Robot of Sherwood
Sep. 8th, 2014 08:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
llywelaThis episode gave me cognitive dissonance like whoa
It was a fluffy, funny episode, a deliberate pastiche in the spirit of the 1960s comedy historicals…but it made a number of missteps that made it difficult for me to enjoy it as wholeheartedly as I'd have liked.
The good:
Patrick Troughton! That two-second cameo (a still of Troughton as Robin Hood from the 1950s) made me giggle out loud with glee.
Ben Miller. I enjoyed his roguish Sheriff enormously and never before realised how much he resembles Anthony Ainley, aka the Master of the 1980s. Seriously, if he'd come out and claimed to be the Master, I'd have believed him – this whole scheme was right up the classic Master's street!
The teeny little call-backs and references and parallels to classic era stuff, all over the place this season.
How much fun I'm sure everyone had making this.
The funny. I did enjoy the concept of paying homage to the 1960s comedy historicals and I did appreciate the light-hearted tone. Honestly, in spite of everything I'm about to say, it was funny and I did laugh. Mostly.
The bad:
But, as so often with this era of Who, this episode took an idea and pushed it just that bit too far. Comedy is always subjective, of course, but while this episode may have wanted to pay homage to those '60s comedy historicals, it went about it a little clumsily. It had none of the oh-so witty wordplay of, say, The Myth Makers, and lacked the deftly scripted situational comedy of The Romans. The idea was sound, but required perhaps a rather lighter touch – I've found with many shows these days (Supernatural, I'm looking at you) that when they attempt a comedy episode, the humour is often very forced rather than arising naturally, and this episode was no exception to that, most of the actors taking the opportunity to ham it up whereas a more subtle approach might perhaps have been more effective. Sometimes less is more – I like my humour understated rather than overstated.
Also, this type of comedy episode invariably suffers from paucity of characterisation – it was true in many of the '60s comedy serials and it's true of this episode, and that disappoints me because surely it must be possible to pay homage to the past without repeating the same mistakes? Apparently not. The Myth Makers and The Gun Fighters were probably the worst offenders in '60s Who, and this episode fell straight into the same trap, with one-dimensional characterisation played for parody instead of presenting the characters with a bit of realism and depth…which might still have been okay, if it hadn't been so half-hearted about it, attempting to straddle that divide only to fall between the two stools.
Case in point the first: Robin Hood, who was presented as a pastiche, a romanticised and highly anachronistic figure (ditto all his merry men)…but was then revealed to be a real person in a real situation after all, despite being deliberately presented as an implausible caricature (he has that in common with the Paternoster gang, mind). I understand what Gatiss was trying to do there, the parallel with the Doctor that was being aimed for, but the execution of the concept fell short, for me. It required subtlety and this episode had none, the character needed to be underplayed rather than overplayed – and I'm sorry but having Robin randomly info-dumping his entire backstory on Clara just so we know he has real feelings after all does not equal character depth. It's just hack writing.
Case in point the second: the Doctor. Now, I like this new Doctor. I do. I love how much Peter Capaldi loves his job and I love how much he loves this show and always has. He's having an absolute blast and it shows – heck, he even went in on his day off to watch Daleks being blown up during the filming of last week's episode. I like that this Doctor is gruff and brusque and emotionally detached and socially awkward (although I also feel that a bit too much of his dialogue is still being written in 11th Doctor style rather than allowing him a distinct voice of his own). But I also think there's a danger involved in pushing that aspect of the character too hard without providing much in the way of more obviously appealing qualities to leaven it, especially in these crucial early weeks. And this episode, being a parody, did push it a bit too hard, most particularly in the absurdly juvenile and painfully prolonged willy-waving contest with Robin Hood. The idea of that rivalry was sound, but the execution fell short, it was taken too far for too long and just made the Doctor look stupid.
Although, of course, the main reason the Doctor was made to look like an idiot was to remind us that Clara is always right, which takes us neatly to case in point the third: Clara. If Robin was a parody of the Errol Flynn-type version of the legend, and the Doctor was a parody of his new grouchy self, then Clara was a parody of her off-puttingly perfect self, her perfection exaggerated to the point of absurdity. Now, I don't like Clara. I will freely admit that. Or rather…it isn't that I don't like Clara, even her actions here were all fine, taken at face value (although I'd have preferred it if she'd struggled even just a little before succeeding in all she set out to do). What I don't like is the presentation of the character as a whole, the way she has been written and crafted. I hesitate to use phrases like 'Mary Sue' because they have been so misused over the years – and perhaps a parody episode isn't quite the place to make that judgement – but I really feel it applies here. There is nothing realistic about Clara. She is shaped as an ideal rather than as a person: she's good at absolutely everything she does without even having to try, everyone she meets immediately falls for her, she is never permitted to make mistakes, she's so perfect even the hero of the story can't compete with her and is always wrong while she is always right. Even her flaws are presented as cute quirks rather than actual, you know, flaws. She's practically the definition of a Mary Sue. She's a middle-aged man's ideal of what 'the perfect Doctor Who companion/strong female character' should be – Moffat has admitted that's how he designs his companions, he sits down and asks himself what sort of person would be perfect for the Doctor, what sort of person would want to travel with the Doctor? And Clara is the result: a character carefully assembled from all the elements he believed would make her perfect. The trouble is, he forgot that she also needs to be a person. She never seems to struggle with anything, everything is always effortless for her, but the thing is that it's the struggle that makes a character rootable, it's what engages our interest and empathy; if there's no struggle, there's also nothing to engage with and root for.
I bang on about my preference for the classic series a fair bit and it comes into play again here, I admit, because those characters may not have been well developed, but by heck at least no one tries to sell them to me as perfect in any way. They are all splendidly imperfect, in fact. Most of them are not the sort of person who'd have gone off on these travels by choice, at least initially. That's what makes them interesting to me. It's what gives them an engaging journey as a character, having to cope with being on these travels anyway, learning to rub along with the Doctor, learning what they are capable of, learning to appreciate the opportunity they've been given and to enjoy their travels – perhaps wanting to go home anyway. It's what allowed the wonderful variety of character the classic show enjoyed, far more varied than anything the modern era has offered, because today's companions are crafted for audience appeal, which means they all have to tick particular boxes, while back then it was just 'come up with something new and different'. They worked and struggled for their victories, which gave those victories meaning and value, whether major or minor. If the classic show could give us that, in a time when characters were barely developed at all, how much better should those stories be when told today? Yet Clara can't have a journey like that because she has been 'perfect' from the start - and because modern Doctor Who companions have to have story arcs rather than character stories, and story arcs have a nasty habit of restricting the natural growth of character stories. She disappoints me so much because I want so badly to like her but she's written in a way that makes it impossible. I'm less and less enamoured of Jenna Coleman's acting, too, because I can feel and see her acting, rather than feeling and seeing the character – or perhaps that's the writing again, because instead of being clearly and consistently defined, the character becomes whatever this week's plot requires her to be, which has got to be hard for an actor to get their teeth into. Most of the time, the direction for Coleman seems to be 'act cute, be adorable, make them love you' – there's no substance in that.
And it doesn't have to be that way. I liked Clara in Deep Breath because she was actually allowed to struggle with something, for once, like a real person, and it made such a difference. I mean, sure, that struggle was overplayed – everything is, in this era of the show – but at least it gave me a reason to sympathise with her and root for her.
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd miss Amy and her surliness. There was a lot I didn't like about her story, but at least she didn't come across as Mary Poppins.
So anyway, before this rant goes on any longer, overall I thought this was a fun episode, but one that made a number of mistakes which made it fall short of what it could have been - emblematic of a number of ongoing problems with this era as a whole.
In summary: I think what the show is mostly lacking at the moment is balance. But it's also a vast improvement over seasons 6-7. So...I'll just shut up about the lingering problems, switch off my brain and jump on the fun train. Until next time!
It was a fluffy, funny episode, a deliberate pastiche in the spirit of the 1960s comedy historicals…but it made a number of missteps that made it difficult for me to enjoy it as wholeheartedly as I'd have liked.
The good:
Patrick Troughton! That two-second cameo (a still of Troughton as Robin Hood from the 1950s) made me giggle out loud with glee.
Ben Miller. I enjoyed his roguish Sheriff enormously and never before realised how much he resembles Anthony Ainley, aka the Master of the 1980s. Seriously, if he'd come out and claimed to be the Master, I'd have believed him – this whole scheme was right up the classic Master's street!
The teeny little call-backs and references and parallels to classic era stuff, all over the place this season.
How much fun I'm sure everyone had making this.
The funny. I did enjoy the concept of paying homage to the 1960s comedy historicals and I did appreciate the light-hearted tone. Honestly, in spite of everything I'm about to say, it was funny and I did laugh. Mostly.
The bad:
But, as so often with this era of Who, this episode took an idea and pushed it just that bit too far. Comedy is always subjective, of course, but while this episode may have wanted to pay homage to those '60s comedy historicals, it went about it a little clumsily. It had none of the oh-so witty wordplay of, say, The Myth Makers, and lacked the deftly scripted situational comedy of The Romans. The idea was sound, but required perhaps a rather lighter touch – I've found with many shows these days (Supernatural, I'm looking at you) that when they attempt a comedy episode, the humour is often very forced rather than arising naturally, and this episode was no exception to that, most of the actors taking the opportunity to ham it up whereas a more subtle approach might perhaps have been more effective. Sometimes less is more – I like my humour understated rather than overstated.
Also, this type of comedy episode invariably suffers from paucity of characterisation – it was true in many of the '60s comedy serials and it's true of this episode, and that disappoints me because surely it must be possible to pay homage to the past without repeating the same mistakes? Apparently not. The Myth Makers and The Gun Fighters were probably the worst offenders in '60s Who, and this episode fell straight into the same trap, with one-dimensional characterisation played for parody instead of presenting the characters with a bit of realism and depth…which might still have been okay, if it hadn't been so half-hearted about it, attempting to straddle that divide only to fall between the two stools.
Case in point the first: Robin Hood, who was presented as a pastiche, a romanticised and highly anachronistic figure (ditto all his merry men)…but was then revealed to be a real person in a real situation after all, despite being deliberately presented as an implausible caricature (he has that in common with the Paternoster gang, mind). I understand what Gatiss was trying to do there, the parallel with the Doctor that was being aimed for, but the execution of the concept fell short, for me. It required subtlety and this episode had none, the character needed to be underplayed rather than overplayed – and I'm sorry but having Robin randomly info-dumping his entire backstory on Clara just so we know he has real feelings after all does not equal character depth. It's just hack writing.
Case in point the second: the Doctor. Now, I like this new Doctor. I do. I love how much Peter Capaldi loves his job and I love how much he loves this show and always has. He's having an absolute blast and it shows – heck, he even went in on his day off to watch Daleks being blown up during the filming of last week's episode. I like that this Doctor is gruff and brusque and emotionally detached and socially awkward (although I also feel that a bit too much of his dialogue is still being written in 11th Doctor style rather than allowing him a distinct voice of his own). But I also think there's a danger involved in pushing that aspect of the character too hard without providing much in the way of more obviously appealing qualities to leaven it, especially in these crucial early weeks. And this episode, being a parody, did push it a bit too hard, most particularly in the absurdly juvenile and painfully prolonged willy-waving contest with Robin Hood. The idea of that rivalry was sound, but the execution fell short, it was taken too far for too long and just made the Doctor look stupid.
Although, of course, the main reason the Doctor was made to look like an idiot was to remind us that Clara is always right, which takes us neatly to case in point the third: Clara. If Robin was a parody of the Errol Flynn-type version of the legend, and the Doctor was a parody of his new grouchy self, then Clara was a parody of her off-puttingly perfect self, her perfection exaggerated to the point of absurdity. Now, I don't like Clara. I will freely admit that. Or rather…it isn't that I don't like Clara, even her actions here were all fine, taken at face value (although I'd have preferred it if she'd struggled even just a little before succeeding in all she set out to do). What I don't like is the presentation of the character as a whole, the way she has been written and crafted. I hesitate to use phrases like 'Mary Sue' because they have been so misused over the years – and perhaps a parody episode isn't quite the place to make that judgement – but I really feel it applies here. There is nothing realistic about Clara. She is shaped as an ideal rather than as a person: she's good at absolutely everything she does without even having to try, everyone she meets immediately falls for her, she is never permitted to make mistakes, she's so perfect even the hero of the story can't compete with her and is always wrong while she is always right. Even her flaws are presented as cute quirks rather than actual, you know, flaws. She's practically the definition of a Mary Sue. She's a middle-aged man's ideal of what 'the perfect Doctor Who companion/strong female character' should be – Moffat has admitted that's how he designs his companions, he sits down and asks himself what sort of person would be perfect for the Doctor, what sort of person would want to travel with the Doctor? And Clara is the result: a character carefully assembled from all the elements he believed would make her perfect. The trouble is, he forgot that she also needs to be a person. She never seems to struggle with anything, everything is always effortless for her, but the thing is that it's the struggle that makes a character rootable, it's what engages our interest and empathy; if there's no struggle, there's also nothing to engage with and root for.
I bang on about my preference for the classic series a fair bit and it comes into play again here, I admit, because those characters may not have been well developed, but by heck at least no one tries to sell them to me as perfect in any way. They are all splendidly imperfect, in fact. Most of them are not the sort of person who'd have gone off on these travels by choice, at least initially. That's what makes them interesting to me. It's what gives them an engaging journey as a character, having to cope with being on these travels anyway, learning to rub along with the Doctor, learning what they are capable of, learning to appreciate the opportunity they've been given and to enjoy their travels – perhaps wanting to go home anyway. It's what allowed the wonderful variety of character the classic show enjoyed, far more varied than anything the modern era has offered, because today's companions are crafted for audience appeal, which means they all have to tick particular boxes, while back then it was just 'come up with something new and different'. They worked and struggled for their victories, which gave those victories meaning and value, whether major or minor. If the classic show could give us that, in a time when characters were barely developed at all, how much better should those stories be when told today? Yet Clara can't have a journey like that because she has been 'perfect' from the start - and because modern Doctor Who companions have to have story arcs rather than character stories, and story arcs have a nasty habit of restricting the natural growth of character stories. She disappoints me so much because I want so badly to like her but she's written in a way that makes it impossible. I'm less and less enamoured of Jenna Coleman's acting, too, because I can feel and see her acting, rather than feeling and seeing the character – or perhaps that's the writing again, because instead of being clearly and consistently defined, the character becomes whatever this week's plot requires her to be, which has got to be hard for an actor to get their teeth into. Most of the time, the direction for Coleman seems to be 'act cute, be adorable, make them love you' – there's no substance in that.
And it doesn't have to be that way. I liked Clara in Deep Breath because she was actually allowed to struggle with something, for once, like a real person, and it made such a difference. I mean, sure, that struggle was overplayed – everything is, in this era of the show – but at least it gave me a reason to sympathise with her and root for her.
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd miss Amy and her surliness. There was a lot I didn't like about her story, but at least she didn't come across as Mary Poppins.
So anyway, before this rant goes on any longer, overall I thought this was a fun episode, but one that made a number of mistakes which made it fall short of what it could have been - emblematic of a number of ongoing problems with this era as a whole.
In summary: I think what the show is mostly lacking at the moment is balance. But it's also a vast improvement over seasons 6-7. So...I'll just shut up about the lingering problems, switch off my brain and jump on the fun train. Until next time!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-09-19 02:14 am (UTC)I did quite enjoy this epp aside from the childish fighting between RH and the Doctor. My favorite part was the Sherriff's line, "Next:Derby! Then after that: Lincoln!" Lmao.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-19 05:59 am (UTC)Hahaha, it's funny 'cause it's so true! Also a bit tragic that a cipher like Amy now feels more like a real person than Clara - I never thought I'd miss Amy but I'd take her surliness over Clara's perky perfection any day.
Moffat doesn't write characters as people. He writes characters as 'characters', if that makes sense - I rarely feel Clara is reacting to anything as Clara, she just does and says what 'the ideal companion' should do or say. Bah. I've whinged about this at length already and I don't like being negative.
I didn't think Victorian Clara was particularly realistic as a historical character, but I'd have preferred her over modern Clara. It would have meant making a commitment to telling a character story, though, and Moffat doesn't tell character stories. He uses his characters to tell clever plots.
This episode was funny, but a lot of the humour felt forced - I'd have sacrificed some of that for a bit of depth and a more likeable Doctor and Clara!