"What will you be?"
Jun. 23rd, 2008 12:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
khaosworksAnd here we are at the 11th episode of this season, Turn Left, which is the equivalent of Utopia from Series 3: that middling to so-so story that only picks up speed in the last five minutes or so, or in this case the last ten seconds or so. This is a prologue to the mega-crossover Infinite Secret Crisis War that will be the two-part season finale.
Unlike Utopia, however, the end of this was more of a teaser and a mystery than the pure awesome exuded by Derek Jacobi and John Simms. On the other hand, as befits a Davies-penned episode, the human element was very present in his portrayal of a standard SF trope: the inevitable alternate universe episode, seen at least once in nearly every science fiction series that's run long enough to make it this far. And sometimes not even then: Stargate SG-1 did it in its first season. Catherine Tate shows more of her acting chops, and while she's convinced me that Donna's a good companion and does the shrill thing a bit better than Tegan (who always came off as whiny, not strong), I think the contingent of people who hate her will never be convinced in any case.
But here's the problem. Here's two problems. The first one, that the episode is filler and we've seen it all before, isn't as big. As filler goes, it's actually more substantial than Utopia was, and the whole supporting cast - not just Tate - do admirably without Tennant around. You can complain about unoriginality about the trope, but on one hand, eventually every damn long-running series gets around to doing it anyway. On the other hand, the original idea for this episode, with the Doctor MIA and the companions Sarah, Rose, Martha and/or Donna having to save the universe without him, might have been a lot more interesting. But this is minor. My bigger problem with the episode is this: it isn't science fiction. It's fantasy.
Oh, you might argue that Doctor Who's science is dodgy anyway, but that's not what I'm talking about. Plot holes aside, there's always been a sense of consistency, of story logic behind Doctor Who, and one based if not on real science, on some degree of technobabble that assures the audience that there is some kind of cause-effect going on underneath it all, even if it boils down to "timey-wimey". In this episode, the plot holes are gaping, and Davies all but abandons any pretense of wanting to explain it away, and concentrates on just doing what he wants.
But more on Turn Left, after the cut.
Turn Left's basic conceit, that the universe can turn on small decisions - basically, the "for want of a nail" theory, is basic enough, and Davies is using it to underscore the importance of Donna. But the truth of the matter is, Davies doesn't really need to. We've already had a Companion as God scenario in Rose, and on one level this seems like another trope repetition. On another level, one suspects that Davies is not just trying, but insisting on a humanistic interpretation of Doctor Who.
I admit I'm struggling with a way to express this without sounding as if I completely hate what he's doing or saying that it's an invalid interpretation. For most of the series' history, we've had the Doctor as the main character, and while the Companion was created as the point-of-view character, the focus of the series has never really been from the Companion's viewpoint as such: the main role of the Companion is to provide a means for the viewer to relate to the series as well as to ask all the right questions so the Doctor can exposit and look very clever. Liz Shaw put it best (albeit off-screen): all the Doctor needs is someone to hand him his test tubes and tell him how clever he is.
The new series, however, for the last three seasons, has been hammering it into our heads (and this becomes more and more obvious as you look over Davies' tenure as a whole) that the Companion is also important, that they have lives, that they have significance, and that the Doctor is incomplete without their presence (The Deadly Assassin notwithstanding). That's all fine and good, but Davies has been overcompensating: it's not enough for him that the Companion is important, it's getting to the point where the Companion is becoming critical, and that's what Turn Left is all about. Rose was critical because she was Bad Wolf. Martha was critical because she was John the Baptist while the Doctor was locked up. And now Donna is critical because without her, the Doctor would have stood around like an idiot and drowned.
Yeah, I know that last one sounds harsh, but that's what Turn Left is telling us to swallow. The divergent point isn't that Donna turned left or right, but that nobody was there to tell the Doctor to "Leave now because the Thames is emptying into the tunnels, please."
Davies likes this "Companion is Important" or that "Humans are Important" theme. He really does. Where the classic series was content to let the Doctor wax poetic about how indomitable the human race is (The Ark in Space) or occasionally remark about how humans are his favourite species, Davies lets the humans do the heroic things. Now, unlike say,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
smallship1, I don't think this is out of malice or hatred of the Doctor: I just think that he's so in love with the novelty of the concept (which in Series 1 it was) that he's returning to it again and again. So Rose saves the universe, Martha saves the world, Donna is so brilliant that whole alternate universes coalesce around her, Jabe sacrifices herself, Gwyneth sacrifices herself, Pete Tyler sacrifices himself, Rose sacrifices herself, Kath McDonnell sacrifices herself, River sacrifices herself, Luke Rattigan sacrifices himself, Nameless Hostess sacrifices herself, Donna sacrifices herself in Turn Left... we begin to see a pattern (I'm not counting Jenny's sacrifice because that didn't really resolve the story). That's a lot of sacrifices to save the day in just 37 episodes. And to disagree with the Eighth Doctor, I don't think I'm seeing something that's not there.
Now, as I said, I'm not saying this is an invalid approach. But it's laying it on too thick, and it gets us further and further away from what the focus of the show should be (which is, surprise surprise, the Doctor), and leads to more and more irritation from people likesmallship1. I don't agree with all that he says, but I do understand some of it, and some of his objections are not entirely off base.
But I digress. Back to my original thesis: how is Turn Left not science fiction but fantasy? Because in the end, what makes this divergent universe happen? Does this divergent universe even happen in the first place or is it just in Donna's head? What, in the end, was the point of this divergent universe? The great ending, with the ominous "Bad Wolf" repeated over and over again distracts you from examining Turn Left too closely, but when you do, you realize the entire episode doesn't really make sense.
Is that little bug actually changing history (that's one powerful bug, and dangerous)? How does that happen? If Donna's history is changed, then how does she end up in that fortune teller's hut to change history since she never ends up with the Doctor (paradox alert!). It's probably not in her head, because if it is, then how does Rose end up there and why is it so important that Rose ask her to change it back? More bizarrely, why does Rose tell the dying Alt!Donna to pass on the message? Doesn't Donna die? How does that memory and consciousness pass on to the other Donna? And why such a useless and non-specific piece of information as "Bad Wolf" when she could say, for example, "[Big Bad Villain] is coming"? What, ultimately, is the point of Donna's little side trip? She learns virtually nothing and it has no effect on the universe at large, since "Bad Wolf" shows up anyway, rendering Donna's passing on the message superfluous. It might actually make a bit of sense if this is all about Rose's jealousy and she's just screwing around with Donna and getting some sadistic pleasure by watching her die... but when I sit back and look at it, I do come out wondering, "So what?"
There are more plot oddities, but these are the major ones that don't fit the time travel/alternate history logic, and the memory transference can only really be explained by the magic of plot necessity. Oh, I could probably come up with something, but the point is that it's not at all apparent given the rules of the game set up in the episode... and Davies adroitly doesn't even set any rules so he can do anything. Science fiction has rules grounded in rationality, fantasy tends to dispense with them or reduce them to side issues, and these plot points are so central to the episode that to leave their basis or workings so vague is to really take it out of science fiction and into fantasy. And this is the first time I can sincerely say that this takes it out of bounds of what Doctor Who's about.
Some of the above questions may be explained next episode, but I'm laying bets that most of it won't because Davies will be too busy orchestrating the big booms. I'm confident we'll find the climax of Davies' tenure thrilling, and I'm sure the directing and acting will be top notch, but like nearly all of Series 4, I'm afraid it'll be an empty confection.
Unlike Utopia, however, the end of this was more of a teaser and a mystery than the pure awesome exuded by Derek Jacobi and John Simms. On the other hand, as befits a Davies-penned episode, the human element was very present in his portrayal of a standard SF trope: the inevitable alternate universe episode, seen at least once in nearly every science fiction series that's run long enough to make it this far. And sometimes not even then: Stargate SG-1 did it in its first season. Catherine Tate shows more of her acting chops, and while she's convinced me that Donna's a good companion and does the shrill thing a bit better than Tegan (who always came off as whiny, not strong), I think the contingent of people who hate her will never be convinced in any case.
But here's the problem. Here's two problems. The first one, that the episode is filler and we've seen it all before, isn't as big. As filler goes, it's actually more substantial than Utopia was, and the whole supporting cast - not just Tate - do admirably without Tennant around. You can complain about unoriginality about the trope, but on one hand, eventually every damn long-running series gets around to doing it anyway. On the other hand, the original idea for this episode, with the Doctor MIA and the companions Sarah, Rose, Martha and/or Donna having to save the universe without him, might have been a lot more interesting. But this is minor. My bigger problem with the episode is this: it isn't science fiction. It's fantasy.
Oh, you might argue that Doctor Who's science is dodgy anyway, but that's not what I'm talking about. Plot holes aside, there's always been a sense of consistency, of story logic behind Doctor Who, and one based if not on real science, on some degree of technobabble that assures the audience that there is some kind of cause-effect going on underneath it all, even if it boils down to "timey-wimey". In this episode, the plot holes are gaping, and Davies all but abandons any pretense of wanting to explain it away, and concentrates on just doing what he wants.
But more on Turn Left, after the cut.
Turn Left's basic conceit, that the universe can turn on small decisions - basically, the "for want of a nail" theory, is basic enough, and Davies is using it to underscore the importance of Donna. But the truth of the matter is, Davies doesn't really need to. We've already had a Companion as God scenario in Rose, and on one level this seems like another trope repetition. On another level, one suspects that Davies is not just trying, but insisting on a humanistic interpretation of Doctor Who.
I admit I'm struggling with a way to express this without sounding as if I completely hate what he's doing or saying that it's an invalid interpretation. For most of the series' history, we've had the Doctor as the main character, and while the Companion was created as the point-of-view character, the focus of the series has never really been from the Companion's viewpoint as such: the main role of the Companion is to provide a means for the viewer to relate to the series as well as to ask all the right questions so the Doctor can exposit and look very clever. Liz Shaw put it best (albeit off-screen): all the Doctor needs is someone to hand him his test tubes and tell him how clever he is.
The new series, however, for the last three seasons, has been hammering it into our heads (and this becomes more and more obvious as you look over Davies' tenure as a whole) that the Companion is also important, that they have lives, that they have significance, and that the Doctor is incomplete without their presence (The Deadly Assassin notwithstanding). That's all fine and good, but Davies has been overcompensating: it's not enough for him that the Companion is important, it's getting to the point where the Companion is becoming critical, and that's what Turn Left is all about. Rose was critical because she was Bad Wolf. Martha was critical because she was John the Baptist while the Doctor was locked up. And now Donna is critical because without her, the Doctor would have stood around like an idiot and drowned.
Yeah, I know that last one sounds harsh, but that's what Turn Left is telling us to swallow. The divergent point isn't that Donna turned left or right, but that nobody was there to tell the Doctor to "Leave now because the Thames is emptying into the tunnels, please."
Davies likes this "Companion is Important" or that "Humans are Important" theme. He really does. Where the classic series was content to let the Doctor wax poetic about how indomitable the human race is (The Ark in Space) or occasionally remark about how humans are his favourite species, Davies lets the humans do the heroic things. Now, unlike say,
smallship1, I don't think this is out of malice or hatred of the Doctor: I just think that he's so in love with the novelty of the concept (which in Series 1 it was) that he's returning to it again and again. So Rose saves the universe, Martha saves the world, Donna is so brilliant that whole alternate universes coalesce around her, Jabe sacrifices herself, Gwyneth sacrifices herself, Pete Tyler sacrifices himself, Rose sacrifices herself, Kath McDonnell sacrifices herself, River sacrifices herself, Luke Rattigan sacrifices himself, Nameless Hostess sacrifices herself, Donna sacrifices herself in Turn Left... we begin to see a pattern (I'm not counting Jenny's sacrifice because that didn't really resolve the story). That's a lot of sacrifices to save the day in just 37 episodes. And to disagree with the Eighth Doctor, I don't think I'm seeing something that's not there. Now, as I said, I'm not saying this is an invalid approach. But it's laying it on too thick, and it gets us further and further away from what the focus of the show should be (which is, surprise surprise, the Doctor), and leads to more and more irritation from people like
smallship1. I don't agree with all that he says, but I do understand some of it, and some of his objections are not entirely off base.But I digress. Back to my original thesis: how is Turn Left not science fiction but fantasy? Because in the end, what makes this divergent universe happen? Does this divergent universe even happen in the first place or is it just in Donna's head? What, in the end, was the point of this divergent universe? The great ending, with the ominous "Bad Wolf" repeated over and over again distracts you from examining Turn Left too closely, but when you do, you realize the entire episode doesn't really make sense.
Is that little bug actually changing history (that's one powerful bug, and dangerous)? How does that happen? If Donna's history is changed, then how does she end up in that fortune teller's hut to change history since she never ends up with the Doctor (paradox alert!). It's probably not in her head, because if it is, then how does Rose end up there and why is it so important that Rose ask her to change it back? More bizarrely, why does Rose tell the dying Alt!Donna to pass on the message? Doesn't Donna die? How does that memory and consciousness pass on to the other Donna? And why such a useless and non-specific piece of information as "Bad Wolf" when she could say, for example, "[Big Bad Villain] is coming"? What, ultimately, is the point of Donna's little side trip? She learns virtually nothing and it has no effect on the universe at large, since "Bad Wolf" shows up anyway, rendering Donna's passing on the message superfluous. It might actually make a bit of sense if this is all about Rose's jealousy and she's just screwing around with Donna and getting some sadistic pleasure by watching her die... but when I sit back and look at it, I do come out wondering, "So what?"
There are more plot oddities, but these are the major ones that don't fit the time travel/alternate history logic, and the memory transference can only really be explained by the magic of plot necessity. Oh, I could probably come up with something, but the point is that it's not at all apparent given the rules of the game set up in the episode... and Davies adroitly doesn't even set any rules so he can do anything. Science fiction has rules grounded in rationality, fantasy tends to dispense with them or reduce them to side issues, and these plot points are so central to the episode that to leave their basis or workings so vague is to really take it out of science fiction and into fantasy. And this is the first time I can sincerely say that this takes it out of bounds of what Doctor Who's about.
Some of the above questions may be explained next episode, but I'm laying bets that most of it won't because Davies will be too busy orchestrating the big booms. I'm confident we'll find the climax of Davies' tenure thrilling, and I'm sure the directing and acting will be top notch, but like nearly all of Series 4, I'm afraid it'll be an empty confection.
