|
|
Post by Vlad on Mar 2, 2009 15:36:07 GMT -5
Congratulations, Agent S'cubie. Your previous mission was a success. Job well done. However, we have another matter that requires your immediate action. The agent codenamed: ERIN has written her second review of dollhouse. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to re-hack into the S'cubie website and download the data, identity: TARGET: The Most Dangerous Game. Please use utmost caution in aquiring this target. Security has been heightened since your last data aquisition. As always, should you be captured, the S3 will disavow any knowledge or connection with you. Good luck, Agent S'cubie. This post will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Vlad |
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 2, 2009 15:38:31 GMT -5
add me to the voices of people who found this episode much faster paced and more jossian than the premiere. the premiere, i watched primarily because it was by joss; this episode, i watched because i thought it was quality television that happened to be by a creator i already liked. i too prefer having the conversation on this thread. it makes it easier for me to follow it and more likely to respond if i'm posting late like i'm doing today. and like KMInfinity, i think something like "actives" just, well, seems better to me than using the term "dolls" to describe them. "dolls" makes me feel kind of like i'm adapting the dollhouse's paradigm. i, too, wonder where they recruit their employees, and whether they do any messing about with any employees' heads. i do feel like the actives have been base-programmed to be nearly totally passive - almost completely unreactive to the environment around them. i think that's why echo didn't consciously react to what formerly-kellerman (dominic? is that right?) said to her, and why he felt he could get away with saying it. but i wondered if her touching her hand to her shoulder was an unconscious reaction to it - if perhaps in their resting state the actives aren't wiped quite so blank/passive as the dollhouse thinks they are. i wonder why the agent is so obsessed with echo in particular. has there been some explicit reference to this that i missed, or is it not known yet? did anyone else catch the boss at the dollhouse referring to her "employers"? i wonder who they are, and why they choose to remain distant from the operation... Good question. If they are distant from the operation, they don't have to acknowledge how wrong it is to manipulate people the way they do. Sounds like the ptbs are acting a bit godlike.  |
|
|
|
Post by Squeemonster on Mar 5, 2009 19:19:27 GMT -5
Very insightful review, Erin! I especially loved this: Very intriguing....... Well done!  |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Mar 6, 2009 7:05:24 GMT -5
Very insightful review, Erin! I especially loved this: Very intriguing....... Well done! Thanks, sweetie. I was beginning to think no one had read it! |
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 8, 2009 0:31:48 GMT -5
Erin! Just read your review of The Target. Sometimes it’s the smallest comments that will get me thinking, and this time it was the simple statement:
Because when you talked about the parallel story threads in this ep, I hadn’t though of that angle. And it makes the other ironic twists I had noticed in the most recent ep (Agent Ballard somewhat cruelly turning away the guy he thinks is an informant, but who is actually an active, like the woman he is “hunting” to try to save) even more twisty than I had originally thought.
Similarly, I really resonated with your thoughts about Echo’s strength potentially coming from her brief flashes from her previous / real life and that “wiping away both the pain and the knowledge makes each of the Actives a perpetual target”. Boy, do we see further exploration in the next two eps that follow!!
So cool to get a peek into your thoughts about the show! Nice job, Erin!
|
|
|
|
Post by KMInfinity on Mar 8, 2009 15:33:00 GMT -5
Erin, I enjoyed your review very much. I especially liked how you connected the references to the original story by Connell, which I'd read so long ago I'd forgotten just about all except the premise. I also like the examination of the "Jossverse" connections. I've read elsewhere that some don't think it is relevant or important to see how Joss handles similar themes in different shows, but I find it interesting. I totally missed the "Innocence" connection, though after you pointed it out it seems obvious!
As far as the analysis of Echo herself, I especially agree with this:
I'm skeptical that "ninja skills" and whatnot can be imprinted if they weren't already there. I believe there's a great deal of difference between "intellectual knowledge" and the power that comes from practice and "muscle memory."
I am curious about one thing. Everyone is assuming that Richard was planted by Alpha, that Alpha is responsible for Echo's "engagement troubles" if you will. It's assumed again in E3 and E4. How sure are we that it's Alpha? TPTB at the Dollhouse assume so, but are we correct in accepting their interpretations of events?
|
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 8, 2009 18:45:40 GMT -5
Great review, Erin! I've read a few other reviewers that can't seem to find the layers and are too impatient and want to have the mystery sussed out too quickly.
Looks like most of us appreciated how you put your finger on one of Joss's main themes - how memory and experiences inform who we are. Is there a soul/nature in us that is separate from our 'programming' and that can't entirely be wiped out?
It looked like almost all of us picked up on your insight here: It was clear, at least to me, that no matter how she’d been programmed for this adventure, her real strength came from that brief reunion with who she used to be.
It seems almost like no matter how they wipe the dolls memories, some facets remain in them. LIke ghosts.
I am sure you are right when you said: "To have Echo, well, echo the imprint process in the woods, her words close to Boyd’s own 3 months previous, perhaps will invest Boyd in Echo’s welfare on a more personal level."
Hopefully, the viewers will also invest in Echo's welfare on a more personal level, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 8, 2009 18:55:07 GMT -5
Erin, I enjoyed your review very much. I especially liked how you connected the references to the original story by Connell, which I'd read so long ago I'd forgotten just about all except the premise. I also like the examination of the "Jossverse" connections. I've read elsewhere that some don't think it is relevant or important to see how Joss handles similar themes in different shows, but I find it interesting. I totally missed the "Innocence" connection, though after you pointed it out it seems obvious! As far as the analysis of Echo herself, I especially agree with this: I'm skeptical that "ninja skills" and whatnot can be imprinted if they weren't already there. I believe there's a great deal of difference between "intellectual knowledge" and the power that comes from practice and "muscle memory." I am curious about one thing. Everyone is assuming that Richard was planted by Alpha, that Alpha is responsible for Echo's "engagement troubles" if you will. It's assumed again in E3 and E4. How sure are we that it's Alpha? TPTB at the Dollhouse assume so, but are we correct in accepting their interpretations of events? I also wondered about the physical skills some of the dolls have. Did they bring those skills with them - when once honed become second nature like breathing? We see them practicing tai chi, etc. Maybe they are also schooled in the martial arts. They certainly do keep in shape. |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Mar 9, 2009 6:59:41 GMT -5
Erin! Just read your review of The Target. Sometimes it’s the smallest comments that will get me thinking, and this time it was the simple statement: Because when you talked about the parallel story threads in this ep, I hadn’t though of that angle. And it makes the other ironic twists I had noticed in the most recent ep (Agent Ballard somewhat cruelly turning away the guy he thinks is an informant, but who is actually an active, like the woman he is “hunting” to try to save) even more twisty than I had originally thought. Similarly, I really resonated with your thoughts about Echo’s strength potentially coming from her brief flashes from her previous / real life and that “wiping away both the pain and the knowledge makes each of the Actives a perpetual target”. Boy, do we see further exploration in the next two eps that follow!! So cool to get a peek into your thoughts about the show! Nice job, Erin! Thanks, sweetie! It's these little flourishes that make me more interested rather than disgusted by the premise; it does seem like the usual Joss-ian layers are in operation within the show. It's not a straight inversion, ie, good=bad, bad=good, but someone like Agent Ballard, who is "good" in one sense (wants to stop the human trafficking, etc) still is problematic in the way he operates. So glad you enjoyed it, and commented! |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Mar 9, 2009 7:29:07 GMT -5
Erin, I enjoyed your review very much. I especially liked how you connected the references to the original story by Connell, which I'd read so long ago I'd forgotten just about all except the premise. I also like the examination of the "Jossverse" connections. I've read elsewhere that some don't think it is relevant or important to see how Joss handles similar themes in different shows, but I find it interesting. I totally missed the "Innocence" connection, though after you pointed it out it seems obvious! As far as the analysis of Echo herself, I especially agree with this: I'm skeptical that "ninja skills" and whatnot can be imprinted if they weren't already there. I believe there's a great deal of difference between "intellectual knowledge" and the power that comes from practice and "muscle memory." I am curious about one thing. Everyone is assuming that Richard was planted by Alpha, that Alpha is responsible for Echo's "engagement troubles" if you will. It's assumed again in E3 and E4. How sure are we that it's Alpha? TPTB at the Dollhouse assume so, but are we correct in accepting their interpretations of events? Thanks for commenting; I love these discussions! It may be because I am currently working on the Firefly chapter of my thesis, but these thematic connections seem to spring out at me. And I don't mean to imply, either, that Joss is the only one who addresses such issues, but I do find his perspectives on some of this material (both in previous shows and Dollhouse itself) to be quite intriguing. I don't always agree, but I like the way he commits. As per the practical matters, I think there's definitely some suspension of disbelief required by the premise, particularly in terms of how the human body works. Maybe the Actives are chosen because they have particularly skills already. As for the Alpha thing, I wouldn't be surprise if it was a classic Joss-ian misdirection, and you're not wrong to wonder! There's a lot here to work with, which is wonderful... |
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Mar 9, 2009 7:36:38 GMT -5
Great review, Erin! I've read a few other reviewers that can't seem to find the layers and are too impatient and want to have the mystery sussed out too quickly. Which is not surprising; that's how most TV is... Well, I think so, and I think the show thinks so. You can only take so much from someone; not their essence. Hee! I like that! Boyd as metaphor for the viewer! I hope so too.  Thanks for commenting, sweetie! Feedback is love. |
|
|
|
Post by leftylady on Mar 14, 2009 14:24:59 GMT -5
add me to the voices of people who found this episode much faster paced and more jossian than the premiere. the premiere, i watched primarily because it was by joss; this episode, i watched because i thought it was quality television that happened to be by a creator i already liked. i too prefer having the conversation on this thread. it makes it easier for me to follow it and more likely to respond if i'm posting late like i'm doing today. and like KMInfinity, i think something like "actives" just, well, seems better to me than using the term "dolls" to describe them. "dolls" makes me feel kind of like i'm adapting the dollhouse's paradigm. i, too, wonder where they recruit their employees, and whether they do any messing about with any employees' heads. i do feel like the actives have been base-programmed to be nearly totally passive - almost completely unreactive to the environment around them. i think that's why echo didn't consciously react to what formerly-kellerman (dominic? is that right?) said to her, and why he felt he could get away with saying it. but i wondered if her touching her hand to her shoulder was an unconscious reaction to it - if perhaps in their resting state the actives aren't wiped quite so blank/passive as the dollhouse thinks they are. i wonder why the agent is so obsessed with echo in particular. has there been some explicit reference to this that i missed, or is it not known yet? did anyone else catch the boss at the dollhouse referring to her "employers"? i wonder who they are, and why they choose to remain distant from the operation... Thanks everyone for consolidating the Dollhouse posting. It really helps for those of us who are this far behind in reading! ;D As far as "actives" - Sorority girls after initiation become "actives" - Joss' comment on sorority stereotypes? Also - in Spanish acctg "activos" ("actifs" in French" is the term for "assets", a balance sheet designation in cold impersonal terms. It's fitting that 24's Jack Bauer recently explained sending an untrained, unarmed girlfriend of the villain into danger that got her killed with "But she was the only asset we had on the ground." leftylady |
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 18, 2009 14:27:51 GMT -5
Erin,
I really liked that you pointed out the original story (I've seen many incarnations of it myself) and that they carried the author's name over to the episode. What a classy acknowledgment and shout out!
I also appreciated you pointing out that one of the themes may be the role of memory and one's past informing one's identity and personality. No matter what, we aren't able to entirely shake off our pasts.
I know Alpha was mentioned in the ep but would have to rewatch to be certain whether we really know how clearly he orchestrated the events. If he did it seems to me that he's playing around pretty loosely with events he can't totally control.
And, yes, I still don't entirely get why Boyd signed on but I do agree that we saw the moment when he became "on her side."
|
|
