October 01 2004
"Buffy's Back!"
Sarah Michelle Gellar is on the cover and inside the pages of the October 8th edition (also known as the "Photo Issue") of Entertainment Weekly.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
[ edited by phlebotinin on 2004-10-01 21:12 ]
phlebotinin | October 01, 23:09 CET
BufSlyAngel | October 01, 23:24 CET
jabby | October 01, 23:26 CET
ETA: Of course, I haven't seen many of these movies that the quotes on each photo come from so I admit to not understanding the references and have thus judged accordingly :)
[ edited by NatashaLea on 2004-10-01 22:20 ]
Natashia | October 01, 23:29 CET
They are nice photos but there is just something odd about them.
RavenU | October 01, 23:30 CET
bloodflowers | October 01, 23:34 CET
Funny - I thought the exact same thing. That these shots couldn't be farther from Joss's stereotype-busting.
I second the "disturbing" reaction. I found myself with a pretty strong negative gut feeling as i looked at them, about what they showed and what they were promoting - way worse than any of the degrading season 6 sex stuff. The car one was bad, but for some reason the worst for me was the one of SMG pressed against a wall by a black-gloved hand. Something about the way she looked totally helpless, and extremely sexy in a skimpy dress - with a dehumanized and gloved hand taking her voice away - was a really disturbing mix of sex/titillation with anti-woman violence. And i'm not usually such a PC-feminist in the way i view these kind of things, really!
acp | October 01, 23:39 CET
electricspacegirl | October 01, 23:43 CET
acp | October 01, 23:46 CET
herb | October 01, 23:47 CET
chickenbird | October 01, 23:50 CET
Angela | October 01, 23:56 CET
killinj | October 01, 23:56 CET
I'm not a pc-ish person either. I love the avant-garde. I love the edgy. I love boundaries being pushed right, left and center. Something about these I just don't like.
Many interesting points made above. Love Whedonesquers. Smart people.
phlebotinin | October 01, 23:58 CET
Angela | October 02, 00:00 CET
Did I need that image? :)
Seriously, I see your point, but let's be honest, some serial killers and rapists have probably watched a horror flick or two. The nature of the genre.
Angela | October 02, 00:02 CET
What I was more disturbed about were the posters on the smgfan site complaining that she will never not be Buffy.
Miko | October 02, 00:05 CET
I just don't like them. The incongruity of SMG, the star of a long-running show about female empowerment (as said by The Man himself), in various poses of sexualized female victimhood of violence freaks me out a little. It's like the anti-Chosen finale where all the girls are waking up around the world and fighting back.
phlebotinin | October 02, 00:10 CET
Personally, I liked the pics. I, too, saw them as nothing more than a homage to the horror genre.
But I definitely see Phlebotinin's point.
Invisible Green | October 02, 00:16 CET
I see what you're saying. I didn't have the same reaction you did, but I understand your point.
Angela | October 02, 00:16 CET
nychick | October 02, 00:27 CET
MindPieces | October 02, 00:31 CET
Er..I'm actually quite certain she's not. Not naturally, anyway...
While people make some very interesting and good points above about empowerment, etc, what mostly disturbs me when I look at these photos is how scared she *doesn't* look in them. Kind of dead-eyed, really. Though maybe that's the stylized point of the pictures.
teenes | October 02, 00:34 CET
marmoset | October 02, 00:34 CET
Technicality. :) She *looks* blonde. :)
Angela | October 02, 00:38 CET
Now perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I never understood Sarah's comments about some of the scenes in S6 to be about degradation in general, but about what her character, Buffy, was going through in particular. She wasn't saying that she would never be comfortable playing dark or edgy scenes, or scenes that were not empowering or sexual scenes, but that she didn't think Buffy should be doing those things. Again, that's how I understood those comments, but I don't see any inherent inconsistency between her words (which I tended to disagree with as far as Buffy was concerned) and posing for these pictures.
SoddingNancyTribe | October 02, 00:47 CET
marmoset makes an excellent point about EW. These pix aren't their usual.
phlebotinin | October 02, 01:10 CET
WWBD | October 02, 01:20 CET
Sarah just isn't a very good model IMO. As teenes said, she looks 'dead-eyed' in some of these pictures
THE THEME OF THE PICTURES IS DEATH, SO DEAD EYED LOOKS SEEMS FITTING!!
SeanValen | October 02, 01:24 CET
True ;) And I was a little bit disturbed by some of the 'dead-eyed'ness too (in regards to not looking all that scared - but this is quite subjective), whether it was a stylization or not... and I really think some of the photographs were intended to look dead-eyed. I just figure that these are photographs, not screen caps ... I really enjoy her as an actress :)
Though I do have to revise my original opinion of these photographs a bit after reading these comments. I think I would have liked them a bit more if I was readily aware of the references they were making to horror movies. Yet, I pretty much haven't seen a lot of movies in the genre and thus, my judgement was altered accordingly. It is an intriguing idea. I do agree that the photograph taken with the cats is rather whimsical. Nonetheless, something just strikes me as a bit odd about them.
[ edited by NatashaLea on 2004-10-01 23:44 ]
Natashia | October 02, 01:34 CET
One of the big things being retaught to women is fight back, fight back, fight back. Even if unsuccessful in the physical, stats have shown it helps heal the mind and spirit to have fought back. Of course I admired BTVS for being an advocate of this and never had a problem with any of season 6 because it was speaking to the largely undiscussed growth pattern of the adolescent male going through the experience of love mitigating the ego. Brilliant.
How VERY bizarre, that SMG didn't like doing scenes of a woman using her free will to participate in expressing her sexuality...to this.
I would assume when you left one enterprise that bothered you, o.k. that's life...but wouldn't you be inclined to be especially overprotective about new projects?
These photo's are disturbing, they hit buttons that confuse the destruction of life with an act that can create life.
When rape and murder are interwoven in the senses with an act designed to create life--it plants information in the spirit that sex/lifeforce/god is easly overwhelmed in it's own best plan for pleasure by pain and being broken. Rape in this fantasy scenario also suggests a woman is unwilling to take responsibility for her own sexual desire and so must be forced into the act. These pics aren't like the genre from the fifties where the girl was pretty and 'wholesome' and while looking nice for the camera and vagualy sexual, never glammed into gleaming fairly screaming depersonalize me.
All that makeup depersonalizes a woman, it could be almost anyone under there, and serial murderers never want to see their victims as people. All that makeup strips away the personality. It's a mask for a reason.
That's why BTVS was so important to so many girls. Notice how we always, always saw the girls, even the ones coming in for a bit spot, like Cassie as people? You could see their faces, into their eyes, slightly irregular features, always real. It was about being who you were in your real reality and finding a way to make that work. Being a girl, your honest self and still owning your own power, all with a nod to living in a complex and strange world. I also loved how Buffy wore more makeup in 1,2 & 3 but as the years passed she needed the mask less and less--also a nod to girls growing up in world where they feel inclined to hide who they really are and as the years pass you can step into yourself. She wore very little makeup in six and almost none in 7. Loved it.
I can't presume to understand what SMG might be thinking, and I probably wouldn't have commented at all--except for what she said about season 6. I thought she was speaking from a place of genuine concern about the power of storytelling and was uneasy about the message and I respected that--but...uh...these photos are very powerful...so? Huh?
Do the test: Is this a girl any girl would want to be? I think that's a 'no.' But this might be a girl certain men would like to be. And that indicates intent.
And they don't even look like the character shots from the movie so more: Huh?
It seems she has negated herself by a system of comparision and you have to wonder if she really ever understood what was going on in BTVS the big picture.
One can't help but wonder: 'so maybe it's not doing the femme la femme wid da creme glam slam dunk into rape and murder that bothers you...but maybe it's a woman owning and expressing her sexuality. (?)'
Huh. It doesn't really matter, She has a right to her opinion; I still wanna see her movie, but I can't take her feelings about 6 as seriously as I did before...because, well...how very bizarre.
BforBeth | October 02, 01:43 CET
The girl is so pretty - but these pictures really make her into a thing, not a person.
Gill | October 02, 02:02 CET
Of course no woman would want to be in those situations. That's the point. Plus, you know, there's a difference between fantasy and reality.
Smo | October 02, 02:05 CET
She did this spread in the course of promoting her new *horror* flick. I just don't think she needs to weigh the character of Buffy against everything she does following it. Regardless of what she said during the production of Buffy. SMG is an actress. One who had an opportunity to perform on a groundbreaking show of monumental quality. However, she doesn't have to be a spokeswoman for women's rights and empowerment her entire life by way of being exceedingly careful that anything she might do in her career not allow for interpretation such as has been expressed here.
Again, I respect your opinion. Having said that, it is my opinion that, in the interest of being "PC", people (society) can overreact to something as insignificant as what looks to be a fun photo spread. (I'm not intending that to come off rude. If it does, I apologize.) I know we Whedonesquers like to delve into deep analysis mode a lot, but not everything calls for it.
Angela | October 02, 02:11 CET
Ok good comment, BforBeth. That is a very thought-provoking question, thanks. I'm sure that some women out there would be totally into being this girl, "and that's a valid lifestyle choice," but if my daughters started acting like this I'd think something awful and hidden had happened to them. What I'd wonder is, where did the rage, the fear, the hatred come from?
The first answers I come up with are the reasons I was disturbed by these pictures: they look like abuse, betrayal, and helplessness. One of the functions of art may be to poke at humanity with a sharp burning stick, but that is NOT one of the functions of being a girl. Art is false, people are true, and these pictures are not about people.
bogu_salias | October 02, 02:13 CET
bloodflowers | October 02, 02:27 CET
palehorse | October 02, 02:27 CET
AngelicSlayer | October 02, 02:28 CET
petranef | October 02, 02:43 CET
pezwitch | October 02, 02:45 CET
Angela | October 02, 02:46 CET
Okay, I'm kidding. But still, three of these pictures were a disturbingly bad idea.
prufrock | October 02, 02:51 CET
RavenU | October 02, 03:27 CET
MindPieces | October 02, 03:42 CET
dreamlogic | October 02, 03:43 CET
zeitgeist | October 02, 03:55 CET
Angela | October 02, 03:55 CET
i did ilke the last picture and the zombie eye one, though.
eddy | October 02, 03:56 CET
Of course no woman would want to be in those situations. That's the point. Plus, you know, there's a difference between fantasy and reality.
I don't think anyone's suggesting there isn't. But pictures can be powerful, as is the message from films, images, etc. I would hate to have a society that was so PC or overly sensitive that we lost the ability to explore, push boundaries, have interesting metacommentary, etc., etc – but i still think it's worth looking at what message some of these images are getting across. For several reasons, at least a few of them elicited a strong negative reaction in some of us – a valid response, just as other people's appreciation of their creativity or stylistic qualities is valid.
I know for me, the reaction to a few of them – the gloved hand over her mouth, SMG in the car, the one with the bloody glass – was very visceral. It wasn't just that it was the old horror cliche of the helpless blond (as opposed to buffy's breaking of the cliche), it was the extreme eroticization of that violence. That's fine that others felt differently, and i can totally see that there's another way to look at them. On a certain level, too, they are very beautiful (which is also kinda disturbing...)
Anyhow, all that's to say – it's been a fascinating discussion. But i wouldn't suggest anyone here is overreacting, on either side – people just have different perspectives/reactions, is all.
Well, if they get anywhere near this kind of attention anywhere else, they may have been a very good idea.
Honestly, I think that's another thing that I don't like about them – the idea that they were developed in part just to create sensation/generate buzz/create controversy. That's never really been my prefered style of journalism, and i'm not crazy about the "go out on a limb or push the boundaries of taste just 'cause it'll get us attention" school of thought.
Isn't EW the mag that broke the news to the world that SMG was leaving Buffy even before some of the cast members knew
Yes, it is. And they've always been big supporters of Buffy. Also the only beach-read type mag i read regularly :-)
acp | October 02, 03:56 CET
What does creep me out is the praise of how gorgeous she looks in all this on the website. It's supposed to provide a visceral reaction more than anything else.
i for one hope the Grudge turns out to be a good flick, the original was above average. I can get that she would choose it for being eerie etc, it's NOT about the blonde girl running around all the time.At least the original wasn't.
[ edited by rabid on 2004-10-02 06:02 ]
rabid | October 02, 03:59 CET
I agree with the comment that this needs to be placed in context. Let's not forget Joss and the other writers presented entangled images of violence and sex in both BtVS and AtS, and repeatedly placed women (not just Buffy) in vulnerable and threatening positions. We excuse his and their use of such hoary horror-film devices because we understood that he and they were commenting on and subverting the genre. In other words, we understood that the images were part of a broader context. True, these pictures are not subversive - rather, they are, IMO, somewhat oversaturated and lush images drawn from quotations from well-known horror flicks (and BTW I've seen all of the films listed. I don't think the captions are merely a "ploy"; they are an imaginative springboard for the images).
The context then is using a well-known actress who played an iconic role to recreate certain leitmotifs of horror. The images are disturbing, sure, but the horror genre in general is disturbing. I thought that was its point (at least, when done properly). Finally, the other part of the context is, as Angela and zeitgeist stated above, SMG is an actress. She's promoting her new flick, not making an overt political comment. Nor was she engaging in political commentary in playing Buffy. She was acting.
The combination of fear/threat and eroticism is a venerable tradition - all vampire stories and art derive essentially from this mixture, it seems to me. And these are pretty fundamental concepts in our culture. The photos are art - since this is EW we're talking about, not great art - but, unless one believes that art's sole purpose is to enlighten and improve humanity's moral compass, I believe there is a place for such pictures. It may well be that rapists find such images exciting. Frankly, it's not hard to imagine such people watching BtVS for essentially the same reasons. And since when do we give rapists a heckler's veto over artwork?
Finally, I have to say that I don't really see what you're getting at, RavenU, with the EW comment. Seems a wee bit gratuitous to me.
SoddingNancyTribe | October 02, 04:04 CET
It's not her purpose in life to hold to her fans' notion of empowerment. She is empowered to express herself in any manner she sees fit, which is pretty cool.
Sarah seems to be enjoying her success, and I, for one, am happy to see her shining in the public eye once again.
Ubqtous | October 02, 04:06 CET
zeitgeist | October 02, 04:06 CET
Apologies to the Mods if I've overstepped my bounds.
prufrock | October 02, 04:07 CET
eddy | October 02, 04:09 CET
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2004-10-02 02:13 ]
zeitgeist | October 02, 04:12 CET
Maybe someone, somewhere will get off on these pictures because they conform to his/her fantasy. Okay, fine. That person would be sick. Doesn't make the pictures themselves sick. They're separate issues.
People are choosing to infer a great deal from these photos. I would suggest that any such conclusions should be carefully considered, especially for those who haven't seen the larger work of which these photos are a part.
Smo | October 02, 04:14 CET
I think it was just startling to see someone who, for better or for worse, is connected in most of our minds with such an image of empowerment to be on such an opposite extreme. Which is probably why the photos generated so many postings/opnions here.
My own reaction may have as much to do with the fact that i'm not a big fan of classic horror, in addition to the fact that i'm not wil about fetichizing violence against women (but i do realize that the fetichization has a long literary and storytelling tradition, particularly within horror).
acp | October 02, 04:16 CET
Yeah, he does that a lot. I frequently read his posts and think, Yeah, what he said!" :)
Angela | October 02, 04:19 CET
As for the reaction by her fans, it's natural and expected. I'm also assuming that they're reacting positively to Sarah as Sarah and not in the context of her as a woman victim as portrayed in some of the photos.
Silent Night | October 02, 05:35 CET
Flegh.
The only pic that really offended me was the black glove/scary guy one. The one with the white eyes reminded me of when I was younger and I'd go through magazines erasing the eyes of the girls I didn't like.
Didn't anyone else do that? Just me...ok...
Willowy | October 02, 05:42 CET
I just really have to agree here with Mindpieces. I really feel that a simple magazine spread is being taken to a level that it shouldn't be. It was all about mocking those female sterotypes, for those mockups of old scenes. It was irony and not at all going against Whedon's view of Buffy.
And as far as being a rapist's dream, well... I certainly wouldn't qualify in knowing what qualifies as fodder for the every day rapist. I guess i'll leave it at that.
[ edited by syd on 2004-10-02 04:49 ]
syd | October 02, 06:48 CET
I didn't say that. Not even close. The pictures evoke images from horror movies. That's what they're meant to do. Horror movies have killers in them. Not surprising, then, that the lines can get a little blurred in the wide open realm of viewer perception. I most certainly never said that "only rapists would like them."
Wow, after reading the last twenty or so messages I'm wondering, what happened to friendly debate here at glorious Whedonesque? Why the snarkiness? Being creeped out by the pictures and/or reading deeper meaning into them is not inherently "absurd" or time-wasting. Media images are interpretable. Let people who want to interpret them do so. Turnabout is fair play: liking the pictures and finding them pretty or intriguing is not inherently bad or wrong. As herb said, degrading is in the eye of the beholder. So some folk find them degrading and others don't. Why don't we leave it at that and not characterize each other's positions in snarky ways.
[ edited by phlebotinin on 2004-10-02 05:29 ]
phlebotinin | October 02, 06:48 CET
I do agree that SMG is not Buffy and therefore should not have to worry about taking on roles or doing a photospread where she has to worry if it will affect her image as Buffy. Buffy is done and she has moved on with her career. She gave us 7 GREAT years as Buffy. So for 7 years she was a strong female lead, now shes doing something thats opposite of Buffy and many fans are having a hard time with it. Lets try and not forget that she did play the helpless blonde in 2 other horror flicks, Scream 2 and I know What you did Last summer and i believe that they were both while she was doing Buffy. So why the backlash now?
Gunn 2 N's | October 02, 07:39 CET
I think that kinda went out the window when some of the photos were equated to masturbatory fantasies for serial killers and rapists.
syd | October 02, 08:47 CET
Sunnycide | October 02, 09:52 CET
cheers all,
zeitgeist | October 02, 09:53 CET
We are beyond epidemic. We are in a place that needs sincere evalutation of the symtptoms of the thing both in the obvious and the obscure of the situation. On all levels of complicity both male AND female. Both of my friends, when looking back admitted to putting themselves in vulnerable self destructive positions when these things happened and what part of them so loathed themselves that they would allow for that? What goes on in our world where so many find themselves in that space?
What are the gears in our world that facilitate this? Where does it come from, how does energy like that keep going? What feeds it?
If people are distrubed by photos such as these, please consider that there is a reason we are distrubed. I am reacting because of how these pics make me FEEL. My feelings are not in the nebulous region of imagination, not an attack of the vapours of an easily overwrought female that might be remedied with smelling salts. We are in an epidemic and we need to find follow the clues.
Artistic mediums provide the greatest and most significant clues. Someone telling me not to feel this way, won't make it stop, these feeling are elicted by potent content and maybe some strange intention of the photographer.
Weither we like it or not, art does not stand alone from action.
One inspires the other. One makes art from being influenced by the events in our lives; and then in turn our art often inspires new events, insipres us to action. Sure it does. That's the physics of the thing, That's how energy works, it doesn't disappear, it moves from one experiance to another. Art, storytelling is a powerful medium for inspiration or propaganda. This has been accepted and utilized ever since the cave man sketched drawings to creatively visualize a hunt.
What we imagine, becomes our reality and storytelling is the most powerful of these mediums. The law of magentic attraction.
So just what is this publication trying to stimulate, to create in our world?
Now, I have to take a moment to acknowledge that I opened myself for criticism because, looking back I see I used some inflamtory language that shorthanded something complex into simple--and I do apologize for that, so now I gotta spend some time to clarify, I kinda owe it to the discussion. So:
Every picture tells a story, every photographer sets it up to be evaluated and would be depressed indeed if we didn't. So now I ask: The girl in the picture, who is she?
Is she your Mother? There, in that prediciment? Your sister? Your daughter? Your girlfriend? A stranger?
If the light blinked somewhere around 'stranger' as it did for me--then yeah we are being asked to objectify, and that means distance and distance means...keeping someone far away from your heart so something bad can happen. That picture doesn't ask us to leap in to save her, it asks us to be voyuers to a crime. One is not a rapist by default if you like this picture but it does ask us to identify WITH the rapist or serial murderer. And we do. Men and Women.
The woman is too far away from being a person. She looks like a doll, frozen face, dulled emotions, the makeup, the works--I don't think that Sarah was doing a poor shoot--I think she was directed to act that way. She is simply too good an actress. No, this was deliberate, this is how a serial murderer might prefer to see women.
Why should we like these pics? Why specificly? Sexy? Vulnerable? O.K. now why is unindivuated woman sexy? In the fifties the answer was: so I can swoop in and save her. Not so with these pics. Not the same vibe at all. If the woman feels nothing, is beautiful while being attacked, than murder, rape looks like a gift to her. God on a biscuit. That's why these pics are distrubing.
Just why did they publish this series? What was the hoped for response?
Why should we enjoy seeing a beautiful woman shut down by a black gloved hand? Why are they asking me to enjoy this? Because it's a fantasy? Well I have already suggested fantasy creates reality and so even if it's a fantasy then at best, it is...an unkind suggestion. And for many people that event is so very real that the IMMEDIATE reaction is trembling hands and wanting to retch. Now why are these situations being airbrushed and retouched into something glamorous? Why are we being asked to call it something beautiful? It is a valid question.
This indicates the state of mind of the photographer--buttons he wanted to push, or maybe a reality many deal with day to day that he considered unimportant. True, you can't go through life and not offend somebody--but what were they thinking by publishing this when we are in an epidemic of abuse and it is very hard to witness a girl in a silent scream in the back of car and not cringe. Every girl is taught NEVER get moved to a second location. You won't be coming back. We see a girl being driven off to her death and we're being asked to call it glossy?
Trembling girl, beautiful girl, fearful girl, bare legged and no shoes to run away on, to fight back with, black glove cutting off her scream; cutting off HER VOICE.
The world has always tried to control women by cutting off their voice trying to make them feel stupid, telling them they are overreating. Over emotional. That was one of the big
reasons sited againest women winning the vote. Too emotional to make an ojective evaluation. I know it's uncomfortable but when pics like this appear they are just about begging to be talked about and should be.
Sarah can do this work, and she will be judged by the same critera she held for BTVS 6--she initiaed the debate by bringing it up ans so yeah, she will be judged by her own standard and yeah, people can make these photos; I would NEVER pull the the right wing hold, NEVER--but don't ask me not to talk about it, we should all be very worried when we can't have an open discussion. What's the photographers name--Robert somebody...dang, I can't remember--he does graphic scenes--women in tough situations, very effective and artistic too, well skilled, and even though his pics make me unformtable, I respect his work because of the intention behind it. It's in the work somehow--much how I admire BTVS6--it's the difference between commenting on violence rather than glamorizing it, the glam dance can take the thing darn close to porn. See what I mean?
O.K. thanks for the forum.
I hope there is never anything that is so terrible that it can't be talked about.
BforBeth | October 02, 10:14 CET
I wonder if EW will have a sell 'em like gangbusters week with this one?!
phlebotinin | October 02, 10:17 CET
Is she your Mother? There, in that prediciment? Your sister? Your daughter? Your girlfriend? A stranger?
And me, i saw, hey, horror film actress. I don't need to join in because it's a movie and not real. Yeah... I'm weird like that. For me, often, a cigar is a cigar.
Just why did they publish this series? What was the hoped for response?
An homage to horror films. That the actress, no matter the situation, always looks so glamourous in their death shot. It was all in mocking of the *films* death shots.
::sigh::
syd | October 02, 10:34 CET
"One inspires the other."
This is troublesome to me in that it can potentially put the blame for horrible actions on art that seeks, in fact, to question the assumptions inherent in the initial presentation.
"Art, storytelling is a powerful medium for inspiration or propaganda."
Absolutely true, but the meaning isn't always so transparent as it might at first appear.
I'd say on but it is so late and my bed is calling. Thank you for your honesty.
zeitgeist | October 02, 10:42 CET
They had some fun with a horror theme. Buffy was a heroine in horror stories. Sarah now has a horror movie coming out. It's Halloween month. They had some fun. They played her against character for a little shock effect. And she's not just the victim she's also the monster. She looks like a mighty (and very hot) dark Witch in that last one. She's a zombie in others.
It reminds me of that old Rolling Stone shoot where she was in that leathery vamp outfit. Another play against the Buffy type. I don't see the big deal. Technically that was exploitative too. But you know, so were the shots of Charisma in Playboy (don't tell me they were 'tasteful' and 'art'. It was friggin boobies in Playboy. Beautiful pictures don't necessarily constitute art. Playboy shows boobies to horny men and boys. Period.) Or the FHM, Maxim shoots that many other Buffy actresses have done. None of those were 'empowering' either, and could be seen as exploitative. They were sexy looking mamas in their underwear for 'gentlemen's porn' mags (Janeane Garofalo quote) And frankly shots for Cosmo or MarieClaire aren't all that much better.
I don't know, I don't think this should be taken as such a big deal. At least these pics were more original and actually had an idea to them. The last one where she looks like a witch is pretty darn cool.
EdDantes | October 02, 12:19 CET
That being said, I'm not directly linking to the Slayerverse scan of the article. Because at the moment, I'm unclear as to whether or not that would violate this board's rules. i.e., in the site guideline, it's noted that we shouldn't "link to illegal downloads of copyrighted material".
Does a scan of a magazine count as copyrighted material that we shouldn't link to? For now, I'm erring on the side of caution, and not including a direct link to the Slayerverse article scan.
[ edited by inverse on 2004-10-02 10:40 ]
inverse | October 02, 12:36 CET
Personally, not the most flattering pictures of SMG I've ever seen; dead doll eyes do not become her (though her eyes in and of themselves are lovely). The photography is technically nice enough with pretty colors, artful sets and carefully thought-out poses, but there's a deliberate ambiguity in the execution which prevents me from genuinely liking them. Meaning, I can't determine if they're supposed to be cheesy or artistic, or both, and the imbalance which makes them edgy also leaves me lukewarm because they don't commit fully to either approach. Irony is overdone, so if these were sincere I suppose I'd be more inclined to regard them with either outright appreciation or dislike, simply because they were clear in their intention. On the other hand, if they were more overtly ironic I might feel some kind of amusement. But taken as they are, they're loaded with a nebulousity that heightens some unpleasant stereotypical elements (intentional, as I understand from the comments), and I can appreciate why some people are reacting rather negatively to what is being depicted, because the scenarios project problematic energies that touch on past experiences and tinge the content with extremely unpleasant undertones.
I have to wonder if we all would have found images of a man in similarly arranged scenarios to be as erotic and stimulating (for those who find these so), or would they be regarded as repugnant and pitiable? Unfortunately, society objectifies women in this way nearly exclusively. Many men will certainly have predictable visceral reactions to these images (hot girl, nice dress, yada yada). Many women, too, who read EW may find themselves fleetingly fantasizing they're in SMG's place, for whatever reason -- and is that wrong? I don't disagree with the magazine's right to publish these pictures, but I do see that discourse about them was inevitable, especially given SMG's past role as a strong, outspoken proponent of women's self-empowerment. As an actress, however, she should be free to explore all roles, even those that may be disturbing to some parts of the population.
Acting is play, and sometimes play verges into uncertain or even risky territory in order to permit an actor to access inner levels of deep emotional authenticity. It's the nature of exploration, and SMG is the one putting herself at risk in the moment of creation by making herself vulnerable in expressing aspects of herself that may not meet with universal approval in this way. The viewer, in turn, is free to put down the magazine, or destroy it if that makes her/him feel better. The discomfort for some comes from the sense of voyeurism the viewer is forced into by the confrontation of the page. A great deal of contemporary art is interested in this stance because it seeks to force some kind of reaction from the viewer, in order to generate engagement with the artist's work on the same plane of emotion or intent at which it was created. On those merits alone, I'd say this photo spread succeeded. (Not that this is what I'd consider 'art' -- it's designed to sell magazines, and therefore doesn't have the intrinsic value it would for me, at least, if it didn't have such a commercial motivation. Another discussion altogether.)
We, as a culture, seem to thrive on images of degradation and terror as a way of externalizing or exorcising feelings of helplessness induced by living in a world too complex to be controlled. Horror movies form the one of the most dependably profitable genres at the box office because Eros and Thanatos, the two strongest human drives, are intertwined in every human endeavor, and those drives touch every human soul -- love (and all its attendent qualities of expansion and growth that symbolize life) and death (the contraction and finite limits of life). In one sense, this is a simple photo shoot emulating the horror film genre, which can be taken at face value, whatever one can decide that is. Or, it's a Rorschach test. It's possible it can be both, and that may be part of the intent: How you respond says more about you than it does about the work.
I see SMG there, wearing masks that she chose with the photographer's assistance. Why she chose these masks is my question, and a subject for psychologists, but that she should be able to choose to wear them is her right. I won't buy the magazine. I may see The Grudge. I don't really care about these pictures one way or the other; I will recognize them if I ever see them again, but if I never see them again I won't mind. They don't disturb me, exactly -- they even start to seem silly in some ways the longer I look at them -- but they have a power of some kind with the ability to both elicit pleasure and distain, and they will generate buzz, which is likely all she and the photographer and the magazine were looking for.
Mostly, I'm trying to figure out how I feel about the pictures as I write about them. It is odd. I think I might feel differently if they weren't of SMG, but there's no way of knowing. You know?
Wiseblood | October 02, 12:47 CET
My opinion on the pics themselves? I have no objections to the content, if it had been a Christina Ricci photo shoot it probably would've looked awesome, but these pictures just do not play to SMG's strengths at all. She's just plain wrong for something this "dark" and stylized, the cold colors and stark lighting effects are not flattering to her blonde 'n' tan-ness.. on top of that she looks airbrushed and way too thin.
They're really just not her.
Bad Kitty | October 02, 18:01 CET
Firefly Flanatic | October 02, 18:59 CET
Firefly Flanatic | October 02, 19:09 CET
Gotta say, despite my still finding some of these photos disturbing, the article contextualizes things. This isn't some photographer's idea; it was a collaboration between SMG and the photographer. Interesting. She's turning into a Queen of Horror. I like it. And having read the article I like the pictures much more.
As far as the "Buffy's Back" cover, here's an upside: having the name out there keeps the franchise alive in the minds of consumers. What we don't want is for Buffy and Angel mentions to die off. Keep the Whedon buzz going!
phlebotinin | October 02, 19:51 CET
I must have posted while Sunnycide was posting and I didn't see that but it does bring the whole project way more into focus. Way more--so I just had to drop one more drip into the pool.
So SMG collaborated--that's interesting and I'm not too surprised, it seemed intentional, and I find that even more distrubing but why go into that--as I mentioned, I do believe it is her right to do them. And I would never try to stop publication or distribution because, well of the free speech thing but also because the reality of these photos being out and about has called this energy running underground up into the light of day for discussion. As horror films and the genre often does. And of course, I am not a victim here, I can put the pics aside, walk away--but by nature of publishing them in the world, one invites critique. When you put something on the wall--you are asking for peoples comments.
And they must understand themselves that playing with these themes is such a tricky business, because it does hit so many buttons and it is a powerful responsibility and this ongoing discussion reminds me that varying degress of success will depend upon the skill level of the director and their ability to communicate what they intend. I'm still not quite sure what they intended but: What was it Sunnycide posted?
"the women always looked glamorous even when they were left for dead."
And that intention explains my own reaction to me completely. COMPLETELY.
I don't want such a death or such an attack to be beautiful, or easy or...or have the woman looking even better in death than she did in life. That is just too, too far from the reality of people who have suffered such things.
No, my own PERSONAL need is to see it all fall down hard, very hard...because it is hard. But that is me. My own preference, I do recognize that.
Two films come immediately to mind, the orginal Silence Of the Lambs and...oh wow, the brilliant American Psycho. I can't remember the filmaker's name for American Psycho but she was able to successfully establish her protagonist as an ammoral psychotic killer, and you saw the world through his experiance in it. You aren't in the position of judging him...but BEING him. Boy, I don't wanna give anything more away if you haven't seen it and I do not recomend this for the faint of heart, no not at all--but it does bring to light this energetic theme running in our world and discusses it from the inside out.
The director/writer of American Pyscho was able to do this in such a way that you feel what everyone felt in the project, murderer and victims alike...but you never want to BE the murderer. The grisly reality presented takes the fantasy, the glamour and the voyeristic element of experiancing such a thing right out of consideration and she does all this with a great deal of dark humor. A great deal. And that is my preferred way to discuss this issue. That's all.
And I've got no problem with playboy spreads, pretty naked bodies, naked greek statues...whatever, quite nice, all the same exercise in 'oh what a beautiful bod.' Humans are beautiful, men and women both and it's nice looking at them. But this:
"the women always looked glamorous even when they were left for dead."
That's it. That's the intention that got me. That distance from the reality of the victim. That's what got me completely.
BforBeth | October 02, 20:25 CET
Sunnycide | October 02, 21:27 CET
Blame the Italian horror masters :)
Sunnycide | October 02, 21:29 CET
"the women always looked glamorous even when they were left for dead."
And um, that's why they were mocking that. Like, you know, an ironic shoot?
[ edited by syd on 2004-10-02 19:39 ]
syd | October 02, 21:36 CET
What is being referred to here is the alternative cover. The one with SMG in the grass is the one sent to subscribers, the "Buffy's Back" cover is the one on newsstands. You can see it pictured here.
syd | October 02, 21:37 CET
phlebotinin | October 02, 21:41 CET
Mary Harron directed 'American Psycho'. She also directed (and co-wrote) the film 'I Shot Andy Warhol' (the film that depicts the story of Valerie Solanas, the militant man-hating feminist (and author of the "SCUM" manifesto (the "Society for Cutting Up Men") who, in 1968, shot Andy Warhol.) Mary Harron is really quite brilliant. I'm very much looking forward to her next film, 'The Ballad of Bettie Page' (the story of the most famous of all pin-up girls, the queen of bondage, America's first true sex icon.) Jonathan M. Woodward (aka Knox) is in it too...
If I may be so bold I'd like to recommend the following books;
"Men Women and Chainsaws" by Carol J. Clover (a wonderfully insightful look at gender dynamics in the modern horror film. It really challenges the typically held view of the horror genre as inherently misogynistic and rooted in masculine sadism.)
Also, "The Monstrous-Feminine" by Barbara Creed (another look at the role of women in horror, this time from a more psychoanalytic point of view. The author analyses horror films such as 'Carrie', 'The Exorcist', Alien' and 'Psycho' in a feminist context, discussing the implications and different interpretations of the imagery, sometimes the Freudian (castration anxiety) basis of certain scenarios, and much more.
Bad Kitty | October 02, 21:55 CET
WWBD | October 02, 22:57 CET
Angel TheVampire | October 03, 00:36 CET
One of a kind
Apocalypse | October 03, 01:56 CET
zeitgeist | October 03, 03:53 CET
ZachsMind | October 03, 04:54 CET
I agree with that and like it more as well. But since the theme was horror I assumed they intended for her to be witch-like. She certainly looks like a goddess there. (Sheesh that sounded fan-boyish. I meant she'd be good in a role like that)
"Also wanted to comment on the "Buffy's Back" title that someone else mentioned above. The pictures and article have nothing to do with Buffy and is all about SMG and promoting her new movie so why use the "Buffy" name on the cover? That would only be appropriate to use a picture of SMG and the words "Buffy's Back" if she had agreed to take on the role again."
Yeahh, seems a bit of a cheap lure. 'Buffy's Back' would be a good title for an article that announces the Buffy movie finally being made or something...
About the shoot, it is clear Sarah was into it and an active participant in it's creation other than just being the model. I wonder if this is indicative of her accepting a connection to horror in her career. Using the Buffy angle to connect to The Grudge. Being a Scream Queen but in a good way? As she said, in the way Naomi Watts was that in The Ring? (Btw the american version allowed the female lead to be more of the main focus whereas the original Ringu seemed to favor the male lead)
Perhaps I'm jumping ahead with that idea, and this is pure for the Halloween/Grudge promotion. But I like to see her take this attitude more than the one she seemed to sport shortly after Buffy's end, when she seemed to try a little too hard to distance herself from it. I didn't really need to see her try and defend Scooby Doo's Daphne over Buffy as a 'role model'. But time seems to have given her new perspective. I do look forward to The Grudge even though it clearly owes an enormous debt to The Ring/Ringu.
EdDantes | October 03, 13:11 CET
Arista | October 03, 18:39 CET
Maybe because Sarah Michelle Gellar is a bit long to fit on the cover in the same typeface , she played Buffy and it's a picture of her back
Corny joke I know
garda39 | October 03, 22:22 CET
Simon | October 03, 23:19 CET
marmoset | October 04, 00:11 CET
Sunnycide | October 04, 02:13 CET