FLM films - My Webpage

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (Karla <brad_karla_tyler@xxxemail.msn.com>)


Thanks for asking this Mary Anne. That statement had me confused too. It's good to hear others' interpretations. Karla MaryAS wrote in message <19990118102331.12645.00000151@ng99.aol.com>... Thanks for the replies everyone. Having watched the episode again, I think you are all right on target. Great analysis Chris, thanks! Mary Anne

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (stremy1@aol.com)


One thing I do think about season 3 so far -Roy Dupuis is finally getting to show his stuff. What an actor he is -they have been hiding his light under a bushel for the past 2 years.

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (lbladel@aol.com)


Spoiler space >In the scene after Michael is unable to poison Elena, an exchange takes place >between Maddy and Michael in her office. She says she wasn't suprised, etc. >And then asks him "So it wasn't a singularity?" I believe he answers "No". >She goes on to tell him what the consequences for his actions SHOULD be, but >that he's going to be basically excused this time because the situation is >too >vulnerable. And they will be trying a new approach. My question is...what >the >heck did she mean by "It wasn't a singularity?" > >I am really puzzling and dying to know what you all think. > I think she was asking if he would refuse again, or was this a one time emotional reaction. His response was - no, I won't poison her! Laura (loving season three)

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (Colin Whipple <colincpaNOSPAM@pacbell.net>)


Pianolds1 wrote in message <19990118015211.18225.00002338@ng109.aol.com>... >>From: maryas@aol.com (MaryAS) > >>S >>P >>O >>I >>L >>E >>R >>S >>P >>O >>I >>L >>E >>R > >>Okay...this is bugging me and I want to know how you all interpreted it. > >snip > >>My question is...what the >>heck did she mean by "It wasn't a singularity?" > >I interpreted it to mean that she was asking if his defiance was a one-time >thing or would he continue to refuse to poison Elena. That was what I thought. Colin

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (maryas@aol.com)


Thanks for the replies everyone. Having watched the episode again, I think you are all right on target. Great analysis Chris, thanks! Mary Anne

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (Seabush <seabush@yahoo.com>)


I thought she meant was it a mistake on his part. He acknowledged that it wasn't. -- Seabush

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (dentavdenise@my-dejanews.com)


Ditto Chris. Madeline, in her twisted, manipulative, and coniving way was asking Michael 'can we count on you to ruin your wife/life or do we need to do it for you?' That is the amazing part of this wonderful ARC... The dialogue said and implied has been incredible. OMJ is probably my favorite episode outside of the Jurgen ARC for that very reason. The eyes spoke volumes... This time Michael was actually allowed to speak and feel and love the way he's been assumed of doing before. Right emotion, wrong woman...or so it is for some. Not me. I thought the Michael/Elena romance was about the most romantic storyline we could or should ever see on this type of venue. Denise > > My read on this interaction is as follows. The "singularity" reference is the fact > that Michael was unable to follow through with poisoning Elena. She is asking if > this was an isolated instance, a momentary lapse by Michael. He is saying no, it's > not, and that he will be unable to execute any scenario where he must directly > cause harm to Elena or Adam. > > Madeline understands this and on some level knows that the mission profile pushes > even Michael to his limits. She gives the brief lecture about busting him down a > rank in an attempt to get him to regain his focus and function cognitively. She > adds that they will try a new approach in yet another effort to get Michael to tame > his emotions. Madeline knows that he is at his limit, but that the mission is > still plenty salvageable. (There have been numerous examples throughout the ARC of > the urgency of getting to and eliminating her Elena's father.) Madeline in fact > never actually wanted to discipline Michael and in fact recommends extra time off > for him at the end. She also knows that it is going to take more than extra time > to salvage Michael. > > Chris > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - "Opening Night Jitters" question - (maryas@aol.com)


S P O I L E R S P O I L E R Okay...this is bugging me and I want to know how you all interpreted it. In the scene after Michael is unable to poison Elena, an exchange takes place between Maddy and Michael in her office. She says she wasn't suprised, etc. And then asks him "So it wasn't a singularity?" I believe he answers "No". She goes on to tell him what the consequences for his actions SHOULD be, but that he's going to be basically excused this time because the situation is too vulnerable. And they will be trying a new approach. My question is...what the heck did she mean by "It wasn't a singularity?" My first thought is that Michael had told section that Adam was an "accident" when that wasn't really the case. But I'm really not sure that is the correct "take" on this scene. I am really puzzling and dying to know what you all think. This episode......just made me feel so sad. Sad for all the characters...well except for Ops and Maddy. At the end of the show....Nikita crying into her glass of wine with the phone next to her waiting for Michael to call pretty much sums up visually how sad this made me feel. Most notable to me was the depth of feeling conveyed my M. Dupuis. He definately got to stretch his acting muscles in other directions in this episode. What talent he possesses. Mary Anne

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (Chris Touhey <ctouhey@CUTonramp.net>)


MaryAS wrote: > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > Okay...this is bugging me and I want to know how you all interpreted it. In > the scene after Michael is unable to poison Elena, an exchange takes place > between Maddy and Michael in her office. She says she wasn't suprised, etc. > And then asks him "So it wasn't a singularity?" I believe he answers "No". > She goes on to tell him what the consequences for his actions SHOULD be, but > that he's going to be basically excused this time because the situation is too > vulnerable. And they will be trying a new approach. My question is...what the > heck did she mean by "It wasn't a singularity?" My first thought is that > Michael had told section that Adam was an "accident" when that wasn't really > the case. But I'm really not sure that is the correct "take" on this scene. > > I am really puzzling and dying to know what you all think. > > [snip] > Mary Anne > My read on this interaction is as follows. The "singularity" reference is the fact that Michael was unable to follow through with poisoning Elena. She is asking if this was an isolated instance, a momentary lapse by Michael. He is saying no, it's not, and that he will be unable to execute any scenario where he must directly cause harm to Elena or Adam. Madeline understands this and on some level knows that the mission profile pushes even Michael to his limits. She gives the brief lecture about busting him down a rank in an attempt to get him to regain his focus and function cognitively. She adds that they will try a new approach in yet another effort to get Michael to tame his emotions. Madeline knows that he is at his limit, but that the mission is still plenty salvageable. (There have been numerous examples throughout the ARC of the urgency of getting to and eliminating her Elena's father.) Madeline in fact never actually wanted to discipline Michael and in fact recommends extra time off for him at the end. She also knows that it is going to take more than extra time to salvage Michael. Chris

1999-01-18 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (pianolds1@aol.com)


>From: maryas@aol.com (MaryAS) >S >P >O >I >L >E >R >S >P >O >I >L >E >R >Okay...this is bugging me and I want to know how you all interpreted it. snip >My question is...what the >heck did she mean by "It wasn't a singularity?" I interpreted it to mean that she was asking if his defiance was a one-time thing or would he continue to refuse to poison Elena. Gail *thinking this was one of their best episodes*

1999-01-19 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (Gabriela <gcastagnino@rocketmail.com>)


CATKNSN wrote >>(BTW, his name is Roy Dupuis - his (real) first name does not begin with >>"M".) >><smile> > >I think what people mean when they do that is an abbreviation of Monsiour (sp?) >Dupuis, the French way of saying Mr. Dupuis. > > >Cathy I thought the same thing, but maybe Lauren got confused because of the *my* before the M. Dupuis, which was a typo. Monsieur is the correct spelling, which would stand for 'My lord'. Gabie, with dictionary in hand :-)

1999-01-19 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (NikitaFan <NikitaFan@aol.com>)


MaryAS wrote: > My question is...what the > heck did she mean by "It wasn't a singularity?" My first thought is that > Michael had told section that Adam was an "accident" when that wasn't really > the case. But I'm really not sure that is the correct "take" on this scene. > > <snip> > > Most notable to me was the depth of feeling conveyed my M. Dupuis. > Mary Anne > Mary Anne, I believe Maddy was basically asking Michael if this was a one-time conscience attack or would he be unable to poison her AT ALL? Michael was letting her know that he had reached his "breaking point" as far as his loyalty to Section and the mission. He would do what needed to be done, but he could not poison his wife. (BTW, his name is Roy Dupuis - his (real) first name does not begin with "M".) <smile> Cherchez la femme! Lauren

1999-01-19 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (catknsn@aol.comnospam)


>(BTW, his name is Roy Dupuis - his (real) first name does not begin with >"M".) ><smile> I think what people mean when they do that is an abbreviation of Monsiour (sp?) Dupuis, the French way of saying Mr. Dupuis. Cathy The unofficial Alberta Watson Home Page http://www.albertawatson.com The Ops' Recruits Home Page http://members.aol.com/CATKNSN/opsrecruits.html Queen of the Twisted Hopeless Romantics AA #12, HH #16, WW #51 CQS '98, LCA '98, Dini Petty '99

1999-01-19 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (stremy1@aol.com)


yup, M is the abbreviation for Monsieur.

1999-01-20 00:00:00 - Re: "Opening Night Jitters" question - (maryas@aol.com)


Gabie and Cathy, CATKNSN wrote >>(BTW, his name is Roy Dupuis - his (real) first name does not begin with >>"M".) >><smile> > >I think what people mean when they do that is an abbreviation of Monsiour (sp?) >Dupuis, the French way of saying Mr. Dupuis. Thanks for interpreting my post so accurately <G> That is exactly what I meant! Gabie wrote : >>I thought the same thing, but maybe Lauren got confused because of the *my* before the M. Dupuis, which was a typo<< What a Freudian slip, eh??? :D Mary Anne