Joan the Vampire Slayer
Carpe Spuffy!
Hey all, I posted this on my journal today and would love your thoughts
Here is the article I'm discussing; http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage33/Wilcox.pdf
So, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I re-watched "Pangs" (my second all-time favorite Buffy ep) and read Wilcox's new article from this issue of Slayage 9.1. I found her article interesting, and would like to share some of her main points with you all in hopes of inspiring some conversation.
Firstly, I will say that I do not always enjoy Wilcox's essays - as in, her ideas are always good, but her style is annoyingly informal. I'd recommend reading her essay, but it's that not an option, here is a summary,
In her essay, Wilcox makes the claim that Pangs is not only progressive, but also a great example of how tone is used in television. She claims the episode has two "jobs" - 1.) to dramatize the Native American/conquest theme, and 2.) to present a shift in the relationship between Buffy to Angel and Spike, and that these two "jobs" work together to make meaning of this episode and that these "jobs" are explored through the episode's tonal shifts. Wilcox also discusses the original drafts for this episode written by Jane Espenson, before Joss significantly edited them for the version that was eventually broadcast.
Okay, so now go read it,or at least skim it before reading further.
Some questions for discussion;
1.) Do you agree that "Pangs" is colonialist? Or do you think the episode is an accurate representation of the "debate", and therefore "progressive"?
2.) A lot has been said regarding this interaction;
WILLOW: Buffy, this isn't a western. We're not at fort...Giles with the cavalry coming to save us. It's one lonely guy. Oppressed warrior guy who's just trying to...
BUFFY: Kill a lot of people?
WILLOW: I didn't say he was right.
BUFFY: Will, you know how bad I feel about this. It's eating me up-- (To Anya.) 1/4 Cup of brandy and let it simmer-- (To Willow.) But even though it's hard, we have to end this. Yes, he's been wronged, And I personally would be ready to apologize--
SPIKE: Oh, someone put a stake in me.
In this passage - according to Wilcox a great example of "single speech" shift in tone happens. Do you feel Buffy is truly indifferent to the Indian's plight, or do you agree with Pateman when he says that "[Buffy's] pragmatic and unconcerned response to the situation is very funnily presented...the rhetoric of historial concern is wonderfully juxtaposed with the reality of immediate need"? if the latter, how do you reconcile her casual tone with the progressive and "serious" message and intent of the episode, or as Joss says is the most "radically and potentially offensive and necessary messages we ever played"? And, do you think Buffy is really "unconcerned"?
3.) Wilcox makes the case that the episode title refers to not only hunger "pangs" but also "pangs" of guilt - that is, what she calls "liberal sympathies" (white people's guilt towards the plight of the Native Americans) and makes the point that even though the reactions of some of the Scoobies to the Clumash is problematic, that doesn't mean the episode is. What do you think of this?
4.) In an earlier draft of this episode, the last scene has the Scoobies sitting around the table, the dinner having failed, and Spike eating raw turkey while the rest go hungry. Does this ending change your feelings on the episode? Why or why not?
5.) In her concluding paragraph, Wilcox says, ""Pangs " is a problem play, not a solution play. The problem of the U.S. past with Native Americans is certainly not sorted out in this 48-minute television show. And the lessened humanity in the depiction of the Chumash Hus does not help...And the very ending of the episode, and its tone, remind us of the weakness of our hero; thus the show as a whole may remind us why he problem is not solved...[Buffy] is caught up in her very human desire for comfort and sustenance, both emotional and physical; she is holding on to a past that was never there. In the last shot she and we are very conscious of those looks that tell us how much we have not known. And if we have paid enough attention to the subtle tonal shifts of "Pangs , " it is possible we will comeup with a recipe for action out side the episode"”if we just let it simmer." What do you think of her final comments on this ep? Agree? Disagree? Anything to add?
I don't know if I buy into this idea that the episode "gets off the hook" because it's only introducing "food for thought" - one can't explore these touchy themes without being very, very careful - especially in a mainstream, popular television show like BtVs.
Comments? Thoughts? What do you think of this ep overall, and Wilcox's analysis of it?
Tags: btvs, buffy studies, pangs
Here is the article I'm discussing; http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage33/Wilcox.pdf
So, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I re-watched "Pangs" (my second all-time favorite Buffy ep) and read Wilcox's new article from this issue of Slayage 9.1. I found her article interesting, and would like to share some of her main points with you all in hopes of inspiring some conversation.
Firstly, I will say that I do not always enjoy Wilcox's essays - as in, her ideas are always good, but her style is annoyingly informal. I'd recommend reading her essay, but it's that not an option, here is a summary,
In her essay, Wilcox makes the claim that Pangs is not only progressive, but also a great example of how tone is used in television. She claims the episode has two "jobs" - 1.) to dramatize the Native American/conquest theme, and 2.) to present a shift in the relationship between Buffy to Angel and Spike, and that these two "jobs" work together to make meaning of this episode and that these "jobs" are explored through the episode's tonal shifts. Wilcox also discusses the original drafts for this episode written by Jane Espenson, before Joss significantly edited them for the version that was eventually broadcast.
Okay, so now go read it,or at least skim it before reading further.
Some questions for discussion;
1.) Do you agree that "Pangs" is colonialist? Or do you think the episode is an accurate representation of the "debate", and therefore "progressive"?
2.) A lot has been said regarding this interaction;
WILLOW: Buffy, this isn't a western. We're not at fort...Giles with the cavalry coming to save us. It's one lonely guy. Oppressed warrior guy who's just trying to...
BUFFY: Kill a lot of people?
WILLOW: I didn't say he was right.
BUFFY: Will, you know how bad I feel about this. It's eating me up-- (To Anya.) 1/4 Cup of brandy and let it simmer-- (To Willow.) But even though it's hard, we have to end this. Yes, he's been wronged, And I personally would be ready to apologize--
SPIKE: Oh, someone put a stake in me.
In this passage - according to Wilcox a great example of "single speech" shift in tone happens. Do you feel Buffy is truly indifferent to the Indian's plight, or do you agree with Pateman when he says that "[Buffy's] pragmatic and unconcerned response to the situation is very funnily presented...the rhetoric of historial concern is wonderfully juxtaposed with the reality of immediate need"? if the latter, how do you reconcile her casual tone with the progressive and "serious" message and intent of the episode, or as Joss says is the most "radically and potentially offensive and necessary messages we ever played"? And, do you think Buffy is really "unconcerned"?
3.) Wilcox makes the case that the episode title refers to not only hunger "pangs" but also "pangs" of guilt - that is, what she calls "liberal sympathies" (white people's guilt towards the plight of the Native Americans) and makes the point that even though the reactions of some of the Scoobies to the Clumash is problematic, that doesn't mean the episode is. What do you think of this?
4.) In an earlier draft of this episode, the last scene has the Scoobies sitting around the table, the dinner having failed, and Spike eating raw turkey while the rest go hungry. Does this ending change your feelings on the episode? Why or why not?
5.) In her concluding paragraph, Wilcox says, ""Pangs " is a problem play, not a solution play. The problem of the U.S. past with Native Americans is certainly not sorted out in this 48-minute television show. And the lessened humanity in the depiction of the Chumash Hus does not help...And the very ending of the episode, and its tone, remind us of the weakness of our hero; thus the show as a whole may remind us why he problem is not solved...[Buffy] is caught up in her very human desire for comfort and sustenance, both emotional and physical; she is holding on to a past that was never there. In the last shot she and we are very conscious of those looks that tell us how much we have not known. And if we have paid enough attention to the subtle tonal shifts of "Pangs , " it is possible we will comeup with a recipe for action out side the episode"”if we just let it simmer." What do you think of her final comments on this ep? Agree? Disagree? Anything to add?
I don't know if I buy into this idea that the episode "gets off the hook" because it's only introducing "food for thought" - one can't explore these touchy themes without being very, very careful - especially in a mainstream, popular television show like BtVs.
Comments? Thoughts? What do you think of this ep overall, and Wilcox's analysis of it?
Tags: btvs, buffy studies, pangs