An Open Letter to Russell T. Davies

Dear Russell,

I know I've been hard on you in the past, but right now, I'm writing this blog post as a way to offer some support....but also, as a way for me to talk to my friends about a very awkward subject.

Recently, you gave an interview about how you had to set aside your television career to help take care of your partner, who was diagnosed with a brain tumor. (For my dear readers, please check out Two Minute Time Lord's piece on the matter). I'm writing you this letter because I, too, had to suddenly pick up and leave because of care taking.

Circumstances, though, were different - it was my mother. And it was post-transplant care.

Gratefully, Mom also has home care (which I'm sure you'll be acquiring), but I wanted to use this as an opportunity to educate our mutual (and not-so-mutual) friends about how to handle caretakers.

Because people like you and I...give up quite a bit. Our lives are filled with caring, but it also means that our time is much more precious, and limited. It means that there will be some sacrifices to be made. But it also means that we have to be more willing to express our needs and wants, whether directly or (as in the case of this blog post) passive-aggressively.

For example, last year around this time - while everyone else was gearing up for the holiday, I was fighitng my mom's doctors and their wish to put her in a nursing home. (Thankfully, Mom ended up going home). For me, December 1 - 23 of 2010 were a blur....with me resenting some friends doing something nice for someone else and wondering, well, where the heck was my gift?

The answer is part of my unsolicited advice to you - that there are people who are doing cool things, but they're subtly cool. It's the person who asks you out for a coffee or some other beverage. It's the Facebook invite that you don't expect to get. And if you can get some time for yourself, Russell, please take it. You're taking on a huge task; getting those small moments of time for yourself is invaluable - trust me.

And finallly - if anyone tries to convince you that you're being selfish when you assert your rights, or share your feelings....they're not your friend. You're  not asking for the world - just some consideration. You have a lot on your plate. Letting go of people who insist that this is your burden to carry without complaining...well, that's the best thing you can do. Trust me.

I realize this has been a bit rambling - I'm posting it because, quite frankly, I rarely - if ever - discuss this publicly. I'm hoping that this can be taken in  the spirit in which it's offered.


Best wishes. I know it means putting your writing on the side, but it also means that you're willing to do the human, caring, right thing.

Thanks for everything, including Torchwood.


Your pal,
Gordon

Season Four Saturdays: Midnight

(As always, a spoiler-free review. Nothing to look at here if you’re seeking plot points.)

I happen to admit that I have very mixed feelings about Russell T. Davies.

I’m grateful for his work in bringing back the series, and for some of his ideas…but in all honesty, he comes up with one or two really good script ideas per season.

First season, it was “Rose” and “Boom Town.” Then, “Army of Ghosts” and “Doomsday”. Last year, it was “Utopia” and “The Sound of Drums.”

Allow me to eat some crow this week, as after the charming “Partners In Crime”, Davies comes up with another out-of-the-ballpark hit with “Midnight”.

Amongst my Twitter pals, I had openly asked about why previous Doctor’s offspring had guest appearances, and I realized that this is the show’s 45^th anniversary. Starting with last year’s “Time Crash”, this season has been steeped in Who mythology without being overly slavish about it. The Doctor without a companion is straight out of “The Deadly Assassin” with Tom Baker. The single locale for the episode is reminiscent of – William Hartnell-era “The Edge of Destruction.” Yes, there are elements of past stories…but one Doctor – an unexpected one – pokes his eager little head…

…if anything, “Midnight” could have easily been a Patrick Troughton/Second Doctor era story (albeit with a 21^st Century Twist). Like many of Troughton’s stories, it is a self-contained “base under siege” story (usually done because most of 1960’s Who was filmed in Lime Grove Studios, and the effects were on the cheap)...contains some obviously chilling moments, and shows some of the darkness behind the Doctor’s seeming joviality. It even has Troughton’s son David in a supporting performance (which is, just vocally, chilling – it’s like the Second Doctor is in the room). And the director – no relation – is Alice Troughton, who directed several episodes of Torchwood.

The one performance that I want to highlight is Lesley Sharp. (She's the blonde on the left in the following photograph.It’s hard to talk about what she does without giving away the store…but as I watched, she looked familiar, and I didn’t know where I had seen her before. Thankfully…well, let’s just say that she’s worked with Davies before…and I blogged about it. The supporting cast does a quite splendid job in a story that asks more questions than it answers…and is probably one of the scariest Who stories of the new season.

(And considering how much I loved Moffatt’s two-parter, that’s saying quite a bit)

But ultimately, the one thing that is striking about this story is that, for the first time, the Doctor is not automatically “accepted”…in fact, in many ways, his usual behavior works against him. It’s hard to describe without spoiling the story (and you know what? I don’t mind seeking spoilers out for my own entertainment, but respect other’s wishes), but given the amount of foreshadowing from previous episodes (and the preview for next time)…things may not be looking good for the Doctor.

Keep watching.

The Story of Torchwood

In all honesty, my mood has not been that great - having had to run my aunt to the emergency room (back problems) on Sunday, dealing with assorted stresses and annoyances (including Blogger glitches, Cuts.com glitches, and some of you out in the blogosphere - expect some tersely written e-mails in the near future. I won't call people out publicly), so blogging has gone to the end of the to-do list.

That is said because I was probably not in the greatest frame of mind to check out the first two episodes of Torchwood. In short, I was not sure I wanted to check out Torchwood, having heard some unflattering and not-very-complimentary things about it. So I sat to watch the pilot - "Everything Changes", and "Day One", and have to say....I was pleasantly surprised. Calling it a "Doctor Who for adults" is kind of insulting; it's more of a stylish, X-Files type of show, creating an automatic aura of mystery and providing a refreshing change.

Of course, that means one of the major networks will 1) try to "Americanize" the show, or 2) do a cheap knock-0ff...which would be the ultimate compliment. Even though some aspects of the show were spoiled (for me) in series three of Doctor Who, knowing those spoilers actually adds to enjoying the show.

The show gets off to a slightly wonky start with "Everything Changes", as Gwen - a member of the Cardiff police force - finds herself getting entangled and involved with the mysterious Torchwood Institute, led by the enigmatic, not-so-happy-go-lucky Captain Jack Harkness. Unfortunately, this Russell T. Davies episode reveals too many of his weaknesses - it views like a pastiche of "Rose"; moments that should seem poignant end up silly (the "estrogen in the rain" speech at the beginning), and at least one moment seems like a total send-up (the scene with Owen and the alien pheromone spray at the bar). However, there is enough of an interest, especially with John Barrowman playing Harkness as a darker character - and as a man of mystery - that makes it a good kick-off for the series. I only wish that this had been written a bit longer - the episode feels like there are some "missing" scenes. The supporting cast provides much more than just scenery - there's a palpable sense of back story in the performances. And I like the take with Torchwood as being almost "above the law" - if U.N.I.T. is the Joe Friday of the DW universe, Torchwood is its Eliot Ness, struggling not to become what it beholds as it deals with extraterrestrial affairs on Earth.

Although the first episode is somewhat awkward, "Day One" - written by Chris Chibnall - works on several levels. Focusing on a girl taken over by an alien gas addicted to orgasmic energy, it also serves as a metaphor - for burgeoning post-adolescent sexuality, for the loneliness that comes after a romantic breakup, and ultimately, for being able to find one's humanity. Gwen becomes more than just, say, the typical Doctor Who companion - Harkness, in fact, dares her to "...remind us...what it means to be human in the twenty-first century." And by this time, the show's sense of humor - snarky, ironic, and quite witty - kicks in, providing some hard-earned levity. In short, I wish this had been the second hour of a two-hour pilot with "Everything Changes"...but that's just me. Even the sexuality of the show serves as a counterpoint - when the gas-inhabited girl begins to kiss Gwen, she hesitates and breaks off, realizing that she "needs a man" - in that moment, we see the bewilderment of someone so focused on being loved, that even a moment of clarity seems painful. I only bring this up because one of the criticisms of Torchwood has been the rampant focus on characters' sexuality.

Personally, Torchwood has a very healthy attitude, given its first two episodes. Contrast this with director Paul Verhoeven,, who seems to demonstrate an almost adolescent misogyny in several of his films. This is the way sexuality on television should be portrayed - not to exploit, or for stereotypical purposes, but to reveal character and connection. For Gwen, having a boyfriend is not just a typical dramatic device - it allows her a degree of connection that the Torchwood team does not. Jack's willingness to engage with anything that's "charming" shows his lack of connectedness with others. (And by "engage", I mean "snog").

If you've seen the entire series, please feel free to suggest which episodes to watch - I have heard that quality dips in the middle. But for something this good, I'm willing to take my chances.



----------------
Now playing: THE CLASH - lose this skin
via FoxyTunes

What Would Stephen Baxter Do?

"Heaven is empty, and hell is bursting apart at the seams."

To be honest, Russell T. Davies' work on Doctor Who - especially some of his scripts - have been hit-or-miss for me. He is touted as one of the best television writers in the UK, but I wanted to sample some of his non-Who work. At the very least, I would expect some of the same weaknesses to show up, so I chose (appropriately) a more fantasy-based piece.
The premise of The Second Coming is simple: video-store clerk Stephen Baxter is out for a night of drinking with his mates. After that, he disappears for six weeks, and upon his return, announces that he is the son of God. Consequences ensue.
I am trying not to spoil this piece, because quite frankly, it's one of the best written pieces for television - a worthy inheritor to the legacy of writers like Rod Serling. It's not perfect, but watching it makes me wonder if the pressures of DW are not allowing Davies' to play to his strengths.
That may be an unfair call - it's tougher to write three to four 50 minute stories than a solid two and a half hour story. If, given the plot description, you're expecting Second Coming to be a solid parallel to the Gospel stories, you will be disappointed. If anything, it is like an episode of the old Paulist-produced Insight series (which did a kind of interesting take way back in 1977), but updated with a fresh, modern sensibility. For example, Baxter tells a priest that certain members of the clergy are too busy "shagging choir boys", and the priest gives a thoughtful yet assertive defense. This is not a show that takes sides - although Davies is an admitted athiest, there are some really strong seeds for discussion for people of any faith.
(And for those who would claim this is sacrilegious, answer me this - after watching this, why should this piece be considered blasphemous and the Left Behind series so sacred? Or is any piece that attempts to deal with religion and spirituality in a serious manner automatically suspect? Much like The Prisoner, Davies' script asks many questions, and even when possibly positing answers, provides much to talk and debate - this is not a DVD to watch alone. In fact, here's a meme - everyone who reads this post, rent Second Coming, and blog your thoughts, linking back to me.)
In viewing this story, it's very easy to see why Christopher Eccleston was on the short-list to play the Doctor on the 2005 revival. (Although, personally, I thought he was flat-out brilliant as Bilbrough on Cracker. His sudden shifts from being manically "power-mad" to flat-out despair (at one point, claiming that accessing his divine knowledge was like "downloading 50 million megabytes into a pocket calculator") seems to be an audition piece for his performance as the Ninth Doctor. (In fact, it is reminiscent of Paul Cornell's script for Father's Day, where the Doctor admires a couple for running into and out of bars, having "an adventure I can never have." Stephen Baxter, as a consequence, is having the adventure that he doesn't want). Granted, it is hard not to see 2005 story elements in this 2003 piece...but there you go.
However, there are two aspects of this production that might not get much recognition: Lesley Sharp's performance as Judith and Adrian Shergold's direction. Shergold masterfully handles the material in a way that is realistic and engaging - it would have been easy to make this mauldlin and manipulative; Shergold does neither. (In fact, his handling of the more "fantastic" material is almost Hitchcockian in its subtlety). But Sharp, as Judith, provides a character who really is the centerpiece, moving between doubt and faith, temptation and acceptance, and who (at the end) provides the "explanation" and climax of the story.
Now many who have seen this have problems with the ending, ranging from it being too humanist to being an out-of-nowhere cop-out. Without spoiling, on the one hand, I see their point...but Davies seems to have carefully set out on an almost subliminal level where the story was leading. In addition, there is a slight ambiguity about the ending - not like the Sopranos final episode, more like Fall Out - suggesting that, at times, spiritual decisions are often difficult. (The final two to three minutes, providing a coda, seems unnecessary, almost as if Davies were under pressure to provide a "happy" ending).
However, there is much to recommend about this - as a "rough draft" for Davies' later work; as a meditation on religion and its impact on society; as a purely entertaining piece of fantasy. Whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, athiest, or some other background, there's enough to warrant watching this.
It is as close to a masterpiece as Davies has come...so far.
Not only strongly recommended, but mandatory.