Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog

[shadowkat]

I completely forgot about Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog". Luckily embers_log and my friend Alice reminded me when I forwarded the kitty video to them. Overall? It's actually sort of cute and enjoyable. Keep in mind it is an internet video not a movie, and filmed on a low budget not to mention the sly during the writer's strike. And as embers_log points out in a response to my post on the kitty video - it is in some ways meant as a commentary or rather a means of venting frustration at corporate Hollywood during that strike. Can't say I blame him. There are few things more frustrating than writing for the Film and Television Industry.

This is what writers do when they get creatively frustrated at the powers that be (ie the people preventing them from doing what they want to do or in the case of the writers striking not paying them for what they want and love to do more than anything in the world - geeze some people want everything, don't they?) - they go online and whine about it. In Whedon's case he not only went online and whined (see his whedonesque posts at the time) he also wrote a musical film with his family and friends, and posted it to the internet. (Must be nice to have the bucks to do that. Apparently that comic book gig is far more lucrative than he's led us to believe. Either that or shooting a film and posting it to the net is not as expensive as I think it is.) This is actually if one thinks about it, far more productive than merely whining on one's blog for weeks on end (which I've done repeatedly much to my own shame and regret and your boredom and annoyance).

At any rate - I watched it this morning before taking off to run errands. Currently debating seeing The Dark Knight- but am not sure I want to venture out into the sauna that today has rapidly become. Like a stupid fool, I did venture out to try and see the Dark Knight, which was of course, sold out. Walked 15-20 blocks in under 15 minutes to do it too. Which is no small feat when it's a 97 degrees with 80% humidity outside. 97 degrees at the beach isn't so bad. In a city...with cars, and pavement, and 80% humidity, it feels a bit like you have entered a sauna or steam room. People are walking in slow motion and there's this weird haze. Oh well, I sweated off five pounds, that's something, right? (Especially when I came home and made myself a milkshake spiked with Vanilla Vodka.)

Anywho, back to Dr. Horrible. First off, is it just me, or do all sci-fi action/comic book superhero tv shows (with the possible exception of The Middleman) end up either killing off a thin, wispy, girl who is the protagonist's love interest or turn her into a helpless and somewhat dim damsel? Except for maybe the comic Spike and Angel: After the Fall - where the women are schizophrenic and seem to be tough as nails/scarey demi-goddesses and wispy helpless damsels depending on the mood. (And the before mentioned Middleman - where the protagonist is a woman. Not sure the Middleman entirely counts. It feels more like the Avengers meet the X-Files than the comic genre Dr. Horrible is in, but whatever.)

This actually says a lot more about men, and even more about our society than I'm at all certain most of us want to think about. But the fact that it keeps popping up over and over and over again in stories, means that we probably should think about it. What we should think about it, I'm not sure. That men are scared of women? Probably not. That we are obsessed with physical distinctions, to an unnatural and silly degree? Possibly.
Don't know. Feel free to comment if you can think of anything productive to say on this topic, since I'm currently drawing a blank - except of course for the fact that I think I should be upset about it, and feel incredibly guilty for enjoying the hot men floating across my screen with their badass attitudes. Examples - assuming you need any - include: James McAvoy's hot turn in Wanted, with Angelina Jolie playing the geek boy's wet dream, sorry, mentor and would-be assassin. Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man, with the sleek blond, Pepper Potts as his damsel and wiley assistant, and of course The Dark Knight with the barely present Rachel Dawes. Personnally? I'd rather see the guys than the girls. That's why I went to two of these flicks and not to say, Sex in the City which was playing more or less around the same time. But, that doesn't mean I don't feel guilty and disturbed about it.

What's this have to do with Dr. Horrible? Well, like most of these stories on tv, the girl is portrayed as the damsel or causality - something others on my correspondence list have already critiqued in their live journals. I had problems with it too, but for different reasons.

While it is tempting to say this is true of most of Whedon's tales, it's unfair to single him out. The plot device he is using, and as anti-feminist as it may seem to folks, it is just a plot device and Whedon, to be fair, has killed off men and women in his series. Wash for example was the nice/friendly/harmless character who bit the dust in Serenity. That said, it is a plot device that is admittedly getting a bit stale, particularly when certain writers keep using it over and over again like Whedon, but at certain point all plot devices feel a bit stale. We've told so many stories, that it's hard not to trip over a stale cliche or two in the process. In this case it's kill the girl or a beloved off in the end to give your protagonist something to angst about. I don't think I'm revealing much stating that. If you've read or seen any of Joss Whedon's shows, you can pretty much guess that's what he's going to do. He's done it in almost all of them. The presentation for some reason or other doesn't have enough gravitas if someone, specifically the weakest character or nicest one take your pick, isn't dead. In Serenity - it was Wash, in Buffy - it was Jenny, Tara, Angel (at one time although he didn't stay dead, bit unfair that) and Spike (ditto) , in Angel - it was Cordy and Fred, and in Astonishing X-Men - it was Kitty Pryde (although dead is arguable). As any good magician knows if you keep doing the same card trick, the audience will begin to get bored.

That's what happened to me watching Dr. Horrible. I felt a bit of deja-vue. This is what critics meant when they said what Russell T. Davies is doing on Doctor Who is far more creative than anything Whedon has done in years. While I do not agree that Davies is a good a writer as Whedon, his dialogue needs work as does some of his plotting, he does come up with new plot-devices here and there. As does Abrahms. Two writers who were strongly influenced by what Whedon did. I feel when I read or watch Whedon's creations that I'm watching the same card trick. Don't get me wrong - it's a great card trick. The dialogue is snappy in places. The songs touching and wry. And he makes fun of our corporate, internet and fan obsessed culture quite brilliantly in places. But the plot, the basic story, feels stale and worn. Making me wonder what he could have done differently to spice it up. To make it less predictable.

Why did Penny have to fall for Captain Hammer? I wouldn't have. Hammer was annoying. Yes, Fillion is charismatic and great to look at, but not in this role. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if she hadn't? If Dr. Horrible only thought she had?

We are of course in Horrible's point of view...so perhaps that's the case. But it doesn't appear to be. Whedon is an expert at establishing pov in a story. He does it quickly and adeptly, making it appear easy and it's not.

I didn't mind Penny's death that much - the bit in which it's a piece from Horrible's gun which was so poorly constructed it back-fired on Hammer when he fired it on Horrible - is actually sort of cool. But, it's also been done to death by now. Most notably by Whedon himself. After all wasn't it Buffy's weapon that kills Renee? I knew he was going to do that before it happened. I was expecting it. Partly because I could not think of another way to give Horrible what he thought he wanted, yet prevent him from ever getting the thing he *really* desired. ie. The price for power and success is often a lot higher than one would suspect. In Hollywood - the writer may risk family and lover for the spotlight and the fame. Penny dies and Horrible gets to be the supervillian, with Hammar disgraced.
It's like Tara's death - almost too easy, too melodramatic, too comic book cliche - like a panel out of an old X-men comic circa 1960s or 70s where Jean Grey loses her mind when Scott Summers appears to be dead, and becomes the Dark Phoenix again. Or David Banner decides the heck with it, when he loses Betty and becomes the Incredible Hulk. Or Spiderman loses it over Gwen Stacy. Shakespear was actually a bit more innovative in his tragedies, Romeo commits suicide when he mistakenly believes Juliet is dead and she upon wakening and discovering his still form, soon follows suite. Shakespeare liked to kill off everyone...as he moved forward in his tragedies, the body count got higher, partly because his audience was a bit more bloodthirsty and partly because they were less forgiving of repeats, not that he didn't repeat himself - there's quite a bit of gender switching going on Shakespeare's comedies for example, to the point that it almost becomes redundant. Comics on the other hand, much as I love the form, tend to get more stale in their plot-lines. And I'm beginning to fear Whedon takes more from them than he does from the far superior Shakespeare.

That said? All in all, it's just a fun little internet movie. Free until Sunday. Doesn't cost you a dime. Except the time and money to watch on the internet - and you're probably on it anyhow. Can't beat free entertainment, so few things are free now a days. Movies cost close to 12 or above. Theater even more. Live music...sigh. If it is free - it requires time and effort to do it. So I appreciate the fun stuff that doesn't cost any of those thing when I find them.

I'm also admittedly a culture junkie - and an indiscriminate one at that. I particularly have a fondness for musicals, scienfiction, fantasy, and superheros. Whedon - I adore because he experiments with form, narrative structure, stories, and he loves his characters to pieces. This is no different. He loves these characters, you can sense that. And the actors do a decent enough job considering the budget of portraying them. Neil Patrick Harris is especially good - so good in fact, that I'm sort of hoping he'll do another musical soon. I'd pay to see him on Broadway. Heck, I'd pay to see him in the film version of a musical. Musicals are making a come back on the big screen (thank heavens) so it is possible. And I adore Sondheim - which this musical reminds me a great deal of. Felicia Day as Penny isn't as great, she's difficult to hear and somewhat wispy.
Which may be the intent. Apparently she is producing and starring in her own internet series. Fillion as always is a hoot. Making fun of himself and the heroic Hammer. An underrated physical comedian, Fillon rounds out the cast quit well. As do David Fury and Marti Noxon as news commentators.

Is it a great musical? Hardly, it is after all just a twenty minute film on the internet, what can you expect? An actual horse as BAD Horse - the head of the organization is actually funny and a comment on Whedon's own adoration of the Western genre, an adoration that I share, not everyone does.

Overall? worth a viewing. I wouldn't buy it. But I wouldn't buy a lot of things, still haven't bought the Harry Potter DVD's for example, even though I think about it. Nor have I bought the BSG DVDs or for that matter all of the Angel and Buffy series. Have too many DVDs as it is that I'm not watching, don't need to add more.

Comments

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I always love to read your reviews, and I really agree w/most of your points...
I had actually been so busy hoping that Penny (which struck me as funny because the WGA and AMPTP were fighting over pennies) would turn out to be Bad Horse (after all, she had actually heard of the Thoroughbred of Sin), so I never noticed that Felicia Day had actually/accidently dropped some hints about her future involvement in possible sequels (when asked she kept saying that she would do anything, even craft services... that should have been my first clue that she didn't expect to be playing Penny!). So once again I didn't see the death coming, I kept expecting Penny to have hidden strengths and/or powers.

If you or any of your flist are curious about her other online show, it is The Guild: http://www.watchtheguild.com/
about gamers who live their lives in the World of Warcraft, and are a very interesting set of misfits (I've met them all at conventions).

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

The difference between Joss using this overdone plot device and other writers using it is that other writers don't do angry male feminist blog posts in their free time pointing fingers at real-life men who make a custom of slaughtering women.

He just needs to consider what his art is saying sometimes, is all I'm saying.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I felt uneasy about Penny's death too but the men Whedon was pointing the finger at don't just make a custom of slaughtering women, they make a virtue of it. Penny's death on the other hand was unequivocably presented as a bad thing precipitating the downfall of both Horrible and Hammer, possibly even the end of Western civilisation as we know it.

Which, getting back the shadowkat's original question, I think one reason women get killed is they're better actors/characters than children and our culture finds it easier to see their deaths as unalloyed tragedies. When a male character dies it tends to feel more like an act of heroism if he's a good guy or retribution if he's not. A woman dying is easier to sell as random and senseless and well, tragic. (I'm not saying this is a good thing).

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

A woman dying is easier to sell as random and senseless and well, tragic. (I'm not saying this is a good thing).

That's a very old excuse, and it doesn't mean it's not tired, nor that I can't be tired of it.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I meant it as an explanation not an excuse (as in not saying this is a good thing). Also as the opposite end of a spectrum that runs from 'dead little girls are hot' through 'the bitches deserve it' there are more damming explanations. It's interesting re-watching to note that far from having no agency Penny is the only character who fully succeeds in what she sets out to achieve (namely the homeless shelter) and able to see the layers to both Horrible and Hammer where they see only an obscure object of desire.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

This is a very good point that you bring up. Perhaps Whedon is deliberately through Penny's arc showing how men, including himself, view women and how wrong they are.
Horrible is so self-absorbed, that he does not hear or see Penny's desires. Hammar doesn't either, except as a means to an end. When Hammar does his speech, neither notices Penny's retreat. How she desires to hide.

This is a common theme in Whedon's works - that the male perception of women is often wrong. We see it in Serenity, Firefly, Angel, and in the series Buffy. Fred is not quite the victim Gunn, Wes, Angel, et all perceive. Nor is Cordelia. I wonder if perhaps the motif may be deliberate - if so, it's clumsy and could be done a bit better.

At any rate of the three characters, Penny is the only one not wearing a custom and not feeling the need to promote herself. She can make a difference without the grand-standing.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

According to this article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/18/DI2008071801208.html) where he got to answer some of the criticisms the flawed male view was either deliberate or something he noticed once he'd done it. It is pretty obvious once you pay attention and take a step back from Dr Horrible's point of view.

I also like that he made the Sweeney Todd connection/homage explicit. Penny certainly had more agency (and songs) than any of the 'pretty women' in that.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Except Sweeny Todd had the wonderful and complicated Mrs. Lovett...

Anyhow, it is nice to know that my suspicion that Whedon was once again doing a bit on the evil male gaze has been confirmed. Whether intentional or not, remains questionable. This isn't exactly new for Whedon, unfortunately. We've visited this theme numerous times before. Say what you will about Whedon, at least he remains consistent.

I don't know if it is necessarily obvious? While it felt obvious to me on the first viewing...I'm not sure that means it was obvious. Apparently a lot of people did not interpret it that way...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree...because to an extent, he has done just that. Whedon set out to do Buffy as a counter-point to all those films where the girl is killed in the alley. But, in the series Angel, he himself admits that he sort of plays right into that motif - once again the girl is either the victim or a deranged super-being out to kill or control him - which admittedly is a motif of the genre in which he was writing.

I wonder if he is considering what his art is saying? I wonder if any of them are? To what extent do writers think about it? Now, with the internet - they have more access to how their art is perceived - which makes me wonder to what extent do they read what we say about it?

Whedon's...finger-pointing bugs me a bit. Here's a man who claims to be for female equality and empowerment - yet, most of the writers and artists he employs are men. The film he shows on the net, has one actress in it and one cameo by a female writer - that I could see.

I find it disturbing. And I've seen enough of his work to see common themes and motifs regarding women used over and over again. The female heroine is often killed at the end. If she survives - it's because someone brought her back.
The men see the women as objects or objectify them in ways that are...disturbing. Is Whedon alone in doing this? I wish. Unfortunately, he is only doing what the majority of male writers do.
Part of my own frustration with the writer is the wish that he'll break this pattern. But I don't think that's possible.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

I get more frustrated with Joss than other writers, because he knows better.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't know...I wonder sometimes if it's a deliberate attempt to show us the male perception and what's wrong with it. Dr. Horrible desires Penny, but doesn't really see her or he'd realize what she wanted wasn't a "Captain Hammer" or a "Doc Horrible" but Billy. His objectification gets in the way. And aycheb has a point - she's the only one who gets what she wants more or less.

But at the same time...it feels clumsy because I can't quite tell if he's trying to make a point about the trope or just doing it because well it works and is easy to do?

Sometimes with tv writers, I wonder if we (the audience) are reading more brilliance than is actually there because we want it to be. I don't know.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Sometimes with tv writers, I wonder if we (the audience) are reading more brilliance than is actually there because we want it to be. I don't know.

It feels that way with the Cult of Joss sometimes. Penny is just such a flat character; I didn't get that she got her homeless shelter by hard work, I got that her ties to Captain Hammer got it put in her lap. It's completely hard to tell, though, how much of her own effort went into it, since we only really see her through the eyes of the male characters.

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

There are tens of thousands of people out there who work hard for years and don't get what they want until someone with power allows them to have it, often for base motives on the powerful one's part. Does this make them lesser people for this? I'd say no.

Penny attempts to have agency without base motives; I'd give her significant credit for that.

I already asked this question on ponygirl's lj, but it's worth asking again-- is anyone looking at political rather then relationship interpretations of this film?

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Why don't you post about them in your LJ?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

To be honest? I found that political interpretation pretty obvious. It's more or less the exact same theme Whedon did on Serenity and in Angel S5. So that's why I had no interest in discussing. Been there, done that, so to speak.

I did however mention it briefly in my review above - it's about the strike. And embers_log also mentions it in her post. Captain Hammer is the Producers. Dr. Horrible is the writers. Penny is what they are fighting over and neither really wins. Same theme he did in Angel. Whedon is nothing, if not repetitive..in his political rhetoric.

Or if you want to look at it more broadly? Evil Corporate America vs. the creative individualistic little guy - similar to Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, with more story and less preaching. Although to give Rand credit she created much more interesting female characters.

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

The broad political interpretation I took out of it wasn't the writer's strike, but the Bush Administration and the Military/Industrial Complex (Capt. Hammer), the various terrorist groups that are attacking us, or just letting us think that they will (Dr. Horrible) and the innocent bystanders that are killed because they're both psychotic in different but equally deadly ways.

I suppose my reaction to a lot of Dr. Horrible reviews out there is that ordinary boring people just trying to live their lives out without being fucked with (Penny) are "dull", so it's not a big deal when they get killed. We've seen it before, so it's "ho-hum".

I tend to feel it is, being a rather dull, ordinary person myself.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ordinary people aren't dull. You aren't dull.
A good writer knows how to make an ordinary person interesting. Example: the secondary characters on BSG - such as Cally or the Cheif. Or what about Xander? Willow before she got all those powers? Or Cordelia?

That said, it is more than possible the writer was making a political statement that people who go unnoticed, the quiet types, whether they be writers ecking out a living or innocent bystanders in a war zone - are often killed in the cross-fire of the grandstanders. I've seen this theme done quite a bit actually - in Doctor Who, The Dark Knight, Angel After the Fall, Buffy,
BSG...

But, when done well, characters like Penny are shown to be rather interesting, and often have more depth than the one's jumping about on screen showing off. Donna Nobel is an example - from Doctor Who. Another example is
say Xander Harris. Ordinary people without super powers, who can do courageous things.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree. Had much the same impressions.

The problem with the Cult of Joss or any tv show fandom (see this with Doctor Who and BSG folks as well) - is people can't handle criticism of the show. Any criticism. And have a tendency, we've all done it I suppose, to justify or rationalize or wank things that should be critiqued.

At any rate - I agree, Penny came across as fairly flat to me as well. I'd dismiss it - if it hadn't become such a trend in this particular genre. I've seen four films, including Dr. Horrible with a fairly flat female character whose soul purpose is to support the male. The latest was the spectacular Dark Knight. While it made sense in each of these films, for the female character to be fairly flat - because we are in the pov of a man who tends to be somewhat chauvinistic and looks at women in that way, by the same token - I'm not sure this should not be critiqued. To say, oh, it's just part of that genre, or oh, we're in the male pov - is becoming a tired excuse. It would not have taken much to give Penny a bit more depth, or any of these women...and you are correct when you state that someone who makes a lot of noise about being "all about female empowerment" and "Writing strong women" - writing one as flat as Penny...is well, a tad, shall we say hypocritical? Not to mention frustrating.

I think one of the reasons I loved the Terminator stories as much as I did, and to a degree Aliens, was the female character was the most developed. Which is regretfully a rarity in the action/sci-fi/gritty noir genre which I happen to love.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've been surprised by the number of intelligent people who have responded to my criticisms with, "But that's just the way it is." Yeah, they said the same thing about racial segregation in the 50's.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Not that surprising, when you think about the nature of "fandom". If you are forced to see the blemishes on something you love, it makes it less lovable. Here - if you have to admit that the character of Penny is flat, or the female character in The Dark Knight is disturbingly undeveloped - or that female companions in Doctor Who are disturbingly dependent on the male Doctor...it takes away some of your enjoyment, you feel guilty. Same
deal with MASH - if you notice how the women are brunts of sexist jokes, the show becomes less funny. Or The Daily Show - if you notice much the same thing. You can't enjoy it as much. It's not as much fun. And...well, it's a bit, if you'll excuse the clumsy analogy, like a child being told not to suck a pacifier because its unnatural or wrong. Or the candy is too sweet. I can see why people would much rather turn a blind eye...and I can't say I don't often do the same, which disturbs me a great deal.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

It's not just about turning a blind eye though. Some of the Penny criticism sounds awfully similar to fandom excuses for favouring male over female characters because the women are 'boring' (ie not manly enough).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

If you don't mind my asking, how exactly are you defining "manly"?

There's a reason I ask, a while ago, I had a similar discussion with a friend. I'd told her that one of the reasons I went nuts over characters such as Buffy, Xenia, the archaeologist River Song, and to a degree Starbuck on BSG, was that these characters were a rarity on television. She asked - what, are you looking for women who are more "manly". No, I responded, not at all. I'm looking for female characters who do jobs that may be traditionally male - women I can identify with. Women who are archaeologists, scientists, superheros, fight for what they want, are aggressive (not just manipulative), and no nonsense. Not manly. Not more like "men". Women who have careers. My friend paused, then said:"But there are lots of women in real life who are firefighters, archeologists, lawyers, high powered executives, sentators, fighter pilots, cops...tv isn't showing reality." EXACTLY.

My friend by the way is a legal secretary and has a lot in common with the characters of Rose and Donna Nobel on Doctor Who - two characters who are not boring. (I'm not a huge Rose fan, but she's far from boring, actually she's more developed and more interesting than Martha Jones was (who unfortunately at times came across as a bit flat or a Mary Sue). And Donna is very complex and interesting.) Penny in contrast is I think a flat character. Granted, Whedon doesn't have much time to develop her and you could argue that the two male characters are equally one-dimensional. But, she seems very much the stereotype of the weak/damsel in distress girl who needs to be saved by the hunky guy and ends up getting killed as a result. Donna Nobel and Rose Tyler in contrast, often save the Doctor.

For me, Penny was dull. Partly the actress, who I didn't like on Buffy either. Partly the role. Wispy. A shadow. She made Captain Hammar seem compex by comparison and that's saying something.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

If you don't mind my asking, how exactly are you defining "manly"?

It’s a good question and there are two answers or two issues that on reflection I think I was responding to. One is manly as having characteristics that our society values, things like agency, power, strength, self-determination and that are associated with masculinity. This is not to say that in reality, as opposed to people’s perception of it, men exclusively have such qualities and woman don’t. I’m also as guilty of you are of favouring characters with these qualities, the Starbucks over the Taras but uncertain how much of that comes from having worked in a male-dominated fields all my life and taken on their values at the expense of being able to value other women.

More relevant to Dr Horrible though, however, is the simpler definition of “manly” as being a man and the way that relates to people finding it difficult to perceive 'manly' qualities in a woman or womanly ones in a man. The way a man is called assertive and a woman a bitch for the same behaviour. Or in this case how quick people are to spot Penny’s lack agency and overlook how both Horrible and Hammer are equally at the mercy of events. I didn’t see much to Penny at first either but on re-watching she gains depth while Hammer remains a buffoon. She smartly turns the fish head conversation back to the matter in hand, the song she has in Act II suggests her current hopeful philosophy isn’t so much innocence as a more rational mature response to the pain of living than Horrible’s and while Hammer assumes she’s fallen for him her own expressed opinion is only that he’s not as cheesy as he looks, plus hot and possibly sweet.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah, you're back and thank you for your response.

It is an interesting question, particularly considering many of the lj responses to DR. Horrible, specifically the critiques. I read an interesting fanfic post the other day - which proposed fixing the ending of Dr. Horrible. Not sure if you read it? And I can't remember the link. But the gist was that Penny shows up dressed up like Faith, tough like Faith, and tells Hammar off, grabs him by his "hammar", then goes and kisses Horrible and rides off in the sunset. She's tough, ballsy, and sexually straight-forward.
What some may describe as "traditional masculain traits". While other critiques, have no problem with Penny herself, but a lot of problems with the fact that Whedon killed her off, much as they had problems with similar characters being killed such as Cordelia, Fred, Tara, and Jenny. So we got two separate critiques going on here - both of which, I think, are interesting - because I think they are potentially reactions against what is actually happening in society.
Drama or art is often a reflection or exaggeration of what is happening in real life. It's easier to be critical of Penny than it is to be critical of say what is happening to you at work or in your own relationships.

Women, even though we make up over 50 percent of the world's population, are treated as a minority. We make less than 50 percent of what men do. The poverty rate for women is higher than for men. In France, a woman was humilated and forced to annul her husband because she lied about being a virgin. (Didn't seem to matter about him. Is there even a way to tell on a man?) And in action film, after action film, horror film after horror film, the girl is killed while the male hero grieves. Also in chick-flicks, actually romantic comedies - the man is now the lead. There's only been a few in the last few years that have focused on the woman's pov. It has become increasingly difficult to find roles for women in film. Many actresses are retreating to TV. And...in the most popular of these films, Sex in the City, we are portrayed as ditzy, flighty and dependent on men. The other blockbuster of the summer, the biggest money maker? The girl is a minor player, who serves the male story. She has a good role, but it is still minor.

A few years back, Whedon, broke the stereotype regarding the role of women in gothic horror stories. For the first time, the kick-ass, quippy, hero was the girl. The sissy sidekick, who screamed and ran away was the boy. He flipped the gender roles and in so doing won the hearts and minds of a legion of fans. In his depiction of the characters of Willow, Tara, Jenny, Faith, Anya, Cordelia, Buffy, Joyce, Darla, and Dru - he created strong and interesting women. Women who kicked ass and did not require men to complete them or tell them what to do. These women ruled the roost. Joyce - the single mom, Buffy - the hero, etc...

For a lot of fans this was a breath of fresh air. Before this, we had, well maybe Xenia, but that was it. I've been told by more than one person on lj, that gender roles are not that clear-cut. Women are "not" girly. Men are not "manly". We have both. And our continued insistence on being one or other is harmful. Whedon may in a way be commenting on much the same thing in his little internet drama. Dr. Horrible who is anything but "manly" is desperately trying to be. While Hammar is hiding his feminine side, being almost too macho. I'm not sure about Penny. She's a quiet character. In some ways overshadowed by the other two. But, I think you can argue that in some ways she is depicted as neither "girly" or "manly".
Whedon in his stories - spends a lot of time cracking jokes about how manly or girly a character is. Spike - worries that he is too much of a Nancy Boy, yet in some respects it may well be his best trait. Angel worries about it as well, hiding his love of Spike's poetry and Barry Manilow. Buffy - hides her superstrength and worries she won't be seen as feminine. And Xander...the number of times he mentions being a sissy boy. Then there's Andrew who is so effeminate, people assume he's gay, yet Whedon seems to write him as straight.

Also...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I suspect, part of the problem, is a tendency to categorize. To place lables on people or classify. If a woman isn't into jewelry, doesn't wear dresses, is tough - than she's butch. OR if a guy likes jewelry and fashion and design, he must be gay. It's stupid, but we do it.

And, admittedly, I have a knee-jerk reaction to characters like Penny - partly because I see too many of them and partly, I guess, because I feel the pressure to be like them.

It's almost as if, I feel, the world is telling me that if I'm not more like the Carrie Bradshaw's, the Penny's, etc...then I can't succeed, I can't find the guy, etc. That there is something wrong with me for not being "girly" or "feminine" enough. Part of that may be in my head, but when I flip through Vogue, or a fashion mag, or catalogue, or Entertainment Weekly, or surf the channels of my tv, or even go to a romantic comedy - all I see are women who look like and act like Penny or Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie, or Billie Piper's Rose...and I get frustrated. My guess is much of the criticism on line towards Whedon's internet hit - is due to that frustration. Why is it directed at Whedon? Because he gave us Buffy and Faith and Willow and Darla and Zoe and Cordelia...and we hoped, perhaps wrongly, that he would give us more of the same. More women that were like us and not the same old same old.

I hope that makes some sense. Thank you again for the discussion.