The tail end of 1795... Potential Spoilers Ahoy!

Watching the first disc of boxset 7.

Millicent is just infuriating. In a way I feel pity for her as her sheltered ideals, Nathan's double face and Barnabas have turned her into a beaten dog.

Nathan I just want to throttle. That might be the sign of a good character, he alone is the only character on the show I've encountered so far whom I utterly despise. I watch with utter joy when he meets his end. I'd like to take a baseball bat to him personally. I baseball bat with nails in it even? .... 

Naomi is the shining light of sanity in these episodes. I am just so glad to see her in any scene, too bad she won't be around much longer.

Some of the best episodes were on the last disc, the confrontation between Barnabas and Joshua is IMO some of the best written and acted scenes on the show.

Ah, yes, the Joshua and Barnabas scenes are very touching and so well acted, and Naomi was wonderful throughout this part.  So tragic!  Out of all the 1795 DVD collections, I really enjoyed the 5th one the most (the one with Angelique cursing Barnabas amongst other stuff) as well as this first disc on the 7th collection.  Late 1795 becomes rather..."old" and almost dull after it loses some of its earlier intensity (maybe it's just that Angelique doesn't appear very often later on); plus, Vicki bored me to tears throughout this entire plot (except for her chats with Jeremiah--I loved their chemistry together, and I wish Anthony George hadn't left the show--his Burke brought a lot of "realism" to the show that's completely thrown out the window once they return).  Annoyingly enough, Vicki seemed to be stuck in her "gaol" cell forever, and I feel no sympathy for her or Peter Bradford at all--what a ditz!

I wasn't too interested in Victoria's side storyline either, and I also disliked her and Peter Bradford. I love 1795 because of the Barnabas backstory. From Josette and Angelique to Naomi, Sarah and Joshua. The side plots like Nathan and Milllicent, and Victoria and Peter, never held much appeal for me. I think, in a way, with Victoria stuck in the jail, it removed her too much from the main action.

I thought the end of 1795 with Barnabas, Ben, Naomi and Joshua was fantastic, but I didn't care for those other plots.

The scenes with Joshua and Naomi are such excellent, solid drama.  It was great to see Bennett and Edmonds being given something to DO again after being sidelined for so long after the end of the Jason storyline.

I really enjoyed seeing Trask and Abigail get lured to their fates.  Other than that, and a few other bagatelles (such as Angelique's courtroom appearance) the final weeks of 1795 is a real washout to me.  It's close to being the most lacklustre period of the series as far as I am concerned.

G.

because i watched it over a year ago i tend to view the entire 1795 story through rose colored glasses.
but when i do think back on it i remember finding the tail end rather dull.most of the main players get killed-off.nathan/millicent and vicki/peter were pretty weak as well.and i remember towards the end wanting the story to return to the present(careful what you wish for).

but naomi's final scenes were some of the best ever on the show and the story redeemed itself in it's final episodes.

and clarice blackburn as abigail collins blew me away throughout the entire plot.love her!

Some of the best episodes were on the last disc, the confrontation between Barnabas and Joshua is IMO some of the best written and acted scenes on the show.

Those are great scenes. I think Louis Edmonds can easily coast along quite nicely with his deboinair manner and perfect timing but it's great to see him show strong feeling and grief. I love his confrontations both with Barnabas, Angelique and Nathan. He's just perfect every time. Firm when he has to be and retreats when forced. What canny and intelligent performances from him during the last phase of 1795.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the Vickie/witchcraft story is really really weak. And though I admire both Nancy B. and Joel C. I tend to see them as comic relief only (despite the awful ending those two had) and I can't put my finger on why that story doesn't work for me.

It always irked me that Vicki (and before her arrival, Phyllis) was put on trial for witchcraft, considering that laws regarding that had vanished a hundred years before in light of that nasty business in Salem.  Of course, the writers concocted a thing about prosecutors digging up some long forgotten law.  I always thought it would've made more sense for Vicki to be charged with murder by using witchcraft.  Thus, she would be on trial for murder, but not for witchcraft per see.  After all, it wasn't illegal to use a knife to cut one's cheese (stop giggling; you know what I mean), but it certainly was illegal to use one to cut one's neighbor's throat.  Making the crime murder, and not witchcraft, would've made the story all the more plausible.

Gerard

stefan,

i can think of one reason why the nathan/millicent story didn't really work.
it wasn't effectively woven throughout the fabric of the entire storyline.it seemed sort of tacked-on towards the end when most of the other elements of the plot were played out.they weren't really critical to the telling of the story as a whole.i certainly don't know this as fact but at the time i got the impression that since nancy and joel were contracted players the writers needed to create characters for them.

and vicki had some good stuff to do during the earlier part of the story but once she was in jail and falling for peter bradford it was snoozeville.

it seemed sort of tacked-on towards the end when most of the other elements of the plot were played out.they weren't really critical to the telling of the story as a whole.i certainly don't know this as fact but at the time i got the impression that since nancy and joel were contracted players the writers needed to create characters for them.

It did seem that Nathan got evil real quick (quick re-writing and change of story-line perhaps?). My problem was that though the whole Milicent/Nathan story had potential and both Nancy B and Joel C were good technical actors I never felt the pathos and drama that should have accompanied it. I know Nancy B. is popular here but her Milicent was a little too brittle for me, her voice a little too high, her manner a little too postured. I simply never got involved with her portrayal. She never drew me in. I hate to say this but I personally feel much of the fault lies in NB's performance. I like her Carolyn much better.

and vicki had some good stuff to do during the earlier part of the story but once she was in jail and falling for peter bradford it was snoozeville.

Poor thing, it's like AM just gave up. Was there ANYTHING she could have done with that story?

so true...although early victoria winters will always remain my favorite character from the show her time in prison during 1795 was the beginning of wishy-washy storylines for her that continued until alexandra moltke made the decision to leave d.s. .

     1795 is my favorite storyline.  It has holes and missed opportunites like any other DS storyline.  I thought Louis Edmonds portrayal of Joshua was spot on.  He seemed to have chemistry with the entire cast.  As for the end of 1795, I did not think it was any worse than some of the other storyline endings.  Thats why we get to converse so much about the "what coulda, shoulda beens".

It always irked me that Vicki (and before her arrival, Phyllis) was put on trial for witchcraft, considering that laws regarding that had vanished a hundred years before in light of that nasty business in Salem.  Of course, the writers concocted a thing about prosecutors digging up some long forgotten law.  I always thought it would've made more sense for Vicki to be charged with murder by using witchcraft.  Thus, she would be on trial for murder, but not for witchcraft per see.  After all, it wasn't illegal to use a knife to cut one's cheese (stop giggling; you know what I mean), but it certainly was illegal to use one to cut one's neighbor's throat.  Making the crime murder, and not witchcraft, would've made the story all the more plausible.

God don't I agree with you. The idea that someone would be put on trial in the United States in 1795 for witchcraft is just preposterous, however, the fact that they went ahead and did it again in 1840 is just insane!

A murder trial on the other hand I think would have been not only more believable, but more interesting.

I get the feeling that if Vicki and Peter hadn't been idiots and entered the book in as evidence for the defense Vicki would have gotten off.

they took great liberties with historical accuracy throughout the story.
the witchcraft trial being among them.also the notion that barnabas might have contracted the plague.this came up in a topic several months ago but there wasn't a diagnosed case of plague in the u.s. until 1900 when it appeared in san francisco's chinatown.

they seemed to use "olde time" new england as a catchall for witchcraft,superstition,religious fanatacism and assumed the viewer wouldn't really remember the actual years of such events(or care for that matter).

also,a house on the massive scale of collinwood would not have been constructed in the 1700's.it's obviously a gilded-age mansion built by a robber baron in the late 1800's.

(quick re-writing and change of story-line perhaps?).

stefan, darling...THIS is Dark Shadows!!!

Patti