|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jan 26, 2023 21:27:01 GMT
Which of these stories is the most left-wing overall? Is it An Unearthly Child/Tribe of Gum- a story which consistently advocates collective action over selfish individualism? From the Doctor learning to accept cultures unbeknownst to and otherwise dismissed by him (humans), to Ian’s heed-worthy declaration of “Kal is not stronger than the whole tribe!”, and to the story’s denunciation of authoritarian leadership “The firemaker…is the least important because we can all make fire”, the programme’s ethos is immediately centred around community and solidarity. Is it The Daleks, an overt anti-nazi allegory warning of the dangers of eugenics and perceived racial superiority? Is it The Ambassadors of Death, a story where a third party subservient to militarism and establishment forces try to portray the aliens as invaders to stratify the story’s protagonists? Suffice to say that Nigel Farage would not approve of the subtext… Is it Inferno, a story where excessive industrial influences result in the Parallel Earth’s destruction, all to the backdrop of a revival of British fascism? Is it The Mind of Evil, where the Doctor is established as having positive relations with Chairman Mao? Is it The Claws of Axos, where the Doctor criticises Chinn for blind English nationalist rhetoric? Something tells me the Doctor wouldn’t appreciate Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer’s shameless flag-shagging… Is it The Mutants, a blatant anti-apartheid allegory? Is it The Green Death, a story which is about as pro-environmentalism as possible? Is it The Monster of Peladon, a story where exploited Galactic Federation miners are portrayed in a positive light? Is it Genesis of the Daleks, a parable about how stratified war-torn societies coupled with the failures of liberalism culminate in outright fascism? Is it Warriors’ Gate, a story where greed and corporate figures and forces constrain imagination and freedom? Is it The Caves of Androzani, where reliance on consumer culture drives a society to unbridled moral decay? Is it Vengeance on Varos, a story opposed to corporate forces coercing the population into submission via entertainment and consent? Is it Revelation of the Daleks, where such an anti-consumer culture parable extends to having Davros transform individuals into food (and therefore commodities), justifying it with a self-confessed dislike for “consumer resistance”? (Hmm- I wonder if a hardline right-winger like Grade had ulterior motives for putting this programme on hiatus…) Is it Remembrance of the Daleks, a story which explores how fascism embeds itself via already existing racial tensions, all whilst commenting on the maniacal nature of obsessing over “impurity”? Or is it The Happiness Patrol, a story which negatively portrays a fake charade of contentment and “happiness” in a neoliberal society, all whilst consciously satirising Thatcherite Britain? Such a satire was so pointed that it even got the bloody Torygraph seething at the era! www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/7235547/Doctor-Who-had-anti-Thatcher-agenda.htmlVote away! |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jan 26, 2023 21:28:09 GMT
In fact, imagine the story's outcome in Monster of Peladon if the Doctor shifted rightwards:
“Doctor! Why are we leaving?!”
“Come on, Sarah. I’ve got no time for these scrounging miners who want something for nothing. They’re the most parasitic underdogs in the universe!”
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Jan 26, 2023 22:50:34 GMT
I can't imagine watching a Doctor Who story and taking any note of the writer's political leanings.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobFilth on Jan 26, 2023 22:51:17 GMT
Personally, I'd say undoubtedly The Green Death with it's anti-corporate, pro-environment, pro-veganism message, although a special mention should go to Warriors of the Deep with it's anti-WMD/militaristic expansionism & espionage message.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Jan 27, 2023 0:17:27 GMT
I can't imagine watching a Doctor Who story and taking any note of the writer's political leanings. To be serious for a second: You’re right. Malcolm Hulke is technically most applicable to this poll, and yet barely features. |
|
|
|
Post by RobFilth on Jan 27, 2023 5:43:50 GMT
I can't imagine watching a Doctor Who story and taking any note of the writer's political leanings. To be serious for a second: You’re right. Yet it's all people do with NuWho who then procede to go on ludicrous Daily Mail rants. I have my own issues with NuWho, but I don't copy and paste them from Rothermeres nazis. |
|
|
|
Post by medicusitic on Dec 3, 2023 7:29:45 GMT
Which of these stories is the most left-wing overall? Is it An Unearthly Child/Tribe of Gum- a story which consistently advocates collective action over selfish individualism? From the Doctor learning to accept cultures unbeknownst to and otherwise dismissed by him (humans), to Ian’s heed-worthy declaration of “Kal is not stronger than the whole tribe!”, and to the story’s denunciation of authoritarian leadership “The firemaker…is the least important because we can all make fire”, the programme’s ethos is immediately centred around community and solidarity. That isn't even really the primary message you could take from the tribe of Gum luddites (old woman) vs technology advocates (Kal/Za) would be a far better allegory. Both Kal and Za are collectivists they are competing to become rulers of a tribe and trying to find the secret of fire first. Both Kal and Za are selfish and dishonest as well, its just that Kal is more brutal than Za. Your collectivist vs individualistic argument would work better if Kal lived alone or was some land owner, but they are all cave people who share their caves. They are basically pack animals fighting for position of leadership in a pack. There really is no evidence for your take that an Un Earthly Child is about collectivism vs individualism. Looking at the author not much evidence of him being a left winger. "It is believed to have been Coburn's idea for the Doctor's traveling companion, Susan, to be his granddaughter, as he was disturbed by the possible sexual connotations of an old man travelling with an unrelated teenager." Anthony Coburn seems really left wing doesn't he?
How is Ian saying Kal is not stronger than the whole tribe a left wing point? Saying 5 guys could beat up 1 guy in a fist fight isn't exactly a left wing notion. If you mean politics as "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs" or "Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or a group in order to gain control or power" you are right. But when people complain about politics in stories they mean "Influenced by, based on, or stemming from partisan interests or political ideology." They have a problem with ideological and partisan politics, which is clearly not present in an Un Earthly Child. A story with politics is not the same as a story that is political. Za is also a authoritarian leader the reason Kal is presented as a worse leader is that he lies and kills people underhandedly while Za will battle them to the death. There are no ideological disputes between Za and Kal so its a left wing story, its a story with politics, but not ideological politics. In the technical sense I described earlier the story is political there are really no ideological or partisan politics in it.
Its accurate to describe the Pertwee era and the late McCoy era as having left wing stories, but some people want to define everything they like as left wing. As if for an episode to be good it has to agree with your preconceived notions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Dec 3, 2023 11:11:05 GMT
Which of these stories is the most left-wing overall? Is it An Unearthly Child/Tribe of Gum- a story which consistently advocates collective action over selfish individualism? From the Doctor learning to accept cultures unbeknownst to and otherwise dismissed by him (humans), to Ian’s heed-worthy declaration of “Kal is not stronger than the whole tribe!”, and to the story’s denunciation of authoritarian leadership “The firemaker…is the least important because we can all make fire”, the programme’s ethos is immediately centred around community and solidarity. That isn't even really the primary message you could take from the tribe of Gum luddites (old woman) vs technology advocates (Kal/Za) would be a far better allegory. Both Kal and Za are collectivists they are competing to become rulers of a tribe and trying to find the secret of fire first. Both Kal and Za are selfish and dishonest as well, its just that Kal is more brutal than Za. Your collectivist vs individualistic argument would work better if Kal lived alone or was some land owner, but they are all cave people who share their caves. They are basically pack animals fighting for position of leadership in a pack. There really is no evidence for your take that an Un Earthly Child is about collectivism vs individualism. Looking at the author not much evidence of him being a left winger. "It is believed to have been Coburn's idea for the Doctor's traveling companion, Susan, to be his granddaughter, as he was disturbed by the possible sexual connotations of an old man travelling with an unrelated teenager." Anthony Coburn seems really left wing doesn't he?
How is Ian saying Kal is not stronger than the whole tribe a left wing point? Saying 5 guys could beat up 1 guy in a fist fight isn't exactly a left wing notion. If you mean politics as "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs" or "Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or a group in order to gain control or power" you are right. But when people complain about politics in stories they mean "Influenced by, based on, or stemming from partisan interests or political ideology." They have a problem with ideological and partisan politics, which is clearly not present in an Un Earthly Child. A story with politics is not the same as a story that is political. Za is also a authoritarian leader the reason Kal is presented as a worse leader is that he lies and kills people underhandedly while Za will battle them to the death. There are no ideological disputes between Za and Kal so its a left wing story, its a story with politics, but not ideological politics. In the technical sense I described earlier the story is political there are really no ideological or partisan politics in it.
Its accurate to describe the Pertwee era and the late McCoy era as having left wing stories, but some people want to define everything they like as left wing. As if for an episode to be good it has to agree with your preconceived notions.
I don’t disagree with all of this. Yes, the story is political but isn’t “politicised”, if you will. Likewise, not everything I appreciate complies with my politics and vice versa. I don’t like every story on this thread. Monster of Peladon might take the side of the miners, but it’s also incredibly dull. I made this thread in part to stir the pot and take the piss (as my “to be serious for a second” post above suggests), in the wake of forum discourse shifting somewhat to the right at the time of posting. As such, some of what I posted above ought to be taken with a grain of salt- it was a bit of fun above all else and isn’t a serious write-up. Most of that post was intended hyperbole. A few points I’d argue, however: 1) The story’s moral isn’t solely about multiple people beating up one in a fist fight. The cavemen are also preoccupied with shelter, survival and resources by necessity. The story suggests that collective action ought to make it easier to obtain these things. Yes, Za isn’t exactly a paragon of virtue himself, but for him to *not* be so would be sanitised and inaccurate to the period. It doesn’t mean the story endorses his own authoritarian traits. The lead characters recognise that he operates under those conditions but stir him into a slightly more altruistic direction regardless- one where the leader doesn’t hold absolute sway over the will of his subjects, and where people organise via collective action instead. Putting aside my exaggerated turn of phrase in my original post and regardless of the story’s optics, it is at least sympathetic to the concept of collective action. 2) Does being opposed to the implication of an old man shagging a teenager make one completely opposed to progressive ideas in general? If that were the case, those of us on here with more socialist persuasions would champion John Barrowman getting his cock out and putting it on people’s shoulders. Are you implying that left-wingers all love sexual promiscuity irrespective of age gap? That’s a weird example to isolate. I doubt Coburn himself was particularly left, especially if he was anything like his son, but he likely made this decision less so for political reasons and more for character/storytelling purposes. Implying that the Doctor is shagging a teenager adds nothing worthwhile to the narrative and would seem decidedly odd, especially for a series intended to be mature, intelligent and educational (via the BBC’s remit). It makes sense to downplay this as much as possible. 3) Yes, I sympathise with those who complain about the identity politics in NuWho. I consider them facile, shallow, simplistic and preachy, as well as lacking any broader thought-provoking qualities. Where I and some others here diverge from many of those critics is that we don’t believe that identity politics represents left politics, but instead represents a distorted funhouse mirror of the status-quo. Davies and co aren’t ‘partisan’ insofar as they have no genuine political beliefs of their own, evidenced by Davies lambasting “woke” writers earlier this year before scrapping Davros’ original design and peppering his first episode (which you rightly lambasted) with identity politics. He and his nepotistic mates are bound to the status-quo- hence their receiving incessant backing from a BBC which continues to provide cover to genocidal regimes- and have no consistent individual politics beyond inflating their egos via self-aggrandising pseudo-progressive rhetoric. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Dec 3, 2023 11:14:55 GMT
Sorry but I disagree strongly with An Unearthly Child being even remotely left wing. No offense but the first person I saw say that, was that absolute turd Mr Tardis who I feel was just fishing for anything to boost his stupid "DW was always woke" argument and sadly that idea has caught on when it isn't really applicable.
Yeah you could maybe read that into it fleetingly, but to be honest it's just an adventure with cavemen, who are so far from civilisation at that point, I don't think concepts like socialism or collectivism could even possibly apply to them.
Meanwhile I'd say Remembrance of the Daleks is the most genuinely left wing along with Curse of Fenric (which surprisingly isn't in the pole so I went for Remembrance of the Daleks. What did Fenric ever to do you to be left out LOL.) Remembrance was very bold to show a darker side to the 1960s. You have to remember at that point the 60s was ironically what the 80s is now and would continue to be so for the next 15 years. The golden years, that everybody thought was mop tops, dalekmania, gorgeous beehived go go girls dancing in swinging night clubs etc, actually had a a LOT of ugly prejudice under the surface, particularly towards foreigners and black people. The conservatives, not some fringe group like the BNP were trying to get elected in the 60s with slogans like "if you don't want a n****** for a neighbor vote conservative."
Remembrance reflects all of that in a way that is subtle and quite thoughtful as well. Mike for instance isn't like RTD's laughable caricatures of bigoted people, like that guy in Children of Earth who came in snarling about "YOU TAKE IT UP THE ARSE" to Ianto, and who made me laugh he was so OTT and ridiculous. Mike is actually a decent guy in some respects. He is brave, capable of self sacrifice and Ace even falls for him, and he is genuine in his beliefs, which sadly shows the uncomfortable truth that lots of decent people can be swept up in propaganda. It's not just flag thumping, non educated, neanderthal yobbos that everybody likes to paint it as who get sucked in. Often it can be your neighbor, or even your friend who buys into bullshit about Palestine, or that communism killed 150 million people or that trans ad gay people are coming for our kids etc. Also having the Daleks turn on each other in the way they do is brilliant. Whilst we have had Daleks fighting each other before, it's always been ideological. IE some Daleks are humanized and disagree with their usual xenophobic beliefs, some are serving Davros, but these Daleks are completely identical in terms of beliefs. It's purely a racial, minor reason as to why they are hell bent on wiping each other out, that we wouldn't even notice on the surface. In this respect it's one of the cleverest takes on race hatred in sci fi since the Star Trek episode Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, where the reason the aliens are wiping each other out is so minor you don't notice it at first. "He's black on the right side, I'm white on the right side." Both stories really do highlight the insanity of the minor differences that have been used to slaughter people in our own history.
Fenric meanwhile similarly is willing to show how the British weren't quite as whiter than white during WW 2 as our history books like to claim, which again is still something that people have a lot of trouble accepting.
Take for instance the bombing of Dresden. That was completely unnecessary and did NOT help us defeat the Nazis. In fact it actually set out country back having to rebuild it, yet to this day I see idiots like Douglas Murray try and use that to justify the genocide in Palestine. Similarly few people still know of how after the war, the British and the Americans were planning to use Nazi war criminals to attack and destroy Russia. It was JFK who helped put a stop to it. (Despite his faults I'd say Kennedy was probably the best post war President. By no means does that make him a good President to be fair, but the standard is very low.) Tackling both of these ugly realities, with the parsons losing his faith to fight the vampires because of British bombs killing German children and Fenric using a British weapon to help end the world.
It pisses me off so much when wankers like Mr Tardis try and compare masterpieces like these two adventures to bubblegum political crap like Rosa and RTD having a black Isaac Newton UGH. Both of those things were not only very thoughtful and worked within the sci fi story (the Daleks civil war sets the stage for the story, they're working with the Nazis because they would be the most likely people drawn to their xenophobic, fascist beliefs, Fenric is using the British weapon that can remain hidden, the Parsons lack of faith is used to explore that aspect of the vampire legend.) Both of these stories were again like I said pushing the boundaries and confronting things that the general public were not happy to talk about, and to be honest it is a bit of a coincidence that both stories came just before the show was axed?
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleDeadly on Dec 3, 2023 13:51:15 GMT
Well, that clears that up... |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Dec 3, 2023 14:24:43 GMT
That isn't even really the primary message you could take from the tribe of Gum luddites (old woman) vs technology advocates (Kal/Za) would be a far better allegory. Both Kal and Za are collectivists they are competing to become rulers of a tribe and trying to find the secret of fire first. Both Kal and Za are selfish and dishonest as well, its just that Kal is more brutal than Za. Your collectivist vs individualistic argument would work better if Kal lived alone or was some land owner, but they are all cave people who share their caves. They are basically pack animals fighting for position of leadership in a pack. There really is no evidence for your take that an Un Earthly Child is about collectivism vs individualism. Looking at the author not much evidence of him being a left winger. "It is believed to have been Coburn's idea for the Doctor's traveling companion, Susan, to be his granddaughter, as he was disturbed by the possible sexual connotations of an old man travelling with an unrelated teenager." Anthony Coburn seems really left wing doesn't he?
How is Ian saying Kal is not stronger than the whole tribe a left wing point? Saying 5 guys could beat up 1 guy in a fist fight isn't exactly a left wing notion. If you mean politics as "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs" or "Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or a group in order to gain control or power" you are right. But when people complain about politics in stories they mean "Influenced by, based on, or stemming from partisan interests or political ideology." They have a problem with ideological and partisan politics, which is clearly not present in an Un Earthly Child. A story with politics is not the same as a story that is political. Za is also a authoritarian leader the reason Kal is presented as a worse leader is that he lies and kills people underhandedly while Za will battle them to the death. There are no ideological disputes between Za and Kal so its a left wing story, its a story with politics, but not ideological politics. In the technical sense I described earlier the story is political there are really no ideological or partisan politics in it.
Its accurate to describe the Pertwee era and the late McCoy era as having left wing stories, but some people want to define everything they like as left wing. As if for an episode to be good it has to agree with your preconceived notions.
Well I don't mean to get into mud slinging or anything here, but based on Queer as Folk, that IS what RTD seemed to endorse. Now I never watched this show as I thought it looked like niche, self indulgent, horny, soap opera bullshit even back in the 2000s. PS I'm not saying I wouldn't watch anything with a gay lead to those who would try and say that like RTD would if he were here. If you had a show about a gay man hunting vampires and demons and aliens I'd watch that. Hell I even watched Will and Grace, which was reasonably funny in its hey day. (I liked Megan Mullally A LOT. Crazy, brunette, big nose and she also seems to like noses too LOL. My dream woman.) Still Queer as Folk looked like soft porn, but someone shared this on twitter recently when going on a rant about RTD and honestly it is dodgy as f*ck. We have one of the main characters shag a 15 year old boy. Now to be fair the character who shags the boy is meant to be a bit of a dick, but he's not presented as a predatory groomer which he absolutely is. Instead he's more of a I guess whatever the gay version of a jack the lad type would be? Worse the father who doesn't want his 15 year old son going off with this older man is presented as the old fashioned bigot here, who just wants to lock up his son and yes therefore the story does seem to be making out that not being okay with your 15 year old child going off with an older man is homophobic! PS RTD is also presenting the worst possible representation of gay men possible in this scene. Predatory, sex obsessed, cowardly etc. It's quite baffling how even back then he wasn't written off as an out of touch twonk. I'm reminded of this bit ironically from a Married With Children I watched last night, where Al finds out that his 17 year old daughter is dating a 40 year old man. Al (with murderous intent in his eyes.) Oh don't worry Kelly I'll show him the same respect any man would to a 40 year old that dates his teenage daughter! Russell has lost the moral high ground to Al Bundy it would seem. PS I'm not saying RTD is a predator in real life. I think he was just trying to write an edgy turn of the century drama, but either way it is as dodgy as f*ck, and the real question is WHY did this show convince the BBC that this was the man to produce a new series of Doctor Who, when they'd turned down the likes of Leonard Nimoy and Terry Nation himself in the 90s? |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Dec 3, 2023 16:46:39 GMT
Seriously though how f*cking gorgeous is Megan Mullally.   Lady has good instincts too, as she can't f*cking stand Debra Messing who has turned into the epitome of exactly how Bernard described Davies himself. Debra Messing in a nutshell! It says a lot when f*cking Whoopi Goldberg ended up being the reasonable one compared to her. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2023 16:05:22 GMT
That kid is cute af to be fair to Littlefinger lmao
|
|
