Love makes you do the wacky. Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Two
by JimTheFish
Continuing the season-by-season revisit of one of the seminal and most influential TV series of the past 20 years. Turn on any drama series – from Who to Breaking Bad — chances are you’re seeing some traces, however oblique, of the Slayer right there.
In the first part of this blog series, I argued that the first (half) season of Buffy, essentially took most of its time to find its feet. There are some weaker, less consistent, episodes as it struggled with tone and theme but bit by bit it found its strengths, began constructing its own mythology. And by the time we got to the season finale, it had founds its voice. It knew exactly who it was. And where it wanted to go.
Now that that groundwork was laid, season two could have a lot more focus. Sure there’d be misfiresf, the occasional filler episode, the idea that didn’t quite work but far, far fewer. What we have instead is a real sense of momentum, of confidence. What we see what could be described as the textbook example of the season arc. It’s by no means the first example, but it’s the most groundbreaking, I’d argue, and the one that popularised the concept for a great deal of mainstream, and not necessarily genre, TV. Bad Wolf, The Sound of Drums, Silence Will Fall, they all have their birth here.
As this is a full season of 22 episodes, I won’t do an ep-by-ep breakdown. Rather I’ll look at some of the key themes of the season, doing on a character-by-character basis. (Some key characters will be left out but I’m not neglecting them. Just waiting for a later season where I believe they come most into their own.) So, let’s start with:
BUFFY. Buffy’s key struggle will remain consistent throughout the entire series. The balancing of the desire for a ‘normal’ life against her calling as a Slayer. It will manifest itself in many different forms through subsequent seasons, but in season two it is dealt largely through Love. And more specifically her love for Angel.
It’s a testament to the writing of the Buffy/Angel romance that it seldom gets too angsty and OTT – and when it does, the writers are smart enough to realise that it has and are willing to poke fun at it themselves. Joss’s name rightly dominates any discussion of Buffy but it sometimes overshadows the contributions made by other writers to the show’s success. (The influence of David Greenwalt in the development of Angel’s character, for example.) And here a lot of the kudos to the Bangel arc must be given to both Marti Noxon and Jane Espenson. The romance deepens neither too slowly nor too quickly. (It also speaks volumes that Stephanie Meyer was able to basically photocopy it for her Twilight novels with outrageous success, unfortunately forgetting to transfer the irony and humour of the Bangel saga while she was at it. Don’t get me wrong, I kinda like Twilight. But at the same time I sometimes found it almost comically po-faced and I definitely lost count of the times I found myself saying ‘didn’t Joss already to this’?)
And the Buffy/Angel partnership is mirrored and emphasised by numerous other romantic couplings throughout the season. Xander/Cordelia. Willow/Oz. Giles/Jenny. Even Dru and Spike — with The Judge commenting disdainfully on their feelings for each other. These all inform and are affected by the tortured lovers at the heart of the arc. Romance is always a key element of the show but here I think all these couples are there to highlight the theme of the season. Even Joyce gets paired off briefly, albeit it with psychotic robot.
But at the heart of it is Buffy’s troubled relationship with Angel. It’s done so well that we feel for Buffy every inch of the way, even if we ourselves are well past our first high school crush. But we totally sympathise with Buffy as she falls for Angel, we feel for her betrayal by Angelus (and indirectly by Jenny) and we understand how destroyed she must feel when she has to kill Angel in the season finale.
ANGEL. In the first season, I don’t think David Boreanaz had quite figured out Angel yet. He’s too cocky, too jokey. Not quite got the full mope on yet. And in Season Two, he’s not quite there yet either. But we don’t notice it as much because he spends much of his time as Angelus, who has much of the same jokey side to him. I don’t think we really see the Angel character that we’d recognise from his own spin-off TV show until season three, when DB and Joss have more of a handle on the character, possibly informing the more brooding persona on the guilt he feels for the murder of Jenny and the tortures of Giles and Buffy and all those years spent in a hell dimension.
Having said that, I don’t really buy DB’s performance as Angelus either. We’re told how much of a legendary evil Angelus is but there’s no real sense of that in his portrayal. And I think this remains the case in the Angel TV series too, although it does improve somewhat. But there are too many better instances of badass evil on show. Brian Thompson, making a welcome return from season one (this time as The Judge) has a more malevolent presence. And James Marsters as Spike and even Juliet Landau as Drusilla come across as more effortlessly and charmingly evil. I hate to say it, but they upstage Boreanaz in every scene they have together.
But we’ll return to Angel in Season Three.
GILES. @PhaseShift pointed out that Antony Stewart Head’s portrayal of Giles was his entry point into Buffy. And for me too a little, I think. As said before, Joss pointed out that ASH brought something out of the ordinary to Giles, something a little funky, a little quirky, and actually more than a little cool to the part. There’s actually something quite Doctor-ish about him at times and it’s no surprise that he was one of the names considered to play the Doctor in what would become the McGann movie. Personally, I’m glad he didn’t get it. Because then his role as Giles would have been cut short and we wouldn’t have got McGann’s great eighth Doctor.
But the writers were clearly aware of the potential ASH brought to the part and that they wouldn’t be able to keep him confined to the library as their chief exposition monkey. We see a great deepening of Giles’s character here. We see his great compassion, and love (again) for Buffy, as well as his more conventional romantic feelings for Jenny. Indeed, after Jenny’s death I don’t think we ever again see a Giles who is not a bit darker, a bit more damaged, than the version of season one and the earlier episodes of season two.
And we also see Ripper. I’ve always loved the Ethan Rayne episodes and find it a real shame that he didn’t play a bigger part in Buffy mythology. There are still a few repeat visits for him to make but he never makes the impact on Sunnydale that I would have liked. But as @pedant points out, Rayne is essentially a second-fiddle bad guy, not really a Big Bad. He’s essentially a trickster, an enabler of mischief and a Lord of Misrule with no over-reaching aim in mind except to cause trouble. We’ll this essentially run out of steam but these early Rayne/Ripper stories of season two are among my favourites.
It’s also a pity that the Ripper spin-off (described by Joss as ‘Cracker with ghosts’) never got off the ground. I’d have liked to have seen ASH and Robin Sachs squaring off against each other on a more regular basis.As I said above, the ‘trickster’ aspect of Rayne did not have mileage in it but I think there could have been other places for the character to go. Ripper and Ethan have a real Doctor/Master, Holmes/Moriarty vibe to them and Sachs does great work as the gleefully malicious Rayne. Even in their one brief scene together, the sparring between Sarah Michelle Gellar and Sachs is delightful.He would have been a great ongoing nemesis for Giles in a spin-off
XANDER/WILLOW/CORDELIA/JENNY – Another one of the show’s key strengths is that never neglects its second-fiddle characters. Willow does not remain just the cute nerd and we start seeing some of the groundwork for the considerable – and significant – character arc she will embark upon. But now is really not the time to go into that.
Similarly, Xander does not remain just the comic relief guy and his character undergoes significant development also. The show is also unafraid to show their main characters in an unfavourable light. Giles has dark, possibly psychotic, past. And Xander is quite happy to let Buffy kill Angel. It’s a credit to the show’s increasing depth that we can have a feckless, comedic Xander in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered to a really quite angry and slightly underhand one in the finale.
Cordelia too undergoes the transformation hinted at in last year’s See No Evil episode. She’s no longer just the generic Queen Bitch of the school. More than once we see her (reluctantly) compassionate side come to the fore, as her relationship with Xander becomes more and more serious. And it’s notable that for all her selfishness and bitchiness, Cordelia is someone the Scoobies always feel able to turn to in a personal crisis.
In conclusion, season two of Buffy is possibly one of the most influential of any genre series. The show had arrived by now. And it quickly set out to show that just because it had high school kids and vampires, it wasn’t afraid of the big drama beats, it wasn’t afraid to deal with emotions and fundamental human themes. It also showed it wasn’t afraid to tackle season arcs, develop character across multiple episodes and subsequently across multiple seasons.
And just because it had found its formula, that didn’t mean it was content to never deviate from it in order to grow. This is the first time we see that Joss Whedon has absolutely no problem with punching the viewer squarely in the face and making them cry. But it won’t be the last. There are a number of big ‘fuck me’ moments in this season as the show pulls you mercilessly into its grip. They range from the reveal of Kendra, the second Slayer, to the arrival of Angelus, to the murder of Jenny, to Buffy having to kill Angel. More than once an episode off this season had left me gasping for breath or with a tear in my eye. And I suspect I wasn’t the only one. I suspect people like RTD and Steven Moffat were thinking exactly the same thing.
Another tangential pleasure is watching Joss Whedon, now a major Hollywood player, slowly, and visibly, learning his craft as both a writer and a director. Particularly enjoyable is the confidence shown in ret-conning his original movie and assimilating it into the vision of his TV series. Is it an accident that we get a deliberately uncool version of Buffy’s first Watcher? A sideswipe at Joss’s antagonism to Donald Sutherland’s interpretation of the role.
(On a personal note, I also enjoyed the all-too-brief appearance of Homicide: Life on the Streets’ Max Perlich as Whistler here too. It’s a shame we never saw more of him. I believe (though am willing to be proved wrong) that the original plan was for him to take the Doyle part in Angel but that a drugs bust by (ironically) Balitmore PD put an end to that idea.)
Season Two of Buffy showed firstly that genre shows didn’t necessarily mean ‘just for kids’ and that they could talk about things like love and sex and death just as well (and frankly often much better) than the grown-up shows. And secondly, they showed that now that genre shows had done that growing up, they had to learn to evolve, to constantly progress. You couldn’t just serve up the same story every week, with the characters reset, not changed by what they’d witnessed. Because that’s what makes for the best drama.
It’s a lesson that Who has also learned these days (although sadly not all of the fans have yet caught up) and it’s a lesson that a hell of a lot of other TV practitioners were wising up to also.
Right, I think that’s quite enough on Season Two. Season Three to follow presently. Please leave your (non-spoilery if at all possible) thoughts below. I’ll look forward to reading them.
15 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@JimTheFish superb analysis. Thank you.
I think Angel comes into his own in Season 3 as well. I would agree that his portrayal as Angelus lacks Fist in the Face terror -well, “lacks” might be a strong word. Perhaps, it’s not a full bodied performance. Certainly Marsters is brilliant. He actively lights up that screen with every tiny gesture and indelicate brow.
Giles’ Ripper is magnificent and as you pointed out, this isn’t a supermarket style formulaic show (like Supernatural in my opinion). It progresses, provides parables, it denotes concepts and invites you to work, but saying, “this, work? It’s the most glorious kind of play” (D. Tartt). And that’s the best kind of television.
Boy Ilion enjoys its unpredictability and the layers of meaning which encourage laughter, tears and most importantly, discussion. It’s a lesson in life. Television can get that all wrong sometimes: it can be hectoring and lecturing and parsimonious. On the other hand, the author voice is often completely lost. Here, it exists in spades and yet we need to uncover it slowly like an archaeologist gently paint-brushing dust from valuable remains.
Entertainment is recreation and recreation is an adjunct to education, not its point. Buffy is entertaining and yet educational -but in all the ‘right’ ways. I don’t often know what ‘right’ isn’t but I know what it is when I see it. I see it in Buffy.
Regards, puro
It is worth noting that, although a 22 ep season, the first half – up to Kendra – was commissioned separately. So Kendra and the end of the Chosen ONE was a potential series finale (to use the American idiom). Once it got picked up for the rest of the season, and for the next three seasons, we are pitched straight into Innocence/ Surprise and Noxon’s full-on mistress of pain writing. But that potential ending will be well worth revisiting much later on.
Not sure I agree about Ethan, although this is not in any way to diss Robin Sachs (RIP). I think Whedon’s towering strength – and one that Moffat is clearly looking to emulate – is that he does not rely heavily on recurring big bads and wants to try the new and vary the scale a bit. And (as will become evident) Moffat learnt from the “How do you top THAT?” problem that Whedon was always aware of (and to be fair I think RTD was conscious of it as well, but never really found a way out).
I think a case could be made that Passion is the single darkest episode in the entire run (bar one, which will also become evident in due course).
@Purofilion — yes, Buffy is definitely educational in a subtle way. Or rather it has things to say about growing up, what it means to be an adult, what it means to have responsibilities and why you have to take ownership (as the modern phraseology goes) of the consequences of your past deeds and misdeeds. Subsequent series will tackle this even further.
@Pedant — good points about Rayne and I think you’re right. I’ve now amended the original article to reflect this, as well as tidying up a few literals and what have you. Good point also about the sweeps. After the Kendra story, the show was also moved to a new, later, timeslot which probably helped free them up for more darkness, death and, as you say, Noxon-esque emotional angst. (I mean, jeez, what is her problem? Has she never had a happy relationship or something?)
Good point also about the ‘how do you top that?’ issue and I’d agree that RTD never solved the issue but that Moffat is at least aware of it. I what Joss grasped and RTD didn’t is that it’s not about spectacle, it’s about emotion. The power of the ending of Prophecy Girl comes from the unfairness and frustration of Buffy’s death and her future being determined by dusty old prophecy rather than her. The potency of the s2 finale doesn’t come from the cool swordfight in front of an opening demon dimension, but from the emotional punch of Buffy having to kill her true love. RTD on occasion realised this — Parting of the Ways and Doomsday both work because of our emotional connection to Rose. His subsequent finales didn’t because they were all about spectacle.
Moffatt too realises this problem. His best have an emotional resolution at their core. It’s the reason why, for me, Death in Heaven didn’t wholly work Missy and the Doctor didn’t have enough time together for there to be a proper connection. Although the ‘real’ underlying arc of the regeneration crisis and his ‘new’ relationship with Clara was handled in fine style. But the visual meat of the episode was just a bit too RTD for me.
Back on topic, Passion is an amazing episode. The first I think in which Joss made it clear that this would not be a cosy ride and he was going to bring you pain on many an occasion. I think I know the ‘bar one’ you’re referring to but I’d argue that Passion is just the beginning and the show goes to just a dark and even darker places on more than one occasion in subsequent years. (Although its definitely to Angel that you have to go for the real pain.)
Thanks @JimTheFish, some great thoughts here, although I think I’m a bit less kind on Season 2 that some.
Don’t get me wrong – some episodes rise to astonishing highs, but there are quite a few episodes that are bland, and only enlivened by the odd scene or character moment. In no particular order, stories like Inca Mummy Girl, Some Assembly Required, Reptile Boy, Bad Eggs and Go Fish I wouldn’t miss. Also, some moments in I only have eyes for you make me cringe.
I’ve always thought this was to do with the transition to a longer run and perhaps some stories didn’t have time for full development, so it’s a surprise to find the first half was commissioned separately.
I think Passion is one of the most sriking pieces of TV I’ve seen. It’s amazingly good, and I think Boreanaz does great work. In many ways I think Angelus works as a big bad because of the way he’s presented here. He’s an obsessive, ruled by his passions. He’ll never get bored with tormenting his victims, and being immortal, has plenty of time to string out the pain. He’s rather less convincing in his role as megalomaniac apocalypse bringer, and it’s great to have Spike around to point out the idiocy of that approach. “I like people. Walking around like Happy Meals.”
Spike – ah. Isn’t he great @purofilion? Marsters makes it look effortless but he put in the work and deserved to make that big impression. I was a bit less taken with Drusilla, and I think Juliet Landau did much better work later on in Angel.
In terms of main cast, I think the two clear players are ASH who gets some really meaty stuff to play with and Alison Hannigan as Willow. She’s fantastic through this as Willow’s confidence clearly increases from series one. Her breakdown at the end of Passion as she receives the news is heartbreaking, although adding Angel looking on with that satisfied smile on his face makes it genuinely skin crawling.
Awards
Most heartwarming moment – Giles and Buffy at the end of Lie to Me. Great scene.
Worst accent – Kendra. I defy anyone not to laugh.
Laid back dude of the decade – Oz.
@JimtheFish
I think Twilight is the antithesis of Buffy/ Angel in many ways. Bella follows the romance-wedding-baby trajectory of conventional romance and only becomes as strong as Edward later in the saga – she is prey, initially, creepily adored prey, but prey. Buffy is stronger than Angel from the start, which he readily acknowledges throughout. Buffy is a show with a feminist ethos, Twilight can perhaps be called feminist only insofar as it turns tables by offering up the objectified male body for the female gaze (Jacob’s abs in particular) but its heroine, just as in conventional Mills and Boon, puts romantic love before all else. Buffy, on the other hand, puts duty, friendship and saving the world first.
See this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm_LBqZ133I
It’s pretty hard to discuss further without spoilers so I’ll save it. NB you gave away what happens between Buffy and Angel in the season finale in your blog lol! 🙂
@Phaseshift —
Yeah, s2 definitely contains a surprisingly high amount of my least favourite episodes. Although I must admit I do like Inca Mummy Girl and Some Assembly Required quite a lot. Go Fish has enough nice Snyder moments to save it but Bad Eggs is just awful. It’s second only to the execrable **** *** in s4. I also know what you mean about I Only Have Eyes For You. I’ve been a bit harsh about Marti Noxon before without acknowledging some of her great work (I was surprised to find just how many of my favourite Buffy stories were written by her) but here I’m afraid she rather gives full rein to the more angsty, lovelorn ‘jeez, get over it’ aspects of her witing.
I get what they were trying to do with Angelus — he’s the stalker-killer as aesthete — and it’s a great idea but I just don’t think DB ever really manages to pull it off. I always thought Jeff Kober in Season 3’s Helpless as Kralik manages to amply convey the terrifying stalkery obsessiveness in just a few scenes what DB tried and failed to achieve in a much longer time. Kralik was everything I felt Angelus should have been.
Agreed about Marsters. And his best work is yet to come, I think. And I hold him personally responsible for the ill-advised ‘peroxide phase’ of my younger years. But I really like Juliet Landau’s work on Buffy. Yes, she’s a bit Eliza Doolittle mockney but clearly insane and dangerous with it. I find the more modern, less anachronistic version of Drusilla we get on Angel a bit more, well, ordinary but not as scary.
No argument there. Coupled with Giles’s discovery of Jenny’s body, that’s one of the most gut-wrenching moments in television. Imagine if Who had done something like that. A companion’s body laid out by the Master for the Doctor to find. The internet would go into meltdown.
Awards
I’ll see you that scene and raise you the car scene between them at the end of Innocence. Never fails to tear me up.
Indeed. Kendra de vompyre slayurr. I think I read that the actress had researched the accent and was striving for authenticity. It really didn’t work though. But I have to say that I think David Boreanaz’s godawful attempt at an Irish accent trumps it.
Agreed. The man is laconic personified.
@juniperfish — yes, in many ways I think Twilight is basically taking Bangel while resolutely ‘not really getting it’ at all. Although in my more uncharitable moments I do wonder if it was a deliberate attempt to undo all the good work Whedon, Noxon et al had done in Buffy.
RE. spoilers. The blogs will definitely have spoilers for the seasons up to and including the ones discussed but will be trying to avoid spoiling anything major for seasons coming afterwards. And it’s actually quite difficult sometimes. There’s a real temptation to wax lyrical about all the cool stuff coming in Seasons 5 and 6 or in Angel.
@JimTheFish
Actually the mockney thing didn’t bother me with Drusilla. I think a large amount of the “problem” for Landau is her introduction is as “weak and wan” Drusilla opposite a very vigorous and swaggering Spike. So she’s easily overshadowed at that point and it’s hard to see what the attraction is between them. When tables are turned, and Spike is wheelchair-bound and she’s strong it’s noticeable that he’s still getting some of the best lines and attitude.
I think in Angel, her partnership with a vampire-who-shall-remain-nameless works much, much better. It’s more equally pegged and I think she turns up the oddness quite a deal. I really got a better sense of what Drusilla was, and possibly why Spike was so entranced by her when he’s not around (which is ironic).
Oh yes – the scene in the car is really good as well, but somehow I still find the Lie to Me scene a bit more charming. Maybe because it’s delivered at a less “charged” time?
Can I also say though how well I think ASH and Sarah Michelle Geller handled those scenes of them bonding. Remember all the fuss about PCs age in Doctor Who? How it all became a bit yukky the thought of an older gent maintaining a relationship with a young woman? Giles and Buffy is so well written in that regard. True developing bonds of love that are strictly Paternal.
@phaseshift — I do kind of know what you mean about Drusilla and you make a compelling argument. And I definitely think we should have seen Dru let rip a bit more in Buffy, see a bit more of her as a powerful vampire in her own right. Your argument for her portrayal in Angel is compelling also but I have to admit that whenever I saw her in that show I just find myself slightly disappointed and wishing for the old Buffy Dru a bit. But she did work well with #####NAME REDACTED######.
And you’re dead right about the scenes between ASH and SMG. Anyone who dares moans about the inappropriate age distance between Doc 12 and Clara should be made to immediately watch seasons 1-3 of Buffy.
@JimTheFish
Just out of interest (and I don’t want to overload you) but are you intending to cover Angel with this series of blogs? If so, it may be worthwhile to come back to Drusilla at that time, because it’s an interesting point about how she was utilised I think. I forgot to add that when Drusilla was strong, she also had the distinct disadvantage of often appearing with Angelus in full scenery-chewing mode. 😀
It occurs to me that whenever I talk about Buffy, I inevitably mention Hannigan as Willow and wanted to put in that bit about SMG. I think she gets a bit of unfair criticism from some quarters, but I do think of all the two-hander relationships in the early years her scenes with Giles are often some of the most compelling. She certainly gets to reveal a side of Buffy that you don’t get to see with her contemporaries. It’s subtle work that is often overlooked.
@Phaseshift — I was actually thinking that the blogs should cover Angel as well. Buffy gets a lot of coverage, even now, but I think Angel is often overlooked, rather unfairly. So after S4 of Buffy is done, I’ll start alternating with a season of Angel. Not sure how regular they’ll be but am happy to do them. Although if anyone wants to take a particular season of either show and do the blog then I’m more than happy for them to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uetGnXVIizU
yup. sorry that didn’t ‘sit correctly’ above. Anyway, interesting reviews. I’ve subscribed. Keep thinking it’s one of you guys. It’s utterly hilarious as I seem to have subtitles which bear little resemblance to what is actually (clearly) being said.
At one point the ‘reviewer’ says “around her” and the subtitle is “router”.
Still, the review is funny -check out the one on Lie to Me -it speaks of Objects in Space; existentialism, the whole thing we’ve been discussing @pedant as well as a timely mention of Kubrick. The one I tagged above even has Tennant as Hamlet along with Sir L. Olivier and K. Brannagh etc etc.
Quite good.
Anyone moonlighting on this? @JimTheFish ? No doubt too busy.
@puroandson — thanks for the link. Some interesting insights — not sure I wholly agree with his take though. So definitely not me then. I’ve always liked the idea of doing some of those YouTube thingies but who the hell has the time?
@JimTheFish
Ah yes, having watched a dozen now there are things I disagree with too.
But yes, time is enemy of us all!