Politics In Doctor Who

I am just a bit annoyed when it's cheap shots from the "online shift3 generation" that seem to only be "offended" or rather have a need to be seen to be offended when they are online.. Go for it, throw as much political/social scenarios in scripts as u want, just make it quality I guess u could say...

Well... "Politics", when dissembled down into its constituent parts, is essentially one's views on social relationships involving authority or power. If one is in the mindset for it, every work can be considered political. Whether the connections are a deliberate part of the work or not. Doctor Who's talent seems to be that it's managed to put those views within a complex framework by giving an additional layer of subtlety or complexity to it.

The Daleks can be a great example of this since it draws upon conventional societal anxieties of the early 1960s and the recent history of World War II. The fear of global atomic war being a fairly salient part of the work and the shrill Daleks being allegories to the Nazi ideal (to the point that their salute is employed towards the end of that serial). However, if one looks further, there are more theoretically political allegories beyond the main adversaries of the piece in the form of the Thals. Noted to be quite handsome, intelligent and distinctly Aryan in appearance, they're villified by the Daleks as monsters and demons -- could the Thals, therefore, represent the post-War German people? Their reputations tainted by that of the extremists who emerged in their own country.

Inspecting their portrayal a bit closer, I think Nation also has some comments to make in regards to Western European attitudes on war. Ian's efforts to push the Thals back towards war for what could easily be interpreted as selfish aims isn't as straightforward as some other shows might portray it to be. He doesn't condemn their pacifism -- on the contrary, it's portrayed as a natural consequence of such a brutal conflict --but rather their willingness to bow their heads and be annihilated by the Daleks. Their weariness comes across as something that would be wholly understandable to viewers in 1964 who too may have likely had enough of war.

However, if you're not looking for any of that, then you've still got a very good adventure story about revenging mutants in strange alien cities, travellers dying from radiation sickness, a war that continues long past the point it should have ended and so on. The Daleks still holds up as an excellent story, not just an allegory. Now, I enjoy tales that put their ideological differences front-and-centre like Genesis of the Daleks or Invasion of the Dinosaurs, but I think it's important to remember to remember that a story is being told as well as philosophies aired. Especially if that writer is trying to send a message to the viewer. An example where it doesn't quite scan is The Pyramid at the End of the World. The idea is great, but it's a victim of its own contrivances in regards to how it gets there. Namely, that UNIT who are equipped for this kind of international affair are nowhere to be seen. I feel there needs to be a sense of self-awareness with these things.

For instance, I don't think The Daleks would have worked quite as well, if not for that long discussion at the beginning of "The Expedition":

They do sometimes get a little too virulently anti-capitalist for my taste. It's the least worst system we've come up with and unlike Star Trek, Who doesn't propose some futuristic non-currency economy. It's always credits credits credits.

But whatever. I roll my eyes and keep watching.





What does grate on me though is hamfisted commentary on specific types of modern events, commentary that feels as if one is being beating about the head with the point. For example, Zygon invasion/inversion. BLECH! It was rather condescending, in fact. I don't need to be told that only a very very very small fraction of muslims are terrorists. I don't need to be lectured on not assuming the few represent the many. They even went as far as to create an ISIS-like flag for the Zygon terrorists. Double BLECH! Fortunately, it's very rare that Who ever gets that specific, especially for that sustained amount of time.

What science fiction has always done best in this regard is to explore various social customs and/or potential alternate social schemes. That sort of thing.

So true - yet sometimes it's surprising who may still stand to benefit from such a lesson (starting with the current "leader of the free world" apparently).

I may come back to this thread and post more later, but fir now I will say simply that I prefer the stance of chekhov that the role of the,artist is to ask questions not answer them.

Intelligent mature dranma should raise all manner of questions, political and otherwise and show all sides of the arguments for and against. Aim should be to make people think about issues, not tell them what to think.

Victoria said to Jamie that the Doctor believes in letting people make up their own minds and that should be the political stance of the show. Doesn't always,happen like that though.

Yeah that's partially why I hate Kill the Moon, as I am against abortion, but Peter Harness doesn't know how to write a convincing allegory against abortion and towards the pro-life position as if going by the pro-life position, the correct thing to do would be to kill the moon because the needs of the many outway the needs of the few.