|
|
Post by martinw8686 on Mar 12, 2023 0:02:16 GMT
I'm just pondering how I feel about myself watching this serial in the future.
I adore Doctor Who, times have changed drastically for the better, in terms of attitudes to women, race, sexuality and many other marginalised and discriminated against groups.
I don't know much about the views of the team making the show between 63 and 89, I have to hope that outdated stereotypes and a fairly white male dominated cast/characters (as with much television at the time) was the product of ignorance rather than malicious views.
I wonder at the time whether Doctor Who was viewed as progressive compared to fiction from 60 years before. I wonder if fiction from 2023 will be viewed as problematic in 2083.
As a younger man I could watch Talons with the understanding that this was made in a different time, I pushed the yellow face and negative stereotypes to the back of my mind and focused on the good parts of the story.
I abhore racism, discrimination and intolerance, as I'm sure we all do. The older and hopefully wiser I get, the more I just want to do my best to be peaceful, inclusive and kind. In an earlier post, I tried to promote the good qualities of Talons, upon reflection I suppose it's ultimately up to those affected by the characters depicted, will they see the story in the context of a 70s television production or will they feel that continued viewing of the episodes validates the views of the racist.
In the end, I suppose time will tell, its good we're reflecting on these issues. Those that don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 12, 2023 0:31:13 GMT
Of course we shouldn't ascribe malice to that which can be explained by, well, ignorance (I don't think Holmes wrote this with an anti-Chinese agenda in mind, more just a byproduct that doing a pastiche of Victorian mystery literature was going to absorb some of those attitudes. Fun as it is, Talons is certainly not a reflexive or pensive story about where its tropes come from or why they dominated the genre for so long).
It ties back to something I remarked on back during the other dust up about the serial - people are not always good at separating their nostalgia from criticism. A criticism of Talons then reads, and I did see this happen then, as somehow an attack on the child selves of Talons fans for liking the story. As if kid-you was part of some deliberate attack on a minority when no, acknowledging the dodgy parts of Talons isn't making a judgement call on when you didn't know better. It's not a moral failing to like something as a little'un. 'Talons is a great story' and 'Talons is problematic, even in the 70s' are not contradictory statements - they can be one and the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kestrel on Mar 17, 2023 5:23:16 GMT
I think it will be marketed less as a classic and just as an unfortunate misstep, much like apologists have been trying to do with D. W. Griffiths Birth Of A Nation. You can counter the racism as being a deliberate attempt at highlighting the poor attitudes of the Victorian era, but the blatant “yellow face” really does take a lot of that away from it. Honestly though, Art goes out of favour and isn’t regarded as essential/vital all the time. Most work is forgotten because it doesn’t speak to people for long enough. The example I always use is The Honeymooners: it was ridiculously popular on transmission in the 1950s and in repeats, and the dialogue and plots stayed in the vernacular much in the way that I Love Lucy had. By the late 70s/early 80s it had just become part of the background furniture of television. However, after Back To The Future made a reference to it, people started looking at it closely again, and a remake was even mooted. But attitudes had changed and lines like “One of these days, Alice… POW! Right to the moon.” were just not funny any more. And it faded into obscurity. Talons is a great piece of television but it was produced in a way that has become horribly dated in some ways. I think that it will some day be regarded as a flawed classic and as a textbook case of how society has changed. The trouble with long-form television is that no matter how well-regarded a show can be, you always have to look at the whole of it and that includes the low points. You can look at some great pieces of progressive, thoughtful work - like the bulk of the Pertwee era which attempted a lot of nuance that didn’t always come off - but you also have to look at some technically brilliant pieces that just don’t carry the same weight that they once did. Trek has to do the same with episodes like Turnabout Intruder or Angel One or Code Of Honor which don’t carry the same message as the rest of the show tries to. Great Art will always survive. Lesser work can hang on as a curiosity if the bulk of what it’s attached to is good enough. Otherwise, it just withers and dies and gets forgotten about except as a footnote. If the cost of a better, more equitable society is that we don’t think as highly of things that we used to like, I’m happy to pay that price. When I got to Talons in my Classic Who watch-through, I stopped watching it pretty early on. I didn't know it was a "classic" and just got immediately turned off by the overt racism. And since, I've never heard anything that makes me think I ought to reconsider it. It felt a lot like the (very) racist stories that'd crop up from time to time in the Sherlock Homes stories, and in both cases I think the sheer quantity of media that avoids those racist tropes makes it very easy to discard those that don't. Which is to say: I think that Tom Baker's tenure as the Doctor is no better for Talons' presence than it would be worse for its absence. |
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Mar 17, 2023 8:07:19 GMT
The thing with the times is they are always changing and often they are a reaction against the preceding times; a new generation seeking to reinvent the wheel, etc. Who knows as the generations that grew up finding Talons acceptable, as I do, begin to drop off and the newer generations finally get behind the wheel of Doctor Who, what the attitudes will be. We always act like the current attitude will always be the permanent one.
I don't have a problem with 'yellow face' in itself. At the end of the day the process is called acting and it's all make believe. I also believe that John Bennett's performance as Mr Chang is wonderful and the racism in the story is countered very well. The much lamented 'we all look the same' scene is uttered with the contempt intended for instance. Holmes was always one step ahead than the rest of us and even now his work continues to confuse people.
I've said this before at the end of the day it's called acting and I don't have a problem with black actors playing white roles and vice versa. I guess I'm one of those people who thinks it helps us to understand each other better, rather than a tool of division. But as for long term acclaim don't forget we are watching a series that was initially never made with that in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 17, 2023 9:52:15 GMT
So I'm not going to tell other members what they are and aren't allowed to like - different opinions yadda yadda. If I can raise a counterpoint here, there is a difference between raceblind casting and then the practice of racewashing, like yellowface, blackface, brownface etc. Aside from historically the latter being used to deny actors from those groups work (who was the most, if not only, major Asian actor until Bruce Lee in the West? Sessue Hayakawa. Otherwise, you had guys like Karloff, Lorre, Rooney and others paint up), but also it was most frequently used in comical performances, meaning it was a tool for derogatory, demeaning comedy. There was nothing about it intended to promote any sort of empathy or understanding, it was simply to laugh at people for just 'not being like us (i.e. a then white majority audience)'. Need I bring up the minstrel shows of Vaudeville too?
|
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Mar 17, 2023 11:57:22 GMT
So I'm not going to tell other members what they are and aren't allowed to like - different opinions yadda yadda. If I can raise a counterpoint here, there is a difference between raceblind casting and then the practice of racewashing, like yellowface, blackface, brownface etc. Aside from historically the latter being used to deny actors from those groups work (who was the most, if not only, major Asian actor until Bruce Lee in the West? Sessue Hayakawa. Otherwise, you had guys like Karloff, Lorre, Rooney and others paint up), but also it was most frequently used in comical performances, meaning it was a tool for derogatory, demeaning comedy. There was nothing about it intended to promote any sort of empathy or understanding, it was simply to laugh at people for just 'not being like us (i.e. a then white majority audience)'. Need I bring up the minstrel shows of Vaudeville too? Yes, and that is a significant difference. I'm not laughing at Chang or John Bennett's portrayal or the writing. By his death scene Chang is even quite sympathetic in spite of the evil that he has committed in the service of his God. At the same time I acknowledge there were plenty of Chinese actors around and that can't be swept under the carpet so easily. In Doctor Who I struggle to think of a non-white character played by a white actor that was done for comic effect, especially in an attempt to demean the race/creed or ethnic background. And, for the record, not that you or anyone suggested otherwise, I am not a fan of racist humour unless it's humour that pokes fun at racists. Characters like Alf Garnet, Rigsby, Basil Fawlty and even the great Del Boy have muddied those lines on occasion but they all come a cropper as a result of it. It's funny to think I'm more aware of it now despite growing up with George A Romero movies, Red Dwarf, Lenny Henry, Only Fools and Horses, and many other things and being indifferent to the colour of the actors/actresses on the screen. |
|
|
|
Post by martinw8686 on Mar 17, 2023 16:23:38 GMT
I wonder how many other Doctor Who episodes spring to mind that are problematic, in terms of racism, sexism and other outdated views.
Certainly The Dalek Master Plan and Tomb of the Cybermen.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Mar 17, 2023 16:55:14 GMT
So I'm not going to tell other members what they are and aren't allowed to like - different opinions yadda yadda. If I can raise a counterpoint here, there is a difference between raceblind casting and then the practice of racewashing, like yellowface, blackface, brownface etc. Aside from historically the latter being used to deny actors from those groups work (who was the most, if not only, major Asian actor until Bruce Lee in the West? Sessue Hayakawa. Otherwise, you had guys like Karloff, Lorre, Rooney and others paint up), but also it was most frequently used in comical performances, meaning it was a tool for derogatory, demeaning comedy. There was nothing about it intended to promote any sort of empathy or understanding, it was simply to laugh at people for just 'not being like us (i.e. a then white majority audience)'. Need I bring up the minstrel shows of Vaudeville too? Should racewashing be a practice now ? No Should Content that employed it still be available to view? Yes Should an Possible cause of Offence Warning be attached? Yes Regards mark687 |
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Apr 27, 2023 17:17:26 GMT
DWM are currently in the process of doing a 60 Year poll and the Pertwee and Baker T eras are this month’s topics; I’m fascinated to see how they do. Talons went down two spots from third to fifth place, with its lowest average score to date. Keeping in mind its placement now is against only other Fourth Doctor stories, not the rest of the televised run. So from the third best Doctor Who story ever, as of The Time of the Doctor, to the fifth best story of the Fourth Doctor era. Only the top three stories of each Doctor will make it through the next round, so that’s Talons out. What I thought was interesting is that, generally speaking, the Hinchcliffe era either remained the same or got a lower placement. Planet of Evil and The Masque of Mandragora took substantial drops. I think that reinforces the generational comment I made in my original post. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jul 2, 2023 9:59:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jul 2, 2023 10:57:11 GMT
An interesting conversation; thanks for sharing. His comments on Demons are interesting too. It’s a fair point about it being easier to set supernatural stories in settings the audience is already familiar with. |
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on Jul 2, 2023 11:45:12 GMT
the practice of racewashing, like yellowface, blackface, brownface etc. Aside from historically the latter being used to deny actors from those groups work (who was the most, if not only, major Asian actor until Bruce Lee in the West? Sessue Hayakawa. Otherwise, you had guys like Karloff, Lorre, Rooney and others paint up)
I've asked the question in the past, and never had a satisfactory answer - what were the demographics of available ethnic-minority actors available to be cast? One thing I've noticed in television of the 1960s and thenabouts, actresses tended to be (at least approximately) race-appropriate, it was only actors who were made up. I'm cautious about presuming the existence of a string of Indian and Chinese actors being turned away from auditions if nobody can indicate that this actually happened. Particularly when one of the actors listed in nucleusofswarm's post was Boris Karloff, whom I seem to recall was genuinely mixed-race. (I've also read that Peter Lorre used little if no makeup to play Mr Moto, but I'm not sure how reliable that is and I doubt it makes any difference)
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677 
|
Post by shutupbanks on Jul 2, 2023 11:52:37 GMT
Interesting conversation. I rewatched Temple a few months back and I found that it was my least favourite of the films because it doesn’t have same sense of wonder and fun as Raiders. Willie is written and treated terribly. And it was also terribly racist, but I wondered at the time if it would have spoken about colonialism the way that Vinay Patel talks about here if we hadn’t gotten Gandhi a couple of years previously. Talons is at least entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jul 2, 2023 14:24:13 GMT
the practice of racewashing, like yellowface, blackface, brownface etc. Aside from historically the latter being used to deny actors from those groups work (who was the most, if not only, major Asian actor until Bruce Lee in the West? Sessue Hayakawa. Otherwise, you had guys like Karloff, Lorre, Rooney and others paint up) I've asked the question in the past, and never had a satisfactory answer - what were the demographics of available ethnic-minority actors available to be cast? One thing I've noticed in television of the 1960s and thenabouts, actresses tended to be (at least approximately) race-appropriate, it was only actors who were made up. I'm cautious about presuming the existence of a string of Indian and Chinese actors being turned away from auditions if nobody can indicate that this actually happened. Particularly when one of the actors listed in nucleusofswarm's post was Boris Karloff, whom I seem to recall was genuinely mixed-race. (I've also read that Peter Lorre used little if no makeup to play Mr Moto, but I'm not sure how reliable that is and I doubt it makes any difference) This is certainly a valid question, and while I can't provide one definitive answer because it is such a dense one (loaded with questions about discussion-framing and prejudices, which impact the answer given), here's an article from Teen Vogue (not the height of scholarship, I grant, but still) from when Ghost in the Shell came out. Not only is it surprisingly comprehensive, it does provide a bunch of references and sources pertaining to the history of yellowface, and the opportunities for Asian actors in American cinema, including why they might've struggled with or been denied work that ended going to painted up white actors: www.teenvogue.com/story/yellowface-whitewashing-history
At the very least, that may provide a springboard for where to look further.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,818
|
Post by lidar2 on Jul 3, 2023 13:02:40 GMT
DWM are currently in the process of doing a 60 Year poll and the Pertwee and Baker T eras are this month’s topics; I’m fascinated to see how they do. Talons went down two spots from third to fifth place, with its lowest average score to date. Keeping in mind its placement now is against only other Fourth Doctor stories, not the rest of the televised run. So from the third best Doctor Who story ever, as of The Time of the Doctor, to the fifth best story of the Fourth Doctor era. Only the top three stories of each Doctor will make it through the next round, so that’s Talons out. What I thought was interesting is that, generally speaking, the Hinchcliffe era either remained the same or got a lower placement. Planet of Evil and The Masque of Mandragora took substantial drops. I think that reinforces the generational comment I made in my original post. One thing I've always noticed in these DWM polls is that more recent stories/characters always do disproportionately well and then tend to slip a bit down the rankings as time passes, e.g. Sylvester McCoy performing so well in the DWM 1989 favourite Doctor poll. Whatever other biases and prejudices there might be at play, there is a definite prejudice in favour of more recent stuff vs older stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by shallacatop on Jul 3, 2023 13:57:46 GMT
Talons went down two spots from third to fifth place, with its lowest average score to date. Keeping in mind its placement now is against only other Fourth Doctor stories, not the rest of the televised run. So from the third best Doctor Who story ever, as of The Time of the Doctor, to the fifth best story of the Fourth Doctor era. Only the top three stories of each Doctor will make it through the next round, so that’s Talons out. What I thought was interesting is that, generally speaking, the Hinchcliffe era either remained the same or got a lower placement. Planet of Evil and The Masque of Mandragora took substantial drops. I think that reinforces the generational comment I made in my original post. One thing I've always noticed in these DWM polls is that more recent stories/characters always do disproportionately well and then tend to slip a bit down the rankings as time passes, e.g. Sylvester McCoy performing so well in the DWM 1989 favourite Doctor poll. Whatever other biases and prejudices there might be at play, there is a definite prejudice in favour of more recent stuff vs older stuff. The key difference with the DWM polls this year is that the stories are not competing against every other story in the show. They’re being done on a Doctor by Doctor basis. Only the top three from each Doctor will move forward to a final ranking. Whilst I agree that generally more recent stories fare better, this doesn’t apply this time round, which is what my post was referring to. Talons won’t even be making it through to compete with stories from the other Doctors this time. |
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jul 3, 2023 14:02:09 GMT
Talons went down two spots from third to fifth place, with its lowest average score to date. Keeping in mind its placement now is against only other Fourth Doctor stories, not the rest of the televised run. So from the third best Doctor Who story ever, as of The Time of the Doctor, to the fifth best story of the Fourth Doctor era. Only the top three stories of each Doctor will make it through the next round, so that’s Talons out. What I thought was interesting is that, generally speaking, the Hinchcliffe era either remained the same or got a lower placement. Planet of Evil and The Masque of Mandragora took substantial drops. I think that reinforces the generational comment I made in my original post. One thing I've always noticed in these DWM polls is that more recent stories/characters always do disproportionately well and then tend to slip a bit down the rankings as time passes, e.g. Sylvester McCoy performing so well in the DWM 1989 favourite Doctor poll. Whatever other biases and prejudices there might be at play, there is a definite prejudice in favour of more recent stuff vs older stuff. Interestingly the recency bias has been impacting older classic series stuff too in most recent polls. Stories which have got the Collection set treatment do seem to have got a little boost in places. Though I don’t think any of the Top 3s has been a shock yet (though I was surprised by Dalek Invasion outright winning First Doc poll). |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Nov 7, 2023 20:05:53 GMT
Having a look on iPlayer, seems like the Beeb just put the episodes up, straight. No sort of disclaimer in the description box or Looney Tunes-style 'This was made in another time, different attitudes etc etc.' card at the front.
Not making a judgement call one way or another, just surprised given how much they're now leaning into accessibility and brand unity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2023 21:49:11 GMT
Having a look on iPlayer, seems like the Beeb just put the episodes up, straight. No sort of disclaimer in the description box or Looney Tunes-style 'This was made in another time, different attitudes etc etc.' card at the front. Not making a judgement call one way or another, just surprised given how much they're now leaning into accessibility and brand unity. Not sure how you missed this in the description box. "Vintage sci fi taking us on adventures in time and space, reflecting the broadcast standards and attitudes of its time" That line is on a bunch of eps that have issues. Even Troughton playing Hispanic as Salamander in Enemy Of The World. Or The Crusade's surviving eps. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Nov 7, 2023 22:38:31 GMT
Having a look on iPlayer, seems like the Beeb just put the episodes up, straight. No sort of disclaimer in the description box or Looney Tunes-style 'This was made in another time, different attitudes etc etc.' card at the front. Not making a judgement call one way or another, just surprised given how much they're now leaning into accessibility and brand unity. Not sure how you missed this in the description box. "Vintage sci fi taking us on adventures in time and space, reflecting the broadcast standards and attitudes of its time" That line is on a bunch of eps that have issues. Even Troughton playing Hispanic as Salamander in Enemy Of The World. Or The Crusade's surviving eps. Ah my mistake. How did I miss that (possibly skimming or the box didn't open right)? |
|
