Are taking a little break.
Mostly because I got a little hot under the collar elsewhere and needed to cool off and look at this more objectively in order to post.
Also, because I have taken up knitting as a new hobby. Which leads to my next post.....
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Death in Comics, pt. 2: Shock to the System
Now we're going to dig in a little bit and look at one of the first ways death has increasingly been used in comic book stories....
Shock Value.
The shock value death is one designed to startle the audience out of their complacency. It is meant to make the audience feel fear (usually for the hero(es) ) or anger (usually at the villains) or sadness (usually at a tragic turn).
As with all things, a shock value death isn't a bad thing when it's done right. Countless action-adventure and horror movies have used the sudden death of a character to startle the audience. You're sitting there, you think you know where the story is going next, you're actually quite comfortable with the story then...... BAM! Death. Cue more drama or action, or characters running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
There are a few things, though, to using the shock death...
For one thing, it does have to be a surprise -- you can't telegraph this one. Action hero sidekicks and red shirted crewmen from the original Star Trek series are really not likely candidates for a shock death. These types of characters might as well have targets painted on their chests. It isn't a matter of *if* they will die it's a matter of *when* they will die. If you want to go with a true shock death you have to go with a character or a situation where death is not expected. For example, in original Star Trek if you had one of the red mini-dress chicks beam down and get killed that would be a shocking death because, by and large (not entirely, mind you) women in Trek were fairly off-limits when it came to death... unless they were actually the villains. But I digress. The point is that there used to be certain rules and certain characters were kind of "off limits" for death... the girlfriend of the hero, kids, cute family pets... those sorts of characters.
Over time, though, because those characters were "off limits" they eventually began being targeted for shock death because the audience was used to them surviving. The problem with that is that, eventually, readers and audiences caught on to that scheme as well to the point where now no one really goes in thinking anyone is truly "off limits".
The other way of providing a death with shock value is not with the character but rather with the timing. There are certain situations and certain points in any story where the audience really isn't expecting a death. Picture a scene in a restaurant. It is expensive, romantic; there are candles on the tables, and seated at a table for two is a young couple. They are earnestly discussing their relationship. The music on the soundtrack swells to a romantic crescendo... and suddenly the man has a seizure and keels over dead. Shocking because it's unexpected and it comes at a point where everything is telling you this is a romantic moment. You are in an emotional mode to be receptive to that romantic moment. The last thing you are expecting is sudden death. Or, another example -- a character seemingly takes a sniper's bullet. OMG she's been shot! But she stands up and opens her jacket to reveal she was wearing a bulletproof vest. She's fine! You breath a sigh of relief.... suddenly a sniper's bullet strikes her head -- she's dead. You were not ready for this moment. The rules of writing state that you have rising action followed by falling action. You just passed a rising action moment and you know it so you are ready for the falling action and, indeed, the scene seems to go into that mode when.... sudden death!
Now, as I said, these tools of the trade are just that -- they're tools, neither good nor bad. Shock value deaths can provide a lot to a story. They can push a plot along, they can make sure the audience is fully invested in the story, they can invoke an emotion in the audience that the creator wants to invoke. But they also have to be used cautiously.
The audience, you see, are not idiots. We're savvy. We're onto the ways and means writers of various stripes use to jerk our emotional chains. And if a writer is going to use a shock death they have to invest in it. It has to truly come out of the blue, or it has to involve a character the audience wouldn't ever, ever *ever* expect to be killed.
And here's where far too many comic book writers have gone wrong with using the shock death. Too many of them think that just killing a hero at all is enough to be shocking. Well, years ago it probably would have. However, nowadays there are probably more dead superheroes than there are currently living ones. It isn't a big thing to kill a hero anymore but too many writers think that this is all they have to do. The result of this is that the audience isn't shocked and more to the point they think less of the writer for trying to use a cheap and easy shock value death.
The other thing about comic book shock value deaths is that the writers aren't really willing to lay anything on the line. As I said before, it isn't shocking to kill off a red shirt in Star Trek and likewise it isn't shocking to kill off a hero who has been on a shelf somewhere for ten years. For a shock death to be really effective in many ways the audience has to be invested in the character who dies. You can't introduce a character on page one of a comic, kill them off on page ten and expect the audience to be shocked. Most comic book readers know anymore that if a writer brings in a character that no one has seen or heard from in five years or more then very likely they will be cannon fodder before the end of the story arc -- sometimes before the end of the issue. Not. A. Shock.
And here's the thing. Failed shock value deaths are bad. They're really bad. Because if the audience isn't made to feel the emotion the writer wanted them to feel then the writer has failed and more to the point the *reader* knows exactly what the writer was trying to do and that he or she failed at it. It also means that the death is worthless. And that is also something that is increasingly ticking off comic book fans. A failed shock value death cheapens death, usually then seems unnecessary, and adds to the growing cynicism over death in comics. It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in a way -- if the writer doesn't get an emotional response he/she keep trying and trying and trying but it will become harder and harder and harder to get the response he/she wants and in the meantime people stop caring about the deaths at all because they have become increasingly useless and meaningless.
Shock value death do still have their place in comics and they always will. When done right it can make you gasp out loud and wait with baited breath to see what happens next. But when done too often and done poorly it simply makes it harder to enjoy it when it's done right.
Shock Value.
The shock value death is one designed to startle the audience out of their complacency. It is meant to make the audience feel fear (usually for the hero(es) ) or anger (usually at the villains) or sadness (usually at a tragic turn).
As with all things, a shock value death isn't a bad thing when it's done right. Countless action-adventure and horror movies have used the sudden death of a character to startle the audience. You're sitting there, you think you know where the story is going next, you're actually quite comfortable with the story then...... BAM! Death. Cue more drama or action, or characters running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
There are a few things, though, to using the shock death...
For one thing, it does have to be a surprise -- you can't telegraph this one. Action hero sidekicks and red shirted crewmen from the original Star Trek series are really not likely candidates for a shock death. These types of characters might as well have targets painted on their chests. It isn't a matter of *if* they will die it's a matter of *when* they will die. If you want to go with a true shock death you have to go with a character or a situation where death is not expected. For example, in original Star Trek if you had one of the red mini-dress chicks beam down and get killed that would be a shocking death because, by and large (not entirely, mind you) women in Trek were fairly off-limits when it came to death... unless they were actually the villains. But I digress. The point is that there used to be certain rules and certain characters were kind of "off limits" for death... the girlfriend of the hero, kids, cute family pets... those sorts of characters.
Over time, though, because those characters were "off limits" they eventually began being targeted for shock death because the audience was used to them surviving. The problem with that is that, eventually, readers and audiences caught on to that scheme as well to the point where now no one really goes in thinking anyone is truly "off limits".
The other way of providing a death with shock value is not with the character but rather with the timing. There are certain situations and certain points in any story where the audience really isn't expecting a death. Picture a scene in a restaurant. It is expensive, romantic; there are candles on the tables, and seated at a table for two is a young couple. They are earnestly discussing their relationship. The music on the soundtrack swells to a romantic crescendo... and suddenly the man has a seizure and keels over dead. Shocking because it's unexpected and it comes at a point where everything is telling you this is a romantic moment. You are in an emotional mode to be receptive to that romantic moment. The last thing you are expecting is sudden death. Or, another example -- a character seemingly takes a sniper's bullet. OMG she's been shot! But she stands up and opens her jacket to reveal she was wearing a bulletproof vest. She's fine! You breath a sigh of relief.... suddenly a sniper's bullet strikes her head -- she's dead. You were not ready for this moment. The rules of writing state that you have rising action followed by falling action. You just passed a rising action moment and you know it so you are ready for the falling action and, indeed, the scene seems to go into that mode when.... sudden death!
Now, as I said, these tools of the trade are just that -- they're tools, neither good nor bad. Shock value deaths can provide a lot to a story. They can push a plot along, they can make sure the audience is fully invested in the story, they can invoke an emotion in the audience that the creator wants to invoke. But they also have to be used cautiously.
The audience, you see, are not idiots. We're savvy. We're onto the ways and means writers of various stripes use to jerk our emotional chains. And if a writer is going to use a shock death they have to invest in it. It has to truly come out of the blue, or it has to involve a character the audience wouldn't ever, ever *ever* expect to be killed.
And here's where far too many comic book writers have gone wrong with using the shock death. Too many of them think that just killing a hero at all is enough to be shocking. Well, years ago it probably would have. However, nowadays there are probably more dead superheroes than there are currently living ones. It isn't a big thing to kill a hero anymore but too many writers think that this is all they have to do. The result of this is that the audience isn't shocked and more to the point they think less of the writer for trying to use a cheap and easy shock value death.
The other thing about comic book shock value deaths is that the writers aren't really willing to lay anything on the line. As I said before, it isn't shocking to kill off a red shirt in Star Trek and likewise it isn't shocking to kill off a hero who has been on a shelf somewhere for ten years. For a shock death to be really effective in many ways the audience has to be invested in the character who dies. You can't introduce a character on page one of a comic, kill them off on page ten and expect the audience to be shocked. Most comic book readers know anymore that if a writer brings in a character that no one has seen or heard from in five years or more then very likely they will be cannon fodder before the end of the story arc -- sometimes before the end of the issue. Not. A. Shock.
And here's the thing. Failed shock value deaths are bad. They're really bad. Because if the audience isn't made to feel the emotion the writer wanted them to feel then the writer has failed and more to the point the *reader* knows exactly what the writer was trying to do and that he or she failed at it. It also means that the death is worthless. And that is also something that is increasingly ticking off comic book fans. A failed shock value death cheapens death, usually then seems unnecessary, and adds to the growing cynicism over death in comics. It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in a way -- if the writer doesn't get an emotional response he/she keep trying and trying and trying but it will become harder and harder and harder to get the response he/she wants and in the meantime people stop caring about the deaths at all because they have become increasingly useless and meaningless.
Shock value death do still have their place in comics and they always will. When done right it can make you gasp out loud and wait with baited breath to see what happens next. But when done too often and done poorly it simply makes it harder to enjoy it when it's done right.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Death in Comics
Okay, this is an editorial. I'm not claiming that my views are the correct ones or the only ones or even necessarily the best ones; all I'm saying is: This is how I feel...
Comic books have been "not kids' stuff" for a very long time now. If you think that they are something for kids I can show you panels in regular comics (as in not graphic novels and not "Mature Readers" comics) where characters get their heads smashed in, where a character is raped off-panel, where a character is seen shooting up heroin, etc. And really, even back in the day when they were considered a child's reading material people might be surprised at the level of violence. I know of several comics in which rival gangsters filled a room with lead courtesy of Thompson Sub-Machine guns. Granted, there is no blood but there is a visible hail of bullets and the people in the room are shown falling backwards in death -- usually with cries of "Oh!" or "Urk!" on their lips. No, what most people think of as comics come from the goofy, neutered, 1950's.
But all that is aside. My point is that death has long been a part of comic books. Bad guys killed people, bad guys in turn often died through their own greed or Machiavellian machinations. Sometimes they were killed by the good guys but usually in a "fair fight" shoot-out. In short -- characters died.
But somewhere along the line there was a subtle shift to death in comic books. Long-term supporting characters died and left an impact on both readers and the characters in the comic books. Batman's faithful butler Alfred was killed in 1964 while heroically saving Batman from a falling rock (just.... go with it. He later got better and I believe the whole sequence has now been erased from continuity). Nearly a decade later comic fandom would be shocked by the death of Gwen Stacy, Peter Parker's girlfriend in the pages of Amazing Spider-Man. In point of fact, this one, pivotal death is considered as the end of the Silver Age of comics. Gwen had been a supporting character and Peter's "true love" for a number of years before being tossed off a bridge by villain the Green Goblin after the Goblin discovered Spider-Man's true identity of Peter Parker.
There would be other deaths... many other deaths. "Event" comic mini-series such as Crisis on Infinite Earths would be known for their body counts. There, not only were heroes killed but entire worlds were wiped out of existence. And it set a standard that no event comic was complete without a significant body count.
All of these things were meant to show the audience that the stakes in the game were high. Characters could die. Important characters could die. Even favorite characters could die. Just like in the real world bad things could happen to good people and actions could have consequences.
But this had an unfortunate side-effect -- many comic book deaths became about someone else rather than being about the character. Many characters died not because of things which they did but rather who they were. The stories of their deaths were not really about them but rather about another character -- usually the hero but sometimes the villain.
This has become more prominent in recent years -- death for shock effect, death to try to boost sales, and death as a cheap, writing shortcut. And I, for one, am sick of it.
Part of the problem comes from the issue of the person who is being killed is not the focus of the story. For a time this was particularly noticed among female characters leading to (then) comic book columnist and commentator Gail Simone (now bestselling comic book writer) to pen an essay which became a website -- Women in Refrigerators. The name came from a now infamous sequence in the title Green Lantern in which the titular hero comes home only to find out one of his enemies has killed his girlfriend Alex and stuffed her in the refrigerator.
Most people get the focus wrong and they think the outrage is that any character has been killed. Or else they think that the argument is that female characters should be untouchable and nothing bad should ever happen to them because they're women. But that's missing the point entirely. The point is that a character has been killed or depowered or raped or tortured or something else entirely to shore up another character.
In the case of Alex above there, she wasn't killed because she was a superhero. The person who killed her wasn't her enemy. Nope, she was killed off only to deliver angst to the titular hero and send him off on a revenge spree. In short, she became a plot device, not a character.
This can be contrasted spectacularly with the 1976-1977 X-Men story arc known as "The Dark Phoenix Saga". In the time leading up to the story a near-death experience led long-time character Jean Grey to unlock new and near god-like power levels -- leading to her shedding her old code name of Marvel Girl and adopting a new one -- Phoenix. Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". With a little push from some villains, Jean tipped over into the dark side -- including wiping out an entire inhabited alien star system. Her friends and teammates managed to bring her back to her senses but she was soon put on trial by an alien empire for her destruction of the star system. Her friends fought to keep her from being sentenced to death for her crimes but in the end Jean could feel her control slipping away and the darkness growing. Knowing that she could never live like that she opted to kill herself. Now that is a story in which the character who dies is the focal point of the story. Jean didn't die to create angst for her teammates, nor did she die to show how much of a badass some villain is.
But that is what gets missing today. Comic book deaths aren't about the characters who are being killed -- they're about other characters. And we'll take a deeper look at this next post as we study comic book death as a writing shortcut.
Comic books have been "not kids' stuff" for a very long time now. If you think that they are something for kids I can show you panels in regular comics (as in not graphic novels and not "Mature Readers" comics) where characters get their heads smashed in, where a character is raped off-panel, where a character is seen shooting up heroin, etc. And really, even back in the day when they were considered a child's reading material people might be surprised at the level of violence. I know of several comics in which rival gangsters filled a room with lead courtesy of Thompson Sub-Machine guns. Granted, there is no blood but there is a visible hail of bullets and the people in the room are shown falling backwards in death -- usually with cries of "Oh!" or "Urk!" on their lips. No, what most people think of as comics come from the goofy, neutered, 1950's.
But all that is aside. My point is that death has long been a part of comic books. Bad guys killed people, bad guys in turn often died through their own greed or Machiavellian machinations. Sometimes they were killed by the good guys but usually in a "fair fight" shoot-out. In short -- characters died.
But somewhere along the line there was a subtle shift to death in comic books. Long-term supporting characters died and left an impact on both readers and the characters in the comic books. Batman's faithful butler Alfred was killed in 1964 while heroically saving Batman from a falling rock (just.... go with it. He later got better and I believe the whole sequence has now been erased from continuity). Nearly a decade later comic fandom would be shocked by the death of Gwen Stacy, Peter Parker's girlfriend in the pages of Amazing Spider-Man. In point of fact, this one, pivotal death is considered as the end of the Silver Age of comics. Gwen had been a supporting character and Peter's "true love" for a number of years before being tossed off a bridge by villain the Green Goblin after the Goblin discovered Spider-Man's true identity of Peter Parker.
There would be other deaths... many other deaths. "Event" comic mini-series such as Crisis on Infinite Earths would be known for their body counts. There, not only were heroes killed but entire worlds were wiped out of existence. And it set a standard that no event comic was complete without a significant body count.
All of these things were meant to show the audience that the stakes in the game were high. Characters could die. Important characters could die. Even favorite characters could die. Just like in the real world bad things could happen to good people and actions could have consequences.
But this had an unfortunate side-effect -- many comic book deaths became about someone else rather than being about the character. Many characters died not because of things which they did but rather who they were. The stories of their deaths were not really about them but rather about another character -- usually the hero but sometimes the villain.
This has become more prominent in recent years -- death for shock effect, death to try to boost sales, and death as a cheap, writing shortcut. And I, for one, am sick of it.
Part of the problem comes from the issue of the person who is being killed is not the focus of the story. For a time this was particularly noticed among female characters leading to (then) comic book columnist and commentator Gail Simone (now bestselling comic book writer) to pen an essay which became a website -- Women in Refrigerators. The name came from a now infamous sequence in the title Green Lantern in which the titular hero comes home only to find out one of his enemies has killed his girlfriend Alex and stuffed her in the refrigerator.
Most people get the focus wrong and they think the outrage is that any character has been killed. Or else they think that the argument is that female characters should be untouchable and nothing bad should ever happen to them because they're women. But that's missing the point entirely. The point is that a character has been killed or depowered or raped or tortured or something else entirely to shore up another character.
In the case of Alex above there, she wasn't killed because she was a superhero. The person who killed her wasn't her enemy. Nope, she was killed off only to deliver angst to the titular hero and send him off on a revenge spree. In short, she became a plot device, not a character.
This can be contrasted spectacularly with the 1976-1977 X-Men story arc known as "The Dark Phoenix Saga". In the time leading up to the story a near-death experience led long-time character Jean Grey to unlock new and near god-like power levels -- leading to her shedding her old code name of Marvel Girl and adopting a new one -- Phoenix. Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". With a little push from some villains, Jean tipped over into the dark side -- including wiping out an entire inhabited alien star system. Her friends and teammates managed to bring her back to her senses but she was soon put on trial by an alien empire for her destruction of the star system. Her friends fought to keep her from being sentenced to death for her crimes but in the end Jean could feel her control slipping away and the darkness growing. Knowing that she could never live like that she opted to kill herself. Now that is a story in which the character who dies is the focal point of the story. Jean didn't die to create angst for her teammates, nor did she die to show how much of a badass some villain is.
But that is what gets missing today. Comic book deaths aren't about the characters who are being killed -- they're about other characters. And we'll take a deeper look at this next post as we study comic book death as a writing shortcut.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Deep in Consideration
The Compound Geekery Blog is deeply considering the addition of a mascot. A somewhat large, four footed mascot distantly related to wolves.... and one who needs to go on a diet.
What do you think?
Watch this space for more information!
What do you think?
Watch this space for more information!
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Nero Wolfe Reviews: "Not Quite Dead Enough" 1942
And with this book the series finally enters the War years. World War II obviously. As with Black Orchids this book consists of two short stories -- "Not Quite Dead Enough" and "Booby Trap".
Not Quite Dead Enough
The Plot: Archie Goodwin has entered the Army and been made a Major in Army Intelligence. Archie is called back to New York after an assignment and told his new assignment is to get Nero Wolfe! The military brass wants Wolfe working for them but Wolfe keeps refusing to talk to anyone.
So Archie returns to the brownstone but gets the shock of his life -- Wolfe has not only stopped taking cases he's put himself on a diet and is exercising to get in shape to join the military and fight in the war! Needing dynamite to blast Wolfe out of this notion, Archie decides to do a favor for his sometime inamorata Lily Rowan. An acquaintance of Lily's -- one Ann Amory -- knows something about someone (a secret that seems to be tied to the death of an old woman named Mrs. Leeds) but needs advice. Archie is unsuccessful in getting the girl to confide in him and when Ann suddenly turns up murdered Archie sees a way of killing two birds with one stone. He gets himself sort-of framed for Ann's murder, knowing it will get Wolfe involved... and once Wolfe is involved he should be able to bring Ann's killer to justice.
Archie's plot works... perhaps a little too well, because now suspicion is thrown on Lily for the crime. What will Archie do if Wolfe uncovers Lily as the killer? Could it be possible?
My Take: This is another of Stout's stories that is filled with hilariously quirky characters -- from two old bickering ladies to a man with an obsession with racing pigeons. Unfortunately, the story is also tied to a murder in which the reader has to swallow something of the abject stupidity of the victim. There are no really good reasons for Ann not to confide in Archie and it is a bit of a failing on Stout's part not to give any. Then again, many mystery series require the reader to accept at least one stupid action (and sometimes more than one) on the part of the characters.
We also have the return of Lily Rowan whom we first met in Some Buried Caesar. She is sadly changed, though. Gone is the unconventional, free spirit who was inclined to thumb her nose at social conventions and who could take someone or leave them. Here she has been turned into a borderline stalker who pursues Archie relentlessly. It is, in a word, unattractive.
The real saving grace of this story is seeing what happens to Wolfe when he loses his right-hand man to the war. There is an insanity that seems uniquely Wolfian in that he retaliates in the most unthinkable (for him) manner possible. With Wolfe's extreme actions Archie is forced to take some extreme measures of his own to get Wolfe's head back on straight.
Favorite Quote: Archie: "There is one thing you are better qualified to do than anyone else, in connection with undercover enemy activities in this country. It is a situation requiring brains, which you used to have and sometimes used. The Commander in Chief, the Secretary of War, and the General Staff, also Sergeant York, respectfully request you cut the comedy and begin using them. You are wrong if you think your sudden appearance in the front lines will make the Germans laugh themselves to death."
Booby Trap
The Plot: Someone is selling manufacturing secrets to rival companies to give them a leg up after the war. When the Army Intelligence officer assigned to the investigation turns up dead Wolfe and Archie are assigned to find out what he knew... and find out why he died if they can. Things heat up quickly, though, when the dead man's commanding officer also dies -- his office blown up with a hand grenade. He had just lost his only son to the war -- could it have been suicide? Or is there someone who has a secret to keep? Wolfe is determined to get to the bottom of it but can even he flush out a killer who has covered his tracks so well?
My Take: As was true of Black Orchids one of the two stories is stronger than the other and this is the stronger one. There is less silliness to be swallowed and there is also a kind of cinematic drama to many of the scenes. This story could have easily been adapted to the A & E TV series.
There is also a decided lack of humor and quirky characters here but that is to be expected as Stout takes a more serious tone to the story. Also, considering that Stout wrote this story during the war years it makes sense that he would be willing to portray many of the military figures involved as somewhat less than inspired but by no means ineffectual idiots.
While the mystery itself isn't poor it also isn't really anything spectacular until the end. The ending to this story is shocking and one is again reminded that Wolfe is not always a very good person... or even necessarily a moral one.
Favorite Quote: Inspector Cramer: "I've known Wolfe for something like twenty years, and I'll tell you this. Show me a corpse, any corpse, under the most ideal and innocent circumstances, with a certificate signed by every doctor in New York, including the Medical Examiner. Then show me Nero Wolfe anywhere within reach, exhibiting the faintest sign of interest, and I order the squad to go to work immediately."
Taken as a whole, Not Quite Dead Enough is interesting and entertaining -- particularly as a kind of peek into history at what the homefront was like in WW II. It is the second story, though -- "Booby Trap" -- that will stick in your mind long after the cover is closed.
Not Quite Dead Enough
The Plot: Archie Goodwin has entered the Army and been made a Major in Army Intelligence. Archie is called back to New York after an assignment and told his new assignment is to get Nero Wolfe! The military brass wants Wolfe working for them but Wolfe keeps refusing to talk to anyone.
So Archie returns to the brownstone but gets the shock of his life -- Wolfe has not only stopped taking cases he's put himself on a diet and is exercising to get in shape to join the military and fight in the war! Needing dynamite to blast Wolfe out of this notion, Archie decides to do a favor for his sometime inamorata Lily Rowan. An acquaintance of Lily's -- one Ann Amory -- knows something about someone (a secret that seems to be tied to the death of an old woman named Mrs. Leeds) but needs advice. Archie is unsuccessful in getting the girl to confide in him and when Ann suddenly turns up murdered Archie sees a way of killing two birds with one stone. He gets himself sort-of framed for Ann's murder, knowing it will get Wolfe involved... and once Wolfe is involved he should be able to bring Ann's killer to justice.
Archie's plot works... perhaps a little too well, because now suspicion is thrown on Lily for the crime. What will Archie do if Wolfe uncovers Lily as the killer? Could it be possible?
My Take: This is another of Stout's stories that is filled with hilariously quirky characters -- from two old bickering ladies to a man with an obsession with racing pigeons. Unfortunately, the story is also tied to a murder in which the reader has to swallow something of the abject stupidity of the victim. There are no really good reasons for Ann not to confide in Archie and it is a bit of a failing on Stout's part not to give any. Then again, many mystery series require the reader to accept at least one stupid action (and sometimes more than one) on the part of the characters.
We also have the return of Lily Rowan whom we first met in Some Buried Caesar. She is sadly changed, though. Gone is the unconventional, free spirit who was inclined to thumb her nose at social conventions and who could take someone or leave them. Here she has been turned into a borderline stalker who pursues Archie relentlessly. It is, in a word, unattractive.
The real saving grace of this story is seeing what happens to Wolfe when he loses his right-hand man to the war. There is an insanity that seems uniquely Wolfian in that he retaliates in the most unthinkable (for him) manner possible. With Wolfe's extreme actions Archie is forced to take some extreme measures of his own to get Wolfe's head back on straight.
Favorite Quote: Archie: "There is one thing you are better qualified to do than anyone else, in connection with undercover enemy activities in this country. It is a situation requiring brains, which you used to have and sometimes used. The Commander in Chief, the Secretary of War, and the General Staff, also Sergeant York, respectfully request you cut the comedy and begin using them. You are wrong if you think your sudden appearance in the front lines will make the Germans laugh themselves to death."
Booby Trap
The Plot: Someone is selling manufacturing secrets to rival companies to give them a leg up after the war. When the Army Intelligence officer assigned to the investigation turns up dead Wolfe and Archie are assigned to find out what he knew... and find out why he died if they can. Things heat up quickly, though, when the dead man's commanding officer also dies -- his office blown up with a hand grenade. He had just lost his only son to the war -- could it have been suicide? Or is there someone who has a secret to keep? Wolfe is determined to get to the bottom of it but can even he flush out a killer who has covered his tracks so well?
My Take: As was true of Black Orchids one of the two stories is stronger than the other and this is the stronger one. There is less silliness to be swallowed and there is also a kind of cinematic drama to many of the scenes. This story could have easily been adapted to the A & E TV series.
There is also a decided lack of humor and quirky characters here but that is to be expected as Stout takes a more serious tone to the story. Also, considering that Stout wrote this story during the war years it makes sense that he would be willing to portray many of the military figures involved as somewhat less than inspired but by no means ineffectual idiots.
While the mystery itself isn't poor it also isn't really anything spectacular until the end. The ending to this story is shocking and one is again reminded that Wolfe is not always a very good person... or even necessarily a moral one.
Favorite Quote: Inspector Cramer: "I've known Wolfe for something like twenty years, and I'll tell you this. Show me a corpse, any corpse, under the most ideal and innocent circumstances, with a certificate signed by every doctor in New York, including the Medical Examiner. Then show me Nero Wolfe anywhere within reach, exhibiting the faintest sign of interest, and I order the squad to go to work immediately."
Taken as a whole, Not Quite Dead Enough is interesting and entertaining -- particularly as a kind of peek into history at what the homefront was like in WW II. It is the second story, though -- "Booby Trap" -- that will stick in your mind long after the cover is closed.
Friday, February 4, 2011
The Remake of "Hawaii Five-0"
Okay, so admittedly I have a soft spot for the original. I watched it in syndication for a while when I was a kid so it joins that block of stuff which "was really probably not that good but I was a kid and didn't know any better and even though I know it's not that good now I still kind of like it out of nostalgia's sake."
Okay, that was a mouthful. But you know it's true. I'm sure you out there have stuff you feel the same way about.
And as you recall from my 'snowed in' post a few days back I got to watching original episodes online... and yeah, it's pretty laughable looking at it now. If people think modern police procedural stories are laughable by how fast the investigators seem to get results and what the 'magic' computers can do they should see what the original was doing in 1969! It's even funnier since they didn't have computers and almost everything had to be done by hand.
But all that is beside the point. We're here to talk about a remake.
When I first heard of this I admit my thought was: "Why?" Hawaii Five-O was not a show that seemed to me to be crying out to be remade. If they were going to remake something why not remake The Man From U.N.C.L.E.... on second thought... don't.
Anyway, they remade it. I admit I rather forgot about it until I got bored being snowed in and was looking for something to watch online. I stumbled onto this and watched several episodes... enough to come to a conclusion.... this show was *almost* there. And that's a tragedy.
Why do I say it's a tragedy? Because *almost* in TV and movies (and possibly theatre too) means there just isn't enough entertainment value and it also means that one can see the goal but it doesn't quite reach it. If something is absolute dreck you can still get entertainment value out of laughing at how ridiculous it it. Also, you don't feel so sorry for it because it's stumbling in dead last in the race; instead you applaud it because it managed to finish the race at all. And of course, if something is really good you enjoy it because it's good. But when something is just not quite there it's good enough that you can't poke fun at it but you also can't praise it because it really isn't that good.
And that's the thing about this remake. It has the potential to actually be F-U-N. Mindless action-adventure entertainment with a good-looking cast. I'm not a snob -- I enjoy brainless-blow-stuff-up action-adventure as much as the next person. But I at least expect the show to be slightly clever about it and to give viewers something more than explosions.
One of the biggest problems is that the writers felt it would be fun to make Steve McGarrett and his right-hand man Danny "Danno" Williams play the 'good cop-bad cop' roles with McGarrett being the wild card and Danny being the more straight-edged voice of reason. In itself that could have worked but the writers decided that the best way of expressing this was to have Danny be a nag and he and McGarrett spend most of their time bickering with one another. This. Is. Not. Funny. No matter how much humor the writers try to inject into the snark the problem is that snark is great but it has to be used in measured doses. When it becomes nothing but what the characters do all the time it becomes annoying and it makes it impossible to believe that these two characters are actually the friends they claim to be. Not only that, but it makes both the characters unlikable... they come off as children who should not be entrusted with permanent markers let alone automatic weapons.
The other problem with the show is that it is so straightforward, the episodes so stereotypical it's like the writers have a trope list and they check off each box as they go along. If you don't know what's going to happen and when it's going to happen for the entire episode after the opening teaser then you aren't paying attention. And with that kind of stereotyping it's easy to quickly stop paying attention. Because it's boring and being boring is one of the cardinal sins of an action-adventure show.
Then there is character development. There is some but it comes in fits and starts -- which is not necessarily a bad thing -- a show I do like, ABC's Castle does this -- but Hawaii Five-0 gives you the development in half-size chunks. At least when Castle gives a burst of character development you get a whole development in one episode. Hawaii Five-0 gives you half a development and leaves you wondering "What the heck just happened here?"
Finally, there is the smugness and superiority complexes. About half the cast is smug and superior all the time and, again, it makes them unlikable. Attached to this is the fact that, like spoiled children, they get away with everything short of murder and there are no consequences. This is alright... for Batman... but not for those whom are supposed to be a group of cops. When these guys decide to throw the rule book out the window there should be consequences, they should learn something from the experience, it should humble them somewhat. This would have the double impact of reducing the smug level and providing character development. Two birds with one stone -- what a concept!
As I said, though, the show is so close to actually being there but the writers are really going to have to step up their game. The first thing is to cut both the bickering and the nagging in at least half. The second thing is to give the viewers more character development opportunities. Let us get to know them better; because right now we have no reason to care what happens to them because they are just walking, talking cardboard cut-outs. The third thing is to let them fail... a little bit. Let them run into something they can't tackle by throwing away the rule book, let them see some consequences from their Cowboy actions. This will help humanize them and make their viewers feel a little sympathy for them as well.
So that, in a nutshell, is that. I started the show and finished with it in one day. Someone wake me if they hear that the writers have actually picked up the clue phone and fixed the problems.
Okay, that was a mouthful. But you know it's true. I'm sure you out there have stuff you feel the same way about.
And as you recall from my 'snowed in' post a few days back I got to watching original episodes online... and yeah, it's pretty laughable looking at it now. If people think modern police procedural stories are laughable by how fast the investigators seem to get results and what the 'magic' computers can do they should see what the original was doing in 1969! It's even funnier since they didn't have computers and almost everything had to be done by hand.
But all that is beside the point. We're here to talk about a remake.
When I first heard of this I admit my thought was: "Why?" Hawaii Five-O was not a show that seemed to me to be crying out to be remade. If they were going to remake something why not remake The Man From U.N.C.L.E.... on second thought... don't.
Anyway, they remade it. I admit I rather forgot about it until I got bored being snowed in and was looking for something to watch online. I stumbled onto this and watched several episodes... enough to come to a conclusion.... this show was *almost* there. And that's a tragedy.
Why do I say it's a tragedy? Because *almost* in TV and movies (and possibly theatre too) means there just isn't enough entertainment value and it also means that one can see the goal but it doesn't quite reach it. If something is absolute dreck you can still get entertainment value out of laughing at how ridiculous it it. Also, you don't feel so sorry for it because it's stumbling in dead last in the race; instead you applaud it because it managed to finish the race at all. And of course, if something is really good you enjoy it because it's good. But when something is just not quite there it's good enough that you can't poke fun at it but you also can't praise it because it really isn't that good.
And that's the thing about this remake. It has the potential to actually be F-U-N. Mindless action-adventure entertainment with a good-looking cast. I'm not a snob -- I enjoy brainless-blow-stuff-up action-adventure as much as the next person. But I at least expect the show to be slightly clever about it and to give viewers something more than explosions.
One of the biggest problems is that the writers felt it would be fun to make Steve McGarrett and his right-hand man Danny "Danno" Williams play the 'good cop-bad cop' roles with McGarrett being the wild card and Danny being the more straight-edged voice of reason. In itself that could have worked but the writers decided that the best way of expressing this was to have Danny be a nag and he and McGarrett spend most of their time bickering with one another. This. Is. Not. Funny. No matter how much humor the writers try to inject into the snark the problem is that snark is great but it has to be used in measured doses. When it becomes nothing but what the characters do all the time it becomes annoying and it makes it impossible to believe that these two characters are actually the friends they claim to be. Not only that, but it makes both the characters unlikable... they come off as children who should not be entrusted with permanent markers let alone automatic weapons.
The other problem with the show is that it is so straightforward, the episodes so stereotypical it's like the writers have a trope list and they check off each box as they go along. If you don't know what's going to happen and when it's going to happen for the entire episode after the opening teaser then you aren't paying attention. And with that kind of stereotyping it's easy to quickly stop paying attention. Because it's boring and being boring is one of the cardinal sins of an action-adventure show.
Then there is character development. There is some but it comes in fits and starts -- which is not necessarily a bad thing -- a show I do like, ABC's Castle does this -- but Hawaii Five-0 gives you the development in half-size chunks. At least when Castle gives a burst of character development you get a whole development in one episode. Hawaii Five-0 gives you half a development and leaves you wondering "What the heck just happened here?"
Finally, there is the smugness and superiority complexes. About half the cast is smug and superior all the time and, again, it makes them unlikable. Attached to this is the fact that, like spoiled children, they get away with everything short of murder and there are no consequences. This is alright... for Batman... but not for those whom are supposed to be a group of cops. When these guys decide to throw the rule book out the window there should be consequences, they should learn something from the experience, it should humble them somewhat. This would have the double impact of reducing the smug level and providing character development. Two birds with one stone -- what a concept!
As I said, though, the show is so close to actually being there but the writers are really going to have to step up their game. The first thing is to cut both the bickering and the nagging in at least half. The second thing is to give the viewers more character development opportunities. Let us get to know them better; because right now we have no reason to care what happens to them because they are just walking, talking cardboard cut-outs. The third thing is to let them fail... a little bit. Let them run into something they can't tackle by throwing away the rule book, let them see some consequences from their Cowboy actions. This will help humanize them and make their viewers feel a little sympathy for them as well.
So that, in a nutshell, is that. I started the show and finished with it in one day. Someone wake me if they hear that the writers have actually picked up the clue phone and fixed the problems.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Grab Bag Reviews: "The Tenth Planet"
Okay, first off, yes, now that Pluto has been demoted from planetary status the title doesn't work anymore.
As for the rest. Well, this episode marked one of those other 'great leaps forwards' for the show. Just as the introduction of the Meddling Monk (in "The Time Meddler") introduced the idea that the Doctor had a 'people' and that others of them could time travel too "The Tenth Planet" introduced the idea of regeneration... the thing that has allowed the show to survive and reinvent itself periodically in order to stay fresh.
This episode would also introduce the series' second most famous repeating villains... the Cybermen.
The first 'regeneration' (although it wasn't termed that at first -- that and the limitations to it would come later) was not without it's controversies.
By 1966 Producer Innes Lloyd had repeated clashes with William Hartnell -- so much so that Lloyd considered replacing Hartnell earlier -- halfway through the 1965-1966 season with the episode "The Celestial Toymaker". As it was, after much discussions, Hartnell agreed it was time to leave and the second serial of the 1966-1967 season was chosen for his departure. There are some rumors that Hartnell was forced out by Lloyd because of their personal disagreements. Officially it was Hartnell's declining health led the production team to convince him it was time to retire from the daily grind of episodic television. The truth of the matter will probably never be known but it was probably a matter of it being a combination of the two. There was no question that Hartnell's memory and health problems caused by his arteriosclerosis were worsening and he frequently missed filming for health reasons. In point of fact, even this, his swan song, suffers due to Hartnell being ill at the time of filming... but more on that later.
The big problem was the question of how did one replace the lead actor in a program like Doctor Who? And make no mistake, the show's popularity had the BBC quite interested in seeing it continue on instead of being cancelled outright.
The writers eventually stumbled onto a simple but genius idea -- since the Doctor was an alien it was simply his nature to change his appearance. At the start the writers envisioned this process as being termed a "renewal" and it would actually involve the Doctor shedding years -- not just changing his face. In this case, the idea was that the Doctor would actually de-age several hundred years during the process.
The next hurdle was to find someone to replace Hartnell. Many actors were considered and a couple were approached but indicated they had no interest in the role. One actor who was high on the list, however, was veteran character actor Patrick Troughton. Troughton was interested but he had one condition -- that he not be asked to try to ape Hartnell's style. Troughton felt that this would be an insult to Hartnell and the work he had done. The production team agreed and the new Doctor was set.
After leaving the show Hartnell continued to act -- particularly on stage where the pace of production was not as taxing as television -- and he reportedly also enjoyed meeting fans who had grown up on his portrayal of the Doctor right up to the end of his life.
Meanwhile, the production team was interested in coming up with new ideas -- particularly ones rooted in real science. They became exposed to the work of scientist Kit Pedler and Pedler became an unofficial scientific advisor to the show as well as being an 'idea man' to generate new concepts to turn into stories. The recent advances in artifical limbs as well as speculation about future advances triggered Pedler to create the Cybermen -- one of his most enduring creations.
So, shall we go and say "hello" to the Cybermen and say "good-bye" to our first Doctor?
The Plot: The Doctor, with companions Ben and Polly, land at an international space agency tracking station at the South Pole in 1986. As they observe a routine flight orbiting the Earth a strange planet suddenly appears near Earth! As the planet wreaks havoc with the space flight and begins draining energy from Earth some of the planet's inhabitants arrive to take over the South Pole station. Part flesh, part robot, but wholly without emotion, the Cybermen have a message for the people of Earth.... "You will be like us."
My Take: This is, again, one of those stories partly missing. The good news is that three out of the four episodes are still in existence. The bad news is that the missing episode is the fourth one with the Doctor's regeneration.
Back in the 1990's the episode was released on VHS by the BBC with the mission fourth part filled in by a condensed reconstruction of the episode using still images and the original audio track. The story was also released as an audio drama with descriptive narration provided by Anneke Wills, the actress who played Polly. I have seen the VHS episode but I own the audio so the audio is what I based this review on. The story has yet to be released on DVD by the BBC but there are rumors that the missing episode might be replaced by animation synced up to the surviving audio.
As for the story... I do have a problem with stories which are set in "the future" which includes my lifetime. Certainly to the writers of the time they had no idea that this story would be still being watched long after 1986 but here we are and seeing their vision of 1986 does give me a chortle to two.
All that aside, there are people who have a problem with the Cybermen's voices in their first appearance. They tend to find them laughable. I don't. Oh, sure, in a couple of places they get a bit too sing-song but other than that I really like the concept that there is still a trace of the organic voice but with an electronic overlay. It reminds the viewers that, chillingly, these were humanoid beings which have now become something other... something horrible.
The voices are both human and inhuman at the same time.
Another nice touch is the fact that the mouths on the Cybermen don't actually move when they speak. Their mouths open and the voices emerge -- as if the voices are coming from something other than their throats.
And the costume design here so nearly works. The ski-mask like face coverings are suitably chilling. They make the Cybermen faceless, anonymous; human in form but with individuality erased. The coverings also put one in mind of mummies and we are invited to wonder what might be underneath -- what horror or inhumanity do these masks cover? Or is there anything left there at all?
The headlamps, however, look like a miner's lamp gone wrong perched on top of some sink pipes and the chest units look like space-age accordions. It's all just a bit too silly looking. I will, however, award points for at least trying something that looks a little different.
Sadly, this is all the best parts of the story. The adventure dissolves into a flawed base-under-siege' plot weighted down with cement bricks in the form of the actors doing bad foreign accents. The "Italian" makes you cringe as they pull out pretty much every stereotype in the books and the "American", General Cutler is so "cowboy" it's nearly beyond words.
And the flaws just go from there. While Pedler may have had a brilliant idea with the Cybermen the rest of the psuedo-science on display is ridiculous. Okay, more ridiculous than usual for Doctor Who. A planetary body coming that close to the Earth would almost certainly impact things like weather and tides not to mention gravity. And that's getting past just the idea that a planet... the size of Earth... can just... appear without someone seeing it coming. Even the telescopes and technology available in 1966 would have been able to see something the size of a planet making it's way into the solar system! I'm willing to suspend a lot of disbelief but this story pushes the weight load past the breaking point.
And then there are the characterization holes. Granted, Hartnell was ill during at least part of the filming and perhaps most of it. He was not able to make it into the studio for the filming of the entire third episode and as such they had to write his character out of the scenes and the Doctor does not appear at all there. Still, the Doctor just simply doesn't do anything in this story. There are no grand speeches, very little taking the moral high ground, little showing off in his traditional role of 'smartest guy in the room', etc. And in point of fact he shows a ridiculous trust that the Cybermen will keep their word. At one point rather cheerfully sending his companion, Polly, off to be a hostage.
It is the other companion, Ben, who gets to save the day. Multiple times actually. Ben isn't stupid but the point of the character is that he was supposed to be a Cockney, Merchant Seaman -- someone who was born without a lot of advantages and who had a basic education. Suddenly here he turns into Sherlock Holmes. He pieces together the tiniest of clues into brilliant deductions and comes up with great plans for saving the day.
And Polly? Polly gets to offer to be useful by making coffee and then later becomes 'girl hostage'. *Sigh*. So much for women's lib. At least she doesn't do a lot of screaming.
Then there is also the fact that the very message of the story ends up being undercut by the character of General Cutler. The character starts out as a petty autocrat (whom viewers are apparently not meant to like) and he quickly slides downhill into a maniac. When his own son is put in harm's way Cutler schemes run the risk of irradiating the Earth to destroy the Cybermen's rogue planet. Seriously, he wants to use a bazooka to swat a fly and he doesn't care if he blows up the house in the process as long as the fly dies. Oh, and he intends to do it with the most silly, sci-fi sounding, deus-ex-machina superweapon I think I've ever heard... a "Z-Bomb". I guess since an atom bomb used to be abbreviated "A-Bomb" the other end of the alphabet needed a bomb as well.
But the point is that we, as the viewers, are supposed to be horrified by the idea that the Cybermen have eliminated emotions and consider them troublesome but then Cutler rushes headlong into the act of a madman because of his emotions! Therefore Cutler essentially proves the Cybermen right -- emotions do cause trouble!
Really, if it were not for the Cybermen and the regeneration I would advise skipping this story. It's not well put together and much of it is silly instead of the tension-filled nail biter it was obviously meant to be. The Cybermen are fascinating here though (or at least they are to me) and Hartnell does get a few good scenes in and his regeneration still manages to be filled with mystery and wonder as his Doctor holds onto his life to the bitter end.
As for the rest. Well, this episode marked one of those other 'great leaps forwards' for the show. Just as the introduction of the Meddling Monk (in "The Time Meddler") introduced the idea that the Doctor had a 'people' and that others of them could time travel too "The Tenth Planet" introduced the idea of regeneration... the thing that has allowed the show to survive and reinvent itself periodically in order to stay fresh.
This episode would also introduce the series' second most famous repeating villains... the Cybermen.
The first 'regeneration' (although it wasn't termed that at first -- that and the limitations to it would come later) was not without it's controversies.
By 1966 Producer Innes Lloyd had repeated clashes with William Hartnell -- so much so that Lloyd considered replacing Hartnell earlier -- halfway through the 1965-1966 season with the episode "The Celestial Toymaker". As it was, after much discussions, Hartnell agreed it was time to leave and the second serial of the 1966-1967 season was chosen for his departure. There are some rumors that Hartnell was forced out by Lloyd because of their personal disagreements. Officially it was Hartnell's declining health led the production team to convince him it was time to retire from the daily grind of episodic television. The truth of the matter will probably never be known but it was probably a matter of it being a combination of the two. There was no question that Hartnell's memory and health problems caused by his arteriosclerosis were worsening and he frequently missed filming for health reasons. In point of fact, even this, his swan song, suffers due to Hartnell being ill at the time of filming... but more on that later.
The big problem was the question of how did one replace the lead actor in a program like Doctor Who? And make no mistake, the show's popularity had the BBC quite interested in seeing it continue on instead of being cancelled outright.
The writers eventually stumbled onto a simple but genius idea -- since the Doctor was an alien it was simply his nature to change his appearance. At the start the writers envisioned this process as being termed a "renewal" and it would actually involve the Doctor shedding years -- not just changing his face. In this case, the idea was that the Doctor would actually de-age several hundred years during the process.
The next hurdle was to find someone to replace Hartnell. Many actors were considered and a couple were approached but indicated they had no interest in the role. One actor who was high on the list, however, was veteran character actor Patrick Troughton. Troughton was interested but he had one condition -- that he not be asked to try to ape Hartnell's style. Troughton felt that this would be an insult to Hartnell and the work he had done. The production team agreed and the new Doctor was set.
After leaving the show Hartnell continued to act -- particularly on stage where the pace of production was not as taxing as television -- and he reportedly also enjoyed meeting fans who had grown up on his portrayal of the Doctor right up to the end of his life.
Meanwhile, the production team was interested in coming up with new ideas -- particularly ones rooted in real science. They became exposed to the work of scientist Kit Pedler and Pedler became an unofficial scientific advisor to the show as well as being an 'idea man' to generate new concepts to turn into stories. The recent advances in artifical limbs as well as speculation about future advances triggered Pedler to create the Cybermen -- one of his most enduring creations.
So, shall we go and say "hello" to the Cybermen and say "good-bye" to our first Doctor?
The Plot: The Doctor, with companions Ben and Polly, land at an international space agency tracking station at the South Pole in 1986. As they observe a routine flight orbiting the Earth a strange planet suddenly appears near Earth! As the planet wreaks havoc with the space flight and begins draining energy from Earth some of the planet's inhabitants arrive to take over the South Pole station. Part flesh, part robot, but wholly without emotion, the Cybermen have a message for the people of Earth.... "You will be like us."
My Take: This is, again, one of those stories partly missing. The good news is that three out of the four episodes are still in existence. The bad news is that the missing episode is the fourth one with the Doctor's regeneration.
Back in the 1990's the episode was released on VHS by the BBC with the mission fourth part filled in by a condensed reconstruction of the episode using still images and the original audio track. The story was also released as an audio drama with descriptive narration provided by Anneke Wills, the actress who played Polly. I have seen the VHS episode but I own the audio so the audio is what I based this review on. The story has yet to be released on DVD by the BBC but there are rumors that the missing episode might be replaced by animation synced up to the surviving audio.
As for the story... I do have a problem with stories which are set in "the future" which includes my lifetime. Certainly to the writers of the time they had no idea that this story would be still being watched long after 1986 but here we are and seeing their vision of 1986 does give me a chortle to two.
All that aside, there are people who have a problem with the Cybermen's voices in their first appearance. They tend to find them laughable. I don't. Oh, sure, in a couple of places they get a bit too sing-song but other than that I really like the concept that there is still a trace of the organic voice but with an electronic overlay. It reminds the viewers that, chillingly, these were humanoid beings which have now become something other... something horrible.
The voices are both human and inhuman at the same time.
Another nice touch is the fact that the mouths on the Cybermen don't actually move when they speak. Their mouths open and the voices emerge -- as if the voices are coming from something other than their throats.
And the costume design here so nearly works. The ski-mask like face coverings are suitably chilling. They make the Cybermen faceless, anonymous; human in form but with individuality erased. The coverings also put one in mind of mummies and we are invited to wonder what might be underneath -- what horror or inhumanity do these masks cover? Or is there anything left there at all?
The headlamps, however, look like a miner's lamp gone wrong perched on top of some sink pipes and the chest units look like space-age accordions. It's all just a bit too silly looking. I will, however, award points for at least trying something that looks a little different.
Sadly, this is all the best parts of the story. The adventure dissolves into a flawed base-under-siege' plot weighted down with cement bricks in the form of the actors doing bad foreign accents. The "Italian" makes you cringe as they pull out pretty much every stereotype in the books and the "American", General Cutler is so "cowboy" it's nearly beyond words.
And the flaws just go from there. While Pedler may have had a brilliant idea with the Cybermen the rest of the psuedo-science on display is ridiculous. Okay, more ridiculous than usual for Doctor Who. A planetary body coming that close to the Earth would almost certainly impact things like weather and tides not to mention gravity. And that's getting past just the idea that a planet... the size of Earth... can just... appear without someone seeing it coming. Even the telescopes and technology available in 1966 would have been able to see something the size of a planet making it's way into the solar system! I'm willing to suspend a lot of disbelief but this story pushes the weight load past the breaking point.
And then there are the characterization holes. Granted, Hartnell was ill during at least part of the filming and perhaps most of it. He was not able to make it into the studio for the filming of the entire third episode and as such they had to write his character out of the scenes and the Doctor does not appear at all there. Still, the Doctor just simply doesn't do anything in this story. There are no grand speeches, very little taking the moral high ground, little showing off in his traditional role of 'smartest guy in the room', etc. And in point of fact he shows a ridiculous trust that the Cybermen will keep their word. At one point rather cheerfully sending his companion, Polly, off to be a hostage.
It is the other companion, Ben, who gets to save the day. Multiple times actually. Ben isn't stupid but the point of the character is that he was supposed to be a Cockney, Merchant Seaman -- someone who was born without a lot of advantages and who had a basic education. Suddenly here he turns into Sherlock Holmes. He pieces together the tiniest of clues into brilliant deductions and comes up with great plans for saving the day.
And Polly? Polly gets to offer to be useful by making coffee and then later becomes 'girl hostage'. *Sigh*. So much for women's lib. At least she doesn't do a lot of screaming.
Then there is also the fact that the very message of the story ends up being undercut by the character of General Cutler. The character starts out as a petty autocrat (whom viewers are apparently not meant to like) and he quickly slides downhill into a maniac. When his own son is put in harm's way Cutler schemes run the risk of irradiating the Earth to destroy the Cybermen's rogue planet. Seriously, he wants to use a bazooka to swat a fly and he doesn't care if he blows up the house in the process as long as the fly dies. Oh, and he intends to do it with the most silly, sci-fi sounding, deus-ex-machina superweapon I think I've ever heard... a "Z-Bomb". I guess since an atom bomb used to be abbreviated "A-Bomb" the other end of the alphabet needed a bomb as well.
But the point is that we, as the viewers, are supposed to be horrified by the idea that the Cybermen have eliminated emotions and consider them troublesome but then Cutler rushes headlong into the act of a madman because of his emotions! Therefore Cutler essentially proves the Cybermen right -- emotions do cause trouble!
Really, if it were not for the Cybermen and the regeneration I would advise skipping this story. It's not well put together and much of it is silly instead of the tension-filled nail biter it was obviously meant to be. The Cybermen are fascinating here though (or at least they are to me) and Hartnell does get a few good scenes in and his regeneration still manages to be filled with mystery and wonder as his Doctor holds onto his life to the bitter end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)