Dollhouse - Man on the Street.

[shadowkat]

Well, I survived another week. Decided to forgo Friday Night Lights, and watch the two hour BSG final live instead, while DVR'ing the pivotal Dollhouse episode 1.6, Man on the Street, which I watched this morning.

I don't have a lot to say about BSG. Except that I enjoyed it and that the ending made sense and tracked. I can't say it was that big of a surprise. The series could only end a limited number of ways, and of the possibilities - this ending made the most logical sense thematically. What I loved about the finale is that it was in large part a mediatation on the main characters, exploring where they'd come from, been, and ended up. Who each character was within the framework of the story and the thematic arc. And through that mediation, it answered the central question posed by the series - which is what is it to be human, and what if anything should we make of our relationship to god, each other, and the universe? How do we resolve the inherent conflicts between ourselves, can we? Also the series ended much as it began - with Gaius Baltar and Six, and the line all this has happened before and it will all happen again, although as Six points out, it doesn't necessarily have to - we may and can choose differently.

Dollhouse - Man on the Street

This episode is by far the best I've seen to date, and does a good job of bringing the story arc into focus. I sort of wish it had been the pilot, but understand why the network shyed away from doing that. The episode could have been confusing to a new viewer, brain fried from work.

Man on the Street, written and directed by Joss Whedon, refers to a tv reporter doing a series of man on the street interviews with people about the Dollhouse. All shapes, sizes and ethnicities. The Dollhouse according to the interviewer and the people he talks to is a well-known urban myth in LA. Like many urban legends and myths - some people believe it is true, others shrug it off as not much more than legends.

Urban myths and legends are to a degree based on real events, and more often than not embellishments of that real event or occurrence. An example - someone probably at some point ended up with a rat in a shopping bag - but they don't remember what store - it may have a sleazy store, which makes a boring story. So they embellish it and say it was Nieman Marcus. Then they add that they heard it from their cousin, and of course it is "true". True stories have a greater impact than false ones. Other myths and legends are morality horror tales that we tell one another to provide good advice - such as don't park on the side of a deserted country road and have sex, because you might run into an escaped murderer. OR you might want to be careful of unwrapped, homemade or fresh fruit that you get from strangers homes on Halloween - if you don't know the person, taking food from them may or may not be the safest thing to do.

The interviews regarding the legend - which is about an underground facility somewhere in LA where there are people who can be turned into whatever fantasy person you desire. They are imprinted with your fantasy person's personality and will do more or less what you want. The possibilities are endless. Then wiped clean, no memory of it, and no consequences. You get to live your fantasy but needn't worry about the consequences or any strings. Sure you are using another person to do it, but the other person agreed, they volunteered, and they have no memory of it afterwards. They are compliant.

In an interview a while back, Joss Whedon stated that he's always been interested in the relationship between predator and prey, but in Dollhouse unlike all his other series, he finds himself writing from the perspective of the predator - with the predator the one in control. Which does have a certain "ick" factor - part of the ick factor is the realization that there are quite a few people out there, nice, kind, good people, who get off on the idea of a Dollhouse. Whedon explores that in this episode partly through the man on the street interviews.

Is it wrong to fantasize? Or is it wrong to role play and make that fantasy actuality? May depend on the fantasy and the players.

The episode begins with Echo playing Rebecca Miner, who learn is a hardworking nurse who died in a car accident before her video game developer hubby was able to give her the house of her dreams. The fantasy that we are in is the video game developer's - who now has more money than he knows what to do with, but misses his wife and on the anniversary of her death fantasizes about how she'd have reacted seeing the house he'd bought them - moving from the one room apartment to this. He's hired the Dollhouse to provide him with that fantasy, Echo is playing his wife, Rebecca Miner, and has his wife's personality.

Agent Ballard comes into the middle of this fantasy, hoping to save Echo or rather Caroline. And he tells Miner, the internet developer, that his fantasy and use of Echo is maligned, icky, not to mention criminal. Miner aptly defends himself, stating, are you in a better position to judge? You are in a way chasing your own fantasy - to be the hero, save the girl. How do you know that your fantasy isn't real? Ballard insists what he is doing is for the greater good and it is not just Caroline he wishes to save, but all the dolls. But Miner says, is it so wrong to want to live out my fantasy? It's there. I don't own the Dollhouse. I don't run it. And I can't stop it. Why I can't I use it? Also you can't arrest or hurt me, the internet will overrule you.

A commentary, I think, on one of the downsides of the information and technology revolution. If we can do it - does that mean we should? And to what degree are we responsible?

It's an interesting dilemma. A few weeks back, I had a rather distasteful argument regarding the video game Rapeplay. I'm repeating it here - because in a way it fits with one of the questions posed in this episode.

Me: Did you see the article about the Japanese role playing video game Rapeplay? It's a game where the user, the person who purchases or plays the game, is in the role of a recently released sexual molester. (You/Player) Molester -- are the sexual predator, you go after the mother and younger sister of the woman that you had raped and molested. You get points for the number of times you capture them and rape them. This is prohibited in the US but permitted in Japan. And people can get versions of it.

D: Sounds perfectly harmless. A fantasy that they are playing. I don't see the problem. Sure it's icky. But it's just a fantasy. People have nasty thoughts. It's human nature.

Me: But this is encouraging people to engage in those thoughts.

D: They are just doing it in the privacy of their own home.

Me: But they are getting awarded for hurting others. Not seeing the consequences. It's like a rat being awarded for hitting the right button with cheese.

D: Points aren't the same as cheese. (Pause) I'm a libertarian. I disagree with you. I think people should be permitted to do what they want.

Me: Within reason, if they are hurting others or being cruel - that shouldn't...I mean, I'm not saying you can't have fantasies and think whatever you want inside your own head. But to make money off of a game that encourages people to hurt one another in this way? To get points for doing it??? This isn't the same as reading Bret Easton Ellis American Psycho..

D: Isn't it? You are playing the game in the privacy of your own home. You aren't doing it. Why not be unihibited and let yourself live the fantasy? No one is being hurt. The people in the game aren't real.

I don't know the answers. But the justifications disturb me. Dollhouse is disturbing in the same way - because we are in the point of view of the predator, seeing their justifications and rationalizations. How they look at the world. And unlike other shows, where the predator is often punished for hurting someone, these predators rarely are. In this respect, Dollhouse reminds me a great deal of David Lynch's surreal horror tale Twin Peaks, which barely made it to two seasons. Both ask similar questions - to what degree are we responsible for encouraging this behavior in ourselves and in others?

The reason I'm fascinated by this series is the puzzlebox aspect. In last night's episode, we learn that there is someone inside the Dollhouse who is working to expose it. That individual tells Ballard and through Ballard the audience - that there are Dollhouses around the world. I can't remember the exact number - I'm guessing around 20, but it is most likely more than that. And each House is connected to people high up in the political/power food chain. While they do for the most part mainly provide high-paying clients with fantasies, there is a larger purpose. The inside person or group, doesn't know what this purpose is. Finding it out may be the key to taking down the Dollhouse. So who is the inside man? Adelle DeWitt? Lennox Boyd Langton (must stop calling characters by actors names especially when I can't spell them correctly)? Topher? Ivy (Topher's assistant)? Or Dr. Saunders? I seriously doubt it is Dominic. Also Lennox Langton doesn't seem to know enough to be the right candidate. It has to be someone who knows what is going on and can manipulate things - my guess is DeWitt. Because Echo also tells Ballard - that he needs to let the Dollhouse win this engagement. Get them to back off. That they won't kill him, but they will kill others, innocents that know too much. So whomever is telling this to Ballard - knows Dewitt sent a nasty Handler after Ballard's girlfriend/neighbor April Mellie (according to one of the many fan sites). What is not clear is if they know April Mellie is a sleeper agent or doll?

That's the other piece of information that is revealed to us but not to Ballard - April Mellie is a doll or sleeper agent. The trigger is provided, she shifts into action mode and takes out the handler, killing him. Then shifts back to victim mode when Ballard reappears. Dewitt orders Dominic to bring AprilMellie in for debriefing, then send her back, because April Mellie is in love with Ballard and it helps to keep someone on his case.

What is not clear is whether Dewitt deliberately set up both situations to a)cover her ass and b) get information to Ballard. Dewitt reminds me a bit of a spider, in how she's written and her plotting.

As for our Dolls - turns out Sierra was being abused by her handler, who was basically raping her or molesting her. When the handler was asked if he enjoyed it more because she didn't struggle - the handler stated, no, that just made it easier. DeWitt's way of dealing with him is icky but also clever. She sends him off to kill Ballard's innocent girlfriend. Stating he should enjoy it, might even consider it a promotion, because this one will struggle. But the twist is that the girlfriend is a sleeper active, with one phone call, Dewitt switches the girl on and girl not only fights back, but she takes out and possibly kills him. Dominic says she played a good hand, DeWitt disagrees - I played a bad hand well. DeWitt may well be my favorite female character in this show - I can't quite decide what motivates her or what she cares about.

Echo - remains as mysterious as DeWitt - we aren't really sure what motivates her either.
Or why she came to the Dollhouse. The character consistently is attempting to help others.
Telling Lennox Langton that Seirra cries in her pod. And DeWitt that she felt the picture was unfinished - which DeWitt reads as the assignment that Ballard so rudely interrupted. Because that is the last scene of the show.

Before that scene - as a reminder of the ick factor - we get an interview with yet another man on the street or talking head. This one is a scientist/professor and he states that if we have the technology to mind-wipe people, to remove, if you can imagine it, all our memories, our personality, our friends, who we love and our feelings regarding them - so that those people become enemies or strangers to us - then what are we? And if that technology existed, wouldn't it be used? On a global level? And used for nefarious and horrible reasons, not necessarily just good ones? If this is the case - then we are over as a race, we cease, it's all over, and maybe that is what we deserve.

It's odd to watch Dollhouse after the series finale of BSG, which dealt with similar issues but in a different context and way. Both ask the same questions - if we are capable and choose to destroy one another for our own selfish gain - do we deserve to survive? To what degree and when - do we take responsibility for the choices we make, and control our own nefarious desires? Acknowledge that actions have far reaching consequences?

Yet, the last scene of Dollhouse, on its surface is rather begnign (sp?) (harmless). It's just Miner seeing Echo as his long dead wife Rebecca, her face filled with joy at their house. Reliving that tragic day as it should have played out, and often has, in his own mind.But is it beinign? Is it harmless? Miner hasn't moved on. He has all this money, but for all we know he hasn't spent a dime to help others - to set a fund to help accident victims. Instead he lives in his mind, in his fantasy, whining about what could have, should have been. And the fantasy becomes almost a narcissitic day dream - his wife reacting the way and doing what he wants her to do. Not necessarily what she would have done. And Echo losing herself once again to play someone else...taking on a role, feeling these emotions, only to lose them all a moment later.

Is it ever justified? Regardless of the purpose? Using someone else...to make ourselves feel better, to live out our fantasies, to satisfy our dreams? Even if they are willing? Even if we pay them? Even if they forget it afterwards?

Like all well-written stories, these questions are left unanswered. At least for now.

Comments

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

This was a totally brilliant episode. You hit on a lot of the good stuff -- and what is great about the episode is that there's even more there.

I do hope that the ultimate purpose of the Dollhouse isn't just to take over the world by having imprinted and controllable people get into positions of power. But still, all the ways that the idea of the Dollhouse comments on us and society is fascinating and it's going to be fun to watch it unfold.

Insider: my money is squarely on Adele. Whatever is the case, she's playing a deep game. Loves it.

Unfinished House: That had so many possible interpretations. One was the one we saw. (And yeah, lots of creepy hard questions there). But I'm pretty sure there are other ones that will become clearer in time.

Query: April? I thought the woman was Mellie/November. What did I miss.

Agreed

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No, you didn't miss anything. I got the name wrong, although from the other comments - I was not the only one, which is reasssuring in a way.

I agree with you on Adelle. She's the most *interesting* candidate. Or rather I really hope it is Adelle, and not Dr. Saunders - who is the *obvious* candidate, and I'm hoping just a mislead.

But...as you state, whatever the case, Adelle is clearly up to something and playing a deep intricate game. She doesn't trust anyone and is covering all the time, manipulating everyone around her. She also has some of the best lines. I think she may well be my favorite character - a complicated character, which I can't quite decide is supposed to be a villian or something else entirely. Whedon is very good at writing complex characters.

I do hope hope that the ultimate purpose of the Dollhouse isn't just to take over the world by having imprinted and controllable people get into positions of power. But still, all the ways that the idea of the Dollhouse comments on us and society is fascinating and it's going to be fun to watch it unfold.

I agree. I hope the purpose is less cliche than that. But regardless the thematic structure is fascinating. In the Man on the street interviews - Whedon explores some of that commentary. One interviewer states that the media or information industry - advertisements, the internet, etc is controlling what we think, how we feel, what we buy. So much of the information that we get via the internet is unreliable.
But we trust it. We don't question. Much as the dolls in dollhouse trust whatever they are told. In some ways, Whedon via Dollhouse is commenting on a culture that relies so heavily on information provided via technological sources - ipods, internet, tv, cell phones - we plugged in to a virtual world. Miner - made his fortune off of a mindless video game, and when his wife as played by Echo enters his house - her first thought in encountering the FBI is - is this porn? Did you get all this selling porn on the net? Selling sex? Because so much of the internet and information provided through the net is sex or prostitution.

Unfinished House - Ah, I missed that metaphor, great pick up. A new house, a new slate - he tells Ballard. That's what he wanted to give his wife. But Ballard focuses on the bed with the roses, the petals, stating you were going to sleep with her. Then, when Ballard asks about the Dollhouse - he literally discusses it as a house with four walls and ken and barbie dolls, in which you put the dolls in all sorts of obscene positions. (I honestly think Whedon may not be a writer for anyone with a literal mind who is metaphor blind, the writer adores and writes in metaphors and analogies.)

Is the house representing - Miner's unfinished life? Caroline's? Or Ballard's? Or something else?

Also, we have Sierra who tells people that Victor likes to pretend that we are married or are playing "house". Yet it is innocent play. While her handler really is playing house with her. And Echo at the end - painting the house with Miner and her out front - tells Adelle the painting is unfinished. Miner was playing house with Echo - but they hadn't finished the game.

Lots going on here. Not for cursory or casual viewing.

Re: Agreed

[2maggie2.livejournal.com]

In the Man on the street interviews - Whedon explores some of that commentary. One interviewer states that the media or information industry - advertisements, the internet, etc is controlling what we think, how we feel, what we buy. So much of the information that we get via the internet is unreliable.
But we trust it. We don't question. Much as the dolls in dollhouse trust whatever they are told. In some ways, Whedon via Dollhouse is commenting on a culture that relies so heavily on information provided via technological sources - ipods, internet, tv, cell phones - we plugged in to a virtual world.

This is one of my favorite things about what's going on with this show. Yes, it's a criticism of what technology is going to do to us. But also a criticism of the way we dehumanize people all the time -- see them as dollars to be picked up through advertising, fantasy fodder, etc. etc. It's shot through with everything we do. That's what made the Ballard/Miner conversation so riveting. It's like -- yeah, exploitation is really bad -- did you catch how much of it we all do all the time every day? The people who are obvious deserve moral spankitude (ha!), but we're all complicit.

Re: Agreed

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree. The man on the street interviews really bring that point to the foreground.

It's what I've been thinking about lately...how many times have you read an internet morality rant - filled to the brim of self-righteous moral smugness as the poster spanks whomever or whatever they are ranting over? Yet, if we think about it - who are we to throw stones? As Miner points out to Ballard - are you really any different than me? Is your fantasy any less creepy?

The show is a bit uncomfortable because it points that out. People...well, we don't like to be made to feel uncomfortable about our fantasies nor do we like to feel bad about ourselves. We avoid it. And when someone spanks us - be it on the net or elsewhere, we lash out. It's human nature, I think.

What I'm finding interesting about the show, even as it creeps me out at times, is the exploration of those themes.

[ann1962]

In last night's episode, we learn that there is someone inside the Dollhouse who is working to expose it.

That was the first moment I found compelling in the execution of what I've seen of this show. Yay a plot that isn't victim of the week.

as it should have played out, and often has, in his own mind.

The "what could have been"s, and the "what should have been"'s in life are always thought/emotion provoking. What you had, and lost, coupled with the realization of what you'll never get back, and that is why the fantasy is always false.

I wasn't sure what I thought of the person on the street commentary. Was it the debate about the issue, or was it a way to placate the critics, so they can continue with no dissent.

My daughter said about this episode, the first she's seen, that it seems like they are feminist, the writers, because they like kick butt women, but then they do these things to the women. Fair question.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Have decided to respond with a quote from the writer who addressed your daughter's comment as well as numerous others on feminism on whedonesque:

I wasn't going to touch the whole feminism debate, but I'm wacky sometimes. All I'll say is this: what I say about myself and my intentions should have nothing to do with your experience of my work. As Hitchcock said, "Trust the tale, not the teller." Some 'feminist' works reinforce stereotypes, some 'exploitive' works provide textured kick-ass female roles. Mostly everyone does both. If you view a piece solely from the perspective of the writer's INTENTION -- or one specific part of that intention -- it's harder to have a true response to how the work makes you feel. In this age of total disclosure (you know EVERYTHING about the shoes now!) that kind of pure watching is hard to come by. PITFALL is a startlingly bold Noir from a feminist viewpoint, but does that make Andre DeToth a feminist director? I don't know, but I do know it was much more exciting finding that movie without any preconception of what the writer or director intended. I have tried to hide in my work, and even bloging on feminist issues felt like a dangerous trap for me because once I take a stand as a public figure, that purity of watching is gone. Let the debate about me rage on: "I don't care what you think, as long as it's about me" -- yes, I just quoted Fall Out Boy -- but that debate should really ignore what I say in these, my morning-cup-of-tea postings. We are only the sum of our actions. Or our art.
So, in summary: please ignore me/pay attention to me, and judge my work on its own merits unless it has none in which case give me a pass 'cause I said I was a feminist.
Hmm. I might need stronger tea.
I can only think that Joss has some time on his hands this morning.... but that is always okay with me!

I think that may also to some extent answer your other question regarding the street commentary. From what I've seen of the writer's creations - I can't see him doing anything to placate critics or fans. His view and I agree with him is ignore the fans, write the story. That said, he does have to cater to a degree to a tv network - which is attempting to attract male fans within a certain demo to get advertisers to spend money on ad space. (Supernatural is doing the same thing - catering to a male demo, and as you are no doubt aware has been accused by many on the internet of being a misogynistic/homophobic tv series. I think that's a fairly reactionary take, but there you go.)

But no, I don't think the interviews were about placating critics or the network. I think it is the writer honestly exploring a variety of issues. Also, from a urban folklorist perspective? The interviews provided a legitimacy to the folk legend of the Dollhouse. They appealed to the folklorist that still resides inside me.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Uh the last line of that quote is obviously not Whedon. Sorry about that.

[ann1962]

Yes, no worries.

His view and I agree with him is ignore the fans, write the story.

I agree too. That is all a writer should do, telling it as truthfully as he or she knows.

That said, I think that one can't escape letting what they know, and who they are, be part of the story. I think it seeps in. How they control the story they tell is the thing. As you say below, he has a thing for dolls, puppets and mind swipes. Not sure if I care or should about that seeping, about what it means outside of the story, but it does appear and reappear. I think one has to know what is seeping out, to be able to better their story.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

That said, I think that one can't escape letting what they know, and who they are, be part of the story. I think it seeps in. How they control the story they tell is the thing. As you say below, he has a thing for dolls, puppets and mind swipes. Not sure if I care or should about that seeping, about what it means outside of the story, but it does appear and reappear. I think one has to know what is seeping out, to be able to better their story.

I'm not sure what you are saying here?

If you are saying that Whedon isn't aware of what is seeping out? I don't see that. I think he is aware, particularly about the whole memory/puppet thing - because he's discussed it in interviews. And I think he is aware of how people may perceive his work as being anti-feminist - he spoke about that in more than one interview. The latest - was the one in which he stated how this work has an uncomfortable element that makes him uncomfortable - because we are in the perspective of the predator, often a male predator.

What I see in the quote above is that he is hesistent to tell us what his intent is, even going so far as to state that he regrets posting about being a feminist, and posting his views on his work - feeling that this will affect our perception of the work. (See my post on authorial intent and whether we should look too closely at this to understand a work of art, specifically some of the comments.)

So are you saying that he needs to tell us what his intent is and be clear about it?

Because I don't think that's necessary for telling a better story.

Or are you saying that you just need to be aware of the negative images that may seep out?

Or, are you saying that a writer needs to address the negative things that seep out, be aware of them, and change them - control how they are percieved? Because I'm not sure I agree that this is even possible. We can't control how others perceive things. Nor am I certain that I want the writer - Whedon - to stop talking about puppets or how we control others. I find these things fascinating and think they are worth exploring.

[ann1962]

I don't want the writer to have to stop talking about things either. But with Whedon, he seems to have these mixed messages, giving voice to the predator, and having these mind swiped child-like women, dolls, be the focus. I know he's aware of it, but he keeps coming back to these very negative things addressing them specifically in this way. I find this all very confusing, and I don't get where he's going with it. That's why I was so glad to see that there was an inside person. A moral center at the dollhouse. I used to feel Whedon had control of balance between perpetrator/victim roles most of the time, but now I'm not sure. How many mind swiped people, young girls does he need to write, in the way he does. I've only seen a few of these episodes, and missed the first couple, so that might be partly what it is, and this is a huge disturbing squick of mine, these mindswipe/rape, consent topics. If these dolls were allowed to be who they were, and consented to these behaviors and roles, I'd be a whole lot less bothered, but they're not.

He certainly keeps us all talking!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

Yes, I have mixed feelings about it as well.

It's not clear whether the dolls consented to be dolls or not. And if they did, if they knew what that entailed. From the previews - I'm guessing the writers are going to reveal the answer to that question in next week's episode.

The first episode, which you may have seen? Has Adelle telling Caroline (echo) what the dollhouse is and Caroline asking if such a thing is really possible. She appears to want the blank slate. It's a flashback and if you blink, you missed it. What's not clear is whether Caroline agreed and if so, why?

I think I know what Whedon is attempting to do, where he's going, but I'm not sure he can pull it off. He's exploring the agency, the quiet power, of someone who appears powerless. Who appears weak. The agency of...how to put this, the ghost inside the machine.
Are we just our experiences, are what others deem us?
Can we be mindwiped and controlled? OR is there something else beneath all of that which will and can break free? I think he's playing with that idea, but I'm not sure if I'm right or not. And I won't know until closer to episode 13.


He certainly keeps us all talking

Sometimes vehmently. LOL! Yes, I find myself posting less about the other tv shows I watch and getting far less responses whenever I do. I have posted about Supernatural, Grey's, ER, BSG, Desperate, Heroes, Lost,
Sarah Connor, sigh...but rarely do I get many responses on those posts.

But I post on Buffy or Dollhouse? I get responses.
And I find I tend to write more interesting posts on both, maybe because I'm not sure what or how I think about them?

[midnightsjane.livejournal.com]

I thought it was brilliant..and that it felt like the show was really reaching towards being a great commentary on all the issues you point out. I was taken by surprise by the revelation that April is a Doll..but I'm glad she didn't end up another victim. And using Echo's program to insert a warning to Ballard was fantastic, and surprising. It has to be someone with access to the programming, and the information, so I'm sort of with you on DeWitt, but I'm not placing any bets just yet. I have real hopes for this show after this episode.
I'm starting to not see Helo every time Ballard appears on screen, too. LOL

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

I pretty much thought to myself as I watched, "That neighbor girl is Toast. (a) it's Joss, he kills girls to advance his story. (b) She just had sex."

I'm very glad I was wrong. Still, she fights back and wins against her attacker because she's programmed to. It was a twist I didn't see coming, but it brought back the creepy factor.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yes, I got surprised by that twist as well. Hard to surprise me. So I was impressed.

Yet, it is classic Whedon - he likes to flip old tropes. So I guess, I should have seen it coming? Except he fooled me, I'd guessed Mellie (the neighbor's name Mellie not April by the way, according to one of the many episode websites) was a doll when she first appeared, but then decided, nah, too coincidental, probably not, then changed my mind when Dewitt had them on surveillance, then thought, no, unlikely. So go, Joss.

Agreed - it did bring back the creepy factor. Who is worse?
The handler who wants to rape her or DeWitt who pulls her strings, manipulating her every move like a puppet?

Also is it just me, or does Whedon have a thing about puppet and doll metaphors? April in I Was MAde to Love You, Buffybot, Smile Time...Don't get me wrong, I find the metaphors interesting, but also creepy.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Yes, and Echo brought back mind-wiped Connor for me. Mind-wiped Connor is like Echo after she's been given someone else's personality.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hee. I'd forgotten that one, but that's an excellent example.
What fascinated me about Home - was the moral quandry - and it fascinates me about Dollhouse as well.

One of the interviewees in the man on the street interviews states -"to have no memories of what I've done? to go to great places? No pain of the bad stuff? A clean slate each time? Where do I sign up?"

And in Angel - Angel himself wanted the shanshu - which would wipe him clean, remove his sins, let him start anew, as human - or at least that was one interpretation. Instead, he gives it to Connor, wipes him clean, and wipes the memories of him from his friends - gives Connor the nice life. And Connor thanks him for it, sees it as an improvement.

But, was it? And was the price worth it? That question is never really answered. Here they appear to asking similar questions, yet in a different way.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

That's my whole reason for writing The Destroyer--to question Connor's "thank you" to Angel, to integrate what could be gleaned from his new life in restoring balance to his old (and genuine) life. I needed to do that. Because "Home" and "Origin" rang false for me in that regard. And I think Joss is aware of that disingenuity in his explorations in Dollhouse.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree - I get the same feeling. It's an issue that is fascinating to the writer, and he is exploring various angles to it. In Angel - he explored the more positive angle or the Demolished Man angle - where you rehabilitate the criminal by removing his bad memories and bad personality and replacing it with a new one.
And in Buffy - he explored the making the perfect companion or fantasy girl - yet demonstrates, in a great bit of dialogue between Spike and Dawn, that the perfect fantasy is boring, predictable, we know what will happen next. Also in Buffy - Tabula Rasa episode - they explored what if you lost your memories - would you be your innate self? And what are the consequences of doing that? They weren't explored in depth, sort of skimmed over.

Here, in Dollhouse, we're getting a more in-depth exploration of the reasons, desires, pluses, minuses, and moral quandries involved. A rather dark exploration - far darker in fact than either Buffy or Angel.

Origin bugged me initially...more than Home, because Angel got off scot-free. He was almost told that he did the right thing. Connor was well-adjusted and happy. And Wes was crushed by the knowledge of what he'd done. Except, when I think about it, I realize that people pay for what Angel did. If Angel hadn't done it - Wes wouldn't have died, Fred wouldn't have become Illyria, and Gunn may not have gotten that up-grade. Angel's choices much like Angelus' corrupted everyone he came into contact with...even Connor. It was only by pushing Connor away, removing all knowledge of himself (Angel) and his friends, that Connor was saved - or so appeared to be the theme.
But it's not a clear one - because when Connor remembers it all, he still seems fine. He likes Angel.
He likes all Angel's friends. He's almost too well-adjusted. As if Connor is in the center of the storm and remains oddly untouched because of the mindwipe, while everyone else is torn apart? So what is the message there? That the parent destroys everything around them to perserve the son and provide the son with a good life? Sort of the counter to sacrificing your son to save the world. Here you sacrifice the world, even yourself, to save your son - which feels....although it does fit Angel's character, I guess.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

I suppose it's because Connor was the actual focus of the mind-wipe, the one it's supposed to help (at every one else's extent), so he's fine and everyone else falls apart. I wanted there to be MAJOR fall out between Angel and his friends after "Origin" and there never was.

Of course, I didn't buy that the mindwipe could just make Connor naturally better, no reprecussions from getting his old memories back. They fudged this by saying his old memories felt more distant than the new, false ones.

What I did in TD was have the old memories gradually build in strength until Connor kind of went nutso and had to deal with them the hard way - by working through them. I also expanded on canon a little by saying that the mindwipe was actually a form of "mystical therapy" utilized by a client of Wolfram and Hart in which traumatized individuals had their memories erased and replaced with healthy memories. They and their families would live that way for a year or two, then get their memories back, and it was like therapy in that the new memories taught them the coping skills and emotional levelness psychotherapy normally would. I wrote it that Angel co-opted this in cahoots with Lilah in "Home", intending that Connor and the Reillys would never get their memories back, ever.

I don't think Angel thought that taking away the memory of Connor could possibly have the kind of reprecussions it did on his friends' lives. I think he maybe even thought he was doing them a favor, given that the last couple years sucked in so many ways. Which is totally an in-character paternalistic disenfranchisement Angel would do with the best of intentions to help his son.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...I actually like that analysis better. And you are correct in regards to Angel, it is totally in character.

Also agree - that was my problem with Origin and the episodes that followed. I was disappointed that we didn't get more fall-out. I expected Angel's friends to really be upset with him. Granted Fred - by that stage is already gone, and Illyria wouldn't really care one way or another. Wes - does care, but is crushed by the weight of the things he had done.
Gunn- by that stage is crushed by the weight of what he did in regards to Fred, to even notice. So...that leaves Spike - who wasn't around and wouldn't care either. In an odd way, the timing of the reveal was on Angel's side.

Also, I agree he probably didn't think it through, he reacted to Connor's situation and grabbed the option provided. And to be fair, he was dealing with an emotionally corrosive situation at the time. Connor had just attempted to blow up a store with himself and thirty or forty innocent people inside. From Angel's perspective - Connor was beyond help, he had two choices - kill the boy or take Lilah's offer. I can't say I blame him for taking the latter, I probably would have done the same thing considering the situation.

Also, at the time, his friends seemed to be seriously considering taking WRH's offer, for their own reasons which had nothing to do with Angel or Connor. And, from Angel's perspective - he was removing Wes' pain and guilt regarding Connor, what was bad about that?

Another...thing, which I argued in the past, we don't know if Fred would have chosen to go to WRH or not, without the mindwipe. Wes - probably wouldn't have.
But we don't about Fred. We also don't know if Fred would have opened the casket without it, nor do we know about Gunn. Both Fred and Gunn seemed to be on the verge of accepting the offer before Angel made his decision. Wes was the wild-card, and I think, the one most affected by the choice. But...I'm not sure if Wes would have lived if Angel chose differently.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

It's really hard to speculate on what the characters would have chosen in Home had they had their memories in tact of the previous two years. Partly because that depends on what you think is in character for each individual, and partly because we are never given a good picture of what memories replaced the ones they had of what actually happened.

That was a big gap in the story-telling that made it hard to speculate on anything--if you take Connor out of the past two years, what's left? I think at one point we are told they remember Jasmine, but it's a version of Jasmine without Connor in it. Rewriting seasons three and four without Connor being a reason for the actions of the various characters leaves a lot open. Especially for Wesley, who had a major character change during that period with Connor as his pivotal reason for it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

True.

We can speculate all we want, but we really don't know because very little information has been provided.
Whedon and his crew are interesting storytellers in that they like to leave huge gaps, and unanswered questions. For reasons I do not entirely understand - I appear to be attracted to that type of storytelling or its the type I get obsessed with and find myself writing about - while stories that don't do that? I enjoy but seem to forget rather quickly. I don't know why that is. (shrugs) At the same time - the unanswered questions frustrate the heck out of me. (So perhaps, I'm a bit masochistic in this regard?)

The problem with the gaps in this storyline - as you point out - is it is difficult to know for certain why Fred, Wes, and Gunn react the way they do. What do they remember, and what don't they? What memories were replaced? I remember when I saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind with cjlasky - cjl pointed out that a big flaw in that story about two lovers who remove all their memories of each other and their love for one another - was if you remove all the memories of a person, you remove everything they were associated with - which is akin to well pulling a strand out of a delicately woven spider web - the whole web unravels.
You have to replace it with something. And when you do, you change the person, who they are, to a degree.
That's why time travel and memory tales are so difficult to pull of in fiction - you have to be careful of the details. You can't skim over them, or the story you are writing will either unravel or have huge plot holes.

So... I agree. We aren't given much information, and as many fans stated at the time - Home felt a bit like a huge "reset" button. Almost as if the writers wrote themselves into a corner, couldn't figure a way out and ran out of juice, so chose to hit a reset button as a means of telling the story they wanted to tell, while not having to deal with all the baggage from the previous one. I get the feeling that the network may have a hand in this - I remember at the time that Angel was on the brink of cancellation - and Whedon kept pitching storylines at the network, until he finally came up with one that appeared from their perspective to be more episodic in character and less dark and serialized.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

I knew Joss had to do some fancy footwork to get season 5 on the air, but I think some clever writing could have had season 5 go the way it did without the memory wipe. That was just too problematic in too many ways.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh, I screwed up on the names - it's Mellie. April was the robot in Buffy. (sigh - they don't even look alike). Sorry about that.

Wise not to place bets - because I think it may end up being Dr. Saunders, who I really hope it's not - because way too obvious, but also fairly logical - has access to imprint data, knows the dolls, doesn't know what the underlying purpose is, and may or may not know how many houses there are. Plus she was cut up by Alpha, which may have been a cover - to make her less of a suspect. Or motivation for uncovering what the Dollhouse is.

I'd rather it be Dewitt, less obvious, and more twisty. Of course it could be someone else.

Can't say I'm there yet with Ballard/Helo - but then to be fair I literally watched the BSG finale before watching Dollhouse. Yes, Friday is my sci-fi night at least for the time being.

[ishtar79.livejournal.com]

Excellent review-I'm still trying to get my own thoughts on the episode in order, but you hit on a lot of the points that jumped out at me while watching.

I'll be really pissed off when if they cancel the show now.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well, there's hope. Fox is reluctant to cancel because it has a rabid and loyal fan base - which leads to DVD sales. But at the same time, from what I've read, they will cancel it if it makes sense to do so from a financial perspective. (ie. We can't make money off of it.) The networks are struggling financially at the moment, and considering changing how they do things. Optioning more limited run series as opposed to series that run for several years. And they are also telling tv shows, specifically ensembles, to cut stuff and budgets in half. The bad economy is apparently affecting everyone.

So... Dollhouse's future, unfortunately, has a great deal to do with how much ad time it can sell - which in turn is based on how well it does ratings wise for a certain key demographic.

This in a nutshell is why loving cult tv shows is sooo frustrating and why we always to kick the critics, who insist on raving about dull ratings darlings.

Oh well, we do know this much for certain - all 13 episodes have been filmed and we will see all of them.

[moscow-watcher.livejournal.com]

Love your review. Insider: my money is on Dr.Saunders. Alpha didn't kill her. He works outside, she works inside.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Saunder's is the most obvious candidate and makes the most logical sense. Particularly if Alpha is the person that Echo referred to - as the outsider trying to figure out what the Dollhouse's purpose is.

Makes sense that it is Alpha. And what that does is basically set up the two predators - the Dollhouse heads vs. Alpha.

But there's another option, which is that DeWitt is to a degree manipulating things for her own ends, and that manipulation resulted in Alpha, and is also, resulting Echo's increased awareness.

Whether that means DeWitt is the inside gal or she's a third party, wild card, or that she's part of the Dollhouse and the one who knows the Dollhouse's main purpose - is not clear.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I loved this episode, there were so many layers of things going on, and so many fantasies (good and bad) to sort out....
I'm suspecting Dr. Claire Saunders as being the inside man (but my primary evidence is just that I don't think Joss would cast such a strong actress for such a tiny role), but I'm expecting many twists and surprises (Joss always fools me).

I have to go watch it again now!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm sort of hoping it's not Dr. Saunders - she's a bit too obvious. I mean from the first episode - I thought - oh, she's a spy working against the Dollhouse.

And she's the obvious choice - to be working in tandem with Alpha. Alpha after all cut her face, but kept her alive - a good cover story. And we've never been told exactly how Alpha broke out - someone from the inside may have manipulated things so it could happen. Saunders also has access to the medical surgical technology to do an imprint. The logical and obvious choice.

DeWitt - I find more interesting than Saunders. If she was the spy or inside gal so to speak, that would be an interesting twist. But, now that I'm thinking it through...I'm no longer certain, DeWitt may well be up to something else entirely.
Her motivations, whatever they are, may be the key to the Dollhouse's purpose. OR, more likely, she may have a purpose that is separate from her bosses?

DeWitt is fascinating me, because she feels very much like a spider - pulling at strands, manipulating every thread. Can't quite decide at this point what Whedon plans on doing with her.