He's a dashing-looking fellow. I hope this cause works well for him.


... What?

Craig Oxbrow | September 24, 23:56 CET

Edited for overreaction to non-official web-site. Consider me punk'd.

[ edited by Romo Lampkin on 2009-11-13 23:10 ]

Romo Lampkin | September 24, 23:56 CET

It's not the artist's job to be on anyone's side

Uh, it is if that's what they want their job to be.

That said, I actually don't particularly disagree on the specific case here, since heading into the show we don't even really know one way or the other what the writers have in store for Perrin's political positions (if anything). All we know heading into the show is he wants to investigate Rossum.

b!X | September 25, 00:01 CET

Well, I think Joss always had this side to his art. He did have Buffy free workers with a hammer and a sickle.

wiesengrund | September 25, 00:02 CET

Actually, if they want to be on someone's particular side, they become less an artist and more a lobbyist, or worse still, a pundit.

Romo Lampkin | September 25, 00:03 CET

I'm really perplexed as to this idea that artists are supposed to somehow be objective and neutral. I have no idea where it came from.

b!X | September 25, 00:06 CET

So fun!

Pointy | September 25, 00:12 CET

It's a generic pro-reform slideshow posted to an unrealistic site geared toward uberfans to lend it a little reality. A shot over the bow about health care reform within the context of the show this is not. I doubt it's going to convince anyone of anything. Except that the Senator needs a new web designer.

Sunfire | September 25, 00:13 CET

One last one before I go, b!X; artists don't have to be objective. Their work, to some extent, has to be at least if it wants to reach those who don't already support their ideas in full. In which case, the relationship between artist and audience becomes not unlike the Pavlovian response of a Daily Show audience, while all others tune out.

Look, Joss can write anything he wants. My argument is (and I think Joss has even said this though his exact quote eludes me) it's a fine line between insightful commentary and propaganda. Inclusion of the health care briefing on the website felt like it crossed a line (in a couple of unhelpful ways) so I spoke up (as once instructed by the Master to do so).

[ edited by Romo Lampkin on 2009-09-25 00:15 ]

[ edited by Romo Lampkin on 2009-09-25 00:17 ]

Romo Lampkin | September 25, 00:13 CET

Dollhouse is a show about sexual slavery. So, you know. There's a lot of ideas on the table.

gossi | September 25, 00:21 CET

the Pavlovian response of a Daily Show audience

Of course, surveys show that show's audience is more informed about current events than the average person. If that's Pavlovian, go Pavlov go.

b!X | September 25, 00:31 CET

Ah, silly b!X, if Pavlov would really go, then everyone would be more informed about current events than the average person! That's the aporia of the universe-collapsing kind!

wiesengrund | September 25, 00:35 CET

Big Sigh.

@B!x: OK, if you prefer then, the Pavlovian response of Dittoheads to Rush Limbaugh's daily drivel, the Pavlovian response of Friends of the Factor's to O'Reilly's latest outburst, the Pavlovian response of the Glenn Beck viewers to whatever he's crying over, the Pavlovian response of Keith Olbermann's acolytes to his latest Special Message of Self-Importance, the Pavlovian response of Rachel Maddow's...actually Rachel's just adorable so I'll leave it there. I picked the Daily Show as an example, but you can find lots of others out there were "news" and "politics" mix.

EDIT: and my point about the Daily Show isn't that its audience isn't informed; it's just that where once the Daily Show felt like informed, biting satire, now it feels like, well, partisan masturbation. Still, humorous, but way too self-congratulatory and unwilling to satirize the people it helped elect. That's sort of what i was trying to get at in terms of the difference between commentary/propaganda.

But I've got no brook with Daily Show viewers per se.

[ edited by Romo Lampkin on 2009-09-25 00:42 ]

[ edited by Romo Lampkin on 2009-09-25 00:43 ]

Romo Lampkin | September 25, 00:37 CET

I have a feeling this Senator would have better luck convincing people to abolish Blue Cross and their ilk and replace it with universal health care than what he plans to do with Rossum. A guy named Boxbaum will see to that (see "True Believer").

impalergeneral | September 25, 00:51 CET

I'm gonna sit here and make a list of reasons why a senator would be after a corporation like Rossum.
1. He's for corporate oversight, yet somehow was able to raise enough funds for a campain without corporate interests.
2. He's against progressive science, and found out about Rossum while doing work fighting stem cell research. He's not sure what they do, but he's convinced they're up to no good.
3. He's for health care reform, and sites Rossum as one of the the places where reform is needed. A corporation like Rossum would be getting millions in government grants and his charts included in his press release talked about the great increase in government spending on health care.
4. He's against animal cruelty, and has gotten wind of the animal treatments going on in Rossum facilities.

Of the four, number three is the most believable and topical. But I'm sure you're right, Joss just wants to promote his agenda. Because TV shows are produced by one person, all by themselves, and are reflective of only that persons mind. No one else has had any input as to the direction of Dollhouse.

rocknjosie | September 25, 01:00 CET

I'm sure everything is exactly how it appears, that there will be no surprises, and that the good guys will be clearly identified by their white hats.

Pointy | September 25, 01:05 CET

I'm with Pointy.

ETA: Especially since we all know that elected politicians are - as a rule - honest, reliable, and well-informed.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2009-09-25 01:15 ]

brinderwalt | September 25, 01:11 CET

Hrm. Fixing errant bold tag.

b!X | September 25, 01:13 CET

This site is apparently using artwork from another site. I'm guessing this is a smart fan with some extra time on his/her hands.

(The HTML reads the Senate image from http://katysconservativecorner.typepad.com/.)

Andrea 2s1 | September 25, 01:15 CET

We also notice there's not much info on the Senator, as if he was made out of thin air.
Uh-oh..........
Well, that's one theory

impalergeneral | September 25, 01:33 CET

rocknjosie,

Your list is missing another possible factor - that maybe he is against the idea of prostitution.

I think it would be cool if Joss makes him a kind of "family values" politician and a healthcare reformer - that would be kinda brilliant. It would blur the lines between the two parties quite nicely.

Also...Alexis!!!!!

[ edited by ShanshuBugaboo on 2009-09-25 01:49 ]

ShanshuBugaboo | September 25, 01:46 CET

Pointy has made an excellent point which explains the total lack of white hats in the Season 1 wardrobe.

Sunfire | September 25, 02:43 CET

Yea... I'm not 100% sure that this is 'canon' and not a fan's website. It just doesn't seem ... right.

VeryVeryCrowded | September 25, 03:12 CET

cheesy and pointless

baxter | September 25, 03:19 CET

I love the Tim Minear injoke.

Simon | September 25, 07:02 CET

So freakin' weird. Good pics of Alexis. Can't wait to see him back in action.

twinkle | September 25, 10:05 CET

Please elaborate.

wiesengrund | September 25, 10:18 CET

"You are currently viewing: Home"

;).

Simon | September 25, 10:32 CET

By representing the worst aspects of both parties, such a character would merely remove the already blurred line between the extremist left and extremist right.

mangydog | September 25, 19:33 CET