Beauty and the Beasts

[Updated April 29, 2013]

Buffy’s shadow self/dark side has been explored in a number of episodes to date. Beauty and the Beasts examines the dark side of 3 men: Pete, Angel, and Oz. Pete’s case is the most obvious, because the story of Jekyll and Hyde – the obvious inspiration for the episode, which Willow mentions at the end – is a metaphor generally for the dark side/shadow self (or “civilized” versus “animalistic” as a specific case of the general idea). The trigger for Pete’s transformation is his potion, a fairly thinly disguised alcohol metaphor. Some literary historians argue that Robert Louis Stevenson, the author of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, was himself a cocaine user.

In previous posts I’ve mentioned Jungian theory, under which it’s necessary for every person to undergo a process of “individuation”, which means coming to terms with one’s shadow. Pete obviously failed in this task, to the point where the shadow subsumed the person. Here’s how the Wikipedia article explains it; note that it uses the Jekyll and Hyde example:

“According to Jung, the shadow sometimes overwhelms a person's actions…. 'A man who is possessed by his shadow is always standing in his own light and falling into his own traps ... living below his own level': hence, in terms of the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, 'it must be Jekyll, the conscious personality, who integrates the shadow ... and not vice versa. Otherwise the conscious becomes the slave of the autonomous shadow'.”

In stark contrast to Pete, the episode portrays Oz as someone who has previously come to terms with his wolf and controls himself voluntarily. As for Angel, at the beginning we’re uncertain because he returned in a feral state. At the end he achieves control of his inner beast through his love of Buffy. One obvious lesson is that we can now accept that it is indeed Angel who returned, not Angelus. It’s an example of the ability to be redeemed because he wants to be (to paraphrase what Giles told Buffy).

I’ve seen a fair amount of criticism of Beauty and the Beasts on the ground that this exploration of the dark sides of these specifically male characters meant that the episode is “anti-male”. Part of this is criticism of writer Marti Noxon, and is retrospective based on things which happen in later seasons. I don’t agree with this criticism of the later seasons, but I can’t get into the details now because of spoilers. There’s also some criticism from the text of the episode itself which I think is also unwarranted and I want to explain why I disagree with that.

Best I can tell, the criticism is based upon (a) Faith’s comments, particularly her statements that “all men are beasts” and that “they’re only in it for the chase”; (b) the fact that Angel and Oz do, in fact, have monsters inside them; and (c) the harsh portrayal of Pete. I’ll take these in turn.

Whether it’s Buffy or any other literature, we should be very wary of taking the statement of a single character at face value. I can’t imagine, for example, that Shakespeare agreed with everything Iago said and did. You can’t quote Iago and say “as Shakespeare said…”. Shakespeare said no such thing; Iago, a character, did.

When Faith makes her comment, or indeed any comment, we have to decide whether her character is telling us an intended message from the show or just something about her particular character. It seems to me pretty clear in this case that it’s only the latter. Her statement comes just before the break and immediately after we see Willow and Buffy agreeing that Faith’s statement is an unfair generalization:

“Willow:  I don't think that's true, that every guy is in it only for the chase.

Buffy:  I know. It is an awful generalization.”

Faith’s attitude towards men is an issue that the series will explore in later episodes so I can’t say much here if I want to avoid spoilers. My point now is that we don’t have to take her word for it.

Turning to the second point, yes it’s true that Angel and Oz have monsters inside them, but that’s not the case for every man shown on the show. Xander and Giles are obvious exceptions (I don’t count Giles’ past demon, Eyghon, as still present, nor Xander’s hyena). The overgeneralization also misses the point that Angel and Oz demonstrate that some men can control their demons. Mr. Platt makes this explicit:

“Mr. Platt:  … Everybody has demons, right?

Buffy:  (averts her eyes) Gotta say I'm with you on that. (looks down at her hands)

Mr. Platt:  Excellent. So, the hope I bring you is: demons can be fought. (Buffy looks up at him in surprise) People can change.”

Angel and Oz may have demons inside them, but that’s not the point. The point is that they can control those demons and still be good.

In addition to the fact that not all men are shown as “beasts”, we need to ask whether the show portrays women as entirely lacking in internal demons. Again I can’t say much about this in the future because of spoilers, but it certainly has not to date – from S1 we have Catherine Madison (Witch) and Natalie French (Teacher’s Pet); from S2 we have Ampata (Inca Mummy Girl) and Drusilla. And as I’ve emphasized several times, Cordelia has served a metaphorical role as Buffy’s shadow self, putting Buffy in the same situation as the men here. The fact that the show has explored Buffy’s dark side makes it very unlikely that an anti-male theme was intended here.

That leaves Pete. Yes, he’s portrayed in a very unsympathetic light, but there’s a good reason for that – it’s pretty hard to justify abuse. That’s not the only reason, though. Pete is in the episode for a particular purpose, namely to contrast him with Angel. One major point of the episode was to distinguish between 2 types of monster. Buffy has just learned that Angel has come back and she doesn't know whether he's Angel or Angelus; neither do we. Giles explains how to make the distinction:

"Giles: ... In my experience, there are... two types of monster. The first, uh, can be redeemed, or more importantly, wants to be redeemed.
Buffy: And the second type?
Giles: The second is void of humanity, cannot respond to reason... or love."

At the end of the episode we're shown exactly these two types. Debbie (unwisely) demonstrated her love for Pete by saving his life and in other ways. Pete doesn’t respond to her attempts to reason with him or to her love; he kills her. Angel is presented in explicit contrast to Pete. He breaks his chains to find Buffy, protects her from Pete, and kneels before her. In those actions he showed both that he responds to love and that he wants to be redeemed.

I’m inclined to see Beauty and the Beasts as an episode which says redemption is possible even for the worst, if they want it. That's not "anti-male", Pete was just the example used to make the point.

Having said all this, I need to add that I think the whole discussion of Pete and Angel is secondary to what I see as important about the episode. As usual, I think what’s important is what an episode tells us about Buffy. For her the contrast is not with Pete, it’s with Debbie. Marti says in The Monster Book that "Young women have a tendency to be drawn to the darker side of man. To romanticize the bad boy. What is that about? And when does it become dangerous? When do you lose control?'" Debbie and Pete exemplify this. Note in particular that Pete tells Debbie that she’s the one who brings out his evil side:

“Pete:  When I drink it, nothing, Debbie. Nothing! (Debbie flinches) I don't need this anymore, okay? I am way, *way* past that now.

He slams the bottle back onto the shelf.

Pete:  You see?

He takes another bottle down and throws it to the floor, breaking it.

Pete:  You see?! (breaks another) No more. (breaks a third) You could pour out everything I made, and it wouldn't help. And you wanna know why?

He grabs her by the arms. She whimpers in fright.

Pete:  You wanna know why?! Because all it takes now is you, Debbie.” 

That, of course, also describes the situation with Angel and Buffy. Remember from Innocence? “So it was me. I did it.” And “The important thing is you made me the man I am today!”

Buffy lost herself in Angel once; does she now understand the risk that entails? Read her dialogue with Debbie and apply both their words to Buffy in light of Angel’s return, his ambiguous status at that moment, and her concealment of his return from her friends:

“Buffy:  You have to talk to us. (Debbie shakes her head) We can't help you until you do.

Debbie:  I didn't ask for your help!

Willow:  Well, when are you going to? I mean, if Pete kills you, it'll pretty much be too late.

Buffy:  Debbie, we're running out of time….

Buffy:  Where can we find him?

Debbie: I-I don't know.

Buffy:  You're lying.

Debbie:  What if I am? What are you gonna do about it?...

Buffy takes her by the arm again and pushes her up against the sink in front of the mirror.

Buffy:  Look at yourself. Why are you protecting him? Anybody who really loved you couldn't do this to you.

She takes a few steps away. Debbie turns around to face them.

Debbie:  Would they take him someplace?

Buffy:  Probably.

Debbie:  (shakes her head, sobbing) I could never do that to him. (Willow sighs) I'm his everything.

Buffy:  (disgusted) Great. So what, you two live out your Grimm fairy tale? Two people are dead.

Debbie just shakes her head and says nothing.

Buffy:  Who's gonna be next?”

 

Buffy’s playing a dangerous game here; the distance between her and her friends caused by her relationship with Angel is very wide and the wounds from Dead Man’s Party aren’t healed. There’s a real temptation for her, as we learned in her conversation with Platt:

“Buffy:  He was my first... I loved him, and then he...

Mr. Platt:  ...changed.

She looks up at him, surprised again.

Buffy:  Yeah.

Mr. Platt:  He got mean.

Buffy:  Yes.

Mr. Platt:  And you didn't stop loving him.”

 

That’s the story of Debbie in nutshell. She didn’t stop loving Pete even though he “got mean”. She “stayed lost” in Pete, to use Platt’s phrase. The question for Buffy – the one she implicitly asked herself in the conversation with Platt – is whether she will stay lost in Angel. The ending voiceover from The Call of the Wild nicely captures the ambiguity here: does the passage apply to “love’s dog”? To the animal instinct inside Angel? Could it even apply to Buffy herself, feeling the call of the wild in the form of Angel?

Finally, there’s yet another application of this episode to Buffy which I won’t discuss because of spoilers, but I will say that the theme of this episode fits right in with the most important seasonal theme. And there’s a very good reason why this episode appears at this particular point in the season.

I need to add that “Rules change” is a great moment.

Trivia notes: (1) Buffy read in voiceover from Jack London’s The Call of the Wild. If you haven’t read it, the story involves a dog raised in civilization but taken to a brutal environment in Alaska. The dog is able to survive only by reverting to its animal instincts. Apparently dogs have shadow selves too. :) (2) Willow carried her detective tools in a Scooby-Do lunch box. (3) Someone’s a Sound of Music fan. This is the second episode to use the phrase “the hills are alive”. The first was The Dark Age. Buffy seemed to remember that it was Jenny’s phrase because she trailed off when she used it to Giles. (4) Willow got the donuts from “Mister Donut”, which is now Dunkin’ Donuts. (5) I’ve Got A Secret was a TV game show which originally ran from 1952-67. (6) In comments, State of Siege correctly pointed out that I’m being very eclectic – that’s a euphemism – in my use of Freud and Jung. Guilty. In mitigation, I plead that I’m trying to get a reading which takes account of popular understanding, both of the viewers and of the writers. That will inherently lead to a less-than-scholarly treatment of the issues.