First off, I'm a new viewer to Dr. Who. I never saw the original series, or read the tie-in novels, and until a couple of months ago, hadn't seen the rebooted seasons.
I decided I would give it a shot, mostly for the same reason I try egg-nog every holiday season: because people I respect love it and extol it constantly. They acknowledge that it has flaws but for the most part, they say, the product is worth consuming. So, I consumed. And the thoughts that follow are nothing more than my subjective impressions based on a limited sample size of the show.
But, the thoughts that follow are nothing
less than that either.
I began with the first season of the 11th doctor and skipped backwards in time to the 9th, then worked my way back up (call it the result of a ripple from the Time War), which due to the polarizing nature of Amy Pond, is either the WORST CHOICE EVER, or PERFECT (according to Whovians).
 |
| The character that launched a thousand rants. |
Whether or not this was a good or bad way to be introduced to the series, my perspective on the show is a bit unique because of it. For just one example, I met Amy Pond before I ever met the Girl in the Fireplace (a sequencing that had me saying, "Meh, seen it before and it's this except much worse) when watching that particular Tennant episode.
Right now, I want to talk about the things that the show does well, rather uniquely well, in my opinion.
1) It has individual, episodic story arcs that represent incredibly cool concepts. Each one is a little masterpiece in creativity.
2) The creativity of Dr. Who is embodied in its committment to having adventures with alien life systems. The set design, make up, and props are for the most part, really cool.
3) Dr. Who takes something (creature/alien life/whatever) that is traditionally depicted as the villain of countless films/TV shows/stories, and asks two questions: 'What is your name/ how can I help you?' Just having a protagonist NOT go for a gun or a weapon FIRST is so wonderful that it's difficult to describe. Because Dr. Who has adventures and his main tool is...understanding and empathy. (And the sonic screwdriver). Now, whether or not Dr. Who cheats in this regard because he has a tool that functions as a weapon and he effectively turns everyone around him into a weapon, is up for debate.
These are the things that the show excels at. Now, for things it could do better:
1) Move the overarching story and emotional lines along in a way that makes sense (this particularly applies to the 11th Doctor, River Song, and Amy Pond) or is consistent.
2) The women. Oh, heavens, the women. Now, I get that the Doctor is male and has companions. He is the main character of the show. His companions are just that: important, but companions. And mostly female (aside from Jack and the sometime Mickey). I get that the show's writers (oh, Moffat) and contributors (like Neil Gaiman) are not ready to have a female Doctor. Many of the show's fans are not ready or desirous of a female doctor or a doctor of color. They define the Doctor (for now) as male and white. (Not being a WOC, I don't have the right to talk about having more people of color on Dr. Who, though the show gets white-woman props from me for repeatedly depicting interracial relationships, and I take away many of those props, since the show wasted a valuable chance to talk meaningfully about race through Martha's experience).
But none of that should be a problem. It shouldn't be a problem because the women of the new Dr. Who should have fully fleshed out characters. Being characters who are women, after all. They, being people, should have talents, goals and care about things other than the men in their lives (Rose is a quasi-exception, Donna is an exception)- if they are defined by something more than their love lives or lack thereof. Or their lack of children. But those ARE the women of Dr.Who and so it IS a problem. I'm not saying that 'real women' should be partner-less and childless. I'm not saying that real, intelligent women don't have girl's nights, work in chip shops, fret over lipstick and boys and all that. But, if that is the be and end all of a character-- and more importantly, the viewer never explores why the characters are invested in those things, then what we actually have is
inexcusably lazy storytelling the substitution of physical beauty and desire for men, for actual characterization.
a) Are the women meant to be seen? Or, are they meant to act?b) And also, how many times does a male figure 'protect' them from knowledge about the world or specifically, about themselves?Some articles that got me thinking about the aformentioned questions are listed below. These articles encapsulate things I've been thinking in a far more beautiful or humorous manner than I could ever produce. I include a little quote from each article to sucker you into reading them and if you don't give a crap about Dr. Who, the first three are still great, all-purpose articles on representations of women in the media :)
1)
'Men grow up expecting to be the hero of their own story. Women grow up expecting to be the supporting actress in somebody else's.'So spake the byline of a wonderful pop culture piece written by Laurie Penny about how it feels, as a woman, to consume pop culture that defines us as beautiful breathing scenery that male characters develop against (I highly advise reading the whole article, available here):
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/06/i-was-manic-pixie-dream-girl-now-i%E2%80%99m-busy-casting-spells-myself.
2)
'And now you see the problem. From birth we're taught that we're owed a beautiful girl. We all think of ourselves as the hero of our own story, and we all (whether we admit it or not) think we're heroes for just getting through our day.'This is from a cracked.com article by David Wong and I'm with him all the way until the Number 1 reason-- I diasgree categorically with it, but I think the rest of the article is both insightful and funny, which is hard to do.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html3)
'Lena Dunham’s character Hannah in Girlsin particular has been a litmus test with our current levels of comfort with the display of the female body. Part of the reason her appearance may be so noteworthy is that it fills our current idea of what constitutes a “moral abhorrence.” ' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-lady-aye/beauty-is-an-impediment-j_b_3541617.html4) Here is an examination of River Song and Amy Pond (and of course, Rory and everybody's favorite Time Lord) as pro-feminist characters (with which I disagree, but hey, two sides to every issue, right):
'Amy’s choices appear to be a simple choice between two men, but they really aren’t that. Her decisions were never just about which man she loved more, they were about which life she wanted to live.'http://whatculture.com/tv/doctor-who-a-feminist-defence-of-steven-moffat.php/15)
'Amy as a plot device, however, drives me insane with rage. The writers cannot seem to come up with anything for her to do that doesn’t involve being a sexual or romantic object, a damsel in distress, or—more recently—a uterus in a box.'http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/08/04/the-girl-who-waited-why-i-hate-amy-pond/6)
'Who is Amy Pond, really? Can you define her by anything other that her relationships to the two major men in her life?'http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/09/06/799791/steven-moffat-im-over-your-lady-issues/Now, onwards to my own reasoning and opinions. My experience with Dr. Who: Geronimo!As far as I can tell in the rebooted Dr. Who, much of the female companions' time is spent lusting after the Doctor or defining themselves in relation to whether or not he loves them. But, as the author of "feminist defence of Steven Moffat" accurately states, all characters of Dr. Who are defined in one way or another by their interaction with him. He's a superhero and the universe is his Gotham, Metropolis, Astro City. When you live in Gotham, you're probably gonna think about the World's Greatest Detective quite a bit. I accept this perspective as accurate. But, what the 'feminist defence' author doesn't get is that when that is your
only defining point (as it is with the women, NOT the men of Dr. Who) then that's a different story. An inferior story, if you catch my drift.
Here's ya' problem, toots! Your plot engine is a vagina and a wedding ring.The writer most frequently accused of sexism (Steven Moffat) counters such accusations by stating that Amy and River are strong, powerful, sexy women. And states that by adding the layers of 'mother and wife' to female characters (or their desire to obtain or fulfill those roles) is actually quite pro-woman. And that as such, Amy and River are feisty women. Some combo of strong and feisty and sexy and wife-d and mother-ed.
Disclaimer! I do not think that women who include wife and/or mother as among the most important parts of their identity are anti-woman, throwbacks to the past, or anti-feminist. I support the idea that anyone can choose those identifiers. What raises my hackles is when those CHOICES are not explored, but rather are taken for granted, presented as the norm for women, and punish violations of those norms. When the plot fairies literally have no other examples of women ('cause we're all the same, amirite?) aside from women desperately seeking motherhood and wife-dom and for no reasons that are actually explored on screen. Why would you need to explore it? All women are simply programmed to want those things, right? And be sexy while doing it? Just give me a second while my while my head explodes, folks.
ROSE:Rose, the first rebooted companion, gets a pass in my book because her character is presented as very young, very curious about the doctor and moved by the burden he has to face alone, and if there's anyone whom I'll forgive for throwing moon-eyes at the Doc, it'll be a not-of-her-teens girl who doesn't really love her boyfriend or her job and has family drama. Martha, the second rebooted companion, starts out strong (meaning, she possesses a medical calling and ambition and a character that is not defined by the absence/presence of the Doctor's love) and inexplicably loses those things very quickly. Amy Pond never had anything but the Doctor until there was Rory and then she became defined by both of them, no matter how many perfume commercials she appears in. Chooses to appear in.
AMY:Oh, Amy. Your plot line could have been the most beautifully tragic and meaningful of all the companions. A girl who lives near a crack in time, who is saved by the Doctor once, and spends the rest of her young life waiting for him to keep his promise ('five minutes,' he says. He'll return for her in five minutes), and who is sent to one psychiatrist after another to cure her of her belief in the 'raggedy doctor.' She should be struggling with extreme trust and mental health issues (she does to some extent, but those are easily solved once they are translated into which romantic object she should have). She should be the embodiment of the Doc's tendency to run away. And how are we introduced to this character visually? By a camera that pans slowly up the long legs (encased in black stockings) to the short skirt of Amy Pond. But that's not sexist, right! She has this outfit because she CHOOSES to be a kissogram girl. How does the camera allow us to understand that this girl and the young Amy Pond are one in the same? By having the actress tear off her policeman's cap and allowing her long red, gorgeous hair to spill forth. I mean, that can't be sexist, right? Nobody FORCES her to do that. And she can't help that she's sexy! I
must just be jealous of how hot she is!
First off, kissogram isn't a job that exists anymore, given that we're no longer in the 1950s. Amy wears sexy outfits (including a cop's uniform, a nurse, and a nun's habit) because the writer wanted to introduce her as sexy, but not TOO sexy, you know. I mean, we don't want her to be a stripper, we don't want her to be
dangerously and uncontrollably (by men) sexy or sexy in a BAD way, but we do want to introduce her within the context of someone who kisses people for money in sexy outfits. This profession does not exist anymore, people. She's either a stripper, which is fine, or she's not. But, does she
choose to have this job? Absolutely! Do we know why? Nope. Doesn't matter. We don't need to know why the women do anything, often because the women themselves don't know. In order to trace this point more clearly, I'm going to jump to the character of Donna.
Donna, to put it mildly, is my Dr.Who goddess.
Hail!I grant her this status because, for me, she is a true companion, a true friend of the Doctor, not someone imagining him with his clothes off and giving him a pass on his bullshit because of romantic desire or fantasy. In a world where women are the reward for a quest or spend most of their days trying to figure out does-he-doesn't-he on the Tardis, Donna uses her real-life skills and desire for adventure to support the Doctor and be a main character in her own light. Unfortunately, the end of The Doctor Donna bore ill tidings for the future female characters on the show. Because, let's face it-- the Doctor essentially mind-rapes Donna. He doesn't ask her if she'd like to go out in a blaze of beautiful glory-- he doesn't ASK her if she wants to go back to her own life or the way she was (presented as a superficial, loud harpy) or die. He doesn't ask. He takes a meaningful, tragic choice away from this character, so that the Doctor can have yet something else to brood about.
This introduces the previous theme:
The Doctor Protects Woman From Knowlege of Herself.
This is a bit of a tricksy (Gollum voice-ON) element, because both River Song and the horribly insecure relationship of Amy and Rory keep important info from the Doctor (the knowledge of his 'death,' for awhile). Martha also knew something the Doctor didn't (for awhile) in a gorgeous two-episode arc. Of course, she spends the entire arc trying to get him to remember this knowledge, on the explicit instructions of the Dr., so it counts a hell of a lot less in my book. The Dr. makes his choice and gives instructions on how to deal with it.
These are choices that are taken away from Donna, Amy (when Rory is erased from existence and she cries and is sad a lot, stating, 'I don't know why I'm doing that, why am I doing that?' Also, the Doc keeps her knowledge of herself as a life-model decoy (essentially) from her. That and her pregnancy.)
River appears to know a lot more than the Dr. since she's visiting from his/their future, but it turns out that's not the case and he'll catch up anyway in his own time stream. She's obsessed with the Dr., as is Amy, and that's the beginning and the end of their characters). But most of all, the idea that the Doctor as a time lord, must bear the burden of knowledge, takes on a paternalistic and unequally distributed application which turns the women more passive-- and makes the Doc feel SO bad that he HAS to protect them in such a way. All the independent experiences that women have are pretty much erased or are never dealt with (Amy's experience in the Pandorica, Amy's growing up without a family, Amy's loss of her baby...the list goes on).
Sure, there's banter. Sure, there's the facade of sass. Sure, there's Rory and the idea that Rory is Mr.Pond and a nurse which equals pro-feminist... if you ignore all the ways that Rory is mocked for being a nurse, since no nurse can compare to the Doctor, that is. For the charcter to get any respect, Rory has to have the Centurion added on to his character-- a Roman warrior who waits for Amy and protects her for a thousand years. And that the Doctor has to ask Rory for permission to hug Amy, for the love of Neptune! So much of their first season dymanic is occupied by the question: Will Amy choose to love the Doc or Rory? And as such, so much of that season turns into a one-sided pissing contest between Rory and the Doc, where the Doc plays fuckin' matchmaker between Rory-Amy.
Is sass and sexiness enough to depict women? Is wife and mother enough? No, it's not. Not when you choose to NEVER explore the motivations of female characters.
River Song, cross-reference weddings, all women need weddings:River Song only gave the impression she had anything on her mind but the Doctor-- alas, as her plot lines now show, she's even more defined by and obssessed with him than her mother was/is. She's willing to destroy the universe, all universes actually, because she loves the Doc. Never mind that this isn't a quality we'd ever been led to suspect in River, never mind that she's been raised by psychopaths to kill the Doc, never mind all that. Because, really, when you're raised to kill a man, you just fall in love with him instead. She loves him and that love needs no reason, because women just do that. They just love a guy and want to marry him. And if you really need a female character to remember or do something-- please, just use a wedding. Then, they'll get it.
The most expensive Post-It note of all time.
These female characters are intended to be seen and saved by the Doctor, not to act in ways that matter. When they do act, it's to save the Doctor's life or to protect their children or their lover. That's it. That's their motivation. No hobbies, no goals, no likes/dislikes, nothing. No characterization aside from, "feisty" and "sexy." I haven't seen the new companion Clara yet, so I'm curious to see what she'll bring (I've heard that it's more of the same, but I'm reserving judgement), but I'm much more curious about what the plot line of the 12th doctor (a much older actor) will be. Will they continue the romantic-prince angle, or just substitute all the women lustily obsessed with the Doc for all women now possessing paternal love for him? Time will tell, I suppose....unless, it gets erased, or, uhhh...put in a different timeline in a different dimension. Like you do.
This has already fallen into the tldr (too long, didn't read) category of posts, but given how many people love Dr. Who these days, it just...it just makes me sad that these are the narratives we're teaching young men and women. These are the stories that they will fit themselves into-- and maybe some of those kids will subvert these tropes and own their lives, but...I have the feeling that a lot of them won't. And like I said, that makes me sad....but now, being a woman, I can't remember why.
Do you know why?Please, tell me.