Doctor Who (Classic) 054: Terror of the Autons // Season 8 (1971) Review Part 1

The Doctor, Mike Yates, and Jo Grant

Context for those unfamiliar with Doctor Who

In the classic era of Doctor Who, stories were divided up into multiple episodes, in a serialized fashion. This story is four episodes long. The show follows The Doctor, the protagonist, on various adventures through space and time. Since Spearhead from Space, he’s been exiled to Earth and aiding the monster fighting-military organization, U.N.I.T. Other main characters are U.N.I.T. members, Jo, The Brigadier, Benton, and Yates, and the villainous “The Master”. This article is part of a review of Doctor Who‘s eighth season. This review contains spoilers for The Invasion and Spearhead from Space.

Season 8 has a different flavor than Season 7. Season 7 featured long discussions with scientists and military personnel about political matters. This season is more about action. It isn’t a lot more, but its distinction is easily detected. Much of Season 7 was created in the 60’s. This season is all 70’s and you can tell, from the costumes to the props. It feels like you’re in a new era. Seasons 1 to 5 of Doctor Who felt more or less the same. Season 6 changed up the show, then Season 7 changed it all some more, and now this season did some final shifts before settling on a new style. The stories are shorter and more grounded in terms of themes. There are fewer serials with more than one writer or director. We also get a bit more of the Doctor’s famous spaceship, the TARDIS. It was basically set decoration in the last season.

Season 8 starts with the four parter Terror of the Autons. The Doctor’s assistant from Season 7, Liz Shaw, is referred to as having left off screen. In real life, some people behind the scenes didn’t like that his assistant was so smart. Many earlier and later companions are noticeably less intelligent than the Doctor. Assigned to the Doctor is a young adult woman named Jo Grant, who immediately makes a poor impression on the Doctor. The Doctor complains of her to U.N.I.T.’s Brigadier, known as “The Brigadier”. He says that she was chosen as the Doctor needs “someone to pass you your test tubes and tell you how brilliant you are.” There have been numerous discussions of why the Doctor travels with people and why he travels with the kinds of people that he does. As mentioned before, he usually picks those less intelligent. What does this say of our protagonist? The Doctor at points is depicted as vain, while other times he seems disinterested in himself. The Doctor often tries to make himself look good, but is he so good at it if people like the Brigadier can see through him?

One notable aspect of the story is that it introduced the Master, one of the most popular Doctor Who characters of the whole lot. This story doesn’t treat him differently than most other antagonists in terms of importance. Unlike many villains, I like his clear headedness and logical thinking. He simply goes on his way and tries to reach his goal. He takes out obstacles as quickly and efficiently as possible. Here, he allies with the Autons, a menace last seen in Spearhead from Space. Unfortunately, they’re not utilized well in Terror, in contrast to how well they were handled in the previously mentioned story. The most notable problem is that here they talk. They sound silly and were much scarier when they didn’t speak.

I like the contrast between the new characters and the characters from previous seasons. The Doctor, The Brigadier, and Benton all are just moving along with their business as usual, trying to act normally. The new characters, Jo and Captain Mike Yates are trying to imitate that, but aren’t as successful. Jo feels a bit alone and separate from the rest, but Yates reassures her. Yates has more clout with U.N.I.T. than Jo and helps bridge the gap between her and the others. It makes sense that characters aren’t treated the same. Would you rather trust an experienced person or an inexperienced person? That doesn’t mean the inexperienced person won’t go on to do well. We all start off as inexperienced, but that doesn’t mean we should or would be respected from square one.

While Yates is a recurring character, Jo is a main character. New companions can sometimes be sidelined by other events in an adventure. Many serials have one off characters and in the 60’s, it wasn’t too rare for a typical one-off character to decide to go with the Doctor at the end and surprise! They’re now a main character. This story really gives you a feel for Jo. She has a larger role and amount of focus in this story than most other companions. Notably, she has a monologue about how U.N.I.T. isn’t appreciating her abilities to Yates. Companions don’t usually get monologues, those are for the Doctor and sometimes a villain. It’s obvious why Jo is one of the most beloved and known companions.

SPOILERS

Terror loves little absurdities. The Master kills two technicians and when they’re being looked for, the Doctor opens the lunchbox of one of the technicians. Inside he finds the body of one of them. It’s not mutilated. The Master shrunk the guy down to be really tiny. He never uses this device in the rest of the serial and it doesn’t add anything to the narrative. The concept sounds and looks ridiculous. In the story, it’s supposed to be dramatic. A bit later, the Master shows a plastic chair to a man critical of him. The Master then asks the guy to please sit in the chair. He does so and the chair kills him. This whole sequence is confusing. We don’t see the chair itself do anything, other than it move a little. We don’t see how it kills the man either. We’re just supposed to fill in the blanks that the chair “destroyed” him. After a look at a plot summary, it says the chair “comes alive and suffocates him”. This is not apparent in the episode. The man screams a bit before dying. By extension of the other mentioned death, the moment’s incredibly goofy.

As mentioned earlier, Jo does some nifty things. She gets mind controlled by the Master briefly before the Doctor manages to snap her out of it. She is very apologetic for getting possessed. Seeing how Jo and the Doctor react to the matter is good character building for the both of them. The Doctor’s problem solving skills are on full display. We learn more of Jo’s character when the Doctor goes to a circus where he thinks answers to what’s causing the murders that the Master is responsible for are. Jo asks to go, but The Doctor and the Brigadier tell her not to. People familiar with more modern Doctor Who can probably guess what Jo will do, go to the circus without caring about what she was told. Just like with many other things, Jo is revolutionizing the companion role. It was more common for companions to be complicit.

It’s great how her character development is woven into the plot. Most of her scenes relate to the main story, such as when she’s at the circus, but even the other ones, such as her monologue, also relate to the overall plot. Poorer writing would have the plot violently stop for the character development. The plot doesn’t stop for Jo’s character. An issue noticed in Season 7 is that for the sake of the plot, U.N.I.T. looks incompetent for not being able to notice that Jo left for the circus.

A common trend with the 70’s era is quick cliffhangers. In the 60’s era, the cliffhangers were more likely to have an effect on the story. Cliffhangers here often serve little to no function for the story. One of the cliffhangers in Terror occurs when after the Doctor has spoken of the Master a bunch, the Master calls the Doctor on the phone and says goodbye. The Master pulls out a small device, puts it up to the phone, and presses something on it that makes it ring. This causes the cord on the Doctor’s phone to unconvincingly wrap around him, so as to strangle him. Next episode, the cord is unplugged from the wall by the Brigadier. Ignoring how unconvincing the effect is, nothing in the scene comes around. There’s no significance to this being the reuniting of the two after so long, the Master doesn’t use that device at any other point in the story, it doesn’t make the Master seem more dangerous or imposing, and the event isn’t referenced later in the serial.

Contrasting to the previously mentioned, The Master has many excellent scenes and moments. With the exception of the end of the story, The Master stays behind a metaphorical curtain and causes a lot of deaths while not having to do much. This is such a good way of showing his abilities. He doesn’t need to go out and get dirty, he gets the weaker and less intelligent to do it all for him. Many of his scenes set up tension, which inadvertently puts him in this role of a Mastermind. Who villains can lack subtlety or restraint, however those working on this serial were getting the action scenes from the Autons. I suspect it’s a coincidence that the Master is written cleverly like this. In one scene, someone is a threat to the Master, so he throws a doll in their car. That doll later comes alive and kills them. If you were trying to create a thrilling tv episode, would you rather have someone that looks like a normal human commit a murder or do a weird and inventive special effect that shows a little doll doing the killing? On a slight tangent, I don’t know how the behind the scenes crew did that effect. Kudos.

Another divergent from the norm is how for the first three and part of the fourth episode, there is a mystery of what specifically is the plan of the Master. Then, we’re surprised in Episode 4. In Episodes 3 and 4, multiple ideas are attempted by the Doctor to try and get a plastic flower to come alive, then when his guard is down, it moves. This is a big clue to the Master’s plan. To add to my theory of the Master’s differences from other villains being coincidental, in Episode 4 he leaves from behind the metaphorical curtain and is very much like the standard villain. For no good reason, he tells the Doctor his plan. Not only is it a bad way to reveal what it was, it doesn’t make sense that the Master would tell him this. Now there’s an increased chance that the Doctor can do something to stop him.

The Master’s plan was simple and already partially completed. He would team up with the Nestene Consciousness, an alien race. They would possess and thus animate plastic, which would be used to conquer the world. The Master had already created some plastic humanoid bodies, which were last seen in Spearhead from Space. At the point of him telling the Doctor his plan, various U.N.I.T. soldiers were fighting some of the Autons. The Doctor tells the Master of how his plan will fail; once the Nestene arrive on Earth, the Master will be expendable. He then immediately agrees and the two pull the plug on the plan. All the Autons die and the day is saved. The Master, still intending to take over the world, escapes where he’ll go try something new.

While The Doctor’s reason for the Master changing sides is good, it’s not good storytelling for him to just shift like that. If the Master is as smart as he’s shown to be, how could he have not realized this obvious fault in his plan? It’s also annoying that the threat was built up before being solved so suddenly. In Spearhead from Space, the Autons are shown to never complete their plan, but before they’re stopped, there’s a scene of them attacking in the streets. The emphasis and showcasing of the realism carries a lot of impact in a quick, low budget scene. Here, some U.N.I.T. soldiers show up and have a shoot ‘em up with the Autons in a field away from normal people. This serial is very similar to a Season 6 serial called The Invasion. That story had more time to flesh itself out than this one, but it also ended in a shoot ‘em up, where all the baddies that were built up to be a big issue were destroyed and the day was saved. These quick, “We killed them all, the end” endings are really disappointing.

Despite the final episode dropping the ball, which ruined many of the good graces of the previous three episodes, there is a quite funny moment at the end. Early in the episode, the Master is about to kill the Doctor before he reveals that he has the Master’s TARDIS’ dematerialisation circuit. If he kills The Doctor, then he won’t be able to get the circuit and leave the 70’s. Later on, the Master gets it back. However, the Doctor reveals to Jo that he gave the Master his own TARDIS’ broken dematerialisation circuit, so he’s stuck anyways. This was a cute way of setting up that the Master would become a recurring character. He appears in every serial of Season 8. This is also a nice character development moment for the Doctor and Jo. The Doctor is comfortable enough with Jo to have a pleasant conversation.

OVERVIEW

This serial succeeds most at subtle moments and character expression. Someone at one point says to the Doctor, “Gentlemen don’t discuss money.” Amusingly, the Doctor replies, “Gentleman never talk about anything else.” This shows a bit of his perception on human behavior. Another moment of note is when the various characters are observing a doll mentioned in the spoiler section, The Brigadier silently observes the doll, while Yates asks of it and pokes at it. This shows how the two react to the situation at hand.

The story progresses simply and efficiently for the most part, but the rushed and unsophisticated ending don’t do it any favors. The serial never strives for more than “simple and efficient”. In many regards the affair is quite average and so far the weakest 70’s serial. Fortunately, it’s not pandering or insulting and is a fair enough watch.

The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) Review

A frame from the film

Eddie Murphy is rightly considered one of the great comedians. In the soft remake of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Distinguished Gentleman, he shows a range. His character, Jeff Johnson, does impressions for a living. When a congressman running for reelection also named Jeff Johnson suddenly dies, Murphy’s character wants to get into congress for the money he’ll make while there.

This film has a dry quality to it. Any character that’s on the older side seems battered. In one scene, the congressman’s widow is asked about running for congress, she replies “I was a Washington wife for twenty years. Twenty years of Potomac bullshit is plenty for one lifetime.” The widow later attempts to sleep with Murphy’s character and shows no interest for her husband. Despite the scene’s lack of relevance to the movie’s plot, it does give us a peak under the curtain of the congress life. The movie progressively shows more and more inside the goings on of the various politicians.

These non-comedic moments are in contrast to the numerous jokes that do fit naturally into the plot. Many are genuinely funny. Jeff impersonates an NAACP member and speaks like he’s Martin Luther King Jr. Every inflection of King’s that he gets right demands at least a chuckle.

Many plot elements I thought the film forgot about came back around and added something to the story. Some characters appear in the beginning, they’re gone, then reappear at the end. The element of the film best done is the acting. You can understand why people act or feel a certain way. After a character says their first line, you know how they think. The best actor is Eddie Murphy, who has buckets of subtle character development. There’s no point where he completely changes at once. His impressions are convincing and funny based on how well they’re done.

SPOILERS

Murphy’s character, Jeff Johnson, is a con man. He has numerous friends that are also con artists. A few of whom go with Jeff to DC once he’s elected. Jeff being a con man adds multiple things to the film. For starters, numerous jokes come from that element. More importantly, it’s in Jeff’s character to follow the money and take a good con. To him, there’s not one much better than becoming a congressman. Some of his conning abilities, such as doing impressions, benefit him in the film. The con is a reason for him to know all the tricks. He solves the main conflict with his abilities. The movie starts because of a con and it ends because of one. It’s clever how the plot being solved is related to how it starts. It’s irritating when a solution comes from nothing and has nothing to do with anything.

The social commentary is apparent. The film mocks the foolishness of people. Jeff asks the congressman’s wife for her husband’s campaign stuff, including posters, buttons, etc. He then removes the pictures of the congressman from all the memorabilia. In ads (which don’t feature Jeff’s face) and on fliers, Jeff uses the tagline “The Name You Know”. It’s funny how much and how cleverly Jeff banks on the other congressman’s success. This speaks of how easy it is to trick people. He doesn’t even know the issues that the congressman was working against.

There’s a scene where Jeff votes against a bill without knowing what it is. A teacher and a group of children ask him how he voted on the bill. He says he was against it. When asked what he voted on, another congressman says that it was for school lunches and clean air. Jeff, realizing the pinch he’s in, spins the matter in his favor. Before leaving, the children are cheering for him. This shows how children are manipulated and virtually lied to. This is also another example of him using his conning ability.

The most overtly satirized group are the politicians. Most of the ones we see focus on issues where they can get money out of it. Initially, Jeff is just in it for money and aligns with them, but after discovering that power lines near schools appear to be giving kids cancer, he changes his tune a bit. After bringing the matter up with some congressmen, they refuse to do anything, and Jeff decides to do something. Jeff uses the fact that records are buried against the corrupt politicians by saying this or that needs to be off the table or he needs to do something that was requested off the table. A more obvious example of satire is a scene where the antagonists laugh together while there’s a storm in the background, thus creating a clear parallel. 

The most irritating part of the film is the character of Celia Kirby. As soon as Jeff sees her, he takes an interest. He asks her out and is rejected. There’s a few more moments like this where he tries to get involved with her and fails. However, at about the halfway point, the two are on a romantic date. Why would she go out with him? She only knew him as a Hustler. Later, someone says they’re dating. Jeff was never shown doing something that made her like him.

There’s a small twist at the end which is one of the most brilliant parts of the film. Jeff is in a conversation where the Chairman, the main antagonist, Dick Dodge, and another character named Olaf Anderson. The two say incriminating things of themselves. Later, Jeff asks Dick if he can speak of his praises of Dick at a public hearing where numerous people and cameras are. He pulls out a tape claiming it’s of that conversation. Dick calls for a recess before the tape can be played. He and Anderson yell at Jeff and bring up numerous topics related to different parts of the film and other things they’ve done. He and Anderson play the tape, only to see that nothing bad is on it. They angrily storm out. For that scene, Jeff had the camera with him before setting it down. I was curious why he brought the camera with him, but Jeff subtly looks at the camera. A shot of it pointed at where the argument was held tells us his true plan. He plays that tape once the recess is over and Dick is arrested. After being considered a hero, he announces his plans to run for president and gives a comedic look to the camera, breaking the fourth wall.

Jeff’s impressions parallel his character development. He puts on the guise of a politician, much in the same manner as he puts on voices. Eventually, he actually changes into someone who actually wants to do good and it’s implied that his con days are behind him. Thus, he’s dropped both guises.

OVERVIEW

This film has not been too liked by critics. They say the plot is too basic and simple. While that isn’t something to praise, the point is its acting and to emphasize the government which is based on our actual government. Where it counts, it hits. Currently, most would agree that it applies to today or at least it applies to the 90’s. Hopefully one day that movie will be criticized for being too foreign to reality.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) Review

Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock

Ah yes, the Star Trek movie often considered the worst, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. It was good when I watched it in 2017, is it good now?

The opening scene of the film introduces the audience to technically the antagonist, Sybok, played by Laurence Luckinbill. The role was first offered to Sean Connery, who was busy. It’s very easy to imagine Connery in the role based on how he’s written. Luckinbill does a very good job regardless. His performance is probably the best in the film. We are then introduced to some ambassadors. They get a bit of focus in the film, but then are mostly irrelevant to the plot. Their individual moments should’ve been cut for brevity. The movie is about the protagonist, Captain Kirk, and Spock, Bones, and Sybok, so keep it on that. The few things we learn from the ambassadors mean nothing. Most of the guest cast aren’t very good, but their moments are so brief that it’s easy to forgive. It was nice to see David Warner in a small role in the film. He played one of the mentioned ambassadors and did a fair job.

Effectively, Sybok takes things in stride, but still has morals. He is upset when he thinks he might have to kill and he’s not upset when discovering he’s been lied to. This could be related to the fact that the character is a Vulcan, a logic-minded race that Spock is. He wants to take over Kirk’s ship, the Enterprise, and go to the Great Barrier. He believes that God is there and he wants to find him. It’s mentioned multiple times how difficult it is to get in the Great Barrier. How could anyone know what’s in there if no one can get in there? When told that his plan to reach the barrier won’t work, Sybok has a very good monologue about how we deem things definitely a certain way before someone comes along and disproves it. It really paints a picture of this character and that’s something to think about in life generally. Many dislike Sybok, but his abilities and ideals are interesting to watch and learn about.

The problems in the film are very noticeable. One of the opening scenes encompasses them all. Kirk is climbing a cliff with no safeguard for if he falls. Bones, watching Kirk from the ground, just states how he is feeling watching Kirk climb the cliff. He openly says how dangerous and how anxious the climb is making him. Fans of the series would know how Bones would react to the situation and newcomers don’t need this explained. Also, was Bones just talking to himself during Kirk’s whole sprint up the cliff? Kirk was quite high up it when we saw Bones.

Kirk comically falls off the cliff. We see him falling with the aid of bad keying before being saved by Spock. He is caught in front of Bones. Kirk then says, “Mind if we drop in for dinner?” Bad jokes are prevalent in the beginning of the film. Another character, Sulu, lies on his communicator about being in a blizzard. Another character, Chekov, imitates a blizzard’s sound. When Bones and Kirk are singing “Row, row, row your boat”, Spock tries to deconstruct the lyrics. Fortunately, the terrible jokes decrease significantly before going away entirely.

Some of the film’s bad acting is annoying, but it’s light enough to be forgivable. Problems that are often levied at the film are bad special effects. They seemed perfectly moderate, some are a little confusing, some are a little frustrating; based on how they’re used. The ending was pretty well done, though parts of it are weird and hard to follow.

SPOILERS

Sybok has the ability to cure people of their pain by having them confront it. The scene of Spock and Bones confronting their pain is good. Bones’ scene lacks subtlety, it’s directly about a wrong choice resulting in his father’s death. Spock’s pain is subtle, it’s about an indirect rejection by his father. These show the similarities and differences between the two. The comparison is extended to Kirk, who refuses to confront his pain. In this film, as well as in the show, Spock and Bones are at odds with each other. This quiet, emotional moment does a good job of showing why they’re friends and why the fans care to watch them.

Sybok successfully takes over the Enterprise and reaches the Great Barrier. Some dumb comidic antics occurs with Sybok trying to locate Kirk, Spock, and Bones. It was very easy to get through the barrier. How could no one else have gotten through before? This is followed up with a good moment where Sybok gives Kirk back control of the ship once they’ve arrived at the Great Barrier. Sybok knows Kirk wouldn’t turn up the chance to see it now that he’s gotten so far.

Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Sybok leave the Enterprise with a shuttle. The barrier looks like a relatively normal planet. Between arriving and finding God specifically, they walk a bit, which takes a little too long. God’s reveal is overly long and filled with a mindless special effects spectacle. After an altercation that leads to Sybok’s death, the three return to the shuttle, which is dead. There’s a very well directed scene where Kirk contacts Scotty and says “Please tell me the transporter is working.” Scotty says it only has power for two, Kirk responds with “Beam up Spock and Doctor McCoy now. Do it!” Bones, annoyed at him risking his life says, “Now wait just a damn minut-”. Bones is then beamed up to the Enterprise with Spock. This paints the selfless and kind Kirk, whose main interest is always his crew’s safety. Star Trek won’t let you forget why everyone loves Captain Kirk and fans of his can respect and enjoy these moments. Expectedly, Kirk is later saved.

Near the beginning of the film, there’s a long campfire scene that is not relevant to the plot. It does have some alright characterization of the three leads. The film ended with the trio back at the campfire. This shows where their interests and minds are truly at and it humanizes them. Ideally, a campfire would be replaced with something more symbolic of and related to the main story, but this is just fine.

OVERVIEW

Many of the issues I’ve discussed with Star Trek V come off as digging for problems. The action is well paced and exciting, the drama is there, and it’s an overall fun adventure with Captain Kirk and company. For those who like the dramatic politics, this doesn’t deliver. For those who like the flashy, neck break 2000s films, this doesn’t deliver. However, for those that like a classy, quick adventure with a little to say, this is a perfect way to get that.

Doctor Who (Classic) 053: Inferno // Season 7 (1970) Review Part 4

The three leads; The Brigadier, The Doctor, and Liz Shaw

Context for those unfamiliar with Doctor Who

In the classic era of Doctor Who, stories were divided up into multiple episodes, in a serialized fashion. This story is seven episodes long. The show follows The Doctor, the protagonist, on various adventures through space and time. Since Spearhead from Space, he’s been exiled to Earth and aiding the monster fighting-military organization, U.N.I.T. Other main characters are U.N.I.T. members, Liz, The Brigadier, and Benton. This article is part of a review of Doctor Who‘s seventh season.

Inferno is a fan favorite and it’s easy to see why. It’s a ton of fun. The premise is that U.N.I.T. is watching over an experimental drilling project to penetrate the Earth’s crust and discover a new form of energy. A green liquid leaks from the drill head that transforms those who touch it into monsters.

Episode 1 is quite classy. A lot of characters are at the base of operations for the drill. They discuss the project, so the audience can learn of it. It’s done in a way that makes sense. There’s constantly new people coming on board, so it’s got to be explained multiple times. The viewer is sitting in for one of those times. While we’re learning of the story, someone touches the green liquid. We cut to them on and off as more talking is had. This is done more or less in real time. This slow build of what the stuff does creates great atmosphere.

SPOILERS

Eventually the person goes outside and kills someone. Later, they’re killed by a U.N.I.T. soldier before they can transform fully into the monster.

The Doctor, whose ship, the TARDIS, was disabled from use last season, is experimenting with it, trying to get it to work. Because of how much power the drilling project needs, the person heading it wants the power killed for the Doctor. The Doctor isn’t having it. The ending of Episode 2 is really great. We amusingly learn of the Doctor tricking everyone so he can try to use his ship. The episode ends with some people walking in as he disappears with his ship.

In the beginning of Episode 3, The Doctor goes to a parallel world due to how faulty his ship is. In this new world, U.N.I.T. is much more militaristic. The Doctor almost instantly is shot at as he’s on U.N.I.T. grounds while clearly not being a member. Fans have speculated why there’s no Doctor in this world. Everyone else is here, just not him. He meets the parallel Brigadier, who is way more bellicose than the Brig we know and love. Most tragically, he has no mustache. This is foreshadowed in Episode 1 when the Brigadier’s mustache is mentioned.

Something that bothers me is that the Doctor has trouble believing that he’s not still in the world we’re all familiar with. At one point he says to parallel Liz, “This is ridiculous,” as if this is a joke. Is it not obvious that such a comment wouldn’t do anything? Is it not obvious that he’s not in a familiar environment? Things aren’t as they were. This happens again when he tries to ask the Brigadier what’s the matter with him. He does this a bit more, though this does lead to a very well performed scene where The Doctor realizes that he’s in a parallel world. It’s great seeing the Doctor realize the situation and try to explain it to parallel Brig. His expressions are glorious.

There’s other annoyances. The parallel of the character Benton is very military-minded and is often eager to kill the Doctor. The Doctor at a point asks parallel Benton to come close for something, he then knocks him out. Why would Benton have come close in the first place? It’s out of character for him and the Doctor’s trick is obvious. On another note, the main world receives very little focus. This story is mostly about the Doctor in the parallel world. This isn’t a huge gripe, but it’s still happening. A lot was set up in Episodes 1 and 2. The main world receives basically no attention after Episode 2 until the final episode, Episode 7.

The Doctor is thrown in a jail cell. One adjacent to him is holding someone mutating. This is not really noticed. The monster surprisingly bends open the jail’s bars with no real effort. That was really scary.

Episode 4 has one of the best cliffhangers I’ve seen in Doctor Who. The drill is moving and there’s a countdown. The Doctor yells to stop the drill. A fight breaks out and a gun is pointed at the Doctor, all as the countdown goes. Eventually, at peak tension, it hits zero. The directing and acting in this scene does a great job of portraying the situation. Some cliffhangers make it obvious how they’ll be resolved. However, this one leaves you wondering.

In Episode 5, the drill goes off. The ground shakes, numerous people fall over and the Doctor avoids being shot. It’s interesting that the reason the Doctor wasn’t hit was because of the drill. He was saved by the destroyer. The Doctor says that the planet is going to be destroyed and there’s nothing he can do to save them. What he can do is go back to the main world and prevent them from making the same mistake. He convinces a few people to help him, including the Brigadier and Liz. During Episodes 5 and 6, this small gang is simply trying to get to and power the TARDIS while fighting off the monsters.

We’ve never really seen the Doctor give up. He has somewhat given up before, but there’s some degree of security. As an example, at one point he knows he can’t save the day by himself and he call in extra help. Here, he openly says that he wants to save the people of this world as well as the world as a whole, but he can’t. He can’t even take anyone with him as that will supposedly create a problem with time. It’s a very personifying moment for the Doctor. In the revival series, it seems that the Doctor can cheat these things and manage to get away with it. Is that bad continuity or is this younger Doctor unfamiliar with what would happen?

It appeared out of character for this Brigadier to be willing to help someone he doesn’t like just so he can die. There’s a fun twist that he planned on forcing the Doctor to take him at the last second. Before the reveal of his plan, there are some subtle hints at it. Whenever something goes wrong, he instinctively grabs his gun. He doesn’t do anything he doesn’t feel he has to. Some of the other characters soften to the Doctor and genuinely want to help just for the main world characters. The Brigadier never is like that. The ending to Episode 6 is spectacular. There’s mayhem in the streets (something this season loves), The Brigadier gets a spectacular death scene, and the Doctor is prepared for the best and the worst. It’s one of this serial’s highlights.

In Episode 7, the Doctor returns to his world successfully, though he’s unconscious. I don’t see the point in the Doctor being unconscious. Perhaps it’s to give a little more drama about if he’ll succeed in stopping the drill. Even if that is the case, it doesn’t produce anything with a point for the plot. When the Doctor does wake up, he had an awkward, silly speech. The Doctor goes to where the work is and starts destroying controls, he’s then physically stopped and the Brigadier makes him go to sick bay. Why can’t the Doctor calmly say what he knows and how? What’s the logic in him acting like a lunatic and destroying equipment? He’s often had an easier time with things because the Brigadier is always on his side. Here he made himself look crazy to the Brigadier, not that it matters in the end.

Another annoyance is that a lot of the dialogue is referential. Characters act as if they just went through a test run of this story, which the audience just watched. When The Doctor returns and speaks of some things to look out for, the Brigadier awkwardly asks how he could know. He says the line in a theatrical manner, as if he was in a mystery movie. Realistically, he would probably just think his comment. The Doctor, as expected, saves the main world. He doesn’t think much of the sacrifice made by the old one. The younger Doctors were more bothered by tragedies, but here in Episode 7 he feels seemingly nothing. This last episode is strange and awkward.

OVERVIEW

Season 7 of Doctor Who sometimes seems unprofessional. There’s bad special effects and small continuity errors throughout. The biggest issue is that in order to have plot conveniences U.N.I.T. often has to be portrayed as incompetent. People under their care are killed or kidnapped, they don’t spot obvious problems, etc. A lot of these problems can be looked over because of how good the stories are. This season has a loose story arc that is quite fun to watch. It doesn’t interrupt the stories. In Inferno, it serves as a catalyst for the meat of the story.

Cliffhangers were often the most attention drawing part of these stories. Seeing as they served like little finales, they often summarized the good and bad of the stories/episodes. Sometimes they feel tacked on and unnecessary, sometimes they upped the stakes. The first episode of a serial was often best. They had good tension, drama, and pacing. The last episode was often the weakest. They struggled to wrap up the stories well.

There’s a theme of acting without stopping, thinking, or listening. The Doctor has to convince people not to do something that seems so obviously wrong or stupid. Some of the stories escalate to a destructive point because characters wouldn’t stop and listen to their “opponents”. There’s another theme of more heavy, realistic, tragic deaths. All stories feature a scene of some destruction in the streets, affecting normal people. This could be a metaphor for the growing threat and sophistication of the enemies. The monsters of the 1960’s are gone and the Doctor must now face new types of dangers that attack at the people. To contrast, in a 1960’s serial, The Dominators, the deaths are towards non-humans. They’re not consequential or emphasized. Things change a lot throughout the stories. Characters are killed and people change what they’re doing and why. The first and last episodes of a story generally are quite different in terms of stakes and escalation. This season feels quite different than the 60’s. I’m ready for more.

Doctor Who (Classic) 052: The Ambassadors of Death // Season 7 (1970) Review Part 3

“Welcome to BBC television, now playing ‘Doctor Who and The Ambassadors of Death’.”

Context for those unfamiliar with Doctor Who

In the classic era of Doctor Who, stories were divided up into multiple episodes, in a serialized fashion. This story is seven episodes long. The show follows The Doctor, the protagonist, on various adventures through space and time. Since Spearhead from Space, he’s been exiled to Earth and aiding the monster fighting-military organization, U.N.I.T. Other main characters are U.N.I.T. members, Liz, The Brigadier, and Benton. This article is part of a review of Doctor Who‘s seventh season.

This story is like a game of chess. One group will get a leg up, then another will. The Ambassadors of Death is about a group of astronauts who are trapped in space. U.N.I.T. tries to figure out how this is happening and by extension, what’s going on. How are the Doctor, Liz, and the Brigadier going to save the day?

This serial in many ways breaks from the formula of the time. There are many similarities to what we’ve seen before, such as plot conveniences, kidnappings, monsters, etc. The creatures in this story are handled in a way that seems more realistic than usual. There’s various people that want the creatures’ resources for their own gain. The ending is also a lot different than typically. This season, as well as the whole show, has had some forced, lame cliffhangers. This serial has better ones. Some have a degree of sophistication.

I’ve found that sometimes the last episode of a serial is a bit lame. It seems that the people behind the scenes didn’t know how to end the story. Ambassadors final episode was quite good. It was very tense and the stakes were high. The ending’s drama wasn’t done with a Shoot ‘Em Up, but with a political confrontation and words. This ending is way more clever than many others are.

There are plenty of silly parts. Just to name a few, in Episode 2, The Doctor reveals he has an anti-theft device on his car. When a criminal touches it, their hands stick to the car. That’s just ridiculous. In Episode 7, the Brigadier gets a fight scene that would’ve been really good, but many of the hits are noticeably unrealistic. Characters don’t react how one would and you can see that several of the hits don’t hit the characters.

It’s worth noting the stellar cinematography and direction of the season’s first two serials is lacking here. While the direction of Ambassadors is not bad, it’s average.

SPOILERS

In Episode 2, the astronauts’ capsule lands on Earth. When they’re spoken to with an intercom, they’re acting strangely after some time of silence. One astronaut repeatedly asks for permission for reentry. The Doctor says to cut open the capsule after everybody deliberated on what to do for some of the episode. Roll credits. This cliffhanger is so great as it plays on the lack of knowledge. When a cliffhanger features a scary monster suddenly appearing, it’s the presence of knowledge. Here, we just get some creepiness and based on what the Doctor says and how he acts, we know this is scary business. Episode 5’s cliffhanger is similarly good. The Doctor sees a mysterious object approaching him. The danger presented is just the unknown, not a monster or something of that sort.

The Doctor discovers the missing astronauts in Episode 6. It was already revealed that they didn’t return to Earth earlier. It would’ve been nice if the Doctor found the astronauts before discovering that they weren’t on Earth. Admittedly, we didn’t know for sure. We do see the face reveal of the monsters in the astronaut uniforms. The whole sequence is quite weird and trippy. I’m not sure why it was done like that, but it doesn’t really fit with the rest of the story. Them showing their faces doesn’t add anything.

Liz, an important scientist at U.N.I.T., is kidnapped. A scientist at her place of capture disagrees with the kidnappers, who are trying to manipulate the aliens. Liz convinces him to go to U.N.I.T. and give them info on her captors. He follows through and while at U.N.I.T., one of the captors kills him. To start with the issues here, U.N.I.T. is portrayed unintentionally as incompetent. Various people are killed or kidnapped, their stuff is destroyed, and it’s often not noticed in time. A guy casually waltzed in there and murdered someone! The Doctor also gets kidnapped by the guys that captured Liz. The Doctor just finished an important mission, you’d think there’d be some guards nearby. Also, this makes Liz look bad as she was responsible for an innocent man’s death! Another moment of incompetency is in Episode 7. The Brigadier rescues the Doctor and Liz guns blazing. Someone could have been hurt.

OVERVIEW

This serial rides a tight line between a standard run of the mill affair and a unique bit of brilliance. That somewhat summarizes lots of Doctor Who. That’s why I love it! This serial is a lot of fun. It’s a bit different from the rest, so it’s good for those craving a new flavor, but not a new product.

Doctor Who (Classic) 051: and the Silurians // Season 7 (1970) Review Part 2

“Nice to meet you.”

Context for those unfamiliar with Doctor Who

In the classic era of Doctor Who, stories were divided up into multiple episodes, in a serialized fashion. This story is seven episodes long. The show follows The Doctor, the protagonist, on various adventures through space and time. Since Spearhead from Space, he’s been exiled to Earth and aiding the monster fighting-military organization, U.N.I.T. Other main characters are U.N.I.T. members, Liz, The Brigadier, and Benton. This article is part of a review of Doctor Who‘s seventh season.

Quite an odd romp Doctor Who and the Silurians is. Longer serials like this one often benefit from having more time to flesh out the story. This very much plays like a military drama, which seems intentional. Episode 1 has a lot of slow build up which is done quite well, but some parts of the serial are too slow. Episode 3 as example feels very uneventful. Amusingly, a Doctor Who superfan that goes by “Whopix” fan edits Doctor Who stories. He cut down this 169-Minute long serial to just 62-Minutes. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen that much cut from a story.

Silurians does have really good direction as seen in the season’s premiere serial, Spearhead from Space. There’s something so clever and interesting about how effortlessly the camera pans or zooms to something. This kind of camera movement creates so much intrigue for the story. I’m not too familiar with the 70’s or 80’s eras of the show, but when speaking of the 60’s and 2000’s, it’s a shame that this technique hasn’t been utilized more. The acting quality fluctuates. One notable guest star is beloved actor, Paul Darrow. He’s really great, unlike some performances… 

Perhaps the biggest flaw of the story are the monsters, the Silurians themselves. They look, sound, and act so ridiculous that they can’t be taken seriously. Characters discuss intense, dramatic topics and I’m close to laughing.

The cliffhangers at the ends of the episodes are also pretty silly for the most part.

SPOILERS

Let’s talk about the character of “Baker”. He’s Head of Security at the nuclear research facility where much of the serial is set. Everything about his story and his character is ridiculous. He receives a minor injury and is hospitalized. He says he’s well and wants to continue being involved with the matter at hand. Everyone wants him to stay in the hospital. He escapes more than once. He’s even guarded in the hospital and knocks out the guard. Everyone is so concerned about him and I’m just thinking while seeing all of this, “Who cares?” I don’t understand why anyone’s giving attention to this loose cannon. It’s such an oddity. He manages to get captured by the Silurians, so he’s out of the way.

There is something about him and his arc that is quite brilliantly. He’s quite headstrong and cocky. In other serials, this type of character usually has just a few lines and then gets killed. However, when he’s captured by the Silurians, they discuss their plans in front of Baker. Whenever humans interact with Silurians in the serial, they do stupid things. The Silurians also lack an understanding of Humans. Baker, being a dumb Human, has made himself appear as a dumb Human to the Silurians. The Silurians probably thought he would be too dumb to grasp what they’re talking about, so what’s the harm in talking in front of him? While this isn’t explained, it doesn’t need to be. It’s pleasant to see that various elements set up in advance come together to form a logical reason to progress the plot.

The main plot is about how the Silurians want to leave the Earth’s underground caves and live on the surface, as they had lived long ago. They’re willing to harm people if necessary. The Doctor tries to get the Humans and the Silurians to peacefully coexist. Episode 4 features him doing this extensively. It’s all quite well written and investing. There is a forced cliffhanger tacked on that is eye rolling.

Episode 5 is this serial’s best episode. It’s a sharp, little drama. The Doctor tries to convince the Silurians to be peaceful and we see his intelligence and speaking abilities on display. While the leader of the Silurians is convinced by the Doctor, the others are not. One Silurian is particularly opposed to peace. His actor is very bad, though the pacing and quality drama make up for that. The Silurians who don’t want peace do something smart. They want Baker to leave the caves to the surface, as they have contaminated him with a plague. They make it seem like their guard’s down and he takes the opportunity to leave. If they had just let him go, he may have caught onto their trick.

Episode 6 is a waste. It focuses on the spread of the plague and the Doctor trying to cure it. It’s even topped off with a silly cliffhanger. There are highlights. The camera follows one particular person with the plague. We see him gradually deteriorate. This accomplishes both what’s happening with the character as well as showing what the disease does and how long it takes to work. We later get a scene of various people in public being affected by the plague. I like the efficiency of this mini story, it tells a lot very well in a little. If there was a two-part story which was about a disease catching, spreading, and being eliminated, it might be a classic. In this story, it’s only here to create forced conflict and it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Episode 7 features the disease being pushed out of the way. The writers no longer care about it, so it’s solved and you should just stop thinking about it! The episode does a moderate job of resolving the conflict. This serial is known for its twist ending. The Silurian threat is prevented and the Doctor thinks he can still one day arrange peace. However, the U.N.I.T. leader, the Brigadier, blows up the Silurians to eliminate the chance of violence. The twist is good, but sadly he discusses it before doing it, thus spoiling the twist. Imagine if you watched a million other stories where the villains are killed essentially in self defense or not killed at all, then that explosion just surprisingly pops up? That would be a great little shock.

OVERVIEW

A theme prevalent in the story is stupidity and brash actions causing destruction. Numerous characters kill, which often later lead to their own deaths. If everyone thought to stop and think, issues would be prevented. At the end, it seems to some that the problem is solved, but their own destructive nature will continue on, spreading to more and more. This story is a good drama hampered by little issues.

The Patsy (1928) Review

Pat

Nothing quite like a silent comedy, eh? Marion Davies, a beloved film actress, was in a career slump. After doing this film, The Patsy, things changed. The film was so beloved and successful that her career was revived. The Patsy is often considered a classic and one of Davies’ best films. Let’s dig into it.

The main characters are a family of four. They include an imperious mother, referred to as “Ma”; her husband that bends to her whim, referred to as “Pa”; their selfish daughter, named Grace; and their other daughter, Pat, that lacks confidence, played by Marion Davies. This is all learned quickly by the movie starting with them in their house. Numerous little situations emerge for them to show off their traits. The first scene in the movie shows them all eating at the table. One character puts their elbows on the table, makes a comment, etc., and another responds to it. Pat observes how everyone eats soup and tries to replicate them. This shows off her trait of being impressionable. One must wonder if the film is saying she’s never eaten soup before, which is absurd if true.

Over very little things Pat conflicts with her mother and sister. Her father comes to her defense. There’s multiple times in the movie where someone of the duo clashes with someone else of the duo. There’s a nice moment where the four are in the same room arguing. Pat and the dad are standing together and parallel to the other two. This creates a visual divide between the groups. You can almost see an invisible line across the middle of the frame. Some scenes only seem to be in the film to show off character conflicts. There’s one scene where Pat’s sister wants to wear Pat’s new coat, the parents get involved and take a side. While not subtle, it does a good job of showing how they all act. Notably, the mother gets upset at Pat and she then backs off in respect for her feelings. There are some moments like that in the middle and end of the movie which are not appreciated. We got all the character stuff covered in the beginning, let’s just move on with the plot! Some of the scenes happen with no explanation or rational when one would be appreciated. Characters feel a certain way, then on a dime change and feel differently.

Fortunately, the acting is quite good. The mother and Grace are more or less stock villains. They don’t have redeeming moments or scenes where they act like developed people. The movie never attempts to treat them like people, so it’s not really a problem. The father is performed very well. He clearly wants to be more confident and demand what he wants, but he simply can’t muster the courage. Marion Davies gives the best portrayal. She’s like a more extreme example of her father. There are several times where she attempts to get what she wants, before being prevented, typically by her own lack of courage. What drives the plot is that Pat is into her sister’s boyfriend, Tony, but can’t manage to tell him. Despite how obviously her boyfriend is unsatisfied with how Grace acts. A highlight of the movie is when Pat seemingly tries to get someone’s attention and does a dance after walking in the door. I laughed out loud and I think the theater-goers of the time probably did as well.

SPOILERS

Early on in the film, Pat admits to Tony that her lack of a personality is preventing her from talking to some guy she likes. He says he knows how she can gain a personality and recommends her some books. Some time later, we see her walking around her house saying seemingly random idioms and not taking her families’ concerned reactions seriously. She tells her father that she’s trying to get a personality with the aid of the books (which list idioms, among other things) and her father says that she should keep it up as she’ll be able to do whatever she wants. Her father then tells the mother and sister that until he can get a doctor, they should humor Pat by going along with whatever she does. To begin with the problems here, Pat has already tried to do what she wants but she’s prevented by her mother getting upset with her. Going along with the beginning of the film, she would probably say one or two idioms before her mother being offended would crush her too much to continue. She later says in the film that she loves her mother. Second, how exactly does her doing all this relate to a personality? A personality, generally put, is who she is and what her character and identity are. Her running around like a loon is unrelated to that. Third, if Pat was enjoying tormenting her mother and Grace, what’s the point in her father telling her to continue. She was going to do that anyway. There was no sign from her that she wanted to stop. In fact, she does this on and off for the rest of the film, even after her mother finds the books. Fourth, how did Pat or her father think this was a good idea? It’s so out of the blue. Why does the dad want to bother his wife like that? Fifth, Pat is portrayed as likable and one to sympathize with in the movie. How is her deliberately tormenting two people supposed to make the audience like her? Sixth, Pat lacks confidence, you’d think that would make it hard for her to be so bombastic.

Pat and Tony begin hanging out with each other. One reason they have such time available is because Grace is spending time with a famous playboy named Billy. Grace figures out that Pat is into Tony and says that if Pat doesn’t leave Tony alone, she’ll tell him that Pat lied to him by saying she had a crush on someone else. According to her, Tony hates liars and won’t associate with one. This is the low point for Pat. She’s crushed quite hard by that. How is that such a big deal? It’s such a bland lie which isn’t intended or in actuality creating an issue. This is just a forced way to jam in conflict. Pat runs to her room to cry and when her father comes in there, she tells him of the problem. He says he has a solution.

To quote Monty Python’s Flying Circus, “And Now For Something Completely Different”. Pat’s dad drives her to Billy’s house. When they get there, Pat is reluctant to go in, but the dad persuades her to. This shows off her confidence-lacking side, which is a nice touch. Pat walks in and sees Billy, who is sitting still and expressionless. One can only wonder why. It’s assumed that he’s drunk, but there’s no alcohol in site, and he doesn’t act like how a person actually would. Pat sees various pictures he has of female movie stars and imitates them. The point of this is to get laughs from the audience, but it still doesn’t make sense. While it’s not clear, she’s probably trying to get his attention. Why go through all that work? It’s clear from early on that imitating those movie stars isn’t working. Billy doesn’t react much, so Pat runs in his bedroom and locks herself inside. She calls Tony and tells him that Billy has trapped her in his bedroom against her will.

This scene has been shifting so fast through so much before such a drastic tonal shift like that. To begin with the problems here, was this Pat’s dad’s idea? If so, why would he be okay with doing that to Billy? If not, what was his plan? Second, was Pat trying to get Billy to trap her in his bedroom by doing all that pointless nonsense? If not, why do any of that? If so, how was that supposed to work? Was he going to be so attracted to her that he would trap her there? Third, why not go to the phone from the beginning? If Billy had gone for her, he may have prevented her from even accessing the phone. Fourth, how exactly is this supposed to make Pat seem likable? The nicest interpretation of the scene is that she’s accusing the guy of just kidnapping. When she’s in Billy’s bedroom and Tony’s on the other side of the door, Pat imitates the sound of being choked. Essentially trying to make Billy seem as villainous as possible. How is anything that Pat does in the movie supposed to make her likable to the audience?

Tony receives the call at dinner and goes to Billy’s house. He tells her that she should’ve known what she was in for by going to Billy’s house and because of her foolish decision, he never wants to see her again… To begin with the problems here, How did he know she chose to go to his house? Is it not possible Billy forced her there based on what he knows? Second, is that not a huge exaggeration? His friend did something stupid and he just can’t forgive it. Third, Tony’s girlfriend, Grace, was hanging out with Billy earlier in the film. He never broke up with her for being with him or even made a comment about it. The purpose of Tony doing this is to create turmoil and conflict for Pat, but a sensible or reasonable way of doing so would be appreciated. Also, Billy moves with no issue when Tony storms in, so why couldn’t he move much before?

Grace, having gone to Billy’s house with Tony, tells her mother what Pat did. The mom is shocked and horrified. An argument erupts between the three women. This leads to a great moment where the dad loses his cool and shouts down the others. He defends Pat to the other two and speaks of how unfairly they’ve been treating her. He goes on a large rant. The mother responds to all this by saying she wants a divorce. The father and Pat leave the house. The dad insinuates to Pat that what he just did was part of some plan of his. What his objective was is not made clear. He walks back in his house and the mother is glad he didn’t leave. Just a second ago she hated him! The two connect and the presumption is that all is well for them. Can you say rushed?

Tony shows up and asks Pat if Billy was who she was into, she says that it was actually him. Tony smiles and the film ends on the two kissing. To begin with the problems here, It’s not unbelievable that the mother and Tony would come to forgive, but we never see them do it. They come off like poor characters because of how drastically they shift. There’s no sign that they would change their minds in the scenes of them being mad. The time between them getting upset and forgiving is very brief. Second, Tony acts like nothing has happened, like he didn’t say he never wants to see Pat again. Third, Pat basically admitted that she lied and he doesn’t care. Essentially, the movie lied to the audience solely so there could be some drama, a classic sin of writing. Based on how the actors are acting and how the music is uplifting, the presumption is that all is well for the family despite these large narrative holes.

Generally, Pat gets more confidence throughout the film. This has a nice, subtle pay off at the end where she simply has the confidence to admit that she loves him. It’s a sensible, intelligent way of concluding that ark, which succeeds in its simplicity and subtlety. This is lessened a bit by the numerous times the movie broke from the ark, such as when she was able to make scenes and spout idioms.

OVERVIEW

The main theme is overcoming self-adversity. Characters are benefited by not being held back by themselves. Sadly, the movie fails at doing this cohesively as the plot shifts around to different topics for no reason other than to get laughs. If you want to get laughs, make a comedy where it makes sense for lots of wild stuff to be happening, such as in a Buster Keaton film. This movie wants to be dramatic and it can’t balance the two. It’s not uncommon for the time to see romantic comedies like this, but this is a comedy in a very loose manner. Hey, at least the actors can act and the director can direct.

The Monkees (1966 album) Review

The album’s back cover (in Mono and Stereo!)

The Monkees is fun. Not just this album, but many of their others, their show, and their specials. The band’s foursome of Micky, Davy, Peter, and Mike make for entertaining viewing. After listening to this whole album for the first time in 2019, I didn’t like it very much. There were some sharp tracks in the bunch, but as a whole I was not impressed. How are my thoughts now?

It seems that the main purpose of these songs was to be featured in the TV series. In the show, there was often an attempt for the songs to match whatever is going on. In the episode, “Success Story”, Davy may have to leave the band and return to England, so the slow, downer song, “I Wanna Be Free” plays. In “Don’t Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth”, the band has to do farm work in order to work off some money. “Papa Gene’s Blues” plays, which has lines like “I look toward a destination” and “I have no more than I did before”, which seem to compliment the situation. The show had a diverse range of topics, so this album does as well. That creates a bit of a problem. The tracks have no flow and thematically they jump all over the place. When looking at this not as a soundtrack, but as an album, it’s jarring jumping from a ballad to a high-octane romance.

“(Theme from) The Monkees” is possibly the album’s most famous song. It plays at the beginning of every episode of the show. It also embodies the tracks here, there’s a bit of everything that’s in the others. There’s a repetitive and simplistic nature in how the songs are sung. All the lines in this song are sung in the same manner, no excitement or resonance. Many of the tracks in the album are sung in uninvested ways. This track especially suffers as its tone is to get grander and more hyped. This can be derived from the instruments, which gradually get bigger. I prefer the version of the song in the show’s pilot episode. It was sung not just by Micky Dolenz, but the band. It was more raw sounding.

I gave high praise to only three of the tracks from my first listen. “This Just Doesn’t Seem to Be My Day” and “Let’s Dance On” were two of them. While I don’t dislike them, they feel less interesting and charactered. Dance essentially is just about a dance. It lists different kinds of dances like ‘the Pony’ and ‘the Watusi’. They come off like filler to pad the song. I wonder if it was produced to appeal to Beach Boys fans as it feels like one of their songs. It succeeds at getting one pumped and into the mood. Beyond that it’s filled with cream, at least it’s not empty. Day has good instrumentals, but at points it feels half put together. Davy Jones’ vocals sometimes works well, but other times they’re a tad wooden.

“I Wanna Be Free” and “I’ll Be True to You” are ballads that Davy Jones is known for singing. Despite previously being unimpressed, they are much better. The somber tone is not too depressing or too cheerful. Jones does have a fair bit of vocal talent which is not utilized in these kinds of songs. “Daydream Believer” perhaps has his best vocal talents because it utilizes a lot of different styles that he’s good at. That was released two years after this album, so perhaps he hadn’t grown to that point yet. They feel out of place on the album more than the others. Most of the tracks are high energy and cheerful, at least to a degree. Both are limited most severely by the need for them to be pop songs. The instrumentals are exactly what one would expect, gaining a baseline level of quality, but not producing anything creative.

The two Michael Nesmith songs are “Papa Gene’s Blues” and “Sweet Young Thing”. Both are at least partially written by him. Both feel like homages to country music and are about a love interest, just like most of the tracks here. Both do a good job of marrying subtle instrumentation and high energy. Instruments like the vibraslap are used in Blues to make the piece feel bigger and emphasize the song’s lyrics and tone. Thing is the least inventive of the two, but the instruments and harmonic way of singing still paint a sharp picture. Both songs would be improved with a more orchestral instrumentation. The lyrics want more to boost it up.

“Saturday’s Child” and “Take a Giant Step” are both love interest songs sung by the lead singer, Micky Dolenz. Both have a more childlike quality to them, as if the protagonist of the songs are experiencing a new kind of love. It’s like they just need to sing their emotions. The vocals are sadly a bit wooden and the instruments make a small impression. These songs want to be impressioning, but the main part of the music may as well not be there. “Tomorrow’s Gonna Be Another Day” is also similar, but it’s about getting over a break up. The instruments don’t suffer from this issue as much and Dolenz’ vocals are better.

The last track on the album is seemingly filler. “Gonna Buy Me a Dog” seems to be a joke almost. Micky and Davy interrupt the song by laughing and joking. There’s never an attempt by anyone or anything to take anything else seriously. There are actual lyrics to the piece that are sung by the two, but all with an attitude of this being silly. I do appreciate an at least small degree of self awareness, but the song is awkward, ugly sounding with the instrumentals, and overall an unattractive experience. It doesn’t fit with the other songs which take themselves seriously.

The only track I haven’t discussed is the one I thought was the best after the first listen and I still think it is. “Last Train to Clarksville” is a very creative song. There’s a fluency to how it’s sung. The words have a natural rhythm and depth to them. There’s some subtext which really help bring this to life. While the instruments are again not prominent, it works as this is a more subtle piece that would not benefit from such instrumentation. The story of the piece is played out well through out. This is a good starting sign of Micky Dolenz’ vocal talent in a very good performance here.

There’s a lot of good and bad pushing and pulling on the album. It’s good that talented musicians and song writers are utilized, such as Carole King, Tommy Boyce, and Bobby Hart. However, the need for the songs to be pop as opposed to their own thing very much limit the potential. The generally poor vocals drag it down as they’re focused on heavily and they suck out the life of many of the tracks. Having a lot of variety makes it more likely to appeal to people and prevent boredom. It’s an alright listen, but it usually only reaches a baseline level of quality.

Broken Blossoms (1919) Review

The most famous moment in the film.

I first discovered Broken Blossoms when on a website that lists the most iconic movie images. I was intrigued by a frame showing lead actress, Lillian Gish holding up her forced smile with her fingers. I was curious of the context behind it in the film. I finally got a chance to watch this classic of the silent era.

I’m not sure if it’s good or bad that Lillian Gish is more known about today. It’s nice that the classic film actors are getting brought up and discussed, but Lillian Gish is known mainly for starring in an infamously racist movie called The Birth of a Nation. Thus, her reputation has been damaged as of late. Whether or not Gish was racist, she probably wasn’t, few that have watched her works can deny that she is a very good actress. Despite her poor direction in Broken Blossoms, she shines through it mostly. One can feel her terror as she deals with her abusive father. Some might think that you couldn’t possibly not sympathize with a young woman in an abusive situation, but a bad performance can make one uninvested and uninterested. If one sees an ugly alien being abused, they might not sympathize with that due to a lack of an ability to connect with them. A bad performer essentially becomes that ugly alien. Gish connects and appeals deep into the viewer and gets them attached. Gish’s performance here is three dimensional.

Despite the critical acclaim, despite Gish’s performance, despite the dark subject matter, this movie is goofy. In the beginning, the male lead, Cheng Huan, is referred to as “The Yellow Man”. It’s hard to take the movie seriously when it doesn’t take itself seriously enough to refer to one of the main characters as something that doesn’t sound so absurd. Also, we can clearly see that he’s an Asian person in an Asian place. We don’t need that clue that he was Asian. In a moment probably intended to get laughs, he tries to stop some Americans from fighting each other, but fails. This setup is comical. It sends the message that the movie as a whole will be comical and when we’re introduced to Gish’s character, Lucy, in an abusive environment, it creates a jarring tonal shift.

Cheng, played by Richard Barthelmess, a white actor in yellow face, does a fairly good job of portraying his character. He has the mannerisms down of a young, naive man trying to make his way in the world. The father of Lucy is named Battling Burrows. He is very hammy in the role. His posture, his way of moving and speaking is like a king who wants his every demand met to a tee. It’s like he doesn’t understand how someone could think he’s not the greatest, most important person in the world. One line said about him in the intertitles is “Battling hates those not born in the same great country as himself.” While racism certainly is not a rare thing, such a line makes the character seem like a token villain. The use of the term “great country” comes off like a joke. The character’s name is literally “Battling”. His cronies and other minor characters feel like nothing. Their performances are average. This doesn’t brew compelling characters.

The acting doesn’t get a lot of chances to be shown off because the plot and the characters’ thoughts and feelings are explained in the film’s intertitles. Those should only be used when absolutely necessary, like when they feature dialogue that couldn’t be presumed from the actor’s expressions. It seems as though the actors weren’t good enough to show on their faces how they think and feel in the current situation. I don’t doubt that Gish could portray such emotions, but this “intertitle cheating” is used for her as well as the other characters. Let’s consider the line about Battling being racist. Why not show him being disgusted by a non-American person’s presence? When he interacts with Cheng, why not show him treat him as lesser solely on the basis of him not being white? The biggest sin of the intertitles is that in the beginning, it’s said that the reason Cheng went to America was “to spread the gentle message of Buddha to the Anglo-Saxon lands”. A hop and a skip later, they say he gave up more or less because of how cruel things have been for him. Show it! Don’t tell us about something that’s a really big character moment. Don’t you think Cheng would change from his sole goal being crushed? Can we please see that? This plot point is then dropped. What’s the point in bringing that up in the first place? Why not make his motivation that he wants to get a taste of the discussed good life in America? Then when he realizes it’s not so great, he could have no money to leave. That’s actually something where it would make sense to not focus on it, but everything that relates to him in the film WOULD be related to that. Everything that goes well would push towards it being good for him to be there. Everything bad that happens would add against that.

SPOILERS

There’s a great scene where Lucy tries desperately to avoid a beating by Battling. Here she is told to smile by her father and she holds it up with her fingers. This comes off as goofy. It sounds like something that would happen in a parody of a drama like this. Both times she’s beaten in the movie, there’s no physical signs of a beating. She isn’t bleeding and her clothes aren’t battered. All we have is her facial expressions. A little more would be nice for realism’s sake. She runs away from home and collapses in Cheng’s store. He dresses her in nice, Chinese clothes and nurses her to health on the top floor of his store. This is essentially all the screen time the two have together. There should’ve been more scenes of the two together to establish how they feel for each other and how Lucy reacts to a living situation that’s not so abusive. Later, a friend of Battling comes to the shop and when Cheng has to leave briefly, he goes upstairs and sees Lucy asleep. Lucy is wearing bright clothes, which are similar to the bright bed, pillows, and blankets. The friend of Battling is dressed in dark colors and the walls around him are also dark. There’s a visual contrast between the light colors which show innocence and the dark colors which show maliciousness. The friend tells Battling where Lucy is and when he does, he goes to the shop and destroys some stuff in blind anger. Him and his friends take her back to Battling and Lucy’s house. In the best performed scene in the film, a terrified Lucy, seeing an unseen rage by Battling, tries desperately to escape his wrath.

She locks herself in a closet. Battling destroys the door with an axe and pulls her out. We see him start to beat her and he does so noticeably harder than the first time in the film. The terror can be seen and felt by how good the performances are. The whole moment is the most acclaimed part of the film and I see why. I like how the first beating led to Lucy collapsing in the shop, which in turn led to her being discovered there and getting beaten again. Essentially, the first led to the second. Battling doing this to his daughter is what caused him so much rage.

A moment I couldn’t believe when I saw it was that Lucy died from the second beating. Despite how dark this is, this really emphasizes the goofiness of the film. It’s goofy that we’re being sold that such a beating would lead to death which as mentioned earlier, has no physical signs. Cheng discovers this, kills Battling, and then himself. The film, being a tragedy, seemed like it needed to kill the characters. It does make sense how the characters die, but the story would be more sophisticated, and thus improved, with Cheng and possibly Battling surviving. The deaths seem like a cop out, we don’t see how the characters face their actions long term because they are killed. It would be more interesting to see Cheng face the police and his own ideals. His actor does a good job reacting to Lucy being dead, but more would improve the moment. Give us more from him being alive and able to really face what’s happened. What if he reflected on Buddha’s message and the fact that him going to America caused more harm than good?

OVERVIEW

It’s annoying to me when a drama is so silly. It likely makes it hard to get much out of it other than unintentional comedy. This movie in some respects is quite depressing, but it can’t hold that. The fact that there’s so little going on in the middle of the film and the ending being so quickly executed makes this film broken.