annabunches.net/_posts/media/2012-10-31-doctor-who-angels-take-manhattan.html

19 lines
7.1 KiB
HTML
Raw Normal View History

2016-04-11 22:01:00 +00:00
---
category: media
2016-04-11 22:01:00 +00:00
layout: post
title: 'Doctor Who: The Angels Take Manhattan'
date: '2012-10-31T06:00:00.000-04:00'
author: Anna Wiggins
tags:
- Amy Pond
- Media
- Doctor Who
- Rory Williams
- The Weeping Angels
- River Song
modified_time: '2013-10-22T11:19:52.057-04:00'
blogger_id: tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4209116010564764361.post-1477631718189883779
blogger_orig_url: http://www.stringofbits.net/2012/10/doctor-who-angels-take-manhattan.html
---
The Angels Take Manhattan is about endings. Not the end of the world, or the universe, or time, like past epic stories have been about. It is about regular human endings, about saying goodbye and the things in life that keep us from the people we love. It is about leaving Neverland, finding that Peter won't be coming back for you after all, even though he might want to.<br/><br/>The theme of endings is played with from the opening on: the Doctor tearing out the last page of his book and declaring "I hate endings" is paid off at the end of the story with Amy's line "You and me, on the last page". The dialogue throughout the episode is poignant, but this pair of lines perfectly bookends it. Rory's death is also (once again) hinted at throughout the episode. And as a counterpoint to the theme of endings, we have references to the last two and a half years scattered throughout this episode - small moments or lines of dialogue that echo Amy and Rory's story. That this is a departure story is coded deeply and obviously into this episode.<br/><br/>So, what force could possibly pull Wendy from Neverland? The answer is, of course, right there in the title: the Weeping Angels.<br/><br/>When I first watched Blink, it seemed to me that while they were a very clever idea, the Angels could only really work once, because there was only one story they were really suited for, and I had just watched it. So, I went in to The Time of Angels warily. And it turns out there was something else you could do with the Angels - collide them into a space marine action film and then suddenly change <em>that</em> into a story about trust. The Time of Angels also made the angels much scarier by suggesting that they were born in imagination, by thinking about them.<br/><br/>And coupled with this is a realization that didn't hit me until the second time I watched Blink: the Angels can move when nobody is looking at them. Yet repeatedly, in stories with the Angels, they are clearly visible as still statues when *none of the characters* are looking at them. Diegetically, then, they should be free to move, to zap their prey back in time.<br/><br/>So why do they stay stone-faced? The most interesting answer - and it seems consistent with Moffat's thematic tendencies and understanding of the franchise - is that the Angels have an meta-diegetic existence. They have to remain stone because *the viewer* is watching. Time of Angels also established, of course, that the Angels defense mechanism is based in part on their perceptions; they will remain stone as long as they *think* you can see them.<br/><br/>In other words, the Angels know you are watching them. They can see you.<br/><br/>And just in case you feel safe with the knowledge that it's only a television show, remember that even diegetically, they were born from imagination. They are by their nature written into existence.<br/><br/>But in The Angels Take Manhattan, it isn't just the Angels that have a hinted-at meta-diegetic existence. The entire episode plays heavily according to narrative logic, so much that it acquires the existence of the viewer in order to make basic sense. The first instance of this is when the Doctor explains that reading ahead - knowing your own personal future - makes it inevitable. That you can still change things as long as you don't know they are going to happen. Immediately after this declaration, though, Rory's name is shown on a tombstone. Note that this event is now inevitable - a fixed point has been created, to borrow the Doctor's phrase. But none of the *characters* have seen the tombstone, only the audience. And yet the fact that our seeing the tombstone makes Rory's death inevitable is clearly the intent of the narrative - otherwise there is no reason for it to be juxtaposed with the Doctor's speech about spoilers.<br/><br/>The other example is the Doctor's statement that they are allowed to read "things that are happening now, in parallel". There are two ways to read this: 'parallel' can mean 'written events that correspond with what we are doing right now'. But it a