Today is the 55th anniversary of ‘An Unearthly Child’ airing on the BBC so it seems an appropriate date to discuss the status of Doctor Who now in its 37th season/series. The current series differs from its recent predecessors in several ways: size of the regular cast, contribution to the show by people of color, having only one part episodes with no series thread tying the stories together, the individual stories themselves are relatively understated with more of an emphasis on character interaction and social commentary, and, of course, a female doctor. Reactions to the new series have been wildly varied and, in some cases, pretty extreme. I have some sympathy with the fan who feels a bit let down by a beloved show that has changed so much in such a short period of time. However, one of the reasons that Doctor Who has persisted for so long is that it has changed dramatically over the years.
The most obvious change in the show, and the one that initially caused concern among many was the doctor’s gender. To me this seems like the least consequential (in terms of the program’s content, not its social implications) of the changes. Jodie Whittaker has been very good at combining eccentricity, empathy, and a strong moral sense without any of those elements becoming over-bearing. She is also refreshingly un-self-absorbed in comparison to other recent incarnations.
For me, one of the big positives of this season has been the “re-mortalization” of the doctor. One of the appeals that the Classic series had for me was that the doctor was a relatively powerless figure who largely succeeded using intelligence. That remains true to some degree in modern Who but time and again the doctor was shown as this figure who was feared throughout the universe and who could defeat enemies by reputation alone. I can’t tell you how annoyed I was at Matt Smith’s debut when the conflict was resolved by the Doctor revealing his identity to the “bad guy” who then promptly fled in terror. In contrast, the current doctor seems quite modest and also completely unknown wherever they travel.
The current series has also been criticized for being “PC” to the exclusion of good story-telling. I do think the story-telling can be criticized (see below) but I don’t think being excessively inclusive is the cause. For one thing, the idea that the show is only concerned with propagandizing social justice doesn’t hold water. Of the seven stories so far this season, three of them (The Woman Who Fell to Earth, The Ghost Monument, and The Tsuranga Conundrum) seem pretty apolitical in overall theme unless you think condemnation of hunting humans for political advancement is controversial. At most these three episodes have minor elements (e.g. the male alien giving birth) relating to social issues that remind me of 30 year old episodes of Star Trek:The Next Generation. Two of the others (Arachnids in the UK and Kerblam!) offer up satire/commentary that would seem familiar to Doctor Who viewers in the 70s and 80s. Arachnids in the UK is basically a re-telling of The Green Death from 1973 with a Donald Trump surrogate replacing a sentient computer with dreams of world conquest. Kerblam! is similar to a number of stories in the Tom Baker and Sylvester McCoy eras (e.g. The Sunmakers and Paradise Towers) that satirized aspects of modern life.
Where the current series has been the most ‘political’ and I would argue the most powerful and effective was in the two historical episodes: ‘Rosa’ and ‘Demons of the Punjab’. Both of these stories are set in the relatively recent past in politically/socially charged situations which resonate strongly in the current era. Each situation has particular significance for one of the doctor’s companions. And, in each case, their ability to influence events is limited, because, for once, this over half century old show about time travel is actually taking the concept seriously. Furthermore science fiction has a long history of political and social commentary of all types. Science Fiction on TV has been doing social and political commentary since before Doctor Who existed (The Twilight Zone). I hardly think that an increased focus on inclusivity means you still can’t tell a good story.
Any troubles this show has this season are more related to the size of the regular cast and to a prediction for a particular type of story. The regular cast consists of the Doctor, Yaz, Ryan, and Graham; thus the doctor and three companions. Three companions at once is a lot, it has only occurred three times previously. Modern Who has a more fluid notion of a companion than Classic Who but throughout the new series, with the exception of brief periods (e.g. some Christmas episodes) there has always been one clear primary companion (Rose, Martha, Donna, Amy, Clara, Bill). The relationship of this companion with the doctor has been always been an important driving force of the show since it re-started in 2005.
In contrast this season started out with not just a new doctor but three new companions, without any one of them being the primary one. Four new characters represent on opportunity to set up a new dynamic but they also represent a challenge. There is only so much screen time and thus less time to develop each character (4) and each possible relationship (6). The previous times that there have been three companions are all from a long time ago: in the show’s initial two seasons (Ian, Barbara, Susan or Vickie), for 5 out of 9 stories in season 4 (Ben, Polly, and Jamie) and for the last episode of season 18 and most of season 19 (Adric, Nyssa, and Teegan). In the early days of the show in the 1960s the stories were much longer and there more stories in a season. So there was a lot more time to flesh out the characters (and to be honest the characters were fairly simple). The most recent case of three companions, in the early 1980s, was deemed a failure and Adric was killed off to make things more manageable.
Exacerbating the difficulty of fleshing out four new characters is the lack of two part stories this season. It’s hard to do a lot of character development when you have to introduce a new situation including guest characters and then wrap up the story in 45-50 minutes. In my opinion the biggest mistake the show made this year was to go for this all single part story format. The characters are all likable and intriguing but in any given episode it seems like half of them don’t have enough to do.
A number of reviewers have pointed out problems with the plotting, especially with crafting satisfactory conclusions to the story. This is particularly obvious in Arachnids in the UK where the Doctor’s confrontation with pseudo-Trump just kind of fizzles out and everyone goes home. It’s also not clear why the doctor’s solution of euthanizing the spiders in the safe room is any more humane than just shooting them. The ending of Kerblam! is also kind of unsatisfying although in a different way. It turns out that no-one was acting ethically and, after preventing the immediate disaster, the doctor and company just leave things in the hands of the same people who were in charge before and basically say ‘you figure it out’.
One of the earliest announcements about this season is that it wouldn’t feature recurring aliens such as the Daleks. Instead of having malevolent villains this season is trying to be more subtle in its sources of conflict. The debut episode was more old-school with its tooth imbedded predatory adversary but several of the episodes since then have built up a monster only to reveal it is something different (the spiders, the aliens in Punjab, the robots in Kerblam!). Misdirection is a powerful tool in story-telling. However if the story-teller isn’t careful, misdirection can lead to anti-climax. It’s relatively easy to tell an exciting story when you have an evil antagonist. It’s a lot harder to tell a good story where the antagonist ends up being something different or the whole situation is more morally complex than first appeared. Especially in 45-50 minutes.
OK this has ended up being really long. I really like the new version of Doctor Who although I think its style would benefit from two parters. I also think a bit more attention to plotting is warranted. But I’m looking forward to rest of the (all too short) season.