Buffy Rewatch - Season 3, Toxic Love and the Toxic Male

[shadowkat]

I've been re-watching Buffy, which I hadn't watched since roughly 2012? And I've picked up on various things that I didn't previously. Also, I'm astonished at how well it holds up for a series that aired between 1997-2003.

I've finished S2, and am into S3, which is a lot better than I remembered.
It doesn't have as many dud episodes, or skippable ones like S1 and 2 did.
S1 - the stand-a-lones were better, and S2 - the arc episodes were better. S3 - manages to hit the perfect balance between the two or it appears to, only six episodes in, but no duds yet. It also manages to do the same thing S2 did - which is bring in entertaining and creepy villains in Trick and the Mayor. I think they finally gathered together a good writing team - that gelled. With the additions of Jane Espenson and Doug Petrie to the mix.

Takeaways?

Beauty and the Beasts weirdly echoes Beneathe Me in S7. In both episodes, we have Buffy discover that the wicked vampire she was having an affair with, has returned somewhat crazy but with a soul. (Just differently.) And in both episodes there's a side story about a couple that is similar to Buffy's relationship to that vampire, but worse.

In Beasts - Buffy's toxic relationship with Angel/Angelus is paralleled with Debbie's toxic relationship with Peter/Monster Pete. Pete is Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, until the potion that made him Alpha Male or the Toxic Male, is no longer needed and he succumbs to it. Pete is the mask, the monster is real. And he ends up killing Debbie, and destroying himself in the process.
Angelus almost destroyed Buffy and the world, until Buffy sent him to hell - but it was Angel she sent. Who is the mask? Angelus clearly is always lurking beneath the surface. And Buffy's relationship with Angel is unfortunately toxic - in that she can't be open about it, it takes her away from her friends and family, and puts others in danger - also if she sleeps with him, he may change and become evil again. It's a nice metaphor for domestic violence. It can't work. So many romantic relationships just can't work - once you get past the endorphin's of love and physical chemistry...
real life sets in.

In Beneath Me - Buffy's toxic relationship with Spike (pre-soul) - is examined with Nancy and her ex-boyfriend, who has been stalking her and won't leave her alone. Spike stalked Buffy, helped her, and then she began to rely on him, and let him in. That ended badly. And he got a soul. Now, he's not really stalking her anymore. He's hiding in the basement, lost. (Not stalking is a vampire thing in the Buffyverse - since Angel also stalked Buffy. It's not just Spike.) But the writers are showing the difficulty with obsessive romantic love - not letting the person go, of giving them space. It's not all that different than Debbie/Pete in Beasts, except in Beneath Me, we get a happier ending, Nancy isn't killed, just her boyfriend. And just like Beasts, Spike kills the monster, as Angel did in Beasts. The difference is Buffy is a bit more wary of helping Spike and more careful of her heart than she'd been previously.

I like how the show evolves and looks at similar issues but from different angles, and doesn't romanticize romantic love. The Happy Ending in Buffy is often Buffy being able to survive along with her friends, and the world.
It's not a romance. But has romantic elements.


Xander, can you be a bigger jerk? Apparently so. I hadn't realized how committed the writers were to exploring the incel theme with Xander until this rewatch. People mentioned it over the years, but I just wasn't that focused on Xander or handwaved it? Also, I didn't like Cordelia previously, now, I kind of do. If you really dislike Cordelia - it's hard to see how abusive Xander truly is.

There's a heavy theme in Buffy about toxic masculainity that has been written about numerous times. What's comforting to me about Buffy - is that Buffy conquers this. And Buffy saves a lot of boys from themselves in the story. And the series does a good job of showing the complexity and that the characters all have their own demons.

In S3 - Xander reams Buffy for leaving town (he'd expected Buffy to kill Angel and see him, instead she left town). Xander holds off with Cordy, until she shows him affection. He treats her as if she's an idiot, and continues to criticize and put her down in order to build himself up. Their relationship is highly toxic. Then he cheats on her with Willow - because he finally notices that Willow is a woman and sexy. While with Cordy - he flirts heavily with Faith, and would pursue Faith, but Faith wants nothing to do with him. He reminds me of so many boys that I've interacted with in school, college, and far beyond college - who think their penis is the most important thing on the planet. Seriously, he should have taken up track or running or a sport. That boy clearly didn't have enough to do.

For Xander - it's all about Xander. He's not concerned at all that Cordelia and Buffy were almost killed - or competing for Prom, all he can think about is making out with Willow - the latest conquest.

Very unlikable character. I've not seen one episode in which I don't want to smack him upside the head. I'm kind of looking forward to the episodes in which Faith, Angel, Spike and Cordelia do just that.


* Cordelia is actually interesting? I'm surprised. But she is. And realistic. She's self-absorbed like well most people. And very much what Buffy might have been without the slayage - which the show always kind of got across.
She doesn't really have friends, but I'm not sure anyone truly does? Which is also interesting.

* Faith - I like better than I remembered. They are smart to not overuse the character, and go with less is more. I feel for Faith - Faith seems to care more about Buffy than Buffy cares about Faith. And genuinely wants to be friends with Buffy - but Buffy is distracted by Angel. It's an interesting writer choice that Cordy and Buffy fight off the people during slayerfest, while Faith goes to the prom by herself.

I can see why Faith eventually turns against Buffy and envies Buffy, part of this is on Buffy, Giles and the others. They cut Faith out in various ways. And are far too obsessed with their own romantic entanglements to see her or anyone else for that matter.

Romantic love (which I think is highly overrated) can often isolate, and alienate others - pushing people out of one's life. Romantic love that survives and becomes something greater such as friendship and companionship - brings people into one's life, as opposed to shutting them out. I think that is the test of a good relationship - does it bring in people or shut them out?

**

Not doing much today, outside of recovering from an illness. Back to work on Monday. It's sunny and windy outside, and in the low 80s. I may work on my book a bit, and maybe a little on my painting.

Comments

[shadowkat]

I should have said for me? ;-)

Although by episode 7 in S3, I officially want to kill him - or wish Buffy would stop restraining herself and knock him across the room. And Cordy is getting on my nerves.
Surprisingly I like Angel far more than I remembered. Actually I always liked Angel. I just found his fans to be highly annoying.

[mefisto]

It always surprises me how much some viewers love Cordelia and Xander, but everyone has their own opinion. Even when it's a wrong opinion. :)

I got bored of Angel in S3 and in retrospect I think the season might have been better without him. But he never got on my nerves the way Xander did.

[shadowkat]

but everyone has their own opinion. Even when it's a wrong opinion. :)

I know you are joking. But that's fandom in a nutshell.

Sigh.

It's all fandoms, or so I've discovered. The long-running serial fandoms are the worst - soaps, comics, and Doctor Who. Damn, there are a lot of opinionated assholes on planet earth. And most of them appear to be online.

Fan: "Oh, I like Spike fine, but he should have stayed evil. They ruined him..blah, blah, blah"
Fan: "Buffy was so abusive to her friends and Spike, she was always beating up on people, I really disliked her...blah blah.."
Fan: "Cordy was mean to everyone...they should have killed her off early, worst character..blah, blah.."
Fan:"Xander is the worst character..." - While he's a jerk, I'm not entirely sure I'd go that far.

I don't know why we like to fling our opinions at each other?


I guess I'm no better with Xander? But I'm kind of astonished at how much of a jerk he's portrayed as. I remember him being less of a jerk or funnier somehow. Now, he's just grating? It may be that in the 90s that humor worked, and it really doesn't now? And the incel - is unintentionally coming out a lot more - possibly because I know too much about the actor and Whedon? I don't know.

***

Have you re-watched it recently? It helps to watch outside of the fandom. Without people saying this character is great, this one is awful! [Also it helps to have a lot of time in between - I forgot a lot of things. I've not watched it since roughly 2008-2010 or thereabouts.

Although I did first see the first five seasons outside of the fandom. I didn't really join the Buffy fandom until late in S2, so was in it a relatively short period of time, come to think of it.

Cordy - I feel sorry for, she has no real friends, her parents are narcissistic and don't care about her at all, and her romantic relationships are abusive. The writers do a good job of peeling away the layers of the popular girl, and showing how lonely they really are.

Xander - sigh, he's being written as such a jerk. Not really a nerd (he doesn't do anything nerdy like Andrew or Jonathan) or a (geek - doesn't do that either, that's Willow), just a self-absorbed jerk. But I remember that they start explaining why in the later seasons.

[mefisto]

I think the problem is that there's a fine line between criticizing and bashing. Xander as a character has aged poorly, mostly because of changes in social attitudes in the past 25 years. But even accounting for that I wouldn't describe him as the worst character ever, and yet you're right that he gets described that way. There's even a YouTube video with roughly that title.

I haven't re-watched in quite a while and I really should. I've been trying to catch up on shows I've missed, but I'm starting to run short. I do enjoy your comments as you re-watch; that length of time between viewings can really change one's perspective.

[shadowkat]

I just don't feel like watching a lot of shows at the moment. Don't have the bandwidth or attention span for them - it's not the shows, it's me. Hyper-realism annoys me now, and some of the fantasy series feel repetitive, as do the sci-fi series. Again, it's me not the shows.

I think I need comfort tv, at the moment. And sitcoms/reality shows never worked that way for me.

You're correct on Xander and that fine line between critique and bashing. I'm not sure if Xander aged poorly exactly or if the trope has? Also I'm not sure to the extent the writers were deliberately commenting on that trope? I got my mother to watch and she said Xander reminded her a great deal of that character in Pretty in Pink (the one with the huge crush on Molly Ringwald's character), I think Ducky? That so many fan boys identified with, and a lot of people thought at that time - Ringwald's character should have fallen for. I can't help but think the writers of Buffy were heavily commenting on that male trope in the John Hughes High School Dramas (as played by various actors from John Cusak to Michael C Hall), and in the slasher pics of the 1970s-90s (where the Xander character is often the male protagonist). They even reference the Hughes films at one point, where Buffy says maybe watch something in the Ringwald era.

So, the character certainly didn't age well - but it also becomes abundantly obvious that maybe he's not supposed to? The writers gave him layers, which is more than Hughes or others have, and really dig deep on why he's the way he is - and what he becomes. The commentary or meta-narrative on the trope gets more pronounced in S3. As my mother pointed out even in S1 - Xander may be a jerk, but he's an interesting jerk.

[mefisto]

I don't watch sitcoms any more. I find that the humor just doesn't age well. And I've never been a fan of "reality" TV. Mostly I watch shows and movies that are more or less drama. I liked Andor, for example, and The Last of Us. Right now I'm giving Outlander a try and liking it better than I expected.

I'd like to think the Buffy writers were trying to subvert the trope with Xander, but I doubt it. He does have layers -- he's certainly not a villain or one-note -- he just irritates me with the stuff that I'd now describe, perhaps not entirely fairly and definitely anachronistically, as incel.

[shadowkat]

Except? There are some obvious meta bits in there. Also the incel trope is heavy and I do mean heavy in those early seasons. Also they pair him with a "scorned woman" vengeance demon. I'd say it's intentional. Teacher's Pet is kind of heavy-handed on it. (Both boys kidnapped by French feel they have to have a girlfriend to prove their maniliness =incel, and they can't admit they are virgins = incel. Then they do it again in I Robot You Jane, with the guys in the computer lab.) They are not subtle, at all. It's too obvious in places to be unintentional.

I can't watch Last of Us got to the fourth episode, and gave up - too gory, and I had similar issues with Outlander, also I got bogged down in the second half. I may go back to it, eventually. Like I said, I need comforting right now - Last of Us is NOT comforting, nor is Outlander.

[mefisto]

Oh they definitely criticized the toxic masculinity stuff (Go Fish is another good example). I'm just not sure they saw Xander as toxic as opposed to "just a teenage boy". Admittedly, the line there can be pretty vague...

Outlander has 2 types of problematic scenes: lots of blood (she's a nurse/doctor); and sexual assault. Blood has never bothered me much, but I've had to fast forward through one rape scene. It also does a number of good things: Jaime is the one who faints in one scene, for example, when the trope would have the woman do so. The period stuff like costumes and attitudes is pretty good, better than other shows I've seen.

The Last of Us is pretty much the opposite of comforting. Outlander has enough romantasy that it might or might not be, depending on how you mentally balance that with the violence.

[shadowkat]

I don't find romance that comforting? At least not at this stage in my life? What I find comforting about Buffy - is the romances crash and burn. LOL!

But yeah, the problem I have with Outlander is the heavy reliance on sexual violence to propel plot and character forward. Actually the first season isn't that bad. But warning? It gets worse as you move on - every single lead character is raped or threatened with rape, and increasing degrees of it. Diana Galabadone (the author of the books) has a ...rape fetish? I don't know what else to call it. But she seems to associate this period of time with violent rape and kind of gets off on writing it? And Ron Moore the showrunner of Outlander, is unfortunately not much better. He also likes sexual violence as a plot motivator, it and torture, he used both in BSG, Caprica, DS9 and goes hog wild with it here. I read the reviews of the books on Amazon - and reviews from folks who'd seen the series online (loved both - but did state there is a lot of sexual violence in this series).

Otherwise, I'd be happy with Outlander. I like the medical parts, and the portions in which she gets to play nurse. I just don't like the sexual violence and the romance kind of annoys me a little bit.
(Although I like the casting.)

I'm just not sure they saw Xander as toxic as opposed to "just a teenage boy". Admittedly, the line there can be pretty vague.

Several months ago - prior to my re-watch? I'd have agreed with you. But, I just re-watched the Wish, Teacher's Pet, I Robot You Jane, and Revelations. Xander's definitely the Ducky character from Pretty in Pink or the Michael C Hall character from Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles, or John Cusack in some of those films. They are commenting on that trope - big time, and the incel, and the horror element of it.

I didn't realize that - until now. It explains a lot when I think about it. Explains why Whedon wanted to kill off Xander in S5 and S7, and the other writers had to talk him out of it. He matures, kind of, but they continue to mock and comment on that trope throughout, and go out of their way to have him be with anyone other than the heroine.

[mefisto]

In fairness (?) to the author, the time and place of Outlander, whether Highland Scotland or Piedmont North Carolina, would indeed have had plenty of rape. Now, of course, she didn't have to choose those locations. But if we're honest, rape as we now define it would have been pretty common almost anywhere before the last 30 years or so.

[shadowkat]

But to that degree? I mean it's prevalent in all time periods, I guess, but again, not quite to that degree. Even the boddice ripper romance novelists didn't go that far with it. I mean it is every single lead character apparently. That's over kill. It got to the point in which the reviewers were making fun of it on Amazon.

Kind of like saying well there are wildfires in California - yes, but not all the time.

[mefisto]

Both the Highlands and backcountry US in the 1700s were areas without a government. Tribal areas, essentially, with a local Big Man in charge. Lots of robbery/theft, virulent hatred of others (the English, with some justification; the Native Americans, with very little), and a shocking amount of personal violence, much of it fueled by staggering amounts of liquor. We can't ever know how much rape there was back then because it never has been an easily provable crime. We can, however, estimate murders (dead bodies are fairly obvious) and those were much higher than today on a per capita basis. It was dangerous to be in either place.

That said, the sexual violence in Outlander does seem extreme and it's in sharp contrast to the otherwise romantic nostalgia for the rural settings. I can't tell if the violence is intended to undercut the Arcadian setting or if it's there to titillate.

[shadowkat]

I'd say the later. Kind of Game of Thrones. You can do it without being graphic, again see GRR Martin's novels vs. the television series.

Was it dangerous back then? Yes. But, I'm not sure it needed to be used as a plot device and a means to further character?

I don't know, it bothered some more than others. Most of the fans have no issues with it. It's just why I backed away.

[mefisto]

I'm inclined to see it as titillating, so I totally get preferring to back away.