![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatJust finished watching Being Human Episode 7, which is the climatic episode. Well written.
Drew everything together. Also reinstated why in some cases I prefer British tv to US - Herrick is not played by an actor who looks buff and vicious, but by a character actor who truly looks like your Uncle Billy. This makes Being Human in some respects more real and scarier than most American Gothic Supernatural tales.
Yes, I suppose you can say it is talky. But actually this season is far less so than the last two and better paced. And talky obviously doesn't bother me that much, well unless it's the two and a half hour film My Dinner with Andre...that was all the rage when I was in college, but I kept falling asleep during.
In episode 7 - the consequences of Mitchell's choices literally bite him in the ass. But to some degree so do the choices of those who enable him which includes Nina, George and Annie. I feel for Nina the most, because she honestly believed that Herrick could reform, that it was possible. As does Annie in regards to Mitchell. But the point that Being Human makes which is too often lost in many redemption arcs is that you have to first take responsibility for your choices, own them, before you can be forgiven for them or seek redemption.
I had a discussion about this on Sunday. I was asked the question what do I find unforgivable? What act? And I explained that it wasn't an act so much as the motivation, the why of it, and if the person who did the act, owned it, took responsibility for it and actually endeavored to take the steps to change. As opposed to just repeating it and making excuses each time they did. I gave real life examples to explain, as opposed to fictional ones. In 1992, while interning at the Kansas Defender Project - I defended two different men. One man was a hitman for a drug cartel. He had killed a lot of people. More than I care to count. When I met him, he did nothing but make excuses. Sure I killed people but I had to, for the drugs, but that doesn't matter - I didn't have a good attorney and they can't prove I killed these people, plus they weren't nice people, they deserved it. The other man was a bank robber charged with felony bank robbery - which means someone died when he robbed the bank. He had been addicted to crack at the time and like the hitman was doing the bank robberies to pay for his addiction. Except, he chose to seek counseling in prison, to get cleaned up, to start groups that counseled and aided other convicts, wrote a book to teach kids not to do drugs and where it would lead. He owned his mistakes and his bad choices. He feared that he would repeat them. And he hoped he could change. While the hitman, with yellowed eyes and track lines up his arms, merely made excuses - that wasn't me, that was the drugs, I don't deserve to be here. The good news is that the man who got released on probation was the bank robber, the hitman continues to do life.
For me, the unforgivable act is the one that will be repeated. No matter how many times you forgive him. Having escaped more than one abusive relationship - I can tell you from experience that is far easier to forgive a person when they are no longer in your life and you know they will no longer hurt you.
My difficulty with most fictional tales that explore this theme is too often they let the perpetuator off the hook - providing an easy excuse. I struggled with Whedon's series on this point, because more often than not Whedon did the quick short-cut, oh, all is forgiven, they did that without a soul, souled now - they are a different person. As Whedon's characters evolved and his universe got grayer, that easy short-cut to forgiveness no longer worked. As Dawn states to Buffy who attempts to excuse all of Spike's sins (and Angel's) with the quick - he's got a soul now, "But Xander had a soul when he stood-up Anya at the alter, and Willow had a soul when she killed Warren and tried to kill us, and
Warren had a soul when he shot you and Tara...I don't see how that changes anything?" Buffy's answer was the soul provided them with a choice. Which begged the question was Warren's act more evil than any of souless!Spike or Angelus, because he had a soul and could choose? And if that's the case, how can Buffy justify killing vampires but not Warren? This brings up another question - is it only possible to be redeemed if you have a choice? And that actually goes to the legal definition of culpability in that only those who know the difference from right and wrong, are competent, can be tried - they made the choice to do it. Those who are psychopaths, or insane, go to the aslyum for the criminally insane - a la the Joker in Batman. Except in Whedon's world if you couldn't choose anything but well evil, you were killed by sheriff Buffy - much like a gunslinger in the old west.
Making me realize that certain shows may not bear up well under too much analysis. Methinks I've overanalyzed Buffy.;-)
In the case of Being Human - Toby Whithouse (I think that is his name, my apologies if it isn't too lazy to google it at the moment) - has taken the interesting approach of examining the need to take responsibility for one's own actions and not continue to justify them. John Mitchell for a 100 years has been excusing and justifying his actions as well the state of being a vampire. But we meet enough other vampires to realize that he doesn't have to survive in this manner. He does have a choice. He doesn't require human blood to survive. He can eat human food. Walk in the sunshine.
And live a normal, productive life. All he has to do is control his bloodlust. And even if he can't - he doesn't have to kill to partake. Mitchell is enabled by the vampires around him, and humans who help them. He is in some respects the drunk or drug addict who continues to do whatever is necessary to fuel his addiction. Unlike Whedon's story, Mitchell isn't let off the hook so easily - when he kills the people in the Box Tunnel, he broods much as Angel brood over killing the people he killed when he lost his soul (Whedon's metaphor for demon booze), but unlike Angel - Mitchell is forced to face the consequences of his choices head on. He tries to hide, he tries to excuse, he tries to escape. He tells Annie that he didn't tell her because he loved her, and her response is "do you realize how inadequate that sounds?" IT's just another excuse. Another means of escape. Love me, stand by me, let me off the hook. Which is what a lot of drunkards ask their spouses after they've killed someone by a car or beaten someone up or ... Then the next day, they drink again.
We see it in Being Human - he pushes Herrick to become the old Herrick - literally brining DCI Nancy into his orbit on many occasions. One occasion - he actually appears to want Herrick to kill her, it would certainly solve his problems. But he stops himself - perhaps realizing Annie would never forgive him for it. And he tells Annie that because he is a vampire - he shouldn't go to prison, shouldn't pay for it - that vampires have to get away with it, because if the humans found out it would unravel their society. Annie is flabergasted. So, what, she askes, you just get away with it?
I want to be punished, he says. But he also wants to live. And he's lived for a hundred years.
Immortal with the power to kill, and little respect for any life outside his own. He is keeping Herrick alive to save his own life, not because he believes as Nina does that Herrick could be redeemed nor does he care. He wants Herrick to go back to what he was - so that he, Mitchell, can figure out how to avoid that werewolf shaped bullet. It's all about Mitchell. He really can't see past himself.
He does tell Annie the truth finally - that the Box Tunnel was his choice, and it was, Daisy was just along for the ride. And Annie rightly states, thank you, that's the first honest thing you've said to me. For months you knew. You knew this cancer stood between us and you let me fall in love with you.
I'm not sure it is love to lie to someone to protect oneself...or maybe it is, but a deadly kind of love that is more about the self than the other person. Love in of itself isn't really selfish.
We choose to make it so.
I rather loved Annie in this episode - she saves Nancy's life. Too bad she doesn't stick around after Mitchell leaves with the cops, to kill Herrick, who takes out the remaining cops at the flat along with poor Nancy. OR for that matter Nina, who I'm currently worried about. (Please don't kill my favorite character. I rather adore this actress and she looks familiar, which makes me wonder what British series I've seen her in before).
Was told that fans bashed Nina and Annie for their actions in this arc? I'm guessing it may have been in relation to the fact that if they hadn't chosen to turn in Mitchell, Herrick wouldn't get free reign? Except, I don't think that's necessarily true. Mitchell was actually pushing and terrorizing Herrick - working to bring him back. And in the past, we learn Herrick chose Mitchell as his heir to aid in it. Mitchell - dangles Nancy in front of Herrick on two occasions. And is given ample opportunity to kill him and never does - opportunity where Nina and George could not interfere. So, I think it would have happened anyway. Only a matter of time.
I was rather surprised by the Graham McNair arc - where we learn that Herrick created Graheam, and in Graheam's desire to seek vengeance he kills himself. Here's another interesting theme explored within the series - that vengeance often confused with Justice, leads to bad things. If you think about it, Mitchell's killing spree in the Box Tunnel with Daisy was motivated by vengeance, they wanted to hurt the humans for hurting them. Didn't matter which humans. They wanted "vengeance". Grahaem hunts and takes vampire teeth to get back at Herrick for what he did to him, for making him a werewolf, for making him fight in the cages like a dog both as human and wolf. Finally he finds Herrick, to seek his final vengeance and is killed in self-defense. Daisey in turn is killed by Grahem in much the same way she killed the people in the Box Tunnel. Karma is a bitch. Or an asshole. Same thing is happening to Mitchell - proving what goes around..And well to George. Vengeance unfortunately is a vicious unending circle, with addictive properties.
Looking forward to the finale. Was quite pleased by this episode, much better than expected.
With a decent soundtrack. ;-)
Drew everything together. Also reinstated why in some cases I prefer British tv to US - Herrick is not played by an actor who looks buff and vicious, but by a character actor who truly looks like your Uncle Billy. This makes Being Human in some respects more real and scarier than most American Gothic Supernatural tales.
Yes, I suppose you can say it is talky. But actually this season is far less so than the last two and better paced. And talky obviously doesn't bother me that much, well unless it's the two and a half hour film My Dinner with Andre...that was all the rage when I was in college, but I kept falling asleep during.
In episode 7 - the consequences of Mitchell's choices literally bite him in the ass. But to some degree so do the choices of those who enable him which includes Nina, George and Annie. I feel for Nina the most, because she honestly believed that Herrick could reform, that it was possible. As does Annie in regards to Mitchell. But the point that Being Human makes which is too often lost in many redemption arcs is that you have to first take responsibility for your choices, own them, before you can be forgiven for them or seek redemption.
I had a discussion about this on Sunday. I was asked the question what do I find unforgivable? What act? And I explained that it wasn't an act so much as the motivation, the why of it, and if the person who did the act, owned it, took responsibility for it and actually endeavored to take the steps to change. As opposed to just repeating it and making excuses each time they did. I gave real life examples to explain, as opposed to fictional ones. In 1992, while interning at the Kansas Defender Project - I defended two different men. One man was a hitman for a drug cartel. He had killed a lot of people. More than I care to count. When I met him, he did nothing but make excuses. Sure I killed people but I had to, for the drugs, but that doesn't matter - I didn't have a good attorney and they can't prove I killed these people, plus they weren't nice people, they deserved it. The other man was a bank robber charged with felony bank robbery - which means someone died when he robbed the bank. He had been addicted to crack at the time and like the hitman was doing the bank robberies to pay for his addiction. Except, he chose to seek counseling in prison, to get cleaned up, to start groups that counseled and aided other convicts, wrote a book to teach kids not to do drugs and where it would lead. He owned his mistakes and his bad choices. He feared that he would repeat them. And he hoped he could change. While the hitman, with yellowed eyes and track lines up his arms, merely made excuses - that wasn't me, that was the drugs, I don't deserve to be here. The good news is that the man who got released on probation was the bank robber, the hitman continues to do life.
For me, the unforgivable act is the one that will be repeated. No matter how many times you forgive him. Having escaped more than one abusive relationship - I can tell you from experience that is far easier to forgive a person when they are no longer in your life and you know they will no longer hurt you.
My difficulty with most fictional tales that explore this theme is too often they let the perpetuator off the hook - providing an easy excuse. I struggled with Whedon's series on this point, because more often than not Whedon did the quick short-cut, oh, all is forgiven, they did that without a soul, souled now - they are a different person. As Whedon's characters evolved and his universe got grayer, that easy short-cut to forgiveness no longer worked. As Dawn states to Buffy who attempts to excuse all of Spike's sins (and Angel's) with the quick - he's got a soul now, "But Xander had a soul when he stood-up Anya at the alter, and Willow had a soul when she killed Warren and tried to kill us, and
Warren had a soul when he shot you and Tara...I don't see how that changes anything?" Buffy's answer was the soul provided them with a choice. Which begged the question was Warren's act more evil than any of souless!Spike or Angelus, because he had a soul and could choose? And if that's the case, how can Buffy justify killing vampires but not Warren? This brings up another question - is it only possible to be redeemed if you have a choice? And that actually goes to the legal definition of culpability in that only those who know the difference from right and wrong, are competent, can be tried - they made the choice to do it. Those who are psychopaths, or insane, go to the aslyum for the criminally insane - a la the Joker in Batman. Except in Whedon's world if you couldn't choose anything but well evil, you were killed by sheriff Buffy - much like a gunslinger in the old west.
Making me realize that certain shows may not bear up well under too much analysis. Methinks I've overanalyzed Buffy.;-)
In the case of Being Human - Toby Whithouse (I think that is his name, my apologies if it isn't too lazy to google it at the moment) - has taken the interesting approach of examining the need to take responsibility for one's own actions and not continue to justify them. John Mitchell for a 100 years has been excusing and justifying his actions as well the state of being a vampire. But we meet enough other vampires to realize that he doesn't have to survive in this manner. He does have a choice. He doesn't require human blood to survive. He can eat human food. Walk in the sunshine.
And live a normal, productive life. All he has to do is control his bloodlust. And even if he can't - he doesn't have to kill to partake. Mitchell is enabled by the vampires around him, and humans who help them. He is in some respects the drunk or drug addict who continues to do whatever is necessary to fuel his addiction. Unlike Whedon's story, Mitchell isn't let off the hook so easily - when he kills the people in the Box Tunnel, he broods much as Angel brood over killing the people he killed when he lost his soul (Whedon's metaphor for demon booze), but unlike Angel - Mitchell is forced to face the consequences of his choices head on. He tries to hide, he tries to excuse, he tries to escape. He tells Annie that he didn't tell her because he loved her, and her response is "do you realize how inadequate that sounds?" IT's just another excuse. Another means of escape. Love me, stand by me, let me off the hook. Which is what a lot of drunkards ask their spouses after they've killed someone by a car or beaten someone up or ... Then the next day, they drink again.
We see it in Being Human - he pushes Herrick to become the old Herrick - literally brining DCI Nancy into his orbit on many occasions. One occasion - he actually appears to want Herrick to kill her, it would certainly solve his problems. But he stops himself - perhaps realizing Annie would never forgive him for it. And he tells Annie that because he is a vampire - he shouldn't go to prison, shouldn't pay for it - that vampires have to get away with it, because if the humans found out it would unravel their society. Annie is flabergasted. So, what, she askes, you just get away with it?
I want to be punished, he says. But he also wants to live. And he's lived for a hundred years.
Immortal with the power to kill, and little respect for any life outside his own. He is keeping Herrick alive to save his own life, not because he believes as Nina does that Herrick could be redeemed nor does he care. He wants Herrick to go back to what he was - so that he, Mitchell, can figure out how to avoid that werewolf shaped bullet. It's all about Mitchell. He really can't see past himself.
He does tell Annie the truth finally - that the Box Tunnel was his choice, and it was, Daisy was just along for the ride. And Annie rightly states, thank you, that's the first honest thing you've said to me. For months you knew. You knew this cancer stood between us and you let me fall in love with you.
I'm not sure it is love to lie to someone to protect oneself...or maybe it is, but a deadly kind of love that is more about the self than the other person. Love in of itself isn't really selfish.
We choose to make it so.
I rather loved Annie in this episode - she saves Nancy's life. Too bad she doesn't stick around after Mitchell leaves with the cops, to kill Herrick, who takes out the remaining cops at the flat along with poor Nancy. OR for that matter Nina, who I'm currently worried about. (Please don't kill my favorite character. I rather adore this actress and she looks familiar, which makes me wonder what British series I've seen her in before).
Was told that fans bashed Nina and Annie for their actions in this arc? I'm guessing it may have been in relation to the fact that if they hadn't chosen to turn in Mitchell, Herrick wouldn't get free reign? Except, I don't think that's necessarily true. Mitchell was actually pushing and terrorizing Herrick - working to bring him back. And in the past, we learn Herrick chose Mitchell as his heir to aid in it. Mitchell - dangles Nancy in front of Herrick on two occasions. And is given ample opportunity to kill him and never does - opportunity where Nina and George could not interfere. So, I think it would have happened anyway. Only a matter of time.
I was rather surprised by the Graham McNair arc - where we learn that Herrick created Graheam, and in Graheam's desire to seek vengeance he kills himself. Here's another interesting theme explored within the series - that vengeance often confused with Justice, leads to bad things. If you think about it, Mitchell's killing spree in the Box Tunnel with Daisy was motivated by vengeance, they wanted to hurt the humans for hurting them. Didn't matter which humans. They wanted "vengeance". Grahaem hunts and takes vampire teeth to get back at Herrick for what he did to him, for making him a werewolf, for making him fight in the cages like a dog both as human and wolf. Finally he finds Herrick, to seek his final vengeance and is killed in self-defense. Daisey in turn is killed by Grahem in much the same way she killed the people in the Box Tunnel. Karma is a bitch. Or an asshole. Same thing is happening to Mitchell - proving what goes around..And well to George. Vengeance unfortunately is a vicious unending circle, with addictive properties.
Looking forward to the finale. Was quite pleased by this episode, much better than expected.
With a decent soundtrack. ;-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 03:22 am (UTC)This was the source of much fandom debate back during BtVS Season's 5 & 6. I don't think there's a comfortable answer.
And the actress who plays Nina was an alien in a couple of episodes of Dr. Who. Could that be what you're thinking of?
no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 05:08 pm (UTC)Agreed - remember the choice debate. The issue often comes down to what constitutes choice. It's not a black and white issue.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 03:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 09:31 pm (UTC)It appears to be a trend, and it is female fans. I don't understand why...is it an over-identification with the male "woobie" character? Or that they are so fannish about the character, whether it be Mitchell, Angel, Spike, Xander, sigh the list goes on and on, that they can't see past it?
I think it's worth keeping in mind that it's a vocal minority that feels this way. The vast majority of fangurls don't. Not sure about the fanboys - usually they aren't supportive of the male character in these scenarios, except for SPN of course.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-07 07:54 pm (UTC)They both have just cause to want justice, to seek vengeance. But where in Whedon's idea, the victims become the bad guys, Being Human allows those victims to stay in the right. They might go too far, but they're not turned into monsters just to give the brooding vampire some angst to work through.
Are there SPN fanboys? I don't think I've ever met (well online met) a guy who watched the series ;-)
no subject
Date: 2011-04-08 03:01 am (UTC)I can never tell sometimes. I know the show is targeted at 15 year old males. But I'm admittedly not involved the fandom (it scares me). And the people who watch it on flist are all women, with few exceptions.
They both have just cause to want justice, to seek vengeance. But where in Whedon's idea, the victims become the bad guys, Being Human allows those victims to stay in the right. They might go too far, but they're not turned into monsters just to give the brooding vampire some angst to work through.
To be fair Whedon, I think he was going for camp over drama, or not taking his subject matter all that seriously. Which is partly a US thing. We, as a culture, do not take the gothic horror genre very seriously. Whedon's tone was often very tongue in cheek or satiric. Same deal with Supernatural - very tongue in cheek. Neither Buffy nor Supernatural, or even Angel, Charmed or Vamp Diaries or True Blood take themselves all that seriously.
While go across the pond - Being Human almost takes itself too seriously, as did HeX.
The US is the opposite on Sci-Fi, we take ourselves too seriously in Sci-Fi, while the Brits appear to be more light-hearted about it.
Sort of interesting. There's of course exceptions here and there, (Buffy had its serious dramatic moments) this is generally speaking.
I also suspect that a major difference between the two is the intent of the writers. Whedon was using Buffy to critique a horror trope about the blond girl as victim. Toby Whithouse is exploring addiction and the moral consequences. I think Whedon
played with the addiction metaphor, but never really committed to it. His view of vampires - was actually closer to Mathheisson's I Am Legend - the vampire as a virus or disease upon the living, something that is dead yet continuing (sort of like Romero's Night of the Living Dead), as opposed to the modern re-vision of it as addiction.
Also Whithouse is a bit leaner in his writing, neater. He focuses on one metaphor not several. And the story is adult. It's not targeted towards teens. Buffy's tale was high school and post-adolescence. Whithouse's is about being well human.
That said, I do agree, Being Human does a better job of fleshing out its supporting and guest characters. And it doesn't make victims bitter and evil wretches, such as Jonathan, Warren, Amy, Willow - the idea of people who are bullied abusing power when they achieve it - seems to be a recurring theme in Whedon's work.
He goes for the horror. And it's often a bit over the top.
Whithouse seems to be more interested in exploring what it is to be human, all the interior emotions, going deeper. So he's characters feel a little less slapped together as a result.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 07:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-06 09:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-07 05:13 pm (UTC)