I've forgiven him in the past, as I enjoyed the ride to get there.
In the chicken and egg Universe... do I have a Masters in Film & Media because I get immense stimulation from visual storytelling... or is that because I get immense stimulation from visual storytelling that I have...
In moving image, in fan terms, I've always been able to forgive plot and character problems, if the pace and visual storytelling carries me past it. It means I've genuinely got real enjoyment out of stuff I know is pants. But it's pants on its own measure, if that makes sense. The bits in it that I respond to, are internally consistent. So I can ignore the lesser bits, and still declare it satisfying... and within it's own terms, 'good'. In current jargon, I like 'high concept' moving image. Where the 'event' of the pace, effects and emotional manipulation takes over. Plot takes over from narrative, action takes over from character development, etc. Very much Davies. You forgive the 'other' skills in writing, the cause and effect relationship, the character interaction and growth, the slow and steady working into a new scenario building to chance and growth.. in order to have a lot more bang for your buck.
I have done this, as you know, with a lot of the new Who stuff.
However. As you point out above, he completely stuffed the writing, and the audience. He broke the terms of the agreement. So there is no forgiving of the problems.
And with RTD, once you let in one plot and character and narrative problem, the entire house of cards fall. So it's ash in seconds.
Technically, he is a gifted writer and visual storyteller. The ones who liked it, are still responding to the over all "grab and take you with it" I'd suggest.
What I think is interesting, is that in terms of what makes a writer "great" is more than their technical expertise. It's their soul. It's their expression of meaning. Fantastic writers are people who are technically proficient AND have soul. We all know writers who have great soul, but can't write worth a damn. You forgive it, as the story which illuminates the soul bit, keeps you going. Great storytellers, not that good as writers.
Rarer, is it really good technical writing, and not much soul. Davies can be a superb technical writer in visual storytelling... grabs you by the throat and keeps you going past the epic structural problems.
However, this time, the lack of soul was just so blatant. And really, he broke his own technical prowess. He constructed one story... and delivered another, in the final moments. Shoddy shoddy work.
And the people who are really seeing it.. are writers. The ones who understand the craft. We're looking at the skeleton and bones, and others are still seeing the flesh and costume.
A lot of people I know feel betrayed by it, but they don't know _why_. They understand they have been taken for a ride and the _should_ feel elated... but they don't, they feel sick. Watching a child being shaken to death makes then feel sick. But they know it 'had to happen'. But emotionally, in their soul, they understand it was 'wrong'. And there is conflict between their feeling pleased by the power of the drama, and their moral/soul sense.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-07-12 03:01 pm (UTC)In the chicken and egg Universe... do I have a Masters in Film & Media because I get immense stimulation from visual storytelling... or is that because I get immense stimulation from visual storytelling that I have...
In moving image, in fan terms, I've always been able to forgive plot and character problems, if the pace and visual storytelling carries me past it. It means I've genuinely got real enjoyment out of stuff I know is pants. But it's pants on its own measure, if that makes sense. The bits in it that I respond to, are internally consistent. So I can ignore the lesser bits, and still declare it satisfying... and within it's own terms, 'good'. In current jargon, I like 'high concept' moving image. Where the 'event' of the pace, effects and emotional manipulation takes over. Plot takes over from narrative, action takes over from character development, etc. Very much Davies. You forgive the 'other' skills in writing, the cause and effect relationship, the character interaction and growth, the slow and steady working into a new scenario building to chance and growth.. in order to have a lot more bang for your buck.
I have done this, as you know, with a lot of the new Who stuff.
However. As you point out above, he completely stuffed the writing, and the audience. He broke the terms of the agreement. So there is no forgiving of the problems.
And with RTD, once you let in one plot and character and narrative problem, the entire house of cards fall. So it's ash in seconds.
Technically, he is a gifted writer and visual storyteller. The ones who liked it, are still responding to the over all "grab and take you with it" I'd suggest.
What I think is interesting, is that in terms of what makes a writer "great" is more than their technical expertise. It's their soul. It's their expression of meaning. Fantastic writers are people who are technically proficient AND have soul. We all know writers who have great soul, but can't write worth a damn. You forgive it, as the story which illuminates the soul bit, keeps you going. Great storytellers, not that good as writers.
Rarer, is it really good technical writing, and not much soul. Davies can be a superb technical writer in visual storytelling... grabs you by the throat and keeps you going past the epic structural problems.
However, this time, the lack of soul was just so blatant. And really, he broke his own technical prowess. He constructed one story... and delivered another, in the final moments. Shoddy shoddy work.
And the people who are really seeing it.. are writers. The ones who understand the craft. We're looking at the skeleton and bones, and others are still seeing the flesh and costume.
A lot of people I know feel betrayed by it, but they don't know _why_. They understand they have been taken for a ride and the _should_ feel elated... but they don't, they feel sick. Watching a child being shaken to death makes then feel sick. But they know it 'had to happen'. But emotionally, in their soul, they understand it was 'wrong'. And there is conflict between their feeling pleased by the power of the drama, and their moral/soul sense.