Things that take you out of a story....
Jan. 30th, 2012 10:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWas thinking about this...in response to two different posts on my flist about fanfic - one was contemplating whether Angel and Spike would discuss the AR scene in Buffy, and the other was about why AU fic doesn't work.
What takes you out of a story?
It's an interesting question. I remember a short story I wrote in undergrad about my grandparents. My grandfather had had three brain tumors removed. I inserted this into the story. But it did not work for one of my classmates who'd read it. She had a relative who died of brain cancer, just one tumor, and felt offended by my story. The three brain tumors felt like overkill to her. It took her out of the story. Short of my bringing in evidence that this was real, which I could have done because it was, it was not real to the classmate.
Which brings up the next question - when does it ruin the story for you? Or does it?
For many people online, the AR or attempted rape sequence in Seeing Red took them out of the story. It wasn't so much that they did not buy the fact that Spike might attack Buffy, but how that sequence was shot. Buffy was shown as being unable to fight Spike off after what amounted to a minor back injury in a graveyard. Considering Buffy fought Spike off with little effort in various episodes, with far greater injuries, including fighting a hell-god, and Angelus, this was difficult to believe. Also Spike attacked Buffy in her bathroom of all places. Entering it much like he might a living room. And we, the audience, had never really entered this room before.
Plus the sequence was shot in black and white, drenched of color, and as if it were in a different show. It, in short, took many viewers out of the story. And with it, their suspension of disbelief. It was difficult after that episode for the viewers to trust the writer, they stopped.
In tv land, this event is often called a "jump the shark" moment. It's when the viewer questions the story being told and finds themselves thrust outside of it. A huge wall suddenly exists between the viewer and the tale. They can no longer escape into it - instead they are critiquing it. Their critical faculties have become engaged and have in effect hijacked their viewing experience. It's no longer enjoyable.
It happens all the time to me with fanfic...I'll be reading along, and suddenly a character does something that just does not work for me. It feels out of character or outside how I viewed or more importantly the canon of the character. I don't mind AU (Alternate Universe) fanfic - it's basically a writer experimenting and you can argue all fanfic goes Alternate Universe at one point or another, but often...characters will do things that either do not make sense within the fabric of the story being told or are so outside what they would have done in the canon or original story that you wonder why the writer is bothering using this character and hasn't created a new one.
Example? A few years back, a group of us wrote a collaborative fanfic on the Fanged Four in Buffy, and our plotter got it into his head that Spike and Angelus should wear dresses to a costume party/ball with the Mayor back in the 1800s, in order to steal some doodad from the Mayor. We fought over this, because many of us weren't sure this worked for the characters. Would Spike and Angelus wear dresses? Was this out of character? Was the funny plot stunt that our "plotter" devised worth making our readers question what we were doing?
It's a valid question. The one thing a writer doesn't want is for the reader to start nit-picking.
Wait, thinks the reader, there's no way that a bullet can hit and kill this character from that angle? Without being a magic bullet. And it's not. So the reader or viewer is spending a great deal of time trying to figure out how the bullet could have hit the character...instead of enjoying the story.
Or...wait, there's no way Gregory House could still be practicing medicine at the same hospital after driving his car into his ex-girlfriend's house or going to prison. I can't buy this.
When does it happen? More importantly, from a writing perspective? How do we avoid it? Not as easy as it sounds. I remember writing a story with a gun. I went online and researched guns, bullets, and what happened when you shot someone. Because I was aware of the problem of throwing a knowledgable reader out of my story. It's a pain when you reader/watcher either knows more than you do about the topic you are writing about, or when they think they know more than you do and have pedantic streak. Be wary of critical readers.
Stephanie Meyer who wrote Twilight got away with a lot - mainly because her novels aren't directed towards a critical audience. They are young adult gothic fantasy romance novels. That audience tends to be more forgiving than the sci-fantasy audience that loves Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (ie. less critical). So it does depend on who the reader or audience is. A daytime soap opera watcher for example isn't going to be hyper-critical of the fact that the innocent guy gets thrown behind bars without due process. But a watcher of the series The Good Wife or NCIS or Breaking Bad - will be. We apply a different level to the medium.
And it is mainly based on experience. Another example? The last episode of the Good Wife had a grand jury hearing, where the prosecutor sort of screwed up royally and got derailed. Some posters didn't see this as realistic. I thought, why not? Didn't you guys watch The OJ Simpson Trial? Or for that matter American Politics? I mean come on. The State's Attorney's Special Prosecutor would get derailed that easily - I've seen it happen in real life, hello, Kenneth Starr? Newt Gingriech? I was bewildered by the reactions inselenak's review on the episode. Because they didn't track with my own real world experience. Doesn't mean they aren't valid. Just that our experiences are vastly different so our reactions are as well. This is also true with Breaking Bad - I was thrown out of the story in S2, and stopped watching. It was no longer real to me. It felt false and cliche based upon my experience. These are examples of how personal experience can affect viewing and pull us out of a story, even though others may have no issues with it - much like the reader of my short story about my grandparents. She was thrown out of the story based on her personal experience, and the assumption that her experience was the only valid thread.
Stories are supposed to pull us into another experience, outside of our heads and into another. Shared experiences. To show us a view or angle that we may never have considered. Not all stories, obviously. But many. That's part of the beauty of stories, I think. That ability to experience something you could not imagine or see a point of view that you never considered. But it's a tricky road to get the reader there - without thrusting them out of the story. Or another way of putting it? Not engaging their critical faculties in such a way that they question your story,
and spend all their time - going, wait a minute, that can't happen. There's no way this character would own a gun. Or there's no way they would tell them that.
I don't know about anyone else? But I've spent hours wrestling with plot-bunnies that don't feel plausible. I want two characters to have a specific conversation -but I realize, wait, there is no way on earth they are going to say these things. It just doesn't work. Example: Can you imagine Spike, a vampire who got his soul after he sexually forced himself on his lover, Buffy, who'd rejected him, telling his vampire brother/mentor/nemesis and rival for Buffy's affections why he'd sought a soul and what caused him to go after one? No. There's no way in hell that Spike would discuss this with Angel. Not willingly. So how do you make it happen? Sometimes? You just can't.
I've seen writers force things to happen between characters or plot-wise to achieve a specific theme. Notably the Buffy comics - which felt at times as if the writer was forcing his characters to play to his tune, instead of letting their story flow organically from their own personalities. In short, free will such as it is in stories was removed from the characters, and they became little more than puppets playing to the writer's thematic whimsy. OR at least that was my perception, your mileage may vary. As a result, I stopped reading the Buffy comics, because I could not buy the story. I was thrust out of it. I've seen this happen in tv shows as well.
Haven't we all? It also happens in novels. You are reading along, enjoying it, then wham - what? that can't happen! They would so not do that! Book goes crashing against the wall, and you feel betrayed by the writer.
So...what takes you out of a story? And how can a writer fix it? Is it even fixable?
Off to bed.
What takes you out of a story?
It's an interesting question. I remember a short story I wrote in undergrad about my grandparents. My grandfather had had three brain tumors removed. I inserted this into the story. But it did not work for one of my classmates who'd read it. She had a relative who died of brain cancer, just one tumor, and felt offended by my story. The three brain tumors felt like overkill to her. It took her out of the story. Short of my bringing in evidence that this was real, which I could have done because it was, it was not real to the classmate.
Which brings up the next question - when does it ruin the story for you? Or does it?
For many people online, the AR or attempted rape sequence in Seeing Red took them out of the story. It wasn't so much that they did not buy the fact that Spike might attack Buffy, but how that sequence was shot. Buffy was shown as being unable to fight Spike off after what amounted to a minor back injury in a graveyard. Considering Buffy fought Spike off with little effort in various episodes, with far greater injuries, including fighting a hell-god, and Angelus, this was difficult to believe. Also Spike attacked Buffy in her bathroom of all places. Entering it much like he might a living room. And we, the audience, had never really entered this room before.
Plus the sequence was shot in black and white, drenched of color, and as if it were in a different show. It, in short, took many viewers out of the story. And with it, their suspension of disbelief. It was difficult after that episode for the viewers to trust the writer, they stopped.
In tv land, this event is often called a "jump the shark" moment. It's when the viewer questions the story being told and finds themselves thrust outside of it. A huge wall suddenly exists between the viewer and the tale. They can no longer escape into it - instead they are critiquing it. Their critical faculties have become engaged and have in effect hijacked their viewing experience. It's no longer enjoyable.
It happens all the time to me with fanfic...I'll be reading along, and suddenly a character does something that just does not work for me. It feels out of character or outside how I viewed or more importantly the canon of the character. I don't mind AU (Alternate Universe) fanfic - it's basically a writer experimenting and you can argue all fanfic goes Alternate Universe at one point or another, but often...characters will do things that either do not make sense within the fabric of the story being told or are so outside what they would have done in the canon or original story that you wonder why the writer is bothering using this character and hasn't created a new one.
Example? A few years back, a group of us wrote a collaborative fanfic on the Fanged Four in Buffy, and our plotter got it into his head that Spike and Angelus should wear dresses to a costume party/ball with the Mayor back in the 1800s, in order to steal some doodad from the Mayor. We fought over this, because many of us weren't sure this worked for the characters. Would Spike and Angelus wear dresses? Was this out of character? Was the funny plot stunt that our "plotter" devised worth making our readers question what we were doing?
It's a valid question. The one thing a writer doesn't want is for the reader to start nit-picking.
Wait, thinks the reader, there's no way that a bullet can hit and kill this character from that angle? Without being a magic bullet. And it's not. So the reader or viewer is spending a great deal of time trying to figure out how the bullet could have hit the character...instead of enjoying the story.
Or...wait, there's no way Gregory House could still be practicing medicine at the same hospital after driving his car into his ex-girlfriend's house or going to prison. I can't buy this.
When does it happen? More importantly, from a writing perspective? How do we avoid it? Not as easy as it sounds. I remember writing a story with a gun. I went online and researched guns, bullets, and what happened when you shot someone. Because I was aware of the problem of throwing a knowledgable reader out of my story. It's a pain when you reader/watcher either knows more than you do about the topic you are writing about, or when they think they know more than you do and have pedantic streak. Be wary of critical readers.
Stephanie Meyer who wrote Twilight got away with a lot - mainly because her novels aren't directed towards a critical audience. They are young adult gothic fantasy romance novels. That audience tends to be more forgiving than the sci-fantasy audience that loves Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (ie. less critical). So it does depend on who the reader or audience is. A daytime soap opera watcher for example isn't going to be hyper-critical of the fact that the innocent guy gets thrown behind bars without due process. But a watcher of the series The Good Wife or NCIS or Breaking Bad - will be. We apply a different level to the medium.
And it is mainly based on experience. Another example? The last episode of the Good Wife had a grand jury hearing, where the prosecutor sort of screwed up royally and got derailed. Some posters didn't see this as realistic. I thought, why not? Didn't you guys watch The OJ Simpson Trial? Or for that matter American Politics? I mean come on. The State's Attorney's Special Prosecutor would get derailed that easily - I've seen it happen in real life, hello, Kenneth Starr? Newt Gingriech? I was bewildered by the reactions in
selenak's review on the episode. Because they didn't track with my own real world experience. Doesn't mean they aren't valid. Just that our experiences are vastly different so our reactions are as well. This is also true with Breaking Bad - I was thrown out of the story in S2, and stopped watching. It was no longer real to me. It felt false and cliche based upon my experience. These are examples of how personal experience can affect viewing and pull us out of a story, even though others may have no issues with it - much like the reader of my short story about my grandparents. She was thrown out of the story based on her personal experience, and the assumption that her experience was the only valid thread.Stories are supposed to pull us into another experience, outside of our heads and into another. Shared experiences. To show us a view or angle that we may never have considered. Not all stories, obviously. But many. That's part of the beauty of stories, I think. That ability to experience something you could not imagine or see a point of view that you never considered. But it's a tricky road to get the reader there - without thrusting them out of the story. Or another way of putting it? Not engaging their critical faculties in such a way that they question your story,
and spend all their time - going, wait a minute, that can't happen. There's no way this character would own a gun. Or there's no way they would tell them that.
I don't know about anyone else? But I've spent hours wrestling with plot-bunnies that don't feel plausible. I want two characters to have a specific conversation -but I realize, wait, there is no way on earth they are going to say these things. It just doesn't work. Example: Can you imagine Spike, a vampire who got his soul after he sexually forced himself on his lover, Buffy, who'd rejected him, telling his vampire brother/mentor/nemesis and rival for Buffy's affections why he'd sought a soul and what caused him to go after one? No. There's no way in hell that Spike would discuss this with Angel. Not willingly. So how do you make it happen? Sometimes? You just can't.
I've seen writers force things to happen between characters or plot-wise to achieve a specific theme. Notably the Buffy comics - which felt at times as if the writer was forcing his characters to play to his tune, instead of letting their story flow organically from their own personalities. In short, free will such as it is in stories was removed from the characters, and they became little more than puppets playing to the writer's thematic whimsy. OR at least that was my perception, your mileage may vary. As a result, I stopped reading the Buffy comics, because I could not buy the story. I was thrust out of it. I've seen this happen in tv shows as well.
Haven't we all? It also happens in novels. You are reading along, enjoying it, then wham - what? that can't happen! They would so not do that! Book goes crashing against the wall, and you feel betrayed by the writer.
So...what takes you out of a story? And how can a writer fix it? Is it even fixable?
Off to bed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 05:03 am (UTC)Yes! I lost my suspension of disbelief with the BtVS comics when Buffy slept with Satsu. It wasn't the fact that she had sex with a woman. It was the fact that it didn't feel like there was a natural progression towards that event. I could never get rid of the niggling feeling that Buffy and Satsu's romp between the sheets was more about comic book sales than it was about character development. In fact, I remember reading an article that quoted Whedon as saying he and the other writers "thought it would be fun." I still read the comics, but I detached myself emotionally from whatever happens in them. Now, it's rather just morbid fascination to see what other cockamamie stuff they can come up with. :-P
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 05:11 pm (UTC)It threw me out of the story.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 06:10 pm (UTC)the franchisethe universe.no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 04:05 am (UTC)Ah...another thing that takes me out of stories, fanfic and otherwise...the dreaded baby plot and whose the daddy. I've watched too many frigging daytime soap operas and read too many romance novels...I find this particular plot arc unbelievable and annoying.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 05:20 am (UTC)Now I have, by way of adaptation, gotten so I allow the entire show to proceed and then try to judge it on a basis of whether it involved or interested me overall, and cut some slack if it did. If the show made one or more stupid technical errors and was dull or proorly written besides-- not likely to watch it again.
Fantasy and SF get somewhat greater leeway, especially the former, but even then I like some internal consistency or to see that there is some planning behind the scenes as to why things work the way they do. Careless use of "magic" is especially a button issue for me, because usually it's a license for the writer to do any damn wacky thing s/he pleases, for the convenience of the plot. If anything is possible, then nothing matters.
On the specific case that you mentioned earlier:
Buffy was shown as being unable to fight Spike off after what amounted to a minor back injury in a graveyard.
I had no problem with this, and it didn't take me even slightly out of the events that followed, because I didn't see the injury as minor-- I thought she had been pretty badly hurt, and such was depicted not only by the way SMG acted the scene, but the framing, lighting and photography all reinforced that concept.
There is also the psychological aspect to consider. I had posted (at ATPo) some years before Seeing Red about the relationship between Buffy's emotional states and the degree of strength and injury resistance she possessed. In effect, reality could be bent depending on Buffy's mood. In the attempted rape scene, her mood was extremely depressed, and she was saddled with a fairly serious physical injury. Thus, her ability to fight off Spike was certainly impaired.
I had far more problems with how often Willow and a computer could come up with information that in reality would be very, very hard to obtain, no matter how good a hacker she might be. But, I liked the show overall, so-- you let it go.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 05:19 pm (UTC)Can't watch CSI at all.
Fringe doesn't bug me so much because it's so out there sci-fi, that I sort of can suspend disbelief.
In regards to Buffy? Should clarify? I didn't have problems with the AR, that was a summarization of other's issues with it. I generally agree with you.
Except for one thing - the manner in which the scene was shot so jarred with the rest of the series and the episode - that it threw me out of the story. Also fascinated and intrigued me. The only other episode that contains scenes that are blanched of color, and hyper-real in that manner and edited in that way - are in Normal Again and in the insane asylum. To this day, I wonder why the producers, writers, directors, costum designer, makeup, set design, editors and cinematographer made that choice.
I don't know why they chose to shoot the AR scene in the bathroom in the manner that they did. Just that it stuck out like sore thumb in the middle of the series.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 06:26 am (UTC)As a scientist (sidenote: as a rather new scientist, this word still makes me giggle and feel like I'm playing make-believe), I find it really hard to watch forensics shows or science-y shows anymore. (I somehow manage to watch Fringe for the characters, but am constantly facepalming.) Ever since I took organic chemistry, I know that basically everything they do is fudged in some way. Most of it impossible (if based on the truth) and even for the things that are real, the procedures are way too fast and precise.
Your post really clarified this for me: even if I know that the real science makes bad TV, and I would not actually prefer to watch the horribly slow and realistic version, I still can't sit through them because the science takes me out of the show.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 03:55 am (UTC)Medical procedurals don't bother me as much as forensic science ones do, for some reason. Possibly because I find the fantastical elements in medical shows oddly comforting. I hate hospitals. It's nice to think they are clean and people can be miraculously saved.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 11:22 am (UTC)FWIW, Fred's death scene in AHiTW also reeks of set up though in a completely different way. No matter how well acted, that scene is like nails on a chalkboard to me. I can almost hear Joss patting himself on the back for what to me is pure emotional manipulation. I hate it.
However, neither scene entirely throws me out of the story. What does that is when plots flat out don't work or someone throw a hitherto unheard of mcguffin into the plot at the last minute to solve all their problems. To me, the sudden appearance of the Guardian in End of Days is a way worse jump the shark moment than the AR, though that pales into insignificance next to the idiocy of the sentient universe/seed of wonder crap from the Buffy comic.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 06:18 pm (UTC)Seems like it may have happened more than twice.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 06:45 pm (UTC)"Demon turns and roars at her. She shoots it in the shoulder with the crossbow, then throws the crossbow at it. It bats the crossbow aside and comes at her. The two of them start fighting, after a while the fight moves outside. At the end the demon picks Buffy up and slams her down on top of a grave marker. Buffy lies on the ground groaning for a moment, but when a shadow falls over her, she flips back to her feet, turns and hauls back with a hard right at – Riley who just manages to block it."
But it's quite possible there's yet a third one, which would reinforce your point even more.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 08:55 pm (UTC)No idea about the other three. And I can't remember Doomed.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 12:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 05:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 12:15 am (UTC)First in Firefly with River - although that could be interpreted as an inversion. Next in Dollhouse (literally) - also a potential subversion.
I think some of what cactuswatcher states below applies here as well - I think the writer meant well, but he was out of his depth and in attempting to subvert these misogynistic horror cliches, in reality reinforced them?
It's hard to do well. And not to generalize, but I don't think a male writer can achieve it...effectively. It's a bit like a gentile telling a subversive jewish holocaust joke...it just doesn't work.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 12:18 am (UTC)Sorry. My analogy is that while Mel Brooks can do Springtime for Hitler, I'm not sure that Jim Carrey could.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 09:05 am (UTC)But i think that's not mapping onto Whedon's storytelling very well: Because Whedon doesn't make jokes about it (most of the time). I think it is good, even needed, that men give their (critical) input on misogyny and sexism - and naturally, that's not the whole picture, far from it. But maybe it is another piece of the puzzle and in conjunction with female feminist theory is able to contribute something worthwhile and positive. Just, well, men should refrain from preaching. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 05:10 pm (UTC)Very good point. You've managed to nail the reason that I've been thrown out of Whedon's tales recently, and Aaron Sorkin, David E. Kellye, Stephen Bocho and a few other writers.
The tendency to get on the soap-box and preach.
Preaching often throws me out of a story. I become too aware of the writer's voice, which can and often does overshadow the characters.
(ie God has come down from on-high to provide us with the holy scripture - you must listen now, children, here's your lesson! Or here's the MORAL).
The moment a writer starts to do that...I lose the story. It becomes about that writer's message.
The other problem with it...is it can come across as patronizing. My Aunt once told me that she talks to everyone as if they are in the 3rd grade. As if they are her kids. The only problem with that? Is it comes across as patronizing and condescending. Writers can often fall into this trap - where we patronize someone who doesn't agree with our point of view. This will throw people out a story.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 08:57 am (UTC)To give an example: Considering Xander's relationship with the women of the show - i have to roll my eyes that every single female character of the show (with the exception of the "really old" or "really lesbian") fell for Xander at one time of another (Willow, Cordelia, Faith, Anya, Dawn, Buffy). But i'm able to excuse it as something that "went wrong" as the show progressed - it is not something that is set up, it is not the intention: It just happens as the writer thinks of new stories to tell.
The clichés of the comics, though? Not an accident. Just straight from the textbook (well, maybe Dawn apologizing to her abuser is such a "good intention gone wrong" story line, something that came off badly because of male writer POV).
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 02:42 pm (UTC)I tried analyzing Firefly on the net as it came out. I think people were unhappy with me because I was so hard on its flaws. But the point was that Joss was in over his head in both the western and sci-fi genres, and many passionate fans of either were likely to watch a few eps and then give up. Given the show was about borderline criminals, which was bound to offend another group of potential viewers, the show was in a lot of trouble of Joss' own making, even if it was high quality otherwise.
No matter what you do, some people will get taken out of the story. You just hope not too many.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 05:34 pm (UTC)But I knew it would bug them. What Whedon did wrong
was played to the cliches in both mediums, as opposed to the strengths. You felt as if the writer had gotten all of his ideas from B Westerns and Sci-Fi films. I know he was going for a sort of Han Solo's adventures in Space meets the Killer Angels from the Civil War, but it felt off somehow.
So, yes, I agree - I found Firefly jarring, in part because I was too well-versed in both of the genres Whedon was attempting to merge, and merging poorly.
I liked it better than you did, though. But never quite loved it. And I understand why it got canceled.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 03:32 pm (UTC)The truth is, all television (like all movies) uses stylized conventions which are “unreal” and yet evoke an actual event. Take sex scenes, for example. Even in most movies, the actors aren’t actually having sex. We know this, and yet we’re willing to overlook it and say to ourselves “they’re having sex”. Bullets on TV aren’t real, blood isn’t real, surgery isn’t real, courtroom scenes aren’t real. I could add literally hundreds of examples. At some level, we’re willing to suspend our disbelief and allow the story to take us to the thematic or emotional conclusion.
This factor is even more prominent in the superhero genre, where heroes like Superman, Batman, or Buffy regularly do physically impossible things. Characters use witchcraft and super powers. Those will bother some people; they just can’t get past the “unreality” of it. (Of course, the same is equally true of the appearance of the ghost in Hamlet or of the gods in the Iliad ….) This reaction can often be entirely irrational. For example, I’m a lawyer and it drives me crazy to watch courtroom scenes because I immediately spot the flaws (I’m sure the same is true for surgeons), and that can wreck my enjoyment of the scene. But why should I be perfectly content to watch Superman fly – violating the law of gravity – while being angry if he gets the hearsay rule wrong? It makes no sense.
Anyone who wants to appreciate any show needs to be able to put all these issues aside, just as they put aside “unreal” scenes in every movie, and understand that we’re simply to say to ourselves “they’re having sex” or “that’s magic” or “that’s surgery” even if it doesn’t look real.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 05:30 pm (UTC)That said? What bugged me about the AR - and fascinated me at the same time, and the reason that scene sticks in my head long after the event...is simply this: It was filmed realistically. It's the only scene outside of a few scenes in Normal Again, that lighting, costume design, set design, acting, etc evoke a hyper-real or realitic tone. It is blanched of color. It takes place in a real bathroom.
Buffy is really injured after a fight and fixing a hot bath. Spike isn't wearing his jacket and looks smaller, and isn't wearing makeup or eyeliner. He doesn't look like a vampire. He never goes into vamp face. His attack is not vampiric. When she throws him off he looks horrified. Really horrified (and he was - the actor was terrified of doing that scene).
She's really crying.
It was like suddenly you weren't watching Buffy any longer, instead you were watching Prime Suspect or
Six Feet Under or I don't know CBS News.
I've always been curious why the show-runners chose to do that. The only other time I can think of in the course of the entire series in which they made a similar choice was in Normal Again - which was not jarring and made sense - because they were attempting to show the real world. Why do it here too? It threw me out of the story in how it was edited and shot.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 06:35 pm (UTC)I can only speak from my own viewpoint, but if I were the one directing such a scene, I would have certainly done something similar to what was actually filmed.
As you yourself have commented many times, Buffy is a series with many fantastic elements, sometimes science fiction, sometimes fantasy (as in "magic"), sometimes horror. If I had to generalize, I'd have to say it draws on horror elements more than anything else, and follows the conventions of that fictional genre, be it written word, film, or television.
In the real world women do not get attacked by vampires or demons or other fantasy monsters. Statistically, few get attacked or killed by human criminals, whether psychotic or not. However, millions of women are raped or sexually assulted every year. Not exactly news, but...
If I were a male (which I am, like Whedon), and trying to be sympathetic to this ugly state of affairs, this makes it imperative that I do nothing that might trivialize its seriousness if I am depicting such an act in what passes for "entertainment", even if such entertainment routinely incorporates fantastic elements.
So, I want it to look real. I have my DOP light and shoot the scene to emphasize the "reality". In the real world this is a real horror, not a fantasy one. Buffy is a fictional character, but on many levels she represents real women.
In short, the scene needs to disturb people. Some years ago, when I was contributing a story to the ATPo Angel Season 6 series, I wrote a scene involving a female character that while not a rape scene, did draw on her being sexually harassed/degraded by some military personnel. (The Abu Gharib prison debacle in Iraq had occurred not too long before, was still in public memory, and I based the scene partly on that situation).
After submitting it to the project manager/headwriter, my primary concern was if I had handled it properly-- it was a dark scene, and it had to resonate with the overall story. She posted the scene pretty much without changes, so I suppose it passed muster, but frankly it was creepy even writing it. I did the best I could, trying to hope it would be mostly received with the meaning as intended.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 01:14 am (UTC)So, I want it to look real. I have my DOP light and shoot the scene to emphasize the "reality". In the real world this is a real horror, not a fantasy one. Buffy is a fictional character, but on many levels she represents real women.
But here's the thing? It's not conveyed that way. Buffy kicks him off. She is not raped. In reality? She'd have been raped.
The problem with how Seeing Red was written, was in part that it was written from the wrong point of view. Marti Noxon pitched an experience from her own life, where she was involved in an abusive sexual relationship that she wanted to continue, and she forced herself on her male companion. The writers had written themselves into a corner with Spike. They needed Spike to seek a soul to change. But the audience didn't believe he needed a soul (or the vast majority of the audience at any rate). So how do you convince the audience that this character would seek a soul? You have to have the character do something shocking that would upset him and the audience. So Marti bravely suggests an experience she had. They write it from the attacker's pov, but, and here's the ironic part, the experience they are using is one in which the attacker was female. In Marti's experience - the guy kicked her off, she was utterly humiliated and ashamed. This comes across very differently if the attacker were male. (See Faith attack Xander in Consequences if you want an example. Or Buffy attack Spike in Gone.)
So...this, as you state above, incredibly painful experience for many women is not only shown from a male perspective but is also used to motivate a male character to turn his life around. The focus is on Spike. Not Buffy. It becomes all about him. How does that not trivalize the female experience of rape? It's also shot from that male character's pov and we get to see how he handles the situation. Buffy - we never really get much from her perspective. She doesn't really talk about it. He does. The most we get is a conversation between Buffy and another male vampire, who fights with her.
They shoot it in a way that is inconsistent with how both their series are shot. And I'd say that...yes, they were doing it for the reasons you related, except..for the inconsistencies. Angelus - we're told raped Drusilla, but it is shown in the same campy style as everything else. Just as his rape of the gypsy girl is in the episode Darla, which is shown from Darla's perspective. We also see Xander's sexual assault on Buffy in The Pack campy. Domestic Violence? Shown either campy in Beauty and the Beasts or in Dead Things...as well, not that big a deal. Faith's assault on Xander - campy. The biker's comments about rape - campy. And how about Spike's scene with Willow in The Initiative, where date-rape is turned into a comedic routine on impotence? I love that scene, don't get me wrong. But...you can't do all of those scenes in that way, and then suddenly turn around and shoot that scene in Seeing Red in the manner that you have...without making it look like you are going for shock value, and well trivalizing the topic at the same time.
After saying all of this? I don't believe Whedon was going for what you suggest. But rather something else. Remember the theme of the season was "Oh, Grow Up" or "Drop the metaphor - this is REAL"? That's why in Seeing Red - the two worse things that happen - Buffy gets attacked sexually by her lover, and gets shot - are depicted in a realistic manner. Not on campy sets. And with something real - no monsters, no demons. This is real life, folks! While you have to admire the cinematic gimmick - Whedon was good at these sorts of gimmicks, the problem with that gimmick..is it can come across as preachy and take the audience out of the story, which is what happened to me.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 01:20 am (UTC)And I should mention - what saved the episode for me and why I do re-watch it from time to time - is the scene between Clem and Spike after he rushes back to his crypt. That scene in my opinion is amongst one of the best written scenes in the entire series, and the best acted, directed, and shot scenes. So much ambiguity. That scene changed the series and made it interesting. It also questions whether a soul is necessary or just a mcGuffin. The very existence of that scene...makes you wonder if Spike needed a soul. And it throws everything we know about Angel up into the air. Brilliant scene.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 03:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 03:50 am (UTC)That's why it doesn't work. It's also why I find myself compelled to revisit it and pull it apart. And I think it's also why so many people online reacted so negatively to it. Because Seeing Red...isn't about Buffy at all, it's about the men in her life and their issues with her (well not so much with Buffy really, as with women in general). Warren, Xander, and Spike are the main points of view - if you think about it. And all three are not depicted in the best of lights. Even Xander comes out sort of negatively...and it is through Xander's eyes that we see Warren's violence towards women directly. Lies My Parents Told Me is similar in some respects - it's also about the men in Buffy's life and their issues with her.
And in a way, I guess, you could say it's a commentary on the pulp horror noir genre in general - it does have some twisted views on women. See either Angel or better yet, Supernatural for examples.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 06:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 12:11 am (UTC)Will state, that I do to a degree agree with what I summarized above.
I have mixed feelings. And am of two minds regarding it. Still trying to figure out how to answer atpomn's response below. Which...brings up some delicate issues.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 12:36 am (UTC)I think the two scenes served similar purposes at their respective moments in the show, namely to confirm for the viewer that the vampire really is evil. We can argue about the need for this, but my point isn't to rehash the Spike debates from S6. My point is that they made such totally different artistic decisions in the two cases and I still today am not sure why.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 01:24 am (UTC)While Passion was admittedly better written than Seeing Red in many respects, that scene between Clem and Spike is a lot more interesting.
It's why I kept engaging in all those fights - because that scene fascinates me to this day.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 08:07 am (UTC)We have a vampire who is soulless questioning his own morality, his reason for being. It may be the most interesting scene in the entire series from a psychological and philosophical standpoint. That scene - makes you wonder if Spike needed a soul.
Much more recently, in an LJ post about the comics and the resolution of the Season 8 by the destruction of the Seed of Wonder, I noted that IMO, Whedon used the Seed and magic to symbolize religion, and that it might be worthy of considering (in his opinion) what the world would be like without, or with significantly less religion.
Your comments about whether Spike needed a soul or not falls right alongside arguments made by people over whether or not atheists can be moral individuals. I can assure you that according to regularly appearing editorial page letters to my local newspaper, many people in my area strongly believe that such is simply impossible and will not tender arguments to the contrary. Of course, atheist that I am, I beg to differ.
So you could also see the soul dilemma as another analog for religion vs. no religion.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 08:41 am (UTC)Nietzsche already gave an answer to that 150 years ago. Or, more precisely, Nietzsche said that the "seed" is already broken (in the so-called "Western World"). So, 150 years of experience of living in a world with a broken seed (to stay within the Whedon-metaphor) and what followed directly after Nietzsche...
...and then the over-religious AtS and how that turned out (for the characters, the characterization and the world).
Hm, doesn't really "click" for me in the "soul" vs. "no-soul" dichotomy.
(And maybe that's because Nietzsche really thought about stuff and Whedon only sells stuff. :-P )
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 05:21 pm (UTC)1) What throws us out of the story.
and
2) So much of this is subjective -
i.e. if you've read a lot of philosophy, such as Nietzche...Whedon's clumsy attempts could either turn you on, or really turn you off. Just as Nietzche turns some people on and some off, as does Ayn Rand.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-31 06:04 pm (UTC)It's a pretty good summary of my own. I'm acutely aware of being manipulated both by writing and directing that while I do not pretend that it didn't happen, it exists strangely as though it were the attachment to an e-mail. Yes. It's there. But it's a little separate, and do I actually want to download it?
Or...wait, there's no way Gregory House could still be practicing medicine at the same hospital after driving his car into his ex-girlfriend's house or going to prison. I can't buy this.
Seriously! He could've killed her, one of her guests, or her TODDLER! Yeah, that was the final, final nail in his shitbag coffin. I mean, why exactly are we supposed to tolerate this guy? Because he's such a 'brilliant' doctor that he tortures and nearly kills a patient each week before finding a solution... after the first six fail?
no subject
Date: 2012-02-01 01:27 am (UTC)And also agree on Seeing Red. If it weren't for that scene between Clem and Spike...but that scene saved the episode for me. Brilliant scene.