The Greatest Showman (2017)
Director: Michael Gracey
Writer(s): Jenny Bicks, Bill Condon
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Zac Efron, Michelle Williams
Ladies and gentlemen! Step right up! Step right up! I have for you today a film not meant to be seen by decent eyes, a film so gross, so exploitative, so awful on every conceivable and philosophical level that it made this viewer want to leave the theatre early. It is said this film was spawned from some of the darkest, most perverted minds of our generation: the screenwriters for Sex and the City and Gnome. Featuring performances from a retired Wolverine, former child stars from High School Musical and Shake It Up!, and an Academy Award nominated actress who just can't quite catch the right break! A disastrous, ill-conceived mess the likes of which have never been seen before! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: The Greatest Showman!
Do not mistake my jovial, sarcastic introduction to this review as a recommendation of seeing this film ironically. This isn't a "so bad it's good film": it's a "so bad you want to punch the director in the face film." I haven't been so angry while watching a film this year since the rancid Beauty and the Beast remake, but The Greatest Showman is so many times worse that they shouldn't even be judged on the same scale. Beauty and the Beast (2017) was a bad film because it actively thwarted the best qualities of the original film and tried too hard to please too many people. The Greatest Showman, by contrast, somehow manages to get everything wrong: script, cinematography, acting, structure, pacing, mise en scene, editing. However, despite its completely dysfunctional framework, the film carries with it a sense of arrogance and entitlement that is honestly insulting. It truly is a joyless affair, one of the worst films of the year and quite possibly the worst movie musical I've ever seen.
The Greatest Showman is the story of P. T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman) on his path to forming the modern American circus industry. The film begins at its ending, showing Barnum at the very top of the circus world, before quickly flashing back to his childhood courtship of his wife, Charity (Michelle Williams). Barnum works hard, passing through the doldrums of American white-collar life before stumbling upon his true calling: sleight-of-hand, the macabre, and other sorts of low-brow "humbug." He assembles a troupe of minorities and disabled persons, using their appearance to court the favor of the masses. He even gets himself a new partner in Phillip Carlyle (Zac Efron), a well-to-do playwright who finds new life in joining the circus. However, when Barnum discovers Swedish soprano Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson), he sees a way to finally fit in with the old guard of wealth rather than be pegged as a vulgar member of the nouveau riche. Will this new development put a strain on his marriage? Will it alienate him from the people who made it famous? Have you seen the ending to a Hollywood blockbuster musical before? All will be revealed in the fascinating true story of The Greatest Showman.
I'll begin by deconstructing the musical failings of The Greatest Showman, as they are, ultimately, the reason I went to see the film. The biggest problem: the songs are horrible. The Greatest Showman's soundtrack is comprised mostly of pop songs structured around the sonic techniques of late 2010s top 40 pop, modeled primarily on the monotonal melodic stylings of Taylor Swift and the "millennial whoop" of pop rock acts like Imagine Dragons and X Ambassadors. Most of these songs could be inserted into advertisements for automobiles and would be utterly indistinguishable from radio singles. While there's nothing inherently wrong to aping the aesthetic of pop radio - after all, many of the greatest musicals in American history (Guys and Dolls, Kiss Me, Kate, A Chorus Line) were essentially then-contemporaneous pop songs set to a plot - not a single one of these songs uses that aesthetic effectively or appropriately. Most of the melodies fail to create emotionally cathartic or satisfying cadences, relying on sheer volume and bombast to produce musical effects that the compositions themselves fail to achieve. Moreover, not one lyric from the show lands with any emotional punch. And, of course, the soundtrack is slathered with so much vocal doubling and pitch alteration that it's almost impossible to identify the actual human voices producing the sound, let alone appreciate the individual words being sung. These songs, in effect, function as little more than ambience to heavily produced and edited choreography.
Moreover, the Top 40 song structures don't fit the visual aesthetic seeks to present. Though The Greatest Showman attempts to portray P. T. Barnum's circus as the cutting edge theatre of its era, more akin to modern stadium rock than the organ-grinder entertainment with which we now associate it, its details in costuming and set design firmly establish the film's diegesis within the 1840s. To hear these characters, clothed in period dress, burst into modern American song produces a severe sense of whiplash. Nowhere is this effect more jarring than in Jenny Lind's opera performance. During the scenes preceding the performance, Lind has been framed as a truly unique voice: the most beloved soprano in all of Europe. Her aria is intended to be one of the most cathartic moments of the film, as it is the first time Barnum has ever tasted "high" culture and steeped himself in the culture of the elite. And the result: a Christina Perri-lite pop song that could be handily performed by any high school sophomore mezzo-soprano at an open mic night. Framing Ferguson's performance as that of a great opera singer - let alone an opera singer the film intends to be the vocal highlight of the film - is laughable for regular film-going audiences and downright insulting to those who have an appreciation for the dedication and craft required to be an opera star. Finally, let us not forget that The Greatest Showman is a musical about the circus, an enterprise that has genres of music associated with it. Great composers - Saint-Saëns, Khachaturian, Rossini, Sousa - have composed works invariably associated with revelry and merriment; not one of their works is quoted or referenced in any of these songs. Heck, the film doesn't even play a snippet of Julius Fucik's "Entry of the Gladiators": the pop culture shorthand for circus fare. Allow me lend some credit to Cy Coleman's flawed musical, Barnum: at least its score was informed by the aesthetic and diegesis of the story.
Worse still are the lyrics of the songs themselves. Pasek and Paul - of Dear Evan Hansen and La La Land fame - composed both the lyrics and the individual songs of The Greatest Showman, leaving orchestration and score duties to veteran orchestrator John Debney. Their track record has been inconsistent, to say the least, as they've produced a bad libretto for every good libretto, and many might well question the quality even of those librettos that have been well received (i.e. Dear Evan Hansen). The Greatest Showman, however, is likely their worst work to date. The lyrics of The Greatest Showman are empty shells bereft of meaning or sentiment, content to shout "this is me!" as if it were a poignant dramatic statement and not a re-hash of a cliché better handled by the Disney Channel in Camp Rock. Many numbers are also lyrically tone-deaf. In "Rewrite the Stars," the love song that serves as the emotional core of the film's B-plot, the song's tone runs in the opposite direction of the story itself. Carlyle, romantically attracted to a black trapeze artist played by Zendaya, must declare his love to prove to her that he is no longer bound by the will of his racist parents. The first words from his lips: "You know I want you." Pasek and Paul aren't inept: they do know that "want" carries the implication of lust while the word "love" carries actual emotional weight. The scene needs the word "love" in order for it to work; the entire point of it is demonstrating that Carlyle's affections are real and will not be turned aside merely because of social stigma. However, Pasek and Paul also know that "want" is more marketable to a top 40 audience and to high-school age couples wanting to sing to each other at karaoke night. Thus, their song willfully undermines the story while attempting to market the film's soundtrack. Similar disjunctions of tone and composition occur throughout the film, and the musical itself turns into a jumbled mess.
Most of the praise for The Greatest Showman has been heaped upon its choreography. It doesn't meet the hype. Sure, all of Hugh Jackman, Zac Efron, and Zendaya's choreography is sharp and snappy, but next to none of it is genuinely impressive given that half the film's musical numbers are shot in shadow. More damning, though, is the fact that most of the film's musical numbers are laden with dozens of jump cuts, allowing the actors' multiple opportunities to get the right takes of individual bars of the music. Now, any good movie musical is going to get multiple takes of a sequence, but most leave at least one steady non-cut dance break per musical number to effectively say, "yes, it actually is the actors performing these dance moves." The Greatest Showman constantly cheats, cutting to the in-universe audience, close-ups of the actors' faces, lens flares in between tracking shots, images of poorly CGI-d elephants and lions, pan-outs of the entire set. Many of the film's sequences actually benefit from the game of "spot the stunt double," as the exercise is often more informative about the process of filmmaking than enjoying the film itself. The movie may be trying to play sleight-of-hand, much like actual carnies, but it has failed to apply misdirection and performs the same tricks too many times.
Above all, The Greatest Showman doesn't seem to understand the structure of movie musicals. Songs in modern musicals, since the days of Oklahoma!, function to expand and explain feelings implicit to the characters and develop the story. The songs in The Greatest Showman do occur during emotional moments, but rarely, if ever, do they actually perform a storytelling function. The closest is Charity's "Tightrope" sequence towards the end of the second act, describing her anxieties during her husband's national tour with Jenny Lind. There are some genuinely decent shots and cuts during this sequence, and one does learn information that could not be developed in any form other than a musical number. Most of the other songs in the show, however, are window-dressing to emotional moments rather than necessary pieces. The film's most acclaimed song, "This Is Me!," performed by the circus performers is supposed to be a rousing anthem of self-affirmation a la Hamilton's "My Shot" (speaking of which, this film is most certainly angling to win over Hamilton fans; if this reviewer's opinion of both works is of any merit, it has clearly failed); in effect, though, it fails to accomplish a sense of courage beyond the performers' decision to silently stand amidst the elite: if anything, the bombast serves to lessen the drama and the effectiveness of the film's message. Musical numbers should never serve to the story's detriment, but the songs of The Greatest Showman are little more than expensive distractions, keys jangled in front of the eyes of the audience with the expectation that they have the attention span of chimpanzees. The film attempts to depict Barnum's fakery and humbug as a noble practice, but it does so through fakery and humbug of its own: its abysmal musical structure.
That said, if one removed all of the music from The Greatest Showman, would the film work? The answer, unsurprisingly, is no. The Greatest Showman's story is utterly bereft of structure, coherence, and meaning. The motivations of the characters are muddled, the pacing is rushed, and the plot lines aren't focused. The dialogue is little more than false whimsy, flimsy exposition, and pseudo-witty quips; it attempts to capture the charm of Oscar Wilde and Charles Dickens, but it more often than not ends up sounding like the incoherent prose of a bad college play. At its core, however, The Greatest Showman doesn't know what it's actually about. Most great biopic and musical stories can be summed up in one sentence, a single theme that underpins the film's narrative, tone, and characters. Let's consider some examples:
Gandhi: The sacrifices of one man can shake the foundations of a nation.
Lincoln: Sometimes men must betray their own morality in order to achieve a noble goal.
Singin' in the Rain: The combination of sight and sound gives us greater insight into the truth than sight alone.
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street: Single-minded obsession is just as damning and de-humanizing as the industrial revolution.
The Greatest Showman ostensibly presents many potential sentences that could serve as its message, but its plot structure abandons each thread as soon as they are raised.
The film's first "theme" so to speak is that of making dreams come true through ingenuity, wit, and charm; even if deception is involved, the joy of a child or audience member's wonder is worth the trickery. Most every element of The Greatest Showman helps establish this motif. Barnum's story begins with him exposing first his wife and next his daughters to the fantastic light shows to be found within the natural world and through tinkering with office supplies. The film's version of newspaper magnate James Gordon Bennett is a straw man theatre critic whose narrative function is naysaying the fraud at work within the Barnum circus. Bennett and Barnum verbally joust throughout the film, the former calling Barnum a hack and the latter calling Bennett an elitist who likes to destroy wonder and dreams. Philip Carlyle's life in the theatre is stuffy and constraining, while his time with the circus is liberating and inspiring. Heck, the name of the movie is The Greatest Showman: it's fitting that it would be a film about showmanship.
No sooner is this theme established than does the movie do everything it can to undermine it. The film immediately makes us uncomfortable by suggesting Barnum's performers aren't exactly comfortable with the various "enhancements" Barnum makes to their act; while they get used to it, this discomfort never goes away. The people who destroy Barnum's circus aren't people who disdain fakery and dishonesty but are instead a gaggle of racist lowbrows whose only real complaint is that Barnum's circus hires freedmen. Most importantly, Barnum himself gives up his showman mantle to Carlyle at the end of the film, finding pleasure within the more refined experience of his daughter's ballet recital. The implications of this reversal are rather filthy as well: if the text is to be taken as it is, the "high arts" - ballet, theatre, and literature - must be enjoyed exclusively by the aristocracy, whilst the "low art" of the circus may only ever be appreciated by the common rabble. After all, for the rich, such entertainment will always be mere "amusement," as the film's Queen Victoria would put it.
But perhaps this is not the theme of the movie. Maybe the movie's core lies in the other primary narrative: Barnum's vaulting ambition. Throughout the film, Barnum keeps trying to impress the old guard, never satisfied with his standing within the nouveau riche. He buys a house down the block from Charity's rich father (just to show him up, acts like an entitled brat in parties, and tours around with Jenny Lind purely to acquire respectability. His wife, Charity, keeps telling him to slow down and take time away from his work. His first circus literally crashes and burns thanks to his arrogance, and his marriage very nearly falls apart thanks to his dilly-dallying with Jenny Lind. The film may be saying that one should be content with what one has and not lose sight of it: a standard movie musical theme, but one worth returning to at various points in one's life.
However, this theme doesn't work either. If accepting one's place and what one has was the theme of the movie, the film wouldn't have a right to exist. It wouldn't be the story of a tailor's son whose ingenuity propelled him to being a circus magnate; it would be about a poor tailor remaining a poor tailor - Fiddler on the Roof rather than Citizen Kane. Worse still is the fact that Barnum never actually learns his lesson. Sure, his circus gets burned and his marriage nearly falls apart, but he manages to resolve both of these problems with absolutely no effort. His circus: rebuilt via deus ex machina. His marriage: all he has to do is say he's sorry one time. Heck, Barnum doesn't even come to reckon with his place within the nouveau riche. Sure, he hands over the rings of the circus to Carlyle at the film's conclusion, but he comes back to the New York Ballet - a symbol the film establishes as the domain of the aristocracy - to watch his daughter perform amongst hoity-toity high class friends. Since Barnum himself doesn't change, the film doesn't have an arc.
Let's try the lowest common denominator theme, the theme featured in more movies than can be counted: be yourself. After all, this is the theme of "This Is Me!," the Golden Globe-nominated song from the film. Perhaps this is the film's real core: after all, Barnum is a showman and he returns to being a showman after failing to be the manager of an opera star. Carlyle has to "find himself" by joining the circus and leaving his family behind. Sure, this message might be trite, but at least it is a message... yet it still doesn't work. Who, at the end of the day, is The Greatest Showman's P. T. Barnum? Sure, he likes whimsy, but he also likes power. He loves his family, but he also seems to prefer his work to his relatives. Sure, he's charming, but he's also a trickster and a thief. At the end of the film, P. T. Barnum hands over the reins of his circus and goes to spend time with his family; is this really his true self? This is not to discuss the broader issues inherent to the message, "be yourself," particularly the notion that societal stigma is a mechanism by which many individuals learn to identify genuine personality flaws and thereby push themselves to overcome them. While this implication doesn't apply to the circus performers, it certainly applies to Barnum and Carlyle. All that said, The Greatest Showman fails to properly convey even the most standard message in musical theatre history. At its core, the film has nothing to say: it's just a bunch of bright flashy images, dance sequences, and bad songs that serves to waste the audience's time.
These major structural and storytelling flaws overshadow those flaws that would normally be endemic to bad movie musicals. I already touched upon the pitch correction and studio manipulations that I hate, but The Greatest Showman commits many more musical faux pas: improper vowel formation, female vocals without breath support or chest connection, absence of properly written harmonies, tedious orchestration, over-emphasis on unhealthy belting techniques that are dangerous models for maturing voices. The special effects are particularly cringe-worthy. Much of the CGI in this movie - especially that of the lions and elephants - would have barely made the cut back in 2005. The make-up of Keala Settle's bearded woman is so clearly fake that the viewer never believes it was natural. Moreover, very few members of The Greatest Showman's cast of performers were actual minorities or disabled persons, so the film is most certainly guilty of white-washing. All of these factors distract from the cinematic experience and weaken the movie.
If the technique is bad, the sexism is horrendous. Every major female character in The Greatest Showman is a person more acted upon than acting. Charity gets one solo number to herself, a song dedicated to how much she wants her husband to come back home but spends the rest of the film an utterly dutiful housewife, always cast in the glow of a Madonna. One might as well replace her with a glowing ball of light functioning as a symbol for all that is good. The only reason Zendaya's character exists is to tease out a romance between her and Carlyle, establishing a new breeding pair for the circus lineage and pairing former Disney channel stars so as to get the fangirls cooing. Worst of all is the fate of Jenny Lind. The real life Jenny Lind was not considered a great beauty, but this film transforms her into a shallow seductress trope, slathering so much make-up onto Ms. Ferguson's face as to make her look like a walking Dior ad. All of the women in this movie are little more than props, shallow personifications of "good," "evil," and "unfortunate" with no agency, motivation, or identity. Not to mention, surprise, surprise, this film doesn't pass the Bechdel test: every single conversation these women have throughout the film in some way relates to the men in their life. Though a film needn't pass the Bechdel test to be feminist, any film should, at the very least, have the dignity and good sense to not write its female actors into such lazy, underwritten roles.
As one could presumably tell from the preceding criticisms, I don't think The Greatest Showman is a very good movie. In fact, I think it's a horribly constructed film from start to finish. However, I've certainly seen plenty of bad movies, many with even worse structural rot than The Greatest Showman. However, few of these movies are so hateful and ill-conceived as The Greatest Showman. For all the flaws I've previously discussed are the minor flaws in the film. Yes: the broken structure, tepid script, gross sexism, and awful music are the minor flaws. The greatest flaw in The Greatest Showman is the very goal it sets out to achieve: the creation of a biopic glorifying the life of P. T. Barnum. Looking at the finished product, it is clear that no one in the cast or crew of The Greatest Showman stopped for but a second to consider whether or not this was a morally worthwhile, let alone cinematically engaging, enterprise. To truly understand why The Greatest Showman is one of the worst films I've ever seen, we need to explore the story of the real P. T. Barnum.
If the narrative of The Greatest Showman is to be believed, P. T. Barnum was a whimsical, delightful man who seized the opportunity to offer joy unto the lower classes with displays of spectacle, in stark opposition to the cloistered theatrical world reserved for the well-to-do. Sure, he might have delighted in trickery and humbug, but it was all for the greater good of the public. His marital infidelities were his only true flaw. Indeed, if not for the work of P. T. Barnum, the modern world of movie magic might not have existed. P. T. Barnum should thus be admired as an innovator and truly great man, a man whose entrepreneurship in the face of hardship makes him a model for every young man and woman sitting in the audience.
To quote a Jedi master, every word in that last paragraph was wrong.
As The Greatest Showman accurately portrays, P. T. Barnum was a conman and a thief who built an industry upon deceit, humbug, and trickery. However, he was, first and foremost, a racist, misogynist, and ablist capitalist who saw the opportunity to earn millions by exploiting the disabled and deformed. He willfully gathered a group of individuals afflicted with various physical conditions - dwarfism, gigantism, hypertrichosis, conjoinment - and marketed their bodies as commodities for the enjoyment of his audiences. His "circus" was not of mere spectacle; the more appropriate term would be the now (justly) politically-incorrect phrase Barnum and his associates would have used to describe his enterprise: "freak show." Contemporaneous critics deplored Barnum's circus for exposing the public to "indecency," a deplorably racist and ablist critique that missed the true horror of Barnum's enterprise. Barnum's actual evil was the exploitation of the performers themselves, performers given pittance salaries while Barnum pocketed the profits. Perhaps the most telling anecdote of Barnum's modus operandi was the story of his most popular act: "General Tom Thumb." "General Tom Thumb," properly named Charles Stratton, was a member of Barnum's circus from the time he was four: a child laborer suffering from dwarfism who ridiculed himself by tap-dancing, miming, and performing impressions all for the amusement of the audience.
The word most commonly used to describe Barnum was not entrepreneur, trickster, or magician: it was "showman." Barnum propagated an industry of "showing" the fates of the less fortunate, spinning fantastic yet false narratives about the upbringings and origins of each "freak" in the line-up. The entire show centered on one four-word unspoken sentiment, "Thank God I'm not _____": "Thank God I'm not hairy"; "Thank God I'm not a little person"; "Thank God I'm not covered in tattoos"; "Thank God I'm not covered in tumors"; most common and nefarious of all, "Thank God I'm not black." Barnum claimed to give his audience joy, but the only joy it felt was smug self-satisfaction in its white, lower middle-class identity. So long as it could delight in the exploitation and subordination of people of other ethnicities and suffering from disabilities, it could take a twisted pride in itself. Barnum may have been an abolitionist, but he and his industry entrenched the racism at the heart of the white supremacist system.
The Greatest Showman would have been repugnant enough had it simply chosen to ignore the actual facts about the real P. T. Barnum, but it manages to go a step below by actively pretending that Barnum's circus was a crusade of inclusion rather than an industry predicated upon discrimination. The film willfully distorts history to make itself more appealing. Very few of the performers in Barnum's circus are actually afflicted with the same disabilities the real Barnum's performers suffered from, both whitewashing the film and decreasing the cognitive dissonance the film audience would experience when trying to come to terms with Barnum's racist legacy. The performers treat the circus as if it were a family when most of the real Barnum employees viewed it as a job, and a degrading one at that. Barnum willfully associates with his performers throughout the film, when most historical evidence suggests he treated them as if they were less than dirt. When the film can't cover up or falsely re-contextualize history, it outright fabricates it. The character of Philip Carlyle is an invention, created solely to establish a forbidden love subplot between a white man and a black woman: a move intended to boost sales figures and pander for meaningless awards rather than discuss the dynamics of race and romance in pre-Civil War era America. After all, including the real life interactions between P. T. Barnum and his more corporate focused partner, James Anthony Bailey, making business decisions that forever worsened the livelihood of dozens of disabled persons, would have been "uninteresting." The film tries to present Barnum's humbug in a positive light, but it fails to recognize that its own story is humbug of the lowest pedigree.
Worst of all, though, is the fact that The Greatest Showman makes its audience complicit in its own moral depravity. Most any film that seeks to depict circus performers could fall prey to the same ethical trap of Barnum's circus: regardless of the movie's intention, the audience is engaging in the same spectacle of beholding the disabled as those original theatre goers. The only way to remove the audience from this type of exploitative engagement with the original circus is to depict its ugliness head on; instead of entrenching the "thank God I'm not" sentiment of the circus, the film should make the audience feel uncomfortable for being complicit in a world that perpetuated the circus for so long. This is why the Tod Browning horror film, Freaks, is considered a horror classic and an essential piece of cinema history; since the villains in the film are the "normal" people, the audience's horror towards the fates of the "freaks" is not one of exploitation but of empathy. The Greatest Showman does not depict the horror of Barnum's practices. Rather, it delights in bringing the audience into its world. Instead of being a glorified cage, the circus becomes a "home for the downtrodden" where the masses can enjoy themselves... much like the film industry. It's fairly clear The Greatest Showman intends Barnum's vision to be representative of Hollywood itself, producing "exposure" for the downtrodden in the face of the outright racism of the public, all the while containing more than its fair share of problematic practices. If the film intended to make people feel positive will towards Hollywood, it does the exact opposite.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the misbegotten narrative of The Greatest Showman. No doubt its horrors made you wish you might find some way to stop its ill effects from being wrought upon the public. However, the power resides in you to save your souls and those of others from this. First, I suggest not even going to the theatre to save this film. Next, I propose donating one's time and attention to any number of other worthy cinematic enterprises. The excellent recent Star Wars film, for instance. Any of the other Golden Globe nominees. The Godfather is coming out on Netflix. You deserve better than this. We can take comfort, as Americans, that the Barnum and Bailey's circus finally closed this year; hopefully, we can make this godawful film close prematurely.
I give The Greatest Showman a 0.6 out of 10.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Monday, July 31, 2017
The Buffyverse Character Countdown (#1)
#1.
Hero: Buffy Summers (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
"She's a hero, you see. She's not like us." -- Rupert Giles, "The Gift"
Who did you expect to rank here? Willow? Cordelia? Angel? Some random fake-out gag before revealing Buffy as #1? Obviously, Buffy Summers was going to rank as the best hero in the Buffyverse: the universe is freaking named after her! Contrarians might make tepid commentary like “Buffy can sometimes slip into a self-righteous rut” or some other silly justification to put Wesley or Willow or Angel or whomever their favorite character might be into the top spot, but these comments miss the thematic point of the Buffyverse entirely. Yes, Buffy can be self-righteous. Yes, Buffy isn’t always the most interesting character in her series at any given point. Yes, Buffy isn’t even the best acted character in the Buffyverse (subtlety is not one of Sarah Michelle Gellar’s strong suits). However, Buffy is the only character in the Buffyverse who has a complete character arc, no asinine developments or filler, and limitless potential to learn and grow. Buffy Summers is the best of who we can be. She is the quintessential feminist icon of the silver screen – yes, she’s more complex than Ellen Ripley – and one of the best television characters ever written.
As with Angel, describing Buffy’s entire character arc in
one blog post is entirely impossible. Furthermore, given that every single episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer – even episodes
that seemingly are focused on other characters – in some way ties to Buffy’s
personal character arc, looking at highlights alone does her a disservice as
well. As I see it, the best way to evaluate Buffy’s character is on a
series-wide scale. Buffy the Vampire
Slayer, broadly speaking, is a series about growing up and accepting the
responsibilities of adulthood. Buffy, the vampire slayer, is the one character
in the series who undergoes this process completely and truly becomes an adult
by the series’s conclusion. While Xander and Willow grow in tandem with Buffy,
they never accept nearly the same onus of responsibility as their superheroine
best friend. Each season is a new step in the formation of a complete person:
acceptance of adulthood’s inevitability, balancing love and obligation,
escaping social constraints and one’s own darker side to form a complete self,
understanding one’s origins and coming to terms with one’s place in a larger world,
designating the line between hope and cynicism and being willing to make
sacrifices, learning to cope with and learn from moments of despair, and
teaching the lessons we have learned to the next generation. Nor does Buffy’s
story end; with the last line of “Chosen” being “What are we going to do now?,”
we know that Buffy’s story of vampire slaying and saving the world has only
begun. Whether her story will become as dark as that of Wesley or as poignant
as that of Cordelia remains to be seen, but, given the qualities Buffy has
expressed throughout the series thus far, we have little doubt that she’ll be
able to rise above all her challenges.
Buffy would stand out as the greatest hero in the Buffyverse
purely on the basis of her personality alone. For she has one crucial ability
that no other character in the entire Buffyverse can rival. No, not super
strength: empathy. While other characters can often get rapt up within their
own desires and be blind to the needs of others, Buffy is the only character in
the series who always thinks of
others’ first. Unlike Wesley, the other most empathetic character in the
series, she does retain a sense of self outside of her empathy, but, when push
comes to shove, Buffy is always willing to understand others’ perspectives and
assist them when they need her. In the episode, “Earshot,” Buffy discovers just
how complex others’ lives are, equally as frustrating as her own even if the
consequences aren’t quite as apocalyptic. It is through this lens that she is
able to assist others through so many trials. She will judge people when their
actions become selfish to the point of harming others, but her first recourse
is always to talk someone from off the ledge rather than actively rip him away.
She has zero tolerance for soulless vampires, of course, since they cannot act with empathy and lack the
essence of goodness required for moral development. She’s a person who must
save the prey from irredeemable predators, and she takes up that burden with an
authenticity rivalled by few other superheroes.
This is not to say that Buffy does not have flaws: far from
it. She is genuinely bad at maintaining romantic relationships, either
obsessing herself with romance to the point of abandoning her duty to others, cutting
her romantic partners out of her life entirely such that she really doesn’t
engage with them on a deeper level, or using her sexual partners as a mechanism
of self-destruction. Her moral high-horsing isn’t capable of beating enemies
whose violence is fueled by emotion alone. She can even fall into ruts of
crippling emotional and financial dependency, leeching off Giles, Willow, and
Spike in ways that legitimately harm her heroic standing. However, Buffy
differs from all the other characters in the Buffyverse insofar as she rises
above those flaws. Much like Angel, Buffy’s arc isn’t linear, but she always
comes back from a dip – something that cannot
be said for her former vampire boyfriend. Each season finale shows Buffy at a
new level of competence and complexity, and she’s all that more admirable a
hero for her growth.
That’s not even touching Buffy’s role as a feminist icon. I’ve
noted before that she is the best feminist character to hit the small screen,
and it’s one I stand by. There are other feminist television characters who are
arguably more complex (Utena Tenjou from Revolutionary
Girl Utena comes to mind), but none of them combine their complexity and
feminism with the same level of relatability as Buffy. Unlike the generic “strong
female character” trope, Buffy falters, has elements of pettiness, and
possesses many crippling weaknesses that her enemies have exploited on multiple
occasions. However, due to the strength of the writing and the willingness for
Buffy to take responsibility and act with integrity, she ends up more relatable,
and, more importantly, more powerful than other feminist icons. She might have been
more shallow than Cordelia prior to the events of the series, but, by the time
of the final cut to black, we’ve seen the most mature character in the series
come into being. It’s an incredible journey that’s absolutely satisfying.
The only way to truly do Buffy Summers justice is to watch
every episode of the show with a critical eye. Every single episode (with only
a few exceptions) relates to Buffy’s journey in some way, with the secondary
protagonists and antagonists serving as extensions of her mind, heart, spirit,
shadow self, id, ego, superego, and antithesis. Pretty much every other
character on this list is a part of Buffy the character as much as he or she is
a part of Buffy the show. We turn to
this show not because it’s philosophical, not because it’s kickass, not because
it’s melodramatic, not because it’s fantastical, not because it’s entertaining;
though it is certainly all of these
things, it is mostly an exercise in empathy and understanding, coming to grips
with every facet of a truly complex, competent, and compelling protagonist. It’s
a series that deserves to be watched multiple times so its layers can be
appreciated… and none more than its titular heroine.
Villain: Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer Seasons 2-6)
"Love isn't brains, children, it's blood - blood screaming inside you to work its will." -- Spike, "Lovers Walk"
As obvious a #1 hero entry as Buffy is, Spike isn’t
necessarily the villain one would peg as the best in the series. Sure, most can
agree he is the first good Big Bad in
the series – a decent enough milestone in and of itself – but that’s not
normally enough to secure a villain a place at the top of the evil throne. What
gives him the crown? All of his actions during Seasons 4-6. People (especially
Spuffy shippers) tend to forget that Spike isn’t a hero until Season Seven. At best, Spike is a morally questionable
anti-hero. At worst, he’s the most insidious, manipulative, dangerous, and
depraved villain in the entire series. He’s a villain so good at being
charismatic, witty, and cool that he honestly dupes the audience into thinking
he’s a good guy for three seasons of the show. Spike is the only villain in the
entire Buffyverse who changes on a level comparable to the heroes while having
his evil nature still hold true. At no point in the series up until Season
Seven is he anything other than a cheeky, lustful bastard, and we love him all
the more for it. He’s Buffy’s ultimate rival, and it’s fitting that he joins
her in the #1 slot.
Once a hopelessly romantic poetaster known as William Pratt,
“William the Bloody” had a most pathetic life. Coddled by his mother and
rejected by other members of the British genteel class, he found himself at the
bottom of the food chain. He would soon become food himself to a hungry
Drusilla, but she sired him as her own personal knight. The newly sired Spike
went on to sire his terminally ill mother. However, when his mother’s new
vampiric form rejected his affections and accused him of incestuous feelings, William
turned on her and dusted her. Now freed of his mortal attachments, William fell
under the influence of his grandsire, Angelus, who trained him to become a
lethal killing machine. Unlike Angelus, though, William’s dreams of idealized
romantic love and passionate nature held true to his vampiric form. Giving himself
a new working class identity and taking up a new moniker, Spike came to the
fray as the second most lethal member of the House of Aurelius. He even outdid
his mentors in viciousness by killing two Slayers mono e mono, an unprecedented
achievement in vampire history. By the time he arrives in Sunnydale, Spike has
broken off from his Aurelian ties to become the most dangerous vampire at large
in the entire world.
Spike immediately establishes himself as the best villain in
the series by affecting the meta-narrative of the show. In his first appearance,
“School Hard,” after serving as little more than a “cool” one-off villain,
Spike kills the leader of the Master’s remaining goons, the dour and boring
Anointed one, and installs himself as the most dangerous vampire in Sunnydale.
With one line, “from now on, we’re going to have a little less and a little
more fun,” Spike proclaims to both his new henchmen and the audience that the
Buffyverse is about to get a new, more enjoyable dose of evil. And enjoyable
Spike is. Unlike the Master, who is content to hide in the shadows and do nothing throughout his entire arc, Spike
actively takes action against the Slayer at every turn. In “School Hard,” he
infiltrates Sunnydale High and starts picking off parents and teachers as if he
were a domestic terrorist. He does so with the glee of Alex DeLarge, cracking
jokes and lustily pursuing his prey. It is Spike who best establishes vampires
as sexually motivated and predacious creatures, from his cooing towards and
doting upon Drusilla to his aping the lines of the Giant from “Jack and the
Beanstalk” in an attempt to intimidate Buffy. Throughout the first half of
Season Two, he’s an unrelenting force threatening the Slayer. Unfortunately for
his villainous standing, he gets immobilized at the halfway point of the season
and usurped by Angelus, relegating him to comic relief status… until “Becoming,”
in which Spike teams up with the Slayer in order to take Drusilla for himself
and bring Angelus down.
This turn is unique to villains in this series, as Spike has
fundamentally different ideals than other villains. While most vampires value
general gore and mayhem above all else, especially the members of the House of
Aurelius, Spike thinks romantic ideals of love are more important.
Unfortunately, as a vampire, his vision of love is one-sided and consumptive. Notions
such as “personal growth,” “romantic equality,” and “respect for one’s partner”
don’t really exist for him. He can hardly understand them, let alone abide by
them. Thus, his romantic relationship with Drusilla is very much one of
possessor and possession. He gives himself free license to do whatever he wants
to Drusilla, including acts of sexual assault. Other vampires might act with
sexual desire, but no others stake their identity in it. Thus, when Angelus
challenges Spike’s sexual authority over Drusilla, “William the Bloody” doesn’t
take it well, to the point that he’s willing to betray his grandsire and his
girlfriend in order to get what he wants.
Also, unlike Angelus, who stays down once he’s defeated, Spike
has a habit of coming back. In Season Three’s “Lovers Walk,” he pops back in
Sunnydale in an attempt to get his groove back after Drusilla dumps him. He
abducts Willow and very nearly causes hers, Xander’s, and Cordelia’s death in
the process. Then, in Season Four, he briefly takes up Big Bad status once
again, discovering the Gem of Amara such that he can attack Buffy and her
friends during the day and generally plaguing their progress. Later in the season,
however, the Initiative captures Spike and implants a chip into him, preventing
him from attacking human beings without undergoing tremendous pain. This leads
to plenty of hilarious scenes, as Spike becomes dependent on the Scoobies to
supply him with pigs’ blood. He takes up the position of comic relief character
throughout much of the season, including some particularly hilarious turns in “Hush”
and “Something Blue.” However, it’s crucial to note that just because Spike
cannot do bad things, he is not then necessarily a good person. He still lacks
a soul and the ability to morally develop, and he’s most definitely still a
selfish bastard. Even without the ability to fight, he’s still able to inflict
grotesque amounts of pain, even nearly tearing the group apart with emotional
manipulation in “Doomed.” His pent-up aggression finally bursts into light when
he discovers that he can kill demons, turning against his own kind just to get
his violent kicks. The chip in no way improves his behavior or his character,
merely stopping him from hurting human beings directly. He even goes on to
thwart the chip completely by briefly allying with Adam, almost killing the
entire Scooby Gang by spying on them and leading them into a trap. He only
manages to get off scot-free because the Scoobies are too tired from beating
Adam to bother to punish him.
This brings us to Season Five, wherein Spike’s actions begin
to enter the moral grey. After realizing that he has developed feelings for
Buffy, Spike begins to act with what appears to be genuine altruism. He’s
decent enough to Dawn and openly enthusiastic in his attempts to kill demons
alongside Buffy, if only because he thinks he can impress her and earn her
affections. Even here, though, his sinister nature holds true. Spike wants Buffy – he doesn’t truly love her
in the way a being with a soul can. Much like Drusilla, he views Buffy as a
possession, a prize to be won. “Good behavior” is but a means to an end. And
even anti-hero Spike can be pushed to his limits. In “Fool for Love,” were it
not for news of Joyce developing a brain aneurysm, Spike would have mowed Buffy
down with a shotgun in retaliation for her sexually shaming him. Later in the
season, Spike grows so impatient with his sexual frustrations that he
commissions Warren to build him a sex robot of Buffy, stealing and sexually assaulting
Buffy’s spiritual integrity and identity without her consent; it might not be
an act of outright rape, but it’s about as close as one can get to such an act.
He even goes so far as to trade Drusilla’s life for Buffy’s love, showing just
how brittle his consumptive ideal of love is.
However, by the season’s end, Spike does start to pick up on
things. By “The Gift,” he does come to the conclusion that Buffy can never
truly love him and performs a good number of selfish actions because of it. He
saves Dawn’s life multiple times,
sacrificing himself in a way that is genuinely selfless, as earning Buffy’s
respect means more to him than his own self-preservation. After Buffy’s death
during “The Gift,” he even serves as the most competent caretaker to Dawn of
the entire Scooby Gang. With nothing left for him to take, good becomes an
afterthought. He’s also the only one of the Scooby Gang who is in any way
considerate of the costs of Buffy’s resurrection, even serving as her emotional
bedrock during the first half of the season. During this time, the viewer is
practically seduced into thinking that Spike is a good guy.
This is not the case.
Spike’s good actions during Season Five and the first half
of Season Six are purely the result of operant conditioning: a psychological
process by which good behaviors are rewarded and bad behaviors punished. The
chip is the most literal incarnation of this process, serving as a stick for
bad behavior, but far more interesting is the carrot: Buffy herself. Though
Buffy might not be fully aware of it, by kissing Spike in “Intervention” and “Once
More, with Feeling,” she is rewarding him when he behaves “good.” Spike is thus
willing to do whatever he must to keep receiving physical affection. When that
conditioning is then applied to unethical behavior, such as Buffy’s relationship
with him in Season Six, Spike, much like an animal, gets hooked on the
conditioning and can’t move past it. Thus, while Buffy sleeps with Spike in
order to destroy herself, Spike sleeps with Buffy in order to reward himself.
He’s being rewarded for bad behavior. This new conditioning proves to be far
more powerful than his former conditioning, as illustrated plot-wise by his
chip no longer limiting him from attacking Buffy. By the end of the season,
Spike is hooked onto Buffy as if he were a drug addict, much like Willow.
Unlike Willow, however, who has others to help her control her grief and come
to grips with her addiction, Spike is a soulless vampire who likes to possess
what isn’t his. With that final barrier broken, he performs the single most evil
action in the entire Buffyverse:
trying to rape Buffy.
Many people hate the episode “Seeing Red.” Some people
despise it purely for the death of Tara. Many more hate it for the notion that
rape could ever be used as a plot point in a television series whatsoever; why
traumatize those viewers who have experienced sexual assault before? I will
grant these criticisms one thing without question: the actual rape scene itself
is horrifying. With the exception of the episode, “Lonely Souls,” from Twin Peaks, I’m not sure if I’ve seen a
more realistic depiction of domestic rape ever put on fictional television; if
there is one, I don’t want to see it. However, I do think that the events of “Seeing
Red” are a wholly effective and in character development for both characters
involved. Season Six has a lot of narrative
problems and baggage, and the sheer darkness of the season can sometimes get
lost in the whimsy of the amnesia episode and the burger joint episode and the off-Broadway
musical episode. The attempted rape scene brings a disturbing clarity to the
rest of the season, as we start to see just what the self-destructive tendencies
of all the characters have wrought. By keeping the demons within themselves
close and refusing to properly confront their problems, Buffy and her friends
have surrendered themselves to violent. It is only when Buffy refuses Spike’s
affections and stops him from doing the unthinkable that she fully reasserts
her place as the Slayer after having practically abandoned that role. She says
no. And it is in the bathroom that Spike reverts to what he truly is: a monster
who treats love as a thing to be won, a thing to be earned. Love is not earned;
it is only ever freely given. The difference between man and beast is the
ability to make that distinction and act with integrity, something Spike
fundamentally cannot do. His assault is the most extreme version of his character
conflict that has been developing over four seasons. It’s only after this, his
lowest point, that he’s able to earn a soul for himself, and, even then, the
soul is earned for selfish reasons. Spike does eventually become a hero, but not before Season Seven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)