Doctor Who - That was Lovely
Jun. 7th, 2010 10:00 pmSeveral days behind, but I did finally see this week's (U.K.) Dr. Who, and yes, this one will go down as one of my favorites. It's always quite easy to have a soft spot for Van Gogh. He's such a terribly tragic, brilliant figure. His death is so gruesome and so very, very sad, as is the fact that he never knew that he would be considered to be brilliant. Picasso and Gauguin were douchebags. But Van Gogh's letters always evoke such sympathy for him. The episode about him is also sad but lovely. As stated in the comments, it's diffiicult to resist the wish fulfillment of giving such a tragic character a glimpse of what he's meant to others. Indulgent? Perhaps, but lovely.
The monster looked like a Chicken-Parrot-Griffen. Clearly there's a thing going on the species winding up on earth and being abandonned there.
And I loved the moment where Van Gogh said that Amy was crying. Amy denied it, not remembering, but Van Gogh saw the sadness that not even she remembers. That was a nice touch.
Then there was the doctor's Freudian slip of mentioning Rory.
Anyway, I think this episode is definitely up there with some of the best of the New Who.
The monster looked like a Chicken-Parrot-Griffen. Clearly there's a thing going on the species winding up on earth and being abandonned there.
And I loved the moment where Van Gogh said that Amy was crying. Amy denied it, not remembering, but Van Gogh saw the sadness that not even she remembers. That was a nice touch.
Then there was the doctor's Freudian slip of mentioning Rory.
Anyway, I think this episode is definitely up there with some of the best of the New Who.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-08 03:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-08 03:18 am (UTC)OTOH, I loved how they incorporated Van Gogh's art into this episode. And it's really difficult to not enjoy a bit of the wish fulfillment romanticism in the show giving a tragic historic figure the sort of validation that the real person never got. It's sort of irresistible.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-08 03:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-08 03:52 am (UTC)That said, I think the characterization of Churchill was some of the problem. It didn't seem like a good use of the historical figure.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-08 04:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-08 05:15 pm (UTC)Also loved The Doctor's line asking whether this was the way that time usually worked, so slow... and in the right order. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-06-08 06:32 am (UTC)Loved it!
no subject
Date: 2010-06-09 11:10 pm (UTC)