![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Spike and when should we censor art?
I wasn't going to post tonight...because frankly don't have time. And am insanely engrossed in pulpy romance novel that is bewildering media with its popularity. (The media has a short memory - they clearly don't remember the pulpy novels that also became best-sellers. And hello, Avengers? I mean honestly, a comic book action flick made over 2oo million in one weekend. People don't want to think - they want to be entertained.)
Mark Watches...surprised me with his post on Fool for Love. It's a good post. He reacted to Spike the same way I did, more or less. Shipping Spike is somewhat painful. Mark says during the post that he never wants to see Spike cry again, it's sooo painful. Unfortunately the writer's feel the need to drag the viewer over the coals when it comes to Spike. I think this may be why he's my favorite character - I'm apparently a masochist when it comes to characters...give me tortured characters who make me want to leap through the tv screen or book and hug them and I'm gone.
He is right, the writer's pull rug out from under you with Spike in S5. You think he's one thing, and suddenly he is something else completely. The only other character they did that with was, I think, Wes in Angel. And yet, it all made perfect sense, and once you see it - the show flips and the way you see or view the show changes completely. That, in a nutshell, is what I love. And why I got obsessed. The flip. Whedon hasn't really done it in anything else (nor for that matter have the other writers, although Jane has come close once or twice)...so I've been frustrated. I keep waiting, and no. So I've decided it was just a fluke and not a writer habit, damn-it-all-to-hell-and-back.
I get that he was concerned that Spike was being reckless, but wouldn’t Angelus appreciate the kind of terror that Spike was creating? I don’t get this. But I think I’m just reading into this too much because Angelus’s concern sort of directly leads into Spike discovering the concept of a Slayer. Perhaps that’s the point of it.
Yes and no. But actually Angelus isn't reckless. He's a control freak. Control Freaks aren't reckless. And into the artistry of it. Angel liked to stalk his victims, cleverly remove their family members one by one, torture them, then turn them into monsters. I always looked at this way - Spike was sort of like a heroine addicted hit man aka Omar or one of those dudes from the Wire and Angelus is well, Hannibal Lector. If I had to choose which one to meet in the street? I'd pick Spike. Angelus is scarey.
Not feeling great today. Don't know what's up with me.
Do have a question? Where is the dividing line...when politically incorrect becomes blatantly offensive? When does artistic expression cross that line?
We have an issue regarding sword dancers who did some...allegedly racist dances. I didn't see the dances, so don't know. But the descriptions sounds racist. And I find myself in the same guandry that I've been in online - when should we censor art, if at all?
I'm against censoring artistic expression - because frankly, I think it is better if we see it than if it is repressed, then we can question and change and confront it. And possibly understand it. Art can help one understand another point of view, get inside someone else's head. I know 50 Shades has helped me get inside the heads of the relatives and friends who loved Twilight. I get why they did now. It's not why I thought. Which has made me a better person - and less self-righteous and judgemental (Two attributes that I hate about myself). Anyhow...I really don't know the answer to this question people.
When should art be censored? Should it be censored? OR is it enough to just question it?
Rail against it? Write critiques of it? Perhaps that's the better approach? And how about performance art? Do you permit performances of things that offend you? Does it depend on the offense??
Mark Watches...surprised me with his post on Fool for Love. It's a good post. He reacted to Spike the same way I did, more or less. Shipping Spike is somewhat painful. Mark says during the post that he never wants to see Spike cry again, it's sooo painful. Unfortunately the writer's feel the need to drag the viewer over the coals when it comes to Spike. I think this may be why he's my favorite character - I'm apparently a masochist when it comes to characters...give me tortured characters who make me want to leap through the tv screen or book and hug them and I'm gone.
He is right, the writer's pull rug out from under you with Spike in S5. You think he's one thing, and suddenly he is something else completely. The only other character they did that with was, I think, Wes in Angel. And yet, it all made perfect sense, and once you see it - the show flips and the way you see or view the show changes completely. That, in a nutshell, is what I love. And why I got obsessed. The flip. Whedon hasn't really done it in anything else (nor for that matter have the other writers, although Jane has come close once or twice)...so I've been frustrated. I keep waiting, and no. So I've decided it was just a fluke and not a writer habit, damn-it-all-to-hell-and-back.
I get that he was concerned that Spike was being reckless, but wouldn’t Angelus appreciate the kind of terror that Spike was creating? I don’t get this. But I think I’m just reading into this too much because Angelus’s concern sort of directly leads into Spike discovering the concept of a Slayer. Perhaps that’s the point of it.
Yes and no. But actually Angelus isn't reckless. He's a control freak. Control Freaks aren't reckless. And into the artistry of it. Angel liked to stalk his victims, cleverly remove their family members one by one, torture them, then turn them into monsters. I always looked at this way - Spike was sort of like a heroine addicted hit man aka Omar or one of those dudes from the Wire and Angelus is well, Hannibal Lector. If I had to choose which one to meet in the street? I'd pick Spike. Angelus is scarey.
Not feeling great today. Don't know what's up with me.
Do have a question? Where is the dividing line...when politically incorrect becomes blatantly offensive? When does artistic expression cross that line?
We have an issue regarding sword dancers who did some...allegedly racist dances. I didn't see the dances, so don't know. But the descriptions sounds racist. And I find myself in the same guandry that I've been in online - when should we censor art, if at all?
I'm against censoring artistic expression - because frankly, I think it is better if we see it than if it is repressed, then we can question and change and confront it. And possibly understand it. Art can help one understand another point of view, get inside someone else's head. I know 50 Shades has helped me get inside the heads of the relatives and friends who loved Twilight. I get why they did now. It's not why I thought. Which has made me a better person - and less self-righteous and judgemental (Two attributes that I hate about myself). Anyhow...I really don't know the answer to this question people.
When should art be censored? Should it be censored? OR is it enough to just question it?
Rail against it? Write critiques of it? Perhaps that's the better approach? And how about performance art? Do you permit performances of things that offend you? Does it depend on the offense??
no subject
It's really painful watching Spike suffer and, at the same time, is the reason why I love him so much. He really carry his heart in his hands.
no subject
I agree that Mark did a very good job catching the main points of Fool for Love. I think Destiny is closest in flipping the lens. At least it explains why Spike always insists he is nothing like Angel - gives it far deeper meaning.
no subject
no subject
no subject
When I first glimpsed the make-up on the emcee, I thought she was in blackface. Then I realized there were other colors, so I dismissed it. A few acts in, there was a dance of "farmboys" and the singer's lyrics were about going down to Cuba and loading up with sugar. This was an old slaving ship song, sung by sailors. The next act featured an older white man who was playing at being a "rapper" and wore a knit cap and proceeded to pull the large top of plaid boxer shorts up above his pants belt. I'm no fan of the fashion, personally, but coming right after a slaving ship song it felt even more uncomfortable to me. The next act after that was a mummer's skit, and unfortunately included the character of St George in a white tunic with a big red cross, so by that time all I could see was a Ku Klux Klan member.
So I guess that's how?