and a bit dull at the moment. I've just watched Dexter - so this show doesn't seem that dark to me or that layered. Or that well written. But again I just watched Dexter S4. It's not really fair. It's like following Mad Men with well, True Blood. (It is worth noting that I think I am actually seeing an uncut version - the version that I'm seeing runs longer than an hour and airs on Saturday nights. Later showings on BBC America are trimmed down. Of course I could be wrong about that - since I have no idea what the version that aired on BBC was like.)
Posted the below comment in response to the following bit that I'd read in a friend's lj
This is from a recent Joss Whedon interview and was far from shocking to anyone who has read the writer's interviews in the past or spent much time analyzing the series:
Joss also spoke about Spike, who he felt ultimately became the most fully developed character in the Whedonverse, coming from the lowest rung in Season Six (when he forced himself on Buffy) to someone who literally earned his own soul, as opposed to Angel, "who had a soul thrust upon him for a hundred years and moped about it."
Here's my response:
Can't say I disagree with him, having literally written lengthy character analysis on every character on both series. Spike was by far the most developed, and the most complex. There were so many layers to him - and to this day, I'm not sure why that happened. For a while - I thought it was a testament to James Marsters acting, but I've watched Marsters in other things, and listened to him, and uh, no. What I think happened was as the show evolved, the character of Spike resonated on some level with the writers, who interacted with the actor, and felt comfortable exploring things..that they may not have with someone else. They reached a level of comfort in their collaboration with each other and the actor as well as the stunt double playing the role - that enabled them to dig deeper. I'm not sure they felt that same level of comfort with any of the other characters, outside of maybe Wesley.
Also, Angel and Buffy as lead characters - unfortunately, did not provide that level of comfort. They couldn't take the same level of risk. Angel they'd written into a corner - because of that great metaphor, and could not quite get around it. Buffy could evolve but they couldn't take her too dark or go too far with her, without losing the audience. Spike - being a supporting character, not one of the "scoobies", was unrestrained or restricted. They could experiment and play with the character. And as a result he became the most fun for the writers. You can tell the writers had a blast writing Spike. Often the character who is outside the main cast is the most fun. Because this is the character who surprises the writers the most. Spike unlike Xander, Giles, Angel, Cordelia, Buffy, Willow, and even Tara, OZ, Wesley, Faith, and Anya - was unknown entity. He was not set in stone. He did not have a clear set purpose. And this freed them. He was the trickster character - which means he could go either way. Xander - was set as the everyman, boy next door - the stand-in for the writer in a way, and the audience. They couldn't kill him or make him evil or do much of anything outside of what they did. Over time, I'm guessing they grew bored - because their options were so limited. He was meant to be straight man to the insanity. Buffy similarily - the heroine - only so much you can do. Angel - the cliche love interest - of so many vampire gothics...was similarily limited, even more so when they spun-him off into his own series. The anti-hero who wanted to be a hero, who also was trapped as the heroine's first love and possibly one true love (bleagh) - nothing is worse for a character in a tv series than that title - "love interest". In some respects Dexter Morgan is more interesting.
But Spike? Oh, the psychological depths they could explore. Here was a character they could play with. He was fun. And it's the "fun" characters...that most writers love. Spike unlike Angel was not introduced as Buffy's love interest. Actually, he never really was her "love" interest until possibly the end of the series - and that's probably why he got more developed and is a far more layered and interesting character. Poor Riley and Angel were developed primarily as love interests...and it was hard for the writers to push either past it. So as a result, neither really ever get to be explored in the same amount of depth.
I'm tempted to say more on this...but often I think I oversell my points and get clobbered for it. ;-) At any rate, I know there are people who vehementally disagree on the points I made above. If you do, please do us both the favor before posting to remember these are merely opinions posted in a personal blog - and really not worth getting hot and bothered over. We all see things in our own way. This is how I happen to see them. And no, you're not going to change my mind on what I stated above. And seriously, does it matter if you do? ;-)
Bitchy mood this weekend. I think the combination of work stress and personal frustrations that I won't bore you with are pressing down on me. Also the inability to find a fun activity to do with other people next weekend that isn't going to cost me over 200 dollars.
But lovely morning at church. The sermon was about taking time to play, which I don't get to do enough. So we played at church. Drew the person next to us. Shared our drawings and laughed at them. Then pushed balloons around. It was more fun than it sounds. And in between a very good singer sang the Beatles songs - Dear Prudence and Yellow Submarine (which we also all sang as hymn). You have to love a church where you get to sing the song Yellow Submarine. (I adore the Beatles). The final musical number was The Flight of the Bumblebee.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 03:51 am (UTC)They reached a level of comfort in their collaboration with each other and the actor as well as the stunt double playing the role - that enabled them to dig deeper. I'm not sure they felt that same level of comfort with any of the other characters, outside of maybe Wesley.
This is an interesting thought, and I think it's true he did capture a lot of the writers' imaginations (just as many later liked writing Andrew, albeit for different reasons). I do think JM was a factor in that, due to his passion for acting in general and throwing himself into what he was given also gave the writers a certain freedom.
Poor Riley and Angel were developed primarily as love interests...and it was hard for the writers to push either past it.
Agreed, I think love interest characters of either sex tend to be boxed in development-wise. I wrote a meta about that at one point.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 02:55 am (UTC)Really? I considered writing one. Was thinking about it today, is there a tv show that hasn't boxed in the love-interest -underdeveloped them? Outside of Farscape - which provided Aeryn Sun (John Crichton's love interest) with an amazing arc.
Of course Aeryn was not set up as solely his love interest.
This is an interesting thought, and I think it's true he did capture a lot of the writers' imaginations (just as many later liked writing Andrew, albeit for different reasons). I do think JM was a factor in that, due to his passion for acting in general and throwing himself into what he was given also gave the writers a certain freedom.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but apparently did - since more than one person felt the need to point this out (in lj - three people did). He was a definite factor. He brought a sexual component to the character - testing well with both men and women. Both Boreanze and Landau had electric chemistry with Marsters.
And that is hard to pull off. But I think Marsters willingness to play with his character and his give and take with the writers - probably created a level of collaboration that was sorely lacking with the other actors. But to be fair - the other actors were never really given the opportunity in part because of their roles. We have no idea what Brendan could have done with Xander if presented the opportunity or for that matter what ASH could have done with Giles. My biggest regret is that Whedon did not explore Ripper more - show that edge. We get glimspes - but there could have been so much more. In some respects, ASH would have been a more interesting big bad than Hannigan. Hannigan played it too light.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 03:01 am (UTC)Agreed, both those things are factors.
ASH would have been a more interesting big bad than Hannigan. Hannigan played it too light.
I've always found her a weak actress. She made Willow her own but I find her to be repetitive in her other roles. My guess is that ASH's lack of availability as well as it echoing too much something else Joss wrote is the reason he avoided that.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 04:26 pm (UTC)Agreed. I was trying to be diplomatic.;-)
Hate to say it but most of the actors on those shows were incredibly weak.
Whedon did not get A talent. The theater trained - Acker, Marsters, Head, Denisof were amongst the few exceptions.
I still wonder what Angel the Series would have been like if we'd had someone such as Michael C. Hall or
Ian Sommerfield in the role, or even Alexis Denisof or a young Anthony Stewart Head. And for Cordelia - a Bianca Lawsen (originally up for it) SMG (also originally up for it) or Kristen Bell. Boreanze and Carpenter...sigh.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 05:54 pm (UTC)I do think, though, that they did very well in fitting actors to the particular parts (at least initially). The problem came when they wanted to do more with the characters and often the actors just couldn't stretch.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 02:56 am (UTC)And thank you. But, I'm willing to bet there are quite a few fans out there that vehemently disagree with me. So, stopping while I'm ahead. Hee.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 05:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 03:07 am (UTC)And I really agree about Spike: that the writers had the freedom to push and pull his character into all kinds of contortions. But I do think that James Marsters deserves some credit for being able to step up and fulfill their vision....
I do think that the writers tried to change other characters *cough*Cordelia*cough* where the actor was totally incapable of growing their character.
I also noticed that JM wasn't capable of doing much with other roles he has had, but then the writing wasn't much (I have found the role on Caprica to be very interesting, and I hope that doing 'Three Inches' doesn't preclude his reappearance on Caprica!
It takes both writers who can give a character the motivations to grow, and an actor who has the ability to stretch his characterization. It is (as you have always said) collaborative.
Wesley also grew amazingly, and Alexis did a wonderful job of doing everything they asked of him, but somehow that didn't end up as layered (maybe the love story over-shadowed everything else for Wesley, while it didn't for Spike?).
Well it is late and I should get to bed... Have a good week.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 04:33 pm (UTC)I do think that the writers tried to change other characters *cough*Cordelia*cough* where the actor was totally incapable of growing their character.
True. But in all fairness to Charisma and the other less experienced cast members, Marsters did have over 20 years of theater experience, a Masters degree in Theater, a BA in Theater, and time at Juillard, plus numerous bit television roles prior to auditioning for Spike. He was at the time - doing Shakespeare's Tempest in Seattle. And he'd run his own Theater company and produced numerous plays. He was a seasoned professional scared of failing and in his 30s, compare that to Brendan, Blucas, Carpenter, and Boreanze who were basically kids (early 20s, and their first major acting roles - Gellar who was much younger than all of them - had 10 years of acting roles on them. Blucas and Carpenter had been professional athelets and were fairly new to acting.). While the other four got the parts based on looks first, talent second, Marsters and Gellar got Spike and Buffy based on talent first, looks second.
At any rate - I think a good comparison is Wesley vs. Spike, two roles played by two excellent and equally talented actors, but of the two - Spike got more to do and better development, partly because of the role itself. Wes was hampered by the love story, and by being in the Giles/Willow role on Angel. They couldn't experiment that much with him for the same reasons they couldn't go that far with Willow or Xander. To give Denisof credit - he handled Wes' arc better than Hannigan handled Willow's but that also was in part due to the writing.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 07:44 pm (UTC)Oh that actually really explains a lot to me, I should have seen it myself: they couldn't let Wesley go full on crazy (even when Fred dies and he stabs Gunn) because they still needed his character for exposition and creating phlebotinum, so it was necessary for his brain to continue to work.... Alexis was really given quite a tight rope to walk! lol
And you're right about Charisma not having the experience and training, I'm just saying that she shouldn't have had the role. You cast someone for their looks then you shouldn't give them much acting to do. She has been better in later roles (the trophy wife on 'Veronica Mars' and stuff like that) when she really wasn't expected to do much.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 09:35 am (UTC)i agree on your points about Spike. I think the reason why I liked him so much in the first place was exactly the thing you talked about. He was a character they could take risks with. It wasn't essential that people liked him or that he offended no one, which made him all the more interesting and likable.
And that he was not introduced as a love interest is probably what makes me value Spuffy more than other ships. The fact that both characters were fully formed individuals instead of one made for the other is what I find so attractive, so real.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 04:36 pm (UTC)I don't have the link unfortunately.
Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 12:31 pm (UTC)Thanks for posting!
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 01:19 am (UTC)Spike was a mass of contradictions. He had more layers than an onion.
And part of the reason for that is he wasn't introduced as a love interest for Buffy, but rather as one for Drusilla and Angel. He was introduced as the middle of an incestuous family. Spike was initially meant to be Angelus' son or a vamp sired by Angelus (they changed their mind and made it Drusilla later), and his chemistry with both Boreanze and Landau was why he got hired. Those were the actors he tested with - he didn't test with Gellar or the others. So as a result - he was not hampered as Angel and later Riley were by being introduced as "Buffy's" love interest - because Buffy had serious "Daddy issues" - so all love interests that were introduced for her had to be older and patriarchial in nature. Bigger guys than she was.
Whedon had not originally intended on Spike being her love interest. In fact it didn't even occur to him to put them together until Marsters told him that he'd decided that the reason Spike hadn't killed Buffy yet and was sticking about Sunnydale was he is madly in love with her. (Marsters being method - had to come up with a motivation for his character not leaving Sunnydale after the chip or not manipulating someone into killing Buffy.) This was after they'd realized that Buffy/Riley was not working (it was towards the end of S4). Riley unfortunately and through no fault of Blucas - was an underdeveloped character who fell into the age-old military cliche (Whedon sucks at military characters - he writes them far too cliche, Firefly and Dollhouse had the same problems.). If Lindsey Crouse had stuck around - this may have been different, but she didn't. So, when Marsters asked Whedon if that was Spike's motivation or if it was something else? A light bulb went off in Whedon's brain and he told Marsters to start working out, because next year Spike was going after Buffy and be prepared to have his shirt off - 85% of the time. (Note only Buffy's boyfriends ended up with their shirts off. Spike kept his clothes on until pretty much S5, with the possible exception of Harsh Light of Day.) I think in retro-spect, Marsters may have regretted asking Whedon about it. ;-)
As a result Spike, unlike Riley and Angel - was not set up as the guy Buffy wants or is chasing, but rather the guy who is used to getting the girl but can't get her. He was the opposite of the Riley/Angel boyfriend trope. He actually had more in common with Xander - was madly in love with a heroine, who refused to acknowledge him - except unlike Xander - Spike was their former nemesis and someone Buffy considered scum. Xander had a better chance at her than Spike. So Spike's quest for what appeared to be impossible to everyone but the writers, is interesting to write and watch - particularly if he achieves his goal. If he hadn't achieved his goal - it would have been cliche - because that's usually the storyline. But the fact that he sort of did, and sort of didn't - was interesting. And the fact that he ended up changing, yet also reverting back to who he originally had been - had all his carefully put up facade ripped away - as a result of falling for Buffy, made it even more so.
Also, Spike in a way is the mirror opposite of Angel. Angel seems angelic, the perfect hero, the great guy, Buffy kisses him - glimspes the monster, sleeps with him - and he is the monster, literally. Angel falls for Buffy and becomes a monster. Spike - the opposite, Spike falls for Buffy, and Buffy glimspes a man, he sleeps with Buffy, and she sees the man. Falling for Buffy - brought out the man in Spike, and the monster in Angel.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 03:07 pm (UTC)The only thing I can find to object to is the implication in Joss' quote that Spike became "the most fully developed character" only after he got the soul. I think the lion's share of the character development happened before BtVS 7 and AtS 5. Not to say that it stopped — though IMO it slowed — it's just that so much groundwork was laid in the 5-year run-up to that moment. It's as if he's reluctant to say anything positive about pre-soul Spike, though perhaps I read too much into a very small snippet.
Anyway, yes to your commentary. Go you!
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 01:27 am (UTC)I think you are reading too much into that small snippet. Sounds like an example to me. For example - Spike earned his soul after he hit rock bottom in S6, while Angel merely moped about getting a soul forced on him again. Angel, sorry to say, is incredibly whiny character. Spike was always calling him that - stop moping and whinging!
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 04:14 am (UTC)