Doctor Who: "The Unquiet Dead"

[fajrdrako]

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

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

Breaking it down into aspects:

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Comments

Re: analyzing the changes in story and tone, part 2

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

I can tell I was tired and loopy when I posted this first response - there are all sorts of little mistakes and typos. I shall endeavour to do better here.

Re: the void. It's exactly that that keeps me from connecting to Ten. I can see it either as a hard, impenetrable shell, or an absence of moral compass/soul, or a combination of both.

Assume that the Doctor cares about mankind. It shouldn't be a stretch.

I think a lot of fans just do, but I need a bit more show and a bit less tell. There is a theory that some actors/characters are popular because the present a "blank screen" for the audience to write on whatever they want. And since they give relatively little, writing what one wants to see is relatively easy and therefore enjoyable to the audience. Keanu Reeves, Tom Cruise, and even Julia Roberts come immediately to mind - but even Johnny Depp strikes me that way sometimes, in that his characters are much more complex, but the inner life is almost always inaccessible (Donnie Brasco is a notable exception).

I haven't seen The Second Coming yet. I have a copy, and must watch it. I think I am reluctant to watch all my Christopher Eccleston material, and know I'll have nothing more that's new to me.

I do understand that, although I caught onto him so early in his career (Shallow Grave - opening shot of the film, in fact) that much of my watching has been spread out as it happened. I will say that Second Coming and Revengers Tragedy are probably my favourite of his performances, and so very different. Eccleston had this amazing 2002-2003: those two projects, Othello (also fantastic), Flesh & Blood (numerous awards), and Hamlet on stage. I didn't get to see it, but I love that he conceived of Hamlet as an "apocalyptic standup", as a black comedy character and not the usual whining prat. He also speaks period language exceptionally well.

I understood (a little) why fans talk about the Doctor in Peter Pan terms, but I still think that is dead wrong, and am not entirely sure what they mean by it.

I've only really seen that in connection with Ten, and his "boyishness" (Peter Davison was, and looked, younger, but he was a more serious character from what I recall). He does act like a superannuated teenager. I can see it a little in School Reunion, with the "you can spend your entire life with me, but I can't with you," and the "I have to watch them wither and die," which struck me as sad, yes, but also a bit immature and selfish, as was Peter Pan. Although I don't know that many fans are seeing the darker side of Peter Pan.

Unless we want to make her into St. Paul, setting up the Church. (double ack!)

Ack!Ack! indeed. Unfortunately, it's not a hard argument to make. ::shakes fist, Jon Stewart-imitating-William Shatner style:: Damn you, RTD!

I'd just seen it in Torchwood and loved it then, and my thought here was, "What? A replay?"

There was that, too. Although I actually was more moved by Jack and Owen (I don't like Owen, but Burn Gorman is a very good actor).

I don't think RTD has completely worked his way out of all the research he did with The Second Coming. But IMO, he nailed it in that one (it didn't satisfy everyone, but it's An Answer) and is now just gnawing at the stitches, as it were.

On that lovely image, I shall sign off!

Re: analyzing the changes in story and tone, part 2

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

was tired and loopy when I posted this first response - there are all sorts of little mistakes and typos.

I keep doing that, too. Mostly through trying to type quickly at work when I should be moving on to other things - but you seem to be making sense of my comments. Good!

I need a bit more show and a bit less tell.

I was fine with it until "The Last of the Time Lords". Then the amount of suffering for the sake of the Doctor's love of the Master floored me. If he were being unselfish, he'd have sacrificed anything, including the Master, to save mankind. I'm still trying to make moral sense of this.

I've been trying, without success, to find Revenger's Tragedy. Eccleston's Othello, I love. Wish I could have seen Hamlet.

Re Peter Pan: I'll continue to think about it. If flashes of immaturity ro self-pity add up to Peter Panishness, then most characters are Peter Pan! I see an innocence to Peter Pan that I don't see in the Doctor; and I don't see any of the Peter Pan themes (e.g., the eternal search for a mother) reflected in the Doctor. The Doctor should be preternaturally mature and experienced, even if twisted; and I tend to see him that way. Maybe it's that they are of the school of thought that says the Doctor is sexless, and I don't buy that, either! (Certainly not after "Boom Town" - Though the exposition of the theme began in "The Doctor Dances".)

::shakes fist, Jon Stewart-imitating-William Shatner style:: Damn you, RTD!

You made me laugh out loud at work. Luckily no one is paying attention.

Although I actually was more moved by Jack and Owen (I don't like Owen, but Burn Gorman is a very good actor).

True. And the fact that I don't like Owen made the scene all the stronger. Forgiving someone you like is comparatively easy. Yes, I was very moved by that... much less by the Doctor's forgiveness of the Master, because, to my mind, the Doctor didn't have the right to forgive the Master as the spokesman of everyone on Earth; and it wasn't only the Doctor,or even specifically the Doctor, whom the Master had wronged.

Will I understand all this better when I see The Second Coming?

Re: analyzing the changes in story and tone, part 2

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

If he were being unselfish, he'd have sacrificed anything, including the Master, to save mankind. I'm still trying to make moral sense of this.

Not really sure I can, because you're right. And not just "mankind" but any sentient race that has potential.

I've been trying, without success, to find Revenger's Tragedy.

If you're motivated, send me an e-mail at this user name verizon.net. I might be able to lead you to some sources.

Eccleston's Othello, I love.

I do think that's a brilliant adaptation. (http://nina-ds.livejournal.com/23800.html)

Yes, I was very moved by that... much less by the Doctor's forgiveness of the Master, because, to my mind, the Doctor didn't have the right to forgive the Master as the spokesman of everyone on Earth; and it wasn't only the Doctor,or even specifically the Doctor, whom the Master had wronged.

Exactly. And it just moved the Doctor back into his patronizing/paternalistic space, which I have never liked in the character.

And the fact that I don't like Owen made the scene all the stronger. Forgiving someone you like is comparatively easy.

There are two parts of EOD that I do like: Gwen's reaction to Rhys's death, and Jack forgiving Owen, and both of them are sheerly on performance.

Will I understand all this better when I see The Second Coming?

That's a good question, and I don't know. As I said before, I think RTD came to a satisfying conclusion before; even if you don't agree with it, it is a logical proposition. And it's structured interestingly as well: I rather like that you're travelling on this road, thinking you know where you're going, and then suddenly, it's like, "Whoa! That was the turnoff back there, and I completely missed that I'm on a different road now! But hey, this turned out to be a neat shortcut."

Re: analyzing the changes in story and tone, part 2

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

it just moved the Doctor back into his patronizing/paternalistic space, which I have never liked in the character.

I haven't thought of it that way, but... yes.

There are two parts of EOD that I do like: Gwen's reaction to Rhys's death, and Jack forgiving Owen, and both of them are sheerly on performance.

Those were the best parts, and yes, beautifully acted. I also liked the beginning, with Ianto reading from the Bible with his beautiful voice; and the scenes when Jack is dead.