In early Oct., the 11th series of
“Doctor Who,” a sci-fi thriller with
a cult-like following, premiered.
Everything seemed on par with
a typical season — the quirky
Doctor, the shocked bystanders, the
impending doom from beyond — but
there was one apparent difference.
For the first time in the 55-year run
of the show (which includes a much
needed hiatus from 1989 to 2005),
the witty, beloved Doctor is being
played by a woman.
For
those
unfamiliar
with
“Doctor Who,” here’s a quick crash
course: The Doctor is an alien time
lord that regenerates a new body
every time the current one is too
severely damaged to be healed
normally. There have been 13
Doctors in the history of the show,
starting with the original Doctor,
William Hartnell (“To Have and
to Hold”) in 1963 and culminating
in the reveal of Jodie Whittaker
(“Trust Me”) as the thirteenth
Doctor in 2017.
The show doesn’t shy away
from its controversy — it leans into
it. When a character informs the
Doctor that she is a woman, she’s
shocked. “Am I?” she replies, “Does
it suit me?” Later, the Doctor is
talking with a young female police
officer who is reluctant to report
the show’s bizarre incident to her
boss. The Doctor tells her, “You’re
worried about how you’ll explain all
this to a superior officer who won’t
believe you.” It’s a clear shoutout to
the #MeToo movement and the lack
of credibility given to a woman’s
voice. Coming from a male Doctor
the statement wouldn’t carry much
weight, but the conscious choice of
having a female Doctor, knowing
the public repercussions, gives the
words a level of power.
It’s a decision that for many
was long overdue. The past few
years have seen a renaissance of
female representation, with iconic
movies like “Ghostbusters” and
the “Ocean’s” franchise being
remade with all-female casts. And
for a show that stands strong at the
center of nerd-culture television,
having a woman in the lead role
would be a welcome departure
from the constant stream of men
as leaders and women as their ditzy
or weaker sidekicks (“Big Bang
Theory” binge-session anyone?).
Or
maybe
not.
The
announcement of Whittaker as the
doctor was met with an avalanche
of responses from the public, and
an unfortunate amount of them
were negative. Most were overtly
sexist, as viewers seemed able
to conceptualize a two-hearted,
time-traveling humanoid alien but
not the fact that a woman can play
that role. The backlash escalated to
the point where BBC had to issue a
statement justifying their decision
to cast Whittaker.
It’s not revolutionary to declare
that nerd culture is ridden with
misogyny.
There
is
TEDtalk
after
thinkpiece
after
op-ed
that addresses this issue. But as
more women are represented in
strong leading roles, it’s becoming
painfully apparent that this vicious
behavior and sexism is not isolated.
The shouts of boycotts and entitled
“how-dare-yous”
have
been
prevalent against strong female
leads long before “Doctor Who”
had the audacity to put a talented
woman on screen. When Glenn
Close (“The Simpsons”) played
a hard-hitting attorney on FX’s
“Damages,” her character was
called a liar, backstabber and — a
fan-favorite — a bitch. The premiere
of “Wonder Woman” in 2017 and
subsequent all-female screenings
left many men calling unfairness
and reverse sexism. If the focus
is on a woman, particularly an
independent and powerful one,
backlash is practically inevitable.
There is a consistent similarity
between the media that garners
backlash: They all originally started
with males, and have replaced
those men with women. This is
where the unacceptance is born.
Men and women alike harbor
misogyny that tells them a woman
could never fill the shoes of man. It’s
a sentiment that carries real-world
consequences beyond potentially
ruining a TV show for close-
minded individuals. Just look at
Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential
campaign. Or the fact that women
make up only 5 percent of Fortune
500 CEOs. There is a widely held
sentiment that women can not
do the job of a man, and this has
detrimental effects on everything
from our politics to our media.
So how do we fix this? While
we’ve made a lot of progress,
there are clear indicators that the
problem of sexism still remains.
There is no easy answer to this,
but I have a simple suggestion:
Keep making people angry. I
want 100 more Jodie Whittaker’s
taking roles that used to belong
to men. I want a female remake
of “Die Hard” and “Superbad”
and all three installations of “The
Godfather.” I want women of all
body types, races and identities to
saturate our media until the people
who hate them have nothing left
to watch. With every disgruntled
viewer a show loses, there are 10
little girls feeling empowered and
excitedly pointing at the screen
because they see someone that
looks just like them in their favorite
show. They are our future. Let’s not
let them down.
New ‘Doctor’ exposes the
fandom’s latent sexism
SAMANTHA DELLA FERA
Daily Arts Writer
TV NOTEBOOK
BBC
“Indivisible,” the latest release
from Pure Flix — purveyors of
fine copy-and-pasted sermons
disguised as real movies and
the odd “Donald Trump is the
Second Coming; liberals are the
real Nazis” propaganda piece
— opens with stock footage of
soldiers at war set to audio of
children reciting the Pledge of
Allegiance. Not only does this
have literally nothing to do with
the rest of the film beyond the
reality that “Indivisible” does,
in fact, feature both soldiers and
children, it actually does the
film that follows a disservice.
“Indivisible”
isn’t
good
by
any standards other than the
incredibly low bar Pure Flix
has set for themselves, but it
also isn’t, as that opening would
imply, “God’s Not Dead 4: God
Goes to Iraq.”
Rather, it follows the true
story of Darren Turner (Justin
Bruening, “He’s Out There”),
an army chaplain who was
deployed to Iraq in 2007 and
returned home with PTSD that
threatened to tear his family
apart. For the first time in their
company’s history, Pure Flix
has stumbled upon a movie
that’s about something: the
effect deployment can have on
families. If you think that sounds
like something the people best
known for a trilogy of movies
based on the most generic
worship song in existence are
in no way qualified to handle,
you would be right. Pure Flix
drops the ball on what could
have been an inspiring movie
by continuing to
misunderstand
their
core
message,
but
before everything
falls
apart,
“Indivisible”
does show some
promise.
Most of this is
down to the cast. As with last
year’s surprisingly watchable
“The
Case
for
Christ,”
“Indivisible”
proves
to
be
genuinely well-acted, especially
by
Sarah
Drew
(“Grey’s
Anatomy”) as Darren’s wife
Heather. In a role that director
David G. Evans (“The Grace
Card”) does everything to help
her with — Heather’s scenes
are shot like a commercial for
a for-profit community college
— Drew manages to build the
only character in the film with
some sort of internality. Sure,
her husband deals with PTSD,
but that’s mostly communicated
through external means and
out-of-nowhere bursts of sudden
anger. Drew’s character isn’t in
the spotlight nearly as much, yet
due to her performance, Heather
feels much more fully formed.
Pure Flix does deserve some
credit for at least attempting
to make a movie about faith in
times of war as well. There’s
plenty of the clunky
sermonizing we’ve
come
to
expect,
but the fact that
it’s in service of an
idea rather than
just preaching to
the choir goes a
long way. That’s
definitely
not
high praise, but then, most of
what works about “Indivisible”
works because of just that; other
Pure Flix films have failed so
completely
that
when
their
newest reaches even baseline
competence, it’s a win. Every
Muslim character is not treated
as a terrorist; there’s one who
plays a mourning father. Good
for you, Pure Flix! The atheist
character is not struck by a car
and killed for his sins on the
way to a Newsboys concert; he
becomes a Christian, then he’s
killed. Good for you, Pure Flix!
The abused wife does not learn
that she is the problem; she’s
only half the problem. Good for
you, Pure Flix! At this rate, by
the mid-2020s, you may even
start exhibiting basic human
empathy!
Then we come to the second
half, where “Indivisible” has
to provide commentary on a
difficult subject and finds it
just isn’t up to the task. Darren
doesn’t have PTSD after he
returns; it concludes. But not
really. He’s just not believing in
God hard enough. This is Pure
Flix’s biggest problem: their
constant
Biblically
incorrect
preaching that Christianity can
and will solve all your problems
before you can say “Jesus.”
That’s not how faith works.
That’s not how the Bible even
says faith works. Speaking as
a Christian who has dealt and
continues to deal with mental
illness, it can be useful when
dealing with these things. It
can be a comfort. It can be a
guiding system. It isn’t, like
“Indivisible” argues, a one-stop
shop for curing all your ails, and
until these films can understand
that, they will continue to come
close yet still fail as “Indivisible”
does.
This is Jeremiah Vanderhelm’s
100th article for The Michigan
Daily. Congrats, Jeremiah!
‘Indivisible’ is just fine for Pure Flix
but mishandled by other standards
JEREMIAH VANDERHELM
Daily Arts Writer
FILM REVIEW
“Indivisible”
Ann Arbor 20 +
IMAX, Goodrich
Quality 16
Pure Flix
There is nothing quite like
the magic of a musical. Arguably
the most “extra” segment of the
entertainment world, musicals
allow us to simultaneously escape
reality through vibrant costumes,
song and dance and aggrandized
emotions, while still grounding us
in reality by exploring universal
human truths or life lessons. Out
of the broad pool of musicals that
have taken the bold leap into film
adaptation, there are few that find
success: “Rent,” “Les Misérables,”
“West Side Story” and a sprinkling
of other fabulous theater-to-film
pieces. The one essential ingredient
that all of these iconic adaptations
share is that they adapt, which is
where “Been So Long” falls short.
Though filled with well-defined
and intriguing characters and a
solid plot, Netflix’s latest musical
romance forgets that audiences
are watching through their laptop
screens, not in the balcony seats of
a live Broadway production.
Secure with herself, unbending
in her morals and protective of
her heart, Camden resident and
single mother Simone (Michaela
Coel,
“Chewing
Gum”)
isn’t
exactly looking for love. With
her daughter’s
upbringing as
her top priority, men are close to
the last thing on her mind. One
night, after some coaxing (and
alcohol) from her boisterous and
bold best friend Yvonne (Ronke
Adekoluejo, “Christopher Robin”),
Simone finds herself in a match of
back and forth flirtatious banter
(in song-form) with an attractive
and mysterious stranger named
Raymond (Arinzé Kene, “The
Pass”), who Simone soon learns has
a criminal record. When Simone’s
blunt probing into Raymond’s
past hits a nerve and he leaves the
bar with a bruised ego, it seems
that the twos’ paths are unlikely
to cross again. Sure enough,
however, Simone and Raymond
meet again later that night on the
bus and, induced by their curiosity
about one another and magnetic
chemistry
to
rekindle
their
connection, they exchange phone
numbers. As the film progresses,
Simone struggles to sift through
her conflicting feelings of desire
and affection for Raymond and her
fears of rashly falling for a man she
worries she can’t trust.
To Michaela Coel and Arinzé
Thomas’s credit, the two actors are
successful in making the romance
between Raymond and Simone
genuine. One of the most tangible
moments occurs when the two
share a duet, purely and deeply
expressing their feelings for one
another under the glowing, pink-
tinged ambiance of Raymond’s
bedroom. Along with this well-
developed
character
spark
between Simone and Raymond,
the film’s presentation of Simone as
in control of both her blossoming
bond with Raymond and her life
overall is unexpected, especially
within the Netflix romance genre.
Simone is not the typical life-in-
shambles, quirky trope of a single-
parent woman. She is solid, present
and invested in her daughter’s
health and well-being, confident
in her beauty and she doesn’t
play into the “woe is me” routine.
Additionally, with Raymond, there
is a demonstrated effort to portray
Simone as the pursuer and driver
of the relationship. Raymond puts
his number in her phone. She sends
the first text, initiates the date on
her terms and doesn’t play into
the tired stereotype of the woman
lying in wait for a text back. And
it’s refreshing, to say the least.
While not devoid of charm,
largely brought on by its sturdy
characters, the majority of song
and dance in the film is unnatural
and forced. Song sequences are
hastily interjected, preventing the
development of consistent pace
or rhythm. In fact, many musical
numbers are just plain awkward
and uninvolving, including an
unwarranted,
oversexualized
number from Yvonne and a bizarre
solo sung by the minor bartender
figure. Not to mention, the dance
throughout the film is weak and
watered-down.
Whenever
a
character begins to sway or jive, it
is almost as if they know they are
performing for a MacBook screen,
not a theater stage. They hold back
half their effort, afraid to generate
a real wow factor. The attempts
to incorporate more characters
into the musical aspects of the
film
draws
attention
to
the
underdeveloped and uninteresting
subplots and away from what the
film should invest its focus on:
Simone and Raymond.
It would be unfair to say point-
blank that “Been So Long” isn’t
worth a watch. With positive
elements like the energy between
the
two
protagonists
and
a
compelling plot, the movie isn’t
by any means a flop. However,
the unavoidable frustration that
comes with watching this film is
that, as a film, it is so-so, but as a
musical on an open stage, filled
with theatrical zest and pep,
“Been So Long” could have had the
potential to shine.
‘Been So Long’ is a sloppy,
tepid musical romance
SAMANTHA NELSON
Daily Arts Writer
FILM REVIEW
NETFLIX
“Been So
Long”
Netflix
What’s scarier
than a spooky
skeleton on
Halloween? The
decline of local
journalism!
https://tinyurl.com/spookyTMD
6— Thursday, November 1, 2018
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com