HIGHLA-L Digest - 19 Jun 2004 to 20 Jun 2004 (#2004-114)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:00:06 -0400
There are 6 messages totalling 204 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Is DPP defunct?
2. so...lets make up those missing eps ourselves...
3. Wait! Where's the Real Second ep? (2)
4. Season Four dvds: Double Eagle
5. Amanda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:06:34 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Is DPP defunct?
Rottie--
> For sure Davis is the business end of this "partnership" so I'm not
surprised
> that his name is showing up on the Xena promotions etc.
Well, I don't follow Xena, so I wouldn't know about that. All the stuff I
mentioned where "Anderson" keeps popping up in Panzer's usual place was re:
Highlander.
> BP is still quite the "brains???" behind the HL franchise.
Why do I feel the sudden need to go light a candle?
> He is in charge of the mini series being produced.
Which is to date still hypothetical, along w/ HL5, the Broadway thing, &
that threatened IMMORTAL condom line.
I just wondered who this Anderson person might be.
Nina (yes, the condom thing was a joke, but it's no sillier than the wedding
sword or half the crap in the HL catalog these days...)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:22:26 -0400
From: KLZ <zimmy@highstream.net>
Subject: Re: so...lets make up those missing eps ourselves...
At 03:20 PM 6/19/2004, you wrote:
>I don't know where any archives can be found. I'm sure someone here would
>know. But I recall that Sandra McDonald (is that the right name?) wrote a
>second ep that I really enjoyed. It fit just right. Sandra was very good
>with the Richie character, as I recall. I'm blanking on the title of this
>one though. If I think of it I'll post it.
"Tough Guy". I just found it in some stuff this week and reread it and it
hasn't lost any of its punch.
I should get out my HL tapes...
::: diving back under mountain of stuff to sort and shred :::
ZK (also found Liser's HL/Stargate Xover and still love the part where
Sarah drop-kicks Jack off the gate platform ;D)
zimmy@highstream.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:33:47 -0400
From: KLZ <zimmy@highstream.net>
Subject: Re: Wait! Where's the Real Second ep?
At 11:48 PM 6/18/2004, you wrote:
>Other episodes *should* have been lost.)(Like The Blitz.)
Wendy, Wendy, Wendy. How can you say that? I can still get a hanky pretty
soggy watching the Blitz (if I could find it). It was Anne Lindsay's
finest moment - bravely dragging a paramedic down into a disaster scene 9.5
months pregnant (Anne, not the medic) without protective headgear, the
injured woman's leaping to her feet and delivering the baby, the witty
banter between Duncan and the reporter. Plus there was the "stallion"
scene on the rooftop during the bombing which IMGLO redeems any faults in
the episode. I think that this is a classic episode, right up there with
"Revenge of the Sword".
ZK (Anne could beat the stuffings out of Amanda any day)
zimmy@highstream.net (If my kitty Molly accidently presses the "Scan"
button on my scanner, is she doing a cat scan?)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:46:01 -0400
From: KLZ <zimmy@highstream.net>
Subject: Re: Season Four dvds: Double Eagle
At 10:45 AM 6/19/2004, you wrote:
>She says it doesn't work when the *other* person wants to be
>the most attractive, the most exciting, they don't want to give up the power
>to let the other person appear like they are magical, and that's what
>happened with "Raven", you had two people vying for power, rather than
>exchanging it freely, and so the chemistry wasn't there on screen (in
>"Raven").
That's unfortunate, because two powerful characters vying for power could
have made for a powerful lot of powerful drama. I think it takes very
self-confident actors to allow other actors to show the same or more
power. Like Johnny Depp said, you have to be willing to make a total a$$
of yourself, and BTW, when I finally saw PotC, watching Depp and Bloom
playing off each other was a delight. I think that LotR is another good
example - I never felt like anyone was trying to monopolize a scene - like
they were experienced or wise enough, and had a good enough director, and
that they were serving the story.
ZK (is that three or four?)
zimmy@highstream.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:44:50 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Wait! Where's the Real Second ep?
In a message dated 6/20/2004 9:38:19 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
zimmy@highstream.net writes:
ZK
ahhhh. all is right with the world again.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:51:06 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Amanda
Nina said of Duncan and Kristin:
>> Sure, they had a less than completely romantic arrangement, but many
>couples did & still do. That doesn't make one partner a whore or a gigolo. He
>> never seemed happy w/ the set-up; when he fell for the artist, he clearly
>> went w/ his heart. As he said--he was no silken fop, & he wasn't a
>gigolo either.
MacG says:
>I think the distinction is negligible, myself. He accepted financial
>support in return for providing sexual favors and a "gentleman's attention"
>for women in a higher social and better financial position than himself.
>He was their boy toy.
I think the distinction is real...but we have to define our terms <g>. To me, "whoring" (male or female) is a strict sex-for-money deal. You sleep with me, I pay you - either cash or with goods. The only reason the "john" has you around is for sex. Not to otherwise enjoy your company. Not to make you into a pet project. And the only reason the "whore" is there is for the money/goods. Not to enjoy the surroundings, not to learn French, not even to learn the combination to the safe. Under this definition, I'd say that we have no evidence that Duncan was ever a whore. We have no evidence that Amanda was a whore either *except* for her declaration that she wasn't "French" while disputing the accusation that she was a "French harlot".
I would define "gigolo" or ....what's the female equivalent? Gold-digger? Oh heck, let's use gigola!! Anyway, I'd define a gigolo/gigola as a more complex relationship. In the first place, in the traditional case, the person *with* the gigolo doesn't know the other person *is* a gigolo, or at least attempts to convince themself that the person is there because they want to be, not because of the perks. A gigolo/gigola insinuates him/herself into a relationship with someone can buy them things, take them places, etc. Sex is usually the lure but it's done under the guise of real attraction/love.
I don't see Duncan's relationship with Kristin as one of a gigolo. It was more of a twisted teacher/pupil relationship. She enjoyed grooming him into a gentlemen..he grasp the need to be groomed. They both seemed happy enough with the arrangement until Duncan a met a woman he loved and wanted to leave. While Duncan was not born a "gentleman" by Kristin's standards, he was very capable of supporting himself in some other way than tending to her needs. He stayed because he was learning things he realized he would need to know. He didn't seduce Kristin in order to achieve what he wanted, she was the seducer.
Duncan might be considered a gigolo in his relationship with the Duchess (although she was such a cartoonish character that it's hard to judge her motives) OTOH, supposedly Duncan was just taking a bath in the stream (lake?) when the Duchess rode along and decided she like the cut of his jib. Does his agreeing to join her at dinner make him a gigolo? If he likes what he sees and agrees to stick around (as he had no place else he had to be) is that when he becomes a gigolo? If he truly spent days breaking horses and nights with the Duchess, does that make him less a gigolo? What if he really liked the Duchess and stayed because well... every one has to be someplace?
I guess I just have trouble seeing a man as capable and self sufficient as Duncan "lowering" himself to living off a woman. I think his ego wouldn't allow him to be 'kept". OTOH, he clearly enjoys the company of beautiful women and wouldn't, I think, turn down an invitation to stay with one he enjoyed being with. I can't see him ever staying with a woman he didn't enjoy *just* because she could pay for his silks and lace.
Because of Amanda's thieving ways <eg> I *can* see her attaching herself to a man in hopes of gaining some advantage...which would qualify as gold-digging (or conning). OTOH, I accept that there were probably times when she had to attach herself to a man to move easily through life, as being a single female was not always considered a good thing. OTOH, I have trouble imagining Rebecca or Ceirdwyn living with a man they didn't love *just* to have a man around to support/defend/ease their way through society. One of the things that always bugged me about Amanda was her lack of growth in 1200 years. She was a thief and user in 850, she was the same in 2000. Did we ever see her with a job that didn't entail lying/swindling/thieving/hanging on some guy? So, my image of Amanda is that she was often a gold-digger (gigola)
> He clearly knew he was attractive enough to be a little
>choosy about his liaisons - in other words he didn't have to bed some
>elderly matron if he didn't want to.
Are you calling the Duchess an "elderly matron"? Or Kristin?
>So, he enjoyed his work, and such
>positions (for a man) did not come with the social stigma that being a
>man's mistress did.
I don't remember anything in the episode that indicates that Duncan stayed with the Duchess (or Kristin) *because* they were supporting him. He enjoyed their company *and* they supported him. This does make him more of a "misteress"<g>, than a gigolo. I think there is a distinction between being a mistress and a gold-digger. ..and the distinction comes from the motive. A woman who allows a man to support her because she loves him and he can/will support her isn't a gold-digger. She a mistress (or wife <eg>). Likewise, a man who loves a woman who can/will support him is a lover/boyfriend/SO/husband and not a gigolo. So many of Amanda's relationships seem to be based on what she can get out of them -versus being based on any depth of feeling for the man involved- that I think she often does qualify as a gigola- much more so than Duncan who doesn't seem to bed women to gain anything other than their company.
>Amanda was similarly attractive, but probably had less control over her
>life and who she could choose to provide for her.
This might have been true in the beginning but she had the advantage of being Immortal - which would have allowed her to learn new skills, move to better surroundings, accumulate wealth of her own, and find a moral compass somewhere in time. That she was still using men 1000 years after her birth seems more a choice than a necessity.
>She didn't have the social
>background (unless she artificially created an identity, which I have no
>doubt she could do) to be immediately accepted into the nobility,
Duncan didn't have the social background to be immediately accepted into nobility either. He was a 16th century clansman raised in Glenfinnan, not at Court. He would have had to create his identity as he went along...which he did. He learned how to read, he learned how to behave as a gentlemen (including learning new rules as times changed) he learned new skills and learned how to rework old ones (sword-for-hire to dojo-owner)(guy with old furniture to "antiques dealer") Amanda's behavior in 2000 was little changed from her behavior in 850 - she was cleaner, she was better spoken, she had better clothes, but she was still stealing "bread".
> and over
>the centuries might find herself in situations where survival dictated that
>she trade sex for support, or even directly for money. The situations are
>different only because the power positions of males and females in society
>were different. Even the words "gigolo" and "whore" have totally different
>connotations, even though they have much the same meaning. It is assumed
>that a gigolo does it because he wants to, and a whore does it because she
>has to, and/or has no moral values.
Amanda might have found herself in situations where sex for money was her only means of survival and it is unlikely that Duncan would ever have found himself in that particular situation, that I will grant. All other relationships are, I suppose, always open to interpretation. I don't see Duncan gold-digging in his relationships with Kristin and the Duchess. He didn't enter into the relationships with the idea of free food, new jewelry, new clothes. etc in exchange for sex and smiling attentively. He met a woman he was attracted to and who was attracted to him...he stayed and then he left. I'm sure that over the centuries Amanda met men who were attracted to her and to whom she was attracted and those relationships would not be considered whoring or being a gold-digger or a con. OTOH, we did see Amanda, more than once, fling herself at a man she had no attraction to with the express motive of acquiring some thing she wanted. I can't remember ever seeing Duncan do that.
Wendy(Just can't imagine Duncan selling himself.)(Can imagine myself offering to buy <EFG>)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 19 Jun 2004 to 20 Jun 2004 (#2004-114)
***************************************************************