Saturday, September 10, 2011

"CHARMED": Demons and Humanity




"CHARMED": Demons and Humanity

You know, as much as I like the Season 2 episode, (2.21) "Apocalypse, Not", there was something about it that reminded me of an aspect of "CHARMED" I dislike. Read the following:


[Scene: Manor. Attic. Phoebe and Piper are there. Phoebe's flipping through the Book Of Shadows.]
Piper: Wait, stop right there.
Phoebe: The demon of cruelty.
Piper: Hardens the heart, corrodes the soul...
Phoebe: And is a woman.


and;

Phoebe: Okay, so no offense to the Whitelighter but we're going with the Demon of Anarchy, right?
Prue: Yes, the Demon of Anarchy.



Demons of anarchy and cruelty? "CHARMED" is the only supernatural show I know that blames non-humans or demons on human aggression. Humans are supposed to be naturally inclined to more positive traits, but when it comes to our negative traits, the show's writers managed to drag a demon, warlock or some other magical entity from the Book of Shadow and place the blame on his/her. According to the "Apocalypse, Not", the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis and other events that featured aggression. I supposed the writer forgot to mention that in Season 1's "Which Prue Is It Anyway?", human aggression was blamed on the Lords of War - human beings with supernatural abilities.

By Season 7 or 8, Leo admitted that humans are "neutral", but demons are automatically evil. Well, that's great. That means the Charmed Ones still have demons around to blame on human negative traits. What is it about this series that it rarely allowed human beings to accept responsibility for their own dark deeds? War is blamed on demons or some other supernatural beings. And so are other negative traits. I never saw this in shows like "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER".

I am not saying that "CHARMED" never portrayed human evil or negativity. But it rarely acknowledged that humans could be just as evil or monstrous as the demonic adversaries that the Halliwells had faced. And my question is . . . why?

No comments: