[This thread originates in ExE: 'Rules of Luton']
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:54:38 -0400 From: Paul Dorion (pdorion@mediom4tag.qc.ca) Subject: Re: Space1999: The Rules of Luton > Perhaps orthodox Jewish fundamentalism would be better fitting with Freiberger's > background. It could be the catch phrase of old Freiberger snr. speaking > of King David and a united Israel. Petter, are you making this as you go along ??? Where did you get *accurate* and *reliable* information about Freiberger' father ??? On whose credentials are you writing such pseudo-analysis ??? Am I the only one who finds shameful this kind of criticism ? I must say this is one of the nastiest and truly gratuitous piece of character assassination I have ever seen. I for one do *not* see it appropriate to drag a person's relatives into an out-of-nowhere pseudo-psychological analysis of somebody's work. You may actually dislike Freiberger's input in the series (you may even hate the stories he wrote), but spreading alleged stories and gossip (or fantasies or outright lies) about somebody's relatives to promote *your* point of view on his work and vision is something I find quite distateful. I have learned the hard way that fantasies, half-truths and lies tend to keep alive, even after they are proven wrong again and again and again. Any crew member's relatives (unless *proven* otherwise) are *not* involved in said person's actions and views on the production of Space: 1999. For heaven's sake, attack the bloody man on his ideas, his vision, his work, but stay focused on the public man, not his relatives and friends (a part of his *private* life) who are *not* the issue here and whose privacy should be respected (as basic decency dictates) as no private person deserves to have their reputation soiled in this way!! Paul
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:14:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Perry (indylibrary@yahoo4tag.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: The Rules of Luton > Where did you get *accurate* and *reliable* information about > Freiberger' father ??? On whose credentials are you writing such > pseudo-analysis ??? Actually, he *said* "could be" at the beginning of the statement..... and I don't think that was pseudo-analysis, just his opinion about a possibility. > Am I the only one who finds shameful this kind of criticism ? Not really shameful. Just typical collegian efforts to explain the obvious (He sucks) in terms of the esoteric (his father and background makes him Suck...) Michael
From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:42:45 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: The Rules of Luton > Where did you get *accurate* and *reliable* information about > Freiberger' father ??? On whose credentials are you writing such > pseudo-analysis ??? I certainly hope nobody got carried away believing that these speculations had anything to do with reality. I always try to state things like this as hypothetical as possible, but I too sometimes read more into what is being said than is actually put to paper. Anyway, not intending to harm anyone, Freiberger the least, I was actually trying to make an hypothesis about what THE RULES OF LUTON was really all about. As there seem to be little to investigate concerning the running around bits, I feel the dialogue would have to be the place to look. Reflecting over what Maya and Koenig are actually saying, the simplest solution that occurs to me is that this is Freiberger talking about himself, his way of thought and his way of doing things. I agree that an interpretation concerning the writers personal habits or problems is not a very satisfiable one, not even if we were discussing Ibsen or Checkov, I think, it is the writing that is under the microscope, not the writer. As we know, however, one of the main difficulties in understanding Shakespeare is that there is so little information on the man himself. It's fine that the issue is brought up, I think, for unlike episodes like THE LAST SUNSET or WAR GAMES that are clearly ment to be parables of human endeavour, it's extremely difficult to find a deeper meaning to the works of Freiberger, Terpiloff, Wallace and the unknown person who wrote DRAGON'S DOMAIN without trying to speculate about the state of mind of the writer in each seperate case, I feel. In fact, if one writes in the manner of these, apparently using their personal experience of the world as the sole basis for plot and structure instead of investigating some general idea external to themselves, I feel they more or less invite the reader to speculate. How could we else make sense of what they are writing? There are problems to this approach, however, and the main thing is, I feel, how does one seperate the man from his writing? Understanding the THE RULES OF LUTON is the interesting thing here, I feel, not understanding Freiberger the writer per se. From my point of view understanding Freiberger is only part of the problem, but in this case obviously an important part, in order to understand the episode. There is nothing I would like more than to find thought provoking material in this episode so that one could expand ones mind by seeing the world from a slightly different angle. Many episodes have this quality, I feel. When watching something like, say, VOYAGER'S RETURN there is an abundance of assosiations and insights to life, at least from my point of view, both on emotional and intellectual terms. With episodes like THE RULES OF LUTON one have to dig deeper, I presume, as Woodgrove doesn't seem to be saying very much regarding the surface value of it. Well, could some insight to the mind of the writer contribute in any way to make the episode more interesting and valuable? I certainly hope so, just as all the general gossip about the Andersons, the Landaus the people and the conflicts on and off the set seem to give more insight and value to the episodes, even if SPACE:1999 as a series is our main quest, understanding the people who made only a tool for reaching that. I hope the human issues may clearify the episodes, but I'm not certain. If the person being discussed is discussed because of his virtues or we are trying to understand what makes something revel, I often find the author oriented approach good. In other cases, Anthony Terpiloff is the one the comes closest to mind, if it would turn out that our speculations about him being a man who is fatally ill and this is the reason for writing incomprehensible material about death, death giving meaning to life, better to surrender than to fight, belief is better than logic and lonely creatures who are searching their own death, then the episodes turn from bad to tragic. I don't know if this is a good thing. Sometimes it is better not to know the truth, I assume. In the case of Freiberger, however, the prominent feature seems to be vitality rather than striving for death. In a way there could be soemthing to learn from the writing of Freiberger, I definitely think so, although the best summar of his philosophy so far was the statements made by Jon Stadter, I think. Jon wrote: > You can pretty much understand each of these episodes in their totality > with a single line to sum them up-- Several people have written similarily. I think, however, this is one of the clearest summing up to the Freiberger universe. The idea of people fighting for their lives is apparent in all episodes, although they all seem illuminate different sides to his philosophy of life. I feel, if one is to get anywhere in understanding these episodes one must allowed to speculate somewhat. What makes a man write material like this? Does he believe in it? Is this what Freiberger saw as a solution to what he considered problems in Year One? Obviously a very hard man to understand and from my point of view, and in this case speculations about what made him write things like this is the only way to begin to understand what THE RULES OF LUTON is all about, I feel. Petter
From: David Acheson (dkach@hot44mail.com) Subject: Space1999: Psychoanalysing Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:52:51 EDT Petter character assassinating? A little strong I would think but, as Petter himself stated, there is a lot of hypothesis. Unfortunately, without knowing the background one could hypothesize anything to fit his/her view on things. Sometimes I do get that feeling from Petter's pro-year one, anti-Freiberger analysis in recent discussions. The truth is I don't know much about Freiberger so cannot comment on his family or life experiences. Freddie boy could have been born in Anchorage, Alaska for all I know. The biggest problem I see with the educated, psycho-analysis types is that they have a hard time comprehending the simplistic. I do not mean to criticize Petter in any way but JUST MAYBE Freiberger's one-dimensional cartoonish approach was just that. That there may not be anything to read into it. I agree with Petter that understanding Freiberger's writing is difficult compared to the works of Johnny Byrne, Anthony Terpiloff, Christopher Penfold and even Donald James. These were writers. Fred Freiberger was an entertainment exec. Sometimes these two worlds clash. Sometimes modern art is exactly the same. I laugh when I see all these experts talking about technique and conflicts over nothing more than a red dot. I like fine wines, good food, live theatre and travel too but sometimes a hot dog and corn-ball fun is just as good. Its okay to like the analytical stuff over adventure and vice-versa but we must understand the context in which it is developed or else we are just making it up, as someone on the list had said earlier. Petter, I've enjoyed your year one analysis even if I didn't always agree with you. I admit I found your year two analysis somewhat off the wall but I don't believe for one moment you are character assasinating! David Acheson
From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:00:34 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: Psychoanalysing David Acheson wrote: > Petter character assassinating? A little strong I would think but, as > Petter himself stated, there is a lot of hypothesis. Unfortunately, > without knowing the background one could hypothesize anything to fit > his/her view on things. Sometimes I do get that feeling from Petter's > pro-year one, anti-Freiberger analysis in recent discussions. Perhaps it looks this way, but I don't think this is the way it works. Although I'm biased, what I try to look for is a deeper understanding of Year Two, trying to take the series for what it is worth. Personally I don't think my hypothesis have been all that far fetched either, but if anyone have simpler explanations that will give a reasonable insight I'm perfectly willing to change my opinions. > The truth > is I don't know much about Freiberger so cannot comment on his family or > life experiences. Freddie boy could have been born in Anchorage, Alaska > for all I know. THE RULES OF LUTON is a difficult episode to analyse, I agree. As in most other circumstance I don't think the writers family and life experience in general is vital for getting to terms with the text. In this case, however, as we have so little to build on within the episode itself, I feel speculations about these aspects are more or less the only available path at this moment. > The biggest problem I see with the educated, psycho-analysis types is > that they have a hard time comprehending the simplistic. I do not mean > to criticize Petter in any way but JUST MAYBE Freiberger's > one-dimensional cartoonish approach was just that. That there may not be > anything to read into it. Unless the script was written by a computer or by ten monkeys typing at random there will always be traces of some kind of deeper meaning, I believe. Saying that there is really no meaning would be, from my point of view at lesat, more or less equal to giving up. > I like fine wines, good food, live theatre and travel too but sometimes > a hot dog and corn-ball fun is just as good. Its okay to like the > analytical stuff over adventure and vice-versa but we must understand > the context in which it is developed or else we are just making it up, > as someone on the list had said earlier. I agree to this. Sometimes its nice with the world of fine wines, good food, classical music, live theatre, travel and Year One, sometimes it's okay with homemade beer, junk food, pop music, puppet theatre and Year Two. Heh heh. > Petter, I've enjoyed your year one analysis even if I didn't always > agree with you. I admit I found your year two analysis somewhat off the > wall but I don't believe for one moment you are character assasinating! Thanks for the kind words, David. Personally I don't think I'm all that much off the wall, really, but it's difficult to agree with everybody all the time. Contrary to assasinating, what I want to do is to contribute to making some sense out of Year Two, a season that seems totally hopeless on surface value, but may, nevertheless, contain some interesting pieces if one cares for looking deeper into it. Petter
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:30:25 -0400 From: Paul Dorion (pdorion@mediom4tag.qc.ca) Subject: Re: Space1999: The Rules of Luton Petter Ogland wrote: > I certainly hope nobody got carried away believing that these speculations > had anything to do with reality. (snip) > Anyway, not intending to harm anyone, Freiberger the least, I was actually > trying to make an hypothesis about what THE RULES OF LUTON was really > all about. So, Petter, I understand we may conclude two points from the above : 1. These speculations about Freiberger dad's character have *indeed* absolutely no facts supporting them whatsoever. 2. You claim that what you wrote about him, although speculative, is intellectually and morally adequate as it is done only in the hope of acquiring a better understanding of his literary work. I think this raises a major moral question about accountability of one's words expressed in a public forum. As your favorite character (Bergman) said in your favorite episode: "Maybe knowledge is not the answer after all". Which could arguably means: maybe the quest for knowledge does not justify everything told or done for the sake of acquiring such knowledge. But, as this is becoming off topic, I will continue the discussion with you off list. Paul
From: djlerda@juno4tag.com Subject: Space1999: Freiberger's Background Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:56:36 EDT Perhaps rather than delve into hypotheticals about Freiberger's background as possible motivations for his stories we should focus on the system he came from: American network television. A quote from David Gerrold's "The World of Star Trek" says it better than I ever could: "The networks are *not* entertainment oriented - they are profit oriented. To a network vice-president a TV show is little more than 'product.' He might as well be ordering sauseges from the delicatessan - he doesn't want it good, he wants it Tuesday. Artistic validity is simply not a consideration." And these quotes from Gerrold's "The Trouble With Tribbles": "It's the rare producer who thinks in terms of stories - the rest of them are making sausages, all identical, all uniform, and all of them with just the correct amount of fat and sawdust to be profitable to the packer. Ugh." "When you choose one premise over another, you choose it not because you happen to like it better or because you think it'll make a better show - you choose it because (a) it fits into the overall concept of the series, (b) it can be produced within the show's budget, (c) it doesn't seem to present any problems which might run into time and cost problems, (d) it's suitable for television, as non-offensive as vanilla pudding, and (e) *maybe* it'll be entertaining. Considering the importance of (a), (b), (c), and (d), it's a wonder anyone ever gets to (e)." Forgive me for sounding naive, but it could all be just as simple as that. David J Lerda
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following, including the quoted material, originated out of the same thread as cited at top; but really belongs here.] From: Petter Ogland (petter.ogland@dnmi4tag.no) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:29:25 +0000 Subject: Re: Space1999: Subject: The Audit of Luton > Oh no, Petter makes his point of view very clear, unfortunately, its one > that a lot of us don't share...which is just fine. Thanks Mark! > : Third, again to Petter, regarding Woodgrove/Freiberger speculation: you > : blew it, big time. It's one thing for a writer to draw from their > cultural > : heritage, but it's quite damaging to infer personal angst as the reason. > > Petter was merely speculating...I say give him a little space, after all, > no one else was trying to find meaning in FF's dribble...... Thanks again Mark. Did it seem like I was infering personal angst as the motivation Freiberger's writings? I certainly did not use the word "angst", and quite frankly was not thinking in such terms either. Nevertheless, although I should perhaps not try to stress further the assumed importance of Freiberger's person in order to understand THE RULES OF LUTON, personal angst would be perfectly legitimate if one were commenting on the works of Ingmar Bergman or Woody Allen, I expect. If Woody Allen could be explained to a certain extent drawing on his cultural heritage, although I feel this would be a very shallow analysis on his work based on this only, in the case of Ingmar Bergman such a limited scope would lead not far from nowhere I feel. Anyway, my suggestion that Fred Freiberger wrote himself into the episode as the brother of Maya and possibly his father as Mentor was only ment as a hypothesis in order to see if this angle could give more light to the understanding of the story. It was not ment to be anything more than suggesting that there could be certain personal aspects of Dostojevski put into Raskolnikov. Furthermore, I don't think Maya speaks of her brother and father in any way that would put Freiberger into a bad light by viewing it from this angle. I find it paradoxical that Mark, who constantly disagrees with me when we discuss highs and lows of Year One, should be the one to point this out. It is a strange world. Nevertheless, thanks again Mark, and, by the way, I respect Chris for his concern for not meddeling into peoples private lives and so on. I agree very much with his concern, but hope that my hypothetical statements did not lead anyone into actually believing that Freiberger was conciously or unconciously writing about himself, his sister and his father. I was only speculating about whether this angle could help one make more sense out of the episode. Petter
From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new44rock.com) Subject: Re: Space1999: Subject: The Audit of Luton Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 13:50:58 -0500 > I find it paradoxical that Mark, who constantly disagrees with me when > we discuss highs and lows of Year One, should be the one to point this > out. It is a strange world. Yes, and I'm a strange person, no doubt. I may disagree with you, and find some of your conclusions bunk, but I never think you are being malicious. Overcooked at times, but always thoughtfull. > Nevertheless, thanks again Mark, and, by the way, I respect Chris for his > concern for not meddeling into peoples private lives and so on. I may spar with you Peter, but I try my best never to be insulting. I felt you were getting a cheap shot from Chris Hadly...and I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring. Later, -Mark