Preventing Catharsis

Most Doctor Who stories are nonsense, really. Even the agreed-upon classics have some moments of absolute bibble in them. 

However, the reason they’re still classics is that the stories overcome these issues through other means, because if you enjoy a story you’ll willingly overlook or accept its flaws. This also means if you dislike a story or its creative team you’ll find grievous faults in it that you’d let go if it happened in one of your favourites. These likes and dislikes can also build up momentum, so when you have (for example) three series of Doctor Who your gut instinct says is bad, when you find further flaws you're less inclined to let these pass. Or at least, that's what happens with me.

Am I basically saying ‘Good Doctor Who is about vibes’? Yes. Yes I am.

For example: In Genesis of the Daleks we have the giant clam scene, how easy it is to travel between the Thal and Kaled cities, Sarah’s radiation poisoning not being mentioned again, the fact that a BBC studio explosion is not going to take the Daleks a thousand years to clear, and of course the fact that the ‘Have I the Right?’ scene only works as a clip out of context. 

I don’t think Genesis is a bad story though - it’s a strong war story that’s impressively realised - but if my initial impression was less positive these are aspects I could seize on to bolster my opinion. 

Which brings me to Eve of the Daleks. 

Eve of the Daleks (2022)

It has numerous flaws. However, overall I’d say I enjoyed the episode in spite of them. To contrast this with The Vanquishers (where the more I thought about it the more the story fell apart) here I thought about it, but didn’t find the problems totally overwhelmed the positives.

However, I think there are enough positives and negatives here for it to go either way. I think there are a lot of interesting aspects to Eve of the Daleks, such as how Sarah and Nick had enough going on to suggest internality in the space of fifty minutes and we’ve only just got to that stage with Yaz and the Doctor after three years (and with two episodes left). Dan is still not a character, he’s just John Bishop in Doctor Who doing whatever the plot needs him to do. Casting comedians is clearly a good shout though because Aisling Bea is great, really lifting her character beyond contrivances and masking over the implausibility of her situation.  

With a small cast and location, the story is able to generate some pathos and shock with the initial deaths and builds up a lot of tension about exactly how everyone will get out alive (even though, again, the fact that there’s a fortunately open door and the unseen Jeff left exactly what was needed for them to escape is clearly hugely contrived). In the bewildering swirl of the final few time loops (well, time loops-ish, not sure how they kept their memories beyond ‘the plot needed them to’) the Doctor emerges as a figure of authority because she gives a big speech (that was almost there but needed an edit, IMO) and there’s a genuine sense of catharsis when they get out alive and the building explodes (they hide about twenty yards away and are fine).

In that description is a lot of nonsense, but it’s a New Year special and I feel like they should have a bit of leeway. It’s not a classic but it’s an okay way to spend an hour. What really sold me on it was that the ending featured the Doctor doing stuff and saving people. There’s a proper sense of catharsis which has been sorely lacking from the Thirteenth Doctor’s adventures, contributing to the sense of overwhelming grimness I get from them. 

So I get why people would overlook the unease over Nick and Sarah (the tone and Adjani Salmon’s performance says ‘it’ll be alright’, but Nick’s actions are creepy and say a lot about romcom conventions), and worry about Yaz and the Doctor’s relationship (is there time for it to go anywhere, is it not a bit late to be moving this forward?) but also given Chibnall’s last two series finales it’s a relief that he’s even attempting a happy ending. 

This is, though, not exactly a ringing endorsement. If the most positive review I can come up with is ‘this time not everything was shit at the end' then obviously something’s gone wrong.

Also, I’m fairly sure format has determined this as much as authorial intent. I’ve read a lot of smart and insightful threads about Eve of the Daleks being a foreshadowing of the Thirteenth Doctor's inevitable regeneration, and maybe it is, but to be honest I reckon Chris Chibnall's starting point was 'How come the Daleks don't just shoot the Doctor?' 

To which the obvious answer is ‘there’d be no show’, but this means writers keep having to come up with in-story explanations that don’t diminish the Daleks too much. Chibnall manages to have his cake and eat it here, keeping the Daleks threatening for long enough to generate tension before their inevitable failure.

One of Chibnall’s constants is mistaking grimness for seriousness, so here he makes the Daleks feel more efficient and threatening by getting them to shoot almost the entire cast. However, the format of Doctor Who and romantic comedies (which this was marketed as) determines that the regulars cannot die very often (if they did then we’d all be yelling at potential companions ‘Run away! Everyone dies!’) and that couples get paired off at the end. 

Doctor Who’s format has saved the day here, forcing a release of tension generated by the showrunner’s grimdark tendencies and finishing the story in into a happier place (assuming Nick has a very sharp learning curve about relationships in that taxi).