The Witch's Familiar

Series 9, episode 2 of New Who and of course everyone is watching… the Rugby. Oh well, I’m just going to assume that anyone reading this posting has actually seen it (if not, SPOILER ALERT… Wales beat England 28-25). Anyway, I’ve been looking forward to this episode of Doctor Who and the resolution to the philosophical conundrum that Terry Nation posed some 40 years ago:

"If someone who knew the future, pointed out a child to you and told you that that child would grow up totally evil, to be a ruthless dictator who would destroy millions of lives... could you then kill that child?"

This quote from Genesis Of The Daleks appeared at beginning of Episode 6 when the Doctor was pondering whether he had the right to commit genocide against the Daleks. As good as that story was Terry Nation seemingly bottled the question. So what would Steven Moffat make of it? For a start the resolution to the cliff-hanger wasn’t given immediately, which I think was a very smart move, although the explanation for how Missy and Clara survived was rather long-winded. However, splitting the major protagonists up was a very clever idea and not one that the show has done much in recent years. I suppose back when 6 part serials were more common it was a necessary plot device.

The Missy-Clara sub-plot was clearly the comic relief with Clara becoming “witch” Missy’s familiar. In fact it was far more like watching a sadistic child teasing a puppy – tying her upside down, dropping her into a deep ditch and eventually encasing her in a Dalek shell (not the first time this has happened.) I really love Michelle Gomez in this part. Whilst she might lack Roger Delgado’s urbane charm she perfectly captures the concept of an anti-Doctor: deliciously cruel as the Doctor is ultimately compassionate. I did feel a little sorry for Jenna Coleman, though – I know it’s acting but some of that stuff looked decidedly unpleasant.

The meat of the episode was really the confrontation between the Doctor and Davros. The original duelling between Tom Baker and Michael Wisher takes some topping but if anything I found the Peter Capaldi / Julian Bleach to be more intense. Bleach seemed to be channelling Ian McDiarmid’s Emperor from the Star Wars films at times but his faking of compassion to hide his conceit and duplicity actually had me fooled for a while. Capaldi, on the other hand, managed to show the almost unbridled rage and hatred that the Doctor has for his adversary in a way that only Christopher Eccleston has ever managed to pull off.

If I have a complaint about the episode it is the ease at which the Daleks were ultimately defeated. In fairness, this is almost always the case in Dalek stories as the resolution relies on exploiting their Achilles Heel. However, what of Terry Nation’s original conundrum? It is answered in typical Moffat style with the Doctor going back full circle to complete the beginning of the story he has just told. I did ponder this as it seemed to be rather a cop out until I remembered the rest of that speech from Terry Nation’s script:

"But if I kill. Wipe out a whole intelligent life form, then I become like them. I'd be no better than the Daleks."

If he was to have killed the young Davros, he changes time and merely becomes an inexplicable child murderer, lashing out at what may be. As it is, he alters the past in a small but subtle act of compassion. Maybe this long-form story telling appeals more to the classic Who fan but having watched a lot of 1970s Doctor Who over the summer I’m finding the extended narrative quite refreshing. The last two episodes are being repeated this afternoon as a feature length presentation – presumably to allow any Whovian Rugby fans to catch up. It’s the start of another two parter next week (which is on against the crunch match between England and Australia). Could this be the start of dual pace programming?

The Magician's Apprentice

It must be that time of year again. The nights are fair drawing in, the football season is back on (not that I have been that bothered about it) and Doctor Who is back on the TV. This time last year I was greatly anticipating the prospect of a new Doctor in a new series. For some reason I haven’t been that excited about it this year. Not that I haven’t been looking forward to it but it’s one of those events that I have just been expecting to happen – like Christmas or the inevitability of Scotland messing up qualification for the next big football tournament.

I suppose it’s a combination of the same cast being in place combined with knowing, at least to some point, of what we can expect from them. I really enjoyed Peter Capaldi’s first series in the role but it is often the lead actor’s second series where they really make their mark – partly as they are more comfortable in the role and also because the writers have a much better idea of what they are aiming for. Even though I enjoyed most of the episodes of  series 8 it was very obvious at times that they had been written with Matt Smith in mind. As good as both Matt and Peter are, their interpretations of the Doctor are radically different from each other.

For the first time in a while we start the series with a two-parter. Actually, this was really the case last year but the opening story was presented as a feature length episode. Nevertheless this does give the opportunity of a big cliff-hanger and we were presented with a huge one – the highlight of the episode for me. As for the rest of the episode, we were presented with a million and one things to look at but I do feel some sympathy for the casual viewer. Last year’s opener was intended as an introduction to the 12th Doctor but it would also act as a reasonable introduction to the series for someone who is vaguely familiar with the concept but who has never actually watched an episode. This year’s opener delves deep into the show’s history and mythos which is fine for an obsessive fan like me who has seen most of the episodes since the show’s beginning but must be perplexing for the first time viewer.

In essence, this story is a sequel to the classic 1975 adventure The Genesis of the Daleks. I’d guessed this almost from the outset of the pre-title sequence with its seemingly 20th Century battlefield inhabited by a confusing mix of weaponry from both the past and future. This was confirmed almost straight away. However, the premise of the story centres upon philosophical questions posed between Davros and Tom Baker’s 4th Doctor back in that 1975 classic serial. This was alluded to, even including a clip of Tom, but I do wonder whether many viewers will have realised the significance of this 40 year old clip.

Anyway, aside from my newbie angst I did think that this had much to offer including yet another trip into the darkened imagination of Steven Moffat in the form of the “Hand Mine” a Dantesque vision of Hell as disembodied, mono-ocular hands emerge from the mud to drag their victim below. I’m sure that would have had me fleeing behind the proverbial sofa as a child. That aside the episode seemed to be filled with much frippery including the Doctor playing rock guitar in a medieval castle (didn’t make that much sense to me either) and the largely unexplained return of Missy – played by the wonderfully insane Michelle Gomez.

As it is, I’ll wait until the story concludes next week before drawing any conclusions but it looks promising. I’ll also try not to put any major spoilers in the posts (the few in this are very minor and are mostly in the trailer) as I realise that many of my friends that read these posts will be watching on catch-up as the Rugby World Cup is on. I wonder how long it takes Scotland to completely mess that one up?

A Very Civilised Leader

I’ve been watching the Labour party’s leadership debate with a mixture of fascination and bemusement. For the most part these kind of debates are as dull as dishwater as the party faithful mull over which Machiavellian stuffed suit is best placed to make trite soundbites for the next few years – all in the name of making their party “electable”. This time it has been rather different as the centre of the media storm has been about Jeremy Corbyn who, although I was vaguely aware of him, I didn’t really know much about prior to this campaign. Having heard him speak a few times over the last few weeks I’m actually rather taken with him but not necessarily for his general political stance.

Corbyn wasn’t even meant to be standing as leader but a few of his fellow Labour MPs put his name forward so that they could keep the left wing fringe of his party happy. As it turns out, a majority of the Labour membership have embraced him with open arms. Who’d have thought: those with a left of centre leaning are actually members of the Labour Party! Of course there are those who have recently paid their £3 to participate in the vote and it is possible that there were a few mischief makers amongst them but he genuinely seems to have chimed with rank and file members as well as those who have been dispirited with the British political monoculture.

So why do I like him? It’s not necessarily his politics even if they do seem more in line with my views compared to the morass of unprincipled power graspers. It is not even so much that he actually has principles (the same could be said of tyrants like Hitler or Mao so it is not necessarily a good thing). It’s actually the considered, thoughtful way he seems to answer questions: not soundbites, not parroting party policy, but actually thinking what would be an appropriate response that a civilised man in a civilised society should be making. The frightening thing is to think of how few politicians are now left in this country that seem to have any regard for civil society. I could think of no more than a handful in any of the main political parties and oddly enough the last British political leader that seemed to behave this way was the former conservative Prime Minister, John Major.

It’s this concept of civility that I think is most lacking within modern politics. For me the primary aim for any politician of any political persuasion should be to maintain civil society. They may have differing outlooks and perspectives, as one would expect from different backgrounds, but their ultimate aim should be to maintain that civility. The alternative is too horrific to contemplate but we have seen so many examples of tyranny, civil war and bloody revolution that the concept should never been taken lightly. However, what we now seem to have moved towards is a system of government that has no regard for its citizens welfare provided that it can merely cling to power. I don’t see that ending well and we need someone in authority to call them out on it. Corbyn could well be that man.

So is Corbyn electable? According to the perceived wisdom of the Labour Party he doesn’t stand a chance but remember that this is the same Labour Party that managed to lose an election with the moderate Ed Miliband in charge. With their focus group sieved policies designed to appeal to the aimlessly weak minded they lost and lost badly. I don’t blame Miliband for this but the Labour Party in general as it seems clear that they wouldn’t give their full support to their leader and I think that was telling. I can see this happening even less now but I am actually far more minded to vote for a Corbyn led party than whatever ill-conceived Tory-lite option that they somehow feel to be preferable. I’m wondering if others feel the same?

I actually think Corbyn could win the next election but it rather depends on him surviving the threat from those in his own party that seemingly would prefer to mimic the Tory party than offer a well thought out alternative. The reason I think he could win is that he could appeal to the largest single section of the electorate: not left or right or the tiny and reducing number of floating voters, but to the 1 in 3 people who never vote in an election at all. The precedent is there in Scotland which has gone from being one of the regions with the lowest turnout to one with the highest, simply because one party, the SNP, has chosen to engage with those that have traditionally been disenfranchised by the political system. The result for them was remarkable.

If Corbyn can engage with the disenfranchised and has the sense to seek common ground with those civilly minded people of a different political persuasion we could find that he is a force to be reckoned with. Of course the losers in this would be the Machiavellian back stabbers, economic parasites and intolerant thugs who have run this country for too long. I’m actually hoping that they leave in a huff – we would really be far better off without them.

Climb Every Mountain

It’s already September and yet we are still waiting for Summer to arrive. In fact, over this last weekend it almost did - at least we seem to have had an entire weekend without intermittent showers which I’ll take as a positive. So how to make the best use of this belated sunshine. Well, naturally I decided to takes the kids out for an extended session of dog walking. Oh how they cheered at the prospect of being removed from television sets and video game consoles for a few hours.

Peacock Butterflies and not a dead shrew in sight

Saturday saw a trip back to Devilla in Fife and a walk around the woodland. This seems to have seen a good deal of logging since I was last there (which admittedly is what it is there for) but the Forestry Commission has also done a good deal to make it accessible with a new carpark and signage around its labyrinthine pathways. There was also a good deal of nature on display with  dozens of butterflies, frogs, red squirrels and a few birds of prey to see. So what did Jake take great interest in? A dead shrew. The other thing to remember about the forest is that for every mile that it takes to walk out, another mile is needed to walk back. I haven’t walked for three hours for a while. The dogs sort of appreciated this although Eddie ended up moving along like something animated from a Ray Harryhousen film.

I thought I would take it relatively easy on Sunday so I walked the dogs and kids down to the Helix Park in Falkirk. That takes about an hour and a half and it gives the kids a chance to play in the park before being picked up. It was after being picked up that Nina thought it would be a good idea to climb up one of the Ochil Hills. Partly this was because we were looking after our friend's dog – a sort of Staffie cross that is built like a tank and could quite happily pull over small buildings if given the chance. This was actually quite fortunate as whilst walking up mountains seems like a good idea, in practice it is blooming hard work and having a mutt with the pulling power of a Clydesdale is no bad thing.

As it was, we tried to go up Dumyat in Clackmannanshire. The dog made it half way up but Nina thought as it was too hot and it would be better if she took him back down to get some water (yes, I’m sure it was that way around.) I took the kids up to the top although, in the same way that mirages torment the thirsty that an oasis is just beyond the horizon, the summit of hills manage to suddenly go from looking just a few metres away to a distant spectre. I was contemplating this but eventually worked out that they are fractal in nature: the closer you get, the more of them there is. The view at the top was good, at least.

Can I see my house from up here?