Victory of the Daleks (11th Doctor, episode 3)

[A revised and improved version of this essay appears in my book The Eleventh Doctor: a critical ramble through Matt Smith’s tenure in Doctor Who.]

If The Eleventh Hour was very obviously a new start for Doctor Who, and if The Beast Below was where the new series hit its stride, then the third episode, Victory of the Daleks, represents another new challenge: it’s the first episode under the new regime to be written by someone other than showrunner Steven Moffat himself — specifically, Mark Gatiss, previously responsible for Series One’s highly regarded The Unquiet Dead and Series Two’s widely derided The Idiot’s Lantern.  With his previous work varying so wildly, Gatiss still has plenty to prove as a Who writer, and it was brave of Moffat to entrust him with the Doctor’s oldest and most iconic enemies, the Daleks.

Did he meet the challenge?  I rate the episode a qualified success.

Warning: mild spoilers follow!

After the tightly plotted construction of The Beast Below, Victory of the Daleks felt a little more random, had more of the this-happens-then-that-happens quality of some of the RTD-era episodes.  It was full of powerful moments and iconic images — my family and I will not swiftly forget the Dalek offering the scientist a nice, hot cup of tea, we loved how the Doctor held the Daleks off from exterminating him on their ship, and the assault on the Dalek ship was gloriously silly — but I could repeat that last phrase again with the emphasis on “silly” rather than “glorious” and it would be equally true.  It’s hard to escape the notion that the iconic moments were invented first, and then the plot — such as it was — constructed around it afterwards.  Is it too much to wish for an episode to both contain profoundly memorable moments and make sense?

I don’t want to sound too negative here — I thoroughly enjoyed the episode, and expect to enjoy it again, probably more, when I watch it again; it just has the feeling of a good episode that could have been great.  It’s hard not to wonder how it might have been different had Moffat written it himself rather than delegating; or had it been given to Paul Cornell (Father’s Day/Human Nature) or indeed Rob Shearman, who wrote Series One’s outstanding Dalek.  Shearman’s episode perhaps benefitted from being much more constrained and claustrophobic than most Dalek stories, and certainly from Christopher Eccleston’s very convincing turn as a Doctor going to pieces at being confronted with an enemy who he’d believed was gone forever.  That episode, alone of all Dalek stories, took time to consider what it is like to be a Dalek, and perhaps surprisingly that level of introspection lifted what might otherwise have been a competent but mundane story into an altogether higher realm.  Thinking of that story has made me realise how rushed all the subsequent New-Who Dalek stories have seemed in comparison, and Victory was no exception.

For me, the most powerful part of the episode was probably before the plot kicked in at all — perhaps not coincidentally, the part that took time to stop and breathe, to give us time to taste the atmosphere.  The profound wrongness of the Daleks’ being on the side of the allies in WWII was disturbing.  Seeing them gliding serenely and unhindered about the Cabinet War Rooms was an unsettling experience; even the cup-of-tea moment, hilarious though it was, carried with it a disconcerting sense of a nation that had allowed itself to become comfortable with the very thing it was fighting.

A less innovative WWII episode would of course have had the Daleks where they belong — on the side of the Nazis.  Subverting that expectation was not just a clever twist but a dark one.  What lengths are we prepared to go to?  Faced with a war — not a tragicomedy like Bush 2’s “War on Terror” but an actual, no-place-to-run fight for survival — would we go so far as to use Daleks?  To be fair, that is not really a choice that the characters in the story had to make, since they had no idea what a Dalek actually is.  But I would have liked to see that choice pushed harder: for Churchill to have argued for continuing to use them even after the Doctor had elucidated their true nature.  Maybe the production team weren’t prepared to risk showing such a beloved historical figure as Churchill in such a light, but no doubt he had to make analogous choices in the real world.  One of the things Doctor Who, at its best, can do is to shine a stark, clarifying light on the issues that we can too easily blur over in life.  (The Beast Below‘s Forget and Protest buttons were the clearest example of this choice.)  Perhaps not going there in Victory was a missed opportunity.

[Note added the next day: I suppose you could stretch the metaphor a bit and think about the current British government, which is racing helter-skelter towards universal surveillance, mandatory ID cards, a national DNA database and automated email monitoring, all in the name of the War on Terror.  (Oh, how I hate that dumb, dumb phrase.)  But I don’t believe the analogy holds: Brown’s government wants to introduce those things for their own sake, and is using the WoT as a pretext; that’s very different from, and much less noble than, the situation in Victory of the Daleks, in which a country literally on the brink of annihilation is prepared for that reason to consider any measure.]

Other things to like in Victory: the developing thread of the crack in the universe, and the thought-provoking discovery that Amy does not know what a Dalek is, presumably because she’s not lived through Doomsday and The Stolen Earth.  What has happened to our timeline?  Surely those episodes can’t have un-happened?

Other things to dislike: the sheer implausibility of the attack on the Dalek ship, especially as it seems to have been conceived, designed, arranged and executed all in ten elapsed minutes.  Still, I can forgive that because I have been saying for years that X-Wings are clearly Spitfires and TIE Fighters are Messerschmidt Bf 109s (and Y-Wings are of course Hurricanes).  It’s a delight to see that conception in action, however dumb.

More worrying was the line that Amy used to remind the Dalek-built android of its humanity.  That, and her sideways glance at that point, does not bode well for the future direction of the series and especially for the companion’s arc.  If they’re going to go raising that spectre again, they’d better actually do something about it — make it work as part of a plot and not just leave it lying around.  The best treatment of that theme was back in episode 2.3, School Reunion.  Unless they have something new to say that is more profound than what was said back then, they’d have been better off leaving well alone.

Checking the schedule, I see that next up is a Moffat two-parter — a sequel, I assume, to Blink, which was one of the very best Who episodes of the revival.  Fingers crossed that he can keep up his usual standard.  Whether he does or not, you’ll be able to read all about it here.

And in other Doctor Who news …

Andrew Rilstone’s outstanding book of New Who criticism, The Viewer’s Tale, is once more available from lulu.com.  Highly, highly recommended for everyone who likes their criticism trenchant, witty and affectionate.

About these ads

17 responses to “Victory of the Daleks (11th Doctor, episode 3)

  1. Very thorough and well written review. I’m still waiting to see Victory myself but am enjoying the new regime so far.

  2. I’ve been enjoying your critiques of the episodes as much (and sometimes more so) than the episodes themselves. Please keep them coming!

    Personally, I still find this Doctor to be living in the shadow of Tennant’s Doctor. I think they kept things too similar, which is making it that much harder to shake off the characterture.

    Strange as it may sound, it reminds me of the attempts Bowie made to kill off Ziggy Stardust. “…when the kids had killed the man, I had to break up the band…” The current Doctor seems more like the Aladdin Sane to the previous Doctor’s Ziggy Stardust.

  3. Pingback: Doctor Who – Victory of the Daleks, Review | eoghann.com

  4. Another excellent review Mr. T. , ta.

    Exciting to see the emergence of some series running theme after the Bad Wolf and the Knock previously. Not sure what I made of the fat,day-glo, California surf Daleks but less scary than seeing the Union Jack branded camo ones.

    Two points

    1) Never going to be able to make a cup of tea for someone again without leaving them in fear of extermination.

    2) Y-wings : always thought of them as Mosquitos myself. Mind you I could slap the 633 Squadron music over any airborne assault against the odds. Possible bias.

  5. Hi, Mark, good to hear from you. But that’s Dr. T. to you! :-)

    Hmm, the Mosquito would be a more flattering analogue for Y-wings — it’s among my very favourite WWII planes, after only the Spitfire and Lancaster. Sadly, I don’t think that interpretation works. Y-wings are older and less capable than, but function in the same role as, X-wings. That says Hurricane to me.

  6. Ah – true! A Dr. writing about The Dr. I apologise wholeheartedly!
    I’ll have to agree to disagree on the Y-wing though , tempting though it is to become embroiled in an uber geeky Star Wars analogy fest. Surely its a bomber?

  7. Hmm. I’m with Mike on this one. The Mosquito is _cool_: sleek, fast, and sneaky. Y-Wings are basically tractors that have been made to fly, sorta. That’s the same mental bin where I have the Hurricane. I understand that it was a fairly capable machine, but it _looks_ like the product of a drunken three-way between a standard WWII fighter, an army tank, and a water heater.

    I suppose Focke-Wulf 190s would be TIE Interceptors?

  8. Isn’t it tempting to analogize the TIE Interceptor with the Me 262, though?

    The FW 190 could be a boring old TIE Advanced.

    Sadly, the rebels have nothing cool enough to be a Lancaster. I’ve give you a B-Wing as a Wellington, though. Or maybe even a Sterling.

  9. Isn’t it tempting to analogize the TIE Interceptor with the Me 262, though?

    The FW 190 could be a boring old TIE Advanced.

    Nope, sorry, that’s exactly backwards. TIE Interceptors are common and basically souped up TIE Fighters, which makes them Focke-Wulf 190s. TIE Advanceds (man, that word is awkward to pluralize) are fantastically complex, expensive, and rare, and although they are tremendously powerful, they aren’t numerous enough to sway the overall direction of the conflict. Which makes them Me-262s.

    B-Wings are P-47 Thunderbolts, IMHO.

  10. Ha, OK, I’d had Interceptors as bigger deals than Advanceds in my mind. Thanks for the correction. But:

    “B-Wings are P-47 Thunderbolts, IMHO.”

    Don’t get me started on those ugly parodies. Just as Melkor perverted ents to make the trolls, and elves to make the orcs, so the Mustang is a horrible sick joke, a grotesque riff on the them of Spitfire.

  11. I had an American Star Wars special souvenir magazine back when it came out that had a 2-page spread on how ILM created the dog-fight sequences by placing the X-Wing and tie-models in exactly the same positions, frame-by-frame, as footage from the Battle of Britain movie. So yes, you’re completely correct.

  12. Wow — I did not know that!

    I’ve been thinking recently that I ought to get The Battle of Britain to watch with the boys (and Dambusters and 633 Squadron, yes). Knowing this makes me all the more keen to see it again.

  13. Pingback: Flesh and Stone (11th Doctor, episode 5) « The Reinvigorated Programmer

  14. Pingback: The Lodger (11th Doctor, episode 11) « The Reinvigorated Programmer

  15. Pingback: The Almost People (Doctor Who series 6, episode 6) | The Reinvigorated Programmer

  16. Pingback: Children of Earth: the final verdict, part 2: how Torchwood stopped sucking | The Reinvigorated Programmer

  17. Pingback: An abstract noun for 2013 | The Reinvigorated Programmer

Leave a Reply

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s