One last pot shot at Torchwood
Jan. 30th, 2008 03:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficSo after much Torchwood meta-ing with people who both agree with me and vehemently disagree, I've got one more Torchwood post before the new episode provides me with more fodder. I've come to view the group of characters on the show as a bizarre cult of personality led by Jack. All of them seem to have their normal sense of right and wrong subverted by Jack's influence, Ianto most of all, though many don't seem to have had a strong sense to begin with.
This is not all that interesting to me. I love morally ambiguous characters, I even love some clear anti-heroes, but what all those characters have in common is that they're in some measure sympathetic. Matt Damon's character in The Talented Mr. Ripley was incredibly sympathetic—heartbreakingly so. Jonathan Rhys Meyers' character in Match Point was completely unsympathetic, as were all the other characters in the film, which is why that film didn't work for me. Part of the difference between the two characters is that Ripley is clearly deeply conflicted about the murders he's committed, though he feels unable to control that part of himself. Chris Wilton, in Match Point, only seems bothered by the logistics of avoiding capture.
Then look at the Torchwood characters. I think the writers are trying to give us a cast of flawed heroes. But they're not just flawed, they're weak and immature. Weak characters are not sympathetic—instead of feeling for them and their struggle to overcome their flaws (assuming they were struggling, which they don't seem to be), I'm annoyed at their behavior. I think the difference is in a level of complexity to the characterization. The Torchwood characters aren't really allowed to show nuanced reactions to things; every single time there's an emotion to be played, Torchwood takes it to the wall and milks it for all it's worth. So instead of feeling drawn to a set of ambiguous heroes (as I certainly am to the Doctor), I'm repulsed. These characters are pathetic. Why should I care about them at all?
So why do I keep watching? Well, I do like the fandom because fan writers (shock!) actually add complexity to the characters. And Torchwood has such potential to be exactly my type of show that I just can't look away.
I think a large number of my problems with the show would be solved by the presence, on the show, of a recurring character that looked at Torchwood and commented on how fucked up they all were. If I had that, it wouldn't feel like every episode I was being pulled into this prurient, sycophantic, incestuous cult where the mores of the rest of the world have been so warped by Jack's will that they're unrecognizable, and being expected to accept these warped views as normal and identify with the characters. I'm always left wondering why in God's name anybody lets Torchwood continue to exist. (And forced to conclude that Jack must be performing sexual favors for the Prime Minister. Oh, come on. It's the only way they'd let a guy with such poor leadership skills have such free reign.)
I still feel that the format of the show presupposes the moral superiority—or at least, the moral intentions—of the main characters, for all that they screw up over and over again. Jack is, as he says, the "dashing hero," and I think he's meant to be seen that way, not as an anti-hero. His arc on his first appearance on Doctor Who was from self-interested con-man to self-sacrificing hero, and I think the show Torchwood is meant to show a Jack who has fully grown into the role of hero. Half the time I feel like the objectionable implications are unintentional; that they've just written it badly enough that they've accidentally implied that Gwen uses sex to placate Rhys whenever he expresses discontent, for example. It doesn't seem like they mean to be saying half the things they're saying about their characters. So unless they create a dynamic on the show that points out how incompetent and morally corrupt the main characters are, I'm going to continue to get pissed at it every episode.
This is not all that interesting to me. I love morally ambiguous characters, I even love some clear anti-heroes, but what all those characters have in common is that they're in some measure sympathetic. Matt Damon's character in The Talented Mr. Ripley was incredibly sympathetic—heartbreakingly so. Jonathan Rhys Meyers' character in Match Point was completely unsympathetic, as were all the other characters in the film, which is why that film didn't work for me. Part of the difference between the two characters is that Ripley is clearly deeply conflicted about the murders he's committed, though he feels unable to control that part of himself. Chris Wilton, in Match Point, only seems bothered by the logistics of avoiding capture.
Then look at the Torchwood characters. I think the writers are trying to give us a cast of flawed heroes. But they're not just flawed, they're weak and immature. Weak characters are not sympathetic—instead of feeling for them and their struggle to overcome their flaws (assuming they were struggling, which they don't seem to be), I'm annoyed at their behavior. I think the difference is in a level of complexity to the characterization. The Torchwood characters aren't really allowed to show nuanced reactions to things; every single time there's an emotion to be played, Torchwood takes it to the wall and milks it for all it's worth. So instead of feeling drawn to a set of ambiguous heroes (as I certainly am to the Doctor), I'm repulsed. These characters are pathetic. Why should I care about them at all?
So why do I keep watching? Well, I do like the fandom because fan writers (shock!) actually add complexity to the characters. And Torchwood has such potential to be exactly my type of show that I just can't look away.
I think a large number of my problems with the show would be solved by the presence, on the show, of a recurring character that looked at Torchwood and commented on how fucked up they all were. If I had that, it wouldn't feel like every episode I was being pulled into this prurient, sycophantic, incestuous cult where the mores of the rest of the world have been so warped by Jack's will that they're unrecognizable, and being expected to accept these warped views as normal and identify with the characters. I'm always left wondering why in God's name anybody lets Torchwood continue to exist. (And forced to conclude that Jack must be performing sexual favors for the Prime Minister. Oh, come on. It's the only way they'd let a guy with such poor leadership skills have such free reign.)
I still feel that the format of the show presupposes the moral superiority—or at least, the moral intentions—of the main characters, for all that they screw up over and over again. Jack is, as he says, the "dashing hero," and I think he's meant to be seen that way, not as an anti-hero. His arc on his first appearance on Doctor Who was from self-interested con-man to self-sacrificing hero, and I think the show Torchwood is meant to show a Jack who has fully grown into the role of hero. Half the time I feel like the objectionable implications are unintentional; that they've just written it badly enough that they've accidentally implied that Gwen uses sex to placate Rhys whenever he expresses discontent, for example. It doesn't seem like they mean to be saying half the things they're saying about their characters. So unless they create a dynamic on the show that points out how incompetent and morally corrupt the main characters are, I'm going to continue to get pissed at it every episode.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 11:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 01:24 pm (UTC)