Judge: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let us return to the matter of the Crown versus Episode 25, "Sentence of Death". If the Counsel for the Defence is prepared to present his case?
CftD: Thank you, m'lud. I would like to begin, if I may, with the initial reconstruction of the framing of Ian Chesterton. The Counsel for the Prosecution has referred to the - and I quote - "infernal racket". Yet it seems to me that the decision to hold the alarm through the credits is a bold artistic move which successfully heightens the tension, and the fade occurs just soon enough to avoid irritation. This whole scene is, in fact, a very effective way of setting up the episode. I will concede that the musical sting following the declaration of "murder!" is trite, but this is a minor point and in keeping with the habits of the time. I further put it to you that the use of the joke "Who? He's the Doctor", far from being worn, is at this time still fresh; and that William Russell delivers it well.
The main thrust of the prosecution's argument seems to be that Mr. Nation has shifted genres mid-serial; that courtroom drama is inappropriate for a family audience, being too cerebral for children; and that it isn't even good courtroom drama. I call to the stand... The Reviewer!
[Gasps from the gallery as The Reviewer enters and is sworn in.]
Mister Reviewer, did you enjoy any courtroom dramas as a child?
TR: As a matter of fact, I did. It's a relatively minor sub-genre of crime TV, always outnumbered by the police and private detective shows, but there have always been some. I particularly remember Crown Court, an early example of daytime TV that I presumably saw during school holidays. It's notable for being set almost entirely in the courtroom and following proper procedure with real members of the public (rather than actors) in the jury. It also had a very catchy theme tune.
CftD: And was that the only such show?
TR: Not at all, though it is probably the best example. The American series Petrocelli was another I enjoyed, and that had more of the running around gathering evidence we see in this episode.
CftD: Thank you.
Judge: Does the Counsel for the Prosecution wish to cross-examine the witness?
CftP: I do, m'lud. Mister Reviewer, when did these programs run?
TR: Crown Court ran from 1972 to 1984. Petrocelli ran from 1974 to 1976 in the US, but I'm not sure how long a gap there was before it was shown in the UK. Perhaps a year or two?
CftP: Can you say for sure that you watched Crown Court before 1975?
TR: No, sir, I cannot.
CftP: Then it is likely that you were at least eleven years old when you were enjoying these, older than much of the target audience?
TR: Well, yes, but -
CftP: No further questions, m'lud.
Judge: Does the Counsel for the Defence wish to continue with this line of argument?
CftD: No, m'lud. However, I would like to point out that the verdicts in these cases should be based purely on the Reviewer's enjoyment, and not any abstract sense of appropriateness for the target audience.
Judge: So noted.
CftD: Thank you. Next I would like to address the matter of switching genres. We have already established that Doctor Who does this frequently, and that this adds variety to the proceedings. Furthermore, we have also established that the borders between stories at this point in the show's history are not firm. How, then, is changing genre mid-stream a problem? I put it to you that it is not, and I further intend to demonstrate that the charges of the episode being poor courtroom drama are also false.
My learned friend describes the Millennius legal system as implausible, but we have had many stranger things in our own history. Perhaps he thinks they should have resorted to trial by cake?
[Laughter from the gallery.]
He also mentions that psychometry as a science is a ridiculous concept, which is a matter of opinion - I personally think it adds a pleasing alienness to the city - and that the judges look more like Greek Orthodox priests. Before casting such aspersions, perhaps he should obtain a mirror in which to examine his own manner of dress?
[More laughter.]
CftP: Objection!
Judge: Sustained. Please confine your comments to the facts and avoid making personal remarks about our attire.
CftD: Apologies, my lord. Nevertheless it is notable that my learned friend did not mention the set dressing, which is excellent; nor the library montage, a classic example of -
Judge: Yes, yes, we get the idea. Please get to the point; I have a round of golf to play after this, and I'd like to get to it before dark.
CftD: Indeed, m'lud. It has been suggested that Aydan giving himself away twice in such a manner is unrealistic; but not everyone is accomplished in the ways of deceit, and Millennius is not used to crime, so he was unlikely to have had much opportunity to practice. Curiously my learned friend also complains about the presence of domestic violence in a children's program. This is slightly dangerous territory, but it is done carefully; and surely he cannot have it both ways, complaining about realism and its opposite?
We also have the return of William Hartnell. Far from "skiving off", as my learned friend puts it, he has been recharging - and it shows! Hartnell is fizzing with energy, and performs wonderfully in the role of Counsel for the Defence, putting in a performance I, myself, would not be ashamed of -
Judge: Ahem.
CftD: Indeed, apologies once more. Then - just when we have got used to a story being wrapped up within each episode - Nation throws in Susan's kidnapping, one of the best cliffhangers of the show so far, and we are left to wait a week to see what happens. Brilliant.
CftP: M'lud, I would like to ask for a postponement, since the story is not yet complete...
Judge: Denied. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard all the evidence presented. Please retire and consider your verdict.
[Everyone gets up to leave. Fade.]
Broadcast:
Date: Saturday, 9th May 1964
Viewers: 7.9 million
Chart Position: 29
Appreciation Index: 61
Rating:
Judge: Have you reached a decision on which you are all agreed?
Spokesperson for the Jury: We have, my lord.
Judge: And what is that decision?
SftJ: 8/10, my lord.
Judge: Episode 25, you have been found not guilty of the crime of failing to entertain. My congratulations.
Next Time:
The Keys of Marinus.
No comments:
Post a Comment