Gideon Reich

House

74 posts in this topic

Anyway, that is all a roundabout way of leading up to the question of... does anyone know if House will be made available on DVD anytime soon?  Or is there a season already out?

August 30th is the scheduled release date. You can pre-order it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I watch almost no tv any more, but the rave reviews of this show inspired me to watch. Glad I did. The show is superb!

I note that Dr House is the guy who played Bertie Wooster in the British series Jeeves and Wooster, which, btw, is also worth watching, though an entirely different kind of show!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI (thought I'd share since I just looked it up)

The Season Premiere for House is going to be September 13th!  :)

Thanks for the notice, Elizabeth. And, the first-season DVD arrives this Tuesday, 8/30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I write the above so that those who may want to consider this series know what they get into when they start watching it. So far, the drama of the conflict between Vogler and House is still interesting and worthwhile to watch despite the anti-capitalist propaganda. Nevertheless, I can no longer give this show an unqualified recommendation.

I picked up the House season 1 DVD set the day it came out, and have now finished watching the Vogler plot arc. I didn't really interpret it as anti-capitalist propaganda. The conflict between House and Vogler is a conflict over how medicine should be approached. Vogler sees medicine as an arena for dollar maximization. House sees medicine as a crusade -- saving the patient, solving the problem. Vogler talks about cash flow; House talks about values.

Ayn Rand didn't think that dollar maximization was the proper end of business. Roark wasn't trying to maximize his income when he turned down the Manhattan Bank commission. Francisco D'Anconia preferred a single copper smelter in Galt's Gulch to the entirety of D'Anconia Copper in the outside world. The reasons were essentially the same. Neither Roark's fee nor D'Anconia Copper would have been values if gaining and keeping them required sacrificing the end to which they were means. Similarly, House believed that a hundred million dollars was not a value to the hospital if it required sacrificing the end to which the hospital was dedicated -- curing diseases, one patient at a time.

It's worth noting the implicit individualism/collectivism split between House and Vogler. Vogler always talks about patients in collective terms. He says he's interested in saving thousands of lives. House think about patients as individuals. Vogler is willing to sacrifice the life of any given individual patient in the name of saving a group in the future. House is not.

The simple presence of a morally-suspect businessman in a story does not automatically make it anti-capitalist. If that were the case, Orren Boyle and James Taggart would have made Atlas Shrugged anti-capitalist. You have to evaluate the character based on his role in the story. So, what is the lesson to be drawn from Vogler? I think it's that collectivism damages medicine because it devalues the individual. Vogler tried to invert the hierarchy of values and make money (the means) into the end of medicine. Roark once observed that he didn't build in order to have clients; he had clients in order to build. House might have said something similar to Vogler. He doesn't cure disease to make money; he makes money so he can cure disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I picked up the House season 1 DVD set the day it came out, and have now finished watching the Vogler plot arc.  I didn't really interpret it as anti-capitalist propaganda.  The conflict between House and Vogler is a conflict over how medicine should be approached.  Vogler sees medicine as an arena for dollar maximization.  House sees medicine as a crusade -- saving the patient, solving the problem.  Vogler talks about cash flow; House talks about values.

Ayn Rand didn't think that dollar maximization was the proper end of business.  Roark wasn't trying to maximize his income when he turned down the Manhattan Bank commission.  Francisco D'Anconia preferred a single copper smelter in Galt's Gulch to the entirety of D'Anconia Copper in the outside world.  The reasons were essentially the same.  Neither Roark's fee nor D'Anconia Copper would have been values if gaining and keeping them required sacrificing the end to which they were means.  Similarly, House believed that a hundred million dollars was not a value to the hospital if it required sacrificing the end to which the hospital was dedicated -- curing diseases, one patient at a time.

It's worth noting the implicit individualism/collectivism split between House and Vogler.  Vogler always talks about patients in collective terms.  He says he's interested in saving thousands of lives.  House think about patients as individuals.  Vogler is willing to sacrifice the life of any given individual patient in the name of saving a group in the future.  House is not.

The simple presence of a morally-suspect businessman in a story does not automatically make it anti-capitalist.  If that were the case, Orren Boyle and James Taggart would have made Atlas Shrugged anti-capitalist.  You have to evaluate the character based on his role in the story.  So, what is the lesson to be drawn from Vogler?  I think it's that collectivism damages medicine because it devalues the individual.  Vogler tried to invert the hierarchy of values and make money (the means) into the end of medicine.  Roark once observed that he didn't build in order to have clients; he had clients in order to build.  House might have said something similar to Vogler.  He doesn't cure disease to make money; he makes money so he can cure disease.

I agree completely. Vogler's problems are due to his power lust, and in fact represented some very dubious business decisions even in terms of maximizing profits (like trying to force House to publicly endorse an overpriced, average quality drug - which of course explodes in his face).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree completely. Vogler's problems are due to his power lust, and in fact represented some very dubious business decisions even in terms of maximizing profits (like trying to force House to publicly endorse an overpriced, average quality drug - which of course explodes in his face).
I agree and add as further evidence this situation: When Vogler asked House to pick one employee who would be fired, House proposed to keep all four employees for the money of three. Vogler rejected and said:
"I need to know that whatever I ask you to do, however distasteful you find it, you'll do it. And just as importantly, you need to know it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not subscribe to cable TV, so I don't watch much of anything. Network TV is just awful. I want to thank all of you who recommended this show. I just watched my fifth episode-- summer reruns I assume-- and I am hooked. A fascinating and brilliant "What Done It", and Hugh Laurie is just perfect for the part of House. It looks like Fox is going to schedule it against NBC's NCIS on Tuesdays at 8PM. Goodbye NCIS. Being a Navy guy, I liked NCIS--Go Navy--but House is that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction; make that CBS' NCIS. Like I said, I don't watch much TV. The upside of that is it gives me time to read all of the posts on THE FORUM for Ayn Rand fans, and I do read all of them. The quality of the posts are absolutely top-notch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't noticed House's address before. I'm not sure if it's been shown. But tonight's episode included a neat little tidbit. Look over House's shoulder when he walks out of his home, early on in the episode. His address is 221B. The significance? Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street.

It's a neat little treat to run across little details writers throw in like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hadn't noticed House's address before.  I'm not sure if it's been shown.  But tonight's episode included a neat little tidbit.  Look over House's shoulder when he walks out of his home, early on in the episode.  His address is 221B.  The significance?  Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street.

That's great! Thanks for noticing this. I taped the show and will be watching for it tomorrow.

Coincidentally, just last week I was recommending House to a very analytical doctor I know, and I characterized Gregory House as the Sherlock Holmes of medicine. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPOILERS

So what did you guys think of tonights episode? I was kinda mad because I like Cameron and Chase. :) Her doing meth and sleeping with Chase was so bad. Not to mention Chase actually sleeping with her while she was completely out of her mind. :) This also says that Cameron isn't happy with her life. She hates always being the nice girl. I can't believe she succumbed to that idiot's philosophy and actually thought he was happy using drugs and being "free" (from all morals). This really is bothering me. Why do tv shows always have to ruin characters' integrity?

Ahh, I guess I should be used to disappointment now, but I still get my hopes up. Now I can never watch Cameron (or Chase for that matter) again without remembering this episode- and that Cameron is insecure enough about herself to try drugs to make her feel happy.

So anyway, what did you guys think? What do you think about House's relationship with Stacy (his ex-wife)? I don't understand why he doesn't just focus his attention on somebody else. I don't know- I'm not especially impressed with Stacy.

That's my take on (a few) things. I'd love to hear what anyone else thinks.

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPOILERS

So what did you guys think of tonights episode? I was kinda mad because I like Cameron and Chase. :) Her doing meth and sleeping with Chase was so bad. Not to mention Chase actually sleeping with her while she was completely out of her mind.  :) This also says that Cameron isn't happy with her life. She hates always being the nice girl. I can't believe she succumbed to that idiot's philosophy and actually thought he was happy using drugs and being "free" (from all morals). This really is bothering me. Why do tv shows always have to ruin characters' integrity?

I was really shocked by their behavior. It was so out of character for Cameron. I think some writers throw such gratuitous actions in as an attempt to make the characters "more human," as if "human" means giving in to your feelings when you cope with stress. :)

What do you think about House's relationship with Stacy (his ex-wife)? I don't understand why he doesn't just focus his attention on somebody else. I don't know- I'm not especially impressed with Stacy.

The value of the show lies in the intrigue and drama of the medical detective work, and all the rest involving relationships does not occur on the same insightful intellectual level. I think we will just have to put up with what the writers think is personal drama in order to enjoy the really best part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you like Chase, you've obviously missed much of the first season. The guy is a sleazeball. As for Cameron, she's too much of an emotionalist and it actually goes pretty well with her character.

As for House's relationship with Stacy... well - she does seem to be the only one, other than Cuddy, who is not intimidated by him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Cameron, she's too much of an emotionalist and it actually goes pretty well with her character.

Why do you characterize Cameron as an "emotionalist?" And, just to be clear, what do you mean by that term?

I see Cameron as a rather sensitive and empathetic woman, but taking drugs and having drug-induced sex as a response to anxiety does not seem to be in character for her, psychologically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

My impression, and House's criticism, is that Cameron is often letting her emotions interfere with her analysis of a situation. She even lied to the parents of a dying baby because she couldn't bring herself to tell them. Understandable as that may be, she is a doctor and has certain responsibilities.

She is often motivated by pitty, rather than by judgment. Do you remember the episode about the missionary doctor? She was the only one who admired him, and couldn't see through him.

Does it mean that she'll take drugs, etc - under the situation? Well... maybe we don't know the character well enough to say... Her inner world was not revealed to the extent that others' have been.

But we did know that something was wrong with her all along.

I agree, however, that the relationships between the characters are less interesting than the medical dilemmas. I trust that the medical dilemmas will remain at the center of this show in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My impression, and House's criticism, is that Cameron is often letting her emotions interfere with her analysis of a situation. She even lied to the parents of a dying baby because she couldn't bring herself to tell them. Understandable as that may be, she is a doctor and has certain responsibilities.

Based on several episodes, it is clear that Cameron has an issue of confronting patients with their mortality. She has tried to remove herself from those sort of situations, but House insisted on making her confront them. This may be reason to question her ability to deal with patients on this one level, but I see no evidence of her being an "emotionalist" in general. In fact, when House went off vicodin Cameron was less concerned about him personally and more concerned about House's ability to properly analyze a dying patient.

She is often motivated by pitty, rather than by judgment. Do you remember the episode about the missionary doctor? She was the only one who admired him, and couldn't see through him.

I did not see that episode, but your claim here is that she is "often" motivated by pity. What other examples of motivation by pity do you have?

Does it mean that she'll take drugs, etc - under the situation? Well... maybe we don't know the character well enough to say... Her inner world was not revealed to the extent that others' have been.

I don't agree with that. Her relationship with House was very revealing, more so than most of her colleagues.Wilson's problem areas are described rather superficially, and very little has been shown of Cuddy and Foreman in that respect. In any case, the claim you made is that the drugs and sex "actually goes pretty well with her character," but I see nothing to substantiate that.

I agree, however, that the relationships between the characters are less interesting than the medical dilemmas. I trust that the medical dilemmas will remain at the center of this show in the future.

I was concerned when they brought in Sela Ward as Stacy Warner because I feared they would be playing up her relationship to House and that might signal a change in emphasis of the show. But the medical detective work remains the glue that holds the show together and they would be foolish to change that. It would be a shame to destroy such a good show by turning it into a soap opera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the medical detective work remains the glue that holds the show together and they would be foolish to change that. It would be a shame to destroy such a good show by turning it into a soap opera.

My experience is that eventually all good shows turn into soap operas if they stay on the air long enough. The really good shows realize this is happening and stop production before it gets out of hand.

I've been disappointed with the second season of House for a different reason. For me, the core of the show is the presentation of the power of reason to cure disease. In the vast majority of cases in the first season, House manages to save the patients. In the second season, curing the disease often doesn't actually save the patient. The death row inmate, for example, is cured only to be sent back for execution. The AIDS patient in the most recent episode is still dying of HIV. There are several other examples in the current season along similar lines. In fact, I can only think of a couple of instances where House unequivocally saves the patient (such as the cyclist from last week). This undercuts one of the key themes of the show by making the curing of disease seem less significant.

It's still an excellent show, though -- the only one I actually watch as soon as it's aired (as opposed to watching at leisure via TiVo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the medical detective work remains the glue that holds the show together and they would be foolish to change that. It would be a shame to destroy such a good show by turning it into a soap opera.
The creator of House, David Shore, seems to think the same. This is what he said about the show: "The medical stories are crucial to the series and they really are the backbone of the series but I think the series is only really at its best when we're dealing with human issues. [...] There is no way this is turning into a soap opera.". I transcribed this from an interview available on Fox's website and my transscription may contain errors because David Shore spoke so fast (if you want to watch the full video - which is 1.5 minutes long - follow this link and click on "VIDEO" in the menu bar).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some writers throw such gratuitous actions in as an attempt to make the characters "more human," as if "human" means giving in to your feelings when you cope with stress.  :)

The value of the show lies in the intrigue and drama of the medical detective work, and all the rest involving relationships does not occur on the same insightful intellectual level. I think we will just have to put up with what the writers think is personal drama in order to enjoy the really best part.

Both of those are thought I've been having for a while now, though you probably expressed them better than I could have. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you like Chase, you've obviously missed much of the first season. The guy is a sleazeball. As for Cameron, she's too much of an emotionalist and it actually goes pretty well with her character.

Actually, I have the first season on DVD. I was going to ask you to provide examples, but I've just remembered those episodes where Chase sold out House to the boss guy. I forgot about Chase being like that. Thanks for reminding me.

I agree with Stephen. Cameron may be a little too emotional at times, but I wouldn't go so far as to characterize her as an emotionalist. And I certainly would not say doing drugs and having drug-induced sex "goes pretty well with her character".

As disappointing as some of the relationships may be, House still remains the only show I constantly watch every week. Since most of the people my age watch the O.C. and have O.C. parties, I decided to start having House parties at my house. :) It's only me and one other friend, but maybe we'll get some more people interested. Hopefully the "medical detective work" (as Stephen so aptly put it) stays the focus of the show.

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The creator of House, David Shore, seems to think the same. This is what he said about the show: "The medical stories are crucial to the series and they really are the backbone of the series but I think the series is only really at its best when we're dealing with human issues. [...] There is no way this is turning into a soap opera.". I transcribed this from an interview available on Fox's website and my transscription may contain errors because David Shore spoke so fast (if you want to watch the full video - which is 1.5 minutes long - follow this link and click on "VIDEO" in the menu bar).

For some unknown reason (to me), I cannot get the clip to play. I would have liked to hear all his words, but thanks for what you transcribed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites