The Men Who Knew Too Much

I was a teenager when I first became a fan of Alfred Hitchcock. My parents, bless their hearts, did their best to support my newfound interest. One amazing Christmas, they gifted me with a 4-VHS tape collection of (public domain) Alfred Hitchcock movies and the book The Films of Alfred Hitchcock by Neil Sinyard. At the time I had seen fewer than 10 Hitchcock movies so Sinyard's book did a lot to inform me about those films I had yet to see.

Sinyard's book was something of a 'coffee table book' - an oversized hardcover with big glossy pages of photos from Hitchcock's movies. And yet, it was also full of opinions from the author - not satisfied with merely describing the movies' plots, but frequently subject to the author's own preferences. The coverage was also noticeably skewed in favour of the author's favourite Hitchcock films and to the detriment of those which were not. I liked that book, but I don't know if it was a very good 'first' Hitchcock book; like, the author's opinions about Shadow of a Doubt (which I had not seen when I read the book) seriously interfered with my later enjoyment of the film.

Which brings me to The Man Who Knew Too Much. This is the only time Hitchcock made one of his films twice - first in 1934, again in 1956. As I've learned, this wasn't uncommon among Hitchcock's peers - certainly Cecil B. DeMille, Howard Hawks & Raoul Walsh had no problem remaking their own pictures. But Sinyard's book favoured the 1956 remake and had little to say about the 1934 original. In fact, he devoted only 2 paragraphs to the 1934 movie (and one of those paragraphs was devoted to his opinions on why the 1956 version was better) but gave the 1956 version 2 pages!

The 1934 version came in the VHS set my parents gave me so I had seen that picture and enjoyed it, but it would be several years before I could find a video store where I could rent the 1956 one. When I finally did, I decided I didn't like the 1956 version as much as the original. Over the decades I've now read numerous books about Hitchcock's films and I find that many which were written through the 1990s were convinced the 1956 version was superior; perhaps they simply didn't want to dissent from Hitchcock's own opinion, which, as he informed Francois Truffaut was "the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional." But I've found in the internet age there is a pretty even split between critics who prefer the original and critics who prefer the later version.

Recently I watched the two versions again and I have a few thoughts I'd like to share about them -- and why I prefer the 1934 version.

THE FILMS

1934: A British couple the Lawrences (Leslie Banks & Edna Best) are on vacation in Switzerland so Mrs. Lawrence can compete in a sharpshooting contest when they meet a secret agent, whom Mrs. Lawrence flirts with to tease her husband. When the agent is killed, the dying man leaves them with information about his case. To silence the couple, enemy agents kidnap the Lawrences' daughter and bring her to England where they are plotting to assassinate a diplomat during a concert at the Royal Albert Hall. Unwilling to share what they know with the police, the Lawrences try to rescue their daughter from the enemy agents.

1956: An Americna couple the McKennas (James Stewart & Doris Day) are on vacation in Morocco when they meet a secret agent, whom Mr. McKenna befreinds. When the agent is killed, the dying man leaves them with information about his case. To silence the couple, enemy agents kidnap the McKennas' son and bring him to England where they are plotting to assassinate a diplomat during a concert at the Royal Albert Hall. Unwilling to share what they know with the police, the McKennas try to rescue their son from the enemy agents.

There are many differences between the two films - the original is in black & white, the remake in Technicolor and VistaVision. The original has a very 'small' feeling with tight sets; the remake has a very 'wide' feeling with immense sets. Even the copies I own have their differences - my copy of the original is on a cheap public domain DVD with spotty quality; my copy of the remake is on a beautiful blu-ray with crisp picture and audio.

The first difference I noticed between the films is in the antagonists: the original film has Peter Lorre as the leader of the enemy agents; Lorre was great! My favourite scene occurs after Lorre has bluffed his way past the police when they come close to finding his hideout. Returning to the hideout, Lorre finds his nervous followers have their guns drawn on him as he opens the door. Amused, Lorre mockingly raises his hands as if to surrender. It's a subtle piece of acting with no dialogue and there's simply nothing comparable in the remake. The leader of the spies in the remake was played by Bernard Miles and he made no real impression on me.

But the biggest differences can be found in comparing the female leads - Edna Best in the original, Doris Day in the remake. Both women fade into the background during the middle of the picture, then help thwart the assassination in the Royal Albert Hall by screaming at an opportune pause in the music, and help save their child in the climax by using their unique skillset.

Of course, the two women's skillsets are quite different; Edna Best portrays a sharpshooter and she employs that skill in the climax by killing a man in order to save her daughter. Doris Day portrays a retired singer who performs a song within an embassy where she and her husband think the kidnappers may be holding their son; when she begins singing 'Que Sera' her son whistles in response, proving he's there (it's still up to her husband to save their son), but this only works because the villains help them out - the female kidnapper has had a change of heart and encourages the son to reveal his presence.

There's so much to say about these two women; Edna Best has an interesting role to play in the plot - the man she competes against in the contest at the opening is the same man who will later attempt to assassainte the diplomat - which she thwarts - and he's also the man who menaces her daughter in the climax. The assassin wins the sharpshooting contest in the opening because Peter Lorre throws off Best's aim; she later proves her prowess by shooting the assassin when the police are afraid of hitting her daughter. The competition in Switzerland also helps get the Lawrences into the locale for foreign intrigue.

Doris Day's character is so very different; she gave up her singing career for the sake of her physician husband and doesn't really seem to mind that she gave it up. Both women are startled when their child is kidnapped, but while Best appears weak (she faints), Day is given a sedative by her husband before he tells her, a decision which makes James Stewart's character feel alienating to me as a viewer.

But Doris Day's Mrs. McKenna is simply so passive and helpless in the film. At one point, Mr. McKenna heads off to find 'Ambrose Chapel', whom he assumes is a person. McKenna leaves his wife with four of her friends (3 women, 1 man) who want to throw an impromptu welcoming party at their hotel. After he's gone on this wild goose chase, Day realizes 'Ambrose Chapel' could be a place and asks her male friend to look it up in the directory. She runs off to find Ambrose Chapel. When Mr. McKenna returns and learns about the other Ambrose Chapel he gets the address and prepares to follow her, but then his wife phones him to inform him she's at Ambrose Chapel. She waits outside until he gets there, then they both go in and confirm the two people who kidnapped their son are inside. Mr. McKenna sends his wife out of the church to notify the police.

There are so many strange decisions about the events I described in the paragraph above, especially where Mrs. McKenna's decisions are concerned. Not only is she unable to look up an address in a phone directory without a man's help, once she reaches her destination she doesn't do anything until her husband arrives. The only great moment in that series of events -- one which takes advantage of casting Doris Day -- comes when they enter the church and try to blend in by singing along to a hymn. The scene is a redo of one from the original, but this time because Day is such an accomplished vocalist, her voice is so distinctive that she accidentally draws attention when she begins singing.

But considering Mrs. McKenna does nothing until Mr. McKenna arrives, why didn't they arrive together to begin with? Why couldn't he have encountered her in the hallway on his way back to the hotel and accompanied her to Ambrose Chapel? Or if she had to go there ahead of him, why not have her enter the church and recognize the kidnappers but remain inside, afraid to risk losing sight of them; when Mr. McKenna arrives (remember, he was headed there before she called him anyway) he could then take over monitoring the kidnappers while she exits to call the police. It would have been a little more suspenseful, less languid.

The Royal Albert Hall scene in the remake is the one the critics lauded the most in the books I grew up reading, but I really have to say, it doesn't do much for me. The music is great, but there's so little of interest going on in that scene. Heading into it, we in the audience have been told who the assassin is and at what point in the music he will fire at his target. We're a bit fuzzy about who the target will be, and that's about all the suspense that's involved. When the assassin sees Mrs. McKenna at the hall he reveals his presence to her, threatening her son's life. Then he heads off to make his assassination attempt. Once again, the heroes gain a leg up on the villains because of choices the villains make (here, the assassin giving away his identity so that he can deliver a threat). Compare to the original, where the wife knows who the killer is because he's someone she knows and even has a grudge against!

As in the original film, the woman screams at just the right time to throw off the assassin's aim; unlike the original, where the assassin escapes (to be later killed by Edna Best's character), this time the husband is present as well (instead of being held captive for most of the film as the husband in the original was); Mr. McKenna wrestles with the would-be assassin, who falls over a balcony to his death.

Since the setup for the Royal Albert Hall sequence is "assassin is targeting someone in the audience; woman must somehow thwart him" I think it was a bad call for Hitchcock to tell the audience - and Mrs. McKenna - who the assassin was. A much more suspenseful sequence could have been fabricated if the killer's face hadn't been previously established. Then the scene could have been composed of shots of Mrs. McKenna glancing around the room, trembling each time she sees someone in the audience make a sudden movement. Those watching at home would be in her character's mindset -- where is the killer? How can he be stopped? -- and that would have made the sequence thrilling.

I suppose when I get right down to it, I'm most disappointed in the 1956 version because it is not terribly thrilling or suspenseful. Although both movies are of their time and dated by today's standards, I think the surprisingly-adept female protagonist in the earlier film gives the original movie an edge over the remake. And again, the original has Peter Lorre, against whom there is no competition.

Mort Drucker's "Gone Is the Gargoyle"

To honour the recently-deceased Atlas Comics artist Mort Drucker, today I'm looking at the story "Gone Is the Gargoyle" from Marvel Tales #127 (1954), one of his earliest comic book credits. The story was featured on the cover, although Harry Anderson drew it instead of Drucker:

The cover has a very whimsical tone which doesn't match the story within, as we'll see. The story is set in Paris, France, nearby Notre Dame Cathedral. Our lead character, a French policeman named Georges L'Agent, witnesses an ugly green gargoyle descend from the cathedral and attack a man in the street. L'Agent does absolutely nothing to stop the creature; once the victim is dead, the gargoyle returns to the top of the cathedral and transforms back into stone (his name might be Goliath). When L'Agent reports in to his superiors he doesn't even mention the death he witnessed.

L'Agent goes home to his wife and we quickly learn she's his second bride; his first wife was killed in the streets. When the new bride brings this up, L'Agent becomes angry and strikes her. The next day L'Agent sees the gargoyle come to life and kill another person. This time another man also witnesses the killing, but L'Agent accuses the man of being drunk and arrests him. However, another witness steps forward and both men insist that not only did they see the gargoyle, they observed L'Agent react to the creature. The police investigate the gargoyles but find nothing unusual - they're simply stone statues, after all.

L'Agent goes out on a stroll with his bride when suddenly the gargoyle descends and attacks the woman. L'Agent draws his pistol and shoots the gargoyle to death. However, the dying creature tells the wife the truth: L'Agent murdered his first wife so that he could marry her. L'Agent is himself a gargoyle and the creature is his son. Realizing his secret has been revealed, L'Agent puts the gun to his own head and shoots himself; in death, his body becomes a gargoyle just like his son.

Thoughts: Although this is early Drucker and not at all like the Mad art he would become famous for, it's still very well-drawn, as professional as any average Atlas artist. The story is a little too complicated, particularly with the business about L'Agent murdering his wife. L'Agent's refusal to kill the gargoyle because he's his son is a pretty typical Atlas twist, but throwing in an off-panel murder of a character we readers never met is a bit too much.

RIP: Mort Drucker

Yesterday comic book artist Mort Drucker died, aged 91.

For decades Drucker was one of the regular contributors to Mad Magazine and his art is instantly recognizable as part of the Mad 'house style' -- to the extent that Mad had any kind of 'house style'. It's bittersweet to realize that Drucker just barely outlived Mad itself, as the venerable one-time institution is now defunct.

Drucker was also a veteran of Atlas Comics and there are precious few of them left alive; tomorrow I'll honour his work with Atlas.

Rest in peace, Mr. Drucker.

My 11th year with the Inkwell Awards!

I am pleased to announce that for the 11th year in a row, I am serving on the nomination committee of the Inkwell Awards. The Inkwell Awards remain the comic book industry's greatest champion of the oft-overlooked art of comic book inking. The official announcement of the committee can be found here. Keep watching for the 2020 ballot!

New essay: Cold Comparisons

I have a new essay up at the Hugo Book Club Blog: Cold Comparisons, in which I discuss reactions to Tom Godwin's famous story "Cold Equations". Check it out!

The Problems with Angel, Part 3: Cordelia

And so I've reached the last of my three-part look back at the problems I've identified with Angel. Sadly, it means I have to discuss the series' biggest problem: Cordelia Chase.

Cordelia (played by Charisma Carpenter) was inherited by Angel from the cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Cordelia was introduced as a shallow, vain and rather ditzy teenager who had no particular skillset suited for battling the forces of evil; Cordelia's greatest contribution to Buffy's struggle was that she both owned and drove a car.

Yet despite that, even in the first three seasons Cordelia demonstrated certain hidden depths. She could be quite loyal to the others and willing to help, even when she had precious little to contribute. Once she joined the cast of Angel, however, her character altered significantly - and for the better.

When Cordelia went to work for Angel in "City of" (1x1) she insisted she was only taking the secretarial job "until my inevitable stardom takes effect." She came to Los Angeles hoping to become an actress and that remained a part of her background up until "Birthday" (3x11). But even by the end of the first season, she was quite a different person.

It was a gradual shift; Cordelia commented on it herself in "Bachelor Party" (1x7) when she realized how Angel and Doyle's heroism had affected how she felt about men: "All of a sudden rich and handsome isn't enough for me; now I expect a guy to be all brave and interesting! And it's your fault! Both of you!" Soon after, she inherited Doyle's visions in "Parting Gifts" (1x10), which made her indispensable to Angel's mission as she would guide him against the forces of evil. "You can't fire me, I'm vision girl," Cordelia taunted him in "Untouched" (2x4).

The visions were a terrific way to transform Cordelia into a more selfless, heroic person. She retained her blunt manner of speech, love of fine clothes and dreams of stardom, but she was no longer working for Angel just to collect a paycheck; all of this was made clear in "To Shanshu in L.A." (1x22), when Cordelia loses control of the visions and is exposed an endless series of images where people are in pain. After long hours of suffering, unable to do more than scream or cry, Cordelia is saved by Angel and Wesley; her first words when she revives? "Angel? I saw them all. There's so much pain. ...We have to help them."

During season 2 when Angel turned away from his path to pursue vengeance on Wolfram & Hart, Cordelia, Wesley and Gunn continued to do his work. When Angel finally returned to the group in "Epiphany" (2x16), Wesley put Angel in his place, explaining how much Cordelia had changed. "You don't know her at all. For months now you haven't cared to, otherwise you might have realized that our Cordelia has become a very solitary girl. She's not the vain, carefree creature she once was... Well, certainly not carefree. It's the visions, you see. The visions that were meant to guide you. You could turn away from them - she doesn't have that luxury. She knows and experiences the pain in this city, and because of who she is, she feels compelled to do something about it. It's left her little time for anything else. You'd have known that - if you hadn't had you head firmly up your... place that isn't on top of your neck."

It also helped that Cordelia's visions were increasingly causing her great pain. The visions had been painful from the first episode of the series, but it became a plot point late in season 2 that Cordelia was finding it harder to keep receiving the visions; she was not only suffering more mental trauma from the terrifying images she saw, but also developing health problems.

This brings us to season 3, where Cordelia's character began to slowly derail - but it was only clear in retrospect that the problems began there. Certainly Angel fandom was up in arms about Cordelia that year and not in a positive way. From the outset, it became clear that Cordelia was being set up as a love interest for Angel. Some fans liked that idea; some fans didn't. But a very vocal segment of fandom was upset because of how drastically Cordelia was changing.

Cordelia had a wonderful ability to deliver sarcastic put-downs without becoming unlikable herself. But this aspect of her character started to ebb away, along with her interests in money and stardom; then to, her relationship with the Grosalugg in the latter half of season 3 was brought up mainly to write the Grosalugg out for good - to put Cordelia past admiring men for their good looks. Cordelia was now Angel's greatest confidante, the one who would share perhaps one heartwarming/inspirational speech with Angel each episode. Fans dubbed this change, "Saint Cordelia."

"Saint Cordelia" became such a meme in fandom that even the creators got wind of it and referenced it in "Calvary" (4x12). Fans used the nickname principally to display their displeasure with Cordelia's personality change, but many also disliked the attempt to pair her up with Angel - mainly because the changes seemed to have occurred in order to correct any 'imperfections' in Cordelia, to render her 'worthy' of being the lead character's love interest.

And yes, season 3 laid it on pretty thick; in "That Vision Thing" (3x2), Cordelia is so noble she refuses to give up the visions even as Wolfram & Hart are using them to inflict physical damage on her. In "Birthday" she's given the chance to alter her past to remove the visions from her and become a famous star, but decides she'd rather keep the visions and help Angel. In the latter part of season 3, while she's dating the Groosalugg, nearly every romantic moment with Groo is undermined by a bit where she worries about Angel or says something which indicates to Groo that she cares more about Angel than him.

The circle the characters of Angel inhabited became significantly smaller in season 3. Fred had no life outside of helping Angel Investigations, to the point where she didn't want her family to know where she was (3x5); Gunn formally broke ties with his gang in "That Old Gang of Mine" (3x3), removing his character's independence; Lorne lost his club and moved into the Hyperion Hotel in "Dad" (3x10); Wesley and Cordelia had social lives and interests outside of Angel Investigations prior to season 3 - but by mid-season they had no lives beyond what went on in the offices of Angel Investigations.

Shrinking Angel's universe couldn't help but feel incestuous; creating love triangles among the lead characters (first, Gunn-Fred-Wesley; later, Angel-Cordelia-Connor) made the world feel smaller. Likewise the growing emphasis on storyarcs and de-emphasis on 'case-of-the-week' episodes. Indeed, the firm of Angel Investigations had fewer and fewer clients in season 3; the idea that Angel and his friends were running a business became less and less important, to the extent that one interesting idea - Wolfram & Hart trying to tie up Angel by using real world law - was dismissed for good in the same episode where it was brought up (3x4).

This sense of smallness became a huge problem in season 4, where virtually all of the drama of the season was due to events in the characters' personal lives. One senses the creators were themselves aghast what they had wrought; at various points the characters voiced complaints about the season's arc: "I spent most of this year trapped in what I can only describe as a turgid supernatural soap opera," Gunn complained in "Players" (4x16). And after Wesley explained Connor's backstory to Faith in "Salvage" (4x13) Faith quipped, "Can I just ask: what the hell are you people doing?" Wesley meekly answered, "Leading... complicated lives."

In some sense, the events of "Birthday" - where Cordelia became half-demon - marked the end of the Cordelia who fans were familiar with. After that episode her powers changed on an episode-to-episode basis and she was defined mostly by her relationships with the Groosalugg and Angel - to the point that afer going on vacation in "Couplet" (3x14), she had no more significant friendship moments with Wesley for the rest of season 3 or entirety of season 4. And the Cordelia-Wesley friendship had been a hallmark of the program's first 2.5 years! But with Cordelia and Wesley each tied up in separate love triangles, the creators seemed to forget they had a relationship dynamic of their own.

In another sense, Cordelia didn't appear at all in season 4; first she's a 'higher power' (4x1), then she's amnesiac (4x3), then she isolates herself from the group (4x6), then she's revealed to be the season's 'big bad' (4x12), then she falls into a coma (4x17). The storyarc involving Cordelia's transformation into a 'big bad' is definitely a problematic one - there was a lot of behind-the-scenes trouble, notably that Charisma Carpenter's pregnancy changed the plot so that Cordelia was being possessed by the actual big bad, Jasmine.

Frankly, assigning all of the evil Cordelia did to the character of Jasmine was an immense relief to me. I liked Cordelia and it had been difficult to watch her become a sneering, bloodthirsty villain. Jasmine's arrival in "Inside Out" (4x17) was kind of a relief to me because it meant Cordelia could escape from the plot with some of her dignity intact (although apparently this was all much less-fun for Charisma Carpenter, who was basically booted off the show as 'punishment' for getting pregnant).

But the worst aspect of the evil Cordelia plot came about during "Inside Out" in one of the most ill-advised passages in the entire series. It's during that episode that the character Skip delves into a lengthy explanation of how Jasmine had orchestrated her plot. I'm sure the creators considered it a lot of very clever work - tying together events from the first four seasons to make Jasmine appear to be the series' grandest villain, a plot which could appear to have been set in motion all the way back in "City Of". Here is that ill-advised conversation:

Angel: "It doesn't make sense. Cordy was made a higher being because she proved herself to the Powers by bearing their visions. This thing couldn't have--"
Wesley: "--Unless it maneuvered her to inherit the visions in the first place."
Skip: "Uh, oh. Better step on it. The rubes are catching up."
Angel: "It wasn't just her ascension. Everything that's happened to Cordy in the past few years-- all of it—- was planned."
Skip: "You really think it stops with her, amigo? You have any concept of how many lines have to intersect in order for a thing like this to play out? How many events have to be nudged in just the right direction? Leaving Pylea. Your sister. Opening the wrong book. Sleeping with the enemy. Gosh, I love a story with scope."
Gunn: "No way. We make our own choices."
Skip: "Yeah, sure. Cheese sandwich here, uh, when to floss. But the big stuff, like two vampires squeezing out a kid?"
Angel: "Connor."
Wesley: "An impossible birth to make one possible."
Skip: "That's what the kid was designed for."
Lorne: "To sleep with mother love?"
Angel: "To create a vessel."
Skip: "Look out. The monkey's thinking again."

There are two huge problems with the claims Skip made:

1. Jasmine's supposedly great master plan had already been undermined twice - first when Angelus killed the Beast in "Salvage" and again when Willow restored Angel's soul in "Orpheus" (4x15).
2. The idea that the characters on Angel did not possess free will is fundamentally contrary to the premise of the series - the whole notion of Angel seeking redemption for himself and others, to say nothing of whether his 'pivotal role' in the Apocalypse is to played on the side of good or evil.

The creators fortunately forgot they'd written this as soon as it was aired, I guess? Because the series got back on track; much later in the program during "Power Play" (5x21), Angel himself summed up the series' actual philosophy: "The powerful control everything... except our will to choose. Look, Lindsey's a pathetic halfwit, but he was right about one thing: heroes don't accept the way the world is."

So many of the decisions made around Cordelia in seasons 3 & 4 were bad calls - not only her transformation into a villain, but altering her powers (for no particular purpose other than to write away the subplot about the visions harming her), altering her goals and involving her in in what is the Buffyverse's single least-beloved relationship (with Connor - no mean feat, considering how many Buffy-Riley & Willow-Kennedy haters there are) all added up to a pretty dismal fate for what had been one of the series' best characters. She was legitimately the second lead of the series... only to be written out.

I haven't named any of the Angel creators thus far (other than executive producer Joss Whedon) but I definitely need to single out writer David Fury, who wrote "You're Welcome" (5x12). "You're Welcome" was an amazing feat of writing as it not only gave Cordelia a great send-off but at the same time washed away all of the ill will which season 4 in particular had created. In just one episode, everyone who had liked Cordelia in the past was instantly reminded of why she had been such a beloved character. And considering it was her farewell to the series, it really needed to be done.

These, then, are the three biggest problems I've noticed with Angel. But along the way I've tried to comment on parts of the series which did work; and I do think most of the series still holds up. Heck, season 4 was by far my least-favourite season, but it still contains a number of episodes that I truly enjoy and season 5 turned out to be my favourite season of the program.

The Problems with Angel, Part 2: Connor

So... Connor.

Connor (played by Vincent Kartheiser) was the son of the titular protagonist of Angel. The character was born as an infant in "Lullaby" (3x9), disappeared in "Sleep Tight" (3x16), then returned (as Kartheiser) in the closing seconds of "The Price" (3x19). Connor was promoted to a spot as a lead cast member as of "Deep Down" (4x1) but was eliminated from the cast at the end of the season (4x22). Subsequently he returned for two guest appearances in the 5th season (5x18 & 5x22).

I was involved in the online fan community at the time "The Price" aired and I monitored reactions from fans throughout the character's appearances. Connor was not well-loved. Well, that is, Connor the baby was absolutely adored by Angel fandom. But when people talk about Connor, they usually mean the version who debuted in "The Price".

There was a tradition going back to Buffy the Vampire Slayer that the creative team wanted at least one recurring character who would butt heads with the program's hero. For most of her time on Buffy, Cordelia Chase (played by Charisma Carpenter) was present principally to mock Buffy and her friends and predict certain doom for everyone. She was like C-3PO, if that comparison makes sense to you.

James Marsters has said that one of the reasons his character Spike was promoted to a leading role on Buffy was to fill the void left when Cordelia joined the cast of Angel. Yet at the same time, Cordelia quickly evolved on Angel - no longer the doomsayer, she quickly became a staunch ally who would criticize the show's hero in private, but relentlessly defend him before others. Cordelia had undergone character development, so Angel needed its own critic.

Initially that unwelcome responsibility fell upon Kate Lockley (played by Elisabeth Rohm), who was present partially to serve as a love interest to Angel, but also as someone to be an uneasy ally, frequently suspicious of him. I found Kate to be a very compelling character, one who had a valid viewpoint. And yet, a lot of fans did not (and still do not) like her because she would oppose Angel almost reflexively. Who would have thought that a character who says in her debut appearance (1x2) that she has "trust issues" would go on to demonstrate that she has trust issues?!

Kate departed in "Epiphany" (2x16), mainly because Rohm had joined the cast of Law & Order. Apparently if she had been available, Kate would have become Holtz's chief lieutenant in season 3, rather than the new character Justine. I don't know if that means the creators would have made Kate slit Wesley's throat, but that would have certainly cemented Kate as the most disliked person on Angel. But instead, the single most problematic character became Angel's own son, Connor.

Connor seems to have been made a regular principally to be the critic, the doomsayer, the one who would give Angel a hard time. Unlike Kate, whose interactions contained an element of sexual tension, Connor would complicate Angel's life because of their father-son relationship (or lack thereof). A son who disobeys and talks back to his father - that's a good basis for some character conflict, and Angel ran on character conflict like it was gasoline.

Why didn't it work?

In the 1982 film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the character of Dr. David Marcus is introduced. He's a scientist who is deeply critical of Starfleet (which he refers to as 'the military') and looks down on the franchise's hero, James T. Kirk. As the film progresses, the audience learns David is Kirk's son, raised by his mother Carol away from his father's influence. At the end of the film, after seeing his father's grief at the death of his friend Spock, David consoles Kirk and reveals he knows Kirk is his father - and he's proud to be Kirk's son.

There are some helpful comparisons to be drawn between David Marcus and Connor; both are the sons of the series' lead protagonist; both were raised outside of their father's influence; both are sharply critical of their father. And just as Angel fandom had some trouble accepting Connor, there were a lot of Star Trek fans in 1982 who weren't quite sure how to feel about David. One fan observed that although David was not an especially likeable character on his own merits, they made allowances for his behaviour based solely on who his father was. That is, David inherited some of the affection fans had for his father.

I think it also helped that David's last significant scene in the film was that where he humbled himself and hugged his father. There is simply no similar scene for Connor between "The Price" and "Home" (4x22). At various times during that interval, Angel lectures Connor. At various times he fights and defeats Connor. Yet Connor remains unchanged - even growing more unhinged as the series progresses.

The fundamental problem with Connor as a character who criticizes Angel is that we in the audience are meant to take him seriously. Connor wasn't simply taunting or teasing Angel in the manner of Cordelia & Spike on Buffy; he wasn't merely disagreeing or threatening Angel as Kate had on various occasions; he attempted to murder Angel (3x20), then followed it up by imprisoning his father on the floor of the ocean (3x22).

Allowances for Connor's behaviour can be made because, as was frequently mentioned, he was raised in a 'Hell dimension' - raised by Angel's nemesis Holtz, a man whose family was brutally killed by Angelus. Holtz had a legitimate quarrel with Angelus and used Connor as a means to hurt Angel - realizing that because of Angel's human soul, he could be made to feel deep emotional pain. After raising Connor as his own son, Holtz arranged to have himself murdered and to frame Angel for the act, ensuring Connor would forever hate his father (3x21).

So yes, Connor was a victim - you could even call him 'brainwashed' by Holtz. But that, unfortunately, eliminates him as a viable critic. How can any of Connor's criticisms of Angel be taken as valid when he is fundamentally incapable of sound judgement? In the first half of season 4, there is a sense that the creators wanted to set up Connor as an 'alternative viewpoint' to that of Angel; certainly when Connor invites the amnesiac Cordelia to live with him instead of Angel in "Slouching Toward Bethlehem" (4x4) it places Connor as a rival to Angel.

But Connor didn't change. During "Soulless" (4x11) it becomes clear that he remained a victim of Holtz's brainwashing. How were we in the audience meant to consider Connor's viewpoint when he seemed barely able to support his own views?

Fissures began to form. Starting with "Salvage" (4x13), the criticisms fans had been making about Connor online seemed to be referenced on the show itself. In that episode, Faith makes a guest appearance and both verbally and physically disciplines Connor when he refuses to follow her orders. This continues into "Orpheus" (4x15), where after Faith gives Connor a thorough thrashing, Gunn remarks, "I just wish I could've seen you kicking the crap out of junior, here." Faith agrees. "It was pretty funny."

At the time "Orpheus" aired I was amused to see the program acknowledge how disliked Connor was by having the characters verbalize their own dislike of Connor. But in retrospect, it's not a good sign when a television show gives up on one of its main characters - and that's what was going on with Connor. A few episodes later in "Sacrifice" (4x20), there was a brief scene where Angel beat up Connor. It was at least the third time that season that viewers had seen Angel defeat his son in a fight, but that one stood out to me because the friends I was watching Angel with thought that scene was hysterical; unlike the previous two fights (4x1 & 4x6), Angel and Connor's fight went on mostly off-camera, so the sudden appearance of Connor's unconscious body, thrown on the hood of a car, provoked laughter from my friends. They hated Connor.

I wanted to like Connor; it's the same principle Star Trek fans struggled with for David Marcus. Although I found Connor to be a pretty obnoxious character with no real redeeming qualities, I did like Angel, so I wanted to like Connor. If only the show would meet me halfway! But the creators had written a deeply stubborn character who refused to grow, learn or change. The only ways in which he did change were not for the better - as season 4 progressed, he turned out to be a willing accomplice to the season's 'big bad', Jasmine. In the finale, he fought Angel yet again, then had his memories altered.

The attitude of my friends to Connor's fate in "Home" was good riddance. They were happy to move on. But for me, as a fan of a television program which is thematically about redemption, I wasn't as willing to give up on Connor. And happily, once he stopped being a series regular the creators were at least ready to meet fans halfway (also, season 5 was their last opportunity to handle any of the characters). In season 5 Connor returned in two episodes; his memories were restored in "Origin", which was confirmed in "Not Fade Away", yet Connor has no particular angst about his fate - for the first time, he understands that Angel cares about him and changed his memories in an attempt to help him. Without being asked to, he fights at his father's side for the battle against Hamilton. Connor is ready to participate in the final fight against the armies of the Senior Partners, but Angel asks him to stay out of it. "But they'll destroy you," Connor protests. "As long as you're alive, they can't," Angel answers. There are no further complaints or protests. Connor and Angel are finally at peace with each other.

There was a lot of wasted potential in Connor; for one thing, the series never did get around to explain what the heck he was. He was the son of two vampires - a "miracle child". The best theory is that Connor's soul was the result of Angel winning the trial for Darla's life in "The Trial" (2x9); in that episode, Angel won Darla a second chance at life, only to learn because she had already been resurrected the second chance couldn't be used to save her again; Connor's life, body & soul, is the result of Angel's victory in "The Trial".

Okay, but why did Connor have superhuman strength and tracking abilities? He seemed at times to have all the powers of a vampire but in a human form. At one time, Angel wondered if the prophecies about his own role in the Apocalypse were actually referring to Connor - that Angel's destiny was to train Connor to play that oft-referenced 'pivotal role' in the Apocalypse.

There was so much more that could have been done with Connor on Angel - but the program mostly reduced him to a whiny brat who would typically insult Angel then get punched in the face. It was not much fun to watch back when it first aired. Still, at least the character was redeemed in season 5. And heck, Connor isn't my biggest problem with Angel...

Tomorrow: Cordelia.