·
As with “In the Forest of the Night”, we have an
odd, experimental episode that comes right before the season finale, that has
been largely panned by fandom, overall unfairly in my opinion. It’s undeniably
flawed, and not Gatiss’s best story, but probably the closest he has come to
writing a classic: there’s a sense he’s genuinely pushing and developing his
ideas, and trying to do something different in a way his other scripts simply
don’t. I slightly prefer “In the Forest”, as a literary rumination on William
Blake and ecology is more up my street than the found footage genre, but as
with that story, there is plenty to admire here, in spite of its flaws, making
it a lot better than the failure fandom makes it out to be. The flaws are real:
the format results in it taking on a drab look, the sandmen are a pretty weak
monster, and the guest cast are not given any depth. But there are flashes of
genius, and a commitment to actually developing its central ideas that earns it
a pass, and places it above “Under the Lake/ Before the Flood” in my books.
·
Not a main concern of the episode, but worth
noting, is the way Gatiss finally pushes for diversity consciously in his
scripting. – Indo-Japanese crew idea an attempt to build a different kind of
future world to the one Doctor Who usually depicts – so mostly POC guest cast,
and in Bethany Black, the first openly trans woman in a Doctor Who role – good
and bad to this – arguably the literal grunt role, a character that is openly
called “it” by Chopra, not a sensitive role to give to a trans actress – but we
are meant to sympathise with her oppression, and it is clear we are not meant
to agree with Chopra
·
Also relatively new to a Gatiss script is he
conscious decision to comment on politics in this story, after “Victory of the
Daleks” stayed well away from a critique, or even a serious examination, of
Churchill, as Gatiss felt Doctor Who “wasn’t the place” for that (I disagree),
and even “Cold War” failed to comment on the actual Cold War in any meaningful
depth. Here, however, it is clear that Gatiss has made a genuine effort to
engage with an issue that has been on his mind, rather than flagging up
political symbols, figures, and settings, without digging into them in any
depth. Chopra argues that Morpheus is “colonizing” sleep, explicitly linking
the capitalist ideology that brings Morpheus about to the politics and approach
to empire building, and Nagata in turn tells him to “keep your politics to
yourself”. It’s a very Gatiss approach to left wing politics, pointedly
commenting on the way Capitalism demands as much of our time and resources as
possible, but looking at it through a “modernity vs. classicalism” lens. The
Doctor’s “Sleep is blessed” speech invokes Shakespeare and “the ancients”,
using classic philosophers and poets as the authority against the modern push
for business at all costs. It’s not quite a “things were better in the good old
days” rant, but it is, typically for Gatiss, somewhat old fashioned. Here,
though, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
·
And the central theme of the story is structured
around unreliable narrators, found footage and metafiction, and the steady
development of this central theme is genuinely well done. It serves as a different
take on a central theme of “Last Christmas”: dreams and TV logic, exploring the
same idea from a different angle. Morpheus steals dreams and replaces them with
a weaponised narrative that functions on dream logic, one that, just like “Last
Christmas”, thrives on gaps and ambiguous parts in its story.
·
At first, the episode just seems to be using the
found footage format in a conventional way to comment on the formula for Doctor
Who horror story, with Rasmussen’s narration as he pieces together the story
being used to comment on traditional Doctor Who tropes: “Don’t get too
attached” he says of the visibly disposable, thinly characterized guest cast,
as they go into their rescue mission like lambs to the slaughter. In many ways,
it becomes a comment on Doctor Who’s own history. Rasmussen tells us that “some
bits are missing” and then later narrates over parts of the story that
“couldn’t be captured” on film, just as Tom Baker narrates over the gaps in
“Shada”, or William Russell narrates “Marco Polo”. The episode becomes a
metaphor for the history of Doctor Who, with its format being used to encompass
aspect of the “missing adventures”: it’s clear that we are in metafictional territory
in this story, with the unusual form being used to comment on Doctor Who
itself.
·
The metafictional use of the format develops
further when what seems to be an odd production mistake – some shots being
filmed from Clara’s POV – turns out to be a key twist, as it is revealed that
there are no cameras, that the footage comes from Morpheus itself. The found
footage format of the episode has been weaponised against the characters: the
form moves from being a means to comment on the story, to becoming part of the
story itself.
·
The episode concludes with the metafictional,
fourth wall breaking reveal that the episode has in fact been weaponised
against the audience. Rasmussen asks the audience to share the episode, and
pass the infection on to everybody: it’s not the format, but the Doctor Who
story itself that is the threat.
·
And the Doctor never catches onto this. In a
season that explores in depth what it means for the Doctor to win, we get a
story where the Doctor loses, only being able to survive the story: a very
significant note to end on, given what comes next.
No comments:
Post a Comment