So... what Joss thinks he did WRONG, was moving the focus away from the intimacy issues of the CLIENTS.
Interviewer/person who wrote the article is freaking me out, too. After all, the dolls, including Echo (Eliza Dushku), aren't exactly in a position to give what we think of as informed consent to specific engagements
I love how Whedon's all about the "sex" in Dollhouse. Oh, see, Fox is being a bunch of prudes because they won't let me show sex on TV. (What a double standard! They'll show non-sexual torture which is clearly portrayed as non-consensual and not fun for the victim at all, but they won't show sexual torture that's deliberately made to appear as consensual to the undiscerning eye as possible! Hypocrites!) Yes, Dollhouse was supposed to be all about the sex, you know, sex in all of its various forms (except of course consensual). Well, I mean, it wasn't just sex, although my critics say there's "sex for money" in the Dollhouse; it's really about intimacy. Nonconsensual intimacy brought about through mind-altering and enslaving technology, but, you know, dude/blowup doll is intimate, right?* I mean, yeah, we'd want to focus entirely on the client if we were to really do an in-depth exploration of the relationship, because the doll is boring by virtue of mindwipe and all, but it's still a complex give-and-take (she gives, he takes, Pygmalion complex!) relationship worth exploring, right?
Exploitation wasn’t the whole theme. It was going to be a question of, how much of this fantasy will people let us have. Now, I didn’t make exactly the same show [that was pitched], but we did get to delve in the territory a little bit. The idea was always, how much of the fantasy will [viewers] accept and how much will they go, "You know what, this just is too much like real-world situations that are truly appalling and so I can’t let the fantasy happen."
Oh, gross. Seriously, Joss? The theme of the show is "Joss Whedon's sex[/rape] fantasy wank fodder meets FOX TV restrictions"? That's...classy. Well, I guess that explains why he clearly identifies so strongly with the clients as characters (e.g., the story of the client/doll relationship is all about the client's fantasies, desires, and feelings, not the doll at all).
* Where we not supposed to find Mr. Universe and his animatronic woman creepy, then?
The idea was always, how much of the fantasy will [viewers] accept and how much will they go, "You know what, this just is too much like real-world situations that are truly appalling and so I can’t let the fantasy happen."
I think we all know what "fantasy" he's referring to here.
And I think it really ought to have been fucking obvious to someone, at least in the planning stages, that a show explicitly (but not too explicit, tee hee) about "(don't say rape) fantasies" from the word go is not, at present, nor in the near future, a show that should have been advertised the way it was, shown on the channel it was, distributed through the methods it was, with the broadcast practices it was expected to follow, with the format it was advertised as having.
So ... let's revisit that quote from earlier, with this in mind.
The interest in the client kind of moved away.
And this makes explicit what was already obvious to anyone watching the show longer than a few seconds: DOLLHOUSE wasn't just a story about a "(rape) fantasy", it was a rape fantasy story focused primarily on the rapists.
Because - yes, then, automatically that becomes "too much like real-world situations", Joss Whedon, you unbelievable jackass, how do you not get that?
![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
giandujakiss's journal
no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 03:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 03:10 pm (UTC)Interviewer/person who wrote the article is freaking me out, too. After all, the dolls, including Echo (Eliza Dushku), aren't exactly in a position to give what we think of as informed consent to specific engagements
YES, YES YOU MIGHT SAY THAT.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 03:22 pm (UTC)...
Maybe not so much.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 05:30 pm (UTC)Oy.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 06:07 pm (UTC)OTOH, the clips were, I must say, kind of interesting. Possibly because I'm going through TSCC withdrawal, and there was Cameron on my screen.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 08:31 pm (UTC)Exploitation wasn’t the whole theme. It was going to be a question of, how much of this fantasy will people let us have. Now, I didn’t make exactly the same show [that was pitched], but we did get to delve in the territory a little bit. The idea was always, how much of the fantasy will [viewers] accept and how much will they go, "You know what, this just is too much like real-world situations that are truly appalling and so I can’t let the fantasy happen."
Oh, gross. Seriously, Joss? The theme of the show is "Joss Whedon's sex[/rape] fantasy wank fodder meets FOX TV restrictions"? That's...classy. Well, I guess that explains why he clearly identifies so strongly with the clients as characters (e.g., the story of the client/doll relationship is all about the client's fantasies, desires, and feelings, not the doll at all).
* Where we not supposed to find Mr. Universe and his animatronic woman creepy, then?
no subject
Date: 2009-12-07 04:39 am (UTC)made me lol in real life.
dshaf;hsalhfl;ahsdlhl;fhsl;da'
Date: 2009-12-05 09:28 pm (UTC)I'm just going to let this sit here for a second.
The idea was always, how much of the fantasy will [viewers] accept and how much will they go, "You know what, this just is too much like real-world situations that are truly appalling and so I can’t let the fantasy happen."
I think we all know what "fantasy" he's referring to here.
And I think it really ought to have been fucking obvious to someone, at least in the planning stages, that a show explicitly (but not too explicit, tee hee) about "(don't say rape) fantasies" from the word go is not, at present, nor in the near future, a show that should have been advertised the way it was, shown on the channel it was, distributed through the methods it was, with the broadcast practices it was expected to follow, with the format it was advertised as having.
So ... let's revisit that quote from earlier, with this in mind.
The interest in the client kind of moved away.
And this makes explicit what was already obvious to anyone watching the show longer than a few seconds: DOLLHOUSE wasn't just a story about a "(rape) fantasy", it was a rape fantasy story focused primarily on the rapists.
Because - yes, then, automatically that becomes "too much like real-world situations", Joss Whedon, you unbelievable jackass, how do you not get that?
no subject
Date: 2009-12-05 11:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-07 04:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-07 03:29 am (UTC)