The Caretaker

[Anonymous @]

I’m not sure who it was who claimed that Who has not been a ‘drama’ programme – a little drama only. Interesting. I tend to think that Doctor Who is a sci-fi drama; right from its inception. Perhaps someone else might attend to the definition of drama but to me these past seasons have shown or at least heralded elements or moments of Greek drama and tragedy as well as comic buffa.

As to who will end up dying -perhaps for the love of Clara or the Doctor or a student? The Doctor is a caretaker, too as mentioned up thread by @juniperfish (who I hope is better now having had those awful B12 injections -I sympathise. Wiggling one’s toes helps if you get the injection in the rear!) & as Sophocles said: “the least of us know that love is a cruel and terrible master [A person loses oneself for the sake of another but then becomes enslaved].”

 

[Arbutus @arbutus]

@juniperfish    Moffat bingo???  Is that a thing? I can imagine the cards…  🙂

@badwulf     Our subway/skytrain has had several big outages recently where whole lines have been shut down for hours. Today the spokesperson suggested that next time, people should take the opportunity to go have a coffee! You can imagine how that advice went over.

In truth, one of the reasons I have yet to visit the UK is because, once I get there, my touring requirements will need weeks of time!  🙂

@scaryb   @purofilion   I love solo Doctor, always have. Hopefully we will see more of him in the current incarnation.

[Cath Annabel @cathannabel]

@phaseshift To really admire it I’ve found it beneficial to stop a safe distance away from it. Yorkshire is perfect. I can really admire London from Yorkshire.

A good point, well made.  The view of London from Sheffield is pretty damn fine.  Mind you, the view of hills and moorland from my dining room window in Sheffield is awesome.

 

[Cath Annabel @cathannabel]

http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who/32264/doctor-who-and-faith-bigger-on-the-inside

Doctor Who hosts a frank and open discussion about the things that matter most to us as human beings: love, death, forgiveness, safety, adventure, and yes – belief.

Interesting piece here about Who and faith.  As a humanist (I prefer that as a positive statement of what I do believe in, rather than atheist which defines me by what I don’t) I’ve always claimed Who, along with the Whedon oeuvre, for ‘my’ side.  But this is a nice article, and timely in light of the weirdness on the Gblog, where atheism seems to be equated with nihilism.

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

I know it’s a bit late, but thanks very much @bluesqueakpip for the Tempest synopsis, and for explaining the parallels. (Out of curiosity, I rented the Helen Mirren version that you mentioned from iTunes, and regret not buying it instead. Tom Conti in particular was a real treat.)
I confess I have a copy of Shakespeare’s Complete Works displayed proudly on my bookshelves – gathering dust and fooling no-one. Perhaps it’s time I actually read a page or two!
@geoffers I never thought to look at the positions of the chess pieces. Hmm… Three major pieces (=main characters) breaking the rules of chess (=laws of time) shortly before being knocked over (=blasted out of the universe) by a football (=by an absolutely massive football). That’s my prediction and I’m sticking with it 🙂

 

x

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

This just occurred to me – Missy’s rejection of the policeman reminds me of the Sheriff of Nottingham’s rejection of Quayle in favour of Quayle’s Ward (Maid Marian). The Sheriff was selecting people for forced labour. Is that what Missy is up to as well?

Other prominent slaves/captives so far in the series are Mr and Mrs Teller – and although Mrs Delphox isn’t in chains, she might as well be… In “Listen”, the Doctor “slaves” the Tardis to Clara – I thought that was an odd choice of wording at the time. (Enslavement and servitude also feature heavily in The Tempest.)

x

[PhaseShift @phaseshift Time Lord]

@juniperfish

I actually went to medical school when I was a young thing and managed a year and a half before leaving because the word “empathy” had not entered the classroom.

Hah! Yes, you seem a bit too interested in people to have that career. 😉 I don’t know if you’ve ever come across it before, but Radio 4 did a comedy series “Struck off and Die” which is occasionally repeated on 4extra. It was fronted by Tony Gardner and Phil Hammond (who writes as “MD” on NHS issues in Private Eye). It was hilarious on the issue of empathy in particular.

I think the dialogue was: “Yes, we only take the smartest and brightest into medical school. Privately educated mostly, with the social skills of a plank. Students who devoted themselves entirely to study to get the best grades. Then we work them harder still, to remove any traces of warmth, empathy and basic understanding of their fellow humans. In the final year we give them a one hour optional tutorial called “how to care” to make up for this. People who opt for it are marked down as GP material. The others are encouraged to look at Surgery as an option. “

The shows included a variety of Vox pops with actual medical students answering questions on their aims, aspirations and attitudes to medicine, which were absolutely mind blowing in certain cases. Well worth seeking it out, if only to confirm your views.

I must admit a lack of knowledge on Santa Muerte with the exception of a couple of mentions in American genre TV (X-Files for one) where it perhaps inevitably didn’t translate well. If you have any interesting links I’d appreciate them.

[PhaseShift @phaseshift Time Lord]

@cathannabel

Thanks for the link to that article. It reminds me of a podcast that the Splendid Chaps in Oz did last year looking at depictions of Religion and belief in Who. It’s well worth a listen.

I actually followed one of the links in the article to the profile of Malcolm Hulke. He’s mentioned in the article as being of a left/atheist persuasion (which indeed he was – he was a member of the Communist Party until the invasion of Hungary mid 50s when he left the Party). It’s a casual mention, seeming to be used to confirm that of course writers like that would bring their own agenda to the table.

It’s a big assumption. In actual fact, when he novelised his own stories he actually injected Relgion into them when they’d been removed by his Script Editor, Terrance Dicks. His novel of Colony in Space (the publishers preferred “The Doomsday Weapon”) The Doctor introduces the leader of the colonists to the bible and the concept of a burial ceremony (the future explorers having been dehumanised to a certain extent). Reading the book is a bit of a revelation to the leader, and leads him to sacrifice his own life for the greater good of his flock.

He was actually a really good lefty writer, not instinctively discounting stories and philosophies but immensely distrustful of Government, Corporations and organised Religion. Structures, as it were.

It’s also interesting that one of the stories touched upon is Curse of Fenric, which is leading by a country mile in our vote for Sylvester McCoy. It might be interesting, as the “afterlife” aspect is coming though to look at that story in conjunction with a number of new stories we haven’t covered. A mini “faith” season between the end of this series and the Christmas Special.

Oh, and we should have T-Shirts printed! “The Doctor Who Forum Yorkshire Posse”.

[PhileasF @phileasf]

@badwulf – I agree that The Five Doctors is underrated. The best BG Doctor Who writer, Robert Holmes, had a crack at writing a 20th anniversary special that brought back all the characters it was supposed to bring back, and he couldn’t. That Terrance Dicks could bring them all together in a story that’s fun, makes sense, and also contributes some great new stuff to the show, like the Raston Warrior Robot and the Death Zone, says much about his underrated skills as a writer.

[BadWulf @badwulf]

@phileasf – Not forgetting the Time Scoop – which is one of my pet bonkers theories about how Missy is populating the Nethersphere.

[Arbutus @arbutus]

@idiotsavon    Oh, I like the call on captives and slaves, there’s definitely a theme there, I think. Well spotted.

@cathannabel  Thanks for the link, I enjoyed it. I’m not sure I agree with some it. I think mythologists would have something to say about the notion that the role of self-sacrificing hero is inspired by Christian belief specifically. Remember Joseph Campbell, and The Hero With a Thousand Faces? Whatever valid criticisms might be made about the hero’s journey concept and its spinoffs, I don’t think it can be denied that the basic theme of the hero of sometimes mysterious origin who has come to save the world or some part of it is woven throughout human cultural history.

But I like the point that the umbrella of Doctor Who is broad enough to speak to a wide variety of people, not just those from one culture or world view. This, of course, is part of the greatness of the show, and probably why it has lasted so long!

[Cath Annabel @cathannabel]

@arbutus  Absolutely – enjoyed, not fully agreed with.  It was refreshing that the writer was putting a different point of view without demonising those with whom he was disagreeing.  And yes, the show has its roots in diversity – as the Adventures in Time & Space drama (which was absolutely wonderful, I thought) made clear, with the key parts played by a young Jewish woman and a young Indian man, and a Canadian of Jewish Russian refugee heritage in making the programme happen, and making it a success.

[Juniperfish @juniperfish]

@phaseshift 🙂 Yes, that all, re the medical profession, resonates only too strongly, unfortunately.

Santa Muerte is very interesting – news item here from National Geographic  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130512-vatican-santa-muerte-mexico-cult-catholic-church-cultures-world/

And much more in depth info from Lucky Mojo http://www.luckymojo.com/santisimamuerte.html

I would enjoy the Doctor and Clara’s visit to Crocodpolis – I wonder if they’ll get there – one for fan fiction I suspect.

[Devilishrobby @devilishrobby]

Oh why did I do it….. Went looking for a definition of netherspace and saw way too many spoilers about missy.

I was basically looking into a theory I was trying to develop about Missy. Now I know it has already been proposed that she may be a regeneration of Romana and I was trying to put some kind of context to that theory because we already know Missy’s title is Gatekeeper of the Netherspace.

This got me thinking is netherspace what was called E-space in BG Baker era. This of course then got me thinking of Romana who when the doctor finally escaped E-Space she elected to stay behind at what was effectively the gateway between normal space universe and the E-Space universe.. Yes yes I know in the books published she eventually got back to Gallifey to become the high president. But if SM is perhaps not including that in the new cannon it occured to me that Missy could in fact be a warped regeneration of Romana.

If she is Romana, Missy’s earlier comment about her being the Doctors boyfriend could be a warped memory of being the doctors companion.

Oh well I sure it’s all nonsense anyway but felt I needed to share.

[Anonymous @]

@devilishrobby that was great! Maybe it is Romana -considering all the call backs (shout outs) we’ve had to BG Who. I’m sure that having re-booted the programme and seeing a whole lot of new monsters and scary gits that it’s time to re-visit old favourites. I feel that 12 is a lot like 1 and also Tom Baker, but then I see Pertwee there too. Capaldi’s 12 is more like the old Doctors of the 60s and the 70s.

I would like to know what the T-shirt is doing? Why that and not the White Shirt ensemble? Obviously the T-Shirt was necessary under the caretaker garb but the previous week?

Or are the costume designers/producers looking to move him out of wearing only one ‘guise’? Is the starry T a clue -for something? Possibly, comfort. Gotta admit, I liked the silk lined jacket  -actually I like it/him all too much.

Better go and ….cook.

Kindest, purodiddles.

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

Perhaps someone else might attend to the definition of drama

 

Allow me…

 

Only kidding. I’ve learned my lesson 🙂

 

But it’s a really good question. How does anyone define Drama? I bet someone scholarly on this forum knows 🙂

x

[thommck @thommck]

@idiotsavon My old youth theatre director defined drama as

The extraordinary happening to the ordinary

Anything else is a documentary 😉

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

The above should be:

@purofilion

Perhaps someone else might attend to the definition of drama

(Forgot my @someone and my blockquotes.)

@thommk I like that as a definition. Although it would mean that all of Dr Who, and a big chunk of science fiction, and if you think about it, any kind of interesting story, can all be defined as drama. I think of “drama” as… well, to be honest I’m not sure. That’s why I brought up purofilion’s question! But if someone said to me. “You should watch this programme. It’s a TV drama” I wouldn’t envisage fun, larks and adventures. There would be a lot of confrontation and crying. And the circumstances might not be particularly extraordinary.

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

The above should be @thommck (my forum manners are all over the place today!)

[Anonymous @]

@idiotsavon

I wouldn’t envisage fun, larks and adventures. There would be a lot of confrontation and crying. 

That’s what I meant by too much drama.   The Tardis scene just reminds me of a show that I never want DW to be like.

Now I need a memory worm to get this out of my head.  👿

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@handles

Now I need a memory worm to get this out of my head.

Ha ha, sorry for the negative imagery. Hope you have got it out of your head already! 🙂 To clarify: I think that “fun, larks and adventures” define Dr Who. (NOT confrontation and/or crying. They’re optional extras, to be used judiciously.)

I guess that the proper definition of “drama” (@thommck’s “extraordinary happening to the ordinary”) includes the fun/silly/quirky/impossible/ridiculous. And thus applies to Doctor Who.

But I feel like the word “drama” (the way that I feel it being used around me) connotes depression and negativity.

I think I’m confusing “drama” with some sort of genre of grim realism. But if I am, it’s because that’s the way that the word seems to be used, in my experience.

So I’m interested in other people’s interpretations, knowledge and understanding of drama.

Scholar’s friend: Everything’s always such a drama with you, isn’t it?
Scholar: (facepalm) No, it isn’t. It really isn’t…

x

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@handles

Hmm. If the whole of the episode had been an extension of the Tardis scene, I’d agree with you. But I actually thought the show as a whole was incredibly funny, and so the Tardis scene worked for me. I didn’t enjoy it (as in, I didn’t feel happy or comfortable watching it) but I did think that it was appropriate.

It was most out-of-keeping with the lovely-cuddly-Matt-Smith-era Doctor Who that I adore (and still miss a bit.) But it was exactly right for those characters at that moment.

I suspect I’ll never grow to love Capaldi’s Doctor (or indeed want to hug him) but I bet by the end of his run I won’t want him to leave. (In the words of the great Vince Mantooth “I hate you Ron Burgundy. I pure, straight hate you… But goddammit do I respect you.”) 🙂

x

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@handles

One last thing re: tension in the Tardis. I’ve only witnessed three regenerations as an adult.

The first time (Eccleston into Tennant,) New-Tennant-Doctor was out cold and woke up in the middle of the action. (Interesting that Rose didn’t trust him at first, just like Clara didn’t trust Capaldi.) Trying to deal with the Sycorax on her own, Rose was a fish out of water and a laughing stock. When The Doctor showed up Rose took a back seat and let him do his Thing. A similar thing happened with Clara in Deep Breath (but different in perhaps important ways – Capaldi Doc seemed to decide to abandon her, and she held her own extremely well without him.)

The second time, New-Matt-Smith-Doctor (who I didn’t like at first, by the way, but grew to love) had no ties to the past. His companions were all brand new. No friction between past and former selves whatsoever.

This third time is a lot more complicated, I think.

So the way I see it, it would be weird if there wasn’t any tension between characters (or “drama” as I like to call it.)

x

[Anonymous @]

@idiotsavon @handles and all the others (and @thommck  also) I tend to be a bit (over) rigorous and assume drama to be the opposite of what is seen in some Australian shows -in other words not the Australian (dramma) rhyming with Alabama. You could say ‘drarma’ (or say it any which way) placing it within a more classical view (though I’m a Romantic at heart as @drben and I discussed elsewhere) with tension and treatment, motivation and often a chorus -as I see The Paternoster Gang to be on occasion -although they are definitely not that in all the episodes.

The sublime world in Greek is drama; the tragic and the relentless; the arguments between right and wrong; just and unjust; pain and beauty, and the alarm the latter often creates or teases out.

Sure, there are moments when the characters, contemplating their mortality, shriek at each other (in iambic trimeter generally!) and slash each other’s throats, stab their husbands in the bath as did Klytemnestra with her:

and as he died, he spattered me with the strong red

and violent driven-rain of bitter savoured blood

to make me full as gardens stand among the showers

of God in glory [at] the spring [birth] time of the buds (depends on transl)

That’s drama to me, I think -tense and beautiful, terrifying, even when good is lost, the mad overtakes, and the good rises once again.

G’night all.

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

the tragic and the relentless; the arguments between right and wrong; just and unjust; pain and beauty, and the alarm the latter often creates or teases out…-tense and beautiful, terrifying, even when good is lost, the mad overtakes, and the good rises once again.

You have such a beautiful way with words (Not, so far, creating any alarm 🙂 )

No response.

I just need to go away and drink all that in.

Thanks @purofilion. G’night.

x

[Mudlark @mudlark]

@idiotsavon  @handles   As I understand it the term drama covers any work designed to be performed to an audience by actors, whether on stage or via the broadcast media, and includes tragedy, comedy and whatever lies in between.  The term itself derives from a Greek word, as do the terms comedy and tragedy ( @purofilion referred to classical Greek drama) and, since classical Greek drama included music and dancing, we should also include musicals and opera within the category.   Sub categories might include melodrama – a sensational form designed to appeal rather crudely to the emotions and very popular in the 19th century.

By that broad definition, Doctor Who is a drama.  I think confusion arises because of the development, in radio and television mainly, of the serial drama and the soap opera which have the potential to be extended indefinitely.  But these are, I think, just the equivalent of the roman fleuve  – a continuing narrative which may be extended over a series of any number of novels; they are still dramas of a kind.

The narrow definition of drama to denote only plays on ‘serious’ subjects but excluding tragedies, comedies and all other categories seems to be a relatively modern tendency.

Other usages, as when applied to any exciting or out-of-the-ordinary event, or in the  pejorative sense (‘she’s such a drama queen’) , are secondary.

Just my two penn’orth, if it helps 😕

 

 

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@mudlark

Just my two penn’orth, if it helps

Yes, it does thank you. For me at least, your comments are really helpful. I’ve got nothing immediately to say, add or ask. But a lot to mull over. (Unlike Capaldi, I like not knowing 🙂 )

…You know, we could all answer this “drama” question once and for all with the aid of Wikipedia and a few prior assumptions…

🙂

x

[Arbutus @arbutus]

idiotsavon   I suspect I’ll never grow to love Capaldi’s Doctor (or indeed want to hug him) but I bet by the end of his run I won’t want him to leave.     No, I don’t think I’d want to hug him, either. I’d be afraid to! But I’m pretty sure I’d want to go with him.

As to “drama”, I too loved @purofilion’s classical description. And aside from @mudlark’s “serial” and “serious subject” drama, I think there is a slightly different one as it applies to TV: a story whose main intent is to tell a serious story (as opposed to something with the primary intention of making us laugh). In that sense, I don’t think it applies to DW. I think “Adventure” is probably a more accurate category, particularly the BG show. I think, however, that elements of “drama” (the category) have become mixed in to the AG show.

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@arbutus

Glad you can identify and it’s not just me. (Happy to look death in the eye together… Not so keen on the hugging afterwards bit.)

I’m sure Matt Smith made choices about his interpretation of the Doctor. But because I never saw Matt Smith in anything else, I see him AS the Doctor. Possibly, I underestimate his acting talent as a result.

Capaldi, on the other hand, I have seen in lots of different roles. So I find it easier to accept that his portrayal of the Doctor is an artistic choice. And it’s a choice that I find fascinating. He is not endearing himself to me. On purpose.

Probably any further thoughts along those lines belong in a different thread!

x

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@arbutus As to the notion of drama, my thinking is more in line with yours, I suspect. My (received) idea of drama is something serious. Comedy and adventure and monsters from Mars don’t really fit.

But beginning to re-think my definition based on the comments I’ve read.

x

[Oblique @oblique]

Please excuse me if this has been raised elsewhere, but the incidental music running in the background… wasn’t it ever so ‘Sherlock’? Is there a connection to be made here, or is it just parlance for ‘the east end’ or London in general (you know the one: very immigrant, Jewish, and east European.) And didn’t it just not work?

[Anonymous @]

@arbutus, DrBen, and @mudlark – @ Purofilion’s definition of drama is the same as @ Thommck, but @thommck‘s is easy to remember.

The extraordinary happening to the ordinary

I think reality TVshows use “drama” the wrong way?   I’m not sure about that now, but I won’t ruin the Tardis scene in DW for other people by explaining it in more detail. 

Now I need a memory worm to get this out of my head. 

 @Idiotsavon –  The momory worm is for erasing the reality TVshows.  Sorry if you thought the memory worm was for anything you posted.

[Mudlark @mudlark]

@arbutus @idiotsavon   I am pretty sure that the original creators of Doctor Who thought of it as drama; initially as drama with an educational purpose.   Sydney Newman who came up with the idea in the first place and played a large part in developing it was, at any rate, Head of Drama at the BBC at the time.

Comedy has always been regarded as a branch of drama, and I certainly don’t see why a fictional adventure story (with or without science fiction and fantasy elements) should not be classed as drama if it is performed by actors for an audience.  If you compare it with another type of fiction, the novel is generally understood to embrace a very wide range of genres, including comic, crime, adventure, historical, science fiction etc.  as well as ‘mainstream’, and the quality of the writing in any of these may be good, bad or indifferent.  I don’t think many people would define the category more narrowly, even if some are inclined to look down their noses at genre fiction.

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@oblique I’ve only seen a couple of Sherlock episodes but would really like to catch up at some point. I suppose if Moffat wanted to make a cheeky link between the two, this would be a good episode for it (The lone scientist.)

As to whether it worked – I didn’t even notice it, so yes and no 🙂

x

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@mudlark

On BBC iplayer, Dr Who is listed in the “Drama and Soaps” category. So still officially “drama”.

When we say “there was far too much (or not enough) drama for me this episode” and things of that nature, we’re using the word in a very different way, I think.

x

[Arbutus @arbutus]

@mudlark   You’re probably quite right about the way the originators would have viewed the program in the sixties.

I think we are coming at the question/definition from two different directions. There is the original, broader definition that you are talking about. There is also a more recent definition used mostly by film and TV, in which “drama” is divided into subcategories, one of which is called “drama” as well. This version of “drama” was what I used to see at the video store when I went looking for a movie to rent, and I suspect that its use has been driven by marketing, which always wants to put things into categories, the better to sell them to us.

But the “definition”which describes events like the argument in the TARDIS is definitely not what we are after, as @idiotsavon says, because that kind of drama refers to a story element rather than a genre. A literary critic would call it “conflict” or “tension” or something similar.

I like @mudlark’s paralleling of the terms “drama” and “novel”. The novel has also had its meaning altered by common usage, as when you see bookstores having separate sections for “novels” and “literature”. This always bugs the heck out of me, so perhaps I should be more bugged by the degrading of the word “drama” as well!

[Anonymous @]

@handles my definition of drama was not exactly like Thommcks. I did refer, in the past, to opera buffa or drama buffa (meaning comic in operatic terms). I also described clearly how the narrative in drama tends to work using iambic trimeter. We had a few such examples in the last few seasons of Who, actually, though it was subtle and easily erased by a ‘memory worm’ for some people -probably essential. 🙂

Certainly, I can’t have too much brimming in the brain as I tend to overload it myself 🙂 Whilst there is a sublime world within Who, there is also the phenomenal which is interesting as an aside, I think. But then, in my posts, I try to say “I think”, “I believe” etc, as others may differ

@oblique interesting. I thought there was a Turkish, twenties and thirties feel to that score with sax ‘down and dirty’ and sinths, also low and a-chuckle. I didn’t notice a pejorative feel, but then that would be the point, and you could be quite right, indeed!

Kindest, puro

[Anonymous @]

@idiotsavon @mudlark @arbutus @thommck  I have loved this effort, this discussion of drama.

I think also that Artaud and Brecht said drama copied reality, ‘possible’ realities and metaphoric reality -which refers to Who, in the latter. Sure, Aristotle said that drama was action-based but was also activated around a crisis. Its comic nature (in opera buffa for example) can be, according to Horace, both instructional (via a crisis, possibly) and also a delight.

I think it fits with Who in this case but I also understand the ‘novel’ relationship and the need for categorisation which tends to be a consequence of marketing and also, ironically, of the internet which finds out our purchases (and desires -decent or not) and offers us ‘similar’ objects: “if you like this, you may also like this”. Have I clicked buy in some instances? Ooh, yes! So, for me, just sometimes, I like the categories. Particularly when offered French perfume 🙂

Kindest, puro.

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@purofilion

My antennae pricked up when you mentioned Brecht 🙂

Casting my mind back bit, I think Brecht opposed a naturalistic “copying of reality” in favour of a very weird, unnatural sort of expressionism. He didn’t want to lull his audience into suspended disbelief. He wanted them to remain alert to the fact that the play was a fiction.

It’s on my list of things to look into (after Marlowe’s Faust 🙂 ) But I don’t know to what extent Brecht’s notion of theatre (drama) can be applied to Doctor Who. I wonder whether @timeloop has any wisdom to offer on this point?

x

[Oblique @oblique]

There’s a large Turkish community in the East End, so who knows?

But no, not pejorative.

My instruments show the location of Coal Hill School is the East End of London, though this might be incorrect.

And talking of Coal Hill: a minor point; the school signage amused me –  so perfect one might think the paint was still wet. A little bit of distressing would have made all the difference; a few scuffs marks, et cetera…  the school has as much a sense of  age and permanence  as a pop-up shop.

Oblique x

[Anonymous @]

indeed @idiotsavon in his early days Brecht was very different from his later evocation. Certainly, it could be said that he saw drama as a copying of reality in that it opposed the ‘moment’. He saw it as copying reality only in so far as the reality had to be witnessed as fiction; a kind of Sturm und Drang, but where it started it would end up! He was aware of the ‘watch’ and despised melodrama -which I suppose was the nature of our discussion, originally?!

I heard from a tutor, that “Artaud got them [us] in the gut and Brecht got us in the brain”. He wanted people to know they were escaping reality and to recognise illusion. I wonder, actually, as Capaldi has looked into the screen (as does Laurie in House) and speaks to us (the audience), whether it is close to Brechtian expressionism and also, when one remembers Rory constantly dying, whether there was a metaphorical allusion again -“alert alert; something is wrong about this ‘play’ idea”.

There’s a juxtaposition between The Theatre of  the Absurd (as well) and the Doctor as illusion -re the Tesselector and again with this new Number 12. Is he ‘it’?

I wondered for a minute, if there were two (doctors), or if Clara is a claricle at the mo (or if we have ‘Danicles’)?

Then there’s the Nethersphere, a clue about reality and the notion of being aware of the fiction in/of the play? I think this has (a tiny bit of :)) merit? Characters are being removed but not on a whim. There’s a story outside the story.

Is Missy like Brecht or is she the opposite? I think, based on his (and our) belief in the story as a story, she’s the former.

Yep. Ok. I’m nuts. But it’s great to go out on a song…or a limb like Artaud who sang before every play, loudly and tonelessly -according to assistants. What I appear to be doing.

Kindest, puro

[Anonymous @]

@idiotsavon @oblique ah hah! you are onto the something. This distressed material look is not something overlooked normally by Moffat? I wonder, again, if there is something ‘odd’ going on?

Others have mentioned the ‘green’ (as did the Doctor) in Sherwood, the archaic wooden quality of last week’s monster, the issue with the Dr not recognising Danny Pink as Orson Pink. So, are we in a story in a story? The Jewish communities have believed in a type of genie -one which changes your life whilst you or your physical self are somewhere else, locked away. A prisoner? Whilst the music, Turkish, gave a sense of unreality too….like snake charmers, willing you into a state of confusion or a dreamscape. Perhaps that’s where they all are?

Who knows what was under the Clock Tower as 11’s time was over and the clock rang 12s?

What is this new clock? Clocks tick- tock and repeat and repeat….and hypnotise on a small scale. What if they are doing this on a much larger one?

Are we hypnotised and if so why? Missy has the answers I think. It’s sterile like a hospital (fascinating places of healing and technology) and of course as @scaryb said (I think it was you!) “Oh no, that’s a different show: in a coma whilst acting out a different life in the wrong decade!” (paraphrased, forgive me).

In this hospital, there’s a little shop with Addison as the shop keeper and greeter…

Mmmm. Ponders puro.

[Whisht @whisht]

hi @idiotsavon (have I said hello before? Can’t remember, but really enjoy your posts/thinking/humour!)

as per your post #32895 I’m completely with you in that of course we could Google it, but that would kill all the pondering and where’s the fun and learning in that?

😉

I’ve no knowledge of drama except as an audience member, but all I can say is that I don’t know if the show is “drama” but at times its certainly dramatic! ;¬)

[Anonymous @]

@mudlark – I have to admit that it took me a while to digest the information in your post on drama. I definitely see that DW is a drama in the broad sense like you say.

 drama covers any work designed to be performed to an audience by actors, whether on stage or via the broadcast media, and includes tragedy, comedy and whatever lies in between.

 Thanks for that insight. It did help me figure out the difference between the meanings of “drama”. I was talking about “drama” in one of the “other uses”. I never knew it could get so complicated. I almost gave up trying to figure it out, and just say, I preferred not knowing. 🙂

But  I can now like the Tardis scene again without using a memory worm. 

Just in case  <Uses memory worm> Ouch!?!  What was I saying?  😕

 @Purofilion – I hope you feel better soon. Btw, good point on the sameness of your posts, they were definitely not the same, similar is what I should have said. Sorry for the mistake.

[Spider @spider]

I’m a bit late to the party but here’s my 2p. Overall I enjoyed the episode, some very funny lines. Robot was a bit meh in terms of plot but looked very cool.

On first watch my main point of annoyance was the invisibility watch that meant the blitzer couldn’t see the Doctor and yet could see the footprints – the filming of it gives the impression of being thermal imaging (badly – ARGH!). And yes, yes I KNOW it’s a futuristic space watch and a futuristic space robot and the show is fundamentally about travelling through all of time and space in an impossible machine but sometimes its little things like that that I can’t get out of my brain 🙂  I remember back when watching Spooks there would ALWAYS be one point during every episode where I shouted out “you can’t do that” in reference to some nonsense they were doing with thermal imagery or image processing (tv and films have a LOT to answer for about what my management think is actually possible to do with image processing!).

Anyway..that rant aside (let it go Spider…just let it go!).  The Danny/Doctor relationship is very interesting, I didn’t expect Danny to react the way he did. Oh and in that Tardis scene this is where the watch was very good, loved that the Doctor could sense Danny somehow. However I thought Danny’s ‘saving the planet by doing a somersault over the robot’ was utter pants.  Clara gets the pathetic line “Me? what can I do?” when the Doctor is asking her to distract it and you just KNOW that if it were any other episode she would DO something (and by the way does she not still have the damn Sonic at this point? um…maybe use that?) – but no it is left to Danny to ‘save the day’. Now I understand why all this happens and plotwise that’s fine (Danny saves the day and redeems himself to the Doctor – or at least starts to), I just thought it was handled a bit clumsily.

Other than these couple of (what are really very minor niggles) I enjoyed it. The “Go away humans” sign being a particular highlight and also the Doctor using the broom as a barrier between him and Clara when they are talking in the staffroom. I wonder how much of that was scripted and how much was Capaldi using the prop  🙂  and now I’m trying to think of some bonkers theory to link the broom with the theoretical broom he talking about in Deep Breath…nope nothing so fa, I shall ponder some more 😉

@oblique, yes i thought some of the score was very Sherlock as well!

Watching the episode again (and apologies to anyone who already commented on this) I noticed Chris Addison character says to the policeman “Stovok Blitzer sounds like. We’ve had a few in from that, I wouldn’t feel too bad”  which seems to mean there were multiple deaths and all brought to heaven/promised land/nethersphere. So it seems like a bigger operation than just to do with Missy/Doctor which is an interesting twist.

Counting down the hours until the next episode tic toc tic toc…

(\(\;;/)/)

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

Hello @whisht. I was thinking only yesterday about you and your crossword analogy from a couple of threads ago. (I think I’ve realised my own approach is to leave the crossword blank, wait for the next day’s paper, look at the answers, and say “I KNEW it”) 🙂

but where’s the fun and learning in that?

I couldn’t agree more.

x

[Mudlark @mudlark]

@arbutus   Yes, I realise that we have to some extent been at cross purposes.  It’s just that I love words, and it saddens me when secondary and derivative usages supplant the primary meaning.  When we try to use the two meanings in the same context, though, it does cause problems.  To describe the argument in the Tardis as a dramatic passage in the drama sounds silly.  Perhaps (going back to Greek drama again) it could be termed a cathartic passage within the drama.

We do seem to like categorising things, don’t we?  Perhaps our species should be labelled homo taxonomicus  (and yes, I know that taxonomy is from the Greek, not Latin) 🙂

@purofilion  If we take the Artaud/Brecht definition of drama

copying  reality, possible realities and metaphoric reality

then I think Doctor Who covers all the bases 🙂

I smiled at your reference to internet purchases and the offers ‘If you liked this then …’.  I do not very often buy books on line because I like bookshops and want to keep them in business*  but when I do I am often bemused by what they think I would like.  The suggestions tend to comprise either books I already possess or have read, or books I would never touch unless I were desperate for reading matter and there was nothing else available!

 

* Our local branch of Waterstones had, until very recently, a real, full sized Dalek on the ground floor.  It even used to utter EX TER MIN ATE at irregular intervals until  its voice gave out. It seems to have been taken off display now, possibly because it was getting old and fragile and children did so want to touch it.

[idiotsavon @idiotsavon]

@purofilion I definitely think the show has been drawing attention to (hammering us over the head with) its own fictionality for quite some time. (“The Pandorica? But that’s a fairy tale” “Oh, Doctor. Aren’t we all?”) The Pandorica is just a story – then turns out to be real – ah, but then we learn that it is a fiction after all – constructed from elements of Amy’s imagination. You can take your pick of examples, but that is one of my favourites. (The fact that both River and Amy turned to writing is also a nice touch. I would like it if that turned out to be a plot point. One of their books providing a vital clue or something.)

And yes, now we have the Promised land – also dismissed by the Doctor as a myth, also apparently very real. I do not doubt that Heaven will turn out to be a fiction sorts – with Missy as the author figure, perhaps. With this in mind, I really like your suggestion of hypnotism (excuse the pun). It cropped up last episode, so I wonder…

x

[Mudlark @mudlark]

@spider  @ idiotsavon  Re Missy’s ‘heaven’, I have, coincidentally just read a short story by Ian McDonald which featured a virtual heaven (‘Farside’), hugely elaborate and realistic, into which the ultra-rich could upload themselves. They had to die as part of the process, but once uploaded could continue to interact with the real world (‘Lifeside’), managing their money and investing in projects which might or might not be designed to improve conditions for the living.

@idiotsavon  re your post 32939, yes, I took it that this was very much an underlying theme of Robot of Sherwood.

[Whisht @whisht]

ah – sorry to hear you’re not well at the moment @purofilion – hope you feel better soon.

@idiotsavon

both River and Amy turned to writing is also a nice touch. I would like it if that turned out to be a plot point. One of their books providing a vital clue or something.)

you mean like when Clara read the History of the Time War and said “So that’s who…”

(btw although many have assumed she’s saying “so that’s who gave me the phone number” what would be a complete blindside would be “So that’s Who” – but I’m just being silly)

🙂

[Author]

Posts