tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202625234167413814.post7674940842478122014..comments2024-02-28T17:50:10.303+00:00Comments on LUCID FRENZY JUNIOR: DOCTOR WHO 'VINCENT AND THE DOCTOR'Gavin Burrowshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202625234167413814.post-40545072020953295302010-06-10T18:20:16.427+01:002010-06-10T18:20:16.427+01:00Thanks to all for their comments. I have read Mike...Thanks to all for their comments. I have read Mike’s post and will comment as soon as I get the chance! But, after having pretty much written the episode off as a failure, I’m now going to (almost) defend it against Martin!<br /><br /><i>Personally I found the coda not only schmaltzy but also rather pointless. Trying to cure Vincent’s depression by convincing him that he’s the World’s Greatest seemed to me to be a curiously egotistical medical treatment... I guess it was just an attempt at tacking on a Romcom happy ending.</i><br /><br />Schmaltzy yes, but I don’t think it was pointless or a failed attempt at a happy ending. I’d reckon that it <i>started</i> with the inevitable event of Van Gogh’s death and worked backwards. The futility of their efforts isn’t a failing – it’s the very point. We arrive at that ending for a reason. There’s even the suggestion that the Doctor suspected this from the beginning. All they could possibly give him was a nice afternoon trip out, not a cure. So the Doctor gives him the trip. Only Amy imagines it to be a cure.<br /><br /><i> It also had nothing to do with the plot, which was mainly about saving French people from being eaten.</i><br /><br />The plot in this case was just a plate for Curtis to arrange his display on. Alas it was a saggy paper plate, not bone china. But I can be quite happy with <i>’Who’</i> episodes where the perfunctory plot is just used as a jumping-off point.<br /><br /><i> and included enough references to satisfy those post-impressionist fanboys.</i><br /><br />Well I’m a Modernism fanboy, so I suppose that includes the post-impressionists by default. I could have wished for more, but I agree the episode said something particular about Van Gogh. (Whereas when Shakespeare turned up, he was just a bloke what wrote good.)<br /><br /><i> I’d have loved to see this as an "old ‘true’ historical", but think how disappointed all those ten-year-olds would have been without a monster!</i><br /><br />Perhaps you’re right in this case. But then ten year olds of the Sixties watched their way through enough of them. (As any <i>’Who’</i> fan worth his jelly babies knows, it’s a myth that the historicals suffered from poor audiences.)<br /><br />Of course a <i>’Who’</i> episode has to stay a <i>’Who’</i> episode. Pushing the envelope can be enthralling. <i>Breaking</i> it simply deflates everything. Just look at every comic over the last twenty years that announced itself as ‘groundbreaking.’<br /><br />But I’m not sure writing out the monster <i>would</i> have deflated the envelope. The time travel element would still have been integral. Besides, I found the best idea to be Neil Perryman’s – where the monster <i>does</i> exist, but only internally.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202625234167413814.post-28389885258405649622010-06-10T12:43:19.970+01:002010-06-10T12:43:19.970+01:00I think the key to whether you enjoyed this one is...I think the key to whether you enjoyed this one is probably what you think of Richard Curtis as a writer.<br /><br />Personally I found the coda not only schmaltzy but also rather pointless. Trying to cure Vincent’s depression by convincing him that he’s the World’s Greatest seemed to me to be a curiously egotistical medical treatment. It also had nothing to do with the plot, which was mainly about saving French people from being eaten.<br /><br />I guess it was just an attempt at tacking on a Romcom happy ending, which couldn’t work because of the contraint of leaving history unchanged (except for the <i>for Amy</i> inscription, bizarrely). So we were left with the odd rationale that, although Curtis couldn’t give us a happy ending this time, he’d given us some happy bits so that’s all right then...<br /><br />Perversely I did like the rest of the episode, mainly because the setting was in the foreground for once. Most of the recent historicals could have been set anywhere, but this one could only have been at this place and time. The Doctor was indeed "a character in his own episode". Curtis seems to have been faithful to his source material (to my limited knowledge) and included enough references to satisfy those post-impressionist fanboys. And I found Tony Curran’s performance rather engaging when the role could have invited the worst of hamming.<br /><br />Shame about the Krafayis though. It made me think of the <i>Bullshit or Not?</i> sketch from <i>Amazon Women on the Moon</i>, where Jack the Ripper turns out to be the Loch Ness Monster. But I suppose it did at least have some symbolism rather than just being the arbitrary creature-from-the-toybox that we’d got used to. I’d have loved to see this as an "old ‘true’ historical", but think how disappointed all those ten-year-olds would have been without a monster!Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00659496241392053499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202625234167413814.post-25013551371380401242010-06-10T11:39:00.206+01:002010-06-10T11:39:00.206+01:00Great post, plenty of food for thought.Great post, plenty of food for thought.John Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09275476513933849893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4202625234167413814.post-45466105194609824192010-06-10T09:29:37.200+01:002010-06-10T09:29:37.200+01:00I deliberately held off reading your Vincent artic...I deliberately held off reading your <i>Vincent</i> article until I'd written my own, for fear of being influenced -- I saved yours up as my reward for finishing. It's intriguing to see how much we are (for once) in accord, even if on balance I was more positive than you. If you're interested, <a href="http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/vincent-and-the-doctor-11th-doctor-episode-10/" rel="nofollow">http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/vincent-and-the-doctor-11th-doctor-episode-10/</a>Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.com