In class last week, we dove down the rabbit hole debating the ethics and implications of attractive actors and actresses appearing in all of our favorite roles. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was not exempt from this discussion—fundamentally calling Whedon’s championing of female characters into question. But after the dust had settled, one notion stuck with me. Another classmate raised the concept of attractiveness beyond physical beauty and I was left questioning… are Whedon’s female characters beautiful or “attractive”?
To answer this question, I decided to more closely analyze the character of Buffy as she appears in the first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. When it comes to beauty, Buffy is immediately represented as the chosen one and that comes with some allure. But more importantly, her first interaction with a character (other than her mother) involves that character—Xander—falling off his skateboard and immediately gossiping about her attractiveness. Right out the gate, Buffy’s physical appearance is her most important characteristic.
However, as the story progresses, the reality of her persona gets a bit more fleshed out. Alternative to her skate-board falling beauty, Buffy’s opening conversation with the principal presents her as immediate trouble—and the discussion of the recently burned down gym begins allusions to her potentially dangerous nature. She seems to present an almost ignorant danger with a past that will undoubtedly cause trouble.
But, Buffy is by no means hardened. Following a brutal bullying encounter with Willow, Buffy shows her softer side being kind to some of the outsiders in the school and appearing extremely humble. That however is contradicted by her dismissive conversation with her mentor at the concert—during which she seems flippant and aggressively averse to aid from anyone. Scene-to-scene Buffy waffles from kind to aggressive and back again. It’s hard to pin point how she will react each time and you often find yourself guessing what she might do next. This very real human behavior is attractive and goes beyond beauty. The audience is drawn to the person Whedon has created, not simply the actress embodying her.
So what does all this point to? Buffy may be beautiful, but she is also flawed—just like many real individuals. No person—and no woman—has a cookie cutter version of themselves and how they handle the world around them. If Buffy were to seamlessly handle each and every encounter in the first episode, there would be nowhere for the story to travel.
While I still have my qualms about generalizing beautiful women to represent all women, in this case Whedon did champion his female character. Buffy is a complete person with a very real background and set of flaws. These realities make her attractive and far more than beautiful.
ALI 
Reading this post, it occurred to me that this is something Joss Whedon does fairly often, and very well. In The Avengers, Black Widow is introduced when Natasha is being held for interrogation by a Russian thug. She seems to be a damsel, and the thug calls her “just another pretty face”. But then Coulson calls her, and we see that she’s been in control the entire time, and has cleverly gotten all the information she needs from her interrogators. She’s witty, cunning, a force to be reckoned with, and people underestimate her because of her beauty and “feminine weakness”. Whedon successfully pulls the rug out from under the audience and forces them to view characters as flawed human beings with complicated personalities. I definitely agree with you when you said Whedon’s realistic characterization makes the characters more attractive, and they are essential to keeping a story interesting.
LikeLike
I love that you use the word ‘attractive’ to describe Buffy’s personality and not just her physical beauty. I agree that Buffy’s flaws make her more attractive because they make her character seem more real. If a character is too perfect, always doing and saying the right thing, that can make them less appealing as a character because they are at a level that is unreachable by real people. I think that this use of flaws to make a character’s personality more attractive to viewers is something that we have not seen too much in comics so far this semester. Characters like Superman are given alter-egos in which they hide their powers to seem more relatable but most superheroes are presented as always doing the right thing, whether they are in costume or not. This constant perfection puts these types of characters on a pedestal that no human could ever reach, in my opinion making them less attractive because of their predictable nature. Though we have reached a point where flawed personalities are being seen as attractive, I think we are still a long way away from seeing flaws in characters’ physical appearance as attractive, despite the fact that this would make them more relatable.
LikeLike
I really like this post, including your critical distinction between “beautiful” and “attractive”, and I agree that the realistic, dynamic nature of Buffy’s personality and characterization is what makes her so memorable. But here’s a question for you: do you think that Buffy being conventionally “beautiful” is actually an intentional part of her character? I remember Whedon mentioning how he wanted to subvert audience expectation by having the
“stereotypical blonde” of horror flicks be the one kicking butt for a change. So is her appearance, used seemingly as a bait-and-switch, part of what makes Buffy – Buffy? Or do you think it’s the exact opposite?
LikeLike
For the third comment in a row, I’ll point out that I liked how you pointed out the distinction between beauty and attractiveness. I enjoyed how you pointed out how her being attractive to an audience around more than just her actual physical traits, and despite her physical attractiveness, there is indeed inarguable depth to her character.
LikeLike
I would agree that Whedon’s writing of Buffy leads us to recognize that she is more than just physical beauty, but also those added layers of ‘flaws’ and imperfection. I think that there are times where we as people think beauty belies complexity of character, and characters who are able to show that this is not the case in such a manner that identifies with people is extremely important, and something Whedon does pretty well. As far as Buffy herself goes, I would argue that her appearance is an integral part of who she is. Though of course a person is more than their appearance, I believe that a person is a complex sum of many, many factors, including such things. One’s worth is not in physical attractiveness, but it would be incorrect to say that it is not a part of who one is. Buffy’s conventional blonde attractiveness plays an important role in breaking down stereotypes and upsetting the status quo in a meaningful way in the show, absolutely. It is also definitely part of what makes Buffy who she is. That being said, I think what you mentioned — that the realities of a person make them far more attractive than some generalized cookie — is something that is not said and not appreciated nearly often enough. I would argue that perfection is honestly boring.
On another note, would you be able to elaborate on the idea of generalization? I understand what you mean when you say that you’re not sure you’re down with the idea of representing all women with a ‘beautiful’ woman, but what does that mean as far as the best representation of groups? Do you think it would be difficult to best represent groups — not only women, but maybe ethnic groups, cultural groups, or any others characterization — with certain actors or certain values? My first thought is that humanity has such a wide range of qualities that it seems rather challenging to credit all aspects. That is not to say that it shouldn’t be different than how it is now, of course.
LikeLike
I don’t see the problem with characters being beautiful or attractive. They are often supposed to be larger than life characters who we would want to be, so of course they would have all the best aspects such as being attractive. At the same time, flawed characters are often much more interesting as you can relate to them. So it is a fine line you have to balance on between being too perfect or adding too many flaws, but when you get it right thats when you get a truly great character.
LikeLike
The “beautiful” vs. “attractive” argument you present is quite intriguing and one I do not believe I would have thought of myself. I like how you pull direct examples from the television show where she is heavily considered “attractive” and others where she can be defined more by her character’s inner beauty. It seems as though her attractiveness in addition to her evident flaws are what allow her to be considered both inwardly and outwardly “beautiful”. An aspect that Whedon expertly achieves within her character.
LikeLike
I think it’s actually important to Whedon’s point that Buffy is beautiful and is described as such right off the bat. He paints her in terms of female stereotypes, which most frequently involve the way girls look. By making Buffy beautiful and yet also gifting her with other traits and giving her a personality independent of her looks, Whedon shows that beautiful women can have depth too. “Beautiful” and “Interesting” are not traits that exist independent of one another. He makes us reexamine our interaction with female roles in media and consider that, while they’re beautiful, they might also be other things too.
LikeLike