In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer One Bit Shy <OBS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>>> Season Seven, Episode 1: "Lessons"
>
> I don't think Buffy's reaction was really out of character. There
wasn't
> time for anything but surprise and wondering what the hell is wrong with
him
> before the phone rang and the matters of the moment demanded attention.
True, Buffy had no time to think. They still found time for her to
tenderly part Spike's unbuttoned ****rt, though. And it wouldn't have
taken any extra time for her to flinch or pull away when Spike stroked her
face. No matter how shocked and confused she is at that moment, it feels
wrong that Buffy doesn't show any such reaction. That should have been
pure reflex (as it is in the next episode, when Spike accidentally touches
Buffy). This wasn't the right moment to get into the issues around
Spike's return, so the scene was instead intended to set the groundwork
for getting into it later, but it fails to hit all the necessary points.
A new viewer wouldn't even realize that Buffy and Spike parted on, um, bad
terms.
> Be that is it may, I still agree with you that it's unsatisfying to the
> audience. In character or not, there's still all the baggage left from
last
> season that isn't being dealt with. That's what people want to know
about.
> Not drive-by Buffy and obscure babbling from Spike that makes no sense.
> (Not to mention Spike's ghastly hair.)
Definitely unsatisfying. Lessons not only fails to deal with all that
baggage, which is understandable -- as you said, it's not time for that
yet, and sometimes delayed gratification is good. But it fails to even
*hint* at the baggage very much, which is disappointing. Of course anyone
who's seen S6 probably has that baggage in mind anyway, so Joss might have
thought the hints would be redundant. But IMO the lack of hints also
makes Buffy's part less in character.
> Someday I'd like to hear what Joss thinks about that. Though I think
I've
> seen some allusions to it. I think the question preceding what the
First
> wants is what the first (small "f") evil is. What's the core of evil?
One
> possible way to look at it is through judeo-christian culture, where the
> first sin is eating from the tree of knowledge. The knowledge obtained
is
> essentially knowing the difference between good and evil - or from
another
> point of view, realizing that choices matter. Now one might then see
evil
> as choosing evil - which is true enough. But just as im****tant would be
> failing to choose good. I get the impression that the latter concept is
> fairly im****tant to Joss's philosophy.
>
> Perhaps the greatest evil is holding people down (or holding oneself
down)
> so that they cannot or will not choose to be the best they can.
Slavery.
> Repression. Even conformity. All conspiring to hold people back. I
don't
> care to argue the point of what's actually the greatest evil, but
resistance
> to being held back is almost primal in people, and has been the
foundation
> of cultural movements - including ones that appear to have influenced
Joss.
> Especially the particular feminist idea of women's empowerment in the
face
> of a patriarchal society that BtVS as a whole and this season especially
is
> founded upon. So it makes sense to me that something along those lines
> would be the first evil that The First represents.
>
> If so, The First would probably be less interested in destroying the
world
> than in enslaving it. Which certainly would be a grand exercise in
power.
> And about controlling everybody's power. (Though killing is OK too - as
The
> First has conceded multiple times. After all, that also takes people's
> power away. It's just better when he gets to control it too.)
Some interesting thoughts about the first evil and the First Evil there.
I encourage you to bring this up again at the end of the season.
[Assuming I get this posted before then.] At first glance I'd say this
idea of disempowerment as the first evil could make a surprising amount of
sense out of the First Evil's actions in S7. "Surprising" because I
doubt ME had any fully thought out, consistent explanation for what the
First's nature and plans....
However, the idea of the First as the original source of evil still nags
at me, and I don't think any possible scheme could make that concept work.
If, for example, people couldn't have come up with murder or misogyny or
taking the last malomar in the box without the First, that undermines the
idea of free will, something that BtVS usually seems to favor. But if the
First's contribution was to provide free will, then logically it's the
First Good as well as the First Evil, yet its own behavior is definitely
on the evil side. Probably this is just one of those things best seen as
symbolic. The show tells us the First is the source of all evil because
it symbolizes the capacity for evil inherent in humanity.
Maybe its catchphrase "from beneath you it devours" is symbolic too, the
"beneath" being the dark side of human nature, the "devouring" being the
First preying on that dark side to drive people to despair. I like that a
lot better than my other, more literal interpretation, which is that it
means the First's ubervampire army is billeted in a cavern under the
ground.
>> I was recently reminded that there's at least one other famous man who
>> goes ****rtless almost as often as Spike:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk3lS2q9QGk
>
> Which of them do you imagine is more naturally vulgar?
Hmmm. Well, we shouldn't assume either one is *naturally* vulgar. I
suspect Spike's thuggish but seductive swaggering rebel persona and Iggy's
Dionysian rock-n-roll wild man persona are both conscious poses, to a
great extent. Iggy is probably more vulgar in the sense that vomiting and
rolling in broken glass onstage are more vulgar than just fighting and
killing people. But the real difference between the two is in the
cir***stances behind their ****rt allergy. Iggy chooses to go out on stage
****rtless. Spike, on the other hand, doesn't choose; instead ME just
*happens* to show us those moments when Spike chances to be half ****d.
BTW, I just posted the link to the Stooges at Madonna's hall of fame
induction 'cause it was topical. YouTube also has plenty of old footage
of Iggy and the Stooges back in their prime (mostly vomit- and
broken-glass-free). For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD_XCECbAEU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLCQU8iKalA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4hPnZUMBwA
)
>>> Season Seven, Episode 4: "Help"
>
> This season of BtVS emphasizes a lot the idea of being the best you can,
> which is very much akin to Angel's notion of champion and hero. BtVS
has
> also always shared the notion of perpetual warrior. And it's explored
> pretty often a sense of futility. It never ends. Is it worth it? But
even
> here in S7 where the notions get a little closer to AtS, I think there's
> still a huge difference. BtVS remains forever optimistic, seeking and
> finding triumph. Angel actually signs away his noble "destiny",
presumably
> because he thought it was a false one, and that he's forever consigned
to
> hell.
Come to think of it, even if Angel's shanshu-destiny was true, it's
*still* less optimistic than the BtVS approach. According to the
prophecy, Angel wins a couple of apocalyptic battles and becomes human
again, which is great for him personally -- but the condition of the world
itself would still be unchanged. Buffy at least gets to change the world.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
|
