Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - michael c

841
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 18, 2012, 04:36:29 PM »
no.

but it was the cause of barnabas' downfall.

842
all i know is that i was FURIOUS at both of them for invading my privacy! [hall2_angry]

843
i agree that it's almost impossible to compare the two movies.


the general outline is similar but otherwise they might as well be from different planets.

844
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 18, 2012, 03:59:48 PM »
in the context of the series there was one early scene that i recall actually finding quite "shocking"...


during the burke/carolyn flirtation there was an episode where carolyn goes to burke's room at the inn for one of their ill-fated "dates". carolyn reclines on the couch and at one point actually takes off her shoes.

up to this point i had accepted her as a hair tossing coquette expressing her rebellion by gyrating at the blue whale. but here she seemed crude and even slatternly.

of course in a contemporary context this scene would actually play as rather tame but given the perimeters the series had set for itself thus far i was shocked. [hall2_shocked]

845
Current Talk '12 II / Re: Sex in the Shadows
« on: November 18, 2012, 01:10:08 PM »
given the outrageousness of the plots the show was rather traditional in it's attitudes about sex. i doubt the word itself was even uttered once in five years.

things were coded for the viewer.


no matter how late at night julia was working at the old house there was almost always a scene where she puts on her coat and returns to collinwood. why? because at the time it would not have been "proper" for an unmarried lady to spend the night in a house with two men. or even to leave the impression of it to the other characters in the series. for the sake of "propriety", to keep julia a "respectable" woman(even while she created artificial men out of dead bodies in the basement),it was essential that she remain at collinwood as the guest of elizabeth. things like that still mattered then.

whenever the plot necessitated that joe spend the night at the evans' cottage, they make a big deal of joe announcing that he'd just "stretch out on the couch", least the viewer get the impression he had slept in maggie's room. and then we see him there in the morning. maggie wasn't "that kind of girl". when vicki needed a place for jeff to stay she asked maggie if he could stay at her house, essentially a two room shack, rather than him staying in a forty room mansion. again, it wouldn't have been "proper" for the two characters, then unmarried, to live under the same roof. and vicki was nothing if not virtuous with a capital V.

in the DS universe extramarital sex was synonymous with vice and wickedness. so while the nasty characters like laura and quentin and angelique could hop from bed to bed(and even that was largely implied rather than spelled out in specifics)the "good" characters remained chaste outside the marriage bed. although the characters could have huge moral conflictions about other issues, sex was generally not one of them. things were pretty black and white.


even as attitudes about sex changed dramatically in the late 1960's an afternoon soap, sponsored by manufacturers of breakfast cereal and laundry detergent and marketed at housewives and adolescents, needed to maintain a traditional attitude in this regard.

846
all of the recent chatter about NoDS must have entered my subconscious...


remember the old "after school specials" from the 1970's that usually dealt with "teen issues" like drugs and petty crimes like shoplifting? they were sort of little morality plays that aimed to dole out an important "lesson". in the ones involving drugs there was usually a scene where an authority figure, a parent or teacher, finds some sort of drugs or drug paraphernalia(like a bong or potpipe)amongst a teen's belongings(like in a locker or under a bed)and "confronts" them with the evidence in hand. in effect stages an "intervention". there are denials. followed by tears. followed by confessions and remorse and "tough love" recriminations and important lessons learned all around and a sappy ending all in under an hour with plenty of time for commercials for fruit loops.

anyways the other night i had such a dream. this time it was ME who was stashing some sort of drugs(i cannot recall what)in my room. the people who found said drugs and confronted me were none other than QUENTIN and TRACY! not david selby and kate jackson mind you. for some reason they were "in character". i tried to deny it. i flubbed for excuses. i called tracy a "nosy b*tch". but they were having none of it! i was busted!


this dream puzzles me for numerous reasons. one being i do not do drugs or even drink. so there must be some hidden meaning or subtext at play. more to the point selby and jackson are two actors from the series i've always been completely indifferent to so it's strange that they would be the ones i butt heads with in a dream world.


i never dream about the show per se but once in awhile one of the characters makes it's way into the background of whatever else i'm dreaming about. i recall one dream where carolyn and laura stood as mute witnesses in the background. but it's funny here it was so interactive and confrontational. [hall2_huh]

847
Current Talk '24 I / Re: hoDS/NoDS DVD Release?
« on: November 11, 2012, 09:43:05 PM »
given that NODS focuses so heavily on david selby and kate jackson, two of the series' later actors i never particularly cared for, this film never did much for me.


but i'm impressed with all of the passion and enthusiasm it's generating in this topic. i never really understood the power of it's fanbase.

i'll probably pick it up.

848
polyester burns.

849
Current Talk '12 II / Re: What the Heck is it?
« on: November 04, 2012, 05:32:05 PM »
pretty much everyone in those 'side pics' seems to be cringing, crying, howling or otherwise anguished...


oh the DRAMA!

850
Current Talk '12 II / Re: cursed...or charmed???
« on: November 04, 2012, 04:30:27 PM »
i could be wrong but what i think is being said here is that most of the plots of the OS were cribbed from other literary sources...


jane eyre, frankenstien, rebecca, the turn of the screw, the picture of dorian gray, the telltale heart...all of these stories were rewritten into the DS framework utilizing it's setting and characters but were not exactly "original" stories being told.

the end result felt very fresh and original but the writers heavily referenced other material.

851
Current Talk '12 II / Re: 2012 Dark Shadows: Barnabas and Angelique
« on: November 04, 2012, 12:32:13 PM »
i guess there are different ways of looking at things and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


i mean jonathan frid was a 'distinguished' looking middle aged man who wore a smoking jacket like nobody's business but that doesn't really explain why every SYT and lady doctor in collinsport threw themselves at his feet.


yes depp's barnabas did look silly in the vampire state but our brief glimpse at him before he was cursed he was a looker. i mean didn't depp recently get "people magazine's" annual "sexiest man alive" cover?

so again perhaps that's what "angie" was seeing.

852
Current Talk '12 II / Re: What the Heck is it?
« on: November 04, 2012, 12:10:16 PM »
this is just a guess but it looks like maybe a distressed victoria or josette speaking to barnabas and he's holding his hand to his face. i think the "silverish" thing is his ring.


again, just a guess.

853
Current Talk '12 II / Re: 2012 Cast Question
« on: November 03, 2012, 03:43:50 PM »
mrs. johnson was played by an actress named "ray shirley"...


the name "ray", combined with the actress's somewhat masculine appearance, lead to some speculation that it was perhaps a man playing the character. but that appears to be untrue.

854
Current Talk '12 II / Re: 2012 Dark Shadows: Barnabas and Angelique
« on: November 03, 2012, 01:28:05 PM »
on the OS we got to see barnabas and angelique's relationship develop, and evolve, and regress, and change, day after day, week after week, for four years. culminating in barnabas' rather strange eleventh hour declaration in 1840.


given the film's two hour time constraints we don't get that opportunity. we sort of just have to take it on faith. and with the small glimpse we were given of pre-curse barnabas he was certainly handsome. perhaps he was less "clueless and annoying" than he is in the vampire state. only she would know because she's the only person in the film who knew him then.

for me what's more of a stretch is why she's still harassing these people after 200 years. i get that she was a maid working for the family and all but there's really no indication that she was mistreated. [hall2_huh]

855
i'm sort of stunned that this has actually come into fruition...


i mean 8 days is a long time. and isn't this going to be cost-prohibitive for the average fest-goer???

still i'll have to get more information before i make a final decision about it. could be fun. [hall2_undecided]