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

[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 from slightly above, which makes him small.

Which is the long-winded version of "what skirmish_of_wit said." :)

Then, too--I'm still waiting on the outrage about how Amy actively objectifies the Doctor at the end of this episode, or about the blatant fanservice of "The Lodger." I would ask why it is that a two-second shot of Amy's tights means that Amy is nothing but an object in these discussions (not that you're saying this), but several minutes of Eleven running around in a towel (or less!) doesn't provoke the same reaction. Is it because he's *not* being objectified? Or because we assume that the Doctor is never the object, because he's the story? Because Amy's the story too. You say that Amy's sexuality--or her skirts--must be for other people, because she's a character in a TV show. Okay--but then, again, why doesn't the Doctor fall under the same rules? Why isn't it a problem that he's wearing an awful lot less than Amy for a good portion of that episode?

(Also, I feel like the fixation on Amy's skirts as evidence of Moffat's sexism is just weird, given that Karen Gillan has said several times that she also had a hand in choosing Amy's style, and no one can say that Karen doesn't like a little skirt herself. Yes, Moffat signs off on all decisions because it's his show, but it doesn't particularly sound like he was sitting around thinking, "ah, how can we get Karen to wear more miniskirts?")

Or, the short (heh) version: what exactly is the import of Amy's wearing a short skirt? I'm being deliberately provocative here, because there's been a lot of vagueness around this particular issue. Amy is wearing a short skirt. And we are looking at her wearing a short skirt. So what? What exactly is the problem with this? Because nice girls don't wear short skirts? Because wearing a short skirt automatically means that you're "sexed-up"? Because we feel like we need to police "acceptable" versions of femininity on TV? (Which begs the question: why would a short skirt be unacceptable?)

[katesutton]

I actually haven't seen the Lodger yet, so I can't comment on that. Except to say, I think that fandom gets less exercised about that part because a)men being objectified for their bodies is a lot newer and a lot less fraught then the reverse and b)a lot of us are straight women. The second part is the only problem, I think.

I think the 'problem' with Amy wearing a short skirt is entirely because she's a female character, created by a male writer who has said some sexist things in the past and written *this* character(and others), in arguably sexist ways. I don't really take issue with anyone disagreeing about that, but I do get a little resentful when parts of fandom keep insisting that it's because of internalized misogyny.

As far as the *character* wearing short skirts? Inside the show, I don't care, except I think it's silly, because it's a lot harder to do some things in skirts than it is in trousers. Like run for your life. And not freeze to death. Speaking as someone who's done at least the second bit, if not anything quite so dramatic as the first. :)

[tempestsarekind]

I may take this to another post, because my response is not really about your comment and more about why the "short skirts are sexist" line of argument continues to bother me, regardless of who's writing the character and what he may have written in the past. That's why I think that should probably just be taken off the table in discussions of Moffat's writing, because the issue of policing other women's clothing for "appropriateness" is so fraught. But I did want to make sure to say thank you for commenting!