Have re-watched Houses of the Holy, and have figured out the biggest reason why this episode made me go ‘hmm’, and a bit on the use of camera angle.


Before anything else – just wanted to say I love what Jensen and Jared did in this episode, there was some awesome acting there. However, I kept on wanting to bang my head against the desk because the content, the message that it was trying to put on the table was confused and really not what I envisioned for the concept of faith and belief. Yes, this is my own problem, but I need to let it out or else I’m going to keep on stewing over it.

The thing that made me highly uncomfortable – Dean, taking the scenario of a pipe going through someone’s chest as evidence of the existence of God. What does it say about a God if he/she/it contrives an act that ends someone else’s life? (OK, I get the whole Old Testament didn’t exactly paint God as all rainbows and puppies, but still). The man haven’t killed anyone (yes, we can argue that he was going to do it till we are blue in the face), the fact is, he didn’t kill anyone when he died. People, beings like Lenore is let off the hook because she is all good now but what about all the people she killed in the past? Also, does this mean the reasoning of Gordon – let’s kill little Hitler before he becomes a mass murderer to be the right action? Because if it does it is implying that Sam can’t be saved, it is his Destiny to turn Dark Side. See where I’m going with this?! Free will? What free will? While most of the fandom loves this episode for how well it handled the concept of faith and God I feel as if the episode really dropped the ball on the subject. For Dean to so easily consider that Angels and God really does exist because someone died in a freak accident – no, just no.

I’m all about delegating guilt based on motivation and intention, hell, I LOVED Angel, but when the internal logic, or internal message of a series contradict itself I feel as if I have been cheated. Mind you, if the series is trying to say that your Destiny cannot be changed then obviously they are not contradicting their internal logic, but if that is the case I am going to be unhappy for a long time.

Moving on, one of the shot used in the episode - when Father Reynold was talking about Michael - the camera shot had Dean in the same frame as him. This really drives me mad because the shot did not need Dean to be in the same shot. The writer/director is either laying the ground-work for future Dean development/reveal - this can either be utter cheese or really scary, because you know, Dean AKA Michael is just WTF. Though it would mean all the wing!fics out there will be validated. On the other hand, it could just be implying that Dean is like Michael in his actions, which cool. It doesn't matter what it says about Dean so much as whether the director meant to say something, or whether if it was a subconscious act because this is really important.

I can’t wait for the next episode – hopefully it will make my day.