Apologies in advance to anyone who reads this, it's a long one.
One thing I want to do during this rewatch is to really analyze Moffat's work in particular (including episodes during his tenure as showrunner that weren't written by him) to try and pinpoint what exactly it is that makes him such a divisive showrunner. To be up front about my perspective, I think he's the greatest writer the show has ever had and this episode is no exception, but I'm going to do my best to put my bias aside and focus on his work as it is presented
I really want to delve into where his work is actually misogynistic (because even as a fan I recognize that it happens) and treats women as objects vs where the women in his writing have a deeper interiority and influence on the plot but are also adults who have sexual lives. Also going to try not to factor in wider misogyny that isn't necessarily "his" (13 being the first female Doctor for example when we know he gave serious consideration to women who auditioned for both 11 and 12.) To accomplish this, I'm going to apply a few criteria to every episode for comparison but with more commentary on ones Moffat had a hand in writing:
My perspective on the Bechdel test. This is the least important imo, for a variety of reasons, but I do think it's something worth noting. I have some personal rules that get more to what I look for in the test rather than the strict "two women, no men, no conversation about men." My personal rules are
a. It's fine if a male character is present in the conversation so long as the conversation is predominantly two female characters and is not about the male character
b. It's fine if the conversation touches on men as a concept so long as it's not ABOUT men and not about an established male character
c. It's NOT fine if the conversation's primary purpose is exposition. In these interactions, the character's femininity is irrelevant to the scene and thus imo does not count
2. Do the female characters in the episode actively influence the plot, and/or do they have their own interiority with defined character traits. Basically this just means that she's a well-written character, which is somewhat subjective. I'll do my best to justify what makes a character well-written in my opinion, but there will surely be people who disagree
3. The most important one for me but also likely the hardest to pass: What is the episode's relationship with femininity and aspects our society labels as feminine? If a woman has traditionally feminine interests, are they valued by her and (more importantly) the story or is she "not like other girls"? If she's in societal positions typically regarded as feminine (mother, daughter, teacher, secretary, etc) is she reduced to that position or is it just one aspect of her character? If she expresses an interest in sex and flirtation, is it framed as something to titillate a male audience or is it intended to be a part of her greater whole? Not every episode will touch on these themes so many episodes will fail this just by virtue of it not being the focus of the episode (but like, why isn't it the focus ya know?)
Some quick things I noticed looking back after making these criteria: 4/8 episodes pass my Bechdel test, women are consistently well-written across each episode, but the episodes that allow us to look further at how the episode/writer views femininity are mixed bags. Cassandra's obsession with plastic surgery, Jackie being treated as a joke, and Rose representing pacifism while the Doctor represents violence in Dalek are all areas that rely on harmful stereotypes. However, Gwyneth's relationship with Victorian values and the wide variety of women in different societal positions in Aliens of London/World War Three are much stronger stuff
So how does Moffat's first episode hold up to my amateur feminist analysis? Not top tier but not bad. It doesn't pass the Bechdel test, our two main female leads haven't even met yet. Rose and Nancy are both well-written, and while Rose barely influences the plot in this episode Nancy's presence is much more prominent
Femininty in the episode is nuanced as well. Nancy is in a position of caring for a variety of orphans due to the loss of her "brother" in a way that is the primary focus of her character. Despite being placed in the "Mom" role, we see other aspects of her character as well: her intelligence and daring, as well as her guilt and shame over what happened to Jamie
Meanwhile, Rose's purpose in this episode is to introduce Jack to the main cast. She does so by flirting with him, which imo is fine. Sure, there are other options for how she could have gotten him involved but Jack's hot and it also sets up the payoff of his sexuality next episode so it works. Also, we see her risking her life to save Jamie earlier in the episode and later in the episode we see her quick thinking in lying to Jack about being Time Agents so it's clear that "the flirt" is not all she si
In both instances, they are placed in situations that are dependent on their femininity but they are never reduced to just that. Admittedly, both instances of them being more than just A Girl are fairly small in this episode, but Rose has the benefit of being a protagonist so when we witness her small heroics we can connect them with her larger heroics in previous episodes, while Nancy gets even more of a focus next episode
Moving away from feminist analysis, the episode is a fucking banger. Its been awhile since I've seen it and I forgot how genuinely unsettling the gas mask zombies are.
It's also a perfect example of something Moffat does often: introduce a mystery, and then provide the solution to that mystery in a different context. It prevents unsatisfying deus ex machina solutions, rewards rewatching, makes the audience feel clever if they figure it out before the reveal, and it allows him to explore unique and interesting scifi concepts without worrying too much about confusing the audience.
We don't get much of an emotional payoff in this episode, unlike last two-parter we're lacking the immediate drama of "Rose was gone for a year." Instead it builds up to the core of next episode: Nancy and Jamie. We've seen the guilt and fear that Nancy carries, Constantine's warning implies there's more to the mystery we don't know yet, and even Jack's introduction sets up the payoff for next episode. The primary emotion this episode is focused on is fear/discomfort at the gas-mask zombies
There's other Moffat-isms in this episode: Playing with elements of Doctor Who canon (introducing other sonic technology, the Tardis phone ringing) and a noble Doctor-like character who serves as a mirror of the Doctor. All we're missing is a vague threat given by the Doctor about how badass he is
