So I spend way too much time on Wikipedia, but I found a quote about Buffy vs. Dracula’s conception.
“The vampire who was going to show Buffy a darker side of herself was originally envisioned as "just another vampire who rode a horse and was all cool", says writer Marti Noxon. "I kept saying, 'Like Dracula'" - until Joss Whedon said, "Why not Dracula? He's public domain."[1]”
While I understand Dracula as a character serves to show Buffy a darker side of herself and understand her role as a bad-ass slayer/valley girl, I feel like the presence of Dracula allows the show to see a darker side of itself and force itself to admit it’s gothic heritage.
Dracula represents, quite obviously, the traditional gothic, sets the standard for what Buffy is doing. You cannot create a “twist” or parody of a genre without acknowledging the validity of the genre. Dracula appears in the show as a beautiful vampire (contrasting the modern vampires we see with the scrunched-up foreheads and yellow eyes) wearing a black cape. He seems to fulfill all the stereotypes that Joss Whedon has been attempting to break with his series, until of course, one realizes that Dracula set the precedent for these stereotypes. (And yes, occasionally in my head I refer to Dracula as the OG—Original Gangsta) Our 20th century characters, however, much like us, have been jaded by the last 100 years of vampire obsession, find poor Vlad amusing rather than terrifying (Xander so hilariously compares him to the Dracula-parody, Sesame Street's Count puppet). To me, this mockery of Dracula represents the nature of the parody—Buffy mocks Dracula, Buffy the Vampire Slayer mocks what Dracula represents—the Gothic tradition.
As the show progresses and Buffy pulls more and more pleather pants out of her closet, the characters realize the danger of Dracula as a vampire and the power he can weild over all of them. Both Buffy and Xander fall under his thrall, and willingly go to him, and Buffy even goes so far as to sleep drink his blood. The acknowledgement of Dracula’s power over the characters reflects the power of gothic tradition over the show. As much as Joss would like to create a new realm of vampire fiction, the show still functions as part of the greater universe of gothic tradition. The beauty of the show lies, I believe, in its ability to both mock and admire the gothic. In the end of the show, Buffy can defeat Dracula, but it is a temporary death and he returns to life, reflecting the place of the show as indelibly linked to the Dracula legacy.
Tangent:
And yes, maybe it’s because I hate Tom Cruise, but I would love the episode for the crack at Lestat alone. Maybe because Anne Rice lacks the same self-awareness that Joss Whedon posses, or maybe its just my abhorrence for lace cravats.
Tangent over.
Time to go get me some pleather pants.
I love your post. I recently watch Interview with a Vampire for the first time. I wanted to snap the DVD because I couldn't stand how seriously the movie, and by extension Anne Rice, took itself. I've come to love Buffy for the same reason you mention in your post: it acknowledges its debt to the Gothic and respects the genre, but doesn't take itself or its foundational genre too seriously. TrueBlood does the same thing, though with a little more subtlety.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the appeal of Buffy has to do with its self-referential acknowledgement of its roots. I think this is what makes Northanger Abbey successful too. Possibly also why your post is so entertaining.
ReplyDelete