Friday, March 18, 2011

Dr. Who: "Human Nature" & "Family of Blood"

Time Travel Device: A(nother) phone booth!

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To hide Dr. Who as a human in history.

Coolness Factor: Hiding in time. Dr. Who's motivations for hiding are wholly unique.

Flaws: Dr. Who's laws are kind of a law unto themselves. However, if every alien-of-the-week could take out humans so easily, the earth would have been overcome long before now.

Mike says I really despise Martha Jones. The idea of a The Doctor traveling with a doctor is fun, but going with a brand new love interest, right after losing the first one, is kinda Blah. Then having her pine after the Doctor the whole time (without the slightest interest from him) grates on my nerves. Which is why it's kind of surprising that many of the best Dr. Who episodes are in the third season.

The writing throughout the season, which the exception of Martha's role, is all exceptional. But, of all the episodes in season three, I think the acting is at its finest in this two-parter. David Tennant really sells the "John Smith" persona, and truly assumes the morals and ideals of a man from the time period.

I really like the idea of hiding in time--and the idea that Dr. Who can truly "blend," fitting perfectly into the time period.

I also really enjoy the twist about WHY he is hiding. Very cool. All in all, a very well written, and powerfully performed episode. Now if only it had less Martha......

Kate says I'm not a huge fan of the "girl watching in despair from afar" motif-—possibly, one reason I've never been able to completely enjoy Dr. Who, Season 3.

However, there are a few things about the season—and this particular two-parter—that I really like.

One thing I like about it is that Dr. Who takes on the actual mind-set of his human self. This happens so rarely in time travel shows, it really should be applauded. So often, "good" people in time travel shows just happen to share all the same ideas and mentalities as us "good" modern people. So a "good" female character in a historical drama will ALWAYS be in favor of women voting.

When it fact, there were many women who-—for various reasons-—weren't, and they were still "good."

So I appreciate that Dr. Who as a human is a pre-WWI human with all the attendant attitudes of that person. He isn't a bad man, not at all, but he is good in the way a male human of that era could be good.

Consequently, he is not thrilled about being something other than what he is. In lots of sci-fi and fantasy, the Chosen One may query his or her own worthiness, but there is always this underlying belief that once he or she admits, "Yes, I am this special," he or she will be better off.

But Dr. Who's human self really, really, really doesn't believe that. At all. His Dr. Who self is glad to be back. But his human self refuses the whole "destiny" idea as so much rubbish.

My only problem with the history aspect is I'm not sure how well a young black woman would have fared in pre-WWI England. Unfortunately, I think Martha probably would have encountered far more prejudice than she does.

Other than this query, however, the historical setting/ambiance/mentality is pretty good. Dr. Who is a time travel show, of course, but this two-parter makes being able to time travel a factor, rather than simply a way of getting the doctor into a new situation.

Other good Dr. Who episodes where time traveling is a factor: Blink (we will review this episode later), Father's Day, Girl in the Fireplace, Turn Left, and The End of the World (where how much time has passed is an important issue).

4 comments:

Joe said...

I don't understand the Martha Jones hate; I found Donna far more irritating (and the writing far worse.)

I have mixed feelings about this episode. It did a great job at capturing the mood mood and look, but I don't think it entirely made sense. I do think Martha was kind of useless here, but so would have been any companion. I think my biggest problem is that it was too long. The script did call for more than an episode, but had to become repetitive to get to two.

One thing I liked was the Doctor's struggle at accepting who he was and in sacrificing what he could have. On the other hand, then he became a little too flippant for me (a BIG problem I have with Matt Smith.)

Kate Woodbury said...

It might be fairer to say I dislike the Doctor-Martha relationship (I quite liked the Doctor-Donna relationship; I thought the Doctor's sorrow over losing Donna--a companion who demanded nothing from him but the adventure--was the most terrible out of all his losses).

Part of this is the writing but part of it is Tennant. I like Tennant, and I think he is terrifically talented, but he does play Doctor Who as rather aloof, untouchable, even with Rose. (Which is one reason I think his human vulnerability in this two-parter is so touching and unexpected.)

This untouchability factor is something that Eccleston (yeah, he is still my favorite) managed to avoid: he could convey distance (as well as nonchalance) without conveying disinterest. Whenever I rewatch Season 1, he always seems passionately invested in Rose, no matter how often he tries to keep her at arm's length.

Tennant's Doctor Who is somewhat different. Which is okay. But I agree with Mike that going right back into a possible romance, after losing Rose, was a mistake. As Martha says at the end of her Season:

Martha: ‘Cause the thing is, it’s like my friend Vicky, she lived with this bloke, student housing, there were five of them, all packed in, and this bloke was called Sean. And she loved him. She did, she completely adored him. Spent all day long talking about him.

The Doctor: Is this going anywhere?

Martha: Yes! ‘Cause he never looked at her twice. I mean, he liked her, but that was it. And she wasted years pining after him, years of her life, ‘cause while he was around, she never looked at anyone else. And I told her, I always said to her, time and time again, I said, "get out". So this is me, getting out.

Freema Agyeman is quite a talented actress and this is a great quote. But . . . okay, a WHOLE season to get to this point? *Sigh.*

Kate Woodbury said...

To place my comment in context, I have often blamed Season 3 on Martha, so it is only right for me to rethink it. As Mike says, Season 3 does have some terrific episodes!

Besides, ever since I saw Freema Agyeman in Law & Order: UK, I've wondered if I was being fair. Rewatching this two-parter was much easier this time around because I was seeing her as Freema Agyeman instead of Martha.

Nevertheless, I MUST face the truth: Eccleston's Doctor Who and Rose will always be the standard for me. (Just as Davison or Tom Baker are the standard for others.)

Joe said...

Tom Baker and Lalla Ward/Romana are my favorite combination. It helped that Douglas Adams wrote several scripts for that combination.

Eccleston/Piper(Rose) are my second favorite by only a slim margin.

Both Baker and Eccleston had that combination of intelligence, comedy and pathos that the other doctors lacked, either being too serious or goofy, though Tennant did come close.

(Matt Smith ranks down with Sylvester McCoy as being so annoying, I have a hard time watching. To be fair, Steven Moffat has been very disappointing as an executive producer and must shoulder much of the blame.)