Buffy in the New York Times

[go_team]

Yep, I'm a dork and I can't help taking notes on stuff that interests me. (I submit, as further evidence, Exhibit B: The Langoliers, based on a recent rereading of that Stephen King novella (Four Past Midnight was just sitting there in the laundry room, ripe for the borrowing!)

Anyway, I'll just put these behind cut tags, since they're mostly for my own reference.

From "10 Questions for Joss Whedon"

"I’m very much more interested in the created family than I am in actual families. And, you have to deal with that character; how he’s dealing with his ex-wife’s death for example. We have so many characters to service it made things simpler to use the short hand of, "he’s just not there". And since we’re telling stories about family that often hit on the traditional patriarchy as being kind of lame-o, and the created family as being more lasting and more loving, it just made sense."

Yay created families and yay calling patriarchy "lame-o"!

"I would love to give you a more in-depth coherent explanation of my view of the soul, and if I had one I would. The soul and my concept of it are as ephemeral as anybody’s, and possibly more so. And in terms of the show, it is something that exists to meet the needs of convenience; the truth is sometimes you can trap it in a jar; the truth is sometimes someone without one seems more interesting than someone with one. I don’t think Clem has a soul, but he’s certainly a sweet guy. Spike was definitely kind of a soulful character before he had a soul, but we made it clear that there was a level on which he could not operate. Although Spike could feel love, it was the possessive and selfish kind of love that most people feel. The concept of real altruism didn’t exist for him. And although he did love Buffy and was moved by her emotionally, ultimately his desire to possess her led him to try and rape her because he couldn’t make the connection —- the difference between their dominance games and actual rape.

"With a soul comes a more adult understanding. That is again, a little vague, but… can I say that I believe in the soul? I don’t know that I can. It’s a beautiful concept, as is resurrection and a lot of other things we have on the show that I’m not really sure I can explain and I certainly don’t believe in. It does fall prey to convenience, but at the same time it has consistently marked the real difference between somebody with a complex moral structure and someone who may be affable and even likable, but ultimately eats kittens. "

Now that's metaphysics, baby.

Redemption has become one of the most important themes in my work and it really did start with Angel. I would say probably with the episode "Amends," but even with the character itself and the concept of the spin-off was about redemption. It was about addiction and how you get through that and come out the other side, how you redeem yourself from a terrible life. I do actually work with a number of reformed addicts, if that’s what you call them. I call them drunks. But my point is a good number of people that are most close to me creatively have lived that life, and it informs their work. I never have, and so I’m not sure why it is that redemption is so fascinating to me. I think the mistakes I’ve made in my own life have plagued me, but they’re pretty boring mistakes: I committed a series of grisly murders in the eighties and I think I once owned a Wilson-Phillips Album. Apart from that I’m pretty much an average guy, yet I have an enormous burden of guilt. I’m not sure why. I’m a WASP, so it’s not Jewish or Catholic guilt; it’s just there. Ultimately, the concept of somebody who needed to be redeemed is more interesting to me. I think it does make a character more textured than one who doesn’t.

"I can't think of anything, off hand, that I am a big fan of that contains that kind of thing. My favorite fictions are usually the kind I make, which is sort of adolescent rites of passage, which is what "Buffy" is about. It’s about the getting of strength and that’s probably the most important theme in any of my work, but I would say coming a close second is the theme of redemption. I think as you make your way through life it’s hard to maintain a moral structure, and that difficulty and the process of coming out the other side of a dark, even psychological time is to me the most important part of adulthood.

"I think to an extent every human being needs to be redeemed somewhat or at least needs to look at themselves and say, "I’ve made mistakes, I’m off course, I need to change." Which is probably the hardest thing for a human being to do and maybe that’s why it interests me so."

I first realized I was totally unclear on the ideas of sin and redemption when we read The Scarlet Letter in English class my junior year of high school. It's still a topic that gets my attention, if only because in many ways it's so foreign to me. I guess I'm not so much into being redeemed as I'm into learning from my mistakes and trying to suck less in the future.

From "Must-See Metaphysics" by Emily Nussbaum:

...Whedon has created one of the most intelligent, and most underestimated, shows on television.... "Buffy" might look at first sight like a disposable toy, something cobbled from materials that most adults dismiss out of hand: teen banter, karate chops and bloodsucking monsters. Before the show went on the air in 1997, executives at the fledgling WB network begged him to change the whimsical title, arguing that the show would never reach intelligent viewers. But it did. "Buffy" is about a teenage girl staking monsters in the heart, but her true demons are personal, and the show's innovative mix of fantasy elements and psychological acuity transcends easy categorization. Despite being perpetually snubbed at the Emmy Awards, "Buffy" has become a critics' darling and inspired a fervent fan base among teenage girls and academics alike. The show's influence can be felt everywhere on television these days, from tawdry knockoffs like "Charmed" to more impressive copycats like "Alias."

My brain says I'm supposed to italicize show titles and put episodes in quotation marks; is this right? I should look it up.

Whedon talks about his frustration with those who mistake his creations for guilty pleasures. "I hate it when people talk about 'Buffy' as being campy," he says, scarfing takeout chicken with a plastic fork. "I hate camp. I don't enjoy dumb TV. I believe Aaron Spelling has single-handedly lowered SAT scores." But despite these inevitable misreadings, Whedon's heart will always be with genre fiction. Like Buffy herself, genre fiction is easily undervalued, seen as powerless fluff. But Whedon finds it uniquely forceful: using its vivid strokes, you can be speculative, philosophical -- and create stories that are not merely true to life but are metaphors for a deeper level of human experience. "It's better to be a spy in the house of love, you know?" he jokes. "If I made 'Buffy the Lesbian Separatist,' a series of lectures on PBS on why there should be feminism, no one would be coming to the party, and it would be boring. The idea of changing culture is important to me, and it can only be done in a popular medium."

I would go to a 'Buffy the Lesbian Separatist' party. But I'd probably dress up in my best drag king outfit, just 'cause I'm perverse like that.

"Whedon wanted to create an iconic female hero, but also 'a world in which adolescent boys would see a girl who takes charge as the sexiest goddamn thing they ever saw.'"

"...Then, in a classic Hollywood tale of disillusionment, he lost control of his screenplay -- only to see his vision of 'populist feminism' turned into a schlocky comedy. He recalls sitting in the theater, crying. 'I really thought I'd never work again,' he recalls of the experience. 'It was that devastating.' But in a second chance few get, Whedon was able to resurrect ''Buffy'' on television, restoring the show's powerful central metaphor: adolescence is hell, and any girl who makes it through is a superhero."

...

"I'm a very hard-line, angry atheist," Whedon says. "Yet I am fascinated by the concept of devotion. And I want to explore that."

From "A Weekend With Buffy, Vampire Slayer and Seminar Topic" by Charles Taylor, 24 November 2002

Because the seventh season of "Buffy" doesn't begin in Britain until January, the few American speakers who dared make reference to it were greeted with shouts of protest begging them not to spoil the surprises. Some Americans had brought along tapes of the first three episodes, and a place was found to show them to attendees who had not yet seen them. There was such a demand that three screenings were arranged. During the presentation of the papers, speakers often used clips from previous seasons for illustration. They were greeted with sighs of pleasure as people got to see some of their favorite scenes, and then with small protests of disappointment when they were turned off.

Though no one connected with "Buffy" attended, there were, as at any gathering of fans, definite favorites among the actors. James Marsters's Spike, the punk vampire who first appeared as the epitome of evil and has now succeeded David Boreanaz's vampire-with-a-soul Angel as the show's brooding and doomed romantic hero, was an object of across-the-board fascination. Marc Blucas's Riley, Buffy's straight-arrow boyfriend of a few seasons back, held about as much appeal for the attendees as a bowl of soggy corn flakes.

Just a link: "A Vampire With Soul, and Cheekbones" by Joyce Millman, 12 January 2003. It's all about Spike and James Marsters, who plays him. Mmmm, Spike.

Ok, my attention span's gone all short (might have something to do with the screamy little kids outside, so this is just another link: "Getting Buffy's Last Rites Right" by Joyce Millman, 20 April 2003.

Oh, and while I'm being amused by the New York Times, here's a link I could not resist checking out: Big Hot Blurry Painterly Nudes! (Yes, that's the actual title of the article.)

Comments

[quizro.livejournal.com]

Dude, if you ever get the urge to rap about sin and redemption, and its associated topic of repentance, I'm your huckleberry.

Dude.

[goteam.livejournal.com]

I think a major part of my problem in that class was that the teacher started out with the assumption that we all had some (probably Judeo-Christian) definition of sin and redemption. I didn't. I was raised knowing that religion was something other people did, but not me and my family, and that mythology is awesome reading, but I never got into dogma past hearing an occasional sermon at a friend's brother's baptism or something like that. So I guess simple, basic definitions would be the place for me to start. I remember being really frustrated by the question "Is Reverend Dimmesdale redeemed for his sins?" because I didn't even really know what it meant. Sigh. Email would probably be a better venue for continuing this discussion, eh?