Dollhouse requires a lot of work to enjoy. So far, it hasn’t required more work than I’m willing to give it, but then, viewing and responding to popular culture is my actual job. I read The Angry Black Woman’s response to the challenge that feminists who dislike Dollhouse aren’t getting the “subtlety” of it, and she got me thinking about how much work I’m putting into enjoying it. I was particularly struck by her point that you can “get” that the show is aiming for subtle horror and not buy it.
Fact is, I don’t think Dollhouse is succeeding at what it aims at yet. Grace over at Heroine Content is cautiously optimistic in her review. She notes the amount of ass-kickery the female Dolls engage in and points out the various ways character development twists and turns to suggest that the Dolls have the potential to surprise us, should the show continue. I’m of a similar wait-and-see opinion. I’m giving the show time because I like Whedon and Dushku and I’d like to see what they come up with when the network backs off a bit. That doesn’t mean what they come up with will be any good. It just means I have a somewhat positive impression of their track record and am willing to give them some time to find their way. Viewers don’t owe Dollhouse that time. It’s a gift. And calling viewers who invoke their right not to view “clueless” is presumptuous, rude and, in my opinion, absolutely ridiculous.
Case in point: Gianduja Kiss has created a fanvid for the show to the tune of “It Depends on What You Pay”. It was linked to on Feminist SF before, but I embedded it here too because it makes my point so well. The vid has a trigger-warning attached as the contrast of the Dolls’ assignments, mostly sexual, sometimes violent, with a cheery sounding song about rape is disturbing, to say the least. The vid is only triggering, however, if you get the horror of the show’s premise and work to make the connection between the words of the song and the scenes before you. And it is work. I’m saying this as a film scholar. The rape scenes on Dollhouse are rarely shot as rapes. They’re party scenes, sport fucks, “lurve-making”. The horror is intellectual, not yet on screen — at least not often. This isn’t about subtlety for me, it’s about a lackluster use of the medium. The shots are too glammy. The editing doesn’t make you question what’s going on.
The fanvid has to impose the horror of what’s going on explicitly through the song because outside of the context of the show’s premise, there is nothing in most of these shots to encourage the viewer to read the scene in front of them as anything other than what it seems. There are a few violent scenes, of course, but most of the “sex scenes” are shot no differently from how they would be shot on the now defunct Las Vegas.
More often than not, we get a Dolls’ eye view of events. That’s a choice that the producers are making, and it’s not the one that’s going to make most feminists go “ooh, subtlety.” It’s going to make most of us go I don’t have time for this. I can do the intellectual work and provide the subtlety, but I’m doing the work. It’s hardly ever on screen, even in coded form. The irony of Dollhouse, at least for me, is that as viewers we’re being asked to work there too.
As you may be able to tell, I think the biggest weak point in the series is not the premise, which doesn’t seem to be as triggering for me as it is for others, it’s the execution. I’m not 100% sold on the casting. I have a difficult time really buying into the actors playing Victor and Boyd. They don’t have the range of the female cast. I’m also bored by the technical aspects of the show. There’re so many things the producers could be doing in terms of shot design and editing to make the horror of the show visceral and ever-present. Look at the way the early seasons of 24 maximize tension through split screen and that damned running clock, or the way cinematography increases the gut-clenching realism of Battlestar Galactica’s space battles by selective invocation of a hand-held documentary feel.
Whedon’s strengths are writing and characterization, but Dollhouse can’t succeed based on those alone. The premise is too convoluted. This is the first Whedon show that needs to make full use of the visual medium in order to work. Buffy was witty, Angel was angsty, Firefly (love it or hate it) was pulp. Dollhouse changes from episode to episode. Even its characters change — personalities, looks, loyalties. The continuing narrative thread is human trafficking. But in order for that narrative thread to resonate even when it’s not the explicit theme of that week’s story, the camera has to serve as the narrator. IT has to do the work. It has to make us feel what the Dolls can’t. It has to make us remember what they don’t. It has to tempt us and disturb us, to capture aspects of performance that the glossy fast-cutting versions we’ve been seeing of the Dolls’ assignments elide.
[...] posted a new blog over at Feminist SF. Dollhouse requires a lot of work to enjoy. So far, it hasn’t required more work than [...]
lilacsigil on
April 29, 2009 2:47 am
I very much agree with what you’ve said here, and with what Angry Black Woman says in her insightful post. There are small parts of Dollhouse that engage with the premise, but if the camera is engaging the writing is not; if the writing is engaging, the camera is titillating. The wardrobe is a big problem, for me – when the Actives are dressed up for someone’s fantasy, that’s fine. When they’re breaking into the CIA, doing hostage negotiation or diagnosing a disease outbreak, WTF is with the fetish wear? Especially the shoes.
It could be a good show – there is no reason why any part of it should not be made. I’m very interested in Echo, Sierra and November and what happens to them. But I have to put so much work into making it watchable (for me) that I’m not going to miss Dollhouse when cancellation comes.
I think one of the really interesting things about the controversy over Dollhouse has been that when people raise perfectly valid criticisms, they get silenced. That’s why I loved ABW’s post (and yours), because there’s a stress on the fact that it’s not that people “don’t get it,” it’s that they legitimately don’t like it and feel very uncomfortable. Not necessarily with the premise, but with the execution.
You really hit the nail on the head here when talking about how much work you have to put into the enjoyment of the show. If only the show’s ardent defenders would put a smidgin of work into examining the critiques…
More often than not, we get a Dolls’ eye view of events. That’s a choice that the producers are making, and it’s not the one that’s going to make most feminists go “ooh, subtlety.” It’s going to make most of us go I don’t have time for this. I can do the intellectual work and provide the subtlety, but I’m doing the work. It’s hardly ever on screen, even in coded form. The irony of Dollhouse, at least for me, is that as viewers we’re being asked to work there too.
Bingo.
It’s frustrating for me, as a feminist, that it’s also making WOMEN do even more of the work outside the show. It first puts us in a position of trusting that rape and human trafficking is not going to be simply exploited. We are the ones who are more likely to not enjoy the show because of the way the premise is handled, but it doesn’t even give us so much as a female hero to identify with (a sort of character “safe space”) as Anna noted over on Angry Black Woman’s post.
For whatever reason, I don’t find it to be work to watch Dollhouse, but I agree that it’s not really succeeding as a story. Here we are, ten episodes in, and we still know almost nothing about the main characters, some because they have no consistent personality (the dolls), some because… we’re supposed to be tantalized by the mystery? (Ballard, Boyd, Dewitt) Whatever the reason, it’s gone on too long now. We should have gotten something to make up for the fundamental ickiness of the Dollhouse — someone to root for, some sign of hope, or even a shift into a more fully dystopian story. Instead we’ve gotten a series of little thought experiments about human psychology, some of which I quite liked, but which don’t really add up to anything.
In short, there is too much meta and not enough fiction.
Zahra on
April 30, 2009 3:14 pm
I liked this piece. Could someone say more, though, about what’s problematic about having a Dolls’-eye-view of events? I usually think that using the victims’ POV is a validating one. I get that the constant erasure of the Dolls’ memories screws this up, and I get that making the viewer (particularly the female viewer) do the work and supply her own experience is very problematic…but I’m still missing something, probably because I’ve barely seen the show.
I actually don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a Dolls’-eye-view per se. In fact, there are times I really like it, and I certainly enjoy the ways it forces the actors to extend their range. I do, however, think that this POV choice provides an extra challenge for the producers in terms of finding the ongoing tone of the series (as opposed to that of individual episodes). If the POV character continuously forgets her past, the series needs to act — however subtly — as her memory. I think Boyd is supposed to serve in that capacity a little, as is Paul Ballard, but that doesn’t really help the ick factor, as both Boyd and Paul are complicit in the Dollhouse’s activities (Boyd as an employee, and Paul as an unwilling dupe via that Big Spoilerific Reveal that happened a few eps ago (“Know any of the Dollhouse’s clients?” “I know one.”)). Also, they don’t see what we do.
The camera, however, does. My point is that if it acted as the Dolls’ memory, we-the-viewers wouldn’t have to, and I think that would address a large part of the show’s ick factor. I think it would also just make for better storytelling.
“I do, however, think that this POV choice provides an extra challenge for the producers in terms of finding the ongoing tone of the series (as opposed to that of individual episodes)” … agreed.
“And then I got it. And when I got it, I was embarrassed that it took me so long to get it.
Dollhouse is meta-fiction. The whole show, and I mean the whole show, is commentary. It’s not about guys with a brain washing machine who can make someone behave how they want. It’s about what it means that guys with a brain washing machine use that device to satisfy shallow, mostly sexual, fantasies.
And the commentary doesn’t extend just to the device of the show. Whedon is reflecting on what it means to have a television show. The brain washing device is an analog for television that’s as old as the medium. Give someone a chance to build a whole program full of new characters and what will they make? Mostly characters that are a reflection of their creators or which define some “dream girl / dream boy” who meets their needs and has no internal demands. Easy sex, eye candy, and no commitments. Tune in next week.”
Skyweir on
May 10, 2009 9:35 am
I find it a bit sad that so many people seem to need
a “safe spot”.
Watching and reading stuff that makes you uncomfertable broadens the mind. Not only that, but if you always need someone to “identify” with, or to cheer for, you will miss out on a quite a few excellent works of fiction.
Dollhouse might not be perfect, but at least it talks about things that makes people uncomferable. Rape, trafficing, the idea of free will (or not), the nature of consciousness. These are themes that should be shown and talked about, not silenced because some people dislike the “tone” or medium in which it is done. Respect for touchy subjects should not curtail a broad depcition of said subject, or else we will forever be force to preach to the choir of people that have an “intrest” in the subject matter.
If you do not put in any work when reading or watching, you might as well not bother.
Skyweir on
May 10, 2009 9:38 am
Also, I cannot spell, or so it seems :P
To early, not enough coffee, is my only defense.
I think all women have a right to expect shows not bombard us with sexism and exploitative use of rape. Not because shows shouldn’t deal with sexism, rape, human trafficking, etc. But when a show is actually sexist and exploitative in doing so I am not just too sensitive when I say that is offensive.
I think it’s disgusting that anyone would suggest that things like rape and consent are up for debate.
Aren’t we just so enlightened that we can discuss these things in hypotheticals and high minded philosophical debates as if no one is actually affected.
It is very interesting to me that when all of these blogs bring up rape (and I don’t disagree on the point) the only characters discussed are the women. The men have sexual assignments, too. Do we not also consider those to be rape? What does it say about the various commentary (and I’m reading A LOT of it) that I have to dig like crazy to find even one reference to male rape?
In general, the problematic aspects of the show with regards to rape have all been centered around the female actives, so of course that’s going to be discussed more. I haven’t seen anyone who calls what happens to the actives rape suggest that what happens to the male actives is not also rape. But there hasn’t been much in the show to discuss with regards to the male actives and how their jobs involving sex are portrayed.
The problem with the show is largely in how it glamorizes, over and over again, portrayal of the rape of a woman, to such an extent that many are arguing that it isn’t rape at all, in addition to sexualizing the female actives in situations that don’t call for it. In the end, it is exploitive of women, not really of men.
[...] Working in the Dollhouse, from Feminist SF – The Blog! The continuing narrative thread is human trafficking. But in order for that narrative thread to resonate even when it’s not the explicit theme of that week’s story, the camera has to serve as the narrator. IT has to do the work. It has to make us feel what the Dolls can’t. It has to make us remember what they don’t. It has to tempt us and disturb us, to capture aspects of performance that the glossy fast-cutting versions we’ve been seeing of the Dolls’ assignments elide. [...]
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
[...] posted a new blog over at Feminist SF. Dollhouse requires a lot of work to enjoy. So far, it hasn’t required more work than [...]
I very much agree with what you’ve said here, and with what Angry Black Woman says in her insightful post. There are small parts of Dollhouse that engage with the premise, but if the camera is engaging the writing is not; if the writing is engaging, the camera is titillating. The wardrobe is a big problem, for me – when the Actives are dressed up for someone’s fantasy, that’s fine. When they’re breaking into the CIA, doing hostage negotiation or diagnosing a disease outbreak, WTF is with the fetish wear? Especially the shoes.
It could be a good show – there is no reason why any part of it should not be made. I’m very interested in Echo, Sierra and November and what happens to them. But I have to put so much work into making it watchable (for me) that I’m not going to miss Dollhouse when cancellation comes.
[...] Amazing post on FeministSF about this topic. Shannan makes the point that Dollhouse expects the viewer to do some pretty heavy [...]
I think one of the really interesting things about the controversy over Dollhouse has been that when people raise perfectly valid criticisms, they get silenced. That’s why I loved ABW’s post (and yours), because there’s a stress on the fact that it’s not that people “don’t get it,” it’s that they legitimately don’t like it and feel very uncomfortable. Not necessarily with the premise, but with the execution.
You really hit the nail on the head here when talking about how much work you have to put into the enjoyment of the show. If only the show’s ardent defenders would put a smidgin of work into examining the critiques…
More often than not, we get a Dolls’ eye view of events. That’s a choice that the producers are making, and it’s not the one that’s going to make most feminists go “ooh, subtlety.” It’s going to make most of us go I don’t have time for this. I can do the intellectual work and provide the subtlety, but I’m doing the work. It’s hardly ever on screen, even in coded form. The irony of Dollhouse, at least for me, is that as viewers we’re being asked to work there too.
Bingo.
It’s frustrating for me, as a feminist, that it’s also making WOMEN do even more of the work outside the show. It first puts us in a position of trusting that rape and human trafficking is not going to be simply exploited. We are the ones who are more likely to not enjoy the show because of the way the premise is handled, but it doesn’t even give us so much as a female hero to identify with (a sort of character “safe space”) as Anna noted over on Angry Black Woman’s post.
For whatever reason, I don’t find it to be work to watch Dollhouse, but I agree that it’s not really succeeding as a story. Here we are, ten episodes in, and we still know almost nothing about the main characters, some because they have no consistent personality (the dolls), some because… we’re supposed to be tantalized by the mystery? (Ballard, Boyd, Dewitt) Whatever the reason, it’s gone on too long now. We should have gotten something to make up for the fundamental ickiness of the Dollhouse — someone to root for, some sign of hope, or even a shift into a more fully dystopian story. Instead we’ve gotten a series of little thought experiments about human psychology, some of which I quite liked, but which don’t really add up to anything.
In short, there is too much meta and not enough fiction.
I liked this piece. Could someone say more, though, about what’s problematic about having a Dolls’-eye-view of events? I usually think that using the victims’ POV is a validating one. I get that the constant erasure of the Dolls’ memories screws this up, and I get that making the viewer (particularly the female viewer) do the work and supply her own experience is very problematic…but I’m still missing something, probably because I’ve barely seen the show.
I actually don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a Dolls’-eye-view per se. In fact, there are times I really like it, and I certainly enjoy the ways it forces the actors to extend their range. I do, however, think that this POV choice provides an extra challenge for the producers in terms of finding the ongoing tone of the series (as opposed to that of individual episodes). If the POV character continuously forgets her past, the series needs to act — however subtly — as her memory. I think Boyd is supposed to serve in that capacity a little, as is Paul Ballard, but that doesn’t really help the ick factor, as both Boyd and Paul are complicit in the Dollhouse’s activities (Boyd as an employee, and Paul as an unwilling dupe via that Big Spoilerific Reveal that happened a few eps ago (“Know any of the Dollhouse’s clients?” “I know one.”)). Also, they don’t see what we do.
The camera, however, does. My point is that if it acted as the Dolls’ memory, we-the-viewers wouldn’t have to, and I think that would address a large part of the show’s ick factor. I think it would also just make for better storytelling.
“In short, there is too much meta and not enough fiction.”
Agreed.
“I do, however, think that this POV choice provides an extra challenge for the producers in terms of finding the ongoing tone of the series (as opposed to that of individual episodes)” … agreed.
Right now its basically a riff on Quantum Leap.
Yup. Good points, all, and thanks for linking to the video.
(Except — Enver Gjokaj and Harry Lennix, so far, have WOWED me with their range.)
This sums up my feelings about the show pretty much perfectly.
Here’s what someone who isn’t a member of fandom believes is the key to Dollhouse — his gig is political, economic and social commentary and investigation.
“And then I got it. And when I got it, I was embarrassed that it took me so long to get it.
Dollhouse is meta-fiction. The whole show, and I mean the whole show, is commentary. It’s not about guys with a brain washing machine who can make someone behave how they want. It’s about what it means that guys with a brain washing machine use that device to satisfy shallow, mostly sexual, fantasies.
And the commentary doesn’t extend just to the device of the show. Whedon is reflecting on what it means to have a television show. The brain washing device is an analog for television that’s as old as the medium. Give someone a chance to build a whole program full of new characters and what will they make? Mostly characters that are a reflection of their creators or which define some “dream girl / dream boy” who meets their needs and has no internal demands. Easy sex, eye candy, and no commitments. Tune in next week.”
I find it a bit sad that so many people seem to need
a “safe spot”.
Watching and reading stuff that makes you uncomfertable broadens the mind. Not only that, but if you always need someone to “identify” with, or to cheer for, you will miss out on a quite a few excellent works of fiction.
Dollhouse might not be perfect, but at least it talks about things that makes people uncomferable. Rape, trafficing, the idea of free will (or not), the nature of consciousness. These are themes that should be shown and talked about, not silenced because some people dislike the “tone” or medium in which it is done. Respect for touchy subjects should not curtail a broad depcition of said subject, or else we will forever be force to preach to the choir of people that have an “intrest” in the subject matter.
If you do not put in any work when reading or watching, you might as well not bother.
Also, I cannot spell, or so it seems :P
To early, not enough coffee, is my only defense.
I think all women have a right to expect shows not bombard us with sexism and exploitative use of rape. Not because shows shouldn’t deal with sexism, rape, human trafficking, etc. But when a show is actually sexist and exploitative in doing so I am not just too sensitive when I say that is offensive.
I think it’s disgusting that anyone would suggest that things like rape and consent are up for debate.
Manual trackback: On not watching Dollhouse
@ Astraea, or – the mind boggles – “torture”.
Toby, good point. ugh.
Aren’t we just so enlightened that we can discuss these things in hypotheticals and high minded philosophical debates as if no one is actually affected.
/snark
[...] Source:Working in the Dollhouse [...]
It is very interesting to me that when all of these blogs bring up rape (and I don’t disagree on the point) the only characters discussed are the women. The men have sexual assignments, too. Do we not also consider those to be rape? What does it say about the various commentary (and I’m reading A LOT of it) that I have to dig like crazy to find even one reference to male rape?
In general, the problematic aspects of the show with regards to rape have all been centered around the female actives, so of course that’s going to be discussed more. I haven’t seen anyone who calls what happens to the actives rape suggest that what happens to the male actives is not also rape. But there hasn’t been much in the show to discuss with regards to the male actives and how their jobs involving sex are portrayed.
The problem with the show is largely in how it glamorizes, over and over again, portrayal of the rape of a woman, to such an extent that many are arguing that it isn’t rape at all, in addition to sexualizing the female actives in situations that don’t call for it. In the end, it is exploitive of women, not really of men.
[...] Working in the Dollhouse, from Feminist SF – The Blog! The continuing narrative thread is human trafficking. But in order for that narrative thread to resonate even when it’s not the explicit theme of that week’s story, the camera has to serve as the narrator. IT has to do the work. It has to make us feel what the Dolls can’t. It has to make us remember what they don’t. It has to tempt us and disturb us, to capture aspects of performance that the glossy fast-cutting versions we’ve been seeing of the Dolls’ assignments elide. [...]