I've just re-read the shooting script of 'Into The Woods' (since S5 is not one I've re-watched all that often).
You know, I do think Xander is meant to be giving us an Important Truth. But it's a truth about Buffy, not about Buffy and Riley. Buffy does close herself off emotionally - it's central to her character in the later seasons. And I do agree with Xander that Buffy was doing that with Riley, and that's partly why he left. I'm not sure Buffy realised that before, and that was part of her epiphany. Of course, after Riley had gone anyway it only reinforced her tendency to seal herself away.
Should she have run after him? That's up to her. Xander was telling her it's something she needs to decide for herself: and while it's obvious that he, personally, wants her to say "Yes", the important thing I took from it was that it was still her choice. She wanted to pass the blame onto Riley; to tell herself that he'd made the decision, done the deed, so she was absolved of all responsibility and could happily blame him for betraying her. Xander reminded her that as long as she still has power to move and speak, she can make her own choices. It would be her own pride, not anything Riley did, that could stop her going after him; and it was up to her to choose which was most important to her.
I'm not saying that sacrificing her pride is something that Buffy should, well, be proud of. But in its own way it's kind of heroic, too.
If he really is an existentialist, he shouldn't want to tell us what it means.
I'm not sure that follows exactly. There may be no inherent meaning in an object, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to persuade other people that the meaning we give to it is the one they ought to give to it too. I'd say it's human nature to want to do that: it's a fundamental part of our character to tell stories about things, and to try to give them meaning.
I think Joss likes to deliberately subvert that sometimes - for example, by providing dramatic musical cues and sweeping camera work for something that actually doesn't warrant them. It's part of his work's quirky appeal, and it's there to warn us that in the end, we can only find our own meanings in things. But even Joss often falls back into the more conventional forms of story-telling; and, of course, the other writers on his shows don't necessarily subscribe to his own philosophy. I'm not sure that Marti Noxon or Doug Petrie are also Existentialists...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-29 01:33 pm (UTC)You know, I do think Xander is meant to be giving us an Important Truth. But it's a truth about Buffy, not about Buffy and Riley. Buffy does close herself off emotionally - it's central to her character in the later seasons. And I do agree with Xander that Buffy was doing that with Riley, and that's partly why he left. I'm not sure Buffy realised that before, and that was part of her epiphany. Of course, after Riley had gone anyway it only reinforced her tendency to seal herself away.
Should she have run after him? That's up to her. Xander was telling her it's something she needs to decide for herself: and while it's obvious that he, personally, wants her to say "Yes", the important thing I took from it was that it was still her choice. She wanted to pass the blame onto Riley; to tell herself that he'd made the decision, done the deed, so she was absolved of all responsibility and could happily blame him for betraying her. Xander reminded her that as long as she still has power to move and speak, she can make her own choices. It would be her own pride, not anything Riley did, that could stop her going after him; and it was up to her to choose which was most important to her.
I'm not saying that sacrificing her pride is something that Buffy should, well, be proud of. But in its own way it's kind of heroic, too.
If he really is an existentialist, he shouldn't want to tell us what it means.
I'm not sure that follows exactly. There may be no inherent meaning in an object, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to persuade other people that the meaning we give to it is the one they ought to give to it too. I'd say it's human nature to want to do that: it's a fundamental part of our character to tell stories about things, and to try to give them meaning.
I think Joss likes to deliberately subvert that sometimes - for example, by providing dramatic musical cues and sweeping camera work for something that actually doesn't warrant them. It's part of his work's quirky appeal, and it's there to warn us that in the end, we can only find our own meanings in things. But even Joss often falls back into the more conventional forms of story-telling; and, of course, the other writers on his shows don't necessarily subscribe to his own philosophy. I'm not sure that Marti Noxon or Doug Petrie are also Existentialists...