Torchwood

Torchwood - outside the government, beyond the police - has exceeded expectations with its recently completed five night run - the compacted season three's one 'stripped' story 'Children of Earth'. It's been a gripping week. I've not been a huge fan of Torchwood prior to this, though I certainly tried, as it has always been billed as the darker adult spin-off to my beloved Doctor Who. But previously it's always been a bit gross, with a tendency to sacrifice narrative complexity for a sort of inane nastiness that must be appealing to a core audience that's not me. Granted, not in all of the episodes, but that was the general tenor.

This five-parter was different - though not completely different. It still had, in fact, a slightly queasy mixture of sci-fi, political satire (both of which I really liked) and horror (which I found distressing, not necessarily a bad thing; but also disturbing because I felt it was close to a sort of emotionally exploitative horror technique that I don't like). The death of long term character Ianto seemed harsh but not unacceptable in terms of the tone and narrative arc - Torchwood has lost long term characters before, as is more the trend in sci fi these days (thinking of Battlestar Galactica's final seasons especially here).

As for political satire. This was exceptionally good, and unsettling in a horribly thought-provoking way. The basic premise was that the alien 'monsters' are demanding 10% of the world's children - or else. A closed UK cabinet emergency committee debate the pros and cons. One even tries to put a good spin on it (we are overpopulated after all....); another suggests use of school league tables to quietly divest the country of the bottom 10% of children in terms of academic and behavioural performance. It's all nastily redolent of the sort of spinning cover-ups that undoubtedly go on. As satire it's crude in one way but ruthlessly pointed in another.

The faux justifications for such destruction of the vulnerable young reminded me of Swift's 1729 'A Modest Proposal' which advocated the eating of babies in order to stave off Irish famine:

"I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets..."

No aliens here demanding their cull of euphoria-inducing minors, but the same utterly cynical justification processes are in place. Some didn't even realise it was satire at the time.

Torchwoood averts this mass child-cull scenario. But only just. Captain Jack, always a morally ambiguous figure, never really able to fulfill the 'Doctor' role of the Torchwood hierarchy (I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Gwen has the greater mix of compassion, skill and leadership qualities), ends up sacrificing his own grandson without consent of either the child Stephen or his mother Alice. This made for the horrible denouement - and a bad night's sleep on my part.

Of course, pragmatically, it sounds and seems better to sacrifice one child than millions. But one couldn't help thinking that the Doctor would never have accepted this solution, and that just because Torchwood is 'darker' this solution still isn't acceptable in terms of what the Doctor Who universe generally explores and questions. Yes, it holds echoes within the story's narrative arc, and also of the Biblical requested sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, but scientifically (destruction had to be 'channelled' back through a child, costing that child's life) as a solution it is a bit of a McGuffin. And Isaac didn't get sacrificed after all...I know - it's a drama, not a dramatically portrayed ethical code or moral wish list. But I do think that the ending tipped into on-screen horror: it was a bit sick. Perhaps that's what I didn't quite like; certainly not the presentation of hard choices per se.

Furthermore, it isn't logical, but it is deeply human to want above all to save those individuals you know and love - even if this means a greater destruction overall. Thus E M Forster in his essay 'What I believe' writes: 'if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country'.

Even this very honest, human response isn't quite applicable - Forster was after all railing against causes, and Captain Jack was facing a global emergency. Still his decision, however much rued, casts a kind of inhuman light on him; revealing qualities we perhaps cannot, or should not aspire to. There should have been another way, as the Doctor once said himself. Although whether or not there will be further versions of Torchwood to explore these better ways without shirking the necessary complexity and losses of the human condition is still to be revealed.