Finished re-watching Buffy S4 and Angel S1 yesterday, with the iconic episodes
"Restless" (Buffy S4) and
"To Shanshu in LA" (Angel S1), which were both written and directed by the principle show-runner creator of each series, Joss Whedon and David Greenwalt respectfully.
Both date rather well for the most part, with a few crucial exceptions (the white male writers of Northern European descent have some decidedly judgmental stereotypes about Black and African culture that regrettably end up on screen and are kind of racist) - Gunn and the First Slayer...ugh.
Upon re-watching I picked up on the flaws in the writing, and of the two, I think Greenwalt's is easier to follow and more engrossing, while Whedon's is a bit more on the self-indulgent side (if you doubt Whedon's creativity, sizable ego, or his power on that show - just watch Restless), far more ambitious, and drags a bit. Even if Whedon's is much more memorable and kind of a game-changer in television writing.
Can you skip over
Restless and still enjoy the series? Absolutely. It's a stand-alone episode, filled with foreshadowing, but so vaguely and confusingly displayed, that you are almost better off not thinking too much about it? People did at the time (myself included) - and came up with far better plots than the writer did or even imagined, which is never a good thing and alas one of the pitfalls of reading and writing fanfic while a series is airing, and before it's been completed. It's almost better to read it after the fact (which I seldom do) but there you go.
To Shanshu in LA on the other hand is kind of required to understand what is happening in Angel. It's not a skippable episode, and I would state one of the anchors of the series? There's a handful of episodes in Angel S1 that you need to watch to understand what is happening, the arc of the characters, etc. It is not a stand-a-alone, which is why David Greenwalt wrote and directed it. The only problem with it - is I'm not sure Greenwalt knows whether he is writing noir or a classic hero story or both? It's a confusing episode. Because it seems fairly clear from the ending, just as it did from the ending of Blind Date (the episode before it) - that the Senior Partners are gleeful with the result, and busy rewarding both Lindsey and Holland Mathers for executing it. Lilah is just along for the ride.
I think Greenwalt is attempting to do two things here? Hoodwink/mislead the audience and our heroes, while at the same time get across what the villains are doing and how they succeed. Plus, be able to get across to the audience the twist or the mislead upon completion of the series - so if someone were to re-watch it after seeing S5, they'd get it. And that's really hard to pull off well, without a few confusing plot holes. (Especially with the constant turn-over in writers and show-runners. But Whedon was most likely the instigator of the mislead, as was Minear.) It's more coherent than Restless, but then just about anything in either series is? And overall, I'd say Greenwalt was slightly more successful in the mislead than Whedon was in Restless, although it's not real clear Whedon knew what he was doing in Restless. Or if he was, he didn't do a good job of communicating that to anyone else?
Take-aways and Reviews of the two upon re-watching years later, are below:
Restless - written & directed by Joss Whedon (who wrote about four-five episodes per season in the first four-five seasons, and often the first episode and the last episode, this is common with show-runners of broadcast television shows with large team of writers and 22 episodes).
There's a dream sequence episode in Dark Winds S3, where the lead character Joe Leaphorn is wrestling with his own inner demons, and goes through this confusing dream sequence in the desert - while being attacked by someone that he believes is a monster in reality. The dream sequence finally gets across to him, as he figures out who killed a priest in his distant past during it, that there are no monsters, just men. And the thing fighting him the desert isn't a monster, but a man.
Restless is kind of similar set up?
( Read more... )Overall, an okay episode? I kept falling asleep during it yesterday and found it, as I always find dreams shown in art and media - to be mentally exhausting and exhilarating at the same time.
To Shanshu in LA - written and directed by David Greenwalt (who was technically the show-runner of Angel, with oversight by Whedon).
Before Angel the Series, there was another cult noirish vampire detective series known as Nick at Night and later Forever Knight. It was about a Vampire who solved cases, while dealing with his creators. Moonlight reminds me a lot of Forever Knight. Angel the Series is kind of merger of Forever Knight (a Canadian 1980/early 90s series) and Kojack the Night Stalker (which was a cult show in the 1960s). It is at its heart - a noir or dark anti-hero series about a Vampire and his friends attempting to help people, and solve crimes, for a fee. Notably, a big difference between Angel Investigations and the Scooby Gange - is Angel is "paid". Often with big checks by folks who can afford it. Up until To Shanshu in LA? I'd say Angel the Series was very similar to Forever Night, Nick at Knight (earlier version of Forever Knight) and Kojack the Night Stalker. After that it goes in another direction entirely.
The beginning of the episode, two things happen worth noting.
( Read more... )Overall a good episode, if a bit clunky and confusing in places. I did enjoy it more than Restless, in that I stayed awake during it.
***
Now that I've finished my rewatch of Angel S1 and Buffy S4, I'd say they were both a mixed bag? Buffy's stand-a-alones are better, while Angel's arc episodes are better.
( Buffy S4 Rewatch Over-view, cut for length )If you really dislike S4, and preferred S1-3, and love those seasons and their narrative framework, setting, etc, then, you probably are better off sticking with the first three seasons and not continuing with the series. If however, you were like me, and loved aspects of S4, then yes, it gets better as we go. And is a very different series post-S4.
Takeaways?
( Read more... )Angel S1 overview.
Better than I remembered. Less skippable episodes than I recalled, although they are there. It is more noirish than I thought. And dives deep into many noir tropes. Every single episode has a dark twist, some better than others.
Also the characters are well developed, and more likable and relatable here than they were on Buffy. Angel, Wes, and Cordelia are far more developed and more three dimensional. We get inside each's point of view. And they are given room to breath and develop that they never had on the other show, too busy competing for screen time.
The writers clearly aren't good at the stealth anthology or case of the week format, and by the end of the season give into serial for the most part. A recurring theme with this series.
WRH may be among the best villains in television. They work on multiple levels, the evil law firm on speed. It's a trope that has been done repeatedly of course, but the Angel writers kind of run with it and take it to new lows. And they keep with the noir themes and landscape - Angel is the classic Noir anti-hero, along with Wes and Cordelia.
I'm looking forward to rewatching S2, which I've mostly forgotten.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
