AOQ Dollhouse Review 2-5: "The Public Eye"
Arbitrar Of Quality
review threads.
.
.
DOLLHOUSE
Season Two, Episode 5: "The Public Eye"
(or "Hey Summer! Where ya been?")
Writer: Andrew Chambliss
Director: David Solomon
[Note: This is a review of "The Public Eye" only. Thoughts on "The Left
Hand" will be posted separately.]
It's time to advance the plot. After a few forward-looking one-offs,
_Dollhouse_ decides to ramp up the intrigue. And in this show, that usually
means lots of figuring out "what game is being played," and above all, lots
of people being revealed as dolls. In fact, "Eye" takes two separate act
breaks on "OMG [character] is a doll!" So, pretty typical there.
(Actually, something minor I just noticed this week - despite the pre-series
hype talking about supposedly using Whedon's typical four-act structure,
this episode, and IIRC most others, is five-act.)
Daniel and Cindy Perrin are front and center after a few weeks of irregular
one-scene cameos, and I've finally gotten to the point where Alexis Denisof
sounds like a normal person to me rather than weirdly stilted. As
suspected, one of the two cannot be trusted, but the show throws in a few
twists and turns on the way to getting us to the "obvious" result (Cindy
manipulating Daniel for her own agenda). I'd been enjoying myself up to the
point of the episode's second "[character] is a doll!" moment, but had to
(figuratively) roll my eyes at the revelation of Daniel being one. I felt
like the show's usual bag of tricks was starting to get old. But then they
managed to put a new twist on it, with Sen. Perrin being a House-altered
version of himself, keeping the identity while losing the free will. Well,
that's a little different. Going the obvious route in a slightly surprising
way. That's "Eye" in a nutshell.
I think I may come across as dismissive in this review. That's not entirely
my goal, so I'll also repeat a few times that I was entertained. Unraveling
twisty plots along with the characters is usually interesting. And this
time we're doing it right along with our anti-heroes. From the beginning,
Adelle takes an active role, turning Harding's orders into "suggestions."
She jumps to some conclusions quickly, and others more erratically, but ends
up piecing together a story in which our House takes the fall for the good
of the corporation... unless they fight back. The net effect of "The Public
Eye" is that by the end we, the audience, are in a Ballard-esque place of
having formed an alliance of convenience with Adelle and company, as they
work for self-preservation. It's pretty nicely done.
Yet the details are sometimes lacking. For instance, why has no one noticed
Sen. Perrin's abrupt change in personality a few years ago? Instead, our
anti-heroes' investigation first amounts to Echo wandering in and saying
stuff. Granted, she gets some leeway because she's been the key to the plot
before. But her comments are basically "November is sad. We should help
her. She's not right." First of all, Echo "shouldn't" (to Adelle) identify
any doll not currently in the House, because she shouldn't remember them.
Then they jump to the conclusion that Echo is actually applying that name to
Cindy Perrin, who's not a doll, and even if she were, comes from a house
that uses a different naming scheme. So, I don't get it. The only way I
can think of that this makes sense if Echo is somehow programmed to give
them that message (by whom? Bennett? And why, exactly?). Hopefully this
whole thing will somehow work after new information of some kind in part II.
On another note, Adelle seems totally unprepared for Daniel taking Echo/Bree
back home with him. Granted, the reason they blackmail the good senator is
simply to find out how everyone involved will react. But doesn't an
engagement involving a big target pretty much require a decent handler, by
definition?
Although I don't have any special insight to add, I would like to spare a
few good words for the Wesley/Faith reunion. Echo/Bree
(notlonelycallgirl15?) is one of those characters I just particularly
enjoyed watching, for whatever reason. The easiness on the eyes presumably
helps. But this incarnation of Echo combines a quick wit with a breezy
openness to new ideas, ensuring that she can't totally lose control of a
situation, while Daniel's convictions serve him in a similar way. Both
characters tend to find ways to be the strong one whenever the other
falters, so for the brief time they're together, they make for a good
fugitive team.
The other main thread I want to touch on is Madeline's story. I'm still a
little caught up in missing Mellie, who allowed the actor to contribute some
always welcome Whedonesque dialogue and levity to S1. Compared to
November/Mellie, Madeline keeps the ability to be victimized but loses the
possibility for anything comedic. Is this interesting? Well, as in
"Instinct," her principal purpose, story wise, seems to be her effect on
Paul. Cindy cleverly sells Paul as a client of the House, and although that's
not strictly true, it's not totally false either. Perhaps the episode's
best scene is the quiet one in which he gets the chance to explain himself
and try to justify his actions. He was used, he did release her, and he
does want to bring down the House, but he's omitting quite a few details
that muddy the narrative. One little thing gives the characters the nudge
that moves them to their decisions - Paul slipping up and calling her
"Mellie." That drives Madeline to test him to see whether he believes in
freedom the way he claims, and if Paul has the principles he wants to
believe he does, he only has one choice after that.
Elsewhere in thematic corner, the crawl towards post-apocalypse and the kid
from _Heroes_ continues. The obvious example is Topher brushing away
concerns about remote wiping, at the same time as the entertaining but very
cavalier torture of Groupie #2. [For those who don't recognize faces or
watch the credits, Mo Tancharoen plays Kilo.] We also see that with the
Hades/Perrin situation, some Dollhouses are getting better at building a
custom personality out of an existing personality - something Topher can't
always manage. There's also some stuff that the show doesn't quite seem to
know what to do with. I'm feeling that there's probably some symbolic
reason for making Echo *literally* a prostitute this time. Especially since
Echo/Bree gets the line "I like what I do. You're not the first John who
thinks he can 'save' me," and then later is forced to see that, like her
senatorial companion, she's not as free as she thinks. But I think it's
more "idea floating around" than "theme."
Little things I laughed at:
- The scene transition from Daniel to Topher: "I know who I am!" "I think I
know who he is"
- "Would you be open to a bribe?" "No"
- The montage of the various times Echo has been slapped in the face
- "I think her bad guys are badder than my bad guys"
Not a fan of the staging right after that. The (unintentionally?) hilarious
slap compilation makes it clear that sooner or later Echo/Bree will pop up
behind Cindy after the camera is done pointedly not showing that angle.
Also, her zombie-like reappearance with the disruptor just looks silly. As
a final nitpick, let's note one major continuity error in the scene in which
Paul escapes from Cindy's security guys: his hands are tied behind him as he
gets out of the chair, he rolls across the room, and suddenly they're tied
in front of him.
And then there's the last few minutes, which are intriguing, but at the same
time kinda coast on the simple fact of being intriguing. We're in a
different Dollhouse, and suddenly it's like a different world. After
waiting all episode for the hyped appearance of Summer Glau, she gets the
camera non stop. I tried not to learn too much about her role on the show,
but it's no surprise to me that Mutant Enemy didn't have her play an
ass-kicking doll (at least, not yet) - way too obvious for a group of
producers who like to show off their actors' versatility. Bennett is
apparently the Topher of Cindy's House, with a few differences. She's much
more conscious of her power, for one, and gives speeches suggesting that she
has a cause she believes in. Still, it's worth noting that Bennet's only
smile is elicited by analyzing Topher's machine ("my, my, my. How do you
work?").
And then one we're used to Glau playing a totally different kind of
character, she's grabbing her head and crazily repeating herself. Well, so
much for that. Maybe that'll turn out to be a tic with no plot relevance,
just as a red herring to keep being unexpected. Then there's a cliffhanger
that's more of the "what does it all mean, exactly?" variety in which
Bennett finds ways to shoo everyone out of the room so she can address Echo
as "Caroline" ("you always promised you'd come back to me"). Will there be
more S&M to follow? Tune in next hour!
I'm having my doubts as to how well this episode will hold up in retrospect,
but you know what? It's a Part I. It's supposed to keep you guessing while
it sets something up and be reasonably entertaining in the meantime, and it
is. I'm okay with it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go find out
what happens next.
Missing in action this episode: Gjokaj and Lachman, both absent for the
second time this season.
So.
One sentence summary: All setup.
AOQ rating: Decent
.
.
[Season Two so far:
1) "Vows" - Good
2) "Instinct" - Good
3) "Belle Chose" - Decent
4) "Belonging" - Good
5) "The Public Eye" - Decent]
~_Dollhouse_ aired, uncancelled, for two hundred seventy-one days~
Don Sample
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers/discussion of unaired episodes in these
> review threads.
> .
> .
> DOLLHOUSE
> Season Two, Episode 5: "The Public Eye"
> (or "Hey Summer! Where ya been?")
> Writer: Andrew Chambliss
> Director: David Solomon
>
> Yet the details are sometimes lacking. For instance, why has no one noticed
> Sen. Perrin's abrupt change in personality a few years ago?
We don't really get all that much backstory on Perrin, but for a real
world example, I would point you to a fellow named George W. Bush. An
alcoholic, cocaine snorting, party boy when in university, but cleaned
up his act later. Many of his earlier abuses were covered up by his
family.
> Instead, our
> anti-heroes' investigation first amounts to Echo wandering in and saying
> stuff. Granted, she gets some leeway because she's been the key to the plot
> before. But her comments are basically "November is sad. We should help
> her. She's not right." First of all, Echo "shouldn't" (to Adelle) identify
> any doll not currently in the House, because she shouldn't remember them.
That Echo is remembering more than she should is an open secret, known
to pretty much everyone who works in the LA dollhouse.
> Then they jump to the conclusion that Echo is actually applying that name to
> Cindy Perrin, who's not a doll, and even if she were, comes from a house
> that uses a different naming scheme. So, I don't get it.
I though that they came up with the "Cindy is a Doll" idea completely on
their own, based on Perrin's comments about how she was so perfect, "it
was like she was made for me."
> The only way I
> can think of that this makes sense if Echo is somehow programmed to give
> them that message (by whom? Bennett? And why, exactly?). Hopefully this
> whole thing will somehow work after new information of some kind in part II.
> On another note, Adelle seems totally unprepared for Daniel taking Echo/Bree
> back home with him. Granted, the reason they blackmail the good senator is
> simply to find out how everyone involved will react. But doesn't an
> engagement involving a big target pretty much require a decent handler, by
> definition?
Once again, they know that Echo is no longer a normal Doll, and was
pretty much acting as her own handler.
>
> Although I don't have any special insight to add, I would like to spare a
> few good words for the Wesley/Faith reunion. Echo/Bree
> (notlonelycallgirl15?) is one of those characters I just particularly
> enjoyed watching, for whatever reason.
You know, I completely forgot that these were Wesley and Faith.
>
> Not a fan of the staging right after that. The (unintentionally?) hilarious
> slap compilation makes it clear that sooner or later Echo/Bree will pop up
> behind Cindy after the camera is done pointedly not showing that angle.
> Also, her zombie-like reappearance with the disruptor just looks silly. As
> a final nitpick, let's note one major continuity error in the scene in which
> Paul escapes from Cindy's security guys: his hands are tied behind him as he
> gets out of the chair, he rolls across the room, and suddenly they're tied
> in front of him.
The roll was part of the contortions needed to get his arms around to
being in front.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
himiko
> In article <hfedfu$3d...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A reminder: Please avoid spoilers/discussion of unaired episodes in these
> > review threads.
> > .
> > .
> > DOLLHOUSE
> > Season Two, Episode 5: "The Public Eye"
> > (or "Hey Summer! Where ya been?")
> > Writer: Andrew Chambliss
> > Director: David Solomon
>
> > Yet the details are sometimes lacking. For instance, why has no one noticed
> > Sen. Perrin's abrupt change in personality a few years ago?
>
> We don't really get all that much backstory on Perrin, but for a real
> world example, I would point you to a fellow named George W. Bush. An
> alcoholic, cocaine snorting, party boy when in university, but cleaned
> up his act later. Many of his earlier abuses were covered up by his
> family.
I suspect the reference was more to Teddy Kennedy, mostly because of
the reformist crusading and the influence of a strong wife. W cleaned
up his act, but he never did change much otherwise; he did have more
in the way of handlers though. And Teddy was a crusader even while he
was a mess. Probably Joss had a mix in mind...and there are certainly
plenty of other examples he could have been using too.
> I though that they came up with the "Cindy is a Doll" idea completely on
> their own, based on Perrin's comments about how she was so perfect, "it
> was like she was made for me."
That was my interpretation too. I liked the switch on that even
though I did figure it out before the disruptor dropped her.
>
> Once again, they know that Echo is no longer a normal Doll, and was
> pretty much acting as her own handler.
>
Didn't Adelle pretty much say so? Something about her needing only a
stand-in handler because she'd be doing most of the handling.
himiko
Horace LaBadie
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> Yet the details are sometimes lacking. For instance, why has no one noticed
> Sen. Perrin's abrupt change in personality a few years ago? Instead, our
> anti-heroes' investigation first amounts to Echo wandering in and saying
> stuff. Granted, she gets some leeway because she's been the key to the plot
> before. But her comments are basically "November is sad. We should help
> her. She's not right." First of all, Echo "shouldn't" (to Adelle) identify
> any doll not currently in the House, because she shouldn't remember them.
> Then they jump to the conclusion that Echo is actually applying that name to
> Cindy Perrin, who's not a doll, and even if she were, comes from a house
> that uses a different naming scheme. So, I don't get it. The only way I
> can think of that this makes sense if Echo is somehow programmed to give
> them that message (by whom? Bennett? And why, exactly?). Hopefully this
> whole thing will somehow work after new information of some kind in part II.
> On another note, Adelle seems totally unprepared for Daniel taking Echo/Bree
> back home with him. Granted, the reason they blackmail the good senator is
> simply to find out how everyone involved will react. But doesn't an
> engagement involving a big target pretty much require a decent handler, by
> definition?
Echo is talking about two people in this scene, November, "November is
unhappy. We should help her," and Cindy Perrin, "She's not right."
The first is resolved when everyone reassures Echo that they are trying
to help November. Then they briefly make the error of thinking that Echo
is still talking about November, but Echo is looking at a different
monitor on which Perrin and Cindy are being interviewed. It's then that
Ballard corrects the misperception that Echo is talking about November,
and points out that Echo means that Cindy is "not right." That leads to
another error.
Apparently, Echo recognizes that Cindy is a handler by some visual or
verbal clue, but Ballard and DeWitt think that Cindy must be a Doll,
because that's how they are prepared to think.
As to Echo remembering November, everyone knows that Echo retains
memories.
Horace LaBadie
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> Not a fan of the staging right after that. The (unintentionally?) hilarious
> slap compilation makes it clear that sooner or later Echo/Bree will pop up
> behind Cindy after the camera is done pointedly not showing that angle.
> Also, her zombie-like reappearance with the disruptor just looks silly. As
> a final nitpick, let's note one major continuity error in the scene in which
> Paul escapes from Cindy's security guys: his hands are tied behind him as he
> gets out of the chair, he rolls across the room, and suddenly they're tied
> in front of him.
He slips his hands over his feet during the roll. It's fast, but it's
there.
One Bit Shy
news:hfedfu$3dg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> DOLLHOUSE
> Season Two, Episode 5: "The Public Eye"
OK. I screwed up and included references to Bennett and Topher's device
that don't occur until next episode. If that matters to you (it's not a
really big revelation), then don't read this until you've seen that episode.
Since both aired the same night, I'm not going to try to untangle that now.
> It's time to advance the plot. After a few forward-looking one-offs,
> _Dollhouse_ decides to ramp up the intrigue. And in this show, that
> usually means lots of figuring out "what game is being played," and above
> all, lots of people being revealed as dolls. In fact, "Eye" takes two
> separate act breaks on "OMG [character] is a doll!" So, pretty typical
> there.
But only one turns out to be a doll - unless you're including Madeline still
having "active architecture". I think everybody other than Ballard already
assumed that.
How many hidden dolls have there really been? Victor and Mellie were the
original misdirections to set up the idea. At the end of Season One we
learned about Whiskey - the big example. And I suppose you can include the
girl from Heroes in Epitaph One, though that comes across to me as the
practical example of that episode's premise of the future tech run amok.
Oh, and there's Alpha pretending to be the architect. So I count six
examples including the Senator - this season's first instance of the device.
Did I miss any?
That's a substantial number, but seems pretty restrained to me, especially
considering the series premise and where we know the story is heading. At
some point hidden dolls will have to pop up everywhere to represent the
breakdown of the system.
> I'd been enjoying myself up to the point of the episode's second
> "[character] is a doll!" moment, but had to (figuratively) roll my eyes at
> the revelation of Daniel being one. I felt like the show's usual bag of
> tricks was starting to get old. But then they managed to put a new twist
> on it, with Sen. Perrin being a House-altered version of himself, keeping
> the identity while losing the free will. Well, that's a little different.
Hmmm. I suppose it's not an especially common scenario, but I don't think
it's all that unusual either. It's just a Manchurian Candidate variation.
As generally creepy as that idea is, I'm not terribly fond of it as a plot
device. (Though it makes more sense than usual with the established
Dollhouse construct.) I think the freely corrupted soul of a person is both
more real and more scary - speaking to the inherent weaknesses of man rather
than apologizing for it with the excuse of victimhood.
In this case I think it's more about the ruthlessness of Rossum (and the
D.C. Dollhouse). The most interesting thing to me was what they planned to
do with him - sacrifice one of their Dollhouses to make him an untouchable
hero and effective leader of any potential opposition. I think the episode
gets a little hyperbolic as to how powerful he would automatically become,
but it's still quite a coup with substantial accrued power, and very forward
looking for their greater scheme.
As for the game of find the hidden doll, I wasn't expecting it to be the
Senator (I was happily going along with it being the wife), but for some
reason I didn't feel terribly surprised when that was revealed. I'm not
sure why. It seemed to be staged OK. Maybe I really have seen that played
out too many times now. But I appreciated the aftermath quite a bit.
That's when Denisof's character finally became interesting. And his wife's
character too for that matter. Having her turn out to be his handler is
obvious in retrospect, but it was the ingredient that made the paradigm
shift really fall into place for me. Maybe the news wasn't as surprising as
I might like. The result was still a revelation, giving sense to a whole
range of things.
> I think I may come across as dismissive in this review. That's not
> entirely my goal, so I'll also repeat a few times that I was entertained.
> Unraveling twisty plots along with the characters is usually interesting.
> And this time we're doing it right along with our anti-heroes. From the
> beginning, Adelle takes an active role, turning Harding's orders into
> "suggestions."
Further worsening an already deteriorating relationship with Rossum. I
assume this is setting up her future rebellion against Rossum. Perhaps
making that future choice feel more compelled than voluntary. Or maybe
that's too subtle a distinction for the limited time left to the series. I
did like the reference to everybody watching - which I assume was an under
stated warning. This episode plays a lot on paranoia. Bennett later goes
on about not attracting the attention of higher ups - a moment that would
definitely freak me out if my boss said something like that to me. Adelle
warns Ballard that ex-dolls who talk wind up dead. Cindy warns Bennett that
they'll both be dead if they don't fix up the Senator in the next 10 hours.
People keep disappearing from observation - evidently at the hands of unseen
agents. And so on.
> She jumps to some conclusions quickly, and others more erratically, but
> ends up piecing together a story in which our House takes the fall for the
> good of the corporation... unless they fight back. The net effect of "The
> Public Eye" is that by the end we, the audience, are in a Ballard-esque
> place of having formed an alliance of convenience with Adelle and company,
> as they work for self-preservation. It's pretty nicely done.
I agree. One of the common criticisms of the series is that it's tough to
identify with and/or root for the Dollhouse and the people who operate it.
I think that's an accurate observation - including the part where it
probably contributes to lower ratings. I've been hesitant to consider that
a criticism though (in the negative sense). That's a legitimate kind of
story too. Just not as popular. Here, however, they find a neat way to let
us empathize with them and even get on their side for a while without
actually making them different or nicer. Even bad guys can be victims and
valiantly fight their way through adversity. Who can't identify with that?
This may be the first time the series has really pulled off that feeling.
> Yet the details are sometimes lacking. For instance, why has no one
> noticed Sen. Perrin's abrupt change in personality a few years ago?
The way I took it is that people did notice - just in the sense of
appreciating him finally growing up and, especially, getting sober. What I
think it looked like to people was he belatedly taking on the mantle of his
birthright. It was his prior behavior that looked wrong.
> Instead, our anti-heroes' investigation first amounts to Echo wandering in
> and saying stuff. Granted, she gets some leeway because she's been the
> key to the plot before. But her comments are basically "November is sad.
> We should help her. She's not right." First of all, Echo "shouldn't" (to
> Adelle) identify any doll not currently in the House, because she
> shouldn't remember them. Then they jump to the conclusion that Echo is
> actually applying that name to Cindy Perrin, who's not a doll, and even if
> she were, comes from a house that uses a different naming scheme. So, I
> don't get it. The only way I can think of that this makes sense if Echo
> is somehow programmed to give them that message (by whom? Bennett? And
> why, exactly?). Hopefully this whole thing will somehow work after new
> information of some kind in part II.
Horace walked through the steps of the scene, which should clear up some of
the confusion. But it still plays poorly and confusingly to me.
I understand that everybody in the room knows that Echo remembers more than
she should, but I'm a little surprised to have her freely identify November
in front of Adelle. I'm uncertain what Echo really thinks of Adelle right
now, but my impression was that she was attempting to hide her growing
wakefulness from everybody except Ballard - and Boyd after he found out. I
suppose she might think that recognizing November would seem normal - or she
might have just blurted it out as involuntary emotional reflex. (Friends
help friends.)
That's the small thing. The real puzzler that doesn't feel right here or
much later when she repeats the observation to the Senator is, "She's not
right," referring to Cindy Perrin. Huh? How would she recognize that?
Horace suggests that it's some talent at recognizing handlers. That seems a
stretch to me - and without foundation. I don't see it explained anywhere,
so it just feels out of place to me.
The only thing I can think of is that it might be linked to something new
about Echo hinted at in the next episode. So I'll pick up on that when we
get to it.
> On another note, Adelle seems totally unprepared for Daniel taking
> Echo/Bree back home with him. Granted, the reason they blackmail the good
> senator is simply to find out how everyone involved will react. But
> doesn't an engagement involving a big target pretty much require a decent
> handler, by definition?
Do they have any decent handlers besides Boyd - who isn't a handler anymore?
I'm somehow reminded of Darth Vader's relationship with Imperial admirals.
> Although I don't have any special insight to add, I would like to spare a
> few good words for the Wesley/Faith reunion. Echo/Bree
> (notlonelycallgirl15?) is one of those characters I just particularly
> enjoyed watching, for whatever reason. The easiness on the eyes
> presumably helps. But this incarnation of Echo combines a quick wit with
> a breezy openness to new ideas, ensuring that she can't totally lose
> control of a situation, while Daniel's convictions serve him in a similar
> way. Both characters tend to find ways to be the strong one whenever the
> other falters, so for the brief time they're together, they make for a
> good fugitive team.
Her side of the conversation tended to be naturally conversational and made
for less of an "acting" appearance. His side, on the other hand, was still
burdened with a lot of forced rhetoric (forced in good part from his
lingering imprinting), but we were still given more glimpses of a feeling
person this time. I'm still not wowed by Denisof's performance, but it's
quite a step up from his previous brief appearances, and there is a
connection with Dushku. Perhaps that's a remnant of Faith/Wesley. I
imagine there had to be some sentimental feelings in playing across from
each other again.
> The other main thread I want to touch on is Madeline's story. I'm still a
> little caught up in missing Mellie, who allowed the actor to contribute
> some always welcome Whedonesque dialogue and levity to S1. Compared to
> November/Mellie, Madeline keeps the ability to be victimized but loses the
> possibility for anything comedic. Is this interesting?
I think so. Just not as interesting as Mellie - a character I really liked,
and for more than the humor. However, as suppressed as Mellie is, I think
we're supposed to see a touch of her inside Madeline. Mainly from what I
think are understated hints that she wants to believe in Ballard. Perhaps
coupled with her prior appearance's hints that she's not really all that
content with her freedom from the Dollhouse.
In this episode Madeline is shown concrete evidence of what was done to her,
which should serve to motivate her to rat out the Dollhouse. But something
about the play of her behavior feels to me more like somebody with
abandonment issues acting out. I don't have anything concrete to point at
for that, so I could easily be wildly off base. Still, the surface
explanation provided feels incomplete to me.
> Well, as in "Instinct," her principal purpose, story wise, seems to be her
> effect on Paul.
Well, the two are tightly linked, so that has to be part of it. I think
it's about Madeline/Mellie too though. (Especially remembering the Epitaph
One hint that something tragic and confused is in store for her.)
> Cindy cleverly sells Paul as a client of the House, and although that's
> not strictly true, it's not totally false either. Perhaps the episode's
> best scene is the quiet one in which he gets the chance to explain himself
> and try to justify his actions. He was used, he did release her, and he
> does want to bring down the House, but he's omitting quite a few details
> that muddy the narrative. One little thing gives the characters the nudge
> that moves them to their decisions - Paul slipping up and calling her
> "Mellie." That drives Madeline to test him to see whether he believes in
> freedom the way he claims, and if Paul has the principles he wants to
> believe he does, he only has one choice after that.
This scene played really well for me on re-watch. Both actors express with
very small things, but there's power in the expressions. That ended up
being one of my favorite moments of the episode.
> Elsewhere in thematic corner, the crawl towards post-apocalypse and the
> kid from _Heroes_ continues. The obvious example is Topher brushing away
> concerns about remote wiping, at the same time as the entertaining but
> very cavalier torture of Groupie #2. [For those who don't recognize faces
> or watch the credits, Mo Tancharoen plays Kilo.] We also see that with
> the Hades/Perrin situation, some Dollhouses are getting better at building
> a custom personality out of an existing personality - something Topher
> can't always manage.
Pretty much all good for me. I really like how Bennett brings something new
to Topher's tech. It's a step in the sequence. More than that, it's
further showing how hard it is to control development. Topher can't imagine
what Bennett adds to his idea, so the related risks aren't something he'd
manage either.
> There's also some stuff that the show doesn't quite seem to know what to
> do with. I'm feeling that there's probably some symbolic reason for
> making Echo *literally* a prostitute this time. Especially since
> Echo/Bree gets the line "I like what I do. You're not the first John who
> thinks he can 'save' me," and then later is forced to see that, like her
> senatorial companion, she's not as free as she thinks. But I think it's
> more "idea floating around" than "theme."
Maybe. But this time I'm all surface on it. It's the classic way of
squeezing public figures and Echo is the natural choice for the job because
of her prior experience, and because Adelle likes her ability to improvise
in useful fashions. Not being as free as you think is kind of a steady
state background to Dollhouse that probably could be expressed effectively
with most any choice of imprint. It's just that the Dollhouse is
predisposed towards chicks in underwear.
> Not a fan of the staging right after that. The (unintentionally?)
> hilarious slap compilation makes it clear that sooner or later Echo/Bree
> will pop up behind Cindy after the camera is done pointedly not showing
> that angle.
I didn't mind the angle being left out. I just thought the edit made the
action jerk poorly. (That's probably not the edit's fault. They just
didn't get good coverage in the filming and had to put together two pieces
that don't really fit.)
> Also, her zombie-like reappearance with the disruptor just looks silly.
That didn't bother me.
> As a final nitpick, let's note one major continuity error in the scene in
> which Paul escapes from Cindy's security guys: his hands are tied behind
> him as he gets out of the chair, he rolls across the room, and suddenly
> they're tied in front of him.
As others have pointed out, the idea was that he brought his legs up and
through his arms to bring them to the front of his body. When I watched it
closely the second time I was surprised at how good they managed to make
that look, but I still find it an unbelievable physical move. But we all
know there is no physics on TV.
> And then there's the last few minutes, which are intriguing, but at the
> same time kinda coast on the simple fact of being intriguing.
I could imagine coasting on a lot worse. Is that really a criticism?
> We're in a different Dollhouse, and suddenly it's like a different world.
Soothing atmosphere with plants and music and tea to sip... Soon to be
recognized as self consciously soothing - almost desperate - to restrain the
very brittle personality that is Glau's Bennett. I loved the mood of the
environment and most of her performance. Part of it was the walking on eggs
behavior of her assistant forced to work for a mad woman.
> After waiting all episode for the hyped appearance of Summer Glau, she
> gets the camera non stop. I tried not to learn too much about her role on
> the show, but it's no surprise to me that Mutant Enemy didn't have her
> play an ass-kicking doll (at least, not yet) - way too obvious for a group
> of producers who like to show off their actors' versatility. Bennett is
> apparently the Topher of Cindy's House, with a few differences. She's
> much more conscious of her power, for one, and gives speeches suggesting
> that she has a cause she believes in.
Hmmm. That didn't occur to me. What are you thinking of?
> Still, it's worth noting that Bennet's only smile is elicited by analyzing
> Topher's machine ("my, my, my. How do you work?").
>
> And then one we're used to Glau playing a totally different kind of
> character, she's grabbing her head and crazily repeating herself. Well,
> so much for that. Maybe that'll turn out to be a tic with no plot
> relevance, just as a red herring to keep being unexpected.
Her problems are on the inside. At the moment I think it's a character
detail rather than a plot detail. Perhaps supporting some kind of parallel
I haven't sussed out yet. If it is plot supporting, then it probably has to
do with ideas discussed next episode about the brain handling multiple
personalities. Possibly related to Echo's headaches in Epitaph One.
> I'm having my doubts as to how well this episode will hold up in
> retrospect, but you know what? It's a Part I. It's supposed to keep you
> guessing while it sets something up and be reasonably entertaining in the
> meantime, and it is. I'm okay with it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm
> going to go find out what happens next.
This strikes me as a plot intensive episode that relies heavily on pacing,
surprise and interesting plot points to win over the audience. On that
level I think it'll hold up fine. It'll always be fun to watch. I also
think getting the audience to root for the Dollhouse is a notable
achievement. But I don't think there are any stellar performances and only
a little emotional resonance. It's far from a great episode. Good or
Decent kind of depends on mood. Last night I was really in the mood to see
Dollhouse and really pleased to see so much story. So I'll rate it Good
today.
OBS
Don Sample
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> In this case I think it's more about the ruthlessness of Rossum (and the
> D.C. Dollhouse). The most interesting thing to me was what they planned to
> do with him - sacrifice one of their Dollhouses to make him an untouchable
> hero and effective leader of any potential opposition.
But it turned out that that it *wasn't* their scheme. They weren't
planning to sacrifice any of their Dollhouses. I'm fairly sure that if
they tried, it would backfire badly, since DeWitt, and several other
people who work for the LA Dollhouse know all about their connection to
Rossum, and probably have lots of corroborating evidence squirrelled
away just in case they ever need to cover their asses.
One Bit Shy
news:dsample-60BEBC...@news-central.giganews.com...
> In article <0_OdnZh1lN26vobW...@supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> In this case I think it's more about the ruthlessness of Rossum (and the
>> D.C. Dollhouse). The most interesting thing to me was what they planned
>> to
>> do with him - sacrifice one of their Dollhouses to make him an
>> untouchable
>> hero and effective leader of any potential opposition.
>
> But it turned out that that it *wasn't* their scheme. They weren't
> planning to sacrifice any of their Dollhouses. I'm fairly sure that if
> they tried, it would backfire badly, since DeWitt, and several other
> people who work for the LA Dollhouse know all about their connection to
> Rossum, and probably have lots of corroborating evidence squirrelled
> away just in case they ever need to cover their asses.
I haven't rewatched The Left Hand yet, but intend to consider just that
among other things. I understand what you're suggesting, but I don't see
how that could be their original scheme without anticipating difficult to
control elements. On the other hand, it might explain a lot of what Bennett
was up to. And.... well, I want to watch it again.
I think both schemes have problems, but I have a fair amount of toleration
for inadequate broad outlines when there is no chance that the show will
ever lay out anything close to necessary detail.
OBS
Pete B
dsa...@synapse.net says...
> > Then they jump to the conclusion that Echo is actually applying that name to
> > Cindy Perrin, who's not a doll, and even if she were, comes from a house
> > that uses a different naming scheme. So, I don't get it.
>
> I though that they came up with the "Cindy is a Doll" idea completely on
> their own, based on Perrin's comments about how she was so perfect, "it
> was like she was made for me."
>
>
Yes, then they started to research her and realized there were well
hidden inconsistencies in her background.
Pete B
eae5d8...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, himi...@gmail.com says...
> > Once again, they know that Echo is no longer a normal Doll, and was
> > pretty much acting as her own handler.
> >
> Didn't Adelle pretty much say so? Something about her needing only a
> stand-in handler because she'd be doing most of the handling.
Well she had a stand in handler, and when echo gave him the slip Adele
told them to tell him not to bother coming back.
Opus the Penguin
> How many hidden dolls have there really been?
Not too many, as you note. Also significant, we have established that
Adelle, Topher, and Ballard are not dolls.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Opus the Penguin
> As others have pointed out, the idea was that he brought his legs
> up and through his arms to bring them to the front of his body.
> When I watched it closely the second time I was surprised at how
> good they managed to make that look, but I still find it an
> unbelievable physical move. But we all know there is no physics
> on TV.
Why do you find it unbelievable? It's quite physically possible. I've
done it.
Ken from Chicago
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD92E91729FDop...@85.214.113.135...
It's a common enough move in tv and movies that the moment he did that roll
I figured his hands would be front.
-- Ken from Chicago
One Bit Shy
news:Xns9CD92E91729FDop...@85.214.113.135...
>
>> As others have pointed out, the idea was that he brought his legs
>> up and through his arms to bring them to the front of his body.
>> When I watched it closely the second time I was surprised at how
>> good they managed to make that look, but I still find it an
>> unbelievable physical move. But we all know there is no physics
>> on TV.
>
> Why do you find it unbelievable? It's quite physically possible. I've
> done it.
I'm sure it can be done - at least if your arms are long enough. But
quickly and easily while rolling? Tall guy like him? I'm dubious.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
> In article <hfedfu$3dg$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> First of all, Echo "shouldn't" (to Adelle) identify
>> any doll not currently in the House, because she shouldn't remember them.
>
> That Echo is remembering more than she should is an open secret, known
> to pretty much everyone who works in the LA dollhouse.
Not really. In the previous episode, Echo is keeping it somewhat secret,
and Boyd encourages her to be very cautious about who knows. Adelle does
know that she's not normal, though I'm not sure to what extent.
>> On another note, Adelle seems totally unprepared for Daniel taking
>> Echo/Bree
>> back home with him. Granted, the reason they blackmail the good senator
>> is
>> simply to find out how everyone involved will react. But doesn't an
>> engagement involving a big target pretty much require a decent handler,
>> by
>> definition?
>
> Once again, they know that Echo is no longer a normal Doll, and was
> pretty much acting as her own handler.
Which is stupid. It doesn't matter who the doll is. If you have the
ability to "handle," this is an important enough engagement that you want an
extra person part of it to keep an eye out for anything interesting or
unusual.
>> As
>> a final nitpick, let's note one major continuity error in the scene in
>> which
>> Paul escapes from Cindy's security guys: his hands are tied behind him as
>> he
>> gets out of the chair, he rolls across the room, and suddenly they're
>> tied
>> in front of him.
>
> The roll was part of the contortions needed to get his arms around to
> being in front.
I have no idea how that's possible, but enough people say it is that I'll
believe it. Mea culpa.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
news:0_OdnZh1lN26vobW...@supernews.com...
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hfedfu$3dg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The real puzzler that doesn't feel right here or much later when she
> repeats the observation to the Senator is, "She's not right," referring to
> Cindy Perrin. Huh? How would she recognize that? Horace suggests that
> it's some talent at recognizing handlers. That seems a stretch to me -
> and without foundation. I don't see it explained anywhere, so it just
> feels out of place to me.
>
> The only thing I can think of is that it might be linked to something new
> about Echo hinted at in the next episode. So I'll pick up on that when we
> get to it.
I'm all caught up but still don't know what you're talking about, so I have
to agree that I don't see any foundation anywhere.
>> On another note, Adelle seems totally unprepared for Daniel taking
>> Echo/Bree back home with him. Granted, the reason they blackmail the
>> good senator is simply to find out how everyone involved will react. But
>> doesn't an engagement involving a big target pretty much require a decent
>> handler, by definition?
>
> Do they have any decent handlers besides Boyd - who isn't a handler
> anymore? I'm somehow reminded of Darth Vader's relationship with Imperial
> admirals.
Heh. "Apology accepted." Vader I think only actually killed two of his own
guys, but it felt like more.
> Her side of the conversation tended to be naturally conversational and
> made for less of an "acting" appearance. His side, on the other hand, was
> still burdened with a lot of forced rhetoric (forced in good part from his
> lingering imprinting), but we were still given more glimpses of a feeling
> person this time. I'm still not wowed by Denisof's performance, but it's
> quite a step up from his previous brief appearances, and there is a
> connection with Dushku. Perhaps that's a remnant of Faith/Wesley. I
> imagine there had to be some sentimental feelings in playing across from
> each other again.
I'm not used to him not being amazing. But he has to deal with a lot of
speechy dialogue, as discussed, plus playing out an existential crisis. I
feel like this show is demanding on its actors.
> In this episode Madeline is shown concrete evidence of what was done to
> her, which should serve to motivate her to rat out the Dollhouse. But
> something about the play of her behavior feels to me more like somebody
> with abandonment issues acting out. I don't have anything concrete to
> point at for that, so I could easily be wildly off base. Still, the
> surface explanation provided feels incomplete to me.
Well, we'll see. I don't feel the same incompleteness.
>> After waiting all episode for the hyped appearance of Summer Glau, she
>> gets the camera non stop. I tried not to learn too much about her role
>> on the show, but it's no surprise to me that Mutant Enemy didn't have her
>> play an ass-kicking doll (at least, not yet) - way too obvious for a
>> group of producers who like to show off their actors' versatility.
>> Bennett is apparently the Topher of Cindy's House, with a few
>> differences. She's much more conscious of her power, for one, and gives
>> speeches suggesting that she has a cause she believes in.
>
> Hmmm. That didn't occur to me. What are you thinking of?
Mostly her ramble about how they serve a certain purpose, and don't have
some of the luxury of indulgence that others do.
> > This strikes me as a plot intensive episode that relies heavily on
> > pacing,
> surprise and interesting plot points to win over the audience. On that
> level I think it'll hold up fine. It'll always be fun to watch. I also
> think getting the audience to root for the Dollhouse is a notable
> achievement. But I don't think there are any stellar performances and
> only a little emotional resonance. It's far from a great episode. Good
> or Decent kind of depends on mood. Last night I was really in the mood to
> see Dollhouse and really pleased to see so much story. So I'll rate it
> Good today.
I went back and forth between Decent and Good for quite some time, actually.
-AOQ
Don Sample
Tallness is pretty much irrelevant, since arm length is proportional to
height. The biggest impediment would be having a big fat butt, which
Ballard doesn't. The skinnier you are, the easier it is. I just did
the experiment, and I managed it without too much slack between my
wrists, and I am neither skinny, nor anywhere near as flexible as I was
30 years ago.
One Bit Shy
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
> news:0_OdnZh1lN26vobW...@supernews.com...
>> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hfedfu$3dg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> The real puzzler that doesn't feel right here or much later when she
>> repeats the observation to the Senator is, "She's not right," referring
>> to Cindy Perrin. Huh? How would she recognize that? Horace suggests
>> that it's some talent at recognizing handlers. That seems a stretch to
>> me - and without foundation. I don't see it explained anywhere, so it
>> just feels out of place to me.
>>
>> The only thing I can think of is that it might be linked to something new
>> about Echo hinted at in the next episode. So I'll pick up on that when
>> we get to it.
>
> I'm all caught up but still don't know what you're talking about, so I
> have to agree that I don't see any foundation anywhere.
I don't think I'll get to your next review today, unless maybe late tonight.
So, briefly, in the next episode Bennett suggests that Caroline has some
kind of power to bedazzle people, and personally remembers her as far colder
in truth than the Caroline we've been shown to date. There's a lot of
muddled detail, not the least being going through the filter of Bennett's
screwed up mind. So we're a long way from knowing the truth. (Hell, the
whole thing might be an imprinted fake.) None of that relates to the
discussion above in a way that can be seen now. I'm just noting that the
show is suggesting that there's a huge hidden side to Caroline/Echo that's
only now coming to light. Perhaps her ability to recognize something in
Cindy somehow ties to this hidden part of Caroline. Yes, I know that's
ridiculously vague. So the "no foundation" opinion remains very much where
I stand.
Incidentally, I can't help but note all the discussion in reviews everywhere
about how the Bennett role is crafted for Summer Glau. While I can see some
comparisons with River - it's certainly Summer's performance style - the
comparison that works better for me personally is AtS's Fred. It feels more
like an Amy Acker part than a Summer Glau one. Am I the only one to think
that? I know that the season's story outline originally planned for a lot
more from Whiskey/Saunders. I wonder if some remnants of that plan got
rolled into the character.
>> In this episode Madeline is shown concrete evidence of what was done to
>> her, which should serve to motivate her to rat out the Dollhouse. But
>> something about the play of her behavior feels to me more like somebody
>> with abandonment issues acting out. I don't have anything concrete to
>> point at for that, so I could easily be wildly off base. Still, the
>> surface explanation provided feels incomplete to me.
>
> Well, we'll see. I don't feel the same incompleteness.
Elsewhere you point out something I didn't notice - how Echo asking Perrin
to trust her mirrors Ballard asking Madeline the same. Both choices, at
least superficially, appear to be not to trust them. But I think we're
supposed to think that in both cases they should be trusted - at least
within the limits of the particular circumstances. I don't think a choice
like that works dramatically unless the chooser is genuinely torn by it.
I'm not certain that Madeline yearns a little to be a doll again, but I'm
pretty sure that something continues to pull her towards Ballard.
Madeline is paralleling Perrin more broadly too in the sense of coming to
terms with what the Dollhouse has done to them. You spoke of him going
through an "existential crisis". An important part of that (mostly next
episode) is him realizing that there's much of what they made him into that
he wants and much of what he used to be that he really doesn't want to
return to. (Echo has similar feelings.) When Madeline is shown the picture
of her killing her attacker, she is genuinely appalled - as Madeline - at
the thought of her being a killer. But wouldn't she inevitably also feel a
secret thrill at having been such a badass - to have wielded such power? I
don't see how she could look at those photos of her hidden past without
wondering if maybe she had lived a better life that way.
I think the background/theme to these two episodes is the existential crisis
you refer to. And I think it includes Madeline - not just Perrin and Echo.
Alas, I fear that Madeline is being set up for tragedy. We'll probably see
since it appears her story is just taking off. (Perrin's story might be
over. I'm not sure.) In any case, I don't think it's as simple as how
Madeline has been used by others. If for no other reason that it's November
that Echo wanted to help - not Madeline.
>>> After waiting all episode for the hyped appearance of Summer Glau, she
>>> gets the camera non stop. I tried not to learn too much about her role
>>> on the show, but it's no surprise to me that Mutant Enemy didn't have
>>> her play an ass-kicking doll (at least, not yet) - way too obvious for a
>>> group of producers who like to show off their actors' versatility.
>>> Bennett is apparently the Topher of Cindy's House, with a few
>>> differences. She's much more conscious of her power, for one, and gives
>>> speeches suggesting that she has a cause she believes in.
>>
>> Hmmm. That didn't occur to me. What are you thinking of?
>
> Mostly her ramble about how they serve a certain purpose, and don't have
> some of the luxury of indulgence that others do.
OK. I took that as some kind of coping mechanism for her messed up psyche
as opposed to any kind of cause.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
As far as Caroline goes, she's been less of a factor in S2 thus far, but
we'll see where the rest of the show takes us. So far that glamour mainly
relates to the ability to make various characters tell us that both Caroline
and Echo are something special. More persuasion than perception.
So, no foundation it is.
> Incidentally, I can't help but note all the discussion in reviews
> everywhere about how the Bennett role is crafted for Summer Glau. While I
> can see some comparisons with River - it's certainly Summer's performance
> style - the comparison that works better for me personally is AtS's Fred.
> It feels more like an Amy Acker part than a Summer Glau one. Am I the
> only one to think that? I know that the season's story outline originally
> planned for a lot more from Whiskey/Saunders. I wonder if some remnants
> of that plan got rolled into the character.
Well, she's already had her encounter with Topher which, by necessity, goes
in an entirely different direction.
I don't really associate parts with actors, since Joss and company like to
write to actors' versatility, perceived or actual. I'm sure part of the
purpose was to write Glau as something other than just an ass-kicking
superhero or a victim of mental trauma. Acker certainly could have played
this part (what with being versatile and all), but maybe they were thinking
specifically of Glau, because she's good.
-AOQ
One Bit Shy
> In article <0_OdnZh1lN26vobW...@supernews.com>,
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>
>> In this case I think it's more about the ruthlessness of Rossum (and the
>> D.C. Dollhouse). The most interesting thing to me was what they planned
>> to
>> do with him - sacrifice one of their Dollhouses to make him an
>> untouchable
>> hero and effective leader of any potential opposition.
>
> But it turned out that that it *wasn't* their scheme. They weren't
> planning to sacrifice any of their Dollhouses. I'm fairly sure that if
> they tried, it would backfire badly, since DeWitt, and several other
> people who work for the LA Dollhouse know all about their connection to
> Rossum, and probably have lots of corroborating evidence squirrelled
> away just in case they ever need to cover their asses.
OK. I've watched it again now. I think it's clear that they had an
opportunity to re-program the good Senator before the hearing. So that
explains how they incorporated his wife's death into the story. That also
gives them the opportunity to change the story in other ways too, which
doesn't necessarily mean they didn't plan to betray Madeline all along.
Doesn't necessarily mean they did either.
I think what's actually shown allows us to go either way. Whichever story
and improvisation we like better and/or can imagine necessary behind the
scene actions for is acceptable. (For example, part of the solution to
potential DeWitt blackmail would likely be a dead DeWitt and a lot of
physical destruction within the L.A. Dollhouse. We've been pointedly told
and shown how closely Rossum watches her and her operations, and told by
DeWitt herself how ready they are to kill people who talk. Even if that
isn't part of this plan, they surely have a plan for neutralizing her that
can be triggered on demand. She's always a threat to them. Not just now.)
In other words I think it's been left to us to make up what works for
ourselves.
I think the points remain that Rossum is quite ready, willing and more than
able to do whatever's necessary, and that their objective is huge.
(President Perrin?) The lasting impression I get at the end is of Rossum
operatives everywhere. Carrying in the boxes of committee "evidence".
Rossum as FBI taking custody of Madeline. A bunch of stone faced people
cropping up everywhere. Rossum is watching. "Your mind is our business."
OBS
Don Sample
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
> For example, part of the solution to
> potential DeWitt blackmail would likely be a dead DeWitt and a lot of
> physical destruction within the L.A. Dollhouse.
That's why you put a dead-man switch on your blackmail material.
David Milligan
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
Fred - cold.
David Milligan
"One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
news:BYGdnb0FT61vrIHW...@supernews.com...
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-60BEBC...@news-central.giganews.com...
>> In article <0_OdnZh1lN26vobW...@supernews.com>,
>> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote:
>>
>>> In this case I think it's more about the ruthlessness of Rossum (and the
>>> D.C. Dollhouse). The most interesting thing to me was what they planned
>>> to
>>> do with him - sacrifice one of their Dollhouses to make him an
>>> untouchable
>>> hero and effective leader of any potential opposition.
>>
>> But it turned out that that it *wasn't* their scheme. They weren't
>> planning to sacrifice any of their Dollhouses. I'm fairly sure that if
>> they tried, it would backfire badly, since DeWitt, and several other
>> people who work for the LA Dollhouse know all about their connection to
>> Rossum, and probably have lots of corroborating evidence squirrelled
>> away just in case they ever need to cover their asses.
>
> OK. I've watched it again now. I think it's clear that they had an
> opportunity to re-program the good Senator before the hearing. So that
> explains how they incorporated his wife's death into the story. That also
> gives them the opportunity to change the story in other ways too, which
> doesn't necessarily mean they didn't plan to betray Madeline all along.
> Doesn't necessarily mean they did either.
>
WAY too many holes -- wouldn't the authorities check on the car
explosion? What about her body, and the others, in the nursery?
Ben Morrow
Quoth "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry>:
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hfh4jt$54j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
> > news:0_OdnZh1lN26vobW...@supernews.com...
> >
> >> repeats the observation to the Senator is, "She's not right," referring
> >> to Cindy Perrin. Huh? How would she recognize that? Horace suggests
> >> that it's some talent at recognizing handlers. That seems a stretch to
> >> me - and without foundation. I don't see it explained anywhere, so it
> >> just feels out of place to me.
> >>
> >> The only thing I can think of is that it might be linked to something new
> >> about Echo hinted at in the next episode. So I'll pick up on that when
> >> we get to it.
> >
> > I'm all caught up but still don't know what you're talking about, so I
> > have to agree that I don't see any foundation anywhere.
>
> I don't think I'll get to your next review today, unless maybe late tonight.
> So, briefly, in the next episode Bennett suggests that Caroline has some
> kind of power to bedazzle people, and personally remembers her as far colder
> in truth than the Caroline we've been shown to date. There's a lot of
> muddled detail, not the least being going through the filter of Bennett's
> screwed up mind. So we're a long way from knowing the truth. (Hell, the
> whole thing might be an imprinted fake.) None of that relates to the
> discussion above in a way that can be seen now. I'm just noting that the
> show is suggesting that there's a huge hidden side to Caroline/Echo that's
> only now coming to light. Perhaps her ability to recognize something in
> Cindy somehow ties to this hidden part of Caroline. Yes, I know that's
> ridiculously vague. So the "no foundation" opinion remains very much where
> I stand.
Echo appears, in her doll state, to be very observant, and to be good at
spotting when things aren't quite as they seem. It's not clear Echo knew
Cindy was a handler, or even that she was Dollhouse, she just saw
straight away that something was 'off'. (I had the same feeling from the
first time she was introduced, actually, but like the DH staff I assumed
she was going to be a Doll.)
As far as some hidden, harder side of Caroline goes, I don't think we've
seen anything yet that contradicts the impression given by 'Echoes': her
heart may be in the right place, but she rushes into things without
thinking them through, and people get hurt. Bennett's memory is of
Caroline abandoning her, presumably after some heist-gone-wrong; it's
not the least bit clear whether this was simple callousness on Caroline's
part or whether she had reason to believe Bennett would be more-or-less
OK. If (say) she knew the police were coming, it's unlikely that staying
could possibly have helped anyone.
> > Mostly her ramble about how they serve a certain purpose, and don't have
> > some of the luxury of indulgence that others do.
>
> OK. I took that as some kind of coping mechanism for her messed up psyche
> as opposed to any kind of cause.
I got the distinct impression that the 'indulgence' Bennett was not
giving in to was a love of cruelty. (Which, incidentally, is new for
Summer: both River and Cameron cause huge amounts of damage, but in an
essentially amoral fashion.) She certainly jumped straight into
torturing Echo without a moment's thought or hesitation.
ISTR reading some Joss spoiler somewhere saying that Bennett would be a
more moral person that Topher... since it seems clear at this point that
her main function is to make Topher *more* sympathetic by comparison
(having spent a season and a half setting him up as almost completely
amoral) I presume that should just be filed under 'Joss Whedon lies like
a rug' :).
Ben
One Bit Shy
news:hfhe3p$lph$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Maybe. Considering how the "FBI" turned Mellie over to the D.C. Dollhouse,
it would seem that Rossum has its hooks into law enforcement, so I'm not
sure that it has to be a big issue. But even if that is an issue, they
appear to be practiced at covering up murders and probably had a team
furiously working the problem as the Senator spoke.
> What about her body, and the others, in the nursery?
What about them? If the police is investigating anything, it's the car
explosion, not the nursery. Besides, one would expect Rossum to also be
well practiced in disposing bodies. If Boyd can do it as easily as he did
in this season's 4th episode, surely Rossum has the resources to do the
same.
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:fnqtu6-...@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org...
> ISTR reading some Joss spoiler somewhere saying that Bennett would be a
> more moral person that Topher... since it seems clear at this point that
> her main function is to make Topher *more* sympathetic by comparison
> (having spent a season and a half setting him up as almost completely
> amoral) I presume that should just be filed under 'Joss Whedon lies like
> a rug' :).
But a comfy rug with a really deep pile that we can't resist sinking our
toes into. Heh.
OBS
Ben Morrow
Quoth "David Milligan" <david...@yahoo.com>:
>
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in message
> news:YpidnWoDOKZkuIHW...@supernews.com...
> >
> > everywhere about how the Bennett role is crafted for Summer Glau. While I
> > can see some comparisons with River - it's certainly Summer's performance
> > style - the comparison that works better for me personally is AtS's Fred.
> > It feels more like an Amy Acker part than a Summer Glau one. Am I the
> > only one to think that? I know that the season's story outline originally
> > planned for a lot more from Whiskey/Saunders. I wonder if some remnants
> > of that plan got rolled into the character.
> >
> >
> Didn't like Bennett so much, but she reminded me more of Ilyria than
> Fred - cold.
I have to disagree here. She's certainly unpleasant, but she's not
inhumanly cold like Illyria or Cameron. In that respect she's much more
like River, actually: someone who was once perfectly human, but has been
broken almost beyond repair. Unlike River, I suspect in Bennett's case
that redemption will be dangled in front of us but never materialise. (I
suppose you could characterise her as a classic comics supervillain,
actually, the sort of person Dr Horrible ended up as.)
Ben
One Bit Shy
It's not a perfect match with any character. It is supposed to be unique.
The fragile and broken super smart gal reminded me of Pylean Fred (and for a
little while after), which got me imagining Amy Acker playing the role, and
then the character concept really locked into place for me. Which is not a
knock on Summer. I love the Bennett/Topher chemistry and the wonderful,
even delicate timing of their physical and verbal interactions. I just
found it easier to connect with past roles like Fred and Saunders as
templates than I did with Cameron and River. Fred certainly seems nicer, so
the comparative coldness is one of the differences. But Fred also attempted
to kill the man she felt was responsible for her torment, and seemed awful
eager to cattle prod Conner as much as she could. So the difference isn't
that enormous.
That's just how it felt to me.
OBS
Ben Morrow
Quoth "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry>:
> news:kprtu6-...@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org...
> >
> > Quoth "David Milligan" <david...@yahoo.com>:
> >>
> >> than
> >> Fred - cold.
> >
> > I have to disagree here. She's certainly unpleasant, but she's not
> > inhumanly cold like Illyria or Cameron. In that respect she's much more
> > like River, actually: someone who was once perfectly human, but has been
> > broken almost beyond repair. Unlike River, I suspect in Bennett's case
> > that redemption will be dangled in front of us but never materialise. (I
> > suppose you could characterise her as a classic comics supervillain,
> > actually, the sort of person Dr Horrible ended up as.)
>
> It's not a perfect match with any character. It is supposed to be unique.
> The fragile and broken super smart gal reminded me of Pylean Fred (and for a
> little while after), which got me imagining Amy Acker playing the role, and
> then the character concept really locked into place for me. Which is not a
> knock on Summer. I love the Bennett/Topher chemistry and the wonderful,
> even delicate timing of their physical and verbal interactions. I just
> found it easier to connect with past roles like Fred and Saunders as
> templates than I did with Cameron and River. Fred certainly seems nicer, so
> the comparative coldness is one of the differences. But Fred also attempted
> to kill the man she felt was responsible for her torment, and seemed awful
> eager to cattle prod Conner as much as she could. So the difference isn't
> that enormous.
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all :). It seems to me that Fred
could very easily have turned into a Bennett-like character, had things
gone a little differently. She certainly has the ruthlessness when
required (and, yes, sometimes more than was *strictly* required) that
could so easily turn into cruelty.
Ben
scenario_dave
> "One Bit Shy" <O...@nomail.sorry> wrote in messagenews:BYGdnb0FT61vrIHW...@supernews.com...
>
>
> > opportunity to re-program the good Senator before the hearing. So that
> > explains how they incorporated his wife's death into the story. That also
> > gives them the opportunity to change the story in other ways too, which
> > doesn't necessarily mean they didn't plan to betray Madeline all along.
> > Doesn't necessarily mean they did either.
>
> WAY too many holes -- wouldn't the authorities check on the car
> explosion? What about her body, and the others, in the nursery?
>
>
Last we see of the Senator, he's greaving over his ead wife's body
saying that they can make me forget.
I think it went something like this, wife arrives, sees that the
senator is there. Muscle men call for backup. A few minutes later
backup arrives. Senator refuses to leave dead wife, Echo runs.
Backup takes the Senator to the Dollhouse, puts wife's dead body in
senators car and blows it up and cleans up other dead bodies and other
evidence. The explosion destoys the evidence. The cops aren't
looking at the greenhouse and there is not much to find there
anyhow.
>
> > I think what's actually shown allows us to go either way. Whichever story
> > and improvisation we like better and/or can imagine necessary behind the
> > scene actions for is acceptable. (For example, part of the solution to
> > potential DeWitt blackmail would likely be a dead DeWitt and a lot of
> > physical destruction within the L.A. Dollhouse. We've been pointedly told
> > and shown how closely Rossum watches her and her operations, and told by
> > DeWitt herself how ready they are to kill people who talk. Even if that
> > isn't part of this plan, they surely have a plan for neutralizing her that
> > can be triggered on demand. She's always a threat to them. Not just
> > now.)
>
> > In other words I think it's been left to us to make up what works for
> > ourselves.
>
> > I think the points remain that Rossum is quite ready, willing and more
> > than able to do whatever's necessary, and that their objective is huge.
> > (President Perrin?) The lasting impression I get at the end is of Rossum
> > operatives everywhere. Carrying in the boxes of committee "evidence".
> > Rossum as FBI taking custody of Madeline. A bunch of stone faced people
> > cropping up everywhere. Rossum is watching. "Your mind is our business."
>
> > OBS- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pete B
opusthepen...@gmail.com says...
> One Bit Shy (O...@nomail.sorry) wrote:
>
> > How many hidden dolls have there really been?
>
> Not too many, as you note. Also significant, we have established that
> Adelle, Topher, and Ballard are not dolls.
This is probably something they should have established earlier.
And of course you could always invent an excuse for them being it anyway
a lot later.
Don Sample
Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns9CD92ABF0FB4Dop...@85.214.113.135>,
> opusthepen...@gmail.com says...
> > One Bit Shy (O...@nomail.sorry) wrote:
> >
> > > How many hidden dolls have there really been?
> >
> > Not too many, as you note. Also significant, we have established that
> > Adelle, Topher, and Ballard are not dolls.
>
> This is probably something they should have established earlier.
It was established mid way through the first season.
Pete B
dsa...@synapse.net says...
> In article <MPG.2588853e1...@news.usenetserver.com>,
> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9CD92ABF0FB4Dop...@85.214.113.135>,
> > opusthepen...@gmail.com says...
> > > One Bit Shy (O...@nomail.sorry) wrote:
> > >
> > > > How many hidden dolls have there really been?
> > >
> > > Not too many, as you note. Also significant, we have established that
> > > Adelle, Topher, and Ballard are not dolls.
> >
> > This is probably something they should have established earlier.
>
> It was established mid way through the first season.
I don't believe so. What is it you think proved this?
Ben Morrow
Quoth Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com>:
'Echoes', though IIRC it only established Adelle, Topher, Boyd and
Dominic as non-Actives, not Ballard.
Of course, if you wish to be really paranoid you could argue that it was
Topher who established what the drug did, so if he is a Doll that
conclusion is untrustworthy. That also applies here, of course, and
quickly leads to solipsism. (This is something this show is prone to,
being as it is based on existential questioning.)
Ben
Arbitrar Of Quality
news:01678031$0$22425$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Ben Morrow wrote:
>
>>> If she learns that Victor likes Sierra, goes on an engagement, comes
>>> back, gets wiped, she still knows that Victor likes Sierra. Why do we
>>> think Echo should not remember November? Should she also know nothing
>>> about Dr. Saunders?
>>
>> The party line is that Dolls don't remember anything that happened
>> before the last time they were wiped.
>
> I thought that the Doll-personality is its own personality. Everytime the
> an active gets wiped they don't start at zero but get their old doll-
> imprint back.
>
> So I found it rather natural for Echo to recognize November.
In early episodes, it's suggested that dolls aren't supposed to have any
accumulated memories. Think of the "they're a little bit bison" scene from
"Gray Hour," in which Topher and Boyd marvel over the fact that the dolls
unconsciously develop friendships and rituals despite having no episodic
memory of past events.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> ISTR reading some Joss spoiler somewhere saying that Bennett would be a
> more moral person that Topher... since it seems clear at this point that
> her main function is to make Topher *more* sympathetic by comparison
> (having spent a season and a half setting him up as almost completely
> amoral) I presume that should just be filed under 'Joss Whedon lies like
> a rug' :).
If he said that, that's quite amusing.
-AOQ
Ben Morrow
Quoth "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>:
http://www.whedon.info/Joss-Whedon-Dollhouse-Tv-Series,34128.html :
| You have some choice guest stars upcoming. What can you tell us about
| Summer Glau’s character, Bennett, who shows up on December 4 ?
|
| She works for the Washington D.C. Dollhouse, along with Ray Wise’s
| Howard. She’s someone from Caroline’s (Echo’s pre-House name) past.
| She’s got information about Caroline that will really surprise people,
| especially Echo (Eliza Dushku). And she has a dead arm, so what’s not to
| like. One of her arms doesn’t work and it’s in a sling.
|
| Why ?
|
| It just felt right for the character, just like it felt right that she
| should probably dress like a schoolgirl and be very nice and a little
| odd. I would call her the Topher of the D.C. House.
|
| But she’s actually ethical, unlike the amoral Topher ?
|
| Yes, she has morals.
and also (*very* minor spoiler)
| Vf vg gehr jr’er svanyyl frrvat gur srnerq Nggvp jurer gurl fraq gur
| eroryyvbhf ba Qrprzore 18 ?
|
| Jr’er tbvat gb svanyyl erirny jung vg’f yvxr. V pna fnl jvgubhg
| urfvgngvba gung vg vf n wblevqr, vg’f yvxr tbvat gb Qvfarlynaq ba ernyyl
| onq npvq.
Ben
Pete B
says...
>
> Quoth "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com>:
> > "Ben Morrow" <b...@morrow.me.uk> wrote in message
> > news:fnqtu6-...@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org...
> >
> > > ISTR reading some Joss spoiler somewhere saying that Bennett would be a
> > > more moral person that Topher... since it seems clear at this point that
> > > her main function is to make Topher *more* sympathetic by comparison
> > > (having spent a season and a half setting him up as almost completely
> > > amoral) I presume that should just be filed under 'Joss Whedon lies like
> > > a rug' :).
> >
> > If he said that, that's quite amusing.
>
> http://www.whedon.info/Joss-Whedon-Dollhouse-Tv-Series,34128.html :
>
> | You have some choice guest stars upcoming. What can you tell us about
> |
> | She works for the Washington D.C. Dollhouse, along with Ray Wise�??s
> | Howard. She�??s someone from Caroline�??s (Echo�??s pre-House name) past.
> | She�??s got information about Caroline that will really surprise people,
> | especially Echo (Eliza Dushku). And she has a dead arm, so what�??s not to
> | like. One of her arms doesn�??t work and it�??s in a sling.
> |
> | Why ?
> |
> | It just felt right for the character, just like it felt right that she
> | should probably dress like a schoolgirl and be very nice and a little
> | odd. I would call her the Topher of the D.C. House.
> |
> |
> | Yes, she has morals.
lol, so what everbody has morals - its just when they are different from
yours that you don't like them.