"A Town Called Mercy" review

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

MORALS AND SHOOTING AND WAR CRIMINALS AND SUCH: I suppose the morality play part of this was fairly interesting and relatively well done to start with, but ultimately the resolution was quite predictable.  I did sit up straight when the Doctor ranted about how many people have died because of his "mercy" but I never really thought the Doctor would give up the bad guy and the ease with which Amy changed his mind seemed a bit anti-climactic. If you're not going to answer these questions any differently than before, why bring it up?

GUNS: Yes, the Doctor DOES use guns. And weapons which are much worse than guns, for that matter. And no, it's not any different from Ten waving that gun around in The End of Time. The Doctor has always gone a bit "dark" when facing big personal changes.

YOU NEED A COMPANION: This theme of the Doctor going a bit mad when he travels around on his own was touched on in RTD-era Who and it worked quite well there. But this really isn't the time to resurrect that theme, because as viewers we rarely see the Doctor away from his companions. And in any case, you can't say one minute "you shouldn't travel on your own" and then next minute say "actually, we want to go home for a bit." It doesn't work.

DIALOGUE: Toby Whithouse does write the Doctor's voice quite well. I particularly liked his bit about the stones and the wood and yes also the bit about Susan the horse who will no doubt cause a bit of controversy (although so far I've seen people complain of "pandering" to the trans community - really??!!). Also the bits about Rory's toast crumbs and phone charger, although it might have been nice to give Arthur Darvill some lines to say too at some point. Not keen on that whole "you're a mother/are you a father" speech. Not necessarily because of gender roles but because it's boring and trite. Still, the dialogue and the acting were the best bits of this for me.

THE ACTUAL STORY, MINUS THE MORAL QUESTIONS: Not much actually happens, does it? It actually feels like I'm watching a play designed to pose moral questions rather than a fast-paced TV show that wants to entertain and pose questions at the same time. Also, I wasn't really clear on the final plan at the end or what the point was in having people draw on their faces when it could only lead to more unavoidable casualties.

THE CYBORG THING: Not all that sympathetic, looked a bit like something from Red Dwarf.

THE WAR CRIMINAL DUDE: Okay, so if a Nazi war criminal was living in your community and if he'd been a town doctor who saved you all from cholera, maybe, just MAYBE you might think about sticking up for him at first. But when the townspeople start getting killed? THROW HIM TO THE WOLVES. Luckily he saves everyone from making the responsible decision by making it himself. I'm sorry if this comes across as bloodthirsty, but there were children in that town after all.

THE ACTING: The acting made it all okay. Ben Browder, Adrian Scarborough, Matt Smith and Karen Gillan were all on their game here. And although Arthur Darvill had very little to do, his facial expressions are always good. He gives good face.

THE WESTERN PASTICHE: Probably works better on people who have watched actual Westerns and not just homages to them. It all looked very nice, at least.

OVERALL: Umm... 6/10. It wasn't bad by any means, just a bit dull and not quite as clever as it thinks it is. If this is the worst episode of the season, I'll be over the moon.

NEXT WEEK: Look there was a shot of Rory in his underpants and from that point on I stopped paying attention, okay? But "The Power of Three" still sounds like a line from an advert for multi-coloured toothpaste.

Comments

[loolaa.livejournal.com]

I agree with pretty much all of this.
What I liked best about this episode was the handful of one liners at the beginning, the rest I wasn't too impressed with. It's not an episode I'll watch again any time soon, though I didn't hate it.
It kind of felt like I'd watched it before, only this time in a Western setting.

THE CYBORG THING: Not all that sympathetic, looked a bit like something from Red Dwarf.
It was bugging me for ages what bothered me about it. THIS is exactly what it was, I just couldn't put my finger on it.

[hilandmum.livejournal.com]

I have to comment on this:

Not keen on that whole "you're a mother/are you a father" speech. Not necessarily because of gender roles but because it's boring and trite.

Personally, I welcomed it, since there's been absolutely no mention or even reference to River this season. However, the conversation didn't really go anywhere, did it?

I agree with most of the rest of your post.

[rabiya-al-basri.livejournal.com]

Susan the horse who will no doubt cause a bit of controversy (although so far I've seen people complain of "pandering" to the trans community - really??!!)

He still used the pronoun "he." It wasn't trans inclusive, it was transphobic. AND Susan's identity was *clearly* intended as a joke to the audience (even if not to the Doctor), the same way Stormageddon's name was. Pandering to the trans community ROFL, fake inclusion hooray.

The "you're a mother" conversation was so unbelievably trite. And it added nothing. SO MUCH OF THIS EPISODE WAS JUST STALLING.

YOU NEED A COMPANION: This theme of the Doctor going a bit mad when he travels around on his own was touched on in RTD-era Who and it worked quite well there. But this really isn't the time to resurrect that theme, because as viewers we rarely see the Doctor away from his companions. And in any case, you can't say one minute "you shouldn't travel on your own" and then next minute say "actually, we want to go home for a bit." It doesn't work.

Every word of this, right on the head. What the hell.

Also, *NO ONE WAS APPALLED* when he calmly said that he decommissioned--murdered--all his cyborgs after the war. WHAT THE HELL.

My biggest problem with the episode was how incredibly heavy-handed it was. There was a lot of deliberating and "find another solution!" but no actual attempt to do so. And, what, we're supposed to just let him run off wherever, no consequences or accountability? And then, oh, he commits suicide (which ultimately robs Gunslinger of his revenge?)? Neither of these were satisfying or good ways out.

Endings that could've been less terrible:
1)Doctor drags them both off to some criminal court for Mr War Criminal to answer for his crimes.

2)Forcing Mr War Criminal into Gunslinger's service, somehow. "You can't harm him unless he runs away or refuses to make you breakfast."

3)Finding a place for Gunslinger in the Dendarii Mercenaries...oh wait that's another canon. Uhh...Torchwood? He should work for Torchwood. At any rate, somewhere where he can have actual friends and not be alone all the time.

Ironically, by having him commit suicide, the basic message the show sends is that redemption = death......... why shouldn't they all have just let the gunslinger kill him then? And, I mean, it wasn't even a meaningful death to save the world, it was just "I'm gonna kill myself, and by the way Mercy, no more electricity and heating for you." (Though I suppose that rids the Doctor the rather onerous task of having to take the ship away from them himself to protect the planet's timeline...)

...

The episode punts on what are, I think, the most interesting questions it raises:

1)Who gets to decide what is justice here? It's clearly not Mercy, AZ, and it's also not the Doctor, but it can't really just be Gunslinger alone, either.

2)OK, how do you judge the actions of wartime in peace then? Coz you still have to.

(this is the one that gets me the most)
3)What *do* you do with these engineered super-soldiers who 'have no place in peace'? YOU DON'T JUST "DECOMMISSION" THEM THAT'S FOR SURE.

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

"He still used the pronoun "he." It wasn't trans inclusive, it was transphobic."

I think it was either an uninformed and misjudged attempt at trans inclusion, or it was a joke which I found funny mainly because it saw a Christian preacher confronted with the idea of non-traditional gender roles. I won't argue that it was a good attempt at transinclusion, because it wasn't. I don't think it was intentionally transphobic though. When non-LGBT writers attempt LGBT inclusion, they will inevitably get it wrong on occasion.

The "pandering" allegation made me furious though, because what the fuck?

"Also, *NO ONE WAS APPALLED* when he calmly said that he decommissioned--murdered--all his cyborgs after the war. WHAT THE HELL."

I missed this happening. To be fair, I was starting to get distracted by the point when they were discussing these things.

As far as the whole moral conundrum goes... I just wish "Doctor Who" wouldn't attempt this stuff. Because I get that it's a show largely watched by children and their families, and therefore maybe you don't want the Doctor killing people every week, but at the same time adults do watch this and if you raise complex moral questions they're going to expect a thoughtful answer.

And for me, this sort of idealistic "we should never kill anyone - even if it's a war criminal, even if people's lives are in danger" is just bullshit. I feel like slapping everyone involved and going "stop being so naive and GROW UP. OF COURSE you have the right, it's YOUR children and YOUR family on the line. Throw the war criminal to the gunslinger." And I kind of wanted Amy to shut up too, because she's wrong. She's just WRONG.

Because I don't ultimately buy the line that "never killing anyone" is the moral thing to do. The moral thing to do is always protecting the most vulnerable people, not extending everyday morality to extraordinary situation.

[rabiya-al-basri.livejournal.com]

There's nothing hard about "respect trans identities"--whoever wrote the damn episode obviously knows that's something trans people find important because he made respecting trans people's identities the butt of a joke.

It's very typical faux-inclusion as done by people who despise us--who think we deserve no respect whatsoever, so even making fun of us is "inclusion." See also Family Guy's trans episode (http://bitchmagazine.org/post/family-guy-reaching-new-transmysogynic-lows), whose creator Seth McFarlane claims "It’s probably the most sympathetic portrayal of a transsexual character that has ever been on television, dare I say." and said that any LGBT person who found it offensive and transphobic was stupid, and trans misogynistic hatred is just how straight guys are biologically wired (http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=2764).

Seriously, I've had enough of that kind of "inclusion." If they *actually respected us at all* they wouldn't think this kind of bullshit was inclusive.

[randomgirl666.livejournal.com]

Comment is unspammed now. I had to select the option on LJ where it blocks unrecognised domains because that was the only way to keep porn-spam comments off the comm.

Obviously I don't know Toby Whithouse's views on trans issues so I can't comment on his intentions. And Seth McFarlane has a long history of just being wrong about everything. He does not get it on any level. As far as Toby Whithouse goes, I don't even know if he would have registered "I am making a trans reference here."

But I respectfully have to disagree with the idea that people should automatically KNOW how to deal with these issues and that if they get it wrong, they must despise the group in question. I don't think it's the trans community's job to educate people, but the fact is we are all products of the time and social context we live in and none of us get to choose that. I'm not justifying prejudice and I certainly think it needs to be challenged where it appears (e.g. I totally agree with your point that they should have used female pronouns in respect to the horse), but the idea that everyone should know that they have to go and educate themselves before saying anything... how are they to know? Who will tell them?

It comes back to the same question that has applied to this LGBT-in-Doctor-Who thing from the beginning. Is any kind of representation automartically helpful or are certain types of representation to be avoided? A while ago, someone made a list of all the RTD-era LGBT references and I said "some of these are merely jokes, I don't know if they're all helpful." And someone bit my head off and said "it doesn't matter if it's just a joke because at least it shows the person is TRYING and at least it reinforces the idea that LGBT people exist as part of mainstream society and it's not something we have to keep from the children."

I still don't know if I agree with that or not. When it comes to something like Torchwood season 1, for example, I found the depiction of bisexuality highly offensive but I still feel on another level "oh well, at least they had a go." Because the safe option, one chosen by so many, is to just pretend that none of this exists.

[rabiya-al-basri.livejournal.com]

I responded but because it included links it was marked as spam. Can you un-spam it or do I need to de-link it?

[rabiya-al-basri.livejournal.com]

Also, Combatting 'Combatting Ignorance' (http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/combatting-combatting-ignorance-part-2-how-could-you-have-known-%e2%80%93you-already-did/) seems highly relevant here.