They that have power to hurt, and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmoved, cold, and to temptation slow;
They rightly do inherit heaven's graces,
And husband nature's riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others, but stewards of their excellence.
The summer's flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself, it only live and die,
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds.

Shakespeare'sQuill.co.uk

Welcome
HomeAboutSundryExit
MonaLipschitz

Is anyone afraid of Virginia Woolf? Whatever became of Baby Jane? These are just some things you won't find out here.

Current

Book: Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman.
Sounds: Adele.
TV: Rich Tea and Sympathy.
Subject: Russian (Unit 3).
Site: The Ministry of Burlesque.
Wiki: Ancient Rome.
Project: Sequin Studio.
Dailies: Arkadina | Pepys | Chaucer | Bronte | MedievalSoc.
Sponsor: Text Link Ads.

The Forsyte Saga

Marquis: What shall we do with these young women, Mont? No sense of service, no continuity, no figures, no hair.

Visitors


6 Online · 37 Today · 33,870 (

free hit counter javascript
) since February 2007.
Powered by MyPagerank.Net
Valid CSS & XHTML

Persiflage on Entertainment
Persiflage HomeAbout PersiflageCategoriesArchivesSearchDisclosure Policy

per •si •flage [pur-suh-flahzh, pair-] noun 1. light, bantering talk or writing. 2. a frivolous or flippant style of treating a subject (source).
Origin: 1757, from Fr. persiflage, from persifler "to banter," from L. per- "through" + Fr. siffler "to whistle, hiss," from collateral form of L. sibilare "to hiss," possibly of imitative origin (source).

TV, Life and the Universe with Shakespeare’s Quill.

 

The following entry is a replacement for a planned post concerning Wimbledon which has been rained off.

Did you see the 3rd series finale of Dr Who, ‘Last of the Time Lords’? I’m not sure what to make of it. This series has been my favourite so far, with a marvellous new addition to the regular cast along with some imaginative and diverse plotlines, and I still think that Russell T. Davis’s writing is among the most reliable and trustworthy on television at the moment but I can’t help feeling that something’s gone awry. I was let down by the conclusion and, I hate to admit this, I’m not excited about the Christmas special.

Beware! There will be spoilers.

Before I sound as though I hated the whole thing I’ll start with the usual good things. There were top-notch performances, excellent CGI, nice little tie-ins with past episodes and with Torchwood and some terrific music.

However, there were three things that left me feeling cheated of the finish, I feel, the rest of the series had promised. Firstly, Martha leaving?! Yes, it’s left open for her to call the Doctor, and if Richard of Richard and Judy is right she will be back for the next series but it doesn’t make for a satisfying ending. Martha’s a strong and fiesty character, with intellect and drive so the ‘will she/won’t she’ thing isn’t working for me. Martha’s decisive: either she’s with the Doctor or she isn’t.

Messing around like that is just manipulating the audience. While I know the job of a writer is to create a tension by manipulating the audience, but isn’t the trick to ensure they don’t notice that? If they feel manipulated you run the risk of alienating or insulting the very people you’re trying to entertain. That’s certainly how I felt watching it.

The second problem I had was with the end of The Master. Refusing to regenerate! What a let down and a cop out.

Great scene for Tennant though. But isn’t killing off the Doctor’s best villain a bit like shooting yourself in the foot? I do so hope that Davis has a wonderful plan for his resurrection. Something that isn’t obvious, such as using the object lifted out of The Master’s ashes. That felt a little rushed to me. As though someone thought they’d made a mistake and had to rectify it quickly. Although the death could be a great opportunity to cast another actor of the calibre of Derek Jacobi – more villainous in his few minutes than Simm in two full-length episodes.

The last cheat was the revelation about the Face of Boe. Two characters being one! No. No. No. The phrase that springs to mind isn’t one I want to appear in type. As a long-time fan of the show I’m just plain unhappy about that. Apart from my love of the general gorgeousness that is Captain Jack and indignation about what this then makes him, it just doesn’t make sense.

In series 2 the face of Boe told the Doctor he had something to impart the third time they met; how would Boe know which time that would be when technically they’ve travelled together many times before? I just can’t figure it out because every time I try to work out the timelines it still works out that Boe knows they’ve met many more times than that so how does he know the Doctor doesn’t know that? I’m confused. Russell T. Davis, I’m on my knees, please explain it soon.

I applaud the concept of ‘The Pen is Mightier’ behind the revival of the Doctor but telepathy reversing time and leading to levitation asked me to suspend my disbelief a step too far, even for Sci-Fi. The effect it’s had is that I don’t care that the Titanic has crashed into the Tardis now. Last week I would have.

What did you think about it all? Did anyone actually find it satisfying?

Thank you for the replies (0):

Posited by MonaLipschitz on 04-Jul-07.

Thank you for the replies (0):

Posited by MonaLipschitz on 12-May-07.

Thank you for the replies (0):

Posited by MonaLipschitz on 01-May-07.

Thank you for the replies (2):

Posited by MonaLipschitz on 22-Mar-07.

Thank you for the replies (0):

Posited by MonaLipschitz on 17-Mar-07.

« Older postsHome« Older posts

Posts RSS & Comments RSS
Powered by WP, with Technorati, FMB, Heynounce & Digg.

This site was brought to you by chocolate, swearing and the number 78. Unless otherwsie stated the graphics, coding and contents of this and all subsidiary sites are Copyright © MonaLipschitz 2003-2009 ... Made in the UK.