Angel S5 Thoughts
Feb. 9th, 2004 10:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coalescentI think it may be time to give up on season five. The autumn run of episodes was uneven but promising; now, it seems that the season's flaws may have overwhelmed its virtues.
'Soul Purpose' is the first major sign of trouble. Lindsey and Eve continue to play Spike and Angel against each other: Eve disables Angel with a hallucinatory parasite, and Lindsey plays Doyle, convincing Spike that he's being called by the Powers That Be. There are problems with both parts of this plan. The problem with Eve's actions is that the dream-sequences are badly written, and can't hold a candle to similar moments in last season's 'Deep Down' or 'Awakening'. The problem with Lindsey's is that we know he's lying. The idea of Lindsey as a new Doyle is seductive; the idea that the Powers That Be are trying to guide a new champion is interesting. But from the get-go, we know that neither of these things are true, and that Lindsey's intentions are simpler and more direct.
'Damage' is a frustating episode because it should have been a clear, no-brainer home run. It's the episode that deals with the multiple slayers called in 'Chosen', but in raises the dark side of that choice: What if one of the girls called had been abused, and was mentally disturbed? Answer: You've got a psychotic slayer on your hands. This is perfect Angel territory - just the sort of lost and damaged soul that this show specialises in.
The Andrew shows up.
I mean, what? Andrew? The hell?
Maybe - and I mean maybe - you could make Andrew fit in one of Angel's lighter episodes. Here, he's dead weight. The cartoon-exposition scene where he explains slayer mythology to characters who already know it and to an audience who already knows it is painful to watch (and wastes time that could have been more usefully employed developing Dana). He's a child amongst adults; he doesn't belong here.
Between them, Andrew and Spike represent the worst of late-stage Buffy - the guy who's grown a shell to hide his inner nerd is cool; the guy who's still a nerd is a pathetic child - and it's not pleasant to see that pairing reprised. It's all the more galling because you can't help imagining what we might have had. How much better would the episode have been with Giles in Andrew's place? How much more powerful, how much more beautifully ambiguous would the good guys' condemnation of Angel have been coming from Xander? Or, if the writers had to go the unambiguous route, how much better would it have been coming from a new character, one that could mesh better with the show's world?
(Mind you, I have a problem with that ending irrespective of who delivers it: Everyone's condemned Angel without even making a phone call. What the hell?)
I'm not going to complain about the fact that it's yet another Spike episode (putting him on a higher total than the show's lead character, never mind Fred or Gunn or - heaven forbid! - Wesley), since that fact gave us the episode's only good scene, the closing hospital-bed exchange between Spike and Angel. But overall, the opportunity this episode misses is way too big for comfort.
And following that we have 'You're Welcome', the show's 100th episode and the installment that sees the return of Cordelia and the apparent wrapup of the Lindsey arc - and how symbolic that it's written not by Tim Minear, and not by Joss Whedon, and not even by David Greenwalt, but instead by David Fury. It's not great.
To deal with the Lindsey arc first: I get what they were trying to do, I think. Lindsey is the traditional early/mid-season 'little bad'. For season five, this means he's the guy Angel beats to get his groove back. And because the plot has had Lindsey playing mindgames with Angel, it's a plausible victory to persuade Angel that he's ready to finish what he's started when it comes to the bigger schemes within Wolfram & Hart. That's a good idea. The problem with it - and it's a big problem - is that it's not an appropriate role for Lindsey. Last time we saw him, Lindsey was on the up, and he and Angel had (more or less) buried the hatchet. To see him back and so implausibly motivated by jealousy is disappointing - and fatally, it's an order of magnitude less interesting than the Doyle cover story.
Meanwhile, in a whole bunch of ways, Angel S5 seems to be doing the same sorts of things that Buffy S6 did. Some of them are being done better, some of them are being done worse; one of the big plusses is that Angel's disillusionment doesn't feel like it's dragging on and on, and indeed as of 'You're Welcome' he seems to have turned a corner. It's the mechanism used to get him to turn that corner that I have problems with; in a word, Cordelia. Or, more accurately for this episode, Cordy Sue. In a gobsmackingly shamelessly manipulative story she waltzes in, gives a bunch of pep talks, fixes everything up just so, and then waltzes off. It's the non-redemption of Willow all over again. It feels like Mutant Enemy are so desperate to win back the fans offended by their previous handling of a character that now they're giving us a simplistic, unrealistic Best Of, not realising that it won't work, and that furthermore it will alienate those who have stuck with the show.
It's the same root problem that 'Damage' had, and that half a dozen other episodes this season have had: Angel is trying to be all shows to all viewers, and it just can't work. The problem isn't new for the show, but this season it seems to have got much, much worse.
The episode also demonstrates what Angel really lost at the end of S4 - it lost a woman. Fred and Eve and Harmony are all very well, but they're girls; Cordelia is a woman. I gather that Morena Baccarin was the original choice for Eve. If we had to get a replacement, she would at least have been a worthy one.
If I was trying to be optimistic, I'd say that at least they handled the Angel/Cordelia situation well. I think I'll always be a little bitter about the relationship that never was, and it rankles that even in this episode they won't let the characters say they're in love, but mostly what they did (reprise of 'Tomorrow' and all) worked for me. I'm less positive about how things are going to pan out overall; what I dread most of all is that it ends with a condemnation of Angel's choice, that it ends with the idea that there is Good and Evil and that you can get by with never compromising, and never growing up. Angel's previous four seasons have put the lie to that argument - and if they go back on themselves here, I'll be deeply disappointed.
'Soul Purpose' is the first major sign of trouble. Lindsey and Eve continue to play Spike and Angel against each other: Eve disables Angel with a hallucinatory parasite, and Lindsey plays Doyle, convincing Spike that he's being called by the Powers That Be. There are problems with both parts of this plan. The problem with Eve's actions is that the dream-sequences are badly written, and can't hold a candle to similar moments in last season's 'Deep Down' or 'Awakening'. The problem with Lindsey's is that we know he's lying. The idea of Lindsey as a new Doyle is seductive; the idea that the Powers That Be are trying to guide a new champion is interesting. But from the get-go, we know that neither of these things are true, and that Lindsey's intentions are simpler and more direct.
'Damage' is a frustating episode because it should have been a clear, no-brainer home run. It's the episode that deals with the multiple slayers called in 'Chosen', but in raises the dark side of that choice: What if one of the girls called had been abused, and was mentally disturbed? Answer: You've got a psychotic slayer on your hands. This is perfect Angel territory - just the sort of lost and damaged soul that this show specialises in.
The Andrew shows up.
I mean, what? Andrew? The hell?
Maybe - and I mean maybe - you could make Andrew fit in one of Angel's lighter episodes. Here, he's dead weight. The cartoon-exposition scene where he explains slayer mythology to characters who already know it and to an audience who already knows it is painful to watch (and wastes time that could have been more usefully employed developing Dana). He's a child amongst adults; he doesn't belong here.
Between them, Andrew and Spike represent the worst of late-stage Buffy - the guy who's grown a shell to hide his inner nerd is cool; the guy who's still a nerd is a pathetic child - and it's not pleasant to see that pairing reprised. It's all the more galling because you can't help imagining what we might have had. How much better would the episode have been with Giles in Andrew's place? How much more powerful, how much more beautifully ambiguous would the good guys' condemnation of Angel have been coming from Xander? Or, if the writers had to go the unambiguous route, how much better would it have been coming from a new character, one that could mesh better with the show's world?
(Mind you, I have a problem with that ending irrespective of who delivers it: Everyone's condemned Angel without even making a phone call. What the hell?)
I'm not going to complain about the fact that it's yet another Spike episode (putting him on a higher total than the show's lead character, never mind Fred or Gunn or - heaven forbid! - Wesley), since that fact gave us the episode's only good scene, the closing hospital-bed exchange between Spike and Angel. But overall, the opportunity this episode misses is way too big for comfort.
And following that we have 'You're Welcome', the show's 100th episode and the installment that sees the return of Cordelia and the apparent wrapup of the Lindsey arc - and how symbolic that it's written not by Tim Minear, and not by Joss Whedon, and not even by David Greenwalt, but instead by David Fury. It's not great.
To deal with the Lindsey arc first: I get what they were trying to do, I think. Lindsey is the traditional early/mid-season 'little bad'. For season five, this means he's the guy Angel beats to get his groove back. And because the plot has had Lindsey playing mindgames with Angel, it's a plausible victory to persuade Angel that he's ready to finish what he's started when it comes to the bigger schemes within Wolfram & Hart. That's a good idea. The problem with it - and it's a big problem - is that it's not an appropriate role for Lindsey. Last time we saw him, Lindsey was on the up, and he and Angel had (more or less) buried the hatchet. To see him back and so implausibly motivated by jealousy is disappointing - and fatally, it's an order of magnitude less interesting than the Doyle cover story.
Meanwhile, in a whole bunch of ways, Angel S5 seems to be doing the same sorts of things that Buffy S6 did. Some of them are being done better, some of them are being done worse; one of the big plusses is that Angel's disillusionment doesn't feel like it's dragging on and on, and indeed as of 'You're Welcome' he seems to have turned a corner. It's the mechanism used to get him to turn that corner that I have problems with; in a word, Cordelia. Or, more accurately for this episode, Cordy Sue. In a gobsmackingly shamelessly manipulative story she waltzes in, gives a bunch of pep talks, fixes everything up just so, and then waltzes off. It's the non-redemption of Willow all over again. It feels like Mutant Enemy are so desperate to win back the fans offended by their previous handling of a character that now they're giving us a simplistic, unrealistic Best Of, not realising that it won't work, and that furthermore it will alienate those who have stuck with the show.
It's the same root problem that 'Damage' had, and that half a dozen other episodes this season have had: Angel is trying to be all shows to all viewers, and it just can't work. The problem isn't new for the show, but this season it seems to have got much, much worse.
The episode also demonstrates what Angel really lost at the end of S4 - it lost a woman. Fred and Eve and Harmony are all very well, but they're girls; Cordelia is a woman. I gather that Morena Baccarin was the original choice for Eve. If we had to get a replacement, she would at least have been a worthy one.
If I was trying to be optimistic, I'd say that at least they handled the Angel/Cordelia situation well. I think I'll always be a little bitter about the relationship that never was, and it rankles that even in this episode they won't let the characters say they're in love, but mostly what they did (reprise of 'Tomorrow' and all) worked for me. I'm less positive about how things are going to pan out overall; what I dread most of all is that it ends with a condemnation of Angel's choice, that it ends with the idea that there is Good and Evil and that you can get by with never compromising, and never growing up. Angel's previous four seasons have put the lie to that argument - and if they go back on themselves here, I'll be deeply disappointed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-09 02:17 am (UTC)If you can bear it, go back and watch "First Impressions" - this Cordelia isn't so far removed from that one.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 02:24 am (UTC)Oh, well. There'll always be 'Billy'. And 'Birthday'.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 02:26 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 02:43 am (UTC)OK, but it is still a manipulation. It didn't fit then, and I don't think it fits now.
(Like with the Lindsey thing, I think I get what they were trying to do - Cordy comes in and offers her perspective on events. From a meta level, I'm sympathetic to the intent. But I don't think it worked.)
Which I'm sure you knew. Stop pretending to misunderstand me, it ain't cute y'know. :)
I was shooting for 'endearingly exasperating'...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 02:26 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 02:33 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 03:13 am (UTC)In FI, Cordy was rash, rather close minded and didn't have all the answers.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 02:39 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 03:11 am (UTC)Oh, and also...
Date: 2004-02-09 02:22 am (UTC)Empty threat. As if you could. :-P
Re: Oh, and also...
Date: 2004-02-09 02:25 am (UTC)Re: Oh, and also...
Date: 2004-02-09 02:31 am (UTC)Re: Oh, and also...
Date: 2004-02-09 02:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-09 03:16 am (UTC)Damage: Andrew. Isn't the whole point that he's a pathetic nerd, and yet is still able to stand up to Angel? That scene would have been better without the slayers backing him up, but still, I think it carries a force that it wouldn't have if it were any other Buffy character. Also: He's a child amongst adults, then later, Fred and Eve and Harmony are all very well, but they're girls. Something of a contradiction, no?
(Mind you, I have a problem with that ending irrespective of who delivers it: Everyone's condemned Angel without even making a phone call. What the hell?)
What makes you think there haven't been phone calls? Angel knew Buffy was in Europe in Just Rewards. Wes calls Giles in this episode.
You're Welcome: how symbolic that it's written not by Tim Minear, and not by Joss Whedon, and not even by David Greenwalt, but instead by David Fury. It's not great. Of course, two of those don't work on the show any more, and Fury is co-showrunner, which may well be what you mean by symbolic. :) I actually don't think the problems with this episode come from the writer (of course it could be that the whole plot was his idea too, but we don't know that) - the execution is pretty good. In particular I thought Cordys characterisation was fine, a welcome return for a character we thought had long since been lost. Yes it's pandering to the fans, but is giving a much-loved character one last hurrah really such a crime?
what I dread most of all is that it ends with a condemnation of Angel's choice, that it ends with the idea that there is Good and Evil and that you can get by with never compromising, and never growing up.
When you see some evidence of Angel growing up, do be sure to let me know. :P The problem here, I think, is that the story you think they should be telling just doesn't fit the situation. Wolfram & Hart are Evil. They didn't agree to become less Evil if Angel did what they wanted. He can affect the day-to-day running of the firm, but he can't even contact the Senior Partners directly, much less get them to change. So where, exactly, is the compromise?
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 03:35 am (UTC)Well, I disagree. :)
I find it odd that you think the problem with Lindsey-as-Doyle is that we know he's lying. Isn't that the whole point?
Well, yes. The point is that there's a bad guy playing mindgames with Angel that Angel can beat. Trouble is, his cover story is much more interesting.
Also, how do you know at this point what Lindseys intentions are?
I don't, precisely. But it's fairly obvious from his conversation with Eve that it's some fairly mundane form of revenge.
Damage: Andrew. Isn't the whole point that he's a pathetic nerd, and yet is still able to stand up to Angel?
I hope not, because the idea they'd damage the rest of the episode to the extent to they did for a point that could have been effectively made many other ways is depressing.
That scene would have been better without the slayers backing him up, but still, I think it carries a force that it wouldn't have if it were any other Buffy character.
Then, like I said, have it be a complete no-name. But please, have it be someone who can fit into this sort of episode.
Also: He's a child amongst adults, then later, Fred and Eve and Harmony are all very well, but they're girls. Something of a contradiction, no?
Well, in both cases I'm objecting to the presence of juvenile characters in an adult setting, so I'm not sure I see why that's a contradiction. The point is that with the female characters I didn't notice what was missing, whereas with Andrew I noticed something that didn't fit.
Of course, two of those don't work on the show any more, and Fury is co-showrunner, which may well be what you mean by symbolic. :)
Yes.
I actually don't think the problems with this episode come from the writer (of course it could be that the whole plot was his idea too, but we don't know that) - the execution is pretty good.
I disagree. Particularly about Cordelia. Because it's not pandering to me. ;-)
The problem here, I think, is that the story you think they should be telling just doesn't fit the situation.
It doesn't fit the situation that they're giving us now, which is my concern. I think it fits the situation that they sold us with 'Home' and 'Conviction'.
Wolfram & Hart are Evil. They didn't agree to become less Evil if Angel did what they wanted. He can affect the day-to-day running of the firm, but he can't even contact the Senior Partners directly, much less get them to change. So where, exactly, is the compromise?
Er, in the fact that he can affect the day-to-day running, and thereby do a lot of good, but has to make compromises along the way. Not to mention the matter of Connor's new life. Except now they seem to be going for a simplistic 'the good you're doing isn't worth it, you should never have made the compromises you did' line, which I don't buy.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-09 04:08 am (UTC)He says that he's trying to get the Senior Partners to think they're backing the wrong horse. He never says why. For all we know at this point, he could be righteously trying to save Angel from the clutches of Wolfram & Hart. That it's revealed as a mundane revenge scenario in You're Welcome came as a disappointment to me.
Well, in both cases I'm objecting to the presence of juvenile characters in an adult setting, so I'm not sure I see why that's a contradiction.
Because you're saying he's a child among adults, then saying that actually, half the characters he's among (if we include Spike, who you've also dismissed as juvenile) aren't adults at all. So he's a child amongst some other children and some adults. In NiallWorld anyway.
Er, in the fact that he can affect the day-to-day running, and thereby do a lot of good, but has to make compromises along the way.
I think the show's doing an appallingly bad job of showing how much good they are doing, by the way (signing bits of paper doesn't just leave Angel feeling empty, it also makes for bad TV, and the good we are seeing could have been done just as effectively from the Hyperion), but what I mean is that for me, it's not 'Angel gets lots of good done vs Angel allows some evil to happen', it's 'Angel gets lots of good done vs Angel does exactly what the evil, powerful Wolfram & Hart want him to do without them giving up anything, this can not and should not end well'.
Except now they seem to be going for a simplistic 'the good you're doing isn't worth it, you should never have made the compromises you did' line, which I don't buy.
If they were doing that then Cordy wouldn't have persuaded him not to leave, surely? Myself, I can buy it all too easily, because they've never convinced me different.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 04:31 am (UTC)Fair comment. It's just that the most likely alternative to me seemed to be that they were writing a revenge scenario.
Because you're saying he's a child among adults, then saying that actually, half the characters he's among (if we include Spike, who you've also dismissed as juvenile) aren't adults at all. So he's a child amongst some other children and some adults. In NiallWorld anyway.
I really think there's a difference between the behaviour of Fred and Andrew, and I think it's not just a matter of degrees but a matter of type as well. Fred is a grownup, but she acts like a girl (notably when it comes to men). Andrew isn't a grownup at all.
I think the show's doing an appallingly bad job of showing how much good they are doing, by the way (signing bits of paper doesn't just leave Angel feeling empty, it also makes for bad TV,
No, I thought that was effective - it means we feel the same way Angel does. Also, I'll give them budget limitations on this one.
Myself, I can buy it all too easily, because they've never convinced me different.
So what should (or could) Angel have done differently in 'Home'?
no subject
Date: 2004-02-09 04:55 am (UTC)Mostly it just seemed a ridiculously over-elaborate way to go about it. Finding Spikes amulet, recorporealising him, setting up the business with the cup, posing as Doyle.. The problem, as I said in abe, is that we have no idea what Plan A was, and Plan B could have been accomplished far more easily by sneaking into Angels room at night and staking him.
No, I thought that was effective - it means we feel the same way Angel does.
Hmm. I can hardly be blamed, then, for feeling the same way Angel does..
So what should (or could) Angel have done differently in 'Home'?
Not got in the limo in the first place? Beyond that, it gets trickier. He should have either not given up on Connor at all or done so completely - I liked the resolution of Connors story but what it didn't do was make me think that Angel had done the right thing there. The real problem is the amulet - it's hard to argue that Angel shouldn't have helped Buffy save the world.
Of course, if he didn't have a choice, if he couldn't have done things differently, then there really was no compromise involved, W&H flat out won. Tell me again why we're supposed to think that was a good thing, and Angel shouldn't be doing everything he can to get out of it?
Re:
Date: 2004-02-09 05:28 am (UTC)Huh? Plan A was to destroy and demoralise Angel. Hence the elaborate plan - undermine his self-worth in the most comprehensive way possible. Plan B, well, yes, but it's pretty much a TV convention that quick and easy deaths are a no-no.
.
Of course, if he didn't have a choice, if he couldn't have done things differently, then there really was no compromise involved, W&H flat out won. Tell me again why we're supposed to think that was a good thing, and Angel shouldn't be doing everything he can to get out of it?
Because changing W&H is even better than getting out of it.
But to be honest, I don't really have the energy for these debates anymore. Or at least not today. Sorry.
I think it may be time to give up on season five.
Date: 2004-02-09 02:45 pm (UTC)Re: I think it may be time to give up on season five.
Date: 2004-02-10 03:47 am (UTC)