my mind always leaps sideways Regarding the nice, “sideways” thing, I have to comment: Although I agree with the main idea of what Moffat is saying -and he is trying to talk about diversity, so yes, different context, I get it and it is good- I disagree with details. Yes, I enforce Death of the Author whenever it suits me, sorry, I’m a total hypocrite:
1. I’d say it was not that bad a thing to cut: The plus is, we would have another connection to the beginning of the series if they had kept it in (but we do have quite enough already). However, this would be indeed a Doctor-y thing to do, and it is repeatedly shown in Hell Bent that he isn’t really, he shouldn’t be considered as his best self at the moment. At the very least, he’s not in the mood to show leniency. Exile by the Doctor shows “shit just got very real and it is serious”. 2. It is also good from a story-telling point of view (P.e. What is Missy doing on Skaro?): Implying the exile of both Rasillon and the High Council leaves a sequel hook. Will they somehow be dangerous? Seek revenge? Never re-appear but the *act* itself will affect the Doctor in some way, his P.R. for instance? You leave something open, you can do whatever you want with it in the future. 3. The cut moment wouldn’t necessarily show hypocrisy or internalized values the Doctor is trying to get rid off in my opinion –which, yes, sometimes is the case: A person can very well punish someone in a way that he/she personally wouldn’t consider a punishment if he/she knows how the other thinks, and the Doctor *has* done so in the past. And after all, in the whole history of the show, the Doctor has nonchalantly and even proudly done *millions* of things that a member of the Gallifreyan aristocracy would consider bad/humiliating/beneath them. 4. It matters how you frame things and the specific circumstances, *why* it would be a punishment. Specifically, I don’t think there is *any* worldview, no matter how liberal it is, which in a situation where a privileged, oligarchic and corrupt governing body which has been doing whatever it wanted for years, is deposed and forced to work –and in a job that, well, is universally considered unpopular- *wouldn’t* consider it a punishment, I don’t care if you are Che Guevara or King Whatever. I don’t know, I understand what Moffat would have been trying to do, but saying “OK, let’s see how *you* like being a part of the working class and not having ridiculous power” seems pretty neutral when it comes to values, who says it, and wouldn’t imply anything specific about the Doctor’s mindset besides “pissed off justice”. 5. I would agree about the Doctor “trying to be good”, but in the sense that he isn’t “one of them”: He has rejected their way of life; but also, he is usually *aware* that internalized aristocratic views occasionally show up and manages to overcome them by this point. 6. Finally, Moffat constantly goes back and forth on whether the Doctor is a good person and to what extent he is so. I understand that you want to show his beautiful duality but make up your mind! (That being said, I like his approach, he is *strict* with his characters, stricter than RTD certainly. We ain’t having no Protagonist-Centered Morality here. Sherlock Holmes is a great man, but he will become a good one). So, I would disagree with his “If he’s any kind of role model, it’s because he tries to be good, not because he already is” quote, because I do think that the Doctor already is an essentially good person, (I would count the moments in Series 9 alone but it’d take ages) even extremely so, a heroic one, but he fails, he has to constantly question himself, and he has to try to remain so, it is not always easy or rewarding for him to act this way. And yet he still is the Doctor. (And certainly a role model.)
“What is better: to be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?”
Re: Slowly Claps Because Normal Clapping Is Insufficient
Regarding the nice, “sideways” thing, I have to comment:
Although I agree with the main idea of what Moffat is saying -and he is trying to talk about diversity, so yes, different context, I get it and it is good- I disagree with details. Yes, I enforce Death of the Author whenever it suits me, sorry, I’m a total hypocrite:
1. I’d say it was not that bad a thing to cut: The plus is, we would have another connection to the beginning of the series if they had kept it in (but we do have quite enough already). However, this would be indeed a Doctor-y thing to do, and it is repeatedly shown in Hell Bent that he isn’t really, he shouldn’t be considered as his best self at the moment. At the very least, he’s not in the mood to show leniency. Exile by the Doctor shows “shit just got very real and it is serious”.
2. It is also good from a story-telling point of view (P.e. What is Missy doing on Skaro?): Implying the exile of both Rasillon and the High Council leaves a sequel hook. Will they somehow be dangerous? Seek revenge? Never re-appear but the *act* itself will affect the Doctor in some way, his P.R. for instance? You leave something open, you can do whatever you want with it in the future.
3. The cut moment wouldn’t necessarily show hypocrisy or internalized values the Doctor is trying to get rid off in my opinion –which, yes, sometimes is the case: A person can very well punish someone in a way that he/she personally wouldn’t consider a punishment if he/she knows how the other thinks, and the Doctor *has* done so in the past. And after all, in the whole history of the show, the Doctor has nonchalantly and even proudly done *millions* of things that a member of the Gallifreyan aristocracy would consider bad/humiliating/beneath them.
4. It matters how you frame things and the specific circumstances, *why* it would be a punishment. Specifically, I don’t think there is *any* worldview, no matter how liberal it is, which in a situation where a privileged, oligarchic and corrupt governing body which has been doing whatever it wanted for years, is deposed and forced to work –and in a job that, well, is universally considered unpopular- *wouldn’t* consider it a punishment, I don’t care if you are Che Guevara or King Whatever. I don’t know, I understand what Moffat would have been trying to do, but saying “OK, let’s see how *you* like being a part of the working class and not having ridiculous power” seems pretty neutral when it comes to values, who says it, and wouldn’t imply anything specific about the Doctor’s mindset besides “pissed off justice”.
5. I would agree about the Doctor “trying to be good”, but in the sense that he isn’t “one of them”: He has rejected their way of life; but also, he is usually *aware* that internalized aristocratic views occasionally show up and manages to overcome them by this point.
6. Finally, Moffat constantly goes back and forth on whether the Doctor is a good person and to what extent he is so. I understand that you want to show his beautiful duality but make up your mind! (That being said, I like his approach, he is *strict* with his characters, stricter than RTD certainly. We ain’t having no Protagonist-Centered Morality here. Sherlock Holmes is a great man, but he will become a good one).
So, I would disagree with his “If he’s any kind of role model, it’s because he tries to be good, not because he already is” quote, because I do think that the Doctor already is an essentially good person, (I would count the moments in Series 9 alone but it’d take ages) even extremely so, a heroic one, but he fails, he has to constantly question himself, and he has to try to remain so, it is not always easy or rewarding for him to act this way. And yet he still is the Doctor. (And certainly a role model.)
“What is better: to be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?”