Vanzetti ([info]vaznetti) wrote,
@ 2008-02-01 10:10:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
SPN 3x09: Malleus Maleficarum
This commentary is not 100% squee.


I could not watch the opening, with the woman and her teeth, because that is a major squick point for me. Ewww! Ewww!

One thing that made me smile -- I'm fairly sure that I called Sam trying to turn himself into Dean some time earlier this season, but then again, it was a fairly obvious thing. But I got the sense from Sam's dialogue that he has given up hope of Saving Dean and is now more worried about how to live without him. Which, on the one hand, is very Sam, but on the other is not really what I had expected. I mean, I kind of thought he'd keep looking until the end. I guess I can handwave and say that he's lying, but that was not the sense I got from the scene.

As for the origins of demons... I think we've hit the point in the mytharc where a bunch of people are sitting around in a room saying "Wouldn't it be cool if..." and then someone says, "That would be totally cool!" and no one bothers to think about it too much. I guess I can live with this -- it does tie into one of the themes I thought was there in the first season, that evil creatures at some point choose to become what they are. And I guess the older a demon is, the stronger it is? But ultimately, I can see my breakup point with this show coming, sooner and sooner, because I have been there and done that with random mytharc.

When the witch-demon (did she have a name?) had Sam sliding up the wall, did anyone else want her to get him all the way up to the ceiling, cut him open, and set him on fire? No? Just me, then.

The thing that stays with me -- aside from all the men live and all the women (except Ruby, who exists to help male characters rather than herself) die -- was the strikingly sexual nature of Dean thrusting that knife into the witch-demon, again and again and again. I get that sexualized violence is everywhere, really I do, but that was a little more obviously sexualized than most of it. Did anyone else see that? Again, I not only saw it, I saw my breakup with this show coming closer and closer.

Sigh. I like the fandom, for all its craziness, but I'm actually starting to dread new canon, because I have no idea what kind of awful thing they'll come up with next. And without an OTC to focus on, it may just be easier to step back. I don't want to be that person who watches and writes about how much she hates the show.

(Post a new comment)


[info]veejane
2008-02-01 02:28 pm UTC (link)
Did anyone else see that?

Ayup. If he were on CSI, they'd call him a psychopath.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]spiderine
2008-02-01 02:36 pm UTC (link)
According to Henrickson (or however you spell it), he is a psychopath.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 02:42 pm UTC (link)
I must admit that I am finding Henrickson's point of view more and more compelling, at this point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]spiderine
2008-02-01 03:07 pm UTC (link)
Well... he does show a great deal of concern for others, which automatically leaves him out of the psychopath category; but then again, that's part of the "mission statement" which was ingrained on him since the age of 4: "saving people, hunting things". Notice how "saving people" comes first. So it might be that his altruism is part of being a "good soldier".

He also has the ability to love and feel real emotion. Again, that knocks him out of the psychopath category.

On the other hand, he has more than a touch of pyromania, but in my opinion, that stems from an unconscious urge to control and master the thing that destroyed his family, you know? Having your mom burn up and your entire life ruined and changed forever by a fire at the age of 4 ...

So I don't know if I'd call him a psychopath, but he certainly is one seriously fucked fudged up dude.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 03:19 pm UTC (link)
If this were season one, I would agree with you 100%. But right now, the show is telling me that Dean wants to save other people, but I see him treating people as disposable: compare his concern for Meg (the human girl) in S1 with his complete lack of concern for the woman possessed by a demon in last night's episode. Granted, he cares for Sam, but it's not necessarily a healthy kind of caring.

I'm particularly concerned, at this point, by the violence Dean shows towards women and creatures which look like women. I remember being able to say, wholeheartedly, "Dean loves women!" but right now, that's not based on what I see on screen. It's based on my memories of what Dean was like in S1. This may be the evolution of the character, or it may be sloppy writing, but as of now, this is a guy whose hands are very, very dirty.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]spiderine
2008-02-01 03:29 pm UTC (link)
Huh! Good point! *gets all thinky and quiet*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]se_parsons
2008-02-01 09:11 pm UTC (link)
I think it's the changeover in writing staff from two women to guys with issues and one woman.

Edlund wrote this. He has misogyny in every fucking thing so far. Dude has problems and he puts them in Dean's mouth.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]minnow1212
2008-02-02 12:27 am UTC (link)
I've found it interesting that while the "previously on" section used to always include that quote, "saving people, hunting things," we now get something along the lines of "kick some ass, raise some hell." I'm assuming that's a deliberate change on their part and points to a deliberate change in Dean.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]veejane
2008-02-01 03:08 pm UTC (link)
Right. Now, if he'd been showing up at the end of each episode, tsk-tsking over the new dead bodies, we might be well on our way to rehabilitating him out of his "I am the antagonist; therefore I must be wrong" rut.

Of course, to script it that way, the show would have to be conscious of its human-disposability attitude, which, far be it from them to admit that anything that happens within a story has actual meaning.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 03:22 pm UTC (link)
Well, at least they would have to care about continuity outside the Sam-Dean dyad, which as far as I can tell, they don't. And as you say, they would have to think about the meanings of the stories they're telling, which they do seem reluctant to do.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 02:45 pm UTC (link)
Yeah.

I feel like I owe you some kind of apology, oddly, because one of the things I was never entirely sure I bought in Six of One was the implication that demons were originally damned souls -- or at least, some of them -- but now the show has gone there. Although I'm still not sure I buy it. And it's an interesting way of avoiding the question of heaven or God -- you don't need fallen angels, in this version.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]veejane
2008-02-01 03:00 pm UTC (link)
Heh. I did that in the story to contextualize Sam's generation into a history of its happening over and over. Also to solve the problem of what to do about the Meg-demon. I did very little theological thinking about it; it just seemed to me that those who fell under the sway of the Big Bad -- he wouldn't let them go so easily that their deaths could solve their problems.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cofax7
2008-02-01 02:39 pm UTC (link)
And again, absolutely no concern any longer about the woman being worn by the demon. Granted, the circumstances were such that they couldn't easily have exorcised her, but nobody bothered to mention it--even in the context of the bad!demon starting to exorcise Ruby.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 02:47 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I noticed that too -- the human bodies no longer seem to matter at all, which is a huge change from S1, and I don't think it's ever been properly motivated within the show. It's just a plot-related inconvenience that the writers have decided to ignore.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-02-01 06:17 pm UTC (link)
aside from all the men live and all the women (except Ruby, who exists to help male characters rather than herself) die -- was the strikingly sexual nature of Dean thrusting that knife into the witch-demon, again and again and again. I get that sexualized violence is everywhere, really I do, but that was a little more obviously sexualized than most of it. Did anyone else see that?

No, you were not the only one. Jesus Christ on a crutch; I didn't think this show could get any worse regarding females.

You know, I often whine about Heroes, and I think the SGA writers need several good ass-kickings, but fans who claim SPN "isn't any worse than other shows?" Are flat-out wrong. There's a time and place for relativism, and there's a time for waking up and smelling all these bwitches' burning flesh.

...oh, um, why don't I tell you how I REALLY feel next?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 09:22 pm UTC (link)
I mean, I think we fans set the bar really, really low for this show, and yet it continues to disappoint, especially this season. It's capable of delivering solid female characters (Ellen, arguably Jo; and this season I do like Bella and Ruby), but the "disposable women" are getting to be too much for me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]monanotlisa
2008-02-01 09:31 pm UTC (link)
Ellen was great, and I for one liked Jo a lot--would have liked her with Dean and without, either way. You remember my (admittedly wanky) icon.

And yeah, of all the women in the episode, only Ruby survived, and pretty battered. (Hmm. That juxtaposition is a bit too apt from a Supernatural viewpoint.) I doubt Bella is not set up for a fall some time soon, too. The odds are very much against her.

The thing is, if even the--presumably more intelligent and educated female--livejournal fans often cannot see how deeply troubling this show is, I have no hope whatsoever for Kripke and his ilk realising the desctructive messages they send. They'll keep broadcasting, and enshrining these images and ideas more firmly. And that, that worries me most.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rosekay
2008-02-01 06:30 pm UTC (link)
I was waiting for the ceiling and the flames, yes! This doesn't necessarily exonerate Dean, since I don't know if he actually thought this through, but I assumed Tammy's body was already screwed when Elizabeth cast the needle hex on her.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 09:23 pm UTC (link)
I guess -- but the same was true of Meg's, wasn't it? I mean, they'd pushed her out a window, and John had shot her, so she was pretty badly hurt to start with.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]camille_is_here
2008-02-01 07:28 pm UTC (link)
Well, the title didn't help. So, Dean is now the hammer of witches? Ick.

But anyway, yeah. Lots of dead women again. dodger_winslow had an interesting post about how SPN is pretty safe because it has a solid spendy audience-- even if it isn't the cool audience, it is still the audience with money to spend on advertisers' products. But I don't think the post took into consideration the show's herculean efforts to drive its audience away. Someone should explain to Kripke that the space left by a departing audience is not automatically filled by the audience you wish you had instead. And, frankly, I don't think I want to be part of an audience with such a marked preference for dead women.

msscullyred hooked me on this show with season one, but the body count of women (and the decisions that killing women was more fun than bantery sex with them) has made me disappointed in the show since the second half of season two. I keep hoping it's just a phase. But, ick.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 09:28 pm UTC (link)
So, Dean is now the hammer of witches? Ick.

Well, presumably, it was a reference to the book we saw the witches using, and the "book club" joke -- since I wouldn't be surprised if the writers didn't know what the MM actually was.

D. may be right -- I don't know anything about the viewing figures or demographics of the audience -- but I have to say, it's clearly not an audience that I'm supposed to be part of. I think I may just go off and watch Women's Murder Club or something, instead. ([info]vee_fic, I think, had a post about how it is when you see that the show does not want you as a viewer, and I kind of agree. Frankly, it's a miracle that I've stuck around this long after John's death.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-02-01 10:11 pm UTC (link)
I wasn't sure whether they thought the Hammer of Witches was a grimoire, which would be incredibly stupid for people who started out to do Joseph Campbell's hero journey, or whether they truly did equate Dean with the folks who wrote a treatise on why it was okay to kill old widows and seize their land.

But they did seem to lose all interest in their original concept around the middle of season two. It would be worth figuring out what happened--it was right when they changed their minds about having Ava be a cute foil for Sam and decided to make her evil and dead instead. Until then, they weren't very woman-friendly, but it was well within the bounds of normal horror-fic. Now it is strictly slasher stuff and really distasteful. Old drum, still banging it. I always say I will stop watching and just read fic, but I keep coming back hoping they will right their boat. But they never do.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 11:39 pm UTC (link)
I agree with you about the show kind of changing direction mid S2 -- in part, I suspect that being under the (potential) axe of cancellation made them decide to push the ending of the YED to the end of S2, rather than S3, and that pushed the changes re: Ava, and has left them flailing around a bit, this year.

...whether they truly did equate Dean with the folks who wrote a treatise on why it was okay to kill old widows and seize their land.

You know, obviously I live a very sheltered life, because it didn't occur to me that they would seriously be "ra-ra! go witch-burners!" But you have a point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]camille_is_here
2008-02-02 12:13 am UTC (link)
It was kind of disturbing, both the title and the whole absence of empathy. Even the bit with Sam deciding to be Dean was kind of off, because killing humans did, at one point, give Dean trouble too.

That was me, btw, writing from work and not logged in. Now on couch at home, watching it rain.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cofax7
2008-02-01 10:13 pm UTC (link)
I suspect my fannishness is going to slowly revolve over onto Sarah Connor Chronicles, which no doubt will have its issues but won't make me feel like they don't want me watching.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 10:39 pm UTC (link)
Yeah. I commented on Vee's post that I'm used to feeling that I'm not the intended audience for the show, because I tend to focus on the secondary characters -- but never just for being female!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]camille_is_here
2008-02-02 12:14 am UTC (link)
I could see shifting my allegiance to Sarah Conner Chronicles, though I'd sort of like to be ported over with crossover stories for a while!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cofax7
2008-02-02 03:22 am UTC (link)
I could totally see that happening.

::ponders::

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]se_parsons
2008-02-01 09:18 pm UTC (link)
I think my favorite part of the whole thing was Edlund's writing about how "Witches are whores."

I think you can just replace witches with women there.

While his eps in some ways have been the best written, pacing and action-wise, I have had serious serious issues with them every time.

Dude has a PROBLEM with women and it's right there on screen wrecking our enjoyment of the show. Somebody needs to kick his ass unless the show is being intentionally editorially misogynist. I haven't seen Kripke say anything that leads me to believe they are, so they just aren't editing well.



I think maybe I'll actually write a letter. It's not something I do, but SERIOUSLY.



(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 09:30 pm UTC (link)
I think you can just replace witches with women there.

Yeah, I agree. There were some serious issue on display in the writing and filming of the episode, and some serious disinterest in women as people.

I think this is a show which has always been comfortable with disposing of women, so I don't know that it's just Edlund -- but I suspect the producers don't really know quite how bad it looks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]se_parsons
2008-02-01 10:33 pm UTC (link)
It's a genre with a comfort with disposing of women, but this, from the title down, was pointed and horrible.

Malleus Maleficarum was all about murdering uppity women, midwives and women of skill. And the whole "book club" thing and all that.

Any time women gather (particularly doing something that requires education), men are in danger from their evil wiles. They must be stopped.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 11:41 pm UTC (link)
Plus, don't forget that they have bodily fluids leaking out of them, which makes them UNCLEAN and DANGEROUS.

I don't know enough about the genre to say -- is the "women are scary! yay for witch-burning!" attitude pretty common in horror? For some reason, when I think of horror movies, the villains I think of tend to be male.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]se_parsons
2008-02-02 12:06 am UTC (link)
Killing young women for scare value is common.

Women being there to fuck or fight for is common.

Women ending up dead to drive the men to be heroes is common.

Women being seductive/evil is common.

In fact, if a woman has sex in a horror movie she dies or is evil.

Sexual women = monsters.

Even female children are often monsters. Boy children are often heroes.

I really, really need to do my post on "The Descent." The horror movie with the all-woman main-character cast. I should get on that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]amothea
2008-02-02 01:27 am UTC (link)
I thought "The Descent" was one of the above average horror movies that came out in a long time. I guess what I liked was that the women were competent and the reason they died wasn't because they were terminally stupid but because they were just outnumbered and in the dark. I'm interested in seeing what your post about this movie will be about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]se_parsons
2008-02-02 06:07 am UTC (link)
It seems like a great idea. I was psyched to see it.

As I watched it I just got more and more angry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]amothea
2008-02-02 06:47 am UTC (link)
you know I think it's only recently that I really started to pay attention to what's really happening in movies. Because stuff I saw years ago didn't ping my radar so to speak but now I'm just more aware.

But I'm still really curious as to what made you so angry in Descent? Because I get the feeling whatever it was went right over my head and it's been over a year since I've seen the movie. :(

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]se_parsons
2008-02-02 08:20 am UTC (link)
Check my LJ, I've posted my review.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]amothea
2008-02-06 01:39 am UTC (link)
okay I read your review I really liked it and well it made me think. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dotfic
2008-02-01 11:40 pm UTC (link)
When the witch-demon (did she have a name?) had Sam sliding up the wall, did anyone else want her to get him all the way up to the ceiling, cut him open, and set him on fire?

*sheepishly raises hand* I so thought they were gonna almost go there, at least slide him on up to the ceiling, and of course the demon would be stopped before Sam got cut or set on fire. But for a moment there...yes. I thought "omgyikesceiling!"

Eh. The knife didn't strike me as sexual so much as very violent, and that he was stabbing a woman in an episode already littered with dead females. There were things in this ep I liked a lot -- I'm not unhappy with the show -- but this is one of the ones I won't be rewatching. (Except I may fast forward to the Sam and Dean conversation and possibly Ruby and Dean's interaction. That I would rewatch.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-01 11:46 pm UTC (link)
I think it was the way he was standing behind her, stabbing her low in the back and side -- it looked very sexual to me.

I would love to see either Sam or Dean get the ceiling treatment, at this point. I'm really, really tired of seeing dead women on this show. Which, you know, is not to harsh your squee in general, but I can't deny how I feel about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dotfic
2008-02-02 12:17 am UTC (link)
Heh. I wanted Sam on the ceiling just for the nasty, sharp poetic mirroring effect that would have, wasn't thinking of gender, but it might've helped balance out all the dead women in this ep.

It's not harshing my squee -- this ep made me feel very uncomfortable, but I loved what I loved about it. The fact that the ep made me uncomfortable I take as a good sign, for the show. That it's not what I expect from Supernatural, and most weeks I'm not terribly conscious of the gender issues, not in the sense that it's hugely problematic. So this one ep, I look askance at, while the Sam and Dean stuff and the Ruby and Sam and Dean stuff made me squee. I can assume every ep in February won't be like this. (You can ask me again in March if you want).

And Ruby did rather get to show her awesomeness in this ep, IMO. Doesn't make up for the ick factor and gender issues, but it exists and for that I'm pleased.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]medie
2008-02-06 03:50 am UTC (link)
Urg. I have my reservations about the whole thing on a MASSIVE level (and keep wanting to go back to that SPN-ized Charmed/SPN crossover 'verse I had ages back. Some way of balancing it out, y'know?), but part of me wondered if the demon she was talking about was Dean himself.

If that's what's going on, it will ease my concerns. If Dean's increasingly scary-assed darkness (and yeah, that behavior definitely pinged as psychopathic) is leading up to that and there's some sort of consequences coming. A wake-up call. Well, i can't say I'm happy to see it in the first place (I feel like grabbing my tape of Terminator and watching Sarah kick some ass. Either that or write another Jennifer Connor fic. *muses*), but I'll at least be able to say I understand it.

In theory.

But yeah, they keep this up, my SPN glee is gonna go the way of the dinosaur.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-07 01:12 pm UTC (link)
If that's what's going on, it will ease my concerns. If Dean's increasingly scary-assed darkness (and yeah, that behavior definitely pinged as psychopathic) is leading up to that and there's some sort of consequences coming.

Yeah, that would be really interesting, and would do a lot to kind of redeem the way the show had been heading -- but I just don't have a lot of faith that we're going to see that kind of character arc with Dean. I don't think that the writers see the same problem I do, you know?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]medie
2008-02-08 02:52 am UTC (link)
*nods* that's what I was thinking. It would redeem a lot because it's a hell of a character arc (pardon the pun) I doubt they'll go there, but it's the best option I can think of. And yeah, I know. I've been doing a lot of bitching about Smallville on that front for years. *G*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]linabean
2008-02-07 09:13 am UTC (link)
When the witch-demon (did she have a name?) had Sam sliding up the wall, did anyone else want her to get him all the way up to the ceiling, cut him open, and set him on fire?

My brother! He was calling for one of them to get pinned to the ceiling and set ablaze all episode, and he was excited and then disappointed when Sam got pinned to the wall.

Really, my brother's the only reason I've kept watching this season. Circumstances kept me from ever getting involved in SPN fandom itself; I just knew the show from mainlining all the current episodes partway through Season 2. Then I forced them on my brother last summer, and he got into it enough for us to watch the rest of Season 2 and for him to get excited for Season 3. Although his habit has always been one to pooh-pooh my slashy ways, he really likes to tune in and giggle at all the Sam/Dean moments.

Meanwhile, I've just been getting more and more disgruntled--the episodes and the arcs are all just so sloppy, and I increasingly get the feeling that TPTB just don't want anyone who actively respects women to enjoy watching. But my brother's enthusiasm has kept me watching with him for now, although he also complained in this last episode about the sloppiness (even more so than the general mocking he does of all the episodes). Oh, well, I feel like in the meantime, it's giving me some good teachable moments to get him to think more about feminism--he asked whether Dean's stabbiness seemed kind of disturbing, and I didn't hesitate to agree and elaborate on that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vaznetti
2008-02-07 01:16 pm UTC (link)
Oh, well, I feel like in the meantime, it's giving me some good teachable moments to get him to think more about feminism--he asked whether Dean's stabbiness seemed kind of disturbing, and I didn't hesitate to agree and elaborate on that.

That's actually kind of neat! I thought there was something really horrifying about the way that was staged.

I agree that somehow the show feels sloppier -- the infodumps seem more awkward, and the emotional continuity seems off to me as well, which is weird because that's the one thing I tend to feel the show keeps track off. It just seems unbelievable to me that Sam would be preparing himself to live without Dean at this point -- I haven't seen him do anything like enough to try to keep Dean yet! It saddens me, because I want to like the show, but sometimes the show makes it hard for me to do so.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…