Discussion of 3.04 "Beauty and the Beasts" - Aired 10/20/1998 (WB-US)

[Flannen]

On the night of a full moon a student is found savagely mauled in the woods, and the gang worry that Oz may have escaped from his cage. However, Buffy discovers that Angel has somehow escaped Acathla's hell dimension and returned to Earth. Because time moves differently in hell, he has endured centuries of torture and is now little more than a wild animal. Now Buffy must find a way to tell the gang that Oz may be innocent and to keep them from killing Angel.

Source: TV.com

Discuss this episode here!

 

[WWGD]

Angel seems to recover pretty quickly after spending centuries in hell. For the sake of the show, I understand why. David Boreanaz does depict Angel as a "wild animal" pretty well though. This is kind of the like the Buffy version of the Hulk episode. Crazy abusive boyfriend starts to transform when he gets angry. I didn't really like that aspect of the story but they had to pin the mysterious deaths on somebody.

 

[Amethyst]

I think this episode was good in the way that they're trying to get people in abusive relationships to 'wake up' and get help, to show them that it's really dangerous and people do die by the hand of their loved ones :S

 

[Jules]

I like that throughout the episode the audience is led to believe that the killer could be either Oz or Angel. Although I do think that as a werewolf Oz would never break out of his cage and then come back in, still in wolf form, it doesnt make much sence.

I love the shrink in this episode, I was so upset when he was killed, I think he really helped Buffy. I also love that Angel's back, the scene were he protects Buffy when she's fighting and then recognises her is so sweet. I do agree that he came back to his sanity a bit too quickly though.

 

[Bluebird]

I thought the abusive boyfriend metaphor in this ep was really overdone. I suppose it was a good comparison with Angel and Buffy's relationship in a way, but just a bit unnecessary. Not much else to say on it, since it didn't do much for the characters.

 

[Carolina]

I love Oz's character, but I was never big on werewolves (in movies or on tv)... but in this episode I was totally rooting him on to kick Pete's butt!

I remember seeing this episode for the first time (when I was waaay younger) and being scared for Buffy after Angel came back like a rabid animal. But I also agree, Angel kind of got over that deep dark craziness awfully quick. But he played the part well!

I did find Giles getting shot with the dart gun hilarious! "Oh right. Bloody priceless!"

 

[Robb Stark]

I saw this episode again tonight, and man, does this one ever beat you over the head with the metaphor. I mean, this makes "Beer Bad" look subtle. There are things to like in this one, but jeez, over and over (and over) again, you have have the metaphor for abusive relationships jammed down your throat. It actually got to the point where it was taking me out of the enjoyment of the episode. I'm not saying for one second that it's not a topic worth covering, because it is, but holy crap. And whoever the guy is who plays Peter (I think that was his name) redefines the term overacting. Seriously.

However, I liked the Angel scenes a lot. The episode closes out with an awesome scene where Angel, fresh off kicking the crap out of Peter, collapses and hugs Buffy. I thought it was a really powerful scene.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Yeah the metaphor on this episode is practically beating you in the face, not very subtle, but I think it works mostly because I think Angel's return overshadows the episode. I had actually forgotten there was a story other then Angels return in this episode.

Also I hadn't thought of it before, but what if a janitor had come into the library, since Oz changes at like 6pm, the school library would still be open, keeping Oz in a cage in the library is a bad idea.

Also can you imagine if someone else came in earlier then Giles, they would have found a naked student locked in Mr.Giles cage.. lol

 

[EffyStonem]

I have deep, deep issues with Beauty & The Beasts. The whole episode is completely messed up and heavy-handed and I hate the message that they're trying to get across; that all men have beast in them.

I am very uncomfortable with the notion that "all men are beasts" because it's simply not true. It is not true that every man, deep down, is misogynistic and violent and inherently "beast-like." A similar message is portrayed in the AtS episode Billy and in both instances it's just so messed up. I'm not even sure why Joss wanted to portray said message - does he really believe it, or is this part of his need to portray himself as a "feminist". Is he saying that all men are beasts to show that women, by comparison, are all angels? Is he trying to excuse domestic abuse and violence by giving men an in-built excuse of "it's always there, women just bring it out"? It's a messed up, incorrect and just puzzling message to send.

That aside, I also cannot stand how Buffy handles Debbie. I get that Joss was trying to draw a parallel between Debbie & Pete and Buffy & Angel, but it doesn't really hold up. Angel and Buffy did not have an abusive relationship. Pete and Debbie do. Debbie is a typical domestic abuse victim; she adjusts her behaviour to suit Pete, she goes along with what he says, she is scared of him and at the same time loves him and the way Buffy victim-blames her is appalling. I also hate that she physically reprimands Debbie, right off the tail-end of Debbie receiving a brutal beating from Pete. Who's smart idea was that?

It's gross really, that in a show that prides itself on feminism, our heroine victim-blames an abusive victim and shows no compassion, empathy or understanding towards said victim. Instead, Pete's wrongdoings are put on Debbie's head and the abuse she has suffered is all but ignored. It's really quite disgusting.

 

[Mischlings]

This episode is just broken. The pieces don't all fit together, even though there are a few pieces that could work well on their own. I think it sums up my thoughts about the episode in a weird way that, when I watched it recently, I stopped and went to bed about halfway through and finished it in the morning.

This obviously was a failure when it came to being subtle. There's no subtlety to be found, and the entire storyline of Debbie and Pete just doesn't work. Worst thing, though, is that I found it boring watching it a second time. There are episodes in this series that filled me with rage at how incompetent they were, but in a way this one is worse in that I just don't care. They can't make me like it or hate it - so really, what was the point of any of it?

Re: the thing about Billy, they did intentionally leave it somewhat ambiguous. Wesley (and the villain) claims that the hatred was always there, Fred claims that he had that forced on him. The issue is that the first one is said a lot more often - if I say any more, I'd have to re watch the episode and take it to the thread for that episode, which is for another time.

 

[Robb Stark]

I have deep, deep issues with Beauty & The Beasts. The whole episode is completely messed up and heavy-handed and I hate the message that they're trying to get across; that all men have beast in them.

I am very uncomfortable with the notion that "all men are beasts" because it's simply not true. It is not true that every man, deep down, is misogynistic and violent and inherently "beast-like." A similar message is portrayed in the AtS episode Billy and in both instances it's just so messed up. I'm not even sure why Joss wanted to portray said message - does he really believe it, or is this part of his need to portray himself as a "feminist". Is he saying that all men are beasts to show that women, by comparison, are all angels? Is he trying to excuse domestic abuse and violence by giving men an in-built excuse of "it's always there, women just bring it out"? It's a messed up, incorrect and just puzzling message to send.

Perfect. Nothing even needs to be said. Perfect sentiment 🙂.

That aside, I also cannot stand how Buffy handles Debbie. I get that Joss was trying to draw a parallel between Debbie & Pete and Buffy & Angel, but it doesn't really hold up. Angel and Buffy did not have an abusive relationship. Pete and Debbie do. Debbie is a typical domestic abuse victim; she adjusts her behaviour to suit Pete, she goes along with what he says, she is scared of him and at the same time loves him and the way Buffy victim-blames her is appalling. I also hate that she physically reprimands Debbie, right off the tail-end of Debbie receiving a brutal beating from Pete. Who's smart idea was that?

It's gross really, that in a show that prides itself on feminism, our heroine victim-blames an abusive victim and shows no compassion, empathy or understanding towards said victim. Instead, Pete's wrongdoings are put on Debbie's head and the abuse she has suffered is all but ignored. It's really quite disgusting.

I agree completely that the parallels between Debbie/Pete and Buffy/Angel just don't work simply because they aren't compatible at all. You outlined it brilliantly.

And while I agree whole-heartedly that Buffy's...um..."approach" to dealing with Debbie was pretty stupid, I do have a question, and I think it's one this episode was trying (emphasize trying) to ask.

No one ever, ever deserves that type of relationship, and only someone truly twisted or truly ignorant would think otherwise. However, it does raise a question about Debbie (and, I suppose by the incredible lack of subtly in the episode, abusive relationships in general). At what point should we, as an audience, stop feeling sympathetic towards her? This is a blunt metaphor, but I think it fits (and please, feel free to point me otherwise if it doesn't). I equate it to being around an aggressive dog. The first time the dog bites, you didn't know, you couldn't have known, and it isn't on you. But every ensuing time you touch the dog and it bites you? You knew. You just knew. I know Debbie is young, dumb and in love, but shouldn't she, at some point in time, have the degree of intelligence to realize what's happening? It isn't ambiguous. He's beating the hell out of her. I mean, Rhianna gets her face turned to mush by Chris Brown, goes back to him and then tells the world that we "don't understand so stop hatin'' (I'm paraphrasing).

I can't feel sorry for her after that. I don't want anything to happen to her. If it happens again I want Brown locked up like he should have been the first time, but she knew what he was, knew he what he was doing and went back anyways. Why should I feel sympathy towards her now? She doesn't "deserve" anything to happen to her, of course not, but she, and Debbie in the episode, is essentially just negligent now.

---------- Post added at 01:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 AM ----------

(EDIT: And I would like to add, this isn't intended, at all, to be victim blaming. I have never been in an abusive relationship myself so I am fully aware that I can't possibly fully understand the mindset of someone who is or has been in one, the stress it causes or the thoughts and feelings it brings out. I'm just pointing out what I hope is seen as an objective, constructive question, because it truly is something I don't understand. I don't mean to come across as insensitive, and I hope I'm not perceived that way)

 

[EffyStonem]

No one ever, ever deserves that type of relationship, and only someone truly twisted or truly ignorant would think otherwise. However, it does raise a question about Debbie (and, I suppose by the incredible lack of subtly in the episode, abusive relationships in general). At what point should we, as an audience, stop feeling sympathetic towards her? This is a blunt metaphor, but I think it fits (and please, feel free to point me otherwise if it doesn't). I equate it to being around an aggressive dog. The first time the dog bites, you didn't know, you couldn't have known, and it isn't on you. But every ensuing time you touch the dog and it bites you? You knew. You just knew. I know Debbie is young, dumb and in love, but shouldn't she, at some point in time, have the degree of intelligence to realize what's happening? It isn't ambiguous. He's beating the hell out of her. I mean, Rhianna gets her face turned to mush by Chris Brown, goes back to him and then tells the world that we "don't understand so stop hatin'' (I'm paraphrasing).

I can't feel sorry for her after that. I don't want anything to happen to her. If it happens again I want Brown locked up like he should have been the first time, but she knew what he was, knew he what he was doing and went back anyways. Why should I feel sympathy towards her now? She doesn't "deserve" anything to happen to her, of course not, but she, and Debbie in the episode, is essentially just negligent now.

I actually understand what you are saying here because I used to think the same way. I would watch interviews with survivors of domestic abuse and I would wonder why in God's name these women didn't just leave. And then I became a domestic abuse victim and then a survivor. It's very hard to understand why abuse victims stay with their abusers if you haven't been in that position.

Abusers break their victims and when I say that I'm not exaggerating. There is almost a systematic approach to making someone an abuse victims. In the beginning, abusers are often very charismatic. They wait until their victims fall in love with them before they start to exhibit signs of violence. They often separate victims from their friends and family; subtly but slowly they will make it so their victims have few people to turn to. Then they start to introduce violence, often in very small and subtle ways; throwing something small during a fight, kicking a piece of furniture once, raising their voices to see the reaction. They test the waters. By the time they introduce physical violence towards their victims, the victims are already weakened; they have been broken down by fights, jealousy, possessiveness and constant blame. Abusers will often put the onus on their victims by saying the victim made them jealous, angry or violent.

If that wasn't complicated and complex enough, a lot of victims are simply too scared to leave. Once a victim has left their abuser, the chance of their abuser murdering them goes up, because the abuser now has nothing left to lose. Many victims stay because getting beaten is better than being killed. When I left my ex he started stalking me. He would threaten to kill me, hang around my house late at night, turn up at my work, threaten to kill my new boyfriend. I was more scared of him after we broke up than I was when I was in a relationship with him.

So, I guess in answer to your question, when do we stop feeling sorry them - we don't. We try to understand what they are going through and realise that their is a lot more going on than we know about.

 

[Yosso]

I generally skip this episode during Buffy rewatches, but recently I decided to give this episode a go for the first time in years. The whole Pete/Debbie thing never seemed well executed when I first watched it, but watching it now I can pinpoint exactly why rather than just not liking the portrayal for aesthetic reasons.

I'm with [MENTION=12223]EffyStonem[/MENTION], the in your face message of the episode that "all men are beasts" is sloppy, incorrect and isn't what Joss should be promoting at all. What I also don't like is that both sexes get criticised and there is no prospect of a solution even alluded to within the episode. The episode suggests men are inherently savage and women inherently weak and submissive, shown by Pete and Debbie's relationship as well as Angel and Oz.

The only solution to deal with men's inherent "wildness" seems to be to put them down. Pete was killed, and Oz was tranquilised, while Angel was chained up. It would be better if this supposed beastliness within all men could be cured or lessened rather than just restrained. It's a rather negative, false view on gender.

All the episode does is validate existing, unhealthy gender stereotypes, which makes no sense from Joss the feminist.

 

[Buffy Summers]

I'm not a fan of the Debbie/Pete storyline. I actually wish they had gone more Jekyll & Hyde than abusive boyfriend with it. But I love the Angel parts in it.

The one thing that gets me about the episode is how sure everyone seems to be that Oz killed that guy lol - how about a little support there folks? 😀

 

[PassionBecoming]

The end of the ep always gets me. Just the "Buffy?" and the hug and the tears...

 

[punkypower]

This is actually one of my fave S3 epis. It reminds me of the MOTW epis that I loved in S1 and 2.

I thought Pete was fine as the villan. When Oz says "when that sun sets.." And Pete hisses, "you won't be alive to see it!" **shudder**

I really liked Platt and wished he could have been an ongoing character before this.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned one of my favorite all-time Giles scene: Buffy is going to shoot Pete with the tranquilizer gun and Debbie interferes and she shootsGiles instead.

Buffy: "Oops, sorry!!"
Giles: "Oh, right..Bloody priceless!" **thud**

 

[Charmander]

I quite like this episode, and it was good how they tried to throw people off into thinking Oz and then Angel was responsible, but it seemed too obvious to me with how prominently Debbie and Pete were being shown.

Also seems silly that Buffy was hard on Debbie about Pete killing people when Angelus had been doing the same thing, though you could say that she did this just to highlight how she'd learnt her lesson.

 

[Mr Trick]

I thought the abusive boyfriend metaphor in this ep was really overdone. I suppose it was a good comparison with Angel and Buffy's relationship in a way, but just a bit unnecessary. Not much else to say on it, since it didn't do much for the characters.

This pretty much. I felt the payoff to the episode was the weakest aspect. It just felt like another way to swerve the audience and to drive home another feminist message. It was just too heavy handed and over blow. Also I did think when Angel got introduced to the end scene that it became over blown and just a little too much going on.

But it was still a solid episode which again steadliy built for later in the season. I did like Buffy's scenes with Platt and was suprised when he got killed off, he was a rare adult who seem to understand and talk to Buffy on her level.

 

[Fuffy]

Buffy's narrating 😀

Oz watch, glad werewolves don't exist in real life.

Oz is one ugly werewolf.

Xander promptly falls asleep, not surprised 😛

Faith, not everything is about giving or getting that "good low down tickle" you want Buffy to give you 😛

Oz as a blonde, I like that.

Giles is angry, really angry, he isn't making cluck cluck sounds with his mouth.

Buffy has to meet with a guidance counselor who smokes a lot, school guidance counselors generally suck 🙁

Faith, watching over Oz ? Better than having Xander watching over him.

Buffy seems Angel, she attacks him (at least we now know what killed Jeff).

Cordy, you are not helping...

Willow faints 🙁

Buffy chains human blood drinking Angel to the ceiling, smart.

Faith was so freaked out by Buffy entertaining she had a tiny bit of a British accent 😛

Buffy fell asleep on Oz watch too, not surprised.

Willow bought Donuts, and she didn't forget jelly ones 😀

Scott, we don't hire people to be our friends...

Buffy sees Angel suffering, they both need help (especially shirtless monster Angel).

A couple gets into the closet, the boyfriend is becoming annoyed, this won't end well...

Buffy, I think the guidance counselor is dead.

The boyfriend is becoming abusive, I would run...

Oh sees the girlfriend, she's obviously lying.

Faith, not everything is about screwing, just some 😛

Debbie, fess up, you need help...

Angel escaped, he looks good without a shirt 🙂

Pete's transformation is a bit unsettling, but at least it gives us answers.

Buffy shot Giles, at least it's not deadly.

Pete, calm down...

He killed Debbie 🙁

Faith hit Oz, nice!

Angel attacks and kills Pete, he remembers Buffy.

8 coffees in a row ?, that can't be good for you, unless you are Lorelei Gilmore...

Buffy narrates again 😀

Next time:Homecoming.

 

[Mrs Gordo]

During the Buffering the Vampire Slayer podcast they were talking about this episode today and they brought up an interesting issue which to be honest I had never really considered and that is that Angel essentially kills a human here when he kills Pete.

How do you all feel about Angel killing Pete? Is it ok because Pete had somehow altered himself past a human form and was killing people? I honestly never considered Pete just a run of the mill evil human. I thought of him as a monster so I never really put much stock into thinking about his death or the moral ramifications of it. Especially since the show seemed totally fine with it. But technically speaking Pete was a human.

Are any of you critical of Angel killing Pete here? Would Buffy have killed him if Angel had not shown up? If Buffy would have killed Pete would we be ok with this?