On October 23, 2009, Fox aired one of the most shocking hours of broadcast television… like ever.  Fox found the content so potentially disturbing that the show aired with an advisory, warning viewers about the nature of the episode’s macabre content.

In Dollhouse’s fourth episode of the season, “Belonging”, viewers finally receive details on how Sierra ended up in the Dollhouse, and in traditional Whedonesque fashion, those details are tragic times uber.  No one describes the character of Nolan, the man responcible for Piyra’s existence in the Dollhouse, better than Adelle DeWitt:

he’s “a raping scumbag on tick shy of a murderer.”

After resisting his advances, Nolan has Piyra kidnapped – then drugged — all in an elaborate scheme to have her sent to the Dollhouse so he could order her… over and over and over again.  After being tipped off (via the doll Echo) about the truth behind Piyra’s circumstances, Adelle DeWitt (the Madam of the Dollhouse) attempts to cut Nolan off from their services, only to be reminded how large of a contributor to Rossum (DH’s parent organization) Nolan provides.  So, Adelle is forced to comply with Nolan’s wishes, and orders Topher to send Piyra to him, just as he demanded.

But, after an apparent visit from the ghost of Jiminy Cricket, Topher decides, instead, to give Piyra back her original memories — and then send her off to confront Nolan.  After a short but brutal exchange, Piyra stabs Nolan to death.

It would be difficult for me to craft a more — what’s the word I’m looking for here — oh yea, fucked up — it would be difficult for me to craft a more fucked up story than that.  I will freely admit: when I watched that episode, there were tears.

Now, as I’ve already mentioned in part 1 of this post, Dollhouse can’t be pinned down to just one idea, or theme; and “Belonging” surely is exemplary of that.  So just for now, I’d like to focus just on its relation to feminism.

In spite of its horrific depiction of, I don’t think anyone would mistake that this episode was in favor of “rape”.  But, how can it justify such a brutal depiction of it?  Moreover, what was the message behind the ultimate consequences Piyra had to pay?

First, the freedom to do just as Dollhouse did is necessary to even begin the discussion, or within a fictional narrative at least.  What struck me most as the story progressed was that when she was sent to Nolan, it was not as an “active” with but-kicking ninja-samurai skills, nor was she like “November”, and programed with a trigger word that would make her go “Buffy” on Nolan – (Nice, a Whedon-reference on a Whedon-show) -  No, she was sent as Piyra — her only special ability was her determination to get revenge on the man whom stole her entire self-identity away from her.  She was, in the truest sense, just an ordinary girl.

Second, as Piyra admitted herself, even had Topher not asked her to, she still would have confronted Nolan — first thing.

Okay, so this is a blog on television and philosophy, so now I think it’s time for me to spend a moment on the philosophy:

During WWII, French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was taken prisoner as a member of the French Resistance.  Being half-Jewish, Sartre figured that his final moments would be spend as a prisoner of war.  Fortunately enough for him, however, this would not come to pass, and he would eventually gain freedom from the Nazi-run prison.  After Sartre’s escape, his writings drastically changed, and it was said once that:

“Sartre had never felt more free than when he was a prisoner.”

Though Sartre himself would never again serve in the front lines of the Resistance, he would spend the remainder of his life advocating others to serve its cause.  For those fearful of death, Sartre’s only words of solace were:

“Even when faced with death, man is free.  He is free to chose in what manner he will die.”

For Sartre, there was never a gift so grand or burdensome as a persons freedom to speak their voice.

Bringing the discussion back to Dollhouse, Piyra would then seem to meet the qualifications for Sartre’s “hero”.  She knew that facing Nolan could put her in a situation where she could be killed, or would have to kill Nolan; and despite the threat of death, she chose to face him, and confront him head-on.  And as if to make this point even more poignant, it is for her very voice that she is fighting.

Unfortunately for her, now she must not only live with what Nolan did to her, she must live with what she did to him — and that means having his blood on her hands.  After responding to her call and discovering the body, Topher mournfully explains to Langdon:

“She’s ruined.”

According to both Nietzsche and Sartre’s mentor, Heidegger, a person is the sum of their actions and experiences.  That is to say: there is no such thing as an honest lair, or an innocent thief.  I, personally, am not sure how much weight to give Nietzche and Heidegger’s premises, but I think it does bear light on  Topher’s meaning:

Piyra will forever be a person who has committed murder.  Try as she might, she will never be able to wash away all of the blood from her hands — or from her conscious – and that is an experience even experienced hit-man Virgil, from Tarentino’s Tue Romance, will admit changes a person forever.

So we should not look at it as “week” that Piyra expresses a desire not to live with the memory of her actions, even if she had “wished him dead” before.  Delivering with bitter-sweet perfection, Jed and Maurissa provide us with the only option for any sort of “happy ending” — she will return to the Dollhouse, and will never remember the day she became a murderer ever happened.

To close this two part post, I will leave you with a final question: Understanding that if she were to stay out in the world she would certainly be hunted down and murdered, and forever be confounded by the realization that she cannot live as a murderer; was it right for Piyra to concede herself to the Dollhouse, and give up her voice — even if it was now voluntary.  Or, is she saving herself for the front-lines of an even bigger battle to come?

I’m sure we’ll receive at least some of these answers in the few remaining episodes, and I look forward to them with much anticipation.

Cody R. Hobbs

In the late 90′s — early double-0′s, Joss’ name seemed to be as synonymous with feminism as Dr. Ruth Westheimer’s is with sex.  (Why anyone would want to link Ruth’s mug with sexy-time is anyone’s guess, but whatever…)  However, since the launch of his newest show Dollhouse, some fans are asking that Joss’ feminism card be revoked.

Okay, so at a casual glance, you nay sayers out there (the knights who say “nay”?) seem to have some valid points.  First, as Zone points out in “Epitaph One”:

“You mean to tell me that the tech that punk-kicked the ass of mankind was originally designed to create more believable hookers?”

That’s right, the Dollhouse’s primary function, at first glance, is to be a brothel.  And, for the casual viewer, the case against the Dollhouse seems to gain even more traction.

In the long awaited sixth episode, “Man on the Street”, we discover that one of the house’s resident Dolls is being raped — by the episode’s end we see a woman nearly beaten to death.  (There’s more to the episode, but I’ll save that for another post…)

As the series progressed we learn that not all came to the Dollhouse by their own free will, and by the middle of its second season, we get a full view of exactly how Piyra, the tragic Doll in question, landed there — and let’s just say it ain’t a Helen-Keller-feel-good type story.

So, the question has been asked: can a show containing such abundant acts of violence against woman have any value in feminism?  Is the show just down right misogynist?

I’ll argue no to the latter question.  Moreover, I’ll argue that Dollhouse may have some of the strongest feminist messages of any of Joss’ creations.

In Buffy: the Vampire Slayer, we’re given a pint sized gal who’s been “chosen” to fight the forces of evil on earth; and in the shows penultimate season, she faces evil itself, in the form of “The First”.

Then, in Firefly, we’re given River Tam, a girl with psychic abilities who’s butt-kicking abilities are enhanced when the Government experiment with her brain in an attempt to make her a “supper-weapon”.  (ETA: As one reader pointed out, Firefly does offer its viewers a much wider scope of female characterizations, but more on that later… promise)

Finally comes Dollhouse, where we get hookers… who get into the occasional brawl… who sometimes aren’t even given basic hand-to-hand combat skills!

It seems no contest.  Dollhouse should come in at the bottom of the list, if not out right offensive when it comes to treatment of female characters.  But take a closer look:

In Buffy, we have a girl who is “chosen”, and gifted with “super-strength”.  Her strength, we later discover, was forced into her by men, to create a force to fight against earth-bound demons.  Buffy may have been a symbol for real girls, but her powers were anything but.  And again in Firefly, we’re given an equally un-obtainable scenario for River.  Both of these shows demonstrate excellent craft for storytelling, and create a mythology as equally compelling as Homer’s.  (The Iliad guy, not the Simpson)  But I think Dollhouse may offer us something even deeper: more human characters.

Now I know that it’s unlikely that we’ll ever see an exact replica of the Dollhouse technology in real life, but the people they create are just as “human” as you or I, down to Elenore’s bad vision and badly-timed asthma.  The skills the Dolls acquire are skills that any of us can obtain, with the right perseverance and training.  The Dollhouse just offers it “On Demand”.

In the episode “Spy in the House of Love”, it’s Echo who brings the spy to justice (er, Dollhouse justice, that is), ending the complaint that it’s always Echo’s handler, Boyd Langdon (an man BTW) who has to come to this perma-damsel’s rescue.  By the episodes end, Adel informs Mr. Langdon that “it is her that is watching out for us.”

To clarify: In Buffy, we got a girl gifted with super-powers who could kick but; in Dollhouse, we have a girl who has had her conscious diminished to that of a child who ends up saving the entire house from collapse.  (Or at least it was her idea…)

When we return, I’ll take a look at Piyra as Sartre’s “ideal” human.

continued in part 2

So what is it about this single word that has bent our collective undaroos in a bunch?  Dose the shear utterance of the word – in any situation – constitute racism?  (Man, you’re talking about racism?  I thought this blog was about South Park! I’m getting there, I’m getting there…)  Should we empower the word “nigger” even more, and make it a criminal offense to say – in any circumstance?

Fortunately, we haven’t quite hit the crescendo of imprisonment for saying one single word yet.  (unless that word is Fire, an F word that I’ll save for another post…)  Music artists and stand-up comedians alike have taken to the charge of doing what we do with all other words: they are re-forming and re-shaping it.  And I say good for them!  But, others say, not so much.  Pundits, experts and Oprah alike are clamoring about how saying that one single word will put American civilization into a “Lost” like time warp and catapult us as a society back to the 1800′s.  What, no internet!  God that would suck.

So, I decided to devise a little experiment: to all of you reading this at home, let it out.  Just say it: “Nigger”.  Go on, don’t be shy.

Now say it again.  Louder.  Now shout it!  (Or, if you have close-by neighbors, not so loud?)

If you’re still reading this, then we obviously are not in the 1800′s, whew!  In fact, I’m fairly sure nothing happened, except that maybe you feel a little ridiculous for talking to yourself, which you should!

Maybe this means it’s the context of what we say that matters, not the individual words.  And it’s that thought that brings me into the title of this post: South Park and the “F” word.  The “F” word the episode is referring to is another word that is quickly gaining the weight of its big brother “nigger”, and is sparking an even more heated controversy, due in part because the group the word is (currently) referring to is still fighting for its rights.  That, in-and-of itself, might have been enough to grant its status as the “penultimate pejorative”, and expel its use from our colloquial language.  Then along came those wacky fourth-graders from South Park elementary in and reminded us once again just how wrong we are.

For those of you reading this from the short bus, the word in question is “fagot”.  If  you have yet to see the episode, the kids of South Park elementary deem attention-whoring Harley-riders “fagots” when they disrupt the community with their obnoxiously loud bikes.  The boys are shocked when they are accused of being homophobic, stating that they didn’t even know the word WAS a pejorative against gays!  Soon enough, however, the bikers so badly annoy the denizens of South Park that even its resident homosexuals begin shouting FAG at the Harley-hounds.  After a third-act lobby session, the kids have the definition of fag officially changed to mean a person who “ride a loud Harley up and down the streets ruining everyone’s nice time.”  And everyone lived happily ever…

Aw fuck, does it ever really go that way?  Almost as soon as “The ‘F’ Word” hit the air, GLAAD was ready with their response, and it wasn’t to thank them for battling prejudice head on.

Now, before I proceed, I must say that it is heart braking to see the Phelps’ clan dawning posters that read: “Fagots burn in Hell”.  It makes me angry to my core any time I see such expressions of hatred, especially when those signs are put into the hands of children, as Phelps is also notorious for doing.  But is it really the word “fagot” that is the offender here?  Is it not his intention?

And isn’t that just what the children of South Park were really asking?  That it’s not one word that’s the problem, but the context, and the intent in which it was used?  Even if the word “fag” were erased from our collective conscious, wouldn’t the Phelps clan just use some other word?  Or turn the word “homosexual” – the proper nomenclature for a “homosexual person” – into a pejorative itself?

Maybe we should be less concerned with being word police, and instead focus our energies on… oh, I don’t know, not wishing people to hell?  People use words like “fag” “nigger” “spick” et. al. as pejoratives because they’re there.  If you take just the individual words away, you won’t eliminate the thought, you’ll just shift it to a different word.

How often have you used the word “fag”, had the word used toward you, or heard the word used against someone in a context that is specifically intended to be slanderous against homosexuals?  How often have you heard it used in a context that does NOT specifically intend to be slanderous against homosexuals?  Which is more?

Violent acts against any person is heinous; I think that’s something that we all can more or less agree on.  And, prejudice sucks.  No doubt.  So shouldn’t we be pleased that signs like these have come to signal that we might be headed in a new direction?  Lexicographer Erin McKean says that it is completely natural for words to shift meaning in culture, and we should embrace that change, not fight against it.

I understand the ideology that targeting words like “nigger” and “fag” strive to make for a better tomorrow – a tomorrow where our grandchildren don’t have to know the same hatred and prejudices that we face today.  So what future would you rather have?  One where our grandchildren laugh at a time when those words held such venom and significance, or one where we police our individual words, but still foster hateful thoughts?  And nothing washes hate away and brings together like laughter.

As a closing thought, perhaps this is about something even more fundamental than prejudice – after all, each generation seems to find new groups to target, they rarely stay the same.  Maybe this episode of South Park was important because of another “F” word.  I’ll let the one and only Mr. Wallace say it for me: “Freedom”.

Cody Hobbs

I realize that I’m not likely to make many friends here by bashing Lost, so I probably should preface this by saying: This will not be a typical post.  But, being the giant that Lost is, and the hype of how “smart” and “philosophical” it is, I thought it would be important to mention, and I’d like to get it out of the way as soon as possible!  Also, I mean no disrespect to Abrams: I think anyone who has seen his re-imagining of Star Trek knows that J.J. can direct a bad ass movie.

Lost begins promisingly enough: 40+ people crash onto a seemingly deserted island.  There’s a monster (who no one really seems to be that affected by… I would have peed).  A man with a crushed spine is instantly cured.  (The infamous John Locke.)  All of the elements to a promising mystery were in place.  What. The. Fuck. Happened?

Now, as I mentioned in my last post (you know, the one I put up like a couple of hours ago), I’m a huge fan of Joss Whedon, and I’m well aware of how his fans are stereotyped.  (Here is where I would insert a joke about how, upon receiving the news of Dollhouse’s cancellation, I fulled my mini-jet to kamikaze Fox Network, but after 9/11… who’s that at the door?)  No, I can assure you, this is not a “Joss-fan against the world… of television thing.)

I’m well aware that when it comes to fun and original (well, mostly fun) characters, and witty dialog (or at least we think it’s witty; Joss seems to make up most of his own language), Joss has spoiled me.  So I went into Lost set to be disappointed in those areas, and Lost certainly didn’t fail to… um… disappoint in those areas… (Kinda thought that by the time I finished that sentence I’d have come up with something more witty to say, sorry about that.)

When creating the characters for Lost, I sort of imagine Abrams or Lindelof saying: “You know what would be great?!?  If we took every cliche character from the last ten years and stuck them on an island together!”  We have:

The Dr. With the Over Bearing Father

The Bad Boy who uses his chiseled good looks to con women out of their husband’s money

The Magical Negro (This is not a racist thing; the Magical Negro really is a standard TV/Film/Book trope.)

The Hot Chick who just had to kill her abusive step-father (why always step-dad?) defending her mom’s honer who is ratted out to the police only to be chased by an agent who has an over-zealous need to bring her to justice.  (And I understand why he needs to bring her in, but does he have to do it with such vitriol?  and after the nearly four full seasons I watched, we never got the answer…)

THE MAN OF COMPLETE FAITH

The rockstar-turned-junkie (bonus: he’s got an accent!)

And the list goes on and on and on.  I’m sure by now you get the point.  (And if not, I really need to re-think my strategy.)  And this I was willing to forgive in exchange for an interesting story, but Lost didn’t only fail to deliver on that end, it… well, imagine something like 10x worse than “fail”, and that’s what Lost did.

The second season of the series introduced us to the “tail-ies”, a vastly more interesting (and more believably written) group of survivors separated from the others when the plain trisected mid-air.  We were introduced to the incredibly sexy* “Ana Lucia” (played by the equally-sexy Michelle Rodriguez), our islands resident (and much hotter) Nietzsche.  (And I found this connection quite delightful considering Nietzsche himself said that a woman such as Ana probably “suffers from a sexual disorder”.)  But, it turned out Ana was too interesting for Lost to handle, so she was murdered in what was one of the most frustrating finalies in television history.  (I am aware that she wasn’t shot in the very last episode, but close enough.  And when I say frustrating, I mean BAD, as in, “I think it’s time to stop watching” BAD.

And then came season three.  When the show became down right redonculus.  With the Dr., the bad boy, and the hot chick all kidnapped, the show devolved into a weekly soap-opera of “who’s bed has your boots been under” (or, who’s cage have you been bonking in out-doors, and in front of the many cameras that are recording your every move).  And as if that wasn’t enough, each week brought us SEVERAL new gun-filled stand-offs, where NO BODY EVER GOT SHOT!  Even when it would make NO SENSE FOR A CHARACTER NOT TO SHOOT SOMEONE, NO BODY EVER GOT SHOT.  BUT JUDGING BY THE INTENSITY OF THE DIALOG, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT EVERY SCRIPT FOR SEASON THREE WAS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS.

Just shoot Sawyer already, for fucks sake!  Season four (I couldn’t make it all the way through) tried to dial down the melodrama in exchange for a return to its “syfy” roots.  Except I’m not too sure Lindloff, or any of the other writers for that matter, have ever read ANY real science books, or even any real science-fiction books.  All I can say for certain is, with the direction the show is going, its sixth, and final season should re-name the show to Really Lost.

So, in (not-so)short, that is why you won’t find many articles of Lost, even if it is heralded as one of the most philosophically engaging shows of all time!!!

Agree or disagree, or if you want to point out a pint of suck that I missed, let me know below!  Thank you for reading (whomever you are)

Cody Hobbs

*I use the word “sexy” to describe Rodriguez’s portrait of the character: it’s not just her looks, she made the character sassy!

But two considerations urged me to diversify: first, I don’t wish to be that myopic; and second, the dear and fluffy execs at Fox can’t seem to hang on to Whedon’s shows past a season or two.  So, as a television aficionado (the nice word for “couch-potato”) I have decided to dedicate this blog to the entire landscape of television,  or at least to some of the television I watch.

I suppose I should talk about why I started this blog, what its mission statement is, and all that other stuff that no one really gives a fiddlers fart about, so, I think I’ll skip it, save one thought: combining philosophy and television for me is like mixing peanut-butter and jelly (strawberry jam, yum), it’s just damn tasty.  And, it makes me feel like I’m not wasting my time… quite so much.

With that said, I will give you a preview of what you WON’T see here.  There’s a lot of crappy TeeVee, and there’s a lot of crappy TeeVee that takes a lions share of the viewership.  I just don’t have any interest in most procedurals like NCIS, CSI… most shows that are acronyms really; if you can’t take the time to give us a full name for your show, I can’t take the time to watch.

Okay, that was mean and unnecessary… I do think SVU (a Law and Order spin-off) has proven itself to be mostly entertaining, and E.R., in its prime, was a fantastic series, but I digress…

It’s unlikely that you’ll see me opine on the pacifism of Dora, or discuss the art-imitating-life-pretending-to-be-art that is reality television; though I must admit I do occasionally check up on Lauren Conrad, and I think Dr. Drew is brilliant.  (And for those of you not in the know, they are on two separate shows, though a crossover might be fun…)

No, what you’ll get here is the ramblings of a philosophy-major-turned film maker.  And it’s not that I just love TeeVee, I love story telling.  And I love the wholly immersive landscape that serialized television offers.  I remember in an episode of The Wonder Years an older Kevin Arnold reminiscing about what people first thought of the first generation to be raised with that mysterious box that is the television, and the prognosis was cynical.  The only worthy medium for story-telling, it has been said ad nauseum, is the novel.  TeeVee only rots your brain.  And it seems that, at least to some degree, that’s been a prejudice that’s stuck.

I would like to respectfully disagree.  Maybe together we can discover the wonder that this medium truly has to offer…

Cody Hobbs