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…

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

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

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Now we're all wanted by the CIA. Awesome.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)
(SPOILERS) There’s a groundswell of opinion that Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the best in near 20-year movie franchise. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but only because this latest instalment and its two predecessors have maintained such a consistently high standard it’s difficult to pick between them. III featured a superior villain and an emotional through line with real stakes. Ghost Protocol dazzled with its giddily constructed set pieces and pacing. Christopher McQuarrie’s fifth entry has the virtue of a very solid script, one that expertly navigates the kind of twists and intrigue one expects from a spy franchise. It also shows off his talent as a director; McQuarrie’s not one for stylistic flourish, but he makes up for this with diligence and precision. Best of all, he may have delivered the series’ best character in Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa Faust (admittedly, in a quintet that makes a virtue of pared down motivation and absen…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…