|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:52:56 GMT -8
9/30/14
Boscalyn:
There's been a lengthy debate on the Chosen review about whether Buffy deserves to be a contender for the best TV show of all time. I definitely think it is; most serious critics would say otherwise. But I think they say so for reasons completely unrelated to the show's flaws.
(Please note that this is aimed towards episodic television; these issues apply to rankings of film and literature too, but television critics are the ones who I find tend to hold these viewpoints the most.)
1. The world of Buffy is explicitly fantastic. This isn't to say that magical elements or spirituality hurts your chances of being the best TV show of all time; Twin Peaks and The Sopranos both have supernatural elements. But these shows are usually passed off as "magical realism," because we all know fantasy is about elves and spaceships and therefore bad.
I think part of this is that nerd fandom is often seen as unintellectual; people have a hard time buying that Doctor Who (for example) could possibly explore the human condition or make a political point because there is a significant portion of its fanbase that's most involved with shipping, or writing crossover fanfiction, or hoarding bowties for cosplay purposes. Which is fair-- if there was a George Orwell fandom that spent all its spare time drawing romantic fanart of Snowball and Napoleon, critics would overlook the satire even in a text as blunt as Animal Farm (and trust me, it is very difficult to think of a text more blunt in its satire than Animal Farm). Then again, most critics think of Animal Farm as childish bourgeoisie "communism is bad" tripe on the grounds that it has talking animals in it.
Of course, we all know that good fantasy uses the power of metaphor to make points about the world we live in (see the quote in Iguana's signature). But most critics just don't appreciate metaphor.. The Watchers' Council may not be real in the same way the Baltimore local government is, but both Buffy and The Wire are making points about oppressive systems that really exist.
The divide between realism and fantasy is pretty dumb, all things considered; TV isn't reality, so I don't see why critics are so insistent on TV reflecting it.
2. Buffy is a comedy. And no, it's not a drama with comedic overtones. This is a show where on an episodic basis, our protagonist makes quips about chipping her nails before plunging a stake into a demon's heart. The dialogue is steeped in punnery and wordplay. Even in the show's darkest moments, it's still based around an inherently comedic premise-- Supergirl works at McDonalds to support her family?
Self-important critics #### all over comedy, mostly because the bar to enjoy it is so low. This is hardly fair-- some brain-dead ### might tune in to both Tosh.0 and Key & Peele, but those two shows are not even remotely on the same level of intelligence. (In case you were wondering: Key & Peele is the smartest show on television. This isn't even a question.)
Most of the other shows considered to be among THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME!!! are serious dramas. Breaking Bad may be a power fantasy, and it may have its share of levity, but it deals with the protagonist's struggle with cancer and eventual slide into nihilism. The Wire is supposedly funny, but it's about institutional racism and drug deals and ####. And The Shield doesn't even try to aim for comedy. By contrast, Buffy is still dark and dramatic, but it addresses serious issues through a comedic filter just as often as it does a dramatic one. ("After Life" versus "Doublemeat Palace", basically.)
3. Buffy is about women. Now, it might seem like I'm accusing television critics of sexism here, which is accurate because that's exactly what I am doing.
Remember that scene from "Listening to Fear" where Willow drops by the hospital and gives the Summerses presents? I cannot for the life of me think of a scene on any of the other candidates for "best show ever" where four women just interact so candidly with one another, independent of men. This isn't to say these other shows don't pass the Bechdel test or something dumb like that. But Buffy is a rare example of a show driven by women that doesn't succumb to "boyfriend creep," a term I just made up wherein a show previously oriented towards women slides its focus towards men in the later seasons, especially men romantically related to the protagonists.
Buffy simply covers what it means to be a woman in a way that all the other shows I'm mentioning simply can't even begin to comprehend. Of course, most of you probably don't care about this because you're dudes. But I think that to some extent, critics who don't take Buffy Summers's struggles seriously just don't get what it means to be a girl going through adolescence. In any case, it's simply inexcusable to insist that the upper pantheon of television is so masculine.
---
I'm probably rambling a bit here, so feel free to argue if you disagree with my points.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:54:02 GMT -8
MikeJer:
This is a fantastic post, Boscalyn. You make some excellent points.
I was actually about to jump in and discuss the implied fantasy bias that was creeping into a lot of the comments, which is something that's always irritated me in "high brow" critics. The use of metaphor is particularly personal for me, because I often find that stories that take place in a more "realistic" setting fail to break through the guarded barriers to my heart. Metaphor tricks me into dropping those barriers, thus allowing a piece of art access to it when a more direct approach simply wouldn't.
It's a travesty that fantasy (and comedy) are consistently considered an inherently lower form of art. At their best, nothing is better, at least to the unique human soul that is me.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:54:18 GMT -8
Iguana:
Great post, Boscalyn. Plus, funny, which works on some kind of meta-level since you're defending comedy's right to be taken seriously.
Now, I'm not entirely sure I'd vote for "Buffy" as greatest show ever even with these factors taken into consideration, but the fantasy factor in particular does sometimes give me attacks of self-consciousness when I talk about this show. When I tell people "I wrote a review for something last week" and they'd ask for what, I often hesitate a bit before blurting out it's about a vampire detective. Eek. I don't particularly like this hangup I have, which is why I have that signature quote, but I still haven't been able to convince my anti-fantasy prejudices to sit down and shut up entirely. Even though I love fantasy.
The other two are no doubt also factors in the lack of critical response, but I suspect the fantasy factor is the biggest one. If I'm right, we should be paying close attention to how "Orange is the New Black" will do in main-stream critical review in the coming years. Women: check. Comedy: Check. Critical acclaim: Check. No fantasy though. (Well, possible chicken-based magical realism and unrealistic portrayals of some aspects of the prison system aside.) But it also deals with racism and sexism and the failings of the criminal justice system and offers stories of minority women in ways no other show does, which makes it a lot easier for critics to take it seriously.
On the fantasy front there's Game of Thrones as a counter-example. It is taken quite seriously and gets a lot of mainstream response. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because it's a serious and expensive production on HBO that has a strong shock-factor. Perhaps because it's wildly popular and becomes mainstream by that very fact. People also take Harry Potter kinda seriously for that reason, simply because it's so big.
Perhaps the times are changing. Perhaps your trifecta of cardinal televised sins isn't as great a stigma in 2014 as it was even 10 years ago.
Or perhaps the problem is that "Buffy," alone of the examples I've mentioned, is a combination of all three.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:54:43 GMT -8
Zarnium:
I don't really know much about professional television critics and what they have to say about Buffy, but I get the gist of what you're saying.
Boscalyn wrote: 1. The world of Buffy is explicitly fantastic.
I don't think this should be a stumbling block to considering a show to be great, either. Sci-fi/fantasy is my favorite genre in large part because I do generally prefer metaphor to the real thing. A good metaphor is often more poignant to me than a real-life equivalent because a metaphor can be more flexible and doesn't come with pre-existing bias.
I'm also a sucker for good (or at least decent) world-building. It's often claimed that sci-fi and fantasy trappings make a show less relatable because they make the show less realistic. If someone feels that way, fair enough, but I counter with the argument that I live in the real world every day, so when I watch TV I'd rather see things that aren't possible in reality.
Boscalyn wrote: 2. Buffy is a comedy
I'd perhaps disagree with calling Buffy primarily a comedy over being a drama, but that's just splitting hairs over nomenclature. Buffy is one of the funniest TV shows I've ever seen, and the humor is often more substantial than that of a pure comedy because it's so character-based. So yes, I don't think the comedy of the show should be considered a black mark. It's probably the biggest reason I like it so much.
Boscalyn wrote: 3. Buffy is about women.
This is something I really appreciate about the show, too. Besides the points you bring up, I also like that the women aren't made into sex objects by being made to wear stupid looking "sexy" clothes. This is something that a lot of science fiction has a problem with. (Star Trek: Voyager, I'm looking at you.)
Now, I don't say this all to denigrate "high-brow" shows or people who like them more than shows like Buffy, but for me at least, I care a lot more about how much I enjoyed a show or how much I was moved by it than any claims that it's objectively better or worse than something else. I'm simply not going to be logicked out of liking my favorite shows because some other show is supposedly more artfully done. (And truthfully, Breaking Bad is probably my second-favorite show after Buffy, albeit for completely different reasons that I went into on the Breaking Bad thread.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:55:02 GMT -8
Alex C.:
Very nice post, Boscalyn. I don't quite agree with you, but you bring up some excellent points that ought to be factored into the debate.
Before I address your three main points directly, I'd like to start by questioning a central premise that underpins your argument: i.e. that Buffy the Vampire Slayer suffers from a dearth of admiration amongst mainstream television critics. I really don't think that that is the case. You don't have to look far to find fairly notable critics like Alyssa Rosenberg and Emily Nussbaum who have written about their love for the show. Alan Sepinwall, who's about as big as it gets in TV criticism, picked Buffy as one of the twelve shows that he profiled in his book "The Revolution Was Televised", which he asserts "changed TV drama forever". Joss Whedon is a household name now more than ever, and I'm pretty certain that the only people who don't consider Buffy to be his best show are the die-hard fans of Angel and Firefly.
Still, you're undoubtedly correct that most critics would not seriously entertain the notion of Buffy as the best TV show ever (I happen to agree with that assessment). Which brings us to your points:
1. The world of Buffy is explicitly fantastic. Iguana already brought up the most obvious rebuttal to this point: Game of Thrones. Which is actually only half a rebuttal, really, because a huge part of that show (following in the footsteps of its source material) is about the deconstruction and subversion of the tropes of the fantasy genre to which it ostensibly belongs. Battlestar Galactica might be a firmer point of counter-argument here, although I can't really speak confidently about that, because I've never seen that show in its entirety (perhaps Freudian will help me out).
That said, I have a more charitable interpretation of the tendancy among critics to look askance at genre stuff than you do. I don't think that many of them would take the position that elves and spaceships are inherently bad per se - rather, I think that they prefer for such things, if they are going to be in the story, to take place aginst a background of world-building and mythology in which thought and care are manifest - something that Buffy, if we are going to be honest, is often guilty of neglecting (although it is not nearly so bad an offender in this regard as Doctor Who).
Critics are inevitably going to value shows with realism and adult-focussed content over stuff that has a youth-centric focus. I take the point you are trying to make with bringing up Animal Farm - that works which are addressed to children are very capable of artistic profundity of the highest order (my personal example would be to cite the works of Mark Twain). But all the same, the critics do have a point that the overlap between drama that has genuine heft and substance to it and genre stuff is very thin on television - Buffy is one of the few that has managed to straddle the divide, and it has its own set of manifest flaws that bar it from the competition for being the best of the best.
Also, I have to take very strong issue with your assertion that highbrow TV critics don't appreciate metaphor. If you watched The Wire and didn't see that it was brimming with metaphor, then you need to watch that show again.
2. Buffy is a comedy. Actually, this point of yours really gives me the perfect opening to expand on why I believe that of the four shows which I believe have at the moment an unassailable lock on competition for the title of Greatest of All Time - that would be The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men - the first one of those is the clear winner: it was easily the funniest of the group. In fact, basically your whole point here could easily be argued on that show's behalf - which, given that The Sopranos is the grandest of all prestige drama shows, sort of rebuts your point about Buffy being underestimated because of its comedic aspect.
3. Buffy is about women. Here I'm going to take your point and actually expand on it: the role of women on Buffy remains by far the show's greatest claim to have been genuinely groundbreaking. Critics of Joss Whedon's feminist credentials have compiled a list of problems with the show on the gender front that we really don't need to hash over again here and now. But suffice to say that the standout achievement of the show from a character point remains this: that Buffy Summers was the first female television character who was both the undisputed hero of the show and who had a complicated personal life that was explored sympathetically and in depth. That she was also joined by a number of other female characters who could be as compelling and dynamic as her still really feels like something special. Any attempt to trace the expanding presence of the anti-authoritarian heroine as a figure in recent popular culture is more likely than not to locate Buffy the Vampire Slayer as ground zero for that phenomenon.
Now, with that having been said, I still don't believe that, as important as this might be, it's enough to make Buffy a candidate for being the best show ever. Because no matter how great or important the message or central theme might be, it is only as powerful as the vehicle which conveys it. And when it comes to listing the "things that make for a great TV show", there are simply too many of them where Buffy is out-classed. It still belongs on my Top Ten list for the all time greats. But it doesn't crack the pinnacle.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:55:23 GMT -8
Other Scott:
I want to touch on two things in regards to anti-fantasy bias.
1. Game of Thrones is a good rebuttal in terms of people not taking fantasy seriously, but I don't think the argument is that Buffy isn't taken seriously enough among mainstream critics. In fact, if you polled all critics and went "Buffy or Game of Thrones" I think you'd get just as many votes for Buffy.
In terms of a show with strong fantasy elements being in the conversation of "the best of all time", Game of Thrones doesn't cut it as a counter argument. Because Game of Thrones isn't in that conversation either.
2. From a personal standpoint, I really do like fantasy. Fantasy novels are still basically the only type I read. There are just no limits to the type of story you can tell, which gives the storytelling a freedom no other genre can reach. But I do find the metaphor style of storytelling to be inferior to the realism style of storytelling. And the reason is depth. The depth of a metaphor is basically restricted by the point the author is trying to make. Now they could strike on a particularly poignant metaphor with hidden depths to look into, but that's rare. On the other hand, if an author presents a more realistic scenario, what you get out of that scenario is not restricted by what the author wanted to present to you. Because the author is trying to imitate life to some degree, the parts of life that really stick with you and resonate with you may be completely different from the parts the author was trying to focus on when creating the work. There is no limits to the depth that can be seen in a picture of life, because there is no limits to the depth of life itself.
Now, creating a metaphor is not synonymous with telling a fantasy story. As someone mentioned, The Wire contains quite a bit of metaphor. On the other hand, Game of Thrones contains very little metaphor. I think Buffy took a massive step forward when it moved away from the metaphor storytelling, especially the heavy-handed ones, and moved into just showing us Buffy's life, and the ups and downs it had.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:55:39 GMT -8
Freudian Vampire:
Although this might put me at odds with the rest of the CriticallyTouched community, I think the notion of Buffy the Vampire Slayer as the best TV show ever is kind of laughable.
When I spoke of 'objectivity' on the "Chosen" comments, I was referring to a weighing of the elements; character, plot, acting, continuity, writing, tone, structure, consistency of quality, coherency, theme, relevance to the viewer, cinematography, music, graphical design and all the other buzzwords that television critics like to throw around. It is easy to name something your personal favourite. I would hope that the people here are capable of engaging with something with a little more substance.
I dislike the word 'art'. I think it's been applied to so many things that it's lost all meaning. A painting is art, but so is music, and so is literature, and some argue that it can also be used to define video games. I find this absurd. To me, art is an image or a picture, the works of Picasso or Van Gogh but nothing more.
So, to rephrase Noah's question, 'what is it which makes a great TV show great'? For me, that is everything. It is not the scenes that move me, or the graphics that impressed me, or the acting that surprised me, or the jokes that made me laugh. It is a combination of all of these things.
Why is Buffy not a candidate for the best show ever? That's a question I can answer quite easily. It has some strengths, and it does some things just as well as critically acclaimed powerhouses such as Breaking Bad do, but it has far too many weaknesses. Look at the list of qualities I described at the top and ask yourself in how many of them does Buffy excel? Some, I grant you. Depending on your opinion, it could even be most. But it's certainly not all.
Buffy's plots are abysmal most of the time. The core characters are good, but many of the supporting cast are one note and poorly performed; the vast majority of demons Buffy faces are plagued by hokiness and poor prosthetics. The music shines at times, but outside of "Once More with Feeling" it is hardly exemplary; likewise, the cinematography is typically underwhelming. Plot continuity is poor. Tone varies all over the place, leading to episodes like "Doublemeat Palace" where we're given juicy, dark themes and asked to accept them alongside a woman who keeps a penis demon under her wig. The show is acceptably structured, but it lacks the drive of The Shield or Breaking Bad or the intricacy of The Wire. It's horribly incoherent, and "Chosen" falls on its face in the rush to the finish line.
Even the elements it does do well in, it finds itself exceeded in by other shows. The characters, for the most part, are sympathetic and well written. Yet they are not consistently so. Willow's arc meanders all over the place in the final act of the show. Spike's is engaging, but too obviously contrived. Attention on Xander, Dawn and Giles wanders. Cordelia and Angel suffer as cardboard cut outs in the early stages. Buffy is perhaps the single character on the show who was consistently well written, and there are even some viewers who will argue her dictatorial arc in season seven derailed the character. This is thrown into sharp relief by shows such as The Shield, which never made such missteps.
What are we left with? A show with many positive qualities, but one that cannot execute them consistently. Nor can it expect them to cover up for how shaky its other aspects are. Even as I write this, I am convincing myself more and more that Buffy is not as great a show as it is sometimes proclaimed to be.
This is why I accuse those who place it at the top of the podium as being ruled by subjectivity. I simply cannot see a way that somebody could watch Buffy and then The Sopranos and argue that, overall, Buffy is the better of the two.
On a site such as the AV Club, arguing that would have you laughed off the discussion boards. It has become too easy for us here to suggest that this is only because those people are ignorant or have no appreciation for the strengths of the show. In a community build around Buffy, most here have never questioned the notion that Buffy is a brilliant show, but not everyone agrees, and it's not because they don't understand, or because they're snobbish, or for any reason but that they're looking for a broader set of qualities than simply likable characters and emotional connection. By those standards, one could call Harry Potter the best book ever written, or find American Pie the best movies, and I think all of us here know exactly why those opinions would be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:56:07 GMT -8
MikeJer:
To Scott:
The problem with 'real life' dramas is that I already live in real life -- I can see all of the problems with modern society because I live in modern society. Living in this world makes it that much harder for a piece of fiction portraying it to move me. Fantasy and metaphor lull my guard down, strip my preconceptions of the world away, and open my heart to seeing something that I might have otherwise been closed off to. So, speaking solely for myself, I couldn't disagree with you any more.
I truly think the storytelling method that is most effective depends entirely on the person processing it.
As for Buffy, Season 2 is one of its best seasons and is loaded with metaphors. Sure, some of the early ones are obvious (e.g. "Reptile Boy"), but others are transcendent (e.g. "I Only Have Eyes for You"). Season 5 is also rich in powerful metaphors. So I'm not sure I buy the claim that the show got "massively" better when reducing the emphasis on metaphor, which arguably happened in Seasons 6 & 7.
To FV:
I've had my perception of movies and shows/episodes radically altered by incredible arguments for and/or against them enough times to know to not let my perception of what's great or not remain static. (I admittedly don't always succeed, but I endeavor to.) Do I think Harry Potter is the best book ever written? No, not currently. But am I closed off to honestly hearing out an argument that claims so? No! I'm not going to tell someone they're "wrong" when they make a coherent, impassioned argument that has evidence to back up their claim, and if they offer a detailed analysis of why they responded to the work so strongly and uniquely.
I also think that this attempt to arrive at universal conclusions at what could constitute "the best" is an insult to our individuality as people. Each of us are going to respond differently. If someone had their life changed in a positive way by the themes, characters, and presentation of Harry Potter, it may very well be the best book ever written for them. Who am I to tell them they're 'objectively wrong'? We need not demand that they are "wrong" because you or maybe even most people think so.
You guys can say that these others shows are clearly and objectively better than Buffy all you want. To you, this is obviously true, and I have no qualms with that. In fact, I could probably learn something from your respective experiences with those other shows. But can I, in all honesty, call a show that has had notably less impact on me "better" than one that does? Can I call a show like Mad Men, which I actively dislike but admit is "objectively" well built and written, "better" than one I love with a fiery passion? I can admit that these other shows may execute certain things better, yet as a whole they still failed at achieving the complete recipe that could reach me... even change me.
To bring it all back to Buffy: if I have to pick a single reason why it connects with me more than any other show I've ever seen, it's intimacy. Buffy is the most intimate show I've ever seen, and it shows the ongoing day-to-day inner psychology of its characters in a way no other show (I've seen) has been able to match. One day I might put together an article that specifically explores how it achieves this intimacy (a lot of factors play into it) and why it sets the show apart in my eyes.
Even though I feel this way, I still won't tell you you're "wrong" for not being impacted by it as much as I have been, and for offering up arguments in favor of other shows. All of us are different, after all. Isn't that part of the fun?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:56:29 GMT -8
Freudian Vampire:
Buffy's second season is metaphorical, but the metaphor is not what makes it great. It's the raw, real, human drama which makes it brilliant, and that is something that theoretically could have been accomplished in a realistic show as well.
MikeJer wrote: I also think that this attempt to arrive at universal conclusions at what could constitute "the best" is an insult to our individuality as people. Each of us is going to respond differently. If someone had their life changed in a positive way by the themes, characters, and presentation of Harry Potter, it may very well be the best book ever written for them. Who am I to tell them they're 'objectively wrong'? We need not demand that they are "wrong" because you or maybe even most people think so.
Here is where we most strongly disagree. I do not think that, simply because Harry Potter changed somebody's life, that makes it a great book. It would make it one they would treasure and cherish, one that had an enormous effect on them, one that they would love and consider of their favourite. But I do not think that such a personal response has any bearing on the book's actual quality whatsoever.
Quality is kind of an elusive thing. I tend to think of it as completely out of the eye of the beholder, but that is admittedly a very subjective thing when dealing with something that I refer to as objective. So, to clarify, simply because I believe The Sopranos is an objectively better show than Buffy does not make it inherently true. It simply means that I am basing my opinion on more factors than emotional engagement.
So I would tell somebody who thinks Harry Potter that I think they're objectively wrong, but they can't be objectively wrong, because nothing can be objectively anything. 'Objective', as I use it, and as I explained it in my previous post, is basically the divide between what you consider 'best' and what you consider 'favourite'. Clearly, you, and many other people on this forum, use those words far more interchangeably than I do.
MikeJer wrote: But can I, in all honesty, call a show that has had notably less impact on me "better" than one that does? Can I call a show like Mad Men, which I actively dislike but admit is "objectively" well built and written, "better" than one I love with a fiery passion?
This nicely leads into the final point I want to make.
To your first question, I would have to honestly answer 'yes'. Effect on the person, I believe, has more to do with the person than the thing affecting them. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice has no meaning to me at all, simply because it is not to my interests; Disney's Dinosaur, however, sparked my childhood interest in film when I was 4. That comparison is not remotely apples to apples, but it illustrates what I mean. Austen's Pride and Prejudice is better written than Disney's Dinosaur, and nobody of sound mind could conjure an argument to the contrary. This is a clear instance where the words 'best' and 'favourite' do not mean the same thing.
The second question, however, I think you must answer 'no'. If you think that the lack of relatable and sympathetic characters is a crippling flaw on Mad Men, you are well within your rights to think so and could justifiably consider it worse than Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You should, on the other hand, admit (this is a poor example, as I haven't seen much of Mad Men, so I'm just going by the first half-season) that it is visually spectacular, well-written, has well-rounded characters and generally solid thematic work. As long as you can agree to that, all is fine. Somebody else, somebody like me (except I don't like Mad Men, so this is a bad comparison; say this was The Sopranos, and you didn't find Tony Soprano likable) finds your criticisms minor and thinks the positives outweigh them.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I tend to judge TV in a less personal way to you, and on a broader spectrum of things. Maybe this makes me an academic snob (winks at Alex), but I find it makes things more interesting. You are welcome to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:56:54 GMT -8
Other Scott:
Saying Buffy moved away from metaphor was a bit of a simplification on my part. What Buffy did that was cool (and note that many quality shows do this, but maybe not to the same degree) was it got better and better at interweaving the metaphor into the background of the narrative without having it overpower the actual situation at hand.
To use an example from one of my favourite episodes, "Wild at Heart". the main plot is a very true to life thing. What do you do when your boyfriend cheats on you? That was the main driving force of that episode. But there's a metaphor kind of in the background about the idea of the wolf that is inside each person that can come out in the worst possible times. So the episode works on both levels. I found it to be an excellent representation of a relationship falling apart for reasons that are completely understandable, despite there still being a real connection between the parties. But if you like metaphors, and if you like looking for them, they are all over the place as well.
Season 5 in particular is full of this. The best episode of the series, in my opinion, uses realism after Buffy's mom's death and makes that the centrepiece of the episode. But there's small metaphors strewn all around the edges, from the empty space painting in Dawn's class to the vampire in the morgue at the end. So there's plenty there if you like digging into metaphors, but there's also there if you just like digging into aspects of life.
Buffy's not the only series to do this, but it is very rare. And the fact that Buffy can do it so well really shows how special the writing was on the show most of the time.
I found Season 7 to be very heavy with metaphor, almost to the point where it was overpowering the show again. Season 2 had a very, very good metaphor that made the season work, plus it was probably the most emotionally charged season. That said, it isn't and probably will never be my favourite. Seasons 3-6 are the ones where they really found that balance. All those seasons have other flaws, of course, but in terms of creating realism and making that the centre of the show, while maintaining that metaphor for those who really like that sort of thing, those seasons all do a very good job. And Season 6 is my favourite for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:57:10 GMT -8
MikeJer: To FV: Re the Harry Potter argument: I'm not saying someone can claim this to be the best book ever and offer no explanation or evidence for such a claim. They still need to articulate how and why the book was able to reach them so profoundly. What techniques, imagery, language, and characterization led them to such a conclusion. Just because they say it doesn't make it convincing or understandable. The point is that I'm open to hearing their argument and their experience, and that I might come to appreciate and understand why it struck them as the 'best ever', even if that might not be the case for me. Also, my Mad Men point kind of brings my argument together: Quote: Can I call a show like Mad Men, which I actively dislike but admit is "objectively" well built and written, "better" than one I love with a fiery passion? I can admit that these other shows may execute certain things better, yet as a whole they still failed at achieving the complete recipe that could reach me... even change me. I think our underlying disagreement here is the purpose of watching television. For you, it's self-admittedly more of an academic exercise. To me, it is art (you're probably gritting your teeth right now! ). Sure it's of academic/intellectual value, but it can also be of transformative emotional and spiritual value as well. You're downplaying the importance and value of those other elements. To me, all three have equal sway in any evaluation. It, again, boils down to the point of this entire website's existence: to champion shows that are Critically Touched. [Edit] I made this site because I grew tired of fanboys and fangirls freaking out over shows without articulating why, but also because I grew equally tired of reading academic papers on shows that were dry, clinical, and generally focused intently on only one topic, with the writer often trying to fit or bend the show to make their point. Critically Touched is about marrying the academic with the emotional and the spiritual. Only when put together does a show (or movie or book) become transformative for me.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:57:24 GMT -8
Other Scott:
Freudian Vampire wrote:
Quality is kind of an elusive thing. I tend to think of it as completely out of the eye of the beholder, but that is admittedly a very subjective thing when dealing with something that I refer to as objective. So, to clarify, simply because I believe The Sopranos is an objectively better show than Buffy does not make it inherently true. It simply means that I am basing my opinion on more factors than emotional engagement.
So The Sopranos is subjectively objectively better than Buffy. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:57:46 GMT -8
Freudian:
Other Scott wrote: So The Sopranos is subjectively objectively better than Buffy. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Odd as it may sound, that's exactly what I mean. I think we can all agree that nothing has inherent quality (that is, if nothing existed in the universe but the two things being compared, one would not be better than the other) which means any statement, whether about objectivity or not, will be subjective. Ergo, in my subjective opinion The Sopranos is an objectively better show than Buffy.
MikeJer wrote: Re the Harry Potter argument: I'm not saying someone can claim this to be the best book ever and offer no explanation or evidence for such a claim. They still need to articulate how and why the book was able to reach them so profoundly. What techniques, imagery, language, and characterization led them to such a conclusion. Just because they say it doesn't make it convincing or understandable. The point is that I'm open to hearing their argument and their experience, and that I might come to appreciate and understand why it struck them as the 'best ever', even if that might not be the case for me.
I'm open to hearing an argument, but I'm confident I would never agree with it. Listening to them would be motivated by intellectual curiosity rather than by a genuine belief that they might manage to sway my opinion.
MikeJer wrote: I think our underlying disagreement here is the purpose of watching television. For you, it's self-admittedly more of an academic exercise. To me, it is art (you're probably gritting your teeth right now! ). Sure it's of academic/intellectual value, but it can also be of transformative emotional and spiritual value as well. You're downplaying the importance and value of those other elements. To me, all three have equal sway in any evaluation. It, again, boils down to the point of this entire website's existence: to champion shows that are Critically Touched.
Watching television isn't an academic exercise for me, but reviewing it would be, because if something didn't touch me emotionally, then hearing about why it touched somebody else isn't really going to be of any interest to me.
I think spiritual and emotional value can be conveyed through objective analysis. You can look at the techniques used by the writers to make us connect to the characters, as Scott did in his reviews for Breaking Bad. You can look at a combination of music and direction, or at acting. Themes can be very powerful. The Wire's messages are complex and intriguing, but they wouldn't be nearly so successful if they didn't move people.
Let me put it this way. I think that some of the attributes you champion (the ability to emotionally and spiritually move people) are about the viewer more than they are about the show, and thus I don't really consider them worthwhile arguments.
By the way, I think this is a really great discussion. Most debates on here are about the specifics of individual shows, but here we're revealing some genuine philosophical differences. Let's keep this going, people.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:58:08 GMT -8
MikeJer:
Quote: I think spiritual and emotional value can be conveyed through objective analysis.
To a degree, yes. But not entirely. I could put into words how the lighting and cinematography in a scene communicated something profound, emotional, and motivating to me, and you could look at that very same scene and say "garbage". Want an example of an episode that often causes this schism? "Lies My Parents Told Me".
I can provide an objective analysis from my perspective, but that doesn't make that perspective the "right" one, or other perspectives "wrong".
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 19, 2017 13:58:20 GMT -8
Freudian:
MikeJer wrote: I can provide an objective analysis from my perspective, but that doesn't make that perspective the "right" one, or other perspectives "wrong".
Sure. This is true of everything. I'm not arguing that your perspective is wrong. I'm arguing that I think your perspective is wrong. :wink:
|
|