Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

[osprey_archer]

I have no idea how to punctuate Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. Is it long enough for italics? Or short enough that I should use quotation marks?

Punctuation aside, I really am uncertain what to say about Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. On the one hand, some parts I quite liked—the communicagrams from Bad Horse, for instance. The songs generally seemed pretty good.

On the other hand, the whole thing seriously went off when Penny died.

The treatment of Penny’s character marred the entire show, really, it just wasn’t as obvious until she died. It’s not the actress’s fault; she was playing a plot device, not a character, and even Katherine Hepburn couldn’t have done much with that. She exists to propel Dr. Horrible into Evil, and she has to die because that’s the only way to get him there with his status as our beloved anti-hero intact.

She can’t end up with Dr. Horrible, because that would be happy.

She can’t end up with Captain Hammer, because that would just be unbearably cruel—crueler than her death, because Dr. Horrible really only cares about her as girlfriend material, not a person. Death is tragic. Captain Hammer/Penny is just tawdry.

She can’t reject them both and devote her life to the homeless, because if Dr. Horrible turned to darkest evil because Penny ditched him to help the homeless it’s just too obvious that the plot is driven by his unbearable pettiness. Somehow, the fact that he was planning to kill Captain Hammer for being, basically, a schoolyard bully who got that girl Dr. Horrible wanted, is not enough to drive this fact home.

Instead of achieving Captain Hammer’s murder, Dr. Horrible gets Penny killed in a way that is kind of sort of totally his fault, and yet not, so it makes total sense for him to be eaten up by guilt and a sense of tragedy and descend into emo Evilness.

Evil in the Whedonverse is a topic for a whole other post.

Emo Evilness appears to have been the point of the whole exercise. It’s like Anakin’s descent into the Dark Side, which evidently occurred because “He was corrupted by Twu Wuv!” It seems like an odd message to warp your story around.

So, yeah, not really sure about that. Nice try, but no cigar.

I think Joss Whedon gets more credit as a feminist than he deserves. Not that he’s secretly harboring anti-feminist fulminations in his heart, but I get the impression that he’s not thinking about issues that perhaps deserve some of his attention—in this case, giving his heroine a personality beyond saint, and treating her death as tragic because it’s her death and not because it’s going to crack Dr. Horrible’s twisted little heart.

Comments

[sanginmychains.livejournal.com]

Well Dante's gotta have his Beatrice, I guess, and not even Joss is immune to the power of that trope.

In my view, Whedon is a knee jerk feminist, a fairly typical sensitive, well meaning guy whose sense of gender politics was severely damaged by the climate on liberal arts campuses when he was an undergrad (late 80s). I met a few academics who had been through that time; they had scars, and an inability to really think through the issue without having an anxiety attack.

I agree with you, that Penny (and we saw the Willow and Tara behind that lovely sweet girl with red hair, right?) is a device. If Whedon had kept her, she would have continued to have no flaws and be so well-intentioned it hurt.

Still, it's almost nice to see him totally sell out a woman instead of a man, which is his usual trick. I have many, many words to say on the unfortunate character-morph of Xander through the 7 seasons of Buffy...but this isn't the place.

And don't even get me started on the insultingly nonsensical character development of Anakin Skywalker...

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Liberal arts campuses must have changed a lot over the last twenty years, because the big thing now seems to be thinking through every issue in great and extended detail. Maybe it's a reaction to tiptoeing around the issues in the late eighties.

I've only watched a few episodes of Buffy (perhaps I just hit the wrong episodes, but I have issues with the fact that in the Whedonverse, people are forgiven for being evil because they're pretty) and even I thought Penny = Willow. I had to check to make sure it wasn't the same actress. Same childlike naivete; even a similar facial structure.

Oh, GOD. Talk about Anakin Skywalker's EPIC FAIL in character development all you want. In twenty-seven minutes Dr. Horrible descended into evil with more psychological consistency and gravitas than Anakin EVER managed.

I once read someone explain how she would have written the new Star Wars trilogy: the three movies would plot Anakin's slow seduction/corruption by his growing power and prestige, as he shucks off more and more of laws as only applicable to lesser mortals, until finally he's trapped in a maelstrom of his own vile deeds and turns to the emperor because no one else will have him anymore. As opposed to Anakin snapping and instantly turning from a fairly nice guy to a genocidal child killer.

(Does trying to kill all the Jedi count as genocide? They're not really a race or ethnic group. Hmm.)

It made me so sad that George Lucas made the movies instead of her.

[visualthinker11.livejournal.com]

man. did you see the penny thing coming? i mean what you said makes absolutely perfect sense, and i get that, but if you saw it before the third act i'm still in awe. probably because i live in the land of denial, and i think i actually thought penny + billy were going to get together before the end. denial, i know.

i'm not sure it's entirely fair to argue penny as a static character. or rather, it's not fair to argue she's the only one. captain hammer only changes because pure chance (and, ok, the mighty hand of joss whedon fate). dr. horrible changes, to become an actual villain- but that's what the story is about. he's the only character who HAS to change. and while it is disappointing that our only uncertainty with penny is who she's going to end up dating, our other questions are still pretty shallow- is dr. horrible going to beat captain hammer? is he going to make it into an evil organization?

i don't really like the fact that the entire story serves to revolve around Dr. Horrible's "twisted little heart," but I think it's worthy to note that it IS the entire story that exists to serve him, and not just the way joss writes the female character.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Actually, I thought the same as you did: Penny and Dr. Horrible would end up together, because it was a comedy and that's how things work in comedies. But then the story turned out to be a drama instead of a comedy, and I was very confused.

I suspect that if I'd known from the beginning that it was a drama, or at least a dramedy, I would have been less disappointed, but as it was, the shift between light-hearted farce to that emotastic ending really threw me.

I wish it had remained more farcical, because the fact that everything and everyone revolved around Dr. Horrible would have bothered me a lot less in a comedy. And you're right, everything in the story does revolve around him, not just Penny. I think she bothered me more because she was the only one to actually die for it.

Also, I wouldn't have found the League of Evil or the Death Ray nearly as troubling in a comedy. It's one thing to make your life goal Evil in a comedy, quite another in something semi-serious.

There's also the fact that Firefly has a genuine ensemble cast--the characters exist for their own sake, not so they can highlight X aspect of Mal's growth (or whatever)--and I kind of expected that to carry over here.

[visualthinker11.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't think I expected this to be as superficial a story as it was- Joss is fabulous at taking these superficial concepts and turning them into something with real depth- like with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," for example. So it's frusturating that this doesn't go deeper- I guess it's hard to develop an epic character-origin tale in 45 minutes that contains musical numbers and comedy and also develops everyone else.

In retrospect, you can see the darker elements/drama of the show coming into play by the second act. I think my favorite example of that is when he sings about Penny's tears drying over the keys to a "shiny new Australia" in Brand New Day. Because pair that with the stalker photo he sings it to and you get the definite impression that not only is he obsessed with her, he also has no idea of her actual personality or moral sense. So while I was really ready and excited for Penny/Billy love, it also didn't make as much sense. There was, as you said, no way for them to end well, and certainly not if you throw in all the moral concepts and questioning of what was the obvious good v. evil that was placed behind the humor and actually came up to explode in our face as drama/tragedy in the end of act 3.

: P

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I think perhaps he just tried to squeeze too much in there, which makes it seem unbalanced in places and means that some things are just underdeveloped.

I think if Billy somehow convinced Penny that this "shiny new Australia" was going to be a communitarian wonderland of equality and freedom, she might have gotten on board with the plan. However, that would require more people savvy than Billy seems to have, so even that couldn't lead to a happy ending.

[visualthinker11.livejournal.com]

Exactly. With the lack of savvy and things. Poor penny... was ANY of this her fault? I mean, sure she dated captain hammer, but dr. horrible almost ran a car into her... you know the part where both of their actions, collectivley, land her in garbage? best you $5 (or MORE) that that's a metaphor/foreshadowing. or metaphorical foreshadowing.

[visualthinker11.livejournal.com]

i'm sorry, i bet you $5 (or more).

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Not taking that bet--I would absolutely lose. :p

[anait.livejournal.com]

I missed the last act of DHSAB (hah! I acronym you!) and I'm not willing to pay iTunes to see the rest, but Sally gave me the rest of the story. Apart from Captain Hammer (Nathan Fillion, I love you!) and the communigrams I really didn't enjoy this. You hit on a lot of the more serious reasons why intellectually it struck me the wrong way, but also, I just didn't find it very entertaining or well done. I think the most interesting past of the whole thing was the possible impact it might have on getting tv made and watched on the internet, minus the networks and advertisers (It's simple, if you've got an enormous fan-base, I think was the conclusion of this experiment).

I think Joss Whedon gets more credit as a feminist than he deserves.

I've watched 'Firefly,' good chunks of 'Buffy' (especially earlier 'Buffy') and less of 'Angel' (mostly for Lindsey MacDonald the guitar-playing evil lawyer). I have to say that normally I would disagree with what you said, because the man isn't perfect, but he tries (and thinks) a heck of a lot more than nearly any other man making tv shows right now about feminism. That being said, DHSAB was a real disappointment. From Joss Whedon, I expect better.

Oh, GOD. Talk about Anakin Skywalker's EPIC FAIL in character development all you want. In twenty-seven minutes Dr. Horrible descended into evil with more psychological consistency and gravitas than Anakin EVER managed.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking about Anakin Skywalker during this.

Also, I wouldn't have found the League of Evil or the Death Ray nearly as troubling in a comedy. It's one thing to make your life goal Evil in a comedy, quite another in something semi-serious.

This was one of my major problems with DHSAB. It really struck me the wrong way, especially coming on top of yet another summer of comic book movies and just having watched 'Wanted,' which had very similar problems with its hero-- misogyny, a moral code that slides so easily into evil that it might as well not be there, a complete inability to value the lives of other people (So. Selfish.), and this sad/scary sense of entitlement and anger that the world owes them something (It doesn't).

I could talk your ear off here about my hatred of the dozens of comic book movies that get churned out by Hollywood (and I always watch one or two, even though I should know better): the same plot over and over about the fallacy that one person (meaning young-ish, white, male) can save the world through their actions (violence) and the angsty martyr complex that goes with it (YAWN). But that would be boring.

I have issues with the fact that in the Whedonverse, people are forgiven for being evil because they're pretty

Yes. It's very troubling if I try and think about it--Oh look! Pretty!

[anait.livejournal.com]

And welcome back! It sounds like you had a good trip.

(I should have said that first, not last.)

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

Social graces are optional here, as long as you bring interesting conversation. :p

I'm curious about how Whedon is funding the whole thing; it doesn't seem like DVD sales would be big enough to support DHSAB, which can't have been cheap, but perhaps I'm underestimating. If only the method would generate enough money to make a second season of Firefly possible...

I'm not sure I would call Billy misogynistic. He's totally clueless about people, low on empathy, and generally misanthropic; he doesn't see women as people, but he doesn't really see men as people either. But otherwise I think your description is spot on.

But yes, I think comic-book movies and the Whedonverse both have a similarly diseased relationship to morality. Superheroes are forgiven for being shiny and flashy and full of cool, Whedonverse heroes are forgiven for being shiny and pretty and full of cool, because murderous rampages are perfectly fine as long as they're stylish.

And in comic book movies it's accompanied by well-hammered themes of freedom and individuality, which serve to paper over the fact that comic book worlds almost always stifle both for everyone who isn't the hero. 300, I'm looking at YOU.

Have you read Mansfield Park? I thought about this while I was reading it, because the heroine has moral substance but completely lacks shiny and cool.

[anait.livejournal.com]

I think the DVD sales + iTunes sales (especially) are how he expects to at least break even. I read that people are clamoring for international distribution because iTunes is only for Canada and the USA.

I'm not sure I would call Billy misogynistic. He doesn't see women as people, but he doesn't really see men as people either.

I was thinking more of the 'hero' from 'Wanted' than Billy for the misogyny, but you could argue for it applying to Billy too. Penny is his ideal: the pretty girl who, if he can get her, will be proof that he is the person he would like to be. He could care less about the words that come out of her mouth that he doesn't agree with-- it's her face that attracts him and his fantasy. And likewise for Captain Hammer, who only wants to use her. Bleh! What you said about Billy not seeing people as people: when it applies to a guy in a relationship with a girl, I think you could see it as a form of misogyny. That's what misogyny stems from, no? Men not seeing women as people or as equals?

I think I have read 'Mansfield Park'? Maybe? I have a terrible time remembering plots of Austen, Bronte and Victorian novels. I wiki'd it, and I remember reading a book about characters called Fanny and Edward, I think, but I'm not sure that it's the same one. Edward was Fanny's moral and romantic hero (and cousin), and she was a little mouse of a poor relative. And at one point she went back to her poor family and the readers were supposed to be appalled at the squallor and noise they lived in--Heavens! A family of ten in a small house! People talking loudly at the dinner table!--and sympathize with poor Fanny. And there was a lot of nonsense about the only proper way to live for a person of sense and taste (and a ton of money) was in a large manor house where people were overly concerned with manners, and had lots of space and quiet and time to devote to bettering themselves. Was that the one? If it is, maybe you saw something different in it than me.

Re: Joss's sketchy moral take on beautiful evil, have you seen this?

Also if you're interested, some meta to go with it.

I do occasionally forget my manners, but I try to bring the shiny!

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

I usually only use the term misogynist for guys who specifically don't see women as people--if they're incapable of seeing people in general as people I tend to class it as a different problem, because the causes are different.

Functionally, though, such an inability probably affects male/female relationships exactly as misogyny would, so the distinction is kind of academic.

Yes, you have the right Mansfield Park--it does contain those elements you mention, although I was thinking more about the comparisons between Fanny and her romantic rival, Mary Crawford. Fanny is passive and morally staunch; Mary is witty, charming, and morally degenerate (by modern standards as well as Austenian).

What's striking from reactions I've read to the book is how many people love Mary. They don't just prefer her to Fanny because she's a more dynamic and exciting character, they think she's a better person in the absolute sense. Apparently her ability to make good puns outweighs the fact that she tells Edmund she hopes his older brother dies so Edmund will inherit the title.

On the topic of the video: Spike (and Angel) appear to be allowed to get away with just about anything and still be presented as sexy and awesome.

[anait.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree with both your points about misogyny.

I don't remember Mary, so she must not have made much of an impression, moral issues aside. It seems strange that people would think she is a better person in the moral sense as well as in personality. Would anyone actually try to argue that Spike and Angel are morally superior characters? Probably not.

Fanny's passivity and lack of willingness to think and speak for herself didn't endear her to me, although she was a believable character (and I remember quite a bit about her, but nothing about Mary...). I do remember that at the end Fanny had gained in self-confidence and started to voice her opinions more often, although I was a little disappointed she married Edward. It was a very different sort of book than the others by Jane Austen. I'm not entirely sure where she was coming from and what she was aiming for with it. I think the message was much more subtle than in her other books, and so was her treatment of her heroine.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

People weren't arguing that Mary was morally superior to Fanny so much as leaving morality entirely out of the equation. Without it, there's no question that Mary beats Fanny hollow.

Similarly, I think Spike and Angel are just given a pass on morality. If anyone did judge them on ethics, of course they'd lose, but they're cool and pretty and witty and the show encourages viewers not to care about anything beyond that.

It wouldn't bother me so much, except that I keep running into articles, blog entries, what have you, discussing Buffy's philosophical depth. Spike and Angel are an awfully big philosophical blind spot.

Back to Austen (this is a schizophrenic post): I wish Mansfield Park's title telegraphed the theme of the book, a la Pride & Prejudice, but no; no, it's just the name of a house. I think the theme is related somehow to style vs. substance, but anything clearer would require actual work.

I'm one of the few people who actually like Fanny, just because she's such an unusual heroine, but even I got tired of her about three hundred pages in. I could deal with passive and quiet and observant, but she's just so timid.