Doctor Who: "The Unquiet Dead"

[fajrdrako]

rosiespark and I have been discussing series 1 Doctor Who episode by episode. I started off with Rose, she followed up with The End of the World, and now it's my turn again here with The Unquiet Dead.

I might as well confess at the outset that "The Unquiet Dead" is my least favourite of all the episodes of Doctor Who I have seen. I can't entirely put my finger on why, though I think there are four reasons - five, maybe - all of which can be summed up as "Mark Gatiss' writing style". The fact that he himself refers to "the morbid, ebony-black grotesqueness of the nineteenth century" is not a good sign for his approach. I'll try not to dwell on the negative, because watching this again, I still enjoyed myself - it doesn't annoy me, or bore me, or make me want to watch something else instead. I still love the Doctor and Rose in it. It's more that I find the other characters dull and the story fairly weak - not really funny, not really scary.

Breaking it down into aspects:

1. Charles Dickens. I was disappointed by the way Dickens was portrayed. Yes, I know it's my own fannishness coming through here. It isn't that Simon Callow isn't a good actor - I've loved him in other things. It's the concept: Dickens as being old and jaded; or Dickens as a skeptic, despite the evidence of his own eyes; Dickens as a foil to the Doctor. I'd like to see him as smarter, snappier, wittier.
   
   On the plus side, I did love it that the Doctor is a fan, and happy to say so. (Despite Martin Chuzzelwit.) His fannishness didn't come across with the sincerity I saw in David Tennant's performance of the Doctor facing Shakespeare in The Shakespeare Code, and he seemed a little too willing to criticize Dickens.... If I were an eight year old who didn't know anything about Dickens, I wouldn't have been left thinking highly of Dickens from this.
   
   My favourite of his lines: "What phantasmagoria is this?"



2. The Story. The plot doesn't entirely make sense to me, though it's intriguing. I'm not very fond of Mark Gatiss' understated writing style; his characters seem to me a little smaller than life.
   
   But there are some aspects of the story I do like. One is the continuity between this episode and Torchwood; the Rift goes right through Sneed's house - does that mean his house was right on the site of what later became Roald Dahl Plass, with the fountain and the Millennium Centre? I like that. But the story implies that it has been only the Gelth trying to get through the Rift for many, many years - perhaps they blocked the entryway? When the Gelth say, "Open the Rift!" I thought of Bilis - and Owen. And when the Doctor said, "The Rift is getting wider," I thought; "That line was stolen from Torchwood!" Though I suppose it's really the other way round.
   
   As far as I know, this is the only episode of Doctor Who with a psychic character, aside from the Doctor himself.
   
   The Gelth reminded me of the Family in "Human Nature" and "The Family of Blood", except that they inhabit the living, while the Gelth favour corpses. Because of the gas. The gas connections weren't entirely convincing to me; but that's okay, it wouldn't be the only Doctor Who villains who didn't entirely make sense to me.



3. Interesting to see Eve Myles play Gwyneth. She doesn't remind me of Gwen Cooper, which is a sign of Eve Myles' grasp of characterization. At the same time, I don't find Gwyneth very interesting. I do like her private conversation with Rose about the butcher boy's bum, but there remains something limited about her - it doesn't seem to me that Gwyneth has much personality.
   
   I love it that she mentioned "bad wolf".



4. Again, I love it that the Gelth mentioned the Time War - a phrase calculated to trigger the Doctor's sense of concern and guilt. Did they know that? What, then, did they know of the Doctor? Were they using a psychic conduit trick, through Gwyneth, to know what phrase to use? Or were they in fact victims of the Time War, just not very nice ones?



5. There are many clues here to reinforce my belief that the Doctor is already very much in love with Rose, even if he doesn't know what to do about it - except feel guilty. Is there any other point at which he says she's beautiful?



6. I might add that I think Rose has a beautiful personality, but I thought she looked awful in that dress and bonnet. The boots were good. I loved the boots.



7. The voices of the Gelth sounded like the fairies in "Small Worlds" and the petal-aliens in "Fear Her". Are there no other ways to do group-personality aliens?



8. Interesting that Rose thinks the bodies of the dead should be respected, and the Doctor doesn't. Is it that he thinks the needs of the living outweigh the needs of the dead? This episode skirts on some life and death issues that are very interesting, but never quite comes to grips with the articulation of any of them. It isn't that this is beyond the scope of a kid's show, since other episodes do it well. It's more that this particular episodes hints at meanings and then backs off.



9. The best thing about this episode was its discussion of time. There are some terrific quotes. For example:

   Rose: Think about it, though. Christmas 1860 happens once, just once, and then it's finished. It's gone, it'll never happen again. Except for you. You can go back and see days that are dead and gone. A hundred thousand sunsets ago. No wonder you never stay still.

   And despite my rude comments about Mark Gatiss a while back, I think that is a beautifully written passage, both for content and wording: a hundred thousand sunsets. It says a lot about Rose, and he intelligence and insight, not to mention her sense of beauty. It also conveys something about the Doctor himself; his sense of priorities, the way they dovetail with hers.
   
   I wonder, though: "You can go back and see days that are dead and gone." I assume he can't go back to the same day over and over - no Groundhog Day here? Or can he? Captain Jack implies he has gone back to Volcano Day and the Blitz more than once - is he carefully trying to avoid himself all the time, or is the timeline more complicated than that?



10. Other good aspects about that scene: the Doctor says, "Give the man a medal. Earth. Naples. December 24th, 1860." But it turns out it isn't. Presumably the controls on the TARDIS aren't very accurate. Or is the TARDIS lying to him? I like the notion that the TARDIS sees and finds its own trouble spots, and might have spotted the problem with the Rift and the Gelth from afar. Or maybe the TARDIS was trying to keep them out of trouble - it was clear that the Doctor hadn't a clue what was happening in Naples on Christmas Eve, 1860, but it seems to me that around that time Garibaldi was advancing on the city with his armies of liberation. The TARDIS might have been trying to keep them out of a war zone. - Oh, I just noticed: Garibaldi and those soldiers were actually in an early draft of this story. Heh.



11. And the following phrase strikes me as utterly romantic:

    Rose: ...It's Christmas.
    The Doctor: All yours.

    Which, in keeping with the overt tone of the show, is said lightly, but really has depths and layers: he's making a gift to her of time and space. Or, in fact, this time and this space, in all its unique specialness which she articulates so perfectly. And then the punchline, after her speech:

    The Doctor: Not a bad life.
    Rose: Better with two.

    ...And I can't help thinking, what perfect articulation of romance, or Romance with a capital R, worthy of the greatest of poets and writers, and delivered subtly and casually in a somewhat macabre horror story written so as not to bore the 8 year olds.
    
    This is echoed by the heroic dialogue later on:

    Rose: But we'll go down fighting, yeah?
    The Doctor: You bet.
    Rose: Together.
    The Doctor: Yeah. I'm glad I met you.
    Rose: Me too.

    It's anyone's guess as to the levels of self-awareness there, at least on Rose's part.



12. I love it that the Doctor calls Rose "Barbarella". But does he worry about what she wears in other episodes? Do fashion choices only matter in connection with the past, not the future? Personally I wish he'd dressed in some elegant fashion of 1860 because he's look terrific, but I like the way Nine dressed anyway. No complaints about that jumper from me.

Comments

Part 1: Dickens and the Victorian Age

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Since I missed out on discussion of S1 the first time around (and since it's still my favourite series), I love getting the opportunity to talk about it!

Me too! Series 2 was well under way before I discovered series 1, and I've always wanted a chance to talk about it.

I particularly loved it because he threw the criticism in there. It's a joke and it's brief but to me it signals, "Critical thinker, not easily confuzzled."

Yes, that was a bit of it that I liked, too. That's the way the Doctor shoudl be. I suppose I wished they'd picked a more upbeat, sympathetic part of Dickens' life to look at. But yes, I love it that the Doctor loves Dickens but has his moments of puzzlement - it's like Ten saying to Shakespeare, "But why did you write Titus Andronicus?" and then hearing what Shakespeare had to say. I love the look on Dickens' face when the Doctor says he laughed at the death of Little Nell! A nice contrast of the Victorian attitude and the modern. A place where that didn't work was when Rose kissed Dickens' on the cheek and he said, "How modern!" I think of Victorian girls as kissing people on the cheek all the time, both in and out of Dickens (think of Leigh Hunt's "Jenny Kissed Me"), including crusty old gentlemen who are charmed by it.

I liked that she had her own sense of morality, her religion grounded her, and she was a lot smarter than Rose gave her credit for.

I liked that, too.

I have heard that the BBC bigwigs didn't want her in period dress after that

I can imagine period dresses Rose would have been gorgeous in. And I'd have loved to have seen it! Sometimes I wonder what the BBC costume designers are thinking. I don't see who did costume design for this episode - I'd be in favour of a firing squad, myself! - but I suppose ultimate credit/blame goes to Euros Lyn for the look of it.

I liked the jumper gag, too. Especially since I think that outfit looks great on Christopher Eccleston! (I liked it on David Tennant, too.)

I liked the way we're introduced to the enormity of the Doctor's guilt over the Time War through the back door, as it were.

Yes. That was something I didn't get the first time - I didn't see what a huge wound this was in his psyche. It looks much better now that I understand it, and we've seen over and over again that it's his weak spot - a trigger for both pain and bad judgement. (Or at least unclear judgement.)

I remember thinking he might be a little too desperate with the Nestene Consciousness for the tone of "Rose" - only to realize in retrospect, this was just a crack showing us how desperate he really was.

Yes. It's subtly done and doesn't even make sense the first time through, but it builds right through the storyline, episode by episode - first to the climax in "The Parting of the Ways", but then onward to "The Last of the Time Lords". Brilliantly done - and that fact that it's underplayed (except for the climactic bits) makes it all the more convincing and moving when it does escalate.

Together with the desolation in his eyes when Rose turns him down the first time, "Rose" turns out to be a much darker episode from the Doctor than it seems on first viewing.

Yes. It's a case of 'what is essential is invisible to the eye' - the actual story of the episode is trivial compared to the background underlying it that at that point we don't even know about. And the Doctor says to Rose several times and in different ways, "There is so much going on that you humans don't even know about," and little by little we get to see the truth of that - both on the macrocosmic scale of universes and races being destroyed, and on the microcosmic scale of what it means emotionally for the Doctor and how he deals with it.

Re: Part 2: the Doctor and Rose

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Eccleston and Piper just have this weirdly innocent, yet extremely charged eroticism

What an excellent way to describe it! Yes.

Sometimes, I think Rose is even ahead of him on the curve - she looks like she's about to jump him when she says "better with two"

I think he has different levels of denial going on - all part of the 'lonely god' mindset and the trauma of the Time War. Rose, on the other hand, is (from her point of view) just a girl meeting a fascinating guy, and the more she learns about him the more amazing and different he is, and that's sexy. Whatever issues she has in her past (her father's death, Jimmy Stone, Mickey, Jackie's boyfriends), the Doctor has all the attributes that are most calculated to fascinate her, including his being different from anyone she has ever known.

that little hesitation before her big grin and their linking hands in the dungeon always reads to me like her heart stopped for a moment because she's thinking, "Oh, God, he feels the same way." There's almost relief in her smile.

Yes. In numerous ways - which I plan to examine a little more closely - I think the story of the Doctor and Rose may be the best depiction of a love story I've ever seen on television, and it's because of bits of acting and dialogue like this.

Stopping before I overrun the comment limit.

You can always comment twice, you know. I'm enjoying this.

Re: Part 2: the Doctor and Rose

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

"Eccleston and Piper just have this weirdly innocent, yet extremely charged eroticism"

What an excellent way to describe it! Yes.

I've never really seen anything like it - it's like sexuality without any sense of enculturated shame. It's about as pure a sexuality as I can imagine. In contrast, Ten and Rose always remind me of junior high, all giggly and naughty and…juvenile. It's all enculturation and no actual sexuality to me! They're like photonegatives of each other.

I think he has different levels of denial going on

I've felt that his denial was more actual denial than psychological denial. There's a big part of Nine that feels like he doesn't deserve happiness - he's tap dancing as fast as he can, but there's a pervasive sense of sadness. I think to some extent Rose is the irresistible object - not even so much in the sense of attraction but in the sense of being a bulldozer. Rose is Jackie's daughter in so many ways, and one of them is her assertiveness. There is a phenomenal physical chemistry between them from the beginning - I remember being really struck by it even in "Rose", the way they moved in each other's space so freely and naturally (there's no coyness there at all), she manhandles him into the flat, the handholding is already prominently featured in several scenes, and yet it doesn't seem forced at all.

I think the story of the Doctor and Rose may be the best depiction of a love story I've ever seen on television, and it's because of bits of acting and dialogue like this.

I used to hold Bogart and Bacall as my beacon of sexual chemistry, and Gene Kelly and Judy Garland as "tender" chemistry - but Eccleston and Piper pipped both of them. It's a really impressive and appealing combination. What's astonishing to me is that it really shouldn't work, given where they come from. And I'm dying to know what the project was that never came to fruition. Who was it that first thought they would work together? Because it is entirely counterintuitive.

Re: Part 2: the Doctor and Rose

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I've never really seen anything like it - it's like sexuality without any sense of enculturated shame.

Which is of course precisely why I like it so much. I've never articulated it quite this way - I saw it as being intrinsic to the characterization of the Doctor, and part of the reason I loved the character so much - that of all the aliens I have ever read about, he seemed to be one of the best in terms of reflecting human psychology but still being free of enculturated baggage.

But you're right, the whole relationship reflects this right from the start. I didn't see it at this point the first time through - I didn't even catch on to what was going on, in terms of thematic development, until maybe "Dalek" or "Father's Day" - but I see now it was entrenched in the story from the first. And beautifully, subtly, totally convincing.

I'll have to think about the Ten/Rose relationship, and why I don't find it so interesting. It's as if the stakes have shrunk....

There's a big part of Nine that feels like he doesn't deserve happiness - he's tap dancing as fast as he can, but there's a pervasive sense of sadness.

Again, I think, part of the slow build to our understanding of that the Time War was and what the Doctor's role in it was. A bit of information each episode, bit by bit, and we don't get the whole picture until "The Parting of the Ways" - if then. (I'm trying to think if something substantive was added since. Maybe not, though we get elaboration of the theme, going back to the microcosm and the personal.)

Rose is Jackie's daughter in so many ways, and one of them is her assertiveness.

She has a strong sense of self. It's quite wonderful.


Eccleston and Piper pipped both of them

It's amazing, but I agree. Both in terms of intensity and subtlety. All levels of emotion.

it really shouldn't work, given where they come from.

I never would have expected it. and - again I stop to be amazed - in a kids show! Okay, okay, I saw Davies do some remarkable characterization in Queer as Folk, but who'd have though the potential would be realized so exquisitely. It isn't just the writing. It isn't just the skill of the actors. It's the whole package.

Who was it that first thought they would work together? Because it is entirely counterintuitive.

I wonder. Perhaps it was just luck, or chance, or practical chance - and then there was this explosion of potential on the screen.

Re: Part 2: the Doctor and Rose

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

of all the aliens I have ever read about, he seemed to be one of the best in terms of reflecting human psychology but still being free of enculturated baggage.

And I think Nine is one of the best at that - the most alien, and yet the most human. My second favourite Doctor is Two, and I think he's got a similar balance.

I'll have to think about the Ten/Rose relationship, and why I don't find it so interesting. It's as if the stakes have shrunk....

It does feel much smaller and more...ordinary. I have wondered if the reason why there are so many people all over that pairing isn't that (1) David Tennant has a look that happens to be in style at the current moment and (2) Rose and Ten are presented much more like ordinary teen-soap couples are presented. For me, that's part of the turn-off (I actually find their relationship rather squicky), because the power balance seems much more skewed. Rose seems to be clinging desperately, and Ten seems to want her adoration more than he wants her - it's too much trouble to watch her wither and die. Many people reacted to that with an "Awww, poor Doctor," and my reaction was, "So, she's suffering with a terminal illness - mortality - and you can't be bothered to stick around?" There's a great deal of push-pull with his character (poor Martha's nearly been jerked to pieces by it, even if I think the approach to her character was badly flawed) that I find hard to sympathize with.

I am also depressed by the rather common reaction, "Nine was old and ugly, so of course Rose didn't love him; Ten is young [er, no, he's actually older than Nine, folks] and fit, so way-hey!"

I think the only thing they've really added to the Time War since S1 is that the Doctor was on the front lines at the "Fall of Arcadia". But that's more in the way of detail.

Okay, okay, I saw Davies do some remarkable characterization in Queer as Folk, but who'd have though the potential would be realized so exquisitely. It isn't just the writing. It isn't just the skill of the actors. It's the whole package.

Did you know CE was RTD's first choice for Stuart? Rewatching it recently, knowing that, it was a bit of a revelation. And then, snerk, he wrote him Steve Baxter - talk about character whiplash! But there is a combination of RTD and CE that clicks beautifully. I think CE can fill up RTD's biggest ideas, and he also keeps him grounded. I am 99% sure they had a pact that CE would do one series of DW to reboot and give the show some cachet, and then he'd get the hell out of Dodge. I may be disappointed about that, but it seems so very likely. I would like to see them work together again, I think they bring out something special in each other.

As for Piper and Eccleston, they had met for some other project that never came to fruition. Piper later said it was the fact that she had already met him that took down some of the nervousness in the audition. She knew he wouldn't be intimidating. I know they did a "chemistry" test, and one of the other girls tested for Rose was Carla Henry from QAF, who also played Vindici's sister/lover Castiza in Revengers Tragedy. They had amazing chemistry in that, so it's a testament to the Piper/Eccleston connection that they were even better.

It would be interesting to see how they handled the race issue if Carla Henry had been cast. The only actor you'd really have to change would be Shaun Dingwall, which is a shame because I love him - but I'd hate to lose Camille Coduri as Jackie.

Re: Part 2: the Doctor and Rose

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think Nine is one of the best at that - the most alien, and yet the most human

I certainly like the way he balances the difference. I don't understand yet quite how it works with Ten. I haven't seen Two.

It does feel much smaller and more...ordinary.

In series 1, I get the sense that the Doctor's mind really does encompass wonders and miracles - I'm not sure how Eccleston does that. Ten appreciates wonders and miracles, but seems much more like a person observing them, rather than being a part of them. I don't think I'm explaining this well.... Just that Tennant's Doctor seems more human and more inexplicable at the same time. It's... arbitrary.

As for explaining Ten's popularity: he does have a lot of charm. Which is why I love him, too. But I love him with reservations - no reservations at all with Nine. Not at any point.

I don't find Ten and Rose squicky at all, but I have a lot of problems with Ten and Martha (which I'm still struggling to deal with) and I'd love to have seen how the relationship with Jack would have been dealt with if it had been Nine, not Ten, at the end of series 3. I feel as if somewhere in between I started watching a different reality - the end of one story grafted onto the beginning of another.

Re mortality as a terminal illness: I wonder what length of life would be 'long enough'? (Because Time Lords too can die, it just takes them longer.) I haven't quite figured out how to take this: it's like struggling with the problems of mortality by applying them strictly to measured time.

Anyway, I agree with the push-pull problem. It look like inconsistency; it implies a difficulty in dealing with reality that doesn't match what has been established. I'm still working on finding a way to make sense of it.

I haven't actually heard anyone say Nine was old and ugly; I'd probably want to smack anyone who said it. (And me being the non-violent type.) Eccleston is way sexier than Tennant.

Eccleston as Stuart? That would have been fun! I adored Aidan Gillen.

I am 99% sure they had a pact that CE would do one series of DW to reboot and give the show some cachet, and then he'd get the hell out of Dodge.

At least we got series 1 out of him! So who would be your pick for the 11th Doctor? Any ideas?

I adored Jackie and I'm so glad she was in series 1 and 2.

Re: Part 2: the Doctor and Rose

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

So who would be your pick for the 11th Doctor? Any ideas?

I think my first choice would be Alexander Siddig, because he can do the wisdom and the enthusiasm and the innocence and the ancientness - he was remarkably grounded at only 23. He also has the added plus of being of colour, but it's not a defining feature of him as an actor, he's got plenty of history behind him including genre work, so casting him wouldn't be a stunt. I mean, I could go way out and wish for Alan Rickman, but I don't see that happening! I'm already rooting for Harry Lloyd for #12, though - there are many young actresses that impress me, but very, very few actors in their 20s or younger: Adrien Brody, David Krumholtz (at 13!), John Lynch, and Christopher Eccleston are really the only other ones that fall into that category, but I was particularly impressed by Lloyd's control of his face and body. He reminded me of Eccleston in that, actually - I don't know if you've ever seen Let Him Have It?

I think a lot of the arbitrarines of Ten, the way he appears opaquely human...these are things that bother me about him because I find his characterization inconsistent and Tennant's performance somehow...hollow. It's all performance and doesn't go all the way the the ground, as it were - if he's wearing a mask, we don't see enough of it coming through, and his eyes always seem flat to me, despite his moving around his eyebrows. It's part of why I don't find him charming, but it's also a sense that his character is more interested in himself than in anyone or anything around him. Tennant can act (I think John Smith was the best thing I've seen him do), but I still can't figure out who he's supposed to be as the Doctor, what his sense of morality is - his attitude toward vengeance seems wholly based on how it affects him personally. On a slightly different, but related, tack, people talk about Ten being the flirtatious Doctor, but I really thought Nine was more willing to engage with other characters. I think of the way he looked at Jabe, at Dickens, Harriet, Suki, Cathica, Nancy, Lynda - he gave them his full attention, he looked at them and saw them, made them into better people, made them stronger, enabled the best in them. It's like the old joke - Nine is saying, "And what do you think?", Ten is saying, "And what do you think about me?" That's the main difference I see, and it extends to how I saw him with Rose. It is very hard to describe simply, I can just feel something missing, somehow, and it's an important bit.

I'd love to have seen how the relationship with Jack would have been dealt with if it had been Nine, not Ten, at the end of series 3. I feel as if somewhere in between I started watching a different reality - the end of one story grafted onto the beginning of another.

I agree. There was something missing, and it wasn't the Torchwood bit, either. In a way, I was relieved, because I thought the massive egos of Jack and Ten together might suck everything into a singularity of self-regard. But there was a nice, easy chemistry between them...which was kind of odd, really! I could feel the friendship and the affection, but the zing had gone out of it somehow. (Some of that may be that while Ten is more camp, Tennant reads way more straight to me - he's very middle-class, PK; and while Eccleston has the higher testosterone charge and the grittier image, he rarely lets a homoerotic subtext go unexpressed.) And I didn't buy Ten's excuse for not going back. It certainly didn't ring true of Nine's relationship with Jack, but more than that, it just seemed like RTD trying to escape from the corner he'd painted himself into by throwing pixie dust into the air.

about Tennant as the Doctor

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Alexander Siddig

What an interesting choice! I like it. He isn't someone I'd have thought of - actually, I think of him as an American, which, now that I think about it, he isn't. So: not as anomalous as I first thought. Hmm.

I've only seen Harry Lloyd in Doctor Who and wasn't particularly impressed - by which I mean, I didn't have much sense of him as an actor. I've only seen David Krumholtz in Serenity, where I thought he was absolutely brilliant - but he's American, isn't he? Not an insurmountable handicap, but still an obstacle.

Alan Rickman is delicious in any role. But he's so known it might be difficult to escape his past personas to recast him in the persona of the Doctor. Still. He would be magnificent.

Ditto Adrien Brody, whom I adore. I don't think I've seen John Lynch - not to remember. I haven't seen Let Him Have It - should I?

Tennant as the Doctor: a sense that his character is more interested in himself than in anyone or anything around him

Iwas certainly left with a conceptual paradox at the end of series 3 that I am still struggling to understand. It's multifaceted and therefore hard to pin down; though I could point to several dozen instances of characterization where the jagged edges don't match up. With Eccleston I thought I understood the Doctor through and through - including the parts that transcend humanity - while my understanding decreased through series 3 to the point where the Doctor confuses me. Was he written as more self-involved - ? I have the impression he was, but I'm not sure why. (And what we see does not always match up with what we are told in this regard.)

Tennant can act (I think John Smith was the best thing I've seen him do

His John Smith was marvellous, marvellous acting, but at the same time, I didn't like John Smith at all. I thought Tennant was magnificent as DI Carlisle, but that again was a morally ambiguous role. Loved him as Max Valentine - yes, he can act. There are a hundred instances where I love his style as the Doctor, matched by several dozen where he leaves me wondering "WTF?"

I still can't figure out who he's supposed to be as the Doctor, what his sense of morality is - his attitude toward vengeance seems wholly based on how it affects him personally

What instances are you thinking of here?

I am certainly confused by the Doctor's sense of morality, but it's as much the stories and scripts as the acting - made worse, perhaps, by the sense that Ten keeps his interior secrets to himself. It's easier for me to imagine an inner life of which he reveals nothing - while Nine seemed totally himself, without pretence or inhibition. It's all part of how Ten doesn't quite 'add up'. In series 2 we were at least able to see him through Rose's eyes, and see how he was anchored to Rose - in series 3, the Doctor isn't so much let loose from Rose, as now anchored to someone who isn't there to be anchored to - and I interpret this as a facade because the alternative is close to unthinkable - a being of godlike power who really has no grip on reality? I don't think so!

So I find way to 'explain' it bit by bit, but it takes work, because the Tennant/Davies team aren't quite giving me a Doctor that makes sense. The Eccleston Doctor was perfect.

I think perhaps Ten makes sense in the confined context of individual episodes more than he does when you look at a whole season as a story arc.

You are encouraging me to ramble on the subject... I love it.

I have more to say about the flirtatiousness of the Doctor but I'll make it another message, later.

Re: Part 1: Dickens and the Victorian Age

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

I love the look on Dickens' face when the Doctor says he laughed at the death of Little Nell! A nice contrast of the Victorian attitude and the modern.

I liked the turn on Oscar Wilde's comment “one must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing.” The phrasing of it was very Nine, I thought, "Go on, do the death of Little Nell, it cracks me up!" I agree with you about the kiss on the cheek, though. I thought that was fairly appropriate behaviour - now, going into the "shed" with a man who isn't your husband, the both of you exchanging extremely "intentional" looks...that would be very modern. The funny thing about the Victorians is that (like the 1950s, and even now in some places), the repression of sexuality was carrying on at the surface of a culture that was seething with sexual experimentation and shifts in attitudes that explode to the surface somewhat later, in the 1920s and 1960s, for example.

I suppose ultimate credit/blame goes to Euros Lyn for the look of it.

On the whole, I have to say, he's one of my favourite directors. He certainly creates the most visually distinctive episodes, and in S2, he was the only director who was able to put some brakes on Tennant's worst excesses. I think he's generally quite good at sustaining tone. But that dress for Rose was a definite miss - OTOH, the design/costuming for Jabe in EOTW is still the best thing they've come up with in the entirety of 40 years of DW, IMO! And that was also on his watch, so I suppose it evens out.

I liked the jumper gag, too. Especially since I think that outfit looks great on Christopher Eccleston! (I liked it on David Tennant, too.)

Yeah, I don't generally find Tennant attractive (it has more to do with personality and expression than actual looks, I think), but I will say, there were a couple of moments in the black that worked quite well. But the jeans-jumper-jacket combo was perfect for Eccleston's stripped down look and his physical intensity. I read a description from the make-up guy who said that getting CE ready was like trying to groom a whippet. It was impossible to get him to sit still for more than five minutes, and I can only imagine - even when he's still, there's so much potential energy there, he practically vibrates. I was almost shocked by the moment in this icon in EOTW simply because I didn't think he was capable of relaxing that much!

As for the undercurrents that gradually emerge in S1, I think that played so well to Eccleston's strengths as an actor. He is so extremely good at creating a whole character and giving you tiny glimpses of things that may not even register at the time, but make so much sense later on. We obviously get lots of insight into the impact of the Time War on Nine even before we know there was one, but one of my favourites is a tiny little moment he did in Heroes, just a sudden flash of pain and surprise in his eyes when Peter mentioned "this girl in Texas" to Claude.

Re: Part 1: Dickens and Euros Lyn

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

liked the turn on Oscar Wilde's comment “one must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing.”

Yes, and of course Wilde was Victorian too, so one should learn not to generalize too much - it was a long and diverse time and like every century, things changed by the decade - by the year - sometimes even by the minute. But Wilde was of a younger generation (30 years younger than Dickens), and even though in many ways the men had a lot in common, a lot of things also had changed. And good heavens, no one can claim Wilde didn't write sentimental prose. I mean that in the best possible way.

He certainly creates the most visually distinctive episodes

Worked for me in "The End of the World", which is visually brilliant, and minimalist. Not in "The Unquiet Dead" which seemed visually static to me, almost stagnant. And the Gelth didn't to my eyes look like anything much, while the spider-robots in TEOTW were both frightening and playful. Yes, Jabe's character design was brilliant and maybe unsurpassed in the whole series.

Personally I wish they'd put more effort into creating characters like Jabe, and less effort into some of the monsters like the Ood, the Absorbaloff, and Lazarus-devolved.

I'm trying to think why you think Euros Lyn managed to get a more restrained performance out of David Tennant than some of the other directors.... He did well in "Fireplace" and "Fear Her", but not so much so in "Tooth and Claw" or "The Idiot's Lantern" - though I am unsure again whether to blame the direction or the script for what I see as flaws in those episodes.

the jeans-jumper-jacket combo was perfect for Eccleston's stripped down look and his physical intensity.

And for the mood of the character. Nine seemed to spend a lot of time tinkering with the TARDIS; Ten seldom does. Nine, for all his intensity and mood-swings, seemed much more grounded. Possibly less vain? That doesn't seem quite the right word; perhaps I mean less self-conscious or preoccupied. Anyway, I thought the clothes fit the character very well.

getting CE ready was like trying to groom a whippet.

What a great quote!

extremely good at creating a whole character and giving you tiny glimpses of things that may not even register at the time, but make so much sense later on

Yes. I don't know how conscious it was for either of them, but there seems to be an almost perfect correspondence in the character growth between Eccleston's acting and Davies' plotting.

one of my favourites is a tiny little moment he did in Heroes, just a sudden flash of pain and surprise in his eyes when Peter mentioned "this girl in Texas" to Claude.

My goodness yes! And if I recall correctly, we didn't at that point know anything about Claude's relationship with Claire - least of all details like him having given her her first teddy bear. More brilliant plotting and acting and characterization coming together, and how I hope we get Claude back into the future storyline!

Re: Part 1: Dickens and Euros Lyn

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

And good heavens, no one can claim Wilde didn't write sentimental prose. I mean that in the best possible way.

No, that's true - I love his fairy tales. I tear up just thinking about The Selfish Giant. I was once doing that "casting in my head" thing, and thought, "That's the one place we could put Christopher Eccleston in Wilde." He's just too volatile/transparent/emotional/intense for comedies of manners. And in period, he's likely either to be a gardener/groom/manual labourer or a military man.

Personally I wish they'd put more effort into creating characters like Jabe, and less effort into some of the monsters like the Ood, the Absorbaloff, and Lazarus-devolved.

Me, too. With Jabe, it was the entire concept - even down to her being aroused by his breath. Of course that would be erotic for a tree! (May be a little overinvested due to current Nine/Jabe fic...)

In general, I'm not too big on CGI. It's too "cold" - I'd really rather have an actor in a suit. For all their bad press, I thought the guys in the Slitheen suits did a remarkable bit of acting through all the latex - particularly in Boom Town. Just as Nicholas Briggs and whoever was in the pepper pot did some extraordinary things with the Dalek in, er, Dalek. Not to mention the angels in Blink. Now, I did not find that episode nearly as scary as a lot of people did...but the angels were still impressive.

I'm trying to think why you think Euros Lyn managed to get a more restrained performance out of David Tennant than some of the other directors.... He did well in "Fireplace" and "Fear Her", but not so much so in "Tooth and Claw" or "The Idiot's Lantern" - though I am unsure again whether to blame the direction or the script for what I see as flaws in those episodes.

Errrr... Now that you mention it ;-) I think I was mostly thinking of Fear Her and The Idiot's Lantern - which does have some extremely cringe-worthy moments, but coming off the Cyberman two-parter looked positively restrained. Tooth & Claw was the nail in Ten's coffin for me, I'm afraid. And GITF, I'm very iffy on. I loved the look and the idea, but the script needed a few more passes, the production team needed to be willing to tell the writer "no!" on a big stunt that added nothing but a big stunt, and, er, I was completely unconvinced by the love story that was the whole point of the episode. It is possible to do a moving love story in 42 minutes - they did with with Captain Jack Harkness on TW, and Star Trek: The Next Generation did it twice. But this fell flat for me; it's a classic example of real-life chemistry not translating to screen, if nothing else.

I don't know how conscious it was for either of them, but there seems to be an almost perfect correspondence in the character growth between Eccleston's acting and Davies' plotting.

I do know that RTD has mentioned, as has Danny Boyle, that CE is a very good "script editor" - ie, he can take a script and know exactly where the emotional pitfalls are, where things get lost or don't ring true. I have wondered if that's one of the big differences between what I see as the tremendous consistency and coherence of S1 and the relative scatteredness of S2 & 3. The only other changed variable is the amount of lead-up time.

Re: Part 1: Dickens and Euros Lyn

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I tear up just thinking about The Selfish Giant

Me too. And "sparrow, sparrow, little sparrow, won't you spend just one more night with me?" Eeee!

Yes, casting Eccleston there would be good. I bet he'd do a fine Lady Bracknell, too.

Jabe was an amazing character. You're doing a fic with her? Is it posted? Where? I'd love to read that.

I agree about the acting with the Slitheens. Not my favourite concept, or my favourite aliens, but extremely well developed and used.

I didn't find Blink scary, but it was engrossing. Love that episode.

Tooth & Claw was the nail in Ten's coffin for me, I'm afraid

How so? I have some problems with that episode, but would like to hear your assessment.

Re "Girl in the Fireplace": I did think there was a strange lack of warmth between Reinette and Ten, given the story, and given that the attraction between them was the central crux of the story without which nothing made sense. And given that Tennant and Myles fell for each other in real life - maybe that was the constraint? Whatever the case, they were oddly stiff together for people who were supposed to be smitten. However, there were enough scenes and ideas in that episode which I loved, and which took me totally by surprise, that it was easy to overlook its lapses.

For instance, while the Ten/Reinette relationship seemed forced and artificial, I loved the way the Ten/Rose relationship developed - it totally moves me in that episode. The metaphor of the heart trapped in the machine. The juxtaposition of total indifference and total devotion, contrasted to apparent indifference and apparent devotion. That hit me powerfully. (Maybe it will help me cope with "The Last of the Time Lords" if I look at it in the same way.)

Jabe fic

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

I'll have to come back later for more lovely discussion (darned ol' job), but the first part of the Jabe fic is here (http://nina-ds.livejournal.com/34368.html). I can't believe it's been three months, but I've had a hectic summer. I'll post it around more publicly when I've got the other two (three?) sections written.

Re: Jabe fic

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the link! I look forward to this.

Don't work too hard! Think good thoughts of Nine while you're at it.

Re: Part 1: Dickens and Euros Lyn

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

I bet he'd do a fine Lady Bracknell, too.

I hadn't thought of that, but you're right! He's got battleship dame written all over him. Hah!

I didn't find Blink scary, but it was engrossing. Love that episode.

Blink was fabulous - the only part of it I didn't care for was...well, the Ten part, the timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly cutesy-wutesy part. I just have a very low tolerance for "cutesy", and RTD & Co do occasionally go there. But Blink and HN/FOB are the only S2-3 episodes I love as much as I love S1. School Reunion is up there, too, although only for the B story; the SJS stuff is amazing (post-SR!SJS+post-TimeWar!Nine haunts/taunts me with possibility).

As for T&C... It probably makes more sense if I take a few steps back and describe the run-up. Because I'm love Nine and find Ten my least favourite of all the Doctors, I understand the assumption that it's a reaction against the recasting - but it's really not. I thought DT was a good choice, if a bit lightweight (I figured they'd just lighten up the tone to match him), and I loved the Pudsey Cutaway. I figured he'd get the panto-excesses out of his system. And I liked a lot of TCI, although I thought the swordfight was a little embarrassing. BUT I hated what he did to Harriet, particularly as there were no easy choices and I think she was more right than he was. On top of everything else, he punished her for launching a sneak-attack by launching a sneak-attack - it was the first evidence of a hypocritical streak I really don't care for in the character. New Earth was shrill and silly, but it had some fantastic work by Billie Piper and Zoë Wanamaker, who dominated that episode for me; and then T&C started well...but the whole poncing around while people were dying thing really bothered me (it was as if Rose had suddenly, inexplicably turned stupid, and the Doctor wasn't helping, he was aiding and abetting), and I was really jarred by the library scene. It was a great idea, but the jump-cut editing bothered me because it suggested to me that Tennant really couldn't pull that scene together on his own steam. (I'm a musician, and sometimes his lack of rhythm does bother me - although as John Smith, it was a plus. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so clueless about the beat of a waltz before!) I like Tennant a lot in his interviews, don't get me wrong; he's been good in other roles if a bit lacking in emotional impact, but they keep asking him to be as powerful/threatening/subtle as Eccleston, and I think he fails badly.

GitF is an episode I love for its conception, design, and ambition, but I am disappointed in its execution. I agree, there seems a striking lack of chemistry between Tennant and Myles. The one scene in the episode that I thing is very well acted is the one between Rose and Reinette. Billie Piper is a very good actress; Sophia Myles is, well, pretty. (I remember the first time I ever saw her in anything (Foyle's War), and I remember thinking "I wonder who she's related to/sleeping with?") But she was much better with Piper than she was with Tennant.

It also seemed to me that they were angling toward Rose leaving halfway through S2 in the Cyberman two-parter. Realizing that the Doctor wasn't the same man, that she had grown, that she could stay and make a difference in the alt!World. ST and GitF were setting up that realization that what she was wanting was impossible and giving her the opportunity to leave as a whole person who had grown from the experience; but then Billie Piper decided to stay through the series, they restructured the last part half and created a relationship that seemed forced and false, or at least delusional, to me, and stripped Rose of her agency in her leaving. It felt like she went backward after reaching the apotheosis in POTW (and they never did follow up on the Bad Wolf thing, which even psychologically had to have an effect), and I hate to see that in a character.

I don't know that there's any way I can cope with The Last of the Time Lords. They even stripped my lovely Lucy of her agency to be a sadistic/masochistic bitch and not just an abused doll. ::deep breath:: I was gonna be done with the show until they announced Donna was coming back.

Harriet Jones and other fallout

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

He's got battleship dame written all over him. Hah!

Now I want to see it. (sigh.)

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.the>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i>He's got battleship dame written all over him. Hah!</i>

Now I want to see it. (sigh.)

<i.the timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly cutesy-wutesy part. I just have a very low tolerance for "cutesy", and RTD & Co do occasionally go there.</i>

Agreed, and in this case, I liked it. But in a way... I liked it because the viewpoint of the episode was such that it was an excuse for us not to see the 'real' Doctor - it was fine for Sally Sparrow to just see the Doctor, whom she doesn't know, being cute. She doesn't need to know more than the superficial situation of the episode. This made it easier for me to overlook the ways in which Ten brings me up short by being arbitrary, or incomplete, or whatever the word is that I need for the places when Ten makes me blink and wonder. (Or, occasionally, rationalize myself out of being squicked.)

<i>Blink and HN/FOB are the only S2-3 episodes I love as much as I love S1.</i>

They just aired "Human Nature" here for the first time. Oddly enough, several people have said to me that they found it substandard.

<i>the SJS stuff is amazing (post-SR!SJS+post-TimeWar!Nine haunts/taunts me with possibility). </i>

Interesting thought.

<i>I loved the Pudsey Cutaway</i>

Why? I never know what to make of it. (Possibly because I never saw it till the DVDs came out in Canada, long after I'd seen all the rest of series 2.)

<i>On top of everything else, he punished her for launching a sneak-attack by launching a sneak-attack - it was the first evidence of a hypocritical streak I really don't care for in the character.</i>

I'll have to think about that. I liked that scene; I liked the way it blindsided me. But when I think about it, it may be a good example (and the earliest example) of Davies not 'playing fair' with the viewer in terms of character and plotting. We'd been set up to think of Harriet Jones as a good guy, someone on the Doctor's side; and though I think it was fair for the Doctor to disagree with her politically, the revenge he took was personal. And I think it's that switch from 'political and public' to 'personal and (possibly) petty' that, in retrospect, doesn't sit well, or doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of the Doctor's wisdom. Okay, put it down to his own blind spots: wiping out a spaceship full of people is intensely disturbing to him because he wiped out two species; he is punishing Harriet Jones by destroying her career as a sort of self-punishment scapegoat. But, dammit, to I want to see the Doctor quite that arbitrary in his actions? Quite that... irrational? And judgemental?

FOB and Pudsey Cutaway

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

I'm going to ration these responses today - I'm doing something tedious, and these will be my "carrots" for x-number of minutes spent on that task.

CE in drag...he has a lovely combination of restraint and shamelessness that should make that quite entertaining!

I liked it because the viewpoint of the episode was such that it was an excuse for us not to see the 'real' Doctor - it was fine for Sally Sparrow to just see the Doctor, whom she doesn't know, being cute. She doesn't need to know more than the superficial situation of the episode.

That is a way of looking at it that makes sense. I was so disappointed at the return of the silliness that it kept getting in my way, but that's a strategy.

This made it easier for me to overlook the ways in which Ten brings me up short by being arbitrary, or incomplete, or whatever the word is that I need for the places when Ten makes me blink and wonder. (Or, occasionally, rationalize myself out of being squicked.)

This is a theme that the two of us keep coming back to in some way - that making sense of this incarnation and the stories that go with him is work. It shouldn't be this hard, and it does bother me that Ten receives such unquestioning adoration both inside and outside of the show. Again, I come to the question of performance vs. projection. Does that emptiness/blankness/opaqueness mean that he gets filled up by the imaginations of those who watch? Normally, I find that liberating and intriguing, but here, it's as if every angle in gets deflected somehow.

Oddly enough, several people have said to me that they found it substandard.

It's an unusually subtle episode, and like you, many people don't appreciate the Doctor not being the Doctor (I found it a relief myself). Quieter, more character-driven episodes often don't "grab" people. My vote for worst episode of New Who ever is "42" - not because it's the worst written or the worst directed or the worst acted...just because it's so unoriginal and noisy and pointless. I saw someone else point out that it would have been perfectly acceptable as an episode in the old days, but it's not enough now. I think it still could have been better with better direction and at least a smidge of nuance. But I don't have to "like" a character to like a character, if you get my meaning, so I really enjoyed a lot of the character byplay in HN, which I do think is let down just a wee bit by FOB. Still, excellent two-parter (not a patch on TEC/TDD, though, when I step back and think about it, if only because dark and spooky is so much easier to pull off than dark, spooky, and rollicking fun!).

Why? I never know what to make of it. (Possibly because I never saw it till the DVDs came out in Canada, long after I'd seen all the rest of series 2.)

I think the timing does count. I saw it pretty much in "real time" - I got my DVDs from England in January of 2006 and raced through them eagerly, totally captivated by the series. Then I saw the Cutaway sometime in March or April, and thought that they did well at dealing with the questions of regeneration. I particularly loved that moment when Rose asked so eagerly for him to change back, no hesitation. (I can't tell you how furious I get at the crowd that thinks Ten is the cutest thing ever and of course she fell right in love with him then and there - it makes Rose looks shallow, it ignores what she had with Nine, and he's not that cute! I'm also rather squicked by the idea that he "imprinted" on her.) I felt that they were going to handle the regeneration with some sensitivity to the more realistic emotional landscape that they set up. I was disappointed, of course, because they didn't, and I am still frustrated by that. In some ways, I felt that S2 tore down a lot of what I loved in S1, and that was part of my dissatisfaction. It was as if they went out of their way to minimize what Nine was, what he learned, what he sacrificed. To see Ten as even more broken by the Time War means that Nine's entire existence was, in a sense, wasted.

Re: Harriet Jones and other fallout

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

I get wordy when I'm procrastinating, evidently! (Although it doesn't really take procrastination to do it.)

Re: Harriet I liked that scene; I liked the way it blindsided me.

I liked it, too, for that reason - for about five seconds, and then I thought, "Hang on!" I got the comparison they were going for with Margaret Thatcher, and that just made it worse. Harriet was a good guy, and in her situation, I think she made the best choice - not the "right" choice, because I don't think there was one, but she was absolutely right that the Doctor wouldn't always be there to protect them (and that's not really his remit/responsibility anyway). And the Sycorax were a bunch of pirates and slavers - who's going to trust them that they aren't going to either turn around, or even more likely, tattle and enlist reinforcements? It's always possible that by destroying that ship, Earth would be noticed and reinvaded...but let them go, and the chance goes up to 100%, surely.

I think it was fair for the Doctor to disagree with her politically, the revenge he took was personal. And I think it's that switch from 'political and public' to 'personal and (possibly) petty' that, in retrospect, doesn't sit well,

Exactly. It was personal, petty, and sexist to boot. It left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth, and really, Ten's characterization has never recovered from that for me. Alas, his arbitrariness and willingness to commit genocide/mass murder (the Rachnoss, even the way he "disarmed" the Cyberized), his assertion that "there is no higher authority", his claim that "he has no more mercy" - all of these in close succession add up to a characer I really dislike. As I alluded above, in the past, the Doctor has always been worryingly paternalistic (even if it makes perfect sense coming out of just-post-colonial Britain), but Ten seems to be setting himself up as judge, jury, and executioner, and yet I don't trust his perspective. Sigh. Again, it worries me when people see that as peachy keen and kinda neat and cool and all.

I keep hoping either for a great karmic smackdown or an acknowledgement of the crazy, but instead, he got to be Tinkerbell!Jesus. If they're working on a long arc, it's too long and too diffuse.

series 3 and the Last of the Time Lords...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

New Earth was shrill and silly, but it had some fantastic work by Billie Piper and Zoë Wanamaker, who dominated that episode for me;

This was the second episode I saw, after "Rose" - and "Rose" had intrigued me without quite winning me over. You will understand why, on seeing "New Earth", I thought the show was extremely silly, and still didn't see the substance behind the silliness.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone so clueless about the beat of a waltz before!

LOL! ...John Smith's general clutziness bothered me; I found it difficult to forgive him for not being superhuman. Yes, I know, that was the whole point.

GitF is an episode I love for its conception, design, and ambition, but I am disappointed in its execution.

For all my admiration of it...Yes, it's Billie Piper who most stands out for me in that episode. I think it has some of her best moments. (he scene with Reinette; the scene where's she's tied up and imperilled and haranguing the Doctor for being drunk; the five and a half hours, waiting.

I like the chemistry between the Doctor and the child Reinette, too. But the adult Reinette needed to be someone of striking chemistry, and she seems bland. Just as "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" would not have worked so well if the actor playing Captain Jack had been bland, or "Blink" if Sally Sparrow had been bland. Certain roles call for charisma, and don't quite work without them. Though attractive enough, Sophie Myles is not quite beautiful or sexy enough to fill the gap. Not in the way the role needed.

One of the things I liked best in season 2, is that Rose didn't leave by her own choice. One of the things I like least about season 3, is that Martha did. It isn't that I want characters to have their freedom of choice taken away from them, goodness knows; more that I like heroic extremes of loyalty. It was handled very nicely in the case of Sarah Jane Smith, I though.

they never did follow up on the Bad Wolf thing, which even psychologically had to have an effect

One could speculate that she burned out a whole slew of brain cells! Really, they fell back on implied amnesia about the matter, but it was somewhat confusing as to what we were supposed to make of it. I can see why Davies might want to go back to someone like Donna - a clean slate, no baggage, nothing of substance to follow up from.

I don't know that there's any way I can cope with The Last of the Time Lords. They even stripped my lovely Lucy of her agency to be a sadistic/masochistic bitch and not just an abused doll. ::deep breath::

You're right; I hadn't been thinking about that. Hadn't and haven't got that far in being able to sort of what I think of "The Last of the Time Lords"... It stunned me into analytical silence. I'm far from giving up on the show, still fascinated by it, but I'm well aware of its ability to push my buttons and put me into a tailspin, so that watching it is like skiing through a lava-flow. Perillous.

Re: series 3 and the Last of the Time Lords...

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

You will understand why, on seeing "New Earth", I thought the show was extremely silly,

Oh, yes. I still think New Earth holds the record for "silly" in the entire new series, despite the good stuff from BP and ZW; and "Rose" isn't great telly, but it grabbed me for two reasons: the electricity between Eccleston and Piper (I was trying to explain to an American friend how incredibly unlikely such chemistry is, and the closest analogy I could come across was Robert de Niro and Britney Spears, but even that doesn't quite capture it), and the "turning of the earth" scene, which raised the little hairs on the back of my neck. But yeah, both episodes are relatively weak. Smith and Jones was better in comparison, but then again, they'd had two "drafts" to work from, because it was definitely part of the pattern.

I like the chemistry between the Doctor and the child Reinette, too. But the adult Reinette needed to be someone of striking chemistry,

I agree - I was really struck by the opening of the episode, but once we got to the actual "romance", it fell pretty flat. (I was talking with a friend who hadn't seen it, about how flat I found SM, and she commiserated, telling me about this movie that she'd seen that had the most bland, uninteresting leading lady she'd ever seen - so we looked it up on IMDb, and it was Beowulf, starring Sophia Myles!) As for sexy, she's not a patch on Billie Piper. I'm boringly straight, but I'm not blind, either.

It isn't that I want characters to have their freedom of choice taken away from them, goodness knows; more that I like heroic extremes of loyalty.

I could go with what we had if I felt it had been handled better - if we saw Rose having her fantastic life, for instance in a montage that mirrored her introduction in "Rose", or if Martha had managed to leave without coming back. I hate to see female characters essentially reduced to their relationships to male characters. I did think they avoided that very well with POTW, and I know it fits a certain grand romantic narrative, but I do like a little spine in a character, particularly a female character who's explicitly set up to be a model for tweens and teens. I'm not one of those who normally cries, "Think of the children," but I am aware of it in this case. I do a lot of work with adolescent girls, and I know how vulnerable they are to even the most subtle messages.

Re: BadWolf!Rose, I was not happy that we got no callback on that, particularly that we got no reaction to her realization of what she'd done (and perhaps the memory of Nine's sacrifice).

I can see why Davies might want to go back to someone like Donna - a clean slate, no baggage, nothing of substance to follow up from.

The thing that frustrates me is that I thought we were going to get that with Martha. I still cannot figure out a single thing (other than squirming embarrassment) that her crush added to this series. It limited her character so much. But I really liked Donna, and the thing I'm most looking forward to in S4 is her.

I'm far from giving up on the show, still fascinated by it, but I'm well aware of its ability to push my buttons and put me into a tailspin, so that watching it is like skiing through a lava-flow. Perillous.

I'm kind of at that stage, too, I'm just perhaps a little more volatile with my buttons being pushed. I suppose it's also a little more intense for me because I don't find Ten charming or heroic. But they can still pull out a HN/FOB or Blink, and I don't want to miss those!

Heroes stuff

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

Overrun!

And if I recall correctly, we didn't at that point know anything about Claude's relationship with Claire - least of all details like him having given her her first teddy bear.

No - and at that point, I was still hoping for Claude as Claire's bio-dad. First and foremost because I'm tired of the Petrellis being in the middle of everything; and secondarily, because there's very little chance that Persian/Turkish/German dominant dark genes+ Danish blue-eyed blonde are going to produce Claire. But Aryan princess + sandy-blonde, grey/blue-eyed Brit could.

More brilliant plotting and acting and characterization coming together, and how I hope we get Claude back into the future storyline!

I read that one of the writer-producers was struck by the fact that CE was shocked to find out that he wouldn't know where his character was going - yet more evidence that he does take all that into consideration. They definitely want him back. They're doing everything short of public begging, so I think the ball is really in CE's court. On the minus side, his track record of itchy feet; on the plus side, he said he'd never had more fun on a set. So....

Re: Heroes stuff

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I was still hoping for Claude as Claire's bio-dad

I'd have loved that.

First and foremost because I'm tired of the Petrellis being in the middle of everything

LOL! All roads lead back to Petrellis, don't they? I have a whole internal theory worked out about how and why Papa Petrelli was murdered.

there's very little chance that Persian/Turkish/German dominant dark genes+ Danish blue-eyed blonde are going to produce Claire

Aren't the Petrellis Italian? I thought we were looking at a New York Italian mafia family. Did I miss something?

one of the writer-producers was struck by the fact that CE was shocked to find out that he wouldn't know where his character was going - yet more evidence that he does take all that into consideration.

And it shows.

They definitely want him back. They're doing everything short of public begging

Private bribery? I hope!

the ball is really in CE's court

I cross my fingers and hope.

On the minus side, his track record of itchy feet

But for an itchy-footed actor, surely Claude is perfect! He can appear in a number of episodes, then (literally) disappear for as long as he wants. Eccleston could even phone in his dialogue, while Claude is represented by a moving stick or a pigeon perched on an invisible shoulder.

he said he'd never had more fun on a set

I live in hope.

Re: Heroes stuff

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

Aren't the Petrellis Italian?

Yeah - sorry! I was going with Adrian Pasdar's own genetic background there. Still, someone as dark as he is... that's not going to be easy on recessive genes.

But for an itchy-footed actor, surely Claude is perfect! He can appear in a number of episodes, then (literally) disappear for as long as he wants.

Kring seems to be very aware of that. I think that's exactly how/why he designed Claude. He definitely has an attachment to CE - he's written him two different parts, and has publicly declared how much he wants him back, repeatedly. That's very unusual behaviour for a showrunner, really, to expose himself so publicly in his desire to work with an actor who isn't that well-known in the US. I wonder what his first exposure to CE was - it would be funny if it was the horrid Gone in 60 Seconds!

Re: Heroes stuff

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

someone as dark as he is... that's not going to be easy on recessive genes

No, but in a series where genetic strangeness is the central concept, I allow them the benefit of the doubt. It would be interesting, though, if Claire's mother was only pretending that Nathan was her father, and it was really Claude. Stranger things happen in this show.

He definitely has an attachment to CE - he's written him two different parts, and has publicly declared how much he wants him back, repeatedly.

Him and a lot of viewers. Not to mention Peter Petrelli.

And me.

Eager anticipation... and not that long till Sept. 24 now, either. New Heroes in little more than five weeks.

(But - Feudal Japan? I scratch my head in wonder. What are they doing?)

Re: Heroes stuff

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

Not to mention Peter Petrelli.

One of the things I've come to admire about Milo Ventimiglia - and I was not a Peter fan at the beginning of the show - is that he responded to CE's performance and he knew that he was getting a master class. He's better since then, too. CE is an actor who brings so much attention to his co-stars, he can elevate their performances. And he's not vain or self-centered at all - apparently in preproduction when it was suggested that he was "too old" at 34 to play 29, he promptly recommended Aidan Gillen for Stuart. Clearly he has a ego, you couldn't be an actor without one and he jokes about his, but he's not a screenhog.