Doctor Who: The God Complex

Spoiler Warning. You know the drill.

Jekyll is a very dark series. It possesses Moffat’s characteristic witty one-liners, and his characteristic brilliant building of dramatic tension. It even has a few moments that directly parallel some of the storytelling techniques Moffat has used in Doctor Who – in particular, the scene where Jekyll and Hyde talk to each other via video camera has echoes of the Doctor’s conversation with Sally Sparrow in Blink.

But it’s also very clearly not his best work – there are moments where the pacing lags significantly, and the story feels disjointed at times, especially in the early episodes. The latter portions of the series have their own problems, with enormous plot holes opening up beneath the narrative in a way that really gives it problems. For instance, Mrs. Utterson’s motivations are never really clear, especially in light of Jackman’s mother’s assertion that ‘Hyde is love’. And Tom’s children being able to ‘swap’ is never really explored in a meaningful way; I’m not normally an advocate for Chekhovian minimalism, but that just feels sloppy. However, by that point the pacing has picked up enough to gloss over a lot of the plot holes, and with characteristic Moffat lines (‘Trust me, I’m a psychopath’ was especially brilliant) to distract us, the story manages to just barely hold itself together.

The ending, though, and by that I mean the final frame before the show cuts to black, was utterly terrifying. It was a clever subversion of what we expect in narrative; after we thought we were safe in the denouement, we’re given a sudden jolt of adrenaline right as we cut to black. It takes away the feeling of satisfaction and leaves the audience with a slightly disappointed feeling. And it seems to do this very intentionally; I’m reminded of the similar subversive techniques I talked about in The Girl Who Waited. In fact,

Oh dear, I’ve reviewed the wrong series again, haven’t I? Terribly sorry about that.

The God Complex has a very interesting relationship with fear.

I didn’t expect Jekyll to be scary. So I urged my wife to watch it with me. And when it turned scary, I had to apologize to her, because she really dislikes scary television, and will be jumpy (and nightmare-prone) for days after a scary scene. It’s why she doesn’t watch Doctor Who. And she asked me why anyone would want to watch things that are meant to scare them.

And the answer to that question parallels some of the elements in this story. Basically: we watch scary things because it lets us master them. Television and film let us take our fears, reduce them to two dimensions – to a medium where we know they cannot touch us – and then face them. So what we’re left with (those of us who like scary stories, anyway) is the adrenaline rush without the real terror, and a sense of elation and power. We can practice being brave without any real danger. And when we’re done, we can leave the scary stuff behind, safe in the Land of Fiction. And we can laugh at it, and joke about it, and reduce it thereby. (Of course, it’s never really gone. The Dark is always scary, and always real, and stories are just a lie we tell ourselves to feel better)

In The God Complex, we have a creature that takes the thing we’re most afraid of, and confronts us with it. But unlike most stories that start out with that premise, this creature doesn’t feed on our fear, it feeds on our faith, on the things we fall back on to make ourselves feel brave. It takes the very reason we watch scary stories and perverts it, and devours us. This is what makes the jagged transitions between the linear narrative and scenes of the victims laughing and screaming so effective.

This link to television is echoed in the repeated use of black-and-white camera feeds throughout the story. This feels very much like the Second Doctor, with his penchant for staring out of cameras and right at the viewer. The feeling is especially strong in the scene where the Doctor is talking to Rita.

On the subject of past Doctors, this is very much another Seventh Doctor story. And it’s easy to see it coming, but it’s still played very well. Specifically, the climax of this story bears an uncanny, unmissable resemblance to the climax of The Curse of Fenric. Except, as a friend pointed out to me, it is crucial to note that in Fenric, the Doctor didn’t believe the things he said to Ace. But he very clearly does believe every word he tells Amy. It is one of the most emotionally powerful scenes in Moffat’s Doctor Who to date. (Well, obviously “I stole your childhood and now I’ve led you by the hand to your death” isn’t true in the present tense (since his goal was to destroy Amy’s faith in him), but it does reflect the fear that leads him to stop travelling with Amy and Rory.)

So, it is a shame that it is marred by an obvious flaw. And that flaw is the phrase “Amy Williams”. I have no idea how that line of dialogue got out of the gate. I mean, it is clear what Whithouse is trying to say here: that it is time, basically, for Amy to grow up and stop having adventures with the Madman in a Box. It is meant to contrast with Amelia Pond, the little girl who wasted her childhood waiting for the Doctor.

But that’s not how it comes across, for a couple of reasons. First, the changing of surnames for women is culturally loaded. What we get instead is a paternal figure performing the ancient ritual of ‘giving away’ his daughter. It reeks of a transfer of possession, and objectifies Amy in a very direct way.

On a more significant, personal level, it is a reversal of an established story device that seems to have been unceremoniously dropped at some point in series 6. Amy’s role as a fairly dominant force in her relationship with Rory (in a way that very nearly has D/s overtones) is well established in series 5, and there are even references to Rory taking Amy’s name (so, Rory Pond, not Amy Williams). It is, in fact, the Doctor who establishes Rory as Rory Pond in the first place:

The Doctor: Amelia, from now on, I shall be leaving the… kissing duties to the brand new… Mr. Pond!
Rory: No! I’m not Mr. Pond. That’s not how it works.
The Doctor: Yeah it is.
Rory: … Yeah, it is.

This is further referenced in the Christmas Special, with the Doctor’s missive ‘Come Along Ponds’. But, at some point, Rory started being Rory Williams again. I suspect this might be related to Amy becoming pregnant/captured/a mother, in which case it is doubly troubling, because it echoes a cultural narrative that tells us that motherhood is the defining line where women have to ‘grow up and settle down’, which is equated in this narrative to ‘stop being assertive’.

So, here the Doctor seems to invert an observation he himself made about Amy. I think the intent may have been to demonstrate that he is trying to undo (some of) the changes he made in her life, but it comes across as a statement that she should be less assertive. And why not? That’s what we expect of women who have grown up, after all.

In short, they really missed the mark they were trying to hit with that line, and subverted an established aspect of Amy’s role as a strong female character.

And while we’re talking about criticisms, at first I felt that the character development from The Girl Who Waited was completely dropped. It felt like everything from that episode was suddenly water under the bridge for the three companions. There are a couple of points where this is not true: certainly the Doctor’s anguish about not wanting to kill his companions was influenced by the death of old Amy. And, and a friend pointed out to me, Rory’s use of the past tense when talking about travelling with the Doctor makes it clear that he is done with the Doctor and is just waiting for Amy to agree. But Amy, whose ‘Where is she?’ was the last thing we heard in the previous episode, seems to be relatively unaffected by those events. It’s an unfortunate tonal mismatch with the previous episode, given how well this episode works otherwise.

And the episode really does work. The visual storytelling here is fantastic, playing with techniques that aren’t seen much (if at all) in Doctor Who. We have the psychological scenes that break from the narrative to cut-up clips of text and disjointed images of the victims. There’s the use of cameras and camera feeds to structure the narrative and emphasize the nature of the danger. Throughout the episode we get a distinct downplaying of the monsters in the rooms and even the Minotaur; instead, the fear is purely psychological, with the lingering shots focusing on the victims as they are driven mad. Whithouse really knows how to write a Doctor Who script, and Moffat’s production team is doing unparalleled work here.

Praise Them.

Advertisement

3 Comments »

  1. TGT13 said

    I think you might be taking too strong a feminist stance with some of your critique (something I’ve noticed to be a running theme in your other reviews) about dialogue and situations in the show.

    I mean, a rant about the changing of surname as a form of transferring possession of the woman is a bit of a reach in the context of the show and the line. Almost as if you’re mining every sentence for some kind of sexism and controversy.

    I caught that line immediately but the very last thing on my mind was “look at that Doctor, trying to transfer ownership of Amy! That out dated chauvinist!”… No… I thought “this is it. The beginning of the end…” which made me realize that I’d made a giant mistake as a Who fan… I became emotionally involved in the well-being of the companions for the first time and forgot that they, like the actors that play the Doctor, and impermanent.

    Of course, if rumours are true we’ll have Doctor/Amy/Rory episodes well into next season but the last 10 minutes or so of the episode sort of hit me in the gut, as a fan, who had forgotten not to become disillusioned to the truth of the companions.

    Overall, I loved this episode. I, like most others, fell into the “this is just another monster who feeds on fear” mindset and the next thing I knew my preconceived notions were thrown out the window.

    I liked that they actually made reference to River and sort of, if my interpretation is anywhere close, explained how Amy and Rory go along with all of the Doctor’s side quests without smacking him upside the head and yelling “Daughter! Now!”. It’s a weak explanation and probably my version of your over-analysis but I was left feeling okay about what had seemed like, as you put it, the tale of the forgotten daughter.

    I am however not optimistic about next weeks episode. I’ve never felt a show has had so many filler episodes in a row before. It just seems like, with the major storyline of the season, there hasn’t been much beyond an episode or two and a line or two in others that plays into the overriding theme of the season. The death of the Doctor. And, while I know the season finale will likely cover it I can’t help but wonder if they intend to answer all the questions before seasons end or string them through next season.

    Sorry… Don’t many friends of the show so when I get going… I really get going…

    • anna said

      I’m going to respond to your comments in reverse order.

      No worries, I appreciate the comments; it lets me know there’s at least one person actually reading!

      As for next week’s episode, I have more hope for it than that. Gareth Roberts write a tremendously good episode in series 5, and I think that if anyone can make an interesting Cybermen story it’s him. Also, it’s important to remember that Doctor Who isn’t traditionally defined by its story arcs – indeed, ongoing story arcs as a concept that tie each production season together are new to the new series, and this season has had a LOT more episodes that tie directly to the ongoing story than any other series (I mean, showing a random crack in reality during each episode in series 5 is just a teaser; it doesn’t make that episode inherently connected to the ongoing arc. So, this is nothing out of the ordinary, really. Series 5 had 4 episodes in a row with nothing more than token nods to the ongoing continuity (Vampires of Venice – Vincent and the Doctor. If you want to count Rory’s erasure in Cold Blood, then we have to count the companion departure in The God Complex too).

      Actually, I had already speculated that all the fuss fans are making about finding River is overblown – as I said in someone else’s blog comments last week, that ship has sailed. River has already grown up (as Amy and Rory’s friend), and if my timeline for Dr. Song’s life is accurate, there’s not really anywhere for ‘Amy and Rory have happy parent time’ to really slot into place.

      I also loved this episode, despite the one crucially bad line of dialogue and its other minor flaws. And speaking of that crucially bad line of dialogue…

      “Too strong a Feminist stance”. Interesting phrase. I would argue that I’m taking exactly the right amount of Feminist stance. It is simply the consequence of applying critical reasoning to the world around me, rather than unquestioningly accepting it as given. Nothing is created in a vacuum, and the dialogue and situations in a television program are very much influenced by the society they are created in. More importantly, the television show isn’t broadcast in a vacuum either, and the situations and dialogue presented can have real ramifications for our culture. Art reflects, reinforces, and influences culture, and so I feel more than justified in critiquing the implications of a narrative within a broader cultural context.

      So, no, I don’t think my rant is a reach at all. Because that surname shift happened in a show produced within the confines of Western culture, and in that culture I’ve seen the narrative of women as de facto property (but not actual property, no, because we are So Enlightened and Sexism Is A Thing Of The Past, right?) played out again and again. It’s easy to miss that narrative when you don’t have to live in the shadow of the expectations created by that narrative. Which is a fairly succinct (if somewhat incomplete) definition of Male Privilege (and that link is certainly recommended reading!)

      It’s also worth noting that at no point did I think ‘that out-dated chauvinist!’. Rather, I thought “That is a disappointing way to subvert the narrative of strong women, and Amy in particular, and to reinforce the very current, modern cultural trend toward the objectification of women.” Actually, to be fair, I didn’t think that when I heard the line. No, I thought “Wait, what the fuck was that shit? After the Doctor explicitly quipped about Mr. Pond, we’re going to drop a line like that?”. But I digress.

      The upshot of this? Feminist thought (and Social Justice-oriented thinking in general) is a natural consequence of the way I think about the world, and I consider it important to analyze cultural artifacts from that perspective, because they are placed in a particularly powerful position for spreading and strengthening social memes. So the Feminist commentary isn’t going anywhere any time soon.

      Also, all things considered my analysis of Doctor Who from a Feminist perspective is comparatively mild. See here for a much more critical analysis. (for the record, I don’t agree with all the points she makes there, but I don’t disagree with all of them either)

      • TGT13 said

        “As for next week’s episode, I have more hope for it than that.”

        I’m sure it will be good, I’m just on that post-companion sadness, I suppose, lol. It’ll be cool to see some old friends again (Craig from The Lodger, at the very least). Just sad to see them leave, if even for an episode. Sort of a prelude to next seasons’ final goodbye.

        And, I suppose you are right. It just makes me nervous when any show builds up a central storyline for a season and then sort of shoves it off for any long stretch of time, but now that I think about it (post-your comment) I see you’re right.

        “I would argue that I’m taking exactly the right amount of Feminist stance.”

        Lol, fair enough I guess. Two sides of the same coin and all that.

        I think I’ll avoid an ultra-feminist take on the Doctor. If I questioned your level, which I apologize and retract part of, I don’t think I could read one that you yourself claim as MORE critical.

        Cheers. Can’t wait for the next episode and the subsequent review.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers