Writing the Future

Even though I personally haven’t seen any of the Dollhouse series, I think that this episode gave a pretty good representation of what a person should expect from this series. With a little bit of Gerry’s commentary, I was able to understand the concept of the Dollhouse (kind of), a little bit about some of the main characters, and even that the operation takes place on a global scale. That said, I too called the ethics behind the Dollhouse into question. Personally, I find it morally wrong to wipe people’s brains clean and reprogram them to be characters in other people’s lives. I’m sure most do. But the thing that surprised me the most came towards the end of the episode when Mellie was activated and killed handler that was having sex with Sierra. This incident revealed 2 things to us: 1) Mellie is actually a doll, and 2) the dolls can be programmed in such a way that they can be trained killers without knowing so themselves. This second fact seems very disturbing in this world, especially because by the end of the episode, we know that dollhouses exist in other parts of the world.

While this brainwashing seemed odd and disturbing initially, the more I thought about it, the more practical it appeared. No, not the reprogramming of the brains and the bizarre command phrases, but the idea of having complete control over another human being’s actions without their full understanding of your intentions. This kind of control reminded me of a cult following or a soldier’s unconditional acceptance of his commander’s directives. Just like Adelle, the leaders of both of these groups rely on their followers to simply act without thinking to accomplish any set goals. The followers in these groups have almost no say in any decisions being made, but they are expected to do exactly what they are told, just like the dolls. Also, just like Mellie, these followers are subject to doing things that most people would consider wrong based on public opinion, and this unfortunately can be seen with some cults throughout history.

Would I say that the Dollhouse has elements resembling those of a cult and operates in a manner similar to a stereotypical secret government agency? Sure. But wouldn’t you too? Do you think that the show’s writers were making a statement about the government’s occasional acceptance of less ideal means to accomplish goals? Did it strike you as odd that the FBI initially just closed the case on the Dollhouse?

I thought it was interesting how much the interviewed “civilians” in Dollhouse differed in their opinions on whether or not the idea of a dollhouse was ethical. Some people went as far as to say it’s functionally the same thing as slave trade, while others were more of the opinion that it’s a pretty sweet deal—you get to hang out with rich people, eat for free and never work a day in your life (sort of). I have to agree, while I don’t wish we had anything like the dollhouse in reality, the job itself definitely has some perks (such as not having to work). However this comes at the cost of independence, and I’d certainly never want to trade in my memories and ability to form new ones just for an easy life. Regardless, this got me thinking—would the fact that the “dolls” agreed to take up the position (though it’s unclear if they can even do this) make the practice more ethical?

It seems reasonable to have this type of service if people choose to become a doll—it’s just a job (albeit a strange one). I’m not sure if it’s OK to consent to something like this, though. It seems in episode 6 that the dolls’ old personality and memories are all removed from their minds first thing, so that they become a new person in an old body. This subject also came up a bit in our discussions of Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom—are you the same person if you lose some or all of your memories? If in the process of becoming a doll you lose all your memories, are you still yourself? If not, can you consent for whoever’s the doll now?

I don’t know how I feel about someone agreeing to become a doll on the terms that their mind/brain/personality won’t have to experience what their body does. It’s hard to tell if becoming a doll and having dolls around is ethical—can you consent to get rid of your mind and put a new one in there, then have it work as a modern slave of sorts? Regardless, it would certainly be strange to want to lose all your memories and at least some of your personality. I wouldn’t want to lose any of my memories, even the bad ones, because each memory is part of who I am. And if you didn’t lose your “self” in the process of becoming a doll, who would want to do the things the dolls are sent to do? Maybe if you could erase the memory of the experience after it happened, but then for one thing you wouldn’t really be the same person anymore, and for another you’d be really unethical because you’d go around killing people because you can forget about it more completely and easily than most. So I think I am anti-doll on a personal level as well as ethically. Out of curiosity, would any of you be interested in becoming a doll and, if so, why?

Another possible ethical concern with the practice of having dolls in society is that they are allowing for “real” people to develop questionable ethics. If you knew that the dolls had consented to become dolls, would you feel better about using them in ways you wouldn’t “use” normal humans? I think mutual respect is something that holds society together in a way, and I’d be worried about how having dolls around would break that understanding.

It’s weird trying to blog Dollhouse, because, more than anything else we’ve done this semester, Dollhouse is exactly what I would have covered at my old blog. Every single day for nine months, I read pop culture feminist blogs and chitchatted about the movies and TV shows I’d seen. Nine months! That’s a baby! And trying to write about Dollhouse just sends me straight back into my-own-blog mode. So, I’m not going to fight it: you guys are getting a blogaround.

Based on the archives of my RSS reader, these are the posts on Dollhouse that made me decide not to watch the show when it first aired. They’re all feminists of various stripes picking apart what the show is doing and how well it’s doing it. They mostly date from around the 6th episode of the first season (which is the episode we watched in class), because at the time Joss Whedon and the rest of the cast were telling everybody to wait for the 6th episode before judging the show.

Please note that these are not academic essays, but chatting-about-TV conversation-starters for the feminist blogosphere “in group” — so there’s not a lot of explanation or effort at persuasion for people who aren’t already familiar with feminism, and the tone is very familiar. Also, there is cussing.

Dollhouse, Joss Whedon, and the Strange and Difficult Path of Feminist Dudes: Some Thoughts, from Tiger Beatdown.

Whedon has done a lot of shows about magically powerful women and the men who protect them (Buffy had Giles, River had Simon and Mal), which is sweet – hey, at least they aren’t actively seeking to take power away from those women – but also paternalistic and troubling, and in Dollhouse he seems to know and specifically address just how creepy it is.

…

Because then, there’s Topher, the programmer, who is responsible for constructing the artificial personalities and implanting them in the dolls, who is a dorky blonde guy just like Whedon and who speaks in distinctly Whedonian cadences and lines, and who we are encouraged to dislike more than almost anyone else in the series. What you hear, when you hear Topher speaking about how difficult it is to construct a believable personality … is noted feminist auteur Joss Whedon reflecting, very consciously and very obviously, on his life’s work – hiring gorgeous women and making them into who he wants them to be – and saying that sometimes, he feels kind of icky about it. It’s a beautiful thing: brave, and self-questioning, and radical in a way that entertainment by dudes – even entertainment by dudes who identify as feminist – very rarely is, and in a way I trust more than I’m used to trusting my entertainment, and in a way that I’ve come to expect from the show as a whole.

—

Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse: Srsly?, from The Pursuit of Harpyness

You see where I’m going with this, readers. Echo is what we over here at the No-Fun-According-to-Feminism committee would call raped, repeatedly and onscreen, under the roofie-like guise of having been implanted with a personality that wants the sex. We can talk about layers of consent here, I guess, but I don’t particularly want to, mostly because I’m sort of grossed out that Echo’s “owners” – who, by the by, monitor her every interaction with the outside world – are apparently totally comfortable with this.

—

Regarding Dollhouse, from The Pursuit of Harpyness.

Unfortunately for all of us on that score, Joss does not appear to have any particular philosophical commitments when it comes to the question of prostitution.

This became clear to me when the show began emphasizing the (pretty clear, because nobody was paying) sexual abuse of one of the Actives, Sierra (Dichen Lachman).  … The problem with distinguishing Sierra as an “abuse victim” this way is that it implies that what happens to the other Actives when they are on a mission is “different,” and certainly, in the way the show frames it, less objectionable.  There’s an element here of “well if she doesn’t know she’s having sex, and she’s having an orgasm, that’s marginally more okay!”  Which is a pretty fucked up way to characterize the premise of the show, IMHO.

Again, this would all be made easier if somewhere, anywhere in a Dollhouse episode somebody sat down and tried to sort through the show’s extremely confused notions about consent and its implications.

—

How Not to Play with Dolls: a Look at Whedon’s Dollhouse, from The Hathor Legacy.

While Whedon’s feminism always seemed of an easy kind, a pop-feminism satisfied with transposing stereotypical masculine warrior traits onto women, he nonetheless passes the Bechdel-Wallace test with admirable consistency. … In fact, Whedon is aware of the jagged ground he’s threading on and a case can be made that, even if it hasn’t yet lived up to it’s ambition, Dollhouse ultimate sets up a misogynistic scenario with the aim of taking it apart. (When NPR interviewer Jacki Lyden asked Whedon to explain how Dollhouse isn’t a misogynistic fantasy, Whedon replied “I won’t necessarily say that it isn’t that. The fact of the matter is that, in the wrong hands, it is a completely misogynist thing, except it’s happening to men as well – but what we’re trying to do is take someone’s identity away in order to discuss the concept of her identity.”)

Whether Dollhouse can live up to its aspirations of heavy “deconstruction” is, at least at this point, doubtful.

—

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.

And it’s not doing any of that.

—

My own opinion: it’s a great set-up to talk about society. There’s nothing wrong with telling a story about human trafficking, prostitution, and rape. But if you don’t tell it well, it’s not a critique anymore.

In the 6th episode — the one we watched — a lot of things bothered me that weren’t a product of the writing, but of the filming. To me, it’s fairly clear that when Caroline is programmed to have sex with someone, that’s rape. “Rebecca” consented to have sex, but “Rebecca” isn’t real; the body belongs to Caroline, who is essentially unconscious and has certainly not consented. So, it made me uncomfortable when Sierra’s rape (and Mellie’s attempted rape/murder) was juxtaposed with Caroline’s rape in such a way as to suggest that Caroline’s rape was somehow not problematic. Sure, the FBI investigator points out pretty clearly that the client doesn’t just want to make “Rebecca” smile, that there’s sex too– but the final shot, in which Caroline returns to “finish,” totally overlooks the sex aspect. We see smiling faces, sunshine, and cuddles– we don’t see the client raping Caroline. It should be a creepy scene, but it’s not; it’s downright cheerful, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Contrast that with Mellie’s attempted rape: a hugely drawn-out, obviously violent scene. Or with Sierra’s drawn-out, obviously creepy scene. They don’t gloss over the lack of consent. Instead, they were almost gratuitous about it– especially Mellie’s assault. So, the filmmakers obviously know how to make a scene creepy and uncomfortable– they just chose not to do it for Caroline and her client.

I just that, as executed, the potential for interesting critique has been squandered, and the show actually embodies the problems it claims to deconstruct. But I also think that I’m coming from a fairly specific perspective, with a unique background on the show because I read so much about it when it was airing.

I’m going to close with another link, to a fanvid that really highlights why I’m just so uncomfortable with the show: “It Depends On What You Pay.” (If you only click on one of my links, make it this one!)

What do you guys think? Are there any of the posts that you find you agree with, or disagree with? Or any that at least made you think? And what about the music video? Does it affect how you view the events of the show?