![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was planning to write a calm analytical thing about the episodes I've seen of the Seventh Doctor so far (in order: appalling; better; terrible, apart from Rachel, and: not up to much), but then came last night's story: Remembrance of the Daleks - and, wow! Is that a stunner!
Writing, special effects, plot, themes, possibilities, acting, references.... far and away the best so far, and one of the best Classic Whos I've seen.
It started with a huge plus, though - no more screaming Mel! But actual real live Ace, strong, open-hearted, clear-eyed, zesty, her own woman. I like her very much indeed!
I like her off-handed setting aside of the Doctor's name for himself, which wonderfully (and unconsciously) undercuts his smugness.
I like her be-prepared back-pack (and wondered if she was in that line a development from Rachel in 'Delta and the Bannermen').
I like her desire to be where the action is.
I like her total rejection of racism (even if the story itself tends to suggest optimistically that racism is something simply outgrown by 1987), and most of all
I like her questioning, and recognition of moral complexity -"we did good?" she queries, at the end of the story- and it's not at all clear that they have. (I think this is the first time the Doctor is written as recognising such a possibility. Have I got that right?)
The Doctor's character has been wonderfully and intelligently developed from the earlier episodes. The pantomime/clown aspects remain (the running while clutching wildly at his hat and umbrella, and skidding around corners, the kicking wildly when hanging from a rope) but there's a whole underlying darkness coming into focus. He's unpleasantly patronising, contemptuous of humanity, angry at power-hunger and murderousness, but willing to kill in pursuit of what might be a greater future good. There was so much here that I recognise from earlier Doctors, and also so much which returns later in the 2005 series. (The undertaker! The enigmatic child!) I'm wondering now why something so good faltered and died later in this Doctor's doctorship. Puzzle still to be unravelled.
There's lots of fun reference to earlier Doctors, too, and they're cleverly done - very cleverly done - including unmissable references to the Brigadier and to Mike Yates.
But not the Brigadier (or Mike Yates) as we have known them; as I read it, the story's in an alternate universe. (Elementary googling shows up that there's several novels written which have this Brigadier-figure in the same universe as the other Brigadier-figure; but for me canon is what's televised - all the rest is fanfic).
I'm betting that an alternate universe's what the writer first had in mind, anyway. The Doctor calls him "Brigadier", recognises him as the Brigadier; ergo, that man really is the Brigadier, even if with a name change -- and that is Mike Yates -- but in that 1963, not in the timeline in which the Second Doctor will meet an alternate Brigadier in 1968. and that being so, interesting questions are raised - both Mike Yateses fracture under stress; is the propensity to fracturing inbuilt, therefore? Does what anyone does, make any difference? How can we know the consequences of action, or of inaction? (These questions are raised more than once during the episode.)
Oh dear, this is getting long. But it was a terrific story - so much thinking in it! and strong women, intelligent women (including a Liz Shaw-like scientific advisor, whose name, Rachel, made me wonder at first if she was the earlier Rachel - but no, there was only a four-year gap - not long enough for that Ray to reinvent herself as mature scientist). There was an actual speaking black character, discussing slavery and alternate universes (obliquely) with the Doctor, and there was reiterated consideration of racism and its effects (including a quick survey of Dalek racial purity activism).
I thought it was beautifully balanced as a story for children that didn't treat them as a class to be either lectured (see: 'Time and the Rani'), or soothed with pap (see: 'Delta and the Bannerman", which had good points, but skated right past some horrors and some serious sadness in favour of a very questionable happy-families ending.)
Writing, special effects, plot, themes, possibilities, acting, references.... far and away the best so far, and one of the best Classic Whos I've seen.
It started with a huge plus, though - no more screaming Mel! But actual real live Ace, strong, open-hearted, clear-eyed, zesty, her own woman. I like her very much indeed!
I like her off-handed setting aside of the Doctor's name for himself, which wonderfully (and unconsciously) undercuts his smugness.
I like her be-prepared back-pack (and wondered if she was in that line a development from Rachel in 'Delta and the Bannermen').
I like her desire to be where the action is.
I like her total rejection of racism (even if the story itself tends to suggest optimistically that racism is something simply outgrown by 1987), and most of all
I like her questioning, and recognition of moral complexity -"we did good?" she queries, at the end of the story- and it's not at all clear that they have. (I think this is the first time the Doctor is written as recognising such a possibility. Have I got that right?)
The Doctor's character has been wonderfully and intelligently developed from the earlier episodes. The pantomime/clown aspects remain (the running while clutching wildly at his hat and umbrella, and skidding around corners, the kicking wildly when hanging from a rope) but there's a whole underlying darkness coming into focus. He's unpleasantly patronising, contemptuous of humanity, angry at power-hunger and murderousness, but willing to kill in pursuit of what might be a greater future good. There was so much here that I recognise from earlier Doctors, and also so much which returns later in the 2005 series. (The undertaker! The enigmatic child!) I'm wondering now why something so good faltered and died later in this Doctor's doctorship. Puzzle still to be unravelled.
There's lots of fun reference to earlier Doctors, too, and they're cleverly done - very cleverly done - including unmissable references to the Brigadier and to Mike Yates.
But not the Brigadier (or Mike Yates) as we have known them; as I read it, the story's in an alternate universe. (Elementary googling shows up that there's several novels written which have this Brigadier-figure in the same universe as the other Brigadier-figure; but for me canon is what's televised - all the rest is fanfic).
I'm betting that an alternate universe's what the writer first had in mind, anyway. The Doctor calls him "Brigadier", recognises him as the Brigadier; ergo, that man really is the Brigadier, even if with a name change -- and that is Mike Yates -- but in that 1963, not in the timeline in which the Second Doctor will meet an alternate Brigadier in 1968. and that being so, interesting questions are raised - both Mike Yateses fracture under stress; is the propensity to fracturing inbuilt, therefore? Does what anyone does, make any difference? How can we know the consequences of action, or of inaction? (These questions are raised more than once during the episode.)
Oh dear, this is getting long. But it was a terrific story - so much thinking in it! and strong women, intelligent women (including a Liz Shaw-like scientific advisor, whose name, Rachel, made me wonder at first if she was the earlier Rachel - but no, there was only a four-year gap - not long enough for that Ray to reinvent herself as mature scientist). There was an actual speaking black character, discussing slavery and alternate universes (obliquely) with the Doctor, and there was reiterated consideration of racism and its effects (including a quick survey of Dalek racial purity activism).
I thought it was beautifully balanced as a story for children that didn't treat them as a class to be either lectured (see: 'Time and the Rani'), or soothed with pap (see: 'Delta and the Bannerman", which had good points, but skated right past some horrors and some serious sadness in favour of a very questionable happy-families ending.)
