Doctor Who Episode 10 - Eater of Light (by Rona Munro)

[shadowkat]

Finally saw the latest Doctor Who which once again cut off the last two minutes. Dang it. That was the best part of the entire episode.

However, Doctor Who, Episode 10, Eater of the Light by Scottish playwrite and tele-writer Rona Munro, who also wrote the Doctor Who episode Survival in 1989, and is among the few female writers of the series, was actually among the better episodes to date.

I am, however, wondering why all the soliders in these episodes are dressed in red, and all the monsters seem to lizards or fish. (Yes, I know Roman soliders tended to wear red...but, not always, and why these soliders?) Maybe that's just me? Maybe it is coincidence? There were a few that weren't, not many, but a few. Maybe...there's some sort of metaphor relating to ancient Rome and the Scots that I'm missing because I don't remember the history that well? (I vaguely remember visiting Hadrian's Wall in the 1980s, and hearing the tale about how the Scots built it and kept the Romans back. Rome was able to conquer everyone but Scotland, in part due to the wall, in part due to the cold.)

There also seems to be an on-going theme about shutting out the light. Along with the agency/choice theme.

Not overly sure the episodic nature of this season works. With just snippets of an overall arc.

This was a metaphor heavy episode, as opposed to plot heavy, which I think worked better. Had a sort of fairy tale structure to it. Also worked better from a structural perspective. I actually prefer Doctor Who when it follows a more dark fairy tale style than sci-fi style. Mainly because I'm not sure these writers are very adept at sci-fi.
Am wondering if it is possible to do an episode without a monster of the week?



1. Liked the use of the soliders better this week. Apparently Rona Munro has a deeper appreciation of the Roman Legion and the Ancient Celts than Gatis does of the Victorian Soliders?

2. Also some fun throw-away lines.

Doctor: "They were killed by a lack of light, or the absence of light."
Nardole: "In other words, Death by Scotland."
Doctor: Not quite, require a great more removal than that.

or...

Doctor: The crows talk, people just don't listen to them so they are sulking."
Nadole: Maybe they aren't sulking and just remembering..."

or

Bill: I don't like men in that way only women.
Lucius: So you are restrictive much like Crocious.
Crocius: I like men, just not you.
Lucius: I like both, men and women, less restrictive. But it is okay, you can be restrictive if you want.
Bill: How very modern of you.

Somewhat true, the Romans and Greeks were a little less prudish and restrictive in some respects, but women also had less power back then.

Munro is much better at dialogue than the last three writers.

3. The eaters of light were interesting...a sort of metaphoric device for how the warring clans were removing the light from their world by constant conquering and warfare. When they join together -- they keep the devouring darkness at bay.

BTW -- why does the Doctor keep trying to sacrifice himself? Does he have a suicide wish?

4. I'm enjoying Missy this season, maybe because I'm getting so little of her or the character is played a little less cartoonish. Interesting he's pulled her out of her vault to aid him.

What I also found interesting was the emphasis on music. The music that calls to the little girl in the beginning to look at the stones. The little boy who warns her that the monster in the hill will eat her and destroy them all. And the pictograph of the tardis carved in the stone.

Then the music that the Doctor has Missy listen to, so she can understand, why they fight and it does not feel in vain. "Because of the music. With everything you seen or done, you've never stopped to listen to the music and it makes all the difference." She stops and hears the music...and cries. "I don't even know why I'm crying, and wonders if they can become friends again." There's always hope, he states (or he tried to before it cut out on me. As an aside so did my computer, it automatically shut off. Luckily DW automatically saved the post.)

Another metaphor -- music equaling light and kindness and empathy. Meaning in the void.

What I didn't like?

* I found it to be slow in places, my attention kept wandering. Also I didn't understand why they were hunting the Lost Roman Legion or the significance of the 9th Roman Legion, and I actually studied that period of Anglo-Saxon history. I've studied more ancient history than modern history, which is weird. Actually my historical interests are slightly jumpy. I loved ancient history, Druid, Celt, Roman, Greek, Bablyonian, and Chinese, along with the Native American cultures prior to and including Columbus. Then I jumped to around the Civil War period or 1800s. Then back to Elizabethan times, and Sir Francis Drake and Shakespeare, and the Renaissance. Absolutely no interest in Middle Ages, literature or otherwise, best forgotten in my opinion. Jump to WWI. Ignore WWIII. No interest in Victorian Age, or WII. But Korea - Vietnam War interested me. Then jump ahead to the future and science fiction.

Weird. I think it's because far too much time in school was spent on - The Tudors, Revolutionary War, World War II, and the Victorians, and not enough on everything else. I wanted to fill in the gaps.

*Anyhow. Also didn't like the monster. But I haven't liked any of the monsters this season. So at least I'm consistent. The only one I found halfway interesting was puddle.

Outside of that a better episode than the previous ones. This season started out okay, then sort of ....got really slow. I have to admit I haven't found the series all that interesting since Doctor River Song, Amy, and Rory left. But I'm apparently in the minority on that point.

Comments

[ex_peasant441]

I didn't understand why they were hunting the Lost Roman Legion or the significance of the 9th Roman Legion

It's famous because of a children's book The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliff. When Bill says she read the book and loved the book, that is what she means. The Legion vanishes from the records, so there is a theory it was wiped out somewhere in Scotland and people have been trying to find out how or why ever since.

I vaguely remember visiting Hadrian's Wall in the 1980s, and hearing the tale about how the Scots built it and kept the Romans back. Rome was able to conquer everyone but Scotland, in part due to the wall, in part due to the cold.
The wall was built by the Romans, not the Scots. It was probably mostly intended as a customs barrier and to hinder cattle raiders since it would never have enough troops to prevent an actual invasion.

Rome could have captured Scotland had they wished, and indeed they did send occasional expeditions through which were mostly successful - proving that their army could have beaten the native tribes if it had been worth their while. But it wasn't worth their while. Scotland, unlike the rest of Britain, had very few natural resources of interest to the Romans. What they mostly cared about were the metal mines (tin, silver, lead, copper, gold) in the west of what is now England and Wales, and the east of England could be used as a bread basket to supply the slave labour required in the mines. If Scotland had had metals, they would have been up there cold or no cold.

What I also found interesting was the emphasis on music. The music that calls to the little girl in the beginning to look at the stones.
It occurs to me that this is reminiscent of the part music plays in Knock Knock.

wondering why all the soliders in these episodes are dressed in red
The British army historically wore red (with only a few exceptions) because of the two cheap dyes (blue and red) red was the brighter and less blotchy, and wasn't associated with poverty. The Victorians saw strong parallels between their own empire and that of Rome, therefore Victorian illustrators tended to put the Roman army in red - so the trope is very well fixed in the popular imagination.

Also the BBC gets its costumes from common stores and hire firms - even if they wanted Roman soldiers in a different colour, they probably couldn't get them cheaply. For the same reason practically every Napoleonic era British uniform you see will be red with yellow facings on the collars and cuffs - because hundreds were made in that style for the Sharpe series, and they flooded the hire shops afterwards.

There also seems to be an on-going theme about shutting out the light.
There is? I'm blanking on what other examples you might have in mind.

[shadowkat]

The British army historically wore red (with only a few exceptions) because of the two cheap dyes (blue and red) red was the brighter and less blotchy, and wasn't associated with poverty.

Ah yes. In the US? "The Redcoats are coming, the Redcoats are coming!" During the Revolutionary War, the patriots or Americans wore blue, and those nasty British soliders wore Red. British soliders aren't depicted kindly in US history books or historicals. ;-D Nor is the color red for a military uniform. Our uniforms tend to be blue traditionally. Possibly because of that.

There also seems to be an on-going theme about shutting out the light. There is? I'm blanking on what other examples you might have in mind.

In the metaphorical sense? The light of truth in "Lie of the Land". The light of knowledge in "Emeritus".

In the more literal sense? Thin Ice -- in the sea with the monster it's dark. Knock Knock -- all of it happens at night, in the dark. In Oxgene -- dark of space, absence of light.

I'm guessing references to Missy locked in the Vault.

[ex_peasant441]

The cultural significance of colour is a very involved subject, and it changes with time. Blue has only become the dominant colour of preference in the west in recent times, before that it was red. So the US preference for blue over red comes from a variety of factors, never just one - rejection of the British red is significant, affiliation to French revolutionary blue is also important, but so is the date your country was founded which affected the relative availability of the different dyes and the cleanness and brightness of later blues compared to early blues.

This triumph of blue went so far it replaced red/pink as the masculine colour and we now dress boys in blue and girls in pink - a complete reversal of the tradition in Victorian times.

[shadowkat]

Thank you, I didn't know the dyes weren't available. Although...it seems odd that red dye was less available than blue, because when I've done dying, it was the opposite -- since red is easy to obtain from plants.

[ex_peasant441]

Blue comes from woad which is easy to grow or later indigo which was very cheap to import from south America. It requires no mordant.

Red comes from madder, which is slightly more expensive to grow, or brazilwood which (despite the name) was imported from India. It requires alum to be mordanted. Alum is rare in North America so it would have had to be imported, probably from Europe. Mordanting requires more vessels, more fuel etc. These factors combined would make red more expensive.

[shadowkat]

Hmmm interesting. Didn't know that.

But...it doesn't ring true. If it were it would not explain why the Mexicans and Native Americans were able to dye their clothing Red with little trouble. Decades before the Europeans invaded.

You probably don't know this but Native Americans dye their clothing and fabrics naturally and have for centuries. My grandmother was fascinated with the Native American culture, and my sister-in-law is part Cherokee. Nor does it fit with what I remember about dying. I worked with dyes in the 1980s in school, and my brother has friends who worked with textiles.

So, I decided to google this.

https://jordanhall.co.uk/general-articles/dyes-how-natural-and-synthetic-cloth-dyes-are-manufactured-3312111/

To make natural cloth dye you just have to boil the plants until the color comes out. Then soak the fabric in the boiling water to get the desired color. Using a mordant will permanently set the dye into the fabric.

Cochineal dye is sourced from the cochineal bug which thrived in the cactus plants. The Indians discovered the coloring property of the bugs. The bugs, which are dried out under the sun, produce a rich red powder when grounded. This produced the red coloring when mixed with water.

And ...

NPR - The Color Red, A History

Red was an expensive color in 17th-century France because at the time, the dye was made from a little bug found in Mexican cactus, the cochineal.

"People made their living trading this dye," says Rebecca Stevens, curator of Red, the current exhibition at the Textile Museum in Washington, D.C. "It was as good as gold."

According to Stevens, when the Spaniards got to Mexico in the 1500s, cochineal became the New World's major export to Europe. The Spaniards harvested the bugs by scraping them off the cactus plants and then drying them. The dried bugs, which looked like small pellets, were then shipped to Europe.

The importers in Europe didn't know whether the little pellets were a berry, a bug, or a mineral. The Spaniards, says Stevens, "spent a lot of time and trouble keeping that a secret to protect their sources."

The bottom fell out of the bug market in the middle of the 1800s, when synthetic dyes were invented. Previously, red was only for the rich who could afford the expensive insect dye.



So, it was actually Europe importing the color, not North America.

[ex_peasant441]

Sorry, I was trying to keep things simple by not mentioning cochineal.

Cochineal produces two colours - a pinkish red, and a bright scarlet red. The scarlet is most easily achieved by adding tin. This is the colour of British officer's coats, and hunting jackets. It is also the colour worn by cardinals in the Roman Catholic church. It is a colour associated with excess and luxury, because cochineal was always expensive whether it came from old world or new world sources.

The problem with nearly all reds is to fix them so they remain in the cloth despite washing and the action of light. This requires a mordant, traditionally alum - which I'm sure you know about if you have studied dyeing.

I don't know anything about indigenous Native American dying practices, but I assume they either worked with the pinker colours or had their own methods of creating the brighter scarlets, methods that were unknown to Europeans. There are ways to mordant without alum, normally using barks or plants like clubmoss. These would work for small scale tribal dyeing but are not practical on the large scale required by an army.

The red produced by madder is more towards the blue end of the spectrum of reds, and this was the red worn by common people and soldiers. Madder was grown in massive quantities in France (it can also be grown easily in England) and was thus affordable and the mainstay dye of the woolen cloth industry. It is still considered a pleasing and indulgent colour compared to blue or grey or browns because the dye requires mordanting and skill to produce an even colour. But it was the luxury of normal people, not the rich. This shade of red might even be used to mark people as belonging to the lower classes, by its use in charitable institutions or for livery costumes.

Now consider the cultural and economic situation in North America in the 1770s and 80s. Cochineal comes from Mexico, in a trade that was monopolised by the Spanish. I cannot discover any mention of direct exporting to New England, so it would probably have to be imported first to Europe and then back to New England. Even if they could get it direct it would still be an expensive import. The tin to make it into a bright scarlet would have to be imported from Cornwall. The Alum to mordant it would have to be imported from Italy or Yorkshire. And this bright scarlet is solely associated with Catholicism, luxury and richness. It is even condemned in the bible. Finally the revolutionaries are fighting against an army wearing both scarlet (officers) and madder red (other ranks). There is no way they are going to chose any shade of red, but most certainly not scarlet.

[shadowkat]

Well, there waa another reason the Rebels in the 1770s used a different color, camouflage. The Revolutionary War sort of changed warfare in a way, the Rebels in the US didn't line up and fight the way the British did. Instead they borrowed heavily from what they learned during the French and Indian Wars.

When I was a child, I saw a re-enactment in Valley Forge during our Bicentennial, back in 1976. And the Brits lined up while the rebels hid behind trees and circled in from behind. Guerilla Warfare. It's actually why the colonists won they broke with tradition. Also the French helped us, along with the American Indians.


We also used berries for the color red - I remember seeing a demonstration once. Keep in mind the Native Americans aka the American Indians were heavily involved and they died things with different plants that were available in the US that you may not be aware of.

[ex_peasant441]

Yes. The British army completely changed how it operated after the war, increasing the proportion of light troops for skirmishing with light companies in every line regiment and entire light infantry battalions. We even (shock horror) dressed one regiment in green for camouflage and armed them with rifles not muskets. This was an important part of why we were able to beat Napoleon, so it was vital experience.

There are so many dye substances out there, the range is actually amazing. And I certainly don't know the American ones, I have barely scratched the surface of our native ones. But the number that are practical for use on a large scale is limited. Normally either the dyestuff is too scarce and difficult to collect in large quantities, or it is hard to make light fast, or the colours are too variable, or they are inclined to be dull.

One of the things I like about the history of colour is that nowadays we don't think about colour at all - if we want an item in a colour it is always available at the same cost as any other colour. In the past colour, especially bright colours, came at a price, and thus they were weighted with cultural significance.

You probably know this, but towards the end of your Civil War, the South could no longer obtain grey dye, and they had to send troops out clad in 'butternut', which was home dyed brown cloth. This parallels the situation in the English Civil War when a famous Royalist regiment from Newcastle were called The Lambs because they were clothed in white or grey cloth, which being undyed was the cheapest available, their commander being unable to obtain red dye for them. They took this badge of poverty and 'reclaimed' it, turning into one of the most feared and ruthless regiments in the army and saying they would dye their coats red with the enemy's blood.

[shadowkat]

Our 4th of July is coming around the corner...various people online have complained about how the British have historically been portrayed as villains in US action films and television dramas -- the reason for that, is they are or rather were the villains in the American History Textbooks up until the World Wars, then the Germans and the Japanese took over that spot. The French for a while were seen as more favorable, not quite so much after the 1970s. Germans were also depicted as villains for a while, along with Japanese, until the 1950s, when the Russians took over. Now it's the Middle East or Arab/Muslim.But to a degree there's a nationalism or nationalistic prejudice exhibited in our media as well as yours towards the "Other", with little to no true knowledge of the "Other".

The tendency to generalize about the villain appears not to have changed much, unfortunately.

But, with the advent of the internet and information age, it's harder to maintain, because we can share information with people from other cultures and nationalities, which fortunately blows up the stereotype or generalization.
Which is what we are doing now...like I didn't know that dyes played a factor in the color of military uniforms.

[ex_peasant441]

I think I have discerned a change in recent years away from the trope of the English villain. It also wasn't really noticeable much before the 1990s - if we were mentioned at all before then in your films or TV shows it was always just as something exotic or eccentric, never something perceived as a threat.

I wonder if the change in the 90s and early 2000s was because that was the period when Britain was recovering economically and starting to become eminent on the world again - maybe Americans did see us as a threat to their hegemony and expressed it in their culture? Or maybe it was just a passing fashion. Whatever it was, it seems to have declined in recent years.

It could sometimes be tiresome to see ones own people always playing the villain, but I never minded as much as some other people. And I feel anyone is allowed to be rumbunctious on their independence day :D