Simon, are you sure this is a discussion you want on this site ? It is hard to see how this text can be responded to without it degenerating into a political discussion.
Even though some interesting points are raised anyone that describes Buffy as deeply reactionary uses different measuring tools than those I'd prefer to use.

jpr | March 28, 15:35 CET

Long story short, it's essentially 2 guys complaining how films today lack essence and meaning,and basically endorses conformity.

Or "Duh, they sure don't make it like they used to."

:)

NickSeng | March 28, 16:08 CET

I think the second guy, David Walsh, might like Buffy if he gave it a shot.

The first one is, as his friend says, a pessimist. And as his friend is too kind to say, a dreary self-pitying gasbag. "Deeply reactionary" my ass.

dreamlogic | March 28, 16:10 CET

I think we should have a deep and meaningful discussion in this thread about the one thing that the Buffy series is really missing: there's just not enough cowbell in it.

ZachsMind | March 28, 16:17 CET

Ha ha! I agree Zachsmind, more cowbell!

nixygirl | March 28, 16:31 CET

Ten words or less (with thanks to Doug Petrie for style):
Long. Article. To. Say. "Old. Movie. Good. New. Movie. Bad".

How come it took them about 1000?

NickSeng - you did it better still!

catalyst2 | March 28, 16:45 CET

My take on this is that the writer, John Steppling, saw the movie 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and has heard about people doing serious critical analysis of the TV show 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', and he isn't aware that these are two completely different creations.
Of course I cannot know for sure, but that is my impression.

embers | March 28, 18:02 CET

People who judge art by whether or not it espouses or explores their own idiology whether political, religious or other, annoy and kinda depress me. Saying something is not Art or even not worthwhile art because it explores a different facet of the human experience than the one that that particular person is most concerned about, just denies Art its rightful breadth and complexity.

It sounds like he was talking about the TV series, and though part of me would enjoy knowing what he finds "reactionary" when Buffy analysed, the other part of me found a perverse pleasure that Buffy was singled out in that particular way. It makes me almost not want to know, so that the explanation won't be so pedestrian as to take the fun out of it. I mean look at the links provided on this site on just this one day, condemnation by both the Socialists and the PTC. Gotta love a show like that.

Oh, and not to be cynical or anything, but how many more people do you think read this than would have if he had not mentioned Buffy.

[ edited by newcj (changed from cj to avoid confusion) on 2005-03-28 18:55 ]

newcj | March 28, 20:53 CET

Reinforces the maxim that there is no fool like an educated fool.

[ edited by Chris inVirginia on 2005-03-28 23:56 ]

Chris inVirginia | March 28, 21:17 CET

I'm with ZM: more cowbell!

zeitgeist | March 28, 21:19 CET

From his POV, I imagine "Buffy" is "deeply reactionary" because, on the whole, it affirms that an individual can make a difference and that gradual change is worth the effort. However, he can't possibly have seen "Chosen", as the end of Sunnydale surely affirms Marxist views of what is needed to purify the world and make it ready for the proletarian Utopia.

Gill | March 28, 21:20 CET

Urg. I couldn't get through this. The first bit was too much for me. The whole "New movies are shallow crap. Independent Movies are made by people we don't like. Foreign films don't address what we want to see..." Dude, if you're so dissatisfied with the film industry as it is, go home and watch your masterpieces at home on DVD, or go WRITE a gorram screenplay that DOES address what you want to see. Analysis means essentially to break apart. This guy doesn't get that the world doesn't owe him the exact art he wants to see, and that he is responsible for engaging or even commissioning the artistic community if he wants a custom project done. Otherwise, he has to settle for what's out there and try to find something meaningful to him. And frankly, I've found films that are meaningful for me in all of those categories: Hollywood, Independant, Foreign... and I've found incredible meaning in Joss Whedon's work. So lucky me, and poor poor whiny him.

pixxelpuss | March 28, 21:57 CET

Hmm, I was trying to work out why it was "deeply reactionary" - I assumed that it was because you (more or less) have to be part of a privileged elite in order to make a difference (which is still true, although to a lesser extent, after Chosen).

mjwilson | March 28, 22:59 CET

People who judge art by whether or not it espouses or explores their own idiology whether political, religious or other, annoy and kinda depress me.

Oh thank you. Look at this essay, skimming it (and disagreeing with it on several points) for the Buffy bits, made me realize once again why the hell I stay away from academic discussions on The State of Art. It's all so joyless and dispiriting, and for me, the grandest thing about being obsessed with art is joy. Even the saddest movie -- if it moves me to tears -- creates joy. And this essay is absolutely devoid of joy of art; it reads more like an autopsy report of someone you liked a lot when they were breathing.

dottikin | March 28, 23:53 CET

"So, again, back to the twenties and thirties and forties... I agree with the observation about oppositional thinking, but it was oppositional thinking coupled to a mythic awareness and (as all good art has, I believe) an almost ontological questioning of the world. Look at the films of Dryer or Murnau. Look at the silent German cinema. This was both social critique and a deep inward looking self-analysis, but a self-analysis that included the material conditions of the world. Lang's M is a masterpiece because it was both socially aware and metaphysically aware. There is a curious quality to a lot of liberal and even leftist discourse these days, and it's the strange refusal to critique art and artists. I know a lot of left leaning types who will suspend judgment and watch (religiously) things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Or they will bet on the Academy Awards. Why? Because art is not to be taken seriously. Even hard core politicos will obsessively go to the movies, and never make a single judgment about what they see. Culture is not seen as important. That "Buffy" is deeply reactionary, if one bothers to analyze it, seems irrelevant. I'm not sure how this works, except that one of the flaws of the left is often to see art as "only" instructional. If there isn't an obvious message then there is little interest. It is, I think, what Horkheimer called "instrumental reason." They don't see a Beckett as a revolutionary, or a Fassbinder. They might accept some of Godard, or Brecht, but usually for the wrong reasons. Liberals just want to believe the system can be fixed, and so Buffy reinforces that. It's a part of the "professionalizing" of consciousness, I sort of think. Compartmentalizing experience. Buffy is amusing, not to be taken seriously, and so don't get all excited and start to analyze it like serious art. Well, no, but one can and should analyze it as a symptom of the modern spiritual malaise that has infected the entire Western world."

Wow. And here I thought Buffy was left-leaning. But apparently a show where every single institution is evil or grotesquely incompetent, a show that boldly features a loving lesbian relationship, is simply not sufficiently radical for this pair of whiny Marxists.

Overall, these two are complaining not about the quality of films but about their politics. Clancy's movies are inferior compared to 40s filme noire because they trust authority, not because of differences in scripting, direction or acting. Sorry, people, but movies can address "authentic" human experience without ham-handed communist manifestos.

[ edited by Andarcel on 2005-03-28 22:02 ]

Andarcel | March 29, 00:01 CET

I was amused by their outrage at a police state with the government taking care of everyone followed up by a misty-eyed paen to Marxism. Hello, cognitive dissonance.

The rest is pretentious piffle, though I enjoyed the description of indie films as made by "self-involved 28 year-olds." Not always true but sometimes not far from the mark.

Ilana | March 29, 00:02 CET

Wow! You gotta be impressed with their verbosity. But essentially they are saying "what has happened to art?" But if they lived in the time of the films they hold up as being "art", they'd be talking about how devoid THOSE films are and how what came before THEM was "art". They're just professional malcontents. And while criticism and different perspectives are useful, you'd want them to come from someone who would at least be willing to give a creative work a chance and not criticize it in terms of their own ideological litmus test. I used to call this "agenda criticism" when I took film studies classes. I, of course, came from the "Cowbell" school of thought and criticized films in terms of how much or little cowbell content was inherent therein. RED RIVER, of course, is the finest film ever made.

batmarlowe | March 29, 03:50 CET

I wonder if anyone else wrote them. I did. Just to defend Buffy/Angel as art,and Joss Whedon as an artist. Joss Whedon as an artist? I noted my pilot Serenity as proof, in fact, the marzipan on my pieplate. I think Slayage.com got a plug too. But jeeez, considering all the dryness on that site, I sure won't be expecting too many views if my letter to the editor is actually printed. My style wasn't nearly dry enough, so I doubt it will be.

April | March 29, 04:54 CET

Oh, ps... could someone define "cowbell"? Thanks.

April | March 29, 04:55 CET

Cowbell is a reference to a Saturday Night Live sketch from a few years ago. It was a parody of VH1's Behind the Music and it featured Blue Oyster Cult recording their hit "Don't Fear the Reaper". The cowbell in this song is very noticeable and humor in the sketch revolved around the "legendary" producer (played by Christopher Walken) demanding more cowbell. Like many other things over the past 30 years of SNL history, this cowbell thing just got under the skin of the culture, like "Get a Life" and "If it's not Scottish, it's crap!". I read that in the liner notes of their CD box set Blue Oyster Cult themselves make reference to the sketch.

batmarlowe | March 29, 06:13 CET

I used to always say, "You can put your weeeeed in here". I loved that SNL sketch. I didn't know "more cowbell" came from SNL.

electricspacegirl | March 29, 06:49 CET

ahhh sounds like a great sketch. thanks batmarlowe.

April | March 29, 17:20 CET

Glad to be of service.

batmarlowe | March 29, 21:24 CET

"I gotta have more cowbell, Buffy!"

ZachsMind | March 30, 04:41 CET