Skip to main content

Bodies are boring. I've had loads of them.


Doctor Who
Goodbye, Matt

I wish I had some investment in the departure of young shoeface. Back in 2010, if he’d done an Eccleston after his first season, I’d have been sad to see him go. But the nu-Who has become such an uninspired formula by this point, and his performance such a reflective whirl of OTT manic tics and mannerisms, that there’s little left to care about.

Now, if Steven Moffat was going, and Matt Smith staying, I might hold out some hope for the salvaging of the show, and the central character. But he isn’t. He remains at the reins, content in the knowledge that he has two series of identikit manic heroes often spouting identikit dialogue (“It’s Christmas!”).

His once deliriously inventive plotting has now become distressingly tiresome. His female characters, unsurprisingly given all his characters sound the same and not in an enthralling David Mamet way, amount to the same adolescent fantasy (“You clever boy!”) masquerading as progressive empowerment. His box of tricks is empty, but he still can’t let go. He keeps rearranging the parts, but to less and less impact. I’d suggest he’s like a struggling stand-up comedian, desperate to get a laugh, but I’m not sure he really cares. His ideas are now so banal (every episode is a mini-movie!) and so predicated on form over content. Mystery is the key, but he’s never satisfyingly resolved his yearlong mystery arcs; if you confuse and obfuscate enough, the viewer will hopefully forget what was set up in the first place. As long as there are enough whizzes and bangs, enough shouting and franticness and familiar faces or monsters, we should be distracted from the emptiness of it all.

Except awareness of this finally seems to be dawning on the previously infatuated print media. No one seems to have much cared for Season 8 (which turned out to be the anniversary season, one Moffat initially claimed would feature more new Who than ever before – why even lie?).

It’s the first season where I couldn’t single out a couple of standout episodes. I was never a fan of Russell T Davies vision for the show, nor his Doctors (Chris Eccleston was miscast, David Tennant bizarrely decided to play the character as a manic mugging mockney – which in turn has informed the Doctor’s manic mugging persona since), but he could be relied upon to produce something somewhere of worth each season (rarely penned by him, it must be said). I’d liked all of Moffat’s contributions during RTD’s executive producership. It seemed as if he put story first, and companions being besotted with the Doctor would come second.

The casting of the barely-out-of-diapers Smith didn’t seem like a positive omen. But within the first few minutes of The Eleventh Hour I was struck that this seemed like Doctor Who I could enjoy properly again. It wasn’t the “classic” series, but here was a Doctorish Doctor, one who  - despite his youth - was closer to the eccentric demeanour of Patrick Troughton than the flaccid earnestness of Peter Davison. And the run of fifth season stories was varied and distinct. There were bum notes; the inability to write female characters that aren’t archly self-reflexive frequently undermined Karen Gillan’s work, and the “Silence will fall” arc collapsed into an entertainingly giddy but incoherent finale. But in general I was on board; Moffat seemed to care about story, it was only his tendency to show off with his characters, like a class clown who thinks he’s funnier and wittier than he acutally is, that needed work.

 What followed hasn’t exactly sullied the fifth season, but it’s entirely tarnished Smith’s claim on being one of the great Doctors. (After his first year, I would have ranked him behind only Tom Baker and Troughton.)

Rather than learning from his mistakes, Moffat perversely chose to wallow in what didn’t. So he made a virtual co-star of a character only he really seemed to adore (River Song), upped the ante of postmodern gurning and quipping (rendering any notions of suspension of disbelief obsolete) and made Matt Smith an instant caricature of his more expansive quirks (the fez obsession, the physical comedy). Like a bad comedian (appropriate as Moffat’s initial success came as a comedy writer), he couldn’t resist repeating his (perceived) best gags until his audience sat stone-faced. Perhaps if he kept at it they’d come back round and find them funny again?

He resorted to basing his plot arcs on cheats, a big idea that he had no intention of following through with (the Doctor is killed, the Doctor gets married, the Doctor reveals his name, and now – John Hurt is some forgotten Doctor). But, like the boy who cried wolf, he’s failed to deliver one too many times. And then there’s the retconning. What made him revise Silence as Silents for Season Six? Was it pettiness at fans guessing his big secret (it was Omega all along?) or simply that he’d never worked it out in the first place and had such scant regard for viewers that he assumed they’d swallow any old horseshit (the latter, most likely).

Add to that the now de rigueur tropes of deus ex machina endings and the Doctor as saviour of mankind, noble lonely god, etc and you have a series without a life of its own; it’s a facsimile, made to be regarded, but lacking any inherent value.

Some of the individual episodes in the sixth year were strong (The Doctor’s Wife, The Girl Who Waited) but Moffat was generally far more interested in vomiting up the same gags over and over (the comedy Sontaran, who is admittedly sporadically amusing, the lesbian Silurian in Victorian London; are the Victorians she encounters more shocked that she’s a lesbian or a lizard, geddit?)

I’m not anti- comedy in Who; the Graham Williams era is probably my favourite of the show’s original run. But Moffat is so goddam lazy; maybe he’s so egotistical that he believes his own hype (quite possible, given the raves over Sherlock) and doesn’t realise that he’s no longer at the height of his powers. It’s astounding to learn that he actually intended for junior companions Angie and Artie to be regulars aboard the TARDIS until he was persuaded it might not be a good idea by those with a bit of basic commonsense. Where did his delusion come from? Because those Hartnell and Troughton era comic strip companions were top drawer?

With Season Seven, I struggle to come up with a stand-out episode. Moffat only provided one season over a span of two years and none of it proved especially memorable. The lure of a patchily redesigned Zygon (with pointy teeth), John Hurt and David Tennant hasn’t ignited much enthusiasm for the special. Worse, there’s zero enthusiasm for the eventual Season Eight (whenever that arrives). How can there be, with a showrunner who is running on empty?

I’m reasonably sure Moffat will pick a solid actor for the twelfth (or thirteenth?) Doctor, but it’s to no good end if the poor sod is induced to prance like a tit through his every scene. Part of the lustre of the old series was variety; changing producers, changing casts, changing styles. It’s understandable that a consistent visual tone is now sought, but the series is so bereft of ideas that its only option is to immerse itself in the kind of fanwank that spawned The Name of the Doctor. When it feeds of itself to that extent, it’s a harbinger that the days of mass audience appeal may be numbered. After all, this is exactly the path the series went down during the 1980s. 

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the