Most of the women are victimized in ways that are painful to any viewer who identifies with them. So clearly we are better off identifying with Buffy! Plus I'm always in favor of the funny.
Actually I think it has more to do with active vs. passive. I tend to be more sympathetic to victims who have taken an active role, and responsibility for their actions. Then for victims who passively sit back and blame everyone, are doormats, and never take any action in their lives.
I think the difference between Buffy and the women in Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse - is that in Buffy we are in Buffy's pov. We aren't seeing her primarily through the male gaze. It is her story, she is not a portion of theirs. They are supporting characters in hers. She's the lead. She's active. She's not passive.
And, she doesn't allow herself to be victimized. She takes an active role. Even when she loses the fight and she does lose and she is hospitalized and she is attacked, she does not act the victim. She does not cater to men. She does the male role, does his job. Wears jeans. Wears dresses. And most important of all, she takes responsibility - she blames herself not everyone else.
Firefly - which has strong women, is in many ways a male fantasy piece, we see these women through the male gaze. The lead is male, even though it is an ensemble. Dollhouse likewise - even though Echo may be considered the lead - is seen through the gaze of Ballard, Boyd, and Alpha. She has no identity that has not been given to her by Topher, her boyfriend and others. She allows that to happen. She doesn't fight against it, at least not initially. She lets herself be the victim.
I think this was one reason people didn't warm up to 'Dollhouse' right away, it would be dangerous to identify too much with Echo, she is a victim in too many ways. ...
Uh no. That's not my problem with Echo or the Neil Gaiman novels, nor was it my problem with the central character of American Gods - a book that was difficult for me to get through, even though one would think with my folklore and mythology background I'd adore it. I did not hate it. But I did not enjoy it either. I just did not care about the central character - who to men came across as a passive blank slate. And that I think is part of my problem with Dollhouse.
I do not care what happens to Echo. I don't hate Echo. I don't find Echo disturbing. I just don't feel anything for Echo really. There's no emotional investment.
I think the reason I feel that way is two fold - one, Echo is a "passive" character, much like the central characters in Neil Gaiman's books. They aren't victims per se - they are characters who let things happen to them, and when they get unhappy, they react in a passive aggressive manner. There's no complexity to them, no emotional arc per se - they are blank. The writer doesn't appear to care about them outside of their purpose in his plot, so why should I?
Buffy and her friends were not passive characters. None of the characters on that show were passive. They took responsibility for their choices. At least for the most part. And the writers appeared to passionately love all of them, plotting out their arcs over the course of several seasons. Dollhouse -the writers have admitted is less about character and more about an idea, it is a different way of writing a story. It's thematically driven. In season one - they did not know who the characters were and that came across in the episodes. Now, they do.
What intriqued me about Dollhouse is the idea, which is an ambitious one, and that at least one character - Adelle was present. They appeared to know who and what she was. And by the end of the season, after the episode Man on the Street - the writers appeared to know what show they wanted to write and who these characters would become. I began to care a little bit more about them, because the writers cared. The first six or seven episodes? I did not care.
I also think at the heart of dollhouse - is the same question that lay at the heart of the film Serenity - that being passive can as if not more destructive than being aggressive.
Active vs. Passive
Actually I think it has more to do with active vs. passive. I tend to be more sympathetic to victims who have taken an active role, and responsibility for their actions. Then for victims who passively sit back and blame everyone, are doormats, and never take any action in their lives.
I think the difference between Buffy and the women in Angel, Firefly and Dollhouse - is that in Buffy we are in Buffy's pov. We aren't seeing her primarily through the male gaze. It is her story, she is not a portion of theirs. They are supporting characters in hers.
She's the lead. She's active. She's not passive.
And, she doesn't allow herself to be victimized. She takes an active role. Even when she loses the fight and she does lose and she is hospitalized and she is attacked, she does not act the victim. She does not cater to men. She does the male role, does his job. Wears jeans. Wears dresses. And most important of all, she takes responsibility - she blames herself not everyone else.
Firefly - which has strong women, is in many ways a male fantasy piece, we see these women through the male gaze. The lead is male, even though it is an ensemble. Dollhouse likewise - even though Echo may be considered the lead - is seen through the gaze of Ballard, Boyd, and Alpha. She has no identity that has not been given to her by Topher, her boyfriend and others. She allows that to happen. She doesn't fight against it, at least not initially. She lets herself be the victim.
I think this was one reason people didn't warm up to 'Dollhouse' right away, it would be dangerous to identify too much with Echo, she is a victim in too many ways. ...
Uh no. That's not my problem with Echo or the Neil Gaiman novels, nor was it my problem with the central character of American Gods - a book that was difficult for me to get through, even though one would think with my folklore and mythology background I'd adore it. I did not hate it. But I did not enjoy it either. I just did not care about the central character - who to men came across as a passive blank slate. And that I think is part of my problem with Dollhouse.
I do not care what happens to Echo. I don't hate Echo. I don't find Echo disturbing. I just don't feel anything for Echo really. There's no emotional investment.
I think the reason I feel that way is two fold - one, Echo is a "passive" character, much like the central characters in Neil Gaiman's books. They aren't victims per se - they are characters who let things happen to them, and when they get unhappy, they react in a passive aggressive manner. There's no complexity to them, no emotional arc per se - they are blank. The writer doesn't appear to care about them outside of their purpose in his plot, so why should I?
Buffy and her friends were not passive characters. None of the characters on that show were passive. They took responsibility for their choices. At least for the most part. And the writers appeared to passionately love all of them, plotting out their arcs over the course of several seasons. Dollhouse -the writers have admitted is less about character and more about an idea, it is a different way of writing a story. It's thematically driven. In season one - they did not know who the characters were and that came across in the episodes. Now, they do.
What intriqued me about Dollhouse is the idea, which is an ambitious one, and that at least one character - Adelle was present. They appeared to know who and what she was. And by the end of the season, after the episode Man on the Street - the writers appeared to know what show they wanted to write and who these characters would become. I began to care a little bit more about them, because the writers cared. The first six or seven episodes? I did not care.
I also think at the heart of dollhouse - is the same question that lay at the heart of the film Serenity - that being passive can as if not more destructive than being aggressive.