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. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of  productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.