Hello everyone.

So, the shrink paused for a second, laid back in his chair, sprang back forward again and said:

"Have you tried watching more television?"

It occurred to me watching the second and third episodes of Alias, (but particularly the second, since the third is well-written and has a proto-arcyness), that I don't do well at things at the start. My commitment to something, once it has begun is really quite strong. I used to routinely get the three pounds extra per quarter for 100% attendance at my church choir. And that was for a Tuesday and Friday rehearsal and two Sunday services. I've only missed one Wind Orchestra rehearsal in three and a half years. Etc etc etc. But at the beginning of something, I have a tendency to be unsatisfied and impatient. It's noticeable at the beginning of my Angel viewing; I keep giving the series short shrift in comparison with Buffy. It's noticeable with my relationships with people. Once I've made friends with somebody, I really enjoy being with them. But I make relatively little effort with casual acquaintances and end up not converting good starts. If that reads as a bit cold, then that's me, I suppose. I'm a sucker for comfort and no change.

So here I was sitting watching Alias and thinking, This is boring. I might give this up. And it suddenly came to me that the thing is, I'm not connected with the characters. I know who they are and a couple of character traits, but that's about it. I'm not going to cry at Parity like I cried at You're Welcome. It's symptomatic of starting something. I have to be patient. So, I shall continue to give this show time, and in the long run, I have faith I shall be rewarded. I should do that with people as well.

1.2- 'So it begins'

Well, it does. Then it scurries about in a hundred geographies before coming to the end just as it appears our hero might be on the way out. The episode has precious little structure, and keeps coming at revelations in a wonky or confusing way, often merely repeating what Abrams did better in the pilot. I think it has a degree of The Train Job syndrome, if you know what I mean. What it does do well, is reinforce what's going to be the pattern of the series, unless something extraordinary is only a few episodes away. This being that, we'll see Sydney gallivanting around, in various dresses, disguises and wigs. There'll be the odd bit of violence with the heavies, and the real meat of the episode, (for people like me who use action scenes to go and get a cup of tea) is the intriguing conflict between Sydney's two jobs, her social life and her courses at school.

Let's get one thing straight. This is definitely a fantasy show. A lot of shows you wouldn't think are. In fact, there's a good case to be made that all drama ashows are essentially fantasy; it's just the things we have to suspend our disbelief about are different. Here, Sydney is so far doing way, way too much all at the same time to look like anything other than a ghost. She appears to have time for long chats with her house-mates, as well as time to write essays, (even if they come in late), and time for two jobs, one of which has to go on outside work hours, and where in one she spends a lot of time jetting round the world. It remains to be seen whether, like in Buffy, this siutation is addressed head on, or whether it's just another reason that this is a fantasy show. Along with the fact that Sydney is fluent in every language under the sun, she appears to have a thorough and unsuperficial knowledge of game theory. Again, it doesn't bother me whether this is resolved or not, I just want to declare that I'm suspending my disbelief so that, later down the line, I don't get a comment from some passer-by saying 'Yeah, but that Alias could never really happen, could it'.

Delights in the newness:

-I think it's true to say that Marshall is nothing like me whatsoever, except in his tendency to fall over his sentences occasionally when speaking. But I just love him, already. He's half-carrying the show for me at the moment (a touch harsh on some of others actually). In 'So it begins', he gets the priceless line, (one of those ones thrown in there by the writers in certain knowledge virtually no-one will get it first time), 'I'm a bit Pavlovian about these puppies. No pun intended'. Magnificent.

-The Godfather, family business type angle is still working nicely. I like the father/daughter angst- you want to introduce Jack to his emotions occasionally, but then you hang back, wondering just what it would cost him, to, for example, tell Sydney the real cause of her mother's death. I vacillate with being annoyed about his lack of warmth, and then being delighted that his actions seemingly speak louder than both his words and his gestures. Hug her, already!

-The flashbacks in this are relatively elaborate again. Sydney is explaining to Vaughn a load of stuff which happened rather a long time ago, but it's handled elegantly, allowing us to indulge in the fact that Sydney's spy life actually didn't all begin at one space and time- we're shown that things begin bit by bit, just as they end bit by bit, with SD6 stuff and CIA stuff paralleled impressively.

-Just occasionally, Abrams wants to play the Cordelia card, and ask his audience what Sydney would be if she wasn't a spy. I don't know whether her life and job are supposed to represent as much as a spiritual life, (maybe for now, just something beyond Sydney's studies and normal life), but when we find out that her boyfriend had a plane booked, (by her father, no less) to Singapore, and that their life their could have been free from the trappings of Other Names and cool soirees where you don't get nearly enough time to quaff the aperitifs, it rings a bell in us. It's the times in our life where we yearned to sit around and do nothing, just relax for a bit. And we didn't, because we had to go on with our job; for money, for the company we were working for, even to give us some reason to be around.

-I like the fact that Sydney has to crawl into a grave to find the bomb. She's made to confront death again in the metaphor, just as she was in the reality the week before. She keeps her emotions balanced enough to continue; defuses the bomb with eleven seconds still remaining, (kudos to Abrams for not going for the 00:01 schtick). But there's still the other bomb away in Cairo. The core of the grief is still around, and, feeling like a gun to the head, is the constant enforcement of a decision that killed your alternate future, and a person you loved.

So we're left with the cliffhanger

1.3- 'Parity'

Which then is resolved rather quickly. Since the same thing happens at the end of this episode, it's worth considering where, for the purpose of the themes of the episode, the moral of each chunk is given. We don't have it tied up in a Captain Picard's Philosophy for Credent People bow, so we have to find our moral in a scene two-thirds of the way through. Or whatever. It's an interesting challenge I shall keep my eye on.

-The idea of parity is embraced in this episode with a very thoughtful examination of another one of the cliches employed in James Bond land. Here we have Anna Espinosa, (Gina Torres!), as the person who matches Sydney's abilities as an agent. There's parity. We see her apparently beating Syd to the McGuffin, and then Sydney shoots it out of her hand, captilising on her desire to gloat in what would otherwise be a lost cause. Towards the end of the episode, the two are very deliberately drawn visually as mirror images, coming towards each other in the oval of the sports stadium, coming to stand in front of the suitcase, to find in horror that what was in there, instead of code, was...[See next review!]

There are other parities. The episode extends the question to saying; why is it interesting to watch two people interact, if their interaction is essentially confrontational? And the answer is, because you want to know who's going to get the better of whom. It's no more complicated, eventually, than a Tom and Jerry cartoon. Anna is the person as a direct parallel to Sydney. But there are other areas where we are to think about people who are necessarily equal with her for the storyline to progress. Her trust and equality with Dixon. Her excellent trump and over-trump relationship with Vaughn, (it's demonstrated in record time, when he is replaced, that an inferiorly intelligent person in Vaughn's position, and the whole storyline falls apart). Her equal distance with her father. These people aren't the same as her, but they share an equal degree of an asset she possesses in her chosen field, thus making them a metaphor for her as main character. Vaughn, her brains. Dixon, her loyalty. Her father, her steeliness. These can mutate and grow as the story continues.

-Another parity is the continuing attempt at one in Sydney's life between CIA and SD6, and between work and education. These themes are deep-running, but are set into motion here, surely to be elaborated on as we proceed.

-I love the Rambaldi stuff, because when we start to lose our purchase on the total Real Reality of the situations, we start to be guided by the personalities and emotions of the characters, and that's the heart of any good drama. Plus, any hints of prophecy in a drama start to raise fascinating questions about the destiny and free will of the protagonists in the play we are watching. Makes you feel all warm inside...

That's it for now. I think I'm going to bound along at a couple of episodes a day for the forseeable future. Just so you know, y'know. Though those weekend marathons also sound juicily tempting.

TCH