![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moscow_watcherSummary:
Buffy and Willow fly to a Sephrillian demon to ask him for help. Willow levitates in the air, Buffy clings to her. To distract herself from her fear of flying, Buffy fantasizes about Daniel Craig and Willow fantasizes about Tina Fey.
The lair of the demon has a Tardis-like effect: it looks like a small dilapidated house on the outside and like an enormous cave with a staircase on the inside. It's an unstable reality where "time and logic and everything's just bendy in the brain".
The lair is guarded by a "minder" Robin (guest star Robin Balzer who won her role in a letter contest). She says to the girls cryptic words "the important thing is that you rescue the prince" and the girls enter the lair.
Once there, Willow says other cryptic words "ah, l'esprit d'escolier". In French "l'esprit" means spirit and "escolier" is a weird hydrid of the words "ecolier" - "pupil" and "escalier" - "staircase". (I wonder if it's a clue to some future plot twist or just a misspelling). They follow the route, Buffy fantasizes about two Christian Bales at once, then asks Willow about Kennedy - and then a Sephrillian demon appears. It looks like a sand worm from Dune, with a square board attached to his tail. The board features pictures of what look like masks of Greek theater.
Demon informs them that The Twilight's goal is to terminate all demons and all magic. He also tells them they can't accept "the horrible beauty of total awareness" and shows them... ta-dam! Buffy and her slayer squad robbing the Swiss bank... ta-dam! Willow cheating on Kennedy with a half-woman, half-snake. Interestingly, Buffy tries to lie to Willow even when they see the robbery in progress, but Willow quickly realises: "so the mysterious benefactor bankrolling the slayer army..." Buffy tries to justify her actions "It's all insured! It's a victimless crime! And we totally found a Watto the Nazis hid and sent it to the Tate".
In the next scene Willow asks Robin the minder "Has this happened yet?" (?)
Robin shows them Buffy - cut, bleeding, crying - and tells about "betrayal. The closest, the most unexpected".
Willow tells Buffy that she is already betraying her by not letting Kennedy participate in the Slayer program. She is afraid that she'll die like Tara.
The Sephrillian demon speechifies about the upcoming war and weak humans. Buffy, angry, kills him. The place becomes unstable, the girls get thrown out of the lair, and it blows up. Buffy and Willow go away in a bad mood.
In a parallel story Dawn tells Xander that she hasn't slept with Kenny - she has slept with his roommate Nick.
Analysis:
I like Cliff Richards art. A lot. Finally the characters look like young adults, not like children.
I'm saying that because I desperately want to sound positive. I'm afraid I can't - but I don't want to whine and complain. I remember back in 2002-2003 people whined about later seasons (which I love dearly) and were telling that Buffy has lost it's spirit. And now I'm ready to repeat these words. Do I turn into a grumpy hag?
Anyway I'll try to formulate what's
To me, Buffyverse's most interesting aspects are stories about love and friendship. Buffy\Spike. Willow\Tara. Xander\Anya. These characters went through hell because of love and I was there with them. In seasons 1-7 BtVS was a drama\comedy about relationships with strong metaphorical subtext. Relationships were the stars of the show; conspiracies were supporting players.
I remember back in 2003 I was mostly concerned if Buffy would confess her love for Spike. I also wanted to know if Xander and Anya would make up; if Faith and Buffy would finally overcome their differences.
Right now I'm wondering who's the traitor. I visit DH board and I notice that other fans are also mostly arguing about the identity of the Twilight's source in the castle. It's understandable: his existence is so hyped; it's mentioned in two consecutive issues, we are teased with it again and again. It's interesting and uninvolving at the same time. It's like Lost. I watch the show with interest but all I care about is the conspiracy. Who lives, who dies, who falls for whom - what's the difference?
Long story short, I think that season 8 is made in different genre. It's a political thriller with detective elements. It's a story about a complex conspiracy with a requisite traitor in the middle of supposedly good guys. Conspiracy is the star, characters serve the plot twists. The plot demands Buffy to rob a bank. She robs a bank. Tomorrow the plot will demand Willow to become a movie star. Or a FBI agent. And she will become the next Julia Roberts or a government spy.
I don't say that Buffy can't rob a bank. Or that Willow can't be a movie star. But I need a motivation. If, say, Buffy did it in a desperate situation to save somebody's life, I'd cheer such plot twist. I love moral dilemmas. But this is not the case. Obviously she did it just because "it's only money". Or maybe she did it for a valid reason but we'll find about it in 5 years when emotionally it won't matter anymore.
I wonder why Joss has switched to another genre. Has he decided that the audience won't be able to care about the relationships of comic characters the way they cared when they were played by actors? Did he find the comic format more suitable for the story about global human\demon stand-off rather than for a more intimate story about relationships? Hard to say.
About the issue 10 per se. The word "unnecessary" comes to mind, and, although I try to chase it away, it refuses to go. What happens to season 8 reminds me the situation with Harry Potter saga. Each new volume was thicker and more extensive than the previous one. I couldn't finish it. I only read the spoilers that has leaked online a week before the publication date of the last book and that was enough. I think that right now Joss is in danger of following in Rowling's footsteps and becoming self-indulgent. He writes just because he likes to write. For example, it takes him four pages to tell that Dawn has slept with one character we never met instead of the other character we never met. And - what? Nothing.
At least now we know why Buffy hasn't exposed general Voll's activities to the American goverment. Because she's also a criminal.
Or not. Current issue is so ambiguous it's really baffling. Willow's question to Robin - "Has this happened yet?" - indicates that even Buffy's mentioning the details of the robbery may be a fluke of unstable reality. What Buffy and Willow saw could be truth or lie. It has either happened or will happen or won't happen. Looks like the goal of the issue is to stir up fans and make them paranoid.
Or maybe Joss just drags it out to make more money.
Or maybe he has a big plan for the whole season.
Questions, questions...
-- Is the Sephrillian demon with Greek masks on his tail the metaphor or art? If that's the case there is a definite echo of Once More With Feeling, where demon Sweet was also the metaphor of art (in his case, singing and dancing) that made people say dangerous truths and get burned by them.
-- Is Robin a good or a bad guy? There is the mention that Robin Balzer relates to Drusilla who is her "fantasy icon" in the letter column. Hmmm...
-- Is Buffy with two Christian Bales a parody on her relationship with her vampires? Bale-the-sweet-charmer from Little Women could be the parody on Spike\William and Bale-the-dragonslayer from Reign of Fire could be a parody on Angel.
-- Is it amorphous "now" or very concrete summer of 2007? Casino Royale premiered in November 2006 and it's summer outside...
Bottom line: I'm not sure I'll go on writing reviews on BtVS. Anyway I'll go on reading them. And I'll definitely continue to read and rec fanfiction, though.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 12:23 am (UTC)I'm sorry if I sound caustic, but "complicated and conflicted" is a weird euphemism for a criminal. If somebody steals money, we call him a thief.
I read and loved your essay about Buffy and Roslin - thanks for pointing out! But the crucial difference between them is that we know that Roslin makes extreme decisions in extreme situations. We see these situations. We know Roslin chooses the lesser evil.
In Buffy's case we know nothing about the circumstances of the bank robbery. She may be doing it because it's the only way to save the world. Or because she wants to buy a castle and have fun. Or because the wants to rule the world a-la Austin Powers.
Maybe we'll find later that she acted under the circumstances similar to Roslin's. But unless it happens in the next issue I doubt we'll find out soon. And if we'll find out in a year or two, emotionally it won't matter.
Esprit d’escalier means wit of the staircase and they’re on a staircase. It’s hilarious except that it doesn’t mean it literally it means the witicism you only think of on the staircase. Which Buffy was thinking of! Willow speaks twice truths that Buffy can follow neither one of, it flashbacks to French homework in the Bronze and forward to dark betrayals and the whole issue is riddled with the same.
Yes - but it's "l'esprit d'escolier" in the comics. The question is if it's an occasional misspeling or a deliberate misspelling. Up the thread, Frenchani mentions that in old French "escolier" meant "écolier" ("pupil"). And I wonder if it's a sign that time is also wonky there.
And maybe the robbery really hasn't happened yet.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 07:39 am (UTC)But we know a great deal about Buffy and about Joss from all the seasons that have gone before. People's assumptions about the unknown circumstances simply reveal their own interpretations of the character and the writer. Reading back though the comics I can see all kinds of similarities to the way Buffy's reacted before to feeling under pressure (S7), to having done things she's ashamed of or conflicted about (S6). There's also the precedent of Dawn (who we now know all the circumstances of) covering and lashing out. That's the character background. On the external circumstances we have the increase in magical activity in general and demonic activity in particular, demon armies attacking the world used to be the unique innovation of the First Evil. I hardly think the Buffyverse has become a safer, less violent place since its containment. Last but not least, metaphorically just as Angel going to work at W&H evoked the idea of a former Greenpeace activist signing up with Shell Oil, Buffy finding and working with all the other Slayers recalls the way young people discover political activism, although Equality Now is probably a better model than Greenpeace.
but it's "l'esprit d'escolier" in the comics.
It's like that screenshot analysis of the death of the deputy mayor, you're not seeing the wood for the trees, the line for the letters. Misprint or mispronunciation, in context it's funny, clever and true.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 06:37 pm (UTC)Well, maybe. But up the thread quinara and beer_good_foamy discuss the possibility of bank robbery being played "for lolz", and, again, I repeat "maybe". I feel disoriented. I can't understand if we're supposed to be serious about that Buffy who gets distracted by shiny trinket during the robbery. Be it the TV show, I would be guided by the appropriate music, by serious or comical acting, by camera movements. In comic I'm clueless.
it's like that screenshot analysis of the death of the deputy mayor, you're not seeing the wood for the trees, the line for the letters. Misprint or mispronunciation, in context it's funny, clever and true.
I think the scene in Bad Girls is pretty ambiguous even without the screenshot analysis; as to the idiom in question I agree that it could be misspelling or misprint.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 09:45 pm (UTC)Their argument seems to be that sometimes Joss did jokes but both examples they give are not only funny, they're also revealing of the characters. Tucker really is that shallow and Spike would so be distracted from his pontificating by a shiny, shiny blowjob.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 09:58 pm (UTC):)))))))))))))))))))
OK, different example: here's what Brian Lynch (who writes AtF) says about Buffy's robbery
It's not the right thing that she's doing, but it's not a terrible thing that's she's doing, and seeing how that plays out is gonna be cool.
The transcript of Brian Lynch's podcast is here
http://community.livejournal.com/angel6_atf/33289.html
Lynch works together with Joss so I suppose he shares his worldview. I wonder if writers look at Buffy's criminal activities more tolerantly.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 02:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-12 09:28 am (UTC)You may be right. I just don't understand writer's position. Are we supposed to regard the robbery as a crime or just a misdemeanor, a necessary means to reach a noble goal? Are we, fans, overanalysing and overreacting? Should we think about it from RL standpoint or from genre standpoint?
I think my problem lies is my inability to figure out the genre of the story. Buffyverse is a mix of different genres. Every genre has its own conventions and the morality of Buffyverse changes from episode to episode accorting to its genre.
F.ex., in the first seasons Buffy occasionally killed humans and we weren't supposed to sweat about it, because those were typical "monster episodes" and it wasn't about morality - it was about killing the monsters. Then in season 3 Faith killed a man and the episode was made in the dramatic genre so that we were supposed to care about the moral aspect of the situation. Then, in season 5 Buffy killed a dozen of humans in Spiral, but, again, we weren't supposed to care, because Spiral is made in genre of western, and western's main genre convention is glorifying good guys who kill bad guys. Then, in season 6, it became drama again, and the murder of Katrina was regarded from the genre conventions of drama.
Today I can't understand what genre we're watching. Be it a TV show I could figure out if it's actioner or drama - by acting style, soundtrack, editing, etc. Be it a novel, writer could subtly express his attitude to the proceeding in his descriptions. But here we have static picture and dialogues. And I can't figure out if it's a realistic drama or caper movie.
If it's a drama then Buffy is the villain who is corrupting young slayers and creating a generation of amoral superwomen. If it's an actioner then the robbery is just a plot twist, something "cool" and "not terrible".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-12 12:39 pm (UTC)I’m also not convinced by your argument that Buffyverse morality changes significantly from episode to episode according to genre - for one thing very few of the episodes are pure in genre (and neither are the comics). My impression is that Joss genuinely blends genres rather than simply alternating between them. I would agree that the characters can become slightly exaggerated in the more comedic episodes. Xander and Willow wouldn’t be so easily convinced that the Buffybot was Buffy in a less comedic episode than Intervention. But even there it’s more accurate to say ‘in a less comedic episode that also embodies some very serious dramatic points’ and how dumb the scoobies are is not a matter of ethics. Usually there are both in-story (diegetic) and non-diegetic justifications for a character’s behaviour. Xander was the one to summon Sweet in OMWF because dumb plots are part and parcel of musical comedy but within the story he had a sound emotional justification to have been tempted, it was never made clear to HIM in the story that the singing and dancing and burning and dying were connected until it was too late and once he summoned Sweet he would have been under his spell.
If you look at each of your ‘killing humans’ examples in detail they differ sufficiently to be judged differently quite independent of the episodes/seasons they’re in. Buffy killed the knights in Spiral in self-defence while they were attacking her. She never thought Katrina had attacked her, she thought she’d killed her accidentally while fighting demons.
As a serious magic user aiming to ascend to demonic status the zookeeper’s humanity is ambiguous like the Mayor’s or Rack’s. He also didn’t die by Buffy’s hand but was eaten by his own hyenas, which she threw him to in defence of Willow. The deputy mayor was quite unambiguously human and wasn’t unambiguously attacking Buffy or Faith (if anything it transpires he was attempting to betray the mayor to them). Moreover, Faith’s accidental staking was not the act we were supposed to condemn, it precipitated her fall it wasn’t the fall itself. The real problem was her refusal to accept that his death even mattered and the transgressions this lead to. (It makes sense that Buffy was so shaken by Katrina’s death she’d already seen where trivialising such an event could lead).
If it's a drama then Buffy is the villain who is corrupting young slayers and creating a generation of amoral superwomen.
Until we know the context amoral is far too strong a term for what we’ve seen. All we can say at the moment is that those involved in the robbery don’t count “thou shall not steal” as a moral absolute. That doesn’t mean that they believe the same of all the other commandments or that moral absolutism is the only ethical philosophy.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-12 07:29 pm (UTC)I wonder if we'll find out the context in the next issue or in several years. Jigsaw-puzzle-type narrative works great in movies and novels because the audience may watch or read them from beginning to end at once. But when there is no end in sight, it may become confusing.
You're lucky to feel emotional connection to the story. As to me, I can't figure out if Buffy's robbery is a whimsical subplot similar to Xander and Cordy stealing a rocket launcher in Innocence or it's a crucial point in a dramatic story about consequences.
We'll see.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-13 01:42 am (UTC)Well, if BtVS was a series where everything is to be taken seriously, then a character who just last Season said she was IT, the law, disregarding human law would be a very bad thing indeed, IMO.
But Buffy is not such a series. The bank robbery can easily be played for laughs. In fact, from my own reading of the scene, I got the impression that what mattered was that Buffy was lying to Willow, not that she had robbed a bank.
But hey, maybe next issue we'll have Buffy complaining about "Stupid homo-sapiens, with their stupid homo-sapiens laws. Oh... not you Xander. Sorry."
I don't think so though, because from what JW has stated this series is how the world reacts to powerful women, and I'm pretty sure "Fears them because they break the law" is NOT what JW is going for.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-13 10:27 am (UTC)When Buffy said she was the law in S7 she didn't mean human law, she was using it to explain why she had to punish a vengeance demon's trangressions and she didn't seem happy about it. She still does seem to regard herself as human and while Voll calls her a demon (mother of demon spawn) Sephrellian would appear to agree.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-13 02:51 pm (UTC)I'm pretty sure she feels bad about it, but from there to us thinking it's all that significant is a big step. And taking into account that the context of the talk she and Willow were having with the demon, well, I'm not sure what shames Buffy more, that she ignored human laws, or that the demon was pretty right, Buffy lies to her best friend, Willow cheats on her lover, yep, demon right.
And Willow's reaction (being the only one we've seen) does nothing to give me the impression that robbing a bank is bad in any way but the practical one, of pissing people off.
Buffy S7, I have a hard time discussing any of it, because I so very much dislike it, but let's say the easiest way to get me to dislike a character is to have them say something like that. Unless of course it's Judge Dredd. Which I don't really like anyway, unless it's in the "What an entertaining fascist character" way.
As for how Buffy sees herself, it doesn't matter. She can see herself anyway she wants to, just like Andrew can, it's how other people see her that matters.
Me, personally, I'd love to think she's human, with nothing but a few demon powers on top of it, but I'm not so sure of that. I'm not sure that's even what the series post S4 is telling us. I can see Voll's point.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 09:52 am (UTC)I don't want to go on about this because I'm afraid it'll get boring, but I must say one thing:
You list several possible motivations for a random person to engage in theft, yes. But how many of them are possibly motives for the character of Buffy that we've seen developed over seven and a half years to engage in theft? Really?
To me, the answer is so screamingly obvious that the only questions I have are under what circumstances did Buffy come to the conclusion that theft was the only way to save the world; and do her friends and colleagues agree with her or will this cause a rift between them; and what will her guilty consciuence drive her to do next?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 04:32 pm (UTC)Heh, those are the most burning questions for me, and until we get answers for them, see the underlying story, I feel there's nothing to discuss. ;) And if we don't get those answers at all - then, well, there *was* nothing to discuss in there in the first place, IMHO.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-10 06:10 pm (UTC)Yet she doesn't say "it was a matter of life and death" or " the destiny of the mankind was at stake". Her first reaction is: "It's all insured! It's a victimless crime! And we totally found a Watto the Nazis hid and sent it to the Tate".
It's just... weird. Could the ubstable reality create the aberrations of people's behavior?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 11:42 am (UTC)You tell me. I can't think of *anything* we've seen so far in s8 that would necessitate her stealing. I've said since the beginning that all the hi-tech equipment is unnecessary, and if she is stealing to fund it, then that makes it twice so. What we lack is this:
ANGEL: Cordy...there are reasons I agreed to take over Wolfram & Hart, reasons you don't understand.
CORDELIA: (stands, indignant) I understand just fine. They seduced you with all their fancy facilities, manpower. They threw a whole bunch of money at you, plied you with all these expensive toys and penthouses with spectacular views, and—
(looks out his window, admiring the view) really spectacular. (to Angel) What was I saying?
ANGEL: I've been seduced.
CORDELIA: That's right, pal. They dazzled you with shiny objects and beautiful things and— There is no reason you could give me—
ANGEL: Connor.
Bring on the 'Connor' of s8 and I'll eat all my nasty words. Until then... *shrugs*
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 12:11 pm (UTC)It's quite possible that Joss narrates the story similar to Angel's arc in season 5. But the narrative structure is non-linear and doesn't provide emotional payoff.
It's like a detective story. There could be a crime of passion in it's core, but the story isn't about passions, it's about the investigation. In the end we find out who and why commited this or that act. But we don't feel for the criminals and their victims. We enjoy the analytical abilities of Sherlock Holmes or Hercules Poirot instead.
Maybe in several years we'll find out that Buffy was in a desperate situation. But it won't be mattering by then.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 02:15 pm (UTC)You saying things doesn't make them so. The single most obvious thing that comes to mind as needing more than a few sharp sticks is the defeat of Yamanh's demon army in The Chain. Slayers have fought an army once before but if it weren't for the magical hi-tech of Wolfram & Hart's amulet they would have died and lost (the battle not the war ) in that order.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 02:25 pm (UTC)As I said, I want to know *why* that path was taken. We're seeing the consequences of an unknown. 'Fraid I need to know the unknown before I begin to care. (This was the problem with S1 of Torchwood btw - we didn't know Jack's story, why he was where he was, or how he'd got there. Finding that out was one of the great joys of his guest appearance on DW!)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 02:41 pm (UTC)Despite her refusal to take money from individuals, Buffy has always been a little cavalier about her treatment of corporate property when for Slaying purposes. She stole a rocket launcher, she blew up a school and then a whole town, she broke into restricted government institutions and had Willow hack into their mainframes. (She was, as Voll said from the beginning, a terrorist). Moreover, since the fall of Sunnydale it seems she’s become aware of W&H, which is unlikely to have changed her opinion of corporations in any positive direction.
The full details of why they did it is what makes me eager to read more but the reveal that she did it at all is emotionally satisfying because of the way it accounts for the schizo reactions she had to Faith and Giles and brings new depth to all her previous statements from "The thing about changing the world" onwards.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 02:58 pm (UTC)Hee! No, I just want to know that this was a last resort - or a situation a la Angel's deal with W&H.
Despite her refusal to take money from individuals, Buffy has always been a little cavalier about her treatment of corporate property when for Slaying purposes.
There is a difference between your examples, and stealing to fund her new life.
but the reveal that she did it at all is emotionally satisfying because of the way it accounts for the schizo reactions she had to Faith and Giles
Really? Sorry, but I'm still confused by everything. Hopefully the next issue will give some answers. If not, I'm strongly feeling like just giving up reading.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 03:37 pm (UTC)Is it such a large difference? As you've pointed out at great length she's not funding her life but her slaying and she's not mugging passers-by like S4 Spike but breaking into a faceless corporation and removing its assets as Giles did in order to 'acquire' the Council's records in S7. And like Giles she may feel it was necessary but she still feels guilty about it. It eats at her hence the schizo would be my interpretation.
I'm strongly feeling like just giving up reading.
It might be wise.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-11 04:28 pm (UTC)This is clearly where the line falls - some of us think yes, some no.
It might be wise.
I certainly won't be debating them anymore. This comment was a last lapse.