The Only Thing We Have to Fear: An Analysis of Night Terrors
"Planets and history and stuff, that's what we do.
But not today. No, today,
we answer a call for help
from the scariest place in the universe, a child's bedroom."
"George's monsters are real."
( Read more... )
And, actually, your point is really beside mine. Out of my scope. I'm not a reviewer or critic in the normal sense of the term. My background and interest isn't in good or bad. Mainly, because I don't really think there can be such a thing. There's only like and dislike. Personally, I like depth and literary quality.
Furthermore, you hit on something that has been a subject of debate for me and my pals for years now. If something is mainstream, does that make it inherintly bad (you see, my pals are all hipsters). If it pleases the masses, is that a bad thing? Is it a good thing that it appeals to many and hits on some sort of universal consciousness? Does it really matter? (The last is my position.)
Now, the sci fi genre itself is a whole other kettle, in my opinion, and, ironically, one that falls victim to this sort of debate even more so. It is a genre that already is out of the mainstream, therefore isn't going to appeal to the masses anyway. But then you get the big blockbusters, full of action and romance and all the things that Joe Popcorn likes. So, you do have the ability to pull in the masses. The problem is, like with any genre, you also have sci fi that works on a more artistic/cerebral level, and the sci fi that does that has a tendency to be called "crap" because it doesn't work on the surface level. No one complains that Citizen Kane didn't have enough car chases, but they complain that Attack of the Clones is too talky.
This is further ironic because scifi IS symbolic. This isn't just "on some level", but on *every level*. It's made of symbols. It is more literary and poetic than any other genre. All of it is cerebral because it comes out of the land of dreams and imagination. This is why it is "geek"! If you can't watch it like that, then you're in the wrong genre.
On top of that, the scifi genre has these pesky little things called "fans". These are the people that are the extreme polar opposites of the casual viewer. And among these are the people that are divided between those that love something new and those that hate it. It's the later that I don't get. I think they they get into a comfort zone of something that they like and then don't want to try something new or go into a new direction. It's not that they can't, it's that they don't *want* to think any deeper. To me, that is tragic.
Reply
I can't see Doctor Who, Star Wars, Lost, Shyamalan as anything else but brilliant. When I listen to detractors, I literally can't see what they are talking about. Actually, it seems to me that they don't see the things that I do. And, to me, it's not as if these shows and films are all written in some sort of symbolic code that can only be cracked by literature majors and quantum physicists. It's all right there.
You call it "sparse" on the surface, a complaint I've heard across the fandoms. But I'd say the reverse is true. I don't want to bash RTD because I adored his Who and that's what I first fell in love with. Same goes for the original Star Wars trilogy. But, compared to Moffat's Who, there's no question as to which one is sparse, in my opinion. The Tenth Doctor was a jolly, bipolar time traveler that once went a little too far, but mostly was just a sad, lonely hero. All the villains he faces were robots and monsters that simply wanted to destroy the planet. Even time itself was really just a foreign planet to visit and play on. I guess the very casual viewer would have like it and had a good time, but it was nothing more than standard scifi plotting. Same goes for Star Wars. The original trilogy was fun adventures in space with bad and good guys wearing the right colors. But the prequels were much more complicated and dark, confusing. Fun is great, but when it could be so much more, why not go there?
Does Moffat's reign alienate casual viewers? Probably. But this is far from unheard of in the scifi genre. In fact, based on Lost, which was completely unwatchable for most people, I'd say it's a sign of greatness. Lost is an utter classic that revolutionalized the sci fi genre, not to mention television itself. That's the point of art. Who cares about the casual viewer or Joe Popcorn? I'm not saying that to be snobbish or elitist, I'm just saying that writers and producers shouldn't be making the shows for the casual viewers because they'd be wasting the oppurtunity to make something deep, brilliant, and resonant. Esspecially since it seems that do to so automatically alienates them.
But, to make something deeper pulls in people that normally would disregard the scifi genre itself. I have many friends that don't watch any scifi but that totally got hooked on Lost because it was something so fascinating and clever. Got to tell you, Moffat's Who has also hooked many of my elitist, artsy fartsy friends, whereas RTD's Who never did.
Actually, I'll pull out the same argument a lot of us Star Wars prequel lovers use. OK, they might not be enjoyable for casual viewers. (Who likes to watch someone fall to the dark side?) But the fans, they have no reason to complain. I can understand why a casual viewer doesn't like Moffat's Doctor Who, but a fan? Come on. What isn't there to love? It's brilliant candy for us.
Now, I'm writing this fast and sloppy. You are probably 100% right. I just greatly disagree. And that's probably because I'm pretensious, snobby, and in the minority. But also, I'm a book person. The things I like in a show are character, drama, plot, style, creativity. And Moffat's Who gives me all of that on a very consistant basis. And it does it with the poetry of symbolism.
Reply
RTD's who had the inverse of the issue that some of the eps under Moffat's reign have - it was all surface and very very little subtext. (and more but I won't delve into here because I could fill reams) There was the Doctor and there was Rose (or Martha or Donna or Jack) and there was their adventures and there was the battle, the climax and home again in time for tea. A lot of this was avoided in Donna's season, but for the most part it skimmed the surface, and deeper intricacies were far and few between. But it was filling and terribly, terribly fun (when not giving me Tinkerbell!Jebus!Doctor and making me foam at the mouth. Although come to think of it, that was half the fun for the other half, waiting to see if each new grand spiraling over the top season finale and accompanying deus ex machina would be the one to make me finally stroke out :P)
It also had a very good habit of pulling in very large ratings and making the fledgling revival turn into something that is now going through its sixth season on air.
Who cares about the casual viewer or Joe Popcorn? I'm not saying that to be snobbish or elitist, I'm just saying that writers and producers shouldn't be making the shows for the casual viewers because they'd be wasting the oppurtunity to make something deep, brilliant, and resonant. Esspecially since it seems that do to so automatically alienates them.
Because artistics aside, there is the cold reality and money-grubbing highly distasteful matter of ratings. Doctor Who survives because it is a cash cow. It's one of the main reasons why RTD got the green light for the new series back in 2005 - it's long been one of the BBC's most profitable franchises, and therefore a safe bet, despite the ignominious ending of the classic run. And as I pointed out earlier, you can have your cake and eat it too, by appealing on multiple levels.
Matt Smith's inaugural season struck a fantastic medium. It had the flash, the fun, the style and basic, shallow enjoyment of "just a tv show" for those who paddled those depths. But behind the glitter and the dance, the shadowy figures and hidden depths also moved for those who cared to see.
Is Moffat the best thing to come to DW in a long time? Fuck yes. I read his first DW story back in Decalog III when it came out and when I realised it was the same man who wrote The Doctor Dances, I eagerly awaited Blink. When it emerged he was writing Time Crash I had absolute screaming kittens. And when he was named RTD's successor, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven.
But still I worry.
I'm hoping it's for nothing and continues on and I'm just a silly moo with low expectations of humanity in general (frankly no surprise there) but dammit, I love the fact that Who is back, that it's brilliant and challenging and surprising as ever, and it's in the hands of someone who continues to move it forward and I want it to keep going on for as long as it has breath.
Reply
Something mainstream is not inherently bad. There is a tendency for it to be dismissed as such by Certain People (I like to call them "idiots"), as if accessibility is somehow some awful, shameful habit, like walking around in public picking your nose.
Sci fi is certainly steeped in symbolism, as part of its very nature. It's also very very hard to define as a single pigeonholed genre in and of itself (Asimov had some brilliant essays on this phenomenon), and there tends to be a habit of avoiding the appellation (like that of "Fantasy") where possible by Hollywood and TV Execs because it's "unseemly" - it doesn't sell! It's the domain of geeks! They don't bring in any money, we want Joe Sixpack and his pickup full of kids as our demographic! And this is the habit, despite some, if not most of the highest grossing movies of all time being sci fi and/or fantasy.
That said - the symbolism does not have to be something that every single viewer must dig for in order to gain enjoyment. It can be present for those who wish to seek it, but on the surface level, it can make sense in and of its own canon and to the casual viewer. The episodes I cited before. Star Trek (2009 in particular). Star Wars. Hell, even the Matrix. The latter is a particularly good example as the entire series is steeped in symbolism, from Abrahamic religions to exploration of slavery and xenophobia (especially 'The Second Renaissance'), as well as plumbing the metaphysics of the conception of reality and our ability to shape and define our environs by our own conceptions and thoughts.
However, on top of this, it's still a great series of movies (well, the first one and Animatrix are :P) and something that can be enjoyed by someone who wouldn't understand any of the symbols and references. This is the surface level I refer to.
I like things that do this. It's the cake and eating it too :D And surely, by being so universally accessible, they can convey a far greater message and do much more good? There's no doubt so much more symbolism, a great deal of particularly evocative imagery and camera work that a film student could advise both of us went into these episodes - however the fact that they're not immediately visible to us does not mean their affects cannot be noted, even if dimly and subconsciously.
(to be continued....damn you, LJ comment limits! *shakes baleful fist*
Reply
Doctor Who has always been a bit of an odd child. While the premise is solidly sci fi, it's always had a lovely sense of whimsy. It's always been part science, part fairy tale, part mythology, part pisstake. That's one of the joys of it, and why it has survived for so long. Unfortunately, for some fans it's also become a pair of comfortable slippers - with the hiatus between the end of McCoy's era and the telemovie and then the telemovie to Rose, it was mapped out, explored (television only, the MAs and NAs are another ball of wax altogether) and some fans got used to the fact that it was terribly, terribly familiar territory. It didn't challenge them. There were no unknowns, no surprises, it was pinned down, explored and then packaged away on a shelf for good....and the new series doesn't allow them that and worse (the horror!) travels into new and further depths and explorations in a way the classic series never had the chance to do. So they get uncomfortable, antsy, and horribly cranky and ranty. "It's not (my image of) Doctor Who!" they cry. The attacks on RTD got very ridiculous in places (and I say this as someone who has her own issues with RTD, chiefly with his pacing and structuring in places - when he's good, he's very, very good. When he's bad, he's absolutely horrid) because of this phenomenon, and of course now he's no longer the showrunner they've been transferred to Moffat. Regardless of whether or not they apply.
I tend to avoid a lot of the DW comms for this very reason. Member of a few, but they don't appear on my flist - I seek them out manually on occasion. It's rather like reading youtube comments - you have to be in the mood to put up with those sorts of shenanigans. And I say that as a long (30+ years, grew up on the classic run, been heavily involved in the fandom for decades) fan - Doctor Who fans can be - hell they *are* - the crankiest, most self-loathing, bitchiest, wankiest little fucktards on the face of the planet. (and I say that with love :P)
Trek fans may have invented slash, but we invented fanwank :)
Reply
I guess the optimist and artiste in me just ignores those pesky ratings. I buy so much DVDs and merchandise, I just figure I'm keeping them afloat.
And, for the most part, I ignore obnoxious wankfans (I've had to in other fandoms, so it's no problem here).
On top of that, I think I'm just so in my own little playground of art and depth and all that, I just don't know what appeals to "the masses". I don't see how the sixth series is any different than the fifth. Except maybe that the overall plot is much more complicated, but I'd still think it mostly accessible. Meh. I guess I'm just selfish. I'm so happy with the depth and cleverness of Moffat that I don't see how anyone else wouldn't be.
Reply
It's been such a lot of fun this season, although at times exhausting. Can't wait to see your opinion on Closing Time (And again with the over and subtle mirroring refs!)
*proffers a friending*
Reply
Oh, absolutely. Very exhausting. My literary brain and my heart strings are exhausted. And I still have to attack God Complex, which just might kill me.
Accepted! :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment