Critically Obsessed: TV

What have we learned from Lost?

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:06:00 -0500

Disclaimer: If you really like Lost, you might not want to read this essay.

Here’s the thing about me and Lost: I don’t like it very much. Everyone talks with a nostalgic air about the pilot and the first season, but I didn’t really like either. I thought the first season was dumb. But here’s where things get complicated because even with all that, I still watched the show for six seasons (almost as many years). I have no idea why. I think that when I watched the first two seasons, I was sort of vaguely entertained and thought it might get better. After I’d sat through the third season, I figured I was owed something in return. Something like an answer. So I stuck around for the fourth season, and the fifth, at so on. It was fun, and I held onto the vain hope that it might make sense eventually. Every season or so I considered quitting, but I’d watched it for so long I thought I might as well see it through to its bitter end.

And yes it was. Bitter, that is. Or I think so anyway. I am aware that some disagree.

Why I think Lost is a fundamentally nonsensical show:

When it comes to Lost fandom, it seems as if there are two main camps.

The first: It’s always been about the characters, not the plot and if you can’t see that then you’re stupid.

The second: Everything makes perfect sense, and if you can’t see that then you’re stupid.

Okay, so there are actually more camps than that (e.g. It’s always been about the plot, which makes zero sense—my camp!). But still, most of the pro-Lost comments that I’ve seen since the show ended have amounted to one of those.

To the first, I say this: That’s great that you like the characters, but I don’t care (except for Sun and Hurley, and maaaaybe Sayid or Sawyer on a good day. I don’t even care about Desmond, and don’t get me started on Juliet). I thought the characterizations (well, the dialogue anyway) were fairly cardboard to begin with, and then mostly just turned into a mess as the show did. Enough to give a person whiplash.

Plus, if it’s about the characters, how do you explain the fourth or fifth seasons? You know, when they were traveling in space and time, wallowing in self-centered misery and accomplishing nothing but complete selfishness at the end? How’s that for character development? So I’m sorry, but I can’t jump on that boat. Bandwagon. Metaphor of your choice. I believe that if it were all about the characters, then it should have been character-driven, by which I mean the actions/plot/story should have derived from internal or interpersonal, organically-generated conflict. Not by Jacob or Smokey or whoever the hell was running things. The first two seasons are, like, mildly less crazy than the rest of the show but still—what drives the show? Light and water? Godly beings? Ben and Widmore? I have no idea, except that it was not the main characters.

Which brings me to camp the second: everything makes perfect sense and I’m the idiot who wasn’t paying enough attention to understand. Now, I’ll fully admit that I wasn’t paying all that much attention—I’ve forgotten people’s names and I forgot the four-toed statue existed for at least a season. I’m not sure why I bothered remembering though, since it wasn’t actually important or even interesting. Although I did laugh about Jacob living in the foot because really, living in a foot?

I will say that for Lost: it gave me quite a few laughs.

Anyway, so…the plot makes sense, you say? Again, I have to ask why the fourth or fifth seasons happened because REALLY WHAT WAS THAT? Why did they need to travel in time—especially since Lindelof & Cuse said earlier that there wouldn’t be time travel—if all it lead to was…Sawyer and Juliet getting together, and then breaking up, and all of them setting off a nuclear bomb that did absolutely nothing except to send them back into the present? I mean, yeah, sure, going back to the right time is important and all, but if that was the plan why send them to the ‘70s in the first place? No really, I would like to know what this accomplished.

Also, “a combination of light and water” does not explain time travel or teleportation or whatever else was going on. As my sister pointed out, light and water combine all the time—it’s called refraction, if my admittedly shoddy grasp of science hasn’t failed me—without making islands disappear or people travel thousands of miles in an instant. Or making other people immortal or whatever the hell was going on.

So I’m sorry to break it to you Lost, but if that’s your explanation then you need to hand in your science fiction card now, because you no longer fall under that category.

And I still don’t understand what was the deal with all the visions—both on and off the island—of Christian Shepard. Or what would have happened if the Man in Black had escaped. I’m not sure I care either, but the show did spend quite a long time acting like these things were important and I should care. Right?

Why this even matters to me:

Just because I think Lost is a waste of time doesn’t mean you can’t like it. I understand finding Lost enjoyable on a superficial level, although I don’t quite see how people can think it’s actually quality storytelling. You’re allowed to disagree with me though. That may perplex me, but it doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is the way people have been saying for ages that Lost changed the face of television. That we can learn from it.

I propose that there are certainly lessons to be learned from Lost, but that if it has changed the face of television it is for the worse.

In general, people seem to mean that Lost’s example teaches us that audiences want long, involved story arcs. I can’t really argue about that. Except I have yet to see a show that actually succeeds at a series-long arc (lots of shows manage season-long ones, but series-long?). Babylon-5 maybe, if you can sit through the bad acting and bad dialogue; and I’ve heard that Fringe just might succeed, but a) I haven’t seen it, and b) it’s hard to judge a show that is still in progress.

Lost is not the first show to attempt a long arc, nor is it the first to fail. It’s not quite the same, but for these purposes I’d point to The X-Files which transitioned from a more serial format to a long arc in the later seasons…problem is, that long arc didn’t go very well and the finale for The X-Files might be the worst series finale I have ever seen. Why did it suck? Well, the number one reason was that they couldn’t answer the underlying question of the show—what is the Truth-with-a-capital-T—and their attempt to be enigmatic about it was just dumb.

So in all practically, I think that what Lost teaches other TV producers/writers/execs/etc., is that they can string us along for years with an increasingly convoluted plot and a series of ridiculously out-of-left-field-no-not-even-in-the-ballpark twists until the whole storyline devolves into meaningless drivel. With a pretentious message about love and spirituality tacked on at the end that is supposed to make us feel like we’ve been watching something worthwhile.

You with me so far? Okay.

A cautionary tale:

There is something else we can learn from Lost (beyond the obvious “have a plan” kind of thing). I think the way an audience collectively views media has changed since the rise of the internet. And I have a theory—which, in wonderful display of my academic prowess, is completely unsubstantiated—about what may have gone down in the Writers’ Room. (No, I’m not talking about the magic turtle)

So my theory (which I didn’t come up with but in fact heard from someone else somewhere on the internet) is that it was purgatory or something like it, and the moment that theory hit the ‘net the writers panicked and decided they had to change it. Perhaps this happened more than once. Perhaps every time they moved in a certain direction, the audience guessed what was going on and so the writers once again changed their trajectory.

They were trying too hard to keep it a mystery, resulting in a pile o’ nonsense. It’s okay if your viewers figure it out. Imagine you’re reading a mystery novel. You’re going along, you’re making guesses, looking for hints as to who did it. Three things might happen:

Upon reaching the end, you discover that you are correct. Are you pleased or disappointed? Some people might be disappointed, but when this happens to me I am PROUD. Of course, I rarely guess correctly, so perhaps that’s why I’d be proud.
Upon reaching the end, you discover that X did it even though you thought Y was the culprit. But when you think about it, you realize that there were hints all along and now everything makes perfect sense! I think this is the most satisfying kind of ending. The first season of Veronica Mars does this to perfection.
Upon reaching the end, you discover that it wasn’t X or Y, it was Zed, Z’s evil British twin who has never before been mentioned. Are you surprised? Yes. Are you satisfied? No.

People like to guess what’s going to happen. We like foreshadowing. We like hints. We like being able to figure things out just as much as we like surprises.

Now, here’s where the internet comes in: back in the day, maybe one or two or three viewers would have guessed that the island was purgatory and maybe they told some of their friends and that would have been that. In the 21^st century, one or two or three people guess that the island is purgatory and they write it on a forum or on facebook or on tumblr and it gets freaking reblogged and soon enough everybody has heard the theory that it’s purgatory. You know what I mean?

Take a literary example: George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire. Just about everybody thinks that Jon Snow is not actually Ned’s bastard son, but his nephew because Rhaegar Targaryen got it on with Ned’s sister in the appropriate time period and Ned would have taken the baby after his sister’s death and lied to protect the child because Ned is a nice guy. I believe this to be true, but I cannot say if I would have come up with it on my own if it hadn’t been all over the internet already. Now, Mr. Martin has not finished the series, and so Jon’s parentage remains unconfirmed but I sincerely hope that he is a Targaryen just like everybody thinks. Why? Because it makes sense and it is good storytelling.

I write fiction myself, and when I show people my stories, I want them to understand. A professor once remarked to me that I must love confusing my readers, but I don’t—I don’t want to spell things out, I don’t want to say JON SNOW IS A TARGARYEN or THE ISLAND IS PURGATORY but I want them to use their brains and figure it out. The idea that the writers of Lost might not want that perplexes me to no end.

So my heartfelt message to TV writers: you don’t always have to surprise us. And for that matter, maybe you shouldn’t read the fansites. But you really don’t have to avoid anything that might be construed as predictable, especially if the show is supposedly about the characters. Honestly.

Julia Reviews Glee: "Duets"

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:35:00 -0400

Oh my god, I thought, five minutes into this episode, is Glee actually going to be intelligent, articulate, and self-aware?

The answer? Pretty much!

There were many things that were good. Of the songs, I adored Kurt’s one-man show, the Mercedes/Santana duet, and the Kurt/Rachel duet at the end (I adored that one most of all, actually). But I’m more concerned with all the other stuff. I was quite pleasantly surprised to see Finn show that he does have a brain after all, and point out that Kurt’s behavior towards him in the previous season strayed into creepy stalkerness (come on, that bedroom was a terrifying harem thing). I was also pleased to see Rachel behaving in a way that was self-aware, showed personal development, and yet was also miraculously in character.

Although I could have done without the “O holy Finn” angle. The guy is really not as great as he (or Rachel) thinks he is. I mean, did he pray for his father figure’s health last week? I don’t think so. He’s just as self-serving as she is. He’s just far less talented. Yeah, I’m pretty sure she could do better. Anyway. Young love. There’s no logic to it.

Brittany showed actual character beyond ‘dumb.’ And I hope that the execs continue with the relationship between her and Santana. That meatball thing was fabulous material.

Kurt’s scenes with his father, and the issue of singing a duet with Sam were intriguing. I liked that his dad continued to show love and support for him, but is also an honest guy who lives in the real world (and not just any real world—the midwest). But there are some logical holes. Sam would be picked on for singing in Glee club with anybody, and we did, in fact, witness his first slushy incident. Also, why would anybody outside of the club know who he sang with? Unless Brittany or Santana spread the news, though I thought perhaps we were beyond that.

And yet, I found Kurt’s storyline to be quite moving and engaging. After the second viewing (yes, I watched this episode twice) I realized that I quite liked Sam as a character precisely because he did not hesitate about singing with Kurt. He was fully committed to the duet, and when Kurt said “thanks, but no thanks” Sam was not relieved, but rather wondering if he had done anything wrong.

Then there’s the rather silly competition itself. Never mind the fact that this Sam fellow looked like he was planning to stick around even if he didn’t win, Rachel’s strategy to rig the contest was ridiculous in so many ways. First, Shue’s “shocked and offended” response was a little much. I mean honestly, after “Grilled Cheesus” the nun/priest thing is supposed to be horrifying? Ah well, there’s no accounting for taste.

Second, even without Rachel and Finn taking first place, it was rather rude of them to discount Mercedes, Santana, and Kurt’s performances. Then again, this could be viewed as Rachel’s narcissism.

Third, if all it took was for Rachel and Finn to vote for Sam and Quinn instead of themselves, why make so much of a fuss about rigging the competition in the first place? Seems like it didn’t matter at all. And like Shue needs a better polling process. At first, I was bothered by this, but after the second viewing (I know!) I decided that perhaps the show realized just how ridiculous the competition was, and that perhaps it is in keeping with the show after all. Remember sectionals and regionals—in that context, it is perfectly accurate for these kids to take this stuff so seriously when everything else tells us that it’s actually not serious at all.

So, beyond the episode’s logical fallacies, I was pretty damn well pleased with just one exception: Sam and Quinn. Are utterly boring. I find them and their platinum locks completely uninspiring. Although I do have a newfound appreciation for Sam, I still find their interaction less than thrilling.

I have to give this episode an A because it was clever and engaging and because Rachel and Kurt sang showtunes together. But I wish I could retroactively lower all my grades of previous Glee episodes because this one was so, so much better.

Oh, and here’s a story that you may find amusing. I wrote this review on a Wednesday, and it did occur to me that I had not watched the previous night’s episode of Glee. It also occurred to me that I could watch it (instead of watching Farscape) and yet I felt no compulsion to do so. It was liberating. And then I realized that there was no episode that week. Still, it felt like an accomplishment. Like when I removed The Office from my Hulu subscriptions.

Grade: A, almost an A+

Julia Reviews Dexter: "Practically Perfect"

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:27:00 -0400

That’s the episode title (5.03), not the review title. Although I suppose it might as well be.
.
I have to be honest. I adore this show. I think it’s one of the best things on TV right now, and one of the most well-crafted shows I’ve ever seen. And yet, I have struggled to write a proper review because I don’t have anything critical to say. Very troubling. But here is my best effort.
.
I am concerned. Deeply concerned for Dexter and his loved ones. The first episode of this season was hard to watch because I was practically in tears just from the ‘Previously on Dexter’ segment, but this episode—and, I suspect, many of the coming episodes—was hard to watch because Quinn is slowly but surely spelling out Dexter’s impending doom. I can’t say I’m surprised—Kyle Butler is one hell of a loose end, and Dexter was ridiculously lucky that nobody questioned his precipitous appearance at Trinity’s house in the season 4 finale. Not to mention the whole Julia Stiles thing. So yeah, I’m concerned.
.
I’m also quite pleased with the way Dexter has been written in this season so far, with all of his emotions being terribly real. It highlights just how far he’s come since the first season, and heightens the tragedy of current circumstances.
.
Other things that are pleasing to me: Maria and Angel. I love them individually and together, and I loved the way they dealt with the bar fight as a couple. Maria is a woman in a position of power, and some men do have trouble with that, but she will not change or apologize or whatever and Angel respects her for that. Oh, they make me so happy. Some day I will write about gender on this show as a counterpoint to my Doctor Who essay—between Maria LaGuerta, Debra Morgan, Rita Bennet, and more, they are definitely doing it right.
.
But for now, I will just give this episode an A.

Guest Review: Bones - "The Maggots in the Meathead"

Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:57:11 -0400

Hello there readers of Critically Obsessed! I am Heather, guest blogger extraordinaire. To give Julia and Sara a break this week, I’ve written a post about the new season of Bones. (Hopefully, if nothing else, this will appeal to all you Angel/David Boreanaz fans out there.)

So I’m glad everybody’s back and I’m glad that Caroline is so awesome and has the clout to guilt everybody into coming back. Sweets’ new look was god awful (thank you Bones stylists for putting him back to normal by this week’s episode!), though I did kinda believe he would have taken a break from psychology and gone into playing musak for customers in a department store. I’m excited that Angela and Hodgins are pregnant. They’ll be adorable parents. But at the same time, I can’t help but think that something’s going to go wrong and the baby isn’t going to happen… Maybe I’ve just been watching too much TV where the exact opposite of what you want to happen usual does.

Can I just say this? After all the emotion-expressing that Brennan has gone through in the past 5 seasons, you’d think she’d have learned to not take things quite so literally all the time! It bugs the hell out of me and it makes her feel less intelligent in a human-experience type of way. Ok that didn’t come out very clearly. Let’s try again: I feel like her misunderstanding (subconsciously purposeful or not) really takes away from the sense that she is intelligent in more than just a scientific way, that she has life/people experience too.

Considering my connection with intern Wendell (played by Michael Grant Terry, who went to my high school and who’s father is one of my favorite teachers ever and who I’ve talked to and who knows who I am and… oh right. Um, enough about me.) I was so happy to see he was the only one left available! But then with the second episode and the third, I realized they were still going to rotate the interns, which I suppose I shouldn’t be upset about it. I do like having a mix of people to spice it up every week. And it makes it more interesting to hear all the interns’ stories about what they’ve done/where they’ve been in the last 7 months. Apparently Wendell was working in a garage, Clark applied for and got turned down for some special thing in Chicago, and Fisher slept 20 hours a day for two months and then had a “stint in the looney bin.” I don’t give two wits about Daisy, and honestly she just bugs the hell out of me, but I guess she makes good TV fodder.

Ok so the first episode really didn’t have that much going for it. It was all over the place and the actual case wasn’t that interesting. So I’ll skip that one. And I think I’ll skip the second one too. It was better but still not great. I did like though how Angela couldn’t make an accurate sketch of the male victim and everybody thought it was certain suave actor. Cue line: “She was killed by George Clooney?!”

So that brings us to the third episode. Helloooooo Jersey Shore! First off, I’m from Philly, and everybody from the tri-state area calls it “downa shore” so it really bothered me that the victim’s mother said it “down at the shore.” That is so wrong! But bro! This ep was all kindsa dope yo! Brennan, in true Brennan style, saw the residents of the Jersey Shore as an anthropological gold mine. She explains that she first became interested in this “Guido Tribe” when she saw a very compelling documentary series on television (i.e. she watched Jersey Shore but thought that the reality in “reality show” meant that it was actually real.) Anywho, she has successfully learned their customs, language, dress, dances, etc. and feels this investigation is a great chance to compare her experience in the field (or shore) to her research. I thought to myself, Good luck with this one, Booth! But she actually came through and eased what was bound to be a very awkward encounter. She totally jumped right in and was accepted by the guidos. She knew exactly how to interact with them and they didn’t really question it, which I thought was great. Totally died laughing when she was introducing herself and saying “s’up” to everybody! Also, later when she and Booth go to the club, she breaks down all the actions of the guidos and guidettes for Booth like their observing animals on a safari adventure or something. HIGHlarious!

Now… Hannah…. I’m trying to set aside my disappointment and loyalty to Booth and Brennan and keep an open mind here in terms of Hannah. But it’s hard. I don’t feel like Booth and Hannah would work out. I agree with what Sweets said about their relationship changing with the change in locale. They can’t just have sex all the time. That can’t be the basis of a long-term relationship. Also, the old rotary phone was Brennan’s idea for God’s sake! Give the woman some credit! (and by credit I mean give her Booth). Though I really did appreciate Brennan’s warning to Hannah about not screwing Booth over. I mean we all know Booth and Brennan are gonna end up together in the end (probably the last episode) so that should be comforting enough but it doesn’t seem to be. Alas!

And now, to close this post on a slightly higher note, here are my favorite lines of the night:

“Eureka! A gathering of guidos!” – Brennan

“I could be having a little Hodgins! How cute would that be?” – Angela

“I just can’t get as stoked about work as you guys can.” – Fisher

Pepe: “Ballistic: As in referring to ‘from the balls!’”

Brennan: “No that’s not even close to an accurate definition. Ballistic refers to projectiles in flight.”

Pepe: “So can I make like a ballistic now?”

“After that, Marie calls Richie a bunch of curse words, some of which I had to look up!” - Sweets

Grade: A-

Julia Reviews: "Chuck Versus the Anniversary"

Sun, 03 Oct 2010 01:21:59 -0400

I have also watched the second episode, and loved it even more than this one, but time is fleeting and I have not had a chance to review it. Alas, the third episode is almost upon us! But here, my thoughts on the season premiere.

Chuck: Chuck Versus the Anniversary

How much did I love this episode? Very much. Which is honestly a bit of a problem, as I find it easier to talk about things I don’t like and this show often just makes me want to say “Ahhhh it’s funny and adorable and my happy place so you should watch it.”

But I will start by saying that casting Linda Hamilton as Chuck’s mother is brilliant. This show is all about nerd cred, so really—brilliant. I mean, I was kinda hoping for Mary McDonnell but I have to admit that the original Sarah Connor is a million times more iconic than Laura Roslin (and Donnie Darko’s mom!). I am also happy to have Hamilton join the cast for another reason, which I will get to later.

Some other things that I loved: Chuck and Morgan as the Brothers Carmichael (okay, so they didn’t actually make that lame joke, but they should have!) aka scarily competent in an incompetent way. They remind me of a time when a friend of mine described me as the most “dysfunctionally functional” person she knew. They are dysfunctionally functional and it is hilarious.

Chuck and Sarah and their long-distance relationship. Sweet and funny and a little awkward in a totally believable way. I adored Sarah’s little photo-shoot on the plane, especially that it didn’t really come naturally to her even though she uses her powers of seduction all the time in her spy work.

Casey missed Chuck. ‘Nuff said. Sarah was giving me flashbacks to Murray from Flight of the Conchords.

I am not thrilled by Ellie’s role. Well, I’m happy for her that she’s pregnant. She totally deserves this happiness. But I am afraid of what this may mean, and I’m afraid that she will be pushed to the side much the way she was in the last season, relegated to her wife/sister roles while Chuck was being a spy and Devon was doing doctor-y things (hello, she’s also a doctor). So I’m wary of that.

But I am thrilled by the possibility of more female characters interacting, as that is typically this show’s weakest point. Now we’ve got Beckman running the new Buy More (very excited for that), a new character whose name I’ve forgotten as her right-hand woman in the Nerd Herd, and Mama Bartowski. Oh yeah, and Sarah and Ellie. I think this might be the most female characters they’ve ever had at the same time.

So anyway, woohoo! New Chuck!

Grade: A+

Julia Reviews: Glee's "Auditions"

Sat, 02 Oct 2010 23:40:00 -0400

TV shows are back, and so is this blog!

This season, Julia will be watching (and potentially reviewing) Chuck, Glee, Community, Dexter, and The Big Bang Theory.

Glee: “Auditions”

I would like to start by saying that I don’t consider Glee to be a very “good” show in the traditional sense of the word, so I mostly go into each episode hoping for it to be entertaining and not terribly offensive. Sometimes I am disappointed, but I was pretty pleased with the season premiere.

But first, a moment of silence: Goodbye Matt (or is it Mark?). We barely knew you, but I read your wikipedia page once. And hello Mike Chang’s abs. Some wise person said that his abs were the star of the episode, and I can’t say I disagree.

But aside from shameless objectification, there were many other things that I enjoyed, most especially “Empire State of Mind” (damn you for being so catchy!), Sunshine, and Coach Beiste (even if she does refer to herself in third person as “The Panther”). Emma and Terry may be MIA so far, but I’m not too sad about it, frankly, and at the moment I think Beiste might be the best role model yet.

So those things were great. You want to know something that was very much not great? The characterization of Rachel at this juncture. In fact, I was pretty damn angry about it. Rachel was never my favorite character (that was a contest between Sue Sylvester and Puck’s cheekbones) but I have respected her as a character for a long time. She was a young woman who was extraordinarily talented, and she knew it. She was constantly being put down by those around her (I may have laughed at the myspace video thing in the pilot, but Rachel showed remarkable resilience in not being devastated by it) but she never let that stop her. Most of all, Rachel Berry is a young woman who has ambitions and the strength and determination to achieve those goals. So yes, I respected her. There aren’t very many characters like her on television even in this enlightened age.

But this latest incarnation of Rachel Berry? This I do not like, and I lay that entirely at the feet of the writers. The Rachel I knew would not have felt threatened by Sunshine, and I don’t think she would have resorted to such cruel means, especially when she knew it meant risking the very existence of New Directions. I hate that the writers seem to be demonizing her and turning her into a character who is almost impossible to like. And I’m just going to come out and say it: I think they don’t know how to write an ambitious young woman.

But even with all that, I’m still going to give this episode a good grade because it was so thoroughly enjoyable. Damn you, catchy tunes and Mike Chang’s abs! And my own low expectations.

Grade: A-

Gender Fail in Doctor Who, or I Love River Song (And I Don’t Care Who Frakking Knows)

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:06:58 -0400

This essay contains spoilers for all 5 seasons.
.
I love Doctor Who. I love the Doctor. I love Rose, Martha, Donna, and Amy. I love River Song. boom de yada.
.
There are things about the way they have been written, though, that I do not love. But first, a disclaimer: I have not seen any of the old Doctor Who (‘cause, uh, it all happened long before I was born) therefore I will not address Sarah Jane or any of the other pre-Nine Companions. Second, my criticism of the way the characters have been written should not be taken as criticism of the characters or their fans. Third, these are my thoughts. Feel free to comment with dissenting opinions.
.
Now, I am going to go character by character.
.
Rose.
.
Rose sets the precedent for the New Who Companions, and it’s quite an interesting precedent. The way I see it, her storyline can be read one of two ways: 1) The power of the ordinary woman, as the shopgirl saves the universe, and/or 2) The Mary Sue. These are not mutually exclusive. But to those not in the know, Mary Sue, in this context, refers to a sort of “blank slate” non-character, a vessel for self-insertion into the creative work (for more info, see Bella Swan). At 19, Rose has no career, no direction in life, and serves as a sort of Every(wo)man. Her life doesn’t begin until she meets the Doctor.
.
This perturbs me greatly, and is an idea I will return to with some of the other characters. But one of the reasons this bothers me so much is that, from my admittedly quite limited forays into Doctor Who fandom, it seems to be largely comprised of people (many of whom are of the female persuasion) in a similar position to Rose—waiting for the Doctor to take them away, to save them from the doldrums of their lives.
.
And, you know, maybe you do want to travel with the Doctor. I can understand that feeling, even if I don’t share it. He’s pretty cool. What makes this problematic is the way it has become an overwhelming trend and, more than that, the way it has been written into the narratives of almost every major female character on the show.
.
Still, it’s not all bad. The first season of Rose is quite exciting (also I adore Nine and Christopher Eccleston). What I like best about it is that Rose and Nine argue; they are frequently in opposition. And then she saves him (and the universe). Not bad, Rose Tyler. Not bad at all.
.
Season 2 changes the Rose/Doctor dynamic. As time passes, Rose becomes increasingly defined by her relationship with the Doctor. And I can’t remember her ever arguing with Ten (not that it never happened…just that I can’t remember). Why is that? I’m not sure. Is it just because Tennant’s Doctor is a more laidback kind of guy? Is it just because they’re more accustomed to traveling together? Is it another consequence of the quite apparent decision, on Russell T. Davies’s part, to up the romance between them? (I’m a huge Eccleston fan, but he’s not exactly a dreamboat) This would lead to a rather unfortunate implication that a romantic couple has to get along (which might be practical, but it’s not very fun).
.
But anyway, let’s take a look at ‘Doomsday,’ admittedly a highly enjoyable episode (Daleks have the best comebacks) and a pretty good tear-jerker (though it still doesn’t affect me quite the way ‘Parting of the Ways’ does).
.
Rose’s melodramatic voice-overs say this is the story of how she dies. Blah blah, not a very good or effective dramatic device. And yes, ostensibly it’s because she’s declared dead in her home world (of course, one can only assume that Jackie and Mickey are also listed as dead, but it’s not the day her mum dies, oh no).
.
Now, Rose is 19 and she’s just lost the love of her life. She’s allowed a certain amount of sardoodledom (yes that is a real word—it means ‘melodrama’). Still, it bothers me that the show is apparently implying that her life is over without him.
.
We skip to the fourth season now. Rose works with Torchwood in Pete’s World, which does please me. Rose Tyler, Defender of the Earth is a great idea but one that stumbles in execution. Why? Because Rose makes a pretty frakking epic return, having spent all season trying to cross over from another dimension. And she looks awesome with her enormous gun and this viewer was pretty much ready for Rose Tyler, Bad Wolf, Defender of the Universe, to go tear up some bad guys.
.
Does she even use that gun? . What does she do? She finds the Doctor. Well first she helps Donna, which is great, but then she finds the Doctor. Runs very dramatically towards him. Her whole big plan. All of Pete’s Torchwood. And she hardly does anything. Oh, it’s Doctor Who, not Rose Who. It’s Donna’s turn to shine (or is it? more on that later).
.
Bah, I say. Excuses. Rose, who had such potential for greatness…is shuffled back to another dimension to live out the rest of her life with a substitute Doctor. For this watcher, it left a bad taste in my mouth; it left me feeling that Rose’s entire storyline—entire existence almost—had been relegated to the love interest. I wanted her joy and her sorrow to not be quite so heavily dependent upon her relationship status.
.
With Rose, much of my thinking comes back to a brief moment in ‘Rise of the Cybermen’ (or maybe ‘Age of Steel’) when she’s talking to Mickey. They’re afraid that they’ll never make it back to their world. And she says something about how they used to have all these plans. Things they were going to do.
.
Great. Everybody has those plans. But the writers won’t tell us what those plans were. And you know, lots of 19-year-olds are working in shops, but most of the 19-year-olds I know (and I say this as someone who was recently a 19-year-old) have plans and ideas and goals. But what are Rose’s plans? What does she want to do with her life? Or what did she want to do before she met the Doctor?
.
The narrative acts like it doesn’t matter.
.
She and Mickey had plans. But we don’t know what they were, and from what we saw in ‘Rose’ it sure didn’t look like they were working towards them.
.
Okay, I’ve just written two pages about Rose. Moving on.
.
Martha.
.
Martha Jones is tricky. For one thing, I don’t know a whole lot of Martha fans. This makes me feel a mite defensive when it comes to her. Now, she’s far from perfect, and I’m completely willing to acknowledge that season 3 is probably the weakest season. That said, I…blame the writers, rather than the character. Is it an odd distinction to make? Perhaps. Let’s take a closer look.
.
Martha’s crush on the Doctor is tiresome. It is. I think it was poorly handled. The fact that she has a crush, on the other hand, doesn’t really bother me. Especially since most of the Martha-detractors I know are crazy about the Doctor. I just want to say, “You’d fall for him too!” In a perfect fictional world, maybe Martha wouldn’t have a crush on him. But that one-sided affection is vital to her growth as a character (and what growth!).
.
But that doesn’t mean I was happy about the way she was treated (by him and by the writers) throughout much of season three. The writers fell into the trap of allowing her one-sided crush on the Doctor to dictate much of her storyline, and that is not okay. However, this is—in my eyes—largely redeemed by her ending. Martha is the rare Companion whose ending was not a disappointment but actually a highlight.
.
My favorite thing about Martha, though, is that her life exists both before and after the Doctor. Before he shows up, she’s doing just fine. She’s happy, and she’s achieving her dreams. She’s not waiting for him (or anyone). I cannot stress this enough.
.
When you get right down to it, Martha doesn’t need the Doctor. She may want him, but she doesn’t need him. I think that makes all the difference.
.
And then she leaves. Hell yes she leaves. It’s an absolutely brilliant ending, and it made me fall in love with Martha all over again. Martha is smart and capable and brave and she makes things happen. She saves the world—after enduring a year of hell—and she does it with her words.
.
Shaken, battered, exhausted, she finally tells him that he hasn’t been good for her and she walks out of her own volition. So far, she is the only Companion to do that. To leave. How could I not love her?
.
Rose and Donna and maybe Amy, it’s a little hard to judge at this point—they need him, or they think they do. Martha says “screw that” and walks out to live her life, to become Doctor Jones and get engaged to Tom (and later, er, Mickey, which is a bit of shabby storytelling but kind of beside the point) and work for UNIT and be majorly badass. Martha has the best beginning and the best ending of any of the Companions, I think. Still, the middle part—mooning over him—is not so great.
.
And yet, as a character, she’s still my favorite (although Amy is currently giving her a run for her money). She’s the one I’d want to be friends with. Some of that is certainly personal preference—I just can’t identify with not having any ambition. Martha is an exception to the Doctor Who rule of women who are aimlessly waiting for things to happen.
.
Donna.
.
Donna Noble is complicated. Okay, they all are. I’ve been saying that a lot. On one level, I see a lot of similarities between Donna and Rose. But Donna’s path has a clearer trajectory—and an equally clear TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE MISTAKE.
.
Donna is a thirty-something “Super Temp” who lives with her mother and her grandfather. I understand that working as a temp is usually intended as a prelude to a non-temporary job. That’s fine. But what sort of job does she want? Any career or life ambitions? Like with Rose, we see no evidence of goals. And like with Rose, this boggles me a bit. But I am not Donna and she is not me.
.
I think the heart of Donna’s story is very *ahem* noble (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist). The way I see it, her journey is kind of what Rose’s could have been without the romance: the ordinary woman who is actually the most important person in the universe. It’s about a woman who hasn’t really done anything with her life and maybe fears that she never will, that she can’t, that she’s not good enough or smart enough or strong enough…and she learns that she is much more than enough. That—to paraphrase Xander Harris—she may not be special, but she is extraordinary.
.
That’s great. That’s a story that should be told. Because, Donnas of the world, you are extraordinary! But there are two problems with Donna’s story. . First, she forgets it all. What. The only reason I wasn’t appalled by this in ‘Journey’s End’ was because I was convinced that she would regain her memory in the specials. Imagine my disappointment. So you’re Russell T. Davies and his writing staff. You’ve worked on this one character for a season, developing her rather impressive arc from the temp to the most important person ever. And then you erase it all. I don’t think you understand what you’ve done, so let me spell it out for you. By completely invalidating all of her growth as a character, you have made her little more than an instrument to toy with the Doctor’s emotions. Yes, you have Stuffed [her] Into The Fridge. And yes, I did just look that up on TVTropes to make sure I had the right term.
.
My second problem is the manner in which Donna becomes über-important. Like Rose, Donna’s life isn’t going anywhere until the Doctor shows up. Donna, despite her awesome take-no-shit attitude in ‘The Runaway Bride,’ spends all of her time between that special and the beginning of season four waiting for the Doctor. What. I loved that she turned him down at the end of Runaway Bride. I loved her, and was eagerly anticipating her run as a Companion. Imagine my horror when she started going on about this guy she had to find in ‘Partners in Crime.’
.
Oh Donna, you can have adventures and make a difference and be awesome without him! When I was discussing this very essay with Sara, she quite rightfully pointed out that Donna has a wretchedly low self-esteem, and likely wouldn’t believe that she could do those incredible things on her own. My feeling is that it is one thing for Donna to act like this is the case, and another thing entirely for the narrative to do so. Because while it’s true that she did do some incredible things while traveling with the Doctor, the show should not have implied that she couldn’t achieve such things without him.
.
Going further, when the Doctor sees her in ‘The End of Time,’ her life is back to where it was before: static, going nowhere. She’s “making do.” She’s getting married. And that’s it? What is she doing with her life? Oh, she’s getting married. That’s all. This upsets me greatly. I have no choice but to use bold.
.
Oh no wait, I’m not done yet! So before and after the Doctor, Donna’s life is pretty blah. But she meets him and he shows her a whole new world (on a magic carpet ride) and she saves the universe…but only by becoming part him. Yes, she’s still half-Donna but why did she need the half-Doctor? While it’s equally true that he needed the half-Donna, ultimately I would have preferred Donna pull off what the DoctorDonna did when she was 100% Donna Noble. You know what would have been a really inspirational story of a woman realizing her own worth? If it turned out that she didn’t need to be anything other than herself, and she certainly didn’t need any man to ‘complete’ her. Ugh, it gives me a bad taste in my mouth just typing this. Rage, I have rage! ‘Journey’s End,’ I think I hate you!
.
.

Unrelated, but the most appropriately angry gif I have.
.
So, there’s that. Given what he’d done to Donna, and the sorry state of all the post-JE specials, I wasn’t exactly tearing my hair out over RTD’s departure. That’s not to say I was ecstatic, however, that Steven Moffat was taking over. For one thing, I can never remember if it’s ‘Stephen’ or ‘Steven,’ or if Moffat has two T’s. Very frustrating. Um. But anyway, everyone was talking about how he wrote ‘Blink,’ one of the greatest episodes of New Who.
.
And, you know, I love ‘Blink.’ I think it’s brilliant. But if there’s one thing about it that I don’t love, it’s that it seems to equate female happiness and fulfillment with nice, neat, heterosexual love. Cathy Nightingale says not to worry, she got married and was super happy in the past, when she couldn’t vote or do half the things she could do in her own time. And then Sally Sparrow moves on from all this wackiness by discovering that she’s secretly into Cathy’s brother? Either one of these things on their own are acceptable to me, but the way they fit together did make me worry that Moffat thought every woman’s storyline would best be wrapped up with a man (and my fears still haven’t been assuaged on this front).
.
I was a little nervous. Which brings us to…
.
Amy.
.
Okay, I’m pretty biased when it comes to Amy Pond—I love her really a lot. Also, I just watched the season finale and I loved that, so I’m definitely feeling the love but I shall try to be semi-objective.
.
On the surface, Amy’s got some of the same problems. She is, quite literally, “the girl who waited.” She is the epitome of wanting the Doctor to take her away. And yet, it doesn’t bother me so much in her case. I’ve tried to work out why that is, and I think it’s because Amy—especially 7-year-old Amelia—leads a sad, lonely life. Later, she has Rory but she still has no family. She’s still alone in a house with too many rooms. Whereas Rose and Donna were sort of blank, Amy is much closer to tragic. It’s like, their reasons for wanting to go with him were the absence of other things in their lives, whereas Amy’s was the opposite. And by the time she actually gets the chance to go with him, she’s actively running from something.
.
I think it’s because from the beginning there were things we didn’t know about Amy—there was, quite simply, more to her than just her life with the Doctor. And I didn’t really get that from Rose or Donna. While she has some of the same problems as them, it’s like with her they are deliberate rather than just the default. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s not different. Feel free to tell me so in the comments!
.
Amy’s also a young woman with no sign of a career—and oh, how I wished she’d been a police officer. But again, this doesn’t bother me because I feel like in her case it’s less a ‘she’s just a normal girl’ thing and more of a ‘lonely girl, small town’ thing. Although I’m not ecstatic that she shares their driftlessness. So we’ve got one shopgirl, one temp, one kiss-o-gram (and seriously, is that even a real thing?) and one medical student… Can you spot the odd one out? But maybe Amy really enjoys her job. That’s fair. But if it’s the case, I’d like that to be known. I’d like it to be an actual part of the show and the character—that Amy Pond has chosen her current, uh, profession, and she’s not just doing it because she doesn’t know what else to do.
.
Amy, like her predecessors, goes back and forth between being the savior and being the saved. This doesn’t really bother me too much, though. It would be unrealistic to assume the titular character was not going to do some saving. But I like that Amy doesn’t immediately trust the Doctor, and also that she hits him with a cricket bat.
.
Ultimately, I’m not sure what to make of her yet. I don’t know how she’s going to fit in with the grand scheme of things, but so far I see quite a bit of potential. And based purely on the season finale, I’m starting to think that—much like Martha, only different—she doesn’t need the Doctor. She likes traveling with him, and wants him to be alive and okay but that’s not the same as depending on him.
.
She’ll make her way. I trust her.
.
River Song.
.
She changes everything. River Song, I think, is the most independent female character on the show, and it saddens me that she seems to be unpopular.
.
One of the main criticisms I hear of River is that she’s smug. Well you know what? Tough. I like that in a woman. And I think it’s high time Doctor Who had some of that. When it comes to my quickly growing love for River, there are two main reasons:
.
1. She’s capable. She gets things done. She stares down motherflipping Daleks without blinking an eye. She graffitis the oldest cliff-face in the universe. She’s got the last of the Timelords at her beck and call (nice little reversal there). She can escape from some super-intimidatingly named prison. And I already referenced this moment in an earlier DW review post, but it bears repeating: I really appreciate the scene in ‘Flesh & Stone’ when Amy’s about to die and the Doctor’s freaking out and he shouts something like “Well then you think of something better!” at River. You know what she does? She thinks of something better.
.
River Song gets things done.
.
2. She’s an unknown entity. She is something that has eluded the Doctor. He doesn’t know what to make of her. Doesn’t know what she’ll be to him—and she refuses to give him straight answers (“Spoilers!”). He doesn’t know if he can trust her (how much did I love that “If you like” bit from F&S!). Whereas Rose and Donna suffered from not really existing beyond their relationships with the Doctor, River Song—despite possibly being his wife—is essentially the opposite. River knows things that the Doctor does not know, and this gives her power over him.
.
River Song is far closer to being his equal than any of the other Companions.
.
In fact, I think she’s pretty close to being a female incarnation of him…and thus it disturbs me greatly that she’s so unpopular in the fandom. Why no love for Doctor Song? (Or Doctor Jones, for that matter…)
.
That’s not to say she’s perfect, of course. I am intensely disturbed by her ‘ending’ in ‘Forest of the Dead.’ I think it’s extremely creepy and, you guessed it, sexist. River Song is a force to be reckoned with, and she should have been allowed to choose her own ending. She made a choice and he robbed her of it—he took away the end she’d chosen for herself and forced her into a world which she knew was fake, where she would have to spend eternity with no change, no progression, and the same few people. He reduced her to this virtual reality, this ghost of herself.
.
This might be acceptable, still, since it is in the Doctor’s (especially this Doctor’s) nature to behave this way, to want to fix everything. This could have been a questionable but in character move. No, what bothers me the most is its actual presentation. River Song, who gave no indication that she was at all interested in motherhood in any way, gets to spend the rest of time taking care of the kids. LOL WHAT. Moffat, what were you thinking? Sometimes I just cannot fathom the carelessness (especially with an otherwise very meticulous writer) and all I can think is that he just views all women as wanting to be wives and mothers. And this is supposed to be her happy ending?
.
Oh Professor Song, sometimes I think you’re too good for these people. (I am referring to the writers, not the other characters)
.
General thoughts on the nature of Companions.
.
There’s sort of a critical flaw in terms of gender equity and Doctor Who, which is just that he’s a man (and unlikely to ever regenerate as a woman, beyond this parody) and he’s the most important and most powerful character. And he’s almost always got a female sidekick, doing sidekick-y things which too often include getting in danger and being rescued.
.
Some people have complained that all of the New Who Companions have been women, pointing to the fact that Old Who had women and men and aliens as Assistants. But honestly, I don’t think I would watch a show about two or more guys traveling through space and time. So I’ve more or less resigned myself to a man being the hero and a woman being his sidekick. Although I am hoping that the end of season 5 heralds a willingness to switch up this dynamic, even if they are still going to fail the Bechdel Test for a long time to come.
.
Regardless, this doesn’t mean I have to close my eyes to the blatant sexism that goes far beyond Sidekickism (Sidekickdom? Sidekickness?). It’s there. It upsets me. I take shelter in my Martha-and-River-loving bubble. But what about you, readers?
.
Agree/Disagree? Do you think my criticisms are inaccurate or unjust? Do you think I am missing important points? I would be thrilled to discuss this with people. I ask only that you keep the conversation respectful and please refrain from character bashing. Shocking as this may be, I really do love each and every one of the characters discussed above, and I think hating on these women is counter-productive.

Julia Reviews: Doctor Who's "The Big Bang"

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 18:40:00 -0400

Yes, this review is a bit belated. Sara could not bring herself to watch the episode, and Julia loved it too much to say anything articulate. But she is (hopefully) getting over this. So, spoilers ahead!

This episode was brilliant. Fantastic. Awesome, in the truest sense of the world. This might even be my favorite Doctor Who season finale. I think it is my favorite season. And you know why? It’s all about the details.

So much care and attention went into this season. The more energy the creators invested into it, the more I could as well. Having been burned before by Battlestar Galactica and Lost, I appreciate this. So thank you Doctor Who, for consistency and clues and things actually making sense insofar as any episode in which history collapses can make sense (like…I’m still not clear on why Amy didn’t remember the Daleks but I can roll with it).

I mentioned last week that I had theories. I wasn’t exactly right, and it wasn’t really about the duck pond (but…kind of—the crack ate the ducks!) but I had the right ideas and ultimately felt rewarded for all the thought I had put into it. This finale left me feeling ridiculously satisfied, although I am still wondering if Jack is out there somewhere without an arm…

And on top of all that, the episode was funny and exciting and had so much heart. I think my favorite line has to be thie one, although there were so many memorable (and quotable) moments:

Doctor: Why do you have to be so…human?

Rory: Because right now I’m not.

Gives me chills. How can you not love that? Love him? Love them? Also, River shot the Fez. And the Dalek. What else? Little!Amy was so cute. The Doctor hates repeats (but he always dances at weddings).

You see, this is why it’s taken me so long to write a review. Because I keep devolving into “SO GOOD” and I’m trying to keep the capslock to a minimum.

The Doctor definitely dances.

I did have one quibble though, about the episode. The biggest clue in the entire season had to be the scene from “Flesh & Stone.” And I spent so long trying to figure out what line he was referring to when he said “Remember what I told you when you were seven.” Blah blah, he’s talking about what he tells her in the next scene, I don’t care! It’s like Bad Wolf. A clue that we have no hope of figuring out. And besides, wouldn’t it have been so cool if the line had been “You need a bigger wall”? Or “There have been some cowboys in here.” Or “Beans are evil.” Or “Five minutes.” I would have accepted any of these.

Still, that was the only thing I didn’t love. Also, I rewatched “The Pandorica Opens” before the finale (to see about that vortex manipulator) and I might upgrade it to a B+ or even an A-.

Either way, this episode was one incredible ride.

Grade: A+

Two Review: Doctor Who's "The Pandorica Opens"

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:25:00 -0400

This should be very, very obvious but this post contains SPOILERS for “The Pandorica Opens.” Look away if you have not yet seen the episode.

Sara on the episode:

Stephen Moffat had a LOT to live up to this week as he presented the first part of Doctor Who’s series 5 finale. There has not been a single Doctor Who series finale since the 2005 reboot began that cannot be described as absolutely, undeniably epic. Luckily, Moffat met this challenge—and passed with flying colors.
.

It seems that Moffat looked at most of the new series finales and calculated exactly the angle and velocity needed to run in the opposite direction, as far as he possibly could. Some examples: the Doctor Who finales have all taken place in present-day England or the future—this episode takes place in the past. In previous finales, the Doctor gets hurt and must regenerate—this time the greatest danger befell the Doctor’s companion. And finally, more often than not, Daleks were the greatest evil the Doctor could ever face—but in this episode, the evil was revealed to be the Doctor himself.

(Let me amend that last bit—the Doctor was the evil thing-in-the-box we all expected. However, the show has yet to reveal WHO sent the messages through Stonehenge to all the various evil planets. So there could be a specific, more traditional antagonist revealed yet…)

In this episode, Moffat strove to highlight what has made series five great. A Very Epic Introduction allowed us a second chance to view various characters from across the series. We got to see more of the Amy/Rory/Doctor love triangle, although frankly the episode left that entire polygon in an especially messy place. And there were more genius, goofy moments of the Doctor being the Doctor (“Look at me, I’m a target!” comes to mind), as well a classic Moffat-writes-nightmares sequence inside Amy’s dark, destroyed house.

I found myself pleasantly surprised this episode when secondary characters received chances to shine. I’ve been hoping since “Cold Blood” for a moment redeeming Rory. In this episode he got to be the knight (er, Roman) in shining armor of Amy’s fantasy. River Song tends to annoy me, and here her character became more functional than anything else; pleasantly non-obtrusive, or as non-obtrusive as one can expect from River.

However, much as I enjoyed these moments for the secondary companions to shine (or, in River’s case, sparkle in the background), I expect next week to be the Doctor and Amy’s (yes, I did say Amy) turn to shine.

In an uber-pessimistic section of my mind, there’s a whole list of ways the second half of the series finale could go wrong—too much River, an overly traditional antagonist who sent the messages from Stonehenge, an oversimplification of the Amy/Rory/Doctor dynamic. But this is Stephen Moffat, Matt Smith, Karen Gillan and a generally brilliant team who’ve brought us a wonderful series so far—so I think I’ll silence my doubting mind, perhaps, by re-watching this week’s absolutely brilliant episode again.

Grade: A
.

It’s a big rock. I can’t wait to tell all my friends. They don’t have a rock this big.*
.

Julia on the episode:
.

Well, I have just read Sara’s review and am SUPER INTIMIDATED by it. Because most of my reactions to the episode have been along the lines of “What the hell just happened?” and “What the hell happens next?” I have a few half-formed theories about that (I won’t go into details lest I sound like a crazy person, but I will just leave you with IT’S ALL ABOUT THE DUCK POND and “That’s a fairytale”/”Aren’t we all?” Also “You’re going to need a better wall.” And did somebody cut off Jack’s arm?)**

I am not used to feeling this dazed and confused now that Lost is off the air.
.

Anyway, I do disagree with Sara on a few more-general points. Namely, I think River Song has always been a functional character, and when I get around to it I will write a much longer blog post expounding on all the reasons I love her. It mostly comes down to one reason, actually: that, in “Flesh & Stone,” when the Doctor was all frustrated, at a loss for what to do, he shouted something like “Well then you think of something else!” and she did. Boo-yah. Okay, I am never saying that again.

I also…would be perfectly fine with an oversimplication of the Rory/Amy/Doctor love triangle, mostly because I don’t particularly think of it as such. I’m all about the Rory/Amy (even though they are clearly doomed to a tragic ending) and not so much with the Doctor/Amy. I just don’t think he’s that into her.

But I’m sort of going off topic. What I expect from the finale: Amy saving the universe, possible alternate realities, and for at least one of my theories to be at least half correct. Much as I loved the previous four seasons of Doctor Who and their respective finales, I feel far more invested in this one. The build-up has been so much more intense, and so painstakingly detailed. I am caught in a weird mix of simultaneously trusting Moffat and his team…and being terrified because so much is riding on the next episode.

I don’t know how to judge this episode without having seen the next one. But for the sake of this system we’ve set up, I’ll have to give it a grade. I think I’ll call this one a B, with the provision that it may be upgraded next week.

Grade: B
.

*We’re hard at work on our Buffy season 2 musings, so Spike is on our minds a lot these days.

**These should not be taken particularly seriously. Unless I turn out to be right.

Two Review: Glee's "Journey to Sectionals"

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:57:00 -0400

Yes, we know this aired episode aired ages ago (two weeks? It feels like longer). We were busy.

Sara on the episode:

Firstly, the biggest reason I like Glee is the music. And there was a ton of it in this season finale. We saw the entirety of New Directions’ performance at sectionals, one of Vocal Adrenaline’s performances, and a few other glee club songs afterward, to boot. Strangely enough, none of this music was from musical theatre* (I’m not going to count “Over the Rainbow” here), but I prefer music over Glee’s dialogue any day.

Which isn’t to say the dialogue was all-bad—Sue had plenty of acrid and clever remarks, as to be expected. But the cast of Glee does music really, really well. Much better than the dialogue, which in this episode included Quinn screaming the line “let me go!” as she had her baby…and Vocal Adrenaline performed “Bohemian Rhapsody.” That was incredibly bizarre, and just something I could have done without.

The dialogue between Will and Emma (“I miss you”) was also weak: uninventive and just short of insipid. There were plenty of uber-cheesy moments in the episode (see: “To Sir With Love,” a song clearly meant to tug at baby boomer hearts everywhere, as it was originally written for an inspirational 1967 Sidney Poitier movie), but when sung, they at least had the advantage of being eloquent. (And Matt (“Shaft” — to use Sue’s name for him) even had a line! If that doesn’t say “season finale,” I don’t know what does.)

Glee’s writers, at least, get huge credit for one thing: they wrote an episode where the glee club loses…except in our heart. Compare the almost automatic, garish hyper-movement of “Bohemian Rhapsody” to the gooey eyes Rachel and Finn made during the entire “Faithfully” number. New Directions might have lost Sectionals, but in my mind (and, I imagine in the mind of many viewers), they were the better, and certainly more compelling, glee club. They had the pathos, and Vocal Adrenaline had, well, a bit of a mess.

So I’ll give Glee credit where credit’s due: to the songs. They (and possibly Sue) made the episode worth watching.

Grade: B-

*If anyone misses Glee’s occasional show tune as much as I do, you might want to search youtube for Matthew Morrison’s performance of “All I Need Is The Girl” on last Sunday’s Tonys. It was very classic, and a perfect introduction to Lea Michele’s bizarrely melodramatic reprise of “Don’t Rain on my Parade.”

The only way I can understand my character development is through SONG.

Julia on the episode:

The season finale of Glee, while not exactly a wonderful episode, heralded a very welcome return to what I am calling Original Flavor Glee. The second half of the season has seen some ups and downs, but even some of my favorite episodes have been a departure from what I consider to be the heart of the show: The Underdog Story. It’s supposed to be about a ~~ragtag fleet~~ bunch of losers (I mean that in the nicest way possible) who really, really want to be good at something. Never mind the requisite suspension of disbelief that the lowest of the low at McKinley High are each supremely talented. So anyway, I breathed a sigh of relief when this episode started and it became clear that we were back to that underdog story.

Other things that I liked: Emma was (mostly) back in a role of which I definitely approve, i.e. calling Will out and making him realize his mistakes. Mike and Matt got to speak. The Journey medley was fun, although I did sigh when I realized this would be another week of pop songs I don’t know and seriously how come Rachel and Kurt are the only ones who will ever sing showtunes? But I digress. I am undecided about Bohemian Rhapsody. I am very decided though that I quite liked the fact that they didn’t win, and once again the judging was shown to be somewhat arbitrary (this is show choir we’re talking about here). I also, of course, loved Sue’s storyline. Who didn’t?

Things that I didn’t like: I suppose it’s to be expected, but in order for Mike and Matt to get lines, Kurt and others had to sacrifice theirs. I didn’t like Quinn’s ricidulous labor, and them all (especially Mercedes) miraculously making it back to the auditorium for the awards. I didn’t like the super treacly “you are Glee” moments, but I can live. The one thing I really didn’t like, however, was the extremely uncomfortable handling of Emma’s virginity. This show really struggles with mature, adult relationships and never has it been more glaringly apparent (okay, maybe it’s been glaringly apparent before but I didn’t have a blog then and this way sounds way more dramatic). It’s none of his business, and she doesn’t have to stay “pure” for him. To be fair, I think the intention was merely to show that he’s jealous, but they unfortunately implied that, yes, the woman has to be virginal.

In conclusion, I give Glee a B+ because I do, for the most part, consider this a positive development of the show. Also the second half of the season gave me very low expectations.

Grade: B+

Coming soon: Doctor Who’s “The Pandorica Opens.”

Sara Reviews: True Blood's "Bad Blood"

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:48:00 -0400

True Blood is back, dark and sexualized as ever…and nearly as enjoyable as to be expected.

Plenty happened in the season premiere, and lots it good: a tense power struggle (er, collaboration) between Eric and the Queen (Evan Rachel Wood), Sam’s unexpected and steamy dream about Bill, Jason’s inability to avoid his conscience (even during sex!), Sookie’s over-the-top determination to find Bill (probably a result of the proposal-stress)…and Eric’s ass, lest any of us forget what this show is really about!

Beyond the sex, the show continues to pose interesting questions about morality for vampires. Jessica, who was turned last season, accidentally killed a man, and this resulted series of repetitive, nightmarish sequences where she realizes even her vampire powers cannot revive him. She buries the body under the house and nervously tries to cover her tracks. Now contrast that to the many guiltless, “moral” murders committed by Bill and Eric in previous seasons. We also see Bill take blood from an old lady on life support, seemingly without guilt. He’s sweet enough to gives her cash afterwards (as he glamoured her to forget the whole affair). So he “uses” a woman without her permission, than pays her for it afterwards…sounds a wee bit like prostitution, or even rape, to me…Which is to say, the show continues to make me think, even as it offers us views of Eric’s backside. Could a girl ask for anything more?

Grr. Arrgh.

Actually, yes. In short, Tara has ceased to serve as a relevant character. She worries Sookie, when Sookie has time for her, but we also have Jessica to play that role. In season one Tara was a strong, independent woman happy to take a controversial stand. Now she just seems to be using controversial thoughts to whine. It’s annoying, but even more so it’s painful to recognize just how much respect I’ve lost for her character. Last season Tara’s character was compromised for a plotline, and it’s time for the writers to bring her independence back. Because, right now, her storyline oscillates between boring, annoying and exceedingly frustrating.

(And, okay, I was also hoping for a bit more interaction between Eric and Sookie. The “even if I want what is his” line seemed like a bit of a throw-away to me.)

Still, there are lots of things I’m looking forward to in future episodes—but also a few things I worry about. We’ll have to see how the rest of he season goes.

Grade: B+

Two Review: Doctor Who's "The Lodger"

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:25:00 -0400

Julia on the episode:

This almost-penultimate (pen-penultimate?) episode of what has been, in my opinion, a stellar season was highly enjoyable and quite satisfying in that sort of calm-before-the-storm way. First of all, it was funny. It was really funny. The Doctor trying to pass as a normal human being was a joy to see, and Matt Smith rose to the challenge with his usual aplomb. And apparently he can play soccer (yes, I’m American, deal with it). Given that I barely managed to tear myself away from one of the World Cup games (Ghana vs. Serbia) to watch this episode, I quite appreciated that nod to the tournament.

I quite liked Craig and Sophie as well, and found them to be the perfect epitome of that oh-so-Who idea of little people leading their little lives and being absolutely extraordinary. Yes, the whole “power of love” bit was somewhat cheesy, but Doctor Who and cheese go together like chicken and…another chicken…or two chickens and…well, you get the idea. My point is, I expect a certain level of that when I watch this show, and this “power of love” moment was more rational than most, given that it was rooted in something specific (the desire to stay) rather than the abstract.

There was one thing about this episode that I didn’t like, however: no Amy Pond! Well, she was there but she wasn’t exactly doing anything. At least she wasn’t off damsel-ing. Still, I can’t expect the Companion to save the day in every episode—no matter how awesome she is—given that this is Doctor Who, and not The Amy Pond Show. All that said, I will be quite shocked and disappointed if Amy doesn’t save at least a few worlds in the season finale. I eagerly look forward to next week, and I will save my rant on the show’s genderfail for another day.

Grade: A-

Am I interrupting something?

Sara on the episode:

Far from the customary “Doctor-Light” episode expected just before the finale (think “Blink” and “Love & Monsters”), it feels like Moffat spoiled us with a lighthearted, Doctor-heavy episode. The Doctor makes wacky machines in his bedroom! The Doctor plays football*! The Doctor still has NO hope of adapting to modern-day society, and goodness if we don’t love him for it.

Still, we got a quick recap of all the Doctors and a funny little discussion of why he is, in fact, called The Doctor, subtly reminded us of the epic nature of the character in what was a very domestic episode, and naturally just in time for the 2-part season finale (which begins next week).

The episode was light…just not Doctor-light. If anything, it was companion-light, which sits just fine with me, since I assume next week will be all about Amy Pond. There’s nothing wrong with lightness, especially the week before the season finale. Not epic by any means, but there was a bit of a twist ending with the villain’s identity, and a dramatic end note that should prove interesting next week!

*aka soccer to us Americans

Grade: A-

Agree with our grade? Disagree? Think there ought to be a little more disagreement between the two reviewers? (just wait for our reviews of the Glee finale!) Let us know!

Fandom Service: Buffy Season 1

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:53:00 -0400

Fandom Service is a series of articles wherein Julia and Sara reflect (critically!) on some of their favorite shows.

Sara: We’ll admit, we’re not huge fans of the first season of Buffy. It’s my second-to-least-favorite season.

Julia: My least favorite.

Sara: All the same, it’s an important season because it laid down a firm start to the show. You can really see the potential for future seasons in there.

When It Was Good

Julia: What it comes down to, for the most part, is that everything is just a little bit off in season one. They didn’t hit their stride until season two—or, arguably, “Prophecy Girl.” “Prophecy Girl” is just a huge step up from even the better episodes of its season, like “Angel” and “Nightmares.”

Sara: I agree, it’s the best episode of the season. The writing’s just higher quality than the average episode in season one.

Are you implying any of this is not good?

Julia: I mean, prophecy girl has Sarah Michelle Gellar being amazing (“Giles, I’m sixteen years old. I don’t want to die.”). We see Willow being really struck by everything that’s happened for the first time. And maybe my favorite line: “When he wakes up, tell him…I don’t know. Think of something cool, tell him I said it.”

Sara: Sarah Michelle Gellar’s acting is far, far better in “Prophecy Girl” than any other season one episode. Conceptually, I love that she fulfills, but also goes beyond the prophecy. The rewriting of legend is such a key themes in Buffy; really it’s the premise of the entire show: that a tiny blonde girl is destined to fight vampires…with snark! And the quality of the episode legitimizes the theme: Buffy will change the written history, and we’ll enjoy watching it. (“What can I say? I flunked the written.”)

Never Kill A Show In The First Season*

Sara: As a setup to the series, season one isn’t great, but it works. I’m not terribly fond of the Master, and excepting Adam I do think he’s the weakest villain in the show.

Julia: The Master’s not an interesting villain. You know, he’s even more boring than the Initiative. But he’s the archetypal Vampyr incarnate, from his ridiculously sharp nails and teeth to his bloody mouth, and maybe that’s why “You have fruit-punch mouth,” while not being one of my favorite laugh lines, is absolutely perfect and indispensable. It’s the quintessential “I laugh in the face of your centuries-long reign of terror” which is so totally Buffy.

Buffy mourns the loss of Firefly.

Sara: I mean the set’s really cliché (or archetypal, sure), but there is definitely some metaphor to the first Big Bad lurking below until the Slayer is ready to pass below to meet him. It’s almost like she’s accepting some of his darkness by going down there and immersing herself in that world. Which matches nicely with the psychological control the Master has over Buffy, as shown in “Nightmares” and “When She Was Bad.”

Julia: And the Hellmouth is the ultimate teenage metaphor. That the mouth of hell is right under the high school—the library, even.

Villains Aplenty

Julia: Moloch in the internet is pretty basic but fun also for an opening season. “I, Robot…You Jane” gets a lot of flak for being so obvious, but A) I think it’s really funny, and B) I think it’s one of the more obvious examples of the first season being dated. Now, I can’t attest to this but I somehow doubt that the don’t-meet-that-nice-guy-you-met-in-the-chatroom storyline was so common in 1997, just because, well how common was the internet then? I mean, just look at the interface when Willow’s chatting with him…looks ancient.

Sara: I love Amy’s mom in “The Witch.” She’s a perfect example of Hellmouth-as-metaphor. The special effects in the episode are horrible, but I remember being surprised at the twist way back when I first saw the episode. Plus, it’s a good example of Buffy using the supernatural metaphor to make something upsetting but ordinary and overlooked (mom wanting daughter to fulfill own dreams) to perverse and fascinating.

The worst part? He’s actually one of the good guys.

Julia: And Darla is perfect for that opening scene but not so much the rest of the season? It’s just that her character doesn’t make any sense at this point, as they were still establishing their mythos.

Sara: Darla works well as an early comparison to Buffy—she competes for Angel’s attraction, she’s short and blonde and perky…and obnoxious and shallow and pure evil. She’s nowhere near a foil, but that only makes the contrast stronger. And I love that she dies so quickly, which is sort of classic Whedon now (see Angel the Series season one), but at the time was probably a big surprise. It made for a really great moment in “Angel” (which I do like as an episode).

Julia: I just can’t watch Darla in season one without thinking about how much she doesn’t make sense at this point. I mean, even in “Angel” she’s not really up to snuff with her character on Angel the Series, but in the pilot it’s just ridiculous. She doesn’t even know what a slayer is, and she’s totally pathetic. NOT Darla.

Why It Was Bad

Sara: We have to talk about the fashion. It’s unavoidable.

Julia: The fashion is definitely scarring.

The hair can be pretty scarring, also.

Sara: I was showing Buffy to a friend, who screamed during the first scene in Sunnydale High. It wasn’t a scary scene…I believe her exact words were “You never warned me about the clothes!”

Julia: The giant tentacle monster in “Prophecy Girl” always makes me laugh because I know that there is a person in a tentacle costume.

Sara: What about the worst episode? I vote “The Pack.” I remember wanting to throw popcorn at the screen while watching. It’s just so uncomfortable, and so ridiculous, and I don’t know how much it adds, besides straining the Willow-loves-Xander-but-Xander-loves-Buffy dynamic.

Julia: I think “Teacher’s Pet” is the worst, just because The Pack has that one really funny scene between Buffy and Giles:

Giles: Xander’s taken to teasing the less fortunate?

Buffy: Uh-huh.

Giles: And, there’s been a noticeable change in both clothing and

demeanor?

Buffy: Yes.

Giles: And, well, otherwise all his spare time is spent lounging about

with imbeciles.

Buffy: It’s bad, isn’t it.

Giles: It’s devastating. He’s turned into a sixteen-year-old boy. Course, you’ll have to kill him.

*This is why Fox fails at life.

Is the first season your favorite? Did you love the early fashion, the tentacle monster, the camp? Now’s the time to leap to its defense! (Unless you hated it…and then you should tell us just how much!)