Rosita and the real next Doctor
Friday, 26 December 2008 11:11Having had a few hours to think about it, I've become more concerned than I was yesterday about the treatment of the character Rosita in yesterday's Christmas special.
When the story began, the opening scenes in the market showed at least one little black kid running around with the other urchins in the snow, and I thought "Ooh! It's not just Rosita, then. We have total colour-blind casting here. Exciting!" Except that the way Rosita was treated then made me wonder if colour-blind casting is really possible in Doctor Who, or indeed if the BBC have actually managed to achieve it here.
Apparently, it says somewhere on the official site that Rosita's name was meant to be a reference to both Rose and Martha. But as people in the thread I've linked to have pointed out, '-ita' is not really very much like '-tha'. So if the character is meant to be reminiscent of Martha in some way, and her name doesn't really convey that, we're left with the uncomfortable possibility that her resemblance to Martha actually rests in: the fact that the actress is black. Because all black people are clearly the same, yo. Would the BBC have suggested that Astrid in last year's special was meant to be a reference to Rose because they are both white? I don't think so.
Add onto that the fact that this character, who is played by a black actress, is a prostitute (not in the script, but also stated by the actress herself in clips on the website), gets to do precious little on her own initiative throughout the story, and at the end is conveniently slotted into the role of nursemaid and (implicitly) sexual partner because it suits the needs of the white man, and you're really treading on very thin ice indeed.
The problem at the end of the story, of course, is that the historical setting means that, if the actress' black skin-colour is taken into account, there is no other way to suggest a romantic happy ending for her and Jackson Lake. A white middle-class man of that era would never have dreamed of marrying a black woman - and the script-writers clearly felt that they could not carry colour-blindness far enough to have him do so. The result is that she is condemned to the racist Mammy stereotype.
And that's shoddy enough where Velile Tshabalala is concerned. But the reason this really worries me is because of the rumours flying around connecting Paterson Joseph with the role of the next Doctor. Currently, Who's production team are trying to be ethnically inclusive by casting black actors in the roles of characters who, ten or more years ago, would almost certainly be played by white actors. But they are still falling into the trap of then writing racist stereotypes into the portrayal of those characters.
If a black actor is truly to be cast as the next Doctor, a major leap forward needs to be taken first if these issues are going to be resolved. Are the Who team really ready to take such a step? On the basis of last night's special, Ah hae me doots.
Click here to view this entry with minimal formatting.

When the story began, the opening scenes in the market showed at least one little black kid running around with the other urchins in the snow, and I thought "Ooh! It's not just Rosita, then. We have total colour-blind casting here. Exciting!" Except that the way Rosita was treated then made me wonder if colour-blind casting is really possible in Doctor Who, or indeed if the BBC have actually managed to achieve it here.
Apparently, it says somewhere on the official site that Rosita's name was meant to be a reference to both Rose and Martha. But as people in the thread I've linked to have pointed out, '-ita' is not really very much like '-tha'. So if the character is meant to be reminiscent of Martha in some way, and her name doesn't really convey that, we're left with the uncomfortable possibility that her resemblance to Martha actually rests in: the fact that the actress is black. Because all black people are clearly the same, yo. Would the BBC have suggested that Astrid in last year's special was meant to be a reference to Rose because they are both white? I don't think so.
Add onto that the fact that this character, who is played by a black actress, is a prostitute (not in the script, but also stated by the actress herself in clips on the website), gets to do precious little on her own initiative throughout the story, and at the end is conveniently slotted into the role of nursemaid and (implicitly) sexual partner because it suits the needs of the white man, and you're really treading on very thin ice indeed.
The problem at the end of the story, of course, is that the historical setting means that, if the actress' black skin-colour is taken into account, there is no other way to suggest a romantic happy ending for her and Jackson Lake. A white middle-class man of that era would never have dreamed of marrying a black woman - and the script-writers clearly felt that they could not carry colour-blindness far enough to have him do so. The result is that she is condemned to the racist Mammy stereotype.
And that's shoddy enough where Velile Tshabalala is concerned. But the reason this really worries me is because of the rumours flying around connecting Paterson Joseph with the role of the next Doctor. Currently, Who's production team are trying to be ethnically inclusive by casting black actors in the roles of characters who, ten or more years ago, would almost certainly be played by white actors. But they are still falling into the trap of then writing racist stereotypes into the portrayal of those characters.
If a black actor is truly to be cast as the next Doctor, a major leap forward needs to be taken first if these issues are going to be resolved. Are the Who team really ready to take such a step? On the basis of last night's special, Ah hae me doots.
Click here to view this entry with minimal formatting.
no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 11:45 (UTC)And then the whole race issue adds a completely new layer of creepiness to all of that.
no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 12:07 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 12:53 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 13:03 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 13:23 (UTC)This all further weakens the script's suggestion that nursemaid-plus-fuckbuddy is the optimal outcome for Rosita.
I am convinced that this was a line that sounded better inside RTD's head than it did when delivered.
no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 13:35 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 14:06 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 15:51 (UTC)But I digress slightly with fangurl squee (sorry), I am not convinced Moffat will deliver a postive portrayl of a black doctor, 'though I do think he should do a better job than RTD.
By the way - have we heard anything about new companions? I've not seen anything.
no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 16:09 (UTC)I've heard nothing about new companions at all - I think the standard practice is to wait until the Doctor is settled before thinking about that. Apparently he isn't going to have a regular companion during the specials - just a series of one-off characters like in all the previous Christmas specials. Which will probably be a really good thing, as it'll mean there's a chance for the air to clear of the memories of the three major companions so far by the time a new regular comes on the scene.
no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 16:12 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 16:13 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 16:17 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 16:26 (UTC)Generally I thought the character was just awfully written. The inconsistency of her acting as an incredibly independant figure at the beginning leading the "doctor" in some ways (I believe she was the one who said somethign about having to disable the traps) and taking initiative to save them followed not long after by meekly doing as she was told and then being written out of the story pretty much points to me not as implicit racism but as poor writing. Maybe I'm just giving too much benefit of the doubt though...
And though unrelated to the point of this post but still on the episode - what the heck were those cyber shade things (is that what they were called)? The costuming struck me as awful. In the first shots I thought they were an almost smokey kind of insubstantial thing before I then realised that they were actually men in fur suits with long strips of material attached all over themselves and stupid masks... What was that all about?
no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 16:26 (UTC)I think it probably will be a good idea to clear the air for a bit, especially given how integral the last 3 companions have been.
I'm quite intrigued as to where the next few episodes will go.
no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 16:26 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 16:52 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 17:08 (UTC)And as you say, there seems to have been some idea of her being the real 'brains' in the relationship between her and Jackson Lake - but as soon as the real Doctor turns up, that has to be left behind, really. We could have done with some screen time devoted to the two of them on their own, before the rest of the story begins. That might have made a big difference in establishing her as strong and autonomous (but of course was hardly possible in an hour-long story).
Yes, the shaggy animal things were indeed called Cybershades - don't ask me why! From the appearance of the one which came out of the woodshed (or whatever it was) in the trailer, I actually thought they weren't meant to be real creatures at all, but something like kids who had seen real Cybermen playing around with a sort of pantomime Cyber-mask they had made and a black blanket draped over their shoulders. I was really quite surprised last night when the story went on, and it turned out to be meant to be a proper creature.
And this has all got rather long, hasn't it? Don't mind - I'm just thinking out loud, really. ;-)
no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 17:19 (UTC)I know exactly what you mean. It seems strange that they haven't bothered to develop her at all, I mean even Tom has experienced some character growth, but he's still very disturbing, Sarah is also disturbing, she's a nasty piece of work and you can't understand why the group would keep her especially after she grassed up Anya.
no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 22:49 (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 26 December 2008 22:57 (UTC)no subject
Date: Saturday, 27 December 2008 01:14 (UTC)Well, since this is pretty much Rose's storyline...
no subject
Date: Saturday, 27 December 2008 13:35 (UTC)no subject
Date: Tuesday, 30 December 2008 18:18 (UTC)no subject
Date: Tuesday, 30 December 2008 18:41 (UTC)no subject
Date: Thursday, 1 January 2009 01:33 (UTC)While I thought the nursemaid line appropriate, since I dislike seeing racism of past eras swept under the rug in modern day fiction, I'd rather she'd taken a more proactive role in her own ending rather than having the men discuss it (even if Jackson had picked up on the doctor's marriage implications, doesn't the lady get a choice?). Really, I was all the more perplexed that she was left behind, since I'd come to the conclusion that she was destined to be the real doctor's next companion, so this was a token introduction for her and she'd get some proper storytime later. Eh.
I liked the episode in general, but I thought a lot of it was a bit contrived. Particularly the save the son bit at the end. It's probably my least favourite of the Christmas specials, which was a shame considering it made such a refreshing change visually.