The Randomizer: Logopolis
Mar. 3rd, 2012 03:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
purplecatA while back a super secret Doctor Who mailing list I was one (whose denizens have now mostly moved to an even more super secret Doctor Who mailing list) had a weekly "randomizer" where one Doctor Who episode was picked at random, we all watched it, and then discussed. The result was actually quite interesting. So when it stopped we decided we might as well do something similar ourselves and Logopolis was the first story out of the hat.
There were two things I thought I knew about Logopolis: a) that it was clever in a "hard SF" way and b) that Matthew Waterhouse was rubbish.
Logopolis's central conceit is that mathematics, being the manipulation of abstract structure, can also (if sufficiently advanced) create concrete structure. Furthermore, given that the heat death of the universe is the loss of structure, mathematics could be used to prevent this. Those aren't completely stupid ideas, and in Dr Who terms they are a lot more abstract than the kind concepts to which the show normally appeals. That said they aren't really any more "Hard SF" than most Who fare: the laws of thermodynamics are going to have a big problem with them and just having the Doctor mention said laws with a grave looking face doesn't mean you've got anything like a consistent theory there.
What kills any notion that the story is clever though is the realisation of these ideas, which is simply dire. Despite the fact the first third of the story is primarily devoted to TARDIS-based scenes consisting entirely of earnest dialogue, I think the audience could be forgiven for being deeply confused about the connections between mathematics, structure and entropy that the script is playing with. The visualisation of the concepts is horrible. Entropy is demonstrated mostly by falling masonry and occasionally by things just vanishing for no adequately explained reason. The use of mathematics to generate structure by reams of little old men in mud huts chanting and manipulating abaci (as magical incantations, in fact). We never actually see any structure being created.
Then there is the watcher, some kind of future echo of the Doctor's incoming fifth incarnation. The watcher seems to have no role at all in the story beyond hanging around looking portentious. As far as I could tell there was no connection between him and the whole mathematics, structure, entropy stuff. I'm sure the watcher was an attempt to create a tragic and doom-laden atmosphere but the rest of the story is suffering from the 80s ills of an over-lit studio and cardboard acting and any atmosphere he may bring to the story is squandered.
As for Matthew Waterhouse, well, he's borderline competent which sounds like a criticism but that actually means he's acting about half the rest of the cast off the screen including Janet Fielding as Tegan who I'd expected to be the strongest of the three companions* but was, in fact, the worst, delivering almost every line as if it needed to be projected across a crowded theatre. Anthony Ainley's performance as the Master is perhaps the oddest piece of acting in the story. I would say that he's actually quite good any time he isn't laughing - it's a shame therefore that the script calls on him to do nothing except giggle maniacally for the first two episodes.
As I suspect is clear, I was hugely disappointed by the story. It is agonisingly slow, almost nothing of any note happens until halfway through the second episode. The acting is poor and the direction is pedestrian. I'm not surprised that Tom Baker was pleased to leave.
Of course, despite my dismissive reference to the underlying ideas above, the concept of mathematics creating structure via "block transfer computation" has had a lasting legacy, at least in the fan-lore of the series. It is, by some way, the more interesting of the underlying concepts and is incredibly useful if you want to put a scientific spin on otherwise magical powers. I really, really wish Logopolis, as the story which introduced it, did the concept more justice.
*I actually have no idea why I expected this. Neither Sarah Sutton (who played Nyssa) nor Janet Fielding have had much acting work (not counting Who spinoffery) since they left the show, but Sutton has had rather more than Fielding has. Waterhouse, on the other hand, has had a moderately successful theatrical career. He also gains serious brownie points for always appearing remarkably cheerful about the dire reputation his performance has gained among the show's fans.
There were two things I thought I knew about Logopolis: a) that it was clever in a "hard SF" way and b) that Matthew Waterhouse was rubbish.
Logopolis's central conceit is that mathematics, being the manipulation of abstract structure, can also (if sufficiently advanced) create concrete structure. Furthermore, given that the heat death of the universe is the loss of structure, mathematics could be used to prevent this. Those aren't completely stupid ideas, and in Dr Who terms they are a lot more abstract than the kind concepts to which the show normally appeals. That said they aren't really any more "Hard SF" than most Who fare: the laws of thermodynamics are going to have a big problem with them and just having the Doctor mention said laws with a grave looking face doesn't mean you've got anything like a consistent theory there.
What kills any notion that the story is clever though is the realisation of these ideas, which is simply dire. Despite the fact the first third of the story is primarily devoted to TARDIS-based scenes consisting entirely of earnest dialogue, I think the audience could be forgiven for being deeply confused about the connections between mathematics, structure and entropy that the script is playing with. The visualisation of the concepts is horrible. Entropy is demonstrated mostly by falling masonry and occasionally by things just vanishing for no adequately explained reason. The use of mathematics to generate structure by reams of little old men in mud huts chanting and manipulating abaci (as magical incantations, in fact). We never actually see any structure being created.
Then there is the watcher, some kind of future echo of the Doctor's incoming fifth incarnation. The watcher seems to have no role at all in the story beyond hanging around looking portentious. As far as I could tell there was no connection between him and the whole mathematics, structure, entropy stuff. I'm sure the watcher was an attempt to create a tragic and doom-laden atmosphere but the rest of the story is suffering from the 80s ills of an over-lit studio and cardboard acting and any atmosphere he may bring to the story is squandered.
As for Matthew Waterhouse, well, he's borderline competent which sounds like a criticism but that actually means he's acting about half the rest of the cast off the screen including Janet Fielding as Tegan who I'd expected to be the strongest of the three companions* but was, in fact, the worst, delivering almost every line as if it needed to be projected across a crowded theatre. Anthony Ainley's performance as the Master is perhaps the oddest piece of acting in the story. I would say that he's actually quite good any time he isn't laughing - it's a shame therefore that the script calls on him to do nothing except giggle maniacally for the first two episodes.
As I suspect is clear, I was hugely disappointed by the story. It is agonisingly slow, almost nothing of any note happens until halfway through the second episode. The acting is poor and the direction is pedestrian. I'm not surprised that Tom Baker was pleased to leave.
Of course, despite my dismissive reference to the underlying ideas above, the concept of mathematics creating structure via "block transfer computation" has had a lasting legacy, at least in the fan-lore of the series. It is, by some way, the more interesting of the underlying concepts and is incredibly useful if you want to put a scientific spin on otherwise magical powers. I really, really wish Logopolis, as the story which introduced it, did the concept more justice.
*I actually have no idea why I expected this. Neither Sarah Sutton (who played Nyssa) nor Janet Fielding have had much acting work (not counting Who spinoffery) since they left the show, but Sutton has had rather more than Fielding has. Waterhouse, on the other hand, has had a moderately successful theatrical career. He also gains serious brownie points for always appearing remarkably cheerful about the dire reputation his performance has gained among the show's fans.