Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Jana Ježková

The Portrayal of Women in the Classic Doctor Who Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Stephen Paul Hardy, Ph. D.

2015

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Stephen Paul Hardy, Ph. D., whose invaluable input, incredible patience, time and encouragement have made it possible for this thesis to even come to an existence. I would also like to give my thanks to my friends for their kind words, support and cheering me up and to my boyfriend Mgr. Lukáš Vladík who put the idea about Doctor Who into my head in the first place.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 5 1. Television as a Popular Cultural Medium ...... 7 1.1. Semiotics in Television ...... 7 1.2. Codes of Television and Realism ...... 9 1.3. Polysemy in Television ...... 10 1.4. Conventions, Stereotypes and Ideology in Television ...... 12 2. The Portrayal of Women on Television ...... 15 2.1. The Question of Women’s Representation on Television ...... 15 2.2. Historical Background ...... 17 2.3. Women’s Representation on TV from the 1960s to the 1980s ...... 19 3. Doctor Who ...... 22 3.1. “Hello, I’m the Doctor.” “Doctor Who?” ...... 22 3.2. The Origins of Doctor Who ...... 23 3.3. Brief History of the Series ...... 24 3.4. The Doctor’s Companions ...... 27 4. The Analysis of Female Characters of the Classic Who ...... 33 4.1. Susan Foreman ...... 34 4.2. Barbara Wright ...... 37 4.3. Polly ...... 39 4.4. Zoe Heriot ...... 42 4.5. Dr. Liz Shaw ...... 46 4.6. Sarah Jane Smith ...... 49 4.7. Leela...... 52 4.8. Ace ...... 55 Conclusion ...... 59 Works Cited ...... 64 List of Relevant Episodes ...... 68 Résumé ...... 71 Resumé ...... 72

Introduction

The main objective of this thesis is to observe the portrayal of female characters in the BBC’s science fiction programme Doctor Who which celebrated its 50th anniversary in October 2013 and which has become over the years a successful popular cultural British phenomenon. The thesis first provides an introduction to the world of television and it examines the problem of women’s representation. The thesis then focuses on the representation of women in the

“classic” Doctor Who series that aired from 1963 to 1989. The purpose of the thesis is to closely analyse the way the women in the series are depicted. The

26 years of broadcast enable the thesis to not only describe the selected female characters but it also tries to contrast them and draw conclusions based on their similarities and differences. It therefore offers a unique way of observing the development of women’s portrayal in the programme.

The thesis consists of four chapters: the first one looking at relevant aspects of television studies, the second one discussing the problem of women’s representation on television, the third one considering the programme itself and the fourth one focusing on the main concern of the thesis, namely the portrayal of women in Doctor Who. The purpose of the first part is to introduce the concept of television and to present some of its characteristics which will help to understand how television works. The second part discusses the portrayal of women on television in relation to the historical background and also the way the depiction of women developed in the second half of the twentieth century.

The third part of the thesis first briefly introduces the origins and the historical development of Doctor Who and then it presents the question of representation

5 of its female characters, primarily in relation to the 2005 “reboot” of the programme. Last but not least, the thesis concentrates on the textual analysis of female characters in Doctor Who. This last chapter examines selected characters in order to demonstrate how their portrayal developed throughout the programme’s nearly 30-year-long run on television.

One of the main secondary sources used in the thesis is Reading Television by Fiske and Hartley which proves to be a useful source when introducing the television studies. This book discusses various aspects of television. Its relevance to this thesis resides in the fact that it focuses on the analysis of television. The authors write about its signs, codes, functions and ways how to read it which they demonstrate using numerous examples.

Regarding the chapter on representation of women on television, another secondary source of importance to this thesis is Andrea L. Press’s Women

Watching Television: Gender, Class, and Generation in the American Television

Experience. It is useful when bringing up the issues of gender and mass media reception. Additionally, Press proposes three phases of television history in connection to portrayal of women. These phases offer a comprehensive and interesting way to examine the issue of women’s representation on television.

For the analysis of Doctor Who, selected episodes will serve as primary sources. The most significant secondary source in relation to the programme is

James Chapman’s Inside the Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who – A Cultural

History. Chapman, drawing on the resources provided by the BBC Written

Archives, explores the origins and history of this programme. He extensively focuses on the classic series and therefore serves as a relevant source.

6

1. Television as a Popular Cultural Medium

Since Doctor Who occupies a place within the television culture, in this chapter, important characteristics and aspects of television which are to be taken into consideration are discussed. Television, since its invention in the 1920s, has gradually taken up a more important role in the society. Nearly every household owns at least one TV and its content is vastly consumed. It is then acceptable to assume that television is a popular medium and, as a popular medium, television has received a lot of attention and it is often studied and analysed.

1.1. Semiotics in Television

The study of television is connected with the study of signs – semiotics.

Semiotics, according to Fiske and Hartley, concentrates on how the signs “work and the ways in which we use them” (36). The father of semiotics is usually considered to be Ferdinand de Saussure, Swiss linguist who is famous for his groundbreaking lectures which were recorded and published in Course in General

Linguistics. Saussure presented the concept of a sign as a union of a signified and a signifier (67). Signified represents the “mental concept” of the sign on one hand, signifier stands for the “physical object” on the other hand, such as

“a sound, printed word or image” (67). These signs then convey a meaning in any kind of communication – conversation, road signs, newspaper articles, television.

At this point, it is important to mention that the signs are “determined by our culture” (Fiske and Hartley 38). They are products of human beings and they rely on their experience of reality.

7

Furthermore, Fiske and Hartley argue that there are several “orders of signification” (40). For the purpose of this thesis, the difference between the first and the second is to be considered. In the first order, the sign is “self- contained” (Fiske and Hartley 41). The meaning it conveys is clear, it is the first meaning that comes to one’s head in most cases. By contrast, in the second order, the meaning carried by the sign is met with a “range of cultural meanings that derive not from the sign itself, but from the way the society uses and values both the signifier and the signified” (Fiske and Hartley 41). In her book Consumer

Culture, Roberta Sassatelli, an Italian sociologist, uses an example of a rose

(127). She observes that, in the first order of signification, the image of a rose represents the flower (Sassatelli 127). However, in the second order, it might as well signify “love, passion, desire” (Sassatelli 127). Linguistically speaking, one can think of denotation and connotation.1 Beside connotation, television also often works with metaphor and metonymy. For example, Fiske and Hartley claim that the “over-portrayal of white-collar jobs on television is simply a metaphor of their place in our culture’s hierarchy of esteem” (49). In conclusion, television, just like any other channel of communication, uses signs to convey meanings.

The signs can be either self-sufficient, or they can connote other meanings based on the viewership’s experience and culture.

1 Jackson and Amvela define denotation as a meaning “in terms of its reference to an object, concept, etc. in the real world” and connotation as “emotive overtones of the meaning” (242). 8

1.2. Codes of Television and Realism

Television codes are to be considered, too. In Television Culture, Fiske argues that a code is a “rule-governed system of signs” (4). In addition, the

“users” of such a code, members of a particular culture, must agree on the rules that combine the signs (Fiske and Hartley 59). As Fiske argues, the reality that is to be televised is already “encoded by social codes”, for example “appearance, dress, make-up, […], behaviour” (5). On the next level, “technical codes” are found, such as “camera, […], editing, music” and these then convey the

“conventional representational codes” (“narrative, conflict, character”) which are then, at the ideology level, “organized […] by the ideological codes” such as “patriarchy, race, class” (5). Hence, television works with four kinds of codes.

To explain this concept briefly, based on a particular ideology (to be discussed later), television uses a character or any other code of representation to depict a precise situation or a person’s attitude, conduct, habits, his or her social activities. The technical part of television’s background likewise has an influence on this, for instance, by choosing particular angles of filming the scene or by selecting particular incidental music. This demonstrates the way the codes used by television are virtually produced by the members of society where the codes are applied – screenwriters, music composers, cameramen, producers, actors. Thus, television is a “human construct” and it is inspired by “human choice, cultural decisions and social pressures” (Fiske and Hartley 17).

As a result, one could presume that television is the mirror of reality. The more realistic and trustworthy a television programme is, the more popularity it receives (Fiske and Hartley 160). The question then is whether television

9 portrays reality as people perceive it and whether the television’s depiction of reality is realistic. Fiske and Hartley argue that television realism is also

“an artificial construct” and furthermore, Fiske goes on asserting that television

“produces reality rather than reflects it” (160; 21). Additionally, Fiske and Hartley believe that television programmes seem realistic and natural to members of our society because realism is “the mode in which our particular culture prefers its ritual condensations to be cast” (160). Thus, the society perceives the television broadcast as realistic since the members of our society are used to perceive the world in the same way. As an illustration, the system of signs is used in television as well as in everyday communication. Furthermore, television works with devices such as oral modes. In contrast to literate modes, oral modes can be “dynamic, active, concrete, social, dialectical”, etc. just like human communication (Fiske and Hartley 125). These two aspects of television cause the scenes on the television screens seem very familiar and therefore realistic.

1.3. Polysemy in Television

Hence, on one hand, there is the realistic meaning the team of television employees tries to convey and on the other hand is the audience2 who receives and decodes the meanings encoded in particular signs and codes. Television provides a great percentage of people from “all sections of society” with a popular experience (Fiske and Hartley 14). Just as the society has its sections, the

2 The audiences and fandoms are also studied and analysed. Cf. Henry Jenkins’s work on this subject. 10 audience is not homogeneous either and the viewers are composed of various groups, subcultures, which differ regarding, for instance, their sex, class or race.

As a result, television, a medium for which being popular and enjoyable is essential and which has to reach a mass audience, has to offer meanings that are “capable of being inflected in a number of different ways” (Fiske 66).

Similarly, in Television Studies, American television scholars Gray and Lotz argue that television “can be read in different ways” (44). Television therefore works as a polysemic tool. A television programme constitutes a means of transmission of several meanings across the social strata. In addition, Gray and Lotz claim that the “audiences are […] unpredictable” (44). To illustrate, a particular scene in a series can be read in a different way by a white male, by a male member of a minority and by a woman. The reception of the meanings “connect[s] with their social experience” (Fiske 84).

Moreover, not only does television provide polysemic meanings, but also the viewers interpret the codes in various ways. Marshall McLuhan, Canadian philosopher of communication theory, in his book Understanding Media suggests that television is a “cold medium” (31). This implies that, in contrast to “hot media”, watching television requires the spectator to involve more than one of his senses (31). As McLuhan puts it, “cool media are high in participation or completion by the audience” (31). Consequently, when watching a series, one is expected to actively participate in decoding the message. As a result, different people can generate different meanings of the same scene.

11

1.4. Conventions, Stereotypes and Ideology in Television

The last aspect of television to be discussed in this chapter is its dependability on social conditions, conventions, ideology and stereotypes. As it was mentioned earlier, television works, among others, with social and ideological codes. Fiske and Hartley treat television as a “conventional medium” and argue that its signs ought to become “clichés” (63). They go on to demonstrate this on an example of a man in a detective drama who is showing the inside of his wallet (Fiske and Hartley 63). As expected, the man turns out to be a policeman and he was probably showing his identification card (Fiske and

Hartley 63). This observation illustrates the way television draws on social conventions and spreads them. Fiske and Hartley also assume that due to such conventions “a culture establishes and maintains its identity” (60). The conventions seem therefore to be inseparable aspects not only of television itself but also of our whole culture.

As for the stereotypes, Seggar and Wheeler, American sociologists, come up with the study “The World of Work on Television” which reports that white men are portrayed in more professions than blacks and women (212). Moreover, on the television programmes Seggar and Wheeler included in their study, women were most often employed as nurses and secretaries (212). Thus, the presence of stereotypes and conventions is undeniable.

As for the ideology, its signification as it will be used in this thesis ought to be explained. For this thesis, it seems to be the most suitable to use the term in a way that reflects the approach of Roland Barthes, French philosopher, linguist and semiotician. In his essay “Myth Today”, Barthes sees ideology (or as he calls

12 it – “the myth”) as a collection of ideas that pursues the values of dominant parts of the society in order to protect their powers (109-156). Gray and Lotz add that this ideology is “normalized by everything from schools, to religious organizations, to the content of popular media such as television” (45). Hence, the ideology is rooted in the society and the values of the ruling part of the society become the values of the whole society.

In the television culture, there is a dominant ideology that can be observed. This ideology is further maintained and legitimatized by the viewers at the moment of watching the programme and “making sense of it” because it feels familiar and adequate (Fiske 11-12). Thus, television prefers to use the codes that conform to the dominant ideology. For instance, the society is used to the male leader of a company rather than a female and this is what television is most likely to communicate. To sum up, the television culture is influenced by traditions, conventions and a dominant ideology. Consequently, it happens that the medium itself conveys these habits as it is the profitable way of making a programme popular. The spectators can therefore identify with them, and in this way, they confirm the values of the dominant ideology. Nevertheless, the society evolves and changes in course of the history. It is then necessary to point out that these social changes and movements are somehow reflected in the

“television content” (Gray and Lotz 46).

To conclude these subchapters, particular aspects and characteristics of television were discussed. The discussion started by introducing the study of signs, semiotics, as an important approach to examine television. The emphasis was laid upon the fact that a sign can comprise two kinds of meaning.

13

Especially the second one – often connotative or metaphoric – is used in television. Furthermore, television works with codes in which it encodes its reflection of reality. As the meanings concealed in the signs and codes are produced by people, television can be considered to be a “human construct”

(Fiske and Hartley 17). The second way of examining television is through the audience’s decoding of the meanings. As audiences are not homogeneous, television ought to be flexible in producing meaningful messages to satisfy viewers from different social strata. Additionally, the viewers themselves engage in interpreting the meanings and, as they come from various social backgrounds, their interpretations might differ. In short, the reading of meanings by the viewers is influenced by their social experience, their experience of reality and possibly their gender, belonging to a particular ethnic minority, etc. Last but not least, television closely works with conventions, stereotypes and the dominant ideology and their influence is reflected in the broadcast. These can be however changed in the course of the history.

14

2. The Portrayal of Women on Television

In this chapter, the focus will be laid upon the question of portrayal of women on television, primarily, in the second half of the 20th century. As Fiske points out, “television is centrally concerned with the representation of people”

(150). Considering the long history of female emancipation, it is therefore not surprising that their representation on television, and in popular culture in general, is problematic.

2.1. The Question of Women’s Representation on Television

Press suggests that the mass media “heavily influence women’s identities in our culture” and that “conflicting images of gender […] are propagated” (3; 6).

Press moreover proposes that “television images compete with our experience and influence our interpretation of it” (17). Television therefore has an influence on creation of women’s identities. Furthermore, in her book Reading the

Romance, American cultural studies scholar Janice Radway, confirms that, on one hand, women “believe that the stories are fantasies”, however, on the other hand, “they take other aspects of [the stories] to be real and therefore apply information learned about the fictional world to the events […] of theirs” (187).

Hence, television programmes seem to have a defining impact on women.

The question then is how television works with images of women and whether television contributes to the oppression of women or fights against it.

In reference to the previous chapter, the dominant ideology of a patriarchal society plays an important role. Fiske, for example, believes that the portrayal of women who “lack knowledge which men possess and give to them” is

15 an illustration of the “ideological code of patriarchy” (6). He also emphasizes the fact that in the dominant ideology of patriarchy, “economic and sexual power have been closely interdependent characteristic of masculinity” (186). This implies the inequality between the two sexes. To summarize, based on the dominant ideology, women are perceived as less intelligent human beings who are not usually seen to seize the economic or sexual power.

The impact of the patriarchal ideology is also considerable regarding the physical appearance of females featured on television. The women on screen are usually portrayed at the age of their “maximum sexuality” (Fiske 228).

In addition, the viewers are often presented with the “physical types that conform to the patriarchal sense of attractiveness” (Fiske 228). Fiske goes on exemplifying this with the notion that fat and pregnant women rarely appear on screen (229).

He presents the notion of availability which means that men need to see a sexually attractive woman who they can possess “by a look” (Fiske 229).

In Reading Television, Fiske and Hartley also discuss the television dance programmes and note that “by making the sexuality of the moving female body public, […] it legitimizes our society’s view of the female as a sex-object” (135).

To sum up, the females that are portrayed on television are mostly attractive, implying their availability to men and making their appearance the most important feature. Additionally, their bodies are regarded as sex-objects.

It is also important to note that television programmes are for the most part made by men: male directors, producers, writers, etc. For instance, in relation to Doctor Who, the official website of the BBC affirms that the production team of the series started off with a female producer Verity Lambert

16

(1963-1965) but lacked any female writers. There was no female author of the

Doctor Who stories until 1983 when Barbara Clegg wrote the script for the serial called “Enlightenment”. In 1985, a couple of writers Pip and Jane Baker started writing for Doctor Who from time to time. Paradoxically, the very last writer of the classic Who was female, too. In 1989, Rona Munro wrote the story called

“Survival”. As far as the directors are concerned, first female to direct Doctor

Who Julia Smith appeared in 1966. Smith also directed a serial in 1967. Another female director Fiona Cumming entered the world of Doctor Who in 1982 and cooperated on other serials during 1983 and 1984. The last female director of the classic Who was Sarah Hellings who directed the story “The Mark of the Rani” in 1985. The fact that the television stories are largely produced by men helps to promote the ideology of the patriarchal society.

2.2. Historical Background

After the introduction to the issue of women’s portrayal on television, its development will be discussed. But first the historical background will be briefly provided. Press claims that “women have made substantial progress through political and social movements toward improving social and economic conditions for themselves and toward freeing themselves from the strictures of confining sexual and social identities” (3).

In British Feminism in the Twentieth Century, professor of history Harold

Smith mentions that British women were granted partial suffrage in 1918 which was a major victory of the feminist movement (1). It was also a “turning-point” which led to the “divisions among feminists” which “pursued varying objectives”

17

(Smith 1). In “British Feminism from the 1960s to the 1980s”, Elizabeth Meehan notes that women’s activism grew again from 1960s to 1980s (192). Meehan mentions three million women being active in 120 national groups (ibid.). She goes on proposing that “the commemoration […] of the fiftieth anniversary of women’s suffrage in 1968 was a catalyst for the emergence of women’s liberation” (195). In 1970, the Women’s Liberation Movement held the first conference where they agreed to demand equal pay, equal opportunities and education, twenty-four-hour nurseries, free contraception and abortion on demand (Meehan 195). The abortion itself was legal since the 1967 Abortion

Act3. Other milestones were the Equal Pay Act4 from 1970 and the Sex

Discrimination Act5 from 1975 (Meehan 195-196). The women also started to penetrate the politics from within when Barbara Castle became First Secretary of State in 1968, Bernadette Devlin became the youngest MP at the age of 21 in 1969 and Margaret Thatcher became the first female Prime Minister in 1979

(“Timeline of the Women's Liberation Movement”, n. pag.). Thus, one can speak of a very successful period for women’s emancipation.

This era is often referred to as the second wave of feminism6. According to Press, its beginning is marked with the publication of Betty Friedan’s7 book

The Feminine Mystique in 1963 where she discusses and criticizes “social norms

3 “An Act to amend and clarify the law relating to termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners” (Abortion Act 1967). 4 “An Act to prevent discrimination, as regards terms and conditions of em ployment, between men and women” (Equal Pay Act 1970). 5 “An Act to render unlawful certain kinds of sex discrimination and discrimination on the ground of marriage, and establish a Commission with the function of working towards the elimination of such discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity between men and women generally; and for related purposes” (Sex Discrimination Act 1975). 6 First one being the pursuit of suffrage in the early 20 th century. 7 American writer, activist and feminist. 18 of female identity in conjunction with a critical examination of female images in the popular media” (4). In Feminism, British author and reviewer Margaret

Walters adds that Friedan’s book “exploded the myth of the happy housewife”

(102). In reference to the previous subchapter, this is an example of a social change that has the power to shift the ideological values.

2.3. Women’s Representation on TV from the 1960s to the 1980s

As for the progress of representation of females on TV, in her book, Press divides the development of the portrayal of women into three phases: prefeminist, feminist and postfeminist. First the prefeminist television8 will be discussed. The early television stories do not lack “active, insightful and personally courageous” female characters (Press 29). Nevertheless, the women are usually depicted as immature and dependent (ibid.). Press goes on arguing that “family women in particular are shown to be women whose existence is closely bound up with […] others in their family group, particularly their male partners” (29). Additionally, the female characters of the early television serials are “pictured almost exclusively in the domestic or private realm” and they do not penetrate the “male, public world of work” (Press 29). As an illustration, Press mentions a 1950s sitcom9 I Love Lucy10 in which the main character Lucy struggles to “escape her circumscribed housewife role” and gain access to the show business where her husband works (Press 29). Her plans however fail and

8 Television before the second wave feminism of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Primarily, the 1950s are in question. 9 In her book, Press discusses primarily the situation comedies and argues that only in this kind of television shows, women were active and played other than supporting roles (35). This changes in the period of the “feminist” television. 10 I Love Lucy. CBS. New York City, New York. 15 Oct. 1951. Television. 19 she “ends up […] right back in the bosom of her nuclear family, usually crying with relief at being welcomed back […] and spared the […] disastrous consequences of her mischief” (Press 29).

Second, the “feminist” television is to be examined. In contrast to their portrayal on the prefeminist television, as a result of the new wave of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s, women appearing on television were more often working women and also the number of women “shown both in the family and at work” increased (Press 6). Moreover, in the 1970s and 1980s, it was no longer uncommon to have female characters portrayed as “strong women working in non-traditional positions” (Press 35). To illustrate, the series Charlie’s Angels11 from the 1970s features three attractive female detectives. Fiske however emphasizes the fact that the Angels always returned to the “control of Charlie’s voice” in whose agency they worked (191). Therefore, as Fiske notes, “patriarchy was deeply inscribed in the series” (191). Furthermore, Fiske and Hartley argue that, similarly to the case of Charlie’s Angels, behind the “manly” role Jaime

Sommers takes on in Bionic Woman12, she is still “a man’s view of a woman: polite, willing to make her boss’s coffee, and attractively dressed according to male definitions of attractiveness” (192). Hence, even though the renaissance of feminism has brought positive changes into the portrayal of women on television, the chauvinist ideological values and expectations remain reflected in them. Nevertheless, series such as Charlie’s Angels and Bionic Woman “were part of the changing status of women in our society” (Fiske 45).

11 Charlie’s Angels. ABC. New York City, New York. 22 Sept. 1976. Television. 12 Bionic Woman. ABC. New York City, New York. 14 Jan. 1976. Television. 20

Third, Press discusses the postfeminist television. She affirms that there is a “trend for women to be shown back in the home” (38). She goes on arguing that “women are attributed some version of a work identity” which is however

“superficial” and ought not to affect their family role in any way (Press 38).

Furthermore, Press stresses the fact that the Women’s Liberation Movement, let alone feminism, was being “caricaturized” and the depiction of vociferous feminists “has become a cliché” (39). Briefly, in the postfeminist television, women return to their nuclear families and, moreover, the feminism is rather ridiculed.

To conclude this chapter, the portrayal of women on television was observed. It was affirmed that there is a connection between the issue of portraying females on TV and the dominant ideology of the patriarchal society.

The female characters appearing on television screen in the second half of the

20th century evolved from a purely domestic family characters to working women and then back to the domestic role. It was also assumed that the portrayal of women was influenced by the historic events such as the second wave of feminism particularly of the 1960s and 1970s. However, no matter how women were depicted, their representation always answered to the needs of the dominant ideology that is embedded in our society. Nevertheless, it seems it can be slightly altered by the changes in society and history.

21

3. Doctor Who

In the previous chapters, the emphasis was first laid upon the television studies, where the way television works was introduced, and then upon the question of portrayal of women on television. Before the analysis of particular female characters of Doctor Who, it is required to present the television programme which will be discussed. First the synopsis of the series will be provided, followed by the origins of the programme and its development throughout the history, and concluded with a general discussion of female characters that it features.

3.1. “Hello, I’m the Doctor.” “Doctor Who?”

The main character of the programme is, as he calls himself, the Doctor.

He is an extra-terrestrial being who comes from the planet Gallifrey which is inhabited with an exceptionally technologically developed race of Time Lords.

As the name suggests, Time Lords possess the power to travel through time. The

Doctor is said to be a runaway who stole one of their spaceships – the TARDIS

(which stands for Time and Relative Dimensions in Space).

The TARDIS is an inseparable part of the Doctor’s character. As a technology of the Time Lords, it can transport its passengers to any point of time and space. There are many merits to this spacecraft, one of them is a so- called chameleon circuit enabling the TARDIS to retain a particular shape so that it blends into any environment. Unfortunately, the circuit got broken when the

Doctor parked in the 1960s London and apart from his few attempts to repair it,

22 the TARDIS spends most of the time on the programme disguised as a 1960s police phone box.

The Doctor uses the TARDIS to travel to various places either in the history or the future where he usually faces different kinds of evil characters. There is a number of recurring enemies of the Doctor. The most famous ones are the

Daleks who were created by the scientist called Davros. Throughout the series, the Doctor also encounters the evil Master, Cybermen, The Sontarans, The Ice

Warriors, and other vicious characters with despicable plans. Doctor Who is therefore ultimately a programme about the battle between good and evil.

To beat his enemies, the Doctor often uses only his vast knowledge of the universe and science. Fighting the wrong-doings of these characters alongside the Doctor are also his companions (usually female) whom the Doctor meets on his travels and invites them to join him in his adventures. The companions are to be discussed in more detail later in the chapter.

3.2. The Origins of Doctor Who

Having introduced the synopsis of the programme, its creation will be now discussed. The beginning of the series is closely connected with the appointment of Sydney Newman as the BBC’s new Head of Drama in 1963. In his book Doctor

Who which narrates the history of the programme, Kim Newman, a British film critic, argues that it was Sydney Newman who first “sketched the concept of the show” (2). Nevertheless, in “Fifty Years in the TARDIS”, an article concentrating on the most significant moments of the series, James Chapman points out that the BBC “had been considering for some time the production of a science-fiction

23 series” (45). Simultaneously, there was a “gap […] in the late Saturday-afternoon schedule between the end of the sports magazine […] and the pop music review” and due to this, the BBC was losing many viewers (Chapman, “Fifty” 45-46).

Consequently, Sydney Newman commissioned a team who was to fill in this gap with “a ‘loyalty programme’, lasting at least 52 weeks, consisting of various dramatised S.F.13 stories, linked to form a continuous serial, using basically a few characters who continue through all the stories” (“Concept Notes”, n. pag.).

As far as the characters are concerned, it was assumed that children would appreciate a “HANDSOME YOUNG MAN HERO”, while women were to be interested in a “HANDSOME WELL-DRESSED HEROINE AGED ABOUT 30” and men would identify with “THE MATURER MAN, 35-40” (ibid.). Only later the production team added a character of a young girl (Susan) and the maturer man was changed into an old man. Even though it is usually argued that Doctor Who was primarily a children’s programme, Verily Lambert, its first and only female producer, claimed that “it [was] intended more as a story for the whole family”

(“Behind Every Dalek”).

3.3. Brief History of the Series

The first episode of Doctor Who finally aired on 23rd November 1963 after numerous obstructions. In Chapman’s book Inside the Tardis, he proposes that these “problems that beset Doctor Who during its pre-production period were in large measure due to the fact that nothing quite like it had been attempted before” (21). The BBC had never launched such a long (52 weeks) SF

13 I.e. science fiction stories. 24 programme. However, its first broadcasting was overshadowed by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy the day before. Nonetheless, the second serial “The Daleks” brought in more viewers and it “firmly established the place of Doctor Who in the public’s imagination” (Chapman, Inside 26). This serial also introduced the famous Daleks who turned out to be a success. Further serials featuring the Daleks “prompted an outbreak of ‘Dalekmania’ with Dalek toys and games flooding the shops for Christmas” (Chapman, “Fifty” 47). Despite this,

Chapman supposes that by 1966, the fascination with the Daleks was slowly disappearing (“Fifty” 48).

It was also in 1966 that due to William Hartnell14’s poor health, he had to leave the programme. It was at that moment “a narrative strategy that was to ensure [Doctor Who’s] longevity” was devised – the Doctor’s regeneration – which enabled the programme to change the actor playing the main character15

(Chapman, “Fifty” 49). The audience respected the change and thus, the series could always introduce a new Doctor in order to renew itself. In the introduction to Time and Relative Dissertations in Space, David Butler argues that “this openness […] to change […] is one of the great strength of the programme” (8).

In the 1970s, in Chapman’s opinion, the series became an “institutionalised ritual” which means that it “was a flagship programme for the BBC and settled into a regular production and transmission schedule” (“Fifty” 50). The stories of the first half of the 1970s were predominantly concerned with the “invasion

14 William Hartnell played the first Doctor in 1963-1966. 15 That therefore led to a “chain” of the Doctors: William Hartnell (1963-1966), Patrick Troughton (1966-1969), Jon Pertwee (1970-1973), Tom Baker (1974-1981), Peter Davison (1982-1984), Colin Baker (1984-1986), Sylvester McCoy (1987-1989), Paul McGann (1996), Christopher Eccleston (2005), David Tennant (2005 -2010), Matt Smith (2010-2013), Peter Capaldi (2014-present). 25 or infiltration narrative” and the series became “more evidently political” as it discussed and therefore emphasized events like the miners’ strikes, the energy crisis or the pollution (Chapman, “Fifty” 50). Several scripts also discussed the current wave of feminism and women’s emancipation through certain characters.

Furthermore, the second half of the 1970s is described, by Chapman, as a “Gothic horror period” because it “inhabited a world of darkness […], horror and violence”

(“Fifty” 51). In Inside the Tardis, Chapman argues that this new style was a “response to the changing nature of its audience” that was getting older (77).

In the 1980s, Doctor Who became less popular among the viewers. It may be seen as a transformation “from a mainstream popular drama to a cult science- fiction series with its own fan base” (Chapman, “Fifty” 53). This may be the consequence of the “rise of a dedicated Doctor Who fan culture” – for example

The Doctor Who Appreciation Society had been established who started to produce an official magazine (Chapman, “Fifty” 53). Additionally, Doctor Who books were published and some of the Doctor’s stories were sold on video cassettes. This new medium might have also been a reason for the decline of the television programme. After the end of the 26th season in 1989, the series was put to rest.

In 1996, Doctor Who was revived in the format of a moving picture but did not receive much acclaim. Nevertheless, the BBC series was brought back in 2005 and it has been broadcast since. As far as the new series is concerned,

Chapman suggests that it holds “a very different place in the institutional context of the BBC than the classic series had ever done” and he goes on demonstrating that it has a “privileged place in television culture” as, for example, its Christmas

26 special “has become an integral part of BBC1’s Christmas Day schedule” (“Fifty”

56). The programme has also got its own spin-offs (e.g. Torchwood), the books are published, toys and games are produced. The most pronounced feature of the “new Who” is however the fact that Doctor Who became “the BBC’s most successful ‘global brand’” (Chapman, “Fifty” 56). The Doctor was no longer reserved merely to the UK but the series penetrated the television screens of the rest of the world, too. It therefore developed into a worldwide known phenomenon.

In relation to the original series of 1963-1989 – classic Doctor Who – it is important to note that there is however a difference between the two programmes. In his book Triumph of a Time Lord which largely focuses on the comparison of the original and the new series, the scholar-fan Matt Hills suggests that they “were produced in radically different industrial and cultural contexts as well as therefore exhibiting significant textual differences” (4). In the new series, for example, the writers focus more on the domestic life of the characters in contrast to the classic Doctor Who which did not provide much or virtually any background information about the characters. The approach to the style of the series was therefore changed and adapted to the culture of the present day.

3.4. The Doctor’s Companions

Having briefly presented the history of Doctor Who, the following subchapter will deal with the predominantly female companions of the Doctor emphasizing the question of their portrayal. This part will deal with them in

27 a more general approach and will also serve as an introduction to the last part of the thesis which is the analysis of the classic Doctor Who women.

As mentioned in the synopsis, the Doctor usually travels with one or more companions. Doctor Who’s producer Barry Letts (1970-1974) defined a companion as “somebody who could say ‘Doctor, what is all this about?’ So that the Doctor could then say, ‘Oh well, now in simple terms it is so and so…’ – […] to explain to the audience what is happening” (qtd. in Tulloch and Alvarado 209).

Similarly, another producer of the series, Graham Williams (1977-1980) confirmed this by saying that “the function of the companion […] is and always has been, a stereotype. The companion is a story-telling device. […] You have to have her there” (qtd. in Tulloch and Alvarado 209). As Williams implied by the personal pronoun “her”, since the beginning of the series, there have been 37 companions and 26 of them have been women. Thus, the majority of Doctor’s fellow travellers have been female.

After the discussion of the problematic representations of women on television in the preceding chapter, one would not be surprised to find out that the portrayal of Doctor’s companions is also questioned and criticized. As the producers of the programme suggested, the female characters are to play a secondary role. The word itself implies that their primary task is to accompany the Doctor, him playing the more important role of a traveller and a leader. In her unpublished doctoral thesis entitled “Enlightenment Was the Choice: Doctor Who and the Democratisation of Science” which partly concentrates on the relationship between science and the Doctor’s companions, Lindy Orthia considers three functions of companions to be “to scream and be rescued”, “to enable the plot

28 to be explained to the viewers” and “to provide a point of identification for viewers” (Orthia 54). The first one is probably the most criticized aspect of the representation of women on Doctor Who. Dee Amy-Chinn in her paper on the analysis of the first companion of the renewed Doctor entitled “Rose Tyler: The

Ethics of Care and The Limit of Agency” furthermore adds that these female characters in distress are rescued “usually by the Doctor or at least by another male character” (243). This implies women’s dependency on the male characters.

Moreover, Lorna Jowett in “The Girls Who Waited”, an article discussing the representation of female companions primarily of the new Doctor Who, notes that “female companions […] have a ‘decorative’ function” (79). She refers to the often attractive appearance of the women on the programme as well as to the way they are dressed – wearing short skirts, dresses and bikinis. Paul Booth in his paper discussing the various ways of dividing the series into certain periods entitled “Periodising Doctor Who” affirms that “excepting Lambert, all the producers, stars, and script editors […] have conformed to the traditional system of cultural privilege” and he goes on asserting that this results in the programme

“articulat[ing] dominant hegemonic meanings” (200). Booth’s view confirms the arguments discussed in the chapter on television studies where it is argued that the dominant culture influences the production of a television programme.

Consequently, the portrayal of women on Doctor Who is debatable.

The female characters of the 2005 “reboot” of the series attract much critical attention. Their portrayal is often discussed and criticized. Dee Amy-Chinn in her article about Rose Tyler, first female companion of the renewed series, argues that “Rose’s strengths are caring and compassion” which, in fact, “limit

29 agency and restrict the growth of” her character (231). Amy-Chinn explains that

“Rose’s capacity to care is often the cause of trouble rather than its solution” and hence, Amy-Chinn claims that “Rose’s role is to care and to get into trouble from which she needs rescuing” which is the stereotyped role of a companion (242;

244).

Moreover, in her paper “Spoiled for Another Life” concentrating on the bad influence of the Doctor on his companions, Sherry Ginn writes that Rose

“constantly whine[s] about how bad her life would be without the Doctor” which suggests that Rose becomes rather dependent on the Doctor for she considers her life to had been dull and unsatisfactory before she met him (251). The Doctor therefore plays the role of a saviour as though she needs saving from her otherwise boring life. So on one hand, Rose is a passive character who gets into dangerous situations and her ability to care is ultimately useless. On the other hand, Lee Barron in his paper “Intergalactic Girlpower”, which focuses on female characters in Doctor Who, argues that Rose represents an active character who, in the very first episode, rescues the Doctor and her impact on him grows as the programme progresses (140).

The new Doctor Who is also often criticized for defining its female characters “by relationships” (Jowett 81). Apart from Rose’s relationships with her mother and her boyfriend, another Doctor’s companion – Amy Pond – is in the series portrayed as a girlfriend and later as a wife. These relationships, Jowett argues, “situate the female companions within traditionally feminine networks of family, the domestic” (81). The roles of women are therefore stereotyped.

Some of the companions even become entangled romantically with the Doctor

30 himself: Rose, Martha, Amy and River. River is a very controversial character.

Jowett describes her as “assertive […] and independent” (84). She suggests that

River is at the same time “an action hero”, “an intellectual” and “a femme fatale”

(84). However, later in the series, she turns out to be the Doctor’s wife who

“willingly serves a prison sentence for killing him (when he is not even dead), sometimes sneaking out for romantic liaisons with her husband” and hence she represents “another girl who waited for the Doctor to complete her” (Jowett 85).

Her character resembles Amy, River’s mum in fact, who also as a girl waited twelve years for the Doctor, questioning her own sanity and not being able to forget him.

The least controversial female companion of the Doctor in the 2005

“reboot” seems to be Donna Noble, his third companion. In her paper on women’s representation in this series “More than a Companion”, Charlie Coile affirms that

Donna “is not the usual young, conventionally beautiful […] admirer” but rather a “smart, heart-felt, witty woman” who is “always up for a dangerous adventure” and “proves to be capable” (85). In contrast to Coile’s positive perception of Donna, Jowett however emphasizes that she is “characterised through her somewhat antagonistic relationship with a critical mother, and by a […] supportive bond with granddad” (81). Nevertheless, Donna still remains the only companion who shows the least dependence on the Doctor, no romantic bonds and ultimately she looks after the Doctor instead of him rescuing her all the time.

As it was demonstrated, the women of renewed Doctor Who are subject to large criticism. What is often appreciated is their activity, intelligence and strength. However, they are more often criticized for being portrayed as defined

31 by relationships, positioning them into a domestic environment, and being too dependent on the Doctor as if he was the only extraordinary thing to happen to them.

As for the female characters of the classic Who, they did not attract much critical attention. The absence of any important scholarly work focusing on this topic is a reason why this thesis concentrates solely on the Doctor’s stories from

1963-1989 which will be discussed in the subsequent chapter in more detail.

32

4. The Analysis of Female Characters in the Classic Who

“Who’d be a woman?” exclaims Victoria Waterfield, Doctor’s companion

(“The Tomb of the Cybermen: Episode III”). She displays her annoyance and dissatisfaction with the position of women. As this question suggests, the objective of this chapter is to demonstrate how certain female characters are portrayed in the original series of Doctor Who (1963-1989).

Doctor Who contains many interesting female characters – from emancipated Victoria from the 19th century and female Time “Lord” Romana to merciless tyrant Maaga of the Drahvins and brave Gia Kelly, the only person to truly understand the T-mat, technology from the future. The aim of this thesis is not however to show the variety of these characters but to focus on a few and discuss how they are depicted. Thus, for the reasons of economy and pertinence to the thesis, eight female characters were chosen: Susan Foreman, Barbara

Wright, Polly, Zoe Heriot, Dr. Liz Shaw, Sarah-Jane Smith, Leela and Ace. In this chapter, I will discuss these characters in a chronological order, starting with

Susan, Doctor’s first companion, and ending with Ace, the last companion of the classic Doctor Who.

Having introduced the problems with the representation of women in the renewed series of Doctor Who, this chapter will concentrate merely on the portrayal of women in the classic Who. With each character, her qualities and characteristics will be provided, followed by a more detailed analysis. The intention is to demonstrate the usefulness or the uselessness of these characters and their role in the story in general, to answer the questions whether they are treated as fully-fledged women, whether they are sexually objectified and how

33 they respond to misogynistic behaviour of the male characters. The goal of this chapter is also to determine if these female characters either challenge the social stereotypes or conform to them.

4.1. Susan Foreman

One of the very first companions of the Doctor, Susan (played by Carole

Ann Ford), aged 15, is described as very intelligent. Throughout her tenure on the programme (1963-4), other characters refer to her brilliance be it, for example, her teacher Ian who affirms that “she’s a genius” or her tutor who declares that

“her intelligence far exceeds that of the others” (“An Unearthly Child”; “The Bride of Sacrifice”). She takes advantage of her ingenuity, for instance, in the episode

“The Firemaker”. In this episode, arriving in the Stone Age, the Doctor and his companions are taken prisoners by a group of cavemen. Contemplating the ways to escape, Susan comes up with a simple plot to scare the cavemen off by putting a skull on a chip of wood on fire to bluff them into believing that they died and became ghosts. The primitive cavemen get frightened and the Doctor with his companions can escape.

Even though Susan exhibits this kind of ingenuity from time to time, most of the time she is portrayed as a hysterical panicking teenager. In the episode

“The Cave of Skulls”, a preceding one to “The Firemaker”, she starts screaming and crying after the Doctor gets abducted by a caveman. Ian, Doctor’s male companion at the time, tries to calm her but she just keeps on yelling: “I must find him [the Doctor]”. Newman argues that she is “the first of many Doctor Who screamers” (13). In addition, James Chapman argues:

34

“The case of Susan provides the first example of the limitations

on characterisation imposed by the Doctor Who formula: she was required

to fulfil the role of “screamer” and often had little to do beyond looking

pretty and frightened” (Inside 24).

Chapman’s statement is debatable though. He is right about Susan’s role of a scared screamer. However, there is more to her performance as a character.

She becomes a nuisance, someone to look after. Chapman describes her as an “immature female prone to getting into trouble” and that is an essential characteristic of hers (Inside 24). Her ability to get into trouble is illustrated in the episode “World’s End”. This episode brings the Doctor and his companions to London of the future where it is invaded by the Daleks. After the arrival of the group, Susan goes exploring the surroundings, but she falls and twists her ankle so she becomes dependant on the help of others. The Doctor scolds her for

“always dashing about”. Moreover, her fall causes a bridge to fall down, blocking the entrance to the TARDIS and therefore compelling the Doctor to face the

Daleks. For most of the time, her character is thus used to provide or prolong the plot. She is reduced only to a narrative device. She is a paradoxical character.

On one hand, she represents an incredibly bright teenager, on the other hand, apart from a few moments, she does not seem to be able to draw from her intelligence and calmly use her logic.

As for her relationship with the Doctor, she is said to be the Doctor’s granddaughter, so from the beginning, kind of a parent-child relationship is constituted between him and Susan. She is not however afraid to defy her own grandfather as it is demonstrated in their dialogue in “Hidden Danger”. This

35 episode narrates the story of the Doctor and his companions landing on a spaceship that orbits a planet called Sense-Sphere. Later it turns out that

Sensorities, the inhabitants of the planet, are restricting the crew of the spaceship from exploring the planet because a previous visit from Earth caused them great misery. They however try to communicate with Susan and invite her to Sense-

Sphere. She decides to leave the ship with the aliens despite the Doctor’s disapproval:

Doctor: “I don’t believe you have the ability to represent us, that’s all.”

Susan: “Stop treating me like a child!”

Doctor: “You will do as you are told, Susan! […]”

Susan: “Sorry, grandfather. I can’t do it.”

Later Susan also exclaims that she “ha[s] opinions, too!” and that she “won’t be pushed aside” because she is not “a child anymore”. Nevertheless, this row ends in Susan submitting and expressing her obedience to the Doctor: “All right, grandfather, I’ll do as you tell me”. The denouement of this scene shows the

Doctor’s superiority to Susan. Barron talks of the Doctor’s domination and authority when it comes to their relationship (132). No matter how much Susan does not agree with the Doctor, in the end, she always obeys him. He has control over her and he even makes decisions for her. In “Flashpoint”, after they have won the battle against the Daleks and saved the planet, the Doctor, aware of Susan’s feelings for David, decides that she should stay in London with him.

He says, “With David, you will be able to […] live normally like any woman should do. Believe me, my dear, your future lies with David”. He says goodbye and parts, leaving Susan there crying. He does not give her any choice, even though it is

36 her life and this should be her decision. She is therefore portrayed as someone who is not able to make difficult decisions, as a child who has to be taken care of. The paradox is again present. She is depicted as intelligent, but not reasonable and sensible enough to decide about her future. This right is transferred to her grandfather, as an authority, who successfully manages to marry her off.

In conclusion, Susan is in the series described as intelligent but she proves to be the opposite of it causing trouble and panicking as if she lost her mind. The

Doctor plays a role of her guardian whom she obeys and who takes decisions for her. She is depicted as submissive damsel often in distress that needs to be told what to do.

4.2. Barbara Wright

The character of Barbara (played by Jacqueline Hill through the years

1963-5) notably differs from Susan. She is a grown up woman. Apart from a few traditional Doctor Who screaming scenes, Barbara represents an emancipated, assertive woman. Chapman adds that she is also “sensible, level-headed and practical” (Inside 23). This assertiveness of hers “represents a challenge to the authority of the Doctor” (Chapman, Inside 23). In “The Edge of Destruction”, the

TARDIS crew is presented with a problem. The TARDIS keeps signalling danger but the Doctor fails to detect the fault. Barbara uses her intuition and reason and proposes to the rest of the crew that maybe “something could have got into the ship”. She is laughed at and mocked for her “not very logical” explanation.

However, in the subsequent episode “The Brink of Disaster”, it turns out that

Barbara was right all along and thanks to her intuition, the Doctor manages

37 to save them all. The Doctor then admits that she “[was] absolutely right” and that they “all owe [her] [their] lives”. By saying that he “[has] underestimated”

Barbara and that “as we learn about each other, so we learn about ourselves”, the Doctor confesses that Barbara “broadened his already expansive horizons” and he starts to take Barbara more seriously (Orthia 276).

Barbara furthermore plays an important role, for instance, in the serial

“The Dalek Invasion of Earth” where the Doctor and his companions fight the

Daleks who try to destroy the Earth. In the fifth episode of this serial, the enslaved Barbara stands up to the Daleks and tries to gain their trust saying that she has information about an arranged uprising of their slaves so that they would take her to see the Black Dalek who is in control (“The Walking Ally”). She manages to bluff them into believing her and the information she gathers about their plans turns out to be very useful in the following episode “Flashpoint” when in the Doctor’s hands, it is used to defeat the Daleks. Barbara therefore represents a strong, pragmatic female character.

In addition, she challenges the stereotyped submissive position of a woman. She refuses to stay behind where she would be presumably safe and goes on dangerous explorations with the others. To illustrate, when a male character expresses surprise that Ian allowed Barbara to go with them, he replies,

“I’d be more surprised if I could have stopped her” (“The Expedition”). The surprise of the man again however proposes that it is Ian who possesses the power to make decisions for Barbara, even though there is no relationship between them but their friendship. Ian, being of the male sex, is automatically thought to assume the stronger and more important role in their relationship.

38

Barbara nevertheless questions this stereotyped arrangement. When someone asks her whether she “always [does] what Ian says”, she promptly replies: “No,

I don’t” (“The Ordeal”). She also complains about Ian’s superiority and unreasonable protection: “I do wish Ian would not treat us [her and Susan] like

Dresden china” (“The Screaming Jungle”). She sees herself as a strong individual who does not need protection and who can take care of herself. Barbara exhibits her fighting skills on the programme a few times, too. For instance, she steps on a man’s hand after he touched her during the slave trade in order to make him stop in “All Roads Lead to Rome”. To conclude, compared to Susan, Barbara is a fully-fledged woman. She stands up for herself if it is needed and does not submit. She is very confident and refuses the social stereotypes. As a companion, she therefore becomes very active, useful and sometimes she even takes control over the development of the story.

4.3. Polly

Another companion to focus on is Polly (played by Anneke Wills through the years 1966-7). Polly represents a dissimilar character to Barbara and Susan.

The new producer Innes Lloyd wished to make a change in the representation of Doctor’s female companions as to “make [them] more contemporary” since the composition of the viewership changed – majority of the viewers were “young adults” at the time (Chapman, Inside 57). From the feminist point of view, it is however a step backwards. Chapman considers her to be:

“The first female companion to exhibit any degree of sex appeal: Polly

represented that archetypal sixties construction of femininity, the ‘dolly

39

bird’16, whose trendy clothes (mini dresses and boyish caps) placed her

firmly within contemporary fashion” (Inside 57).

This suggests that her character was created in order to attract more young viewers who would identify with her. Richard Wallace affirms that “it was the attractive, idealistic notions of 1966 femininity, and not the strong role models, that were now being used to promote the programme” (108). Her attractiveness is further emphasized by certain scenes in the series. For instance, in the very first episode of her tenure, two men get into a fight because of her – one who claims that he “know[s] her type” and does not want to take his arm away from

Polly and one who instantly jumps in to protect her (“The War Machines: Episode

I). Thus, Polly becomes a damsel in distress and needs rescuing – a traditional

Doctor Who companion conforming to social stereotypes as one would say. She is also called “bellissima” by a random man in “The Tenth Planet: Episode I”.

Additionally, the way the series emphasizes her appearance and sex appeal, Polly is treated as a sex object.

She further submits to the social stereotypes by working as a secretary – a women’s conventional profession on television. Being a secretary, her first-rate ability is to make coffee. A case in point is the third episode of “The Tenth Planet”.

In this episode, the Doctor and his companions, Polly and Ben, arrive at the South

Pole’s station where the crew tries to put into orbit a space capsule that is in trouble. However, the station is also endangered by the Cybermen who

16 I.e. a pretty young woman in the 1960s. E.g. Twiggy, born in London in 1949, who became popular as a model, actress and singer and symbolized the “swinging sixties”. 40 decided to invade the Earth. In this threatening situation, Polly asks the captain of the station:

Polly: “Can I stay and help?”

Captain: “What do you think you could do?”

Polly: “Well, I could make some coffee or something.”

Making coffee is in Polly’s eyes the best she can offer. Complying with her assigned role of a coffee maker, other male characters affirm this function of hers and do not consider her competent to become involved in the major events. The following dialogue is to be considered:

Polly: “How do you like your coffee?”

A male member of the crew: “Oh, as it comes.”

Polly: “Are you trying to get in touch with General Cutler’s son?”

A male member of the crew: “Look, you just keep your mind on making

coffee, will you.”

He reaffirms her position as a waitress who should not ask questions about the serious business that the men are taking care of. Polly is therefore portrayed as absolutely conforming to the social stereotypes and dominant misogynistic conventions. Richard Wallace in his paper “‘But Doctor?’ – A Feminist Perspective of Doctor Who” confirms that the programme “reverted […] to traditional stereotypes following Lambert’s initially promising representations” as exemplified by Barbara (108).

41

4.4. Zoe Heriot

In 1968, Peter Bryant replaced Innes Lloyd as a producer and the change was reflected in the representation of women as well. The emphasis was laid upon brainpower rather than beauty. The representative of this change is Zoe

(played by Wendy Padbury through the years 1968-9), a young girl originally from the 21st century Earth. She is the first scientist to travel with the Doctor.

She is an astrophysicist and has a major in pure mathematics (“The Wheel in Space: Episode III”). Intelligence is the main trait of her personality. Chapman argues that she “represent[s] an intellectual challenge to the Doctor” (Inside 57).

In contrast to Susan, Zoe’s intelligence is not undermined. The Doctor himself admits that Zoe is “something of a genius” (“The Krotons: Episode III”). In her case, Zoe becomes the Doctor’s equal as far as their scientific knowledge is concerned. For instance, he uses her knowledge and abilities to co-pilot a rocket to the moonbase invaded by the Ice Warriors in “The Seeds of Death: Episode

II” while the Doctor’s male companion Jamie remains rather useless.

Furthermore, in the stories with Zoe, a singular phenomenon is observed and that is the exchange of roles when it comes to presumed silliness and uselessness of the female companion and heroism of the male companion.

In these stories, Zoe assumes the role of a heroine in terms of using her knowledge to resolve a situation or to be simply useful, whereas Jamie often does not understand what is happening. In such scenes, Jamie assumes the established role of a companion who asks questions. Generally, the Doctor is expected to answer them in order to provide the explanation for the viewers.

However, Zoe sometimes substitutes for him and answer Jamie’s questions

42 herself. For instance, in “The Seeds of Death: Episode II”, when the Doctor and his companions travel to the Moon and they need to make contact with the moon crew, Jamie asks: “How do you do that? I thought we’ve got no contact with anyone on the Moon.” Zoe answers instead of the Doctor: “Well, it’s quite simple,

Jamie. It’s an automatic device. We send our code radio signals which trigger the homing beam into action. We automatically lock onto it until we reach the point in orbit where we fire retro-rockets to land” (“The Seeds of Death: Episode II”).

She therefore understands the technology and proves to be useful as a companion.

Moreover, Orthia suggests in her thesis that during her tenure on the programme, Zoe and the Doctor find themselves in an intellectual competition

(259). Nevertheless, she emphasises that this contest goes “hand in hand with mutual respect” (259). To illustrate, the second episode of the serial “The

Krotons” will be considered. The Krotons are mysterious beings who feed on brain waves of the brightest of the Gonds, a race that inhabit the planet the Doctor and his companions visit. In order to become a “companion” of the Krotons, one must pass a special test. Zoe cannot resist and she takes the test. It turns out that “even the best of [the Gonds’] students registered less than half of [her] score” (“The Krotons: Episode II”). However, the Krotons demand her to become their “companion”, so the Doctor decides to take the test as well to ensure that

Zoe does not go alone. Nevertheless, the Doctor fails twice to answer the question correctly. When the teacher becomes doubtful whether the Doctor can pass this test, Zoe exclaims: “Of course he can. The Doctor’s almost as clever as I am!” (“The Krotons: Episode II”). Thus, in Zoe’s view, she is smarter than

43 the Doctor, which challenges the Doctor’s role as an authority and a know-it-all.

Moreover, the Doctor supports Zoe’s achievements, she “never ha[s] to prove herself to him” (Orthia 260). He respects her as a partner.

Generally, she is very confident about her skills and knowledge and self- assured. However, her dependence on scientific facts and her reliance on precise calculations sometimes restrain her from being able to see a different perspective of a problem causing Zoe to appear insensitive and indifferent. In the third episode of “The Wheel in Space”, when a space station is threatened by a vessel coming to its direction and by a meteor shower, Zoe calmly calculates the size of the meteorites that might endanger the safety of the crew and gets into a quarrel with her colleague Leo:

Zoe: “The neutron barriers won’t help us. A star of this magnitude when it

goes nova deflects meteorites with a mass of two hundred tons each. […]”

Leo: “Well, aren’t you ever wrong?”

Zoe: chuckles “Rarely.”

Leo: “No, it’s all a problem in solid geometry to you, isn’t it? Don’t you care

what happens here?”

Zoe: “Well, of course. I’m only telling you what’s going to happen.”

Leo: “Just like a robot. Facts. Calculations. A proper little brainchild – all

brain and no heart!”

Leo compares Zoe to a robot, suggesting that she is emotionless and pays attention to her calculations only. Hence, on one hand, Zoe represents a very positive female companion in terms of her abilities and intelligence but, on the other hand, she is portrayed as possibly lacking compassion which is

44 a characteristic normally attributed to men. This fact proposes that Zoe has the tendency to be more socially emancipated in terms of behaving more like a man.

Dee Amy-Chinn affirms that the feminism in the classic Doctor Who “took as its premise equality based on sameness” which would confirm Zoe’s attempt to appear manly (234).

As for stereotyped and misogynistic portrayal of characters, apart from a few rare “weak moments” (Zoe screaming, crying), Zoe is an emancipated and assertive woman and when facing a sexist comment, she fights back. For example, she angrily snaps at Jamie when he implies that some jobs are not suitable for women saying: “Just because you’re a man, you think you’re superior, do you?” (“The Invasion: Episode V”). She does not conform to her prescribed role of a damsel in distress. On the contrary, in “The Mind Robber: Episode IV”, she uses martial arts skills to fight off the Karkus, an embodied cartoon character from her era, who attacked her and the Doctor. Briefly, Zoe represents a female companion who is in many ways the Doctor’s equal partner and therefore, she is the most emancipated female character so far. Even though she does not avoid criticism for being too dependent on science, she is portrayed as a positive female character who challenges not only the Doctor’s role as the smartest of them all, but also the conventional position of a woman.

45

4.5. Dr. Liz Shaw

Another genius to appear beside the Doctor is Liz Shaw (played by Caroline

John in 1970), the first companion of the third Doctor. She is a highly qualified scientist, ascribed by UNIT17 to the Doctor to assist him. Chapman characterizes her as “rational, sceptical and very far from the screaming bimbo stereotype”

(Inside 79). Most scholars who came across this character affirm that she is unsuitable for the role of the Doctor’s companion as she is too intelligent to fulfil the basic function of a companion18 – to ask questions. As Newman argues, Liz

“was so brainy that she already knew thing the Doctor needed to explain to the audience” (45). She therefore subverts the traditional Doctor Who standards.

A question could be raised – if Liz Shaw is too smart for the Doctor, how come genius Zoe excels at the role of a companion? The answer consists in the fact that Zoe was not the only Doctor’s companion. Jamie accompanied him as well providing for the constant questions.

Liz Shaw seems to encompass all the characteristics of a positive female character which makes her paradoxically inappropriate for the role. She is an independent woman. She is educated, assertive and capable to defend herself either physically or verbally. In contrast to the preceding characters, she also faces the most sexism and stereotyping. Apart from wearing miniskirts and short dresses instead of a lab coat in order to please a section of the viewers, she is constantly reminded by Brigadier, a commander of UNIT, or by the Doctor of where her place is. Consider the following scene of the second episode

17 I.e. Unified Intelligence Taskforce whose purpose is to protect the Earth from any troubling extra-terrestrials. 18 For the functions of the companion, see the preceding chapter “Doctor Who”, subchapter “The Doctor’s Companions”. 46 of “Doctor Who and the Silurians” where the Doctor, the Brigadier and another male character decide to go and investigate the caves where the Silurians, a race of reptile-like humans, reside:

Brigadier: “We’ll all go, except Miss Shaw.”

Liz: “Oh, just a minute. I’m not going to miss all the…”

Brigadier: “No, Miss Shaw.”

Liz: “Have you never heard of female emancipation?”

Doctor: “Liz, this time, I think he’s right.”

The Doctor’s commentary silences her. Not for long though. In the following episode of the same serial, she blackmails the Doctor saying, “Either I come with you or I go straight to the Brigadier” in order to persuade him to take her with him to the caves (“Doctor Who and the Silurians: Episode IV”). Further on, still in the same serial, when Liz informs the Brigadier that the man who has been probably infected with a Silurians’ virus took a train to London, therefore the spread of infection is expected, the Brigadier asks Liz to help him “manning the phones” (Doctor Who and the Silurians: Episode VI”). She refuses saying:

Liz: “I’m a scientist, not an office boy.”

Brigadier: “You’re a member of UNIT, Miss Shaw, and you’ll do as you’re

told!”

Liz: “I will not be spoken to in that way!”

Doctor: “Liz, go with him, please. […]”

Liz: “Fair enough.”

During her short (one season) tenure on Doctor Who, she therefore spends much time defending herself from being assigned to stereotypical roles and even

47 though she tries to challenge the misogynistic and patronising behaviour of the male characters, in the end, she always submits to the Doctor who once again assumes the role of an authority.

No matter that, intellectually, Liz could represent the Doctor’s equal, her scientific knowledge and credibility are frequently undermined by the male characters and, moreover, she becomes a toy in the hands of powerful men like the Doctor and the Brigadier who ultimately have the last word. Orthia correctly suggests that “the big problem for Liz [is] the presence of the Doctor” and she goes on explaining that “when he [is] […] absent from UNIT […], she carrie[s] authority and expertise” (250). A case in point are the first two episodes of “Spearhead from Space” where the Doctor being unconscious is recovering from his regeneration and Liz is therefore assigned the role of the leading scientist. When the Doctor comes back and regains his position, Liz is to play a secondary role of the Doctor’s assistant. She later affirms that what the Doctor needs is “someone to pass [him] [his] test tubes and to tell [him] how brilliant

[he] [is]” (“Terror of the Autons: Episode I”).

Richard Wallace argues that “[Liz’s] strengths as a character are […] her limitations as a companion” (109). That means that her scientific knowledge and other abilities restrain her from performing the established role of a companion which makes her a controversial female character. Hence, she ends up being nothing more but the Doctor’s assistant even though she is qualified to be a proper scientist. Next to the Doctor, however, she cannot prosper. Furthermore, she is confronted with frequent sexist harassment and social stereotyping which she rather unsuccessfully fights and, in the end, conforms to it.

48

4.6. Sarah Jane Smith

Steve Tribe, in Doctor Who: Companions and Allies, a book discussing several stories surrounding the Doctor’s friends and companions, notes that, in 1973, “the Doctor Who team realised that the series needed to reflect significant changes in society at large” (31). As a result, from 1973 to 1976, the programme featured Sarah Jane Smith (played by Elizabeth Sladen) who was supposed to be an “intelligent, assertive woman”, however not “‘brainy’ like Liz” so that she could easily fulfil the functions of a companion (Chapman, Inside 79).

In relation to the “significant changes in society”, Orthia considers Sarah

Jane to be a “vocal feminist” (Tribe 31; 107). In “The Moster of Peladon: Episode

III”, the Doctor and Sarah Jane travel to a planet called Peladon that is under threat not only of the miners’ uprising but also of Galaxy Five confederation. The planet is ruled by a young queen Thalira whose power is however transferred to Chancellor Ortron. The Doctor suggests that Sarah Jane could give her “some good advice” (“The Monster of Peladon: Episode III”). The dialogue goes as follows:

Sarah Jane: “I think he was referring to Women’s Lib.”

Thalira: “What’s that?”

Sarah Jane: “Women’s Liberation, Your Majesty. On Earth, it means, well,

very briefly, it means that we women don’t let men push us around.”

Thalira: “It’s not like that on Peladon. […] I was only crowned because my

father had no son. It’s Ortron who holds the real power.”

Sarah Jane: “Well, only if you let him. You’ve got to stand up for yourself!”

Thalira: “It would be different if I was a man, but I’m only a girl.”

49

Sarah Jane: “[…] There’s nothing ‘only’ about being a girl, Your Majesty.

Never mind why they made you a queen, the fact is you are the queen so

just you jolly let them know it.”

In this dialogue, Sarah Jane convinces the Queen to confront the Chancellor and regain her power. Therefore, Sarah Jane helps Thalira break the old traditions and stereotypes in order to establish equality between men and women. She thus challenges the social stereotypes and the dominant ideology. Chapman states that these “pro-feminist statement[s]” serve as an “attempt to come to terms with the rise of ‘Women’s Lib’ in the 1970s” (Inside 80). Such ardent remarks in connection to feminism and women’s roles in general are an inseparable part of Sarah Jane’s tenure on the programme.

As for the women’s roles, Sarah Jane plays a very active fighter against the conventional belief as to where women belong. In “The Time Warrior:

Episode III”, a male character catches her arm in order to prevent her from participating in a medieval battle and says: “I still say this is no work for women.”

Sarah Jane replies: “I wouldn’t have missed this for anything.” Later, she also complains to the Doctor that “[women] do all the dirty work, [men] get all the fun” (The Time Warrior: Episode III”). Moreover, in “The Hand of Fear: Episode

III”, when the Doctor asks her to stay safe and goes to look for the source of danger himself, in reply to Professor Watson’s (a member of personnel at the hospital that is endangered) words “I think you’d better do as he says”, Sarah

Jane says, “Yeah, you’re right. I should. But I’m not going to!” and follows the

Doctor.

50

Sarah Jane represents a very active, brave, strong, independent woman, very similar to Barbara, even though, unlike Sarah Jane, Barbara is not such a pronounced feminist. Sarah Jane is said to have “a heart of a lion” since she always says her opinion and stands up for her beliefs – as a true supporter of women’s rights (“The Time Warrior: Episode II”). Additionally, she draws on her bravery, ingenuity and resourcefulness, for example, in “The Android

Invasion: Episode III”, when rescuing the Doctor after he had been kidnapped by the alien Kraals, she makes a small fire to lure the guard who watches the

Doctor’s cell. The guard then steps in a puddle of water and is electrocuted when

Sarah applies the power cable. In episode like this one, the female companion and the Doctor exchange their roles. The Doctor is therefore the one taken hostage and Sarah Jane is the one to rescue him. This rearrangement disputes the traditional Doctor Who set-up and promotes the equality between the Doctor and Sarah Jane – men and women in general.

Furthermore, being an investigative journalist, Sarah Jane often goes investigating without the Doctor and without his approval which suggests that, as a companion, she no longer needs the Doctor’s consent. She is a fully-fledged woman who makes decisions on her own. In addition, in contrast to her female predecessors – especially Polly and Liz Shaw, Sarah Jane is usually dressed in trouser suits which do not reveal much and she is therefore spared any sexual objectification. As a matter of fact, she herself opposes any kind of objectification.

In “The Sontaran Experiment: Episode I”, Harry, Doctor’s male companion at the time, helps Sarah Jane after she had fallen and asks “Okay, old thing?”, Sarah

Jane protests, “Harry, I’m not a thing.”

51

Sarah Jane proves to be a very useful companion. In contrast to Zoe and

Liz, she is not particularly bright, but similarly to Barbara, she is practical and resourceful. The character of Sarah Jane was principally constructed in order to react to the second wave of feminism and to fulfil the expectations of the audience. Sarah Jane then successfully realizes this task. She confronts certain aspects of the dominant ideology of the patriarchal society, its established conventions and stereotypes.

4.7. Leela

Leela (played by Louise Jameson) replaced Sarah Jane in 1977-8.

In Wallace’s view, like Sarah Jane, Leela was “a direct response by the production team” to the new wave of feminism (110). Amy-Chinn argues that these two female characters are “the most positive female companions” of the Doctor (233).

In relation to Leela, Amit Gupta in “Doctor Who and Race” argues that she is “the only true strong female character in that period” (44).

Leela is a warrior of the primitive Sevateem tribe. In “Underworld: Episode

I”, under the influence of pacification, a technology which calms down people’s bad-temper, the Doctor tries to remind confused Leela who she is by providing her characterisation: “You’re primitive. Wild, warlike, aggressive and tempestuous, and bad-tempered, too. […] You’re a warrior leader from a warrior tribe. Courageous, indomitable, implacable, impossible.” Moreover, he often refers to Leela as “a savage” and in this manner, he emphasises the fact that

Leela comes from a primitive tribe and, therefore, is not particularly intelligent or ladylike (“Horror of Fang Rock: Episode I”). Throughout their travels, the

52

Doctor assumes the role of a teacher and tries to instruct her so that she would conform to the conventional behaviour. For instance, in “The Talons of Weng-

Chiang: Episode I”, the Doctor and Leela arrive in Victorian London so that Leela can learn how her ancestors lived. The Doctor also makes sure that she wears an appropriate clothing and says “I’m trying to teach you, Leela” in response to her annoyance (The Talons of Weng-Chiang: Episode I”). The Doctor also affirms his superiority in knowledge when, for example, they are witnessing a new world being born and he exclaims: “We’d be the first intelligent and semi-intelligent beings to witness the spectacle” (“Underworld: Episode I”). Doctor being the intelligent being, Leela only a semi-intelligent one.

Leela’s limited intelligence is compensated by her fighting and warlike skills. Some of the preceding companions were able to defend themselves as well, namely Barbara and Zoe. However, in the case of Leela, the physical defence is taken to a higher level. Orthia writes that she has “a gift for intuition, a warrior’s athleticism and weaponry skills” (108). Chapman argues that she is “conceived as a more action-oriented heroine to appeal to girl viewers” (Inside 115). Her savageness and her singular attitude towards fight and killing become her unique characteristics. In her first episode “The Face of Evil: Episode I”, Leela affirms that she “can take of [her]self” and later, when she rescues the Doctor from other savages, she kills a man. For the rest of her tenure on the programme, the

Doctor sometimes has to prevent her from killing other people as, in her view, it is normal. She sometimes behaves like an animal and the Doctor takes on the role of her master. In “Underworld: Episode II”, she jumps on a stranger and

53 yells “Surrender or die!” The Doctor quickly scolds her saying, “Get off him, Leela.

You’re terrifying the poor fellow.”

In certain cases, it turns out to be however useful as it is the only way of saving the Doctor. Just like Sarah Jane, Leela also challenges the role of a companion in terms of being saved by the Doctor. During her tenure, the

Doctor gets almost regularly rescued by his companion. The exchange of the original Doctor-companion roles can be therefore observed, too. Leela also responds utterly differently to danger than her predecessors – screaming and fright versus calmness and readiness. Wallace confirms that “she is virtually fearless” and that makes her a very useful companion (110).

Furthermore, because of Leela’s origins, her appearance reflects the savagery and she is dressed only in animal skins and basically half-naked.

Chapman argues that Jameson’s performance “was intended largely to provide erotic interest for male viewers” and that “her visual representation” serves

“as an object of male fantasy” (Inside 115-6). The emphasis on her physical appearance therefore undermines her original representation of a strong positive female character as she is sexually objectified. Moreover, the Doctor’s intellectual superiority makes her ultimately a debatable character. On the one hand, Leela is portrayed as courageous, self-confident, strong and able to protect and save the Doctor, on the other hand, she is a primitive, superstitious, half-naked savage with animal-like instincts. She presents a complicated role model for girls

(Chapman, Inside 115).

54

4.8. Ace

Ace (played by Sophie Aldred), a young girl from London’s suburbs, is the last female companion to be discussed. She first appeared on the programme in 1987 and remained the Doctor’s companion until the series ended in 1989. Ace represents the termination of the female character development of the classic series as she introduces “a […] different archetype from all previous Who companions” (Chapman, Inside 170). However, first the similarities will be considered. The last two companions discussed here, Sarah Jane and Leela, represented smart, strong, independent, practical women. Ace is the continuation of this tendency. She is a young woman who takes care of herself. Orthia mentions that Ace “resented […] authority figures and negotiated her own […] education” (118). For example, the audience gets to know that Ace acquired her chemistry skills through self-teaching and she becomes “a semi-competent amateur with some technological” abilities (Orthia 118). The Doctor himself claims that she is “something of an expert” when it comes to explosives

(“Battlefield: Episode I”). She also carries a huge bag full of explosives, a baseball bat and a rope ladder which guarantee her readiness and practicability.

Moreover, similarly to Leela, she is a feisty woman. A male character in “The Curse of Fenric: Episode IV” tells her that she “ha[s] a spirit of a fighter.”

Additionally, a character called Kane, in “Dragonfire: Episode I” describes her as a woman “with fire in [her] bell[y]” when she stands up to him and says that she is not “frightened of [him].” As an illustration of her feistiness and bravery, a scene in “Remembrance of the Daleks: Episode II” is to be considered. At the end of this episode, Ace finds herself in a building full of the Daleks. She however

55 takes out her baseball bat and attacks one of them with it, subsequently, she escapes by jumping through a window which places her among action heroines.

Just like her predecessors, Ace challenges and fights against the stereotypes and conventions in connection to presumed women’s place.

To illustrate, she becomes angry in “Dragonfire: Episode I” because Glitz, an old acquaintance of the Doctor, refuses to take her with him on a search for the treasure. As a result, Ace angrily replies: “Right, you male chauvinist, just you wait!” Moreover, in “Remembrance of the Daleks: Episode II”, Ace meets a police officer Mike whose mother provides her with a room in her boarding house. Later he visits her and when he leaves, he says: “Sorry, Ace. Work to be done. Back at six, have dinner ready” which infuriates her since he assigns her to the traditional role of a housewife. Furthermore, in “The Curse of Fenric: Episode

III”, when the Doctor and other characters need to break down the wall so that they can escape from vampires, the males start tearing the wall down using their tools. Ace however stops them and says: “If you want a job done properly, get a girl. Out of the way, boys.” Using explosives, Ace breaks the walls within

30 seconds. This scene demonstrates her abilities which make her seem equal or even superior to the male characters.

All these characteristics of hers also appear in connection to other female characters in the same or a similar form, however, what makes Ace a special case is the fact that the writers provided her with “a space to grow and mature as a character” (Chapman, Inside 171). She makes her appearance on the programme as a bored waitress in a fast-food and as the series progresses, the viewers get to know about her past, her parents and her relationship with science.

56

Thus, the audience becomes familiar with her background, this is an advantage which was denied to her predecessors, for instance, to Susan who left the programme practically unchanged. In the last season of classic Doctor Who which largely focuses on Ace instead of the Doctor, one of the subjects is “her growing awareness of her own sexuality” (Chapman, Inside 171). This tendency may be observed in a scene of “The Curse of Fenric: Episode III” where the Doctor and

Ace need to rescue Captain Sorin so that he can help them in the fight against the vampire-like creatures:

Ace: “We can release Captain Sorin to help us. I can distract the guard.”

Doctor: “How?”

Ace: “Professor19, I’m not a little girl.”

Ace then flaunts her growing sexuality to a young soldier and makes him chase her far away from the cabin where Captain Sorin is kept prisoner. The last

26th season generally shifts “the attention to Ace” and treats the Doctor almost as a secondary character (Newman 106). Orthia argues that, in this season, “the universe did not revolve around the Doctor, the plot resolutions did not hinge on him, and he did not embody the core moral message of the story” (285).

For example, in the serial “The Curse of Fenric”, Ace saves a woman and her baby who, in the end, turn out to be her grandmother and her mother. In “Ghost

Light”, the Doctor takes Ace to an old house which she had burnt down in her past. As Orthia puts it, “Ace underwent a traumatic narrative journey that touched

[her] deep emotions, personal issues and past experiences” (285).

19 Ace decided to call the Doctor “Professor”. 57

In other words, Ace represents a full-fledged practical smart female companion and likewise challenges the social conventions which restrain women from participating in presumably male business. However, in contrast to the preceding female characters, she is allowed to grow as a character and even plays the main character around which the story resolves in a few serials, leaving the Doctor in the shadows.

58

Conclusion

This thesis started off by discussing the way television works, its role within our culture and society and especially, how certain cultural and societal aspects influence television. The first part therefore tried to demonstrate the process of producing particular signs and codes which convey particular meanings. It was established that these meanings, being products of human beings – a member of society, inevitably reflect our experience within society and culture. Hence, television is ultimately a human product.

The decisions that are made about producing such meanings are also influenced by certain rules that are rooted in the society – stereotypes, traditions, conventions, ideologies. It was argued that television heavily depends on such aspects of culture since they represent the promoted values of the dominant part of our society. These constitute the dominant ideology. In relation to television and its portrayal of women, the dominant ideology of the patriarchal society is often referred to.

The second part of the thesis then focused on the way women are portrayed on television. It was argued that, since the images of women have an impact on the creation of their identities, importance ought to be assigned to their depiction on such a popular medium as television. It was further established that a woman on a TV programme is often seen as lacking knowledge, economic and sexual power. These features are often attributed to men. Thus, the inequality may be observed within the television portrayal of people. It was also discussed that female characters are often seen as attractive to male viewers, that is young, pretty and not pregnant. They ought to be potentially

59 available in the eyes of men. Consequently, this contributes to sexual objectification and discrimination. Such depictions are encompassed in the dominant ideology of a patriarchal society.

In relation to the social changes and development in the second half of the

20th century which most importantly included the second wave of feminism (the

Women’s Liberation Movement), three phases of the portrayal of women on television in that period were observed – prefeminist, feminist and postfeminist. The problematic depiction in the 1950s, antecedent to the new wave of feminism, sees women predominantly in their domestic realm as dependent on the male. In the following years, the portrayal however changed. Female characters on television represented strong working women.

Nevertheless, the emphasis was laid upon their attractive appearance and thus, the chauvinist ideological values remained embedded in them. This was then observed in the analysis of selected female characters of Doctor Who.

Doctor Who, a science fiction series produced by BBC, is normally divided into two “sub-series”: the classic one lasting from its beginnings in 1963 until

1989 and the new one that was restored in 2005 and has remained on the television screens ever since. Over the years, the series became a cult programme and due to the success of the latest series even a worldwide phenomenon. As such, it attracts critical attention and its female characters are often discussed.

This thesis predominantly focused on the analysis of women who appear in the classic series (1963-89) and argued that the development of their portrayal was connected with the changing social arrangements and that during its time

60 on the television it more or less successfully attempted to arrive at a more balanced portrayal of women in comparison to the depiction of men. The analysis showed that in the 1960s, the portrayal of women was the most controversial.

On the one hand, the programme introduces Susan, the Doctor’s teenage granddaughter, who is seen as smart, however, for most of the time, she behaves hysterically and recklessly, usually getting into trouble, needing to be rescued and have decisions taken for her by her grandfather whom she obeys. Polly is also rather an incompetent companion of the Doctor since her character was merely written to attract the attention of young people as she symbolized sixties fashion. Her most prominent quality seems to be making coffee which assigns her the stereotyped position of a secretary or even of a housewife.

On the other hand, Barbara, appearing in the series as the first companion beside Susan, is portrayed as practical, smart and fearless. It was claimed that she challenges the social conventions about women’s fragility and staying safe at home. The same goes to Zoe, a brainchild who is depicted as equal or even superior to the Doctor in term of their scientific knowledge. To sum up, the portrayal of female characters of the 1960s is rather problematic as half of the chosen characters conformed to the social stereotypes in terms of their depiction.

The other half is however portrayed positively in terms of their abilities and independence.

The 1970s brought in some more emancipated and strong female characters. Even though Liz Shaw, the first attempt at the Doctor’s equal, was not much of a success since Liz failed to fulfil the function of a companion, that is to ask the Doctor questions in order to explain the plot to the audience.

61

In comparison to Sarah Jane and Leela, her successors, Liz also failed at challenging the stereotyped roles of women and submitted to them. Sarah

Jane was especially created to embody the social changes. Sarah Jane serves as an example of an emancipated strong positive female character who challenges the established role of the Doctor as a saviour and an authority. She saves him now and then, she does not seek his approval and he therefore loses his assigned role. There is an established equality between them. Both have the power and are smart enough to rescue the other, just as both of them can make mistakes and get into a dangerous situation. Sarah Jane also vocally promotes feminism which may be seen as a clash with the dominant ideology of the patriarchal society.

The last 1970s female character discussed was Leela who is said to also embody the social rearrangements. She becomes a very controversial character in terms of her lack of knowledge. She seems to represent the kind of stereotype discussed in the chapter on portrayal of women on television in general – she lacks knowledge and the Doctor, a male figure who is intellectually superior to her, assumes the role of a teacher and instructs her. At the same time, Leela is however portrayed as a warrior, an action figure – a normally male role. She is protective, dangerous, physically strong and courageous. Therefore, similarly to Sarah Jane, Leela sometimes takes on the role of a saviour and in this manner, she undermines the embedded social roles and remains a self-assured, confident woman.

In the late 1980s, the programme introduced Ace who continues the representation of a strong independent young woman like Barbara, Zoe, Liz,

62

Sarah Jane and Leela. Furthermore, she acquires the space to grow as a character which was denied to her predecessors. She therefore plays the main character in several serials and leaves the Doctor in the background.

This thesis tried to demonstrate that, in general, the Doctor Who females are portrayed as emancipated, independent women. They however do not escape certain stereotypes that seem to be deeply rooted in the television representation. One of these very prominent features is the usual emphasis on the woman’s physical appearance and sex-appeal and their sexual objectification. The female characters are always young beautiful women and so they comply with the potential availability.

The analysis also demonstrated that the programme not only reflects the social changes in society, but also openly discusses them. This, as the thesis argued, is one of the most prominent characteristics of the series. The producers are open to such changes and include them in the programme.

In relation to the new Doctor Who (2005-now), it cannot be argued that these companions serve as a source of inspiration for the companions of the new series. The only companion in the classic series that seems to be similar to the new ones is Ace since the new series, just like the last few serial of the old series, provides the character with space to grow and focuses on their stories. However, in the new Who, this character growth and emphasis on the character’s background tend to be criticized because the women begin to be ultimately defined by these relationships and their domestic background. The comparison of the female characters of the classic and the new Doctor Who can be therefore an interesting topic for another thesis.

63

Works Cited

Abortion Act 1967, Elizabeth II. Chapter 87. London: The Stationery Office,

1967. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

.

Barron, Lee. “Intergalactic Girlpower: The Gender Politics of Companionship in

21st Century Doctor Who.” Ruminations, Peregrinations, and

Regenerations: A Critical Approach to Doctor Who. Hansen, Christopher

J., ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 2010. 130-

150. Print.

Barthes, Roland. “Myth Today.” Mythologies. Trans. Jonathan Cape. New York:

The Noonday Press, 1991. PDF file.

“Behind Every Dalek There’s This Woman.” Daily Mail. 28 Nov. 1963.

Booth, Paul. “Periodising Doctor Who.” Science Fiction Film & Television 7.2

(2014): 195-215. PDF file.

Butler, David. Introduction. Time and Relative Dissertations in Space. By Butler.

Ed. David Butler. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2007. 1-15. PDF file.

Chapman, James. “Fifty Years In The TARDIS: The Historical Moments of Doctor

Who.” Critical Studies in Television 9.1 (2014): 43-61. Publisher Provided

Full Text Searching File. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

---. Inside the Tardis. The Worlds of Doctor Who: A Cultural History. London: I.

B. Tauris. 2006. Print.

Coile, Charlie. “More than a Companion: ‘The Doctor’s Wife’ and Representations

of Women on Doctor Who.” Studies in Popular Culture 36.1 (2013): 83-

102. JSTOR Journals. Web. 26 Nov. 2015.

64

“Concept Notes for New SF Drama.” BBC Archives. BBC, 2014. Web. 16 Nov.

2015.

.

Dee, Amy-Chinn. “Rose Tyler: The Ethics of Care and the Limit of

Agency.” Science Fiction Film & Television 1.2 (2008): 231-247. Publisher

Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Doctor Who: The Classic Series. BBC. 28 Oct. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

>.

Equal Pay Act 1970, Elizabeth II. Chapter 41. London: The Stationery Office,

1970. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

.

Fiske, John. Television Culture. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2011. Print.

Fiske, John, and John Hartley. Reading Television. London: Routledge, 1978.

Print.

Ginn, Sherry. “Spoiled for Another Life: Sara Jane Smith’s Adventures with and

without Doctor Who.” Doctor Who in Time and Space: Essays on Themes,

Characters, History and Fandom 1963-2012. Leitch, Gillian I., ed.

Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2013. 242-252. PDF file.

Gray, Jonathan, and Amanda D Lotz. Television Studies. Cambridge: Polity, 2012.

Print.

Gupta, Amit. “Doctor Who and Race: Reflections on the Change of Britain’s Status

in the International System.” Round Table 102.1 (2013): 41-50. Academic

Search Complete. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.

65

Hill, Matt. Triumph of a Time Lord: Regenerating Doctor Who in the Twenty-First

Century. London: I. B. Tauris, 2010. PDF file.

Jackson, Howard, and Etienne Zé Amvela. Words, Meaning and Vocabulary: An

Introduction to Modern English Lexicology. London: Continuum, 2007. PDF

file.

Jowett, Lorna. “The Girls Who Waited? Female Companions and Gender in Doctor

Who.” Critical Studies in Television 9.1 (2014): 77-94. Publisher Provided

Full Text Searching File. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Meehan, Elizabeth. “British Feminism from the 1960s to the 1980s.” British

Feminism in the Twentieth Century. Ed. Harold L. Smith. Aldershot:

Edward Elgar, 1990. 189-204. Print.

McLuhan, Marshall H. Understanding Media. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,

1984. Print.

Newman, Kim. Doctor Who. London: British Film Institute Publishing, 2005. Print.

Orthia, Lindy. “Enlightenment Was the Choice: Doctor Who and the

Democratisation of Science.” Ph. D. Thesis. Australian National University:

2010. PDF file.

Press, Andrea Lee. Women Watching Television: Gender, Class, and Generation

in the American Television Experience. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, 1991. Print.

Radway, Janice. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular

Literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Print.

Saussure, Ferdinand de, Albert Sechehaye, and Charles Bally. Course in General

Linguistics. Trans. Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. PDF file.

66

Sassatelli, Roberta. Consumer Culture: History, Theory and Politics. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications, 2007. Print.

Seggar, John F., and Penny Wheeler. “The World of Work on Television: Ethnic

and Sex Representation in TV Drama.” Journal of Broadcasting 17.2

(1973): 201-14. PDF file.

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Elizabeth II. Chapter 65. London: The Stationery

Office, 1975. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

.

Smith, Harold. L. Introduction. British Feminism in the Twentieth Century. By

Smith. Ed. Harold L. Smith. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1990. 1-4. Print.

Timeline of the Women’s Liberation Movement. The British Library. Web. 28 Oct.

2015. .

Tribe, Steve. Doctor Who: Companions and Allies. London: BBC Books, 2009.

Print.

Tulloch, J., and M. Alvarado. Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text. London: Macmillan

Press, 1983. Print.

Wallace, Richard. “‘But Doctor?’ – A Feminist Perspective of Doctor Who.”

Ruminations, Peregrinations, and Regenerations: A Critical Approach to

Doctor Who. Hansen, Christopher J., ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge

Scholars Publishing: 2010. 102-117. Print.

Walters, Margaret. Feminism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP, 2005.

Print.

67

List of Relevant Episodes

“All Roads Lead to Rome.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 23 Jan. 1965. Television.

“An Unearthly Child.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 23 Nov. 1963. Television.

“Battlefield: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 6 Sept. 1989. Television.

“Doctor Who and the Silurians: Episode II.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 7 Feb. 1970.

Television.

“Doctor Who and the Silurians: Episode IV.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 21 Feb. 1970.

Television.

“Doctor Who and the Silurians: Episode VI.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 7 Mar. 1970.

Television.

“Dragonfire: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 23 Nov. 1987. Television.

“Flashpoint.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 26 Dec. 1964. Television.

“Ghost Light.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 4-18 Oct. 1989. Television.

“Hidden Danger.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 11 July 1964. Television.

“Horror of Fang Rock: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 3 Sept. 1977. Television.

“Remembrance of the Daleks: Episode II.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 12 Oct. 1988.

Television.

“Spearhead from Space: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 3 Jan. 1970. Television.

“Spearhead from Space: Episode II.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 10 Jan. 1970.

Television.

“Terror of the Autons: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 2 Jan. 1971. Television.

“The Android Invasion: Episode III.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 6 Dec. 1975. Television.

“The Bride of Sacrifice.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 6 June 1964. Television.

“The Brink of Disaster.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 15 Feb. 1964. Television.

68

“The Cave of Skulls.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 30 Nov. 1963. Television.

“The Curse of Fenric.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 25 Oct. – 15 Nov. 1989. Television.

“The Curse of Fenric: Episode III.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 8 Nov. 1989. Television.

“The Curse of Fenric: Episode IV.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 15 Nov. 1989. Television.

“The Edge of Destruction.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 8 Feb. 1964. Television.

“The Expedition.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 18 Jan. 1964. Television.

“The Face of Evil: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 1 Jan. 1977. Television.

“The Firemaker.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 14 Dec. 1963. Television.

“The Hand of Fear: Episode III.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 16 Oct. 1976. Television.

“The Invasion: Episode V.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 30 Nov. 1968. Television.

“The Krotons: Episode II.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 4 Jan. 1969. Television.

“The Krotons: Episode III.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 11 Jan. 1969. Television.

“The Mind Robber: Episode IV.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 5 Oct. 1968. Television.

“The Monster of Peladon: Episode III.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 6 Apr. 1974.

Television.

“The Ordeal.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 25 Jan. 1964. Television.

“The Screaming Jungle.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 25 Apr. 1964.Television.

“The Seeds of Death: Episode II.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 1 Feb. 1969. Television.

“The Sontaran Experiment: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 22 Feb. 1975.

Television.

“The Talons of Weng-Chiang: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 26 Feb. 1977.

Television.

“The Tenth Planet: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 8 Oct. 1966. Television.

“The Tenth Planet: Episode III.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 22 Oct. 1966. Television.

69

“The Time Warrior: Episode II.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 22 Dec. 1973. Television.

“The Time Warrior: Episode III.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 29 Dec. 1973. Television.

“The Tomb of the Cybermen: Episode III.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 16 Sept. 1967.

Television.

“The Walking Ally.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 19 Dec. 1964. Television.

“The War Machines: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 25 June 1966. Television.

“The Wheel in Space: Episode III.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 11 May 1968. Television.

“Underworld: Episode I.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 7 Jan. 1978. Television.

“Underworld: Episode II.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 14 Jan. 1978. Television.

“World’s End.” Doctor Who. BBC1. 21 Nov. 1964. Television.

70

Résumé

The main objective of this bachelor thesis is to examine the portrayal of female characters in the popular British television programme Doctor Who.

While its main focus is on the depiction of selected female characters of the classic (1963-1989) Doctor Who series, the thesis first introduces the television studies in terms of its production of meanings based on the influence of certain aspects of our culture and society. The thesis then proceeds with the discussion of portraying women on television in the second half of the twentieth century – also in connection to the social changes of that period.

The thesis then offers an introduction to the world of Doctor Who.

It outlines the synopsis of the series and describes its origins as well as its brief history. Afterwards, the thesis deals with the Doctor’s companions who are usually women. Thus, the thesis discusses the role of a female companion and briefly presents the companions of the renewed series (2005-present). In the following part, the thesis analyses the selected classic female characters and shows that most of them, especially in the 1970s when the second wave of feminism was the most pronounced, challenge the embedded social stereotypes and conventions.

71

Resumé

Hlavním cílem této bakalářské práce je zkoumat zobrazení ženských postav v populárním britském televizním seriálu Doctor Who. I když se práce primárně zaměřuje na znázornění vybraných ženských postav v klasickém Doctoru Who

(1963-1989), nejprve čtenáře seznamuje se studiem televize, co se týče vzniku významů na základě vlivu naší kultury a společnosti. Práce poté pojednává o zobrazení žen v televizi v druhé polovině dvacátého století – také ve spojení s tehdejšími změnami ve společnosti.

Práce následně nabízí úvod do světa Doctora Who. Stručně vysvětluje obsah seriálu a krátce popisuje jeho vývoj od úplného začátku až do přítomnosti.

Poté se práce zaměřuje na Doctorův doprovod, který je většinou ženského pohlaví. Práce se tedy zabývá rolí těchto ženských společnic a krátce představuje společnice obnoveného seriálu (2005-nyní). V následující části jsou vybrané

ženské postavy analyzovány a tato analýza ukazuje, že zobrazení většiny z nich, hlavně v 70. letech, kdy se nejvíce projevovala druhá vlna feminismu, odmítá zakořeněné společenské stereotypy a konvence.

72