Review of The Angels Take Manhattan
Warning: This review contains episode-specific spoilers and wild speculation about future episodes.
It all makes sense now. Well, I say “all”… Clearly, some of it is still utter nonsense, but at least one of the things that’s been bugging me all series is finally obviously and satisfactorily resolved, at least in my head. But I’ll get to that.
Let me start by talking about how this – this – is finally the kind of episode I’ve been looking for all series. At long last, here’s one I can get behind wholeheartedly because there’s so much right with it, I can ignore just about everything that isn’t.
I really liked the gumshoe detective novel feel to the 1938 portion of the episode (aside from “bouncing off 1938” – wtf?), though I didn’t cotton on till the second time through that Mr. Grayle was deliberately feeding the Angels, nor that it wasn’t necessarily Mr. Garner himself typing up the chapter on “The Dying Detective.”
Even better, though, the Angels have gone back to the basics and once again become the kill-you-by-letting-you-live-to-death monsters we fell in love with in Blink. Somehow, the insidious nature of this particular mechanism makes them creepier and more interesting to me than the sheer monster in the dark we saw back in The Time of Angels. It’s made even more horrific by the way both Garner and Rory are confronted with their future selves (loved the age makeup, too!). It’s good to have the “original” Weeping Angels back.
Speaking of returning characters, we’re also treated to more River. This time she’s post-Storm Cage, though obviously still pre-Library. It’s nice to see River and the Doctor be a bit more knowledgeable of and comfortable with each other, rather than things being so completely one-sided all the time. He knows and trusts her enough to tell her to get out of a bad situation and walk away to let her be about her business. She, in turn, knows enough to be “loving the ‘almost'” when he says poisoning the Angels with a paradox would be almost impossible. Again, it’s a return (mostly) to the kind of River I enjoy watching.
Moffat also gives us plenty of tidbits to chew on as we think about future episodes. The way the Doctor “hates endings”; the way things are “written in stone” once you know they’re coming (ummm… completely invalidating last series’ finale, anyone?); the way you should “never let him see the damage,” or see you age – all of these plant seeds for future plot twists. I’ll be gobsmacked if we don’t see those crop up again within a year.
Of course, being the Rory fan I am, his part of this story was always the most engaging for me. He’s the one who devises the plan that will defeat the Angels, which I loved as a sacrifice for the greater good even if I couldn’t stop thinking of Lucie Miller. And the ironical self-awareness of the ridiculous nature of their previous adventures (“You think you’ll just come back to life?” “When don’t I?”) was pitch perfect. The saddest moment of the whole thing for me (though knowing both Companions were leaving, I was kind of expecting its resolution) was the moment the “survivor” Angel got him. That was a classic heart-wrench. (Side note: love that Rory’s middle name is the actor’s first name.)
For me, it all really worked. A Companion departure is always kind of A Big Deal. It needed to be something emotional – a real, solid reason for them to part from the Doctor’s company – and completely unique. That’s kind of a tall order for a writer on a 50-year-old show that’s had to write out 40-50 Companions (depending on how you count) already. But I think Moffat’s done it. It felt real, it felt unusual (if not entirely unexpected), and it felt right. Amy & Rory get to live “real life” together, their own happily ever after in the fairy tale of life with the Doctor.
To be fair, it’s not all rainbows and puppies. I didn’t buy the bits with the Statue of Liberty, for example. She could obviously never ever be an Angel because – for starters – is there ever a time when no one is looking at her? Then, even if she did find such a moment in The City That Never Sleeps, she’s so well known that if she made even the slightest variation in her usual position or placement, the entirety of NYC (not to mention the world) would suddenly be focused on her with such intense scrutiny that the whole idea is rendered utterly implausible. Nice conceit of the story, but no. Never happen.
And despite how much I liked seeing River again – the near-Library River, at that – there were parts of her characterization that didn’t feel right. I mean, who am I to argue – it’s her creator who wrote this episode – but honestly, if you set her up one way, why write her differently later? Case in point: as the paradox takes hold, she cries out, “What’s happening?” like she’s suddenly too dull to figure out something she’d already suggested (in a different way, but still). That’s not the River I know. She’s supposed to be blindingly clever, and especially at this point in her timeline (she’s a professor now), she should know How The Universe Works when one runs with the Doctor. So that sat wrong.
I also didn’t understand why she got so pissed off at him for healing her. She did it for him – why can’t he do it for her? “It’s called marriage, honey” – and it goes both ways. (I’m not even going to get into why the entire Doctor/River thing irritates me, or even how Rory & Amy still clearly have some issues to sort out, based on Rory passive-aggressive assertion that Amy’s always telling him he’s wrong. Oh wait. I just did.)
The biggest problem I had with it, though, was the claim that their deaths – being a “fixed time,” as evidenced by the gravestone – implied he could never see them again. Why the hell not? If that just fixes their deaths, why not pop back at some other point in their timeline for a visit? Clearly 1938 is out of bounds, but what about 1955? Or 1972? Does this mean the Doctor can never be in NYC again between whenever-they-were-sent-to and whenever-Amy-died? That just makes no sense.
What does make sense now (see what I did there?) is why he kept going back for them in the rest of the series. Those all happened after this, from the Doctor’s perspective. He couldn’t help himself – he missed them too much, and wanted to see them as often as he possibly could. That’s why he looks like a puppy that’s been kicked every time Amy says they want to stay at home for a month or two instead of swanning off in the TARDIS again. That’s why he gives her that Look during their conversation in Dinos. And that’s why he can promise Brian they’ll never die in his company.
Instead, they enter the annals of Whovian history. Time to read the next chapter.
* Yes, I know no one ever called her “Aims,” but it was too good to pass up.
Nice idea, shame about the execution
Mixed feelings about this one. I definitely didn’t enjoy it as much as you did. Some interesting ideas, but the overall execution was a mess. Normally stories like that are my guilty pleasures, but not in this case, and for one very simple reason…
Like most modern TV dramas, it’s not interested in giving you a world to be drawn into and explore, but scenes and images to look at and react to. And make sure we react in exactly the way the producers want us to. I just plain hate that, which is why I haven’t really enjoyed any drama series from the past 20 years. Still, if you like that sort of thing, then this is the sort of thing that you’ll like.
BTW as for the thing about not being able to go back and visit them before their deaths, it does seem to to be one of the Moff’s rules, that you just plain can’t travel back and meet someone once you know when they died. (e.g. Madame de Pompadour, the Brigadier, etc.) No it doesn’t make sense, but at least it’s consistent.
Madame de Pomapdour
I would disgaree with the Madame de Pompadour statement. Right from the moment the Doctor, Rose, and Mickey arrived, he told them she died when she was 38. He figured out the Clock-men were waiting for her to be ready – i.e., die, before they could take her brain. If I am wrong though, there are many other instances of the Doctor meeting famous people – just a few weeks ago, Nefertiti, and others such as Churchill, Queen Eiizabeth I, Charles Dickens, Shakespeare, etc…. I’m sure the Doctor knew when all those famous people died – oh, and Hitler, too – and he visited them during their lives, so that argument doesn’t hold. Moffat wrote some of those episodes, so he is being inconsistent. Why can’t the Doctor visit Amy and Rory?
Interesting criteria…
If you haven’t enjoyed any drama series for the past 20 years, did you truly expect to enjoy this episode (or any this series)? I can’t disagree with not liking to be emotionally manipulated (more on that in this Wednesday’s upcoming Confession), but you had to know that’s what we were in for when you sat down to watch, right?
For myself, I knew they’d be trying to play “emotional gotcha,” so was really just looking for an interesting departure. The plotting elements mentioned in the review were enough to make me enjoy it, especially since I wasn’t so attached to these Companions that I couldn’t bear to let them go. As long as they got to spend their lives together, it was a happy ending, as far as I was concerned. That was my own way around Moffat’s “cry, damn you!” writing.
You bring up an interesting point re: Mdme de Pompadour and the Brigadier. I’ll have to think on that some more. At least, as you say, it appears consistent, which is better than some plot points I’ve seen. 🙂
Rory and more
I loved the points you made concerning Rory. I felt the same way. I also noticed the gravestone. The first time it popped up, when the Doctor and Amy were in the graveyard, I thought, “That’s it, it’s how it’s going to end, it’s set in stone (pardon the pun).” I just knew that’s where we were being led.
Rory was always underused during his tenure in the show. It was nice to see the mystery surrounding him this time. I had always hoped that his relationship would develop with River – a bit of father-daughter type bonding.
But that fixed-time stuff made absolutely new sense. Moffat just pulled that out of a hat. As clearly explained by Tennant’s Doctor, he can’t CHANGE fixed time events, but nothing was ever said about VISITING them – hence Pompeii. (Which is entirely more complex because HE & DONNA caused the fixed event))
Plus, to blow one’s mind even further, to thank RTD – Captain Jack himself is a fixed point in time! Yet he travels freely throughout time (when the Doctor hasn’t confiscated his vortex manipulator).
So, where did that logic come from, Moffat?, Eccelston’s Doctor took Rose to 5 billion years in the future, to the end of the Earth – a fixed point, Rose’s father’s death – fixed point – could visit, but not change, look what happened, Pompeii, many others, which each Doctor would warn his companion that they could NOT get involved. Of course, it didn’t always turn out that way, but the point is that travel to fixed points in time is certainly possible – until the other night, when suddenly the Doctor announces he wouldn’t be able to visit Rory or Amy? WHAT? Where did that come from? It’s like Moffat is try to duplicate the parallel universe that Rose is in without the paralled universe!
Utterly confused and disappointed by that explanation. It was totally lame.
Fixed points can be rewritten
That was the only real bugaboo for me. Totally made no sense. Especially since the Doctor himself went and changed a “fixed point” at the end of the last series by managing not to die when he died. So yeah. I’m still… struggling with that one. Really not buying it, despite some points raised above.
Exactly!
So true! That’s why this whole Amy/Rory thing doesn’t make sense. The show is totally contradicting itself. They kept harping on the fact that they Doctor’s death was a fixed point, and then, he violates his own rule!
Of course we wanted him to, and knew he would do so. But don’t use that rule to get rid of two companions. The viewer feels totally cheated. I know everyone likes the happy ending, including myself, but I think it would have been more believeable if they had died while jumping off the building together. I don’t know if it would have made me happier, but I would have bought it more.
Time energy?
I don't have a problem with the way things ended for Amy & Rory – except for the idea the Doctor can never see them again (which he gets around by going to a non-Angel'ed period of their life anyway). Maybe that's the key; something about the Angels' use of their time energy. ~shrug~
This will probably just end up being another one of those things over which I plug my ears and sing ~la la la! I'm not listening…~
Explaining the inexplicable
I think that is what we have to do, eventually, rationalize it with our own explanations, because when it comes down to it, Moffat goofed. That’s the simple explanation, and when that happens, we, as the viewer, have to make it work in our minds.
I think I have decided that for some reason, the angels have zapped Rory and Amy back, and for some reason, their powers make it impossible for the Doctor to visit them in the past. Perhaps it is a parallel past?
Your point about him being able to visit them in their contemporary past is a good one. It means that tentatively, there could be more stories for Amy and Rory in the future – possibly t.v. (anniversary special?), books, audio dramas, crossover shows (still holding onto hope for Torchwood, or could you imagine if River Song got her own show someday?), etc…
I, for one, refuse to believe that Donna Noble will forget her adventures for the rest of her life, or that David Tennant will never be on the show again (aside from the anniversary). He and Rose are
waiting in that parallel universe for a reason – he was cloned for a reason; in order to allow Tennant to come back for visit. We know Christopher Ecceleston doesn’t want anything to do with the show, but David Tennant loved it, just like Matt Smith. This is a tangent, and not how I started my post, but I for one, can’t wait for that anniversary!
Anniversary
I'm not quite as upbeat about the anniversary as you, but there should at least be something interesting (with returns of some sort, I'd hope). 🙂
Anniversary
The only reason I’m so upbeat about the anniversary is that we will get to see David Tennant’s Doctor again, and I think it will be interesting to him interact with Matt Smith’s Doctor (if they do, which I hope they will)! I’m also really hopeful to see Captain Jack. Possibly John Simm’s Master, too, but I think that might be a long shot.
I don’t really know how good the whole thing will really be, I just mostly miss David Tennant. But I do think Matt Smith does a brilliant job. 🙂
Fair enough
Fair enough. 🙂
Thanks!
Thanks! I just like the good looking guys! Simm, Tennant, and Barrowman! Sigh… a girl can dream, 🙂
Points, fixed or otherwise
I don’t think it’s that he can’t visit a fixed point (clearly he can) but that he can’t go to New York or visit the Ponds/ Williams because they’ve damaged time so badly that The Tardis would react dangerously with it. Like damaging a bridge and then driving a huge truck over it. It’s less a fixed point and more of a broken point in time.
That also explains why he specifically can’t visit Amy and Rory as they are the centre of the paradox. We saw how badly The Tardis reacts to those last year in The Girl Who Waited.
I loved the episode generally but agree on The Statue of Liberty being a bit iffy.
Paradox
I buy the argument that he can't touch them because they're at the center of a paradox more than I buy that he can't fly the TARDIS to that era in NYC. After all, why not a different time (as I mentioned above) or a different place, then travel to NYC by conventional means (see, e.g., http://vdoc.tumblr.com/post/32629034972/because-sometimes-the-best-way-to-deal-with)? 🙂
Paradoxes
Fantastic cartoon! 🙂
I put it down to him being a Timelord and riddled with artron energy (or whatever), which would have the same effect as landing The Tardis. If he went there his head might explode?
Time/Place
But why not New Jersey? Or 1947? “Never again” seems kind of extreme. But yes, your paradox idea makes more sense to me than just about anything else I’ve heard. 🙂
Ponds as a Paradox
I would also buy the Ponds being a paradox, perhaps. But we don’t even know how far they went back, because the gravestone didn’t say what year they died, only their ages. The Doctor guessed the Angels would send Rory back about 30-40 years, but that was in the hotel room, and only a guess. The scenery changed, so the time could have changed, but let’s just assume it was 40 years from 2012. That goes back to 1972. The Doctor and his past carnations have visited 1972 – present how many times? I know it was before the present, but still…
If it was 40 years from 1938, it’s even further back in time.
I also thought of something else. Why can River travel back to that time with her novel written and mail it to Amy? If she can travel to that time to send it to Amy to have it published, then the Doctor can travel to that time. River isn’t planning on seeing her, so that must be the problem, but not the time.
Plus, I bet in future episodes, he’ll be back in those years again and again. So I don’t think for a second that the TARDIS won’t be able to travel to those years. There’s no way it’s going to be a time paradox. I maintain that Rory and Amy have to STAY in those years but that he could see them. Moffat simply didn’t think this one through!
Oops
I meant his “incarnations,” rather than carnations. Oops – not the flower! 🙂
Doesn’t Make Sense
Agreed. We can figure out the latest possible date they got sent, though. Rory said earlier that he's 30 years old, so he had another 52 years. That puts him at 1960 at the latest. Amy is supposedly roughly the same age (based on the way they're playing together as children in flashbacks). She lived to an age 5 years older than Rory, putting them back at 1955 at the latest.
I think the Angels sent them back to 1938 because that's where the issue started, and they were pissed (thus also giving the gravestone time to weather after their deaths). No matter how you cut it, though, there's no good, clear explanation as to why the Doctor can't go back.
River?
True, that is the lates possible date, giving Amy a death date of 2012.
What do you think about that point with River, though, when the Doctor tells her to write the book, and then to send it to Amy to get it published – and then to put it in his pocket? Why would she be able to go back? That just drives me crazy!
By the way, I just got the Melody Malone e-book that was released yesterday. 🙂
Oh, and I love your book! Got that a couple of months ago – saving the reviews you wrote for the classic Whos for when I watch them. 🙂
Awesome!
Thank you – that’s awesome! 😀 Really glad you’re enjoying it (already working on the next edition)!
Not entirely sure what to think about the River angle, but her rules seem to be entirely different for some reason, as evidenced by the way her timeline jumps around relative to everyone else’s. I don’t think there’s ever been anything like that before, so she’s a “special case” however you slice it. 😛