Dollhouse: Thoughts

by Rami C

Almost completely by accident, Rami happened to catch the season premiere of Joss Whedon's latest oeuvre.
~
I'll be one of the first to admit that I don't exactly fit into the typical audience focus-group that American TV networks base their decisions around. Having seen (and, to be fair, adored) Firefly but not seen much of any of his other work (most notably Buffy or Dr Horrible), I am not enough of a Whedon fanboy to have seen all the buzz about it. Although since the buzz has been piling up for a good few months if not well over a year, I did notice one or two hints in the blogs I read.

So, with my laptop open in front of me I was engaged in what appears to be the traditional American pastime of not paying huge amounts of attention to the television when I noticed Eliza Dushku sprawled across the screen. Needless to say, that got my attention enough to notice that the much-talked-about season premiere of Dollhouse was coming up. For those of you who aren't completely up-to-date with Whedon's work, Dollhouse is about a secret facility housing a number of "Dolls", people whose personalities have been wiped out so that they can be imprinted with fresh ones to handle the missions that the Dollhouse hires them out to do – these missions, then, can be pretty much anything from seduction to assassination, and I have no doubt they will be the ostensible focus of each weekly episode. The ongoing story follows one Doll in particular, Dushku's character Echo (one of her fellow Dolls is called Sierra; clearly they have disposable alphabetical identifiers to go with the disposable people), who begins to become self-aware.

I won't spoil the actual plot of the pilot or sketch out more of the characters for you, although Wikipedia is happy to do so. What I will say is that the premise is handled very well, with lots of out-and-out cool technology (mixing and matching personality traits to construct the perfect composite for a mission; recording memories onto disk for later playback; making someone appear nearsighted by altering her brain's perception of her optical signals) and suitable amounts of on-mission action and adventure. There's also the rather more interesting matter of Echo herself, who seems to be breaking out of the personality wipe (Dushku plays this pretty well, being fairly convincing in each of her mission-specific roles and her reactions to her personal flashbacks), and a couple of hints as to who she was before becoming a Doll; some continuity and quite a few options for sub-plots in the Dollhouse staff (including doctor, geeky tech-guy, mission handler, etc); and for those who are into it, high-level political machinations involving the Dollhouse's CEO and the corporate world in which she moves.

There's a tantalizing possibility, in other words, that there might be something for nearly everyone in there. Online reactions have been mixed, some liking it and some doubtful. I think it's too early to tell, but seeing as the writing and direction will include Whedon himself and Tim Minear, both of whom I have seen do amazing work on Firefly, I'm cautiously optimistic.
~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~
Comments (go to latest)
Nathalie H at 23:44 on 2009-02-16
To be fair, I haven't seen it. But I have seen this summary:

"The most interesting point that Whedon made about his new show, Dollhouse, was the unlimited possibilities associated with characters that quite literally have their mind wiped when their job is done.

These for-hire bombshells show up with a blank slate, perform the task they are hired to do - which can vary from being the perfect date, cracking safes or fulfilling the sexual fantasies of whomever they’ve been hired to please."

And I don't know about you, but that creeps me out quite substantially. Joss Whedon has this very interesting image of himself where he thinks he's immune to gender issues because 'hey look female protagonist', and I have a horrible feeling he's getting into territories related to prostitution and sexual abuse that he simply can't handle without screwing up appallingly.

Who knows, I may have to watch this and have a rant going the other way. ;)
Gina Dhawa at 00:09 on 2009-02-17
The most often used word I've seen to describe Dollhouse is "skeevy", which, to be honest, sums it up best for me. I most likely will give it a chance to redeem itself - I do like some of the characters enough to give them another episode or two - but in general, it makes me uneasy.

I was unimpressed at the use of child abuse as a plot device - you can see where it's going, but there are ways to use that story sensitively and I don't believe it's done well here. I'm also not too happy with the heavyhandedness of the Dolls = Female Prostitution = Look at Eliza Dushku's body! situation. To create the Dollhouse as an exploration of human trafficking is fine - but to create it only with sexy women controlled by (mostly) men? That pings a little too high as titillation rather than any kind of social commentary.

I am pretty sure the premise can be done right. I'm just not entirely sure - and agree with Nathalie on this point - that Whedon is going to be able to this time. Which I say as a Whedon fan.
Viorica at 04:30 on 2009-02-17
I watched the premiere, and was slightly disappointed, mostly because I went in with sky-high expectations. While I am a bit skeeved by the premise, I am giving Joss some credit- he's made a career out of subverting expectations, so I think/hope that's what he's planning on here. The one thing I was unimpressed by was the use of child abuse as a plot point. It's cheap, it's gratuitous, and it's demeaning to everyone involved. Still, I'm hanging on to see where it goes.
Arthur B at 09:42 on 2009-02-17
I'd be interested to see what people think about this by the end of the season, because it strikes me as the sort of thing that is very, very difficult to judge solely on the basis of the first episode, especially since there's so many ways it can go wrong. The much-vaunted feminist allegory might become oppressively heavy-handed (or indeed might just fail and end up being a skeevy old man-fantasy), Echo's emergent personality might prove to be intensely irritating. the big reveals might fizzle horribly...

It strikes me that the free will plotline is going to need to be handled very carefully by Whedon; if he intends to have the show finish once Echo becomes fully free and recaptures her past, then he's going to be pressured to stretch the thing out horribly to fill out more seasons (if Dollhouse is successful, that is). If he intends to keep going at that point, he's either going to have to completely rethink the premise of the show or present the ludicrous situation of a self-aware and free-willed Echo who hangs around the Dollhouse and does missions for them anyway.

I mean, it might all turn out fine; Buffy didn't turn sour for five or six seasons, after all. But then again, Buffy also struggled to adapt the premise to the characters' continued development ("oh shit, they grew up, we can't set it in a school any more"), and was often too heavy-handed with the social commentary (THE GODDAMN MAGIC-IS-CRACK PLOTLINE), Since Dollhouse's success seems to hinge on adapting the premise to Echo's continued awakening, and walking the fine line between not being too heavy-handed with the social commentary on one hand and being flippant about serious issues on the other, I have to say I see trouble brewing.
Kyra Smith at 10:37 on 2009-02-17
I have to admit I have on-going issues with Whedon's presentation of women / his self-proclaimed feminism.

There's an insanely hysterical LJ post about Firefly which kind of dashes to the opposite end of the spectrum.

But there must be some middle ground between declaring him a feminist messiah and a de facto rapist...

Sorry, the reason I have gone off on this massive tangent is because some of the sex / power / titillation aspects of Dollhouse's premise concern me.... but, hey, I haven't seen it so who am I to bitch/
Arthur B at 10:49 on 2009-02-17
From that LJ post...

I have become increasingly interested in examining Joss Whedon’s work from a feminist perspective since I had a conversation with another lesbian feminist sister at the International Feminist Summit about whether Joss was a feminist.

Are we sure this person is serious? It almost looks like a parody, between the psychotic misandry and "lesbian feminist sister" and the repetition.

Seriously, it scans like "I live to play punk rock and will never do anything else. Punk rock is my life and without it I would rather die. It is the greatest feeling in the world to perform punk rock in a packed club full of punk rock fans." GET A THESAURUS, _ALLECTO_.
Kyra Smith at 10:53 on 2009-02-17
I'm afraid ... I think it's dead serious.
Kyra Smith at 11:17 on 2009-02-17
Actually, having posted rampant insanity here - I think I ought to also post to some sensible discussions of Inara. These are old but I remember they articulated some of my concerns nicely (and do not once claim Whedon is a rapist, oddly enough) - this is a good one.
Daniel Hemmens at 15:37 on 2009-02-17
To create the Dollhouse as an exploration of human trafficking is fine - but to create it only with sexy women controlled by (mostly) men? That pings a little too high as titillation rather than any kind of social commentary.

This sort of thing is exactly why I'm officially Off Joss Whedon. He just can't shut the fuck up about his feminist credentials while at the same time writing TV series which involve hot young girls posing in short skits.
Kyra Smith at 16:28 on 2009-02-17
I would like to control Eliza Dushku but I don't think this is especially feminist of me...

*dreams*
Rami C at 17:23 on 2009-02-17
I'm afraid ... I think it's dead serious.
Oh god.

writing TV series which involve hot young girls posing in short skits.
According to the Internets there was meant to be a hot young boy posing in tight trousers, too, but he was moved around to fit a stereotype better and is now with the Russian mob...
Viorica at 18:03 on 2009-02-17
The thing is, I'm not entirely sure how much of the skimpy-skirtedness is Joss's idea, and how much is the network's. I know that TV shows tend to be heavily edited by network execs, and it could be that they were worried about the mass appeal of the series itself, and had Whedon throw in some girls in skimpy clothing to attract the drooling fanboy crowd.

One thing I am concerned about is what Arthur mentioned- the series' lasting potential. They can't drag Echo's awakening out too long without it getting stupid, and without that, there's only so much material they have to work with.

(The LJ post is, to my knowledge, dead serious.)
Nathalie H at 19:15 on 2009-02-17
@Kyra - I was planning on pointing to some discussions of feminism in Firefly, but that extreme one was the only one I could remember! Which I think does go too far the other way too.

@Dan - exactly.
Nathalie H at 19:23 on 2009-02-17
An example of just one reason I find him annoying, from that Firefly discussion Kyra linked:

"My only contribution to this discussion is that Whedon appears somewhat defensive about Inara's reception among fans. He says his wife is the one who suggested the character and therefore he doesn't understand why women, especially, seem affronted by her."

OH, SHUT UP.
Kyra Smith at 21:46 on 2009-02-17
Dan and I used to have (well, still have really) this joke called Joss Whedon: Minority Warrior. We can't draw but that's the only thing that's stopping us making a detailed cartoon of the scenario. Basically it would consist of lots of women crying out for aid: "Help help! We are being oppressed". And then heroic Joss Whedon: Minority Warrior would swoop in with cape flying and liberate them.

Mind you, it's easy to whinge but I did love Firefly so very very much, despite Inara.
Arthur B at 23:02 on 2009-02-17
@Viorica:

I know that TV shows tend to be heavily edited by network execs, and it could be that they were worried about the mass appeal of the series itself, and had Whedon throw in some girls in skimpy clothing to attract the drooling fanboy crowd.

This is definitely a factor, although it's insanely difficult from the outside to judge how much it is. It's worth bearing in mind that Joss Whedon is one of the few writer/directors working in TV whose name is itself a draw; Dollhouse is, after all, heavily hyped on the basis that it's The New Joss Whedon Show (and I do wonder whether we'd be giving it as much attention if it wasn't Whedon). While it's true that Whedon can't use the force of his name to just steamroller the network execs, he is still applying his name to it; he's not quitting or making this an Alan Smithee project. Even if he didn't make all the decisions about the content, even if he might have private objections to some of the content, he's still standing by it. And in my book that still makes him partially responsible for it.
Daniel Hemmens at 23:16 on 2009-02-17
The thing is, I'm not entirely sure how much of the skimpy-skirtedness is Joss's idea, and how much is the network's.

I think it's easy to point the fingers at networks about these sorts of things, but when you get right down to it, I don't think Joss Whedon ever walked into a studio execs office and said "Okay, I've got this idea for a show, and I think it's really important that the main character actually be kind of plain looking and dress sensibly."

Whedon's actually pretty good at fighting for what he wants (he got a married couple into Firefly). If he really wanted to have a protagonist who wasn't a hot kung fu chick, he could probably make it happen.

The thing that bugs me about Joss Whedon is that he shouts so much about his feminism, all the while being very slightly sexist.
http://roisindubh211.livejournal.com/ at 03:19 on 2009-02-18
That livejournal post is SCARY.

I could never figure out what I thought about the whole Inara thing- I thought it was neat that she clearly liked Mal but wasn't willing to give up her career for him (DIDN'T see Serenity, so I don't know what happens there) but the combination of her character and the beautiful actress that played her sort of makes my brain go "guh pretty" and stop working.

Dollhouse...the idea creeps me out, even without having seen it. I just expected it to be along the lines of "real dolls" that move and talk, so I didn't want to, and now I'm kind of glad that I didn't.
Viorica at 06:08 on 2009-02-18
I posted my thoughts on the whole sexism debate on my LJ. The problem with debating it is, it always ends up with people flinging accusations of sexism and extremist feminism respectively, and nothing actually gets discussed.
Kyra Smith at 09:32 on 2009-02-18
but the combination of her character and the beautiful actress that played her sort of makes my brain go "guh pretty" and stop working.

Yeah, I get that all the time. The other thing, which I suppose, we have to bear in mind is that "whore with a heart of gold" is a Western trope, updated to fit a sci-fi premise. I suppose the problem is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say "well, this is a typical character that occurs in the genre so we're going to use" AND say "well this is a typical that occurs in the genre so we're going to use and, by the way, it's *empowering to women* as well".

I was very interested by your LJ post, Viorica. I'm not sure whether to respond to it here or over at LJ. I feel a little bit bad since we've all jumped into Rami's article and starte weighing in, despite the fact nobody in England has seen the damn thing yet =P From your LJ, then, I think this raises a point:

They're saying that the idea of the Dollhouse makes them uncomfortable because it represents the ideal of a woman being utterly passive and fulfilling any (presumably male) fantasy.

You've said a couple of times that it could be argued that the premise of Dollhouse is supposed to be skeevy ... but skeevy is ultimately still is skeevy, which I suppose is the flaw in that kind of defence. I think we kind of have to wonder who Dollhouse is *for*, really - with Echo's growing awareness she may evolve into a character we can identify with / want to be / admire ... but at the moment she's very much a character we *look at*. Mulvey would have a field day with this one, I reckon. I never saw a gaze so male =P

The other thing is that it does remind me a little of Victorian redemption narratives (stick with me on this one) - I mean it's *okay* if she's totally a passive fantasy figure onto which to project male sexual desire *at the moment* because *she will be liberated later*.

Also this trailer is quite illuminating as far as target audience is concerned - I know it's self-consciously pulpy but STILL!
Shimmin at 22:31 on 2009-02-18
For those of you who aren't completely up-to-date with Whedon's work, Dollhouse is about a secret facility housing a number of "Dolls", people whose personalities have been wiped out so that they can be imprinted with fresh ones to handle the missions that the Dollhouse hires them out to do – these missions, then, can be pretty much anything from seduction to assassination, and I have no doubt they will be the ostensible focus of each weekly episode.

Okay, I have no TV (shock!) and haven't seen any of this. Actually, the bit I find most striking/interesting is not the sexism debate (I'd need to have watched it), but the premise itself. Because if I were setting up a (secret?) "guild" that took on all these kinds of missions, it seems to me incredibly unlikely that the "operatives" would be dreamy women in skimpy outfits. Okay, the seduction part I'll allow. But even allowing for some kind of brain transfers, it seems far more likely you'd have a completely different lot of (probably not all attractive young female) people for assassinations, espionage and whatever, because of the physical/mental demands of each job.
Rami C at 05:55 on 2009-02-19
@Shimmin: Don't worry, I think the Ferretbrain style is rather more to curl up with a book than in front of the TV ;-) In any case, I'm not sure it's actually showing in the UK (or rather, on any free channel; it's probably available on Sky) at this point, so it's probably just those of us across the pond who have seen it so far...
Nathalie H at 21:57 on 2009-02-19
@Kyra: Joss Whedon: Minority Warrior is an excellent name for your Joss Whedon joke! Mine is Joss Whedon Understands, followed by it's sequel Russell T Davies: He's Gay, So He Understands Too.
Daniel Hemmens at 19:18 on 2009-02-23
I posted my thoughts on the whole sexism debate on my LJ. The problem with debating it is, it always ends up with people flinging accusations of sexism and extremist feminism respectively, and nothing actually gets discussed.

I've just read your post, and I think you basically sum up the core arguments very well. It's the women-as-victims thing that bugs me, particularly I think because it's exactly the sort of trap that Man!Feminists can easily fall into. You get so busy saying "look how awful it is that society treats women this way!" that you forget to actually show any women who don't get treated this way, which winds up reinforcing the stereotype that women are just supposed to get treated badly because that's how things work.

Ironically (contrary to what one of the posters on your site suggests) I actually think having Eliza confront her abuser and win makes things worse, not better. "You can't hurt me any more" sounds empowering until you realize that what it really means is "you have been hurting me constantly and, until this moment, there has been nothing I can do about it."
Viorica at 21:01 on 2009-02-23
I have to disagree on the meaning of "You can't hurt me any more" She's not nescessarily saying that he's been hurting her up to this point, but rather that she's not nearly as vulnerable as she was the last time she encountered him, and he isn't able to hurt her now. Small difference in meaning, big difference in interpretation.
Daniel Hemmens at 22:21 on 2009-02-23
I'll bow to the interpretation of somebody who's actually seen the episode, but isn't part of the setup that the person whose memories Eliza is using actually ... y'know ... killed herself?

The thing that I find so shonky about the whole abuse-empowerment deal is that whether she finally defeats her abuser or not, her entire character is still defined by that experience. It's problematic because it winds up being a manifestation of the whole "virtue of oppression" fallacy. You wind up with a situation where the noblest thing a female character can aspire to is to deal courageously with abuse.
Viorica at 04:50 on 2009-02-24
Oh, I don't dispute the abuse = empowerment message- it's something that always irritates me, especially since it seems to be a way of saying "Hey guys, see this strong, empowered woman? She used to be in the ultimate helpless position! She isn't threatening anymore!" but I do think the specific line is open to interpretation.
Kyra Smith at 09:16 on 2009-02-24
I do think the specific line is open to interpretation

I agree.

Because if I were setting up a (secret?) "guild" that took on all these kinds of missions, it seems to me incredibly unlikely that the "operatives" would be dreamy women in skimpy outfits.

Actually this is vaguely addressed in the pilot because the person for whom Eliza Dushku is meant to negotiating hostage release for wastes a lot of valuable negotiating / thinking time by not letting her do her job, and basically following her around going "wait, you are far too young and hot to be a shit-hot hostage negotiator".
Arthur B at 09:44 on 2009-02-24
Surely this makes the objection even more valid, not less? It's clearly a flaw in your mind-controlled duplicate operation if your mind-controlled duplicates don't even slightly look like the real deal, to the point where people are openly questioning exactly how 50 years of experience got into 29 years of Eliza Dushku.

If people aren't buying your cover story when it's imprinted in your very mind, then you're doing espionage wrong.
Kyra Smith at 09:57 on 2009-02-24
If people aren't buying your cover story when it's imprinted in your very mind, then you're doing espionage wrong
Like this?
Daniel Hemmens at 14:32 on 2009-02-24
it seems to be a way of saying "Hey guys, see this strong, empowered woman? She used to be in the ultimate helpless position! She isn't threatening anymore!"

I'm, afraid it's even worse than that. It's a way of seeing "see this woman who you were totally getting off on imagining totally helpless, well she's also strong and empowered, which means wanting to have sex with her makes you a really good guy"
In order to post comments, you need to log in to Ferretbrain or authenticate with OpenID. Don't have an account? See the About Us page for more details.

Show / Hide Comments -- More in February 2009