![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[ETA: Advisory for the folks coming here from whedonesque, first off this is my personal live journal not a professional critic blog or review blog where I get paid and this entry like many of my lj entries/musings/critiques is not proof-read, it is not googled, it is stream of consciouness writing and purely my opinion. There will be misspellings, grammatical errors, misspelled names, and typos galore. That said, I got sick of all of incessant bordering on trollish whining emails over Sierra/Serena and changed it. I also changed Audrey to Audra (sounded like Audrey to me). The others - fuck it. If any of this bugs your delicate sensibilities, please read no further. Whining about it will get you deleted and therefore ignored. Also, please review the title of my lj. It is called "Spontaneous Musings" for a reason. These musings are spontaneous. I advise you to read the bio information on my info page before responding, makes life easier on all of us. Thank you!]
For those interested in great metas on Dollhouse, from a different and more "political" perspective, go read![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
frenchani - who discusses Dollhouse - from a Marxist outlook. While I believe aycheb looks at it from an acting perspective - or we are just puppets at the will of the playwrite - sort of like the old studio system, where actors were at the beck and call of the studio heads and did whatever they were told, regardless of the role.
I am still on the fence regarding Dollhouse - for these reasons:
It requires a lot from its audience. Perhaps too much.
It's a convoluted set-up, with a central character who literally has no identity outside of the memory implants she gets each week. Add to that - some genuinely squicky and disturbing themes. La Femme Nikita was squicky too - but at least Nikita got to keep her identity, she was an agent to stop terrorism, and they didn't memory wipe her then pimp her to the highest bidder, she had agency, she had a choice - limited true, but a choice, and her actions each week stayed with her. Same deal with Alias - at least Sydney had "agency". Here - we get the feeling that the Doll's gave up their "agency" or "identity" - have it wiped clean, no clue why, to be pimped out to the highest bidder, in order to become the highest bidder's perverted fantasy??? They need to tell us why these people chose to do this, assuming of course they chose it, and fast. The audience needs a character to identify with - Echo isn't someone most audience members want to - she is too much of a cypher. Ballard? Or the Handler? Maybe - but their both male, and not the lead.
While I like Dollhouse - it appeals to my analytical side, emotionally I have troubles with it and I can't say that I'm all that invested in its success at the moment. I do not see myself buying the DVD nor do I see myself rewatching each episode. Plus it gives me nightmares, which makes me wonder why I'm bothering with it. Regarding it's longevity - at this point? I'll be surprised if it makes it past 13 episodes. I'm not really sure.
Dollhouse is an incredibly ambitious show. Whedon appears to want to do a lot of experimental things in this tv show - some of which, I'm not sure he can do and am not at all certain he can pull off. I'm watching for much the same reason I loved watching the last four seasons of Buffy - it's like watching a hire wire trapeze act without a net. The writers are taking risks, trying something new and different, experimenting - curious to see if they can pull it off. I have serious doubts at this point that they can - but...we're only three episodes in, so who knows?
That said, last week's episode regarding the Backup Singers - which I don't know the name of, but is Dollhouse episode 1.3 - did provide Echo with a little bit more agency. Granted Eliza suffers from what I like to refer to as George Clooney syndrom - she has a specific set of mannerisms that do not change regardless of the role she plays - and the mannerisms are unfortunately too noticeable, much like Cary Grant and John Wayne's voices. You almost want to make fun of them. With some directors they are understated, with others more obvious. Last week - they were more understated, so I think DeKnight may have tuned them down a bit. That's why people keep thinking "Faith" whenever they watch an episode - the vocal inflection and mannerisms are the same.
I liked the episode a smidgen better than last weeks and was pleasantly surprised, because it has been done before. The B plotline or episode plotlines are a bit on the cliche side of the fence. We've seen these tales before, and unfortunately more than once. That may or may not be intentional - hard to tell. My guess is it plays to Whedon's general theme of actors being forced to do stupid things over and over again, and the relationship of fans and celebrities.
The second part - fans/celebrities is actually an interesting theme, which I've been thinking about lately. I was discussing this with a friend a while ago, we were discussing the moral ickiness of reading real person fanfic - specifically around celebrities. To what degree, I wonder, do we have the right to draw, take pictures, hound these people for autographs, and write fanfic about them? To what degree is posting pictures of them online a violation of their privacy? We as fans, also are known to put them into roles, and we often put them pedestals, treating them like gods. Amazed when they screw up and get angry. Christian Bale, Russell Crow, Isiah Washington, Alec Baldwin, etc have all had their names kicked around in the press and have had incidents that happened in the work place, not on screen, publicized. Back under the studio system - they were protected more, much like children, but they also had no lives that were not set up by the publicity machine.
Think about it, how often have you blown up, said something stupid, got angry, etc at work, at home, or with a friend? Would you want that aired in public? Posted everywhere? Out of context? I'm really glad I'm not a celebrity. I would not hold up well under the glare of the public eye. I do not envy celebrities.
Rianna (or whatever her name is, the singer) in the third episode of Dollhouse is a bit of Britney Spears clone. She wears skimpy outfits, dances in a cage, and used to work for the Mouse or was created by the Mouse, until she became a pop superstar. Now she has a bit of a death wish - she feels like she's the fans puppet, that she's in a cage for them to oogle and fawn over. They want her death - because that would fuel their obsession - if she lives too long, she fades, she becomes less interesting.
Echo - a doll, is planted as a backup singer and body guard. Her memory/personality implants make her want to save and protect Rianna, not make her act as a professional body-guard. Topher - the memory implant/personality writer/creator - theorizes this will make her a better body guard, because she wants to save Rianna and isn't just doing it as a job. What Topher and the others don't realize is Echo has become aware enough in her tabula rasa state - that she recognizes Serena as a friend. Even greets her, then quickly covers, before anyone can tell.
Serena as opposed to Boyd is setup as backup. Serena is given the personality of Audra. An obsessed fan. To balance, apparently, the obsessed male fan stalking Rianna. Both are versions of the same beast. Audrey is simply annoying, and fawning, shy, and clearly socially awkward. Almost pathetic. While the guy, a nebbish geeky sort, is creepily obsessive, yet slight, pale, and doesn't get out of his room much. Rianna seems to prefer the male's reaction - because she sees it as a way out. He gives her flowers, and he kills her.
Echo - ironically, tells Rianna she has a choice. She does not have to stay in that life.
The twist in this episode, is when the creepy guy takes Audra hostage and Echo, instead of letting Audra die or letting the handlers rescue her - she would have no way of knowing they would, chooses to take decisive action to save Audra. Rianna clearly doesn't care about Audra. So Echo knocks out Rianna, takes her hostage, and puts her in danger - as a bargaining chip for Audra's life. Rianna's life isn't the one Echo is working hard to save, it's Audra's and the handler's fear she's jumped the mission. It's Olivia Williams character, the head honcho of the Dollhouse, who thinks otherwise and applauds the outside of the box thinking. While her counterpart, Reed Diamond (I have no idea what his character's name is and yes this is another big problem I have with the show, because you should not have to look it up - it is the writer's job to tell us) wants to place her in an attic - out of service. Like a thing. He sees her as nothing but a thing.
At the end of the Echo storyline in the episode - Echo and Seirra again smile and acknowledge each other, but Echo indicates to Serena not to show too much, that they are being watched. It's the first indication we have that both dolls are not completely blank slates.
The other story-arc - with Agent Ballard, reveals that the Russian Mobster, Victor Lubvoc is actually a doll himself. He states ironically to Ballard - that he'd love to be a doll, wipe my brain, not remember anything I've done, a clean slate, wake up, Doris Day. I can't help but wonder if that's literally what he thought when he joined up.
Ballard sees the dolls as little more than human slaves, with no agency, part of an underground human trafficking scam - that would explain a lot of missing persons cases.
The Dollhouse is proposed as little more than an urban legend to Ballard. Urban legends, by the way, are in most cases based on a kernal of truth. It really happened, someone embellished the facts, exaggerated them, and as the story was orally passed from mouth to mouth, head to head, it grew. I minored in urban legends.
If you look below the surface, there's a lot of interesting themes jockeying about here.
One - is what are you in your blank state? I don't see the dolls as children so much as tabula rasa, without thought. This is a rather John Lockian view - that we are not born with innate ideas and personalities, we obtain them over time, they are learned or inserted. They are innate. In Dollhouse - personality is taken from someone else's experiences.
If you watched Sarah Connor first - this theme gets explored twice. In Sarah Connor, she's afraid that a machine is taking her consciousness, her memories and giving them to machines. A sort of Jack Finney, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, fear. Although I see Demolished Man by Bester, where the old personality is erased and a new one inserted in its place
The other themes - are the Marxist view of the proletariat lost within the capitalistic corporate machine. (Oddly enough the civilizations that attempted communism, ended up creating the government as the corporate structure, and the people got lost within that. So I'm wondering if it is possible not to have that happen. I may be wrong.) The dolls are people as product. [frenchani does this one the best.]
And the relationship between the writer and the actor and the creation. The Shakespearean concept that we are but players on God's stage, manipulated by his strings, and do we even have our own agency. [aycheb tackles this one.]
Dollhouse is a fascinating series, but I don't think it can satisfy the viewers/demo who just wants a quick entertaining escape. Buffy functioned on that level as well as the higher one in its first three seasons, by the 4th season it began to slowly lose the escapist audience, who found the show not the fun little monster of the week series they liked. Dollhouse unlike Buffy, requires a bit more from its audience at the start. It's not a show, like Buffy, that you can watch with the kiddies - it's an adult series, requiring an adult perspective.
For those interested in great metas on Dollhouse, from a different and more "political" perspective, go read
frenchani - who discusses Dollhouse - from a Marxist outlook. While I believe aycheb looks at it from an acting perspective - or we are just puppets at the will of the playwrite - sort of like the old studio system, where actors were at the beck and call of the studio heads and did whatever they were told, regardless of the role. I am still on the fence regarding Dollhouse - for these reasons:
It requires a lot from its audience. Perhaps too much.
It's a convoluted set-up, with a central character who literally has no identity outside of the memory implants she gets each week. Add to that - some genuinely squicky and disturbing themes. La Femme Nikita was squicky too - but at least Nikita got to keep her identity, she was an agent to stop terrorism, and they didn't memory wipe her then pimp her to the highest bidder, she had agency, she had a choice - limited true, but a choice, and her actions each week stayed with her. Same deal with Alias - at least Sydney had "agency". Here - we get the feeling that the Doll's gave up their "agency" or "identity" - have it wiped clean, no clue why, to be pimped out to the highest bidder, in order to become the highest bidder's perverted fantasy??? They need to tell us why these people chose to do this, assuming of course they chose it, and fast. The audience needs a character to identify with - Echo isn't someone most audience members want to - she is too much of a cypher. Ballard? Or the Handler? Maybe - but their both male, and not the lead.
While I like Dollhouse - it appeals to my analytical side, emotionally I have troubles with it and I can't say that I'm all that invested in its success at the moment. I do not see myself buying the DVD nor do I see myself rewatching each episode. Plus it gives me nightmares, which makes me wonder why I'm bothering with it. Regarding it's longevity - at this point? I'll be surprised if it makes it past 13 episodes. I'm not really sure.
Dollhouse is an incredibly ambitious show. Whedon appears to want to do a lot of experimental things in this tv show - some of which, I'm not sure he can do and am not at all certain he can pull off. I'm watching for much the same reason I loved watching the last four seasons of Buffy - it's like watching a hire wire trapeze act without a net. The writers are taking risks, trying something new and different, experimenting - curious to see if they can pull it off. I have serious doubts at this point that they can - but...we're only three episodes in, so who knows?
That said, last week's episode regarding the Backup Singers - which I don't know the name of, but is Dollhouse episode 1.3 - did provide Echo with a little bit more agency. Granted Eliza suffers from what I like to refer to as George Clooney syndrom - she has a specific set of mannerisms that do not change regardless of the role she plays - and the mannerisms are unfortunately too noticeable, much like Cary Grant and John Wayne's voices. You almost want to make fun of them. With some directors they are understated, with others more obvious. Last week - they were more understated, so I think DeKnight may have tuned them down a bit. That's why people keep thinking "Faith" whenever they watch an episode - the vocal inflection and mannerisms are the same.
I liked the episode a smidgen better than last weeks and was pleasantly surprised, because it has been done before. The B plotline or episode plotlines are a bit on the cliche side of the fence. We've seen these tales before, and unfortunately more than once. That may or may not be intentional - hard to tell. My guess is it plays to Whedon's general theme of actors being forced to do stupid things over and over again, and the relationship of fans and celebrities.
The second part - fans/celebrities is actually an interesting theme, which I've been thinking about lately. I was discussing this with a friend a while ago, we were discussing the moral ickiness of reading real person fanfic - specifically around celebrities. To what degree, I wonder, do we have the right to draw, take pictures, hound these people for autographs, and write fanfic about them? To what degree is posting pictures of them online a violation of their privacy? We as fans, also are known to put them into roles, and we often put them pedestals, treating them like gods. Amazed when they screw up and get angry. Christian Bale, Russell Crow, Isiah Washington, Alec Baldwin, etc have all had their names kicked around in the press and have had incidents that happened in the work place, not on screen, publicized. Back under the studio system - they were protected more, much like children, but they also had no lives that were not set up by the publicity machine.
Think about it, how often have you blown up, said something stupid, got angry, etc at work, at home, or with a friend? Would you want that aired in public? Posted everywhere? Out of context? I'm really glad I'm not a celebrity. I would not hold up well under the glare of the public eye. I do not envy celebrities.
Rianna (or whatever her name is, the singer) in the third episode of Dollhouse is a bit of Britney Spears clone. She wears skimpy outfits, dances in a cage, and used to work for the Mouse or was created by the Mouse, until she became a pop superstar. Now she has a bit of a death wish - she feels like she's the fans puppet, that she's in a cage for them to oogle and fawn over. They want her death - because that would fuel their obsession - if she lives too long, she fades, she becomes less interesting.
Echo - a doll, is planted as a backup singer and body guard. Her memory/personality implants make her want to save and protect Rianna, not make her act as a professional body-guard. Topher - the memory implant/personality writer/creator - theorizes this will make her a better body guard, because she wants to save Rianna and isn't just doing it as a job. What Topher and the others don't realize is Echo has become aware enough in her tabula rasa state - that she recognizes Serena as a friend. Even greets her, then quickly covers, before anyone can tell.
Serena as opposed to Boyd is setup as backup. Serena is given the personality of Audra. An obsessed fan. To balance, apparently, the obsessed male fan stalking Rianna. Both are versions of the same beast. Audrey is simply annoying, and fawning, shy, and clearly socially awkward. Almost pathetic. While the guy, a nebbish geeky sort, is creepily obsessive, yet slight, pale, and doesn't get out of his room much. Rianna seems to prefer the male's reaction - because she sees it as a way out. He gives her flowers, and he kills her.
Echo - ironically, tells Rianna she has a choice. She does not have to stay in that life.
The twist in this episode, is when the creepy guy takes Audra hostage and Echo, instead of letting Audra die or letting the handlers rescue her - she would have no way of knowing they would, chooses to take decisive action to save Audra. Rianna clearly doesn't care about Audra. So Echo knocks out Rianna, takes her hostage, and puts her in danger - as a bargaining chip for Audra's life. Rianna's life isn't the one Echo is working hard to save, it's Audra's and the handler's fear she's jumped the mission. It's Olivia Williams character, the head honcho of the Dollhouse, who thinks otherwise and applauds the outside of the box thinking. While her counterpart, Reed Diamond (I have no idea what his character's name is and yes this is another big problem I have with the show, because you should not have to look it up - it is the writer's job to tell us) wants to place her in an attic - out of service. Like a thing. He sees her as nothing but a thing.
At the end of the Echo storyline in the episode - Echo and Seirra again smile and acknowledge each other, but Echo indicates to Serena not to show too much, that they are being watched. It's the first indication we have that both dolls are not completely blank slates.
The other story-arc - with Agent Ballard, reveals that the Russian Mobster, Victor Lubvoc is actually a doll himself. He states ironically to Ballard - that he'd love to be a doll, wipe my brain, not remember anything I've done, a clean slate, wake up, Doris Day. I can't help but wonder if that's literally what he thought when he joined up.
Ballard sees the dolls as little more than human slaves, with no agency, part of an underground human trafficking scam - that would explain a lot of missing persons cases.
The Dollhouse is proposed as little more than an urban legend to Ballard. Urban legends, by the way, are in most cases based on a kernal of truth. It really happened, someone embellished the facts, exaggerated them, and as the story was orally passed from mouth to mouth, head to head, it grew. I minored in urban legends.
If you look below the surface, there's a lot of interesting themes jockeying about here.
One - is what are you in your blank state? I don't see the dolls as children so much as tabula rasa, without thought. This is a rather John Lockian view - that we are not born with innate ideas and personalities, we obtain them over time, they are learned or inserted. They are innate. In Dollhouse - personality is taken from someone else's experiences.
If you watched Sarah Connor first - this theme gets explored twice. In Sarah Connor, she's afraid that a machine is taking her consciousness, her memories and giving them to machines. A sort of Jack Finney, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, fear. Although I see Demolished Man by Bester, where the old personality is erased and a new one inserted in its place
The other themes - are the Marxist view of the proletariat lost within the capitalistic corporate machine. (Oddly enough the civilizations that attempted communism, ended up creating the government as the corporate structure, and the people got lost within that. So I'm wondering if it is possible not to have that happen. I may be wrong.) The dolls are people as product. [
frenchani does this one the best.]And the relationship between the writer and the actor and the creation. The Shakespearean concept that we are but players on God's stage, manipulated by his strings, and do we even have our own agency. [
aycheb tackles this one.]Dollhouse is a fascinating series, but I don't think it can satisfy the viewers/demo who just wants a quick entertaining escape. Buffy functioned on that level as well as the higher one in its first three seasons, by the 4th season it began to slowly lose the escapist audience, who found the show not the fun little monster of the week series they liked. Dollhouse unlike Buffy, requires a bit more from its audience at the start. It's not a show, like Buffy, that you can watch with the kiddies - it's an adult series, requiring an adult perspective.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 11:57 am (UTC)Her memory/personality implants make her want to save and protect Rianna, not make her act as a professional body-guard.
Hmmm... the way I saw it, implanted memories made Echo want to save and protect the singer. But Echo's real personality - the girl who wants to make a difference etc. - made her confront the singer in order to save her.
There's two layers of meaning here
Date: 2009-03-02 04:41 pm (UTC)I think what you state above was Olivia Wild (the head Honcho) and Topher's explanation for what happened. Or layer one.
Topher imprinted Echo with the desire to protect, if you simply gave her the skills =- she would have walked away when Rianna (the singer) fired her and treated her horribly. But the concern kept her there no matter what happened.
Echo's personality according to Wild's head honcho and Topher, which is what keeps Echo from being put in the attic, made her think outside the box - the combo of personalities, helped her come up with a way to save Rhianna from her suicidal tendencies.
But that last scene, where Echo and Serena share a friendly look, then Echo indicates not here, we're being watched - makes me think that Echo's personality - the real one - had decided to save two bird's with one stone, so to speak.
Sure she needed to save Rhianna, but, and here's where Echo overrides the imprint, she wanted to save Serena/Audrey more.
Audrey/Serena was her friend. She took action regarding Rhianna when Audrey was put in danger. (Possibly remembering when Serena came in and saved her in the first episode - even though Serena was programmed to do so.) She put Audrey's life first. She had no way of knowing what would happen to Rhianna.
The motivation was to save both, but Echo - from what we see in that final scene - put Audrey/Serena before her assignment/client.
That's the twist.
Re: There's two layers of meaning here
Date: 2009-03-02 05:37 pm (UTC)Echo's personality according to Wild's head honcho and Topher, which is what keeps Echo from being put in the attic, made her think outside the box
Interestingly, I remember Joss saying that he based Echo on Eliza and I remember Eliza saying that she loves playing chess... :)
no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 12:39 pm (UTC)In previous work, while I sometimes felt details, or the setting was unbeliavable, I cared for the characters. Only when I didn't care for them would I care that "Buffy's battle plan in Chosen is stupid" for example.
I can't figure out if the Dollhouse is evil. Are they trying to gain power/money? If yes, given the technology they have and lack of concern for the law, they must be the most stupid criminals ever.
Are the Dolls there because they chose to? Were they aware of what they would be doing? These questions matter.
Was Echo trying to change the world by ending world hunger or bombing some abortion clinic? Is Echo gaining self awareness good?
I don't care for any of the characters. For all we know Alpha's the good guy, yeah, he kills people, Buffy killed "people" too.
Whedon's strength is in getting people to care about the characters. If the series doesn't even have that, why should I follow it?
no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 04:25 pm (UTC)I think Whedon is going for ambiguity - not black and white or cut and dried morality. This is a very complex show that does not provide simple answers. It's not - oh vampires are evil, we'll kill them. Or, oh evil terrorist, let's kill them. It's tricker - a bit more like the old USA TV show La Femme Nikita and Abrahms Alias - which had people being used by organizations that did good and evil. That said, I'd say Dollhouse falls more in the evil category than the good one...for the simple reason that it is mind-wiping people and putting them in dangerous situations, possibly even turning them into weapons.
Are the Dolls there because they chose to? Were they aware of what they would be doing? These questions matter.
From the last three episodes? I'm guessing that most of them chose to do it but were not completely aware of the consequences. We never are. And that those questions will continue to be addressed as we move forward.
Was Echo trying to change the world by ending world hunger or bombing some abortion clinic? Is Echo gaining self awareness good?
Again, that's a question that isn't going to answered up front. But gradually over the course of the first 13 episodes - at least that's my guess.
This show is very different from shows you are used to. It's not like Buffy - where we know up front that she's a cool high school kid, slight, and has to fight vampires. She didn't choose to do it, but has to do it anyway. Nor is it like Sydney Bristow in Alias - where we are told Sydney chose to be a spy to do what her father does and help the world - only the organization she's working for isn't doing that and she must get out. Nor is it like La Femme Nikita - where we are told in the first episode that Nikita was given the death penalty for a crime she didn't committ and permitted to join Centre instead.
Here - we get introduced to a character that is a bit of a mystery even to herself. We don't know why she is a Doll, or why she chose this, or to a degree how she chose it. We do know she chose it -from the flashback in the first episode. And we don't really know who she was before - except that she wanted to make a difference and may have been a bit of an adrenaline junkie - but screwed up royally, and now would like to forget (what it was she did and why she wants to forget it - we haven't been told.) Also this information is conveyed in the space of two minutes in a flashback in the pilot. Go to the bathroom? You missed it.
I don't care for any of the characters. For all we know Alpha's the good guy, yeah, he kills people, Buffy killed "people" too.
Well, no. Buffy killed demons, vampires, and the Knights who were bearing swords and trying to kill her family. Not quite the same thing.
Whedon's strength is in getting people to care about the characters. If the series doesn't even have that, why should I follow it?
Well, three episodes is a bit soon to tell - at least for me. I usually give a tv series 6, if I like the writer and find the conept interesting. I gave Buffy 6 episodes, almost gave up on it, then got interested again. Same deal with Angel - I gave up on it, came back, gave up, came back.
I'm hoping Fox gives it at least 13 episodes, because I'd rather not have to rent it on netflix. Don't see myself buying the thing.
As for being emotionally invested or liking the characters? I have to admitt - I'm mostly watching right now for Boyd and Ballard - who I do sort of like. Echo is growing on me, but I can't say I'm terribly invested in her character - at least not at this point. But I am, admittedly, curious about her, and curious about what the writer is trying to do - but that's because I'm a writer and fascinated with moral ambiguity as a topic as well as identity and the effect of memory on identity - so Dollhouse plays to some of my bullet-proof storyline kinks. But from just looking at the reactions to it online and the ratings?
I'm guessing I'm in the minority on that bit.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 05:25 pm (UTC)Because, let's see, you have a way to change people. You can make them trust you. You can fiddle with their brain until they're in love with you.
Why are you providing services? Why not simply change people so they'll give you what you want?
It can't be because you're obeying the law, after all, the services you provide are not legal to start.
So what? You're a criminal, but there's a line you won't cross? Sure, I'll pimp the twins out, but changing someone so they'll give me money I won't do?
So you're trying to do good, but need money and decided prostitution is the least of the evils?
Except the tech has perfectly valid, not illegal uses. And those uses would be enough to make anyone rich.
I dunno, seems like the set up isn't logical, which is what I expect from Whedon's shows, but for his other shows the set up was far down enough in my list of priorities that I didn't care.
The show is intriguing if you look at it as a metaphor for what writers do, or how a TV Station might look at actors, but that's not enough for me.
BSG might be great at exploring issues, and showing parallels, and all that cool stuff, but if the mini series didn't entertain, if people didn't care about the characters, there wouldn't be a BSG to do those things in.
For me, Dollhouse is trying to go for the thinky part but forgetting the entertainment part. Or maybe people just expect more from it because its a Whedon show. :D
no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 05:53 pm (UTC)I think you may be overthinking it - which is a problem with the set-up. It asks the audience to overthink the story, but too much. Also it is going for the Buffy/Angel/Firefly audience as well as the BSG/Sarah Connor audience - which are shows that established characters with interesting personalities and motivations up front.
BSG - you knew what these people wanted, and what the issues were in the first fifteen minutes. It was not a series about - who are these people, sure that was there, but the main angle - was who will these people become, how will they handle what comes next, and how will they survive?
Buffy - was similar, as was Firefly - it was how do they survive, how do they solve the problem, and how does it change them.
Here - the question is - what if you had no memory, were a blank slate, with memories inputted by an organization that pimped you out as an agent to the highest bidder or a select group of clients? Who are you? Do you have any personality? Are you nothing?
So the series is about discovering who Echo is, and how Echo figures out who she is and takes control. The problem is "who is Echo". That's the core issue.
The other problem is - what is the Dollhouse? Why does it exist? What is the motivation behind it? And how long has it been around? It's again not like BSG - where we know upfront why BattleStar Galatica exists.
Or Buffy - where we know in the first episode why slayers exist and why watchers do. Here - the two problems in the series - the one's they are resolving a bit each episode are: Who is Echo and What is the Dollhouse and Why are both doing what they are doing?
If you aren't interested in waiting around for that question to be gradually answered, you probably won't make it through the show. Unfortunately - that's the central question.
I have a feeling that you aren't in a minority. Most people want those questions answered up front. While I for some reason find it fascinating that they aren't answering them up front.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 07:40 pm (UTC)I hadn't considered this.
Thanks for making me see it in a new light, though it crystallizes my impression that the show's not for me. :)
At least not how it is at present.
Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 02:48 am (UTC)Actually, this is one of the difficulties I have with the show - Echo is a product of the Dollhouse. I want to know who Caroline was and why she ended up here.
I've heard the basic concept compared to the Jason Bourne films, because he had his memories wiped and became an assassin. Now much of the narrative is about him trying to figure out who he is and what has happened to him - and who the real Jason Bourne is.
But this isn't exactly the narrative of Dollhouse - or at least it's the pre-"Bourne Identity" story, where Echo/Bourne are still at the mercy of the people who brainwashed them. And yet there's good reason for the story to begin when the characters are more self aware and actually have agency.
It sounds like Echo (not Caroline) has begun to have a fuller understanding of her world in episode three - which I did not watch, since I found the first two episodes distasteful. I am willing to try the show again if/when I hear it has evolved past this formulaic imprint-of-the-week story ends.
Thing is, imprint-of-the-week follows that good old Buffy pattern of Monster-of-the-Week - except the Dollhouse characters aren't terribly engaging, the ongoing stories all seem to be separate and distinct from each other (Ballard, Echo, Alpha - and never the twin shall meet) and Echo's lack of agency is disturbing.
Not to say these ideas aren't worth exploring, I'm just not sure they are being explored that well. It certainly does require an adult perspective but that doesn't excuse it for not being put together that well. So far.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 06:23 pm (UTC)So true! And it's really getting in the way in my opinion. I really wished she weren't the lead, but in that case there were probably no show at all since Dollouse was Eliza's project to begin with. She basically hired Joss to do it.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-02 08:10 pm (UTC)I sort of wish, Whedon had gotten either Summer Glau or Amy Acker to play the part. Or Katee Sackoff or Grace Park. But, he didn't have any option - Dusku had the deal with Fox, and Dusku hired him to write it for her. They more or less co-created the show. Heck she's even co-producer, and I won't be at all surprised if she ends up directing an episode down the line.
But unfortunately, the role requires a much subleter actress - such as Acker (who was able to do something similar with Fred/Illyria) or Grace Park who plays Boomer and Athena.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 07:35 pm (UTC)Thanks for asking.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 10:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 11:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 01:32 am (UTC)I applaud Whedon for doing it, find the concept fascinating, but can't see it appealing to a very broad audience. I don't know very many people on my own flist or offline that like it or want to watch it, while they did watch and enjoy Buffy.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 07:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-03 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 01:16 am (UTC)Surprised I remembered the name at all - can't remember half the names in this show - which is another problem with it.
With Buffy and Firefly - I got the names right off the bat. Here? I still can't remember what Reed Diamond and Olivia Williams characters names are. I can remember the actor's names - possibly because I read them over and over in interviews, but their character names.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-05 02:51 am (UTC)I think a large part of the name problem is that there are so many people, and the show is relying on keeping those people a mystery. Because of this, we don't really get a sense of any of them and that makes it hard for them to stick in our minds. Add in the fact that half of them respond to new names every week and...yeah.
I'm hooked because of the mystery, though - I want to figure these people out. And you get glimpses of Echo's original personality and history, which just makes me want more. I watch it mostly for the little puzzle pieces we're granted each week.
Eep...sorry it's such a long response. I enjoyed the blog!
no subject
Date: 2009-03-06 12:58 am (UTC)I think a large part of the name problem is that there are so many people, and the show is relying on keeping those people a mystery. Because of this, we don't really get a sense of any of them and that makes it hard for them to stick in our minds. Add in the fact that half of them respond to new names every week and...yeah.
That's my problem with it. I watch a lot of tv shows and with huge ensemble casts - I remember all the names. This is amongst the very few that I can't. I think the reason is we have a couple of characters that have numerous names.
Echo/Caroline/Miss Ellen/etc...it's hard to keep track. But we don't just have Echo and her personas, we also have Sierra/Audra/etc... and Victor/Lubovik/etc, and Alpha/etc.
The only ones who don't change and whose names get mentioned a lot are Boyd, Topher, and Ballard. And it took me at least three episodes to remember Boyd (I kept thinking okay, "handler?")
Add to this the guest stars or non-regular characters.
It's a lot to expect from people who turn on the tv to chill after a tough day of work. Want entertainment. And don't want to have to google the tv show or go to imbd or close-caption to get the names of the characters.
Luckily, for me, I don't care whether I remember the names or not at this stage. But it may matter to others...
I'm hooked because of the mystery, though - I want to figure these people out. And you get glimpses of Echo's original personality and history, which just makes me want more. I watch it mostly for the little puzzle pieces we're granted each week.
Yes, me too. That's what is keeping me watching each week.
And I think the flaws, such as the names, etc, will be worked out over time. I just hope everyone gives the show time to find its footing.
Eep...sorry it's such a long response. I enjoyed the blog!
Not long at all. Have you seen my responses? And thank you again.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 12:09 am (UTC)When I started watching Buffy, I was twelve years old. I loved the show because it was kinda dark but had that teen drama thing going for it too. As I grew up with the show, I started to enjoy it for all the layers. When Angel began, I wasn't sold on it until season two. I think there may still be a few episodes from season one I've only seen once and that wasn't until I got the dvds.
I didn't watch Firefly until after it was canceled and I'm still kicking myself for that. What if more Whedon fans had given it a chance? Would it still be on the air? People thought Firefly was "too far out there" when it first aired. Now the same thing is happening with Dollhouse but for different reasons.
Now that I'm twenty-four [gasp, I've been a Whedonite for half my life!] I watch Dollhouse with intrigue. The show as it has been presented so far is an elaborate puzzle box. We've only seen three of its sides, and we have certainly not even begun to peek inside.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 01:39 am (UTC)parts of Alien Resurrection, Astonishing X-men, some of Runaways, Fray, the comics, Firefly, Buffy, Angel, and now Dollhouse. (As well as Dr. Horrible's Sing A Long Blog).
I find Whedon a fascinating storyteller - because he takes risk. Which is rare for a tv/screenwriter in my experience.
I'm with you on Angel - took me a while to like the show. Part of my difficulty with Angel S1 - was for a while it looked like one of those formulaic detective shows with the lead constantly going after a carrot, he could never have - the carrot being Buffy and being human. But as the show progressed, it became more about his relationships with his friends and handling what he'd done in his past and how that past continued to affect him. It also, unlike Buffy, was about wanting to be the hero, but not being the chosen one or hero.
Dollhouse - I agree feels a bit like an elaborate puzzle box, which is what is intriguing me about it.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 01:50 am (UTC)I think the big moment with Dollhouse this season will be the moment Echo makes her memory known. I'll probably jump up and down since I've been waiting with such... anticipation.
Let's have some fun!
Date: 2009-03-04 12:41 am (UTC)I love Buffy (not using the past tense because that love still runs deep) - Angel was great (the puppet episode will always be my fave) - and Firefly was heartbreaking b/c it ended long before its time. Dollhouse is another chance for us to experience the wit and wisdom of Whedon and I'm loving it!
Yes, Eliza has some quirky mannerisms...but so did Buffy - I mean, seriously, did anyone ever actually pay attention to the way she ran??? The girl couldn't run without looking awkward but she regularly kicked evil's butt - not likely ;) - but I came to believe in her and her "badassness" and overlooked these little things. I believe the same can happen with Eliza's Echo.
And I love that the storyline is grown up. We're not worried about if/when someone may/may not find love/have sex/kick some ass - it's DEFINITELY going to happen - giving us the chance to concentrate on underlying themes and side stories. I personally am on the edge of my seat wondering what exactly "Caroline" did to become Echo - they hint at this during the opening of the 1st episode and again in the "college video."
So, I say, LET'S HAVE SOME FUN! Let's tread lightly for these first few episodes and give Joss a chance to do what he does best...develop some quirky/fun/intelligent/entertaining characters - and KUDOS for bringing in Amy - she is amazing and I'm looking forward to seeing her role develop, as well.
Re: Let's have some fun!
Date: 2009-03-04 01:41 am (UTC)An alternate view...
Date: 2009-03-04 03:57 am (UTC)In flashbacks from episode 2, it shows that he was not fond of the way the Dollhouse did business and he viewed Echo as an empty shell. He is the one who is supposed to care about her as her handler, but at first there appears to be nothing to care about. As time goes on, it appears that he is becoming more attached to her. Her mannerisms and quirks to some degree, but also it seems he is starting to take on a more fatherly protective role.
He sees her as vulnerable and at the root, despite the lack of personality, she is still human at some level and his desire to see her grow seems to be apparent. At least it seems that way to me so far. I look forward to seeing how this all progresses. I heard the show really picks up after episode 6-7 since the Network requested that Joss create seperate stand alone episodes for the first bunch so viewers get used to the idea of her personality changing every week. So time will tell... :)
Dollhouse overview
Date: 2009-03-04 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 04:34 pm (UTC)You're certainly correct. The difference here however is the fact that we're supposed to believe that Echo is a blank slate, yet every one of her 'imprints' carry those token Eliza mannerisms. This might even be an issue for Gellar too (although I do think she might fair better) if she was in this role, it honestly seems like you'd need a fantastic actress to really, really pull this off.
That's not to say that I'm not enjoying the show. I'm more than happy to justify this to myself, and the way I do this is by believing that (at least in this world of Dollhouse) people have an intrinsic personality, sometimes strong and sometimes weak (much like 'strong' coffee or 'weak' coffee, which aren't actually strong or weak at all, it's just one blends better with the flavor of your cream and sugar and one doesn't, but I digress), and no matter how well you 'wipe' them, that little bit of personality will always show.
We're 3 shows in ...
Date: 2009-03-04 06:19 pm (UTC)I think that the level of scrutiny the show is under is huge, far more than Buffy ever was. Have you ever gone back and actually re-watched the first half of Buffy Series 1? It was a right mess, they couldn't fight properly, the acting struggled, and the characters were more like caricatures than people. But it made it through, had enough in the ideas/writing/humor to keep it going. But even the writing struggled at times too.
I for one am sick of formula-driven TV, and trying to unravel Dollhouse is a fresh and invigorating watch for me. There is certainly enough intrigue to keep me watching, and enough places for it to resolve to that the story could have longevity for multiple seasons if given the chance to develop.
Some of the questions I currently wondering about are:
Who is Caroline? What did she do and when will it come back to haunt her?
Who sets the Dollhouse agenda, and what will Caroline think/do about it given the chance?
Will Alpha be her nemesis, or her ally? Is Alpha actually who is doing it, or is that a red herring?
Will Ballard end up as a handler?
Enough questions to keep me watching, and I have enough faith in Joss as a writer that I'm pretty sure, if given the time, he will amaze and entertain us.
Not a blank slate
Date: 2009-03-04 06:40 pm (UTC)The other doll's name is SIERRA - not Serena. Sorry - that just annoyed me :)
The consistent mannerisms of Echo (both in her active state and Tabla Rasa state) don't really bother me for two reaseons:
Reality - obviously any actor playing different characters will maintain basic mannerisms
In the Dollhouse world - remember that Echo isn't maintaining a real "blank slate." In the very first episode she said (as close as I can remember), as Carolyne, "Have you ever actually cleaned a slate? There is always something left behind". At the end of episode 2 she slapped her shoulder in response the the security officer's taunt - a clear reference to "shoulder to the wheel" (an experience she had in her active state). At the end of episode 3 she cautioned Sierra not talk to her - I believe she was remembering how Sierra's handler was fearful Echo would rub off on Sierra. What this all means is that there will be similarities in all of Echo's roles because her "slate" isn't being completely cleared.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-04 07:06 pm (UTC)One of the problems I've been having with the show, however, is that I a) suspect everyone is a doll (and was proven totally right with Victor) and b) can't understand why Dollhouse doesn't use its freaky mindwipe machine more liberally. We've seen that the organization has few moral qualms, so in "Stage Fright" (episode 1.03) why not just wipe Rianna's mind and imprint her with a new personality once it's revealed she's suicidal and no longer wants to continue being a pop singer?
Maybe this will get explored later on?
no subject
Date: 2009-03-05 01:49 am (UTC)and even if the guy *wasn't* so honorable, i think the ultimate reason Dollhouse doesn't go around wiping everyone is also because of the basic class-centered inequality we tend to suffer under. the dolls are lower working class, so low class they're off the radar and "don't exist"; they have no rights or they've signed them away. someone like Rianna is far too famous, too high class, too notable to be wiped. although her situation certainly seems similar, in my mind it's like comparing her with an immigrant farm worker or something.
and i agree, this analysis was really refreshing-- i can't believe how many people just outright hate this show, and meanwhile i'm for the most part enjoying it and thinking it has a lot of depth.
of course i've deconstructed south park before SO.no subject
Date: 2009-03-05 05:26 am (UTC)Благодарю за блог
Date: 2011-06-08 04:01 pm (UTC)Шикарный блог
Date: 2012-02-08 05:24 am (UTC)Классный блог!
Date: 2012-02-19 11:26 pm (UTC)