fajrdrako | Doctor Who: "The Unquiet Dead"

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:

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?"

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.

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".

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

From:

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.

From:

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!

From:

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.

From:

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.)

From:

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.

From:

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.

From:

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.

From:

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.]

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

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.

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.)

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

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

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

Interesting thought.

I loved the Pudsey Cutaway

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.)

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'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?

From:

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.

From:

fajrdrako.livejournal.com

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

Good idea! That works.

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.

I thought it seemed like a welcome break from the conceptual or moral confusion. Not that I put it that clearly to myself. But the perspective was fun.

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.

I think the show is still satisfying by lights of the perceptions of many viewers - or maybe it's that there are as many perceptions as viewers, since I find a wide diversity among fans, and not much unanimity on anything. In any case, many viewers love what has been happening, and others don't, and I think Russell T. Davies is well aware - it's the price of not pandering to the audience (which is usually good) - but he's been quoted as saying gleefully that "fans will hate it", and that looks to me like lacking respect for the audience. As if he's not just trying to do his own thing (which is what he should do), but is influenced enough by fannish opinions as to be contrary (which is bad for the creative process).

It does make it seem that the show has lost its moral centre. I don't think it should be in a rut, but random decisions for random reasons don't work either.

I loved "Human Nature/The Family of Blood" for many reasons, I just didn't like John or Joan, but that was all right, I could love the episode and still not like them much. And I didn't hate them. I just found them... less than admirable, leaving a void where the Doctor had been, that was only partly taken up by Martha and Tim.

I liked "42" just fine. Neither a great episode nor a bad one. I didn't get really excited over it, but it didn't give me any problem either, and there were moments I loved.

Well - we know Rose isn't shallow, and that she loved Nine! And I almost never like 'imprinting' themes. Seems anti-romantic to me, taking away an element of choice or desire.

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

I'm not sure what I expected of the regeneration - but I was a little disappointed that Ten's silliness and jokiness didn't have the serious undercurrents that we see in Nine.

To see Ten as even more broken by the Time War means that Nine's entire existence was, in a sense, wasted.

I lost your train of thought there - how did they show Ten as more broken in series 2? I'd say the Doctor seems more broken in series 1 (where we see a process of healing) and series 3 (where it breaks down after the loss of Rose). Series 2 is more of a holding pattern.

From:

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.

From:

fajrdrako.livejournal.com

I got the comparison they were going for with Margaret Thatcher, and that just made it worse.

Now, I didn't see that; probably I'm just not familiar enough with British politics and attitudes.

Whether Harriet Jones made the right choice or not, it surely isn't the Doctor's mandate to depose elected leaders of Earth nations, whose job is to be making just that kind of decision? I actually agree with the Doctor on what choice should have been made, but that's hardly the point; unless saving the Earth as its champion gives him authority to choose Earth leaders and make Earth policy. Then we potentially get 'The Doctor, Dictator of Earth', very much the way we got 'The Master, Dictator of Earth' - and I'd like to say, joking, that it's a Time Lord thing, but that's the whole point, isn't it? That there is a difference between the good and the bad, and the Doctor is supposed to stand for the former?

Perhaps the bottom line here is that I can't imagine Nine doing what Ten did there. Or at least... only with an effort.

"there is no higher authority"

I've forgotten that line - where was it?'

I liked the line to Mr Finch that he used to have so much mercy. That fits in with the destruction of the Racnoss and the Family of Blood - but then I can't reconcile it with his forgiveness of the Master. I'd be more comfortable with the judge, jury and executioner bit if I could trust either his judgement or his heart.

My problems are mostly on a much simpler, more sentimental, personal level. If the Doctor loved and valued Martha and Jack, I'd forgive everything, especially for the many time I've loved what he does and says. As it is, I feel somewhat betrayed, and for no clear reason.

I don't think we'll get a karmic smackdown (unless that was it), but I do hope for a change of heart.

From:

From:

fajrdrako.livejournal.com - Date: 2007-09-02 04:17 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

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.

From:

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.

From:

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!

From:

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?)

From:

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.

From:

fajrdrako.livejournal.com

Lovely icon!

Milo Ventimiglia - ... responded to CE's performance and he knew that he was getting a master class

Yes. I loved that. I loved the way Peter grew as a character - rather like Claire did. He grew as the role grew.

CE is an actor who brings so much attention to his co-stars, he can elevate their performances.

Always wonderful to see.