On Whedon: the Artist and His Art

[cjlasky7]

OK. I've thought about this for a little while....

Let's go back to that extremely uncomfortable question I asked in my final post on whedonesque: mainly, at what point does the actions of the artist affect your enjoyment of the art?

I cited three specific examples: Orson Scott Card, Roald Dahl and Bill Cosby. I only know Card from Ender's Game, and his notorious homophobia has pretty much killed any interest in further exploring his books. Cosby, the hypocritical wagging finger of morality in the face of the younger generation, has completely ruined his classic comedy albums for me. I don't think I could watch the Cosby Show again without feeling a little queasy. (But... but! I think I could always watch I Spy. Nobody can turn me away from Bob Culp.)

Roald Dahl? Racist and anti-Semite...

I'm a big fan.

I know, it makes no sense. But I suppose it's up to each person to decide if artists' personal actions or beliefs have "betrayed" or "invalidated" their art. In the case of Cosby, I absolutely think that's true. In the case of Dahl, I've achieved some form of separation of the two....

So what do I think about Whedon? Has the unpleasant scenario laid out by Kai Cole convinced me that Joss' well-reknowned feminism was just him talking through his ass? That Buffy has been fatally diminished by her creator's flaws?

No.

I did not reach this conclusion easily. I had to reach down and think about exactly why I loved Buffy so much, and why I found Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse to be worthy successors (more or less) to the mother series.

If you study them closely enough, all four of Whedon's TV series (I'm not counting SHIELD) have a common narrative. Let's call it Joss' monomyth:

We meet our protagonist ("J") at a point of spiritual emptiness or existential crisis. "J" has lost a sense of purpose (or a path to that purpose has been blocked or obscured).

"J" meets a spiritual guide (a mentor figure or a peer) who sets "J" back on the proper path. But the path is not an easy one. Progress toward individual fulfillment bumps against the rules and constraints of society. These forces try to press "J" to conform or stray from the path.

With the help of a group of like-minded individuals (a substitute family), "J" gradually surmounts all obstacles, both external and internal, until finally achieving a plateau of spiritual growth.

You'll note that I deliberately avoided gender specific pronouns here.
This is the story of Buffy, Angel, Mal and Echo/Caroline in a nutshell. I think it holds true for everything from "Welcome to the Hellmouth" through "Epitaph Two." (You can fill in the specifics on your own. You know them as well as I do.) And it's Joss Whedon's talent for telling this basic, universal story -- populated with vivid, complex characters -- that is the source of his strength as a writer. I don't think anything revealed in recent days has changed that.

**********************

But something HAS changed in recent days, symbolized by the shuttering of whedonesque.

For a good chunk of Buffy fandom, it was always assumed that Whedon and his fan base shared a common moral vision, a commitment to a set of beliefs that fueled his art. In the quest of Buffy Summers to make sense of her life as a slayer, she battled the pressures of society, like all Whedon protagonists; but specifically, these pressures often manifested themselves as representatives of the Patriarchy -- the Watcher's Council, the Mayor, Caleb. The devoted fanbase assumed (dangerous word) that Joss "got it"-- he knew all the ways women in this culture get worked over by men who make all the rules, and he was working to be part of the solution....

Well, that magical connection between fan and artist, that moral certitude, is gone now. If we believe Kai Cole's cri de coeur--and yes, I do--then maybe Joss Whedon doesn't "get it" as well as we all thought he did.

This doesn't dilute the power of Whedon's storytelling strengths. But if Whedon's moral authority is now in doubt, it does open the door to less admiring, more harshly critical assessment of his work. (For instance: What's the deal with the "weaponized waifs" running through all of his series? Was Dollhouse a critique of female objectification or just... female objectification?)

And maybe that's not such a bad thing.

**************************

In the end, there's only one real tragedy here--and that belongs to Joss Whedon, Kai Cole, and their kids. When all is said and done, this is their story, not ours. We can stand on the sidelines and debate the implications, but we have no voice in the matter. We can only ponder the strange relationship among artist, art and audience--a relationship that's up to each member of the audience to define for themselves.

Comments

[atpo_onm]

This doesn't dilute the power of Whedon's storytelling strengths. But if Whedon's moral authority is now in doubt, it does open the door to less admiring, more harshly critical assessment of his work.

It would be interesting to re-read Harlan Ellison's "Dangerous Visions" collections, and do so having greater knowledge of the various writers personal lives, would it not? For example, I'm pretty sure Theodore Sturgeon wrote a short story once that essentially defended incest. (Long, long time ago, so I won't say for sure it was him, but I think so. The story is real, though, of that I'm sure. Now, was he just being provocative, or...)


For instance: What's the deal with the "weaponized waifs" running through all of his series?

I'd have to go cue up the Serenity DVD for the specifics, but during the film commentary by Whedon during the scene near the movie's end where River Tam / Summer Glau slices and dices through a massive group of Reavers, he says, essentially, that he doesn't know why he finds scenes like this one so enjoyable, but he does.

Last year, I watched stuntwoman Jessie Graff perform on American Ninja Warrior, where she made it through an atrociously difficult obstacle that had defeated at least 15 to 20 contestants before her-- and was the first person to do so. I recall punching my fist in the air and yelling "YESSS!!!". It is sexual? Perhaps on some minor level, but mostly it's because I enjoy watching underdogs out-perform more traditional athletic types. And even though one would consider Graff a "professional" in terms of her day job/athleticism, as a woman competing on the same, excruciatingly difficult course as male participants, she automatically qualifies as an underdog in my evaluation. (I will note that, I wouldn't call her a "waif", she's pretty muscular, although not exceptionally tall.)

Other note: The crowd in the area surrounding the course went pretty much batshit crazy, and not just the women and girls, so maybe it's not just me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TofAXjkbIDI


Was Dollhouse a critique of female objectification or just... female objectification?)

Yes.

Anyway, for myself, I usually separate artist and art, whether it's music, TV, film, whathaveyou. Mel Gibson, for example, has turned out to be more than kind of a dick, but he's a good actor, and The Road Warrior still stays in my top-ten-best-of-all-time film list. Then we have Woody Allen, now (in)famous for his clear predilections for sexual relationships with very, very young women. But Manhattan is still a masterpiece, as are several other of his films.

Music? Todd Rundgren, who wrote that very popular tune where a character in the song notes about women, "They may be stupid but they sure are fun!" I recall in a radio interview many years ago where the interviewer directly questioned "Where did that come from?" Rundgren kind of hemmed and hawed, saying something along the lines of "It's a character in the song, not me."

Uh-huh. Personally, I still cringe when that tune comes on the radio, which it does, even once in a while on my beloved, very progressive WXPN-FM.

Art is the child of the artist, eventually it has to stand or fall on its own, it doesn't need to be its parent.

[cjlasky7]

Rundgren. Sigh. The man is a genius, but lordy, he's got issues. Still, cue up "Something/Anything" or "A Wizard, a True Star" and I can forget about that.

Gibson is an interesting case. I absolutely agree about his Mad Max movies, mainly because George Miller handed him the keys to the golden chariot and told Gibson to look cool driving it. He does. But Fury Road is easily the best of the series, and Mad Mel isn't in it. So maybe he wasn't that essential.

As for Mel Gibson, cinematic auteur, his brand of holy masochism (level of pain and suffering = level of goodness) just turns me off completely. I heard Hacksaw Ridge was a really good flick, but... No. Just no.

The Woodman? Actually saw him play clarinet live when my date and I snuck into one of his weekly gigs. His place in the cinematic pantheon is assured. He's a direct influence on countless directors and comedians, whether they want to admit it or not. Is he going to be dogged as a pedophile long after he's in his grave? Yup.

BTW, the Sturgeon story is called "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?"--and yes, it is about an offworld human society that practices incest for sexual initiation. I do think Sturgeon meant it as provocation, because everybody on that world didn't seem to have any problems with the practice, even if the visiting Earthman completely freaked out. I wish Sturgeon could have fully explored the broader implications for the society, but there's only so much room in a short story. (Besides, cultural anthropology is more of a LeGuin thing.)

CJL: Was Dollhouse a critique of female objectification or just... female objectification?

OnM: Yes.

I think that sums it up rather nicely.

[dlgood]

One key thing about Dollhouse for me is that he gave an actress who had been pigeonholed a chance to play every kind of role she had wanted and couldn't get... and for long past the point where she'd confirmed why that was.

Which may have been unwise from a production standpoint but admirable in a giving someone a shot stance (although not 'Christian Hackneberg on an NFL Roster' level of unwise generosity) ...

Unless it turned out he was sleeping with her. At which point it would be very wrong. So from a purely selfish standpoint, he's given me a reason to think about a show I'd long stopped thinking about. And I like thinking about shows.

[shadowkat]

Well, the interesting thing about Dollhouse is...Whedon got the job through Dusku. Apparently she was the one with the contract with Fox, and who convinced Fox to hire Whedon to do the series, and co-produced it with Whedon. I remember reading about that in more than one spot at the time.

He pitched the idea to her, after she told him what it felt like to be an actress in Hollywood.

Have you seen Westworld? Because it basically takes the Dollhouse idea about two steps further and runs off with it.

[shadowkat]

This is fascinating. I've read multiple opinions on this.

I rather liked mefisto's (aka sophist on atpobtvs) take, which was he loved BTVS, not so much the other entries, and could separate Whedon from his works. But, he would never pay or listen to the music of Ted Nugent, who he found despicable. Then arthur_of_the_britons, aka Trepkos, responded that there was a bit difference between enjoying and watching a television show and paying money to see a concert.

Or another way of putting it? Dahl didn't tend to advertise his prejudices and views, you had to look for them -- I didn't know he was any of those things, and don't really see it in his novels. Orson Scott Card on the other hand took out advertisements and let people know he was putting the proceeds of his books and films towards his campaign against LGBTQ. Same deal with Bill Cosby, he was raping women and had allegations come out about it and it made the image he portrayed in his comedy, advertisements, and sitcom seem icky and distorted.

Mel Gibson is interesting. His best work included Gallipi, The Year of Living Dangerously, Mad Max, Road Warrior, and there was another Australian film in which he played a mentally challenged man. And I admit to enjoying the Lethal Weapon series, which I saw in the theaters. Actually the films he made prior to Braveheart, were quite good. I think of him as Gibson before Braveheart and Gibson after Braveheart. I can't watch much of the stuff he did past Braveheart.

Woody Allen and Roman Polanski are somewhat similar...both are like it or not film auteurs. Is there a disturbing theme in their series, yes. But, I think film and books often reflect what is in our society, and the reflection is not always positive and sometimes its necessary to see...the dirty underbelly. To see it exposed. Were they exploitive or critical of society and revealing? Both.

I think that's the cognitive dissonance...the fact that someone or something can be two seemingly contradictory things at the same time. People want it to be black or white, this or that, when more often than not it's both.

Whedon, I think, struggled with his prurient tastes and urges and as an artist examined them in film. I've read his interviews about Dollhouse, and he basically stated that he was exploring how society and humans objectify each other, sexual fantasy, and the dark side of that. It's notable that women were not the only "dolls" in Whedon's "Dollhouse". And they certainly aren't the only gender being objectified. (Just study the abbreviated life and times of James Dean and Montgomery Clift). I know he was also fascinated by power issues in particular in regards to sex and gender. And explored that through his art. Depending on your perspective, that could be considered brave or self-indulgently creepy.

For my part? I agree with you and most of the comments below. I found and still find Whedon thought-provoking. I have not stopped following him on Twitter. And I don't think it diluted the power of his story-telling.

But if Whedon's moral authority is now in doubt, it does open the door to less admiring, more harshly critical assessment of his work. (For instance: What's the deal with the "weaponized waifs" running through all of his series? Was Dollhouse a critique of female objectification or just... female objectification?)

I have to admit I had issues with the fans who worshipped Whedon and his moral authority..seriously, he's a Hollywood screenwriter and director of superhero films starring the Avengers...

And...I think the critique has already been out there. I know I made that critique of his work. (You didn't read the S8 comics, did you? Because...that's where it got really disturbing. We had flying vagina monsters...I kid you not. And all the slayers looked like the waifish girls from My Little Pony.)

Dollhouse...I suggest if you haven't already seen it, to try Westworld, because it sort of does what Whedon attempted in Dollhouse a tad better and with a lot more thought. I honestly think anyone who has seen Dollhouse, really needs to watch Westworld. And compare the two.

What's the deal with the "weaponized waifs" running through all of his series?

I've seen multiple interpretations. A friend of mine (you met her, she's the one who dated Frank Miller) stated once that she had issues with the lead female protagonist of "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" because she felt it was a male take on what made women strong and not seeing how women were strong in their own right. Recently, I saw a similar critique on The Mary Sue of James Cameron's films -- in contrast to say Wonder Woman.

And I know a lot of people took issue with how the female superheros of the X-men were drawn -- too tall, too muscular, too busty, etc. (I am tall, and busty, so this annoyed me. I'm sorry not all women are 5'5 with no bust.)
Reminds me of an editor who told my Dad that all his female characters were too tall. That most women were short. This bewildered my father, since his wife and daughter are tall.
Wait, he thought, that's not the norm?

Anyhow...if you ever were to meet Joss Whedon, you'd discover he's a short man. Not very big. I've seen pictures. He's the same height as SMG. So, it would make sense that he identifies with small women.

But he also stated in another interview that he chose small women as his heroines...because they were underestimated, often killed in slasher pics, the damsels. Even in Xenia, the tough hero was a woman who was 6 foot, while her side-kick was tiny. And this was true of Terminator, Alien, and
so many of the things he studied. I think he wanted to subvert the genre and do the exact opposite. Cordelia, the tall cheerleader, is weaker, than tiny Buffy or Illyria. Or look at Firefly, Zoe has nothing on tiny River.

I think it had more to do with subverting the genre than sexual desire, although that may or may not have been there as well. Since we do not know which actresses he slept with, if any, or which co-workers...we can't really connect the two.

In the end, there's only one real tragedy here--and that belongs to Joss Whedon, Kai Cole, and their kids. When all is said and done, this is their story, not ours. We can stand on the sidelines and debate the implications, but we have no voice in the matter. We can only ponder the strange relationship among artist, art and audience--a relationship that's up to each member of the audience to define for themselves.

Agreed.

Although, it's worth noting the...problematic sexual politics in the workplace, and the continued power imbalances within certain industries.