I'm more than a little nonplussed by Fry's comments in the linked article: "If you are an adult you want [TV programmes that are] surprising, savoury, sharp, unusual, cosmopolitan, alien, challenging, complex, ambiguous, possibly even slightly disturbing."Which is of course a near-perfect description of the very show (Doctor Who) that he is supposedly criticising.Fry goes on to say he's not arguing that all television should be pompous, academic or intellectual but "They ought to surprise and to astonish and to make us feel perhaps the possibility there is a world outside that we know nothing of to provoke us, to provoke in the best sense of the word."Again, if I read that description in isolation and was asked to guess which British TV programme he was describing, I'd have said Doctor Who.Do you think he's playing a very clever joke?Or maybe he's only seen The Unicorn and the Wasp?
I don't think Fry is criticizing Dr. Who for not being an adult drama. he's criticizing British TV for pointing to Dr. Who as one of preeminent dramas full stop. Pointing to it as a top-flight drama for all the family is one thing, but I don't think it's the height of snobbishness to say "Yes, very nice but where's all the rest? The stuff that deals with issues Dr. Who can't deal with or deals with the same issues in ways Dr. Who can't". The Guardian headline doesn't help.
Umm, yeah to Tilt there. It didn't seem to me that Fry was talking very much about Dr Who at all. He was talking about British television, and quoting Dr Who as an example.Whether he's generally right or wrong in what he's saying, taking all this as being about Dr Who is mere ... whatever the word is for "egocentricity" is when the thing at the centre isn't the ego as such, but one of its obsessions.
Well, true, "Dr Who" may not be as subtle and nuanced as "V For Vendetta" was, but...
Post a comment