Politics in Doctor Who
WARNING! THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR DOCTOR WHO: SERIES 12 EPISODE 3! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Ok, so, originally there was going to be a post centered around science and scientists in Doctor Who in this slot, in order to tie in with "Nikola Tesla's Night of Terror"airing this week. However, due to a controversial element in "Orphan 55" (you can read my review of that story here: https://whotimeandspace.blogspot.com/2020/01/orphan-55-first-review.html), I decided that this was more important, and was therefore necessary, to address this element head on, especially to provide context and clarity on my thoughts on this element.
In recent years, controversy has been generated whenever Doctor Who has approached any material even remotely considered political. Even certain casting decisions have ended up been seen as a political act, and has, like in real life, split the fan-base down the middle. I'm sure that, if you are active, or even passive, in the Doctor Who Twitter community, you will be aware of the #notmydoctor movement, which seems to view every decision made by Chris Chibnall since his casting of Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor as part of some left-wing, feminist conspiracy. And there have been many debates online between, in a number of cases, fairly prominent members of the Doctor Who community that have ended in vitriol. Doctor Who is now, by its very nature, an automatic controversy generator, whether you like it or not, and, as such, the production team have to be more careful than ever to avoid deliberately starting an online fist-fight with controversial content. Unfortunately, however, this week they failed. They failed to such a degree, however, that I found myself, for once siding with those have been say the show is presenting a biased political message.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you will now know that this is about the ending of "Orphan 55". The ending in which the Doctor delivers a patronising monologue to the audience about the dangers of climate change and how something needs to be done about it. Now, to remind readers why I am so against this, remember that this monologue is delivered at the end of a story that is mostly about the Doctor and friends trying to survive against a race of monsters that are attempting to kill them. The idea that this is working on some deeper level is laughable, and, as such, the monologue feels forced and unnatural. A lot of people have tried to draw comparisons with other stories like "The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion" and "Rosa", however, those comparisons do not hold water for me, I'm afraid. Those stories integrated their themes and messages into the script: stories like "Oxygen" and "Kerblam!" are based around the entire premise of exploring the dangers of capitalist systems. Even "Kill the Moon", though heavy-handed, did try and engage with its moral dilemma on a deeper level than 'oh, killing it is bad'. But "Orphan 55" doesn't bed its message into the script at all, instead just tagging it on at the end in order to 'generate debate'. Except... how can you generate debate based on one preachy, one-sided monologue? This runs completely contrary to how Doctor Who has done this in the past, and sets a dangerous precedent going forward.
To show how Doctor Who has tackled messages like this in the past with greater success, I intend to present some examples of the show tackling polemic messages, and break down why these examples work much better than "Orphan 55". I'll start by taking us back nearly fifty years, to "The Green Death" in 1973, which tackles the same issue as "Orphan 55". Set in a Welsh mining village, this story is about giant mutant maggots who attack people, and the Doctor must stop them before they mutate into something else. So far, so "Orphan 55". However, unlike the aforementioned tale, the reason why the maggots have been mutated is because they have been in contact with a chemical substance pumped into the mine by petrochemical company Global Chemicals, who are able to produce vast amounts of crude oil at relatively little cost. So, unlike "Orphan 55", we can see both sides represented on screen, and there's a direct cause and effect of the issue the programme is trying to raise. We have the character of Professor Jones, who campaigns vigorously for the environment and protecting it on one side, and, on the other, we have Stevens and Global Chemicals, who are promising jobs and prosperity for the people who have been left behind by the coal mine's closure. Having both sides in the argument allows us to have the conversation through the drama, and, while it is clear who's side producer Barry Letts and writer Robert Sloman are on, both sides are presented fairly and equally, and both sides of the argument are presented, allowing the audience to make up their own mind.
A similar message is presented in "Invasion of the Dinosaurs", broadcast a year later. The Doctor and Sarah Jane return to London, only to find that it has been overrun with dinosaurs, being brought to the present by means of time equipment created by a Professor Whittaker. This equipment is being used by a group of so-called free thinkers and environmentalists in order to wind time back to a pre-industrial age. That way, they can guide man's development, and prevent them from making the same mistakes that they did before. In many ways, this feels like a reaction to "The Green Death", presenting the other side, if you will, of the 'green' movement. This story depicts people who are so desperate to not only write off the whole planet, but also to destroy millions of lives in the process, jut because they believe they are right. Sure, we may all remember the naff dinosaur effects, but this thread runs throughout "Invasion of the Dinosaurs" like a stick of rock, and is actually what this story is all about. It's main focus is on the principle that these people are willing to destroy every achievement of the human race thus far because, as they see it, we have made a mistake. Unlike Clifford Jones and the members of the 'Nuthutch', Grover and his associates are eco-fanatics, and even the Doctor sees them as such. He understands their cause, and appreciates their message, but he knows that they have to be stopped. Life has to find its own way. We even get a speech at the end from the Doctor himself, in which he outlines that the real cause of pollution isn't the toxic chemicals or the foul slime, but 'simply greed'. In a way, vastly similar to "Orphan 55". However, it's a message that is delivered in a story that deals with the issue with maturity and focus, and maintains that throughout.
Skipping forward to 1988, we have "The Happiness Patrol". Broadcast during the last years of Margret Thatcher's time as Prime Minister of the UK, this serial features a very unsubtle parody of her in the form of Helen A (as played by Sheila Handcock). Helen A is dictator of the planet Terra Alpha, a world where it is illegal to be unhappy. Certain types of music are banned, the populace must wear brightly coloured clothes, and those who don't are ruthlessly executed by her crack police force, the aforementioned Happiness Patrol. When the Doctor and his companion Ace arrive, they set about creating a revolution that will throw Helen A and her executioner, the Kandyman, out of power. Many say that "The Happiness Patrol" is Doctor Who at its most politically charged, and I wouldn't disagree with that. And there in lies the point: this story is all about the politics. Its about the fact that Helen A looks like Margret Thatcher, and that her reign is like any number of oppressive regimes around the world (hell, in the 1980's, oppressive regimes seemed to be the in-vogue style). The whole story, like pretty much all of the stories script-edited by Andrew Cartmel, is working on a subtextutal level, in fact sometimes more than one. It's not just about evil regimes or being a parody of Margret Thatcher: it's about how true happiness cannot exist without sadness. All these themes feed into one another, and are key parts of this script. Satire runs through this script like a stick of rock, and informs every choice the production team make. Right from the very beginning, it is clear what the message is, and where it is going. This doesn't disguise its intentions at all, making them very clear right from the beginning, and never relenting as to the message. Sure, it is like "Orphan 55" in the sense that it is unsubtle, but, unlike "Orphan 55" its messages don't come out of nowhere. Instead, it is right there in every idea, every line of dialogue and every image on screen.
Moving into the new series, the show remained fairly un-political until a few years ago, when, in 2015, Peter Harness used the Zygons to tell a story with overtures of the refugee crisis and the terrorist organisation IS in the two-part "The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion". Recalled back to Earth by UNIT, the Doctor and Clara discover that the peace treaty between humans and Zygons that the Doctor created back in "The Day of the Doctor" is breaking down, and that a rogue cell of Zygons are attempting to start a war between humans and Zygons, the ultimate aim being to wipe out humanity. While using big red, rubber monsters, "Zygon Invasion/Zygon Inversion" could not be clearer with what it is trying to portray, and even makes some allusions to the real world in its content. Taking a subject as powerful as IS was definitely a risky move, especially in a show with a strong child audience as Doctor Who has. However, this story manages to tread a very thin line with skill, and doesn't, as a result, look crass and insensitive. For some, the very idea of Doctor Who tackling such a contemporary issue might be a step too far, but this makes for one of the most relevant and socially engaged stories of the modern era. Its concluding monologue from the Doctor on war, and its pointless nature feels earned, therefore, as the story engages with this theme by virtue of the topic it has chosen to tackle, and it also feels like a natural extension of the Doctor's character at this point in their lives.
My final example is actually from the previous season, partly to make sure I am not accused of bias against the current era, but mostly because it is a perfect example of Doctor Who tackling a political issue without becoming preachy. "Rosa" sees the Doctor, Graham, Yaz and Ryan arrive in Montgomery in 1953, on the eve of Rosa Parks' infamous refusal to move for white passengers on a bus. However, they find that a time-travelling criminal known as Krasko is attempting to change history, and prevent the stand from taking place. This is the perfect example of how to tackle issues like racism in a dramatic format, without becoming preachy or condescending. It doesn't hide from the ugly truth of what happened to black people in America in the 1950's (I mean, it'd be hard to in a story dealing with the Montgomery Bus Boycott), and uses that as a mirror onto our own society today. Because, sure, we've come a long way, but there's still plenty to do in order to create true equality. "Rosa" allows us to see how terrible things are through our companions, as both Ryan and Yaz suffer discrimination during the course of the story, leading to a wonderful scene between the two, as they discuss how they themselves, in their own time, have been subject to racial prejudice. It truly is wonderful writing from Malorie Blackman, with some great performances from Mandip Gill and Tosin Cole. And the ending knocks you for six, with its powerful cinematography and its beautiful use of Andrea Day's "Rise Up". Its never condescending or patronising, and, as such, remains one of the most powerful examples of Doctor Who taking on a political subject, and leaves "Orphan 55" for dust, as far as I am concerned.
For me, "Orphan 55" didn't do any of those things. It just tacked on a preachy monologue onto the end of an unrelated episode. And, more than anything else, I'm disappointed. Disappointed Doctor Who dropped the ball on such an important message at this point in history. I hope this is just a one-off, because I don't want the show to veer into this territory. Doctor Who has such a good record with episodes tackling political issues from throughout its 56 year history that it was no surprise that it would drop the ball at some point. I just hope the production team learn from this mistake and do not repeat it again.
Thank you very much for reading.
Ok, so, originally there was going to be a post centered around science and scientists in Doctor Who in this slot, in order to tie in with "Nikola Tesla's Night of Terror"airing this week. However, due to a controversial element in "Orphan 55" (you can read my review of that story here: https://whotimeandspace.blogspot.com/2020/01/orphan-55-first-review.html), I decided that this was more important, and was therefore necessary, to address this element head on, especially to provide context and clarity on my thoughts on this element.
In recent years, controversy has been generated whenever Doctor Who has approached any material even remotely considered political. Even certain casting decisions have ended up been seen as a political act, and has, like in real life, split the fan-base down the middle. I'm sure that, if you are active, or even passive, in the Doctor Who Twitter community, you will be aware of the #notmydoctor movement, which seems to view every decision made by Chris Chibnall since his casting of Jodie Whittaker as the Thirteenth Doctor as part of some left-wing, feminist conspiracy. And there have been many debates online between, in a number of cases, fairly prominent members of the Doctor Who community that have ended in vitriol. Doctor Who is now, by its very nature, an automatic controversy generator, whether you like it or not, and, as such, the production team have to be more careful than ever to avoid deliberately starting an online fist-fight with controversial content. Unfortunately, however, this week they failed. They failed to such a degree, however, that I found myself, for once siding with those have been say the show is presenting a biased political message.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you will now know that this is about the ending of "Orphan 55". The ending in which the Doctor delivers a patronising monologue to the audience about the dangers of climate change and how something needs to be done about it. Now, to remind readers why I am so against this, remember that this monologue is delivered at the end of a story that is mostly about the Doctor and friends trying to survive against a race of monsters that are attempting to kill them. The idea that this is working on some deeper level is laughable, and, as such, the monologue feels forced and unnatural. A lot of people have tried to draw comparisons with other stories like "The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion" and "Rosa", however, those comparisons do not hold water for me, I'm afraid. Those stories integrated their themes and messages into the script: stories like "Oxygen" and "Kerblam!" are based around the entire premise of exploring the dangers of capitalist systems. Even "Kill the Moon", though heavy-handed, did try and engage with its moral dilemma on a deeper level than 'oh, killing it is bad'. But "Orphan 55" doesn't bed its message into the script at all, instead just tagging it on at the end in order to 'generate debate'. Except... how can you generate debate based on one preachy, one-sided monologue? This runs completely contrary to how Doctor Who has done this in the past, and sets a dangerous precedent going forward.
To show how Doctor Who has tackled messages like this in the past with greater success, I intend to present some examples of the show tackling polemic messages, and break down why these examples work much better than "Orphan 55". I'll start by taking us back nearly fifty years, to "The Green Death" in 1973, which tackles the same issue as "Orphan 55". Set in a Welsh mining village, this story is about giant mutant maggots who attack people, and the Doctor must stop them before they mutate into something else. So far, so "Orphan 55". However, unlike the aforementioned tale, the reason why the maggots have been mutated is because they have been in contact with a chemical substance pumped into the mine by petrochemical company Global Chemicals, who are able to produce vast amounts of crude oil at relatively little cost. So, unlike "Orphan 55", we can see both sides represented on screen, and there's a direct cause and effect of the issue the programme is trying to raise. We have the character of Professor Jones, who campaigns vigorously for the environment and protecting it on one side, and, on the other, we have Stevens and Global Chemicals, who are promising jobs and prosperity for the people who have been left behind by the coal mine's closure. Having both sides in the argument allows us to have the conversation through the drama, and, while it is clear who's side producer Barry Letts and writer Robert Sloman are on, both sides are presented fairly and equally, and both sides of the argument are presented, allowing the audience to make up their own mind.
A similar message is presented in "Invasion of the Dinosaurs", broadcast a year later. The Doctor and Sarah Jane return to London, only to find that it has been overrun with dinosaurs, being brought to the present by means of time equipment created by a Professor Whittaker. This equipment is being used by a group of so-called free thinkers and environmentalists in order to wind time back to a pre-industrial age. That way, they can guide man's development, and prevent them from making the same mistakes that they did before. In many ways, this feels like a reaction to "The Green Death", presenting the other side, if you will, of the 'green' movement. This story depicts people who are so desperate to not only write off the whole planet, but also to destroy millions of lives in the process, jut because they believe they are right. Sure, we may all remember the naff dinosaur effects, but this thread runs throughout "Invasion of the Dinosaurs" like a stick of rock, and is actually what this story is all about. It's main focus is on the principle that these people are willing to destroy every achievement of the human race thus far because, as they see it, we have made a mistake. Unlike Clifford Jones and the members of the 'Nuthutch', Grover and his associates are eco-fanatics, and even the Doctor sees them as such. He understands their cause, and appreciates their message, but he knows that they have to be stopped. Life has to find its own way. We even get a speech at the end from the Doctor himself, in which he outlines that the real cause of pollution isn't the toxic chemicals or the foul slime, but 'simply greed'. In a way, vastly similar to "Orphan 55". However, it's a message that is delivered in a story that deals with the issue with maturity and focus, and maintains that throughout.
Skipping forward to 1988, we have "The Happiness Patrol". Broadcast during the last years of Margret Thatcher's time as Prime Minister of the UK, this serial features a very unsubtle parody of her in the form of Helen A (as played by Sheila Handcock). Helen A is dictator of the planet Terra Alpha, a world where it is illegal to be unhappy. Certain types of music are banned, the populace must wear brightly coloured clothes, and those who don't are ruthlessly executed by her crack police force, the aforementioned Happiness Patrol. When the Doctor and his companion Ace arrive, they set about creating a revolution that will throw Helen A and her executioner, the Kandyman, out of power. Many say that "The Happiness Patrol" is Doctor Who at its most politically charged, and I wouldn't disagree with that. And there in lies the point: this story is all about the politics. Its about the fact that Helen A looks like Margret Thatcher, and that her reign is like any number of oppressive regimes around the world (hell, in the 1980's, oppressive regimes seemed to be the in-vogue style). The whole story, like pretty much all of the stories script-edited by Andrew Cartmel, is working on a subtextutal level, in fact sometimes more than one. It's not just about evil regimes or being a parody of Margret Thatcher: it's about how true happiness cannot exist without sadness. All these themes feed into one another, and are key parts of this script. Satire runs through this script like a stick of rock, and informs every choice the production team make. Right from the very beginning, it is clear what the message is, and where it is going. This doesn't disguise its intentions at all, making them very clear right from the beginning, and never relenting as to the message. Sure, it is like "Orphan 55" in the sense that it is unsubtle, but, unlike "Orphan 55" its messages don't come out of nowhere. Instead, it is right there in every idea, every line of dialogue and every image on screen.
Moving into the new series, the show remained fairly un-political until a few years ago, when, in 2015, Peter Harness used the Zygons to tell a story with overtures of the refugee crisis and the terrorist organisation IS in the two-part "The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion". Recalled back to Earth by UNIT, the Doctor and Clara discover that the peace treaty between humans and Zygons that the Doctor created back in "The Day of the Doctor" is breaking down, and that a rogue cell of Zygons are attempting to start a war between humans and Zygons, the ultimate aim being to wipe out humanity. While using big red, rubber monsters, "Zygon Invasion/Zygon Inversion" could not be clearer with what it is trying to portray, and even makes some allusions to the real world in its content. Taking a subject as powerful as IS was definitely a risky move, especially in a show with a strong child audience as Doctor Who has. However, this story manages to tread a very thin line with skill, and doesn't, as a result, look crass and insensitive. For some, the very idea of Doctor Who tackling such a contemporary issue might be a step too far, but this makes for one of the most relevant and socially engaged stories of the modern era. Its concluding monologue from the Doctor on war, and its pointless nature feels earned, therefore, as the story engages with this theme by virtue of the topic it has chosen to tackle, and it also feels like a natural extension of the Doctor's character at this point in their lives.
My final example is actually from the previous season, partly to make sure I am not accused of bias against the current era, but mostly because it is a perfect example of Doctor Who tackling a political issue without becoming preachy. "Rosa" sees the Doctor, Graham, Yaz and Ryan arrive in Montgomery in 1953, on the eve of Rosa Parks' infamous refusal to move for white passengers on a bus. However, they find that a time-travelling criminal known as Krasko is attempting to change history, and prevent the stand from taking place. This is the perfect example of how to tackle issues like racism in a dramatic format, without becoming preachy or condescending. It doesn't hide from the ugly truth of what happened to black people in America in the 1950's (I mean, it'd be hard to in a story dealing with the Montgomery Bus Boycott), and uses that as a mirror onto our own society today. Because, sure, we've come a long way, but there's still plenty to do in order to create true equality. "Rosa" allows us to see how terrible things are through our companions, as both Ryan and Yaz suffer discrimination during the course of the story, leading to a wonderful scene between the two, as they discuss how they themselves, in their own time, have been subject to racial prejudice. It truly is wonderful writing from Malorie Blackman, with some great performances from Mandip Gill and Tosin Cole. And the ending knocks you for six, with its powerful cinematography and its beautiful use of Andrea Day's "Rise Up". Its never condescending or patronising, and, as such, remains one of the most powerful examples of Doctor Who taking on a political subject, and leaves "Orphan 55" for dust, as far as I am concerned.
For me, "Orphan 55" didn't do any of those things. It just tacked on a preachy monologue onto the end of an unrelated episode. And, more than anything else, I'm disappointed. Disappointed Doctor Who dropped the ball on such an important message at this point in history. I hope this is just a one-off, because I don't want the show to veer into this territory. Doctor Who has such a good record with episodes tackling political issues from throughout its 56 year history that it was no surprise that it would drop the ball at some point. I just hope the production team learn from this mistake and do not repeat it again.
Thank you very much for reading.
Comments
Post a Comment