Skip to main content

Why all the Missy Hate?

             
             Doctor Who’s coming back! And like any Whovian I am excited! The trailers look great! Zygons! Maisie Williams! More Peter Capaldi! But there’s one thing in that trailer as well as last series that seems to have fans divided down the middle: no not Clara the character it should be, but Missy. Yeah, one of the break-out characters of last series has attracted a lot of detractors. People say she’s an insult to the legacy of Doctor Who and many are declaring they aren’t going to watch the show anymore. Wow! Is she really that bad? What’s with all the Missy hate?
                Now here’s where I get into SPOILERS for series eight of Doctor Who. Missy played by Michelle Gomez was a character who popped up a number of times throughout the series usually at the end of an episode as a teaser. In a way it became another of the show’s series arcs. In the finale it was revealed that Missy is in fact the latest incarnation of the Master (though the name ‘Missy’ did kind of give it away)! This was a pretty significant reveal as we hadn’t seen the Doctor’s fellow Time Lord nemesis in four years; and it led to an uproar in some parts of the fan community not at all pleased that one of the show’s most iconic villains was now a woman! They seem to think it’s a betrayal of the legacy of the Master, that it was just a stunt, and that it’s ruined the show for them. Many supporters of this version of the character see this backlash as sexism. Why is this such an issue? Why is it such a terrible thing that the Master is a woman?
                Well let me tell you, it’s not! -leaving it even more unfeasible for me to get behind or understand peoples’ problems with the character. So I’m going to break down why these complaints don’t hold water. The big one being that making the Master a woman betrays the legacy of the character. And I have to ask…what legacy? When Roger Delgaldo originated the role in 1971 he did a magnificent job playing a Machiavellian Moriarty to Jon Pertwee’s Doctor. The two sharing the screen was the best part of almost any episode and many would agree Delgaldo was the best incarnation of the character. But after that, we got a Walking Dead incarnation played by Peter Pratt and then Geoffrey Beevers who the writers had no idea how to use. He was followed by Anthony Ainley who let’s face it, was a terrible Master. He was enjoyably terrible, but his hamminess went through the roof and removed any iota of legitimate threat from the character. Eric Roberts’ version in the television movie was even worse! Hell when John Simm came into the fray we were just glad to have a decent Master again. He borrowed a sizeable chunk of Ainley’s camp but was also a distinctly interesting character with an expanded backstory and madness. But he did suffer from Heath Ledger-Joker syndrome of the smart dangerous sociopath (which I kinda think Moriarty in Sherlock is trying to capture too) and more than a few times it got cartoonish (particularly in “The End of Time”). So by the time Michelle Gomez and Missy came along we had more bad Masters than not, so it’s not exactly a great legacy and certainly one that’s been trodden on worse before. Others have suggested Missy should have wound up being the Rani another Time Lord villain from years ago played by Kate O’Mara. And the Rani a scientist with no conscious, was an interesting idea…in theory. In practice she too was a campy villain who literally dressed up as the Doctor’s companion as part of her evil plan. And maybe the character would be worth a revisit, but certainly didn’t leave enough of an impression to do so. I’d probably have just preferred an original character over the Rani to be honest.
                Some people complain that it’s not the fact she’s a woman but rather it’s her personality. Primarily her flirtatious relationship with the Doctor that we saw in “Death in Heaven”. But what people are forgetting or just not willing to admit, is that there has always been a slight homoeroticism between the two characters. If you look back on some of those scenes between Pertwee and Delgaldo (not to mention Pertwee’s outfit and Delgaldo’s somewhat prissy attitude) which with slightly different dialogue and a change of scenery would be similar to the gentlemanly discussions in Oscar Wilde stories. Even in “The Last of the Time Lords” we see that there are multiple dimensions to the relationship between the Doctor and Master (don’t forget the Master’s “death” scene). It’s always been there, all that Missy has done is bring it slightly more to the surface. There’s never going to be any action on it, it’s just making a subtle homoeroticism heterosexual (in fact maybe the LGBT community should be making a fuss). Her flirtations and seductions are merely a new weapon she uses.
                Was the Master becoming a woman merely a stunt? Well kind of. There was a lot of talk before Capaldi was cast that there should be an ethnic actor or woman in the role to make it more diverse. Even though to do that just for the sake of it would be a bad way to cast the Doctor. And there’s already been a lot of diversity in the supporting cast. Nonetheless there were still naysayers when Capaldi was cast so in a way it is obvious Steven Moffat went for a woman when casting the Master. But while it was a gimmick I think it paid off. Yeah Missy does retain a bit of the hamminess that I guess has become a part of the character now and at times her more forward flirtations do give me unpleasant recollections of River Song (did you hear she’s coming back? Oh joy…), but she’s a very charismatic, entertaining, and intimidating Master. She’s got a great look for the part, being not only menacing and insane but actually frightening with her wicked smile and upturned eyebrow. I think she comes closest to Delgaldo’s Master than any of the other successors in terms of sheer screen presence while at the same time standing out on her own.
                But there are still people who think that the Master shouldn’t be a woman despite decades of continuity supporting the idea that Time Lords can switch gender (Moffat even did it before in Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death which every Whovian should see!). There are people who think making the Master a woman removes all menace in the character which is frankly insulting. Not only because again the character hasn’t had much menace in a long time; but also because there are plenty of menacing female villains in the history of television and film. Cruella de Vil, Annie Wilkes, Azula, Jane Hudson, etc.; certainly it’s possible that Missy could join these ranks. If the writers take her in the right direction. I’m looking forward to her reappearance and to series nine. And to those that say the show is ruined with a female Master, they’re too resistant to change to be fans of a show that’s all about it!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...