You might have guessed from an earlier post that I've been having myself a little Buffy marathon. I've been watching the first two seasons online, courtesy of Fancast. Once I finish season two, I will have to borrow the rest from a friend.
I had forgotten how misogynist the early episodes are, and I am seriously questioning my memory of the rest of the series' finer gender points. The episodes that I saw and thought, "how did I forget this?" were "The Witch"--about a mother jealous of her daughter's youth--and "Teacher's Pet"--about an "older" (i.e. college graduated) woman as a sexual predator. Then I watched something about Joss Whedon saying how proud he was of the mom-hates-daughter bit because of the whole nobody-loves-me teen angstiness (he didn't use those words). Both of those plots are standard fairy-tale plots, not to mention standard don't-trust-women plots. So I'm a bit unsure as to where his pride is coming from. He said that that plot was the essence of the show in the clip I linked to. Apparently we read very different things into that plot.
In my interneting, I also came across an interview about the Buffy comic where Whedon talks about the fact that Buffy has sex with a woman in an issue. The interview ends with a response to a question about the fallout from the death of Tara, Willow's girlfriend:
“It’s something you have to factor in,” Mr. Whedon said. After Tara died, he said, he discovered that “there was a whole cliché about lesbians being killed.” He added: “You do have to be careful about the message you’re sending out. It’s a double-edged sword. You have to be responsible, but you also have to be irresponsible or you’re not telling the best stories.”
So, it's okay to be irresponsible if it's a good story? 'Cause I hated the whole Willow-goes-bad/ magic-as-drugs story arc. I think they could have not played into the lesbian-killing cliche and told a much better story. (and how did he not know about the cliche?) I also hated the episode where Spike tries to rape Buffy. That came out of nowhere and was totally unnecessary. And Angel has always annoyed me because his character is basically a brooding machine (though I love when they make jokes about his brooding). I don't think I've ever met anyone who likes Dawn. There are lots of things I don't like about this show.
But I still love it for some reason. I really like Spike as he is one of the more complex characters. (It doesn't hurt that he is played by James Marsters, and I heart Billy Idol.) But the character is very charming, despite being undead and all, and has great lines. Xander also has great lines. The show is witty. That's one of the reasons I so love Whedon's other cult show, Firefly. And lots of people tout Buffy as feminist show, or at least a girl-power show (which is so not the same thing).
Whedon says the inspiration for Buffy came from the idea of "what if the girl who gets attacked in the horror films fights back?" (There are lots of them actually, dubbed the Final Girl by Carol Clover.) But is having a kick-ass heroine enough to make something feminist? I mean, is Lara Croft feminist? Are Charlie's Angels feminist? Are the Halliwell sisters feminist? Someone remind me why this show is such a phenomenon. A strong female lead is a start, but the show has to have something else to have received the positive support from gender-studies savy academics and fans. (I understand the girl-power support). I've read a lot of the academic stuff. But when faced with re-watching the show, I'm feel like I'm missing something.
I'm going to be very disappointed if I discover that I like the show mainly because I heart Spike.
1 comment:
Two things.
I think when Joss Whedon talks about the show and it's success and it being phenomenal, he is not necessarily talking about himself.
That said, directors, authors, and artists often don't really have clear grasp on exactly what (culturally and semiotically) they are creating. The whole process is often too complex or too fast or to mysterious to be able to fully see its meaning during the moment of creation. Often the success comes from several people involved: the creator and his assistants, the middle men, the upper brass, and the audience (you know, classic Oscar speech stuff). The whole process is dialogic each person shaping the story bringing to it new interpretations (however shallow or deep). This is why I hate people talking about their success, what ever they say... it is probably untrue to your version of the text, and therefor only serves to discolor and taint the memory or impression of a successful creative work.
Post a Comment