The Randomizer: Rose
Jul. 8th, 2012 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
It is interesting to go back to Rose. It doesn't really seem like long since the re-invented Doctor Who appeared so it seems odd to realise that it is over 7 years ago now. I still remember my reaction at the time was one of vague disappointment so it is interesting to compare that to my reaction now.
One thing I think I entirely failed to realise at the time was how firmly this episode is focused upon Rose and her journey of discovery. It makes this an excellent introductory episode since the audience is introduced to Who lore as Rose is, but at the time, coming from decades in which Who assumed audience familiarity with the concept and tended to place the Doctor front and centre it was easy to be distracted by the thinness of the Auton plot and not realise that the actual plot was about Rose and her meeting with the Doctor. Given how hugely successful Rose was, I suspect this worked very well for a general audience which had, at best, fuzzy memories of Doctor Who.
At the time I was also pretty unimpressed with Rose herself. In hindsight it is hard to see quite why I felt this. The episode is working hard, especially through contrasting Rose and Mickey, to underline her resourcefulness, determination and strength. However I have now had all of Russel T. Davies' five year stint in which he regularly drove home the point that the ordinary is extraordinary. So it may be easier to see the intent now than it was at the time, again coming from a background in which the better Doctor Who companions tended to be, if not extraordinary from the outset, at least framed in terms of ambitions and careers which Rose explicitly was not.
The acting is variable, though all of it is better than the worst of old Who. Noel Clarke is on record as saying he wasn't treating Doctor Who particularly seriously and it wasn't until he started seeing the rushes that he realised he needed to up his game. Mickey is certainly the weak link among what were to become the recurring cast. Clarke chooses to play the character in a more broadly comic fashion than the others. That said, I think the early NuWho was very much feeling its way in terms of where to pitch its humour. Both here and later in the Slitheen episodes we get humour that is far closer to slapstick is used later. I think it is interesting that the Slitheen were eventually adopted by the Sarah Jane Adventures where they seem to have fitted in far more easily.
I actually think Eccleston is the other weak link here. Or at least I think he is in the first half hour after which he settles into the role. Given Doctor Who is filmed out of sequence it is difficult to account for this but I think Eccleston is far less easy with the manic gabbling stranger aspect of the Doctor (both Tennant and Smith regularly do a mad gabble but I'm not sure Eccleston was ever really convincing on the occasions he was asked to do it). In the first half Eccleston is saddled with this delivery almost constantly presumably, since we view him through Rose's eyes, to underline his strangeness and hint at danger. The turning point is the "Earth rotates" speech which, incidentally, I hated at the time and still loathe. It sounds good but is pretty much devoid of meaning. However it is a long speech that gives Eccleston something to sink his teeth into and also marks a turning point in Rose's relationship with the Doctor as she begins to take him seriously.
I'm quite surprised, in a way, that Rose forms such a strong blueprint for what follows. In particular Davies' emphasis on the extraordinary in the ordinary but also, in general, the tone and style is mostly very similar. I think some of the more obvious nods towards the kids audience were jettisoned and the focus gradually came back onto the Doctor rather than the companion but much of Rose would not have looked out of place in the final year of Davies' tenure, or even in a Moffat season.
One thing I think I entirely failed to realise at the time was how firmly this episode is focused upon Rose and her journey of discovery. It makes this an excellent introductory episode since the audience is introduced to Who lore as Rose is, but at the time, coming from decades in which Who assumed audience familiarity with the concept and tended to place the Doctor front and centre it was easy to be distracted by the thinness of the Auton plot and not realise that the actual plot was about Rose and her meeting with the Doctor. Given how hugely successful Rose was, I suspect this worked very well for a general audience which had, at best, fuzzy memories of Doctor Who.
At the time I was also pretty unimpressed with Rose herself. In hindsight it is hard to see quite why I felt this. The episode is working hard, especially through contrasting Rose and Mickey, to underline her resourcefulness, determination and strength. However I have now had all of Russel T. Davies' five year stint in which he regularly drove home the point that the ordinary is extraordinary. So it may be easier to see the intent now than it was at the time, again coming from a background in which the better Doctor Who companions tended to be, if not extraordinary from the outset, at least framed in terms of ambitions and careers which Rose explicitly was not.
The acting is variable, though all of it is better than the worst of old Who. Noel Clarke is on record as saying he wasn't treating Doctor Who particularly seriously and it wasn't until he started seeing the rushes that he realised he needed to up his game. Mickey is certainly the weak link among what were to become the recurring cast. Clarke chooses to play the character in a more broadly comic fashion than the others. That said, I think the early NuWho was very much feeling its way in terms of where to pitch its humour. Both here and later in the Slitheen episodes we get humour that is far closer to slapstick is used later. I think it is interesting that the Slitheen were eventually adopted by the Sarah Jane Adventures where they seem to have fitted in far more easily.
I actually think Eccleston is the other weak link here. Or at least I think he is in the first half hour after which he settles into the role. Given Doctor Who is filmed out of sequence it is difficult to account for this but I think Eccleston is far less easy with the manic gabbling stranger aspect of the Doctor (both Tennant and Smith regularly do a mad gabble but I'm not sure Eccleston was ever really convincing on the occasions he was asked to do it). In the first half Eccleston is saddled with this delivery almost constantly presumably, since we view him through Rose's eyes, to underline his strangeness and hint at danger. The turning point is the "Earth rotates" speech which, incidentally, I hated at the time and still loathe. It sounds good but is pretty much devoid of meaning. However it is a long speech that gives Eccleston something to sink his teeth into and also marks a turning point in Rose's relationship with the Doctor as she begins to take him seriously.
I'm quite surprised, in a way, that Rose forms such a strong blueprint for what follows. In particular Davies' emphasis on the extraordinary in the ordinary but also, in general, the tone and style is mostly very similar. I think some of the more obvious nods towards the kids audience were jettisoned and the focus gradually came back onto the Doctor rather than the companion but much of Rose would not have looked out of place in the final year of Davies' tenure, or even in a Moffat season.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 11:32 am (UTC)I liked the Earth's rotation speech; it suggests that the Doctor views himself as not only more attuned to the rhythms of the universe, to what an earlier age would describe as the music of the spheres, but also viewed from this distance anticipates the growing obviousness of the Doctor's god complex throughout the Davies era.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 12:15 pm (UTC)I didn't know that! Fascinating that in the age of DWM and Doctor Who Confidential, not to mention fan scrutiny online, the production team were able to keep things from the public long after the event. I remember wondering at the time how long it would be before we got the 'no holds barred' interviews in DWM, as we had been getting on eighties Who.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 01:04 pm (UTC)I wonder whether the publication of the extensive 'Fact of Fiction' piece on 'Dalek' is the beginning of a trend. Will we see Matt Jones discuss his abandoned scripts for 'The Impossible Planet'/'The Satan Pit', replaced by Russell's Ood-filled ones, for example? Whose script did 'Tooth and Claw' replace? Etc...
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 02:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 02:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 03:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 02:11 pm (UTC)I think the low point for me was an interview with Russell T. Davies where they asked him to rate each of his episodes out of 10 and he gave them all 10. There's a point where your spin stops being a necessary morale boost for your staff and becomes merely ridiculous.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 02:42 pm (UTC)As for the superficiality, the first year was the worst; and there has been self-criticism in its pages by the production team, particularly Phil Collinson's admission that 'Daleks in Manhattan'/'Evolution of the Daleks' ended up not being as good as it ought to have been because it ran out of money. I'm still impressed by it - it's still a few cuts above most other genre magazines.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 03:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 03:43 pm (UTC)Now there's more criticism in its pages, from readers, DWM writers and the production team and less inclination to hail each new episode automatically as the best ever. There still is a perhaps understandable taboo on criticising recent episodes too much, but I think things like the Doctor Whoah! cartoon and the Watcher's page show a return to the more playful and critical DWM of the nineties and early noughties. I'm glad it's become more analytical again too, and pays more attention to the original series.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 04:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 04:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 02:09 pm (UTC)I'd forgotten about the two directors which could explain the shift in Eccleston's performance.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 12:22 pm (UTC)Interestingly, I liked Rose a lot more than The Eleventh Hour on first broadcast, but I suspect that the latter will stand up to repeated viewing much better than the former.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 02:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 02:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 03:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 03:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 06:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 06:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 04:55 pm (UTC)I actually didn't know the two directors and the re-shooting of "Rose." To me, the episode really didn't feel very uneven. But, I'm also one of those who didn't watch Classic Who. That was my oldest brother, and I do remember him watching it.
I loved the turning of the universe speech. I always saw Nine's rather detached responses at the beginning of the episode as him trying to remain emotionally distant from everyone around him -- a byproduct of the Time War. He keeps this up going into "The End of the World," being really dismissive at first of the effect of seeing her own planet being blown up is on Rose. It never bothered me, because I think it drove home to me how much Nine was hurting at the point he met Rose.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 06:33 pm (UTC)There's lots to like in the first season of NuWho but I never really warmed to Eccleston and particularly the way his Doctor is a catalyst rather than a protagonist.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-08 10:22 pm (UTC)Eh, I think it would have been very out of place in a Moffat season: it's chock full of the 'applegrass moments' that provide characterization context for later actions but contribute little directly to the plot at hand. For instance: Rose waking up, kissing her mom, her lunch with Mickey and convo about going back to school, the suspicious
racistlook that the man in Clive's neighborhood gives Mickey as he is sitting in the car. Moffat doesn't roll like that, prefering to concentrate solely on dialogue that is relevant to the plot (as opposed to the context in which the plot is supposed to exist), which is why I and others often feel so distant from his characters. I strongly suspect those moments would have ended up on the cutting room floor had a writer tried to sneak them in under Moffat's watch.(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-09 02:17 pm (UTC)