|
Post by Queen E on Feb 26, 2009 13:47:13 GMT -5
Erin-- Great start with the review. I liked that you drew the parallel to Joss and his own history: that the show has "subtle self-awareness" and he can't totally escape what he has written previously. Excellent point. Also reminding us that we need to be interested in the pasts of all of the characters, not just the obvious (Echo). Thanks for doing this. I know I'm going to miss a lot and it's helpful to have you (and anybody else who might guest-review) to point things out. Thank you! I enjoy doing it, so I'm glad you're enjoying reading them. I will tell you, though, its so much easier with DVDs.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Feb 26, 2009 14:54:11 GMT -5
Erin! So excited to see you doing review/analysis thingees of Dollhouse!! (And am I right in thinking it will be a cool addition to your studies to have a live, ongoing Whedon project to analyze in real time? ) It will be! And thank you! All I can say here is word. Well put. I think both of these episodes has CLEARLY indicated that the Dollhouse itself is not a good organization. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would assume that Joss is saying: "Dollhouse, yay!" Perhaps the best way to view the show, thus far, and the patrons of the Dollhouse is, as you say, people who want no fuss, no muss. Perhaps the point across the board is an indictment (even in the "negotiator" scenario) of those who want and have the resources to have no fuss, no muss. We have yet to see any of the clients really engage with the fact that they are utilizing what is the equivalent of human trafficking. Oh, me too! Thanks for commenting, Lola. I can always depend on you for new insights from your shiny shiny brain.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 26, 2009 20:29:30 GMT -5
Erin! Great job on the review! "televisual relationship"? Did you coin that phrase? Sounds sexay. Loved your insight here: "The conflation of this naked individual with the image and dreams of Caroline’s full pre-Echo life strike me as intentional: she is completely herself, and he is stripped bare." I knew I could count on you to bring in another dimension and ramp up my enjoyment of the show. Keeping fingers crossed that your cheese won't be grated and we'll have a decent run with Joss and Dollhouse.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 26, 2009 20:32:36 GMT -5
The Asian girl was the one on the table that was getting poked and prodded. The one Echo fretted that she was 'hurting'. I thought that was Sierra. You and Monnie are right. I missed the geisha girl on the first watch. I need to watch for a third time!
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Feb 26, 2009 20:52:07 GMT -5
Erin: awesome work, babe!!
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Feb 26, 2009 21:39:19 GMT -5
Erin! Great job on the review! "televisual relationship"? Did you coin that phrase? Sounds sexay. Loved your insight here: "The conflation of this naked individual with the image and dreams of Caroline’s full pre-Echo life strike me as intentional: she is completely herself, and he is stripped bare."
I knew I could count on you to bring in another dimension and ramp up my enjoyment of the show. Keeping fingers crossed that your cheese won't be grated and we'll have a decent run with Joss and Dollhouse. Re the red: Holy crap, I wrote that? And hee! I cannot claim "televisual" as my own; I think I first read that word in a book by John Thornton Caldwell. Thank you, sweet Karen! I'm glad that my reviews serve as a good adjunct to the show itself! That's a wonderful compliment. And here's to my cheese staying whole and ungrated!
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Feb 26, 2009 21:40:26 GMT -5
Erin: awesome work, babe!! Thanks, darlin'! I want to get them out a bit quicker (ie, before the next episode airs) but I'm not quite there yet. Once this chapter's done...
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Feb 28, 2009 9:08:12 GMT -5
Nice review, Erin.
I didn't notice this at the time, but several people on my flist clued me in to the fact that this metaphor of the slate is a poor one. Unless you do a really poor job cleaning a slate, you actually can't see anything that was written on it before. Possibly that was intentional and a foreshadowing as to how sloppy the Dollhouse operation is. I'd like to think so, since I like Joss, but, I can't be sure.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that while Joss certainly has themes, ideas, and character archtypes that he is particularly interested in, and Joss's other works are a good frame of reference since we've all seen them, I think it's limiting to try to tie every character and every show element back to Buffy, Angel, or Firefly. To do so risks analytical tunnel vision. Let the man stretch his wings a little and explore new ideas and create unique characters.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Feb 28, 2009 18:59:12 GMT -5
Nice review, Erin. I didn't notice this at the time, but several people on my flist clued me in to the fact that this metaphor of the slate is a poor one. Unless you do a really poor job cleaning a slate, you actually can't see anything that was written on it before. Possibly that was intentional and a foreshadowing as to how sloppy the Dollhouse operation is. I'd like to think so, since I like Joss, but, I can't be sure. The other thing I wanted to mention is that while Joss certainly has themes, ideas, and character archtypes that he is particularly interested in, and Joss's other works are a good frame of reference since we've all seen them, I think it's limiting to try to tie every character and every show element back to Buffy, Angel, or Firefly. To do so risks analytical tunnel vision. Let the man stretch his wings a little and explore new ideas and create unique characters. I wasn't intending to tie every character and show element back to the previous shows; I was trying to make a point about the persistence of memory as it related to the themes of the show by tying it in with my own "memories" of Joss Whedon's previous works, particularly since, ahem, two of the character we've met (Echo and Claire) had major and memorable roles in his previous work. It's difficult NOT to do so in pilot episode, since we know so little about the characters. I don't consider that to be anything near "analytical tunnel vision"; I find that a bit harsh of an assessment of what I was saying, particularly since that wasn't what I meant to convey.
|
|