Buffy, Angel and Scooby Dooby DOOOOOO!

There is one thing that I really have issue with in the series of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel and that issue is that both shows have a serious case of Scooby Doo-itis. It seems that every episode is the same. The details vary, but they all end the same way, Buffy (or Angel) kicks evil in the ass and everyone laughs and moves on or Angel mopes a little more: depends on the series. There is the occasional episode that breaks the mold, such as "Hero" and "Once More With Feeling" but largely it follows the 1,2,3 of 1. Encounter *insert Evil being*; 2 Find out what *Evil Being* does and 3 Kick Evil's ass. This monotony is relieved by excellent two parters like "Surprise/Innocence" and "Graduation Day". "Hero" is one of the episodes that follows a story arch that is pretty standard in film but is rare enough in TV that I was kind of surprised to see it. It felt extremely predictable, but I've seen A LOT of movies.

This show...

So as if I wasn't turned off enough by the acting and the plot in general, we now have a sacrificial lamb, Doyle, who was actually the one entertaining part of this show for me. Now, I am stuck with Angel and Cordelia. Not only did Doyle die, but of course, it had to be the whole "no not you, me" angle. This show just seems like one big cliche to me, everything seems forced and awkward, just like the commercial shoot. Of course Doyle has to kiss Cordelia before his death and of course he has to come up with some one liner. "Too bad we'll never know if this is a face you could have learned to love."? My goodness, I like you Doyle but let's get this thing wrapped up already. I really don't mean to sound like such a hater, but I can't wait until we get through this phase of the class and on to the next project.

Come get your tickets to the Nazi theme park!!!

Watching Buffy and Angel reminded me I wanted to read Bram Stoker's Dracula at some point. Alas, I haven't so I can't compare the modern vampire to Dracula. However, it seems that the novel is probably less scary than the the extra-textual legend of Vlad the Impaler. I'd rather be soulless and live for ever than be impaled, personally. Or even just had the blood drained out of me. Probably pass out after a certain amount of pints.

Legend vs. reality, also makes me think of the use of the Nazi theme in Angel. It was sort of interesting, but just couldn't match up to the reality of Nazi scary. Combining the evils of reality with fantasy seems to cheapen how scary history could be. I just didn't feel that the length of "Hero" allowed enough time to build up the complexities of persecution.

An extra-textual example of combining reality with fantasty is when there were proposals to build a Dracula Land theme park in Translyvania. I think the idea was eventually shut down. I'm sure this would make the area some money, but it'd be exploiting a historical and literary landmark.

Hero!? More like ZERO!

That's right I said it.

Something about this episode was able to evoke extreme apathy in me. I did not enjoy it. I will present a list as to why for your supreme enjoyment.

- Cordelia is annoying. Am I supposed to empathize with her character? If that is the intention, it isn't sinking in for me. She has an enforced superficiality about her that is part of her character while a truly emotional woman lies beneath the surface. Spare me.

- Nazi demons .. really? Though this introduction of social structure in what was a supposed structure-less society of demons was interesting at first, the effort was wasted by using the most cliche example possible. Doyle rejected his "kind" and ended up saving "people" as a result. How noble.

- So the Melt-Face beacon beam thing. Doyle was able to stop the pulse just by essentially hugging it. Wouldn't there be some type of residual melty-facey seepage?

- Doyle's act of HEROISM was entirely predictable. "My name is Doyle. I know you are about to sacrifice yourself, Angel, but let me do it instead. This has never before been seen in television or film. I feel bad about my past actions!"

- The commercial. I get it! It was silly and fun at first until Doyle died. Then it was MEANINGFUL and SAD. "Am I done?" Yes you are. You and your pineapple face.

I do not dislike the show in general. It can sometimes be better than Buffy, and it can sometimes be worse. This episode, though, was one of the "bad" ones.

BAD.

Smile, Angel!

The most interesting thing to me about “Hero” is that it seems the characters are trying to figure out what it really means to be a hero. Cordelia wants to do a commercial for their crime-fighting business and wants Doyle to be in it because he is “relatable” and Angel is not. Then she talks about putting Angel into some kind of costume, as if that’s what it means to be a super hero.

When I think about the super heroes in movies and TV shows, the one thing they always have in common is that they all seem like tortured souls. Angel is rarely happy and when he is, he gets punished for it. It’s like being unhappy comes hand in hand with being a super hero. I suppose being unhappy for the sake of saving others is a noble trait. Perhaps it drives heroes to risk everything they have because they really don’t have much to lose in the first place. In this episode, Angel recalls his decision to give up Buffy forever. He knew the consequences when he made the decision, yet, he is acting all depressed throughout this episode. Angel makes sacrifices then sulks around because of them. I would love to see Angel fight crime and save lives with a smile on his face. Maybe it comes in later episodes, but right now, it does not look very promising.

Interjecting Historical Perspective into Modern Fictional Media

This is a follow-up response to Jonathan's post "A Hero and the Nazis".

All in all, I did not enjoy this episode. However, I can look past the obvious holes in Cordelia's logic, Doyle's lack of reasonable motivation for martyrdom, and the lack of Angel's presence. One thing I cannot forgive is the vague back story and terrible character model of "the Scourge". If these guys are so scary they can wipe out entire races of demons, then why haven't we heard of them before? The worst part about them is that before I even saw them embodied on screen, I knew they were going to be modeled after the Nazis. I felt like they were a villainous cop-out, like Whedon thought, "let's make these guys like Nazis...except with demon faces, so they will fit the theme of the show". Everything was copacetic with the Nazi archetype, from the marching to the uniforms, and the Scourge's intense desire to fulfill the mission at any cost. This all made me wonder. Do the characters of Angel have the same historical perspective as we do? Or am I just throwing my own history knowledge all over fiction that I have no business making historical assumptions about? In other words, in the world of Angel, was there a Holocaust? Was there a Hitler? I'm watching the episode, and sitting here wondering if Doyle or Angel are going to be like, "so these guys are like the undead Nazis, right?" I had to step back and wonder if I should be taking my own species' history into account when I watch/read science fiction or fantasy media. Although they are supposed to live in a real city, and there are real humans with real jobs, should we as an audience be assuming they have had the same historical experience that we have as a species?

Hitler: just as scary with a normal face, the first time around.

Cordelia, Doyle, and the 'love stuff' in "Hero"

Aside from the heroic acts and the great discussions about Angel and Doyle, something I've been thinking about from this episode is both the beginning and end of Cordelia and Doyle.

Cordelia and Angel (at least not yet) aren't romantically linked, so that leaves Cordelia single and ready to...well, you know. Doyle shows interest in her but never quite worked up the nerve. In "Hero," he attempts to ask her out but is rudely interrupted by the usual demon chaos. We see their first and final kiss before Doyle's martyr act.

My question is: had Doyle not died, would Doyle and Cordelia have worked out based on what we know about their characters? Or, is their kiss and prematurely ended relationship solely a way for Whedon to transfer the power of visions to Cordelia since Doyle isn't sticking around? As seasoned or new viewers of Angel, would we stand behind the relationship if it got to happen?

Though it's mostly speculation, I'm curious about how Whedon is using the love interest elements in Angel compared to other Whedon shows. For example, Buffy had just made an appearance in the show to highlight Angel's relationship woes, but Cordelia as the main female character hasn't gotten much of a love connection. I believe some people noted in class how Cordelia is growing as a character after "Hero." Still, I feel like Cordelia is in an interesting position as the female lead in Angel up to this point.

*sigh* Another Christ Figure... I Like Him Though

In the Angel episode "Hero" Doyle dies. Sad moment of my life. For one he becomes the cliche "christ" figure that ends up sacrificing himself to save many lives, regardless of the fact that they are half-demons, whom he saves. Admirable, I know, however I noticed that he did so more out of guilt than for wholehearted selflessness. Doyle, as flashbacked in the episode, has had a previous experience with the "Scourge", where they killed entire clans of his demon race. This puts Doyle in a bit of a shock as he looks around the room as if he should be fearing for his life.

I do admire however the symbolism that is presented with Doyle's death. Because he is half demon one could argue that in his death he was saving the humanity of all that would die before him. Doyle transforms into his demon form when he jumps into the "Beacon of Light" and deactivates it however in doing so it kills him. As he dies he transforms back into a human as his demon side withers away before the light and though it kills him, Doyle does so with a human smile. This death symbolizes the cleansing of Doyle's past inaction and purification to redeem himself as he dies in his human form, thus saving the rest of the half demons.

Even though the death of Doyle causes me a bit saddened it happened in a way that is fitting of any person who is trying to make right things that they may not have been able to in the past, granted I'm not saying everyone should die to save the masses just to right a wrong but that it is "never too late" to change the way your life is led.

"Is that it? Am I done?"

Cordelia will later refer to Doyle as the "first soldier down," as she plays back that same commercial five years later in "You're Welcome." She will pause the video on a close-up as Angel looks tearfully on, both of them staring at the screen in his lush W&H apartment. Doyle's appearance at this point, is tied into reminding Angel that he has deviated from his own heroic journey and needs help to find it again. Cordelia takes a breath then continues, "He knew what he had to do, and didn't compromise." Both Charisma Carpenter and David Boreanaz have said it was one of the most emotional scenes they've ever done on the show. Not only was Doyle's death a major hit to Angel viewers, it heavily affected the actors too. As Dr. H. mentioned in class, Glenn Quinn, the man who played Doyle, passed away in 2002 as a result of an accidental death. As if "Hero" wasn't sad enough, that reality check makes it all the more tragic, and gives Doyle's final words a haunting meaning.

"First soldier down." Cordelia sums up the price Doyle paid in Angel's struggle for redemption. It immediately calls back that moment in "Hero" when it came down to a life/death situation and Doyle made a choice. Some have commented that Angel's hesitation in being truthfully unwilling to sacrifice himself for the greater good, is easily agreeable. And I think Doyle also realized that fact early on when he said, "I'll tell you what, you fight and I'll keep score." So, when the moment came for a life altering decision, Doyle took Angel's role so the vampire with a soul could continue to "fight the good fight." The second Doyle undertook that task, his own mission for atonement was fulfilled, and many lives were saved. Angel and Cordelia (now armed with the visions) were left behind to carry on.

I always liked Doyle because he was an average man. He chose to remain "human," and to conceal his demon half, and was by no means a superhero. Apart from his visions, Doyle had no superpowers and grapled with his own selfishness. He chose not to help his other "descendents" from his demon line, resulting in a devastating guilt only eased at the conclusion of "Hero." All of Doyle's faults became lost in the heroic statement he made, even though he had no legacy to leave behind but one. His self-sacrifice was the epitome of what a hero should be.

This is a really cool fan video for Doyle that I found a few years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkkDlhsU4AQ

Sometimes When You Lose, You Win.

The phrase, "sometimes when you lose, you win" is what comes to mind when I think about this episode. I've been thinking a lot and posting a lot about the heroic suicide angle (angle, angel haha!) and the whole hero jazz, and I keep coming back to how wonderful it was for me too see Angel be really human in this episode. Not that fake humility hero jazz, where we have a beautiful, tortured, anti-hero who finds his true calling in an almost perverted (thank you Anna!) altruism. No. My favorite thing from Angel this time around was the fact that after all he has lose, after the pretentious self-sacrificing bullshit he has put himself through, he looks genuinely scared to die.

You can look at him and know that the words he is repeating over in his head are not something deep like "Now I've found my calling, I am at peace with death...", Nope-- he's probably saying something more like "Shit, do I really want to end my life for some people(demons) I don't know."

A big part of me knows he would have still done it even if Doyle hadn't stepped in. I get it. I'm not trying to take away all his superhero brownie points. I just want to draw attention, and actually glorify his human (sorta) frailty, and say that maybe that is worth just as much as being a hero.

There's something strange...

I believe it is easy to discuss the idea of "hero" in this episode of Angel. I think we did a lot of this in class already. Who is the real hero? Angel or Doyle? What do people think of when they think of a hero? Cordelia trying to make Angel a hero. Some people mentioned these topics in their blogs too.

But for me, something kept bugging me when we watched this episode and it took me untill now to realize why it was. At the beginning, when Cordelia was making Doyle do the commericial for Angel Investigations, I kept thinking I have seen this before. I had seen the episode before, that is not what I'm talking about. I thought I had seen that commericial before.

Then I realized I had and this actually goes to another diea about heroes. Ghostbusters. In that movie, they make their own cheesy commericial in order to bring in customers and make themselves out to look like superheroes. I am not sure if Angel was paying a tribute to Ghostbusters, but it sure did seem very similar to me. That's probably the reason I thought about this

ghostbusters

Everybody Likes a Gyro

This episode of Angel poses an interesting dilemma for me. I could rant about all the things in the episode that drove me crazy, or I can focus on one aspect and create a thoughtful (and less alienating) post. It is so tempting to do the former...

But I won't.
Is that heroic?

I digress: "Hero." As Cait asks in her post, what makes one?

Is Doyle a hero because he sacrifices himself for everyone? If we are defining heroism as behavior that minimizes the individual's well-being in favor of the group's, then yes, Doyle displays heroic behavior. But death by heroic act is a much easier feat than committing a sacrificial act and continuing on in life. I mean, you're done. It's over. It's everyone else that has to carry on.

I think it's an interesting idea to consider that heroism is often based off of guilt. If we are honest, most of us aren't compelled to risk our own safety, much less our lives, to help someone else, so it makes sense that Doyle is unwilling to assist his fellow half-demons. As viewers it's easy to be self-righteous and claim that we would have done something. And maybe some of us would. But maybe not.

One of the moments that stuck out to me is when Angel realizes he might have to be the one to commit heroic suicide. He. Doesn't. Want. To. Mr. Hero and he doesn't want to die. It's perfectly normal! In that moment, Angel became the most human and relate-able to me. Because I wouldn't have wanted to kill myself either! No one does. And the time lag Whedon gives him is almost like a sign that he's looking for a way out, and hoping for once, someone else will step up. In the end, Doyle is desperate to end his guilt and atone for what he didn't do and does exactly that.

Doyle is the epitome of reluctant savior, but his heroism then covers over all of his faults as a person. "Sure he's kind of a jerk, but he saved people!" Heroes (especially ones that die) are usually catapulted to larger-than-life status, and that is no less the case here.

Behavior like that comes from somewhere deep and conflicted. Cait points out in an earlier post that Angel is reluctant to connect with others yet saves their lives, like a "masochistic" sort of lifestyle. I think it's distinctly possible to love humanity and hate individuals. Interactions with others is just plain hard most of the time, as both Angel and Doyle demonstrate. It's much easier to save people one time then to have to deal with them on a consistent basis, (especially if you die doing it), which is why in this episode, Doyle represents the typical archetype of a hero, and Angel the more non-traditional, human version .

What's the name for that?

Unresolved Questions

Since we all seem to be posting about Nazis and what people consider safe ground, I want to pose a few questions about Heroes and Villains.

What do we think is always safe to use as a standard of evil?

What kind of person/Who do we always see as good?

What is the scariest thing that can happen visually?

-scariest thing in general?

I just wanted to use this to springboard ideas....(kind of a help for the "What makes a hero" response.

Smart TV criticism sites

Just some links you could use for Prompt #1 (or any time you are looking for smart TV criticism):

1) The Onion's AV Club. See specifically the TV Club.

2) Slate.com. See the Arts section specifically. And check it out--a piece about Two and a Half Men!

3) Salon.com. Again, see the TV section. Really good stuff here.

4) Television Without Pity. The forums are especially interesting; these are where viewers discuss/debate specific episodes of various shows.

5) The Atlantic has some good TV columns, too.

Firefly fans might just be the *most* fanatical...

Check out this piece from CNN.

A Hero and the Nazis

Dang, that was a good episode! Doyle really took the hero prize for this one, pulling off his hero/ redemption moment with such aplomb that, in spite of the fact that I knew it was coming, I found quite convincing. However, I digress. What I really want to focus on in this post is the episode's hotly debated Nazi vibes and why I found them effective.

I can emphatically say that the Nazis worked for me one hundred percent. Their filming was excellent, employing the thunder of tramping boots and the eeriness of fog-obscured visuals to give "The Scourge" the same terrifying effect that Hitler's legions possessed. The demon's uniforms also play the part perfectly, simulating Nazi dress almost to the letter. In fact, the exactness of the uniforms draws attention to to the demons' hideously malformed facial features, creating a contrast that certainly brings to mind the cruelty of many of the Nazi soldiers. The demons, just like the Nazis, wear perfectly polished uniforms. However, their intentions are barbarous, creating a juxtaposition that, in addition to working quite well for the show, bridges the time gap and points directly at the Nazis . Finally, the flashback that depicts Doyle's investigation of the Scourge's slaughter also came across as very well done. The viewer is exposed to various pairs of shoes, starting with a child's pair, immediately bringing to mind the masses slaughtered by the Nazis, and, for those of us who have visited the Holocaust Museum in D.C., the huge bins of shoes collected after the mass extermination of Jews. All this Nazi-ness is sobering stuff, but I think it melds well with "Hero"'s dark tones. No cop-outs here! ;)

Hierarchy within the Demon World

In this episode I found myself drawn to the hierarchical dynamics within the society of demons. The Scourge believes that they are the superior group of demons. They are 'pure bloods'. They represent every group of people, throughout history, who have ever believed themselves to be superior to another group. I found them comparable to the German Nazi's because of their quest to eliminate the 'half bloods' and create a race of 'pure blood' demons. This leaves those, deemed inferior, to live in hiding just as the Jewish people were forced to do during the Nazi invasion. Their 'Hitler style' leader justifies the killing of 'half bloods' by stating that these actions are what "The higher order demands." He sends them forth to finish the job of eliminating the 'half bloods' with the 'beacon of light'. The 'beacon of light' destroys anything with human blood. I found it curious that they call this 'death tool' a 'beacon of light'. A beacon is a guiding light. Its name gives an image of purity and salvation, neither of which is what the 'half bloods' will receive when it detonates. Maybe it represents what The Scourge believes is the light to creating their demon purity and saving them from inevitable annihilation from demon/human mixing . It is a twisted belief, yes, but fear rooted in ignorance creates a powerful emotion and, sometimes, devastating outcome. In this case, of course, evil does not triumph and Doyle is giving the opportunity to atone for his prior inaction.

Prompts for Response Paper 6

Prompts for Response Paper #6:

Due Tuesday, March 1 in class (and before class on turnitin.com).

You should have citations and a work/works cited entry for this paper. Be sure to demonstrate some of the moves Harris discusses in Chapter 3 (“Countering”) in Rewriting.

1)      On page 56 of Rewriting, Harris explains a possible project (“The Tone of Countering”) that examines how writers counter the works of others. Spend some time examining a text or series of texts that engage in dialogue about a specific movie or television show (blogs, the comments section of a website, etc.) and use those observations to complete the project Harris outlines.   

2)      Thoughtfully using one of the moves in Chapter 3 of Rewriting (arguing the other side, uncovering values, or dissenting), write a response to K. Dale Koontz’s article, “The One that Almost Got Away: Doyle and the Fish Story” or any other critical article we’ve read this semester (as long as you haven’t already written about that article at length).

3)      As we’ll discuss in class, “Hero” asks viewers to consider just what it means to be a hero. In your response, discuss how you feel the episode plays with the definition of “hero.” Does it advance a new definition of “heroism,” adapt an existing definition, or some combination of both?   

4)      Thoughtfully using one of the moves in Chapter 3 of Rewriting (arguing the other side, uncovering values, or dissenting), counter the view one of your peers offers in a blog post.

What's In a Name (Hero episode)

What is a hero? A hero is defined as someone who, in the face of danger or from a position of weakness, displays courage and the will for self sacrafice for the greater good of all humanity. Stories of heroism are seen throughout literature and occur in the Bible, Greek myths, and almost all writer's works. The idea of the hero has carried on from the beginning of literature to todays many forms of media. Heroes can be seen in books, television, movies, and cartoons. Some of the most famous heroes today are the comic book heroes such as Superman and Batman, but does a hero always have to be good? Angel is a vampire and Doyle is a half demon, but both of them are heroes. Angel and Doyle are both willing to scrafice themselves for the greater good of all the half bloods in the episode "Hero." Doyle is the real hero in the episode because he sacrafices himself for Angel as well. I think this episode is appropriately titled, and I think the idea of the hero is an interesting topic to discuss when taking about the character of Angel. I believe he is a hero because he is trying to protect the Los Angeles area from harm, but I think others may not classify him a hero because he is something evil himself, a vampire.

Along with this idea of a hero, I starting thinking about Angel's name. Do you think there is a reason for his name being Angel? I believe Whedon named him Angel because he is an angel, saving people in every episode.
Whether you see him as and Angel, a hero, or just a concerned citizen, it's hard to deny he is looking out for the common good of mankind.

Reaching Out

I like the fact that Angel is not reaching out for a human connection.

I find it lovely, and delightfully refreshing that he has to be reminded, by Doyle, to hold on to a connection to the world, through Cordelia. Unlike Buffy, who was always seeking to make a connection with someone who might “get her” and love her ‘slayage’ and all, Angel is not looking for that.

We see him reject pretty girl he saves in the alley

He does not pull any sexual moves on Tina

In addition, he constantly reaffirms to the audience by his behavior that he is not out to make friends. He is in fact out do the opposite; he is out to punish himself through helping others….

Wow, that is an interesting thought. If Angel’s whole goal in life I atonement, what does that say about him and his lack of love and friendship if saving lives is his way of being masochistic?

The Goddamn Angel

Let's face it, Angel wants to be Batman. He's got the Angel cave, the Angel-mobile, and a grappling hook. He's got the little stake-extender-bracer things and a whole slew of weapons for taking out demons and all sorts of undead. Hell, he's even improved on the formula by ditching the old man and getting a hot lady-type as his help around the cave. Also Doyle's visions are a slightly more direct way of locating those in need rather than just a light in the sky and patrolling and hoping for the best.

I like Angel, in fact I like both the character and the show a lot. Angel the character has come a good way since his first appearance on Buffy as "attractive brooding man," and Angel the show give him a place to be badass in his own right as he could never upstage Buffy on her own show.

A city is a large community where people are lonesome together. ~Herbert Prochnow

When the class brought up that Angel seemed more of an adult show than Buffy, and I sort of agree. Angel has some darker and adult nuances. To me that just adds to the over all male oriented feeling to show. In the first episode there's booze, fast cars and damsels in distress.

What I think makes Angel situation seem more adult, besides his character being over 200 years old, is the different setting. Cities to me have always represented an isolationist attitude versus unlike the suburbs that focus on community. These of course are generalizations. So Buffy's support systems seems more intertwined. To throw off this generalization, out of the loneliness Angel starts to form his own gang. Although his traits seem to steer clear of humans, the plot makes him escape his isolation. Angel is overcoming the isolation and superficiality that is my stereotypical image of L.A.

Once More, With Angel

Everyone wishes at some point in their lives they could just kick their respective boss out of a window and he/she burst into flames. How bad ass of an image is that? It's such a quick and simple solution to frustration. I mean, I hope none of us would actually kick people out of windows (unless they were evil vampires), but Joss Whedon knows the inner turmoil of our souls and helps us exact our retribution vicariously through Angel.

What made this episode interesting was the introduction of the soothsayer Irishman. Not only is he an instrument cleverly used to further along plot, but he's also a great addition to the bubbling pot of characters. When Angel is channeling Eeyore, Irishman bounces in with quick quips of humor to balance the awkward air. Whedon is essentially carrying over the Buffy formula, opting for the "if it ain't broke..." methodology, but injecting a gloomy lead into the equation makes for a more dramatic and fresh experience. It's an interesting idea because Buffy fans just get more of what they love and perhaps even additional viewers who just learned about the awesomeness of Buffy, but hadn't watched the previous Buffy seasons, can check out the formula with a new male lead. People who may have been turned off by Sarah Michelle (for whatever reason, crazy people) can watch a brooding 30-something year old man save women all over LA from nefarious demonspawn. Life's tough when you're undead.

Response to "City of..."

Though we have spent the majority of our class time so far concentrated on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it is a bit refreshing to have a new series to analyze. Angel is not too far off from Buffy since it is a spin-off series, but it seems fitting to be able to explore Angel's character and give him a more dominant role through his own show. His appearance in Buffy was dramatically brought to an end when he switches back to his old evil self and cuts the emotional bond with Buffy. Angel is cast out of the inner circle that the slayer surrounds herself with, and is given a chance to escape through Buffy's mercy. This leaves the audience to wonder what will become of Angel, a question that this series can answer for the viewer.

Angel's escape to Los Angeles presents him with a chance to redeem himself, and simultaneously take himself as far away from Sunnydale as possible. Though the damage has already been done with his relationship to Buffy, Angel is given a chance to make a better impression on the audience by having his own escapades and slaying adventures. We catch a glimpse of the Angel we knew before his curse set in, able to strike out on his own in a new environment. He cannot go back to his role in Buffy, but he can show the audience just how capable he is without Buffy and the rest of the gang.

A City of Angel : So let's Kill More Vamps

In Angel the first episode I noticed some things that made it differ from Buffy, which I found to be more interesting from its predecessor.
1. Angel is more of a "mature" set show. This is basically due to the fact that the show takes place in a citywide environment and is no longer confined to the life of a school girl the way that Buffy was. In his own spinoff Angel is able to be more independent and make decisions as he sees fit, which opposed to Buffy, everything he did focused around her. In this series Angel also has a "job". Although this job does include fighting monsters (vamps, demons etc.) these commisioned jobs come from Doyle, our new "Xander" counterpart.
2. Angel is a much more violent show. Unlike Buffy who mainly used stakes, Angel uses an assortment of armaments, namely the dual hidden blade gauntlets (my personal favorite thanks to Assassin's Creed), and is shown with swords, axes, etc. in his apartment.
The adversaries of Angel in this series also have upgraded weaponry, and though we all enjoy the hand to hand combat that made Buffy, which has made some appearances in the fight scenes of Angel, the people angel face carry guns with them, providing a "mob" mentality which also emphasizes the "Maturity" of the world that is now Angel.

These changes are more enjoyable to me because they embody the fact that there is a life beyond the world of just education and being guided all your life, that there is in reality a time where you must go out on your own and face the world for what it really is, an "all or nothing" place.

Vampire Overload

I think we live in a time of vampire overload. Zombies are slowly shuffling their way into the hearts and minds of Americans, but it is a slow rise to the top that is already filled with everything vampire. Twilight, for example, has taken over the female youth of society in a lust-ridden and repression-driven frenzy. Vampire Diaries? That's a show somewhere. I heard words about it.

True Blood is another example of the vampire explosion, though at least it has violence and sex to make it interesting. This, though, is an example of why vampires have risen to ascendancy in popular culture. Vampires are inherently sexual in modern media. In a show like True Blood, this is explicit, but in Buffy or Angel it is more implicit. Vampires seduce. They have the ability to control, and their biting brings a new meaning to the term "necking."

These are obvious facts, though. Why am I saying them? Because I feel like it. It is no coincidence that a man like David Boreanaz was cast as the male vampire/love interest in the beginning of Buffy. He is a pretty man. (I have been told this by reputable sources.)

Here is an informative video:

Firefly fans rejoice!

If you are a Firefly fan, you must click here.

City of Angel: "You Game?"

While reading most of these posts, I only kept thinking one thing: Don't Give Up On Angel!! For me, pilots always seem to be the rough start to a series, typically because they are filmed months ahead of the following episodes (that is, if the series gets picked up). Pilots contain a lot of information to get the audience acquainted with the show's plotline and cast of characters, and even Buffy was no exception. Angel tested the Buffy audience to see if they could accept a similar hero and be willing to jump from Sunnydale to Los Angeles over a long period of time. Obviously, that jump happened and Angel had a solid 5 season run and established a loyal following of cross-over fans.

"City of" is the beginning of Angel's new life. I was one of the people curious to see how Angel would cope with leaving Buffy, and I was pleasantly surprised and intrigued by the difference in tone and atmosphere in the series. Instead of shutting himself off from the world as so many people thought he would do (or even fight evil alone), he was given a purpose to "help the helpless" and begin his journey towards redemption for the sins of his past. This theme of redemption granted the show more of an adult target because it's seems realistic to become an adult want/need. How many teenagers can say they've had enough experience in the world, made their share of mistakes, and are now trying to become a better person by atoning for their actions? Not too many, I guess, including Buffy. This is the entire question of this show: Will Angel achieve amends for all the destruction he caused, or will he die trying?

I've always loved the initial scene between Angel and Doyle that addresses Angel's life. In a short amount of time, Doyle clues the audience in on how Angel spent his first 200 years, then tells him "what comes next." Doyle's visions from the Powers That Be become a key factor in Angel's mission--in this case, leading Angel to Tina--jumpstarting his abilities as a champion. Cordelia is worked in nicely on the show, also becoming a key member of the Angel Investigations team. Her career as an actress is anything but glamourous and she eventually does "grow more as a person."

Overall, the adult themes and emotions are very present in Angel: Moving away from home to live on your own in the real world (here it's Los Angeles), trying to find connections with new people and perhaps establish a friendship, love and loss, happiness and grief, problems at work, and even finding out your new, lush apartment with a terrific view is being haunted by a really overprotective ghost...hey, it could happen! Everything's more grown up in Angel's world, even more realistic...of course minus the vampires, demons and that pesky law firm that never let's you have a good day.

For your entertainment: Scenes from Buffy/Angel/Firefly, enjoy ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyt8-_mP6Z4&feature=fvsr

I'm Glad to See He's Grown as a Person

I will always be more of a Buffy fan than an Angel fan, but since I watched the show pretty extensively back when reruns aired on TNT (I think they still do, but I'm not sure) I know that the show gets much better than the pilot episode indicates. Don't get me wrong, the pilot is pretty good, as far as pilots go. I enjoy seeing Angel's character being given a more fully realized personality, one that isn't merely being in relation to Buffy's character, and Angel's conflicted nature and dour expressions can be overbearing if not for his absurd sense of humor.
Was I annoyed with the exposition? A little, since I was already familiar with Angel and his backstory. But I understand why the creators chose to include it, since they were trying to pull in new viewers in besides the Buffy fanbase. It's a situation of compromise.

Speaking of compromise, as Hannah mentioned in her post, the theme of making atonement that runs throughout this episode of Angel is an interesting one. Can we ever fully atone for the wrong we've done? Is it a simple matter of checks and balances, or is it just an imperfect conciliation of virtue for vice? I'm not sure.
I think what is admirable about Angel is that even though no one is forcing him to save perfect strangers, he still feels compelled to act on their behalf. He could just as easily get a job as a freelance writer and stay inside all day! But then that would be a boring show. It's much more exciting to live in a hotel and rescue people. Or at least attempt to rescue them, which is an interesting turn of events in this episode. Whedon demonstrates that even when we try to do the right thing, we are incapable of exercising full control over someone else's actions or fate.

On a tangential side note, I've always wanted to live in an abandoned hotel, so this show represents some measure of wish fulfillment for me. But moving on.

As for Doyle and Cordelia, I prefer the latter over the former. Doyle arrives out of nowhere and for some mysterious mission-like reason, which I found to be awkward. Ever heard of knocking on someone's abandoned hotel apartment door? In this episode I guess he acts as an impetus for Angel's reintegration into a life with purpose. I do like that Cordelia, a seemingly vapid, shallow character, is given more depth. Her presence in the show makes total sense to me. I both hate her and love her and see her, as Doyle does, as Angel's connection to life and living, as well as a familiar and comforting link from his past.

Continuation of the Comparison Vein

Right, so, I had this comparison growing in my mind from the first fight scene in Angel, and I am rather amused to see that others have made similar comparisons, so I'll trek right along and pull in a new media: video games.

So, there's this picture in the fight scene where Angel flicks both hands and two wooden stakes appear, ready for stabbing action. With my being a fan of this particular game series (mentioned in but a moment), of course the first thing that I think of is ... Ezio Auditore from Assassin's Creed II and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. For the purposes of this comparison, let us focus on AC:B.

Ezio has two hidden daggers harbored in wrist sheathes (aka Angel's wooden stakes) that are used for assassinations; he functions as a vigilante, freeing Rome from the Borgia, the bad guys (aka Angel's vampires); Ezio willingly gives up a woman he loves, Cristina (who could be compared to both Buffy and Tina) and his pushing her away (as Angel does Tina in the very first episode) and manipulating her life leads to her death (so here, Cristina = Tina).

Both Angel and Ezio have a home base from which they work, in Ezio's case it's a large house on an island within Roma, and within those strongholds they each maintain a collection of weaponry and such (Ezio's hideout has separate rooms for sets of weapons and sets of armor, as there is so much that he can choose from to use). I await information to further my comparison, as I know not if there is a particular "leader bad guy" in Angel that directly compares to the "leader bad guy," Chesare, in AC:B.

I cannot express how much silly satisfaction it brought me to see Angel sporting assassination-ready wooden spikes, as I am quite enamored of Ezio's character in the game. To truly appreciate the games, however, one must have played or heard a great deal about them - the game designers did their research to make the setting of Renaissance Italy as accurate as they could and incorporate in a fictional-esque storyline so seamlessly with history. But I digress ...

Angel in Angel

My first impression of Angel was surprisingly good. I love how it is set in the city rather than in a small town/ high school setting. Even though Sunnydale was located over a Hellmouth and was occupied with some dangerous supernatural creatures, Los Angeles is filled with a lot of different danger. The villains will not only be supernatural monsters but real human criminals who prey on human victims. I also love that Cordillia is a character in Angel. I actually think her selfishness in this episode is kind of endearing. You can tell she is just a lost girl trying to make it in the real world and by the end of the pilot, we see she is trying to grow up.

I am also impressed by the humor of this show. Although I found Buffy to contain funny elements, (mainly Xander) I do think Angel has Buffy beat. Because Angel is socially awkward and does not understand certain human qualities, it is really entertaining to watch him interact with other people. Having only watched this one episode, I suppose I have high expectations for Angel but I am hoping he will develop throughout each episode and become a very dynamic character. While watching Buffy I saw Angel as just a high maintenance vampire who had some issues but I am looking forward to watching him become more human.

One thing I just realized that I really do not like is that the show is called Angel, and the main character is named Angel. It makes it a very confusing show to write about.

Go Go Angel Mobile!

I was a little intrigued when I read Jonathon's post on how Angel is like Batman. At first I was not sure if the comparison would add up, but after I finished he made a very good point. Granted, the extense of their wealth and physical powers aside, they are pretty much even. they both fight at night against the forces of evil.

They both have a secret lair and to an extent a second life. Bruce Wayne has his enterprises and Angel has his "detective agency" (and later I believe a hotel). I don't think Jonathon mentioned it but they both seem to have their own vehicles.

This got me thinking something else. Batman, and in extent Angel, are very similar to Inspector Gadget. They all have special gizmos they carry with them. They also all have sidekicks. Angel and Gadget actually share female sidekicks. Depending on what your opinion is Batman might as well in Robin. In fact, Doyle is similar to that

Angel and Gadget may even be a closer pair because if you recall, Gadget's enemy is The Claw. The evil guy who never see except for his hand. Angel has the firm of Wolfam and Heart who you also never see. Perhaps the fellow evil lawyers are similar to the metal hand?

This may be something to think about. More research may be needed.


As for Dr. H's post, I don't know whether to be entertained by the video or worried that some one has that amount of time and are willing to spend it chopping up Twlight movies. That's kind of creepy.

I also just found out that Dawn from Buffy is in the Gadget movie. The comparissons keep growing!

Okay, just one more jab at Twilight...

You must check out this blog. Again, it's the only way I've ever read a word of any of the books, which isn't very fair, I suppose, but it's awfully funny.

Buffy vs. Edward

The clip below first hit the web a couple of years ago, but it's well worth posting given the recent discussions about Buffy and Twilight (which I encourage you to keep exploring, if that is interesting to you). Clearly there are lots of connections: young girl, vampires, girl loves a vampire (or two), vampires aren't all necessarily evil, etc. It would be interesting and productive to push this discussion further, asking how the protagonist(s) operate in each text, what values/worldviews the texts seem to embody, etc. All of this strikes me as really quite relevant given our recent class discussion about Buffy and feminist ethics.

I will admit to never having read a page of Twilight, although I did try to watch the movie once and had to turn it off around the time of the vampires playing baseball scene. Lordy. At the same time, I've had people of all ages and all levels of education/maturity/whatever tell me that the books are a lot of fun. So I am having it both ways here--being incredibly judgmental and dismissive of the texts while also being understanding of those who appreciate the Twilight series. (And yeah, I realize that's a bit of a cop-out.)

At this link, you can find an explanation of the video from the guy who created it (yes, a guy made it!). Some key passages:

"As an aspiring feminist guy, I wanted to speak out about issues of sexism and gender oppression in media but I wanted to do so carefully and intentionally. That’s why I chose to focus my critique on Edward’s patriarchal behavior in Twilight rather than on Bella’s actions. I didn’t feel it was my place to lecture her on desire (even in remix form), especially since her character is already disempowered by the original screenplay to the point of absurdity. So I built each scene around Edward, and then looked for appropriate responses from Buffy. Sorting through seven seasons worth of witty dialog and dramatic footage from Buffy was a lot of fun, and telling the tale through her and her friends’ perspective allows us to understand the messages underlying the mythology of the film and the TV show in a new way – and to enjoy the process. I should note that I am not the first to make this critique of the Twilight series, nor did I invent the process of re-imagining pop culture stories. I was inspired by women who have been creating fan fiction as self-conscious creative communities since before I was born. I was heavily influenced by fannish vidding as well as by feminist critiques of popular culture, especially those of bell hooks, whose writings have helped opened my eyes on issues of race, gender and love."

But I think this is my favorite part:

"In the end the only reasonable response was to have Buffy stake Edward – not because she didn’t find him sexy, not because he was too sensitive or too eager to share his feelings – but simply because he was possessive, manipulative, and stalkery."

Angel and Batman (not a qualitative comparison, Batman owns him)

I had this on similarity on the brain after we watched the angel pilot and someone (I can't remember who) bringing it up in class reaffirmed it. Angel, the tough guy who kicks some serious butt, only does his business at night, has, even from the very first episode, a crap load of equipment that he uses, and seems to excel at losing girlfriends. Its Batman in L.A., folks!

On a more serious note, I can't help but notice these distinct similarities between Batman and Angel. Batman is a ninja that has serious hand to hand fighting skills. Angel, while he can't be classified as a ninja, also relies on his hand to hand skills (which I guess stem from his vampireness). Angel's rather large and noticeable collection of "equipment" also brings to mind the caped crusader, most notably his use of the grappling hook (which is a Batman staple, at least in his latest movies). As an aside, this comparison is based off the Christopher Nolan films, since I have not had enough exposure to the Batman comics to use them as a source. Anyway, back to the similarities. Loosing girls comes remarkably easy to these two individuals, with Batman constantly alienating Rachel with his vigilante activities (culminating in her death in "The Dark Knight") and Angel alienating Buffy because of his "unstable nature" and eventually separating from her. In addition to this, Angel manages to loose a potential love interest within the space of ONE episode. Sorry guys, best of luck to you both in the future.

I'm not sure what I was hoping to accomplish with this set of similarities, save to state the fairly obvious. Angel is heavily reminiscent of Batman. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing I'm not sure yet, but I can say that if Whedon is going for a fanboy nod to Batman I'm totally on board. If not, I may not be too happy and mutter something to the effect of "rip" under my breath...

Liking this a little better...

I thought the pilot episode for Angel was entertaining. I felt it had a darker theme than Buffy did. I found it hard not to compare the two shows together. The plots appear similar and yet presented in a different atmosphere. They incorporated Cordelia, a familiar character from Buffy, into the scene early. I took this as a definite ploy to attract avid Buffy watchers. The pilot did a good job setting up the series; you understand what Angel's history and current mission is. I felt sad when he was unable to save Tina from Russell but was very happy when Angel pushed him through the window to his death. Someone mentioned in class that Angel had a more mature feel to it than Buffy did. Maybe that is why I can relate to this program better than I could with Buffy and could see myself willingly watching more of it.

I Don't Know About this One

I went into Buffy with an open mind and actually found myself a little disappointed when our time with it ended. I don't think I'll be so upset when Angel is over. It's totally possible that I'm being sexist and just enjoy looking at SMG much more than whoever this guy is. It just seems a little corny to me, and the lead just doesn't really seem like a very solid actor to me. I thought it was funny when the guy at the party said "You're an actor" to which Angel responded "No, I'm out". Couldn't have written it better myself. As I said in class, I'm just not sure I have room in my heart for another vampire slayer/killer/defender of everything good. I did like the quirky sidekick, he was at least amusing. But at the same time, I just feel like he's a rip-off ox Xander, and I feel like so many elements of the episode were ripped from Buffy, like Whedon just wrote a Buffy episode and then changed the character's names. Not into it.

"Why me?" -- Angel

(Gratuitous photo of David Boreanaz because he's incredibly attractive. So, there.)

Until today, I had never seen an episode of Angel; the Angel that I knew was solely Buffy-based. While we pointed out some differences between Angel and Buffy in class today (more adult situations and so on), I have been thinking a bit more about how Angel, as a show, works with Buffy, particularly since the character of Angel was deemed worthy of his own spin off.

Angel's place within Buffy the Vampire Slayer is indelible. He's Buffy's first big love and proof that vampires can maintain some humanity (although there was that pesky curse). Still, Angel goes through major changes on the show, always in between the worlds of the ultimate good-guy or regressing into his soul-less vampire ways. Then, he simultaneously leaves Buffy/Buffy -- the relationship and the show.

The show Angel, however, allows the character to be presented more fully; he's on a mission to make things right with himself and his past. Doyle, the sidekick character, introduces the theme of atonement by saying "Well, we've all got something to atone for" when he acknowledges Angel's checkered past and motivations for wanting to help Tina. Aside from the theme of atonement in the context of the episode, I think that Angel as a whole atones for Angel's departure from Buffy's life (and her show). Somehow, Angel getting his own show makes it feel a little bit better that he's no longer on Buffy as the brooding on-again off-again love of her life. I think Whedon takes Angel's best qualities and is attempting to develop them with Angel to help loyal Buffy fans (and especially Team Angel fans) tune in to the new show. It's all Angel, all the time!

I think I've seen this before

Vampires have always been a common theme in entertainment. Books, movies, and television all use them as characters in one way or another. Whedon first created Buffy, and it was a huge success. Then, after season four, came Angel's own series, Angel. Both shows dealt with the main threat to the world being vampires. Because these two shows were popular, vampires became popular, but with the dying out of the shows, so too the vampire interest died out. However, recently Twilight has brought to life the vampire craze again. Buffy and Twilight have a very similar idea, the big strong vampire with the supernatural powers and his forbidden love who is not a vampire. This ties in with Angel as well because he is the vampire love interest in Buffy. There are many other similarities between Buffy/Angel and Twilight which are as follows: vampires come after both Buffy and Bella and they have to be protected by a good vampire, Angel and Edward both choose not to drink human's blood, both towns are filled with the supernatural, and both Edward and Angel leave their loves because they know that they are better off apart. Why these stories become so popular, I'm not quite sure, but it could be the attractive male leads they choose to play the good vampire or the entertaining story lines. Whatever it is, vampires have been and still are very popular, especially to teenage girls.

Prompts for Response Paper #5

Prompts for Response Paper #5:

Due Tuesday, February 22 in class (and before class on turnitin.com).

You should have citations and a work/works cited entry for this paper. Remember our discussion in class of picking one specific and interesting point/thesis to discuss, rather than trying to cover all the bases.

1)                   In “City of,” the first episode of Angel, Doyle explains to the show’s title character, “High school’s over. You gotta make with the grown-up talk now.” You might read this as the writers’ attempts to signal that Angel, while a spin-off, is a different show from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Based on what you saw in “City of,” discuss Angel as the “Buffy Spin-off.” You might consider how it is different to or similar to Buffy, the constraints or freedoms a spin-off has, how a spin-off tries to both keep a core audience and add to it, etc. (Wide open topic, but you must find something specific to focus on, not a whole lot of separate ideas.)  

2)                   In her article, Jessica Prata Miller explains that the larger questions of feminism and Buffy—including whether or not Buffy is a feminist role model—remain contentious. Buffy and feminism—indeed, Joss Whedon and feminism—remains a rich subject of debate. Find a text that engages in this debate—a blog post, a critical article, a review—and summarize and analyze it, giving your reader a sense how the writer engages with this complicated topic. (You might start with Slayage, the peer-reviewed journal, http://slayageonline.com/.)

3)                   In her article, Jessica Prata Miller discusses “feminist ethics” and writes the following: “I set out to address the…question of whether there is something uniquely feminine in the way Buffy’s strength and goodness are portrayed….the answer is clearly yes” (48). Respond to Miller’s claim. Go beyond whether you agree or disagree.

4)                   In “City of,” Doyle gives Angel a sort of mission statement, explaining that it’s about “saving lost souls, possibly your own.” He also tells Angel it’s a good thing to have Cordelia around as she will keep him connected to the world. Think about Jessica Prata Miller’s concept of “feminist ethics.” Can you apply it to “City of”? What are the implications of doing so?

5)                   Think about Jessica Prata Miller’s concept of “feminist ethics.” Discuss how you see that concept in play in another fictional work. But do more than simply say, “This text embodies feminist ethics.”

Sing and dancing and...vomiting

Most musicals, as you can tell from the title, make we want to vomit. I loath them. There are a few exceptions but for the most part there is much loathing. I could never understand the random breaking out into song, the fact that the hills are alive with music, or that stupid "I want" song at the beginning of pretty much every disney film...which in my opinion is just some girl bitching cause she does not get her way.

As you can tell I went into viewing "Once More With Feeling" with some preconceived notions that it was going to be stupid, I would hate it, and how could Joss Whedon do something like Firefly and then a musical episode of Buffy?

I was pleasantly surprised. I actually enjoyed it. I should have never doubted that even Whedon could pull off something as brash as a musical episode, and make even the harshest critic want to sing along. Of course it was also great that it made fun of itself in the process. I also highly enjoyed the story arch that played into the comedic effect. Ok I'm done singing (pun intended) Whedon's praises, but really he did a good job...again.

Affected by "The Body"

*due too some technical difficulties this post is a little late but I guess better late then never :]*

After watching the body I was deeply moved, I have never watched Buffy nor do I claim to be a fan. With that said I am a huge Joss Whedon fan and he is primarily why I can find enjoyment from watching Buffy. His writing techniques and directing skill really show off in this episode. I really have not watched Buffy extensively, but for some reason this episode hit home and I found myself sympathizing and even feeling like I knew the characters.

The reason this hit me so hard while watching it is because I had a friend of mine die almost a year ago very suddenly. Like in Buffy I felt like the whole world had come to a stand still. I was not sure how to feel or even what the right response was. I could not cry but simply wonder like Dawn "Where did he go?"

It took me almost six months for his death to actually hit me but the feeling of finding out a friend or loved one is dead is the most surreal experience that was captured almost too well in "The Body"

Need A Good Laugh?

If you need a good laugh, I found a few funny moments from everyone's favorite bleach-blonde haired British vampire...and the last one includes all your favorite characters from Buffy and Angel.

From "Tabula Rasa" (6.8) Everyone has lost their memory thanks to a spell cast by Willow that backfires. Everyone is trying to reaquaint themselves, and Giles and Spike end up thinking they're related...then Spike thinks his name is Randy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVtjX3q9t9w&feature=related

Buffy/Spike: "Five words or less."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3N__TdeasE&feature=related

Good times with the entire cast of Buffy & Angel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WrerCmKbps&feature=related

Zoot Suit, Chocolate Voice and Dance Numbers!

The villain in Once More, With Feeling can be said to be unique among Buffy villains; he gets away. Rather, he willingly walks away rather than having to fight with Buffy. Sweet, as he is named in the credits (but not in the actual show), plays a little havoc with Sunnydale but is fulfilled, not by eating babies or drinking blood, but by forcing people to reveal secrets though song. Admittedly, he isn't the nicest guy ever, commenting on the entertainment value of spontaneous combustion, but out of the Buffy villain crowd, he's the one I'd buy a beer for (Spike would get the other).

Sweet is definitely my favorite one-shot villain in the series for a few reasons. First is his impeccable dress sense, I mean who wouldn't want a red zoot suit? Second, Sweet's powers are rather off the wall, who expects spontaneous, yet excellently choreographed, song and dance routines to be dangerous? Who has contingency plans for that? Third, he actually wins. He is the only bad guy that wins in the entire series. The only reason he leaves at the end is because he gets bored and doesn't want to make Xander his queen. All in all, the award for Best One-Shot Villain goes to....*drumroll* Sweet!

Once More with Repossession

Phil made me watch "Repo: A Genetic Opera" last Thursday night, Buffy's musical episode fresh in our minds. This may seem like I'm comparing apples and oranges, but like Phil, I think a connection is worth finding and a comparison worth making between the depiction of fathers in both musicals. As Phil has mentioned, these two musicals share a cast member: Anthony Head, who plays Giles. Unfortunately, "Repo" far under-utilizes Head's skill as a singer, most of his songs being rhythmic talk-singing numbers with growling undertones. Also, his sex appeal is diminished. Despite Giles being a quasi-father figure, he is portrayed as a man who is sexually and emotionally complex, and is often uncomfortable fully embracing his paternal role. In "Once More with Feeling" he sees that Buffy is relying on him too much, and decides to make the difficult decision to step away, which is something fathers sometimes have trouble doing, especially the father he plays in "Repo." His character, Nathan, shields his daughter Shilo from the world outside, going to great lengths to keep her close and sequestered, suffocating her with "love." Giles demonstrates love better by doing something that is painful for both him and Buffy by leaving, but that is ultimately more for Buffy's benefit than his own. "I'm just standing in the way," he sings. Head's character Nathan in "Repo" comes off as shallow (but then, most of the characters in "Repo" do) and lives in the past so much that he is unable to accept a different kind of future because of its unpredictable nature. He shelters his daughter more for his own comfort than for hers. "It's me she must escape," he sings, referring to Shilo's desperate attempt to throw off his choking control. He has to allow Shilo to live, just like Giles is trying to help Buffy live. Whedon brings another dimension to the father-figure type and is able to create a passionate, conflicted character using (in this particular episode) music. Alas, "Repo" is unable to do the same thing.

All That's Missing is "Vampires on Ice"

It was really hard to think of much to say about "Once More, With Feeling." I'm honestly still drawing a blank and hoping that those 150 words will write themselves. The whole beauty of musicals comes from being able to zone out and not think, so when one actually starts to analyze, the magic disappears. Also, no random tidbits, because I think I've done enough Buffy bashing, see you on the flip side with Angel bashing!

Musicals are the easiest way to get into a character's head. Because it is for some reason impossible to lie in song, we get insights into the character's minds as if they were thinking. Interestingly, we see nothing of Willow's mind, and Dawn is almost blank. This suggests that, A. they really didn't want to sing (Dawn sounds like a banshee), and B. that they have some issue or other that is not allowing us into their heads. Oddly, given what Buffy is going through, I would think that we couldn't hear her, but she is the most vocal. Why do Willow's magic addiction/turning evil and Dawn's angst and kleptomania beat out total nihilism about the world? They could've done a truly excellent number with Willow in some stereotypical evil witch clothes about how using magic feels so damn good, and she just can't stop, and the power's so tempting or something, but no, nothing. God knows I detest Willow, but part of acting is about sucking it up and going outside your comfort zone. Obviously, Michelle Trachtenberg didn't want to sing, but at least she tried. Yeah, she sounded pretty terrible, as did Xander. And my question is, so what? Fail, Alyson Hannigan, fail. *Insert head shaking and finger wagging here*

Dancing With Grief

I approach musicals like I, or anyone really, approaches grief. I'm first in denial that I'm watching a bunch of people sing and dance across the screen. You know when you feel embarrassed for someone else and those prickly feelings dance all over you and your face becomes hot? I got that when I started watching this. Basically I say in my head, as my arms cross and my head lowers, "really...? singing and dancing and killing vampires?".

Next, a tinge of anger surfaces. I start thinking about how they could have written Buffy second-guessing her slayerness so much better than having her dance and sing through a graveyard while fighting demonspawn. Mind head begins to throb with thoughts like "Why are they doing this?" and"This is dumb. Musicals are dumb." and so on, and so forth for the next two minutes.

When the music stops I breathe a sigh of relief. I have a chance to organize my thoughts and as the characters explain their confusion as to why the town has been Disneyified™™ I start to enjoy the situation a bit more. I think "They're as confused as I am. It's like we're in this together. Maybe if they sing a bit less and talk more about solving the problem I'll like this more." My arms begin to unfold as I start to think about how clever Buffy's graveyard song was. I bargain with the invisible writers telling them to just include a little more inner questioning in the characters and a longer space between the songs and a balance might be achieved.

Then the next song plays and my budding smile becomes tethered to a ghostly anvil falling faster and faster toward Hell. On screen the colors are vibrant, the light is over exposed, and the voices are high pitched and slightly out of tune. The world around me becomes bleak and what was once anger and embarrassment has become hopeless whimpers. I know for certain that 90% of this episode will feature absurd air guitar moments,

off-key falsettos, and joyous dancing and I slump down into my chair and shed a small tear:

After my lacrimal glands have exhausted their energies, I wipe my weary eyes and stare at the screen in a new light. Now Xander and Anya dance across the screen in their nightly costumes, expressing to each other their inner thoughts through the therapy of song. Though Anya may be in her underwear, I am able to look beyond my caveman instincts and relate with them on their grievances and joys of relationships. I slide up in my chair a bit as a smile crosses my face once again. Xander and Anya prance around the dining room and the ever falling anvil that once drooped my lips snaps from its chain, freeing me from its imprisoning bond. The melody within the music captures my imagination and I become lost in its warm embrace. Acceptance and love has come to my tortured soul and through this journey of sadness, embarrassment, and regret I have come to respect Buffy even more. This happens with every musical I see. It's effed up.

Response to "Once More, With Feeling"

I've had enough run-ins with song and dance to last a lifetime, seeing as my twin sister had a certain fondness for Broadway shows and other musicals. Though this episode was definitely a departure from your average episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it wasn't an entirely foreign concept for me to experience characters breaking out into song and dance. A musical presents a chance for emotional expression of a character's experience while simultaneously drawing the viewer in with vivid choreography and vocals that are ordinarily stifled by run-of-the-mill dialogue. It is very exciting to see the actors and actresses of the series express talents that do not ordinarily come into play, and this little reprieve we experience in "Once More, With Feeling" from traditional dialogue and action provides a breath of fresh air to a show that might have gotten a little stale.

The closing song of "Once More, With Feeling" highlights a key concern that the writers may have had for the show. After the demon Sweet vanishes, the gang breaks into song, singing the question "where do we go from here?" This question bears importance for the characters in the show, who have had to come to terms with the reality of their relationships to one another, while perhaps simultaneously raising the question on behalf of the writers as to how much further they should take the show. Producing a special episode that incorporates song-and-dance numbers may have provided a fresh take on the series, yet the writers had to ask themselves at some point how long they can continue to keep the Buffy series going.

One and Two and Kill and Four and ...

Murder and singing go together. Though the baddies dissolve into smoke when they are killed, they are still actually murdered by Buffy and her "righteous" cohorts. We are conditioned, through the show, to not perceive it as murder because of the fact that these monsters are evil. Or something. This is fine. Good guy kills bad guy. Yay!

Why, though, is singing mashed together with killing? I suspect it is done in order to further force the viewer to recognize the brutality of what is occurring on the show. Singing, particularly when Buffy is the main voice, can be seen as innocent. Murdering baddies while stalking a graveyard is not. The musical aspect of the show accentuates the base premise, which is to highlight the life of a young woman destined to impale creepies with pointy objects.

Though Buffy was one of the first shows to feature a musical episode, music has often been linked with murder in a variety of entertainments. Sweeny Todd, anybody?

It's dark and it's dangerous and it specifically uses the perceived innocence of song to further mark a difference between innocence and murder.

Once More, With the Zydrate Support Network

In the Buffy episode "Once More With Feeling" the series has taken a journey down the road of "the musical" giving viewers a somewhat jovial yet disorienting perspective into the supernatural world that has, for the most part, been shown in a more serious tone. However the musical version of Buffy is a clever way for Whedon to advance the growth of his characters and for the characters to convey their "deepest feelings" for one another, which they normally wouldn't be able to do in the "normal" world of Buffy. In this episode especially, Giles' character undergoes the realization that perhaps now he should give Buffy her space to develop into, not just a better slayer but a better person, since she has been a bit apathetic after her revival.

With the "Musical" aspect of the episode Giles is able to be more fatherly to Buffy, admitting that he feels she is ,"not ready for the world outside...and I'm the reason you're standing still". This particular scene with Giles shows that he has, up until this point, been sheltering Buffy and now is resolved to let her be more independent, particularly when he tells Buffy that he will not go with her to save Dawn, even though he follows afterwards anyways.

The musical gave Whedon the harmony he needed to continue the growth of his characters not just physically but musically, allowing the characters to be more open with each other without sacrificing real emotional hurt.


P.s. for those who are interested in the fatherly aspect of Giles in Buffy, he is just as protective in Repo the Genetic Opera where he is overbearing of his "daughter" in the film, restricting her from seeing the world outside/

Alone in a Crowd

Watching this week's episode made me think about how much Buffy is always a loner. I've been going back and watching older episodes from season one and two, and I have become more adept at noticing Buffy's quest for a normal life and how it gets thwarted on the show. After all, what is more abnormal than living in a musical?

The song that she sings while walking through the graveyard- all the way through her choice, at the end, to let herself dance until she burns makes her out to be someone who feels totally alone and as given up. The whole part where she was actually going to dance until she died gets glossed over when people are talking about this episode. She is so numb to the world, so desperate to do anything to make herself "feel" that she is willing to not only "walk through the fire," but to also let it consume her.

This girl has come a long way from the cutie in mini-dresses who wanted to make friends her first year at Sunnydale High. I feel as though this numbness, this willingness to give herself up has come from her inability to connect, not to her group of friends, but to anyone outside the group who know all her secrets. Just in time for Valentines Day, let me do a romantic interpretation, and make you look back over the course of the show at all her failed romances. Most of them have gone down the tube because she, as the slayer, has to stand alone, has to be alone, and she fears dragging someone down with her.

I found myself becoming completely heartbroken for Buffy like I never have in any other episode. In a world full of big musical numbers and rousing group scenes, I have never seen someone depicted as so alone, so lost, and so disconnected. I greatly applaud Whedon for NOT making an ending where she finds her place amongst her friends, and reconnects to the group. Even though she is seen giving into her desire for Spike, no one watching is thinking that Buffy/Spike is the recipe for a happy ending. It is more like a consolation. In the same way that she seems essentially resigned to just try and get through life, her choice to reach out to Spike seems like just a girl wanting to not be alone anymore

Not really digging it

Ok, so I like musicals. Not a lot, but I think they're kind of cool. I DO NOT like singing in television shows. It doesn't matter if we're watching Buffy or Scrubs or That 70's Show or whatever. I'm just not into it. Granted, there were some clever moments in the episode and I thought some of the songs were actually pretty good. For the most part though, singing in t.v. is just kind of corny in my opinion and seems forced. So I'm not knocking Buffy as much as I am the idea of singing throughout the episode.

I will say that I'm impressed that Whedon wrote the lyrics for the all the songs. As we end our Buffy adventure I will say that the experience was much better than I anticipated, and I think a lot of credit goes to Whedon. From a purely production point of view, I think Buffy was an excellent show, very well written and well put together. I look forward to the next work.

"Give Me Something to Sing About"

Ask me at any point and I will always tell you that I have always been a huge Buffy fan. I've loved the show since the first episode, except "Once More, With Feeling." It's not the music necessarily or the dancing, I'm just not a fan of musicals. Prepare to gasp...I've never seen The Sound of Music or Mary Poppins or even The Little Mermaid, so my technical musical criticism is limited. While I'm not opposed to someday seeing Ariel sing about being part of the human world, there's just something about musicals I don't like. I don't exactly know what it is about them that makes me cringe. Maybe it's because the cheesy music gets stuck in my head for days at a time, then I unconsciously find myself singing a few lines in a grocery store isle, leaving myself vulnerable to the weird looks and stares (made worse by the fact that I can't sing) people give me. What ever the case may be, it's just not my cup of tea and that line can totally be sung right there...ugh.

"Once More With Feeling" is another cringe-worthy number for me to watch. However, I will get to the positive things. I really liked Spike's song, "Rest In Peace" and thought it summed up his character well, and I also enjoyed Gile's song "Standing in the Way" as well. Both I found to be less cheesy and better written. I will also have to say that Joss was clever with giving a descent "singing" explanation. He didn't have the characters sing just to sing. Each person had inner feelings bottled up that needed to be expressed, and by the end of the episode those emotions were laid out in the open. It really did give the rest of the season direction with where Joss wanted it to go. Buffy turned to Spike in an attempt to feel something, Xander and Anya's relationship began to slowly crumble, Willow and Tara's relationship did crumble, Giles left and Dawn pretty much remained a bratty teenager.

This short scene was one of the funniest for me:

Dawn: Oh my God. You will never guess what happened at school today.

Buffy: Everybody started singing and dancing?

Dawn: I gave birth to a pterodactyl.

Anya: Oh my God, did it sing?

And a picture of course:

"Once More, with Feeling" = Dr. Horrible? (Sorry, I had to.)

*Consider this an expansion to a comment on Jonathan's post in response to Dr. H's comment.

I'm surprised that no one, in their posts, has mentioned the extreme similarities between this episode and Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. Stylistically, they are practically identical. The actors in these cinematic musicals are not necessarily professional singers or dancers, and for the most part have bland, "sing-songy" vocal styles. The appeal of this style of "musical parody" is its sharp, witty lyrics and modernity. They also both have the "totally average protagonist as struggling superhero/villain" theme. Without giving away any Dr. Horrible spoilers, I'd like to get into the similarities between the characters of Buffy and Dr. Horrible. Both characters are unsatisfied with their lots in life- while Buffy feels she is only "Going Through the Motions," Dr. Horrible feels unhappy both with his career and his love life. As both of the musicals unfold, we find both Buffy and Dr. Horrible dealing with an inner turmoil that threatens to change their lives completely- Buffy going up in flames and Dr. Horrible committing his ultimate evil deed.

Anyone who has already seen Dr. Horrible in the class: can you find any other interesting similarities between it and the "Buffy musical"?

Grey's Anatomy is doing one, too...

I first heard about this back in November, but figured it was appropriate to bring up here on the blog: Grey's Anatomy has a musical episode in the works. You can read about it here.  Poor Corinne, who loves her Grey's but hates musicals...

Can we sing these blogs in class?

After reading all the other posts I am surprised that nobody mentioned how this musical episode worked, as in the way in which the songs were used. I once heard that Hollywood musicals (Disney, etc) put the musical numbers in parts when the characters have discovered something about themselves. This is exactly why this episode worked so well. The musical numbers only came in when the characters had something personal to say.

The first song was Buffy trying to figure out why she was feeling "off". Then the gang was worried about what was happening. Xander and Anya had their doubts. Tara had her feelings of love. As so on.

This episode fit perfectly into the hollywood musical genre, and actually for me, made more sense out of the songs then many other do. I like musicals anyone so perhaps I'm going easy on this episode. I also like uniqueness and this episode falls directly into that. What's the point if all the episodes are the same? Let's change it up people! You know you want to sing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGRN39oifsE
See...Even plants want to sing

Please, Don't Start Singing

"Once More, With Feeling" was unexpected. I am not a fan of musical episodes in general. The choreographed dance numbers usually have nothing to do with the actual plot of the show and there is never any explanation as to why the characters are singing. I was pleased to find out that in this Buffy episode the musical aspect is explained. However, I found myself dreading the next tune. The music makes the episode move incredibly slow.

I do not think the “Lord of the Dance” is a strong enough villain. The idea of a person dancing so fast that he or she bursts into flames does not make any sense to me. I think it could be explained more thoroughly. There is not even a fight scene with him at the end. He leaves voluntarily without even a scratch. I don’t like the lack of action.

Some of the lines in the episode were pretty hilarious. The best part was the song between Xander and Anya. As we discussed in class, their true feelings are forced out of them through song. It’s an interesting way of making them deal with their feelings although they never really seem to resolve any of the issues in the end. The ending seems to be wrapped up into a neat little bow which hasn’t been the style of Buffy ending we have seen in the episodes we have watched in class.

Audience Participation in "Once More, With Feeling"

The cool factor of "Once More, With Feeling" went up even more when I discovered that upon its release Whedon & Co. held screenings of the episode in theaters that encouraged audience participation in the same way The Rocky Horror Picture Show still does today.

This link has some info about the screenings that took place in Houston, Texas and Amber Benson (Tara) was a special guest.

I think this would have been a really fun experience!

"Once More, With Feeling": Can We Call it a Classic?

Note: I began to reply to Jonathan's post, "Classic is best," and it began to go into new-post territory, so here it goes:

Like Dr. H said, I'm a huge fan of Julie Andrews and The Sound of Music (and also a pretty die-hard Audrey Hepburn fan) so I can certainly understand their value as undeniable classics. There is something in me that wants to consider these classics as "untouchable" pieces of entertainment, but I also think it's important to try to pinpoint why I feel this way. I can honestly appreciate, defend (and enjoy!) Buffy's musical episode. I believe the episode actually calls on me as a viewer to both recognize the tribute-factor, but also keep "Once More, With Feeling" in its rightful place and all of the wonderful The Sound of Music-esque musicals in theirs.

As a genre, musicals are a little bit of everything. Actually, the standards for musicals are pretty high, too; there is the expectation for good acting in addition fabulous singing and dancing, of course! They can make a grand musical number about anything, and audiences totally buy it.

In the same way, I feel like Buffy continually pushes its own standards and gets better. Whedon is able to pull off a seemingly random musical episode without sacrificing any plot development whatsoever.

For what it's worth, I think "Once More, With Feeling" is favorable and even generous in its homage to the Hollywood musical and the "classics" (particularly with Xander/Anya's number which made me want to go watch old movies). Still, the episode kept enough contemporary musical numbers throughout. I took the musical variety as Whedon sort of tipping his hat to the classic style, but still being very much aware about contemporary music and its place in Buffy as a whole.

Furthermore, I took the mixture as Whedon suggesting he knows darn well the cast is not full of stars like Julie Andrews, Natalie Wood, Audrey Hepburn, and Fred Astaire (for the gentlemen!) but that's totally okay and they're going to have fun. I do take comfort in the fact that the cast went through a lot of training and such and didn't just give a half-hearted attempt at such an important genre.

Ultimately, "Once More, With Feeling" is a self-aware tribute to the classics, and its still being Buffy at its heart. Interestingly enough, many Buffy fans respond to this episode as "a classic" within the series. :)