Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty

Belonging Review: Dollhouse 2.04

2009-11-05T19:44:00.000+13:00

I’d really been looking forward to this episode. In fact a couple of days before I dreamed that I’d watched it and in my dream I thought “That was good, but not as much Sierra as I was expecting”. (I never used to dream about television, but since watching the Joss commentary on Restless where he describes having dreams where you watch movies and they’re weird as, I’ve had dreams like that twice. That Joss is part of not just the content, but the form of my dreams is probably just predictable at this point.) As we were sitting down to watch Belonging I said “At this stage my expectations are so high that if this episode doesn’t change my life it’s going to be a let-down.” I’m not saying it changed my life, but it certainly wasn't a let-down.

********************

You know how good this episode was? The fact that it contained 0% Paul Ballard isn’t even on my top ten list of awesomeness. But, before we begin, lets have a moment of ‘Yay’ for the absence of Ballard. I don’t even need to choose my favourite character of the episode by who insults him the most. (If you didn’t know who my favourite character of the episode is you a) haven’t been paying attention to my reviews and b) Didn’t watch that episode.)

Everyone was their best in this episode, including Eliza Dushku. I know some people aren’t interested in the character Echo – but I always have been. From the first episode I have liked both Echo and Eliza’s performance. And this was a very fine episode on both counts. There are real subtleties in the differences in the way Echo interacts with people now. I loved that they drew out Echo’s growing understanding of language with Topher’s ‘they’re in my shirt’ line.

This season she’s been a bit closed off and inaccessible – as Boyd said she’s learned how to lie. How deep a game is she playing? How much is she conscious of what she was doing. Did she just want to help Sierra, or did she also want to change Topher? Is she using the doll persona as an act? It’s a challenge, both acting and directing, to take this path of her development, but at the moment I’m finding it very satisfying.

My favourite aspect of it all is that Echo is doing a great job of organising in the dollhouse – she’s got Boyd and Ballard completely committed to covering for her, Victor and Sierra developing their solidarity, (in fact she seemed to be working the Anger-Hope-Action technique with Victor pretty well – not that he needs much proding to any of those things when it comes to Sierra) and she even seems to be able to get Topher to do what she wants. After her individualism in Echoes and Needs, I’m really appreciating that. Next I’d like to see her actually talk to Sierra – there’s so much potential just sitting there with that friendship – make it happen writers.

Although in this episode, I even appreciated her individual acts of resistance: reading and writing. The leaf as her only book mark, really emphasised how much what is taken from people is the ability to experience time, to grow and to learn – to read one page and then another. The notes that she left herself on the lid of her pod are heart-breaking. Not just because they’re so simple - the ‘Victor loves Sierra’ ‘Sierra loves Victor’ couple could have been written on a school toilet. But because of how hard she’s fighting to retain what was done to her. “Friends help each other”

I finally liked Boyd again – give that character something to do other than punch people and pass moral judgements and I start to enjoy him. Although I felt like he was given a little bit too on the nose dialogue “so she can remember”, “now the lies begin” and “She does [belong in the dollhouse] now”. From an episode of TV point of view all of this felt unnecessary and a little insulting to the audience. As a character trait it makes him pompous – which doesn’t go well with morally judgemental (and completely hypocritical). But I’m so happy he got something to do that I’ll ignore it.

Dr Saunders was being felt in her absence this episode. We learned that she had projected her own feelings on to Sierra. Claire hated Topher so much, that she missed what was happening to Sierra. In turn, Topher was driven, on some level, by proving the absent Claire wrong, and that desire not to be the bad man took him far further than he knew how to deal with.

The whole episode was very well shot (and I don’t usually notice that sort of thing until I’m listening to a DVD commentary and Joss tells me that a scene is a oner and I go ‘oh’ and feel knowledgeable), but the first Topher scene where we saw him through his magnifying lens was particularly brilliant. The dialogue and image worked together to make it clear that he is on the path to Epitaph One. I’m really looking forward to seeing how the events of this week affect him.

And a special shout-out to ‘this is your brain on drugs’ (It makes me want to search out the 90210 scene from the Peach Pit where Andrea is explaining this to Brandon. Television gold that was) Fran Kranz is just amazing in every way – to deliver such a silly line so perfectly in the same ep as he signalled Topher’s eventual downfall, and his present uncertainty followed by pain, is skill indeed.

I’ve always found the relationships between the staff at the dollhouse fascinating, and I love that they developed Topher by developing his relationships. I was glad that they built on Boyd and Topher’s relationship, it brings out the interesting in both of them. As for Adelle and Topher - I found Adelle’s creepy maternal/sexual vibe with him just as disturbing as it was supposed to be: “You have no morals so I’m going to touch your face.” I can’t wait to see where they take that.

I was unsure, at first, what I felt about our main characters being ignorant about what had happened with Sierra. The end of Needs was obvious Retconned – when Dr Saunders and Boyd talked about the man who took away Sierra’s power, they meant Nolan. And the new interpretation is a bit of a stretch. But that wasn’t my problem – I felt unsure about all of them being so clearly anti-Nolan. It felt a little clean, a little artificial, a little like they couldn’t slip below a certain level on the ‘likeability scale.’

The more I think about it, the more I’m glad the writers did it this way. I think it was stretching credulity a little bit for everyone to be “I know we took dolls from prison, dolls who explicitly said “I have no choice” and dolls so ill that they couldn’t possibly give consent, but we must do something about Sierra.” But (as Joss Whedon says on the DVD commentary to the Serenity pilot) everyone believes their righteous. Not jut in the dollhouse, everyone who is exploiting or abusing someone is a hero in their own life. To be able to tell a story that shows the range of ways people can react when they discover that they were wrong – that their abuse and exploitation is just that – is what makes Dollhouse so great.

Priya’s origin story (as Adelle and Topher saw it originally), also tells us a lot about the Dollhouse’s view of consent. Of the six dolls that we have any idea why and how they came to the dollhouse three (Caroline, Alpha and the guy from Echoes) were facing jail. The other three all appeared to the Dollhouse to be mentally ill, and not coping with that. We don’t know how lucid either Madeline or Victor were, but it’s clear that they took Priya when she was completely unable to give informed consent. Adelle is used to this, she is the one who give Caroline the contract after she says “I don’t have a choice" She is at least partially aware of the lies she is telling herself. That is why she chose not to fight on this one, even if she couldn’t do it sober.

Another interesting aspect of the relationship between the staff and the dolls was in the tiny call-back to Haunted. Topher told Sierra she was allowed beer – on special occasions – the last time we’d seen her with beer was at his birthday – when she was his friend. Like Adelle, Topher seems to protect, to care for, to identify with, the dolls that he’s interacted with. Even interacting with an imprint that has been constructed for their needs, makes the workers in the dollhouse see the dolls as more human.

But this story wasn’t about Echo, or Adelle, it wasn’t even about Topher or Sierra, it was about Priya. We’d only seen snippets of her before, but they’d been very compelling snippets, particularly in Epitaph One. From the very beginning of this episode, with the jewelry selling scene on the beach, Priya seemed so real. When she said to Nolan: “I don’t have a work visa ‘do-do-do’” – it was such a silly, little, normal moment. It made the rest of the episode even harder.

When I mentioned that this episode was going to be about Sierra, my friend was all ‘Does she get to kill Nolan?’* Dollhouse is, among many other things, a story about the nature of fantasy. This episode didn’t have an engagement, but it did have a fantasy –– the fantasy of killing your rapist. Or, in the case of the viewer, watching someone else kill their rapist. Dollhouse has given this before – the fact that Mellie was being controlled by Adelle didn’t make it any less satisfying when she broke Hearn’s neck. But that was the fantasy of killing a rapist – we didn’t watch Mellie dealing with the body, the police, or the effects on her of killing someone.**

Belonging wasn’t the fantasy of killing a rapist, there was a body and it traumatised Priya even more. The fight was messy, Priya had a normal person’s strength and was lucky. Although I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who shouted at the screen “Topher couldn’t you have helped by providing her with Kung Fu skills. But it wouldn’t have worked if he had. And after there was blood, a body, and very few options. There were still fantasy elements – Boyd arrived on cue with body disposal skills, but it was the reality, not the fantasy that we were left with. The scene, or story, didn’t end with her stabbing him.

I’m not saying it’s not satisfying to watch women killing rapists, because it is. But it fills an emotional need, an expression of our anger, life doesn’t work that way. I was really glad we saw just a bit more of the picture.

In an episode this brilliant, there was only one moment missing. Why did Priya go back to the Dollhouse? When I think about it, I can see why she would feel as if going back was her only option. But as I was watching it for the first time, I kept get pulling out of the story and asking why?

I think there are lots of answers to that question – actually that’s the problem, there are too many reasons (she was coerced by Topher and Boyd, she didn’t feel able to go on the run, she wanted out of her life). When I first watched the episode, it felt disjointed and unsure. When I thought about it (and rewatched it a fourth or fifth time) I put myself in Priya’s head, and going back made emotional sense to me.

I think conveying to the audience that Sierra was going to go back to the dollhouse in a conversation between Boyd and Topher was a mistake. We should have learned that with Priya – then her reasons would have been our reasons, and I think it would have made more sense. It could have been as simple as Topher telling Priya that she was microchipped – we only needed a beat, but the beat they gave us didn’t work for me.

Which isn’t to say Priya going back was simple, or should have been portrayed as such. The scene between Topher and Sierra at the end was so powerful, because thre was so much going on (and both Fran Kranz and Dichen Lachman kicked their incredible performances up a notch for that scene). She wanted her memories gone, and she didn’t care about the price (‘if you wake me up again’), but there was also determination, and even hope. In the end her story was about the complexity of survival.

It wasn’t ‘empowering’ (how I hate that word). But it was real, which is far more important.

As well as having just the right amount of Paul Ballard, this episode had almost enough Victor and Sierra. I’m obviously on record as a Victor/Sierra Shipper (Vierra? Sictor?). But my one concern has been the way the relationship was set up. It seemed to rinforce men as desiring/women as desired dynamic. I always believed that the relationship was reciprocal, but there was little textual evidence of that. There had been a scene of Sierra enjoying looking at Victor in episode 4, but they cut it out. (If you ask me it’s worth buying the DVD just to see that scene. I’d have cut the scene of Echo being remote wiped, before I’d have cut that)

Which was what made the art gallery scene so glorious. It became clear that Sierra been attracted to Victor, just as long as Victor had been attracted to Sierra. (There may have been a call from the cheap seats ‘You can ask me many boring questions. It may have come from me) Everything about their interaction was charming, without being ridiculous ‘love-at-first sight’.

But, sweet as it was, that was nothing compared with what followed. As I said during Man on the Street, one of the most powerful aspects of Sierra’s storyline is the portrayal of institutional abuse. Even more importantly, Sierra’s pain would have remained invisible if she didn’t have friends. The role that Echo and Victor played in making Sierra’s experiences public ((and the fact that that publicity didn’t result in unmitigated improvement for Sierra’s life was very realistic)) and supporting her was beautiful.

Echo wasn’t the only one who had a plan; Victor saw the black paint as something he could deal with (and probably his plan was less likely to have negative effects of Sierra than Echo’s). The scene in the shower was lovely in so many ways, his earnestness – their playfulness.*** Then we saw Victor’s vulnerability as well, and Sierra comforted him.

They have such an equal, reciprocal relationship (particularly now they’ve shown us the origins). I really like that. Just like I was relieved when Victor didn’t ‘invent rape’ I love the idea that in a world that doesn’t use gender as a system of control, relationships would look different.

But what was most powerful about this episode was it’s depiction of love. What I think is so beautiful about Sierra and Victor’s love is it’s simplicity. “I’ll wait here” and he does, and until she comes back every time the camera cuts to him it breaks your heart. They like being together, they want to help each other, they make each other feel better. On some level love (and I don’t just mean romantic love or love paired with sexual attraction here) is that simple.

In real life, the simplicity of love is often only really apparent in times of great stress, or absolute relaxation. All the rest of the time messy life stuff gets in the way. But the feeling is still there. The feeling that you would get the black paint pots of your friends, families and lovers and wash them out if only you knew how, the desire for someone to wait about the bottom of the stairs – those are the reasons Victor and Sierra’s relationship resonates.

The episode is incredibly sad, but the ending is beautiful. The way the dolls walked into their pods at the end of Needs was heartbreaking. They’re not doing that anymore. Their acts of resistance are intimacy and retaining information. It won’t be enough – the dolls won’t bring down the dollhouse this way. Like most institutions they’ve learned if they loosen their control it makes it easier to maintain their power. But in the meantime, it keeps Echo, Sierra and Victor strong enough to keep fighting.

* One of the things I’ve loved about this season is the consequences for the Johns. Of the people we know have, or planned to have, sex with an active, we’ve had two stabbings and one jailing. That’s the sort of ratio which is fun to watch, even though it throws the profitability of the whole operation into more than a little bit of doubt.

** Buffy, of course, was designed around fantasy killing rapists. The bodies went poof – there was no stress no trauma, and when men got really misogynist she cut them in half from the balls up.

*** Small quibble the ‘indian chief’ line rang a bit false to me. So far we haven’t seen dolls have any cultural references. So far dolls comprehension seems limited to the idea that Dr Saunders is nice, and they should try and be their best. Victor didn’t understand Echo’s metaphor. The idea of ‘an Indian Chief’ that Victor and Sierra seemed to share was far more specific than that

Belle Chose: Dollhouse episode 2.03 review

2009-10-22T23:56:00.001+13:00

Sorry for the delay in this week’s dollhouse episode. I’ve been a bit busy, and this was a solid episode. Not so world-changing that I had to spend the next three days searching for superlatives, or so incompetent that I was instantly driven to rant. Just solid. I think in some ways it proves that Dollhouse can have solid Engagement of the week episodes, so I was wrong last week.

So for those who haven’t been following dollhouse ratings from the edge of your seats – the news has been all over the place. The episodes were appalling, they were better but still awful, Fox was going to pull it, Fox was committed to making and airing all 13 episodes, Fox had confirmed airdates for the next 5 episodes

Well four days or so after that good news Fox has announced that they’re not airing Dollhouse during sweeps, but instead they’re airing double episodes through December. This means I’m going to be in withdrawl all through November, and also I’m grumpy. If anyone out there has a Nielson box, the offer is still on for a very small bribe.

******************

This episode was filmed as the second episode, and it’s obvious after watching them out of order that they’d been changed. (according to reasonably reliable internet sources it was Joss and Tim who decided to change the episodes round – which is surprising to me – messing with continuity isn’t usually their style). This episode fits straight on from ‘Vows’ – the mention of Dr Saunders, and Ballard clearly new to the dollhouse.

The one advantage to all this is that it makes Ballard look much, much worse (and since no-one really insulted him this week and so I’m therefore favourite character-less I’ll take what I can get). In his first engagement, his behaviour is just standard-issue-creepy. But if this is even his second engagement he isn’t just confused, stupid and gross – he’s predatory. Although, despite the advantages of Ballard looking worse, I’m going to go with the original continuity, in the rest of this review and in my head.

Oh and there was an extra special Ballard hating moment of putting down the client: ‘Some egghead English professor who can’t get any of his real students to sleep with him’. There’s some masculinity dissing in the first half of that, which makes the second part particularly gross. Apparently Ballard thinks “he’s a non-manly man who can’t even take advantage of his power over women” is an insult. Seriously – why did no one insult him this episode?

But the most exciting aspect of all this was that we got to see the wardrobe. The mechanics of the dollhouse are far more interesting to me than most engagements. The wardrobe guy’s commitment to his job was great – I really hope we see more of that character.

We also saw another African-American watcher. I do wonder if the casting of people of colour as handlers is deliberate. In terms of how the dollhouse would work, I think that would be an interesting decision. To build your world with an understanding of ethnicity, and the segregation of the work-force is a real step up when it comes to Joss-verses. However, the TV show ‘the dollhouse’ doesn’t tell stories about handlers - it tells stories about dolls, management and professionals. So the effect of what may (or may not be) realistic world-building, is that the stories revolve around white people, which is not a good solution (I’d love to see some stories about handlers – that is handlers that aren’t Ballard).

I should warn you now that I’m not an English major, I’ve never read Chaucey (or Chaucer), and so the insightful parallels with English literature will have to take place in the comments.* Given that the professor wrote non-fiction bestsellers I guess it isn’t beyond the bounds of possibility that he’s saved up everything he’s ever earned to pay for the dollhouse. Although that is one inane fantasy to spend your life savings on – unless there’s a literary layer I’m missing.

And while I usually rag on Tim Minear for being a libertarian, there was some straight up feminism in there. (As there was in Out of Gas – Kaylee and Fester the mechanic was a moment of true beauty) The way the Professor’s ridiculous speech on the power all women have was undercut by the fact that he only wanted a women with that power over him if he’d constructed her. And the parallels between the professors’ refusal to acknowledge his own power and control and the serial killer’s explicit violence against women were nicely done.

None of these themes were subtle, but after the thematic hot mess that was ‘Insticnt’ I’ll take obvious any day.

Echo stabbing the client, was a very satisfying moment. (Although I don’t know what’s more implausible – the dollhouse’s profitability or its (lack of) security.)

Neither Boyd, Adelle or Topher really got much to do this episode, but their interaction was nicely done (“Topher has ethical problems *Topher*”). I’ve been disliking Boyd for a while now, mostly because I hate the moral posturing about the dollhouse for one so complicit. And also because I find the way he gets so worked up when Echo has sex in a way he doesn’t want to have sex – the problem is that she’s having sex with no meaningful way of giving consent, not that that sex involves whips and tempura. Although I think the real problem is that he hasn’t had a plot-line since The Target. His translation of Adelle made me remember that I might like him if we ever saw anything from him but hypocrisy and punches.

When the serial killer was loose in Victor’s body, Adelle was clearly more concerned about Victor than say him killing people. I wonder if she’d have tried something that risky if it had been any other doll.

Clearly Victor as Kiki was one of the highlights of the episode. And Ballard had a small moment of not-sucking when he stood with Victor. Enver is a fabulous actor and he committed. But it was also an example of the show having it both ways. The scene was a commentary on social norms, why are those behaviours normal in Echo’s body, but ridiculous in Victor’s? Why does the same person get such different responses?

But the only reason the scene is funny is that he’s a boy acting like a girl.

The show is going to continue to have it both ways (see the wardrobe). The question will always be, how did the balance come out? Dollhouse is usually going to have to show the ideas it’s critiquing. Which is stronger: what we see or what the show is saying? I think in this case it works, at least partly because of Ballard’s position, but it’s always a fine line.

I was a little disappointed with the ending. It seemed to be another season one “Ba-Boom! Echo remembered something!” I really like the idea that Echoline (I’m pretty sure I got that from Whedonesque) is fighting back against the imprints if it’s something she doesn’t want to do. But to end it all on such a repetitive note was a real let down.

That just leaves the serial killer plot. Eh – serial killer plots aren’t really my thing, even at their best moments of parallels I’ll talk about the parallels not the plot themselves. Enver Gjorkaj is very talented. The dialogue between the women in the cage “we have names” was clunky in the extreme. I was engaged, it was watchable, but if I never watched another story about serial killer, it would be too soon.

See I don’t even care that Ballard killed someone – that’s how much I’m not interested in serial killer plots (I’m more grumpy that he made fun of his name – two masculinity insults in one episode – I hate Ballard so much).

Enjoy the next episode – it’s the last till December (and this makes me very, very sad).

* Although I have read ‘Writing Your Dissertation in 15 minutes a Day’ and the author of that started her dissertation on The Wife of Bath. Although all I remember is that is based on hideously misogynist source texts, but whether it is itself as misogynist is up for debate. I’m guessing that the parallels lay with the way men use ideas of women having power – discuss…

On ACC...

2009-10-18T13:40:00.002+13:00

When writing about my analysis of sexual violence and prisons, one of the points I keep coming back to is how centred it is on the perpertrator. It's not a new or original thought to point out that everything about the way a criminal law system deals with sexual violence is entirely focused on 'the offender'. The follow-on from this is our society's way of dealing with sexual violence revolves around the court system.

A few year ago, I wrote about a nursing student, who was raped by a fellow student, after a typical, ridiculous, defence, the rapist got off. She had to drop out of school, because the school wouldn't do anything to ensure she wouldn't have to see her rapist regularly. I think it's important to understand how structural the problems within our justice system are. These systems are not designed to support survivors of sexual abuse, and therefore they will always fail at that task.

But...

But, in New Zealand, we do have a system that is set up to meet, to revolve around, what survivors of sexual violence need. There are many things it cannot provide - ACC will not help student find a way to continue to study without seeing her rapist. But it can provide counselling and income support.

I don't have any personal experience, or depth of knowledge, of ACCs sensitive claims system. I am sure, as it currently operates, it has flaws, and some people fail to get the help that they need. But, at the moment, it can be centred around what a survivor needs, based on her relationship with her counsellor (or his).

If these changes go through, it will be much harder, maybe impossible for ACC to be survivor-centre. Currently, a survivor can have up to four sessions of counselling to disclose their abuse, but the changes will cut this down to one session (or maybe two, Peter Jensen, the person in charge of the proposal, was unclear on nine to noon).

At the moment a survivor can access up to 50 sessions with a counsellor before they have to obtain a psychological assessment. The changes will require psychological assessments much earlier in the process, and that process will be directed much more by clinicians. In order to get funded counselling, a survivor of sexual abuse will require a DSM IV diagnosis.

This is not a survivor-centred approach to sexual abuse; it is a clinician-centred approach.

ACC has already begun tightening the screws. And in doing so it has turned funded counselling into another area where a survivor has to prove her (or his) experience – maybe not beyond reasonable doubt, but close.

Dr Kim McGregor explained how ACC restricts access to counselling on an interview on 9 to Noon 9 to Noon. ACC declined cover for a young boy who had been sexually abused as the behaviour described: mood swings, tearfulness, and sitting alone sucking his thumb, did not necessarily have a clinical link with sexual abuse. They said these behaviours could just as well have been caused by settling into school and a new environment rather than the sexual abuse events.

Imagine the difficulty of someone who has survived sexual abuse will have in proving that the difficulties she (or he) is experiencing are directly and only a result of the abuse. Those who had what insurance companies call ‘pre-existing conditions’, could find support denied – if they had previously been depressed, how can they know that depression after the sexual abuse is a result of that abuse? (not a question that could be asked by anyone who cared about the experiences of survivors of sexual abuse, but a question that is being asked by ACC). While those who do not seek help for a long time, will have to prove the effects the abuse has had on them, and the more complex their survival strategies in the intervening time, the harder it will be for them to access the support they need.

The parallels between the perfect victim of the court system and the perfect survivor of ACC are strong. In both cases the onus of proof falls on those have been abused to prove either that there was abuse, or that that abuse affected them. Just as previous sexual history is used against survivors in the court system, ACC can use previous mental health history against survivors.

My point is not just that the changes to ACC need to be fought (although they do – Monday is a national day of action – come along), but to show how important, and how fragile, a survivor centred approach to sexual violence there is.

As well as pushing against these threats to survivor support, I want us to push further. I want us to imagine what a response to sexual violence which prioritised survivors look like.

Instict Review; Dollhouse 2.02

2009-10-10T12:35:00.000+13:00

I seem to be having two completely contradictory reactions to Dollhouse at the moment. Half the time I think:

“This is the best show and concept that ever has, or ever will be made. I can’t believe how amazingly brilliant it is and want to watch it for ever and ever and ever.”

But then I also think:

“This show is irrevocably, structurally flawed”

After watching Instinct, I decided they were probably both true.

I’m not a fan of stand-alones or procedurals. Television is a medium that is built for serialised storytelling (the most powerful narrative form ever invented), I don’t understand why you’d squander it by not telling a story. But I also think you can take things too far in the other direction. If you don’t have stand alone plots that finish off each episode, you actually have reset TV of a different sort, as the plotlines come and go, and they’re never given due weight. You get Gossip Girl, where killing someone can be fixed in half an episode, or BSG, where they’d be these dramatic changes for a few episodes, but they’d always be reset so the captain was still the captain the president was still the president and so on. If all your plot is on-going then that makes it very difficult.

That was one of the many things that was so great about Buffy. There was a perfect balance between serial, and So even a relatively mediocre episode could still have interactions between our core characters (My friend dissed Inca Mummy Girl the other day – and I reminded her that was the origin of the genius “I didn’t choose yet” exchange) and at the same time something like your boyfriend going evil could be given the emotional significance it needed

Dollhouse’s on-going story is so powerful, resonant and exciting, that I will be devastated if they cancel it. But they haven’t figured out how to tell interesting short-term stories, and I don’t think it’s possible (because the short term stories involve only new characters).

So an episode of Dollhouse is either going to make everything right with the world for ever more, or not be that interesting. There is very little in between. Even Vows, which is I think the closest Dollhouse has come to middling, was actually just some scenes that would cure cancer, intermingled with some other scenes that there’s no reason to re-watch.

It think exacerbating these problems, is that Fox does not want to the best version of this show.

This is all a long winded introduction to the fact that I wasn’t particularly sold on this week’s episode.

Although having written all that, I’m not as sure as I was that the problems are structural. I wonder if the problems with the execution with this episode were actually about the episode itself. There were so many clichés. The most inexcusable was the father finally bonding with the child towards the end.

But rewatching it, I think maybe the problem was more that they focused on the most boring aspects of what could have been an interested story. There was an inordinate amount of time wasted on ‘what is going on’ from Echo’s point of view. I didn’t find this particularly interesting, because we knew it was an engagement, so her point of view on her husband trying to kill her always felt ridiculous.

And now is as good a time as any to say how annoyed I was with the portrayal of ‘mother instinct’. If you are going to spend the teaser talking about how amazing it is that you’ve used the brain to trigger lactation and then you show the lactating woman being paranoid, and saying people threatened to kill her when they didn’t. Then that’s pretty offensive, and reinforcing derogatory harmful ideas about women and mothers.

I think maybe I would have been more interested in the engagement if rather than focusing on the ‘have baby: go crazy’ angle they had told it from the husband’s point of view. Because to me that was interesting – the dollhouse couldn’t provide what he needed. It could have been a critical interrogation of the Patton Oswalt engagement in Man on the Street. If someone you loved died, would having them for one day a year or even longer really help? But rather than getting any of him we got boring scenes setting up false tension (and on the Sierra rating scale this episode fairs very poorly – she probably had more screen-time last week, but there was no purpose to her character. Come on people)

I thought the central scene in the police scene was amazing. (Although the police officers seemed deeply implausible to me – if only women who were scared were taken that seriously) Eliza was fantastic, and the impact and horror of what they were doing was very clear. From there the episode definitely had more of a purpose.

A purpose that was built on with the awesome [punch] “Can I Go Now?” That’s just the sort of pay-off that the rituals around the dolls was made for.

The final scene between a confused Echo and the boy’s father had some great stuff (and again I was impressed with Eliza’s acting). But then I there were the same tone and focus problems as earlier in the episode.

The switching to horror felt completely unearned. Why did someone who thinks a car is driven by saying ‘go’ cut the lights and electricity? (And it’s even more unearned if that’s supposed to be a coincidence) Why does she have a knife? Why does Echo say “Mummy’s home”? None of these things make sense in the world they set up. They also didn’t add anything to the scene. Why didn’t the writers trust themselves to write a powerful scene between two people without the irrelevant pyrotechnics?

So maybe, in the course of writing this review, I’ve persuaded myself I’m wrong. Maybe the structural problems with the dollhouse are not inherent. Maybe this could have been a very satisfying episode, and the problems were in the execution. If it’s possible to do good engagements of the week, then they better learn fast.

That all sounds as if I didn’t like the episode at all, and it had some great moments. But it feels such a waste to go from Topher and Dr Saunders to something completely incoherent about motherhood instinct.

In the dollhouse itself, I have a new rule: whichever character insults Ballard the most in any given episode is my favourite character of this week. (And I know everyone disses on Eliza’s acting, but Tahmoh Penikett has so little range it’s embarrassing.) This week Topher wins the prize - go Topher – like I said last week Fran Kranz is amazing and Epitaph One is adding so much depth to the character.

Obviously the most exciting long-term development was the return of Madeline (and Miracle Laurie rocked in a very different role). I don’t quite know what I think of it yet. I enjoyed the scene with them together, because it’s all about what an asshole Ballad is (well it is in my head anyway). But from a narrative perspective it’d be very annoying if she reappeared just to help Ballard learn about the Dollhouse.

Although I strongly suspect they’re going somewhere far more interesting with this. Because she’s spent her time finding the perfect dress, and the perfect apartment, and now she’s ‘not sad’. Her grief that was so strong in Needs has been taken away. The parallels between her and Echo, who chose feeling something over being asleep were obvious. But I wonder if there are also going to be, in the end, parallels with the father, if the Dollhouse won’t be able to give her what she needs.

The final scene, between Echo and Ballard was very powerful. She undercut the lies he’s telling himself (and Madeline) about it not being real. I really love that they’re exploring Echo’s agency, and that she’s making a choice to keep everything she’s feeling. I think it even offered an alternative explanation to the ‘mothers are crazy’ idea that dominated the episode. I don’t love that the only person she’s bonding with is Paul, but he’s at his least obnoxious when he’s actually talking to Echo, since that’s when he comes nearest to treating her like a human being.

Vows Review: Dollhouse 2.1

2009-10-02T00:15:00.000+13:00

So currently I’m continuing to review dollhouse as my main form of blogging (although I do have a post about Roman Polanski half written – nothing like prisons and feminism to get me writing – except of course the new season of Dollhouse).

Ethical Martini asked in the comments whether Dollhouse is airing here yet. Unfortunately not. You can get order the DVD on Amazon. To get more recent episodes it’s illegal or semi-legal avenues only (is IP address marking to buy episodes from overseas illegal?)

So it’s a new season and we get sparkly new opening credits. The new credits achieve the two tasks set for them: they explain the premise of the show very well, and they show Eliza Dusku as a wide variety of clichéd male fantasies. (Although at this point it feels insulting to leave out the shirt pretending to be a dress.) I’m really disappointed that they didn’t include the rest of the cast – this show is an ensemble show as this episode demonstrated.

I am always a bit apprehensive about the first episode of Joss shows, as beginnings aren't his strong-point. And beginnings of Dollhouse are even less his strong point (I have a half written review of the DVDs including the unaired pilot - I probably won't be able to finish it till they pre-empt Dollhouse for basketball though). But this felt like "When She Was Bad" or "Anne" a great episode, that is providing a solid base for a great season.

Obviously the greatest part of this episode was every time Dr Saunders was on screen – everyone was their best then. It was fantastic that they just committed to the premise and took it all the way.

I loved that they showed a scene between Echo and Dr Saunders. There are so many parallels between there experiences, but they can’t connect. (Failing to connect with the one person who has the same goal as you was also the theme of Ballard and Boyd. Although that was less about emotional complexity, and more about what hypocrites those two are. If their special combination of self-righteousness and complicity was really about protecting super-special-Echo then they’d be glad to find an ally). Echo doesn’t know how, and Dr Saunders can’t forget. I think the many way the Dollhouse throws up barriers between people, gives the relationships on the show so much more power.

But the scene that owned this episode was Fran Kranz and Amy Acker in a room.

I could write my entire review about that one scene, and still not do it justice. I’ve been writing stuff and then deleting it, because everything I say about that scene seems to detract from its brilliance.

So I’ll skip to the end when Dr Saunders drives away. She shows faith in herself (a faith that seems pretty non-existence among the non-imprinted Dollhouse employees) and it’s beautiful.

After watching Epitaph One I wasn't sure how it would effect viewing the show. It seems to be a big risk to say "this is where we're going to end up." I still have reservations, after the after the brilliant reveal of Echo's awareness in Epitaph One, the ending of this episode felt a little anti-climactic. But with Topher, I think Epitaph One has brought his story to life. We know that he will have to the arc of a tragic hero - that he flew too close to the sun, and the inevitability of that ending makes his scenes stronger not weaker.* The echo of his eventual madness is already there when he says "I know what I know" to Dr Saunders on the phone. I think whatever we lose from knowing where the show is going, will probably more than be off-set than the power given to Topher's storyline.

I think for pure joyful "Ha-take-that-ness" the scene between Adelle and Paul was my favourite in the episode. Paul is so much more bearable when Adelle has said everything that needs to be said to him. (That scene also did a very good job of making why she's keeping echo around believeable. She used to a head a research lab and if Echo's evolving that is interesting to her. Olivia Williams makes Adelle layered even when she appears straight-forward, but the more complex Adelle is revealed to be, the more believeable everything that she does (and everything the plot needs her to do) is.)

I don't have that much to say about the Engagement this week, apart from "Lee Adama is British, and less annoying than I remembered." I enjoyed it, but I think the problem with engagements is pretty fundamental. There’s no way I’m going to care a much about two people I’ve never met the same way I care about even the small things among characters I care about (Whiskey’s drinking Whiskey – it’s awesome!). It’s not about the acting (I am completely sold on Eliza as an actress at this point) or the writing, engagements just can’t compete.

What was interesting about this engagement is what it says about Ballard. Which is a lot, none of it nice, and most of it not airable on broadcast TV. Because this week he's fighting crime by listening to Echo have sex - it's terribly noble. I've always said Joss shoots good sex scenes, but I think Paul Ballard's press ups take it to a whole nother level (although if the networks were a wee bit less afraid of female orgasms I think Buffy's Once More with Feeling or Dollhouse's Man on the Street would win).

I do wonder what the purpose was for the extra level on the engagement - why was Echo Paul's partner pretending to be in love with Lee Adama, rather than just Lee Adama? On a storytelling level I'm not sure it worked that well, it added an extra layer, which was never resolved. I think they needed to go back to the 'partner' character somewhere in the end sequence, because as it was that just dangled.

But also inside the story why did the dollhouse, whose skill is actually creating people, create someone to play a part? The implication is that it's because he couldn't handle creating an Echo that fell in love with someone else. And that is twisted, in a gloriously Paul-Ballard-hating kind of a way. He laid it straight out there, all through season 1 "this is rape". He makes it better for himself, because at least this created character knows what's going on - and is consenting to have sex with Lee Adama to get the information. But if you're built to consent, you can't say no, and if you can't say no, you can't consent.

Although the discussion about shoes between Paul Ballard and Echo as his partner, undermined my silliest theory about the dollhouse. After various discussions about shoes in the dollhouse, I decided that the female dollhouse profile defaulted to an ability to run in, and preference for wearing, very high heels. In fact the first sign that Dr Saunders was a doll was that she was wearing improbable heels. I thought it explained a lot. But then they had Echo complaining about her stilettos and my entire theory has been undermined.

I think Sierra's imprint at the beginning of the episode needs to be unpacked (translation: I'm going to write more paragraphs on the scene than there were lines of disalogue in the scene). It was played as a simple funny scene, but in many ways it was actually the darkest, and most interesting, scene in the episode.

One of the things that frustrated me with the first season of the dollhouse is their lack of interest in the embodiment of identity. What does it do if they take a personality of someone who was Chinese-Americans and put them in Eliza Dushku's body? Or someone with only one leg? Or someone who is fat? Can the effect of living in a body that society deems wrong be tweaked away by Topher fiddling with some buttons? Now this scene didn't answer those questions, but it did acknowledge them. What does she see when she looks in the mirror? What do any of the imprints (apart from those who are imprinted with a knowledge of the dollhouse) see when they look in the mirror? What happens when the person the dollhouse wants them to be, and the body they are in don't match?

What the show did not acknowledge at all was the horror at what was being done. Because the person who did this to Sierra is a psychopath (as well as the sociopath in a sweater vest who enabled it). To take someone and make them hate themselves is deeply degrading. If that's all there is to that character, or that storyline, then that scene was doing what this show should and can't afford to do, which is not taking its premise seriously.

But I think it's possible, maybe even probable, that this was played for laughs, precisely so the horror can be drawn out later. One of the people I was watchin this with pointed out that Sierra is wearing the same outfit she wore in the unaired pilot in a short sequence where she'd been bleeding from her head. It could be just that they were re-using the outfit, but I think they could also be re-using the engagement. Given everything we know about Nolan (the man that put Sierra in the Dollhouse), then imprinting her with this personality to degrade her, would fit his character exactly. (Although this asks a whole set of other questions. Who within the staff knows that Nolan put Sierra in the Dollhouse? Surely sending her back to him would cut through whatever lies they're telling themselves about the reason they're there.)

If they're going somewhere with this, then I think giving it to us a comedy first could work. But if they're not - then that scene is despicable. Funny, but not OK. The show has no purpose if it's going to turn the degradation of the actives into cheap jokes. If there is no comment on the person who would do this to Sierra, then the writer becomes the client, degrading Sierra for their own reasons.

Even if there is a reason, I'm still not sure about doing this. Being a bastion of multiculturalism when compared to Buffy is nothing to boast about, it's still a very white show. To take the white-washing of characters of colour further, is something that has to be earned, and I don't think Dollhouse has done that.

Also does anyone have an opinion whether this scene is an example of passing the PoC Bechdel test?** Because I really can't make up my mind. It is one of the key questions of the dollhouse, who are dolls when they are imprinted?

But that's not all Sierra did in the episode, because she touched Victor's face and they held hands.*** This is like watching X-files again - as a 17 year old X-file fan I'd spend all my time going "Mulder and Scully smiled at each other, clearly they're in love". But rather than being the product of great acting and under-developed writing, the beauty of Victor and Sierra's relationship is an intentional part of the show. One of the most powerful, moving aspects of the relationships in the dollhouse is that every connection is an act of resistance.

Like I said, the final scene felt anti-climatic to me, as a reveal. I think partly because I was so much more engaged in Dr Saunders leaving, and Victor and Sierra existing, that to end on Echo's awareness was a let down (particularly because we knew it was coming).**** As a reveal it didn't work - but as a set up for this season? I'm very, very excited. I think this is a great way to take it. I'm less excited about the Paul Ballard-ness of this storyline, but as long as Adelle insults him every episode and Echo makes an ally of Sierra soon, I couldn't be more stoked about the direction of Season two.

(Oh and because I couldn't fit it in anywhere else - the Jonas brothers line was awesome - how did they get Fox Legal to clear that?)

* Topher seems to be so fascinated in creating whole people, because he doesn't feel like one himself. It's a powerful point for a writer to make.

** Although I disagree with that post that Dollhouse hasn't ever passed the PoCBechdel test - Sierra as Audra and Rayna in Stage Fright and Boyd and Sierra in Man on the Street are both passes. Although two out of thirteen is not a good ratio

*** incidentally that wasn't hard - why didn't they include something like this in Omega? My problem with that episodes were multiple, but I would have been 60% less annoyed with the whole episode if they'd just shown me a moment of Victor and Sierra. It only takes 15 seconds. Cut something Alpha said to get the time

**** Although to go off on a tangent – where’s Travis? I’m guessing the actor got other work. But it felt as if they were beginning a story when they made Travis Echo’s handler and the end of Spy In the House of Love now feels cheaper knowing that it was never paid off

November and Sarah Haskins

2009-08-06T01:30:00.001+12:00

November and Sarah Haskins

This post uses Dollhouse as a way of looking examining some ideas. If you haven’t watched Dollhouse, but want to, then I recommend avoiding it, since it has some significant spoilers, and the show really will be better if you don’t know. But if you’re never going to watch Dollhouse then read ahead, you don’t need to know anything about the show to understand the post.

********

I can’t remember when the character descriptions for Dollhouse first leaked. I was surprised, and happy to read November’s:

20’s, any ethnicity, beautiful and heavy. Another Doll, a hopeful child in the house and everyone else you need her to be outside. A comforting, radiant presence, who tends to get fewer of the criminal gigs and more of the personal ones. Recurring.

Later, when the casting was announced and I saw Miracle Laurie, I was disappointed, more than surprised. Like Amp, I assumed that ‘heavy’ had turned out to be an optional part of the character description.

Miracle Laurie is only a recurring character, and her media appearances appear to be arranged by her saying yes when people ask her, rather than by any publicity department. She’s given several, reasonably in depth interviews with fans of Dollhouse, and I’ve realised that I was wrong. Heavy wasn’t, in the end, treated as an optional part of the character description. The truth is far more disturbing.

In two recent interviews Miracle Laurie talked about being cast as November. She says that she read the cast break-down and thought: “This is it – this character is perfect for me. If I don’t get this part it’ll be my fault for not working hard enough.” In one of her interviews she even recites the character description. When I read the character description, I had no idea of how limited “beautiful and heavy” really was. Miracle Laurie may only have one other credit to her name, but she understands Hollywood better than I can.

But there was more to it than that, because Dollhouse had quite a complicated development process. Fox didn’t like Joss’s original plan for November, (I’m really curious about what the original plan for November was, but there’s been no leaking in that department. I can’t imagine it’d be cooler than what they ended up doing with Mellie, but I could be wrong) so pretty much on the fly (as Miracle Laurie describes it) the writers came up with a new idea for November as Mellie, as Paul Ballard’s next-door neighbour.

Miracle Laurie has said that Joss had to fight to keep her in the role, to keep his vision of November. To take a small step and there conclusions are, Fox wanted to recast November when it was decided that the character would have sex with Tahmoh Penikett, and that this would be the only on-going sexual relationship in the first season

I want to tease why I think Fox wanted to recast November. I don’t think it was as simple as her not being ‘attractive’ enough, or at least not in the sense of being sexually attractive. Dollhouse is not short of scenes designed to appeal to those attracted to women, the dress that is actually a shirt, or the dominatrix outfit are only the most obvious. Fox has plenty of material that is geared to what it thinks its 18-34 year old male viewers want to watch.

The casting description made it clear that November would be having sexual scenes. There is no reason that November being Mellie would change the extent to which Miracle Laurie would be in scenes that were sexual. (I’m deliberately ignoring the fact that I find the idea that Miracle Laurie would be considered ‘not attractive’ enough for, well anything, patently ridiculous.)

What changed, when November became Mellie, wasn’t the way her body would be seen on the show, but the meaning of those scenes. Fox didn’t want to re-cast November because Mellie was going to have sex scenes, they wanted to re-cast November because she was going to have a sexual relationship with the male lead character.

It’s not about what Fox thinks its male viewers want, it’s about want Fox thinks its female viewers need - in order to buy whatever is being advertised. Ratings may be king in TV-land, but the raison d’etre of TV isn’t actually to get viewers, but to get viewers to watch advertisements. Or, more precisely, get viewers to watch advertisements and for those advertisements to work.

Which is where Sarah Haskins comes in. For those who don’t know her, Sarah Haskins is the genius feminist comedian who focuses on the way media targets women (really if you haven’t seen her stuff – just go and spend a couple of hours on youtube and come back – its that good). She shows how inane and ridiculous media targeted at women is. Here is her segment on yoghurt:

Here is her segment on chocolate:

Everyone who watches those ads knows that 150 calorie warm delight minis aren’t going to be that good (Whittakers Dark Almond chocolate isn’t as good as they make warm delight minis look, and it has sugar and cocoa butter in it), and calling yoghurt key lime pie doesn’t make it key lime pie rather than yoghurt.

But the advertisements make more sense if you think about the programs that contain them.

The women screaming and rioting in the 100 calorie oreo advertisement will only resonate with a woman who believes she should take up no space. Comparing yoplait to a private island makes sense only if you think you should be denying yourself the sustenance and pleasure that comes from food and yoghurt is as good as it gets.

And all these ideas fit better after watching a sex scene between Tahmoh Penikett and (hypothetically) Amy Acker than they do after watching a sex scene between Tahmoh Penikett and Miracle Laurie.

For most women, looking like Miracle Laurie is just as much as an unattainable beauty standard than looking like Amy Acker (who is an awesome actress, and I’m just using as an example because she’s also in Dollhouse). Miracle Laurie is somewhere round the bottom 15% of American women when it comes to height and weight ratio and her body is of a particular type (plus her hair looks like shampoo commercial).

But Miracle Laurie as Mellie, given her story arc, does disrupt an idea that advertisers rely on. I think any single image of what is attractive is damaging (particularly for women, given how we are taught to view our attractiveness as a primary factor in our value). But one of the things that I think is particularly damaging about the standard of beauty in our society is that there is no end, there is no ‘thin enough.’ Our society has an anorexic vision of women – where any flesh, any fat, any space is too much.

And it’s a profitable vision. Advertisers, and therefore executives, don’t want it disrupted.

This may sounds conspiratorial, clearly television works that way, at least in part, but is it conscious I it designed? What justification do the Fox executives themselves give when they want to recast November? Obviously I have no idea, I live in New Zealand. But I think it’s important to understand that such profitable ideas don’t just exist, they have to be created and maintained.

I think the easiest ways to understand this is to turn to an earlier way of selling women things. The Feminine Mystique is an incredibly strong exploration of one of the problems women faced in the post-war period (it’s much weaker as a total explanation of women’s situation at the time). Betty Friedan’s famous book outlines the ‘problem with no name’, a situation where women who are trying to be what women are told they should want, are in fact miserable, even if they succeed. Of particular relevance to this discussion, she asks “How did this happen? How didso many women get persuaded that they needed to be something that would never make them happy.”

In the second chapter, Betty Friedan outlines how, in the 1940s, the parameters of what a heroine was allowed to be changed in fiction aimed towards women. She talks in some details about how women with jobs, careers, education, or a desire for any of these things, were slowly written out of the fiction that ran in the women’s magazines. Then in Chapter 9 she starts to ask some of the bigger questions:

Some months ago, as I began to fit together the puzzle of women’s retreat to home, I had the feeling I was missing something. I, despite the nameless desperation of so many American housewives, despite the opportunities open to all women now, so few have any purpose in life other than to be a wife and mother, somebody, something pretty powerful must be at work.

There are certain fats of life so obvious and mundane that one never talks about them. […]Why is it never said that the really crucial function, the really important role tat women serve as housewives is to buy more things for the house In all the talk of femininity and woman’s role, one forgets that the real business of America is business. But the perpetuation of housewifery, the growth of the feminine mystique, makes sense (and dollars) when one realizes are the chief customers of American business. Somehow, somewhere, someone must have figured out that women will buy more things if they are kept in the underused nameless-yearning, energy-to-get-rid-of-sate of being housewives.

She doesn’t just state this as a theory; she explores how this happened. She talks to advertisers’ researchers and survey takers. They tell her how important it is that women are persuaded of the validity of roles that they actually find unsatisfying in order that the advertisers can sell products. They describe the research they do to measure how women respond to different ideas. How they use the research that they have, and the media that they have access to maintain the image of women that will allow them to sell the most stuff. She ties it all together, by going back to the magazines that changed the sorts of stories they carry, and showing the connections between them and the advertisers.

The Fox executives probably didn’t say “If November’s sleeping with Ballard we want her re-cast, because otherwise she won’t make women feel bad enough about themselves.” The process has probably got more complicated sine the 1950s, but the process will have remained the same. Researchers and marketers will tell the networks what the advertisers want them to hear.

The range of bodies that get shown on TV is so narrow, that Miracle Laurie has been trumpeted as exceptional. She was asked what it felt to look different from other women on set – as if the difference between a size zero or two and a size six or eight or whatever was a rubicon between the normal and the great unknown and unaccepted. She answered:

Let me start by saying thank you to those of you who have said ridiculously kind and sweet things about my work on the show, but also about my figure. It’s a very satisfying feeling to have one of the most influential creators, producers and writers in the industry fight to have “normal-sized women” on his shows. To have Joss Whedon say, “You’re beautiful, sexy, strong and normal and there should be more women like you on TV and I don’t know why there aren’t” feels incredible, as you could imagine. I think everyone wants to be skinnier than they are, it’s just the way it is

That Miracle Laurie is an exception when it comes to the amount of space women are allowed to take up on screen is ridiculous. That this is how far Joss Whedon can get when he fights is an indictment on the industry. Television will allow a lot – but

******

At comicon Joss was asked why he was fascinated by the idea of The Dollhouse:

Have you been in America? I mean I like to consider a myself great documentarian. The entire structure is designed to mess with your mind to combined selling you things with entertaining you. To keep you in line, to think that you need the thigns they want you to need, and to stay away from the things they want you to stay away from. To keep them in power, to share none of it. This is all happening. There are lights in the darkness. The art that we get to create because the powerful patrons let us is one of them. But sometimes, yeah, it’s like running the daycare on the death-star.

I love Joss; I love the television he creates. I’m convinced his politics have got more radical and outspoken since the writers strike, which is awesome. And if this speech is a tad self-indulgent, I’d be self-indulgent too if I got treated the way Joss gets treated at Comic-con.

But sometimes it’s not the daycare.

Contrast

2009-07-23T21:59:00.000+12:00

The following advertisement aired on Israeli TV:

The following clip was filmed in Palestine:

Fantasy is a strange thing. (via Lenin's Tomb)

Epitaph One: Dollhouse Review (Spoilers)

2009-07-23T20:03:00.000+12:00

I don’t understand by blogging habits anymore. I have thoughts, and half composed posts. Big events, blog-storms, and repulsive media trials come and go, but I just don’t prioritise writing them. But then comes a new episode of a Joss Whedon show and I’ve written thousands of worlds before I even know. (This is one of the reasons why the ‘why do people write about X and not about Y arguments never really work for me. I think writing, and what people have something to have something to say about is a complicated process)

Epitaph One is the mysterious 13th episode of Dollhouse, exclusive to DVD. Why is there a mysterious 13th episode of dollhouse I hear you ask? Because Fox has spectacularly bad taste in TV. Fox didn’t like the original pilot of Dollhouse. They thought interesting might confuse people and the skirts were too long (the unaired pilot was also included on the DVD and I’m going to be reviewing that next). So then Joss wrote a new first episode (the not very good Ghost) and the original first episode was scrapped for parts (many of scenes have been inserted in subsequent episodes). Fox (the network) had ordered 13 episodes of Dollhouse, but they included the scrapped pilot in that 13. Fox (the studio) wanted 13 actual episodes to put on the DVD. They were talking about a clip show, but instead Joss and Jed and Maurissa wrote Epitaph One. It was written to be cheap (it cost half of what a normal episode cost), to use existing sets, but not to rely on the main cast (who were busy shooting the actual series).

It is an exponentially better season finale than Omega, and worth the price of the DVD.

“Felicia Day is a tough yet tender freedom fighter in a post-apocalyptic future”

When I read that description of Felicia Day’s character, back in February, before a single episode of Dollhouse aired I thought “That Joss, he’s so funny”. Instead he was just letting us know what the first few seconds of Epitaph One would contain: burning cars + walkie-talkies + guns + tears = a tough yet tender freedom fighter in a post-apocalyptic future”

We only saw a small amount of the post-apocalyptic future future, but I found what we did the weakest parts of the episode. It was neither interesting nor convincing. The future we saw appeared to be more a logical extension of the ideas of the dollhouse than a coherent comment on current society. But as a logical extension what we saw didn’t really work for me. I can see that the rampant body-stealing and constant imprinting could develop from the technology we’ve seen, but that doesn’t mean that it would. New technology is controlled, and used to uphold the power structures in society.* Media which shows technology leading to anarchy (of the scary fictional sort, which bears no relation to what anarchists believe), says more about the fears of the people creating it, than it does about history and society.

This isn’t necessary a criticism of the future that’s envisioned, we only saw a tiny snippet of that world. Just because there is chaos and fear in one particular geographical area doesn’t mean the technology isn’t being used to uphold existing power structures. 2019 could turn out to be both interesting and convincing, it’s just that the few minutes they showed us were not.

On the other hand, I loved the weird new religion, complete with alters and prayer circles that had developed within the dollhouse. That sort of coping strategy made perfect sense (and Priya’s frustration with it was awesome).

They didn’t have/take time to develop the post-apocalyptic future in this episode, which is understandable given how much new material was in this (although the ‘dollhouse 101’ clip from the original pilot probably wasn’t necessary – if a viewer doesn’t know what the dollhouse is they’re very unlikely to understand the rest of the episode).

It’s hard to lean an episode so entirely on one-off characters, and I think this did a reasonably effective job. I wasn’t particularly moved by any of the deaths, and the characters that had personalities and therefore were going to live were a little too strongly signposted. They made a very good decision to centre the story around the little girl. The twists were great, but it was more than that. When she became Caroline, the two threads of the story were unified in a very powerful way.

From the moment they mentioned ‘safe haven’, the story reminded me of Children of Men (although obviously Children of Men’s distopia is much better imagined, and more interesting).*** The ending, was inevitable from that moment, but important. (“Why are they climbing up” my friend Betsy asked “Because it’s better symbolism” I replied). There is no certainty, but there is hope.

But the tough yet tender freedom-fighters in a post-apocalyptic future were only a part of the story. Interwoven was the backstory and, for me, why I cared about any of this. In a series of flashbacks, each set at an unspecified time, most set after the end of Season 1, we saw the characters we know and love (and Ballard) and how the future came about. In these flashbacks we saw glimpse of the relationships between characters: Ballard and Echo, Dr Saunders and Boyd, Victor and Sierra, and Adelle and Topher.****

I am not at all sure about the glimpses we saw of Ballard and Echo’s relationship. Mostly this is because I’m still furious at the “creepy saviour complex? What creepy saviour complex” – turn around in Omega. The first scene, where Echo was Russian, was pretty cool. But I think it would have been more effective in a normal episode. There was a lot to take in Epitaph One, and just in that scene it was all: “He’s a handler now? Wow that changes things.” The more I think about it the more I’m not sure that particular revelation was necessary in this episode. Most of the moments we saw were ambiguous enough that I don’t think they necessarily took anything away by showing us now, but that scene was pretty specific.

Then there’s the meaning of the word ‘together’. I really liked the scene between Echo and Dr Saunders. I like that things between Ballard and Echo clearly got complicated. But if the intended meaning of ‘together’ includes a sexual relationship, I think I’d rather watch season 7 Buffy/Spike.

Turns out Topher was wrong a lot, but he was right about the possibility of scowly babies. I was much less disturbed than I expected to be about the implied relationship between Dr Saunders and Boyd. While obviously on some levels it makes Boyd a hypocrite (which he had always been, disapproval is cheap when you’re on the payroll), Claire Saunders’s awareness that she is a doll changes the dynamic a little. She can give meaningful consent in a way that Alice, for example, can’t. Her attraction to Boyd hasn’t been programmed. Although I’d wonder if either of them had even tried to justify what happened to the woman Whiskey had been, and her consent. *****

Here’s my guess what was happening at the end. The people who came down were Butchers, who are people who have been imprinted with a particular violent imprint (the army brought about in phone call that Topher talked of). I don’t think the gas that Whiskey let off was fatal (why would the dollhouse have a gas that would kill all its precious actives?), I think it knocks out people and wipes their imprints. When everyone wakes up the butchers will be blank. Whiskey has pointed the way forward before (and will again).

The question is why is she still there? Why does she say she must not leave? Caroline implies that Dr Saunders had decided that if she was going to stay there alone she’d rather be Whiskey than herself. But why did she make that decision? I hope it’s not just that she’s waiting for Boyd, because that would be mega-annoying. But perhaps, it’s also because she’s not prepared to give her body up to its original owner. Dr Saunders is an imprint after all.

But, for me, the most interesting relationship was between Adelle and Topher. On the timeline we’re dealing with now the workers of dollhouse are so atomised. Topher and Boyd’s man-friendship is the closest we get to solidarity. I found it very powerful that after the workers at the dollhouse had changed their position, and opposed Rossum, their relationships changed. The scene between Topher and Adelle in Topher’s coffin-alter was brilliantly acted and very effective.****** Poor Topher, he was unable to hold both his brilliance and awareness of what he’d done.

Victor and Sierra haven’t been in the same shot since the end of Needs, which is leaving things hanging more than a little bit.******* So I was happy just to see them in a scene together. Their history is vague in the episode, at one stage their relationship was sexual, although it did not appear to be so in this episode. The scene between them was extremely powerful. I liked that (in contrast to Adelle and Topher) a love that had survived complete wiping of personality, had still been affected by the stress and horror of the life they were living. I felt they hit a pretty perfect balance, of paying off what we’d seen in Needs, without telling us what was going to happen between Victor and Sierra.********

I loved what we saw of Priya – her frustration at the hippies, her determination to maintain her self. Everything we saw felt directly developed from the glimpse of Priya in Needs – where the character (and Dichen Lachman’s performance) did a good job of conveying that strength in the face of oppression was about more than hitting someone. She was the one that developed the tattoo as an act of resistance, and we saw that its use had spread.

Although what that scene also brought out was that both characters are being ridiculously underused. Personally I’d be happy to watch “The Victor and Sierra Show”. But if the writers aren’t going to give me that I hope that in season two Victor and Sierra won’t spend quite as much time infiltrating the NSA and horse whispering.

I loved this episode, and not just because Victor and Sierra shared a shot. While I think there was slightly more there than 50 minutes can do justice to, it was an amazing exploration of both the characters and ideas of the dollhouse.

Dollhouse was almost cancelled. Omega would have been an incredibly unsatisfying end. Epitaph One would have been a sketch of the rest of the series that never happened. As a final episode of the series Epitaph One would have been fundamentally satisfying (if superficially frustrating at what we never got to see). I’m very glad they made it. I’m very glad that if the show had been cancelled we would have had an ending.

But, of course, Fox forgot to cancel Dollhouse, so they’re making more of it, which raises some interesting questions about story-telling. We know bits of what happens next. How will that affect our experience of watching the show this season (and hopefully the season after)?

In some ways we know very little. We know that at one point Victor and Priya/Sierra were having a sexual relationship, and at another point they stopped. We know that something happens between Dr Saunders and Boyd. We know that at one point Ballard works as Echo’s handler, and they hide her level of conciousness. Then, sometime, things get complicated between them. These vignettes were definitely well crafted, they suggest a destination, but are very unclear about the journey.

However, there are dangers in showing us even glimpses of where the story is going. Not just because they may write their way into corner, or be unable to tell the story they want to tell for casting reasons (Amy Acker, who plays Dr Saunders, is only available for three episodes next season). But because for those of us who have watched Epitaph one (which will not be the entire audience), our knowledge of the series will change our understanding of the stories they tell. Will the flash forward we’ve seen Echo’s self-awareness reduce the impact of those developments? Will our knowledge that the main characters live dull the impact of some episodes? Will the way we wait for what we know is coming, change the way we see what’s happening? They cut off a lot of possibilities in Epitaph One.

Will the writers miss those possibilities? Will we? At this stage I don’t know. I think it’s possible to tell a story in a flash-forward framework (although harder if only some of your audience have seen the flashes-forward). I think the questions about storytelling will only be answered in Season Two.

In the meantime I’ll watch Epitaph One again, and hope that the series will realise its promise.

* My analysis is actually much more complicated and nuanced than this, but this is the point that is relevant to this review.

** I was convinced on first watching that she was Adele, but having rewatched it I’m not convinced that she was. Although some of the cutting implied it might be, it doesn’t seem to fit with where Adele (and her comfy cardigans) was in the scene with Caroline/Echo.

*** Children of Men is one of my favourite movies – my two favourite movie genres are politically conscious action movies and teen movies that don’t entirely revolve around males.

**** I could complain that all these relationships were hetro, but I think the episode made very explicit that the relationships we spent time with were not the only, or most important, relationships between these characters. Echo’s relationship with both Dr Saunders and Adelle were both given space.

***** There are so many interesting issues to explore there. What does Dr Saunders owe to the woman who was born in that body? Why didn’t she give the body back? I hope Amy Acker’s new series won’t get in the way of exploring these ideas

****** The earlier scene, when they realised where Rossum had taken the tehonology, was also very well done. They managed to convey what a pivotal moment it was for both of them in a very little time.

******* They were both in the last shot of Omega, but that was one of the scenes that was supposed to go in the original pilot.

******** And while I’m talking about Victor I need some kind of macro about Enver Gjorkaj’s acting skills. He transformed into Clive Ambrose.

Talking about talking about pornography

2009-06-19T01:36:00.000+12:00

“If I go to the debate on pornography, I’ll just fume about the fact that everyone’s got stupid analysis but me.” I said that a couple of months ago, and I was joking, but only a little bit.

Feminist discussions on sexually explicit material tend to be heated, and change no-one’s mind. The latest discussions on The Hand Mirror have followed this pattern. I want to explore why.

Media that has been created for the purpose of sexual arousal and produced to be bought and sold (which is a mouthful, but I think more precise than ‘pornography’) sits at an intersection: Desire, sex, the construction of men’s sexuality, the construction of women’s sexuality, bodies, work, the role of the state, objectification, the creation of rape culture and commodification (and much more, those are just what’s on top for me).

It only takes small differences in feminists’ analysis, weighting or experience of a couple of these before they’re coming at the issue that we call ‘pornography’ from completely different angles.

As well as making the issue complicated, these many facets also mean that those no such thing as a disinterested party. Everyone has a stake in what is being discussed, but what is most triggering about the discussion about sexually explicit material varies widely.

To simplify one example more than is really justified: discussions of sexually explicit material may trigger some women’s experiences of having their sexuality and desire denied, while the same discussion might trigger other women’s experience of having other people’s sexuality or desire forced on them. (I don’t mean this as a dichotomy, just an example of the sorts of talking past that can happen in these discussions).

I think it’s very difficult even to talk about, or articulate any of this, because the vocabulary we have around sexually explicit media is so limited. The distinctions I think need to be made about are numerous and complex:
Was it made by an individual expressing their personal desires?
Was it made to be bought and sold?
Did everyone involve in making it give genuine consent?
Does it normalise misogynist ideas about women, women’s sexuality, women’s bodies, or sex?
Do they normalise racist ideas about any group of women or men, their bodies or sexuality?
Does it normalise a limited view of human sex or sexuality?
How do the ideas it contains interact with rape culture?
Does it normalise a particular type of body?

Now the answer to most mass-produced mainstream pornography from Ralph to are yes (or no depending on the question). But my point is that these are different questions, and they’re different again from:

What do we do about it all? What do we expect other organisation, or the state to do about it all?

Those are just my questions, I’m sure other people have different ones (I’m sure I’d have different ones if I wrote them on a different day, after reading different material). Unless we are clear about what exactly we’re talking about, unless we actively try and overcome the difficulties I’ve outlined, we’ll never have anything useful to say.

I wrote this post - I decided to continue talking about pornography, despite my cynicism, because I think it’s important. I think untangling these threads, understanding the role of sexually explicit material in women’s oppression is vital. I think the first answer to the question: ‘what is to be done?’ Is that we have to figure out how to talk about this.

Victim-blaming round 4,506

2009-06-12T14:00:00.000+12:00

It’s depressing, being a feminist blogger, for the same reason that it’s depressing being a feminist. The world is quite predictable. None of the media’s coverage of the Richard Worth’s treatment of women is surprising (neither is his behaviour).

What is the message in all this for women who are being sexually assaulted or harassed?

Stay quiet, particularly if a famous man is involved.

The woman who complained to the police about Worth has been attacked in the media as someone who has made false complaints before.

The woman who took her complaint of sexual harassment to the leader of the opposition has been dismissed, outted, psychoanalysed and attacked in disgusting ways.

There couldn’t be a clearer message to women that if we complain about the way men with power treat us then we will be put on trial. In particular, if there’s anything in our past that is messy or complicated, or just capable of being construed as messy or complicated, it will be attacked. We have no right to complain of male behaviour unless we fit neatly into the ‘virgin’ side of societies virgin/whore complex.

This is so familiar, so expected, there are only so many times that I can go into great detail about the victim-blaming and impossible situations women are put into, until I have nothing left to say.

What has surprised and disappointed me this time, is the other message that has been getting louder, particularly from left-wing men. That message that Richard Worth is irrelevant, and the discussion around what he did is unimportant (Against the Current and Fatal Paradox are both left-wing bloggers who have said exactly. Dennis Welsh gave a liberal-left example of the same argument on nine to noon on Tuesday)

I understand, and share, a disgust at the party political analysis and response that has gone on – the endless discussion of political management and Goff vs. Key. I have no more interest in that than anyone else. But I would hope that left-wing men could see that there is a political issue here, both in the way Worth treated women, and in the way those women have been treated by the media. I’m not asking any of those men to write about Richard Worth. But I would like them to acknowledge that there is an important political issue involved.

Why I wouldn't vote for Russel Norman

2009-06-11T23:23:00.002+12:00

I decided in 2007 that I would not vote for for the Greens while Russel Norman is on the list.* With Russel Norman running in Mt Albert, I wanted to outline why

In March 2007, the jury in the second rape trial of Clint Rickards, Bob Schollum, and Brad Shipton came back with a not guilty verdict. I had been following the case - well obsessively is probably an understatement (I wrote about it a lot). Less than a week after the verdict, Russel Norman wrote a post about the cases on frogblog. The whole post is trivialising, and completely misses the important issues involved (power, consent and abuse). But what angered me most is his claim that Louise Nicholas had consensual sex with Clint Rickards:

I don’t see that being involved in consenting group sex is any reason for him not to go back to work. And people use sex aids so using a police baton in a consenting situation doesn’t seem grounds for refusing him his job back.

Now I understand that Russel Norman would have faced consequences if he'd said "Clint Rickards is a rapist." Although, for the record, Clint Rickards is a rapist. But just because you can't call Clint Rickards a rapist, is no reason to describe sex as consensual, when the women involved have stated repeatedly and clearly that it was not.

Most people that I've talked to about this acknowledge that the post was stupid, and wrong, but many don't understand why I care so much. I've been told "wow it doesn't take much to lose your vote" when I explain my decision not to vote for the Greens. Partly I think this is because rape is not seen as political, I don't think the people who saw this is a small thing would have taken the same position of Russel Norman had, say, criticised striking workers.

The kindest interpretation of what Russel Norman said was that he believes that the police rape cases were a relatively trivial matter, so the implications of his words don't matter. The alternative is that he believes that Louise Nicholas is lying when she says that Clint Rickards raped her. Either show that he doesn't take rape seriously as a political issue.

I do take rape seriously as a political issue, and I don't think that's a trivial difference.

My original post is here.

* I've no idea if I would have voted for the Greens in the last election if Russel Norman wasn't on their list. I got to the voting booth and discovered that I had absolutely no desire to vote for them. So I probably wouldn't have voted for them, even without the resolution not to vote for them 18 months earlier. But my life was extremely chaotic when the election was held, and so to second guess what my state of mind would have been is a challenge.

Issues effecting women

2009-06-10T01:15:00.003+12:00

The soon to be MP for Mt Albert answered the Hand Mirror's election survey. He was asked what were the issues facing the women of Mt Albert:

Women come from many different groups – with different issues: For many professional women the gender pay gap is a constant problem which the National Government has made worse by backtracking on all of the previous Labour Government’s initiatives to fix – such as canning the Pay & Employment Equity Unit that was undertaking reviews in the public service.

Professional women? The deep ignorance of politicians and the stereotypes they propagate can be staggering.* It's also a neat trick, a way of minimising women's concerns - those professional women and their desire to be paid the same as men, that's only one group of women's problem.

The gender pay gap is not some obscure concern of professional women, but a systematic differentiation which effects almost all women in some way or another. Women as a earn on average 85% of what men earn - but the gap gets bigger for non-white women, and working class women.

Pay equity is the demand for equal pay for work of equal value and one of the reasons for that gap.** The difference in pay between female dominated industries and male dominated industries doesn't just involve nurses and teachers and the limited number of women dominated professional jobs, but also caregivers, teacher aides, cleaners, and retail workers.

I've seen it before, the tendency to assume that the fight for equal pay, and the end of the gender pay gap is mainly a middle class women's concern. This does a great disservice to the history for the fight for equal pay in New Zealand, which was fought and won over decades.

As a unionist I couldn't finish this post without pointing out that the gender pay gap is not just a women's concern. I was working late tonight, and was still there when the cleaners came round - they were all men, but they were paid women's wages.

* Further on David Shearer also states that 'stay at home mothers' might worry about not being able to afford things for their children. Ignoring that mothers do the vast majority of the shopping and childcare, whatever other work they do. The ideology of the public sphere and the private sphere appears to be alive and well as a way of dividing women.

** Other reasons why women earn less include straight out discrimination in pay and promotion, and the effects of men doing considerably less unpaid work than women.

A nuisance

2009-06-03T17:47:00.004+12:00

John Key has said that he had received more than one complaint that Richard Worth was "making a nuisance of himself towards women." He told the media:

All I can say I treated the allegation seriously. I investigated it and I was satisfied with the answers I received.

From the statements John Key has made it seems to be a reasonable supposition that the unknown crime the police are investigating Richard Worth for is an offence that is in some way similar to 'making a nuisance of himself towards women'.

Now if you want the political point scoring I suggest The Standard or Kiwiblog. They will argue about how this compares with Clark's actions, and the political management of it all. These are not things I care about.

There's something very born to rule about the euphemism 'making a nuisance of himself'. Just the language, unfortunately, not the activity. Like many born to rule terms, it's quite honest. I can imagine quite a range of activities that Key would refer to in this way: it could refer to language, either abusive or explicitly sexual, or unwanted physical contact, even protracted unwanted physical contact. These are all nuisances, women should put up with them in the same way they might a missed bus.

And what is telling is that John Key ignored the first indications that Richard Worth was nuisance-ing woman (and we can only conjecture what that euphamism covers in John Key's mind). Or in the language of politicians - John Key was satisfied with the explanation the Minister gave him.

Which, if you think about it, isn't that different to what happens outside of parliament. A man (say) hears that his friend has been 'being a nuisance to' (or the euphemism which is most appropriate to the social circle they belong to) a woman. The man talks to his friend about it. His friends gives a response, which is either "she's lying" or "she was asking for it" (both these responses will probably be clouded in layers of euphemism as well). And he is satisfied with that response.

And so the friend keeps doing it. Who wouldn't? Everyone is satisfied.

Except the woman involved, who is, as so often happens, rendered, as usual, with the focus on the man, and his explanations.

Dear Radio New Zealand

2009-06-03T17:34:00.004+12:00

Laniet Bain was not 'having an incestuous relationship with her father'. Robin Bain was raping his daughter.

It's not that hard.

Maia

PS Why are you even talking about this? If she was alive she would have name suppression. Why isn't their a course on reporting on sexual violence with respect and accuracy in journalism school?

Omega: the semi-finale - Dollhouse review

2009-05-16T02:15:00.000+12:00

While I was watching Omega I enjoyed it quite a lot. The pacing was good, and the dialogue was great – at times it was fantastic. But at the end, with the montage and music, I felt nothing. And when writing this review I’ve had very little interest in watching the episode, or even any of the individual scenes, again.

For me this was a huge disappointment. I’ve always thought that season finales were Joss’s forte. Although I love some of the series, and season, openings they’ve never been the strongest episodes. I wasn’t surprised when Dollhouse started slowly. But endings, that’s completely different. There are scenes from Buffy season finales that I’ve watched over 100 times* – every single Buffy finale Joss wrote would be a contender for one of my top 10 Buffy episodes. Maybe, when I finally see the thirteenth episode, my faith in Joss finales will be restored. But Omega wouldn’t even be in my top 5 Dollhouse episodes.

The more I’ve thought about this episode, the more I’ve realised the ways in which an episode of television can fail slightly, and the culmulative effects of these failings. I’ll be focusing my review on the issues that I had with this episode, not because I thought it was irredeemably bad, but because I want to know how the season finale of a show I have become so engaged in in such a short time can leave me so cold.

I thought there were several serious execution problems, which I’ll cover first. But also that the underlying concept would have never made a season finale of the strength that I’d come to expect. Even if it had been perfectly executed, this episode was never going to be a Becoming, Gift or even Not Fade Away.

My first big problem with the execution surprised me. I thought the Whiskey/Dr Saunders plot was the strongest part of this episode. But I really, really didn’t like the reveal, or more importantly the sexy killing someone scene immediately after the reveal. It may seem strange, at this point in the series, to start complain about objectification. Eliza Dusku started the series in a dress that wasn’t, and that hasn’t changed.

But, until the scene with Whiskey and Alpha, I’ve felt that the camera remained neutral in these scenes. Yes Eliza Dushku in particular wore some ridiculous clothes, but the camera didn’t say ‘oh look Eliza Dushku is a dominatrix you must think that’s sexy’. Instead we get to choose whether we think the short pleated skirt and ugliest stockings in the world from Echoes were sexy, or whether we just spend time laughing at Matt, for being a dick. The only exceptions to that neutrality were the scene with French-Tango in Needs, where Tango’s objectification is emphasised by the camera to demonstrate Echo’s horror at the Dollhouse. And when Hearn tries to rape Mellie, where I felt there was a concerted effort to not eroticise that scene.

When Whiskey and Alpha torture the guy I felt every choice about the directing and editing was eroticising the scene. For the first time I felt that the show was leaving no room in the scene for the fact that the dolls were unable to give meaningful consent, and was actively promoting an eroticisation of sexual violence.

I’m not sure if it’s fair to call this an execution problem – but I wanted some Victor/Sierra. The shot of them getting into the pods together at the end of this episode is the first time they’ve shared a scene or a shot since the end of Needs.** I am so invested in Victor and Sierra’s relationship, and there was such an opportunity here – for her to be the one comforting him. I was really disappointed they didn’t take it.

A lot of my other problems were with the ending at the power station, which felt v which felt very anti-climatic. Some of these problems were less severe in the shooting script (which is available here and is well worth a read). These cuts are pretty obvious watching the episode, with the non-appearance of bounty-hunting Sierra and November. In the shooting script, Alpha doesn’t just drop Caroline because he feels like it, and the entire end sequence is less perfunctory. I think cutting the end, rather than the sexy torturing someone scene, or editing down some of the flash-backs, was a very poor one. It reduced the impact of the ending, and the episode had enough plot-holes without introducing more.

Plus Sierra and November are many times more awesome than Alpha.

I was pretty annoyed that they ended with Ballard saving the girl.*** In fact I felt this episode undid all the interesting things that they had been doing with his character over the last few episodes.

I would have been Ok if Ballard’s arc for this episode had been that he came to realise that actives were people, and his attitude towards Caroline was everything Joel Myner had said it was, and this led to his changed his attitude towards Mellie. It’s not where I would have gone with the character, but I wouldn’t have minded if they’d done it. But instead they just ended on him choosing Mellie, as a twist. In Haunted and Briar Rose, the character had gone to a dark place, but a necessary and inevitable dark place. But rather than develop that they just ignored it. It was a cheesy catch, a hand-shake with Madeline (sorry about that time I knew I was raping you) and that’s it. I didn’t think his reasons to start working for the Dollhouse made much sense, but their sense-that’s-not-ness paled compared with his change in attitude.*****

Although that plot-line left me in a bit of a quandary, because I think it’d be better from a story perspective if Madeline left, but I really love Miracle Laurie. I’d be very sad if she wasn’t in season two.*****

And Ballard wasn’t even the character whose actions made the least sense in this episode. How did they get Echo back to the Dollhouse?

When she talked with Wendy as Caroline composite-Echo had decided that she wanted to put Caroline back. Once Ballard had caught the wedge, why didn’t she go downstairs and fulfil the plan? I don’t care what sort of arc Ballard was on, there is no way he wouldn’t have sided with her, and given her herself back if she’d wanted to. Or why didn’t she walk off into the sunset? It’s no good suggesting that Boyd came up to her and said “Do you need a treatment?” If that could work with a composite then they would have done it with Alpha. To have composite-Echo decide on what she wants to do and then just ignore it is lazy writing of the worst kind.

I think the only reason that this didn’t hit me harder when I first watched it, is that I didn’t believe the scenes between composite-Echo and Wendy-as-Caroline. I’m inclined to blame this on Tim Minear, because the dialogue for Wendy-as-Caroline was terrible. Caroline, even the most pathetic, analysis-lacking, Caroline that I could imagine, does not respond to the possibility of freedom from the corporation that shot her boyfriend, held her hostage and she ran from for two years with: “I did sign a contract.”

Tim Minear is a libertarian, so it’s possible that he likes to think that he’d honour a contract signed under such duress (not that he would sign a contract under duress, because there’s no duress when it comes to contracts, they’re shiny), but Caroline is not, and so she wouldn’t.******

Neither the dialogue nor the performance convinced me I was watching Caroline. I liked the actress, but for those scenes to work, we needed to see an Enver Gjokaj as Dominic sort of performance, where there was never any doubt who we were watching. I don’t know if that was the actor’s choice or the director’s, but we’d seen enough of Caroline that Wendy could have embodied her (except when saying the stupid contract line), and it was a real problem that she didn’t.

The reason it was such a problem, the underlying problem of the episode was Alpha. Dangerous psychopaths don’t automatically have resonance, they’re not automatically interesting. If you’re going to make the big bad interesting you have to make the story that you’re telling about the main characters, the ones we already care about. Not just stories that include the characters, but that matter to them. I can’t believe I’m saying this about a mutant enemy production – I know they know this. I have no idea why they thought Alpha was interesting. Why was anyone supposed to care about some psychopath?*******

To make it worse, I felt that every decision they made about Alpha’s character this episode made him less interesting rather than more - made this story less about anything that might resonate.

Alpha’s obsession with Echo – that we were supposed to get the answer to this episode – appears to come down to he thinks she’s pretty.******** It would have been much more interesting to me if Alpha has been angry and resented the Dollhouse, and had identified with Caroline’s anger and resentment (and prettiness). That would have been a starting point that had depth and potential.

The ‘composite event’ that I’ve been wondering about all season was actually just a technical glitch, a literal technical glitch that can be reproduced, and didn’t bear any necessary relation to Alpha’s self-awareness, that had already been referred to. It didn’t say anything about self, awareness, or the nature of what the dollhouse was doing. It’s just something the chair can do.

Then, my ultimate disappointment – ‘Alpha was always a psychopath’. Neither compelling nor resonanant. And worse – that’s what they’ve got to say about people? Some men just want to cut up women – it’s in their essence, they’ll always want to do it and you can’t stop them, even if you wipe their brain.

I don’t understand the need for a ‘big bad’ – everything in the show that has been interesting so far has been about the evil normal people do (and the resistance normal people do). Introducing a homicidal maniac to end the season shows a lack of faith in Dollhouse’s strengths.

I think Needs would have made a much more fitting and compelling season finale (although I think as a season finale, with no certainty of renewal, I would have needed a smidgeon of hope at the end)

There was one plotline that was interesting and resonated with me – and that was Dr Saunders and Whiskey. I thought that was interesting, resonant and well done. It had been very well sign-posted in the rest of the series. Hitting the balance between something that feels right, and is surprising is one of the glories of TV, but it’s very hard. Dr Saunders’s line: “Echo wasn’t always the best” has a completely different meaning now. My only fear that the potential in this concept won’t be fully explored in the second season********* because Amy Acker has another job.

I was particularly impressed with the scene between Topher and Dr Saunders at the end. It was an interesting and powerful scene that asks so many questions, and the acting was fantastic.

But I felt it didn’t get much space in this, already overloaded, episode. I think it should have had an episode for itself. I understand that Dr Saunders’s origin story was connected to Alpha, but that didn’t seem enough reason to include it the same episode. There didn’t seem to be significant thematic unity between the story of Alpha that they ended up telling and Dr Saunders’s, and our, discovery that she was Whiskey.

More than that, I felt they weren’t doing the questions they raised justice. Why do scars render Whiskey unhireable? I don’t think that’s a given. Even if you assume that every sexual fantasy requires beauty, and scars cannot be part of beauty (and I don’t think either assumption is supportable), many of the engagements we’ve seen haven’t been sexual. Whiskey could have been any of Sierra’s imprints, or a hostage negotiator, cult member, Taffy, the person who beat up Ballard, a NSA agent, a spy-catcher, Adelle’s friend, or Susan.

I don’t necessarily think that makes the Whiskey story line untenable. I can think of many reasons why the Dollhouse wouldn’t hire out scarred Whiskey, besides there being no assignments. I don’t want to theorise about what they might be here. I’ve got a long post, which started out being about race and the dollhouse and has become about identity embodiedness and the dollhouse (it’s that long), and I will explore these ideas more now.

I felt that they hinted at some of the interesting ideas about bodies that they could explore with the first scene between Dr Saunders and Victor, where he wants to know how to be his best, and she takes out her anger with him. To me, particularly given the meaninglessness of dolls idea of their best, that scene could have been the beginning of something interesting. But they didn’t develop it. There’s this big well they’re circling round, and so many interesting ideas they could explore. But by not going far enough I felt this episode ended up normalising the idea that scars are disgusting, more than it said any of the interesting things it hinted at.

I know I’ve made it sound like I hated the finale – and I didn’t. I just didn’t love it, and wanted to know why. I’ve mentioned most of the aspects of this episode I liked somewhere in these rants (although I don’t think I’ve mentioned the scenes in the imprint room when Sierra and November were being imprinted, which were very well done). While I was watching Omega I was really engaged. But it hasn’t stayed with me. I don’t think it reflected what was great about previous episodes or what is interesting about the show. And the greatest dialogue and pacing in the world won’t save you from that (although “…and I’m smarter than everyone in this room – but not as scary” tries pretty hard).

* the end of Becoming II starting from the fight between Buffy and Angel and the sharing the power moment of Chosen, for those curious

** That scene of them going to the pods is cannibilized from the original pilot. So I guess I can’t blame them for not including Victor and Sierra in that scene, since they’d shot it months before.

*** Although a special shout-out to Adele’s “Alpha’s a genius” when explaining to Paul why Alpha could get out and he wouldn’t. No, Mr-Mind-Control-? is not a genius.

**** And I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more going on with his decision to join the dollhouse than we know at this point. But if there’s not, it’s not earned at all.

****** la-la-la I can’t hear you

****** Oh and while I’m on it the “especially we now have a black president” is the worst line of the entire season. The line itself was ridiculously stupid, but Caroline’s response was incromprehensible. Given the likely dates of her capture by the dollhouse surely the most likely candidates for first black president would be Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell. I would guess that Caroline’s politics would fall somewhere on the “Shill for the Democrats to Ignore Electoral Politics, Change Happens in the Streets” scale – that’s not a scale that decides to live because Colin Powell might be president

******* I decided to relegate this rant to a footnote, because I know people who read this don’t necessarily want a complete history of Buffy. But the Master wasn’t automatically interesting, that’s why they had to make the story about prophecy, Buffy’s fear of death, and the role of her friends. Angelus is interesting, because Buffy cares about him. Faith is more interesting than the Mayor, so the story in Graduation II is about everyone banding together to fight the Mayor, not about the Mayor himself. The Initiative was never interesting, and Adam sucked all the interesting from a two mile radius. That’s why the finale of that season is Restless. They know this stuff. Joss has talked about it in every commentary that I’ve ever listened to. How did they forget it?

******** Although there was something awesome about the scene where he kissed her and she kept talking. His sexual violence had no meaning for her, and therefore lost its power and control. This was underscored by his Handler’s complicity.

********* la la la la la I can’t hear you

********** I’ve always liked Fran Kranz as Topher, but I’ve read a lot of negative comments, mostly I think because Topher is really annoying. I think this scene made clear that Fran Kranz is more than capable of creating the layers

Briar Rose: Dollhouse review

2009-05-09T00:55:00.002+12:00

I don’t like the first part of two-part episodes. It’s fine when you’re watching them on DVD (unless it’s late and you know you shouldn’t watch another one, but you do it anyway and then it turns out to be a cliff-hanger so you have to watch the next one as well), but a week is a long-time between Echo walking out the elevator with Alpha and finding out what the hell is going on.

Or at least I don’t like the first part when I haven’t read spoilers, which has happened to me exactly once (I’ve been spoiled for every show that I was a fan of since 1995). I’m not sure that’s a good sample. But I’m sure I hate it.

But reviewing the first part of a two-parter is particularly difficult. So much of the meaning and point of this episode depends on what happens next. This episode raised far more questions than it answered, and while there is a lot to talk about, there’s a lot I won’t comment on (like who was Echo when Alpha left with her. We’ll all know in a couple of days, and speculating on it wastes precious review time that should be spent laughing at Paul Ballard). So consider this the first part of my review as there are many things that I am reserving judgement on, although my cliff-hanger won’t be as exciting as the show’s.

The theme of this episode - an inversion of Sleeping Beauty - couldn’t have been more clearly signposted if they’d spelled it out in flashing neon lights. But I think I liked it. I found the literal inversion of the sunken tower quite a compelling image.

I’ll talk more about the general ideas of rescue and waking when I talk about the whacky cop adventures of Ballard and Alpha. But I really appreciated that in the end Susan was the only person in this episode who rescues anyone. And she does from a place of solidarity and support, not from chivalry.

I liked the counter-point between the men’s selfish attempts to capture Caroline’s body, and Susan’s advocacy of rescue. Because obviously Ballard’s ridiculous effort to save Caroline needed to be undercut. But I don’t think that’s enough – to reject rescue without offering an alternative is dangerous individualism. The way Susan reached out to Susan shows that there is an alternative

This felt like a reworking of some of the ideas of Ghost, and generally I think this episode was a much stronger take on those ideas. But the similarity between the two did bother me. I find it hard to find the language to describe what I mean, so I hope people will understand the point I’m trying to get at. To me, it feels exploitative, how extreme the abuse depicted in this episode and Ghost. The abuse that Susan, and Eleanor Penn experience is a stand-in for abuse, rendered less real by its enormity.*

Also, I think the issues that Ghost brought up are still sitting there - while there was no space in this story to explore the ethics of inserting memories of abuse into people, I hope they will acknowledge it at sometime in the second season.** Because, no matter how altruistic the assignment, forcing memories of abuse on people is horrific.***

But what was strongest about this plotline was what Susan offered Susan. And it wasn’t help retelling the story, (although I enjoyed the Firefly reference) or giving up her knife, but the hope that she represented, the hope that she was. Hope.

I know everyone has said it, but Enver Gjorkaj was mind-blowingly amazing as Laurence Dominic in that chair (and his “people were fighting on me” is possibly my favourite line of the series). It was a deeply, deeply creepy scene that worked because of his acting.**** It was a great way of showing the power, reach, and creepiness of the Dollhouse.

One of the questions I’m not going to leave unasked, even though we better know when the finale airs, is what did Dominic mean when he said “Whiskey” to echo. Whiskey like Echo, Sierra, Victor, November, and Alpha is part of the military alphabet. He clearly wasn’t asking for a drink. I still like the theory me and my friend Betsy developed that she’s an ex-doll (or maybe doesn’t know it, since she thought he was asking for a drink). But it’s looking possible that she is actually a doll. Which by itself doesn’t make much sense, since they can surely hire a doctor for a lot cheaper than the labour that they’re foregoing by having her not active, but we’ll see where it goes.

But the centre of this episode was Ballard and Alpha – the relationship and resonances between them.

Like everyone on the internet I knew that Walsh was playing Alpha. I was really annoyed when watching the episode that I’d been spoiled.***** I loved the conspiracy-theorist-environmentalist-stoner-misogynist persona of Alpha for most of the episode – hilarious and familiar. Although it did leave me wondering how Alpha worked. Are there different imprints competing in his brain – had the Dollhouse once imprinted him with the character we saw, or someone who could act like the character we saw? Or can he create imprints in his head, the way Topher can on the computer? Or maybe it’s something else entirely.

I’m sure the nature of Alpha will be explored more next episode, that wasn’t really the point of this episode. This was about Alpha, and Ballard’s quest to rescue Echo, Caroline, and maybe just Eliza Dushku’s body.

And Ballard’s version didn’t come across as righteous. Ballard has reclassified Mellie as a thing, not a person. It was clear in the break up scene and when he talked about her with Loomis – she called Mellie a victim – he called her a doll. And it was horrible to watch not because it was strange, but because it was familiar. Ballard doesn’t trust the women he knows because she’s in the same state that makes the stranger Caroline pedestal-worthy – that’s a nasty truth showing.

Ballard had a purpose to his actions; he was breaking Mellie’s heart, so he could use her reaction to find the dollhouse. That makes it worse to me – he has no more respect for the dolls humanity than Topher. And now, because of Ballard’s actions, she is, in all probability, dead.

When he actually finds Echo he has no respect for her as a person, or her autonomy. He talks to her slowly about being brainwashed, as if that’ll make a difference.****** And when she doesn’t come he drags her where he wants her to go, just like Alpha.

In fact, Echo made a choice, and fought against him.******* I loved the ridiculous over-signalling of Ballard’s eventual down-fall through the steps by Stephen’s fear (a combination of very fine writing from Jane Espenson and fantastic acting from Alan Tyduk), and that his downfall was at Echo’s hands.

I think there’s a lot packed into that fight, because people do choose oppression over alternatives, and for many different reasons. This episode makes it clear why Echo sides with Boyd over Ballard, and makes you side with her - partly it’s lack of information, partly it’s relationships, partly it’s that the alternative isn’t any better. None of those are fixed, none of those are impossible to overcome, but they all exist in our world as well as in that fight.

But my favourite part of this episode was that it revealed that Ballard is also programmed – he has had less agency than Echo. Everything he has done since the beginning of the show he has done because someone wanted him to, either the dollhouse, or Alpha.********

There is much more to say, but that’s the thing with reviewing the first half of a two-parter. You’ll have to wait to find out the rest of my opinions, just like you’ll have to wait to find out why Alpha wants Echo.

* and I really don’t mean that abuse over a less extended timeframe is not enormous – just that it’s comprehensible to the viewer.

** There will be a second season. La-la-la-la-la I can’t hear you.

*** Although Jane Espenson did a very fine job with Topher’s characterisation. It was very clear that Topher’s pride came entirely from his programming skills. But clearly that wasn’t the place to explore the ethics – because Topher does not care

**** I quite enjoyed Sierra’s character, and loved Topher’s explanation that she was exposition central because he hadn’t had much time. But Dichen Lachman has been imprinted to fill the plot-hole in every episode since Needs, and she’s capable of so much more than that

***** and feeling guilty. I told my friend Betsy about Walsh playing Alpha in much the same way I told her that Fred was playing Dr Saunders. Bad me

****** One of the things that cracks me up, that I’ve never mentioned before, is that in Ballard’s web of Dollhouse obsession there’s a post it that says ‘Mind Control?’ I don’t know what’s funnier, that Ballard isn’t sure whether or not the Dollhouse involves mind control, or that they’ve shown that post-it at least half a dozen times

******** In a fight where a table broke. Every time a table breaks during a fight on this show, I expect someone to pick up the remains and stake someone with it.

******** At this stage I think Alpha was using the NSA chip to imprint the messages. If so my special review stop-watch action was pointless.

Today on the picketline in Wellington

2009-05-07T21:35:00.004+12:00

The Wellington picked to support the Zeal workers was help outside the AirNZ holiday shop (the photos in the post are from the EPMU).

All the workers I talked to were on strike for the first time. They came up and said thank you for coming when I arrived. They had painted a wide selection of placards and gave me one to hold. As the day went on the young women (most of the striking workers were young women) got more confident on the megaphone. Theoretically I know that strikes can give workers strength and confidence. But it's always more true when you watch it happening.

The picket was well-attended 40-50 (probably more because people came and went) of many of the usual suspects - unionists and political radicals. But the support was much wider than that. Not just tooting either:

I watched this guy join the picket, and I'm pretty sure that he was just passing by (although I wasn't close enough to hear the conversation, so I can't be sure). He wasn't the only one who stopped, talked and stayed a while to show his support.

It was particularly good to see non-Zeal Air New Zealand workers on the picket line. As I said yesterday, what Air New Zealand is doing with Zeal is a threat to all workers' wages and conditions.

There is still no bank account details for lock-out donations, although EPMU are trying to get an 0900 set up. When they get it up the details will be here. On such low wages many of the workers won't have a buffer, anything you can give will help them stay strong, and win this fight.

Now you know you're underpaid but the boss says you ain't;...

2009-05-07T01:09:00.001+12:00

So when people like our bosses at Air NZ call us greedy for wanting a larger increase in our wages, most people tend to get around 4% and we’re asking for 26% it looks horrific in a percentage but when you take 4% of the base salary we’re on it still isn’t livable with a 24% increase that would bring us up to the equivalent of our domestic counter parts at Air NZ.
If I work a ten hour flight duty, 5 days a week, I get my $360 after tax and $48.70 for every day, that’s a totall take home pay of $603.50 per week keep in mind dry cleaning the uniform, a pair of stockings for work costs $8 so if you snag one of those thats 2 hours of pay gone… then theres make up and petrol all requirements for work. our Air Nz counter parts have allowances for these…for us it’s all inclusive in our $4.87 per hour.
Once you take out the work related costs, your rent and basic foods that’s it, it’s all gone! these are the numbers circling my head all night and the incoming doesn’t add up to my out goings all I need is one electrical bill or a phone bill to upset this balancing act!

This was from Zealgirl a new blog set up by a Zeal workers, who is about to go on strike.
If Air NZ can get away with paying some of its workers tens of thousands of dollars less by hiring them through the subsidiary, then they will. Not just that they will use more and more low-paid Zeal workers and fewer and fewer works who are on the better wages and conditions. And they won’t be the only company to do so

Workers’ unity is not just a political ideal – it’s an imperative, a survival imperative.

The strike was scheduled to last four days, and the company has locked the workers out for that time. There are solidarity rallies today (Thursday). Going down is an important way of showing your solidarity and showing the workers and the bosses that an injury to one is an injury to all:
Auckland: 0700 – 1000 at Victoria Park Market, opposite Air NZ Head Office, 185 Fanshawe Street. 1200 – 1500 at Auckland International Airport, main drop off area.

Wellington: Rally on Lambton Quay from 1100 to 1300. Meet outside Air NZ Holidays shop, corner Grey Street and Lambton Quay.

Christchurch: 1100 – 1200 at Air NZ Holidays shop. South City Mall, 549 Colombo Street

The other, vital, way you can support Zeal workers is financiall.Zealgirl’s blog outlines the financial reality for Zeal workers:

There is no room for error or any unexpected bills, a lot of the crew rely on eating aeroplane food as they cannot afford groceries, if you don’t do any flying as a junior you take home just over $360 a week after tax that’s less than most peoples weekly out goings (for everything)

Here’s a full list of pickets and protests over the next four days (check the EPMU website for updates):
Auckland
Thursday, May 7:
0700 – 1000 at Victoria Park Market, opposite Air NZ Head Office, 185 Fanshawe Street.
1200 – 1500 at Auckland International Airport, main drop off area.

Friday, May 8:
0600 – 1000 at Auckland International Airport, main drop off area.
1200 – 1600 at Auckland International Airport, main drop off area.

Sunday, May 10:
1200 – 1600 at Auckland International Airport, main drop off area.

Contact: Strachan Crang, 027 590 0049.

Wellington
Thursday, May 7:
Rally on Lambton Quay from 1100 to 1300. Meet outside Air NZ Holidays shop, corner Grey Street and Lambton Quay.

Contact: Glen Mitchell, 027 610 8552.

Christchurch
Thursday, May 7:
1100 – 1200 at Air NZ Holidays shop. South City Mall, 549 Colombo Street

Friday, May 8:
0800 – 1000 at Christchurch Airport, totem pole on Orchard Road near the entrance to the airport grounds.

Sunday, May 10:
1400-1600 at Christchurch Airport, totem pole on Orchard Road near the entrance to the airport grounds.

Contact: John Kerr, 027 591 0042.

Haunted: a comparatively short dollhouse review

2009-05-02T01:39:00.000+12:00

At this point, I think the character I feel most engaged with is Mellie. She doesn’t know what’s going on, she doesn’t know that she’s a doll that was programmed not to understand the word left-over. I want her to be happy and free, and she could never be either, let alone both at the same time.

I think they needed to show Paul raping November, and they definitely needed to make it that ugly. I’m glad that they showed that he had a choice, that he made a choice, but I think the story needed to turn him into what he hated, and I think it was that hatred for himself, not the dollhouse, that drove him.

What I found most powerful, about those scenes, was the speech Mellie gave

I like being with you, I love it actually. And you say everything is fine and so I’m going to stop asking if it is. If that means lying next to you while everything is not fine, then that’s what I’ll do. I’ll give you what you need, and let you take it from me. If you want to give back, give back, but it doesn’t have to mean anything.

I doubt Topher had to work hard when constructing that imprint. To find a woman who believes that love is one way, and her only role is to give. We’ve all been imprinted, after all.

The first time I watched the scenes with Topher/Sierra* I was filled with anxiety about where they were going to go. To me having sex with Sierra, knowing that she was forced into the Dollhouse, is a whole level of vileness. I didn’t necessarily mind the show going there; I like hating Topher, but until I knew what they were doing I was anxious.

But instead the story was infinitely more pathetic. Topher wasn’t looking for someone to have sex with, he was looking for someone to play Laser-force and eat cake with (some people never got enough 9 year old birthday parties). All the employees of the dollhouse seem so atomised, some to the point of complete derangement. The abuse they’re carrying out doesn’t make the happy, or fulfilled, or whole, it just gives them power. And power won’t eat birthday cake with you.

The parallels between Topher and Paul were emphasised by the way the scenes were paired together throughout the episode (in the beginning of the episode scenes with Paul directly followed scenes with Topher). By the end of the episode the white night has chosen to rescue. Whereas it becomes clear that the amoral dick doesn’t want to rape and active. Which doesn’t make him virtuous or even sympathetic, but it does make him interesting.

I do have theory I want to share with the world, so I can say ‘I told you so’ if I’m right. I think there are many signs that Topher didn’t just construct a friend, he imprinted Sierra with himself (which just ups the pathetic level). I’ve wondered why Alpha would have been imprinted with the skills to construct imprints, in order to use them in a composite. I think that Alpha was Sierra last year, or the year before, and had been imprinted as Topher to help Topher celebrate his birthday. That’s why he can do remote wipes.

You may notice that I haven’t yet talked about the main plot of this story. There’s a reason for that. The idea of Dollhouse having the capacity to provide eternal life was a fascinating one. But in this episode I felt that they squandered it on un-engaging characters and incredibly cliched jokes (‘she was nothing like mother’). While I appreciated the thematic unity around connection and isolation, it didn’t make the story of the very rich dead woman interesting to watch.

I remain uninterested in the problems of rich people. Particularly as clichéd problems as ‘I’m not sure if my much younger and poorer boyfriend married me for love’ and ‘I never showed any love to my children and now they resent me for it’ (clearly not just a rich person’s problem, but I find the story much less interesting when the origin of the distance is an abundance of money).

I could maintain interest in monsters of the week stories on Buffy (sometimes I’m not going to stand up and defend ‘go fish’), because they always involved with or related to to the characters that I knew. I think actual procedurals, the stories that make an episode of House, or the interminable cop shows, require a different sort of story-telling, one that the people of Mutant Enemy aren’t necessarily very good at. The episodes where we dealt with the woes of a one off character, were never the strongest episodes of Buffy, Angel or Firefly (Inca Mummy Girl, She, or The Message, for examples). How to introduce, make us care about, and resolve a person’s story in 25 minutes or so, is a really big challenge. The Dollhouse one shots I’ve enjoyed so far, I’ve enjoyed because there’s been some glitch in the imprint and we’ve seen Echo or Caroline underneath (The Target, Stage Fright and the Grey Hour). If they can’t do that each week (and they probably can’t) they need to work on making the stories great.

* Dichen Lachman was, again, fantastic (although she could do with a little more to do). I particularly loved the way she talked about the ‘sleepies’, and the whole sequence was hilarious.

The complainant

2009-04-24T00:24:00.001+12:00

So regular readers of this blog might remember that there was a time when I wrote about a wider array of subjects than Joss Whedon's latest television show (although on that topic to call Dollhouse awesome beyond the telling of it is selling it short). A few months back I started, and promised to finish, a series about feminism and prisons. I probably won't resume that series regularly until the end of May, but I hope to post a few things that have come up before then.

In the future I want to explore how feminists support the current (in)justice system, what does the legal system provide for survivors of rape?

Anna has discussed the rape myth's used in the recent trial of a taxi driver rapist. This was the second trial, as a previous conviction was overturned on appeal. One of the reasons that the appeal was successful:

The prosecutor was also criticised for "personalising" the issues and repeatedly using the victim's first name instead of calling her "the complainant".

Could there be a clearer indication that rape trials are not allowed to be about rape survivors. It is a mistrial if a rape survivor has a name.

I'm sure this could be changed, if enough effort was put in then eventually this decision could be over-turned. Eventually rape survivors would be allowed names.

If that was achieved, then it would be a step - a name is a step towards being allowed a control, being allowed a story, being allowed to exist. But I think

I don't expect this one issue to persuade anyone to abandon reform of the trial system. But I hope it will make it helps people understand the size of the problem, and maybe consider the possibility that there may be better ways of getting justice.

Kristin Dunne-Powell

2009-04-18T16:32:00.000+12:00

I want to pay tribute to, and stand in solidarity with, Kristin Dunne-Powell.

I had a rant about the media, and the coverage, but I've decided the only voice that is important in all this is hers. Her victim impact statement was in the Herald, and on Thursday she did an interview with John Campbell. In both she explains things she should not have to explain, and makes the reality of abusive relationships clear.

I imagine the Sunday papers tomorrow are going to be horrific. I don't think I'll read them or write about them. I don't want to know what the victim blamers are saying. Women who are abused by powerful men get every piece of misogyny, victim-blaming, and abuse apologism thrown at them from so many channels. I thought it was really powerful that Kristin Dunne-Powell approached Louise Nicholas for support.

I also want to remind people that very few women in abusive relationships have the resources that Kristin Dunne-Powell does. Money doesn't protect women from abusive relationships, but it does remove one of the barriers to leaving. Consider donating to women's refuge.

Dollhouse Review: A Spy in the House of Love (with added stop-watch action)

2009-04-17T20:20:00.002+12:00

That was Nifty.

So nifty that, for the first time, my review involved a stop watch. Be warned, I’m getting even geekier as time progresses.

It’s so frustrating that just as the show is getting even more mindblowingly awesome Fox is messing it around. For those of you who missed the fan panic (and fans can panic): last week Fox announced they would be airing Omega the season finale of dollhouse, which is episode 12, in May.

However anyone who is even minorly obsessed with the show knows that there were 13 episodes, and the 13th episode is called Epitaph One (and it’s Joss Whedon there’s a lot of obsession for dorks). This led to high confusion about whether the show was cancelled, and Fox decided not to comment, fuelling the panicking tendency. It turns out it’s not cancelled but Fox the production company and Fox the TV network are in arguments about what makes 13 episodes of Dollhouse. The TV network are counting the unaired pilot as an episode, but the production company are, so the production company made 13 and the TV network are only airing 12. The two arms of Fox are still in negotiations for a possible season 2 and nothing has been announced.

Joss had been sounding very dismal about the possibility of renewal, but apparently when Fox heard these dismal noises they contacted him and told him that the show wasn’t cancelled yet and another season was possible.

So I’m still looking for people with Nielsen boxes who accept (very small) bribes.

***************

I think that was the best teaser I’ve ever seen.

I loved this episode from the first few seconds when they showed Echo and Sierra wondering around together. What I wanted most from this episode was to see that the dolls were still friends, and that Dr Saunders evil plan hadn’t worked in the way she thought it would. So I was far more entranced by Echo and Sierra’s conversation than the fact that someone was being shot up in the chair (except when I was wondering who the ‘her’ could be and was scared it might be Mellie).

Twelve hours earlier we seem to be in Fox bait territory, with Eliza Dushku as a dominatrix. It’s only as you watch the episode that you realise that S&M Barbie has a purpose – because the themes for this episode is trust and pain (and I loved the idea that Handlers have preferences about imprints, and how annoying some imprints might be). In a more normally structured episode, this may seem a little bit pedestrian. But because the episode was so fractured I think it was really important to make sure we knew what this episode was about.

The teaser grounds the characters far more subtley than it reveals the theme. Over a 6 or so minute sequence we see where each of our major characters are and where they’re going (or where they want people to think they are, and where they want people to think they’re going). Not in an obvious way, mostly we’re just distracted by the hilarious dialogue (and the idea of bonsai people creating bonsai trees). You think the teaser can’t get any better when Topher loses an argument to Echo.

And then Echo asks to be imprinted, and those of us who are so inclined let out squeals of geeker joy.

I’m not going to concentrate too much on the structure of the episode (I have seven other things on my ‘must cover in my review’ list. Although now I think of it that can be regrouped into three headings, which greatly increases my chance of ever actually publishing this), but I think from the strong grounding in the teaser to the continual layering of tension, this episode was very well structured. Unlike Echoes, where the varying tone made the episode feel incoherent, this episode’s thematic unity meant that I didn’t care whether I was in a romance or an espionage thriller.

Our first foray into trust and pain, with an emphasis on the pain came with November telling Paul that she, and therefore Mellie, was a doll. That was brutal - Joss certainly knows how to bring the pain. Poor Mellie – she doesn’t know that she’s a doll.

And as for Paul – I’m surprised his brain didn’t explode from the horror. I have previously been unconvinced by Tahmoh Penikett, but I’m far more interested in deranged Paul Ballard than I was FBI Paul Ballard. I also think he did an extremely good job, particularly at the end.*

But the situation at the end of that scene is the most twisted thing I have ever seen on television. It’s heartbreaking for both of them.

I loved this episode structure, except when I’m watching the scenes between them, because I do not want to wait a week to find out what happens next.** At the end of the episode it looked like Paul had a choice between death, rejecting someone who is in love with him and who he clearly cares about, and sleeping with someone he knows is a doll, an action which he has described (and I agree) as the act of a sexual predator.

I think that’s all I’ll say for this episode, I’ve got enough to say about this episode without speculating what happened next. Clearly this is a crucial moment for Paul’s character and I’ll have much to say about it next week.

But poor Mellie…

The other major exploration of trust and pain was Adele and Dominic, and this episode was a series of revelations for the both of them. I’d always seen them as having a weird kind of sexual tension, expressed by his concern for her position, and her occasional willingness to let him use the lift. I didn’t think they’d get together, but I thought the under-currents were pretty clear.*** Which only makes the scenes in this episode, and Adelle’s character, sharper.

But before we could even explore Adele and Dominic, we got Adele and Roger (Enver Gojkaj is brilliant enough that I’ll pretend not to notice the accent). Adelle as Miss Lonely Hearts was an awesome plot twist (one that I was unfortunately spoiled for, but I can imagine was great to experience), and also a real character moment, revealing as it did the depth of Adele’s capacity and need for delusion. Because there is not difference between her and Hearn (Sierra’s rapist handler), but it’s becoming increasingly clear how much she needs her vision of the dollhouse to be true.****

Olivia Williams portrayal of Adelle only got more captivating and terrifying as Laurence’s portrayal as revealed. “Did you think I would show you rage or mercy” is chilling in a way I did not know was possible. Adele as a character is both convincing and incomprehensible - the writing and acting are both superlative.

It wasn’t just Adelle and Dominic, after this episode every worker we’ve met in the dollhouse seems to have unfathomable problems that have only been touched on.***** Boyd is just getting deeper and deeper in it, and sardonic comments about pimps and assassins can’t hide that.

I’ve no idea what Dr Saunders’ story is, but at this stage she must be in the running for the most damaged character on the show. I don’t think it’s what Alpha did, although that may be part of what’s going on. The way she talked about the outside world to Boyd at the end of ‘Needs’ makes it clear that she’s got a bigger reason not to leave the building than she wants to serve the actives. I wonder if she’s a ex-doll (if such things exist) who couldn’t handle the thought of going back into the world. I can’t wait to see more of her story.

When Echo held Dominic out the window and asserted “I’m not broken” I believed her. Clearly compared to the non-actives in the dollhouse she’s getting it together. While I loved the teaser, I was worried when she first got in the chair and asked to be imprinted. It made me very uncomfortable – as if they were showing her asking to be used. As the episode progressed it became clear that she was choosing Topher in his fight with Dominic. Actually there are many reasons why you might not want to help Topher, but siding with him over Dominic makes perfect sense.

Last week’s episode was brilliant, but I was scared that there would be too much of a reset. I was so reassured that we saw the relationships between the dolls continue, and that having her Needs fulfilled seems to have only increased Echo’s self awareness.

I think I’ve covered everything important I’ve got to say about the characters and themes of this episode – now it’s time to get out the stopwatch.

When I first watched Dollhouse I thought the chronology went like this:
Victor imprinted with Roger
Echo wiped of Dominatrix
November imprinted with Mellie
Topher finds Chip in chair
Sierra imprinted with Sydney Bristow

But I rewatched the episode and I don’t think this chronology works (although it is what we’re led to believe happened. We see the time frame around when the chip was found in two different scenes – once in the teaser, and again in November’s imprint. These scenes are from different perspectives but they both show Echo waving at Mellie.

In the teaser, Topher rushes down the stairs, chip in hand, to warn Boyd. From the time he enters screen to the time Echo waves at Mellie is 1:18 seconds. But from the beginning of the scene where November is imprinted with Mellie to Echo waving at her is only 38 seconds. Topher is not in that scene at all, and November is being imprinted by Ivy. So the order must have been:
Victor imprinted with Roger
Echo wiped of Dominatrix
Topher finds chip in chair
November imprinted with Mellie
Sierra imprinted with Sydney Bristow

The chip cannot have been in the chair when November was being imprinted, as Topher already had the chip. Therefore the NSA chip is not the way that dolls were loaded with parameters to give messages to Paul, and Laurence was not responsible for those messages. There is definitely another mole and another method of changing the imprints.

Unless the writers are less obsessed about this stuff than I am, which is a distinct possibility (they forgot that Paul Ballard wasn’t supposed to know where Mellie had gone, and had him mentioning her mother’s). But until I hear otherwise I’m going to use my stopwatch confirmed theory of evidence that there’s a second mole.

Although, I still think the messages might not come from a mole. At first I thought that November telling Ballard that Echo was a doll was a sure sign that the dollhouse wasn’t behind the messages that were being sent to Ballard. But the more I think about it the more possible it seems. If their goal is to break him, what better way than to create a situation where he feels he has to sleep with someone he knows is a doll.

This week’s dollhouse has been pre-empted with a re-run of Prison Break. Which means we're going to have to wait even longer for more Victor/Sierra (the only thing missing from this episode). I’m going to clearly suffer major withdrawl symptoms. But rest assured that I’m not going to stop a little thing like no new dollhouse episodes stop me writing about the Dollhouse. I’ve wanted to write more about Dollhouse’s portrayal of race, where most of my thoughts span more than one episode. I may also finish some other pieces I’ve got in my head. Never under-estimate my obsession.

* This is a bit of a tangent, and possibly an over-reading, but I really appreciated that they showed Paul Ballard notice as soon as Mellie zoned out. You don’t often see such an explicit example of checking in, and being aware of your partner in sexual situations. I thought it was great that a show which is so much about sexual violence and non-consent, also explored some ways to ensure that sex is consensual

** My other, slightly larger complaint is that Sierra’s mission had no purpose, except to show that shoes can always get more ridiculous. ‘You were making fun of our shoes before - take these impratical high heels with zips.’ At this stage they’re taunting those of us who are sceptical about the footwear choices of the female characters. I’ve decided that Topher loads “strange affection for and agility in high heels” into every female imprint, whether she’s an NSA impersonator, CDC Doctor, or Dominatrix

*** I was surprised that the people I was watching with disagreed. They were much more about the potential for Boyd and Dr Saunders to have scowly babies. I thought that had pretty much been destroyed by the end of Needs, but I do think Topher has a thing for Dr Saunders.

****I thought it was a very effective way to answer questions like ‘Why would the love of someone who had been imprinted to love you matter?’ After the scenes between Roger and Adelle I have very little doubts about why.

***** Except for Topher who, appropriately enough, went the other way and spent this episode acting like a human being who has cares about people. Not just the scene with Boyd, but he looked genuinely concerned about Ivy.

Needs: Dollhouse Review, Episode 8

2009-04-08T23:05:00.005+12:00

Just before watching the latest episode I was talking with my friend Betsy about the costumes on dollhouse, most notably Alice's, and what a crazy job being in charge of the wardrobe for the dollhouse organisation would be ('so for this engagement he wants her to be really naieve and innocent, but a sexual object. What's your ugliest pair of white stockings look like?'). And then they showed us the dollhouse wardrobe - talk about giving us what we want.

This episode had everything great television needs: it was hilarious, upsetting, character-centred, and thematically unified. Clearly “the dolls wake up” is a great premise for an episode, and that premise was well utilised (“we’re all going to die” from Victor was my favourite line, but it’s not alone in its greatness). But the writers weren’t content just to milk that premise for its jokes about fruit, they took it much further, and much darker.

This episode explored six characters needs: Echo, Victor, Sierra, November,* Paul Ballard and Adelle Dewitt. I think it’s very important that this episode extended its exploration of needs beyond the dolls that were being experimented on. Adelle tells Caroline that she signed on to escape her memories. Even though Caroline ran for two years, and was being held captive when she signed (which does away with any idea of meaningful consent). Adelle clearly needs to believe that people volunteer for this, and that they are benefiting from having their memories removed. I have wondered a lot about whether they really let people go at the end of 5 years, and it seems to me that if they don’t, then Adelle must be able to maintain her belief that they do.

Paul Ballard’s needs were complicated, but they certainly make the character more interesting than they were previously. A few episodes ago it would have enraged me, that the only hope we got at the end of this episode was his message from Caroline. A lot about Paul Ballard is both boring and obnoxious - how dare he provide me hope. But I’ve felt much more engaged with the character since Man on the Street acknowledged how creepy his obsession is. I felt that his dream at the beginning took that creepiness to another level (nothing like having making out with a corpse to up the creepiness). The ending wasn’t so much hope as Paul Ballard also getting what he needed, or possibly just what he wanted – at this stage it really isn’t clear.

Of the dolls, November’s needs (and plotline) were least integrated with what we already knew. In fact I think her plotline didn’t make much sense. We had seen Victor, Sierra and Echo grouping, and Echo going off task. Each of these were connected to what they resolved in this episode. But we'd only seen November glitching when she was remembering the trauma of being attacked as Mellie. The idea that she needed to grieve for Katie was not connected with anything we've seen of her up to this point. It also wasn't at all clear to me why November was picked out as one of the four priority cases – she only glitched when directly injected with the drug, and previously her performance had been described as perfect. The writers included November in the dolls who woke up because the audience care about her, but did not do enough work for it to make sense within the story. That made her whole storyline less than satisfying for me (and I'm vocal about my Mellie/November love and desire to know about her). I think it says a lot for my general engagement with the character, and Miracle Laurie’s mad skills that I still felt for her. But the feeling was an abstract one, it wasn’t feel connected with what I knew about her.

Caroline’s needs were neither new or a surprise. I don’t have a lot more to say about them, although the scene with Topher and Dewitt was very satisfying. And the scene where the actives all walk out the tunnel is beautiful.

I hope that Caroline or Echo realises that she can't save the world be herself. That freedom isn't won by the actions of one individual fighting alone for others, but everyone fighting collectively for themselves and each other. I've no idea if that's where they're going with this show. If it wasn't a Joss show I don't think I'd even bother to hope that the writers set up Caroline's acting alone as a limit deliberately. But after Chosen, Jaynestown and The Chain, I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that that's where they're going.**

But the heart of the show was Sierra, Victor, and their relationship. I could seriously spend all my episode reviews praising Dichen Lachman and particularly Enver Gjokaj. The first great moment of the episode was the scene of them going to bed. It’s such a beautiful portrayal of love, and it doesn’t need words.*** The scene in the utility closet was just as powerful, because they articulated the role of their relationship when they’re enslaved. Their relationship is about love and connection as resistance.

It broke my heart when Victor went straight into bed, and didn’t wait for Sierra.

I do have one reservation about the way their relationship is portrayed, that was only exacerbated by this episode. So far Dollhouse has focused on Victor’s desire for Sierra, and Sierra only as an object of desire. It is Victor’s need to get the girl that Boyd and Dr Saunders discuss at the end of the episode.**** Even though she didn’t feel closure until she’d kissed him either. If all she needed was to confront Nolan, then she would have shut down once she left her apartment.

Clearly they can’t show Sierra’s desire for Victor, using the same ways they’ve been showing Victor’s desire for Sierra. But the most powerful statement about his desire for her isn’t his man reaction, or his recitation the Mets (or was it the Yankees) to avoid it, but that she makes him feel better. And we could see that from Sierra, we could see her desiring him. I think it’s really important that we do.*****

Obviously there was more to Sierra (and Victor’s) plotline this week than that relationship. I am really glad that they’re dealing with the issues of consent and the dollhouse head-on. It’s now explicit that Priya (the woman Sierra was) did not give any kind of consent. I think it’s important to acknowledge that not only can consent be coerced, but the very notion of consent can be ignored for people with enough power. Like ‘Man on the Street’ this episode didn’t shy away from the horror of abuse. I think “It’ll be ever better now” from Nolan after Sierra left, might just be the most disgusting statement I’ve ever heard. Despite this they still managed to normalise Nolan. Nothing about the music or the way the scene was shot implied that he was a strange psychopathic variation; it was made very clear that his abuse was a result of his power.

I have duelling analyses in my head about the scene between Priya/Sierra, Victor and Nolan. I find it frustrating that the show again showed another man punching the abuser as a solution to a woman being abused (and made the link explicitly in the scene between Dr Saunders and Boyd, although clearly Dr Saunders isn’t as reliable a character by the end of the episode as she was in the beginning).

But I'm really not asking that every rape survivor do their own punching. I think our limited visions of what it means to be strong can be really damaging; there's strength in breaking down, strength in letting other people helping you, and strength in ignoring it all and finding a way to continue anyway. While I was rewatching the episode, I was wondering about the director’s decision to have both of them in every frame in the conversation with Nolan, as I felt it didn’t give Sierra space in her own story. But the other option would have been to have Sierra more alone.

I think, in the end, that what makes me OK with what they showed, is that Sierra wasn’t silenced by Victor’s presence, or his punching – that it was her voice that rang out in that scene “I’m more of a human than you.” I don’t think it takes away any of the strength Sierra needed to confront Nolan, by showing her having support. And more importantly I think the show portrayed the strength Sierra had, and didn’t diminish her through the support she had.

But like I say I’m not sure, and I’d be really interested in other people’s views. Does the desire for representations of rape survivors as strong put additional pressure and limited views on what strength is? Does his punching take away from her words? Could we have done without the punching?

The show ends with a reveal, and what for me is quite close to despair. Amy Acker is an amazing actress, I was distraught when I discovered this whole, horrible, solution was her idea. It also felt very real to me, that is possible to control actives better by giving them some freedom. We appreciate that she sees actives as people not pets, but she is using that knowledge to deepen the dollhouse’s power. Liberal control can, at times, be more effective than totalitarianism.

* After considerable thought I decided to refer to them with their doll names even though we know Echo and Sierra’s actual name. I think the needs that were being explored in this episode were the needs of their doll-selves. I think the people they had been would have needed much more than they got in this episode

** Although it's probably beyond the bounds of possibility that we'll never found out where they're going because Fox is going to cancel the show. Anyone know anyone with a Nielsen box who accepts bribes?

***Also I swear Enver Gjokaj’s ears stick out more as Victor than as pre-Victor – how is that even possible?

****I’ve gotten mightily bored of Boyd, who has done very little but punch people since Stage Fright, but there was a lot of depth in that scene

*****Oh and while I’m constructing a wish list for future episodes (which have been remarkably successful so far: I wished for more friendship between the dolls and I got Stage Fright. I wished for the writers to take sexual abuse seriously and I got Man on the street). Echo and Sierra's friendship was important to me. We have barely seen anything of them since episode three, and I am really disappointed that they didn't take this opportunity to build the only friendship (at the moment the only relationship) between women on the show.

A woman inprisoned

2009-04-02T23:58:00.003+13:00

A woman who gives birth alone, and then abandons the baby is a woman who is out of options. A woman who does this on a plane, on her way to take up low-paying migrant work, is out of options and resources. Whatever your political analysis of the woman who gave birth in a plane last month, it does not take much empathy to understand that her situation was not one of her own choosing, and that what she did was an act of desperation and powerlessness.

I had wanted to write something, but hadn't known what to write. A polemic seems almost grotesque when you think what she has been through. But then I heard on National Radio, that she had been remanded in custody.*

She has been in prison for ten days now, and was arrested six days after she gave birth. I know I'm a radical when it comes to prison, and so what I have to say about how much people don't belong in prison sounds slightly hollow. But I don't understand what possible good comes from locking this woman up under any logic at all.

I believe that Karolaine Maika's situation, and her incarceration are a feminist issue, and that feminist solidarity is most important when it comes to women who are most marginalised by society. I would encourage feminists to to support Karolaine Maika in jail. The most simple thing you could do is write to her:

Karolaine Maika
C/O Auckland Region Womens Corrections Facility
Private Bag 76908
South Auckland Mail Centre
Manukau 2240

You can send phones cards and money to people in prison with your letter. Money goes into the prison account, and can be used to buy things from the prison shop once a week. Phone cards are useful as a way of contacting people outside of prison, and are sometimes used as trade for other items. If you send either of these things, then mention them in the letter to make sure they get to her (if you want to do more, then leave a comment on the thread - if there's one thing I'm not short on it's information on how to support people in prison).

Mostly when I talk about feminism I talk about collective resistance. But I think support plays an important role in feminism as well. It doesn't take much to write a letter.

Dollhouse Review: Episode 7 'Echoes'

2009-04-01T01:15:00.003+13:00

When I watched the preview for 'Echoes' the first thing I said was “Oh God, I hope they don’t turn Caroline into an animal rights activist. I liked Caroline.” This clearly says more about my issues than it does about the show. I had assumed that Caroline was an activist who had got into massive legal/other trouble, but I hadn’t actually expected to be right.

I didn’t expect this episode to be as brilliant as last week’s, but I was hoping that it was going to be good on its own terms. Instead I found it the most incoherent episode of Dollhouse yet. While there were lots of individual scenes I enjoyed, the only thing that bound these together was a plot that was sometimes sense deficient (my friend Besty found it even more annoying than I did and I only figured out a lot of the most problems of this episode talking to her).

I think the writers gave Eliza Dushku a very difficult task this episode and she wasn’t up to it. She had some very nice Alice moments* – such as the fists she tries to make when she thinks she’s going to fight. But in general Alice didn’t feel clearly delineated. I really didn’t understand the boundaries between her and Caroline. I think the writer’s should take most of the responsibility for this. I think a little bit more Alice before she started glitching would have gone a long way.

The biggest problem I had with this episode was the drugged staff of the dollhouse. While I found a number of lines and moments very funny,** I think it was far too early in the run of the show to do an effective “eveyone acts wacky” episode.# We’re not familiar enough with how people act normally for this to be much more than generic wacky humour. We saw some character humour with Adelle, but nothing like we could have seen from all the characters in the third or fourth season.***

I felt the active’s reaction to the drug had a little bit more of a purpose, both on a character level, and on a philosophical level. On a character level it was really important to show the effects of rape and attempted rape on Mellie and Sierra. ((and that was the only use of sexual violence, or the threat of sexual violence in this episode. So that’s two episodes of not using sexual violence to tell stories, and instead telling stories about sexual violence. Congratulations.)) On a philosophical level I love that brains, that people, don’t work the way Topher thinks they’re going to. I think the continual message that the Actives will resist their total colonisation, their total commodification (the metaphors are complicated I think) is very important.

I am really excited (and sad, and apprehensive) about Victor’s backstory. While the comparison between the dolls and prostitutes has been explicit throughout the story, the parallels between the dollhouse and an army have been largely ignored. I’m glad they’re expanding their metaphors, and entirely positive that Enver Gjokaj can do everything they ask of him.

I was disappointed that we didn’t get anything about Victor, Sierra and Echo’s relationships with other. It would have been really easy to have, for example, the way Echo and murderer-dude escaped the frat house to have been a moment of recognition between Echo and Sierra (friends help each other). Particularly as the stupidity and success of ‘run when their backs are turned’ strategy undermined the idea that the actives had been created to do this job.

And then there’s Mellie. I think I covered my conversion to all things Mellie last week. Mellie’s scenes with Paul this week ran very true to me, emotionally (and Miracle Laurie was brilliant again).***** I didn’t think, while I was watching it, she’s emotionally manipulating Paul, because that’s what the dollhouse wants her to do. I still don’t know if that was what was happening. Had they pre-loaded this parameter into her personality? Do they think that this will stop him investigating (because I think they’re probably wrong). Or were we just seeing her emotional reaction, and was the dollhouse going to use that?

So at this stage half my brain is wondering exactly how much the dollhouse finely tuned her reaction, and the other half is “see now he’s waiting at his door for her to come out.” I like that tension

Then there’s Caroline; I have so many thoughts about Caroline.

It’s strange seeing activists on TV. They very rarely share my politics, and sometimes I resent this – that activists are shown as such flakes. But then there isn’t necessarily a shortage of Caroline’s around.******

I do like that her plan failed. There’s a lot to admire about her as a person – I thought the difference between the Caroline that planned the break-in and the Caroline that talked to Adelle showed her strength in how much she had lost. But unlike Caroline I don’t think a small band of people following “this is where I am” changes the world. And I’m glad Joss showed this, I think it was an important antidote to Serenity (great as that movie is). ((I know some people resent the constant comparisons to Joss’s previous work. They think that it’s not allowing what he does now to stand by itself. I think that analysing a writer’s body of work is interesting and useful. Joss has themes, and I think it’s interesting to explore them))

Despite the animal rights flakiness******* (“What you say they’re experimenting on humans?” But there’s a cute dog over here”), I am interested Caroline, I want to know more about her. I want her to be free.

If I was going to articulate what this episode was about I would say: showing us how people become actives. I loved the ending; I love that we will now know one of the actives as a person. I am glad that they’ve made clear exactly that the dollhouse does not look for meaningful consent – they use coercion.

But most of the episode was superfluous to that story, and those scenes, for example the drug scenes, generally had no other character or thematic point. I wonder how much of the drug plot-line was constructed the way it was to justify the non-attic-ing of Echo. If the writer’s thought so many other things were going wrong, then the viewer might forgive the fact that the dollhouse is keeping Echo around even though she walked off an engagement.

I don’t know if that was the writers’ logic. But whatever their logic was, this episode didn’t work to me. And I think exploring how people become actives could have been an episode in and of itself.

*And huge props to the costume department - Alice’s outfit was hilarious. Matt is such a creep

** So I thought the funniest line was “say hi from me” – which is possibly a sign I’ve watched Innocence too many times (or as I like to think of it – almost enough times

# Julie talked about this in the trouble with Topher, go read that post. Although I don't agree with her that Victor was in the army - anymore than Echo was an animal rights activist. Hmmmm with my confusion about Mellie I think I may have to write more about this. Why is it that no-one complains that Alas focuses too much on the Whedon issues at the expense of more important blogging? Does everyone really think that all Whedon all the time is the way to go?

*** I thought that they were going to do something with the Actives being the only together people while those who usually control them lose control, which might have been interesting. But that ended up going nowhere.

***** I loved November’s very slow high five. I kind of want to see more of her, but not at the expense of Mellie (clearly I’m having some issues accepting the concept of this show).

****** Which makes me wonder if that’s like John Cleese’s accountant telling him he wasn’t offended by Monty Python’s accountants sketch because that was about chartered accountant, and he wasn’t a chartered accountant

******* And, because I have friend’s who are animal rights activists – just because I think Caroline’s animal rights flakiness is realistic doesn’t mean that I think all animal rights activists are flaky.