|
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 |
|
|
By John Keegan
Visit Critical Myth for an archive of John's TV Review archives, with more than 1100 entries.
| The latest production from Joss Whedon has been the victim of enormous interference and second guessing, almost from the moment the project was announced. I don't need to get into the specifics; the details have been hashed and rehashed for months. Whedon fans know that the original pilot was completely scrapped and this new premiere episode was produced in its place at network behest.
Yet, strangely enough, a great deal of negativity has been leveled at Whedon for not producing the perfect debut episode. Let’s be honest; this was a fairly average episode, and it’s hard to tell whether or not the series will develop into something strong enough to survive just from the first hour. More to the point, it may not be something Whedon’s fans are willing to accept on faith.
I have little to say about this premiere in terms of plot; it felt rather self-evident. There’s the Dollhouse, an illegal operation wherein young and pretty people with troubled pasts have their minds wiped and reprogrammed to serve whatever function a client wants. An FBI agent is trying to find the Dollhouse and shut it down, while a former “active” is threatening to expose the operation. Meanwhile, the story focuses on “Echo” and her story, both in terms of her role in “engagements” and, presumably, her intersection with the FBI and “Alpha”.
It’s no great stretch to say that the nature of the Dollhouse is deeply offensive and morally indefensible. It goes without saying that the “actives” will be used by many clients as tailored sex toys, and it doesn’t take long to see how much worse the reality could get. There’s no question of agency here; those in charge of the Dollhouse are complicit in rape, murder, and countless other immoral acts.
What is equally clear, at least from the pilot, is that Whedon is not presenting the Dollhouse as a good thing. He’s not shying away from the fact that the Dollhouse is a criminal enterprise, and that the handlers, doctors, and administrators are all engaging in several levels of self-denial and rationalization. They know what they’re doing is beyond wrong, but they fool themselves into thinking that what they do serves a necessary function.
Frankly, I’m not surprised that this concept was born out of the writers’ strike, when writers and actors alike were discussing and resisting the demeaning treatment by production companies. As many might remember, Whedon was one of the most outspoken supporters of the strike. One issue was the right to be compensated fairly for one’s own work and the retention of rights to one’s work under new and unforeseen “new media” outlets.
It’s not hard to see the parallels here. Replace the “actives” with the pretty little actors and actresses like Eliza Dushku, the brilliant but conflicted programmer with writers like Joss Whedon, and the handlers and administrators with production studio personnel, and the subtext becomes text. The message is so lacking in subtlety that it’s surprising that FOX even let the show on the air.
But the message may be intended for more than the studio heads; it might be meant for the audience itself. Whedon fans are already wondering why this new series doesn’t seem to have the same old Whedon sense of humor. They want another “Buffy”, or something along the vein of “Firefly” or “Dr. Horrible”. They want the funny. They also seem to forget that “Firefly” was never meant to be laden with so much humor; much of that came at the request of the network to “lighten things up”. “Angel” was several shades darker than “Buffy”. Joss has been trying to be more serious and mature in his storytelling for years, and this is another attempt to that end. Frankly, the concept doesn’t lend itself to Whedon’s usual wacky humor at all. If he did go down that road, it would imply that the ethical issues with the Dollhouse weren’t being taken seriously.
The “actives” feel like they’ve been designed to express Eliza Dushku’s own reflection on how an audience perceives the actor or actress. They want the actor to play their role as they want it to be played. They resist the full agency of the actress to take on whatever projects she might want. The audience wants Eliza to be sexy, run around in skimpy outfits, and be little more than a doll on a stage. The concept is taken to the extreme in this case, and the metaphor may seem a bit pretentious, but there’s something to it.
But therein lies the problem. The audience is being taken to task, on several levels, while being presented with a show that lists as its main strength the notion that its young and hot lead actress will be taking on a myriad of unexpected roles. It’s subversive to a degree, but perhaps not to the extent that Joss and Eliza would like to think. There’s no doubt that the series is supposed to make us uncomfortable, as we wonder at the ethical implications of it all. But the metaphors and subtext all ask the question: aren’t we, as the viewing audience, ready and willing to treat our performers the same way? (Take one look at “Entertainment Tonight” and “The Insider” before you answer that.)
The question is whether or not this concept (and its underlying metaphors) can sustain an ongoing series. This felt like something that might have been better as a miniseries or feature film. Certainly, a series on FOX is probably the last place in the world for anything Whedon in nature. But with so many Whedon fans disappointed or dismissive of the series already, this may struggle to meet even cult status. Add to that the FOX tendency to cancel quickly and ruthlessly, and this may turn out to be the first true Whedon misstep. |
|
|
