FILK: Big Blue Box and ANALYSIS: Doctor Who (NuWho)

Mar 03, 2014 19:26

So, I blame this on Vixy and Tony. Really. Their cover of Ned Cave's "Red Right Hand" was playing in the car and *pop* one of the lyrics erupted in my head and there I was, attempting to filk lyrics and drive at the same time.

Don't know the song? Here's a live performance:

image Click to view


Big Blue Box is a Doctor Who filk. I've been thinking about The Doctor for ( Read more... )

writing, filk, dr who

Leave a comment

Re: Huh? vesta_aurelia March 4 2014, 14:03:59 UTC
I think it's gender. DWho has always reflected its concurrent culture, so I think the current thread of misogyny is being reflected here. I see it even more strongly when I tried to watch Sherlock--the second programme Davies and Moffat were involved in. (Women don't really exist there. It's bizarre.)

It's some weird variant of the Bechdel test...what's her purpose in the narrative? Originally, the companion's purpose was to be the viewer's stand-in (Susan, Ian, Barbara). Then they became pretty young girls that the male viewers ogled while watching with the family AND the viewer's stand-in (Vicki, Polly, Victoria, Zoe, Jo). Then they became pretty girls the male adult viewer ogled, the female adult wanted to be AND the viewer's stand-in for the adventures (SarahJane, Leela, Romana, Tegan). But the reason they were there was NEVER for romance, except occasionally with each other.

In NuWho, they seem to be there for the romance and the UST. It's the predominant narrative drive in every characterization: Rose (yep, UST), Martha (thwarted UST), Donna (wasn't interested, now doesn't remember anything), Jack (thwarted UST), Amy (attempted UST, diverted to Rory), River (all about the UST), Clara (haven't read enough about her).

How many female characters on mainstream television or film exist without a romance? Even Uhura in the reboot isn't allowed to exist without a romance--she has to be tucked into some male's narrative. NuWho's the same, which I think is a bad, bad thing.

Reply

Re: Huh? corvideye March 4 2014, 16:50:53 UTC
That makes a little more sense to me now, though projecting yourself into a show still isn't something I relate to. But I disagree that a show that simply focuses on some male characters is inherently misogynistic... especially when the title character is acknowledged by everyone to be a social jackass (just plain misanthropic, regardless of gender).

Reply


Leave a comment

Up