“Old-fashioned heroes are only found in old-fashioned storybooks, Clara.”
(SPOILER WARNING!)
After a season opener freighted with the need to establish a new Doctor, and last week’s dark morality tale, this week saw Doctor Who return refreshingly to an old-fashioned, undemanding romp with the groan-makingly entitled Robot of Sherwood. Very close in style to some of the classic show’s tongue-in-cheek stories, especially season 17, this saw the Doctor grudgingly agreeing to take Clara to 12the century Sherwood Forest to meet her hero – Robin Hood. Only to find the time-travelling pair caught up in a somewhat contrived plot involving the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham purloining gold from the locals in order to help some robots from the future relaunch their crippled spaceship.
All of which is, of course, very, very silly. Intentionally so – this was a deliberately humorous script from Mark Gatiss, who seems to do his best work for the show when he writes with tongue firmly in cheek. And yet, despite the camp romp, there was some very clever subtext in here, metatextual musings on the nature of heroes, history, legends and stories, which cleverly counterpointed the established legend of Robin Hood with the ever-more cemented legend of the Doctor himself in modern culture.
To that end, Gatiss deliberately gave us a very old-fashioned, even cheesy, version of Robin Hood, improbably handsome in the guise of actor Tom Riley and possessed of so much pantomime joie de vivre that you almost expected him to keep slapping his thigh. His propensity to give a hearty laugh at the slightest provocation led to much eye-rolling from this newly snarky Doctor, who found himself in an amusingly played pissing contest throughout as to who was the bigger hero – despite his own unwillingness to admit that that’s what he is.
The tropes of both legends were cleverly deconstructed and subverted throughout. Hence, we got Robin’s famous bridge battle with Little John, here restaged as Sherwood’s finest came up against the challenge of the Doctor and his spoon; while that renowned trap of the Sheriff, the contest to find Sherwood’s finest archer, was rather derailed by the appearance of the Doctor with his homing arrows (“I cheated”).
Turnabout is fair play though, and Gatiss also poked fun at the established tropes of Doctor Who itself. Nowhere was this more evident than the Doctor’s determined attempts to prove that Robin wasn’t real (“They’re holograms”; “You’re a robot!”). But there was also much fun to be had from the standard Doctor Who scenario of our heroes being locked up in a dungeon, as an exasperated Clara pointed out to the squabbling Doctor and Robin that there was, in fact, no guard whose attention they could attract; and lampshaded one of the show’s more tired clichés by saying “tell me your plan in a way that doesn’t involve the words ‘sonic screwdriver’”.
Indeed, the dialogue throughout was witty, despite the occasional knob gag about Errol Flynn and his enormous… ego. The sparring between the Doctor and Robin served to show how different this new Doctor is from his predecessors, as he snarkily derided the old-fashioned heroism of his 12th century counterpart. It’s hard to imagine either of his immediate predecessors countering Robin’s heroic declarations with the very Glaswegian response, “and do people ever punch you in the face when you do that? Lucky I’m here then.”
Robin gave as good as he got though, with equally snarky comments about the Doctor’s advanced age, and “desiccated frame”. In effect, it was a buddy movie story, with two squabbling heroes who eventually came together to defeat the bad guys, and ended up recognising how much they had in common. Yes, that’s very clichéd in itself; but it was hard to bear a grudge for that in a story so determined to homage the clichés of both legends. And the whole thing was so good-natured in its execution that it would have been hard to dislike anyway – though I’m sure many of the more dissatisfied fans will find a way.
I’m starting to warm to Capaldi’s Doctor, after a couple of episodes of uncertainty. Yes, he’s very different to Tennant or Smith, but that’s actually a good thing; I’m not sure I’d want yet another floppy-haired pretty boy for the companion to moon over. This is, in fact, the closest to the classic series portrayal of the character we’ve had since Christopher Eccleston, whose departure took me most of Tennant’s smug first season to get over.
This Doctor is very much a broody, remote figure, but by no means without the whimsy of his predecessors – who else would bring a spoon to a swordfight, and win? His humour is of a very different stripe, more akin to the sarcasm of Blackadder; indeed, I’ve heard several friends comment that his dynamic with Robin in this episode was very reminiscent to that of Blackadder and similarly old-fashioned hero Lord Flashheart. I now think I was a little harsh last week comparing him to Colin Baker’s more overtly bullying portrayal, though he does have a similar acerbic wit. There again, so did Tom Baker, in his early, more serious seasons – when I mentioned the new Doctor’s cavalier treatment of Clara, a few people pertinently reminded me of Four’s patronising attitude to the good-natured, old-fashioned hero that was Harry Sullivan.
Once again, the new dynamic between the Doctor and his companion led me to see Clara in a very much more favourable light, now that their relationship is no longer shot through with ambiguous romance. Jenna Coleman’s performance throughout was assured and witty, as Clara frequently got to deliver the punchlines to the gags; and she more than held her own in that long scene with the ever-excellent Ben Miller as the Sheriff, effectively doing the James Bond thing of getting the baddie to explain the whole plan in a clever and calculated way.
As ever with Gatiss, the ep was chock full of fan-pleasing references to the classic show. It was already very reminiscent of previous sojourns to the Middle Ages such as The Time Warrior (robot knights) and The King’s Demons (Ben Miller almost seemed to be channelling Anthony Ainley in his performance). We also got the Doctor wondering aloud if they were caught in a Miniscope, as in Carnival of Monsters, and the lovely, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it shot of Patrick Troughton in an earlier incarnation, playing none other than Robin Hood.
The actual plot was sheer hokum, of course, but the whole thing whizzed by so enjoyably you’d have to be a bit of a sourpuss to take issue with the details. Yes, it was a contrivance that Marian was, unbeknownst to Robin, in a nearby village and then in Nottingham Castle’s dungeon. And I did wonder how that golden arrow could have added to the engine power when the effects shot appeared to show it bouncing off the ship’s hull. Because I generally enjoyed the episode, to me that feels like quibbling; but if you didn’t enjoy it, I daresay its flaws stand very large in your view.
I should probably address the much-discussed issue of the last-minute edit made by the BBC – the removal of a beheading scene, in deference to the current sensitivity over the beheadings by terrorist fanatics, not to mention one perpetrated by a nutter in London. Some have said the cut was cowardly on the part of the BBC, one of the more extreme fans claiming that it “let the terrorists win” (I sincerely doubt ISIS’s stated goal of establishing an Islamic Caliphate includes a victory criterion of making the infidels edit popular television programmes).
On balance, I think it was probably the right decision – the show is designed for family teatime viewing, and apart from any sensitivities relating to the real life incidents, the scene’s inclusion would have been inviting controversy from the sort of people who found the “lesbian kiss” (actually nothing of the sort) so objectionable in Deep Breath. Whatever your feelings on the edit, I didn’t find that it interfered with the plot at all; in fact, I’m not even sure where it would have been. I’ve heard that it was actually the Sheriff that got beheaded, to make the point that he was at least part-robot himself; but then the dialogue already does that, when he claims to be “part man, part machine” during his final duel with Robin. Having said all that, I would prefer the scene to be reinstated for the DVD/Blu Ray release – let’s hope it is.
No sign of the mysterious ‘Missy’ this week, but the ongoing mystery got at least a nod when the Doctor discovered that the alien ship’s stated destination was ‘The Promised Land’. Between that and Missy’s residence in ‘Heaven’, it looks like the plot arc will very much have Judeo-Christian religious overtones; something that has the potential to spark far more controversy than a ‘lesbian kiss’ or a beheading. The show has never treated religion very well, which is understandable as it tends to have a rationalist, scientific perspective, but I do know quite a few people of faith who count themselves fans, and a plotline debunking their faith could be tricky. I doubt Steven Moffat is that insensitive, and hopefully won’t go down that route. And if nothing else, perhaps his detractors will be somewhat mollified by the fact that the ongoing plot arc is so much less dominant of the season this time, almost like the ‘Bad Wolf’ references way back in season one.
Robot of Sherwood was fun, funny, but somewhat insubstantial, even with its clever musings on heroes and legends. Having said that, I think I enjoyed it more unequivocally than any of the Capaldi episodes so far; perhaps because, like Clara, I’m a big fan of Robin Hood in all his guises. I like when the show doesn’t feel the need to be doomy and dark all the time, and always have room for a bit of whimsy. And despite my general dislike for the heart-string tugging RTD was so fond of, I found the final exchange between Robin and the Doctor quite affecting – “history burdens us, but stories can make us fly.” It’s a measure of how different the new Doctor is that, in earlier incarnations, I would have imagined it was he who would have got Robin’s earnest, heartfelt lines. This is a Doctor who’s almost embarrassed by the notion of being a hero; and despite his egotism in other areas, that’s like a breath of fresh air.
Simon’s Incoherent Blog 
A robot lost his head in the dungeon and the Sheriff picks it up and throws itinto the furnace. Can’t see the difference really in ruining the ending of the episode.
LikeLike
“Mark Gatiss, who seems to do his best work for the show when he writes with tongue firmly in cheek.”
I think the best work Gatiss can do for the show is to stop himself writing for it. This story basically made no sense at all, and was a huge comedown from last week.
LikeLike
I fear we’ll have to agree to differ again Alan – I enjoyed this much more than last week’s, and you felt the reverse. Quite possibly for much the same reasons. We just have different tastes, I think.
LikeLike
What I can’t understand is why, if the Doctor was so determined to prove that Robin Hood and his Marry Men were a fiction, he didn’t just point to Friar Tuck and say, “Hey, you fat fuck… This is 1190 AD. How the hell can you be part of Robin’s marry band of outlaws if the Fanciscan order wasn’t founded until AD 1210?”
LikeLike
I don’t know if “marry men” was a freudian slip, but somehow it kind of fits. 😉
LikeLike
🙂
Fair point, but if we were to bring up all of Doctor Who’s historical inaccuracies we’d need a very long blog indeed 🙂
LikeLike
“Fair point, but if we were to bring up all of Doctor Who’s historical inaccuracies we’d need a very long blog indeed.”
That’s true, in fact the “The Reign of Terror” should more accurately be called “The Reign of Error,” however, in a story that is in part about history versus legend, I would expect the writer to have at least read the Wikipedia entry on Robin Hood before writing a scene where the Doctor tries to disprove Robin’s existence. It’s just sloppy. There is no other word for it.
LikeLike
“I would expect the writer to have at least read the Wikipedia entry on Robin Hood before writing a scene where the Doctor tries to disprove Robin’s existence.”
I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that he did, but chose to ignore that particular detail for reasons of artistic licence – ie, since the entire story is predicated on the Doctor discovering that the Robin Hood legend is true, it would have been completely derailed by equipping him with incontrovertible proof that it couldn’t have been.
As you’ll know from that Wikipedia article (I just read it), the earliest versions of the Robin Hood legend don’t even place it in this time period, the king being referred to as “Edward”. There’s also an alleged grave of Robin Hood, named as “Earl of Huntingun” at Kirklees Priory, giving the date of his death as 1247, far later than this story’s (and most versions’) settings.
Gatiss chose to go with the myth that is now commonly accepted, which does include Friar Tuck even though, logically, it couldn’t have. But the entire story is predicated on historical inaccuracy proving to be real, so I’d worry more about that than any particular detail of it.
I should add that I’m generally not a fan of Gatiss’ work for the show, finding it mostly mediocre to downright awful (Victory of the Daleks). But I gather he was handed this premise as a brief, presumably by Steven Moffat, and did what he could with it. For me, it worked, but for others it didn’t. I will admit, it does seem rather as though the whole idea was dreamt up after a few pints based solely around that awful pun of a title 🙂
LikeLike
“I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that he did, but chose to ignore that particular detail for reasons of artistic licence – ie, since the entire story is predicated on the Doctor discovering that the Robin Hood legend is true, it would have been completely derailed by equipping him with incontrovertible proof that it couldn’t have been.”
But all you have to do is google Robin Hood and you have incontrovertible proof there on your screen. Basically this then suggests that the only reason the Doctor failed to determine that Robin Hood was bogus was because either he was historically ignorant of the character, or that the Tardis doesn’t get Broadband, which is something that contradicts the equally ludicrous “The Waters of Mars.”
“As you’ll know from that Wikipedia article (I just read it), the earliest versions of the Robin Hood legend don’t even place it in this time period, the king being referred to as “Edward”. There’s also an alleged grave of Robin Hood, named as “Earl of Huntingun” at Kirklees Priory, giving the date of his death as 1247, far later than this story’s (and most versions’) settings.”
I know (I’ve read it also), there is a whole plethora of stuff Gatiss got wrong, or as you would have it, ignored. 😉
“Gatiss chose to go with the myth that is now commonly accepted, which does include Friar Tuck even though, logically, it couldn’t have. But the entire story is predicated on historical inaccuracy proving to be real, so I’d worry more about that than any particular detail of it.”
Well, that *is* my concern. How can something which is not historical fact, be historical fact? What is Gatiss trying to say here? I only posted the friar Tuck stuff to enforce the point.
“I will admit, it does seem rather as though the whole idea was dreamt up after a few pints based solely around that awful pun of a title”
Well, that wouldn’t be the first time. As far as I recall “Cyberwoman” had the same provenance. Having said that, there were a number of ways it could have been done without Clara (a teacher) suddenly losing several billion brain cells and saying ‘Let’s go see Robin Hood!’ I’m surprised, when he turned up, Clara didn’t add, ‘but I thought he was a fox.’
Another approach could have had the Doctor and Clara meet a guy who said he was Robin Hood, but who was basically a cut-throat, and then you could still have had all that stuff about legends versus history but not at the expense of both.
Equally, you could have had a situation like “The Myth Makers”, where the Doctor dismissed the wooden horse as something made up, and then gets forced into suggesting the idea to Odysseus. In this case perhaps the Doctor, Clara and the Sheriff of Nottingham wind up accidentally bringing about elements of the Robin Hood legend.
Finally, if Gatiss really wanted to go with the tights, thigh slapping and anachronistic friar Tuck, then maybe the Tardis could have inadvertently arrived in The Land of Fiction.
See there’s more than one way to skin a Terileptil, without having to shoot it in the head with a 12 bore shotgun.
LikeLike
Yes, all of those would be equally valid alternatives to presenting the Robin Hood legend within the show, but they wouldn’t be making the same point this one seemed to – that in a universe as fantastic as that in Doctor Who, any number of legends might turn out to be true. Even those considered mythical by the characters themselves.
The show’s got form with this kind of thing, particularly when it comes to stories of dubious historical authenticity. As you say, The Myth Makers takes the rationalist approach of saying the Doctor actually caused the myth to be (though its interpretation of classical history is itself wrong in almost every way). The Mind Robber takes the opposite approach – some things are definitely fiction, like Lemuel Gulliver or the Medusa (there’s classical mythology again). Battlefield sidesteps the issue by having the Arthur legend take place in an alternate universe, and Underworld replays yet more classical mythology, but “in the future”.
However, this story takes the same approach as, for example, The Time Monster, which presents us with an Atlantis that, historically, could not have existed (and compounds the error by bunging in the Minotaur, contradicting another classical myth). It doesn’t present any rationalisation as to how Atlantis could exist, or whether the Minotaur is anything other than the myth claims it to be. This story does at least approach the issue, with the (admittedly unsubtle) dialogue about stories vs reality, and that’s sort of the point – Who is a story, and so is Robin Hood, in various forms. Yes, it’s pure fantasy. But both depend on a certain suspension of disbelief – why quibble about the reality (or otherwise) of Robin Hood in a show about a 2000 year old alien who flies through all of time and space in a magic box?
Yes, you could say that it contradicts the show’s own parameters, its in-universe rules. But since they’ve never been consistent about this sort of thing, that sort of seems like splitting hairs. In the end, I think we just differ about how much disbelief we’re prepared to suspend 🙂
LikeLike
“Doctor Who is a story, and so is Robin Hood, in various forms. Yes, it’s pure fantasy. But both depend on a certain suspension of disbelief – why quibble about the reality (or otherwise) of Robin Hood in a show about a 2000 year old alien who flies through all of time and space in a magic box?”
You are saying that the point of Gatiss’ story is to flag-up the artificiality of Doctor Who? That he is saying to the audience:
‘Within the framework of Doctor Who we can say, do, or present anything as real. There is nothing to restrain us, and we don’t even have to bother to explain it. If we say Victoria Waterfield was a six armed hexapod from Alpha Centauri, then that’s what she was. And if you want to Wiki Robin Hood and point out the historical inaccuracies in my story, then do it. It matters not a jot.”
Well, my answer to that is lasagne.
That”s how ‘Into the Dalek’ sells us the preposterous idea of the Nanoscaler. ‘Ever microwaved a lasagne without pricking the film on top?’ asks the Doctor, and we the audience are sold the idea that people can be miniaturised.
There is no lasagne moment in ‘Robot of Sherwood.’ We are instead told something at the episode’s conclusion that is clearly nonsense, and when fandom gets over its collective euphoria, “Robot of Sherwood” will join “Victory of the Daleks,” “The Idiot’s Lantern,” “Aliens of London/World War Three” and “The Twin Dilemma” in their collective Doctor Who Hell.
Do I think Gatiss cares? No. But look back fifty-one years and you’ll see that many of the writers on Doctor Who are only remembered (and judged) through their contribution to the programme. How would you like to be remembered?
LikeLike
No, to flag up that it is becoming/has become a myth embedded in our culture every bit as firmly as that of Robin Hood.
In essence, yes. Have we been watching the same show for the last few decades? I’ve never heard a better summary of The Celestial Toymaker, The Mind Robber or even The Doctor’s Wife than “There is nothing to restrain us, and we don’t even have to bother to explain it.”
We aren’t “told” anything in that final dialogue exchange – we hear two characters musing on metaphysics.
I seem to recall Jan-Vincent Rudzki saying something similar about The Deadly Assassin when it was broadcast. Not that I’m saying Robot of Sherwood is in that league, but taste is subjective and everyone has their own personal Doctor Who Hell. Mine and Yours might have many of the same stories in it – but they wouldn’t all be the same. I even know some people who really like Fear Her 🙂
Me personally? Well, I haven’t actually written any of it, but I’m flattered you’d think so 🙂 If you mean Gatiss though, I suspect he has enough else that’s been well-received on his CV to not be overly bothered that Doctor Who might be his sole credit.
At the end of the day, it was an episode I liked, for the reasons I’ve given. You’re perfectly entitled to dislike it yourself, for the reasons you’ve given. But they’re not suddenly going to make me facepalm and exclaim, “my goodness, he’s absolutely right – I thought I enjoyed that but now I’ve seen the light and realise that I hate it!” 🙂
LikeLike
“No, to flag up that it is becoming/has become a myth embedded in our culture every bit as firmly as that of Robin Hood.”
The Oxford dictionary definition of myth reads: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
From that definition, I would say Robin Hood is a centuries old myth whereas Doctor Who is currently a 51 year old television programme. Will people in 500 years time be still talking about and making Doctor Who? I don’t know. But whether this message really was Gatiss’ intention, or not, the fact is it still serves to flag-up the artificiality of Doctor Who, because having the Time Lord meet a version of Robin Hood which is so obviously fictitious is also pointing out the Doctor’s own fictional nature, and although it may look like some clever postmodern game, scratch the surface and you’ll find a picture of Mark Gatiss flicking V-signs to the audience!
Then again, perhaps not, because what I’ve just given is the positive take, the negative one being that, as a writer, Gatiss doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing, and instead believes that, simply because Doctor Who fell down, screwed up and generally debased its own currency in the past, that gives him free reign to do the same in the present.
“Have we been watching the same show for the last few decades?”
No, and nor have you. Doctor Who changes, and has been changing ever since it first appeared on our television screens back in 1963. 😀
“I’ve never heard a better summary of The Celestial Toymaker, The Mind Robber…than ‘There is nothing to restrain us, and we don’t even have to bother to explain it.'”
It’s very nice of you to say that, but I don’t think it’s true. ‘The Celestial Toymaker’ concerns an all powerful being who nevertheless, has devised for himself an number of rules to live by. Without those rules he has no existence. ‘The Mind Robber’ is about an old, forgotten, burnt out writer, whose work has lost meaning and connection to the real world.
So is that what you’re really saying Doctor Who is now? A played out shell of its former self, parodying life at the behest of a bunch of overindulged fan professionals who just can’t let go?
“We aren’t “told” anything in that final dialogue exchange – we hear two characters musing on metaphysics.”
Simon, don’t start backing away from it now. 😉 I’ve just watched the final scene again and Robin’s contention is that history is a burden, and it’s better to be remembered as an inspiring story. That’s all far enough, and I have some sympathy for the idea, but the entire premise is let down by the fact that Gatiss is simultaneously trying to pass the Robin Hood legend off as real history. That’s a massive contradiction that just isn’t going to work.
“I seem to recall Jan-Vincent Rudzki saying something similar about The Deadly Assassin when it was broadcast.”
No you didn’t. 🙂 Rudzki’s problem with the story was that it drove a Type Forty TT capsule right through Time Lord continuity, even to the point of contradicting stuff Holmes had previously stated himself.
That’s not my argument. I don’t consider Doctor Who a continuity show, and I can point out irreconcilable errors going all the way back to the Hartnell era. Equally, reading the article again, Rudzki’s main concern seems to be that ‘The Deadly Assassin’ would become a touchstone for future Time Lord adventures, and so he was trying to get his retaliation in first.
I personally like ‘The Deadly Assassin.’ Rudzki states that up until this point, the Time Lords were ‘defenders of truth and good,’ which was certainly never my impression. I thought they were bastards from the very beginning, and I’m grateful to ‘The Deadly Assassin’ for pointing that out.
“Not that I’m saying Robot of Sherwood is in that league, but taste is subjective and everyone has their own personal Doctor Who Hell. Mine and Yours might have many of the same stories in it – but they wouldn’t all be the same. I even know some people who really like Fear Her.”
Taste is, to a degree, subjective. However, we are all part of the same society and culture, and as you point out, we can find a lot of common ground. We’ve never met, but through this exchange we both agree that Gatiss’ work on Doctor Who has been ‘mostly mediocre to downright awful,’ we both appear to agree that ‘The Reign of Terror’ is full of historical inaccuracies, and that ‘Victory of the Daleks’ belong in TV Hell. True, there are people out there who think that ‘Fear Her’ was vintage Doctor Who, and that the Paradigm Daleks were a good idea, but we don’t, do we?
Consequently, all I’m doing is making a prediction based on my knowledge of fandom, that by the time season 9 has come around, ‘Robot of Sherwood’ will be rubbing shoulders with ‘Fear Her,’ ’42’ and ‘The Lazarus Experiment.’
“If you mean Gatiss though, I suspect he has enough else that’s been well-received on his CV to not be overly bothered that Doctor Who might be his sole credit.”
Who can say what will stick and what will be forgotten? A couple of days back I watched An Audience with Joan Rivers. As she did her routine there were various shots of celebrities clapping, laughing and asking questions, with the camera focusing particularly on people the director thought viewers would recognise, but guess what? In the eight years since that programme was recorded, there were a number of faces that have since completely vanished from our TV screens, and certainly from my memory.
Do you think Peter R. Newman believed when writing ‘The Sensorites’ that this was going to be the only thing he would be remembered for? That the film he scripted, Yesterday’s Enemy, was going to be almost totally forgotten? What makes Gatiss any different? His adaptation of The Tractate Middoth was appalling!
“At the end of the day, it was an episode I liked, for the reasons I’ve given. You’re perfectly entitled to dislike it yourself, for the reasons you’ve given. But they’re not suddenly going to make me facepalm and exclaim, “my goodness, he’s absolutely right – I thought I enjoyed that but now I’ve seen the light and realise that I hate it!””
Stranger things have happened. For example, three weeks ago you were arguing that Nu Who was a good example of strong narrative arcs that served both to deconstruct and develop the Doctor, while simultaneously telling the viewship something deep about his character, whereas, I was arguing that Nu Who Seasons 2 through to 7 relied mainly on formula and a series of character bullet points.
Now I’m arguing that ‘Into the Dalek’ is part of a greater series arc, which does indeed served to both develop the character of the Doctor and tell the general viewer (and hardcore fans alike) something new about the Time Lord. Whereas, you’re arguing that ‘Into the Dalek’ was just a rehash of old glories, and you much preferred the character shredding superficiality of ‘Robot of Sherwood.’
How’s that for a facepalm turn about? 😉
LikeLike
🙂 Fair point – stranger things have happened. That horse becoming Pope…
LikeLike