[b:a55e549af0]Secrets and Lies Beyond the Fourth Wall[/b:a55e549af0]
[i:a55e549af0]The part of Tara's death Mutant Enemy won't discuss[/i:a55e549af0]
[i:a55e549af0][b:a55e549af0]Lilah[/b:a55e549af0]: You know, I always forget - the very bottom of Hell, in the ninth circle, the devil is frozen in ice, right? He's got three heads, three mouths and those mouths are reserved for the worst sinners. Now, I can't remember - who is in the center mouth? What was his name? The one person in all of human history deemed the greatest sinner? Who is it?
[b:a55e549af0]Wesley[/b:a55e549af0], after a beat: Judas Iscariot.
[b:a55e549af0]Lilah[/b:a55e549af0]: Right. The worst spot in Hell is reserved for those who betray.[/i:a55e549af0]
-- From the [u:a55e549af0]Angel[/u:a55e549af0] episode, "A New World"
Well, here we are again.
It's been three months since Tara MacLay met her death in the [u:a55e549af0]Buffy[/u:a55e549af0] episode "Seeing Red." Many [u:a55e549af0]Buffy[/u:a55e549af0] fans have known about it for much longer - some as early as the middle of March, not long after the episode was filmed. Now the new season is already in production, the networks are gearing up for their fall premieres, and yet the subject of Tara's death remains on people's minds and on message boards across the internet. Major publications have been told of the controversy, and some have already written articles about it. There are even rumblings that the issue may be the subject of a panel discussion at the upcoming World Science Fiction Convention in San Jose CA.
This is my third essay on the subject. The first one, "It's Not Homophobia, but That Doesn't Make It Right," was something I felt the need to write almost from the moment I first heard that Tara was going to be killed off. The second one, "The Message Is, 'Pay Attention to the Message'," was more of a surprise. I hadn't expected the response the first essay received, and I wasn't sure how much more there was for me to say on the subject. You can imagine, then, how surprised I am to be addressing the subject for a third time. Who would have guessed that the issue would still be affecting people so profoundly after all this time?
So, you may ask, what is there left for me to talk about? Plenty. For one thing, Joss Whedon has had more to say on the subject. Wanda from [u:a55e549af0]E!Online[/u:a55e549af0] asked him some very pointed questions recently, and his answers have given me plenty to think about and comment on.
As expected, Joss's explanation for Tara's death is that he was focusing on the narrative and what was necessary for Willow's story arc. It's safe ground for him, because he's essentially untouchable there. No matter what you think of Joss's story decisions - and personally, I think they were really bad - they were still his decisions to make and we must respect his right to make them.
However, that's not the end of the story. While viewers were watching the Willow/Tara story unfold onscreen, there was an entirely different story unfolding beyond television's "fourth wall" - in person, through the postal service, on the internet and in the media, where Mutant Enemy was interacting with their fans. It's this story that Mutant Enemy hasn't been willing to say much about. It's this story that warrants further attention.
[b:a55e549af0]Questions, questions, questions...[/b:a55e549af0]
I've noticed a trend in the replies I've been writing to the people who have sent me comments on my essays. (I do [i:a55e549af0]try[/i:a55e549af0] to write everyone who sends me something - even the guy who told me I couldn't possibly be more wrong. My reply rate isn't one hundred percent, but I do make the attempt.) Some people have pointed out Mutant Enemy's repeated claim that they treated Tara just like any other character and asked me why that's not a good enough explanation. Some have asked me whether or not I think Tara's death invalidates all that was done before with the Willow/Tara relationship. And some have objected to the way I compared Mutant Enemy to anti-gay hate groups in my second essay.
The answers to these and many of the other questions I've been asked are all rooted in the same thing - not what we saw on the screen, but what we heard and read away from the screen. The interaction between Mutant Enemy and the fans in the real world is what makes the difference.
Let's look at what I meant when I compared Mutant Enemy to anti-gay hate groups. Some people have asked me how I dared compare the death of a fictional character to something as horrible as the hate-motivated murder of Matthew Shepard. It's a good question - if that was in fact what I was doing. But I wasn't saying that at all. What happened to Matthew Shepard was an extremely rare occurrence carried out by individuals, not by an organized group. Gone are the days when an organization like the Ku Klux Klan could take people who were part of a minority group out and lynch them while law enforcement looked the other way. Today, most hate groups are limited to demonstrations and propaganda. Their actions sometimes incite [i:a55e549af0]individuals[/i:a55e549af0] to do much worse, but [i:a55e549af0]as a group[/i:a55e549af0] - which is the comparison I made before - usually the worst they can do is wave signs, pass out leaflets or hurl slurs and epithets.
And that's why I said that Mutant Enemy hurt the gay community in ways that these groups never will.
An anti-gay hate group will never gain the gay community's trust the way Mutant Enemy did. A hate group only has one message - hate. I doubt there are many gay people who would see a group of people waving signs, passing out propaganda or hurling epithets at them and believe the members of that group could be trusted. I doubt there are many gay people who would consider the members of that group to be their friends. I doubt there are many gay people who would continue listening to that group for two and a half years.
But the gay community [i:a55e549af0]did[/i:a55e549af0] trust Mutant Enemy. They heard Joss Whedon say things like "one post from a gay or questioning teen saying the show helped them is worth six hundred hate letters." They heard Joss Whedon tell a number of journalists - including one from [u:a55e549af0]Out[/u:a55e549af0] magazine, a leading publication in the gay community - that the story of Willow and Tara was one of the most important things they've done on the show. A bond of trust was formed, and when Tara was killed that bond of trust was broken.
The pain of betrayal is a uniquely intense emotional experience. It's what fuels many divorces and crimes of passion. It's what powers Shakespeare's [u:a55e549af0]Julius Caesar[/u:a55e549af0] and allows his line [i:a55e549af0]"Et tu, Brute?"[/i:a55e549af0] to transcend the play and enter our popular culture. It's why Dante put Judas Iscariot in the worst part of Hell when he wrote his [u:a55e549af0]Divine Comedy[/u:a55e549af0] - and why Mutant Enemy had Lilah Morgan refer back to Dante in an episode of [u:a55e549af0]Angel[/u:a55e549af0].
But you can't have betrayal if there's no bond of trust to betray. An anti-gay hate group can't form a bond of trust with the gay community, and therefore can't inflict the pain of betrayal. Mutant Enemy, on the other hand, [i:a55e549af0]did[/i:a55e549af0] form a bond of trust with the gay community, and when that bond of trust was betrayed, they made the gay community suffer in a way the hate groups never will.
[b:a55e549af0]What did Joss know? And when did he know it?[/b:a55e549af0]
And yet as I said, so far Mutant Enemy hasn't commented on this aspect of the controversy. In fact, most recently Joss has claimed that he didn't even know it even existed. Here's Wanda's report of what Joss said when she asked him about it:
[i:a55e549af0]I asked if he could understand why it was painful to lose TV's only positive lesbian relationship. "You have to understand," he said, "I'm not watching TV. You either watch it or you make it. So, when people said, 'Willow and Tara were all we had.' I was like, 'I didn't know that.'"[/i:a55e549af0]
I've already shown numerous examples in my first two essays that refute Joss's claim. The fan reaction to Willow and Tara was simply too great and too intensely personal for Joss not to have seen that it was unique. The interviews Joss gave and the postings he made on the Bronze make it clear that not only did he know what was going on, but he was actually using it to further his own ends. In case anybody still has doubts, though, let me offer a few more quotes to consider.
On April 28 2000, Joss made this comment to a fan calling herself "Riley's Girl":
[i:a55e549af0]Actually I'm really glad you like the show. I'm against intolerance of any kind, but if I only made a show for people with the exact same opinions as me, I'd have a pretty teeny audience. So welcome. [b:a55e549af0]The whole point of Buffy is to be inclusive to those who feel excluded, like gay teens[/b:a55e549af0] and, right now, like Riley's Girl. (But no Nazis. I'm serious about that.)[/i:a55e549af0]
On August 1 2000, Joss had this to say about the "lesbian toaster" he had been given:
[i:a55e549af0]NO ONE I know has an engraved toaster. Plus, coolness aside, the fact that you cared that much about what we've been doing with Willow and Tara... sniff sniff, something in my eye...[/i:a55e549af0]
And a few days later, on August 6, Joss had this to say about a convention experience:
[i:a55e549af0]At the con, a woman came up to me after the panel to say "Thank you for Tara." But I was being herded away and I didn't get to respond, I shouted "You're Welcome" but I don't know if she heard, anyway it was a big deal for me that she came up to say that and I hope she knows it. Amber and I chat on occasion about the greatness of helping people with this role.[/i:a55e549af0]
As the Willow/Tara relationship continued, the fan response and the media interest only grew larger. If Joss didn't know that Willow and Tara were unique, why did he think a magazine like [u:a55e549af0]Out[/u:a55e549af0] wanted to interview him? Why did he think people were thanking him? Why did he think people were breaking down in tears in front of Alyson Hannigan or Amber Benson, telling the actresses how their lives had been transformed? Joss's claim that he didn't know simply doesn't hold water.
And this brings me to another point about Joss and lies. A number of people, right up to Wanda from [u:a55e549af0]E!Online[/u:a55e549af0], have told me that producers lie all the time. It's necessary in order for them to protect the plot twists in their stories. But that isn't really accurate. J. Michael Straczynski spent far more time online than all of Mutant Enemy [i:a55e549af0]combined[/i:a55e549af0] during the run of [u:a55e549af0]Babylon 5[/u:a55e549af0] - and on the USEnet of all places, not a private forum like the Bronze. At the same time, his producer John Copeland was a regular on the America Online forums. Neither of them ever spread disinformation on the scale that Mutant Enemy did with Willow and Tara. When a question about spoilers came up, they either said "I'm not going to answer - you'll have to wait and see," or they gave an extremely vague answer, or they simply ignored it. There were never any statements like "I have no plans to send Marcus Cole anywhere," or "I think Talia Winters is a big part of the heart of the show," or "Kill off Warren Keffer? OVER MY DEAD BODY!" (Those are all characters who were killed off, in case you didn't follow the series.) So while it's reasonable to expect producers to protect their secrets, that doesn't mean they have to behave the way Mutant Enemy has behaved.
Besides, even if Wanda is right and it really is acceptable for Mutant Enemy to behave the way they did, there are no plot twists to protect now that the season is over. Tara's dead, and everybody knows it. So why is Joss Whedon still lying?
[b:a55e549af0]Just what is this "narrative" thing, anyway?[/b:a55e549af0]
Another thing people who have written to me point out is Mutant Enemy's repeated claim that "the narrative" required them to kill Tara. How can I expect writers to sacrifice their freedom by subjecting their narrative to the demands of minorities or the politically correct? Aren't I trying to take away creative freedom? Do I really expect a writer to work under such restrictive conditions?
What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the issue of "the narrative" is never that black and white. Writers are never in a situation where they have only one way to tell a story and preventing that one way would cripple them. "The narrative" isn't rigid. It's fluid. When you're telling a story, the playing field available to you is very wide and gives you plenty of room to maneuver. There is always room for changes and adjustments.
Don't believe me? Then read what Mutant Enemy has to say on the subject. Let's start with something I brought up in my first essay - the announcement from Joss at his June 18 Academy of Television Arts and Sciences presentation that Buffy would get a new job in the upcoming season. Why?
[i:a55e549af0]Doublemeat Palace was the only thing we ever did to make advertisers pull out. They did not like us making fun of fast food.[/i:a55e549af0]
Next, consider the following interview with James Marsters from the October 1999 issue of [u:a55e549af0]Horror Online[/u:a55e549af0]:
[i:a55e549af0]Although the characters of Spike and Drusilla have become an integral part of the show, Whedon's initial concept differed slightly, James' role being a bit more disposable. "He was supposed to die three to four episodes after being introduced," James explained. "Supposedly Angel was going to go bad, and Juliet was to be his girlfriend, and Angel was going to kill me as his first bad-boy thing to do.'"[/i:a55e549af0]
And speaking of Angel, consider the following item from the February 25 2000 issue of [u:a55e549af0]The Hollywood Reporter[/u:a55e549af0]:
[i:a55e549af0]Whedon went on to explain that they originally thought of Angel as a guardian for other characters but soon realized that the show's audience wanted to know more about the mysterious good vampire.[/i:a55e549af0]
So here we have three examples of how the narrative can change based on the reaction of the sponsors, the producers or the fans.
Now consider this quote from Joss Whedon's June 2001 interview with [u:a55e549af0]IGN.com[/u:a55e549af0], in which he discusses his original plan to make Tara part demon (a wood sprite was the example used) and what led him to change that part of his story:
[i:a55e549af0]Wood sprite family fell by the wayside. It was like a bolt from the blue: Wait a minute, we're doing this wrong! And that's why when we lay things in, we keep ourselves open, to a sudden change or a better idea. We've often have ideas that we were like, "Oh, we could pursue this," and then something much cooler came along, and we're like, "OK, never mind!"[/i:a55e549af0]
Obviously, the people at Mutant Enemy don't think the narrative is as rigid as they would like us to believe it is. There are many reasons why it could change, some which involve the minds of the writers themselves and others which involve someone watching the finished product. So had the narrative really locked Mutant Enemy into killing Tara? Not at all. There were plenty of opportunities to change the story. The goal of the story - Dark Magic Willow - could still have been achieved, but in a way that would have preserved the Willow/Tara relationship instead of destroying it. The relationship was destroyed not because Mutant Enemy [i:a55e549af0]couldn't[/i:a55e549af0] avoid it, but rather because they [i:a55e549af0]wouldn't[/i:a55e549af0] avoid it.
[b:a55e549af0]The implied hypocrisy[/b:a55e549af0]
Remember what I said in my second essay, about the need for writers to be careful that they don't send out messages they don't intend? The excuses Mutant Enemy has given for killing Tara add up to another of those messages. They imply a sense of hypocrisy in the Mutant Enemy staff and cast doubt on the claim that Willow and Tara were being treated just like anybody else.
It's not as if Mutant Enemy has credibility to spare. When Joss Whedon tells [u:a55e549af0]The Advocate[/u:a55e549af0] about his gay godfather but tells people at the Bronze Beta, "The gay thing is so pass. We're over that," or when Steven DeKnight rails against homophobes at the Bronze Beta just days after telling homophobia-tinged "jokes" during his interview at [u:a55e549af0]The Succubus Club[/u:a55e549af0], they're already casting doubt on their sincerity. The inconsistencies in their lies and excuses only make their situation worse.
Why is it that Angel's popularity gave him an expanded role and eventually his own series? Why is it that the positive reaction to Spike has kept him on the show to this very day, when he was originally going to be killed off over four years ago? And if positive reactions got those characters more screen time, why did the positive reaction to Tara get her killed? This example is only the beginning. There are others, too.
In his May 15 interview at [u:a55e549af0]The Succubus Club[/u:a55e549af0], David Fury was asked if there was any chance that Tara could be brought back from the dead. Here's what he replied:
[i:a55e549af0]Understand we can't cheapen death on the show. We have explored bringing people back already. So um, I don't think there's any, Joyce is really dead, Tara is really dead.[/i:a55e549af0]
"We can't cheapen death on the show?" What exactly does that mean? To be sure, there have been deaths on [u:a55e549af0]Buffy[/u:a55e549af0] that have had a profound impact, most notably the deaths of Jenny Calendar and Buffy's mother Joyce. But at the same time, Angel was killed and brought back, while Buffy was killed [i:a55e549af0]twice[/i:a55e549af0] and brought back. If you consider both [u:a55e549af0]Buffy[/u:a55e549af0] and [u:a55e549af0]Angel[/u:a55e549af0], we've now seen Darla die as a vampire, come back as a human, die as a human, come back as a vampire, and then die as a vampire [i:a55e549af0]again[/i:a55e549af0]. All of these events took place before "Seeing Red" was aired. So I must ask - why is it that bringing Tara back would "cheapen death" when all these other resurrections didn't? In what way is death cheapened that it hasn't already been cheapened?
And then there's the issue of exactly what Joss was trying to say - or not trying to say - with the Season 6 story arc and with "Seeing Red" in particular. Here's what he told Wanda about "Seeing Red," as reported in her July 26 column:
[i:a55e549af0]It was an episode that was so clearly about male violence and male dominance...[/i:a55e549af0]
But if this was supposed to be the point of the story, it's a very muddled point. In the episodes that followed, Warren paid for his acts of violence and dominance with his life - but the act of making him pay that price destroyed Willow as well, turning into the very "evil witch" stereotype that she herself railed against earlier in the season. Meanwhile, Spike tried to rape Buffy and yet Buffy still trusted him enough to seek him out in the very next episode and ask if he would protect Dawn, and Spike ended the season by gaining the reward of his soul. So exactly what is it that Joss is trying to say about male violence and dominance? It doesn't exactly look like he's entirely against it, now does it?
Meanwhile, here's what Joss told Wanda about Willow and Tara in that very same interview:
[i:a55e549af0]I don't really care about issues. I didn't care about the one I introduced with Tara, and I didn't care about the one when I killed her.[/i:a55e549af0]
So let's see if we've got this straight - He's unhappy with those in the audience who missed his muddled and morally ambiguous point about male dominance, but he doesn't care about the issue of giving the gay community its only realistic portrayal of a loving same-sex relationship. In this light, are we really still supposed to believe that [u:a55e549af0]Buffy[/u:a55e549af0] is a show about female empowerment? Are we really supposed to believe that Willow and Tara were treated just like everybody else?
[b:a55e549af0]Moving on and looking forward[/b:a55e549af0]
The special Wednesday airing of [u:a55e549af0]Buffy[/u:a55e549af0] on July 24 had a Nielsen household rating of 0.9, which translates to roughly 950,000 viewers. That was good for a ranking of 125th out of 137 prime-time shows on the seven commercial broadcast networks. Three of PAX TV's nightly [u:a55e549af0]Touched By An Angel[/u:a55e549af0] reruns did better. The regular Tuesday broadcast on July 23 was only slightly higher, with a 1.3 Nielsen rating. That was good enough for 110th place, but three of PAX TV's nightly [u:a55e549af0]Diagnosis Murder[/u:a55e549af0] reruns still did better. That week's episode of [u:a55e549af0]Angel[/u:a55e549af0] was in the basement as well, ranked 123rd with a 1.0 Nielsen rating.
Am I about to suggest that Mutant Enemy's plunge in the ratings is the result of people protesting the death of Tara? Not entirely. Instead, I think the poor ratings are the result of a much larger problem, and the way Tara's death has been handled is only one symptom of that problem. Other symptoms exist as well. While I've been talking about the people upset over Willow and Tara, others have been upset over any number of different things involving Buffy and Spike, from Spike's attempted rape in "Seeing Red" to the restoration of his soul in the last scene of the season. Still others are upset over the oppressively dark tone of the past season, or the fact that a series that for five years stood as a champion of female empowerment became more like a symbol of female degradation instead. [u:a55e549af0]Angel[/u:a55e549af0] viewers, meanwhile, have their own problems to worry about.
Should Mutant Enemy have seen this coming? Well, take a look at what Joss Whedon had to say in his September 2001 interview with [u:a55e549af0]The Onion[/u:a55e549af0], when he was asked whether the dedication of his fans put any extra pressure on him:
[i:a55e549af0]You don't want to let them down. The people who feel the most strongly about something will turn on you the most vociferously if they feel you've let them down. Sometimes you roll your eyes and you want to say, "Back off," but you don't get the big praise without getting the big criticism. Because people care. So. Much. And you always know that's lurking there. It does make a difference.[/i:a55e549af0]
Is this the same person who is now defending [i:a55e549af0]his[/i:a55e549af0] right to tell [i:a55e549af0]his[/i:a55e549af0] narrative at the cost of everything else? If so, then what happened? We may never know for sure.
For three essays now I've tried to show how the death of Tara illustrates the need for a writer to maintain a sense of responsibility toward the audience, and toward society as a whole. Writers who succeed do so because they're able to form [i:a55e549af0]relationships[/i:a55e549af0] with their audiences. Relationships can't work if they're one-sided - neither the writer nor the audience can have total domination over the other. Relationships are based on [i:a55e549af0]trust[/i:a55e549af0], and without it they fall apart.
Look at Mutant Enemy's track record, and you'll see what happens when trust disappears. If [i:a55e549af0]no[/i:a55e549af0] relationship ever turns out well, if [i:a55e549af0]no[/i:a55e549af0] character is ever safe from death or emotional destruction, if [i:a55e549af0]no[/i:a55e549af0] promising future ever comes to pass, and [i:a55e549af0]no[/i:a55e549af0] assurances from the writers and producers can ever be believed, what reason do people have to invest their emotions in the show? Today the Willow/Tara fans are in mourning - whose turn will it be tomorrow? Yesterday Mutant Enemy was lying to the Willow/Tara fans - who are they lying to today? If Joss identifies someone as "a big part of the heart of the show" - as he labeled Amber Benson last year and has labeled Charisma Carpenter more recently - is that a sign of good things for that actor's character, or a sign that you'll soon be hearing how much that actor will be missed and how much it hurt everyone at Mutant Enemy to let that actor go?
Speaking of which, Amber Benson appears to be moving on with her life quite nicely these days. Her movie [u:a55e549af0]Chance[/u:a55e549af0] will be a part of the Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival in Birmingham AL in September. When asked about [u:a55e549af0]Buffy[/u:a55e549af0] by the [u:a55e549af0]Birmingham News[/u:a55e549af0], she remarked, "That's three years of my life, kind of over, but it's exciting to go on to new things." Joss has said she'll be back on the show in a different role this coming season, but all Amber has said on the subject is, "I don't know, and even if I did, I still couldn't tell you."
In time, the Willow/Tara fans will also move on. New things in their lives will demand their attention, as things always do. Sooner or later, someone else in Hollywood will attempt to put another same-sex relationship on TV. Let's hope it's someone who not only gives the relationship a good and realistic beginning, as Joss did, but also has the courage and conviction to remain faithful to an audience that has such an enormous need to be reflected in our popular culture along with everyone else.
And what of Joss and his team at Mutant Enemy? As always, what they do with their stories is completely up to them. I just hope they learn a few things while they still have an audience that's willing to listen to them.
[i:a55e549af0]Robert A. Black has the distinction of being the only writer who ever got to drop green slime on Alanis Morrisette. He never imagined that a straight white man would have so much to say about lesbians.[/i:a55e549af0]
So, comments anyone?
And you do it so very well! Thanks again for lending your gift of words.
