|
The Sea Devils |
Reviews
|
|
The Sea Devils |
"Trauma Bonding" by Thomas Cookson Updated 3/1/20
What was the Sea Devils' appeal? The truth is Mike Morris wasn't wrong when he said of Warriors of the Deep that the Sea Devils were always rather homogenous, one-dimensional monsters with apocalyptic intentions.
I hated how the Sea Devils were revived in 1984. But it's necessary to explore what worked so right about them first time. For all that fans worry over whether returning monsters and continuity elements are sufficiently explained for non-fans, it's not like 1972's Sea Devils needed presenting with an info-dump. In fact, not knowing what they were drew us in. Their ambiguity gave the question whether Pertwee could try peace-making with them possibility and promise.
The Sea Devils are remembered as noble, tragic villains. But their debut is a Pertwee action-espionage story. James Bond with the sci-fi turned up. Classic Who's renowned for having roots in high-brow theatre, but the Pertwee era's generally an exception to this rule.
The Sea Devils isn't quite a tragedy in the Shakespearean sense. More in the King Kong monster-flick sense. The closest to a Sea Devil character is their nameless leader, who gets no speaking lines until episode five. He appears wise, gentle and patient, until provoked to anger by betrayal. But he's no Hamlet or Macbeth (although possibly Othello, to Delgado's Iago). Perhaps that's the injustice. Unlike them, his fatal flaw's simply being born the wrong species for mankind.
Pertwee essentially becomes the angel to Delgado's devil on the leader's shoulder, externalizing his conscience, emphasising his shades of grey and how he could easily make the right or wrong choice. Prior to then, the Sea Devils' were mainly a visual anomaly. We see them juxtaposed by ordinary human backdrops. Beaches, castles, carparks. The mystical sense they're a strange part of Earth's past nature that's miraculously survived, but mankind instinctively doesn't want them to. Fearing their impossible existence.
The first Sea Devil we encounter doesn't speak. The one sound it makes is a strange, horrifying agonized howl when electroshocked. In that moment's raw reactive instinct, we're shocked and galvanized to see them as alive, wounded, vulnerable, with human frailties and sensations. It humanizes them without dialogue, and prepares us for a harrowing watch.
Most fan write-ups were deeply affected. The Television Companion described its three-camp conflict between man, reptile and the Master, arguing (dubiously) that mankind's actions were the most irrational. The Sea Devils hadn't exactly acted like saints. They'd fired every first shot. But the moment Pertwee coaxed their agreement toward peace, they showed a gesture of faith no human had. That act of faith betrayed's enough to sustain the story, leaving us hoping against hope for another chance. But Pertwee eventually has to be realist and conclude it's not possible.
Warriors of the Deep seemed written for fans who never relinquished hope in that chance. Essentially rewriting the Doctor to irrationally hold onto that naive hope he actually gave up on in 1972. I think it's forgotten how Doctor Who could be traumatic viewing. A children's show that exposed us full throttle to traumatizing sights and events where sometimes the worst, cruellest things happen (Genesis, Logopolis).
Perhaps fan viewers were traumatized by that childhood viewing experience of those reptiles' cavalier injustice, and embraced Warriors as a comfort-revenge coping tool for soothing that trauma. Seeing the fleshy, vulnerable, wounded Sea Devils now revived with tougher rubber as invulnerable, avenging samurai.
Hence contrary fan complaints that Warriors needed darker lighting to render its sympathetic monsters more threatening. Perhaps they're wishing for the originals' striking visual eeriness when invading contemporary, mundane settings, where they're starkly out of place. Warriors however lacks any normality for them to invade. It's still considered fashionable to bash Warriors' production disasters but never its message or denouement.
We wanted the Sea Devils to get justice, and peace to win through, and were denied. It makes sense we wanted Warriors of the Deep as belated revenge for the Sea Devils. But it's necessary to emphasize the Sea Devils inherently only had enough substance for that one-off six-parter. Ultimately, JNT trying to stretch and bleed more redundant pathos and tragedy from them was a mistake.
The original Sea Devils had intriguing mystery to them. Warriors seemingly assumes it can keep them blatantly one-dimensional and predictable whilst Davison hectors insistently that they're more morally complex than they seem.
Bringing back continuity elements can still work for casual viewers by how they have an intriguing mysterious history. But this doesn't work for the Sea Devils. Unlike Daleks or Cybermen, where the Doctor's purpose is clearly, simply their defeat, they carry far too many dictates and demands for how the Doctor must handle them, that allow no moral distinction or ambiguity. Put grimly, they demand the Doctor can't do right for being wrong.
Nevermind whether this continuity confounded casual viewers. It seemingly confounded the writers who'd previously had a sure understanding of the Doctor now rendered unsure and confused, having to research and acknowledge his previous stances that weren't an issue after 1975. The Sea Devils depended on the Doctor's sympathies being drawn in by empathy when one's wounded by him, a gesture of good faith's extended and betrayed.
Warriors never has that. The Sea Devils are near-invincible, mindless murderous thugs throughout. So, like Davison, we suddenly have to remember only all those old incentives to care from Hulke's serial. But Warriors gives him no reasons to care to hand. Instead, the writers are forced to belatedly make his characterization, motivations and sympathies go haywire. Whilst the reptiles' death agonies come at the end to try guilting us into caring.
Frustratingly, many fans thought this qualified as interesting characterization for Davison's blank-slate Doctor, making him more than the programmatic hero he apparently was, even though we're actually seeing his programming malfunction. Fans defended this as a refreshing contrast to Tom's smart-arsery. Arguing Davison's more flawed, fallible Doctor didn't have all the answers (despite having the most infallible, discriminant weapon available). However, by usurping a long-revered hero who did, a fannish tendency's to still venerate him and scorn the humans for not being obedient martyrs to his suicide cult.
Apparently JNT insisted Warriors be a team-up of both monsters. Johnny Byrne originally intended it being purely Sea Devils, which would've made more sense. The Sea Devils left more door open for future encounters, and were more sympathetic than the backstabbing Silurians. Unfortunately including the Silurians reduces the Sea Devils to their voiceless grunts.
Indeed, if a team-up's necessitated, why not do something new and challenging to explore the Sea Devils? Like Sea Devils and Silurians fighting each other over scraps of land and Davison mediating for peace between them. That would've been more poignant. Leaving viewers genuinely conflicted who to side with.
Instead, it's clear before a page was written we're meant to see ourselves as the rotten ones deserving comeuppance. Meaning there's no dilemma of sympathies, and no thought needed go into the scripting. Like Romero's Land of the Dead, the pre-established set-up frees the writer to be excessively preachy about what they're trying to say. Telling rather than organically showing, with increasingly contrary incoherence. Sermonizing every trite, moral hectoring thought entering their head.
Even the most interesting opportunity's missed. Having the Sea Devils demonstrate actual reluctance and culture shock at being awoken by Ictar on an unexpected war footing. Ictar's retelling the nearly agreed peace with the Sea Devils before the humans treacherously attacked is accurate. Not so concerning the Silurians' "hand of friendship".
Davison approaches Ictar on Byrne's retconned pretext they've supposedly met before and Ictar was once reasonable. We know no such past encounter happened, that Davison having the measure of Ictar is based on complete falsehood. Ictar's boredom with Davison's preachings proves they were never on the same page. Davison never had him sussed. The sacrosanct, peace-loving values Davison attributes to him are fabrication. Like Pertwee, Davison tries desperately to be Ictar's conscience but only exposes Ictar having none. His last-ditch attempt at reason falls flat, because it doesn't feel he's had any flash of inspiration for how to finally persuade Ictar of peace.
The Silurians intently ended with mankind winning via overkill. Cementing the 'injustice'. Fans would've wanted the odds evened, making the humans pay this time. Levine's truculent, difficult fan influence ensured Warriors ended with Ictar getting the last shot, killing Vorshak. Destroying the 'injustice' angle. With JNT/Saward's petty counter-productive, stubborn disagreeable awkwardness and infantile quibbling rendering the ending a craftless, indecisive mess (whilst pointing blame at humanity's failure to 'hear reason'). Ictar's final act is one of irredeemable spite after granted mercy by Davison. Proven unreasonable to the last. What was the point of Davison spending the story insisting otherwise?
Fans say Warriors has a message, and the final events contradicting it are justified as 'drama'. Meaning its themes and drama don't remotely work coherently. That final line still leaves fans pining over how maybe there could've been peaceful outcome and only 'dramatic flair' ensured otherwise. Trying to imagine beyond the awful story at hand, as the show often inspires.
Fans pretend the production was misjudged only in 'hindsight'. However, lessons of how not to write Warriors existed in every prior piece of literature about heroic fighting spirits. Proving how wrongheaded Warriors' suicidal ideology is. But fannish, cultish obstinance compelled the writers regardless. It's moribund. Remarkably swapping 1972's The Sea Devils with it would've felt far more directly topical about the Falklands war and the Belgrano's sinking despite being written ten years beforehand.
I recently watched 1980's Thames documentaries on Lebanon's civil war, from its largely secular beginnings to Israel's incursion against the PLO and rising Shia fundamentalism birthing the first Islamic suicide bombings. Each documentary taunting the hope Lebanon might stabilise, but somehow diplomacy kept failing to produce peace. The Armageddon Factor and Destiny of the Daleks echoed Lebanon's iconography. Ruined cities, besieged hospitals, periodic explosions.
Did Warriors strike a chord over Lebanon (the reptiles representing the displaced Palestinians who'd militarized into the PLO)? I doubt it was capable. But it perhaps allowed fans to come away believing it was meant to be politically potent. That Davison's insane attempts to bring Ictar to the negotiating table were noble. As though it's possible (or desirable) to negotiate with genocidal militias. What leaves a nasty aftertaste is Davison essentially telling victims of an ethnic cleansing it's somehow on them to try.
In reality, Lebanon's war remained persistently too complicated for diplomacy to successfully resolve. No one seemed able to understand why peace kept failing. Perhaps allowing Warriors to obtusely present its moronic, ham-fisted, action-grot as somehow a moral fable about failing peace efforts too, with Davison likewise contributing only trite commentary. Repeating the same rubbish, ineffective peacenik cliches hoarsely. Maybe the show effectively became shit because the international situation had.
We wanted a Lebanese peace, but Warriors destroys any incentive toward any doomed peaceful outcome. Davison's our only advocate for that, and he's competing with soldiers who know what they're doing, and a 'save the day' plot device that proves ultimately more competent at resolving this (something audiences knew four episodes of avoidable collateral beforehand).
Warriors apologists, despite posturing about finding "another way", don't know or care what the massacred humans should've done differently. Warriors was contrived to only have this outcome. Davison must invest in preserving the worst side. Casual audiences would struggle to understand or care why. But Warriors wasn't made for them, but a cultish fanbase with set ideas the Doctor should defend the reptiles no matter what.
Apologists claim it's about 'sacrifices of war'. They're only sacrifices if they meant something to Davison in the first place. They're sacrifices only in that Saward realized the only way to 'sell' the Doctor's failing case for peace, was killing off any characters who disagreed with him.
Preston's death made the Sea Devils seem nastier, more rotten, mean-spirited. That she died taking a bullet for Davison made it worse. Being an insanely valiant, noble act no Sea Devil could compete with - and, previously, no Sea Devil had to.