![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
In which I tl;dr about Torchwood again. About bloody time, too.
So... it transpires that James Moran wrote the BBCA Captain's Blogs. Interesting. And when I say "interesting", I mean, of course, "weird". I have in the past accused the blogs of having been written by a gushing demented 15-year-old fangirl. So, either James Moran is secretly a gushing, demented 15-year-old fangirl, or James Moran has cynically pandered to the gushing, demented 15-year-old fangirl in all of us. I mean, it's either one or the other, right? I WISH I COULD TALK TO JAMES MORAN RIGHT NOW, SERIOUSLY.
My problem with the Captain's Blogs, which I've expressed on numerous occasions, is the way they are in many instances, completely at odds with what we've been shown on screen when it comes to the Jack/Ianto relationship. And on one level, it's kind of heartening to know that they're the product of the production team, because it means that all that shizzle that we've been talking about all these months, all those interpretations (because that's what they are, let's face it) we have of there being more to Jack/Ianto than handjobs in the hub, there being more depth to it than the shallow sexxings and innuendo we've been unambiguously shown, are supported by at least some sort of opinion by someone on the team somewhere, that yes, there is more to this relationship that the stuff they've chosen to show. It shows promise for the future, right? But, then again, there's the cynical aspect of the whole thing, that aspect that has got up a few people's noses. I guess the question really is, WERE THEY PANDERING TO US?
Well, there's a few possibilities, the first, of course being that James Moran just ships Jack and Ianto. James Moran, personally, is a fan of the relationship and wants to see it played out in the way the blogs play it out. Now, that possibility is all well and good, but if that's the case then it brings me back to the point I have made countless times before about Torchwood, which is that there is no-one in charge. Nobody is taking it upon themselves to make sure all the writers are on the same page when it comes to the interpersonal relationships on the show and it makes for a mess in the area of character continuity. It just doesn't work to let one writer play up Jack/Gwen, and the next Jack/Ianto completely randomly, because all it serves to do at the end of the day is make everybody look bad. Gwen looks like an insensitive slut, Jack looks like a fickle spacewhore and Ianto looks like a trodden-upon boytoy who just takes it (in the ass, yes I know you were thinking it, well done, you). So, yeah, if James ships Jack/Ianto, good for him, a lot of us do, and if that's all it is, then that's fine, but somebody, somewhere, please bear in mind that evidently not all the writers do. And that's hella confusing for those of us watching.
Now the second, and I would hope more plausible, possibility is that James Moran was writing to some sort of brief from up above. But that brings a whole different can of worms to the table and they're just as unpleasant as the other worms (the other worms, up there, which I hadn't yet mentioned, but let's just assume there was a metaphor about worms involved somehow in the first possibility and move along, yeah?) Because that implies first of all that the powers that be were all too aware that they were showing the Jack/Ianto relationship, on screen, in a rather superficial light, because let's face it, of all the interactions we could have been shown between Jack and Ianto, we all agree that perhaps one or two sexual innuendoes should have been dropped in favour of even the vaguest hint that these two have some sort of emotional connection along the lines of the one the blog seems to be telling us they have. Now this brings up an interesting question, which is, when exactly were these blogs written? Because it could quite easily be the case that the blogs were written at a very late date, at a time when negative fan reaction was already starting to filter through, or at least at a time when positive reaction and the popularity of the Jack/Ianto relationship were becoming more clear to the production team, more clear, at least, than at the scripting and shooting stages of season 2. So was James Moran briefed to play catch-up in what the production team realised was a rather too ambiguous portrayal of a relationship the fanbase was rallying around? It's possible. And if so, yeah, you could call that pandering, but at least it's not cynical pandering, right? It's the kind of pandering that makes us fans feel kind of smug and good about ourselves because it tells us that someone's listening. And that promises great things for the future. Cool.
The other possibility though, the other worm in the can, if you will, is that Moran was briefed to add this layer to the relationship purely because the powers that be had no intention of going into it on screen. Now that's cynical pandering. That's the having your cake and eating it scenario and it's the one most people fear is the case. And that fear is reasonably justified, I feel. I mean, here's a team of writers and producers and whatnot who are perfectly happy to take Jack out of Torchwood, plonk him back into Who, rewind his character by a couple of years and turn him back into an omnisexual spaceslut who'll come onto anything with a pulse, despite having had him develop on Torchwood for two years into a man who seems, from what we can gather from the text, reasonably romantic, more than capable of monogamy and a person who places a huge emphasis on protecting those he loves. Not the kind of guy who just leaves you in the Hub with a bunch of Daleks, because hey, you guys can take care of yourselves, right? I'm taking the big gun, smoke me a kipper, helloooo there Sarah Jane. That sort of thing. These are the people we're dealing with here. The people who didn't bat an eyelid when the script said Owen, the guy who's been a doctor for at least five years that we know of, was 27 years old. The sort of people who from our fannish perspective, just don't seem to think twice about the bigger picture they're painting. Or at least once more (bonus points for the reference, peeps, just seeing if you're still paying attention, I realise this is all getting a bit tl;dr.) I hate to break it to the powers that be, but this last scenario is one that a lot of people wouldn't put past you in the slightest. I'm just sayin', you know?
What do I think? I think it's a little bit from columns A, B and C. I think the big problem Torchwood suffers from, and it's one I've had a bit of time to think about, is that they just don't quite know where they want to go with Jack. He was an omnisexual whore, but they've realised that that's just a bit too much of a whoreish thing for the romantic lead of a show to be(especially one that you've touted as such a sexually liberated icon, it gives the impression that sexual liberation=sluttiness and that looks bad and isn't what they meant). But giving him a romantic relationship that's anything more than casual kind of takes away his appeal as a 51st century happy-go-lucky player type, and it bogs him down as a character with nowhere to go. In making Jack our hero, they're kind of stuck now between a rock and a hard place. I sympathise, and I think it's a hard dilemma to resolve. What I do know, though, is that trying to approach him, and his relationship with Ianto, from all angles at once, trying to cover all the bases and please everyone, isn't the solution, and that's an approach a lot of people thought the Captain's Blogs were symptomatic of. I wasn't convinced that Rusty and co. were in the business of trying to please everyone, but, having seen Rose and Handy snog in the sunset in Journey's End, I'm no longer so sure about that one. There's having a cake, there's eating it, and then there's eating every pastry based snack in the whole damned shop.
My problem with the Captain's Blogs, which I've expressed on numerous occasions, is the way they are in many instances, completely at odds with what we've been shown on screen when it comes to the Jack/Ianto relationship. And on one level, it's kind of heartening to know that they're the product of the production team, because it means that all that shizzle that we've been talking about all these months, all those interpretations (because that's what they are, let's face it) we have of there being more to Jack/Ianto than handjobs in the hub, there being more depth to it than the shallow sexxings and innuendo we've been unambiguously shown, are supported by at least some sort of opinion by someone on the team somewhere, that yes, there is more to this relationship that the stuff they've chosen to show. It shows promise for the future, right? But, then again, there's the cynical aspect of the whole thing, that aspect that has got up a few people's noses. I guess the question really is, WERE THEY PANDERING TO US?
Well, there's a few possibilities, the first, of course being that James Moran just ships Jack and Ianto. James Moran, personally, is a fan of the relationship and wants to see it played out in the way the blogs play it out. Now, that possibility is all well and good, but if that's the case then it brings me back to the point I have made countless times before about Torchwood, which is that there is no-one in charge. Nobody is taking it upon themselves to make sure all the writers are on the same page when it comes to the interpersonal relationships on the show and it makes for a mess in the area of character continuity. It just doesn't work to let one writer play up Jack/Gwen, and the next Jack/Ianto completely randomly, because all it serves to do at the end of the day is make everybody look bad. Gwen looks like an insensitive slut, Jack looks like a fickle spacewhore and Ianto looks like a trodden-upon boytoy who just takes it (in the ass, yes I know you were thinking it, well done, you). So, yeah, if James ships Jack/Ianto, good for him, a lot of us do, and if that's all it is, then that's fine, but somebody, somewhere, please bear in mind that evidently not all the writers do. And that's hella confusing for those of us watching.
Now the second, and I would hope more plausible, possibility is that James Moran was writing to some sort of brief from up above. But that brings a whole different can of worms to the table and they're just as unpleasant as the other worms (the other worms, up there, which I hadn't yet mentioned, but let's just assume there was a metaphor about worms involved somehow in the first possibility and move along, yeah?) Because that implies first of all that the powers that be were all too aware that they were showing the Jack/Ianto relationship, on screen, in a rather superficial light, because let's face it, of all the interactions we could have been shown between Jack and Ianto, we all agree that perhaps one or two sexual innuendoes should have been dropped in favour of even the vaguest hint that these two have some sort of emotional connection along the lines of the one the blog seems to be telling us they have. Now this brings up an interesting question, which is, when exactly were these blogs written? Because it could quite easily be the case that the blogs were written at a very late date, at a time when negative fan reaction was already starting to filter through, or at least at a time when positive reaction and the popularity of the Jack/Ianto relationship were becoming more clear to the production team, more clear, at least, than at the scripting and shooting stages of season 2. So was James Moran briefed to play catch-up in what the production team realised was a rather too ambiguous portrayal of a relationship the fanbase was rallying around? It's possible. And if so, yeah, you could call that pandering, but at least it's not cynical pandering, right? It's the kind of pandering that makes us fans feel kind of smug and good about ourselves because it tells us that someone's listening. And that promises great things for the future. Cool.
The other possibility though, the other worm in the can, if you will, is that Moran was briefed to add this layer to the relationship purely because the powers that be had no intention of going into it on screen. Now that's cynical pandering. That's the having your cake and eating it scenario and it's the one most people fear is the case. And that fear is reasonably justified, I feel. I mean, here's a team of writers and producers and whatnot who are perfectly happy to take Jack out of Torchwood, plonk him back into Who, rewind his character by a couple of years and turn him back into an omnisexual spaceslut who'll come onto anything with a pulse, despite having had him develop on Torchwood for two years into a man who seems, from what we can gather from the text, reasonably romantic, more than capable of monogamy and a person who places a huge emphasis on protecting those he loves. Not the kind of guy who just leaves you in the Hub with a bunch of Daleks, because hey, you guys can take care of yourselves, right? I'm taking the big gun, smoke me a kipper, helloooo there Sarah Jane. That sort of thing. These are the people we're dealing with here. The people who didn't bat an eyelid when the script said Owen, the guy who's been a doctor for at least five years that we know of, was 27 years old. The sort of people who from our fannish perspective, just don't seem to think twice about the bigger picture they're painting. Or at least once more (bonus points for the reference, peeps, just seeing if you're still paying attention, I realise this is all getting a bit tl;dr.) I hate to break it to the powers that be, but this last scenario is one that a lot of people wouldn't put past you in the slightest. I'm just sayin', you know?
What do I think? I think it's a little bit from columns A, B and C. I think the big problem Torchwood suffers from, and it's one I've had a bit of time to think about, is that they just don't quite know where they want to go with Jack. He was an omnisexual whore, but they've realised that that's just a bit too much of a whoreish thing for the romantic lead of a show to be(especially one that you've touted as such a sexually liberated icon, it gives the impression that sexual liberation=sluttiness and that looks bad and isn't what they meant). But giving him a romantic relationship that's anything more than casual kind of takes away his appeal as a 51st century happy-go-lucky player type, and it bogs him down as a character with nowhere to go. In making Jack our hero, they're kind of stuck now between a rock and a hard place. I sympathise, and I think it's a hard dilemma to resolve. What I do know, though, is that trying to approach him, and his relationship with Ianto, from all angles at once, trying to cover all the bases and please everyone, isn't the solution, and that's an approach a lot of people thought the Captain's Blogs were symptomatic of. I wasn't convinced that Rusty and co. were in the business of trying to please everyone, but, having seen Rose and Handy snog in the sunset in Journey's End, I'm no longer so sure about that one. There's having a cake, there's eating it, and then there's eating every pastry based snack in the whole damned shop.
no subject
Oh, God, look, there's eight month's worth of the tag "torchwood: fanalysis", and another couple of thousand comments for you to get through if you want to know where I'm getting that from. I'm aware they're giving us subtle and grownup J/I onscreen, what I am doing here is questioning the narrative choices that have been made with regards to this particular relationship. As you say, the Jack/Gwen is blatant and juvenile, in fact, pretty much everything in this show is pretty fucking blatant and juvenile and hammered into our heads like we're morons pretty much most of the time, except strangely enough, Jack/Ianto. Which is wonderfully subtle and underplayed. Now I love the way it's subtle and underplayed (and I think a lot of it's purely down to Gareth/John and how they work onscreen), but it's a strange way to choose to play this one, when compared with how other things are shown in the show.
The relationship between Jack and Ianto, which, as you say, started out really promising in the first few episodes (there seemed to be a romantic attachment from Jack and crucially for me Jack seemed to be letting Ianto call the shots), seemed to a lot of people, once it was established that they were fucking again, to boil down to just that: they were fucking again. I'm not a shipper, I don't care if they're fucking or married with puppies or if they break up, but what I do care about is the impression that's being put across onscreen and I think, and a lot of people would agree, that they've left an incredible amount of room for interpretation when it comes to Jack/Ianto, and for a show that isn't really very good at subtlety in any other respect, that comes across as a bit weird. To leave the primary relationship of the romantic lead of the show open to such wildly varying interpretations (there's plenty of room to interpret that they're in a meaningful monogamous relationship, sure, there's been plenty of hints in that direction, but a lot of people don't think Jack and Ianto are in any way exclusive and are just having a bit of bumfun on the side to pass the time) is a weird narrative choice to make, but given Jack's characterisation, as I say in my concluding paragraph, it's an understandable choice if you want to keep Jack's mystique intact and keep everything about him just a little bit vague. But if that's the reason you're keeping things subtle, don't go making them unsubtle in the blogs, because that defeats the object.
I'd love to see your face right now, honestly I would. If you want to know my basic beef with TW, I'd recommend my open letter and subsequent words of advice for RTD, which basically sum up what I feel is lacking in the writing and, primarily, the leadership department when it comes to TW. I ADORE TW, I don't think I've ever quite liked a show as much, but my God do I hate it. It makes me want to bite my own face off.
no subject
Sorry, I didn't realize I was coming in on a middle part of an extended discussion. It's just the first thing I read was that J/I was unambiguously sex and innuendo, which made absolutely no sense to me (and still doesn't, to be honest, but whatever). Sorry if I came off as snippy!