You are not connected. Please login or register

What are the show's best moments of moral ambiguity?

4 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater

A discussion in another thread between Bernard Marx and Burrunjor has made me think of challenging moments of moral ambiguity in the classic show compared to the current politically correct hug-box version, and how moments where the heroes aren't always lily white in their actions can make all the difference between ‘active audience spectatorship’ and ‘passive audience spectatorship’.

What are the best examples you can think of in the old show?

For that matter, were there ever moments where you feel New Who actually did achieve moments of genuine moral ambiguity?

Bernard Marx

Bernard Marx

The most obvious example I can think of from the Classic Series is the ending of The Silurians- the audience is not directly told how to feel about the Brigadier’s actions, as he is still inherently moral at heart and righteous in intention (evident in that both retain mutual respect for one another going forward), and his actions may have prevented a potential future Silurian uprising, though it is clear that his actions are called into question by the Doctor as he has essentially committed genocide ‘They were intelligent alien beings... a whole race of them... he’s just wiped them out...’ To be honest, the whole story is morally ambiguous from the outset. What’s particularly pertinent about this is that Malcolm Hulke was once a member of the communist party, and so could have written a one sided political parable, yet still writes a multi-layered story that doesn’t patronise the intelligence of its audience- something New Who could learn from, for all of its simplistic agendas.

McCoy destroying Skaro is another moment that stands out, as is the scene where he briefly breaks Ace’s faith in him (we know that the act was a ploy to defeat Fenric, but she wasn’t initially aware of that, and such an act could cause considerable psychological damage either way). From New Who, an example I can think of would be The Waters Of Mars, with the ‘Time Lord Victorius’ scene, though given Tennant’s constant moral hypocrisy throughout the series, it’s difficult to determine whether these scenes achieve genuine moral ambiguity, or are just badly written. Most instances of moral ambiguity I can think of in New Who just seem like bad writing altogether (like The Doctor shooting the general in Hell Bent, which is best left alone).

That’s what I could think of on the top of my head, anyway. There are probably more examples, good and bad, that I haven’t considered whilst writing this.

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater

Planet of the Daleks. There's a poignant moment where the Doctor is trapped in a cell, rooting his pockets for means of escape, and discovers Jo's tape recording message. He believes she's dead, and that therefore these are her last recorded words. In most shows the hero would be expected to treasure that recording for sentimental reasons. But barely moments later the Doctor is easily prepared to cannibalize the tape recorder into a weapon of escape, thus erasing the last memento of Jo. A reminder that the Doctor can (or rather could) be cold and pragmatic.

Destiny of the Daleks (I admit this came off far stronger in the novelization). The moment where the Doctor holds Davros' life ransom by threatening to blow him up, then after the Daleks comply with his terms and let the slaves and him escape, he decides to try to blow Davros up anyway. Not honour any agreement.

City of Death comes to mind too. Up until the final scene on primordial Earth, the Doctor almost comes off as the true villain of the story. Ostensibly all Scarlioni/Scaroth wants to do is save his race and be reunited with his people, only for the Doctor to sabotage him at every turn. And the Doctor's reasons for constantly trying to stop him seem to be little more than him being a petty stickler for rules about causality. It becomes clearer in the end why the Doctor must stop him, but until that point I personally wasn't sure who's side I should be on.

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater

One example from New Who that comes to mind is School Reunion.

There is a moment where Anthony Head offers the Doctor the power of Godhood to rewrite the universe and potentially save his people. And for a moment Tennant does seem plausibly tempted, and as though his choice could go either way. Showing that he wasn't just an incorruptible hero.

Bernard Marx

Bernard Marx

I haven’t watched School Reunion for a while. I thought it was crap on my previous viewing, so haven’t turned to it since. Perhaps there is some merit to it I didn’t see previously?

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater

It's a pretty generic story with Rose at her worst (and personally I think the old Sarah Jane would've torn her to shreds), but I did think that particular moment in it was good. Or at least I remember being impressed by it at the time.

Bernard Marx

Bernard Marx

I recall being particularly annoyed with Sarah Jane’s portrayal in it, which didn’t seem to resemble the original character at all due to her pining for Tennant’s Doctor. Another example of the era shoehorning a romantic subplot regardless of whether it makes any sense solely to appear popularist. And yes- Rose is awful in it, though she stays this way throughout all of series 2, so I wouldn’t place that squarely on this episode.

There’s a brilliant moment of moral ambiguity in ‘The Crusade’, where Barbara is initially provided with the decision of whether to murder a child with her father’s knife, or let her be sold into sex slavery. There’s a brief moment where she raises the knife and considers killing her, though refrains, if I recall correctly. A brilliant moment of active spectatorship there, and an adult concept New Who couldn’t dream of approaching.

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater

Bernard Marx wrote:I recall being particularly annoyed with Sarah Jane’s portrayal in it,  which didn’t seem to resemble the original character at all due to her pining for Tennant’s Doctor. Another example of the era shoehorning a romantic subplot regardless of whether it makes any sense solely to appear popularist.  And yes- Rose is awful in it, though she stays this way throughout all of series 2, so I wouldn’t place that squarely on this episode.

Oh God.

At the time when I got news of how School Reunion was going to see a jealous bitch spat between Sarah and Rose, I was furious. If Sarah was only going to be back for a 45 minute one-off, I felt they should make every second count and I was so dismayed they were going to do this with her instead.

And I vividly remember replying my frustrations on the forum I was on at the time (I hasten to add it wasn't Gallifrey Base but it was *just* as sycophantic, creepy and cultish) and I got all manner of belittling replies for not going with the sickening party line.

One of the posters even suggested that it would've made perfect sense for an old Sarah to get jealous to see the Doctor with a nubile young blonde. As if Sarah could only appear realistic if she was portrayed as in synch with the narcissistic pettiness of modern times. I mean did they really think so low of the character?

And the irony is, at that time I was quite sympathetic to Rose, I thought she'd demonstrated a good heart so far, and part of my objection was that I didn't feel this would be in character for her either. I was of the belief that she would've loved to talk to a former fellow traveller about what it's like.

So in a way I was being belittled for caring about the new show more than them.

Bernard Marx

Bernard Marx

‘I was being belittled about caring about the new show more than them.’
Perhaps that summarises the result of New Who’s success in popular culture. These sections of fandom seemed (and still seem) unwilling to accept genuine criticism of New Who due to its popularist success, and so blindly follow it with unhesitant conformity. I must digress, I’m not too familiar with how places like Gallifrey Base operate given how new I am here, but I assume that’s how it seems?

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater

Basically how it operates is there's a back door elite of admins (and patron members if we're talking Gallifrey Base). And basically that means the pro-New Who camp are given free reign to be sycophantic to the gills, and very aggressive, belittling and grilling of any posters who express misgivings and are seen as spoiling the party atmosphere. Usually they give you a really horrible read about how you represent all these traits of fan entitlement or anorakish thinking, and if you bite back, you're basically treated as the problem.

I think to be honest it speaks to a wider sense that culture of the 90's and 2000's was fixated with the idea of wellness and happiness, from yoga groups to workplace team-building exercises. To the point where it almost began to feel like being happy was a permanent job and work commitment. And this culture I think informed the way that fandom felt that RTD had gotten the show in tune with that culture, and so those fans who were less happy with RTD's happiness cult take on the show, were seen as unwanted undesirables, who were seen as lesser people of lesser mental wellbeing.

It's crazy but that's how it was.

Bernard Marx

Bernard Marx

Sounds inherently parodic, to be honest. I couldn’t imagine anyone with the slightest bit of intuition taking such a place remotely seriously; it sounds like a joke by design. Was it always this way?

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater

I think it must've always been that way and yet I didn't notice for years (I was quite young and naive at the time), but I certainly remember the mood change that happened once we got into the first season of New Who. Prior to then I'd thought it was a nice welcoming place where I could open up about anything, and that I was among friends.

It genuinely surprised me how much that can change once you express the wrong opinion or try to think for yourself.

SomeCallMeEnglishGiraffe

SomeCallMeEnglishGiraffe

I would argue that Midnight is one of the most important Doctor Who stories, because of the moral ambiguity of the Doctor and the humans. Throughout 10's era, he has loved humans the most out of any incarnation, almost in a naiive sense, so having humans turn against him, and then in turn, turning against the humans, especially with the dialogue "because I'm clever!", I think helped with the ambiguity of 10's relationship. The era also tried to address that 10's arrogance is seen as a reckless personality, with stories like Tooth and Claw, Sound of Drums, Voyage of the Dammed, Midnight and Waters of Mars showing that 10 having a God-like complex is harmful to him and others. And I like that, and I wished they explored that more. The problem was that End of Time completely throws all of that potential out of the window, and says that 10 was completely in the right and he's right to feel like this. God I despise End of Time, I feel bad that Tennant, Cribbins and Dalton got thrown into that piece of shit story.

In terms of the Classic era, I'd say that the Massacre is also a great story to analysing the moral ambiguity. Steven's argument against the Doctor and whether the Doctor's actions saved or killed Anne is a great form of debate on if the Doctor should save someone.

I would definitely say that the 8th Doctor is the most morally ambiguous Doctor next to the 1st Doctor, more specifically in the Eighth Doctor books. He does a lot of grey actions. Especially with his memory lost, because he's exactly how he was in An Unearthly Child, only more athletic. The difference is that there is no form of Ian or Barbara to hold him back.

The Burning. After a firestorm hits Middleton and magma creatures infest the town, the Doctor is forced to blow up the village's dam, so it can flood and kill the creatures. The main bad guy gets swept up in the flood, and begs the Doctor for mercy. It looks like the Doctor was going to give the guy pity and save him, but instead pushes him down in the water so he can drown.

The Turing Test. The Eighth Doctor helps one side of an alien race to help them repair their ship, so they can escape Earth with the Doctor on-board (his Tardis is taking a 100 year repair, and the Doctor is getting impatient of waiting). Problem is that the Doctor is only doing this for his own gain, rather than helping the alien race. So, he will do anything necessary to reach that goal. Such as manipulating Alan Turing and using his sexuality as blackmail so Alan can help use the code breaker to help with the alien race.

Eater of Wasps. When a guy gets infested with killer wasps in 1930s, he ends up sprawling about in agony and pain, The Doctor is forced to snap the person's neck, so the person doesn't have to suffer any longer. Later, he performs an autopsy on the body to see the wasps pattern. Then, when the wasps make the body convulse, the Doctor sets the body alight to stop the wasps.

Bernard Marx

Bernard Marx

I agree with you about The End Of Time. It’s bloody awful, and is portentious in its awfulness. The Massacre is a brilliant example, actually- the last 10 minutes of that story really do encourage food for thought, and make for one hell of a confrontational and challenging conclusion (and Hartnell’s monologue at the end is just superb).



Last edited by Bernard Marx on 1st August 2019, 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

Pepsi Maxil

Pepsi Maxil
The Grand Master

I don't understand this thread so I'm just going to say Peri's knockers. Hope that at least answers your question properly.

Tanmann

Tanmann
Dick Tater

SomeCallMeEnglishGiraffe wrote:I would argue that Midnight is one of the most important Doctor Who stories, because of the moral ambiguity of the Doctor and the humans. Throughout 10's era, he has loved humans the most out of any incarnation, almost in a naiive sense, so having humans turn against him, and then in turn, turning against the humans, especially with the dialogue "because I'm clever!", I think helped with the ambiguity of 10's relationship. The era also tried to address that 10's arrogance is seen as a reckless personality, with stories like Tooth and Claw, Sound of Drums, Voyage of the Dammed, Midnight and Waters of Mars showing that 10 having a God-like complex is harmful to him and others. And I like that, and I wished they explored that more.

I think unfortunately Chris Bidmead was right when he said that the character of Tennant's Doctor was like a leaking vessel. Didn't matter what the writers or actor poured into him, the almost cartoon model of the character would remain the same, it would somehow disappear into the ether after, and it was like the development got rescinded.

The problem was that End of Time completely throws all of that potential out of the window, and says that 10 was completely in the right and he's right to feel like this. God I despise End of Time, I feel bad that Tennant, Cribbins and Dalton got thrown into that piece of shit story.

The one moment of ambiguity I liked was when his sentimental persona vanishes and he just becomes a blank, robotic assassin, flipping almost in a sleepwalking trance between whether to shoot the Master or Rassilon.

The rant he gives to Wilf.... I half sense was RTD trying to do a Joss Whedon by having the valiant, self-sacrificing superhero say the usually unsayable about how he'd rather live and having Wilf bear the brunt of the hero's 'bad day' moment.

But instead it comes off as a kind of "this is why you suck" speech from Tennant, even though Wilf did nothing wrong except come with him as requested and become endangered by acting to save someone else.

I just always thought there was something a bit overtly ugly about the kind of personality RTD often gave the Doctor.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum