The Problem With ‘Lucky Day’: When Doctor Who Flirts with Complexity, Then Backs Down
"Lucky Day" presents a compelling episode of Doctor Who, diving into the treacherous waters of misinformation, right-wing radicalization, and the murky morality of government oversight. Yet, while the episode possesses undeniable strengths, it ultimately stumbles in its execution, offering a frustratingly ambiguous conclusion that diminishes the impact of its more daring choices.
The episode’s core strength lies in the character of Conrad Clark, brilliantly portrayed by Jonah Hauer-King. Conrad embodies a particularly insidious kind of villain: the seemingly harmless, even charming, individual whose casual unpleasantness masks a deeper, more troubling ideology. Initially presented as a somewhat awkward, but enthusiastic, admirer of the Doctor and the unknown, Conrad gradually reveals himself to be a deeply hateful figure, driven by conspiracy theories and a desire to undermine public trust in established institutions. This slow burn of reveal is masterful, building a tangible sense of unease that culminates in his shocking betrayal of Ruby and his orchestrating of a hoax to discredit UNIT.
The episode bravely tackles timely issues. The parallels between Conrad’s "Think Tank" and real-world groups spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories are clear. Doctor Who daringly uses its platform to address the dangers of right-wing radicalization, presenting a scenario where the public’s acceptance of the existence of aliens is weaponized to erode faith in authoritative sources. The show deserves credit for venturing into this territory, using its science fiction framework to comment on the fragility of truth and the power of manipulation in contemporary society.
However, the episode begins to falter when it attempts to resolve the conflict between Conrad’s conspiracy and UNIT’s actions. While Conrad and his group are unequivocally portrayed as villains, the episode simultaneously seeks to vindicate UNIT, an organization with a history of ethically questionable behavior. We are encouraged to celebrate Kate Stewart’s forceful response to Conrad’s actions, even when she crosses the line by attempting to use the Shreek to inflict serious harm upon him.
This creates a problematic either/or scenario. The episode seems to suggest that the only alternative to Conrad’s dangerous conspiracies is blind trust in UNIT. This ignores the organization’s history of surveillance, cover-ups, and moral compromises, which have been explored in previous episodes. Kate’s actions, while satisfying in the moment, represent a significant abuse of power, raising troubling questions about accountability and the potential for government overreach.
The text acknowledges these concerns. As cathartic as it is to see Kate lash out at Conrad, the author reminds the reader that she is still the head of a government-backed organization, willing to resort to extrajudicial violence. The episode’s attempts to address these concerns feel superficial, with Ibrahim’s assurance that there will be consequences for Kate’s actions offering little real solace. The show sets up a potentially fascinating exploration of moral ambiguity, but then it steps back from fully committing to that exploration.
The episode’s final scenes compound these issues. While the Doctor’s explosive confrontation with Conrad in prison is a powerful moment, allowing Ncuti Gatwa to express a raw, unfiltered rage against both the character and the forces of misinformation he represents, this impactful scene is immediately undermined by Mrs. Flood’s intervention.
Mrs. Flood, a character whose true nature remains shrouded in mystery, facilitates Conrad’s escape from prison, effectively negating any sense of justice or consequence for his actions. The text describes this betrayal. The idea that a character who has been portrayed as utterly reprehensible is allowed to escape consequences leaves a bitter taste. The moment robs the story of a satisfying conclusion, suggesting that even the most egregious offenders can evade accountability.
This ending highlights a recurring problem in contemporary Doctor Who: a reluctance to fully commit to the implications of its more challenging storylines. The series introduces complex moral dilemmas, explores difficult social issues, and creates intriguing characters, but it often hesitates to deliver a truly meaningful resolution. Instead, the show frequently opts for ambiguous endings or convenient plot devices that allow it to avoid fully confronting the consequences of its choices.
The text argues that the episode’s issues are exacerbated by the fact that it introduces these complicated ideas, then reduces them to an "either/or" scenario that collapses under scrutiny. The show sacrifices nuanced storytelling for the sake of a simple, easily digestible message. It promises a dark and thought-provoking exploration of morality and accountability, but it ultimately delivers a safe and unsatisfying conclusion.
Doctor Who has the potential to be a powerful force for social commentary. Its unique format and imaginative storytelling provide a platform for exploring complex issues in a way that resonates with a broad audience. However, to fulfill that potential, the show must be willing to embrace its more daring ideas and fully commit to exploring their implications. It must be brave enough to confront not only fictional monsters but also the real-world issues that threaten our society. Instead of backing down from difficult conversations, Doctor Who should use its voice to challenge audiences, spark debate, and inspire meaningful change. By taking a bolder and more uncompromising approach to its storytelling, Doctor Who can reclaim its position as a vital and relevant voice in the cultural landscape.
