The Ep That Rocked – or Why Doctor Who is a bit like a Pixar Movie

Curtis is good for DW, not only because he’s a big name and they clearly gave him the best of everything, but also because he’s the right kind of writer.

Spoilers up to 5/31/episode 10.

Thanks to   for this beautiful icon.




I loved Vincent and the Doctor. For the first time since the opening minutes of TEH, we seemed to be looking at real people rather than two-dimensional stereotypes. What a difference some decent writing makes. Amy’s question, “Why are you being so nice to me?” said more about her emotionally barren childhood than the nine preceding episodes. The Doctor showed warmth as well as genius, Amy actually cared about someone other than herself and Tony Curran did a wonderful job conveying the complexity of Van Gogh’s emotions in a way that children could understand. The direction was a delight, with almost every frame beautifully composed and lit.

Curtis is good for DW, not only because he’s a big name and they clearly gave him the best of everything, but also because he’s the right kind of writer. He has a lovely feel for the quirky and offbeat, and unlikely alliances between people who don’t quite fit into mainstream society, and he can make the most unpromising characters sympathetic. All those qualities were on display in his last movie, The Boat That Rocked, which I loved regardless of its faults – the bit where they decide to defy the authorities and stay on-air brought a lump to my throat, as did the little flotilla of fans’ rescue boats appearing Dunkirk-style over the horizon – and in both cases laughter quickly followed tears. Anyone who understands how to do that is probably going to write good Who.

In fact I think Curtis was somewhat subversive – he respected the Moffat brief to connect with classic Who with a very Tom Baker kind of humour as the Doctor grumbled about other great artists and the difficulty of doing an identification based on an Impressionist work. The spirit of Four and Romana II touring the Louvre in City of Death was never very far away, though Curtis managed to pack a bigger emotional punch. To bring Vincent back to 2010 was a risky move and I’m not entirely sure the soft rock background worked for me, but the scene was beautifully played by Bill Nighy et al and Vincent’s tears of joy were meaningful despite, or possibly because of, the inevitability of his suicide. It would have been clever plotting to have shown the gallery cleared of his later and more tortured work, but that kind of thing can safely be left to Moffat et al.

Ever since DW was rebooted fandom has been divided between the Head people who want more cleverness and less emotion, and the Heart people who want the opposite – the extremes of both positions are represented by Moffat and RTD respectively. In fact, extremes are rarely an ideal and one fan’s emotional depth is another’s revolting sentimentality. Curtis, of course, is firmly on the heart side of things and coaxed some lovely performances out of Matt and Karen in particular – it’s frustrating that the potential has been there all along and to see Matt’s features soften with compassion is an unexpected pleasure.

In some respects I think it’s more helpful to judge DW as a cartoon rather than a live drama – not necessarily a trivialisation since graphic novels, anime and comic books have become sophisticated and influential art forms. The point I’m getting at is that we tend to judge animated drama by different standards of realism, or rather the lack of it. I’m not the person to speak for Watchman or Scott Pilgrim – I’m thinking more in terms of Pixar movies, as it happens. Pixar movies are technically brilliant with wonderful scripts, but I don’t think that’s what makes them enormous hits. The reason for that is that every one of them is the story of an absolutely fundamental human fear and its resolution. It’s the problem that draws us in and the resolution that puts a smile on our faces as we leave the cinema. Get that right – the emotional question – and the details are irrelevant.

For example, when we see Up we can ask, “How could all those balloons make a house float?” or we could ask, “Can an elderly widower get over his grief and pursue the dream he once shared with his beloved partner?” And when we watch Ratatouille, we can say, “How could a rat ever become a chef?” but it’s a lot more important to say, “Can somebody who marches to a different drum follow his dream without losing his family?”

And because it’s a ‘toon, chances are that people won’t carp too much about Question One so long as they’re satisfied by the journey towards the answer to Question Two. 

Now it seems to me that somehow, for all its totally ludicrous premise, DW has acquired an awful lot of fans who have a preconceived idea of how the show should be, and they will fret about the balloons, or whatever, whether the canon is consistent and if we ought to let the TARDIS tow the Earth home. But this tends to be the kind of question that rears its ugly head when other things aren’t as they should be. In the best episodes, it really doesn’t matter that much. And the job of a show runner is to decide what fundamental emotional question DW is going to ask. RTD did it very clearly – “How can the Doctor deal with being lonely when his people are gone and he loses everybody in the end?” He treated the show as a big movie spread over five years, and ultimately it failed artistically on those terms because he didn’t answer that question in any satisfactory way. He should have followed his instinct and found a way – straightforward and not too clever – for the Doctor to stay with Rose. That would have been consistent with where he was taking the franchise and I don’t think it would have been impossible, but that’s water under the bridge for now.

Problem was, the show isn’t a movie, it’s a long-running, continually reinventing TV phenomenon and he had to hand it back in a healthy state, more or less as he’d found it. Ultimately the two narrative forms turned out to be incompatible and the only way Moffat has tried to move things on is to handwave the emotional story of the RTD years. He might do that literally by having Nine and Ten vanish down a crack in time, or aesthetically by just having Eleven behave as if they never happened. A lot of us are finding that difficult to swallow, particularly those of us who fell in love with New Who rather than the Classic brand. So we’re picking at it and saying, “But toys aren’t really alive!” And the people who hate having a Doctor who shows his feelings are having a ball. 

I do think that the long-term future of the franchise depends on bridging that gap, however, not coming down one side or the other. The Specials year showed that the RTD approach had gone into a dead end, just an endless revolving door of love and loss and a Doctor that wouldn’t grow or learn from his mistakes. But take out the emotion completely and you lose precisely what made the reboot so successful and compelling. DW is a big, Impressionist canvas where the picture is made up of swirls and bright blobs of colour and there’s always a risk of tipping over into the gaudy and the tasteless. It’s a risk worth taking – Vincent was pilloried in his day for his swirling skies and starry nights but, as the Bill Nighy character observed, he is now not only revered as a brilliant artist but beloved. And we have to remember that, at its heart, this is a show aimed at children and the child in all of us. Some children will crouch in the corner of the playground obsessing about the latest collectible cards or whatever, and moan if any tiny little thing isn’t precisely as they like it. But most kids have a part of them, at least, that lies on the ground holding hands with a friend or two and just looking up at the sky and thinking how wonderful the world is, how very little of it we really know. That scene said everything that really matters about DW – that it’s the story of a man who loves life so much that he keeps travelling on through unendurable physical hardship and emotional pain, because there’s only one thing he loves more than sharing that wonder with companions – and that’s when he learns a new way of looking at the universe from somebody else. It’s a miracle that after 900 years that still occasionally happens to him. It can happen through the eyes of a 19 year old shop girl, an old soldier in a beanie hat or a great and tortured artist. And in all three cases he can say, with absolute sincerity, “You made me a better person.” 

That’s what Curtis captured – and I love him for it. For one brief shining moment at least, I got my show back, and that’s all that matters right now.



12 thoughts on “The Ep That Rocked – or Why Doctor Who is a bit like a Pixar Movie

  1. I did think Tony Curran was wonderful. Had that part been less well played it and the whole episode could so easily have tipped over into utter schmaltz – as it was, the scene where the Doctor and Rose took him to the Musee d’Orsay had me in tears. (Little things were so right – that they nearly didn’t get Vincent to his own exhibition at all because he was drinking in all the other Impressionists on the walls, frex)
    And yes, how fascinating to see Amy suddenly connect so believably with someone – far more so than she ever did with Rory, sadly! That perhaps nudges me more towards the “Karen Gillan could be a convincing enough Amy Pond with coherent character writing and stronger direction” end of the spectrum than I was before…
    I don’t know, this series is so all over the place. I love it one week and I’m “meh” the next.

  2. From one “heart” person to another – I think you’ll already have guessed I agree with you on about 99% of this.
    The way you sum up the Pixar movies is absolutely spot on; and another trait they share with DW is the ability to speak to us all – adults, kids and big kids (like me!) on different levels.
    it’s the story of a man who loves life so much that he keeps travelling on through unendurable physical hardship and emotional pain, because there’s only one thing he loves more than sharing that wonder with companions – and that’s when he learns a new way of looking at the universe from somebody else.
    Which is why, in spite of everything, Ten didn’t want to go.

  3. I agree with you and caz on 99% of what you both say. I love Richard Curtis and Doctor Who, so I wanted very badly this episode to come out OK, and I was delighted to see it surpassed my expectations. Now I hope my beloved Neil Gaiman will repeat the achievement.
    Great point about the impressionistic nature of Doctor Who, it’s an impossibly romantic show at its heart. And of course that doesn’t mean a love story is required (but it’s never ruled out either); however, it does mean it’s soaked in emotion and humanity, even when it’s not explicitly shown. And it’s aware that can be a dangerous thing, but it also knows that is, as you said, a risk worth taking. It may very well fail, but if it didn’t try, Doctor Who would be worthless.
    After reading this post I re-watched the final ten minutes and couldn’t help noticing how much of what Bill Nighy says of Van Gogh in that final speech also applies to your interpretation of the Doctor. It occurs to me that the Doctor’s life is one of a cyclic nature, constantly being reborn, then stricken by tragedy, then born again. To find the strength to keep struggling, even to find optimism, to still find value in those good bits that sometimes seem very scarce against the pile of bad things…A beautiful metaphor for waking up every morning and certainly one no other show, possibly no other contemporary work of popular art I’m aware of, does better.

  4. I got so fed up with all the “whiny Ten” comments after EoT. Ten might have been the first Doctor to actually SAY it, but I’m sure none of the others particularly wanted “to go” either!
    I thought it was rather a brave move to have those as his last words – and while, as you say, the Ten of the Specials didn’t seem to have learned from his mistakes (but then, dramatically and practically, it wouldn’t have made a lot of sense for him to do so), I didn’t think it was OOC at all. I like to think that after his farewell tour, he was remembering the good times… and not letting the bad times make them seem less important.

  5. I really liked it! Definitely rings true. So this is why Eleven will not mention Rose or Donna, very much the same way Nine/Ten used to avoid talking about Gallifrey; they are/were running away from a tragic history will/would inevitably repeat itself.
    That bit you quoted is excellent. Is the book good? Are there any other books about Doctor Who worth recommending?

  6. New or old Who? There are quite a few academic studies of Classic Who, some rather dry. James Chapman’s “Inside the TARDIS: A Guide to the worlds of DW” is about the best. “Time and Relative Dissertations in Space” is a film-studies focussed academic essay collection – a heavy read in places but containing some interesting perspectives.
    The only academic who seems to be taking a serious interest in New Who at the moment is Matt Hills – if you Google him you’ll get some interesting links – this is excellent:
    And, of course, his new book Triumph of a Time Lord is excellent – he much prefers Nine to Ten which is intriguing.
    Chicks Dig Time Lords is very feminine (not necessarily feminist) in its focus – if you don’t mind that it’s a great read. But for a warts-and-all guide to the RTD years “The Writer’s Tale” is unbeatable – I personally prefer the original version to the follow-up. It’s easier to read and packed with interesting visual stuff.
    Most of the other BBC stuff is publicity driven rather than critical, so it looks pretty but lacks critical depth.
    Hope this helps.

  7. Hmm – I’ll refrain from commenting in case I spoil someone. If you scroll down to some of the photos of the penultimate ep, they have a very Indiana Jones look to them and Matt looks right at home there.
    I wonder how SM would define “the Doctor’s Friends”?

  8. I think it would be best if concentrated on New Who. I’ve barely started with Old Who (Caves of Androzani, some McCoy) and I don’t feel I know enough of it to read a book.
    I already own The Writer’s Tale, though I own the extended version. I loved it all the way through, but I didn’t know the original had different photographs. I also own Triumph, and I’ve just started it, I’m on the first chapter.
    I think I may go for Chicks next. I don’t think I mind the feminine view; in fact, I think women in general provide better insight on Doctor Who than men. Men in general get tangled in the sci-fi side of the show and the efficiency of plot lines and usually dismiss emotions and romance; aspects that usually get mostly covered by female fans and which are, to me, the core of the show.
    I was wondering if RTD’s columns in DWM are of any worth. Have they been collected? Is Moffat doing such a thing now?

  9. I really liked the use of the word “believe” in the synopsis. I think it is the one word that pretty much sums up the essence of Doctor Who. My hopes are high 🙂
    I did notice the Indiana Jones look ever since those clips were aired in the trailers (back then we didn’t know those were for the series finale) I read Matt Smith saying he suggested a tweed for Eleven based on Indiana Jones, and the way he dressed when he was giving classes. To me, the Doctor is a much more complex character and shows a development Indiana never had and probably never will, but there is a connection between them as both are romantic, accidental heroes.
    That bit about the Doctor’s friends also made me wonder. I don’t really see any previous companions coming back (though that would be beautiful), and it’s not that he’s made a lot of friends this series.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s