The Second Coming...
Jul. 14th, 2008 12:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fajrdrakoA few quick comments on The Second Coming now, because I had no time to comment yesterday.
The reasons this is worth seeing: it's by Russell T. Davies who is a good writer, an effective-but-sloppy writer, who manages to be gripping and to raise emotion even when he's getting things wrong. With this particular show, a two-part miniseries, he presents his views on religion: and though the theme is though-provoking and worthwhile, it comes across as essentially shallow. Which is a pity, because in many ways I think he's right. But a good theme poorly presented isn't a good theme.
The best things about the movie: Christopher Eccleston and Lesley Sharp in the lead roles. Both gave strong, complex, and riverting performances.
The problems? All in the script, in the writing. Not so much ideological as probems with the portrayal of the ideas being presented. If you're going to take on a subject as broad as the spiritual future of mankind and as deep as religion, you have to make it convincing, either emotionally or intellectually or, preferably, both. Though I have every disposition to accept the humanistic, atheistic viewpoint that Russell T. Davies presents, I found that he was failing to make me believe things I already believed. Which is not to say I'm an atheist; I'm a pantheist with humanistic leanings. Which puts me in his camp, more or less.
For example:
- For me the primary flaw was an ideological paradox I couldn't sort out, a catch-22. One of the primary propositions of the story is that God exists, the Devil exists (along with demons), and Steven Baxter is the Son of God. Having established that, the point is made that we are better off without God or religion. Making me think, "What?"
- Even if we accept point #1 at face value (whatever that might be), I didn't understand why Steven's death would make people humanists or atheists, taking responsibility for their own future, whether they believed in him or didn't. If they believed he was the Son of God, there's their religion, anyway. If they didn't believe, where was the significance?
- Though Steven talked about supplanting all religions, the only religion dealt with (in either imagery or creed) was Christianity. The imagery was great, though.
- I thought Judith was Thomas, the doubter. Instead she was Judas. That was cool.
- Loved the special effects on the demonic characters - the little glint in the eye. I thought Mark Benton was particulary good - and his role as the Devil worked both conceptually and symbolically. Best part of the movies, maybe. Christopher Eccleston himself was terrific as Steven Baxter, but that didn't make his actions or dialogue more convincing.
- Loved the scene with the gay couple in the pub.
- I liked the young priest (played by Rory Kinnear) and wish he'd been part of the story till the end. Couldn't help thinking of Jerott Blyth.
- Some of the best moments were when Eccleston had no dialogue - standing at the window, or walking along the empty motorway.
Basically, I think Russell T. Davies has handled the subject of religion and faith better, more consistently, and more clearly, in Doctor Who and Torchwood.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-14 06:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 01:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 03:00 am (UTC)But I do absolutely love the moments when he's running on at the mouth with "no, no, no, no, no" or some toothy mouthful of syllables.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 10:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 12:54 pm (UTC)My goodness yes, that was one of his best moments ever.
I must see if I can think of others. I tend to think of him as being in motion - yet it's when he isn't in motion that he's really most interesting.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 04:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 04:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 05:06 pm (UTC)I still find his technique really awkward, and I still haven't seen him put together a complete performance (I'm not the only one who's found him all over the place in JE, I've noticed around various LJs), but I have seen about three individual scenes that work for me this year.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 07:04 pm (UTC)I'm not sure on what level he 'works' for me because I'm not sure what I'm expected to make of him. My favourite performance by far this series, from Tennant, was in 'Midnight' - but then, I really liked that script, too.
What I'm saying is - I enjoy his portrayal of the Doctor, sometimes very much, but I don't actually understand it.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 10:06 pm (UTC)in general I am not sure what he is trying to portray or how we are meant to interpret his Doctor.
That is a puzzle, that second bit. In some ways, that's the main thing that bothers me. I really don't mind ambiguous characters at all, in fact they're some of my favourites. Ten is so inconsistent; I also don't find his "dark Doctor" either powerful/frightening (it just doesn't work) or consistent with his overall portrayal. It's not that he switches from one to the other, even though I've seen people argue that he does; he tends to set in one or the other, and although the dialogue may change, the body/face doesn't. The writing definitely has to shoulder part of the blame, there's no doubt. And I'm never sure how much the writers realize what they're doing with him. He systematically alienates or pushes away everyone, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him, rather than have him learning anything, as at the end of JE. I know there's a line that they have to maintain for the show, but they just seem to be pushing it so hard over the past three years.
But I think that your "not understanding" the character may be in part DT's inconsistency; he does change pitch noticeably from director to director. That's what I mean when I say I find Tennant a lazy actor — it's not that he's not giving energy when he's onscreen, but I really don't get the impression he does any off-camera work. (In fact, that seems confirmed by set reports.) It's been something that bothered me in other roles as well — he's more or less the same character, but he just seems to lack a center and through-line — Casanova just seemed to waft one way or the other, and I didn't find his "love affair" with Henriette to be some constant drive, which I think it was supposed to be. It felt like, "Oh, yeah, that," when we went back to it. Even if individual scenes work for me, they tend not to connect up very well. His technique is literally superficial, which means that it's generated on the surface rather than coming up from the core. There are some actors who are very good at that - Johnny Depp comes to mind, but even he leaves me cold because I don't feel much "soul" in his performance. So his "angst" tends to come across as a performance of "emo".
Sorry, I got wrapped up trying to untangle some of those threads!
I think part of it is that I felt like S1 could bear the weight of some of the meta that gets piled on it, in part because I think the arc(h) worked (just). Since S2, I've felt like it was shaky. It's not entirely to do with the performance of the Doctor, but he's obviously central to the show.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 12:22 pm (UTC)I like his 'Dark Doctor' a lot, but I'm not sure I understand it. Are we simply to take the Doctor as bipolar, and dangerously so?
He systematically alienates or pushes away everyone, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him
I thought this was particulary jarring (or annoying) at the end of 'Journey's End'. The Doctor had rejected each of these people who adore him - and he sent Rose away for no obvious reason except to keep his human Donnalike self company - and then feels sad because he's alone. I didn't feel sympathetic; I wanted to give him a shake. He got what he wanted. The situation he created. Let him take Mr Copper, then!
(Have I said how I loved the reference to the Copper Foundation?)
he does change pitch noticeably from director to director.
Yes, he does. But the directors themselves should have some sense of the consistency of the character. It's not all at Tennant's door. The writers, directors, producers - they should all have a sense of what the Doctor is. On one of the commentaries (for 'Midnight', I believe) Phil Collins talks about how the Doctor is essentially little more than human even though he acts as if he has superpowers, but most of it's a con job. This surprised me. If they played that up more, we might get more of a sense of the Doctor's sense of identity. Where is he, when he's in his own head? Simply living in the moment? Looking for the next thrill? Or does he have a sense of purpose beyond the immediate?
Casanova just seemed to waft one way or the other, and I didn't find his "love affair" with Henriette to be some constant drive, which I think it was supposed to be.
No, and without that, the story had little core. I liked Bellino much more than Henriette, and things fell apart. Casanova should have more substance - even if the point is his frivolity, which it wasn't. (Heath Ledger did it surprisingly well.)
What's the Doctor's assessment of his own myth? How conscious is its creation?
If The Doctor doesn't have any sense of purpose at all, Jack becomes so much more of a hero than the Doctor is ... and that feels like an unnatural inversion. (Especially if you're thinking of series 1.)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 05:36 pm (UTC)I really don't know, and that is a frustration. I think the show is waaay too much in love with this idea of the Lonely God, which repels me on quite a few levels, and he's supposed to be masterful and frightening and powerful, but he reminds me more of a kid tearing the wings off flies. And despite "Humans R Wonderful!™", Earth goes to hell in a handbasket because he emos himself to death in Turn Left? If we were really supposed to see him as a sociopath (which, in this and at least his Fourth and Sixth, possibly Seventh, incarnations, seems a reasonable reading), why do they keep making him also seem like a poor woobie anime character? It's the inconsistency that makes my head spin, and has finally bucked me off the horse. Moffat may be able to make a clearer through line, although his Casanova Doctor doesn't do it for me either, unless you've got someone who can undercut that — like Rowan Atkinson did beautifully in The Curse of the Fatal Death, even though that was a parody.
It actually converges with the Casanova issue. I think people are reading the surface of the text and connecting up the dots without the show actually doing it. Now, I love open texts, but there's something fundamentally problematic here, like the dots exist in different dimensions and can't actually be bridged. Some of it is writing, some of it is acting... There are certainly similar problems in The Second Coming, but I don't feel them quite as acutely because the acting does, on the whole, pull me across those gaps. They're still there, but I'm able to make the leap. (I keep envisioning one of those run/jump video games, with pits of lava and crumbling ledges that you have to jump across, one at a time!)
I think in Nine's case, although we didn't have a lot of time to explore it, I got a very clear sense of dancing on the edge of the volcano — literally in "Rose". He's flippantly suicidal, but he's going to take the Nestene Consciousness/Autons with him when he goes. The connection with Rose is a tenuous connection to hope, and he revives by watching things afresh through her eyes. But from that point forward, he's reaching out and making connections — which he does constantly, and in a much more "engaged" way than Ten, who is more of an observer (he may be more effusive about it, but it seems more "Cool! Next?") — and each Gwyneth and Harriet makes him more hopeful. The Dalek is a punch in the gut and he nearly loses Rose in the bargain, which is why he's willing to risk so much in "Father's Day", but I don't think he'd have done that if he hadn't come so close to losing hope. Then when Nancy gives him the biggest affirmation possible, and "everybody lives", he's come to life again.
That's why Ten's swipe at Harriet in TCI just blindsided me. It made sense that Nine would regenerate as someone lighter, more healed. That was what I expected, it makes sense – he could still have little wounds, but not this gaping emptiness that he seems to have. I don't get the reasoning for him being more hollow and somewhat sadistic, and I don't buy that it's losing Rose, because he was that way in S2, too.
Yeah, I think it's that S1 made perfect sense to me, and I keep expecting it to make that kind of sense again, but maybe it just doesn't!
comments on Ten, part 1
Date: 2008-07-21 01:56 pm (UTC)How so? I originally liked that notion; now - I don't like the directions they've taken it. The Lonely God has become the Loveless God, which is a quite different thing.
I wouldn't say he tears the wings off flies: I don't see him as wilfully destructive, eve at his worst. But I do see him as creating most of his own suffering, and that's not an endearing or heroic trait, especially if we are to have sympathy for him. Moreover, he does things I don't understand, for reasons that are unexplained. When this was occasional and rare, I liked it - but the incidents piled up.
I am further confused by other fans saying things like, "This isn't post-Time-War PTSD, he was always messed up." Which indicates that the things I see as Russell T Davies' doing may not be his doing at all. I have no feel for the pre-Davies Doctors' personalities.
Earth goes to hell in a handbasket because he emos himself to death in Turn Left?
I remain much more distressed by his actions (an failure to act) in 'Last of the Time Lords'. Carelssly emoing himself to death - that doesn't bother me. It would be the same, wouldn't it, if the Daleks had shot him in 'Daleks in Manhattan' or any other suicidal scene he's had? (They're not rare!) 'Turn Left' just pointed out a path of consequences, perhaps an almost-worst-case scenario.
The most shocking Doctor moment, to my eyes, was one they cut out of 'Doomsday' - when the Doctor suggested to Pete that they should just bugger off elsewhere and leave Earth to the Daleks. I was glad they cut it - that means I don't have to rationalize it or deal with it.
why do they keep making him also seem like a poor woobie anime character?
I would assume it's because:
1. the type is popular with fans
2. Russell T Davies likes the type
... and I'm not sure I don't. I don't generally, but in some cases.... I think I like it with the Doctor, when it makes sense to me. When it doesn't, I'm totally at odds. I don't even see it as inconsistent, beause I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing or believing.
I like the idea of Casanova Doctor very much; though I'm not sure how Moffat will pull it off long-term.
I love open texts, but there's something fundamentally problematic here, like the dots exist in different dimensions and can't actually be bridged.
I'd say I don't love open texts, but I can't back that up: if I didn't love open texts, I wouldn't have been reading X-Men with a fair passion all these decades.
There are certainly similar problems in The Second Coming, but I don't feel them quite as acutely because the acting does, on the whole, pull me across those gaps.
I'd say that the difference, possibly the only difference, is that The Second Coming didn't go on for four years and counting. So: four episodes, a chunk of story, which even if it goes beyond its own borders, actually has borders. We aren't waiting for more revelations about Steve. What we saw is what we get, and I can work with that.
The Doctor remains open-ended, a story reacing into infinity in at least two directions (past and future) and probably more. This is good, I like serial fiction, but it accentuates the sense of blurriness in the picture.
Possibly my comparative happiness with Nine compared to Ten is that Nine too is a discrete block, the Doctor's incarnation imposing its own short of shape on the series. He had a problem; we got to see him working it through, with various (mostly-subtle) stages of revelation and epiphany. Which is why I love it so when he remembers how to dance. Too bad he doesn't do that more.
Anyway, we have a series of breaktheough moments which bring us to a glorious climax which is both self-sacrifice and survival. That gives the story of Nine a strong structure. And sense then - I see no structure in the story at all. Not in the Lonely God theme, not in the 'love the humans' theme, not in the 'conflicted saviour/destroyer theme' - though I'd love to see the latter played up; Shiva has long been my favourite god.
Once again, I go on at too much length: this will be continued in part 2.
comments on Ten, part 2
Date: 2008-07-21 01:57 pm (UTC)I got a very clear sense of dancing on the edge of the volcano — literally in "Rose". He's flippantly suicidal, but he's going to take the Nestene Consciousness/Autons with him when he goes. The connection with Rose is a tenuous connection to hope, and he revives by watching things afresh through her eyes.
Well said. The story is all the better in that we see it through Rose's eyes, and she doesn't have the information she needs to understand what's going on for a long time.
Ten is ambivalent in moral terms as well as perspective. He bills himself as 'the man who never would' - but he did kill, and has wanted to kill (both passively and actively), and we've seen him feel the temptation. Now, I like that ambivalence, but it's shown to us in such snatches that I get the feeling we're supposed to believe both sides of the psychological mix without seeing the contradiction. And the contradiction is the most interesting part of it. As of 'Journey's End' it's clear he is well aware of the contradiction himself, but he offers no explanation or comment. What does he make of himself? A lost soul, blowing on the wind? A self-directed gadfly, propelled by forward momentum to no coherent end? Personified curiosity without moral compass?
I like these questions, just as I like this Doctor. I just occasionally dislike him, too. Or dislike the events which transpire.
Seems to me a pivotally revealing example of the Doctor's perspective is when he sees the werewolf in 'Tooth and Claw' or the killer-robot in 'The Girl in the Fireplace' and admires their beauty, disregarding the danger they pose. His reaction to most things is "oh, shiny!" unless and until it annoys him or opposed him.
It made sense that Nine would regenerate as someone lighter, more healed.
But he didn't. More self-directed, in fact. I'm not sure I'd call it a 'gaping emptiness' so much as an impermeable ego, and extreme alienation. It's as if he wants to care, superficially, but backs off whenever caring is called for. And then wails at the empty futility of it all.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 03:02 am (UTC)Not that he doesn't take many brilliant roles - the Doctor, Iago, Jude and so on - roles that any actor would covet. And I'm always so thrilled when he does.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-14 06:56 pm (UTC)I don't have a problem resolving 1 and 2, because it struck me as an Alcoholics Anonymous situation. In order to make progress, you have to first admit you have a problem. So God is real, evil is real, but relying on religion has gotten us nowhere; in order to make progress, we have to get beyond religion, and as the representative of God on this Earth, Steve is the symbolic sacrifice. Not to make him holy, but to make him human (that's why it's so gutwrenching that the thing that tips him over is being told that he's not been good enough to be loved as a human). By rejecting Steve/God/religion, people have to now take the initiative themselves. I like that we see that the world hasn't ended, that people are going on, but perhaps there are little steps being taken toward self-sufficiency. I would have liked a bit more about that, although I can see dramatically why he didn't — still, that's part of RTD's rubbishy endings pattern. He doesn't show humanity really making progress, he leaves Rose sobbing on the beach, he leaves Donna back where she started and a year older, a ticking time bomb...
3. I agree that needed more working out, although I like that he has that line in the "Sermon on the Mount" where he says to Christians, "Don't get all "I was right and you were wrong" about it."
4. I think she's both, which is cool, too.
5. Mark Benton is amazing. I've seen him in a number of things, and he's always excellent, but wow, the acting of all three leads in this is just spectacular. I also think Pete and Fiona are very good. And I like that the "demonic tell" was relatively subtle. RTD says on the commentary that they had to stop the SFX people from making the eyes red, because that wasn't the point. And I did feel sorry for Johnny, but the implication that evil comes from people with small minds/hearts is really well taken. Oddly, Johnny seemed too good for that in a way.
7. I mentioned that before, but I loved the whole dynamic between the priest and Steve, and the way that the priest was given what he must have never thought he would see, and Steve could still wrong-foot him. I can see the spin-off dramedy now...
8. The back of his head when he's remembering what it was like when they were kids in school. His shoulders once he's taken the shirt off in the bedroom.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 12:35 am (UTC)My accusation of shallowness is more that... I felt he might have clarified what he was saying. I think he thought it through more than it appears. Perhaps on future viewings I will 'get it' more easily, but if so, I don't think he should have obscured his main points.
There's too much lack of questioning in DW for me.
I would say that in DW he is giving us more questions than answers, and we need more of both. That being said, I think he's making his points snappier - maybe not clear enough, still, but given a certain punch. Sometimes it looks as if he's sabotaging his own characters. Other times, he seems to be avoiding the issues he raises.
So God is real, evil is real, but relying on religion has gotten us nowhere; in order to make progress, we have to get beyond religion
I like that; just wish he'd made it clear. That may be what he was saying, and it may be what he should have been saying, but I don't think it was explicit. And I don't want to make assumptions. Though perhaps that was his intent - to make the viewers think it through for themselves.
Steve is the symbolic sacrifice.
That, I liked. But it was inevitable.
perhaps there are little steps being taken toward self-sufficiency.
I wonder. Judith's 'step' seemed to be marriage and motherhood, which I suppose is in itself is a more of faith in the future. On the other hand, she had married before - how was this different?
By rejecting Steve/God/religion, people have to now take the initiative themselves.
Did people reject Steve? If they believe his message, aren't they accepting him? But he was giving two messages: 'believe in God', and 'don't believe in religion'. I'm not sure which message was which.
I'll say more later - have to go meet a bus now.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 03:18 am (UTC)I agree, it is lacking in clarity — one of RTD's problems is too many ideas rather than too few. And the story was originally 4 hours long instead of just three, so a lot had to go. (Have you watched the deleted scenes? There's a whole storyline of Steve with his mother that's a shame to lose, because while it's quite sweet, it just makes you feel all the more for Steve. Poor kid had to raise himself.)
Re: DW Sometimes it looks as if he's sabotaging his own characters. Other times, he seems to be avoiding the issues he raises.
Yeah, I agree with that! Even on things like Bad Wolf - just when I thought we'd get some payoff for that in S4, it just turned out to be a red herring.
Though perhaps that was his intent - to make the viewers think it through for themselves.
I do think there's some of that, too. I think it's interesting to see, for instance, the scene between Judith and the physicist (both of them women, which I think is interesting, counterbalancing Fiona, who just believes). I see Judith as being hard-headed human realism — the sort of person we think of when we think, "Well, if God gave us brains to think, then he expected us to use them." She comes to her solution not through feeling but through logic. She's finally accepted Steve as her lover, but she has to kill him in a sense to prove that humanity has taken that next step — not out of revenge or murder but out of love. It's a tricky juncture in the plot, no doubt. But I see her stepping up as the person closest to him, and in order to fulfill his purpose, he has to die. It's the Jesus Christ Superstar reading of Judas, actually — that he did it because it needed to be done and he was the one who did it.
Complicated, and as you say, not as clear as it could be, but I basically see it as sacrificing something loving and comforting (religion/Steve) because relying on it just isn't good for you. And you can see her not getting her own Steve-doll at the end as her penance.
Judith's 'step' seemed to be marriage and motherhood, which I suppose is in itself is a more of faith in the future. On the other hand, she had married before - how was this different?
That's a good question, and I do see it as making a future — and we see her giving to charity in the supermarket as an everyday, commonplace helping of others (at least that's how I read it, although that's another element I would have liked to have seen developed more). However, I do see it as different because I think in her previous marriage, she always knew that she did love Steve, but felt he was beneath her somehow. So in a sense, I see her able to move on because he's gone. That's never said, it's just so clear that they've loved each other for SO LONG, it seems that that first marriage was based on a shaky premise to begin with.
But he was giving two messages: 'believe in God', and 'don't believe in religion'. I'm not sure which message was which.
This is a distinction that rings really true to me, even though I'm an atheist and don't believe in a sentient/conscious "God" — but I can believe in a general drive for life that exists in the universe, certainly on Earth. That there's an energy, that despite entropy and chaos, wants to converge and live and thrive. So I can believe in that positive energy as a kind of "God". But the trappings and rituals of religion are what lead us to tribalism, war, conflict, bigotry, etc. It's a human imposition.
Did the people reject Steve? No, that's true, as a whole, they don't. In this reading, perhaps Jude is the "saviour". She steps in as the representative of humanity to say, "No, this has to stop. And I will sacrifice what I love the most in order to see that it stops."
There is a mystical "get out of jail free card" in the writing, it's true — we hear almost everyone say that they "felt" him die.
So - yeah, it's not neat and he could have done better at articulating the plot points, though I think I get it...
Hope you caught your bus!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 12:48 pm (UTC)Aww, now, that should exist. Really. (I ponder my icon-making skills. A self-challenge?)
one of RTD's problems is too many ideas rather than too few
You just hit the nail on the head! He has terrific ideas, some of them, and throws them all into the pot - into the plot - and shuffles them around and then dumps them on us, chortling madle and probably twirling his mustache. There's nothing wrong with his ideas, his ideas are great - and he has a brilliant sense of drama, straight out of Marvel comics - it's his sense of organization than needs work.
Have you watched the deleted scenes?
Not yet. Just have to find the time.
There's a whole storyline of Steve with his mother that's a shame to lose
I wondered about his mother.
just when I thought we'd get some payoff for that in S4, it just turned out to be a red herring.
And a 'variation on the theme' that added nothing in the way of sorting out Rose's story. He's waaay better on the cliffhangers than on the big payoff. He loves to leave things hanging.
It's the Jesus Christ Superstar reading of Judas, actually — that he did it because it needed to be done and he was the one who did it.
Very much so. All the more so in that Judas/Mary/Thomas were combined in one person, after isolating Steven from the others - his father imprisoned, his closest friend shot.
I basically see it as sacrificing something loving and comforting (religion/Steve) because relying on it just isn't good for you.
That part, I like, but I don't think the text made it clear enough as a message, which made it less convincing than it should be. I am already convinced, and was thinking, "Whaat?"
Might add that I see why Richard Dawkins and Russell T Davies admire each other!
it seems that that first marriage was based on a shaky premise to begin with.
Maybe. I'd think her intentions were good in the first place but we never do hear about that.
This is a distinction that rings really true to me, even though I'm an atheist and don't believe in a sentient/conscious "God" - but I can believe in a general drive for life that exists in the universe, certainly on Earth. That there's an energy, that despite entropy and chaos, wants to converge and live and thrive. So I can believe in that positive energy as a kind of "God". But the trappings and rituals of religion are what lead us to tribalism, war, conflict, bigotry, etc. It's a human imposition.
I would agree (mostly) with all of that, tweaking it my own way. (I call myself a pantheist not an atheist, but it's a lot of messing with nuances of words.) But without taking my own beliefs to the text an interpreting it in that light, I don't think that's what Davies was saying. He has a God who deals in direct revelation, to sires a son/spokesman, who acts directly in human affairs. Hence, mixed message.
But it's an interesting mixed message, and I have to applaud the effort even if I quibble at the results. Give the man a good editor!
I think it's going to be fascinating to see what RTD does after he's left Doctor Who. I've already expressed my hope that he'd tackle Torchwood, which desperately needs his writing strengths and wouldn't suffer from his writing weaknesses, but I doubt that's what he has in mind.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 04:23 pm (UTC)Do take it on!
He's waaay better on the cliffhangers than on the big payoff. He loves to leave things hanging.
I really don't mind inconclusive endings. I love ambiguity. However, his tendency seems to be "incomplete" rather than "inconclusive." He's just terribly, terribly sloppy.
I don't think the text made it clear enough as a message,
I'm trying to remember, I think there's a scene where this is made explicit, but it's part of a larger, more complicated scene... I'm blanking now, I see the pub. Maybe it's part of the Sermon on the Mount speech — that's so full of stuff. Another example of CE "talking to" a writer and asking them to do more. On the commentary, RTD says that CE "called a meeting" ("I was quite scared, Chris is a very strong man!") and pointed out that the humanity of Steve was getting lost, and so he added that whole "I don't want it. I want to do nothin'" section, which is now RTD's favourite part. So the Sermon on the Mount is also Gethsemane, more doubling up.
I'd think her intentions were good in the first place but we never do hear about that.
There are evidently some Steve/Jude scenes that got cut out that aren't even in the deleted scenes, because RTD talks about scenes in which she goes to the hospital to pick him up and bring him home, and they're joking and singing in the car. The scene where she leaves work to go get him is in the deleted scenes, but not the car scenes.
He has a God who deals in direct revelation, to sires a son/spokesman, who acts directly in human affairs. Hence, mixed message.
I agree, although I can see dramatically why he chose a sentient God (my God is more like Einstein's "the sum total of all the physical laws of the universe). An active God is a more direct challenge, and Steve is a bit like God throwing down the gauntlet and saying, "Okay, humanity. You've been saying you're all grown up. Prove it."
I know RTD won't be doing TW — he's said his next project is kind of QaF: The Next Generation. It's not literally a sequel, but as he says a "Big Gay Drama". I'm kind of glad... I feel like I'm completely detaching from both DW and TW. Everything that interested me about them has been removed or undermined. It's depressing, it's like losing a friend, but I'm not feeling it anymore, and I think a break will be good for RTD.
:(
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 12:44 pm (UTC)Re RTD:
He's just terribly, terribly sloppy.
I'm not sure. I think he may just have a sense of structure that I don't see and haven't figured out yet.
pointed out that the humanity of Steve was getting lost, and so he added that whole "I don't want it. I want to do nothin'" section, which is now RTD's favourite part.
...? I'll have to think about that. Conceputally, I think it's my least favourite part. But in watching, just on an 'entertainment' level, I liked it.
Steve is a bit like God throwing down the gauntlet and saying, "Okay, humanity. You've been saying you're all grown up. Prove it."
I wish he'd actually said that.
he's said his next project is kind of QaF: The Next Generation.
Great!
Yes, I think a break will be good for RTD. I don't think he cares about TW (I've seen no evidence of it), and he needs a change from DW. So it will be interesting to see where he goes with his ideas, thematically.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 05:59 pm (UTC)I'm all for unconventional structure, and as I said before, I love that the ending of TSC sneaked up on me the way it did. But he admits all over the commentary that there were structural problems, so he seems to be aware of them and was essentially hoping that the characters would carry us through — which I think they just about do, but he's yoked to some pretty strong horses there in CE and LS. I think in terms of structure, QaF one is probably the best, although it does have that "let's stop here!" ending. Bob and Rose works fairly well, too, because it's a love story, so it's pretty linear. I need to go back and finish watching Mine All Mine — I liked the first couple of episodes a lot, just got sidetracked. Was somewhat amused at thinking of CE with Siwan Morris. She's so passionate and out there — she'd have to be, to play that character — I can imagine them being fairly incandescent as a couple, although I could also see them killing each other.
Conceputally, I think it's my least favourite part. But in watching, just on an 'entertainment' level, I liked it.
I liked it conceptually because, again, it was doubling up — Sermon on the Mount and Gethsemane at once, and to have that sense of his crisis so early was touching. Because I think that idea that we all want to do something, but most of us are not as active in pursuing that as we could be. I fully admit I'm guilty of it.
Okay, I've got to get some work done! LJ, it calls me when I've got deadlines...
no subject
Date: 2008-07-22 01:57 pm (UTC)I think RTD is rather good with a 'sense of crisis', it's resolving internal conflicts that he doesn't do so well. Doesnt' follow through.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 03:06 am (UTC)Maybe he enjoys this pattern: the unresolved ending, the full circle, the endpoint that beings us nowhere in particular. I wonder why.
I think she's both, which is cool, too.
For a long time I had her pegged as Mary Magdelene. That was cool, too.
the acting of all three leads in this is just spectacular
Wonderful casting. Really.
I also think Pete and Fiona are very good.
Yes, agreed.
I like that the "demonic tell" was relatively subtle.
We all liked that. It was quite wonderful. Just a... reflection.
I loved the whole dynamic between the priest and Steve
Me too.
The back of his head when he's remembering what it was like when they were kids in school. His shoulders once he's taken the shirt off in the bedroom.
Aaaah - great moments.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 08:15 pm (UTC)Interesting psychological Rorshach! As I said above, I don't mind ambiguous endings (have you ever seen the film Besieged?), but too often, his stories just seem to stop — the best example of that is in QaF S1. It's almost literally, "Oh, what the hell, let's DANCE!" Which is kind of fun once, but it does get a bit frustrating. I'm never sure whether his characters learn anything in DW. I think Judith and Johnny at least did in SC.
For a long time I had her pegged as Mary Magdelene. That was cool, too.
Yes, so she's also a trinity, Thomas/Judas/Mary Magdalene. That part really works.
And the British casting incest continues: Annabelle Apsion, who played Fiona, played Jenni Hicks in Hillsborough — CE played Trevor, despite being 15 years too young for it. So they were husband and wife in that one. And talk about your gut-wrenching scenes, the one where they're dividing up their daughters' belongings is just devastating.
I had no idea Rory Kinnear was only 24 when they made SC until I looked it up. Yes, he looked young, but he has his dad's baby face.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 12:35 pm (UTC)No. What's that?
I'm never sure whether his characters learn anything in DW.
I think the Companions do. I love the way Rose learned and matured- up to and including series 4, though I though her story worked better without her reapparance. (Not really a problem.) Jack certainly learned, even in his first appearance. As did Mickey, over two seasons. But the Doctor? He may have regressed. He may have learned. He appears... stuck.
Re Rory Kinnear: he has his dad's baby face
Who is his father?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 03:53 pm (UTC)I thought Rose developed very well in S1, but most of her good development in S2 happened when she was not with the Doctor. There's a difference between love and obsession and I think they were getting a bit close to the edge with that one. I still feel like the relationship went backward in maturity.
Jack definitely learned (somehow!) between TDD and BT, and I think he leads the Doctor morally now, it's just that he wants to be led, I think, and it's a difficult position for him. I'm not sure how much of that is written (it's an interesting tale to tell, if they'd commit to telling it), and how much of it is the change in dynamic that came with the change in casting.
I do think the Doctor is stuck. He seems to be going through a mid-life crisis or a teenage funk or something like that, but since he's not doing anything particularly active to get himself out of it, even when people point it out (Donna), he doesn't seem to move.
Roy Kinnear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Kinnear) was a great British character actor. I'm sure you've seen him in something, maybe Help! or Willie Wonka? He was such a sweet presence, and you can see bits of that in Rory's portrayal of the priest.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-21 07:56 pm (UTC)I thought Rose developed very well in S1, but most of her good development in S2 happened when she was not with the Doctor.
I'm not sure which episodes you're thinking of here. I thought there were some very interesting moments and situations - sometimes when they were apart - like in 'The Girl in the Fireplace' when he abandoned her for 5 hours and she just stood motionless in place. Or in 'Fear Her' when she couldn't find him. Or in 'The Satan Pit' where she refused to leave without him.
There's a difference between love and obsession and I think they were getting a bit close to the edge with that one.
I think they went over the edge into obsession, but I liked that. The odds were against Rose when it came to staying with the Doctor, and she knew it - hence, she had to fight for what she wanted. Equally, Mickey was obsessed by her, even though she'd shown her preference for the Doctor.
Jack definitely learned (somehow!) between TDD and BT, and I think he leads the Doctor morally now, it's just that he wants to be led, I think, and it's a difficult position for him.
I think it would be difficult for him if he figured it out. I don't think he realizes the shift in moral ground - hasn't seen enough of the Doctor this century to understand the implications of the situation. I think Jack is in a mode of unquestioning blind adoration where the Doctor is concerned, and doesn't look likely to change. I suspect we'll get more development in this if and when we get a writer who is interested in exploring it. The same could be said of Sarah Jane.
Roy Kinnear: yes, I've seen that face, possibbly in Help!, which I don't remember well. His son does look like him. (Going by a Google image search.)
Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-16 06:41 am (UTC)I wonder if you have seen Constantine with Keanu Reeves? Some of the demon/angel representations in that are also marvelous. And some of the plot was embarrassing. (This was one of the times that it didn't serve much purpose to watch the deleted scenes: they had indeed been cut out to good purpose!) But the acting was amazing.
I'm thinking now of the parallels between Russel T. Davies with his work on this, Doctor Who, and Torchwood; and Gene Roddenberry and his heirs on the various versions of Star Trek. Roddenberry came across pretty militantly that he had set his creation in a future time when humanity had evolved past the need for money, a stratified society, and religion. Basically, it was all talk. ST:TNG, for instance, reeked of binary thinking, us/them and good/bad people and situations, and as many times as we were told that Starfleet was not a military entity... sigh. At the same time, Roddenberry did try. And fail. Same as Davies failed in The Second Coming.
Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-17 01:07 pm (UTC)What a wonderful comment! And it can be applied to so many things.
I wonder if you have seen Constantine with Keanu Reeves?
Yes, definitely.
Some of the demon/angel representations in that are also marvelous.
Personally I found Tilda Swinton as the Angel very sexy. And interesting, too. And yes, embarrassing plot - not the movie it could or should have been. I speak as one who likes Keanu Reeves, and who didn't entirely mind Constantine being remade into an American.... I still want to see a 'real' Constantine movie, preferably not a horror movie, but simply dark horror and suspense, preferably starring Daniel Craig. Written in the style of Neil Gaiman, not Jamie Delano. And definitely set in the UK.
Roddenberry came across pretty militantly that he had set his creation in a future time when humanity had evolved past the need for money, a stratified society, and religion. Basically, it was all talk.
Yes. They seemed to have motives very like ours. Or those of the mid-twentieth century.
Same as Davies failed in The Second Coming.
I'm not sure he failed: that is, he may have failed to get his message across, but I'm not sure that message was a failure simply because I'm not sure what it was. There was a lot about the show that was very clever.
Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-17 09:39 pm (UTC)Ah, of course you have seen Constantine. And, um, I didn't really realize till now that they had remade him as an American. He was still quite firmly in that "outsider" sociocultural place, to me, as he was in the movie. So I kinda didn't notice.
Yes. Tilda Swinton was amazing. She was scary, and very hot. I think we need to see that movie that came out last year that she won the Oscar for, no? Michael Clayton, was it? Oh -- and I've just learned that she played the lead role in the movie of Virginia Woolf's Orlando, which came out a few years ago and which I missed because I'm such an opinionated purist [g].
Yes. They seemed to have motives very like ours. Or those of the mid-twentieth century.
I'd say so, yes. I think Roddenberry never got over the fact that his first series hit the nail on the head so well, with Kirk being a parallel for JFK and all. What do you do to follow that up? Well, since then people have found ways: Frank Miller, for instance, just keeps coming out with more brilliant new stuff, and so do several others I could name (Annie Lennox, Neil Gaiman, Melissa Etheridge, many more comics people). But Roddenberry... meh. I think he was much too hung up on himself.
As for your final comment, I am not qualified to talk. I really need to see that movie...!
Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-18 12:04 pm (UTC)Yes. A Californian, even. It was all set in Los Angeles. He might have been an outsider, but the setting and action was all pure American, complete with Spanish-speakers, freeways, and swimming pools.
I have unpositive feelings towards the writings of Virginia Woolf, but do feel I should see Orlando if only for Swinton's sake. Which is more than reason enough.
Kirk was a parallel to JFK? How so?
Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-19 04:57 am (UTC)Kirk and JFK: young, brash, maverick, and first in space at just the right time. I think the "space race" timing had something to do with it, but yeah, Kirk is generally accepted to be a JFK figure. You hadn't heard of that before? (battery dying!!)
Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-20 02:25 pm (UTC)Not much to say. I find her style difficult; I find her books difficult to read. Sort of... abstract? distanced? Something like that.
Kirk and JFK: young, brash, maverick, and first in space at just the right time.
...? O-kay. Huh.
Kirk is generally accepted to be a JFK figure. You hadn't heard of that before?
Not that I recall. I think it's a stretch. Tho' rather flattering to Kirk.
Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-21 05:00 am (UTC)Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-21 12:16 pm (UTC)Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-22 04:54 am (UTC)dang-- battery!
Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-22 12:09 pm (UTC)Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...
Date: 2008-07-17 01:08 pm (UTC)Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts... too
Date: 2008-07-17 09:39 pm (UTC)Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts... too
Date: 2008-07-18 12:32 pm (UTC)