And as Hamlet remarks (perhaps because he is familiar with the ways of willow-trees), there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophy of a rationalist. Moffat knows that the scariest things are not chainsaws and tentacles but shadows and cracked plaster, and that the scariest things are also the most wonderful, wonderful and yet again wonderful.
Of course, it incorporated the mechanical into the magical... ALL THE THINGS. There were ALL THE THINGS and it was MAGICAL!
SO AMAZING. <3 And it was so perfectly British. And I don't think I've ever wanted to watch an Olympic opening ceremony again so that I could analyze it right *grin*
There was a moment as James Bond and the Queen were walking down the halls of the palace when I thought "If the Doctor shows up now, the pinacle of British media will have been reached, and we can all go home." So perhaps that's for the better, then, that that didn't happen. But for the record, I think the TARDIS should have plucked them out of mid-air, and then the Doctor would have stuck his head out and gone "Sorry . . . you lot! Oh, hello, look at you all! Just have to borrow them, for a quick moment. Don't worry, I'll have them back before you've even missed them. Just carry on with what you were doing . . ." And then they would push John Cleese out on stage to stall for time and he would go "ummm, and now for something completely different." And a bunch of men in drag would have rushed out onto the field to beat each other with their handbags.
^^^^ And what I love most is that I'm trying to joke about this, but that would not at all have been out of line with what actually happened.
Also had an interesting insight, as an American, of the extent to which the very idea of childhood, for us, is British. The platonic ideal, if you will. I wonder to what extent all things British feel comforting and nostalgic to us just because of the strength of that association.
SO AMAZING. <3 And it was so perfectly British. And I don't think I've ever wanted to watch an Olympic opening ceremony again so that I could analyze it right *grin* IKR? ALL of the EVERYTHING. *hands* Storiessssssss.
^^^^ And what I love most is that I'm trying to joke about this, but that would not at all have been out of line with what actually happened. *nods* beautifully, perfectly mad. <3 <3 <3
Also had an interesting insight, as an American, of the extent to which the very idea of childhood, for us, is British. Mmmmmm. Down the rabbit hole and off to Wonderland... Loved all the children btw. That was absolutely brilliant.
ALSO - I can has your clapping gif? The black & white one - I need it and can't find it and I know you have it. *looks hopeful*
Do you mean the one with the one guy clapping very slow and emphatically with that . . . almost a scowl on this face? Because I love that one. That's the one! I was SURE I'd saved it, but I haven't. And someone wrote an awesome post, and I need *that* gif in order to express my feelings. ::ponders where I've seen it::
ALSO - I can has your clapping gif? The black & white one - I need it and can't find it and I know you have it. *looks hopeful* If you're still wanting that gif, it's about halfway down this page:
(Made the mistake of reading a bit of the actual post, and grrr. 'And Therefore Ten is Superior To Eleven' stuff always gets me. It's not the fact that they like one better than the other, it's the subjective arguments. (OK, so all arguments are subjective, but it's like politics and statistics - you can make stuff say anything you like. I'm sure I could argue that the whole point of Buffy was cheese, if necessary. Besides, all the Doctor is one Doctor. /end rant)
A.A. Gill has a lovely piece in today's Sunday Times about how of course the show was brilliant (and foolish us for thinking it could be otherwise) - because one thing we are good at is theater. And it made me think of the whole deal with visual language etc, and relating this to DW...
I think Moffat is definitely working in the realm of theater/poetry, where as when I think of RTD I think 'drama'. Moffat uses the imagery of fairy tales to brilliant effect, whereas RTD goes for the human drama, and the surroundings are almost immaterial... (Couple of a beach = instant understanding).
Which is going over a lot of what we've said before, but I'd not put it in the context of ~theater~ as such. Moffat treats TV as if it were a theater (but with tons of extra cool effects - much like Danny Boyle used the stadium). RTD does TV more like Americans, and uses the medium in a more instinctual way (if that makes sense?). He gets to the heart of the personal.
Hmmmm *turns head sideways* You may be onto something there, though it's going to take me some re-arranging of my thoughts because, if you'd just asked me, I'd have said RTD Who was the more theater-like and Moff Who the more television-like, just because I so strongly associate RTD-Who with "old TV" and Moff Who with all the advancements of the new TV Golden Age. (But. Seriously. "Rose" feels like it's 15 years old. Like it belongs with early Buffy and that whole generation of television, which I know I've bitched about before.) I guess what I'm thinking about is how TV evolved out of theater and how the earliest tv shows were just aiming a camera at a stage (and some shows still are, like multi-camera sitcoms). Whereas so much of what we've done with TV in the last ten years feels like we are *just now* learning what this genre can really do and how it is different from other forms of media.
Also, I tend to think of David Tennant as a very "theatrical" actor, in the sense that I think he learned to act on a stage and is always acting for the stage: big acting so he can be seen in the back rows. Whereas MS isn't just acting for TV, but for high-def: so much of what he does is in little facial twitches and things you'd never pick up with the way tv used to be made.
Still, this may all be something else entirely from what you're getting at. When you say RTD goes for the "drama" that is very play-like, and fitting with that sense that his show is more like a play and that Tennant is acting for a play. Versus "theater" as spectacle, would seem to be something more Moffian . . . Actually, I remember thinking of RTD Who once, "I would like this better as an opera." And opera is very much a spectacle. Moff definitely has a more operatic sense of pacing, idiosyncratic as it is. Opera works on DRAMATIC EVENTS! interspersed with long stretches of people singing about their feelings. One act can cover years of time and another thirty minutes. As much as people say Moff is the one who is good at plot, I think RTD maintains a much more even sense of action. Also there's a difference to the quality of the emotionality of the two writers . . . I think you can accuse both of them of doing overblown emotions, and they both have their own ways of being subtle, but there's something about how Moff does emotions that is more *grabs at words* . . . it's just more operatic. And if you can explain to me what I mean by that, I shall be very happy.
And there is some way in which that theatricality is like poetry . . . it's less about *narrative* and more about a whole picture? About moments? About a bleeding, shifting sense of atmosphere and color and luminosity?
I think Moff also has a better sense of the ways in which the Doctor is theatrical and is more willing to turn over the whole apparatus of the show to service that theater? Like, Rusty knew that the Doctor liked to be theatrical, but we would stand there and watch him be theatrical. You felt like you were standing outside of it. Whereas if Moff's Doctor is being theatrical, he's pulling the strings of the whole show around you.
I'm quite enjoying the opening ceremony right now (tape delay FTW!) It's endearingly wacky. I just watched a bit with hospitalized children being terrified by giant, inflatable versions of Volemort & Captain Hook until Mary Poppinses parachuted in to save the day.
I'm enjoying the show, but I suspect it would make more sense medicated :D
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Warning: actual irony-free zone
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG
THEY ARE THE BEST THING EVER.
OOPS, BONUS ELEVENTY PILE:
WHAT, IT'S SPORT-RELATED.
Yes it is, Rory. Yes it is.
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
And as Hamlet remarks (perhaps because he is familiar with the ways of willow-trees), there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophy of a rationalist. Moffat knows that the scariest things are not chainsaws and tentacles but shadows and cracked plaster, and that the scariest things are also the most wonderful, wonderful and yet again wonderful.
Of course, it incorporated the mechanical into the magical... ALL THE THINGS. There were ALL THE THINGS and it was MAGICAL!
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
SO AMAZING. <3 And it was so perfectly British. And I don't think I've ever wanted to watch an Olympic opening ceremony again so that I could analyze it right *grin*
There was a moment as James Bond and the Queen were walking down the halls of the palace when I thought "If the Doctor shows up now, the pinacle of British media will have been reached, and we can all go home." So perhaps that's for the better, then, that that didn't happen. But for the record, I think the TARDIS should have plucked them out of mid-air, and then the Doctor would have stuck his head out and gone "Sorry . . . you lot! Oh, hello, look at you all! Just have to borrow them, for a quick moment. Don't worry, I'll have them back before you've even missed them. Just carry on with what you were doing . . ." And then they would push John Cleese out on stage to stall for time and he would go "ummm, and now for something completely different." And a bunch of men in drag would have rushed out onto the field to beat each other with their handbags.
^^^^ And what I love most is that I'm trying to joke about this, but that would not at all have been out of line with what actually happened.
Also had an interesting insight, as an American, of the extent to which the very idea of childhood, for us, is British. The platonic ideal, if you will. I wonder to what extent all things British feel comforting and nostalgic to us just because of the strength of that association.
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
*G*
SO AMAZING. <3 And it was so perfectly British. And I don't think I've ever wanted to watch an Olympic opening ceremony again so that I could analyze it right *grin*
IKR? ALL of the EVERYTHING. *hands* Storiessssssss.
^^^^ And what I love most is that I'm trying to joke about this, but that would not at all have been out of line with what actually happened.
*nods* beautifully, perfectly mad. <3 <3 <3
Also had an interesting insight, as an American, of the extent to which the very idea of childhood, for us, is British.
Mmmmmm. Down the rabbit hole and off to Wonderland... Loved all the children btw. That was absolutely brilliant.
ALSO - I can has your clapping gif? The black & white one - I need it and can't find it and I know you have it. *looks hopeful*
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
http://doctorwho.livejournal.com/6467777.html?thread=96486337#t96486337
Don't know if it's the one you were thinking of, but it's in that vein.
Do you mean the one with the one guy clapping very slow and emphatically with that . . . almost a scowl on this face? Because I love that one.
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
That's the one! I was SURE I'd saved it, but I haven't. And someone wrote an awesome post, and I need *that* gif in order to express my feelings. ::ponders where I've seen it::
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
If you're still wanting that gif, it's about halfway down this page:
http://patches365.livejournal.com/64688.html
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
(Made the mistake of reading a bit of the actual post, and grrr. 'And Therefore Ten is Superior To Eleven' stuff always gets me. It's not the fact that they like one better than the other, it's the subjective arguments. (OK, so all arguments are subjective, but it's like politics and statistics - you can make stuff say anything you like. I'm sure I could argue that the whole point of Buffy was cheese, if necessary. Besides, all the Doctor is one Doctor. /end rant)
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
A.A. Gill has a lovely piece in today's Sunday Times about how of course the show was brilliant (and foolish us for thinking it could be otherwise) - because one thing we are good at is theater. And it made me think of the whole deal with visual language etc, and relating this to DW...
I think Moffat is definitely working in the realm of theater/poetry, where as when I think of RTD I think 'drama'. Moffat uses the imagery of fairy tales to brilliant effect, whereas RTD goes for the human drama, and the surroundings are almost immaterial... (Couple of a beach = instant understanding).
Which is going over a lot of what we've said before, but I'd not put it in the context of ~theater~ as such. Moffat treats TV as if it were a theater (but with tons of extra cool effects - much like Danny Boyle used the stadium). RTD does TV more like Americans, and uses the medium in a more instinctual way (if that makes sense?). He gets to the heart of the personal.
Or maybe I'm just overthinking it...
(Good greif, we are GOING! See you later.)
Re: Warning: actual irony-free zone
Also, I tend to think of David Tennant as a very "theatrical" actor, in the sense that I think he learned to act on a stage and is always acting for the stage: big acting so he can be seen in the back rows. Whereas MS isn't just acting for TV, but for high-def: so much of what he does is in little facial twitches and things you'd never pick up with the way tv used to be made.
Still, this may all be something else entirely from what you're getting at. When you say RTD goes for the "drama" that is very play-like, and fitting with that sense that his show is more like a play and that Tennant is acting for a play. Versus "theater" as spectacle, would seem to be something more Moffian . . . Actually, I remember thinking of RTD Who once, "I would like this better as an opera." And opera is very much a spectacle. Moff definitely has a more operatic sense of pacing, idiosyncratic as it is. Opera works on DRAMATIC EVENTS! interspersed with long stretches of people singing about their feelings. One act can cover years of time and another thirty minutes. As much as people say Moff is the one who is good at plot, I think RTD maintains a much more even sense of action. Also there's a difference to the quality of the emotionality of the two writers . . . I think you can accuse both of them of doing overblown emotions, and they both have their own ways of being subtle, but there's something about how Moff does emotions that is more *grabs at words* . . . it's just more operatic. And if you can explain to me what I mean by that, I shall be very happy.
And there is some way in which that theatricality is like poetry . . . it's less about *narrative* and more about a whole picture? About moments? About a bleeding, shifting sense of atmosphere and color and luminosity?
I think Moff also has a better sense of the ways in which the Doctor is theatrical and is more willing to turn over the whole apparatus of the show to service that theater? Like, Rusty knew that the Doctor liked to be theatrical, but we would stand there and watch him be theatrical. You felt like you were standing outside of it. Whereas if Moff's Doctor is being theatrical, he's pulling the strings of the whole show around you.
no subject
ENJOY, BB!!!!
no subject
no subject
I'm enjoying the show, but I suspect it would make more sense medicated :D
no subject
And you don't need to be medicated, you just need to be British. Then it makes perfect sense. *g*