Review - Doctor Who: The God Complex
Sep. 30th, 2011 09:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ed_rexThe god, complex?
 |
Taken by itself, The God Complex is a mostly entertaining episode, competently-scripted and boasting quite stylish direction.
At least one guest star really shines, none of them bore us, and we're treated to the requisite chills expected of an encounter with the unknown in company of Doctor Who.
But The God Complex comes after three stand-alone adventure in what this viewer, at least, had thought had been advertised as a complex, series-long arc of single story, one that would presumably lead to a climax providing two series' worth of answers to dangling threads.
Does The God Complex deliver as prophesied? Click here to find out — spoilers and opinions as usual, so proceed at your own risk.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-01 04:57 am (UTC)I don't read Moffat's interviews because, quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about what he says outside of delivering me his product. I'm certainly not going to take the time I already don't have to do anything more than watch the series. But from what I see on screen when I watch the episodes, I see a treatment of the series that's more akin to the Classic Series in this regard: The Doctor is front and center and the known, solid quantity. He's what matters. Well, there seems to be a side-step to include some "Aren't Time Lords and regeneration neat?" authorial fan-squealing in the Enigma that is River Song. But in general, the Doctor is the main character and every single companion in Classic Who is there to service the presentation of the Doctor's character. And before the thought "Not Romana! She wasn't like that!" leaps to mind, I'll say "Yes, she was." Think about it. When Romana got to the point she could fend not just for herself, because she could always do that, but for everyone else, she was off into another universe. Before that, she was there to showcase, in her way, the Doctor. So was Ace, who showed us that, individual and independent and strong-willed as you might be, the Doctor can take you and figure out the tragedy at the heart of you and use that knowledge to shape you and make you better than you would otherwise be.
All the companions in Classic Who exist to showcase him the Doctor their ways. And Amy (and Rory, too, as well as River) fall right into that Classic Who companion scheme, with one difference. That difference is that, because modern audiences --- and that includes Moffat --- want an emphasis on character more than story, or at least demand that character and plot be structured in such a way that plot serves to delineate character rather than simply let the characters show bits of themselves in how they react to the storyline), Moffat spends time showering attention on and loving the companions, just as RTD did with Rose (though to much better effect at the time of her introduction and travels with the Ninth Doctor than Moffat has done with Amy or Rory or River). Which causes problems when he then turns around like the middle-aged, rabid Classic Who fan he seems to be and treats the companions like they have no existence beyond saying "Yes, Doctor" and "I don't understand, Doctor" and "All these corridors look the same to me, Doctor." They are there to show how clever and resourceful the Doctor is (I'll grant you that Moffat has seemed to drop the other traditional function of the companions, i.e. to serve a point around which the Doctor can show his cleverness by explaining everything), and everything they do and say and think ultimately comes back to that Classic Who function for Moffat's companions. And I do mean "Classic Who function"; neither Amy nor Rory nor River impact the Doctor and they certainly don't change him the way Rose did Nine (to his benefit) or Ten (to his detriment --- my personal opinion). No. The Doctor is, and Amy and Rory and River show us, through the things they do and think, show us what he is. They don't shape him, which means they don't have full form or substance of their own. If they did, they would shape him.
I'm not so unhappy with Moffat's interpretation of the Doctor as many people are because I never bought into the RTD "make it all emotion and all character all the time, and thank our lucky stars if it works in terms of plot" slant. That's probably because, of all the shows I have watched and go out and seek to watch now, I'm still somehow able to watch Doctor Who with the same attitude I did when I first saw it as a fourteen year old on a rainy Saturday afternoon --- with a mixture of "What the hell is this?" and "Wow, this is neat, and not filled with stuff I'm supposed to aspire to and can't or won't because it's not written in a way that says 'You should want to be/think/look like this', and I don't have to have my feelings wrenched sideways every episode because of they way they treat regular characters I've grown fond of badly every time they show up on screen, and it's fun to watch." I'm cognizant of the fact that my heartstrings are supposed to be pulled by Amy and Rory and everything that's happened to them (from the wedding eve absconding to the loss of their daughter's childhood), but my heartstrings aren't being pulled because I sense that, above all else, their real job is to be a backdrop for the Doctor to come on and save the day. And, yeah, that's simplistic and behind the times, but what can I say? I deal enough with the unsoluble problems of my own and of other people in real life. I kinda like just being able to watch the Doctor come in and put every thing to rights.
These are comments as to a general outlook. On a specific level, I have to say that I dislike introduction of what look like Major Plot Elements that get swept under the rug once they've done the job of tying up the emotions. That's sloppy. It becomes, however, a matter of degree. Too much, I get pissed off. Moffat hasn't reached "too much" for me. Yet.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting review.
ETA: I meant to comment on:
What we actually get, though, is the emotional jolt of a casual acquaintance heading off a couple of week's camping, hardly the stuff of epic poetry.
This is, I think, in keeping with what we've been told about the Doctor in this season and last, most clearly by the Dream Lord in "Amy's Choice" --- the Doctor, besides being a liar, is fickle. And irresponsible. And, in the end, you can't depend on him for the mundane, day-to-day things. He won't be there for his companions when it comes down to lending them his car or helping them mow the lawn. This is the way the Doctor has always been. And while it's an ass-backwards way of a fan showing his love for the Doctor, it's still love (Moffat sees the Doctor's less than stellar qualities and still loves the character enough to show us his warts). And, once again, it's the companions' job to show this aspect of the Doctor's way of being.
Wildly different view, same facts
Date: 2011-10-02 12:29 am (UTC)Specifically with Amy, it seems that there has been an expectation that she will Be Something, that She Will Matter, rather than being simply the Doctor's companion.
For me, at least, the expectation was there because the damned program kept telling she was Special and Important.
I actually blame the phenomenon on RTD. He used the idea of the Special Companion to very good effect with Rose, and then couldn't let it go. So Martha, after a series in which she mostly did love-lorn pining went and Saved the World, then Donna was The Most Important Woman In the Universe (I believe that's a quote, come to think of it).
It sets up this ridiculous and thus far never-ending expectation that each companion is going to be More Fabulous than the next and by now it's completely screwed up Moffat's ability to just, y'know, tell stories.
I'm glad you brought up classic Who, because one thing they got very right was that the companions usually weren't terribly Special. Oh, they tended to be smart, they were almost always brave (or at least plucky), but they served as audience identification characters, as I think you you implied.
Where I disagree is your contention that the emphasis in classic Who was usually on the Doctor. "He's what matters," you said.
I don't think so, not when the show was clicking. The story was what mattered, the adventure was what mattered. That is to say, the Doctor as a psychologically complex person was not front-on-and-centre.
The Doctor was the magical catalyst, which allowed the story to happen, and the companion(s) served to bring that story down to a human (child's) level.
Is was a formula that served a never-ending adventure story very well.
Typically, the companion would learn important things about her (sometimes him) self, and then go off, presumably all the better for the experience. The Doctor, even with the regenerations, was essentially unchanged, though of course his surface characteristics would change,
[Romana] was there to showcase, in her way, the Doctor. So was Ace, who showed us that, individual and independent and strong-willed as you might be, the Doctor can take you and figure out the tragedy at the heart of you and use that knowledge to shape you and make you better than you would otherwise be.
I disagree, on both counts. Romana was unusual in that she was a Time Lord herself, which allowed her to play off the Doctor in a way other companions couldn't, but (again), the story was front and centre, not the characters, as characters are understood in 20th century literature.
Things were different with Ace, but I saw Ace as the star of her run. It was Ace who learned and Ace who change, Ace who celebrated and Ace who suffered. There was an attempt to bring Ace into a 3-dimentional actuality, but the Doctor was still the Doctor.
I am largely in agreement with your assessment of Moffat's version, though. But in fact, I think I blame Davies.
By turning Rose's story into a love story as well as a bildingsroman he was forced to humanize the Doctor — as a love story when the object is a cypher is going to be dull indeed. He got away with it brilliantly during Nine's run and then, almost miraculously, pulled off the trick again during 10's first year, but after that the wheels come off.
The problem with a "human" Doctor is that his life is more or less unimaginable to us. A real Time Lord would be so far beyond us that we would be unable to understand him at all, let alone related to him as just some cool guy. (Similarly, I simply don't except Rory's 2,000 years. Sorry. Couldn't have happened. And if it did, Rory would not still be in love with 20-something Amy Pond, no way, no how.)
But I digress.
Humanizing the Doctor is the big mistake and I think that at least in part explains the weird missing arc from much of Series 6 — Moffat realized there was no where else to go with the damned thing. The Doctor has become too powerful, too important to time and space for him to come up something to outdo what came last year. I mean, how how you out-do rebooting the entire universe?
And Davies fell into that trap too.
After Rose's "death" at the end of Series Two, he started to try to out-do himself, instead of just telling stories and trusting things to fall out right.
So we had Donna "saving the world" (and all of Time itself! Or course) at the climax to Series Three (which also, note, needed to "reboot" things as a (lousy) resolution), and then Donna of course had to be the "most important woman" in the universe, instead of just a human being lucky enough to spend some time travelling time and space with an enigmatic and charming alien.
This is, I think, in keeping with what we've been told about the Doctor in this season and last, most clearly by the Dream Lord in "Amy's Choice" --- the Doctor, besides being a liar, is fickle. And irresponsible.
Maybe so. But to my mind, it's less that he is fickle or irresponsible as it is that he is badly-written. He's fickle because Moffat doesn't know what to do with him. I rather suspect his instincts are telling him that this "human" Doctor is a mistake, a dead-end, but he's promised this Big Love Affair (or Something) with River Song &ct &ct, and he doesn't know how to deliver.
Mark my words, tonight's episode is going to suck.
But maybe, just maybe, he'll pull back next year, and give us an enigmatic Doctor having some adventures that don't have the universe hanging in the balance every week, and maybe, just maybe, next year will be wonderful again.
Re: Wildly different view, same facts
Date: 2011-10-02 01:50 am (UTC)Yeah, these things unfortunately happen when meetings are supposed to get underway and I'm waiting for everyone. And waiting. And waiting. Sorry about that.
For me, at least, the expectation was there because the damned program kept telling she was Special and Important.
Ah, no, I phrased that badly. I didn't mean to imply that there was no such message of Special Importance from the entire production team. There most certainly is such a message being bull-horned at us. I also agree with you that it all started with RTD, although (and as much as I loathe to cut that man any slack at all) I think that it's unfortunately an invention of "modern" (i.e. 21st century) entertainment to have the focus on characters in a way that's always making them face an emotional crisis, or turning point, or revelation. And it isn't just that this is what the production teams give us, it's that it's what audiences in general (oh, sure, there are exceptions, such as you, apparently, and others I've seen out there who make comments similar to yours, and definitely such as me) want. It's either schadenfreude, or sadism, or "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude, or just some weird inability to form an interest in a character unless he or she always being buffeted on all sides by a giant, angst-producing shitstorm. Which makes me think of those papers I read in college about how sociopaths need extra stimulation to feel anything, but that's a tale for another day.
Where I disagree is your contention that the emphasis in classic Who was usually on the Doctor. "He's what matters," you said.... The story was what mattered, the adventure was what mattered.
It is indeed, and again I phrased it badly. I am actually much more in agreement with you than it seemed from my comment, I see now that I"ve perused it in e-mail format (always helpful to see how I totally screwed up saying what I meant to say). In my haste to hammer my point into the ground, I overstated that point. I do think that the companions of Classic Who were there to showcase the Doctor in the sense that they there for him to explain things, but everyone --- companions and Doctor --- where there to tell a story. Yes, the Doctor saved the day, but what was the focus was the trouble wherever it was he landed, and how he went about helping to solve it. Even the Doctor's characteristics were let out slow in furtherance of (or perhaps more of a side-effect of) the stories. On the surface he looked heroic (rightly so, for a show targeted at children); it took an older eye watching over the course of all the seasons to realize, for instance, that the Doctor is irresponsible because of the way he comes in and solves crisis but never hangs out for what looks to be a long, hard clean-up. And thank goodness that, in those days, the story was more important than showing that the Doctor is irresponsible in that way. Now, and including RTD's turn at bat, that focus is by the wayside.
He's fickle because Moffat doesn't know what to do with him. I rather suspect his instincts are telling him that this "human" Doctor is a mistake, a dead-end...
I do agree that Moffat seems to be showing progressing signs of having lost the faith about humanizing the Doctor. It's probably the one thing that I see that actually makes me have a bit of faith in him. But, as you say, he can't pull back now, not when he already started down the path that RTD blazed for him --- which, let's face it, he couldn't have avoided walking down even if he wanted to.
(Funny, but I just had a discussion about Logopolis and how that story featured a "really bad" crisis --- the threatened end of the universe. Nowadays, that happens every week, and it actually does happen! It's a wonder Eleven doesn't throw up his hands and say "I've had it with everything. You none of you know how to not destroy all of existence," and go live in a cave.)
Re: Wildly different view, same facts
Date: 2011-10-02 02:07 am (UTC)It's a wonder Eleven doesn't throw up his hands and say "I've had it with everything. You none of you know how to not destroy all of existence," and go live in a cave.
"The Cave of Doctor Who"? Well, it worked for Doctor Moreau and his island, didn't it? Maybe you're on to something ...
Re: Wildly different view, same facts
Date: 2011-10-08 04:25 pm (UTC)As I said in my introduction to my latest review, I went and plagiarized myself!