Review Time: 'Buffy vs. Draclua' [SPOILERS Buffy 5ABB01]
Mattia Valente
Here goes. I tend to suck at reviews (or so I've been telling myself for
a good long while) so I have no idea if this is going to be any good.
Enjoy, comment, critique, whatever..
SPOILERS Buffy 5ABB01, "Buffy vs. Draclua"
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
So, that was Buffy vs. Dracula.
We've been waiting a long time for a new Buffy episode, and we're
treated to, well, something decidedly odd. Dracula? Ooookaaay.....
I quite enjoy this ep on a campy comedy fun level, it's got a number of
great lines, touching moments, the gang are back together, more so than
they have been for a good long while, and even Riley is less boring and
annoying than usual (well, sort of.)
The Story
---------
At first glance, it's a MotW ep. Drac comes to Sunnydale, stuff happens,
Buffy stakes him. Add the nice little comedic and ambiguous ending (show
of hands: who thinks he's really dead? Nobody? Right. Didn't think so.)
and you've got a 'standard issue MotW' episode, like many we've had in
the past. This in and of itself is a little dissapointing, in a sense. I
mean, it's *Dracula* people, Mother (ok, Father) of western Vampire
Mythology! Leave it to BtVS to take a character that some may have
pegged as a season baddie and poof him in one episode. Wonder if we'll
see him again..
OK, so, it can't be that simple, can it? No indeed, it cannot. And of
course, we've got the oddness that is, well, a Sister...
Themes 'n' Dreams
-----------------
BvsD picks up on one of the major themes that was touched upon in
'Primeval' and 'Restless': what does it mean to be a Slayer? Where does
the stregth come from? Is it rooted in darkness, as Dracula says, or
does it stem from somewhere else? None of these questions are really
answered, nor (sh/c)ould they be at this point in time; who knows what
the future will bring.
Buffy confesses to Giles that she's been out. Not patrolling, hunting.
The rush of the chase, the kill, something changed since the First
Slayer visited Buffy in her dreams, and Buffy, for one, finds it
disturbing. She doesn't want to accept that her power is rooted in
darkness, that it is nothing more than the desire to kill:
Dracula: "Find it.. the darkness.. Find your true nature."
This possible loss of control is something that Buffy can't handle very
well, it's so very much *not* who she is. Uncertainty and insecruity
make for a weak and vulnerable slayer.
Case in point, 'The Freshman', last years' season premiere: her feelings
of inadequacy triggered a sever case of whiny-wimpass slayer, which was
(thankfully) quickly remedied. However, this is a different situation.
It's not just self esteem we're dealing with anymore, not pureley a
human issue, it may well have to do with something larger, something
greater...
Dracula: "You think you know. What you are, what's to come...you haven't
even begun."
Prophetic words? What does it all mean? First, the First Slayer, using
Tara as her voice, gives Buffy this message in 'Restless', and now
Dracula, who is wholly unlike any other vampire we've seen in the
Buffyverse to date, repeats these words, albeit in a slightly different
order. Interesting...
Then again, Prophecies are meant to get busted up, right? Thing is, you
sort of need to know WHAT you're trying to bust up to do it, and our
little FS/Drac prophetic verbiage isn't particularly clear or helpful, I
must say. It's part of what makes it intruiging.
Dracula manages to get Buffy so far as to actually drink from him(!!),
get a taste of blood, which triggers a series of flashes, of Blood, of
hunting, of the first slayer, and she snaps out of it; She's not ready
to surrender to her baser insticts (that are quite undeniably present),
she's the Slayer, dammit, and she's in control!
There's obviously more to Slayerhood than just hunting and killing;
there is the human aspect. People have evolved, the mind itself can be
an asset in harnassing the raw energy. Yes, the Primal rest within the
Slayer, her strength and brutality are part of who she is (though where
exactly this power comes from is still a mystery, and will likely remain
a mystery); if she lets herself get carried away by her 'Dark Side'
(oooh!! Star Wars!!) there's no knowing what the results might be. My
guess is that you'd get something similar to Faith, although there are a
number of important differences (which I won't delve into here and now.
Deconstructing Faith would take a little too long.)
Watchers have had no small part to play in the development of the
Slayer, is my feeling, and this is mirrored in Giles' dream in
'Restless':
"And I can defeat you with my intellect. I can cripple you with my
thoughts. Of course, you underestimate me. You couldn't know. You never
had a Watcher."
You've still got to deal with the fact that, in the end, the primal
force did beat Giles, despite the superior intellect. It's a balancing
act between the two, keeping the primal forces in check, and yet not
supressing them overly much, as it's a source of unexplored potential.
In some ways it could be likend to a tame version of the struggle
between Demon in Soul in Angel's case.
In my opinion, Buffy's well on her way to becoming a much stronger
Slayer; she's more focussed than she used to be, she's accepted her
role, and she is now facing some of the realities that 'Primeval' threw
up. I cannot help but feel, however, that it's a bit of an easy way out
for Buffy: she takes back full control; That's not who she is, after
all, right? Well, that's the question before the court, really.
Then again, we've got our final scene, which, in a sense, flips things
around again. First she verbalises most of her fears and thoughts,
things that, IMO, were actually made quite clear before this scene, and
then, after over a year, asks Giles to become her Watcher once more:
Buffy: "And then this whole thing with Dracula, it's made me face up to
some stuff.. I've changed so much since I first became the
slayer.
I'm still changing. Ever since we did that spell that called on
the first slayer...I've been going out a lot. Every night..."
Giles: "Patrolling."
Buffy: "Hunting. That's what Dracula called it, and he was right. He
understood my power, better than I do. He saw darkness in it.
I need to know more. About where I come from. About the other
slayers. Maybe if I learn to control this thing - maybe I could
even be better, stronger… But I'm scared. It's gonna be hard,
and I can't do it… without you.
I need your help. I need you to be my watcher again."
It turns out Buffy's bravado and wisecracking was just her usual
standard issue approach; after her initial epiphany, she thought things
through, and worked out what needed to be done. Good show, Buffy. Now I
wonder where this will lead us in the future. Other than the pureley
thematic/character importance, this scene is also very touching, very
warm; something that I must say I missed in S4, most of the time..the
resolution of Giles' place in life is quite aptly handled. Now if he'd
just find himself a job or something...
The Gang & Co.
--------------
OK, so I've dealt with the stuff that's important to Buffy, and Buffy's
further development as a slayer, now I'll move it along a little. Whilst
the focus of development lies with Buffy (she who the show's named
after), that's not all that's going on.
Lets start with Willow: Willow (hmmmm......*Willow*.....) seems to be
doing well. Her relationship with Tara looks like it's on the right
track (don't have all too much to say about Tara this time around,
though), and her powers definately on the increase. I'm not really
convinced that the storm was her, though, my money's on Dracula and his
flashy entrance. She's also back in her role as 'research buddy',
digitising Giles' prodigious private occult collection for future use
(about time...I mean, haven't done anything like that since 'I, Robot -
You, Jane', have we?), and then Giles drops the bombshell: he plans to
leave for England, as Buffy no longer needs him. Willow astutely points
out that Buffy's not the only one who needs watching; it's a rather
roundabout way of acknowledging Giles' role in the Scooby 'Family'. Of
course, this leads to some campy comedy fun Willow moments later on :o)
Giles has been hanging around, without a job, without any discernible
income (unless he's selling dope or something, which I find doubtful.
Perhaps the gigging provided him with income, but I find that hard to
believe..) for a year. For much of that year he has had little to do
with Buffy's further training, as she's been home, living the life of
Riley (zzzzz.....) and the life of college. No more Library (blew that
up) no more Slayer (got fired), not much left for him in Sunnydale, now
is there? Thankfully we resolve that issue at the end of the ep. Giles
is here to stay.
Xander's finding his place again. Hopefully he'll find his place in life
this season, he's been wandering, jumping from job to job (and having
too little screen time) for a while now (although Anya seems,
ironically, to be a stable fixture in it, silly jealousy bits
notwithstanding) For most of the ep, we get a lot of (good) comedy out
of our man Xander; he makes the badly timed comments, he gets
enthralled, is called 'Strange and offputting', gets to eat bugs, all
that sort of amusing stuff. Comedy is Key, after all, and in many ways
this is a 'campy fun' type ep rather than a 'very serious' one. Xander
sums up what he goes through in this ep, and, indeed, has gone through
over the past season, very well all on his own:
"You know what? I'm sick of this crap. I'm sick of being the guy who
eats the insects and gets the funny syphilis! As of this moment, it's
over. I'm finished being everybody's butt monkey!!"
Amen to that. Move along, next phase of your life awaits you.
Riley's still not very interesting, but he's far less annoying than he
used to be, oddly. Perhaps its the lack of military backing (boooring)
that helps; he's loosend up a little, it feels more natural now than it
did before. No great big surprises for Riley this time around. A little
jealousy, some sex, the usual. No
You can look at this episode as breaking free from the
not-quite-so-memorableness that was of most of S4: it's a fresh start, a
new direction for everyone, things are, one hopes, looking up. Buffy is
looking into what it means to be a Slayer, Willow and Xander are both
happy in love, Xander seems decided to make something of himself, and
Giles once again seems to be on the right track. Riley's left the
military behind him for real, all civvies now, there's a new dynamic.
For now, though, a lot of it words, lets see if the deeds follow.
Then we've got Spike. Hmm. Still un-alive, I see, still not particularly
logical. A little scene with Riley (not much new stuff happening there.
Yawn. Move along..) Seems he knows Dracula. Who would've thought. He's
an old rival? Riiight..forgive if I'm sceptical.
The Monster
-----------
OK, so, Dracula. Based looseley on the legend of Vald the Impaler, I
could go look up all the details again, but I don't really feel like it,
since, well, it doesn't mesh particularly well. I'll confess to not
having read Bram Stoker's book either, so I'm no real help there...
Let's have a look at this from the Buffyverse perspective: Darcula's
pretty unique. He's not like other vampires, he doesn't get all bumpy
faced when he vamps (and neither do his dracubabes, for that matter.),
and he's got a goodly number of other magical powers that normal vamps
don't have. Spike calls it 'Showy Gypsy Stuff', but I feel that this is,
in part, him trying to downplay Dracula's actual power. He also seems to
be able to carry around his own castle, which is no small feat. All very
strange, very not-Buffy, which gives the whole episode a slightly
surreal feel; it's all a little off.
Dracula is supposedly here for the Slayer, looking for a being who's
darkness rivals his own. No ordinary slash and kill vamp, our Drac; he's
very different from any vampire we've seen, not only in physiology but
also as far as his MO is concerned. Angelus is evil, takes pleasure in
the courtship that comes before the kill; Dracula revels in the game,
yes, but there isn't that same darkness that we've seen in other Big Bad
Vamps. He's different, strange, fairy tale like. The whole turning into
animals thing and travelling with special dirt, dracubabes and a castle
probably has a lot to do with this ;-)
Dracula is a means to explore Buffy's, or rather, a Slayers, essence,
true nature, and as such, he works well. As a MotW, it feels odd to have
Dracula (THE Dracula) be the baddie, carrying a good part of his own
mythological luggage with him. This isn't bad, per se, but I wouldn't
call it great either. Buffy did a Frankenstein ep (Some Assembly
Required), but that had the Buffy spin to it. Drac does as well, only
less so. The comedy that is to be had by tapping into the mythological
mana pool is definately worth the price of admission, though; classic
Buffy style here.
How he comes to his demise is pretty classic early Buffy MotW: dusted,
but is he really dead? Naah. Nice open ended ending, which, though it's
admittedly rather cliche, works for me. No harm done there. Is it a
waste of poptential in the larger sense? Most definately.
'Little Sister is Coming'
-------------------------
Oookaaaay.....I've been ignoring this point, since, well, I don't
exactly know what to make of this (well, ok, I'm lying, I've seen the
rest of the season, but for now I'm in 'This is all brand new for me'
mode, and when you reply, you should be too ;-)
Hmm. Nice one Joss. Way to end the episode! Buffy has a sister?!? Huh?
OK, so some of the weird prophetic Faith dreaming is falling into place
(is her sister Little Miss Muffet? She's obviously the 'Little Sister'
referred to in 'This Years Girls', I think..) but it's still a wholly
confusing situation. We KNOW that Buffy's an only child. It's been said
before. So where did this sister come from? At first, Buffy seems to
notice something is wrong, is off, but somehow, for some reason, it
passes; seemingly things are normal at the Summers home....bizarre....
Next week shall tell us more, methinks, but I can't help but get the
feeling that, in some way, introducing Dracula as a (the way it looks
now) MotW was a bit of a red herring, a little misdirection so as to
slip Dawn under our radar and flummox us...having seen all the WB promos
for the premiere would tend to support this theory. Now we shall have to
see if Joss and Co. can pull it off...
Non-Content related stuff
-------------------------
Well, I've covered most of the things I wanted to re: actual content on
this Marti Noxon writted season premiere, so now I'll go ahead and throw
some other comments your way. The comic writing for this ep was pretty
tight, but it didn't go over the top too often, which is nice. As for
actual plot, I've seen much better, but it explores certain themes quite
effectively; perfection it is not, it's to silly, has it's overly whacky
moments, and, well, Dracula. Enjoyable
Next, the stunt work. Starring role in many fight scenes: Sarah Michelle
Gellar's stuntwoman's pink leather clad bottom. Sophia Crawford and Jeff
Pruit are gone, they've been replaced, and the results look, judging
from this first ep, promising. The opening fight scene in the graveyard
is, IMO, beautifully shot, and the stunts are fun to watch. The new
stuntwoman (a 30ish year old mother of 2, IIRC) does a great job. That's
some nice fight work right there. Ditto for much of the Buffy/Dracula
fight scene close to the end. It's a cut above most of what 'Angel's
offered us in the past or is offering us now, which is a bit of a role
reversal. Lets hope they can keep this quality up.
Moving along to the music. Chris Beck has left us, sadly (*snif*) and
has been replaced by a guy who goes by the name of Thomas Wanker
(oookaay.....thank god he lives in the states is all I'm saying.) So
far, so good. Nothing particularly awe inspiring or very memorable just
yet, but it's not bad stuff. Unfortunately I somehow doubt we'll be able
to recapture the CB magic again, but then again, maybe I'm just being a
sentimental pessimistic bastard..wait and see :o)
Well, that's all folks, my first 'real' review. Tear it to shreds, make
your comments, do as you wish, but try to enjoy it ;-)
Mattia
PostMeister[tm]
Wordy Poster Extraordinaire[tm]
Mattia Valente
>
> Mattia Valente skriver...
> > -----------------
>
> I read the first half of your review, the rest doesn't seem to
> be too relevant from my point of view. You look into Buffyverse
> beyond the show, I look at the show itself as a peace of
> television writing.
As a piece of writing, standing on it's own, there isn't very much to
say about the episode. I could go into a dicussion of the plot (ha! not
much there that's particualry interesting, sadly.) As for looking into
the Buffyverse beyond the show (by which I assume you mean the 'vague
sub-thread' type beyond the showness), only to a degree: I see Dracula
as a vehicle for character development in this episode, and as such he
fulfills he role adequately. As for being an interesting character per
se; no, he's too flat, the acting isn't gripping enough, the interest
isn't really there.
Mostly I'm sticking to what we've seen in the show, trying to look at
the themes that have been brought up in earlier episodes and trying to
couple them to some of the development that we saw in this episode;
Buffy finding her place in the world, or at least trying to, as are a
number of other characters. This is part of the story, it's part of the
writing, it's not, to me, external to it.
> You talk a lot about what is actually going on, the greater
> scheme of sings, the motives and all that. All things that are
> actually there in this episode, but...
Right...
> they don't matter in this
> episode. Viewing this episode without knowing what's to come,
> the ep itself says: We are here to entertain you! We (the show)
> want to be funny! And that's were this ep fails miserably.
Hmm..in part. As with most eps, there's a dual agenda. The foremost,
most basic agenda is the 'let us entertain you', yes, very true. The ep
without the context of history or possible future, without arc. As for
failing miserably, that's a call based on taste; I happen to think it
did quite well in a number of places, and did a fairly mediocre to poor
job in others.
Everything I wrote in this review I had already worked out (more or
less) after my first watching, before I saw the rest of the season; we'd
more or less discussed a lot of it here after a Fanclub Day where these
two eps were screened. So, without knowing what's to come, there's still
plenty of food for thought here; there's a lot more siliness that
'interferes' with that, though.
'Buffy vs Dracula' isn't an episode that's internally interesting enough
to write a review of; I could sit here and spew a bit of a summary, but
that doesn't get me anywhere, it doesn't seem, to me, to make for an
interesting discussion. No, the episode itself wasn't very strong. It
was cohesive, had consistency in style and feel (though niether are
particularly to my liking; still to close to that S4-ness..) but didn't
quite gel; the interest in this ep, as in 'Judgement', lies in the
character development that more or less supercedes the confines of the
episode.
To borrow your own terminology: in this case, the window is less
interesting than the view that the window provides on the Buffyverse. As
such, it fails to be a good piece of television; enjoyable? To me, yes,
to you, less so. Ideally you've got an episode that has both interesting
framework and provides some new insights into the verse, the greater
story. That's what makes a great episode. I would argue that it's still
not a necessity, though; some arc-based writing can have relatively weak
(though still stronger than this, since we've got pretences of
standalonity here) 'framing' and still work very well since the frame is
but a part of a larger setup. In the case of 'Buffy vs. Dracula', this
is not the case: the Darcula storyline, though left open in that rather
cliche manner, stands on it's own, and does so rather poorly.
> It fails, because it discredits all that is supposed to have
> deeper meaning,
Can't agree with that; the issues raised re: slayerhood remain valid.
Then again, I'm not quite sure what you mean here: could you give me
some exapmles?
> and it fails because, well, wanting to be funny
> never worked. The players -- in these roles -- don't have what
> it takes to *act* funny convincingly. (And the poseur Dracula
> didn't help, either.)
This is down to taste, I would argue. I personally find Xander most
amusing most of the time, Willow pulls it off well, but Dracula is a
dissapointment.
> Especially Buffy herself is too ambivalent with comedy.
Sometimes.
> As a character she always acts like she doesn't
> want to take things seriously, and as a member of the show she
> has to deliver these deliberately funny lines. The humour is
> lost somewhere in between.
Taste, I guess. Her initial reactions to Dracula are, to me, greatly
amusing. However, the mandatory slayer puns ("how do you like my
darkness now") and the like have never been able to greatly amuse me.
When they try too hard, the humore doesn't work; a lot of S4 was like
that, this ep, being S4ish, had some of that going.
Mattia
--
"By the by, the answer to how I keep from losing it is I make sure to
paper the cracks in plumbing so the ooze from Saturn can't communicate
with my lungs anymore. Hmmm. I may be too late."
--Joss Whedon, Bronze Posting Board, 1998
Arkasha
> SPOILERS Buffy 5ABB01, "Buffy vs. Dracula"
Odd is probably the best word to describe my first impression of this ep.
> I quite enjoy this ep on a campy comedy fun level, it's got a number of
> great lines, touching moments, the gang are back together, more so than
> they have been for a good long while, and even Riley is less boring and
> annoying than usual (well, sort of.)
Even after a rewatch i'm still ambivalent. The humor was just not good
enough to make it a good "funny"ep. Especially Buffy killing Dracula again
(and again) was just silly.
Also the funny bits clashed with more serious stuff. With that i don't just
mean Slayerhood issues. That is all serious stuff that needed to be
(re)addressed to remind the viewers of the ending of S4 and to set them up
for more to come in S5.
But beside that undercurrent, the Dracula-line is ambivalent too. Just the
notion of Dracula himself coming to Sunnydale to meet the great Slayer is
potential for a lot of comedy. Some of which was realized in this ep.
But it was mixed with quite heavy stuff too. He appears to have mindcontrol
powers way beyond what we have ever seen. Enough to be a very dangerous
opponent. Makes you wander were he has been al this time.
It takes little effort for him to bite Buffy. Besides the fact that there
seems to be ridiculous little bleeding from a wound like that, that's quite
an event. Compared to the other two times Buffy got bitten, it got pretty
downplayed in this ep. So, she was under his thrall (??), she's The Slayer
for god's sake! It shouldn't be that easy.
Then Buffy drinks his blood. This is something we've never seen before. I
love the things he said just before:
Dracula: All these years fighting us. Your power so near to our own. You
never once wanted to know what it is we fight for? Never even had a taste?
[...]
Buffy: I'm not hungry.
Dracula: No, the graving goes deeper then that.
[...]
It makes it feel more significant then just "That was gross".
Personally it think it would have worked better if they had kept the Dracula
idea on the shelf for a true comedy-ep latter in the season, or if they
would have made this ep more serious.
That way it would have integrated better with the undercurrent of Buffy
"darkside" and Giles' reinstatement as watcher etc.
On the upside, i like the way they threw in some stuff from the Dracula/Bram
stoker-verse into the buffy-verse. Xander was terrific as the bug-eating
minion. And Giles getting it on in the chick-pit was both disturbing and
fun.
<snip>
> The Gang & Co.
> --------------
>
> Then we've got Spike. Hmm. Still un-alive, I see, still not particularly
> logical. A little scene with Riley (not much new stuff happening there.
> Yawn. Move along..) Seems he knows Dracula. Who would've thought. He's
> an old rival? Riiight..forgive if I'm sceptical.
They do seem to share a love of red shirts.
Also Joyce gets extra pionts for her explanation on inviting Dracula in for
coffee.
> The Monster
> -----------
> Let's have a look at this from the Buffyverse perspective: Darcula's
> pretty unique. He's not like other vampires, he doesn't get all bumpy
> faced when he vamps (and neither do his dracubabes, for that matter.),
As a matter of fact, he doesn't need to vamp at all. He seems to have his
fangs all the time.
> 'Little Sister is Coming'
> -------------------------
>
> Oookaaaay.....I've been ignoring this point, since, well, I don't
> exactly know what to make of this (well, ok, I'm lying, I've seen the
> rest of the season, but for now I'm in 'This is all brand new for me'
> mode, and when you reply, you should be too ;-)
>
> Hmm. Nice one Joss. Way to end the episode! Buffy has a sister?!? Huh?
Perfect ending! Too bad I already knew this was coming. It really makes you
want to see more.
> Non-Content related stuff
> -------------------------
>
> Moving along to the music. Chris Beck has left us, sadly (*snif*) and
> has been replaced by a guy who goes by the name of Thomas Wanker
> (oookaay.....thank god he lives in the states is all I'm saying.) So
> far, so good. Nothing particularly awe inspiring or very memorable just
> yet, but it's not bad stuff. Unfortunately I somehow doubt we'll be able
> to recapture the CB magic again, but then again, maybe I'm just being a
> sentimental pessimistic bastard..wait and see :o)
The music when Dracula bites Buffy was kinda reminiscent of the music when
Angel bites Buffy. It was a bit over the top for me.
Arkasha
__________________________________
Requiescat in Pace:
http://www.envy.nu/restinpeace
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mattia Valente
Well, more or less. That, or looking at it from outisde the house.
Looking at things from, say, a writers prespective.
> > Mostly I'm sticking to what we've seen in the show, trying to look at
> > the themes that have been brought up in earlier episodes and trying to
> > couple them to some of the development that we saw in this episode;
> > Buffy finding her place in the world, or at least trying to, as are a
> > number of other characters. This is part of the story, it's part of the
> > writing, it's not, to me, external to it.
>
> Well, yes... the writers may have had all good intentions,
> relevant to the general storylines. But. I am looking at an
> episode.
As an episode, it's not good. Ideally I can look at the episode in two
ways; firstly at the episode itself, the writing, the story, etc. and
secondly (still linked to the writing, obviously) as a window to the
larger picture. An episode can fail quite miserably in one or both ways,
or can excell in both; I just choose to focus on the parts that hold
some interest.
> Intentions are not as relevant as results (to me). As
> this episode presents itself, the overall result, the mood and
> composition, it says: "We are funny! We are here to amuse you.
> We are such a bunch of funny cookies, so you should laugh.
> Please look at how funny we are. Please-please-please-please-please!"
On one level, to one degree. I don't take things at such obvious 'face
value'. Believing that there may be more to it that just the comedy
campness of it all isn't giving the writers too much credit;
multi-layerdness is key. I would also tend to disagree that the mood and
composition push the 'funny' side of it; episodes like The Zeppo,
Bewitched, Bothered and Bewliderd, those pushed the funny, the whole
feel, the scoring, the shooting emphasize that. BvsD does not have this
quite so much; there's the melodramatic musical gushing that can be
taken seriously or (as I do) with a 'knipoog', for example.
> So, why should I even bother with what is "truly" going on in
> Buffyverse, the things that matter to the characters, if the
> writers fail to do a desent job?
Because what's "truly" going on is more interesting than the story
that's being used to convey it. It is, to me, about looking through
certain layers. Some episodes succeed in creating layer after
interesting layer whereas others fail miserably. There's enough here to
keep me interested, the story itself is silly, but it manages to amuse
me quite a bit (taste, basically); the essence of what it's about,
what's important, at the end of it all, is not the storytelling per se,
it's the story being told.
> It seems you care more about what is going on than the writers.
I think you're not giving the writers enough credit, but that's just me.
What gets put on paper isn't always what reaches our screens, though..
> > To borrow your own terminology: in this case, the window is less
> > interesting than the view that the window provides on the Buffyverse. As
> > such, it fails to be a good piece of television; enjoyable? To me, yes,
> > to you, less so.
>
> To me it is about storytelling. I don't *want* to look at a show
> that is just a window on events. If the storystelling stinks,
> whatever is behind it becomes irrelevant.
The storytelling doesn't actually stink, IMO. Intrinsic to the actual
view upon the 'verse is the manner in which the story is told. In BvsD's
case it's a little patchy, since the greater story, the themes, the
'important bits', are pretty well handled whilst Dracula as a character
that stands on his own is rather less so; he's being used as a tool to
make certain points, and to me it is at times a little too obvious that
he doesn't have a lot more to offer than that. That's the weakness, but
it doesn't detract from what's behind the story, for me.
Does it make for an overall weak episode? Yes, undoubtedly, but that's
not really the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that both
approaches, be they discussions of the framework (the narrative
technique, the framing, whatever) or examinations of growth, change, and
thematic content (which supercedes 'mere' storytelling, which can span
multiple episodes) can be equally valid.
I'm curious as to what your take is on 'arc writing': stories that, on
their own, are not necessarily particularly interesting but rather serve
to move the greater narrative forward; I'm fine with it, but that's me.
Mattia Valente
Odd is probably the best word to describe my lasting impression of this
ep, even after a complete season watching. It's possibly the oddest
Buffy ep ever.
> > I quite enjoy this ep on a campy comedy fun level, it's got a number of
> > great lines, touching moments, the gang are back together, more so than
> > they have been for a good long while, and even Riley is less boring and
> > annoying than usual (well, sort of.)
>
> Even after a rewatch i'm still ambivalent.
In the sense that you like it and don't, can't work out what you really
think of it? Or do you mean it doesn't do it for you, which isn't
ambivalence, it's indifference.
> The humor was just not good
> enough to make it a good "funny"ep. Especially Buffy killing Dracula again
> (and again) was just silly.
Yes, cliche, cheesy, amusing, and also wasteful (although I don't really
want to see Drac again..)
> Also the funny bits clashed with more serious stuff. With that i don't just
> mean Slayerhood issues. That is all serious stuff that needed to be
> (re)addressed to remind the viewers of the ending of S4 and to set them up
> for more to come in S5.
We shall see..I think that this episode is a bit of an attempt at
misdirection. It's got it's own little universe, it's own little feel,
and at the end of the episode, everything's turned on it's head again.
> But beside that undercurrent, the Dracula-line is ambivalent too. Just the
> notion of Dracula himself coming to Sunnydale to meet the great Slayer is
> potential for a lot of comedy. Some of which was realized in this ep.
The initial encounter remains one of my favorite moments.
> But it was mixed with quite heavy stuff too. He appears to have mindcontrol
> powers way beyond what we have ever seen.
Don't forget what Drusilla was capable of; she lulled a Slayer into a
trance and killed her, no problems there. Dracula's a lot older, and in
many ways more powerful (in the magicks sense) than any other vampire
we've met.
> Enough to be a very dangerous opponent.
I dunno..Drac exudes strangeness, perhaps mystery, but true danger?
Somehow lacking.
> Makes you wander were he has been al this time.
Not really.
> It takes little effort for him to bite Buffy. Besides the fact that there
> seems to be ridiculous little bleeding from a wound like that, that's quite
> an event. Compared to the other two times Buffy got bitten, it got pretty
> downplayed in this ep.
I'm not sure it was downlplayed at all, to be honest. We didn't get the
same kind of closeups, though, and this time around she didn't die or do
it to save her lover (something special about Slayer Blood...hmm....)
> So, she was under his thrall (??), she's The Slayer
> for god's sake! It shouldn't be that easy.
Yes she was, and why shouldn't it? What does it mean to be the slayer?
She's just a girl, in very many ways, there aren't any associated
psychic powers that come with slayerhood, that I know of. She was in a
strange place, emotionally, when Dracula came along, trying to work out
what the whole Primal forces stuff meant. None of that helped.
> Then Buffy drinks his blood. This is something we've never seen before. I
> love the things he said just before:
>
> Dracula: All these years fighting us. Your power so near to our own. You
> never once wanted to know what it is we fight for? Never even had a taste?
> [...]
> Buffy: I'm not hungry.
> Dracula: No, the graving goes deeper then that.
> [...]
craving..
> It makes it feel more significant then just "That was gross".
Oh, and in a sense, I believe it was. Nice little flashy scenes and all
that. I'm just not sure WHAT it means. "That was gross" is a snap back
to old reality moment, breaks the tension, is perhaps cliche (for Buffy,
anyway) but hey, I never said the ending was particularly powerful (the
end of Dracula, I mean.)
> Personally it think it would have worked better if they had kept the Dracula
> idea on the shelf for a true comedy-ep latter in the season, or if they
> would have made this ep more serious.
I don't know...taking it too seriously would've been odd, given that the
feel is so 'off', and making it too funny would've been worse, I think.
This remains a very, very odd episode.
> That way it would have integrated better with the undercurrent of Buffy
> "darkside" and Giles' reinstatement as watcher etc.
Buffy's always mixed the serious with the campy. OK, this time the campy
wasn't up to scratch so it came off as weak, but it's not a structural
problem.
> On the upside, i like the way they threw in some stuff from the Dracula/Bram
> stoker-verse into the buffy-verse. Xander was terrific as the bug-eating
> minion. And Giles getting it on in the chick-pit was both disturbing and
> fun.
:o)
"Good show Giles..at least you didn't get knocked out this time"
Definate ironic self examination there.
> > The Gang & Co.
> > --------------
> >
> > Then we've got Spike. Hmm. Still un-alive, I see, still not particularly
> > logical. A little scene with Riley (not much new stuff happening there.
> > Yawn. Move along..) Seems he knows Dracula. Who would've thought. He's
> > an old rival? Riiight..forgive if I'm sceptical.
>
> They do seem to share a love of red shirts.
Angel liked them at one point as well. Let's not lend too much weight to
this, shall we?
> Also Joyce gets extra pionts for her explanation on inviting Dracula in for
> coffee.
Indeed.
> > The Monster
> > -----------
> > Let's have a look at this from the Buffyverse perspective: Darcula's
> > pretty unique. He's not like other vampires, he doesn't get all bumpy
> > faced when he vamps (and neither do his dracubabes, for that matter.),
>
> As a matter of fact, he doesn't need to vamp at all. He seems to have his
> fangs all the time.
Right. Weirdness.
> > 'Little Sister is Coming'
> > -------------------------
> >
> > Oookaaaay.....I've been ignoring this point, since, well, I don't
> > exactly know what to make of this (well, ok, I'm lying, I've seen the
> > rest of the season, but for now I'm in 'This is all brand new for me'
> > mode, and when you reply, you should be too ;-)
> >
> > Hmm. Nice one Joss. Way to end the episode! Buffy has a sister?!? Huh?
>
> Perfect ending! Too bad I already knew this was coming. It really makes you
> want to see more.
That it does. It also adds to the strangeness of this episode; you've
got the whole otherworldly feel, an often overly dramatic score, and
then a twist at the end...riight..
> > Moving along to the music. Chris Beck has left us, sadly (*snif*) and
> > has been replaced by a guy who goes by the name of Thomas Wanker
> > (oookaay.....thank god he lives in the states is all I'm saying.) So
> > far, so good. Nothing particularly awe inspiring or very memorable just
> > yet, but it's not bad stuff. Unfortunately I somehow doubt we'll be able
> > to recapture the CB magic again, but then again, maybe I'm just being a
> > sentimental pessimistic bastard..wait and see :o)
>
> The music when Dracula bites Buffy was kinda reminiscent of the music when
> Angel bites Buffy. It was a bit over the top for me.
The music for the whole ep was a little OTT, but it didn't bother me. It
helped build a steady, clear feel for the whole episode, which is a good
thing (especially when the story itself isn't something you want to
spend all too much time thinking about, since, well, it's not very good
at all..)
Ray
Mattia Valente <mat...@nksf.nl> schreef in berichtnieuws
3B1E9314...@nksf.nl...
I found it a pretty cool concept and the outcome could have been better but
it didn't disapoint me. The only thing that I would have like to see
different is the way how things ended with dracula. They(the writers) choose
for a comedy ending but I would have liked to see rather an empty room
everybody leaving and then Drac coming back with a grin on his face I'll be
back end episode 1.
But this ending was good enough for me I would have found it not cool if he
would have been killed because that would be against the reality of such a
legend and his powers are pretty darn Powerfull even for Buffy.
I loved Xander with the word jokes and the eating of insects great humor and
I loved it and it made the show better.
The sister part is so strange but that will be explained later I hope.
But I'm not so sure that it is a good idea. Just like riley hangs around not
realy having a special place in the serie or anything I'm afraid the little
sis will have the same input for the show. But maybe I'm completly wrong and
I have to wait to see the rest of the season. I have seen the second one but
we will come back to that next week. From episode 3 it will be all new to
me.
It's good to have the scooby gang back and Angel 2 on Net5.
Laterz,
Ray
Arkasha
Restless was pretty odd, but in another way.
> > > I quite enjoy this ep on a campy comedy fun level, it's got a number
of
> > > great lines, touching moments, the gang are back together, more so
than
> > > they have been for a good long while, and even Riley is less boring
and
> > > annoying than usual (well, sort of.)
> >
> > Even after a rewatch i'm still ambivalent.
>
> In the sense that you like it and don't, can't work out what you really
> think of it? Or do you mean it doesn't do it for you, which isn't
> ambivalence, it's indifference.
In the sense that i really liked some bits, really dislike some other bits,
then kinda liked yet some other bits and i'm still not sure about the rest.
> > The humor was just not good
> > enough to make it a good "funny"ep. Especially Buffy killing Dracula
again
> > (and again) was just silly.
>
> Yes, cliche, cheesy, amusing, and also wasteful (although I don't really
> want to see Drac again..)
I can't see how they could ever bring him back unless in some really weird
'restless' kind of way. But then again, you never know Joss ;-)
Have you actually seen all of S5 yet?
> > Also the funny bits clashed with more serious stuff. With that i don't
just
> > mean Slayerhood issues. That is all serious stuff that needed to be
> > (re)addressed to remind the viewers of the ending of S4 and to set them
up
> > for more to come in S5.
>
> We shall see..I think that this episode is a bit of an attempt at
> misdirection. It's got it's own little universe, it's own little feel,
> and at the end of the episode, everything's turned on it's head again.
misdirection? You mean the thing with the sister?
That is certainly unexpected, but since we *know* that Buffy doesn't have a
sister, we know that something weird must be going on. Besides that, we
haven't seen enough too judge what direction the story will go with the
sister.
To me it didn't feel all that separate from the rest of the ep.
> > But beside that undercurrent, the Dracula-line is ambivalent too. Just
the
> > notion of Dracula himself coming to Sunnydale to meet the great Slayer
is
> > potential for a lot of comedy. Some of which was realized in this ep.
>
> The initial encounter remains one of my favorite moments.
:-)
> > But it was mixed with quite heavy stuff too. He appears to have
mindcontrol
> > powers way beyond what we have ever seen.
>
> Don't forget what Drusilla was capable of; she lulled a Slayer into a
> trance and killed her, no problems there. Dracula's a lot older, and in
> many ways more powerful (in the magicks sense) than any other vampire
> we've met.
>
> > Enough to be a very dangerous opponent.
>
> I dunno..Drac exudes strangeness, perhaps mystery, but true danger?
> Somehow lacking.
He can turn into mist and all kinds of animals. That's a really handy skill
to have, if only he would have used it a little more wisely. Also, judging
by the ending, he's still not really death, so he must be very hard to
actually kill.
> > Makes you wander were he has been al this time.
>
> Not really.
>
> > It takes little effort for him to bite Buffy. Besides the fact that
there
> > seems to be ridiculous little bleeding from a wound like that, that's
quite
> > an event. Compared to the other two times Buffy got bitten, it got
pretty
> > downplayed in this ep.
>
> I'm not sure it was downlplayed at all, to be honest. We didn't get the
> same kind of closeups, though, and this time around she didn't die or do
> it to save her lover (something special about Slayer Blood...hmm....)
I don't mean like that, with music or close ups, but more how she herself
and the others reacted to it.
From what we've seen so far, Slayerblood is somehow different from normal
blood. The Master needed just a little sip, to break free and it was the
only cure for the poison Angel was suffering from. So whatever it is that
gives the Slayer her special powers, it is also linked within her blood.
> > So, she was under his thrall (??), she's The Slayer
> > for god's sake! It shouldn't be that easy.
>
> Yes she was, and why shouldn't it? What does it mean to be the slayer?
> She's just a girl, in very many ways, there aren't any associated
> psychic powers that come with slayerhood, that I know of. She was in a
> strange place, emotionally, when Dracula came along, trying to work out
> what the whole Primal forces stuff meant. None of that helped.
I just feels wrong that certain vampires (Dracula, Drusilla, The Master) can
just show up, hypnotize the Slayer and kill her without much effort. Makes
you wander how any Slayer can last very long.
But i guess this fall in the same category as Why don't vampires just get
machineguns and shoot the Slayer?
> > Then Buffy drinks his blood. This is something we've never seen before.
I
> > love the things he said just before:
> >
> > Dracula: All these years fighting us. Your power so near to our own. You
> > never once wanted to know what it is we fight for? Never even had a
taste?
> > [...]
> > Buffy: I'm not hungry.
> > Dracula: No, the graving goes deeper then that.
> > [...]
>
> craving..
Whatever ;-)
> > It makes it feel more significant then just "That was gross".
>
> Oh, and in a sense, I believe it was. Nice little flashy scenes and all
> that. I'm just not sure WHAT it means. "That was gross" is a snap back
> to old reality moment, breaks the tension, is perhaps cliche (for Buffy,
> anyway) but hey, I never said the ending was particularly powerful (the
> end of Dracula, I mean.)
The flashy scenes were definitely significant on the level of the
"undercurrent", what does it mean to be a Slayer, were do her powers come
from etc.
I just wander whether there is any significance in the fact she got the
flashy things, while drinking a vampires blood, or whether it was just an
convenient place for the writhers to make their point.
> > Personally it think it would have worked better if they had kept the
Dracula
> > idea on the shelf for a true comedy-ep latter in the season, or if they
> > would have made this ep more serious.
>
> I don't know...taking it too seriously would've been odd, given that the
> feel is so 'off',
It think i would have liked it better if they had left the really silly bits
out and made Dracula look a little less 'prince of darkness'-y.
I don't say that it should have worked totally serious, but the balance
could have been better.
> and making it too funny would've been worse, I think.
> This remains a very, very odd episode.
If you lose all the arc-elements and use it as a stand-alone ep somewhere in
the middle of the season, i think it could be handled as pure comedy
(something like 'superstar').
> > That way it would have integrated better with the undercurrent of Buffy
> > "darkside" and Giles' reinstatement as watcher etc.
>
> Buffy's always mixed the serious with the campy. OK, this time the campy
> wasn't up to scratch so it came off as weak, but it's not a structural
> problem.
again, for me it was a question of the right balance.
<snip rest>
Mattia Valente
> > ep, even after a complete season watching. It's possibly the oddest
> > Buffy ep ever.
>
> Restless was pretty odd, but in another way.
Very, but it still felt like Buffy. More than BvsD does, anyway.
> > > Even after a rewatch i'm still ambivalent.
> >
> > In the sense that you like it and don't, can't work out what you really
> > think of it? Or do you mean it doesn't do it for you, which isn't
> > ambivalence, it's indifference.
>
> In the sense that i really liked some bits, really dislike some other bits,
> then kinda liked yet some other bits and i'm still not sure about the rest.
'kay, the actual ambivalent ambivalence. Check.
> > Yes, cliche, cheesy, amusing, and also wasteful (although I don't really
> > want to see Drac again..)
>
> I can't see how they could ever bring him back unless in some really weird
> 'restless' kind of way. But then again, you never know Joss ;-)
Well, it's possible to bring him back, but I rather think it's a
'classic' open ending, kind of like the end of 'Teachers Pet'; we
haven't seen any bug ladies since then, have we now?
> Have you actually seen all of S5 yet?
Yes <eg>.
> > We shall see..I think that this episode is a bit of an attempt at
> > misdirection. It's got it's own little universe, it's own little feel,
> > and at the end of the episode, everything's turned on it's head again.
>
> misdirection? You mean the thing with the sister?
More or less. I meant that this whole episode is probably at least in
part designed to distract people from a more arcish storyline; who's
this sister? The promos in the states were all 'Dracula Dracula
Dracula', and unless you had internet access and looked stuff up,
chances are this closing scene cought you completely off guard.
Misdirection in the 'one hand is doing this, whilst behind me all this
other stuff is happening' kind of way.
> That is certainly unexpected, but since we *know* that Buffy doesn't have a
> sister, we know that something weird must be going on. Besides that, we
> haven't seen enough too judge what direction the story will go with the
> sister.
I'm pretending I haven't, and I won't comment.
> To me it didn't feel all that separate from the rest of the ep.
Well, not separate per se, but as a tail it happened *after* the main
storyline had been wrapped up.
> > The initial encounter remains one of my favorite moments.
>
> :-)
;-)
> > I dunno..Drac exudes strangeness, perhaps mystery, but true danger?
> > Somehow lacking.
>
> He can turn into mist and all kinds of animals. That's a really handy skill
> to have, if only he would have used it a little more wisely. Also, judging
> by the ending, he's still not really death, so he must be very hard to
> actually kill.
Yes indeed. Dracula is forever. I mean, c'mon, how many dracula films
have there been made? Even sequels, if I'm not mistaken, and he does get
'killed' at the end of every movie, doesn't he?
> > I'm not sure it was downlplayed at all, to be honest. We didn't get the
> > same kind of closeups, though, and this time around she didn't die or do
> > it to save her lover (something special about Slayer Blood...hmm....)
>
> I don't mean like that, with music or close ups, but more how she herself
> and the others reacted to it.
Oh, that, the 'orgasm look'...I noticed that, didn't bother me.
> From what we've seen so far, Slayerblood is somehow different from normal
> blood. The Master needed just a little sip, to break free and it was the
> only cure for the poison Angel was suffering from. So whatever it is that
> gives the Slayer her special powers, it is also linked within her blood.
'Blood. Blood is Life.'
That's all I'm saying.
> I just feels wrong that certain vampires (Dracula, Drusilla, The Master) can
> just show up, hypnotize the Slayer and kill her without much effort. Makes
> you wander how any Slayer can last very long.
Well, they don't tend to last very long. That's kind of the point, isn't
it?
> But i guess this fall in the same category as Why don't vampires just get
> machineguns and shoot the Slayer?
Suspend disbelief, stop trying too hard. I'll go with the 'they want to
drink her blood, not let it drip out of bullet holes' theory myself.
Vampires aren't particularly rational beings ;-)
> I just wander whether there is any significance in the fact she got the
> flashy things, while drinking a vampires blood, or whether it was just an
> convenient place for the writhers to make their point.
Dunno, really. Both probably. Could just be aptly time Slayerly visions
(she does get them from time to time. Mostly when she's dreaming, but
still..link to the Powers? Hmm...)
> > I don't know...taking it too seriously would've been odd, given that the
> > feel is so 'off',
>
> It think i would have liked it better if they had left the really silly bits
> out and made Dracula look a little less 'prince of darkness'-y.
Possibly. He looked better in his cape than out of it, though..
> I don't say that it should have worked totally serious, but the balance
> could have been better.
The story could've been better, methinks (but don't ask me how..)
> > and making it too funny would've been worse, I think.
> > This remains a very, very odd episode.
>
> If you lose all the arc-elements and use it as a stand-alone ep somewhere in
> the middle of the season, i think it could be handled as pure comedy
> (something like 'superstar').
Hmm..I didn't much like Superstar. It's an OK ep, but not much more than
that. That, and Superstar is actually used to give us some info about
Adam (his powersource) without have to do weird exposition scenes. But
other than that, yes, it's comic.
JOY:-)
> > But i guess this fall in the same category as Why don't vampires just get
> > machineguns and shoot the Slayer?
>
> Suspend disbelief, stop trying too hard. I'll go with the 'they want to
> drink her blood, not let it drip out of bullet holes' theory myself.
> Vampires aren't particularly rational beings ;-)
I also think that, like with Spike, the vampires prefer to test their
skills against a Slayer, find out how good they really are. Shooting a
Slayer with machine guns would mean admitting that you couldn't take
her out any other way - and if there is one thing vampires all seem to
have in common, it's arrogance.
> > It think i would have liked it better if they had left the really silly bits
> > out and made Dracula look a little less 'prince of darkness'-y.
>
> Possibly. He looked better in his cape than out of it, though..
YES! That whole vest look really didn't work for him at all. It made
him look so 70's college student somehow.
JOY:-)