I thought it was time to start the thread discussing the episodes Graduation Day parts 1 and 2. I know a lot of Buffy fans supported her decision to save Angel whole-heartedly, but I never thought liking Buffy should make us think all her actions guided by her heart are right just because they can be brave. I still love the scene when Giles stands behind Buffy, completely in support of her when she's facing down Wesley, and the new Watcher says, "This is mutiny." and Buffy says: "I prefer to think of it as graduation."

Come on people, I know on other threads debates and questions about Buffy's decision and actions regarding Faith in this episode flared up often, and now we've got a whole thread to talk about one of the best fights in the entire series and its conclusion!

Well, I for one can agree with vengeance--when it's absolutely necessary.  But there were other things that Faith did that warranted taking her down (if not taking her out) way before the whole poisoning Angel thing.  Buffy's reaction was akin to "Oh no you didn't try to mess with my man!" kind of thing, which I don't particularly agree with.  I think my main beef is that she only decides to take action against Faith when she threatens Angel, when that should not have been the thing to force her into action. 

Forgive me, but season three has become a bit fuzzy, but she tried to pin a murder on Buffy, she tried to have Willow killed (and came close to doing so herself had it not been for the Mayor), she turned traitor, tried to kill Xander...but she tries to kill Angel, and all bets are off.  Something about that just doesn't sit right with me.

she tried to pin a murder on Buffy, she tried to have Willow killed (and came close to doing so herself had it not been for the Mayor), she turned traitor, tried to kill Xander...but she tries to kill Angel, and all bets are off.
I don't think that's a fair comparison, Scarlet.

First of all, framing someone for an accidental killing (which is what it was, no matter how many times they throw around the word "murder" ) is not punishable by death, so I can't imagine why that would warrant Buffy killing Faith.

Second, the attempts to kill Willow and Xander were completely different situations from what happened with Angel. In both of those cases, it was possible to save her friends without killing Faith. In fact, Buffy wasn't even present for the attempts, so she couldn't have killed Faith to save them if she wanted to. Going after Faith to kill her after the fact would be pure vengeance, which isn't something Buffy does.

But in Angel's case, Buffy was literally watching Angel die, and killing Faith would provide the cure. It's not just about vengeance, it's also about saving someone's life. Notice that she doesn't say a thing about killing Faith until she knows that it will save Angel. In my mind, that makes it more justifiable than if she had tried to kill Faith purely out of vengeance. (On the other hand, if the cure had required that Buffy kill an innocent to save Angel, I don't think she'd have done it. It's the combination of the two - the fact that she can save Angel and punish Faith simultaneously - that makes it acceptable to her.)

If you want to argue that Buffy shouldn't kill people, period, and trading Faith's life for Angel's is unacceptable, I can understand that. But saying that she shouldn't have tried to kill Faith because she didn't try to kill her when she threatened Buffy's friends' lives, that I can't really buy.

First of all, framing someone for an accidental killing (which is what it was, no matter how many times they throw around the word "murder" ) is not punishable by death, so I can't imagine why that would warrant Buffy killing Faith.

I didn't say that Faith should be killed.  I said that if Buffy were to go after Faith, to take her down (not necessarily kill her), then she's had many other reasons before Angel being poisoned.

As for pure vengeance or not, if there was no cure, and Angel would have just straight up died, I have no doubt that she would have gone after Faith anyway.  I'm sure her reasoning would have been along the lines of "who will she go after next?" or something like that, but I still think she would have gone after her.

I said that if Buffy were to go after Faith, to take her down (not necessarily kill her), then she's had many other reasons before Angel being poisoned.
Well, if we're just talking "go after Faith" and not kill her, then Buffy actually has done that. After she tried to kill Xander, they chained Faith to a wall in Angel's mansion, but then the Council goons took her and she got away. At that point, they thought they could still help her. Buffy also fights her at the end of "Enemies" but hesitates to kill her, and so Faith gets away again.

I guess my question is, what does it mean for Buffy to "go after her" if not to kill her? Have her arrested? She could easily break out. Hand her over to the Council? They tried that already. Give her a beating and let her go? When they thought they could help her, they at least had a plan, but what would they do with her if Buffy went after her? They can't keep her chained up at Angel's house forever.

As for pure vengeance or not, if there was no cure, and Angel would have just straight up died, I have no doubt that she would have gone after Faith anyway.
And you don't think she would've done that if Faith had actually killed one of her friends, instead of a failed attempt? I don't know if she'd go so far as to kill Faith, but I can't see her just letting that slide.

Glad someone started the episode discussions again - it seemed like some of the interest was being lost and I did not want to keep pushing for discussions if the other members had lost interest -

I want to watch episodes again before I comment - especially since I have very strong opinions about the entire Cure and Sacrifice theme and how it relates to the Buffy-Angel/Angelus  Love dynamics.

thanks again for starting the thread  -

Considering that Angel's cure comes at the cost of draining a Slayer, the designer of the poison the poisoned vampire will kill the Slayer, not just heal himself enough to stop in time - because it would be a soulless vampire looking to save his/her own ass. So, it's one thing for Buffy to drag in a subdued Faith and say "fix him!".  It's another level entirely to know that Angel's going to have to put another life on his hands to save himself - either Faith's or Buffy's. There's an assumption the whole way that the Slayer has to die that cures him, so it should be Angel's choice and only his whether he wants that life on his conscience - and he cares about both of them, so it's a horrible thing to ask of him. But Buffy wants him fixed no matter what the cost. She's flying on rage and goes prepared to use that knife on Faith - in essence to have Faith die. I wish they wouldn't have brushed off Buffy's contemplation and mission to murder, as realistically, a huge part of her innocence has just fallen away - again.

CM

Not only did they cast Buffy in the role of "woman out-of-control" but they  make the point with such clarity - Buffy first states that she cannot kill Faith - but does a complete reversal when Angel, her lover and boyfriend, comes into the equation.  No matter how people want to spin this "tragic tale of Lovers,"  Buffy becomes a woman and hero that is corrupted by her desperate love and passion and need for this man/vampire - she has become a would be murderer, with full use of her mental faculties and explicit intention, by her own words, to bring Faith in as part of her life exchange.  I believe that Buffy even tells the group that she has killed Faith.  I will never understand why Joss Whedon used such an extreme treatment for the lead in to Buffy offering her own life in exchange.  The script seems to play out like a  "Hero's Lesson" - a real functioning hero must offer up her own life as the exchange.  Unfortunately from my perspective, I cannot ignore Buffy's conduct and morals regarding her treatment of Faith.  It is not for Buffy to measure her conduct and actions in contrast to Faith's - but to what her own conduct should be.  That Faith falls and becomes a killer herself does not justify Buffy's attempted killing of her.  And since Xander has been discussed much lately, he makes a great and significant point when he tells her that he does not want to lose her - where this hunting after Faith might take her.

What are your thoughts about the scene when Buffy and Faith shared consciousness in the sleep/coma state?  Is this an attempt to clear away the extremely dark place they took Buffy?  Does General Buffy really need the advice from Faith to conceive of her plan of war or are we being presented with an vital Slayer Consciousness experience or was this more like a  Slayer Dream?

 

Caro--excellent points all around.

What are your thoughts about the scene when Buffy and Faith shared consciousness in the sleep/coma state? Is this an attempt to clear away the extremely dark place they took Buffy? Does General Buffy really need the advice from Faith to conceive of her plan of war or are we being presented with an vital Slayer Consciousness experience or was this more like a Slayer Dream?

I do feel as if that scene was kind of a "sweep it under the rug" kind of deal.  That wasn't Faith--that Buffy's subconscious making it all better that for attempt at murder.  For her "lover."  I forgot about that...but yeah, that bothered me too.  Her lover?  Not only that, but the way she goes about it doesn't make sense.  She needs Faith's blood to heal Angel, so her grand plan is to shank her, spilling said precious blood?  Dressed in big sister's clothes no less....Why not just use the tranq gun used for Oz on his rowdy days when the moon is full, and bring her unconscious to Angel?  Who knows--judging by how small Buffy is, and she wasn't drained, Angel would not have even have had to kill Faith.  Going after Faith was not just about saving Angel--if it was, it would have been done more cleanly.