The Long Game

So, what did I like about The Long Game?

It was nice to see the (pregnant!) Face of Boe. The way Adam was 'seduced' by the creepy/sexy/maternal nurse into having the implant was believable - the temptation and eventual submission were well portrayed, and I found myself thinking, "Yes, Adam is wrong, but in his place, I'd be sorely tempted."

The editor was exactly the kind of man who will serve an unjust ruler loyally, and take sadistic pleasure in the power this gives him, but will ditch his master without a moment's hesitation when the game is up.

It's true the editor was played as a comedy villain, but I thought Simon Pegg's somewhat pantomime performance didn't reduce the character to a stock meglomaniac. He's not evil, he's not insane, he's an ordinary, everyday bastard, just like your boss. It pains me to say it, but to me the editor felt a lot more real as a person than Davros ever did.

As for what I didn't like...The sets and costumes looked like they were trying to do Blade Runner on the cheap. I'm sorry, but adding smoke and garish colour scheme to burgervans and background characters with punky hair does not look futuristic. It looks like 'futuristic' looked in 1981.

The Doctor has gone from being annoyingly enthusiastic with a big cheesy grin, to being impatient, judgemental, and inconsiderate of everyone except Rose. Why does he almost simper over Rose while being unfair and hostile to Adam (and indeed Mickey). This isn't a love story, and as RTD knows perfectly well, the doctor has never had a sexuality. At least, not the kind that ordinary humans have.

The dead Suki grabbing the editor's foot as he tried to make a run for it. The way the Doctor estimated the duration of technological retardation to a year's accuracy - progress just doesn't work like that! Yet another 'bad wolf' reference. All these things annoyed in small ways.

More than all that, the question I came away asking was not "How did the big monster on the ceiling get there?" It was "Why is Adam in the script at all?"

Perhaps this is just RTD playing games with audiance expectations - introducing a new companion, then instead of having the doctor travel with them for a while, dump them immidiately. So the whole point of introducing Adam was to surprise us by dropping him. This is the kind of pseudo-interesting idea beloved of students on Media Studies couses - and yes, I was one of those a long time ago.

Besides, hasn't it already been done? Wasn't there a female companion introduced in the Hartnall era who was killed in the next adventure?

Maybe Adam is there to keep the gay male viewers entertained. Whereas once there was Louise Jameson's bikini to keep the dads watching, we now have the cute gay boy from that soap opera. Written by gay blokes, watched by more gay blokes, and played by a straight one.

No. I don't think the reason is as vaccuous as that. I think the only reason to give Adam half the plot of an episode, and leave him in schtuck back on earth, is to reintroduce him later. Give us a companion, make us care about him by giving him a sympathetic subplot and lots of screen time, drop him in a dangerous situation ("They'll dissect you in seconds"), leave him - and us - to stew and worry for a few weeks, then bring him back. We'd be pleased to see the familiar face, a dangling plotline gets resolved, and we get to see him saved and redeemed. The doctor admits he behaved like a judgemental arsehole (which he did - very strange characterisation), and lets Adam back on the TARDIS. We'll see, I suppose.

The satire in New Who is welcome. But the problem is, it's just so patronising. In World War Three we had "Massive Weapons of Destruction, capable of being launched in 45 seconds". This is a good throwaway line - it makes it's point, brings a smile of recognition, and doesn't bog the action down by being long or didactic. But then the line got repeated by Andrew Marr. And then again by a TV presenter. It's like RTD assumes we're too slow to 'get' the joke first time. The point is laboured further when Harriet(?) asks something like "Will people believe it, just because it's on television?" and Rose replys, "It worked last time".

Having 'done' the war, we now get Immigration 'tackled' in The Long Game. What the editor says is substantially correct, "A word in the right place, repeated often enough...Create a climate of fear, and it's easy to keep the borders closed". Cathica's vague, puzzled justification for the lack of aliens, about "all the threats", none of which she can specifically remember, is absolutely in keeping with the easily manipulated public who like to think they're well informed and liberal.

Politics is nothing new to Doctor Who. The Masque of Mandragora and The Curse of Peladon were concerned with social manipulation through religion. Full Circle and The Sun Makers used notions of economic class. And so on. The political content is less intrusive in The Long Game than in World War Three - perhaps because it's more integral to the plot - but I still feel like I'm being lectured on basic media theory by a well meaning but finger-wagging teacher.

The Long Game wasn't actually bad. It was just uninteresting. I think we're entitled to more from Doctor Who.