A Series of Questions, And Answers

I'm stealing this idea from Fourth Wave, because I liked it. Like Aviva, I answered the questions on the website itself, but my answers were ridiculously long so I brought them here. The first set of numbered questions come from Jaclyn from Bitch Ph.D., and the second set of lettered questions come from Aviva of Fourth Wave. The questions from the Jaclyn are italicized, and the ones from Aviva are bolded, just to make things that much more complicated.

1) Did you watch? What did you think?
I liked it; I have hope that the good/great parts will continue, and that what I see as the philosophical thread carrying over from his previous works continue to be, well, carried over. The pilot gave me a lot of hope and a lot of food for thought.

2) Were you as psyched as I was to see that Mutant Enemy tag at the end?
Hells yeah.

3) How did you feel about Eliza D as Faith in Buffy? How have you felt about everything she's done since Buffy? What did you think about her performance as Echo?

I hated the character of Faith. Madeline Kahn in Clue, "flames on the sides of my face" hate. Plus, I've never seen the range or talent. Which may be partially because I don't see the infamous chemistry with everything and everyone.

ADDED FOR HERE (cuz there's stuff I forget to say): I haven't actually seen Eliza in anything post-Buffy except for Bring It On (don't judge - too harshly), and there I wasn't impressed. I also wasn't highly impressed with Echo, but am hoping that changes.

4) Why the hell did Joss agree to work with Fox again? Or ever?
(Because I'm a Whedonite): Joss wrote the show to highlight Eliza Dushku's (questionable, for me) acting talents and range. Because Eliza is contracted to work for Fox, Fox is where he would have to go to make the show. And he sort of compromised in the whole "oh, it's run by different people now", and that may be why he agreed to work with Fox again. But the reason I've heard as the catalyst for why Fox is to work with Eliza.

5) Um... are there still no people of color who want good roles in Hollywood? It's a real problem, isn't it? How on earth can we fix it, so that all the producers and directors aren't forced to only cast white people all the time? (Yes, there's Harry Lennix as Echo's handler, but a) that just makes him the token and b) Driving Miss Daisy, anyone?)

I have no idea. I think this is a definite area where Whedon falls down on the job, and then down some stairs.

ADDED FOR HERE (cuz, again, I forget stuff): Although there are still a dominance of white actors on the show, I do think Whedon did slightly better this time around by casting Dichen Lachman, a woman of Tibetan-Australian descent, as one of the other Actives to be highlighted and Tahmoh Penikett, who is part Native-Canadian (or rather, part of the White River First Nation) as the FBI agent. Not great, but better.

6) Ditto fat people, people with physical disabilities, people who aren't freakishly pretty, etc.?

Same as 5, minus the stuff about Tahmoh and Dichen.

7) Did they really have to start with the girl-is-broken-due-to-sex-abuse-and-requires-the-intervention-of-a-kind-man-to-seek-redemption plotline? Why is that never the secret weak spot for male action stars, huh?
While I would love it if a woman could be strong and capable and want to achieve something without having been scarred in the past making it logical or acceptable in a way men never need, the plot didn't bother me personally in this instance - partially because I saw it as a continuation of the idea of using people as objects. The man who called himself a "ghost" was treating the young girls as objects, the guy who was trying to get his daughter back was content to use Echo-as-Eleanor as an object, and while the person who made up Eleanor was destroyed by it because she "couldn't get away from him", Echo/Eleanor are destroyed because everything is taken away from them. I expect that this theme will become stronger (or at least, I hope it does) based on the fact that it was a key component of BtVS and River's story (and the crew's) in Firefly/Serenity. All that being said, I think there had to be a better way of going about it, because just because its Whedon and it fits the theme doesn't mean that it doesn't still fit a larger problematic narrative that women can't be successful and can't be driven unless they have been in some way broken or damaged. I don't know whether or not to give Whedon half a pass because he prefers to have all of his characters in some way broken or damaged.

8) If Person A is desperate and out of options, and is coerced into fully giving up her agency and identity, and if, after making that one decision, Person A no longer has any meaningful ability to consent to anything, nor does she have the ability to withdraw her consent from the original agreement -- under those circumstances, if Person C pays Person B money to have sex with Person A, is that really prostitution, as Joss and Eliza have said it is? Or is that sexual slavery?

Slavery. My thing is that the slavery on Dollhouse is not just sexual. Eleanor didn't do anything sexual with Gabriel, and still her part in the whole operation was not on the up and up and Echo/Caroline are still enslaved. Same thing if she has to break in somewhere. The persona embodying Echo may think that this was her idea, but it still is (theoretically) not something Echo/Caroline would do, and the owners of the Dollhouse are still using her body for their own purposes. I find that horrific, whether it is sexual or not.

9) Can someone tell me that Joss is going somewhere good with this? I want to believe...

I think so. I think he is converging on a couple of different themes here, including his ever present (or at least, to me ever present) idea that the greater good cannot be achieved through nefarious means; that a world or a government is not of greater worth than its individual citizens, and that as soon as you begin disregarding the sanctity of human autonomy and human life, you lose. He did it with Angel in season 2, he did it with the Operative in Serenity, he did it with Dr. Horrible in that work, and he did it (kind of backwards, in that Buffy rejected that premise outright) in BtVS' season 5 finale The Gift.

I also think, in conjunction to that, he is examining his theme of "women treated as objects". It fits into the above, but it is a subset theme of that with a feminist bent where he seems to show how society devalues women and uses them - or allows them to be used - and then has those women claim their autonomy back. The Slayer was considered nothing more than an object to be used for the greater good in BtVS, and River was considered an object to be used for the greater good in Firefly/Serenity, and Echo and Sierra seem to embody that same space. And I think through that creation, Whedon is both commenting how women are more likely, given our culture, to be treated as objects and highlighting how wrong that is. At least, that is where I think he's going with this.

And now for Aviva's:

a) Can a disturbing premise be mitigated by the subjugated character developing agency and control over her oppressors? If so, to what degree? Does she need to escape? Seek retribution? Take over?
I think a disturbing premise can be mitigated if it means to be disturbing, and means to address that which makes it disturbing. By that I mean a misogynistic work is different than a work that examines misogyny in our culture. I think that Dollhouse is of the latter category rather than the former, especially since they were (heavy handedly) discussing 'regular' human trafficking as well as being an evil that needs to be stopped. I think the show already wants its viewers to equate the two.

That being said, I think one of the ways Dollhouse will explore that disturbing premise is by having Echo fight for and achieve agency, much in the way other characters of Whedon's have done. I don't know if she should gain control over her oppressors. Rather, I think that would just create a second inverted power system - and I think that may be where they're going with that creepy guy at the end, the one who was mailing a picture of Caroline to Paul Ballard. Taking over will still basically be working within the system. What I think needs to happen is for the system to be dismantled, and for those who were working toward the 'greater good' by violated the autonomy of those involved to be punished.

And I do think she needs to escape. She needs to not be rescued by Paul or a conscience-plagued Boyd. She needs to do it, herself, for herself. She needs to take back her own control.

b) How long can a show like Dollhouse continue on with this same "she can be anything you want her to be" shtick before something has to give?
I'm going to go with a while. ...I don't need to fall in love with Echo; I can root for her without her developing a personality, because I believe that what happened to her was a violation and because I believe her lacking any distinctive personality does not mitigate the awfulness of what her situation is. Also, I think that as long as the other characters - good and evil and amoral - become more developed, Echo's development can be slower. If they give me something meaty with Boyd and Paul and Adelle and Topher and Claire, I should be okay. I especially think Boyd is important here, though, because his concern for Echo's welfare - even if it is only within the confines of the established Handler-Active relationship 'allowed' within The Dollhouse - allows the audience emotional access to a character that basically has none - until she begins to develop one.

c) Is it possible to maintain narrative interest if Echo escapes or if Dollhouse (the place, not the show) is shut down? If so, how? If not, then doesn't the continued need for the Dollhouse as an element of narrative interest necessitate the continued exploitation of the "actives" for our viewing pleasure?
I think if Echo escapes, the narrative interest could remain in her trying to figure out who she was and if she can get back to that person - and if she even wants to. I doubt Dollhouse will truly be shut down until the ending season (whether or not Joss Whedon gets a full run is a toss up, and I'm going with a big "no"), but even if it does, I think Whedon can take the show in the direction of where the Actives can go, who they are, and exploring the Dollhouse from the perspective of its consequences on its Actives and what the void it left is filled with.

If The Dollhouse is not shut down until the end, then I think continued exploitation for the dolls on the inside will be necessary for maintaining its evilness - and I think the show has to exist on a razor's edge to maintain that feeling of "this isn't alright" and moving the recognition of that forward while utilizing the flexibility of the wiped for stories. I'm not a writer, so I don't know if that is truly possible. But then again, maybe there won't be on-screen exploitation. Maybe after a certain point, the emphasis will be on who Echo is outside The Dollhouse and her efforts to shut it down. This is the one that I honestly on which I waffle the most.

A Post In Which I Review "Ghost", and Dollhouse

Dollhouse has the worst theme. Ever. Well, possibly not ever. The theme for 7th Heaven wasn't exactly winner material. But it is pretty damn bad. Out of my Whedon themes, it comes in dead last, so far down that it hasn't even managed to cross the line yet (my theme list, in case you're interested, goes Buffy, Firefly, and then Angel; there used to be more of a gap between Firefly and Angel, but Dollhouse has made the Angel theme all the more endearing to me). This really has little to do with the actual show, but it is a weakness.

Overall, I thought that the first episode Dollhouse was good. "Ghost" suffers from many of the same problems that plague other pilots in that it did not feel as though it had completely gelled yet. It also didn't feel like classic Whedon writing, but there was enough signature lines and enough of the Whedon humor that I was unbothered. After all, Firefly has a whole different vernacular and verbal style than Buffy the Vampire Slayer; and although I like BtVS' verbosity better for day to day quotage and it can consistently give me a writing high (it also highly influenced my own vocab, sadly enough), Firefly's distinctive style was seamless in terms of what it was representing in-show. And with lines like:

"Stroke of midnight."

"Midnight?"

"End of the ball."

"Dude, it- it's like, 5."

And:

"Something fell on me."

"I bet it was something great."

And:

"Make sure the ladies at my table have everything they need, huh? The champagne never stops flowing - the good stuff. (pause) The first few bottles, the good stuff. After that, the house is fine."

And:

"Find out who's connected to the Dollhouse, the Borodin family won't be touched, and you'll never see me again."

"I haven't seen you yet."

I'm not worried about the writing having its very own style that fits with Whedon's overall idiosyncratic personality.

Likewise, I'm not worried that the characters we have been introduced to did not, as a whole, have glaringly obvious and distinctive personalities and reasons as of yet. This is a new show, and part of its purpose is an examination of identity. I'm not surprised that we don't know Topher or Boyd or Adelle or Paul as well as we knew Buffy and Willow and Xander and Mal and Inara and Kaylee yet. What we have been shown is intriguing.

That being said, there are some weak points to the show, and unfortunately, one of them is Eliza Dushku. There was too much Faith in her opening characterization, when she looked bedraggled and was being consigned into Dollhouse service. There was too much Faith in her first motorcycle-riding, fun-dancing, sexy-rope-using persona. There was too little oomph in some of her other scenes. Part of my problem stems from the fact that I've never been all that impressed with Eliza Dushku's acting, and although I've been told many times that she could create chemistry with a log I've never been one to see it. I have to hope she gets slightly better at speaking zombie post-wipe Echo lines, because right now it is slightly painful for me. There were also some poor plot points. I had to wonder, during Sierra's initial wipe, why Topher or Adelle (or anyone, for that matter) would house that particular room in that particular location, where the ensuing light show would be (and was) more than visible to anyone down below. And if they had decided that location was the best for that room for X,Y or Z reasons, why no one would think it important to lock the door. Echo wandering in (along with the cringe-worthy "She hurts") was something that induced heavy eye-rolling. Another blinking red light moment for me was during Eleanor Penn's 'treatment'. There was no real reason given for why Topher decided to not wipe her, unless I missed it completely.

And yet, the list of things right with this show far outweighs those two points right now - and given that the show focuses on Eliza, that is saying something. Every other actor is phenomenal. Fran Kranz makes Topher human, unlike Adam Busch's evil Warren and Tom Lenk's amoral Andrew (he is too unlike Jayne at the moment for those two amoralities to be adequately compared). Kranz's reactions to Echo and Boyd, his thoughtful articulations of what Dollhouse is and what a person is made up of, is incredibly engaging. He is amoral, and I suspect he is crafted to be seen as amoral; but even with that knowledge, Whedon has taken the trick he employed most effectively in Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog and made Topher someone the audience can connect with even as they are (potentially) disturbed by that bit of enjoyment and understanding. Harry Lennix as Boyd is another perfect fit. One of the complaints I've read about the show is that if Echo is almost wholly without her own personality, the audience is left unable to connect to her. Lennix's Boyd provides the easy answer; we are connected to Echo's story because Boyd is connected to and concerned about Echo. Even if we cannot fully recognize who Echo is due to Echo herself not being privy to that information, we can connect to Boyd's empathy for her, and his own attachment to her. Olivia Williams is yet another bit of inspired casting. I want to know what makes her tick, why she believes Dollhouse is a force of good.

The parts of the show itself that are good are fantastic; the entire premise of the Actives on engagement creates a strange sense of vertigo; Eleanor Penn (the persona we spend the most time with in "Ghost", the persona whose narrative is responsible for the title of the very episode) is not, conventionally, real. The experiences she draws upon to form her opinions and her own idea of who she is and how she has come to be are not, technically, her own. The years that she has spent studying psychology and forensic science, profiling from former instructors at Quantico, being licensed for seven years, handling 12 negotiations, the very things she offers up as reasons to trust her never truly happened to this one person. And yet, for her, they have and they did. That disconnect between what we normally experience as reality and Eleanor Penn's vision of reality is what creates friction between this woman who is innocently unaware of the underlying tension and the man who paid for an Active from Dollhouse. When this scene goes down:

ELEANOR PENN: You have to trust that I've done this many, many times.

GABRIEL: I have to trust that, right. Yesterday you weren't a nurse or a clown in the circus.

ELEANOR PENN: What?

GABRIEL: You're the best. The best one they could send. Why is that? What makes you so good at this?

ELEANOR PENN: I don't have any hobbies.

GABRIEL: No, no, no. You have to do better than that. You have to make me believe. Believe like you believe.

the tension inherent in the scenario where one person knows about a game being played the other is completely in the dark about creates a dynamic scene. Because Gabriel is describing the world of Dollhouse, and Eleanor isn't an Active. She doesn't know what Adelle and Topher have done to make her the best, because for her, she wasn't made. She just is. And so when Gabriel demands that she has to make him believe, like she believes, she is automatically at a loss. Because she doesn't just believe it; she has memory of living it. She knows it. And that is part of what makes the very set up of the show tragic, what we witness first hand in Eleanor Penn. She (and every other Persona) is at an immediate disadvantage, partially because she is the paid for in any of these situations, but also because she is lacking the fundamental knowledge necessary to properly interact with the people in question. And yet, she (and every other Persona) cannot have that fundamental knowledge if the house of cards is to remain standing.

What stems from that is the question of the authentic experience. One of the people who made up Eleanor Penn was sexually abused by the man Eleanor comes into contact with while trying to ensure the safe release of Gabriel's daughter. Her reactions are of someone who was truly abused; but she - at least in this way - had not been. That history never existed. Unfortunately for Eleanor, she never spoke a truer word than when she told the man that he couldn't hurt her, that you can't fight a ghost. Because that is essentially what Eleanor is, someone who lived on the world for a while, but never in it. Someone who could remember people who had never met her, or abused her. In the end, Eleanor gets the girl back, but she still doesn't win. And neither does Echo. They are both erased, used by a larger organization that cares very little about them and their authentic lives.

The show also managed to explain the functionality of the premise well. The expositiony dialogue was less jarring and boring because it was tangled up in the philosophical thoughts of Topher. When Boyd questions making Echo nearsighted, Topher manages to explain why the personas are never going to truly be Superman, and yet also manages to heighten the intrigue into his very own character. In a truly captivating bit, Topher explains the process of creating an identity as

"You see someone running incredibly fast, the first thing you gotta ask is are they running to something or are they running away from something. The answer is always both. These personality imprints, they come from scans of real people. I can create amalgams of the personalities, pieces from her or there; but it's not a greatest hits. It's a whole person. Achievement is balanced by fault, by a lack. Can't have one without the other. Everyone who excels at something is overcompensating. Running from something. Hiding from something."

Since Topher himself excels at something, and since he seems to have universalized his own experience, the question immediately becomes what is Topher running from? And yet, now we know more about the Actives themselves. The thing that separates Joss Whedon's sci-fi/fantasy writing from so many others is that the exposition is oftentimes just as much about the immediate story and the characters as it is about granting those of us in the viewing audience access to the necessary road maps. It very rarely actually feels as though Whedon is pointing to a Yellow Brick Road and telling us where he wants us to go and what he wants us to know. It is just a natural evolution of the 'verse itself.

Dr. Horrible DVD

Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog is available for pre-order, to be released on December 19. The run time is listed at 100 minutes, meaning tons of extras! YAY! I've been jokingly telling my friends and family that they're all getting clothing from The Gap this Christmas, due to my getting cash back if I order through E-Bates and the fact that my Gap Card gives me gift certificates. But now, they will be getting Gap sweaters and Dr. Horrible! I'm not entirely sure if each of my immediate family members actually needs Dr. Horrible, but that is kind of beside the point. Right?

Join the Evil League of Evil

Joss and company are finally ready to accept video submissions to the Evil League of Evil! If you have any talent at all, I would recommend going to the website, looking at the requirements (3 minutes in length, no swearing, being an all original work) and applying.


So get out there, make the best video you can, and remember that the finalists' videos will be featured on the DVD! Oh joy! Oh, rapture!

Henchmen need not apply.

Again With The Doctor Horrible

Okay, for everyone who has bought the Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog soundtrack (or others who are just interested in things like lyrics while they're waiting to invest in an actual CD and an actual DVD from an actual store), Joss Whedon et al have put the liner notes on-line. Sweet! Now I can have an Ellen DeGeneres moment where I gasp, "That's what they're saying? OH!" And here's something from the team themselves:

Thanks to all of you, we're already one of the top sellers in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and the list goes on!

It is great for listening in your car, at work, while working out, it makes a great gift, do I sound like a whore? I'm whoring now, aren't I? Anyway, spread the word, tell a friend, say it was Horrible...

Yeah, I still love them.

In other news, the Whedon team (which is in reality probably a bunch of interns -lucky, lucky interns...) are also preparing to have us, the fans, send in video applications to the Evil League of Evil! *Gasp* Awesomeness!!!!! Anyway, the ten best get placed on the DVD. I can't wait to see what people come up with, and I'll be sure to post when submissions are being taken. Until then, come up with some kooky quasi-villain and figure out how to work a webcam -or some other recording device that can be then hooked up to the computer. I'm a complete luddite, and therefore know little about such matters. Luckily, I have a Mac, so I can record myself via my computer itself. Now, all I need is an idea... a great, innovative, original wanna-be villain idea... This is gonna take a while.

Dr. Horrible's Soundtrack

For all of those who are not yet aware, the Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog Soundtrack is now available from iTunes. Download early. Download often. Well, do it once and then listen to it a bunch of times. I'm planning on burning it to a CD right away so I can listen to it both to and from my mind-numbing, soul-crushing job!

Writing and Whedon

I know I tend to get on kicks where I discuss the hell out of one particular subject to the detriment of reader retention and interest, so I promise that this will be my last blog entry on Joss Whedon for a while -at least a week. I would extend that further, but I'm kind of a little bit obsessed.

Anyway, due to the recent release of Dr. Horribe's Sing Along Blog, there has been a whole host of literature flooding the web devoted to analyzing and criticizing and critiquing its content. I have, due to said obsession and a little bit of boredom, read a lot of it. Several have struck my fancy. More than a couple did not. But there was one where I disagreed -profoundly- with the opening statement, that being this:

"I give my audience what they need, not what they want"? How did fandom let him off the hook for that and the one-way, almost dictatorial street of creator-fan interaction that implies?

One, I think think that quote has been forever misinterpreted. That isn't to say that Whedon gives audiences what they want, in terms of fluffy bunnies or whatever. I'm sure there are many fans (myself among them) who have wanted things along the way he has firmly denied them: Angel & Buffy 4ever, an alive Tara, a dead Dawn, etc. But he does give the audience what they want and what they need in terms of brilliant and multifaceted characters, witty and meaningful and wonderful dialogue, and a clear and interesting philosophical take on the world. But I'll get back to this in a minute because I think there is a real issue here that needs to be addressed.

Writing is a dictatorship. I am a writer, albeit not professionally. And I would be lying if I said thoughts of my audience didn't come creeping in, didn't make me rewrite sentences and rethink posting on certain subject. I had a post all written up about Katie Couric and racism versus sexism -but then there was that John Kerry thing and I've decided to wait a bit before putting that up. Because, well, parts of it need to be rewritten and also it seems kind of like intentionally throwing gasoline on an inferno right now. But don't get me wrong; when I write -fiction, nonfiction, whatever- it is my thoughts and my feelings and what I want to express that get the most play. I decide what stories I want to highlight, what issues are of greatest importance to me, and how polite/offensive I want to be. I frame the original argument, and those who read it generally have the opportunity to work within that frame -whether by agreeing with me or not.

Writing isn't a dialogue; it isn't a lateral movement. The writer and the reader are not equals on this particular scale. The fan has the right and the responsibility to critique, to point out weaknesses and latent 'isms and so forth, but the writer is the creator. The writer doesn't -or shouldn't- take requests or modify his (or her) own vision based purely on fan response. Writers aren't short-order cooks. And so whatever two-way street that does exist owes its existence to the writer allowing an up-down dialogue about ideas and structures and criticism. There are plenty of lateral discussions among fans, and those will always exist and have forever existed and have a meaning and purpose. But really being able to talk to the author, to demand explanation and change, well that's all on the author to allow or deny. Joss Whedon happens to be very fan friendly. He visits fan communities, he types under his own name, he is genuinely respectful, and he seems to really appreciate his voracious and kind of crazy fanbase. He's made some comments about fans and fan interpretation that have come under fire, but often times he takes the time to explain his vision and show an appreciation for fans, especially those on-line. Other writers don't do that. You want to see a true dictatorship, a writer who at times seems to despise his own intense, obsessive fanbase? Look to Aaron Sorkin. And he takes a lot of flak for it that is, frankly, undeserved. Because fans are allowed and expected to have an opinion, but they shouldn't expect to necessarily have their opinion matter or be valid. They have the ability to control a product only so far, and that is -like with so many other things in a capitalist culture- based mainly on what and how they choose to consume the product. If the show doesn't get the ratings, especially after good, solid ratings for years, then that is how the fans have spoken.

And Whedon generally has a pretty good feel for the pulse of his fanbase. He talks about writing a scene in the episode "Innocence" on Buffy the Vampire Slayer specifically so the audience would fall in love with a certain character. He knows what the audience needs in order to feel as deeply for his creations as he does. And he knows enough to disregard what they want in order to fulfill what he needs to do and what he wants to express. People die; lives are ruined; characters become twisted and dark and saved again. But we shouldn't -as fans- for one second believe that we have the right to a democracy. Fans -and even nonfans- seem to come to the mistaken assumption that the product is theirs. That once it leaves the author's head, it no longer belongs to its creator. And in a way, they are half right. Works authors intended to be taken in one way can and will be interpreted at times to mean the exact opposite. That is the nature of the micronarrative at work. But they aren't right in the idea that they get an actual piece of the creative pie, because they don't. At most, fans have to hope for an author who has his (or her) finger on the pulse of the thing, who understands the fans and the characters and is able to move the story forward organically while simultaneously not driving watchers or readers away in hordes. The smart author does that; the smart author understands that staying true to the work is the best way to stay true to the fans; to love the characters and to write from the characters is the best way to please fans, because fans can tell when an author's heart is no longer in his (or her) creation and fans can tell when authors are pandering to the fanbase. And it tends to make them cranky. Because most fans would probably prefer a lovingly and intricately crafted dictatorship than a haphazard mish mash of contradicting dogmas existing purely to satiate fan want.

Which brings me to the second part of this rant, that being Whedon's line of giving the audience what they need. Now, I think he is giving fans what they need from the tale instead of giving them what the wanted from it. Penny's death in Dr. Horrible, Jenny's death in BtVS, Buffy and Angel's break up, Buffy's death (twice), the arrival of Dawn, Restless, Hush, Once More with Feeling, Wash, all of these things are examples of items fans may not have particularly wanted (or even thought about) but needed -either to make the story fully work or because it was a pushing of the boundaries or what-have-you. Whedon made an allusion to Romeo and Juliet in his explanation of this philosophy once, that it works so well because we want Romeo and Juliet to get away and live as old marrieds, but Shakespeare gives us what we need -the emotional catharsis of their untimely and tragic demise- and because of that the play is a classic in a way it wouldn't have been if we'd only gotten what we'd wanted. And there's a definite truth to that. If entertainment can be more than simply about entertaining people, if really good works of art can come from entertainment, we need works that push us beyond the boundaries of what we want and into what we need. We need works that challenge our ideas, challenge our beliefs, and wake us the hell up. We need works that don't end happily; we needs works that end happily too, but I don't think Joss is our man for that.

There is a second interpretation of the line, one not based upon but supported by the line slightly rephrased by Whedon himself. The line becomes "I'd rather have a show that a hundred people need to see than a thousand people want to see". Joss wants devoted fans; he desires people needing to see what he creates; he desperately needs fans to be just as attached to and just as moved by and just as crushed by his characters and what happens to them as he is. He would rather make a show that was constantly on the verge of cancellation but meant something than made a show that was a big hit but that most people casually viewed while discussing their day. It is the difference between making a Two and a Half Men and... ...well, a Firefly. Or a Sports Night. There are times when the two shows are the same thing; The West Wing had a devoted, obsessive fanbase. Buffy the Vampire Slayer did well in the ratings for the network(s) it was on. But I think in the grand scheme of things, Joss wants fans who are like him when he is a fan: frantic, obsessed, broken-hearted when there are reruns or deaths or tragic happenstances, and overjoyed when something goes right for once. I could be wrong about that, but I think that the two-pronged interpretation of Joss' most hated statement among the fanbase is necessary to even begin getting to the heart of the matter.

I'm not wrong about the writing though.

Dr. Horrible's End

So, some of the shock of Act III of Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog has worn off. Some, not all. And since my last post wasn't much in the way of a review, here we go:

Act III is more operatic than the last two acts. It is mostly singing, and here is where the familiar faces start showing up. Marti Noxon and David Fury (known as the Parking Ticket Woman and Mustard Man in the BtVS musical; and, oh yeah, for being two of the show's producers) are the newscasters. Doug Petrie and Drew Goddard show up as part of the EoLE (both having been writers and story editors for BtVS & Angel). And it is more scathing, more angsty, and more philosophical. The first two acts were fluff and cotton candy, sweet and sugary and feel-good fun. But that isn't Joss; no, Joss is the death and destruction man, and anyone who expected differently this time (me) was horribly mistaken.

So, when we left off last time, Dr. Horrible had to kill someone or be killed. He decided on Captain Hammer, for obvious reasons, such as the guy was a tremendous tool and was sleeping with the Evil Dr.'s crush just to hurt him. And this episode is heartbreaking in that both Penny and Dr. Horrible don't get what they want. There are two perfectly heartbreaking scenes here; the first is Penny sitting by herself at the laundromat alone with two frozen yogurts. The second is Dr. Horrible's face at the end, when he is looking at the camera as Billy. Because Penny isn't happy in her relationship with Captain Hammer, and then dies. Which is kind of a downer, for both us and Dr. Horrible.

And here's where the Philosophy of Joss comes through loud and clear. Joss has demonstrated time and time again through his works that doing evil in order to perpetrate good -like Billy was with his decree that "the world is a mess and I just need to... ...rule it"- just doesn't work. Joss doesn't do bad guys. Bad guys are generally bad. Which is why it was surprising to me that he would do a musical where the villain of the piece was in fact that protagonist of it. That goes against most of his rules and regulations, but seemed cool. And it makes the final act that much more heartbreaking, because Joss does it. He makes us empathetic and sympathetic to Dr. Horrible. We love him; we embrace him; we want him to succeed. But he can't, not really. Because he's still doing it wrong. He's still following the wrong moral code. And even though Joss allows us to empathize with him and love him, that alone doesn't make Dr. Horrible right. He's just as wrong as if the story had been told from Captain Hammer's viewpoint.

From Willow's arc in the 6th season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Angel's arc in the 2nd season of Angel to the Operative's actions in Serenity, Joss states quite clearly that there is a good way and a bad way to exact change. And the good guys can still lose; the good guys will still lose. Not always and not permanently, but people will die, battles will be lost, and the world will generally kick the crap out of them on their journey to doing good. But they have something that Dr. Horrible doesn't have once Penny is dead. They have a reason to continue on; they live for the individuals in their lives as well as the world at large. And Dr. Horrible doesn't. His tale is a nihilistic one, and if this is the only production of Joss Whedon's works anyone has seen, they may come away from it thinking Joss' overall message is a nihilistic one. But time and time again, he tells us what is worth fighting for, and how we should proceed. 

Angel fails in his efforts to rid Los Angeles of evil in the second season of his eponymous show because he embraces a nihilistic principle that nothing matters; and he mistakenly believes since nothing matters, he can do what he wants to in order "for redemption, for a reward, finally just to beat the other guy". And he after he loses, he is left with an epiphany. It is one that his ex-girlfriend in Sunnydale seemed to already know implicitly, and one she demonstrated time and time again. But for Angel -and those in the viewing audience- Joss lays it out on the table; as an atheist, "in the grand scheme or the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win". So, what is the point then? The point is, "If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do, now, today... ...Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world".

Dr. Horrible -and Captain Hammer- were out for the reward, out to just beat the other guy. And sweet Penny, the only person in the thing that held Joss' own philosophy close to her heart, got caught in the middle and died because of it. And in that act, we see the destructive force of Captain Hammer's arrogance and Dr. Horrible's hatred and anger. And that is a tragedy, and a moving one.

God Damn It, Joss!

The title pretty much says it all. God damn it, Joss. I was surprised by the ending of Dr. Horrible. And then realized I shouldn't be surprised because it's f-ing Joss Whedon. Anyway, I'm still kind of in shock over the third act. Kind of nihilistic, more than definitely pessimistic, and the music is still superb. Penny singing about how she got the guy but feeling like something was missing, and Captain Hammer's song about how everyone is a hero (though less than he is) were the highlights; which is good since Dr. Horrible pretty much owned the last two episodes. And Dr. Horrible and Neil Patrick Harris are still heart achingly wonderful. Oh, Joss. I wish you didn't love to rip my heart out of my chest as often as you do!

"'The Hammer' Is My Penis"

The second act of Dr. Horrible is almost, I have to say, better than the first. More quotable lines, more angst in musical form, more hilarity, and more insightful ponderings from our blogtastic almost-not-quite-there super villain. My favorite part is probably when Dr. Horrible comes back to his lair after a failed heist, ruminating on the idea that he may not want to be so specific in his blog as "apparently, the LAPD and Captain Hammer are among our viewers". For anyone who caught the Emily Gould scandal (or, for that matter, any blogging scandal in the media or among friends), it seemed particularly apropos.

Captain Hammer is terribly, wonderfully cheesy -and kind of an ass. And Nathan Fillion plays him beautifully, from brushing off a homeless person's touch to deciding to take Penny because Dr. Horrible/Billy wants her. The Captain represents the very worst in superheroes, guys who save the world mostly because it gives them fame and adulation.

And poor Billy is still sympathetic, still lovable, and still in love with his laundry girl. Turning more toward evil. I pretty much think his exchange with Penny works well for both himself and Captain Hammer:

PENNY: Sometimes people are layered like that. There's something totally different underneath than what's on the surface.

BILLY/DR. HORRIBLE: And sometimes there's a third, even deeper level and that one is the same as the top surface one... ...Like with pie.

And then there's Penny herself. I didn't really see the attraction in Act 1. I'm blaming this partially on my being incredibly hetero but also partially because I expect a hell of a lot out of my Whedon women. And Penny really didn't touch much of that, until now. Sweet, self-deprecating, and following her own philosophy -one that competes with both Dr. Horrible's and Captain Hammer's (that is, if Captain Hammer had a philosophy)- Penny comes off much more realized in this episode than the first. And she's fun and funny, and the viewer wants more for her than Captain Hammer; or even, sad as it is to say, Dr. Horrible. But if she's got to end up with one of them, I -at least- am rooting for Dr. Horrible.

And on that note, "Oh goodness, look at my wrist. I gotta go" -watch Act 2 of Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog... ...again. 

"I'm Just a Few Weeks Away From Real, Audible Connection."

I watched the first act as soon as it premiered at 12:01. Yes, I do realize that this is the third entry on the same thing in less than 12 hours. This would be a symptom of the pandemonium I referenced earlier. Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog is funny, witty, cute, and I already love the songs. Or, at least the ones I've heard so far. Nathan Fillion's voice is a surprise -a good one- though his lip syncing needs a little work.

And Dr. Horrible? Billy? Is adorable. Sweet, shy, in love, and utterly into doing vaguely evil things. Willing to steal a whole bunch of gold bars, but scoffs at the idea of fighting in a park populated by kids. It soon becomes apparent how far off his ideas of evil are from the Evil League of Evil, as Bad Horse advocates murder as a way to really push one's application to the top of the pile and Dr. Horrible uses his iPhone to remotely control a vehicle without hurting anyone at all. And he sells his love for the girl he semi-stalks at the laundromat, a girl who is concerned with the plight of the homeless.

The writing is like a gust of fresh and fun air. There are other writers I have begun to admire, whose work makes me happy. Bryan Fuller's Pushing Daisies leaves me with a smile. Aaron Sorkin is a love of my viewing life. Amy Sherman-Palladino is someone else whose creations I enjoy watching. But Joss Whedon, his writing style, his enthusiasm, his weird philosophies that come through his works, is the only writer of any media that consistently gives me an actual high -and a long lasting one at that. It has been 30 minutes since I last watched that 13 minute Act 1, and I'm still grinning. "My application is strong this year. A letter of condemnation from the deputy mayor. That's gotta have some weight so... Fingers' crossed."

Songs about laundry day and longing and building a freeze ray to stop time and find the words to describe his feelings? How could anyone not be charmed by that? Especially with Neil Patrick Harris' gleeful and soulful performance of someone who just isn't really villainy enough, who is just too sensitive and too smart. I'm willing to bet that Bad Horse is villainous and bad to boot, but Dr. Horrible and Moist -his evil moisture buddy, who is a good enough friend and roommate to grab the Dr.'s mail- just seem like ordinary schmoes who don't quite fit in and who want to be... ...better. Who want to be someone worth something, and worth noting.

I also want to point out that this may be the first thing ever Joss Whedon has written where the male character is the focal point of the thing. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, of course, wasn't going to do that. Buffy was supposed to be the lead, and she was. But Firefly, a show mostly about Mal's journey, soon turned into the story of River Tam with Mal growing along side her -Mal finding his purpose by helping her fulfill her own. Which is beyond awesome in that he continually creates dynamic and metamorphic characters, men and women. Characters who change each other and who change the world and are changed by it. That is something I'll rant about another day, why that particular trait in regard to women characters is so astounding. But right now, I have to say that Dr. Horrible is my new fictional boyfriend. And I don't think the focus is going to shift off of him. I could be wrong; there's another half an hour to go. But I'm going to put my money on Joss creating a male character that could hold his full interest -for at least 40 or so minutes.

Can You Lurk in Plain Sight?

Or is that just walking? Check out the handy on-line comic that exists in conjunction with Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog.

And I swear this is my last post -on this or any other subject- today.

OMG!!!

So, yeah. Totally psyched for tomorrow; tomorrow being the day of the Great Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog premieres. Act 1, anyway.

So, to get you all (all 2-3 of you who read this frequently) in the spirit of things, some treats. First a trailer:

Teaser from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog on Vimeo.

I'm 99.9% certain that's Joss Whedon himself doing the voiceover. But don't quote me on that. Unless I'm right, in which you heard it hear first (I'm slightly caffeinated right now, so yeah).

Secondly, an interview with the man himself. As per usual, he is charming and geekily witty.

My highlights may very well be:

"I have a life-sized Sean Maher made of human flesh that keeps screaming that it's the real Sean Maher and I should unchain it." Of course, that could explain where the hell Sean Maher has been since 2006...

And this one:

"Movies are from the Devil. Also, it's only recently women got to be action heroes on TV. Progress is slow, and often non-existent. There's plenty of cool comics with female characters... But all it takes is one Catwoman to set the cause back a decade."

Too true.

Why I Love Joss Whedon

So, as many people know, I love Joss Whedon. Mastermind and writer of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, Serenity, and writer of Toy Story (betcha didn't know that), Joss has had my eternal devotion for as long as I can remember. Actually, only since 6th grade. But still. That is a long time. So why am I blathering on and on about it now? Well, that would be because my love has blossomed anew. After years (years) of nothing from the man himself, we are suddenly being gifted with not one but TWO projects in the next year. And one of them is of an internet-premiere variety: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. *GASP* It is another musical! And it is about a guy who wants to be a supervillain. How much cooler could it get, I ask you? Well, being the geek I am, I immediately added the project to my friends on Myspace, and also became a fan on Facebook. And through myspace, I (and countless other fans) got a message from the man himself, which I will now reproduce in its entirety to share the hilarity and the enthusiasm for the Dr. Horrible project:

"Dear Friends,

At last the time has come to reveal to you our Master Plan. BEWARE! Those with weak hearts should log off lest they be terrified by the twisted genius of our schemes! Also pregnant women and the elderly should consider reading only certain sentences. Do not mix with other blogs (BLOGGER'S NOTE: OOPS). Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this blog. You must be this tall to read.

'Kay?

It is time for us to change the face of Show Business as we know it. You know the old adage, "It's Show Business - not Show Friends"? Well now it's Show Friends. We did that. To Show Business. To show Show Business we mean business. (Also, there are now other businesses like it.)

ONE WEEK ONLY! AN INTERNET MINISERIES EVENT!

"Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" will be streamed, LIVE (that part's not true), FREE (sadly, that part is), right on drhorrible.com, in mid-July.

Specifically:

ACT ONE (Wheee!) will go up Tuesday July 15th.

ACT TWO (OMG!) will go up on Thursday July 17th.

ACT THREE (Denouement!) will go up on Saturday July 19th.

All acts will stay up until midnight Sunday July 20th. Then they will vanish into the night, like a phantom (but not THE Phantom -that's still playing. Like, everywhere.)

And now to answer a few Frequently (soon to be) Asked Questions:

1) Why, Joss? Why? Why now, why free, why us?

Once upon a time, all the writers in the forest got very mad with the Forest Kinds and declared a work-stoppage. The forest creatures were all sad; the mushrooms did not dance, the elderberries gave no juice for the festival wines, and the Teamsters were kinda pissed. (They were very polite about it, though.) During this work-stoppage, many writers tried to form partnerships for outside funding to create new work that circumvented the Forest King system.

Frustrated with the lack of movement on that front, I finally decided to do something very ambitious, very exciting, very mid-life-crisisy. Aided only by everyone I had worked with, was related to or had ever met, I single-handedly created this unique little epic. A supervillain musical, of which, we all know, there are far too few.

The idea was to make it on the fly, on the cheap -but to make it. To turn out a really thrilling, professionalish piece of entertainment specifically for the internet. To show how much could be done with very little. To show the world there is another way. To give the public (and in particular you guys) something for all your support and patience. And to make a lot of silly jokes. Actually, that sentence probably should have come first.

2) What happens when it goes away? Does it go to a happy farm for always like Fluffy did when mommy was crying and the neighbor kept washing his fender?

No, Dr horrible will live on. We intend to make it available for download soon after it's published. This would be for a nominal fee, which we're hoping people will embrace instead of getting all piratey. We have big dreams, people, and one of them is paying our crew.

And somewhat later, we will put the complete short epic out on DVD -with the finest and bravest extras in all the land. We'll go into greater detail about that at Comiccon, but we're changing the face of Show Friendliness a second time with that crazy DVD.

3) Joss, you are so kind, and generous, and your forehead is like, huge, like SCARY, like I think I can see Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint hanging off it... what can WE do to help this musical extravaganza?

What you always do peeps! What you're already doing. Spread the word. Rock some banners, widgets, diggs... let people know who wouldn't ordinarily know. It wouldn't hurt if this really was an event. Good for the business, good for the community- comunitIES: Hollywood, internet, artists around the world, comic-book fans, musical fans (and even the rather vocal community of people who hate both but will still dig on this). Proving that we can turn Dr Horrible into a viable economic proposition as well as an awesome good will only inspire more people to lay themselves out in the same way. It's time for dissemination of the artistic process. Create more for less. You are the ones that can make that happen.

Wow. I had no idea how important you guys were. I'm a little afraid of you.

4) Joss, do you ever answer a question simply or coherently?

Shledzguohn?

There'll be more questions, and more long, long answer, but for now I'm just excited that we're actually making this happen. We (and a lot of other people -- gushing to comence soon) worked very hard on the show and we hope/think you guys will be pleased. Until July 15, I remain, your truly -j. of the firm j, j, m & z."

Is it any wonder that I love this man? So yeah, this blog entry is to fulfill my obligation to #3 on the (soon to be) FAQ. There will probably be pandemonium and more entries -reviews of the thing and the like- as July 15th comes nearer. And in case you think my gushing about this is simply due to a Joss-induced fever, here's a Matt Roush review for you to read.

Joss is back! Woot!

And don't forget to check out Dollhouse, coming to FOX... ...at some point in time. Until then, watch the trailer.