An exploration of why I don't like Dollhouse:
Here are some quotes from, and links to, articles exploring why I don't like Dollhouse.
This is a good place to start. It's written by someone who very much likes Dollhouse, and thinks that people who don't are tasteless philistines. But it's actually a pretty good argument.
http://waxbanks.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/why-you-dont-like-dollhouse.html
The argument, in brief: You don't like Dollhouse because Dollhouse is an unlikeable show. Intentionally. The characters do evil, or are mindless victims whose triumphs over victimhood are immediately wiped from their memory so that progress is never made. This is inherently unlikeable.
The part of the argument that I disagree with this is that this is brilliant, subversive storytelling. The reason I disagree is clearly, if occasionally clumsily, summed up in this blog post, using the character of Topher, the amoral genius who programs the Dolls, as an illustrative example:
http://selfportraitas.com/archives/2009/04/reasons_dollhou_1.html
The argument: Topher is not just amoral (and somewhat unlikeable) but kind of cute. He's a deranged sociopathic rapist. The show is not just "unlikeable;" it's morally devoid, misogynistic, and exploitative.
A quote from this blogger that sums up my exact reaction to the show:
"I fucking HATE this show. Watching it leaves me shaken and nauseated, not in some "Oh, Joss is so edgy and provocative" way, but in an "this is violent, aggressive misogynist bullshit" way."
One of her blog posts explaining this in full:
http://selfportraitas.com/archives/2009/04/free_speech_bad.html
The key quotes from this:
Joss is "using the fact that violence against women existed as an excuse to depict more of it."
"In other words, I might have to respect, on both legal and logical grounds, a person's right to produce images depicting the profound degradation, exploitation and torment of women, even if such images make me feel nauseated and violated. But don't expect me to believe that you're significantly different if you're also producing similar images, even if you argue that your agenda is to call attention to the fact that such images are being created in the first place--as if any of us didn't really realize that already, except for people who don't WANT to know. You're still offering as entertainment images of women being sexually exploited. You're still offering as entertainment images of women in fear for their lives. Instead of offering solutions to the problem you claim you're exploring, you've become part of it."
My own personal note- this feels like an exceptional betrayal on Joss's part because he has spoken up against just this sort of storytelling, in a rant that among other things, criticizes the advent of the American "torture-porn" genre. Really, Joss? Did you see that episode of Dollhouse you produced ("Belonging") that's about a, as you so eloquently criticized only a few short years ago, woman who "is beautiful, then kidnapped, inventively, repeatedly and horrifically tortured"? Can you explain to me how that episode was anything more than torture porn, anything more than an audience being titillated (and, yes, slightly disgusted, but titillated by our disgust) by a woman being repeatedly, horrifically, and violently raped? On screen? For our viewing pleasure?
You might claim, Joss, that the purpose of the episode is to explain to us that raping people is bad. As though we needed to be told. But I'm pretty sure that "Captivity," and any of the other torture-porn flicks in recent years, are also about the fact that kidnapping women and torturing them to death is bad. I don't know, maybe your actors (of no great talent) have managed to get across some slightly greater sense of ambivalence and moral grey areas. But I'm still pretty sure you just produced torture porn. Way to sell out.
This is a good place to start. It's written by someone who very much likes Dollhouse, and thinks that people who don't are tasteless philistines. But it's actually a pretty good argument.
http://waxbanks.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/why-you-dont-like-dollhouse.html
The argument, in brief: You don't like Dollhouse because Dollhouse is an unlikeable show. Intentionally. The characters do evil, or are mindless victims whose triumphs over victimhood are immediately wiped from their memory so that progress is never made. This is inherently unlikeable.
The part of the argument that I disagree with this is that this is brilliant, subversive storytelling. The reason I disagree is clearly, if occasionally clumsily, summed up in this blog post, using the character of Topher, the amoral genius who programs the Dolls, as an illustrative example:
http://selfportraitas.com/archives/2009/04/reasons_dollhou_1.html
The argument: Topher is not just amoral (and somewhat unlikeable) but kind of cute. He's a deranged sociopathic rapist. The show is not just "unlikeable;" it's morally devoid, misogynistic, and exploitative.
A quote from this blogger that sums up my exact reaction to the show:
"I fucking HATE this show. Watching it leaves me shaken and nauseated, not in some "Oh, Joss is so edgy and provocative" way, but in an "this is violent, aggressive misogynist bullshit" way."
One of her blog posts explaining this in full:
http://selfportraitas.com/archives/2009/04/free_speech_bad.html
The key quotes from this:
Joss is "using the fact that violence against women existed as an excuse to depict more of it."
"In other words, I might have to respect, on both legal and logical grounds, a person's right to produce images depicting the profound degradation, exploitation and torment of women, even if such images make me feel nauseated and violated. But don't expect me to believe that you're significantly different if you're also producing similar images, even if you argue that your agenda is to call attention to the fact that such images are being created in the first place--as if any of us didn't really realize that already, except for people who don't WANT to know. You're still offering as entertainment images of women being sexually exploited. You're still offering as entertainment images of women in fear for their lives. Instead of offering solutions to the problem you claim you're exploring, you've become part of it."
My own personal note- this feels like an exceptional betrayal on Joss's part because he has spoken up against just this sort of storytelling, in a rant that among other things, criticizes the advent of the American "torture-porn" genre. Really, Joss? Did you see that episode of Dollhouse you produced ("Belonging") that's about a, as you so eloquently criticized only a few short years ago, woman who "is beautiful, then kidnapped, inventively, repeatedly and horrifically tortured"? Can you explain to me how that episode was anything more than torture porn, anything more than an audience being titillated (and, yes, slightly disgusted, but titillated by our disgust) by a woman being repeatedly, horrifically, and violently raped? On screen? For our viewing pleasure?
You might claim, Joss, that the purpose of the episode is to explain to us that raping people is bad. As though we needed to be told. But I'm pretty sure that "Captivity," and any of the other torture-porn flicks in recent years, are also about the fact that kidnapping women and torturing them to death is bad. I don't know, maybe your actors (of no great talent) have managed to get across some slightly greater sense of ambivalence and moral grey areas. But I'm still pretty sure you just produced torture porn. Way to sell out.