#drag king history | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

whoreviewswho · 1 month

Text

Wokeness, Responsibility and if RTD is problematic - The Regeneration Question and Davros with Legs

Is Russell T. Davies a problematic figure? Is he too woke or not aware enough? Is he doing something wrong to illicit negative responses from the progressives as well as the conservatives? Is it something in the programme, something in the marketing or is he doing nothing particularly bad at all? Well, perhaps you and I, faithful reader, can come to some sort of conclusion. Let's find out together as we take a dive into the controversial choices behind RTD2 and the mind of the man behind them.

At the end of 2022's The Power of the Doctor, Jodie Whittaker's Thirteenth Doctor regenerates into her fourteenth body, the same as her tenth incarnation as played by David Tennant. Taken on face value, the scene is innocuous enough. Just a standard regeneration with the surprise appearance of the most popular (sorry Tom) Doctor Who ever for our next story instead of the expected Ncuti Gatwa.

Except, there was something else unusual - the Doctor's clothes regenerated with her. With the sole exception of the very first regeneration (which can be excused as a relic from before the 'rules' were decided upon), this is without precedent* and was clearly supposed to mean something. After all, Russell thinks. He is a clever man and he would never do something as bold as this without there being a reason.

Well, yes. There was a reason but a lot of fans were dismayed to learn that the reason was not built into the narrative but a consequence of real life. In DWM 584, these comments from Davies were published;

“I was certain that I didn’t want David to appear in Jodie’s costume. I think the notion of men dressing in ‘women’s clothes’, the notion of drag, is very delicate. I’m a huge fan of that culture and the dignity of that, it’s truly a valuable thing. But it has to be done with immense thought and respect. With respect to Jodie and her Doctor, I think it can look like mockery when a straight man wears her clothes. To put a great big six-foot Scotsman into them looks like we’re taking the mickey. Also, I guarantee you it’s the only photograph some of the papers would print for the rest of time. If they can play with gender in a sarcastic or critical way, they will.”

Unsurprisingly, this choice became a not insignificant talking point in the fandom in the weeks following. A particularly articulate thread was posted by tess owen’s #1 fan || (i still love you yaz dw), @_mag_lex, on November 10, 2022 summarised the discussion well when she said;

"I don’t understand how DT wearing 13’s outfit is a mockery of drag, given that it’s deliberately and definitively gender-neutral. Anyone who watches and cares about the show understands that. I also don’t understand the logic of pandering to bigots rather than catering to fans [....] You’re telling me that Doctor Who is now scared to push boundaries. That’s what this says to me. But sci fi is all about pushing boundaries. Opening minds. Why are we limited by things like this? I’m so sad."

The stance from RTD does not seem in and of itself confused. He made the decision to avoid showing a man in clothes designed for a woman based on a potential, and what he saw as a likely, media reaction. The mention of tabloids and newspapers is revealing, of course. He is a boomer. Terminology aside, though, I would agree that depicting a man in women's clothes opens the door to ridicule from the anti-woke crowd in a way that not showing it wouldn't. And, yes, they are women's clothes. With all due respect to everybody who claims otherwise, I don't think the refute that Jodie's costume is designed to be genderless really holds any water. The costume designed by Ray Holman and inspired by Jodie Whittaker's suggestion is not inherently feminine but the shape and cut and final choices were made with her, a cis woman, in mind as the wearer.

Now, what does hold some amount of water is the context of the rest of the episode. Approximately 44 minutes before David Tennant appears in his all new costume, Sacha Dhawan's Master can be seen wearing Whittaker's complete costume and he continues to for several minutes following. It is at this juncture where our second comment from Hagan feels appropriate;

"[In reference to David Tennant wearing Jodie Whittaker's costume] Dude's heart's in the right place but his head's in the fucking clouds half the time." - November 10, 2022

What many have noted, Hagan included, is that RTD inadvertently suggests here that the Master, the villain, being seen in clothes intended for someone other than of his assigned gender is perfectly acceptable but to see our leading hero in this way is something to avoid. Without the full context of the quote, we appear to have RTD shying away from doing something opposed to UK's cultural and societal norms regarding gender rather than being openly proud of the juxtaposition; we have just witnessed a gender transition which is another day in the office for our hero.

Then again, if one never came across RTD's comments in the first place, would there be as much reason to be bothered by the decision at all? Certainly, there is the valid feeling of disappointment that would have come from many fans about never seeing Whittaker's male successor in her clothes but, prior to the statement, I saw less of that online than I did excitement. Most viewers seemed to reasonably assume from the way the scene plays out that the choice to regenerate the clothes would have some bearing on the plot in future events. It stands to reason that the Doctor regenerating their clothes and regaining an old face are related. Well, we know now that they were not, at least not on-screen.

They are related in the real world but, alas, in a very perfunctory way. As I am sure RTD was well aware, the clip of Jodie turning back into David was a very popular moment and even named TV Moment of the Year at the Edinburgh TV Awards. Most significantly, the costume from the previous era was not the one seen all over the media.

So, knowing that the costume change would not be addressed in his scripts, RTD addressed it himself in what some might call a flagrant display of moral hubris. Again, the sentiment of 'let's not give queerphobes ammunition' is in no way a problematic one but the optics of forever binding that decision to an episode that makes no display at all of the villain dressed in women's clothes are not so great and a little baffling. It is almost as if RTD had no idea what even went on in the story he was picking up from. As others such as Hagan have pointed out, there is also the notable matter of the Master as written by RTD who was last seen wearing women's clothes in multiple instances during The End of Time. While it his unfair to say his choices in 2009 and choices in 2022 directly reflect each other, it still contributes to an awkward feeling and some bad optics.

RTD refused to give ammunition to queerphobes so he handed the fans a loaded gun and asked them to point it at him. It sounds almost noble but was it truly necessary? He could have said nothing for a much lesser reaction. In that case, nobody would have questioned his equating the art of drag performance with just men in women's clothes. This is the first of several examples in what I am attesting to be 'pre-emptive damage control'; cases of RTD identifying where audiences might have a problem and then going well out of his way to ensure that they don't at the very real risk of drawing attention to problems that may not have even been there in the first place. Or, at least, not in the way that he is envisioning. I am not refuting the suggestion that media outlets would have made jokes out of Tennant in a woman's clothes. That seems like a very real possibility. For RTD, it seems that the potential harm from that outweighed any potential strength that could be gained from depicting it in the first place. Is the best outcome for queer Doctor Who fans the one where the show seems to take no pride in depicting aspects of queer culture or make any attempt to own that choice at all?

A similar situation occurred a little over twelve months later with the premiere of, of all things, a Children in Need sketch. On November 17 2024, Destination: Skaro was broadcast in the UK and, eight days out from RTD2 kicking off proper, it was audience's first glimpse into what might be in store with David Tennant's Fourteenth Doctor and perhaps the general flavour of the era. At time of writing, the latter seems a little too soon to say though the nature of the short obviously lends it to being more comedic than a typic Who episode. Something that did become clear though was that the outspoken, socially-conscious thinking that informed the previous year's regeneration scene showed no signs of disappearing.

Destination: Skaro surprised fans with the unexpected return of Julian Bleach in the role of Davros. The scene took place on the titular planet during the early stages of Dalek development and saw the Doctor accidentally influence the Daleks' design. The short was immediately notable for depicting Davros as fully-abled, not wheelchair bound or in any way disfigured. Prior to any statement from RTD regarding the choice, fans like myself appeared to conclude that this scene must be intended to take place prior to all of Davros' other appearances. Hs debut, Genesis of the Daleks, makes it clear that his chair is a life-support system and the Daleks seen there are all fully designed. So this is a prequel to the 1975 story. Easy enough to accept. But, then, RTD said this in an episode of Doctor Who Unleashed:

"We had long conversations about bringing Davros back, because he's a fantastic character, [but] time and society and culture and taste has moved on. And there's a problem with the Davros of old in that he's a wheelchair user, who is evil. And I had problems with that. And a lot of us on the production team had problems with that, of associating disability with evil. And trust me, there's a very long tradition of this... I say, this is how we see Davros now, this is what he looks like. This is 2023. This is our lens. This is our eye. Things used to be black and white, they're not in black and white anymore, and Davros used to look like that and he looks like this now, and that we are absolutely standing by."

In my opinion, there is little to object to here. Associating disability with villainy is a longstanding, harmful trope of genre fiction and something that Doctor Who has indulged in innumerable times throughout its history. Given that this short was airing within a charity event for disadvantaged youth, the optics of the decision make a lot of sense. It was a good call for RTD to contribute to the conversation about disability in a positive way. For the most part, this alls seemed to go down quite well. What some fans objected to was what was said toward the end of his comments, specifically the suggestion that this is how Davros will be portrayed moving forward.

This was met with a polarised reaction in fans, including those who are wheelchair users. YouTuber Tharries, notable among many things for being one of RTD's inspirations to depict the TARDIS as having a ramp in The Giggle, posted his reaction on November 18, 2023;

"As a disabled Doctor who fan I've always felt somewhat conflicted on Davros as a character, much as I love him he does contribute to the longstanding disabled evil man trope so to see @russelldavies63 address that meant a lot."

Tharries remains an outspoken fan of RTD and strong advocate for disability representation in the show. On the other side, were fans such as Rob Keeley who remarked on November 19, 2023;

"I've been a wheelchair user all my life and a #DoctorWho fan since the 1993 Genesis of the Daleks repeat. I don't find #Davros offensive - he's a great character. What's offensive is treating all disabled people as the same, assuming we all automatically identify with one another."

Mind you, it is probably also worth repeating Keely's review of The Star Beast from November 26 that same year for a more complete context of the man's views;

"True there was nothing very new, I still hate casual bad language in Who and the woke resolution was rubbish, but it still felt like Doctor Who more than anything in a long time."

A common outcry of detractors was that a link was never made between Davros' evil qualities and his being disabled. Dav McKenzie writing for The Spoilist on November 2023 provides an articulate quote mounting this defence but, amusingly, fails to attribute it to anybody;

"Say goodbye to Davros, one of Doctor Who’s most enduring foes. RTD has decided Davros boils down to discrimination against the disabled. He is a war-scarred cripple who is a megalomaniacal genius. His disability does not define or even restrict him as he is one of the most dangerous Doctor Who villains ever. Thanks to RTD though Davros has no injuries and is not in a wheelchair any longer. Goodbye, Davros. We had a good 40 years."

This particular line of defence never sat well with me. It was only in 2015, after all, that we saw Davros as a fully-abled child with no signs of fascist or psychotic tendencies. That depiction leaves one with little room to refute that his path to evil is in entirely unrelated to his disability.

It remains difficult to find a consensus on fan opinion at the best of times but this particular situation seems to remain a huge unknown quantity. Perhaps it will become clearer when Davros next returns to the show, if RTD even intends to do that. What was clear was that Davies wanted to make a statement about disability representation in his Doctor Who, spearhead these values with a new take on Davros right before then debut of new supporting character, Shirley.

And, again, I feel that the same question needs to be asked; would this have been a lot better received if RTD let the work speak for itself? Did he have to make such a definitive statement in Unleashed when we could see in the work that he was making that he had a strong, intelligent disabled character and no longer leaned on disability for villainy? Yes, the statements are inviting conversation and critical thinking which is always good but is RTD just virtue signalling or actually inciting change? Or is he doing both?

To be continued in part two; Rose Noble and Trans Identities in RTD2

*Tom's boots not withstanding

3 notes · View notes