I also find some of the criticisms to be puzzling.

Stories can be about something without condoning it (e.g., The Color Purple shows slavery but does not condone it; Fight Club shows violence but does not condone it). The purpose of setting a story in a particular framework can be to challenge that setting/mode of thinking/power dynamic.

It would be a shame if Fox cancelled one of the more thought-provoking shows on tv.

They bring in a young African-American man to be a doll at the end of episode 7 (I think it was 7; it's the one where the crazy drug gets released on a college campus).

Although if you want to hang on to your moral indignation, the black character was lying and murderous.

SPOILER ALERT!

Interesting take on the show as illustrating the Faustian bargain many make with corporate America. I can see what you're saying, but read a different message in the show.

I took it as a feminist message: people (largely men) program you to fulfill their desires and ignore/have no interest in the development of the real you. Some women buy into the system, like De Witt. But it's mostly men doing the damage, and all the while they think they are protecting women. Some realize the conditioning they've somewhat willingly, somewhat by coersion (seemingly both are true for all the dolls) been subjected to.

Maybe we're both right.

"Given the racial profile of the show, it's a cheap, exploitative, unearned gesture."

Oh yeah? Well Echo's OVERSEER is BLACK!!!

How come his head isn't shaved?

/rimshot

I imagine the show will endure, as somebody high up in Fox LOVES Eliza Dushku. Just look at how often she's resurfaced on Fox. It's certainly not her acting chops that give her the leading roles she's given. And if "Dollhouse" gets scrapped, probably in a couple more years, another Dushku vehicle will be crafted for her by her patron(s) at Fox.

And his premise this time around is way too subtle.

The Dollhouse is merely an extension of the type of conformity required by all powerful people and organizations. Ballard is an outcast in the FBI because he refuses to be exactly what his superiors want him to be - he won't take the treatment, so they send him to the attic. He has about as much choice in his life as the Dolls do. Sign the contract and do what they say, or live with terrible consequences. This may also be an analogy for what happens to TV writers who make shows that are too smart for TV, eg Firefly.

Your bosses demand that you be exactly what the role they assign you requires, freak out when you drift from that. Smart and enlightened bosses appreciate it when you show initiative and find better ways to achieve their goals. In return for living within the imprint they choose for you, you get a nice car, a big TV, and one luxury vacation every year.

The biggest difference here is that the Dollhouse treats it's slaves like they have intrinsic value.

This is a 5 year story arc, and it's hard to imagine what the next 4 seasons could have to say that this one doesn't. But I'd be willing to bet that in the end every one of these characters turns out to be a Doll.

So it must be on the top 5 of most precious intolerable horseshit from the Film Studies dept @ Salon.

They bring in a young African-American man to be a doll at the end of episode 7 (I think it was 7; it's the one where the crazy drug gets released on a college campus).

Although if you want to hang on to your moral indignation, the black character was lying and murderous.

They bring in an African-American and force him to become a doll, and that's the last we see of him. He isn't even in the mix of extras wandering around and doing yoga from time to time.

That's tokenism. Not diversity.

Oh yeah? Well Echo's OVERSEER is BLACK!!!

Gee. So they have one consistent black character, compared to how many white characters? Boy oh boy, did you raise a really tough, irrefutable point. Gosh golly darn. Can't believe I didn't think through the vast implications of that single, solitary black actor cast in a recurring role, as compared to all the lily white people who surround him.

Wow. If only people realized that having ONE PERSON OF COLOR among a big group of white people meant that no racism was occurring and diversity had been achieved. That would make things better for the brown, black and yellow people of the world; they would realize that there was nothing to complain about any more.

Still, if there were something to complain about, it would be important that, aside from Sierra (and the guy who gets the pitch from Adelle, then disappears), there are no dolls of color. But surely, surely, someone out there with a few million to waste on fantasies, might, just might, want a doll whose skin isn't the color of fresh milk? It's not that there's no reason to have dolls of color; it's that they're not cast.

The Dollhouse is merely an extension of the type of conformity required by all powerful people and organizations.

If that's the premise, the show isn't subtle--it's baroque. That point has been made again and again without the elaborate, ornate business of what Topher and Adelle do to other people. Check out "A Man for All Seasons," "Becket" and "Silkwood" (all based on real people) or even "Brazil," just for starters.

Christopher: "I took it as a feminist message: people (largely men) program you to fulfill their desires and ignore/have no interest in the development of the real you"

The analogue there might be the young trophy wife of the older wealthy gentleman - a bauble to display at parties, something to go with the luxury car. Yes, that's a Dollhouse theme - but not the only one.

However, that wasn't the finale's central point at all, was it? In fact, the question there - are the dolls who signed off on their contracts, willingly giving up their free will - makes you wonder who the the real bad guys are? Are the dolls innocent, and the doll handlers guilty? Not really, one thinks - but there is an issue there with the abdication of responsibility - and that's probably what makes a lot of people angry about the show:

The show isn't black and white on moral issues. I bet people who disliked the Sopranos and Dallas wouldn't like Dollhouse either.

As with the Sopranos, you empathize with the characters, but at the same time you realize there is some serious moral ambiguity in what they do - Tony is looking out for his family, after all, which is a responsible thing to do... sort of. Likewise, DeWitt views the Dollhouse as her family, something she ruthlessly protects - Dewitt is very much the Tony Soprano of Dollhouse.

Old TV shows like Gunsmoke never introduced any moral ambiguity - the good guys were always good through and through, and the bad guys were always despicable, with no redeeming features. That's the kind if simplistic morality play that authoritarians like to promote: "us good, them bad". It really helps in justifying illegal wars, doesn't it?

Dollhouse should inspire a little self-reflection in the viewer - what does it mean to live in a world of fantasy and mirages where nothing is real, and to what extent does that mirror the general situation here in the U.S. media world?

Of course, some people think the public should never ask questions like that...