Comments on: Matthew Graham’s Doctor Who: Fear Him? http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2011/05/23/matthew-grahams-doctor-who-fear-him/ Responses to Media and Culture Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:35:04 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.5 By: Matt Hills http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2011/05/23/matthew-grahams-doctor-who-fear-him/comment-page-1/#comment-88902 Wed, 25 May 2011 10:32:27 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=9412#comment-88902 Thanks, Derek, I agree there’s definitely an ‘old school’ Holmes or Boucher feeling to this story. I still find it hard to believe that no-one in the production office raised an eyebrow or two about one half of Monastic Productions using a monastery as his (unlikely) story setting, though! And on the subject of TARDIS-as-pub, I must admit I read the Doctor’s unease as being more about his concern for Amy rather than the recreational activities. But equally, I’ve now seen fan readings arguing that this sequence carries textual authenticity, as it harks back to the Hartnell era and a sense of the Ship as a real living space. So for some highly intratextual readers, the scene is very much a marker of ‘real’ Who rather than something at all out of character — a case of Time and Relative Decodings in Space! I’m also a little troubled by Amy’s pregnancy — having spent S5 making the companion’s life/background a narrative problem, Moffat promptly repeats the device in S6. I can’t help but feel that Amy’s character may be better served by her not continually acting as an arc cipher?

]]> By: Derek Kompare http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2011/05/23/matthew-grahams-doctor-who-fear-him/comment-page-1/#comment-88635 Tue, 24 May 2011 14:31:54 +0000 http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/?p=9412#comment-88635 Intriguing take on this episode. I think you’ve nailed Graham’s author-function here, which is also of course resonant with LoM/AtoA, i.e., what/who is “real”? There’s also the constant generic (both culturally and industrially speaking) dichotomy of “talk” vs. “action,” one of fiction’s original “us” vs. “them” constructions. While we could certainly envision an episode where the scene in the dining hall goes on and on and on, and the concept of doubling explored more fully, this is Doctor Who, and stuff has to go zip, bang, kaboom, and VWORP before too long. Accordingly, I not only forgive the knowing nods to all sorts of influences; I embrace them.

While it clearly has a “new Who” core, this story also felt to me like some lost Holmes and Boucher confection circa 1976-77, with a classic creepy setting, truly disturbing monsters, fairly unpleasant guest characters, and an oddly reckless, know-it-all Doctor. And that’s a good thing! In the original, though, the Doctor lost his scarf to the acid, Sarah was the one consoling Jennifer, and the Gangers all had a lovely orangey CSO glow around them.

As for the console room becoming a pub, it’s clear the Doctor’s not quite comfortable with it, and is only indulging Amy and Rory to keep them entertained (or more precisely, distracted from his concerned probing of Amy’s uterus). That is, it is clearly “out of character,” as you put it. The Doctor hasn’t been truly blokey since “Doomsday,” and for good reason. Compare the Doctor giddy about seeing Ian Dury with Rose in “Tooth and Claw” with this one frowning at the console while his companions relax. He just gets into (more) trouble if he gets too close.

]]>