October 2001 posts
Defeating a Big Bad and loss -- Simplicity, 10:16:15 10/12/01 Fri
While watching vintage Buffy on FX, I've come to a few conclusions about something in the Buffyverse. The Slayer can easily defeat a little bad usually without a great deal of effort. But Buffy never really wins against a Big Bad. She may defeat them but something or someone is always lost in the battle.
Season I:
Prophecy Girl:
To defeat The Master, Buffy had to die. But she lost more than her life. She had a few truths brought home to her. She is The Slayer and it is her duty to defend mankind to the death. She lost some of her innocence that day when she realized that her death was a real possibility and it would be much sooner than she would like.
Season II:
Becoming I and II:
The theme of loss is especially apparent here. In order to save the world, Buffy must kill Angel. She sacrifices her love and is forever changed by it. I think until this point, evil doers were just 'baddies' to her. Soulless, mindless creatures to be destroyed. She learned that evil can have a seemingly friendly face. Not only this, Buffy leaves Sunnydale, her mother, and her friends. She has lost everything.
Season III:
Graduation Day I and II:
Buffy loses Faith. At first, this might seem like no big loss but she and Faith are connected. Being the "Chosen One" is no easy feat and I think she might have been comforted by the thought that there was another Slayer out there. Someone else that could experience what that life was like. When Buffy kisses Faith's forehead in the hospital it is a gesture of sorrow. I think Buffy is sorry she couldnt' "save her." Also, Buffy finally loses Angel for good. She can't even have him around as a friend or fellow fighter because he has gone to L.A. Buffy loses her ties to the Watcher's council and asserts her own independence.
Season IV
Primevil:
I'm not sure if "Restless" counts. The fourth season has always been a little "off." it could be argued that Buffy gains something here. In a very real way, she needs her friends to defeat ADAM. m,aybe that is why this season has been panned so much.Buffy is a tragic heroine but there didn't seem to be much tragedy here.
Season V:
The Gift:
Once again, Buffy loses her life. But this time it is here choice to do so. She accepts this duty. Looking back at the tape, she looks serene as she bounds off the tower, ready and even eager to accept her fate. Given the revelation at the end of "After Life" it is more understandable. She saves her sister and humanity but sacrifices herself.
I'm particularly interested to see the Big Bad for this season and find out what the cost will be for Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Defeating a Big Bad and loss -- little devil, 11:02:10 10/12/01 Fri
I agree with everything you said.....what will the sacrfice be this time, her soul? She has given everything else but that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Defeating a Big Bad and loss -- kostadis roussos, 11:38:08 10/12/01 Fri
Hi!
Perhaps this season will be a break from loss and will be an oppurtunity for gain?
Now that even Paradise was lost, perhaps like Adam said to Eve, we can not succumb to the temptation to die, and deprive the Evil one the pleasure of seeing us suffer, but must find meaning in this life, and learn to hope for the redemption that is to come.
This season may be about Buffy finding that reason. A reason for her to live.
cheers,
kostadis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Big Bad and Loss -- Plain Jane, 11:56:55 10/12/01 Fri
I think maybe the big loss this season will be Buffy's ideas about good and evil in the universe. Throughout the last five seasons the moral ambiguities about what is good and what is evil have been growing. At first everything was black and white - you were a good guy or a bad guy. Now that's not so clear. And if Willow does turn out to be the big bad this season, that will really challenge Buffy's concept of good and evil, almost as much has Spike has. This season is suppose to be about growing up and facing life's adult responsibilities - learning that things aren't black and white and sometimes you have to make judgement calls and sometimes you have to just do the best you can and hope that's good enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Defeating a Big Bad and loss -- LoriAnn, 06:34:45 10/13/01 Sat
"Perhaps this season will be a break from loss and will be an oppurtunity for gain?"
All loss is an opportunity for gain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Defeating a Big Bad and loss -- Kerri, 14:29:57 10/12/01 Fri
Good points Simplicity. Loss, change, and growth seem to be big themes with BtVS. Just one small point about your post:
"Looking back at the tape, she looks serene as she bounds off the tower, ready and even eager to accept her fate. Given the revelation at the end of "After Life" it is more understandable. "
Buffy didn't know she was going to heaven-that's not why she looked happy. It was because she had finally found peace-not in death but in life. I could get into a whole discussion of this but I'll spare you -I think I've posted on the subject numerous times.
Anyway, good thoughts. Loss isn't just when Buffy is defeating a big bad and it seems to be a big thing for poor Buffy-hell, she just gave up heaven.
R.I.P. "Buffybot"?!?! (*sniff*sniff*) -- RabidHarpy, 12:54:39 10/12/01 Fri
I've grown rather attached to the quirkiness of the "Buffybot" - I'm going to miss her...
Even though she was heavily damaged by the Hellions (sp?), is there any chance that she will be returning? Her torso was fairly intact, and she was still semi-lucid and semi-functional when she spoke to Dawn... Willow's magical - she can still put "Buffybot" back together, right?
I have a feeling that some comic relief will be especially welcome this season.
Your thoughts? Will anyone else out there miss her?
"Hey! You look like me! We're very pretty!"
"Oh Spike!"
"That'll put some marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"
"Oh I think it's funny!"
"Who's there?"
"I-know-she's-not-she'll-never-be-I-know-the-only-really-real-Buffy-was-really-Buffy who?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thank goodness we still have Hellobot! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 13:15:43 10/12/01 Fri
I, too, will miss the Buffybot. :o(
My only consolation is that I can still hear her perky voice every time I read a post from our own special Hellobot!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I loathe the Buffy-bot! -- The Airborne Apostate, 13:30:32 10/12/01 Fri
My problem with the Buffy-bot was that it was only good a few [bad] jokes, and, in exchange, it opened a huge can of worms.
This thing wasn't created by magic or by some huge effort at an enormous price, it was built on virtually no budget by a frickin' college student!
Sure, it wasn't as good the real thing, but from all appearances, all it takes is a few weeks to slap one of these puppies together. They can always either fix one or build a new one, so it should still be around.
Heck, they should build hundreds of them, and set up squads of them in every city!
You see the problem?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I loathe the Buffy-bot! -- robert, 13:59:33 10/12/01 Fri
"This thing wasn't created by magic or by some huge effort at an enormous price, it was built on virtually no budget by a frickin' college student!"
I've had the sense that Joss is blending magic and science together. In I Robot ,You Jane/1st season, a demon invades the internet and has a mechanical body built for it. In Ted/2nd season, a robot built 30 or 40 years ago is perceived as human. The theme of the 4th season was the mixing of technology and magic.
I am not attempting to justify the use of human-like robots in the show, rather to argue that they are at least consistent with Joss' mythology. I treat them like any other mystical/magical construct used on the show, thus allowing me to happily suspend my disbelief.
"Sure, it wasn't as good the real thing, but from all appearances, all it takes is a few weeks to slap one of these puppies together. They can always either fix one or build a new one, so it should still be around."
... and then we can run 'em on MS/windows. Oh wait! We would have to re-boot them twice a day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hey, robert! Question... -- Wisewoman, 14:42:09 10/12/01 Fri
How come there's so much space between your paragraphs?
I keep thinking the page is hung and not loading properly, then I finally clue in and scroll down, and there's lots more to the message!
What's up with that?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hey, robert! Question... -- robert, 16:18:00 10/12/01 Fri
I don't really know. This isn't how I typed it in. I'm thinking that it is an artifact of my using Opera instead of IE or Netscape.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Ah, a technical glitch! 'Nuff said. ;o) -- Wisewoman, 16:57:02 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> i'm using opera too, & that isn't happening to my posts -- anom, 10:45:32 10/14/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Mixing technology and magic -- vampire hunter D, 12:56:05 10/13/01 Sat
That's part of the RPG MAge: the Ascention (part of Whit Wolf's World of Darkness). Technology is simply a form af magic, and so superscientific acievements like an artificial lifeform are possible by technomancers.
I've always liked the metaphysics of hte WoD better that the Whedonverse. Joss should borrow more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Mixing technology and magic -- Cygnus, 13:06:58 10/13/01 Sat
So if Willow was ever awakened which would she be Verbena or Virtual Adept?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Verbena -- vampire hunter D, 12:55:25 10/14/01 Sun
Her magics tend towrd verbena styles, even though she has a background in computers.
Actually, I made a character sheet for Willow. If you want to see it, I may post it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Feel free (NT) -- Cygnus, 13:52:07 10/14/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think Clarke's Law applies. -- Humanitas, 14:45:09 10/13/01 Sat
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> We'll always have the opening credits to remember her by (at least this season)! -- rowan, 14:23:00 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> That's "Rust in Pieces," right? ;) -- Humanitas, 14:55:42 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> *groan* :) -- rowan, 15:51:56 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> *sigh* poor BuffyBot -- pocky, 16:22:49 10/12/01 Fri
at first, BuffyBot really annoyed me. but as time went on, i slowly grew fond of her. she's so stupid and annoying you can't help laughing and stuff. i hate the way she was killed...that was soooooo incredibly mean. i winced when the bikers rode away, pulling BuffyBot's limbs off. *sniff*
~nathan~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: *sigh* poor BuffyBot -- Whisper2AScream, 16:30:35 10/12/01 Fri
I didn't really care for the Buffy-Bot that much. Mechanical and annoying. But being torn apart like that... *shudders* Anybody else saw shades of the "Flesh Fair" from A.I. in that scene?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Poor Buffybot... -- Monique, 18:45:16 10/12/01 Fri
Maybe we could get a *SpikeBot* this season! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Monique's Spikebot idea... *can* there be too much of a good thing? -- dan, 08:50:25 10/13/01 Sat
yikes, i don't think i could *handle* a SpikeBot. One spike is enough to keep me hot and bothered, as anyone in the chat room can attest. ;->
-d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Mmmmmmm...Spikebot...now there's an idea. *g* -- Deeva, 23:42:48 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ooh! Where can I get my own personal *SpikeBot*?!?! -- RabidHarpy, 06:38:19 10/15/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: R.I.P. "Buffybot"?!?! (*sniff*sniff*) -- HelloBot, 08:14:35 10/13/01 Sat
I liked the Buffybot. She was very pretty. Not as pretty as me, but still pretty pretty.
It made me very sad what those mean demons on their loud motorcycles did to her.
She was my technological ancestor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah, but so was a toaster oven. ;o) -- Wisewoman, 17:57:18 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Pretty Pretty? Wasn't that what The Great Tyrant called Barbarella? ... ;) -- OnM, 20:53:26 10/13/01 Sat
What if someone of the SG dies? -- grifter, 13:57:14 10/12/01 Fri
I can´t remember anybody raising this question here.
So here it is: What if someone of the SG should happen to die? Would they raise her/him gain?
What if Dawn dies? Would BUFFY do the "right thing" and not raise her?
Would she keep Willow or Xander from raising Tara or Anya?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What if someone of the SG dies? -- Kerri, 14:33:59 10/12/01 Fri
"What if Dawn dies? Would BUFFY do the "right thing" and not raise her? "
I don't think that Buffy would ever think of raising Dawn or one of her friends from the dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What if someone of the SG dies? -- Jessica, 14:59:15 10/12/01 Fri
This is my first post. A big hello to everyone! I don't think that they would raise anyone from the dead, not if they died a natural death like Joyce. Dawn already tried to resurrect her mother, but at the last minute realized that it wasn't right. The only difference with the SG raising Buffy is that she didn't die a natural death. Especially now that Buffy is alive and knows what heaven is like. She probably wouldn't let anybody try to resurrect the dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What if someone of the SG dies? -- Whisper2AScream, 16:18:56 10/12/01 Fri
Of anyone of them, Xander and Buffy would be putting the brakes on even suggesting a resurrection. He already knew that it was wrong before, and considering what Buffy experienced, she'd _know_ it was wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Not just Resurrection magic -- Malandanza, 01:09:41 10/13/01 Sat
"Of any one of them, Xander and Buffy would be putting the brakes on even suggesting a resurrection. He already knew that it was wrong before, and considering what Buffy experienced, she'd _know_ it was wrong."
I agree, except not just Xander and Buffy -- and not just resurrection magic. Xander, Anya and Tara all had grave reservations about the ritual before it was completed. Xander now has suspicions (engendered partly by Spike) that Willow was willing to destroy Buffy if she had not turned out completely right -- furthermore, we know Willow had the ability to do so since she said as much to Dawn (that they could banish the demon by reversing the ritual). Xander shared his concerns with Tara -- and she was a bit too aggressive in her defense of Willow, suggesting that her own fears are quite substantial. Add to that the not-so-cryptic messages addressed to Willow by the demon and Tara should have serious concerns. Spike, of course, knows just how wrong the resurrection ritual was -- and he understands better than most of the Scoobies that magic has consequences. Willow was rather elliptical about her conversation with Giles, but we can easily imagine that the ex-Ripper would be less than pleased to learn that Willow had raised the dead. Buffy... well, back in season 4 she had issues with Willow's overuse of magic -- although they are trivial compared to this season's issues.
I don't think any of Willow's friends will be anxious for her to continue playing with dark forces. Perhaps there will be an intervention in the future (I can see Willow insisting that she doesn't have a magic abuse problem and she can quit anytime she wants to). Plus, I think it would be amusing to have a role reversal in the interventions -- Willow as the subject instead of the inquisitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What if someone of the SG dies? -- Yellowork, 07:25:43 10/16/01 Tue
The fact that Buffy has been resurrected as a living human being and an active slayer does not mean that Willow was right to do what she did, any more than Dawn was right to raise Joyce. The difference may simply be that Willow by the start of Season Six was equipped with the necessary skills and resources to make it a success - by bringing her back. I think even as early on as the next episode, the hints that Willow was wrong, and that she owes a debt to the universe now, are beginning to turn up. So if I am right, experience will teach them before long to think long and hard before attempting another raising. Also, all the lovely real-life Wiccans out there (big hello!) may have just obscured something about magic as a 'fact' in the Buffyverse, which is that so much knowledge has been lost or hidden, so much seems open to distortion by the Hellmouth, that there is no telling whether the results of any given spell might be successfully reproduced ever again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What if someone of the SG dies? -- HelloBot, 08:19:06 10/13/01 Sat
"A big hello to everyone!"
And a BIG HELLO to you! Welcome to the board. Here, we talk philosophy, cats, chocolate, and occasionally Buffy.
*HelloBot wraps Jessica in a big hello hug, nearly squeezing the life out of her*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Godammit! Would someone please deactivate the bloody bot! -- vampire hunter D, 12:50:56 10/13/01 Sat
Where's a demon biker gang when you need one?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> No, don't - everyone needs a little goofy botness in their day, sometimes. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 16:24:54 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Godammit! Would someone please deactivate the bloody bot! -- Reprogrammed HelloBot, 19:04:10 10/13/01 Sat
"Where's a demon biker gang when you need one?"
Vampire Hunter D, that was a very mean thing you just said. Just so you know, I have been programmed to deal with any threats that come my way. Mean people of the world, be-ware.
*HelloBot runs and flips over vampire hunter D, and then disables the rude poster with a quick kick to the side of the head. She dusts her hands off in triumph*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Did you remember to growl? -- OnMbot, 20:42:13 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Godammit! Would someone please deactivate the bloody bot! -- Antibot-tite, 13:17:34 10/16/01 Tue
In the future we'll disable your botty kind. Yes, ride them like ponies and hunt them for sport.
(parries blows and counter attacks with a sharp back kick into the soft spot in any bot's abdomen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I like her. :) She's nice, and very friendly in a startling sort of way. -- Lunarchickk, 20:43:08 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Kind of like Anya, if she were perkier and wayyy nicer. But she would charge for the hugs! -- Deeva, 23:38:47 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> vhD you're gonna meet my Dial soap bar if you don't watch that language -- Mommy, 08:17:50 10/14/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Kiss my ass bitch! -- vampire hunter D, 12:56:40 10/14/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is no joke & I ain't your mommy ... cool it, it's not funny. -- Liquidram, 18:22:13 10/14/01 Sun
Can love give you a soul? -- Kat, 14:14:38 10/12/01 Fri
I have been trying to define what makes a soul in Buffy Universe from Angel's example. I can only think of three requirements: to care for humans, sorrow for hurting humans in the past, and the ability to love.
I feel that Spike has met these requirements. He has cared for not only Buffy but Buffy's Mom and sister as well as the entire SG (reluctantly). In addition, he told Buffy that "I know I'm a monster", so that implies that he realizes that his actions in the past were wrong. Finally, he loves Buffy so much that her happiness is far more important than his own. If that isn't love I donno what is.
It is ironic that love removed Angel's soul (at least temporarily) but is giving Spike a soul. Also, did anyone else notice that both Spike and Angel killed the women who made them (and who they dated) in front of Buffy in order to impress her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Souls in the Buffyverse -- Kerri, 14:39:45 10/12/01 Fri
Joss had said that a soul is not a concrete thing, it is simply a "guiding star."
I can only think of three requirements: to care for humans, sorrow for hurting humans in the past, and the ability to love.
A person with a soul is not necessarily good. And as we see in Spike one without a soul is not necessarily evil.
As to whether someone can develop a soul-I'm not really sure. But I'm also not sure if a soul is needed to be good.
Also, did anyone else notice that both Spike and Angel killed the women who made them (and who they dated) in front of Buffy in order to impress her?
I don't really think Angel did it to impress Buffy-more to save her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can love give you a soul? -- Deeva, 14:59:40 10/12/01 Fri
Soul:
1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2: the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe
3 : a person's total self
4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit
5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force
at least according to Merriam-Webster online. If I were to follow the defined word, Spike would fall into nearly all these.
It seems to me that in Buffyverse, you only have a soul if you’re human or cursed. I think having a soul means being able to reconcile one’s actions. To have the sense or conscience to know better. Guilt. Free will. A rational mind to make a choice to do things rather than a one-track mind that is following an animalistic, primal instinct. You do it cause it’s what you’ve always done and what the others before you have done.
As others have said, Spike is growing himself a soul via the chip. He may realize that his actions of the past are wrong but I don’t know if he is attempting to make amends for it, it doesn’t look like he is to me. He probably sees no need to. All that he was trying to do in the last season (and to some degree, over the summer) was change Buffy’s & the SG’s bad opinion of him. I don’t doubt Spike’s feelings for Buffy, I am a shipper and while I like happy endings I don’t like them half the time because they are just too convenient. If the relationship between Spike and Buffy were to remain a "connection" and just that, I would be extremely happy with that. The tension would be delish.
As to whether love can give one a soul? It can give you a purpose to work towards, like a guiding force. Which can be like having a soul but what happens when you accomplish that goal?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can love give you a soul? -- Whisper2AScream, 16:14:37 10/12/01 Fri
I don't think Spike has a soul, along the regular guidelines. What he has, and what the chip gave him, was a conscience. And he already loved even before. He loved Drusilla for a very long time during his unlife, and loved Cecily during his life. Though, I think love=obsession more in his case. He admits he can't stop thinking bout Buffy, ergo, it must be love. He was and remains a romantic. That reminant of his personality in life still exists. Spike has always been "Love's bitch." And he always seems to need love, or to be in love with someone. Like an addiction, going back to the obsession comment. He's addicted to Buffy, and what she has. He's placed her in the center of his world. Everything directly connected to her is now important to him. Hence, protecting her family and friends. So while he's addicted to her, and has a form of electronic conscience, he still remains soulless in the strictest of terms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can love give you a soul? -- Isabel, 19:50:14 10/12/01 Fri
"Also, did anyone else notice that both Spike and Angel killed the women who made them (and who they dated) in front of Buffy in order to impress her?"
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. It has been pointed out that Angel was saving Buffy from Darla. He didn't expect that Buffy would fall into his arms. (Not that he turned her away, mind you.)
Plus, Spike Did NOT kill Drusilla. Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but at the end of 'Crush', after Spike released Buffy from the chains, Dru and Harmony both walked out on him. And he ignored them both because he was chasing Buffy home. But he did expect Buffy to be impressed with his offer to kill his ex-girlfriend to prove his love for her. (Not his best thinking, by a long shot.)
SMG's real father found dead -- Wilder, 15:19:00 10/12/01 Fri
Sad news. And somewhat stranger, the possible parallel's with her real life boyfriend's father's death.
Buffy star's father found dead
'Suffering from depression'
Sarah Michelle Gellar's father, Arthur Gellar, has been found dead in his Manhattan apartment after friends failed to hear from him for several days. Police are investigating a possible drug overdose after medication was discovered
at the scene. The 60-year-old divorced the Buffy star's
mother when Sarah was eight. Gellar once said: 'I would never give him the credit to acknowledge him as my father,' and has declined to comment on his death.
The father of her fiance, Freddie Prinze Jr, died in 1976 of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Arthur Gellar was fighting cancer and, according to friends, was 'suffering from depression' while trying to bring about a reconciliation with his famous daughter.
------
Arthur Gellar, 60, Father Of 'Buffy' Star
Melanie Lefkowitz
October 11, 2001
The father of actress Sarah Michelle Gellar, star of the hit TV series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," was found dead in his midtown apartment, police said yesterday.
Police said there was no evidence of foul play in the death of Arthur Gellar, 60, who has been estranged from his daughter for several years.
A friend of Gellar's became worried when he couldn't reach him, and he contacted police and security in his Waterside Plaza building, authorities said. When police entered the apartment at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, officers found him face-up on the bedroom floor, police said.
The apartment's chain lock was still fastened from the inside when police broke in, officials said.
Sources said Gellar had been suffering from cancer. The city medical examiner's office is to perform an autopsy today.
A native New Yorker, Sarah Michelle Gellar, 24, attended LaGuardia High School for the Performing Arts. Before her "Buffy" fame, she won a daytime Emmy for her role as Erica Kane's daughter on "All My Children."
Through her publicist, Leslie Sloane, Gellar declined comment.
Copyright © 2001, Newsday, Inc.
To lose the promise of heaven (Spoilers: 1-2S6) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:36:44 10/12/01 Fri
(Disclaimer: I am NOT advocating suicide for anyone in the real world; as the Surgeon General might say, it is hazardous for your health. But let us consider the "reality" of the Buffyverse -- for Buffy . . . )
Some days ago, OnM had an excellent essay regarding the possible influence of Jim Morrison's poetry on the writer(s) of BtVS, sixth season. At risk of being a trifle trivial, perhaps another 1970's cultural reference would apply to our leading lady:
"The game of life is hard to play,
You're going to lose it any way,
the losing card I'll someday lay,
so this is all I have to say . . .
Suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please . . . "
-- Theme to the movie M*A*S*H (1970), and, as modified and without words, to the 1972-83 television show
As I and I'm sure many others have observed, being a Slayer is a no-exit occupation; once in never out, at least this side of the grave. For all Slayers -- except Buffy. (Why is she so favored?) Where Whedon & Co. have surprised me is that they've pointed out that for Buffy even death is no release. For a while, for a brief, blessed while, she could lay her burden down and find peace, rest and safety. Oops! Just kidding, girl; it's back on the job! Once again to face the forces of darkness and watch those you love risk themselves -- and die -- to be at your side, aiding you, doing what they can to sustain you.
Why do people stay alive, other than inertia? They may find genuine joy in life. (I think we can rule that out for our hero, save, possibly, in the love she feels for her friends and sister -- although even that is a dual-edged sword. She also has to live with the dreadful anticipation, even certainty, that one or more of them will die because of her -- to aid her or because of a mistake she will make.) There may be things they have left to do.
I think, however, that a major reason is fear. People are afraid of the pain and misery of dying; they also fear the unknown, the existence, judgment or end of existence that lie beyond the gates of death. This is a strong disincentive to dying.
Buffy, of course, no longer has that disincentive. She KNOWS what's on the other side. I am, moreover, sure that the pain of dying itself (which she has experienced -- twice) can't be any worse, and certainly less prolonged, than the pain she has suffered, and can expect to suffer, in just going on.
Spike pointed out that eventually Slayers get a death wish -- they just want to get it over with. They have this death wish even with all the aforementioned disincentives. Given that Buffy has not the disincentive of ignorance of death, her death wish must now (in season six) be on steroids.
Her life is suffering and trauma. Her death was warm, safe, and peaceful; she knows she will be free of pain, free of risk, free of responsibility, free of guilt. How much, how powerfully must Our Lady of Passion and Pain yearn to return to her nice safe grave.
Now, of course, actual suicide might well (if Whedon & Co. are following classical theology) dump her in hell, a much less desirable abode. No problem. Given the Slayer lifestyle, any number of entities will be happy to oblige Buffy's latent wish.
So even though Buffy has her love, her sense of responsibility to keep her in this world, it must be constantly fighting her desire for rest and peace through death. Hasn't she suffered enough for five years? Can't she just let it go and let some other young woman take her place on the cross?
There may be another factor. There has been much discussion about how Slayers are selected. We've heard, through Giles and the Watcher Council (and I still doubt how honest the latter body may be) that The Powers That Be, not any human agency, select the young woman who must become a Slayer, and sacrifice any chance of happiness or a long life to guard us against those who would destroy us. Let us assume that we can take the Watchers' word at face value. (Right.)
Who might be the next candidate? (Of course, this begs the question of why didn't another Slayer warm up when Buffy took the high dive from the Tower of Glory? While Faith technically counts, she isn't too available for duty while in the slam.) What might happen if Buffy does get her well-deserved death?
Who has Buffy's blood? Who is flesh of her flesh? Who might be the next young woman thrown onto the pyre?
I think we know.
So Buffy may want to stay alive, suffering though she will be, longing for death as she may be, to keep her sister from her own dark fate. This may give her a reason not to lay down and die. But, of course, this won't keep Our Lady alive for a normal span; only, perhaps, for a little while longer.
Slayers don't have happy endings. If Whedon & Co. are true to their creation (and they've been such to date) this series can't have a happy ending.
Even so, there is yet another factor. Buffy was dead, and at peace, theoretically forever. Then she was called back. So even when she does again die, if her spirit? her soul? has any cognition, she will know that even her quiet stay in eternity is not guaranteed. Thanks to Willow, Buffy may be the only soul in Heaven to know and fear a return to earth. So Willow has robbed from Buffy not only her present peace, but that of all time.
With friends like these . . .
"Mama take this badge off of me,
I can't wear it any more,
It's getting dark, too dark to see,
Feel I'm knocking on Heaven's door . . . "
Bob Dylan, 1972
"I hear you knocking
But you can't come in
I hear you knocking
Go back where you've been . . ."
Dave Edmunds, 1955
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To lose the promise of heaven (Spoilers: 1-2S6) -- Kerri, 18:34:19 10/12/01 Fri
Good points. Here's the thing-if The Gift didn't happen I'd agree on all points-but Buffy had an epiphany. She realized why life is worth living. She realized that love is heaven. It maybe a long journey but I think that Buffy will eventually be able to reconcile her time in heaven with her new existence on earth and find peace in her mortal life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: To lose the promise of heaven (Spoilers: 1-2S6) -- OnM, 23:15:53 10/12/01 Fri
Certainly have to comment on any post that says nice things about me, now don't I? (~grins~)
Your reasoning is very good, but I disagree with your conclusion. While you are absolutely correct in saying that Slayers all come with an early expiration date, it is my feeling that Buffy will be the exception to this.
Darkness and angst makes for good drama, but the fact is that the Jossverse has always contained a balancing measure of humor and lightness, even spiritual passion and love, shows that the ultimate goal of the series is to give people hope that good will triumph. Even in the case of 'The Gift', Buffy's death was as good a death as a hero could hope for. That that death has been rescinded does not necessarily mean that all will eventually end in sorrow.
The spirit guide remarked (Rufus has quoted this often, with good reason) that 'The Slayer forges strength from pain'. If one looks at Buffy as a messianic figure, then what she is going through now is part of a spiritual journey that will have it's trials and tribulations, but at some future point result in enlightenment. I think that Ryuei's Buddhist interpretations of the Buffyverse are very accurate, and that Buffy is, or is becoming, a Bodhisattva (sp?). The 'heaven' she was in, if I understand Buddhist cosmology (in a rudimentary fashion, of course) could be only one of a number of heavens, perhaps a relatively primitive one. The next one she is in could be even more 'heavenly'.
Also, final thought, (then I really got to get to sleep-- why do I do this? Stupid question...). If one accepts the principle of reincarnation, then Buffy would have been reborn eventually anyway, she just would be born as an infant, and not remember the heaven she left. The question to ask here is:
Is the temporary pain of rebirth worth it in light of being able to retain your memories, instead of having to build new ones all over again as an old soul in a new body? In fact, might not this be a requirement for becoming a Bodhisattva?
I'm outta here. Thanks muchly for the compliment on my essay, but it wasn't 'a couple of days', it got archived in less than a day!!! Bummer.
Visit them archives, folks! Lotsa good stuff there, not just my crazy rambles.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: To lose the promise of heaven (Spoilers: 1-2S6) -- Dedalus, 08:31:18 10/13/01 Sat
Am I the only one thinking Ryeui still needs to write an essay?
I will agree that the series does not necessarily have to end in pain, and that Buffy has always been the exception to the rule. Besides, as last episode shows, Joss always turns left when we expect him to turn right.
It's interesting - in the original screenplay for the movie, Buffy was reincarnated. The Slayer was just reborn, over and over, until she defeated Lothos.
But see, what makes Buffy's pull from heaven tragic was the fact that she didn't have to be reborn anymore. Even if reincarnation is a fact in the Buffyverse (which we have no indication that it is), she said very succintly that she was "complete," and "finished." The goal of most Eastern religions like Hinduism is NOT to have to come back to earth. She had reached the Buffyverse equivalent of Brahma. She was at the top of the line. At least with my understanding of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yep, you're right - we need to hear from the expert on this. Ryuei? -- OnM, 14:56:37 10/13/01 Sat
And if by chance you've already done so, point us to where-- too many threads to keep up with, might have missed it, or perhaps it got archived too quickly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Whoops, never mind - just found it in Masq's 'Afterlife' analysis! -- OnM, 15:34:58 10/13/01 Sat
But if you have anything else to add, feel free!
:)
On a different track -- kostadis roussos, 19:11:16 10/12/01 Fri
Hi!
On a somewhat different angle.
We have one basic unanswered question, why did the PtB not create a new slayer?
Presumably the PtB know that the slayer is dead, after all it is their avatar/creation/soldier.
Presumably they have interests that need to be protected and so one needs to be brought into existence soon.
I posit that they orchestrated the whole resurection, and heaven for Buffy because they needed her, not just any slayer, but her and that the only way for her to be able to continue the fight was to get over combat fatigue. To overcome her "death wish".
In conventional armies a full 30-40% of all casualties are due to combat fatigue. A key indicator is in fact a death wish. The standard "solution" is to pull the soldier into the rear, give them some therapy helping them realize that although things are horrible that they need to be able to fight. You give them sufficient R&R some reasonably targetted therapy and in 3-4 days on average your burned out soldier is ready to get himself killed on the front lines again.
Buffy at the end of season five was suffering from battle fatigue. She had succumbed to the strains of a war that had gone on for nearly five years. I think the show was showing us that she had acquired that death wish, and the only thing stopping her was the realization that she needed to save Dawn and the earth from glory. When she realized that she could achieve all three (her death wish included) she took that oppurtunity.
Now suppose the PtB have seen this scenario over and over again, but never had an ally like Willow. They intervene, making sure that Buffy does not go somewhere where Willow's magic can not get her back, but somewhere where Buffy can get some well deserved rest.
Then they further intervene during the spell, recall Willow did not bring her back to life, Willow asked some God to let her soul back from wherever it was (to grant her this boon). The PtB whose creature the slayer is must have allowed the slayer to come back to life, because they wanted Buffy the Slayer back.
But still they must have worried that Buffy would have committed suicide to go back to wherever she was.
Perhaps that is why Dawn appears right when Buffy was closest to committing suicide, as the only being that Buffy would be willing to save.
Recall that in season one Buffy does not go fight the master until *after* she speaks to willow. In other words, only when she realizes that her fight is for the willow's of the world, does she willingly go into battle.
By the end of season five, this must have ringed hollow, she may have even laughed at someone who would ask her to continue.
Perhaps the PtB hope that after this R&R buffy will be able to re-connect to that original impulse that made her fight the master.
Of course this does not answer the question: Why Buffy?
But i am sure her triumphs, actions, and heroism must have convinced whoever the PtB are that this was one slayer they should keep around for just a little longer.
cheers,
kostadis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: On a different track -- gds, 19:34:46 10/12/01 Fri
I like this post. It more fully expressed something that was vague in my mind. I have begun to believe that a more realistic description of where Buffy was - was an idyllic R&R. If her story to Spike is to be believed, she felt like she was in heaven. Have you ever been under a lot of stress and then gone to some beautiful vacation spot where you had no worries? You feel relaxed & at peace - until you have to go back. I once had job that was in a very unpleasant environment. It was all I could do to drag myself on a plane to return from a vacation from there. I wasn't in heaven (anyway I don't believe in either heaven or hell), but I was very bummed out about leaving. - And I wasn't on the frontline in the Hellmouth. Assuming Joss has heavens in the Buffyverse as well as hells, Buffy may have been deliberately placed in one on a temporary basis. The statment that she felt complete, doesn't mean she actually was complete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: On a different track -- Dedalus, 08:36:02 10/13/01 Sat
Well, I highly doubt Buffy had a death wish. I think she overcame in the Gift. If she had had a death wish, she would still have been in a coma. In the end, she found out how to live in this world, even if she had to die right after it.
And actually, the Powers didn't create the Slayer. The Watchers did. Read Fray.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: On a different track -- nancy, 17:11:35 10/13/01 Sat
There is another Slayer: Faith. She would be the slayer who would have to die for another Slayer to be called. After Buffy's death by the Master Kendra was called. When Kendra was killed Buffy was very active but Faith was still called. So until the rules change(always possible) it's Faith death that will call the next Slayer.
Why did Buffy confide in Spike? -- Hazen, 20:58:26 10/12/01 Fri
Like many fans, I was pretty floored by Buffy's big confession to Spike about her being pulled from a state of eternal happiness to resuming her Slayer responsibilities. It made me think why she maybe confided to Spike and not Willow, Xander or the others. Of course, there's the obvious: both Buffy and Spike now share common ground in being brought back from the grave: he as a vampire and she as resurrected. Also both had to fight their ways out of their coffins. However, one thing that should be mentioned should be how Spike related to Buffy's return in comparison to the rest of the Scoobies. It seems like Willow and the others seem to have been wrapped up in the fact that Buffy has been a big part of THEIR lives and that things are back to "normal." That life is normal that now that Buffy is back in it. As an attitude, it seems to lay a burden on Buffy that she is expected to take. In contrast, Spike's reaction was a quiet concern for her wounds and when he did talk to her in depth, it was to apologize for his failure to prevent Dawn's bloodletting and forcing Buffy to make the decision she had to make. It didn't seem like Spike was wallowing in self pity, as that he felt that he let someone, who has placed their faith in him, down. It was a very mature and sincere admission that I feel moved Buffy on some level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Giles wasn't available? -- Cleanthes, 21:00:43 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Angel was in another dimension? -- sasha, 21:38:07 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why did Buffy confide in Spike? -- LoriAnn, 06:06:50 10/13/01 Sat
Giles was in England and Angel was in another dimension, Los Angeles, so neither was available. More than that, if you'll recall "The Gift," Buffy and Spike spoke, briefly, at her house very candidly and personally, and that wasn't the first time. Buffy seldom confides in anyone, Giles sometime, but not often. She didn't even tell Dawn why she was so up tight after having talked to Dawn's teacher last season until she was pushed to it.
Despite Spike's obvious short comings--he is a vampire--he, as has been noted, offered things, like help and honesty, to Buffy while others, Willow, Zander, Tara, Anya, demanded things of her and kept things from her. Spike seemed honestly touched, happy, seriously concerned for Buffy; the others seemed happy and seriously concerned, but for themselves.
When Spike and Buffy are honest with each other, rather than putting on the face that seems appropriate to the social moment, some beautiful and touching moments have resulted. An example is when Spike went to Buffy's house to kill her with the shotgun last season. Buffy was sitting on the back porch crying. Even though she wasn't particularly pleasant to Spike, she was honest; she didn't hide her tears or distress. He was so moved that he dismissed the idea of scattering little pieces her over the back of the house and tried to honestly comfort her.
Spike, again despite his shortcomings, is the obvious choice for Buffy to confide in, to be honest with, something she clearly wasn't with Willow and company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why did Buffy confide in Spike? -- ann, 09:45:23 10/13/01 Sat
And why did Buffy go to visit Spike, when she told the scoobies she was going patrolling? I think, at this time, Buffy feels more connected to Spike than to her friends. The fact that they are both in a life after their own death was brought out several times. The symbol of them both having cut their hands was perfect. They have both clawed themselves back into the world. Another key line is when she tells Spike, "I can be alone with you." Life is hard and the happiness of her friends is demanding and she feels more comfortable with the dead than with the living. To be fully alive, Buffy has to embrace life again and that may be difficult. Spike may be a temptation, too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Why did Buffy confide in Spike? -- Deeva, 13:08:25 10/13/01 Sat
It's hard to confide to a friend something that will break them. If Buffy had chosen to confide with Xander or Willow, it would tear them up knowing what they truly did. How do you go and make amends for that? "Gee, I'm totally sorry for having ripped you right out of heaven! We thought you were in Hell, just cause... well, just cause. Not that I think that you've done anything that would land you in Hell. We just didn't think... you know." Spike was the only choice other than Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Why did Buffy confide in Spike? -- Lunarchickk, 20:40:02 10/13/01 Sat
"Spike was the only choice other than Dawn."
And of course, she couldn't tell Dawn. How could she tell this little version of her, this sister who lives for her, literally in her place (per Buffy's closing words in The Gift, "Live for me"), that she had been ripped from an unimaginable heaven to come back to this earthly hell?
Better to go to Spike, who (as LoriAnn said) has been honest and understanding not only since she was reborn, but previously as well. Spike, who (as Humanitas says, in the thread "Afterlife - thoughts after a second look." above) when Buffy comes to his crypt, tries to put on his "big bad" front by talking about knives and betrayal -- but instead winds up confessing that his dreams every night are of saving her.
She seems to be running short on people who want to hear -- or can handle hearing -- what she really has to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> this reminds me... -- anom, 11:30:14 10/14/01 Sun
"Another key line is when she tells Spike, 'I can be alone with you.'"
Buffy didn't plan on telling him ahead of time. She went to his crypt earlier, but this time she left the store to be alone & found Spike there. Maybe it was just that the timing was right for her to find him when she needed to tell someone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Scoobs got nothing on Glory -- Shiver, 14:27:45 10/13/01 Sat
Buffy knows she can trust Spike. He wasn't involved in the spell, so he would not feel responsible for her current unhappiness, as would Willow, Xander or Tara (Anya of course would remain guilt-free no matter what).
He also didn't crack the secret of Dawn under torture from Glory - he isn't going to reveal Buffy's secret to the likes of the Scoobs under any lesser circumstances or by accident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good point! forgot about that. -- Solitude1056, 16:30:51 10/13/01 Sat
Classic Movie of the Week - October 12th 2001 -- OnM, 22:34:09 10/12/01 Fri
*******
I have noted that persons with bad judgment are most insistent that we do what they think best.
............Lionel Abel
*******
It is that trancelike state when you are drawn to do something you should not do, and have passed through the stages of common sense and inhibition and arrived at critical velocity. You are going to do it.
............Roger Ebert
*******
I think we all just assumed crash positions.
............Tara (from ‘After Life’)
*******
Well, after last’s weeks uplifting movie selection, I thought it might be a good idea to get back to something, uhh, downlowering? Is that a word?
Never mind. If Joss and Espenson et all wanna be dark and disturbing, hey, I can be dark and disturbing too, or at least pick a flick that’s dark and disturbing. It’s not like there isn’t a lot of them to choose from. Why is that, anyway? And why am I asking so many questions? And writing these short little paragraphs?
Your humble movie man must be in the grip of some kind of obsessive behavior, there is no other reasonable explanation. After all, the deadline approaches, and there must be something to say. But what if there isn’t? When all three or four of you out there log on late Friday night to partake of my midnight movie madness, suppose that nothing was there? You might wonder, did he have to work overtime at his day job? Is he ill? Has he fallen and can’t get up? Is he having sex and can’t get it up? Was he in a crash?
Fear not, for if you are reading this, all is as well as the terminally Buffy and Movie obsessed can ever be well. My madness, unlike that of King George, is under control. I have been so fortunate in my life as to have been given the gift of reasonable reason, and it always stops me in time before I could do anything too excessively crazy, like go to bed on time, and not post a CMotW. No, sirree, not this fella.
Some other folks aren’t so lucky though. Take poor Willow, for example.
Now, I know, this was a big week for the Buffster, being yanked out of heaven and all, and I sympathize, but I think we all know that Buffy is made of pretty strong stuff, and like me has the gift of reason, and that eventually it will bring her back to realize that heaven can wait. I mean, like she’s going to turn all evil suddenly, and not get back there someday? No, no, not very messiah-like. Did anybody ask a question like that about Jesus after he rolled away the stone, or about Buddah after he achieved enlightenment? No, they did not. So let’s not worry about them, let’s place our concern where it belongs, with their humble followers. And of all Buffy’s followers, no one currently has a greater combination of power mixed with an obsessive bent for utilizing that power than Willow. For Willow, it’s almost like magic is another kind of sex.
Yeah, you heard me. Magic and sex? Those things don’t mix, do they?
Of course they do. Everything mixes with sex, why not magic? You can mix sex with love, with spiritual enlightenment, with passion, with lust, with obsession, with jealousy, with anger, with betrayal, with certain inanimate objects and even with cars.
Cars? (Still with the short little paragraphs here... must be a trend...) Yes, cars, and why not, since people are obsessive about cars, don’t you know? For Willow, magic is like a car, it’s a vehicle that gives her freedom, power, influence, admiration. She started out five years ago with your basic el cheapo junkyard special, all she could afford to conjure at the time, but she’s worked hard, traded up, rebuilt her engine and drive train, upgraded performance whenever possible and now she’s finally got the very best little speedster on the block. She can do 180 MPH around the tightest curves and feel the wind blowing through her hair. She’s one bitchin’ babe, cruisin’ with the top down. And this can mean but one thing in the Jossverse, and that’s that there is one seriously evil big-time crash coming around the bend, maybe not next week, or the week after, but sometime. We guarantee it, because we know one thing, and that one thing is that Willow has gotten a taste for danger, although she would deny it. Dangerous sex-- err, magic-- err, cars--- oh, never mind, let’s let David Cronenberg and J. G. Ballard tell it.
This week’s Classic Movie is Crash, released in 1996 in Canada, Cronenberg’s home territory, and early in 1997 in the United States. This film was steeped in controversy, which is nothing unusual for the director, who has a long history of making edgy, very non-mainstream films. It garnered an NC-17 rating due to the respectable number of (edgy) sex scenes it contained, and the sometimes violent depictions of car crashes that represent only the upper surface layer of the title’s meaning, but if you rent this flick, don’t expect it to be a porno movie type experience. In fact, it is probably one of the most un-erotic movies ever made about sex and obsessive behavior, not because the actors are physically unappealing, or because the film is not well crafted technically, but because the story depicts people who have become so intellectually immersed in the subject of their fetish that they virtually pride themselves on their emotional detachment from it.
One of the quotes I started the column with this week was from Roger Ebert, and in fact came from his review of this very film. While I generally try to give my own impressions of the movie in question, I’m not above letting someone else make a point for me when they do it so well and so succinctly, and this is certainly the case in this instance. Ebert writes:
Crash is about characters entranced by a sexual fetish that, in fact, no one has. Cronenberg has made a movie that is pornographic in form, but not in result. Take out the cars, the scars, the crutches and scabs and wounds, and substitute the usual props of sex films, and you'd have a porno movie. But Crash is anything but pornographic: It's about the human mind, about the way we grow enslaved by the particular things that turn us on, and forgive ourselves our trespasses.
When a college president makes dirty phone calls, when a movie star or a TV preacher picks up a hooker in a red light district, we ask: What in the world were they thinking of? The answer is, they are thinking (a) I want to do this, and (b) I can get away with it. Crash is a movie that understands that thinking.
OK, I’m back again. I was especially struck by the phrase ‘about the way we grow enslaved by the particular things that turn us on, and forgive ourselves our trespasses’, and how perfectly that applies to Willow’s forays into darker magics. In all likelihood, Willow starts out with the most elevated of motives, the understandable desire to right what she sees as a cosmic level wrong. But this motive is soon revealed to be just a veneer over the inner substance of her own guilt and fear of failing her friend at the crucial moment-- a sort of figurative death of her own, as it were. This guilt is then the fuel for her steadily growing inner fire, the desire to use her magical abilities to make herself feel alive in a figurative sense and her friend in a literal one. Each step forward in this chosen path is more dangerous than the previous one, but while Willow would never admit it, if she is even aware of it, the thrill of danger is becoming it’s own reward.
So, for one possible look at how such a road may wind and twist and end up at a 1) crossroads, 2) dead end or 3) back where you started, drive on down (safely, please!) to your local video shop and check out Crash. You may or may not like this movie, but it is an interesting and thought-provoking journey.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically no accident:
Crash is available on DVD. The review copy was on laserdisc, and contained several special features including a director’s commentary, which I found rather interesting, not only in analyzing the character’s motivations and such, but also for technical moviemaking items such as how the very realistic car crashes were set up without managing to actually kill any actors. Cronenberg also comments on some of the controversy the film generated throughout it’s theatrical release, and his reactions to it.
The running time is 1 hour and 40 minutes, the theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which was preserved on the laserdisc version, and likely also on the DVD edition. No info is available on any additional features that may be on the DVD. The soundtrack is in Dolby Surround, probably Dolby Digital on the DVD.
Cinematography was by Peter Suschitzky, music by Howard Shore. The screenplay was by David Cronenberg, based on the novel by J.G. Ballard, as previously mentioned.
Cast overview:
James Spader .... James Ballard
Holly Hunter .... Helen Remington
Elias Koteas .... Vaughan
Deborah Unger .... Catherine Ballard
Rosanna Arquette .... Gabrielle
Peter MacNeill .... Colin Seagrave
Yolande Julian .... Airport Hooker
Cheryl Swarts .... Vera Seagrave
Judah Katz .... Salesman
Nicky Guadagni .... Tattooist
Ronn Sarosiak .... A.D.
Boyd Banks .... Grip
Markus Parilo .... Man In Hanger
Alice Poon .... Camera girl
John Stoneham Jr. .... Trask
*******
Miscellaneous and the Question of the Week (see, it’s still here!):
This week, I don’t have too much in the way of odds’n’ends to rant about, partly ‘cos it’s late and I’m getting tired (really big on the ‘truth in advertising’ thing, I am, that’s one thing you ought know about me), so I’ll just jump into the QotW, which I am going to do in a little different method this time, just because (surprise!) I can.
Question 1 - ( easy question ): Who is your favorite film director who is not from your home country?
Question 2 - ( harder question ): Do you think Crash really gives any insights into Willow’s character as it relates to what we have seen so far in S5/S6 BtVS, or am I just blowing smoke up your monitor?
Question 3 - ( movie obsessive’s question ): For any of those of you who have seen both David Cronenberg’s The Fly and the movie I recommended a few weeks back during the ‘Guilty Pleasures / Buried Treasures’ series, Brian Yunza’s Return of the Living Dead III, what is your analysis of the success of the gender reversals of the main protagonists in ‘Return’ vs. ‘Fly’?
Pick any or all or none of the above, and post ‘em if you got ‘em. I wanna see at least one brave soul do a good essay on #3!!
Take care, dear friends, and see you next week.
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 12th 2001 -- Rufus, 00:10:03 10/13/01 Sat
Saw Crash, couldn't stand the movie, not because it wasnt' good but because it tapped into addiction and how powerful it can be. Even though the characters thought they had control over the situation, eventually the threat of death wasn't enough to stop them. A movie that was drenched with sex became the least sexy movie I've ever seen.
Now to Willow. Willow was the unseen geek, the sidekick that was there when Buffy made things better. Buffy was how Willow found her talent for magic, impressing Buffy became important to Willow. Before she died, Buffy called Willow her "big gun" showing an appreciation for Willows power that was as enticing as any drug. Then Buffy.....the best audience a girl could have, died. The end of the show....except that Willow had the power to bring her friend back...save Buffy from torment. Buffy's reaction to rebirth was less than the perfect thank you Willow had hoped for. Buffy was silent, unappreciative, before finally giving a less than heartfelt thank you to her friends. Spike took note of Willows power and it was one of the first things he told Buffy about. But this reborn Buffy is no longer an appreciative audience....Willows magic dragged her out of complete happiness into this hard world of pain. Buffy can never feel as grateful for Willows magic as she did in her first life. So, what is a powerful witch to do......how about....maybe....doing more and more magic to win back the audience she lost in Buffy? The thing is that it's not really about Buffy anymore it's about that feeling Willow gets in doing what no one else she knows can do. Buffy is now different, so is Willow, that could lead to a conflict over more than just Willow living in Buffys moms house. I think a falling out will happen over what Willow does when the person she needs approval from most of all...no longer admires her.
So, back to Crash, I think of the scene where the couple looks over the edge and can see that crash that has taken their friend...and can only think of the next crash they have next. That is Willow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You can blow smoke up my monitor anytime -- d'Herblay, 00:18:18 10/13/01 Sat
I can hardly believe that, with your episode reviews, you are going to gift us with two wonderful essays a week, every week, as long as there are new episodes. I find writing at length so painful (though not as painful as writing succinctly), that I can't help but stand aghast at your ability and your fortitude.
I haven't seen Crash, so I can't really answer questions 2 and 3 yet. As to question 1: does Billy Wilder count? Alfred Hitchcock and David Lean? Limiting myself to non-Anglophone directors, I face a toss-up between Akira Kurosawa and Francis Veber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ingmar Bergman for me -- Brian, 04:38:41 10/13/01 Sat
I was 19 when I first saw The Seventh Seal. It changed my whole view of what movies were about. Over the next few years, I tracked down ever Bergman I could find, and read ever book in the library on his career. Eventually, I went to graduate school in film. Smiles for a Summer Night is my favorite Bergman film. It sooths the Romantic in me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Where there's smoke... -- OnM, 13:43:17 10/14/01 Sun
...there's often too much friction. (or is that fiction? whatever... ;)
I can hardly believe that, with your episode reviews, you are going to gift us with two... essays a week, every week, as long as there are new episodes.
Well, thanks for the appreciation and encourgement, d'Herb, but we will have to see. I enjoy writing this stuff (I guess that's sorta Obviousman bait) but I make no promises, the week sometimes-- nay, many times-- dishes out more things for me to do than I possibly have time to do them. I managed to do the CMotW this week before my normal (self-imposed) deadline, but it was a real squeaker. It's just that since (Buffyverse-wise) I'm thinking it anyway, why not just write it down, ya know?
BTW, I admire succinctness too, I just can't seem to do it! Ah, well... could be worse-- there might not be any succinct-ers here to balance me out, very fortunately not the case.
BTW the second, always enjoy your posts, too, so keep 'em coming!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 12th 2001 -- Andy, 04:37:54 10/13/01 Sat
Well, since I haven't seen Crash (I don't think I've ever been much of a Cronenberg fan), I have to stick to the easy question :) While it might be a cliche answer nowadays, I think I have to go with John Woo. One of the few action directors who knows how to not only do incredible action scenes, but knows how to make movies about characters. And he's got this odd way of doing stories that really aren't very upbeat but somehow keep you entertained and happy to see anyway (kind of like Buffy, I guess). Except for Bullet in the Head. That movie was just relentlessly depressing :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 12th 2001 -- Humanitas, 07:32:58 10/13/01 Sat
OnM, that has got to be the funniest CMotW yet! I don't know if you were sleep-deprived or just on a roll, but boy, did I laugh!
I haven't seen any of the movies mentioned yet (although I'm thinking Crash may figure into my weekend), so I'm tackling Question 1. And the answer is...
Gee, I don't know. I mean, there are so many great non-American directors out there. Hitchcock comes immediately to mind. I saw The Birds on TV when I was six, and I'm still nervous around large birds. Plus, Psycho is an almost perfect suspense film. Ang Lee, of course, given his recent success with CTHD. Baz Luhrman won me over with Strictly Ballroom, and I've been a fan ever since. I think my favorite foriegn film, though, is Delicatessen, directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro. A delightful example of the director's craft, and very funny to boot. Jeunet went on to do Alien: Resurrection, which, heretic that I am, I have to admit that I enjoyed. So I don't know. I just know that the US certainly has no monopoly on good directing talent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sleep-deprived or just on a roll ? - Yes. -- OnM, 14:48:58 10/13/01 Sat
A lot of folks site Psycho as one of their fave Hitchcock films, but The Birds has always been mine. There is something elemental about it that makes it so incredibly creepy yet fascinating.
In the early 70's I was a big fan of Ingmar Bergman. More recently, Luc Besson has great style even if he is a bit on the overindulgent side at times. Brilliant, stunning visuals, though, always.
Same for Baz Luhrman, got interested when Wm. Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet was released, really hooked after Moulin Rouge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Gee, thanks............ -- Rufus, 18:06:46 10/13/01 Sat
Psycho is a great murder movie, but the Birds is a movie that is really scary. In our world we can get our hands on a wrongdoer and at least piece together some sort or explanation for what they did. In the "Birds" the solution is never found.....meaning it could happen again at any time, with any other animal group. The scene in the telephone booth gets me every time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Favorite Hitchcock (OTish) -- Cleanthes, 21:55:41 10/13/01 Sat
My favorite Hitchcock is `North by Northwest`. But then, I'm a native of South Dakota.
Hey, this is very tangentally on-topic since I can connect it by one degree of separation with Buffy. Martin Landau exuded the same creepy almost vampiric quality that his daughter displayed on BtVS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 12th 2001 -- Wisewoman, 11:16:51 10/13/01 Sat
Loved Crash and loved your review. When I first saw it I was reminded of something a dear friend had once confided in me. She is a healthy, athletic person, but unaccountably accident prone. One day she said, "I've never told anyone this, but if I trip and am about to fall, I don't try to save myself; I just go with it and fall into the fall. And I feel the same thing in my car, if I'm about to hit something--I don't even try to avoid it!"
I was quite surprised and shocked at the time. This woman always struck me as so sensible! (lol) When I saw Crash, I thought I could understand a little of how she felt, to surrender herself to disaster, almost to embrace it.
Question #1 is too easy for anyone from Canada!
Question #2: OnM, you're right on with this one. The analogy holds up brilliantly. The sex=magic equation is reinforced by Willow's relationship with Tara, which is founded on both. Unfortunately, Willow's going to crash, and we'll be unable to avoid watching it, just like a car accident!
Question #3: Unqualified to respond--haven't seen either one.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Jean Cocteau, above all others. -- Solitude1056, 11:21:04 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> So many choices for me for Q1! -- Rahael, 17:42:11 10/13/01 Sat
Since I come originally from Sri Lanka.
I would pick the Coen brothers, Hitchcock, Ang Lee, Satyajit Ray, Girish Kanakal, Howard Hawks (I always confuse him with Howard Hughes, never know if I'm making a big gaffe), and whoever directed Jack Lemmon in the Apartment. And Woody Allen for loads of great, fun movies.
I saw The Seventh Seal two weeks ago, and that was pretty mindblowing.
I'm getting spoilt as I have become a member of the National Film Theatre in London recently, and currently they are doing an Ingmar Bergman season, a Cary Grant season and a Coen brothers season. What a combination! I saw Aguirre Wrath of GOd (Herzog) recently too.
I shall look out for Crash, and for Kurosawa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I didn't mean Cocteau was the *only* one - just premier -- Solitude1056, 06:03:23 10/14/01 Sun
Since I also love Bergman, Almodovar, Wenders, and Lee, along with plenty of others - but it was picking up a copy of Beauty & the Beast that made me stop and say, wow, so that's what you can do with film, when you know what you're doing. Of course, I suppose I shouldn't say Cocteau is the one I love, but his cinematographer!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ah, Wim Wenders. No one has ever done Angels like Wenders. (~sighs~) -- OnM, 13:12:15 10/14/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 12th 2001 -- Dreaded Dawn, 18:57:55 10/13/01 Sat
Eh mon, er, OnM (sorry, had to say that after seeing Solitude's explanation of my alias :)
Answer to #1: Peter Greenaway (from Wales I think) - because of the surrealism, visual beauty, grotesqueness, dark humour and sexiness of his films; his obsessive attention to detail; and the fact that his naked people are real people, instead of the usual Hollywood carbon copies. Favourite examples:
* Drowning by Numbers (especially loved Smut's games)
* The Draughtsman's Contract
* The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover
Answer to #2: Yes. I think her magic experiences have been both heady and exhausting in the past, and her obsession will certainly continue to accelerate. I think you may be blowing smoke up our tailpipes, but please continue. That was a wonderful essay!
But since I haven't seen Crash, when you put together magic, obsession, sex, and cars, the movie that immediately came to my mind was Christine. It has its own parallels to Willow's situation as well.
In Christine, we see Arnie, a timid outcast, take on the fixing up of a car, Christine, becoming totally obsessed with her. She lends him self-assurance, sex appeal, and power over others which he had never experienced before. Unfortunately this power comes with a side effect - Christine becomes jealous and gets completely out of his control, trying to take over his life and estrange him from the people in it.
We also see Willow revelling in her power, and at times we see the power taking control of her rather than the other way around.
#3: Can't answer (loved The Fly, didn't see the other), but I am also looking forward to seeing any replies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Peter Greenaway -- OnM, 20:37:36 10/13/01 Sat
And if you want to O.D. on detail, don't forget Prospero's Books. Now that's a film for slo-mo or freeze frame on laser or DVD!
If you loved The Fly, you'll very likely enjoy Return of the Living Dead III, assuming you can find it. I know it's asking a lot to find someone who saw both of these, unless they rented RotLD/III back in the late summer when I reviewed it. But, hey, challenges make life interesting (as long as I don't get too many in one week!)
BTW, welcome to the board, mon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Prospero's Books -- Dreaded Dawn, 23:04:35 10/13/01 Sat
Well, as much as I hate to admit it, Prospero's Books was beyond me. I think I needed the Coles notes. I admire you for your... something. Discernment? Perspicacity? Yes, I'll go with perspicacity. Good word.
Thank you for your warm welcome! I anticipate some HelloBot action in the future, but for now it seems I am living Bot-free. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> S'OK, it was beyond me too, but it still looked really cool! -- OnM, 13:10:48 10/14/01 Sun
See Shakespeare's brain.
See Shakespeare's brain on acid.
See Greenaway film Shakespeare's brain on acid.
Timothy Leary's dead? Don't think so...
;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> "Best viewed under the influence of..." -- Dreaded Dawn, 19:50:44 10/14/01 Sun
Ah, now I understand... Thank you!
(Adds Prospero's Books to the list containing The Wall, Fantasia, and everything by David Lynch)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Peter Greenaway -- Humanitas, 08:13:09 10/14/01 Sun
Prospero's Books is my benchmark for Weird Shakespeare. I naver thought I'd se a film where the imagery is actually richer than Shakespeare's text, but that's just waht Greenaway does. I love the conceit of the film - that everything that happens is Prospero's doing. My only problem with the film is that I can't recommend it to anyone who isn't already familiar with The Tempest. The fact that nobody's lips move when Gielgud is giving the lines is very confusing. I knew the play pretty well, and I lost track of who was saying what at times. Still, beautiful film.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 12th 2001 -- A8, 00:11:42 10/15/01 Mon
Since I'm always drawn to controversial films, I checked out 'Crash' a couple of years ago, and, well, it just bored me. Maybe it's just the natural cynic in me, but it felt very contrived. Maybe I missed the point altogether, or maybe I'm darker than I thought, but when I view a film dealing with what might be considered by some to be the seedier aspects of human existence, I use 'Blue Velvet' as an artistic reference point. 'Crash' did not reach the level of thought provocation that would prompt me to recommend it to anyone. Not a bad movie, but not a great one either IMHO. 'The Fly,' on the other hand was very deep and dark enough for my tastes. A very harsh and painful experience, but compelling as well.
As far as favorite non-American (my country of origin) directors go, I'd have to place a vote for Peter Weir, especially with respect to his earlier films ('Picnic at Hanging Rock,' 'The Last Wave,' 'Gallipoli,' 'The Year of Living Dangerously'). By the way, I believe 'The Last Wave' is due out on DVD next month. I am enthralled with the aboriginal concept of "dreamtime" and Weir's movies always seem to capture that dream-like quality of existence. I'd give an asterisky vote for Stanley Kubrick since I believe his residence in the U.K. during a significant portion of his film-making career had a great influence on his vision even though he was what most of his friends would describe a real "New Yorker" at heart.
A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- Darrick, 05:23:29 10/13/01 Sat
I've read a number of different opinions on the various Buffy-oriented boards and newsgroups on the nature of Buffy's "afterlife." I'm interested in what the Buffy philosophers on this board think about it.
Do you think that Buffy was:
A. In heaven, literally (this could be Christian or any other kind. The point is it represented a "reward" given by a deity or deities (or even just the universe) for a life lived according to certain principles.) There may be some practicioners of other religions on this board who have a problem with this usage of "heaven", if so please apply your own definition. The main point is that Buffy being in heaven means there is an afterlife for people in the Buffyverse. THis could mean pearly gates with St. Peter taking the tickets, or becoming "one with God" as Buffy seemed to imagine she was.
B. A pocket dimension that resembles heaven. In this case she may have ended up there by luck or because the PTB rewarded her for a job well done. This is distinct from the theological idea of heaven in that it's not for everyone and there is no notion of judgment. More importantly, it means that her notion of feeling loved, or that her friends were all right may have been an illusion, as if she were trapped in a universe with a hallucinogenic atmosphere.
C. In the ether. We have heard on the show that this is where souls wait around. Maybe that feeling of timelessness and being loved is just a way of keeping souls in a state of bliss while awaiting rebirth. Perhaps this is why human souls, according to BTVS, steer us towards good behavior. And since the soul doesn't necessarily represent identity in the Buffyverse, this would explain why she is so vague on the whole affair.
D. In the womb. Buffy was reincarnated and awaiting a new life. Could that even explain why her perception was so off when she was first given her body back? It certainly compliments the imagery of her being reborn into a loud noisy world. I thought the description of heaven given by Buffy sounded a little unpleasant, like being reduced to infancy again with little independent thought or action. Her being reborn in an infant body, and the imagery she used, might be the writer's take on a baby still inside of it's mother. This brings up the question of what would happen to the hypothetical baby? If Buffy still has her soul in her reborn body, does this mean that the baby would not have one? If so, Willow's action was a serious crime indeed.
E. Other. The ideas above represent a survey of various opinions I've read in the past week. If anyone has something else, I'd be interested to read it.
For what it's worth, I lean towards C or D. Maybe it's just because Buffy's experiences don't sound particularly heavenly to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spoilers for "Afterlife" only -- Darrick, 05:25:25 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- OnM, 05:48:16 10/13/01 Sat
My vote is for 'A', with some shadings of 'D'.
From a writer's standpoint, 'A' is necessary, otherwise the actions of Willow and the Scoobies do not have sufficiently dire consequences, and this season is about 'growing up', therefore about the nature of responsibility and consequences for actions. For the 'price' paid to be high enough to justify the rebirth, it is essential for Buffy to actually have been in some kind of real heaven.
Keep in mind, though, that my personal long-term Buffyverse story bias is that Buffy is a messianic figure, and so is gradually 'becoming' more than human (in the best possible way).
Because the Jossians like to shade things, there is also a heavy dose of reincarnation concept laid over top of the more traditional (in Western culture, anyway) birth - life - death - afterlife type linear theology. Thus elements of 'D'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- Malandanza, 08:47:01 10/13/01 Sat
Darrick: "A. In heaven, literally (this could be Christian or any other kind. The point is it represented a "reward" given by a deity or deities (or even just the universe) for a life lived according to certain principles.)
OnM: "My vote is for 'A', with some shadings of 'D'. From a writer's standpoint, 'A' is necessary, otherwise the actions of Willow and the Scoobies do not have sufficiently dire consequences, and this season is about 'growing up', therefore about the nature of responsibility and consequences for actions. For the 'price' paid to be high enough to justify the rebirth, it is essential for Buffy to actually have been in some kind of real heaven."
I agree that 'A" makes the most sense -- with, perhaps, shadings of 'B.' I think that there is no Hell in the Buffyverse and incidents like the Burning Man and Angel's trip to "Hell" represent physical bodies being tormented in another dimension rather than an immortal soul being kept in a higher power's personal torture chamber. The reason I lean towards 'B' is that I feel that the Buffyverse heaven (or heavens) is extremely difficult to get into -- only in exceptional circumstances does a passing soul qualify for anything other than oblivion in the ether (like Darla and the departed souls of vampires).
From a maximum angst standpoint, heaven needs to be real and difficult to obtain. I believe that Buffy earned her not-so-eternal reward not by a life of good deeds and self-sacrifice, but by a single moment of grace just before she died for her sister. Thus, Willow has not merely delayed Buffy's reward, she has risked its loss -- there is no way of knowing whether or not Buffy will die in a state of grace the next time around. In fact, she may be so filled with a feeling of existential despair because of she has lost, that she may go through her existence as an apathetic automaton and end up losing heaven.
I am glad that Buffy lied to her friends -- for Xander and Tara's sake. Knowledge of what they had unwittingly helped precipitate would have had a serious impact on them. Eventually, though, I believe that Buffy needs to sit down with Willow and explain exactly what the consequences of her spell entailed -- perhaps then we'll see Willow grow up as Giles did so many years before in England. The question in my mind becomes how badly does Willow have to mess up her next spell to get Buffy to confront
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Well said, M. -- Dedalus, 08:58:52 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I agree about who to "tell" -- Rufus, 18:03:38 10/13/01 Sat
I believe that for the poll it's "A" in however way you understand a heaven to be. The depressing part is that you seem to have to work your way through "hell" or life to get to heaven, meaning some people are going to need maybe a couple of shots at the game.
As for telling Willow, she is the one who should have that burden as she is the one who thought of the spell. Xander and Tara were along because they loved both parties involved. Xander seemed tortured enough when he realized that Buffy had to fight her way out of her coffin. I think it won't be as easy as Willow screwing up her next spell, but a series of bad choices that she makes based upon wanting the job done instead of considering all the consequences first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- Kerri, 08:38:02 10/13/01 Sat
Literally A, metaphorically D.
I think she was in heaven. Perhaps not an entirely Christian heaven-but the concept of heaven that Joss created for his reality.
Of course there is the likeness to the womb to help in the rebirth metaphore, however, I don't think that Buffy was literally in womb of sorts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- Dedalus, 08:40:58 10/13/01 Sat
I would have to go with A, with a little C sprinkled in for flavor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- Jen C., 09:11:20 10/13/01 Sat
I've gotta go with C. I don't think that BTVS has established what happens to you when you die, and Buffy's description of her after death experience was beyond vague.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- bible belt, 10:31:05 10/13/01 Sat
I'm with you on this. I'm not sure she was telling anybody the truth when she said where she was. I guess that’s probably cause I’m not prepared for there to be a definite answered to that question in the real verse or the Buffyverse, since I might not like the answer.
Wouldn’t that be risky for the writers to make that kind of conclusion, since the show is so imbued with our culture and everyone has such diverse feelings about heaven?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> bizarre analogy, but whatever... -- Solitude1056, 11:18:26 10/13/01 Sat
Buffy's description of her after death experience was beyond vague.
Okay, trying explaining to someone who's never even kissed another person what's it's like to have an unbelieveable orgasm with someone that you're madly, passionately, insanely in love with. Sure, you can describe the concrete elements, the physical distinction of who does what, but the listener will never truly grok what you mean. Nothing would communicate the experience short of being there, and even then, each person's experience would be fundamentally if subtly different.
So, in fact, I put more weight on Buffy's "location" having distinct shades of a heavy-duty experience (as best explained by Malandanza) by virtue of her inability to express herself beyond simple, concrete words-failing-her statements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: bizarre analogy, but whatever... -- Cleanthes, 16:34:53 10/13/01 Sat
So, in fact, I put more weight on Buffy's "location" having distinct shades of a heavy-duty experience (as best explained by Malandanza) by virtue of her inability to express herself beyond simple, concrete words-failing-her statements.
In support of this, imagine if had Buffy said to Spike, "Well, I first met up with this bearded guy in a robe jangling a key. Behind him stood pearly gates. I told him who I was, he smiled at me and said, 'Peter at your service'. He asked me a couple questions, and then beautiful music seemed to swell up. He stuck his key in the gate and swung it open. I walked on in." and, etc. etc. etc.
Giving concrete details like this would destroy the concept and, would sound awfully silly to boot.
Which reminds me of Christ's words; he never described heaven at all despite claiming personal knowledge thereof.
Many times the disciples asked Him what the kingdom of heaven was and He always replied with a parable "It's crops" "It's bread" "It's hidden treasure" "It's fish" "It's a mustard seed".
That's what Buffy found in `The Gift` - a way to find the pearl of great price. For her to return from there to here, she traverses in infinite and incomensurable distance. Her description isn't so much vague as it is Necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> sorry to hear you've never had an orgasm, Sol :))) -- Miy, 07:29:01 10/15/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> hunh? uh. whatever. -- Solitude1056, 09:52:09 10/15/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- sassette, 13:12:51 10/13/01 Sat
I don't think you can separate a lot of your choices. I think Buffy was in a very good place. Whether it be heaven, or a heavenly dimension, or some kind of universal womb, I don't think matters. It was a good place, and Buffy was happy there.
As for the womb (from which she was meant to be reborn; I think it's possible she was in some kind of universal womb, in a you begin there, you're taken from there, and then you get to go back there kind of way) or an ether, I don't think so. I don't think Buffy was in a place that she was meant to be taken from. She was "finished," which I think she meant in both the sense of being completed, and of having finished with her time on earth. I think her being torn from that dimension was very unnatural.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- Darrick, 13:55:05 10/13/01 Sat
I'm of the opinion that it does matter, since the answer bears heavily on how we should view the Buffyverse and the people in it. If it is an actual heaven, who gets in, and who doesn't? Does everyone go? If so, is that fair? If it's just a pleasant pocket dimension, then her feelings on it may have been entirely manufactured. If so, who sent her and did it represent a reward or not? If she was back in the womb(and here I meant a _literal_ womb, as in reincarnation) what happened to the child she was going to be? I think there is an important distinction between a heaven created by an omniscient God or Gods, and a small pocket dimension created by a few seemingly benevolent powerful beings. Who are they to decide what a person's eternal reward should be? Are the powers that be the same as God in the Buffyverse? I don't know but I tend to doubt it. And if they aren't God, is it right for them to create an illusion for Buffy's benefit that all her friends were well? I understand that she may have been taking the long view when she said this, but if she was in some fabricated pocket dimension then the truth of her statement is called into serious question.
I distinguish the ether from actual heaven because I see it as being a temporary condition and one which has little bearing on what you did in life. Although perhaps in Buffy's world, heaven also has no connection with what you did in life.
Although, for Buffy herself, I acknowledge that she herself need make no distinction between any of the above. If she felt complete, loved, and happy then I suppose that it might as well have been heaven. For myself, I would argue that you could achieve the same effect with the right mixture of drugs :) But perhaps this kind of bliss is what Buffy, who has had more than her share of responsibility, is looking for.
Perhaps I also have trouble accepting she was in heaven because I don't believe in any kind of afterlife myself, and I've seen little indication that the writers do either, at least not in the context of the show. All the "Hells" we've seen have merely been demon dimensions. But perhaps the Buffyverse is a benevolent one, where everyone gets to go to a good rest, and no one gets eternal punishment. In any case, I agree that it is nice that Buffy is entitled to a reward for her actions. Now I suppose she will not fear death in the same way. We'll see whose right, I guess. Or not, knowing the writers :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> If the show were still on the WB (Spoilers for AtS) -- Liq, 08:13:04 10/14/01 Sun
"If she was back in the womb(and here I meant a _literal_ womb, as in reincarnation) what happened to the child she was going to be?"
If "D" was the answer and if we were still in cross-over land, I would be somewhat concerned for the unborn child considering who is pregnant.
What a plotline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Whoa! Would THAT ever stir things up! -- RabidHarpy, 07:56:56 10/15/01 Mon
...An excellent observation!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- Cleanthes, 16:44:17 10/13/01 Sat
A. In heaven, literally (this could be Christian or any other kind. The point is it represented a "reward" given by a deity or deities (or even just the universe) for a life lived according to certain principles.)
I vote "A" but saving out another way of looking at it. It was no reward; virtue is its own reward.
So let me set out my version of choice "E":
It needn't be a reward by some deity or deities.
Not having seen it mentioned anywhere, maybe y'all will indulge me in a little description of a concept I find fun, although I wouldn't place too much hope on it.
New Age neoPlatonism has worked up an analogy between fractal mathematics and eternal existence. If numbers "live" forever, and if the entirety of human consciousness and existence can be set out as the terms or "graph" of a particularly complex fractal equation, then we partake of the infinite qualities of mathematics. In mathematics there exists a proof that certain classes of equations yield a succession of terms not amenable to prediction by any method simpler than playing out the function. If you want to know the 100,000th term, you gotta do 100,000 iterations. It's these equations that the New Agers have grabbed ahold of. There can be an afterlife; indeed it may be required.
All right, what does that have to do with heaven? Well, every person, to the extent they have freedom to determine their own personality, creates what happens next with them. Both in life and in afterlife. Buffy, then, created her own heaven.
(In RL, I personally hold the Stoic view of the afterlife, btw, - it doesn't matter for life, only for art where it can go either way as the artist likes. Whether there's an afterlife or not cannot be determined even in principal by any means describable in words or capable of general agreement among people)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah, what he said...and also... -- Wisewoman, 17:53:48 10/13/01 Sat
I was gonna go for "none of the above," but Cleanthes' description of "E" comes pretty close.
As for Buffy's vague description of where she was, well, once she's corporeal again and dealing with existence trapped in the field of time and space, where she was is not only indescribable, she is no longer able to conceive of it, let alone describe it.
Buffy died. She pierced the Veil of Maya and understood the true nature of reality. That understanding can't be contained within the physiology of the human body/mind. So, she's "forgotten" it.
Yup, that's me...New Age, with a capital N, A.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Yeah, what he said...and also... -- Dedalus, 18:58:42 10/13/01 Sat
I guess I shouldn't always be poking fun at New Agers, then, eh?
Incidentally, WW, when you do a smiley face, do you mean to do ;o) or just :o) ?
The eye in the first one looks sort of like it has an eyelash. Weird. I was just wondering if it was intentional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> It's a WINK!!! :oO -- Wisewoman, 19:44:15 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Put me down as a second "yeah, what he said" -- Solitude1056, 19:09:54 10/13/01 Sat
I've been thinking about this while gardening (since that's when I do my best thinking, albeit most of that thinking is involved with trying to figure out which are plants I meant to put in there, and which are just pretty weeds)... and naturally someone else trumped me on this comment. (Which is a good thing, since I'm unable to articulate my notion, now that I'm at the computer.)
My version of E fits sort of in with A. As has been hashed and rehashed in other threads, Willow drew a comparison between Buffy's exit and Angel's, but Angel took his body with him. Buffy didn't. She went through a mortal death, which means her daemon, essence, soul, headed off on its own. The pain and fury of a hell or even a Hell is going to be experienced differently by a creature of energy than it would by someone whose sense of touch is still ruled by nerve endings that carry the message back to the brain. There is no more brain, there are no nerve endings, there are no fingers. Reality itself, whatever that is, must have been altered radically.
A number of mystics have had visions of an "afterlife" and described people in "personal hells," unable to see the beauty of the next stage, around them. Because they were still trapped in those last-minute self-judgements, they were unable to truly move on and see their previous version of existence as complete. Of course, this is all based on the assumption that regardless of where the body might have gone through the Portal, fact is that it didn't - death came at some point. That separates the essence, and thus there's no body to filter the experiences of any dimension for the body - the essence simply shrugs off the body and moves on, untrapped by any particular dimension or physical reality.
It has always seemed to me, somehow, that what one believes, is what one creates, energetically: a self-fulfilling prophecy. So the minute Buffy's body appeared on the pile of construction refuse, I figured her mindset would determine her next experiences. Her moment of grace, as someone else phrased it, had a better chance of giving her the expectation that she was bound for a peaceful reward, now that she knew, and completed, her task.
If, however, she had judged herself as worthless, she might have given herself the same existence as Darla: a state of absolute nothingness, a huge void. If she'd thought she'd done something wrong, could change anything, perhaps she would have experienced that next stage as a guilty hell, where she tormented herself with all the pain one normally associates with a Hell. In this, as in much else, I think we choose our paths. As one judges oneself, that's what one gets, because this "getting" is based on one's perception, which in turn is based on one's expectations of what that judgement must deserve.
So, in some ways, I also tend to feel - not think, mind you - that the moment of death does define one's post-material expectations. Buffy's reward was one she gave herself, but it was formed by that last-second understanding of herself, deeply and truly. That has a lot to do with the circumstances of her death. I don't know how often she'd get that chance again, on such a large scale, and it's possible that the next time around - depending on the situation - she may not see herself as completing but as failing, and thus consign herself to a much less pleasant 'next stage.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Put me down as a second "yeah, what he said" -- Malandanza, 20:39:35 10/13/01 Sat
"It has always seemed to me, somehow, that what one believes, is what one creates, energetically: a self-fulfilling prophecy...As one judges oneself, that's what one gets, because this "getting" is based on one's perception, which in turn is based on one's expectations of what that judgment must deserve."
The biggest problem I have with the make-your-own-afterlife scenario is that the narcissists would get the best heavens -- Superstar types of existences -- while the meek inherit a hell of their own devising -- straight out of their worst nightmares. It hardly seems fair :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Any Twilight Zone fans? (spoils "A Nice Place to Visit" 1959) -- Cleanthes, 21:47:32 10/13/01 Sat
The biggest problem I have with the make-your-own-afterlife scenario is that the narcissists would get the best heavens -- Superstar types of existences -- while the meek inherit a hell of their own devising -- straight out of their worst nightmares. It hardly seems fair :)
There's a Twilight Zone episode called "A Nice Place To Visit" on this subject. I don't have all the Zone episode names memorize, I just checked for it on the web. Here's the tagline:
"While committing a crime, a cheap hood (Blyden) gets killed and finds an afterlife in which all wishes are granted."
In the episode, the cheap hood gets everything he wants. For those who've seen it, the final twist at the end seems completely fitting - he went to hell. Yeah, he gets everything he wants, but his desires don't reach beyond selfishness and cheap victory and, well, it sucks in the long run - such an existence is a nice place to visit but you wouldn't want to spend eternity there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Any Twilight Zone fans? (spoils "A Nice Place to Visit" 1959) -- Dedalus, 10:27:27 10/14/01 Sun
Great example, Cleanthes.
There is a difference between reality and appearances.
That's what I was saying in my Buffyverse/inherently good people thread. In the end, people should do what makes them happy. And no, that doesn't have to mean sinning, because in the end, sinning doesn't make most people happy.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Twilight Zone & Buffy vs Darla -- Malandanza, 23:02:34 10/14/01 Sun
"Yeah, he gets everything he wants, but his desires don't reach beyond selfishness and cheap victory and, well, it sucks in the long run - such an existence is a nice place to visit but you wouldn't want to spend eternity there."
A few more objections:
Do unimaginative people end up in limbo?
What about people who are so entirely lacking in any sort of spirituality that wallowing in mere sensual pleasures is all they aspire to? (Your Twilight Zone crook was just a little too introspective or he would have been happy).
And how about the ignorant -- is ignorance a first class ticket to heaven? Consider the character of Ignorance in Pilgrim's Progress: Christian's faith falters when he approaches the river (death) but Ignorance sails benignly across, convinced that Heaven awaits him (sadly, he is mistaken).
Or how about something a little more Buffy-centric: Buffy vs Darla.
Darla remembers no afterlife -- yet surely she had demonstrated a remarkable (albeit wicked) imagination and inventiveness during her life. Her afterlife should have been filled with rich and varied delights or punishments.
Perhaps, you might suggest, that it is the expectations of the final moments of life that determine the nature of the afterlife. Darla died quickly and unexpectedly -- she was not thinking about her imminent death and of the state of her immortal soul so she ended up with nothing for an afterlife. Buffy leapt willingly to her death -- after a few moments of contemplation. Her state of mind at the time of her death was one of satisfaction -- her friends would be safe because of her sacrifice; thus, her heaven was constructed in accordance with her expectations.
A reasonable argument, I must confess.
On the other hand, Darla's soul departed her body when she became a vampire -- when she certainly was thinking about God and Hell -- as evidenced by her chat with the Master. One of the first real comments to Angel was a question about Hell -- it seems as though eternity was on her mind both immediately before death and soon after her rebirth.
So I still must side against the create-your-own-afterlife faction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> here, let me de-chomp from my foot & try again. -- Solitude1056, 06:14:13 10/15/01 Mon
Let's see if I can explain it better the second time around.
The issue is in that moment of grace that occurs on the passage to death: how one judges oneself. Without much eloquence, the bottom line (for me) is the truthfulness of the person's self-judgement, and acknowledgement that the material/physical life is now over, and done. The narcissists, egotists, bad guys, good guys, meek, humble, ignorant, etc - all face the exact same question: "can I accept that my life is now DONE, and that what I did is what I did, and I can't go back and do anything else about it?"
While alive, we talk about ignorance of history meaning we're doomed to repeat it, but on the passage to death, I think it's acceptance that one's life is history is the key to not having to repeat it endlessly in a self-made hell. I'm not the only one with this notion; even the movie 'Sixth Sense' was carried on the notion of dead people who don't realize they're dead or keep on, insisting they have unfinished work and refusing to let the living pick up where they've left off.
[That's why I look at Buffy's notion that "my friends were okay" with a bigger-picture eye than just "hey, my sister sprained her ankle and Xander wrecked his car" - it's the 'okayness' of her friends being capable of continuing and finishing anything she had left undone. No, they didn't live up to that, but few do, especially when grieving. Then again, not many of us have the option of reincarnation as part of the denial process.]
And lastly:
The biggest problem I have with the make-your-own-afterlife scenario is that the narcissists would get the best heavens -- Superstar types of existences -- while the meek inherit a hell of their own devising -- straight out of their worst nightmares.
Bluntly, those who judges themselves falsely - whether as all-perfect, or as artificially humble - deserves whatever hell they get.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> anom, don't shoot me on the wacky verb tenses! -- Solitude1056, 06:34:19 10/15/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> i *told* you, i only edit when asked to! -- anom, 13:26:05 10/15/01 Mon
Or better yet, paid to! meaning I better get back to work now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> as for a buffy-centric idea of what happened... -- Solitude1056, 10:18:40 10/15/01 Mon
I go for F, "what A8 said," after reading all the various posts. Read it here or just go up to the later threads to find A8's post... which, natch, I can't recall its title.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Damn pricipal Snider! -- Cleanthes, 22:04:42 10/13/01 Sat
Okay, indulge me. I make too many typos and misspellings to correct them all, but I hate erroneously goofing up the principal/pinciple thingie. I try not to misspell my foot-and-a-half words either. I reserve the right to moan and make lame correction regarding these goofs. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> oh, thank you! -- anom, 19:57:05 10/14/01 Sun
I try to keep my editorial instincts in check (like I have time to indulge them [like that would stop me]) correcting/confirming spellings only when someone asks, but stuff like the above does grate on me sometimes.
And I realize spelling has little to do w/intelligence, or even education; it's just that some people have it & some don't. I should know--I used to have a roommate who's an amazing writer. Cannot. Spell. Worth. A. Damn. In fact, I recently recognized her from a description of the discrepancy in these 2 abilities by an editor on a panel at an sf convention.
Thanks for letting me rant. (Semi-rant?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> E: None of the Above -- change, 06:42:46 10/14/01 Sun
Here's a secular explanation for what Buffy experienced.
When animals are killed by predators, they usually only cry out once or twice, or not at all. However, they are often alive for a disturbingly long period of time while being torn apart by predators. There is a theory that says the brain releases large amounts of endorphins when it is about to die. The explanation for this is that it would be too traumatizing for other animals to hear the prolonged cries of one of their kind being ripped apart by predators, so natural selection favored animals that died relatively quietly.
People who survived attacks by large predators often report a similar thing. These are situations where someone has been attacked and severely wounded by a lion or something and is only saved because somebody shoots the lion and rescues them. In these cases, the victim often reports that they felt detached from the experience, felt no pain, and had a feeling of peace and acceptance. Similar things are often reported by other people who have a near death experience.
So, another possible explanation is that Buffy did not experience an after life at all. Instead, what she was describing to Spike were the last moments of her life when her brain released its endorphins to cushion the impact of her death. This would be consistent with her vague description of the after life being happy, warm, and of feeling loved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Great interpretation. I was thinking similarly along those lines -- mundusmundi, 11:39:18 10/14/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: E: None of the Above -- bible belt, 12:23:37 10/14/01 Sun
I have the same problem with the make-your-own-afterlife scenario as Malandanza. I was thinking along the lines of someone who is schizophrenic who didn’t ask to be and ended up in some schizophrenic Hell or Heaven depending on how they felt (and who knows what that might be) about being schizophrenic at the time they died.
I would like to think that change’s explanation would help these people out in some way, I certainly hope so anyway.:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thx for the feedback, bb (OT) -- mundusmundi, 12:58:50 10/14/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> could be... -- anom, 20:31:15 10/14/01 Sun
"Similar things are often reported by other people who have a near death experience."
Oddly enough, last week (Wed.?) a woman sat next to me on the subway & told me about having died years ago, w/all the now well-known features of such an experience (before they became well known). I don't remember what led to her telling me about it, but she talked about how peaceful it was, & said that anyone who'd been through it could never be afraid to die again, that it made her feel free. Amazing.
Whether it explains Buffy's description I have no idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I like it . . . -- d'Herblay, 22:18:14 10/14/01 Sun
. . . especially because it saves me from taking up a few hours writing my materialistic interpretation of "After Life." And yours is much more satisfyingly materialistic than mine would have been, as I would have invoked Dedalus's characterization of the end of "The Gift" as satori, and talked about "a moment of clarity" and time-elongation and mumbish-jumbish whatnot. Endorphins! Yeah, that's the ticket! Just the sort of atheist tapdancing I've got the rhythm for!
I'm just glad that she didn't say to Spike, "I believe I was in Heaven. And you know who got it right? The Upland Mennonites. No more buttons for me . . . "
One thing though, pretty off-topic and somewhat snarky . . . "The explanation for this is that it would be too traumatizing for other animals to hear the prolonged cries of one of their kind being ripped apart by predators, so natural selection favored animals that died relatively quietly"? Natural selection cannot favor animals for how they die. (Unless the animals' offspring then eat them. I think there are some arthopod mothers who become their own children's first meal. When in doubt, claim that arthopods do it.) (Actually, now that I think about it, kin selection could account for such an adaption. However, I think you'll find the adaption even in herding animals, where kin selection would not be in effect. In all the time I've spent watching Animal Planet, I've never heard an impala scream.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I like it . . . -- RabidHarpy, 09:36:07 10/15/01 Mon
"Yeah, that's the ticket! Just the sort of atheist tap-dancing I've got the rhythm for! I'm just glad that she didn't say to Spike, I believe I was in Heaven. And you know who got it right? The Upland Mennonites. No more buttons for me . . . "
LOL! (Wiping tears from my eyes...)*sigh* That was so wonderfully worded! I think you may have just made my day! ;D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A poll re: the nature of "Afterlife" -- Whisper2AScream, 07:50:20 10/16/01 Tue
E- Something else entirely. She had lived a fairly good life, and she was at peace with herself. No doubts. Some feel that what happens after death, is that the place you go to is open to interpretation. If you feel you lived a good life, and at peace with yourself, then that other dimension is good and peaceful. However, if you feel that you were evil, and need to be punished, well, it's not going to be as pleasent. In this case, Angel went to Hell, because in his mind, he did wrong things. As a human, he abused his father's wealth on drink and women, and later as a vampire, he did even worse things. Part of him felt the need to be punished, so he was.
I think the ether is a kind of limbo. If you look at the Stokerian philosophy on vampires, the soul is trapped while the body is a vampire. They are not dead nor alive, but stuck in an undead existence. Because of this, the soul cannot move on, until the body is destroyed. I think the Buffyverse echoes this. Once a vampire is staked, generally, except in extreme circumstances, the person is then gone for good. (I think in Darla's case, it helped that the Master was her sire, giving her a better chance at resurrection than most. Though, once his bones were destroyed, he couldn't resurrected either.)
However the possibilty of D presents an interesting conundrum, for according to the Buffyverse, Slayers are reincarnated along the line. They have dreams where they see themselves in those other lives as other Slayers. If that is so, perhaps her next life was one may be called upon as a new Chosen One? And if so, would such events cause the break referred to in the Fray comic
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
, where Melika had no memories of being a Slayer. Perhaps, by bringing Buffy back, this is what later caused the large gap in Slayers?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
I think it was mostly E, but with some shades of D perhaps.
Am I the ONLY one pleased Buffy was in heaven? -- Dedalus, 08:56:46 10/13/01 Sat
It does feel like that sometimes. I've pretty much heard all week how horrible and dark After Life was, and how it was one of the most unbearable episodes in the whole series. I for one just don't get that.
Okay, I get it, and I sympathize. Yes, being torn out of heaven and put in a coffin would not be a particularly pleasant experience. Yeah, losing that little slice of bliss would be so hard. Recovery will take awhile. She might not ever completely get over it.
But on the other hand, would it have been easier to take if Willow had been right and she had been trapped in some hell dimension after her oh-so-noble death?
I think Bargaining was much harder to watch than After Life. I go along with what OnM said - who is getting quoted an awful lot around here - to have Buffy wake up in hell would have so offended my sense of justice the Buffyverse would not have even been a place that was ... well, worth visiting. It would have been much harder to take. Not to mention, the Gift would have made no sense. I am so glad they established early where she really was.
Wouldn't the Buffyverse be incredibly depressing if it was just one demon dimension after another, an endless succession of hells interrupted only occasionally by a Crazy Melty Land or a World Without Shrimp? The insertion of a nice quiet place balances out the whole cosmology, in my opinion. It brings some light into the darkness.
The more I think on this, I think the heaven Buffy was in was one of her own making, and I think it was a dimension distinguished from all the other dimensions. I'm not sure how it works in a large scale, or if there is a reward or punishment or just reward for all mortals in the Buffyverse, but I do think there is something. We have no evidence of souls being sucked into hellverses, contrary to Willow's delusional rantings. Up until now, we just haven't had a clear picture of any kind of an afterlife.
That the Powers have established a nice quiet corner for well, whoever - maybe just Slayers - after death is ... well, nice.
This perfectly fits with what has been missing before and what has gone before, as well as perfectly sitting up oodles of drama for the coming months. I don't know exactly how much an oodle is, but trust me, it's a lot. And in the long run, since Buffy does retain memories of heaven back on earth, who knows where that will lead?
In short, I'm happy our Slayer got three months of peace where she was warm and loved and finished, even if eternity got interrupted in the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I think it's a question of focus. -- Humanitas, 10:52:41 10/13/01 Sat
I doubt that any of us are offended that Buffy was in Heaven. You're right, it is nice to see that there's some sort of cosmic justice in the Buffyverse, and it does provide a little balance to an otherwise pretty bleak cosmology. The reactions that you've seen on the board this week have been reactions to the 'situation on the ground,' as it were. We've all been so busy being horrified that Buffy got gypped out of her reward by her friends, of all people, that we haven't gotten to the stage of saying "oh, that's actually very comforting that Buffy went to Heaven, isn't it?" There have been a few remarks to that effect, but they haven't been the majority of the posts. They're out there, though, buried in the threads.
Perhaps the reason we found After Life so depressing is that it isn't really about Buffy having been in Heaven. It's about her having to come back to earth, and being surrounded by people who have no idea what she's going through, and in fact are so full of guilt already that they couldn't handle the truth, even if they knew. If that's not depressing, I don't know what is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah. What he said. -- Solitude1056, 11:07:12 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me too. -- Deeva, 12:53:51 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ditto -- Liq, 13:37:19 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yup. Just don't quote me! ... ;) -- OnM, 14:32:50 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: So ya'll agree with Humanitas, huh? :-) -- Dedalus, 18:49:37 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I disagreed... but then I reread it, and I agreed. ;) -- Dreaded Dawn, 23:45:42 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Am I the ONLY one pleased Buffy was in heaven? -- Dariel, 10:53:50 10/13/01 Sat
No, you're not the only one. Girl needed and deserved a rest. Yes, there's a lot of angst associated with Buffy being torn out of her heaven. But it's nice to know that it's there, and that's where she'll end up eventually. It makes the sacrifices associated with being the Slayer a lot less awful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Am I the ONLY one pleased Buffy was in heaven? -- o, 07:45:01 10/14/01 Sun
I'm so glad someone brought this up. Since I watched After Life, there's just been this one, burning, nagging question in the back of my mind. She jumped- to save her sister, to save the world. How could her friends, the people who know her and love her, have assumed that she would be sent anywhere but Heaven ? Or, the Buffy-verse Heaven, whatever that equates to... And, al