Perhaps I should begin with some acknowledgements and an apology; Ian makes a fair point in his review of the Netflix series Black Doves, and my knee-jerk cryptic comment was harsh. Below, I hope is a more measured response.

It is obvious that Black Doves has a similar impact to Marmite – it has people who want more and those with the opposite view; they dislike it. Reading reviews and comments on social media revealed a sharp contrast in opinions among its audience. Ian and I have different opinions on the series.

Scriptwriting perspectives

I also have to acknowledge I’m a playwright therefore have some insights into the dark arts of scriptwriting. As a consequence, rarely do I watch as a passive audience member simply seeking to be entertained; my enjoyment often involves critique and the deconstruction of the product before me. It’s also a curse of being a former cultural studies student.

Finally, I’m going to make an assumption that I’m more familiar with the Black Doves’ screenwriter’s previous projects than Ian, but I could be mistaken on this point. I’m raising Joe Barton’s previous projects because for me they influence how I interpreted the series and, I would further suggest, his method of writing partly explains the different paths Ian and I took. These acknowledgements however in no way undermines or invalidates the process of viewing and interpreting Black Doves in isolation.

Politics, identity, privatisation and fantasy

Ian concludes his review of Black Doves with these words: “Politics, identity, privatisation and fantasy are ideologically interwoven in popular entertainment; it is thrilling, but better if you also step back from it when you turn the TV off. Or, maybe in this case, given what an ideological bloody mess this thing is, I should have given it a miss.”

How he “viewed” the series and his interpretations stem from the ideas that inform his “gaze” and I need to respect that fact; but at the same time acknowledge from my perspective, that I felt a mixture of disappointment and frustration with his review. My gut reaction was to say, tongue in cheek, that I thought his review sucked.

Yes, within Black Doves, politics, identity, privatisation and fantasy are ideologically interwoven. My first question would be: to what end? This question begins the separation of the paths Ian and I look.

Joe Barton’s works

Knowing how Joe Barton works, it didn’t surprise me to discover that the Black Doves creator drew upon real-life spy cops to inspire his Netflix thriller. In previous projects Barton draws from real events and then subverts them for dramatic ‘story-telling’. A perfect example of this is The Lazarus Project which he says was inspired by reading articles about things like the Cuban Missile Crisis. This triggered thoughts around, he says, “… how close we’ve come to nuclear disaster and all this stuff. It just struck me as weird in a way that we hadn’t accidentally completely annihilated our own planet (although, I mean, maybe we are slowly with the environment), but in a more immediate sense.” I’m speaking about how this backdrop informs both the narrative and central character, George. Barton said in an interview: “I think big part of it was because the crux of the show is that George wants time to go back to save one person. But they only turn back time to save the planet. It’s that idea of, is one person’s life important? Or are billions of people’s lives more important? Is one person worth turning back time for? Conflict is essential for drama.”

Conflict is essential for drama is a crucial point to hold onto. So how is The Lazarus Project relevant to Black Doves? I believe there are several points of reference. Firstly, the “Lazarus Project” is a secret organisation as is “Black Doves.” In my opinion a huge error that Ian and others have made is to take the fact that it’s about “spies” and then make a comparison with James Bond or Spooks – no, they’re chalk and cheese. Black Doves have no ideological drive other than being mercenaries for financial gain. I will return to this in due course.

The tone

The second point I wish to flag up is the tone in both series. Barton says this in relation to The Lazarus Project, but in my opinion, it also applies to Black Doves: “I think that the tone of the show is one in that you can have quite a lot of humour, but you can also have really dark stuff as well. And you can have these big action set pieces. It’s quite a fine line, it’s a balancing act.”

In order to effectively employ “dark stuff” it is essential to take some of the weight off it by having a safety valve. Without “light and shade,” an audience is likely to take flight. I read that some believed Black Doves was supposed to be a comedy; no, it employed dark comedy to provide relief while at the same time using it to reveal the absurdity of the toxic and alienated environment the characters inhabited.

My final connection is in relation to how “popular entertainment” is viewed. Speaking about The Lazarus Project, Barton responded to the question, “What do you want audiences to take away from the series?,” by saying: “Purely I want people to be entertained by it. That was the fundamental thing. I think you can watch it on a surface level of ‘here are the stakes, is he going to achieve the things he’s got to achieve? Is the hero going to win the day? Is the world going to be saved?’ All of this stuff, but if people want to, I think there are deeper moral and philosophical questions about the nature of morality and that big question of: What would you do? The problem with the show is it’s a very dark world at the moment and you’re dealing with these big existential threats and you want it to feel realistic, but also everyone’s obviously sensitive to that because it feels like a dangerous planet, right now. So it’s kind of walking that line between escapism and being depressing.”

Neoliberal capitalism deconstructed

Black Doves is a completely different subject matter, but it’s still in my opinion, an attempt to deconstruct what modern neoliberal capitalism has become: murky, corrupt, increased commodification where people are bought and sold.

The question of “identity” runs through the series like a word in a stick of rock. The issue of deception is also interwoven into this because none of the central characters are who they appear to be – the public and sinister dual identity. Each one has a constructed identity, yet there are questions over who they really are and how they live with themselves. Both Helen and Sam are conflicted, torn by the dualism of their identities. Both question what is “real” in their lives. Helen could be viewed as living two roles – the ruthless spy and the traditional stereotyped wife and protective mother – but I believe for her ‘the children’ are the only real and meaningful things in her life. Only fleetingly do we see ‘beyond’ her constructed identity and hear her authentic voice, for example, her disdain for the Tory women she has to associate with.

The series set up is simple: Helen, is the wife of the Secretary of State for Defence, who learns that her secret identity as a Black Dove is in danger after her lover is killed by London’s underworld. Her employers, a spies-for-hire organisation – retrieving industrial, political or diplomatic secrets for the highest bidder – send Sam, an old friend and mentor, to protect her.

I won’t quibble over Ian’s descriptions of Helen and Sam, but I do disagree with his take on Sarah Lancashire’s character “Reed.” Personally, I believe it’s misleading to equate Reed with the classic Bond “M” figure. Yes, Reed is the head of the “Black Doves,” but that’s a common device in thrillers. The “Black Doves” are far removed from the spies in the world of Bond. I particularly double took when I read that “She is, we assume as we watch her mannered polite interactions with Helen, an avatar for Judi Dench, and so, evil she might be, and working for our government she is definitely not, she is still implicitly, semiotically some kind of national treasure.”

That’s certainly not how I viewed or would describe the hardnosed, unprincipled, manipulating business woman. Profit before people every time, no matter what it takes to get the job done. The individual Black Doves are agents, commodities, a means to an end. National or any other political interest has nothing to do with it as the only loyalty is to making money.

Conspiracy?

Ian forwards the view that Black Doves “operates, whether the writers and producers … like it or not, as a feeding ground for conspiracy theory ‘explanations’ of what is going on in the world.” Again, I fundamentally disagree with this interpretation. Why do I disagree; may I point you in the direction of Prince Andrew and Yang Tenbo, not to mention the growing inter-imperialist tensions which are feeding US TV regularly with Chinese spy stories.

In addition, I see the politics as merely the backstory, a device, the means by which to foreground the perils of being caught up in a world of deceit, distrust, and betrayal. Here is another example of conflict between Ian’s interpretation and mine: “Now it is unclear, along with the other ideological conspiracy-complicit muddles, what state, para-state or private organisations are at work competing against each other, whether they are Helen’s and Sam’s employers or the rivals organised by the likes of Lenny Lines.”

Unclear or irrelevant to what the story is trying to tell? Any or all of these forces could feature in this spies-for-hire world. In many ways I see Barton attempting to deconstruct a toxic culture where humans are disposable and devalued. There is, as one would expect within this genre, a great deal of violence. However is it gratuitous or not?

I believe Barton seeks to subvert this by giving it a cartoon-like quality thus reinforcing the notion of alienation and disregard. A clear example of this was the relationship between the two women assassins Sam teams up with; it had a comic edge, while at the same time resembled a cartoon absurdity. The same applies to the violent scene where the Chinese and MI5 blast hell out of each other. It was dramatic theatre, perhaps one could call it a question of balance?

I can’t work out if Ian is confused or not about his time lines and the purpose of the flash backs. Show don’t tell, that’s the mantra. Helen has been deep undercover for years; her indiscretion has consequences for everyone, putting her in the crosshairs of various parties.

Finally, I’m unconvinced by Ian’s reading of “fantasy” within Black Doves. In my view it is not “fantasy” but the realisation of “horror” that lies behind and within what we believe we know and accept as real. The reality of the spy cops hasn’t struck home in the consciousness of the public or the Left to the extent it probably should have. Perhaps Black Doves might reach some people at a deeper level?

I described it as “fun” because I enjoyed what I believed to be a clever piece of drama that worked on many levels. Ian and I saw different things obviously.

Art Book Review Books Capitalism China Climate Emergency Conservative Government Conservative Party COVID-19 Creeping Fascism Economics EcoSocialism Elections Europe Event Video Far-Right Fascism Film Film Review France Gaza History Imperialism Israel Italy Keir Starmer Labour Party London Long Read Marxism Marxist Theory Migrants Palestine pandemic Police Protest Russia Solidarity Statement Trade Unionism Trans*Mission Transphobia Ukraine United States of America War