I’m worried about this…but not
for the reason you think.
Sooo…a woman.
I think it’s pretty clear that
this was going to happen. The build up to it has been “hinted” throughout the
latter stages of series 10, with all the subtly of a club hammer.
In terms of Doctor Who’s
survival, this change up would seem a logical step in the right direction. However,
I remain pessimistic about the likelihood of it’s success.
And it has nothing to do with
Jodie Whittaker.
My issue is with Chris
Chibnall. Frankly, I have found most of his Who episodes to date…well…boring.
I’ve reviewed most of them and the common theme is that he doesn’t have an eye
for filler. Say what you will about Moffat, but at least his chit-chat and
somewhat glib humour give you something to watch. Chibnall has never really
been able to balance the action side of Doctor Who and the talky side of Doctor
Who.
The other massive issue I have
with him comes from his other work. I consider series 1 of Broadchurch amongst
some of the best drama of the last 10 years. However it’s two sequels…well
let’s just say I kind of felt like I missed the timeframe for reviewing them,
but this seems like a good opportunity. Series 2 completely removes the suspension of
disbelief with a courtroom scene in which a judge orders a jury not to consider
someone’s confession. Evidence in a criminal trial is subject to a pre-trial
hearing so if defence had an issue with a confession they would have had to
raise it prior to the trial. The judge would then decide if the confession was
admissible as evidence. If the judge agreed with defence, the jury would never
hear about the confession so it couldn’t prejudice their view at all. What does
this have to do with Doctor Who?
Well if Chibnall is willing to
throw both legal research and common sense out the window in the name of drama,
how bad is it going to get when he’s working with a time travelling phone box?
Moving on to series 3 of
Broadchurch…well…let’s discuss sexual crimes…I mean let’s discuss all of them.
That’s what Chibnall tried to do with this series, to disastrous effect I might
add.
The series follows the story
of a character who’s been the victim of rape and then tries to build subplots
around other characters who are either involved in or victims of other sexual
crimes. The fact that DI Hardy’s daughter just so happens to be one of these
victims seems too coincidental to be believed. Linking obtaining violent
pornography to committing sexual crimes is a significant oversimplification of
the issue. And most importantly, dotting those elements around the periphery of
the main story doesn’t allow enough time to develop any of them. The issue of
consent (that has become the centre of a national discussion) is what was at play
in this series. The idea is that someone who would steal a nude photo of
another person and distribute it has the same attitude towards consent as a
rapist. This is, however, never explored by Chibnall (or any of the writers), as
there simply isn’t enough time.
This is a problem. The BBC
likes to use Doctor Who as a vessel for morals as well as entertainment. A head
writer who likes to shove as many lessons onto the screen as possible and not
leave enough time to explain any of them just isn’t going to work.
This becomes distinctly
important, when you consider that Chibnall is invariably going to have to deal
with issues of misogyny and women’s rights. I personally don’t think that
Chibnall is up to the task.
His work on Who has shown a
lack of ability to hold the audiences’ attention and his work on Broadchurch
has shown a lack of longevity to his story arcs.
When doing something as
radical as changing the Doctor into a woman (a move that will alienate a chunk
of the audience) the show needs a head writer who can handle it. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not Chris
Chibnall.
Jodie Whittaker will have to
be judged (as all who’ve played the Doctor) on her performance. But even the
best actor in the world can’t work in a part if the writing isn’t good enough.
