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: identity and relationships: Rose, Reinette and the Master

[nina-ds.livejournal.com]

The Ten/Rose/Reinette triangle in "The Girl in the Fireplace" looks like the Ten/Jack/Master triangle in "The Last of the Time Lords": one person, in their devotion to the Doctor, is sacrificed for the sake of the love Ten feels for someone else.

That's an interesting parallel I hadn't thought of (although in LOTTL, it's more Ten/Jack&Martha/Master). And it is, as you say, the inverse of the Rose/Nine/Jack triad, where they really are a unit that pulls together, not a set of opposing forces pushing apart.

By the reasoning I've been following here, if Nine had not regenerated, he would have come back for Jack. But Ten wouldn't have, and didn't.

I simply cannot wrap my head around Nine abandoning Jack unless he knew it was for the better (having taken in the Time Vortex, he saw all the possible futures and knew that Jack needed to stay behind). However, I really don't have trouble seeing Ten abandoning him because we see him do it in both S2 and S3, as you say, and he had "never thought" with Sarah Jane. The only way I can see it is if Nine is in the throes of regeneration and is so concentrated on saving Rose, thinking Jack was dead, that he somehow "missed" that he was revived. The character continuity doesn't work, unless you see Nine as already in the process of regeneration, and becoming Ten.

Mickey let Rose wait five and a half hours for the Doctor - suppose it had been a day? A week? Would he have let Rose wait forever?

Excellent question. I hope not. I hope that Mickey is already making his transition from Tin Dog to revolutionary (trying to forget that loathesome "button" joke in the next episode...). I suppose, more than that, I hope that Rose would have been "still human enough" (to paraphrase Jackie in AoG) not to want to sacrifice someone else to her quixotic quest.

Re: the chemistry question, I am reminded of an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (can't remember the title), but it was the episode where two of the actors (Alexander Siddig and Nana Visitor) suddenly looked at each other and went "phwoar!" - after having worked together for a couple of years. It was an extraordinary moment. I had no idea about the backstage gossip at the time, I just remember thinking, "Whoa, where did that come from?" and rolling the tape back to watch, just because it was so compelling. I wish we could have gotten some of that.

By series 3 he was losing (or completely dropping) the emotional threads - cutting and breaking them, in fact, and retying them in pretty bows meant to shock or surprise or titillate but not to go in the standard narrative directions. I can't really fault this as a creative choice any more than I can faul Picasso for exploring cubism, but as a viewer who loves relationship themes and tight narrative, I found it unsatisfying in that way.

I agree, I think there are places for disjunct storytelling. I'm just not sure he's really trying that. I keep going back to The Second Coming, which I do think is his magnum opus so far. There are all sorts of misdirections in that - I remember the first time I saw it, I was stunned to realize we were well into the denouement when I thought we were just marking time to the climax. And the lead/POV character kept shifting - one character who seemed absolutely central in the first third just disappeared and never came back. But it worked. In the end, it did all hang together for me. Maybe he's just getting tired and/or sloppy. I'm actually thinking that a hiatus is not a bad idea.

As for GITF, I still don't know what I think it was really saying even about Ten and Rose. When I first saw it, it seemed to be another pointed object lesson that he was more flighty in this incarnation. Although honestly, I had more problems with the plotholes like jumping Arthur through the mirror because it looked cool...and then just standing there! I loved the first act, but the follow through was messy. I think it got the Hugo on concept rather than execution. Both Blink and HN/FOB will be more deserving - Blink is more "perfect", I think, though HN/FOB is more ambitious.

Re: identity and relationships: Rose, Reinette and the Master

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

in LOTTL, it's more Ten/Jack&Martha/Master

Granted, though one could also say that in "Fireplace" it's Ten/Reinette/Rose/Mickey - another configuration with its own complications.

the inverse of the Rose/Nine/Jack triad

Yes. And I was going to make a comment starting "If Mickey had been there", but I found I couldn't, because Mickey wouldn't have been there - the Doctor made a point of that back in "Rose": "You're not invited". I don't think it means that Ten is more tolerant or forgiving, just that he has different priorities, different ways of judging and choosing.

I simply cannot wrap my head around Nine abandoning Jack unless he knew it was for the better (having taken in the Time Vortex, he saw all the possible futures and knew that Jack needed to stay behind).

Maybe, though as it was, it didn't turn out so well. So I begin to think that Nine, knowing Jack was alive, meant to go back for him after he'd saved Rose; once he was Ten, the "wrongness" Jack horrified him into running - or, put another way, he was overcome by his prejudices into taking another path. I can see Nine putting Rose first, daving her first, because he sees Jack as a warrior.

I hope that Mickey is already making his transition from Tin Dog to revolutionary (trying to forget that loathesome "button" joke in the next episode...)

I don't think Mickey has completed his transition - it's a slow process. It starts with his decision to follow Rose onto the TARDIS. It ends... with "Army of Ghosts". When he has learned to much. I think he first had to see how big the universe was/is/will be. In "Fireplace" he doesn't seem to have figured that out yet.

I suppose, more than that, I hope that Rose would have been "still human enough" (to paraphrase Jackie in AoG) not to want to sacrifice someone else to her quixotic quest.

I hope so, though she certainly appears unilaterally directed.

Interesting re Siddig and Visitor - two actors I like, though I'd stopped watching "DS9" long before that point. Doctor Who seems to have given us the opposite, to some extent. Implication, rather than strong explosive emotional movements. Now, this sense of reticence sometimes makes emotional moments very powerful - sometimes it works well, sometimes it just isn't adequate.

I think there are places for disjunct storytelling. I'm just not sure he's really trying that.

I'm not sure how much it is intentional, and how much it is carelessness.

I think it got the Hugo on concept rather than execution.

On first viewing, I was both amused and stunned by it. Stunned because it was different, because it took me by surprise from so many directions at once, not least the polyamory angles. I still don't know what to think about who in the episode thought and felt what about whom, and to some extent I liked that element of uncertainly or emotional evolution - a sort of mix and match that went way beyong normal TV fare. But that was when I was assuming a certain emotional continuity for Ten. I got it, I think, for series 2, but series three has left me all the more confused. I think I've got it, but it's my own quirky interpretation of events rather than what Davies actually gives us - because what he gives, he also takes away.

Both Blink and HN/FOB will be more deserving - Blink is more "perfect"

"Blink" is utterly amazing, one of the best one-hour TV shows I've ever seen. It has such structure and the characters are so well drawn.

HN/FOB is more ambitious.

Agreed. A classic of its kind, with some flaws - particularly for me, but even taking into account my emotional resistence to some of it (and my irritation and lack of sympathy for John Smith), I think it's a brilliant story. And the things I hated in "The Last of the Time Lords" are pretty much done the right way here: the Doctor thanks Martha at the end, and she stays, and I didn't feel his love for Joan lessened his love for Martha.