I would just post a link, but you have to sign up for the New York Times, and they're also very good at quickly shutting down links and making you pay to access old articles. This is funny to me, since you can generally get them for free on Microfiche, and the NYT is proud to call itself a "paper of record." Anyway, screw that: here's the article.
10 Questions for Joss Whedon
This is from the New York Times:
10 QUESTIONS FOR . . .
Joss Whedon As the seven-year run of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" comes to a close, creator Joss Whedon shares his thoughts about redemption, the soul and other frivolous matters.
Q. 1. What are your thoughts on the academic community's use of the show, from the humanities to the sciences, to debate and analyze everything?
A. I think itís great that the academic community has taken an interest in the show. I think itís always important for academics to study popular culture, even if the thing they are studying is idiotic. If itís successful or made a dent in culture, then it is worthy of study to find out why.
"Buffy," on the other hand is, I hope, not idiotic. We think very carefully about what weíre trying to say emotionally, politically, and even philosophically while weíre writing it. The process of breaking a story involves the writers and myself, so a lot of different influences, prejudices, and ideas get rolled up into it. So it really is, apart from being a big pop culture phenom, something that is deeply layered textually episode by episode. I do believe that there is plenty to study and there are plenty of things going on in it, as there are in me that I am completely unaware of. People used to laugh that academics would study Disney movies. Thereís nothing more important for academics to study, because they shape the minds of our children possibly more than any single thing. So, like that, I think "Buffy" should be analyzed, broken down, and possibly banned.
Q. 2. Is there anything on any show you wanted to do, but couldn't, because the budget or network TV standards wouldn't allow it?
A. Iíve always fought the budget fight, but I found early on the less money you have the more you have to fall back on good story telling, so itís never been a terrible problem. Weíve never been able to have (with the exception of John Ritter) any particularly notable guest stars. Weíre not one of those shows thatís such a big hit that everyone wants to be on it, and we never had enough money to have anyone really famous. Every now and then we sort of wished we would, but we donít really tell stories that way so that wasnít a big deal either.
The only thing that weíve ever actually been stopped or asked to stop doing was the fast food run. When Buffy worked at the fast food joint it made the advertisers very twitchy. So apparently the most controversial thing we ever had on Buffy was a hamburger and chicken sandwich.
Q. 3. Are there any plot twists or character developments (characters leaving the show, going from evil to good or vice versa) that you look back on and wish you could alter, somehow?
A. There arenít a lot of twists that I wanted to throw out there. After seven years youíve pretty much used a bunch of them up, and then you start twisting just to twist again (like we did last summer). Youíre not really telling mythic stories, youíre just trying to surprise people and it sort of becomes fake.
However, there are a couple of things I wouldíve liked to have seen a little more of; either Vampire or Hyena Xander, because Nick pulls that off really well. And I wish we had been able to service Dawnís character a little bit more in her third season. I really wanted to paint her with a lot of different colors, but we got wrapped up in the big slayer story and the whole arc of the season, so I think she got a little bit gypped.
Q. 4. Buffy's father and his absence are important thematically in the first season. How did he go from being a somewhat neglectful, newly-divorced father in Season One to a total deadbeat? Did he fade out to clear the way for Giles as a father figure? Did you ever consider taking the Joyce/Giles pairing farther than it went?
A. Itís true that Buffyís father started out as just a divorced dad and then turned into this sort of "evil pariah" figure of not even bothering to show up, and that was simply because we had a father figure in Giles.
Iím very much more interested in the created family than I am in actual families. And, you have to deal with that character; how heís dealing with his ex-wifeís death for example. We have so many characters to service it made things simpler to use the short hand of, "heís just not there". And since weíre telling stories about family that often hit on the traditional patriarchy as being kind of lame-o, and the created family as being more lasting and more loving, it just made sense.
But there was also the practical reality of having to hire an actor and create a sub-plot that may not be as important as what we wanted to see our regular actor, Tony Head, going through, nothing against Dean [the actor who played Buffy's father]. We didnít mean to make him such a bad guy, but thatís just the reality of the thing.
And no, I never wanted Joyce and Giles to hook up romantically, but I did think it would be pretty funny if they had one night of drunken sex, of course the "Band Candy" episode lent itself perfectly to that.
Q. 5. I would like to get a more in-depth, coherent explanation of your concept of the soul. It seems to be the crucial thing that separates good and evil in the Buffyverse, yet at times it is treated like a commodity -- if you survive torture or know the right kind of magic you, too, can get a soul. Is it one particular soul per customer, as the white fog in the glass jar, identified as "Angel's soul" would indicate? Or is the soul merely the conscience? Why was Spike able to be "good" even without a soul?
A. I would love to give you a more in-depth coherent explanation of my view of the soul, and if I had one I would. The soul and my concept of it are as ephemeral as anybodyís, and possibly more so. And in terms of the show, it is something that exists to meet the needs of convenience; the truth is sometimes you can trap it in a jar; the truth is sometimes someone without one seems more interesting than someone with one. I donít think Clem has a soul, but heís certainly a sweet guy. Spike was definitely kind of a soulful character before he had a soul, but we made it clear that there was a level on which he could not operate. Although Spike could feel love, it was the possessive and selfish kind of love that most people feel. The concept of real altruism didnít exist for him. And although he did love Buffy and was moved by her emotionally, ultimately his desire to possess her led him to try and rape her because he couldnít make the connection ó- the difference between their dominance games and actual rape.
With a soul comes a more adult understanding. That is again, a little vague, butÖ can I say that I believe in the soul? I donít know that I can. Itís a beautiful concept, as is resurrection and a lot of other things we have on the show that Iím not really sure I can explain and I certainly donít believe in. It does fall prey to convenience, but at the same time it has consistently marked the real difference between somebody with a complex moral structure and someone who may be affable and even likable, but ultimately eats kittens.
Q. 6. We hear you're fond of Shakespeare's works - "Hamlet" in particular. Could that have partly inspired the "Normal Again" storyline that Buffy might be insane, since one theory about "Hamlet" goes that the entire story is actually taking place in Hamlet's imagination? How important is "Normal, Again" in the "Buffy" arc?
A. I have never been a subscriber to, "the entire play takes place in Hamletís imagination" theory. In fact, although Iím a devoted fan of "Hamlet" and it is the text I know best in all the world, "Normal Again" did not come from it.
How important it is in the scheme of the "Buffy" narrative is really up to the person watching. If they decide that the entire thing is all playing out in some crazy personís head, well the joke of the thing to us was it is, and that crazy person is me. It was kind of the ultimate postmodern look at the concept of a writer writing a show, which is not the sort of thing we usually do on the show. The show had merit in itself because it did raise the question, "How can you live in this world and be sane?" But at the same time the idea amused me very much and we played on it a little bit, "How come her little sister is taller than her?" "What was Adamís plan?" We played on the crazy things we came up with time and time again, to make this fantasy show work and called them into question the way any normal person would. But ultimately the entire series takes place in the mind of a lunatic locked up somewhere in Los Angeles, if thatís what the viewer wants. Personally, I think it really happened.
Q. 7. Redemption has been an important theme of the show. Is redemption the mode through which the characters become less cliched, more inspiring and interesting? Is redemption a theme that you have looked for in other texts from which you have drawn inspiration?
A. Redemption has become one of the most important themes in my work and it really did start with Angel. I would say probably with the episode "Amends," but even with the character itself and the concept of the spin-off was about redemption. It was about addiction and how you get through that and come out the other side, how you redeem yourself from a terrible life. I do actually work with a number of reformed addicts, if thatís what you call them. I call them drunks. But my point is a good number of people that are most close to me creatively have lived that life, and it informs their work. I never have, and so Iím not sure why it is that redemption is so fascinating to me. I think the mistakes Iíve made in my own life have plagued me, but theyíre pretty boring mistakes: I committed a series of grisly murders in the eighties and I think I once owned a Wilson-Phillips Album. Apart from that Iím pretty much an average guy, yet I have an enormous burden of guilt. Iím not sure why. Iím a WASP, so itís not Jewish or Catholic guilt; itís just there. Ultimately, the concept of somebody who needed to be redeemed is more interesting to me. I think it does make a character more textured than one who doesnít.
I can't think of anything, off hand, that I am a big fan of that contains that kind of thing. My favorite fictions are usually the kind I make, which is sort of adolescent rites of passage, which is what "Buffy" is about. Itís about the getting of strength and thatís probably the most important theme in any of my work, but I would say coming a close second is the theme of redemption. I think as you make your way through life itís hard to maintain a moral structure, and that difficulty and the process of coming out the other side of a dark, even psychological time is to me the most important part of adulthood.
I think to an extent every human being needs to be redeemed somewhat or at least needs to look at themselves and say, "Iíve made mistakes, Iím off course, I need to change." Which is probably the hardest thing for a human being to do and maybe thatís why it interests me so.
Q. 8. "Firefly" was the first time in a while when your ideas did not get to make it through to fruition. First of all, is there anything you would like to share with people following the show on the edge of their seats? And secondly, having seen how you turned a previous disappointment, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," the movie, into an artistic success on your own terms, can we hope for something similar with "Firefly"?
A. "Firefly." Iíll answer the second question first. I have every hope in the world of bringing "Firefly" back to people in another format. I havenít got anything definite yet but Iíve been fighting to do that since the day we were cancelled. I therefore donít have any particular plot things I want to share with people because Iím hoping Iíll get the chance to do that in the near future, whether it be on TV, film or a t-shirt.
It was a bizarre blow to have a story in your head and suddenly not get to tell it. I donít know why, Iíve written movies long enough to know that thatís usually the case, but after "Buffy" and "Angel" sort of took off I got lulled into overconfidence and was so excited to tell the stories of these people, and then suddenly had it truncated. However, knowing that what we shot will be coming out on DVD in its full form is a big vindication, because I got to say a lot of things that I wanted to say right, up in the first episodes. So, as I said, watch and wait.
Q. 9. Have you always known how "Buffy" would end? I ask this more in terms of Buffy's character than the show's plot. Meaning - have you always known where you wanted to take the character psychologically? And if so, where is that?
A. It would have been impossible for me to predict where Buffyís character would go by the end of the series because the character is informed by so many things. You have to find out what people respond to, you have to find out what works on the show, what aspects make sense, what your meaning is. After seven years your mission statement may have changed. Ours remained pretty much the same, or rather came full circle. We looked at the idea of power; the girl who had power that nobody understood, living in high school and how hard that was. We came back to that girl and that concept very strongly in the seventh season on purpose because we knew it was our last.
In terms of the character, though, you canít say ó- a lot of it has to do with the actor. If you are working with an actor, and reading them at all, and are making a show in which people change and donít just solve a crime every week, inevitably that actor informs that character. It happened very quickly with Willow becoming goofier and sexier, because thatís the way Alyson was. Gilesí character became hipper because Tony was not a stuffy guy. Sarahís became more thoughtful and intelligent. Buffy also became a little bit closed off from the other characters, in the same way that a star is kind of separated from an ensemble, so we dealt with the idea of the isolation of the Slayer, of the person who has to lead.
Some of that of course comes also from me ó- because at the end of the day I donít know how Iím going to evolve -ó and as much as the actor, the writer is the character. For seven years Iíve been Buffy. Some people do plot in advance, but because my show is really about just growing up and changing and growing, if you try and predict that too heavily you stunt it, you donít feel a natural flow and the stories start to feel forced.
Q. 10. If you were to continue with the same cast of Buffy for another year, where would you like to go with it?
A. Honestly, if I had a strong answer for that question there probably would be another season. I think itís time they all went their separate ways. And so my answer is, I canít possibly think of anything, Iím simply too tired. Thatís the end, thanks very much.
As someone who for many years watched the usually very drunken addicts of Shawn Leflar (guy who breaks the sword) and Tom O' Dell (the other guy) I can tell you he kept his tone of voice because they used to wound themselves CONSTANTLY.