(no subject)
Feb. 21st, 2012 08:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Read Mark Watches (yes, I know, I'm weak and it's an easy read for my lunch break) and realized something...I never really liked the character of Faith that much. [ETC: Actually like is the wrong word, was never really interested or "distinterested".] (Which may explain why I didn't love S3? You sort of have to love that character to love that season, I think?) Didn't necessarily dislike her. Was pretty much ambivalent. In part it's the actress whose mannerisms irritate me. In part it was the cliche bad-girl with Daddy issues that I'd seen one too many times in one too many tv shows and books. She was fun. Personally? I thought she was more interesting in Angel and when Sarah Michelle Gellar played her in Who Are You? Actually I think Who Are You...may be the best acting performance that Gellar has given in her life. It blew me away. In that episode, for the first time, I felt sympathy for Faith. Anyhow...this realization comes from the realization that I can't remember the episode Bad Girls that well nor is it a favorite. I thought at the time it was a tad cliche and male fantasy to be honest.
2. When I was 16 years old I spent two months one summer with a family in Bretagne, France. I'd intended to spend the time with Natalie Regis, the French foreign exchange student and later pen-pal that had visited my family two summers ago, who resided in Paris. This was back in 1981 and 1984. But that fell through and I was willing to do anything to go to France at that point, so we called the program and they put me with another family - one I didn't know a thing about, except their name and where they lived -- the very southern edge of Bretagne. They, unlike Natalie, were middle class or lower middle class. The whole family including the eldest daughter and her young son lived in their farm house. They fished for a living. And the father had served in Vietnam - French Vietnam - several years before the American occupation.
My experience with Natalie Regis and this family that was so different from her, made me once again realize that making broad generalizations about another culture is idiotic. Many of my American friends saw the French as "stuck up" or "snooty", "elitist". Which in some ways Natalie fit as did my father's close friend at the time Francois, who had a superiority complex that was inspiring, he was very sweet though. But no more so than many Manhattanites or New Yorkers or Londoners that I've met. Rich Urban dwellers tend to be a bit elitist and snooty. Particularly well educated ones, regardless of where they reside. But not always.
The family I spent time with was down-to-earth, religious but no more so than my own, they did go to church more regularly. But it made sense - the Church was outdoors in a beautiful garden, and afterwards we got fresh crepes. I remember riding bikes all over the place. I remember their discoteque - which was their word for nightclubs. At 16 you could drink alcohol and smoke legally - which surprised me. You can't do either in the US. And they were into David Bowie and Mick Jagger, which the US wasn't or the people I knew weren't. It felt like they were behind and ahead of us culturally. The contradiction amused me. But mostly...I saw similarities. The TV/media culture, the magazines (they had more science fiction fan mags than we did and more comic books available), and the casual attitude towards nudity and sex. Americans are more prudish.
Sophie, unlike Natalie, was not fluent in English. So we communicated mostly with body language. And my poor French...not helped by the Gallic Breton accent. I had studied Parisian and Sophie didn't speak Parisian. I can actually tell the difference. People don't know this but there are as many varieties of French as there are English or German or Spainish. Different dialects. And each region is vastly different.
The biggest difference I noticed at that time was the fact that French women could sunbath topless on beaches. We can't in the US. This may have changed since the 1980s.
The French weren't as...modest about breasts and seemed less prudish about nudity and sexuality then the English and Americans. I blame the English influence for the American prudishness about sex. Having spent a lot of time in Britian and Australia and noticing the similarities. I don't think the Spainish and French care.
I remember reading Asterix in French - it was a popular comic at the time or Sophie had a lot of books of it. Also watch Burt Reynolds and John Wayne films in French on their small tv set - which made me laugh. Watching John Wayne and Burt Reynolds speak in French is highly amusing. We did see some French films, not many, they didn't have much of a movie house and most the films were American. As were the tv shows. The American media influence was overwhelming.
Food...in Bretagne was much better than in the US. Richer. Fresher. But we were near the coast and good get fresh seafood. The beaches were almost white. And the water warm. We would lie on them all day long and discuss fashion, celebrities, boys, and films. In French. I think I understood 65% of it.
And one day I had a lengthy discussion with the head of the household, my French father, I can't remember their last name, about the bunkers that I'd found on the beaches - the old 1940s bunkers. And he told me about his time in the French occupation of Vietnam. It was eye-opening.
When you immerse yourself in another culture - you notice things, like how impossible it is to generalize, that in the end people are just people. Their daily routine isn't all that different than yours. The family I stayed with didn't have a washer and drier and washed clothes mainly by hand. They hung them out on clotheslines.
But that, I knew, wasn't true of all families, any more than it is true of all families in the US. They were religious, but Natalie had not been. They were less highly educated, not having the money, Sophie dreamed of traveling some day and couldn't get enough of what I told her of my life...while Natalie was well traveled and spoke English perfectly, Sophie struggled with English as I struggled with French.
I remember a boy who planted kisses on my neck and scared me when he stuck out his tongue. I was so young, so niave. And he could barely speak English any more than I could speak French. It was Bastille Day. Fireworks overhead on the beach. We were dancing to a David Bowie song, I think. Or maybe the Cure. My French gal pals laughed at me. I wore a sundress that I later ruined by sitting in mud.
The memories are vague and cloudy with time, but there. I wrote every day in a journal and if I write about something - I will remember it. Or most of the time.
What I took away from the experience was ...humbling. I realized all the generalizations and assumptions I made were wrong. I'd made them based on what I read, a trip to Paris with my parents as a child, correspondence with Natalie.
And I understood that the only way you can ever hope to understand another culture is to live it. No not visit, not spend a week at hotel or rented room in Paris, lounging in cafes and visiting friends, but really spend time with a family, live there.
See the daily routine. And spend time with a wide range of people.
What you discover when you do this...is how similar we are yet how different. The differences are so subtle, you barely notice them...just bits here and there. The discover of them is like...tasting apple pie for the first time or falling in love...that weird magical discovery. I fell in love with France, much the same way, years later I fell in love with London and Wales. It was so different from the world I knew in Kansas City, and at the same time felt like home. The only other place I've been that had that odd effect was New York City - where I stayed.
3. Loving this book by Nora Roberts, which shipperx recommended. Sweet Revenge.
It's about two jewel thieves. One a guy who has joined Interpol to hunt jewel thieves and one a woman who is currently a jewel thief. It takes place in the 1970s and 1980s, so also oddly nostalgic. It's a perfect mood lifter and escape mechanism.
Tried to read the paper this morning, ended up throwing it out. Too frigging depressing. I may stop picking up the paper for a while. I just don't want to know.
Off to watch Smash, read, and go to bed. Am exhausted. Had almost no sleep last night and worked really hard today. Stressful work week. Yeah, I know, what's new.
2. When I was 16 years old I spent two months one summer with a family in Bretagne, France. I'd intended to spend the time with Natalie Regis, the French foreign exchange student and later pen-pal that had visited my family two summers ago, who resided in Paris. This was back in 1981 and 1984. But that fell through and I was willing to do anything to go to France at that point, so we called the program and they put me with another family - one I didn't know a thing about, except their name and where they lived -- the very southern edge of Bretagne. They, unlike Natalie, were middle class or lower middle class. The whole family including the eldest daughter and her young son lived in their farm house. They fished for a living. And the father had served in Vietnam - French Vietnam - several years before the American occupation.
My experience with Natalie Regis and this family that was so different from her, made me once again realize that making broad generalizations about another culture is idiotic. Many of my American friends saw the French as "stuck up" or "snooty", "elitist". Which in some ways Natalie fit as did my father's close friend at the time Francois, who had a superiority complex that was inspiring, he was very sweet though. But no more so than many Manhattanites or New Yorkers or Londoners that I've met. Rich Urban dwellers tend to be a bit elitist and snooty. Particularly well educated ones, regardless of where they reside. But not always.
The family I spent time with was down-to-earth, religious but no more so than my own, they did go to church more regularly. But it made sense - the Church was outdoors in a beautiful garden, and afterwards we got fresh crepes. I remember riding bikes all over the place. I remember their discoteque - which was their word for nightclubs. At 16 you could drink alcohol and smoke legally - which surprised me. You can't do either in the US. And they were into David Bowie and Mick Jagger, which the US wasn't or the people I knew weren't. It felt like they were behind and ahead of us culturally. The contradiction amused me. But mostly...I saw similarities. The TV/media culture, the magazines (they had more science fiction fan mags than we did and more comic books available), and the casual attitude towards nudity and sex. Americans are more prudish.
Sophie, unlike Natalie, was not fluent in English. So we communicated mostly with body language. And my poor French...not helped by the Gallic Breton accent. I had studied Parisian and Sophie didn't speak Parisian. I can actually tell the difference. People don't know this but there are as many varieties of French as there are English or German or Spainish. Different dialects. And each region is vastly different.
The biggest difference I noticed at that time was the fact that French women could sunbath topless on beaches. We can't in the US. This may have changed since the 1980s.
The French weren't as...modest about breasts and seemed less prudish about nudity and sexuality then the English and Americans. I blame the English influence for the American prudishness about sex. Having spent a lot of time in Britian and Australia and noticing the similarities. I don't think the Spainish and French care.
I remember reading Asterix in French - it was a popular comic at the time or Sophie had a lot of books of it. Also watch Burt Reynolds and John Wayne films in French on their small tv set - which made me laugh. Watching John Wayne and Burt Reynolds speak in French is highly amusing. We did see some French films, not many, they didn't have much of a movie house and most the films were American. As were the tv shows. The American media influence was overwhelming.
Food...in Bretagne was much better than in the US. Richer. Fresher. But we were near the coast and good get fresh seafood. The beaches were almost white. And the water warm. We would lie on them all day long and discuss fashion, celebrities, boys, and films. In French. I think I understood 65% of it.
And one day I had a lengthy discussion with the head of the household, my French father, I can't remember their last name, about the bunkers that I'd found on the beaches - the old 1940s bunkers. And he told me about his time in the French occupation of Vietnam. It was eye-opening.
When you immerse yourself in another culture - you notice things, like how impossible it is to generalize, that in the end people are just people. Their daily routine isn't all that different than yours. The family I stayed with didn't have a washer and drier and washed clothes mainly by hand. They hung them out on clotheslines.
But that, I knew, wasn't true of all families, any more than it is true of all families in the US. They were religious, but Natalie had not been. They were less highly educated, not having the money, Sophie dreamed of traveling some day and couldn't get enough of what I told her of my life...while Natalie was well traveled and spoke English perfectly, Sophie struggled with English as I struggled with French.
I remember a boy who planted kisses on my neck and scared me when he stuck out his tongue. I was so young, so niave. And he could barely speak English any more than I could speak French. It was Bastille Day. Fireworks overhead on the beach. We were dancing to a David Bowie song, I think. Or maybe the Cure. My French gal pals laughed at me. I wore a sundress that I later ruined by sitting in mud.
The memories are vague and cloudy with time, but there. I wrote every day in a journal and if I write about something - I will remember it. Or most of the time.
What I took away from the experience was ...humbling. I realized all the generalizations and assumptions I made were wrong. I'd made them based on what I read, a trip to Paris with my parents as a child, correspondence with Natalie.
And I understood that the only way you can ever hope to understand another culture is to live it. No not visit, not spend a week at hotel or rented room in Paris, lounging in cafes and visiting friends, but really spend time with a family, live there.
See the daily routine. And spend time with a wide range of people.
What you discover when you do this...is how similar we are yet how different. The differences are so subtle, you barely notice them...just bits here and there. The discover of them is like...tasting apple pie for the first time or falling in love...that weird magical discovery. I fell in love with France, much the same way, years later I fell in love with London and Wales. It was so different from the world I knew in Kansas City, and at the same time felt like home. The only other place I've been that had that odd effect was New York City - where I stayed.
3. Loving this book by Nora Roberts, which shipperx recommended. Sweet Revenge.
It's about two jewel thieves. One a guy who has joined Interpol to hunt jewel thieves and one a woman who is currently a jewel thief. It takes place in the 1970s and 1980s, so also oddly nostalgic. It's a perfect mood lifter and escape mechanism.
Tried to read the paper this morning, ended up throwing it out. Too frigging depressing. I may stop picking up the paper for a while. I just don't want to know.
Off to watch Smash, read, and go to bed. Am exhausted. Had almost no sleep last night and worked really hard today. Stressful work week. Yeah, I know, what's new.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 02:18 am (UTC)It's a mystery to me, but it's a big world out there.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 02:50 am (UTC)It does explain why I wasn't that fond of S3 and didn't love the season as much as a lot of fans did. I think you have to love Faith to love that season. If you don't love Faith and find the B/A relationship a bit dull...the season falls a bit flat. It did not help that I found Mr. Trick more interesting than Faith. And was sort of disappointed he got killed.
Faith was basically set up in the story as Buffy's shadow-self or her evil twin - where they could show the rogue or bad side of the slayer, without losing the main character or making her irredeemable - which is sort of standard in tv shows. They will pick a sort of doppleganger of the hero and turn that person evil...let them do all the nasty things, while the hero gets to stay good. Which is why S6 is so interesting and risky - finally there were no dopplegangers or evil twins. I never thought they'd break that rule and they do in S6.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 03:37 am (UTC)That said, 3 does have some good stand alone episodes.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 02:19 pm (UTC)It was odd for me to see Eliza Dushku here, as I'd only seen her in Dollhouse, where obviously she's much older and called on to do a much wider performance because of the nature of that show. In Faith I could mostly only see bits and pieces of Echo from Dollhouse, like a first draft version of the same character.
I did enjoy Faith's appearances on Angel (so far, anyway; I've only just started S3 of that show). The cast of Buffy never seemed particularly well-equipped or inclined to understand Faith's perspective, but Angel seems to do a better job at it.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 03:10 pm (UTC)The issue of sympathetic villains in literature is an interesting one. In Faith and later Spike, ME created "villains" whom some found more attractive than the heroine. To this day I'm not sure how intentional that was.
That must be weird to have watched Dollhouse first. Maybe better, since your idea of ED wasn't so fixed.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 03:46 pm (UTC)I like Faith, but as with you she's not a favourite. And Bad Girls, the episode, doesn't really work for me. TBH, it plays much more as 'after-school special' than any other episode of the series: don't skip class, or else you'll end up killing someone in the alley! I think Consequences redeems it, by showing the huge range of reactions to the event, but even in Consequences I'm more interested in how everyone reacts to Faith than in Faith herself -- i.e. the way Buffy, Xander, Giles, Willow, Wesley, Angel all have their own interpretations of the event.
I loved loved loved SMG as Faith in Who Are You. And as a shallow note, I founud her much hotter there than I ever did either ED as Faith or SMG as Buffy. Lol! What can you do.
I find season 3 really interesting if you go the route 2maggie2 does (and which I subscribe to, but a little less strongly because I don't identify with Faith) and view the season as being about how the narrative of Faith as the shadow self gets constructed, and how Buffy ends up nearly killing her and leaving that part of her behind in order to preserve her idealized view of herself and of Angel. That story is really interesting, and interesting enough that I'm willing to grant the story some leeway. That reading is backed up by later seasons -- 6 & 7 -- as well as Five By Five/Who Are You and Sanctuary, which are written from Faith's POV more so than Buffy's.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 03:48 pm (UTC)Yes, totally. (And the 'shadow characters' they do create -- the Trio -- are so weak and bumbling that they do almost no real damage, in comparison to the main characters.)
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 04:01 pm (UTC)I have not really seen much of Buffy S5-7, which is where Spike is more and more a "good guy" or at least playing on the good guy's team, but the episodes I have seen, I found Spike much less entertaining when he wasn't evil.
I think my experience of Joss Whedon's works went Firefly > Dr. Horrible > Dollhouse > Buffy/Angel. Which is almost completely backwards and I think may have kind of hurt my experience of Buffy, as I mostly see it exploring the roots of themes that Joss would do again in later shows. I know Buffy is also largely an exploration of horror tropes, which, well... I never watch horror, so it's hard for me to pick out what he's doing to take apart the genre when I don't really know what the base assumptions of the genre are.
Mostly, I am finding as I watch through both shows that there is really excellent buildup and introduction of an arc at the beginning of the season, and then about halfway through the action starts and I start losing interest because things just aren't gelling together the way I hoped. It still ends up being good, just not as engaging as the set-up led me to believe.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 04:43 pm (UTC)The idea about Faith as a male fantasy doesn't really work, since she has as many female fans who find her sympathetic. One could as well write off Spike as a female fantasy (and it would even be more convincing, since he actually has a lot more female fans, AFAIK, and is the absolutely most popular character with the female part of the fandom).
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 04:48 pm (UTC)I think the ending to season three, in particular, works really well in this reading, that Buffy has all her dark projected onto Faith. Buffy nearly becomes a murderer, but the evidence for it is mostly forgotten -- Faith, lying in a hospital bed, comatose for months, while Buffy gets a mostly happy ending to the season.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 05:38 pm (UTC)But...after you see the last four seasons and how they build off of the first 3, the first 3 are actually really interesting in retrospect. 2maggie2's analysis as you state works because of S4-7. S7 addresses S1-3 directly. The character of Faith doesn't actually become interesting until This Year's Girl/Who are You. And Angel...becomes really interesting in the early seasons, after you see S4-7. Because suddenly you see what was going on there. It wasn't the cliche romeo/juliet star-crossed lovers high school romance popularized in the Twilight books, but a romantic fantasy that can't work...emphasizing in a way Buffy's own Daddy issues - she goes for Angel, as an odd replacement figure for her father...and Angel's issues regarding Darla - are why he goes for Buffy.
But you don't see any of that until you see the entire series.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 05:44 pm (UTC)Now, on the plotline, I can see grounds for sympathy with Faith which you mention. Buffy herself validates that in Choices (I believe; too lazy to look it up) when she tells Willow that "that could have been me".
I should also clarify my comment about male viewers. You're right that Faith has lots of female fans. I didn't mean to limit her attraction to men, nor to say that even the men only like because they think she's hot. However, I do see lots of posts from male viewers commenting on how hot they find her. I think that's part of the attraction but certainly not the only part.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 05:53 pm (UTC)If we take season six as it is -- then it just says, OK, Willow shouldn't have used her power, Buffy should have stayed away from Spike, Xander and Anya should have stayed away from each ohter. But season seven goes back and says -- well, no. There is real good that came from Willow's ambition with her power, and Buffy's attraction to Spike. If it weren't for Selfless, Anya's arc wouldn't have made any sense.
If we remove seasons six and seven -- then the series ends with Buffy dying, and the message is that the only way to be a hero (the only way for a woman to be a hero!) is to die; and Buffy never figures out any way to live semi-happily.
If we remove seasons five onward -- well, could you imagine ending with Restless and never following up on any of that? The idea that demons are a more morally ambiguous category would be introduced, but never explored (as it is with Spike).
And of course, if it weren't for s4-7, Faith is just a crazy bad girl who has a beef with Buffy for *some reason* that the show never bothers to show us. Now that we know where Faith is going -- that she will end up on the side of the angels, even briefly installed as the leader of the gang ahead of Buffy -- we pause and see more where she is coming from. She really does have nothing when she comes to town, whereas Buffy has a circle of friends (and a circle that she just abandoned by running away from town -- not criticizing, just pointing out the contrast). Buffy chooses to kill her to save Angel, who has killed thousands of people to Faith's two. And suddenly it becomes a completely different story, about what Buffy is missing because she's young and in high school.
And in a way, it's almost a metaphor for the whole way the show was built. The writers are going to be cancelled, or the show is going to get in trouble, in the early seasons, if they go too deeply into Faith's or Angel(us)' POV -- they can only hint at it, but maintain the illusion (?) that Buffy is unambiguously right. But that is sort of a lie -- Buffy is mostly right, but not unambiguously, and it takes until the show is older, aimed at an older group, to start telling the other side of the story. What a weird, weird show. By this point, it's (nearly) impossible to tell what was deliberately written in at the time (but not stated explicitly, for fear of losing audience/hurting the show), what was deliberately written in in later episodes to look back on it, and what are just happy accidents as the show and characters grow up.
I watched "Angel," the episode, the other day. And it's amazing how creepy it is. How badly Angel is tempted to drink Joyce's blood. That he plans to kill Buffy -- or lies to Darla about his plans, and plans to kill Darla to "prove" his love, all along. Killing Darla so that he can be with her substitute. Watching it now, I'm tempted to side with Xander -- kill him! Kill Angel now! And the episode "Crush" ends up having the same plot, where Spike offers to kill Dru to prove his love for Buffy -- but Buffy, with a more adult perspective, laughs it off as ridiculous, what with Angel was romantic.
For that matter, I Robot, You Jane is often written off as one of the show's worst episodes, and as a standalone it is pretty terrible. But Moloch offers Willow "love, power and knowledge" -- exactly the things she seeks and craves, and that she will eventually be willing to kill for. In season one, the episode doesn't make any sense -- why would you even bother telling a story about a demon offering Willow world domination? That's just ridiculous. Until you see the rest of the series and -- well, it's not so ridiculous.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 09:49 pm (UTC)Clem: Love's a funny thing.
Spike: Is that what this is?
I think it's the reason why some people hate the later seasons. They were used to watching the show a certain way, and then suddenly the show turns it all on its head, apparently - but it actually doesn't, it just makes you see what was always there, just in a different light. There were always signs that Willow was vengeful and had a desire for power and for quickly fixing the problems; there were signs of Buffy's tendencies towards depression, resentment against her friends, and unhealthy relationships and conflation of sex and violence, at least as early as When She Was Bad. Take for instance those fans who say they hate Spike because he tried to rape Buffy, but they found him funny and cool when he was trying to rape and kill Willow in Lovers Walk and the Initiative, or explaining how he's going to get Dru back by tying her up and torturing her, and when he was casually talking about his past murders.
(When it comes to Faith, though, I always did sympathize with her in season 3 and see where she's coming from - there are lots of signs early on, even in her first episode, that she comes from an abusive background, has no friends and has learned not to trust people.)
I think the reason that S7 is one of my least favourite seasons is not because it's objectively worse, but because there weren't any other televised seasons to comment on it/fix its 'mistakes', the way there were with other seasons.
It's one of the reasons why I do like the comics and don't write them off as so many people do. A lot of people think that Chosen was the perfect ending for the show. I never really did, because I had some big problems with it (not to mention that even the things that may be seen as having had a perfect ending - Buffy's story and Buffy/Spike - got ruined by AtS season 5 and The Girl In Question). That's why I'm glad that season 8 was there to show that activating the Potentials wasn't this wonderful simple stroke that solves everything, and that it opens up a bunch of other problems. (Season 5 of AtS did touch on that a little with Dana, but that wasn't enough.) I'm not one of those who think sharing the power was bad, I think it was good but not the great feminist triumph that deserved the rousing music and montage, let alone the guarantee of Buffy and others having a great future without any of the problems that Buffy had throughout the show.
And naturally, since I'm no fan of the Buffy/Angel scene in Chosen, I enjoyed the way Whedon (who wrote it in the first place) made fun of it in #36 in at two different scenes, subtly in one and quite obviously in a meta way in another.
I have mixed feelings about the execution in season 8, but I can appreciate the reasons behind retreading season 2 by exposing and multiplying all the disturbing and screwed-up aspects of Buffy/Angel and satirizing the mythical fannish version of Bangel that's been build up in the fandom and media since.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 09:49 pm (UTC)I watched "Angel," the episode, the other day. And it's amazing how creepy it is. How badly Angel is tempted to drink Joyce's blood. That he plans to kill Buffy -- or lies to Darla about his plans, and plans to kill Darla to "prove" his love, all along. Killing Darla so that he can be with her substitute. Watching it now, I'm tempted to side with Xander -- kill him! Kill Angel now! And the episode "Crush" ends up having the same plot, where Spike offers to kill Dru to prove his love for Buffy -- but Buffy, with a more adult perspective, laughs it off as ridiculous, what with Angel was romantic.
I don't know about that, I didn't get the impression that he was planning to kill Darla from the start? What makes you think so? The situations in 'Angel' and 'Crush' are very different though and whatever her age, I can see Buffy would appreciate Angel staking Darla to save Buffy's life; he didn't kidnap Buffy and tie Darla up and offer to stake Darla just to prove his love. Although 'Crush' is playing on the absurdity of the notion that killing one's ex is to best way to prove one's love, which is probably what many fans got from 'Angel'.
I agree about 'I Robot, You Jane'; that episode has a lot of cheese but also some interesting themes, and it certainly foreshadows a lot.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-22 11:41 pm (UTC)Which is why a Doylist analysis often falls apart...because we really can't know what happened behind the scenes, so much as speculate.
Also how television is created...it's such a weird art. Most of it is happy accidents. Little can be pre-planned. Even the WIRE - which was pre-planned, had happy accidents, things that weren't planned or changed half-way through - due to outside issues, deaths, etc. When working in a collaborative environment - you can't predict what someone will do. Will they get pregnant? Will they quit in a huff? Will they get a better job? Will they cut their hair? Or die? You also don't know what the network or studio will do. No one has a crystal ball.
To say it's all Whedon is a bit silly too. While you can do that to a degree with writers like Moffat and RT Davies - who have small writing teams and less episodes, or a writer like Rod Serling. Not so much with Whedon - who only wrote about two-three episodes each season.
He edited a lot and rewrote a lot of his writing teams stuff, but we don't know what he took out or left in. Also, most of the really good ideas were pitched by other people. The whole Spike being in love with Buffy bit - was James Marsters idea not Whedon's - it never occurred to Whedon until Marsters voiced it. So in TV? There really are no genuises - so much as a team that either works or doesn't.
Far better to take the Watsonian approach and go by where the characters appear to be going. I've done both, obviously, but I think the Watsonian is easier to back up - where you go by what is in the show and what you see in the script and not what you think the writers may have intended via commentary or isolated interviews.
I agree with what you wrote above. And rather like your take on the Angel episode. It's not clear from the episode that he intended to kill Darla, but it can be read either way. Angel the series...particularly the episode Darla...does lead me to think he may well have done that. It's why you really can't just watch Buffy, you sort of have to watch Angel too...to get the full picture.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 01:54 am (UTC)I don't think they are the same so much as reflections on the same theme or different takes on it. Just as the episodes Helpless and Lies My Parents Told Me are reflections of each other, or of same theme. And Storyteller/Superstar. You look at a similar situation from another perspective or a different way. It's easier to see if you read the metaphors and don't look at it literally.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:03 am (UTC)Dusku, because admittedly I loved the episode Who Are You. Maybe it was the writing and the victimized little girl trope doesn't work for me? Because I was similarily uninterested in both River and Echo, and Lisbeth didn't grab me in Girl. Watched too many versions of la Femme Nikita - perhaps? (shrugs).
I don't know.
Do we ever really understand why one character turns us on and another really doesn't? Or why someone else goes nuts over that character?
It's not something one can easily explain. I know I grew tired of dysfunctional stories and poor abused kids who wanted to kill everyone around them...again from reading too many books that featured them. One can get burned out on a trope, I think.
Or..it may be as simple as Eliza Dusku didn't pull me into her character.
I don't know. But it did effect how I felt about S3 and to a degree the latter part of S7. Oddly I liked Faith in Angel quite a bit. So it may just be how the Buffy writers wrote her? She was interesting to me in Angel - which means...that it may be that I found how the Angel writers wrote her, which seemed a bit deeper and bit more complex and bit darker...than how the Buffy writers did. Minear and the Angel writers were admittedly better at noirish redemptive stories and the characters that filled them than the Buffy writers - who wrote more lighter gothic horror? Again I don't know for sure.
Sometimes what interests us is well just that. And figuring it out leads us into an endless circle.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:16 am (UTC)I think both Spike and Faith could fall into the traditional female/male fantasy tropes. Bad boy and bad girl. It was interesting to me that many men who adored Faith hated Spike, and many women who loved Spike hated Faith.
(I didn't hate Faith, I was non-committal, she just didn't really interest me. For many of the reasons you state above. Also I don't think the Buffy writers knew how to write these sorts of characters, Minear and the Angel writers were actually better at it.)
I'd say you could base it upon sexual attraction lines, except I know lesbian women who loved Spike and hated Faith and vice versa. Same with gay men. So really can't generalize.
No, I think it had a lot to do with whether the character resonates for you.
I'm admittedly not that fond of the angry victimized girl trope - I've realized that recently, it's why neither Firefly nor Dollhouse worked for me, its also why the Steig Larrson novels don't. I actually liked Buffy because she wasn't victimized or searching for Revenge, found that refreshing. It's also what I liked about JJ Abrahms Alias. It's rare to see them do a powerful female character who isn't victimized.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:39 am (UTC)Now Xander, on the other hand.... :)
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 05:18 pm (UTC)Very true. And felt much the same way. Did however explain why I wasn't as into S3 as others were. Anya - on the other hand - interested me, a lot more actually than Cordelia. There was more going on there. And I found her relationship with Xander in some respects the height of irony.
So...for me my favorite episodes in S3 were more the Stand-a-lones - the Wish, Dopplegangland. Although I did like Enemies and Choices quite a bit, along with Graduation Day 1&2.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 08:56 pm (UTC)I'd add Consequences and possibly Helpless and Earshot to your list. However, no episode in S3 rises to the heights reached by the best episodes in other seasons, IMO. It's solid but never great.
Agreed. I would add those three to the list as well. In some respects I found the later seasons handling of similar themes and character arcs far more interesting, although that could be because I'd seen what came before and they built on established themes. LMPTM in some ways is far more ambiguous and interesting than Helpless was. But I'm not sure it would be, if I hadn't seen Helpless first.
I think how people viewed the seasons has a great deal to do with what characters resonated for them. If you were a die-hard Xander or Cordy or Faith fan...you might have disliked the latter seasons. Same if you didn't
like Spike or preferred Giles.
Since my favorite characters were Willow/Buffy and Spike - it wasn't an issue for me.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 09:01 pm (UTC)I agree also on the later seasons. And LMPTM is one of my top 10.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 12:21 am (UTC)I think if you loved Angel, Cordy, Wes - then that series worked best for you. If you preferred Buffy, Spike and Willow that series worked best. Also...I admittedly preferred Dawn to Connor. Both got on my nerves at times, but Dawn worked better for me and felt less cliche.
Never been fond of the mystical baby trope.
It's true all the way through, it really is about the characters. I could never get that attached to the characters in Whedon's later shows.
Firefly? I think the only characters that resonated with me were Zoe and Wash and possibly Jayne. Everyone else sort of ...meh. Same with Dollhouse and Dr. Horrible. If there's no characters that really resonate, I tend to be more ambivalent.