June 6, 2004 - 750217 - The Death Wisher

[vgarci]

This week's program is presented for your review by Texas.

For those who do not have the program, you can download it (with or without a Streamload account) at: www.streamload.com/vgarci (http://www.streamload.com/vgarci)

[Steve]

The twist at the end of this one was somewhat satisfying, however I found the rest of the play distasteful. It seems to have been conceived as a story about the infidelity of men (The father's, as well as the implied infidelity of Barbara's ex-husband) and that Anton was a metaphor for the father's past indiscretion finally coming home to roost and damage his family. But the actual plotline of a rapist holding a houseful of women hostage with this magical power was just offensive---not to mention inaccurate. There is nothing in Greek mythology endowing satyrs with such a death-wishing power. It was obviously something invented by Ian Martin to keep all the other characters at this guy's mercy. Weak. Really weak. Also, I thought that Barbara's dialog was written in an idiom that was ridiculously anachronistic---even if she was a "modern" experienced woman, she still sounded [u:61e46ef8be]far[/u:61e46ef8be] too modern for the Victorian age. I mean, come on..."Cushy?" "Ralph-the raper?" Badly written. Big thumbs down on this one.

Until next time...
Steve

PS: Poor old Scout!

[brian1984_2001]

Yes, it was a bummer about Scout!

I thought this one was going to be a bomb in the first act. It took forever to get going! Once it did, it built the tension nicely. Everybody seemed powerless against the guy, then the really great twist!

As Steve said, the women seemed a bit modern for the Victorian Age. I didn't find anything offensive about the play and I try not to look for metaphors -- prefering just to hear a good story. This was a good story with horror, suspense, and a twist. Good for a 4.

[Texas]

Brian, I agreed that this one started out somewhat slow, but once the title character started delivering his "money shots" (I'm sorry to use what I know is a term for the pornography industry, but unfortunately that's appropriate here) the tension shifted (for me) dramatically.

Steve,

Thanks for calling my attention to "cushy", which according to dictionary.com didn't start appearing in the American language until around WWI. It's interesting that some of the other phrases Barbara used such as "peeping Tom" (which apparently originates from the (10th century?) legend of Lady Godiva, describing a lecherous man named Tom who allegedly was struck dead as he attempted to peer out his window at the naked noblewoman as she rode by) would have been known in Victorian times. Martin wrote some good scripts, but thanks for catching this flaw.

And yet...

I liked this story when I first heard it, but it grew on me even more when I heard it again and started thinking about both its content and when it aired (1975.)

First of all, it might be easy to think of satyrs as lecherous but innocuous creatures, as dirty old men in cloven hooves. (Did you ever see the Disney animation of "Hercules" back in 1997? Danny DeVito played a satyr who was one of the GOOD guys...Hercules' friend. Perfect voice for the part.)

Satyrs, however, are not just limited to Greek mythology. In fact, they are referenced twice in some translations of the Old Testament chapter of Isaiah, when he said "satyrs will dance" on a certain land. By saying that, he meant that land would become desolate and dead for human habitation, and indeed, prophecy was apparently fulfilled though I'd have to look up what land he was referring to.) Lasciviousness by itself isn't a virtue, but apparently in the Bible (elements of which were used so heavily in earlier RMT episodes) "satyrs" (and there's no doubt in my mind about which side of the ground "Anton Gitano" and his ilk live) carried a far more sinister connotation.

The biblical elements I so often seemed to hear in the RMT was "sin = death". In one of the most depressing episodes (to me) of the RMT entitled "Out of focus", a beautiful succubus directly quotes "the wages of sin (is death)" to her not-so-innocent victim.

Originally I thought the episode was slightly heavy handed, but...again...it was aired in [i:f86be80706]1975[/i:f86be80706], and with that in mind, I think Martin was making this episode about:

- [b:f86be80706]Divorce, and the unintended consequences of this sin[/b:f86be80706] - Steve, despite any implied infidelities of Barbara's ex-husband, I got the feeling that she was the one who may have had just as much if not more of a hand in initiating it. E.G.'s comments at the end of the show seemed to imply she had a lot to learn about marriage.

I think Martin was trying to suggest that people who engage in divorce can open themselves up to sins and consequences they had no clue to expect. He wrote this play in or before 1975, when we apparently began to see the effects of "no-fault" divorce which itself mushroomed as a by product of the so-called "sexual revolution" in the previous decade. I know there have been people here who've been affected by divorce and I'm not trying to insult or condone them. I just know that my wife's parents were split by a so-called "no-fault" style divorce (initiated by her mother) and 20 plus years later her now grown siblings and she (and their children) are STILL feeling horrible aftereffects of it.

The reason this play seemed slightly "heavy-handed" to me was because we (or at least many of us) now know what horrendous things divorce can open the door to. Yet back then 29 years ago, though, we as a society were just beginning to collectively learn these side effects as D-I-V-O-R-C-E no longer became a "dirty" word.

Who, after poor Millie, Scout and that barn owl gets to suffer the most due to "Anton's" presence? Barbara, the one who (at first) didn't seem to think that [i:f86be80706]she[/i:f86be80706] had sinned in getting a divorce.

- [b:f86be80706]Absentee fathers, and effects on their sons[/b:f86be80706] - When he lets his guard down, Anton shows himself to be a bitter, angry, self-centered man, instead of just being a self-centered one. What did he say: "I [i:f86be80706]have[/i:f86be80706] no father."

Obviously, his war-hero father (or whomever) was never around to show him such things as the meaning of true love, of sacrifice, of living for things bigger than one's self, and how to treat the fairer sex. Obviously, he never gave him even respect for [i:f86be80706]life[/i:f86be80706].

- [b:f86be80706]Families, and why a family unit is so important.[/b:f86be80706] (And believe me, I know we unfortunately can't all have one in this fallen world, as I lost my Dad at age 15 when I really (though I didn't know it at the time) needed him most.)

So often, we refer to the Victorian times as a stuffy era that we'd never want to go back to. Indeed, we can't, and there are good reasons...but some things from that era weren't bad, either.

One of them, at least as seen by Martin, was the importance of the family unit. It was interesting to me, for example, how Barbara seemed to be rebelling from it, not only by divorcing her husband but by not calling her parents "mama" or "papa" until after being confronted directly by evil. Or how she started trying to protect her little sister by that time, where previously (to a degree) she'd been [i:f86be80706]poisoning[/i:f86be80706] her with her (Barbara's) views on men and marriage.

- [b:f86be80706]The dangers of bitterness (or "unforgiveness") and the all-consuming desire for revenge[/b:f86be80706]. It's been said that harboring bitterness (again, warned against in the Bible, mainly because of its effects on those who [b:f86be80706]harbor[/b:f86be80706] bitterness) is like drinking rat poison and expecting the rat to die.

Anton's mother harbored bitterness. And she apparently wanted revenge. Were he not such a character utterly lacking in any need for sympathy it would be tempting for me to say "poor fool"...because he NEVER KNEW why his mother (who was supposed to nurture and protect him...see "families" above) sent him (albeit unknowingly) to...well, end up experiencing the plot twist Brian tells us about above.

- [b:f86be80706]The sin of "lasciviousness".[/b:f86be80706] As I said, some might think a satyr, if indeed he was the epitome of this sin, would be no more dangerous than Arte Johnson's doddering old lecher in the old [i:f86be80706]Laugh-in[/i:f86be80706] TV show.

Not so, given the fact that sin does indeed equal death.

A true satyr, by definition, could not be satisfied. And (from everything I see) would sooner or later (and probably quite frequently) show his true colors in the way that Anton did with Millie the maid. (And note how even though she was "cheeky" in a pleasant sort of way she wanted to preserve her virtue. Remember Satan and his one-track mind in our former SOTW "The fall of Gentryville."?) What was it Anton said to Millie about virtuous women: "They're the best sort", then made that immature yet sinister snickering after she left the room?)

- [b:f86be80706]The dangers of keeping certain secrets from those you love [/b:f86be80706]. Some things, perhaps, a spouse might not always have to tell if they've done them prior to marriage. Others, though, need to come out. Like when said secrets are coming to live at one's house for purposes unknown. Or why you're being SENT to live at the house of a family whom you've never met.

I'm sure I'll think of some other points I've missed later. I would have given this a "4", but knowing the message I believe Martin was trying to say for the time this program was created I give it a "5".

And yes indeed, poor Scout, and that barn owl, and especially poor cheeky little Millie.

[Texas]

My apologies for the long post. Next time I'll just LISTEN to the program and try to avoid any attempt at analysis. :wink:

[Fizzlestix]

This episode has to be the one with the most bizarre plot progression I've heard to date. Initially, it was not very alluring. Fairly happy family meets new guest who seems to good to be true. But, as in a previous SotW, perhaps EG Marshall's words of "too true to be good" are more appreciable here.

I really enjoyed the show. This fellow Antoine was a real bugger, to say the least. I didn't like him from his initial introduction. However, I had no idea what was around the corner.

One thing that was a relief in this episode, was the whole "family" dynamic they shared. That the daughter went to her father and trusted him enough to disclose such disgraceful goings-on.

Much like the blackmailer in another recent SotW, this was a cancer that could easily have been done away with if the right measures were to be addressed. In this case, it was obvious that they needed to dispense with this character and quickly.

I felt bad for three characters in the show. The Owl, The dog Scout, and - Antoine's mother! It seems to me that the father's "sin" with her was the actual root of this whole mess, and had he dealt with her more appropriately and respectfully, perhaps this event may never have risen.

But, he who is without should cast first, right?

An excellent choice for SotW! Thank you. I gave it a 4.8 rating. Everything was above average for an RMT show.

Best wishes,

Fizz

[Fizzlestix]

Follow up:

First off, Texas - your words were wonderful. Thanks for putting so much thoughtful consideration into your writing. As one who tends to run on around here, it is nice to read such a hearty presentation.

Second, Steve - woah! Your review really opened my eyes a bit more. While I think production/acting/presentation of the show were worthy of a higher rating, I applaud your candor and respect your position on being offended. I think the idea had slipped right by me. It's refreshing when someone can have a point of view that enlightens me. Or, as UNT might say, "when someone slams a show." Thanks!

I guess, for me, I didn't get too involved in the family. Though they were fairly well developed, there wasn't much warmth coming from them. They weren't exactly cold, either though. And let's just say it is hard to relate to or identify with or even sympathize with anyone who is luke-warm.

And I wonder if that may have been part of the intention of the writer? To create a family that is somewhat snooty and satisfied with their position, despite its obvious bruises, that the coming of the Death Wisher was meant simply to shake their foundation and awaken their sense of vulnerability. Perhaps, too, it could have been a reminder for the audience as well. Perhaps again, I am rambling and the writer was eating a tuna sandwich when he wrote it! Who knows!

And yes, a total bummer about Scout. :wink:

[Texas]

Thanks, Fizzlestix.

You know, if I were going to try and place bets on one metaphor, allegory, comparison, lesson, whatever that Ian Martin was trying to make with this show, I'd be willing to place money that he was trying to show, in a very interesting way (which was a delayed reaction with me) the effects of the aforementioned "sexual revolution" of the 60s. Remember, we were just starting to intensely experience the aftereffects (which are, sadly, lingering with us today) of it around the time of this play's original airing.

But I'm not a betting man, and that's probably for the best.

[Steve]

Hmmmm.....I still liked this story better when it was "Wuthering Heights".


Steve

[Texas]

Steve, thanks...I always appreciate that you pull no punches in your reviews.

In the earliest days of the band "Alice Cooper" (who, in a strange way, were contemporaries of the RMT in the mid-70s) it was said that the late musician Frank Zappa was impressed when he went to one of their shows and everyone but he walked out of the auditorium in mid-performance.

He was convinced that a band which could evoke that much of a reaction had something going for it. Guess this show's somewhat the same, IMO.

[Steve]

Good point Tex---although on this one I guess I'm the only person that [i:35288e50e9]did[/i:35288e50e9] walk out of the auditorium! (Metaphorically speaking.) :wink: Well, actually, I listened to the whole thing, so I guess that's not really the equivalent of walking out of the auditorium. Anyway, what the hey! Everyone else liked it. Thanks for an interesting show choice. Like Brian, I definitely enjoy just listening to what I consider good stories and not looking for metaphors. But I also very much enjoy analyzing all kinds of stories and their subtexts---even if I don't like 'em so much! :D Thanks for enduring my opinions/insights.

Until next time...
Steve

[ApplCinamn]

This was a strangely written one. I completely forgot it was supposed to be set in Victorian times because Barbara's speech was too modern. It could just as easily have been set a century later in a conservative town in the countryside.

I did guess at the twist of Anton being the son at the point when the father was saying he couldn't tell him to leave because he had to repay a debt. I thought only a father's guilt would have compelled him to keep around the guy his family begged him to throw out.

What a nice surprise to hear at the end that Anton was played by the late Michael Zaslow, who won an Emmy for playing a character not too far removed from Anton, the unforgettable Roger Thorpe on Guiding Light. Both actor and character are still missed. :(