Sunday, January 28, 2001
Posted by byron wors.
I watched Buffy a few days ago again. The council suits were really uptight and obnoxious. I guess that I wish that they hadn't been - that instead, this age-old institution with its accrution of knowledge, experience, etc. would be something parallel, analogous to the Slayer, the institution of the Slayer - something with more depth and mystery. Making the struggle between the Slayer and the council unfold the way that it did makes it just into that of a child struggling to get free from oppressive parents. And that's just not that interesting to me.

o0o

Posted by shadowy duck.
I really love thinking about the mind-body thing in Buffy. A few weeks ago at lunch some people I was eating with started talking about the many-Slayers thing. How does it work? There's something Romantic about the idea of The One Slayer in every generation. I think it means that there is this discrete life force / entity thing known as The Slayer that inhabits various human women in sequence. But then how did the doubling of Slayers happen? When Buffy died in the first season, did The Slayer spirit leave her (and go to Kendra)? What if Buffy has been The Slayer, but without The Slayer force?

That seems unlikely, but I guess we're to think that The Slayer force split somehow, or it perhaps draws on an infinite power. (Reminds me of the Phoenix force in the X-Men comics.) Anyways, if we think of the spirit having been split, it's still interesting to think about how the structure of the Watchers and Slayers relationship exists. It's clear that there are many Watchers out there. And to some extent, there are many Slayers-in-training, too. We found out from Kendra and Faith that they'd been Slayers-in-training for a long time. So does it mean that they are without the Slayer spirit until they are "called"? It's sort of assumed that they're weaker, not true Slayers, until they are called. But as Buffy has shown, being The Slayer is not so much about being a particular thing as it is about becoming.

Hmmm....

o0o

Saturday, January 27, 2001
Posted by shadowy duck.
Tara wonders early in the episode why everyone is reacting so negatively to the mention of the Watcher's Council. She thought that they, like Giles, were good people with an immense body of knowledge about the demon world. I agree that Buffy's speech was kind of presumptuous at the end, but I think it was necessarily to put an end to the watchers' condescending, manipulative attitude towards her. I hope that this isn't the end of her exploration of what it means to be the Slayer, either, though. There's far too much that they've set up for this to be the truth that she's searching for. I thought that the way she took Quentin's assertion that Glory is a god, not a demon, was a good indication that Buffy's speech is not the solution, the answer to the season's struggle. It's a temporary victory for her self-assertion and empowerment, but she's far from figuring out what the Slayer is, where the power comes from, etc. I hope it remains at least a little bit of a mystery.

Angel: You were right, Chanterelle/Lily/Anne was the Anne in the episode. I watched it again today and saw the opening credits with the guest star Julia Lee. That's her. I looked it up in my Watcher's Guide Vol. 2. Hee hee. I didn't recognize her in my half-awake stupor earlier. In the ep, there was reference to her changing her name a few times, too. But anyways, I liked her character, too. I like the end when Angel gave her the money with blood on it and she said, "it'll wash off." I think that's a very important point because Angel has always been about these really abstract and ideal concepts of good and evil (humans and demons, etc.) but finally they're blurring those lines and what it means to do good and to do evil. That's why I like the fact that he's given up "the good fight" because that's the knight-in-shining armor stuff. What Anne realizes is that sure, the money might have come from suspect means, but sometimes, you have to judge for yourself what that means in terms of your using it. Because it's true in her case that the money, even if it's only five percent of what she should have gotten, would have gone a long ways in helping the kids in her shelter. And I think that she realizes that if she didn't take the money in the end, it wouldn't have put an end to Wolfram and Hart's machinations. Her renunciation of the blood money would have been an empty, idealist gesture.

And yeah, grey. It's kind of weird that Angel is instrumental in the apocalypse. I guess I don't know what the apocalypse means. It's the end of the world, sure, but doesn't it also signal the Second Coming of Christ? So why are there "sides" in the apocalypse? I guess they mean that there's a chance that control will be wrested from God/Christ? And if so, that places Wolfram and Hart squarely in the field of Satan and his followers (have you read Milton's Paradise Lost yet?). But how? And what does it mean for them to win? Will they take over control of existence? But the apocalypse is also the end of the world. So what is there after that? Dunno... In a way, the grey thing is yet another suggestion that the show is really moving away from an easy distinction between good and evil. And I guess W and H want Angel to stick around and commit bad deeds (maybe kill Lindsey or that woman) so that his soul won't be saved? But if he achieves humanness that means his soul is saved? And when the apocalypse comes around and the scales are weighed between saved and lost souls, his will determine which side wins?

o0o

Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Posted by byron wors.
Lukewarm reactions to both Buffy and Angel.

While the the theme of Buffy having power but not necessarily empowered, "adult" authority, independence, etc. can be interesting, the resolution (Buffy's speech) seemed kind of forced (or too easy). The fact that there is such a thing as a watcher's counsel with a lot of resources which helps to guide and support the slayer is not a bad thing in it of itself. Yes, they were condescending to Buffy, Giles, et al. But I don't think that Buffy can really say that everything should be done her way on her own terms b/c she has power, she is the slayer, without her, she'd be nothing. That seems abusive of her slayer power (or just outright arrogant). The watchers also have centuries and centuries of information, notes, etc. without which, Buffy would be nothing too. Of course the watchers are quite problematic and condescending, but to just say that they're begging to be let back into her slayerness is really just crazy! If this is what Buffy "coming into her own," "becoming an adult" means, I am very disappointed. Is this what the months of foreshadowing about what the slayer really is, what her source is, etc. amounting to? (Dracula said that he and the slayer come from the same source. Last season's last episode alluded to the voice of the first slayer, of all slayers, something something...) I think that I'm giving up on Buffy. When is Faith the Vampire Slayer coming on?

Spile was good in the episode - saying mean things exactly where it hurts, and also able to help when needed.

Angel: Is that Anne, the Chanterelle that Buffy helped when she ran away to LA. She was a very promising character: a woman who runs a shelter for children - usually people think bleeding heart liberal (naive, wholesome, everything good) - but someone also willing to do whatever it takes to get something - she's "seen the dark side." Interesting compare/contrast to Angel - both in the GREY.

Speaking of Grey, what is this apocalypse that Wolfram +Hart senior partner refers to? What does grey do, how does one gain from it - as opposed to black or white. And yes, the gang of white three are getting more and more comical and comic reliefish fighting the good fight.

o0o

Posted by shadowy duck.
Oh. And the fact that Glory is a god. Interesting. She does act a lot like modern versions of classical (Greek and Roman) gods in their mythologies. Impetuous. Self-centered. Powerful. Very much like Ego let loose. I'd love to see what sort of story they give this god. Also interesting to note that gods often are demons in certain versions of Christian mythology -- they're just the pagan gods who corrupt the idea of God.

And re: Angel. I dozed off while watching that episode. Too bad, since it was apparently one very much concerned with Wolfram & Hart and Angel's role in their machinations. Ah well. I suppose the lesson of yesterday is that I need to create a stable sleeping schedule.

o0o

Posted by shadowy duck.
ARGH! I can't believe I missed half of Buffy! This must be the first time in three years that I've ever missed an episode and not even taped it. I was very tired last night and dozed off WHILE IN FRONT OF THE TV with Joe. He was watching something else and didn't realize, either, that Buffy had come on while I was sleeping. I managed to catch the last half of the episode, though.

It seemed like it was an okay episode. As usual, the Watchers Council came in with intentions of controlling the Slayer. I liked Buffy's speech at the end about POWER, because that's really what the dynamic between the Watchers Council and Buffy always boils down to. I especially hated the WC's attempts to belittle Buffy and her friends as a way of gaining control over her. It's just what people do to feel better about themselves.

The bit with Glory was kind of weird. I can see how putting her in Buffy's house and in the presence of the Key without her knowing what was happening is an especially rich moment of dramatic irony, but it leaves me wondering what powers the Beast really has. Is she just a super-super-super-humanly strong creature with the ability to drive people crazy? (What is she doing when she holds people's heads and blasts them somehow?) Obviously she can't read minds. It's strange that she has to play these manipulative mind games like other villains. It's not clear that she really does know that Buffy knows about the Key. But it's a fairly obvious tactic to take in finding out if she does or if she knows who might know.

And the Brotherhood out to get Buffy? They sounded a lot like the Order of Terraka, except they work in groups instead of alone. "We'll keep coming, even if you destroy us, hundreds, thousands..." I don't quite understand it. They want to destroy the Key. What does it mean for the Key to be destroyed? What does it mean for Glory to get her hands on the Key, for that matter? Is the Key a tool? What does it unlock? Ah... all questions I eagerly await the answers to in the final stretch of the season. I guess the next new episode will probably be a Buffy birthday episode...

o0o

Wednesday, January 17, 2001
Posted by shadowy duck.
I think one reason I don't like Angel so much is because it relies on so many conventional, trite narrative forms to create tension, suspense, mystery. There was that episode that began with Wesley being interrogated by the police. He was beat up, bloody, spouting nonsensical stuff about someone going crazy, etc. (referring to Angel). Then in last night's episode, the dialogue was kind of hokey. That beginning scene with Gunn and Wesley rattling of synonyms to "fired" was awful. But the underlying narrative of Angel needing to prepare himself? See, if this were done in Buffy, that narrative would've been more integrated into the episodes. It wouldn't have seemed so sudden. As it was, this episode suddenly has Angel working out so he can take care of Darla and Drusilla, constantly criticizing himself, saying he's not ready. And how many days have passed between Darla's resurrection and Angel's announcement that he is now ready?

I did like Angel's final words, though -- about letting Gunn/Cordelia/Wesley fight the "good fight" and his tackling the "war." And the way Darla and Drusilla and the others realize that this new Angel is not "Angel" nor "Angelus." He is something completely different. Not a "good" vampire or a "bad" vampire. He is a vindictive spirit, an avenging angel, something no longer tied to a moral dichotomy of good and evil.

o0o

Thursday, January 11, 2001
Posted by shadowy duck.
(Also posted at [BuffyLog].)

Sorry to be so negative, but this last episode sucked. It was shoddily presented. The crises created were flimsy (for example, the Anya/Willow blowup that sends both Xander and Tara conveniently scampering for cover and the troll rampaging through town who doesn't get approached by some law enforcement people). The reactions of the characters were out of left field, as WitchQueen noted about Buffy. And why in hell would Buffy, Joyce, and Giles talk about Dawn as the Key in the Summers' house? They're all fairly intelligent people, and Buffy is especially protective of Dawn, so why did they all have a sudden lapse of carefulness and not realize that Dawn is likely to be right around the corner to hear them talk?

There were some choice moments, though. Spike's scenes were all great. (Of course, I am partial to his sudden infatuation with Buffy. The chocolates scene was priceless -- showing the depths of humiliation Spike was willing to plumb to get Buffy to like him even just a little.) Willow's declaration, "Hello? Gay now!" was great, too, though its insistence on the fixedness of her sexual preference is a little questionable for me.

I did think that the buildup to Anya and Willow's confrontation wasn't too sudden -- they'd been bickering throughout this season, especially over concerns in the magic shop. But the way the episode resolved their conflict was unbelievable. Do we all really believe that Willow has been irritable towards Anya because of her relationship with Xander? Is Anya really so stupid as to believe that all will be well now that they all "realize" that Willow can never "have" Xander because she is gay (as a solution to Willow's presumed jealousy)?

And I can't even believe the powers-that-be at Buffy are having Buffy react like a simpering idiot when it comes to the topic of lasting relationships. It does show that a nostalgia / wishful thinking about relationships that work is hard currency in the world. Its ability to erase the actualities of relationships is frightening, though. How can anyone really think of Xander and Anya's relationship as one based on mutual love and understanding? It's been clear from the start that Xander was in the relationship for the convenience (and sex) of it. Although it's conceivable that his feelings have changed, that Anya has in fact wooed his affections with her undying attentions, I'd rather not think that their relationship is so conventional a love story. It can't last, I say.

o0o

Wednesday, January 10, 2001
Posted by shadowy duck.
D'oh. Don't know why I was so excited about that episode. It sucked. What was up with Buffy's crying and insisting that Xander and Anya have a love to last all time? And the tension between Anya and Willow? How did they even think they could resolve it by "realizing" that Willow was uncomfortable with Xander being with anyone, and then noting that she's "gay" now, so can't be a threat to Anya and Xander?

And the troll was so bad he was kinda campy. But not in a good way. Mead, ale, wench. Blah blah blah. Look at me the medieval troll.

I did like Willow's plan to make portable sunlight.

o0o

Tuesday, January 09, 2001
Posted by shadowy duck.
Yay! New Buffy tonight, finally. Looks like the episode will deal with relationships explicitly again. Makes sense, since Buffy just watched Riley run away like a fool. And Xander implicated himself in the revelation of a troubling tension between a loving relationship and an expedient one. I should've known the writers would push the sore-point of the Xander-Anya-Willow triangle, especially since they've upped the instances of antagonism between Anya and Willow, the latest one drawing Xander into the fray when Anya called him on his mocking of her and siding with Willow all the time.

o0o

Sunday, January 07, 2001
Posted by shadowy duck.
Some thoughts related to the perspective I take on Riley's actions:

Erotic attraction often serves as the catalyst for an intimate connection between two people, but it is not a sign of love. Exciting, pleasurable sex can take place between two people who do not even know each other. Yet the vast majority of males in our society are convinced that their erotic longing indicates who they should, and can, love. Led by their penis, seduced by erotic desire, they often end up in relationships with partners with whom they share no common interests or values. The pressure on men in a patriarchal society to "perform" sexually is so great that men are often so gratified to be with someone with whom they find sexual pleasure that they ignore everything else. They cover up these mistakes by working too much, or finding playmates they like outside their committed marriage or partnership. It usually takes them a long time to name the lovelessness they may feel. And this recognition usually has to be covered up to protect the sexist insistence that men never admit failure.

bell hooks, All About Love: New Visions (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 2000)

o0o

Saturday, January 06, 2001
Posted by shadowy duck.
In progress: thinking / writing about souls as conscience and sexual betrayal in Buffy.

o0o

Monday, January 01, 2001
Posted by shadowy duck.
Table of contents for an imagined book on bodily concerns in Buffy:

Introduction: Buffy and Joss Whedon's Cosmology of Being
Chapter 1: Vampires, Body, and Soul
Chapter 2: Demons that Possess
Chapter 3: Moloch and the Limits of Technology
Chapter 4: Frankensteins and Adams, Reanimation and Hybrids
Chapter 5: The Slayer
Conclusion: The Spiritual Realm

(Thought up while I lay in bed, sick and feverish, on Christmas Day.)

o0o


 
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?