FAN FILM REVIEWS – THE FEMALE DOCTOR 2 – VISIONS OF UTOMU
Synopsis: On the planet far, far away, two medieval Kingdoms, Desarn are attempting to seal a peace treaty with a royal marriage between Prince Germain and Princess Aldriana. It’s not working out well, the Princess is kind of butch, the Prince definitely isn’t. Things go wrong when the evil Wizard Utomu’s henchman, Formor, breaks in and kidnaps the Prince. The Doctor is enlisted to rescue the Prince, with the aid of some song and dance…
Review: Visions of Utomu trades a lot on the goodwill of Wrath of Eukor. Eukor is so well done, that we’ve built up an affection for the characters, we’re willing to be forgiving. If Utomu had come first, I’m not sure that it would have worked as well. Or maybe it might have worked better. Eukor casts a shadow, without it, maybe the flaws and faults of Utomu wouldn’t have been so glaring in comparison. As it is, Utomu suffers a bit from little brother syndrome, it’s always going to be seen as the lesser work.
Utomu, in terms of performance, production values and cinematography is simply a less polished work. Sometimes a lot less polished. I think it’s because they got ambitious here, and their ambition dramatically outran their money and abilities. Utomu had several key swerves from Eukor that, I think, undermined it. It switched from 16 mm film to 3/4 commercial videotape, for instance. That saved a lot of money on lab and processing costs, but perhaps lost a bit in image quality. They also decided to shift from a location backed story to a set-based production, and building sets, building good sets is hard. The cast is larger, there’s a lot of extras but often not used well, they play with a lot more ideas.
In terms of the fandom splash, the female Doctor was making, Utomu’s timing was on. Filmed November, 1985, and released January, 1986, the future of the Doctor was still up in the air. The hiatus would not end, and Trial of a Time Lord would not begin until September, 1986.
Let’s just tag our way through the good and the bad.
The Bad: Those sets! Ouch! What it looks like is a handful of flats, painted in a stylized manner to suggest brick work, with some styrofoam blocks thrown on here and there. What it reminds me most of is a theatrical set, stylized, lightweight, moveable and designed for a stage, and a more forgiving stage audience.
Except that we aren’t a stage audience, and we’re expecting a higher degree of cinematic realism. The artificiality of the flats really is jarring, its like biting on tinfoil. To make matters worse, initially, they shoot it in the worst possible way, just glaring lighting, flat and bright, that really makes it impossible to see it as anything but fake and artificial. It’s heartbreaking to think of how hard they must have worked to make something that looks so crap.
It’s particularly damning because this is actually the sort of sets or locations that the BBC was good at. England is lousy with castles and immense brickwork monstrosities, so they have a lot to choose from, and even when they’re shooting in studio, they have enough experience with how they look and how to shoot them effectively, that they carry it off. So they’re falling afoul of our subconscious expectations, as much as if they accidentally painted the Tardis orange.
Oddly, as the episode goes on, they seem to get better at it. They play with the lighting, darkening the flats, focusing on foreground characters and blurring the background, filming action to emphasize movement. It’s as if we’re watching them learn how to shoot these flats. The sets, for the most part, stop being disconcerting and jarring. Possibly we’ve been beaten into submission. Or more likely, they’re just doing it better – shooting and lighting them properly and focusing better on the story and characters, so that it’s generally stronger later on. But still, getting better later on only buys you so much, when you set your foot badly wrong on your first step, its hard to recover from.
That’s how it is when you’re working with sets. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you. Doctor Who has had its share of stylized or tosh sets. Sometimes you can dress them up, sometimes you can work around them, sometimes they just don’t work that well, but you have to forgive them. In this case, it slipped by them. It’s a medieval setting – back in those days, no central heating, people were always hanging curtains and tapestries and drapes off the wall, tarting things up by hanging weapons and clothes and tools. They could have tried that, but they didn’t. So I’ll tell you right now, be ready to dip into the pocket of forgiveness on this point.
To be really fair – remember that mostly, this was being shown on mid-1980’s, 12 to 24 inch colour television sets, not high def or high resolution, and often being shown in crowded rooms at gatherings of fans. So it may not have been as jarring back then. There’s a lot of stuff that looked okay on the old scan line/cathode ray televisions that is now pretty blatant on higher resolutions and higher definition.
What else? Randy Rogel’s choreography… Just not up to the job. Sorry. It’s one of those things where they bite off more than they can chew, when what carries in the script can’t carry in real. What hurts is that Randy wanted to do it. He was pushing to do a song and dance number. Kind of a mistake there.
Again, inexperience kind of hurts. Kinetic stuff, fight scenes, dance numbers, they’re tricky to shoot. You can’t actually just have the camera sitting there. It has to almost be a character, and the dancer or the fighter has to play to it as much as they simply do their stuff. From what I understand of the shooting, they didn’t really have the time or resources to do it right, and frankly, I don’t think they understood what they were getting into. Time to dip into that pocket of forgiveness again.
So that’s a pair of really harsh flaws to get caught between, and you really have to make the decision to let them slide in order to enjoy the story.
Beyond that, the acting is variable. Some of the performances and direction seem appropriate to a high school play, there’s some awkward blocking. There’s problems with the sound quality – there’s a point for instance, where Utomo’s voice seems patchy. In an early scene, they’ve got a crowd running around in panic – it’s just harsh.
I dunno though, maybe I’m too critical. I could see some people not even noticing these things, just delving right into the story and grooving to the light, breezy touch.
With a little forgiveness, Visions of Utomu is actually quite good. A major strength: The costumes and props. We got medieval stuff coming on strong here. Initially, I looked at the great costumes and the fake set flats, and thought maybe he’d hooked up with some kind of stage company that had done a medieval or shakespearean production.
But no, Johnson managed to link up with the Society for Creative Anachronism, so the result is that we’ve got some very sharp, nice quality costumes, and an impressively large cast of extras that, sadly are not used to full effect.
As I’ve said, the cinematography does pick up as we go along, with increasingly effective use of light and shadows. The production overall, seems uneven. There’s shots and scenes and transitions that are amazingly good – the zoom in on the henchman as Carl does his dance routine, shows us a man being captivated – that’s beautifully done. Or almost every scene or shot where Rice is playing the villainous Utomu. The first scene between the Prince and Utomu, there’s a wind sound foleyed in, it’s subtle, but chilling. The background music is well used, never so loud as to call attention to itself, and almost always just right for whatever they want to convey in the moment.
The script is equal parts witty and convoluted. But it works, and on the whole, I think it works a lot more often than it doesn’t. Does it transcend its flaws? That’s a judgement call.
For the most part, the actors acquit their roles nicely. Benedetti and Rogel as the Doctor and Carl have some really nice chemistry going on. It’s amazing to see how well they work together, putting in all these little visual gags and witticisms. That really is the consistent highlight of the whole series. Benedetti is one of the best fan Doctors. I don’t think she’s the best, that goes to Rupert Booth. But the Doctor/Companion thing she has going on with Rogel, that’s unparalleled.
Wesley Rice as the evil wizard Utomu is also a standout, he manages to convey intelligence and menace, and he’s got some very nice bits of stagecraft going on, despite not moving around too much. That’s the lovely thing with stage actors. They know how to work business.
There’s a nice bit of gender role reversal – the Prince, played by Robert Eustace, is in the essentially feminine role, he’s quiet, bookish, all about feelings, physically tentative and is the one who gets kidnapped. The Princess, played by Stasia Johnson, is active, joins in the rescue and is a bit of a hellion. The performance of Jim Dean as the King is a mirror opposite of Rice’s – he’s doing a light comedy character with a very deft touch. Jim Dean, by the way, played the survivalist/vietnam Vet, Grant, in Eukor.
There’s a strong sense of fun – people are dressing up and going in disguises, and seeing through each other’s disguises. Everyone’s got a smart line they’re tossing off, there’s double takes, and ‘oh whoops’ moments, and a whole series of visual gags. What can you say when the plot hinges on sneaking into the Wizard’s castle disguised as a song and dance duo? This is Bob Hope and Bing Crosby territory.
Thats saves Utomu, what makes it work for me. Its tongue is firmly in its cheek. It’s a light comedy, good hearted, with a wink and a smile. Eukor was a serious story with a few comic touches – let’s face it half the cast dies and the story is about a body snatching alien menace. Utomu, in contrast, is light – the opening scene is a clip from Singing in the Rain, it’s full of comic touches, and the climactic battle is outright slapstick. It’s got just enough darkness, in the form of the wizard Utomu to keep it grounded and moving, otherwise it might have floated away on its own lightness.
Visions of Utomu finishes up as a pretty good Doctor Who story. On its own merits it has real strengths. It’s imminently watchable. Utomu doesn’t do everything well, but it does a lot well. What it comes down to, do we notice and work to the terrific costumes and performances, or do we dwell on those awful faux walls, or the flubs in the sound or an awkward edit? Take your pick. For me, the cheerful amiability rules, it’s a Gene Kelly sort of story. Eukor you appreciate, but somehow it’s Utomu that puts a smile on your face.
Statistics: 32 minutes. 3/4″ videotape. Filmed November 1985, released January 1986.
Cast. . . Barbara Benedetti as The Doctor, Randy Rogel as Carl Evans, Wesley Rice as Utomu, Stasia Johnson (no relation) as Princess Aldraina, Robert Eustace as Prince Germain, Jim Dean as the King, Randy Dixon as the M.C., Joseph McCarthy as Formore, and an orange. Written, Produced and Directed by Ryan K. Johnson.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
http://www.eskimo.com/~rkj/doctor.html#Visions
WATCH IT
7 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.



@DenValdron -great review. Definitely about the “meddlesome Time Lord” as decreed by Utomu and his cards. It was Pentagon West and Benedetti that encouraged me to watch this on Youtube where there were only two comments; one questioning why Carl would be watching Singing in the Rain when he has “all of time and space to watch and visit?” I think the poster missed the point completely, there. 😉
You’re right, it’s a light episode with lovely comedic punctuation and I think it works very well. Utomu using his tarot cards and alluding to ‘wild cards’ and ‘two hearts’ keeps everything in that card playing vernacular and I like that. In fact, Utomu reminds me a bit of the Master, calmly playing chess with people’s lives across the chess board of the universe: here, Utomu, is very deliberately confident of his victory and holds his own nicely through the whole 30 minutes. He has a flair, or flavour, of a downplayed, wry, Marlon Brando in some scenes and I think the lighting helped with this: shadows gradually encroaching on characters’ faces was a useful lighting device in the more suspenseful of scenes.
Carl reminded me a bit of Tennant in this episode/film with his exaggerated defence of ‘Karaoke and pub visits’ and the Doctor’s response is hilarious: “Carl, caterwauling for a crowd of wine soaked pub crawlers in not entertaining” whilst the follow up Gene Kelly act is very funny (though inexperienced in its choreography and shooting, in general -but I liked it very much despite that – as it was downright enthusiastic and Carl seemed to enjoy himself immensely) and quite unexpected in that we didn’t just get 15 seconds and then a ‘move on’.
I particularly liked the colours in this episode: magenta, scarlet, royal blue, tourmaline with the costumes gorgeously and professionally put together which helped when you consider the sets…boy, you were right about those! Quite shit, weren’t they? But you mentioned how they improved the shooting of them -different lense angles, and better lighting with actors placed in strategic positions. For instance, focussing on the calm and unabbreviated dealing of the tarot cards was a nice distraction and attractive in itself but when Carl does his ‘do- lally decoy’ with the blonde guard you can see they’re running around the same 3 metres of ‘corridor’! Still, as you say, spades of forgiveness because a lot’s worked -and that’s the point ultimately.
“Any last words? Just two: Gene Kelly”.
Brilliant.
Thank you, puro.
It astonishes me that you decided to start with Pentagon West. But I’m glad you enjoyed Utomu.
@DenValdron I know, dumb right? Why? It was there! So, I clicked ‘play’. Then later, chased the others on youtube. I didn’t mind Pentagon West: I thought it would be worse, actually, but the homey feel of the students digs gave good reminder of a similar period in my life on the East Coast in the ’90s living hand to mouth whilst studying. I didn’t have such a well stocked fridge.
Still, an enjoyable experience. As for the theatrical tradition, I get what you’re saying with Benedetti and the likes of earlier Who. But, there was a certain fustiness in her performance I wouldn’t have noticed with, say, Tom Baker or Hartnell. Also, it could be that the female doctor stands out in a certain way and my ear is tuned to a different frequency? Who knows.
@DenValdron as to the theatrical nature of some actors -the pressure of speech etc, I’m thinking of a few notable actors who, from stage to screen, are impeccable -Derek Jacobi in one of my favourite serials, I Claudius, went from stage to telly without a hitch -on topic, I can think of him as The Master; a mere flicker in his eyes to show how originally a harmless scientist became sociopathic in a ‘twinkle’. Then in The West Wing, Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff -fab smaller stage actors who, if anything, have a gentle, subtle delivery in television. I guess it can be done but then I’m not sure of Benedetti in terms of lengthy experience on television, after all?
Most British actors who do a lot of film or television work nowadays master the ‘naturalist’ style very quickly. Or they don’t get to work in modern film or television very much. If you have real career prospects there, or if you are doing it, you pick it up.
In the case of the classic Doctor who – 60’s through the 80’s, I think theatrical culture and acting traditions were still fairly dominant, although erosion was happening. One of the criticisms made of Colin Baker during his tenure was that his style was too theatrical – by the mid-eighties, there was a growing preference for natural rather than theatrical acting in the BBC which would gradually take over.
In the case of Barbara Benedetti, her background was almost entirely stage – she had four film roles and no television in IMDB, and if you look at these films, her name is pretty far down on the credits. I’d be surprised if she had eight lines for the whole of them. So she’d be strongly oriented to theatrical style.
This was okay. I enjoyed the lightness, I prefer lots of fun in my DW, and the Doctor/Companion pairing works very well. On the whole, I think Benedetti’s obvious roots in theatre work in her favour, as the style gives her Doctor a particular authority. The opening scene in the TARDIS was a classic eighties Who opener, domestic life with the Doctor, a bit of an argument, and out to figure out where they are. Utomo didn’t really provide the touch of darkness for me, as his accent and clipped speech just kept reminding me of Vizzini the Sicilian so it was hard to take him seriously.
Gene Kelly! Referencing Singin’ in the Rain won me over immediately, as it’s one of my favourites. The song and dance would have been more effective had Carl actually had any moves. He sang well enough, but the dancing was kind of a non-event. I loved the Doctor’s disappointment that she didn’t get to sing!
I think Rogel actually did have dance training and experience, a lot of stage actors have basic moves. He was pushing for this, so I assume he had some confidence and experience. He does seem disappointingly immobile. It may have been an artifact of a rushed and difficult shooting schedule. As I’ve said, its tricky to shoot dance scenes or fight scenes, the days of just a fixed camera are long gone. The camera and set ups are very kinetic. Hong Kong action movies actually had specialized directors whose job was to shoot and choreograph fight scenes.