Monday, 16 September 2013

Human Nature / The Family of Blood

My only problem with Human Nature is that everybody liked it so much. That's not to say I didn't like it, I did. I thought it was really very good. I just didn't see why everybody else had to be quite so gushy about it. Nothing is going to put my back up as much as universal acclaim; it's a character failing I have and it possibly accounts for my inability to support a football club or pick a religion. So, no matter how much I liked this story, as soon as the forums lit up with adulation, fan polls started rating it the best ever and TV critics raved, I instinctively began to grumble to myself that it couldn't have been as good as all that. I don't have those qualms any longer; watching it again, in context, it's clearly exceptionally good. Is there any justification for my original opinion? Well, a sliver perhaps, because this is the first Doctor Who story with the inbuilt capacity to disappoint.

Doctor Who stories always have source material or, at least, influences: from the fascism of the Daleks, through the Thatcherism of Helen A, to the Blairite tendencies of Aliens of London. In the Seventies the series would rework Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes and the Prisoner of Zenda into SF adventures. Some stories even rework the show's own history: Planet of the Daleks is more or less a recycling of the original Dalek serial; Attack of the Cybermen tries to be a sequel to all of Cyber history; Dalek is loosely based on writer Robert Shearman's own audio adventure Jubilee. But Human Nature is something we haven't had before: a direct adaptation of an earlier Doctor Who story, in this case the 1995 novel of the same name, written by Paul Cornell and starring the Seventh Doctor.

It's a great book and a great Doctor Who story, thrillingly radical at the time but also prescient. When it was announced that the programme had tapped Cornell to adapt it for television, the decision made perfect sense: the book's premise, that the Doctor should become human in order to hide from Time Lord-hunting aliens, was exactly the sort of story that the new series was equipped to tell. Of course, being an adaptation, changes had to be made. And of course, having read the book, some of those changes were always going to jar a little. Let's get them out of the way because, let me say this again, I really like Human Nature. It's just in some ways the book is better.

I think the story works better with the Seventh Doctor rather than the Tenth. Tennant does well differentiating between John Smith and the Doctor, and his performance really sells the idea that Smith is a person in his own right rather than a facsimile. But, of all the Doctors to make human, the Tenth? Surely to goodness he is the most human incarnation we've seen? He fits in so easily, emoting all over the place, loving, hating, prideful, humble, lonely. The only suggestion of his alien nature comes when he dips his fingers into a jam jar in Fear Her, and his occasional comments on humanity sound more like observational stand-up ("Edible ball-bearings? What's that about?") than the bewilderment of an extraterrestrial. As a result there's much less of a contrast between Smith and Tennant's Doctor than there was with McCoy's.

There are other minor differences (the Doctor's fob watch-residing animus has much more of an impact on schoolboy Tim Latimer in the book, and John Smith manages to influence events even after the Doctor has returned), but the other major one is the concept of pacifism. The book is much more uncompromising. Smith's latent Doctorishness leads to a reaction against the school's militarism that requires him to teach both the history and practice of war. Latimer ends up, not in the army, but as a Red Cross volunteer during World War One and, at the end, the Doctor unapologetically wears a white poppy to the remembrance service. I completely understand why the book and the episode differ in this way. It is right and appropriate that the nationally broadcast television programme should respect those who served, but I still admire the passionate outrage of the book - after all, there's nothing as fun as climbing up onto a very high horse. How lovely that we get to have two wonderful versions of this story.

But let's put the book to one side. Why is this story (I'm cheating again by the way, doing two at once) so good? Time for a list.

1. Martha! Martha is great isn't she? And she fits into this story so beautifully. Her role as the the Doctor's protector and maid here suits her perfectly - desperate to help but almost entirely ignored by the man she dotes on. She protects him nonetheless, flouting protocol by rushing in when she's heard he's injured. She more or less runs rings around the Family of Blood, cannily spotting that Jenny has been possessed and holding back the lot of them in the Village Hall long enough for everyone to escape. Without the Doctor she properly becomes our identification figure for the first time, representing our 21st century values in an utterly alien environment. The way she deals with the ugliness of the period is brilliant: scandalising Jenny or enduring the racist taunts of Baines and Hutchinson. When Smith starts on about "cultural differences" Martha is rightly furious ("Oh you complete-"), and then she has to battle Joan's prejudices too: "Women might train to be doctors, but hardly a skivvy and hardly one of your colour." At least her sexism is less pronounced than her racist snobbery.

2. The Guest Cast. Harry Lloyd is incredible as the possessed Baines, constructing a terrifying, larger-than-life and very memorable villain. If it isn't the performance of the series then it can only be because of Derek Jacobi. Rebekah Staton also shines as one of the Family, revelling in a gleeful, bright-eyed malevolence. Jessica Hynes (then Stevenson) is a perfect Joan, full of dignity, tenderness and a steely contemptuousness which she directs at both Martha and the Doctor. She's very modern too - for her time - using all the opportunity society allows her to prompt Smith into asking her out.

3. The Doctor. Unlike either Love & Monsters or Blink, this Doctor-lite story is all about the Doctor. Despite his absence, his presence is felt, first as the eccentric fantasy of Smith's imagination in The Journal of Impossible Things and the business with the cricket ball, and then as a shadow that looms over everything. This is our first glimpse of his dark greatness, of the almost mythological Doctor that we will see so much more of over the next few years. It's thrilling because at this point it feels like something new is being revealed. Yes, there have been odd mentions of it (Clive's speech in Rose, the bathos of "Here he is, the Oncoming Storm..." in The Girl in the Fireplace), but this time we get to witness the terrible power of the wrathful Time Lord.

This is the point of course, the Doctor looms over Smith in the same way that the Great War looms over the boys. Neither Latimer or Smith have a choice: the war is inevitable, and so is the Doctor (the 'possible' future that Smith and Joan see is not an option at all: either the Doctor must return or the Family will destroy the world). The only option is to accept the future and its consequences, even if it means losing everything.

Thank goodness the boys could only give this an eight (William, his last score I think) and a nine (Chris, for a sixth episode in a row) because it means I can relax and, without fear of joining a brainwashed mob, declare Human Nature a stone cold ten-out-of-ten classic.


NEXT TIME...

No comments:

Post a Comment