I just finished watching the third episode of Joss Whedon's (of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly fame) newest show, Dollhouse. It stars Eliza Dushku as Echo, an "Active," a blank slate of a woman who can be imprinted with any personality or skill-set desired by the client who hires her.
My initial reaction to the show before seeing any of the episodes was "ick." The promos for it were so sexualized and I especially hate the image of naked Dushku as a city-scape at the beginning of Dollhouse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OinD4UZgZaM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snLEZoMmop4
P.S. Spoiler alert if you haven't seen the episode.
Anyway, I have seen the three episodes that have aired so far, and I have found myself enjoying the show. Firefly is my fav of any of Whedon's stuff, but this is good. Whedon is a great writer and always brings important issues to bear.
"Stage Fright" looked at the issue of being a female celebrity. A famous singer, Rayna (Jamie Lee Kirchner) is being targeted by a stalker fan, and her manager contacts the Dollhouse and engages Echo as a backup singer/bodyguard. Another Active, Sierra (Dichen Lachman) is sent in as Audra, Rayna's number one fan, to be Echo's back-up. However, as events conspire, Rayna is in communication with the stalker, and wants him to kill her, because she is sick of always being made to produce and perform, and doesn't feel that she has her own life.
Echo saves Rayna from the stalker, and he kidnaps Audra instead. Echo in turn kidnaps Rayna, and proposes a trade. The stalker agrees, and they meet, and Echo neutralizes the threat, saves Audra/Sierra, and convinces Rayna that she can change her life instead of ending it. She is the hero
There were several things in the episode that really grabbed me. Laura Mulvey, a crazy good feminist film scholar, wrote an essay in the 70's called "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema ." It's pretty Freudian, and basically she says that in our world which is dominated by patriarchy and sexual imbalance, women are the passive objects to be looked at, and men are active subjects who project their male gaze on women. This phenom is prevalent in film and television, where women are arranged and displayed for men to look at, both the men who share the screen and story, and men in the audience.
There was one moment in this episode that played out the above scenario 100%, even more than 100% because it was happening on so many levels. The stalker had Audra, and said (paraphrasing) "You were close to her. You could smell her, touch her. DO IT!" He makes her sing Rayna's hit single. And the visual imagery is so arresting. He has a video camera and a spotlight on her, and he moves his head in and out of the light, and she's crying as she's barely able to get the words out.
He's controlling her with his gaze in that moment (and also capturing her image on the video camera, for his own use whenever he wants) and he's also fantasizing and imagining Rayna at the same time. In his mind, Rayna belongs to him, and he can do anything to create and control her image.
Rayna is a paralell figure for Beyonce and Rihanna, just to name two. How many fans gaze at them? They are famous, supposedly for their amazing vocal talents, (which are really good) but for women it's never just that. Image is also a huge piece of the pie, sometimes equal to or beyond the actual talent/ability. What's up with that?
This thing is too long already. Congrats if you've read this far.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Thoughts on "Stage Fright," newest episode of Joss Whedon's Dollhouse.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12240
No, it's not too long! I was waiting for somebody to do something substantive about Dollhouse. With so many Whedon fans in this community, I was expecting a post almost immediately after the first episode, but maybe other people are feeling as wigged out and ambivalent about the show as I am. I am keeping the show at arms length and waiting to form an opinion.
I really want to like Dollhouse. I really do.
A lot of the imagery in the show really bothers me. Probably the worst for me was when Echo saw Sierra being mind wiped for the first time. That looked so painful and violent and sexual, like a mental rape scene, and I am wondering if Whedon did that on purpose? I am sensitive to rape imagery and it's possible that I see it where none is intended, but on the other hand, it seems like it would fit with the message of his show.
The scene you are talking about, where Sierra/Audrey was forced to sing for the camera, was very hard for me to watch. That, and in the second episode, with the man literally hunting the beautiful young girl he just had sex with? The show is so full of sexualized violence against women. I know that he is excited about the ideas and the statement that he is going to make with this show, and I can tell that he's going for a feminist message. The dollhouse is not presented positively, and Echo and Sierra will eventually fight back, but still.
It reminds me of when a journalist writes a newspaper article about how terrible it is that young women are being victimized, and then includes a photograph that is as racy as possible to attract readers. It's like the article about that rape video game with the screenshot of the girl stripping, or the articles about Chris and Rhianna that try to capitalize off of how sexy she is or include pictures of her battered face.
I mean, how much do we let Whedon get away with? How sexy does he get to make violence against women while still condemning it? How far does he get to go before he's just abusing the issue for shock value and edginess points and titillation of the audience?
P.S. I liked the comparison that was made between Rayna and Echo, about how they were both factory-produced and molded into an ideal to be consumed. What it made me think of its the endless list of female pop-stars who are churned out by Disney and end up with serious issues. There was a post at Jezebel about it: That's Enough Disney Girls. From Jezebel:
Let me be clear, though: these women have all made some pretty serious mistakes, but the Disney set up is the real problem here- the "isn't she an adorable, inoffensive virgin who dresses like a 25 year old" image they have their starlets project, knowing full well how it's turned out in the past.
So, by the third episode, Dollhouse has managed to make a statement. I think that Whedon is trying to say:
1. The Dollhouse... isn't it creepy? Isn't it unacceptable?
2. Guess what folks, the Dollhouse is a metaphor for society. See here, a good example is what we do to female pop stars. Isn't society unacceptable?!
3. Fight the Dollhouse. Fight Society!
At least, that is what I want to see.
I like the comparison too but so far it seems that they draw this kind of thing in every single episode. A client pointing out that she literally was an "echo". It's nice and clever but they kind of beat you over the head with it for being only three episodes in!
I don't know - it seems to me like the women are oversexualized (in the show, but also by the men in the show) and get hurt because of it.
Like oversexualizing women hurts women, type of thing.
There is an interview with Eliza Dushku, I'll try to find it for a link, I've read so many interviews with her and Joss lately, where she says that a theme of the show is objectification, and how when we objectify people, people end up getting hurt.
Even before reading that, I had a strong suspicion that we're supposed to root for the FBI agent.
This was meant to be a reply to Sabriel, agreeing with the 3-part statement that she thinks the show is making.
I agree that the message is that oversexualizing and objectifying people, in particular women, hurts them. I am just disturbed by how "sexy" it is when they get hurt. Does it have to be that sexy?
Can we talk about how over-sexualization and objectification of women hurts women without over-sexualizing and objectifying them as we do it?
I think Joss is walking a very fine line, that's all. He's playing with fire. Maybe he can handle it, I think his intentions are good, and I think he'll do some good stuff with this format, but I would hate for him to win the battle (include good messages within individual episodes) and lose the war (produce a show that, on the whole, is objectifying).
I know that I need to cut him some slack and allow him to be a little objectifying if he's making a point about objectification. Art pushes boundaries. However, I am not sure where to draw the line.
Hopefully a few more episodes will resolve my concerns. If we keep getting strong, clear messages that criticize the dollhouse and also tie the dollhouse to society in general, then I would say that Joss has not overstepped his bounds. If the show fails to come down hard enough on the kind of exploitation it is feeding off of, I'll have to call foul on this one.
I definitely agree with your concerns.
I also feel like Fox has damned the whole thing because according to Eliza, they've stuck their nose and insisted on changes up until about episode 6, so I feel like I'm never going to know what's authentically Joss and what's Fox coming in and saying, as they did with Firefly, "Um, we need some more pizazz and action and excitement to make people watch, please change this." I'm sure that the ads featuring Eliza nearly naked were their work, not Joss's, since the network is the one who does advertisements.
I don't mean to sound like I'm insisting Joss can do no wrong (he so can, I still have no idea what Angel season 4 was supposed to be about), but I do want to say I'm not entirely sure who to direct criticism at.
Marketing the show had to be a huge concern for FOX. The marketing for Firefly was such a mess. They didn't know who their audience was going to be or how to package the show into a 20 second blip that would draw people in. The sci-fi/western/character drama combo was too much for the average commercial watcher to absorb.
Sex sells. Eliza Dushku is hot. Put her in the commercial naked and you're bound to get people watching, maybe you can keep the ratings up while the show's concept catches on.
I'm not sure if that last part is working, I think we need a few more episodes (and minimal interference from the network) to figure out what the vision is - where it is all going.
At least this episode didn't contain rape.
Although it explained why the rape occurs--the women are programmed to want to have sex with their clients the same way she was programmed to be willing to take a bullet for Rayna. So creepy, but I don't think Joss realizes why.
Since the FBI agent is investigating the dollhouse as a human trafficking case, I don't think Joss is blind to the creepiness.
I don't know that I'm convinced of the whole "how much are we going to let joss get away with" why do you assume that dollhouse is trying to "get away with" anything? Yes, it's a show about a horrible subject. therefore there are going to be horrible people and horrible situations. and they need to be seen. Why do people assume the sexism is going to end up working out for the people who do it(based on his past work, it usually doesn't). I have heard some writing critism of the show, which, okay, point. I can't really tell you what to say is well written. However, that pales beside the amount of "these are creepy people" complaints. yes, they are creepy people, doing creepy things. I personally think we're going to get nowhere confronting any social issues without admitting that there are creepy people, and, more to the point, that many think they're good people. Many men who commit rape can't think of that word applying to them. so, why are we insisting not to see anybody do anything creepy in a show purportedly about sex trafficking? How do you make a point about that without anyone doing anything horrible? I don't see it, or at least, I don't see any convincing point.
See, my problem isn't that it is including violence or creepy things. My problem has more to do with the marketing, and how much Fox is selling the show based on how sexy Duskhu is. In that way I think the show is trying to get away with stuff. It may not all be Whedon's fault. He's admitted that he had to sex up the show and add explosions in order to sell the concept to Fox, and Fox is one of the only channels that would take a show like Dollhouse to begin with.
Anyways, I think I'm going to back off and let more people reply before I comment again on this post.
Like others here, I'm disturbed by the show, but in an appropriate way. I hate the sex scenes with the "activated" Echo because it IS rape, even though she appears to be a willing and active participant. It's disturbing, and I believe that Joss (I call him that because I seem to think I know him ^.^) wants us to be uncomfortable and find it disturbing.
I also agree that Fox is fucking with it to make it sexier. I find Dushku hot. She's a beautiful woman and the camera loves her. I don't have that much of a problem with her using her body, her sensuality, or her sexiness to help explore her character and her acting craft. It's all a part of real life and I can accept acting that portrays it as such. However, I think that all actresses, not just the pretty, sexy ones should be encouraged to use their physicality and sensuality in their acting (if that's what they want to do). But I draw the line at exploitation of a particular standard of beauty for money.
But there is a flip side. I think Joss has something interesting to say with this show. I think that Fox needs the numbers and the advertising money coming in for this show to last beyond April so that Joss can actually explore the issues he wants to. And, sadly, I think that selling Dushku's sexuality is one way that might get enough people to watch so that whatever meaning Joss wants to include will get noticed.
This is all over the place and I'm not apologizing for Fox's advertising. I find it abhorrent that society needs T and A thrust under its nose for people to take interest.
These are just my thoughts. I can't wait until episode 6 to see what Joss really wants to say.
Since we've brought up the issue of Echo's rape in relation to her personality wanting to sleep with these men because of programming, does anyone have any thoughts on "identity" as it relates to this?
We saw in episode 1 that Caroline consented to becoming Echo in order to make up for some past indiscretion (I'm very much so hoping we find out what that was, how she knew Adelle, etc.). I'm going to guess that not everyone entered into their contract with the Dollhouse consensually, although that's just a big guess on my part and not based on anything we've seen yet. It didn't exactly seem to be a choice in the absence of duress, so even though each Echo-personality is consenting to the sex, Caroline's host body didn't choose it of her own free will.
What I've been wondering is, who is she at each moment? In the episode with the hunter in the woods, was she "Jenny", fully and completely, with no trace of her being Caroline anymore? Since the native "Caroline" personality was wiped from her body and replaced with the "Jenny" personality, was Echo/Jenny making a fully informed decision, did it affect Caroline at all, and can "Jenny" even be said to be consenting since she was programmed to consent?
The whole thing is problematic, and I've been wondering what other peoples' points of view about this are.
I'll also admit that I would rather not have any sex at all. Up until the show actually aired, I was expecting all of the assignments that the dolls went on to be situations like the hostage negotiator/bodyguard assignments we've seen. I was also really relieved to see male dolls starting with the flashback to Alpha's massacre in episode 2, although it's not like I'm cheering at the idea of men being used as mind-wiped prostitutes either.
Aah hah but that's just the thing! She is forming her own unique self and identity through these experiences! Little pieces linger after she is wiped, the "shoulder to the wheel" movement among other things and at the end of the very last episode she and the other "active" shared a moment and she very consciously shook her head to remind them to keep up the blank slate appearance.
In fact, her "handler" alluded to this about how she was able to think outside her programming and -- if you remember, she quoted the "friends help eachother" that she had said to the same active prior to the mission -- so it seems like she's forging her own identity through it all.
I was very interested to hear about this show here and I figured that it would be brought up immediately!
I agree that it was marketed in a really skeezy way but I watched it anyway and I actually LOVE the show. LOVE LOVE LOVE!
It's a little heavy handed in it's symbolism but it's all worth pointing out so I forgive it. Really excited to see how it goes.
I know it's probably anti-feminist to say so but I really adore the bond between her and her handler. Maybe it's my own father-issues being projected but I really feel for that relationship and if they can hook an audience in to really care about the characters in so few episodes then they have done a good job!
DONT SCREW IT UP FOX!
The relationship between Echo and the handler kind of reminds me of the relationship between Buffy and Giles, as well as between River and Simon on Firefly ... I find it interesting, and I wonder what Joss is going for in setting up these dynamics.
I think it is a father figure thing. Not necessarily protection coming from the paternalistic side, either. In all three shows, the women are strong and capable (Echo is strong and capable no matter what personality's she had so far, and the indication is that some part of Caroline is so fundamental and true that it shines through, or survived, whatever Dollhouse did to her; Buffy is the g.d. Slayer, and River turns out to be pretty much superhuman in the movie, and extraordinarily talented in the show) and the men provide a sort of emotional tie for them. Dare I say Joss has kind of flipped the normal dynamic? The cliche, behind every strong man, there's a good woman becomes, behind these strong women, there's a man who provides the sort of emotional support in a role usually relegated to women? I dunno.
Joss Whedon is one of the few "celebrity" men who identify as feminist, and his favorite charity is Equality Now. You guys should look up some of the speeches and interviews he's given on writing strong female characters, on violence against women, and other feminist issues. I trust him to know what he's dealing with in this show, and to handle it sensitively--but I don't trust Fox.
We'll see.
At any rate, I think you could make the case that this is turning out to be one hell of a subversive show, and I can't wait to see whether or not it works. It might take a while to become apparent.
But yeah. Joss Whedon. Unapologetic feminist.
I tend to agree with the comments that paint Joss as a feminist, or at least believes in a sort of egalitarianism equality and tries to realize that through his work. Despite a few very very harsh critiques of the women in Firefly on the net, I personally thought that show had some amazing female characters. Even the evil ones were cool. Buffy-never watched too much of it, but I've always thought that the idea behind it was cool and fun (I actually liked the movie, sue me). And I think Joss does bend a bit-he uses very conventionally good looking actors in all of his shows. He's no radical artist, and I don't think he's very subversive, but I think his shows are solid and his intentions are good.
Is being brainwashed into wanting to have sex with someone worse than being brainwashed into being someone's bodyguard and running the risk of getting killed? In the absence of the fear, lasting psychological trauma, and all the other ways that being raped hurts, it's hard to say whether or not to put it in the same category as conventional methods of sexual assault.