Art and the Artist

Am I justified in maintaining my love for Buffy the Vampire Slayer despite the ongoing revelations about Joss Whedon? Should we separate the art from the artist?

The producers of The Expanse have to edit out a major character in post-production after a wave of sexual harassment and assault allegations. The makers of The Mandalorian fire the actor behind an incredibly popular character because of (admittedly unconscionable) comments comparing being a Republican to being a Jew in Nazi Germany. And this year’s edition of Joss Whedon is a toxic misogynist masquerading as a feminist seems like a late season redux of early installments but is no less difficult for those of us who grew up on loving shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

In the case of actors, separating art from the artist is comparatively easier than doing so for a content creator like Whedon. After all, The Expanse is not a romantic show and the character played by actor Cas Anvar spent most of his time piloting ships and bringing Space Cowboy vibes to his laconic character, Martian Alex Kamal. So while I’m glad Anvar’s been fired, his presence didn’t detract much from my enjoyment of the show’s fifth season (although one scene where an actor was forced to kiss him made me dry heave). And this segues nicely into why this issue is greater for my second love, Korean dramas, than it is for my first love of science fiction. Korean dramas nearly always have a romance element to them and so while I could grin and bear Cas Anvar’s presence in this season of the Expanse, you couldn’t pay me enough to watch the disgusting Park Si-hoo and any poor woman forced to act alongside him.

And yet actors aren’t responsible for the art they appear in. Cas Anver’s presence in The Expanse won’t stop me from re-watching the show and the decision to fire him merely reinforces that. Just like Gwyneth Paltrow’s role in The Politician didn’t stop me from enjoying its second season even more than I enjoyed its first. (Yes even despite the Ryan Murphy element, which I’ll describe loosely as narcissistic diversity for want of a better way to express my discomfort with his body of work).

Joss Whedon, however, isn’t an actor. He’s a writer, director and producer. He’s a content creator, a driving creative force. A show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer IS Whedon in a way that a show like The 100 IS the toxic Jason Rothenburg but a show like the Mandalorian is NOT Gina Carano. So the question of being able to separate the art from the artist becomes more complex and messy.

Firstly, a disclaimer. I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I have always loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This has not and will not change. But this post is not to justify that, nor is it to question that. It is to hopefully parse out my own thoughts on this issue to help others parse out theirs. Is it acceptable for me to continue to love the show despite everything we know about Joss Whedon? I don’t know. But hopefully by explaining why I do it might help progress the conversation.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer burst onto the scene at the perfect time to entrance me. I’d finished my degree and was working full time. I was thrust into the workforce and forced to deal with the embedded and systemic sexism and misogynism of the Australian newsroom. My degree – a hodge podge of subjects from semiotics and media analysis to economics and geopolitics sprinkled with sound engineering and broadcasting under the improbable heading of a business degree – had taught me how to view media critically. Buffy with its emphasis on slaying our demons, fighting for what’s right rather than what’s easy, and asking hard questions about when and how we should use the power we have entered my life at precisely the right moment. “Punch up, not down” is a timeless message for life and for journalism and combined with Buffy’s feminist themes and multiple representations of femininity, it quickly became a favourite.

But, also, Buffy the Vampire Slayer tells a damn good story. And that hasn’t changed. The season construction, pacing and characterisation of Buffy remains nearly unparalleled. Episodic television within a resolved seasonal arc that doesn’t rely on cheap cliffhangers or twists to keep interest remains the holy grail of seasonal television and I defy anything except the best of the best to compete with Buffy in this respect. Buffy’s greatest strength was not skinny women kicking arse. It was in its use of characterisation to drive plot and to give those characters believable growth over time without compromising them.

I didn’t pick up the show Angel when David Boreanaz left Buffy for his own spinoff show. I watched the first few episodes with a friend while drinking bourbon and laughing at how comparatively shallow and borderline ridiculous it was. I never was a fan of Noir and the attempt to marry Noir with vampire detectives did not work for me (this is unfortunately an entire genre and while Angel did not start it, it did spark attempts to replicate it resulting eventually in the hilariously terrible Moonlight). More importantly, Noir as a genre is inherently misogynistic with its Lone Warrior males and femme fatales and I didn’t think Whedon was trying to subvert the genre so much as embrace it.

While I later picked up Angel and eventually watched it all the way through, I became increasingly uncomfortable with it as it progressed. Then Firefly gave me its Whore With a Heart of Gold and Arse Kicking Girl Child and while I had not yet given expression to my mounting unease (I put the masculinity issues of that text down to its Space Western roots), I did tune into Dollhouse and then I really started to feel it. Joss Whedon, we were told by all (but especially Joss Whedon) was a feminist who produced feminists works of art. So why was Dollhouse so damn creepy? Was the show critiquing the objectification of women as it claimed to be or was it guilty of the same crime it was supposedly examining?

There is an episode of Dollhouse in its first season that troubled me greatly. Man on the Street tells the tale of an internet entrepreneur who creates a moment he missed by the premature death of his beloved wife. She supported him while he was trying to get his business off the ground but then died before he could unveil the dream house she’d always wanted. He hires a doll every year to create this moment that death took from him.

The main character, Echo oohs and aahs through the house as he shows it to her. He then plans of course to have sex with her. This was a moment he had dreamed of and it was taken away from him. The lobotomised sex doll allows him to finally realise his dream. Should we identify and sympathise with this poor man who has lost his wife? Or judge him for his need to objectify and use an agentless woman to fulfil his masculine fantasy of providing? The character himself seems torn; well aware that his behaviour is wrong but driven by an overpowering emotional need. A man who has a moral code that he cannot reconcile with his own actions.

While I was watching Man on the Street – and Dollhouse as a body of work – way back in 2009 or 2010 or whenever it finally aired in Australia, I was struck with a deeply disquieting thought that what I was watching was the moral flounderings of Joss Whedon himself. The entire show seemed to be written by and for a man who was not what he wanted to be: an attempt at self-examination alternating between self-flagellation for his moral and ethical failings and sympathetic buttressing of the belief that as a man his actions were unfortunately unavoidable. The artistic equivalent of the slave to his genes theory of evolutionary male behaviour.

But Dollhouse also solidified for me what was the most wrong with Whedon’s self-professed feminism and penchant for “strong female characters” – all of whom were fit, skinny arse kickers. Whedon believes that men are fundamentally, genetically flawed and so it is the responsibility of women to fight for things to be better. Men can’t help it, women need to force them to change. There is simply no other conclusion that a man like this could come to when he himself couldn’t control his own base impulses and be the man he pretended to be. At least that was what I took from Dollhouse as a work of Joss Whedon. He was a man who did not live up to his own vision of himself. But also one that saw no issue with creating shows of hot scantily-clad arse kickers to appeal to the men who shared his same masculinity issues. The type I have no broad label for but is a special class of entitled geek: the Nice Guy who spouts feminism because he thinks it gets him laid and then inevitably gets angry when it doesn’t.

Considering the messages I took from Dollhouse, I was not surprised – angry and horrified, yes, but not surprised – by the unfolding revelations about Joss Whedon. Not after watching Dollhouse. Like most of his works, Dollhouse was a rollicking good story. But I could never shake the uncomfortable feeling that I was simply watching Joss Whedon’s personal issues play out on screen. Just like I could never enjoy the Space Cowboy antics of Firefly as much as others or watch that season of Angel without wondering why Whedon was clearly punishing Charisma Carpenter for being pregnant (is it really that hard to work around a pregnancy? The latest season of The Expanse says ‘no’.).

And yet, even while I was critically rejecting Whedon’s later works, I still loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I still do. Is this justified? Should I condemn it to the waste bin of history because it’s tainted by the finger prints of a deeply insecure and insincere man whose sense of internal impotence caused him to ape a feminist in public while being a misogynist in secret?

I genuinely don’t know the answer to this question or whether my response to it is based on logic or simply mired in my emotional attachment to the show. For Buffy at least, I see a text that I made mine at a time when I most needed it. So I choose to still love it even though I possibly shouldn’t. Whedon may be a terrible human being but Buffy is an objectively great show.

Is ‘Love the Show, Not the Showrunner’ a philosophy that’s justifiable when I will happily refuse to watch anything created by Stephen Moffatt, whose gross misogyny infuses his texts until they’re uncomfortable to watch? I don’t think so. And yet here we are. I love Buffy and the expanding revelations about Whedon can’t change that. So I guess this post is my own Man on the Street. What a sobering thought.


6 thoughts on “Art and the Artist

  1. What a wonderfully written post, Lee. You raise such an interesting point, because it is one that is played out in other areas too e.g. certain sporting legends. We love “Buffy”. Yes, it is a great show. My wife is rewatching it at the moment. Every now and then I get caught up in part of an episode or two. We liked Angel as well (until about just over halfway through – I kept hoping it would change) and Firefly. When you look at Firefly’s cast and what they have gone on to do, it does make wonder about a few things re the creative world. However, with “Dollhouse” I lasted all of 15 minutes (similar to how I have dropped a few kdramas very quickly when I have said to myself something is not right here). As for “The Expanse,” I do feel saddened when such revelations happen or come to light. I don’t have any pearls of wisdom to offer here, overall. I think at the end of the day, it comes down to a choice to either watch or not watch. There are many variables within making such a decision that each person needs to explore. For the record, I did watch Kingmaker. I read far and wide before I made the decision to do so. However, my prime motivator was to support Ko Sung-hee, who I like as an actress and yet there are some who do not. As for Moffat, well he tends to destroy what he creates. You have given me another angle to consider regarding him, though. I would be interested re your thoughts on LUCA – because we have an awesome female detective who does get her “ass” handed to her on a plate quite regularly!

    1. Thanks, Sean! I’ll put Luca on my list for when I have some time in my life for dramas again. Unfortunately things are a bit unsettled at the moment (as I suspect it is for many).

      The Kingmaker question (Kingmaker: The Change of Destiny) is an interesting one because it reminds me of one argument I didn’t sufficiently canvass in this. That argument is that works of art like television or film are the product of hundreds of people and not just a showrunner or an actor (although I admit to drawing the line at watching a man like Park Si-hoo in a potential romantic role). If a work doesn’t belong to just one person you could argue you’re supporting the rest of the cast, crew and everyone else involved in bringing it to life. In this respect, Buffy was not just the work of Whedon but a large number of other people, especially Sarah Michelle Gellar. And I don’t think supporting her work as an artist is a controversial decision.

  2. The revelations of Whedon’s grossness is not surprising. Disappointing? Yes. Shocking? No.

    My blacklist of creators just continues to grow, and as it grows the question you ask becomes more pertinent. Can you separate the art from the artist? My general rule of thumb is a hard no. Giving up the likes of Woody Allen and Mel Gibson is easy. And that host from the Bachelor who just resigned this week? Yeah, that’s not gonna hurt me at all. Probably the only fair comparison I can think of off the top of my head is J.K. Rowling and her TERFish bullying has completely sullied some really great memories I have of reading her novels with my then young children.

    Can I keep that experience or has the artist’s horrible real life way of being ruined it for me? I think all I can do, is pull out the good parts and slam the door shut on the disgustingness. But I don’t think there can ever be a carefree revisiting of the text now that a horrific subtext can’t not be seen.

    I’m tired of awful people. I’m tired of learning what they have done, what they have been allowed to do, and how they have succeeded while doing it. Please please please don’t ever tell me that Patrick Stewart is a jerk and a predator. He might be my only hope.

    1. The JK example is a really good one, egads. Especially because so many people have taken that text and made it their own; reading themselves into it and being inspired by it. And that includes members of the LGBTQI community. Her horrible transphobic TERF comments have really dented her image (although we could argue whether that image was entirely justified) and for some people it’s caused them to revisit the Harry Potter books and perhaps see it differently. But since no work is flawless, I think it is possible to take what you want from them and leave behind the things that no longer work for you. But also, as you know, it’s no longer the carefree and unproblematic experience it was before.

      I’m also tired of awful people. And I also don’t want to think that such art is impossible to make unless it’s done by an awful person. I don’t want to think that genius is inseparable from megalomania or that you have to function in a toxic environment as a toxic person to get anything done. That’s just a depressing thought.

      PS As far as I know, Patrick Stewart is still the fabulous darling we believe him to be. *cross fingers*

  3. Thank you for the post, again I’m disappointed that he has been allowed to keep creating shows for years without having any consequences for his actions.
    His career should have been over after he allegedly was ordered not to be alone with a child actor on the set of Buffy. I don’t think it will be long before another showrunner will be in the same boat. I also hope that Ray Fisher who requested HBO to take action against Joss Whedon, is offered more jobs in Hollywood and his existing role as The Falcon in the Justice League.

    I think I will continue to watch Buffy in the future because I do want to support the actors who are in the cast. I think it will be harder to ignore the “jokes” Whedon puts into his writing.What I’ve noticed in the Avengers movies that Joss Whedon created and the Justice League, is that he loves to include this kind of frat boy humor but a nerd version, especially when it comes to Tony Stark’s lines, I think he wrote a “funny” line about rape but of course this is in Latin.

    1. That’s a good point, Ayan. Buffy is full of great actors and writers and we could argue it’s as much their show as Whedon’s.

      But the news that he was forbidden to be alone with Michelle Trachtenberg – then a 15 year old – for behaviour that she has described as “very not appropriate” shows that people knew exactly who he was even then. It shows how abuse that is supported by a system perpetuates. So while Whedon is finally being exposed, there’s another of his ilk out there still getting away with it – although he’s probably not so publicly a hypocrite.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top