(no subject)
Jan. 27th, 2012 06:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI can never decide if there is much point to doing cross posts from DW to LJ, because no one appears to be on DW most of the time and I get comments once in a blue moon. What do you think?
Bad week. Really bad week. Started out bad on Sunday and just dove downhill...you know it's going to be bad when a) Monday morning first thing you see upon entering your building is a sign that the bathrooms do not work any where in the building, b)it rains all week long, including that day, with only one day of sunshine. So really glad over. But brain is mush. I didn't sleep last night. And I feel like warmed over crap on a stick - yes, delightful image, I know, but there it is. Also..today was the day people kept asking me questions I hadn't a clue how to answer.
So..I found my mind retreating to comforting things.
And was thinking about Buffy the Vampire Slayer for some reason or other. I blame my infrequent skims of Mark Watches blog and my flist for this one. Well that and two recent posts on the topic of fandom, not the show.
1. Regarding fandom? The Mark Watches fandom is ironic. They have serious issues with S1-2 Xander and are obsessed with something called "slut-shaming" - yeah, I know it's new to me too..I never really heard this term until this year. These kids and their funky slang. I find this ironic (not the slut-shaming, the Xander-criticism), because...in 2002-2009...it was usually Spike was the misogynist/chauvinistic pig and Xander was the nice boyfriend everyone wanted to have for their very own. NOW? People are highly critical of Xander. And in S1-2 no less. I can't wait until they get to the latter seasons. (I honestly have no idea how they are going to relate to Spike in S4-7..) The men in this show aren't exactly nice, people, it is after-all a horror show.
Which brings me to ...
2. It has been written at length elsewhere, most notably by coffeeandink, that Whedon's Buffy was a critique of the slasher horror film genre that was incredibly popular between 1970-2002. It's sort of fallen out of favor of late, replaced briefly with torture porn, then Japanese psychological horror, and now...video camera psychological horror. But from the 1970s until roughly the beginning of the 21st Century, this was still a popular genre. And it always began with a blond, petite girl getting killed by the slasher. She'd usually just had sex with her boyfriend. The boyfriend was either killed, or he is the killer, or he finds her and gets killed.
And it's gory. Kevin Williamson's Scream flick - did a very good job of itemizing the rules -
Scream was released and a huge hit in 1996, the sequel was released in 1997. In 1996 - Drew Barrymore played the blond who gets killed before the opening credits roll. In 1997 - it was Sarah Michelle Gellar, who at that time had been cast as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Gellar goes on to die in another slasher horror film - I Know What You Did Last Summer - where she met hubby, Freddie Prinze Jr. (Those are the two notable things about the film.)
Slasher films had three things in common: 1) Last Survivor is a woman, usually brunette, and often kick-ass and momentarily defeats the villain, with some male lead sidekick who helps or older guy (although not always) 2) First victim is usually the blond girl in the alley. And 3) The hero of the film and the character who keeps returning is the slasher or the killer. It's really all about him. The victims aren't memorable. Outside of Jamie Lee Curtis in Carpenter's Halloween which premiered in the 1970s, few people remember the heroines of these films. In other films within this genre - the girl's death often will motivate a sort of reluctant hero type or male hero, a geeky nerd what-have-you into manning up and becoming the hero.
What does this have to do with Buffy? Well, the writer was a horror film fanatic and critic.
And stated that's how he got the idea. But...if you look back at the series...and I was thinking about the first and second seasons today, forget the latter ones, just think about the first two seasons and Angel's arc, along with the Masters.
In both S1 and S2 - the Prophecy says that Buffy will die. And Angel will save the day. She's not supposed to survive the Master. Nor is she supposed to stop Acathla by killing Angel. Angel's supposed to stop whomever opens Acathla. Buffy is Angel's way to "becoming". Or so Whistler tells us. And that's usually how these stories go. It's really not about her, it's about him.
She's the motivator for him. Buffy motivates Angel, not the other way around. Buffy is the damsel.
Angel saves her. She's the girl in the alley. And in Angel's series - that's the case. They go the traditional horror route.
But here, Whedon changes it. The story is not about Angel. Angel really is not that important at all. He motivates and changes her. But he's just one of many. He's not the lead. He's not Hamlet, Buffy is. He's Rosencrantz. Or a better way of putting it? He's Stu in Scream. Any more than the story really was about the Master. The Master is killed and leaves. Angel leaves too, although not completely...and he remains important, but always a supporting character. And he can't deal with it - this drives him insane. Which is interesting if you know the film trope that is being critiqued here. Where the villain is not the main attraction or lead. And the girl who he kills first, actually kills him.
Another interesting point? The slasher horror film did a lot of slut-shaming. It's known for that. As is torture porn horror films. In these films - the girl is often a sex object. She's pretty, scantily clad. Jamie Lee Curtis was an exception, but she survived. The girl who is killed is having sex with her boyfriend and is pretty and scantily clad. Women are viewed in these films as sluts. Often the man doing the slashing...is either intruding on "Prom Night", the Babysitter late at night - and he pretends to be her "boyfriend" on the phone, with heavy breathing. And there's often a geeky guy like Randy who plays the "Xander role". Actually the character of Xander sounds a lot like Randy in Scream.
Slut-shaming as it is currently called was part of these films, and part of the gothic genre, going back as far as Dracula. Lucy struggles against the seduction of Dracula - she is ruined by Dracula, as is Mina Harker, who equally struggles. And Dracula's daughters almost seduce Jonathan Harker and take him for their own. What Whedon does differently, is he sort of questions it and then twists it. Sure Angel loses his soul when he sleeps with Buffy, but if you watch the entire series including Angel, it becomes clear that Angel is not a good guy and would most likely cause these things to happen soul or no soul. The whole soul bit is a huge mislead, which is shown very clearly in the latter seasons of both series. Angel uses that as an excuse, which Spike points out on numerous occasions. The horror genre will often say - sex is the reason this happened. But no, it's not. If you look beneath the surface.
Anyhow nothing new, I know. Just popped into my head today and thought I'd share. Also since brain is mush...probably not all that coherent. I just got tired and lost my train of thought. Going to make dinner now. Make of this what you will..
Bad week. Really bad week. Started out bad on Sunday and just dove downhill...you know it's going to be bad when a) Monday morning first thing you see upon entering your building is a sign that the bathrooms do not work any where in the building, b)it rains all week long, including that day, with only one day of sunshine. So really glad over. But brain is mush. I didn't sleep last night. And I feel like warmed over crap on a stick - yes, delightful image, I know, but there it is. Also..today was the day people kept asking me questions I hadn't a clue how to answer.
So..I found my mind retreating to comforting things.
And was thinking about Buffy the Vampire Slayer for some reason or other. I blame my infrequent skims of Mark Watches blog and my flist for this one. Well that and two recent posts on the topic of fandom, not the show.
1. Regarding fandom? The Mark Watches fandom is ironic. They have serious issues with S1-2 Xander and are obsessed with something called "slut-shaming" - yeah, I know it's new to me too..I never really heard this term until this year. These kids and their funky slang. I find this ironic (not the slut-shaming, the Xander-criticism), because...in 2002-2009...it was usually Spike was the misogynist/chauvinistic pig and Xander was the nice boyfriend everyone wanted to have for their very own. NOW? People are highly critical of Xander. And in S1-2 no less. I can't wait until they get to the latter seasons. (I honestly have no idea how they are going to relate to Spike in S4-7..) The men in this show aren't exactly nice, people, it is after-all a horror show.
Which brings me to ...
2. It has been written at length elsewhere, most notably by coffeeandink, that Whedon's Buffy was a critique of the slasher horror film genre that was incredibly popular between 1970-2002. It's sort of fallen out of favor of late, replaced briefly with torture porn, then Japanese psychological horror, and now...video camera psychological horror. But from the 1970s until roughly the beginning of the 21st Century, this was still a popular genre. And it always began with a blond, petite girl getting killed by the slasher. She'd usually just had sex with her boyfriend. The boyfriend was either killed, or he is the killer, or he finds her and gets killed.
And it's gory. Kevin Williamson's Scream flick - did a very good job of itemizing the rules -
Scream was released and a huge hit in 1996, the sequel was released in 1997. In 1996 - Drew Barrymore played the blond who gets killed before the opening credits roll. In 1997 - it was Sarah Michelle Gellar, who at that time had been cast as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Gellar goes on to die in another slasher horror film - I Know What You Did Last Summer - where she met hubby, Freddie Prinze Jr. (Those are the two notable things about the film.)
Slasher films had three things in common: 1) Last Survivor is a woman, usually brunette, and often kick-ass and momentarily defeats the villain, with some male lead sidekick who helps or older guy (although not always) 2) First victim is usually the blond girl in the alley. And 3) The hero of the film and the character who keeps returning is the slasher or the killer. It's really all about him. The victims aren't memorable. Outside of Jamie Lee Curtis in Carpenter's Halloween which premiered in the 1970s, few people remember the heroines of these films. In other films within this genre - the girl's death often will motivate a sort of reluctant hero type or male hero, a geeky nerd what-have-you into manning up and becoming the hero.
What does this have to do with Buffy? Well, the writer was a horror film fanatic and critic.
And stated that's how he got the idea. But...if you look back at the series...and I was thinking about the first and second seasons today, forget the latter ones, just think about the first two seasons and Angel's arc, along with the Masters.
In both S1 and S2 - the Prophecy says that Buffy will die. And Angel will save the day. She's not supposed to survive the Master. Nor is she supposed to stop Acathla by killing Angel. Angel's supposed to stop whomever opens Acathla. Buffy is Angel's way to "becoming". Or so Whistler tells us. And that's usually how these stories go. It's really not about her, it's about him.
She's the motivator for him. Buffy motivates Angel, not the other way around. Buffy is the damsel.
Angel saves her. She's the girl in the alley. And in Angel's series - that's the case. They go the traditional horror route.
But here, Whedon changes it. The story is not about Angel. Angel really is not that important at all. He motivates and changes her. But he's just one of many. He's not the lead. He's not Hamlet, Buffy is. He's Rosencrantz. Or a better way of putting it? He's Stu in Scream. Any more than the story really was about the Master. The Master is killed and leaves. Angel leaves too, although not completely...and he remains important, but always a supporting character. And he can't deal with it - this drives him insane. Which is interesting if you know the film trope that is being critiqued here. Where the villain is not the main attraction or lead. And the girl who he kills first, actually kills him.
Another interesting point? The slasher horror film did a lot of slut-shaming. It's known for that. As is torture porn horror films. In these films - the girl is often a sex object. She's pretty, scantily clad. Jamie Lee Curtis was an exception, but she survived. The girl who is killed is having sex with her boyfriend and is pretty and scantily clad. Women are viewed in these films as sluts. Often the man doing the slashing...is either intruding on "Prom Night", the Babysitter late at night - and he pretends to be her "boyfriend" on the phone, with heavy breathing. And there's often a geeky guy like Randy who plays the "Xander role". Actually the character of Xander sounds a lot like Randy in Scream.
Slut-shaming as it is currently called was part of these films, and part of the gothic genre, going back as far as Dracula. Lucy struggles against the seduction of Dracula - she is ruined by Dracula, as is Mina Harker, who equally struggles. And Dracula's daughters almost seduce Jonathan Harker and take him for their own. What Whedon does differently, is he sort of questions it and then twists it. Sure Angel loses his soul when he sleeps with Buffy, but if you watch the entire series including Angel, it becomes clear that Angel is not a good guy and would most likely cause these things to happen soul or no soul. The whole soul bit is a huge mislead, which is shown very clearly in the latter seasons of both series. Angel uses that as an excuse, which Spike points out on numerous occasions. The horror genre will often say - sex is the reason this happened. But no, it's not. If you look beneath the surface.
Anyhow nothing new, I know. Just popped into my head today and thought I'd share. Also since brain is mush...probably not all that coherent. I just got tired and lost my train of thought. Going to make dinner now. Make of this what you will..
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 04:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 03:40 pm (UTC)See? I actually like the character. I only disliked him when people online were using the character to bash another character I happened to like. I tended to be somewhat reactionary. You hate on my character? Watch me hate on yours! (not exactly the most mature response in the world, but what the hey). For example? lunasea, Mal, and scroll ironically made me hate Angel. I mean really hate Angel. They almost destroyed the series Angel for me. If it weren't for Arethusa, Masq, D'H, and CJL...I might have stopped watching Angel. I had to stop reading their posts. Mal and Doc made me hate Xander. If it weren't CJL who told me to ignore Mal (who I thought was female for the longest time), that may clouded my posts. CJL loved Xander.
I've always found it ironic how a fan's love of a character can destroy another fan's love of that same character. This happened with Spike shippers too - a lot of Spike shippers made other fans hate the character in reaction to their posts.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 03:51 pm (UTC)I completely agree about how the interaction of the fans caused some character hatred. This seemed particularly true for Spike. That wasn't what happened with me and Xander; I already found him annoying before I ever went on line.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 07:24 pm (UTC)Oh fandom. *g* Although I have a different variant of this - if someone hates something, I will go out of my way to like it. Hence me being a staunch Eleven-fan within a few days of Matt Smith being revealed as the new Doctor. I was still a fervent Ten-girl (and my heart ACHED at the knowledge that I'd lose him), but fandom's rather hysterical reaction to someone they didn't know made me like him just because. (I've had this icon for YEARS now! I picked it up within, like, a week of Matt being announced.)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 11:24 pm (UTC)This happened when Spike jumped to Angel. The Angel fandom went insane, there was post after post about how Spike would DESTROY Angel and how it was ANGEL's series.
And I remember thinking, okay, I like Angel well enough, but the character you are describing in your posts is disgusting. And I'm starting to wonder...
Blind Devotion or worship to anything or anyone brings out the crabby cynic in me. To the Whedon fanatic, I want to say, okay, if Whedon told you to jump off a cliff? Would you? Come on! He's a good writer, but let's put things in perspective, okay? It's not the end of the world if Marti and Fury share executive producing duties while Whedon is off doing Firefly, people. Get a grip!
Maybe I should mail the book I just got entitled "Stop Overreacting" to fandom? LOL!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-29 05:43 am (UTC)Depends. If it was a very low sort of cliff, and he agreed to make a movie from a script I wrote? Hey, I might.
I always felt that Whedon saw himself as someone who wanted to be Buffy, but in reality was like Xander, and wrote accordingly. Later on, he started to explore placing both characteristics in a single character, such as Echo/Caroline in Dollhouse. Before that, it was Illyria (no, really-- stop and think about some of the nuances involving her dual personality aspects. Same with Riley before that, you know, "Yes, I am secretly a lesbian" Riley. He uses this trope over and over again.
There wasn't anyone among the main characters that I think I actively disliked, although it did take me a while to realize that the reason seemingly everyone disliked Andrew was because Tom Lenk did such a good acting job making a character who was intended to be annoying-- annoying.
Perhaps Whedon also introduced Andrew to counter some fans' Xander dislike by showing that Xander wasn't so bad by comparison.
The only fan reaction I ever found troubling were those viewers who watched the show, but didn't like Buffy. Never understood that one, sorry.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-29 02:41 pm (UTC)Personally? I think Warren Miers and Topher from Dollhouse come closest to who Whedon really is. And the writer, has said as much at different points. With Spike and Angel representing his unresolved parental issues. Riley and whomever that actor from BSG played whose name I can't remember the name of in Dollhouse (I keep wanting to call him Helo) represented Whedon's ideal or who he wanted to be, along with Captain America. Xander representing who he is at least on the outside. And Warren Miers and Topher representing his behavior as a Hollywood writer and creator.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 05:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-30 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 05:34 am (UTC)[yeahsure]Not that he would ever do that, of course. [/yeahsure]
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 01:12 pm (UTC)And now, you understand the Warren Miers reference. ;-)
Whedon was also more than a bit of a bully to his actors. The other reason for the reference.