The Eighth Doctor, Charley and C’rizz are imprisoned in The Cube – a place from which there can be no escape.
1 Comment
Styre
on May 8, 2016 at 12:42 AM
SOMETHING INSIDE
There’s something to be said for old-fashioned Doctor Who, for a traditional base-under-siege story in a somewhat-futuristic scifi setting. Much like the “quasi-historical,” it’s a genre that Doctor Who fans can call their own — if something like John Carpenter’s “The Thing” or The X-Files’ “Ice” seemed familiar, well, they were base-under-siege stories, weren’t they? Yet when you’re presented with a new story of this type from the parent show, you’re conditioned to expect something new. Trevor Baxendale’s “Something Inside” tries to present a new-ish twist on the old standard, but ultimately it doesn’t achieve much more than mediocrity.
I cited “The Thing” above because it’s the sort of story upon which “Something Inside” is modeled — the base (or, in this case, prison) is under siege, but the hostile power is in the base, and everyone is locked inside. The prison is populated with telepaths, and the enemy is a “brain-worm,” which present the listener with three primary questions: who are the telepaths, who has imprisoned them and why, and where is the brain-worm? Unfortunately, the first two questions are given perfunctory answers: the prisoners were given telepathic powers for military reasons and were locked away as a result. So, with only the identity and nature of the brain-worm left to reveal, most of “Something Inside” is spent listening to the characters run through corridors, run through corridors, and run through more corridors.
This isn’t to say that the script is poor, of course. Baxendale’s characters, even if they lack anything resembling depth, react believably and the tension level is always high. The constant state of mortal danger is communicated well, and it’s surprising that none of the characters are allowed to devolve into mindless hysterics — a hallmark of weaker Doctor Who stories. But the fact remains that nothing much happens in “Something Inside” — aside from a brief interrogation scene, we basically listen to the cast run around until everyone dies (save, of course, the regulars). Even the ending, intended to be the height of pathos, fails to come across because Latch (John Killoran) isn’t given more than the very basics of character development. As a standard sci-fi/horror scenario, this isn’t bad, but if you expect more from your fiction — and if you’re a Doctor Who fan you really should — “Something Inside” is rather empty.
Book fans will probably cringe at the revelation that Paul McGann’s Doctor has lost his memories and has become amnesiac, but Baxendale and McGann combine to provide a fascinating take on the character. Freed of his knowledge of his companions and his past, this Doctor is slightly more ruthless and hard-edged, but he still possesses his recognizable moral center. McGann is quite good in this play, combining desperation and determination without losing control of the material. It’s more of the same from C’rizz, meanwhile, with Conrad Westmaas’s usual sometimes-sarcastic, sometimes-intense performance and the usual hints of the character’s mysterious dark side. Look, we know there’s something going on here, and we all want to know what it is. Westmaas is a fine actor but he’s being told to hit the same notes play after play — C’rizz is rapidly becoming a boring, dead-end character. Of course, Charley became such a character several plays ago, and this time around India Fisher doesn’t even get to do anything as Charley is reduced to running around and screaming a lot.
The supporting characters are basically one-note. Rawden (Steven Elder) is your standard cowardly, faux-ruthless prison warden, while Twyst (Ian Brooker) is the usual insane torture expert. Elder and Brooker are generally delightful in their performances, but the material is still the material. Then you’ve got the telepaths: Latch, who’s paranoid and vengeful; Jane (Louise Collins), who’s female and compassionate; and Tessa (Liz Crowther), who’s powerful and mysterious. There’s little more that needs to be said, though there isn’t a weak performer among the actors.
And then we come to the production. For the most part, Joseph Fox’s sound design is impressive: the Cube is claustrophobic and oppressive and the brain-worm is suitably scary. But god, the footsteps! Anytime anyone goes anywhere, CLANG CLANG CLANG CLANG — we get it! Stop! Many, meanwhile, have complained about the score; I think the score itself is exceptional, but its use is abominable. Music is thrown in without any regard for the mood of the scene, and it’s always exactly the same — whether this is down to Fox or to director Nicholas Briggs, I don’t know, but it was a mistake. I mentioned earlier that “Something Inside” never fails to grip the listener, and this is in part because of Briggs’ direction, which is quite good.
I can’t escape from the fact that “Something Inside” is consistently entertaining throughout its 125 minutes, despite the above criticisms. On the one hand, it is a testament to the skill of all involved that the play entertains despite its obvious flaws; on the other, I don’t think it should be rewarded for being flawed in the first place. At its core, it’s quite traditional — but I suppose I’m at the point that I just expect more.
SOMETHING INSIDE
There’s something to be said for old-fashioned Doctor Who, for a traditional base-under-siege story in a somewhat-futuristic scifi setting. Much like the “quasi-historical,” it’s a genre that Doctor Who fans can call their own — if something like John Carpenter’s “The Thing” or The X-Files’ “Ice” seemed familiar, well, they were base-under-siege stories, weren’t they? Yet when you’re presented with a new story of this type from the parent show, you’re conditioned to expect something new. Trevor Baxendale’s “Something Inside” tries to present a new-ish twist on the old standard, but ultimately it doesn’t achieve much more than mediocrity.
I cited “The Thing” above because it’s the sort of story upon which “Something Inside” is modeled — the base (or, in this case, prison) is under siege, but the hostile power is in the base, and everyone is locked inside. The prison is populated with telepaths, and the enemy is a “brain-worm,” which present the listener with three primary questions: who are the telepaths, who has imprisoned them and why, and where is the brain-worm? Unfortunately, the first two questions are given perfunctory answers: the prisoners were given telepathic powers for military reasons and were locked away as a result. So, with only the identity and nature of the brain-worm left to reveal, most of “Something Inside” is spent listening to the characters run through corridors, run through corridors, and run through more corridors.
This isn’t to say that the script is poor, of course. Baxendale’s characters, even if they lack anything resembling depth, react believably and the tension level is always high. The constant state of mortal danger is communicated well, and it’s surprising that none of the characters are allowed to devolve into mindless hysterics — a hallmark of weaker Doctor Who stories. But the fact remains that nothing much happens in “Something Inside” — aside from a brief interrogation scene, we basically listen to the cast run around until everyone dies (save, of course, the regulars). Even the ending, intended to be the height of pathos, fails to come across because Latch (John Killoran) isn’t given more than the very basics of character development. As a standard sci-fi/horror scenario, this isn’t bad, but if you expect more from your fiction — and if you’re a Doctor Who fan you really should — “Something Inside” is rather empty.
Book fans will probably cringe at the revelation that Paul McGann’s Doctor has lost his memories and has become amnesiac, but Baxendale and McGann combine to provide a fascinating take on the character. Freed of his knowledge of his companions and his past, this Doctor is slightly more ruthless and hard-edged, but he still possesses his recognizable moral center. McGann is quite good in this play, combining desperation and determination without losing control of the material. It’s more of the same from C’rizz, meanwhile, with Conrad Westmaas’s usual sometimes-sarcastic, sometimes-intense performance and the usual hints of the character’s mysterious dark side. Look, we know there’s something going on here, and we all want to know what it is. Westmaas is a fine actor but he’s being told to hit the same notes play after play — C’rizz is rapidly becoming a boring, dead-end character. Of course, Charley became such a character several plays ago, and this time around India Fisher doesn’t even get to do anything as Charley is reduced to running around and screaming a lot.
The supporting characters are basically one-note. Rawden (Steven Elder) is your standard cowardly, faux-ruthless prison warden, while Twyst (Ian Brooker) is the usual insane torture expert. Elder and Brooker are generally delightful in their performances, but the material is still the material. Then you’ve got the telepaths: Latch, who’s paranoid and vengeful; Jane (Louise Collins), who’s female and compassionate; and Tessa (Liz Crowther), who’s powerful and mysterious. There’s little more that needs to be said, though there isn’t a weak performer among the actors.
And then we come to the production. For the most part, Joseph Fox’s sound design is impressive: the Cube is claustrophobic and oppressive and the brain-worm is suitably scary. But god, the footsteps! Anytime anyone goes anywhere, CLANG CLANG CLANG CLANG — we get it! Stop! Many, meanwhile, have complained about the score; I think the score itself is exceptional, but its use is abominable. Music is thrown in without any regard for the mood of the scene, and it’s always exactly the same — whether this is down to Fox or to director Nicholas Briggs, I don’t know, but it was a mistake. I mentioned earlier that “Something Inside” never fails to grip the listener, and this is in part because of Briggs’ direction, which is quite good.
I can’t escape from the fact that “Something Inside” is consistently entertaining throughout its 125 minutes, despite the above criticisms. On the one hand, it is a testament to the skill of all involved that the play entertains despite its obvious flaws; on the other, I don’t think it should be rewarded for being flawed in the first place. At its core, it’s quite traditional — but I suppose I’m at the point that I just expect more.
6/10