I've seen a meme on social media over the last few days where Doctor Who fans recall how they found out about the recasting of the part, over the years. For the Fifth and Sixth Doctor in the 80s, I was made aware by the news bulletins on BBC1. By the time of the Seventh Doctor, I was a jaded university graduate and my interest in the series was at its absolutely lowest ebb. So I've no idea. Maybe Teletext!
I was working in a call centre when I read of the Eight Doctor and redundant and unemployed when I read about the Ninth. The Tenth was in the papers again, I think; the Eleventh was by text message, in the self-same call centre, when I was a student teacher. The reveal of the Twelfth seems only days ago, among the "celebrities" and glitter of that Zoe Ball programme. Now I'm old, new Doctors come along like buses.
Yesterday, I was rehearsing Treasure Island in Govanhill Baths. I found out via the reaction of a female cast member who'd been checking her phone. " It's Jodie Whittaker. Fuck! Doctor Who is not. A. Woman. Sorry!" ( or words to that effect).
That's exactly the position I've been taking since February:
http://somefantasticplace-dougie.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/madame-in-box.html
But by Saturday night, my attitude was changing. IDW comics writer and Big Finish author Tony Lee seemed to be hinting on Twitter at the casting of Ryan Cartwright. That proposition seemed so bland and dull and safe - as indeed did Kris Marshall by now ( Poor Kris) - that I began to think what an anti-climax another young, white male Doctor would be. Jodie Whittaker's name had come out of nowhere seemingly, on the Friday 14th July. Since I wasn't a Broadchurch viewer , I'm afraid I hadn't heard of her.
When I finally saw the BBC clip after rehearsals yesterday, I thought it was magical and charming. Having written and drawn the adventures of a female Doctor nearly twenty years ago, I've been converted again. But the online reaction has been a fascinating one, if unpleasantly predictable in Brexit Britain.
"It's Doctor Who, not Nurse Who" howl people who seemingly live in a museum. It's the work of the Leftards! The Social Justice Warriors! Or as we say in Little Britain, the PC Brigade. Filling quotas and bowing to pressure! They're plotting to destroy Dr. Who with bras!
I shouldn't be surprised by these (Keep Calm and ) Carry On style comments . Elmlea use Daisy Bell, a song about the mistress of Edward VII to advertise a dairy substitute on tv. A busker in Argyle Street yesterday was playing Ghost Riders in the Sky ( 1948) in the style of The Shadows ( First chart hit :1959. Last chart hit: 1979). And we're talking here, of course, about a venerable, 54-year-old tv series.
But people genuinely appear to feel threatened; "You're shitting on my childhood" was another response I saw on Facebook, as if it were a personal affront. Where does this outrage come from? Perhaps the Lads Mag culture of Loaded? Is this the legacy of the 90s? I've listened to teenage boys in school bemoan the "loss" of their white male privilege to "stupid feminists": the language of Youtube and social media. As if feminism was another internet conspiracy that sprang to malignant life in the backward and amorphous period that, for teenagers, preceded their birth. I live in a country mourning a simpler, romantic, ordered past with recognisable, shared values across the generations. Unfortunately, it never existed.
The possibility of a female Doctor has been teased since Neil Gaiman's The Doctor's Wife: that "bad girl", The Corsair. Missy referred to knowing the Doctor when he was a little girl in The Witch's Familiar. We saw a Time Lord change gender in Hell Bent. The Doctor himself pooh-poohed human issues about gender stereotypes in The Doctor Falls. With hindsight, it was inevitable. I wonder now why the Doctor can't remain a role model for boys, as well as one for the other half of the global audience of Doctor Who.
In the world of mainstream comics ( I typed "manstream" there, perhaps tellingly,) there seems to be similar bitterness about Thor and Iron Man having female incarnations. It interests me that the "gender swapping" of superheroes in the 80s didn't seem to generate the same outpourings in contemporary letters pages: characters like Wilcat, Dr. Light, Firebrand or Captain Marvel. Or perhaps I don't remember correctly or those letters just weren't printed.
In the world of mainstream comics ( I typed "manstream" there, perhaps tellingly,) there seems to be similar bitterness about Thor and Iron Man having female incarnations. It interests me that the "gender swapping" of superheroes in the 80s didn't seem to generate the same outpourings in contemporary letters pages: characters like Wilcat, Dr. Light, Firebrand or Captain Marvel. Or perhaps I don't remember correctly or those letters just weren't printed.
Ultimately, I think this casting is invigorating and exciting but traditional, "masculine" Doctor Who has long been the provenance of the indomitable Big Finish. For those who demand tales of a fictional Time Lord with a Y chromosome, I should imagine their gargantuan output is refuge enough.
The Haunting of Malkin Place is a poignant story set in the 1920s with touches of The Woman in Black, not least in its marshland setting and forbidding housekeeper. This Fourth Doctor Adventure doesn't feel much like 1980-81's Season 18 , despite Hitch-Hiker's Simon Jones as a spiritualist. But it is a satisfactory period piece, with a suitably DW explanation for its supernatural events.
Later this week: Victorian values and Web-Head's Homecoming
All images are presumed copyright of their respective owners
I think there's a tendency for people to think that the way the world was when they were young is its natural state and that any deviation from that is therefore an aberration that needs to be reversed. I listen to Talksport and you get the same phenomenon on there with people demanding to know when the changes that keep happening in football will end and when the game will go back to being what it was in the 1970s and 80s. They just can't grasp that the way the game was back then wasn't its default setting, just how it happened to be at the time.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, some people can't accept their favourite show deviating from being how it was when they were young.
In the end, it's a form of egotism because it works on the principle that the world effectively started when they were born and therefore has a duty to fit into their own needs and desires.
Of course, on top of that, there are the right-wing weirdos who crop up everywhere they possibly can on the internet, ranting on about libtards, feminazis and Cultural Marxists and probably don't believe a word they're saying but see it as a platform to spread their political agenda.
I wouldn't worry too much about teenagers spouting reactionary views. I remember myself and my friends doing the same thing at that age, primarily in an attempt to annoy teachers. Teenagers are strange creatures and, fortunately, most of them mature with time.
Personally, I'm delighted Whittaker's got the job. Like you say, the thought of any of the main male contenders getting the role was depressing, thanks to the lack of freshness they'd have brought to a show that's been feeling increasingly stale and overly-familiar for the last three or so years.
Granted, there's no guarantee that Whittaker will bring anything new to the show either. For all anyone knows, she might be written exactly like previous Doctors and play the part exactly like previous Doctors. Her casting does, though, suggest that Chris Chibnall is aiming to bring a brand new approach to the show, which is promising.
Thanks for such a considered response.
ReplyDeleteSomeone else said wittily that Dr. Who died the day when it stopped being about a policeman on his beat and started being about teachers in a school.
I'm fascinated by the idea of "Political Correctness going too far". Where should it have stopped?
The "gay agenda" thing is bizarre. I'd like the BBC to start reporting the news without political bias; that's the lobbying I'm interested in and that's going nowhere. The idea that there's a cabal who want to turn your kids gay through a tv programme no one's allegedly watching anyway is astonishing.
You make a very valid point about the part being written exactly like previous Doctors. I think a few commentators would be delighted if she started musing about companions in tight skirts.
What's truly astonishing, Dougie, is your bizarre misinterpretation of the 'gay agenda' notion, because no one, as far as I know, is saying that this is an attempt to turn kids gay through watching Dr. Who - especially not me. However, there has been a concerted attempt by LGBT militants over the years to raise the profile of what was once a taboo subject in all forms of entertainment, and to spread its influence in society to the point it now almost seems to dominate TV. (One prominent member of that community has even been on the radio recently, saying that this is their main mission, claiming that it's in pursuit of 'equality'. However, they've clearly already got that, so what else is there to aim for?) There's also a feminist agenda (and remember, agenda isn't a dirty or negative word), and an agenda to be controversial for the sake of increasing ratings. There is clearly an agenda to influence society on a wide range of topics through the media and the arts, by those who want to effect changes they think are for the better (as some of them may well be). To deny this is to blind yourself to the truth. Whether it be politics, religion, culture, lifestyle, you name it, someone (or some group) somewhere is pursuing an agenda to convince us that their way is the right way, the best way. Your first commenter is correct in what he says about people thinking how things were in their day is the 'default setting', but that's perfectly understandable, as well as natural. It's also understandable that other people want to 'reflect society' as they'd like it to be and not actually how it is, and there's a fair bit of that going on in the content of TV and movies nowadays. I don't know if you've visited my blog posts on the subject, but someone calling themselves 'Ian' (using your first commenter's blog to link to my own, as it always shows up in my visitor stats whenever I receive a rude comment) has indulged in the most outrageous invective and vitriol against me and other commenters for merely saying we'd prefer Dr. Who to remain a man. Perhaps this has happened in reverse on other sites, I don't know as I haven't really been following the subject too closely. However, as Mark Evanier once said, when you blog for long enough, you'll eventually blog about what you had for breakfast. That's true, because when you have a blog, you have to feed it, and coming up with fresh, interesting topics on a regular basis is a hard thing to do. I touched on the subject because of the stushie around it, but I didn't create that stushie. To be vilified for merely expressing one's point of view is an extreme reaction, and it's time that both sides realised (though from my own personal experience, one side more than the other) that there are different points of view on any subject, which is a perfectly natural state of affairs. Even your own and your first commenter's expressions of surprise or dismay on people's objections to Dr. Who being a woman reveal a bias towards your own point of view as being the 'right' one. That's the problem though, isn't it? Everyone believes their view is the right one - whatever it happens to be.
DeleteYes, that's understandable and natural as you say.
ReplyDelete