Review: Doctor Who, The Rebel Flesh/Almost People

[ed_rex]

This is the way my fandom ends ...

There comes a point when intentions don't matter, but only results. Now six 45-minute episodes into his second series in charge of Doctor Who, Steven Moffat has this year given us precisely one (count it, one!) episode that was entertaining in and of itself and that didn't insult our intelligence.

I'm not an uberfan — I don't read novelizations or write fanfic — but I've watched a lot of episodes, in black and white and in colour, some of a lot more than once. And I can't recall seeing as consistent a stretch of bad writing, slip-shod plotting and ludicrous mis-characterizations as that which Moffat's run has so far provided us.

The fault this time out isn't Moffat's missing moral compass (see my reviews of the recent Christmas special or this series' two-part opener for my thoughts on that score) but just the remarkable shoddiness of the product.

After being teased into hoping for something better by Neil Gaiman's expert workshop in the fine art of story-telling a couple of weeks ago, "The Rebel Flesh" and "Almost People" (hereafter referred to as "Almost Rebels"), returns us to the inconsistent characterizations and nonsensical plots that have been the Mark of Moffat.

Now I can't bring myself to believe that Steven Moffat actually hates Doctor Who, but the on-screen results of his stewardship make that hypothesis as evidentially plausible as that which posits that he just doesn't understand the fundamentals of story-telling. (It shouldn't need saying, but for the record, I do know Moffat didn't write these episodes — direct responsibility rests with Matthew Graham, from whose keyboard came what was arguably the weakest episode of Series 2, "Fear Her". But Moffat is the show-runner and so ultimately responsible for what appears on our screens.

And what we do see once again leaves us — the viewers, the fans — with two choices. We can ignore the idiot plot in favour of speculations about the none-too-subtle clues About! Future! Episodes! or we can do the hard, unhappy work of picking apart the lousy construct.

(Yes, we could also turn off the set and go for a walk, or catch up as-yet unwatched episodes of Treme, but we are fans; walking away is not something we're willing to do, not yet.

So let's talk a bit about the basics of story-telling (again). Let's talk about such niceties as consistent characterization and internal logic as if they matter — even when slumming in the bastard field of children's science fiction.

(Why yes, I am kind of pissed off. There's cussing and spoilers both behind the link.)

Comments

[jhumor]

You actually missed my point, by a fair bit, so I'll have to get specific:
You'd be surprised how much shows change with something as simple as different producers (Ala Phil Collinson).

In the case of Series 5, EVERYTHING was changed: Head writer, other writers, directors, producers, actors, etc. etc. Heck, even being in HD changed things when you compare "Planet of the Dead" to "Runaway Bride"

So what can you possibly use as a base-line between say "Doctor's Wife" and "End of the World"? Unless you're planning on comparing Doctor Who to everything else out there, which is a bit silly, considering the history and breadth that DW has.

Which is why I suggest to compare Series 5 to 6, you'll have a base-line then to draw your comparisons. Unless you're going to compare each area. And if so? Good luck, because that's gonna take you awhile.

Also, what are you using as your criteria for the different areas, say: "good writing" vs. "bad writing"?

Case in point: the 1997 movie Titanic was a CRAP script. No really, I've read the script. It was crap. But watching the movie you would never know that! (The fact that Titanic won Oscar for Best Movie that year and DiCaprio and Winslet didn't win anything is why I don't watch the Oscars anymore). The actors (and everyone else) took this crap script and made it into something positively BRILLIANT! You would never know how bad that script was without reading it.

My point is: So many elements go into a show, you need know which are the 'good' vs. the 'bad' elements first. Otherwise, how do you tell which element is causing the failure vs. success?

The script remains the same

[ed_rex]

(Okay, sometimes my subject-lines are more cutesy than informative. Onwards.)

So what can you possibly use as a base-line between say "Doctor's Wife" and "End of the World"? Unless you're planning on comparing Doctor Who to everything else out there, which is a bit silly, considering the history and breadth that DW has.

As you do seem to appreciate, for me it all starts with the writing; directing, acting, etc, all can cover a lot of holes, but unless you're talking about improvisation, without a script you've got nothing.

I think if you go back to my recent posts, you'll see that I most am comparing Moffat to Moffat; I've been deliberately shying away from the RTD era simply because so many people will interpret anything I say about him (good or bad) as proof that I'm a hater (or otherwise).

Which I know, doesn't directly address your point.

That's because I think you're missing mine. You suggest I compare Series 5 to Series 6, but I really do see them as a whole, changes of producers or not. With a few exceptions (the Dalek episode, the first part of the Angels diptych, "The Lodger" and "Vincent and the Doctor") I think Series 5 suffered from more or less the same flaws that are ruining Series 6 for me. And honestly, of the episodes I mentioned, only the last one holds up in my restrospective mind's eye..

To make a long story short, I think Moffat is calling the shots more than anyone else and so, if you like what you're seeing on-screen, he deserves the credit and, if you don't, the blame.

You ask how I can tell which elements are the good and which the bad when critiquing a particular production. And there's some truth in that. But when the script makes no sense, when it's characters take stupid or improbable actions simply to serve the plot, and when dialogue intended to be clever or witty just lies there like a stunned cow on an abattoir floor, then I don't need to make excuses for it by blaming a change in the production team or a budget cut.

I have very explicitly compared these episodes with Neil Gaiman's about which I don't think I had anything bad to say, and surely you're not telling me the production department was responsible for the success of "The Doctor's Wife"?

I think I am in fact doing what you're asking me to do (though not only that), and much of Moffat's (or rather, the Moffat-headed) productions simply don't stand up as well-crafted works of drama.

(I recently saw Titanic for the first time, and I agree that the script was pretty bad — maybe not as bad as you thought it was, but pretty bad — and I didn't read it. It was a passable entertainment, though and, you're right, that's because Cameron really knows his way around a Camera, the production values were pretty good, and the principal actors sold their lines very well indeed. But what does that have to do with the crap scripts that are getting made by the Doctor Who gang?)

Re: The script remains the same

[jhumor]

A script is only one component. Which is why I bring up Titanic. Practically every other aspect of it was flawless. The ONLY bad part was script. So, while you call it 'passable entertainment.' To me as someone who's studied this stuff? It was brilliant. Because I could so easily point specific aspects and say "bad script". It was easy to tell what was wrong, when and why.

SM's era is much more murky. Because there are some things that might be director's/actor's choice, but because as you say, the Moff likes control, those might be dictated in the script as well. It is much more difficult to tell where one line ends and the other begins. That's my only point. My problem is I'm personally not interested enough to care enough to sort it for Moff's era.