The Idiot's Lantern

I somewhat enjoyed Gatiss' "The Unquiet Dead" from last series. The production values were good, the acting was good, and the writing wasn't bad either. In "The Idiot's Lantern," that is not the case. While Tennant and Piper were good, the Wire was a horrible villain and her constant repetition of "Hungry! Hungryy!" makes the viewer uncomfortable. Coupled with the disorienting camera angles, The Idiot's Lantern becomes something that's just hard to sit through. I really don't have much to say about this episode other than it was something I'd rather not watch again and an episode that I would never show to a non-Who fan. Mark Gatiss has penned some nice scripts: The Unquiet Dead, Robot of Sherwood, and Cold War were all pretty good, but The Idiot's Lantern was just hard to watch. I'm not sure if that's more on the director or the writer, but I do not recommend this episode at all. 5/10

An early (1953) TV feed but it's not particularly nourishing, about an alien (the Wire) in the telly that is finely tuned and flourishing. It takes the face, of all who place, their ugly mugs before it (turning one into a stem), with a magpie in assistance acting like a kind of conduit. The Queens big day, what will they say, if all does not go ace, as the Doctor clambers up the spire of Alexandra Palace (it's not ace by the way, filler episodes set on earth in presentish times usually aren't).

I remember looking forward to this since it was written by THE LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN'S Mark Gatiss who wrote the previous years story featuring Charles Dickens and gas zombies . But after seeing the episode I felt rather disappointed and it's down to one very simple reason . The entire plot is summed up in the pre title sequence . After this - which I do agree is effective enough - we still have to endure a story which we know will end up with the Doctor defeating the alien and it's just a question of how . There's little surprise involved and this week's obligatory dysfunctional family subplot is more irritating than usual .

There is one other aspect conspicuous by its absence and that is Gatiss is a big fan of the QUATERMASS serials . For some reason the story is set at the Queen's coronation which was no doubt a big national event at the time but surely 1950s television was the decade where Nigel Kneale as a household name . Imagine if the audience had been watching an episode of QUATERMASS ? Wouldn't that have been a brilliant post modernist tour de force ?

Mark Gatiss was always a little hit and miss when it came to his Doctor Who scripts, I found, and I'm afraid that, despite some interesting moments, "The Idiot's Lantern" is one that can be considered a bit of a damp squib.

Heading to the early 50's in a bid to see The King, instead they land in London preparing for a new Queen. Television sets are becoming popular in people's homes as they want to watch the Coronation - but several North London households are hiding a secret, faceless family members, caused by their suspiciously low-priced televisions from Magpie Electrics.

To be clear, I don't think that "The Idiots Lantern" is a bad episode, just that it's a bit underwhelming. Mostly I think this stems from the villain. Ron Cook's Mr Magpie is OK, but the reluctant accomplice comes rather soon after Colin Spaull's Mr. Crane in the Cybermen double bill. Magpie is more tortured, but still the similarities are present. Then we have the real bad guy, Maureen Lipman's The Wire. (Sadly short on references to McNulty or Stringer Bell). Whereas the idea of a character on a TV talking back to you has the potential to be a bit creepy, the actual performance is played for knowing laughs a little too much and the "Hungry... Hungry" refrain is too bizarre and too little unsettling. Add into that the Connolly family, and boorish patriarch Eddie, played by television staple Jamie Foreman, who again are nicely played - if not particularly memorable characters and you're left with an episode that doesn't add up to very much.

The Doctor and Rose do have some nice interactions though, particularly a funny gag about Rose's mum and sailors and you get to see his anger (again) when Rose falls foul of the Wire's power. It's odd, but once you know it was written with Ecclestone's Doctor in mind, it does start to feel a little more understandable.

Again, it's not a "bad" episode - it's just an underwhelming one.

The Doctor and Rose hoping to arrive in New York to see Elvis perform instead find themselves in London circa 1953, where they stumble on a plot to take the faces off of various Londoners. It's not as nearly as grotesque as the previous sentence implies, as the aforementioned faces are just kind of erased off via television sets. It all makes sense upon watching the show, I promise. Well if the last 2 episodes reminded me a bit of "Sliders", this one definitely had the feel of "Shapphire and Rose". Of course, enjoying that late, lamented show, I was definitely tickled by this one. Good acting by all (save for a few bit actors), splendid costume and set design, witty banter, and an intriguing plot all combine to make an amusing and highly watchable episode. Even if the bit of social commentary is a bit daft and it's full of plot holes.

My Grade: B-