August 2002 Archives - Page 1
The perfect gift for Giles (or Wesley) -- Sophist, 08:24:52 08/01/02 Thu
A Sumerian Dictionary
[>Can they get it at "I'llneverknowtheloveofawoman.com? -- Arethusa, 08:39:19 08/01/02 Thu
[>No, but that's where the authors have their chat room -- CW, 09:02:57 08/01/02 Thu
A little self-deprecating humor there. I worked on a reverse Lithuanian dictionary (for pay) for a professor when I was in grad school. As a weird aside, that Lithuanian dictionary was mentioned on the PDQ Bach CD "The Short-Tempered Clavier and other dysfunctional works for the keyboard." The professor I was working for was an organist, and he 'played' the calliope for the album.
[> [>Go here! -- Masq, 09:09:01 08/01/02 Thu
http://Illneverknowtheloveofawoman.com/
Tee hee hee
[> [> [>Re: Go here! -- Arethusa, 09:20:43 08/01/02 Thu
If I could visit a website filled with super-smart, gorgeous Englishmen who love to discuss arcane fields of study, I might never leave.
[> [> [> [>What was the url for that one site....? -- AngelVSAngelus, 09:31:20 08/01/02 Thu
The one Cordelia mentioned in a comedic line from last season that was actually made a URL. Something like ohwe'vegotdarlaoverhere.com. Anyone remember?
[> [> [> [> [>www.Oh-By-the-way-we-have-Darla-stashed-here.com -- VR, 09:35:49 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>That one used to work, too. Hmmph. -- Masq, 10:00:45 08/01/02 Thu
I'll have to remove the link from my site. : (
Movie cliches you wish would go away... -- Rob, 10:02:03 08/01/02 Thu
With all this talk of "cliches," I thought it would be fun to list come cliches in movies that you are absolutely sick of.
I'll start off with the first...
In almost every action/sci-fi/thriller, etc, when the hero and his small group of helpers are being followed by enemy people, one of them always says, "We've got company!"
I am soooo sick of that! Anybody got any more?
Rob
[> Note: This thread is not W/T-related in any way, shape, or form! -- Rob, 10:03:31 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> Re: We're not in Kansas anymore -- Brian, 10:21:14 08/01/02 Thu
[> "I'm too old for this sh*t"` -- Dead Soul, 10:43:21 08/01/02 Thu
[> Re: Movie cliches you wish would go away... -- Purple Tulip, 10:44:55 08/01/02 Thu
I don't know if this is really a cliche or not, but I REALLY hate when there's a character who is supposedly all ugly and fat and unpopular, and then ~voila!~ they are all of a sudden transformed into this beautiful creature and everyone loves them and wants to be friends with them and their life is now perfect. And yet the message is always supposed to be "it's what's on the inside that counts" or "you had it in you all along"! UGH!!! Please, have these people ever even gone to high school??? And the actors playing these ugly ducklings are always beautiful to begin with and the director has to "ugly them up" for them to even play the role, or put a fat suit on them. Here's an idea, why don't we try to make things a little more realistic and actually get a not so attractive person to play the role, or ~gasp~ why don't we actually employ an overweight actor to play an overweight role! I know, what a concept right??? And we could try to employ the message that big can still be beautiful and just because a girl may have a small chest and a big nose, doesn't mean that she's not pretty. Really, if we could all just get off the stereotypes and cliches and just be realistic about what people actually look like. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. (This is probably why I'm a big fan of Camryn Manheim and Ricki Lake in "Babycakes" and "Hairspray".)
[> [> Yup, that's definitely a movie cliche... -- Rob, 10:49:46 08/01/02 Thu
...and one film that went against this that I can remember is "Welcome to the Dollhouse," when the part of an unattractive girl, called WeinerDog by her classmates, was actually played by an unattractive girl!
I agree...I'm tired of seeing moviemakers cast someone like Jennifer Love Hewitt, but put big glasses on her to make her look ugly. And then when the glasses are removed...viola! She's beautiful! Who would have ever guessed that?
In fact, in "Not Another Teen Movie," they parodied this practice to a "T." In the movie posters for that film, they called this character-type, "The Pretty Ugly Girl."
Rob
[> [> [> The Truth about Cats and Dogs -- dream of the consortium, 11:05:17 08/01/02 Thu
brought Hollywood looks-ism to a new level. We're supposed to believe Janeane Garofolo is so unattractive, she has to send Uma Thurman to be wooed in her place. Which is pretty amazing, considering that by any normal measure, Janeane is stunning.
[> [> [> [> Sub catagory: 25-year old romantic female lead, 50-year old romantic male lead -- Arethusa, 12:18:27 08/01/02 Thu
AKA "Gidgets and Geezers."
[> [> [> [> Not to mention "Buffy..." -- Ann-Sebastian, 12:19:16 08/01/02 Thu
Way back during Season 2 an Alyson-smitten friend of mine remarked that he "...gets a kick out of the way they try to convince us that Willow's homely--when she's the most beautiful woman on the show." Now, his preference for Ms. Hannigan is purely subjective but I agree that it certainly requries work to "drab her up" (or would it be "down").
[> [> [> [> [> Yes, but AH, while beautiful, is not classically beautiful, IMO... -- Rob, 12:45:23 08/01/02 Thu
...but has a shy, quirky look that is perfect for Willow. Yes, she is beautiful, but I could definitely see someone with AH's looks being treated in high school the way Willow was.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not to mention "Buffy..." -- aliera, 05:24:33 08/02/02 Fri
I thought Alyson looked pretty good during parts of this season; Buffy seemed to get the drab treatment though? Probably subjective on my part. I wasn't a big fan of the seventies during the seventies so that might be it.
[> [> [> [> [> Reminds me of a quote re Jude Law I saw in EW -- vh, 14:05:23 08/06/02 Tue
regarding his role in "Road to Perdition," that they had a hard time making him look unattractive. Must have had to beat him up with an ugly stick ...
[> [> [> That one's spread to music -- KdS, 05:13:57 08/02/02 Fri
Sorry, but as a Philip Seymour Hoffmann lookalike, I object to spectacularly beautiful pop singers self-righteously lecturing me on inner beauty and accepting one's body. Key offenders - TLC's "Unpretty", India Arie's "Video".
[> [> And then again... -- fresne, 12:41:38 08/02/02 Fri
Sailing into the wind, I shall in foolhardy manner (in as much as it was really un-like) admit that I like the makeover cliché.
Partially for the same reason that I like Ovid's Metamorphoses, I like stories in which things change, transform, become something that they were not. It really works for me in teen movies, because, well, that's what being a teenager is about. Transformation. Becoming. Not just discovering your potential, but becoming comfortable with it. Whether plain, pretty, tall, short, thin or fat, it's awkward to be a teenager. Well, it was for me and those of my (wide range of body types) friends with whom I've discussed the whole growing up thing.
I'm somewhat reminded of the line from pseudo song Sunscreen, (and this is just a paraphrase as I don't have the CD with me) "You won't understand the power and beauty of your youth until it is gone, when with a clarity that you can't understand now, you will look back and realize just how beautiful you really were. You are not as fat and ugly as you think." and also, "Do not read beauty magazines. They will only make you feel ugly." Although, when it comes to it, my favorite line is, "Be careful with your knees. You'll miss them when they're gone."
It also doesn't hurt that the makeover is pretty much my life. I have an entire group of friends that have only seen me in formal wear (I'm a costume ballroom dancing fiend, mwahaha). For my final day in high school, after four years of jeans, sweats, t-shirts and shorts, I pulled a Cinderella. It was really the beginning of my philosophy that all clothes are costumes. I'm always amazed at how those costumes can influence people's perceptions. And by people I include myself, since as I type this I have horrific posture (darn work clothes), which is not the case when dancing.
Now I'll admit that it would be nice if mainstream movies used a wider range of body types. Heck, it would be nice if in a movie about (random historical figure) Cleopatra, she were played by a hawk nosed, lantern jawed, charismatic Greek, but that's Hollywood for you. Huzah for independent films.
[> [> [> Re: And then again... -- aliera, 07:25:48 08/03/02 Sat
And not just clothes. I know people at work who feel the need to create an entire separate persona in their working public life. Someone said to me yesterday, "I can't continue to always wear this facade." Her feeling was that wearing a masks is always negative. I think it's like other things. Positive or negative, depending. It can also be freeing. I always enjoyed halloween and drama. In fact, until recently I dressed up at home on Halloween to hand out candy and always got a kick out of that type of mask. I was reading an essay on Carnevale last night that made a similar point but went further, reminding me that masks have been around for a long time a have a deeper connection because of that. I think you right about the power of the thought of transformations.
You were mentioning magazines. It's funny, one of the trends I was looking for with the aging of the baby boomers was a shift in the way magazines and other media presented beauty. Although the styles are cyclic (who was it that said there's nothing really new under the sun?) the models are ever youthful...and I'll never forget being told at the age of twelve that although I had the right body type and other things, I was really too old to be successful in ballet. No doubt that was actually a fortunate thing to have happen. And I have noticed a shift in some books though so maybe it still coming. I also wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed your posts on OMWF...the deconstruction of the dance scenes (I think these were yours?) They were a great read.
[> [> [> [> Me too -- Rahael, 10:11:41 08/03/02 Sat
I too love dressing up. I spend way too much of my salary looking for just the right thing. I took great pride when, during University, when I had barely any money at all, still finding stylish clothes to wear (in fact, I think my proudest moment was when someone once told me that I was the best dressed person in college).
I pulled that 'makeover' cliche. During my early adolescence I was dressed by my aunt and my father (they. had. no. clothing. sense. whatsoever!). Didn't care what I looked like, cut my own hair with scissors when it got a bit too long. Wore ugly glasses, basically hid myself from the world, hid myself from being noticed.
And then I realised that this was cowardly. There was this weird relationship between my emotional state and my physical appeareance. I decided to fake what I didn't have inside. I made an effort with my appearance every morning, until it became true.
I got contact lenses, got a good hairdresser to cut my hair, bought expensive but well cut designer clothing, and cheaper bargains. I still keep an eye out for clothes that are just a little bit different, slightly flamboyant. Each outfit does say something to me. I can't wear the beautiful saris which are my traditional dress in my new home, but I can try still to wear beautiful things.
Every morning as I travel to work I amuse myself by grading other people's outfits - "ooh, risky!" "great outfit, 9/10" or, "how on earth does anyone think those colours work together?"
It's not so much a mask, but a careful presentation of 'who I am'. And there is also a pleasure in not trying at all, and wearing simple, comfortable clothing.
There was a kind of transformation in my life, and it was both invisible, and visible. Perfectly allied. Cliches can have a grain of truth inside them.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Me too -- aliera, 14:33:37 08/03/02 Sat
Rahael did you read OnM's post on slayer physiology? This reminds me a bit of what he was saying about the Lens.
It also reminds me of 'going through the motions' Buffy's complaint in OMWF. Sometimes going through the motions is a way of moving through the dark times gracefully with the hope that tomorrow will be a better day. And then sometimes it is. My grandmother showed me this, not by words; but by how she was. She had tuberculocis and lost a lung and part of another. I never heard a harsh word from her or a complaint, although I know now that many days were dark for her. She walked very lightly in this world.
I too had glasses in highschool...the same year I got my braces. Oh boy. Some things of youth I don't miss! Now my glasses are a mask; when I want to be taken seriously I wear them. I understand my friend's idea of her facade at work too. I remember one day (we have alot of dress down days at work, casual dress) when I wore a scoop backed shirt and my tattoo showed. The reappraisals! I had honestly forgotten about the tattoo; it's behind me in more ways than one (although it and it's time will always be a part of me.) Covered up again, my colleagues have forgotten it; it doesn't fit with their concept of me. I remember as a child dressing myself and my sisters in my mothers old prom dresses and staging ballets on the lawn. I remember the application of stage makeup and the feeling of transformation as the new face appears. I remember the vamp I played in the school musical and other characters from other plays. I think I took something of my characters with me when the performance was over. I think this happens in good literature, with good music and sometimes with BTVS. That I can draw the cloak of my grandmother's gracefulness around me when my own is not enough and perhaps as you and OnM write, after time a part of it becomes us... or we can choose to see the masks for what they are and set them aside and be comfortable in our own skin as (perhaps) Spike tried to do.
Something of the reverse happens to me in drawing. I look beneath the face and pull forward something hidden, and if I do it well, it speaks to people who see the portrait. And they take something with them. At other times I draw something out of myself and put it into the face and again if it speaks to other people than I have touched something important. Both of these things happen in BTVS this season. The writers and actors drew on their own and others experiences and we saw beneath the masks of the characters.
Dori Sippel writes (www.headlinemuse.com) of her experiences in Venice in 'Carnevale: Of Venice, Masks and Frittelle' about the reawakening after: "Ultimately the most interesting thing about spending ten days in Carnevale is that for weeks after, you see a person and think: Ah! Interesting mask...no, it's his real face."
Or both? Good frittelle recipe too! ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Me too -- Purple Tulip, 23:25:16 08/03/02 Sat
Ok, I have to agree with you that cliches can and often do have a grain of truth in them. ~BUT~ I hate the way that they are often presented in teen movies. I for one, was all of the things that "makeover" cliches are made of: I was overweight, had glasses, braces, and acne and didn't have as stylish clothes as my friends because we didn't have the money to buy them. For me adolescence was extremely painful at times, and I would watch these teen cliche movies and actually believe that my life would be completely changed for the better if only I got rid of my glasses or dropped twenty pounds. And I did go through all those transformations: got new glasses, got my braces off (after 5 years), lost a ton of weight, and got cool clothes. But none of those things made me all of a sudden popular and my life wonderful. This is where I find fault with the cliches. It wasn't until I got to college that I really blossomed and found myself. Now I actually feel good about myself and have people telling me that I'm pretty, that I have a great smile, great skin and that I'm really well-dressed. I did finally reach that utopia of self-acceptance and self-love, but it wasn't the physical transformations that the cliches suggests; it was finally accepting myself for who I am and not caring if others have a problem with what I look like. Getting my braces off and losing weight certainly didn't get me the guys or make me any more friends than I already had, but it made me feel better to know that I was doing this for me, to improve me for me and not for them. So could the cliche apply for me? Certainly, but the changes weren't overnight and they made me better, not the people around me who chose to like me or not before I really became who I am today.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting question - self identities -- Rahael, 15:03:28 08/05/02 Mon
I think there's a difference between being forced to change who 'you' are, in order to feel more accepted in society, and to feel that you have 'multitudes' within you, and you can choose to 'self present' (thanks Ly!) in different ways.
I've always had a resistance to belonging, especially in a sense where I felt that I was undercutting my own personal integrity. I think my attitude to my dressing up is very much 'don't stereotype me'. This has very much come to the fore with some email conversations with redcat - my self image is a complex one, because I live in a society which judges me instantly on the colour of my skin. Thus, my celebration of my own identity, my 'difference' was intimately linked to the understanding that social approval is a difficult, and undesirable goal.
It was always about me making my life beautiful for me to live in. It was about taking everything that was me and saying, yes, you aren't beautiful in the way that western society deems beauty, but I can resist looking at myself through those eyes. In fact, my physical appearance in itself became less important, since I just worked with who I was.
Rahael - who used to be underweight all through adolescence and is now happily at just above her ideal weight.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting question - self identities -- fresne, 17:07:55 08/05/02 Mon
Yes, exactly.
Which to basically say the same thing you just did, I like stories where the makeover is an internal decision. While there maybe a fairy godmother or Leonardo da Vinci or a best friend involved, it should be an unfolding of self. Where once there was constriction and shyness, now there is freedom of expression. I feel for the characters (well, real people too), where they are forced to dress/be something that they are not. That's not a makeover. That's being re-minted, which is fairly oww, painful.
I can't say that I look anything outside the WASPy norm, the reason I dressed down in high school is that I positively didn't want to fit in, belong, be normal. In some way I felt that dressing up, trying for "pretty", would be giving into "Them." To pop culture it, I was Daria with a large group of Janes for friends. The realization that I didn't have to practically efface myself in order to not give into some imagined standard was quite liberating.
And since everything comes back to Restless, I return once more to Willow's costume in her dream. Her stress inducing impression that the cool lesbian wiccan merely overlaid the ostracized nerd. The reality being that the nerd and the cool and the lesbian and the wiccan and the crayon breaky and the veiny all co-exist at once.
Aliera - re: OMwF dance critiques, thanks. It was an incredible hardship to watch and re-watch those scenes, but hey, dirty job etc. I just wish I knew more of the names of the dance steps.
Lyonors - I just want to say that I am extremely jealous. So, what's everyone going to be for Halloween? After all, there are only 87 shopping days left.
________________
fresne - hoping that we all get to live the mulititudinous life beautiful.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting question - self identities -- aliera, 05:25:27 08/06/02 Tue
We're all moving that direction...most of the time I'm patient. Most of the time things pendulum back and forth as the mid-point moves slowly. One of the benefits of getting older is having personal experiences to meld with the theories.
Realizations are often painful (as my friend/colleague) is experiencing now. Life imitating art; real life to Buffy. Pain can lead to need for change. Interestingly, she and I had a mirror image of the conversation last fall. I don't want to have to be either a mother or father image in order to manage the group. I want to be myself and dance my own style. If it's not leading to something good for everyone; I go dance with a different company. And the pendulum swings. Not overtly rebellious just being true to myself. I also see quite a bit of change in other people; dissatisfaction, arguments, things shaking loose. My friend has to do her own steps not mine though. LOL. Old curse: may you live in interesting times...
Re: willow...I think this image will have continued importance. Re: weight... as in other things; we need to find our own balance point. Re: costumes... I also want to be a fireman when the floods roll back...
Quote from reading last night: what needs to change is the stories we tell ourselves ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: costumes -- Just George, 19:27:23 08/06/02 Tue
aliera: "Re: costumes... I also want to be a fireman when the floods roll back..."
I've always thought it was interesting that Buffy referred to herself as a fireman in Restless. Firemen are some of the few true heroes that are a part of the way we organize modern civilization. Lots of other groups help people immensely. Soldiers and Police protect us, but with means (the threat of killing) we wish they didn't have to use. EMT's and Coast Guard can save our lives, but they seldom risk theirs. A fireman's job is to literally risk their lives in a fire to save ours. Buffy sometimes acts more like a Policeman (because she kills), but puts herself in good company with the firemen.
BTW, the public reacts differently to Policemen and Firemen. They fear the Police, but welcome the Fire Dept. And the Policemen and Firefighters know it. In Sunnyvale, CA where I lived a few years ago, the city used to hire only dual trained personal. Each person would spend 6 months as a Policeman and then 6 months as a Fireman. This was more expensive per person, but it meant the people could get praise from the public for 6 months (as a Fireman) before having to weather suspicion from the public for 6 months (as a Policeman.) It was good for moral and gave the city a surge capacity in case of emergency.
Just a long way of saying that I loved Buffy's line in Restless.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My dad was a cop in Sunnyvale in 1960. -- Arethusa, 20:12:19 08/06/02 Tue
He quit because he wanted more excitement-flying jet planes. (Not that it's relevent, but I couldn't resist telling you.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My dad was a cop in Sunnyvale in 1960. (Cool!) (NT) -- Just George, 11:42:49 08/07/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Coast Guard doesn't risk their lives? -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 23:35:09 08/07/02 Wed
Remember that the unofficial motto of the outfit is
"You have to go out -- you DON'T have to come back."
Rescuing some weekend sailors in a gale in treacherous waters will not endear you to your life insurance company.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coast Guard doesn't risk their lives? -- fresne, 09:00:11 08/08/02 Thu
Yes, I was thinking much the same thing since in our house, with my housemate's father, uncle, and grandfather in/retired from the US Coast Guard., the Coast Guard's status as the redheaded stepchild of the military branches occasionally comes up, well and many more Coast Guard factoids that I think any of you care about.
So, rather than make up my own list, go to the Coast Guard website
http://www.gocoastguard.com/faq.html
for a list of some of the things that the US Coast Guard does.
Some of the hazards being: dealing with drug smugglers, rescuing people in stormy weather and/or along treacherous coast line, and cleaning hazardous spills along the US coast.
So, perhaps, while the floods are still out Buffy wants to be a Coastie (big on patrolling, saving people, and fighting ummm...demons.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No dis intended at all. -- Just George, 14:17:37 08/08/02 Thu
You-all are clearly right, I choose a bad example to make my point.
Interestingly, given their duties one could see the risks the Coast Guard take as a combination of those of faced by Soldiers, Police, and Firefighters. They face the risks of a Soldier as a branch of the military. They face the risks of a Police officer when they police the boarders. And they face the risks of firefighters when they face the elements (the sea in their case) while doing their jobs. Plus, they are under-paid, under-manned, under-equipped, and always expected to be there whenever there is a problem. No dis intended at all.
I think Buffy would be proud to be a Coastie.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow's costumes/burning up the world -- Rahael, 06:02:23 08/06/02 Tue
"And since everything comes back to Restless, I return once more to Willow's costume in her dream. Her stress inducing impression that the cool lesbian wiccan merely overlaid the ostracized nerd. The reality being that the nerd and the cool and the lesbian and the wiccan and the crayon breaky and the veiny all co-exist at once."
Can't agree with this more. She kept referring to it as a 'costume' in the pejoritive sense. She couldn't integrate it into 'herself'. Perhaps her deepest fear was that underneath all her costumes...there was nothing. That big empty void she wanted to remake the world into. It also ties into the way she compartmentalises herself. The 'good' friend, girlfriend, daughter', the 'bad' friend, lover. She can't understand that she can incorporate both. She worries about which 'Willow' she really is.
Her thing with 'disguises' goes back to Halloween. She thinks the new sexy Willow 'isn't her', which is nonsensical, because that's who she is, dressed in new clothes. She covers herself up with a sheet. She thinks her clothes, her outer persona defines her, whereas she should define everything she wears, is.
Isn't it interesting that when she goes 'dark' she changes her clothes? She can do, say all the things that 'good' Willow could never allow herself to. She kept quiet while everyone sang in OMWF, but once she let go of all that repressed emotion and sang/shrieked her song of pain, she threatened to burn up the whole world with her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's costumes/burning up the world -- LittleBit, 08:09:30 08/06/02 Tue
She thinks her clothes, her outer persona defines her, whereas she should define everything she wears, is.
Willow has always been, and still is, afraid to show her real self. She has hidden for so long behind her facades of persona and dress that she may no longer know how to recognize who she is beyond the picture she presents. Part of the journey she is on will need to be one of self-discovery in the sense of removing the covers, or the costumes, she has layered over her self.
I also think we see her disguises sooner than Halloween, when she dresses herself in "the best costume" for the exchange student dance in Inca Mummy Girl. She wears the 'cool' costume of a Eskimo, covered from head to toe, with only her face showing, looking authentic and snug. When she sees Ampata, and Xander, she tells herself she should have worn something sexy. Yet, as you noted, when she is talked into doing just that, in Halloween, she feels the need to add another covering.
What she doesn't realize is that the very small part of herself that she allows to show in the Eskimo costume, especially her unguarded expressions when she thinks no one is looking, is what causes Oz to see her. When he sees her next, it is after she has cast off the cover of her 'sexy costume' and is noticed for her momentary acceptance of her self, once again, by Oz. And he may see her more clearly than anyone she has ever known, and accepts her for the self she so carefully hides from everyone else.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Me too -- Lyonors, 13:58:18 08/05/02 Mon
Ahhhh, dressing up, its what I do everyday. I manage a costume shop. I dress people up everyday and make them someone that the audience wants to believe is really them. I make seemingly meek ballerinas become a strong willed Cleopatra or defiant Giselle. I make young men into the Nutcracker Prince with a simple mask and a uniform jacket. I have also made corps de ballet members into a field of barley (set to the music of Sting's "Fields of Gold") with a simple color palate of autumn colors, a bolt of silk and a basic sundress pattern. Altering perception is what I do everyday. As a result, I enjoy reinventing myself every morning when I stand in front of my closet.
Ly.
[> Yay the bad things dead... arrgghh it's not dead, let's kill it again! -- Lilac, 10:48:00 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> No wait! The bad thing had babies!?! We have to go kill those!!! -- Deeva, 11:44:02 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: OMG! The bad thing was only the small one--here comes the BIG one!! -- dubdub ;o), 14:40:13 08/03/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> Wow! The big one's really stupid! -- Rob, 13:08:27 08/05/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> ...and easily defeatable! -- Rob ;o), 14:09:58 08/05/02 Mon
[> The big punch... -- dream of the consortium, 10:57:30 08/01/02 Thu
You know, where the put-upon guy finally has enough, so he hits the jerk who has been bugging him all through the movie and we're all supposed to feel great about how he finally stood up for himself in such a fine manly way.
I HATE that.
Also, when two attractive people meet and immediately start bickering, which for some reason means they are actually meant to be together. This one is particularly annoying if they have no shared values at all (because what's a personal set of beliefs and values compared with "true-love"?) Add bonus points if a character 's mother knows that s/he is in love from the romantic sound of all that arguing.
When a movie needs to show that a family/couple have a good time together, and use a montage of wacky behavior with a Motown number playing over.
Virtually all dialogue written for children in movies makes me want to scream. There are two modes: out-of-the-mouths-of-babes-comes-an-unlikely-level-of-sweetly-expressed-wisdom
or snappy-comeback-that-indicates-a-streetwise-worldliness-beyond-years.
Old people using slang as a comic device.
Okay, I have to stop.
Feeling curmudgeonly,
dream
[> The biggest one in current horror flicks...have sex,die soon! -- AurraSing, 11:01:03 08/01/02 Thu
I just rewatched the "Scream" trilogy and they managed to nail that sucker to the wall-I still was cheering when Syd "makes sure" at the end of "Scream 1".
Never was a fan of the 80's and 90's teen horror/sex flicks but for some reason "Scream" really pushed all the right buttons with me.
[> [> I agree... -- Rob, 11:18:16 08/01/02 Thu
..."Scream" and both its sequels succeeded, because it self-consciously deconstructed every horror movie cliche, and by out-front pointing out all the cliches actually and acknowledging the necessary suspension of disbelief, paradoxically, it allowed the scary scenes to actually be scary.
All other recent teen slasher films have either tried to rip-off "Scream"s self-referential sense of humor, but less cleverly, too mechanically--or perpetrated the same old cliches as usual. It really is a Catch-22. Maybe the whole slasher genre should be retired.
Rob
[> Bad guys shoot machine guns and miss. Good guy kills with a few pistol shots. -- Arethusa, 11:56:46 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> And no one puts a couple more rounds in the fallen enemy ... -- Earl Allison, 15:43:25 08/03/02 Sat
Just ONCE, I'd like to see someone make sure the monster/slasher/terrorist/whatever is REALLY dead when they shoot it and it goes down, by walking up to it and shooting it a few MORE times before turning their back on it. I know I would.
I'd also like a movie where the monster IS killed early on, and everyone has to deal with what happened, instead of ending things with the creature's death.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Or picks up the guns dropped by the dead guys. -- Arethusa, 17:11:02 08/03/02 Sat
[> Re: Movie cliches you wish would go away... -- mundusmundi, 12:01:57 08/01/02 Thu
When two characters are talking in a room, and one of them is about to leave, the character staying put will ALWAYS stop the other from leaving with a final pithy remark. A small cliche, but watching several movies in a row that contain it can lead to madness.
[> [> Re: Movie cliches you wish would go away... -- Aquitaine, 12:20:58 08/01/02 Thu
As a variation on mm's cliché of choice, there's the fact that the character leaving the room never gets to drink more than a sip, or eat more than a bite, of what he or she ordered or was served during a scene. It's enough to render one insatiably aggravated, or something... It's hard to formulate coherent thoughts in the heat.
At least the person left in the room may have the privilege of chugging a drink whole or hurling a glass against a wall. Yay, catharsis! ;p
- Aquitaine
[> Person running from danger ALWAYS falls down (NT) -- Ann-Sebastian, 12:36:20 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> So now you are turning it into a W/T topic, (ie Tara in Hush) -- Hoping, 18:50:35 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [> Sorry--not co-opting the thread... -- Ann-Sebastian, 07:47:50 08/02/02 Fri
...but, yes,I did grind my teeth when it happened in "Hush" although IIRC the girls did have the presence of mind to go DOWNstairs when most running-scared people in movies head up and wind up stuck. So kudos to them!
[> [> [> [> Joss' comments on the Tara falling down -- Rahael, 08:55:11 08/02/02 Fri
From the Season 4 DVD commentary on "Hush"
"(Tara walks through UC Sunnydale)
The little girl wandering through the woods. Amber gives you so much. She can even fall down the classic! It drives me crazy when girls do that in stories, but its so perfect for this kind fairy tale classic old movie nightmare all those wrapped up in one moment. And the boys are coming for her. So happy, so polite, such nice guys!"
Also, I seem to recall that in Season 3, Buffy runs away from a demon and pretends to fall down, thereby trapping it - saying "they always fall for that one" or something like that.
[> [> [> [> A brilliant part of "Scream"... -- Rob, 10:05:03 08/02/02 Fri
...is when Neve Campbell's character tells the killer that she hates horror movies, because the female characters are dumb and always run up the stairs when they should be running out the front door. But when the killer comes for her, sure enough...she runs upstairs! I just loved that, because, when she did it, it made me laugh, while I was scared at the same time.
Regarding W/T, I don't mind if Tara or Willow are in a thread...I've just had enough of the "Joss-is-evil-because-he-killed-Tara" stuff. Personally, I adore Tara, I'm sad she died, but I would not change any of the events of the show one iota.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: So now you are turning it into a W/T topic, (ie Tara in Hush) -- monsieurxander, 17:55:04 08/03/02 Sat
Let's not forget Fred in the Angel episode when Wesley, possessed by uber violent manly micro-organism thingies, chases her throughout the Hyperion.
[> [> [> [> "uber violent manly micro-organism thingies" -- redcat, 09:53:48 08/05/02 Mon
Love the description! The Episode is Billy, and the real cliche comes very early in their struggle. Fred does not, in fact, choose to run upstairs, which would be the more "normal" cliche. Instead, she starts, very smartly, by heading for the door closest to her that leads to the outside. She just doesn't get there in time. Wes slams the door shut and then slams her (really hard!) against the stairs, head first. Luckily, her head misses the edge of the riser by a fraction of an inch and lands squarely on the flat vertical plank between two risers. The cliche comes when Fred immediately gets up from that blow, seemingly without any real negative effects from it. She's not bloody, dazed or even a little slowed. When she THEN races up the stairs on those long, coltish legs of hers (conveniently shown to us by her short dress and the camera angle that follows her from below), we can all groan in satisfied comfort (after all, cliches partly "work" because we get such a sense of satisfied closure when we see them right where we expect them to be), but without losing all respect for ME.
Or maybe our sweetest girl only looks skinny but really has bones o' steel?
[> [> [> [> [> sometimes it works when they provide a reason for the cliché -- anom, 19:28:30 08/05/02 Mon
"Fred does not, in fact, choose to run upstairs, which would be the more "normal" cliche. Instead, she starts, very smartly, by heading for the door closest to her that leads to the outside.... When she THEN races up the stairs...."
Well, since Wesley is standing right there at the bottom of the flight of stairs, she doesn't have much choice. So in this case, the cliché makes sense. Oh, and:
"Or maybe our sweetest girl only looks skinny but really has bones o' steel?"
Well, she did have 5 years of a not-exactly-sedentary way of life (which builds bone density), w/loads of abuse thrown in...maybe she learned to shake off the pain of an injury when her life depended on it. But yeah, she didn't even seem to be sore, did she?
BTW, this is not so much about clichés per se, but I heard about a website on "INSULTINGLY STUPID MOVIE PHYSICS" (I think it was on NPR's "On the Media). Kinda technical, but fun.
[> When a movie character is told to "turn on the news"... -- Rob, 12:54:56 08/01/02 Thu
...the reporter always starts talking at the exact moment the character turns on the television! Amazing! I wish my TV would rewind itself to the beginning of a show so I could watch it in its entirety too! I think I need a Tivo...lol.
Another one...someone waking up from a nightmare will always jump up and sit straight up in bed. Who, upon waking up from a nightmare, actually "jolts" up like that, in the real world?
Rob
[> [> Re: nightmares -- mundus, staying put in central Ohio, 13:20:25 08/01/02 Thu
Another one...someone waking up from a nightmare will always jump up and sit straight up in bed. Who, upon waking up from a nightmare, actually "jolts" up like that, in the real world?
That's one thing I liked about the movie Sexy Beast. When the main character has his killer rabbit dream (trust me, it's enough to give Anya chills), he wakes up like real people do, sans jolting and sweating. Made it more unsettling, actually.
[> [> [> Erm, sorry for the nonsensical additive to my name. Mwahaha. -- mundusmundi, who clicked without looking., 13:22:48 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> So then ... are you or aren't you? Enquiring minds, etc. -- LittleBit, 13:44:21 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Re: So then ... are you or aren't you? Enquiring minds, etc. -- mundusmundi, 14:30:08 08/01/02 Thu
My "staying put in central Ohio" remark was something I wrote back in January or so in response to a thread on the big NYC meeting. Apparently, it's still listed among the many pseudonyms I use (along with "Boke" and "Dedalus" and "vhD"), and I accidentally clicked it under "Name."
As to your question, I guess I'm more bashful than most when it comes to expressing personal sentiments in a public domain. If pressed, though, I might say, however cliched, that home is where the heart is. My heart now has two homes, and that makes me a lucky man.
-mm
[> Short Time -- Ann-Sebastian, 14:00:20 08/01/02 Thu
In war movies/cop movies any soldier/police officer who announces how few days he has until he's shipped stateside/retires isn't going to be alive for the final reel.
[> What? He's been thrown off the police force? Now he's sure to stop the bad guys!!! -- Sheri, 14:02:55 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> Found a nice little listing... -- Sheri, 14:18:19 08/01/02 Thu
I remember receiving an email once that listed a whole bunch of movie cliches... coincidentally, the last Lethal Weapon movie committed all the cliches listed...
Anyhoo, couldn't find the list, but did find a website:
www.moviecliches.com
[> [> [> Argh! -- Masq, 14:54:46 08/01/02 Thu
Now you have me over at that site reading cliches instead of working! Some are pretty giggle-worthy.
[> [> [> Great link! Thanks! -- Rob, 14:55:23 08/01/02 Thu
[> A conversation the two leads have near the beginning... -- Dichotomy, 15:46:16 08/01/02 Thu
is redone at the very end, usually in a joking or ironic manner. As in: They're fighting with each other:
Man (angrily): "People like you just don't know what they want out of life!"
Woman (enraged): "All I know is that I want YOU out of MINE!"
Later:
Man (with sheepish yet sincere and charming demeanor): "People like you just don't know what they want out of life."
Woman (unconvincingly perturbed): "All I know is that I want you out of mine. (Turns to walk away, then stops, turns back to Man and they kiss passionately. The End --the curtains close on a kiss god knows!)
[> [> ah, but that led to... -- ponygirl, 06:37:11 08/02/02 Fri
...the classic Top Gun exchange between Ice and Maverick at the end of the movie, "You can ride my tail anytime!"
[> [> [> I'd call them "dialogue bookends" -- Dichotomy, 13:24:28 08/02/02 Fri
Some are good, but usually it seems to be a lazy way for the writer to wrap things up.
[> Good cliches vs. bad cliches anyone? -- Masq, 15:58:35 08/01/02 Thu
Some cliches, like the ones above, are just movie writers and directors getting lazy or bowing to fashion and stereotypes.
But other times, they're not. For example, at the site Sheri linked to above, there's a cliche that reads something like "No one ever smokes a cigarette in a movie because they have to, only when they're nervous."
As a writer, I realized I did this with one of my characters. But I did it for a reason. "When is a cigarette NOT a cigarette?" When it's a symbol or a sign for nervousness and/or anxiety. As long as it's not overdone, it becomes movie short-hand for nervousness/anxiety.
I'm not good with metaphors and what have you, but I'm betting there are folks on this board that can show the symbolic significance of many movie cliches, including ones that tap into our basic mythologies or that are story-telling devices or short-hand that have been around for ages and ages because they work.
Anyone?
[> [> Re: Good cliches vs. bad cliches anyone? -- ponygirl, 06:56:32 08/02/02 Fri
Hmm. Well, all of the cliches that have been mentioned most likely got their start as good story-telling devices, it's just that over the years they get turned into exactly what you say, movie shorthand. Want to give the main character a motivation for finding the bad guy? Kill his partner. Want to make the audience care about said partner? Throw in a poignant detail like that he was about to retire. It's just hard at this point to think of good movie examples of these cliches (maybe once my morning caffeine kicks in). Right now all I can think of is Romeo and Juliet-- to motivate Romeo Mercutio had to be killed off. Of course Mercutio was a developed and much-loved character so his death really hurt!
[> [> ok, but i could still do without... -- anom, 23:34:05 08/03/02 Sat
...ordering/knocking back a stronger drink (or the same drink, but more urgently) in reaction to disappointment/bad news/other negative stimulus instead of just showing the emotion (it's called "acting").
[> [> Art vs. Life -- Rattletrap, 10:30:04 08/06/02 Tue
Where is the line between cliche and art imitating life? The case you mention with a nervous person smoking a cigarette seems to be a case of the latter--most of the smokers I know immediately light up a cigarette (or sometimes several) when they feel nervous. If this is a cliche, it is one of life, not just of film. The same could probably be said for some of the other movie cliches we've listed here. Anyone care to offer more examples?
P.S. My annoying cliche/nitpick/pet-peeve: Person A and Person B are talking on the phone. Person B hangs up and we cut back to Person A and hear the sound of a dial tone. Why do we hear a dial tone? Shouldn't it just be silence?
[> [> I've observed that a cigarette often says "I'm a bad guy" or "I'm a tough guy" (current use) -- vh, 14:18:58 08/06/02 Tue
[> How about repeating the same line for dramatic emphasis. -- A8, 16:53:00 08/01/02 Thu
For example, character A says: "I don't like the sound of that"(a cliche line itself), to which Character B replies: "Me neither A...me neither." That is usually enough to destroy my suspension of disbelief for the remainder of the piece. The formula is so trite--state your reply with the person's name ("Me too Bob"), Shatnerian pause, then state it again in a slightly more reflective tone leaving out the person's name ("Me too").It's usually so forced and phony, a total embarrassment and such a ridiculous lack of craft or skill, I don't know why anybody ever even thinks to use it, or why nobody calls them on it when they do.
Here's another one that really irks me. Although usually heard in a horror or sci-fi film, it can also be found in any number of police dramas, murder mysteries or sitcoms. Character A and B enter a building, room, forest, or any place you know something is going to happen (based on the unartfully executed foreshadowing in the prior scene or scenes) and Character A says: "It's quiet here." Character B replies : "Yeah, a little too quiet." This is usually followed by some sort of attack (monster, gangster, earthquake, name your bogeyman).
The use of either of the above cliches should be grounds for expulsion from the writer's guild for a period of no less than one year and some form of blacklisting or public ridicule.
[> [> Good one! Also repeating names.... -- mundusmundi, 17:15:44 08/01/02 Thu
You know what I mean, A8. What I'm talking about, A8, is in movies, A8, when the characters keep repeating each other's names. It's just not natural, A8. Seriously, A8, in real life, how often does this actually happen?*
(*Semi-cribbed from Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man.)
[> Spielberg School of Cliche Writing/Directing. -- A8, 17:40:28 08/01/02 Thu
"Jaws"(actually Peter Benchley gets most of the blame here)--The guy who is most afraid of the water (Roy Scheider) is the one in the end who has to confront and kill the shark. Despite the fact that a person has been terribly mangled by a great white shark, the local mayor not only forces every public official to cover up the incident, but encourages people to get in the water and splash about enthusiastically. The guy they hire to hunt the shark (Robert Shaw), coincidentally was one of the only survivors of the worst shark feeding frenzy in naval history. And in one of the most overdone Ahab impressions in history, speaks of the shark as if it were a familiar friend. And so on and so on...
"Close Encounters"--In the middle of tornado country, a child has no fear of, but in fact is attracted to, the shaking earth and flashing lights generated by a landing UFO. Despite elaborate security and no mountain climbing gear, a portly, hagard Richard Dreyfus is able to hike miles and climb a substantial portion of Devil's Tower to get a first hand view of first contact. Despite no training whatsoever, Dreyfus is chosen to be one of the ambassadors to the alien ship.
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"--cute kid defies all physical laws in mineshaft run away cart.
"Saving Private Ryan"--the ultimate obvious irony--young Jewish-American soldier after bragging about the Hitler youth knife he scavenged as a souvenir off a dead Nazi is later killed with the same knife at the hands of another Nazi. The young medic who is treated with affection as the troop mascot is killed tragically. An overmatched handful of allied soldiers hold the bridge and save Private Ryan just as air support arrives in the nick of time!
"Jurassic Park 2"--Jeff Goldblum's gymnastic pre teen daughter is able to generate enough force to kick a 2 ton velociraptor in the nose and knock it down. All the critical characters trapped in a bus being pushed off a cliff by T-Rex are able to escape without a scratch by holding on to a cable and each other's legs as the bus falls perfectly past them (and they slip through the back door).
"E.T."--pretty much the entire movie.
Good ole' Steven. Advancing American cinema one step forward, two steps back.
[> [> Re: Spielberg School of Cliche Writing/Directing. -- Rob, 18:11:08 08/01/02 Thu
Spielberg may be cliche, but some of his movies are among my favorites of all time...
"Jaws," "E.T.," and especially "Close Encounters."
Not that I don't agree with you about the over-the-top or overly sentimental elements, but I still adore those movies. They make me happy and all oogly inside. :o)
Rob
[> [> [> Me too Rob, I've seen most of them more than once though... -- A8, 19:02:30 08/01/02 Thu
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Jurassic Park 2," aside from the impressive special effects are kind of embarrassing IMHO. Kind of like the movie equivalent of tasty junk food--filling and satisfying for a short time, but with a lingering, unwanted, aftertaste.
In fact, if you take the cliches out of his more serious stuff, like "Saving Private Ryan" those movies would have been so much more powerful IMO. It's almost as if he doesn't trust himself or his audience to accept a higher level of intensity, so he retreats back to the safety of his trusty cliches and the warm and fuzzy comfort of cute children. I hate to say it, but the inclusion of the "warm and fuzzies" and cliches would seem to appeal to a wider demographic, so perhaps he is just motivated by the box office and simply has the skill and talent to get away with it.
It's too bad, really. For someone who idolized Kubrick (whose work too many is too devoid of any sentimentality), Spielberg seemed to have taken an opposing track. Compare "Paths of Glory" with "Saving Private Ryan" and you'll see what I mean. "Paths of Glory" was made against the wishes of many (was banned in France for a few decades, in fact) and was politcally controversial from its inception, yet Kubrick (and Kirk Douglas) refused to pull any punches to placate (or pander to) an audience. "Saving Private Ryan" (and "Schidler's List" for that matter) was marketed as controversial (due to the realistic portrayal of war gore), but was made without any resistance and then was praised, almost universally it seems, as a "bold" move. Obviously, those doing the praising hadn't seen "Hamburger Hill" or even Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket. It would be nice, for once, for Spielberg to not play it safe and really let loose. It might appear that he just doesn't have it in him, he's not a risk taker, that it is not his style, but he's done it to some extent before he had a box office reputation to uphold. "Duel," the TV movie that launched his career, has absolutely no "warm and fuzzies" or cliches (that I can recall) and is a classic.
Oh well. I guess that's the difference between making movies and making films. While I think there's no doubt that Spielberg makes great movies, it's doubtful that he will ever be regarded as a great film maker. I doubt he's complaining about his success though since it is well-deserved and there's no question that he has a mastery of the craft.
[> [> [> [> Have you guys seen "Something Evil"? -- Arethusa, 19:33:34 08/01/02 Thu
A 1971 telefilm he did, starring Sandy Dennis and Darren McGavin. It combined real chills and good scenes of family life, without an emphesis on special effects, or semtimentality. In interviews he made after Raiders of the Lost Ark came out, Spielburg said he wanted to make a little movie about kids, from their point of view. That became E. T., which I loved, but somehow that little movie got lost.
[> [> [> [> Don't Forget To Add A.I. and Minority Report to that List... -- AngelVSAngelus, 22:51:00 08/06/02 Tue
I'll spare you the details, for fear of spoiling things for more recent movies not everyone has seen, but if you've viewed either of them you know what I'm talking about.
Do I need Ben Kingsly's condescension?
Man, all that eye imagery is really not there for a reason, is it?
[> [> I'm Sorry, A 2 TON RAPTOR!! -- Majin Gojira, 19:52:28 08/01/02 Thu
Ok, Not only are Raptors body size much to small for this, they are also VERY LIGHTLY BUILT!!
2 tons is a GROSS overestimation!
Sure, the Raptors of JP are pretty much Scalled Down Utah-Raptors, and these 8ft tall (23ft long) 'super-raptors' are estimated at only 1 ton, half your estimation.
Or, if you consider them a scaled up Deinonychus(4ft tall, 10ft long), scientist estimate it's living weight to be only 110lbs
I Yell Profanities and curses at you! ARRRRRRRRGGHHHH!!!
Sorry, I lost control for a second....
Majin Gojira
------------
Say Hi to my Pet Peeve - He's called "Palentological Accuracy"
Things Learned from JP3: Dinosaurs, despite being equiped with long claws and teeth designed to deal long and slashing blows to bleed prey to death, kill their prey by snapping their necks. -_-;;;
[> [> [> Yikes and apologies!!! Well, it wouldn't have been believable even if it were a Kangaroo. -- A8, 20:10:01 08/01/02 Thu
I refrain from providing weight estimates for fear of offending any SPIROMWAM (the Society for the Prevention Of Inaccurate Reporting of Marsupial Weights and Measurements) members.
[> [> [> [> Re: Yikes and apologies!!! Well, it wouldn't have been believable even if it were a Kangaroo. -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:19:36 08/02/02 Fri
Of course it wouldn't be believable with a kangaroo. Do you have any idea how tough a kangaroo is? They're like pure muscle or something.
[> [> [> [> [> And they Hop at like 40mph (not exact figure) -- Majin Gojira, 19:02:39 08/02/02 Fri
[> Evil overlords -- Maroon Lagoon, 19:41:39 08/01/02 Thu
You've probably seen this net classic before, but it's still funny:
http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/filmtv/overlord.html
I like #34.
[> [> Too bad it doesn't take new submissions anymore -- Majin Gojira, 20:05:16 08/01/02 Thu
And I had some good ones too.
"Never offend a small villages 'Mythical Guardian Diety'. Just don't do it"
IE: Mothra, Daimaijin, Gamera vs. Monster X, numerous others.
Majin Gojira
------------
Just because it's cleche, doesn't mean it can't be fun
[> Probably one you should blame Quentin Tarantino for... -- KdS, 05:11:44 08/02/02 Fri
Relatively new, but already massively overexposed - use of jolly retro pop numbers as ironic soundtrack to extreme violence/horror. Even AtS couldn't resist this one (the salesman's suicide in "Are you now..")
[> [> Forever Knight -- Maroon Lagoon, 07:39:44 08/02/02 Fri
According to tvtome.com, the hotel manager in "Are You Now..." starred in Forever Knight as a character who liked polka music, so the music in that episode was a little in-joke.
I personally think there should be a ten-year moratorium on use of the word "ironic" and anyone who says "retro" should simply be shot.
[> A single blow to the head... -- CW, 07:58:35 08/02/02 Fri
always knocks the person unconscious and never has any lasting bad effects.
[> [> OK, there is an exception, but it's a cliche as well -- CW, 08:15:25 08/02/02 Fri
If there is any blood on the back of the victim's head, he's dead or dying.
[> [> [> There's another exception . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:34:49 08/02/02 Fri
Ever seen "Home Alone"? Those two burglers take a dozen blows to the head but never fall unconscious. Granted, this does fit in with the "villains keep coming no matter how much you hurt them" cliche.
[> [> [> [> Yeah, but that's more of a cartoon cliche, than a movie cliche -- CW, 06:16:32 08/03/02 Sat
Sylvester the cat, Wiley Coyote or whoever gets an anvil dropped on his head. He either gets smashed flat or staggers around before falling over. An instant later in cartoon run-time, he's back running around plotting another scheme. Same with Home Alone. Movies for kids and those for general audiences like Disney movies used to be, often have that kind of cartoon action.
[> [> This happens on Buffy a lot... -- Dichotomy, 13:13:50 08/02/02 Fri
After Giles (or Anya or Xander or take your pick) gets knocked unconscious (again), I always find myself wondering how they've all endured multiple head injuries all these years! I'm no doctor, but aren't head injuries really bad?
[> [> [> Re: This happens on Buffy a lot... -- monsieurxander, 18:07:52 08/03/02 Sat
I think the writers are aware of this, and have at least on one occasion poked fun at it. Case in point: the episode Gingerbread.
Cordelia wakes up an unconcious Giles.
Cordy: "One of these days you're going to wake up in a coma."
Also, I liked the fact that Anya's injuries, both of the head and the shoulder, in the episode Real Me were carried into the next as well (remember the "Kicking Movie" scene??).
[> Evil guy WALKS and always seems to keep up with good guy RUNNING! -- GreatRewards, 08:08:38 08/02/02 Fri
[> Acknowledgement of Cliches! -- Wizardman, 15:04:08 08/02/02 Fri
I don't know if I'm more annoyed or amused by this one, but here goes... Whenever a cliche DOESN'T happen, someone ALWAYS makes a comment like "Well, it always works in the movies." Granted, it is something that people do say IRL- I've heard them- but it provides a jolt out of the suspension of disbelief that is very difficult to recover from.
[> A person is very, very drunk until... -- Rob, 21:02:20 08/02/02 Fri
...something serious happens (could be the character learning of the death of a friend; could be the villain appearing to chase the character; could be anything the plot requires) and instantly the character is completely sober and ready for action.
Rob
[> [> Re: A person is very, very drunk until... -- Brian, 04:15:19 08/03/02 Sat
But that does happen in real life. I know; I've been there.
[> [> [> Re: A person is very, very drunk until... -- Cactus Watcher, 06:31:52 08/03/02 Sat
Yes, if you suddenly need to get control of yourself and you are not one the verge of passing out, you can sober up very quickly to the point others will not realize you're drunk at all. I still don't advise driving that way.
[> [> [> [> But usually in the movies they are TOTALLY sober, enough to drive... -- Rob, 08:29:31 08/03/02 Sat
An example is "The Faculty." All the kids snort some heavy drugs to see which one of them is the alien. For a few seconds they are all very, very high. Then when the aliens emerge, they are totally sober, run out to their car and drive away.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: But usually in the movies they are TOTALLY sober, enough to drive... -- Brian, 08:52:05 08/03/02 Sat
If the shock is strong enough, then being suddenly cold sober is possible, even to the point where one can drive.
[> [> Yeah, that one made it into AtS as well -- KdS, 06:04:21 08/03/02 Sat
Cordy, Wes and Gunn in "Redefinition"
Like the way it didn't happen in "Life Serial" though.
[> Gorgeous girl/doofy-looking guy -- HonorH, 18:45:14 08/03/02 Sat
Not that I mind doofy-looking guys so much--some of my favorite guys are doofy both in looks and character. It's just that it never goes the *other* way. A gorgeous guy *never* is allowed to fall for a girl who's less than perfect. The guy can be all sorts of squidgy around the edges, but the girl must have a perfect face and figure, or there's no way she's getting him. I really wish there would be a movie or TV show in which a woman with average, non-model looks gets the guy on account of she's a sweetheart and he's got good taste.
[> surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet -- anom, 23:44:56 08/03/02 Sat
Cop/detective's (usually--hell, almost always--black) partner gets killed in the 1st 10 minutes.
Dave Barry nailed the disaster movie version of this one (along w/numerous others) ~5 years ago in a column called "Formula for Disaster."
[> Can I do a TV one? -- Darby, 09:41:43 08/04/02 Sun
Various time distortions.
Something really important happens as characters leave a scene. The next scene starts and they begin to discuss it.
In between, they have been in a car (off camera), BUT NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT HAPPENING!!!!
I understand the necessity, but it still drives me nuts. I guess it's why Gene Roddenberry invented transporters and many of the funnier scenes in Moonlighting happened in cars.
Heck, it took me a while to accept LA Law because their cases all seemed to occur within 48 hours of arrest or filing of suit.
Sometimes you have to shrug and go with it.
[> [> I noticed that time distortion thing... -- Rob, 09:58:14 08/04/02 Sun
In "The Pack"...Xander, Will, and Buff have the conversation about the hyenas, and what Xander had done, as a hyena, the next day, in the courtyard of the school...not, right there at the zoo, that night.
Rob
[> When the villian dies... -- tim, 19:57:22 08/05/02 Mon
...the heroes are always "forced" to kill him/her because despite being beaten and in custody, the guy goes for a gun/knife/other handy weapon in a last desperate attempt to knock off the protagonist. (And people say Hollywood doesn't like capital punishment!)
And no matter what, the villian has to see his/her own death coming and scream in terror in that last instant.
[> The infamous "last line" before someone dies -- Caesar Augustus, 06:49:33 08/06/02 Tue
[> [> "The Money's in the -UIgh..." (MST3K Reference anyone?) -- Majin Gojira, 17:52:21 08/06/02 Tue
Did ME have the right to inflict Seeing Red on the audience? -- Miss Edith, 12:12:47 08/01/02 Thu
In the real world Spike punching Buffy repeatedly in the face would not be tolerated. However in Smashed a different set of rules were set up for the characters. As supernatural creatures they could both handle themselves. Indeed it was suggested that they almost got off on the violence, and it was treated as sexual foreplay. At the very least the violence did seem to give Buffy a rush of passion when kissing Spike. Therefore the majority of the audience accepted Bts as being a fantasy drama and with different rules to the "real world".
The "hottie" factor of B/S was certainly exploited. There were ads promating Spuffy. There was gratituos nudity (on Spike's part). There were many sex scenes. There was the suggestion of greater possibilities in Dead Things when B/S were almost supernaturally drawn to each other and a song played in the background had lyrics about the barriers falling down.
I would argue that a completely different set of rules were set up in Seeing Red. The formally empowered blond who get throw Spike across a room with a flick of the wrists was reduced to a whimpering victim crying helplessly for a significant amount of time. ME (in particular Marti Noxen) spoke of Spike being the bad boyfriend and wanting to promote a social message. Spike's good deeds were dismissed by Marti in one memerable interview in which she stated that the audience must remember that Spike is a bad boyfriend and had tried to kill Willow in season 4. Therefore any character development was meaningless as Spike would always be the evil killer/bad boyfriend. It could almost be said that ME were trying to take the moral high ground and punish the audience for getting off on B/S.
Yet James Marsters has said that Marti has an obsession with his nipples and loves all of his nude scenes. After inflicting thinly disguised porn on us did ME have the right to make Spike a rapist in a transparent and tasteless plot device?
I would argue that after screening Smashed it was a mistake for ME to change the rules in Seeing Red no matter what the intentions were. Watching the sex in Smashed has now been soured and seems wrong and dirty. Yet was it meant to be seen as such at the time? Yes it was a different type of erotica but it was erotic all the same. In Dead Things Buffy only had to be touched by Spike to be turned on as Spike entered her and she was apparently wet and ready. It seemed like Spike walked up to Buffy, pressed a special button on her thigh named "instant horniness" and she was ready to go. Using rape as a gratituos plot device and passing it off as a social responsibiliy was wrong following the general tone of the season in which Buffy indulged in wild sex without repurcussions.
It almost felt as if the AR was a punishment for Buffy's mixed signals and enjoying non vanilla sex. I was arguing Buffy had sexual freedom to do as she wished on other Buffy forums and I am not pleased with the AR and the implict messages. I have seen enought horror films in which the monster kills the non-virgens. Buffy lost her virginity and her boyfriend became a monster. Yet Joss said in a commentry that was not the intended message, and it was unfortunate that it came across to the audience in that way. But the AR did come across strongly as a potential warning for not endangering mens emotions when having sex with them. Why must all sex Buffy has have such unpleasnt repurcussions?
It came across as a message to the audience from ME and an unnecesery one about trusting the bad boyfriend. It was particularly offensive as ME had almost made Buffy a porn series and yet felt they had the right to punish the audience for enjoying the sex. Thoughts?
[>Well, IMO, SR was one of the most finely crafted, perfectly executed eps in the show's history... -- Rob, 12:42:46 08/01/02 Thu
...so I say, inflict away! ;o)
Rob
[> [>Yes. ME can inflict more terrific writing and great acting on me anyday. -- mundusmundi, 13:00:10 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [>I hear ya, mm! -- Rob, 13:09:01 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [>Re: Yes. ME can inflict more terrific writing and great acting on me anyday. -- Miss Edith, 13:26:29 08/01/02 Thu
I am not arguing about the quality of the episode. I do disagree with the audience being send messages about the bad boyfriend even if it means throwing aside character continuty to do so. Marti admited owing to the audience emphasising with Spike, not Buffy the rape scene in SR was added. I have major problems with this.
Firstly last minute planning. Rushing the rape scene through because the heroine was losing fans was a shoddy move in my eyes. Surely the writers must have known that Spike having his emotions on screen for all to see would tug at the audiences heart strings more than Buffy being portrayed as an emotionel zombie. Spike crying and wanting to be worthy and wanting to be loved is surely an emotion we have all felt at one time or another. Seeing Buffy cast him aside and treat him as a worthless thing beneath contempt (specifically in Smashed when discusing the kiss and calling him a "disgusting thing" and in front of Riley) did not portray the hero in a flatering light regardless of how bad Spike's past was and how much he could be seen to deseve it. Nevertheless it did not endear Buffy to the audience. I am not arguing this personally but on other boards many posters have said they stopped liking the character Buffy in season 6 as she became a user with a suggested mean streak. Yet ME think if they make her the victim that the message they want to get across will be drummed into the audiences head and we will forgive her beating Spike as she suffers in the bathroom scene. Sorry but I just find that bad writing plain and simple. I don't appreciate the rape card being played in the manner of an anvils to hit the audience over the head with. If we were supposed to see Spike as evil and unworthy without a soul this should have come across more clearly on screen, not in writers interviews scolding the fans for not getting the correct message. Portraying Spike as an international arms dealer for on episode (to create a contrast with Riley) was also poorly done. There was no build-up and no repurcussions. It was mentioned in just one episode and forgotten about. Not to mention how did Spike make connections when he was allied with the slayer, enemies with most demons because of this and living in a crypt with no phone.
My other problem was with ME ripping all the romantism from the relationship. That would be fair enough if the audience hadn't been encouraged to emotionally invest in the couple and had nude Spike and sex scene constantly on screen. Sex sells and it is fine for ME to use it to promate the couple but if people invest in the ship the right message must be taught. Sorry but that reeks of hypocracy to me.
In the same way although not such a double standard the character of Tara in season 6 was build up in season 6 for one specific purpose. Willow and Tara were allowed to have on-screen sex free from metaphour for one episode. Why? Not because of homophobia or punishing the gay characters. But in order to make it hurt the audience as much as possible when the couples are ripped away. Many viewers have been protesting recently that ME are not playing fair. And I have to say I don't think it's right for the audience to be punished for seeing Spike in a romantic position when it was ME who encouraged such a message with the promotion of the B/S coupling. Remember all the clamour when ME admitted to having given permission for a Spuffy t-shirt whilst the attempted rape was planned? Buffy and Spike were on a t-shirt with a big red heart around them, ME had approved that image and then went on to tell the viewers in interviews that supporting B/S was wrong and they couldn't understand why the audience were doing so. That is what I am uncomfortable with.
[> [> [> [>Fighting the show within your own head...... -- cjc36, 01:51:24 08/02/02 Fri
This is an example where the plot in one's head and heart begins to diverge dramatically from what the producers actually do.
I never took S/B as anything but damaged goods. Am I a shipper? Guess not. Spike always was the devil with the high cheekbones-that's why he's the devil, and if one 'got off' on any of the sexcapades, that was kind of the point, wasn't it? I mean, Spike is handsome, so....sex with him would be neat for a girl, I figure.
Buffy kept warring with her own internal self, knowing what Spike was but still needing a fix - just to numb the post-resurrection funk she was in. The price for using him? The near rape. Not to say it was her fault, but enough mixed messages had been sent Spike's way that, mixed with his soul-lessness, he could've thought it was foreplay until the microsecond, when he truly did cross the line. How many times did Buffy say no to him but let him have his way, anyway?
The real problem is that Spike as played by JM is a truly sympathetic character; the protagonist within his own arc, and it's hard to realize that in the greater story, he was, until the end of Gone, an amoral animal at the very core.
[>I liked SR. So it wasn't a pain to sit through but then I feel that way about every ep. -- Deeva, 12:50:12 08/01/02 Thu
[>I rewatched SR last night and here are my thoughts from this morning's Blue post.. -- AurraSing, 12:54:45 08/01/02 Thu
Subject: O lord..in a moment of weakness I popped a tape into my VCR last night...
Blame boredom or blame the fact that my hubby was not around to talk me out of it (He wishes he'd missed most of season 6) but I watched most of "Seeing Red" last night.
I'm almost yearning for old age to come so I can wipe hours like this out of my mind completely.It wasn't just Spike's flipping out that makes me cringe,it's watching Warren treat everyone like dirt,those stupid Orbs (o,how I wish they had been cubes instead,so we could have avoided all those unnessesary crude jokes at the stupid writer's expense) and the fact that we are seeing W/T in it's last moments.If DMP was bad,this episode was CRAP.
It was lazy and stupid.One moment Buffy can barely stand up straight,the next she is taking on Warren's bad-ass butt.Dawn is suddenly all grown-up when she goes to talk to Spike...whatever happened to whining and shrieking at him?? Does this mean we should blame Dawn for sending Spike on that fateful trip to the Summers house? Whatever happened to Spike being somewhat of gentleman-since when would he barge right in and confront Buffy in the bathroom?? Bedroom maybe,bathroom never! And who was the bright thing who suddenly decided Andrew=Gay now! Whatever happened to turning the female residents of Sunnydale into sex slaves ala Warren's girlfriend??? Did the continuity person just not show up for work that day??
Sigh.
I think I'm going to put my season 6 tapes away someplace where I won't be tempted to pull one out and rewatch any of the eps.It's now less than 2 months till we start season 7 and I want to look forward in some small way to getting a Buffy fix again.
[> [>Andrew gay now... -- Rob, 12:57:35 08/01/02 Thu
I don't think Andrew was ever not gay. He was trying to prove his masculinity to Warren by asking for "babes." A friend of mine who is gay told me that he used to say things like that before he came out, to hide his true sexuality. That wasn't a continuity error.
Rob
[> [> [>But it was sooooo bloody laughable coming at this point in the story! -- AurraSing, 13:03:16 08/01/02 Thu
Tossing in his gayness in the crunch just made the character pathetic,thus destroying any menace he possibly could afford.We knew Andrew was not a strong character but by suddenly outing him they made a lot of viewers think the gayness was to blame,not his lack of character.(and yes,several of my gay buddies were pissed at the timing of it!)
[> [> [> [>Actually, I found the revelation touching and meaningful at that point... -- Rob, 13:13:28 08/01/02 Thu
...it brought a whole new level to Andrew and Warren's relationship, and enriched the earlier episodes. What I love most about Buffy is quiet, subtle revelations like this.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>Sorry,I found it mawkish *and* trite. -- AurraSing, 13:21:16 08/01/02 Thu
I felt like I was being hit over the head with it.It was merely thrown in there to give ME an excuse for not killing off Andrew by the season finale-"Oh,see,Andrew is not really bad,he's just weak and misguided because he's in love with Warren and thus will follow him blindly!!!!"
Puh-lease!
O well,we are never to going to agree on this subject..I'd much rather forget it ever happened,as stated in my original post.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Well, I'm glad they did it...Finally helped me understand Andrew... -- Rob, 14:30:09 08/01/02 Thu
...as a character. But obviously neither of us are gonna convince the other.
Thus the agreeing to disagree thing. ;o)
Rob
[>Yes, they had the *right* to do it. (monster post) -- HonorH, 13:07:36 08/01/02 Thu
Just as we've got the right to not like it. I've seen multiple povs on this, and I'll give my take.
The Spike/Buffy relationship has *always* been one of sexual attraction, right from their first encounter. Is it a healthy attraction? And if so, to whom--the vampire, or the human?
Spike's reaction to the attraction was simple--he stalked Buffy, spied on her, and chained her up and threatened her with death if she didn't admit to feelings for him. For some odd reason, this was rebuffed. However, later on, Spike proved it was more than attraction when he spared Buffy the pain of losing Dawn. He also came to care for Dawn in her own right, which took him through the summer after Buffy's death.
Spike, as we've seen, is capable of love. Look at his relationship with Dru--they were together for some 120 years. However, when she broke up with him, he was 1) upset that she hadn't killed him, and 2) decided the best way of getting her back was tying her up and torturing her ("Lover's Walk"). You *have* to keep that in mind when considering just how Spike loves.
Flash forward to S6. Buffy's back from the grave and deeply messed up. She's in despair. The only person she can really talk to about it is Spike, because he doesn't *need* her to be Happy Happy Buffy for him, the way the Scoobies and Dawn do. It is also my opinion that she felt, at this point, the attraction between them and alternated between relishing and denying it. She felt she shouldn't feel this way--witness her both pulling Spike toward her and pushing him away up through their first kisses in OMWF and TR.
Spike, meanwhile, is a creature caught between worlds. As he notes, the chip won't let him be a monster, but he can't be a man due to his lack of soul. He's tried living in Buffy's world, only to find himself pushed away by the Scoobies--witness his reaction to finding out they'd shut him out of the resurrection in AL. When he discovers he can hurt Buffy, that she's perhaps not exactly human anymore, he tries his hardest to pull her into his world. More on this shortly.
To me, one of the most important things about their relationship is that they had sex for the first time *after* Buffy discovered Spike could hurt her. Here's the equation: Buffy's a Slayer; Spike's killed two Slayers; Spike can harm Buffy; Buffy has sex with him immediately after discovering this. Does this shout "self-destructive tendencies" to anyone but me?
So they have their relationship. It's rough. It's violent. Spike tells Buffy "There's no one but me for you" ("Smashed"). He tells her her friends would look at her in horror if they knew what was going on ("Dead Things"). He tells her she's a creature of darkness, like him (DT). He tells her she came back wrong, and must be a demon (DT, Doublemeat Palace).
For her part, Buffy is distancing herself increasingly from her friends and family. She admits she's using Spike (DT), but can't seem to stop. She's also clinically depressed (this is not an opinion, btw; look up depression in any psych handbook and you'll be able to match the symptoms perfectly with Buffy's state this year). Under extreme stress, she even becomes physically abusive to Spike (DT) and is horrified by her own actions.
To sum up: this is not a healthy relationship. This was never shown to be a healthy relationship. Erotic, yes, but bad for both of them. The eroticism itself could be disputed as a plot device, of course, but I'm not going to. Mind you, I'm about as conservative as they come. However, to my way of thinking, the eroticism served a purpose of showing us exactly what Buffy was getting out of this relationship, bad as it was. Unfortunately, some people seem to have taken it as more than that and have decided the relationship itself was good.
Back to the subject. Buffy breaks up with Spike in AYW after the worst happens--an ex-boyfriend catches her in bed with Spike--and the world doesn't end. She breaks it off simply and honestly, trying to inflict as little hurt as possible. Then she walks out into the sunlight. After this, she never seeks Spike out again except twice: once in "Entropy" to ask him about the camera, and once in "Villains" to look after Dawn. Overall, she's keeping her distance, staying away from someone she knows is bad for her.
Spike, OTOH, repeatedly seeks out Buffy, and his efforts to contact her begin to take a desperate flavor. He tries to blackmail her into telling the Scoobies about them, attempts to make her jealous, and refuses to believe she doesn't love him. As she gets healthier and draws closer to her friends and family, he deteriorates under the onslaught of his own emotions to the point that he engages in unwise sex with Anya and doesn't even attempt to fight back or escape when Xander tries to kill him.
This is the state he's in in SR. Desperate and in despair, he goes to Buffy to try and win her back. He tries to convince her that she does truly love him by *his* definition of love ("It burns and consumes"). She's not buying.
At this point, he's totally unreasonable, which, frankly, is a state that is not unknown to the casual observer of Spike. He thinks that if he can just touch her, get her to feel what she did before, she'll come back to him. The fact that their sexual encounters have been so violent actually gives him some excuse for not getting that this really isn't going to work this time. It's only when she kicks him away and looks at him, hurt, betrayed, and furious, that he understands: he's crossed the line. Before, he could talk himself into believing he wouldn't hurt her. Now, he can't. Thus, he goes off to get what he believes to be the one thing that will allow him back into Buffy's life and keep him from hurting her again: a soul.
None of the above, IMHO, negates the good things Spike has done. He did love Buffy and Dawn, and he did his best to do right by them from mid-S5 through the beginning of S6. What one must never forget, though, is that he *was* soulless. He had no true moral compass, only a "What Would Buffy Do?" mentality. The fact that he was able to follow that already puts him a couple dozen steps ahead of Angelus. That, unfortunately, wasn't enough to make him realize that what he believed to be best for Buffy wasn't necessarily so.
So, after all that wind, my conclusion is: I believe SR was a logical extension of Spike's character and the Spike/Buffy relationship. It was also the catalyst necessary for Spike to go and seek true redemption. Without something that radical, I seriously doubt he'd ever have gone off to get himself a soul. So it may, indeed, be best for Spike in the long run.
[> [>Great post HH! -- ponygirl, 13:13:42 08/01/02 Thu
[> [>Re: Yes, they had the *right* to do it. (monster post) -- MaeveRigan, 13:35:21 08/01/02 Thu
"At this point, he's totally unreasonable, which, frankly, is a state that is not unknown to the casual observer of Spike. He thinks that if he can just touch her, get her to feel what she did before, she'll come back to him. The fact that their sexual encounters have been so violent actually gives him some excuse for not getting that this really isn't going to work this time."
Aha! Maybe someone else has noticed this before--but isn't this almost exactly the way Spike reacted when Dru dumped him in "Lover's Walk"? Where he went wrong is that Buffy really is *not* Dru, that ultimately, she really does *not* belong "in the darkness."
Didn't Dracula try the same trick at the beginning of season 5? But Buffy was in much better emotional shape then; she shook it off almost immediately: "How do you like my darkness now?"
Brilliant post, HonorH.
[> [> [>Re: Yes, they had the *right* to do it. (monster post) -- Miss Edith, 13:51:59 08/01/02 Thu
Spike thought Buffy was denying her slayer nature which is what was making her miserable and repressed. But in Normal Again he acknowledges that Buffy is simply addicted to being miserable and changes his opinion. So I don't think it was a trick as much as Spike genuinely believing he could make Buffy happy. Particularly as she had confided in him at the beginning of season 6 and he felt a relationship could develop in which he would make her happy. Given Buffy totally freezing up at being called an "animal" in the sack I don't think Spike suggesting she needed to embrace her inner monster was an unreasnable assumption as she did seem to fear being a supernatural being pretty strongly.
[> [> [> [>Oh, absolutely. -- HonorH, 14:13:29 08/01/02 Thu
I'm in total agreement with you there. (Don't look so surprised. I'm not *always* disagreeable. *g*) Spike was *totally* into doing what he believed was best for Buffy, but as MaeveRigan pointed out above, what worked for Dru will *not* work for Buffy. What's right for the vampire is often completely not-right for the human. Hence the inherent difficulty of a soulless vampire/souled human relationship.
[> [>Was "monster" about Spike or about the length of the post? -- Masq, 13:45:38 08/01/02 Thu
'cause here, your brilliant treatise (which I loved) is considered rather short. : )
Welcome!
[> [> [>Read Shadowkat's post above and see what I mean. It's medium-sized -- Masq : ), 13:52:22 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [>Thanks! -- HonorH, 14:20:31 08/01/02 Thu
And yes, I did mean the length of the post. It's rather long for me, although come to think of it, I have posted longer on other forums. Glad to know it's par for the course here, though; I can be wordy when I set my mind to it.
Thanks for the welcome!
[> [> [> [>Oh, and, um, touting myself (hope this isn't considered tacky) -- HonorH, 14:30:59 08/01/02 Thu
My BtVS and AtS fanfic is here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=29024
Dunno how to do HTML here, so cut and paste if you're interested. Do hope you enjoy!
[> [> [> [> [>Nifty HTML guide -- Rufus, 15:52:16 08/01/02 Thu
www.atpobtvs.com/faq.html
[> [> [> [>Great, great post, HonorH...please come back and post more! -- Rob, 14:51:45 08/01/02 Thu
[> [>Re: Just a couple of points. -- Miss Edith, 13:46:37 08/01/02 Thu
I don't think we can take Spike's plan to torture Dru as a reflection of his character or sexual preferences. Rather Drucilla associated sex with pain and torture owing to Angelous. She looks at Angel and giggles about how much he had hurt her in Innocene. In the Angel episode Reunion she begs Angel to spank her. It was actually implied that Spike did not hurt Dru enough for her tastes which is why she returned to Angelous who was always the central figure in her life. Spike did learn a lot from Dru as I had the impression she was his first lover and probably did teach him some warped sexual practices. Hence him believing Buffy would be convinced of his love if he killed his ex. Nevertheless I don't think his treatment of Dru can be used to deconstruct his character.
Spike is a character who will change and do anything to please the woman he loves. But he was shown to have the urge to treat Dru gently and like a "princess". He was going along with what Dru felt she needed but I never felt that torturing someone he loved would come naturally to him. Rather Spike seems desperate to be loved and willing to do anything to feel wanted/needed (hence him accepting the beating in DT).
My point is I would not object so much if I could really feel that Spike trying to rape Buffy was part of a carefully developed character arc and it has been discussed how the repurcussions of the sceen will be handled. (Particularly as it was the mans weaknesses which attacked Buffy whereas Angelous was vamped when he killed Jenny in order to keep audience reaction favourable.) I have read posts arguing Buffy was beating Spike in DT because she was emotionally repressed and Spike lets his emotions overwhelm him hence the attempted rape. I could accept that if I felt that was the writers intentions and it had been planned. But the fact is the scene was added at the the last minute to teach the audience a moral lesson about trusting the bad boyfriend. I have read countless interviews from Marti the executive producer which only serve to reinforce this opinion. That is what makes me uncomfortable regardless of the well thought out posts studying Spike's motives and how the scene does make sense.
[> [> [>Re: Ultimately we live with what was on the screen. -- Just George, 14:34:05 08/01/02 Thu
While we can get some value from what the creators of the show have to say, ultimately we have to live with what was on the screen. It doesn't matter to me if a writer added a scene at the beginning of the season or the last minute. In either case it is part of the narrative and I try to judge it as such.
I agree with HonorH that Seeing Red was not only a reasonable culmination of the Spike/Buffy relationship, it was emotionally and morally necessary for both characters to move on in their stories. Both characters' actions were reasonable and foreseeable given their history. For many episodes I had expected some kind of problem to arise from Buffy's saying "no" when meaning "yes." Did I think ME would go as far as they did? No, but they did that to me a lot in Season 6.
Ultimately, I did not find the attempted rape out of character, but I found two bits of the craft of the storytelling that could have been done better. Both have to do with Buffy's injuries and/or healing.
I accept that Buffy was injured the first time because I saw it happen. The broken headstone and her limping were reasonable "show not tell" devices that drove the injury home. However, the fall in the bathroom (her second injury) was less visible and was only obvious to me upon first viewing because Buffy was saying "I'm hurt." In retrospect, a loud "crack" sound effect when Buffy fell into the bathtub might have reinforced her second injury and made the audience less confused by her inability to initially get away from Spike.
Buffy's recovery in her fight with Warren also could have used some explanation. Warren's line about Buffy being "off her game" and Buffy's about "feeling better" were designed to show that Buffy had recovered from her injuries. Also, the fight choreography were supposed to show Buffy be tentative at first because of her injuries, get stronger as she got into the fight, and then get warn down by Warren's strength and invulnerability. I think this progression was too complicated to show given the limited vocabulary of the fight choreography. It came across to me, but not clearly.
I can fan wank why the injuries acted on Buffy as they did. Historically Buffy has been less "slayer like" when she is confused or conflicted. She doesn't fight as well and I expect she doesn't heal as well. She is slower, her attacks are weaker, her blocks less effective, and enemy attacks seem to hurt more. However, Buffy is very "slayer like" when she is focused and sure of herself and her enemy. She fights better and I expect she heals faster and blocks out pain better.
While holding off Spike, Buffy was recovering from being injured (twice) in the same place in quick succession. She was also conflicted because of the "gray" nature of their relationship. Thus, Buffy was ineffective until she pushed Spike away.
When fighting Warren, Buffy had a very "black" enemy and some time to recover from her previous injuries. When Warren hit Buffy hard, she knew she could hit him back just as hard. This seemed to get her adrenaline pumping and allowed her to either heal or ignore the pain from her previous injuries.
We've seen Buffy recover in combat like this before. Buffy went from being confused to being in "full slayer mode" after being slapped by the leader of the demon bikers in "Bargaining Part II." Buffy made a similar transition while fighting the female vampire at the end of "The Freshman." She even had a similar injury in that episode (a painful wrenched shoulder.) Once she got fighting, she seemed to ignore her pain.
These explanations work for me, but I wish I didn't have to fill in the holes myself. Would I have appreciated a few better "show not tell" cues regarding Buffy's injuries in Seeing Red? Sure. Do I think what happened was out of character with Buffy's history. Nope.
[> [> [> [>Slayer metaphysiology and E.E. 'Doc' Smith's Lensman stories -- OnM, 18:57:29 08/01/02 Thu
*** Historically, Buffy has been less "slayer like" when she is confused or conflicted. She doesn't fight as well and I expect she doesn't heal as well. ***
Just George is pretty much summarizing just what I have always felt to be the case with Buffy. While I cannot state that it is so for previous Slayers, the evidence strongly suggests that Buffy has the potential to heal herself either rapidly or not depending on her mood and focus at the moment.
Buffy has been able to withstand extraordinary physical punishment with nary a twitch on some occasions, and on others has been knocked out of action with minimal effort by her opponent.
In BvsD, Dracula intimated that Buffy had a great deal in common with vampires, and specifically mentions the words 'what your body is capable of'. Dracula himself seemed able to do physical transformations that other vampires could not. It is my feeling that Buffy could be far more than she is, if she only understood how to tap the potential within herself.
Primeval is another example of this. We assume that the 'joining spell' has made Buffy cabable of the effortlessly superhuman feats she demonstrates while defeating Adam, but is the spell providing the power externally, or simply unlocking the real potential within Buffy that is already there?
The events of S6, and the supposed 'return to the light' in S7 make me wonder if Buffy will finally regain enough focus and purpose in her life to begin delving into these possibilities. There has been ample foreshadowing, and not just in the two examples that I have given. ME works years ahead-- it wouldn't surprise me if what Drac was talking about resurfaces this coming year.
Older members of the board may recall 'Doc' Smith's classic SF series about the Lensmen. For those who aren't familiar with it, this 6-novel-long series was about a select group of warriors-for-good who used a partly physical, partly metaphysical device called 'The Lens' to focus and develop their mental capabilities. One of the interesting things that happened during the last volume of the series was that the Lensmen evolved to the point where the Lens was no longer a 'fabrication' presented to them to 'wear', it became internally self-realized by the Lensman himself. They had no need of the external 'machine', they were the machine all along. It was also only at this point of mental development that the great enemy of the story was able to be defeated.
Slayer, (literally) heal thyself...
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Slayer metaphysiology (S7 speculation) -- Just George, 01:23:03 08/03/02 Sat
OnM: It is my feeling that Buffy could be far more than she is, if she only understood how to tap the potential within herself.
A possible "show not tell" way to make it clear that Buffy is back in the swing of things would be for her to demonstrate some of her lesser used slayer abilities and/or develop some new ones.
Some little used abilities that could return include:
* Prophetic dreams.
* Sensing vampires (other than Spike.)
* Fighting things you can't see. (I love it when Buffy listens hard and we see her hair blow, just a bit, in a seemingly calm room.)
Some new abilities could include:
Taking control of the prophetic dreams to:
* Learn from past slayers in dreams. (Imagine Buffy training with the First Slayer in a desert dreamscape.)
* Talk to/interrogating in dreams the people or things that Buffy has killed. (A way to bring back old enemies.)
Expanding Buffy's ability to sense vampires to:
* Sense demons as well as vampires. (Maybe Clem could help her here.)
* Sense auras or magic (to find places like Racks.)
Demonstrating increased physical capabilities like:
* Learning to block a bullet. (As a way to banish guns from the hands of the bad guys once and for all.)
* Making great leaps and/or bouncing off of walls while fighting. (Maybe ME could hire a HK wire expert.)
* Feats of great strength. (like lifting a car off someone.)
The initial use of any of the new abilities could be accompanied by weakness after the act as a payment for "going too far". Then as Buffy gets better using her abilities, the weakness could be reduced or disappear.
A common cliché is that "television is a visual medium." A good visual way to show that Buffy is back in the swing of slaying is to show her effectively expanding her menu of slaying options.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Slayer metaphysiology and E.E. 'Doc' Smith's Lensman stories -- aliera, 07:42:26 08/03/02 Sat
I agree with all of what you said about Buffy's state and potential, OnM. There was a post about her strength in Tabula Rasa that was also in support of this. It was also mentioned (were you one of the posters?) that the fact that she says she has 'chosen' to protect this world in Grave is signifigant. And also what you mentioned about the foreshadowing. In fact, it's left many people thinking there must be more.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Who chooses? -- Just George, 20:53:10 08/03/02 Sat
aliera: "It was also mentioned (were you one of the posters?) that the fact that she says she has 'chosen' to protect this world in Grave is signifigant."
I thought it was especially interesting that the script on Psyche's site says "...the world I was chosen to protect", while on the show Buffy seemed to say "...the world I have chosen to protect". I like the show version better.
[> [> [>Some counterpoints -- HonorH, 14:56:48 08/01/02 Thu
(My &%^* 'Net provider's acting up again, so I hope this isn't a repost)
Regarding Spike's sexual preferences: one of the things he "compliments" Buffy on is how she makes it "hurt, in all the wrong places" (DT). Also, you can't discount what he learned from Dru and from the others in the Fangsome Foursome, as those experiences shaped him as a vampire. It's all a part of the background to his character. Doesn't matter if it's learned or innate.
As to the Marti Noxon interviews, I've also read many of them, and I can't say I agree about them trying to teach a moral lesson. One thing I do think she found frustrating--which she kept reiterating--was that people, particularly on the 'net, were taking Spike's side in everything and insisting the relationship could be a good one, in spite of all the evidence against it. Buffy was cruel, Spike was innocent, all Spike wanted was the best for Buffy, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I can't tell you how sick I've gotten of it at FFN, but that's another rant. In her interviews, MN *did* remind people that Spike *was* once the true Big Bad, he *was* soulless, and the relationship *wasn't* a Good Thing. She didn't discount his good deeds, but reminded the reader that Spike spent 120 years being evil, and he's still capable of it. Just as you can't discount Angel's past when dealing with his character (not to mention little things like letting lawyers get eaten and trying to kill Wesley), just as you now can't forget that Willow has killed a human, Spike's past must be taken into account. People *had* forgotten that and were dealing with him as if he was already redeemed, and I think that's where MN's frustration came from. End Marti apologetics.
As for the attempted rape scene, well, my main post addresses that. I *do* think it's going to be an overall character arc for Spike, as only something that radical could make him seek out a soul. The story's not over yet.
[> [>Excellent post and actually rather short...;-) -- shadowkat, 16:33:47 08/01/02 Thu
You want to see long posts see all of mine and Om's and Age's ;-) And welcome.
You have done an excellent job of summarizing what was meant by the B/S relationship. And having analyzed this relationship from every angel? I believe you are right.
It is a fascinating portrayle of a self-destructive erotic relationship between two people who are worlds apart and can't stand each other on one level and want each other on another. Meanwhile it examines depression, sado-maschism, and despair.
Besides everything you stated above, Buffy is literally boinking death. Through Spike she seeks the release Death gave her. The scene in AYW and later in NA shows her finally choosing Life. She gives into her attraction to him when she discovers two things: 1. He can hurt her, ie. kill her which is a release part of her desperately craves and 2. That she came back wrong - or why could he hurt her? She must be wrong - how else can she be here? And why did she come back and not her mother? Not the countless others she's seen die? Only something "wrong" "bad" can come back, right? And being back is painful, surreal, and she wants to be released from the daily grind her life has become.
Spike for his part is deeply conflicted. He wants to be a demon, he thrills at evil. But he loves a good person and wants to make her happy. She glows when she's happy. She is life to him. Yet he represents death.
The reality metaphor you describe is joined with the figurative mythic one of life making love to death and death to life....destructive forces. Consuming.
It is powerful and ultimately blows up in Seeing Red. SR is the climatic point of two seasons of character developement, it had to be painful - motivating the characters to change in such drastic ways often requires it.
Loved this post as much as your first one several posts below.
Welcome. sk
[>Re: Did ME have the right to inflict Seeing Red on the audience?(the usual spoilers) -- Rendyl, 13:23:05 08/01/02 Thu
***Did ME have the right to inflict Seeing Red on the audience?***
Not to split hairs here but I suspect the 'right' in this case is freedom of speech/expression. As long as ME abides by the broadcast guidelines they are technically doing nothing wrong.
'Inflict' implies the audience was forced to view the episode. This is far from the truth. Anyone watching was free to turn the tv off or walk away from the set. ME did not force anyone to watch the episode.
I do not quibble with your right to be upset. But the message header is inflammatory. It suggests a very personal and premeditated 'ME wronged us' instead of a more general 'we found the episode offensive.' The first puts all the blame and responsibility for how the audience reacted to the show on the heads of ME. The latter would suggest we all hold some responsibility for how we interpret the message of the show.
We all (well most of us) have been disappointed with how certain events or storylines were carried out this season. (my personal 'ewww, what was ME thinking??' moment being AYW) We have discussed how the writers failed to convey the message they wanted the season to carry or how certain characters behaved completely out of character at certain times.
I realize no one wants to hear this but maybe it needs to be said. Sometimes real life is not pretty. It is not neat and tidy. Good guys lose and bad guys get to take the money and run to somewhere warm and sunny. People do things no one ever dreamed they were capable of. People die. The storylines have upset a lot of people. Just like real life. Maybe they were supposed to. If you watch a program and the credits role and all you can say is, 'hey, do we need any laundry done' then the story failed.
Obviously SR and other episodes triggered intense reactions and emotions in many viewers. I suspect it (SR) and the others were supposed to. If this year the theme was 'oh grow up' then nothing illustrates that quite as well as coming to grips with how badly things can go from okay to terrible and how quickly your perfect life can explode in your face and fall apart.
As for Buffy, even the slayer has limits. The buff chick that nothing can hurt should get a night off from being tough once in a while. I personally think the scene could have been better done but I do believe it was a very good representation of real life. Things get very messy, very fast. Maybe that is the driving force behind many of our complaints this season. Maybe ME went overboard and gave us a little too much reality. Someone suggested on an earlier thread that this season took the characters too far out of metaphor and made the events too literal. Maybe doing so made it more difficult for the audience to step back and get any distance from the characters.
Ren
[> [>What you said. -- HonorH, 13:28:57 08/01/02 Thu
Excellent points, all. I personally found this season brilliant, but I know of some very intelligent people who found it disturbing at best, exploitative at worst. All povs have their merits. The storylines this year may have succeeded or failed for individual people, but the one thing I didn't see was apathy. People sat up and took notice. Can't argue with that.
[> [>Re: Did ME have the right to inflict Seeing Red on the audience?(the usual spoilers) -- Miss Edith, 13:58:43 08/01/02 Thu
You're right my heading was poorly worded and I apologise for that. What I was trying to get across was that I found ME hypocritical in giving us an episode SR condemning the B/S relationship after prompting it so heavily. There was so much nudity and sex scenes many fans were complaining they found it tasteless. And for ME to condemn the relationship in interviews and portray a completly different story on-screen just didn't seem for want of a better phrase fair to me. And the AR in SR was inserted into Steven DeKnights episode directly because of the audience reaction. This was freely admitted by the writers. But I am sorry if my title appeared inflammatory and on reflection I can see I could have been more tactful.
[> [> [>Re: Did ME have the right to inflict Seeing Red on the audience?(the usual spoilers) -- Rendyl, 15:41:03 08/01/02 Thu
***What I was trying to get across was that I found ME hypocritical in giving us an episode SR condemning the B/S relationship after prompting it so heavily.***
I might have to lean over on your side of the fence on that one. I felt much the same last season when Spike was 'supposed' to be unremittingly evil. (The serial killer comparison David Fury was so fond of) Instead he bebopped from hero to monster to hero over and over again. There were instances this season that seemed to be a rehash of that.
I don't know if the writers are just not clear enough in how they want the audience to see Spike or if the writers themselves are uncertain. I think there are better ways to show a relationship is unhealthy but I am not writing the show. (grin)
My personal opinion is FFL changed how the audience perceived Spike in ways the writers did not forsee or intend. The episode put a gawky human face on the previously rough monster. Every action Spike took after that was seen slightly differently. But it only did this for the viewing audience. Buffy missed out on all insights we gained. The rest of that season and this one sometimes seem to be our (the audience) perception of Spike verses Buffys. (or I could just be delirius from the heat-eg)
Ren
[> [> [> [>Interesting comment re: David Fury -- Rufus, 17:34:42 08/01/02 Thu
From Jane Espenson at the Succubus Club interview seasons end...........
Q: It was interesting that you brought up the fact that
you may disagree or may not like, or something, something
that happens in the script, but you find yourself having to
defend it. When David Fury was in here last week, we asked him about that, because he has some very different points of view about certain characters and stories and he's not shy about it; he told us as much; and yet it's still his job to write the script as he has been told do. And we asked how difficult that was for him. Is that much of a problem for you, or do you --
Jane Espenson: Much less than it is for Fury. Fury has very, very strong independent ideas about where things should go, and I
tend to be much more "Joss' word defines the universe;
when we hear Joss' word, we know what the right answer
is." So it does differ for the two of us. We're probably the two most extreme. He is the most likely to disagree; I'm the most likely to hop on board. So it is a different
experience for both of us. I tend to pretty much love
everything we've done.
From that comment I got an idea that certain writers find it hard to work in the metaphorical and tend to be more grounded in reality as we know it. I can imagine the arguments they have over certain issues.
[> [> [> [> [>I Kind of Read.... -- AngelVSAngelus, 22:34:53 08/01/02 Thu
Fury's problem with metaphysical, or "cannon", inconsistency into that interview. He has, after all, in the past been very vocal of his position on soulless creatures re:redemption. Needless to say, Fury's interviewing voice is often the one I agree with, and I would have added the addendum of 'save Joss' to that sentence a season ago.
I could just be stretching, but I didn't see that as a difference of the writers being about metaphor/reality, but about character directions (read: SPIKE directions).
[> [>Well said and Ditto. -- shadowkat, 17:01:09 08/01/02 Thu
[>Wandering OT -- ponygirl, 14:01:54 08/01/02 Thu
Sorry to attempt a thread-hijack here Miss Edith but while I disagree with just about everything you say in your post I do think you raise an interesting point about the role of sex scenes in drama. It's something I thought about a great deal this season. I was utterly impressed by ME's portrayal of S/B's relationship since it made me realize that despite having a culture seemingly saturated in sexual images it is rare to see sex explored dramatically. In my opinion there was not a single instance of a sexual scene between Buffy and Spike that did not illustrate some aspect of their characters. For me this is the difference between necessary and gratutitous. So many series and movies seem to throw in these scenes in an almost routine obligatory way - a certain amount of nudity, sex that, if the characters are in love, is perfect and vanilla. In my opinion this is far more insulting to the audience than anything BtVS presented.
I'm left with a couple questions to ponder. Is there a point in which a sex scene, no matter how artistically justified, becomes exploitative? And in depicting Buffy objectifying Spike has ME objectified JM (this written by someone who has several Spike images on her desktop)? Ponder ponder...
[> [>Re: Wandering OT - regarding sex scenes in tv -- shadowkat, 17:15:52 08/01/02 Thu
"Is there a point in which a sex scene, no matter how artistically justified, becomes exploitative? And in depicting Buffy objectifying Spike has ME objectified JM (this written by someone who has several Spike images on her desktop)? Ponder ponder..."
Now here's an interesting topic I was pondering myself the other night while watching Gone and after reading JM's Q&A
at shore leave where he tells his audience that the problem with the nude scenes is he's in front of teamsters for 18 hours with just a sock, Sarah is fully clothed and has no experience with being fully nude (she has a contractual clause as does Freddie Prinze Jr. for no nude scenes - they got her a double for Scooby Doo). It helps when your partner in the scene is understanding but when the partner has no experience with it and as wonderful as she is - is teasing...it can be uncomfortable. On top of which the poor guy was on the patch and had no where to put it. So he was thankful they were moving away from that next year.
So I asked myself were they really necessary? I've seen Sopranos do ones that felt unnecessary and just titillation. NYPD BLue was notorious for it. Also unnecessary. But here? Yes they were necessary. They heightened the impact. Showed how destructive this relationship was to Spike and also showed how comfortable he was with nudity. ME used his nudity as a metaphor.
She has armor. She is protected. He's not. In Gone she isn't even visible. But Xander can see him in living color and she shrugs it off. In AYW - she takes the sheet leaving him completely exposed to her fully clothed ex. Also the nudity makes Spike the sex object - which is what he has become to her. This season I truly felt I was Buffy. I felt
what she felt...it was uncanny how deeply they got me into her pov. And by having Spike nude - this increased it.
Leslie and others have written great posts on the metaphors of Spike's nudity. How it shows his comfort with sex and nakedness - how he uses it to seduce her, disarm her, while at the same time it makes him weaker than her, and makes her feel like the one who is in control. The power in their relationship continuously shifts and the nudity shows that.
I think if they hadn't done the nudity - the metaphor would have been weaker and the story not nearly as disturbing or strong. It was important to show neither character was good here. Both were being destructive.
Hope that made sense...shame on you ponygirl, Rufus, Ren and HonorH for tempting me to a thread I swore I'd leave alone. ;-)
[> [> [>Yeah, we're bad.....;) spankings all around, for me chocolate...cause I'm special...:):):) -- Rufus, 17:37:32 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [>Glad you gave into temptation shadowkat! -- ponygirl, 06:31:34 08/02/02 Fri
I of course completely agree with all your points. I just sometimes feel a leeeetle guilty after reading things like JM's Shore Leave comments, though he does seem to have a pretty good sense of humour. Still imagine the reaction if a female actress had joked about a male producer enjoying her nude scenes... but that would require re-hashing a lot of things about the male gaze in movies and historical gender roles... and really I'd rather just enjoy the BtVS-provided metaphor rich nudity. Candy for the eye and the mind!
As Rufus says spankings and chocolate all round.
[>Quotes from different writers regarding Seeing Red -- Rufus, 14:51:47 08/01/02 Thu
ME has the right to inflict SR on us, and if we don't like it we have the right to not watch. I liked Seeing Red and found it well within the character of a soulless vampire to be unpredictable about how they will react to any given situation.....just like real people. Steve DeKnight did an interview on The Succubus Club and he was asked a question.....
C: Let me read one specifically from somebody. Why did you choose to use attempted rape as a means of bringing Spike and Buffy to this point in the relationship?
SDK: Ah. We had talked a lot about Spike trying to do good but ultimately he doesn't have a soul and it's a constant struggle. His love for Buffy and what she was giving him back, even though it was often abusive, really kind of kept him on that path. But once she absolutely cut him off... In the previous week's episode you really see him start to turn there, when he tells her to get out.
C: Right, he has a little bit more self respect at that point.
SDK: Yeah, and you know, there's a lot of self-loathing too. I mean, on the one hand, he hates himself for what he did to Buffy by sleeping with Anya, and on the other hand he hates himself for feeling anything for her.
For Spike to continue to live along side of the SG, something had to give. It makes perfect sense to have him do something that reflects the monster that resides within the facade of the man. I had no problem with the "attempted rape" as it was a situation that I understood and showed just how conflicted Spike as a character has become. It was the one thing that allowed him to look into himself and realize why Buffy can't love him as she may at any point be forced to kill him...it's a no win situation where Buffy can only have so much trust. Spike went to get a soul because he loved Buffy enough to do the one thing he thought she deserved...peace of mind.
C: Well that's the thing that's gone through all of this, that he doesn't understand why he's feeling this way and he hates that he feels this way.
SDK: Right. So we were talking about how to really show this and push it in that direction, and it was Marti in the room who said, because we were talking about Spike going to Buffy to talk to her about this, and she said--
C: Right, cause it starts very tenderly. It starts as a very nice scene.
SDK: --and she said "you know he should go to talk to her, and it just gets out of hand. He starts to try, to start up the relationship, to say 'I know you felt it; I know you could feel it again' and he just won't stop."
C: Okay, so did this seem like a natural progression for Spike to you guys?
SDK: Yes.
C; To try and hurt her physically, to attempt...
SDK: Well you know to Spike, and this is not to lessen what he tried to do, which was wrong. In the moment, all he was thinking about is 'she loves me, and if she just lets herself feel this again, she'll feel it again.'
The "attempted rape" had to happen to get Spike to do more than be happy with being more than just "okay", it was a pivotal point in the season in that Spike finally understood the need for change even if some of JM's fans don't see it that way.
C: Whereas it's all been about Buffy this season. And I understand that, but at the same time I think his story is just as interesting to tell and I was really glad to see that he was questioning all this, and it's stuff that I've been waiting for all season, so I was really glad to see that.
SDK: Yeah, and he sums it up when he says I can't be a monst--, er,it won't let me be a monster and I can't be a man. So he's stuck in this very gray area, where part of him, because the chip is suppressing him being able to attack people, he wants to help people, particularly Buffy, but the other side, he's still a soulless vampire.
To allow Spike to continue in the "grey" area was like holding a loaded gun to your head, you never know when it will go off. Spike was once human and what people don't realize is that they are connecting with that residual humanity, not the monster when they think Spike is suitable for Buffy. He isn't, and won't be til he can prove to be an asset all the time, not a "hit or miss guy". Spike without a soul is someone to "babysit" to make sure they don't fall into things that could be bad for them, bad for an innocent victim.
C: Are the writers aware that Spike is coming across more sympathetically than Buffy this season?
SDK: Eh, ye-es [drawn out "yes" - you could hear the evil grin]. I will go firmly "yes" on that one. And you know, it's also, we go back and forth on that, because yeah she mistreated him? Ye-es. Was he also, as much as he was being such a nice guy sometimes, he was not such a nice guy other times. I mean, in "Dead Things" they say "oh well, he was going to stop her from going to the police when it wasn't really her." He didn't know it wasn't really her. And he wasn't stopping her because he wanted to save *her* he wanted to save her for himself.
Jane Espenson: But yeah -- I think that's what it was, and then when************he says "I've saved you lots of times", I think all we can do is know what we would be thinking and the kind of person Buffy is that she has to be thinking Wow, what a guy!
My favorite character is Buffy and it's been hard to see so much Buffy bashing going on because some people can see no wrong with Spike, but the guy is a tainted package. A package that a messed up Buffy was able to ignore the obvious problems and attach to that human potential that has so much promise. But Spike has no soul and even though he had done some amazing things in helping the Scoobies, all it would take is one slip up before tragedy hits everyone. Did Spike just trade one leash for another? We will have to wait til season seven to find out what the true impact of having a soul will be for Spike for everyone.
[> [>Re: Quotes from different writers regarding Seeing Red -- HonorH, 15:07:04 08/01/02 Thu
"My favorite character is Buffy and it's been hard to see so much Buffy bashing going on because some people can see no wrong with Spike, but the guy is a tainted package."
AMEN!!! This is so very true. I've greatly enjoyed Spike as a character. I think JM is hot. I think the B/S relationship has been a fascinating journey for both parties. Would I want Spike in my house? Hell, no!
And I'm right there with you on the Buffy issue, Rufus. I'll defend her and Dawn until the cows come home (and Spike snacks on them).
[> [> [>I think I like you.......;) -- Rufus, 15:43:55 08/01/02 Thu
[> [> [>Wow, HonorH...I've found myself agreeing with everything you've written so far! -- Rob, 15:51:13 08/01/02 Thu
And as the President of the ATPoBtVS Forum Season Six Supporters and the Buffy Character Anti-Defamation League, I welcome ya to the Board. :o)
Rob
[> [> [> [>Thanks! Need a copy editor? -- HonorH, 17:27:57 08/01/02 Thu
Oops. Didn't mean to put that last part in there. I'm job hunting, so it's kind of a reflex. Gaacch! How much do I hate pounding the pavement? About as much as I hate Fluffy Spuffy-fic.
Thanks for the welcome, and if the Buffy Anti-Defamation League or the Season Six Supporters need backup, consider me there. I'm also a staunch Dawn Defender (it comes of being a professional Little Sister myself), so those who complain of Brats and Whining shall feel the wrath of my poison . . . er, keyboard. Whatever.
[> [> [> [> [>Cool...Glad to have ya on board! -- Rob, 10:29:03 08/02/02 Fri
[> [> [>Wow, HonorH...I've found myself agreeing with everything you've written so far! -- Rob, 17:49:36 08/01/02 Thu
And as the President of the ATPoBtVS Forum Season Six Supporters and the Buffy Character Anti-Defamation League, I welcome ya to the Board. :o)
Rob
[> [>Agree -- shadowkat, 16:55:01 08/01/02 Thu
Agree with everything you said Rufus. I think the problem is people have a tendency as in all things to see what they wish in a story. We tend to forget it's not our story, we aren't writing it, we're just along for the ride. And it is NOT inflicted on us - we can choose to turn it off and watch something else at any time or just not watch tv at all.
James Marsters in the recent Shore Leave Q & A - go to www.bloodyawfulpoet.com for full transcripts - stated that the reason we saw Spike as potentially good was we were in Buffy's pov all season. Buffy wanted to see him that way and was struggling with it. In AYW she's reminded of what he is again. Marsters mentioned how they lead you on - he won't hurt me than wham! He also mentioned that whole scene with Dawn in Crush we love so much - he's telling her a horror story about the time he hunted a little girl in a coal bin to eat her. HE only changes the story when buffy pops up. If it weren't for Buffy and that chip - Dawn would have been food. (MArsters words - not mine.)
I love Spike. He is my favorite character right now. I watch the show primarily for him. But the reason he is my favorite character is he is complex in conflict and when he was soulless - a loose cannon. I never thought his attack in SR was out of character. I had problems with that scene for reasons that have nothing to do with the story arc or the narrative and more to do with the fact that it is a cliche I find personally reprehensible and have already thrashed to death on another thread several archives back -so won't reiterate.
Rufus and Honor and Mal and leslie have all convinced me that what happened in SR was necessary to Spike's story. And it was perfect ME irony. Now thinking back on it? I actually find it intriquing metaphorically and risky and admire them for going there. So thank you for your posts: Rufus, Honor.
[> [> [>Re: Agree -- Malandanza, 21:57:25 08/02/02 Fri
"Marsters mentioned how they lead you on - he won't hurt me than wham! He also mentioned that whole scene with Dawn in Crush we love so much - he's telling her a horror story about the time he hunted a little girl in a coal bin to eat her. HE only changes the story when buffy pops up. "
I don't usually defend Spike, but I never believed the girl-in-the-coal-bin story, JM's comments notwithstanding. This part of the story I can believe:
SPIKE: Well, I went into the house. Lady was there with a couple teenaged sons. Little older than you. I killed 'em right quick, the whole lot.
It sounds like Spike -- he killed them all, quickly. The rest, though:
Spike: ...But...someone was missing. There was supposed to be a little girl. So I got real quiet.
He pauses for effect... acting it out, listening...
(very soft) And I hear this tiny noise coming from the coal bin... this little sigh... so I listened harder...it's very, very quiet...
Spike is by himself in his story, so we are asked to believe that he staked out the house to discover exactly who lived there, he had a plan that he didn't immediately lose interest in after the first killings. Personally, I doubt Spike would have spent any time worrying about whether or not he had missed someone after killing the first four (and, presumably, feeding on them) -- my guess is that he'd have been searching for alcohol after that (so unless the coal bin was next to the liquor cabinet...)
It sounds more like something Angelus would be interested in. Perhaps even slowly and loudly walking to the coal bin, pausing and turning away, before returning to catch the girl, just to heighten her terror. Spike just watched and thought it was cool -- so he recounted the story to Dawn with himself as the hero of the piece.
Which is not to say that Spike wasn't a cold blooded killer back in the day. Remember the gypsy camp:
DARLA: In that wagon is your family. They live now only through my protection. You have other daughters -- I had only him. You can leave this place. Your family can live. But only if you release him. Remove the filthy soul so my boy might return to me.
He's about to respond to her offer when -- SPIKE hops out of the back of the covered wagon, lets out an enormous BELCH. Darla looks at him, eyes wide.
SPIKE: (no clue) What?
He's happy to murder the whole family, just as long as he doesn't have to work too hard for his dinner. But worse than story time was his assistance after Joyce's death -- he's the one who introduced her to Doc and help her gather the ingredients she needed, fully conscious of what he was doing. Willow, at least, can plead ignorance:
TARA: That book has a whole section on resurrection spells.
(worried)
This is bad. This is really bad
Now Willow looks worried too. And regretful.
WILLOW: But it's just a history book. It might answer some of her questions - but it's not like she could do any harm with that stuff. Could she?
TARA: It doesn't have a "how to" guide, but it refers to specific resurrection spells and potions.
Willow stands - fully freaked.
WILLOW: I didn't- I mean, hey! How'd she know that?
[> [>Well said! -- Earl Allison, 17:01:20 08/01/02 Thu
And I'm leaving it at that, before my mouth outpaces my brain :)
Take it and run.
[> [>Re: Quotes from different writers regarding Seeing Red -- Miss Edith, 18:50:44 08/01/02 Thu
Don't get me wrong I am a fan of all characters including Buffy. I was just pointing out in my post that the writers should have foreseen viewers relating more to Spike's pain as Sarah was unable to do much with Buffy aside show a blank, depressed look which did lose Buffy a lot of fans. That is clearly reflected on the Buffy message boards I have visited. Therefore ME feeling the need to keep telling us in interviews that we were supporting the wrong person seemed unprofesional to me. I felt they should have had some idea of audience reaction and to try and win back sympathy for Buffy with the AR just felt cheep to me.
I am a Spike fan but I freely admit that without a moral compass he was certainly a tainted package and nowhere near good enough for Buffy. I am not one of those Spike can do no wrong people. It's not the fact that he tried to rape Buffy. Many posters have given excellent reasons of why that made sense for his character.
I guess I just don't like the feeling that ME were trying to manipulate audience reaction and it wasn't about a properly discussed character arc. For instance I read an interview with Jane Epsensen in which Buffy beating Spike and leaving him for dead in an alley was brought up. Jane quickly stated that Buffy was going through a hard time in that episode and was quick to brush it off. That was reflected in the show when in the following episode OAFA B/S were portrayed as a cute couple gently teasing each other. Spike brought up the beating and there was no reaction from Buffy. In DT there were some disturbing implications as to Buffy's true feelings when she beat Spike. At the end when she broke down I had hopes these would be addressed and Buffy's reasons for choosing the relationship would be explored to my satisfaction. I expected more than I got I suppose. If the AR is brushed off that to me is not dealing fully and honestly with the implications of B/S relationship and what was revealed with both characters. The writers take on the relationship in interviews concerns me as it seems so simplistic compared with the interesting perspective other Buffy fans have given me.
I just get the impression the writers knew Spike was getting a soul and didn't think it would matter how they portrayed him without one, whilst knowing they needed to win back sympathy for Buffy. In the writers interviews there was so much emphasis on Buffy being the victim of Spike, not a case of them abusing each other, that it made me uncomfortable and question what the writers were trying to say. I have come to the uneasy conclusion (I could well be wrong) that the reason the writers kept telling us Spike was evil was because they knew he was going to get a soul and wanted to fake the audience out throughly. Therefore all season we would distrust Spike and his character would be completely deconstructed from the more heroic figure in season 5 and the ending when he was resouled would be a real shock and welcomed by the audience. I just felt it was badly done with the writers needing to tell us Spike was the bad boyfriend and Buffy his victim constantly when interviewed.
Maybe they will prove me wrong next season and fully address the implications of the AR and Buffy's behaviour, as well as Spike's. It is too early to judge really. I was just curious as to what other people thought.
[> [> [>Re: Just to clarify my thoughts before signing off -- Miss Edith, 19:18:40 08/01/02 Thu
I feel concerned with the writers feeling the need to tell us in interviews what they should have been portraying on-screen. I don't object to the concept of Spike attempting to rape Buffy. As I have said many fans have posted excellent reasons for how it makes sense for his character.
I just feel uncomfortable with ME for so strongly portraying the Male dominating a female scenerio and I am questioning the motives behind the scene. I am doubting the implications will be explored next season for a number of reasons.
Buffy having little reaction to the rape attempt and agreeing to let Dawn be babysat by him. It seemed to ignore the pain of real-life victims who would have been disturbed by the graphic nature of the AR. To see Buffy almost brush it under the carpet seemed as if it was dealing with a real life issue poorly. It may be in character for Buffy fair enough. But I would rather a more metaphorical scene was chosen (perhaps Spike trying to vamp Buffy and forcibly make her his in the darkness?). If the issue will not be dealt with because of Buffy perhaps a less controversial image could have been used? Trivialising rape has been mentioned on more than a few Buffy boards I frequent.
My other doubt comes from the way B/S was handled. Buffy becoming drawn to the darkness in Spike, letting her inate darkness take over in DT was never explored suffiently for my liking. In ATW Buffy was shown to be hitting Spike in a comical way which was a poor choice and showed little continity with the serious beating that I was waiting to be dealt with.
And the people arguing the nudity was necesery I would have to disagree. It's part of Spike's character fair enough. But there could have been a more subtle way of showing it. Even the actor was joking about being exploited and mentioned Marti had an obsession with his nipples which was why she was constantly expecting him to parade in the nude on camera.
I read the excellent posts here and wonder if I am missing what ME really intented to say? Or perhaps ME are being given to much credit and all they were interested in was drawing in females with as much nudity as possible. I guess I have lost faith with ME afer season 6 with the poor continity in the episodes.
I get the arguments with how the AR made sense. I am just questioning MEs motives and if they did make the correct decision if they don't intend on following through with it (i.e addressing the repurcussions of the AR). And again I apologise for not wording my title more tactfully. Obviously nothing was inflicted on the audience and ME have the right to show whatever they want. It was a poor choice of words.
[> [> [> [>Re: Just to clarify my thoughts before signing off -- Miss Edith, 19:31:08 08/01/02 Thu
Okay just one more thing and I will be signing off for real. Again it is not so much what appeared on screen that concerns me as the motives behind it. If I felt the scene was planned thoroughly and the writers were planning on going somewhere with it I would be more comfortable. I just felt that continity was severely lacking in season 6 which is not giving me hope for the future.
I was wondering if Marti admitting she indentifies strongly with Buffy and stating she is giving Spike characteristics of her abusive ex was relevent? James Marsters has said that Marti was basically putting up her life on-screen and season 6 was "The Year of Marti". Could that have bearing on the writers insisting so venemently that Spike was the one to blame for the bad relationship and viewers needed to realise that? Could that also be why the writers made such a desperate attempt to have Buffy end up looking like the victim of Spike in a scene written to generate sympathy for her? Not trying to bash Marti, genuinely curious.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Just to clarify my thoughts before signing off -- leslie, 12:50:26 08/02/02 Fri
"If I felt the scene was planned thoroughly and the writers were planning on going somewhere with it I would be more comfortable."
It seems to me that a lot of the viewer dissatisfaction with the attempted rape scene (once again, if we're upset about trivialization, then for chrissakes let's spell out what we're talking about) derives from being told that it was a last-minute addition to the script. In defense of writers, I'd like to point out that sometimes you have a piece that just isn't gelling the way you want it, you're brainstorming either alone or with others, and suddenly--and often it *is* just at the last minute, if you're working on a deadline, your brain somehow knows that *now* is the only time to solve this problem--a solution arises. Often it's a solution that you would not have the guts to follow through with if you had time to stop and think about it, something dangerous or a little too close to home (the kind of thing that afterward you groan "oh my god, I can't believe I exposed myself like that!") but it makes the piece gel. And in the penultimate episode of the season, I don't think we can judge yet where ME thinks it's going.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Ahhh....leslie, reason and clarity shine through in all you posts! -- Caroline, 14:10:55 08/02/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>The Attempted Rape (small Season 7 spoiler) -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:27:24 08/02/02 Fri
The rape wasn't trivialized. Yes, Buffy did take Dawn to Spike's crypt to be protected, but even you admitted that it was in character. But it wasn't trivialized because later both Dawn and Xander brought up the point that Buffy trusting Spike with her youngest sister after what he tried to do is SO SO wrong.
Also, I've heard that the attempted rape will be a huge issue in the Spike/Dawn friendship in Season 7. And there will undoubtedly be other consequences.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: The Attempted Rape (small Season 7 spoiler) -- leslie, 15:14:54 08/02/02 Fri
I agree, it wasn't trivialized, but there seem to be some people who think that attempted rape was a cheap way out of some kind of scribal impasse. I think we would both agree that consequences can take a long time to manifest in the Buffyverse (I've argued already that that it isn't only Buffy who has been suffering the repercussions of her resurrection in S6--each of the people who was involved in that spell has lost the person they loved most in the ensuing year, after raising Buffy out of their love for her), so you can hardly pass judgement on the repercussions of something that happened only in the penultimate episode of the season.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: repercussions -- DEN, 19:05:14 08/02/02 Fri
Leslie, the point that consequences can tale a LONG time to manifest in the Buffyverse is accurate and important. I'm waiting to see what happens, for example, when Willow realizes Tara's blood is on her hands as well as her shirt.
[>The Infamous Scene -- Yoda, 20:25:25 08/01/02 Thu
My semi-positive take on the infamous SR scene.
The SR bathroom scene shows us a Buffy we have never before seen looking so physically helpless. Except for maybe the time Giles drugged her in the episode "Helpless". Weıve seen her fight injured before. So like Just George & many others I found it hard to understand why Buffy seemed so helpless in this scene.
It's curious that Buffy tells Spike not that she doesn't love him but rather that she canıt love someone she canıt trust. But she has shown in the past just how much she does trust him. Trusting him with Dawn when she wouldnıt allow anyone else get near her in the Gift. Trusted him enough to let him handcuff her even though the chip doesnıt work on her.
So I think that while she has come to trust him with Dawn and herself, she also came to the realization in AYW that she still canıt trust him to do the right thing. He may love her but he is still a vampire without a moral compass.
Like Giles she has a responsibility to protect this sad world and at some point I think she is afraid that she will have to make a choice like she did with Angel when she had to kill him. She just canıt risk that kind of pain again.
So in this bathroom scene I see Buffy as a sad & confused woman who cares for someone she feels she shouldnıt mostly because she feels that she canıt trust him.
Her defenses are down both emotionally & physically. Spike is someone she has come to care about and to some degree trust.
So when he betrays that trust by forcing himself on her she reacts as a woman not a Slayer. Her actions are emotional not logical. The tears and pleas are not so much that she is afraid of him physically but rather she is begging & pleading because she so desparately wants to be able to trust him.
I think she wants to believe that he has changed and can love her the way she wants to be loved, but also knows that as long as he doesn't have a reliable moral compass, he's a bad risk. And I think that is what's killing her. And that is why she pushes him away, in part.
I also think she is afraid that if she does fall in love with Spike, that she will lose herself to her darkness. That the darkness will be all that is left of her, because it is such a significant part of her. And I think this scares her to death.
A long time ago Angelus told Spike that the only way to kill Buffy is to love her. He recognized that Buffyıs achillies heel is her love. If she loves you she will let you close enough to hurt her. And as Spike said in Dead Things "You only hurt the ones you love".
I think by Buffy allowing that scene to play out as far as it did it shows that Buffy has let Spike into her heart whether she admits it to herself or not. He couldn't have hurt her so badly otherwise.
[> [>Whoa...missed you Yoda...great analysis (spoilers through Ats 2) -- shadowkat, 21:10:41 08/01/02 Thu
Well...you are the first person to explain the emotional weakness on Buffy's part in a way I can not only understand but makes sense. It also fits with what JM has said regarding the scene and how they played it.
He says that we are in Buffy's head and she wants to believe that he can change that he is a person she can love but she knows deep down inside...that it probably isn't true. There are moments...where his true nature surfaces reminding her of this.
1. Dead Things - the Bronze scene - it disturbs her as much as it disturbs us. And notice afterwards, she goes to his crypt but quickly forces herself away from it. The conflict is there deep inside. If I let myself love him - will I lose myself to the darkness? If I'm wrong anyway does it matter? It's the temptation partly. Then there's the other side, maybe the Bronze scene didn't happen, maybe I dreamed it...maybe he can be good and he has changed.
Then we have Katrina's death and how he deals with it. You're analysis makes me see it again from yet another angle. When he says "she's just one girl.." Buffy reacts with horror. "That's all she is to you. You can't understand." She realizes in that moment how wrong he is and it cuts through her. Then he tells her he loves her.
The two together are too much for her. How can he love her but not understand something so basic to her? How tortured she feels when killing someone? I recently saw a similar scene played out in Dear Boy and Darla in Ats. In Darla- in flashbacks we see the problem between Darla and Angel.
They desperately want to be together, but ensouled Angel is wracked with guilt he can't handle hurting the child. Darla can't understand why. In Dear Boy - we see Angel explain to Darla how her new soul (she's been brought back human)will begin to torture her. She'll feel it. He can love her now. He couldn't before. She didn't understand.
Faith has this problem with Buffy way back in Bad Girls - its how she connects with Angel in Five By Five and Sanctuary in Season 1 Ats - Angel gets her torture. In fact Buffy says : "Guess I can't understand because I've never killed anyone not a murderer."
In Dead things it's a flip. Spike can't understand why it matters to accidentally take a life. It's just one among many. (It's not the fact that he's trying to protect her that upsets her - it's the fact that he honestly doesn't see Katrina's death as being any more important than losing a rat or stomping on a bug. This is a clue to Buffy - that she has no idea what he could be doing when she isn't around. At least with Angel(ensouled) she knew he wouldn't kill people willy-nilly. That he hated the idea. Spike would ...if it weren't for the chip and if Buffy didn't know about it.)
Moving onto AYW - ignore for the moment the horrid plotting.
The point made is a valid one. Once again she's reminded of what he is capable of. He even tells her that she's always known. He hasn't tried to hide it really. She knows he plays kitty pocker. That he steals, cheats, and convives. He kills demons because it's fun. The good things he does - he does for her, he likes to see her happy. But is that enough? Well she sees the demon eggs. Guess not.
She can't be his moral compass. She can't impose her concept of right and wrong on to him. She already has one kid to raise, she doesn't need two. And my god after Angel...she's not sure she can handle the pain.
This does not mean she hasn't developed feelings for him or doesn't trust him with her sister...but then when did feelings make logical sense? We often tend to be attracted to or want someone who is bad for us, who hurts us, who may even love us...we think we can change them. ME makes a very good point - you can't change people. They have to decide to change on their own. It has to come from within.
Good post yoda...been awhile. If it weren't for you, I'd never have found this board.
[> [> [>Re: Whoa...missed you Yoda...great analysis (spoilers through Ats 2) -- Yoda, 03:42:21 08/02/02 Fri
T hanks for your usual great insights Shadowkat. I still mostly lurk and I consider my copying one of your first posts from the BC&S to this board to be my finest post. I've enjoyed reading your essays and the replys they generate ever since.
[>Couldn't disagree with anyone more -- Q, 00:23:14 08/04/02 Sun
I didn't see any rules changed. Buffy beating Spike to a pulp in "Dead Things" was meant to be disgusting, disturbing, and WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It was parallelled by Spikes Sexual Assault in "Seeing Red". The sex scenes, begining with "Wrecked", were NEVER meant to be erotic-- but to be VERY disturbing. They were also meant to parrallel the Angel/Darla sex scene in that the hero was in a VERY dark, and miserable place, and used the sex partner to "feel" and in doing so made a HORRIBLE decision.
I don't think Spuffy was meant to be adored, it was meant to be displayed as a very WRONG period in Buffy's life, one she needs to get over. I also didn't see ANYTHING out of character for Spike in seeing Red, and I'd wager he has raped many women in the past ( just look to his treatment of Willow in Lovers Walk).
[> [>I agree -- Majin Gojira, 08:04:13 08/04/02 Sun
And It scares me how much people adore it, despite it being all "Evil, Bad and Wrong not to mention Vile, Foul, and Disgusting!"
(Entering Sacastiv Mode!)
I guess they needed to emphasise this more in the relationship. they should have abbandoned their classic subtlety and beat us over the head with how bad the relationship was!
(I LOVE Sacrasm!)
Majin Gojira
------------
"Some People are Dumb" - Butthead, 'Beavis and Butthead do America'
[> [>Re: Couldn't disagree with anyone more -- Miss Edith, 13:18:22 08/04/02 Sun
If that was the case fair enough. But a very large proportation of viewers didn't see it that way. The beating in DT was disturbing true. But in that same episode there was a friendly talk shared between Buffy and Spike after sex. There was the door scene in which the two were supernaturally drawn to each other and a song played in the background about the barriers needing to fall down. Even the first sex scene was seen as promising by many. The writers said the building collapsing was meant to show the relationship was not build on solid ground. But the romantic music playing in the background encouraged many viewers to see the building collapsing as a metaphour for the walls between the couple falling down.
In interviews Marti promised there would be lots of nudity. She specifically says "We just keep on finding reasons to naked James up". And the merchendise promoting the couple was all approved by ME. I still believe the relationship was meant to titalite and it was promated heavily. The writers panicked when they realised the viewers weren't getting the message they wanted to convey. But I believe that was due to MEs confusing messages. JMO
[> [> [>Re: Couldn't disagree with anyone more -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:42:37 08/04/02 Sun
People had been hankering for the Spuffy relationship since season 5. If they want to, I mean REALLY want to, they can make it seem promising, erotic, and a proof that their ship is real even if the support they're using is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary (the first time they had sex was after wailing on each, both made post-coital death threats, the interchanging images of Buffy "killing" Katrina and having sex with Spike, Spike trying to draw Buffy to him by utilizing her dark side, the list goes on, and on, and on).
Controlling Reality - Btvs Season 6 (Spoilers to Entropy) -- shadowkat, 13:00:04 08/01/02 Thu
Because I'm bored at work and tired of SR discussions - I'm asking the board's indulgence and reposting my Controlling Reality essay for those who didn't see first time.
It only goes up to Entropy. But I think that works.
CONTROLLING REALITY
"It's been a long road getting here. For you for Sunnydale. There has been achievement, joy, good times, and there has been grief. There's been loss. Some people who should be here today aren't. But we are. - Journey's end. And what is a journey? Is it just distance traveled? Time spent? No. It's what happens on the way, it the things that happen to you. At the end of the journey you're not the same. Today is about change. Graduation doesn't just mean your circumstances change, it means you do. You ascend to a higher level. Nothing will ever be the same. Nothing." Mayor Wilkins in Graduation Day Part II (Season 3, Btvs)
After Graduation, the Scooby Gang did what most of us do went to college where once again they had set rules and boundaries, they just traded the sheltered reality of high school for the sheltered reality of USC Sunnydale. Even Xander remained in this sheltered reality, by staying in his parentsı basement. It wasnıt until Season 5 that this reality truly began to break down and become something else. Buffyıs mother died, she had to leave school, her boyfriend left , and she had a sister to take care of. Gilesı reality changed in Season 4, he had no job and no true purpose outside of being a Watcher; he had blown up his old reality, the library. Xanderıs also changed, heıd lost Cordy and was starting a relationship with Anya, he had to find a job, a role in life, and a new apartment. By the end of Season 5 Xander built a reality separate from school and from his friends and parents, or so Xander thought. Willow lost OZ and fell in love with a woman, she reinvented her sexual identity, stopped being roommates with Buffy and became more independent and adept at magic. Spike also had to reinvent himself, no longer able to eat humans, he learned how to rely on other sources for blood and discovered that he could beat up demons, so that by the end of Season 5, he had not only realized and confessed his love to Buffy but also began to aid the Scooby Gang in saving the world. At the end of Season 5, the characters reinvented themselves, got into established routines, and the Buffyverse made sense to them and their audience, even Buffy jumping from the tower to save the world made sense. Sheıd be brought back. Weıd go back to the same routine. All was right with the world.
Yeah, right. Iım beginning to realize the moment I get comfortable is the moment the world decides to shift on me. Apparently the characters of BTVS have the same problem.
Fifteen years ago, a philosophy major I was dating, kept trying to convince me that we create our own reality. We control it, he said. No one else. We choose who to put inside it and what makes it up. I found his argument annoying at the time, because I felt the last thing I had control over was my reality.
In 2001 2002 Btvs is all about controlling and creating your own reality. And in 2001, my reality shifted dramatically, everything I thought was true about my job, my career, my boss, my commute to work, my city, even my world changed. There was no safe place and I felt like I was careening off the side of an emotional cliff. The only cultural experience that echoed this feeling of emotional disorientation was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Nothing else did. Nothing else does. Someone mentioned crying during ER, Iım sorry I didnıt shed a tear. That show now seems incredibly false to me, not real. That is how drastically my reality shifted. Like the characters on our favorite show, Iıve been forced to reinvent myself and my reality this year, so I agree with Shell and her recent post on the B C &S board what the writers are doing this year is truly brilliant and more realistic than anything else on TV they are demonstrating how our reality shifts and how we have to adapt and handle these shifts. How we have to learn to actively participate in the construction of our reality instead of merely reacting to, bending, or ignoring it.
Life Serial (Season 6, Btvs) succinctly explains:
MIKE: Social Construction of Reality. Who can tell me what that is? Rachel.
RACHEL: A concept involving a couple of opposing theories, one stressing the externality and independence of social reality from individuals. (Buffy looks confused)
MIKE: And the flip side? (many hands raised) Steve?
STEVE: That each individual participates fully in the construction of his or her own life.
MIKE: Good, and who can expand on that? (hands) Chuck?
CHUCK: Well, those on the latter side of the theoretical divide stress...
BUFFY: (leans toward Willow and whispers) Will, I'm not following this too well.
WILLOW: Oh. The trick is to get in the rhythm, kinda go with the flow. (raises her hand)
BUFFY: Flow-going would be a lot easier if your classmates weren't such big brains.
WILLOW: Buffy, that's ridiculous! They are no smarter than you or me.
MIKE: (O.S.) Willow.
WILLOW: (lowers hand, speaks to Mike) Because social phenomena don't have unproblematic objective existences. They have to be interpreted and given meanings by those who encounter them. (Buffy stares at Willow)
MIKE: (O.S.) Nicely put. So, Ruby, does that mean there are countless realities?
Must admit, it took me a while to understand what this meant. Iım a bit like Buffy, slow on the uptake, at least thatıs the way Iıve been this year. How many times have our characters realities been shifted? In the first episode of Season 6, we enter Sunnydale where everyone, including Spike, is fighting demons together. The SG have included him and they all have a definite role in their makeshift family. When Dawn takes the Buffybot to parent teacher day, the first theory, stressing that social reality is external and independent from individuals is explored. In high school, we donıt control or participate in the construction of our reality; our reality is constructed by our parents, teachers, and peer group. This is the reality of Seasons 1-4 of Btvs. The independent social reality is high school individuals donıt create it or actively participate in its creation, instead it controls the individual within it. The rules are black and white and fairly rigid. An example is the Styrofoam utopia with orange juice cars that Dawnıs classmates have created and in which, the Buffybot notes, only tiny people can inhabit. The social reality that is independent of the influence of individuals finds the Buffybot an acceptable parent and reassuring presence. As Spike notes "(Dawnıs teachers) responded to BuffyBot because a robot is predictable. Boring. Perfect teacher's pet. That's all schools are, you know. Just factories, spewing out mindless little automatons. Who go on to be ... very ... valuable and productive members of society..." When our reality is determined solely by an external force, we act as cogs in a wheel, with clearly defined roles. In Adolus Huxleyıs Brave New World: everybody has an assigned role in society and reality is controlled not by the individuals but by the group governing them. In Huxelyıs novel the government keeps the individuals complacent with drugs and comforting television messages. They become in effect the "mindless automatons" Spike has described. In the pre-Bargaining spell reality the SG have defined roles and the world makes sense.
Then, demons on bikes invade Sunnydale, Willow does her spell, the world of Sunnydale looks like hell, reality shifts. And Buffy? Buffyıs essence is shifted from one reality (which we learn in Afterlife, was fairly pleasant, heavenly, and controlled by external forces) to another. Her initial response, was the same as mine,
BUFFY: Is this hell? (Bargaining, Part II)
Dawn insists it isnıt and takes Buffy home. Except it is no longer the home Buffy remembers. It has changed. Willow and Tara now inhabit her motherıs room. Willowıs computer is in the kitchen. Giles is gone. Buffy feels completely disoriented, until Spike appears. Here, finally, is a constant she can deal with. He stands at the foot of the stairs in exactly the same position he was in the last time she was there. He has not changed. He wouldnıt. Vampires remain arrested in their development, unchanging, ageless at least on the outside. Is it any wonder that she drifts towards him the way someone adrift at sea might head towards a life raft? When the others enter the house, they all look different. Clothing. Hairstyles. We have switched to the theory of reality proposed by my ex-boyfriend: "each individual participates fully in the construction of his or her own life." When we leave high school and enter the "real world" we are responsible for the construction of our reality, it is no longer constructed for us by our parents and teachers.
In Season 6, Btvs, Buffy and her friends are being forced to actively participate in the construction of their reality. Reality has shifted on them. Buffyıs return shifts the balance in all of their lives including Buffyıs as shown by the ghost in Afterlife, who visits each of them. Willow and Tara are almost broken apart in bed by crashing glass while the ghost rails against their use of magic to control reality. Anya tries to mutilate herself in Xanderıs presence. Dawn breaths fire on all of them and finally, Xanderıs unwittingly betrays them to the demonic ghost. We also have Spike and Xanderıs argument in front of the House where Xander accuses Spike of being an obsessive stalker and Spike accuses Xander of leaving him out of the loop their relationship had apparently moved past this, but Buffyıs reemergence in their lives shifts it back to where it was at the beginning of Season 5. And Giles is asked to return to Sunnydale as their impromptu guardian. Buffyıs mere presence has altered the realities of all the Scoobies.
In the very next episode, Flooded, the Troika are introduced, and from this point on the Troika represent individuals who are not only participating in but also actively controlling reality, particularly the Scoobiesı. At first their attempts appear fairly mundane. Willowıs attempts to control reality are far more frightening as she weilds magic to bend reality to fit her vision of it. The Troika do the same thing, but not necessarily with magic. In every episode in which the Troika appear, they shift Buffyıs reality. First they send a monster to her house. (Flooded) Then they manage to speed up her reality, introduce demons at her work place, and torment her with an endless time loop, which can only be exited when she figures out how to satisfy someone elseıs needs. Buffy only passes their tests when she takes an active role in deciphering or interpreting the shifts in her perception of reality, particularly since each shift is merely a shift in her perception. Everyone elseıs perception remains unchanged. Once she takes an active role in interpreting and controlling her perception her reality reverts to normal. At this point, Buffy is not actively participating in the construction of her reality she is letting others manipulate it. The only person she is comfortable with at this stage is Spike, because from her point of view, heıs a constant from her old reality. Unchanging. Also he understands her difficulty dealing with the constant shifts. Of all her friends Spike has had to deal with the most shifts in her perception. He knows what it is like to wake up from a grave and discover the world is not the way you left it.
Poor Buffy is having troubles keeping up with the shifts. She has no clue what she should do next or who she is. Her true love, Angel, has moved on without her. She is bombarded with bills. Her friends have established lives outside of her. And slaying no longer has the same appeal. She feels adrift, as if sheıs just going through the motions in a world that feels increasingly hellish. Willow tells her that she just needs to get with the rhythm. Buffy has lost the beat. Her reality no longer makes sense to her. Her friends appear to have gone on ahead. As a result, she spends more time with Spike doing what she knows, patrolling. His world has not shifted or changed as far as she can tell. Demons still equal bad. Vampires still need to be staked. Except Spike is a vampire and she is becoming sexually attracted to him. So even that dynamic is changing.
"Social phenomena don't have unproblematic objective existences. They have to be interpreted and given meanings by those who encounter them."
As we encounter each shift in our reality, we struggle to give it meaning, to understand it, and determine whether we should accept or reject our new perception of it. Controlling our reactions to shifts in reality is easier said then done, as each of the characters in Btvs discover. And each reaction or interpretation creates another perception of reality. So as a result there are countless realities or possible perceptions of reality.
1. Reacting Negatively to Shifts in Reality. Xander and Anya are struggling to accurately perceive the continuous shifts in their reality which revolves around their relationship. It doesnıt help that they are both pessimists. For the past two years their relationship has been the central focus of their reality. First their engagement is kept a secret by Xander. Then Xander decides to reveal the relationship and Anya takes control, suggesting they move the wedding from June to February (All The Way), she plans a big wedding with demons and family in attendance, but it does not go off as planned; Xander leaves her at the altar, regaining control. Anya comes back, attempts to regain control by cursing Xander but fails, and sleeps with Spike instead. None of these shifts are caused by external forces Xander and Anya are responsible for them. Each shift is caused by their negative or positive perceptions. They separately interpret and give meaning to each shift in reality.
Xanderıs perceptions of reality are clouded by fear. He deals with his perception by summoning a demon in Once More With Feeling in order to ensure a happy ending for himself and Anya. Instead he causes people to combust and shifts the reality of everyone around him. Xander isnıt in control of his reality, Captain fear is. If he was willing to accept the word of a demon regarding his and Anyaıs future in Once More With Feeling is it any wonder he accepts the word of a demon in Hells Bells? Xander who up until recently appeared to be actively participating in the construction of his reality, is letting a fear demon run the show. In As You Were Xander keeps asking Riley and Sam about marriage looking for outside reassurance regarding his own. By the time we reach Hellıs Bells, Captain fear is in the driverıs seat. All the vengeance demon has to do is show Xander his worst fears, which Xander perceives as the only outcome. The fact that it "could" be true is enough for him to call off the wedding. He sacrifices his current reality, the reality he spent so much time and effort constructing, on another interpretation of it, in this case, a demonıs interpretation. He chooses to accept this interpretation over his own and in doing so betrays his own heart. How Anya chooses to interpret this betrayal is important. She interprets it as her fault. He left because she used to be demon. This interpretation not only betrays the humanity sheıs worked so hard to embrace, it causes her to revert back to her demon status. It doesnıt stop there of course. Each negative interpretation of reality results in the actuality of that reality until Xander and Anya have literally destroyed everything they worked so hard to build, returning to their origins: the loser and the vengeance demon . Itıs how we choose to relate to and interpret what happens to us and around us that gives it meaning, that makes it real. In that way we control our reality.
2. Bending Reality to Fit our Own Ends: Willow and Tara have also been struggling with shifts in reality. They are in a better place right now because Willow momentarily stopped trying to bend reality to her will. Tara rightly interpreted Willowıs actions as an insecure attempt to make the world better for herself. The only problem is Willow and the rest of the Scoobies interpreted her use of magic as a merely an addiction. Please. If you thought this was a drug storyline then the writers fooled you, because it never was that was just how Willow and her friends chose to interpret it. It was never about addiction - Willow chose to interpret her abuse of magic as drug abuse. I do it because it makes me feel good.ı Sorry, Willow that isnıt why you did the magic. You did the magic for the same reasons the Troika are doing what theyıre doing you not only wanted to control your reality you wanted to bend everyone elseıs to make it fit what was in your head. You still do.
Thereıs an old Twilight Zone episode that discusses the use of magic to bend reality and others realities to fit your own. I do not remember the name of it. But it was re-done in the Twighlight Zone Movie. In this episode, an insecure little boy has the ability to bend reality with his mind. Feeling unloved and unwanted by his family and friends, he bends their reality to match whatıs in his head. If they do not comply with his version of reality or protest he sends them to a cornfield where they are killed. Reminds me of Willowıs attempt in All The Way to send people to alternate dimensions for fractions of a second to find Dawn. Willow, who also feels rejected and unwanted, bends the realities of the people around her to make herself feel better. As cjl pointed out in one of his posts Willow is a pessimist, she canıt believe life will ever turn out well so she helps it along, makes it better. In Bargaining she brings Buffy back. All The Way she creates decorations and considers moving people to alternate dimensions to find Dawn, when Tara protests she casts a spell that makes Tara forget. In Tabula Rasa she casts a spell that wipes the memories of everyone including herself out of fear of losing both Tara and Buffy. She canıt deal with the fact that Buffy was torn from Heaven or Taraıs anger at her so she attempts to make them forget, and in the process bends their reality to match the one she prefers. She is the external force controlling their reality not giving them the choice to react to it or give it their own meaning. Itıs not until she literally conjures a monster that Willow stops attempting to bend reality to fit her own interests. Taraıs leaving did not snap her out of it. Dawnıs injury did. Willowıs approach to handling shifts in reality is the same as the Troikaıs Iıll control it, it wonıt control me. Xander on the other hand, attempts to escape or run from his negative perceptions of reality. Both Xander and Willow are pessimists, both victims of abusive parents and peers. Neither character believes there will be a happy ending. Neither character trusts their perception of reality. So they either attempt to bend it to their will or run away from it.
3. Ignoring or Denying Reality. Buffy has spent most of this year ignoring reality or denying it and as a result it is controlling her instead of the other way around. I identify with her - because I am equally guilty of letting external factors control my reality, ignoring that which I canıt handle, hoping it will just go away. How many of us let someone else or something else affect our moods, our feelings, our actions? We donıt choose our destinies, we let external factors such as money, parents, teachers or friends choose them for us. We abdicate responsibility to someone or something else. Part of growing up is learning how to choose our own reality, to control it, by moving away from home, finding new friends, locating a job. In Life Serial Giles asks Buffy what she wants to do with her life, what path she wishes to take, how she wants to reconstruct her reality. She truthfully responds that she has no clue. In fact towards the end of the episode she requests that Spike fix her reality. Spike misinterprets her request to mean that she wants to create a new one with him. But no that would mean active participation Buffy at this stage just wants someone else to do the work, whether that be Giles, her Mom, her friends, or Spike.
JONATHAN VOICEOVER: The Slayer always knows what she's doing. Sharp. Decisive. Always with a plan.. (Life Serial, Season 6, Btvs).
Maybe in the past but this season Buffy has been anything but sharp, decisive or with a plan. Last year she had accepted her hands symbolically Dawn and Spike they were together, they had place in her life, which she clearly defined for them. She had accepted her role as the slayer. This year she jumps between Dawn and Spike like a ping pong ball with no clear direction, rejecting or embracing one or the other without much thought for the consequences. As a result, she appears to be detached, confused, directionless, just going through the motions. I disagree with Om and other posters when they state Buffy is back in Entropy. Nope. Sorry. Sheıs still unbalanced and if anything weaker than ever. All sheıs done is shift from the left hand (Spike) to the right (Dawn). Notice whoıs an emotional mess in Entropy and who appears to be relatively calm and supportive? (Violent/Off the rails Spike calm understanding Dawn) Notice who was going nuts in Older and Far Away, Wrecked and All The Way and who appeared relatively calm? (Whiney/Thieving Dawn calm supportive Spike.) Also which episodes is Buffy physically strong in and which is she physically weak in? In Entropy, Buffy barely defeats those two vampires and it took her way too long to figure out Warren was behind the camera. Yet sheıs wonderful with Dawn, takes her shopping, reveals her secrets. While in Dead Things and As You Were she had no troubles fighting the Beasties, but could barely relate to Dawn. The only thing thatıs changed for Buffy is the witty one liners, which for some reason comfort the audience as much as the character but itıs just a defense mechanism, one that relates back to high school, which she and Xander have in common. Itıs not the only one. They appear to be handling reality in a similar manner. Letting it control them. And when things get nasty? Crack a joke. It lightens the mood, but it doesnıt change the reality. They are about to discover that there are some things you canıt joke about. That they are no longer in high school.
The Troika has succeeded is controlling Buffy and by extension the Scoobiesı reality this year. Every episode in which they appear they manage to do something that shifts her reality out of focus or creates a new one. In Gone, they make Buffy invisible. In Dead Things, they successfully convince her that she killed someone. In Normal Again, they make her insane. And finally in Entropy, they inadvertently convince her that her ex- lover is spying on her, causing an even greater rift to erupt between Buffy and her left hand, weakening her further. Buffy and by extension the SG have become the Troikaıs puppets, jumping at the Troikaıs whim. Not once have they taken these nerdy villains seriously. So as a result the villains control their perception of reality, not the SG.
It didnıt surprise me that Buffy and Xander jumped to the conclusion that Spike was behind the camera because letıs face it, Spikeıs an amoral opportunistic demon and the Troika are human. Even after Spike denies it, Xander is still fairly convinced itıs him and not the nerds. This interpretation fits with their old high school interpretation of reality where the world had rules and boundaries and an end zone. Xander just canıt take the nerds seriously. Poor Spike - external forces have shifted his reality so many times that Iıve lost track. First the wheel chair, then Dru dumping him, then the chip, then falling in love with Buffy, then Buffy dying, then Buffy being brought back, then entering a sexual relationship. He hasnıt been in charge for quite a while. Gotta give the vamp credit for adapting. After working so hard to reinvent himself as a helpmate to the SG and as Buffyıs left hand man, confidante, protector of Dawn, and occasional lover itıs all being shifted on him again this time by Buffy. She has turned him into a sideshow freak that no one takes seriously and everyone emotionally, mentally and physically abuses. Spike is no longer in control of his reality, Buffy is at the wheel and the Troika is manipulating Buffy. Is it any wonder that poor Spike is about to go off the deep end? Unlike Buffy and Xander Spike prefers to create his own reality bend it to his liking. He canıt be happy with the fact that heıs no longer in control here Buffy is. I suspect he will make at least one pathetic and incredibly violent attempt to re-assert control. Just as Anya made a pathetic attempt to re-assert control over her relationship with Xander. Like Anya, heıll fail of course and his failure will send him reeling. By the way thatıs usually the motive behind acts of extreme violence attempt to regain control. Willow did it to Tara in All The Way and Tabula Rasa, Anya tries to do it to Xander in Entropy, Spike will try in Seeing Red. In Spikeıs case heıs attempting to regain control of his reality, which he perceives Buffy as wrenching from him. Itıs interesting that of the three Willow appears to be the only one who accomplished it and was later forgiven.
Right now, Warren is the only character who appears to be in control of his reality and everyone elseıs. Warren plays with the other characters like you play with characters in a virtual reality X-box game, which reminds me of an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation (STNG). In an episode from the second season of STNG, a holo-deck character, Professor Moriarty, becomes aware that his reality is just a computer program and attempts to wrest control of the program from the Enterprise crew along with control of the starship. Moriarty wants to venture beyond the confines of the programıs reality and actually control his perception of it. The crew tricks the character into another portion of the computer so that the character perceives a new reality. Even if they never open the program this characterıs reality will continue to exist within the universe of the small box theyıve placed him. At the end of the episode, the Captain wonders: "What if we just exist within a small box and if so, how many realities are out there in similar boxes watching each other and how do we know which one is real?" This concept has been explored in at least two sci-fi films: The Thirteenth Floor, where the characters of a virtual reality program create their own program within a program within a program. And, of course, The Matrix, where mechanical beasts enslave humans by convincing them that the reality they imagine is the real one. BTvs explores the concept in Normal Again.
In Normal Again the Troika poison Buffy, so that she spends the entire episode jumping between two separate realities the reality of the asylum and the reality of Sunnydale. By the end of the episode neither Buffy nor the audience is certain which is real. Buffy does not appear to be in control of either reality. Although, in the asylum reality, she is told over and over again that she is in complete control of the Sunnydale reality. That she can end it at any time and controls all of the characters. While in the asylum reality she clearly has no control at all she is drugged, sedated and placed in a straight jacket. Therefore she believes the asylum must be the real one because of the two realities, she has the least control over it. The Doctor states: "(Buffyıs) created an intricate latticework to support her primary delusion. In her mind, she's the central figure in a fantastic world beyond imagination. She's surrounded herself with friends, most with their own superpowers ... who are as real to her as you or me. More so, unfortunately. Together they face ... grand overblown conflicts against an assortment of monsters both imaginary and rooted in actual myth. Every time we think we're getting through to her, more fanciful enemies magically appear." According to the doctor, Buffy is in complete control of the slayer world or Sunnydale. The characters that inhabit that world are her creation. Without her, Sunnydale ceases to exist. Or does it? Does the asylum world cease to exist if she refuses to remain there? Does Sunnydale? Or can realities we create inside our heads exist separately from us? If we leave them, do the characters take control? Spike wonders this very thing when he helps Xander hunt down the demon that poisoned her:
SPIKE: So, she's having the wiggins, is she? Thinks none of us are real. Bloody self-centered, if you ask me. On the other hand, it might explain some things -- this all being in that twisted brain of hers. Yeah. Thinks up some chip in my head. Make me soft, fall in love with her, then turn me into her soddin' sex slave-
XANDER: What?!
SPIKE: Nothing. Alternative realities. Where we're all little figments of Buffy's funny-farm delusion. You know, in a different reality, you might not have left your bride at the altar. You might have gone through with it like a man. (Normal Again, Season 6 Btvs).
Spikeıs remarks remind me of the Pirandello play, Six Characters in Search of An Author. In this play the characters discover they arenıt real or in control. Fighting writersı block - the author leaves them, telling them that they are now in control of their reality, because heıs run out of ideas. At first they react with fear and consternation, then slowly they start to adapt and enact their own story. Buffy appears to be doing the same thing with her friends and by extension Dawn and Spike. Sheıs done it before, by sacrificing her life to save the world. Who brings her back Willow and Xander, just as they are the ones who work to bring her back from the asylum. Willow and Xander cannot live in a world without Buffy, even if she was happier elsewhere. Dawn and Spike, interestingly enough, do not try to bring her back. In Bargaining they are left out of the loop. In Normal Again - they help but they do not force her to drink. Spike even leaves her alone to do whatever she wishes. They both get fed up with her inability to accept them and leave. Or at least attempt to Buffy manages to stop Dawn and attempts to kill her, thus removing her from the reality. Spike leaves on his own, fed up with her reluctance to see him. Spike has figured out that itıs not their sexual relationship thatıs killing her, but her inability to accept responsibility for it, to admit her feelings whatever they are. As long as she doesnıt tell her friends, as long as her friends do not perceive it as real, she can ignore it, bury it under the rug. She doesnıt have to admit its existence. She can erase it and Spike from her reality. Buffy handles negative shifts in her reality by denying them. You donıt exist she tells her friends and Dawn in Normal Again. What we had isnıt real to me she tells Spike in Entropy. As she explains to Dawn, when her relationship with Spike is revealed, "I just didnıt want to admit to myself." (Entropy) True she didnıt. By denying her reality the external forces shaping her reality begin to assert control. I learned this lesson long ago, the more I attempted to ignore my younger brother the more heıd scream in my ear. He was real. Ignoring him did not change that. What has Buffy ignored this year? Willowıs use of magic. Dawn and her stealing until it erupted in Older and Far Away. Spikeıs feelings for her. The Troika. Instead of dealing with these elements confronting them, interpreting them and giving them meaning, she has tried to ignore them like a child who believes if she ignores her chores they will go away.
Remember what Willow states in Life Serial? "Social phenomena don't have unproblematic objective existences. They have to be interpreted and given meanings by those who encounter them." Buffy has avoided doing just that instead of attempting to understand and contructively deal with the social phenomena she has encountered or that has entered her reality she has ignored it. Buffy, of all people, should know how dangerous that is. In this sense Buffy has become Joyce, who managed to repress and ignore every supernatural problem that entered Buffyıs life. It wasnıt until she lost Buffy in Becoming Part II, Season 2 Btvs that Joyceıs perception of reality shifted.
Up until now, external forces have controlled our characterıs perceptions of reality. What happens when they begin to take responsibility and control? Isnıt part of growing up learning how to actively participate in our society? To move out on our own? Figure out our own way in life? Create our own reality? But in order to do this, we must first perceive our reality, interpret it for ourselves. No longer rely on our parents, teachers, or classmates interpretations. Itıs our interpretations that count, not the external oneıs . We are responsible for and in control of how we perceive and react to reality. Part of growing up is understanding and handling that. Once we do we will never be the same nor for that matter will the characters of Btvs.
Looking forward to your comments as always. Feedback appreciated.
:- ) shadowkat
[>Thanks, shadowkat! Really enjoyed reading this again. -- Dead Soul, 13:44:52 08/01/02 Thu
[>Still a great essay! Thanks for reposting! -- ponygirl, 14:27:19 08/01/02 Thu
[>Re: Controlling Reality - Btvs Season 6 (Spoilers to Entropy) -- aliera, 16:27:10 08/01/02 Thu
Bored at work? I just popped back in to see if my post made it up (it did) and saw your essay...reminded me, as if I needed it, of the great work you've been doing with the show's material this year.
It also reminded me of my own feelings of unreality watching the show this year and how they were supported by all the red herrings and the spec there was around about how Buffy was brought back wrong or how the world itself was wrong, a limbo dimension wherein we spend eternity with our inner demons.
I'm not an advocate of your philosophy-major friend's POV. World events and my own life lead me to suspect that reality lies somewhere in the middle and that our real point of impact lies with changing ourselves. We certainly have some control over our responses to reality and those can impact those around us for both good and bad. And I believe in that sense we do help to create our own reality.
As usual much food for thought and a timely reposting. :-) Thanks!
[>Re: OT: Manipulation and Imposing Reality -- Just George, 17:17:34 08/01/02 Thu
Taking controlling of your own reality is a sign of maturity. Imposing your reality on others is a sign of manipulation. Manipulating another is a way of taking power over their lives. It is ultimately abusive.
Some ways to spot manipulation:
* Telling someone that "you feel X."
* Telling someone that "you should do X."
* Telling someone that "you will be happier/better if you do X."
* Laying out someone's choices for them as X or Y (when many options are possible).
* Targeting a character in a weakened or confused state.
Some ways to soften possible manipulation into conversation:
* Putting "I think" or "I feel" before what you say.
* Asking someone what they feel or what they want to do.
* Asking someone what will make them feel happier/better.
* Asking a person what they see their options are.
Willow has tried to impose her reality with magic (example: the "will be done" and "forgetting" spells.) But the masters of imposing reality are the characters who target others with words. At one time or another they have used some combination of all of the manipulation techniques. The names of these master manipulators: Xander and Spike.
Both characters are known for telling "hard truths" in dramatic speeches. But listen closely to them. Which of their speeches include the elements of manipulation? And which of them is ultimately self-serving?
I have sometimes wondered why Xander's speech in "Into The Woods" felt off to me. Not the parts about Riley. I liked Riley. The problems between Riley and Buffy seemed to me mostly about their difficulties communicating, rather than some lack of feelings. But Xander's parts of the speech about Buffy bothered me. Xander didn't know about Buffy's reality, how she is keeping secrets from Riley about Dawn being the key. But Xander told Buffy what her feelings were anyway:
Xander: "But you miss the point. You shut down, Buffy. And youıve been treating Riley like the rebound
guy. When heıs the one that comes along once in a lifetime. Heıs never held back with you. Heıs risked everything. And youıre about to let him fly because you donıt like ultimatums? If heıs not the guy, if what he needs from you just isnıt there, shakes head let him go. Break his heart, and make it a clean break. But if you really think you can love this guy. . . Iım talking scary, messy, no-emotions-barred need. . . if youıre ready for that. . . then think about what youıre about to lose."
I believe Xander had Buffy's best interest at heart. I think he liked Riley and he liked Buffy and Riley together. I don't see any self-serving motive. But I do see manipulation in telling Buffy she was shut down. Xander wasn't there for most of the Buffy/Riley conversations. He doesn't know Buffy is holding back a secret that can get everyone in the SG killed. Buffy's not shut down. She's hiding a secret about Dawn and trying to be strong for her mother. Riley can tell Buffy has secrets, but can't tell what they are. Too bad, because Riley is probably the only one of the SG who could have kept the secret about Dawn. Once Buffy told them, the rest of the gang couldn't keep from acting weird around Dawn for 24 hours.
Also, Xander is presenting Buffy two alternatives when there are many possibilities. Even if Buffy chases after Riley, she doesn't have to get into " talking scary, messy, no-emotions-barred need." Buffy could just talk about their problems: Riles need for a mission, Buffy's fear of losing it under pressure. Buffy could admit to having a secret but not tell Riley what it was. There are lots of possibilities.
But Xander wants Buffy and Riley to be in love big time, so he presents that as Buffy's only option. And when Buffy doesn't get to Riley in time, she is more heart broken than if she had never talked to Xander. Xander didn't mean to hurt Buffy. But he did with his manipulations.
Spike is a master manipulator. He often uses manipulation language. And he's very good at it. One of his masterpieces was the balcony scene in "Dead Things":
Spike: "Look at them."
Shot of the Scoobies dancing on, oblivious.
Spike: "Thatıs not your world. You belong in the shadows. . . with me."
Close shot on Spikeıs face as he continues moving slowly and talking into Buffyıs ear.
Spike: "Look at your friends. . . and tell me.. . you donıt love getting away with this. . ." Buffy still
watching her friends ". . . right under their noses."
Close on Buffyıs face as she looks down at her friends.
In the beginning, Spike's not asking Buffy, he's telling her. Strike one. Then, he's telling her how HE wants the world to be (Buffy in the shadows with him) not how she wants it to be. Strike two. And finally, Spike poses a question and sets up the alternatives (you love it or you don't). Strike three, manipulation.
I believe that Spike had Buffy's best interest at heart. He sees that she is miserable. He wants to help. But he also has his own self interest at heart. He wants Buffy with him. So Spike tries to impose a reality on Buffy, where she is happy in the shadows with him. It even works for a while. Buffy is very weak at this part of the season and is happy to be manipulated; happy to let someone else make the decisions. She and Spike have a nice post-coital conversation at the beginning of "Dead Things". But what Spike is doing is manipulation, not creating agreement, so it doesn't last. And, ultimately, by "Seeing Red" Spike hurts Buffy more than he ever thought he could.
This post has been an exercise that I can use to help identify when a character is being manipulative in the future. There have been lots of other speeches or "truths" that have been voiced on BTVS over the years. Now I think I have another tool for examining them.
[> [>Re: OT: Manipulation and Imposing Reality -- shadowkat, 20:40:43 08/01/02 Thu
Interesting. You mention how Spike and Xander are manipulative and impose their projection of reality on others.
But doesn't Buffy do this as well?
Her lines to Spike in Smashed.
Spike: Buffy a man can change.
Buffy: You're not a man, you're a thing.
Spike: Stop walking away from me.
Buffy (she hits him): An evil thing.
(He hits her back - realizes he can, quickly covers.)
He's on the ground in pain. - "You're an evil soulless thing. You can't change."
Spike has evil smile and goes out to try and attack someone.
"That's right I'm an evil soulless thing - a killer..."
Wonder if he would have thought that if it weren't for Buffy's little spiel?? Probably? Probably not? Can make an argument for it both ways.
Spike: Why don't you explain it to me?
Buffy: You can't understand.
They fight - she beats him up telling him he is nothing but an evil soulless thing. She can never love him or be his girl.
I find it interesting that people want to either blame Spike or blame Buffy for a relationship that is in reality both parties faults. Buffy is as manipulative and controlling as Spike. Don't believe me? Check out who kisses whom in OMWF or whom kisses whom in TR or that wonderful scene in Smashed. From personal experience (unfortunately) I can tell you there were no bad guys or good guys here.
So while I agree that Spike is very manipulative, so is Buffy.
Xander also is not alone. Buffy often tells Xander what he is feeling or what he is. That's what we often do in friendships and relationships.
I know my friends will often tell me what I'm feeling or thinking and yes it pisses me off and yes I call them on it.
But it happens.
Not completely disagreeing here just well...I'm not sure the model works perfectly.
I think examples can be found of all the characters doing telling each other what they should feel. Part of the reason Willow explodes in Something Blue in Season 4 is she feels that pressure and resists it. They don't understand how she feels. She can't "just get over it".
In Into the Woods - Buffy calls Xander on his little speech, states how he's projecting about him and Anya and Xander takes what she says to heart and goes to Anya telling her how much he loves her. Buffy makes the choice whether or not to accept Xander's words. Just as Spike makes the choice to take Buffy's to heart.
That's the main point I think when we consider manipulation - do we allow ourselves to be manipulated?
Tara left Willow - put a stop to it. Spike in Gone does throw Buffy out - but he can't quite let go and continues the relationship, even pursuing her after she does break up with him for both their sakes. He lets his emotions for her take over...he reminds me of Romeo in Romeo and Juliet or the lovesick teenager. Buffy actually begins to take control of her reality after Normal Again...even in SR she takes control - pushing him off her, not letting him pull her back into the cycle, not letting him impose his feelings on her.
That's the more interesting model - perhaps - looking for the characters who can break free, not let others tell them who they are or what they are doing. Yet it is very difficult to do...tending to agree with aliera here...reality is an amorphous wavering thing...not sure any of us have control over it.
God hope this made sense. It's late. Been a long day and as usual I tend to ramble when I post spontaneously. ;-)
Which is probably why I'm afraid of chat rooms...
Comparison without essays (Is that allowed?) -- arystocrat, 17:00:33 08/01/02 Thu
The thought kept bumping in my head today, but I haven't had time to expand it.
Buffy = Laurie Jupiter (aka the Silk Spectre)
Angel = Dr. Manhattan
Xander = Niteowl
Willow = Ozymandias
Spike = The Comedian
Faith = Rorschach
Giles = Hollis Mason
[>Re: Who watches the watchers? -- Brian, 20:04:52 08/01/02 Thu
got to do some rereading
[>Mostly nice, but Faith isn't Rorschach -- KdS, 05:02:19 08/02/02 Fri
Looking back through my memories of Watchmen, Rorschach never considers himself as evil, or descends to nihilism - so far as he's concerned he's the only truly moral person left. I'd compare Rorschach to Angel mid-Season II (AtS), convinced that evil can only be fought by its own methods and blinded to the fact that he's simply indulging his personal sadistic streak.
Don't have time to be more detailed, but the Angel-Rorschach similarities feed in to a longer essay about AtS season II and "Dark Knight" figures across different media, that I may post sometime in the next few days.
[> [>PS; Faith is the Comedian, Spike is maybe Moloch -- KdS, 05:18:37 08/02/02 Fri
Current board
| More August 2002