Thoughts on Rewatching “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” in the wake of the Whedon allegations

Photo credit: Ben Gabbe/Getty Images and Them.us

Recently, I’ve begun reprising “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” series with an eye to examining how much of the show’s DNA has been passed on down through succeeding generations in both film and TV. Also, I wanted to see if my sense of the characters has changed much and last, but certainly not least, what effect the past year or so of allegations against Joss Whedon recast how I view the series/read the text. It’s this last that’s going to occupy us here, but the other two approaches are part of the mix, as well.

I first watched “Buffy” beginning with the third season and caught up through reruns. I stuck with it fairly devotedly/regularly through season five and didn’t really see all of six and seven until I got a boxed set of DVDs. I did catch the odd season six/seven episode when they aired and wild horses weren’t going to stop me from watching the series finale. I came to actually prefer “Angel” at a certain point but felt things were off when Cordelia was written out. The last season of “Angel” didn’t quite stick the landing for me. And of course, there was “Firefly” which might be Whedon’s most consistent work and maybe even fullest realized.

Rewatching “Buffy” on DVD not all that long after the series ended, I found myself skipping through significant chunks of episodes, circling back later to watch what I felt were weaker entries over again, and so on. A show that runs that long is going to have some less than great work. In some cases, it flirted with mediocrity, but never completely; in every episode, there was something great, something that set the series apart from others and if the last two seasons don’t measure up, there are reasons for that; they’re just not as good as what came before. However, there is still brilliance throughout.

We watched Whedon’s star ascend: co-writing “The Cabin in the Woods”, adapting “Much Ado About Nothing”, and of course, the two Avengers films for Marvel/Disney. There were other, not quite so successful ventures like “Dollhouse”, but the first real stumbling block was Whedon’s work on DC/Warners’ “Justice League.” Some people have said that if there’s anything good in the version released under Joss (as opposed to “The Snyder Version”), it’s all owed to Whedon. Well, respectfully, that’s not so. The movie is a mess and people can and do make excuses; “Snyder’s a hack and what he’d already shot was way beyond repair”, “the studio forced Joss to make dubious calls”, but the only real note that seems valid was the studio wanted it lighter and literally, “more like The Avengers.” 

That last alone, given budget and release constraints would make any project nearly impossible, and the mess that resulted is shit. As much as I dislike Zack Snyder’s version (and make no mistake; it too, is a mess), it is the better of the two movies. And then, reports started leaking out about how abusive Joss Whedon was to the cast on the set, particularly Ray Fisher (Cyborg) and Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman). This wasn’t the first we had heard of how conflicting Whedon as a pop culture figure of merit was with Joss Whedon, the man behind that figure. His ex-wife went public with a revealing, and scathing, article that documented his extramarital affairs over two decades(1). His case was not helped by himself. 

His wittering about feminism (try this) were one thing, but his argument that he used to excuse/explain his peccadilloes - that he was beset by “beautiful, needy, aggressive young women” - backfired spectacularly. Once again, it’s not the man’s fault he can’t keep his dick in his pants; it’s all those aggressive, attractive women wearing his resistance down. (2)

Then came Charisma Carpenter’s allegations, and Amber Benson’s, and Michelle Trachtenberg’s. More investigations revealed Whedon to be manipulative and quite frankly, creepy (he was not to be left alone with Trachtenberg after saying “inappropriate things” to her…when she was 14). Support for Carpenter was expressed by Sarah Michelle Gellar, the series’ star, David Boreanaz (Angel) and James Marsters (Spike). (3)

Since this last dam collapsed in February of this year, I’ve been mulling over the separation of the art from the artist. Arguments excusing Whedon’s behavior are predictable: too much success too soon, the temptations of Hollywood, he’s the showrunner/creator/visionary and it’s the cast and crew’s responsibilities to see that vision through, and of course, the ever-popular “they’re overreacting.”

None of these are valid excuses. They aren’t even good explanations. In any case, Whedon’s behavior casts his work in a different light. Anthony Stewart Head (Giles) said he spent a lot of time going over in memory what it was he missed, what he overlooked. So did I. 

I’m accustomed to watch a film or a show with a certain amount of critical distance but I’m not blind to how awful many directors (and other artists) can be. Otto Preminger, Stanley Kubrick, Hitchcock, and others come to mind. In more recent times, we’ve got a right Litany of Assholes (LOA): Brett Ratner, Bryan Singer, James Franco, Louis CK, Bill Fucking Cosby, Harvey Fucking Weinstein. Not all of them have committed reprehensible acts of the same quality or quantity, but each one has earned his spot on the LOA. 

Dismissing the ugliness of an artist’s behavior in light of their contributions to the culture is an exercise in lazy ethical philosophy (oh, no, I’m sorry; there are no ethics here). Pablo Picasso is high up in the ranks of LOA, and it’s unlikely anyone would contest his contribution to culture. John Lennon is a good example of a mixed bag, as well, but one could argue persuasively that Lennon grew a good bit before his untimely death. I mention this because this idea of growth and change needs to be factored in at some point.

Of course, many live and die with extremely little maturity taking place. To die without regret for hurting people is a shabby, empty life and lame way to exit the stage. But by all means, go nuts.

So Joss. Few figures as beloved have damaged their reputation so well. All of those excuses for his bad behavior may be “true” for him, but for the people he angered, belittled, and threatened? Why should they put up with it? 

That brings up the other riposte often heard from defenders of pricks; “why’d they put up with it for so long if it was so unbearable?” Well, let’s see. You have a very powerful figure in a position over your career and your livelihood who is both your senior in position as well as in age. Before Buffy, Whedon had been around for a decade. The “overnight sensation” trope doesn’t really apply here. He’d done a lot of work to get to launching a groundbreaking series.

That said, his digs at Fisher, Carpenter, et al, are less about being a challenging creator goading his performers into new/better performances than a schoolyard bully acting out his Master of the Universe dreams. 

Looking at the Buffyverse, the seams begin to show in the second season. Xander Harris starts to develop a huge case of character whiplash/erratic tonality. It becomes more pronounced in the third season beginning with the third episode “Dead Man’s Party”; thankfully, Nicholas Brendon was able to navigate those shifts and mitigate some of the more self-righteous dialog his character had to utter. Harris is, of course, Whedon.(4) Is he the ineffectual loser that Whedon may have felt himself to be at one point who then presses the pedal into a hyperdrive of largely unearned castigation when he’s rebuffed or pissed off? So it seems, and in light of Carpenter and Fisher’s reports, it’s not hard to imagine that Xander’s more cutting dialog might well have been drawn from life.

Then there’s the whole “male gaze” aspect where the women/girls in “Buffy” are concerned. Sure, Cordelia is going to be more overtly attractive as a reflection of her vanity/obsession with appearances; Willow, “the smart one”, is mostly garbed in form covering clothes, overalls, etc. until she’s not (as in Season 2’s “Halloween”) but to be honest, it’s rare Hannigan was ever exposed or rendered a sexual object; not so Faith, Eliza Dushku’s slayer who reads as a Joan Jett tough but/and “smoking hot” girl or even Buffy herself, where it may not be too much of a stretch to say that the central slayer is fetshized every so often. However, these are (relative) quibbles.

It may be that there is no way to meaningfully avoid some degree of rendering these women as desirable objects, given that they are set up as types as much as they are characters. Additionally, whether accidentally or by design, they have entered the pop lexicon as shorthand for strong women in control of their agency. It’s sometimes difficult to tease out the genuine character indicator from the exploitative elements surrounding or informing how the character is presented. 

We start to run into more significant issues with the handling of Buffy in relation to Faith, Spike, to Willow even and vice versa. There are some problematic issues in how she’s set up to relate to each over the successive seasons. The Spike Attempted Rape in “Seeing Red” is referred to as the most controversial scene in the series and as one writer put it (5); it wasn’t necessary, but Whedon - though he wasn’t the episode’s writer - apparently wanted it after hearing about a staffer’s story. To be clear, I’m not certain that this came directly from Whedon, but as Marsters said in a talk (8), the general idea with the scripts was to take a regular situation “and put fangs on it”. It is a grueling, disturbing, and heartbreaking scene and knowing what Gellar and Marsters went through to get it just makes it harder to watch. This was also the episode that kills off Tara, that references the Deadly Consequences of Gay Sex (indeed, sex in general is often met with terrible consequences in “Buffy”. (7) This episode late in the series pointed to a degree of bankruptcy in Whedon’s vision (I cannot argue that this episode in particular was badly written or performed, but again, was it necessary?)

Faith and Willow became almost as subject to whiplash as Xander. Willow’s turn to the dark side as a result of her practice of witchcraft as a simulacrum of drug addiction often read to me as flaccid, at best. It’s intriguing that there are few genuinely benign supernatural figures in Whedon’s cosmos. Yes, yes, it makes sense: the overcoming of obstacles by humans is one of the key points, as is the idea that the world is hostile, in general. The forces of darkness - vampires, demons, witches, and so on - are stand-ins for the demons that we confront within and perhaps it might muddy the thematic waters if they weren’t more or less uniformly treated as such. However, that removes from the equation of what we encounter in our youth as being far more nuanced and important in our maturation into adulthood; it defangs (sorry) the possibility that not everything - sex and drugs - is necessarily “bad” for you. 

The sex part stands out like a sore thumb. Angel is cursed with a soul that he loses again when he experiences so much as a moment of “true happiness” (season 2’s “Surprise” and its follow-up “Innocence”) and then he reverts to his old murderous self. It’s pretty reductive to equate “true happiness” with orgasm, but such is what we encounter here. Now, I’m going to contradict myself: it might well be that in Marti Noxon’s script for “Surprise”, she envisioned Angel and Buffy’s congress as emblematic of the love they feel for each other and that they finally consummated their love represented joy for Angel in a deep part of his being. Both episodes are remarkable; there’s no denying that they’re two of the strongest in the series (“Innocence” was directed and written by Whedon); but to assume that contradiction as a representation of the theme of Angel obtaining true happiness is to torture and twist the event into doing more work than it can support. The bottom line is that Angel popping is supposed to be his moment of true happiness. I can’t escape the reduction. It’s just, frankly, there. In the script and on the screen.

But “Buffy” punishes sex with dire consequences, if not death, repeatedly. Yes, many of the women are strong and yes, using negative consequences for loving someone (i.e., Willow and Tara, if not Willow and Oz, even) is an effective plot device. When it becomes a staple, though, it’s just tedious. (It should be noted, by the way, that Whedon wanted to write her out/kill her off earlier. More recently, Marti Noxon has said she regretted that decision.) (8)

Not all witches, demons, werewolves, and vampires in the Buffyverse are bad, of course. To the series credit, almost all characters are flawed and frequently damaged and thus, rendered more sympathetic. However, it’s important to interrogate the more culturally resonant features of the show(s: “Buffy” isn’t alone in conflicting themes); the seams show up where the tonal shifts are jarring (and these are not exclusive to non-Whedon scripts) and characters behave in ways that contradict what we’ve come to know of them or are possessed out of nowhere by this or that demon/succubus/what-not. One assumes such possession stands in for our “uncontrollable urges” which reads to me as just sloppy writing.

This last is also telling. It’s difficult to find a series where the writing is at such a high standard so consistently for so long. As I’d said earlier, even the weaker episodes contain some gems. It’s not the performances, either. If some of the characters grate on the nerves, particularly in the later seasons, this is offset by other developments. Maybe one could simply accept that you can’t like everyone equally all the time. Characters, like people, can get on the nerves.

All of this said, I’ll be returning to finishing up watching the series yet again, and more than likely “Angel” and “Firefly” and I’ll be exerting that separation of the art from the artist. 

Regarding Whedon and other “compromised/compromising” artists, I think it’s important to bear in mind two things. One, people are very often a muddled mix of issues and problematic behavior. This doesn’t let anyone off the hook, but when we encounter great or significant art, it’s important to realize that our art doesn’t come from just us, meaning our own severely flawed selves, alone. Making art isn’t just about coming up with something grand that people will talk and write about for ages; it’s about becoming whole, it’s about sharing our problems and challenges and finding ways to creatively understand and resolve them. In a lot of ways, art isn’t separate from life. But this doesn’t mean that the artist is going to be a sage, much less a saint. That’s unfair and unreasonable.

However, as we continue to evolve socially, it becomes increasingly obvious that old, formerly swept-under-the-carpet/accepted forms of behavior can no longer be accepted. I find the concept of “cancel culture” of dubious merit. I’d rather simply say that there should be and are consequences for offensive behavior, however seemingly minor it might be to the offender. I don’t find “Buffy” any more problematic than any other work of a generation ago because of Whedon’s behavior. It cannot be taken from him that he’s contributed greatly to pop culture and whether intentionally or not, brought to life characters that contributed, ironically, to his own downfall. Buffy wouldn’t put up with his shit, for example.(9)

The other thing to keep in mind is that while the series is Whedon’s creation, it was the result of many, many collaborators. From the other producers to the directors and writers, to the actors and DPs and the rest of the crew, it takes a small army to make a series run; particularly, one as vital as “Buffy”. In that light, it’s helpful to realize that there were other voices adding to and perhaps even counteracting Whedon’s misogyny. Certainly, Marti Noxon was a voice of reason.

Hers has also been a voice of late of a woman who didn’t suffer Whedon’s abuse. It’s entirely possible that Whedon is different around people he considers equals? That I know of, I’ve come across no issues on the sets of either Avengers film and possibly that’s because he regarded that cast and crew as more professional? 

Nicholas Brendon has also carefully chosen not to weigh in on the Whedon allegations.(10) He’s shown his support for Charisma Carpenter but notes that his relationship with Whedon is different. And this is fair enough; again, we each have our nuances, our unique experiences, and in today’s media scape, Brendon is probably aware that his words will be judged one way or another. How you balance your friendships in circumstances like this is going to vary, I’m sure. Can you support the abused and still remain close to the abuser? If I read Brendon’s words correctly, I’d say so. I don’t get the feeling he’s refusing to say much because of undue or unreflective loyalty; he genuinely cares about Whedon and this speaks much about Nicholas Brendon’s humanity and empathy. Nevertheless, one may also assume that if they are good friends, Whedon’s more than likely gotten an earful from others.

It is Brendon’s statement that he hopes for growth and healing to prevail that brings me to circle round to that very point alluded to earlier. Much of the apologies and admissions in the era of the #metoo movement have smacked of performance, at best and utterly transparent half-assed hypocrisy, at worst. However, I would be the last person to say that growth can’t come out of all this. Albeit that Whedon has shown himself to be less than the exemplary person he painted himself to be and many believed he was, one can hold out hope, for his own sake, that he learns from this and grows accordingly. I’m not one to judge who can or cannot grow and become a more mature human being. Despite his abusive behavior toward others, perhaps we can all enlarge our scope to include the possibility that he and others like him will evolve beyond what appears to be severely stunted views of the world.

Lastly, Courtney Enlow sums up why all this matters eloquently: 

“Our understanding of toxic masculinity, consent, gender dynamics, and rape culture have evolved significantly since 2002 … But even with, especially with, shows and films we still love and still look to as important relevant, cultural touchstones, it's necessary to reexamine what we forgave and excused in the past. It's beyond Buffy. It's about all of us.” (11)

    

Notes:

1. Cole, 2017.
2. Browning, 2017 and Cole, 2017.
3. For timelines of Whedon’s controversies: Lampen, 2021; Sanchez, 2021; Schaefer, 2021.
4. Gross, 2002; Watanabe, 2021. See also Ghaleb, 2017 and Hadadi, 2021.
5. Ruffin, 2018. See also Enlow, 2019.
6. King/Marsters, 2014. 
7. Strapagiel, 2021. “It felt easier to ignore the problems when we were just obsessed teenagers. Like how characters on the show are always punished for having sex. Or Spike’s attempted rape. Or the utter lack of any characters of color. Or how the show pulled a “bury your gays” on Tara and Willow. It was also easier to ignore the rumors about the show’s creator, Joss Whedon, because he had long been held up as a geeky demigod and feminist hero.” 
8. Anderton and Opie, 2020: Tara’s death was apparently pushed back several times. For Noxon’s regrets, see Bacon, 2018.
9. See Strapagiel, 2021. I swear I didn’t rip her off! She wrote the same thing!
10. Mehrtens, 2021.
11. Enlow, 2019.

References:

Anderton, Joe and Opie, David. Buffy's Amber Benson reveals Tara's "awful" death was supposed to happen earlier. Digital Spy. August 31, 2020.

Bacon, Thomas. Former Buffy the Vampire Slayer Showrunner Regrets Killing Off Tara. Screen Rant. July 6, 2018.

Browning, Laura M. Joss Whedon was Never a Feminist. AV Club. August 21, 2017.

Cole, Kai. Joss Whedon Is a ‘Hypocrite Preaching Feminist Ideals,’ Ex-Wife Kai Cole Says (Guest Blog). The Wrap. August 20, 2017.

Enlow, Courtney. Alright, Let’s Talk About Spike, Buffy and that Scene. Syfy Wire. February 21, 2019.

Faircloth, Kelly. The Rise and Fall of Joss Whedon, and the Myth of the Hollywood Feminist Hero. Jezebel. February 25, 2021.

Ghaleb, Sara. The Uncomfortable Legacy of Buffy’s Xander Harris. Paste. March 17, 2017.

Gross, Terry. Joss Whedon. Fresh Air Archive. Originally aired: February 8, 2002.

Hadadi, Roxana. Goddamn, Xander Harris was the Absolute Worst. Pajiba.com. March 31, 2021.

Lampen, Claire. A Brief History of Joss Whedon’s Many Controversies. The Cut. April 6, 2021.

King, Shane. James Marsters Talks About The Attempted Rape Scene In "Seeing Red" (Buffy Fanmeet - December 2014) YouTube. December 18, 2014.

Mehrtens, Michelle. Buffy’s Nicholas Brendon Comments On Joss Whedon Accusations. Screen Rant. February 15, 2021.

Ruffin, Reneaux. On Buffy and the Attempted Rape. Medium. August 16, 2018.

Sanchez, Gabrielle. A Complete Timeline of Every Joss Whedon Controversy. Vulture. May 21, 2021.

Schaefer, Sandy. All the Joss Whedon Abuse and Misconduct Allegations Explained. Screenrant. February 10, 2021.

Shakeri, Sima. Joss Whedon's Sexist 'Wonder Woman' Script Leaked And It Sounds God-Awful. Huffington Post. June 19, 2017.

Strapagiel, Lauren. We’ve Got to Talk About Joss Whedon. Buzzfeed News. February 11, 2021.

Warner, Kara. Joss Whedon on Feminism, Avengers Leaks, and Marvel’s Big Slate. Vulture. November 4, 2014.

Watanabe, Marina. The Quiet Misogyny of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”. Bitchmedia. February 19, 2021.

Weiss, Norman. Joss Whedon’s Feminist Legacy Unraveling Has Been a Long Time in Coming. Primetimer. February 12, 2021. 

Whedon, Joss. Wonder Woman. Indieground Films (Leaked manuscript). 2004, 2017.