We return to The A-Z of Classic Who with a story with a fascinating genesis, conception and execution, and one where the fascination nearly, but doesn't quite, translate to the screen. We'll get to that, but fist, its necessary to examine why the story was made as it was.
Doctor Who has had a long history with its anniversary years. For the twentieth anniversary, we got the fanwanky but fun romp The Five Doctors which brought back old friends and allies to the screen: for the fiftieth anniversary, we got a fan-pleasing but also fairly deep and complex episode examining the Doctor's character and providing the end to the character arc that had defined him since his return to the screen in 2005. That doing so rendered every time David Tennant did his droopy-eyed sad face without meaning was an extra anniversary bonus for me, although maybe not for everyone.
The tenth anniversary was what started this trend. The main feature wa,s the fun fanwanky romp that started that particular anniversary tradition, The Three Doctors but producer Barry Letts wanted the other main feature of the tenth season to be a 12-part story that would rival the Season 4 epic The Daleks' Master Plan.
The problem with this, which no doubt absolutely everyone he mentioned it to pointed out, was that length was not one of DMP's strengths, although given the story had probably met with the Standrard Issue BBC Flamethrower™ by that point he couldn't exactly go back and check. Long stories can work: The War Games is, of course, a masterpiece, but even then shaving off an episode or two would probably be an improvement. There's a good reason for most of the classic run 4 episodes was the norm with occasional 6-parters: its difficult to sustain a Doctor Who story for any longer than that. This is all especially considering Doctor Who seasons were much shorter in 1973 than they were in 1966 (thus meaning nearly half the season would have to be given over to the project) and even then audience attention spans were much less forgiving than they had been in the past (although still pretty long and patient compared to the testosterone-filled Michael Bay impression NuWho usually delivers to us.)
Letts' next bright idea was to make two separate but linked six-parter stories. No doubt everyone just gave up arguing at this point and decided to humour him despite it being an even worse idea given it would mean one story wouldn't have a climax and one wouldn't have a set-up, and yet still require most of the season's attention and the audience's long attention span. It would also mean the stories would have to be expertly crafted to make sure that the link between them wasn't tenuous at best.
So that brings us to Frontier in Space. It is, once again, a story penned by Literal Communist Malcolm Hulke and thus we can expect political analogy up to our ears and then some. This time Comrade Hulke set his sights on the great conflict of his time: the Cold War.
But wait, you ask, didn't he already do that in Doctor Who and the Silurians? Yes, he did, but in the context of a more general analogy of the British political scene in the early 70s, whereas Frontier in Space is a direct send-up of the Cold War itself. The story features two large opposing superpowers being duped into being at each others throats despite the threat that a war would pose, all to serve a higher interest that would benefit out of a war. This is an analogy that works despite its hilarious lack of subtlety because Hulke creates both sides to be believable, nuanced and somewhat sympathetic. Let's take the Humans for instance: the President is a politician, overly concerned with the public reaction and her own standing, but she is also not without her own moral compass, and seems very reluctant to do anything that could spark a war. She is clearly Hulke's caricature of western politicians involved in the war: certainly not bad people, but blinded by their political self-concern and inflexibly set in their own ideals. General Williams is the mad war-mongering xenophobic military man (a space Dick Cheney if you will) and he spends the first half of the story as a thoroughly dislikable character. Once he realises that he fucked up in starting a war a few years earlier he turns good, which is partially believable character evolution and partially deus-ex motivation change in order to serve the plot. It's not entirely successful but not awful either. The Draconians on the other hand are the rigid bureaucratic dictatorship, rigidly set in their own pretences and prejudices, but they aren't the bad guys either. The Emperor and his son has an almost identical conversation to one between the President and General Williams on the need for action against their enemy and the domestic threat to their position should they fail. It is definitely on the nose a bit, but it's effective nonetheless.
This is a good story: the political themes, the characters, the Doctor-Master interactions, they all work well to create an entertaining story despite some padding and story issues. That it falls apart a bit at the end does not undo that the journey was a good one, but it means that there simply isn't the closure necessary for the story to become an all time great. It's good, but it could have been great if it had been two episodes shorter and free of the Letts' 12-part Masterplan. I always make sure to judge a story on what it is rather than what it could have been, and what is on the screen is good: but it is difficult to ignore the sense of missed opportunity.
Doctor Who has had a long history with its anniversary years. For the twentieth anniversary, we got the fanwanky but fun romp The Five Doctors which brought back old friends and allies to the screen: for the fiftieth anniversary, we got a fan-pleasing but also fairly deep and complex episode examining the Doctor's character and providing the end to the character arc that had defined him since his return to the screen in 2005. That doing so rendered every time David Tennant did his droopy-eyed sad face without meaning was an extra anniversary bonus for me, although maybe not for everyone.
The tenth anniversary was what started this trend. The main feature wa,s the fun fanwanky romp that started that particular anniversary tradition, The Three Doctors but producer Barry Letts wanted the other main feature of the tenth season to be a 12-part story that would rival the Season 4 epic The Daleks' Master Plan.
The problem with this, which no doubt absolutely everyone he mentioned it to pointed out, was that length was not one of DMP's strengths, although given the story had probably met with the Standrard Issue BBC Flamethrower™ by that point he couldn't exactly go back and check. Long stories can work: The War Games is, of course, a masterpiece, but even then shaving off an episode or two would probably be an improvement. There's a good reason for most of the classic run 4 episodes was the norm with occasional 6-parters: its difficult to sustain a Doctor Who story for any longer than that. This is all especially considering Doctor Who seasons were much shorter in 1973 than they were in 1966 (thus meaning nearly half the season would have to be given over to the project) and even then audience attention spans were much less forgiving than they had been in the past (although still pretty long and patient compared to the testosterone-filled Michael Bay impression NuWho usually delivers to us.)
Letts' next bright idea was to make two separate but linked six-parter stories. No doubt everyone just gave up arguing at this point and decided to humour him despite it being an even worse idea given it would mean one story wouldn't have a climax and one wouldn't have a set-up, and yet still require most of the season's attention and the audience's long attention span. It would also mean the stories would have to be expertly crafted to make sure that the link between them wasn't tenuous at best.
So that brings us to Frontier in Space. It is, once again, a story penned by Literal Communist Malcolm Hulke and thus we can expect political analogy up to our ears and then some. This time Comrade Hulke set his sights on the great conflict of his time: the Cold War.
 |
| No caption here. Just need an image to break the wall of text. |
But wait, you ask, didn't he already do that in Doctor Who and the Silurians? Yes, he did, but in the context of a more general analogy of the British political scene in the early 70s, whereas Frontier in Space is a direct send-up of the Cold War itself. The story features two large opposing superpowers being duped into being at each others throats despite the threat that a war would pose, all to serve a higher interest that would benefit out of a war. This is an analogy that works despite its hilarious lack of subtlety because Hulke creates both sides to be believable, nuanced and somewhat sympathetic. Let's take the Humans for instance: the President is a politician, overly concerned with the public reaction and her own standing, but she is also not without her own moral compass, and seems very reluctant to do anything that could spark a war. She is clearly Hulke's caricature of western politicians involved in the war: certainly not bad people, but blinded by their political self-concern and inflexibly set in their own ideals. General Williams is the mad war-mongering xenophobic military man (a space Dick Cheney if you will) and he spends the first half of the story as a thoroughly dislikable character. Once he realises that he fucked up in starting a war a few years earlier he turns good, which is partially believable character evolution and partially deus-ex motivation change in order to serve the plot. It's not entirely successful but not awful either. The Draconians on the other hand are the rigid bureaucratic dictatorship, rigidly set in their own pretences and prejudices, but they aren't the bad guys either. The Emperor and his son has an almost identical conversation to one between the President and General Williams on the need for action against their enemy and the domestic threat to their position should they fail. It is definitely on the nose a bit, but it's effective nonetheless.
 |
| The Master made a note not to ever get defeated by an unexpected deux-ex machina out of nowhere. That would be ridiculous. |
Of course, it is the Master, and also the Daleks, who are trying to spark this intergalatic war for their own ends. Roger Delgado, in his final story before his tragic death, of course gives a masterful performance as always and the presence of the Daleks is necessary in order to link the story to Planet of the Daleks which would come up next. This almost works, but falls a bit short. I think the Master needed a more complex motivation than wanting to rule the galaxy. In a story with such complex political themes, giving the villain so little nuance beyond what Delgado gives to the performance is a mistake. His alliance with the Daleks never quite makes sense either, and they definitely feel shoehorned into a story where they weren't really necessary. It's nice to see them I guess and their reasons for wanting to spark a war between two great powers makes sense (at least in theory), but they don't really fit in with the political themes of the story and their plan is a bit convoluted and easily foilable.
 |
| "SO YOU SEE WHY WE DECIDED TO DO A LONG AND COMPLEX PLAN INVOLVING THE NOTORIOUSLY STUPID OGRONS HYPNOTISING HUMANS AND DRACONIANS INTO THINKING THEY WERE ATTACKING EACH OTHER THAT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME TO ACTUALLY DEVOLVE INTO WAR AND EVEN THEN POLITICAL MACHINATIONS DON'T MAKE IT A GUARANTEE" "Yes I see perfectly" |
The story itself is also somewhat a case of 'close but no cigar.' For a start, there's no doubt it would have been much better as a 4-parter. There's a great deal of padding in the story and the first three episodes are basically just the same things happening over and over again. The entire plot of the Doctor being imprisoned on the moon is entirely useless to the overall story and does nothing except add an extra episode on, and the whole "The Doctor and Jo are spies!" storyline in the early part of the story gets very tired very quickly. Equally, the Doctor's escape attempt from the Master's ship later on is about 20 minutes of nothing happening and serves the single purpose of getting the Master away from the controls so they can be attacked by Draconians. It was quite easily trimmable and I suspect Hulke probably wouldn't have had much trouble doing so, but was restricted by Letts' grand 12-part saga idea. All 5 cliffhangers are also a bit naff and I suspect Hulke didn't really care much about them and just did what was necessary to end the episode rather than use them dramatically, which is a shame given how well he used them in Doctor Who and the Silurians.
 |
| Ah, that's where the bit of gum I scraped off my shoe went |
I'd also like to give a commendation to this story's production design, which is mostly really good and helps elevate the story. Take the President's office for example:
Or the Draconian Embassy:
Or the flight deck of the ships used in the story:
They look like they come out of a sixties Bond film, which is no small complement. It's some of the best production design of classic Who.
So the story is a bit flawed but generally flows well, has some good themes and characters and is buoyed by the great Doctor-Master interactions we have come to love. Unfortunately, its biggest problem is the lack of an effective climax. Episode Six has the Daleks come into the picture, the Humans and Draconians desperately trying to stop war between them and the Master having the Doctor at his mercy. And then the whole thing just... ends. There's a bit of a kerfuffle, the Humans and Draconians leave and sort out their issues off screen, Delgado's Master has an undignified exit from the series and Planet of the Daleks is set up. Its a poor climax but one that was entirely necessary because of the 12-part arc thing. And because Planet of the Daleks was made by an entirely different production team, the chances of a satisfying climax in that story were close to nil. Its a shame that this story works mostly well throughout but then splutters out at the end because of an ill-advised publicity stunt that also meant the next story would fail to deliver an effective set-up. So basically it was the Moffat era 40 years before it happened.
 |
| Admittedly, the story suddenly transporting from 26th century Earth to the South Bank circa 1973 was a bit distracting |
This is a good story: the political themes, the characters, the Doctor-Master interactions, they all work well to create an entertaining story despite some padding and story issues. That it falls apart a bit at the end does not undo that the journey was a good one, but it means that there simply isn't the closure necessary for the story to become an all time great. It's good, but it could have been great if it had been two episodes shorter and free of the Letts' 12-part Masterplan. I always make sure to judge a story on what it is rather than what it could have been, and what is on the screen is good: but it is difficult to ignore the sense of missed opportunity.
Final Score: 7/10. An effective political analogy, some good character and thematic work and a sparkling final performance by Roger Delgado create a fine story that falters slightly because of the shoehorned nature of the Daleks and the story's failure to have a proper climax. Good, but could have been great.
Next Episode: Frontios
Comments
Post a Comment