Again, people missing the important point. Fern called Veronica Buffy. Clearly, it's Glen (is Glory is Ben). I've got to warn Buffy. There's every chance she might be next.
What?
I don't know if I can be objective about this episode. Who wrote it? The dialogue was possibly the funniest I've ever heard, in any episode, yet the episode was heavy. I laughed so hard when Dick and Veronica had their exposition scene about Chip that I was left breathless and not just in tears, but crying -- making the actual crying noises, and stuff. Ryan Hansen is a gem. I had to rewind the scene twice. And then I watched the episode a second time.
I felt so sorry for Logan at the end. Oof.
I don't think Veronica's been a bitch all season. So this does, to me, feel very much like the latter seasons of Buffy, with the B/S fen factions.
I understand how Veronica would feel about Logan having a bodyguard tail her, particularly because she was scared out of her skin and knew someone was following her all that time, but all that time, it was someone Logan hired (sort of like Buffy, in Pangs, when she didn't know Angel was watching her, but she knew someone was, and I am so watching "Pangs" sometime today or tonight, ijs).
On the other hand, Logan found her drugged, unconscious, and partially shaved last week! And only found her by chance. I totally get why he had someone following her. And in his world, bodyguards probably aren't the big thing they'd be to Veronica. I thought in addition to being a manifestation of their romantic complications, it was also a nice grace note with regard to their socio-economic class divide.
I thought Keith was a little off, last night. Keith is usually uber protective, and yet he knows there's a campus rapist who drugs people, and that his own daughter was found drugged, but *he* didn't hire a bodyguard? Scratch that. *He* wasn't tailing her, himself? I don't know if I buy it.
I've got to have more coffee and think about the feminist concerns Teppy, Consuela, and P-C are discussing. I liked what Veronica has to say about it. I see Veronica as a feminist. I think she would self-define as a feminist, and she's one of the show's moral voices. That said, the attack of Chip was uber disturbing. But I expect people to do evil things in service of good causes, in Neptune. I just do. Even our moral centers aren't above it. I mean, Keith and Veronica exploited a street person in this very episode -- hired him to lie. They hired him to lie, in order to help an heiress keep more of her fortune. In Neptune, everybody's a little corrupt.
Without full caffeination, I'll say I resent the idea that any cause I support has to be treated with kid gloves, and that all fictional characters who are written as identifying with that cause must be upright characters.
Then again, I've spent my entire life watching clergy and religious people portrayed, time and time again, as either evil doers, or ineffectual fools, if not downright delusional saps. And I usually see parents portrayed as out of touch, controlling, too self-involved, or oblivious to what's really important, until their children teach them A Very Special Lesson.
I'm used to "my people" being pigeon-holed. This is just another case.
Did I miss-hear a name last night -- was it really
Petra Petrelli
that took a dive off the top of a building? Or was it my ears just supplying me with a
Heroes
shout-out?
What was the Lebowski shout-out? I missed a Lebowski reference? Bad Achiever, no biscuit.
I'll say I resent the idea that any cause I support has to be treated with kid gloves, and that all fictional character who are written as identifying with that cause must be upright characters.
My problem is that presenting feminists as man-haters who will do anything including lying and taking hurtful action is such a tired cliche, and a right-wing cliche at that (feminazis, anyone?).
"Keister egg."
As horrid as that attack was, that aside made me laugh like the 12-year old I am.
What was the Lebowski shout-out? I missed a Lebowski reference? Bad Achiever, no biscuit.
I just got a HUGE Lebowski vibe during the scene where Keith first goes to Patty Hearst's husband, and the assistant is all fawning and doting, and Keith is looking at all the pictures/awards on the walls and the assistant explains the gold carp (or whatever it was), and then Mr. not-Hearst comes rolling out in a wheelchair and is all distraught over his "missing" wife.
It wasn't exactly a shout-out or a reference, but it sure had a serious Lebowski feel to it. (For me.)
Heh. "Keister egg."
It took me 'til the rewind to even hear that. Dick's British accent slayed me. Scott laughed hard initially, too, but I couldn't stop. It got a little disturbing. And I'd just started to calm down, when Veronica said to Fay, about Chip that they'd really "Wrecked 'em." I didn't even feel twelve. I generally hate scatalogical humor, and in a way, I hate when Dick amuses me and pleases me so, because I am so against almost every quality he possess, but he kills me, just the same. It makes it hard to look in the mirror.
Put me in the corner that's never seen The Big Lebowski. I keep meaning to, because this show references it in about 25% of the episodes.
My problem is that presenting feminists as man-haters who will do anything including lying and taking hurtful action is such a tired cliche, and a right-wing cliche at that (feminazis, anyone?).
But Mac and Veronica are feminists, our primary feminists, and not man-haters. I don't expect to ever see a good zealot in Neptune. Regardless of cause. I thought this was the first episode that humanized Fern, Nish, and Claire, so I'm a little torn. I still need more coffee, and maybe a review, before I reach anything approaching a verdict on it. I know you (and Teppy, Consuela, Lee, etc.) aren't wrong, but I'm not sure P-C is wrong, either. I almost had the why of it fleshed out in my head, but then I started thinking about Dick and Veronica's scene again. I may need professional help.
But I expect people to do evil things in service of good causes, in Neptune. I just do. Even our moral centers aren't above it.
This is true. And I think last night went part of the way toward explaining why Nish and the others went that route -- as well as making them understand, via Veronica, that their plan was dangerous. I still don't like it, though.
I guess what I want to know is, which came first, the chicken or the egg? As P-C pointed out (here? in LJ?), Parker isn't likely to have been in on the fake rape plan, so it seems clear some of the women are actually being raped. But were the original rapes, last year, faked or real? i.e. did the feminists inspire a rapist, or did they ride his coattails to serve the cause?
I'm not sure it matters, really -- both possibilities are really distasteful. But if the first instance (a real rapist mimicking the fakes) is true, wouldn't the girls have stopped faking them? Wouldn't they have already come to the conclusion that they had taken the cause too far?
I don't understand why it's bad for fictional characters to do something especially when it's clear the show doesn't condone it in the least.
I know this is true on a logical level. On an emotional level, I hate that this is the way the first mystery of the season seems to be playing out.
My problem is that presenting feminists as man-haters who will do anything including lying and taking hurtful action is such a tired cliche, and a right-wing cliche at that (feminazis, anyone?).
Couple points: First being, I think it's a misnomer to refer to Nish, Claire and co. as feminists. Not that they're not or that they might not have some of that going on, but that's not what they've been acting on. Their target has never been men in general. It's been the Greek system, both fraternities and sororities. And however far their actions have gone, it's become clear that it's a personal vendetta, not entirely an ideological one.
Second, they've not confessed to faking any rape except Claire's, and I'm pretty sure the figure that attacked Veronica was male. So I don't think the mystery is entirely solved on that front.
