2010 Hugo Nominees - Dramatic Presentations round-up

Short Form

Since its inception in 2003, this category has been pretty thoroughly dominated by Dr. Who and Joss Whedon. That makes sense; those are both things that I like very much. Still, it’d be nice if I could vote for Flashforward, the only nominee not Whedon or Time Lord related. Flashforward’s pilot is a compelling hour of television. It was good enough that it got me to watch an entire season that was often not good at all. Still, so much of what made that pilot good was its promise – its mysteries and possibilities. So, the fact that that promise was unfulfilled is a big strike against the series’ beginning.

We can also throw out the first two Dr. Who specials, which simply weren’t up to the high standards of the new version of the show. That makes this a contest between the post-apocalyptic first season finale of Dollhouse and the third Dr. Who special, “The Waters if Mars.” It’s a really tough choice. “Epitaph One” is the opposite of Flashforward – it takes a show with a deficit of promise and explores what it’s really about while upping the ante dramatically. It’s also a neat little story in itself, with its own mysteries and a great framing device for flashbacks. In the end, I still had to go with "Waters of Mars," which was epic and dark.

1. “Waters of Mars” Doctor Who
2. “Epitaph One” Dollhouse
3. Flashforward
4. No Award
5. “The Next Doctor” Doctor Who
6. “Planet of the Dead” Doctor Who

As for a prediction: you’d think Doctor Who might split the vote, but one of these episodes is so far ahead of the others, that I think "Waters of Mars" should still pull it off.

As for Long Form, I had some problems with Star Trek’s clunky, silly plot and District 9’s confused message and splattering gore. I liked both films, but I have no problem putting them out of the running. Moon keeps growing on me, but it just feels more like a vehicle for Sam Rockwell than a perfect little sf film in its own right. That leaves Up and Avatar. I probably liked Up more as a film, and it elicited emotional responses from me that Avatar didn’t even come close to…but Avatar is such a classic piece of science fiction, warts and all, that I had to give it my vote. It's a very strong year overall though.

1. Avatar
2. Up
3. Moon
4. District 9
5. Star Trek

But, as I said before, I think there is a real backlash against Avatar. I think it’s really a race between the indie alternatives of Moon and District 9. I think District 9 will win in the end.

2010 Hugo nominee, Dramatic Pres., Long Form: Avatar, Screenplay and Directed by James Cameron (Twentieth Century Fox)

Avatar is James Cameron's box-office-record-shattering, 3D special effects extravaganza. A crippled ex-marine named Jake (Sam Worthington) volunteers to work in a sort of virtual reality-controlled alien body to negotiate with the natives of the large moon Pandora. Jake works for an evil Earth corporation that wants to mine a rare mineral with a stupid name, and they have come into conflict with the natives, called Na'vi, as a result. Jake must eventually choose sides in this fight.

I already wrote an apologia of sorts for Avatar back in Oscar season, but it does feel like any positive review of the film these days has to be defensive. Honestly, I don't think the film will win the Hugo; I get the sense that the conventional wisdom on the film has shifted from "it's an awesome game-changer" to "it's an overrated, derivative, and stupid spectacle." I think a backlash was inevitable when a movie with some glaring flaws was that successful ($2.5 billion+ worldwide, and still growing). I, however, still like it quite a bit, and after watching it again for this review, I even think it holds up on the small screen in 2D, though the experience was certainly diminished.

Let me start with those glaring flaws. I've seen the film called everything from anti-American to racist. I don't have a lot of time for these political arguments, though I do think the "the white guy saves the day, yet again" issue does have some traction. I think there are strong narrative reasons to have a POV character, especially in a film about aliens, so I don't mind nearly as much as I mind, say, Dances with Wolves, The Last Samurai, or Glory (I usually call this the "Zwick effect" after the director of the latter two examples). I also think that while the Na'vi are obvious analogues for earthbound indigenous peoples, especially Native Americans, you can't think of them as more than analogues. The Na'vi may comment on the historical treatment of Native Americans, but you shouldn't see them in any way as realistic depictions of Native Americans themselves. You could get into a whole debate about portraying Native Americans as "children of nature," and the implications, both good and bad, of that stereotype. But the Na'vi are literally linked into nature in a way that Native Americans never were. The analogies do break down eventually.

And yes, Avatar is also derivative. It's Dances with Smurfs + Disney's Pocahontas + Ferngully x LeGuin's "The Word for World is Forest." Yes, and Star Trek=Wagon Train + Horatio Hornblower x Forbidden Planet. And Star Wars=The Searchers + Hidden Fortress x Buck Rogers. And so on. Of course, lots of science fiction classics are re-imaginings of historical events or classic stories in a new context. Cameron at least combines his influences in some interesting ways.

And there are more complaints. The plot is predictable? Well, yes, but at least it makes sense, which is apparently asking a lot of a blockbuster film in the age of Michael Bay's Transformer movies. The dialogue is flat? Check. The characters are static archetypes? I'm afraid so; that's the film's greatest weakness as far as I'm concerned...

Okay, it's not perfect!

It is, however, visually stunning and wonderfully imaginative. It's thrilling, and the world-building is meticulous. And, while there are a lot of fantastic elements, there's also a solid grounding in science from richly-conceived ecosystems to astronomical details. There's a blend here of planetary romance, hard sf, and computer age ideas that I think is really fascinating. Plus, it's all in service of a story that does relate (albeit, perhaps too simplistically) to issues of environment, neo-colonialism, and indigenous rights. It builds a new world that illuminates our own, and it uses groundbreaking special effects not just for cheap thrills, but to further engross us in that world. This film is pure, classic science fiction on a scale that I don't think we see that often.

Grade: A-

2010 Hugo nominee, Dramatic Pres. Short: Doctor Who: "The Waters of Mars" Writ. by Russell T Davies & Phil Ford; Dir. by Graeme Harper (BBC Wales)

Just when the silliness of the 2010 Dr. Who specials was starting to overwhelm, Davies delivered what I consider to be his finest Dr. Who story as a writer. This was the one special that I said should receive a nomination, and it is really good.

This serial does two things that Dr. Who doesn’t do often: 1) it takes place in the near future and deals with early efforts at space colonization (Mars, in this case), and 2) it explores the nature of time travel.

The basic story is that the Doctor stops off on Mars in the twenty-first century, takes a walk in his spacesuit, and runs across the first human colony on Mars. The humans are understandably confused by his arrival, but they’re soon caught up in an attack by some strange water-sucking entity. It’s a great change of pace for the series over the usual trips to a few millions of years in the future, and allows for some decent hard-sf moments (in Classic Who, Mars is home to rubber-suit aliens called Ice Warriors and pyramids dedicated to evil Egyptian deities). The colony looks great (though maybe too roomy), the monsters are effectively creepy, the guest actors are fantastic (especially Lindsay Duncan as Captain Adelaide Brooke), and there’s only one embarrassing moment of camp from Russell T. Davies (it involves a rocket-powered robot).

So, it’s a very good horror tale set in a Martian colony. What pushes it into the realm of greatness is that it does take on some of the central themes of the show. In the classic series, the Doctor often mentioned that you couldn’t change history and then proceeded to do so every week. In the new series, they came up with the compromise that only some moments must remain unchanged and only certain situations create paradoxes. This special focuses on one of those unchangeable moments and then asks if the Doctor can stand by and watch people die. The central conflict is not some crazy monster-of-the-week, it’s with the Doctor’s own ego. There’s a device that Davies used so often that it grew tiresome: everything looks bleaker than bleak, many people have died, the odds are overwhelming, there no way the Doctor can win, and yet, he still manages to turn everything around at the last second. This special has that exact moment – one of the best-realized versions, in fact – and yet manages to subvert it completely. It’s wonderfully dark and challenging, and by far the best of the 2009 specials.

Grade: A-

2010 Hugo nominee, Dramatic Pres., Long Form: District 9 Screenplay by Neill Blomkamp & Terri Tatchell; Directed by Neill Blomkamp (TriStar Pictures)

I think most sf fans can agree that the genre is at its best when its about something. We want to see imagination soar and be transplanted to somewhere new and unexpected, but we also want to learn a bit about the society we live in or ourselves. District 9 struck a chord with people because it was an imaginative and original film that was clearly about race, refugees and apartheid. There’s a lot to like about this movie, and it is entertaining. But, when it comes down to the social message, I think it missed the point…and quite badly.

In 1982, an alien ship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa. The haunting images of the hovering ship are by far my favorite part of the movie. The aliens inside, rather than glowing beings bound to save humanity, are dirty, starving and impoverished. The South African government transfers them to camps, where they continue to live, uncomfortably segregated from humans in something akin to the apartheid that segregated the black majority from South African society until the 1990s. The film picks up in the modern day with South African bureaucrats working in one of the alien refugee camps (the titular District 9). One of them, Wikus, is exposed to alien chemicals that make him a wanted man in both the human and alien communities.

The film starts out as a faux documentary. In fact, it plays out a lot like the UK version of The Office, and Wikus owes a lot to David Brent. One of my minor complaints is that the documentary style seems to fade in and out. This inconsistency makes it look like a cheap narrative trick – a way to get out some exposition that’s quickly abandoned whenever it’s inconvenient. It does work much of the time though. There’s a lot to like about the film overall. Sharlto Copley’s performance is great, the effects are fantastic (especially at a tenth the budget of Star Trek or Avatar), and it really is original.

However, I do have some problems with the presentation of the central analogy, and these problems were serious enough that they kept me from enjoying the film. Nicole Stamp caused a bit of a stir with this blog post, but I think she expressed a lot of what I felt about the film. If you’re going to make a comparison between these aliens and African victims of apartheid, it’s problematic to portray the aliens as violent and disgusting. It’s even more problematic if almost all of the few actual Africans in the movie are also violent and disgusting. I’m not saying writer/director Neill Blomkamp is racist – just that he could have been more sensitive in his portrayal of Africans and more nuanced in the presentation of the analogy.

Actually, you could make the point that the white characters don’t come off any better – there are brutal white scientists and bureaucrats throughout. The fact that the characters fit so nicely into stock roles and stereotypes is still an issue. Also, the fact that almost all of the characters are equally despicable highlights a deeper problem here. I don’t think you can convey a message in a movie this unremittingly dark, vicious and gross. The aliens are so violent and disgusting, and the humans are so violent and disgusting, that I didn’t really care all that much if they all just brutally murdered each other. If you want to portray a humanist message, I think you need some sense of human (or alien) worth. The film borders on nihilism, and nihilism isn’t likely to inspire social change.

Grade: B

2010 Hugo nominee, Dramatic Pres. Short: Doctor Who: "Planet of the Dead" Written by Russell T Davies & Gareth Roberts; Directed by James Strong

The Doctor Who Easter special. I mentioned last time that as a recent convert I have been watching some of the classic Dr. Who, and this special does work harder to evoke some of the feel of the old series than anything else since the revival began in 2005. There’s the winding, meandering plot (very common in the padded serials of the old series), there’s an appearance by the Doctor’s old partners UNIT, and there’s even a crazy zooming shot of a revealed alien.

In other words, it’s camp, which is often the show’s strength, and sometimes its weakness. For instance, the companion this go-round is a thrill-seeking cat burglar named Lady Cristina D’Souza (played by bionic woman Michelle Ryan). I like the idea of a morally ambiguous companion for the Doctor, but the thief idea gives writer Russell T. Davies license to do multiple descent-by-wire caper scenes that are…well…”super-cheesy” is the technical reviewers’ term. Making her an aristocrat doesn’t add to the plausibility.

The Doctor happens to be riding Lady Christina’s getaway bus, gets involved in a police chase, and then the whole bus is transported to a desert planet. As they try to get the bus back through the dimensional gateway, they meet some aliens with giant insect heads and learn that the whole Earth is threatened! The Doctor manages to call in his old friends from the alien-fighting UNIT, but must race against time to get the bus and its passengers back before UNIT closes the gateway.

The episode is probably a little too ambitious for its budget effects-wise, and the cg looks pretty bad (more vintage Who – too bad the sets don’t wobble!) I don’t mind so much, but when you add all of the little contrivances and pulp moments together, it’s just not great. It’s a fun way to spend an hour, especially if you’re a Doctor Who fan, but I’m sure there were hours of television more worthy of this nomination slot **cough**Fringe**cough** **cough**Caprica**cough**, and I’d be scandalized if it actually won. It was kind of hard to get through a second time.

Grade: C+

2010 Hugo nominee, Dramatic Pres. Short: Doctor Who: "The Next Doctor" Written by Russell T Davies; Directed by Andy Goddard (BBC Wales)

I’m a rather late convert to the Doctor Who revival, and the franchise in general, but I have been voraciously devouring new and classic episodes for the past year or so. After four seasons of Hugo-dominating, high quality television, the new series took a year to say goodbye to star David Tennant with a series of five holiday specials – two years of Christmas specials, an Easter special, a New Year’s Special, and….um…Guy Fawkes Day? Three of them were eligible for this round of Hugos, and, despite being fairly poorly received by a lot of fans, all three received nominations.

There are two big things going on in this special. First, it’s a very steampunk story that has the Doctor fighting Cybermen in Victorian London at Christmas. We get giant robots with gears, powered by Dickensian child labor! At the same time, we have an odd twist on the old “mulit-doctor story.” If you’re not all that familiar with the show, the Doctor has been played by eleven different actors (and that’s just canon!). Since he is a time traveler, it’s not too hard to do a story where he hangs out with different versions of himself. This has happened three different times on the show proper (but not for twenty-five years), and some more in telethon specials and in audio plays. In this special, we’re teased with the twist that Tennant’s Doctor is meeting a future version of himself played by David Morissey. It doesn’t quite work out that way, but it’s a fun idea.

So, steampunk, multiple doctors, bigger budget special – it all sounds good. Why the disappointment? I actually don’t have a great answer for this one, other than, it’s just not as crisp and exciting as the best Doctor Who always is. There are a couple of chase scenes, a big setpiece with the aforementioned giant robot, and lots of scenes of Morissey and Tennant chatting, but there’s not much going on underneath. Writer Russell T. Davies tries to do something with the villain being a woman of ill-repute, motivated by oppressive Victorian society…but there’s not much depth to that either. And, it’s a bit twee at times – instead of the Doctor’s usual TARDIS, a time travelling police box, the Victorian Doctor has the Tethered Aerial Release Developed In Style, a hot air balloon TARDIS. It’s not horrible, but it’s not up to the high standards of the show at its best, and it’s not Hugo-worthy either.

Grade: B-

2010 Hugo nominee, Dramatic Pres., Long Form: Up Screenplay and Directed by Bob Peterson & Pete Docter (Disney/Pixar)

I’m not ashamed to admit that this film made me cry. Twice. There’s a reveal in the last act that I saw coming from a million miles away, and it still made me tear up. There’s no question in my mind that this is the best of the five nominated films. But, is it the best sf film of the lot? I can’t quite decide whether that’s a different question or not.

The computer animated film from Pixar (who won last year’s Hugo in this category with Wall-E) tells the story of an elderly widower who refuses to move from his home to make way for a real estate development. Finally, he decides to go on a South American adventure that he’s dreamed of for his entire life, and he decides to take his home with him (with the aid of a lot of helium). He takes flight and finds a strange world of amazing landscapes, giant birds, and crazed explorers with talking dogs. It’s a fun romp that still manages to get some emotional resonance out of its themes of aging, loss, and adventure. It’s a Pixar film; it’s pretty much guaranteed to be great.

So, what’s not “sf” about the film? It’s a definition that sf-fans like to argue about, and I usually find these discussions pretty pointless. Everyone has their own arbitrary definition, and they really all come down to the Potter Stewart line (“I know it when I see it.”) Up should qualify fairly easily: flying a house to South America with helium balloons is in the realm of pure fantasy, and voice boxes for dogs are pretty clearly in the realm of science fiction. If Raiders of the Lost Ark can win a Hugo, so can this. Still, next to films that use traditional science fiction conceits (aliens, clones, colonization of moons, Star Trek) to explore serious issues (race, imperialism, destiny, labor exploitation), Up does feel a little different. I highly recommend it, and enjoyed it more than any of these films, but I’m not sure it’ll get my vote. It's certainly in the running though.

Grade: A

2010 Hugo nominee, Dramatic Pres. Short: FlashForward:"No More Good Days" Written by Brannon Braga & David Goyer; based on the novel by Robert Sawyer

More Hugo love for Robert Sawyer, this time in the form of a television series based on one of his novels (he also scripted a later episode). I actually watched this entire series; I just caught up with the finale on my DVR, which is why I waited until now to review it.

The premise is great. One day, everyone in the world passes out at the same instant and has a vision of two minutes of April 29, 2010, several months in the future. When people awaken, there is massive devastation from the various crashes that occurred when everyone passed out. There's also the emotional shock of seeing your future. Some people see happy reunions or (in the case of a terminal cancer patient, for instance) are happy simply to see themselves alive. Others see their marriages ruined. Most disturbing of all are the people who experience no vision at all, suggesting that they won't be alive when April 29 rolls around.

The show is at its best when it examines the philosophical, psychological, and sociological responses to this mass glimpse at destiny. It's able to look at questions of free will, and it does come up with some interesting ideas - like a wiki that tries to compile people's visions into a coherent picture of April 29 (I assume that this is straight out of the novel, since it feels very Robert Sawyerish, from what little I know about his work). The show also had a promising pair of co-creators in David Goyer (who, with Christopher Nolan, quite successfully rebooted the Batman films) and Brannon Braga (who wrote some very good time travel episodes for Star Trek, including a Hugo-winning episode of The Next Generation). And, the first episode was very promising. It was good enough for me to commit to watching the entire first season, despite its ups and (mostly) downs. And, I did suggest the pilot as a Hugo nominee, so I was not unhappy to see it on the list.

The show has issues though, and I was not unhappy to see it cancelled either. I doubt I would have watched the second season if it had made it. The first problem is in the nature of the show itself. It requires a lot of intricate plotting to get a set of characters to a predestined position and still make things interesting. You know that most of the characters will end up in a situation similar to the one from their vision, otherwise, what's the point. Getting them there won't be easy though. The main character, recovering alcoholic and FBI agent Mark Benford (Joseph Fiennes - remember him?) saw himself drinking again while his office is attacked. Getting him to that point in the last couple of episodes required some laughable contrivances. Another pair of characters, Mark's babysitter and one of his wife's coworkers, have a meandering plotline that goes absolutely nowhere and gets suddenly dropped in the final episode. It's clear that the writers had a hard time playing out some of the visions, but that's not really an issue here in the pilot.

What is an issue in the pilot is the show's cheesy action tropes. This is American network television, so we can't just do a thoughtful show about destiny. Nope, Mark and his fellow FBI-agents have the kind of explosion-filled, shoot-em-up lives that only television FBI agents can have. Even here in the pilot, Mark and his partner (John Cho, aka Harold, aka Sulu), have their "blackouts" in the middle of chasing an SUV full of terrorists. I don't mind action, but the show tends to go over-the-top. There are scenes of people running from explosions in slow-motion. I'm not kidding. And, the violence is all very pointless. I think every lead Mark and his team ever follows turns out to be a red herring (not to mention they all come from his vision of the investigation, which is a causal loop). Nor do we ever learn anything about the evil conspiracy that caused the blackout, which feels more like writerly haplessness than anything else (though the best acting in the show comes from the character actors who play cogs in the conspiracy, like Ricky Jay and Michael Massee. Joseph Fiennes...not so much).

So, as often happens in these shows, the mysteries are better than the answers. The pilot has a great twist at the end. I won't give it away, but I will say that that the payoff is lame. I'd recommend watching the pilot, and just leaving the series there. Most of what you'll imagine to explain the turns that bring the characters to their futures, or to explain the cause of the odd phenomenon, will be at least as good as what the show-runners eventually gave us.

Grade: B+

2010 Hugo nominee, Dramatic Pres., Long Form: Star Trek Screenplay by Robert Orci & Alex Kurtzman; Directed by J.J. Abrams (Paramount)

I'm going abroad for the rest of the month (to a country that's likely to have dodgy internet), so this is the last post of May. I'll be back in early June, and I'll post quite frequently to catch up (I'm on summer break now!)

J. J. Abrams' reboot of the Star Trek franchise was a fun crowd-pleaser. As long as you don't think too hard about the plot, there's a lot to enjoy.

Abrams had a tough choice here. Stay within the 43 years of continuity and possibly alienate new fans (who are certainly needed for a film this big to make a profit), or throw out the continuity and anger the fanbase (also essential to the film's success). Somehow, Abrams managed to do both. He uses a little time travel to create a new, branching continuity. The characters can go in new directions, and anything can happen, but there are plenty of Easter eggs for the old fans. Surprisingly, this approach actually seems to have worked. The film was a critical and financial success and most Trekkies (Trekkers, whatever) seem to have really liked it.

A Romulan miner named Nero manages to bring a ship from the 24th century to James Kirk's 23rd. Kirk's father is killed in the first contact between the Federation and the future ship, and the young Kirk takes a different path to Starfleet Academy. While still at the Academy, the students are scrambled to combat an attack by Nero on the planet Vulcan. In the battles that follow, the familiar crew make their way up the ranks of the Enterprise.

In a lot of ways, the film is patently ridiculous. It has cadets taking command of a starship. The villain's motivations are strange and his plot incomprehensibly convoluted. There are a few over-the-top slapstick humor sequences. And, there are a series of horribly contrived meetings between characters. It is, on a lot of levels, a stupid film, and I don't think that should be surprising since the writers, Orci and Kurtzman, were responsible for the very stupid Transformer films.

And yet, the film does work and was deserving of a lot of its success. The production values are so high that it manages to transcend so major story flaws. The acting is great, and Chris Pine especially does a great job filling the shoes of Shatner's iconic Kirk performance. And the film looks and sounds incredible. J. J. Abrams did a great job, even if he could have dialed back the lens flare a bit.

While critics were raving about it, the Onion had this hilarious news story. It's funny, but at the same time, I did want more boring alien diplomacy scenes. Or at least a story that made sense and had some real resonance. I'm looking forward to seeing more Trek in the years to come, but as long as Orci and Kurtzman are running things, I'm not too confident. The film had a lot of good will when it first came out, but I think that enough people have come to see the film's flaws that I don't see it winning the Hugo.

Grade: B

2010 Hugo Nominee Dramatic Presentation, Long Form: Moon Screenplay by Nathan Parker; Story by Duncan Jones; Directed by Duncan Jones

I mentioned in my Hugo preview that this film reminded me of a ‘50s sf story, and I stand by that. Maybe Theodore Sturgeon or Heinlein in a dark mood. The director and co-writer, Duncan Jones, is supposed to be a sincere, old-school sf fan, and he cites the likes of 2001 as his influences.

Moon was an independent film that stands out quite starkly in a field of blockbusters. Lots of people are championing District 9 as the low budget alternative to the bloated likes of Avatar and Star Trek…District 9’s budget was about 6 times the size of Moon’s. Sam Rockwell plays a stressed worker who took on a lonely three-year job monitoring mining operations on the lunar surface. We meet him near the end of his tour of duty, and he’s quite clearly at his wit’s end. His only company is GERTY, a robotic arm with a snooty Kevin Spacey-voiced AI who’s more than a little reminiscent of HAL 9000. It’s a solid set-up, but the film really takes off with a big twist; it comes early in the film, but I really don’t want to spoil it. Suffice it to say that all is not as it seems, and Sam Rockwell gets to play a wide range of emotions.

This really is, in the end, a vehicle for Rockwell, and he does a great job with it. It’s a very well-acted film with a clever sf plot, sincere human emotion, and solid science despite the budget constraints on effects (though they don’t do great with low gravity, but no one ever does). It’s very effective in its portrayal of claustrophobic loneliness. However, a lot of people, myself included, may not entirely enjoy two hours of claustrophobic loneliness. The film does drag in places, and it’s a bit one note.

There’s a real swell of support behind this film, and I wouldn’t be shocked at all to see it win the category. It won’t be my choice though. I feel like there’s a contrarian urge at the heart of the film’s support – “I hope Moon wins because it’s an independent film.” I just don’t buy that. Let the best film win. Moon is a good film, and an impressive accomplishment, but, it’s not the best film.

Grade: B+

2010 Hugo Nominee Dramatic Presentation, Short Form: Dollhouse: "Epitaph 1" Story by Joss Whedon; Written by Maurissa Tancharoen & Jed Whedon

I’m a big fan of Joss Whedon’s work, and I’m looking forward to my opportunities to talk about Serenity and Buffy down the line. Every time Whedon starts a new television show, it’s a geek event, and many were anticipating Dollhouse for months, even years, before it debuted on Fox in January ’09. Then the waves of disappointment echoed through the internet. Rather than another smart ensemble show with a real focus on characterization amid a unique sf setting, we got a showcase for actress/executive producer Eliza Dushku. It's amazing how thoroughly the show redeemed itself.

The sf high concept is that the technology exists to reprogram human brains and imprint personalities. This technology is used, quite illicitly, to program people as "dolls," mostly to be used as sex-toys. Dushku plays one of these "dolls," named Echo. Throughout the first season (and the first half of the second season), Echo is put on different jobs requiring different personality implants. One week she’s a hostage negotiator, next week she’s a back-up dancer for a pop-star, next week she’s a hunter, and then she’s a blind cultist, etc. Then, hijinks ensue. It’s all disconnected and formulaic (something always goes wrong). And, since it’s basically an actress showcase, it’s worth mentioning that Eliza Dushku is just not a great actress. The show was often painful to watch.

“Epitaph One” was produced as the final episode when the producers were almost certain of cancellation, and it took the show in a dramatic new direction. The episode shows us to a world where the Dollhouse technology has spread into the main population and created a sort of Zombie apocalypse. A band of survivors (led by Felicia Day) finds their way to the old Dollhouse in Los Angeles and uncovers some of the mysteries that led to the apocalypse. The formula is avoided, the implications of the technology are fully explored, and Dushku is pushed aside (she features briefly in the flashbacks). The result: a really great episode.

Improbably, the show did get renewed, and “Epitaph One” was consigned to the DVD (it never aired on television, though it is available through a couple of instant viewing avenues). The second season returned to the old, bad formula, got worse ratings than ever, and was promptly cancelled. Then, as a lame duck, it produced some of the strongest television that aired last year as we got a series of intriguing episodes that abandoned the formula, developed the characters, and finally created the great ensemble-driven original stories that Whedon’s famous for (though it should be noted that Joss’s brother Jed did more of the writing for the series).

I don’t mind that it was cancelled – I’m not sure how they could have kept the series going any longer, but this show is a real gem, destined by some horrible episodes to fly under the geek radar a bit.

Grade: B+