Telling Not Showing (on New Doctor Who)

Obviously, the excitement is killing evil Clara. Not.

Telling not Showing (on new Doctor Who)

By Cynthianna

***Spoiler Alert!***

If you’ve ever taken a writing course, I know you’ll recognize this maxim: Show not tell!

What does this mean to the average person who isn’t a writer or even interested in learning how to write well? Essentially it means what it says—you never tell a story by listing dry facts or endless narration telling the reader/viewer what to think, what is happening, what to feel. Instead, the effective writer shows the story’s characters in motion (in a manner appealing to the senses) and that action imparts the story to the reader/viewer. Face it, it’s more exciting to experience a scene when we see and almost feel something happening where the stakes are high than to simply be told what’s going to happen to the characters if they don’t do such-and-such.

The Zygon Inversion or Inversion of the Zygons (depending on which site you look for pictures for it) gives us a good example of tell not show which my college screenplay writing professor would have given failing marks. After last week’s episode, it’s a true non-event. Sure, we get to see “evil Clara” looking smart with heavier make-up and her hair pulled back, but essentially all she does is walk around, shoot an airplane, stares at the “sleeping Clara” in the pod, zaps one Zygon to turn him “inside out” and…that’s about it. No particularly exotic locations, no big action scenes, no exciting complications of plot. She does her bit as she’s told and very little else.

The last act consists of a lot of talking in a room at UNIT headquarters where evil Clara and Kate Lethbridge-Stewart face off by staring across a table at each other with their hands hovering over a couple of boxes while the Doctor pontificates for several minutes too long.  (Kate miraculously survives her journey home from New Mexico we learn, but, of course, the excitement of her escape takes place off stage. Sigh!) Staring across a table in a dimly lit room—that’s the extent of the climactic action. No huge battles involving the sucker-covered aliens and the brave fighting men and women of UNIT. Nada.

Now, picture this—literally picture this in your mind. What if, instead of having the Doctor harangue evil Clara and Ms. Lethbridge-Stewart for fifteen minutes, he took them in his TARDIS and showed them what life would be like if they started an inter-species war on Earth? He could show them the devastation of another similar world’s conflict or take them backward or forward in time and show them Earth after a devastating war. There could be explosions and battles and lots of colorful images and provocative sounds and smells and other appeals to both the viewers’ and the characters’ senses. Think how well this sort of sense-filled demonstration would illustrate his point without the need for long-winded speeches. Think how exciting this would be for the viewers! (It might have been fun for the actors to perform, too.)

Even the devil showed Jesus from atop the mountain all the riches, the kingdoms and power he’d have if he’d do as the devil asked instead of what God asked. The devil tempted Jesus with food when he was starving, appealing to his senses of smell and taste. Matthew 4:1-11 is a very visceral Bible story, and it makes a lasting impact precisely because it appeals to the senses. Would Jesus passing up all that power, wealth and food have made the same impact on the reader if the devil had simply told Jesus what all he was passing on and hadn’t given Jesus the chance to see and experience what all he was missing? When you experience something it’s much harder to give it up, right? Obviously, the writer Matthew knew this and didn’t let up on the appeal to the senses or action.

I know I looked at the time more than once while the Doctor scolded evil Clara and Lethbridge-Stewart and delivered a diatribe on how naughty they were. I kept wondering how and when an action sequence was going to fit in. After all, in a science fiction adventure television series viewers expect to experience some excitement and action around every corner, especially at the climax. Unfortunately, this episode was “pear shaped” and had no corners to turn. 

No big battles of Zygons vs. humans, instead we were treated to another “Osgood” in the seventh Doctor’s famous question mark knitwear. Cute in a stereotypically nerd girl way.  I think Osgood would make a great companion some day, but only if she actually does something active instead of function merely as a model to push sales of classic Who DVDs to the younger crowd. 

Of course, how well she and other characters function is up to the series’ writers and script editor. Let’s hope they hit the books and study up on how write a stronger script next time.

What do you think? Please leave your comments below. And check out my reviews of earlier episodes of this season of Doctor Who:

The Zygon Invasion

The Woman Who Lived

The Girl Who Died    
Before the Flood

Under the Lake

The Witch's Familiar

The Magician's Apprentice

Classic Who on Retro TV

Doctor Who vs. Agents of SHIELD--Creating Strong Female Characters

Doctor Who vs. Agents of SHIELD—Creating Strong Female Characters
By Cynthianna

As a follow up to my critique of the Doctor Who 2014 season finale (The Death of Doctor Who), I thought I’d give you some insight into how I formed my opinion. I read manuscripts for a living; I edit manuscripts for a living; I write manuscripts for a living. In other words, I help create characters on a daily basis. Top that with an education in film studies and psychology, and you can understand why I don’t watch TV in quite the same way as others watch TV. Many viewers simply turn on the telly in order to lull themselves to sleep at night. When I switch it on, I analyze characters, de-construct plots, and ask difficult questions of those in editorial control. Sometimes it lulls me to sleep, too.

This introduction leads to the point of this piece: Creating strong female characters and how it applies to two current science fiction television series, Doctor Who (new version) and Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD. How are strong characters created on screen? In visual mediums we see characters acting out their personality traits through dialogue and actions. We don’t read captions proclaiming “shy girl” or “bad guy” or “nerd” under the face of the actor to tell us the character’s disposition or his/her role in the story. We infer their personalities by watching the actors bring the characters to life through their interpretation of the dialogue and physical direction given in the script. Therefore, we see a little girl hiding in a corner, a sneering mobster wielding a gun, or a computer jockey entranced in front of her keyboard. 

The actors don’t create the characters per se—they are simply the means by which the characters written in the script are shown to the viewers. The final responsibility for creating strong characters rests with the TV show's writers and producers—not its actors. Sometimes fans confuse these two groups and blame the actors for a show's failures when nothing could be further from the truth.

My biggest disappointment with the current season of Doctor Who, besides the producer’s apparent lack of respect for sci-fi fans’ sensibilities and intelligence, is its failure to create strong female characters. It’s not enough for a producer to state, “This is a strong female character because I say so.” Viewers need to see female characters acting strong and competent in a consistent manner; otherwise, why should we believe this claim? Just as an out-of-tune guitar string after a few strums becomes annoying and irritating, so does an inconsistent character. We long to experience a character in tune. Many fans will give up on a TV series when the characters seem out of tune. Once an exodus of viewers begins, it can be difficult to halt.

All is not lost in TV-land in 2014, however. Excellent examples of consistently strong female characters in a science fiction setting can be found on Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD. While Doctor Who has only one regular female lead this season, Agents of SHIELD presents Agents Melinda May, Jemma Simmons, and Skye. These characters are all portrayed as capable career women who concentrate on the task at hand. Simmons is a biochemist with two Ph.D.s, and Skye is a computer hacker second to none. Ace pilot May runs intricate operations as the second-in-command and kicks butt with her martial arts skills. She isn’t a twenty-something, either. It’s really nice to see a television series that demonstrates women do get better with age!

In every episode this season so far May, Simmons, and Skye have worked hard to keep the world safe and to clear SHIELD’s tarnished name. None of these characters waste much screen time putting theirs or their male companions’ romantic needs before the mission objective. Men and women in Agents of SHIELD are portrayed as equals, fellow agents working together in a just cause. Sure, there is a minor storyline of one minor character, Agent Bobbi Morse, and her ex-husband working together (and possibly reconciling), but the screen time devoted to this subplot is minimal compared to the overall story and doesn’t detract from the integrity of the characters. The female agents of SHIELD have a job to do, and they do it well. 

By contrast, the Doctor’s lone companion in the TARDIS this season is Clara Oswald, a young woman in her mid-twenties. Clara, a middle school English teacher, has a romantic companion in the character of Danny Pink, a former soldier turned math teacher. Unfortunately, Danny doesn’t become a regular companion in the TARDIS as many viewers had hoped after seeing previews. Danny’s character is written as a stereotypical “baby-killer”, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. A more sensitive portrayal of a young soldier would have been appreciated, since many sci-fi fans currently serve or have served in the military.

Viewers quickly learn that servicemen who served in an unpopular war are still worth fretting over by female characters, however. Clara worries how her boyfriend Danny will cope with her obsession with the Doctor and her desire for exotic exploits. In fact, much screen time in the season’s premiere is spent on Clara dealing with her conflicting emotions over the Doctor’s newly regenerated form. How can Clara have romantic feelings for a thousand year old Time Lord who now appears to no longer be a twenty-something but a silver fox of fifty-ish? Science fiction fans could be excused for thinking they were watching a Downton Abbey repeat, or some other soap opera, instead of a sci-fi/fantasy adventure. What has the Doctor’s sex appeal for Clara got to do with his ability to save mankind or travel through time and space?

The character of Clara Oswald in episodes written by producer Steven Moffat demonstrates to viewers—particularly impressionable young girls—that a woman’s primary function in life is to please her man. For Clara, this could be construed as either Danny or the Doctor depending on the episode. The inconsistent rendering of her character becomes irritating, but the missed opportunity of turning Clara into a strong female role model is more than annoying—it’s tragic. Apparently Moffat did not create the character of Clara to be an equal to either the Doctor or Danny. She could have easily been written as a compassionate teacher with reserves of patience and courage (such as classic series companion Barbara Wright), but instead we witness her rudely slapping the recently-regenerated Doctor. (Is corporeal punishment still allowed in British schools, and is it ever acceptable for adults to slug their friends? Ouch.)

Clara’s poorly crafted character isn’t unique in Moffat’s Doctor Who. Most of the female characters in the Moffat-written episodes fail the Bechdel Test. (The Bechdel Test was developed for films. To pass, a movie must have at least two women in it who talk to each other about something besides a man. Read more: Sexism and Doctor Who)  The Doctor’s female companions generally don’t work side-by-side on projects as the female agents do on Agents of SHIELD. Instead, they focus their dialogue and actions on the male characters’ needs and directives. (One exception: Donna Noble and Martha Jones did work together in a few 2009 episodes. They have much higher Bechdel Test scores than more recent companions.) But it could be argued that the new series Doctor Who female characters have been created simply to serve as window dressing. Male characters get to make the important decisions.

A troubling question could be asked of show runner Steven Moffat: Were the female characters in this latest season of Doctor Who created solely to please male fans without a thought to how women fans may view these same characters? It’s possible. At least, it appears that some reoccurring female characters have been created to entertain males. The Silurian sleuth Madame Vastra and her human sidekick Jenny, lesbian lovers in Victorian England, seem to be added as titillation for teenage boys. After all, porn movies with lesbian action are aimed primarily at heterosexual males, are they not? (Notably absent in Moffat’s era, the reoccurring character of Captain Jack Harkness, a bisexual. Is Moffat afraid Jack's bisexuality wouldn’t appeal to heterosexual men?)

If Vastra and Jenny are to be seen as equals to the show’s male characters, why aren’t they shown doing more science and making less references to their mutual attraction? Work is work. What you do in your bedroom stays there during work hours. How do repeated references to any of the characters’ sexual orientations help the Doctor save the day? Sexual expression is a topic for late-night adult programs. Better for an earlier-in-the-evening series to present characters working together as equals and allow them to get on with fighting monsters and saving the world without unnecessary interruptions.

Romantic subplots and sexual innuendos were few and far between in the classic series of Doctor Who and for good reason—they detracted from the storylines aimed at a family audience. Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD seems to have taken the place of Doctor Who as a family-friendly television show for sci-fi/fantasy fans with a minimum of adult soap opera theatrics.

Child-friendly show or not, creating strong female characters should be at the top of every television producer’s list. Women watch a lot of television, simply put, and mothers exercise control over what they allow their children to watch. It’s foolhardy to disappoint such a large portion of the viewing audience.

We sometimes forget that it’s been less than one hundred years since women gained the right to vote in the United States and in many other countries. We sometimes forget that women are still victimized and kept “in their place” through violence and rape. We sometimes forget the horrors of human trafficking and sexual slavery still exist. It’s time that we stop forgetting and take positive action in all our forms of entertainment to teach children—and adults—that women and men are equals. Female characters deserve to be created and portrayed on the screen with respect and dignity. Female characters should act as positive role models and not reinforce negative stereotypes.

To sum up, women aren’t just eye candy to gain television ratings. We have brains and abilities. To denigrate one of us is to denigrate us all. 

  grammarly.com/grammarcheck