![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Watching this insane video series on MTV called Ridiculous which so far has managed to make me very happy I've never tried the pogo bouncing stick. And saw a turtle having an sexual orgasm. Stopped when they decided to show a video of some guy beating up some other guy and shouting at him and his girlfriend or they were all shouting and beating on each other - which was giving me headache. Off now.
Today, managed to clean out fridge, and buy a new phone - since I more or less did in the old one vacuuming. (The cord got sucked into the power vacuum that I borrowed from the landlord. Note to self don't use power vacuum again, or if you do, make sure you remove all cords from the floor first.)
Tummy still plaguing me, so had a weird dinner menu. It was basically one quarter baked potato, one quarter baked sweet potato, and tuna fish on brown rice crackers. Good news, tummy liked it. Can't argue with the tummy. I'm learning that. It's particular, in case you haven't noticed. There's all sorts of things I love that it hates. Haven't eaten much today, more or less skipped lunch. Had melon for a snack. Tried an organic gluten free peanut butter cup - but tummy hated that. Did a lot of walking and lugging of things - I don't need to lift weights, I do that just lugging my laundry and groceries home.
2.At the laundry mat, I read an article in EW about Sarah Michell Gellar-Prinze's new show Ringer. She was on the cover of it. (I don't know, I still think she was prettier when she was 18, with a bit more meat on her bones. She's too thin.) In the article she pretty much stated that after Buffy, she didn't feel she had anything to prove. She'd done it already, become a pop culture icon. People were teaching college courses on Buffy! (Bored academics who got tired of teaching, presenting, and writing about the same old literary classics. You can only teach Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby so many times, after all. Wish they'd done this when I was in school - wait, they did, I wrote a papers on M*A*S*H, Les Liasons Dangereux, Betty Blue, The Wild Bunch, Terminator, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, as well as That Obscure Object of Desire, and A Clockwork Orange. So never mind.) Do agree with Gellar regarding the difference between movies and television - she states that tv provides better roles for women. Finding a complicated, textured role in film is rare. Most roles are girl-friends or mothers. She states that Buffy didn't work as a movie - because in a movie you only have a limited amount of time to tell a story, and it has to have a clear beginning, middle, and end. No time to expand on the character. So it's basically just about a cheerleader who kills vampires. That's it. Maybe a romance thrown in. On TV - you get to explore what it means for her to do this, how it affects her friends, her ability to be a student, her relationships with parents, friends, etc. It becomes deeper more textured, more interesting. Television can go further than film.
For myself, I've come to realize that while I love visuals, and I do, I'm more interested in dialogue, in the unfolding of the narrative, the characters, and the performances - and far less in special effects or visual imagery. Pretty films don't really impress me that much if there isn't a good story, interesting characters, dialogue, or performance. Example: Avatar - I found pretty but dull. Same thing with Inception and The Hulk. While The Fighter, Black Swan, King's Speech...haunt me more. That's oversimplifying it of course, and when it comes to things like taste, it's seldom simple.
Regarding Ringer? It's apparently Buffy meets Cruel Intentions or a noir, with a female lead. She's playing a dual role - two sisters. Siobhan dies, Bridget who is on the run from the mob and witness protection, decides to pretend to be Siobhan, not realizing Siobhan has someone gunning for her as well. It's supposed to have a cliff-hanger before each commercial break. They have mysteries, but they are solved. And it is noire thriller, with soapy elements, and action. Gellar could actually pull this sort of thing off - I've seen her play dual roles before (Buffy). Let's hope the writing is good. It's a male/female writing team. The cast is actually pretty stellar, with Ion Gruffold, Nestor Carbondale (Lost), and the guy from Life Unexpected who played Baz and was basically the best thing in Life Unexpected and the only reason I bothered with it after a while. Also, Jason Dohring, Logan from Veronica Mars, has just been cast in a role. So, so far, so good.
3.Been thinking redemptive stories, in part because there have been a few posts on it on live journal, and often posts by others, regardless of whether I comment, will percolate for a bit in my own head until I post myself on it.
I don't think I really care if the character is redeemed.
I'm not in it for the morality play or the moral arc. In part, because I've learned that morality is often in the eye of the beholder and not always as black and white as we like to make it. For example: Some people on my flist despised Spike and saw that character as well, clearly morally despicable on all levels, yet were sympathetic towards Warren Miers, I was the exact opposite. I saw no redeeming qualities in Warren, while I did see redeeming qualities in Spike. Warren to me was a black and white villain, boring. But, there are people on my own flist who vehemently disagree. Often - it depends on what the characters did and their intent. For example - some people saw Spike's attempted rape of Buffy as irredeemable and the worst thing ever. For me? His intent and how he responded to that action after-wards, mitigated it, as did the circumstances surrounding it. It was far from clear cut - to me. I viewed it differently. It was not a black and white act. While Warren's attempted rape of Katrina, and eventual murder of her, albeit accidental, was clearly irredeemable, and the worst thing I'd seen the show do. I found that close to impossible to watch. Warren's and by extension his partners in crime, Andrew and Jonathan, intentions were clearly to use, hurt, and humiliate Katrina. There was no gray area. I wanted them all dead afterwards. And the show really couldn't redeem any of them in my eyes. Often it is how we relate to the action that we see, our emotional reaction to it - which may or may not always be rational. Which is why I don't tend to like redemptive stories for well the "redemptive" bit or the morality. Because I find that area uninteresting. Engaging in discussions on which act is worse feels pointless, since so much of it is well personal. After all, whether you found Spike's killing of Nikki more gross and difficult to deal with than say, Angelus' killing of Jenny Carpenter, and later Angel's actions in S4-5 Angel...is well, personal.
For me, what is interesting in a redemptive arc and why I tend to like them is how the character evolves and changes. I don't really care if they succeed. Or what they do. Just as long as there is change and evolution, and we aren't repeating ourselves. My difficulty with a lot of redemptive arcs - is often they will redeem the character but not have the character change or evolve. We don't see them change, their relationships change, how they deal with things change. They feel well stagnant.
A good example of this is House. Greg House has not changed. After about five years this gets old. He stays his insanely brilliant self, arrogant, and narcissistic. Feeling that he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants it. He never changes. So I find myself watching House just to see what insane thing he does next. And hoping, it may change him in some way. But, alas, it never quite does.
Dexter is an example of the same thing being done just a tad better, in that, Dexter himself doesn't so much change, or atone, as we get new angles on the character, which was the appeal of House for the first couple of seasons. Sooner or later, Dexter will run out of new angles, and unless the character changes...the show will grow stagnant. That said, Dexter's supporting cast, much like House's is changing, those characters are permitted to evolve.
Angel the Series had the same set-up. Angel himself never really changes or evolves, but those around him do - except being a noir series, they don't get redeemed, instead they become corrupted by their association with Angel. Much as those surrounding Dexter and House slowly become corrupted. In Dexter, his sister's moral code is slowly eroding. And in House, all of his assistants moral codes are eroding. The two who leave, do so, in part, because they can't handle it. This is the anti-hero set-up, where the audience is deluded into thinking that the writers intend to redeem the lead character, when actually they don't plan to do that at all - instead they plan on showing how the lead character's actions and outlook affects everyone around him. Everyone falls into the abyss - which is literally what did happen on Angel - everyone fell into hell, including the city they resided.
The lead never really changes in these shows. He never addresses his flaws. Or shows true remorse for his actions, if anything he continues to feel justified, and the moment he questions what he is doing - someone either close to him or another character will pat him on the head and say, no it is justified. He is surrounded by enablers. I noticed this in Dexter S5 - how many people unwittingly enable Dexter. This is also true in House, and in Angel. As a result, the lead character never does that act of contrition, he never acknowledges what he has done, instead he either denies it completely, believes it is justified, blames it on an addiction or possession or someone else.
This type of storyline in my opinion has a short shelf-life and really only works in films, which are only 2-3 hours in length. Twenty-two episodes times five years...is a bit much. After awhile the narrative just begins to loop around itself, and I grow bored. No one has evolved, they've either de-volved, or are stagnated.
That's not a redemptive arc so much as a false one or mislead. In Angel - there's only three characters, that get redemptive arcs...Darla, Spike, and Faith. Of the three, Faith and Darla are the most interesting and change the most. Spike is the most entertaining, although I'm not sure he changes much in S5, feels somewhat stagnant, all that really changes is his relationships with those around him - so I suppose he does change quite a bit if you consider his interactions with others.
I found Spike's redemptive arc in Buffy the most interesting - because the character does change. Or rather I see changes in his character, he goes from trying to kill everyone, to trying to save them - and it does not happen over night. Faith - was too abrupt. She's murderous, then suicidal, then in prison. Wham, bang, done. I was never given much chance to invest. Or root for her. And I didn't really see the hard work. Spike is more gradual...you see him go from remorseless killer, to getting a chip and slowly beginning to question what he's doing, to falling in love with a person who he had wished to destroy, to dealing with her rejection, to trying to help her regardless, to struggling to overcome his own demonic urges, to trying to find a moral compass, to falling down, and then getting up again. The character actually does change. He's completely different by the end of the series. Is he redeemed? I don't know or care. But he is interesting.
Faith on the other hand...not as interesting. Even though her arc is by the numbers redemptive, no arguments there, but it is not really all that interesting or innovative. It is your basic American wishful thinking prison rehabilitates you tale. Bad girl puts herself in prison, breaks out to save friend, is suddenly "good". She doesn't really change her coping mechanisms, or if she does, we are told she did, not shown it. So, no real surprises or real character examination. The writer took a short-cut. We never really get to see what makes her tick. Just snippets if that. Her character feels very cliche to me, very bad girl goes to prison because of hunky guy who inspires her, breaks out to help him then joins the cause. (How many movies have done that one?) So, while I didn't hate her arc, I was never invested. I never really cared. That's the writer's fault more than anything else, I think, although the actress is rather limited - it says something that the best Faith episode is the one in which Gellar played the role in Who Are You?. That's also the only episode that I felt invested in Faith or cared. The character comes alive in that episode. Granted all of this is fairly subjective. I don't dislike Faith. I just feel that the character's arc isn't that interesting. In some respects the fanfic written about Faith is more interesting than what appeared on screen, hell so is the meta. Because so much is left off-screen. We never really see her evolution...we just see the change. It's too abrupt.
It's true in books as well. Jamie Lannister in Song of Ice and Fire, fascinates me, because the character changes. He may never be redeemed, and that's not what I'm invested in, what interests me is how the character is changing, and why. How he addresses certain things. For example, he goes from being deeply and irrevocably committed to his twin sister, to the degree that he will do literally anything for her - to, well, not liking her or being at all devoted, and dismissive. And we see how that comes about, bit by bit. We also see how his relationships with other characters change and evolve. Why he becomes what he is, when we first meet him, and why he changes. He's not stagnant. I will give George RR Martin a great deal of credit for this much - none of his characters are stagnant, they all evolve and he has a cast of literally thousands. Almost too many for this reader to keep track of. Each character has a journey, each changes, none are the same, and we get to see those changes, why they happen and how, we see the intention, and the acts of contrition, or the justifications intricately laid out. It's not like the Buffy comics, where justifications are thrown out and we're expected to swallow them without question, no explanation or if one is given, a rudimentary one.
The Wire - is an example of a series that had multiple redemptive character arcs, where people changed habits and patterns, and we saw why. From Omar the hitman, who tries to seek a new path, falls into old habits...and well ends horribly, to McNulty, who in trying to do the right thing, screws up royally, and seeks redemption by trying to fix it.
Each character is thoroughly explored and rarely if ever judged by the writers. We get all the angles. In some ways, it is a bit like Martin's novel - extensive in its examination.
Even the drug-dealers, D'Angelo and Bodie, are shown detailed redemptive arcs. As are Kima, the narcotics/homicide cop and Frank Sobotke, the union man smuggling drugs. This may be the best example of how it can be done well across the board in a non-genre series.
Another example of redemptive arcs that work - is Doctor River Song in Doctor Who- whose redemptive arc is being done backwards. We see her redemptive act or acts of contrition first, we're told by Doctor Song that she did a horrible thing, an unforgivable thing, she killed a good man and that's why she is voluntarily in prison - although she sneaks out to help on various occasions. Then finally, we're told what she did, and why, we even sort of see it as does she, from a completely different perspective, and then we see her in the process of planning and pursuing it. Like Faith, River is only in prison because River chooses to be. They couldn't keep her in there otherwise. And in other respects we can compare Doctor River Song's arc to Faith's. It's a far more interesting arc - because first of all, it's told in an innovative manner, backwards. Or more accurately, out of order. With Doctor Song - we get to see everything, but out of order. And she does change. Doctor Song's arc is what Faith's should have been except not out of order, of course.
A good redemptive arc is not so much about "redemption" as it is about the journey to "redemption" or how we change and evolve along the way. Realize our mistakes, figure out if we want to change our behavior. Faith in Angel, realizes her mistake because Angel points it out. Which never worked for me. She should have figured it out on her own without him. In Angel - Faith's arc is more about Angel than it is about Faith, just as in Buffy, it is more about Buffy. In Doctor Who, Doctor Song's arc feels more like her own. This doesn't have to be the case - as we see with Spike in Buffy, who gets an arc that isn't all about her. And it doesn't always have to end well - see Mitchell in Being Human - who realizes he can't do the work to change, that there is no way out, that he'll fall into the old patterns again.
In most cases, a good redemptive arc is about examining one's own choices, taking responsibility for them, learning how to live with them, and changing how one makes choices in the future and/or present. Not falling into old habits, or at the very least trying not to. Take for example - Aeryn Sun in Farscape - who as we move through the series learns to trust others more, to not be opportunistic. Who moves away from violence. Her behavior changes. She opens up. Or once again, Spike in Buffy, who when Dru left him, her pursued her, captured her, and tortured her. OR when he discovers he loves Buffy - he captures her and tries to make her admit she loves him. Realizing this does not work and is a huge mistake, he changes his behavior. He works through his anger, his need to strike out when rejected, and he makes progress, slow agonizing progress. Until, he actually does get what he thinks he wants, but it doesn't work and he can't make her love him the way he wishes her too and falls once again into old habits, which only makes things worse and reveal that he is monster in his own eyes. Repulsed, he decides to take measures to ensure he doesn't do this again, and gets a soul, but that doesn't quite work either, since he gives in to the First Evil and its trigger (which apparently is a bit like heroine)...so once again he has to fight against old habits and finally, finally, he is able to let her go, to let her love him in her own way, and love her back without wanting more. Finally he gets it, and he is able to change how he does things. That's interesting to me! To see how the character changes his way of doing things, how he copes with pain, how he deals with rejection. Because these are things we all deal with. If something isn't working, and it wasn't, you have to change it. Aeryn similarly tries to change, she tries to compromise to meet John Crichton half-way, to learn his language, to go with him. At the end of S3, John chooses Aeryn, and it is not really until the end of S4 that Aeryn finally chooses John. We see her struggling to understand him, struggling to change how she operates, and it is hard going.
Television can show this type of thing better than film. So too can books. Particularly serial novels like George RR Martin's series, where you have time to explore the myriad of choices that we make each day, and the consequences. And most importantly why we make them.
A good redemptive arc - examines those choices, and examines how the character learns to live with them, finds a way to change, does an act of contrition, and tries not to fall into those old abusive/destructive habits. But examination is the key point here, not success. They don't have to succeed. Most don't. It's how you show it. Too often, a writer will tell us a character is redeemed or tell us they are on this arc, but they don't show it. So it feels false. Such as Angel - I'm constantly being told that Angel is on a redemptive quest or Angel is redeemed etc, but I don't really see the changes taking place. In House - we aren't told he is on a redemptive quest, it is clear that he is not. That's not the show's purpose. In both cases, it is a mislead.
Okay enough rambling...off to watch either Fringe or Mao's Last Dancer, before tonight's Doctor Who, which is most likely another horror episode - sans Doctor Song. My difficulty with Who, is that I don't tend to like the stand-a-lone episodes that much, with a few exceptions.
Today, managed to clean out fridge, and buy a new phone - since I more or less did in the old one vacuuming. (The cord got sucked into the power vacuum that I borrowed from the landlord. Note to self don't use power vacuum again, or if you do, make sure you remove all cords from the floor first.)
Tummy still plaguing me, so had a weird dinner menu. It was basically one quarter baked potato, one quarter baked sweet potato, and tuna fish on brown rice crackers. Good news, tummy liked it. Can't argue with the tummy. I'm learning that. It's particular, in case you haven't noticed. There's all sorts of things I love that it hates. Haven't eaten much today, more or less skipped lunch. Had melon for a snack. Tried an organic gluten free peanut butter cup - but tummy hated that. Did a lot of walking and lugging of things - I don't need to lift weights, I do that just lugging my laundry and groceries home.
2.At the laundry mat, I read an article in EW about Sarah Michell Gellar-Prinze's new show Ringer. She was on the cover of it. (I don't know, I still think she was prettier when she was 18, with a bit more meat on her bones. She's too thin.) In the article she pretty much stated that after Buffy, she didn't feel she had anything to prove. She'd done it already, become a pop culture icon. People were teaching college courses on Buffy! (Bored academics who got tired of teaching, presenting, and writing about the same old literary classics. You can only teach Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby so many times, after all. Wish they'd done this when I was in school - wait, they did, I wrote a papers on M*A*S*H, Les Liasons Dangereux, Betty Blue, The Wild Bunch, Terminator, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, as well as That Obscure Object of Desire, and A Clockwork Orange. So never mind.) Do agree with Gellar regarding the difference between movies and television - she states that tv provides better roles for women. Finding a complicated, textured role in film is rare. Most roles are girl-friends or mothers. She states that Buffy didn't work as a movie - because in a movie you only have a limited amount of time to tell a story, and it has to have a clear beginning, middle, and end. No time to expand on the character. So it's basically just about a cheerleader who kills vampires. That's it. Maybe a romance thrown in. On TV - you get to explore what it means for her to do this, how it affects her friends, her ability to be a student, her relationships with parents, friends, etc. It becomes deeper more textured, more interesting. Television can go further than film.
For myself, I've come to realize that while I love visuals, and I do, I'm more interested in dialogue, in the unfolding of the narrative, the characters, and the performances - and far less in special effects or visual imagery. Pretty films don't really impress me that much if there isn't a good story, interesting characters, dialogue, or performance. Example: Avatar - I found pretty but dull. Same thing with Inception and The Hulk. While The Fighter, Black Swan, King's Speech...haunt me more. That's oversimplifying it of course, and when it comes to things like taste, it's seldom simple.
Regarding Ringer? It's apparently Buffy meets Cruel Intentions or a noir, with a female lead. She's playing a dual role - two sisters. Siobhan dies, Bridget who is on the run from the mob and witness protection, decides to pretend to be Siobhan, not realizing Siobhan has someone gunning for her as well. It's supposed to have a cliff-hanger before each commercial break. They have mysteries, but they are solved. And it is noire thriller, with soapy elements, and action. Gellar could actually pull this sort of thing off - I've seen her play dual roles before (Buffy). Let's hope the writing is good. It's a male/female writing team. The cast is actually pretty stellar, with Ion Gruffold, Nestor Carbondale (Lost), and the guy from Life Unexpected who played Baz and was basically the best thing in Life Unexpected and the only reason I bothered with it after a while. Also, Jason Dohring, Logan from Veronica Mars, has just been cast in a role. So, so far, so good.
3.Been thinking redemptive stories, in part because there have been a few posts on it on live journal, and often posts by others, regardless of whether I comment, will percolate for a bit in my own head until I post myself on it.
I don't think I really care if the character is redeemed.
I'm not in it for the morality play or the moral arc. In part, because I've learned that morality is often in the eye of the beholder and not always as black and white as we like to make it. For example: Some people on my flist despised Spike and saw that character as well, clearly morally despicable on all levels, yet were sympathetic towards Warren Miers, I was the exact opposite. I saw no redeeming qualities in Warren, while I did see redeeming qualities in Spike. Warren to me was a black and white villain, boring. But, there are people on my own flist who vehemently disagree. Often - it depends on what the characters did and their intent. For example - some people saw Spike's attempted rape of Buffy as irredeemable and the worst thing ever. For me? His intent and how he responded to that action after-wards, mitigated it, as did the circumstances surrounding it. It was far from clear cut - to me. I viewed it differently. It was not a black and white act. While Warren's attempted rape of Katrina, and eventual murder of her, albeit accidental, was clearly irredeemable, and the worst thing I'd seen the show do. I found that close to impossible to watch. Warren's and by extension his partners in crime, Andrew and Jonathan, intentions were clearly to use, hurt, and humiliate Katrina. There was no gray area. I wanted them all dead afterwards. And the show really couldn't redeem any of them in my eyes. Often it is how we relate to the action that we see, our emotional reaction to it - which may or may not always be rational. Which is why I don't tend to like redemptive stories for well the "redemptive" bit or the morality. Because I find that area uninteresting. Engaging in discussions on which act is worse feels pointless, since so much of it is well personal. After all, whether you found Spike's killing of Nikki more gross and difficult to deal with than say, Angelus' killing of Jenny Carpenter, and later Angel's actions in S4-5 Angel...is well, personal.
For me, what is interesting in a redemptive arc and why I tend to like them is how the character evolves and changes. I don't really care if they succeed. Or what they do. Just as long as there is change and evolution, and we aren't repeating ourselves. My difficulty with a lot of redemptive arcs - is often they will redeem the character but not have the character change or evolve. We don't see them change, their relationships change, how they deal with things change. They feel well stagnant.
A good example of this is House. Greg House has not changed. After about five years this gets old. He stays his insanely brilliant self, arrogant, and narcissistic. Feeling that he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants it. He never changes. So I find myself watching House just to see what insane thing he does next. And hoping, it may change him in some way. But, alas, it never quite does.
Dexter is an example of the same thing being done just a tad better, in that, Dexter himself doesn't so much change, or atone, as we get new angles on the character, which was the appeal of House for the first couple of seasons. Sooner or later, Dexter will run out of new angles, and unless the character changes...the show will grow stagnant. That said, Dexter's supporting cast, much like House's is changing, those characters are permitted to evolve.
Angel the Series had the same set-up. Angel himself never really changes or evolves, but those around him do - except being a noir series, they don't get redeemed, instead they become corrupted by their association with Angel. Much as those surrounding Dexter and House slowly become corrupted. In Dexter, his sister's moral code is slowly eroding. And in House, all of his assistants moral codes are eroding. The two who leave, do so, in part, because they can't handle it. This is the anti-hero set-up, where the audience is deluded into thinking that the writers intend to redeem the lead character, when actually they don't plan to do that at all - instead they plan on showing how the lead character's actions and outlook affects everyone around him. Everyone falls into the abyss - which is literally what did happen on Angel - everyone fell into hell, including the city they resided.
The lead never really changes in these shows. He never addresses his flaws. Or shows true remorse for his actions, if anything he continues to feel justified, and the moment he questions what he is doing - someone either close to him or another character will pat him on the head and say, no it is justified. He is surrounded by enablers. I noticed this in Dexter S5 - how many people unwittingly enable Dexter. This is also true in House, and in Angel. As a result, the lead character never does that act of contrition, he never acknowledges what he has done, instead he either denies it completely, believes it is justified, blames it on an addiction or possession or someone else.
This type of storyline in my opinion has a short shelf-life and really only works in films, which are only 2-3 hours in length. Twenty-two episodes times five years...is a bit much. After awhile the narrative just begins to loop around itself, and I grow bored. No one has evolved, they've either de-volved, or are stagnated.
That's not a redemptive arc so much as a false one or mislead. In Angel - there's only three characters, that get redemptive arcs...Darla, Spike, and Faith. Of the three, Faith and Darla are the most interesting and change the most. Spike is the most entertaining, although I'm not sure he changes much in S5, feels somewhat stagnant, all that really changes is his relationships with those around him - so I suppose he does change quite a bit if you consider his interactions with others.
I found Spike's redemptive arc in Buffy the most interesting - because the character does change. Or rather I see changes in his character, he goes from trying to kill everyone, to trying to save them - and it does not happen over night. Faith - was too abrupt. She's murderous, then suicidal, then in prison. Wham, bang, done. I was never given much chance to invest. Or root for her. And I didn't really see the hard work. Spike is more gradual...you see him go from remorseless killer, to getting a chip and slowly beginning to question what he's doing, to falling in love with a person who he had wished to destroy, to dealing with her rejection, to trying to help her regardless, to struggling to overcome his own demonic urges, to trying to find a moral compass, to falling down, and then getting up again. The character actually does change. He's completely different by the end of the series. Is he redeemed? I don't know or care. But he is interesting.
Faith on the other hand...not as interesting. Even though her arc is by the numbers redemptive, no arguments there, but it is not really all that interesting or innovative. It is your basic American wishful thinking prison rehabilitates you tale. Bad girl puts herself in prison, breaks out to save friend, is suddenly "good". She doesn't really change her coping mechanisms, or if she does, we are told she did, not shown it. So, no real surprises or real character examination. The writer took a short-cut. We never really get to see what makes her tick. Just snippets if that. Her character feels very cliche to me, very bad girl goes to prison because of hunky guy who inspires her, breaks out to help him then joins the cause. (How many movies have done that one?) So, while I didn't hate her arc, I was never invested. I never really cared. That's the writer's fault more than anything else, I think, although the actress is rather limited - it says something that the best Faith episode is the one in which Gellar played the role in Who Are You?. That's also the only episode that I felt invested in Faith or cared. The character comes alive in that episode. Granted all of this is fairly subjective. I don't dislike Faith. I just feel that the character's arc isn't that interesting. In some respects the fanfic written about Faith is more interesting than what appeared on screen, hell so is the meta. Because so much is left off-screen. We never really see her evolution...we just see the change. It's too abrupt.
It's true in books as well. Jamie Lannister in Song of Ice and Fire, fascinates me, because the character changes. He may never be redeemed, and that's not what I'm invested in, what interests me is how the character is changing, and why. How he addresses certain things. For example, he goes from being deeply and irrevocably committed to his twin sister, to the degree that he will do literally anything for her - to, well, not liking her or being at all devoted, and dismissive. And we see how that comes about, bit by bit. We also see how his relationships with other characters change and evolve. Why he becomes what he is, when we first meet him, and why he changes. He's not stagnant. I will give George RR Martin a great deal of credit for this much - none of his characters are stagnant, they all evolve and he has a cast of literally thousands. Almost too many for this reader to keep track of. Each character has a journey, each changes, none are the same, and we get to see those changes, why they happen and how, we see the intention, and the acts of contrition, or the justifications intricately laid out. It's not like the Buffy comics, where justifications are thrown out and we're expected to swallow them without question, no explanation or if one is given, a rudimentary one.
The Wire - is an example of a series that had multiple redemptive character arcs, where people changed habits and patterns, and we saw why. From Omar the hitman, who tries to seek a new path, falls into old habits...and well ends horribly, to McNulty, who in trying to do the right thing, screws up royally, and seeks redemption by trying to fix it.
Each character is thoroughly explored and rarely if ever judged by the writers. We get all the angles. In some ways, it is a bit like Martin's novel - extensive in its examination.
Even the drug-dealers, D'Angelo and Bodie, are shown detailed redemptive arcs. As are Kima, the narcotics/homicide cop and Frank Sobotke, the union man smuggling drugs. This may be the best example of how it can be done well across the board in a non-genre series.
Another example of redemptive arcs that work - is Doctor River Song in Doctor Who- whose redemptive arc is being done backwards. We see her redemptive act or acts of contrition first, we're told by Doctor Song that she did a horrible thing, an unforgivable thing, she killed a good man and that's why she is voluntarily in prison - although she sneaks out to help on various occasions. Then finally, we're told what she did, and why, we even sort of see it as does she, from a completely different perspective, and then we see her in the process of planning and pursuing it. Like Faith, River is only in prison because River chooses to be. They couldn't keep her in there otherwise. And in other respects we can compare Doctor River Song's arc to Faith's. It's a far more interesting arc - because first of all, it's told in an innovative manner, backwards. Or more accurately, out of order. With Doctor Song - we get to see everything, but out of order. And she does change. Doctor Song's arc is what Faith's should have been except not out of order, of course.
A good redemptive arc is not so much about "redemption" as it is about the journey to "redemption" or how we change and evolve along the way. Realize our mistakes, figure out if we want to change our behavior. Faith in Angel, realizes her mistake because Angel points it out. Which never worked for me. She should have figured it out on her own without him. In Angel - Faith's arc is more about Angel than it is about Faith, just as in Buffy, it is more about Buffy. In Doctor Who, Doctor Song's arc feels more like her own. This doesn't have to be the case - as we see with Spike in Buffy, who gets an arc that isn't all about her. And it doesn't always have to end well - see Mitchell in Being Human - who realizes he can't do the work to change, that there is no way out, that he'll fall into the old patterns again.
In most cases, a good redemptive arc is about examining one's own choices, taking responsibility for them, learning how to live with them, and changing how one makes choices in the future and/or present. Not falling into old habits, or at the very least trying not to. Take for example - Aeryn Sun in Farscape - who as we move through the series learns to trust others more, to not be opportunistic. Who moves away from violence. Her behavior changes. She opens up. Or once again, Spike in Buffy, who when Dru left him, her pursued her, captured her, and tortured her. OR when he discovers he loves Buffy - he captures her and tries to make her admit she loves him. Realizing this does not work and is a huge mistake, he changes his behavior. He works through his anger, his need to strike out when rejected, and he makes progress, slow agonizing progress. Until, he actually does get what he thinks he wants, but it doesn't work and he can't make her love him the way he wishes her too and falls once again into old habits, which only makes things worse and reveal that he is monster in his own eyes. Repulsed, he decides to take measures to ensure he doesn't do this again, and gets a soul, but that doesn't quite work either, since he gives in to the First Evil and its trigger (which apparently is a bit like heroine)...so once again he has to fight against old habits and finally, finally, he is able to let her go, to let her love him in her own way, and love her back without wanting more. Finally he gets it, and he is able to change how he does things. That's interesting to me! To see how the character changes his way of doing things, how he copes with pain, how he deals with rejection. Because these are things we all deal with. If something isn't working, and it wasn't, you have to change it. Aeryn similarly tries to change, she tries to compromise to meet John Crichton half-way, to learn his language, to go with him. At the end of S3, John chooses Aeryn, and it is not really until the end of S4 that Aeryn finally chooses John. We see her struggling to understand him, struggling to change how she operates, and it is hard going.
Television can show this type of thing better than film. So too can books. Particularly serial novels like George RR Martin's series, where you have time to explore the myriad of choices that we make each day, and the consequences. And most importantly why we make them.
A good redemptive arc - examines those choices, and examines how the character learns to live with them, finds a way to change, does an act of contrition, and tries not to fall into those old abusive/destructive habits. But examination is the key point here, not success. They don't have to succeed. Most don't. It's how you show it. Too often, a writer will tell us a character is redeemed or tell us they are on this arc, but they don't show it. So it feels false. Such as Angel - I'm constantly being told that Angel is on a redemptive quest or Angel is redeemed etc, but I don't really see the changes taking place. In House - we aren't told he is on a redemptive quest, it is clear that he is not. That's not the show's purpose. In both cases, it is a mislead.
Okay enough rambling...off to watch either Fringe or Mao's Last Dancer, before tonight's Doctor Who, which is most likely another horror episode - sans Doctor Song. My difficulty with Who, is that I don't tend to like the stand-a-lone episodes that much, with a few exceptions.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-04 03:27 am (UTC)Yeah, movies often don't even try to give any character growth (I do prefer the ones that do... in Little Miss Sunshine everyone grows...).
It is so much easier for TV shows to do that, but how many even try it? Most procedurals or comedies seem to be afraid of anything ever changing.... it gets to be really dull really quickly.
But of course the TV shows you were discussing above are the really BEST TV shows that have excellent writers who want to really explore the characters and give the audience something valuable and interesting to think about. Seeing someone corrupted by life can be way more interesting than seeing someone redeemed (that can be awful cliche). Of course, like you, I found Spike's story to be so interesting because in so many ways he was confused by what was happening to him... that he seemed to be caught up in forces that he wanted to control but really couldn't (it made him easy to identify with!).
no subject
Date: 2011-09-04 03:56 am (UTC)Most procedurals or comedies seem to be afraid of anything ever changing.... it gets to be really dull really quickly.
Many procedurals feel more like anthology series with the A plot - with the guest stars more interesting than the B plot. Nothing changes in the B plot. But the guest stars get explored, redeemed, corrupted, etc. The characters who get to do horrible or wonderful things are the ones who are only seen in that episode. The problem is there's not enough time - so you get a snap-shot. And often it falls into cliche...because let's face it, after 22 episodes, you start repeating yourself.
Sitcoms have the same problem - they are set-up around jokes. So the situations are contrived in many cases and the characters never fully explored. There are exceptions of course, MASH, Cheers, Fraiser, Murphy Brown, News Radio, WKRP in Cinncinatti, Mary Tyler Moore Show, Seinfield, Dick Van Dyke Show...All in the Family...all these had character arcs. But most are often just joke fests.
Seeing someone corrupted by life can be way more interesting than seeing someone redeemed (that can be awful cliche).
I'm not sure I agree. Both can fall into awful cliche. At the moment the corruption tale has become well overdone. It's really how you do it that matters. So it's not the trope - it's how its done. The corruption tale if done poorly - is crap. If done well, works. Example - Wesley's arc in Angel worked. Cordelia's arc in Angel was crap. Another example - Willow's arc often fell into cliche on Buffy (the magic as crack addiction story was very cliche in places). Although, I will state at least Willow's story made sense...you could see each step...and Cordy's did up to a point.
But in some stories - they'll have the nice character become evil overnight, then excuse it. The old comic book trick - oh I was corrupted by magic, once the magic is gone, all better now - or that wasn't me, notably with Jean Grey. The X-men Last Stand film is an excellent example of how not to do this.
I really think the writer needs to take the time to show how the character is changing, what they can and can't control. Too often the writer tries to take a short-cut or do a big mislead (the mistake with Willow's arc was the mislead, the mistake with Jean Grey was the short-cut, they had too many story-threads and couldn't take the time so cut too fast to the chase).
no subject
Date: 2011-09-04 05:59 am (UTC)I've been wondering-- and in a way kind of hoping, that just to be perverse that they will never show House really changing. I don't think that has ever been done on any major TV network show. I think everyone expects that by the series finale (which may be this year-- rumors are that Hugh Laurie wants to pursue a career turn as a blues singer. Not kidding-- he's released an album already) he'll somehow redeem or reform himself.
If so, it might be just as jarring to a lot of viewers as the Sopranos finale.
We'll see!
no subject
Date: 2011-09-04 12:36 pm (UTC)You don't watch that much television, do you? ;-)
Actually most network television shows never show the lead character really changing. Angel - Angel never really changed, he did whatever he wanted (and the WB is about as major as Fox). All the procedurals - the characters never really change. Nothing major. House has actually changed in some ways more than they have.
Do you mean redeemed? Very rare to see it on a show, because that's the carrot. The audience is there to see if the character ever becomes better, it's often a mislead.
Breaking Bad is an example of this trope as well. Although there Walt goes from a nice guy to really really nasty one. And it's a slow progression.
No - it is rarer to see "major" changes evolved over time. Which is sad, because TV is the perfect format to see those changes slowly evolve. Breaking Bad, noted above, is an example of the change going in the negative direction. You may want to check it out - I didn't like it for personal reasons - but it is a trope similar to The Sopranoes.
I don't think the audience expects House to change or redeem himself. I don't. I know like I did with Angel and Dexter that he never will. That's the trope.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-04 08:39 am (UTC)This, very much. I actually have a piece of semi-written meta on that subject, because there are a lot of people who dislike Angel because they see his story as a failed redemption arc, and I can't quite get my head around this, because to me he was never a straight hero - he was always the guy in the shadows who'll do whatever it takes. It's like they're holding him up to a set of scales and find him wanting, and I go 'But those aren't his scales!' It's very frustrating. Mind you everyone keeps TALKING about redemption on Angel, but it's... a red herring?
/early morning ramble
no subject
Date: 2011-09-04 01:03 pm (UTC)I believe so. The show "House" is very similar to "Angel", and there's a few others...some I haven't seen or gave up on that also go this route, Nip/Tuck,
The Sheild, Damages, Sopranoes, Rescue Me - most of them are on F/X for some reason. Fox seems to like tv series about nasty characters that never become better or change or evolve. (They produced Angel even though they didn't air it.) Which I guess says something about Fox?
No, I figured out in the first season of Angel that the shanshu was a mislead or the carrot that Angel could never acquire because what made him do horrible things wasn't the demon inside, it was well the man - and his unresolved issues with his father. His inability to address it or acknowledge it is explored in detail throughout the series. I knew that the character was never going to change, that the most that would happen is that we would learn more about why he is the way he is - which is the template for House, Dexter, and Sherlock, actually. The TV shows House, Sherlock, and Dexter follow the same template more or less - the leads have unresolved issues with a father figure or mother and unable to directly address them...they continue to lash out.
That and the fact that he was an anti-hero, or vigilante hero, which is a common American television/film trope - dating back to the 1950s and The Western and Noir Crime Drama.
All you have to do is look at the characters surrounding Angel and what happens to them. They become darker. Without exception all the characters in that show go from light to dark, or dark to dark. Even Lorne. And without exception it all is because of Angel's choices. Or their own based upon Angel's choices. He dooms his friends. I suppose you could say that Connor escaped - but not really, his memories were wiped, replaced with new ones, then he got the old one's back and saw LA go to hell, it's not clear what he is now.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-04 08:13 pm (UTC)There was an indication at the start of S5 that Spike might make Angel aware of his fatal flaw and he might change...or the reveal of the memory wipe or what happens to Illyria or Cordelia's brief return or even Buffy's reaction would make him see it - but I don't think it is possible for Angel to come to that epithany. He needs to be the redeemed hero too badly. The forgiven prodigal son. And he'll do literally anything for that.
No, it became clear to me early on that the writers never intended to redeem Angel. Once you figure that out...the series becomes less frustrating.
Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-04 05:41 pm (UTC)I also agree with all your comments about Faith, Spike and Warren. I'm not sure I agree about Andrew; I see him as on the right path after Storyteller.
Anyway, good thoughts.
Re: Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-04 07:55 pm (UTC)That's the catch-22 of Angel's situation or the paradox. His need to be the chosen one, the forgiven prodigal son - dooms him. The writers explore that theme with all the characters - Cordy, who thinks she's special with the visions, Wes with his desire to be better than his father, each character echoes that dilemma. The vanity and pride - look we saved the day! We are champions!
I'm not sure I agree about Andrew; I see him as on the right path after Storyteller.
I guess it depends on whether Storyteller works for you. It didn't for me. Because it felt too easy - Andrew saw it all as a fantasy, he kills Jonathan, assists in the rape of Katrina...but it isn't real, it's just a game. Storyteller - Buffy reveals that it is not a game, it is real. He's not playing a villain, he is one. Which I guess means he's taken responsibility, and he does attempt to help, I guess. But...for me, Andrew just does whatever the crowd does, he goes with the flow. It never really feels like he makes his own choices. Would he see it - if Buffy didn't thrust it down his throat?
Compare to Spike - who figures things out gradually, and falls down each round.
Again for me, it's not whether the character is on the right path so much as how they show it. Andrew felt a bit...well, to compare to The Wire? Take Poot and Bodie - who in a way are a lot like Andrew and Jonathan. Poot realizes the mistake, he decides to become a shoe salesman, to get out of it...we never see all of it, but it makes sense, his realization is his own. Same with D'Angelo, another example that reminds me a little of Andrew's arc, a tragedy, but D - sees it after Wallace is killed, he figures it out and he is trapped. Andrew got off too easy - it felt like a short-cut. Granted they had a lot of storylines going on in S7 - which meant poor execution in some areas.
Re: Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-04 08:08 pm (UTC)I guess I wouldn't describe Andrew's path as "too easy". Much of his wrongdoing in S6 consisted of affirming Warren's behavior out of weakness. I saw that as a relatively short downward spiral -- he was opposed to harming Buffy in Flooded and Gone, and only really went over to the dark side in Dead Things.
He actively sinned by killing Jonathan, and I certainly don't want to understate the magnitude of that. But if we're going to accept a redemptive path, we have to be willing to do so for even the worst crimes. I thought it was plausible that Andrew at least came to *understand* his wrong thanks to Buffy in Storyteller.
I don't see Andrew post-Storyteller as "redeemed", certainly. Just starting out is more like it. Of course, I basically ignore The Girl in Question and all of the comics, so I'm basing this just on S7. He's kind of like Poot at that stage, perhaps even a little further along, because he tried within his own limits to help.
Re: Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-04 09:40 pm (UTC)Objectively speaking, assuming that's possible, probably isn't, I think where we differ is you see his major crime as killing Jonathan, that was his big sin. For me? I see what he did in S6 being far worse. He aided and abetted Warren in the killing and rape of Katrina - Warren didn't do that alone. He also aided and abetted Warren in attempting to hurt Buffy in Seeing Red. If memory serves, it was only Jonathan that seemed opposed to harming her in Flooded and Gone, although I may be remembering that wrong.
Andrew enabled Warren. As did Jonathan.
While Andrew takes responsibility for killing Jonathan, he never really does for everything else. And he is rewarded for really doing nothing more than saying I'm sorry, I'll help you now. Granted he could have taken off...but what does he do really?
Hide behind Anya, when she gets killed? Cry about the death of Jonathan, who was his best -friend, who the First manipulated him into killing?
Andrew's story works metaphorically better than literally, I think.
As a metaphor for how enacting and living our fantasy life - taken too far - can lead to horrible things. There was a heavy theme in S6 and 7 about fantasy vs. reality. Or seeing life as it is and dealing with it.
Re: Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-04 09:54 pm (UTC)You're right, too, that Andrew doesn't show any repentence for his behavior in S6, except perhaps implicitly by rejecting The First/Warren's attempts to seduce him further.
What I thought was important in Storyteller was that he actually understood why killing Jonathan was wrong -- Buffy enabled (heh) him to feel what Jonathan felt. This didn't mean, to me anyway, anything more than simply that. Andrew has a long way to go from there even if we allow for his limited capacity, and to the extent that TGIQ or the comics suggest otherwise (and I think they do), I don't like them.
Re: Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-05 01:15 am (UTC)Watching a character wallow in guilt and remorse, but not learn from it and take action to change behavioral pattern, is not interesting to me.
That said? I think there is a rather good scene in End of Days and in Chosen where Andrew does do something different, he shows he's learned or changed. In Grave - Andrew and Jonathan run away. But here, in End, he goes with Anya to get meds for the girls, and spends time in the hospital playing with her. She tells him that in the past she'd have run from something like this or the only reason she'd stay was for Xander, but now, she's staying because she actually cares about people - she's going against past behavior.
Andrew does the same. So this a little there, not much but a little.
It still, however, feels very slight to me and isn't enough to make Andrew's arc or his character one that I can be invested in. I really couldn't care about him one way or another. Was ambivalent.
And that's because he is mostly a cipher character, one who seems to mimic or emulate others...I think in some respects they made a mistake going with Andrew, and should have given his arc to Jonathan, who had more history and there was more they could do.
In some respects Jonathan's arc is more poignant than Andrew's - because Jonathan goes back to Sunnydale to help, instead of running, he tries to do the opposite. But here, still, it's about "making up to" as opposed to "learning from" past mistakes, and
changing behavior patterns.
If that makes sense?
For the arc to work for me, I need more of the latter, the former... is too much about "morality" and as we've done here, we spend a lot of time on what act is severe or legal interpretations than on the exploration of the character's motivations and how the character has changed or evolved. Andrew at the end of the series remains a rather weak character - two-dimension perhaps, but still fairly thin. We know little about him. And he feels more like a last-minute stand-in for the far more rounded Jonathan.
Re: Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-05 01:22 am (UTC)Re: Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-05 01:43 am (UTC)I should state - that it doesn't really bother me all that much that Angel has no true redemptive arc, just that after five years, make that ten (with the comics) the writers kept saying he did. I still can't quite figure out if they are pulling our leg or are serious. The expectation is built up - because we expect him to have that arc.
It's odd, because I never expected a redemptive arc with Spike - and he got a wonderful one. I did however expect one with Willow and Anya...who I felt were both short-changed, although admittedly less so than Faith was. It's ironic that the character with the best written arc in the series is the one that the writer originally intended to kill off after only five-six episodes, while the characters whose arcs feel sort of stilted or don't quite work, were planned.
Re: Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-05 01:46 am (UTC)Re: Very perceptive comments
Date: 2011-09-05 01:47 am (UTC)I just sort of accepted Faith's "redemption" arc as a storyline given because it was so under-developed.
With Willow, I did expect much more from S7 and that remains my only big disappointment with the season.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-04 11:25 pm (UTC)In most cases, a good redemptive arc is about examining one's own choices, taking responsibility for them, learning how to live with them, and changing how one makes choices in the future and/or present.
I agree that the idea of redemption arcs being about truly "redeeming" (as in "making up for") characters for past misdeeds isn't the point for me at all. How do you "redeem" yourself for a hundred years of murder and mayhem? For pushing a 8-year-old out of a window?. For (to use another one of my favorite examples of a change-but-only-kinda-redemption arc, Gaius Baltar) letting your selfishness almost destroy the entire human race -- twice? You don't. Or, if you do, it's through a lot of repentance or collection of "good deeds" that I'm not interested in.
Like you, I'm interested in seeing a change of perspective, whether that be characters changing their moral code (Spike), or actually starting to live by the one they kind of always had but overlooked for other reasons (Jaime), or learning to put someone else first for once (Gaius), or finally realizing they CAN'T change and their desire to do is hurting others (Mitchell, oh god, Mitchell, I love his arc so), etc. etc. I like characters that stumble and fall or don't quite make it (so many of the people on The Wire, god, that show is good), as long as they are DYNAMIC.
This is why I really do find redemptive moments (when earned, of course) very satisfying, even they don't "make up" for the bad things characters had done. Because I don't CARE about the characters "making up" for anything, I care about them finally getting to a point where they make a choice they wouldn't have made before. Spike, not telling Glory about Dawn (or even not killing Buffy at the porch); Jaime, going back for Brienne in the pit; Gaius, getting on the damn ship; Sawyer from Lost jumping out of that helicopter; River saving the Doctor; Mitchell, of course; etc. etc. etc. These moments don't make up for what the characters did before, but they show that something about the character has changed, and that's why they resonate with me.
I think the problem with Angel is that he wasn't having a redemption arc, he (as a character) was seeking redemption in the "make up for all of my bad by doing GOOOD." Which is...boring. Because that just means you try to keep doing good forever. And that's not not a dynamic state. And because Angel (the character) never really actively acknowledged that the line between Angel and Angelus wasn't as clear as he liked to say, it was really just Angel sitting there like "when I didn't have a soul, I was bad. Now I have a soul and am good, but FEEL bad about being bad." Which... I don't care about his angst if it doesn't mean anything about his present POV is going to change.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-05 01:35 am (UTC)This is why I really do find redemptive moments (when earned, of course) very satisfying, even they don't "make up" for the bad things characters had done. Because I don't CARE about the characters "making up" for anything, I care about them finally getting to a point where they make a choice they wouldn't have made before.
Exactly. That's what I was trying to get at. While I do love redemptive moments, they need to be earned - not come out of nowhere. I don't really care about the character making up for past acts - the past is over, you can't go backwards and there is nothing you can do that can change it.
The best you can do is learn from the past and not make the same mistakes again. Which we see with all those characters. A choice that surprises you, except it doesn't when you think back over that character's arc and what you've learned about them. It's like peeling back the layers of an onion, the character becomes multi-dimensional, and unpredictable. You realize they are capable of change and as a result of that - real. They jump off the screen or page.
I think the problem with Angel is that he wasn't having a redemption arc, he (as a character) was seeking redemption in the "make up for all of my bad by doing GOOOD." Which is...boring. Because that just means you try to keep doing good forever. And that's not not a dynamic state. And because Angel (the character) never really actively acknowledged that the line between Angel and Angelus wasn't as clear as he liked to say, it was really just Angel sitting there like "when I didn't have a soul, I was bad. Now I have a soul and am good, but FEEL bad about being bad." Which... I don't care about his angst if it doesn't mean anything about his present POV is going to change.
Agreed. In so many discussions regarding Angel, people stated well he feels guilty, we see his remorse! But ...so what? I mean that's nice and all. But really, that doesn't change anything. He wallows in his guilt. But when push comes to shove, he makes the same choice that lead to those horrible things all over again. Turning back time. Memory Wipe. Sending LA to Hell. For Angel the means justify the ends - his arrogance that he knows best, that he is right, results in the world almost ending. It's like he never learns.
He can't get past his own inflated ego long enough to see the consequences of his own actions. And he never seems to change them. We don't see Angel search for a way to undo the curse, instead he hunts for ways to assuage his guilt or he mopes.
I think that is the difference. He's making up for past crimes or trying to, to assuage his guilt, which isn't quite the same thing as trying to become a better man.
And Mitchell is an excellent contrast.
To be fair to the writers of Angel the Series - I don't believe Whedon ever intended on redeeming Angel. I still don't believe he intends to redeem that character. I think the writers are more interested in examining the anti-hero aspects of Angel. Sort of similar to what the writers are doing on House and Dexter. Which is interesting for only so long...like maybe five years, but after awhile it does get old.