Skip to main content

Doctor Who Reviews: "Smile"


          You know, episodes like “Smile” are good showcases of the stuff I don’t like about Doctor Who. Particularly in the last several years, but also to some degree present in the classic series. When you get down to it, the idea of “Smile” is simple, but there’s a lot of convoluted baggage to get there, and in the end it’s not really effective except that it might be one of the few times the Doctor’s told people to essentially just deal with the fact some of their loved ones have been murdered.
          The Doctor, after reciting the same speech to Bill that the Eleventh Doctor was known for delivering, takes her (without Nardole) somewhere into the future. They arrive at an off-world colony preparing for the arrival of humans escaping their own rotten planet, but find no one in the city and only small robots who communicate through (…groan) emojis. After doing dome digging they discover this city is more dangerous than they realized, and that it’s of particular threat to the incoming humans.
          I like the idea of the Doctor and Bill in an abandoned futuristic city, a neat callback to the “The Daleks” back in 1963. But not only is the rest of the episode a far cry from “The Daleks”, it’s not even very entertaining in its own right. To start, the robots are really dumb. Not only are they incredibly non-threatening in design, being some kind of mix between Marvin from the 2005 Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy movie and ASIMO, but the emoji characterization is blatantly just bucking a trend. Doctor Who’s featured specifically timely technology and trends in the past, but this just feels too obnoxious, especially giving how incredibly dated emojis are. It doesn’t help that at a number of points, Bill just stops to take a photo with her iphone. The mood indicators aren’t as bad, the notion that it’ll never show its wearer their own mood is kind of interesting, but the smiley design is still there. The idea of the city itself being made of these microbots is more fascinating, and if the swarm that we see from time to time was the spotlight antagonist, I wouldn’t mind. 
          The story is also pretty flawed. As usual a lot of the mystery comes to the Doctor through extrapolating on menial connections, but I was genuinely interested when they discovered the dead bodies. There was even a good lead-in with the Doctor taking note of how mineral fertilizer was being used to grow the plants in the arboretum, but where could it be coming from. What I don’t appreciate is that for most of the episode the Doctor thinks he has a solution figured out: the humans are on their way but these robots have killed the shepherds (the set-up crew), ergo he has to blow up the city. However it turns out he’s completely wrong on that front. Him making a mistake is fine, but when it amounts to little more than padding out the episode you can’t help but feel short-changed. Thus there’s a disconnect between the two parts of the episode leading up to and after the Doctor’s change of plan. The former just comes off as something to fill time before the latter and is significantly less engaging.
          During all this, the Doctor and Bill are the only characters to exchange dialogue (sometimes communicating through the ear because of a plot device), and they have some good moments. I do like how as the Doctor hypothesizes the way he does, all Bill can focus on is the recent revelation that he has two hearts. There’s also a moment where she brings up his accent asking if there’s a Scotland in space. These and a couple other moments are genuinely funny. The Doctor repeatedly tries to leave Bill in safety only for her to come up with an argument to follow. But Bill is more less given the stock companion role for this episode, and could’ve been switched out with anyone. Her dialogue can be annoying every so often as well. The minimal supporting cast aren’t memorable, except for the fact this episode really wasted Mina Anwar. Also, because she exists in this universe already through The Sarah Jane Adventures, it had me wondering if Rani was going to show up at some point. The Doctor doesn’t even have much dimension in this episode, and only the basic appeal that Peter Capaldi effortlessly exudes. Also, I’m sorry, but the line “stay away from my browser history” is not only grating, but leaves the unsettling implication that the Doctor watches porn.
          The robots’ murder spree being the result of a technical oversight where they see unhappiness as a threat to this utopian colony they’re building, is also not an interesting a development. I think because this idea to purge unhappiness has shown up in science fiction a number of times before. Hell, “The Happiness Patrol” during the Seventh Doctor’s era did this same idea, and though that’s not technically a good episode, it’s at least more memorable to those who’ve seen it, if for nothing else than Sheila Hancock’s obvious Thatcher spoof and a ridiculous monster made out of candy. On a related note, it bugs me that the title, as simple as “Smile”, seems to want to push that phrase in a manner similar to “Blink” (still by far the best Moffat script on Doctor Who).
          Bill discovers at one point, the body of the woman who started this, someone who died of old age and thus first introduced the concept of grief to the robots through her death’s effect on other people. Not long after, we learn that the last remnants of Earth (has anyone noticed there have been tons of “last remnants of Earth” in Doctor Who’s history?) are actually already there in frozen capsules. The Doctor almost committed genocide for real which is played as a goof, and when a handful of people awaken and learn what the robots have done to the shepherds, many of whom were friends or family, they immediately do the cynical human thing and decide to arm themselves to kill the robots. Somehow through this confrontation, the robots identify with being under attack which to the Doctor makes them alive. So he resets the computer and tells a story about a haddock. Which is a fine ending if you can avoid asking the question “WHY THE FUCK DIDN’T HE DO THAT EARLIER?” Was their not being alive before somehow a deterrent to just resetting them? Why did he wait this long? Even Bill seems to know this is anticlimactic, quoting The IT Crowd (“he turned it off then on again”) in response to the Doctors’ technobabble explanation of how he managed to do it. And so the people of this world are left to simply accept the fact their family and friends were murdered by robots just because those robots have the data they need to survive in their new habitat. It’s something that doesn’t sit well when the Doctor leaves them to this as their only option, and that they should be happy about it. I love moral ambiguity to the Doctor, but someone needs to question it, and no one really does here.
          So yeah, a deus ex machina to a middling story at best, populated by irritatingly pandering villains that only seem to exist to be “hip”. Was there anything this episode really gave of value? Well in terms of continuity, we get some more hinting at the vault the Doctor’s guarding which of course means that a school will once again be his refuge between episodes. There’s also the reveal that he’s guarding this vault because of an oath he made, which I don’t think we’ve seen (otherwise the mystery of the vault would be moot). So I’d like to know who he made the oath to and why he’s restricted to Earth. And oh yeah, he’s restricted to Earth. In his sole scene of the episode, Nardole reminds the Doctor he’s not supposed to go off-world unless it’s an emergency. It’s the Third Doctor’s exile all over again. Despite my disliking the way the episode repeatedly used “smile” as if it were the next big Doctor Who title, I liked the Doctor’s “smile, you’re in the belly of the beast” line, regardless of how little sense it made in retrospect. At the end of the episode, you know as soon as the Doctor says they’ve returned to the moment they left, that they really haven’t. And when they open the TARDIS doors it appears they have arrived in 19th century London on the frozen Thames with an elephant in full sight. This is such a bizarre scenario I’m curious what will become of it. No damn emojis there, that’s for sure.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day