Doctor Who: The Witch’s Familiar

Worth the slow start.

The Magician’s Apprentice was a distinctly slow in as a start; very little happened until the last five minutes. As I said in my review of that episode, it was a bit difficult to stay interested, when the episode was about 95% set-up.

But I’m happy to say, that it was worth the wait and the quality of this episode makes it predecessor better by association.

It’s nice to see the image of “the Doctor without hope” resorting to particularly gruesome tactics. I mean Davros is the bad guy, but the Doctor yanking him out of he chair and leaving him (literally half a man) lying on the floor, is pretty brutal.

This is far more effective than the last time we saw Davros bring the darker side of the Doctor out. That was in “Journey’s End” and was so poorly executed that it had to be said in dialogue that it was a dark act. There’s a simple rule of show-don’t-tell in film and television and (for the faults he does have) Moffat writes in a way that meets this far more effectively than Davies.

Capaldi is on form, particularly when he’s rolling around in Davros’ chair, deliberately aggravating the kill bots around him. One thing about the Twelfth Doctor is that you’re never sure if he will actually kill something he’s angry with. He’s a bit like James Bond in that he can switch from the fantastic out-of-this world character to a killer in a second. It’s a trait that wouldn’t have fit on the Tenth or Eleventh, largely due to their relative youth.

Missy’s part in this episode is a bit confusing; it’s easy to imagine that when Moffat thought up this episode it would have been River Song in her place. That said, Michelle Gomez is brilliant as ever, particularly in her turn at the end when she tries to make the Doctor accidently kill Clara. She gives the reason that she wanted to show him his own dark side, but I suspect it was just something she found fun.

On that point, putting Clara back in the Dalek is a good call back to her first appearance and may foreshadow a gruesome end for her.

One thing; I have absolutely no love to the “there’s good in everyone” ending to this episode. One; it’s contrary to all of Davros’ actions in the third act and two; the Doctor shooting all those hand mines was really predictable.

Aside from an annoying ending this is a pretty good episode.

Doctor Who: The Magician’s Apprentice.

Well this was a weird one.

It’s not easy to acclimatize to this kind of format at the beginning of the series. A two-part piece is normally something you’d put in the middle of a series or at it’s conclusion. Throwing it in at the begging has the effect of the viewer not being able to engage with the material properly. This episode does suffer for this, with none of the plot really getting going until over half way through. Had this been placed in the middle of the series or at the end, there would have been a huge body red herrings and plot points pre-established to keep the audience interested.

That’s not to say that this isn’t a good episode; it is. It calls back to the classic series, both in tone and literal in-show references, but still has enough modern comedy to work today. Capaldi is awesome as always, jumping between Tom Baker-esque buffoonery and compelling drama.

The story is basically the baby Hitler problem. The Doctor meets a child he knows will grow up to be an evil dictator. He faces the dilemma of whether to help him or to leave him to die. Of course (predictably) it’s implied that the Doctor left him to die and hence Davros, developed a fear of death that would lead him to create the Daleks.

As is typical of Moffat it’s pretty heavy subject matter to be dealt with in family show, but he just about pulls it off.

There are a couple of sticking points, the most prominent of which is Missy; not her return  - like she says – that’s not really important – but the fact that Clara basically goes “oh ok, you’re back.”

This was the person she was going to kill in cold blood at the end of the last series. Like Amy before her, Clara’s personality has been rebooted to suit the new series’ plot. It’s not impossible for her to act this way, in terms of character development, but that development needs to happen on screen else what’s the point of having the same companion in every episode.

But enough of that; onto the main bit of this episode; the cliffhanger. The Doctor somehow travels back to first time he met the child Davros, this time to kill him, in order to stop the elderly dying Davros from causing the deaths of Missy and Clara. This is something that’s been building throughout Moffat’s tenure. The darker side of the Doctor.

Is this the moment that the Valyard is born? The Doctor altering time in a massive way for selfish ends. Is this how he starts?

Anyhow, it’s a good enough episode, even if it’s not the best thing for a casual viewer.

Bible Banning?

As reported by Huffington post, Aberystywth University is set to consider a proposal to remove Gideons Bibles from it’s student accommodation study bedrooms. This is following a survey by the Student Union in which found that only 4% of students believed that having the bible in their room was a “good idea.”

Well let me tell you now, I have never been so offended; so utterly outraged, by the response of Christian student Jessica Hearne, who used the excuse that the UK is a Christian country. The UK is in fact a country that guarantees freedom of religion to all; you are free to believe in whatever you choose or not believe in any of it. I am British and am not a Christian, nor am I Jewish, Muslim or any religion you could name. I find it completely it unacceptably rude for this young lady to suggest that my nationality has anything to do with any religion.

Her argument is also a colossal straw man. Let me sum it up basically “Only 4% of students living in university accommodation think that having a bible in their room is a good thing, so we’re going to consider removing them.”

“Well you can’t because we’re a Christian country.”

Do you see how irrelevant that response is? This isn’t about whether the UK’s national identity is intrinsically linked to one specific religion. This is about a survey that said, overall, students weren’t comfortable with a bible being put in their room without their consent. Also, in what way does removing the Gideons Bible from a student bedroom stop a devout Christian from practicing their religion. Seriously; I’ve never met a devout Christian who didn’t own their own copy of the bible.

The Christian Institute have also responded, stating that they find it hard to see how someone could be offended by a bible being in their room. This demonstrates a huge amount of arrogance on their part. Of course there’s no way that a symbol of our religion could possibly offend anyone; when has Christianity ever said or done anything offensive?

You want to be offended by the fact that your special book could be removed from student bedrooms; feel free. But don’t act like there’s a reason it shouldn’t be, especially in the face of evidence that only 4% of the people involved are behind you on that.

Broadchurch Series 2 Episode 5 Review.

So I was kind of right about the roots of the Knight and Bishop feud; still on the fence about the missing girl theory; as the furnace in this episode could just be a red herring.

So we’ve gone full on legal drama, with the main focus of this episode being Knight and Bishop dealing with their personal problems intersecting with the trial. Through this, we get some insight into their joint back story; with Bishop’s bitterness over Knight refusing to defend her son. Bishop completely drops her professional façade, when she finds out about her son being assaulted in prison. This is something she holds Knight responsible for, though Knight seems to be of the opinion that that case wasn’t worth defending. “A man died because of your son”  - this is a very effective piece of character development for both and finally shows Bishop reacting as a parent rather than a lawyer.

Bishop isn’t really shown in the best light however as her actions in the trial are now less for the benefit of her client and more for the sake of humiliating Knight. While effort is made to show Knight’s lack of empathy with parents, it’s Bishop who comes out worse off in terms of audience reaction (from me at least).  While Knight is taking pot shots at Bishop it’s not really over anything personal. Bishop (or rather her junior) makes an amateur mistake in calling an unreliable witness during their defence. This is the source of Knight’s mockery, while Bishop’s motivation is both personal and unprofessional. Bishop seems to be projecting her own screw-ups and her son’s peril onto Knight.

In the B story, the suspects for the Sandbrook murders are stacking up. It seems like the neighbours may have been involved in some sort of wife swap situation…erm ok…

Other than that, the big development is Miller and Hardy finding what could be the place where the missing body from the Sandbrook could have been burnt. Other than that everything else in this episode didn’t really interest me. Bishop trying to coerce Paul into being a character witness. She doesn’t seem to be aware that he’s not Rory any more so won’t be so much of a push over.

This episode is alright  - the legal drama is taking over, which I can see being a problem for some people. The problem is that everything else happening (with the exception the Sandbrook investyigation) doesn’t seem to be very interesting.

Broadchurch Series 2 Episode 4 Review

So we open this episode finally seeing some emotion from Hardy. Or rather some venerable emotion from Hardy.

This is linked to the Sandbrook murders and the fact that he found the body of one of the girls and possibly nearly drowned recovering her from a river. The fact that he jumped in himself and didn’t have uniformed officers or the fire brigade do it is interesting, but I’ll get to that later.

We also get the long overdue introduction of DI Hardy’s wife and daughter. His wife is an interesting character. She’s either someone who snapped after years of being married to her boss (who seems like the kind of person to bring work place stress home with him) or she’s a partially burnt out copper unwilling to have another run at a failed case. The way that we’re not told about Hardy’s own possible affair, keeps the door open on whether she was retaliating or whether she was just unfaithful. This lines up further options in both their development. Hardy could have taken the blame for her screw up (not out of concern for their daughter) but out of guilt over destroying his own family. Her pathological rejection of him and her assumption that he ran away after the Sandbrook case could be her guilty conscience rationalising her actions not to mention her negligence in handling the case. Either way, half way through the series may not be the best time to introduce her, given the amount of character development involved with those arcs.

In the A-story, the prosecution concludes it’s case against Joe Miller, with Knight momentarily dropping her façade of respectability and throwing boxing metaphors at her junior. This in turn sees the usually confident Bishop privately rattled, but she does at least add more realism to the character. The way she sums up the defences’ job to her junior is particularly good.

“He did it”

“We don’t know that.”

As I said before, defence lawyers (primarily as a result of American shows) are usually portrayed as caricatures; using loopholes and such to let guilty men walk free. Bishop isn’t this, she’s aware that she’s dealing with people and the effect that she can have on their lives. She’s also aware of what will happen if Joe Miller is innocent and he goes to prison.

The other big thing to happen is the reconsideration of suspects for the Sandbrook case. Hardy begins to question himself and there’s grounds for it there. There’s clearly something else going on with Claire and Lee; some sort of agreement between them that she’s not told anyone about.

Overall, this is a pretty watchable episode; it’s mainly set up for the Sandbrook mystery and we get the impression that Knight is going to have some medical problems to deal with while trying to dismantle the defence case.

Supplemental Blog: crazy theory.

So DI Hardy discovered the body of first victim in the Sandbrook murders, but why didn’t he have any back up? Was this during a missing person’s search or did he just find her? What are the odds of a person who finds a body just happening to be a Murder detective?

So here’s the crazy theory: Alec Hardy is a serial killer.

What if he didn’t find that body? What if he nearly drowned while trying to dispose of it? He could have suffered some sort of cardiac problem (possibly the first) while dumping the body of his victim in the river. What is Bishop is right about the inconsistencies in procedure during Joe Miller’s arrest? Why would a Detective Inspector who’s been handling a case with complete professionalism not take the time to a uniformed officer to accompany him and witness the arrest of a suspect? As Bishop said, there is a period directly after the arrest that not even the audience knows about. There is plenty that Hardy could have done to coerce Joe into a confession.

As to Joe’s statement “I’m tired of hiding” perhaps he knew about Hardy; perhaps Hardy has something on him that was keeping him quiet and him saying that he’s tired of hiding is in relation to something that they both did.

Will this turn out to be the truth; probably not; but it’d be damn brave of Chris Chibnall if it did.