Doctor Who: "The Unquiet Dead"
Aug. 11th, 2007 07:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fajrdrako![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
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.
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: All yours.The Doctor: Not a bad life.
...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.
Rose: Better with two.
This is echoed by the heroic dialogue later on:Rose: But we'll go down fighting, yeah?
It's anyone's guess as to the levels of self-awareness there, at least on Rose's part.
The Doctor: You bet.
Rose: Together.
The Doctor: Yeah. I'm glad I met you.
Rose: Me too. - 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: series 3 and the Last of the Time Lords... (part 1)
Date: 2007-08-20 03:46 pm (UTC)Funny, but also oddly right.
the "turning of the earth" scene, which raised the little hairs on the back of my neck.
It certainly caught my attention. One of several moments in the show that did. It was the plot that turned me off, made me a skeptic - but the characters and the script had caught my attention and made me want to see more. I see many TV shows that I think have a dumb plot, and never want to look at them again. This was quite different.
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!
Eee! What a wonderful story! I've been wanting to see that movie... well, I wouldn't expect or want much of a woman in Beowulf , since the original story doesn't exactly contain a gaggle of girls... and now they're doing a version with Angelina Jolie, which should at least be interesting. And even though I'm not much of an Angelina Jolie fan, I think she's more interesting silent and immobile than Sophie Myles managed to be in a fascinating role by Doctor Who's best scriptwriter, so. Definitely not impressed with Ms Myles.
As for sexy, she's not a patch on Billie Piper. I'm boringly straight, but I'm not blind, either.
I'm not straight, but I certainly agree. I don't even like Billie Piper's looks much, but that doesn't matter. She acts so well, and puts so much personality into the role, that she's striking anyway. And seems so very real.
I thought Rose was fine for 'having a spine' and a personality too; and Reinette, at least as she was written, was (it is made clear) a woman of intelligence and talent. A better role model than, say, Marie Antionette. Too bad she didn't have oomph.
Looks vs. attraction
Date: 2007-08-21 06:59 pm (UTC)I completely agree with this - I am often drawn to people who are "unconventional". Pretty is bland. It bores me, and quite often, people who are "blessed" with conventional looks learn to behave in ways that are appropriate to that look. It's not hard and fast, it can be turned upside down, but it is a factor, particularly in acting.
It also touches on something else we were talking about, the attractiveness of Ten/Tennant. I actually do think David Tennant is cute - he fits in that Adrien Brody/Jarvis Cocker area that I do love. But I also find those two attractive because they are so talented. Tennant as Tennant seems to be a sweet guy. But something happens to him when he starts to act, and he seems to flatten out to me. There's also always a tinge of smugness that I find off-putting. So the equation works in the opposite way for me there. His charm reminds me a little of what so many people have said about Eccleston - that he's stunningly handsome (RTD always calls him "beautiful") in person, but that a camera really never does him justice.
I thought Rose was fine for 'having a spine' and a personality too;
Oh, definitely. I just thought she got a bit too clingy toward the end. I tend to love the Bogart/Bacall, Nick/Nora, Cary Grant/Rosalind Russell, Tracy/Hepburn kinds of relationships, which I thought we had with Nine and Rose. Ten and Rose were a little more Dawson's Creek to me. Martha has suffered a bit more - I thought she started off well, and ended pretty well, but there was a long stretch in the middle (Gridlock - 42) where her character development was largely "Why doesn't he notice me?" I felt pretty miffed on Freema/Martha's behalf for that.
It'll be interesting to see what they'll do with Donna. I hope they don't return to the "everyone in his orbit falls in love with him" schtick; but I'm also revolted when I see fans say, "Oh, well, at least with Catherine Tate, there's no chance of a romantic subplot." And why would that be? Because she's close to Tennant's age and not a stick and doesn't look like a model? So they've got me coming and going with that one. I do think Tennant seems to be better with older women - and by older, I really do mean within ten years of his own age, he's not nearly as young as many fans seem to imagine! So many of them made such a big deal about him being "closer" to Billie Piper's age than CE, but 12 years vs. 18 years isn't that different. The two men are more the same generation than either of them with Billie Piper (who seems to like older men anyway - some of us do!).
Re: Looks vs. attraction
Date: 2007-08-23 06:09 pm (UTC)I like beauty, but prettiness isn't the same. I like dramatic looks, striking looks - sometimes congruent with beauty and sometimes not. Sometimes striking looks will make a person appear beautiful even if they have irregular or unusual features. And it's subjective anyway.
I love Adrien Brody's looks. Don't know Jarvis Cocker. My favourite actor, with regards to looks and physical style, is Peter Wingfield. I like Eccleston's looks way more than David Tennant, who fails to fit my usual taste in any way - in fact, I'd say it's a tribute to his personality, and the way he can put it across while acting, that I find him most attractive on the screen. He's definitely not my type.
I would like to see Eccleston in person. Maybe some day, if I'm lucky, and able to go to England, and he's doing stage work - ? Well, I can dream!
I tend to love the Bogart/Bacall, Nick/Nora, Cary Grant/Rosalind Russell, Tracy/Hepburn kinds of relationships, which I thought we had with Nine and Rose.
Interesting. Not something I'd have considered. I didn't equate the Nine/Rose relationship with any of these, or anything else - I saw it as unique. Must think about this.
Since I am perfectly happy with people loving the Doctor under any and all circumstanes, I wouldn't mind in the least if Donna loved him. I'm here for the romantic subplot: it's what drew me to the show in the first place. It was the shrillness of Tate's performance that put me off; but my sense of the only publicity photo we've seen is that they'll have mellowed the character. It might be good that she's a contrast to both Martha and Rose. On the other hand, I fear that having a comedian as a female lead will tempt both Tennant and Davies to more humourous wackiness. Which is not what I'm here for.
Re: Looks vs. attraction
Date: 2007-08-25 05:31 pm (UTC)Me, too. Pretty, to me, is something that is utterly conventional, symmetrical, refined, and really not very sexy. Beauty, to me, has to have an element of strength, even angularity. I definitely like a nose on a person, even women, but expressive eyes (preferably large - but then Alan Rickman has made the most of his beady little hazel eyes) are a must. Eyes, hands, and voice are my three "ticky boxes" for physical attractiveness. But all of those are inflected by the way they're used.
Don't know Jarvis Cocker.
Me, too. Pretty, to me, is something that is utterly conventional, symmetrical, refined, and really not very sexy. Beauty, to me, has to have an element of strength, even angularity. I definitely like a nose on a person, even women, but expressive eyes (preferably large - but then Alan Rickman has made the most of his beady little hazel eyes) are a must. Eyes, hands, and voice are my three "ticky boxes" for physical attractiveness. But all of those are inflected by the way they're used.
<i>Don't know Jarvis Cocker. </i>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarvis_Cocker"He's the lead singer of the British rock group Pulp,</a> who are somewhere in the line of English eccentrics that include Oscar Wilde, the Kinks, David Bowie, and Morrissey. Frankly, I think he'd be in his rights to sue the BBC and Tennant for brand infringement in the Tenth Doctor's look:
<img src="http://pics.livejournal.com/nina_ds/pic/000e852w">
That infamous Dead Ringers "Christmas at the Doctors'" had Nine telling Ten he was "nothing but Jarvis Cocker in space."
<i>My favourite actor, with regards to looks and physical style, is Peter Wingfield.</i>
I've only ever seen pictures of him (I just can't bring myself to watch <i>Highlander</i>, but he's definitely in the wheelhouse.
Eccleston is involved in a new staging of <i>Macbeth</i>. I hope that it comes together; and I hope I'm in the right country when it happens!
<i>I didn't equate the Nine/Rose relationship with any of these, or anything else - I saw it as unique. </i>
Oh, I do, too. I love the sparkiness and fun of bantering, with the heated undercurrent of eroticism that all those couples have; what Nine and Rose have that is completely different and <i>more than</i> the rest of those couples is a sort of innocence and wonder and vulnerability.
I just don't want Donna to go all googly-eyed over the Doctor. I don't mind if a relationship grows - in fact, of all the women thrown at Ten over the past two years, Donna seems to me to be the one who would work the best, because she sees the wrongness in him. I still want her to tell him when he's wrong and slap him whenever it's necessary. Because I'm sure it <I>will</i> be necessary.
Re: Looks vs. attraction
Date: 2007-10-23 01:20 pm (UTC)I'd say Indira Varma rates highly on this scale - more so than Eve Myles, though I have come to love Gwen Cooper not for her looks but for her style and personality - while Suzie rates low on both counts, being a somewhat messed-up killer. Pity, that.
"Christmas at the Doctors'" had Nine telling Ten he was "nothing but Jarvis Cocker in space."
LOL - great line! Good title, too - the concept.
I want to see that Macbeth, oh, yes - ! Don't know what the odds are (I can't currently afford to travel), but oh my goodness... he'd be a powerful Macbeth. I was going to say he'd be 'scary' (thinking of his Jago) but that would depend on the treatment and the characterization. Macbeth could be very sympathetic, very unscary, depending on how he's played, and whichever approach they take, or something in between, Eccleston would be brilliant.
Re: Looks vs. attraction
Date: 2007-08-25 05:38 pm (UTC)I like beauty, but prettiness isn't the same. I like dramatic looks, striking looks
Me, too. Pretty, to me, is something that is utterly conventional, symmetrical, refined, and really not very sexy. Beauty, to me, has to have an element of strength, even angularity. I definitely like a nose on a person, even women, but expressive eyes (preferably large - but then Alan Rickman has made the most of his beady little hazel eyes) are a must. Eyes, hands, and voice are my three "ticky boxes" for physical attractiveness. But all of those are inflected by the way they're used.
Don't know Jarvis Cocker.
He's the lead singer of the British rock group Pulp, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarvis_Cocker) who are somewhere in the line of English eccentrics that include Oscar Wilde, the Kinks, David Bowie, and Morrissey. He has a wonderfully surreal sense of humour, and a weird kind of grace in moving. But frankly, I think he'd be within his rights to sue the BBC and Tennant for brand infringement in the Tenth Doctor's look (picture c. 1997):
That infamous Dead Ringers "Christmas at the Doctors'" had Nine telling Ten he was "nothing but Jarvis Cocker in space."
My favourite actor, with regards to looks and physical style, is Peter Wingfield.
I've only ever seen pictures of him (I just can't bring myself to watch Highlander, but he's definitely in the wheelhouse.
Eccleston is involved in a new staging of Macbeth. I hope that it comes together; and I hope I'm in the right country when it happens!
I didn't equate the Nine/Rose relationship with any of these, or anything else - I saw it as unique.
Oh, I do, too. I love the sparkiness and fun of bantering, with the heated undercurrent of eroticism that all those couples have; what Nine and Rose have that is completely different and more than the rest of those couples is a sort of innocence and wonder and vulnerability.
I just don't want Donna to go all googly-eyed over the Doctor. I don't mind if a relationship grows - in fact, of all the women thrown at Ten over the past two years, Donna seems to me to be the one who would work the best, because she sees the wrongness in him. I still want her to tell him when he's wrong and slap him whenever it's necessary. Because I'm sure it will be necessary.
Re: Looks vs. attraction
Date: 2007-08-30 04:45 am (UTC)I usually think so, but the diversity of beauty makes it difficult to pinpoint characteristics and a lot of it has to do with character. I am astounded that I like John Barrowman's looks as much as I do, since he is very much not my type, usually. But I like the way he puts himself across, and find it very easy to enjoy his kind of beauty in his case.
Eyes, hands, and voice are my three "ticky boxes" for physical attractiveness.
I'd say eyes, nose and voice.
all of those are inflected by the way they're used.
Absolutely.
Thanks for the intro to Jarvis Cocker.
Eccleston is involved in a new staging of Macbeth.
Oooh - just think how good he could be!
what Nine and Rose have that is completely different and more than the rest of those couples is a sort of innocence and wonder and vulnerability.
All of that. They were totally amazing.
I just don't want Donna to go all googly-eyed over the Doctor.
I find it hard to imagine Donna being googly-eyed over anyone. I actually find myself thinking negative thoughts when I consider the matter, and I'm not sure why, because I didn't think I disliked Donna. But she seemed... emotionally limited to me.
of all the women thrown at Ten over the past two years, Donna seems to me to be the one who would work the best, because she sees the wrongness in him.
She did. Interesting. I wonder where or whether that will develop.
Re: Looks vs. attraction
Date: 2007-09-06 12:44 am (UTC)Yeah, conventional "movie star" looks don't do much for me. Bogart fan, me - Gene Kelly is probably the closest I come to "pretty boy" among the older generation, but frankly, I never noticed how beautiful his face was until I was well-wowed by his dancing and his directing talent. It was kind of a "Miss Jones! Without your glasses, you're beatiful!" moment, and it was because a film historian on a DVD commentary pointed it out.
I find that I don't find John Barrowman attractive/sexy for *myself*, but when he's with the right person (so far, Nine and the real CJH), he can be very sexy in combination. Some people are like that. Maybe my gaydar just marks him off in some way...although every single even semi-successful relationship I've ever had has been with a bi guy whom I first thought of as a friend. I don't know why I attract them (after four, you have to figure there's a pattern). I'm not very butch!
Eccleston is involved in a new staging of Macbeth.
Oooh - just think how good he could be!
I've been waiting for this since Shallow Grave, quite honestly. David is just a baby Macbeth. "That was stressful. I found that quite stressful." (I don't know why that line always sends me into gales of laughter, but it does.)
As for Donna, I like the idea that they can influence each other. I was really expecting to hate Donna...but by the end, I kind of loved her. I'll be interested to see how they handle them. At this point, I'll settle for a simple well.
Re: Looks vs. attraction
Date: 2007-09-13 01:38 pm (UTC)So now I look at them and I feel a lot of fondness - not for themselves, because the annoyance factor is still there. The fondness is not because of the actors. Maybe because of the company they keep.
And I confess that probably my lack of enchantment with the Empress of Racnoss coloured my general lack of enjoyment of Donna. There were scenes in "The Runaway Bride" that I loved, but they were mostly because of staging (the TARDIS chase on the motorway) or Tennant (the 'no mercy' scene).
So we'll see what I think of Donna in series 4. It could go either way. I might find her endearing this time - or unbearable. Or something in between. I really hope I don't find her unbearable.
I find John Barrowman amusing as himself, and sexy as Captain Jack, especially in the coat and braces, especially when he's with someone like Nine, Ianto, Gwen, or Rose. Oddly, I didn't see much chemistry between Jack and Ten, which was disappointing, because it could or should have been there in spades. I think it was written out. It therefore remains a potential.
As for bi men: you're lucky! I'd love to find a bi man who wanted me.
Re: Looks vs. attraction
Date: 2007-09-18 01:49 am (UTC)The Rachnoss: pretty terrible design, I thought, and again, I'm not so keen on genocidal!Doctor, even if "everything has its time and everything has to die." I wasn't altogether convinced by that death scene, but compared to Sarah Par(r?)ish chewing the scenery... I much preferred non-A-story parts of that episode.
I find John Barrowman amusing as himself, and sexy as Captain Jack, especially in the coat and braces, especially when he's with someone like Nine, Ianto, Gwen, or Rose.
I do find JB amusing, but not sexy unless, as you say, he's with someone else. I'd say there are also levels - Nine, Gwen, Rose, and Ianto in that order (with Ianto, I find Jack sexy, but I'm afraid Ianto doesn't project anything to me yet - he still seems remarkably blank, even when he's in the center of a scene).
I did think that Jack and Ten worked together better than I expected, but it was friendly and warm. I agree, not really sexy at all, at best old friends. And almost entirely coming from Jack. Sigh. Again. I just don't see Tennant projecting chemistry; he can occasionally respond to it, most notably with Lis Sladen in School Reunion; but despite his campiness, he also reads sooo much straighter to me than Eccleston. It's why I really couldn't get "slashiness" off the Ten/Master interaction, despite their best efforts to write it in there. To be honest, Simm was damned sexy to me with Moen (and I've never thought he was sexy before - excellent actor yes, but heartthrob, no); but again, I didn't get anything more than dysfunctional codependence with the Doctor.
I wonder if some of it isn't at least partially a class thing. Tennant's a very middle-class PK (Southern US slang for "preacher's kid"), and he wears it as much as CE wears his working/military-classness. He always seems a little "held in." CE's sexuality has always been much more fluid and on-the-surface of his parts - even early parts like Derek Bentley where he has all sorts of undefined chemistry with his sister, obvious desire for the record store girl, and a kind of crush on the boys in the gang; the bird boy in that episode of Morse that I can't remember the name of is so highly strung and stuck somewhere between innocent child and pedophile himself; and David in Shallow Grave is one of the great examples of creepy-sexy-geeky. That's why he didn't need to do Sylar - he's already been there and done it better than Zachary Quinto. I'll put the tuning fork scene up against David mouthing Juliet's fingers anyday.
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1
Date: 2007-09-18 06:16 pm (UTC)Agreed. In the case of Owen... my feelings for him went through various permutations throughout the series. By the end I was perfectly primed for the forgiveness scene, even though it took me by surprise. As did my reaction to it. Brilliant.
and my feeling is that both of them are actually really fine actors who are given characters that don't entirely make sense.
Donna was underdeveloped, but if they were using her as a one-off, that's not surprising. It gives me hope for next season.
I know that Burn Gorman stopped the filming of the scene of Owen shooting Jack because the motivation wasn't at all clear to any of them.
And... what explanation did they get? It wasn't entirely clear to me, either. But that was only one of numerous unclear things at that point.
I'm pretty sure we've talked about this before, but I thought his "reunion" with Jack at the end of End of Days was tremendously moving.
Oh, yes. A very strong scene. A very cleverly done scene, saying and implying so much about each of them, and perfectly accomplished by both actors. Amazing too that it (story-wise, in terms of emotional impact) completely eclipsed the kiss with Ianto. And I speak as a Jack/Ianto fan.
I think Eve Myles does well with Gwen - but then, I like Gwen on various levels. I don't think the writers have entirely done well by her... Which is a pity. On a more important level, I don't know how I am supposed to be interpreting her in the show. Is she a heroine in the making? A lost soul? Are we supposed to think she's clever, or an idiot? Or neither or both? ...I think she's supposed to be endearingly flawed, but I'm not sure.
Ianto doesn't project anything to me yet - he still seems remarkably blank, even when he's in the center of a scene).
I like Ianto a lot - particulary in "Cyberwoman", "Countrycide" and "Captain Jack Harkness" - but don't yet see a lot of chemistry between him and Jack. Largely because, after "Cyberwoman", we don't get many scenes where they interact - though the restraint of Ianto's approach to Jack at the end of "End of Days" was indicative in itself. I liked htat, as implying (I think) that (a) Ianto himself is uncertain where he stands with Jack, especially since he has defied him again, and (b) the others had no clue that Jack and Ianto had been having sex. (Though obviously Owen had picked up on the attraction, at least on Ianto's side.)
Ianto's best scenes are either with Owen (as in "Captain Jack Harkness") or by himself (as in "End of Days"). I like the way Ianto is a man of extremes - sometimes over-the-top emotion, but mostly showing a kind of controlled reserve.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure what I think of Gareth David-Lloyd in the role. His looks are perhaps a bit too... bland?
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1
Date: 2007-11-03 06:07 pm (UTC)Re: Owen By the end I was perfectly primed for the forgiveness scene, even though it took me by surprise.
Me, too. That, and Gwen's reaction to Rhys's "death" were definitely my favourite parts of the finale. I thought the show was finding its feet in "Out of Time" and CJH, but the finale was a bit...all the bad tendencies of Chris Chibnall resonating with all the worst tendencies of RTD.
Donna was underdeveloped, but if they were using her as a one-off, that's not surprising. It gives me hope for next season.
Me, too. I was actually going to stop watching DW - I have just reached such a pitch of loathing for Ten and his characterization that I couldn't bear it anymore, at least after we'd had an end, if not a closure, to the relationship with Jack - but bringing Donna back is the one thing that's going to keep me watching. I'm hoping for a rude awakening one way or the other.
And... what explanation did they get? It wasn't entirely clear to me, either. But that was only one of numerous unclear things at that point.
You know, I don't know that I ever heard the reason! I just heard that BG stopped the filming, which at least proves that one person in the production had his head in gear! I agree with you on the problem of Gwen - it's not Eve Myles's fault. It seems to be a particular feature/problem of RTD-flavoured shows that I'm not altogether sure how we're supposed to feel about characters. At least half of my problems with Ten are that I think we're supposed to think he's wonderful, and I really, really don't.
As for Ianto, I think "underdeveloped" is a big part of it. I also do find GDL bland, both in appearance and performance. I don't dislike the character so much as feel like he doesn't hold my attention. Often when he's onscreen (even if he's the only person onscreen), I find my eyes/attention drifting away from him. It plays into the chemistry issue, too, with Jack - I think John Barrowman can generate chemistry with others, though he needs someone to play with him. Eve Myles did that, Chris Eccleston did that, Billie Piper did that, even David Tennant did that - to an extent, and Freema Agyeman gave it a shot, though they had very little time together. But I just didn't see it happening much with GDL. As you intimate, everything seemed tentative. I've seen some people argue that Ianto was just being "discreet" when he approached Jack at the end, but I can't shake the feeling that GDL, if not Ianto, looked really uncomfortable in the kiss.
I'm curious as to how Martha is going to fit in. Martha was a little like S2 Rose, in that I liked her better when she was apart from the Doctor, so it could really be an opportunity for FA to mature as an actress. I think she's beautiful, and she's not a bad actress, but there are definitely times when she seems a bit raw and unfinished. I don't know that the production team will be able to help her, but perhaps some time around BG and GM will.
Have you been watching the Sarah Jane Adventures? I'm a few weeks behind, but I have to say, I'm really enjoying it!
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1a
Date: 2007-11-08 04:15 pm (UTC)And I keep forgetting when your Thanksgiving is - every year I have to ask, and every year I get the same answer from American friends, and every year I forget again - two weeks from now? Last something in November? Thursday?
[the scene where Jack forgives Owen] and Gwen's reaction to Rhys's "death" were definitely my favourite parts of the finale.
He too, though I also liked hearing Ianto reading from the Book of Revelations, and I adored the end when Jack heard the TARDIS and smiled. Too bad that didn't pan out.
I thought the show was finding its feet in "Out of Time" and CJH, but the finale was a bit...all the bad tendencies of Chris Chibnall resonating with all the worst tendencies of RTD.
Catherine Tregana knows how to write a great episode, and I hope they have her write some episodes next season. "End of Days" was a hodge-podge of random ideas badly put together. And excessive excess, as you say.
I just heard that BG stopped the filming, which at least proves that one person in the production had his head in gear!
You'd think writers, as well as actors, should realize that characters need motives for their actions. Which brings me back to my original assessment that the problems with Torchwood are all in the writing and the conceptualization, not in the acting or direction.
And though I think there are many things about both the new Doctor Who and Torchwood that are absolutely brilliant, their flaws show more and more as time goes on: a certain recklessness with content, a willingness to sacrifice sense for sensationalism, and a focus on bold ideas over characterization.
It seems to be a particular feature/problem of RTD-flavoured shows that I'm not altogether sure how we're supposed to feel about characters.
Yes. Look at David Tennant's character in Blackpool, D.I. Peter Carlisle - were we supposed to think he was sympathetic, or despicable? I liked the story well enough and I liked his role, but I still don't know. I like ambiguity, but we need some kind of anchor of character-assessment. Amorality doesn't do it.
As far as I know, Russell T. Davies had nothing to do with it; it could be just a style in writing at the BBC these days. If so, I disapprove.
At least half of my problems with Ten are that I think we're supposed to think he's wonderful, and I really, really don't.
I was ready to take it on faith for a long time, but I was going by certain assumptions that turned out to be unwarranted. There are still moments and scenes where I love him, and that makes me try to rationalize the other scenes. Without a lot of success.
Part of it is that I had in my head a certain notion of the Jack/Doctor relationship that the story supported completely: that Jack loved the Doctor and saw him as a mentor, a moral superior who had turned his life around at a point of crisis in "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances". That relationship paradigm stopped making sense with "The Last of the Time Lords" and even with "Utopia" - I liked the rationale that the Doctor couldn't cope with Jack's immortality, but I expected him to come to terms with it and accept Jack again. Instead we got... ambiguity, even obfuscation.
The bottom line being, however I reconstruct the relationship in my head, the Doctor no longer has the high moral ground. And that's why I feel that my fandom was 'broken' - because the core idea of it can't be reconstructed or fixed even if the story should bring resolution. The Doctor whose core motivation was compassion and caring isn't there any more. He let Earth be decimated.
And that puts Jack in the position of champion of Earth even if just in intent, which is the position of moral superiority in relation to the Doctor, and that's just... confusing. Emotionally speaking.
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1a1(!)
Date: 2007-11-22 09:30 pm (UTC)It's the fourth Thursday in November - so, today. This is quite early for Thanksgiving, it's as early as I can remember it happening, but I am so relieved! It's taken forever to get a few minutes to post anything. I actually finally landed at home yesterday, but I was so exhausted, I was mostly comatose. Then I woke up at an obscenely early hour this morning, but at least I got all the cooking done. Alas, all the cleaning is left.
I adored the end when Jack heard the TARDIS and smiled. Too bad that didn't pan out.
Yeah. I can't help wonder how it would have been if it had been Nine...
Catherine Tregana knows how to write a great episode, and I hope they have her write some episodes next season.
I agree, and I'm glad that we'll get another PJ Hammond. I still love Sapphire and Steel, no matter how weird it is. It had a haunting tone that is missing from a lot of things these days. I've never had a problem with "slow" as a pace, as long as it's paced. Then again, I'm a big fan of Russian films, particularly those starring Oleg Yankovsky. Chicken or egg?
Which brings me back to my original assessment that the problems with Torchwood are all in the writing and the conceptualization, not in the acting or direction.
I think that's mostly true. I do think the actors are all different in style (although one thing Myles and Gorman have going for them as a "pair" is that they have a similar classical grounding), so that requires some sensitivity in direction. I haven't made a note of who was directing what, but there are some episodes that seemed to have better pacing than others.
their flaws show more and more as time goes on: a certain recklessness with content, a willingness to sacrifice sense for sensationalism, and a focus on bold ideas over characterization.
Yes. Sigh. I finally just watched Time Crash, and although it was fairly entertaining, the amount of self-love, in its many guises, was a bit nauseating to me. I thought Davison managed extremely well (and I was no fan of Five in my teens), but Tennant continues to seem utterly infatuated with how cute he's being onscreen - the interview was lovely, but the performance, not so much.
Look at David Tennant's character in Blackpool, D.I. Peter Carlisle - were we supposed to think he was sympathetic, or despicable? I liked the story well enough and I liked his role, but I still don't know. I like ambiguity, but we need some kind of anchor of character-assessment. Amorality doesn't do it.
Excellent point, and I agree. Personally, I didn't really like anyone in Blackpool. It reminded me of Dennis Potter, for good and ill. Even though there are often vile people in Dennis Potter stories, you normally have some baseline of how to judge them. One of the things that disturbs me about S3 of DW especially is that I think the show thinks Ten is an avenging angel and that that's his prerogative. It also thinks he's magnificent, which I don't think Tennant has the power to pull off. I'm still not sure how much of this is a writing problem and how much is acting. Nine had ambiguity. He had a short temper and tremendous power, but he was broken and vulnerable - genuinely so. He knew he was damaged, and he did push/pull people, but it was a constant struggle between his desire for contact and his fear that he was contaminating others. When he acted like an ass, he was called on it, even by himself. I occasionally see the argument that Ten is behaving according to some "alien morality", but I think that's a cop-out. If "we little humans can't understand it", it's an invitation to behave any way the show decides it wants him to, consistent or not. And I don't remember the Doctor ever being so arbitrary before - patronizing, yes, but usually understandable.
Part of it is that I had in my head a certain notion of the Jack/Doctor relationship that the story supported completely: that Jack loved the Doctor and saw him as a mentor, a moral superior who had turned his life around at a point of crisis in "The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances".
I don't see any other way to see it. ::nods:: But then again, that was Nine.
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1a1(!)+x
Date: 2007-11-29 03:29 pm (UTC)I can't help wonder how it would have been if it had been Nine...
I wish! I can't help thinking it would have been a lot better. For Jack. I can't believe that Nine would have Ten's prejudice. Or if he did, he'd get over it, like he got over being angry with Rose in "Father's Day".
I still love Sapphire and Steel, no matter how weird it is.
I've never seen it, though it's on my list of "things to see maybe if I ever get the chance".
I've never had a problem with "slow" as a pace, as long as it's paced.
I have to agree, though content has its part here too. But... yes, what is important to me is that there is pacing and structure to the show. I have complained about 'train car stories' where the plot is a matter of one thing happening, and then another, and whatever the cause and effect, there's no build-up, and the 'climax' becomes just another event, resolution or none. I'm big on pacing. Which is yet another reason why DW series 1 was so wonderful.
I finally just watched Time Crash, and although it was fairly entertaining, the amount of self-love, in its many guises, was a bit nauseating to me.
Yes. I liked it - it did a lot to revive my love of Ten because I have no problem with his self-admiration, his ego, or his cuteness, I quite like it. I really only mind it when I think he's being unkind or careless with others. Which, in this instance, he wasn't.
But this means I can only look at him scene by scene, not at the big picture, which is no way to characterize a hero. So I'm still working on the big picture. And so, I hope, are they.
I thought Davison managed extremely well (and I was no fan of Five in my teens)
I associate Davison with All Creatures Great and Small and The Mrs. Bradley Mysteries - in both, I found him bland, though not unpleasant. "Time Crash" is the only time I've seen him as the Doctor and he was mostly a foil for Tennant, but he was fine, and the scene was fun. For some reason the line about the "decorative vegetable" struck me as particularly funny.
I didn't really like anyone in Blackpool
I didn't either, and I particularly disliked Riply Holden, who combined just about all the traits I could possibly dislike in a character, from greed to sexism to dishonesty and onwards - and was at first irritated that he got so much screen time. But I found myself liking the show for reasons I can't even analyze, so the fact that I didn't like the characters stopped really mattering. Except I wanted Carlyle to turn out to be honest, or at least dishonest for good reasons, and that didn't happen. I would have liked it much more if there'd been a hero; and I don't feel tempted to watch the sequel.
Who is David Potter?
Nine had ambiguity. He had a short temper and tremendous power, but he was broken and vulnerable - genuinely so.
Ahh. I love the way you describe him. So true, that captures it, but it doesn't cover the whole - he was a wonderful mix of personality traits, including (to my eyes) being both caring and taking responsibility for others. His being mercurial and playful and even temperamental just highlighted this.
When he acted like an ass, he was called on it, even by himself.
Which I loved.
I occasionally see the argument that Ten is behaving according to some "alien morality", but I think that's a cop-out.
It's total nonsense. There is no 'alien morality'. The Doctor is either moral on our terms, or not at all. This isn't to say there can't be any number of shades of grey, but 'alien morality' is either morality as we know it, or it's immortality. Calling red "green" doesn't make it anything but red.
Put another way: the Doctor is an alien. Whatever his morality is, is alien morality. That doesn't change anything about the situation!
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1a1(!)+x
From:Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1a1(!)+x
From:the morality question
From:Re: the morality question
From:Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1a2
Date: 2007-11-22 09:31 pm (UTC)It makes the Doctor look like a coward. Which, fine, but embrace his cowardice! Don't make him into an all-knowing hero! I don't mind a flawed hero, I mind a hero that is obviously flawed while the show goes around calling him "magnificent".
The Doctor whose core motivation was compassion and caring isn't there any more. He let Earth be decimated.
And forgave the creature who did it, even though it really wasn't his right to forgive. It really does reduce humanity to the status of "pet", which makes Ten look like...Q in Star Trek: The Next Generation. A character I love, but one whose childish capriciousness was recognized in the show.
that's just... confusing. Emotionally speaking.
Yes. It is.
Utopia thoughts
Date: 2007-11-28 06:35 pm (UTC)It makes the Doctor look like a coward. Which, fine, but embrace his cowardice!
To me it looks as if the Doctor doesn't care on various levels hwere he should care. He should care about whether he's prejudiced or not. He should care about Jack's welfare and fate, if not his feelings. He should care about consequences in general - and most of all, he should care about the nature of truth, which is the mainstay of science. If Jack is an anomaly - shouldn't the Doctor be fascinated, not repelled?
I always hated Q, who struck me as being twee. I preferred certain comic book variations of the theme who were more openly silly, like The Impossible Man from the planet Poppup - and even then, he wasn't a favourite, just a notion I could tolerate.
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1b
Date: 2007-11-08 04:17 pm (UTC)The most confusing thing is that though he is Jack's lover, there is far more emphasis on Jack's relationships with Gwen and Owen - even if you ignore the every-present memory of the Doctor. And even on Jack's relationship with Toshiko, as Ianto never gets one of those "let's talk about life and our feelings" kinds of scenes that Tosh gets at the end of "Greeks Bearing Gifts". In "Cyberwoman", where it would be appropriate, what did he get? A glance. A nod. And the pertinent personal conversation that was going on was between Jack and Gwen.
I don't entirely mind that; I liked the scene. But the point is that Ianto was given no opportunity to express himself with Jack. I wonder what would have ensued if, instead of Gwen asking, "Would you have killed him?" it had been Ianto asking, "Would you have killed me?"
I think John Barrowman can generate chemistry with others, though he needs someone to play with him. Eve Myles did that, Chris Eccleston did that, Billie Piper did that, even David Tennant did that - to an extent
My impression was that the chemistry between Barrowman and Tennant could have been explosive, but the writers backed off on it and they had to play it dampened down to almost nothing - perhaps to allow John Simm his limelight.
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1b
Date: 2007-11-26 11:12 pm (UTC)That's what he gets for having three first names! :-) Yeah, it took me a while to figure him out. I don't have a problem with him as such, I just find him bland, and Ianto's characterization (what there is of it) doesn't really push any buttons for me. I'm not actually convinced that he is Jack's lover, to be honest. They haven't given me enough, even of subtext, and I'm not seeing chemistry, so I'm struggling to figure out what they want from the character. I don't think they know either, given the haste with which it was all thrown together. I understand that Ianto staying on was not originally planned, which explains how he got neglected practically, but it's really not much of an excuse. I have to admit, the fact that GDL seems to be RTD's "type" (weedy, young, blandish, a little "deer-in-the-headlights") has made me wonder a bit about that!
I think they could have made an interesting juxtaposition of Ianto as someone that Jack used (in any sense of the word) to pass the time waiting for the Doctor. It'll be interesting to see if they make anything of what happened in S2.
My impression was that the chemistry between Barrowman and Tennant could have been explosive, but the writers backed off on it and they had to play it dampened down to almost nothing - perhaps to allow John Simm his limelight.
I'm not sure... I just don't see Tennant being "explosive" with anyone. I do think they were playing more obviously with Simm, but even there, I didn't think the chemistry was all that great. It just comes back to Tennant's self-centered energy for me; I can't get past it, and it bothered me in Time Crash, too. I know many, many people find it charming, but I find it's irritating me more and more.
On the upside, I liked Five better than I remembered. Maybe Peter Davison is also a better actor than he was 25 years ago - that's possible, too!
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1b
Date: 2007-11-27 04:40 pm (UTC)Yes, really, how inconsiderate of him! I keep calling him Gareth Lloyd-David, I think because I like the rhythm better. Then I correct myself. If I remember.
They haven't given me enough, even of subtext, and I'm not seeing chemistry, so I'm struggling to figure out what they want from the character.
When you said that I reflected how much more sparky and interesting Jack's relationship is with Owen - not that I see the least bit of sexual chemistry there, or want to, but I do see a connectivity and reaction there that I don't see with Jack and Ianto. Even though I like Ianto much, much more than I like Owen. But any interpretation of Ianto has to come from the viewer because neither the script nor the actor is giving us much.
This is why it comes as a surprise when Ianto propositions Jack - it came as a suprise even to Jack, which is saying something, because Jack is no doubt a man unfamiliar with sexual nuance and it seems unlikely that (even if distracted) he'd fail to notice when someone liked him. But this is Ianto, who hid his girlfriend in the storage room for three months. Ianto can keep secrets.
Speaking of which, why is the Jack/Ianto affair a secret from their coworkers? Presumably not after "End of Days" - but even there, it is clear Ianto did not expect the public kiss. No fan (myself included) would interpret it this way, but from what we see onscreen, it would look as if Jack and Ianto had sex at the end of "They Keep Killing Suzie" and then reverted to a businesslike relationship.
And this in a show where Gwen and Owen are both wailing loud and long about their loves and their lovers, including each other. And Ianto was wailing his heart out in "Cyberwoman" with the best of them.
My interpretation (because I like it, and it fits what little evidence we see): Ianto's love/hate attitude to Jack became love after Jack accepted him back into Torchwood after "Cyberowman", and helped him recover from grief. Jack loves all his Torchwood team, and sees them as family, and wants to help them when they're troubled. Struggling with various uncertainties (including the fact that he knows next to nothing about Jack), Ianto saw and responded to Jack's grief by offering sexual comfort in "They Keep Killing Suzie". Nothing much changes in Jack's life or feelings, until he meets the original Captain Jack, and falls in love again himself, which is why he can tell the other Captain that 'there's no one' even though he is manifestly in love with the Doctor and (at least once, or at least occasionally) having sex with Ianto. Not to mention sharing a certain kind of chemisty or UST or attraction/denial dance with Gwen.
I understand that Ianto staying on was not originally planned, which explains how he got neglected practically
I heard that, and believed it - because it fits what we see - but then was told it wasn't true, it was just a rumour on the part of fans, that Ianto was always supposed to be an ongoing character. I don't know which version is true.
I think they could have made an interesting juxtaposition of Ianto as someone that Jack used (in any sense of the word) to pass the time waiting for the Doctor.
Yes. It will be interesting to see where that goes, if anywhere.
I just don't see Tennant being "explosive" with anyone
Sadly, I find him quite sexy and explosive with Agyeman/Martha, which is ironic, considering that I didn't find him so with Rose or Reinette, and he keeps pushing Martha away.
Maybe Peter Davison is also a better actor than he was 25 years ago - that's possible, too!
I just saw him on The Mrs. Bradley Mysteries, where he was fun - not that it was a challenging role, or much of a role at all, but still a bit of a treat to see him.
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1c
Date: 2007-11-08 04:17 pm (UTC)Another ambiguity. I felt it raised more questions than it answered. It answered the questions, "Was Jack glad to see Ianto again?" and "Did Jack forgive Ianto for betraying him again?" and the answer to both questions was "Yes."
But... If you answer the question "Why was Ianto going for a deferential handshake instead of a warm kiss?" with the answer, "He was being discreet", it begs the real question: why was he being discreet? Why has the Jack/Ianto affair been a secret from their friends? Goodness knows sexual discretion is not Jack's strong point, generally speaking. Lisa is dead and Ianto has no commitments. Since everyone at Torchwood is (apparently) bi and Ianto knows it, why be discreet? They weren't even in public, they were among their friends.
So does it imply that Ianto has mixed feelings about the relationship, or about Jack, or his own orientation? Does he feel he's competing for Jack's love with the Doctor, or with the other Captain Jack Harkness, assuming he knows anything about them? What does he know or guess about Jack's identity or his past? Is Jack telling him nothing, and that makes Ianto mistrust him? All these questions, as well as the answers, are all guesswork, because we're given nothing.
This is not entirely bad, as it leaves the field open for fanfic, but it's also... stingy on the part of the writers and producers. Give the lead character a romantic relationship but give us nothing about his feelings, or his lover's feelings? We got infinitely more with the Jack/Jack relationship, where it was clear what each man thought and felt about the other.
Maybe they didn't want to give us anything more about Jack/Ianto for fear of weaking the emotional impact of "Captain Jack Harkness", and that's fair. It did surprise me when our Jack told the other Jack "there's no one". I don't know what we're to take from that. I have my own interpretation, but it's all guesswork - the show doesn't tell.
And, yes, the Jack/Ianto kiss was awkward - more so than the differently-ambiguous kiss in "Cyberwoman". Whether that was intentional (as Ianto-characterization) or unintended (because Gareth David-Lloyd was uncomfortable with it and not a good enough actor to pull it off anyway) is unclear.
So it will be interesting to see how Ianto and Jack interact in series 2.
Freema Agyeman gave it a shot, though they had very little time together
As it was, oddly enough, it became a sort of us/them dichtomy: Jack and Martha as humans loving the Doctor and having to rescue him (and mankind) from the Master; the Doctor and the Master together as Time Lords with agendas of their own.
I've only seen the first three episodes of The Sarah Jane Adventures, and I absolutely loved them.
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 1c
Date: 2007-11-26 11:24 pm (UTC)Very, very good point - I didn't copy them all, because, yes. I agree. It's beyond ambiguous and more a set of contradictory teases. And I can sort of see the point about CJH, but honestly - they didn't have to give us Ianto/Jack at all in S1, and it probably would have been better. Have Cyberwoman and that conflict, then have CJH and Jack's adventures on DW, and then come back and see if there's any basis. Or - and I think I would have liked this better - have Jack and Ianto screwing around pre-Cyberwoman (put it later in the series) – and then have Jack find out Ianto had had Lisa in the basement. Something. Anything that made any sort of emotional sense. This is another case, it seems, of just throwing things at the page, and then at the actors.
And, yes, the Jack/Ianto kiss was awkward - more so than the differently-ambiguous kiss in "Cyberwoman". Whether that was intentional (as Ianto-characterization) or unintended (because Gareth David-Lloyd was uncomfortable with it and not a good enough actor to pull it off anyway) is unclear.
I have to admit, my first thought was that it was an acting thing. Just gut reaction. And again, I have to comment how much I loved the Jack/Owen moment, even though it really had little more emotional context - the actors just made it work. I may not like Owen much, but I love Burn Gorman. I'd almost rather some sort of awkward affair/attraction between Owen and Jack because I think the actors would pull it off.
So it will be interesting to see how Ianto and Jack interact in series 2.
Hmm. Yeees. ::makes Mr. Burns fingers:: Although we're evidently getting Mr. Blast from the Past early in the series. Maybe Ianto will just figure out that Jack is a complete slut and won't have anything more to do with him! :-)
As it was, oddly enough, it became a sort of us/them dichtomy: Jack and Martha as humans loving the Doctor and having to rescue him (and mankind) from the Master; the Doctor and the Master together as Time Lords with agendas of their own.
That's true - although I did rather like that. It made a certain sense. I could even go with some of the plot of LOTTL if they really made clear that the Doctor was alien. I don't think they ever really do that, and I think that there's the danger of straying into alien = arbitrary, and that doesn't work either. And we come back to an acting thing for me. CE could convince me he was alien. There is something otherworldly in his eyes - and it's not just the ferocious bonestructure, although that clearly help. But neither Tennant nor Simm, nor even Jacobi for that matter, really strike me as alien, just screwed-up human, and that diminishes the impact.
I'm way behind on The Sarah Jane Adventures, but I'm looking forward to catching up. Have I mentioned my little predilection for post-School Reunion Sarah Jane/pre-Rose Nine? I don't know why that feels so right to me, but it does. I think because it would be the difference between "Sarah Jane, my old friend (whom I grew up watching on telly)" and more "Sarah Jane, my old friend, whom I left carelessly, long before I lost everyone I loved at my own hands".
Re: Looks vs. attraction, carrying on with another part (1)
Date: 2007-11-27 09:32 pm (UTC)It reinforces one of the major flaws of Torchwood as a whole, which is that the storylines and themes look oddly random. A bit of this and a bit of that. The only character who really got ongoing character development was Owen, and that part was terrific. Ianto needed that, and didn't get it. What we learn of him is in bits and pieces: the Lisa plot, his resentment at being left out of things, his liking for coffee and suits, his love of Jack (with a bit of a 'where did that come from?' flavour to it), and a love of word-play.
I don't love either Owen or Burn Gorman but I thought the Owen theme in Torchwood was excellent and Burn Gorman's performance excelled. I was convinced despite myself. My dislike of him as a character is nullified by my enjoyment of his storyline. They certainly made the 'forgiveness' hug a great moment of the series. It could have been a throw-away.
And really, I expected the Jack/Ianto forgiveness scene to be signficant, if only because being betrayed by one's lover is more dramatic than being betrayed by a guy you fought with and fired. But no. As it happened, the Jack/Ianto reunion was the throw-away.
Maybe Ianto will just figure out that Jack is a complete slut and won't have anything more to do with him! :-)
Hee - that would be so sensible of him! Which is one reason it's totally unlikely. No one is so sensible on this show.
I did rather like that. It made a certain sense.
Reluctantly, I agree. I didn't like it that it cut Jack and Martha out of the Doctor's emotional life, but I liked it that it gave a definition to the Time Lord perspective, as contrasted to the human.
Re: Looks vs. attraction, part 2 of another reply
Date: 2007-11-27 09:32 pm (UTC)For my money, they've played with that one time and again, never really making it stick. In all the significant moments and plots, the Doctor acts human, and espouses human values. Then his most inexplicable moments can be dismissed as 'alien' which doesn't work, not to my mind. As I see it, the whole bedrock of the show is that the Doctor is a 'good alien' in contrast to a bevy of 'bad aliens' like Daleks and the Slitheen and the Sycorax and so on; the thing that makes the Doctor different is that he loves and protects the Earth.
Which is why Martha's proselytizing in "The Last of the Time Lords" seemed odd: at the one time when our belief in the Doctor ought to have been greatest, he was doing none of the world-saving stuff but was simply failing to stop the Master from doing whatever he wished.
Making the line between 'good alien' and 'bad alien' a little thinner than usual.
Actually, I like Jack's assessments there - though this is presumed on my part, not actually articulated. But he seems to treat aliens just like any kinds of people: good and bad individuals. Some are boring (and watery), some are dangerous (like Weevils), some are beautiful - and so on.
CE could convince me he was alien.
So he could. And did. And was totally sympathetic nonetheless. I miss him!
Tennant's Doctor doesn't strike me as alien so much as superheroic. He does amazing superhuman things and feels proud about it. He's so srewed up psychologically he would fit just just fine in the X-Men, where a few Lonely Gods have already found refuge. And a demon or two. (I can't think of any aliens who've been in the X-Men, but that's probably just a failure of my memory. Their leader had an alien lover, does that count?)
I'm way behind on The Sarah Jane Adventures, but I'm looking forward to catching up.
Me too.
Have I mentioned my little predilection for post-School Reunion Sarah Jane/pre-Rose Nine?
No. What an interesting idea.
I think because it would be the difference between "Sarah Jane, my old friend (whom I grew up watching on telly)" and more "Sarah Jane, my old friend, whom I left carelessly, long before I lost everyone I loved at my own hands".
I like your reasoning! Now that I've written one story where Jack meets Sarah Jane, I've considered others. I never thought of putting Nine and Sarah Jane together. It has a nice resonance.
Re: Looks vs. attraction, pt. 2
Date: 2007-09-18 06:16 pm (UTC)I felt I got a lot more insight into all of the characters (except Ianto) on reading the novels (though I've still only read two of them). And that says something about the writing of the shows.... Though of course the novels had more room for elucidation.
I saw "Utopia" again last night - they finally aired it on the CBC. Except with the Professor, Ten was entirely closed off - and I though Tennant did a wonderful job of projecting defensiveness. A man making himself an island - with Martha no less than with Jack.
And frankly, the character makes more sense to me if I revert to my former interpretation rather than anything articulated in the show: that Ten is afraid to get too close to anyone, and so pushes them away, whatever his feelings. He has a moment of rapport with Jack over Rose (when Jack hugs him), and a moment of rapport with the Professor when they are all caught up in mutual admiration. Otherwise Ten is in a 'don't approach me' mood, which he tries to extend to Jack as well - none of those warm flirty hellos! But he assumes responsibility for Jack (no shooting) and acts possessive. So: echoes of Nine, without the warmth, and only echoes of the teasing.
Hmm.
I agree that the slashiness of the Doctor and Master seemed mostly on the Master's side. Though Ten's reactions were emotional (and focussed), they were not visceral... Yes, Simm was sexy with Moen, and I'm not much of a John Simm fan, but I could see it! I thought he was sexiest with the Doctor when they were on the telephone in "The Sound of Drums".
But by the end of "The Last of the Time Lords" I felt the Doctor seemed... leeched of feeling, perhaps. Drained. Lost. Half-hearted. Not engaging with Martha or Jack so much as going through motions. Perhaps he was on auto-pilot since the loss of Rose, and losing the Master was the last straw. So at the end it's 'onward and upward, we all carry on to the next adventure' but without any spirit spirit to it except that of loss.