random Doctor Who thoughts, because my brain is good for little else today

[tempestsarekind]

1. I have spent entirely too much time wondering what they double-filmed "The Lodger" with (I'm assuming this is part of why the episode is set up the way it is): was it "Amy's Choice," or "The Hungry Earth," or does it mean there are a bunch of Amy-centric scenes coming up in the last two episodes

Comments

[significantowl]

I've skipped pretty much all the antiMoff stuff, so this is a massive, probably offensive generalization, and I'm sure some folks have actual reasons and etc, but I keep wondering if at heart it's a combo of "I miss Ten and/or Rose" + "Coupling somehow offended my soul."

Darling is so the perfect word for Arthur Darvill!

[tempestsarekind]

Yeah, I've only been seeing the stuff around the fringes--basically, stuff pointed out by my flist and/or stuff linked on who_daily. But I feel like that is a pretty accurate assessment of some of it. There are people who've had their faces set against Amy since the trailers came out, because she didn't look "interesting" enough. Whatever that means. And maybe if I'd watched more than two episodes of Coupling a billion years ago, I would be seeing more of that in Moffat's DW stuff, but I just don't. He's not perfect, but he writes women I like.

(Also, I feel like some of the "bad characterization" meme springs from the way he writes Rose and Mickey in "Girl in the Fireplace"? Which amuses me because at the time, I was *so* put out by the way she'd treated him in "School Reunion," and was so relieved to see them acting like friends, and Rose not getting all weirdly jealous of Reinette... anyway.)

As for Arthur Darvill--it is already a part of his name!

[lareinenoire]

As I've told you a bunch of times before, I actually like Moffat's women. At least so far I have. And I love Amy to bits (possibly in part because of how much she reminds me of Reinette, who I adore) and River is just generally awesome. I know he's made stupid, sexist comments before, but I honestly don't think it comes through that much in the writing. Occasional moments of fail, but for the most part, he seems to be doing a pretty even-handed job. I still haven't forgiven RTD for Martha and Donna, so...

[tempestsarekind]

Yeah--I feel like Moffat's mouth does one thing and his characters do another. That's not to say that he doesn't have his "types" that he likes to stick to, but so does RTD, who was very fond of telling a story about women who don't think they're special and don't think that anything has ever happened to them in their whole lives, and then meeting the Doctor and changing that. (Er, sort of. S3 was basically watching someone who seemed to be okay with herself get torn down and afflicted with self-doubt, perhaps so that Russell could tell that same story of "discovering oneself through the Doctor." And I'm still frustrated by the fact that S1 Rose and S4 Donna are apparently stories about becoming special explicitly through Time Lord power, the Doctor Who equivalent of apotheosis

[lareinenoire]

That's not to say that he doesn't have his "types" that he likes to stick to, but so does RTD, who was very fond of telling a story about women who don't think they're special and don't think that anything has ever happened to them in their whole lives, and then meeting the Doctor and changing that.

YES. I have been rewatching Who from Nine onward, and it's actually kind of painful to watch how much Rose dismisses and takes for granted everyone on earth (especially Mickey and Jackie, but, really, earth in general). Martha and Donna were both such a nice break from that; yes, Donna is made extraordinary by her encounters with the Doctor, but she doesn't seem to have the same level of virulent distaste that Rose has for the idea of going back. And Martha, of course, willingly gives it all up to do her job, which is brilliant.

The thing about this discussion that makes no sense to me is how Moffat is sexist for writing women who don't want commitment, but the flip side, where RTD felt compelled to pair off all his companions, to the

[tempestsarekind]

it's actually kind of painful to watch how much Rose dismisses and takes for granted everyone on earth

Oh, yes. "There's nothing for me here"; "Mum, I used to work in a shop." That distressing way in which, without the Doctor, Rose says she has no more stories left to tell. That's one thing I liked about "Amy's Choice" (well, I like a lot of things about it): Amy does the whole "Why would we give this up? Why would anyone?" thing about life in the TARDIS, but even she defends her "boring" life and points out that it takes bravery, too. Donna seems to do just fine wherever one plants her, and Martha chooses to stay on earth--because she's got people to look after, and because, once she's with UNIT, the Doctor isn't always there

[katesutton]

I think there are unbelievable amounts of fan-wars that have gone over RTD vs Moff and a lot of the discussion is informed by people who have taken sides in that conflict. That said...while I know plenty of fans have argued that RTD's Who is very sexist, I do not see it at all and while plenty of other fans have argued that Moffat's Who is the same...well, I don't agree with that either, but from my POV it is sexist to a certain degree. I usually roll my eyes with vigor at Jacob's Doctor Who recaps on TWoP, but I find myself agreeing with what he says about Moffat and the way he writes women.

As to Amy and her skirts, I think it IS for other people, in the sense that she's a character on a TV show and from the very first, we get a pan up her long legs, up to the policewoman's outfit with a tiny skirt. I find it impossible to ignore the import of that.

[skirmish_of_wit]

I don't think either RTD or Moffat are perfect in their depictions of women. But I have to say, I was far more offended by the treatment of the mother in "The Hungry Earth" and its sequel (sorry, I'm blanking out on names tonight) than by Amy and her skirts. I mean, panning up her long legs to a sexy policewoman's outfit does so much more than just say "look, sexy lady," especially since the shot starts at the Doctor's eye level (Amy's knees). It also:

1. visually cues the audience in to the fact that she's in charge (see: hero shot);
2. as the flip side of that, diminishes the Doctor to make him vulnerable;
3. likewise cues the audience in to the fact that Amy is probably not REALLY a policewoman, since police don't have miniskirt uniforms, and thus that
4. she is conning him because she doesn't know what is going on but can take care of herself;
5. by the same token, reminds us that the Doctor isn't as much of an expert as he thinks he is, since he believes her; and

[katesutton]

Honestly, while I respect that view, I do think it's reading a lot into it. The shot is the essence of the male gaze. I like Amy well enough, but I don't think that Moffat takes her seriously enough as a character to show us why she is who she is. Barring, of course, a finale that finishes everything off with a major twist and explains everything retroactively(which actually, I expect

[tempestsarekind]

Speaking of tl;dr--I'm basically answering all your comments at once, sort of. Sorry about the essay!

Well, but it's not just the essence of the male gaze: I went back and looked, and it's pretty much coded as the Doctor's gaze, too: the camera starts out fuzzy (because the Doctor's just waking from being whacked in the head), which allies the Doctor's POV with the camera's. Which is not to say that the audience isn't capable of looking at that shot and thinking, "well hello there, Amy's legs," that it doesn't do double duty. But it's also the Doctor's first view of Amy, which complicates the image. (There is possibly a related discussion to be had about the concept of the male gaze, which--while a perfectly reasonable and true thing, I think--does tend to suggest that only males can do the looking. But, time and place.) And while that first panning shot is fairly straight-on, the rest of the scene *does* actually tend to look at Amy either straight-on or shot slightly from below (the hero shot), while the Doctor tends to be shot

[viomisehunt]

This show is reducing me to thinking things like, "Oh, I hope those two crazy kids can work it out!" This is what I have become, Doctor Who. I BLAME YOU. Isn't that okay though? Does it help to look too closely at something that is intended as entertainment?

Did anyone else see all the critical comments prior the new season? Bloggers, critics, Doctor Who production insiders sited Amy, the kissagram and her short skirt as something for the Dads Amy dresses like young women Amy's age dress, she should not have to defend it

[tempestsarekind]

Amy dresses like young women Amy's age dress, she should not have to defend it.

Basically, this. It drives me crazy that everyone is even talking about this: that Karen's had to address it in interviews, that they're making these awful comments about how Amy must be clad in short skirts to give dudes something to ogle. If we were talking about real people--well, some people would still assume this to be the case, I guess, which is what bothers me the most. This is the same logic that says that women want and invite male attention just by putting on the clothes that they happen to enjoy wearing. And it's all, "oh come on, she knows what she's doing." Yeah, well, maybe what she's doing is liking the way she looks in a particular outfit. Anything else is NOT anyone else's call to make. End of story.

[viomisehunt]

I think when we look it the mirror and like what we see, we are pleasing ourselves. Women most women like the look of their bare legs, and who knows, perhpas that is because our legs are the most masculine thing about us--especially those of us with strong muscled or long legs. I wonder how many women have more appreciation those layered and sculpted hair cuts and styles on women than men do. I love the tailored suit, and the basic white shirt on women but hate padded shoulders on anyone. But long hair: why is it that one of the first gestures of independece a female child makes is cutting her hair? The long hair tends to generate need to nuture or be nutured (Women have Mothers TOO!)and I think soft slovwing hair, or soft natural, curly hair stirs that part of our nature. Personally I tend to let my hair grow if my "father" or "son" makes comments, but let my mom mention long hair or straightening it, and I diving for scissors! (Lets see what Brother Jung says about that!) I have to check but I wonder if it is male of female

[tempestsarekind]

"Woman is fine for her own satisfaction alone," as Jane Austen wrote. :) Of course everyone sometimes dresses in order to be attractive to people, but much of the satisfaction is derived from getting to wear one's favorite color, or a fabric that feels really nice, or looking at oneself in the mirror and being pleased by what one sees (as you point out).

Heh--my mom is convinced that I should have bangs, so I finally grew mine out and refuse to cut them, even though she mentions it quite often. They're such a hassle, especially when it's hot!

This is an aspect I don't see much

[mysterypoet66]

Sort of stumbled upon you in a keyword search. I knew there were anti-Moff, anti-Eleven, anti-Amy contingents. I didn't know there were people crying that Moffat is MISOGYNISTIC? FFS, seriously!?!
Amy and River are two female characters who have fairly complete agency, (screwed-up or not, even if they don't know all the reasons why, they're still dealing with their baggage,) and Moffat is a mysogynist? ROFLMAO You hit the nail on the head, of course any woman who wears a mini-skirt or is sexually teasing or desirous must be as fan-service for the men.
I chalk up 80 percent of the anti-___ to being the equivalent of Team Jacob or Team Edward. Then I ignore it. Team Tardis, FTW.
I love that there is a mostly equal dynamic among them, and the Doctor is often surprised, especially by Rory. (Arthur Darvill is Darling and Delightful and Delicious and other words beginning with D.)

Re: This is an aspect I don't see much

[tempestsarekind]

Well, hello!

I've never been quite able to tease out how the "Moffat is a misogynist" things started, but it's been around since well before S5. It may have something to do with Coupling (which I've seen about two episodes of), and some admittedly idiotic comments Moffat made in an interview about how women need men and want marriage. The thing is, though, he doesn't--at least on Doctor Who--seem to write characters who mesh with those comments. So maybe he's writing his ideal fantasy women, ones who don't want commitment--and I can see that view to some degree (although the end of "The Big Bang" undercuts that)--but it also means that he's writing women who get on with their lives and have other interests, who are confident and don't require commitment as the end point of their stories. I happen to like that sort of thing.

the Doctor is often surprisedOh yes! That's one of the things I've really enjoyed about this season: Eleven isn't infallible, and while he's always the cleverest person in the room, he makes mistakes and he