Friday, November 03, 2006

Buffy, and Why.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

A couple of years ago I watched Buffy The Vampire Slayer for the first time, got hooked, then watched series 3-7 pretty much back to back. It didn’t immediately occur to me why it was probably one of the best pieces of Art I have ever witnessed because these things rarely do – you get lost in the story and, if you’re like me (the annoying person who wants to talk about films straight after you’ve seen them), you think and talk about the specifics afterwards. Obviously with a series you can talk about each episode afterwards, and one of the main advantages of this is that even when one episode isn’t as good as the previous or the one following it, each of them goes towards building this incredible fantasy world that seems real enough to be recogniseable to you. In Buffy, the town of Sunnydale, where demons and vampires and all sorts of nasties come out and gather around an ancient and mythical hell mouth, and where one girl, Buffy, is the girl chosen from her generation to kill them off, that world is finally destroyed by it’s creator (Joss Wheedon). With it he kills not only the whole idea of a town with demons and slayers, the original comic book style hero/ heroine story, but in the final episode turns it on it’s head with Buffy getting her witch friend Willow to channel the power and energy sourced in an ancient scythe to give every potential slayer the power that Buffy has, to share it, and remove Buffy as the only Heroine of the story. Buffy, in my circle (white, British, university educated, middle-class), was criticised for it’s ‘pop culture’ references, it’s ‘obnoxious’ and ‘obvious’ and ‘out of date’ references to and understanding of cultural and contemporary theory, and it’s stance on or depiction of (strong) women in the late 20th century. The general view seemed to be that it was unnecessary to be aware of and speak about what you know about what you’re doing/ making/ saying – that is, to have a writer say ‘Hey, I know this stuff, so I’m going to get it out of the way now, so we can get on with the story. Ok?’. As an aside, I think another of the reasons this happens is a general view, especially where I came from, and especially when I was growing up, that anything that is too popular must be tainted somehow, especially if it’s American, which is of course NONSENSE. All hail capitalism *bows*. I appreciated the various references to pop cult/ theory etc etc in Buffy because it made me feel more involved in the story, it made me enjoy the intelligence of the author but also, and most importantly, it didn’t matter a whit if I didn’t get it, because that wasn’t the point. What mattered was the story and that the information was shared, not hidden, or stowed away for only a professor and their pupils to contemplate. I haven’t ever seen a series or film that does as much referencing as Buffy, (except maybe Woody Allen films, but that’s not my time, so we’ll leave that out) so I don’t see how making them could be seen to be ‘out of date’.

However, the criticism that probably struck me the most was the one which undermined its depiction of the late 20th century girl/ woman. Buffy has all the characteristics of a feminists’ tour de force (by which I mean: this is what some ‘70’s feminists must have hoped for future generations of people [women]). Like hero’s in stories before hers, Buffy physically beats her opponents, and goes through all the problems this invites (boys, power, strength, alienation, death, depression etc etc). Academics spoke of post feminism, or Buffy as part of the (in England, Spice Girl) girl power generation. Post-feminism became (to me, as I learnt what it was) a rebellion against radical feminism (burn bra’s) which allowed the argument that, to put it simply, the material way you represent yourself – sexy clothes, make-up, flirtation, sex – is as legitimate a way to gain power as intelligence, an understanding of equality and so on. Girl Power is understanding that utilising your gender and sexuality can give you power and control and confidence, characteristics which have come to identify you as an ‘independent’ woman. I think that the post-feminist rebellion had to happen, but it seems to be an idea that is more and more used to justify a kind of female-ness that I think is quite backwards. The issue, as with any political or social argument really, is choice. In Buffy the story goes that the first slayer was physically tied to the power which made her a superhero, by men not brave enough to fight themselves, but powerful enough to force it onto someone defenceless. At it’s close, Buffy’s power is that she smashes destiny for the sake of winning a war, but you actually get the impression that she’s also a bit pissed off at having somebody (whoever it is) decide what she does with her life. Throughout the series Buffy goes from being a capable, but slightely dumb blonde girl, to growing into someone who understands enough to be able to make her own decisions about her life, and not live as others wish her to. She is liberated, but growing up she has her hang ups (which is universal), she is strong, but her strength alienates her at times and when she is weak, she is frightened in a way that girls are. The final episode demonstrates perhaps one of the most feminist things I’ve ever seen in my culture – the ability and struggle to fight against the men who’ve kept you down. However, because Buffy is a story, it’s universality shouldn’t alienate men because it is in essence a story about growing up. It’s central idea is of a girl growing up, yes, but does not concern the struggle between the sexes – it is a bigger war.

Here’s her final speech to her friends, teacher, and all the potential slayer’s:

BUFFY: I hate this. I hate being here. I hate that you have to be here. I hate that there’s evil and that I was chosen to fight it. I wish a whole lot of the time that I hadn’t been. I know a lot of you wish I hadn’t been, either. But this isn’t about wishes. This is about choices. I believe we can beat this evil. Not when it comes. Not when its army is ready. Now. Tomorrow morning I’m opening the Seal. I’m going down into the Hellmouth and I’m finishing this once and for all. Right now you’re asking yourselves what makes this different. What makes us anything more than a bunch of girls being picked off one by one? It’s true, none of you have the power that Faith and I do. So here’s the part where you make a choice.

(later on in the episode, just before the ubervamp army attacks, we flash back to the rest of this speech)

BUFFY: So here’s the part where you make a choice. What if you could have that power? now? In every generation one Slayer is born because a bunch of men who died thousands of years ago made up that rule. They were powerful men. (She points at Willow, who smiles nervously.) This woman is more powerful than all of them combined. So I say we change the rule. I say my power should be our power. Tomorrow, Willow will use the essence of the scythe to change our destiny. From now on, every girl in the world who might be a Slayer, will be a Slayer. Every girl who could have the power, will have the power. Can’t stand up, will stand up. Slayers? every one of us. Make your choice. Are you ready to be strong?

From ‘Chosen’ (Season 7)

I don’t think I really need to expound upon the speech, apart from to identify it’s most important word: CHOICE.

Cheesy to capitalise it, I know, but…

It is the main issue I have with current trends in understanding and discussing female-ness. To be honest, like our single and it’s controversial cover art, if everyone is happy then that’s fine. Bully for them. But I’ll not have my children grow up without choices, and if the current trend (I’m not naming examples until people ask me to, as there are too many) of suggesting that ‘this is what women are like’ (which is basic, but I spent ages trying to qualify it and I think someone else can do better) continues to saturate every form of media that I consume, then I don’t believe the choices available to (young) women will any longer be clear. I’ve had to go through the whole Whore or Goddess period I my life and I doubt that those options-as-ways-to-manipulate-for-power will ever leave me entirely, but I think that there are other choices, and this is why I started this.

There are loads more things I could say, and I expect people would like very specific answers to very specific questions, so feel free to ask them. I’ve also edited this first post several times, as those who know me will already know, because I’m pretty shitty at prose, but also because I wanted to try and fit everything I’ve thought about in the last couple of years into one post. But I’ll get to those things eventually 

In the meantime, everyone should read Ariel Levy’s ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’ as it is a very important American account of what is going on with women now, and why, and how, and all that. The best thing about it for me was drawing British parallels between her American examples.

I will post articles/ weird stuff I find/ art/ music/ links/ books and so on up here as I go on. I think you may need a blogspot account to comment eventually, but for now I’m leaving it open to anons.

Until then, then.

JI x

5 comments:

PC said...

I can't really comment much on Buffy, in regards to feminism or otherwise, since I've never watched it... but as for much popular culture (especially American) being tainted; I think there in fact is truth to that notion. I believe a lot of it is created without any artistic aspirations at all, only in order to make money. And to do so, they strip whatever they're making of any edge that might once have been there, anything that may provoke or offend or even engage intellectually, and reduce it to some lowest common denominator. It's evident in film, in television and in music. I quite enjoy dumb American popcorn blockbusters that have nothing to say and don't pretend to; it's when they're supposed to contain a "message" that warning bells start ringing. Because I know that said message has had to pass through financiers, advertisers, advisors, test audiences etc. etc. before being sanctioned.

OK, I'm a cynic (and undoubtedly something of a pretentious wanker)... and I'm generalizing; the above applies mostly to the corporate end of the entertainment business, where censorship is rife, and even there there are exceptions, loads probably. I hadn't pegged Buffy as one, but based on this, maybe it is. (I probably won't start watching to find out though ;-))

Oh, and I too appreciate the use of references to other films, books, art, theory etc. Quentin Tarantino does it all the time (the Kill Bill films being nothing but references), as an homage to his influences.

Anyway, glad to see this blog up finally, and sorry about first comment only relating to what was an aside :-/

Not sure what you meant about everybody being happy about the single and it's cover art though?

Julia Indelicate said...

I'll get onto the single and it's cover art soon ;)

that's nearly finished though, so i'll put it up once i've had another look through it.

ji xxx

Julia Indelicate said...

Oh, and i think that it's the challenge for a minority of artists/ film makers etc etc in America to make something commercially successful (ratings wise) but which also appeals to people because of its strong story or message, that makes a lot of it's art more impressive at the moment than at least that of the UK. It's a double edged sword really. Be popular to MOST people and have something to say? I think it's the universality of it that makes me fall to that side more than the specialist, smaller, less corporate cultural spheres.

But i've had liberal and lefty parents, so i was brought up not really being allowed to watch 'trash'. It took me YEARS to enjoy things like Pirates of the Carribean. Saying that, it took me years to actually sit down and watch Buffy, and it thoroughly changed the way i perceived the nature of popular culture. Popularity doesn't necessarily depend on who's backing it in America. There are other things that come through. In the UK, it's a little different i think. The 'alternative' arts paraded about in that rag The Guardian are more a means by which to maintain the idea that the paper champions arts from outside of the corporate/ popular, than actually exploring what is genuinely outsider art - and this happens just as much because of money as with multimillion dollar backed films. It's just less money.

Anonymous said...

You should read "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter" by Steven Johnson. Pretty self-explanatory title, it basically argues that popular entertainment (video games, TV etc) are becoming increasingly sophisticated to the extent that they can be morally and intellectually beneficial. I wouldn't go as far as Johnson but Buffy is definitely a good example of this theory in action.

The main strength of Buffy is probably the dialogue with it's "laughing in the face of danger" humour from Xander and Willow's self-effacing wit to Anya's hilarious inappropriateness but it's also impressive because it's one of the few TV shows that manages to maintain momentum and quality through 7 seasons (I actually prefer the later Anya, Tara and Spike era to the Cordelia, Oz and Angel era), there's always a sense that characters develop through experiences (unlike other American shows like Friends or even the more sophisticated Six Feet Under where characters either remain static or go round in circles) and it's motivations rarely seem cynical (for example, the relationship between Tara and Willow could have been just empty controversy mongering or ratings grabbing but it was actually handled very well).

As for the feminist themes in Buffy... Obviously, the idea in the beginning was to reverse the horror cliche that portrays women as passive victims but as Buffy's character matured and deepened and the audience grew used to seeing a tiny blonde girl beating up vampires and saving the world (a lot) I think it became more a matter of questioning what female power was by exploring the conflict between the primitive power and killer instinct of the slayer and the love, compassion and empathy of Buffy as a woman.

Can these two apparently disparate roles be reconciled? To become a powerful woman do you have to sacrifice your femininity like the Amazons who removed their breasts or Lady MacBeth who begged for her milk to be turned to gall? Do you have to emotionally desensitise yourself and embrace hypermasculinity?

Furthermore, is the only alternative form of power a woman can acquire without making this sacrifice this cynical post-feminist philosophy you describe in which women exploit their sexuality for material gain and accept pre-feminist ideas of female sexuality under the supposedly empowering but ultimately self-decieving banner of "I'm doing it for me"?

Buffy's creator, Joss Whedon seems to disagree. There's an episode in Season 5 in which Buffy meets the Original Slayer who tells her "Death is you gift." At first Buffy takes this negatively, assuming that it means that she was created to be an emotionless killer but later realises that it means she must sacrifice her life for her sister and, ultimately, the world. I guess this shows that what makes Buffy a hero isn't her incredible power but rather her capacity for love and self-sacrifice (although this is a pretty typical trait of superheroes, not restricted to Buffy just because she's a woman).

OK, I rambled a bit but I thought you might appreciate a comment about the feminist themes in Buffy rather than another deconstruction of the value of popular entertainment.

Julia Indelicate said...

Goods points all. Just a quick link before i fall into my nighttime (god, it's dark so early :( ) book.

Thanks to B for this link. http://www.atpobtvs.com/

ji x