![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
1. Hmmm...this is an interesting essay, which I kind of disagree with.
Buffy Revisited Through Whedon Allegations
I honestly think you can analyze anything a certain way if you want to badly enough. I remember my brother and his friend trying to convince me that the soap opera The Guiding Light's - iconic lighthouse was a phallic symbol. (Uh, no. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar folks.)
Here, I'm kind of going yes, okay, possibly, nodding along until I hit this paragraph:
An example of this is one of the most awful episodes, when Spike attempts to rape Buffy. The scene is stomach-churning, not in the least because it is played for maximum distress (and traumatized actors during filming). This scene pokes another hole in Whedon's self-proclaimed feminism: that women can only be really strong if the source of their power comes from their sexuality or from "overcoming" trauma. Of course Faith, another slayer, is promiscuous. Of course sex with Buffy turns Angel evil — her sexualized teen body is that powerful.
The rape scene seems totally out of character and to come out of nowhere, though Whedon stated his reasoning was to remind viewers that Spike is a vampire and therefore "soulless." What's the easiest way to do that? Have a sympathetic and frankly, non-toxic male character suddenly rape.
So, did this woman skip S2? Or miss the fact that Spike was set up as a sexual predator in S2 - S6?
Also, the idea for that scene wasn't Whedon's - but Marti, and it was written by Deknight, Jane Espenson, and I think David Fury. They famously did a podcast interview after it aired and broke it down with the interviewers on the Succubus Club, we all transcribed it for Buffy fanboards.
See this is the problem with people re-watching things after they find out personal or private information about what has happening behind the scenes, the details of which are incredibly vague, and reported twenty years after the fact, and various parties staying silent regarding them. You want to read all sorts of crazy things into it.
I was taught not to do that in undergrad - and to be careful to apply a more critical and objective eye.
Also, Spike - "A Non-toxic male character" ??? This person was not on the same Buffy boards that I was on. I had to re-read that sentence twice.
"Out of nowhere?" - I saw it coming a mile away. I mean they kept foreshadowing it.
Also part of the point of Buffy was a critique of toxic male culture in violent westerns and slasher pictures in the 1970s-90s. Buffy started in the 1990s - and in direct reaction to horror films like Scream, which had popped up shortly before it. It was satirizing a lot of that toxic male culture.
With Buffy taking out the male vampires - often a metaphor for sexual violence with a phallic symbol - the stake. It explored the misogynistic nerd as the villains, and their inability to handle women. They were shown as the villains and weak. Notably no male has power in Buffy, unless they become a vampire or are turned into a monster.
The women have the power.
2. I also saw an essay about Xander as the epitome of misogyny. Really? I think you are confusing him with Warren. And there are quite a few women and men loved Xander and did not see him that way. I may have disagreed with them at times, but I can see their perspective. And could defend it. I have defended it - in numerous essays.
Quiet Misogyny in Buffy
Huh? I'm sorry, the writers were blatantly exposing the misogyny in our culture and calling our attention to it. It wasn't celebrating it - just the opposite. Willow's scene in Villains with Warren - dissects misogyny at its base. And in S7 Buffy takes down the bad guy - a misogynist empowered by the First Evil - who has given birth to vampires. The vampires in Whedon's stories are in a part a metaphor for sexual violence and misogyny.
He's showing the reality of it. It's not exploitive or romanticized. It's painful and horrifying. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a horror series, it wasn't a romantic teen soap like the Vampire Diaries and Legacies. It was horror. Horror isn't nice and fuzzy.
They were showing the dark side of human nature and questioning it. There's a lot of good stuff in this series. Don't dismiss it out of hand or review it based on what may have happened twenty years ago to several cast members behind the scenes. I seriously doubt anyone who came forward would want you to view their work or the series in that manner.
SMG pretty much states that, as does everyone else. It was a toxic work environment but the end product is still meaningful. You can separate behavior from a person and from art, it is possible. It just requires a little critical thinking to do so.
3. I think Screen Logic's essay handles it best... A Teachable Moment in Cognitive Dissonance After Joss Whedon
Many People Worked Hard on These Projects Beyond the Disgraced Figures
My answer is simply "Yes." You can still appreciate the art and those involved while tempering who you praise in the process. There was still a final season of House of Cards despite the allegations against star Kevin Spacey, who was fired prior to filming. You can still enjoy the work of the X-Men franchise even after what people found out about Bryan Singer. I don't think it's fair to judge anyone regardless if they support or identify as part of the LGBTQ community if they still love the Harry Potter franchise despite J.K. Rowling's TERF beliefs.
It's hard to keep track of everything because what's done is already done, and nothing is going to erase what's in the can. We can only do things that affect the present and in the future. Obviously, there's a line of which you can't think of things the same way again, but at the same time, a lot of hard-working people put in their soul to create what you love. Can you imagine shuttering away in a vault every single thing that had Harvey Weinstein's name on it? It would deprive such a significant piece of cinema history away that doesn't make any practical sense to punish those who weren't involved. The way we learn and what is a teachable moment is to just speak up while we can and do what we can now because the worst that can happen is nothing is said, and suffering continues.
I agree. I'm not sure it matters right now, what these people did in the past as a pandemic roars in the background. The US is pretty close to the 500,000 death milestone. We've lost 500,000 people to COVID-19 in this country.
And we're addressing toxic workplaces and hunting ways to stop them. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but we are making progress.
Buffy Revisited Through Whedon Allegations
I honestly think you can analyze anything a certain way if you want to badly enough. I remember my brother and his friend trying to convince me that the soap opera The Guiding Light's - iconic lighthouse was a phallic symbol. (Uh, no. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar folks.)
Here, I'm kind of going yes, okay, possibly, nodding along until I hit this paragraph:
An example of this is one of the most awful episodes, when Spike attempts to rape Buffy. The scene is stomach-churning, not in the least because it is played for maximum distress (and traumatized actors during filming). This scene pokes another hole in Whedon's self-proclaimed feminism: that women can only be really strong if the source of their power comes from their sexuality or from "overcoming" trauma. Of course Faith, another slayer, is promiscuous. Of course sex with Buffy turns Angel evil — her sexualized teen body is that powerful.
The rape scene seems totally out of character and to come out of nowhere, though Whedon stated his reasoning was to remind viewers that Spike is a vampire and therefore "soulless." What's the easiest way to do that? Have a sympathetic and frankly, non-toxic male character suddenly rape.
So, did this woman skip S2? Or miss the fact that Spike was set up as a sexual predator in S2 - S6?
Also, the idea for that scene wasn't Whedon's - but Marti, and it was written by Deknight, Jane Espenson, and I think David Fury. They famously did a podcast interview after it aired and broke it down with the interviewers on the Succubus Club, we all transcribed it for Buffy fanboards.
See this is the problem with people re-watching things after they find out personal or private information about what has happening behind the scenes, the details of which are incredibly vague, and reported twenty years after the fact, and various parties staying silent regarding them. You want to read all sorts of crazy things into it.
I was taught not to do that in undergrad - and to be careful to apply a more critical and objective eye.
Also, Spike - "A Non-toxic male character" ??? This person was not on the same Buffy boards that I was on. I had to re-read that sentence twice.
"Out of nowhere?" - I saw it coming a mile away. I mean they kept foreshadowing it.
Also part of the point of Buffy was a critique of toxic male culture in violent westerns and slasher pictures in the 1970s-90s. Buffy started in the 1990s - and in direct reaction to horror films like Scream, which had popped up shortly before it. It was satirizing a lot of that toxic male culture.
With Buffy taking out the male vampires - often a metaphor for sexual violence with a phallic symbol - the stake. It explored the misogynistic nerd as the villains, and their inability to handle women. They were shown as the villains and weak. Notably no male has power in Buffy, unless they become a vampire or are turned into a monster.
The women have the power.
2. I also saw an essay about Xander as the epitome of misogyny. Really? I think you are confusing him with Warren. And there are quite a few women and men loved Xander and did not see him that way. I may have disagreed with them at times, but I can see their perspective. And could defend it. I have defended it - in numerous essays.
Quiet Misogyny in Buffy
Huh? I'm sorry, the writers were blatantly exposing the misogyny in our culture and calling our attention to it. It wasn't celebrating it - just the opposite. Willow's scene in Villains with Warren - dissects misogyny at its base. And in S7 Buffy takes down the bad guy - a misogynist empowered by the First Evil - who has given birth to vampires. The vampires in Whedon's stories are in a part a metaphor for sexual violence and misogyny.
He's showing the reality of it. It's not exploitive or romanticized. It's painful and horrifying. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a horror series, it wasn't a romantic teen soap like the Vampire Diaries and Legacies. It was horror. Horror isn't nice and fuzzy.
They were showing the dark side of human nature and questioning it. There's a lot of good stuff in this series. Don't dismiss it out of hand or review it based on what may have happened twenty years ago to several cast members behind the scenes. I seriously doubt anyone who came forward would want you to view their work or the series in that manner.
SMG pretty much states that, as does everyone else. It was a toxic work environment but the end product is still meaningful. You can separate behavior from a person and from art, it is possible. It just requires a little critical thinking to do so.
3. I think Screen Logic's essay handles it best... A Teachable Moment in Cognitive Dissonance After Joss Whedon
Many People Worked Hard on These Projects Beyond the Disgraced Figures
My answer is simply "Yes." You can still appreciate the art and those involved while tempering who you praise in the process. There was still a final season of House of Cards despite the allegations against star Kevin Spacey, who was fired prior to filming. You can still enjoy the work of the X-Men franchise even after what people found out about Bryan Singer. I don't think it's fair to judge anyone regardless if they support or identify as part of the LGBTQ community if they still love the Harry Potter franchise despite J.K. Rowling's TERF beliefs.
It's hard to keep track of everything because what's done is already done, and nothing is going to erase what's in the can. We can only do things that affect the present and in the future. Obviously, there's a line of which you can't think of things the same way again, but at the same time, a lot of hard-working people put in their soul to create what you love. Can you imagine shuttering away in a vault every single thing that had Harvey Weinstein's name on it? It would deprive such a significant piece of cinema history away that doesn't make any practical sense to punish those who weren't involved. The way we learn and what is a teachable moment is to just speak up while we can and do what we can now because the worst that can happen is nothing is said, and suffering continues.
I agree. I'm not sure it matters right now, what these people did in the past as a pandemic roars in the background. The US is pretty close to the 500,000 death milestone. We've lost 500,000 people to COVID-19 in this country.
And we're addressing toxic workplaces and hunting ways to stop them. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but we are making progress.
no subject
The problem with Whedon is that too many people are trying to conflate the allegations with his work. "Look he must be terrible because he has story lines that have issues with consent." Or "he must be terrible because look at Firefly and/or Dollhouse." Or using Season Six of Buffy to prove a point. However, as we've talked about it's far too complicated to compare his work with him as a person. I agree, I think there's an issue with the studio. There are also people that until the most recent allegations have said they would work with him.
With MT and the clause in her contract, we don't know why it was there. But people are already trying to find context in Buffy to show how Whedon is a creep and therefore MT had to be kept away from him. It's frustrating.
I am still willing to stand with Carpenter and Fisher - no one deserves to work in a toxic workplace and a boss shouldn't be the person making it toxic for you. But studios tend to promote highly creative people to positions of power without considering if they are boss material. Sometimes creativity just doesn't mesh with management. If Whedon did/said even half of the things that Fisher, Carpenter and others have accused him of then he clearly should not be a boss again. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the things he has created or the things he may create in the past. By rejecting what he created in the past, fans could be hurting the very people they are standing up for. I am pretty sure that Carpenter probably still gets money in one way or another from her work on Buffy and Angel. If we reject it because Whedon created a toxic environment for her, then we run the risk of making sure she can't make money off of it.
Cancel culture very rarely seems to help anyone.
no subject
However, as we've talked about it's far too complicated to compare his work with him as a person. I agree, I think there's an issue with the studio. There are also people that until the most recent allegations have said they would work with him.
Exactly - we've gotten conflicting reports. I've watched Q&A's and read interviews, and up until recently most of the people stated they'd work with him again. It's hard to know what to believe.
And I think it is almost impossible to compare a collaborative work - Espenson and Noxon wrote most of the episodes people found problematic, which I find hilarious. As did DeKnight and Drew Goddard. Also David Fury and Doug Petrie.
With MT and the clause in her contract, we don't know why it was there. But people are already trying to find context in Buffy to show how Whedon is a creep and therefore MT had to be kept away from him. It's frustrating.
We really don't know - and she's not clarified it. Nor did she sue. And when people pushed, she shut down. So it's hard to know what happened there.
There is nothing in the work - he didn't write the episodes people are pointing to, nor did he come up with them. Fans have a tendency to think because Whedon came up with the concept and ran the show - that he is responsible for all of the content. But that's simply not true nor how television always works. It does on shows with one or two writers, but not on Whedon shows with multiple writers and directors.
You can't prove a person is a creep based on their writing, art, etc. If that were true 85% of the fanfic writers would be..well.. I certainly don't want anyone looking at what I've written and judging me based on that.
And I've seen fans try to connect it to the Buffy comics - but Whedon wasn't that involved. He wrote a few issues. Espenson wrote most of the Dawn issues.
It's always been my issue with fandom - a tendency to emotionalize an issue, without thinking it through critically. And a tendency to judge people harshly who didn't share that emotional reaction.
I am still willing to stand with Carpenter and Fisher - no one deserves to work in a toxic workplace and a boss shouldn't be the person making it toxic for you. But studios tend to promote highly creative people to positions of power without considering if they are boss material. Sometimes creativity just doesn't mesh with management.
That's the problem. People get rewarded for being narcissistic bullies in our society. They get rewarded on social media with multiple followers. I mean I see it in my own organization.
Why?
Because often they are better at managing above than below. They stroke, chat, and make those above them very happy. Or in some cases - make those above them look good. While they don't care about those below and often bully the ones who report to them.
They can't yell at the big boss - so they yell at the folks who report to them, while the big boss makes their lives hell. It's a vicious cycle.
Fisher is right to go after the management at the WB and he's not let up on that. And he's right to push Whedon out of a show-running or producing or boss role. Take away his power.
I agree, I don't regret standing up for that.
By rejecting what he created in the past, fans could be hurting the very people they are standing up for. I am pretty sure that Carpenter probably still gets money in one way or another from her work on Buffy and Angel. If we reject it because Whedon created a toxic environment for her, then we run the risk of making sure she can't make money off of it.
Yes, and no. I do know this - Whedon isn't getting any royalties off of Buffy - he doesn't own the rights. He sold them ages ago much to his considerable regret. But I don't know about the others - I think they have rights to their image, so as long as their image is being used, they get royalties off of that - also they get some input on how they are portrayed in graphic art that is commercial.
So yes, not watching or streaming those series only hurts the others involved - or the innocent. Whedon doesn't really care. And it does nothing to stop the toxic environment from recurring. We can't go backwards and erase what happened. And throwing our Buffy/Angel DVDs in a bonfire isn't going to matter. (Although I may get rid of mine because I no longer have a DVD player...)
Nor does critiquing or blasting the art change or help in anyway. It doesn't help Charisma, Ray, or anyone else. Although I think Ray would like the Whedon cut of Justice League to disappear. But other than that? No. Anymore than erasing Kubrick's films, Hitchcock's, Allen's and Polanski's helps anyone. Two of those directors are long dead, anyhow.
If Whedon did/said even half of the things that Fisher, Carpenter and others have accused him of then he clearly should not be a boss again. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the things he has created or the things he may create in the past. By rejecting what he created in the past, fans could be hurting the very people they are standing up for. I am pretty sure that Carpenter probably still gets money in one way or another from her work on Buffy and Angel. If we reject it because Whedon created a toxic environment for her, then we run the risk of making sure she can't make money off of it.