![]() “Love & Monsters” utilizes this concept effectively. ![]() Since, by definition, a true found footage episode would be less focused on the Doctor, it would allow the audience a unique, almost voyeuristic perspective on the Time Lord. The companion, an audience surrogate, asks questions, which the Time Lord answers, feeding information to the viewer in a way that is less overt than an infodump. In most episodes, the Doctor/companion dynamic is structured to allow the Doctor to be the de facto narrator. Yes, a found footage episode of Doctor Who can be done well – – see the fiftieth anniversary minisode, “The Last Day,” as an example – – but it requires a vastly different narrative style and tone than a traditional adventure. Rather than constraining itself to footage from, say, Clara’s cell phone, the rescue team’s helmet or chest cams, or the station’s closed-circuit television (the lack of which strains credulity), and then rising to the task of explaining how said footage becomes edited together, “Sleep No More” presents “sleep dust” as having vague video recording and transmitting properties to explain its continued use of traditional, omniscient camera angles. The joy of watching a found footage film is in appreciating how filmmakers cleverly tell a complete story using only the specific camera angles that can be believably justified within the context of the narrative. To differentiate its timeworn plot, the episode is presented as found footage, a narrative challenge that “Sleep No More” doesn’t even pretend to meet. Sandman,” being the worst offender – – the episode seems to be a 25-minute idea stretched to fit a 45-minute run time. With several scenes contributing nothing to the overall plot – – Deep-Ando having to sing “Mr. ![]() A standard “base under siege” episode with an unoriginal “new technology has a nasty, unforeseen side effect” plot, “Sleep No More” seems better suited as a comic strip adventure in a Doctor Who Annual. Unfortunately, Gatiss’ latest script most resembles his previous “Cold War,” which failed to capitalize on the potential inherent to its title. For every Gatiss-penned episode that finds just the right balance between madcap adventure and dark science fiction (“The Unquiet Dead,” “The Crimson Horror”), or that capably mines the emotional context of its characters (“Night Terrors”), there is an episode as nonsensical as “The Idiot’s Lantern,” boring and joyless as “Victory of the Daleks,” or inane as “Robot of Sherwood.” This is part of the reason why it is so frustrating that his episodes are wildly uneven. Like Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat, or David Tennant and Peter Capaldi, Gatiss is a life-long Whovian both talented and lucky enough to actually affect Doctor Who’s official canon. It’s difficult to not cheer on Mark Gatiss. Share on X (Twitter) Share on Facebook Share on Reddit Share on WhatsApp Share on E-mailĬlint Hassell gives his verdict on the ninth episode of Series 9.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |