Plot:
The Doctor, Steven and Dodo materialise on a vast spacecraft in the far future - an Ark in space, if you will (but not that one). It contains the last refugees of the human race escaping the planet before the sun burns it up. The humans in charge, the Guardians of the Human Race, are travelling with various flora and fauna (including at least one elephant), plus mute monocular alien creatures called Monoids who act both as servants and heavy-handed metaphors. Dodo has a cold, and alas because the humans no longer have any resistance to the virus, it nearly wipes them out. The Doctor and his friends manage to find a cure, and leave the craft to its long journey to a new home, Refusis 2. But wait, it's not a two-parter - the TARDIS's massive coincidence circuits kick in and the TARDIS materialises in the same area of the spacecraft, but it's 700 years and many light years later. The Monoids are in charge, the humans are slaves, and the ship is close to its destination.
Context:
Panto season has arrived! The Ark is one of those stories that's stuck in the imagination of me and the Better Half, for mostly the wrong reasons. We are often to be heard exchanging the Monoid's choicer dialogue for giggles: "Take them to the security kitchen" for example, or saying "It may not take as long as you think" in an exaggerated League of Gentleman character voice with extravagant hand gestures. That whole exchange is some of the funniest (unintentionally) of the series; Dodo responds with "What do you mean? Are you up to something?" and the poor Monoid says "Errrrrrr... no". This is not how top drawer baddies interact with their foes. Anyway, me, the Better Half and all the kids (boys of 12 and 9, girl of 6) watched the episodes one an evening from the DVD, over four days. I tried to fool the kids that the show was only two parts long and was coming to an end in the middle, but they saw through my deception.
More things caused interest and amusement this watch. For example, why do the humans of this space Ark all dress in togas made of those colourful ribbons that my gran had in her doorway to keep out flies in the Summer? This is a fashion that stubbornly refuses to change even in 700 years. Additionally, why do the Monoids need so many staff in their kitchen, when all the cooking is done by dropping a magic pill in a bowl of water? Why do they need any kitchen staff or food at all? They don't have mouths! Middle child had two theories - either they take the eye out of their mouth to eat, or they stuff the food in around it somehow. I also found another line reading that I particularly like imitating, and have been saying - to gradually increasing family irritation - since: "Do you seek to challenge me, Four?!" You don't get dialogue like that in run-of-the-mill shows (there may be a reason for this).
First-time round:
I first saw these episodes in October 1998, so I must have been in the old studio flat in Rowlands Road in Worthing, the first place that the Better Half and I moved in to together. I have no memories of watching it. I was probably impressed by the elephant being in the studio rather than on intercut stock footage, but nothing stuck in my mind particularly. I remember more clearly reading the novelisation in the late 1980s. A lot more scale was introduced in the book, and on the page - without the Zippy voices and extravagant hand gestures - the Monoids come over much better.Reaction
No one seems to know if it's deliberate or just one of those cute observations after the fact that The Ark's episodes go in two by two. The first half concentrates on the fight to save the Ark's crew from succumbing to the cold virus; the second half involves the Monoids becoming antagonists. Both the two-part halves have serious flaws, but this structure does give it an extra something that partly makes up for that. The change of focus midway allows this story to do what so few have the scope to do: to show something of the developments after the Doctor has interfered in a situation. Normally, the TARDIS team nick off and leave any consequences behind. Oddly, it reminds me a bit of Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares, Gordon Ramsey's show which added an innovation to the factual troubleshooter format. A previously failing restaurant has been turned around by Gordon's tips, and things reach a climactic triumph (usually a grand re-opening); but, then there's another act. He goes back a few months later and finds they are returned to their bad old ways, and have lost all their new customers. It was refreshing when he did it first, which must have been over a decade ago now, but it does shine a bit too much light on the falseness of the format. If you're not going to be of any lasting help, Gordon, why are you bothering at all? And the same could be true of the Doctor, if the series played this trick too often. It's okay in The Ark as it had never been done before.
The novelty of the device, though, doesn't quite mask that the story is incoherent. Is The Ark's message that the humans deserved their overthrow and enslavement, because they behaved that way towards the Monoids? If so, well, they didn't. They are far more intolerant of the Doctor and his friends in the first two episodes. The Monoids are treated with a bit of condescension, but there's no signs of cruelty or segregation. There's no parity. Well, maybe that's the point - years of servitude and second-class citizenship leads to an explosion of disproportionate violence. But, if so, why make the Monoids so unsympathetic in the second half as to undermine that? And why throw in the explanation of the reversal of fortune being down to a mutation of the cold virus that Dodo brought to The Ark. That sets us up for a tale of the Doctor's awakening to the consequences of his actions, but the story doesn't go that way (the old fellah barely gives a toss that his indirect actions have warped this society); anyway, that would make it his fault rather than the humans. So, they didn't bring it upon themselves after all?
Whatever the message of the script was supposed to be, it would have been undermined anyway by the Monoids being so rubbish. The poor things are hidebound by constricting costumes with flippers that they occasionally trip over, and odd pot bellies; they have to touch their voice-box necklaces every time they talk (though to be fair, they often forget to do this), and to top it off, their heads are an admixture of Ringo wigs and ping pong balls. They never had a chance. This doesn't excuse giving them the most awful moustache-twirling villainy dialogue ever heard. Here's a tip lads - stop telling each other every five minutes where you've hidden your bomb, that way it might stay a secret. This is not to say that the humans are any better. The performances of most of the guest cast playing the Guardians range from lacklustre to painful. I hesitate to say it, because it's the sort of hackneyed observation that idiots say about anything made in the sixties, but was Eric Elliott (playing the Commander in episodes 1 and 2) on drugs? Like, really powerful drugs?
It's not a complete write-off. The trial sequence is good, and the hunt for a cure kept my little viewers in 2018 much more rapt than the latter episodes did. Michael Sheard is good too, in a tiny role (they should get him back on Doctor Who again, I think).
The novelty of the device, though, doesn't quite mask that the story is incoherent. Is The Ark's message that the humans deserved their overthrow and enslavement, because they behaved that way towards the Monoids? If so, well, they didn't. They are far more intolerant of the Doctor and his friends in the first two episodes. The Monoids are treated with a bit of condescension, but there's no signs of cruelty or segregation. There's no parity. Well, maybe that's the point - years of servitude and second-class citizenship leads to an explosion of disproportionate violence. But, if so, why make the Monoids so unsympathetic in the second half as to undermine that? And why throw in the explanation of the reversal of fortune being down to a mutation of the cold virus that Dodo brought to The Ark. That sets us up for a tale of the Doctor's awakening to the consequences of his actions, but the story doesn't go that way (the old fellah barely gives a toss that his indirect actions have warped this society); anyway, that would make it his fault rather than the humans. So, they didn't bring it upon themselves after all?
It's not a complete write-off. The trial sequence is good, and the hunt for a cure kept my little viewers in 2018 much more rapt than the latter episodes did. Michael Sheard is good too, in a tiny role (they should get him back on Doctor Who again, I think).
Connectivity:
Last time, there were many connections between The
Ribos Operation and The Masque of Mandragora; but between Ribos and The Ark it's a lot harder to see anything. Both feature the first journey of a new female companion, and both feature a lizard or two (assuming the Shrivenzale is a lizard - it looks pretty reptilian). Does Sholakh have an eye-patch, making him somewhat Monoid-like? No, he's just got a duelling scar beside one eye. Damn. Aside from them both being four parts long and containing a police box, I'm pretty much stumped for anything more than that.
Deeper Thoughts:
Monsters and Motivations. Whatever one thinks of the Monoids, they definitely had a slightly more interesting raison d'être than your average Doctor Who aliens. Those that were servants have become oppressors - it's the sort of topic you can imagine the current showrunner, Chris Chibnall, and his writing team trying. The current series is almost finished now, and it's clear that a lot of effort has been put in to doing things differently. Aside from one fez and the phrase "reverse the polarity", there's been no returning elements from the series' past (although I should note that, at the time or writing, the finale has yet to be broadcast). I worry that it might be depriving the show of some oomph; they can't pull off the old trick of creating a mid-series event, or an end of series spectacle, by wheeling out the Daleks or the Cybermen or both.
It's more than just a lack of recycling, though. It's clear, and to their credit, that the production team have worked hard to make each villainous scenario more original than any alien invasion or mad scientist tropes. This year we've seen the following (jumbling them up and not being too specific to avoid spoilering): it's a warrior doing an initiation ceremony, they're a fascist, they're an anti-fascist, they're escaped convicts seeking revenge, they're just hungry, they're just lonely, they's all in a chase, they're misunderstood and messed up by humans, they're not nasty at all and just volunteering to perform a public duty. It's an impressively diverse set of antagonist motivations. But the result is that there's no monsters. Once you abandon any characters being Evil with a capital E, you can't talk about monsters anymore. Even though, as I've noted before (see here for example) it's never been so clear cut as this, a lot of people do feel that Doctor Who is a monster of the week show. Or it was, at least. This might be a reason that some old school fans are griping online about this new run.
I'm pretty old school myself, and only a few sentences ago I was complaining about the latest series lacking oomph. I've enjoyed the new approach, but I do think it might be nice once in a while to have an all guns blazing Earth invasion story that doesn't give a hoot for political subtext. As stated above, the finale is yet to be broadcast; it might surprise me and deliver just that. I doubt it, though. And is anyone else worried about the title? "The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos"? I don't care much for story titles with made-up words in them and this would be the second this year. Is it an anagram? If it is, it's a cleverer one than I'm able to unscramble. No matter how many times I try, I can't make the letters spell out "Big Ol' Invasion of the Gun-totin' Daleks"!
Monsters and Motivations. Whatever one thinks of the Monoids, they definitely had a slightly more interesting raison d'être than your average Doctor Who aliens. Those that were servants have become oppressors - it's the sort of topic you can imagine the current showrunner, Chris Chibnall, and his writing team trying. The current series is almost finished now, and it's clear that a lot of effort has been put in to doing things differently. Aside from one fez and the phrase "reverse the polarity", there's been no returning elements from the series' past (although I should note that, at the time or writing, the finale has yet to be broadcast). I worry that it might be depriving the show of some oomph; they can't pull off the old trick of creating a mid-series event, or an end of series spectacle, by wheeling out the Daleks or the Cybermen or both.It's more than just a lack of recycling, though. It's clear, and to their credit, that the production team have worked hard to make each villainous scenario more original than any alien invasion or mad scientist tropes. This year we've seen the following (jumbling them up and not being too specific to avoid spoilering): it's a warrior doing an initiation ceremony, they're a fascist, they're an anti-fascist, they're escaped convicts seeking revenge, they're just hungry, they're just lonely, they's all in a chase, they're misunderstood and messed up by humans, they're not nasty at all and just volunteering to perform a public duty. It's an impressively diverse set of antagonist motivations. But the result is that there's no monsters. Once you abandon any characters being Evil with a capital E, you can't talk about monsters anymore. Even though, as I've noted before (see here for example) it's never been so clear cut as this, a lot of people do feel that Doctor Who is a monster of the week show. Or it was, at least. This might be a reason that some old school fans are griping online about this new run.
I'm pretty old school myself, and only a few sentences ago I was complaining about the latest series lacking oomph. I've enjoyed the new approach, but I do think it might be nice once in a while to have an all guns blazing Earth invasion story that doesn't give a hoot for political subtext. As stated above, the finale is yet to be broadcast; it might surprise me and deliver just that. I doubt it, though. And is anyone else worried about the title? "The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos"? I don't care much for story titles with made-up words in them and this would be the second this year. Is it an anagram? If it is, it's a cleverer one than I'm able to unscramble. No matter how many times I try, I can't make the letters spell out "Big Ol' Invasion of the Gun-totin' Daleks"!
In Summary:
A game of two halves and one elephant.
" the second this year. Is it an anagram? If it is, it's a cleverer one than I'm able to unscramble. No matter how many times I try, I can't make the letters spell out "Big Ol' Invasion of the Gun-totin' Daleks"! "
ReplyDeleteMust try harder ..... :)