Dollhouse - Man on the Street.
Mar. 21st, 2009 10:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWell, 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.
TellingLennox 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.
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?
That's the other piece of information that is revealed to us but not to Ballard -
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
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-22 01:25 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-22 01:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-22 01:51 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-22 02:19 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-22 02:42 am (UTC)He certainly keeps us all talking!
no subject
Date: 2009-03-22 03:17 am (UTC)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?