Rate and Discuss: Vincent and the Doctor

[Rob McCow]

10/10 - possibly the best episode of Doctor Who ever. Certainly the best portrayed historical character that's ever been on the show.

Admittedly it wasn't the most thrilling or exciting episode. It wasn't a rollercoaster of emotion or a huge build-up to a thrilling climax. Instead I thought it was simply beautiful.

The moment where the night sky turns into the painting was fabulous.

Also, I think this episode wouldn't have worked with David Tennant's Doctor. You know he'd have gone over the top and done his funny 'You huuuuumans!' voice. Matt Smith plays it with just the right touch.

It would also have been nice to have had some kind of explanation as to why only Vincent could see the monster.

I thought they spent the whole episode explaining why Vincent could see things that other people couldn't?

[Andrew Curnow]

This is what I love about Doctor Who, that we can all see the same thing but all respond to it in totally different ways.

And on the plus side, I'm really looking forward to catching up on Confidential on the iPlayer later - this year's run has been so much more enjoyable, with the more 'educational' aspects to some episodes (ie, Mark Gatiss in the bunker, Smitty in Venice).

[MinaHarker]

I'm going to get all science-y here, and point out that, by definition, anything which is completely invisible will also be blind.

[Si Hunt]

I was a bit surprised that we didn't see the Doctor and/or Amy actually drawn into one of his paintings at the end, in a similar way I tried to do on the current banner. That isn't why I did it, but when we got near the end of the episode, it seemed the obvious thing to happen and I wondered if I might be credited with a bit of amazing foresight!! For some reason though, it never happened and we got a simple "To Amy" instead. I think the Doctor inside a Van Gogh painting would have made a great iconic image - oh well, just on Planet Skaro this time!

Si.

[Lissa]

I thought they spent the whole episode explaining why Vincent could see things that other people couldn't?

But surely that was more conceptually - he could see light, beauty, life, misery and all that cretan jazz which no one else could - rather than an actual blobby monster with teeth and claws that was most definitely real.

[Si Hunt]

I'm going to get all science-y here, and point out that, by definition, anything which is completely invisible will also be blind.

It was blind, wasn't it?

Si.

[Rob McCow]

There's a possible pseudo-scientfic explanation for Vincent's ability to see the monster, to do with psychic ability linked to greater perception. It's something that's been explored often in fiction, that a wider perception is linked to mental illness. Whether that's fair or not is another matter.

I admit it's not nailed down in the actual episode though. It's implied that his ability to 'see beyond' extends to spotting invisible alien creatures as well as artistic interpretation. You can either buy into that and admire it as an interesting metaphor for the misery that Van Gogh faced in his life, or not.

[Perry Vale]

Well that was a beautiful episode. I probably would have voted a 10, but it was slightly let down at the end by Athlete and 'For Amy', but otherwise as close to perfection as possible. Loved Tony Curran, loved the Doctor's new gadget, and just really loved the 'feel' of the whole thing. Like a lot of this series, I felt it had quite a DWM comic strip feel to it, something that has suited it well, imo.

[Andrew Curnow]

My earlier moanings aside, I actually quite liked that Vincent's ability to see the monster wasn't pinned down. I think we're supposed to take it as being part of how he sees the world (as demonstrated by the unusual, but rather lovely, scene with the three of them looking at the sky) but that it wasn't made explicit fitted rather well.

While I'm being nice, I also liked the bow tie business, and Bill Nighy - with a lesser actor, his speech at the end would have come across as just 'actor reading out long speech' but he invested it with life, with a slightly crusty academic becoming enthused and passionate about his subject as he speaks.

Also, also, and although it almost goes without saying I'll say it anyway, Smith was excellent again. Although the script probably didn't serve the Doctor all that well, he did a lot with what he had - just for example, when they stop for the funeral procession to go by, his expression is more a slightly-weary smile than the sombre faces of the other two, a recognition and even a fondness for human dignity and ceremony. Or maybe I'm just seeing patterns in things that aren't there!

And finally, just as I can never see the Mona Lisa without thinking of City of Death, it's quite nice to know there's now a generation of young kids who will always think of Doctor Who when they see a Van Goch!!

[Jason Thompson]

It was blind, wasn't it?

It was, but that was clearly stated as a disability unique to this individual, explaining why it was left behind by the rest of the pack. Blindness would be an inherent property of any invisible creature, since by definition an invisible creature is not interacting with light and therefore no light can be interacting with its eyes to allow it to see.

However, the fact that it was visible to one man and in the mirror of the Doctor's gadget is more suggestive of something more like a psychological defence rather than a physical property of the creature. Something like a natural perception filter, perhaps?

Overall the episode was very nicely done. It suffered a bit from the short running time, so to portray the mental anguish of Van Gogh we had one short scene of him crying on his bed, then he was fine again a moment later. I know that such conditions as depression are characterised by dramatic changes of mood, but I'm not sure they are minute-to-minute changes. Had there been any sense of a longer time passing it might have seemed a little less contrived.

One thing that is grating with these 'celebrity historicals' is the insistence on describing the individual concerned as 'the greatest --- who ever lived' and making them out to be some kind of total genius. It's the use of such hyperbole that grates. I do not dispute that Van Gogh is a great and influential artist, that Dickens is a superb author, Agatha Christie wrote some of the bext crime fiction of all time, and that Shakespeare was a very capable playwright, but I think to call them individually 'the greatest' does a huge disservice to others, expecially in view of the wide variety of styles of their art.

One thing I did like was Van Gogh talking about hearing colours. That is suggestive of synaesthesia (a fascinating condition in its own right), and may perhaps explain why he could 'see' the alien when no-one else could. Maybe he was perceiving it with other mismatched senses.

[MinaHarker]

It suffered a bit from the short running time, so to portray the mental anguish of Van Gogh we had one short scene of him crying on his bed, then he was fine again a moment later. I know that such conditions as depression are characterised by dramatic changes of mood, but I'm not sure they are minute-to-minute changes. Had there been any sense of a longer time passing it might have seemed a little less contrived.

I thought that at the time, but he could have been putting on a strng front - depression is the curse of the strong, remember.

[Llordllama]

3/10 - I'd have given it a point or two more, but the central message of "Cheering someone up with a spot of depression is easy" left a rather bitter, if not borderline offensive, taste in the mouth. I was hoping for a romp of an episode from Curtis, instead we got a mash letter to his favourite artist.

Although Bill Nighy was fab, especially the interchange about bow ties.

[Jason Thompson]

the central message of "Cheering someone up with a spot of depression is easy" left a rather bitter, if not borderline offensive, taste in the mouth.

I honestly don't see that message anywhere in the episode. The Doctor tried to cheer him up when he was crying, but was rebuffed. Amy thought that taking hmi to the future and showing how well he was regarded would cheer him up, but it made no difference in the long run, as he still committed suicide at the same age. Cheering someone with depression up is possible short-term, and something like that was bound to have an effect, but it is not a long term result, as the Doctor pointed out. Good things don't stop the bad things being bad.

[Perry Vale]

I honestly don't see that message anywhere in the episode.

Me neither.

[Si Hunt]

Sorry if I'm being dim, but what's so bad about trying to cheer up someone with depression?

Si.

[Awesome Wells]

I don't have a great deal good to say, really, so I won't say anything at all - except that it wasn't as cack as Victory Of The Daleks. My friend Ian said it was even worse, but I disagreed.

I will say that Matt Smith was excellent - his performance was brilliant, but unfortunately, it had the effect of highlighting everything else that was wrong with the episode.

The main bulk of the story was good - Van Gogh himself was fairly adequate - but it was over and done with too quickly; the alien was pretty rubbish - both as an invisible beast for the actors to flail at and as a giant chicken in a mirror - and, having set it up as a member of a nasty-bastard alien race, why then make it a lame-duck-nasty-bastard for us to feel sorry for? Sorry, I didn't buy into that at all. Nor was I particularly convinced by Amy Pond being such a massive fan of Van Gogh; Karen Gillan was given a bit more to do than in the last couple of weeks, but she hasn't had a chance to shine since "Amy's Choice" - except, perhaps, for about thirty seconds around Rory's death.

the second part was awful. Designed to be tear-jerking, I suppose - and of course, to show that the Doctor is to blame for all the cracks by such meddling, as we'll see in the series finale* - but I thought it went very much against the ethos of the Doc's character. Is he really prepared to risk the space/time continuum by showing Vincent the future, and how popular he is? Or did he know that it wouldn't change Vincent at all, and that he would still slice off an ear and top himself, anyway? If that's the case, why do it at all?

Worst of all, the appearance of that awful Athlete song made me a vomit up a copy of the 'Love Actually' DVD.

I'll stop now before the mark I'm actually giving this story sinks any lower. I'm starting to wonder if it isn't worse than Victory Of The Daleks, after all...

Four "****ety-****s" out of ten.

*Possibly

[egdcltd]

Just watched it for the first time, and initially the fact that Van Gogh had a Scottish accent just didn't seem to fit, but I thought they dealt with it cleverly where he asks Amy is she's Dutch also because of her accent.

[Si Hunt]

having set it up as a member of a nasty-bastard alien race, why then make it a lame-duck-nasty-bastard for us to feel sorry for?

Big alien creatures who are actually quite nice really seems to be a theme of this year, what with the Whale and, to a lesser extent, the Silurians last week.

But I think it's quite appropriate. Animal creatures are just creatures, arn't they, obeying instinct. If you came face to face with a shark while swimming, you'd think it was a nasty big monster, but if you found one bleeding to death on the beach you'd probably accept it was only ever obeying instinct and you might shed a tear.

It's been a year of fairytales, where every big ogre monster is really a BFG or a Shrek. Or something.

Si.

[MinaHarker]

Sorry if I'm being dim, but what's so bad about trying to cheer up someone with depression?

Si.

Because a lot of people think depression is about sadness, and all someone needs to do to recover from it is to "cheer up" or "pull yourself together" and "snap out of it". Depression is not about mood, low mood is simply a symptom. Trying to cheer up someone with depression and expect them to get better is like treating someone's spots and expecting the measles to go away.

[Awesome Wells]

Big alien creatures who are actually quite nice really seems to be a theme of this year, what with the Whale and, to a lesser extent, the Silurians last week.

But I think it's quite appropriate. Animal creatures are just creatures, arn't they, obeying instinct. If you came face to face with a shark while swimming, you'd think it was a nasty big monster, but if you found one bleeding to death on the beach you'd probably accept it was only ever obeying instinct and you might shed a tear.

It's been a year of fairytales, where every big ogre monster is really a BFG or a Shrek. Or something.

Si.

I know what you mean - but fairytales are all about nasty monsters, not real animals, aren't they? Trolls and big bad wolves and wicked witches, rather than creatures just behaving naturally without any malice? If it's a theme, these not-so-bad-after-all-monsters, I'm not sure what the point of it is.

The best season in Doctor Who's long history just keeps on going.

It is the best, I agree, but I think it would have been even better if Moffat had written the whole thing. I have complete faith that he could have done so without burning out or spreading himself too thinly. His stories - along with "Amy's Choice" - have been far and away the best so far. Which bodes well for the finale. I hope.

[Jason Thompson]

Sorry if I'm being dim, but what's so bad about trying to cheer up someone with depression?

Ultimately it is a misguided effort. People with depression are not necessarily depressed about anything, and just 'cheering them up' is not a simple case of giving them something fun or diverting to do. The unfortunate result of making such an effort is often resentment at your floundering effort to cure the wrong problem. It's like giving a fresh lick of paint to a house with sinking foundations.

I don't think the Doctor ever believed that taking van Gogh to the future would make a big difference, because I think he knew that depression can't be cured that way. He just wanted to 'add to his pile of good things', and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Si Hunt]

So if you make a depressed person happy for a day, or an hour, as the Doctor did with Van Gogh, is that just wasted effort? Is making someone smile not worthwhile unless they never get depressed again?

No-one's said you can "cure" a depressed person by telling them to cheer up. But surely a little happiness is better than none?

Si.

[matthewsch]

I thought they spent the whole episode explaining why Vincent could see things that other people couldn't?

Yes but it didn't make any more sense than RTD's cop-out season 3 finale ending.

[matthewsch]

It is the best, I agree, but I think it would have been even better if Moffat had written the whole thing. I have complete faith that he could have done so without burning out or spreading himself too thinly. His stories - along with "Amy's Choice" - have been far and away the best so far. Which bodes well for the finale. I hope.

I definitely agree. If Moffat had written the Silurian two-parter, it would have had the potential to be the best Doctor Who story of all time. But Chibnall? WHY, Moffat, WHY DID YOU HAVE TO ASK CHIBNALL???

And yeah, still the best season ever.

[Rob McCow]

Yes but it didn't make any more sense than RTD's cop-out season 3 finale ending.

That's why Star Trek: The Next Generation was always better at these plot mechanics than Doctor Who. In ST:TNG they would have used a Tachyon Sweep to identify that the alien was fitted with a Cloaking Device that leaked Barium Radiation. Of course, it would have been up to the Chief Engineer to modify the Deflector Dish and make the alien visible using a Vertrion Pulse. Van Gogh would have been able to see the alien because of a malfunctioning Ferengi Neural Implant that had created a Phase Wave giving him Sensoreal Acuity. Because that makes sense. There'd have been no room for all this hokey metaphor nonsense.

In Doctor Who they merely say 'Van Gogh sees things differently' and expect the audience to buy it. The trouble is, that the audience does, in their millions. In this episode at least, Doctor Who presented it's Universe in a more romantic way. Purely in emotional terms, it was spot on.

Some people complain that it would be easy for Doctor Who to join-the-dots scientfically, but I don't think they need to, so long as they don't damage the story too much. While it's perfectly legitimate to ask 'Why?' about an episode, it shouldn't necessarily affect your enjoyment.