Oof. It's taken me a couple of days to get back to the thread, and my jaw hit the floor at reading some of the rancorous, abusive posts here. As another participant, my thanks to those who have tried to stay even-handed and intelligent in their comments, especially keithmovies and FordFairlane. I thought at first I may need to apologise for provoking things, but then realised of course I don't; those who wanted to be abrasive weren't provoked, but merely seized the opportunity. So I stand by what I previously said.
I think Jodie Whittaker is a fine actress, based on what I've seen of her. I felt she and Olivia Colman were the engine room of Broadchurch, especially in the first series; and if I came to detest her character and have no patience for her by the third series, then it was the writing that let her down, not her acting ability.
Frankly, I hope the Beth of Series 3 was just what Chibnall felt was the arc of her specific character, and not his idea of a strong, self-determinant woman. We'll have to see where he takes the Doctor, and keep our fingers crossed. For me, series 2 and 3 of Broadchurch suggests Chibnall had trouble sustaining a story or set of characters, at least in that context, so the litmus test will be the second Chibnall series for the Doctor.
But for the meantime, the fact that the change of gender has been presented solely as an ideological choice is for me a huge alarm bell. As I said before, I'm all for strong characters for women, but I do think it's grossly ideologically unsound to simply co-opt established male ones. And if the show becomes a constant drip of drolly anti-male statements, as I suspect it will, then that'll be it for me.
reply
share
Martoto (5024)
7 years ago
It has not been presented as an ideological choice. It has been presented as a choice that could only have precluded by the opposition to certain ideologies.
People sympathetic with those ideologies have expressed their feelings about the casting in the context of those ideologies because it represents a watershed for those who are conscious of it.
No matter what the intent. This represents a material change, not an acceptance in principle and the abstract, which confirms that apparent opposition to a perceived ideology does not influence the casting choices. That is a distinction that deserves to be recognised. The process of recognising that distinction does not mean that the distinction has been presented purely for ideological purposes. Neither is it anti male to acknowledge the setting of a precedent of non-male actors being cast in a previously male-cast regenerative alien role.
The idea that the doctor can regenerate as an alien woman is not an ideology unless it is set against the idea that the doctor cannot regenerate as an alien female.
Much was made of Eccleston's northern-ness when he was cast without northern ideology being claimed to be the sole deciding factor for the casting, or claimed that anti-southerness was now a feature of Doctor Who. It's a totally spurious and paranoid conclusion that the casting of a female doctor is to facilitate writing that will be anti-male.
It would seem that the "correct" presentation of this decision that some people seem to be looking for is for the new producer and the new Doctor to come out and say how happy they are that the new series will now proceed with much better writing since some fans are afraid that the writing will be as poor as they deem recent series to have been. That's never going to happen though is it?
So what you are ultimately asking for is for people to keep their opinions about the value of their "ideologies" to themselves.
It is no more an ideological choice than if the producer was asked who to cast as the doctor and he said "a man".
It's totally academic since Whittaker didn't cast herself. She didn't choose herself to be the Doctor.
Here is the rationale given for the choice of actor for the 13th Doctor
"Jodie is not just a talented actor but she has a bold and brilliant vision for her Doctor. She aced it in her audition both technically and with the powerful female life force she brings to the role. She is destined to be an utterly iconic Doctor.
We hope viewers will enjoy what we have in store for the continuation of the story."
Unless you're opposed to the ideology of having a bold and brilliant vision for the Doctor, or technical ability or life force (which happens to be female, for a novel change) then you have no problems with the ideology of the choice.
reply
share