Torchwood: A New Approach to Sexuality on TV?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


mojo-photo-torchwood.jpgThe BBC hit series Torchwood is a spin-off of a spin-off, really: an extension of the new Doctor Who series that is itself only vaguely related to the classic long-running original. Torchwood‘s creators were apparently inspired by the still-underappreciated Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a show that used elements of fantasy as illustrations of (and counterpoints to) the characters’ lives, and on the surface, the shows have a lot in common: Doctor Who attracted fans as much for its winking humor as its geeky sci-fi, and on Buffy, the satire was built in.

Torchwood has also followed in Buffy‘s footsteps in another way: towards the end of the latter show’s run, two of the female characters fell in love, and their relationship evolved into the most fully-realized same-sex couple on television at the time. In Torchwood, a secretive X-Files-type agency is led by a mysterious (and apparently immortal) guy named Captain Jack Harkness, and he’s typically courageous and handsome. He also appears to be gay, or at least bi: his romantic entanglements are with men, whether it’s the cute office guy or the interstellar co-conspirator.

Having a stereotype-defying gay lead in a series is definitely ground-breaking (even if it is the BBC), and out actor John Barrowman, who portrays Harkness, has become an outspoken advocate of gay causes, and a minor celebrity, in England. But is it a good show? Part of what made Buffy so compelling was the character development, perfectly calibrated to draw us in and then surprise us. While Torchwood has just started its second season, it seems impatient to have it all at once, loading the characters up with drama before we really know who they are. An early episode featured Captain Jack’s office love interest betraying everybody at the agency just to help revive a secret robot girlfriend, yet by the next week all seemed to have been forgotten.

If you followed that last sentence, you’ll see that actually most of the show’s characters evidence bisexuality. In the second episode, a young woman is infected with an alien being that feeds on sexual energy, and both the male and female characters can’t help but have a “snog” with her. (Star Trek famously used the alien-taking-over-a-body queer metaphor at least once as well). In fact, “gay” identity isn’t really referred to at all in the show, and same-sex hooking-up is treated as matter-of-factly as opposite-sex. It’s refreshing, and according to Kinsey, probably closer to the real truth about human sexuality than our current “Queer Eye”-influenced cultural norms. But, honestly, it seems like a bit too much of a leap forward, its vision of a post-sexual-identity world (or, at least, Cardiff) a little unrealistic. On top of that, Jack and the show’s female lead, Gwen, appear to have a smoldering attraction for each other, which could turn out to be the show’s “Moonlighting”-style central unrequited love relationship, pushing the queer relationships to the margins.

Maybe I’m being too rough on the show’s philosophical underpinnings, when it’s just supposed to be a bit of campy, B-movie fun. I’ll admit, as well, that Captain Jack’s makeouts with a WWII-era soldier and a former fling (played by James Marsters, Spike from Buffy, natch) were incredibly hot. Cute guys, spooky aliens, what’s not to love, right? And it’s easy to forget that the eventually-superb Star Trek: The Next Generation started out awkward and laughable in its first season. But if someone as tolerant for corny sci-fi as me finds himself rolling his eyes at the incredibly silly twists and turns on this show, you know it’s got to be stretching it a little thin, and if nobody cares about your characters, they won’t care if they’re breaking down the boundaries of on-screen sexuality. Nevertheless, Torchwood is a show to keep your eye on.

Torchwood airs Sunday Saturday nights on BBC America.

Update: Hey, YouTube, you’ve got everything, don’t you? Watch the Barrowman-Marsters makeout scene below. By the way, why Spike is dressed up like Adam Ant, I have no idea.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate