It’s just showing good taste 
8 Likes
Season 25! I see where this is going…
8 Likes
Yeah, the Kandyman
8 Likes
It’s a runaway victory for Season 25, so now we need to drill down into which creature or villain will be the subject of this analysis. Make your choice!
- Davros & the Daleks
- The Kandyman & Helen A
- Lady Peinforte (I’m excluding the Cybermen from this one)
- The Gods of Ragnarok
0
voters
7 Likes
If may, I have a counter point to make about the Doctor fitting criterion 1. You say:
which is true enough - the Doctor is indistunguishable from humans. But John Smith, the Time Lord transformed to human - by Time Lord standards is this not, for lack of a better word, a malformation or disfigurement? Of course, it’s nowhere near as bad as, say, the Crispy Master, but for a Time Lord, one has to imagine that losing a huge part of what makes you who you are to become a lowly mortal is a pretty horrific idea.
In series 4 of Gallifrey, they travel to an alternate world where the Time Lords can strip out their regenerations and sell them on the black market, and this is presented as a deeply horrific thing to do. (major s4 spoiler ->) And when it happens to Narvin without his consent, it’s treated as a violent and belittling act, one that doesn’t necessarily make him a monster, but one that is monstrous.
I would therefore like to argue that though perhaps Chameleon Arching himself doesn’t make the Doctor into a monster, but certainly by doing that he is, by Time Lord standards, committing a monstrous act. He is willingly stripping himself of everything he is and transforming himself into someone else, which is not making him Inhuman but rather In-Gallifreyan, which for him and his species is a monstrous thing to do.
10 Likes
Thank you, @sircarolyn. I really appreciate the discussion. You raise some excellent points.
I agree, the Time Lords would perceive this as a malformation, a disability even… but his perceived monstrosity in this story is not contingent on his perceived monstrosity as John Smith in the eyes of the Time Lords. I agree that the Time Lords would absolutely see John Smith as a monstrous act against one of their own - ironically by one of their own - until we learn in The Timeless Children that the Doctor never really was one of their own anyway… but that’s (literally) another story! 
The key point, for me, is his presentation in the story we are analysing and to the characters in said story as well as to the audience of said story.
I agree.
Oh, it’s like an onion.
So many layers! 
8 Likes
I concede, the Time Lords don’t particularly come into discussion in the episode, but I think there is some element too of John Smith thinking that the Doctor is a monster for doing it to himself. After all, John Smith says himself that he has to die, effectively, for the Doctor to return. I think it’s not necessarily a visual cue, which I again concede is the point of criterion 1, but I would still suggest that there is a monstrous element in the inhumanity of the act - by becoming a human, the Doctor has become monstrous.
8 Likes
This is fascinating and does bear scrutiny. 
John Smith is one of only two people in this story who fully hold the Doctor to account (excluding the Family). In John Smith’s eyes, the Doctor is a monster (as, I would argue - and did in my original post on this story, in Joan Redfern’s eyes). I don’t think this is enough to qualify him as a monster in the same sense as the Family or Scarecrows (for reasons I mentioned earlier) but fully concede that he is monstrous to both of these people… as, indeed, his existence would be to the Time Lords, if they knew about him.
9 Likes
IT’S KANDYMAN TIME!
OK, let’s dig into our analysis of the claims of the Kandyman to monsterdom. First up, as always, is our first criterion (inhuman appearance). Whilst not disfigured or malformed, the Kandyman offers only a crude approximation of the human form (by design). Intriguingly, the original concept for the Kandyman would have been more overtly human and potentially leaned further into an uncanny valley vibe. That said, the wonderfully bonkers absurdity we got (however much it upset Bassets) does work. Production values are creaking at times in the story, but the concept is absurdly horrific. Is it just me or is there something really quite disturbing about those whirling eyes?
Criterion 2 (portent of doom): The Kandyman’s role as Helen A’s executioner and the creator of the “Fondant Surprise,” a deadly method of execution, casts him as a harbinger of doom for those deemed “killjoys”. Indeed, the populace of Terra Alpha all seem to view the Kandyman’s name with foreboding. There is sufficient parallel between the creation of the Kandyman and Frankenstein’s monster to heighten this foreboding further (especially if we dig into the apparent origins of Terra Alpha’s executioner in chief and the organic brain that Gilbert M used - “I made him. … Only his body. His mind was very much his own.” Indeed, Graeme Curry’s novelisation makes it clear that the Frankensteinien parallel is very real). Whilst Frankenstein’s monster is a sympathetic character, he is also a killer. The Kandyman has none of the sympathy and is every bit the killer - by design AND by his very nature! Overall, and crucially, the Kandyman is a literal symbol of oppression to the colony of Terra Alpha. He is a distillation of the sugarcoated cruelty and utter ruthlessness of Helen A’s regime - a regime that is sweet on the surface but utterly rotten to the core.
As we move now to criterion 3, we consider narrative warning. What is The Happiness Patrol about and how does the Kandyman represent that meta warning to us, the audience? The Kandyman is literally made of sweets, embodying the artificiality and superficiality of the forced happiness on Terra Alpha. This is a rich and meaningful critique of the consumer culture promoted by Thatcher’s government, where happiness was often equated with material consumption rather than genuine well-being (my my… we really haven’t moved on much, have we?). The Kandyman is a product, a commodity created from sugar and syrups, much like the idea that happiness can be bought, packaged and sold. He makes sweets but is also the twisted mind behind the ‘Fondant Surprise’ mode of execution, suggesting the inherent danger of unchecked consumerism and the commodification of human experience. The Kandyman’s dual role as a confectioner and an executioner is a key element of this savage satire. The Fondant Surprise, is a sweet, sugary yet utterly lethal concoction. This directly mirrors the way in which the Thatcher government attempted to present a superficial veneer of respectability and good economic sense to gloss over their brutal social policies. The Kandyman’s character serves as a stark metaphor for the government’s attempt to mask the suffering caused by their policies with superficial notions of prosperity and happiness. He is the face of that policy, literally and figuratively. The warnings that we, as the audience, as asked to consider, are manifold and strongly revolve around the Kandyman. His portrayal should definitely be interpreted, by the audience, as a meta-textual comment regarding the horrific consequences of allowing such dangerous and inhumane ideologies to take root. Verdict? Monstrous.
Do I even need to raise the question of whether the Kandyman shows clear intent to terrorise or to destroy (criterion 4)? A number of key lines from the Kandyman:
“Just when the victim thinks he’s been pardoned it flows into the yard and smothers him. It’s ingenious, isn’t it." This reveals the Kandyman’s manipulative nature and his delight in the suffering of others. This is evidence of both intent to terrorise (the horror of realisation for the victim) and to destroy.
“What reason could I possibly have for stopping an execution?” Intent to destroy.
“I like my volunteers to die with smiles on their faces.” Intent to destroy.
“It’s time to kill you!” Intent to destroy.
The Kandyman’s actions and dialogue reveal a clear intent to terrorise and destroy. There is a consistent sadistic delight shown in his role as executioner and he is shown to be creative in how he kills people. He even threatens to crush Gilbert, his creator, for humiliating him.
Our final criterion asks us to consider whether the subject of our analysis is nameless, unknown or unknowable to other characters or to the audience. He is not nameless and we do learn about his origins (in part on TV and in more detail via the novelisation) Nonetheless, there is an element of the unknowable to his character. We know his confectionary body was created by Gilbert M, who brought the Kandyman’s bones to Terra Alpha in a suitcase. We know, from Curry, that the brain of a human scientist from Vasilip is the mind of the Kandyman. He is less knowable than most of the other characters in the story although he is, ultimately, very typical of the enforcers and sadists that often thrive under cruel authoritarian leaders. He is the Himmler to Helen A’s Hiltleresque/Thatcherite dictator. We know these people (and people like this), sadly. I, therefore, conclude that he is not unknowable. Indeed, it’s the very fact that we know people like this (albeit not Frankensteinien creations) exist in reality is part of what makes him monstrous.
So, to summarise:
Inhuman Appearance: YES. A crude confected parody of humanity.
Omen of Misfortune: YES. Even the mention of the Kandyman’s name is laced with threat to the citizens of Terra Alpha and, very quickly, to the Doctor and Ace.
Warning: YES. Very much, in my opinion. From superficiality to sadism and cruelty, the Kandyman is a viscous parody of the excesses of totalitarianism and a stark warning indeed.
Intent: YES. The Kandyman is an unashamed sadist who delights in killing.
Nameless/Unknown/Unknowable: NO. The Kandyman has a name and his origin is known (he was created by Gilbert M). Though unpalatable (the Kandyman would protest at this!), his actions can be understood all too easily as typical of the more malicious instruments of dictators. Sadly, we know their ilk.
Key criteria: 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Irrelevant criteria: 5
Conclusion: Unsurprisingly, the Kandyman ticks most of the boxes of monsterdom. He is a monstrous creation, rich in portent, full of metatextual warnings, wicked in intent and bizarre in appearance. He’s a MONSTER!
10 Likes
Bookmarked for later.
6 Likes
My main criteria - a monster has to feel like a threat, to feel imposing and an immovable obstacle
7 Likes
This would align with criteria 2 (the portent of doom), 3 (a narrative warning) and 4 (intent to terrorise or destroy). Moreover, less enlightened people see criterion 1 (malformation or inhuman appearance) as a potential threat. Finally, criterion 5 (nameless, unknown, unknowable) fits as we typically fear that which we do not understand.
Not all monsters are presented with sufficient skill to make that threat feel tangible to the audience. They still meet the criteria but decisions with direction, issues with costume or effects or insufficiencies of writing may work against the visceral thrill of that tangible feeling of threat. When it works, though, ooooh, it’s marvellous!
Gotta love the monsters!
8 Likes
New year, new analyses!
So, I’m formally opening the call for suggestions for my next round of analysis. This time, I’m feeling like delving into the monstrous that plagued our beloved 12th Doctor. Let’s have a few suggestions and I’ll build a poll when I think we have enough to work with.
6 Likes
I do like the idea of the Sandmen from Sleep No More, but I think I’d be even more interested in your analysis of the Veil from Heaven Sent.
5 Likes
The Veil is ripe for analysis and definitely going on the list. Let’s not make this easy though, huh? More suggestions?
6 Likes
What were those creatures from Time Heist called? The Tellers? That’s my suggestion
6 Likes
The emojibots from Smile, and the corporation from Oxygen.
5 Likes
By my reckoning, we’re on five now; The Sandmen, The Veil, the Tellers, the Emojibots and the Suits. Keep 'em coming folks!
5 Likes
Obviously the Monks. The Flight Through Entirety podcast had lots to say about them on their coverage of the trilogy if you’re interested in listening to those for ideas.
6 Likes
A uniquely Capaldi threat. I think I’d be inclined to steer clear of the podcasts so I’m not influenced. It would be interesting to see if we independently identify the same trends or see things differently?
So… let’s go to the polls!
- The Sandmen (Sleep No More)
- The Veil (Heaven Sent)
- The Tellers (Time Heist)
- The Emojibots (Smile)
- The Suits (Oxygen)
- The Monks (Extremis, The Pyramid at the End of the World, The Lie of the Land)
0
voters
5 Likes