Not So Classic Who
Apr. 14th, 2010 10:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
poliphiloI treated myself to an afternoon and evening watching "classic" Who. Specifically The Space Museum from 1965 and The Talons of Weng Chiang from 1977- both of them available for free here.
The premise for The Space Museum is satisfyingly creepy. The Doctor and his companions land on a seemingly deserted planet and set out to explore a huge, Borgesian museum, full of space junk. There are anomalies. They leave no footprints in the planet's dust, they reach out to touch the exhibits and their hands pass right through them, the people who eventually appear can't see them. Finally they enter a room in which the main exhibit is the Tardis, with themselves in glass cabinets alongside. Roll credits.
The second episode quickly resolves the mysteries- and we're off on a far less interesting ride involving alien oppressors and rayguns and escapes and fisticuffs. The oppressors look like Gary Glitter and the people they're oppressing are lank-haired, public schoolboys with two sets of eyebrows.
It's all very cheap. The heavy old cameras don't move much- and the sets are so small the characters don't move much either. If they're running away from something and need to exchange ideas they have to stop to do it. The dialogue is dogged and largely humourless. The acting is variable- ranging from competent to lousy. I don't know if the show went out live, but there are several instances of an actor- mainly Hartnell and the chief baddy- stubbing their toes on a line and carrying on regardless. I remember Hartnell fondly- but he's a performer of limited range- and after an hour and a half I was beginning to find his doctorly mannerisms- the lapel clasping arrogance, the sly laugh, the aggressive, interrogatory "hums"- repetitive and annoying.
The Talons of Weng Chiang comes from the Tom Baker era- and features on most fan lists as one of the best stories ever. It's better than The Space Museum, certainly- it has a budget and employs a better class of actor- but what else are we comparing it with? The story is Sherlockian spoofery, heavily indebted to late period Hammer Horror, or- in other words- derivative and silly. Also, with its heavy reliance on stereotypes of oriental villainy (its chief baddy is a yellowed-up white man in mandarin robes) it's very hard to absolve it from the charge of racism.
I was around for all the Doctors- I watched the show as a kid, as a young adult and as a parent- and It's been puzzling me why hardly any of the stories have stuck in my mind. I now have my answer. It's because they're rubbish. Through most of its long history Dr Who was this great idea, indifferently executed. If you're a fan of new Who and think it would be fun to search the archives, by all means do, but don't expect too much. New Who has its faults, but on every level- writing, acting, production values- it's a big advance on what went before.
The premise for The Space Museum is satisfyingly creepy. The Doctor and his companions land on a seemingly deserted planet and set out to explore a huge, Borgesian museum, full of space junk. There are anomalies. They leave no footprints in the planet's dust, they reach out to touch the exhibits and their hands pass right through them, the people who eventually appear can't see them. Finally they enter a room in which the main exhibit is the Tardis, with themselves in glass cabinets alongside. Roll credits.
The second episode quickly resolves the mysteries- and we're off on a far less interesting ride involving alien oppressors and rayguns and escapes and fisticuffs. The oppressors look like Gary Glitter and the people they're oppressing are lank-haired, public schoolboys with two sets of eyebrows.
It's all very cheap. The heavy old cameras don't move much- and the sets are so small the characters don't move much either. If they're running away from something and need to exchange ideas they have to stop to do it. The dialogue is dogged and largely humourless. The acting is variable- ranging from competent to lousy. I don't know if the show went out live, but there are several instances of an actor- mainly Hartnell and the chief baddy- stubbing their toes on a line and carrying on regardless. I remember Hartnell fondly- but he's a performer of limited range- and after an hour and a half I was beginning to find his doctorly mannerisms- the lapel clasping arrogance, the sly laugh, the aggressive, interrogatory "hums"- repetitive and annoying.
The Talons of Weng Chiang comes from the Tom Baker era- and features on most fan lists as one of the best stories ever. It's better than The Space Museum, certainly- it has a budget and employs a better class of actor- but what else are we comparing it with? The story is Sherlockian spoofery, heavily indebted to late period Hammer Horror, or- in other words- derivative and silly. Also, with its heavy reliance on stereotypes of oriental villainy (its chief baddy is a yellowed-up white man in mandarin robes) it's very hard to absolve it from the charge of racism.
I was around for all the Doctors- I watched the show as a kid, as a young adult and as a parent- and It's been puzzling me why hardly any of the stories have stuck in my mind. I now have my answer. It's because they're rubbish. Through most of its long history Dr Who was this great idea, indifferently executed. If you're a fan of new Who and think it would be fun to search the archives, by all means do, but don't expect too much. New Who has its faults, but on every level- writing, acting, production values- it's a big advance on what went before.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 01:42 pm (UTC)To me, it's always been the characters, and while there were several forgettable ones, there have been so many outstanding ones that I believe are well worth going back for. I don't remember episodes, but I remember the people.
My only concern with the latest change of leadership is whether the characters will be changed for the worse or lost altogether in favor of production values, as has happened many times before, or modern ideas of character that mean taking all that is good and light and full of soul and promise away and turning everything into a nightmare struggle of drama.
Not that I have opinions on this or anything. :P
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 04:14 pm (UTC)The characters are what lasts from early Who- the Doctors and the companions and the adversaries. The BBC has just put an archive on line- under the title The Changing Face of Dr Who- which demonstrates- among other things- that every time there's been a change of Doctor a lot of people have been dismayed. Like you I'm having my doubts about the latest Doctor and his companion, but I expect everything will turn out fine in the end. The BBC just doesn't have the money to swamp the show in special effects- even if it wanted to- and I believe the budget for this current season is actually less than it was for David Tennant's final outings.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 04:26 pm (UTC)I'm more anxious about the writer switch, honestly, because I'm worried about too much focus on the "horror" aspect of things...so your commentary on the first couple of episodes has been reassuring already. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 06:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 06:38 pm (UTC)It will be! I love her. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-14 09:09 pm (UTC)He's written himself about how having a reputation for writing really scary stories can be a burden. People expect you to keep going one better.