Kevin Smith vs. Joss Whedon

POSTED BY: reginaroadie
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 20:46
VIEWED: 10934
PAGE 3 of 4

Exactly. It is a matter of taste. While I like BUFFY, ANGEL and FIREFLY as much as the next guy and can see the inherent qualities of Joss and his work (the complex mythology, the deep characterizations and the sense of humor and genre subversion), some of my personal experiences and tastes can run contrary to Joss, which in my mind keeps him from being on the absolute top, such as his atheism and how his spiritual bias intentionally hinders his complex universes, not to mention his obvious daddy issues (I'm from a very close and strong family, so I can't really buy the whole "Fuck you Mom and Dad, you suck as parents so I'm going to create my own little family of friends and strangers." I identify more with the Fishers from SIX FEET UNDER than I do with the Scoobies or the crew of Serenity.) and the arbitrary killing of characters for shock value (which we can all agree as fans is something we don't like about Joss).

Yeah, DOGMA pretty much is Kevin's views on religion, both the man made aspect of it (which was always the real target in the movie) as well the spiritual aspect of it. And I only say REAPER to a lesser extent since he only directed the pilot. The show itself was created by these two girls Michelle and Tara who I think worked at LAW AND ORDER: SVU (I forget their last names). And he wanted to do it because he liked the script, wanted to see what it's like to direct something he didn't write and was on TV, as well as help out two women who created a genre show (which pretty much never happens). But he's credited as a consultant on the show, and since he directed the pilot, he kinda sets the tone for the series. So his influence can still be felt.

I guess the reason why I expect Joss's work to address spiritual issues and obey Biblical rules of good/evil balance is because he makes reference to it. He has Buffy wear a cross around her neck, he makes references to Hell dimensions and demons, they fight in churches numerous times, even though Willow's a practicing Wiccan, she's never denounced her Judaism, Hell, one of the main characters is named ANGEL!!!!! So he's opened this door, but then turn around and says "The door's not even there, let alone open."

Kevin, on the other hand, kicks the door in and goes in full force to delve into the deeper meanings of Chrisitanity and Catholicism and exposes the flaws of organized religion as well as some of the inner working of God and Heaven that no one surprisingly has ever brought up. Below is this incredibly well done article about the parking garage scene in DOGMA that really gets into why this scene is so powerful.

http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/66158/Scene-Anatomy-101-01.02.0
8:-Dogma.htm

Also, there's the deleted "Evil is an abstract" scene that I think if Joss had written a scene similar to that that it would have moved BUFFY up to an even higher level. There may be a scene like that, but its not as apparent or memorable as it is here.

I just think that Joss has set up 65% of an incredible world, but chooses through willful ignorance not to examine the remaining 35%, while Kevin takes what's established in our world and expands it to 110%.

I would also like to point out that Kevin does write strong female characters. It's just that they're not as front and center in his work as it is with Joss. But you have Renee in MALLRATS screaming at Brodie "I'M A GIRL, DAMMIT!!", Alyssa in CHASING AMY being a strong character in control of her sexuality, plus the final little denouement of "I love you. I always will. Know that. (pause, slap) But I am not your fucking whore.", Bethany being the Last Scion and the one who ultimately saves all of existence, God being played by Alanis Morrisette, the diamond thieves in JASBSB, Gertie and Maya in JERSEY GIRL and Becky in CLERKS 2. So he has strong female characters. They're just not front and center.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just g

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reginaroadie:
Exactly. It is a matter of taste. [snip] ...some of my personal experiences and tastes can run contrary to Joss, which in my mind keeps him from being on the absolute top

---

I so get this! My issues of interest are different from yours, but I have the same problem. I'm reading a sci-fi novel now that's quite imaginative and well-written, but (like other books I've read by the same authors) has racial and gender biases that niggle at me. It's hard to ignore these things and just enjoy what's good about the book. I'd almost prefer something less well-written but more believable in terms of how black folks and women behave.

Anyway, I totally get where you're coming from!

Quote:

---

I guess the reason why I expect Joss's work to address spiritual issues and obey Biblical rules of good/evil balance is because he makes reference to it.

---

Which is understandable, and you've definitely got me thinking. Especially the balance issue. It's an interesting question, though I don't see it as an automatic sign of weakness in Joss's shows. To me, the issues you raise are another way to understand the verse that Joss gave us with Buffy and Angel. It's enlightening and fun to discuss!

(I could go on about the absence of "good" external symbols in his show, which I can see as a weakness but maybe for different reasons than you... in a later post maybe.)

So, I see Joss as borrowing religious symbolism without making his works about religion, which of course doesn't bug me because I'm not a believer. I can see that it would get at you though - totally! But let me try to sway you a bit...

lwaves already said this, but let me just go further: The hells and monsters in Joss's verse, though they borrow from the established mythology of demons and vampires, are not about religion. They don't represent Biblical Satan. They are embodiments of the everyday problems we face - the "abusive boyfriend" episode has a guy who turns into an actual monster. The "too much beer is bad" episode has beer that turns drinkers into Neanderthals. The "lonely LA singles" episode has an alien(?) being that hangs out in singles bars, feeding on the lonely.

Any apparently religious symbolism hanging around all this I see as superficial and not paramount to Joss's intended message. The symbols are neccessary to fit the viewer's expectations of vampires - crosses and daylight and cemeteries and churches. He's got to follow that mythology so we'll watch and believe it (in the suspension of disbelief sense). But it's not religious mythology to me - it's vampire mythology which has its roots in a religious culture.

The fact that Joss doesn't follow up on the religious symbols is not a sign of "willful ignorance" to me. I don't think he had any intention of opening a door to religion. It's just unavoidable that the symbols are present, given the genre he chose to wrap around his real message of feminism, empowerment, and struggle against the constant obstacles of life.

Quote:

---

Kevin, on the other hand, kicks the door in and goes in full force to delve into the deeper meanings of Chrisitanity and Catholicism and exposes the flaws of organized religion as well as some of the inner working of God and Heaven that no one surprisingly has ever brought up.

---

I agree. As an exploration of organized religion, Smith is brilliant. Joss does not even compare.

But when you say Joss has set up 65% of an incredible world, but chooses through willful ignorance not to examine the remaining 35% you're making an assumption. He's just not interested in the things you are. It never was his intention to explore religious spirituality, so it seems unfair to dock him for not doing it fully.

Yes, I'm totally being a defensive Joss-fan LOL!

EDIT: And I don't mean to imply that Kevin Smith doesn't address feminist issues. He does, absolutely! Part of what I like about Dogma is that he tackles this fearlessly...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, ta

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You know, when I was typing that last post, it did occur to me that the demons on the show really weren't of the Biblical type. There were no Pazuzu's or Golgothan's or Azarel's. Almost all the demons on the show were one's created by the writers (I remember one of them joking on a commentary track that one of the demons was named after something on the side of some equipment from the grip or electrics department) and that were more metaphorical representations of real life issues and evils. And I guess because I personally haven't experienced a few key ones that specific turning points in the series meant nothing to me. Like in season 2 when Buffy and Angel finally have sex and Angel turns into Angelus and treats Buffy like crap the morning after. To me, when I saw Buffy break down and cry, I was going "Uh Hello? Red flag here that's somethings happened to Angel. Stop crying and get your shit together." But because I'm not a teenage girl and have not had that experience of a guy using me for sex and my self worth plummet because of that, I didn't understand why people considered that the moment that the show became THE SHOW. The thing that elevated it above the masses. Also, I always saw Angel as a dull character for the first three years. Only when he got his own show that I felt he actually got interesting.

I guess I didn't wanted to show face since it would then render my argument null and void, thus eliminating the need for an essay. I dunno. Maybe I can just copy this thread, format it and post it and have it be about something different.

But please, do go on about the lack of external "good" symbols in his series. I need to write about something. Maybe it could be about that.

And let me ask you this. As a defensive Joss-fan, what would you say about my other criticisms about Joss' work? And is there indeed anything about Joss's work that you actually don't like? Or would you just bend over backwards to praise him, provided that your spine doesn't snap?

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reginaroadie:
You know, when I was typing that last post, it did occur to me that the demons on the show really weren't of the Biblical type. There were no Pazuzu's or Golgothan's or Azarel's.

---

I'm glad you say that, because I actually know very little detail of the Bible. I felt like the Buffy monsters were non-Biblical, but wasn't sure...

Named after grip's equipment? Too funny! I totally relate, it's hard to come up with monster names LOL!

Quote:

---

As a defensive Joss-fan, what would you say about my other criticisms about Joss' work? And is there indeed anything about Joss's work that you actually don't like? Or would you just bend over backwards to praise him, provided that your spine doesn't snap?

---

LOL! I don't think I'm like that (most of the time) but I know what you mean!

I believe Joss's shows to be the best things to ever hit television, but that doesn't mean I don't find things to pick at. I'm actually quite critical in general (as some ficwriters and RWED posters can attest!) but try to temper myself as far as Joss. It's easy to offend around here, and it's hard to explain that, coming from me, nitpicking is a sign of love. If I don't like something, I won't bother to dissect it.

So, to go on to your question...

Quote:

---

But please, do go on about the lack of external "good" symbols in his series. I need to write about something. Maybe it could be about that.

---

Poop. Now I have to figure out what I was thinking...

Hmm. Your second post on this thread got me pondering how the Buffyverse has all this evil but no external representation of pure good, and why is that? OK, the Powers That Be are selfish and aloof, and those who "take" Cordy are just setting her up. The modern day Watchers are interfering busybodies, and even those who created the Slayer are not so great - they took advantage of a young woman by infesting her with a demon. Getting chosen as Slayer is no treat - it's a hard life and an early death, but they didn't care about that at all.

In fact, it could be argued that the only truly good thing in the Buffyverse is Buffy. The other characters, no matter their strengths, are shown as bad at some point or another. Willow for sure goes evil, and Anya and Spike and Angel. Xander is shown as a vampire in another reality, and Giles makes some questionable decisions. Not evil, but he's very human. OK, maybe Tara is always a sweet little doll, but then she's not very powerful.

So, any character with power goes evil at some point or another. Except Buffy. She gets moody and angsty and makes mistakes, but she's never evil, not matter how much power she has. I must admit that I thought the seventh season, with all the references to "from beneath you" and the First wearing Buffy's form, might end with her turning bad. So Buffy would be the big evil of the final season. I would have liked that, to break the Buffy-as-Christ-figure thing. (There's an article for you - Kevin Smith's female Christ figure in Dogma as compared to Buffy) I wanted to see how the scoobies would react to her falling off her pedestal, being seduced by the dark side. The solution would have to come from elsewhere, not from Buffy, and would have to defeat her.

OK, so something like this happened when Willow went evil and Xander's friendship was the good to save the day. But still... friendship turned against Buffy from time to time. It wasn't pure. Nothing on the show was pure good, although plenty was pure evil.

This is the part I need to think through more, but my instinct is to find it limiting that there is no pure good except Buffy... not sure where to go with this...

Anyhow, I digress. I feel that Joss's few references to the Good Side are not much more than hand-waving, just to say: yes, people have asked where God lives in my verse and I don't know so I'm going to give you some vague references just to fill the gap. But it won't make much sense and it'll explain nothing in terms of plot arcs. You see, I can't say what I really think - that t

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Wow...
This thread is full of very well thought out posts. I really enjoy both Kevin Smith's and Joss Whedon's worlds but I don't feel like I have much worthwhile to contribute right now.
I'm just going to go and think on these things some to see if I can organize my thought on the issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You know, when you were saying the stuff in italics, I could actually hear Joss' voice saying those aloud. And with Kevin Smith, I agree that he's very bold and fearless in what he wants to say in his movies, because it's the nature of the medium he works in. On one of the earlier SModcasts, he did a very lengthy discussion about the making of the REAPER pilot and all the hoops he had to jump through just to get it cast and shot and how developing a series is an insanely maddening and time consuming process. And how whenever he makes a movie, it's comparatively easier, because if anything needs to be changed or if issues arise, he just runs it by Scott and they figure it out. Very rarely would Harvey issue a decree in terms of casting or personnel and if they did concede on something (like casting a name actress in CLERKS 2), then they'd find a way for it to work to their advantage (like casting Rosario Dawson in the movie). He said that as enjoyable as making the pilot was, he would never want to do something like that again. That he'd rather stick to just writing and directing his own stuff since that's what he does best. And having the last true movie mogul backing you probably doesn't hurt.

As much as a creative force as Joss is, he's still held accountable to advertisers, since they are the real powerbrokers in the TV industry. Exec's and presidents and veeps come and go. It's the advertisers and the corps they represent and the standards and practices people that really dictate what gets on TV. It's a good thing Joss never went political or anything like that. I heard that the only time they ever lost an advertiser was in season 6 when Buffy worked at a fast food joint.

But what about the other issue with Joss' work that I raised? Namely the obvious daddy issues. I see a lot of "Fuck you Mom and Dad, you suck as parents so I'm going to create my own little family of friends and strangers." in all three series, and it honestly alienates me. I come from a very tightly knit family that sticks together no matter what. And while my time in the film program comes close, I've never had that whole "family made up of strangers" experience that's supposed to have made up the 21st century and in shows like BUFFY, FRIENDS, etc. To me, friends come and go like seasons. But family is with you no matter what. I identify more with the Fishers from SIX FEET UNDER than I do with the Scoobies or the crew of Serenity. I was more touched at the end of 6FT when Ruth tells Claire to not stay behind and take care of her and to go to New York to pursue her dreams or Hiro and Kaito Nakamura's scenes in HEROES and the Petrelli Bros. act of sacrifice than with Tara telling her family to fuck off in season 5 or River's "Captain Daddy" schtick. My whole story of "You Can't Go Home Again" is kinda my attempt to rectify that by saying that no matter what had happened, that Simon, River and to an extent Kaylee has a connection with Gabriel and Regan that can't be denied.

I'm wondering what your opinions are on that.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reginaroadie:

I guess I didn't wanted to show face since it would then render my argument null and void, thus eliminating the need for an essay. I dunno. Maybe I can just copy this thread, format it and post it and have it be about something different.



Don't give up! I think you've got some fascinating ideas and have really provoked an interesting discussion here. Even if you decide it isn't appropriate to write an essay that sort of faults Whedon for his limited portrayal of the good spiritual side of things, I still think you could write a fascinating article comparing and contrasting the spiritual worlds of Smith and Whedon. I also think "A Christian's perspective on Spirituality in the Buffyverse" would still be a fascinating read. The similarities and differences and strengths and weaknesses between the two world views would be quite intriguing and would be a new angle, I think.

Edit to add: I don't know why it isn't separating your quote from my comment. Sorry

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME