I’m taking a little bit of a break over the long Easter weekend*, spending time with friends in Scotland. (I’ll post some pix soon.) Which means I won’t be able to do my regular episode blogging — which is very time-intensive — until next week, most likely not till Thursday.
So, in the meantime, please use this as an open thread to discuss “The Bells of Saint John.” Assume spoilers galore.
* It is a long weekend in the U.K., with the Friday before and the Monday after official bank holidays. It’s a bit like Thanksgiving in the U.S., in fact, in how it’s used as an opportunity to get away or spend time with family.
“Is it an evil spirit?”
“It’s a woman”
*monk crosses self*
Am I being over-sensitive or is this pretty sexist?
That *really* bothered me, too. I wonder if Moffat is doing it deliberately, now.
When it comes to gender roles, he can’t seem to expunge the sitcom writer within.
Yes, this exactly — gender roles generally and many of his jokes as well. In this episode we get yet another flirty female companion threatening to “snog” the Doctor, and him being seized with panic at the mere thought. So perhaps my above defense of the “evil spirit” line was a bit hasty.
I think you’ll find the companion was raising the alarm about a potentially predatory doctor bringing on his snog box. I’m not entirely comfortable with Clara being written off as “yet another flirty female”.
Yep, sexist, but completely bang on for the period. In the madaeival period (Pre Chretienne de Troy and the invention of courtly love – and this episode was set at 1220 something at the beginning), women were considered sexually voracious and lustful and out to corrupt pure men (as opposed to the Victorian attitude of pure women to be protected from lustful men). A monk very likely would have crossed himself.
It makes sense in that context, but this is not the first time Moffat’s made a joke like this (see also: “hell in high heels”)
I mean, a monk clearly not bothered by the ability to talk to someone who isn’t there and to hear their spirit conversing with you. Obviously your basic witchcraft. Nothing to be alarmed about. But a woman? Yoikes!
The monk clearly IS a bit bothered by the Doctor communicating to someone who isn’t there and hearing their ‘spirit’ conversing with him (in fact, if memory serves, that particular monk seems pretty freaked out by the Doctor in general), hence why he nervously asks the Doctor if he’s communicating with ‘spirits’.
Hell in high heels was hardly a sexist comment. The Doctor said that line with a great deal of relish ie hell in high heels is a good thing. Besides, taking lines out of context does not indicate sexism. It indicates nothing without looking at the wider story arc and the wider character arcs. All of which are pretty feminist on current Who.
Maybe it’s a bit over-sensitive — Moffat seems to make these jokes from the perspective of one who finds women frightening and confusing, and instead of demeaning women I think his intention is to make fun of the men (and boys) who are afraid of them. This joke in particular isn’t coming from a wise and respected character, it’s coming from a 13th century zealot. In fact, I’d argue the Doctor himself is mocking the monk with his cavalier response. Sort of like an adult warning a young boy that “girls” will be at the party so he’d better be afraid.
I agree, and I don’t think that the Doctor needed to introduce political correctness to medieval culture. It would have been jarring to the monks and to the viewers. But I’d think that a “wise and respected character” like the Doctor would be inclined to wince or roll his eyes when he heard such an insensitive comment, if only because he’s bothered by ignorance. He might even have made a sardonic remark. He didn’t, and the line ended up sounding like yet another joke about how “women are scary.” I can’t find the energy to get worked up about the joke, but you’d think that the writer who created Sally Sparrow and Madame Vastra would have better judgment.
One could theoretically argue in fairness that, given that he’s a bit distracted by giving IT advice to a woman calling him from about eight centuries in the future (and who turns out to be the exact person he’s been wracking his brain about), he’s a bit too distracted to really start getting put out by medieval sexism. But, I do have to counter myself here and say that an eye-roll would have taken like a second of screentime and wouldn’t exactly have hurt, so that’s possibly not the best defence.
But to be honest, I do have to agree that getting too worked up about this particular joke smacks a bit of of over-sensitivity (to me, anyway) since the joke is still clearly on the monk in this case.
It bothered me but at the same time it was sad that I was just like, “It’s just Moffat being Moffat again.”
The question of the week asks about dumb questions, can I add “Doctor Who?” to that?
Moffat, just so you know, WE GET IT ALREADY! Fans have been getting it for nearly 50 years.
Also, that episode made NO sense whatsoever. Tech stuff happened that was solved by more tech stuff, roll credits.
You’d prefer the non-technological technology of Lammasteen?
I prefer tech stuff to be PART of the plot, not just used AS the plot.
But…. but… what does that mean? It’s always tech stuff. Giant maggots, giant robots, giant spiders, dinosaurs, shop dummies, cyborg cowboys, black cubes. Tech and spectacle. Something goes wrong. Companion at risk. Doctor fixes/rescues. Tawdry quips and jammy dodgers. Cue music. This week: something living in the internet, people’s consciousness being downloaded through the wifi, doctor jams the signal, finds the source, reverses the polarity, everybody lives except the ones who die. But also, a friendship partially formed, several multi-episode mysteries apparently revealed, lots of jokes (a really long telephone cable!) and surprises (an antigrav motorbike!) Where did I miss the “no sense whatsoever”?
I think you have managed to summarise perfectly why I enjoyed this episode! It’s the sort of story that, while employing 21st century technology, with a few tweeks, could sit comfortably in almost any era of the show’s history. In fairness to Northern Star, though, he or she seems to have been so annoyed by one aspect of the programme that it made it difficult for them to enjoy the rest of it. This is fair enough-the ”Mary Poppins” elements of ”The Snowmen” annoyed me so much that I ended up dwelling on the siillier aspects of the story, to the extent that I couldn’t see much merit in the rest of it.
Perhaps I missed something in the episode that you caught.
Why were people being uploaded? Why, if you were dead, could you be downloaded back into your body with no physical affects of prolonged hypoxia? Assuming you still had a body to return to (ie cremation).
And then there’s the location of the bad guys revealed by some ability Clara received in her upload enabling her to use a computer. The reason for this information placed in her head is never given.
And the antrgrav bike, for me at least, is a little too close to Spitfires in Space.
But yes, the long telephone cord was fun.
People were being uploaded because the GI was doing something with them (was it feeding off them? I can’t remember. it didn’t seem important. Why do baddies want to take over the universe anyway?)
It wasn’t stated that people stopped breathing, so I assumed that they entered a persistent vegetative state. TBH, that would have been my technical quibble with the episode (apart from the time travelling and antigrav motorcycle, of course.) If you upload something, you make a COPY of it somewhere else. The original file data doesn’t disappear – if it did then Hollywood wouldn’t be having such hissy fits about BitTorrent.
You’re right that no explicit reason was given for why the GI needed uploaded people to have computer skills, but I thought Miss Kizlet dealt with it sufficiently for the purposes of the episode. YMMV.
At least the improbable antigrav bike came preassembled out of the TARDIS garage, rather than being developed and constructed by some WWII engineers.
You could argue that the joke is on the monks but Moffat has done this sort of thing too consistently through his whole career to excuse him for these weak joke-ettes now.
Yes, he definitely has a frame he cuts his male and female protagonist character types from… the “good” males are awkward and afraid of women, the females brash and flirty.
Not the best episode but I liked Clara and GREAT INTELLIGENCE, IT’S THE GREAT INTELLIGENCE!
Why is the Great Intelligence so interesting?
It was one of the more memorable big bads of Early Who. Especially the Web of Fear episode. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/DoctorWhoS5E5TheWebOfFear
It’s definitely the most idiosyncratic use of an old monster they’ve done so far. The Troughton episodes with the Yeti were great (as much as you can tell such a thing when they’ve been wiped) but I can’t really tell you much about the GI in them. They were just a Yeti delivery service. The new GI feels like Moffat really thought they had untapped potential, and could be done in a massively different way.
I’m also quite interested by the fact that they’re definitely setting up what is almost a ‘forgotten’ monster as being a Big Bad.
Plus, let’s be fair; why SHOULDN’T Etana be excited about seeing the Great Intelligence again if that’s the sort of thing that excites him/her? Why does s/he need to justify it?
I’d answer the last part but I think we all know the answer. Besides, I think I’ve rocked the boat enough. People might get upset ;)
I just wondered if there was something I was missing.
I rather thought that this was the best episode Moffat’s done it a long time. While there was a “tech” solution, the real solution was brought about by the Doctor being more clever than his opponent. It’s always nice to see a bit of wit and a bit tech and a bit of cleverness all come together so well. That was the Doctor’s style for so long, and I hope that this is a sign that Moffat will let 11 be a little more classic in that respect.
Random thoughts:
*The mystery of Clara is mildly interesting, but it did serve to motivate the Doctor.
*The Great Intelligence must be really pissed at the Doctor by now. This is at least the 4th time the Doctor has crossed the GI.
*Cloister Bell would have been a nice way to draw the Doctor back to the TARDIS and THEN get the phone call.
*The airliner scene was a nice bit of slapstick in what was a nicely dark episode.
*It seems that the Doctor is starting to get big and loud again after pulling back in the wake of his apparent death at the hands of River. Trenzalore, here we come.
*Unrelated to the episode but part of the news of today: David and Billie back? Allons-y!
Regarding the airplane scene, I really liked the way they faked doing it all in one take, with them running into the TARDIS, the Doctor moving in a circle around the center column as he pilots the TARDIS into the plane, and then running out of the TARDIS. It’s easy to spot the edits when you are looking for them, but the effect is still pretty exhilarating!
A “single-take” shot like that is pretty fun when done right. (Serenity pulled it off 8 years ago, and it still looks great even knowing where Joss put the edit(s).) I thought the combination of dialogue, facial expressions, editing, directing, that tea cup in Clara’s hand the entire time made what could have been a ridiculously cliche scene into something that felt more natural than a lot of what Moffat has tried to pass off as comedy in recent memory.
There are two in Alfonso Cauron’s Children of Men that are spec-fucking-tacular.
Note to self: Yet another reason to get around to watching that movie…
A nice bit of semi-believable cybersecurity sleuthing there – I’m surprised that the episode never mentioned “identity theft”. I really didn’t see the (literal) volte-face coming, so it was great to be genuinely surprised at the resolution of a Doctor Who. It was a bit cheeky that Moffat scripted a genuine “reset” button into the episode, but Celia Imrie’s response brought a bit of human tragedy into the ending.
If there’s such a thing as London-porn, this episode was it – yet another iconic landmark turning out to be the site of an alien takeover bid. I did feel the whole episode was a bit of a re-run of “Rose” – right down to there being a ubiquitous thing that seems benign but turns out threatening (in the case of “Rose” it was plastic of course – remember the lovely moment when Rose mentions breast implants?”
Enjoyable but so formulaic, and raiding its own recent nostalgia bank now, which isn’t a good omen.
You seem to be selectively ignoring: the mummy in Empty Child/Doctor Dances; Sally Sparrow; Liz 10; Canton Delaware III; Mdme. Kovarian; and Rory, as his character developed. I believe Moffat was making fun of the monks being sexist; that is scarcely sexist itself. If so, that is an pretty exacting standard.
I agree. Good thing I made this exact point earlier in the comments section :P
Please don’t attempt to distract from the Moffat hate with so-called “facts”. That sort of thing upsets people. ;)
You missed the implicit “I am in hate mode.”
Some criticism of the programme comes from “a place of love” while some comes from “a place of hate.” Often, of course, there will be no substantial difference between the actual content of the criticism. But there are ways of telling the two apart. Two that I can think of are: firstly, that “hate” criticism often fixates on rather trivial elements of continuity or believability (the “I can believe in a time/space vehicle, but I can’t believe in a sonic screwdriver that can’t operate on wood” syndrome). Secondly, as here, the more obvious broad swath criticism: “It makes no sense”. Often followed up with “It’s going to be cancelled!”
Myself, I think hate criticism gets in the way of criticism of the show, but that’s just my opinion. People are as entitled to hate the show as to love it. You aren’t going to get a particularly fair evaluation of TOWIE out of me, for example. Or perhaps a better example: any criticisms I have of Game of Thrones after watching the first season are coming not from a fundamental enjoyment of a show that ought to be right up my street, but from a deep distaste for so many of its underlying elements and themes.
I am preparing for the now usual MAJ who review- I wonder if I should just create my own anti-who bingo card and save myself the frustration as each new episode spawns new and ever more interesting manifestations of fandom crazy. It’s getting to the stage where I watch episodes thinking to myself, “well- the Moffat haters will be out in full force with that comment, never mind the context of the story and of the characters or even of the offending quote.”
The monk crossing himself- it’s called being historically accurate. And I saw The Doctor as clearly baiting the monk with his comment as if to say, ‘what a ridiculous attitude this guy has to women… see… he just proved it.’ Of course, there’s also the lesson of Englishlit101 which states that just because a character says or does a certain thing, does not mean that the writer endorses that thing.
I wish Celia Imrie could have stuck around for longer. She is always great. BUT YAY MORE RICHARD E GRANT. And Great Intelligence! Also, I quite like Clara which I wasn’t expecting after how much I loved The Pond’s. But then, I’ve never really not liked a companion…
Celia Imrie was really good, and the script gave her some great lines. From the look of the teaser trailer for the up-coming Ice Warriors story, they’ve managed to cast Liam Cunningham in that one. These are classy guest stars.
I really liked her a lot but I guess her sticking around would have been too Madame Kovarian 2.0 :(
I think the point of this cultural site should be conversation (erudite, witty, informative, challenging) rather than mere uniformity of opinion. Yes, I have found it disquieting that MAJ’s opinion of the Moffat/Smith-Doctor is not universally positive, and I admit to being somewhat too ignorant of grown-up media critique to be able to respond confidently. But nonetheless I am looking forward to active participation around MAJ’s next instalment.
I never said I wanted uniformity of opinion. Nor endless positivity. I actually thought this episode was pretty average. The nit picking of certain perceived elements in Moffat episodes is getting tedious however- and no that isn’t necessarily aimed at MAJ. I would argue that the things in the discussion that you desire are now becoming borderline impossible with the kinds of comments happening in the reviews.
I’m sorry you’re not enjoying my critiques, but no one’s forcing you to read them, are they?
I’m honestly not sure what everyone who feels like Maureen expects from me. Should I temper my opinion? Should I somehow try to force myself to react in a way that’s not honest? Do you want me to lie about my reaction?
I’m always never less than honest with my readers. I don’t mind if people disagree with me, but it really upsets me when so many people — particularly when it comes to Doctor Who — seem to be thinking that I should be altering my opinion so that it conforms to some expectation.
Well, sure. Okay. But why set this part of the story here? What was the point? Moffat didn’t *have* to do that.
But the writer makes the decision about the time and place in which to set a story. A writer makes the decision about what to emphasize and what to leave out. These things do not happen in a vacuum. And these are valid things to criticize.
I find it odd that, in a series absolutely rife with deliberate historical inaccuracies deployed for affect, *this* is the thing Moffat decides to be historically accurate about.
I might as well ask you why don’t you stop watching doc who? Feel flattered MAJ.
re this: But the writer makes the decision about the time and place in which to set a story.
What dreadfully PC stories we would get if we were never allowed to go back to times and places that espoused different (and problematic) views to our own.
And I don’t find honesty an irritation. I find the selective nit picking, often taken out of context and out of proportion annoying. Especially when people act like it overshadows whole episodes or indeed whole tenures. To be fair, yes, it can overshadow, but only if you let it. Says more about you than it does about Moffat and the BBC.
I was worried about looking forward to this too much, after ”The Snowmen”, but this was a return to form. Reading, and occasionally participating, in these discussions has revealed that ”Doctor Who” means a great number of different things to different people, who , consequently, have different expectations and demands of it. My own are quite simple-I expect it to be entertaining, and to make some kind of sense. This managed to do both, so I’m happy, or as happy as any grumpy middle aged man with a sentimental attachment to a childrens’ television programme is ever going to be!.
I also thought Les summed it up pretty well. And I must say I’m genuinely pleased that you found the episode enjoyable, as I did. Not perfect, of course — I suspect we’d agree on that, if not on the details — but enjoyable all the same.
Now we just have to wait with trembling knees for MaryAnn’s demolition…
Hi, Paul. Let’s be cautiously optimistic that our hostess will see more good than bad in this episode-although her jumping on the ”monk” thing early on maybe doesn’t bode well. Most importantly-did your son like it?
He did. Thought it was scary — the spoonheads were mining a child-scaring vein that Moffat has worked before, but no less effectively. And that scary factor meant that the reversal of the Doctor commandeering a spoonhead was all the more effective. Most of the quips and in-jokes were lost on him, but the point is, of course, that they don’t impact the actual story at all.
That’s heartening-and from the look of the teaser trailer for this half of the season, more scary monsters are on the way……
Although I tend more to Moffat’s opinion of the Ice Warriors than Gatiss’s, I was nevertheless reminded by my son recognising the Ice Warriors (he’s seen the Peladon stories) of how impressive they were when I saw them as a child.
The other monsters? Well, we’ll see how it goes, won’t we?