?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
25 April 2010 @ 03:10 pm
further thoughts on "The Time of Angels"  
So I, er, may or may not have accidentally watched "Blink" today while eating breakfast. I think it might be my favorite episode, full stop.

I'm not crazy about the retcon of the Weeping Angels. Well, I love the fact that the image of an Angel becomes an Angel, which is nicely terrifying, and I love the idea of this old, riddling book that speaks of them. I'm willing to believe that the Doctor actually knows less about the Angels than he claims to do in "Blink"; after all, he admits in "The Time of Angels" that he's made a mistake about them, and he certainly didn't know about the image thing. And I wonder if there's been a bit of atavism, as they decay: that might explain the killing of Angelo, Christian, and Bob (yeah, one of those names is not like the others), beyond the idea that "they needed the bodies," because--well, what for?

But the thing that I adored in "Blink" was that the Angels didn't kill--or at least not in the traditional way. It's so odd and haunting, and I loved it so much, particularly with Sally Sparrow, living through it all in a day while Kathy and Billy have taken "the slow path"--she provides that heartbreaking contrast. "It's the same rain." I'm willing to accept that Ten didn't have the whole story about what the Angels could or did do, particularly as I don't know yet how next week will turn out, but I'm still sad to lose the original conceit.

Also, some thoughts about River. There's something cheerfully amoral about her here, I think, earlier in her own timeline. I can't imagine this River, who doesn't care about a ship full of people who died in a crash, making everyone listen respectfully to Miss Evangelista's last moments as she does later in her life, or caring as much about her team as she does in "Silence in the Library." Nor does she care about the Doctor's discomfort with her, not even as much as in the Library. And the comment about her being a prisoner fits in. Everything's--er--a lark to this River Song; she's out to get hers, and that's all that matters. There's no sense of weight or concern, just careless glee.

also

I love how exasperated Eleven is by Amy's brave face, just before he bites her: she's all, "It's okay, I understand, you have to leave me behind," and Matt Smith's delivery of "I'm not leaving you" isn't noble and determined, it's "Don't be ridiculous." I love that more than I can say--it's not even a possibility that needs taking seriously, for him. Again, we're not getting Ten's hard choices and despair, we're getting comedy. Because that's the thing: I think RTD saw Doctor Who as a tragedy--and I did a Useless Doctor Who Digression about that, ages back, and what happens when you keep trying to write a tragedy where the protagonist doesn't die--but I think Moffat sees it as a comedy--a behind-the-sofa, gives-you-nightmares kind of comedy, but comedy all the same. In several senses: that whole dialogue between Eleven and Amy, where she's amazed he bit her, and he's pointing out that hello, she's alive, made me giggle every time I watched it (which...might have been four times?). But it's also a comedy because, more often than not, it ends reasonably happily--in keeping with the fairy-tale aspects, the way those are about reintegration and eventual triumph over the darkness.

And, um, nuzzling. I keep mentioning this in comments, but, bless. So cute!
 
 
 
La Reine Noire: Cate with lacelareinenoire on April 25th, 2010 07:17 pm (UTC)
Everything's--er--a lark to this River Song; she's out to get hers, and that's all that matters. There's no sense of weight or concern, just careless glee.

I think this really works in context -- that we're seeing a later River with Ten and a (much?) earlier River with Eleven. The timey-wiminess of it all just makes me happy.

I did wonder about why the angels were killing when they hadn't before, but all I can think of is that they're starving and can't control themselves.
Gileonnen: You and Igileonnen on April 25th, 2010 07:19 pm (UTC)
It seems horrendously counterintuitive, though--like being so hungry that you smash your bread into the plate rather than eating it.
tempestsarekind: ten and martha have three hearts betweentempestsarekind on April 25th, 2010 07:25 pm (UTC)
My new theory is that it's like being so hungry that all you can do is rip open a bag of chips. When you're not starving, you take the time to prepare yourself a proper meal, maybe set the table, eat something that gives you pleasure. When you're starving, you get what you can, as soon as you can.
Gileonnengileonnen on April 25th, 2010 07:26 pm (UTC)
Could we say that the angel in the ship was starving? I really have no idea--in stasis for hundreds of years; I'd be hungry, certainly.
tempestsarekind: martha + ten + TARDIStempestsarekind on April 25th, 2010 07:28 pm (UTC)
Me either--I'm not quite sure about Weeping Angel biology. :) But it makes as much sense as anything I've been able to come up with so far. Unless it's just not strong enough yet to zap people into the past; that's my other theory.
tempestsarekind: ten is a bookwormtempestsarekind on April 25th, 2010 07:23 pm (UTC)
Yes--and when I thought about it that way, River's behavior began to make more sense to me: she's got to grow into that River that Ten met, still.

The Doctor has some line about how the Angels needed the bodies for something, but I didn't really understand that. One of them, maybe: they seem to be using Bob to communicate with the Doctor. But what did they need the other two for, except to lure Bob into the story? It doesn't really make much sense. But if they, say, need that direct energy instead of their usual potential energy, or if they don't yet have enough strength to zap people into the past, then okay. I just hope there's an explanation next week!
La Reine Noire: Cate with lacelareinenoire on April 25th, 2010 08:23 pm (UTC)
But if they, say, need that direct energy instead of their usual potential energy, or if they don't yet have enough strength to zap people into the past, then okay. I just hope there's an explanation next week!

This is what I'm hoping as well -- although the fact that the Doctor is surprised by them killing people seems to bode well that Moffat is going to explain himself.

I suppose the Angels need a means of communication much like the Vashta Nerada do, because they don't exist unless they're being looked at and that does seem to preclude any attempts to talk to people. But I don't know.
tempestsarekind: TARDIS plus angelstempestsarekind on April 25th, 2010 08:50 pm (UTC)
Yeah. I could see their needing one human consciousness for communication, and could tuck that into my understanding of the Angels relatively easily--though it does beg the question of why they feel the need to communicate. But what do they need the other two guys for?
Constant Reader: doctor who - rainbow tardisskirmish_of_wit on April 25th, 2010 11:04 pm (UTC)
And did they have to be the two black guys? REALLY?
tempestsarekind: excuse me whattempestsarekind on April 25th, 2010 11:54 pm (UTC)
I know! I'm sure that Moffat didn't write the episode with that intention, any more than RTD did (although I still think RTD could have chosen *not* to write some things once he had Freema cast). But--casting department, WHAT are you doing??? And why did no one veto that?