Skip to main content

Doctor Who Reviews: "Thin Ice"


          I love the setting for “Thin Ice”. Of course I’m always partial to the 19th century, but a Frost Fair held on the frozen Thames is a very unique environment. It’s a great place to put the Doctor. And while the content and plot of the episode isn’t great, it works a lot better than last week’s.
          The Doctor and Bill take in the last great Frost Fair in 1814, but soon they notice a green light under the ice that follows stray people and sinks them under. Not only that, but upon further investigation, they discover a giant prehistoric angler fish under the ice and heavy chains. Connecting these, the Doctor and Bill determine to find out who is keeping the fish there, and what other nefarious plans do they have.
          “Thin Ice” is your basic sympathetic monster story, but as far as those go, it’s okay. There’s nothing incredibly exciting or new to it, but it’s not boring either. This episode brings back the psychic paper and the Doctor’s screwdriver plays an important part. There’s also some good attention to history. Firstly, a lot of people probably don’t know about Frost Fairs during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and this episode provides a decent education as to what they were. Racism is a stronger factor than in episodes’ past, given Bill’s concern for her ethnicity in slave trade era Britain, and their nemesis, the aristocratic Lord Sutcliffe is pretty condescending and insulting towards her as well. His attitude is very imperialistic. Also, I have to say the Doctor and Bill look very stylish in their period dress. Unlike Matt Smith who when in the Victorian, or in this case Regency period looked like he was dressed up for the era, Peter Capaldi appears to belong to it, he’s so at home in this type of costume. I’d love to see him in a Dickens adaptation.Speaking of which, there’s a subplot that dives into Oliver Twist territory with a band of thieving street urchins who both advertise for the fair, and attempt to steal the sonic screwdriver, leading said pickpocket to an early death, the lights under the water being drawn to the noise of the Doctors’ tool. I assumed something would happen where the kid would turn out okay in the end, and was very pleased when he didn’t. Bill’s character arc of the episode involved her learning to deal with death, and how travelling with the Doctor means she has to expect that. And it adds to her shock the way the kids’ death is played out, where he sinks under until his arm holding the screwdriver is all that’s visible, and the Doctor…snatches the screwdriver just in time for the arm too to sink under. And the way Peter Capaldi plays it with a cold detachment makes it very easy to understand Bill’s shock at his apparent lack of remorse or even realization of what’s happened.
          That’s one of the interesting facets and does inevitably lead to the best scene of the episode. Often the scenes where companions confront the Doctor over his occasionally ambiguous behaviour is really satisfying. Hell, Clara’s one great moment in Doctor Who was her telling him off at the end of “Kill the Moon”. And this makes for a pretty good scene too. Bill asks how many people he’s seen die and it’s clear by his silence he doesn’t know. Nor does he answer her follow-up: “how many before you lost count?” She learns through implication too that the Doctor has killed. We as the audience of course know the Doctor’s more of a grey figure morally than he passes himself off as, but for Bill who’s only just learning this, it is daunting. This is someone she’s trusted for months after all, and Pearl Mackie plays the angered and confused response to this unsettling revelation convincingly. Capaldi it goes without saying, is fantastic. The Doctor ends it with a good line: “I’m 2000 years old and I’ve never had the time for the luxury of outrage”. Essentially he uses the “needs of the many” logic to get Bill to move past it and help him save more lives. And it’s clear this effects Bill throughout the rest of the episode, as she makes special effort to promise one of the other kids they’ll be saved.
          But while this character arc takes place, the remainder of the episode is fairly standard, except for a few highlight moments. Like the Doctor knocking Lord Sutcliffe for his abhorrent exclamation on seeing Bill. And yes, that speech of his was pretty good. Sutcliffe’s family has known about the fish for generations and has orchestrated the fair on thinning ice with the plan on feeding them to the fish and covering it up as a fireworks mishap. The reason? Because its excrement is incredibly valuable as fuel, burning a hundred times longer than coal. The Doctor responds to Sutcliffe’s blatant disregard for poor peoples’ lives as well as his insistence on it all being progressive with a brief but meaningful speech: “human progress isn’t measured by industry, it’s measured by the value you place on life…that’s what defines an age, that’s what defines a species.” It’s a nice sentiment, but I wonder if the writer is too proud of it, as both Bill and Sutcliffe go on to compliment it (Sutcliffe’s is hilarious, because he does so while also admitting he lacks compassion). And of course there’s the Bond moment, where the Doctor and Bill are literally tied up as the villain reiterates his evil plan and leaves them only under the eye of a gormless goon.
          What happens in the end is the Doctor and Bill are quickly freed because of his sonic screwdriver, their guard upon confiscating it seals his own fate by luring the creature. The Doctor leaves it to Bill to decide what to do about the fish, once again giving a human the chance to do the right thing for their own species, which of course she does. And from there the Doctor basically takes it as permission to put together his scheme. As Bill rounds the children to evacuate the Thames, the Doctor rigs things so that the chains holding back the fish break when Sutcliffe pushes down his mighty explosives lever. How he’s able to do this is never explained. The fish comes to the surface, breaks the ice, allows Sutcliffe to drown, and swims off. It’s a very big fish, but sadly we’re never given a great view of it, though that may be due to the episodes’ budget as much as anything. Bill later takes the street urchins to Sutcliffe’s home and gives them a feast, while in possibly the goofiest development, the Doctor rewrites Sutcliffe’s will to name one of the boys (Parry) his heir. It’s pretty ridiculous and such an occurrence would most likely never have flown despite what we later hear, but it’s pretty harmless. And the look on Bill’s face when the Doctor tells her SHE was the one who saved them is terrific, regardless of how true that statement may be.
          This episode gets a few of its lighter moments right. I particularly love the butterfly effect gag the Doctor pulls on Bill by referencing her supposed friend “Pete”. Kudos to Bill for bringing that up but the butterfly effect means shit in the Doctor Who universe. Shit, of course is a word this episode painfully reminded us Doctor Who isn’t allowed to say. I know it’s because fish droppings feature into the plot, but that moment Bill’s “no sh--” gets cut off by a horse whinny, it’s absolutely grating. It honestly makes me just want the show to purposely say “shit” a dozen times in a row. I guarantee the kids watching who are over nine have heard or said that word anyway. Bill’s reaction to hearing the sonic screwdrivers’ name however is cute, and I like the fact the Doctor has been to this period enough he has a favourite food (it appears to be some kind of lamprey?). And Bill looking at the bigger picture at the end gets a light chuckle : “what if we just, like, doomed Greenland?”
          “Thin Ice” is an okay episode overall in spite of some generic plotting. It definitely has some really good moments, just not enough that are going to make it stand out. When the episode ends, the Doctor and Bill return home just in time for Nardole to come in with the tea as the Doctor had predicted early last episode. Nardole is peeved to see them in period clothes and tells the Doctor off for betraying his mysterious oath. We then get a teaser scene where Nardole is apparently talking to whatever’s behind the vault, a life form clearly as it’s able to knock, startling Nardole at first. It’s possible that whatever it is, it dislikes Bill, or at least the idea the Doctor has someone to travel with. But further answers are going to have to wait, because next week the Doctor has a haunted house to look into. And who better to be involved in such an investigation with the Doctor, than Hercule Poirot himself? 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...