Movie reflection: Doctor Who: The TV Movie/The Enemy Within

Trapped on Earth and newly regenerated, the Doctor (Paul McGann) sets out to close the Eye of Harmony before it swallows the whole planet. Meanwhile, the Master (Eric Roberts), also on Earth, goes on the hunt, seeking to steal his old rival’s body and all his remaining regenerations.

Fifteen years after its initial broadcast, the Doctor Who TV movie—also know as The Enemy Within—was finally made available on DVD in the United States a couple years ago. Needless to say, I lost little time in ordering it from the library and watching it with my mother, KorraWP, and Noria, (ptolemaeus wasn’t interested).

I went into this movie with pretty low expectations. I’d read the synopsis and some analysis of the movie some time ago, and it sounded pretty bad. Then I sat down to watch it and it wasn’t that bad. Not great, but fairly good.

The plot is uninspired, illogical, silly, and dependent on massive coincidences. (For example: the Doctor needs an atomic clock—oh look, the local TV news just happened to announce that the city he just happened to land his TARDIS in just happens to be hosting the world’s most advanced atomic clock which just happens to have its grand opening today. And to top it off, the Doctor’s companion for this outing just happens to be on the Board of Trustees for the San Francisco Institute of Technological Advancement and Research where the atomic clock is being unveiled). The TV movie is stupid fun, no doubt, but a lot of Doctor Who is stupid fun. Heck, I sat through four years of Russell T Davies—compared to that, the TV movie is nothing special.

In fact, let’s dwell on that comparison a moment, shall we? Both the new show and the TV movie often take themselves too seriously, and both are melodramatic, but the new show delivers melodrama by trying to pass off ludicrous and emotionally manipulative material as Serious Drama, whereas the movie delivers melodrama because over-the-top hijinks are fun. Only twice does the movie go for Serious Drama—and admittedly, the results in the first scene are about as tedious as most of the Serious Drama in the new show, while the second is so contrived and unsubtle in its symbolism as to attain new heights of Narm.

A lot of this comes down to a matter of personal taste, but for me a fun, pulpy adventure story without all the extraneous angst Davies and Moffat have stuffed into the new show comes as a breath of fresh air. Which is not to say that angst and real drama have no place in Doctor Who, just that for my money, it does better without those elements than when they’re overemphasized (see, for example: “Last of the Time Lords,” “The End of Time,” “The Big Bang,” “The Impossible Astronaut,” and McGann’s TV mini-episode, “The Night of the Doctor”).

Maybe it’s the vantage of fifteen years and seven seasons of the new show (plus the fact that I’d read the spoilers), but I also wasn’t bothered by all the continuity issues which threw fans into a rage way back when. Oh, the Doctor is half-human, that’s pretty stupid but ehn, life goes on. Oh, the Daleks are letting the Doctor on Skaro now? Oh well, they’ll be sorting each other out again soon enough. Oh, the console room’s all different? Well, it changes again between Eight and Nine, and again between Ten and Eleven*. Oh, the Doctor’s snogging his companion now—honestly, I doubt this would’ve bothered me even before the innumerable romance arcs of the Eccleston-Tennant-Smith era.

*And incidentally, the Victorian-themed console room—complete with working fireplace if I recall correctly? Pretty fly.

And I really like the way all this material comes up off-handedly—in keeping with the general trend of the movie not wallowing in Serious Drama. If this were the new show, there would be dark hints and ridiculously cryptic clues about the Doctor’s “true nature” for one-to-three seasons, and the revelation would come with a great narrative crescendo. Whereas in the movie, the Master opens the Eye of Harmony and basically says “The Doctor is half human, how interesting,” within the first half hour.

Then there’s the scene at the San Francisco Institute, where the Doctor and Grace Holloway (Daphne Ashbrook) have been ambushed by the atomic clock’s creator just as they are plotting to steal it. The creator insistently asks the Doctor to reveal his “big secret,” so the Doctor pulls him aside and confides: “I’m half human. On my mother’s side.” F*** you, that’s hilarious.

Like I said, the TV movie is stupid fun, but it is quite fun. Paul McGann plays a suitably eccentric Doctor—I knew I was in good hands when he interrupted a line of exposition on the impending death of the Earth to exclaim, “Grace! These shoes fit perfectly!”

As far as the Master goes, I have to disagree with Nash of Radio Dead Air. Eric Roberts’ acting may be bad, but he’s still entertaining as hell, especially when he has one of the other three main characters—The Doctor, Grace, or Chang Lee (Yee Jee Tso)—to play off of.

Grace Holloway and Chang Lee are not the most memorable or inventive of Doctor Who guest stars, but they’re sufficiently active and likable to help carry the story. Likable enough to provoke some sense of sorrow when they die*; and happiness when they’re resurrected. Nash scoffed at this—and it’s the sort of thing the Nostalgia Critic regularly mocks as well—but personally, I’m good with it. I had a safe and happy childhood, and even I don’t need TV to tell me that in real life, when people die they stay dead. Besides, despite the best efforts of Davies and Moffat and the like, Doctor Who is not the right medium for making profound statements about death, and it hasn’t been for a very long time, if ever. It’s a medium for fun, silly adventures, it’s what Doctor Who does best, and that spirit is undermined when sympathetic characters get Killed Off For Reals**. Again, campy adventure wins over foolhardy attempts at Serious Drama.

*And without all the tedious emotional manipulation and general angst the new show trots out whenever it kills off a character—or pretends it’s going to.
**Also known as the Vector Prime-Star by Star-Legacy of the Force Syndrome.

It’s fun just to sit back and watch as the Doctor dashes madcap about San Francisco with his astonished companion in tow; while the Master bods about deceiving Chang, menacing the Doctor, and sounding remarkably like George Clooney. (Yes, George Clooney.) It’s all so endearingly silly, and you’ve got to love the gag with the motorcycle cop accidentally driving through the TARDIS door, and you can hear the cop drive a very long way before turning around and driving right back out again. Heck, even Nash appreciated that one. (It was probably the inspiration for Clara riding a motorcycle right into the TARDIS in the 50th anniversary special, “The Day of the Doctor.”)

So yeah, to sum up: cute film, definitely worth a look.

TV reflection: Doctor Who episode 1: “An Unearthly Child”

My familiarity with the first twenty-six seasons of the original Doctor Who is hardly comprehensive, but it predates my interactions with the new show by several months. For the last seven or eight years I’ve been watching through the old show more or less at random. A few months before I started grad school, I finally hit the very first episode, “An Unearthly Child,” and decided I’d share my thoughts on it. I don’t intend to make a practice out of this like I do for the new show, but I may share my thoughts about specific stories I find particularly good, particularly bad, or otherwise noteworthy. For now, “An Unearthly Child.”

This episode basically comes in three parts. In the first part, history teacher Barbara Wright and science teacher Ian Chesterton discuss one of their more peculiar pupils, fifteen-year-old Susan Foreman. Barbara convinces Ian to drive to the junkyard which corresponds to Susan’s home address and find out just exactly where her home is.

In the second part, Barbara and Ian see Susan disappear into the junkyard and try to follow her. While they cannot find Susan, they do discover a police telephone box which they cannot open, and an eccentric old man who acts very evasive about said box. He tries to get them to leave, but then Susan’s voice calls out of the police box and the door swings open, and Ian and Barbara rush in, followed by the old man.

In the final part, Susan and her grandfather attempt to explain about the TARDIS’ bigger-on-the-inside-than-it-is-on-the-outside nature and space/time travel. Susan’s grandfather just wants to get rid of the interlopers, but finally accedes to Susan’s requests to let them go—by warping them all out of the twentieth century and onto a desolate plain, where the shadow of a caveperson looks on presumably in disbelief.

I’m going to discuss “An Unearthly Child” from the perspective of someone who’s already familiar with the show and its mythology, because that’s the only way I can interact with it at this point. From that perspective, the first part, with Barbara and Ian puzzling over Susan’s alien brilliance is by far the most entertaining. The second part is fairly amusing because the Doctor clearly hasn’t got the hang of dealing with nosy people yet, and his evasions are hilariously weak and transparent; but when you get right down to it, this whole sequence is just an overly drawn-out build-up to a revelation which at this point, anyone who’d be watching the episode already knows all about. The third part is even worse, as it consists of an even more tediously drawn-out sequence establishing stuff we already know and have seen explained more entertainingly and concisely elsewhere, and a less-than-riveting buildup to a by now foregone conclusion.

One can’t blame the writer or the director or anyone else connected to the project for failing to predict what a massive hit Doctor Who would become, or for having different standards for pacing from what we consider ideal fifty years later. “An Unearthly Child” was probably a more than adequate introduction to the show at the time, but it’s long since been overtaken by material which is, if not outright better, then certainly more accessible to a modern viewer.

It’s still watchable (and better than many episodes the new series has subjected us to), but aside from a chance to see where it all began, there’s not much to recommend it.

As a matter of fact, my favorite parts of this episode are when it’s being completely stupid. When Barbara and Ian first discover the TARDIS, they put their hands to a panel on the door, and Ian exclaims, “It’s vibrating; this thing’s alive!” Gee, Einstein, is that what you say when you put your hand on the hood of your car with the engine warmed up, too?

There’s also, unfortunately, a truly cringe-worthy instance of early 1960s racism—so blunt and uncouth compared to our enlightened and sophisticated mid 2010s racism—when the Doctor compares Barbara’s and Ian’s narrow-mindedness regarding his and Susan’s and the TARDIS’ alien nature to a “primitive … red Indian” presented with a steam engine. Bad Doctor Who, bad!

Anyway, that was “An Unearthly Child.” It leads directly into a three-part story involving cavepeople, but it’s mostly a standalone story, and I have no great inclination to watch the next few episodes. Til next time.

TV analysis: Firefly

This is a slightly edited version of an essay I originally posted in 2009. My sister ptolemaeus and I had already watched the complete series, though we had not and still have not seen the movie Serenity.

I have a love/hate relationship with Firefly. In some places it’s good, in some it’s really good. In some places it’s bad, and in some it’s really, really godawful.

If the preceding two sentences weren’t sufficient warning, die-hard fans of the show should take note that the following analysis contains some pretty harsh criticism of Firefly. If you’re one of those fans who can’t stand other people voicing their dislike for certain aspects of the series, you might want to reconsider reading this essay. People who have not finished the series and don’t like having the plot given away are advised to do likewise. In short: criticism and spoiler warning (including one or two movie spoilers). Additionally: Trigger warning for discussion of rape and misogyny.

Right then, now that’s out of the way, we begin with a breakdown of the main cast, for, as I will soon demonstrate, the characterization in Firefly is integral to the bad and the good of the show.

Mal – Captain Malcolm Reynolds. Firefly fans the world over will swear bloody vengeance on me for saying this, but it has to be said: Mal is an unrepentant, insufferable, murderous asshole. He’s an authoritarian dictator who demands respect from others at all times while returning it only as he sees fit, frequently violating their personal space (in one case, over the other’s repeated objections), insulting them, and generally making it clear in no uncertain terms who’s boss around his ship. Anyone who violates his dictatorial authority can expect swift justice—and by “justice,” I mean they get punched out, thrown in the airlock, and threatened with decompression (we can argue about whether or not he really would’ve flushed Jayne, but it’s a largely moot point). And this is how he treats his friends. He threatens other people, too, and takes obvious delight in inflicting mental (telling Simon “Kaylee’s dead” before he joins the crew, when he’d previously threatened to space both Simon and River if Kaylee didn’t pull through) and physical (repeatedly “poking” Atherton Wing with a sword) pain in others. Oh, and he kicks helpless prisoners into engine intakes given half an excuse, and with no little amusement.

I think the original idea with Mal was to make him heroic but “edgy”: a bit of an asshole, but at heart a decent human being (he was apparently based off of Han Solo, after all). However, two problems arose in the execution phase. First of all, the writers took the concept “edgy” and pushed it way, way too far. Kicking helpless prisoners—even if they did just threaten you—into engine intakes isn’t “morally questionable”; it’s downright sadistic, as are many of Mal’s other actions (though to a lesser degree).

And secondly, the story implicitly supports Mal’s sadism. It lightly censures his blatant disrespect for Inara and other minor manifestations of jackassery, but the tone of the show is clearly “oh Mal, you scamp, tut-tut young master, that’s not the proper way to behave.” And when it comes to the really big stuff, like tormenting Simon and Wing, or knocking out Jayne and threatening him with the airlock, or shooting the Alliance agent in the pilot, or murdering the Russian mook in “The Train Job,” the expected mood is clearly “hey, Mal just did something incredibly cool/funny/both” not “hey, Mal just did something incredibly awful.” It’s obvious that in all of Mal’s vilest actions, the writers are 100% on his side.

Sure, Mal has a conscience, and he has his standards—he’s not a total villain. He’s supposed to be a complex character, and I suppose he is, but I can’t get past the fact that he routinely does things which are clearly villainous and which the writers just as clearly want the viewer to regard as noble (and often hysterical) simply because it’s Mal doing them.

He also has the misfortune of fulfilling the role of blunt instrument with which Whedon occasionally beats some “feminist” message over his viewers’ heads.

This tactic not only has all the grace and subtlety of a poorly lobbed half-brick, but it makes no sense from a characterization perspective. I should think even viewers who don’t see Mal’s actions as morally unconscionable can agree that Mal is not an idealist. Ever since the Battle of Serenity Valley, he hasn’t cared about grand ideals or overarching systems any more. He does everything at the personal level—the political dimension of his character his something which he constantly represses.

He has his principles (some of which, as I pointed out, are extremely messed-up) by they are purely his own code of conduct, with no connection to some greater moral framework.

So it’s all the more incongruous when he gets up on his high horse to spout Anvilicious speeches about female empowerment and women’s rights—all of which come down to either a) “you will be empowered because I say so, got that?” or b) “she’s a woman and you will respect her because it’s important to respect women, got that? Nobody gets away with disrespecting women on my watch … except me.”

Malcolm Reynolds, everybody, greatest gorram sci-fi hero of all time.

(After publishing this essay, I learned of the infamous “women are ruining science fiction with their decadent feminist agenda” article from a few years ago. I actually read the article itself on the reactionary misogynist blog where it was first published—and was completely unsurprised to find that the site’s regulars, while expressing a low regard for Whedon in general, praised Mal as an example of manliness in sci-fi.)

Zoe Alleyne Washburne. In discussing Zoe’s character, ptolemaeus once described her as basically a stereotypical male character, pretty much devoid of feminine—or even androgynous—traits. Others have since questioned this reading of Zoe’s character, though, and perhaps it’s unfair. Unfortunately, it’s been a couple years since I’ve watched the show now, so I can’t really give Zoe’s character the reassessment she deserves.

I can point out, though, that at least some people have seen her as cleaving a bit too closely to the Black Warrior Woman archetype. She certainly makes a nice black female sidekick to Mal’s white male *a-hem* “hero.”

She also occasionally shoots fleeing enemies in the back which is … a good thing?

Wash – Hoban Washburne. Wash is the Serenity‘s pilot, Zoe’s husband, and would normally be the comedy relief, too. On Joss Whedon’s shows (except Dollhouse) pretty much everyone is the comic relief, though, so Wash is more the lighthearted relief, always there to brighten the mood when things start to get too depressing (ironic considering his eventual fate).

Wash is this goofy guy who also happens to be an exceptional pilot. His marriage to Zoe is sweet but not flawlessly so. Fortunately, the series didn’t last long enough for the writers to break up their relationship, then put it back together, then break it up and put it back again ad nauseam.

Inara Serra. From what I’ve heard, back when Joss Whedon was outlining the original concept of Firefly, his wife thought it would be a great idea to include a “Hooker With a Heart of Gold” character, and thus Inara was born. She’s also supposed to be an “empowered” sex worker. Sex work is, of course, a highly controversial topic, including among feminists. Personally, I’ve grown over the years more and more towards the standpoint of being in solidarity with women (and men, and intersex adults) who choose to go into sex work. Heck, I can believe that for at least some of them, going into the business can be empowering by taking ownership of their sexuality or the like. But I have to wonder if the glamorized “Companionship” of the Firefly ‘Verse really has anything meaningful to say about sex work or sexuality or empowerment (or, for that matter, work) in the real world.

I also have a hard time regarding her as “empowered” through her sex work when Whedon makes sure every third client of Inara’s treats her like crap so that someone (usually Mal) can lay the smackdown on misogyny. (The implicit sex work stigma in said clients’ mistreatment of Inara also sits uncomfortably with the glorification of the institution of Companionship which Whedon insists on.)

And then, of course, there’s the fact that her “love interest” Mal also routinely treats her like crap—even worse than he treats his other friends and acquaintances. Their relationship is borderline abusive, and it would undoubtedly grow more so if it ever developed into a romance.

Apparently, an episode which was planned but mercifully never produced due to the series’ cancellation would have featured a group of Reavers gang-raping Inara, and would have been about how this affected Mal’s relationship with her. Blecch.

In short, Inara is hardly a great feminist role model.

Other than that, I’m ambivalent about her character; ptolemaeus found her annoyingly melodramatic, and I think I was beginning to pick up some of that the last time I watched the show.

Jayne Cobb. Jayne is something like what you’d get if you took a character like Malcolm Reynolds and wrote him honestly. Like Mal, Jayne is an utter bastard; unlike Mal, the writers point out his bastardry and make a fun spectacle of it, instead of trying to make out that it’s somehow noble, or at least no big deal. Which is probably why Jayne, as a character, kicks ass, whereas Mal sucks same.

Kaylee – Kaywinnit (according to Wikipedia, I’m not making that up) Lee Frye. Kaylee is the Serenity‘s mechanic and all-around fixit-woman, with a pleasant, spunky, almost happy-go-lucky disposition. She’s also—and I can’t help but find this significant—the only member of the Serenity‘s crew who’s an absolute coward when it comes to physical violence.

Kaylee is a very, very adorable and very, very fragile young woman. Naturally, this makes her the ideal target for every second villain the crew encounters.

In the introduction to the Women in Refrigerators website, creator Gail Simone specifically does not offer an explanation for why female characters in comics (and other media) tend to be subject to a disproportionate amount of abuse. This is a phenomenon I’d independently noticed, and formed my own conclusions on before learning about the site.

Part of it is probably that in our misogynist culture there are few things scarier than a truly empowered woman. We have this subconscious gynophobic need to depict powerful women a evil, or to subject them to some horrible trauma (often sexual) to reassert their subordinate position, or both.

But in many cases, the woman in question is not particularly empowered to begin with. Often she is particularly fragile in relation to the other characters (Lady Magadaria from the third season of the Rurouni Kenshin anime is one such character who has always stuck in my mind). In such cases, I think, a slightly different logic is at work.

In misogynist Western culture, the empowered female is perverse and unnatural. But then, we may ask, what is “natural?” Why, of course, the fragile female.

The patriarchal assumption is men = strong; women = weak. This makes women more pitiful, and so when a woman is hurt or killed, it’s considered more tragic than when the same happens to a man. (By the same logic which states that harm to a baby or child is more tragic than harm to an adult.) This is a theme explored in Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series, and—as many of the female characters in that series point out, though not in so many words—it’s a deeply sexist one*.

*I don’t mean to make out that Wheel of Time is a particularly feminist series, but I have found this specific theme helpful in reaching a better understanding of feminist issues.

This narrative that women are more helpless and pitiful than men (and therefore that harm to them is more tragic than harm to men) continues the myth of women as Other, and also as lacking in power and agency. But it’s also strongly ingrained in Western culture. Personally, I’ve pretty much resigned myself to the fact that female suffering, real or fictional, tends to hit me harder than male suffering, and when I hear about a male (real or fictional) suffering or dying, I’ll be somewhat relieved that at least they weren’t female.

In constantly making Kaylee the villains’ target-of-choice, Joss Whedon is playing to a strongly and deeply held cultural narrative which states that a fragile young woman in danger and/or in pain is especially tragic.

Questionable feminist credentials aside, this is a cheap-shot. When writers can’t be bothered to work at getting their viewers’ sympathy, they just throw in something which viewers are culturally encoded to sympathize with, such as a young child or a fragile young woman, and then put them into danger and/or pain. It works, but it’s a cheap trick and doesn’t say anything positive about said writer’s talent.

Don’t get me wrong, Kaylee is probably my second-favorite character on the show. She’s sweet and funny and upbeat and intelligent and a very nice person. I just wish Whedon and co. didn’t make such a point of making Kaylee the weakest, most vulnerable member of the crew.

In fourteen episodes, I can list at least one (generally more than one) incredible thing (I would say awesome, but that implies a moral judgment) each of the other eight characters did, off the top of my head. The most incredible thing Kaylee ever did occurred in a flashback, and even that wasn’t too impressive when compared with her shipmates’ accomplishments.

The budding romance between Kaylee and Simon is sweet and touching. It would’ve been even sweeter if the writers didn’t have Kaylee flip her shit every time he makes a thoughtlessly rude comment—which happens with surprising frequency. He’ll say something thoughtless and insensitive and instead of taking the moral high ground about it (or just acting more mature than a ten-year-old), Kaylee flares up and chews him out as if he’d just spat in her face. He ends up an insensitive and perpetually clueless dunce (seriously, how can this guy not noticed she’s attracted to him without sustaining some kind of cranial injury?), and she like just a jerk. Even if Simon can’t recognize he’s being insensitive, she must have enough space-savvy to realize he doesn’t mean anything nasty by all those unfortunate comments, and yet she takes them as such because … um … um …

Seriously, can someone for the love of Earth-that-was tell me what the point of this scene is, and why the writers feel obligated to repeat it a dozen times in as many episodes? It isn’t funny, or clever, isn’t particularly in-character, isn’t by any stretch of the imagination necessary, so why do they keep doing it?

I’ve come up with two possibilities, and I don’t put any particular faith in either of them.

Possibility #1: they wanted sexual tension between the characters, and this was the only way they could think of to keep “tension” from blooming into full-blown romance. (We all know, of course, that any romance between main characters which springs up in the first few episodes and wasn’t intended to fail will inevitably drag the series into a creative and fiscal black hole.)

Possibility #2: it’s a lazy device the writers employ whenever they’re stuck for a way to move the plot forward. (The one thing these scenes inarguably accomplish is to put the participants in the right place physically and emotionally for the next plot point to turn up.) In other words, the plot of an episode—one vital thread of it, at least—often depends on Simon being insensitive and Kaylee being a jerk to him about it. In the technical (and slightly ableist) terminology of the industry, this is known as an “Idiot Plot.”

Shepherd Derrial Book. Book is basically the Magical Negro, a wise and mysterious older black man who (according to one of the DVD extras) often acts as the crew’s conscience, especially Mal’s. (A priest as conscience; gentle people, I give you one of the most innovative television shows of the 21st century!) He must’ve been off the clock in the pilot though, because, as he tells Inara: “I watched the captain shoot the man I swore to protect. And I’m not even sure if I think he was wrong.”

Book is a pretty fun character—even if he is something of a racial stereotype—and it’s a shame he didn’t get more development before the series ended.

Simon Tam. Simon is the resident medic, an upper-class doctor who sacrificed his career and his lifestyle to save his sister. He’s one of the most caring people aboard the Serenity—although like the rest of the ship’s crew, he’s prone to spectacular lapses in judgment at times.

When I first saw the pilot in college, I didn’t know exactly who comprised the main cast, and I was convinced Simon was going to get himself killed in the climactic scene. When I later watched it again with ptolemaeus, she anxiously asked me if Simon was going to die. He’s the type of character writers kill off.

I think this is partially because he doesn’t have an obvious point. Oh, there’s his medical skills obviously, but character-wise and situation-wise he doesn’t seem to fit. He’s not abrasive and mean or violent and funny or kind and melodramatic or wise and mysterious or mysterious, female, and special. He doesn’t fit any of the stereotypes we’ve been set up to expect, and he doesn’t have an obvious niche in the plot line beyond introducing River. In Hollywood parlance, a character in that situation would be classified as coffin-bait. Fortunately for Simon and for the show, Whedon is occasionally capable of seeing the blindingly obvious when most writers would look right through it.

So Simon survives, and joins up with the crew. And he is awesome. Granted, you’d have to have some sort of certifiable mental condition not to figure out that you’re insulting Kaylee every other episode, but unlike Kaylee, Simon has more to do in the show than play out a 6th grader’s idea of a romance and act as damsel in distress.

After Simon survived the pilot, I expected him to fade into the background so the writers could focus on River, the more “special” (and thus less interesting) of the two. I’m still convinced that had the series continued for another six-and-a-half seasons as Whedon apparently intended, this is exactly what would have happened somewhere down the line. You can just tell River was Whedon’s and everybody else’s Golden Girl, and would eventually become a bigger focus than anyone except maybe Mal.

However, since Whedon and the rest of the creative staff wanted to drag out the River-as-Mentally-Damaged-Woman plotline—a problematic choice, but understandable given the amount of buildup they give her condition—they didn’t get around to shoving Simon out of the spotlight in favor of River before the show was canceled.

Which is kind of a good thing, because it means Simon got to be awesome all through the show. He’s clueless at times and can be a bit of a jerk, but he’s also sweet and funny and intelligent and has this fish-out-of-water complex which is quite cute.

And he’s got two more things going for him. First in that he’s heroic, but not in the way the other characters are (supposed to be). One of the greatest moments of the show is in episode 11 “Trash.” In that scene, Simon is treating jackass Jayne for injuries, and in the process reveals that he knows Jayne tried to turn Simon and River over to the Alliance authorities in a previous episode, “Ariel.” This is what he says:

No matter what you do, or say or plot, no matter how you come down on us … I will never, ever harm you. You’re on this table, you’re safe. ‘Cause I’m your medic, and however little we may like or trust each other, we’re on the same crew. Got the same troubles, same enemies, and more than enough of both. Now, we could circle each other and growl, sleep with one eye open, but that thought wearies me. I don’t care what you’ve done, I don’t know what you’re planning on doing, but I’m trusting you. I think you should do the same. ‘Cause I don’t see this working any other way.

Now wasn’t that cool? And a marked difference from Mal’s knock-Jayne-out-throw-him-in-the-airlock-and-threaten-to-space-him strategy. Of course, after he leaves, River has to spoil the moment by saying “Also … I can kill you with my brain.” And we’re back to using threats and violence to solve all our problems. This setting up a really good and original situation and then subverting it to make it dreary and unoriginal is a Firefly staple, by the way. In this case, the writers don’t manage to ruin the perfectly good situation they’ve set up quite as thoroughly as other times, because even if they do leave it on a threat, we can assume Simon was being sincere.

None of which is to say that Simon doesn’t also resort to violence on occasion. Probably his next two greatest moments are tackling Dobson in “Serenity” and tackling bounty hunter Jubal Early in the final episode “Objects in Space.”

What makes him all the more heroic in these scenes is that there’s no way he’d ever be able to win. It’s easy for Mal or Zoe or Jayne to jump into a fight; that’s practically the entirety of their job description. Mal in particular is safe, because he’s the main character. But Simon isn’t the main character, isn’t a good fighter, and in fact hasn’t got a snowball’s chance against any half-way decent adversary—which only makes him the more awesome charging into a hopeless battle anyway.

River Tam. In Firefly, River starts out as a straightforward damsel-in-distress, like Kaylee, only without all the characterization that makes Kaylee so likable. By the end of the show, she’s cycling between damsel-and-distress and girl-on-a-pedestal, with, unfortunately, no stopping for some actual character development in between.

… And that’s River. When she’s not crazy, damaged, and helpless, she’s an omnicompetent Mary-Sue, both of which are caricatures, not character.

So much for the cast. As you see, by going through an analysis of the main characters, we’ve identified many of the important themes in Firefly. There are still a couple, though, that I either have not addressed yet, or about which I have more to say. Kindly bear with me a little longer.

I admit the first thing which turned me off Mal wasn’t really the fault of the character. In the climactic scene of the pilot, the villainous Alliance agent Dobson has River held at gunpoint. He’s in the middle of going through the standard villain threat “Any sudden moves and I’ll-” when Mal casually walks into the hold and pulls a Dick Cheney on him.

The idea is, of course, to fake out the viewer: set up a standard situation and then subvert expectations by doing something different with it. It’s a move the Firefly team often like to pull. Unfortunately, in cases such as this one, it also has the tendency to backfire horribly.

In order for the sequence to work, Mal not only has to shoot Dobson, but the whole mood of the shot has to be casual, offhand. It has to look like they’re building up to something big and then whoops, no, all over, situation back under control.

The problem is that this makes shooting Dobson, well, casual and offhand. Admittedly, he was an asshole (they even threw in a scene of him beating on an unconscious Book, just so the audience would be more comfortable with Mal shooting him), and given the situation and the show’s implicit assumptions about the efficacy of violence, Mal’s actions were probably justified. But the casual nature of the scene sends the message that shooting Dobson isn’t just necessary, at best, it’s kinda funny; at worst, it’s no big deal. And that’s a very disturbing message.

(I suppose I should point out that although Dobson appears to be dead, and is left for such by the crew, in the series canon he isn’t actually killed off until much later. I don’t see that this detracts from my point, though.)

Sometimes the series does get a fake-out right. The episode “War Stories” had the highly dubious moral that Wash isn’t cool enough as is, and the only way for him to “make it” is to become as violent as Mal. Nevertheless, “War Stories” provided two good subversions all in one episode. In the climactic scene, Mal is duking it out with mob boss Niska’s head minion when Zoe, Wash, and Jayne arrive on the scene. When her companions are about to jump in to help their captain, Zoe tells them to stop, and invokes verbatim the old “He has do to this himself” line. To which Mal immediately responds “No he doesn’t!” So Zoe, Jayne and Wash go ahead and shoot the other guy.

The second one is even better, which is why I left it to second, even though it takes place first chronologically. It’s when Zoe picks Wash to be freed over Mal before Niska can even finish his “which of them will you choose?” speech.

In “War Stories,” it works. In “Serenity” it fails because what Mal does is horrible. Also earlier in the pilot, when he tells Simon that Kaylee’s dead. It’s a good joke on the audience—but on Simon the character, it’s downright cruel.

The all-time flop, though, would have to be the climax to “The Train Job.” Yes, it sets up Niska’s chief minion as a recurring enemy, only to remove him as a threat a moment later, but only by having the main character murder him. And as we all know, abuse and murder of helpless prisoners is the epitome of comedy.

A related Firefly staple—this one making even less sense—is to employ an inverse of this switcheroo: set up a fresh and original situation, and then subvert it and go ahead with the cliché resolution after all.

This effect is most notable in episode 13, “Heart of Gold,” in which the Serenity‘s crew comes to the aid of a brothel under attack from a cartoonishly misogynistic rancher. During the defense of the establishment, Mal hooks up with the madam, Nandi, an old friend and colleague of Inara’s. The next morning, Inara catches Mal exiting Nandi’s room, having obviously had a pleasurable night.

Whedon and his Merry Gender Neutrals are still playing coy about whether Mal knows Inara has the hots for him, but Inara clearly thinks he doesn’t, and wants to keep it that way because … something—whatever the reason, it isn’t because he treats her like [insert appropriate Chinese obscenity here].

So of course, she plays it casual, putting on a convincing performance of indifference, “It’s none of my business who you sleep with.” For a moment, they actually had me convinced. Then we cut to Inara in her own room, sobbing her eyes out.

Yes, even Space Hookers in the Future adhere to all the mainstream 21st century attitudes and foibles regarding sex and relationships. Apparently, Whedon’s aphorism that “nothing will change in the future” applies to dominant cultural mores as well as politics.

One of the great potentials of speculative fiction (one which is already woefully under-explored) is to imagine wildly different cultures from our own. Unfortunately, most of the “alien” or “futuristic” cultures in mainstream Western speculative fiction are not only less alien than most non-Western cultures, they’re less alien than most non-mainstream Western subcultures. A few Chinese curses and window-dressing not withstanding, the human culture of Firefly definitely fits this category.

This was a golden opportunity to depict something unfamiliar, something interesting, something imaginative. And something totally understandable, given the character in question’s cultural background is one of having sex with many people who are not the person she loves (i.e. Ethical Slut). But then they had to go and shoot themselves in the foot by revealing, surprise! Inara is just an overgrown and lovesick 21st century teenage girl in a futuristic setting.

Gentlebeings of all genders, I give you the greatest science fiction television series of all time.

Oh yeah, and then there’s the feminism angle or, as I like to call it, the “attempted feminism.” As we’ve already seen from our character portraits, none of the main characters in Firefly is exactly Grade A feminist material. That leaves us with Malcolm Reynolds and his ravings about how “you will be empowered or else” which never seem quite to jive with his own sexist mistreatment-bordering-on-harassment of Inara.

Whedon rounds out the feminism angle by confronting his main characters with a small army of the most laughable straw misogynists this reviewer has ever encountered. Imagine Snidely Whiplash turned flesh-and-blood and with a particular emphasis on the whole tying-women-(and women specifically)-to-the-train-tracks thing. Now imagine all that played in utter seriousness.

Atherton Wing and the rancher in “Heart of Gold” are two of the most hilariously over-the-top villains ever conceived. I’ll never understand why Whedon and his team didn’t just go the whole hog and give them ridiculously long mustaches to twirl—or at least goatees.

But not to worry; Wing gets the shit beaten out of him by Mal for treating Inara with approximately the same amount of regard for her humanity as Mal himself shows her. (According to Mal, he disrespects Inara’s job, while Wing disrespects her. In a characteristically insightful article, Dan Hemmens of ferretbrain points out exactly why this argument is utter bollocks.)

And the rancher in “Heart of Gold”? He gets righteously shot in the head by one of the brothel’s employees when he’s tied up and helpless. No, Mal is not the only person in Firefly guilty of this. The only difference I can detect is that kicking the minion into the engine was played for comedy, whereas shooting the Straw-Misogynist-of-the-Week was played for satisfaction. Since he had previously killed Nandi—have I mentioned that this show, for all its purported “innovation” contains its own share of clichés? Well, it does—since he’d killed such a sympathetic character, murdering him when he’s defenseless is considered just comeuppance. To test the validity of this idea, how do you think the writers and viewers would feel if the friends or family of one of Mal’s many victims—such as the prisoner he kicked into the engine—were to tie him up and kill him? Or any of the rest of the Serenity‘s crew, for that matter?

… Sorry, got a bit sidetracked, there. With Firefly there’s so many rants involved they tend to bleed over onto each other. Where was I again? Oh yes, strong female characters who fit at most two out of the three descriptives, random rants about female empowerment by the highly sexist protagonist, and to top it off, ludicrously characterized misogynist villains who get the stuffing beat out of them by one of the female characters or a suitable Nice Guy. This, in Whedon’s ‘Verse (and sadly, many of his viewers’) counts as cutting edge feminism.

And it only gets worse in Dollhouse (review forthcoming).

I’m not saying there aren’t people out there like the bottomless supply of Misogynists-of-the-Week Whedon has somehow tapped into. There are, although in real life their characterization is more well-rounded; there’s a lot more to their personalities than just hating women and beating up anything that gets in their way.

But more importantly, such people are a) extremely rare and b) only a symptom of a larger disease. Whether you want to call that disease patriarchy, misogyny, sexism, or something else, we’re talking about a system which runs through all manifestations of our culture, from politics to religion to family life to work to art/entertainment to language and everything else—a system which perpetuates the domination of females as a group by males as a group.

It’s a disease whose numerous symptoms have been documented on hundreds if not thousands of books, documentaries, and feminist blogs. And these everyday manifestations of sexism aren’t restricted to Cardboard Misogynists a la Wing. We all, to a certain extent, have internalized and act from this cultural narrative, this meta-myth. To a certain extent, we can’t help it. I recall reading of a study where two groups of people were shown a person holding a machine up to a young baby—a machine which promptly gave off a loud noise. The testers asked the participants to interpret the baby’s reaction. The group which had been told the baby was female thought “she” was scared; the group which had been told the baby was male concluded “he” was angry.

The lesson to draw from this is that in a sexist society, everyone is sexist to some degree, and everyone is complicit in perpetuating sexism. We all make assumptions based on sex that we can only sometimes recognize consciously, and we all act upon those subconscious assumptions.

Most Western males and many Western females don’t see it that way, though. They think of sexism as something confined to individuals, and not something deeply embedded into the cultural systems which make up out society.

White anti-racist Tim Wise has said of the 2005 movie Crash: “By presenting racism as an individual malady, rather than a social issue of great import, Crash allows white viewers to default to our preexisting understanding of the issue, rather than having to deal with the way in which every structure of American society continues to treat people of color as inferiors, be it in housing, employment, education, or criminal justice” (and the list goes on, and on, and on …)

Anyway, my point is that by presenting sexism as more-or-less the sole domain of a bottomless supply of Straw Misogynists, Whedon likewise diverts his audience’s attention from the systemic violence of patriarchy. While decrying misogyny is a step above going “Oppression? What oppression?” the Whedon Formula is hardly a shining example of feminist discourse, and in many ways—by shifting the responsibility for sexism off the mainstream population and onto those evil, evil misogynists—is even counter-productive.

Notice that I’m not accusing Whedon of being a misogynist himself, or of raping his wife, or anything melodramatic like that. No, I’m making the infinitely more blasphemous accusation that Joss Whedon is a human being, and therefore capable of making mistakes, of not saying what he intends to say, or even of having a flawed understanding of some of these issues.

I have less to say about the depiction of race on the show, beyond what I already have. However, if the backstory is really that the dominant culture of humanity is a mix of American and Chinese, why are seven out of the nine main characters white, along with 90%+ of the people with whom they interact? (And the other two main characters black?)

Multiple people have also pointed out that if Firefly is a Western, that would mean the murderous, people-eating Reavers are American Indian-analogues, and the war between the independence-minded outer worlds and the imperialist Alliance is analogous to the American civil war between the Southern slaveholding states and the Northern non-slaveholding states. Couple Unfortunate Implications there.

Bottom line: Firefly is a fairly good show, but it doesn’t live up to the hype in terms of feminism or basic storytelling, and its views on morality are often disturbing, as exemplified by its murderous, sadistic, despotic, all-around jackass of a main character. As I once remarked to ptolemaeus, I’d give a lot for a science fiction series with Joss Whedon’s talent, but with Gene Roddenberry’s heart.

That is all.

Not Exactly Arthur Conan Doyle

In the summer of 2009, I found myself in a movie theater (all right, two movie theaters) waiting to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. My parents, bless them, were still into the series somewhat, and I found it bearable for the snarking, so I went along.

So there I am, sitting through the previews and—oh my god, what the hell is that?

It was a trailer for what purported to be a live-action movie starring Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s beloved character, that master detective, Sherlock Holmes.

I say “purporting” because all through the preview I was listing in my head the things which were horribly, atrociously wrong: Sherlock Holmes played by the very American Robert Downey Jr.; Holmes in a sexual tension subplot with a woman; Holmes acting in general like a boorish, hedonistic cad; gratuitous generic action sequences; Holmes solving problems through violence with a distinct lack of observation and deduction; floating women in white and other indicators of a supernatural element; oh, and at the end of the preview, Watson punches Holmes. Watson’s not supposed to do that.

In short my mind quickly filed the whole movie under Things to Be Avoided Like the Plague and that would have been the end of it. However, ptolemaeus also saw the trailer, and while she agreed the movie would be bad, she was convinced it would be So Bad Its Good.

Come the 2009 winter holidays, she was so excited about Sherlock Holmes that our mom and I conspired to take her and our two sisters to the opening show Christmas Day. Even I became excited, figuring I would snark all the way through the movie and give it a devastating write-up. On the way to the theater, all we could talk about was how awful the movie was going to be.

We went into the movie and to my complete astonishment, it didn’t suck. What’s more it was actually good. It was great.

From the trailer, I had expected a derivative Hollywood adaptation which throws out practically all the source material except the names of the characters and some of the trappings in favor of a generic sex-and-violence caper.

What I got instead was … well, let’s take it from the top.

Spoilers. Natch.

The Eponymous Hero

Robert Downey Jr. certainly brings a new interpretation to Holmes, and I feel like there was a certain amount of Hollywood wrongheadedness about his performance.

In A Scandal in Bohemia, Conan Doyle describes Holmes thusly:

All emotions, and that one [love] particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind.

Downey’s Holmes, by contrast, is highly emotional. Churlish, excitable, susceptible to petty goading, jealous of Watson’s relationship with Mary, and strongly attracted to Irene Adler, in direct opposition to Conan Doyle’s assertion that “It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler.”

Furthermore, while Conan Doyle’s Holmes is always cool, collected, and at least a dozen steps ahead of the audience, Downey’s is constantly behind the curve, and having to catch up. Where Conan Doyle’s Holmes is sophisticated, Downey’s is coarser, grungier, much quicker to get his hands dirty.

What the trailer completely left out was that he’s also analytical, observant, and in fact solves most of his problems through intelligence, creativity and even planning. The violence is certainly played up, but it’s fairly well grounded in the Holmesian canon and does not, in fact, overshadow the logic and deduction.

Holmes’ nigh-clairvoyant ability to analyze people and situations through small and often obscure details and his use of disguises* are prominently displayed, and far from being throw-away features to provide a vague nod in the general direction of the original canon, they are integral to the story. He observes and deducts his way through most of the plot, and the dramatic climax is notably not for his duel with the villain atop Tower Bridge, but his subsequent summation of the case.

*You can spot the first use of a disguise when Irene Adler’s mysterious associate pulls a gun on a nosy stranger—had said stranger truly been an extra, he’d have been shot dead rather than let off with a warning.

Whilst in the theater I remarked that the screenwriters must’ve arrived at this version of Holmes by reading the CliffNotes Doyle and then filled in the rest after an extended House marathon. Now that I think about it though, Downey’s Holmes is more reminiscent of Captain Jack Sparrow; more vulnerable and fallible than Conan Doyle’s version, but always with at least one card up his sleeve—even if it is sometimes mere improvisation.

There’s a part in the trailer where Watson exclaims “Holmes, does your depravity know no bounds?” to which Holmes replies “No.” The trailer insinuated Holmes was coming off a grossly out-of-character night of drink and debauchery, but in context it referred to Holmes paying off a fortuneteller to convince Watson that his marriage to Mary would be a nightmare, which makes somewhat more sense.

Even the romance with Irene Adler is more palatable in context. While Downey’s Holmes is not the woman-hater of the original canon, he’s closer to it than the lecherous skirt-chaser depicted in the trailer. His attraction to Irene and hers to him is clearly grounded in their mutual respect for each others’ professional talents.

A romance budding between criminal and investigator is a well-established dramatic trope, and at times Holmes’ and Irene’s relationship verged on the cliché, but on the whole I think the filmmakers pulled it off rather well.

A Brit might take issue with Downey’s accent, but I confess I quickly learned to stop worrying and just love the performance. I’m also reliably informed that, for those whose orientation swings that way, Downey’s Holmes is pretty hot stuff, which certainly doesn’t hurt.

Irene Adler

Contrary to the impression made by the trailer, Rachel McAdams spends the majority of this movie fully clothed. She does employ seduction against Holmes, but it’s clearly only one tool in her bag of tricks, and not even the primary one.* She also comes equipped with a small arsenal of miniature weapons, impressive combat skills, and a flair for improvisation which nearly matches Holmes’ own.

*In fact, a reviewing of the movie trailers makes it clear that the film cut an additional scene of Irene in lingerie and acting seductive, meaning the film’s editor actually toned down the sexual objectification for the theatrical release.

Mind you, I don’t see the Irene Adler of the film defeating Holmes. For all her smarts and all her skill, Irene nearly gets herself killed twice by the villain and has to be saved by Holmes, and spends the bulk of the movie under the thumb of the Man in Shadow. She comports herself well and pulls some neat tricks, but I don’t think she lived up to her reputation. Shame.

Of course, I shouldn’t give her too much grief for pulling a Gwen Stacy Maneuver. Just as the romance side plot for the (male) main character is obligatory for any modern American action film, it is equally mandatory either to kill off the female love interest or to fake same.

Still, Rachel McAdams is a great actor and, for those of us whose orientation swings the other way, very attractive, too. Apropos of nothing, I also noticed halfway through the movie that she has two freckles on her neck which look amusingly like vampire bite marks.

Watson

I’m a bit embarrassed to admit this, because I’m sure Jude Law delivered a fine performance, and his Watson was competent, proactive, and funny, but I find I don’t have a whole lot to say about him. For me, Downey’s Holmes, McAdams’ Irene Adler and even Mark Strong as the villainous Lord Blackwood rather stole the show.

Oh, on second thought, I suppose I could point out that Law plays up Watson’s military background, as part of the whole action movie motif (more on that later).

And it turns out the punching-Holmes-in-the-face incident, as well as the scene where Watson angrily lists Holmes’ flaws are both in response to Holmes’ continued meddling in Watson’s love life. It’s not quite the relationship Conan Doyle portrayed, but then, neither were Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. The point is that where the trailer had me expecting a highly adversarial relationship between Watson and Holmes of the type Dark Lords would do well to fear, what I got was a strong friendship of great mutual respect occasionally punctuated by open conflict—which to me is entirely in keeping with the Holmesian tradition.

There’s also all the lovely gay subtext (bordering on supratext) between Watson and Holmes. I don’t really have much to say about this, except, I guess, “have fun, guys.”

Mary Morstan also has a role, but only as a plot device to generate (sexual) tension between Holmes and Watson. Hopefully, the sequel will give her a more substantial role.

The Villains

The main antagonist of this movie is Lord Blackwood, played by Mark Strong. Blackwood is not a hereditary lord, as we learn midway through the film that he’s the illegitimate son of some bigwig or other who just so happens also to be the leader of a secret society of mystics similar to the Illuminati. You know the drill, clandestine rituals involving knives and goblets, long robes and pentagrams, bones and hair, ominous biblical quotes, rinse and repeat.

Blackwood, is, of course, a practitioner of black magic, and is, of course—though never referred to as such—also Jack the Ripper. The murdered sex workers were a means of gathering power for his real goal, which is, you guessed it: take over the world. Say it with me now:

 

The movie opens with Holmes and Watson foiling the suicide of Victim #6—clearly under Blackwood’s influence—and Blackwood’s arrest. However, Blackwood is not terribly put out by being jailed, as it apparently allows him to put his real plan in motion. Blackwood is hanged, buried, busts out of his grave, then kills his father and takes over the Fauxminati. With their assistance, he plans to show Guy Fawkes how it’s done and wipe out Parliament—except for his own followers—leaving him in control of the Empire.

Needless to say, our heroes have other ideas. Blackwood’s device is disarmed and Blackwood himself, pursuing Holmes and Irene to the top of the half-constructed Tower Bridge, falls off the bridge with a chain wrapped around his neck.

Not the most memorable movie villain out there, but the relative originality of his plan and the way it unfolds put him—and the plot—well above standard action movie fair. The fact that his ultimate goal is not patently obvious from the first ten minutes speaks volumes for the plot, and Blackwood’s part in it. On the other hand, I gotta knock a few points off for the lazy “empire to last a thousand years” reference.

Blackwood is aided in his duplicitous affairs by Lord Coward of the Home Office, a high-ranking member of the Fauxmenati. From the moment I clapped eyes on him, I thought Coward looked familiar, but a perusal of Hans Matheson’s IMDB page failed to ring any bells, so perhaps I imagined it. This illusion did make Coward a more interesting character for me, and I note that he survived the movie unscathed and apparently a free man. I hope this means we’ll see more of him in the sequel.

Last we have the Man in Shadow, who employs Irene Adler and carries a miniature gun in a spring-loaded holster. At first, when Blackwood talked of greater things afoot than himself and Holmes, I thought perhaps Blackwood was just the lieutenant—“the channel,” as he identifies himself—and the MIS would prove to be the man behind the man.

It soon became clear that Blackwood was indeed the main villain and, more significantly, that he and the MIS were working somewhat at cross-purposes. With that cleared up, pegging the MIS as Professor Moriarty was elementary.

Moriarity’s involvement in the plot is probably one of the most interesting aspects of the entire movie. I daresay the filmmakers never would have gotten away with it if they weren’t writing an established character in an established fictional universe. Apart from controlling Irene Adler, Moriarity’s role is tangential to the main plot and very much behind the scenes. Fortunately, Moriarity’s reputation does the filmmakers’ work for them, allowing them to add an extra layer of significance to the story and culminating in a satisfyingly clever little sequel hook. It was a gutsy move on their part, including Moriarity in the film purely to lay the groundwork for an uncertain sequel, but as far as I’m concerned, it more than paid off.

Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting

This is one of the few parts where the trailer was not entirely misleading. The filmmakers have significantly beefed up the fight scenes in Sherlock Holmes, because the only way an American movie can be a success in the 00s is if it’s an action movie.

While the fight scenes do not exactly say “Sherlock Holmes,” they do not detract from the essential detective story nature of the film, so I’ll forgive them.

Towards the end of the trailer, Holmes is confronted with a Giant Mook wielding a comparably sized hammer. He reaches for a weapon and picks up a perfectly ordinary hammer, which looks puny in comparison. Cue a split-second of “comic” consternation as Holmes contemplates the situation, then throws the hammer, which bounces off his opponent’s chest.

When I first saw this sequence in the theater, cringing in my seat and reflecting that after this, Harry Potter would be a relief, I thought ‘Great, so now on top of everything else he’s freaking Inspector Clouseau?’

Then came the movie and what did I see? Holmes calculating the moves in a fight and identifying weak points on his opponent before the first punch has been thrown. We get treated to a similar sequence a bit later on, when Holmes is in a boxing match played out to the surprisingly apt tune of The Rocky Road to Dublin. Of course, both fights go precisely as predicted.

This is not like anything Arthur Conan Doyle ever wrote, but it’s a reasonable extension of the canon; we may imagine this is how Holmes would comport himself in a fight. In his fight with the giant Dredger he displays ingenuity and strong tactical thinking in no small measure. This degenerates by the halfway point, but given the vast amount of truly Holmesian thinking displayed throughout the rest of the movie, I’m prepared to overlook one mindless action sequence.

For reasons which remain unclear, Holmes, Watson and practically everyone else in this movie seem to be practitioners of some strange Western martial arts discipline, which is a little jarring. One wonders why they so often resort to fisticuffs rather than firearms; presumably it’s because they know that with the way they shoot when they do resort to firearms, they’ll get better results by simply whomping on their opponents.

More Things on Heaven and Earth

Among the many disservices the trailer afforded me and the movie was to portray the existence of the supernatural in this film as a done deal. Women levitate off of alters, Lord Blackwood rises from the grave, you better start believing in ghost stories, Mr. Holmes; you’re in one.

When the movie opened with Holmes and Watson foiling Blackwood’s ritual (which pointedly did not feature Victim #6 levitating), ptolemaeus confidently whispered to me that all the supernatural stuff would turn out to be a red herring. I had my doubts for a while, but as with most of her other predictions, this one proved spot-on.

Oh, the last shot of Lord Blackwood (whose final paperwork will no doubt read “Cause of Death: Poetic Justice”), and the ubiquitous crow (there’s always a bloody crow) are a clear tip of the hat to the notion of forces at work beyond our understanding. But it’s vague and not necessarily supernatural at all, whereas the specifics of black magic and ritual and humans harnessing occult forces to do things like levitate young women or boil a man alive or set another man on fire or come back from being hanged* are all debunked in the Summing Up scene. (Actually, the whole levitation thing wasn’t explained, because it never occurred in the movie itself. Make of that what you will.)

*This one likely would’ve been more impressive had Terry Pratchett not pulled a similar trick five years earlier.

I had slightly different worries when Blackwood started talking about “three more deaths” which Holmes must accept he can do nothing about. Fortunately, while Holmes indeed fails prevent the deaths, there’s no angsting about fighting fate or any of that nonsense, no agonizing about whether or not he’ll be able to prevent the prophesied fatalities when we all knew quite well he wouldn’t—in short, no yanking our chains by proffering the illusion that he might actually be able to save even one of them. The Magic Three dropped off the radar completely, only coming back ex post facto, which is probably the right way to handle deaths foretold if you absolutely must have them.

However, once you take the supernatural aspect out, you have to wonder why Blackwood specified Holmes would be unable to prevent the three deaths, but said nothing about the massacre in Parliament (which, of course, he does prevent)—or, for that matter, how Blackwood knew the American ambassador would try to shoot him and where. In hindsight, the “three more deaths” line sounds more like the filmmakers appropriating Blackwood as a mouthpiece to tell the audience what the next hour-and-a-half is going to look like, rather than Blackwood telling Holmes his plans, which seems a rather odd creative decision to me.

Style, Style, Style

This is probably the one section of the review where I don’t disparage the trailer.

The movie’s editors employed many interesting tricks for this movie, such as Holmes thinking out a fight in slow motion, followed by the fight itself in fast motion, or the sound dampening utilized when the slaughterhouse is torn apart by explosions. The use of flashbacks coupled with subtle optical cues to draw the viewers’ attention to a certain detail should be familiar to anyone who’s seen a modern mystery movie/show (Psych, for example), but the filmmakers took this trope and made it their own. As a result, Sherlock Holmes ends up a stylistically unique movie experience

In Conclusion, I Accuse …

If I were to condense this review to one short paragraph it would probably go something like this:

The trailer to Sherlock Holmes sucks royally and totally misrepresents the movie, which is actually very good and appreciably faithful to the Holmesian canon and style. It’s not Conan Doyle—any more than Rathbone and Bruce were—but a worthy adaptation in its own right, and well worth checking out.

Stay tuned for my review of the sequel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, which I’ll get around to posting eventually.

Book review: State of Fear, by Michael Crichton

I first posted this review of State of Fear in 2009—by coincidence, shortly after Michael Crichton’s death. I have made some minor edits from the original to improve readability and to reflect some subtle shifts in my thinking in the intervening 4+ years. My views on the whole, though, have not changed substantially since this review’s initial publication.

Moderate plot spoilers for State of Fear follow.

When the mysterious Professor John Kenner first requests a meeting with billionaire environmentalist George Morton, Morton’s lawyer, Peter Evans, thinks little of it. But after the meeting, Morton’s behavior changes drastically. He disappears for days at a time, and he begins questioning his current pet project: a lawsuit against the United States for its involvement in global warming. When Morton dies in a car crash, Evans finds himself propelled into the midst of an environmental terrorist plot which will shake him to the very foundations of his beliefs.

I have mixed feelings about State of Fear. The plot is decent, not extraordinary; enough to keep the reader interested but not enough to carry the story all by itself.

The book’s real strength is in its discourse, and even there, it’s only a partial success. The many lectures on environmental science and on power structures are among the best and worst aspects of the book.

Many environmentalists will no doubt be infuriated by Crichton’s skepticism of global warming (or global climate change as it is more accurately known). Personally, I do not agree with many of Crichton’s conclusions (rightly or wrongly), but I feel many of his arguments have at least some merit.

The book’s Wikipedia entry contains links to several pages which will dispute the scientific points Crichton makes in his novel. But I’ve also run into other people in recent years criticizing the science behind climate change. What struck me after the first such instance was that I, personally, am in no position to evaluate the science of climate change. I don’t know it or understand it enough to have an informed opinion.

As Crichton points out, there’s a lot we don’t know about how our planet works, and that includes climate science. He obviously has made up his own mind that climate change is not a significant danger and, unfortunately, ends up imposing that interpretation upon the story. He begins by saying “we just don’t know enough about the Earth to evaluate whether climate change is really a serious threat or not,” but by the end the message has morphed into “there is no serious danger of climate change at all.” This not only undermines the original point he established, but is a much weaker one. (Certainty in general is a more difficult argument to make than uncertainty.) I think he’d have done his case more good to leave it at saying climate change is not a certain thing, and including his own belief that it likely isn’t a problem, than trying to force that conclusion onto the reader.

However, Crichton still has some insights that should make environmentalists, progressives, and radicals take note. First there’s the arrogance. A major point he raises is we don’t know nearly as much as we think we do. But he also aptly displays our unfortunate habit of assuming we know what’s going on, we know what’s best, we know what needs to be done, we know better than everyone else. Am I the only one who spots the conservative stereotypes being spun right back at us?

The character of Ted Bradley beautifully illustrates the arrogance and racist romanticism of Western progressives’ ideas of life in “underdeveloped” nations. (Granted, a lot of the more “logical” characters’ responses are equally biased and problematic, but that doesn’t negate the point.)

And then, of course, there’s the young eco-terrorist who excuses his actions by saying “We’re trying to save the planet!” And his justification for implementing a plan that hinges upon getting several hundred people killed? “Casualties are inevitable in accomplishing social change. History tells us that.”

Along with the arrogance goes close-mindedness. My creative writing teacher in college 1st year once remarked that “liberals are very close-minded,” and she had a point. Crichton illustrates this fact with the various characters’ knee-jerk attempts to dismiss evidence that conflicts with their worldview (in this case, their ideas about climate change) as propaganda manufactured on behalf of industry or some ultra-right wing conspiracy. In other words, their instinctual reaction when confronted with evidence which calls their beliefs into question is to dismiss it out of hand. Do I detect another conservative stereotype being thrown back in our faces?

Best of all, there’s the lecture by Professor Hoffman where he explains the politico-legal-media complex. Hoffman’s analysis of this entity, its purpose, its methods, and the “state of fear” it intentionally creates to further its own selfish interests is correct almost down to the last detail. His worst slip-up is failing to include big business; corporations (and not just industrial corporations) in his list. The big companies have just as much to gain from the “state of fear” as the government and the judicial system (and they own the major media outlets, anyway).

Unfortunately, Crichton’s (and thus, his characters’) obsession with climate change muddies the message. The way Hoffman and Kenner hurl accusations against climate change activists seems to suggest they don’t realize that if the PLM didn’t have climate change to manipulate people into submission, it’d use something else. The powers that be are doing far too well staying the course while the rest of humanity suffers (and occasionally prospers) just to give up because their prime source of fear has dried up. To modify a line from James Donovan: “If there were no existing crisis to terrify the people, the establishment would have to invent one.” Hoffman’s allusion to the transition from Cold War to climate change as main focus for the “State of Fear” suggests he knows the truth, but this quickly gets overshadowed by his and Kenner’s rhetoric about the Great Climate Change Deception.

Ending the threat of climate change (whether real or only imagined) will not put an end to the horrendous loss of human life that Hoffman and Kenner lament—only dismantling the diseased politico-economic structures which are the source of the titular “state of fear” will do that.

One more positive piece of discourse: As Morton points out at the end, environmentalist groups have been assimilated into the establishment and are, therefore (to an extent at least), now part of the problem. In many ways, the cooptation of environmental groups mirrors the cooptation of labor unions a century earlier. True, the unions’ ostensible purpose should put them in direct conflict with the establishment, but they’ve been built within a framework which requires the establishment’s existence, even if it’s only as antagonist. In much the same way, national militaries require a national enemy (usually external) to validate their own existence. So the labor unions, and the environmental groups, have a vested interest in keeping the structures which necessitate Crichton’s state of fear in place.

At other times, though, the discourse is less successful. Ted Bradley is obviously too hard-headed to accept even the idea that climate change is unproven. After his first argument with Kenner, the reader has got the formula down cold. Bradley is the straw man, continually offering up weak arguments about climate change as well as other Euro-American myths about the “natural” world for Kenner to knock down, but not satisfied with Kenner’s arguments no matter how strong they are.

By the end of it, the reader is left feeling nostalgic for Kenner’s conversations with Evans and Sarah, problematic though they were. It’s painful to watch Bradley go up against characters like Kenner, Sanjong and even Henry, knowing full well he’s going to be steamrollered. At least Evans and Sarah were capable of intelligent discourse, rather than sticking to dogmatic drivel.

In “The Science of Science Fiction Writing,” author James Gunn cites rationalist Isaac Asimov as saying that generally his (Asimov’s) villains were as rational as his heroes. Asimov’s reasoning, as quoted by Gunn, runs as follows: “If it were a western, where everything depends upon the draw of the gun, it would be very unsatisfactory if the hero shot down a person who didn’t know how to shoot.” There’s a lesson in there Michael Crichton would’ve done well taking to heart.

The other problem with using Bradley as the main voice of opposition for the last part of the book is that since Bradley is so extreme in his views, Kenner and the other author surrogates end up taking the opposite extreme. Bradley has a romantic view of native life, native villages, and native peoples. In seeking to prove Bradley wrong, Crichton has his characters cite the most horrific counter-examples he can find … thus giving the impression that all village life is savage and terrible, and the backward villagers would much rather live in cities/be better off with a Western education.

… In other words, in his attempts to puncture the “Noble Savage” myth, Crichton makes himself into a colonial and neocolonial apologist. (Crichton neglects to mention that the misery of modern village life is partially due to centuries of past colonial oppression as well as present neocolonial economic oppression—often aided and abetted by the local governments; Crichton is correct that you can’t put all the blame on the Big Bad West.) This colonial-era racism is even more blatant when you consider that the only person of color on the protagonists’ side is so thoroughly Westernized that the book makes a point of mentioning his British accent. Contrast with the ultra-traditionalist natives of Gareda Island who hate white people and eventually eat Ted Bradley (as heavily foreshadowed earlier in the book). Yes, the racial politics in this book are really that bad.

The only other notable characters of color in the book are a femme fatale in the beginning, and Henry, the educated islander. On the one hand, he has a Western education, and argues for the benefits of, essentially, Western civilization over native savagery. On the other hand, he apparently betrays the main characters to the savages in question (or something). I’ll leave it to the reader to make up their own mind what all that is supposed to signify.

And on top of all that, some of the discourse (mostly the scientific lectures) is just plain boring.

Okay, that’s probably more than enough of that, let’s talk about the story.

Like I said, the plot is decent but hardly thrilling. Basically, it involves Evans, Sarah (Morton’s secretary) and Kenner, traveling around the world like James Bond thwarting the dastardly schemes of the Environmental Liberation Front. The tension is occasionally exciting, and some of the conventions—such as the mini-octopus as assassination tool—are compelling enough to keep a modicum of interest, most of the time.

Peter Evans is a bland character, with such traits as his weak-willed manner and somewhat quirky love life doing little to flesh him out. He’s okay as a protagonist, though the part where he contemplates the moral implications of Kenner having killed three eco-terrorists and concluding “Screw ’em,” irked me.

His reasoning runs thusly: “There were bad people in the world. They had to be stopped.” From there, Evans and Crichton immediately jump to the conclusion that “stopping” said “bad people” can only mean killing them, without even considering the possibility of another alternative. It’s an outrageously narrow-minded and self-serving position to take. Yes, killing is wrong, but they’re the bad guys, so that makes it okay.

Granted, this facile and, if you think about it, downright terrifying reasoning for ejecting some human lives from the moral universe is a staple of Western culture, and hardly unique to Crichton*. Still, given all Crichton’s moralizing elsewhere in the book, the fact that he not only concludes “some people just need to be killed,” but utterly fails to explore the implications of who gets to make that call and by what authority and by what means their unworthiness for continued existence may be established is even more reprehensible than in most such cases.

*Brandon Sanderson’s second “Mistborn” book, The Well of Ascension and the climax of Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins are two face-palmingly blatant examples from recent years.

Sarah is also fairly dull; her most interesting moments come during the action sequences. The relationship between her and Evans is the painfully standard romance you can find in practically any Western literature.

George Morton is an eccentric gentleman, and probably my favorite character in the book. A well-intentioned person, he’s apparently far enough removed from Crichton himself that the latter can bear to portray his hypocritical side, which adds dimension to the character. His ambitious plans for the future outlined at the end of the book at least somewhat make up for Kenner’s extreme pessimism (more on that in a minute).

Morton’s idea for an environmentalist group “Study the Problem and Fix It,” is not only amusing, but it raises some important philosophical points. The idea of an organization whose purpose is to work itself out of a job certainly has merit—better that than an organization which stagnates by an obsession with continuing its existence over and above fulfilling its’ mission statement.

Nicholas Drake is a two-dimensional villain: he has to raise a certain amount of money for his organization to keep his salary. He probably believes in the threat of global warming, too, despite all the counter-evidence in Crichton’s universe. Ideologues can be like that. However, the question of what Drake believes doesn’t come up either way. The fact that this aspect of his motivation is apparently insignificant to the story indicates the extent of his characterization. When I first began to suspect Drake would turn out to be a villain, I hoped that at least he would retain some amount of character beyond simply being the opposition for our intrepid heroes. No such luck. Crichton could’ve learned a thing or two from Dan Brown.

Ted Bradley is an obnoxious, self-satisfied, sexually harassing jerk and perhaps worst of all, is convinced he knows The Truth. In other words, he’s probably the most multi-dimensional character in the book. Sure he’s flawed and dangerously naïve (or arrogant, or both), but he also genuinely cares about the good of the planet and of his fellow human beings. In other words, he’s a lot like most real life heroes, villains, and people who are morally neutral. And unlike his fellow rich environmentalist Ann, he had the courage or conviction or both to stick with the main characters even after learning about the cannibal natives. I dunno that I liked him, exactly, but he was an interesting character and I didn’t want him to die, if only because he’d already taken so much flak as Crichton’s Straw Environmentalist punching bag already. Which, of course, is why Crichton killed him off and no one else. A little vindictive there, Mike?

In a note at the end, Crichton says that a book where “so many divergent views are expressed, may lead the reader to wonder where, exactly, the author stands on these issues.” That note led this reader to wonder who, exactly, the author thinks he’s kidding. John Kenner is obviously Crichton’s mouthpiece in State of Fear, in much the same way that Socrates was Plato’s in the latter’s famous dialogues. Except that Crichton is no Plato, and he doesn’t pull it off nearly as well. Socrates the character is pretty cool, Kenner is … a Mary-Sue; he’s clearly only there to be the stick with which Crichton bludgeons his view of reality into the other characters, and the reader.

Even this might not be so bad, except that Crichton sacrifices characterization for discourse. Kenner is not only Better Informed Than Thou, he’s also Holier Than Thou, “I have an apartment … I do not own a car. I fly coach.” Wait, I thought you were the one who didn’t believe climate change was a real danger, so why not own a car? But anyway, while Crichton is right to point out that celebrity environmentalists can be very hypocritical, it’s not like the rest of us are pure as snow, either. We all have flaws, including Crichton, and (if he were a real person) including Kenner. But no, Kenner in the book is blissfully free of any intentional character faults.

All that aside, I spent the last third of the book hoping desperately for Kenner to be wrong. Not about his views on climate change, I knew Crichton was too wedded to his mouthpiece on that score, but about something, anything. But no, Kenner, it appears, had to be completely right about absolutely everything.

And to top it all off, he’s so damn negative. His little speech to Bradley towards the end about everything you do having unexpected, negative consequences was supposed to be an argument for cost-benefit analyses, but it came off sounding more like “Nothing you do can ever really make things better because any positive changes you make will be balanced out by negative changes somewhere else” the implied corollary being “so why bother trying?” Again, I’m sure that wasn’t what Crichton meant to say, but it’s what he said. Thank goodness for Morton.

Sanjong is Kenner’s token POC, good little colonized sidekick. That pretty much covers the extent of his personality. At least he didn’t die, though. Or turn out to be evil.

Bottom Line: There’s some good discourse in here (even if I disagree with a lot of it) but it’s often mishandled, and the plot and characters are too generic and mediocre to carry the story by themselves. A good time-waster, but if you’re looking for a thrilling narrative, compelling characters, or deeply thought-provoking philosophical arguments, I advise you to keep looking.

Back to Middle Earth

Fairly random thoughts on going to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in the theater. Probably won’t make a whole lot of sense to people who have neither seen the movie nor read the book*, and contains spoilers for people who haven’t seen the movie (even if they have read the books).

*Or to people who haven’t seen the last two seasons of the original Doctor Who, Sherlock, and the 2005 Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie.

– My companions and I saw the movie in 3d because that’s what was playing at the time we had set aside. If possible, I would urge anyone wishing to see The Hobbit to stick with 2d—unlike The Avengers the 3d adds nothing of value to the experience, and indeed sometimes either causes distraction or even worse, sabotages the visual quality of the film. It didn’t cause any major problems, thank goodness, but you’re still better off sticking with 2d.

– Overall, I found watching the movie a highly enjoyable experience. I had fun with Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, and I had about as much fun with his first installment of The Hobbit.

– That said, I found An Unexpected Journey, much more superficial than its three predecessors. Partially I think this is due to the source material being so much lighter this time around, and partially due to the fact that Jackson and company had to invent a whole lot more original material in order to adapt the first fifth or so of a children’s fairytale adventure book into an epic Hollywood blockbuster than it took to adapt three epic adventure novels.

– Indeed, I think the most insightful thing I’ve yet heard about the film was a remark by one of my companions an hour or two after we left the theater: “I’ve just realized that nothing actually happened in that movie.” This is basically true. Unexpected Journey lays out the premise, introduces the characters and many of the most important conflicts, provides some character development, and throws in a bunch of exciting action sequences to keep the viewers’ attention. It also advances the plot, but at a minuscule pace, with most of the action and conflict of the story constituting digressions from the main story. Exciting and entertaining digressions, to be sure, but digressions just the same.

– Furthermore, the pacing at the beginning of the movie is pretty slow—not interminably, but it still takes approximately forty minutes of backstory and dwarvish antics before Bilbo even leaves Bag End.

– There’s also a pointless cameo by Elijah Wood, presumably to pander to fans of the “Lord of the Rings” movies. Seriously, this scene does absolutely feck all other than establish that in the movie canon, Bilbo waited all the way until just before his 111th birthday party to set down his memoirs of “the incident with the dragon,” as Sir Ian McKellen’s Gandalf so delightfully put it. (Hope you can scribble really fast, Bilbo old boy.) Sure, it’s kind of nice to see them set up the meeting between Frodo and Gandalf from the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring, but when the scene contributes absolutely nothing to this movie, you really should just grit your teeth and scrap it.

– As already alluded, while “The Lord of the Rings” was a fairly faithful adaptation of the book trilogy of the same name, An Unexpected Journey introduces a veritable dragon’s horde of changes from its own source material. As I see it, the changes perform five overall purposes (many of them closely related): to pad out a story which only covers the first fifth or so of the original book; to make that story more into a full movie than just an arbitrary amount of material ripped out of a longer work; to give the movie a feel more in line with the tone of its’ three predecessors; to create a greater sense of a grand narrative both within the story of The Hobbit and tied more closely into the events of “Lord of the Rings”; and to make the whole thing more appealing to the sensibilities of a modern movie-going viewership.

– Such changes include the orcs led by Azog the Defiler (who, in the book canon, was killed by Thorin’s cousin Dain in the backstory) chasing our heroes; the inclusion of Radagast the Brown and a more explicit exploration of the Necromancer (ret-conned into Sauron in the book The Fellowship of the Ring); and what appears to be the beginnings of the White Council subplot which eventually leads to them ousting the Necromancer from Mirkwood (this storyline was present in the book, but took place entirely off-screen, and served primarily as an excuse to remove Gandalf from the main action and prevent Bilbo and the dwarves from solving every problem they got into by Wizard Ex Machina).

– I’m of two minds about these changes. I’m not sure if changing around the Azog backstory was necessarily an improvement, and I kind of liked the idea in the book that Bilbo and company just sort of stumbled into the orcs’ (nee goblins’) stronghold and accidentally threw a spanner in their schemes rather than being hunted all along. The orcs’ dwarf hunt and the mutual enmity between Thorin and Azog worked great for the movie, but I don’t know that they necessarily made the story better, if you see what I mean. And while I was stoked to see the White Council subplot unfolding before my eyes rather than hear Gandalf relate it after the fact, and to see the Seventh Doctor as Radagast the Brown, these scenes were blatantly filler in a film mostly gone over to (very entertaining) filler.

– This brings up another issue, which is that a lot of this movie is just set up for future (and in some cases, past) installments. Noah Antwiler pointed out a couple of examples in the near hour-length reflection video he posted with his brother Miles, but even he missed a big one: those giant spiders which buzzed Radagast’s hut and then disappeared completely? We’ll be seeing more of them when the party makes it to Mirkwood in the next movie.

– On the subject of Radagast, yes, I know he was entirely extraneous to the movie, but I’m still giving him a “hell yeah!” Always great to see the Doctor back in action, although it seems that separating from Ace had a somewhat deleterious effect on his sanity (and personal grooming); on the other hand, it also seems to have smoothed away his manipulative streak, which in this setting is probably for the best.

– But just because he’s lost his companion and his TARDIS and started hitting the shrooms hard, doesn’t mean the Doctor has lost his edge. Dude goes toe-to-toe with the friggin’ Lord of the Nazgul, the Witch-King of Angmar his own self, and lives to tell the tale. He even makes off with an important clue for the White Council subplot. (“Bitch, I’m Merlin, or at least I will be, or I may be. Point being: You do not mess with Sylvester McCoy!”)

– We also get a shot of the Necromancer during this sequence and man, but splitting up with Bilbo and leaving their London flat has certainly hit him hard, though at least they’ve both landed some nice new digs. (And in case you’re wondering, yes, I’ll probably make the exact same joke when we get to Smaug in the next movie or the one after. Blame Jackson for getting Sherlock Holmes to voice both parts.)

– While I liked seeing the first meeting of the White Council, I’m not sure it was a good idea to make the Necromancer a new, unknown threat, rather than an established problem as he was in the book—I liked the idea of the Council being proactive (“this guy’s a problem, let’s get together and clean his clock for him”) rather than reactive (“hey, some jackass has taken up residence in that old Evil Fortress in Mirkwood and is causing mischief, we should totally do something about it.”)

– In particular, I think it was a mistake to have Saruman trying to convince the rest of the Council that this Necromancer must be a petty human sorcerer, nothing to worry about, and couldn’t possibly be the dreaded Sauron. It doesn’t make him look like a brilliant master of deception, it just makes the whole Council (Saruman included) come off as somewhat inept.

– Also, was it really a good idea to portray Saruman as so transparently evil this early in the game, almost eight decades before he reveals himself (and at a time when, from what I know of the book canon, he might not yet even have gone over to the Dark Side)?

– Last point on the White Council: I don’t mind that for this initial meeting it’s contained to just the four members (Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel), in fact I think it makes a lot of sense, but I hope that Jackson realizes they can’t comprise the entire council and throws in at least a couple of extras for their next meeting.

– Getting back to a more general discussion of the changes from the book, overall I would say that I’m ambivalent. Stuff like Thorin’s hatred of the evils is a neat extension of what’s in the book, but his vendetta against Azog and his mistreatment of Bilbo, and Bilbo’s conflict over staying on versus going home (he can console himself that it least this time, it hasn’t been knocked over by workmen and then blown up by Vogons)—these things provide a form of character development which will be instantly recognizable to a contemporary movie-going audience. I don’t have a problem with these embellishments as such, but I don’t feel they greatly improved the movie, either. For these particulars and overall, I found the changes introduced in Unexpected Journey ultimately evened out, they didn’t make the experience substantially better, but they didn’t really make it any worse.

– Quick aside, in regard to Thorin’s suspicion of Bilbo—after they escaped the orc stronghold (“Goblintown” in the book) and couldn’t find the Hobbit, why did he assume Bilbo had buggered off back to the Shire, rather than the more likely assumption that he’d been recaptured and killed?

– As for Thorin’s final speech to Bilbo, listing off all the unkind things he thought about Bilbo (just after the latter saved his ass from one of Azog’s minions), well, you’d have to be comatose not to see that the punchline was going to be something along the lines of “how wrong I was.” I’m about evenly split between annoyed at how massively predictable it was, and heartened by this reconciliatory gesture from Thorin. I guess once again it evens out.

– But yeah, about Thorin: What kind of dick leaves his friends trapped in a tree, hanging on for dear life over a bottomless precipice, so he can go and pursue his own personal grudge against a one-armed orc? Your loyal followers are in deadly peril, Thorin, your vendetta can wait!

– Speaking of vendettas, it’s hard to pin down precisely how Azog feels about Thorin. Half the time he’s all “he’s mine, nobody else allowed to kill him,” while the other half he’s happy for the mountain orcs or one of his lackeys to do the job for him. This is particularly confusing in the climax, where he expresses both these tendencies in the space of five minutes—almost as if the strength of his desire to kill Thorin personally were directly related to what was most dramatically convenient at that point in the film.

– Apart from Thorin, the dwarves are still pretty interchangeable, though less so than they were in the book. Kili, for instance—the darker haired of Thorin’s young nephews—is a total badass; he’s got Legolas’ skills with a bow, and is mighty handy with a sword on top of that.

– However, that other dwarf—I forget his name—in the awful fur hat with the outrageous earflaps? Nothing against the character, you understand, but whatever costumer thought that headgear was in any way a good idea ought to be fired.

– After whisking Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves away from Azog’s minions and their precarious tree, the eagles drop our heroes off at the Carrock. In the book, their leader tells Gandalf that they really don’t want to get involved in all this—they’ll help a brother out when he gets in a tight spot, and drop him and his friends a little further along on their journey, but other than that they’re maintaining neutrality. Whereas in the movie, you’d be forgiven for asking, “Man, we still have that far to go to get to the Lonely Mountain? As long as we’ve got these friendly eagles flying us around, couldn’t they just take us all the way there?”

– And we end with the thrush knocking a snail against the side of the mountain and the sound reverberating inside, and the dragon’s eye opening underneath a pile of treasure. It’s supposed to be all ominous and shit, but all I can imagine is Smaug lying there thinking ‘God, is that little pipsqueak ever going to shut up that racket?’

And so finishes The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, first in a three-part movie adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. About a week after seeing the movie, I was talking it over with my father. He hasn’t seen it yet, but from my description, he characterized it (in reference to Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings”) as “more of the same, and not as good.” This is probably as good a synopsis of Unexpected Journey as any.

In my case, though, I am—like Noah Antwiler—a “mark.” This stuff almost could’ve been made specifically for me. I loved the “Lord of the Rings” movies. I loved the Extended Editions. Unexpected Journey may not be as good, but it’s damn well good enough for me. Good enough and more. Peace out and happy freakin’ new year.

To be continued …

TV review: “Doctor Who,” the complete series four

All right, time to see what if any restrictions wordpress places upon word counts, because this one’s going to be epic. When I first reviewed the fourth series of the new Doctor Who, I wrote up the first thirteen episodes (plus the Christmas special) of the regular season, then later released a follow-up covering the five special episodes which led up to Russell T Davies’ departure as show-runner and David Tennant’s departure as star. Today, we’re going to try posting my thoughts on the whole goddamn season, all nineteen episodes, in one epic post. Allons-y.

Travelers beware, here there be spoilers.

Mini-Episode: Time Crash: The Doctor’s TARDIS collides with that of a previous incarnation.

“Time Crash” is an 8-minute short episode reuniting the Tenth Doctor with actor David Tennant’s (and also this reviewer’s) favorite Doctor from the old series: the Fifth Doctor, played by Peter Davison. It was written by the incomparable (though, sadly, not infallible) Steven Moffat.

The episode starts a little slow, with the Fifth and Tenth Doctors getting the obligatory “What? What? What?”s out of the way. But it’s fun all the same, especially when the Fifth Doctor mistakes the Tenth for a fan. (And was that a reference to “Love and Monsters” the Fifth Doctor made? Much as I dislike that episode, it’s fun to think Doctors of the previous era are familiar with concepts introduced in the present run.)

When the plot does show up, it’s pretty basic. The Tenth Doctor’s TARDIS has merged with the Fifth Doctor’s (although we only ever see the one) and the resulting paradox could blow a hole in the space-time continuum the size of … well, actually, the exact size of Belgium. That’s a bit undramatic, isn’t it, Belgium?

Actually, I think it’s all right sometimes to have something less than the entire population of the planet Earth or the universe at stake. It seems the writers on this show disagree, as it soon develops that the paradox will in fact produce a supermassive black hole. I’m still not clear on this point, but I gather that’s more than a Belgium-sized problem.

The method the Tenth Doctor uses to alleviate the crisis, matching the black hole with a supernova, is rather clever even if it is, as I suspect, scientific nonsense. And of course, Steven Moffat can’t help slipping a mind-bending (or ridiculous, if you prefer) temporal paradox into the mix. Still, it’s cool.

Furthermore, for someone whose first Doctor Who experience was with the Fifth Doctor, the ending, with David Tennant—thinly disguised in his persona of the Tenth Doctor—getting all nostalgic and telling Peter Davison what a great Doctor he was, is fanservice in its highest, purest form.

This episode also has one of the greatest quotes of the new series: “Two minutes to Belgium!”

Episode 0: Voyage of the Damned: The Doctor boards an alien cruise liner, the Titanic … which is about to crash into the planet Earth.

Sadly predictable, but for a Russell T Davies effort, not too bad. The villain’s plan is at least mildly more complex and interesting than usual Doctor Who fare.

The Doctor is particularly awesome, making a pretty badass speech about how he’s going to save them all (even though he doesn’t), and constantly outsmarting the admittedly brain-dead killer robots, to the point of tricking them into obeying him once Max Capricorn is dead, by telling Max “I’m your apprentice.”

I was pleasantly surprised that the Midshipman, Alonzo Frame made it out alive. He had “red shirt” written all over him from the moment he first appeared, and if his subsequent actions weren’t enough to seal his fate, getting shot was. Any character who doesn’t have at least grade 2 plot armor who gets an injury like that is just a dead person walking. Except that he actually did survive. Points for that, Russell. (Of course, my sister maintains that Frame was “too pretty” to get killed off. Well, maybe.) Also, this way, we get a nice little book end at the very end of the season.

The character of Rickston Slade was another nice touch. It’s very rare that Doctor Who—or any other show, for that matter—has a character that unlikable who doesn’t a) die, or b) turn out to be evil and then die. Mr. Copper makes a good point about how terrible it would be if the Doctor could choose who lived and who died. Plus, even if Slade is selfish and mean, he’s not all bad. A genuinely gray area.

I found Astrid’s death rather sad, even if it was painfully obvious. I’m of two minds about the Doctor’s failed attempt to bring her back. On the one hand, with all the times that all hope for a character seems lost, and then the Doctor produces a miracle to save them, it makes sense from a realist point of view that sometimes the miracle would fail to materialize. On the other hand, from a narrative point of view, it’s basically Russell T Davies yanking the audience’s chain, to which I can only say that we are not at all amused.

One last point. Excuse me a moment while I go back and count the number of noble sacrifices in that episode. First Foon Van Hoff, then Bannakaffalatta, and then Astrid Peth. Three noble sacrifices in 45 minutes, accounting for three-quarters of the major supporting character deaths. (Excluding the villains, that is. With villains included, then it’s four noble sacrifices, accounting for two-thirds of the supporting character deaths.) Mein Gott, Davies, get ahold of yourself.

Episode 1: Partners in Crime: The Doctor and Donna Noble separately investigate the mysterious Adipose weight-loss pills.

Another extremely predictable Davies episode, but pretty good for all that. The beginning is a bit irksome, with the Doctor and Donna constantly just missing each other, but their outrageously drawn-out, entirely pantomimed reunion halfway through the episode more than makes up for the annoyance. Yes, it’s that funny.

The whole sequence with Wilfred Mott is touching. I’m glad Davies and co. decided to bring the character (who was originally conceived as a one-off) back.

Plus, the Adipose are seriously cute. Just sayin’. (If they’d been ugly, then of course the Doctor would’ve had to kill them off.) But speaking of the Adipose, why was Miss Foster so intent on making a million of the things if a couple thousand would’ve done just as well? What real difference did it make? I can believe that there was one, but the episode never told us what it was.

And can somebody please tell me why Foster’s plan was so bad, anyway? I mean sure, she killed a woman by upping the dosage, but that was just because Davies wanted to make her evil. If she’d just gone to the public and said “Hey, I want to create these cute little Adipose lifeforms, and I can make them out of your excess fat” people the world over would’ve been clamoring at her door, and where’s the harm? Seems to me it’s a win-win situation.

On the whole, though, good episode, especially considering it was penned by Russell T Davies.

Episode 2: The Fires of Pompeii: The Doctor and Donna arrive in Pompeii, on the day before the volcano erupts.

Starts out good, but degenerates into just another “stop the Monster of the Week” episode in the final third.

Apparently, critics have lauded the Doctor’s “moral dilemma” which served as the episode’s premise. I disagree. “Moral dilemma” implies a choice, and from the all-important perspective of the viewer, there is no choice. It isn’t just that we know what the Doctor’s going to do because that’s how this show works. We know what he’s going to do because it’s a matter of history. So the “moral dilemma” really comes down to watching the Doctor agonize over making a decision we all know he’s going to make and how. In other words: just another excuse for even more angst.

For a second there, I thought the Doctor and Donna’s escape from the volcano might redeem at least some of that anticlimax. I expected—hoped—that they or one of the other characters would devise some clever plan for escape at the last second. That some previous, seemingly trivial detail would suddenly jump out at them and that they would use it to facilitate their escape. The best part would’ve been that—like with the series three finale—I wouldn’t’ve seen it coming.

Instead, I got another anticlimax.

Points for saving the Pompeiian family at the end. For a minute there, I actually thought the Doctor and Donna were just going to leave them to die. Better though, would’ve been for them to save the family, and some totally random Pompeiian(s). Sadly, favoritism triumphed, and so much for not choosing who lives and who dies. *sigh*

Episode 3: Planet of the Ood: The Doctor and Donna visit the homeworld of the Ood, the slave race introduced in the second series two-parter “The Impossible Planet”/“The Satan Pit”.

Pretty good episode. It finally addresses the lingering question of how a slave race like the Ood ever came to be. They obviously couldn’t’ve evolved as a slave race (unless, I suppose, there was another sentient race they evolved to be slaves to. Maybe).

I was hoping for something a bit more creative than the most obvious answer, but on the other hand, it does make for a good critique of colonialism and neocolonialism. That particular theme hits home early on, when Donna comments that “We [in the 21st century] don’t have slaves” and the Doctor rejoins by asking her where her clothes come from. For a corporate TV character, even that much of an allusion to sweatshop labor is pretty far out there. Well done.

Still, you’d think “the Circle” could’ve at least been something a little less straightforward. Something that maybe couldn’t’ve been thought of by just about any viewer in under two minutes.

I was kinda disappointed—though not at all surprised—that the Public Relations rep, Solana Mercurio got killed off, even if she did sic the security guards on the main characters (a capital offense on most shows, and Doctor Who is no exception).

Ditto Dr. Ryder, the villain’s subservient little toady who incomprehensibly reveals himself to be an abolitionist in the climactic scene, only to be promptly killed off by the villain. (Not that he wasn’t already marked for death as well.)

Last complaint: I know this is television, and they have to keep things visual, but am I the only person who got the feeling it was both ridiculous and unnecessary for the villain to transform literally into an Ood? I’m no biology major, but I think it takes more than Miracle Cola™ to affect cross-species transformation.

Episodes 4 & 5: The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky: Martha Jones summons the Doctor and Donna to Earth to help UNIT investigate the simultaneous deaths of over fifty people.

Writer Helen Raynor redeems her disastrous run on the previous season of Doctor Who and the first season of Torchwood with a good solid story. The plot is not the most creative Doctor Who has ever seen, but at least it’s not as blindingly obvious as most the new series has seen.

It helps, of course, that Raynor has somewhat better antagonists than the Daleks to drive her plot this time around. The Sontarans may not be the most three-dimensional recurring villains Doctor Who has ever had, but at least they’ve got more personality than “Exterminate!” or “Delete!”

The addition of smarmy genius Luke Rattigan as a foil for the Sontarans was another smart move. “This is so cool.” “Is the temperature significant?”

My biggest problem with the Sontarans, in fact, has nothing to do with the characters themselves, but rather Raynor’s insistence on having the human characters make tasteless jokes about their height. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the moral of the first Shrek movie is that it’s wrong to discriminate against people who are different from you in any way, including making jokes about their difference … unless they’re short. In that case, have a field day. Worst of all is the part where the Doctor gets into the act, despite absolutely no prior history of such prejudicial conduct.

… Yeah, yeah, I know it’s all in fun, and I’m not trying to claim it’s a big deal or anything. I just find it irritating.

Getting back to Rattigan though, he was a definite high point of the episodes. It’s rare for Doctor Who to produce a genuine gray area character, and even rarer for such a character to come off so well as Luke Rattigan. He’s your stereotypical aloof genius, looking down on humanity, coupled with the stereotypical naïve genius, easily taken in by people who know how to play him, with a bit of plain old nerd mixed in.

Except that by the end, it’s obvious that he’s really a decent young man who got caught up in his own megalomania and manipulated by the Sontarans. Rattigan is another character who, like the Master, would’ve made for an interesting companion for the Doctor, and would’ve been very distinct from all the other companions the show has had. And, as with the Master, the writers obviously realized they were in danger of making the show too good, and promptly killed off any chance of such blasphemy along with the character, making his death excessively stupid and cliché for good measure. (Word to the wise: Blowing yourself up is not doing something clever with your life.)

Of course, a character is only as good as the actor who plays them, so props to Ryan Sampson for perfectly presenting each facet of Rattigan’s personality. His defiant, sarcastic rendition of the Sontaran’s new catchphrase (“Sontar-Ha!”) just before triggering the explosive, is so badass that even his immediately subsequent demise cannot completely ruin it.

Moving on, thank you Helen Raynor for not repeating the “School Reunion” catfight with Donna and Martha. It was bad enough the first time.

It was nice to see Martha being all in-charge and professional, but she didn’t really get to do much in this story, which is a shame.

Donna, on the other hand, makes a good account of herself, skulking around the Sontaran ship and generally causing trouble. I like the way the writers have complemented her character with the Doctor’s. It reminds me of the relationship between the Seventh Doctor and Ace: each having their own, well-established strengths which they played to, without getting in each other’s way.

Donna’s mom also gets some cool points for breaking the car’s windshield in the second episode’s opener, saving Wilfred Mott from the deadly gas.

And the Doctor is, as ever, brilliant. His second best moment is when he casually disarms an unbalanced Luke Rattigan, saying (in reference to Rattigan’s firearm): “If I see one more gun …”

His very best moment is an awesome call-back to the best story of series one. The Doctor (wearing a gas mask): “Are you my mummy?”

Best moment of the story: The hilarious subversion of the “Easily exploding car” cliché; the Doctor and the red shirt take cover and the overloading ATMOS system … throws off a few sparks. Brilliant.

Episode 6: The Doctor’s Daughter: The TARDIS takes the Doctor, Donna, and Martha to the planet Messaline, where the inhabitants make a female clone of the Doctor.

After watching the trailer for this episode, I expected the worst. I was pleasantly surprised.

Jenny—the titular daughter—is indeed a Mary-Sue, but not nearly as bad a one as you would expect. And despite being a Mary-Sue, she’s actually quite likable … which, of course, only makes it worse that it’s so obvious that she’s going to die.

By the end, my sisters and I had moved beyond expecting Jenny’s death. Fully forty-five seconds before the event, I correctly predicted the precise circumstances of her death: Cobb, the grizzled human commander, not convinced by the Doctor’s plea for peace, would try to shoot him, Jenny would throw herself in front of her “father” in a noble sacrifice, take the bullet, and die.

And then she came back. Ptolemaeus speculated that Jenny would survive during Martha’s farewell scene, and says she was sure of it when the camera returned to Messaline. For myself, I was surprised. (I guess she did have “too much” of her father in her after all: he’s a survivor, too.) Also, according to Wikipedia, the original plan was for Jenny to stay dead. The person who suggested having her survive? Steven Moffat. Natch.

Cast note: Jenny was played by Georgia Moffett, daughter of actor Peter Moffett, also known by his stage name of Peter Davison. In other words, the Doctor’s daughter was played by the (Fifth) Doctor’s daughter.

The Doctor is, as ever, thoroughly badass in this episode, most memorably, this little speech to Cobb, about his war with the Hath: “Well, you need to get yourself a better dictionary. When you do, look up ‘genocide.’ You’ll find a little picture of me there, and the caption’ll read ‘Over my dead body.’”

Donna continues to establish herself as a character distinct from and equal to the Doctor in some ways, figuring out that the generations-long war between humans and Hath has in fact, only been going on for seven days. (Incidentally, nice plot twist. For once something that I didn’t actually see coming. Well done, writer Stephen Greenhorn.)

Martha’s portrayal, on the other hand, continues to disappoint. In the last two episodes, she mostly just floated around unconscious while Clone Martha set about sabotaging UNIT. In this one, she finds her way to the Source, managing to lose her Hath companion along the way. (Not that we didn’t all see that one coming.) In the realms of spectacular heroics or just plain accomplishments for these three episodes, Martha is notable for her absence. Compare that with, say, Captain Jack Harkness in the last three episodes of series three. (Admittedly, Harkness—when he’s on Doctor Who—is almost as awesome as Captain Jack Sparrow, but still.)

Incidentally, the TARDIS brings the Doctor, Donna and Martha to Messaline because of Jenny—but she only existed because the TARDIS brought them to Messaline. Temporal Paradox. Or, to put it another way, crappy sci-fi plot gimmick. You’re good, Greenhorn, but you’re not Steven Moffat.

The episode is somewhat of a letdown in that with all the attention placed on Jenny and on Martha’s escape, the war between humans and the Hath gets shoved into the background, when it really could’ve done with some further exploring.

The Doctor’s refusal to countenance genocide against the Hath is noble, even enlightened. Unfortunately, for this show it’s also incongruous. Exactly how does the Doctor know, at this point, that the Hath aren’t thoroughly evil creatures who attack other races without provocation? Like the Daleks? Or the Cybermen? Or the Sontarans, or the Rutans, or the Gelth, or the Wirrn, or the Vervoids, or the Macra, or the—and so on. The new Doctor Who tries to juggle the enlightened philosophical understanding that no race or species is inherently evil with the entertainment trope of having an entire species of thoroughly evil beings for the protagonist to destroy (and they have to be thoroughly evil, y’see, so the viewers won’t feel bad that the protagonist just committed genocide). “The Doctor’s Daughter” is one of the casualties of this inherent contradiction.

So how did the Doctor know that the Hath weren’t Always Chaotic Evil, and were no more to blame than the humans, this time? He must’ve read a partial episode summary.

Episode 7: The Unicorn and the Wasp: People in Lady Eddison’s manor are being murdered in a style reminiscent of the stories of Agatha Christie, and the only one who can help the Doctor solve the case is … Agatha Christie.

Another reasonably good episode. The plot is decent, if nothing more. Actually, I think it might’ve worked better as a straightforward Christie-esque murder mystery, without all the sci-fi stuff with psychic fluctuations and the giant wasp.

The best scene was unquestionably the affectionate send-up of the witness interrogation montage that even a casual fan like me recognizes as a staple of the detective story genre. The suspects’ narration, juxtaposed with flashbacks of what they were actually doing during the first incident are hilarious, but writer Gareth Roberts takes the entertainment a step further by wrapping up the sequence with a totally immaterial reminiscence scene from the Doctor.

I must admit I was bugged by the death of Roger Curbishley, the guy who was stabbed to death at the dinner table at the same time that Lady Eddison’s necklace was stolen. According to Wikipedia, Roger is Lady Eddison’s son. This is what I had assumed … up until his murder. But afterwards, Lady Eddison displayed hardly any distress at his death. Given the limited length of the episode, this behavior was understandable when the victims were friends and guests, but her own son? That’s just cold.

Episodes 8 & 9: Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead: The population of a planetary Library has disappeared, and only a little girl on Earth can save the Doctor, Donna, and a group of archaeologists from a similar fate.

Steven Moffat, how could you?

The plot is decent, but not at all up to Moffat’s previous standards. When we got our first glimpses of Cal in therapy and communicating with the Library, I was excited to see what the explanation could be. When Dr. Moon told her “it’s all true,” I was even more intrigued. Then I found out, and my reaction was “Meh.” This time around, reality wasn’t nearly as interesting as what I had imagined.

The Vashta Nerada were another disappointment. Like Cal’s connection to the Library, the Vashta Nerada started out interesting and ended up a pronounced let-down. The initial premise was clever and quite creepy: dust-sized little creatures with appetites like piranhas that hide in shadows and—in sufficient number—make shadows of their own.

However, Moffat subsequently steamrollered this perfectly acceptable premise by having the Vashta Nerada work solely by latching onto the bodies of the various red shirts, and then by walking them around like space-suited zombies after eating them. I mean seriously, what the hell? The whole point of having killer-shadows is that shadows are formless, and that they’re everywhere. That’s what makes them scary. Concentrating them in one place and giving them a shape transforms them from the Nameless Fear to just another ho-hum monster that happens to kill people by extending shadows from its’ body—rather like Abbadon in the first season of Torchwood, another monster with reasonable potential which the episode’s writer utterly squandered.

The whole spacesuit zombies concept is also problematic in its own right. Doctor Who is generally good at presenting the humorous in the horrible, and vice-versa, but here again, “Silence in the Library”/“Forest of the Dead” strikes out. You would think that “Hey, who turned out the lights?” would be a suitable dramedy catchphrase for a spacesuit zombie. Similarly, the Library Node’s use of Donna’s face to repeat “Donna Noble has left the library, Donna Noble has been saved” should be appropriately out-of-place and eerie. Instead, they just make for what is possibly the most annoying cliffhanger in Doctor Who history. At least part of the blame for the cliffhanger’s failure should go to whatever idiot—presumably director Euros Lyn—decided to draw out the repetition of those lines for about three or four seconds past the point of highest tension and well into the timeframe of impatience and boredom.

And, of course, this wouldn’t be the New Who without an exceptionally gratuitous noble sacrifice. I wonder if Steven Moffat really thought he was fooling anybody with River Song, even though he’d painted “red shirt” all over every single thing she said, did, or thought throughout both episodes.

Which brings me to the biggest problem of all: Professor—Oh my God! Mary Sue alert! Code red! Code red!—River Song.

It is mainly because of this character that I said before and say again now: Steven Moffat, how could you?

Words utterly fail to come within a parsec of being able to describe the ghastliness of this character. One gets the impression that when writing her, Moffat was telling himself ‘Right then, let’s pull out all the stops,’ without realizing that some of those stops are necessary to keep the character from turning into a complete Mary-Sue.

River Song’s bottomless reserves of competence are bad enough—really, is there anything she can’t handle?—but her implied relationship with the Doctor is even worse. Not just a Purity Sue and God Mode Sue, but a Relationship Sue, too?

Admittedly, Rose Tyler had all three strikes against her as well. River Song in a mere two episodes, however, embodies all of the worst of Rose’s Mary-Sue qualities without any of her (minimally) counter-balancing flaws. And apart from “Journey’s End” (see below), Rose’s relationship with the Doctor can be written down to a one-way crush and some mild sexual tension. River Song’s implied relationship is a full-blown romance. He even told her his real name.

It takes a lot of character development and relationship development (not to mention the right kind of character) to create a viable romantic relationship for the Doctor (at least, one that goes beyond a crush or story-long fling, as in the First Doctor story “The Aztecs”). River Song had none of these three qualifications.

Plus, there’s just something fundamentally wrong about someone with an ordinary human lifespan having a serious relationship with the Doctor. Even Davies realized this, as the semi-finale makes painfully clear his view that the only thing keeping Rose and the Doctor apart (aside from status quo) was the Doctor’s life expectancy.

It’s a shame, really, because some of River Song’s interactions were quite clever and funny, and the idea of a character who’s met the Doctor in an unseen adventure, let alone an unseen future adventure is a rare and interesting twist. Plausibly, it should happen more often. Trust the New Who team to take a really great idea and totally overdo it. I thought Steven Moffat, at least, would know better.

Future events make her interactions with the Doctor all the more incongruous—why does she have so much trouble placing this meeting on their timeline of interactions when this is the first and only time she’s met him in a completely different body from the one he’s had in every other encounter between them (namely, Matt Smith’s).

The “everybody lives” ending is sweet—or it would be, but River Song damn near manages to ruin that, too. I have nothing in particular against the character, mind (anymore than I do with Rose), but the characterization is godawful.

The Doctor’s line to Donna about “spoilers” was good the first time, because it was funny and inconsequential. The second time, it was grim and serious and full of portent “whatever happened (well, ‘happens’) to Donna Noble?”

It’s like the inverse of the Karl Marx quote: history repeats itself, the first time as comedy, the second as tragedy. (Although the alternate translation of “comedy”: “farce” is also applicable in the latter case). As if this show hadn’t blown its quota on being grim and ominous long since.

There was also a great opportunity at the end of the second episode which Steven Moffat inexplicably missed.

When the Doctor and Donna got into the TARDIS and left the Library for the final time, with the sonic screwdriver the future Doctor lent River Song standing on the floor, I could see the following scene so clearly I almost thought it would happen. The TARDIS would dematerialize … and then rematerialize, and a noticeably older Tenth Doctor would run out, snatch up the screwdriver, run back into the TARDIS, and leave.

No, it would by no means have saved the story, but it would’ve made for a good parting scene, and taken the edge off the aura of doom and gloom and awful Mary-Sueness with a little harmless fun.

Not the worst story of the season (trust Davies to raise the bar for awful), but definitely the most disappointing.

Episode 10: Midnight: The Doctor’s sight-seeing trip to the Sapphire Waterfall on the planet Midnight is rudely interrupted by a mysterious alien force.

After the accident which takes out the cabin crew, the Doctor and his fellow passengers are trapped in their transport waiting for help to arrive. When one of the passengers becomes possessed by some sort of alien … something, the Doctor naturally takes charge, and immediately falls under the suspicion of the other sight-seers. The Doctor continues to investigate, but doesn’t get very far.

In other words, it’s like the second act of any B Monster movie. The boring second act that only serves to establish the initial situation and conflict that the writer will then develop once the next plot point comes up. I was still waiting impatiently for said plot point to arrive when the unnamed host offed herself and the possessed Mrs. Silvestry. Forty minutes of tension and no plot development.

The episode has apparently been praised for its psychological drama. Now, I have nothing against psychological dramas in theory, but when all they do is sit there and stagnate, then I have a problem.

It’s also been suggested that “Midnight” is supposed to be a deconstruction of common Doctor Who tropes: the people are suspicious of the Doctor and are a lot more mean-spirited than usual, the antagonist is never really identified or understood, and the resolution comes from a minor character whose only function beforehand had been to provide uncomic unrelief. To this I say, fair enough, but that still doesn’t excuse a story that consists entirely of filler.

And notice that “Midnight” pointedly refrains from deconstructing one of the most egregiously overused clichés of Doctor Who (especially under Davies’ tenure): the noble sacrifice. That he had to play straight. Seriously, couldn’t the host have waited five seconds for the transport’s hatch to open and then jumped out of the way?

To sum up: an utter waste of time, boring and occasionally clichéd in the worst possible way. I wanted to wrap up this episode review with “The only redeeming quality to this episode …” but the fact is, there wasn’t one.

Episode 11: Turn Left: A Chinese fortune-teller stereotype forces Donna to change the past so that she never meets the Doctor, creating a hellish parallel world.

I’m of two minds as to whether this episode is actually worse than “Midnight,” or not. Since settling the issue would require watching both episodes over again, I shall probably never know.

The idea is that some time-eating scarab beetle attaches itself to Donna’s back and takes her back to the day she decided to work for H.C. Clements. She was at an intersection, and her mother wanted her to turn right, and get a job with a photocopying company. Donna decided to turn left, instead.

Under the scarab prop’s influence, Donna turns right, takes the secretarial job at the photocopy company, and never meets the Doctor. He subsequently dies in his confrontation with the Racnoss from “The Runaway Bride,” because Donna is not there to beg him to leave.

Umm … it’s been a while since I saw “Runaway Bride,” but wasn’t Donna the whole reason the Doctor got embroiled with the Racnoss in the first place? How could things have gone down exactly the same way up to the point where she convinces him to leave?

And in the original episode, the commandos who took out the Racnoss’ Giant Spiderweb of Doom were on orders from “Mr. Saxon”—i.e., the Master. Only, the Doctor never lived long enough to go forward in time and awaken the Master from his disguise, as is made obvious when the Master doesn’t cause the end of the world later in the story. So who called in the army this time, and how did they know about the Doctor?

From there, we are treated to a succession of scenarios in which all of the earth-based events of the past two seasons take place and cause an incredible amount of death and suffering (not least from the maddeningly ceaseless melodrama)—but inexplicably fail to destroy the planet. Wait, what?

The villain in “Smith and Jones” modified an MRI so that it would destroy all life on the moon and on the half of the Earth facing the moon, and if the Judoon had returned the hospital to Earth, it should’ve destroyed the entire planet. Well, the human exposition generator on the TV did say Sarah Jane Smith was there to take over, so maybe she somehow stopped it.

Similarly, in her own exposition speech, Rose explains that Gwen Cooper and Ianto Jones kamikazed the Sontaran’s Evil Green Gas from “The Poison Sky” and Jack … did something which made the Sontaran warship go away.

But Max Capricorn’s plan in “Voyage of the Damned” explicitly called for the Titanic to destroy the entire planet, not just London. So what stopped him?

For that matter, since the Doctor and Donna never went back in time to Pompeii, what stopped the Pyroviles from wiping out humanity thousands of years in the past? Never mind, best not to get me started on time and causality in Doctor Who.

I think what really ticked me off about this episode is that while all this incredible, tragic stuff is happening around her and all the Doctor’s other companions (from the new series) and their companions are getting killed trying to save humanity, our intrepid main character is … doing nothing. She reacts, but she doesn’t step forward and accomplish anything.

This makes sense, as without the Doctor, there’s nothing much Donna can actually do, but because Davies concentrates so hard on all of the disasters that are happening to Earth, and how they’re effecting Donna’s life, he doesn’t have any time left over for the people who are actually taking action.

Even so, “Turn Left” could’ve been a story about Donna and family valiantly coping under the enormous stresses of a country slowly disintegrating under constant attack. Such survivalist fiction can show viewers how even under the worst of circumstances, human beings can survive and even thrive. It wouldn’t be at all appropriate for Doctor Who, mind you, but at least it would’ve shown Donna being proactive. Unfortunately, all the attention on the various calamities faced by the Doctor (though not Sarah Jane Smith or Torchwood Three, interestingly) cuts out any time for that sort of nonsense. The few times Donna is given a chance to take a proactive measure in the first half hour of the show, she either declines, or immediately gets shot down.

When she finally does get to do something proactive, it’s only after a ten minute scene of gratuitous exposition, melodrama, angst, and Rose, which could’ve been covered in the space of two minutes.

The resolution was surprisingly decent. Clever, even, although this being Doctor Who, I should’ve known Davies would find a way to factor in a noble sacrifice somehow.

Actually, though, this might be the one case where the noble sacrifice resolution is justified: it makes sense, and the whole idea is to hit the reset button anyway, so why not? It might even justify all the stuff about “You’re going to die” (though not the accompanying angst)—if they’d constrained it to just the episode and not included it in two of the season’s three two-parters as well.

However, a fairly okay ending does not make up for forty-five minutes of inaction and all-encompassing melodrama. Another scene which springs all-too-vividly to mind is the one where Donna is in the hotel bathroom hearing the scarab on her back clacking its pincers. Again, Davies takes a scene which should’ve been thirty seconds at most and drags it out interminably, pointing out that the thing is still on her back, which he’s already established, and building up tension for an event which everyone who’s been watching the show already knows all about—the Titanic crashing into Buckingham Palace and destroying London.

Then, at the end we get, wait for it … more melodrama, with the Doctor seeing “Bad Wolf” written everywhere, and telling Donna that it means “The end of the world,” to which I can only say “again?”

Bad episode. Really bad.

Episodes 12 & 13: The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End: The planet Earth has completely disappeared, with the Doctor and Donna unable to find it.

The plot to this story, while not very creative, is by far the most complex the new series has ever seen. It’s also extremely dense, with a cast list that has to be seen to be believed.

Basically, it’s all the fault of the Daleks (big surprise). Davies retcons yet another loophole to bring back Davros, the Dalek’s creator (again) who used his own tissue to grow yet another vast army of Daleks out in the middle of nowhere (yet again). Dalek Caan—who fished Davros out of the Time War—got a God’s eye glimpse of the time stream, went mad (well, madder) and started spewing annoying prophecy-nonsense.

Davros and the Supreme Dalek have stolen twenty-four planets from the “present” and two planets and one moon from the “past” to create a giant generator in the middle of nowhere, with which to power a deathray capable of wiping out the entire multiverse. One of the planets they take is, naturally Earth. Really, if these cosmic genocidal maniacs could get over their Earth obsession for five minutes they could’ve destroyed the universe forty years ago. Come on, you know the only reason the Doctor got involved—heck, the only reason he realized there was anything wrong—is because his favorite planet was one of the ones to disappear.

UNIT, Torchwood, and Sarah Jane and her alien computer all try to cope with the situation, while the Daleks come down for a little light exterminating of the populace, and gather subjects for their “Reality Bomb” deathray. (Apparently, none of the inhabitants of the other twenty-six planets were suitable, as we never see any of them in either episode.) I’ve read that Davies considered having the Daleks raze New York city, but decided against it because then he’d have to deal with the consequences of the city being destroyed. What the hell? Freaking Daleks in millions of flying saucers attacked people all over the world! The Earth got transported halfway across the universe. And this is after the Sycorax nearly killing half the population and the Battle of Canary Wharf and the entire planet’s atmosphere turning into poison gas? You can sweep all that under the rug, but not destroying New York City? Is there any logic to this decision at all?

Despite being on Earth at the time, the TARDIS inexplicably remained behind when the planet was taken (hasn’t something like this happened before and the TARDIS went along with the landscape?). The Doctor, unable to figure out the disappearance himself, seeks help from the Shadow Proclamation. Viewers who’ve been hearing occasional references to the Shadow Proclamation and had their imagination piqued by both the edgy name and vague nature of said organization are in for a letdown. Before the TARDIS arrives, the Doctor describes the Shadow Proclamation as a glorified intergalactic police force, and when they actually get there, we find that it’s staffed almost entirely by Judoon—the thick, bloody-minded, painfully by-the-book police rhinos from “Smith and Jones.” These are the universe’s elite defenders? I’d almost rather take my chances with Torchwood Three. I mean, if the Judoon are an intergalactic police force, then how come with all the threats to large sections of the universe the Doctor has faced in the new series alone, their only previous appearance was to arrest a blood-sucker who’d drained some alien princess or other?

It was a good joke at the end of the sequence where the Shadow Architect (who looks like an older, uncool version of Susan from Hogfather) was telling the Doctor he would lead the forces of the Shadow Proclamation against the planet hijackers. The Doctor’s answer (make an excuse to get back in the TARDIS and skive off) was highly titillating, especially since it hearkens back to the Fifth Doctor’s response to being named Time Lord President at the end of “The Five Doctors.”

Of course, the Shadow Proclamation doesn’t give up after one little hitch. The Doctor’s brilliant and all, but it’s not like he’s the only person in the universe who could possibly find the stolen planets or lead the Shadow Proclamation against the Daleks. Sure, they lose a few hours, but eventually they arrive in the Medusa Cascade just in time to engage the Dalek fleet. A truly massive space battle ensues, with Dalek and Proclamation ships blowing up by the dozens. The ground battle is a little less plausible, but it does give the production team the opportunity to prove definitively that even the Judoon don’t look nearly as ridiculous in combat as the Daleks.

You know, I think this is what the first and second season finales of the new series lacked; why they never seemed really epic, despite the huge number of baddies. Aside from about a dozen or so to menace the Doctor and the other main characters directly, all the villainous hordes did in those episodes was sit around and maybe kill a few dozen people. The resolutions basically came down to one character waving a magic wand and all the villains disappearing in a puff of smoke. A one-sided slaughter just isn’t that epic … but a pitched battle between two massive forces, that’s different.

Maybe that’s why the series three finale did a better job of feeling epic. It, at least, gave all the unimportant other people something to do, even if it was just stand around chanting “Jesus” “Doctor.”

Of course, the Daleks quickly gain the upper hand, because armored rhino shock troops will never be a match for armored pepperpots with rayguns, and it’s up to the Doctor and his companions to sabotage the Daleks’ secret weapon and win the day for the Proclamation forces.

Wait, did I daydream all that? I did, didn’t I? *sigh*

Yes, in point of fact, the Shadow Proclamation never comes up again in either episode.

Well that’s just pointless. All this sequence accomplishes is to get the Doctor to figure halfway to where the Earth and the other planets are. The Doctor might as well have gone to some space observatory he knows to help him find the Earth. It would’ve been more plausible, showed the viewers that yes, the Doctor actually has contacts other than those on Earth and Gallifrey, and maintained the illusion of the Shadow Proclamation’s mystery—not to mention basic competence.

Oh, and in case you were wondering: yes, the resolution does basically come down to someone waving a magic wand and destroying all the Daleks at once and yes, it is epic only its utter and complete failure to be a truly epic climax.

Other things about the story which had way too much build-up in the preceding season were the characters’ obsession with the bees’ disappearance, and mentions of the Medusa Cascade. The former was only useful in getting the main character in the right place so that the plot could move forward, and the latter was just the region of space the story happened to take place in. Neither had any interesting properties that affected the plot in any way thereafter. What a letdown.

The idea of the twenty-six planets and one moon being “half a second out of phase” with the rest of the universe was pretty clever though. So was the idea of the Time War being “time-locked,” as it offers a vague but plausible (if extremely belated) explanation of why no time traveler can seem to enter the Time War. It still doesn’t explain why no one runs into a Time Lord or a Dalek on a timeline before they enter the Time War, though.

Anyway, back on Earth, Rose has shown up to save Donna’s mum and grandfather from a Dalek, whine about not being invited into the conversation among Earth’s finest—all former companions of the Doctor and their cronies—whine about how she was the Doctor’s companion before Martha (as if he hadn’t had several dozen before her), and generally annoy the hell out of the audience. At least the scene where she rescued Sylvia Noble and Wilfred Mott was pretty good. I’d almost believed Davies could be lame enough to let a Dalek get blinded with a paintgun. Not quite. Wikipedia informs me that this sequence, and the line “Wanna trade?” were both the ideas of actor Bernard Cribbins (Wilf). Go figure.

While Rose is closed out of the discussion, ex-Prime Minister Harriet Jones recruits the assistance of the Cardiff Hub and Sarah Jane Smith’s supercomputer Mr. Smith to boost a signal through Martha’s phone to the Doctor. Of course, if the Doctor can hear it, so can the pepperpot menace, and they can trace it back to the router: Harriet Jones’ home. With predictable results.

Wikipedia has described Harriet Jones’ arc on Doctor Who as introduction, conflict with the Doctor, and redemption. This suggests Davies and the writing staff disapprove of her actions in “The Christmas Invasion,” which makes sense. However, I like that they allow her to hold onto her conviction that she made the right choice, even though they disagree with her.

Of course, this being Doctor Who—especially Davies’ reimagined Doctor Who—redemption = death. These being the Daleks, they recognize that they are about to enter a plot scene, and so after blowing a hole in the side of Harriet’s house, they politely wait for her to finish transmitting control of the Doctor Distress Call to Jack at the Hub before coming in after her. These being the Daleks, they detect that Harriet is an important character and so politely wait for her to repeat the “Harriet Jones [insert job title here]” gag and make a pithy speech before getting around to exterminating her, instead of just trundling in and exterminating her on the spot like they do to extras.

Honestly, I still don’t know whether the joke was good, or really lame and overdone. The noble sacrifice angle, though, that’s just overdone. Really, really overdone.

Eventually, the Doctor and Donna arrive on-planet, just in time for the Doctor to get hit by a Dalek deathray. Despite the fact that these blasts have been shown to cause instant death in all previous circumstances and factors like where the victim is hit or whether they have multiple hearts have never been hinted to make any sort of difference, the Doctor is only mostly killed. He begins to regenerate, but manages to cycle the energy through his severed hand from “The Christmas Invasion,” thus healing himself without transforming. O-kay, a little dicey, but it’s nothing compared to surviving the deathray, so I’ll let that part slide.

The Doctor, Donna, Jack and Rose then take the TARDIS to the evil pepperpots’ lair, which they call the Crucible, while various other companions make their way by different routes. Donna lags behind and gets shut inside the TARDIS after the rest of the crew enters the Crucible for a little repartee with the Supreme Dalek.

The TARDIS—which has withstood the assaults of everything from crowbars to demi-gods—instantly loses all its protective shielding when the Daleks poke it with an electromagnetic Treknobabble stick or other, and gets tossed into the Crucible’s power generator.

Even without its shields, the TARDIS manages to resist what we must assume is unimaginable heat long enough for Donna to touch the Doctor’s hand and provoke it to grow into a complete new Doctor. So along with everything else this series has neglected to mention for the past forty-five years, Time Lords are starfish? *sigh*, Okay.

Anyway, the new Doctor manages to teleport the TARDIS out of the Core at the exact moment the Daleks calculate it would be utterly destroyed. Logically, this should mean that the TARDIS was mostly destroyed already, but in fact the damage to it is purely superficial. What a difference a split-second makes.

The Supreme Dalek, meanwhile, has the Doctor and his other companions thrown in the Vault with Davros. Incidentally, what the hell is up with these motherfrakking Daleks and their motherfrakking Capital Nouns? The Crucible, the Vault, the Core, the Time of Testing, the Reality Bomb and I’m probably missing a couple at that.

More epic scenes of the Doctor and Davros sniping at each other follow, in which the latter goes into the obligatory “explaining the plan to destroy the entire universe” sequence, and introduces the prophetic-but-deranged Dalek Caan.

Davros also taunts the Doctor, asking “How many have died in your name?” Cue a succession of flashbacks to several of the people who have died in the past four seasons. Thank you so much, Davies, for reminding me of so many of the stupidest, suckiest moments the new series has had (these people are experts at “how you absolutely should not go about killing off minor characters”). Also, the first three or four characters died under the Ninth Doctor’s tenure, but none of the characters revisited were from the old series. It’s almost as if all of the characters from the First through Eighth Doctor eras never existed … or just don’t matter.

I will give Davies a slight tip of the hat though for including Jenny in that awful montage. Jenny came back in the end, but this is the Doctor’s flashback, and he doesn’t know she survived.

Martha and Jack both make separate attempts to foil Davros’ plans, but both are thwarted by the Supreme Pepperpot, who transports them and the rest of the Doctor’s companions to the Vault. Just as the evil nozzle-faces are about to activate the Reality Bomb, Donna and the Tenth Doctor Mark II arrive on the scene.

By the by, this marks the end of the “Osterhagen Key” subplot, which had an awful lot of buildup in episode 12 and the first half of episode 13, only to go absolutely nowhere. All the trouble Martha went through and all the moaning people made about how horrible it was, and the Daleks just transport her away at the last second, and so much for that angle.

Look, if you’re going to have something as big and terrible as that for no other reason than to get the character in a certain place at a certain time and doing a certain thing, for Zark’s sake don’t build it up so much. Sarah Jane’s Warp Star got at most 60 seconds of introduction, so it didn’t matter that there was no real payoff there. But in retrospect, it makes all that running around Martha did up to this point and all the agonizing she and those other characters went through into a colossal waste. (Though I must admit that it did serve as an excuse to give us Daleks speaking German, which was hilarious.)

In fact, apart from providing a cell phone for the Doctor Distress Call, I don’t think Martha contributed to the plot at all. Yeesh, she’s really in a rut. If only Project Indigo had transported her to the Doctor as I’d originally thought, instead of just her mum’s house.

Sarah Jane fares no better. Her alien computer boosts the Doctor Distress Call, she goes out in the street, almost gets killed by Daleks, only to be rescued by Jackie and Mickey. She does convince them to get rid of their guns so the Daleks will capture them instead of killing them (remember, the Daleks are gathering subjects for the Reality Bomb), but that isn’t much. After dodging the Daleks, she, Micky, and Jackie meet up with Jack. Sarah gives him the Warp Star, which if broken would’ve destroyed the whole Crucible, but as with the Osterhagen Key, they lose their chance when the Supreme Dalek has them beamed into the Vault and takes them prisoner. After which they all sit around until rescued by Donna and the Doctor Mk. II and taken home.

The others didn’t do that much more, but Rose did save Wilf and Donna’s mum, Jackie and Micky saved Sarah Jane from those two Daleks in the street, and Jack took out the Dalek that almost killed the Doctor, blasted the Supreme Pepperpot to space dust, and was generally awesome, as per usual. (Usual for Doctor Who that is, as opposed to Torchwood.)

It turns out that Donna uploaded some Time Lord intelligence from the hand which grew into the Mk. II, thus creating the “Doctor-Donna,” and explaining why Donna Noble is so important to the fate of the universe. You know, that really ticks me off. On the old show, a companion didn’t have to be “special” to be a worthy sidekick to the Doctor, didn’t have to be immortal, or a wandering prophet, or so integral to the timestream that the Earth would be doomed to hell without their interference, or bloody Rose Mary-Sue Tyler. On the old show, being human was special enough.

On the new show, though, you’re either a Very Special Human or you’re a minor character, easily brushed aside. I can sympathize with David Brin when he rants about elitism in popular culture.

Anyway, with her newfound cranial power, Donna pulls a few switches and shorts out the Reality Bomb a second before it discharges. Another few switches are sufficient to wipe out the entire plunger-wielding army (like I said, magic wand). A couple more send all the planets except Earth back where they came from, and set the Crucible on fire with destruction imminent.

The Doctors gather all the companions back into the TARDIS, which they’ll then use to haul the Earth back home like a tugboat. The original Doctor stays behind to offer to take Davros with them. This would actually have been a pretty good twist—it could even have excused Davros’ otherwise superfluous presence in this story—setting up a situation that’s very new to Doctor Who, or fiction in general, for that matter. Naturally, though, it only happens so that the Doctor gets to put up a token offer of help—the type the villain always turns down. However, unlike the Master, we never actually see Davros die, which leads me to conclude they’re probably already planning how they’re going to bring the overacting little twerp back again in a season or two.

The Doctor then drops his companions off back on Earth. Mickey, much to my surprise, decides to stay in the series’ main dimension, saying that there’s “nothing for him” in the other one, certainly not Rose. I liked this development: it made sense, and it spoke to some level of maturity, a willingness on Davies’ part to point out that yes, sometimes people don’t get happily paired off for reasons other than that one of them is dead, or they’re trapped in two different dimensions or something.

Of course, this being Davies-style Doctor Who, it was too good to last. The Doctor leaves Jackie and Rose behind in the other-dimension … along with the Mk. II. (Well of course, if they weren’t going to kill him off, they at least had to put him on a bus. Can’t have another Doctor running around upsetting the status quo.) And that’s when we find out that yes, Mary-Sue Tyler does get happily paired off with her One True Love: the Doctor.

Oh my god, this totally proves that Rose is the greatest companion ever and that all the Doctor’s companions from the old series were nothing compared to her, nothing, nothing, you hear me! The self-indulgent arrogance of this conceit revolts me. Shame on you, Russell T Davies; Doctor Who is not your plaything and your characters don’t mean more to the Doctor than all the others in the show’s history just because they’re yours.

The only thing Davies got right—one of the many things Steven Moffat got wrong with River Song—is pointing out that the Doctor’s lifespan would be a barrier to him having a relationship with a human. The Mk. II, being grown from a mixture of the Doctor’s and Donna’s DNA, is human though, so that’s that problem solved *gag*. (This also means that I can legitimately view this pairing as Rose/Male-Donna instead of Rose/Doctor, which admittedly isn’t that great either, but still better than thinking that the Doctor and Rose were ever “True Loves.” I also maintain that Rose and the Mk. II broke up on amicable terms within three years and never got together again.)

This leaves only the Doctor and Donna in the TARDIS, at which point, the Doctor reveals that Donna’s mind is deteriorating due to her absorbtion of alien Time Lord intelligence, like a toned down version of Rose at the end of “The Parting of the Ways.”

The cure: suppress the alien intelligence by wiping all Donna’s memories of the Doctor, aliens, and everything else connected to her new intellect. Wait? What the hell? The Time Lord brainpower Donna absorbed is already there isn’t it? Her mind is already altered, just because she’s lost her memories doesn’t put it back. Brain tumors don’t go away because you forget about them.

Elementary logic notwithstanding, the trick works, and Donna is saved, at the cost of two years’ worth of memories. If anything comes up to trigger her memories, her magically deactivated Time Lord brainpower will reactivate, overload Donna’s mind and possibly her body, and in either case kill her. Donna is saved, but the person who she became because of her time with the Doctor—very different from the person she was beforehand—has “died.”

I didn’t mention this earlier, but throughout the second episode, Caan goes on giggling about “the Doctor and his children of Time … and one of them will die.” This was stupid for three big reasons: first, because no one in the episode realizes that if one will die, logically the rest will live, which implies that Davros’ plan was doomed in any case (the viewers know this of course, but the characters aren’t supposed to). Second, because if it hadn’t been for the prophecy, the Supreme Dalek would’ve just killed the Doctor and co., so the only reason there could be a prophecy they’d survive was because there’s a prophecy that says they will … God how I hate predestination paradoxes. Third, because the vagueness of the phrase “one of them” suggests there’s some kind of mystery; you could almost surmise that the viewer is supposed to be guessing about “who’s going to get it,” even though the writing team has been dropping hints like anvils (heavy, cartoonish, immature, and excessively painful) since at least “Forest of the Dead.” (Caan also apparently doesn’t count Jack getting killed and coming back as “dying,” but that I can forgive.)

Furthermore, I would argue that all this clumsy foreshadowing was ultimately counter-productive, as it undermines the impact of this sequence. If this development had been sprung on the audience without warning, it would’ve been truly powerful (though still marred by the squicky mind-rape stuff). But the excessive buildup to this event leaves it looking anti-climactic and diluted. It reduces what could’ve been a fairly tragic plot twist into a cop-out. Davies’ overgenerous hand with the Ominous Foreshadowing has finally turned around and bitten him in the rear.

And that’s basically it, the Doctor mopes back to the TARDIS, sulks a bit, and the episode ends. Wow. I don’t think I’ve seen such a gloomy season finale since … the last two series’ season finales. God I hope Steven Moffat tries to branch out a little bit when he takes over the show.

Despite all the many, many weaknesses pointed out above, both these episodes have their moments. The characters (with one or two notable exceptions) range from fairly cool to flat-out awesome. The plot, though riddled with holes, is pretty good for a Davies effort. The visuals are pretty spectacular. On the whole it’s more maddening than endearing, but there’s just a few too many genuinely good aspects to write the whole thing off.

Couple last thoughts. While I can’t fault Davies for trying to be progressive when it comes to diversity, if he had to hire a music director with ADD, he should’ve at least had a sound editor check their work first. Don’t get me wrong, the individual motifs are pretty good, but the score as a whole is all over the place, skipping from one theme to a second to a third like a deranged kangaroo on a pogo stick. Just watch the four-and-a-half minute opening sequence when we go from Sarah Jane’s crew to Jack’s to Martha to Rose in quick succession. And the transitions—such as from Davros’ subdued and chime-heavy motif to pumping “A-Team in action” music—can be quite jarring.

Speaking of pumping music, though, brings up another point. Remember the series one, two, and three finales? Remember all the high power music used to evoke feelings like “oh my god, what they’re doing right now is so cool” and “oh my god, something really bad is happening/about to happen”? Remember how it sometimes felt like the sound director was going a bit overboard with that, and you occasionally found yourself asking “really, does this scene need quite this much dramatizing?”

Turns out in those episodes, the sound director was restraining her/him- or itself. This time around, that overdramatized “action/foreboding” music takes up roughly 50% of the score. At least in “The Stolen Earth.” By the time “Journey’s End” went into production, the sound editor or someone must’ve caught up with the music director, given them their meds, and gotten them to ease up a little. The score is relatively subtle, and no longer gives the impression that soundtrack itself is on LSD. Or maybe it’s just that I rewatched the episodes to bring you this portion of the review, and did more skipping around going through “Journey’s End.” Either way, it’s not exactly John Williams.

The over-the-top music may not have entirely been the director’s fault, either. Remember how the new series just oozes melodrama, especially in the finales? There again, we were getting off lightly. In “The Stolen Earth”/“Journey’s End,” everything is overblown and over-exaggerated to the point of farce.

I don’t think it’s the fault of the actors, either. I mean, the guy playing Davros—possibly realizing that his character was completely superfluous to the plot—decided to make up for it by upstaging the rest of the cast … put together. If you can find clips on Youtube, check out his immortal delivery of such lines as “Active the Reality Bomb!” and the all-time classic (read: cliché) “Nothing can stop me now!”

Apart from him, though, I think the cast all delivered fine performances, and I wouldn’t accuse any of them of overacting. But an actor can only do so much with the lines and scenarios they’re given. What actor could’ve saved such sequences as the whole Osterhagen Key subplot (“take this key,” “I can’t,” “you know what to do, for the sake of the human race” and so on. And on. And on. And on and on and on …) or for that matter Project Indigo (“don’t do it, it’s too dangerous!”) or the Doctor figuring out what the Reality Bomb does (“no Davros, you can’t!” um, hello, this is the creator of the Daleks you’re talking to) or Donna’s farewell (“I don’t want to go back, please don’t make me go back”) or really any of Dalek Caan’s lines, what with all his giggling and babble about fire and destruction and the Doctor and “seeing” his soul (whatever that’s supposed to mean) and his children of time and one of them will die, tee-hee, or … you get the idea. I’m no big fan of 300, but whenever I ponder these two episodes, I can’t help but hear Gerard Butler roaring “This. Is. MELODRAMA!” Hopefully Russel T Davies will take his retirement from executive producer/head writer on Doctor Who as an opportunity to re-enroll in film school.

Finally, let’s tally the number of noble sacrifices over the course of the season, shall we? We have from “Voyage of the Dead”: Foon Van Hoff, Bannakaffalatta, and Astrid Peth; from “The Poison Sky” we have Luke Rattigan; in “The Doctor’s Daughter” there’s Jenny (she got better) and Martha’s Hath friend (it didn’t); “Forest of the Dead” had River Song (she sorta got better); the host in “Midnight”; the alternate Donna in “Turn Left”; and Harriet Jones in “The Stolen Earth.” Ten characters in fourteen episodes, and that’s without including villains and any red shirts who may’ve slipped my mind. Ten.

I mean, I know that according to Davies’ blood contract with the Adversary he has to write the stupidest, most cliché noble sacrifices in every non-kids show he produces or he loses his funny, but you’d think he could at least have held out for only one per season. I’m sure the esteemed Mephistopheles wouldn’t’ve objected too much.

Unfortunately, I suspect this overuse of the noble sacrifice is going to be one tradition Steven Moffat will continue after Davies passes him the torch. C’est la vie, I suppose.

Episode 14: The Next Doctor: The TARDIS lands in London, Christmas Eve, 1851, where the Doctor receives help in battling the Cybermen from an unexpected source … the Next Doctor.

Well, as it turns out, he’s not actually the Next Doctor. He’s a Victorian mathematician named Jackson Lake, who stumbled on a Cyberman “infostamp” containing information about the Doctor. I have to credit Davies for giving Lake a reason for assuming the Doctor persona beyond simply being overwhelmed by alien information. Having the true cause for his memory loss and new persona being a known and documented human phenomenon is a nice touch. It’s using speculative fiction elements to build upon reality, rather than to replace it entirely. Also props for putting the big reveal mid-way through the story instead of during the last ten minutes.

On the other hand, the reason Lake first entered his fugue state and the “something taken” foreshadowed earlier in the episode is, in a word, cliché. “Something terrible happens to Lake in the backstory,” Davies says to himself as he hunches over his computer, furiously typing out the episode’s script. “What could it be, what could it be, what could it be—I’ve got it! He had a wife, and the Cybermen killed her! [Doing his best David Tennant impression] Brilliant!”

“But I can’t leave it at that,” Davies continues. “I want to give him at least a semi-happy ending. So first I’ll have him find out he’s lost something, and that will make him sad, but then I’ll have him find something which will make him happy. Now what …? Oh, I know, I know!” he says, really wishing at this point that he had a co-writer whom he could nudge in the ribs for emphasis, “how about, get this, he loses his wife but, wait for it … it turns out he had a son! Pretty good, innit?”

It’s not just that Davies brandishes the clichés as if they were the Grand Theory of Everything (for those of you who know even less of physics than I do, that’s the one we don’t have yet), what’s really starting to grate me is that he’s so homonormative.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful at this point. There is a branch of (mostly white and economically advantaged) feminism which simply aims to shatter the glass ceiling and put (white, privileged) women on an equal footing with (white, privileged) men. This branch of feminism is remarkable not only for being dismissive of, if not hostile towards women of color, queer women, disabled women etc., but also for insisting that women’s liberation means acting exactly like a stereotypical man, despite the fact that said gender role is extremely toxic to men and women (not to mention those around them). The exemplar of this idea of feminism would probably be Margaret Thatcher, and if that isn’t enough to make you run screaming, I don’t know what would.

Homonormativity is like this conservative brand of feminism in that it merely seeks to insert homosexuals into the already existing dominant discourse of human relationships. Homonormativity wholeheartedly embraces the 1950s ideal of the bourgeois nuclear family, with the sole stipulation that the loving couple not necessarily be different sexes. Davies takes things one step further by acknowledging that they need not necessarily be the same skin color, either.

Davies’ obsession with (slightly modified) nuclear family values is starkly evident throughout the series. The only important things in a person’s life are their children and significant others, in that order. Thus, Lake has a son, ergo he has something to live for. The Doctor has neither children nor significant other, ergo he (and a sizable fraction of the fatalities on this show) has nothing to live for.

I’m hardly a Biblical scholar, but this whole sequence strongly reminds me of something I once heard about the Book of Job. As best I recall, when the Christians began writing their version of the Bible, Job’s story either had a downer ending or the ending had been lost. Whatever the case, what it didn’t have was a happy ending, and the Christians didn’t like that. It was a story about a man keeping faith in God even through the worst adversity (including the loss of his beloved family): it had to have a happy ending to fit in their simple-minded, black-and-white worldview. So they wrote him one. And since the Christians had less imagination on the subject than a patch of duckweed, what they came up with was that in the end, Job gets another family.

This sort of resolution has always struck me as a cop-out, in addition to being stuck in the narrow-minded “nuclear family = happiness” rut, and “The Next Doctor” did nothing to change that impression.

Other minor irritants. The Cybershades: What was the point with them, again? And a related question: why do all Cybermen in the New Who have to be from an alternate dimension, suddenly? Surely the originals should be around somewhere, too?

I’m glad Lake survived (I was worried about that), but a little disappointed that he didn’t end up doing anything for the climax except act as the Doctor’s cheerleader.

Speaking of the climax, the CyberKing raged through London like something you’d get if you crossbred Godzilla and the Iron Giant, and yet this event has zero consequences on recorded history? Keep in mind that Davies reputedly cut the destruction of New York city from the previous story because he’d have to deal with the consequences. I’ll never understand how that man’s mind works. (Apparently, this story created a plot hole so massive, Steven Moffat constructed an entire season-long story-arc around the need to close it.)

Wikipedia informs me that after the episode wrapped up, Davies came up with a better resolution than what they’d shot. Instead of disappearing in a shred of fabric (talk about special effects failure) Ms. Hartigan would’ve survived, but the CyberKing still would’ve been falling. The Doctor wouldn’t’ve had the dimension transporter, instead he’d have called on Ms. Hartigan, begging her to “save them [the people of London]” and she would’ve dimension-shifted the CyberKing. I agree, that would’ve been better, even with the addition of yet another noble sacrifice.

The CyberKing itself was not as original as it might’ve been, but considering the episode was written by Davies, it was all right.

I thought using the infostamps to take out the Cybermen was a little too easy. I mean, it was cool the first time, but after that, it degenerated into a way of easily subduing a previously formidable and difficult-to-kill monster. Look, Davies, if you can’t handle writing enemies which are hard to kill and impossible to reason with (a difficult proposition I know) the answer isn’t “Deus Ex Machina an easy way to kill them,” the answer is: “Don’t write them at all.”

Last I’d like to address Rosita, Lake’s companion. Since there’s so much in this episode about the Doctor and Lake and a subplot about Miss Hartigan to boot, it’s not surprising that Rosita fades into the background. I’m prepared to accept that there is no more than the unavoidable, everyday levels of sexism and racism at work in the fact that except for saving the Doctor and Lake near the beginning of the episode, she functions completely as a plot device (and a back-burner plot device, at that).

What really bugs me is this line from Davies describing Rosita as “probably cleverer than the two of them [the Doctors] put together” (once again, credit Wikipedia for the quote). This smacks just a little too much of the patronizing compliments that clueless-but-well-meaning white males sometimes show their black or female (or, in this case, black female) characters. “No really, she’s actually the most intelligent one in the bunch.”

The problem here is really one of race and gender, but it can be nicely addressed by invoking one of the cardinal guidelines to good writing: “If she’s really cleverer than the Doctor and Lake, show us, don’t tell us.”

Still a pretty good episode, though, and it gets serious points for the ending. After all the mopey Christmas specials following mopey season finales, a nice plain feel-good moment comes as a refreshing change. The Doctor really had no good reason to refuse Lake’s offer to dinner, but he’s all emo now anyway, and it just makes it better that, as the Doctor himself points out, Lake actually convinced him to change his mind. Thanks for that much, Davies.

Episode 15: Planet of the Dead: The Doctor and a half dozen innocent bystanders are sucked through an inter-dimensional vortex to a planet whose entire population has recently been wiped out.

This episode was … okay. It didn’t shine, it didn’t suck, it was okay.

From the start I suspected some kind of Space Locusts, and so you can imagine my disappointment to learn that, yes, co-writers Davies and Gareth Roberts had gone with the most obvious explanation after all. Still, I must admit the stuff about the Space Locusts flying several times around a planet to generate wormholes and digesting metal to produce an exoskeleton to survive the trip through the wormholes was pretty cool.

I feel like Davies and Roberts were trying to do something really interesting with this episode’s companion, Lady Christina De Souza. I’m sure her being a high-class jewel thief was supposed to make her interesting and unique, but that whole angle never seemed quite to crystallize; although it was crucial to the plot, I didn’t get the sense of payoff. Consequently, her character didn’t click for me: she was just another guest, nothing special.

It’s always nice to see UNIT return, just to remind everybody that Earth does have its own homegrown defenders—defenders who, unlike Torchwood Three, have at least a modicum of competence—even if they still need the Doctor holding their hand the whole way. That said, I found Captain Erisa Magambo (a returning character from “Turn Left,” according to Wikipedia) and Malcolm Taylor necessary but dull. Again, I feel like there should have been a payoff to the scene where Erisa pulls her gun on Malcolm, ordering him to close the wormhole with the Doctor and his companions trapped on the other side and he refuses—there should’ve been a payoff, but there wasn’t. Not really.

The climax was just weird and not especially well-handled. First, the Doctor flew the bus (more on that in a minute) through the wormhole, with the stingray-like Space Locusts licking at his heels. Twenty seconds after the bus exits the wormhole, the first three Space Locusts come out. Twenty seconds after that, Malcolm closes the wormhole, with not one more Space Locust having made it through. Anybody got a Magic Bullet-esque conspiracy theory involving the velocity of Space Locusts to explain that one?

The other problem with the climax was that it was a nonclimax. The bus gets through and flies around a bit, UNIT fights the three Space Locusts, Malcolm has a little trouble closing the wormhole, the bus flies around a bit more, Malcolm closes the wormhole, UNIT takes out the last Space Locust—whoops, all over.

Then we have another interlude of angsty, melodramatic foreshadowing: “Your song is ending, sir. It is returning, it is returning through the dark. And then Doctor … oh, but then … he will knock four times.” Knock four times? What the heck is that supposed to be? It isn’t clever, it isn’t mysterious, it isn’t eerie, it isn’t tricky, it isn’t melodramatic, it isn’t even weird, it isn’t anything.

While I wasn’t particularly invested in any of the cast for this episode, I’m glad they all made it. Well, except for the bus driver and the two aliens. I suppose the driver’s death was a necessary plot point for getting UNIT involved. Still, you’d think the Doctor would’ve figured out by now to warn his companions against doing something dangerous while he’s explaining what’s going on, instead of waiting around for one of the redshirts-of-the-week to demonstrate for him. (“We came through a wormhole over there, but don’t try going back through if you value your life—we only survived because the bus was there to protect us.” There, was that so hard?)

I also feel like one of the stranded aliens could’ve survived, and the Doctor would’ve then taken it home in the TARDIS. Sure, this would’ve complicated the ending, but by the exact same token, it would’ve made the ending more original.

I also think it’s ridiculous that when the Doctor meets his most enthusiastic companion in decades, he refuses to take her with him because of his companions’ habit of wandering off after a while. It feels like as the new series goes on, the in-universe reasons the Doctor has for inviting people to be his companions or refusing them are becoming more and more arbitrary.

I was worried there for a minute that he actually was just going to leave Christina to be arrested, although how she knew to go for the bus instead of the TARDIS when he freed her, I’ll never understand. “The girl will fly,” I thought that bit of foreshadowing could easily mean something good—and it did. Speaking of which, flying bus? Seriously cool.

… Like I said, the episode as a whole was okay, no more, no less.

Episode 16: The Waters of Mars: The Doctor visits Bowie Base, the first human colony on Mars … on the very day history records its mysterious destruction.

Now, if you really must set up a “changing a historical disaster” dilemma, this is probably the best way to go about it: making the “historical disaster” in question fictional at least leaves the suggestion of ambiguity about the outcome.

On the other hand, the Doctor’s central conflict in the story essentially boils down to agonizing about whether or not to intervene and save the humans on Bowie Base, deciding not to, then changing his mind at the last minute and charging in for a dramatic rescue.

Unfortunately, by that time most of the crew is already dead, including the Token Black (Casualty #2) and the German woman, Steffi Ehrlich. Okay, it’s sexist of me to feel her death harder than the others, especially since she had no characterization to speak of, but there you are. I also wish the Geek had made it, I liked him.

Speaking of which, though, it seems to me there’s something just a little bit skeevy about the last couple infections. The first three I’ll forgive because they were so unexpected, but for the last three we have Steffi, Ed Gold, and the Geek. Of the three, Ed and the Geek were both infected fairly quickly, and were very matter-of-fact and stoic about it when it happened, (remarkably so, in the latter case).

Steffi’s infection on the other hand, was drawn out, and I can’t help but find it significant that she was the only one to scream her head off before the end came. A very natural reaction, and yet one that none of the male characters succumb to?

On the positive side, I was glad that the Russian guy, Yuri Kerenski, survived at least. (Also appreciated his casual mention of his brother’s husband earlier in the episode—gay marriage, it’s no big deal.) Glad Mia—the Token Asian—survived too, even if she had as little character development as Steffi. (Being “only 27” does not count.)

But speaking of questionable gender dynamics, why did Adelaide tell Yuri to look after Mia at the end? All right, maybe she just told it to the one who didn’t panic right away, but why was Mia rather than Yuri the one to panic like that in the first place?

The monsters in this episode are humans infected with some sort of virus in the planet’s water. This turns them into zombielike creatures with craters for mouths and the unique ability to violate the Conservation of Matter by generating larger quantities of infected water than the human body can contain, and yet still manage to maintain their physical forms.

Despite their limitless supply of water to draw upon, they never really generated it in Biblical amounts, contrary to my expectations. When they needed to open doors, they merely short-circuited them, rather than summoning up a thousand-ton wave and letting pressure do the rest, which would’ve been a lot more impressive. Instead, they got a lucky break on cheap circuitry.

The flood-monsters get shoved aside towards the end to fuel the Doctor’s Great Moral Embuggerance, which rather precluded Davies and co-writer Phil Ford from doing anything at all interesting with them.

At the last, Bowie Base has been overrun, two thirds of the crew are dead or infected, and their escape ship has been destroyed to prevent the infection from reaching Earth. It is at this point that the Doctor goes into Badass Overdrive, and says “you know what? Screw you, destiny. Screw you, history. Screw you, rules. Screw you, bloody angst and melodrama; I’m going to go save those people!”

And he does, although how he managed to get himself and three others spread out across a big room into the TARDIS in the two second interval between the latter’s arrival and the destruction of Bowie Base is anyone’s guess.

So the Doctor returns to Earth with Adelaide, Yuri and Mia. The latter two bugger off, and the Doctor exults at no longer being the butt monkey of destiny, angst, and melodrama.

However, at hearing this, angst and melodrama blow their tops and decide to stick it to the Doctor big time, by having Adelaide accuse him of megalomania (to paraphrase their conversation: “Who decides what’s right and wrong?” “I do.”) and endangering all of history (as her death was supposedly a cosmic Big Deal) and promptly offs herself just to spite him (add one to the noble sacrifice tally).

Let me pause here to go off on a little tangent. I would be the first to argue that a being with power over time and space such as the Doctor’s would’ve been corrupted by it long since. Realistically, it makes sense that the Doctor would be succumbing to megalomania, now if not before.

But so fecking what? The Doctor’s not a realistic character anyway, psychologically or otherwise, and furthermore, this “I am Time Lord, Master of the Universe, my Word is Law” curve ball came completely out of nowhere. I mean what the hell, Davies? The Doctor was only asserting his right not to be ruled by your tiresome melodramatics, and you not only had to shove that melodrama right back down his (and my) throat, you also had to vilify him for it? Pillock.

The only good thing I can say about this whole megalomania mess is that it gets shot right back into nowhere after Adelaide commits hari-kiri, with the Doctor collapsing to his knees saying “I’ve gone too far,” so at least we won’t have to deal with that nonsense in the next two episodes.

While he’s on the ground, the Doctor hallucinates an Ood standing several feet away, a vision which promptly vanishes, just to disabuse the audience of any silly ideas that it might actually do something in this episode. The Doctor then reenters the TARDIS and is off again.

All right, so I’ve lambasted “The Waters of Mars” quite a bit, and deservedly so. The beginning and middle were a lot of waiting around for all the characters to die even though I didn’t want them to and waiting for the Doctor to do something finally, and the ending was pure angst!fest punctuated by yet more melodrama and some of the worst character continuity I’ve seen this side of “Legacy of the Force.”

On the other hand, it did have its good points. Specifically, it had main supporting character Adelaide Brooke. I don’t have to explain why she’s awesome: the Doctor will do it for me. “Because you wouldn’t shoot Andy Stone when you had the chance”; because she saw a Dalek during the events of “Stolen Earth”/”Journey’s End” and wanted to follow it, “but not for revenge.” Before the Doctor’s Rage Against the Melodrama, Adelaide stops him from leaving the base and forces him to confess the fate of Bowie One, that she and everyone aboard will die … except the Doctor. “Why, Doctor? What’s going to save you?” “… Captain Adelaide Brooke.”

Oh, there’s also the part, mid-Badass Overdrive when the infected Andy Stone pounds three times on the hatchway to the room where the survivors are holed up. The Doctor announces “Three’s all you get!” and promptly electrocutes Stone. A scenario which is guaranteed to be infinitely better than whatever idiot excess that “knock four times” rubbish actually refers to.

One last thing. What on Mars did the Doctor think he was doing there when the crew first captured him, offering a defense as weak as “out here, my word is all you’ve got”? And why on Mars didn’t Adelaide toss him in the brig (or whatever) when he made an argument that balmy? Letting him go after that isn’t compassion, it’s dereliction of duty.

While not up to even the modest standard set by the previous two specials, this episode is entirely watchable and entertaining … at least until the final scene with the Doctor’s out-of-character power-trip and the Revenge of the Angst. Even with the ending factored in, “The Waters of Mars” isn’t anywhere near as bad as, say, “Midnight,” or “Turn Left.”

Episodes 17 & 18: The End of Time: Again? Didn’t we just leave this party? Face it, people, this shtick is getting old.

“The End of Time, Part One” opens with a pretentious—forgive me, I meant to say portentous—narrator yakking away about the Doctor, Christmas Day, and Dire Things To Come. Yeah, whatever.

The Doctor himself—thankfully showing little sign of Post Melodramatic Stress Disorder—returns to the Ood homeworld to ask what the hell that projection was about. He gets taken to the Ood elders who spout some suitably vague imprecations about Earth and Dire Things to Come. They also show him an image of Anthony Ainley—possibly the best-known actor to play the Master in the old series—indulging in a therapeutic villainous chuckle.

At which point, the Doctor hightails it back to the TARDIS, and sets the coordinates for Earth, England, 2009. Somehow, despite the fact that he’s using a frickin’ time machine he manages to arrive too late. Best not to ask.

Meanwhile, Lucy Saxon—the Master’s ex—has been kidnapped by a cabal of fanatics awaiting the Second Coming of the Master. And like present day Christian Zionists, they’re determined to help the future along. They have the ring left behind after the Master died, and a couple miracle life potions. Add some biometric data from Lucy Saxon’s lips, and the payment of their own life force, and we’ve got all the ingredients for a good ol’ resurrection.

Incredibly, Lucy Saxon anticipated this eventuality, and somehow acquired an anti-life potion, just to muck things up. The result is that everyone in the chamber dies, except for the Master, who comes back partially, but occasionally shifts into a glowing blue skeleton to illustrate his imperfect resurrection. He’s also come back with the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound and generate Sith Lightning from his hands. Best not to ask.

Apart from life force and body continuity, the biggest thing the Master somehow lost in the whole resurrection process was undoubtedly his sense of fun. The light-hearted psychopath who played fun and games with his victims all through “The Sound of Drums”/“Last of the Time Lords,” has been replaced by a solemn, ravenous little psychopath who barely cracks a smile, let alone a joke. Wonderful.

That night, the Doctor confronts the Master in a construction site. Their meeting is cut short, though, by the arrival of a squad of the Emperor’s best troops, complete with helicopter. They grab the Master, and try their durndest to shoot down the Doctor. Fortunately, like all evil minions, these stormtroopers can’t hit the broad side of a barn from the inside—or, in this case, a grown man in floodlights. And this despite being armed with machine guns.

Eventually, the Doctor falls down, but shows no signs of bullet wounds, and neither dies nor regenerates, so buggered if I know what happened to him.

Whatever it was, it buys the stormtroopers enough time to spirit the Master away to their employer, Joshua Naismith. Naismith and his daughter, Abigail are the only black people (heck, the only people of color) to appear in this story, and the fact that they’re villains can lead to unfortunate implications. On the other hand, they don’t really get much development, serving mostly as a plot device to introduce some important technology. Whether this is better or worse than casting them as major villains I leave to the reader’s judgment.

The Naismiths want the Master—who they know as ex-Prime Minister Harold Saxon—to help them fix a bit of alien technology dubbed the Immortality Gate which (supposedly) does exactly what it says on the tin. Joshua Naismith intends for his daughter to live forever. Naturally, the Master has other ideas.

One component of the Immortality Gate is a set of two isolation chambers, one of which must be occupied at all times for the machine to work. But I doubt that will have any bearing on the rest of the story.

The Doctor, meanwhile, enlists the aid of Wilfred Mott, Donna Noble’s grandfather, to find the Master. Wilf has been experiencing visitations by a predictably cryptic older woman who warns him of Dire Things to Come and says the Doctor will need to “take up arms,” so he’d better pack his revolver.

Wilf shows the Doctor a picture of Naismith Sr., and the Doctor recognizes Naismith from his séance with the Ood. Accordingly, the duo take the TARDIS to the Naismith Estate, where they run across two spiky green alien technicians who are there to salvage the Immortality Gate. They explain that the Gate is a medical device, intended to “mend” entire planets. Shove a living organism into the Gate, and it will “mend” the rest of the planet to match that template.

The Doctor and Wilf arrive in the main chamber of the Naismith Estate just in time to fail to prevent the Master from destroying his straitjacket with Sith Lightning and long-jumping into the Gate. The Doctor shoves Wilf into one of the isolation chambers—the only structure in the entire world shielded from the Gate’s “healing radiation.”

The Gate proceeds to “mend” humanity, a process which causes the head of every single human being on Earth to swivel madly à la The Exorcist. It’s hilariously bad.

When the heads stop shaking each and every one of them has turned into the Master’s. Apparently, the Gate in its infinite medical wisdom transforms all its patients into exact duplicates of the template, rather than copying the template’s species information like the nanogenes in “The Empty Child”/“The Doctor Dances.” Best not to ask.

The only humans unaffected on the entire planet are Wilf (in the isolation chamber), and Donna, who was apparently protected by her Time Lord brain chemistry. You know, the chemistry which the Doctor apparently neutralized in “Journey’s End” by suppressing Donna’s memories—on the principle that “What you don’t know can’t hurt you,” I guess—and would therefore presumably not come into effect unless she remembered about her time with the Doctor, at which point it would reactivate and melt her brain? Best not to ask.

The Masters too are—odd, to say the least. They don’t share one mind, or even anticipate each other’s thoughts as you might expect. Furthermore, despite all being the same person, they give and take orders according to what station their body’s previous owner held in life, all of them answering to the original. The original Master is still dying—some medical technology, eh?

At this point, that pompous narrator starts shooting off his mouth again about the Doctor, the end of humanity, and how all this is just the beginning. Because on this day, everything changes. On this day, the Time Lords return. This day will see the end of time.

By now, the narrator is revealed to be the Time Lord President, raising the question of exactly why he felt the need to go over all these events in the first place, and why in the past tense. The President then steps into the grand council of the Time Lords—which bears more than a passing resemblance to the Senate chamber in the Star Wars prequels—and announces their return.

Time for a couple flashbacks. The Time War is drawing to a close, and the signs indicate the Doctor will choose to kill all the Time Lords and all the Daleks. The President is none too pleased with this scenario, and vaporizes a subordinate with a metal glove reminiscent of … (actually, I’m not sure what) when she appears to question his judgment.

The prophets inform the President that only two Time Lords will survive the end of the Time War: the Doctor and the Master. And another word keeps popping up as well: Earth.

The President hatches a plan: they’ll send a signal of four beats (the beating of a Time Lord’s heart, apparently, although which one we never discover) through the Time Vortex into the Master’s eight-year-old brain. That’s right: the Lord President’s plan begins with creating the Time Lords’ greatest single foe—or second greatest, when they get the Doctor on their bad side. Brilliant.

When the Master overwrites the entire human race with himself, the Time Lords’ signal is amplified by 6.2 billion, and he can use humanity’s communication technology to track the signal. However, he needs a little help along the way, so the President removes a diamond from his scepter and throws it through the Time Vortex to Earth.

Donna, meanwhile, begins to have flashbacks to her time with the Doctor upon seeing her mother and fiancé Shaun Temple transform into the Master, and exhibits all the signs of death by resurgent Time Lord brain chemistry. Fortunately, Donna is saved by the arrival of the end credits to “The End of Time, Part One.” When “The End of Time, Part Two” rolls around, Donna is still shaken by this new development, but no longer in immediate danger.

She calls Wilf on his cell phone. For some unfathomable reason, the Master has the Doctor and Wilf tied to a couple chairs in Casa Naismith, and is shocked to find someone calling Wilf, since everyone else in the world is supposed to be him. Well, what if this was the only way they could figure out to contact him, eh? He quickly discovers though that it isn’t him, and is uber-pissed that someone besides Wilf survived the conversion process. Wilf yells at Donna to run, just as the Master orders all copies to apprehend her.

Donna escapes the house, only to be cornered on the street by a group of about a dozen Masters. As they converge on Donna, she begins to experience flashbacks again, and this time, there are no end credits to save her.

Instead, she emits a burst of energy which conveniently knocks out all the Masters in the area and herself, and simultaneously resuppresses Donna’s memories. The Doctor explains this is a little self-defense mechanism he set up when he rewired Donna’s brain in “Journey’s End.” One wonders how he could have possibly foreseen an eventuality even remotely similar to this one. One also wonders why the Master doesn’t simply call up a few more copies who were outside the blast radius and have them bring Donna in. Best not to ask.

Donna’s part in the story is now effectively over. The spiky green aliens’ is not, as they choose this moment to knock out the Master, free Wilf, and skive off with the Doctor. Since they don’t bother to release him from his chair restraints, and since their flight includes going down a staircase, the Doctor pronounces this “Worst. Rescue. Ever!”

The aliens use their hidden transporter to escape with the Doctor and Wilf to their orbiting salvage ship. A Master copy in stormtrooper armor proceeds to blast the device in Naismith Mansion, so now, at least, they can’t get back. Aboard the salvage vessel, the Doctor deactivates all power so they’ll be safe from detection and attack by the US Star Wars program, but in the process insures their inability to escape Earth orbit.

We then get treated to a tiresome sequence of the Doctor despairing and moping, and Wilf trying to cheer him up. Wilf also tries multiple times to press his revolver on the Doctor, and is refused each time. During the course of the conversation, the Doctor reveals that if the template (i.e. the original Master) dies, all the “mended” human beings will revert back to their original states. One wonders what medical applications that setup could possibly have for anybody. Best not to ask.

At this point, the ship picks up a general broadcast by the Master, announcing his discovery of a diamond called a Whitepoint Star on Earth, and his intention to hook it up to the Immortality Gate. The Doctor informs Wilf that there’s only one planet in the universe where Whitepoint Stars can be found: Gallifrey. Now he takes Wilf’s gun.

With a flick of a couple controls the Doctor deus ex machinas the ship working again, and takes it back to chez Naismith. On the way, the ship gets attacked by cruise missiles, and Wilf and the male spiky green alien have to fend them off using the vessel’s anti-asteroid lasers, much like Luke Skywalker and Han Solo operating the Millennium Falcon’s gun turrets in Star Wars: A New Hope. The ship also passes over Bad Wolf Bay.

One of the missiles does hit the ship, but only manages to take out a huge window in the cockpit. This turns out to be a blessing for the Doctor, who proceeds to hurl himself out the now open window. And what clever trick, you may ask, does the Doctor employ to survive falling at least a couple hundred feet and through the skylight of Naismith Mansion? No trick and certainly no cleverness, just Plot Armor. Needless to say, Davies staunchly refuses to let the laws of physics call the Doctor’s bluff. (The Fourth Doctor in Logopolis wasn’t so lucky.)

The Master has already hooked the Whitepoint Star up to the Immortality Gate, and as the Doctor watches in horror, the Time Lord President begins to materialize, flanked by several other members of the council, including the two members who voted against leaving the Time War, and were subsequently forced to cover their faces in shame by the President. Worse still, the Doctor points out that the woman in “Planet of the Dead” said “it is returning,” not “he” or “they.” It’s not just the Time Lord council which is returning—it’s Gallifrey, with the rest of the Time War soon to follow. (Interestingly enough, while the President and his lackeys—who are coming from Gallifrey—appear before the Doctor and the Master on Earth, Gallifrey itself appears in the planet’s orbit. Best not to ask.)

The Master thinks he can use the Immortality Gate to overwrite all the Time Lords with his own personality, just as he did to the human race, but with a contemptuous wave of his death glove, the President instead restores every single human being on Earth to their original body, living the Master with only his dying template.

The humans in Naismith Mansion, are understandably confused and terrified to discover themselves in Dr. Frankenstein’s Lab with all hell about to descend upon them, and vacate the premises. The technician in Isolation Chamber #2 would dearly love to escape with them, and is kindly accommodated by Wilf—don’t ask me how he got out of the ship—who enters Chamber #1 so the technician may escape Cahmber #2. But I’m sure this sequence will be of no relevance to the overall plot.

The Master having been easily neutralized, the President proceeds to reveal his grand design. To end the horrors of the Time War, the Time Lords will detonate their own reality bomb and wipe out the whole universe. The President’s escape plan? The Time Lords will transform into beings of pure thought, and with no physical bodies to be destroyed, will survive the universal Holocaust. No word on whether this is a realistic aspiration, or just another manifestation of the Time Lords’ collective megalomania.

This was why the Doctor chose to end the Time War by committing double genocide: to prevent the Time Lords from wiping out all life in the universe. (One of the lessons of history compiled by Mark Kurlansky in Nonviolence: 25 Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea is that as a war drags on, each side grows more like what it accuses the other side of being in terms of monstrosity. That certainly applies to the Time Lords.)

The Doctor still has Wilf’s gun, which he points first at the President—who points out that killing him won’t stop the Time War from returning—then at the Master, who realizes that he’s the link keeping the window to the Time War open. No more Master, and the window snaps shut, sending all the Time Lords back to perish in the Time War.

Then the Doctor points back at the President for some reason, and we go through a little back-and-forth before one of the two naysayer Time Lords takes her hands away from her face to reveal herself as the Mysterious Woman who talked to Wilf. Her identity is intentionally left ambiguous, but the production staff are privately of the opinion that she’s the Doctor’s Mum.

This revelation somehow galvanizes the Doctor to action. He turns to point the gun once again at the Master and tells him “Get out of the way.” The Master acquiescing, the Doctor proceeds to shoot the control panel behind him—the one housing the Whitepoint Star.

The Gate begins to fail, and Gallifrey, the Time Lords, and the Time War return to their terrible conclusion, safely behind a Time Lock. The President brandishes his glove, saying that while he may die, the Doctor will as well, to which the Doctor replies “I know.”

At this point, however, the Master tells the Doctor “Get out of the way,” and marches forward, blasting the President repeatedly with Sith Lightning. The Master continues forward into the white light surrounding the President, the Doctor’s Mum, and the other Time Lords, and vanishes along with them into the Time War. You just had to get in that one last noble sacrifice, didn’t you, Davies? (Well, actually, second last …)

Not sure what I really think of all that. Now that they’ve brought him back, I suppose they’ll be resurrecting the Master (still as John Simm) in another season or two. While this is hopeful, it’s ridiculous the number of ways Davies and the New Who team have produced to bring back canonically dead (by their own design no less) characters, ex cathedra from their respective bums. If there are plans—or even vague notions—to bring the Master back again at some point in the future, you’d think someone would come up with the bright idea of not making him so quite definitively dead in the first place.

I suspect that if and when he does come back, the Master will be closer to the somber, moody version of this special than the fun-loving psychopath of “Utopia”/“The Sound of Drums”/“Last of the Time Lords,” which will be a disappointment. Also, I’m really growing sick of the writers holding out the false hope of the Master becoming the Doctor’s companion—a choice which, even with this new brooding Master, would be even more awesome than Jack Harkness as a full-time companion—and then snatching it away with a “nah-ah-ah.” Ye Gods, people, can you really not see that you’re shooting yourselves in the foot here?

Almost finished, intellectual, don’t lose it now, old chap.

Right, sorry. In short, the Master, the Time Lords, Gallifrey and everything else lost in the Time War go back into the jack-in-the-box, leaving the Doctor lying on the floor in Naismith Mansion, still very much alive and barely injured from his several-hundred-foot fall into the building. Cue obligatory moment of hope and celebration when the Doctor realizes he’s survived, followed by obligatory moment of shock and dread when he hears … a knocking sound. I’ll leave it to you to guess how many times the knock is repeated.

It’s Wilf, still trapped in Isolation Chamber #1 and unable to get out. Worse, the Doctor discovers that due to all the various shenanigans of the past several minutes, the Gate has overloaded and is about to dump an obscene amount of deadly radiation into the isolation chamber.

Wilf, trooper that he is, tells the Doctor to leave him to his fate. Instead, the Doctor pitches a hissy fit which serves only to prolong the inevitable and bring the entire viewership together in a spontaneous rendition of that famous Monty Python quote: “Get on with it!”

Finally, the Doctor does what absolutely everybody knew he was going to do anyway—especially since the whole announcement that this would be David Tennant’s last story—dashing into Chamber #2 and slapping the button to unlock the door on Wilf’s side.

The radiation kindly floods all into Chamber #2 rather than both at once. Wilf stumbles out as the Doctor gets the full bombardment.

The radiation blitzkrieg comes to an end and the isolation chamber conveniently loses power. The Doctor retains enough lightness of tone to remark that “Of course, now it chooses to stop working.” At this point, we begin what must be the longest regeneration in all of Time Lord history. The regeneration energy heals the scars he picked up falling through the skylight, but other than that has no visible effect until the very end.

The Doctor leaves Wilf and heads into the TARDIS “to get my reward.” From the following two scenes, I concluded that said “reward” consisted of saving every single companion he’s had on the new series—or someone related to them—from Death by Gratuitous Plot Contrivance.

First, he disrupts the aim of a Sontaran who was about to blast Martha and Micky. In the process, we learn the two of them are married now. Wait—what? What happened to Martha’s previous fiancé, Tom Miligan, or whatever? And not that I totally object to the pairing, but way to pair off the only two black people of consequence on the show, Davies.

The Doctor then pulls Luke Smith—Sarah Jane’s adopted son—out of the street, which he had absentmindedly wandered into despite the speeding car bearing right down on him. Kids, eh?

Next, the Doctor visits Mos Eisely Cantina The Outlander Club from Attack of the Clones an anonymous space bar populated by members of all the major alien races introduced on the new show. One of the bar’s two human occupants is Jack Harkness who—thank goodness—can’t be killed, forcing Davies to break from pattern. Instead he has the Doctor slip Jack a note, informing his friend that the bar’s other human occupant is named Alonso. That’s right, Alonso Frame, the Midshipman from Voyage of the Damned. Told you we’d be getting back to him. The Doctor leaves just as Jack begins to put the moves on Midshipman Frame.

The Doctor follows this up by attending a book signing by the great-granddaughter of Joan Redfern, the woman whom he (as John Smith) fell in love with in “Human Nature”/“Family of Blood.” Why, out of all the possible generations he could visit, the Doctor just so happens to choose the one represented in the very early 21st Century never comes up. Best not to ask.

Penultimately, the Doctor watches Donna’s wedding to Shaun Temple. He gives Wilf—who earlier informed the Doctor of their poor financial situation—a present for the couple: a lottery ticket. The Doctor being a Time Lord and all … yeah, you get the picture.

Last of all, the Doctor stops in on a certain peroxide blonde and her similarly yellow-haried mother, who are apparently on their way back from a party of some sort. Jackie continues on but Rose stops to exchange “hellos” and “Happy New Years” with the Doctor. Upon being informed that this is New Year’s day, 2005, the Doctor tells Rose he thinks she’s in for a great year.

Good choice merely having the Doctor visit Rose earlier on in her personal timeline, rather than breaking down the dimensional walls yet again. She’s obviously still Davies’ special snowflake, but her appearance here was infinitely less annoying than I’d envisioned when ptolemaeus informed me they were bringing Rose back yet again.

The Ood from “Waters of Mars” reappears at this point, and commences singing the Doctor to his rest with a melancholy wail which Davies might as well have lifted straight out of Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings.”

The Doctor makes his way—slowly for maximum melodrama—back to the TARDIS and finally begins to exhibit signs of regeneration energy. In fact, the energy seems to determined to make up for lost time and proceeds to trash the TARDIS’ console room. What? Since when has a regeneration ever damaged the surrounding area? How convenient that this previously unknown phenomenon chooses to manifest at a time when the Doctor is alone, for once.

Oh, and the Tenth Doctor’s last words: “I don’t want to go.” Understandable, but compared with the awesome final speech Davies gave Christopher Eccleston, it lacks a certain je ne c’est quoi

As the inside of the TARDIS burns, the Tenth Doctor regenerates into the Eleventh, Matt Smith. My first reaction was negative: ‘Crikey, but he looks weird.’ Then I watched and listened to him a bit more and … I don’t know, he started to grow on me. He’s still pretty weird, but I can see him as being the right sort of weird to play the Doctor. He also reminds me a little of a young Peter Davison, which doesn’t hurt at all. (Seeing as how Steven Moffat’s taking over the series now, and how the Fifth Doctor is his favorite as well, maybe I’m not the only one reminded of Davison.)

The Eleventh Doctor goes through the usual checking-out-the-new-body routine, before discovering that his console room is still on fire and his TARDIS is about to crash back to Earth, a discovery which he greets with a surprising degree of giddiness. The end.

According to Wikipedia, after writing “I don’t want to go” for David Tennant, Davies turned the script over to Steven Moffat to finish up. Not that there was that much to write, but it’s a nice way to pass the torch. Consequently, however, my last point here goes to Moffat, rather than Davies: when it comes to catchphrases, “Geronimo” is infinitely less cool than “Alons-y.” You are not starting out on the best possible foot here.

So that’s it, “The End of Time.” While hardly the first Doctor Who story to feature an all-white cast, it does bear the dubious honor of being the only story in the new series to have an all-male main cast. Come to think about it, I believe it may be the first story with an all-male cast in the entire history of the show. (No, wait, I tell a lie. I do seem to recall a one-shot episode, “Mission to the Unknown” way back in William Hartnell’s run in the 1960s. Way to do the Time Warp, Davies.)

On the other hand, I give him props for giving the Doctor an over-forty companion for this story who actually survives. That’s a step up from the last special. More points for a plot which is significantly less predictable than mentor mortality in a coming-of-age flick. Sure, the execution was often laughable, but the premise was pretty good—especially for this show—with some pretty neat ideas. But enough with the praise, let’s get back to criticizing.

In my discussion of “The Stolen Earth”/“Journey’s End,” I offered a possible reason why the finales on this show have failed to be epic, despite Davies’ obvious efforts. After watching “The End of Time” I have an alternate proposal: in order to be truly epic, a story needs to have epic consequences. Part of what makes a story epic is the knowledge that after this, nothing is ever going to be the same.

By contrast, the only change to the status quo to come out of any of the finales (including this special as an honorary finale) has been the arrival or departure of this or that companion, or the Doctor’s regeneration. But companions drop in and out of this show and back in again like a confused guest with short-term memory loss, and the regeneration sequence has been a Doctor Who staple since Patrick Troughton took over the show from Hartnell back in ‘66. Each and every finale in the new series has promised epic changes to the status quo, and each and every finale has backed down when it comes to delivering on its promises. Ergo, not epic.

On the other hand, all throughout “The End of Time,” I was reminded of a conversation I had with my mother and my sisters one time when we were driving ptolemaeus to the airport. Somehow, we got to talking about the Pirates of the Caribbean series (back when it was only a trilogy), and ptolemaeus said that the second two—as opposed to the first movie—“weren’t even trying to entertain us.” This seemed so counterintuitive that I had to ask what she thought they were trying to do. Her answer: “They were trying to be epic.”

Obviously, ptolemaeus and I have two very different interpretations of the word “entertain.” What she means is that the second two Pirates movies were trying to be solemn and introspective and deep and meaningful and the like. Whereas Curse of the Black Pearl was all fun and carefree and joyful and about having a jolly good time. She cited the 2009 Sherlock Holmes film and Star Trek|| as two recent examples of other movies which were more about having fun than being solemn and meaningful.

Not that having something important to say is a bad thing. Terry Pratchett often has something to say, Tolkien certainly did, and Melina Marchetta. Can you imagine On the Jellicoe Road as a just-for-fun comedy? It’d be awful. And as you may recall, one of my main criticisms of Star Trek|| was that—unlike every other incarnation of Star Trek ever—it had nothing important to say.

At the same time, I think Star Trek|| and Sherlock Holmes are the exceptions to a trend in Western culture towards obsessing over depth and meaning and tragedy as paragons of artistic quality. It’s what sank the Star Wars Expanded Universe, as I frequently lament. And of course, the plunge in quality of the Harry Potter series can be traced to the precise moment J. K. Rowling started taking herself ultra seriously and decided she was writing something horribly important and meaningful.

I’ve known for a long time that Davies has that particular Kool-Aid running on tap, but it wasn’t until after that conversation with ptolemaeus that I realized the precise nature of the problem. This show would be exponentially better if they spaced all the angst and melodrama and instead focused primarily on having fun. Think about it: the best parts of this show have always been when they let loose and had a blast. The worst have always been when the tried to be Serious and Meaningful.

Admittedly, this essential misunderstanding did not originate with Davies. The old series had its fair share of pomposity and melodrama, but just because other people have made the same mistake previously in no way excuses Davies and company for making it as well.

And I’m not saying they’d have to be apolitical. Just because the examples I’ve given above didn’t have much to say for themselves doesn’t mean you can’t have messages in light entertainment. You can get your point across without beating people over the head with it.

One of the things I’ve always liked about the way Davies has handled homosexuality on this show is precisely the way he keeps it low-key. We have Yuri’s casual reference to his brother’s husband, and even the cat-creature’s homophobia in Gridlock is mostly played for laughs. The first example especially reinforces the point that homosexuality (and by extension, all sexualities outside the heteronormative) are no big deal.

I found this laid-back approach to social commentary infinitely more meaningful and intelligent than the tankerloads of angst and melodrama saturating the new series. (With the occasional exception of e.g. “The Girl in the Fireplace.”)

Jack Harkness is perhaps the epitome of the point. On Doctor Who, he’s just about the greatest thing ever: the life of the party, even when facing imminent death. His omnisexuality is just another facet of his personality and—coupled with his flirtatious manner—serves to make him even more entertaining.

On Torchwood, where he bears the burden of main character, he’s harsh, moody, and generally a stick in the mud, with barely a trace of his original character to be seen. It’s awful.

Unfortunately, I rather suspect Steven Moffat has had a few too many goes at the Kool-Aid as well and will likely continue Doctor Who’s fine tradition of pretentious Meaningfulness. Wonderful.

Overall, this season represented a downslide from the moderate standards set by series three. The eight minute mini-episode at the very beginning was by far the best of the bunch, and not only did series four fail to contain any episodes of comparable quality to series three’s “Blink,” but the ratio of bad episodes to good (or just adequate) episodes is higher. And furthermore, that’s before we factor in the five special episodes, of which the best was merely pretty good. Tune in next time to see if Steven Moffat does any better with series five.

An Unwholesome Vendetta

Happy holidays, everyone. I hope you had a lovely Winter Solstice, and remembered to replace your Mayan calendars yesterday.

Today, I’m talking about V for Vendetta, the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Llyod, which I read and promptly reviewed some three years ago, now. Here’s my review, spoilers included.

Let’s start with the story itself, shall we? The plot is good enough, concerning a rather poncy terrorist in a Guy Fawkes mask and his crusade to bring down a brutal fascist regime in near-future England, killing an awful lot of nominally deserving people along the way. (As a side note, the fascist group in question is known as “Norsefire,” but it’s only named once within the story and I—lazy reader that I am—completely missed the first “r,” leading to a wildly different interpretation. Hilarity ensued.)

The story is compelling, engrossing, and well-plotted, and it’s difficult to pull yourself away in the middle. The characters are beautifully presented and eminently believable. Even the fascist leader is depicted as human and understandable, even if his beliefs are monstrous.

There are many moving sequences, and a couple that just make you shake your head and admire Alan Moore’s writing talent, such as V’s conversation with the statue of justice, and his video address to the people of England, assuming the persona of a company manager and framing human history (the good and the bad) in terms of workers’ performance. Other highlights would be the end of Valerie’s prison letter, and Eric Finch’s drug-induced vision of all the Norsefire regime’s victims. “Oh Jesus, I’ve missed you. I’ve missed your voices and your walk, your food, your clothes, your dyed pink hair. My friends … there at the carnival, the gay pride marches. Say you saw beyond my uniform. Please say you knew I cared. I … Wait … Please don’t leave me. We treated you so badly, all the hateful things we printed, did and said … but please, please don’t despise us, we were stupid. We were kids. We didn’t know. Come back. Oh please come back. I love you.” (I start tearing up just writing this.)

The sexual politics are frankly scary, though. In the first chapter of the first act, our anti-hero rescues a young woman named Evey Hammond from the fascist police, and spirits her away to his underground mansion and part-time funhouse, the Shadow Gallery. Like new housemates everywhere they then go into a protracted period of negotiating the details of their living arrangements: who will do which chores, whether its okay to use each other’s toothpaste, what time is quiet time, and whether the new resident will assist her landlord in his political and personal assassinations. (Answer: Only once, and only because he doesn’t tell her what he’s going to do beforehand.)

After that little incident, Evey insists she will not help V to kill someone ever again. She still doesn’t break her lease, as she has nowhere else to go.

Eventually V turns her loose to fend for herself. She subsequently wanders London for a while, finds an apartment and a lover, loses said lover in a spat of gang squabbling, and gets captured by the London Gestapo just as she’s preparing to shoot the man responsible for her lover’s murder.

In prison, Evey’s jailers shave her head and subject her to various other enhanced interrogation techniques. She draws strength from Valerie’s journal, though, and when the Gestapo offer to reduce her sentence from execution to three years of imprisonment at the cost of her integrity she refuses.

… At which point, she and the reader discover that she was not, in fact, captured and tortured by the Gestapo, but by V. True freedom requires that we conquer our fear of death, and with Evey, V recreated the circumstances under which he himself became free—and psychologically damaged for life, but we won’t go into that.

After this, Evey goes back to living with V. Practically the very next thing we see her do is kiss V on the mouth of his Guy Fawkes mask and thank him for freeing her. It becomes obvious as the story moves forward that she’s fallen in love with him.

Wait, what? He tortures her and then she falls in love with him? This scenario is what turned my sister off of the movie, and it isn’t any better in the original.

I read a conversation on Occasional Superheroine a while ago about disturbing gender politics in Alan Moore’s work. This is the first book of his that I’ve read, but if any of the rest of his stuff is anything like this, you can count me disturbed. Very, very disturbed.

Aside from torturing his young female protégé, V also seems determined not to put the lie to the terrorist label affixed to him by the government. He blows up buildings (we’re never even told if they’re inhabited or not) assassinates several people in-comic, more in the backstory, and shows no compunction against killing other employees of the Norsefire government. Even for someone who advocates “justified violence,” V’s actions clearly go far beyond “necessary” and usually end up somewhere around “you’ve got to be shitting me.”

And, as with Firefly, one gets the distinctly uncomfortable feeling that the text fully supports its protagonist’s brutality. To be fair, the book does point out some of the harm V’s violence causes, and how not all of his victims were horrible people who presumably deserved it. But it doesn’t really give the impression that he should’ve or could’ve done things any differently.

The story’s attitude towards V’s apparent obsession with getting the one-up on Robespierre could best be summarized as: “Sure, it may be bad, but it’s necessary to achieve the greater good. Yes, he has to be punished for it, but after that we’re set.”

This “It’s bad but it’s necessary” idea is an historically pervasive one. Personally, I incline more to the school of thought which posits that if you’re to have any hope of creating a better world, you must employ means which are not incompatible with your ends. I believe history will bear me out on this point. (Speaking of Robespierre, if offing the guy behind the “liberatory violence” was all you needed to break the cycle of violence, the French Revolution would’ve had a very different ending.)

Also, I would’ve appreciated a bit more (read: any) exploration of exactly how V’s violence squares with his anarchist ideals. Check me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t anarchy all about freedom and self-determination and not having some authoritarian git making decisions about your life without your full participation (voting between two or three authoritarian gits =/= full participation in the decision-making process)? And not just “you” personally, but everybody? The logical corollary being that you don’t get to make decisions about anybody else’s life without their full participation? Such as whether you will or will not kidnap, torture, and/or murder them?

If you take that attitude, then Evey does better in this regard. When V offers to show the guy who murdered Evey’s lover his U.S. Army impression, Evey declines. (Harper, the man in question, gets offed by proxy later in the story. Because by golly, if Disney’s taught us anything, it’s that a hero killing a villain is bad, but a villain surviving is even worse.)

Evey makes this decision because she’s a good person. Which is good for her, but it’s a blithering stupid way to run a society. The strong implication is that if she hadn’t been feeling so enlightened, V really would have killed the guy.

As best I understand the theory of anarchy, Evey’s freedom to kill Harper or have him killed must be matched by her responsibility not to do it. Evey must be held responsible not to kill Harper whether or not she’s in a forgiving mood. Otherwise, the whole thing comes crashing down. As Simone de Beauvoir said: “A freedom which is interested only in denying freedom must be denied.” This is not at all the sense one gets from the comic.

And V for Vendetta‘s somewhat dubious relationship with anarchy doesn’t end there. It makes some very good arguments for the desirability of anarchy. When it comes to making a strong argument for the practicality of anarchy though, the story gives up and buggers off for a pint.

V for Vendetta does not show its readers anarchy in action. Now, Moore may argue the whole point of anarchy is that it’s not about any one person’s vision, so that him trying to depict what an anarchist society would look like would be counter-productive. Fair enough. But I’m not talking about “after the revolution.” Many anarchists, I believe, while remaining silent or vague about what a future of anarchy might look like, would still be able and more than willing to point out anarchist trends in society right now.

V for Vendetta eschews such unrefined methods, and opts to deliver its message through the admittedly eloquent speeches of a superpowered clandestine operative who works in secrecy and has taken upon himself the job of waging a one-terrorist war on the fascist regime. He’s also accountable only to himself and his own moral judgment.

Admittedly, this “one man against the world, fighting for the good of humanity” is a romantic image, and an old one. It’s an individualistic image, and a specific kind of individualism. It’s not individualist in the way that anarchy is individualist, but in the way that say, capitalism or despotism is individualist. It’s one lone person taking upon himself the power to make decisions about everybody else’s lives, without their consent or even consultation. It’s not just the Norsefire officials who have no say in what V does, whose freedom he is overriding; it is the common, everyday folk of England whose freedom he claims to be promoting.

Alan Moore has criticized the V for Vendetta movie for downplaying the story’s anarchist message. Ironically, despite its other flaws (many of them carried over from the original) the movie did a somewhat better job than Moore and Lloyd of showing anarchy in action, with Londoners facing down the Gestapo and standing together in solidarity as 10 Downing Street burns. Sure, V is still the murderous, self-appointed Messiah who directs their actions and orchestrates the events, but at least the common people (you know, the ones anarchy is supposed to empower) have a bit more to do in the movie.

If Evey-as-V were to give her lovely pro-anarchy speech to the Londoners in V for Vendetta: The Movie, one could actually come away with the impression that they might pull it off. The useless, selfish slobs in the comic? Not so much.

In closing, I guess I would recommend V for Vendetta for a good story, and one which deals with questions and issues you aren’t likely to find in more mainstream literature. It’s a good read if you can get past the very serious flaws I’ve explored above. If you can’t, I wouldn’t blame you.

Say goodnight, Evey.

Book review: “The Da Vinci Code,” by Dan Brown

A couple of years ago I listened to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code on audiobook to see what all the fuss was about. On the one hand, consensus on the internet seems to be that Brown’s story is shallow, his prose horrendous, and his book at best a guilty pleasure. On the other, Donald Maass cites The Da Vinci Code in his “Writing the Breakout Novel Workbook” as having several strengths writers can learn from.* So my expectations going into the book were somewhat mixed.

*On the third hand, Maass also cites Left Behind in that workbook, so he’s not infallible. On the fourth hand, to be fair, I really should actually readLeft Behind before making judgments about its quality. Just because the theology is terrible and some people on the internet say the writing is awful, I can’t know for sure until I’ve seen for myself.

The following post contains major spoilers for The Da Vinci Code.

The Da Vinci Code tells the story of American symbologist Robert Langdon and French cryptologist Sophie Neveu, as they struggle to solve a puzzle left them by Sophie’s recently-murdered grandfather, Jacques Saunière. Hounded by the French police, and followed by Saunière’s real killer, Langdon and Sophie must unravel a series of puzzles which will lead them to uncovering the greatest secret in history.

This was a good book, and I’m not ashamed to say it. In fact, I’ll go even further: The Da Vinci Code is somewhere between a good book and a great book. At least, it’s somewhere between a good story and a great story.

I know what people say about Brown’s prose, but that’s the sort of thing I can usually skip over, especially when I’m listening to the story on audio. I’ve taken a look at some criticism of The Da Vinci Code’s writing since I read it, and yeah, it’s pretty bad. Hilariously so if you have the right mindset, maddeningly so if you don’t. However, I still maintain that if, like me, you can get past the wretched prose, you’re in for a very good story.

Dan Brown takes a plot that could easily be cliché and dull, and plays it well. Ever found yourself saying “There’s a good story—maybe even a great story—in there, if only the author had brought out its potential”? Brown does exactly that.

The plot is fun and gripping, but what’s a good plot without good characters? Langdon and Sophie are engaging enough, reasonably good thriller heroes. But I often find that a much better indicator of a story’s quality is the way it treats its supporting cast and its villains, and it is here that Brown truly breaks the mold.

A less talented author would simply have depicted Silas and probably Bishop Aringarosa as religious fanatics, trying to hold onto their church, and the power that it represents, at whatever cost. Brown does not succumb to this shortcut. Instead, he presents Silas’ and Aringarosa’s devotion to Jesus’ doctrines of love and pacifism, and Silas’ struggle to reconcile that pacifism with his own use of violence to protect the church—and the greater good it represents, to him.

Brown, while not necessarily agreeing with the Catholic Church, is at least sympathetic and understanding, pointing out that the terrible things it did and does make sense to the church, if not to its victims.

Best of all is his treatment of Sir Leigh Teabing, the Teacher. Personally, I never saw his status as the main villain coming, which is another testament to Brown’s storytelling skill. I had Teabing written off as the lovable, quirky side character who I would be very upset about when he inevitably died sometime later. Rather like Talaan from Matthew Stover’s Heroes Die.

Boy, was I wrong. At the moment of the reveal, though, my heart sank. As soon as I found out that Teabing was the Teacher, I knew it would also turn out that everything I’d known about him had been a lie, that the delightful, eccentric old man I’d grown so fond of over the past half dozen cassettes had been only an act, a mask to disguise Teabing’s own petty, selfish desire for power (via the Holy Grail). Happens even in good murder-mysteries. All. The. Time.

Wrong again. Turns out, he was almost exactly as advertised. True, he was willing to be much more ruthless in the pursuit of what he considers the greater good than I expected, but the character we saw up to the reveal was pretty much the character as he truly was. By the end of the final confrontation, I actually felt kinda bad for the guy—hey, I’ve sympathized with “heroes” who were a lot less noble in pursuing their goals.

Brown does equally well characterizing his police characters, Bezu Fache and Lieutenant Collet.

I don’t know whether to call foul on Brown for his presentation of Fache in the book’s second half: it’s like Brown wants to use him as a red herring, but also wants to cover his ass by providing the alternate explanation before the reveal. When I first listened to the book, I thought he was trying to keep people guessing in scenes which did not include Fache personally, but had given up and all but admitted that Fache was the Teacher in the ones which did include him, which really ticked me off. Now, of course, I know that was all a smokescreen, but I still feel that practically telling the audience “Fache is the Teacher” (while still leaving enough wiggle room to back out of it after the reveal) in some scenes, and then acting like “no you’re still supposed to be guessing” in others is not playing fair with the reader. This is annoying, but I hardly think it ruins the story.

I have a few other quibbles with the book, as I’m sure everyone does with practically any story, but I don’t think they’re worth going into here.

The last point I’m going to address is the alternate history Brown presents in the book. It’s improbable, but it makes for a pretty good story. I’m given to understand that Brown has claimed that all the historical information in the book is accurate, even going so far as to put a disclaimer to that effect at the beginning of the book (which didn’t make it into the audio version). It’s at this point that he oversteps himself, as much of that information is inaccurate or at least hotly disputed. To my knowledge, Brown has cited no further evidence to back up his assertions. While this certainly does not speak well of Brown, I do not see that it detracts from the quality of the book itself.

More serious in that regard is the fact that one of his more villainous characters, Silas, is also an albino. As already mentioned, he’s not a card-carrying evil albino—in fact, I found him quite sympathetic—but that doesn’t necessarily make his presentation a-ok. I’ve heard there may be other issues concerning the depiction of the Catholic Church (or at least Opus Dei) and a couple European nationalities, and I could completely believe it, but I’m afraid I’m not in a good position to make an informed call on any of that.

Still a wonderfully engaging read, sometimes thought-provoking, always entertaining. If you can get by the lamentable prose, The Da Vinci Code is a fair good treat.

Since writing this initial piece, I have also read (read: listened to) both the original Angels and Demons and the second sequel, The Lost Symbol, and some of Brown’s charm has worn off as a result. First, the folks at ferretbrain pointed out some really awful racial politics in the first book which I confess to missing completely when I first read it, but which I cannot at all disagree with. In this regard, at least, Brown appears to have improved with time, in that Silas in Da Vinci is a lot more sympathetic than the Arabic assassin in Angels, while the villain in Symbol is straight Caucasian. Progress, of a sort.

I’ve also found that once you read one Dan Brown book, spotting the villain before the reveal becomes easier and easier. I figured out the one in Angels midway through, and I had the one in Symbol nailed down as soon as his backstory was introduced. With each additional book, I grow decreasingly impressed with Brown’s powers of misdirection.

His characterization is also less impressive to me now. Both Angels and Symbol have some pretty neat characterization, but I wouldn’t throw around words like “spectacular” in that regard. The sympathetic villain in Angels is pretty interesting, but not, for me, as enjoyable as Teabing in Da Vinci, while Moloch in Symbol is just a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

Symbol also bugged me in a number of other ways. Much of the story was still pretty exciting, but a substantial amount of it was dreary, irritating, and at one point even sickening (an over-detailed description of Moloch drowning a supporting character from the victim’s point-of-view).

I still have some fondness for the series, but I wouldn’t call either Angels and Demons or The Lost Symbol a great story, and I probably wouldn’t call them good stories either, which makes me seriously question my original assessment of The Da Vinci Code. But, since I’m not going to go back and re-read it any time soon, this is where my thoughts remain for the present. Later, everyone.

Read this book!: On the Jellicoe Road, by Melina Marchetta

I originally listened to this book on audio in 2009, after reading this glowing review by Kyra Smith of Ferretbrain, who, if anything, understates its merits. I’ve read it twice more since then, and am midway into my fourth read-through. The following is an update of one of a couple of draft reviews I wrote for the book after my first reading three years ago.

On the Jellicoe Road (title shortened in the US and UK to Jellicoe Road for reasons as yet incomprehensible) is the story of Taylor Markham, a student at the Jellicoe School (grades 7-12), a couple hundred kilometers from Sydney, Australia. Taylor has just been chosen to head the Jellicoe students in their annual territory wars with residents of the town of Jellicoe and the cadets who visit every year for wilderness training.

Taylor, however, has enough problems already, what with the pain and confusion surrounding several mysterious events in her past, the recent disappearance of her long-time caretaker Hannah, and the appearance in her dreams of a young boy in a tree who keeps trying to tell her something dire. The discovery that the leader of the cadets this year is the very boy who betrayed her three years earlier complicates the situation even further.

Interspersed with Taylor’s narrative is that of five friends who lived in the area twenty years earlier, brought together by a horrible tragedy on the Jellicoe Road. Their lives, their secrets, their triumphs and their downfalls will shape the fates of Taylor and those she cares about in the strangest and most surprising ways.

The story is extremely complicated, but in the end, all the loose plot threads come together in a rich, majestic tapestry with nary a fray or broken seem in sight.

I will admit that towards the end, I was beginning to figure out several of the book’s secrets before they were revealed, and at least once got mightily annoyed at Taylor for not making a particular connection much sooner. Still, it’s all good, and even at the very end, Marchetta still managed to throw some completely unexpected and deeply satisfying twists my way.

This is a book that you read and then reread and then reread again for good measure, first because there’s no way you’ll pick out all the pertinent details on the first run, and second because the story is so utterly captivating.

The characterization in <i>On the Jellicoe Road</i> is marvelous. Taylor is more than a little messed up (unsurprising, given her history), and often treats the people around her less kindly than they deserve. And yet she does care deeply about other people, and one of the great pleasures of the book is in watching her relationships with the other characters (and theirs with each other) mature and evolve as they grow closer together. Plus, she’s just a lot of fun, and even her more anti-social behavior (like that of the titular character on House) is usually entertaining.

The supporting cast is equally wonderful. They’re so good, in fact, that I can’t pick out just one or two favorites among them, and if I tried to summarize them all I’d 1) be here all night, and 2) spoil an awful lot of the book.

Another thing I should mention is that the story is deeply, incredibly, heartbreakingly sad. But, in a good way.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve ranted about the use of pain and tragedy in fiction as a shortcut to quality. And even when the tragic elements are appropriate to the world the author has created, they often feel unnecessary, only there to spur the protagonist to get off her/his/its butt and get to work already, or to pull the observers’ heartstrings, or to fill the authors’ angst quota.

It therefore came as something of a shock for me, upon reading On the Jellicoe Road to (re-)discover that tragedy can work to make a story better, in the right hands. The hands of Melina Marchetta, for example.

The copious amounts of pain and suffering and loss highlight moments of joy and connection and forgiveness, which are also in plentiful supply. This bittersweet mood runs through the entire book, and the epilogue is unbearably poignant.

I should throw in a word of warning here. While the tragic elements do enhance the story, they might be overwhelming to people (especially young people) who have not already been desensitized to tragedy in fiction. Sad books are not for everyone, so I would encourage anyone thinking of picking up this book to consider carefully whether they can handle this level of intensity before proceeding.

Which is not to say it’s all grim and gloomy. Those elements are omnipresent, and grow more prominent as the story progresses, but as already mentioned, there’s also great happiness and wonder. Additionally, the book is often very funny, with Taylor’s first person narration providing many entertaining observation, and plenty of witty banter among the various characters.

There are occasional flubs and missteps, and I find many of the political viewpoints which crop up highly suspect, but all these concerns are exponentially surpassed by the mastery of the plot, the richness of characterization, and the heartbreakingly beautiful emotional core of the story. All these elements and more make On the Jellicoe Road a towering literary achievement. With the sole caveat of emotional intensity, I give this book my highest possible recommendation.