(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 03:07 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.