Okay, there was a lot in this one and I think I will need to watch it again to give any proper overview. I think that it was, without a doubt, one of the most intricate and clever Doctor Who stories and almost certainly the cleverest one to be shown on television. At times it was also stupendously cool. The whole sequence of River Song escaping and being rescued was the single best sequence/set piece I have seen since the "Putting out fires with Gasolene" sequence in Inglorious Basterds. Matt Smith is, once again, effortlessly brilliant and mulit-faceted as the Doctor. Karen Gillan gets to be more interesting as Amy. River Song remains firmly wedged on the line between intriguing and irritating, but by and large I remain intrigued.
All in all this was, at least, a solid 9 on 10. But I do have to take issue with the "OMG BEST EPISODE EVAR!" type reviews we are getting. Here's a list of episodes that are better:
1) Dalek.
2) Bad Wolf/Parting of Ways.
3) The Girl in the Fireplace.
4) The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit.
5) Army of Ghosts/Doomsday.
6) Human Nature/Family of Blood.
7) Blink.
8) Utopia-Last of the Timelords.
9) Turn Left.
Not to mention a bunch of stories from the original run, novels, audios and comics.
But I'll certainly take "one of the greatest ever" any day of the week!
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Monday, 3 May 2010
THIS was NOT their finest hour.
And so we move onto Victory of the Daleks. This was a strange episode and a definite case of the whole being less than the sum of its parts. I'll start with the positives, the biggest of which was Matt again putting in an excellent performance as the Doctor. The Moff and his team have stumbled on a real star here and I hope they have got him signed up for at least 3 years as he has not put a foot wrong so far.
Next up: Spitfires in space, Cool.E.O. but coming with an automatic negative. The scenes were not nearly long enough (compare with any number of battles in B5 or DS9, or even The Parting of Ways), really given the shortness of these scenes they should not have been included in the trailer.
The Dalek redesign. I have to admit I hated this when I saw the pictures online and they looked like toys. But in the episode itself they are big menacing buggers and I am now totally sold on them. I also loved the fact that the plot comes about as a way to trap the Doctor and that they got to win too, so good times on that one.
On the downside. Amy is basically anonymous again here and very Generic Who Companion for the most part. The portrayal and writing of Churchill is just too cartonish for my tastes, not to say that it isn't respectful, because it is, but it just didn't have the depth I was looking for. Depth of character was a problem for the whole supporting cast to be honest with the whole thing being a little too "Boys own" adventure for me. Indeed the tone of the episode seems, at best, uneven. Ignoring for the moment the Dalek involvement, it seems that the episode wants to have both ways being a "boys own" bank holiday special, but also trying to be dutifully respectful to the people that fought the war. The overall effect is a feeling of being preached at rather than quiet respect. And preached at in a rather simplistic and cliched way to boot. NuWho has stuck this balance better already (Empty Child/Doctor Dances and Human Nature/Family of Blood, Hell even Mark Gatiss as Dr. Lazarus) and old Who and spin-off who has stuck the balance better numerous times before.
Whilst its not generally fair to criticise a show for being one thing and not another, I do think its valid here to raise the issue of the whole concept of the Daleks versus Churchill. I have pointed out in the past the clear parallels between the Nazis and the Daleks and clearly this was in the mind of the creative team in formulating this episode. However, its not particularly well drawn out in the episode, which relies on the incongruity of the Daleks as wartime servitors. I would've preferred to see much more of the Doctor saying "these guys ARE the nazis", "these guys are the nazis taken to their ultimate conclusion", "if you rely on these guys you will become the nazis". I don't think that this point was expressed well enough in the episode.
I have to say that I am not convinced that Mark Gatiss is well suited to writing for the new series. He has done some great stuff in the books and audios and is clearly capable of doing "old who but better". But I have never been particularly fond of his work in the new series. I think that the Unquiet Dead was a hugely flawed entry to season one and although the Idiot Lantern was better, it was still one of the poorer episodes of season 2. On the other hand I would just point out that I thought that the Confidential episode was excellent.
Next up: Spitfires in space, Cool.E.O. but coming with an automatic negative. The scenes were not nearly long enough (compare with any number of battles in B5 or DS9, or even The Parting of Ways), really given the shortness of these scenes they should not have been included in the trailer.
The Dalek redesign. I have to admit I hated this when I saw the pictures online and they looked like toys. But in the episode itself they are big menacing buggers and I am now totally sold on them. I also loved the fact that the plot comes about as a way to trap the Doctor and that they got to win too, so good times on that one.
On the downside. Amy is basically anonymous again here and very Generic Who Companion for the most part. The portrayal and writing of Churchill is just too cartonish for my tastes, not to say that it isn't respectful, because it is, but it just didn't have the depth I was looking for. Depth of character was a problem for the whole supporting cast to be honest with the whole thing being a little too "Boys own" adventure for me. Indeed the tone of the episode seems, at best, uneven. Ignoring for the moment the Dalek involvement, it seems that the episode wants to have both ways being a "boys own" bank holiday special, but also trying to be dutifully respectful to the people that fought the war. The overall effect is a feeling of being preached at rather than quiet respect. And preached at in a rather simplistic and cliched way to boot. NuWho has stuck this balance better already (Empty Child/Doctor Dances and Human Nature/Family of Blood, Hell even Mark Gatiss as Dr. Lazarus) and old Who and spin-off who has stuck the balance better numerous times before.
Whilst its not generally fair to criticise a show for being one thing and not another, I do think its valid here to raise the issue of the whole concept of the Daleks versus Churchill. I have pointed out in the past the clear parallels between the Nazis and the Daleks and clearly this was in the mind of the creative team in formulating this episode. However, its not particularly well drawn out in the episode, which relies on the incongruity of the Daleks as wartime servitors. I would've preferred to see much more of the Doctor saying "these guys ARE the nazis", "these guys are the nazis taken to their ultimate conclusion", "if you rely on these guys you will become the nazis". I don't think that this point was expressed well enough in the episode.
I have to say that I am not convinced that Mark Gatiss is well suited to writing for the new series. He has done some great stuff in the books and audios and is clearly capable of doing "old who but better". But I have never been particularly fond of his work in the new series. I think that the Unquiet Dead was a hugely flawed entry to season one and although the Idiot Lantern was better, it was still one of the poorer episodes of season 2. On the other hand I would just point out that I thought that the Confidential episode was excellent.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
What if you were really old and really kind and alone? Your whole race dead, no future, what couldn't you do then?
The Beast Below maintains an honourable Nu-Who tradition. Specifically the second episode of any season being an absolute corker.
The Grand Moff once again goes to the RTD playbook and takes the new companion to a point far into the future of Humanity (presumable circa The Ark in Space time frame). In doing so he also FINALLY gave us a Space Whale in Doctor Who, some twenty-odd years after Davision was supposed to get one! That the Whale is also the Great Atuin is an additional bonus. There's hope for The Killer Cats of Gengh Singh yet (and no the cats of New Earth don't count, cool as they were).
The Doctor and Amy work far better in this episode too. There wasn't a whole amount of post regenerative trauma in the first episode, so the Doctor here is only subtly different from the Doctor of the Eleventh Hour. But we get to see him as the detective/problem solver that Moffat has always maintained the Doctor should be. Interestingly this is a Doctor who is a little more guarded around his companion than the nine and tenth Doctors were. Equally interesting is that this is a more secretive companion too. The Doctor once again hides and then brushes off the Time War (see The End of the World) and Amy has yet to reveal her impending marriage. Similarly they both hide their suspicions/knowledge of the enslavement and torture of the Whale from each other in order to protect each other. Amy certainly seems more like a person and less like a character description here. I also loved the Doctor's anger and his "you don't get to decide what I should know" bit.
The story is certainly stronger than The Eleventh Hour too, in that there actually is one to speak of. The only downside to this is that it once again taps into the Moffat trick of there not being a bad guy so much as a mistaken one and the Doctor saving the day by working this out. The Nanogenes in the Empty Child were trying to heal, but get it wrong. The Clockwork Robots were trying to fix the ship, but get it wrong. The Vashda nerada were displaced from their home and the library "saved" people to stop them dying. Here the humans misinterpret the action of the Whale and Amy works this out. This is no bad thing in as much as very few stories in Who's 40 odd years have played with this idea, but there is a risk of the Moff running it into the ground now that he is the head writer.
Moving on, I got a total kick out of the casting of this episode too. For a second episode in a row we got child thesps that can actually act, an Oscar nominee as good Queen Liz ten (gawd bless er) and Terrance Hardiman. The latter is the one I got a real kick out of as I have really fond memories of THE DEMON HEADMASTER. Sadly he didn't get a huge amount to do and wasn't the bad guy, but still THE DEMON HEADMASTER!
All in all a really good, if not quiet classic, episode.
The Grand Moff once again goes to the RTD playbook and takes the new companion to a point far into the future of Humanity (presumable circa The Ark in Space time frame). In doing so he also FINALLY gave us a Space Whale in Doctor Who, some twenty-odd years after Davision was supposed to get one! That the Whale is also the Great Atuin is an additional bonus. There's hope for The Killer Cats of Gengh Singh yet (and no the cats of New Earth don't count, cool as they were).
The Doctor and Amy work far better in this episode too. There wasn't a whole amount of post regenerative trauma in the first episode, so the Doctor here is only subtly different from the Doctor of the Eleventh Hour. But we get to see him as the detective/problem solver that Moffat has always maintained the Doctor should be. Interestingly this is a Doctor who is a little more guarded around his companion than the nine and tenth Doctors were. Equally interesting is that this is a more secretive companion too. The Doctor once again hides and then brushes off the Time War (see The End of the World) and Amy has yet to reveal her impending marriage. Similarly they both hide their suspicions/knowledge of the enslavement and torture of the Whale from each other in order to protect each other. Amy certainly seems more like a person and less like a character description here. I also loved the Doctor's anger and his "you don't get to decide what I should know" bit.
The story is certainly stronger than The Eleventh Hour too, in that there actually is one to speak of. The only downside to this is that it once again taps into the Moffat trick of there not being a bad guy so much as a mistaken one and the Doctor saving the day by working this out. The Nanogenes in the Empty Child were trying to heal, but get it wrong. The Clockwork Robots were trying to fix the ship, but get it wrong. The Vashda nerada were displaced from their home and the library "saved" people to stop them dying. Here the humans misinterpret the action of the Whale and Amy works this out. This is no bad thing in as much as very few stories in Who's 40 odd years have played with this idea, but there is a risk of the Moff running it into the ground now that he is the head writer.
Moving on, I got a total kick out of the casting of this episode too. For a second episode in a row we got child thesps that can actually act, an Oscar nominee as good Queen Liz ten (gawd bless er) and Terrance Hardiman. The latter is the one I got a real kick out of as I have really fond memories of THE DEMON HEADMASTER. Sadly he didn't get a huge amount to do and wasn't the bad guy, but still THE DEMON HEADMASTER!
All in all a really good, if not quiet classic, episode.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Doctor Who: Season Fnarg - The story so far
So we are now a few episodes in what is already the Moffat era of the show. It shows the way Who fandom thinks that its the "Moffat" era and not the "Smith" era, but there we go. On the other hand there is no real consensus on what to call the new season with there being 4 distinct camps: 1) its season 1, 2) its season 5, 3) its season 31, 4) its season fnarg/it doesn't matter. 3 and 4 are bollocks. I tend to alternate in my thinking between 1 and 2. Key thing is, contrary to popular opinion, is season 31 is nonsense. You cannot have a season 27 after a 15 year gap! Not to mention all the ongoing books and audios in between. Season 27 is the Timewyrm quadrilogy by the way.
Anyway onto The Eleventh Hour. Matt's performance was arguably the best 1st appearance since Troughton. If the series ended at this point you could build an ongoing series of books and audios for Matt much more easily that McGann. Obviously all the stuff with Young Amy was totally fantastic. I particularly loved the bit which culminates in the Doctor realising/saying that the crack in the wall must be well scary. Next up, I also loved the "14 years" and "2 years" gags. The new TARDIS control room is gorgeous, I grew to accept the RTD Era one, but I was never more than luke warm on it. This one is so beautiful I don't even mind the fact it isn't futuristic-white as tradition dictates! Plus it's got proper roundals! And I really liked the tapping into the Doctor's thought processes with the weird snap shot photography.
On the downside; the plot is a complete retread of Smith and Jones. Timey wimey meeting of the companion, alien coppers chasing a prisoner who is hiding out on earth and using disproportionate force to do so; the Doctor tricking the alien into revealing its species; setting the thing in a hospital. Secondly, if your gonna make porn jokes then you really shouldn't be coy in making Amy a "kissogram". Thirdly the effects were not good (although that may be an issue of high def effects being downscaled to standard def). Fourthly adult Amy was rather bland and Rory was Moffats typical "useless bloke" character (see Coupling for many more examples!). "Have you counted the doors, really counted them", how about Fuck Off I am not buying that at all!
Another problem I have is the introduction of the "arc" with all the subtlety of a wrecking ball. Which brings me to a more general point. I think that the show needs to shit or get off the pot with respect to Arcs. Bad Wolf was not an arc, it was somewhere between foreshadowing and a story thread. Torchwood was foreshadowing. The lost moon of bloody Poosh was foreshadowing. I'm sorry but you cannot call repeating a buzz word (or special effect) an arc. Babylon 5 had an arc, Buffy and Angel had arcs, Blakes 7 had arcs, Dawson's Creek had arcs. The nearest New Who has come is season 3 with the buildup of Saxon intermingling with the Face of Boe and Human Nature/Watch stuff. Rant Over!
Next up we will have The Beast Below, which long story short was fucking brilliant.
Anyway onto The Eleventh Hour. Matt's performance was arguably the best 1st appearance since Troughton. If the series ended at this point you could build an ongoing series of books and audios for Matt much more easily that McGann. Obviously all the stuff with Young Amy was totally fantastic. I particularly loved the bit which culminates in the Doctor realising/saying that the crack in the wall must be well scary. Next up, I also loved the "14 years" and "2 years" gags. The new TARDIS control room is gorgeous, I grew to accept the RTD Era one, but I was never more than luke warm on it. This one is so beautiful I don't even mind the fact it isn't futuristic-white as tradition dictates! Plus it's got proper roundals! And I really liked the tapping into the Doctor's thought processes with the weird snap shot photography.
On the downside; the plot is a complete retread of Smith and Jones. Timey wimey meeting of the companion, alien coppers chasing a prisoner who is hiding out on earth and using disproportionate force to do so; the Doctor tricking the alien into revealing its species; setting the thing in a hospital. Secondly, if your gonna make porn jokes then you really shouldn't be coy in making Amy a "kissogram". Thirdly the effects were not good (although that may be an issue of high def effects being downscaled to standard def). Fourthly adult Amy was rather bland and Rory was Moffats typical "useless bloke" character (see Coupling for many more examples!). "Have you counted the doors, really counted them", how about Fuck Off I am not buying that at all!
Another problem I have is the introduction of the "arc" with all the subtlety of a wrecking ball. Which brings me to a more general point. I think that the show needs to shit or get off the pot with respect to Arcs. Bad Wolf was not an arc, it was somewhere between foreshadowing and a story thread. Torchwood was foreshadowing. The lost moon of bloody Poosh was foreshadowing. I'm sorry but you cannot call repeating a buzz word (or special effect) an arc. Babylon 5 had an arc, Buffy and Angel had arcs, Blakes 7 had arcs, Dawson's Creek had arcs. The nearest New Who has come is season 3 with the buildup of Saxon intermingling with the Face of Boe and Human Nature/Watch stuff. Rant Over!
Next up we will have The Beast Below, which long story short was fucking brilliant.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Stirring Up a Hornets Nest
Hornets Nest was billed as a five part series featuring Tom Baker reprising his role as the fourth Doctor. To say the return of Tom to the role was long awaited would be putting it very mildly indeed! The timing of the release was serendipitous falling as it did in a Doctor light year.
Sadly the stories themselves prove to be something of a missed opportunity and it is to be hoped that Tom will have another go soon. The project suffered an early set back with Nick Courtney being too unwell to feature as the brigadier. To be fair Richard Franklin as an older Mike Yates actually works really well as a replacement. But the concern is that Tom was apparently persuaded to reprise the role on the back of Nick Courtney's involvement and these plays may prove to be the last gasp of the fourth Doctor.
The marketing guys at the Beeb really need to have their head examined. These plays were billed as Tom's first performance as the Doctor in a full cast audio. This is misleading. The stories are actually much closer to talking books with the Doctor narrating his past experiences with the Hornets to Mike Yates. There are passages of "full cast audio" where the Doctor is in character as it were, but over the whole of the 5 stories I doubt if they are as much as 50% of the running time. What makes this worse is that there are a few dire performances that weight those sections down. The first part in particular suffers from this problem. The sound design is not a patch on what we have come to expect after years of Big Finish productions. Apparently this was a deliberate choice on the part of the writer. However, the execution of this, again particularly in the first story, is that it is not always readily apparent when the Doctor is "speaking" and when he is "narrating".
The individual stories themselves are a mixed bag. The first one, The Stuff of Nightmares, starts with Mike Yates rather whimsical introduction to events and his reunion with the Doctor. However, things rapidly deteriorate and what we end up with is a 30 minute story dragged out to over 70 minutes with a pretty dire guest performance from the normally reliable Daniel Hill as Percy Noggins.
Things pick up and improve big time for the second story, The Dead Shoes, which sees the Doctor beginning his backward trek through time. This is a terrific little story of the possession of a small time ballerina being possessed. It has some great little set pieces with the Doctor being shrunk and using his scarf as a rescue device. The performances are largely excellent, the only downside being the occasional bit of overemphasis that is often a product of radio plays anyway. If your not a completist this is the one to start off with.
So good was the second story that Margs, obviously decided to simply re-write it for the third outing, The Circus of Doom. Seriously the basic story is essentially the same, an acrobat gets possessed (same shoes too!). We learn a little more about the Hornets, but you could virtually remove this story from the overall series without really noticing at all. Its better than the first story in terms of execution, but actually has even less substance.
A Sting in the Tale is the best story of the Bunch. The performances are perfect all the way through, the sound design seemed better to me, although it may just be that the locations described naturally suited the minimalist production better. The balance between narration and performance is balanced better and there are some real moments of jeopardy and excitement. There is also a terrifically funny and macabre reveal of a Mother Superior which I won't spoil here. The cliffhanger at the end is absolutely brilliant too. This is one that Big Finish would have been proud to put out and is definitely the best of the five.
The concluding part, Hive of Horror is a respectable conclusion. It doesn't hit the heights of A Sting in the Tale and as with most of these plays it feels somewhat padded. Rula Lenska makes a pretty good Queen of the Hive and gives probably the best guest performance of the series.
There is an argument that any return of the fourth Doctor would have been a disappointment and that may well be true. However, it is also true that this return could easily have been much better than it was. The choice of Paul Margs as writer is questionable. He has the zany imagination that is suited to the fourth Doctor and some of the prose in these stories is exceptional. On the other hand he tends to write towards the more frivolous end of the spectrum and has never demonstrated the chops to pull off a five story epic. Frankly Hornets nest is a fantastic trilogy stuck in a bloated five-parter. Bear in mind also that in terms of running length this would have been something in the region of 15 episodes of 70s Who! There is simply not enough story to justify that length! Given that stories were produced by the Beeb it seems strange that they did not use Gareth Roberts the master of the 4th Doctor story and one who has written for the modern series too.
And so we come to the other main point of debate, Tom himself. Perhaps unsurprisingly reaction to his performance has ranged from adoring adulation to "worst performance ever". A common comment on the interwebs is that Tom is basically just playing himself and that its difficult to place his style of performance here within the TV continuity. I am somewhere towards the positive end of the spectrum. Whilst it is true that Tom seems to be playing himself at times (and channelling his Little Britain persona) this to me is not a problem. Tom's performance was always largely informed by his own persona and its only natural that he continued to do so. I don't really give a toss about the continuity aspect of it as such and can happily imaging this as a post logopolis Dark Dimension stylie fourth Doctor. But really this performance would fit in fine between The Deadly Assassin and the Face of Evil (seriously watch the first few minutes of the Face of Evil, the fourth Doctor is off his head even by his own standards!).
So overall what we have is an interesting experiment that is occasionally brilliant but ultimately flawed. Lets hope it doesn't have to bear the weight of being Tom's one and only return to the role of the fourth Doctor.
Sadly the stories themselves prove to be something of a missed opportunity and it is to be hoped that Tom will have another go soon. The project suffered an early set back with Nick Courtney being too unwell to feature as the brigadier. To be fair Richard Franklin as an older Mike Yates actually works really well as a replacement. But the concern is that Tom was apparently persuaded to reprise the role on the back of Nick Courtney's involvement and these plays may prove to be the last gasp of the fourth Doctor.
The marketing guys at the Beeb really need to have their head examined. These plays were billed as Tom's first performance as the Doctor in a full cast audio. This is misleading. The stories are actually much closer to talking books with the Doctor narrating his past experiences with the Hornets to Mike Yates. There are passages of "full cast audio" where the Doctor is in character as it were, but over the whole of the 5 stories I doubt if they are as much as 50% of the running time. What makes this worse is that there are a few dire performances that weight those sections down. The first part in particular suffers from this problem. The sound design is not a patch on what we have come to expect after years of Big Finish productions. Apparently this was a deliberate choice on the part of the writer. However, the execution of this, again particularly in the first story, is that it is not always readily apparent when the Doctor is "speaking" and when he is "narrating".
The individual stories themselves are a mixed bag. The first one, The Stuff of Nightmares, starts with Mike Yates rather whimsical introduction to events and his reunion with the Doctor. However, things rapidly deteriorate and what we end up with is a 30 minute story dragged out to over 70 minutes with a pretty dire guest performance from the normally reliable Daniel Hill as Percy Noggins.
Things pick up and improve big time for the second story, The Dead Shoes, which sees the Doctor beginning his backward trek through time. This is a terrific little story of the possession of a small time ballerina being possessed. It has some great little set pieces with the Doctor being shrunk and using his scarf as a rescue device. The performances are largely excellent, the only downside being the occasional bit of overemphasis that is often a product of radio plays anyway. If your not a completist this is the one to start off with.
So good was the second story that Margs, obviously decided to simply re-write it for the third outing, The Circus of Doom. Seriously the basic story is essentially the same, an acrobat gets possessed (same shoes too!). We learn a little more about the Hornets, but you could virtually remove this story from the overall series without really noticing at all. Its better than the first story in terms of execution, but actually has even less substance.
A Sting in the Tale is the best story of the Bunch. The performances are perfect all the way through, the sound design seemed better to me, although it may just be that the locations described naturally suited the minimalist production better. The balance between narration and performance is balanced better and there are some real moments of jeopardy and excitement. There is also a terrifically funny and macabre reveal of a Mother Superior which I won't spoil here. The cliffhanger at the end is absolutely brilliant too. This is one that Big Finish would have been proud to put out and is definitely the best of the five.
The concluding part, Hive of Horror is a respectable conclusion. It doesn't hit the heights of A Sting in the Tale and as with most of these plays it feels somewhat padded. Rula Lenska makes a pretty good Queen of the Hive and gives probably the best guest performance of the series.
There is an argument that any return of the fourth Doctor would have been a disappointment and that may well be true. However, it is also true that this return could easily have been much better than it was. The choice of Paul Margs as writer is questionable. He has the zany imagination that is suited to the fourth Doctor and some of the prose in these stories is exceptional. On the other hand he tends to write towards the more frivolous end of the spectrum and has never demonstrated the chops to pull off a five story epic. Frankly Hornets nest is a fantastic trilogy stuck in a bloated five-parter. Bear in mind also that in terms of running length this would have been something in the region of 15 episodes of 70s Who! There is simply not enough story to justify that length! Given that stories were produced by the Beeb it seems strange that they did not use Gareth Roberts the master of the 4th Doctor story and one who has written for the modern series too.
And so we come to the other main point of debate, Tom himself. Perhaps unsurprisingly reaction to his performance has ranged from adoring adulation to "worst performance ever". A common comment on the interwebs is that Tom is basically just playing himself and that its difficult to place his style of performance here within the TV continuity. I am somewhere towards the positive end of the spectrum. Whilst it is true that Tom seems to be playing himself at times (and channelling his Little Britain persona) this to me is not a problem. Tom's performance was always largely informed by his own persona and its only natural that he continued to do so. I don't really give a toss about the continuity aspect of it as such and can happily imaging this as a post logopolis Dark Dimension stylie fourth Doctor. But really this performance would fit in fine between The Deadly Assassin and the Face of Evil (seriously watch the first few minutes of the Face of Evil, the fourth Doctor is off his head even by his own standards!).
So overall what we have is an interesting experiment that is occasionally brilliant but ultimately flawed. Lets hope it doesn't have to bear the weight of being Tom's one and only return to the role of the fourth Doctor.
Sunday, 14 February 2010
The Shadow in the Glass
Every now and then you get a story in a SF series that is far better than it has any right to be. The Shadow in the Glass follows in the tradition of City of Death or Yesterday's enterprise in being a hastily written fill in by a "staff writers" which ends up being a classic story.
This one takes the generic stock SF/Conspiracy idea of "what if Hitler survived the war" and treats us to a cracking story which twists and turns right up to the very last pages. It reads as part historical, part speculative fiction and part conspiracy thriller.
Featuring a rare combination of the 6th Doctor and the Brigadier together with stand-in companion Claire Aldwich, this is a story which stands head and shoulders above most, if not all, of the 6th Doctor's TV stories. The characterisation of the regulars is spot on and Claire Aldwich is a better companion than we ever got in the JNT era of the show, albeit somewhat reminiscent of House of Card's Mattie Storrin. The Brig gets a decent amount of stuff to do and shows himself to be a cunning old fox (this is a post Battlefield, pre-Shadows of Avalon/Sarah Jane Adventures Brig).
The novel would not feel out of place as a modern Who historical satisfying the "celebrity historical" tag by featuring both Churchill and Hitler and also having a pace more akin to a Modern Who historical that the historicals of the classic series. The use of Hitler as a "historical celebrity" results in some of the best moments in the book with Hitler viewing the Doctor as a trusted ally, much to the Doctor's understandable discomfort.
Top notch stuff!
This one takes the generic stock SF/Conspiracy idea of "what if Hitler survived the war" and treats us to a cracking story which twists and turns right up to the very last pages. It reads as part historical, part speculative fiction and part conspiracy thriller.
Featuring a rare combination of the 6th Doctor and the Brigadier together with stand-in companion Claire Aldwich, this is a story which stands head and shoulders above most, if not all, of the 6th Doctor's TV stories. The characterisation of the regulars is spot on and Claire Aldwich is a better companion than we ever got in the JNT era of the show, albeit somewhat reminiscent of House of Card's Mattie Storrin. The Brig gets a decent amount of stuff to do and shows himself to be a cunning old fox (this is a post Battlefield, pre-Shadows of Avalon/Sarah Jane Adventures Brig).
The novel would not feel out of place as a modern Who historical satisfying the "celebrity historical" tag by featuring both Churchill and Hitler and also having a pace more akin to a Modern Who historical that the historicals of the classic series. The use of Hitler as a "historical celebrity" results in some of the best moments in the book with Hitler viewing the Doctor as a trusted ally, much to the Doctor's understandable discomfort.
Top notch stuff!
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Byzantium!
The first thing to say is that I love the exclamation mark in the title. Its like an exclamation an Asterisk character would make ("By Zantium!").
Anyway, this is a frustrating read. The plot is fine; your basic Hartnell pure historical. The regulars get split up and the story then has four plot strands following their respective attempts to survive in ancient Rome. Nothing wrong with that, you can't beat a Hartnell historical. The setting also works, with enough jeopardy and unfamiliarity to keep things interesting. As a basic story this would easily have worked in the 60s as a 6 partner, no question.
Unfortunately the use of this template only serves to highlight the features of the book that simply do not work. The Hartnell era is now itself largely historical being over 40 years old. Its a measure of how brilliant the show was in those years that most of it holds up as excellent television to this day whilst most other television from the early 60s has been forgotten entirely. Hell even looking solely at Doctor Who, a story like The Aztecs feels less dated than Black Orchid.
But for all that there are still things the show wouldn't have done back in the 60s. It would not have had the Doctor observing/influencing the early days of the Christian religion. Indeed, you probably wouldn't have found many literary SF authors who would've done a story along those lines. Now it could be argued that the very function of the Past Doctor Adventures is to tell stories that could not have been done on the TV and that would be a valid point. The problem is that the situation isn't developed into a story. The Doctor clearly can't be seen as being a driving force in the creation of Christianity, partly because at this stage the Doctor "can't re-write history" partly because it would still be offensive to a great deal of the readership, but mainly because the idea is terribly crass. He can't be seen to openly dismissive of it for the same reason. So what we get is the Doctor fussing over some translations and making achingly bland PC speeches that say very little at every given opportunity. Seriously, its like Topping thought that the 1st Doctor's only words were the "wanderers in the fourth dimension", "citizen of the universe" and "one day I shall come back" speeches.
Ian and Vicki fare better in terms of their storylines. Ian is actually quite an interesting little political thriller. But both suffer with terrible characterisation. Ian and Barbara are, in reality, basically characters of the 50s. The "swinging 60s" hadn't really happened when they were in the show. It is therefore incredibly jarring to read and Ian who frequently reads like an Alfie/Parklife/Carry On film style of cockney geezer. To be fair its not like he is always out of character, but for at least half of the book he is. So the moments when he isn't out of character only serve to further highlight the many moments when Topping gets it frequently wrong!
Vicki gets an adequate plot, but is characterised like she has spent a couple of years living in Sunnydale rooming with Dawn Summers!
Barbara gets the best of the book. Her story is the strongest and the characterisation is the most authentic, albeit there are the occasional wobbles here and there.
So there you have it; a good story ruined by a hopelessly inaccurate depiction of the regulars.
Anyway, this is a frustrating read. The plot is fine; your basic Hartnell pure historical. The regulars get split up and the story then has four plot strands following their respective attempts to survive in ancient Rome. Nothing wrong with that, you can't beat a Hartnell historical. The setting also works, with enough jeopardy and unfamiliarity to keep things interesting. As a basic story this would easily have worked in the 60s as a 6 partner, no question.
Unfortunately the use of this template only serves to highlight the features of the book that simply do not work. The Hartnell era is now itself largely historical being over 40 years old. Its a measure of how brilliant the show was in those years that most of it holds up as excellent television to this day whilst most other television from the early 60s has been forgotten entirely. Hell even looking solely at Doctor Who, a story like The Aztecs feels less dated than Black Orchid.
But for all that there are still things the show wouldn't have done back in the 60s. It would not have had the Doctor observing/influencing the early days of the Christian religion. Indeed, you probably wouldn't have found many literary SF authors who would've done a story along those lines. Now it could be argued that the very function of the Past Doctor Adventures is to tell stories that could not have been done on the TV and that would be a valid point. The problem is that the situation isn't developed into a story. The Doctor clearly can't be seen as being a driving force in the creation of Christianity, partly because at this stage the Doctor "can't re-write history" partly because it would still be offensive to a great deal of the readership, but mainly because the idea is terribly crass. He can't be seen to openly dismissive of it for the same reason. So what we get is the Doctor fussing over some translations and making achingly bland PC speeches that say very little at every given opportunity. Seriously, its like Topping thought that the 1st Doctor's only words were the "wanderers in the fourth dimension", "citizen of the universe" and "one day I shall come back" speeches.
Ian and Vicki fare better in terms of their storylines. Ian is actually quite an interesting little political thriller. But both suffer with terrible characterisation. Ian and Barbara are, in reality, basically characters of the 50s. The "swinging 60s" hadn't really happened when they were in the show. It is therefore incredibly jarring to read and Ian who frequently reads like an Alfie/Parklife/Carry On film style of cockney geezer. To be fair its not like he is always out of character, but for at least half of the book he is. So the moments when he isn't out of character only serve to further highlight the many moments when Topping gets it frequently wrong!
Vicki gets an adequate plot, but is characterised like she has spent a couple of years living in Sunnydale rooming with Dawn Summers!
Barbara gets the best of the book. Her story is the strongest and the characterisation is the most authentic, albeit there are the occasional wobbles here and there.
So there you have it; a good story ruined by a hopelessly inaccurate depiction of the regulars.
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Your hopeless late Doctor Who reviews
Hornets Nest to follow as I have yet to listen to the final disc. Plenty of stuff to get through in the meantime though.
First up a quick reflection on the RTD Era now that it has ended. Fantastic. Well I did say quick!
More seriously, the Waters of Mars was almost flawless. With the possible exception of the fate of humankind as depicted at the end of season 3, this was one of the grimest stories the TV series has done. Not since the Hartnell era has the show gone to the lengths of showing the cost and pain of the Doctor being unable to interfere in history. The only faults I can find are "Gadget Gadget", WHY would you build in a character to be irritating; it doesn't make it any less irritating that the "character" was obviously intended to be irritating. Anyhow, that was pretty minor, the bigger flaw was that this episode should have taken the place of Planet of the Dead so that we had an episode to deal with the fall-out of the Time Lord victorious, rather than the somewhat glib conclusion we got here. I didn't mind the suicide as such, it was a pretty balsy move for a "family" show to have the hero basically cause the death of the heroine. But something like that was worthy of an episode itself. Still if I was a fellow to give scores it would get at least a 4 out of 5.
Next up we have Dreamland. I wasn't expecting much from this, but its really quite good. It's obviously hugely derivative, even to the point or recycling Murry Gold's music from previous episodes in lieu of a proper score. But its got spectacle and rattles along at a great pace. The animation is a big step up from the Infinite Quest too. The jokes were great too. Basically this is Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks done much better, with more focus (albeit lacking Daleks and Dobbsters).
Then we come to the finale and to be fair things hit the skids a little. The problem is that RTD appears to want to basically redux season 3 in a mere 2 episodes. Season 3 is the absolute peak of the RTD era and probably the strongest TV season in the history of the show so that was always going to be over-ambitious. The other problem is that RTD is, like most of us fanboys, clearly still scarred by the problems of the show in the 80s and 90s. This has been beneficial for the most part because he kept on trying to increase the quality and audience of the show. Despite what some fans would have you believe this is not a bad thing! However it has resulted in RTD constantly trying to employ "bigger" season finales. This worked up to and including season 3. However, you can't really get much bigger than the utopia arc, so season 4 ends with an everything but the Kitchen sink finale and just about gets away with it. That left the problem that there was nowhere left to go for the final end, but RTD was clearly still determined to top season 4 anyway. So what we got was a finale with no real story, but lots of great moments and some terrific performances too and everything from Wilf 4 taps onwards is utterly wonderful.
Anyway Byzantium, Shadow in the Glass and Hornets Nest together with some other stuff will follow shortly.
First up a quick reflection on the RTD Era now that it has ended. Fantastic. Well I did say quick!
More seriously, the Waters of Mars was almost flawless. With the possible exception of the fate of humankind as depicted at the end of season 3, this was one of the grimest stories the TV series has done. Not since the Hartnell era has the show gone to the lengths of showing the cost and pain of the Doctor being unable to interfere in history. The only faults I can find are "Gadget Gadget", WHY would you build in a character to be irritating; it doesn't make it any less irritating that the "character" was obviously intended to be irritating. Anyhow, that was pretty minor, the bigger flaw was that this episode should have taken the place of Planet of the Dead so that we had an episode to deal with the fall-out of the Time Lord victorious, rather than the somewhat glib conclusion we got here. I didn't mind the suicide as such, it was a pretty balsy move for a "family" show to have the hero basically cause the death of the heroine. But something like that was worthy of an episode itself. Still if I was a fellow to give scores it would get at least a 4 out of 5.
Next up we have Dreamland. I wasn't expecting much from this, but its really quite good. It's obviously hugely derivative, even to the point or recycling Murry Gold's music from previous episodes in lieu of a proper score. But its got spectacle and rattles along at a great pace. The animation is a big step up from the Infinite Quest too. The jokes were great too. Basically this is Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks done much better, with more focus (albeit lacking Daleks and Dobbsters).
Then we come to the finale and to be fair things hit the skids a little. The problem is that RTD appears to want to basically redux season 3 in a mere 2 episodes. Season 3 is the absolute peak of the RTD era and probably the strongest TV season in the history of the show so that was always going to be over-ambitious. The other problem is that RTD is, like most of us fanboys, clearly still scarred by the problems of the show in the 80s and 90s. This has been beneficial for the most part because he kept on trying to increase the quality and audience of the show. Despite what some fans would have you believe this is not a bad thing! However it has resulted in RTD constantly trying to employ "bigger" season finales. This worked up to and including season 3. However, you can't really get much bigger than the utopia arc, so season 4 ends with an everything but the Kitchen sink finale and just about gets away with it. That left the problem that there was nowhere left to go for the final end, but RTD was clearly still determined to top season 4 anyway. So what we got was a finale with no real story, but lots of great moments and some terrific performances too and everything from Wilf 4 taps onwards is utterly wonderful.
Anyway Byzantium, Shadow in the Glass and Hornets Nest together with some other stuff will follow shortly.
Sunday, 30 August 2009
Update-o-rama
Well, lost of stuff to talk about. Firstly the Barry Norman stuff. Been to the local googleplex a couple of times. Firstly to see Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (twice) and then Inglourious Bastards.
Harry Potter was superb, the best of the series so far (although my previous favourite Azkabahn runs it damn close). It's been a long time since I read the book, but it seemed faithful to my memory of it. Jim Broadbent was superb and Gambon's turn as Dumbledore was suitably sinister. I did think that the child Voldermort had lifted his performance from "Son of Mine" in Human Nature/Family of Blood. The kids are all well into their characters now and its hard to imagine anyone else could ever play Harry, Ron or Hermione. Whilst the movie was mostly dark in tone, there were some great bits of humour. Emma Watson in particular was very funny. The only thing that didn't work for me was the same as the book, Harry and Ginny as a couple. The actors gave it their best, but I just don't buy it. Anyway highest recommendation.
Inglourious Bastards was was equally impressive. Tarantino has apparently said that these is his western, albeit with war iconography. For me it was a graphic novel on screen. This was everything you would expect from Tarantino. It may turn out to be his definitive film. The opening chapter has the maturity demonstrated in Jackie Brown, the plot matches the intricacies of Pulp Fiction and the humour has the feel of Pulp Fiction. What sticks with me are two things. The first is that it was simply a beautiful film to watch. Just about every shot could have been a great photograph. The second are the performances. Brad Pitt may have been the headliner, but it is surely Christopher Waltz and Melanie Laurent who should be getting any Oscar nods. Waltz has starred in one of this blogs previously reviewed films (Ordinary Decent Criminal) in which he was a complete drip! Here he is utterly slimy and you hate him without reservation! I think Melanie Laurent will be Tarantino's new Uma Thurman. If anything she is even better than Waltz. Unsurprising the best scene in the film is where they meet for the first time.
Back in Doctor Who land the lack of a new TV story is basically annoying the hell out of me now. In some ways I am feeling like we are back in 2004 again with a new Doctor and companion, new TARDIS, new show runner etc. I am something of a spoilerphobe too so I can't even look forward to stuff that I assume others already know about (On the other hand I will hopefully enjoy those things more when I do finally see them). The key difference with 2004 is of course that we have an incumbent team and Doctor with stories left to go. The online trailer for the Waters of Mars is suitably cool (I don't hear any knocking. THUMP! THUMP! THUMP! THUMP!), better yet is the comicon trailer for the Christmas specials.
Hopefully September will improve my mood on this, with the return of the excellent Sarah Jane adventures. On top of that we hat TOM!~ back as the Doctor. Paul Magrs wouldn't be my first choice to write for the fourth Doctor (Gareth Roberts or Jonathan Morris would be my preferred candidates), but Magrs does have a zany style to suit the 4th Doctor. I hope this will open the door to more Tom stories though and maybe some better line ups. Mike Yates again wouldn't be my first choice (nor come to that would be the Brig). I'd pay good money for more Tom and Lalla, although that's probably the most unrealistic of hopes!
Another "pig might fly" bit of news from a while ago was Janet Fielding returning to play Tegan in The Gathering (and just announced as coming back again to reunite with the 5th Doc and Turlough). One advantage of the gap year is that I have gradually started to clear a backlog of books and audios. As good as many of the 5th Doctor audios have been, the lack of Tegan has been a distinct weakness in the range. I am actually not the greatest fan of the character, but she works well with the 5th Doctor and more importantly the 5th Doctor works better with Tegan around (bit like the 2nd Doctor and Jamie). The Gathering isn't the greatest of stories, but it is a pleasure to hear the old team back in action and they work as well as they ever did. I also liked the clever way of flashing back/forward to The Reaping a sequel/prequel which I have yet to hear.
Next up on my catch up list was 100. As the name suggests this was Big Finishes 100 Doctor Who audio (of the main line). It's a collection of 4 1 part stories with the theme of 100. Much like the old Virgin Decalogs the links are both integral and utterly tenuous. This is a diverse collection of stories. Jac Rayner's 100BC kicks things off with a story about the birth of Julius Ceaser. It features Jac's usual light humour but is ultimately rather inconsequential, probably my least favourite of her stories and a bit of disappointment given she was the creator of Evelyn Smyth. The twist at the end is worth a chuckle though. Rob Shearman has been the star find of the Big Finish range (in terms of his Doctor Who work, Rob being an established playwrite). He always comes up with something interesting and usually macabre too. Here he does a story in which it seems to be suggested that the Doctor and Evelyn's intervention in history affects the legacy of Mozart. I ended up being unsure of what that effect was supposed to be. I was also surprised to find myself a little offended by the notion of mucking around with Mozart and his requiem. Joseph Lidster is another Big Finish and one who blows hot and cold, often in the same play. His "Master" was one of the ranges best audios. Terra Firma one of the worst. This is one of his better efforts being an effective horror story with a nasty little twist at the end. The highlight of the collection is Paul Cornell's 100 Days of the Doctor. This is Paul's first outing with the 6th Doctor and it really is a wonderful little story. The Doctor is infected with a sentient virus and has 100 days to find out how and where he was infected and how to cure himself. In doing so we see the sixth doctor seeing his later and future selves and coming to terms with his own persona. It has the feel of being the culmination of the redemption of the 6th Doctor. A process started in the books and finished with the Cornell seal of approval (Cornell having previously been highly critical of the 6th Doctor's character).
Moving onto a more standard release we have Steve Lyons' Time Works. An eight Doctor tale featuring Charley and C'Rizz. Steve was doing "timey-wimey" stuff long before Blink put living statue artists back in work. As with all of Steve's stuff this is a clever story with a strong central theme. The cliff hanger to part 1 is a particularly great set piece too. The is essentially the opposite of State of Decay with a ruling body forcing the population into ever greater productivity and progress. The story suffers a little from being too reminiscent of the "other universe" arc (and may well have been intended to be set within that arc) in particular it does feel a little like Caerdroia at times and that was an out an out classic of the eighth doctor range. Nevertheless its a very solid entry which passes the time well enough.
The last of my recent Big Finish acquisitions is the new release The Company of Friends. I've been waiting for this one to come out for months featuring, as it does, some favourite companions from the other media. As with 100 this is a collection of four one-part stories. The first is Benny's stories which, not surprisingly, features Bernice Summerfield teaming up with the 8th Doctor for the second time. This one was written by Lance Parkin (who also wrote their first team up in the final New Adventure). Its a lightweight "timey-wimey" runaround" about an aristocrat seeking to "free" a TARDIS from the "slavery" of the time lords. The real pleasure hear is to hear Benny and the Doctor teaming up again. Whilst Benny has her own line of audios, she is very much "my companion" in the way that people have "their doctor". I became a fan in 1993 so my first exposure to ongoing Doctor Who was the New Adventures. Benny was their best companion and indeed one of the best companions in the history of Doctor Who. I think she now has the same sort of longevity as the Brigadier and River Song can kiss my arse! Fitz's story is the next part. Written by Stephen Cole (basically his creator) this is ultimately too lightweight. It is a pleasure for Fitz to be brought to life, but he was the EDA's strongest companion and in the early days often a stronger character than the eighth Doctor was. That just doesn't come across here though. A full length story is required to do him justice really.
On disc 2 we have Izzy's story. Izzy was the 8th Doctor's longest running companion in the comic strips and she was brilliant. This story is just perfect being a comic strip for audio. Alan Barnes (again basically her creator) gives us an Izzy-centric quest story with her basically trying to track down the last ever issue of her favourite comic. The one episode format really works well for Izzy and aside from being a little too shouty, Jemima Rooper basically nails the character. There are also some good little injokes about the fanboy quest to track down the last few New Adventures (I laugh now, but it was a fucking quest to get them back in the day). Finally we have Mary' story which is a great little play on Frankenstien. A good Hinchliffe-gothic style tale with some timey-wimey shenanigans between two versions of the 8th Doctor. Hopefully we will see more of Mary Shelly as a companion too.
Next Up: Byzantium! The Shadow in the Glass and Hornets Nest.
Harry Potter was superb, the best of the series so far (although my previous favourite Azkabahn runs it damn close). It's been a long time since I read the book, but it seemed faithful to my memory of it. Jim Broadbent was superb and Gambon's turn as Dumbledore was suitably sinister. I did think that the child Voldermort had lifted his performance from "Son of Mine" in Human Nature/Family of Blood. The kids are all well into their characters now and its hard to imagine anyone else could ever play Harry, Ron or Hermione. Whilst the movie was mostly dark in tone, there were some great bits of humour. Emma Watson in particular was very funny. The only thing that didn't work for me was the same as the book, Harry and Ginny as a couple. The actors gave it their best, but I just don't buy it. Anyway highest recommendation.
Inglourious Bastards was was equally impressive. Tarantino has apparently said that these is his western, albeit with war iconography. For me it was a graphic novel on screen. This was everything you would expect from Tarantino. It may turn out to be his definitive film. The opening chapter has the maturity demonstrated in Jackie Brown, the plot matches the intricacies of Pulp Fiction and the humour has the feel of Pulp Fiction. What sticks with me are two things. The first is that it was simply a beautiful film to watch. Just about every shot could have been a great photograph. The second are the performances. Brad Pitt may have been the headliner, but it is surely Christopher Waltz and Melanie Laurent who should be getting any Oscar nods. Waltz has starred in one of this blogs previously reviewed films (Ordinary Decent Criminal) in which he was a complete drip! Here he is utterly slimy and you hate him without reservation! I think Melanie Laurent will be Tarantino's new Uma Thurman. If anything she is even better than Waltz. Unsurprising the best scene in the film is where they meet for the first time.
Back in Doctor Who land the lack of a new TV story is basically annoying the hell out of me now. In some ways I am feeling like we are back in 2004 again with a new Doctor and companion, new TARDIS, new show runner etc. I am something of a spoilerphobe too so I can't even look forward to stuff that I assume others already know about (On the other hand I will hopefully enjoy those things more when I do finally see them). The key difference with 2004 is of course that we have an incumbent team and Doctor with stories left to go. The online trailer for the Waters of Mars is suitably cool (I don't hear any knocking. THUMP! THUMP! THUMP! THUMP!), better yet is the comicon trailer for the Christmas specials.
Hopefully September will improve my mood on this, with the return of the excellent Sarah Jane adventures. On top of that we hat TOM!~ back as the Doctor. Paul Magrs wouldn't be my first choice to write for the fourth Doctor (Gareth Roberts or Jonathan Morris would be my preferred candidates), but Magrs does have a zany style to suit the 4th Doctor. I hope this will open the door to more Tom stories though and maybe some better line ups. Mike Yates again wouldn't be my first choice (nor come to that would be the Brig). I'd pay good money for more Tom and Lalla, although that's probably the most unrealistic of hopes!
Another "pig might fly" bit of news from a while ago was Janet Fielding returning to play Tegan in The Gathering (and just announced as coming back again to reunite with the 5th Doc and Turlough). One advantage of the gap year is that I have gradually started to clear a backlog of books and audios. As good as many of the 5th Doctor audios have been, the lack of Tegan has been a distinct weakness in the range. I am actually not the greatest fan of the character, but she works well with the 5th Doctor and more importantly the 5th Doctor works better with Tegan around (bit like the 2nd Doctor and Jamie). The Gathering isn't the greatest of stories, but it is a pleasure to hear the old team back in action and they work as well as they ever did. I also liked the clever way of flashing back/forward to The Reaping a sequel/prequel which I have yet to hear.
Next up on my catch up list was 100. As the name suggests this was Big Finishes 100 Doctor Who audio (of the main line). It's a collection of 4 1 part stories with the theme of 100. Much like the old Virgin Decalogs the links are both integral and utterly tenuous. This is a diverse collection of stories. Jac Rayner's 100BC kicks things off with a story about the birth of Julius Ceaser. It features Jac's usual light humour but is ultimately rather inconsequential, probably my least favourite of her stories and a bit of disappointment given she was the creator of Evelyn Smyth. The twist at the end is worth a chuckle though. Rob Shearman has been the star find of the Big Finish range (in terms of his Doctor Who work, Rob being an established playwrite). He always comes up with something interesting and usually macabre too. Here he does a story in which it seems to be suggested that the Doctor and Evelyn's intervention in history affects the legacy of Mozart. I ended up being unsure of what that effect was supposed to be. I was also surprised to find myself a little offended by the notion of mucking around with Mozart and his requiem. Joseph Lidster is another Big Finish and one who blows hot and cold, often in the same play. His "Master" was one of the ranges best audios. Terra Firma one of the worst. This is one of his better efforts being an effective horror story with a nasty little twist at the end. The highlight of the collection is Paul Cornell's 100 Days of the Doctor. This is Paul's first outing with the 6th Doctor and it really is a wonderful little story. The Doctor is infected with a sentient virus and has 100 days to find out how and where he was infected and how to cure himself. In doing so we see the sixth doctor seeing his later and future selves and coming to terms with his own persona. It has the feel of being the culmination of the redemption of the 6th Doctor. A process started in the books and finished with the Cornell seal of approval (Cornell having previously been highly critical of the 6th Doctor's character).
Moving onto a more standard release we have Steve Lyons' Time Works. An eight Doctor tale featuring Charley and C'Rizz. Steve was doing "timey-wimey" stuff long before Blink put living statue artists back in work. As with all of Steve's stuff this is a clever story with a strong central theme. The cliff hanger to part 1 is a particularly great set piece too. The is essentially the opposite of State of Decay with a ruling body forcing the population into ever greater productivity and progress. The story suffers a little from being too reminiscent of the "other universe" arc (and may well have been intended to be set within that arc) in particular it does feel a little like Caerdroia at times and that was an out an out classic of the eighth doctor range. Nevertheless its a very solid entry which passes the time well enough.
The last of my recent Big Finish acquisitions is the new release The Company of Friends. I've been waiting for this one to come out for months featuring, as it does, some favourite companions from the other media. As with 100 this is a collection of four one-part stories. The first is Benny's stories which, not surprisingly, features Bernice Summerfield teaming up with the 8th Doctor for the second time. This one was written by Lance Parkin (who also wrote their first team up in the final New Adventure). Its a lightweight "timey-wimey" runaround" about an aristocrat seeking to "free" a TARDIS from the "slavery" of the time lords. The real pleasure hear is to hear Benny and the Doctor teaming up again. Whilst Benny has her own line of audios, she is very much "my companion" in the way that people have "their doctor". I became a fan in 1993 so my first exposure to ongoing Doctor Who was the New Adventures. Benny was their best companion and indeed one of the best companions in the history of Doctor Who. I think she now has the same sort of longevity as the Brigadier and River Song can kiss my arse! Fitz's story is the next part. Written by Stephen Cole (basically his creator) this is ultimately too lightweight. It is a pleasure for Fitz to be brought to life, but he was the EDA's strongest companion and in the early days often a stronger character than the eighth Doctor was. That just doesn't come across here though. A full length story is required to do him justice really.
On disc 2 we have Izzy's story. Izzy was the 8th Doctor's longest running companion in the comic strips and she was brilliant. This story is just perfect being a comic strip for audio. Alan Barnes (again basically her creator) gives us an Izzy-centric quest story with her basically trying to track down the last ever issue of her favourite comic. The one episode format really works well for Izzy and aside from being a little too shouty, Jemima Rooper basically nails the character. There are also some good little injokes about the fanboy quest to track down the last few New Adventures (I laugh now, but it was a fucking quest to get them back in the day). Finally we have Mary' story which is a great little play on Frankenstien. A good Hinchliffe-gothic style tale with some timey-wimey shenanigans between two versions of the 8th Doctor. Hopefully we will see more of Mary Shelly as a companion too.
Next Up: Byzantium! The Shadow in the Glass and Hornets Nest.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
The Tarnished Star - Jack Martin
Readers of this blog will know that I am not hugely into westerns. However, I was open to making this book an exception on account of who it is written by. Jack Martin is the pen name of one Gary Dobbs, my oldest cyberbuddie and all round good egg. Gary has an excellent blog (the tainted archive) which is one of my favourite sites on the interwebs. Aside from being a shameless vehicle of self promotion, it is also a terrific example of what is great about the web. A site of passion, enthusiasm with tons of great reviews and good information.
In recent times Gary has used the blog to champion The Tarnished Star, but has also been a staunch supporter and publicist for the western genre, pulp fiction (not the film!) and his fellow western writers.
The Tarnished Star has reaped the benefits of its supporting blog being, from what I understand, an instant success for its author and publisher. My main problem was not getting a hold of the book (I pre-ordered in February), but actually getting some time to read it!
The story concerns a local sheriff (Cole Masters) arrest of the son of a wealthy businessman who basically owns the town and the consequences of that action. Being a pulp novel (and proud of it) there is nothing startling new or different about this tale; it does not seek to re-invent the western genre, merely to tell a pacey traditional story. The nearest equivalent in Doctor Who terms would be the Novelisations of Terrance Dicks. A more general SF equivalent would simply be the old pulp SF stories.
What I liked:
This was the first Western I had read, and so it freed the genre from the turgid pace of many a Hollywood western of my childhood. Similarly, I did not have to suffer an overtly bombastic soundtrack or dull cinematography.
Sheriff Cole Masters, was a good lead protagonist, so were the opposition father and son double act.
The epilogue.
What I didn't like.
The cover!
I know there are a few more westerns in the pipeline for Gary, but I reckon a good noirish detective story would suit his style.
In recent times Gary has used the blog to champion The Tarnished Star, but has also been a staunch supporter and publicist for the western genre, pulp fiction (not the film!) and his fellow western writers.
The Tarnished Star has reaped the benefits of its supporting blog being, from what I understand, an instant success for its author and publisher. My main problem was not getting a hold of the book (I pre-ordered in February), but actually getting some time to read it!
The story concerns a local sheriff (Cole Masters) arrest of the son of a wealthy businessman who basically owns the town and the consequences of that action. Being a pulp novel (and proud of it) there is nothing startling new or different about this tale; it does not seek to re-invent the western genre, merely to tell a pacey traditional story. The nearest equivalent in Doctor Who terms would be the Novelisations of Terrance Dicks. A more general SF equivalent would simply be the old pulp SF stories.
What I liked:
This was the first Western I had read, and so it freed the genre from the turgid pace of many a Hollywood western of my childhood. Similarly, I did not have to suffer an overtly bombastic soundtrack or dull cinematography.
Sheriff Cole Masters, was a good lead protagonist, so were the opposition father and son double act.
The epilogue.
What I didn't like.
The cover!
I know there are a few more westerns in the pipeline for Gary, but I reckon a good noirish detective story would suit his style.
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Torchwood
Fuck Me! How bleak was that!
Absolutely tremendous stuff from the upper boat team and further evidence of how brilliant a writer RTD is (more on that below). Lets be honest, Torchwood was always the red headed step-child of the Who franchise. The show consistently managed to shoot itself in the foot throughout the first two seasons, but this was probably the best thing on TV this year.
It has to be said that the signs were there. The finale of season 2 started to correct a few problems. Killing off Tosh and Owen was a good move, the characters never worked and actually took time away from the three characters that did (Jack, Gwen and Owen). Killing them off also illustrated the dangers the team faced and proved that not everything would always turn out right. Additionally the deaths themselves were pretty memorable moments. The ultimate irony of course was that it was only in writing Tosh and Owen out that the show found a way to make them interesting.
The departure of Chris Chibnall was another positive step for the show. The guy was not a show runner, he was not able to maintain a sense of consistency of tone or development throughout a season and as a result Torchwood was badly unfocused for much of the time with good ideas being badly executed. The show also suffered from a series of generic SF plots and a distinct lack of the humour and sense of adventure that was the hallmark of Doctor Who and Sarah Jane. RTD is of course a writer of a different class and it should also be remembered that Torchwood was his baby, Chibnall was merely the babysitter.
The aftermath of the season 2 finale will be the most unknown part of the show. Four radio plays where we get to hear what a 3 person Torchwood team would have been like under “normal” circumstances. The first of the four is an average affair about the LHC project and suffers from the generic feel of earlier shows. The 3 leading up to Children of Earth were all excellent though and well worth checking out as an example of what Torchwood could have been (and may yet become).
As for Children of Earth itself, I have already stated that I think it was the best thing on TV so far this year. What I Liked:
1)Uniformly superb performances from the main cast. Peter Capaldi was absolutely immense throughout as Frobisher. John Barrowman also gave his best performance as Captain Jack, finally being able to do the quieter and sadder moments with real conviction. I always found that Jack worked better as the Doctor's sidekick than as a leader and there is a sense that Jack prefers that role. But here Jack is utterly believable as the leader of the gang. I will be very surprised if John Barrowman ever betters this performance. Eve Myles as Gwen is or course the heart and soul of the show as Gwen. The one character created specifically for Torchwood who genuinely worked throughout the entire series.
2)The bleakness. This is Midnight and Turn Left writ large as RTD basically shows people acting according to human nature and logically takes us to a really dark place. For all the “fluffy” moments RTD does, he is more than capable of going down the dark and bitter route when he feels it is right to do so. What I loved was the ambition of this though. Take a cult show, put it on prime time BBC one and spend 5 hours showing a story based on the actions of humanity at its worst. The scene where its decided how to choose the 10 percent is a masterpiece, the PM telling Frobisher his kids are for the chop, the army being told to do their jobs or loose their own kids. All of these things have happened throughout human history, this is not really speculation, this is what would happen! One of the best parts is the minister who wants her own children protected from the cull, turning a “good” natural instinct (parent protecting child) to something that feels so wrong.
3)The best of humanity. Lots of little moments of bravery, people fighting the good fight. Another paradox as its the ones determined to resort to violence (ie team Torchwood) who are the heroes of the story. I think Russell, much like Terry Nation before him, realises that the defining point of our age (at least for the Western World) was the second world war, and its no coincidence that Children of Earth references that era so much (just as Turn Left did). I personally think that the events or world war two were so huge that they became a part of our being, not just on a cultural level but on a genetic level too. Anything that throws back to those events will always have resonance.
4)The resolution. About 20 minutes into the final episode I could not see a way for Torchwood to win short of Vwoorp Vwoorp Thunk. In many ways I think I was right. The 10% were saved, but the costs was so high. Ianto dead, at least one government toppled, Jack becoming the very definition of a tragic hero (something that they have been trying to do since day one). Gwen loosing all of her friends, being told she didn't really know Ianto as well as she though and probably having to go back to a mundane life after all she has seen and done.
At the time of writing this there are clearly some unresolved issues about the shows future. The options would appear to be:
1)This was the last Torchwood. 2 weeks ago this wouldn't have bothered me that much. But now hearing and seeing how good Torchwood can be, I want more!
2)Torchwood goes USA on us. This is a distinct possibility. Barrowman would probably be down with that, I we would probably get more of Captain Spike too! The downside is that I am not sure we would see any more of Gwen and since she is my favourite Torchwood character that's a pretty big downside.
3)The show returns with a new team lead by Jack and Gwen and RTD in charge. My prefered option.
4)The show returns with Jack and Gwen, but another show runner with RTD doing Torchwood USA at the same time. This will also be good with me, but they need to get a really good show runner to fill RTD's shoes. Maybe Gareth Roberts as a trial for taking over from Moffat in due course.
I imagine we will find out when the news cycle hits on Monday.
Absolutely tremendous stuff from the upper boat team and further evidence of how brilliant a writer RTD is (more on that below). Lets be honest, Torchwood was always the red headed step-child of the Who franchise. The show consistently managed to shoot itself in the foot throughout the first two seasons, but this was probably the best thing on TV this year.
It has to be said that the signs were there. The finale of season 2 started to correct a few problems. Killing off Tosh and Owen was a good move, the characters never worked and actually took time away from the three characters that did (Jack, Gwen and Owen). Killing them off also illustrated the dangers the team faced and proved that not everything would always turn out right. Additionally the deaths themselves were pretty memorable moments. The ultimate irony of course was that it was only in writing Tosh and Owen out that the show found a way to make them interesting.
The departure of Chris Chibnall was another positive step for the show. The guy was not a show runner, he was not able to maintain a sense of consistency of tone or development throughout a season and as a result Torchwood was badly unfocused for much of the time with good ideas being badly executed. The show also suffered from a series of generic SF plots and a distinct lack of the humour and sense of adventure that was the hallmark of Doctor Who and Sarah Jane. RTD is of course a writer of a different class and it should also be remembered that Torchwood was his baby, Chibnall was merely the babysitter.
The aftermath of the season 2 finale will be the most unknown part of the show. Four radio plays where we get to hear what a 3 person Torchwood team would have been like under “normal” circumstances. The first of the four is an average affair about the LHC project and suffers from the generic feel of earlier shows. The 3 leading up to Children of Earth were all excellent though and well worth checking out as an example of what Torchwood could have been (and may yet become).
As for Children of Earth itself, I have already stated that I think it was the best thing on TV so far this year. What I Liked:
1)Uniformly superb performances from the main cast. Peter Capaldi was absolutely immense throughout as Frobisher. John Barrowman also gave his best performance as Captain Jack, finally being able to do the quieter and sadder moments with real conviction. I always found that Jack worked better as the Doctor's sidekick than as a leader and there is a sense that Jack prefers that role. But here Jack is utterly believable as the leader of the gang. I will be very surprised if John Barrowman ever betters this performance. Eve Myles as Gwen is or course the heart and soul of the show as Gwen. The one character created specifically for Torchwood who genuinely worked throughout the entire series.
2)The bleakness. This is Midnight and Turn Left writ large as RTD basically shows people acting according to human nature and logically takes us to a really dark place. For all the “fluffy” moments RTD does, he is more than capable of going down the dark and bitter route when he feels it is right to do so. What I loved was the ambition of this though. Take a cult show, put it on prime time BBC one and spend 5 hours showing a story based on the actions of humanity at its worst. The scene where its decided how to choose the 10 percent is a masterpiece, the PM telling Frobisher his kids are for the chop, the army being told to do their jobs or loose their own kids. All of these things have happened throughout human history, this is not really speculation, this is what would happen! One of the best parts is the minister who wants her own children protected from the cull, turning a “good” natural instinct (parent protecting child) to something that feels so wrong.
3)The best of humanity. Lots of little moments of bravery, people fighting the good fight. Another paradox as its the ones determined to resort to violence (ie team Torchwood) who are the heroes of the story. I think Russell, much like Terry Nation before him, realises that the defining point of our age (at least for the Western World) was the second world war, and its no coincidence that Children of Earth references that era so much (just as Turn Left did). I personally think that the events or world war two were so huge that they became a part of our being, not just on a cultural level but on a genetic level too. Anything that throws back to those events will always have resonance.
4)The resolution. About 20 minutes into the final episode I could not see a way for Torchwood to win short of Vwoorp Vwoorp Thunk. In many ways I think I was right. The 10% were saved, but the costs was so high. Ianto dead, at least one government toppled, Jack becoming the very definition of a tragic hero (something that they have been trying to do since day one). Gwen loosing all of her friends, being told she didn't really know Ianto as well as she though and probably having to go back to a mundane life after all she has seen and done.
At the time of writing this there are clearly some unresolved issues about the shows future. The options would appear to be:
1)This was the last Torchwood. 2 weeks ago this wouldn't have bothered me that much. But now hearing and seeing how good Torchwood can be, I want more!
2)Torchwood goes USA on us. This is a distinct possibility. Barrowman would probably be down with that, I we would probably get more of Captain Spike too! The downside is that I am not sure we would see any more of Gwen and since she is my favourite Torchwood character that's a pretty big downside.
3)The show returns with a new team lead by Jack and Gwen and RTD in charge. My prefered option.
4)The show returns with Jack and Gwen, but another show runner with RTD doing Torchwood USA at the same time. This will also be good with me, but they need to get a really good show runner to fill RTD's shoes. Maybe Gareth Roberts as a trial for taking over from Moffat in due course.
I imagine we will find out when the news cycle hits on Monday.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Contact
Back in the realm of science-fiction here as I take a look at this wonderful and underated film. The book is also extrodinary, but its been too long since I read it for me to offer any decent review.
The story is one of humanities first contact with aliens. This is not the normal "invasion of earth" or X-Files paranoia type of story that is so common in popular SF. It is instead a much more cerbral tale more in line with Arthur C Clarke's 2001.
The film deviates from the book in a number of points, in particular the past history of Ellie as a child. Similarly there are parts of the story that are realised better in the book than the film (and indeed vice versa). Both are classy and they compliment each other very well, this may be due to the inolvement of Carl Sagan in the film making process. Ultimately, the film does an excellent job of preserving the ethos of the book.
As a film this is criminally underated. I can only think that this is because of the presence of Matthew McConaughey because other than that the film is a virtually flawless bit of SF. The discovery of the aliens signal is one of the most exciting bits of cinema I have ever seen. Even on repeated viewings I still get chills as Ellie picks up the signal on her headphones and starts the process of confirming what she is hearing. That whole sequence to me is far superior to the nearest Hollywood equivilent (contact in Close Encounters of the Third Kind). The irony of the signal being a recording of Hitler is an excellent touch working in the story as a moment of disqueit for the characters and working for the audience as a reason for why we may not yet have had first contact.
This sequence is complimented (although not bettered) later in the film in the sequence leading up to Ellie being "launched". The point of "Contact" itself was never going to be able to live up to the equivilent in the book. The book was able to make more of it because of the more complex backstory that Ellie had and because of other scientific and theological concerns dealt with in the novel. In the film it is boiled down to a bunch of 2001/stargate stylie effects and a more simplistic examination of the films themes. That being said the effects are genuinely beautiful and support the moment of Contact as far as any purely visual technique can.
A word too for Jodie Foster. Jodie tends to be excellent in just about everything she does, even when the parts/films are not worthy of her talent. Here she gives an outstanding performance, literally carrying the scenes with the aforementioned McConaughey. The casting of McConaughey is the films one weak spot. The Palmer Joss of the book has gravity, humility and a drive comparable to Ellie's. The Palmer Joss of the film gives the impression of being laid back to the point of being horizontal. More of a drop out surfer dude than a man of the cloth.
If you like your SF in the escapist/trashy Independence Day mould, then this won't be for you. But if you want an examination of the relationship between faith and reason or thoughtful speculation on what the effect of First Contact might be, or if you just want a little slice of wonder, then this is essential viewing.
The story is one of humanities first contact with aliens. This is not the normal "invasion of earth" or X-Files paranoia type of story that is so common in popular SF. It is instead a much more cerbral tale more in line with Arthur C Clarke's 2001.
The film deviates from the book in a number of points, in particular the past history of Ellie as a child. Similarly there are parts of the story that are realised better in the book than the film (and indeed vice versa). Both are classy and they compliment each other very well, this may be due to the inolvement of Carl Sagan in the film making process. Ultimately, the film does an excellent job of preserving the ethos of the book.
As a film this is criminally underated. I can only think that this is because of the presence of Matthew McConaughey because other than that the film is a virtually flawless bit of SF. The discovery of the aliens signal is one of the most exciting bits of cinema I have ever seen. Even on repeated viewings I still get chills as Ellie picks up the signal on her headphones and starts the process of confirming what she is hearing. That whole sequence to me is far superior to the nearest Hollywood equivilent (contact in Close Encounters of the Third Kind). The irony of the signal being a recording of Hitler is an excellent touch working in the story as a moment of disqueit for the characters and working for the audience as a reason for why we may not yet have had first contact.
This sequence is complimented (although not bettered) later in the film in the sequence leading up to Ellie being "launched". The point of "Contact" itself was never going to be able to live up to the equivilent in the book. The book was able to make more of it because of the more complex backstory that Ellie had and because of other scientific and theological concerns dealt with in the novel. In the film it is boiled down to a bunch of 2001/stargate stylie effects and a more simplistic examination of the films themes. That being said the effects are genuinely beautiful and support the moment of Contact as far as any purely visual technique can.
A word too for Jodie Foster. Jodie tends to be excellent in just about everything she does, even when the parts/films are not worthy of her talent. Here she gives an outstanding performance, literally carrying the scenes with the aforementioned McConaughey. The casting of McConaughey is the films one weak spot. The Palmer Joss of the book has gravity, humility and a drive comparable to Ellie's. The Palmer Joss of the film gives the impression of being laid back to the point of being horizontal. More of a drop out surfer dude than a man of the cloth.
If you like your SF in the escapist/trashy Independence Day mould, then this won't be for you. But if you want an examination of the relationship between faith and reason or thoughtful speculation on what the effect of First Contact might be, or if you just want a little slice of wonder, then this is essential viewing.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Raging Bull
Here's another film that I have only recently got around to watching. Long story short - a film I liked, but not one that lived up to my expectations.
STUFF I LIKED:
That it was shot in black and white. BUT also that the lighting was appropriate for black and white. I cannot even begin to get across how important this is. There are any number of films and TV shows that have done "the black and white one", but even when they get the directorial style right they nearly always fail to get the lighting correct/authentic (case in point the X-Files' Post Modern Prometheus).
The performances were excellent throughout. Although I am wondering if this was the start of Joe Pesci playing himself.
The fights all have a brutal feel to them. Partly this is the result of foley work, but its also the result of the unique camera work and makeup jobs. That being said, for true brutality in boxing, check out the film about the Ali-Frazier fights, the third of which was just hellacious.
STUFF I DIDN'T LIKE:
It is a little churlish to critisise a biopic for having a meandering plot so I won't do that. The story is what it is because of real life. I didn't like the final scene though. I didn't find it open ended so much as perfunctory. I would have prefered for the film to end with scene in the prison which had more of a sense of closure (particularly thematically).
There were few characters with whom I was able to feel any real empathy. Vicki Lamotta is perhaps the main exception to this, but even that is more of a feeling of sympathy rather than empathy, certainly the character is not in of herself likeable.
Anyway, its stylistically brilliant and is a very good film, I just don't see it as an out an out classic.
STUFF I LIKED:
That it was shot in black and white. BUT also that the lighting was appropriate for black and white. I cannot even begin to get across how important this is. There are any number of films and TV shows that have done "the black and white one", but even when they get the directorial style right they nearly always fail to get the lighting correct/authentic (case in point the X-Files' Post Modern Prometheus).
The performances were excellent throughout. Although I am wondering if this was the start of Joe Pesci playing himself.
The fights all have a brutal feel to them. Partly this is the result of foley work, but its also the result of the unique camera work and makeup jobs. That being said, for true brutality in boxing, check out the film about the Ali-Frazier fights, the third of which was just hellacious.
STUFF I DIDN'T LIKE:
It is a little churlish to critisise a biopic for having a meandering plot so I won't do that. The story is what it is because of real life. I didn't like the final scene though. I didn't find it open ended so much as perfunctory. I would have prefered for the film to end with scene in the prison which had more of a sense of closure (particularly thematically).
There were few characters with whom I was able to feel any real empathy. Vicki Lamotta is perhaps the main exception to this, but even that is more of a feeling of sympathy rather than empathy, certainly the character is not in of herself likeable.
Anyway, its stylistically brilliant and is a very good film, I just don't see it as an out an out classic.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Unforgiven
Yes, I have been living under a rock all these years as I have only just watched this exceptional film. I do of course remember it coming out and the associated press that it had re-invented and/or marked the final chapter of the Western Genre. I am not sure either sentiment is wholly accurate (or wholly inaccurate) but it is certainly true that there is a sense of revelation about the film.
Cards on the table, of all the genre's of fiction I have found those of spy thrillers and westerns to be the hardest to get into. This is not the post to address the issues I have with the spy genre (although some of my feelings are in the James Bond and Prisoner posts bellow), but I feel its only fair to elaborate on my misgivings about Westerns, if only so that my feelings on Unforgiven are given a proper context.
I've never been short of exposure to Westerns. My Grandfather was a keen fan of the genre and I would spend many an hour with him whilst he was watching Westerns. And to be fair, there were a couple that I liked and would happily sit through again (The Shootist comes to mind). But I generally find that the genre too often falls into a cliche (as opposed to archetype) and worse still, corniness. Similarly I have problems with the depiction of the wild west in terms of the treatment of the genocide of the Native American people and a treatment of guns and death that ranges from the perfunctory to glorification. Too many of the old westerns were simply insturments of the Hollywood propaganda machine that operated throughout the cold war. On a more superficial level the bombastic scoring and often bland cinematography and direction also irked me.
It was partly because of these feelings that I consciously avoided watching Unforgiven for so long. A large part of me felt that it would not live up to the hype, another part of me felt that I would not be able to give it a fair viewing.
Anyhow, I felt that what with Gary Dobbs campaign and impending book, the time had come to give the film a go.
Needless to say I am really glad that I did so. Once again Wikipedia is the friend of anyone looking for a plot synopsis.
WHAT I LIKED:
The opening. Compelling and shocking in its brutality. This would be a good opening for any film and would obviously work if transposed to virtually any other genre (crime, historical saga, action movie etc, probably not for a rom-com though!). Its immediately apparent that the violence in this film MEANS something. Its not a stylised and sanitised punch-up suitable for kiddies to watch at the pics on a Saturday morning.
Similarly the film wisely avoids any involvement or reference to Native Americans. This is a no-win situation for modern westerns in my opinion. Whilst the treatement of this issue in older westerns can be, if not excused, then at least understood in the context of the time in which the films were made; there is no way that a current western could (or indeed should) style the stories in the veign of the older westerns. Similarly it is unlikely that, in a post George W Bush world, a Hollywood film would be able to point out the fact that the America of today is the result of systematic ethnic cleansing.
The films treatment of violence and death is light years ahead of not only most westerns, but most films to come out of America. In particular it is clear that fights lead to pain and injury, bullets to serious injury and death. Similarly the morality of the frontier way of life is examined from a number of perspectives. Its clear that much of what happened in those days may not have been right, or even considered right at the time, but was probably necessary a great deal of the time. On the other hand the raw deal that the women get never feels anything other than unjust and arbitrary. Interestingly, the film doesn't really offer any resolution to these issues. I am not even sure that it poses clear questions. Thus at times the film feels like a morality play without a moral. This is not to say that the film is empty, nor do I consider this a critisism. More that the film has a unique and fascinating tension to it. It feels not so much open ended as unresolved and it has stayed with me nearly a week on from viewing it.
On a superficial level, the cast are uniformly excellent and the direction and cinematography is moody and involving. Far removed from the flat and bland wildernesses that I tend to associate with westerns. The music too is both effective and unobtrusive.
Best of all of is the climax of the film. Never before have I seen a Western with an ending as taught as this. From the moment that Morgan Freeman's character is captured there is a feeling of dread and of events spiralling out of control. Again the death of his character is treated as a big deal. I think that a lot of people would've realised that the shit was about to go down once Clint's character started to drink again. But a more subtle indication is there in the fear of the woman who breaks the news as she has realised the she and the others have made a deal with (a former) devil.
If I can digress for a slight moment. The 7th Doctor acquired the moniker of "The Oncoming Storm" following the destruction of Skaro in Rememberance of the Daleks. I immeidately though of this at the beging of the scene in which Clint walks into the bar. What I found terrific about this scene is that you get the sense that this is new territory for the character. Although previously a proficient killer and then a reformed, rightous man, this is a melding of both aspects. A man killing from rightous anger. Off the top of my head I think this is probably the most effective and powerful finale to a film since The Empire Strikes Back (or possible Resevoir Dogs).
To conclude, I loved it!
Cards on the table, of all the genre's of fiction I have found those of spy thrillers and westerns to be the hardest to get into. This is not the post to address the issues I have with the spy genre (although some of my feelings are in the James Bond and Prisoner posts bellow), but I feel its only fair to elaborate on my misgivings about Westerns, if only so that my feelings on Unforgiven are given a proper context.
I've never been short of exposure to Westerns. My Grandfather was a keen fan of the genre and I would spend many an hour with him whilst he was watching Westerns. And to be fair, there were a couple that I liked and would happily sit through again (The Shootist comes to mind). But I generally find that the genre too often falls into a cliche (as opposed to archetype) and worse still, corniness. Similarly I have problems with the depiction of the wild west in terms of the treatment of the genocide of the Native American people and a treatment of guns and death that ranges from the perfunctory to glorification. Too many of the old westerns were simply insturments of the Hollywood propaganda machine that operated throughout the cold war. On a more superficial level the bombastic scoring and often bland cinematography and direction also irked me.
It was partly because of these feelings that I consciously avoided watching Unforgiven for so long. A large part of me felt that it would not live up to the hype, another part of me felt that I would not be able to give it a fair viewing.
Anyhow, I felt that what with Gary Dobbs campaign and impending book, the time had come to give the film a go.
Needless to say I am really glad that I did so. Once again Wikipedia is the friend of anyone looking for a plot synopsis.
WHAT I LIKED:
The opening. Compelling and shocking in its brutality. This would be a good opening for any film and would obviously work if transposed to virtually any other genre (crime, historical saga, action movie etc, probably not for a rom-com though!). Its immediately apparent that the violence in this film MEANS something. Its not a stylised and sanitised punch-up suitable for kiddies to watch at the pics on a Saturday morning.
Similarly the film wisely avoids any involvement or reference to Native Americans. This is a no-win situation for modern westerns in my opinion. Whilst the treatement of this issue in older westerns can be, if not excused, then at least understood in the context of the time in which the films were made; there is no way that a current western could (or indeed should) style the stories in the veign of the older westerns. Similarly it is unlikely that, in a post George W Bush world, a Hollywood film would be able to point out the fact that the America of today is the result of systematic ethnic cleansing.
The films treatment of violence and death is light years ahead of not only most westerns, but most films to come out of America. In particular it is clear that fights lead to pain and injury, bullets to serious injury and death. Similarly the morality of the frontier way of life is examined from a number of perspectives. Its clear that much of what happened in those days may not have been right, or even considered right at the time, but was probably necessary a great deal of the time. On the other hand the raw deal that the women get never feels anything other than unjust and arbitrary. Interestingly, the film doesn't really offer any resolution to these issues. I am not even sure that it poses clear questions. Thus at times the film feels like a morality play without a moral. This is not to say that the film is empty, nor do I consider this a critisism. More that the film has a unique and fascinating tension to it. It feels not so much open ended as unresolved and it has stayed with me nearly a week on from viewing it.
On a superficial level, the cast are uniformly excellent and the direction and cinematography is moody and involving. Far removed from the flat and bland wildernesses that I tend to associate with westerns. The music too is both effective and unobtrusive.
Best of all of is the climax of the film. Never before have I seen a Western with an ending as taught as this. From the moment that Morgan Freeman's character is captured there is a feeling of dread and of events spiralling out of control. Again the death of his character is treated as a big deal. I think that a lot of people would've realised that the shit was about to go down once Clint's character started to drink again. But a more subtle indication is there in the fear of the woman who breaks the news as she has realised the she and the others have made a deal with (a former) devil.
If I can digress for a slight moment. The 7th Doctor acquired the moniker of "The Oncoming Storm" following the destruction of Skaro in Rememberance of the Daleks. I immeidately though of this at the beging of the scene in which Clint walks into the bar. What I found terrific about this scene is that you get the sense that this is new territory for the character. Although previously a proficient killer and then a reformed, rightous man, this is a melding of both aspects. A man killing from rightous anger. Off the top of my head I think this is probably the most effective and powerful finale to a film since The Empire Strikes Back (or possible Resevoir Dogs).
To conclude, I loved it!
Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
Well, I've just finished reading this in the last couple of days. I've never seen the film, although having now read the book I suspect it is probably better than the book.
Most people will have a good idea of what the book is about either because they have seen the film, or more broadly, just by the notion of knowing what a catch 22 situation is.
I intend to watch the film, but I am also one of those people that will always read the book first if the opportunity to do so arises. The book itself is long, clocking in at nearly 600 pages and I am not convinced that it really needed to be that long or that the book is the modern classic it is held up to be. I don't propose to undertake a detailed synopsis here, those looking for such a guide can look to wikipedia or google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22). What I will say is that the book is very funny at times and I liked its subversive satire. On the other hand the books is essentially one joke over and over again and in many ways reads like a collection of short stories or vignettes shoe-horned into the medium of the novel. The plot is difficult to describe, simply because I am not sure the book has a plot, so much as a sequence of events which illustrate and repeat the catch 22 theme in a fractal-like pattern. For all that the (open) ending is genuinely uplifting and the central character, Yossarian, is one of the more accentric lead characters to come out of Americal literature.
My overriding impression is then of a book which is, at times, interesting, funny, unique and ground-breaking; but which is also long-winded, repetitive and ultimately hard to warm too.
Most people will have a good idea of what the book is about either because they have seen the film, or more broadly, just by the notion of knowing what a catch 22 situation is.
I intend to watch the film, but I am also one of those people that will always read the book first if the opportunity to do so arises. The book itself is long, clocking in at nearly 600 pages and I am not convinced that it really needed to be that long or that the book is the modern classic it is held up to be. I don't propose to undertake a detailed synopsis here, those looking for such a guide can look to wikipedia or google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22). What I will say is that the book is very funny at times and I liked its subversive satire. On the other hand the books is essentially one joke over and over again and in many ways reads like a collection of short stories or vignettes shoe-horned into the medium of the novel. The plot is difficult to describe, simply because I am not sure the book has a plot, so much as a sequence of events which illustrate and repeat the catch 22 theme in a fractal-like pattern. For all that the (open) ending is genuinely uplifting and the central character, Yossarian, is one of the more accentric lead characters to come out of Americal literature.
My overriding impression is then of a book which is, at times, interesting, funny, unique and ground-breaking; but which is also long-winded, repetitive and ultimately hard to warm too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)