Specifically, teenage girls.
I'm posting this scene, because I can't find the one I want. The one I want has no violence, and yet, I find it far more disturbing than this scene, in which two kids get brutally beaten and executed. But you can watch that, just for context.
The scene I wanted you to see actually follows this one. After killing the kids, Cy takes Joanie up on the balcony of the whorehouse over the street, and explains to her the way of the world. Basically completely crushes any remaining illusions she might have had.
See, there's a common theme in a lot of media targeted at girls, the "I can fix him" plot. Or what tvtropes.org calls All Girls Want Bad Boys.
The "bad boy" targets the strongest womanly instincts: the stoic, silent guy is a mystery waiting to be solved; the Troubled But Cute youth with a tragic past is a woobie needing comfort; he's tough enough to be a girl's protector, but vulnerable enough to need her to redeem him as well. Add to that the fact that Evil Is Cool and Good Is Dumb, and the Anti-Hero ranks as Bachelor of the Month - even more often than he ranks Ensemble Darkhorse.
All this, of course, glosses over the fact that bad boys are bad, meaning dangerous, not good as friends, probably not too mentally stable, potentially abusive/physically violent, and/or more interested in the physical (read:sexual) aspect of a relationship than anything else. He's also probably not going to be that concerned with fidelity, either. So what if he can't be trusted? It's an honor for girls in media to be chosen by him, to walk into prom night with him on her arm, to ride on the back of his motorcycle with her arms around his waist, to stick her tongue out at the Alpha Bitch from the passenger's seat of his stolen convertible. Depending on the nature of the Bad Boy and whether he's redeemed (or even redeemable) or not, use of this trope may give cause for the viewer to question the character's sense or intelligence, particularly if it's immediately obvious to everyone from the outset of the relationship that the man is a thoroughly nasty piece of work. Don't count on Reformed Rakes.
Which is closely related to I Can Change My Beloved
Alice, a Love Martyr, has a Love Interest who is destructive, or merely "wrong" in some way subjective to the character. Nope, Bob certainly isn't the perfect match, but never fear! Her love will send him through a metamorphosis that will remake him into her perfect man. Or so she thinks. Of course, it rarely works out.
It is no coincidence that Buffy has the single largest section in the "Live TV" section of the former. It even goes on to say, "Buffy is pretty much an extreme case of this trope."
Interestingly, the younger the women, the more prevalent this trope will be. More mature, wiser women (meaning 35 and older) seem to be much more Genre Savvy, thus much less receptive to "bad boy" vibes (or, at the very least, have learnt their lesson through painful experience), although there are always exceptions.
Painful experience, indeed. Because this is not just a fictional device. This belief, adopted as a model by real young women, is possibly the single most destructive force at work among the American female population. By the time they unlearn it, many have been abused and abandoned. Often placed in dire financial straits as a single mother with a couple of kids. (Being or having a single parent is the best predictor of poverty.) And that's if they're lucky. If a woman's going to be the victim of a murder... it was usually their partner that killed them. The bad boy they undoubtedly thought they were going to reform.
This is why I would rather show an impressionable kid Cy Tolliver in all his uncensored, HBO brutality than an age-appropriate network show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Because in the real world, the bad guys are like that. Not like the Angels and Spikes on TV who can be redeemed by the love of a good woman.
And the sooner they learn this, the better. If it traumatizes them, good. I'd rather have them learn this truth from a flickering screen than from the fists of a real live man.
January 19 2012, 04:57:44 UTC 4 months ago
But if they aren't ready for this, they most certainly aren't ready for the gritty portrayals of cable-ran shows...so that leaves me looking again for things to watch with them that I think they'll enjoy that are more deep than your typical Disney-esque pop-tart. The problem I run in to is this: for every show that I find, there is an argument that can be made against it that is just as fathomable as your hatred for all things Whedon. Xena? That can teach impressionable girls that using your sexuality is a viable method to overcome obstacles, even bordering into the man-bashing territory of the femi-nazis that run so rampant in the surge of "girl power". Same goes for series like Charmed...and that doesn't even touch the whole bullshit treatment of witchcraft, religion, etc. Nine Lives of Chloe King? Let's go with "lying your ass off is a good way to build relationships for $100, Alex".
So, do I go the opposite route? Do I take the stance of "all TV is bad, so therefore we don't watch any shows so you can't learn any bad behaviors"? Or do I try for more rationality and keep doing things as I have, with taking the time to discuss what we watch and see how they view it...and turn these discussions into ways to help them grow into the amazing people I know they have the potential to be?
Either way, it won't be with Buffy. At least not until I, as their mother, feel that they are able to actually handle the content.
January 19 2012, 05:36:51 UTC 4 months ago
Although I agree with most of what you've written, at least the values you espouse about what should and shouldn't be, I've just watched enough of the "Angel loses his soul again" story arc that I can warn you with confident authority: blatant wrongness here will cost you your audience. You've just undermined your own credibility on Buffy.
Neither Angel or Spike get "redeemed" by Buffy's love. Angel got his soul from a gypsy curse, and it's Willow, not Buffy, who gets it back for him, using some ooga-booga nonsense superstitious plot to save Buffy and the world. Spike drives his own soul-search, again not because Buffy loves him but necause he's trying to woo her (unsuccessfully, it should be noted). The trope you've identified simply doesn't fit.
I've seen enough of the show by now to confirm that it's cheesy and somewhat hackishly written, where the old, lazy "shoot a different major character each episode to keep some action going" technique has been given a supernatural twist, but the danger you attribute to it is simply wrong. In fact, since they take such careful effort to distinguish between humans with souls and monsters without, you could even say they are better at depicting the futility of trying to change a person's nature... at least with love. It takes some really strong and purely fictional magic or technology to cross that dividing line.
If there are worn-out tropes in the show, and sure there are, they're not any more dangerous than the tropes from Say Anything. If we can point at John Cusack holding up his boom box and say, "don't be a creepy stalker dude like that; it never ends like that in real life," then we have the skills to deal with and communicate about any of the themes in Buffy. It very simply isn't any worse or harder than that.
January 19 2012, 14:51:43 UTC 4 months ago
I've got about 200 movies between my Netflix DVD and instant watch queues. Mostly things I haven't even seen yet, and I'm a voracious movie watcher. I'll probably die with movies I should have seen yet unwatched. With the wealth of film out there, there's no point defending any particular film to the death. It's not a choice between "X or nothing" it's a choice between "X and Y1..n".
January 19 2012, 19:41:57 UTC 4 months ago
But the crux of the matter is, nobody's asking you what you'd recommend. Hell, the girls are rapidly getting to the point where they won't even care what their mother recommends: when they spend the night at their friends' houses, they watch whatever's on, without bothering to text us first to find out what we think. So do you really think blacklists are the right approach?
it did give a lot of Gen-X boys the wrong lesson, which had to be unlearned.
You mean parents actually did have to point at John Cusack holding up a boom box and say, "don't be a creepy stalker dude like that; it never ends like that in real life?" Gee, how tough it is to be a parent! :D The problem was when parents didn't do that, and favored the blacklist approach instead. Prohibitions, it turns out, usually turn out how prohibitions tend to turn out. Shocked, shocked I tell you, etc.
No, the "teach your kid how to recognize bullshit" approach is the one I favor. We've already been over the "much of what you see on television is wrong" concept, but even more fun is teaching them, "sometimes what your teachers tell you in school is wrong." Once they're okay with the concept of human fallibility, even among authority figures, the sky's the limit: I often respond to questions like, "are ghosts real?" by asking back, "how do you know anything is real?" And then we can work backwards from there to an answer. If they can become well-practiced at calling bullshit, they'll even be well-equipped to read your opinions on Buffy!
(Teasing aside, I also use illustrations about what our parents taught us wrong, so I'm okay with them extrapolating our own fallibility as well. Hell, I'm looking forward to when they can start teaching me stuff!)
With the wealth of film out there, there's no point defending any particular film to the death.
Nor in attacking it to the death either, I'd like to point out. Especially if you haven't watched enough of it to be able to criticize it intelligently. I understand there's a bit of recreation to be had by bein' a hater, but don't get so carried away that ignorance or presumption buries your credibility.
(I've enjoyed your recommendations for The Wire and Stephen Hunter novels enough that I'm willing to forgive a few clunkers like the original version of Payback. And I give you credit for indoctrinating me in the ways of Romero shamblers, so that I could bring
January 19 2012, 20:41:13 UTC 4 months ago
Yeah, it is worth attacking when parents pick the bad stuff. See Duff's link below. In fact, attacking this particular dysfunction is probably the single best possible use of media-critic time.
And BTW, "hater" is a signal just like "whatever". It means, "I give up, I can't address what you say." When even TVtropes is saying "Buffy is an extreme example of this trope," I don't really feel the need to watch it again just to verify. It's trash, and everybody but its ravening fans (who are thankfully growing out of it by now) knows it. I could go watch Deadwood again with that same time. And I recommend you do the same. Without the kids.
January 19 2012, 21:05:35 UTC 4 months ago
You listed two tropes. The first one, "All Girls Want Bad Boys," is the one that has Buffy on the list. While you're right that Buffy has the "single largest section" of the Live-Action TV examples, you'll notice that it's still a ridiculously small percentage of the whole example list, because this is everywhere. Everywhere! Even in documentaries that specifically point this out in nature.
The girls have already seen Grease. That's on the list. So we think about this trope anyway.
The second one, "I Can Change My Beloved," is truly a bit more damaging, so on that point I agree with you. But this is the one where Buffy doesn't appear on the list at all, because you've misinterpreted a major theme that recurs throughout the show. Your original criticism here was not valid.
So okay, yeah, say Buffy sucks. Say it's cheap, mass-market pablum that I probably won't like. That much is true. But save your righteous anger for somewhere it can do some good: people who actually like the show will immediately recognize your confusion and discount anything else you have to say on the subject.
And I'll reserve my use of the word "hater" to refer only to people who get super-spun-up over subjectivities. Like Rush. Hater. :P
(BTW I watch so little TV these days, I've had Deadwood "next" on my list for, I think, years. Eventually I might get around to watching it, because although its fans are very few, they all seem to like it and they cite reasons for liking it that I'd probably like too.)
January 19 2012, 21:12:28 UTC 4 months ago
People who actually like the show will probably have to learn the hard way anyway. Probably already have, at this point. Like I said, it's getting old and irrelevant. I'd just like to give it a bit more of a push.
January 20 2012, 04:30:33 UTC 4 months ago
In the meantime, one of his good friends is a 14 year old female, I have become friends with her mother... the teenage girl is totally in a "whatever mom" phase but thinks I'm the bee's knees so I'm taking advantage of it to turn her onto some kewl stuff before she realizes I'm a parent too. *evil look* I send reports to her mom post-exposure/conversation. Heh
January 20 2012, 04:25:50 UTC 4 months ago Edited: January 20 2012, 04:26:07 UTC
Also, let's not forget the "need to please"... for all the feminist blathering that goes on, much of our media still pushes the idea that the female exists to please males.
I haven't been above all of that crap but I can happily say that I have always strongly disliked relationship stories like those in Buffy. I actually tried to watch that show and gave up... not because of that but it was part of it. In general, dysfunctional, overly needy, squishy relationship stories grate on me and I'm prone to ranting through the movie/tv show... whatever... about the negative effects those stories have on us and our children. A bit to the side of the point you were making but yeah...