What were your initial reactions to the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer? What did it add to your current understanding of vampire lore? What explicit rhetorical elements could you discern? Think about the ways in which the show attempted to appeal to you through reason, credibility, and emotions. In addition, consider the ways various rhetorical strategies were used.
What elements of culture were being critiqued in the episodes? How does this change your understanding of how monsters function in terms of social problems?
What elements of the show were confusing? How so?
Chris Lussier Buffy Blog
ReplyDeleteInitially I was very confused and did not think that I was going to like this show at all. However, I actually ended up being pretty interested in this plot. The appearance of the vampire coming out of the ground definitely took me for a loop. I have never seen a vampire depicted as such a gruesome creature. I was also very surprised to see Seth Green and the girl from American Pie were both in this show. I do not think that I really gained any knowledge about vampire lore from this episode. I think there were a lot of specific things that the producer did to make the viewers feel a certain way. For example, it was pretty obvious that Lily was going to bring some kind of mess upon Buffy. This was apparent because she was rough looking and very needy. One thing that really stuck out to me was when they went to go look for Ricky at the blood donation place and the nurse kind of gave an evil look and the camera was focused on her. I thought for sure that she was a vampire. I think the producer did that to show that something was fishy about her and maybe lead the viewers on. One rhetorical strategy that was used was characterization. This was used to show that Buffy was basically a badass when she broke into the hospital and when she beat up those guards down in that “dungeon” place. This show differs greatly from Nosferatu. Sex appeal and more action were used advantageously to lure viewers in. I am still not sure as to what those creatures were supposed to be? I am assuming vampires since Buffy “slays” them.
Not being familiar with the series, I was surprised with the appearance of the vampire being so unlike that of a human. I was even more startled to find out that Buffy was the person that physically slayed the vampires (with the help of her spear of course) because of her size and demeanor. My understanding of vampire lore was not changed from this show; however, I did find it fascinating that the vampires lived underground in the “Hellmouth”, allowing them to stay awake during the day without having to sleep in a coffin. This shows relevance to the importance of woman gaining more power in the social conditions of the 20th century. The town and Sunnydale High were dependent on Buffy Summers saving their town by slaying all of the vampires, which is a role typically played by a superior male. The show was appealing through emotions by making the storyline consist of an anxiety driven teenage cast struggling through similar issues as a usual high school student like the fear of fitting it, strict parents, bullies, and peer pressures. The elements of culture that were being critiqued in the episodes mainly had to do with teenage struggles. Buffy had to fight off the vampires, symbolizing the teenage struggles of the 1990’s. In the first episode Buffy kills several vampires but multiple vampires succeed in escaping her serious slaying talents just like how a teenager finds ways to overcome a tough class by fighting their way through the class while getting rid of the bully seems nearly impossible. Monsters function in terms of social problems by evolving with the anxieties of society. Minus the awful fashion of the show, I rather enjoyed it not finding myself confused by any aspects.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to Buffy the Vampire Slayer was how silly it was compared to Nosferatu. The Buffy episodes we watched were extremely nineties, complete with skateboards, grunge music, and cheesy one liners. Buffy was simpler in its rhetorical strategies because it’s a television show and not a movie or book. Buffy’s vampires were all good looking and sexually aggressive. The “good versus evil” theme is clearly defined and there are no grey areas. This appeals to the audience’s reason and credibility, since no one is going to side with the emotionless evil vampires. Buffy’s family and friends are shown a lot as an emotional appeal. All of the nineties stuff was used as an appeal to the audience at that time. The elements of culture that are being critiqued are the sexual aggressiveness of men and women. The answer given by the show was feminism and being pure of heart. Also being critiqued, though not as explicitly, is vanity. Cordelia is the popular girl, and she is obviously not one of the heroes yet. This changes my perception of how monsters represent problems because it’s so obvious on what is being critiqued. The element of the show I found the most confusing was how the popular girl could not believe in vampires by the end of the second episode! She watched Jesse turn into a monster, and he probably didn’t show up to school for the rest of the year! I feel like she could've been turned into a vampire, and she’d still wouldn’t have known what was going on. Someone needs to slap some sense into that girl.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to Buffy the Vampire Slayer was somewhat comical. Seeing Seth Green kicked in the face, in the opening scene just kind of put a smile on my face. Being a fan of the show Entourage where he plays himself and is depicted a straight asshole. If anything, this show took away from my respect of the vampires’ lore. They are shown (at least in this episode) as a middle aged man who selects his victims not by physical appeal but by vulnerability. Picking the weakest and easiest targets he can find. The major rhetorical elements I pick up on where regarding the youth of our nation, how they should be ignorant to their surroundings. The major theme I believe is a feminism empowerment. Portraying Buffy as THE vampire slayer, being able to do with ease what two men and two girls failed twice to. Also taking down an entire workshop from hell filled with guards almost singlehandedly. Not only is she physically strong but also mentally tough and independent, this shines when juxtapose with Lilly who she eventually takes under her wing and shows her the ropes. I think the show attempted to appeal to me by the age of the cast. They are approximately the same age, and show that alongside with their vampire situation they also have real world social problems typical of high school kids. The only part that I found as confusing were the conflicts between the librarian and the lady who I assumed was Buffy’s mother. This being the first episode I have ever seen I wasn’t sure if they had a past together or if them butting heads is just a reoccurring theme in the show.
ReplyDeleteI think that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was overall pretty entertaining, even though the acting was not the best and the actors didn’t look like they were in high school. The show did do a good job of creating suspense for the audience.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the vampires in the show are pretty close to what people would picture when they think of a vampire. They stalked people at night, had fangs, lived underground and could be defeated with a stake through the heart. I am not sure of the connection between vampires and religion, and only remember religion being mentioned twice in the show. Once when Buffy got the cross from Angel, and then again when she mentioned to Xander that holy water is good for fighting vampires (in the second episode).
I thought I feel like Buffy is symbolic of modern society’s idea of a teenager (more specifically, a girl); one that struggles to fit in at school and other social situations, and who seems to feel isolated from parents and teachers (Buffy’s mom is clueless as to what Buffy does in her spare time). I also think that it is not common for a girl to be the main character, or hero, of a t.v. show or movie, and in a way Buffy could be a role model to younger girls.
Initially I thought that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was going to be better than Nosferatu based on the fact that it had actual dialogue, was in color, and that Buffy was better looking than both Nina and Nosferatu. By the end of the two episodes I saw, I was interested in the plot more than I was for Nosferatu. Buffy added a lot to my current understanding of vampire lore, mainly by describing other weaknesses that vampires have besides sunlight. We see Buffy use stakes through the heart, crosses, garlic, and beheading to either kill or seriously wound the vampires. One of the counterpoints we see is the comparison between Buffy and the Master Vampire himself. We see not only a different usage of language between the two, we also see Buffy normally in well lit areas or wearing light clothing and the master vampire in the dark with a black outfit in nearly every scene. The show mainly attempted to use emotional appeal to its target audience. For example, when Buffy tries to go rescue Jesse, she says she has to because he is her friend. The elements of culture that were being critiqued by Buffy the Vampire Slayer were that women were generally seen as the weaker sex, but Buffy shows that women are just as useful as men. We see that monsters can be related to social situations because they often prevent us from seeing the truth, such as the case of gender discrimination, or creating the inability to work together such as when Buffy would not let Xander come find Jesse with her. The only part of the show that confused me was how the master vampire was able to receive power from his minions just because he put a symbol on their forehead.
ReplyDeleteInitially I did not assume that Buffy the Vampire Slayer would be as graphic as it was. Unlike Nosferatu, I knew this show would provide a color image, actual dialogue, and an attractive cast. As the show progressed, I realized how cheesy and predictable it was going to be. Although it was more entertaining than Nosferatu, I did not particularly enjoy the show. Otherwise, I was able to gain some vampire lore knowledge. I learned that not all vampires go without sleep. In the episode, Buffy’s ex-boyfriend told her sister that he “slept.” Also, vampires are depicted differently than they are in many other vampire movies. They were given distorted faces and green skin. From watching the show I was able to see elements such as women empowerment, good against evil, and teenage angst. Buffy is clearly a “superhero” in this show, a role almost always being filled by men in movies. It was quite refreshing to see the role being switched for once. The theme of good versus evil frequently reappeared throughout the show. Buffy, an obviously good person, is constantly keeping her friends and family from the harm of vampires which are, in almost all cases, the evil villains. Furthermore, Buffy’s love for her sister is very appealing to the viewers, shown through the elements of emotions and reason. For instance, Buffy is teaching her sister how to slay the vampires. She continually says “they [vampires] have the power, you don‘t.” I believe that Buffy is alluding to the fact that, as a human, she is defenseless against monsters. Also, I found it quite ironic that Buffy slays vampires but manages to “hang out” and form a relationship with the vampire, Spike. Sex appeal was one of the few cultural elements being critiqued in the episodes. Buffy is very attractive and quick-witted. She uses her looks and charm to win over the audience in order to make the show not as scary. The show was very straight-forward as far as its elements go. The themes are concise and make the show somewhat entertaining.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to Buffy the Vampire Slayer was the bad acting that was in it. There were a lot of points that the characters did not seem to act appropriate to what they were discussing. Although I was able to gather further insight into vampire lore, staking vampires through the heart was really emphasized in these episodes. It also introduced a new concept that I was unfamiliar with, slayers. I found the concept intriguing that there were select few people to save the world from vampires. One element I found intriguing was how they portrayed vampires. They only real difference between vampires and humans were the face. They have a very evil, animalistic face that could easily scare you. The show gave us a good amount of creditability by slowing introducing the concept of slayers to us as well as giving Buffy history in fighting vampires so its more believable. It also appealed to our emotions by giving us interactions with other characters to make everyone more personable. We were able to see several critiques in culture, one of which was how vampires could not go out in the day. It made us see that nighttime is full of terrors and evil and should be avoided at all costs. With this is mind we can see that it would be impossible for these vampires to interact with everyday people. Most people are out and about during the day and stay in at night, which would make big social problems for vampires. One of the most confusing elements to this show was the librarian and all his info into the vampire world.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to the show “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” was that I like this much more than the film “Nosferatu”. For one, it’s not a silent film, and there’s color! But what threw me off a little is that it was a bit gorier than I was expecting. The show didn’t really add to my understanding of vampire lore very much, I mean they are still just as creepy and ugly as they were in all the classics, and they do all the same things, although I think in the show they may have been even uglier than I have ever seen them portrayed before. The only thing that this show may have added to my previous knowledge is that, unlike the classics, the vampires in the show live in an underground setting most commonly known as “Hellmouth”. Because of this, I feel like (in this show) the vampires are much more “demons” or “devils” than they are actual vampires. This show sends a very strong message about women power, being that Buffy is the only slayer, and everyone is working for her. It was surprising to me that the producer chose a female figure to play the “hero” of Sunnydale, just for the sole reason that it is very rarely seen. The show created an array of emotions that I believe people our age can easily connect to. It took place in a normal high school, included normal people, who have normal problems, even Buffy when we first meet her, she is dealing with friends and which group she should choose to be in, even having problems with what outfit to wear before she goes out with her friends! And even after all of that, she still has one deep dark secret that she seems to well... try to hide from people. Lastly I was not confused by anything in the show, except for what the hell was going through the vampires heads when they got dressed in the morning.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to the television show Buffy, were the quality of the film and also the way they depicted vampires in comparison to Nosferatu. They both showed the vampires as very ugly people. In Buffy, vampires also have the ability to change from human to vampire. The film did not teach me much more about vampire lore; however i did learn that there are vampire watchers along with a slayer. I did not know there were people who would research about vampires and would be more knowledgable than the slayer. I also learned that they are able to tell the difference between a normal person and a vampire. The librarian showed more knowledge than Buffy did. This gave her insight to more. The episodes show many rhetorical strategies. One rhetorical strategy that was presented in Buffy was the contrast between dark and light. The vampires lived in "Hellmouth" which shows the dark in comparison to where the humans lived. This gives a clear difference between the monsters and humans. The episode critiqued culture through the "teacher". The teacher is showing how society takes teacher-student relationships lightly. Although the teacher is actually a bug/praying mantice, I think that this is showing the way that society has changed. This is showing that teachers that persue this act are monsters. Just as the lady teacher is a monster, so are the teachers who act the same way. Buffy also showed the stuggles that teenagers face. In Buffy the vampire slayer, the monsters are beneath them and I think this shows that we live on our monsters and worries. It symbolizes how although we do not know the monsters are there, they always seem to haunt us. The most confusing part of the episodes was the teacher/praying mantice. I do not understand how the vampires and the lady were connected. One of the vampires knew where the lady would be and I don't know how they would connect to that level.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction was that I was struggling to understand the plot and characters since I'd never seen the show before. The episode further perpetuated some of the common themes we've discussed regarding the lore of vampires. I thought it was interesting when Buffy would reinforce to her sister that vampires had the power. To me, she was implying more of a psychological power rather than physical, since obviously the vampire was bigger than the two of them. My impression was that Buffy could exert physical strength against the vampires because she had mastered how to be psychologically stronger. As far as rhetoric goes, I was surprised that so much emphasis was put on Buffy being mistaken for a middle-aged woman and having "mom hair" since we'd discussed that the series centered on feminist themes. I think a lot of the most overt sexism that exists in mainstream society occurs surrounding the theme of aging. I felt that particular rhetoric was a cultural critique both implied and overt. Additional commentary could be made surrounding the good looking male monster and the three very deformed-looking ones. Buffy only seemed to be interested and sympathetic to the one that looked most human. I feel I'd need to watch more of the series to be able to understand how this relates to social problems. Generally speaking, I think a lot of "physically undesirable" people get ignored and marginalized while "beautiful" people gain attention and have their needs met. On the surface, I'd say that's what was occurring in the episode.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching two episodes of Buffy, I must say that I’m a little skeptical that the writers were attempting to create much more than an entertaining show aimed at late 90s teens. The writers succeeded in communicating their likely distain for the shallow stereotypical status obsessed girls and the lame pickup line spewing guys of the era in a moderately comedic manner. The profuse pop culture references (the meaning of many completely escaped me probably because my parents didn’t even have TV in the 90s), would have appealed to 90s teens and helped them relate to the characters. The critique made of late 90s relationships was at times humorous but there was an underlying seriousness that was subtle. The scene when Willow says, “aren’t boys more interested in a girl who can talk?” and Buffy responds, “you really haven’t been dating have you?” is a blatant stereotype but in many cases absolutely true. The more subtle critique came when Willow met what seemed to be a nice guy and he turned out to be a monster (more specifically a vampire). This was a fairly clever critique of an era in which marriages were failing in record numbers. I probably missed some other things the writers were trying to communicate, but overall the plot was simplistic and easy to follow.
ReplyDeleteMubarak Alshammary
ReplyDeleteI do not have any initial reaction toward the television show “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” because the author made a good introduction about the show in the beginning of the first episode. According to those episodes, several things was added to my current understanding of the vampire lore such as they can can be fed remotely by embodying another vampire through religious rituals, so that the master of the vampires lore strengthens his weak body. There are many of rhetorical elements and strategies have been shown in these two episodes. For example, in the very beginning of each episode aids with “foreshadowing” when a brief introduction with scenes that are going to happen later on in the episode and what happened in the previous episode. Another example of rhetorical elements and strategies is “counterpoints” at the beginning of the first episode when the young girl and the young man were breaking in the school, the first thing came to my mined is that the vampire is the man because he was so anxious, also the girl was afraid, however, I was shocked when the girl sucked his blood. Also, knowing that the majority of the author audience are Christians, the appeals to pathos was expressed in these episodes by what the cross symbolizes when Buffy was rescued from the vampire bite when he touched the cross. There are many elements of culture were being critiqued in the episodes such as how young people are anxious abut sex and power.
I am not sure how to comment on a post so I am just going to do it this way.
ReplyDelete@ Will Yellott’s post
I really like your comment about Willow and Buffy’s conversation pertaining to dating in this era. It most certainly stereotypes men as being misogynistic and only caring about the appearance of women. I actually do happen to agree with this statement at during this time period. Especially how the producers depicted the men in this movie, always trying to get the “hot” girls. There was also extreme feministic point of view as Buffy is the main character/hero.
During the opening sequence, I believe that I fell victim to the storyteller’s intent to have the audience expect that the vampire to be male. I was sitting there watching and stating to myself, “How do these girls always fall for the monster’s trap of getting them alone?” I became surprised and amused when the “innocent-looking” girl turned out to be the vampire as this was welcome change of pace. This show’s vampire lore follows most modern expression of vampires except most state that if you are bitten but not killed you are a vampire. This lore describes that one must drink the blood of the vampire. That implies that there is a free will decision to becoming a vampire. This relates how Jesse considered himself powerless and alone; he would choose to become a vampire to gain power over those he believe to be oppressing him. The first episode uses foreshadowing when showing the images of Buffy’s dream with the vampires walking through the cemetery. I am not sure if it was intentional but the episodes critique how shallow adolescent socialization can be. As an example of this, Buffy was initially befriended by Cordelia and was quickly dismissed after one outside of the norm behavior from Buffy. I will admit I probably would change my posture towards a person if I was almost staked, but I would at least ask why. I felt that the show did not adequately describe how the Master was stuck in the pool of blood and surrounded in a force field. Also, stated that he was only allowed to leave once a century with the harvest, but at the end of episode two it seems that he will be making serial attempts to get out. I guess it would not be much of a series if the audience was only exposed to this ultimate evil once.
ReplyDeleteI am with lussiecj. I am not sure how to post a response to a previous in this blog either.
ReplyDelete@ Alyssa Juhnke's Post:
When watching the two episodes, I also got the “90210 feeling”; that the actors are too old to portray the characters that they were depicting. A couple of the teenage characters were played by actors that were nearly 30! I would like to expand on your comment about how society’s view of women at the time of the show displayed their isolation. The show displayed a woman that is empowered and independent which eventually lead her to be and outcast by the popular peers. These traits contrast with high school students’ view that girls should belong in clicks and behave as part of a particular class. Those not part of a troop will be shunned by the other high school students. I would also like to add that the images of demons as shown in the vampire book had religious undertones. At the time of the broadcast of the TV show, I do not remember if there were any other vampire movies or shows that had woman displayed other than the “damsel in distressed” or a midnight meal for the vampires. This show was definitely broke away from the mold for the genre.
Response to Emily J. Miller’s blog post…
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you talked about how Buffy was psychologically stronger than the vampires but that wasn’t the only way she defeated them she also had to master the physical part of it. Also I have to say Buffy DID look a little old to be playing the part she was given. But more than anything, I think that the mean girl, Cordelia, looked ten times older than Buffy and definitely didn’t resemble that of a high school teenager. Also I don’t agree with you when you said, “I think a lot of "physically undesirable" people get ignored and marginalized while "beautiful" people gain attention and have their needs met.” I for one, don’t believe that is always true, and second, I feel that, that was not what was going on through out the show. Although he was (if I remember correctly) the only attractive looking vampire on the show, I think Buffy was attracted to him because of a few reasons. 1) He did look the most human, so I’m sure there was something comforting about that. 2) He didn’t really try and attack her or anything like the other “ugly” vampires did.
Response to Allyson Yukawa…
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when when you talked about that the film did not teach us much more about vampire lore. The only new thing I was able to take away the the concept of the slayers and their purpose. The rest seemed like the same old stuff to me. I also liked how you said the rhetorical strategy was light versus dark, with Buffy being the light and the vampires of hell mouth being the dark. I had not thought of this before. I also liked how you referenced that we live on our monsters and fears since hell mouth is beneath us. Overall i thought you made some very good points in your blog and I took a lot away from it.
In response to Meredith:
ReplyDeleteI agree, the show was really cheesy at times. I just keep thinking of when Xander fell off his bike when he saw Buffy, and all of the one liners that were used throughout the show. It really almost made it comical rather than scary.
I also think that the show was suspenseful at certain moments but knowing that there were a ton of episodes to come, it was hard for me to really get into it. I knew that Buffy was going to be the heroine once again and be just fine in the next episode.
In response to Emily:
I really liked what you said about the feminist and aging theme. There is a lot of emphasis on the feminist message, and I think that it is obvious what the show is trying to get across to the audience concerning feminism. I also think that the show could be trying to say something about aging and the idea that people who are physically attractive get more attention than people who aren’t. I agree that people who look more appealing tend to be noticed and get more attention. If we compare Cordelia and Willow, for example, we see that Cordelia gets more attention because male characters (like Jesse) think she is attractive.
In response to Dani-
ReplyDeleteI agree when you said that it is much better than Nosferatu. The language was plain and simple and did not have to be translated through emotion. It helped make things easier to understand. I also thought that it was better because the problems faced were easier to relate to as you stated. Throughout the film, I did not realize how gory the film was; however, in comparison to Nosferatu anything would be considered gory. I think you made a good point when you said that the vampires are portraying demons and devils. I did not think of it like this and I think it is a good insight. Because the vampires live in "Hellmouth" they are showing a demon side. This could play into our monster outlook. The vampires are showing a bigger fear. I also think this is a good film that is easy to connect with. Buffy and the others have problems that regular people have which brings others to watch. In all, I think that the post brought much insight and allowed for other reactions and deeper meanings to be understood.
In response to Markus Hawkins' post:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your initial reaction about the bad acting, especially at the end after one of their friends has died along with a couple other people. They are just way to spunky at that point. I think the poor acting is because it was the first episode of the series and it was still trying to find its rhythm. Also this episode took place in the nineties when cheesy one-liners were probably television gold. I agree that Slayers are the most unique part of Buffy in that they are always young women. I find it surprising that Buffy tries to appeal more towards female audiences considering most monster movies lean more towards men. I agree that the show made the characters very emotionally appealing, since the characters have to be good enough to make audiences watch the show every week. I think that the show not only warns against going out at night, but also against going to clubs in general. Both nights Buffy goes there people are threatened.
In response to Emily Miller...
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of your statements and although I could get a sense of the basic plot (Buffy is supposed to destroy the vampires since she is the slayer), it was hard to keep the characters straight at times and I don’t know how they could of continued the series since the Master Vampire only had the chance to escape every century. I did not notice Buffy saying that statement to her sister, but I agree; after all we see not only Buffy kill vampires, we also see Xander kill one as well. Although Buffy is mistaken for a middle-aged woman, could it possibly be the directors way of showing that she could “bridge the generational gap” that was discussed in the article we had to read about the Buffy series? Finally, you make an interesting point on how Buffy the Vampire Slayer relates these vampires to social problems. I generally thought that it dealt with the sexism that was present (that women were generally seen as the “weaker” sex) at the time, but your statement is another way to look at it that makes sense as well. I
Having never seen this show, I was actually surprised that I enjoyed it. This was the first time I had ever seen the theory of a having to suck a vampires blood in return to become one. Overall, this stuck close to my ideas on vampire lore (i.e, the traditional ways of killing a vampire by wooden stake to the heart or sunrise). The vampires in this show were different than I genrally picture. The shape-shifting was different than I had seen before, in the sense that the vampires look like average people until they are ready to feed. The idea of an underground "lair" was different for me also.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the show would appeal to myself and other people of my age by the type of characters and the way they are portrayed. The show used humor to draw in viewers, along with the feeling that Buffy is an everyday girl, who happens to slay vampires. By showing the other aspects of Buffy's life, viewers start to relate to Buffy on a different level than they would if they just saw her dealing with the vampires.
I think that one of the aspects of culture and society that was being critiqued in this show was definately the youth. It shows Cordelia as the "catty" character, and I think that this is poking fun at how youth in our society behaves and interacts with one another. This is especially seen when Cordelia is rude to Willow at the water fountain, and Buffy fails to stand up for Willow at this time.
@Marcus Hawkins
ReplyDeleteYour take on the night is very interesting. The thought of the vampires not being active in the day completely slipped me, especially in the case of Jesse. That will put a damper on his social life! It is a good relation to vampires in the night and the "terrors" that occur after dark.
@ The Kersean Rozier
I completely agree about the beginning of the first episode. I thought the exact same thing about how girls always fall for the bad guys. I was also somewhat confused about the Master and exactly how that worked. I can absolutely see how Cordelia is so shallow, especially when she completely flipped on how she treated Buffy. I think that Cordelia was generally there to critique and poke fun at youth.
In response to what Jon said...
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that there is a theme of women empowerment throughout the show. Clearly no other man is able to do her job as "slayer," thus making her superior to men in that aspect. As far as typecasting and the script were concerned it added more comical relief than anything. I also agree that the show appeals to viewers our age by casting people close to our age.
Response to Dani:
ReplyDeleteI, too think it's interesting getting to see a more modern depiction of vampires and to have the experience of examining how the depiction of vampires has changed and remained the same. I think you make a compelling argument about the "demons" and "devils" references. The vampires reminded me of ghosts more than necessarily vampires, simply because they were able to disappear and reappear at whim. Since I know so little about vampires, it could very well be a common trait that they can vanish and reappear at will.
I agree with you that "normal" people were portrayed with "normal" problems. Buffy was clearly worried about her sister being socially accepted in high school. I had not thought about this until I read your posting, but the writers could have been critiquing how over-protective and controlling many parents are. I do believe it is rather common in our culture for parents to be constantly trying to protect their children from all pain. Maybe Buffy's need to remain at the school had something to do with parents trying to keep the "demons" of the world away from their children at all times.
@ Dani
ReplyDeleteI really liked the point you made about the vampires being more demon like then vampiric. Also the connection you talked about with Buffy being like a normal teenager beside her double life. But I don't necessarily agree with your statement that having color makes a show or especially movie more interesting.
My initial reaction to this show was that it was a new twist on some old vampire traditions and the continuations of others. I also find it important to mention that I watched this show very little when it was airing on TV. The first episodes of this show added to my understanding of vampires, the idea of a single slayer of vampires, the idea of a imprisoned, all powerful leader of vampires, and the idea that vampires are the remnants of the blood of demons mixed with humans. This show seems to apply to people who not only enjoy monster movies/shows but also to the near high-school-age viewers with its high school atmosphere. It also uses the characterization of a heroine to draw in a crowd that might be different than the normal. A more feminine audience is what I’m implying. Also, the writer and director use a tone that is a combination of humor, world-ending problems, and high school angst to draw in not only fans of comedy, but also fans of drama and fantasy.
ReplyDeleteThe element of being an ignorant teen is being critiqued in these first few episodes. This is a somewhat interesting way of looking at the monster. It is a message to the viewer, similarly to “Nosferatu,” that they are an ignorant person and that there is an evil in the world they are unaware of. However, in this show, it is presented that teens are the ones who are ignorant, and as a norm, and stated in the show itself, teens are always saying that everything “is the end of the world” to them and in this show it’s true.
@MeganWeyant Well, it’s good to know you’ve left the door open to enjoying something you’ve never seen. Yes, the writers do seem to be critiquing the superficiality of high school interactions in an almost sarcastic manner. However, many of the stereotypes about modern high school that showed up were often not very far removed from the truth. A decent number of people (not just high school kids) only care about the appearance and social status of their peers rather than the content of their character (I thought I’d use that terminology just because it’s MLK day). I’d make some suggestions about the wording in your post but I’m not an English teacher.
ReplyDelete@Chris, I think everyone begins thinking the way you did, but yes it does begin to be entertaining. I think if you got into the series, you would see that its actually very entertaining and even maybe helpful.
ReplyDelete@ Alyssa Juhnke post:
ReplyDeleteI truly agree with you that the show was entertaining, despite that the acting seems to be not professional and the cast are not exactly expressing teenagers in the physical appearance as well as some of the cosmetic that were used at the show. It seems that they act as if they were reading from a paper, it does not feel natural, especially Willow, she always talks as if she was hypnotized. Also, Xander wants to act as a goofy person but I think he did not succeed. I do not quite agree with your comment about how religion and vampires are expressed in the show, because many times the cross is being used to scare and push vampires away, so religion is being shown as a protector from vampires. I think that a feminism role is being pictured very well in the show. I agree with you that Buffy show is kind of new concept of heroes in the television shows. Despite that she is rude, she is a good role model to girls.
My initial reaction to Buffy the Vampire Slayer was one of shock. I was shocked that it was not as bad as I was almost certain it would be. It was definitely cheesy, for lack of a more appropriate word; however, it was less predictable than I would have presumed. First of all, it did not change my current understanding of vampire lore much, other than adding the most unlikely of heroes to the mix: a pretty high school teenager, and in the film by the same name, she was also a cheerleader (I don’t know if she becomes one later on in the show), which further places a societal stereotype on her, which she often rebels from. It also provides a similar Nosferatu-style of depicting the vampire as a hideous monster rather than a smooth aristocrat. As far as the rhetorical elements and cultural critiques explored throughout the show, the first thing that is rather obvious is how it plays off of different stereotypes. It remains devoted to some, such as the prototypical snobby and popular “high school social queen,” Cordelia Chase, who is conveniently introduced simultaneously as her teacher is explaining the “black plague,” concluding the lesson by stating, “it spread to Rome and North, and this popular plague led to what social changes? “ Just then the bell rings and it cuts to Cordelia taking a social interest in Buffy. Another stereotype upheld is the prototypical “nerds” in the characters of Xander and Willow. What is far more interesting, however, is how the show deviates from other stereotypes, which delightfully surprises the viewer, and requires analyzing to find its meaning. The introduction to the show is of two teenagers breaking in to their high school, a place that teenagers usually try to get away from, and an unthreatening, squeaky-voiced school girl turns into a vampire and kills the darkly-dressed, leatherjacket-wearing “tough-guy.” This opposes the expected sequence by reversing the stereotypes, the pretty and naïve school girl is supposed to be the victim, not the aggressor, and it sets the stage for all of the misconceptions that the show intends to address and then deviate from. Buffy chooses the “nerds” over the “cool kids,” she moves from Los Angeles to get away from vampires and ends up in their backyard so-to-speak, and it largely switches the roles of adult and adolescent. In this show teenagers know best, not adults. Buffy points out the vampire in the club, not Mr. Giles who has travelled thousands of miles to help her with such quandaries. Buffy’s mom politely and submissively asks her “please try not to get kicked out of school” rather than telling her not to. The one instance where she appears to be in obvious danger, when a tall dark stranger is stalking her down a quiet lonesome road, it turns out to be the opposite of a threat, instead rather it is Angel, the one vampire worth knowing. Buffy is a high school teenager, whose world is supposed to be consumed with looks, boys, friends, popularity, and whatever else high school girls think about, but where this perception is based on a cultural stereotype, Buffy refuses to play the part and in many instances she acts in opposing fashion to the cultural norms, and her teenage world instead becomes consumed with vampires and saving all of humanity. The show links Buffy’s moral decision to fight vampires to the moral problems that a high school adolescent is bound to face, and Buffy’s decision to connect with the morally sound “nerds” over the immoral “popular kids” is just a small example of how she admirably excels. Go Buffy! Sean S.
ReplyDeleteI found the use of rhetorical appeals in Buffy very interesting. I thought it was particularly fascinating that the show almost seemed to be intentionally defying any attempt at using logos. The only times that there is any effort at an explanation, they were vague at best. For example, Buffy describes the creation of vampires by saying, “It’s like a whole big sucking thing.” There is a similarly unconvincing attempt made to justify the existence of so many supernatural creatures coming to Sunnydale. Giles simply says, “I believe this whole area is the center of mystical energy, that things gravitate towards it that you might not find elsewhere” and that is it. No one questions him or asks why. The characters all seem willing to accept anything, no matter how illogical. This is evidenced further in the end of the second episode, when the entire school seems convinced that the fight in the Bronze was just two rival gangs. Although this is lampshaded by Giles’ comment that people can rationalize or forget things that they can’t comprehend, it does not explain how not a single person notices or questions Jesse’s disappearance.
ReplyDeleteA slight attempt is made at using ethos. This is mostly done in the form of the library and the fancy, leather bound books that it contains. The mere fact that the book that Giles hands to Buffy is so old and important looking, plus the fact that the title is spelled “Vampyr” and not the current and more common “vampire”, seems to suggest that the information is somehow more reliable. The entire character of Giles can also be seen as an attempt to establish credibility. He is clearly intelligent and has some of the typical markers of an intellectual authority figure. For example, he is dressed in a suit, wears glasses, worked as a museum curator, and is British. Even though this may seem ridiculous, if you were to picture him differently, for instance wearing sweatpants and speaking with a southern accent, he would not be as convincing.
The appeal that Buffy really relies on is pathos. The show actively tries to provoke an emotional response from the audience. It does this by displaying a lot of raw emotions. Most notably is the fact that when most of the characters are in danger, they scream loudly and make their fear known. The show also invokes pity by portraying a lot of the characters in a somewhat pathetic way. This is most obvious with Willow and Xander. They are both clearly unpopular and have incredibly low self esteem. When Buffy tells Willow that she’ll be right back, Willow replies, “Oh that’s okay, you don’t have to come back.” And when Xander tries to talk to Buffy, he turns into, by his own admission “a babbling idiot.” Finally, it is clear that the audience is supposed to empathize in some ways with Buffy. She faces a lot of challenges that everyone experiences, although to an exaggerated extent. She has a mom and teachers that don’t understand her, is under pressure to conform and be popular, and has responsibilities that she doesn’t want. She is in some ways, an everyman.
Though I had never watched an episode of Buffy prior to the assignment, I had certainly heard about the show and was pretty certain that as one of our classmates said, it would similar to "90210, but with vampires." Indeed, as I sat down to watch the first episode, I was struck by just how many of the characters were modeled after stereotypes. It certainly brought to mind Barthes, who in his article wrote that the wrestlers act in a such way "that the “public is overwhelmed with the obviousness of the role.” Indeed, the majority of the characters that we encounter in the first two episodes seem to adhere to their predetermined roles and "go exactly through the motions which are expected of him." Though this may appear to be a tired technique, it is in fact crucial to the success of the show. The more that the background resembles our accepted and normal view of things, the easier it is for the audience to focus on the main character, who seemingly defies all stereotypes. The focus of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, as the title suggests, is Buffy, not the vampires, and as such, this idea also resonates in the description and behavior of the vampires, who by all accounts follow the widely accepted role of the vampire.
ReplyDeleteI have always considered monsters of any kind to be frightening and their only purpose was to scare people. It is quite interesting to me to see all of the underlying issues one can place in a teen vampire television show. The first scene where the blonde, innocent looking girl and the jock guy are looking for a place to make out quickly takes a turn for the worse. While the male is attempting to persuade the female to go to the top of the gym she suddenly turns into a very grotesque looking vampire and bites his neck, presumably sucking the life out of him. This can be interpreted as an act of female self-defense causing the monster within us to come to life. The female had indicated to the male that she did not want to go up the stairs but he continued to persuade her to go up there anyway. It was when they were about to kiss that she paused and claimed she heard a noise. After he took his attention off of her and onto the noise, a distraction, she attacked.
ReplyDeleteOne element of culture that was presented in the episode, which almost every viewer can relate to, was Buffy’s transition into a new school and the pressures placed on her to properly fit in. At some point in life, everyone is placed in this very position. Obviously you want to make a good impression and be liked by your peers. This does not seem to be the case with Buffy. In history class, Buffy meets Cordelia Chase, a pretty and popular student. After talking with Buffy, Cordelia decides she will fit in with her social circle. As Cordelia is attempting to give Buffy advice on how to navigate Sunnydale High School she warns her to avoid the nerds of the school, Willow and Xander. When Buffy ignores Cordelia’s advice and befriends these so called “nerds,” she gives up the ease of being popular and voluntarily signs herself up to be considered a nerd as well. I believe the message here is: committing social suicide is not as bad as missing out on great friends regardless of who they might be.
This, along with the obvious fact that Buffy is a vampire slayer, makes the audience think that Buffy is a strong, heroic person. The fact that she is a female teenager is even better. This show empowers young women and gives them a positive role model to look up to. Buffy does not care what others think; she marches to the tune of her own drum. Buffy is showing other girls that it is ok to be independent and stand up for what you believe in. I believe the message here is: committing social suicide is not as bad as missing out on great friends regardless of who they might be.
As one of the pop culture creations, Buffy is nothing but a cheesy mediocre work, undistinguishable in the myriad of pulp TV shows. Placed under the microscope of academic discourse, however, it reveals dimensions not seen with the naked eye. What immediately stands out is the show’s explicit rhetoric. Such rhetorical elements as credibility and reason are epitomized in the characters Giles and Willow. A former curator of the London museum, Giles is versed in history and teaming up with Willow, a bright geek, they radiate expertise, which leaves little doubt in their assertions. Be it as it may, the show’s main attraction is its emotional appeal. Buffy conjures Barthe’s justification of wrestling as a theatrical spectacle. Similarly, Buffy’s exaggerated stereotypes attract viewers from the start. Barthes writes, “But what wrestling is above all meant to portray is a purely moral concept: that is justice” (8). Indeed, we long for the evil vampiric monsters to be defeated once and for all, to make them pay for hurting teens. And yet, had Buffy destroyed them all in the first episode, we would have not been fully satisfied. Ultimately, it is not the final victory that lures us but rather the process. For instance, Barthes notes that the “orgy of evil” is what makes “good wrestling” and not the fact of victory (10). That is why Buffy continues battling the vampire orgy for several seasons. Highly stereotypical, the characters arise as easy to project on real world, and viewers easily engage in the vampire drama and follow its entanglement with particular zest.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Emily’s comment about stereotypes in the show, and I love the link to Barthes, one I had not even thought of. It appears that all of the characters in the show, other than the main one, are labeled with distinct and often-repeated stereotypes, and they remain quite faithful to them (throughout the first two episodes at least). Buffy on the other hand plows through the stereotype created for her. This seems like a clever ploy to simultaneously ease the audience into the show by providing easily recognizable characters and story structures, situations where an astute television watcher will know what to expect, and then it catches them off guard when it becomes apparent that any character in the show can all of a sudden become a vampire and wreak havoc around the town. Furthermore, Buffy’s complete obliteration of the stereotype assigned to her, contradicts the viewers prefixed perception, and turns a certain world of stereotypes into one of complete mystery; for you never know what high school kid could actually be a vampire. The fact that the main character opposes the stereotype assigned to her makes a viewer skeptical about all of the characters, and consequently, many aspects of the show in general. Jeffery Jerome Cohen may argue that the faithful stereotypes along with Buffy’s abilities are the attractive aspects for the viewers, while the vampires project the more repulsive qualities, however, because the vampires break laws, kill without hesitation, and seem to be free to act out their desires, aside from when in the presence of Buffy, they can actually justify the notion that they are fulfilling our own projected desires as well. To contrast that, Buffy’s deviation may also be construed as repulsive. Confusing? Such a claim would support Cohen’s Thesis that “fear of the monster is really a kind of desire” (p.16). The show may also lend support to Steven T. Asma’s claim that “Good monster stories can transmit moral truths to us by showing us examples of dignity and depravity without preaching or proselytizing” (p. 3). The show is not at all preachy and Buffy always seems to act morally admirable in social situations, when fighting vampires, and when measuring personal crisis against achieving the greater good. John Stuart Mill would be proud to know her. Sean S.
ReplyDeleteIn his January 14 comment, Sam Onusko’s initial impression of the show is that it critiques “cultural elements” like “sexual aggressiveness of men and women” and “vanity”. Sam continues that the obviousness of criticism changed his “perception of how monsters represent problems”. I have a slightly different take on this. In my opinion, the show employs very explicit stereotypes to depict both monsters and victims with the purpose to not criticize but rather prompt the viewers to evaluate their actions and make the final judgment. Let us consider Rabb and Richardson who claim in their article “Myth, Metaphor, morality and Monsters…” that “… what is presented on the screen is an indirect form of argument in which hypothetical cases are imagined and various ways of dealing with them considered” (1). What the show does is it creates stereotypes that we by inertia expect to act in a specific way, but when they don’t, we learn there are alternatives to socially predetermined paths. For instance, the seeming female victim in the opening scene turns out to be a transgressor. This makes us doubt the preconceived notion that a female is always a vulnerable victim. Their status of a villain and of a victim is tentative due to their unexpected interaction. The show also magnifies and exposes our stereotypical thinking when it makes predicted connections. One of them is the guy wearing a tacky shirt with a flower patter at the “Bronze”, whom Buffy immediately identifies, and rightfully so as it turns out, to be a vampire. Or consider the pictured means to destroy vampires – stakes, crosses, garlic, and holy water; we are very familiar with them from the previous vampire works. In this relation, Buffy reminds of the movie Scream, which compiles and collectively mocks a number of horror movies that contain so many stereotypes. In other words, perhaps the more accurate way to put what the movie aspires to do is not criticize but rather expose and reveal our thinking patterns, oftentimes erroneous.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Emily and Sean’s argument that all of the characters are stereotypical, mainly in the case of Cordelia. I think that her character is more in line with the tradition that Luba points out of defying stereotypes. Although there are certainly clichéd aspects of Cordelia, she is not a one-dimensional character. As Rabb and Richardson say in “Myth, Metaphor, Morality and Monsters”, Whedon often “(uses) the findings of cognitive science to expose, examine, and explode negative stereotypes.” This is what he is doing with Cordelia. Although on the surface, she may seem to be formulaic, Whedon is asking us to scrutinize her character and the stereotype that she seems to represent critically. Upon closer examination, Cordelia actually possesses many decidedly un-stereotypical traits. For example, one reoccurring cliché of the popular, cheerleader type crowd seems to be how two faced they are. This can be seen very clearly in movies like Mean Girls, most obviously in the scene where Regina George compliments another girls skirt and asks where she got it, then immediately after turns to her friend and calls it the “ugliest f-ing skirt (she’s) ever seen.” Cordelia completely subverts this trope by saying exactly what’s on her mind. When she insults Willow’s outfit, she does it openly and to her face. She doesn’t sugarcoat her meaning and she makes no pretenses of being nice. In a show filled with people both speaking cryptically, like Angel does in almost every single sentence, and keeping secrets, like the main character’s do with their knowledge of the supernatural, Cordelia is alone in being completely honest.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Cordelia, who it seems is supposed to be a sort of antagonist, actually has a lot in common with the hero, Buffy. There seem to be very intentional parallels drawn between the two of them. While the act of mocking Willow’s clothes seems especially cruel, it should be noted that Buffy does the same thing in the same episode. It could be argued that Buffy originally only remarks on the outfit because she’s using it to identify a vampire, but that line of reasoning doesn’t explain why she would bring it up again when talking to the vampire. The only difference is that Cordelia says it to one of the good guys and Buffy to one of the villains. Cordelia’s comment is, “Willow, nice dress! Good to know you’ve seen the softer side of Sears.” Buffy later says, “Okay, first of all, what’s with the outfit? Live in the now, okay? You look like DeBarge.” The tones and comments themselves are far too similar to be considered coincidence. Both even follow a similar format; start with a sarcastic remark and then make a pop culture reference.
As we discussed with Nosferatu, authors often use two characters to represent two halves of one whole, as Murnau did with Orlok and Hutter. Cordelia and Buffy can also be viewed in this way. On the one hand, she is everything that Buffy can never be. She is almost the personification of the perfect popular girl. She is pretty, dresses well, has friends, and is implied to be dating. She seems to have the ideal, ordinary life. This is directly opposed to Buffy who, despite being an attractive, nice, and smart person, can never have that normalcy. The two characters are also at opposite ends of the spectrum in that Cordelia is the damsel in distress and Buffy is the hero. When Cordelia is in danger, she screams. When Buffy is in the same situation, she does martial arts, makes witty insults, kills the bad guy, and brings down the whole evil vampire organization. Cordelia is more than just the traditional mean, popular bimbo; she is a criticism of that stereotype and a foil to Buffy.
I agree with Chris on the part that the show is very obvious. Every time a new episode starts, you know who is going to bring the mess upon Buffy. On the other hand, there are some other shows (for example, Lost) where it takes you quite some time to realize who is the source of the conflict. If fact, it might take you many episodes to find that out.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few reasons that contribute to why this show is very obvious. The first reason is bad acting. The second and main reason is the way show is directed. Also, the show seems obvious based on what the producer wants to concentrate on. Producers generally choose to focus on either acting or content; in this case, it is very clear that the producer was trying to concentrate on the story’s content. I also strongly agree with Chris’s point that we don’t gain any knowledge about vampire mythology by watching these episodes.
The show Buffy portrays problems that are very similar to issues that we face these days. Every day when we listen the news, we hear various ugly and scary stories. The news reminds us of all the horrible things that happen in the world: the rape of a woman in our own neighborhood, the kidnapping of children worldwide, pointless murders, a major terrorist attack at the Moscow airport, not to mention the economic recession of the past few years. All these problems were created by different kinds of real-life vampires, people who prey on weak or helpless victims. The actions of these vampires puts the rest of us in great danger.
ReplyDeleteThese real-life issues relate to Buffy. Every episode seems to incorporate different problems connected to historical background, and sometimes the same vampires come back to battle Buffy. It’s similar to real life, because in reality we encounter the same kinds of villains again and again — suicide bombers, serial killers, or professional bank robbers. Some people are released from prison, only to become more skilled as a criminal. Or in the case of terrorism, even if some terrorists are killed or imprisoned, the others may get better armed and decide to attack again, even stronger the next time.
My immediate reaction to Buffy the Vampire Slayer was to laugh hysterically because I graduated from high-school the year this series began (yes, I know I’m old) and what the kids were wearing and how they wore their hair took me back to the good old days when we thought we were SO cool. Beyond the momentary flashback, I was struck (like other people seem to have been) by the difference between the Buffy vampires and the traditional idea of Vampire. These are not handsome, suave, sexy creatures. Neither are they silently menacing like Nosferatu. They are really ugly, and ugly doesn’t equate to scary for me. The only thing I found scary about them was that they could choose to disguise their “vampire” faces if they chose to. In fact, I found the scariest image in either of the two episodes we watched to be Jesse when he returns to the Bronze after being turned into a vampire. When he approaches Cordelia, she is attracted to his confident manner, his new way of carrying himself. The scariest monsters, I think, are the ones we are attracted to. The ones we don’t know are monsters. I think this might be a running them in the Buffy series, judging from the episodes I watched and the articles we read. Who are the real monsters, anyway, according to Buffy? Internet predators, date rapists…..people that don’t look any different on the outside than you or me. Sure, the creepy guys hiding out underground are scary-ish, but what’s way scarier is the thought that monsters could be disguised as our friends, our teachers, or a good looking guy at the club. It’s scary because it’s true. Rhonda Wilcox’s article asserted that the subtle social commentaries in Buffy were meant to identify and comment on problems facing the teenage population represented in the show. It’s entertaining, sure, but beneath that is a “monster tutorial”, helping young adults to recognize the real social “monsters” that they will confront during their life times.
ReplyDeleteIn many horror movies, vampires are cunning, conniving, and vicious blood suckers who prey on young people, especially young females. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I remark that some of the vampires appear to be awkward and even seem to be afraid of Buffy. In the episode entitled “Lessons,” Buffy’s first line is “It’s about power; who has got it; who knows how to use it.” Dawn, Buffy’s sister is forced to admit, although she does so rather reluctantly, that the clumsy vampire trying to come out of his grave for the first time has the power. This argument is quickly rebutted, for, while Buffy lectures Dawn about the physical and supernatural strength of vampires and demons, they are interrupted by this wimp of a vampire who seems to be whining. He asks for help to get out of his grave as his feet are supposedly caught in some roots underground. This is one confusing element of the show. How could the vampire be supernaturally powerful and could not even untangle himself from a few roots? Dawn quickly seizes the opportunity to ridicule Buffy by asking her rather sarcastically if that maladroit vampire were the one with the power. It is instantly revealed however that Buffy has the power. Not only does she possess physical strength but also mental strength in addition to spiritual power and will power. She demonstrates this by showing what little effort it takes to lift the vampire from the grave like a rag doll.
ReplyDeleteThe lesson to be learned is never to underestimate the power of the female and secondly never trust a vampire even if he appears to be helpless. Being distracted in the presence of a vampire can be fatal. After the conniving vampire is rescued he turns on his rescuer and tries to kill them but Buffy was undoubtedly more powerful.
Buffy’s cause is fighting ‘evil’ to preserve ‘good’ and she is seen as a heroine. Akasha, who is featured in Grady’s “Vampire Culture” on the other hand, wants to eradicate poverty which should be seen as an honorable gesture but she goes about it in an unusual way. Her plan is to kill 99% of the men in the world so that women would rule and therefore make it a safe place. This is seen as a form of gender cleansing crusade for which she has to be destroyed. If one possesses power, it has to be used in the proper way and for a just cause.
Audrey H.
Buffy didn't really have anything new to add to vampire lore. It did have curious elements, such as using the phrase “eating” for what vampires do to humans. Most previous works use terms like “suck the blood of”, or “drink the blood from” which really are clumsy and people living and interacting with vampires would have found a shorter way of expressing that idea. The show appealed to me through the use of attractive female leads, clever and interesting dialog, and interesting narrative arcs.
ReplyDeleteBuffy uses her youth, traditionally depicted as a weakness for vampire hunters, as a strength. Van Helsing was clearly the wise mentor who knew how to fight vampires while the young Mina Harker was incapable of doing anything. Buffy is clearly able to fight vampires better than the older mentor figure, Giles. He's clumsy and incapable of doing anything but looking up lore in books.
In B:tVS the monsters clearly embodied various elements of growing up. This allows to the audience to connect to the characters even though thte characters are doing things completely different than the audience. No one goes out fighting vampires in real life, but we all have problems. No one has their close friend brutally attacked and turned into a monster, but we all have friends who change in high school and aren't people we want to be with any more; they sometimes turn into our worst enemies.
Luba VC, I think you capture the point of the show, but don't take it far enough. Buffy the Vampire Slayer doesn't just show established tropes mearly to get people to reconsider them, Buffy brings up tropes specifically to subvert them. There isn't ambiguity on who the monster is, sometimes being the apparently helpless girl, sometimes the predatory man; whenever possible the show makes the apparently “helpless” individual the monster and the seeming predator the victim of the violence. You're right that this forces us to reconsider our preconceptions, which is the point. The show does superficially looks like 90210 with monsters, but it uses those outerwear to sell us the characters. Once we like the characters (pop culture is popular for a reason), the writer can take us on journeys with them that most writers won't. Joss Wheaton (the writer for Buffy) has a habit of making his characters very happy then ruining everything for them. He has more then once killed a major love interest to show the effect of the death on the survivor of the couple.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the Buffy prompt, Sean states that “the show links Buffy’s moral decision to fight vampires to the moral problems that a high school adolescent is bound to face.” I acquiesce to such a statement. For sure, teenagers in high school are constantly faced with moral issues to which moral judgment is required. It is at this point of their lives that when they come face to face with demons that they and can easily be persuaded because they lack the capability to refrain. It is at this tender age of innocence and naivety when they are tempted by monsters that they succumb easily under pressure be it from their peers or devious adults who ruin their trust. As in Polidori’s “The Vampyre,” Lord Ruthven seeks out and attracts the young and the naïve for example Aubrey who was trustful and unaware of what was going on.
ReplyDeleteThere are many monsters that lurk around the school yard, in the basement and even in the classrooms under the watchful eyes of the adults who are in charge without their even noticing anything. Demons appear in the form of drugs, promiscuous and lascivious behavior, stealing, cheating and lying. These are agents of the demons who operate in the school and can be very persuasive making one feels guilty if one refuses. The monsters come in all shapes and sizes and as Allen S. Weiss in his “Ten theses on Monsters and Monstrosity” states in the third thesis, “Cosmas Rossellius describes a memory theatre that contains an all-inclusive category, suggesting that any monster of any sort may be used to signify anything whatsoever.” Luckily Buffy is there to help them combat these monsters while she is protecting her sister from harm.
Audrey H.
I had never seen Buffy before, so I was expecting a ‘90s teen show. Something of a combination between 90210 and a mild teen horror movie, additionally the opening montage didn’t offset my opinion. Buffy carried much of the same Vampire characteristics that I had expected, but showed a great deal of changes since our earlier Nosferatu readings. The association with the catholic religion was what I found most prevalent.
ReplyDeleteThe show also does an excellent job of twisting the poor helpless female roll found in many of the former vampire portrayals. This I know is the focus of the story and what separates Buffy from the pack, but it also allows for some interesting interaction between the main characters that I found most appealing. Buffy seems to have an awareness that all others lack and that is key to her success. How she is able to accomplish such tasks and why is it that all the events are focused in her small world is troublesome. Disaster aversion, as with any prime time TV show is resolved at once I guess. The vampires also lack a certain mystique and eloquence that I seem to remember and indemnify with from childhood memories.
Rich B
Alexandra G., I must agree with many of your solid points, however I feel compelled to agree with the earlier arguments of a more simplified nature. In order for the show Buffy to exemplify the “high school is hell” situation the show must embrace stereotypes. I feel Sunnydale High needs to exemplify this by addressing the key players, as any ‘school’ in cinema would have. Jock, dork, socialite or what have you, Buffy personifies the average student from a new school. Still making friends and slightly outcast, despite her superhuman abilities. This is all necessary to establish and support an underlying base line that I feel is what made Buffy so successful. The ability to make monsters and vampires flow in a pop soap-opera sort of way. Buffy maintains her life in the social atmosphere of high school while experiencing excitement and successes that many of us wish would break their daily life. Buffy develops nothing in the way of lore that has not already been established and build upon. This I believe shows indifference and further enforces the claim that this show is based on a larger plot line. The monsters and vampires seem almost an afterthought to the story line. They could have manifested in any form so long as it conformed to the frame in which they are being displayed.
ReplyDeleteRich B