Was the old who deliberately offensive by contrast? To me, something like Talons of Weng Chiang is kind of iffy because of outmoded stereotypical portrayals of Chinese culture -- but I don't think they were trying to avoid being "politically correct" by the way they made their portrayal in that series; I think they acted out of ignorance. Notes from that time would suggest they were were very aware of the 'possible' offensive quality of the program, thus the very heated discussion about "privilage".
Remember this is the BBC, the same network that presented the Black and White Minstrel Show until the mid seventies, inspite of protest without and within the network. From everything I've read, their (BBC Head office) attitude towards the Weng Chiang episode was very similar to their attitude when confronted about the Black and White Minstrel show.
Or, one might say, "the inclusion of Martha Jones as the first companion of color is a bow to political correctness" -- if so then I have no problem with it Martha as a token character? I have a problem with that. If the only reason the character was cast with a Woman of Color was because of pressure to BBC to become more diverse, (There is a statement from BBC in response to criticism around that time at their lack of POC in creative roles, specifically citing Martha Jones in their defense,) then we have to question whether she was intended as a geninue character--or a token character. If she was hired only to quiet critics then "color" is her central feature.
However, I think Freema was hired because as the producers noticed, she was gorgeous, they liked her, and felt she had promise. The PC or no PC issues comes the writers awkward attempts to deal with Martha's complexion in various situations.
Thanks for the information about the BBC, which I did not know.
I think Freema is amazing and I am really glad she was cast. I mean, whether or not she was hired as a "token" I think she was much more because of her talent and also, I think her character is pretty well written.
From everything RTD has said, he hired Freema because he liked her and appreciated. However nothing he says indicates that he was unaware that she is a Woman of Color, or the challenge this posed when introducing this character as a Companion to a Time Traveler. And I agree, if we follow Martha's growth from Smith and Jones, throughout Torchwood, she was very developed.
However, when viewers who for the most part loved Season Three because of the performances, but also criticized the Show--not the characters--for it's "race fails" do so because of awkward, careless, or insenstive story telling.
It is very likely that the author of the Shakespeare Code only meant to imply that the Doctor didn't see skin color. The problem with this approach is that of course the Doctor can see Martha's complexion, and he knows (Remember Ace!) enough about Western society to realize that although her complexion has no societal significance to him, it does among her fellow humans. The Doctor and Martha are not traveling to Gallifrey's past where her complexion doesn't matter. (Being human will) Stressing that the Doctor is not aware of her color is unfortuate approach in inserting commentary about race, prejudice, oppression or human rights into a script. The Doctor notices if someone is blonde or ginger, or Scottish. Why shouldn't he notice that Martha has brown skin, dark hair, and a simply gorgeous blend of African and Middle Eastern features? Why not answer her question about the possiblity of her being carried off as a slave honestly? Martha is not asking the Doctorif it HIS intention to sell her to Queen Elizabeth's bounty hunter as a slave? She's asking if someone among the Elizabethans will challenge him, and try to cart her off as a slave. It's 1599 in England and for the second time Queen Elizabeth has petitioned the Mayor of London ordering the expulsion of Africans--(not the words LIz One used.) The honest/historical response is yes, someone might try it, however, for the most part, Queen Elizabeth I's fairer complexioned subjects defied the decree and protected their fellow Brits. Her Bounty Hunter/Slave trader went bankrupt. The point that the Doctor is not racially prejudiced is made at the expense of the sensitivity and comfort of those POC in the audience. It doesn't educate or enlighten anyone, and I refuse to call denial PC.
I do appreciate your elucidation of the criticism of the episode, I missed all that since I've only been in this fandom for about a year, and I very much appreciate the extra facts about Elizabeth's Bounty Hunter that I never knew.
It really depends on the source as to whether Casper van Senden contacted Elizabeth or she him but there are records of him complaining about her subjects defying his efforts to take these people prisoner and it is reported that he went bankrupt in his efforts. Among those who seemed on the surface to support Elizabeth's order, but secretly when it came to the POC in their service, defied it, was Lord Cecil, the younger, I believed who was particularly close to his personal servant.
Strangely enough I have heard, at least in fandom, our general ignorance of history as defense for writer's neglect in research.
And I believe there is a difference between neglect and editorial choice. For example there is, if we examine the content, reason in the the writer choosing Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day for Martha rather than My Mistress Eyes are nothing like the Sun....but Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day is a Sonnet for a Fair Young Man.
That is a great link to documents, thanks very much. It just goes to show how important documentary research is, to bring knowledge to light, like this about the way Elizabeth tried to destabilize the position of POCs in early modern England. I didn't know about it... my field of study is the late eighteenth, early nineteenth, when issues are rather different. I knew (or thought I knew) that there were free POCs living in early modern England, so I think that when I first heard Martha's question, I thought that the Doctor would vouch for her as a free person, that no one would assume she was a slave because of her skin color.
I think I understand your previous remark a little more clearly, in terms of whether Martha's casting would be regarded as PC.... I guess, casting her as a "token" would be especially offensive if writers fail to live up to the research necessary, as they appear to have done in this case.
It's a coincidence that the actor who played George Jefferson just passed away -- the commentators on NPR have been commending the way he made his role better and more than how it was written.
It's possible that some of this could be down to unwillingness to tackle the issues head on, mixed with a bit of Did Not Do The Research. It would probably take a fair amount of time to do justice to a plotline like this, and TPTB may have simply wanted to handwave reality and tell a fun story. I'm not trying to excuse what they did, since this left the storyline with some unfortunate implications, and the audience with a skewed view of history.
As for the sonnets, either the writer is ignorant or he wanted to choose one that is instantly recognizable. (YMMV however; My Mistress's Eyes is quite famous.)
It would probably take a fair amount of time to do justice to a plotline like this This of course is hindsight, which is worthless, but I'm not certain if i agree that it would have been necessary for the writer to change the basic plot line, in order for the Doctor to acknowledge that yes, times are different, and the Queen has issued orders that could threaten Your freedom but not on my watch. Besides in the area they were visitng-among the Commons and artist, you will find friends. And why not reflect what Elizabethans would have really thought had there been a cry of witchcraft when that man died, and who they would have turned to as the witch if confronted with Lilith the "fair" haired, rosy cheek maid, and the brown complexioned, strangely garbed woman of color. As far as I can see the story practically writes itself. But it is hindsight.
I think a good bit can be down to Did Not Do the Research, and pure--oh lets not talk about racial prejudice and the slave trade--so unpleasant., but as realistically Martha should be worried, Let's just have Martha look over sensitive, and the Doctor oh- so above all of this racially, political correct nonsense.<.i> I would conceded taht the thinking possibly wasn't as callous as all that, but people do prickly when ask to address the reality of certain historical injustices. It might help to know that decades before she issued this decree, Elizabeth I passionately reprimanded English slave trader Hawkins and Drake for their inhumanity, or that Victoria was adamant about preferring the performance and voices of "real Negroes" to Minstrel shows, and made it her business to invite the elderly Josiah Henson to visit with her and expressed her sympathy and wish to help his people. With Human Nature, it would seem not only is allowing Martha to "rise above" prejudice alone shown as appropriate, it was also paramount until he displayed his own prejudice, not to put John Smith in the position of witness any abuse Martha endures because of the prejudice of his peers where he would be expected to defend or at least offer comfort and encouragement. Lots of missed opportunities.
As for the sonnets, either the writer is ignorant or he wanted to choose one that is instantly recognizable. (YMMV however; My Mistress's Eyes is quite famous.) As to the poem, the Dark Lady sonnets reflect the Bard's struggle with the beauty of his lady and the negative connatations of her physical attributes, and is not necessarily written as a poem of prayer, but of defiance of traditional,lofty attributes of beauty that really don't exist. Black hair, dark skin, dark eyes, is difficult to use in praise in a kingdom where "fair" not only means beautiful but Fair skin is light skin, fair hair is light toned hair. Shall I compare thee to a Summer's Day does fit Martha's personality and beautifully contrast what the Doctor, binding by his love of someone he can compare to a Summer's Day misses. At least I hope that was the reason.
I'm not certain if i agree that it would have been necessary for the writer to change the basic plot line, in order for the Doctor to acknowledge that yes, times are different, and the Queen has issued orders that could threaten Your freedom but not on my watch. Besides in the area they were visitng-among the Commons and artist, you will find friends. And why not reflect what Elizabethans would have really thought had there been a cry of witchcraft when that man died, and who they would have turned to as the witch if confronted with Lilith the "fair" haired, rosy cheek maid, and the brown complexioned, strangely garbed woman of color.
Touche; that would be a very plausible way to make the storyline more based in history - and it would add conflict to boot. Maybe you should consult for the show! ;-)
As for Human Nature, I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly - do you mean that John Smith should have been shown to be conflicted between defending Martha and bowing to the social pressures of the times? If so, yes that could have been interesting. However, having a non-POC saviour comes with its own set of issues... a recent example would be the controversy surrounding The Help.
Back on topic, I like your analysis of the Dark lady's sonnets. I hope that was the reason it was chosen too!
If so, yes that could have been interesting. However, having a non-POC saviour comes with its own set of issues... a recent example would be the controversy surrounding The Help.
The controversy with "The Help" was the suggestion that Women of Color never ventured to tell their own tales,--we have a literary heritage as old as this nation!-- and the fact that the film and book ignored some harsh realities of that time period. Instead of petty theft and feeding some unpleasant biddy sh--t, most women of color working in service were arrested, threatened, and haraased because of their involvement in the CivilRrights/voter registration movement--which by the way started before the First World War.
conflicted between defending Martha and bowing to the social pressures of the times
Martha's story takes place in post Edwardian England. She has supposedly followed her employer's son to an isolated part of England--where, although modest, POC are making some headway towards equality like this event: http://www.mytimemachine.co.uk/battersea.htm
Samuel Coleridge Taylor's Hiawatha Suite was a celebrated piece of art, one of the First Anti-racism organizations--called Anti-Caste was founded by upper and middle class Britons, male and female during Victoria's reign, and London had played host to Pan African Movement which was a combined group of professionals and politicians dedicated to civil rights. The decision to toss Martha into 1913 , place her in servitude and have her face racism alone, while hinting that John Smith should lean toward prejudice because that is how the audience expected all white men to behave towards WOC is perplexing in a tale in which the Doctor, through his three month experience is expected to grow in his understanding of humanity. Again,--and this observation is in retrospect,--the writers would not have had to have John Smith moving mountains in order to portray him, (and by default the Doctor) having faith and trust and respecting his "servant" Martha. She was very much his Companion--unless Martha's explanation that he inherited her from his parents means that John Smith consider Martha his parent’s property and she was along with him because he didn’t know how to dispose of her. That November, most of the UK papers carried the story of John Archer's election, and some praised the gentlemanly behavior of footballer Walter Tull. Why not, instead of --well maybe in the future you can be my companion--John Smith pointed to an article about Archer, or Coleridge-Taylor, or Tull and assured Martha that he believed in today's (1913) UK she could do anything she aspired to. Why not have John Smith reprimand the boys for their boorish behavior towards a servant? That is something I would expect on Upstairs/Downstairs or Downton Alley--wouldn't you?
The controversy with "The Help" was the suggestion that Women of Color never ventured to tell their own tales,--we have a literary heritage as old as this nation!-- and the fact that the film and book ignored some harsh realities of that time period. Instead of petty theft and feeding some unpleasant biddy sh--t, most women of color working in service were arrested, threatened, and haraased because of their involvement in the CivilRrights/voter registration movement--which by the way started before the First World War.
Yes, exactly - the idea that a white person was needed to tell their story, which is untrue. IDK, I thought the novel and the film both did a good job portraying how dangerous it was for people who stirred the pot. Admittedly, I only found out how problematic it was after reading it and seeing the film. History is not my strong suit, so I do appreciate the information you bring to the discussion.
As for Martha, perhaps the writers wanted to make it as much Martha's story as it was John Smith's. This way, we can see how she dealt with the challenges of the time without having anyone to protect her. Not quite historically accurate, but I personally can forgive such inaccuracies when they allow female characters to shine, since well-rounded female characters truly are hard to come by.
History is not my strong suit, so I do appreciate the information you bring to the discussion. As a Sixty year old WOC I have the historical advantage as such information was a part of my and my family's reality.
I watched the film, and found it pleasant, but not truly revealing--but then again I recall that time period quite clearly. And as to reception from the black community this was a no-win situation, even if rather than promoting the film as a beneficent white lady telling the story of these WOC, it was the story of a white woman learning through the suffering of black female employees. Either way-women of color cease to be individuals, but tools of white liberalism--with only stellar performances as the saving grace. How the hell did we get back to that palce? There is Nothing new about that role of the Black woman --or man --as a young white person's caregiver and epiphany-which very much gets us back to Martha and the Doctor.
She’s his caretaker.
Yea! For Moffat who gives her that line in Blink.
This way, we can see how she dealt with the challenges of the time without having anyone to protect her. I can forgive them because of Freema's comments that she understood the storyline would be controversial and a challenge. And both Freema’s and Tennant’s performances were top notched and it was a good story. I think in the DVD Cornell said he wanted to do exactly that-show how brilliantly Martha can work alone, from a position of disadvantage. The criticism is not that the story was bad, or the performances poor. It was very well produced, however would you agree that we have to careful of allowing the defense of artistic excellence to mask instances of insensitivity?
Martha's experience was minimized to anecdotal in favor of John Smith's romance. The Doctor emerges from the experience more insensitive to Martha than ever. Their relationship is and should be toast. Early on in the episode, after asking her to trust him, and take care of him, he tells her -in a situation where she in reality will become the “Alien” in their surroundings-she’s on her own. What is the audience supposed to make of the Doctor as “Martha’s Hero” after this-as he is asking her to assume a position where she will be confronted daily with abuse, hostility, and hardship? Furthermore the Doctor is taking full advantage of his privilege as a white male at her expense. What kind of friend and hero is he? What young woman of color wants to travel with a someone who, when faced with challenge of social rejection, is going to throw her into the cupboard and tell her to make the best of things, while he kicks back and enjoys himself?
On one hand this works, as it was Davies’ intent to destroy the relationship between Martha and the Doctor, so fans would accept that self-preservation dictated that Martha run like hell in any other direction than the Doctor’s.
However, the writer’s choosing to downplay the Doctor’s spiritual abandonment of Martha by emphasizing Martha’s unrequited love instead was infuriating. If John Smith acknowledged in word or gesture that he appreciated that Martha had placed herself into a hostile environment for his convenience is not a white man coming to a black woman’s rescue, but one human being testifying to his faith and trust in in another.
Now to the PC issue. Yes, Martha’s gets to shine, but to what narrative end? Experiencing class and racial oppression and prejudice in Western Society is not character building experience for a woman of color: it is merely business as usual. Unfortunately that is exactly how the script treated Martha’s situation, as if she, the Doctor, and we the audience should expect no better of the era and the people of the time.
Putting aside the reverse racism inherit in that type of thinking, what has Martha done to the Doctor that he can so easily dismiss her spiritual well-being, (And if the story was realistic about the plight of female servants of any complexion during that time) personal safety, as simply the “way things were?” Dismissing the life experience of thousands of people, as the way things were, is not PC, it is just lazy.
As a Sixty year old WOC I have the historical advantage as such information was a part of my and my family's reality.
You certainly do, at that! Again, your insight is appreciated. I'm a white Canadian girl who grew up in a very ethnically homogeneous area, so I am definitely open to learning about perspectives from other cultures.
The criticism is not that the story was bad, or the performances poor. It was very well produced, however would you agree that we have to careful of allowing the defense of artistic excellence to mask instances of insensitivity?
Absolutely. If this sort of thing only occurred occasionally, it would be much less worrisome, but it tends to be the norm. And when issues like this are discussed, it's pretty common for people to say, "Why are you complaining so much? Can't you just relax and enjoy it for what it is?" (I know I can be guilty of this.)
Re: the PC issues... IA that it came down to lazy storytelling. It would have been interesting for Martha's incentive for leaving to be more than her unrequited love.
Absolutely. If this sort of thing only occurred occasionally, it would be much less worrisome, but it tends to be the norm. And when issues like this are discussed, it's pretty common for people to say, "Why are you complaining so much? Can't you just relax and enjoy it for what it is?" (I know I can be guilty of this.) And to be fair, especially with the British audience, there is the reality that many people work in the service industry, and may think the reaction is denial of reality or an unfair disimissal of their trade. The criticism is not that Martha is a maid. The criticism is that she becomes a maid without any narrative explanation in the body of the script, leaving the audience to assume that she must become a servant because of her complexion and that they are in the past. The question to the writers is: three months, three days, or three hours what does it matter? Why wouldn't an masquerade that works for three hours not work for three months?
Moving away from this and getting into gender roles: It appears that in order to reach out to a new audience, both Moffat and Davies have chosen to place the Doctor's females companions at least in very humble positions. Having worked in shops, to called the jobs unskilled is simply misinformed. I don't know about kissagrams however. Both Mickey and Rory have position that require either trade school, (mechanic) or university/college training (Nurse). If we look at the Doctor's relationship with Martha, accomplishment, intellectual curiosity, and a set of ethics are a turn off for the Doctor. Then again we have River and Reinette, both 'accomplished' women but with questionable ethics. What's up?
Remember this is the BBC, the same network that presented the Black and White Minstrel Show until the mid seventies, inspite of protest without and within the network. From everything I've read, their (BBC Head office) attitude towards the Weng Chiang episode was very similar to their attitude when confronted about the Black and White Minstrel show.
Or, one might say, "the inclusion of Martha Jones as the first companion of color is a bow to political correctness" -- if so then I have no problem with it Martha as a token character? I have a problem with that. If the only reason the character was cast with a Woman of Color was because of pressure to BBC to become more diverse, (There is a statement from BBC in response to criticism around that time at their lack of POC in creative roles, specifically citing Martha Jones in their defense,) then we have to question whether she was intended as a geninue character--or a token character. If she was hired only to quiet critics then "color" is her central feature.
However, I think Freema was hired because as the producers noticed, she was gorgeous, they liked her, and felt she had promise. The PC or no PC issues comes the writers awkward attempts to deal with Martha's complexion in various situations.
Reply
I think Freema is amazing and I am really glad she was cast. I mean, whether or not she was hired as a "token" I think she was much more because of her talent and also, I think her character is pretty well written.
Reply
However, when viewers who for the most part loved Season Three because of the performances, but also criticized the Show--not the characters--for it's "race fails" do so because of awkward, careless, or insenstive story telling.
It is very likely that the author of the Shakespeare Code only meant to imply that the Doctor didn't see skin color. The problem with this approach is that of course the Doctor can see Martha's complexion, and he knows (Remember Ace!) enough about Western society to realize that although her complexion has no societal significance to him, it does among her fellow humans. The Doctor and Martha are not traveling to Gallifrey's past where her complexion doesn't matter. (Being human will) Stressing that the Doctor is not aware of her color is unfortuate approach in inserting commentary about race, prejudice, oppression or human rights into a script.
The Doctor notices if someone is blonde or ginger, or Scottish. Why shouldn't he notice that Martha has brown skin, dark hair, and a simply gorgeous blend of African and Middle Eastern features?
Why not answer her question about the possiblity of her being carried off as a slave honestly?
Martha is not asking the Doctorif it HIS intention to sell her to Queen Elizabeth's bounty hunter as a slave? She's asking if someone among the Elizabethans will challenge him, and try to cart her off as a slave. It's 1599 in England and for the second time Queen Elizabeth has petitioned the Mayor of London ordering the expulsion of Africans--(not the words LIz One used.)
The honest/historical response is yes, someone might try it, however, for the most part, Queen Elizabeth I's fairer complexioned subjects defied the decree and protected their fellow Brits. Her Bounty Hunter/Slave trader went bankrupt.
The point that the Doctor is not racially prejudiced is made at the expense of the sensitivity and comfort of those POC in the audience. It doesn't educate or enlighten anyone, and I refuse to call denial PC.
Reply
I do appreciate your elucidation of the criticism of the episode, I missed all that since I've only been in this fandom for about a year, and I very much appreciate the extra facts about Elizabeth's Bounty Hunter that I never knew.
Reply
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/early_times/elizabeth.htm
It really depends on the source as to whether Casper van Senden contacted Elizabeth or she him but there are records of him complaining about her subjects defying his efforts to take these people prisoner and it is reported that he went bankrupt in his efforts. Among those who seemed on the surface to support Elizabeth's order, but secretly when it came to the POC in their service, defied it, was Lord Cecil, the younger, I believed who was particularly close to his personal servant.
Strangely enough I have heard, at least in fandom, our general ignorance of history as defense for writer's neglect in research.
And I believe there is a difference between neglect and editorial choice. For example there is, if we examine the content, reason in the the writer choosing Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day for Martha rather than My Mistress Eyes are nothing like the Sun....but Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day is a Sonnet for a Fair Young Man.
Reply
I think I understand your previous remark a little more clearly, in terms of whether Martha's casting would be regarded as PC.... I guess, casting her as a "token" would be especially offensive if writers fail to live up to the research necessary, as they appear to have done in this case.
It's a coincidence that the actor who played George Jefferson just passed away -- the commentators on NPR have been commending the way he made his role better and more than how it was written.
Reply
As for the sonnets, either the writer is ignorant or he wanted to choose one that is instantly recognizable. (YMMV however; My Mistress's Eyes is quite famous.)
Reply
I think a good bit can be down to Did Not Do the Research, and pure--oh lets not talk about racial prejudice and the slave trade--so unpleasant., but as realistically Martha should be worried, Let's just have Martha look over sensitive, and the Doctor oh- so above all of this racially, political correct nonsense.<.i> I would conceded taht the thinking possibly wasn't as callous as all that, but people do prickly when ask to address the reality of certain historical injustices. It might help to know that decades before she issued this decree, Elizabeth I passionately reprimanded English slave trader Hawkins and Drake for their inhumanity, or that Victoria was adamant about preferring the performance and voices of "real Negroes" to Minstrel shows, and made it her business to invite the elderly Josiah Henson to visit with her and expressed her sympathy and wish to help his people. With Human Nature, it would seem not only is allowing Martha to "rise above" prejudice alone shown as appropriate, it was also paramount until he displayed his own prejudice, not to put John Smith in the position of witness any abuse Martha endures because of the prejudice of his peers where he would be expected to defend or at least offer comfort and encouragement. Lots of missed opportunities.
As for the sonnets, either the writer is ignorant or he wanted to choose one that is instantly recognizable. (YMMV however; My Mistress's Eyes is quite famous.)
As to the poem, the Dark Lady sonnets reflect the Bard's struggle with the beauty of his lady and the negative connatations of her physical attributes, and is not necessarily written as a poem of prayer, but of defiance of traditional,lofty attributes of beauty that really don't exist. Black hair, dark skin, dark eyes, is difficult to use in praise in a kingdom where "fair" not only means beautiful but Fair skin is light skin, fair hair is light toned hair. Shall I compare thee to a Summer's Day does fit Martha's personality and beautifully contrast what the Doctor, binding by his love of someone he can compare to a Summer's Day misses. At least I hope that was the reason.
Reply
Touche; that would be a very plausible way to make the storyline more based in history - and it would add conflict to boot. Maybe you should consult for the show! ;-)
As for Human Nature, I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly - do you mean that John Smith should have been shown to be conflicted between defending Martha and bowing to the social pressures of the times? If so, yes that could have been interesting. However, having a non-POC saviour comes with its own set of issues... a recent example would be the controversy surrounding The Help.
Back on topic, I like your analysis of the Dark lady's sonnets. I hope that was the reason it was chosen too!
Reply
The controversy with "The Help" was the suggestion that Women of Color never ventured to tell their own tales,--we have a literary heritage as old as this nation!-- and the fact that the film and book ignored some harsh realities of that time period. Instead of petty theft and feeding some unpleasant biddy sh--t, most women of color working in service were arrested, threatened, and haraased because of their involvement in the CivilRrights/voter registration movement--which by the way started before the First World War.
conflicted between defending Martha and bowing to the social pressures of the times
Martha's story takes place in post Edwardian England. She has supposedly followed her employer's son to an isolated part of England--where, although modest, POC are making some headway towards equality like this event: http://www.mytimemachine.co.uk/battersea.htm
Samuel Coleridge Taylor's Hiawatha Suite was a celebrated piece of art, one of the First Anti-racism organizations--called Anti-Caste was founded by upper and middle class Britons, male and female during Victoria's reign, and London had played host to Pan African Movement which was a combined group of professionals and politicians dedicated to civil rights.
The decision to toss Martha into 1913 , place her in servitude and have her face racism alone, while hinting that John Smith should lean toward prejudice because that is how the audience expected all white men to behave towards WOC is perplexing in a tale in which the Doctor, through his three month experience is expected to grow in his understanding of humanity.
Again,--and this observation is in retrospect,--the writers would not have had to have John Smith moving mountains in order to portray him, (and by default the Doctor) having faith and trust and respecting his "servant" Martha. She was very much his Companion--unless Martha's explanation that he inherited her from his parents means that John Smith consider Martha his parent’s property and she was along with him because he didn’t know how to dispose of her.
That November, most of the UK papers carried the story of John Archer's election, and some praised the gentlemanly behavior of footballer Walter Tull. Why not, instead of --well maybe in the future you can be my companion--John Smith pointed to an article about Archer, or Coleridge-Taylor, or Tull and assured Martha that he believed in today's (1913) UK she could do anything she aspired to. Why not have John Smith reprimand the boys for their boorish behavior towards a servant? That is something I would expect on Upstairs/Downstairs or Downton Alley--wouldn't you?
Reply
Yes, exactly - the idea that a white person was needed to tell their story, which is untrue. IDK, I thought the novel and the film both did a good job portraying how dangerous it was for people who stirred the pot. Admittedly, I only found out how problematic it was after reading it and seeing the film. History is not my strong suit, so I do appreciate the information you bring to the discussion.
As for Martha, perhaps the writers wanted to make it as much Martha's story as it was John Smith's. This way, we can see how she dealt with the challenges of the time without having anyone to protect her. Not quite historically accurate, but I personally can forgive such inaccuracies when they allow female characters to shine, since well-rounded female characters truly are hard to come by.
Reply
I watched the film, and found it pleasant, but not truly revealing--but then again I recall that time period quite clearly. And as to reception from the black community this was a no-win situation, even if rather than promoting the film as a beneficent white lady telling the story of these WOC, it was the story of a white woman learning through the suffering of black female employees. Either way-women of color cease to be individuals, but tools of white liberalism--with only stellar performances as the saving grace. How the hell did we get back to that palce? There is Nothing new about that role of the Black woman --or man --as a young white person's caregiver and epiphany-which very much gets us back to Martha and the Doctor.
She’s his caretaker.
Yea! For Moffat who gives her that line in Blink.
This way, we can see how she dealt with the challenges of the time without having anyone to protect her. I can forgive them because of Freema's comments that she understood the storyline would be controversial and a challenge. And both Freema’s and Tennant’s performances were top notched and it was a good story. I think in the DVD Cornell said he wanted to do exactly that-show how brilliantly Martha can work alone, from a position of disadvantage.
The criticism is not that the story was bad, or the performances poor. It was very well produced, however would you agree that we have to careful of allowing the defense of artistic excellence to mask instances of insensitivity?
Martha's experience was minimized to anecdotal in favor of John Smith's romance.
The Doctor emerges from the experience more insensitive to Martha than ever. Their relationship is and should be toast. Early on in the episode, after asking her to trust him, and take care of him, he tells her -in a situation where she in reality will become the “Alien” in their surroundings-she’s on her own. What is the audience supposed to make of the Doctor as “Martha’s Hero” after this-as he is asking her to assume a position where she will be confronted daily with abuse, hostility, and hardship? Furthermore the Doctor is taking full advantage of his privilege as a white male at her expense. What kind of friend and hero is he? What young woman of color wants to travel with a someone who, when faced with challenge of social rejection, is going to throw her into the cupboard and tell her to make the best of things, while he kicks back and enjoys himself?
On one hand this works, as it was Davies’ intent to destroy the relationship between Martha and the Doctor, so fans would accept that self-preservation dictated that Martha run like hell in any other direction than the Doctor’s.
However, the writer’s choosing to downplay the Doctor’s spiritual abandonment of Martha by emphasizing Martha’s unrequited love instead was infuriating. If John Smith acknowledged in word or gesture that he appreciated that Martha had placed herself into a hostile environment for his convenience is not a white man coming to a black woman’s rescue, but one human being testifying to his faith and trust in in another.
Now to the PC issue.
Yes, Martha’s gets to shine, but to what narrative end? Experiencing class and racial oppression and prejudice in Western Society is not character building experience for a woman of color: it is merely business as usual. Unfortunately that is exactly how the script treated Martha’s situation, as if she, the Doctor, and we the audience should expect no better of the era and the people of the time.
Putting aside the reverse racism inherit in that type of thinking, what has Martha done to the Doctor that he can so easily dismiss her spiritual well-being, (And if the story was realistic about the plight of female servants of any complexion during that time) personal safety, as simply the “way things were?”
Dismissing the life experience of thousands of people, as the way things were, is not PC, it is just lazy.
Reply
You certainly do, at that! Again, your insight is appreciated. I'm a white Canadian girl who grew up in a very ethnically homogeneous area, so I am definitely open to learning about perspectives from other cultures.
The criticism is not that the story was bad, or the performances poor. It was very well produced, however would you agree that we have to careful of allowing the defense of artistic excellence to mask instances of insensitivity?
Absolutely. If this sort of thing only occurred occasionally, it would be much less worrisome, but it tends to be the norm. And when issues like this are discussed, it's pretty common for people to say, "Why are you complaining so much? Can't you just relax and enjoy it for what it is?" (I know I can be guilty of this.)
Re: the PC issues... IA that it came down to lazy storytelling. It would have been interesting for Martha's incentive for leaving to be more than her unrequited love.
Reply
And to be fair, especially with the British audience, there is the reality that many people work in the service industry, and may think the reaction is denial of reality or an unfair disimissal of their trade.
The criticism is not that Martha is a maid. The criticism is that she becomes a maid without any narrative explanation in the body of the script, leaving the audience to assume that she must become a servant because of her complexion and that they are in the past. The question to the writers is: three months, three days, or three hours what does it matter? Why wouldn't an masquerade that works for three hours not work for three months?
Moving away from this and getting into gender roles: It appears that in order to reach out to a new audience, both Moffat and Davies have chosen to place the Doctor's females companions at least in very humble positions. Having worked in shops, to called the jobs unskilled is simply misinformed. I don't know about kissagrams however. Both Mickey and Rory have position that require either trade school, (mechanic) or university/college training (Nurse). If we look at the Doctor's relationship with Martha, accomplishment, intellectual curiosity, and a set of ethics are a turn off for the Doctor. Then again we have River and Reinette, both 'accomplished' women but with questionable ethics. What's up?
Reply
Leave a comment