It's grim up Doctor Who's North

By Danny Nicol

University of Westminster

Doctor Who is not just science fiction: it is also a television programme which seeks to represent the British nation.  In this regard, in November 2017 the British Broadcasting Corporation announced that it would arrange big-screen viewings of the Doctor Who Christmas special in advance of Christmas Day.  These would be held exclusively in towns in the North of England: Hartlepool, Hull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Middlesbrough, Salford, Durham and Bradford, tickets to be allocated by ballot, with some preference being accorded to local people.

Clara and the Doctor follow the no-nonsense Mrs Gillyflower
in  Yorkshire-set "The Crimson Horror" (2013)

The concession to Northern England reflects the fact that the North is neglected compared to Southern England.  This in turn was reflected in the majority of voters in most Northern towns registering their dissatisfaction by voting “Leave” in the EU referendum of 2016.  This was seen as a cry of community outrage against disparities of wealth and power.  There is endless talk by government of building “economic powerhouses” in the North, but not much seems to materialise.

Yet the “concession” of an early viewing of the Christmas special seems rather tokenistic.  It is, after all, a lottery: only a small proportion of local Doctor Who fans will benefit.  Moreover the prize is double-edged, forfeiting the traditional element of surprise on Christmas Day.

There are surely more substantial ways of making Doctor Who more inclusive in terms of its representation of Northern England.

One, as argued in the blog before, would be to have the new Doctor play the role in her own accent.  Jodie Whittaker hails from Skelmanthorpe in Yorkshire, in the North of England, and has already played several prestigious roles in her own accent.  It is to be hoped that, like Christopher Eccleston, she plays the Doctor with a Northern accent.

Christmas jollities: tensions at the Yuletide table for
 Clara and family

Another way would be to have Northern companions, but to take their Northernness seriously by locating their back-stories far more markedly in the North.  The failure to do so is seen in Clara Oswald’s (Jenna Coleman’s) tenure of the role of companion.  Clara came from Blackpool, yet worked as nanny then teacher exclusively in London.  Even when she invites her family to a rather strained Christmas dinner in “The Time of the Doctor” (2013), this proves a peripheral element of the story, detached from a Northern setting.

Three Time Lords in the North East: the Rani,
 the Master and the Doctor in "The Mark of the Rani" (1985)

A third way would be to set more Doctor Who adventures in the North.  So far only two Doctor Who stories have been set in the North of England in the show’s long history.  “The Mark of the Rani” (1985) was set in North East England, with its actors failing rather lamentably with the region’s difficult accent (The film I, Daniel Blake (2016), set in Newcastle, made the better choice of using local actors).  “The Crimson Horror” (2013) was set in Yorkshire.  Depressingly, in both instances, the TARDIS had veered off course: the Doctor meant to transport his companion to a Southern English setting.  Even in the latest series the programme relocated the Doctor to a university in Bristol, another southern city, albeit in England's south west rather than the south east.  If Doctor Who is to represent Britain properly, this will require a determined effort to shift a critical mass of Doctor Who escapades from the show’s southern comfort-zone.

The lying of the land: post-truth politics in Doctor Who

By Danny Nicol

University of Westminster

Deceiving others has been part of the drama of Doctor Who since the programme’s inception.  In “The Daleks” (1963-4) the Daleks deceive the Thals, offering them food when they mean to ambush and kill them.  In “The Keys of Marinus” (1964), mind-control is used to make squalor seem like luxury.  Sometimes, however, the deception in Doctor Who is particularly strongly linked to politics here on Earth.  This theme was present in the classic era Doctor Who (1963-89) but has become even more pronounced in post-2005 Doctor Who.

Aiming to be global dictator: Salamander

“The Enemy of the World” (1967) is the story of Salamander, a would-be world dictator with a curiously strong physical resemblance to the Doctor.  Salamander is gaining power by predicting earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other natural catastrophes, and dealing with the consequences.  In reality Salamander is engineering these disasters himself.  He has deceived a subterranean group of humans that they are survivors of an endless nuclear war which they must continue to wage by creating natural catastrophes from below ground.  When he blunders and the underground people start to suspect him, one of them says: “I won’t take your word for it: I want to see for myself!” Ultimately this proves Salamander’s undoing, and the war is exposed as a myth.

Harold Saxon: British Prime Minister turned despot

Political deception becomes, if anything, an even more pervasive theme in post-2005, new-series Doctor Who.  In “The Sound of Drums”/“The Last of the Time Lords” (2007) the Doctor’s long term adversary, the Master, becomes British Prime Minister, using the name Harold Saxon.  Manufacturing a phoney past for himself, Harold Saxon never existed. The Master gets the public to believe in him, and to vote him in, by subjecting them to some form of hypnosis, suggesting an inability of the political elite to connect with people in the absence of bewitching powers.  Aspects of Saxon’s rule (cult of the individual, pursuit of celebrity, “cool Britannia”, disdain for Cabinet government) seem like a satire on Tony Blair’s period as Prime Minister.  Saxon subsequently establishes a worldwide tyranny.

More recently still in “The Lie of the Land” (2017) a species of alien monks invade Earth.  Through mind control the monks confect a past in which they have been guiding humanity since the very beginning, tenderly shepherding mankind through its formative years as part of a blissful partnership.  All they insist upon from the human race is total obedience.  In reality the monks have only been on Earth for a few months.  Anyone who points this out is imprisoned under a fictitious Memory Crimes Act 1975.  The Doctor’s companion Nardole explains: “however bad a situation is, if people think that’s how it’s always been, they put up with it”.

The public finally realise the truth about the monks
and turn on them

In his book The Rise of Political Lying (London: 2005, The Free Press), Peter Oborne advances a thesis which would explain why modern Doctor Who puts even more emphasis on political lying than classic-era Doctor Who.  Oborne contends that Britain now inhabits a post-truth political environment, and that this is new.  Reality has been replaced by pseudo-reality.  Within this construct, it is quite legitimate to deceive in order to obtain power.  The consequences can be horrendous.  For instance “in 2003 Britain went to war on the back of a fiction: the proposition that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.  It did not, but tens of thousands of people died as a result” (p.6).  Oborne further argues that New Labour in power started to mould the past to suit its own purposes, regularly attributing to ministers remarks they had not made and denying remarks which they had actually made (pp.73-7). There seemed little evidence of an upsurge of truth-telling when New Labour made way for the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition followed by a Conservative administration.

How might one explain the “abolition of the truth”?   Oborne suggests that the answer may be found in the theory of post-democracy put forward by Colin Crouch: that differences between parties have largely been replaced by the establishment of a homogenous political elite in the tradition of the pre-democratic era, and that this goes hand-in-hand with the corporate domination of our society.  (Colin Crouch, Post-Democracy (London: 2004 Polity Press.))  The political elite are striving to conceal the true nature of the entire regime, so systematic lying goes with the grain of the system.  Thus post-truth and post-democracy run together.  It is in all likelihood this predicament which contemporary Doctor Who is seeking to address.

Hedonistic departures from the TARDIS?

By Danny Nicol,

University of Westminster

In Doctor Who the way in which the Doctor’s companions quit the programme is important, not least for representations of gender in the show.  By indicating what is likely to happen next in a companion’s life the programme can show whether she is going to make use of the skills and sense of empowerment gained during her adventures with the Doctor.  In post-2005 Doctor Who, the Doctor’s companions have, until recently, tended to be prised out to the TARDIS against their will, but given the consolation prize of settling down with husband and home in some form.   In an article co-written with Alyssa Franke of Whovian Feminism fame, 

we chart how this pattern, specifically in the cases of companions Donna Noble and Amy Pond, fits with post-feminist notions of retreatism.   The piece will appear in the Journal of Popular Television in Spring 2018.

Bill takes her leave of the TARDIS with Heather

This post considers more recent departures from the TARDIS – those of Bill Potts and Clara Oswald - and their implications for representing gender and sexuality.   When in “The Doctor Falls” (2017) Bill Potts seemingly takes her leave of the Doctor the nature of her departure forms a stark contrast with that of Nardole, the series’ male companion and, I would argue, serves to undercuts her as a character.

One-series wonders: Martha Jones and Bill Potts

Companions of short duration: Martha as well as Bill

Before discussing her departure and the contrast with Nardole, the comment should be made that we are losing Bill Potts rather too early, not least given Pearl Mackie’s exceptional merits as an actor.  In particular it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth that the Doctor’s two black companions – Martha Jones and Bill Potts - only lasted one series each, whereas three white companions Rose Tyler, Amy Pond and Clara Oswald all occupied the TARDIS for two series or longer.  This discrepancy resonates with academic analyses which show that whilst Doctor Who shows admirable diversity when casting one-off characters it is poor at ensuring equality with regard to the show’s starring roles (see Lorna Jowett "Doctor Who and the politics of casting" (2018) Journal of Popular Television, forthcoming).

Bill’s short tenure might be explained by the need to “clear the decks” for new showrunner Chris Chibnall.  But why should we accept an iron law that new showrunners start with a clean slate of actors?  It is all rather precious.  The show’s longest-serving producer John Nathan-Turner inherited both a companion (Romana) and a robot dog (K9) with no ill effects.

Girls just wanna have fun?

Perhaps compared to the fates of Rose, Martha, Donna and Amy the futures envisaged for Clara and Bill are an improvement of sorts.   They are more jolly.  They are, on a superficial level, very positive about women's same-sex relationships.   They are also strikingly similar to each other, evincing a repetitiveness in Steven Moffat’s writing.

Clara and Ashildr begin their travels

Essentially, both women find a same-sex partner together with a means of travelling around time and space.  Clara finds Ashildr, a part-human immortal, and goes off in a spare TARDIS.   Bill is rescued from existence as a Cyberman by Heather, who was transformed into a water-based alien able to transcend time and space in Bill’s introductory story “The Pilot” (2017).

So for Clara and Bill alike travel and adventure beckon.  Yet for both women everything about the future is left rather vague.  In particular, what exactly are our two heroines doing, zapping through the galaxies on their romantic, fun-filled travels?   Is there actually any point to this endless milling around? 

Since no other motivation is expressed it would seem that Clara’s and Bill’s travels are intended as a fun-seeking exercise, their mission is to please themselves. Yet this life of sight-seeing and pleasure-seeking is ultimately somewhat empty, though rather in line with the spirit of the age.  David Ciepley has observed that modern capitalism has come to rely on hedonism which has displaced the Protestant work ethic.  Capitalism has fashioned an individualist society in which work is not “a calling” but a means of consumption.  The short-term focus of the hedonist has, under neoliberalism, gained control of the arena of production.  ((2017) 1 American Affairs 58-71).   Oliver James contends that under neoliberalism, status-competition for consumer goods accelerated and became a social imperative (The Selfish Capitalist, London: Vermillion, 2008) 152-3).   It could be argued that more recently the acquisition of experiences has perhaps partially eclipsed the acquisition of possessions as a target for getting-and-spending.   Yet the mildest tweaking of Clara’s and Bill’s departures could have served to indicate that there was some more virtuous, unselfish purpose to their future adventures than a quest for personal enjoyment. 

Nardole’s nobler calling?

Nardole is tasked with saving the children

By contrast Nardole has a nobler finale.  He leaves when the Doctor charges him with defending a group of people – mainly children – from being turned into Cybermen.  He is thereby made a welcome addition to the rather short list of Doctor Who companions who explicitly leave life in the TARDIS to go off to do something worthwhile.  Steven Taylor departs in “The Savages” (1966) in order to act as an “honest broker” leader between two ethnic groups, the Elders and the Savages.   Nyssa leaves in “Terminus” (1983) in order to help cure people suffering a deadly disease.  And Romana leaves in “Warriors’ Gate” (1981) in order to save an alien species.  (“Will she be alright?” queries the Doctor’s remaining companion Adric: “Alright?” retorts the Doctor, "She'll be superb!”)

Magnificent Romana begins her new mission

Against this backdrop there is something rather demeaning to Clara and Bill that their departures are depicted in purely hedonistic terms.  It also devalues the portrayal of their same-sex relationships.  For many individuals, “pure” pleasure-seeking, bereft of concern for a community, is ultimately unsatisfying.  It ought to be all the more unsatisfying to viewers of Doctor Who, a programme which is often about intervening in support of the endangered or oppressed.

Casting Jodie Whittaker: lots of planets have a Skelmanthorpe!

By Danny Nicol

University of Westminster

From 2018 onwards the Doctor in Doctor Who will be played by Jodie Whittaker, a casting which has inspired much excitement for its gender change as well as, sadly, some disapproval from a minority of the programme’s viewers.   The present blogger shares the majority view, as shown by earlier posts on this blog, and is very pleased indeed at the BBC’s choice.  But lest we get too bogged down in gender, this post tries to ring the changes by focusing on a different aspect of the new lead actor: Jodie Whittaker’s strong Yorkshire identity.  Will she play the Doctor in her own accent?

The new Doctor

It is widely accepted that Doctor Who is not only about planets, space stations, ray guns and monsters.  It is also just as much about what it means to be British.  It is widely acknowledged in Doctor Who scholarship that the show perennially articulates a sense of national identity.  Yet the issue of national identity is in many respects highly political. 

In this regard Jodie Whittaker hails from Skelmanthorpe, a village in Yorkshire in Northern England.  Yorkshire is the United Kingdom’s largest county and Skelmanthorpe is noted in the Survey of English Dialects (1950-1961) as having a particularly rich form of dialect.  Whittaker seemingly acted with her own accent in her breakthrough role in Broadchurch (2013-2017).  Will she be allowed or encouraged to do so in Doctor Who?

The BBC has traditionally strongly favoured “received pronunciation”, the standard English spoken in southern England, also sometimes known as “the Queen’s English” and “BBC English”.   Three Doctors have thus far bucked the tradition: the seventh Doctor (Sylvester McCoy) and twelfth Doctor (Peter Capaldi) used Scottish accents and the ninth Doctor (Christopher Eccleston) used a Northern English accent.  Conversely David Tennant, a Scottish actor, was obliged to play the tenth Doctor with a London accent.

It was Christopher Eccleston’s Northern accent which proved particularly controversial.  Not only did the Doctor have to explain to a sceptical companion-to-be Rose Tyler that he really was an alien because “lots of planets have a North!” but behind the scenes the actor’s insistence on playing the Doctor with a Northern accent caused a rift with the Doctor Who production team, contributing to his leaving the role after only one series.  Eccleston insisted on using a Northern accent for a political reason: he wanted to challenge discrimination based on the assumption that there was a correlation between accent and intellect.  

The Doctor and Rose none too subtly
articulating British identity -
with Captain Jack providing a contrast

Great Britain is an island, and England a nation, in which the economic centrifugal force is towards London and the South East, as very recently underlined by decisions on the country’s railway links.   Other parts of the country, not least the North, have been economically marginalised under forty years of neoliberalism.  This has been reflected in Brit-Grit films such as The Full Monty (1997), Brassed Off (1996) and I Daniel Blake  (2016) which have depicted people having to rely on each other as the State has retreated from its economic and welfare roles.  Yet despite the Doctor’s recent insistence that London is “a dump” (“The Zygon Inversion” (2015)), much of Doctor Who is still set in London and the south east.  This needs to change.  And if Doctor Who is to be a programme which reflects the whole of Britain there should be no objection in continuing to reflect this in the Doctor’s richly diverse identity – including her accent.

Liquid lesbians: Doctor Who's dislike of the unlike

By Danny Nicol
University of Westminster

According to Piers Britton Doctor Who has ethical value by dint of the way in which it can stimulate engagement with vast and deep forms of otherness (TARDISbound, IB Tauris 2011, p.7.)    Sometimes, though, Doctor Who can provoke thinking about the Other precisely because the Doctor sides against it.   On occasion he very clearly favours “the like” over “the unlike”.  When he does so, the degree to which the show encourages viewers to form their own judgment as to the rights and wrongs of his actions is important in making Doctor Who a worthwhile programme.

Eye-candy of the planet Skaro:
companion Ian Chesterton pontificates
to the Thals

The tendency of the Doctor sometimes to favour the familiar over the unfamiliar has been apparent ever since the show’s transformatory serial “The Daleks” in 1963-4 where he sided with the beautiful humanoid Thals against the Daleks.   The show perhaps made an effort to atone for this in 1965 where the Doctor made common cause with the allegedly-grotesque Rills against the glamorous yet ruthless Drahvins in “Galaxy Four”.

Not as nice as they look: the Drahvins

In “The Daleks” there is scant reflection on whether the Doctor is doing the right thing, questions of political morality being clouded by his efforts to regain the fluid link, an essential component of the TARDIS which the Daleks have confiscated.  As John Fiske has observed, in classic-era Doctor Who (1963-89) the BBC intended the Doctor to be clearly good and his opponents clearly bad.  (“Dr Who: Ideology and the Reading of a Popular Narrative Text” (1983) 14 Australian Journal of Screen Theory 69).   By contrast, as Gabriel McKee points out, in new Doctor Who (2005-present) the Doctor’s actions are no longer held up as singularly heroic, so viewers make up their own minds (“Pushing the Protest Button: Doctor Who’s Anti-Authoritarian Ethic" in Time and Relative Dimensions in Faith, eds A Crome and J McGrath, Darton, Longman and Todd 2013, p.22).   This trend perhaps reaches a high point in series 8’s pervasive theme of whether the Doctor was “a good man”.

Bill and alien-Heather make contact

The limits of the Doctor’s tolerance of “the unlike” is apparent in the recent episode “The Pilot” (2017).   This story introduces us to the Doctor’s new companion, Bill Potts.  We had earlier seen the Doctor’s previous companion Clara Oswald depart merrily in a TARDIS of her own with Ashildr, a woman about whom Clara had previously expressed a physical attraction.  In “The Pilot” Bill’s lesbianism is treated with similar matter-of-fact tolerance.  But when Bill’s love-interest, Heather, is without her consent transformed into a liquid alien, and invites Bill to undergo a similar transformation and join her on intergalactic adventures, the Doctor implores Bill to resist:

Bill gets a taster of life with Heather

BILL [OC]: I see what you see.  It’s beautiful.

DOCTOR:  Bill, let go!  You have to let go!  She is not human any more.

The Doctor does not explain what is wrong with not being human any more.  But it appears that lesbians are fine, alien liquid lesbians are going too far.  Later on Bill almost expresses regret at taking his advice:

BILL:  I saw it all for a moment.  Everything out there.  She was going to let me fly with her.  She was inviting me.  I was too scared.

Instead Bill flies with the humanoid, solid-form Time Lord, which substantially softens her rejection of Heather.  Whilst one could criticise “The Pilot” for downplaying Bill’s eschewing of “the unlike” and the seminal part which the supposedly-tolerant Doctor plays in her decision, it is nonetheless good that a question-mark is placed – however tersely - over her choice, given how fear of “the Other” lies at the heart of discrimination.