?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

All my Twitter BH buddies went bananas over "Adam's Family," so by the time I got to it last Tuesday, I was expecting it to be high-LAR-ious and heartfelt and all those wonderful things that people were raving about.

And it was... pretty good, from where I sat, but nowhere near the top of best-episodes-ever list. Adam -- both in the ep and in the first Becoming Human webisode -- did finally end up with more meaningful character moments than indulgences in embarrassment humor, but just barely. I'm not sure why British male TV writers in particular seem to find extreme adolescent awkwardness so therapeutic, but an awful lot of them seem to, and to push the limit of even my mostly squick-free tolerance. Between Adam and the cringe-inducing ordeal that was Mitchell's job interview, it was just too much. Though the latter, in context, serves all the more to underscore how fragile Mitchell's equilibrium is, and how questionable the wisdom of his interacting with people without a titanium safety net.

I'm also very iffy, from a mythos standpoint, on Adam's parents having sustained him for decades, and the implication that he may never have killed. How did that work? Though it, along with Richard and Emma's lifestyle, does add to the mounting evidence -- along with the "larder" of homeless people at the end of S1 and the assumption that Ivan could feed from the goth girl in S2 without killing her -- that Mitchell's all-or-nothing control issues are not as much the rule as we naturally assumed at the beginning of the show. TPTB seem, when I haven't been looking, to have constructed a larger world in which it may be possible to be a vampire and not addicted to killing, where it's at least partially separate from the urge for blood. Richard and Emma's bizarre party plays out in a way that makes it apparent that killing "Number 7" is a deliberate choice, rooted more in sexual kink than in the overwhelming drive to violence that we see in Mitchell. Big Bad John Mitchell is a legend for a reason, after all, and it raises the question of what Herrick saw and cultivated so successfully in that terrified 23-year-old.

There's a lot being said about class with the whole Richard and Emma thing too, of course, in their oh-so-genteel bigotry toward George and Nina, and their vehement and hypocritical contempt for Mitchell's excesses. The fetish party fell a little flat for me from the standpoint of evidently-intended comedy, but it did support that point. I'm also tempted to think it was a bit of a wink to the over-the-top emphasis on sex in True Blood, to which the media never seems to tire of comparing BH.

Of more interest to me, in both these eps, is Annie's post-purgatory emotional state. It's always been her way to respond to trauma with denial, and her rebuff of Nina's offer of a sympathetic ear is as worrisome as the way she has thrown herself in this "guardian angel" business. That's enough to freak the hell out of Mitchell, contributing to the "I don't deserve these people, but I need them and it's what they choose" epiphany that he's sort of working through in both eps.

As inevitable as the denial, of course, is latching onto Mitchell as her hero. And as much as I love them both, and acknowledge that there's always been the undercurrent of attraction there, this is So Very Not A Good Idea. If I hadn't already felt that way, it would have been brought home by her cutting him off when he tried to come clean about his recently-perpetrated horrors. She knows, has known since that infinitely disturbing scene in the kitchen before they left the pink house for the last time, that he had done something terrible. She knows that's not "all in his past." And she refuses to accept it as part of the Mitchell standing in front of her, and that cannot possibly end well.

It places Annie in the same uncomfortable position as the fans who wouldn't have believed him capable of the things he did in 2.7, with the selective vision that made those actions such a compelling risk for the show to take. She -- and we -- can have the huggy, generous, goofy knight-in-shining-denim. But we can't have him without the lying, selfish, cowardly mass murderer. It's a package deal. Now Annie is flat-out ordering him to lie to her, just as Mitchell seems to have finally -- after getting Single White Vampired by Graham -- acknowledged his lying to be the thing that always ALWAYS begins any chain of events that sends him spinning out of control. And he's going along with it precisely because of what he told George (as if he needed to say it): he would never hurt her. Which is all well and good, except for the part where that translates in his head to "Don't upset her at this moment."

(As an aside, I ran across an interesting blog post last week by the father of a 22-year-old with ADD, concerning the son's pattern of lying and why it happens, because ADD exacerbates the early-20s brain's already limited ability to think through decisions beyond the moment. Every word of the thing screamed Mitchell. Which doesn't make him any less exasperating, and certainly no less dangerous, but... well, as I've said before and will say again, 1894 was a lousy time to be born with ADD.)

Starting anything on these terms is going to damage them both, and I'm not at all happy with that. I'm sure they'll be massively cute in the interim, but, well. :-/

I've sort of segued between the two eps without much warning, and without saying that "Type 4" is that hilarious and heartfelt and pitch-perfect ep. The development of Sasha over the hour from annoyance to friend, and the things that drew from Annie, some healing, some revealing of things that need attention. The twist on zombies is flat-out brilliant, especially when Annie is watching the video footage, and the initial flashes of bloody chaos and screams turn out not to be the Romero-esque moment we expect (even as we wonder if Sasha, back at the B&B, will head upstairs any moment with the midnight munchies), but unimaginable torment visited on the zombies. The whole surreal "girls' night out" (accompanied, of course, by the boys deciding to get drunk at home) is right on, and the failure of Sasha's body in the middle of it absolutely heartbreaking.

Nina's pregnancy in and of itself is not exactly a bombshell -- if we didn't see that coming after 3.1's werewolf sex, we're just not paying attention -- but the way it plays out between her and George over the course of the ep is poignant and difficult and beautifully played. And the Graham subplot, bizarre as it is, provides a wealth of insight as to how the repercussions of Mitchell's actions continue to be felt... including the prospect of building a reputation for something other than killing a whole bunch of people. As sad and sick as Graham was, there's a glimmer of hope in the fact that, in his fanboy enthusiasm, the achievement he gushed about was getting the Bristol vampires to renounce blood.

All in all, just chock-full of fast-moving Being Human goodness.

Comments

( 33 comments — Leave a comment )
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 07:02 pm (UTC)
Big Bad John Mitchell is a legend for a reason, after all, and it raises the question of what Herrick saw and cultivated so successfully in that terrified 23-year-old.

I've been continually disappointed in their constantly showcasing Mitchell's vampire past instead of his human one--yeah, yeah, we get it, he probably didn't do anything particularly terrible as a human (though, god, so interesting if he did) but by focusing on all of this carnage we're really not finding out anything about the why and it leaves him a little blank. Which annoys me. But I guess I've gotten to kind of seeing young Mitchell as Don Draper, which makes more sense than I'm really comfortable with.

Finally someone who recognizes Mitchell's deep need to sit down and shut up. He just--I don't know. I can't even.

I was a bit iffy on how they handled Nina's past/pregnancy--her decision seemed very quick and made me a little uncomfortable.

I'm of two minds about Mitchell/Annie. It's not that I don't like them together but I agree that this is probably an extremely terrible idea. And yeah, I know he saved her from purgatory and that's what's foremost in everyone's minds on and off the show--but am I the only one who is really uncomfortable with them being together after what he did to her last season? Annie's been assaulted twice over in the house (Tully and Saul) and that's when she's dead. Considering Owen's level of sexual control, I'd be all levels of shocked if he wasn't regularly forcing himself on her during their relationship as well. Mitchell knows all, or at least most of this, and he still chose to pin her up against the wall while sexually threatening her. This is the first guy she's gotten to know and trust and three different men have sexually assaulted her in that house and her closest friend turns around and pins her to the wall. Annie's capacity for forgiveness, in the house, is taken far too much for granted.
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 07:03 pm (UTC)
By sexual control, I mean him controlling her, not ability to control himself. That came out questionable.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 07:16 pm (UTC)
Though I think both apply.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 07:30 pm (UTC)
I was a bit iffy on how they handled Nina's past/pregnancy--her decision seemed very quick and made me a little uncomfortable.

I think she was panicking. It actually felt a lot to me like her decision to leave the house in the middle of the night last season. Nina is so grounded and practical most of the time, it's easy to forget that she can get emotionally overwhelmed too. And when she does, she gets WAY stubborn and insists she's being rational, even while irrationally shutting out any debate.

But I guess I've gotten to kind of seeing young Mitchell as Don Draper, which makes more sense than I'm really comfortable with.

That is... not something that would have occurred to me. But it certainly does.

Finally someone who recognizes Mitchell's deep need to sit down and shut up. He just--I don't know. I can't even.

I love Mitchell to bits. This does not stop me wanting to grab him by the shoulders and SHAKE HIM UNTIL HIS EYEBALLS RATTLE on a frequent basis.

He is broken in ways that can be managed but cannot be fixed. And that's a tricky story to tell, and one that a lot of people really don't want to look at as bluntly as they've taken the creative risk of presenting it.

but am I the only one who is really uncomfortable with them being together after what he did to her last season?

You are so very, very not. And in fact, I think it's a fair chunk of what's making Mitchell uncomfortable. He was the one she clung to after Tully. He knows exactly how deeply he betrayed her with that.

George... might, if he actually knew what had gone down, but Annie didn't say. All George knows is that Mitchell was acting freaky and scared her, and what Mitchell said to him in the same scene didn't cut nearly as deep. So his "go for it" pep talk makes sense in context of the information available to him.

If Nina knew... um, I think I wouldn't want to be in the same postal code.

Mitchell also knows damn well how deep Annie's capacity for denial runs, but unfortunately has an established pattern of enabling it in the name of protecting her (or, if he were more honest with himself, of not having to deal with her being upset), going back to keeping his suspicions about Owen to himself.
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 07:41 pm (UTC)
I love Mitchell to bits. This does not stop me wanting to grab him by the shoulders and SHAKE HIM UNTIL HIS EYEBALLS RATTLE on a frequent basis.

Really. Really.

As for the assault issue, this is Annie we're talking about here, who blamed herself when Owen murdered for a good long time. As far as I can see with her, she's banished it to the back of her mind. As far as she sees it, purgatory canceled that out. Annie sees Mitchell exactly how he likes to convince himself he is and that's just so problematic.

Mitchell's position right now reminds me of a Bogart or Alan Ladd film from the 1930s where the tough-guy hero shoots someone in the first five minutes and because of the Hays Code and general pre-1960 morality, you know he will die by the end of the movie. Frankly, he was in for it long before Lia opened her mouth.

I do doubt Mitchell's capacity to ever be in any relationship ever but there are more red flags around Annie than there have been with the others. Frankly, I think he came closest with Josie, who was smart enough to get herself out. Much as I disliked Aidan Turner's wet-rag girlfriend playing her younger self.

(And yet I still sort of like Mitchell/Annie? I'm a complex person.)

And I've always kind of seen him as Don, what with the coming-back-from-war-a-different-person thing. And the falling in love with random women at the drop of a hat thing. And the drinking thing. And the asking to be saved thing. And the sardonic cracks and Herrick-as-Roger and I'm just going to stop now.

Except I have far less love for Draper. Sadly.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 08:28 pm (UTC)
Frankly, I think he came closest with Josie, who was smart enough to get herself out.

I'm actually really curious how that ended, because we don't actually know. My pet theory is that Mitchell fell off the wagon, couldn't face her, and simply disappeared. But we've never been told.

And yeah, the girl who said "Take your time, I'm tied to a bookcase" was pretty much the jackpot in terms of who he could have met at that pivotal moment. If she reminds me of anyone in his present, it's Nina. And Nina's rather decidedly taken.

Which actually works in favor of her ability to smack Mitchell on the nose when it's called for, and we've established pretty firmly that I'm ALL for that. ;-D (Someone once mentioned, while commenting on my Lauren vid, that she missed Lauren because "somebody needs to yell at Mitchell." To which my response was "As many people as possible need to yell at Mitchell.)

(And yet I still sort of like Mitchell/Annie? I'm a complex person.)

I sort of do too, and that's speaking as someone who is generally non-shippy. (Not to be confused with anti-shippy; I just genuinely don't care about it nearly as much as other dynamics 90% of the time.) Just because it is a Very Bad Idea doesn't mean there won't be cute to enjoy along the way.

I can't help but root for people with that much love for each other, however they decide to express it. It's just problematic when they happen to be people with massive issues that intersect in really unfortunate ways.

Except I have far less love for Draper. Sadly.

Honestly, I gave up on everyone on that show by the middle of S2, even though I stuck with the show itself to about the middle of S3. I kept saying "I don't like any of these people, but they're interesting." Then I realized that somewhere along the line I was forcing myself to care enough to try to keep track of their lives, and it wasn't working because I couldn't figure out who the hell this woman was that Don was talking to in a way that made it clear I should know who she was. And then I had 4 eps piled up in the TiVo and no impulse to watch them, and I just deleted them and never looked back.

With Mitchell, for whatever reason, I believe that he really truly wants to make his life worthwhile, and sometimes his head is even screwed on straight enough to get that, while he can't do it alone, nobody can do it for him. He'll almost certainly continue to fail on an epic scale, but I can accept that and root for him because I know that barring the occasional psychotic break he'll keep trying.

Edited at 2011-02-07 08:30 pm (UTC)
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 08:33 pm (UTC)
Mitchell/Nina is something that I've always been curious about, though I've always kind of thought Nina was past her Mitchell stage--she said he wasn't her type anymore. I think she's had a lot of experience with men like that and wouldn't go there again even if George weren't in the picture.

Draper killed that show for me.

As many people as possible do need to yell at Mitchell. I was curious after the Richard/Emma business and Adam and his parents whether he was feeding off of Josie during the sixties--he does ask her to "save" him and she is so decidedly unsqueamish about the whole thing.

God, me too. And the whole "I've been a very bad girl" thing--Annie trying to be kinky will amuse me to no end.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 08:45 pm (UTC)
I've always kind of thought Nina was past her Mitchell stage--she said he wasn't her type anymore.

The funny thing, of course, is that what she thought she was saying it about wasn't really the case. He was (for him) exceptionally stable at that point in time (in spite of being up to his eyebrows in trying to figure out -- on his own, and lying about it, gee there's a shock -- what to do for/about Lauren), and Nina was reacting to the bad-boy shtick that's so incredibly manufactured and rehearsed and plastered over the spaztastic goofball at his core.

He's damaged goods in almost completely different ways from what she was reading, but he's still damaged goods, and yes, she's definitely done with that. At least in the couple-y sense, and she's developing very sensible boundaries about how she deals with him as a friend.

whether he was feeding off of Josie during the sixties--he does ask her to "save" him and she is so decidedly unsqueamish about the whole thing.

I dunno. I can sort of see it, if I squint really hard, but the implications throughout the show that he's never had ANY control whatsoever are too strong. I think the big triumph with Josie was having a sex life that didn't involve feeding. Feeding without killing is several steps beyond that, and something I doubt he's ever been able to do. Probably never well, though never's a long time.
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 08:50 pm (UTC)
I hadn't thought of it that way--somehow I thought of it as more of a stretch for him to go without blood at all but I could see that, yes.

Every Aidan Turner character ever is so fucked up beyond reason.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:01 pm (UTC)
somehow I thought of it as more of a stretch for him to go without blood at all but I could see that

He's just so absolute in his conviction when he tells Lauren over and over again that there are no half-measures. That's a lot of why it's such a surprise to me that, actually, there seem to be a lot of them.

I'm starting to wonder if it's a question of bloodline, somehow, as well as formative training? Which -- for Mitchell, Lauren, and Cara -- puts the liability right back at Herrick's feet.

Every Aidan Turner character ever is so fucked up beyond reason.

*chuckle* Haven't actually seen Hattie yet, but yes, I'm getting that impression.

(And oh, man, you do not want to get me going on Gabriel, real or fictionalized. Well, okay, you might...)

Edited at 2011-02-07 09:06 pm (UTC)
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:06 pm (UTC)
HATTIE. GOOD GOOD GOD. IT'S LIKE--OH, I CAN'T.

Ha. I might, yesss... Though I do feel like Gabriel was at least more complex in life, if not less of an ass. I have mixed feelings about the show--I thought the casting was perfect and there were parts I love but I hate what they did with the ending and with her and it seemed to pull into that William Rossetti/Hall Caine Victorian biography idea that she had just been a burden the whole time. Which I find maddening and inaccurate.

Yeah, one of the major characters in my novel was doing fine and then I started mentally picturing him as Turner and you can't imagine all the shit he's started doing. It's a curse.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:21 pm (UTC)
it seemed to pull into that William Rossetti/Hall Caine Victorian biography idea that she had just been a burden the whole time. Which I find maddening and inaccurate.

Huh. I didn't get that impression at all, but I sorta see why you would say it? The only thing that annoyed me a bit was that it followed on an argument, with him out with the boys and ignoring her, instead of her having been out with them earlier and his having gone to the Working Men's College (though I never have been able to establish for sure whether he was actually scheduled to teach that night, or was doing some admin stuff or what -- nobody seems to know). But since that's way complicated and not as dramatic, I forbear.

I actually felt like it sometimes painted DGR as at fault for more than he actually was. I do think they got right that there was plenty of blame to go around in that relationship, as much as I'm inclined to side with Lizzie most of the time. :-)
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:26 pm (UTC)
Well, not entirely, but I felt like it edged into that kind of territory. I thought Fred was a bit tricky to have as the narrator (aside from not existing) because I saw him on some level as that guy who blames women for all their problems because they don't go for "nice guys like me" when really... they're not all that nice. So obviously he was inclined to downplay the Lizzie/Gabriel relationship whenever possible and if he'd just been saying that as a character, I'd shrug it off--but he was the narrator.

And of course, William resented that relationship like hell as well but if he was in love with anyone, it was Gabriel. *facepalm*.

I hated that they showed him digging her up so shortly after the funeral. And doing it himself. Yes, not as dramatic and I can see why they did it but I would have preferred unseen narration there (Dante Gabriel Rossetti had his wife exhumed seven years after his death, title card) rather than showing it so soon after Gabriel finally got the humanity he'd been teasing at for the whole series.

I'm inclined to side with her as well but the show made him something of a shallow monster, which I feel goes further than it was in life.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:39 pm (UTC)
Good point. Fred was problematic in a zillion ways, not helped by being an amalgam of people (Walter Deverell, Fred Stephens, WMR) with enough issues on their own, let alone crammed together in one composite character.

Annie letting him have it in that proposal scene was worth almost all of it, though. If you had told me that Annie Miller would be far and away my favorite thing about that series, I would have looked at you like you'd grown an extra head, but she was AWESOME.
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:44 pm (UTC)
She really was. I hated Fred, though. Hated him. And I was never sure whether he was supposed to be an unreliable narrator or not, which just made it sticky. If someone had to be around to be the voice of morality, may I present Christina. Oh, sorry, you don't want to use her because she didn't seem to be having sex? *rolls eyes*
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:48 pm (UTC)
*splorfle* Well, that and it would have required making some sort of nod to Gabriel's brain-breakingly complex relationship with pretty much his whole family. (Y HALO THAR eldest son in 3/4-Italian family!)

DR!Gabriel apparently sprang full-grown from a fairy ring for the express purpose of making a bunch of friends and driving them all crazy. Which is entertaining as far as it goes, but.
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:52 pm (UTC)
Also, 3/4 Italian and 1/4 mad just does not roll off the tongue the same way. Not to mention he was wayyyy more than 1/4 mad.

I got that for these purposes and honestly, even though I wasn't that familiar with the pre-Raphaelites when I first saw this, I'd find a Rossetti family story in the end much more interesting then trying to focus it on the PRB. Which I guess is obviously not what they were doing, so not much to be done there.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 10:01 pm (UTC)
"Half Italian and half mad" made me laugh SO VERY HARD, only because I immediately responded with "Yeah, but it's the SAME HALF."

Gabriele senior? OMG. O_o Academic crazy is a special kind of crazy.

And of course getting into 3/4 also gets into, oh, hi, JOHN EFFING POLIDORI on Mom's side. 'Cause that doesn't link us up to all manner of additional weird, not at all...

Edited at 2011-02-07 10:01 pm (UTC)
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 10:02 pm (UTC)
I know less about Gabriele senior. Most of my research has been focused on Lizzie. Tell meee.

GOOD GOD POLIDORI. And Gabriel's whole "hai, I'm Byron" letter to Leigh Hunt. Though I guess Hunt was pining over his dead friends enough to fall for it.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 10:23 pm (UTC)
Ack! I'm not even sure how to explain. Acres of stuff about how all of Dante's (Alighieri, and yeah, no expectations raised with THAT namesakeness!) work is 100% allegorical and in some kind of Masonic code, and anyone who believed otherwise was a PERSONAL AFFRONT to him. (This would, of course, include ALL FOUR of his children, who were understandably very circumspect about that, on account of the PERSONAL AFFRONT thing.)

And lots of political stuff that I don't quite get because my grasp of 19th-century Italian political history is, to put it kindly, nonexistent.

The man would be running a conspiracy-theory website these days, I shit you not.

There's a really fascinating academic-press book that I managed to get on ILL a while back, but I can't remember the title. If you go back through my Lizzie tag, you should find a post about it, because it's all about the Victorian conception of Beatrice and about 80% of it is about various Rossettis.
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 10:31 pm (UTC)
Ahhh. I'll have to look into that. I've putting together a short story collection and one of them that keeps getting revised is about Lizzie--but at first it was supposed to be comprehensive and that would be a novel so I guess I have to cut it down to a slice. I digress. The basics--all research is good research.

Out of curiosity--do you know Jeanne Hebuterne at all? (another whippingly quick tangent.) I only ask because I think the parallels between her and Siddal are really interesting and you are just so much fun to talk to.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 10:43 pm (UTC)
I've been trying to write the one-woman show on and off for, oh, eight years now. I feel your pain. %-}

Jan Marsh's biography of Gabriel is LONG, but comprehensive and good. I've always had a tendency to sort of gloss over sections of books after Lizzie's death, though the whole Gabriel/Jane/Topsy thing is its own special trainwreck.

I don't recognize that name. Will have to check it out sometime. Though probably not soon, I'm afraid, as I have a lot of crazy going on just now...
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 11:15 pm (UTC)
Ahhh. Hebuterne's a different era, of course--she was Modigliani's lover/common law wife.

This is a really brief sketch of her.

http://www.suite101.com/content/jeanne-hbuterne-a22237

I'm not sure whether I'm tying my bit on her together with the Siddal yet.

(I know and that's my SIDE project, o I fail.)

I'll look into the Jan Marsh. I admit minor indifference to Jane Burden and pretty much anything other than the Lizzie-shaped madness after her death.
wiliqueen
Feb. 8th, 2011 02:06 pm (UTC)
I admit minor indifference to Jane Burden and pretty much anything other than the Lizzie-shaped madness after her death.

Well, there's no shortage of that LONG after. Some of the stuff he said & wrote during the large chunk of 1871 that he spent in a paranoid schizoaffective episode that scared the everloving crap out of everyone? Yeeeeaaaahhhh.
wiliqueen
Feb. 8th, 2011 07:04 pm (UTC)
This is the post in question. The book is A Victorian Muse, by Julia Straub.
ghostinsweats
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:09 pm (UTC)
Since they're using the alcoholic metaphor, I could see it being akin to--one can drink reasonably, under ideal circumstances, but since Mitchell is already so heavily addicted it wouldn't be possible for him. Hmmm. I hadn't thought of it that way.
wiliqueen
Feb. 7th, 2011 09:22 pm (UTC)
I think that's what they're going for, yeah. Which bumps up the stakes astronomically, because an alcholic or drug addict can hurt or kill people as a result of using. For Mitchell, hurting/killing people IS using.
ghostinsweats
Feb. 14th, 2011 07:26 pm (UTC)
Oh, also--I'm curious about the ADD blog post? Do you have the link for that?
wiliqueen
Feb. 14th, 2011 07:39 pm (UTC)
I hadn't saved the link -- followed it from a random retweet on Twitter -- but enough keywords did the trick. Yay Google!

http://www.additudemag.com/adhdblogs/6/8238.html
ghostinsweats
Feb. 14th, 2011 07:49 pm (UTC)
Aieeee. Mitchell indeed.

Have you seen the latest episode?
wiliqueen
Feb. 14th, 2011 08:01 pm (UTC)
Not yet. Waiting for me when I get home from work. :-)
brightknightie
May. 16th, 2011 09:16 pm (UTC)
UK BH S3 E2&3
It's interesting that the Twitter buzz was praise for "Adam's Family." I personally found the episode wretched, possibly the least enjoyable in the series to date. I found it almost constantly embarrassing, icky, unnecessary...

Granted, the very end, when Adam tells the sad blonde that she's not what he needs, was pleasing, but not enough to redeem the entire episode and render it something to rewatch.

>"TPTB seem, when I haven't been looking, to have constructed a larger world in which it may be possible to be a vampire and not addicted to killing, where it's at least partially separate from the urge for blood. ... He's just so absolute in his conviction when he tells Lauren over and over again that there are no half-measures. That's a lot of why it's such a surprise to me that, actually, there seem to be a lot of them."

Yes! I wonder why they've done this. What do they expect to get by relocating Mitchell out of the mainstream experience, making him not only an outlier but an exception? And what do they mean to accomplish through their vampire metaphor by making vampire behavior "defensible"?

---

>"...it would have been brought home by her cutting him off when he tried to come clean about his recently-perpetrated horrors. ... and that cannot possibly end well."

To me, Annie's "all in the past" and Mitchell's silence sound all too much like Natalie's "but you don't have those urges anymore" to Nick in FK's "Crazy Love." ~sigh~ 'Nuff said?

Mitchell begging for Annie's absolution is so understandable, and so unhealthy! Among other things, gotta confess first, Mitchell. Gotta repent, first... But I did enjoy on multiple levels that this is so clearly what he was doing. As messed up as it is, Mitchell is -- perhaps subconsciously, perhaps not -- turning to Annie for at least one sacrament, and in its own way, that reaching is the least messed up thing he's done IN AN ENTIRE SEASON.

Ahem.

:-)

>"I can't help but root for people with that much love for each other... It's just problematic when they happen to be people with massive issues that intersect in really unfortunate ways."

I love my home fandom desperately, and I do not need to see its traumas repeat down the generations. The BH team had better live up to their very best and not very worst on this.

I'll take the fact that it's happening early in the season as predicting that they do have a plan to build it through an arc, up and down... and out at the end. That's my guess, here at the end of episode three. :-)

---

Yes, "Type 4" is everything that "Adam's Family" is not! Only mildly embarrassing and funny and cute and touching enough to compensate for it. I found the intensity of watching Sasha deteriorate sufficient, along with what I believe was going on her head, to move Nina's choice.

(Sasha directing all her final comments to Annie, saying Annie's name over and over, not acknowledging Nina... seemed a little pointed. Not by Sasha! By the writers. "No one will ever notice that this carpe diem speech is really about Nina if we direct it all at Annie! Won't that be sneaky?")

Annie finds it so easy to befriend people, to be kind, to be giving... to be the heart. She's also goofy and oblivious and infuriating, of course, because she's a round character, but when she's living her virtues, she just shines. Geroge is the moral center of the show, but Annie is the emotional center.
wiliqueen
May. 16th, 2011 09:43 pm (UTC)
Re: UK BH S3 E2&3
relocating Mitchell out of the mainstream experience, making him not only an outlier but an exception?

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Certainly the lack of control still seems to be the norm among younger vampires -- it's Adam who's the anomaly, with a foundation built on decades of reinforcement of his parents' values, at the cost of their lives revolving entirely around him long after he should have been on his own -- but Mitchell does seem to be above and beyond.

I'm not sure I know what the "norm" is. Maybe the point is actually that there isn't one.

There's a nature/nurture something in there, though for him (and for Lauren, who was equally out of control, but without even the encouragement from Herrick, since the point of the entire exercise was to drive her to seek from Mitchell what she wasn't getting from anyone else), at least in terms of what is strictly of the vampires, both elements come from Herrick. Is the madness in his bloodline or in his methods of education, or both?

"No one will ever notice that this carpe diem speech is really about Nina if we direct it all at Annie! Won't that be sneaky?"

Excellent point, and one that I hadn't considered.

Geroge is the moral center of the show, but Annie is the emotional center.

Yes. Absolutely. And her odyssey has always been about coming into that as her strength, to be that giving without losing herself.
( 33 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

sugarplum
wiliqueen
Valerie - Postmodern Pollyanna
WiliQueen's Woods

Latest Month

November 2016
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars