The Long Game

I love the new series of Doctor Who. It is exciting, occasionally scary, funny, romantic, cheesey, but above all else fun. At last, we have a television series that people actually like and enjoy. With ratings justifying a second series, and rival networks competition failing in their battle to rule Saturday nights, every Saturday the tension is almost unbearable as I sit with some friends awaiting the Doctor's latest adventures.

It was with a massive disappointment, then, that 'The Long Game' seemed to be a real downturn in the programme's ambitious scope. Whilst I applaud Mr Davies for helping to resurrect the series, I find that his latest script suffered from acute 'sameness' from two recent storylines. Basically, he has said that Doctor Who can go anywhere and anytime - truly, the basis behind the programme. Yet, the journey with the wonderful Rose and annoying Adam was simply too similar to previous outings. So... where to begin?

First: A giant space station revolving around the earth. Whilst the special effects were marvelous, wasn't the viewing platform which showed the 'magnificence' of the planet the same one as in The End of the World? Far too similar in concept and design to be an error on someone's part? Or was it just a 'running out of concept sketch ideas' for this? Mmm...

Secondly: The whole end concept - 'The End of the World' and 'World War Three' concerned the ruling of the planet/selling of the planet FOR ECONOMIC GAIN. Which is exactly what seemed to be the point of 'The Long Game'. Whilst it is nice to see that journalism and the journalistic empires of media barons can be attributed to being callous, manipulative and harmful, the fact that the ruling or governing of the planet was all part of some banker's get-rich-quick scheme seems to indicate that this story, as well as having similar thematic elements as those listed above, was too stuck in a certain period of actual-history i.e. the 1980s. Admittedly, Mr Davies has said that his story was a re-hash of an earlier story submitted to the then-production office during the Murdoch empire-building years. Yet it is stale for modern audiences. If, for example, the story had been set on earth during the eighties, still with the monster etc (although various elemts would have to be 'tweaked' to become contextually real rather than fantastical) then a direct critique against the power of television could have been made (a forgotten example of media manipulation is John Carpenter's 'They Live' which although short on many a dramatic situation, useds the idea of media manipulation adroitly). It just did not seem to have a decent enough 'hook' to justify the entire story. I know that 45 minutes is a short time to develop an entire story, but it can be done. However, this story seemed incredibly rushed both in execution and storytelling. For example, the Doctor and co immediately get taken to the television chamber where Cathica 'plugs' herself into the network. What happened to the plot exposition scene which shows how the Doctor et al got there? Poor, poor storytelling. It's okay to suspend disbelief, but let's have some credibility in there somewhere, if only from a directorial point of view. And talking of poor directorial abilities...

THIRDLY: Whilst 'Dalek' and 'World War Three' were given a sense of a director in charge of his material, 'The Long Game' seemed to be sadly lacking in most instances. For example, when the Doctor, Rose and Adam first step into the space station, the resultant imagery is so jumbled (yes, I suppose the space station is overcrowded) that any sense of 'place' is actually dissipated. By using a rapid-editing style, the audience is fed the message that the place is bustling. Yet, I cannot believe this at all. Perhaps if a better image of, say, a high-shot looking down at crowds of (CGI crowds of) people had been used then this would give a better example of 'a crowd'. If one takes the end scene of 'The End of the World' in juxtaposition to this, which sees Rose wanting a bag of chips (mmm... chips!) then a simple two-shot of the Doctor and Rose walking through a crowded street is done simply and economically, with no hint of directorial 'fussiness', which is unlike the similar opening scenes of Saturday's episode. Admittedly, there were some nice directorial sweeps - the finding of the dead body in that freezing ante-chamber stands out as simple yet effective, rather than fussy and rushed; yet, the whole directorial tone was steadfastly uncontrolled unlike say, 'Dalek' which was a high-point in the series so far.

Fourthly: Characterisation. I love Rose's character; witty, funny, spunky and a 'real' companion for once, which throughout the series has only ever happened twice before with Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright. Rose is meant to help and guide us through the adventures. The character does this with style. The Doctor? Well, I like the fact that he's nasty and irritable, fun and adventurous, chivalrous and romantic, morose and manic - a good melding of previous incarnations. It seems to me, however, that Mr Davies has turned these two into Mrs Peel and John Steed of 'The Avengers'. The last scene of 'The Long Game' is testament to this (as well as the red and black outfit worn by Ms Piper which suits the iconic status of the similarly-garbed Diana Rigg in various episodes of the said 'The Avengers'). For example, with Adam (thankfully) booted out of the way, the Doctor sais that he will only accept the best of companions in the TARDIS. Therefore, a friendship akin to Steed and Mrs Peel has grown between the two characters, and for this, Mr Davies is to be applauded. Yet, in this story, every character was either under-used or badly written/performed for. Why was an actress like Tamsin Greig only allowed two rather ineffectual scenes? She had all the aura of becoming a sinister character, yet this was not followed through. Adam? Badly written, poorly performed and exhibiting all the hallmarks of an Adric. Thank goodness he was gotten rid of. Yes, I know that Mr Davies has said that he wanted Adam to show the good and evil in everyone, but the part was so underwritten, that unlike say Turlough who had the ability of a long-ish run of stories to stand him in good stead for developmental purposes, or Grace from the telemovie, who became instantly likeable with a backstory to create empathy towards, this character of Adam had all the hallmarks of something not properly thought out. I can't say it's a shame, because I thought that Mr Langley's acting style was not particularly good, compared to Ms Piper or Mr Eccleston's. And what a waste of Simon Pegg - so obviously a great choice for the Master. Whilst obviously relishing the part of the Editor, it seems that again, his role was underwritten. Yes, I know that 45 minutes is difficult to get information across, but why 'waste' such a good actor and a well-known one at that in a role that demanded more screen time, rather than concentrating on the Cathica and Suki characters who were bland to the point of inconsequentiality? A shame.

I suppose that there would be downpoints in every Doctor Who season. It's such a shame that this story, which had some nice touches, has come off the back of 'Dalek' which was the highpoint of the series thus far. Whilst some parts of 'The Long Game' were genuinely nice and enjoyable, I get the feeling that perhaps Mr Davies has taken on the mantle of 'saviour of Doctor Who' a bit too far and is relishing his job or 'aura' more than actually concentrating on the drama that has made the programme fantastic. Whilst Mr Gatiss and Mr Shearman have made 'complete' narratives, with beginnings middles and ends, it would appear that whereas Mr Davies has created two great characters in the Doctor and Rose, giving them lovely touches of back stories and great emotional dialogue, his actual storytelling skills have let him down. That's not to say that his stories are unenjoyable, far from it. It's just that with him being the guiding force behind the programme, perhaps writing six or so of this seasons stories was simply too much for him. With him only writing five of next years stories, then this must surely be a blessing for the programme, for without good storytelling, which he seems to strive for yet not quite attain, then the programme may collapse inwards into self-referential twaddle which it is on the brink of doing now. Whilst I applaud Mr Davies for helping (and I stress helping) the show into the new televisual age, perhaps he should now concentrate on good storytelling or executive producing - for to do the two jobs simultaneously would surely be to the detriment of the programme. And that is something no fan wants.