strange_complex: (Rory the Roman)
strange_complex ([personal profile] strange_complex) wrote2011-12-29 09:45 pm

Doctor Who Christmas Special 2011: The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe

So, the Doctor Who Christmas special, then. I am usually an absolute sucker for these, frequently believing them to be far better on the day of viewing than I later realise is really justified. But sadly this one failed to wow me even on Christmas day itself. [livejournal.com profile] swisstone has already covered most of the plot-holes and lazy clichés, thus saving me the trouble, and I agree with his basic thesis - that Steven Moffat is not really giving Doctor Who the attention it needs or deserves. So I will stick to noting a few things which particularly struck me as I watched.

The two stand-out aggravations for me were mystical motherhood and negotiable death. On the mystical motherhood side, I couldn't shake off an icky feeling throughout the story that someone had pointed out to Moffat some of the sexist tropes which have cropped up in his previous stories, so he decided to Do Something About It and redress the balance - but completely failed because he assumed that femininity is essentially equivalent to motherhood, and can only understand motherhood anyway by treating it as strange and mystical and quasi-supernatural. I thought while I was watching that I recognised this as a common trope by male writers who are trying to portray women positively, but still fundamentally viewing them from a patriarchal and reductive point of view. However, having typed a seemingly endless string of searches involving words like "trope" "women" "feminine" "motherhood" "mysterious" "mystical" and "magical" into Google, I still can't seem to track down a basic description of it or a list of other examples, even on TV Tropes. Surely I'm not making this one up, am I? More likely I'm just using the wrong search terms. Anyway, it's annoying.

As for the negotiable death, Moffat has done this so often now that it is intensely predictable, and I groaned with resignation at the inevitability of what was to come as soon as Madge started seeing visions of her husband's 'death' in the time vortex. That's annoying in itself, because it makes Moffat's stories less able to surprise or enthral, but I find this particular device repellent even if it is only used once. It undermines our ability to engage meaningfully with in-story deaths, so that any emotions which they provoke have to be regarded as temporary or provisional until we can be sure whether or not the death is 'real' - often much later in the story. And it toys with the viewer, dangling a hard-hitting narrative with a very powerful emotive force, but then just waving it all aside without working through its consequences properly. I would respect Moffat very much if he had dealt with parental death properly in the Doctor Who Christmas special, and equally much if he had chosen not to include it at all. But what he actually did smacks of wanting to have it both ways - maximum emotional impact and a fairytale happy ending - without being prepared to do the creative work necessary to make the two consistent with one another. In other words, it is lazy writing again - not to mention insulting to people who have had to deal with the utter non-negotiability of death in the real world.

Other than that, I also felt that we hadn't had enough time to get to know the family and their wartime lives before they came to their Uncle Digby's house, so that it was difficult to get any real sense of how fantastic the house might seem to them in comparison to everyday normality, or how badly they needed such a wondrous experience. Here, in fact, it would have helped if the children had known by the time they arrived that their father was dead, so that we could have seen them briefly being able to forget their pain and loss as they got caught up in the magic of what the Doctor had in store for them. As it was, all the Doctor's efforts seemed rather embarrassingly over-blown from their point of view. And although this in itself could have been been used to move the emotional trajectory of the story forward by tipping the children off to the fact that something more fundamental was wrong within their family, it wasn't.

Meanwhile, I'm sufficiently steeped in the work of Ray Harryhausen at the moment to notice how similar the design of the Tree King and Queen was to that of the wooden figurehead who comes alive and starts attacking people in The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, and to be very little surprised to come across yet another example of the extent of his influence:



But as for Doctor Who, I don't really have anything else to say about this story.

Click here if you would like view this entry in light text on a dark background.

[identity profile] thanatos-kalos.livejournal.com 2011-12-30 12:08 am (UTC)(link)
The idea of dominant ideology undercutting/framing/essentially messing up attempts at subversion of said dominant ideology pops up in pretty much everything I read for the PhD, so I think you can definitely call it a trope, even if it's not on Google. :P
ext_550458: (Me communing with nature)

[identity profile] strange-complex.livejournal.com 2011-12-30 05:09 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm so sure I have come across people specifically talking about the habit of portraying motherhood as mystical and magical in a rather icky patriarchal way before, though. Kind of linking in with all the hippy stuff about Earth Mothers and the mystical feminine - you know, the idea that women are particularly 'in touch' with nature and the Earth and the seasons and so on, because of how they are all magical like that. I'm honestly quite thrown to find that it isn't dealt with on TV Tropes, but I really can't find it there.
ext_37604: (knew it all by sinsense)

mystical mother woo-woo

[identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com 2011-12-30 05:27 pm (UTC)(link)
I know this as a German (of course!) early twentieth-century trope based on the work of Bachofen, with a smattering of Carl Jung thrown in. Bachofen argued (I think!) that all cultures were based on a mystical matriarchy until the patriarchal Abrahamic religions came along and destroyed them.

Angela Carter's essay 'The Sadiean Woman' is absolutely rocking for demolishing crypto-feminist myths of Mystical Mothers, and you should totally check it out.
ext_37604: (Default)

Re: mystical mother woo-woo

[identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com 2011-12-30 05:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Actually, thinking aloud, isn't the trope also connected to Rousseau and his mythification of motherhood and breastfeeding?
ext_550458: (Penelope)

Re: mystical mother woo-woo

[identity profile] strange-complex.livejournal.com 2011-12-30 05:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, there are a whole bunch of anthropologists who believe(d) in the mythical prehistoric matriarchal paradise you're referring to, especially in the late 19th and early 20th century. Not just Germans by any means - Robert Graves was at it, for example, and Marija Gimbutas was perpetrating it right up to her death in the 1990s (and still has many devotees, too). I've no doubt you're right about Rousseau, too, and of course it is inherent in the Catholic church's treatment of the Virgin Mary, so has been around for a very long time. This is what makes me so astonished that I can't seem to find a simple, straightforward description of it on a site like TV Tropes.

Re: mystical mother woo-woo

[identity profile] swisstone.livejournal.com 2011-12-31 01:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes. I've run into that sort of thing (I could tell you a story, but I'll tell you offline). What surprises me is how people don't realise that the very idea of a prehistoric matriarchy is itself a patriarchal construction.

[identity profile] kernowgirl.livejournal.com 2011-12-31 12:00 am (UTC)(link)
Re TV Tropes, the closest thing I could find is this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MotherNatureFatherScience

But it still isn't quite what you're looking for.

ext_550458: (Daria star)

[identity profile] strange-complex.livejournal.com 2011-12-31 12:26 am (UTC)(link)
Ah, yes - that does get into some of it, though. Cheers!