Doc Martin (Part 14 — Spoilers)

13839414344145

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NewPark wrote: »
    "In loco parentis" -- applies to DM's ham-handed managing of Peter, but also I think to Peter Kronk, who seems to be trying to parent his mother, and also to Al, who definitely the parental figure of that duo.

    The Richard Stoneman version of DM is pretty much without redeeming features. The crankiness is amped up this episode. Notice the little half-smirk on his face when he attempts to pawn Peter off on a reluctant Louisa. And the way he winds up Mrs. Kronk in her hospital bed in a display of tactlessness so colossal that one wonders if it isn't actively hostile.

    The little session with Louisa in the kitchen was sweet, until indeed he spoiled it with an uncalled for affront to her motives in being nice to him.

    And it was sweet of him to grill the fish sticks for Peter.

    Once again, Louisa extends an invitation to him to join her for a drink and he winds up watching from afar and retreating into the house. Perhaps this is because he won't join her if a social event involving other people is involved. But I think he is actively trying to resist his growing interest in her.

    Still, it does have the great speech about rats scrabbling through the streets, even if seems somewhat disproportionate to the provocation.

    The sub-plots through out the show. Thank you I see them now. I feel very sorry for Peter.

    Don't understand why Richard Stoneman (agree his DM has few redeeming characteristics) had DM being so provocative at Mrs Cronk's bedside. Anyone could see she was getting worked up. What would be the intention of this scene?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mmDerdekea wrote: »
    Wow, I see this episode in a much different way.

    I actually think that DM does a great job of parenting Peter, once Peter falls asleep on his sofa.

    1. He doesn't wake Peter up but accepts responsibility for him over night.
    2. He is a good parent telling him that since he did not eat a good breakfast he may be hungry now.
    3. He is suddenly awakened by Peter, and Peter turns to leave, but then immediately DM gets himself under control and examines Peter's hand in a patient way.
    4. He takes Peter to see his mum, and then trusts him to get a valid DVD. DM feeds him food he wants to eat, not his own fish dinner. When he realizes that Peter lied to him about the DVD, he doesn't get upset or yell at him. DM seems clueless but then again he sees in Peter a maturity he himself had at that age, and Peter was by no means emotionally damaged by watching virgins and eyeballs.
    5. He controls Peter in his surgery, telling him to stay in the kitchen due to his contagiosity, but in a firm manner, the way a parent should. He explains the name of his skin condition to Peter to educate him.

    I found DM brusque, monosyllabic and rude. Kids need some sort explanation of why they can't do something rather than "no, no, no."

    He was much better last ep s1 with Peter and just 2 weeks later (portwenn time) it is as if he'd never known peter before. DM has certainly lost the great rapport they had together. Such a pity.
  • mmDerdekeammDerdekea Posts: 1,719
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cc.cookie wrote: »
    I found DM brusque, monosyllabic and rude. Kids need some sort explanation of why they can't do something rather than "no, no, no."

    He was much better last ep s1 with Peter and just 2 weeks later (portwenn time) it is as if he'd never known peter before. DM has certainly lost the great rapport they had together. Such a pity.

    Well, cc.cookie, your lack of love of DM is known on the Forum, and I guess one's attitude towards the characters can indeed lead to different folks interpreting different scenes. It's interesting to realize and discuss, nonetheless.

    I'm not sure how DM was rude checking out Peter's hand in the middle of the night, or making him fish sticks, or letting him watch his own choice of DVD, or letting Peter be snarky to him, or etc. I think we can see that DM's handling of the school and LG was abysmal, but I really cannot see how that extends to his caring of Peter, but then again, perhaps because I like DM in his complexity I see his actions perhaps, when possible, in a more even-handed way.

    On the other hand, some on the Forum have accused me of being too hard on LG, noting her serious flaws, whom they hold in higher esteem as a character than I do. So we all have our personal mindsets.

    statesidefan--you made a very good point about the two other head mistress/master candidates being noticeably inferior in quality. I hadn't thought about it until you astutely brought it up. Yes, I agree, it would have indeed been better if the other candidates were qualified and LG won the position due to being the best of the best, not because she was the only competent candidate and favored nonetheless by the interviewing panel (except by DM!).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mmDerdekea wrote: »
    Well, cc.cookie, your lack of love of DM is known on the Forum, and I guess one's attitude towards the characters can indeed lead to different folks interpreting different scenes. It's interesting to realize and discuss, nonetheless. DM!).

    I generally love DM in all series except series 5. So I'm sorry if it came across as a general dislike. I thought my attitude came across pretty loud and clear in my rave for series 1 especially the last ep in series 1 "Haemophobia".

    What has surprised me rewatching it is the Richard Stoneman DM in this ep. Clearly different to other eps from series 1 and 2 I think.
  • NewParkNewPark Posts: 3,537
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cc.cookie wrote: »
    I generally love DM in all series except series 5. So I'm sorry if it came across as a general dislike. I thought my attitude came across pretty loud and clear in my rave for series 1 especially the last ep in series 1 "Haemophobia".

    What has surprised me rewatching it is the Richard Stoneman DM in this ep. Clearly different to other eps from series 1 and 2 I think.

    One of the interesting things about this series, perhaps almost a unique feature, is the extent to which the lead actor has had creative input into the design of his character. I feel pretty sure that not a scene gets written or acted that Martin Clunes has not shaped in some way.

    So, c.c. cookie, you asked the very good question about the scene in the hospital where DM is heedlessly working up Mrs. Kronk into another anxiety produced attack, what is that scene for?

    That plays into the question that has always fascinated me the most about the series: What are we meant to think and feel about Doc Martin, from Martin Clunes point of view? What is he trying to do with this character?

    For one thing, I think he is trying to be funny. And, without analyzing it very deeply, most of his viewers probably leave it at that -- he is amusing. MC thinks it's funny for people to hate dogs, he thinks it's funny, in kind of a dark and ironic way, that a person in a healing profession can be so tactless and unempathic as to produce a panic attack; he thinks it's funny that the skilled surgeon walks himself into doors and trips over children, etc., etc.

    I think he does not expect the audience to find the character particularly "likeable." He has almost no charm, is deliberately and proudly tactless -- calling it truth-telling. He does not want to be apologized for or explained to others -- it irritates him when Louisa does this. Martin Clunes is joking, of course, when he calls his character "vile" and "rubbish" but I think there is a sense in which he means it.

    What he has done is to produce a character who is very often NOT likeable on the surface, but he has portrayed him with enough depth and subtlety -- and charisma and general attractiveness, let us not forget -- that we are willing to make allowances for his flaws and are pulling for him to overcome them, so that he can allow himself to be in relationships with Louisa and his son that make him happy and give him a chance to be a better person.

    I see him as a person who made a decision a long time ago that on the whole, relations with other people were likely to be painful -- to subject him to teasing and abuse -- and therefore, were best avoided, and if forging a persona that was so abrasive that it drove people away was helpful in that strategy of avoidance, so much the better. But shining through this character armor, we do see flashes, glints, of empathy, and a capacity for kindness and affection, and a kind of yearning for connectedness, which he has to try to deny and sabotage. I think this is what Louisa sees, and it draws her to him.

    Well, over long, but the general question of whether one does or does not "like" Doc Martin is a very interesting one to me.
  • mmDerdekeammDerdekea Posts: 1,719
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NewPark wrote: »
    One of the interesting things about this series, perhaps almost a unique feature, is the extent to which the lead actor has had creative input into the design of his character. I feel pretty sure that not a scene gets written or acted that Martin Clunes has not shaped in some way.

    So, c.c. cookie, you asked the very good question about the scene in the hospital where DM is heedlessly working up Mrs. Kronk into another anxiety produced attack, what is that scene for?

    That plays into the question that has always fascinated me the most about the series: What are we meant to think and feel about Doc Martin, from Martin Clunes point of view? What is he trying to do with this character?

    For one thing, I think he is trying to be funny. And, without analyzing it very deeply, most of his viewers probably leave it at that -- he is amusing. MC thinks it's funny for people to hate dogs, he thinks it's funny, in kind of a dark and ironic way, that a person in a healing profession can be so tactless and unempathic as to produce a panic attack; he thinks it's funny that the skilled surgeon walks himself into doors and trips over children, etc., etc.

    I think he does not expect the audience to find the character particularly "likeable." He has almost no charm, is deliberately and proudly tactless -- calling it truth-telling. He does not want to be apologized for or explained to others -- it irritates him when Louisa does this. Martin Clunes is joking, of course, when he calls his character "vile" and "rubbish" but I think there is a sense in which he means it.

    What he has done is to produce a character who is very often NOT likeable on the surface, but he has portrayed him with enough depth and subtlety -- and charisma and general attractiveness, let us not forget -- that we are willing to make allowances for his flaws and are pulling for him to overcome them, so that he can allow himself to be in relationships with Louisa and his son that make him happy and give him a chance to be a better person.

    I see him as a person who made a decision a long time ago that on the whole, relations with other people were likely to be painful -- to subject him to teasing and abuse -- and therefore, were best avoided, and if forging a persona that was so abrasive that it drove people away was helpful in that strategy of avoidance, so much the better. But shining through this character armor, we do see flashes, glints, of empathy, and a capacity for kindness and affection, and a kind of yearning for connectedness, which he has to try to deny and sabotage. I think this is what Louisa sees, and it draws her to him.

    Well, over long, but the general question of whether one does or does not "like" Doc Martin is a very interesting one to me.

    Nice discussion, NewPark.

    Absolutely, early on in interviews, the word "vile" came up over and over. This is still an early episode. Only later in the series, from MC's own deeper understanding of his character, and from the info they had created in back story (abusive parents), etc, and perhaps also from audience response, did MC stop calling him that nasty adjective and switch to "damaged" and such and CC started mentioning LG's flaws. The characters went from caricatures to really complex and complicated people.

    I didn't really think his line to Mrs. Cronk, explaining how Bert was handling the shop, was even DM's worst line in the series. It was simply the truth, and we know that almost always the truth comes of his mouth, combined with his clueless or uncaring concern for the emotional consequences to the recipient. Perhaps Peter learned a lesson as Peter himself said in the Stewart episode that he just says what he thinks, too. Peter could see that isn't really a good idea all the time, with his mother's asthmatic attack!
  • NewParkNewPark Posts: 3,537
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mmDerdekea wrote: »
    Nice discussion, NewPark.

    Absolutely, early on in interviews, the word "vile" came up over and over. This is still an early episode. Only later in the series, from MC's own deeper understanding of his character, and from the info they had created in back story (abusive parents), etc, and perhaps also from audience response, did MC stop calling him that nasty adjective and switch to "damaged" and such and CC started mentioning LG's flaws. The characters went from caricatures to really complex and complicated people.

    I didn't really think his line to Mrs. Cronk, explaining how Bert was handling the shop, was even DM's worst line in the series. It was simply the truth, and we know that almost always the truth comes of his mouth, combined with his clueless or uncaring concern for the emotional consequences to the recipient. Perhaps Peter learned a lesson as Peter himself said in the Stewart episode that he just says what he thinks, too. Peter could see that isn't really a good idea all the time, with his mother's asthmatic attack!

    Yes, I think it is absolutely right that Martin Clunes' understanding of his character changed and deepened over time and great point that he switched from "vile" and "rubbish" to "damaged" in describing DM.

    I wish I understood what he was trying to do in S5!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NewPark wrote: »
    One of the interesting things about this series, perhaps almost a unique feature, is the extent to which the lead actor has had creative input into the design of his character. I feel pretty sure that not a scene gets written or acted that Martin Clunes has not shaped in some way.

    So, c.c. cookie, you asked the very good question about the scene in the hospital where DM is heedlessly working up Mrs. Kronk into another anxiety produced attack, what is that scene for?

    That plays into the question that has always fascinated me the most about the series: What are we meant to think and feel about Doc Martin, from Martin Clunes point of view? What is he trying to do with this character?

    For one thing, I think he is trying to be funny. And, without analyzing it very deeply, most of his viewers probably leave it at that -- he is amusing. MC thinks it's funny for people to hate dogs, he thinks it's funny, in kind of a dark and ironic way, that a person in a healing profession can be so tactless and unempathic as to produce a panic attack; he thinks it's funny that the skilled surgeon walks himself into doors and trips over children, etc., etc.

    I think he does not expect the audience to find the character particularly "likeable." He has almost no charm, is deliberately and proudly tactless -- calling it truth-telling. He does not want to be apologized for or explained to others -- it irritates him when Louisa does this. Martin Clunes is joking, of course, when he calls his character "vile" and "rubbish" but I think there is a sense in which he means it.

    What he has done is to produce a character who is very often NOT likeable on the surface, but he has portrayed him with enough depth and subtlety -- and charisma and general attractiveness, let us not forget -- that we are willing to make allowances for his flaws and are pulling for him to overcome them, so that he can allow himself to be in relationships with Louisa and his son that make him happy and give him a chance to be a better person.

    I see him as a person who made a decision a long time ago that on the whole, relations with other people were likely to be painful -- to subject him to teasing and abuse -- and therefore, were best avoided, and if forging a persona that was so abrasive that it drove people away was helpful in that strategy of avoidance, so much the better. But shining through this character armor, we do see flashes, glints, of empathy, and a capacity for kindness and affection, and a kind of yearning for connectedness, which he has to try to deny and sabotage. I think this is what Louisa sees, and it draws her to him.

    Well, over long, but the general question of whether one does or does not "like" Doc Martin is a very interesting one to me.

    You could be right. His sense of humour might be a tad different from mine. :cool: I just found myself feeling sorry for Peter during the hospital scene. Yet another thing to have to take responsibility for.

    I know MC likes being as horrible as possible on screen because he can't be like that in real life. Sort of a release for him I guess. Julie Graham didn't like him at all when he played DM.

    He was really depressed about turning 50 during the filming of series 5. Do you think this impacted the series?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NewPark wrote: »
    One of the interesting things about this series, perhaps almost a unique feature, is the extent to which the lead actor has had creative input into the design of his character. I feel pretty sure that not a scene gets written or acted that Martin Clunes has not shaped in some way.

    Well, over long, but the general question of whether one does or does not "like" Doc Martin is a very interesting one to me.


    I think it is difficult to pin point DM's character and I am coming to the conclusion that it is because there are so many inputs into his character. The writers, MC, and then a substantial amount of time between series all add to the slight differences between the way DM comes across and those slightly odd moments that I find disconcerting but as you say, NewPark, if we just watched once wouldn't matter much in the scheme of things and we would simply see as funny.

    I just don't like the extreme mean traits that occasionally sometimes come through. I don't feel that they really gel with the character that I usually find on the screen.
  • NewParkNewPark Posts: 3,537
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    1. Love it when he growls at the dog.



    5. I'm confused. Is Bert a Good Samaritan or trying to benefit from his fish purchase?


    .

    I'm a bit confused here too. He seems to have been trying to cheat his own son. He's a good Samaritan in the sense that he does try to keep the shop open and has the wit to strike a bargain with the Crab and Lobster, but not very nice to extort money from his own son by letting him think that he (Bert) was losing money on the deal. Another reason why I don't particularly like Bert, even though he sometimes is a good foil for DM.
  • mmDerdekeammDerdekea Posts: 1,719
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NewPark wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused here too. He seems to have been trying to cheat his own son. He's a good Samaritan in the sense that he does try to keep the shop open and has the wit to strike a bargain with the Crab and Lobster, but not very nice to extort money from his own son by letting him think that he (Bert) was losing money on the deal. Another reason why I don't particularly like Bert, even though he sometimes is a good foil for DM.

    Yes, Bert is all over the place in this episode. He's immediately sympathetic to Mrs. Cronk's needs, and offers to help. I think he thought making fish and chips would be simple--just fry the fish and potatoes, how hard could that be? When it turns out not to be so easy, Bert still feels he has an obligation to Mrs. Cronk, and finds a fairly cunning way to help via the also sympathetic cook at the Crab and Lobster. I'm not sure if Bert is breaking even or even losing a little money to keep Mrs. Cronk's shop afloat.

    And then he tries to cheat Al--that comes from out of the blue.

    And, I also wonder how many fish and chip shops there are in PW. I would imagine that the Crab and Lobster is a little more expensive than Mrs. Cronk's local shop; if Mrs. Cronk is out for a week or so, I would think her customers would come back when she returned. It's a pretty tight village that way and I doubt there are a bunch of other Fish and Chips shops in town. We see Bert isn't really bringing her in an income, so although he may be converting new folks to Mrs. Cronk's food, she won't come back with that much money in the till.

    It was a decent subplot, but a bit oddly put together.
  • mmDerdekeammDerdekea Posts: 1,719
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NewPark wrote: »

    I wish I understood what he was trying to do in S5!

    One wonders if we'll ever know.....
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NewPark wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused here too. He seems to have been trying to cheat his own son. He's a good Samaritan in the sense that he does try to keep the shop open and has the wit to strike a bargain with the Crab and Lobster, but not very nice to extort money from his own son by letting him think that he (Bert) was losing money on the deal. Another reason why I don't particularly like Bert, even though he sometimes is a good foil for DM.

    I thought Bert was losing money on the deal with the Crab and Lobster but was trying to keep that info from Al who he knew wouldn't like the idea.

    I live in a village of 500 people and we have 2 fish and chip shops and a chinese restaurant at the bowling club: )
  • dcdmfandcdmfan Posts: 1,540
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mmDerdekea wrote: »
    Yes, Bert is all over the place in this episode. He's immediately sympathetic to Mrs. Cronk's needs, and offers to help. I think he thought making fish and chips would be simple--just fry the fish and potatoes, how hard could that be? When it turns out not to be so easy, Bert still feels he has an obligation to Mrs. Cronk, and finds a fairly cunning way to help via the also sympathetic cook at the Crab and Lobster. I'm not sure if Bert is breaking even or even losing a little money to keep Mrs. Cronk's shop afloat.

    And then he tries to cheat Al--that comes from out of the blue.

    And, I also wonder how many fish and chip shops there are in PW. I would imagine that the Crab and Lobster is a little more expensive than Mrs. Cronk's local shop; if Mrs. Cronk is out for a week or so, I would think her customers would come back when she returned. It's a pretty tight village that way and I doubt there are a bunch of other Fish and Chips shops in town. We see Bert isn't really bringing her in an income, so although he may be converting new folks to Mrs. Cronk's food, she won't come back with that much money in the till.

    It was a decent subplot, but a bit oddly put together.

    There is a fish and chip shop in Port Isaac. I don't think there are two of them, though. I liked the crab sandwiches at the place at the top of the hill next to the bookstore. It was like the best crab I have ever had. The lobster in PI was to die for as well.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dcdmfan wrote: »
    There is a fish and chip shop in Port Isaac. I don't think there are two of them, though. I liked the crab sandwiches at the place at the top of the hill next to the bookstore. It was like the best crab I have ever had. The lobster in PI was to die for as well.

    dcdmfan
    Does the Crab and Lobster exist in Port Isaac? Would they sell fish and chips there?
  • dcdmfandcdmfan Posts: 1,540
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cc.cookie wrote: »
    dcdmfan
    Does the Crab and Lobster exist in Port Isaac? Would they sell fish and chips there?

    There is a pub right there. I didn't go in there, so I don't know what they serve. The food in that area is so different from the rest of England. It's much lighter and varied than I experienced elsewhere. Even at the tourist traps in Tintagle the food was more interesting than in the other parts of England I visited. The food was excellent at the Slipway Hotel where I stayed. The breakfast offered fish dishes that were excellent. I don't eat eggs, but they offered the English breakfast, too. I would go back for the food. Now I follow a restaurant owner from PI.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 911
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mmDerdekea wrote: »
    Absolutely, early on in interviews, the word "vile" came up over and over. This is still an early episode. Only later in the series, from MC's own deeper understanding of his character, and from the info they had created in back story (abusive parents), etc, and perhaps also from audience response, did MC stop calling him that nasty adjective and switch to "damaged" and such and CC started mentioning LG's flaws. The characters went from caricatures to really complex and complicated people.

    I'm not sure I agree with you here when it comes to DM. I'm with others who generally despise what they did to the Doc in S5. I thought he was much more a caricature in that season than any other, certainly much more limited, one-dimensional and closed than in earlier series. Doesn't mean there weren't moments here and there. But I don't see cumulative growth in the character. I see just as much regression (sadness, anger, stereotypical cardboard qualities) as whatever growth was exhibited by his caring for JH. I saw much more nuance in S1-3, then view S4 as transitional. I'll be looking for some sign of the complexity and range of the old Doc in S6. :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 366
    Forum Member
    I'm with others who generally despise what they did to the Doc in S5.

    I thought he was much more a caricature in that season than any other, certainly much more limited, one-dimensional and closed than in earlier series. Doesn't mean there weren't moments here and there.
    I'll be looking for some sign of the complexity and range of the old Doc in S6. :)

    I agree.

    Here's my problem. I thought the Doc Martin I saw in Series 1, even though I hated any episode with Elaine, had charm, disdain, vulnerability, arrogance, humor, lack of humor -- was, in short, a complex individual and I cared about seeing how he adapted and grew -- and developed a relationship with Louisa. Same with Series 2 -- and even better because Elaine was gone.

    Then, if I am right, Dominic Minghella left and the Doc Martin character became shriller, the relationship with Louisa and the village much less nuanced.

    But if I am correct, Dominic Minghella would never have gotten DM and LG together -- so I am left with the relationship going nowhere or the Doc Martin character morphing into something less interesting.

    Dare I hope that in Series 6 they find their way back to a balance? That the powers that be realize that constantly writing roadblocks and disasters for a couple ultimately leaves the viewer thinking not "will they-won't they" -- but instead "who cares."
  • NewParkNewPark Posts: 3,537
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bookfan2 wrote: »
    I agree.

    Here's my problem. I thought the Doc Martin I saw in Series 1, even though I hated any episode with Elaine, had charm, disdain, vulnerability, arrogance, humor, lack of humor -- was, in short, a complex individual and I cared about seeing how he adapted and grew -- and developed a relationship with Louisa. Same with Series 2 -- and even better because Elaine was gone.

    Then, if I am right, Dominic Minghella left and the Doc Martin character became shriller, the relationship with Louisa and the village much less nuanced.

    But if I am correct, Dominic Minghella would never have gotten DM and LG together -- so I am left with the relationship going nowhere or the Doc Martin character morphing into something less interesting.

    Dare I hope that in Series 6 they find their way back to a balance? That the powers that be realize that constantly writing roadblocks and disasters for a couple ultimately leaves the viewer thinking not "will they-won't they" -- but instead "who cares."

    I'm sorry to say that the only motivation I can figure for what became of DM and also Louisa in S5 is the desire to stretch things out for one more season -- to ring in one more variation on the theme of "will they or won't they " -- this one being, can they or can't they. It felt rather cynical to me, and not believable that, thrown together as they were for 8 weeks, they were not able to articulate one syllable of their real feelings for each other or what they wanted from their relationship.

    I am alarmed by the latest comment that their cohabitation in S6 "has disaster written all over it." I don't want to see that, and I don't know what the excuse for that would be other than the desire to add a Season 7 -- but I don't want to see it bought at that price.

    That said, I do think that MC was playing DM as an emotionally stunted man who was in well over his head as a partner and father, and managing to cope with his new role as father, but not so much as partner. He did have a breakthrough at the end, and I don't see how it would be possible to go back to his previous paralysis with respect to Louisa. But, we've been fooled before.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 366
    Forum Member
    NewPark wrote: »
    It felt rather cynical to me, and not believable that, thrown together as they were for 8 weeks, they were not able to articulate one syllable of their real feelings for each other or what they wanted from their relationship.

    I am alarmed by the latest comment that their cohabitation in S6 "has disaster written all over it." I don't want to see that, and I don't know what the excuse for that would be other than the desire to add a Season 7 -- but I don't want to see it bought at that price.

    But, we've been fooled before.

    Amen and Amen.

    Too many of my favorite shows have traded believability for another season. It's a lose-lose as far as I'm concerned.

    Fingers crossed that Doc Martin doesn't succumb to that.
  • mmDerdekeammDerdekea Posts: 1,719
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cc.cookie wrote: »

    I just don't like the extreme mean traits that occasionally sometimes come through. I don't feel that they really gel with the character that I usually find on the screen.

    I think we are all with you on this one. That line to Mrs. Cronk's. The "if you die line" to LG on the ride home. I stood alone with his "Big Boy" line to Mark at the end of the Stewart episode, but I still think that was a mean, mocking line about a serious inferiority body issue Mark righteously has. When DM just says something pointedly mean, it does take one right out of the episode for a moment. A few times, I think the writers went too far.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 366
    Forum Member
    mmDerdekea wrote: »
    I think we are all with you on this one. That line to Mrs. Cronk's. The "if you die line" to LG on the ride home. I stood alone with his "Big Boy" line to Mark at the end of the Stewart episode, but I still think that was a mean, mocking line about a serious inferiority body issue Mark righteously has. When DM just says something pointedly mean, it does take one right out of the episode for a moment. A few times, I think the writers went too far.

    I absolutely agree the "Big Boy" line to Mark was mean and gratuitous.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 911
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bookfan2 wrote: »
    I agree.

    Here's my problem. I thought the Doc Martin I saw in Series 1, even though I hated any episode with Elaine, had charm, disdain, vulnerability, arrogance, humor, lack of humor -- was, in short, a complex individual and I cared about seeing how he adapted and grew -- and developed a relationship with Louisa. Same with Series 2 -- and even better because Elaine was gone.

    Then, if I am right, Dominic Minghella left and the Doc Martin character became shriller, the relationship with Louisa and the village much less nuanced.

    But if I am correct, Dominic Minghella would never have gotten DM and LG together -- so I am left with the relationship going nowhere or the Doc Martin character morphing into something less interesting.

    Dare I hope that in Series 6 they find their way back to a balance? That the powers that be realize that constantly writing roadblocks and disasters for a couple ultimately leaves the viewer thinking not "will they-won't they" -- but instead "who cares."

    Right on, book fan. Exactly how I process this. I also found the Doc and S5 overall sad and stuck, resigned to his fate. How joyless! How depressing! It also seemed to me overall this series also was literally darker in terms of how it was shot - mirroring the melancholy. I hope BP recognizes its mistake and remedies it in S6. We could use the skillfull Minghella writing, a plot that shows growth and hope without compromising the characters, and acting that uses the whole keyboard without just pounding on the lower keys.
  • dcdmfandcdmfan Posts: 1,540
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm not sure I agree with you here when it comes to DM. I'm with others who generally despise what they did to the Doc in S5. I thought he was much more a caricature in that season than any other, certainly much more limited, one-dimensional and closed than in earlier series. Doesn't mean there weren't moments here and there. But I don't see cumulative growth in the character. I see just as much regression (sadness, anger, stereotypical cardboard qualities) as whatever growth was exhibited by his caring for JH. I saw much more nuance in S1-3, then view S4 as transitional. I'll be looking for some sign of the complexity and range of the old Doc in S6. :)

    I want to preface this by saying that I have not been able to watch any DM for a couple of months, and I haven't watched S5 for even longer than that, so I am writing from memory here. My favorite is series 4. There was more emotion from both of them. I recall that even though they weren't together very often they tried to communicate with one another on a real level. They bickered a lot, but at least they were talking. In series 5 they really didn't communicate much after the first 2 or 3 episodes. She had unexpressed expectations and he just sort of hunkered down and took care of the baby.

    I was optimistic when the S5 first started because it looked like there would be some meaningful movement in their relationship. Everything went awry when Elinor came into the picture. But I am not sure that her presence really warranted the impact it had on their relationship. They let Louisa lose her sense of self with her mother around. Louisa is a grown woman who has been independent of her mother for most of her life. Louisa's character was totally driven by her co-dependence with her mother. They gave us a few moments where she saw the light - that her mother was never going to change - but I had seriously hoped that Louisa would be the driving force in breaking with her mother. Instead they had her mother leave on her own volition. Louisa did set a boundary with her mother at that point. Still, I felt it was unfair to Louisa's character to not be given the chance to take the reigns and dictate the perameters of the relationship. Instead they allowed her to be passive and have circumstances get her mother out of her life. My point is that, since she had been independent of her mother for so long, I think it would have been more realistic for her character to be proactive with regards to her relationship with her mother.

    I liked Louisa's character a lot in series 4. She made a lot of mistakes, but always managed to pull herself up and keep going. The Doc didn't invite her in, she figured out a plan B and went to the pub. The Head Master didn't really want to hire her, she didn't back down and she got the job. She didn't have a place to live, she found the old man's house. She couldn't afford the repairs, she reached out to Al. She stood up to Edith a little bit, even when she was vulnerable as her patient. She swallowed her pride and reached out to Martin when she needed medical advice. She stood up to him when he questioned her abilities. She was strong and vulnerable at the same time, I guess you could say her character was more nuanced. We didn't see much of that in series 5. I'm not talking about her mistakes at the school, I can accept that aspect of her character - that she was overwhelmed going back to work.

    Series 2 is my second favorite series, again because I liked the Louisa character. She is strong in that series. The Series 3 Louisa is softer and more feminine, and no doubt probably the most attractive. She is sensitive and lovable. I don't get a fully realized character in Series 1, although she is spunky and capable.

    I hated the way the Doc treated Louisa in series 4, but underneath it, when he was in private or with Joan, I saw the vulnerability and caring. I liked the Doc in S5, too, in the first few episodes. He was trying to sort things out in his mind about his childhood, his father and his future. But I have the same type of problem with that as I have with Louisa's character in that series. I am not sure that all that angst had to dictate so much of his character. He's been independent of his family for a long time. I think they dragged it out a few episodes too long, and we didn't see any progress in his coming to grips with these issues until the very end of the series. But I think on the whole, S5 was kinder to the Doc than it was to Louisa. They let her turn shrill, incompetent, and infantilized her, while they had him become distant and withdrawn and sometimes mean. On the whole, what they did with the Doc's character bugged me less than what they did with Louisa.
  • NewParkNewPark Posts: 3,537
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bookfan2 wrote: »
    I absolutely agree the "Big Boy" line to Mark was mean and gratuitous.

    I wonder what anybody thinks about the idea that men sometimes speak to each other in a teasing fashion that strikes us as women (most of here,I think) as overly-mean and too direct?

    I heard it as a mean comment but also as a bit of male-speak, and not really unique to the Doc Martins of this world
This discussion has been closed.