Heroes 1:19 0.07%

[hazelk]

Belatedly but Happy Birthday beer_good_foamy!


Sometimes when people aren’t sleeping we have to watch Heroes with the sound down but it’s such a visual show you scarcely miss the dialogue. This episode had the Sylar /Peter deathmatch and future!Hiro’s string history but the most noticeable sight was the expensive garishness of the Petrelli apartment, surely nobody lives in a room with such mustard yellow walls? Although, it probably looks good decorating a magazine feature.

Mr Bennet is the man who won’t be fooled again rejecting fake Claire. He knows his weaknesses now, the location of every rusty pipe and it’s use them or lose them. Mr Bennet wins freedom and an opportunity to cover Claire’s tracks but I think Noah gives up something in the exchange.

Bennet left his contempt for schlubs showing in his interactions with Matt (very middle management, a true contender like Nathan Petrelli wouldn’t care). Nathan also differs in knowing that his emotions make him stronger and uses his affection for Peter to deflect Linderderman’s so-tempting argument of percentage points. Though it’s tempting because he has to believe he could make a difference worth such a sacrifice.

Angela tempting Claire with their likenesses. So she used to be part of the Company but split of from them? Or would like Claire to believe it. She’s very good, I still wonder how she came to recruit the Haitian. S2 rumour has it that (highlight to read potential spoilers) her power is persuasion but it would be neater if it worked as a reverse of his, the ability to highlight selected memories rather than suppress them. It is a big part of what political campaigners aim for, to get people to selectively remember the good when they’re the incumbent, the bad when they’re opposition.

Issac died well, which I’m relieved by because I like being able to like everyone on a show and the thing with Simone had me rooting for his comeuppance (not a good place to be left in). RIP Issac, the future did you no favours but you passed on it with grace.

Comments

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Thanks a lot! :-D

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Bennet left his contempt for schlubs showing in his interactions with Matt (very middle management, a true contender like Nathan Petrelli wouldn’t care).

That's what I was thinking of when commenting to your "Company Man" post, I think, about future eps going more into hierarchies. (The middle management comment was a hilarious moment, and Bennet's reaction made the scene.) He's definitely treating Matt and Ted as his subordinates here. Mind you, Matt does respond well to orders, up to a certain point. This kind of approach by Noah B. works very well in the short term - they get out of the building thanks to Bennet and his precise orders - but long term wise treating people who actually DON'T work for you but think they work WITH you as subordinates could spell disaster. The comparison to Nathan is interesting and insightful, but I can't say why without spoilers.

Nathan also differs in knowing that his emotions make him stronger and uses his affection for Peter to deflect Linderderman’s so-tempting argument of percentage points.

Wellllll, yes and no. The thing is, Nathan is not even tempted for as long as he thinks those .07% dying would include Peter. His temptation starts the moment Peter says he could survive the explosion, because that means he could have the shiny future in the White House AND Peter. So the question for the rest of the season isn't "does Nathan love Peter?" but "how does he love Peter?" i.e. is it a possessive love that cares about having the object of your affection but not about that person's state of mind and heart, or does he love Peter in the sense of caring more about what being the cause of all those deaths would do to Peter than about his own welfare?

Then, of course, there is the extraordinary "I don't know who I'd be without you". Would you have thought you'd hear Nathan say that in the show's pilot? And the thing is, he means it. If you want to draw a parallel to Bennet, you could say Bennet goes from defining himself as a Company Man to defining himself through the protecting-Claire-mission, and both postulate that you don't see good in yourself, you see it in the other beloved person.

Angela tempting Claire with their likenesses. So she used to be part of the Company but split of from them? Or would like Claire to believe it. She’s very good, I still wonder how she came to recruit the Haitian.

The Haitian FINALLY says something about himself and Angela in the episode most recently broadcast. It's not much, but it's something definite.

The Angela-Claire scene is one of my favourite scenes in this much loved episode. As a minor detail that shows that Angela can never, for a moment, stop manipulating, observe her statement when Claire looks at the photo of Nathan and Peter: "My two boys, getting along for a change." Thus implying they usually don't, and positioning herself as the only reliable source of affection and information.

(And then, of course, there is the spectacular dysfuntionality of the mourning for Peter scenes. Because each of them does it alone. Angela's grief is genuine, but she can only show it when she's alone with Peter's body, not in front of Mohinder OR Nathan and Claire. When Nathan has his turn of being shattered by grief and holding Peter, Angela can't share this, she appeals to his inner politician instead, as if this is the only language they could share, and of course it fails because Nathan really doesn't care without Peter. And of course "let the girl have her moment" again implies Claire's grief isn't something to be shared, either. That family is screwed up beyond belief.)

RIP Issac, the future did you no favours but you passed on it with grace.

He faced his death with strength, courage and without self-pity, making sure that whatever help he could provide was given first via the messenger fanboy and his sketches. It definitely was redemption for Simone. (And infuriated Sylar. Speaking of whom, did you notice what he painted in the last scene?)

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

The middle management comment was a hilarious moment, and Bennet's reaction made the scene.

The three stooges, I don't think I've ever learnt their names but Bennet would be the Groucho if they were the Marx brothers. Also it's a nice touch to have three middle-aged men with families and mid-life crises attached as a superhero team. Like when Nathan turned out to be the one who could fly.

The thing is, Nathan is not even tempted for as long as he thinks those .07% dying would include Peter.

I don't doubt that Peter is a deal breaker but I had the impression that he didn't think of it at first. His first response to Linderman was that he was down in the polls (significantly not something more idealistic along the lines of a nation united by fear not necessariy being the recipe for a better world). It's not until Linderman counters with the picture of President Petrelli that Nathan remembers that this all depends on Peter being the exploding man. I get the impression that he doen't want to trust Linderman's vision (which is a good instinct), finding that Peter (if no-one else) could survive such an explosion makes things very complicated for him.

both postulate that you don't see good in yourself, you see it in the other beloved person.

Very much so and Nathan being able to tell Peter as much does imply that their relationship is healthy in a way that the one with their mother isn't. Although she could tell Peter she couldn't lose him but it didn't come across as an unforced admission in quite the same way.

I was a little distracted from the mourning scenes by the certainty that Peter wasn't pernamently dead but you're right they were a perfect demonstration of the Petrelli familiy fuckedupedness.

Sylar. Speaking of whom, did you notice what he painted in the last scene?

The orcish mockery of Issac's President Petrelli painting? That was very good, very ominous.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

The Marx brothers is such a fitting image. *adopts*

I get the impression that he doen't want to trust Linderman's vision (which is a good instinct), finding that Peter (if no-one else) could survive such an explosion makes things very complicated for him.

"way down it the polls": it's significant that Nathan doesn't adopt the euphemisms Linderman and, um, later others use when talking of Plan Let New York Blow Up; in his first conversation with Linderman, he called it "insane", and in later ones he says "mass murder". He's a realist among visionaries (good or bad) in this; but otoh, he's not completely unreceptive to the thoughtline of "if this happens no matter what, AND PETER WILL SURVIVE no matter what, well, then maybe I could make a difference and create something good out of it", which is the temptation. And then there's the part where Nathan is distinctly uneasy about the whole superpower thing anyway. He could handle Linderman as long as he thought Linderman was simply a very powerful mobster, which made Linderman dangerous, but a part of his normal Nathan Petrelli, ADA and aspiring politician life, something he's good and confident at. On the other hand, Linderman revealing he's one of the chief pull stringers in the special powers world changes things, because Nathan's instinctive response to the whole superpower thing was repress, repress, repress, and he had only started to gradually relax about it due to Hiro and of course the necessity of dealing with it because of Peter.

I was a little distracted from the mourning scenes by the certainty that Peter wasn't pernamently dead but you're right they were a perfect demonstration of the Petrelli family fuckedupedness.

I knew he wasn't permanently dead (not because I was spoiled at the time, which I wasn't, but because that was a no-brainer, given that Peter's role as the bomb obviously meant he had to be around in the finale), but I still found the scenes very affecting for what they said about each relationship.

The orcish mockery of Issac's President Petrelli painting? That was very good, very ominous.

Some people deduced something from it which I didn't, so I was curious whether you would. We'll talk after you've seen Five Years Gone. *veg*

Sidenote: it's a neat subtle trivia bit 12_12_12 pointed out: when Peter is using Isaac's gift back in Hiros, he's painting like Isaac does, meaning some physical posture down to head tilt, and he's painting left handed whereas Peter normally is right handed. Also, the result, while not as accomplished as Isaac's paintings, is in Isaac's style. Whereas when Sylar uses Isaac's gift, his physical posture is entirely his own, he's painting right handed (deliberate choice, the actor is left-handed), and the style again is his own. Which says something about the different way each gets and deals with others' powers.

Oh, and .07% gives us the first of the wedding photos. These keep turning up in different variations on this show, to the point where you wonder what the wedding photographer was thinking. I mean, one photo of the groom and his brother, 'kay, but so far we've got:








and the one in the middle of these pictures.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Argh, wrong first photo, that was meant to be this:

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Whereas when Sylar uses Isaac's gift, his physical posture is entirely his own, he's painting right handed (deliberate choice, the actor is left-handed), and the style again is his own.

Excellent point. As for the multiple 'wedding' phots in all shades of tielessness I got nothing :-)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Well, you know, the show showed some restraint. After all, they could have used these photos.... Just kidding. These are of the actors, not the characters, on their recent tour to promote the show in Europe (i.e Adrian Pasdar, Jack Coleman, Milo Ventimiglia and Hayden Panettiere went to Europe, the rest of the cast did Asia and the US; in short, we got the Petrelli/Bennet team!). There is a fun (and unspoilery, don't worry) picspam of that tour
here.