The Needless Murder of Tara Maclay
A look at Buffy's most controversial storyline
A look at Buffy's most controversial storyline
There can be little doubt that of all the storylines used on Buffy, the most discussed and hotly debated is the one of Willow's magic
addiction, within which as part of that storyline was the accidental murder of her girlfriend Tara and Willow's descent into grief-fuelled,
magically-enhanced violence and eventually to attempted genocide. It divides opinion unlike any other subject on the Buffy boards and is still a hotly
contested topic to this day.
The problem with the argument over whether or not Tara's death was right has focused all too often on her sexuality and the invocation of the dreaded "Dead/Evil Lesbian" cliche. Whilst there is much to be said on that subject, I will here attempt to show why I disapprove of the entire storyline, not just the death, and as such why I think the death was not only wrong, but counter-productive.
Addiction: What kind is it and what is it progressing towards?
The main problem I have with Willow storyline is that I do not believe they handled the addiction at all well. For Tara's death to have any validity in dramatic terms the addiction storyline has to hold and quite frankly, it doesn't.
Before we get into this issue, I want to deal with a small matter of the a change in metaphor for magic. Season 4 the metaphor was undeniably a romantic one, where magic was the metaphor for Willow's growing relationship with Tara and their romantic and indeed sexual relationship. For it to metamorphose from romantic love to abuse and addiction is not a comfortable one and does give the impression (heightened by the use, deliberate or otherwise, by the "Dead/Evil Lesbian" cliche) that the writers were at the very least subconsciously making a judgement about this lesbian relationship, and possibly others. Its a harsh comment to make, but I can understand why people see this point. Now I will deal with my main points of contention individually.
Firstly, was Willow actually addicted to magic? I would argue not. Magic had never been discussed in any previous season as a substance one could become addicted to, like any narcotic, and it seemed an odd change to suddenly being an addictive substance that anyone could be addicted to. Given that Giles, who knows a thing or two about dark power, never mentions magic as an addictive substance nofor that matter does Tara, it does seem a very odd decision by the writers.
What was apparent during season 5 and certainly the first part of season 6 was that Willow and Tara had a very different ideology when it came to magic and its use. For Tara, brought up as a Wiccan, magic was something spiritual, something to be used only when no other reasonable alternative presented itself. Tara herself rarely if ever used offensive spells, but rather spells for confusion and defence.
Wilow on the other hand, most certainly saw magic as a science project, something to investigate and explore. We see her in season 5 upgrading spells and tinkering with them very much like a scientist, seeing where the next formula takes her. In season 6 she has become adept at this to the point where she sees her power as the first port of call, rather than investigate other possibilities.
And this is my problem with the "magic as drugs" metaphor. For me, up until "Wrecked" (where the substance abuse metaphor first kicks in), Willow's story is one of being drunk on power rather than one of substance abuse. Willow doesn't consider other possibilities, instead using her power on the basis of "I can therefore it's okay". Her inner moral compass is askewed by her power, leading her to the belief that as long as she is making people happy or doing good or that the purpose is honourable, that her using any spell, regardless of possible consequences, is the right thing to do. Her view of the world has become warped, in stark contrast to Tara's spiritual viewpoint. In essence, Willow is losing her soul. Like Jurassic Park, Willow rather ignores the warning given by the Jeff Goldblum character that "You spent so much time finding out if you could do a thing that you never thought to ask if you should". Willow has reached that point now with "Wrecked". She rapes Tara's mind not once but twice, because she wants to avoid arguments and the pain she has caused. her moral compass has gone, and her lack of understanding causes the split and her inability to deal with that loss, leading her to both sink further into abusing her power with Amy and reject any notion that it was her actions that caused the split.
But then a second problem occurs in "Wrecked" and it is one that is really only seen in hindsight, but it is a crippling problem. Having decided to turn "drunk on power" into "addicted to a substance" the writers then really don't do anything with the storyline. Willow goes through an all too typical Hollywood teen drug trip (which rarely resembles the reality of getting high or a bad trip or indeed the lows of coming down from the drug) and by the end of the same episode she is suffering with the sweats and shakes of withdrawal. Why? Even if one is prepared to allow for the change in storyline there is too much happening too soon and from that episode on her addiction is barely touched on, other than giving it lip service. In fact, one could go as far as to say that the addiction isn't truly dealt with in any real and responsible way at all, looking much more like a convenient way to get their Dark Magic Willow at the end.
If you examine such memorable films covering real addiction such as "Trainspotting" or "Rush" then you see how far short the writers came to truly depicting the horrors of drug abuse and rehabilitation. Even "House" shows a far more powerful examination of abuse and addiction than season 6 of Buffy did. As for the mystical variety of addiction, you need look no further than the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy to show how mystical forces as an addictive substance can be handled.
So what went wrong? No one will ever truly know except the writers and I doubt they will open up about it so I will engage in speculation. It seems to me that the magic addiction storyline, or indeed the drunk on power storyline, was not the guiding principle here. Two things were: That Willow go bad for a few episodes at the end but not so bad or fall so far from grace that she could not be redeemed, either within the story or with the public at large. The storyline embarked upon then becomes the pretext for this mission statement, rather than the storyline being played out in a logical and dramatic fashion. In short it seems less like "Okay Willow has this addiction and she bottoms out when Tara dies and she goes all black haired and vengeful" and more like "Okay, so we want Willow going evil how do we get her there?" In a display of "the end justifies the means" (which seems odd given that this is the very ideology the writers are ranting against within the storyline) the addiction storyline is secondary to the ending, and is played very much with that in mind.
As for Willow being irredeemable if they went with the logical storyline (either version) I do not believe this to be true. Given that Spike, a mass murdering rapist (and indeed attempted rapist of Buffy) is given a chance to find redemption it seems odd that the writers may feel Willow was somehow less able or that fan sympathy would not be with her. Also, it must be pointed out that if Tara did not die but during season 7 helped Willow find herself, her soul, again and re-kindled their relationship in light of that, then the audience would have been won over.
So could it have been set right? Yes. If the "drunk on power" storyline had been followed, Tara and Amy could have been the old angel and devil on Willow's shoulders. As so often happens, the devil sounds more like a friend and less of a killjoy than the angel, who ultimately saves Willow from herself, possibly at the cost of her own life. As much as I like the character of Tara, I would have understood the character's demise if the storyline had been strong enough to justify it and that it had more dramatic potential than keeping the character around. My argument is that the storyline simply wasn't.
If the drugs metaphor was used it would have been a painful fall from grace to watch but my contention is you do anyone who has had to recover from addiction, or seen others die as a result of addiction, a terrible dis-service to pay it less than full attention as the writers did with this season. Willow could have easily have slipped into a psychotic break or vanished from sight for a few episodes. there were many ways to play an addiction that would have been undoubtedly harrowing, but undeniably more respectful, than the one used which for my point of view was neither.
Once you expose the lack of dramatic weight the addiction storyline has, the dramatic bullet points (literally) within the storyline fall be default.
It's worse than that, she's dead, Joss
And so we come now to the actual death itself, of which there are several problems, both in terms of dramatic choices, social responsibility and moments where the series own canon causes confusion. Much has been written about the "Dead/Evil Lesbian" cliche and I will briefly outline where I think it falls in amongst the criticisms.
The cliche, in broad terms, is simply this: Most lesbian characters on network television in the USA, invariably either die or are the bad guy (usually becoming quite unhinged). This invariably happens after the character in question has had sex (as if this was an attempt by studio execs at the time to place a moral foundation in programming and had decreed homosexuality as something to never show in a positive light). This cliche has been well documented on television and film and is an accepted cliche.
So how does it apply to Buffy? Well, with the exception of the final point regarding moral intent of the writers (which some believe was not in evidence whilst I remain sceptical) the cliche plays out exactly as written. Worse, it is such a stunning and extreme example of the cliche in action it may even go down as the definitive example of the cliche on screen. Given that the very genesis of Buffy was to subvert cliche, it is somewhat saddening that the writers reverted to an extremely offensive one in order to move a plotline along. But for me the most galling aspect is that in several interviews the writers, including Joss, acknowledged that there were terrible cliches around when it came to gay characters on television and they would never go near those cliches. Now this for me, given that they then did go near one of the most repulsive, indicates either stupidity on their part for not realising that what they were writing was so close to the cliche in action or it does give rise to the accusation, made by many who were adversely affected by the storyline, that the writers were less than honest with their fans. I am unsure which it is but I can understand both viewpoints.
So the cliche is there, and seen, whether one sees it as a textbook example or not, but there are of course other problems with the whole death scene and aftermath, and it starts with that bullet.
Firstly, as a preface, we have the actions of Tara herself during this scene. She is seen looking out of the window at Buffy and Xander's reunion and then turns to talk to Willow. A few moments later Warren comes in, shouting at Buffy and then firing two bullets at them, and then a third as he exits which kills Tara. So what is Tara doing at this moment? Nothing it seems. There is no looking out the window to see what all the shouting is about. There's no ducking when the bullets start firing or even looking out the window to see who is firing. Instead she just stands there like a dork, back to the window, without moving a muscle. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So that part for me doesn't work and then there is the trajectory of the bullet
I have watched the shooting several times and I cannot for the life of me figure out how that bullet, went into that window, let alone at that angle. I doubt the great minds of CSI could figure out how the bullet managed to fire upwards at an angle that couldn't possibly have hit that window, and yet manged to turn mid air so that it comes through the window straight with enough velocity to kill Tara and splash blood all over Willow yet not enough for the bullet to leave Tara and strike whatever was dead ahead (which of course would also be Willow). JFK's "magic bullet" suddenly seem logical. Okay not really, but it is an equally improbable bullet.
Why should this matter given that this is a fantasy show? There is an argument, with some weight, that it was not a realistic bullet but an element of drama, but here we run into a problem. The writers had said repeatedly that the reason they used a gun for Tara rather than a sword or knife or spell was that they wanted a very real death, the kind of thing that happens everyday. Well, impossible bullets and freak shots don't happen every day and as such it undermines their point of view. Now if Tara had been in the kitchen and Warren had fired 3 times wildly (or if the bedroom had been ground level) then the writer's point of view would have carried more authority. But it wasn't, so it doesn't.
So, an impossible bullet has killed Tara and then we get to the next point of contention which is why did she stay dead?
In the episode, Willow contacts Osiris and demands that Tara be returned to her. Osiris tells her that because Tara died of natural means, as opposed to supernatural, it cannot be undone. I'm sure that the writers were trying to create a counterpoint to the start of the season where Buffy had been resurrected. However, a little forethought by the writers could have stopped them from being made to look fools as they overlooked their own canon.
In "The Zeppo", we meet the character of Jack O' Toole. Here is a character that was resurrected mere moments after being shot dead with no real signs that he was the least bit affected or changed. there is no remark that he has changed in character or that he is aging or dying or that he is rotting. Others who do not consider this a valid argument talk of his friends and saying Tara would look like that but that's hardly accurate. They had been dead, buried the ground for months. Jack on the other hand shows no sign of zombiefication.
Another argument is that, given Willow didn't meet Jack, she may be unaware of the spell used but again this argument doesn't stand up. In "Smashed" Willow calls out for the right spell to de-rat Amy. The same spell surely would have conjured up the right spell for resurrecting Tara right there and then.
It does seem that the writers were so busy thinking about the drama they forgot to make it logical. But then we have Tara dead now and what is Willow going to do about it?
Deja Vu just isn't what it used to be
This is where the law of diminishing returns kicks in. What happens in the next few episodes is merely a watered down re-hash of previous plot threads, each of which were far more effective and powerful, both in emotional terms and were more logically understandable, than what we were given in season 6. I will briefly outline these threads:
Tara is hurt and Willow uses dark magic to take her revenge. Well this is nothing more than a re-visit on "Tough Love".
A loved one of one of the Scoobies is killed by the main villain, causing them to seek out that villain themselves in enraged vengeance. Giles attacking Angelus after Jenny is murdered in "Passion".
Buffy finds herself having to deal with someone she cares about who has gone to the dark side and planning on hurting her loved ones and destroying the world. Pretty much the back half of season 2, taking on Angelus.
Buffy and her friends deal with the grief of losing a loved one. The loss of Joyce.
For me, each of the original versions of these storylines are far more dramatic, more emotionally wrenching, and more logical in terms of characterisation and story plotting, than what we got in season 6.
As for the scene involving Warren's murder, there are a couple of problems. Chief of all is the slip from angry Willow to just plain vile. There is a level of sadism that is not in keeping with either the character or the needs of the story, but seems to be more interested in seeing just how far the writers feel tbey can go with the shock value. This is never good storytelling, where style is dictating the substance (of which there was precious little by this point) as opposed to the right way which is for the substance to dictate the style. Also, by the time we get to Warren's death we are not shocked by Willow's reaction but close to cheering her on as Warren is completely unsympathetic. This means the intended moral quandry is completely undermined by the sheer unlikability of the character and the less said by the slo-mo bullet (which has the feel of being almost a rape scene) the better.
I will add that I also feel that whilst it was logical to use Xander to save Willow at the end of season 6, it was a little unfortunate given the "Dead/Evil Lesbian" cliche that the Fruedian cliche of all gay people needed was someone of the opposite sex to say they loved them to make them "normal" was then applied. The yellow crayon speech misses its target completely and it is only the fine acting, rather than the writing, that saves the scene. And to be honest, I would have thought it much more powerful if Tara's spirit had appeared to talk her girlfriend down.
So those are my major problems with season 6 with regards to that storyline. I am sure there are little bits and pieces I have neglected, which only tend to come out during fierce debate.
So what could have been done differently? Plenty. As mentioned above doing either the "drunk on power" story or the "magic addiction" story properly could have produced a much darker but richer and more dramatic season. Several major changes could have made the death seem less improbable. if the storyline had been strong enough, and the actual mechanics of the scene had been handled logically, sensibly and sensitvely, I would have missed Tara but would have understood the need to kill her off. But it wasn't handled well at all, for my opinion, and as such I feel a great injustice was done.
So what impact had it had? Given the depth of feeling and outrage (and that Buffy lost 18% of its viewing figures overnight and never regained them) I reckon it was a gamble that backfired. A recent Q & A with Amber Benson was very revealing. She stated that Joss kept putting the death back as he was upset about doing it (which i rather regard as his conscience telling him it was a bad idea, something I think he should have listened to rather than his ego) and also that if he had known the impact it would have on the gay & lesbian community he wouldn't have done it. This second point I'm not so sure about. I think, and this is my opinion only, that Joss knew exactly how the fans would react, in so much as being hurt and shocked. I think he expected the audience to say "Oh my God! Tara's dead!" followed by "WOW! How incredible was that?" Instead after the first reaction a great deal of the audience, including me, said "How stupid and F**ked up was that?" I think Joss believes that the only way to get a seismic reaction out of an audience is to kill someone but what he was doing with Willow and Tara was moving mountains in a way that no show had done before. So I lay the following charges at Joss' feet:
1) That his ego is bigger than his consceince and he listens to the bigger of these far too often.
2) He seems to feel that tv shows are about pain and more pain without understanding that pain without context is hollow cruelty. What worked about previous deaths on the show was that there was context. Plus without light the dark has no meaning. Season 6 had so much dark that all the misery was without context as there was no light to balance it. It was quite simply, misery for misery's sake.
3) That in never allowing any relationship to succeed you not only stop your audience (after they clue in on this, which I have) from emotionally connecting with your characters or your show, but you also create the very thing you say you despised - a cliche. When relationships form it becomes a question now of when will you blow them away, not if. When if is no longer relevant, its hard to become emotionally involved in anything.
4) That tunnel vision is not healthy and can lead you to not realise the bigger picture. This rather leads on from charge 1 but it is a relevant point. Understand that sometimes the greatest thing you can do as a writer is shock the audience. And sometimes the greatest thing to do is give hope a sanctuary.
So these are my charges, my thoughts and feelings on this issue. I'm sure many if not most will disagree with my views and that is fine. But the upshot of what has happened is that I can't get emotionally attached to Joss Whedon's shows, as I simply don't trust him as either a person or a writer. He is a good writer, but not a genius. And he seems to have not learned the most vital lesson - that surprises and shocks only work the first time. When you do them ad nauseum, you affect a cliche that can, as I witnessed in season 6, become lazy, flabby and underwhelming. Sadism is only viable if it is with willing masochists. otherwise it is abuse. I am not a masochist.
The problem with the argument over whether or not Tara's death was right has focused all too often on her sexuality and the invocation of the dreaded "Dead/Evil Lesbian" cliche. Whilst there is much to be said on that subject, I will here attempt to show why I disapprove of the entire storyline, not just the death, and as such why I think the death was not only wrong, but counter-productive.
Addiction: What kind is it and what is it progressing towards?
The main problem I have with Willow storyline is that I do not believe they handled the addiction at all well. For Tara's death to have any validity in dramatic terms the addiction storyline has to hold and quite frankly, it doesn't.
Before we get into this issue, I want to deal with a small matter of the a change in metaphor for magic. Season 4 the metaphor was undeniably a romantic one, where magic was the metaphor for Willow's growing relationship with Tara and their romantic and indeed sexual relationship. For it to metamorphose from romantic love to abuse and addiction is not a comfortable one and does give the impression (heightened by the use, deliberate or otherwise, by the "Dead/Evil Lesbian" cliche) that the writers were at the very least subconsciously making a judgement about this lesbian relationship, and possibly others. Its a harsh comment to make, but I can understand why people see this point. Now I will deal with my main points of contention individually.
Firstly, was Willow actually addicted to magic? I would argue not. Magic had never been discussed in any previous season as a substance one could become addicted to, like any narcotic, and it seemed an odd change to suddenly being an addictive substance that anyone could be addicted to. Given that Giles, who knows a thing or two about dark power, never mentions magic as an addictive substance nofor that matter does Tara, it does seem a very odd decision by the writers.
What was apparent during season 5 and certainly the first part of season 6 was that Willow and Tara had a very different ideology when it came to magic and its use. For Tara, brought up as a Wiccan, magic was something spiritual, something to be used only when no other reasonable alternative presented itself. Tara herself rarely if ever used offensive spells, but rather spells for confusion and defence.
Wilow on the other hand, most certainly saw magic as a science project, something to investigate and explore. We see her in season 5 upgrading spells and tinkering with them very much like a scientist, seeing where the next formula takes her. In season 6 she has become adept at this to the point where she sees her power as the first port of call, rather than investigate other possibilities.
And this is my problem with the "magic as drugs" metaphor. For me, up until "Wrecked" (where the substance abuse metaphor first kicks in), Willow's story is one of being drunk on power rather than one of substance abuse. Willow doesn't consider other possibilities, instead using her power on the basis of "I can therefore it's okay". Her inner moral compass is askewed by her power, leading her to the belief that as long as she is making people happy or doing good or that the purpose is honourable, that her using any spell, regardless of possible consequences, is the right thing to do. Her view of the world has become warped, in stark contrast to Tara's spiritual viewpoint. In essence, Willow is losing her soul. Like Jurassic Park, Willow rather ignores the warning given by the Jeff Goldblum character that "You spent so much time finding out if you could do a thing that you never thought to ask if you should". Willow has reached that point now with "Wrecked". She rapes Tara's mind not once but twice, because she wants to avoid arguments and the pain she has caused. her moral compass has gone, and her lack of understanding causes the split and her inability to deal with that loss, leading her to both sink further into abusing her power with Amy and reject any notion that it was her actions that caused the split.
But then a second problem occurs in "Wrecked" and it is one that is really only seen in hindsight, but it is a crippling problem. Having decided to turn "drunk on power" into "addicted to a substance" the writers then really don't do anything with the storyline. Willow goes through an all too typical Hollywood teen drug trip (which rarely resembles the reality of getting high or a bad trip or indeed the lows of coming down from the drug) and by the end of the same episode she is suffering with the sweats and shakes of withdrawal. Why? Even if one is prepared to allow for the change in storyline there is too much happening too soon and from that episode on her addiction is barely touched on, other than giving it lip service. In fact, one could go as far as to say that the addiction isn't truly dealt with in any real and responsible way at all, looking much more like a convenient way to get their Dark Magic Willow at the end.
If you examine such memorable films covering real addiction such as "Trainspotting" or "Rush" then you see how far short the writers came to truly depicting the horrors of drug abuse and rehabilitation. Even "House" shows a far more powerful examination of abuse and addiction than season 6 of Buffy did. As for the mystical variety of addiction, you need look no further than the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy to show how mystical forces as an addictive substance can be handled.
So what went wrong? No one will ever truly know except the writers and I doubt they will open up about it so I will engage in speculation. It seems to me that the magic addiction storyline, or indeed the drunk on power storyline, was not the guiding principle here. Two things were: That Willow go bad for a few episodes at the end but not so bad or fall so far from grace that she could not be redeemed, either within the story or with the public at large. The storyline embarked upon then becomes the pretext for this mission statement, rather than the storyline being played out in a logical and dramatic fashion. In short it seems less like "Okay Willow has this addiction and she bottoms out when Tara dies and she goes all black haired and vengeful" and more like "Okay, so we want Willow going evil how do we get her there?" In a display of "the end justifies the means" (which seems odd given that this is the very ideology the writers are ranting against within the storyline) the addiction storyline is secondary to the ending, and is played very much with that in mind.
As for Willow being irredeemable if they went with the logical storyline (either version) I do not believe this to be true. Given that Spike, a mass murdering rapist (and indeed attempted rapist of Buffy) is given a chance to find redemption it seems odd that the writers may feel Willow was somehow less able or that fan sympathy would not be with her. Also, it must be pointed out that if Tara did not die but during season 7 helped Willow find herself, her soul, again and re-kindled their relationship in light of that, then the audience would have been won over.
So could it have been set right? Yes. If the "drunk on power" storyline had been followed, Tara and Amy could have been the old angel and devil on Willow's shoulders. As so often happens, the devil sounds more like a friend and less of a killjoy than the angel, who ultimately saves Willow from herself, possibly at the cost of her own life. As much as I like the character of Tara, I would have understood the character's demise if the storyline had been strong enough to justify it and that it had more dramatic potential than keeping the character around. My argument is that the storyline simply wasn't.
If the drugs metaphor was used it would have been a painful fall from grace to watch but my contention is you do anyone who has had to recover from addiction, or seen others die as a result of addiction, a terrible dis-service to pay it less than full attention as the writers did with this season. Willow could have easily have slipped into a psychotic break or vanished from sight for a few episodes. there were many ways to play an addiction that would have been undoubtedly harrowing, but undeniably more respectful, than the one used which for my point of view was neither.
Once you expose the lack of dramatic weight the addiction storyline has, the dramatic bullet points (literally) within the storyline fall be default.
It's worse than that, she's dead, Joss
And so we come now to the actual death itself, of which there are several problems, both in terms of dramatic choices, social responsibility and moments where the series own canon causes confusion. Much has been written about the "Dead/Evil Lesbian" cliche and I will briefly outline where I think it falls in amongst the criticisms.
The cliche, in broad terms, is simply this: Most lesbian characters on network television in the USA, invariably either die or are the bad guy (usually becoming quite unhinged). This invariably happens after the character in question has had sex (as if this was an attempt by studio execs at the time to place a moral foundation in programming and had decreed homosexuality as something to never show in a positive light). This cliche has been well documented on television and film and is an accepted cliche.
So how does it apply to Buffy? Well, with the exception of the final point regarding moral intent of the writers (which some believe was not in evidence whilst I remain sceptical) the cliche plays out exactly as written. Worse, it is such a stunning and extreme example of the cliche in action it may even go down as the definitive example of the cliche on screen. Given that the very genesis of Buffy was to subvert cliche, it is somewhat saddening that the writers reverted to an extremely offensive one in order to move a plotline along. But for me the most galling aspect is that in several interviews the writers, including Joss, acknowledged that there were terrible cliches around when it came to gay characters on television and they would never go near those cliches. Now this for me, given that they then did go near one of the most repulsive, indicates either stupidity on their part for not realising that what they were writing was so close to the cliche in action or it does give rise to the accusation, made by many who were adversely affected by the storyline, that the writers were less than honest with their fans. I am unsure which it is but I can understand both viewpoints.
So the cliche is there, and seen, whether one sees it as a textbook example or not, but there are of course other problems with the whole death scene and aftermath, and it starts with that bullet.
Firstly, as a preface, we have the actions of Tara herself during this scene. She is seen looking out of the window at Buffy and Xander's reunion and then turns to talk to Willow. A few moments later Warren comes in, shouting at Buffy and then firing two bullets at them, and then a third as he exits which kills Tara. So what is Tara doing at this moment? Nothing it seems. There is no looking out the window to see what all the shouting is about. There's no ducking when the bullets start firing or even looking out the window to see who is firing. Instead she just stands there like a dork, back to the window, without moving a muscle. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So that part for me doesn't work and then there is the trajectory of the bullet
I have watched the shooting several times and I cannot for the life of me figure out how that bullet, went into that window, let alone at that angle. I doubt the great minds of CSI could figure out how the bullet managed to fire upwards at an angle that couldn't possibly have hit that window, and yet manged to turn mid air so that it comes through the window straight with enough velocity to kill Tara and splash blood all over Willow yet not enough for the bullet to leave Tara and strike whatever was dead ahead (which of course would also be Willow). JFK's "magic bullet" suddenly seem logical. Okay not really, but it is an equally improbable bullet.
Why should this matter given that this is a fantasy show? There is an argument, with some weight, that it was not a realistic bullet but an element of drama, but here we run into a problem. The writers had said repeatedly that the reason they used a gun for Tara rather than a sword or knife or spell was that they wanted a very real death, the kind of thing that happens everyday. Well, impossible bullets and freak shots don't happen every day and as such it undermines their point of view. Now if Tara had been in the kitchen and Warren had fired 3 times wildly (or if the bedroom had been ground level) then the writer's point of view would have carried more authority. But it wasn't, so it doesn't.
So, an impossible bullet has killed Tara and then we get to the next point of contention which is why did she stay dead?
In the episode, Willow contacts Osiris and demands that Tara be returned to her. Osiris tells her that because Tara died of natural means, as opposed to supernatural, it cannot be undone. I'm sure that the writers were trying to create a counterpoint to the start of the season where Buffy had been resurrected. However, a little forethought by the writers could have stopped them from being made to look fools as they overlooked their own canon.
In "The Zeppo", we meet the character of Jack O' Toole. Here is a character that was resurrected mere moments after being shot dead with no real signs that he was the least bit affected or changed. there is no remark that he has changed in character or that he is aging or dying or that he is rotting. Others who do not consider this a valid argument talk of his friends and saying Tara would look like that but that's hardly accurate. They had been dead, buried the ground for months. Jack on the other hand shows no sign of zombiefication.
Another argument is that, given Willow didn't meet Jack, she may be unaware of the spell used but again this argument doesn't stand up. In "Smashed" Willow calls out for the right spell to de-rat Amy. The same spell surely would have conjured up the right spell for resurrecting Tara right there and then.
It does seem that the writers were so busy thinking about the drama they forgot to make it logical. But then we have Tara dead now and what is Willow going to do about it?
Deja Vu just isn't what it used to be
This is where the law of diminishing returns kicks in. What happens in the next few episodes is merely a watered down re-hash of previous plot threads, each of which were far more effective and powerful, both in emotional terms and were more logically understandable, than what we were given in season 6. I will briefly outline these threads:
Tara is hurt and Willow uses dark magic to take her revenge. Well this is nothing more than a re-visit on "Tough Love".
A loved one of one of the Scoobies is killed by the main villain, causing them to seek out that villain themselves in enraged vengeance. Giles attacking Angelus after Jenny is murdered in "Passion".
Buffy finds herself having to deal with someone she cares about who has gone to the dark side and planning on hurting her loved ones and destroying the world. Pretty much the back half of season 2, taking on Angelus.
Buffy and her friends deal with the grief of losing a loved one. The loss of Joyce.
For me, each of the original versions of these storylines are far more dramatic, more emotionally wrenching, and more logical in terms of characterisation and story plotting, than what we got in season 6.
As for the scene involving Warren's murder, there are a couple of problems. Chief of all is the slip from angry Willow to just plain vile. There is a level of sadism that is not in keeping with either the character or the needs of the story, but seems to be more interested in seeing just how far the writers feel tbey can go with the shock value. This is never good storytelling, where style is dictating the substance (of which there was precious little by this point) as opposed to the right way which is for the substance to dictate the style. Also, by the time we get to Warren's death we are not shocked by Willow's reaction but close to cheering her on as Warren is completely unsympathetic. This means the intended moral quandry is completely undermined by the sheer unlikability of the character and the less said by the slo-mo bullet (which has the feel of being almost a rape scene) the better.
I will add that I also feel that whilst it was logical to use Xander to save Willow at the end of season 6, it was a little unfortunate given the "Dead/Evil Lesbian" cliche that the Fruedian cliche of all gay people needed was someone of the opposite sex to say they loved them to make them "normal" was then applied. The yellow crayon speech misses its target completely and it is only the fine acting, rather than the writing, that saves the scene. And to be honest, I would have thought it much more powerful if Tara's spirit had appeared to talk her girlfriend down.
So those are my major problems with season 6 with regards to that storyline. I am sure there are little bits and pieces I have neglected, which only tend to come out during fierce debate.
So what could have been done differently? Plenty. As mentioned above doing either the "drunk on power" story or the "magic addiction" story properly could have produced a much darker but richer and more dramatic season. Several major changes could have made the death seem less improbable. if the storyline had been strong enough, and the actual mechanics of the scene had been handled logically, sensibly and sensitvely, I would have missed Tara but would have understood the need to kill her off. But it wasn't handled well at all, for my opinion, and as such I feel a great injustice was done.
So what impact had it had? Given the depth of feeling and outrage (and that Buffy lost 18% of its viewing figures overnight and never regained them) I reckon it was a gamble that backfired. A recent Q & A with Amber Benson was very revealing. She stated that Joss kept putting the death back as he was upset about doing it (which i rather regard as his conscience telling him it was a bad idea, something I think he should have listened to rather than his ego) and also that if he had known the impact it would have on the gay & lesbian community he wouldn't have done it. This second point I'm not so sure about. I think, and this is my opinion only, that Joss knew exactly how the fans would react, in so much as being hurt and shocked. I think he expected the audience to say "Oh my God! Tara's dead!" followed by "WOW! How incredible was that?" Instead after the first reaction a great deal of the audience, including me, said "How stupid and F**ked up was that?" I think Joss believes that the only way to get a seismic reaction out of an audience is to kill someone but what he was doing with Willow and Tara was moving mountains in a way that no show had done before. So I lay the following charges at Joss' feet:
1) That his ego is bigger than his consceince and he listens to the bigger of these far too often.
2) He seems to feel that tv shows are about pain and more pain without understanding that pain without context is hollow cruelty. What worked about previous deaths on the show was that there was context. Plus without light the dark has no meaning. Season 6 had so much dark that all the misery was without context as there was no light to balance it. It was quite simply, misery for misery's sake.
3) That in never allowing any relationship to succeed you not only stop your audience (after they clue in on this, which I have) from emotionally connecting with your characters or your show, but you also create the very thing you say you despised - a cliche. When relationships form it becomes a question now of when will you blow them away, not if. When if is no longer relevant, its hard to become emotionally involved in anything.
4) That tunnel vision is not healthy and can lead you to not realise the bigger picture. This rather leads on from charge 1 but it is a relevant point. Understand that sometimes the greatest thing you can do as a writer is shock the audience. And sometimes the greatest thing to do is give hope a sanctuary.
So these are my charges, my thoughts and feelings on this issue. I'm sure many if not most will disagree with my views and that is fine. But the upshot of what has happened is that I can't get emotionally attached to Joss Whedon's shows, as I simply don't trust him as either a person or a writer. He is a good writer, but not a genius. And he seems to have not learned the most vital lesson - that surprises and shocks only work the first time. When you do them ad nauseum, you affect a cliche that can, as I witnessed in season 6, become lazy, flabby and underwhelming. Sadism is only viable if it is with willing masochists. otherwise it is abuse. I am not a masochist.
