|
Post by Kerrie on Jan 24, 2004 18:07:59 GMT -5
Kerrie- fascinating ideas about Pink Floyd- I will have to ponder- I don't knowif I quiteget the idea of Pink Floyd's protofeminism- There was the implicit condemnation of a certain kind of feminine principle-and there was certainly a discomfort expressed within the film with how the hero treated his women- I hadnotthouhgt oftying the fact of buffy'sdeclinetothe fact that thetwoBigBadofSeason 5 &6 werefemale-brilliant-I thinkyou are ontothe nub of something there- Buffy lost her mom and the fount ot feminine wisdom and love and in the next two years had to face the sources of female rage/pain/loss/power/ and in season 7 she reclaims the power- bravo Kerrie- ellie Thanks, ellie. I am not sure of Pink Floyd's position on feminism or females either. Most of the film was strongly anti-female - they were "the cause" of all his emotional problems. They helped him build the wall around himself. Pink is obviously very bitter about women, especially his wife. But, the vaginal judge and the judgement of "tear down the wall" makes it unclear what his real position is. I am very confused. My brain is full. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Mar 7, 2004 17:42:33 GMT -5
Hi Spring,
I realize that I have been remiss in not posting how much I enjoyed your analysis. I was actually planning to try and watch "The Wall" and check out Kerrie's comparisons (still haven't done it), but all of that is irrelevant to the fact that your analysis is great as always.
Thanks for pointing out all of the parallels for the next season, too.
Oh, and ITA about Nick Brendan in this episode. ;D
Linda, who apologizes for not saying "Brava!" sooner...
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 7, 2004 19:47:30 GMT -5
Hi Spring, I realize that I have been remiss in not posting how much I enjoyed your analysis. I was actually planning to try and watch "The Wall" and check out Kerrie's comparisons (still haven't done it), but all of that is irrelevant to the fact that your analysis is great as always. Thanks for pointing out all of the parallels for the next season, too. Oh, and ITA about Nick Brendan in this episode. ;D Linda, who apologizes for not saying "Brava!" sooner... No apologies necessary - it is always nice to get a new comment on one of my past analyses. Thanks for taking the time, Linda.
|
|
|
Post by baunger1 on Apr 29, 2012 17:13:20 GMT -5
Hi Spring!
I just started rewatching Season 5, and immediately re-read your analysis of this episode, which is, of course, wonderful. The foreshadowing you point out re: Spike's relationship with Buffy is fascinating -- that Dracula will start Buffy thinking in a conscious way about her darkness, and her exploration of that darkness will play out in her relationship with Spike.
This started me thinking about the Buffy/Spike parallels that are highlighted by this episode and Fool for Love. I think one of the reasons Spike is obsessed with killing Slayers is that they symbolize goodness. And I think he hates whatever vestigial good is left in him, and hates his memories of the good man he was; and by killing Slayers, he's stamping out those things in himself, or trying to. But at the same time, there's a definite attraction Slayers hold for him -- something sexual in that violence -- which will ultimately become love for Buffy, reflecting his (re)developing attraction to the good in himself.
Buffy hates and kills vampires (evil) but is also attracted to them -- to Angel, to Dracula, and later to Spike. And here, the hunt for vampires is made overtly sexual in that she leaves Riley's bed (restless an unfulfilled) to obtain satisfaction instead in vampire killing. In the same way Slayers symbolize good, Dracula, the legendary vampire, is a symbol of the ultimate evil. And Buffy is attracted to him in a sexual way, while she simultaneously wants to kill him. She's attracted to the darkness in her, and wants to stamp it out as well.
Opposite sides of the same coin, really.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 29, 2012 19:06:02 GMT -5
Hi Spring! I just started rewatching Season 5, and immediately re-read your analysis of this episode, which is, of course, wonderful. The foreshadowing you point out re: Spike's relationship with Buffy is fascinating -- that Dracula will start Buffy thinking in a conscious way about her darkness, and her exploration of that darkness will play out in her relationship with Spike. This started me thinking about the Buffy/Spike parallels that are highlighted by this episode and Fool for Love. I think one of the reasons Spike is obsessed with killing Slayers is that they symbolize goodness. And I think he hates whatever vestigial good is left in him, and hates his memories of the good man he was; and by killing Slayers, he's stamping out those things in himself, or trying to. But at the same time, there's a definite attraction Slayers hold for him -- something sexual in that violence -- which will ultimately become love for Buffy, reflecting his (re)developing attraction to the good in himself. Buffy hates and kills vampires (evil) but is also attracted to them -- to Angel, to Dracula, and later to Spike. And here, the hunt for vampires is made overtly sexual in that she leaves Riley's bed (restless an unfulfilled) to obtain satisfaction instead in vampire killing. In the same way Slayers symbolize good, Dracula, the legendary vampire, is a symbol of the ultimate evil. And Buffy is attracted to him in a sexual way, while she simultaneously wants to kill him. She's attracted to the darkness in her, and wants to stamp it out as well. Opposite sides of the same coin, really. Nice to hear from you! Yes, you have summed it all up very well. I see Buffy and Angel as characters who are outwardly good, but secretly/inwardly attracted to their darkness (but often in denial of that, scared of it, trying to stamp it out . . .), while Spike is the opposite (outwardly evil, attracted to the good but scared of that, always trying to stamp it out). Thanks for coming by!
|
|