Post by Jon Pertwees Shameless Gurning on Feb 21, 2014 12:21:32 GMT -5
So, one of the most derided and divisive episodes of the Doctor Who revival (Series 2's 'Love and Monsters') is being reviewed on AVC this Sunday, and one of its most controversial scenes is a source of endless fascination for me, mainly due to the reactions many have to it. I intend to post the below to hopefully kick off some respectful conversation, but I'd like y'all's feedback here first. Any suggestions on how to tighten and clarify my argument, even if you may not agree?
If any non-DW fans choose to participate, some reference points. RTD is Russell T Davies, showrunner at the time and also the writer of this particular script. Elton and Ursula are the main protagonists for this episode only, and don't appear in the show again.
---
As a preface, I don’t wish to have this erupt into a flame war. I know folks have very strong feelings about the scene about to be discussed, and I’m not necessarily looking to change anyone’s mind. I do, however, want to examine why something that is so problematic for so many really isn’t for me as a disabled person.
So, Elton and Ursula have a love life post-disability. Big deal, right? Ursula has become disabled due to her face being preserved in a paving slab by the Doctor. It was all he could save from the Abzorbaloff and the rest of her body is gone. The fact both of her survival and her continued relationship w Elton is revealed in his final video diary entry that closes the episode. Overall, this is (or at least is meant to be) a poignant note to close out an otherwise zany show featuring Benny Hill runarounds, a spectacularly poorly executed monster, an amateur ELO tribute band/group of bumbling paranormal investigators as protagonists, and what amounts to basically a cameo appearance by the Doctor himself. All of this intended as a love letter to/sometimes cynical commentary on Doctor Who fandom. So, a lot going on here. Any attempt to wrap up such a unique script is going to be challenging, to say the least. And RTD throws in what is implied, and therefore assumed, to be a blowjob joke. Probably a better way to address Elton and Ursula’s continued intimacy, and I agree that the line itself is tonally jarring. But RTD wanted to throw in one more saucy joke, and so he did.
However, most critique of the ‘love life’ line seems to focus on the very fact of Elton and Ursula having a love life post-slab, rather than on it being a rather ill-timed and poorly conceived joke. I am uncomfortable w this line of critique, to say the least. It’s just not offensive at all for people with even severe disabilities to be sexually active. There’s nothing in the scene as played that implies or even hints that Ursula is without agency or otherwise does not consent to having a sex life w Elton, so implied accusations of rape seem to be off the mark. She is embarrassed that he brings the topic up, but to go from that to infer she’s being held against her will is a big reach. Another complaint is that any sex talk, even innuendo as in this case, has no place on a family show. I’d be more sensitive to that, but the content is hardly gratuitous, and I feel that the implication of disabled folks leading full lives is vitally important for young people to hear.
Anyway, that’s me off my soapbox. Even if you disagree, I hope some will at least entertain the notion that Elton and Ursula’s relationship is worth celebrating, rather than being repulsed by. They certainly deserve more than a questionably-written throwaway joke.
If any non-DW fans choose to participate, some reference points. RTD is Russell T Davies, showrunner at the time and also the writer of this particular script. Elton and Ursula are the main protagonists for this episode only, and don't appear in the show again.
---
As a preface, I don’t wish to have this erupt into a flame war. I know folks have very strong feelings about the scene about to be discussed, and I’m not necessarily looking to change anyone’s mind. I do, however, want to examine why something that is so problematic for so many really isn’t for me as a disabled person.
So, Elton and Ursula have a love life post-disability. Big deal, right? Ursula has become disabled due to her face being preserved in a paving slab by the Doctor. It was all he could save from the Abzorbaloff and the rest of her body is gone. The fact both of her survival and her continued relationship w Elton is revealed in his final video diary entry that closes the episode. Overall, this is (or at least is meant to be) a poignant note to close out an otherwise zany show featuring Benny Hill runarounds, a spectacularly poorly executed monster, an amateur ELO tribute band/group of bumbling paranormal investigators as protagonists, and what amounts to basically a cameo appearance by the Doctor himself. All of this intended as a love letter to/sometimes cynical commentary on Doctor Who fandom. So, a lot going on here. Any attempt to wrap up such a unique script is going to be challenging, to say the least. And RTD throws in what is implied, and therefore assumed, to be a blowjob joke. Probably a better way to address Elton and Ursula’s continued intimacy, and I agree that the line itself is tonally jarring. But RTD wanted to throw in one more saucy joke, and so he did.
However, most critique of the ‘love life’ line seems to focus on the very fact of Elton and Ursula having a love life post-slab, rather than on it being a rather ill-timed and poorly conceived joke. I am uncomfortable w this line of critique, to say the least. It’s just not offensive at all for people with even severe disabilities to be sexually active. There’s nothing in the scene as played that implies or even hints that Ursula is without agency or otherwise does not consent to having a sex life w Elton, so implied accusations of rape seem to be off the mark. She is embarrassed that he brings the topic up, but to go from that to infer she’s being held against her will is a big reach. Another complaint is that any sex talk, even innuendo as in this case, has no place on a family show. I’d be more sensitive to that, but the content is hardly gratuitous, and I feel that the implication of disabled folks leading full lives is vitally important for young people to hear.
Anyway, that’s me off my soapbox. Even if you disagree, I hope some will at least entertain the notion that Elton and Ursula’s relationship is worth celebrating, rather than being repulsed by. They certainly deserve more than a questionably-written throwaway joke.
