|
jivjov posted:Which was done in the middle of the night in a remote location; again, the point being made is not "nah, things were hunkey dorey", it's "the public face of things was kept civil, while all the nasty poo poo happened in dark alleys and after dark". That "civil face" was underwritten by the threat of violence, and was also used as a blank check to cover myriad forms of systemic exploitation and abuse. If you and your entire community are coerced into performing a subservient role because "nasty poo poo in the dark" is inevitably going to result from transgressive the perimeters of that role, than that mask of civility is not even a mask worth acknowledging. Racial politics in the US in the mid-20th century were characterized by violence, full-stop. Black Americans knew that white Americans would pay them less, demean their children, sexually harass or rape them with impunity, swindle them, humiliate them, and yes, physically assault or even kill them, because the country's monopoly on force was firmly on the side of white supremacy. Martin Luther King Jr. Day was literally yesterday. Consider this quote from his Letter From Birmingham Jail, which reliably makes the rounds this time of year: quote:"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." What King got, and which I think Letter forcefully demonstrates, is that this "negative peace" is just the resting state of a hideous violence. You can't separate the two-- the sneering, spitting, closed-fist racism of the lynch mob or the numerous men and women who terrorized Civil Rights demonstrators at sit-ins and marches isn't different in kind from the "polite racism" you're talking about. They're symptoms of the same thing-- one couldn't exist without the other. Look at photos from Birmingham, 1963; black demonstrators being blasted with hoses and attacked by police dogs. The famous photo from Bed-Stuy, '64-- little kids, teenage girls, running in terror from placid-faced cops. John Lewis in his capacity as chairman of the loving SNCC being beaten in Selam at 1965-- look at the photo, the way the cop's truncheon is swung back in an assured but almost lazy way, the way Lewis is protecting the side of his head just so-- this was the dance both of them knew. This was the bedrock that "civil" racism was built on. Look at this, also from 1965, Jackson, Mississippi. The kid is five years old and wouldn't give up a small American flag.  Or here-- this is the National Guard turning guns and unsheathed bayonets on peaceful marchers in 1968:  Because, look, for white supremacy, "peaceful marchers" is a contradiction. "Nonviolent demonstration" is a paradox. Anything that resists or challenges power in its resting state-- it's "civil" texture-- is responded to with maximal force. This is as true now as it was then. Conservative pearl-clutching about NFL players kneeling is incoherent without the knowledge that police can shoot black teenagers with a reasonable chance of getting away with it. "The Wall" is powerless as a concept without the unspoken understanding that the military could just massacre people at the border and a sizable chunk of the population wouldn't care. The family separation crisis is a case in point-- a grotesque violence against common humanity and dignity that most people just sort of.... didn't like but decided they could accept. If you're punching someone in the face with one hand while getting a relaxing manicure on the other, you can't in good faith say you're characterized by the chill pleasure of the manicure. You can't disavow the closed fist. Edit: I think we posted at roughly the same time, so apologies. I think this: Burkion posted:They're not going to wonder if maybe they harbor some residual toxic thinking, because THEY aren't cartoonishly racist. Clearly we as a people have gotten better! Is actually a really really sound point and one I agree with totally. The episode soft-pedals the extent to which racism has never been "solved." It's a poor fit with the series' gentle utopianism on a whole and the pointed pacifism of Whitaker's Doctor in particular-- I think in general placing the Doctor smack dab in the middle of historical atrocity raises uncomfortable questions that the series is rarely liable to address. If they're going to do an episode like this, though, they should be asking those uncomfortable questions. You're correct, contemporary kids should leave an episode where the Doctor faces white supremacy in the American South with some hard questions about themselves and their society, that I don't think this episode adequately sets up. quote:Which is also a bit odd given how intertwined feminism and the civil rights were in the 60s, which maybe should have been touched on more. This is also spot-on I think and it's wild to me how cautious this series was about tackling sexism directly. I guess I'm not 100% surprised but it felt underwritten in many places in that regard. How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jan 22, 2019 |
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
jivjov posted:Which was done in the middle of the night in a remote location; again, the point being made is not "nah, things were hunkey dorey", it's "the public face of things was kept civil, while all the nasty poo poo happened in dark alleys and after dark". This might have been accurate when it came to lynchings in the late 20th century or now, but not earlier. Some lynchings were announced in the local paper, made a spectacle, photographed, and then turned into postcards. The idea that "the public face of things was kept civil" is not even accurate NOW, in 2019 Alabama. Racism is certainly more covert at times than it used to be, and many people who are racist need some indication beyond "I see you are white" to start saying racist things. But racist behavior registers immediately and publicly to its victims, and if pervasive, colors all their interactions with white people even in circumstances where racism is not directly at work. Institutional racism is part of why Presidents Bush and Trump could get angry or shout-y without a problem but President Obama had to be extremely careful not to show anger outside a very specific set of controlled behaviors. It is true that there's some "bless your heart" style "polite" racism on display here. But there's multiple news stories every year about somebody leaning out the window of a frat house and yelling racial insults at a black student walking past. In broad daylight. On a college campus. In 21st century Alabama. Racism loses its effectiveness if the people it is meant to "keep in line" are unaware of it. A facade of politeness might be put on for the benefit of the powerful, who might not themselves all be racist and thus could cause problems, but it will rarely be put on for the benefit of the powerless. Burkion posted:Let me clarify exactly what my issue was, because I think that's been lost. Besides our main characters, I related to every single black person on screen. While I understand your point, you might want to think about why you phrase the situation as "literally every single person" when what you mean is "every single white person who isn't Graham or the Doctor," because I don't think you don't see the black people as people. Why, then, does the episode not "work" unless there's a white person in the period who is relatable? And would you expect a black child in 2019 Alabama to need a white person to relate to as an ally (besides the Doctor and Graham, who to my mind are plenty enough) or the episode doesn't work for that child? To your broader point, if I were a parent with a child watching this episode, I would want the conversation afterward to be "were things really that bad in the 50's" followed by me explaining that while not every white person was racist, racism was so institutionalized and pervasive that every single white person participated in it. There are plenty of people who were adults in the 50's and 60's you can talk to about that time. When my father worked in Baltimore in the 60s, he was in restaurants and at lunch counters when black protesters came in and sat down (illegally). Was he supporting a racist policy by eating at these institutions? Once these people (men, overwhelmingly) sat at the counter, what action could my father take that would support them? Is just sitting there quietly and doing nothing a tacit support for the racist law they were challenging? No 50 minute TV episode is going to get at these complex issues as well as a conversation can; the point is to trigger the conversations, not to render them unnecessary, because they ARE necessary even if Rosa had been a perfect episode of Doctor Who. And Rosa wasn't written or aimed at people who are thoughtlessly racist. It isn't pitched at the modern racist who will see himself on the screen and rethink the way he lives his life. And that is fine. Because I genuinely do not believe that such a person would change his behavior if confronted with it in a single Doctor Who episode. Just consider what I think is your likely reaction to the blowback to your initial comment (which, I am guessing, must include a certain level of offense at being perceived as a racist when you want to be an ally, and an inevitable amount of defensiveness, too). From your perspective, you want to have the conversation and you get attacked as a racist for trying to start it. But from another perspective, you could sound like the white moderate Archyduchess was just quoting MLK writing about. And for someone who might themselves have had the dogs set on them, phrasing like "literally every single person" sounds exactly like what they've had to live with every day of their lives. The episode is clearly pitched at younger people who don't know the history at all, and who will be provoked into doing their own research and starting their own conversations. You can't even make the facile point that "things are better now, though," if you're ignorant about how bad they were VERY RECENTLY. Given that there are now teenagers for whom anything that happened in the 20th century is "ancient history," what the episode was doing seems worthwhile and even praiseworthy, though we can certainly argue about whether it would have been wiser or more effective to target an older audience. Racism is complex, interwoven into everyone's lives, and covert mainly for the privileged. As privileged people engaging in a conversation about racism (or perhaps, direct action regarding it), we cannot afford to exempt ourselves from scrutiny. There's no switch inside your skull that gets flipped to "racist" as if it were an "on/off" variable. An initial step for people who are not the targets of racism needs to be a particular kind of awareness, and Rosa is a huge step forward for a show that has had fairly recent problems itself, ranging from Micky and Martha to the cringeworthy decision to have Twelve address Danny Pink as "P.E." I don't think we can have a conversation about the choices made in depicting racism in this one episode of the show without engaging more broadly with the program's own mixed record: I wasn't dismayed in watching that we didn't see a local white person who wasn't implicitly racist because I was too busy being relieved that the episode itself wasn't being unintentionally racist while trying to condemn racism. To address your point in another way: the episode was about Rosa and the effect of racism on her life, not about a waitress in a Southern town who wasn't herself racist but who had to keep her feelings bottled up because if she served a black man she would lose her job. There are interesting and worthwhile stories to tell about the effect of racism on white people. But it seems reasonable to let the show first tell a story (one innovative for this program) about the effect of racism on black people. Narsham fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Can we talk about how the newyears special is complete balls compared to eccie and Dalek instead? Considering the plot is super similar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Dalek is actually pretty bad in most of the scenes/plot. It's just that the good stuff is SO GOOD that it makes up for a lot of the other shortcomings. Resolution is a better episode overall/consistency wise, though it never hits the highs of Dalek. But then again it is always going to be difficult to make,"IT'S A DALEK!" hit as hard as that first appearance, considering there was some conjecture that the Daleks might end up not being part of the revival Doctor Who at all. Edit: Also I don't want to look like I'm trying to sidle away from the racism conversation, because it's really good and interesting and I think it was (or should have been) one of the goals of Rosa to actually generate some level of conversation among people about racism in both its overt and covert forms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Just saw the dumbest thing ever. Someone claiming that the ep "Rosa" was just pushing a "SJW agenda" because people weren't racist back then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
fist4jesus posted:Can we talk about how the newyears special is complete balls compared to eccie and Dalek instead? I don't even know if they are similar, really. The core element of 'a single Dalek turns up in a season devoid of them, wrecks poo poo, dies at the end' is there, but the episodes go in totally different directions with it. Dalek is a base under seige story that (rather literally) humanizes the Dalek, while Resolution is all about hunting this objective, undeniable monster down so they can stop it. Resolution has a lot of family and relationship-focused subplots with not much Doctor spotlight, Dalek is basically all about the Doctor processing that there's a living Dalek survivor of the Time War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Tangentially related, but that moment where all the Doctor's rage and hatred culminates in him breaking down and despairing,"They're all dead, Rose  " in what I believe is the first explicit demonstration of his utter grief/guilt is an incredible moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:I don't even know if they are similar, really. The core element of 'a single Dalek turns up in a season devoid of them, wrecks poo poo, dies at the end' is there, but the episodes go in totally different directions with it. Dalek is a base under seige story that (rather literally) humanizes the Dalek, while Resolution is all about hunting this objective, undeniable monster down so they can stop it. Resolution has a lot of family and relationship-focused subplots with not much Doctor spotlight, Dalek is basically all about the Doctor processing that there's a living Dalek survivor of the Time War. Dalek arrives on earth alone. Dalek is defeated and captured by humans. Humans contain Dalek. Doctor picks up a signal and arrives. Dalek escapes (I know I'm reaching here) Dalek rampage. Dr rallys, fights Dalek. Its sort of the same basic framework. But Resolution is just bad. Compare the doctors agony in Dalek, to resolutions where she is smirking and telling old mate, that she is the doctor. poo poo I think there is even a brexit joke in there, i'm sure that'll age well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Tangentially related, but that moment where all the Doctor's rage and hatred culminates in him breaking down and despairing,"They're all dead, Rose The whole Time War thing was teased out pretty slowly iirc. First episode mentions a war the Doctor fought in, second episode mentions that the Time Lords are all gone, then it's not until the sixth episode that we learn the Doctor deatroyed the Time Lords and Daleks together. I admire the patience
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Tangentially related, but that moment where all the Doctor's rage and hatred culminates in him breaking down and despairing,"They're all dead, Rose My biggest Doctor Who kokoro wish is to see Eccleston portray the Doctor just one more time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 09:39
|
|
|
fist4jesus posted:Dalek arrives on earth alone. Yeah, that's all sort of a base structural thing, rather than what most of the episodes actually focus on. You could probably deconstruct Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel and World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls similarly in a way that would make them sound similar, but I think most of us would disagree that they're alike outside of both being Cyberman origins. That is sort of an interesting way to look at it, that they're essentially totally different stories built from the same base skeleton of story beats, but I wouldn't decry one of them for being a worse version of the other because they're interested in such fundamentally different parts of that story. I wouldn't even necessarily say that comparing the two Doctors' reactions is called for, because it's actually a very different context they find themselves in; Nine didn't even know the Daleks could still be around, while Thirteen is abundantly aware of their presence and abilities. Selling it as 'smirking and saying she's The Doctor' is deliberately simplifying it, too, because she's clearly got two very different responses to it, being smirking and bombastic to the Dalek's face while taking it seriously behind its back, which I think is a unique approach to things among revival Doctors but is something Thirteen seems to have made a thing of (I think Eleven might've done it sometimes, but Thirteen's been doing it a lot). So simplifying it as only one of those two sides is kinda reductive. Also, the Brexit joke will age just fine, because they weren't specific about it so it won't date the episode much. The worst joke in the episode is the cut to the family with no internet, and that one will always be a groaner. Cleretic fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Yeah, that's all sort of a base structural thing, rather than what most of the episodes actually focus on. You could probably deconstruct Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel and World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls similarly in a way that would make them sound similar, but I think most of us would disagree that they're alike outside of both being Cyberman origins. alternatively; it's lazy bullshit writing for idiot british children from a disinterested and unmotivated showrunner. Jerusalem posted:Edit: Also I don't want to look like I'm trying to sidle away from the racism conversation, because it's really good and interesting and I think it was (or should have been) one of the goals of Rosa to actually generate some level of conversation among people about racism in both its overt and covert forms. *dean stockwell appears* "ziggy says there's a 98.99% chance the civil rights movement will never happen if rosa parks doesn't sit on that bus!" *the doctor looks in a shop window and sees the reflection of a racist space greaser* "oh boy!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Christ the bits with Nero running after his slave Barbara for just a little kiss haven’t aged well. Everyone having a good chuckle and the comedy music. Haha, yeah, that one is tough to watch. It's like one stage removed from her grabbing her boobs and it making a "honka-honka!" noise. I get where Burkion is coming from, that confronting more overt forms of racism or sexism is something writers frequently do to pat themselves on the backs instead of unpacking what racism really is, but I think Rosa is actually pretty good, and I went into it dreading that it would be cringeworthy. For one thing, the timing of it is good. Nevermind that people were very definitely that loudly racist in the streets back then, they've taken to being that loudly racist in the streets right now . People have been putting away their dogwhistles and breaking out their bullhorns in America. They also intentionally take a break for the characters to discuss their present-day experiences and acknowledge that things have gotten better, but there's still a long way to go, in a way that I think has subtlety and nuance. Plus the actual villain of the story is basically just United States Representative, Steve King, given a time travel kit. I get, but don't really agree with the idea that the episode is harmed by its characters forcing a specific event to occur, because it over-emphasizes false narratives about flashbulb moments in history (like, eh, sure, but that has universally been a thing for Doctor Who, and it's so that they can put the characters in historical situations without dealing with the "Why didn't you change it?" question - it's why Fixed Moments in Time is so vague as a concept), but the idea that Chibnall was doing a Whedonesque plea for cookies is wrongheaded IMO, if for no other reason than the co-wrote it with a black woman whose specialty is writing science fiction which explores racism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
The song at the end was over the top though, I admit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:The song at the end was over the top though, I admit. Yeah, that and the "check out this asteroid that was named Rosa Parks" moment were the only things that fell flat for me, and they're hardly the greatest television crimes ever committed by Doctor Who.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:co-wrote it with a black woman whose specialty is writing science fiction which explores racism. ...for children and young adults, the intended audience of doctor who.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DoctorWho_BBCA/status/1088164519229165569
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Tosin Cole looks unhappy. IS HE LEAVING THE SHOW?!?!?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
 Nowhere in the UK, judging by the weather.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Have they ever said if there will be a new years special next year? If so then I'm vaguely curious if they are filming it first (because it will be the next episode to air) or last (because festive specials are usually tagged onto the end of shooting the regular episodes) or somewhere in the middle (because they dont need to record poo poo in broadcast order).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Wait they're filming a brand new season this year but not releasing it until next year some time Why
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Wait they're filming a brand new season this year Post-production and editing: It's A Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Post-production and editing: It's A Thing. For that long though? Filming on Who doesn't take TOO long, you'd think they'd be able to start airing the new season late this year. If filming started some time in the summer, I could see it. It's still January. Is there a particular reason they're pushing off airing it all until next year?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Why, how long does filming take?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Really bummed I missed The Caves of Androzani on Twitch either late last night or early this morning. I've managed to watch every other regeneration episode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Selling it as 'smirking and saying she's The Doctor' is deliberately simplifying it, too Yeah, nah I dont think so. Lets compare: Resolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMcJx-Qz_aM To: Dalek. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIjUSzpYcuA Same basic elements. But in my opinion only the second works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Burkion posted:For that long though?  13 episode season + a special? Maybe? Hopefully?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
fist4jesus posted:Yeah, nah I dont think so. Fun how you ignored the actual point I was making that she treats it far differently to its face than behind its back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Edward Mass posted:Tosin Cole looks unhappy. IS HE LEAVING THE SHOW?!?!? "You know all that character development you got last season?" "Yeah?  ""Well this year it's Mandip's turn." "gently caress."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
He would be the best one to eliminate imo as Yaz hasn't had any of her potential touched on yet and Graham is the favourite, and also Tosin Cole is the worst actor of the four
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
I like him! I don't want him gone, I just think he (and Graham to be fair) got the bulk of the character work last season and I hope Yaz gets more next time. I mean, ideally they should ALL get a ton of character development.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
This is the year that EVERY Who companion learns to call Graham "grandad."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
IO9 has a nice write up on Big Finish for newbies in The Year of No TV Who: https://io9.gizmodo.com/there-has-never-been-a-better-time-to-start-listening-t-1831936544 And in the comments, the hottest of hot takes: quote:wl;akj I can't even tell what's real and what's parody anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
It's an extremely obvious troll but a bunch of people will take the bait.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
The sad thing is, if you swapped the genders that they're complaining about, I'd probably believe they were being genuine There's a lot of weird loving people
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:This is the year that EVERY Who companion learns to call Graham "grandad." Finally, Susan returns!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
So what was up with Demon's of the Punjab looking about 10 times better than any other episode of who, like that was some seriously stunning cinematography.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Catfishenfuego posted:So what was up with Demon's of the Punjab looking about 10 times better than any other episode of who, like that was some seriously stunning cinematography. Spain + Fresh DP, probably. Sam Heasman did that episode and the finale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Might just be as simple as the location making a huge difference 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 02:44
|
|