selenak

I do remember a conversation Jack has, I think in S3, where it's at least strongly indicated that he had a role in the CIA backed coup against Allende in Chile in 73. I know I was surprised that JJ mentioned it, and it did make me think twice about my Spy Daddy love. I just can't remember the exact episode, sorry.

From:

Actually, that wasn't a complaint I heard but an actual quote from Rachel Griffiths who joked in an interview that her character was really a gay man.

As far as Brenda's behavior, it does not bother me as much as it did other people. Or let me rephrase that, it does bother me just as David's behavior in S1 bothered me, because it's self-destructive and potentially dangerous. Rather I'm not bothered more than the show intended me to be, because this behavior did not come out of nowhere. In fact, in our first introduction to Brenda, she and Nate, who had met less than an hour ago on a plane ride, were screwing in the broom closet of the airport, and didn't even know each other's first names. They in fact introduce themselves as they're having sex. Nate is also Brenda's first committed relationship since before college. So it was very in keeping with her character, I thought. And I won't expand further on that, because I don't know how far you've seen of S2 yet.

That's what I think is one of the best aspects of the series: whenever a character does something that might seem OOC, if you look back, you can trace the roots of the new behavior. For example, Keith went from seeming to be the perfect man in S1 to being controlling, self-righteous and moody in S2. One might think it's a complete turnaround, but on the other hand, Keith originally broke up with David because he didn't come out in Keith's terms. The first time you view S1, you are frustrated with David for concealing his homosexuality and becoming a deacon. If you rewatch though with the perspective of Keith's character in the second season, you can see that Keith was not being fair to David. You also see his temper erupt when he confronts a homophobe in a parking lot, which makes David very uncomfortable. In fact, David even mentions this is the second season at some point, telling Keith that he had thought it was his fault that they broke up and that he was the one who had to change, but maybe in fact it was easier to put all the blame on him so that Keith could continue thinking that he himself did not have to change and was in the right all along. Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

re: Alias...No, as far as I remember, your theory is not cancelled later on, and is in fact supported by some dialogue on the show. No specifics as to any operations or what exactly made Sloane turn against the CIA, but definitely implications that Sloane sees the CIA with less rose-colored glasses than Syd, who can be very black-and-white in her worldview, and left because he saw little distinction between the two sides. Unfortunately, because it is so very arc-based, Alias eps tend to bleed into one another in my memory, to the point that it's almost like one long episode, so I can't remember the specific ep.

From:

Since in season 1 I concluded JJ was of the Ian Fleming, not the Le Carré school of creating spies, I'm surprised, too, though pleasantly so - it's always nice to have guessed correctly. Does that mean we get a more ambigous look at the CIA as the progresses?

Incidentally, regarding Allende, I remember watching a documentary in which Alexander Haig (I think it was him) said, about all the people Pinochet killed when taking over, "bugs have to be squashed when one creates order". Chilling. Why is that man not accused as a war criminal again, together with Kissinger et al?

But that would have been the kind of operation Jack & Sloane would have been involved in if the Alias CIA bears any resemblance to the genuine article. Mind you, since one of my favourite fictional characters (Londo) has absolutely appalling political views and did even worse than participate in that coup, it won't stop the growing affection, I suppose.

From:

The last episode I watched was actually the one where David said this to Keith. (And where Keith's sister ran over the homeless man, and where Brenda had sex with a couple from Oregon.)

I agree, it's not behaviour coming out from nowhere for Brenda (or Keith), and yes, the show clearly wants both David's S1 and Brenda's S2 (as far as I've seen) behaviour to come across as self-destructive. What I'm wondering is why David's behaviour disturbed me less than Brenda's. I mean, of course I thought it was wrong and wanted him to stop and realise this was only damaging him, not helping him, but it didn't raise any hackles the way Brenda's does now.

So either it's gender-related (my reaction, not the behaviour), or perhaps it's because David's behaviour damaged "only" himself, whereas Brenda's is a ticking time bomb regarding Nate, and her messed-up family background notwithstanding, I hadn't considered Brenda the type to deliberately hurt people she cares about.

From:

...I hadn't considered Brenda the type to deliberately hurt people she cares about.

I won't say another word about this so as not to spoil you, but this very issue is dealt with, and very well, IMO, in episodes 12 and 13 of S2, and throughout Brenda's S3 and S4 arc. What happens later is for me what completely justified the S2 arc. It is an essential aspect to her later character development.

Also, and this is just one of the show's wonderful little ironies, if you trace back the timeline of the season, although Nate's night with Lisa didn't come close to matching Brenda's behavior, he did cheat on Brenda before she cheated on him, which I just think is interesting.

From:

Alias seems to flirt with grey in the earlier seasons but pulls back horribly in mid S3, which is a shame, but understandable I suppose in the current US political climate. I was surprised that a US show mentioned Chile at all, especially now. They didn't dwell on it - and I'd be really surprised if much of the audience knew much if anything of the other September the 11th the characters were referring to.

I'm in thunderous agreement about people who should be facing crimes against humanity charges, and not just over Chile, but over the untold thousands murdered, tortured and whose lives and families were ruined in South and Central America under the influence of the School of the Americas.

But like your love is Londo, mine is a vampire with a great deal of blood on his hands, even if he's washed it with saving the world, so I have to try to understand Spy Daddy too.

It's just harder having spoken to people like one of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo whose lives were destroyed by Haig, Kissenger and co, and knowing that had I been born Chilean, Argentinian or Brasilian I too would have been disappeared, tortured and killed for being a lefty. Aliens and vampires have that metaphorical distance that real Evil doesn't.

From:

Alias seems to flirt with grey in the earlier seasons but pulls back horribly in mid S3, which is a shame, but understandable I suppose in the current US political climate.

Disagree there, particularly regarding Sloane who gets more and more grey as S3 progresses, as well as Jack. Even Vaughan gets more grey. And the CIA, as well, IMO. But I'm staying cryptic so I don't spoil Selena.

From:

I thought the show flirted with grey, but went back to a more black and white view of the world and certain main characters. But it's not really possible to say more without the risk of spoiling Selena, and I don't want to do that.

From:

The other September the 11th: well, New York Times readers might be aware, because they printed Ariel Dorfman's articles on the subject last year and this year at the anniversary. But America at large and however much of it is watching Alias - no, probably not.

(I met Isabel Allence - the author, S.A.'s niece - in 2002, and living in California as she does, she was very aware of that cognitive dissonance about this date.)

Aliens and vampires have that metaphorical distance that real Evil doesn't.

True. We also never, ever will meet any of their victims, whereas as you say, those of fictional Jack's involvment in very nonfictional coups are still in agony over the results. Aside from Ms Allende and her family, I didn't meet any in person, but I saw documentaries in which a lot of them (i.e. the survivors, with dead or missing family members) were interviewed.

From:

Thank you, that's very thoughtful of you and Paratti. I do try to remain as unspoiled as possible with most of lj having seen two seasons more than I did.

From:

I love Isabelle Allende's work, both the more magical realism and the historicals. Meeting her must have been amazing.

From:

hmm, I don't think that being more troubled by Brenda's behavior than David's is necessarily a sign of a double standard. (I do think that the people who say "That bitch Brenda how could she do that to wunnerful nummy Nate" out of one side of the mouth and "David is such a troubled little seeker, ain't he cute?" out of the other are -- and I have encountered such -- but I don't hear that coming from you!)

I also found Brenda's behavior more disturbing, and I think it has to do with the individuals and their motives for acting out. David has lost his father and the love of his life, he's single, and he ends up "trying on" a lifestyle that he's never been quite comfortable with but that in some ways he feels he's "supposed to" want as a gay man. We watch this thinking "I hope he doesn't get hurt," but we don't really worry about him hurting other people. Brenda's motives are more obscure and her behavior often seems pathological -- not because "women aren't supposed to do this" (though that probably is at some level a factor) -- but mostly because it doesn't seem to really be what she wants. She seems to want to be happy with Nate but she's sabotaging herself at the same time, and risking that she'll hurt him. It's also painful because we can see Nate going on this spiritual quest and wanting to share things with her but not being able to.

As for the whole whether Brenda's really a gay men -- I have known women exactly (I mean, eerily) like Brenda. I think it's just silly to say that because somehow "more" gay men behave that way, then Brenda's not an authentic woman, or something like that (and nobody here said this, but I've definitely seen that opinion from various critics, and not just the actress joking about it). Are writers only supposed to write female characters who are like the majority of women? weird.

From:

It was. She's so vibrant and graceful at the same time. And I was lucky - originally I was supposed to meet her at her office, but then for various reasons that didn't work out, so I ended up meeting her at her house, all in yellow (the house, not her!), overlooking the bay. Plus her parents were visiting, too, and they all gave me a lift later back to the next train/subway station. So I could observe them interact a bit, which if one has read House of Spirits on the one hand and thinks of Chilean history on the other one can not help but do with a certain eerie thrill.

From:

House of Spirits is one of my favourite books ever, and one of the US banned books I've tried to convince various American LJ friends to read. I'm jealous.

From:

Brenda's motives are more obscure and her behavior often seems pathological -- not because "women aren't supposed to do this" (though that probably is at some level a factor)

I think she uses "women aren't supposed to do this" as a rationalization. She even says a few times that she thinks her behavior might be healthy, because it's good for her to have a secret life that is just hers and apart from her commitment to Nate.

She seems to want to be happy with Nate but she's sabotaging herself at the same time, and risking that she'll hurt him. It's also painful because we can see Nate going on this spiritual quest and wanting to share things with her but not being able to.

You hit the nail on the head exactly here. Neither of them were communicating properly this season, either with each other or with themselves, which lead to unwise behavior on both their parts. The most tragic aspect of Brenda's downward spiral in this season is that she is, as you said, sabotaging herself and her own happiness, and despite her self-justifications to the contrary, she is powerless to stop it.

As for the whole whether Brenda's really a gay men -- I have known women exactly (I mean, eerily) like Brenda. I think it's just silly to say that because somehow "more" gay men behave that way, then Brenda's not an authentic woman, or something like that

I agree. I think that a lot of these thoughts come out because she is actually written by a gay man, Alan Ball, and so the critics get their digs in.

From:

I actually wrote a letter to the editor on this subject years ago (http://www.salon.com/ent/letters/2002/06/18/six_feet/). It's the first one on the page (warning, the article it links to has spoilers for Season 2).

All this is reminding me I still haven't watched the second half of the most recent season.

From:

Go you, and yes, exactly, good point about Tennessee Williams' heroines. If I don't read another analysis telling me that Blanche is "really" a gay man, it will be too soon.

From:

Excellent letter! Completely agreed.

And you really should watch the rest of this season. It's the most brilliant yet, IMO.

From:

I always think that these statements are written by people who (a) don't write imaginative literature or (b) write it a certain way and assume that everybody else does too.

by the way, I just bought the Stephen Greenblatt Shakespeare biography, Will in the World (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393050572/qid=1097694811/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-9303992-1529554?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), and I highly recommend it.

It's interesting that Greenblatt doesn't even mention authorship debates, yet he implicitly answers the criticism that a "common" man could not possibly have written Shakespeare's plays by exploring what it really meant to be a tradesman's son in Stratford in the 16th century. Now I really think you could turn it around and say that there's no way Francis Bacon or the Earl of Oxford knew enough about glove-making or sheep-herding to have written the plays.

This actually does tie in to the earlier discussion (yes, really) because it deals with what's going on in a writer's head to allow them to create a certain world. I've actually often been glad for the paucity of biographical information on Shakespeare, because it takes away easy, reductive biographical identifications (would we read Williams differently, and perhaps better, if we DIDN'T know he was a gay man?) But when this kind of scholarship is thoughtfully done, as in Greenblatt's book, it does open up certain possibilities.

From:

I think we would read Williams differently, yes. Biographical reduction is problematic in general. BTW, regarding the Shakespeare authorship debate, I always loved what George Bernard Shaw wrote on the matter - will have to look it up again in order not to misquote, but you get some brilliant and sharp Shavian phrases on snobism.

I'll read the Greenwalt, thanks for the tip.

From:

I'll read the Greenwalt, thanks for the tip.

Greenwalt? Freudian slip, mayhaps? ;-)

From:

vilakins.livejournal.com

Perhaps Brenda just annoys you? She does me. I'd like to know David and Nate, but Brenda leaves me cold. She regards others as a source of amusement, and I'm not sure she sees them as being as much a 'person' as she is. I suspect her early genius label went to her head.

From:

Jossverse damage, is more likely.*g* He.

From:

She didn't give the impression of seeing others as less than she is in season 1; in fact, the way she's introduced to us - I don't mean the sex with Nate, I mean the fact she helps him afterwards when he gets the news of his father's death, which was very decent of her and made me like her.

This being said, I'm sure all the psychotherapy and the genius labelling as a child resulted in her having a sense of not quite belonging to the same species at times.

From:

vilakins.livejournal.com

Oh, I don't think the superiority thing is overt. I just get that impression from a sort of detached amusement she has.

I like the actor very much; I first saw her in the wonderful Muriel's Wedding.

From:

she also plays a cop in the very funny "Children of the Revolution" (where an Australian Communist true believer maybe-maybe-not has Stalin's baby). Rachel wears a lot of leather and plays with handcuffs, and my brother -- generally not of the fannish persuasion -- insisted that I watch it to see "the most beautiful woman in the entire world." Which is funny because I generally consider RG striking, even handsome, but not beautiful. It must have been the leater, because she's definitely hot in that movie.

From:

Also found an interesting article on Henry James (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108064/).

Speaking of Jossverse damage, I almost just wrote "James," but I realize that the default James in this forum is probably Marsters rather than Henry.

From:

vilakins.livejournal.com

Oh, I've have to look out for that film; I love Australian comedies. Yes, I consider her interesting rather than beautiful--which, I might add, I much prefer.

From: