Doctor Who: Who is Missy?

It's being billed as a mystery - not just what the hell is going on with Doctor Who's dead-people-coming-back arc, not even what the grand plan is. But there's something else promised, most likely a cherry on the cake for fans. Because "Missy", is...?

"You know who I am..."

Well, everyone has their theories, and here are mine. One of them's probably true as they're a bit obvious, so if this spoils it for you, stop reading.

Missy is Clara!
Okay, this is a rather literal interpretation of the (possession?) scenes billed in the trailers. Of course Clara's good... isn't she? Whilst this is probably the safest option, I personally wouldn't want to see Clara's newfound personality explained away by having a dark secret.

Missy is the Doctor!
New Doctor, new bad guy, and they seem to be equals, so why not? It had precedent - an evil Doctor popped up in 1986, so maybe Missy is a side-effect of the new regeneration and linked to the new identity crisis. Is he a good man, or a good woman? A female future Doctor would be a good way to skirt around that issue. I wouldn't like to analyse her line about the Doctor being her boyfriend though!

Missy is the Master!
Which leads us onto this similar theory, only more out-and-out evil - the Doctor's arch nemesis, reborn. The last time we saw him, he was John Simm and probably trapped on Gallifrey. Now that's been saved, perhaps the Master had a new life cycle too? Would fans appreciate a bold new take on the character? (very bold, in places!)

Missy is The Rani! Or Romana! Or Susan!
Ones for the fans - the female Time Lords who haven't turned up yet in the series. Regenerating The Rani and Romana have been done recently in Big Finish, so anything's possible. But would they bring back characters last seen in the 80s?

Missy is the TARDIS!
No idea how that works, but it's appeared as a mad Victorian lady the other year.



Missy is River Song!
Oh come on, Alex Kingston only appeared last year.

Missy is somebody who was sneakily introduced only a few episodes ago!
You see that little girl who pops up in the middle of that episode you didn't like very much? That was her!!

Missy is God/Missy is the Devil!

Frankly, for Doctor Who, that would be a cop-out. 

Six Reasons Why I Love Wolfblood

Wolfblood is currently experiencing its third series run on CBBC and I think it's one of the best dramas on TV, genuinely doing solid and extraordinary things, full stop. I've written about it before on this blog, but two years on, it's clear to see why it's ahead of the opposition:

1. It's a serial show. With Wolfblood you get more out of it if you started watching from the start, discovering the main characters' special abilities in the first episode (super-powered werewolf-like humans), and the gradual layering of new characters and events. More than that, the characters properly develop and show new sides, almost every week too. I was genuinely surprised in the first series how much they probed into the character's lives - Maddy's best mate Shannon's monster-spotting obsession being properly addressed, or later on with the slow and subtle romantic and non-romantic friendships between characters. Plotlines have been introduced that pay off later on, and plot elements that have proved useful before are taken for granted.

2. It's a fast show. Big things happen every week - big for the young characters and audience, like falling out with friends. And more importantly, it doesn't patronise its audience by undoing things after each episode. The secret of Wolfbloods living among us must be kept secret, and that's always a danger. Those high-stakes moments - at the series finales, or the threat of doctors running tests - feel like the whole thing could suddenly come crashing down.

3. It's not a scary show, it's not horror. The creator, Debbie Moon, envisaged her "werewolves" as normal people with superpowers - superpowered hearing, smell, the ability to run really fast and dealing with becoming a wolf at every full moon. That's particularly present in the most recent two-parter when one of the characters gets to experience what it's like as a Wolfblood. Stripped from the horror tropes, it becomes pure character drama with cool fantasy moments. And whilst there's sometimes big angry wolves, the scariness comes from characters messing up or getting found out, rather than death or getting attacked.

4. It's a realistic show, even with the fantasy elements (no, especially because of the fantasy elements, because without them you wouldn't be able to broach some of the subjects so easily). Whilst a lot of children's telly has a school setting, this really feels like the characters go to school - they get told off for skipping lessons, they have parents, they hang out at school at lunch break or in the toilets. Perhaps in another show the mundanity of French class and school assemblies would ground the rest of the fantasy and provide a safe haven before they go out to fight monsters. In this show, the monsters come from inside you, and school life provides enough drama for some episodes. As it's telly, we only see one class of course (well it's a tiny rural village!), but all of British school life is represented here: the sporty boys, the mean girls, the geeks, the loners, and the people who fall into the gaps. And the teacher Mr Jeffries is a real teacher too - like all the other (often more wolflike!) antagonists, he's not evil, he has interests and humour and warmth. That's what I've liked about the wild Wolfbloods and urban Wolfbloods introduced in series 2 and 3 - whilst they pose a threat to our main characters, they're always painted in shades of grey. No out-and-out evil villainy, that wouldn't be interesting enough.

5. It's a funny show, especially as the writers and actors have stretched their wings as they've gone on. The supporting cast of fellow school pupils might on the surface be a bunch of archetypes, but the strong polarised characters allows for some amazing moments and realistically snarky remarks. Recently the girl gang of The Three Ks have had some brilliant hilarious scenes (plus some brilliant drama), the writing and acting now honed over the three series to pitch perfect levels. There's variety in the humour too (bad dad jokes and insults to slapstick and farce) and a lot of it is refreshingly honest and grown-up for a show like this.

6. It's an amazing looking show, with a visual style and sound that's unlike anything on CBBC or elsewhere, and feels very assured from the first episode. The music has a wild folky quality (topped off by the theme song), even if ultra-modern chart music sometimes intrudes. There's bright yellow eyes, a wild muddy forest, slow-mo and stunts and night shoots. It's very impressive work all round - this series there's been seriously impressive closeups, drone shots, split-screen, the works. All this and CGI wolves! Rightly, this looks and feels like shows that have ten times its budget.

And these are just the shots that stood out!

So there's six reasons - and to be honest, I could easily come up with six more delving into the characters and the positive storylines. It's thrilling, it's fun, it's addictive to watch each week - I hope this has whetted your appetite if you haven't discovered it yet.

The Rings of Akhaten

Odd title, that one.

I thought I'd write something longer about this week's Doctor Who, given the general split in people's initial opinion. So:

It's always going to be an uphill struggle, doing an alien story like this. Building a culture, making it look the part, finding something to connect to - and I thought it worked. Having a bunch of random aliens in the marketplace may be a bit Star Wars, but it draws you in (even if I was playing 'spot the reused bits of alien'). It even makes you forget most of the episode is done in a studio. As to the culture - the idea behind the religion not only felt original and emotional, but also gave the story a plot (and a monster) that was a twist on the usual.

There's a lot of green-screen, which works to various degrees - the lowest one being the very ambitious hover moped chase across an asteroid field. But they were trying very hard with that one. But the lovely vistas and alien suns are just pretty distractions - for the acting! It's lovely to finally see Jenna Louise-Coleman in the companion role - the getting-into-trouble role, and actually apart from the Doctor for once. Yes, I know she did similar things with ice monsters and Spoonheads, but it feels right, here. Almost traditional - in a story that tries very hard to be different. And Matt Smith, well - I was thinking he was being marvellous even before he made his speech at the end.

But maybe it's the sign of a dull episode that - when you notice how good the regulars are (which invariably they are, every week!). And for a story that seemed very 'Episode 2', it's like somebody smudged together lots of different Doctor Who tales together - you've got exploding planets and weird freaky aliens (Episode 2 in 2005), mysterious religious cults with alien gods (Episode 2 in 2008), a lost girl that the companion finds (that'll be Episode 2 in 2010), a CGI menace that was held back by reciting in a theatre (well, a bit of a stretch, but it reminded me of the Shakespeare one - though the singing was quite new, if a little out of place).

That's not to say the episode didn't work in its own right, or that it wasn't an exotic slice of adventure. Although I'm not sure where they're going with Clara - whilst it's lovely to see her past, are they trying to make us warm to her, or be fearful of who she might really be...?

The War of the Worlds - The New Generation: review

Back in 1978, a musical was released, a strange, electronic, cutting edge musical of one of the first science fiction novels - War of the Worlds. Odd choice - but thanks to a resurgance in apocalyptic fiction, victoriana, electronic music, recent film adaptations, new reissues and stage productions, or simply because it's bloody brilliant... it's still very much going strong. But what's this? A remake?


It's a bit of an odd listen, especially for someone who's listened to the original a lot. It's not a remix - it's far more sympathetic than that, and hardly deviates from the original tracklisting, album length, songs or story. Because the original album has been remastered over the years, and slavishly recreated and rehearsed for the stage show - in order to sound exactly like what fans expect - you won't be surprised to know there's hardly any major changes in this new recording. Instead, there's dozens of new bells and whistles to back up the main tune, modern dancey eye-catching (ear-catching?) effects, echoes and whooshes. And, naturally, a new cast.

 

Two processes are going through my mind, simultaneously, when I listen to it. The first, is recalling the seemingly perfect, gospel text of the original edition. The second, is a sort of distancing effect, because the extra drumbeats and new synths modernise it and give the whole thing quite a different sound. I also thought it sounded more like a soundtrack to an adventure than before - as if we're just not seeing the visuals that no doubt flash up on large screens on stage; certainly they are conjured by your brain as you listen to it. Whether this was down to the performances, the depth of adding the new instruments, or simply me getting really into it, I'm not sure.

I've no problems with the new musical effects - there's some quite cool gimmicks (I loved the modern underwater bit), extra flourishes that might have been missed out on first recording, so let's look at the cast. Liam Neeson has a terrific voice for the Narrator figure, which helps carry the whole thing along as marvellously as Richard Burton did, and in a similar tone.
Of the singers, Gary Barlow does a good stab at a Justin Haywood impression - but, should he? The version of Forever Autumn is still very good, but is it a bit too faithful? And, dare I say it, is there a whiff of Autotune about his vocals? With Joss Stone, I have the opposite reaction - she's too different. Her voice is good, but it's oversung - there's the annoying habit of adding in far more notes than should be required, giving it a ridiculously overdone feeling to one of the better songs on the original album.
Alex Clare and Maverick Sabre (great name, up there with Lex Shrapnel) don't quite shrug off the original performances, but are well chosen certainly. I was impressed, though, with Ricky Wilson's Artilleryman - not just in singing capability (even if the vocals are a bit overlayered), but in acting. A very natural tone, and makes Brave New World one of the highlights of this.

So, overall - it's different, and certainly interesting, but notably faithful to the original. The cast are, on the whole, great, the new instruments sympathetic, and I'm sure this nuanced version will sell bucketloads for the shiny new up-to-date stage show. And they haven't messed about with Dead London too much, so that made me happy.

It certainly proves this musical has a lot of life left in it. I think this second album will date as the first - something that oozes quality, but is definitely of its time. Whether a third album comes out in years to come, remixed to oblivion, or ground to a pulp under folky cover versions, who knows?