I apparently like "Anne" a lot more than fandom does - and in fact I might even love it (1/?))

[red_satin_doll]

The first time I watched "Anne" a few months back (which I apparently enjoy more than the general fandom does?  With possible exception of norwie2010, I dare say) I remember seeing a blink-and-you'll miss it image of Buffy with a hammer and sickle and thought "Did I just see what I thought I saw?"



I didn't take it to mean that JW was espousing communism, but in the context of the imprisoned workers throwing off their masters in the factory, it was simply a clever steal and a bit of a joke.  (Or painfully obvious and on the nose, depending on your POV.) But I still love that ridiculously and I think Buffy's fight in that factory is one of her most awesome, kick-ass battles in the entire series. I hadn't been able to find a screencap of that moment until today, from http://twitter.com/whedonesque/

Of course there's the emotional context of the episode, that of Buffy is fighting to reclaim her identity after the tragedy/trauma of Becoming: "I'm Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.  And you are?" SMG is wonderful in that episode, parsing through all the layers of Buffy's emotions: numbness, grief and despair giving way to fierce determination, hope and love, leaving behind a self-imposed hermitage to reconnect with friends and family. "Anne" packs into a single episode what Season 6 takes 22 episodes to unspool; the final image of Joyce embracing her prodigal daughter will be called back in Buffy and Dawn's embrace in "Grave".

Glorious Buffy, indeed. (With apologies to norwie for stealing the phrase, and to readerjane for finding the photo.)



I have so much love for this episode I cannot contain it to one post, so....Part two of my "Anne" meta HERE.

Comments

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a tricky thing. I'm a huge fan of post-modernism in fiction, but there's no denying that it demands a lot of responsibility both of the creator and of the reader/viewer. There needs to be a critical eye on both sides for it to work.

the filmaking techniques that Eisenstein espoused as a reaction against capitalism have become the techniques used primarily in commercial advertising.

But of course. It's one of the central tricks of marketing: sell something mass-produced to people by convincing them that it makes them individuals, tell them to be rebels by following your narrative. (One of the scariest commercials I ever saw was for running shoes. It had a futuristic marathon race, where every runner was exactly alike, looked exactly alike, ran exactly alike, dressed exactly alike, all in grey in a black depressing rain... And then one of the runners suddenly started growing colours, and we saw that he was wearing THOSE running shoes, and he grew a face, and he grew his own clothes, and he smiled into the camera, every inch the superior being to the other faceless peons. ...AND THEN HE KEPT RUNNING IN THE SAME RACE. Ghaaaaa.) Hell, Eisenstein himself was selling the revolution.

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

it demands a lot of responsibility both of the creator and of the reader/viewer. There needs to be a critical eye on both sides for it to work.

Very true. And it terms of critical eyes - on the audience/viewer side, I think that's harder to find than we might think. Thanks to VHS tapes, DVD's, cable TV and now the internet, we know a lot more pieces of information, we have access to a lot more of the cultural products of our age (films, pictures, recordings, etc) than any generation before us. But without context (back to that word) or an ability/willingness to analyze. And not that it's entirely our fault? Or rather, the rush and amount of images, the speed of the computer, are addictive (or why else do I sit here so many hours?), and beyond the brain's ability to process. Which I guess is the point? Don't think about it, just consume it, soak it in. (As with political ad campaigns and commercials.)

I'm actually pretty stunned by the amount of analysis fans do regarding BtVS (hell, I'm surprised how much I have to say about it). But that's just one fandom, not the general public. If religion was the opiate of the masses in Marx's day, I guess "entertainment" (video games, internet, etc) are ours.

It's one of the central tricks of marketing: sell something mass-produced to people by convincing them that it makes them individuals, tell them to be rebels by following your narrative.

The other trick is the one Betty Friedan wrote about in The Feminine Mystiqu, which is actually related, that of preying on people's negative self-esteem, on their fears and their desires to be better, to be respected, to be loved "if ONLY you use such and such a product" otherwise your life will be incomplete.

Hell, Eisenstein himself was selling the revolution.

*nods* And denial is not just a river in Egypt.