BDM Theory -- Needing some BC Feedback [spoilers] by MajinBuu

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

BDM Theory -- Needing some BC Feedback [spoilers]

POSTED BY: MAJINBUU
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 19:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6771
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:00 PM

----------------------------------------
SPOILER WARNING ** SPOILER WARNING **
----------------------------------------
I aim to spoil.

Here I am again, having viewed the BDM, looking for solace at the bottom of a gin and tonic. But I do not intend to discuss *THAT* topic. A grief that is shared can be silent for a spell.

But I had a thought, and as I have no flesh and blood Browncoats in my life, I must impose my thoughts upon those of you kind enough to hear me, and hope for a response. My pardons if this has been discussed. Sadly, I cannot read all 9100 posts. And so:

On Miranda, the holo says, "It's the Pax." Now, I have a high regard for the intelligence of Firefly fans generally, and so I am certain you all know that "pax" in Latin means "peace." I find the entire 'verse summed up in the phrase, "It's the Pax." The Pax Gas, like the Alliance, is intended to legislate peace. To force peace, if you will. Totalitarian peace. The result of its use is a commentary on such attempts.

Most of the population "lies down." They die, as their spirit dies. The dead of Miranda are a symbolic representation of the Core Planets, taken to an extreme. Succumbed.

A tenth of a percentage, in response to a forced peace, react by becoming increasingly savage. The Reavers are symbolic of the Rim, those on the "raggedy edge." Resisting.

But this is no commentary that prefers one to the other. Both events are tragic. We root for the raggedy edge--we prefer it--but Mal doesn't want it. This is brilliantly and subtly expressed by Nathan Fillion when the Capn' says to River, "This is what I do" and the vaguest twinge of regret is expressed in his eyes and mouth. But the Alliance "meddles" and this is the outcome.

It's the Pax.

Salvation, for want of a better word, comes from the BDM's second theme: Belief. Belief runs like a River through the whole story. To name just a couple events: The Operative is dangerous because he is a "believer." And Shepherd Book tells Mal he must "believe." The preacher preaches no particulars, only belief in something greater than the self. This theme is as old as Mal kissing the cross around his neck in a fox hole in Serenity Valley. I am still untangling it.

*mourns anew the cancelation and what could have been*

*mourns the golden light that is gone from Serenity*

*mourns this empty Gin bottle*

How in the ruttin' hell did that happen?
:crap

"Watch me soar."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:19 PM

MAJINBUU

Bump -- for new title -- really want to hear what you guys think on this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:41 PM

SEP7IMUS

I'll buy that. I'm not sure we are MEANT to equate the Reavers with our BDHs on the raggedy edge, but it certainly is an evocative thought.

I think another way to put it would be to say that the BDHs are trying (like most (all?) Whedon heroes) to negotiate a space somewhere between "lying down" and Reaver-dom, somewhere between acquiescing to (totalitarian) civilizational demands and rejecting society and civilization altogether.

If Whedon finds an answer for that dilemma, and I'm not sure he always does, it's in the close-knit groups or quasi-families of the Scooby Gang, the Angel whatever they are, and the Firefly crew. The thing is, of course, maintining those close-knit groups always creates a bit of... drama.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 8:08 AM

ODDNESS2HER

Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:
I'll buy that. I'm not sure we are MEANT to equate the Reavers with our BDHs on the raggedy edge, but it certainly is an evocative thought.

I think another way to put it would be to say that the BDHs are trying (like most (all?) Whedon heroes) to negotiate a space somewhere between "lying down" and Reaver-dom, somewhere between acquiescing to (totalitarian) civilizational demands and rejecting society and civilization altogether.

If Whedon finds an answer for that dilemma, and I'm not sure he always does, it's in the close-knit groups or quasi-families of the Scooby Gang, the Angel whatever they are, and the Firefly crew. The thing is, of course, maintining those close-knit groups always creates a bit of... drama.

This reminds me of something I didn't get until my 3rd 'Serenity' viewing: when The Operative tells Mal that innocent people are dying in the air and Mal replies: "You have no idea how true that is." It took until then for me to realize he was talking about the Reavers; that they were as much victims of Alliance meddling as River or the rest of Miranda's population. It gave me chills.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 8:33 AM

KHYRON

Very interesting thought, MajinBuu, I didn't for a second think along those lines, but it would make a lot of sense.

The type of peace that the alliance tries to impose makes me think of the Pax Romana, the type of peace the Romans imposed on the rest of Europe: "Right, you blokes do as we tell you and there'll be peace; otherwise, we'll come over there and give you tossers a nice big kick up your backside!" Sort of like the Pax Americana, n'est pas?

"So, err, what stage of grieving is this?"
"It's the goofy stage!"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 8:41 AM

DECLAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

The type of peace that the alliance tries to impose makes me think of the Pax Romana, the type of peace the Romans imposed on the rest of Europe: "Right, you blokes do as we tell you and there'll be peace; otherwise, we'll come over there and give you tossers a nice big kick up your backside!" Sort of like the Pax Americana, n'est pas?

Just to go all classical on you all, Tacitus:

solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (they make a desert, and call it peace)

Hmm, sounds like Miranda and the Alliance.

***************
"'Course, there are other schools of thought."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 8:41 AM

DECLAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

The type of peace that the alliance tries to impose makes me think of the Pax Romana, the type of peace the Romans imposed on the rest of Europe: "Right, you blokes do as we tell you and there'll be peace; otherwise, we'll come over there and give you tossers a nice big kick up your backside!" Sort of like the Pax Americana, n'est pas?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 8:50 AM

DONCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Declan:
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

The type of peace that the alliance tries to impose makes me think of the Pax Romana, the type of peace the Romans imposed on the rest of Europe: "Right, you blokes do as we tell you and there'll be peace; otherwise, we'll come over there and give you tossers a nice big kick up your backside!" Sort of like the Pax Americana, n'est pas?

Just to go all classical on you all, Tacitus:

solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (they make a desert, and call it peace)

Hmm, sounds like Miranda and the Alliance.

A world without sin.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 10:24 AM

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Something the Alliance needs to learn:
There is no such thing as a world without sin unless it is a world without people.

We are just too pretty for God to let us die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:16 AM

ENGINEANGEL

majinbu, i love it - the quotes, the analysis ... It all makes sense. Good job!!

Quote:

written by oddnesstoher:
This reminds me of something I didn't get until my 3rd 'Serenity' viewing: when The Operative tells Mal that innocent people are dying in the air and Mal replies: "You have no idea how true that is." It took until then for me to realize he was talking about the Reavers; that they were as much victims of Alliance meddling as River or the rest of Miranda's population. It gave me chills.

Sorry to break it to you, but this scene was before the crew even went to MIranda. They didn't have a clue what went on there yet. I liked the analysis until i realized this. Any ideas on what he's really talking about?

keep flyin'
EngineAngel

Wash, you were the best gorram pilot in the verse. Rest In Peace (and then come back again!!!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:20 AM

ODDNESS2HER

Quote:
Originally posted by engineangel:
majinbu, i love it - the quotes, the analysis ... It all makes sense. Good job!!
Quote:

written by oddnesstoher:
This reminds me of something I didn't get until my 3rd 'Serenity' viewing: when The Operative tells Mal that innocent people are dying in the air and Mal replies: "You have no idea how true that is." It took until then for me to realize he was talking about the Reavers; that they were as much victims of Alliance meddling as River or the rest of Miranda's population. It gave me chills.

Sorry to break it to you, but this scene was before the crew even went to MIranda. They didn't have a clue what went on there yet. I liked the analysis until i realized this. Any ideas on what he's really talking about?

keep flyin'
EngineAngel

Wash, you were the best gorram pilot in the verse. Rest In Peace (and then come back again!!!)

No, I'M sorry to break it to YOU. The exchange I refer to takes place during the final fight between Mal and The Operative below Mr. Universe's complex. After the flight from Miranda and during the Alliance/Reaver battle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:21 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by engineangel:
majinbu, i love it - the quotes, the analysis ... It all makes sense. Good job!!
Quote:

written by oddnesstoher:
This reminds me of something I didn't get until my 3rd 'Serenity' viewing: when The Operative tells Mal that innocent people are dying in the air and Mal replies: "You have no idea how true that is." It took until then for me to realize he was talking about the Reavers; that they were as much victims of Alliance meddling as River or the rest of Miranda's population. It gave me chills.

Sorry to break it to you, but this scene was before the crew even went to MIranda. They didn't have a clue what went on there yet. I liked the analysis until i realized this. Any ideas on what he's really talking about?

keep flyin'
EngineAngel

Wash, you were the best gorram pilot in the verse. Rest In Peace (and then come back again!!!)

Umm, hate to inform you, but the quoted dialogue occurs when The Operative faces off Mal on Mr. Universe's moon, just after he shoots Captain Tightpants in the back with the electro-stun gun. Y'know, right after the reavers tore the living snail-snot out of his fleet...

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:29 AM

ENGINEANGEL

OK. Sorry, I got this line mixed up with when the operative appears on the screens after they see Haven destroyed and says, "The longer you keep River Tam from me more people will die." You were right and because i realize that now, I totally love that analysis and think it is comepletly true. Thanks for setting me straight.

Keep flyin'
EngineAngel

Wash, you were the best gorram pilot in the verse. Rest In Peace (and then come back again!!!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:31 AM

ODDNESS2HER

Quote:
Originally posted by engineangel:
OK. Sorry, I got this line mixed up with when the operative appears on the screens after they see Haven destroyed and says, "The longer you keep River Tam from me more people will die." You were right and because i realize that now, I totally love that analysis and think it is comepletly true. Thanks for setting me straight.

Keep flyin'
EngineAngel

Wash, you were the best gorram pilot in the verse. Rest In Peace (and then come back again!!!)

That's perfectly OK. Maybe we had both better see the movie one more time just to be sure.
Keep flyin', yourself!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:56 AM

TUNABELLY

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Something the Alliance needs to learn:
There is no such thing as a world without sin unless it is a world without people.

B]

some interesting thoughts in this thread. a world without sin is possible only if we all lie down and die. this sentiment is echoed in the Operative's words when he says that he will have no place in this new world - what he doesn't realize is neither does anyone else.

the theme of belief, the need to believe in something, is strung throughout the movie. it wasn't only Mal that needed to believe - the whole crew was searching for something to believe in and in a sense, each of the character's found thier religion by the end of the movie. River needed to believe that she had a purpose as a person - not just a weapon - and when she realizes this in Simon's unconditional love. Simon needed to believe in something besides River, he needed to believe that it was OK to want for himself. Inara needed to believe in Mal. Book realizes that there is religion beyond the Bible when he kills the people that killed him dispite it's non-Christianess.it goes on and on.i couldn't stop seeing it in the movie.

something else i realized was that Mal only found his belief when he went back to war. he's uncertain of himself throughout most of the movie. he questions his actions, the crew questions his actions. Zoe asks questions his decision to not save the guy at the beginning of the movie from the Reavers. she's not saying that it was right or wrong but she stresses her uneasiness with the situation. when Mal asks River, "u know u'r part in this, right?" River responds, "do u?" i think that sorta summed it all up for me. Mal doesn't really know what his purpose is and is not whole until he finds himself fighting in another war.

fight the PAX. it's the good fight. at the very least it's a fight, it's purspose, it's something to believe in.

"We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

-Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:04 PM

DREAMTROVE

It's curious. Joss' politics have strong influence in his work and yet elude the casual observer. Clearly in his background he has a lot of far left liberal education, and much of it comes through in the shows. But also he often sets up that liberal thought to poke fun at it or knock it down, does that make him a reactionary?

If you google him there are references to Joss working for the Democrats last election, but that hardly says much about his politics. I worked on a democrat campaign last election because I couldn't take Bush any more, it certainly doesn't make me a democrat.

The most solid political idea is libertarianism. Maybe even anrachism. It was very strong in buffy and in firefly. The theme of the end of season seven of buffy was very much "sometimes you have to fight for what you believe in" At the same time, we were invading Iraq.

The Pax, peace is bad, might be there. Is it pro-war, or is this a nod to Rupert Murdoch, what's going on?

I personally have some serious problems with our war, and I don't usually find myself disagreeing with Joss' implied politics, except when it's standard liberal fodder of proper social conduct, but that may just be characters, after all jayne has no such tendencies, niether really do most of the characters. But it might not represent support for our action in Iraq but support for revolution "we aim to misbehave."

It's really hard to tell. I think that these times politics are too powerful an influence on daily life to be ignored, and anything seemingly political is probably to some degree a commentary on our real world situation.

I agree that the message here is peace is complacency, which is bad, don't just lie there, do something. But I'm not sure beyond that. Maybe like Heinlein, he's not on a side, but just wants people to act.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 5:07 PM

MAJOST

If he is indeed making a reference to Pax Romana or Pax Americana, then he is certainly against the war.

In both cases, the peace in the 'core' was maintained by constant battles and occupation outside. Perhaps this hasn't completely occurred yet in America... but we've only had 15 years since USSR fell to create our own version.

This is most blatant in Orwellian thought. Read 1984... there's a kind of 'Pax 1984' of the same sort.

It has nothing to do with literal peace. Good ole doublespeak.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:19 AM

DONCOAT

Joss' ideas about belief seem to work better on a personal level rather than for a society/nation as a whole.

Mal needs to believe in something because he's drifting, purposeless. If that continues, who knows what emotional dead end he'll wind up in? Similar arguments can be made for several of the other characters.

However, when a whole society starts to believe -- especially when that belief isn't grounded in empirical reality -- you get Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, or any number of religion-dominated states. Those are not very good role models for social systems, as they don't seem to play well with others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:11 AM

WEREALLJUSTFLOATING

What about love?

That for me was the other main theme that tied the movie together. The operative points out that it was Simon's love for his sister that made him risk everything to save her. And it's what keeps him from giving up and letting the Alliance catch her. River realises this in the final battle and it gives her the strength to take on the Reavers singlehandedly.

Mal goes to save Inara from the operative because he loves her, and she decides to stay with him at the end because she clearly loves him to. Kaylee as we all know loves Simon but it's only when he reciprocates that she finds the strength to keep fighting.

I love the final scene between Mal and River and his speech about what keeps Serenity flying. He loves that ship so much because it represents freedom for him. Even in his darkest moments, he never gives up on his boat. Remember Out Of Gas? He was willing to stay with Serenity til the end...

I agree with the above posts about the other themes in the film, especially individual freedom. Just thought I'd bring up my own favourite theme.

'We're still flying.'

'That's not much.'

'It's enough.'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:29 AM

MAJINBUU

Thank you all! what interesting things to ponder. I want to be specific about a couple things I said. I did not mean that peace in itself was presented as undesirable. I am not talking a dualistic embrace of chaos here (going back, like apple bits). It was the totalitarian way in which the 'peace' was being foisted on people. Think how we tell you to and everything will be okay kind of 'peace.' This isn't really peace at all, but a violence glossed over with numbed calm. Though Joss might be libertarian, you don't need to be a libertarian to reject totalitarianism (hell, you don't even need to be a democrat). I'm talking 'peace' like the Borg were peacful. Its false, not real peace at all; uniformity is not the same as peace, even if it appears calm. Both young River in the dream and Mal complain that the Alliance tells people how to THINK. And that is the purpose of the Pax gas, control people's minds for the sake of calm and then call it peace. Martin Luther King Jr. was accused of "disturbing the peace" and he said in his letter from a Birmingham jail, something to the effect of, I am not disturbing the peace, there is no peace. I am only making visible the violence that is hidden. Reavers anyone?

I wonder if salvation comes from belief because belief is the most truly personal and free act. Well, belief and love. Even at the end of a gun barrel you cannot FORCE true belief or true love. And so, I am liking this thought of love as a theme. We start with Simon's love for River, and end with Mal's love for Serenity. Interesting.

(I do not however agree with the other "love stories" you mention. Mal and Inara are too conflicted to know what they really feel. And the Kaylee and Simon romance never references anything but physical gratification. I'm not sure they really love each other either. I mean, you know...yet.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:50 AM

THEREALME

I have nothing to add right now, but hey, great thread!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:18 AM

DERANGEDMILK

Excellent thread, so much to say! I for the most part agree, but I don't think that we are supposed to see parralles between the revears and the browncoats or those who laid down and died and those on the central planets, I think we are supposed to see the juxtaposition between the two however. Mal says the Alliance thinks they can make people better. There is nothing wrong with people being better and more peaceful, the key word is "make." This touches on a much broader theme that can be found...well...everywhere.
If God wanted us to just be peaceful people who love one another he could have just made us all that way, but he didn't, he gave us a choice, because chosing to do something makes it all the more real and sincere. God didn't want robots, he wanted people, thats why we make mistakes, so we can learn from them until we choose what is right.
This brings us back to belief. Doing what is right means nothing if you don't believe in what you are doing. Donating to charity for tax breaks isn't doing the right thing, but believing in a cause and giving to it, thats doing the right thing, that is why the Shepard tells Mal "Just believe."

There is a lot of Orwellian elements here, but I see more parralles to Huxley's Brave New World, where they manufactured(made) people and drugged them(soma=pax?) to keep them quiet and happy.

One last thing for you all to chew on, surprised no one else mentioned it, seeing as River said it in one episode or another: "Mal, bad, in latin."

...and now back to midterm studying....

-e

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:53 AM

CHINDI

It is also the way that corporations co opt the ideas and words of the ppl and use them for their own commercial uses...

it's the Pax... she goes on to use the exact name of the additive/drug (sorry I do not have total recall like some ) the paxella blah blah...

the Alliance (and most big corporations now) are always taking words and symbols that we identify with and then tweaking them or outright corrupting them..

Pax/Peace is NOT bad... corporations/governments attempting to control ppl in the name of peace or belief or any other reason... is.

Remember that old old Star Trek where they have a chance to live in perfect harmony somewhere and Kirk just cannot go there.. says ppl not meant to go there artificially? They get there, if they do at all, by their own choice and journey.

2 cents worth.. not much more than that!

Chindi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:35 AM

WEREALLJUSTFLOATING

I think Mal and Inara do know how they feel, they just can't express it or act on it. That's why they are so conflicted. Inara leaves the ship because she has become too attached to everyone, not just Mal, although in her line of work she's probably forbidden to fall in love. And Mal knows that he could never be with her while she's a companion because he doesn't approve of her work.

With regards to Kaylee and Simon, it's true they never openly say they love each other, but it's implied. If it was just physical attraction then what's stopping them? They could have been going at it months ago. Even Mal remarks in the film that he can see Kaylee loves Simon, remember in the Maidenhead scene before the fight? And she points out that he feels the same about Inara.

But overall I don't just mean romantic love, I think the theme is more love in general, like the love they all have for the ship, or for each other, like a big 'ol family. That's what gets them through it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:05 AM

LIMINALOSITY

Quote:
Originally posted by MajinBuu:
----------------------------------------
SPOILER WARNING ** SPOILER WARNING **
----------------------------------------

The Pax Gas, like the Alliance, is intended to legislate peace. To force peace, if you will. Totalitarian peace. The result of its use is a commentary on such attempts.

Most of the population "lies down." They die, as their spirit dies. The dead of Miranda are a symbolic representation of the Core Planets, taken to an extreme. Succumbed.

Salvation, for want of a better word, comes from the BDM's second theme: Belief. Belief runs like a River through the whole story. To name just a couple events: The Operative is dangerous because he is a "believer." And Shepherd Book tells Mal he must "believe." The preacher preaches no particulars, only belief in something greater than the self. This theme is as old as Mal kissing the cross around his neck in a fox hole in Serenity Valley.

"Watch me soar."

Hey oh boy what a great thread! Love hearing all your thoughts. Sharing at this level takes bravery, cudos.
(IMHO, all)

I find the overarching idea to be that there is no substitute for acting with love (integrity), from which all of the other themes in the movie arise. Without love, no belief grows wings, nor is salvation possible.

Mal's rudder is his love of freedom, but a freedom with integrity (acting in harmony, with love for self and other). Hiding the Tams has cost him his ability to act with integrity, so he spins about, sneaking and hiding on the raggedy edge, going from one dishonest caper to the next, and has sunk into a hell of apathy. I think that's what his rueful look is saying when River asks "do you?". He so very much doesn't want to be doing what he is, it goes against every fiber, but the Alliance hot on his tail has removed his freedom to act as he would, and he has let himself become something he hates; a man acting without love, bereft of his integrity.

I think Little River sets it all up in that first scene with her "We meddle" speech. Action without love; taking away the other's ability to choose, is the greatest evil of all. The Alliance does not love its citizens, it seeks to control and profit from them.

Action without love is both the cause and the effect of the Pax. The Alliance seeking to control the populace without their knowledge or consent. The sleepwalkers sinking into apathy, finally not eating, drinking, or even breathing. It's reflection, the rage of the Reavers: action (with passion) but without love.

I think that's what Book is saying in his final speech. His "comming from you means almost nothing" is complete irony; he knows Mal's heart, and that Mal has been hating himself for acting with minimal integrity for as long as they've known each other, hiding behind his loss of faith. He tells him to believe in what he loves, and act through that belief.

The Operative says 'Madness? No. Something a good deal more dangerous....it's love.' The Operative has passion and belief in his cause, but no love. In fact love frightens him. It's dangerous. If he had love, he would need to act with integrity. Poor Operative, he even knows he's a monster, acting with the passion of a fanatic, the ends justifying any means.

There is so much amazing writing in the movie, Joss really went all out. Mal's final speech, though, boy that one really gets me where I live...

"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she ought to fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home."

Then River's comment that the storm is getting worse (they've really opened a can of worms, and there may be hell to pay for all of them), and Mal's response (we'll pass through it soon enough) is about his having remembered that it's all about acting with love and integrity, and that makes them mighty.

Anyway, that's what I think. Thanks for listening, you guys constantly amaze me. Happy to be here, and happy in the knowledge that Joss will give us more of himself. Whoever he finds to populate that world, we will love them too.

And, yes, I think he's saying all of this about our empire as well, and trying to incite us to regain our integrity, stand the hell up, and act with love toward the rest of the world.

'Bright 'n shiny capt'n, not to worry'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:06 AM

DONCOAT

Great contribution, Lim.

But it does raise a few questions for me. We use "love" in a lot of different contexts, and each seems to have a somewhat different connotation. There's the love of parent for child, f'rinstance, or the love between siblings, or between mates. But there's also love of country, love of one's deity of choice, love for a favorite food, erotic love, love of mankind, love for a fictional world and its inhabitants...

You see what I'm getting at. If love is the key, which flavor of love do we mean? And what are the implications if we apply the right love to the wrong situation, or vice versa?

It seems to me that the Operative did exhibit a kind of love, but one that was deeply misdirected. I guess the closest on my list would be love of country, or perhaps love of an unattainable ideal. Clearly that kind of love led to monstrosity.

So how do we know when we love not wisely, but too well?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 3:04 PM

LIMINALOSITY

Quote:
Originally posted by DonCoat:
If love is the key, which flavor of love do we mean? And what are the implications if we apply the right love to the wrong situation, or vice versa?

It seems to me that the Operative did exhibit a kind of love, but one that was deeply misdirected. I guess the closest on my list would be love of country, or perhaps love of an unattainable ideal. Clearly that kind of love led to monstrosity.

So how do we know when we love not wisely, but too well?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

Sorry, that does need clarification, yah.

The kind of love I mean is what the Christians call agape. A golden rule "do unto others" kind of love. Tricksy place, since it's easy to have an opinion about what is best for others. Anytime the outcome of what you do takes choice away from others, then I'd say, that crosses over into 'too well'.

I think the Op exhibits belief and passion, but his is a belief in the agenda of others, without love, only an obsession with outcome.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:46 PM

IAMALEAFONTHEWIND

Wow, great thread. I have a few thoughts.

I like the ideas about love and I've been reading a lot of posts and never seen anyone address this thought about Kaylee and Simon (which also touches on the ideas of rebirth which I've seen mentioned): the crew of Serenity had one couple on board and that relationship was brought to a tragic end. So now, out of the death of that relationship, another is born: Simon and Kaylee. I don't think for one minute that their relationship would be anywhere near as smooth as Zoe and Wash's, but still, there it is.

If the story does continue I think it will be interesting to see the new dynamics onboard Serenity due to these changes. River, towards the end of the movie, also seems to have gained some significant clarity. If this actually holds true then Simon's roll as her guardian becomes far less important. I think this is why he allows himself to indulge with Kaylee. And River potentially goes from being the frail victim that needed all the protecting to the most powerful person onboard - aw hell, almost anywhere for that matter.

So now a few thoughts about Mal and Inara (I only mention this because, agian, I haven't seen anybody mention this anywhere else): Mal know deep down inside that he loves Inara. He says as much when he tells her that she tosses him about and mixes things up. And it's obvious to everyone else that Inara loves Mal as well (and I think she know it too deep down). The reason they have so much trouble (IMHO) is because in order for them to have a relationship that would work they would both have to give up pretty much everything else they know. Mal's job forces him to be loose and flexible. He has to be willing to go wherever he needs to at any time. And sort of emotional commitment just gets in the way (as was experienced in both the series and the movie) and an emotional attachment like the one he would share with Inara would force him to make radical changes to his way of life, the one thing he's absolutely unwilling to do. By the same turn if Inara allowed herself to give into her feelings for Mal she would pretty much destroy her ability to make a living the way she does. I mean really, could you be a Companion (going around and having sex with tons of people) and still be in a committed relationship? I'm sure there's a few out there who might be able to, but not most people (Inara included, I think). So they have this wonderful bond between them - a love for one another that they can't seem to deny - but their entire existence outside of that link pull them in opposite directions. If they are not willing to completely change their lives then that relationship will always be doomed - it just doesn't fit into the plans.

So maybe, if the story is to continue, that would be a theme that Joss would explore. Anyway, I love all this complexity, especially in something that is so much fun and easy to love.

"I don't wanna explode."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 4:18 PM

MAJINBUU

Okay...getting off on a tangent now, BUT...musing over the reference to agapic love, and musing over these Mal/Inara reflections. Agapic love involves self-sacrifice for the loved one. It is sacrificial giving love. Anyone else notice that Inara, at the end of the movie, when she says, "I don't know" had almost ZERO make-up on? She looked like she was 16. A very different look from the typically glammed up Companion. Perhaps the "whore" who "supported unification" is changing? Or, perhaps Mal's final staking of a claim (not blowing North when the wind blows North, but making a stand) has changed her ideas about him?

Ohhhh, *sigh* endless speculation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 5:21 PM

SLAYTHIS

bump

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 5:41 PM

SLAYTHIS

bump

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 6:35 PM

IAMALEAFONTHEWIND

Yeah, good thoughts. I was listening to one of the commentary tracks on Firefly today (the one with Inara - Shindig, I believe) and they brought up a great thought:

It's the concept that Mal doesn't fit into Inara's world and Inara doesn't fit into Mal's world. I think this is a different way of saying what I mentioned before about how their worlds are so opposite. They also mentioned, however, that at the end of that episode we can see that not only do they not fit into each other's worlds, but they don't even fit into their own worlds. Mal doesn't like hanging out or spending time with other smugglers and Inara has run from the Companion Guild. And that is their common thread.

But I think Mal taking a stand could have indeed changed Inara's vision of him somewhat. And maybe it'll allow Mal to change his visions of her and "them" as well.

But not too much I think because then we'd loose all the drama that Joss is so good at.

"I don't wanna explode."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 7:46 PM

LIMINALOSITY

Quote:
Originally posted by MajinBuu:
Okay...getting off on a tangent now, BUT...musing over the reference to agapic love, and musing over these Mal/Inara reflections. Agapic love involves self-sacrifice for the loved one. It is sacrificial giving love. Anyone else notice that Inara, at the end of the movie, when she says, "I don't know" had almost ZERO make-up on? She looked like she was 16. A very different look from the typically glammed up Companion. Perhaps the "whore" who "supported unification" is changing? Or, perhaps Mal's final staking of a claim (not blowing North when the wind blows North, but making a stand) has changed her ideas about him?

Ohhhh, *sigh* endless speculation.

Yup, no make up, and a simple blue sheath dress with spaghetti straps. Sorry, I used to make costumes for theater, so I notice a lot of this stuff.

I think they were going for fresh and innocent do-over for Inara. Did you notice the heartbreakingly longing look she throws down the hall toward Mal as he walks away into Mr Uni-land? Check it out next time. I think he has become the guy with the whole heart she was always seeing underneath the bluster and bad choices, and she has loved that vision of a perfect Mal from the start. I think self-sacrifice is why she walked away (between OiS and Serenity); she couldn't reconcile her love for Mal with the way he was acting. Sort of like how you still love your friends even when they go into butthead mode and you don't really like the person they're acting as at the moment. You still love the perfect center. She was willing to sacrifice being near him when she lost hope in the possibility of Mal ever being able to actually 'be' that best possible Mal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE