This is a round-up of my Timelash II stuff on Series 3... well, those bits of it that I haven't already posted elsewhere.  The 'Smith and Jones' bit is a tweaked version of something from the old site.  There's nothing about Axons in here, I just found myself amused by the anagram.
The Runaway Bride
The Doctor cold-bloodedly kills the Racnoss children... and the episode tries to have its cake and eat it by both giving the  Doctor 'no choice' and implying that he 'went too far'.  The probably unintentional implication is that neocon logic is unpalatable but inescapable, that we need  people who will ruthlessly kill on a massive scale in order to protect  us from the forces of unreasoning hostility.
We're a long way from "massive weapons of destruction" being a  lie from a politician with an evil, greedy alien baby inside him.    
Smith and Jones
Russell reuses many of the ideas and techniques that made ‘Rose’ work as  an introductory tale. There is a frenetic opening scene which  introduces Martha, her family situation and her workplace. As in ‘Rose’,  the new companion meets the Doctor at work and, as in ‘Rose’ he is  already in the middle of an adventure. As in ‘Rose’, the Doctor and his  new friend form an instant connection which takes the form of banter,  intelligent co-operation in the midst of a crisis, lots of running and  lots of holding hands. As in ‘Rose’, the new companion saves the  Doctor’s life. As in ‘Rose’ we see her enter the TARDIS at night, in a  London backstreet and immediately run out again in surprise (the only  naturalistic way to portray a reaction to the TARDIS).  Bits of the  first Torchwood episode are reused too.
But there's also a lot that's different.  Instead of beginning with the  Doctor and showing us Martha from his P.O.V. or holding the Doctor in  reserve and letting Martha encounter him at a moment of high drama (as  in ‘Rose’), the episode instead allows him to pop up both after and before  any of us were expecting to see him! Some of us might have thought he’d  be in Scene One. Some of us, gulled by the opening scene’s echo of the  structure of ‘Rose’, might have expected him to appear only when Martha  needs rescuing from the Judoon. But instead he pops up when none of us  were expecting him, does something entirely inexplicable, and then walks  off.
Of course, it would have made sense to bring the Doctor in as soon as  possible because the audience knows him whereas they don’t know Martha.  But a pre-title sequence featuring the Doctor would destroy that Year  Zero vibe that RTD is going for. For the moment, he wants us to feel  like we’re beginning again. This is essential because he’s trying to  make Martha - a brand new character in another character’s show - the  central audience identification figure. Let’s pause for a moment to  consider how incredibly difficult that is.
His strategy is still to ground the series in everyday life before  zooming off into space opera. He makes Martha’s life instantly  recognisable, introducing a different family member per phone call and  allowing each to offer their own perspective on the same event, the  brother’s birthday party. The device of the multiple phone calls is  zesty, if slightly contrived (though can we really complain about  contrivance in a show like Doctor Who?) and the sequence more  competently fulfils the same function as the opening montage in ‘Rose’.  The opening salvo of ‘Smith and Jones’ is far more confident and it  introduces more characters.
By the time the Doctor appears, we already know Martha. She has a  fractured family full of inwardly pointed tensions; she seems to be  their nexus, their relay and their peacemaker. In the debate about  whether Martha’s family is too soapy, its easy to miss just how much  information Russell feeds us about these people in such a short space of  time. We are told many things about Martha’s family in the space of two  minutes, through a combination of snappy dialogue and detailed visual  storytelling. We learn that Martha’s parents are acrimoniously  separated, that her mother is an intelligent and acerbic professional  woman, that her brother is an easygoing guy with a female partner and a  baby, that she is very close to her less diplomatic sister, that her  father is well-off and undergoing a midlife crisis and that his  girlfriend is primarily attracted to him because of his credit card.  Soaps are not generally skilful or ambitious enough to pull off such  rapid feats of narrative athletics. On the contrary, it is part of the  remit of soaps that they should be slow and plodding. This sedate pace  is part of the hypnotic effect of soap operas. Even old-fashioned glam  soaps like Dynasty unfolded at a pace that is glacial by the  standards of modern drama programmes. Moreover, there is little need for  soaps to blast their viewers with information because their viewers  will already know the backstories of the characters from interminable  previous episodes. Soap operas don’t use characterisation as a means to  propel or contextualise a wider plot. In soap, the personal problems and  domestic conflicts of the characters are the plot (at least  until ratings start to fall and, as a result, jumbo jets start doing  likewise onto pubs). If they fired information at us as quickly as  ‘Smith and Jones’ does soaps would exhaust themselves before getting  started. Soaps need to develop their characters slowly because in soap  that is the whole show. In Doctor Who you need the characters  established quickly so that you can get on with the stuff about space  rhinos. Even when a spaceship did show up in Dynasty, it was there to remove a character, not to give a character something to do. 
There's a confidence of judgement all through this episode.  Russ makes the Plasmavore an internal  shape changer and so resists the temptation to let her transform into a  Big Impressive CGI Vampire for the hell of it, which would have both  deprived the sublimely sinister Anne Reid of screentime and left the audience scratching their heads and wondering why she/it didn’t just morph into a pseudo-Judoon.
The Judoon are great because they're not  trying to do anything so  tedious and Krillitane-like as take over our planet or suck out our  minds… they've been hired to do a job, enforce a law and apprehend a  criminal. They had jurisdiction. While it lasted, they did everything  they felt was necessary (in their own brutal, unsubtle yet fundamentally  non-malicious way) to complete their task. That makes them more than  monsters. That gives them a psychology, a mindset. A familiar one too.  They are recognisable, like the personality types we meet in Martha’s  family. They make aesthetic sense, something best illustrated by the  contrast between their paramilitary demeanour and the black markers they  use to catalogue you. 
I also truly loved the “Ro bo sklo fro mo!” scene and the way in which  they then assimilated the English language. I remember being fascinated  by just such linguistic playfulness in Doctor Who when I was a  kid, revelling in making up my own versions of the Androgum clan names  and the bureaucratic serial-number nomenclature of the Caretakers.
Justice isn’t a political ideology for them. They’ve been hired to do  justice and woe betide you if you get in the way… and yet they don’t  abuse their power. Justice isn’t simply what they say it is. They are  clearly following a rule book. Phsyical assault is punishable by death.  They didn’t kill that guy because they wanted to. They did it because  the rule book stipulated it as the appropriate response.  The Judoon are  more like a SWAT team with a few rules and regulations. The best bit of  the episode was when Lead Judoon (or Big Chief Rhino Boy as the Doctor  called him) gave Martha her compensation. They'll execute you on the  spot for hitting them with a vase but if they push you up against a wall  and it turns out you’re "innocent" they'll give you some vouchers to  say sorry!
I’ll finish off by looping back to the central facet of ‘Smith and  Jones’, the Doctor’s time travel demonstration for Martha. The Doctor’s  “cheap trick” is, in many ways, the cleverest thing in the episode…  which is rather clever in itself: pulling off a narrative stunt like  that (something that only Doctor Who could do and which,  nowadays, it does far too often and to little import) and having your  main character, the one who pulls it off, refer to it as a “cheap  trick”. But think about it for a moment… in the programme we’re talking  about, the main character, at the end of the plot, travels back to the  start!
Now, we can look at that in purely literal terms (the Doctor travels in  time, big deal) or we can look at it as a vertiginous feat of pure  narrative, narrative unbound and free to loop back upon itself, to eat  its own tale (if you’ll pardon the shameless pun). In the old days, the  revelation of a temporal paradox would be the Big Sinister Episode Three  Cliffhanger. In modern Who, it’s a “cheap trick” harnessed to  the service of character development. That sounds like a criticism… it  even feels like it ought to be a criticism as I write it, but if you’ve  seen The Terminator or Twelve Monkeys or even ‘Day of the  Daleks’ then you’ve already seen the Big Sinister Time Paradox story!  You surely don’t need to see it again! What you haven’t seen before is a  moment when a character makes a completely believable decision to  accept time travel as a reality before they step out onto Platform One  or meet the Tribe of Gum. Well, you’ve seen it now!
Its a significant advance on ‘Rose’ in which our heroine believes the  TARDIS can travel in time simply because the Doctor says it can and, by  that point, she’s ready to believe anything. But who would believe such a  thing until it was proved? Until you saw it work? Someone who just  believes in time travel because they are told about it? In my book  that’s far more unlikely than the MRI Scanner of Doom. In ‘Smith and  Jones’, the proof of time travel is offered to Martha before the  assertion is made, before she even knows that the assertion will be made  and it’s the proof that starts her on the journey towards the moment  when she will ask for proof... which is really the ultimate way to prove  time travel, isn’t it! In other scripts, the characters travel in time.  In ‘Smith and Jones’, the script itself travels in time, overtaking itself before it starts running. This, in its own quiet and flippant way, is remarkable and mind-bending stuff.
Oh, one last thing... am I only person amused by the idea that if Doctor Who  is resurrected for 3D HeadPlug Interactive Cybervision in 2047 and a  whole generation of kids, entranced by the new stuff, go back to the  scratchy old episodes from 2007, they'll all be wondering what the hell  Martha means by "Planet Zovirax"?
I've covered 'The Shakespeare Code' and 'Gridlock' in other posts.  Lets just say that 'Gridlock' is one of the greatest TV shows ever made and 'The Shakespeare Code'... umm... isn't.
Daleks in Manhattan / Evolution of the Daleks
I so want to like this.  It's got the right Who vibe within it, unlike  so much of, say, Season 2.  It's got a sense of politics and myth.  It's got  characters who vaguely resemble human beings.  It attempts to have a  sense of history.
There's lots of good stuff.  There's a representation of poverty and  inequality and injustice.  There's an exuberance to the production.   There's an attempt to have the Daleks merge with and emerge from the art  deco decor of the building, as though they mesh perfectly with the  aesthetics of the monstrous, imperial, vainglorious demonstration of  wealth and power amidst misery.  The musical number is cute.  The idea  of Daleks meshing with humans has potential.
Sadly, it doesn't really work at all.  Tallulah isn't in it for any  reason.  Racism is glossed over.  There is some terrible dialogue  (though there is also some great dialogue).  There is no interest in the  actual mechanics of evolution or mutation or genes... which wouldn't be  so bad except that the episode doesn't even attempt to make its own  inaccurate version of evolution (which appears to be about mutations of  the soul caused by lightning or something) work consistently... Also,  the episode once again peddles the idea that personality (Good or Evil)  is directly encoded in the genes, which is very reactionary and very simplistic.  It would be easy enough to avoid all  these nasty subtexts and an incoherent, flailing plot by simply dropping  the scientific terminology and using some bit of sci-fi nonsense...  which is what David Whitaker did when he did the same story better in  the 60s.
And the direction is clumsy in the extreme.  Good direction might have  been able to make the script work, even when it calls for the Daleks to  fail to notice the Doctor though he's standing directly in front of them  in plain view... good direction might have been able to make it look  less ridiculous when the Daleks crowd around the Doctor screaming  "EXTERMINATE!" for the umpteenth time but then don't exterminate him.   But, no.
The Lazarus Experiment and 42 were too boring to sit through, let alone write about.
And I shall be addressing Human Nature / The Family of Blood seperately at some point.
Blink
The story that won Timelash II.  The best, apparently.
Well, look... obviously this is overrated... but that's understandable given the immediate effect of its bravura construction and wonderfully gothic monsters.
It's actually not that overrated.  
Moffat certainly does take sitcom situations (comedy nakedness) and  sitcom characters, some of whom border on social/gender stereotypes...  with geeky Lawrence entirely crossing the border.  But he subjects them  to narrative contortions and grotesque experiences that characters actually in sitcoms never have to cope with.
In so doing, he manages to turn the episode into a surprisingly careful,  sympathetic, compact and poignant study of the passing of time and the  achievement of emotional maturity.
Shame about the business whereby a woman ends up marrying a man who just  decides to follow her, thus seemingly endorsing stalking as a romantic  wooing strategy.
And it's also a shame that the Angels are explained as much as they are.  It overcomplicates them and dullifies them... though nowhere near as much as their follow-up appearance.
Also, why don't the characters just close one eye at a time?
The one thing that no aspect of this should ever have been was any kind of template for the show as a whole.
Oh.
My confused thoughts on the closing trilogy may be trudged through here.
 
"Also, why don't the characters just close one eye at a time?"
ReplyDeleteHave you ever tried that? Every time I do my eyes start watering, then burning, to the point where my subconscious takes over and I start blinking anyway.
That said, it's certainly odd that the characters don't at least try it. Though really this is all armchair Angel-surviving.
Sorry to double post, but I can't believe I've never thought about this before now: how well do you have to be able to see an Angel before it become stone? In addition to it being impossible (for me) to do the one-eyed tango for anything more than a minute or so, trying it blurs my eyesight to the point where I can barely see.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean an Angel could get me if I were crying hard enough? If I'd gotten Vaseline in my eyes? Could I stop an Angel if its shadow passes into sight? If I saw steam rising off it in the cold (or what have you?)
These are the things that keep me awake at night.