'I believe estate agents pronounce it 'Sploe:' Ghost Machine (S01E03)
 |
| Ed |
-Trigger Warning- I will be discussing a story which involves of Sexual Abuse.
So, -claps hands - Ghosts! This is a very good episode by Helen Raynor a writer for Doctor Who. Just to be contrary through, this episode also heralds a very self-serious type of story telling which I personally dislike. So pull up a chair as the T3 team and I investigate the weird goings on in an area of Cardiff I believe estate pronounce ‘Sploe’.
 |
| Quantum Transducer |
The titular Ghost Machine is a two- part alien device which allows users to see flashes of past events or potential future events in the form of ghosts. Whether the visions are of the past or the future depends on which part the user is holding at the time. Now this is a fascinating use of Ghosts as a plot device. As noted by Darryl Jones and Andrew Lang the figure of the ghost serves two functions in a story:
1. “Traditionally… The appearance of the ghost served a narrative purpose like Clytemnestra’s ghosts or the ghost of Hamlet’s Father. They appear in order to right wrongs, atone for crimes or correct injustices” or (Jones)
2. Ghosts are “purposeless creature(s) appearing no-body knows why, he has no message to deliver no secret crime to reveal no appointments to keep no treasures to disclose no commissions to be executed and almost as an invariable rule does not speak even if you speak” (Jones).
Ghost Machine combines both approaches while the ghosts do reveal crimes: they do not do so consciously. The Ghosts do not appear of their own volition nor are they conjured up consciously by any of the characters in this story. Incidentally, this is an interesting return of some Lovecraftian Weird elements present in Everything Changes. The Ghost Machine is a piece of technology which none of the cast really understand or know how to use.
Throughout the story it randomly activates in spots where individuals have experienced heightened traumatic emotions. Anyone witnessing the ghosts cannot communicate with them. All this is a long-winded way of saying that the ghosts serve the central theme of the episode which as noted by Burn Gorman who plays Owen Harper is all about “consequences; it’s about changing consequences,’ (Walker, p. 3765). Incidentally, fetch your shot glass folks: this is an existentialist theme.
 |
| Bernie Miller |
Now to bore you all stupid with an explanation of Existentialism and its relationship to morality. As I see it there are two vague categories of Existentialism: Theistic Existentialism and Atheistic Existentialism. (Flynn)
Theistic Existentialism broadly follows the philosophies of Soren Kierkegaard and all believe in the Divine, and believe that as “atheism degrades the true worth of the human being by reducing him or her to a product of nature without intrinsic value or ultimate hope” (Flynn).
Atheistic Existentialism kind-of-sort of follows the philosophies of Frederick Nietzsche. The Divine is nowhere to be found in Atheistic Existentialism as thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre believed that its absence “places humans at the centre of its philosophy and at the height of its value structure” (Flynn).
Both strands are occupied with morality and the importance of an individual making moral choices. Indeed two atheistic Existentialists Sartre and Nietzsche and a theistic Existentialist Kierkegaard all believed that: “we are challenged to own up to our self defining choices to make them our own and consequently becomes selves by acknowledging what we are” (Flynn).
In other words, own your choices and the consequences of them otherwise as noted by Sartre you are living a lie and therefore an inauthentic person (Flynn). Another essential difference between two camps is that Theistic Humanism and Atheistic Humanism is that the former believes that evil can be redeemed while the latter does not (Flynn).
This is explored in a very interesting way through our two villains of the week; Ed and Bernie. Bernie is our “Bad Companion” character. Through sheer happenstance he steals the Ghost Machine and witnesses two crimes. Much like Eddie in Day One, Bernie lives solely in Kierkegaard’s Aesthetic sphere and therefore only considers the past and the future in terms of “matter geared to enhancing the present” (Flynn). Interestingly, the story literalizes this process of an individual levering the past to for their own comfort in the present with Bernie blackmailing people with the knowledge of their past crimes he gained through the Ghost Machine.
Controversially: I believe that Bernie does redeem himself at the end of the story. Our introduction to Bernie reveals that he is hated by members of the community (including his own mother) on account of his petty criminality (“Ghost Machine” 10.28-10.49). While the reveal of aforementioned blackmail seems to confirm that this hatred is justified, the story concludes with Bernie taking baby-steps towards redemption.
At the eleventh hour despite having Gwen as a source of protection and being haunted by visions of his potential murder, Bernie chooses to confront an individual who he attempted to blackmail by himself and promises to keep the information to himself. Look, I accept that this is a reach but it makes sense thematically that Bernie becomes an authentic person by accepting the consequences of his choices and for the first time imperfectly attempts to rectify the situation (“Ghost Machine” 40.36-42.26).
Honestly, this course of action does not amount to much but after a lifetime of shitty behaviour and criminal activities Bernie seems to be embodying what several Existentialists would call “Sisyphean Wisdom” i.e. “The wisdom of Sisyphus is not to make the rock stay but to get the thing off his toe. We are advised to pursue limited but attainable goals like the ancient Stoics” (Flynn).
 |
| Lizzie Lewis |
Contrasting Bernie is the character of Ed Morgan. Ed is introduced to the plot when Owen Harper (and later we learn Bernie) witness a vision of him raping and murdering a lady called Lizzie Lewis underneath a bridge in 1963. Now Ed is a fascinating character based solely on how the narrative chooses to handle him.
Last year I was listening to an excellent podcast series called: The X-Cast which covers all the works of Chris Carter and the hosts commented on several occasions how the ambiguity of characters motivations and the interpretation of and scenes contributed to the longevity of The X-Files. I am not going to disagree with them but I will argue that ambiguity is a tool and that its use needs to be carefully considered. The way the narrative handles Ed contains two examples of good ambiguity and one example of bad ambiguity.
The first example of good ambiguity is when Lizzie confronts Lizzie underneath the bridge saying; “You’re a bad one Ed Morgan! The girls said not to go [to a dance] with you and they were right!” (“Ghost Machine” 15.30-15.33) This is good ambiguity because it allows the audience to infer interesting and disquieting details about Ed as a character.
For example I started speculating that Ed has a history of predatory sexual behaviour in Splott. This interpretation is reinforced by comments Ed makes at the climax of the episode about Lizzie and women in general: “Little bitch. You're all the same. You'll blame me, make me the bad one.”(“Ghost Machine” 49.17-49.22). The episode implies without saying that Ed's behaviour was escalating towards sexual assault.
The second example of good ambiguity is Ed’s paranoid ramblings. As we learn from Tosh towards the end of the episode Ed is a shut-in with a litany of mental health issues including paranoid fantasies. Except it is possible to infer that not all of Ed’s concerns are paranoia.
At the climax of the story he self pitying notes now after he killed Lizzie he “used to see it in people’s faces when they looked at me. They knew. I tried to hide, but they knew.” (“Ghost Machine” 48.56-49.07) The audience can deduce that Ed’s guilt was an open secret in Splott and what he is describing is the literal accusing looks that his neighbours gave him after the police failed to charge him. None of this is explicitly stated but you can guess that happened after Lizzie’s death.
The bad ambiguity is how the narrative also attempts to use Ed’s mental health issues to suggest that he feels remorse for his crime. The reason this is bad is because it can leave “the viewer with the slightly uncomfortable feeling that Torchwood is making a habit of portraying rapists in a forgiving light.” (Walker p.3756)
I will place my cards on the table; Ed is not remotely sorry for what he did to Lizzie. This is supported by his aforementioned victim blaming and bewailing the situation resulting from his own choices. Unlike Bernie, Ed is an inauthentic person i.e. a person who does not accept the nature of his choices nor the consequences of them and therefore can only moulder in self pity in his house alone.
Right, onto something lighter namely; the Horney Exploding Rat Award: this episode’s H.E.R Award goes to Jack for refusing to investigate Lzzie’s rape and murder due to a very flimsy justification. As it will become apparent throughout these reviews: I have grown to hate Jack Harkness as he is portrayed on Torchwood but we will cross that bridge when we come to it
Everything Changes and Day One set out two alternative visions of the programme. The former is a dour self-serious story that appeared to hate its own premise and undermined its own characters. The latter an utterly shameless camp romp in which the premise and characters are given a chance to shine. Both were valid statements of intent for the programme. Unfortunately, as evidenced by Ghost Machine the narrative approach taken by Everything Changes won out.
That is not a criticism of Ghost Machine. I have always remembered the scene of Gwen interviewing Tom Flanagan (the little boy she saw in her vision from the train station) about his experiences of being evacuated in 1941. It’s a gorgeous scene and the highlight of the episode. There is something very powerful about seeing this elderly man speak probably for the first time to someone about his wartime experiences.
If anyone is interested in exploring the power of oral history I recommend reading An Oral History of the Portuguese Colonial War: Conscripted Generation (Palgrave Studies in Oral History) by Angela Campos Which details the authors interviews of Portuguese soldiers who fought against the National Liberation movements in Angola, Mozambique and Cape Verde. What is powerful about the story is that this was the first time the men interviewed could tell their stories as the transition to democracy in 1974 meant that the soldiers involved in Fascistic wars were swept aside and deemed not worthy of remembering.
Ghost Machine remembers the human element of its story and keeps the focus squarely on the people whose emotions are powering the titular Ghost Machine. What will wear me down is when writers less talented than Helen Raynor fail to do the same.
A major flaw with Torchwood is how emotionally claustrophobic it is. As noted by Steven Walker Torchwood has a very small primary cast who are nearly always undergoing intense psychological emotional instability with only two recurrent supporting characters; Rhys and Andy (Walker, p. 6719). This is a big problem because it means "that the Torchwood team have no friends or family members with whom they can be seen to interact on an ongoing basis, it also leaves them with no apparent support or back-up in their missions…..” (Walker, p. 6719).
Even with that description Rhys only has a substantial presence in five episodes of Series One Everything Changes, Day One, Out of Time, Combat and End of Days. In two of those appearances he viciously argues with Gwen and she lies to him (it's legitimately horrible). In another two he appears for very brief cameos and in his final appearance -spoiler alert- he dies.
Basically we need characters who are not part of Torchwood 3 to come in and disrupt the dynamics between the five main characters, because frankly they are dysfunctional. We need other people to come in and dilute the atmosphere of gloom through simply allowing different facets of the main characters to emerge by playing off different actors. This set-up is not going to change for Series One, but if it persists into Series Two. I will need to take a step back.
Bibliography
