Under Pressure [SPOILERS for New Doctor Who episode "Cold War"]

Apr 13, 2013 19:57

There's a bit in what I may as well hold my hands up and admit is, somewhat inexplicably, one of my favourite films, The Hunt for Red October where Soviet submarine commander Captain Marko Ramius (played by pro-celebrity golfer/tax exile/domestic violence advocate Sean Connery) and his scumbag political commissar Putin (yes, really - this was at ( Read more... )

television, thoughts, doctor who, navel gazing, eleven

Leave a comment

Comments 24

ravenskyewalker April 14 2013, 05:47:55 UTC
I love submarine adventures. Yep, the "walls" are bulkheads. However, I was oddly delighted that the sub was refered to as a boat, not a ship, as traditional submariners call them boats ( ... )

Reply

jjpor April 14 2013, 16:35:16 UTC
Indeed - and if you take one lesson from watching submarine films, it's that it's a "boat". The really classic thing to do is to have some newbie call it a "ship" and then have somebody correct them. ;D ( ... )

Reply


persiflage_1 April 14 2013, 06:09:59 UTC
It's astonishing that Gatiss managed to write a half-way decent script. First one I've seen from him in either Who or Sherlock.

David Warner is always, always awesome.

I feel bad for Toby Menzies - typecast as the incompetent/idiot with ideas above his station. Even in the remake of Casino Royale, his Villiers is only, at best, a faux!Tanner without the latter's panache.

Reply

jjpor April 14 2013, 16:38:52 UTC
He did pretty good by his own lacklustre Who standards, didn't he, Gatiss? I think it was a pretty straightforward, no frills sort of story, and that worked to its advantage. The direction and the performances helped a lot, mind you. And the very well-realised Martian/Ice Warrior too.

Always.

It was a pretty clichéd, thankless sort of role, but I thought Menzies did very well with it. I agree, though, he needs better/more prominent parts. He was pretty awesome as Brutus in Rome, actually. Which was...astonishingly, finished not quite six years ago. Doesn't seem that long.

Reply

persiflage_1 April 14 2013, 17:41:46 UTC
Gatiss did - and yes, the direction and acting definitely helped vastly.

Oh - I've not seen Rome - is it any good? Is it a straight historical or what?

Reply

jjpor April 14 2013, 21:06:04 UTC
The direction and production design were actually top-notch - it really did help make some of the dodgier moments of the story/script less noticeable.

Rome is...probably something of a guilty pleasure. Not particularly historically accurate (when it got cancelled, they had to cram about 20 years of history into the second series just to give the characters closure before the end), lots of probably gratuitous sex and violence, but a really classy cast giving great performances, and characters you really get attached to, even if some of them resemble their real-life counterparts in name only. I loved it once I got into it, but I think it's one of those things people either love or hate.

Reply


liadtbunny April 14 2013, 14:15:45 UTC
I agree with you about liking Clara's "little freak-out". Out of all the things they try to do to make the characters more human/characterful rather than cut outs this rang true with me for once. She may end up being my favourite character in New Who depending how her story arc pans out.

Reply

jjpor April 14 2013, 16:40:45 UTC
I like her a lot. She's very likeable, and doesn't put up with the Doctor's rubbish, which is what you want in a companion. And yes, I felt it was a very honest sort of character moment that rang very true. Normally, when we get "emotions" in New Who it's quite histrionic, but less was more in this case, I think.

Reply


akashasheiress April 14 2013, 17:55:36 UTC
Sunken submarine... a Das Boot derivation/homage?

Not surprised that they barely touched the politics. Bit of a cheat to call the episode Cold War, really (yes, yes, I know it's also a reference to the Ice Warrior but still). But glad that the IW wasn't rubbish.

David Warner was really amazing as Henry VI, btw.

Reply

jjpor April 14 2013, 21:11:39 UTC
More like Alien on a sunken submarine, really. The people who have been calling it a classic Troughton-style "base under siege" story have the right of it, I think. It's proper oldschool Doctor Who (with all that implies, both good and bad) without any of these new-fangled NuWho twiddly bits, really. Gatiss done good, at long last.

I think the thing about Das Boot is that it's an atypical submarine film/series in that it actually manages to avoid a lot of the hoary old clichés and tropes, and is the better for it.

I wonder whether the title or the historical setting came first? But yeah, they really did a good job of rebooting the Martians here, I think - much better than they did with, say, the Sontarans or the Cybermen (Daleks remain Daleks, just more expensive and shinier).

And David Warner is just great. Wasted in a lot of the things he's been in over the past 30 years or so, I guess, but then again you have to pay the bills, right?

Reply

akashasheiress April 14 2013, 21:20:31 UTC
That does sound good. Although oldschool Doctor Who would've been more willing to explore the actual politics etc of the era, which, as you say, this one didn't.

He is also great in The Guns of Balfour. Don't know if you've seen it?

Reply

jjpor April 14 2013, 21:42:47 UTC
Yeah, there wasn't much historical depth - could have just as easily taken place on a space station in the future or whatever, but that would literally be my only major criticism of it. That and the fact that the Ice Warrior should have had the traditional "Lego" hands. ;D

Is that the film The Bofors Gun? He is indeed dead good in that. He was one of those very hip, angry young actors in his youth, along with the likes of Alan Bates and Albert Finney. Also great in a supporting role in the war movie Cross of Iron, as a burned out, possibly alcoholic German officer on the Russian front.

Reply


clocketpatch April 15 2013, 19:45:05 UTC
Watching it over, I was struck by how odd it was having 1984 as a "historical" setting... and then I realized that it probably isn't much odder than the 7th Doctor having WWII as a historical setting... Gives you a new respect for just how long the show's been around anyway -

I'm sort of viewing it as a sequel to Curse of Feneric in a weird Not-Really-A-Sequel way. There's a companion who has some mysterious backstory that hasn't been completely revealed yet, and the Soviets are being portrayed as just regular humans who happen to be on the other side.

Also, I'm falling a bit in love with Clara. She's just really well done so far, even with the whole back-from-the-dead bit (but, there's not a single Moffat character in Who who's been in more than twos stories who HASN'T come back from the dead at some point... usually more than once... so I can't really hold that against her). She's sort of like Opposite!River - The Doctor knows all about her rather than the other way around.

Reply

jjpor April 15 2013, 21:12:25 UTC
That is a very true, and somewhat worrying (for one of my years) observation. The 80s are now a historical period! O.o
It occurred to me also that if the Soviet officer's mention of NATO manoeuvres is a reference to the infamous Exercise Able Archer, as seems likely, and if UNIT stories all take place more or less at the time that they're aired (they all do, imho, apart from Battlefield, whatever Sarah Jane may say), then this whole mess took place literally within a couple of weeks of Two's visit to UNIT HQ at the start of The Five Doctors. Not that that's relevant to the story, just to the crazy fanfic idea I'm developing as to how Eleven managed to get to the South Pole.

Do you know what else they have at the South Pole? That's right - Cybermen! ;D

I do see the Curse of Fenric parallels, actually - good observation. Even down to the hulking monster who turns out to be far from all bad in the end.

And I think Clara's great so far. Yes, I won't hear a word against her. :)

Reply

akashasheiress April 15 2013, 21:26:51 UTC
*says word against Clara just to be contrarian *

I kid, you know I kid. ;D I need to actually see her...

Reply

clocketpatch April 16 2013, 17:04:12 UTC
She's really quite wonderful. Like I say above, she's very much the Anti!River. Which may well be intentional -

At first meeting, the Doctor knows far more about her than she knows about the Doctor (though the Doctor still doesn't know who she is) and she is, in this incarnation at least, patently normal. She is a rather likeable 21st century Earth girl who has had a few tragedies in her life, but doesn't regard herself as anything special. She wants to travel and she is morally responsible and wants to make sure people are safe. Also, she seems not particularly interested in snogging (which I'm certain will change as the series goes on, but at the moment she's got more of a Donna vibe with the Doctor than anything).

...

which is me just going on a bit. But knowing you, and watching this series, I think that there is very little you'd object to so far.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up