The Androzani Effect

[Logo Polish]

The only major criticism I would offer is that the scene between Stotz and Krelper seems just nasty and gratuitous for no reason. If it served some purpose, then fine, but it doesn't tell us anything about the characters we didn't already know - Stotz is mean & nasty, ooh big shock.

I have read that that scene is meant to be an ironic contrast with the bit at the end where the Doctor feeds Peri with the antidote ie whereas he's giving her a life-saving substance on that occasion, Stotz is doing the exact opposite with Krelper.

[Andrew Curnow]

It's an interesting idea, but it smacks of reading far too much into it. If that's the only justification for the scene, then I'll stick with "for no reason"! Was that in the Paul Cornell DWB article, or some other place, Logo?

Part 3 may be on the cards for tonight - if I tell Zel that I'm going to watch Doctor Who this evening, regardless of what else is on, and that nothing she can do will stop me now!!!

[Captain Tancredi]

I'll give the hospital a ring and let them know you're on the way.

[Andrew Curnow]

I don't know whether that deserves a or a .

[Logo Polish]

It's an interesting idea, but it smacks of reading far too much into it. If that's the only justification for the scene, then I'll stick with "for no reason"! Was that in the Paul Cornell DWB article, or some other place, Logo?

It was in a fanzine review years ago, not long after the story was first shown (less than a year I think). Can't remember who wrote it, I don't think it was anyone who subsequently became "famous". From memory, he said that it was only at the end of the story that he realised that that was the point of the scene.

[Andrew Curnow]

I suppose it is a theory, in the same way that (for example) Maxil in "Arc of Infinity" is actually the sixth Doctor is a theory. But I would have thought for it to be justifiable "ironic contrast" there would have to be some sense throughout the story that Stotz & Krelper are akin to the Doctor and Peri - and more, I would have thought there would have to be some good reason for making that connection and/or contrast.

On the same grounds, one could defend "the catharsis of spurious morality" line on the grounds that it's clearly intended to be a dreadful line, as an ironic contrast to the Doctor's love of "cogs & pistons" and therefore underlining machinery & love as being greater than electronics and technobabble.

Or something...

[Logo Polish]

I think the point, really, is/was just that it's almost exactly a mirror image of the other scene mentioned, although to what extent it was consciously planned that way is inevitably impossible to determine in the absence of any definite proof from Holmes. But that's often the case when reviewing something (after all, the compilers of York Notes study guides aren't much of a position to check with Shakespeare any of the conclusions people have drawn from his plays either. ). As it's uncheckable, I've never been too bothered about whether said person was right or not, it's just that I'm aware of the potential parallel.

I don't think it quite compares to theories about Maxil being the sixth Doctor really, as those are theories based on the meta-fiction behind the series overall (ie the character clearly wasn't intended to be the sixth Doctor when Arc of Infinity was written, so that could only ever be a fan theory), whereas the latter is a more (for want of a better way of putting it) a reading of a single text and theorising about a single writer's intentions.

[Andrew Curnow]

I suppose that's true, and you're certainly right that my Maxil comparison isn't actually a very good comparison. It would be interesting to know the context in which the 'ironic contrast' argument is made - if nothing else, it possible smacks of the 'it's Androzani so it must be good' kind of defence, in that it's finding a reason to justify something, even if the reasoning seems absurd.

It just seems to me that there's a place, a reason, and a purpose behind using contrast (and irony) in writing, and although I'm no English scholar, I wouldn't have said that the Androzani situation meets any reasonable criteria.

(BTW, I hope you don't think I'm having a go at you Logo, I realise you're just arguing (or relaying) someone else's theory.)

[Captain Tancredi]

One of my MA tutors once said that there's a difference between analogy and influence- in other words, there's a difference in saying that A is like B and saying that A is intentionally like B, or ironically unlike B.

[Andrew Curnow]

I think the Androzani one can be put down to coincidence, rather than design - although I like the sound of having an MA tutor. Did they also offer courses in EDAs?

I did watch part 3 tonight, which was, I must admit, pretty good. Curiously, he spends a lot of his last story ill and at times unable to stand, looking at his crippled hands. Unless my memory's cheating, he does very much the same in his very first story. I wonder if that's a deliberate sense of contrast? (That's a genuine question, BTW, not sarcasm.)

[Logo Polish]

Well, it's no skin off my nose. I only mentioned it as a possibility someone else had highlighted (and Androzani isn't a story I think about very often anyway).

[Andrew Curnow]

I finished this off last night (don't want to spoil it for anyone, but he dies in the end). I've certainly enjoyed it more this time round than ever before, and I'm prepared to admit that I've probably been wrong to judge it so harshly in the past. There are of course faults, as there are with any story, but by and large it is a fair send-off for the fifth Doctor, something I've never really 'felt' before.

It's never going to make it into a list of my favourites, because although objectively I can see a lot of merits in it, it's just not my type of story, and rightly or wrongly will never get picked off the shelf if I've got the choice of something from season 17!

I ought to just add that reading the Graeme Harper interview in the current DWM was very interesting - he says there that once the Doctor is infected, he spends the rest of the story running for his life, and that energy really drives the story along. And of course he's right, that is what keeps it moving. I've also noticed the direction more than ever before, with some very striking images - the Doctor collapsing 'centre stage' while being dragged to the spaceship in part 3, the final 'tableau' of Jek held by his Salateen android (which, incidentally, could have been just absurd, as it's not really driven by the story, but looks and 'feels' suitably climactic), and the regeneration itself.

[transvamp]

I'd say the one thing I don't like about Caves of Androzani is the first lines of Colin Baker. It seems to trample all over the poignancy.

On that note there's times when I think its a shame they didn't decide to kill the Doctor for good and end the series here. There was a closure to the previous two stories (the Master dead and the Daleks on the endangered species list) and it was the show's last chance to bow out with dignity before The Twin Dilemma and we would have been spared Season 24.

[Andrew Curnow]

I like The Twin Dilemma!!

[Rob McCow]

I like Season 24!

We'd have still suffered Warriors On The Cheap and Terminoose though.

[Si Hunt]

Colin Baker's first line is one of the best in the shows history.

Si.

[Nathan]

Two things that struck me about this when it was first on (but are rareley mentioned) are the facts that the Doctor starts to regenerate at the end of episode 3, but shakes it off to enable him to rescue Peri. This is why he is uncertain of regenerating at the end as he is past the natural point.

Secondly people often point out the Doctor's deliberate noble self sacrifice in that he only collects enough bat milk to cure Peri. This isn't strictly true either, as he actually spills half of it whilst attempting to pull the Tardis key out of his pocket, which means he still expected to survive right to the end. A wonderful little touch which makes his demise all the more poignant.

Death by butterfingers.

[Si Hunt]

the Doctor starts to regenerate at the end of episode 3, but shakes it off to enable him to rescue Peri.

I've always considered this view a rather romantic way of looking at the possible re-use of a video effect.

Si.

[Pip Madeley]

I've always considered this view a rather romantic way of looking at the possible re-use of a video effect.

Si.

@ Si

It's a nice story, grandpa.

[Nathan]

I've always considered this view a rather romantic way of looking at the possible re-use of a video effect.

Si.

Not at all. Harper conceived that effect quite deliberately. If it was to signify anything else he had a whole pallette of other effects he could use.

Anyway what would the effect be demonstrating otherwise? The ship the Doctor is on is specifically mentioned as a short range craft.

Also look at Davison's portrayal as he pinches his brow and clears his head to shake off the effect.

[Andrew Curnow]

I seem to recall first hearing that theory when The Discontinuity Guide came out and claimed it as fact. Has Graeme Harper ever confirmed it? Surely in this case only he can say?

As regards the bat milk, the only thing that does strike one on watching it again and again is that, frankly, the Doctor could have taken his swig when he was down milking the bat; and could have given Peri hers after he'd got back to Jek's hideout rather than waiting till he got her back to the TARDIS. Although, dramatically, it works better the way it is I hasten to add.

And I like the Colin bit at the end of "Caves..." (Certainly I'd say it jars far, far, far less than the Bride at the end of "Doomsday" although that is of course only an opinion.)

[Nathan]

Yes I have asked Graeme

And the production team were pretty hot on differentiating between effects at the time. It is for this very reason that Peter Moffatt had to rethink the effect for the revitalisation chamber in The Twin Dilemma as the effect that he had in mind had already been used by Fiona Cumming for the Master/Kamelion effect in Planet of Fire.

[transvamp]

Two things that struck me about this when it was first on (but are rareley mentioned) are the facts that the Doctor starts to regenerate at the end of episode 3, but shakes it off to enable him to rescue Peri. This is why he is uncertain of regenerating at the end as he is past the natural point.

I never thought of it like that. I like that reading....

[Andrew Curnow]

Yes I have asked Graeme

In that case, fair enough. I wonder if it was a script idea, or a bit of directorial inspiration?

[Nathan]

Thats a good point. It is exactly the sort of thing that Holmes could have put in the script, but equally I could imagine it being something suggested by Davison in rehearsal that Harper went and ran with.