|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 5, 2009 12:28:09 GMT -5
*Topher says that this philanthrophic engagement with the girl was entirely his idea. I don't know what to make of that, actually. Did he know the girl somehow or does the girl some how remind him of himself or some one in his past? I'm starting to think that everyone who works in the Dollhouse has their own agenda. *If Sanders is actually a Doll, I wonder if there was a real Dr. Sanders who got killed but they had the imprint so they just decided to use a Doll permanently for the position rather than recruit another doctor. *One think I was pondering on the rewatch was whether Alpha acting with Ballard the whole time or was he being genuine and then switched on once he got into the Dollhouse? *Adelle really went crazy with her make up this week. *I love how Ballard tells Alpha to put on the clothes and pretended to be a Doll when he actually is/was a Doll. I wanted to say that when we were watching it on Friday, but I didn't want to spoil anyone. *When Boyd confronted Ballard, Ballard definitely seemed to be more against Ballard's methods than his desire to free Caroline and the dolls. *I find it *really* odd that Boyd seems to be the only security personnel in the Dollhouse. I pretty much glossed over the case of the week the first time I was watching this episode. I was pretty much just fixated on Alan Tudyk. Now that I'm paying more attention, I see that it holds together really well, with delicious multilayeredness. And while I don't have the time to write down all of Alpha's dialogue, it's brilliant and deep thinky. I can't wait the read Erin's review of the episode.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 5, 2009 16:58:51 GMT -5
This episode finally made it clear how difficult it is to root for anyone on the show. There's been debates on Dollhouse sites and Whedonesque about how this story style has Joss shooting himself in the foot because there's no "scoobie style family" or characters to root for. I've kept an open mind, but I'm starting to agree. I'm finding the show to be very intriguing on an intellectual level, but with little emotional resonance... Maybe I'm starting to feel exasperation with too much plot driven material. And maybe there's just too much moral ambiguity for me. I realized partway through this episode I had no investment in anyone when Victor got slashed, Boyd and Ballard kicked each other's asses, Ballard got caught, and Alpha turned out to be no princely hero but an evil, violent nutcase....and none of it made me care about them as characters. Right now, my biggest question is just how much of this is a huge mistake on Joss' part, or if he really does have an awesome long term plan that includes making me care about some of these characters. If there's a "scoobie style family," then I think it would be those who work in the Dollhouse: Adelle, Boyd, Sanders, and Topher. Of course, they are hardly people that we would root for. At least, not all the way. At least, not yet. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly didn't watch Buffy, Angel, or Firefly to root for the characters. I watched them for the story. There are plenty of great tv shows, movies, and books where the main characters are not good people doing good things; however, if the story was good, they are worth watching. If I want to watch a show about fun nice people and numb out and feel good about myself and my fellow man, then I'll watch The Mentalist or Flashpoint (both good shows, just a different type). If I want to watch a good story that challenges my understanding of myself and the world around me, then I'll watch a show like Dollhouse, which, while it started of pretty shaky, looks like it's shaping up to tell a very compelling story.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on May 6, 2009 7:14:50 GMT -5
So, if guy wasn't really a homeless dude, who was he? Snooping in the headquarter's garbage . . . . "They told me, this was gonna be the new Eden." (OK, that is a very telling statement!) "Eden wasn't a prison!" "Are you kidding? The apples were monitored!" Ha! (I really like this guy. ) Recirulate human sweat. Hmmm. Coming so close on her statement about what homeless people smell of, this line is probably striking me as being more important that it really is. OK, knowing what happened with Sierra before? It is extremely unnerving to see Ballard so very easily get this guy to come with him. And get him to take off his clothes. OMG, they're basically posing as Doll nad handler now. Oy! Oy! Zapping Topher?! OMG! "You can take down security from there, right?" "Yeaaah . . . I could if this guy wasn't a paranoid freak!" (Why, it's like he really knows Topher, isn't it? ) "This is a bad place." "Bad people, maybe. Good place." (God, this ep is just full of the most excellent lines!) Closed system. We're all just atoms in the big continuous universe and the best we can do is to try not to kill it from the inside. And his little buddy is getting suspicously more confident. Woops! Spoke too soon. ;D (Actually, I kind of know what he's talking about, with his fear of riser-less stairs. I mean, it doen't stop me from walking on them, but I do know that vibe. Although, for me, it's not so much a feeling that something will reach through and grab me, but a feeling I will put my foot right through.) Heeee! Oh, and now he realises that his Russian informant was also a Doll! Ballard. Not always the sharpest knife in the drawer! "My whole life isn't real." "It's a small world, right? I went to grade school with Jenna Elfman." (OMG! The funny! They're killing me with the funny in this ep! I mean, yes with the drama and suspense and all and then the funny peppering it all! This is why I love love love Joss!) I'm with Ballard on this - they're locked in their pods? Mellie!November - yes, she will kill you if they flip a switch. Ah, here is the very literal "sleeping beauty saved by Prince" moment. Which of course doesn't not work. Did Ballard really think it was all going this smoothly? This reminds me of my mom's dog Jade, who I watch whenever my mom goes out of town. I mean, I'm not comparing you to a dog, by any means!!!! But still: reminds me. The stairs to my basement are strange in that the top half of the steps have risers, but the lower half of the steps do not. Whenever I go down the basement, Jade will follow me just so far, But always stops just before the riserless steps. Funny little dog. ;D Woof!
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on May 6, 2009 7:20:18 GMT -5
This episode finally made it clear how difficult it is to root for anyone on the show. There's been debates on Dollhouse sites and Whedonesque about how this story style has Joss shooting himself in the foot because there's no "scoobie style family" or characters to root for. I've kept an open mind, but I'm starting to agree. I'm finding the show to be very intriguing on an intellectual level, but with little emotional resonance... Maybe I'm starting to feel exasperation with too much plot driven material. And maybe there's just too much moral ambiguity for me. I realized partway through this episode I had no investment in anyone when Victor got slashed, Boyd and Ballard kicked each other's asses, Ballard got caught, and Alpha turned out to be no princely hero but an evil, violent nutcase....and none of it made me care about them as characters. Right now, my biggest question is just how much of this is a huge mistake on Joss' part, or if he really does have an awesome long term plan that includes making me care about some of these characters. I agree that there is not the centered "heart" of the show to root for. I thought I'd care more for Ballard and his quest but not with his treatment of Mellie and general demeanor of recent episodes. Boyd is the closest to "good guy" but still.... I like the intricacies of Adele ... I always thought that Laila Morgen was a great character and hated when AtS killed her off. And the dolls are often passive or just the imprint of the week. And with some of secondary characters being far stronger actors than the nominal lead, it detacts from what the show could have been. Too much on ED's shoulders some weeks. But Alan T's performance just blew me away. Too bad he couldn;t have been around from the start. leftylady Hmm. Yes, I agree on the show not having a centered heart or core group that we love. (Although, I might put the Dolls in their wiped state in that category a bit. They're the most vulnerable and the ones that have no long term future, whether they stay as actives or are "saved". Either way, the wiped or "innocent" aspect of that person will disappear.) But I also think I'm not finding that a deterrant for me. I like those kind of shows, with the characters that you can love unreservedly, but I also like this "everything is gray" kind of show too - where I care about a lot of the characters, but with reservations for them all too. Makes me think of the compromises that all of us make, every day. And makes me think to wonder how many of them we really need to make . . .
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on May 6, 2009 7:26:07 GMT -5
*Topher says that this philanthrophic engagement with the girl was entirely his idea. I don't know what to make of that, actually. Did he know the girl somehow or does the girl some how remind him of himself or some one in his past? I'm starting to think that everyone who works in the Dollhouse has their own agenda. Yes! This!! And possibly several agendas. Justifications and also "what's in it for me" agendas. The idea of people working there being Dolls!Actives is a twisty one, isn't it? It would be the ultimate control to keep people loyal, but how far up could it go? At some point we'd have to hit non-Dolls setting it all up. Or would we . . . ? ;D **nods a lot** The case of the week got relatively little screen time, but the implications and interconnection with the rest of the ep? Whoa!
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on May 6, 2009 7:28:57 GMT -5
This episode finally made it clear how difficult it is to root for anyone on the show. There's been debates on Dollhouse sites and Whedonesque about how this story style has Joss shooting himself in the foot because there's no "scoobie style family" or characters to root for. I've kept an open mind, but I'm starting to agree. I'm finding the show to be very intriguing on an intellectual level, but with little emotional resonance... Maybe I'm starting to feel exasperation with too much plot driven material. And maybe there's just too much moral ambiguity for me. I realized partway through this episode I had no investment in anyone when Victor got slashed, Boyd and Ballard kicked each other's asses, Ballard got caught, and Alpha turned out to be no princely hero but an evil, violent nutcase....and none of it made me care about them as characters. Right now, my biggest question is just how much of this is a huge mistake on Joss' part, or if he really does have an awesome long term plan that includes making me care about some of these characters. If there's a "scoobie style family," then I think it would be those who work in the Dollhouse: Adelle, Boyd, Sanders, and Topher. Of course, they are hardly people that we would root for. At least, not all the way. At least, not yet. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not watching I certainly didn't watch Buffy, Angel, and Firefly to root for the characters. I watched them for the story. There are plenty of great tv shows, movies, and books where the main characters are not good people doing good things; however, if the story was good, they are worth watching. If I want to watch a show about fun nice people and numb out and feel good about myself and my fellow man, then I'll watch The Mentalist or Flashpoint (both good shows, just a different type). If I want to watch a good story that challenges my understanding of myself and the world around me, then I'll watch a show like Dollhouse, which, while it started of pretty shaky, looks like it's shaping up to tell a very compelling story. More logically stated than I was able to do! Although, for me, part of what I enjoyed about Buffy et. al. was loving/rooting for the core characters. But only part.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 8, 2009 9:49:10 GMT -5
MIchelle posted an excellent pre-review of tonight's ep (no spoilers) so once that new thread opens up maybe I'll put this over there as well. But I thought this tied in so very well with KM's comments and the ensuing discussion here: MOST! excellent. Plus, bonus points for the Chuck mention and parallel! Did you put this over on the Dollhouse thread as well? These paragraphs speak directly to the discussion that has been going on about how it's been hard to get engaged with the show's core characters because they lack that cohesive and compelling family unit. Even before I read this I was going to make a comment about how it's tough to get emotionally invested in a character who .... isn't there next week. They keep changing and since we can't see (much of) the real person it's been hard to form an attachment. I thought this was excellent analysis: One of the most interesting things about "Dollhouse" is that Whedon and his writers have taken away from themselves one of the foundations of any TV show -- characters whose natures don't change all that much from week to week. The questions "Dollhouse" asks may have made things uncomfortable for viewers (and that may be one reason for the show's low ratings), but the writers first made things uncomfortable for themselves, by not relying on a predictable set of motivations for several key characters. Sure, in the early going, the dolls' frequent personality changes made it hard to invest in them, but "Dollhouse" has pulled off an uncanny trick: It's made me conscious of what's missing -- the dolls' real selves -- even when I'm interested in the roles they are playing on particular missions.
Those "active" scenes work on two levels: You never forget what's been taken away from them, even as you become interested in what they're doing on a mission. And when they're back at the Dollhouse and wandering around as simple-minded dolls -- well, those scenes have such poignance and sadness now. (I'm sure that's exactly what Fox executives were looking for when they commissioned the show, right?)
|
|
|
Post by rich on May 9, 2009 21:45:25 GMT -5
An excellent analysis indeed. If you believe James Monaco's theory (from "How to Read a Film", 1977) that Television is an art from whose essential function is to provide the "virtual experience of intimacy" (characters on series television become familiar to us. They come to seem like family or old friends), then Whedon and Company are doing nothing less than challenging the fundamental nature of Television itself (or, at the very least, Professor Monaco's theory).
And while there isn't a single character I wholeheartedly like, neither is there a single character for whom I feel no compassion.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on May 10, 2009 15:46:46 GMT -5
An excellent analysis indeed. If you believe James Monaco's theory (from "How to Read a Film", 1977) that Television is an art from whose essential function is to provide the "virtual experience of intimacy" (characters on series television become familiar to us. They come to seem like family or old friends), then Whedon and Company are doing nothing less than challenging the fundamental nature of Television itself (or, at the very least, Professor Monaco's theory). And while there isn't a single character I wholeheartedly like, neither is there a single character for whom I feel no compassion. Oh, I would agree with this too - the feeling compassion thing.
|
|