Using Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a focal point, this post will examine the differences between series and serials as well as the overlaps between them. It will also analyse two common narrative forms of television series which are the repetition of popular narratives and the use of trans-temporal reconfigurations. Finally, it examines the vampiric body without organs, showing how vampiric practices problematise the Oedipal family structure and embody capitalism.
Distinguishing series and serials is important…not!
In his book Serial Television, Glen Creeber provided an accurate description of traditional series and serials. To him, the series was a never-ending story (usually involving the same characters and settings) which was self-conclusive in every episode – think Charlie’s Angels and The Avengers (Creeber 2004, 8). On the other hand, serials like The Singing Detective had progressive characters and required knowledge of prior episodes (Creeber 2004, 9).
I think it is safe to say that those definitions require some major reworking.
Series and serials these days do not fit the mould that Creeber offered. There have been overlaps and mergers between them, suggesting an increasing hybridity of television drama. While the series is still continuous, cumulative narratives have been introduced and storylines now often develop from one episode to another (Creeber 2004, 11). Serials too have changed their tact, avoiding final resolutions and allowing greater entry points for viewers who have not followed the entire story (Creeber 2004, 11). From this point of view, definitions of series and serials seem to have become pointless especially when dealing with Buffy.
The merging doesn’t stop there. Style crossovers between television and film are becoming prevalent. But this is where it starts to get somewhat confusing. Extensive integration of characteristics from both sides of the fence (series and serials) has created a mash of entertainment viewing. So, the following section will refer to these forms as television and film seriality even though they contain both aspects of series and serials.
Buffy shows prominent characteristics of television seriality such as being continuous and having mini conclusions at the end of every episode. Buffy and the Scooby gang face the evils of Hellmouth and eventually triumph in the face of all odds.
BUFFY: What can’t we face if we’re together?
What’s in this place that we can’t weather?
Apocalypse
We’ve all been there
The same old trips
Why should we care?
(‘Once More With Feeling’, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 6:7)
This can be juxtaposed to the Harry Potter collection where film seriality is seen to have an overarching narrative which progresses towards a definitive conclusion. Viewers are left wondering when Harry and Lord Voldermort will eventually fight it out to the death.
PROFESSOR SYBILL TRELAWNEY: …and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives…
(Last 2008)
That being said, crossovers between television and film seriality can be appropriately represented in the James Bond film collection. So far, 007 films typify film seriality as they progressed to a definitive conclusion – James Bond kills the bad guy and makes off with the girl. But the films continue to be produced with no end in sight, illustrating television seriality characteristics. To this date, there have been 21 James Bond films with the latest scheduled to be released in October 2008 (Last 2008). There is also evidence of a narrative arc between James Bond films. Quantum of Solace, due to be released in 2008, is the sequel to the 2006 film Casino Royale. The film continues ‘literally an hour after’ Casino Royale’s conclusion (BBC News 2008), showing film seriality.
The integration of series and serial characteristics create a unique style and structure of entertainment viewing. The next part of the post will analyse new forms and ideas that have been incorporated into the television series.
Picking apart narrative forms
The narrative form of television series combines both the classical episodic form as well as the open Odyssean mode. With regards to Buffy, I found two features particularly interesting – the repetition of popular narratives and the use of trans-temporal reconfiguration.
Repetition of popular narratives: Unmasking Little Red Riding Hood
XANDER: Hey, Red. What you got in the basket, little girl?
BUFFY: Weapons.
(‘Fear, Itself’, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 4:4)
Buffy is known for its post-feminist credentials, interrogating the social and cultural construction of female adolescence. Series creator Josh Whedon sought to ‘see the typical victim of Hollywood slasher movies turn the tables on her aggressors’ (Bavidge 2004, 42). As such, the narrative openly opposes the idea of the Girl who embodies the ideal female adolescence: intelligent, independent and playful (Bavidge 2004, 42). But the Girl is imprisoned and trapped by cultural stereotypes and standards of feminine beauty and ultimately turns away from a period of adventurousness, back towards a life of domesticity (Bavidge 2004, 42).
Buffy contests this portrayal of female adolescence by creating tension between the generic tradition of victimhood and its own self-conscious reinventions. From this, the figure of ‘Red Riding Hood’ appears repeatedly in the diegesis of Buffy. Jack Zipes translates Red Riding Hood as a warning to girls who stray too far from the usual path (1993, 8). This alludes to conformity of female adolescence to appropriately girly mannerisms.
[Photo credit: BuffyWorld]
In the episode ‘Fear Itself’, Buffy dresses as Red Riding Hood and literally becomes such a girl in the episode ‘Helpless’. She is made into a ‘real girl’ by the Watcher’s Council, albeit without her consent, and loses her powers (Hufana 2008). Walking the streets after dark, she is tormented by catcallers, eventually attacked and had to be rescued by Giles (Hufana 2008). Her vulnerability is represented by the tell-tale red coat she wears in that scene.
This intends to show that how dangerous it can be to conform to notions of stereotypical femininity at the risk of being helpless. Buffy eventually defeats the vampire sent by the Watcher’s Council to test her, using only her intelligence and quick thinking (Hufana 2008). By defining herself against certain categories of girlhood and re-creating those which are still haunting popular culture, Buffy formulates new versions of old myths.
Use of trans-temporal reconfigurations
SPIKE: The only reason you’ve lasted as long as you have is you’ve got ties to the world… your mum, your brat kid sister, the Scoobies. They all tie you here but you’re just putting off the inevitable.
(‘Fool For Love’, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 5:7)
Buffy can be seen as an autopoietic machine in many ways. This can be shown by breaking down a couple of Guattari’s definitions on autopoeitic machines.
Autopoeitic machines undertake an incessant process of the replacement of their components as they must continually compensate for the external perturbations to which they are exposed (Guattari 1995, 39)
The use of flashbacks in Buffy highlights this trait. As a machine, the Buffyverse is constantly bombarded by ‘external perturbations’ like new characters, causing a ‘knowledge gap’ which can only be filled by flashbacks. The viewer’s idea of the series is constantly being formed, broken down and edited because of this.
In ‘Fool For Love’, Spike relives the killing of 2 Slayers at Buffy’s request. Her request can also translate into a request by the viewer. Spike’s history of vampiric misconduct is essential to the narrative but is only briefly implied or alluded to. Therefore, his flashback was designed to fill the ‘knowledge gap’ created by his entrance into the narrative.
…form takes precedence over consistency and over material singularities… (Guattari 1995, 44)
[Photo credit: BuffyWorld]
The trans-temporal, trans-spatial editing used in ‘Fool For Love’ establishes this quote. In this episode, Spike talks to Buffy in a California alleyway in 2001 while killing a Slayer on a New York train in the 70s. The juxtaposition of the two scenes shows an uncommon ‘jump’ through time and space, making them relative and flexible. Hence, form (narrative) takes precedence over consistency and material singularity (time/date/settings). The differences of time and space become irrelevant when compared to the telling of the story.
Examining the vampiric body without organs
Vampiric practices de-organise the body of humanity and problematise the Oedipal family structure.
Desiring machines which break with the great interpersonal and social organic equilibria, which invert orders, play the role of the other as against a politics of auto-centering on the self (Guattari 1995, 52).
The Oedipal complex revolves around desiring machines – the sexual desire for the opposite-sex parent and the desire for the death of the same-sex parent. The proliferation of the vampiric community is based on this family structure. Through terms like ‘siring’, they embrace and act on desires that are repressed by ‘normal’ society.
The Master desires Darla. He ‘sires’ Darla. Darla becomes the Master’s lover.
In this example, the parent desires the child, creating tension in the Oedipal family structure.
Later, Darla desires Angel. She ‘sires’ Angel. Angel becomes Darla’s lover.
Here, the child abandons the parent and becomes a parent herself to whom her own child desires.
This concept of desire relates to the work of Deleuze and Guattari (1983) who introduced the role of ‘desiring-production’. They suggest that processes of production, distribution and consumption are held together by this complex assemblage of desiring-production (Godfrey, Jack & Jones 2004, 31). Likewise, the organisation of capital is encouraged by the universal production of sources of desire (Godfrey, Jack & Jones 2004, 31). In this sense, vampirism is capital in its purest form.
[Capital] alternates between its eternal form in money and its passing form in commodities; permanence is posited as the only thing it can be, a passing passage—process—life. But capital obtains this ability only by sucking in living labour as its soul, vampire-like. (Marx, 1857–1858/1973: 646).
Vampirism as capital plays two distinct roles – a representation of evil and of economic expansion.
Vampirism as capital can be seen to represent the ‘devilish nature of the capitalist and the scheming and self-interested nature of capital’ (Godfrey, Jack & Jones 2004, 31). This can be seen in the classic representation of the vampire as a menacing mysterious figure that is both grotesque and dangerous (Godfrey, Jack & Jones 2004, 31). It survives by sucking the blood of its victims just as capital sucks in living labour.
Vampirism as capital can also fit the universal economic premise that ‘capital can only live by perpetually increasing in size’ (Godfrey, Jack & Jones 2004, 31). Vampires cannot die so they must continue adding new victims and some of those victims become vampires themselves to prey on their own (previous) humankind.
Vampires and popular narratives, capitalism and trans-temporal reconfiguration…the fluidity of disjointed ideas that flow through Buffy embody televisual chaos. The multiple ‘domains of alterification’ that Guattari argue produce the series universe shape it as a living machine (1995, 45). And it is this very fragmentation that gives Buffy the series its sense of reality and makes it completely relatable to contemporary society.
MotCrewBlog
24/04/2008
Melbourne, Australia.
Bibliography
Bavidge, J. (2004) ‘Chosen Ones: Reading the Contemporary Teen Heroine’, Teen TV: Genre, Consumption and Identity, Davis, G. & Dickinson, K. (eds.), London: BFI Publishing: P41-53.
BBC News (2008) ‘New Bond film title is confirmed’. Retrieved 21 April 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7206997.stm.
Bunker, L. W. (2008) ‘Quotes by and about Sybill Trelawney’. Retrieved 21 April 2008 from http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/trelawneysez.htm.
Creeber, G. (2004) ‘Introduction. From small to big Drama’, Serial Television: Big Drama on the Small Screen, London: BFI Publishing: 1-18.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1983) Anti-Oedipus: capitalism and schizophrenia, Hurley, R., Seem, M. & Lane H. R. (trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Godfrey, R., Jack, G. & Jones, C. (2004) ‘Sucking, Bleeding, Breaking: On the Dialectics of Vampirism, Capital and Time’, Culture and Organisation, Vol. 10:1, UK: Routledge: 25-36
Guattari, F. (1995) ‘Machinic Heterogenesis’, Chaosmosis: an ethico-aesthetic paradigm, Bains, P. & Pefanis, J. (trans.), Sydney: Power Publications: 33-59.
Hufana, A. (2008) ‘Episode 46 “Helpless” Summary’. Retrieved 21 April 2008 from http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/summaries/046_summ.html.
Last, K. (2008) ‘The James Bond 007 Films’. Retrieved 21 April 2008 from http://www.klast.net/bond/filmlist.html.
Marx, K. (1857–1858/1973) Grundrisse: foundations of the critique of political economy (rough draft), Nicolaus, M. (trans.), London: Penguin.
Zipes, J. (1993) The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Riding Hood. London: Routledge.
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.