The newest companion will be played by Jenna-Louise Coleman.
Yesterday Jenna-Louise Coleman was announced as the new Doctor Who companion! And so far…we have absolutely nothing to judge her on!
Well, except her physical appearance and ethnicity. But I’ll get back to that.
In the past, what standards have we held the Doctor’s companions to? The general list people are inclined to spout off often include smart, brave, independent, and sassy (ugh).
Amy has been a major source of controversy over the last two years. Does she fit the above attributes? No less than Rose or Martha, surely. She saves the Doctor from committing ‘murder’ on her first trip into space, showing her intelligence. She walks, blinded, through a gaggle of Weeping Angels, showing her bravery. She constantly talks back to the Doctor, illustrating her gratuitous sassiness!
Is she independent? I think this is where a lot of the controversy comes from. She’s engaged, then married, all the while utterly devoted to the Doctor. Unlike Donna, whose dependence on the Doctor was primarily a lifestyle choice, for Amy its an emotional dependence, more similar to Rose and Martha’s.
But the controversy surrounding her independence seems to be more prominent than with any of the earlier companions. Its a complicated, feministy-weministy situtation, but I have to wonder: Is there reason to hold her to different standards than the others? Perhaps because she is neither living in a counsel estate, nor an ethnic minority? She’s not a college drop out or a medical student. She seems to have a financial situation stable enough to be ignored, and her glamorous, conventional attractiveness is recognized enough for her to apprently make a living as a model, with no ambition of furthering her education. Compared to the earlier companions, Amelia could arguably be the most privileged, even before she meets the Doctor.
So what can we expect of the newest companion?
Russell T Davies’ dramas traditionally focus on class (Queer as Folk, Bob & Rose). Steven Moffat’s less so.
Sally Sparrow and Amy are Moffat’s only contemporary female leads, and class isn’t an issue in either of their stories, nor is it particularly relevant to his other work (Sherlock, Coupling). ”The Doctor Dances“ and “Girl in the Fireplace” allude to class situations, but the era is how we enter into them. I think its fair to assume that Jenna-Louise Coleman character will be a contemporary one (a trend unbroken for 30 years).
And she’s cute. She’s a pretty, young, apparently white. Nothing so far differentiates her from what we knew of Karen Gillan this early.
So without explorations of class and race, assuming the new companion is a second young, financially stable, white modern gal, what standards do you think we could hold her to? How do you think can kids get the most out of a role model whose character doesn’t explore the intersectionality of those marginalized groups with being a 21st century woman? Leave your answers below!
I think someone else pointed out that she’s a Northener? That could be cool if she keeps her accent. Though as with Eccleston to Tennant, it’s likely they won’t want two “regional” accents in a row. (though they had no problem with London after London after London)
There’s also a rumour that she’s an alien… which would be awesome in all sorts of ways. Especially if it’s an alien type we’ve seen before. Vinvocci spikes, anyone? Or Silurian scales…
And of course we don’t know anything about her sexuality.
I am a little sad at how many people are keen to dismiss this companion before we get to see her in action. Personally I find the range of women Moffatt writes to be really interesting (especially his historical women – let’s not forget he brought us Reinette and Nancy, and it’s a long time since a historical companion has been brought into play) and I’m keen to see what we get.
I’m still holding out for anything other than contemporary Brit, but if we do get that, I think the only thing we can be certain of is they will be trying to make her different to Amy Pond (while still demonstrating the kind of companion checklist that gets pulled out – honourable, brave, banterific, funny, attractive).
& I’ll cash in my entire companion wishlist for ‘not fancying the Doctor please.’
Oh yeah, she does have a little bit of a northern twang. It doesn’t sound prominent enough for them to ask her not to use it, surely!
I’m not ruling her out. But I do think she’s more likely to be a contemporary girl than a historical one. I think its a reasonable rule to have. Rose, in all her chavvy glory, made time and space so relatable to such a broad audience, which is important. Reinette and Nancy were great, as I said, but it is a shame that Moffat can’t seem to explore those issues like Nancy’s in a contemporary setting. So far, anyway! We’ll see what we get with this one!
Do you know, I think the thing with Tennant’s accent was more about Rose than anything else. I know RTD said something about not having two regional accents in a row, but he also said he bullshits his way through every interview he does. I think really it was about him and Rose becoming more similar to one another. There was a cut line from the “Christmas Invasion” script, apparently, about his accent, somehow relating it to having spent a lot of time with Rose.
That’s so sinister, if you think about it.
(there’s also a fan theory, retrofitted, that Nine is Northern in homage to Lucie Miller, which is all kinds of awesome.)
(also does that mean Amy Pond goes back in time to hang out with the Sixth Doctor & Mel just before he regenerates into Sylvester McCoy?)
I dunno, but Six did see Jamie a few times…
Hahaha VERY good point.
Man I want a Big Finish Audio with Seven, Jamie, Amy Pond and David Tennant playing someone other than the Doctor.
The other thing to consider is that she looks *very* young. We haven’t had a teen in the TARDIS since Rose. I wonder if that’s an issue going to be played up at all.
How about a street urchin who nicks the TARDIS right from under the Doctor’s nose? Artful Dodger companion, finally! (Adric, Turlough & Brewster eat your hearts out)
Also it’s a Christmas episode she will be introduced in. Based on the last two that means it will be a story based on the Wizard of Oz, Five Children and It or the works of E.M. Forster. (my historical theory is gaining traction!!)
Based on Moffat’s comments so far, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that JLC’s character will be contemporary. When they announced her, he said,
“It’s not often the Doctor meets someone who can talk even faster than he does, but it’s about to happen. Jenna is going to lead him on his merriest dance yet. And that’s all you’re getting for now. Who she’s playing, how the Doctor meets her, and even where he finds her, are all part of one of the biggest mysteries the Time Lord ever encounters. Even by the Doctor’s standards, this isn’t your usual boy meets girl.”
Making her a 21st century girl would be a rubbish mystery. Some of fandom has already latched onto her being Romana, of course.
Ace was contemporary, and found on an alien ice planet in the future. Her story was a bit of a timey wimey mystery. Or at least a little complex. It can be done.
I try not to speculate on these things because then I get extremely disappointed when it’s not what I imagined (like my brain can make things happen).
But I love this article!
A friend put this thought into my head and now I can’t get away from it: wouldn’t Jenna make a great cat nun?
My problem with Amy is not really her privileges, but her lack of actual character depth. Occasionally we get some back story, but back story plot details are not character development. Unlike Rose, Martha and Donna, Amy doesn’t seem to be treated like a fully-fledged person.
She’s frequently not much more than a convenient plot device, with an occasional moment of “let Amy solve the problem at the last minute.” But even those moments don’t make much sense because there’s no reason for her character to have come to that decision, no personality traits or specific experiences that led to that point. We’ve had to wait nearly 2 seasons before we got any sort of real insight into her. 2/3 of the way through season 2 before she’s treated as a 3-dimensional character.
In short, I think the real problem with Amy is there is no there, there.
My point in all that is, as you said, right now Amy and this new companion seem quite alike: white, cis, very pretty, very young, financially stable — and all the privileges those bring. A character can be interesting and feminist without belonging to marginalized groups. Unfortunately we just haven’t seen that yet because the writers (specifically Moffat) haven’t bothered to build Amy with the same care RTD gave prior companions. And not because her privilege prevents that. There are many interesting *ideas* around Amy, but they were never incorporated into the character we see.
So for me the standards we should be holding the companion to are the same standards that have always been there:
is she a fully developed character?
does she have independent motives, thoughts and actions?
is she allowed emotions, and are those emotions respected instead of marginalized?
is she respected as a person, or is she treated in a dismissive or condescending manner?
are her actions feminist?
is she a positive role model?
TL;DR: There is an infinite variety of women IRL, so there’s no reason that a female character can’t have the potential to be just as interesting or varied, even in the white-young-pretty-privileged category.
“And she’s cute. She’s a pretty, young, apparently white.”
Apparently. I keep sticking on that point–my first reaction was “Never heard of her. Oh, yay, she’s not white” and then everyone else is sure that she is.