The Unicorn and the Wasp
|Production Code||Series Four Episode Seven|
|Dates||May 17 2008|
With David Tennant,
Written by Gareth Roberts Directed by Graeme Harper
Executive Producers: Russell T Davies, Julie Gardner.
|Synopsis: In the 1920s, Agatha Christie famously disappeared. Now we know why.|
Where Is Thy Sting? by Mike Morris 3/11/08
Here's a question I've started asking myself. The following may seem like a thinly veiled excuse to talk about my own paranoid self-doubts, but trust me, it's more than that. Generally, when I write these reviews, I do so in something approaching - well, not carelessness exactly, but... I assume they don't really matter. Shit, I've been writing reviews on the DWR for something like ten years now. That's a long time. And here's the thing... much as I've enjoyed the debate, and the argument, and the feeling of approaching the truth through dialectic and all that pretentious arse... generally I'm just sharing my thoughts here 'cos there's nowhere else to share 'em. I don't, I suppose, really think that anyone else reads them. In the abstract I do, but... occasionally I get an email from a complete stranger, and I realise that some people actually read these things. Some people actually care about what I write. I'm not sure what-
Getting sidetracked; I'll start again.
Here's a question I've started asking myself. When did I become the sort of person who just seems to hate Doctor Who?
Some background. I have been trying, for some time, to write a review of The Unicorn and the Wasp which vaguely qualifies as balanced. In one of my rare moments of objectivity, I have to admit that it's just... unremarkable. It's entirely throwaway, obviously. It has nothing about it that's memorable, obviously. It only exists to fill up the time allotted to it, obviously. Actually, at the time it aired, I sort of liked it. The emphasis is on "sort of", because at that point I'd seen The Doctor's Daughter and my expectations were at subterranean levels. There were several moments where I threw my eyes skywards, several moments where I sighed heavily. And yet I thought it was enjoyable enough, in a well-it's-clearly-kind-of-shite-but-it-passed-the-time sort of way.
So, I start to review it, 'cos I'm doing every story this season and that's that. I watch it again. I'm annoyed from the pre-titles, and the first twenty minutes induce nothing but continuous, nit-picking annoyance. I try, again and again, to write something that reflects the fact that I felt quite peaceable towards The Unicorn and the Wasp, first time round. But all I've got is bile. Irritation, and disillusionment, and general mean-spiritedness. Dammit, how did I get like this?
I mean, it's got some good lines in it, and I liked that Why Didn't They Ask Evans wordplay. And aside from that...
Shit. I've got nothing. And here's what I want everyone to understand; I want to have something. I want to like Doctor Who right now, just as I always have. Joe Ford describes Partners in Crime as a "brilliantly absurd 21st-century-comic-book opener." I'd love to think that. And yet, I watch it and all I can see is a fucking stupid 45 minutes of television that insults its audience, no matter how hard I try. I don't think it's "brilliantly absurd", I think it's gimmicky, shallow, smug and thoroughly uninvolving.
Man, I hate this. When NuWho came back, suddenly all these ridiculous dullards appeared, desperate to drag it down. God, how I hated them. I despised everything they said, every reason they had for existing, all the make-believe conspiracy theories about a mass army of RTD conformists trying to silence them. Ron Mallett actually referred to the Thought Police somewhere on this site, as if he's fighting a mighty cause against the masses of people pursuing a sinister agenda, rather than just being disagreed with by everyone because he's plain wrong. Or go look at Lawrence Miles. I admire him, I like his writing, and I think he's funny (even when he's wrong, which is often). But at some point on his website, prior to Series 4, he announced he was going to "act as the frustrated conscience of Doctor Who fandom... because some f**ker's got to do it." Er, sorry mate, what? You think I need you as myconscience? Who exactly are you, again? I mean, you're a guy with a website, opinions, inventive ways of looking at the world, and writing ability that dwarfs mine. But don't act like my conscience, because I have one and it works perfectly well, thank you.
It's just horrible. A belief that people are too stupid to think what they really think, that the general tide of opinion against Doctor Who is part of some sinister public delusion, that anyone who disagrees is either stupid, or malicious, or blinded by a mass-publicity campaign, or all three. What other reason could there possibly be for people liking stuff I don't like?
And now... I'm one of these people. Jesus Christ.
Take Catherine Tate, for example. Look, I'd like to like her. I do like her, in a well-I'd-go-for-a-pint-with-her sense. I just think that she's a rotten actress. Suddenly, though, the world seems to love her. She's nominated for awards. Awards! Fans and non-fans have raved about her performances in Who. I want to put this down to a simple difference of opinion, but... I mean, look at her. In her first appearance in The Wasp and the Unicorn, Catherine Tate tramples all over a joke that wasn't very funny in the first place, then Donna declares "Never mind planet Zog, a party in the nineteen twenties? That's more like it," and it just makes me want to slap her. After fifteen seconds of her being on-screen. Anyone who's more interested in sipping cocktails with posh people on the lawn than seeing the wonders of the universe can just sod right off and that's all there is to it. Oh, and there's that scene where she says "A wasp that's giant... I mean flipping E-NOR-MOUS," and I just can't believe I'm supposed to be looking at a real human being. Eye-rolling, shouty, arms flapping, generally acting like someone who's... actually, like no one at all. Sorry. No one behaves like that. Some people might put on that act if their boyfriend's left the towels on the bathroom floor again, but would anyone behave that way after a near-death encounter? Please.
So I'm finding myself thinking in the terms I object to so strongly; I wonder if Catherine Tate's popularity is some form of weird mass hysteria, a reaction to people a: having incredibly low expectations of her in the first place, and b: reacting to having a companion who's an actual character, rather than just another doe-eyed pretty girl, without asking whether she's really well-played. To be honest I just don't like Donna very much at all, I think she's brash, shouty, self-absorbed, and annoying (Turn Left excepted), but at least she's vivid. Put a proper actress in the role and you might have something memorable. But this is one of Tate's earlier performances, I believe, and I think she's bloody awful in it. Never, at any point, does she seem like a real person. Sorry and all, but there you go.
As for the story itself: it's boring and yet irritating at the same time. There's some sort of swelling Doctor Who subgenre of the period runaround, and lots of people seem to automatically like top-ho stereotypes saying things like "quite topping." I liked it, in Black Orchid, which was a quarter of a century ago. But, like Gareth Roberts' previous story, this is so bloody smug that it makes me want to throw things. This is the sort of story that can have a flash of lightning at the moment when the Doctor says "If anyone can solve this mystery... it's you," and it's supposed to be clever and post-modern rather than just completely and utterly hackneyed and shit. The plot, and the reason for the killing itself, is absolute garbage. It doesn't even make the vaguest bit of sense. Anyone who disagrees, explain this to me: how the hell does the killer think that human society acts like a murder mystery, while retaining forty years' worth of memories to the contrary?
Or am I being stuffy? Am I overanalysing a good-humoured excuse to run around in the 1920s? Am I, in short, wrong? I love Williams-era stuff and indulge it all sorts of faults, so why doesn't this extend to NuWho's lighter, fluffier efforts these days?
I've recently done a Key to Time marathon, and I'd forgotten how much I loved The Androids of Tara. You know why? Because the plot's multilayered, and clever in spite of how funny it is. It's got moments of genuine human drama, it's got charm, it's got memorably OTT characters. The set-pieces are lifted wholesale from The Prisoner of Zenda, but you know what? They're rather good, as well as being clever. Oh, and most important of all - it's actually funny. And I like funny. Actually, here's something I'm going to acknowledge; when the Doctor gets poisoned, I chuckled gleefully. That scene is funny. Broad and silly, but it's funny. If all of it was like this...
I don't know where to begin with how widely The Wasp One misses the mark. The story keeps telling us that Agatha Christie is brilliant - well of course, it's a Tennant historical - but doesn't actually seem to hold that opinion in terms of its structure. The setup is that of a cheap, derivative and tawdry whodunnit, and this is apparently because it's based on an Agatha Christie plot? So how brilliant is she, then?
As it happens, I like Agatha Christie novels; they're well-structured pieces of throwaway nonsense, with memorable central caricatures. Hercule Poirot is a wonderful creation, and Miss Marple isn't far behind. And yet, there's a bizarre speech when the Doctor says she's brilliant because she has a peerless understanding of people. Sorry, hold on. Agatha Christie books aren't there to go straight to the heart of the human condition, they're there to be cleverly plotted. And you simply can't stuff your story full of cosy old stereotypes in supposed homage to your subject, tell us she's brilliant anyway, and then justify this muddle-headed stance by saying that she's the best-selling novelist of all time. It smacks of a sort of "well hey, I know she's shit really, but lots of people like her" attitude that I find vaguely disrespectful. I shouldn't expect anything more though; after all, it's pretty much the way that Doctor Who's writers defend the programme these days.
Indeed. Cosiness abounds here, more than anywhere else before or since. We're presented with the absurdity of the Doctor stumbling into an Agatha Christie-style murder mystery (with all the wit removed, obviously), and it's shrugged off with "it happens to me all the time." We have yet another reworking of the "no, don't do that" joke. In fact, one of the more annoying scenes is when the Doctor refuses to call in the police. He does this before there's been any sign of there being any alien involvement at all. We're not expected to ask why, though, are we? It's only Doctor Who, after all.
Do Doctor Who stories really have to be so stupid, these days? You can ask yourself why the hell a giant insect would keep trying to sting people to death when it could as easily stick its leg through their body, for example. But that credits this with being an actual story, a story that wants to justify its own existence. And that's the thing about The Wasp and the Unicorn; it just has no reason for existing whatsoever. Engaging story? No, it's a deliberately derivative take-off of Agatha Christie stories, with all the invention removed. Engaging characters? No, they're all dull stereotypes with generic stiff-upper-lip presentation and one discernible trait each (alcoholic, gay, old bore), applied so mechanically that a computer could almost do it. Any intriguing concepts? No, half-baked rubbish that expects us to believe that there's some kind of physiological link between an alien creature and Agatha Christie... because it's read one of her books.
Hey, lighten uuuuuup, don't overanalyse it, it's only Doctor Who.
I think that's where I've changed... or at least, where things have changed generally. Doctor Who used to be mine. It used to be a battered old thing I found on video, watched for nostalgic reasons, and discovered that it was so much more than that. It mattered to me, but similarly, it didn't matter to the wider world; if they'd heard of it at all, they certainly didn't care about it. But now... Doctor Who is watched by ten million people in the UK, and an awful lot of those are kids. It matters. When Joe Ford tries to defend The Sontaran Invasion by saying it would be a reasonably well-thought of Pertwee story, I just think that's irrelevant; worse, justifying something's existence by saying it's not as bad as some other stories that almost none of today's audience have seen, is insultingly dismissive of the wider world. It's not just that comparing a story to something thirty-five years old seems inherently perverse, but... there aren't millions of people watching Pertwee stories in Britain today. New-era Doctor Who gets to go out there and tell stories to a nation's entire youth, and don't tell me that isn't a position of influence. All of a sudden, Doctor Who is important, and I can't show it the indulgence I used to.
I found Series 2 disappointing, on balance, but I loved a lot of it, and - in hindsight - Tooth and Claw and Love and Monsters just make me forgive it everything except Doomsday (sorry). Series 3 I love as well. The stories are up and down, sure, but the run-in from Human Nature onwards is bloody marvellous, and I think the finale is unfairly maligned and actually rather lovely, thank-you-very-much. Besides, it gave me Gridlock. Again, I'll forgive a show anything if it produces Gridlock.
But... seven episodes into Series 4, it had yet to throw up anything worthwhile. Planet of the Ood is okay, but one out of seven is far from a good ratio. The Unicorn and the Wasp was just another not-very-good instalment of a programme that was showing no ambition and no drive.
Lately, I went to went to a family wedding with my UK relatives, and met some people I hadn't seen for years. Amongst them were some cousins, around the eleven year-old mark. They adored Doctor Who, and - here's a sea-change from the last few years - they thought I was cool because I liked it. They thought it was incredible that I'd had a Doctor Who short story published, even if it was only in a charity fanthology (Missing Pieces, since you ask). They looked up to me because I knew more about Doctor Who than them, I was as willing to wax lyrical about David Tennant as they were, and liked the Weeping Angels as much as they did. Their enthusiasm, and the joy the programme had given them, was just... dammit... wonderful.
Rewatching The Unicorn and the Wasp, I found myself thinking of them. I realised that the show isn't for me any more, and nor is it about me, and it certainly isn't about the Pertwee years. I'm sure they liked The Unicorn and the Wasp, because they like everything about Doctor Who, and it did have a giant wasp in it. But all I found myself thinking was that... well, they deserve something so much stranger than that. So much darker. And so much madder. And so much better.
A Review by Joe Ford 23/1/09
Who cares? That is my motto now. Who actually gives a damn that some old school Doctor Who fans cannot embrace the new series? I remember popping along to the Outpost Gallifrey forums after each episode to see how they were received and, despite an episode's quality (say Forest of the Dead or Blink), there would always be someone there dismissing it, pulling it to pieces and rejecting it. Fair enough, everybody is entitles to their opinion and it was a public forum but, and I will include the Ratings Guide, I am bored of listening to people whine on about the new series. Constructive criticism seems to have gone out the window and stabs at particular actor/actresses is in and it is all getting a bit out of hand. Frankly, if eight million people want to watch The Unicorn and the Wasp and the country wants to embrace it and my boyfriend (who tolerates but does not embrace the classic series) adores it, I am very pleased. The fact that I happen to think it is a witty and whimsical piece of murder mystery mayhem just pops a little cherry on top. I don't know if I think fandom is ungrateful for what we have been given or if the old school fandom just doesn't matter anymore, but I would rather spend my time writing a positive review about an episode than reading a wholly negative one. I will be tackling The Doctor's Daughter shortly and through much straining I will even find some positives to say about that too.
There are so many things to like about The Unicorn and the Wasp, chiefly amongst them the gushing fan letter to Agatha Christie. Well-structured pieces of throwaway nonsense they may be but I don't think we should ever forget Christie's contribution to the mystery genre, to plotting and to characterisation. Yep, I said characterisation. Aside from being constantly outfoxed by her labyrinth plotting, the thing I loved about Agatha Christie novels is her ability capture people with crystal clarity and she doesn't achieve this by writing detailed descriptions of what they look like or bombard us with first-person narration (although some of her novels, the genius Murder of Roger Ackroyd, is written in the first person) but through her dialogue. It is an amazing gift, but when I read the dialogue of a Christie character they just sound so real. She can sum up a personality in their speech without the book ever reading like a script. So I really don't think that saying she has a peerless understanding of the human condition is that over the top, her novels delve into infidelity, homosexuality, rape, murder, family, psychosis, abuse... she looks at the darker side of human nature and doesn't always have easy ways of dealing with it. A Doctor Who-style Agatha Christie episode is something I have longed for.
When I heard this episode was being written I thought this would be a nice cosy look at Agatha Christie's life when what I really wanted was a real life mystery adventure. Imagine my surprise when I switched on and suddenly bodies were being found in the library, there were ten or so suspects, secret rooms where being discovered, flashbacks were peoples alibis... what impresses first and foremost about this episode is how accurately it captures the tone and joy of a Christie murder mystery. If you go and watch some of the first season Poirot episodes they deal with a very simple plot over 45 minutes and leave room for David Suchet to charm the audience with his delightful turn as Poirot. It is only in the later seasons where they started making the books that the plotting became intricate and complicated. The Unicorn and the Wasp squeezes an entire Christie novel within 45 minutes but it does so without ever feeling rushed or by betraying the plot. There is even time for a glorious flashback overseas, a car chase and an explanation for Christie's historic disappearance. Gareth Roberts wrote us a witty and stylish love letter to Shakespeare last year and this year he has done us equally proud with Agatha Christie.
The list of suspects is beautifully brought to life by a stellar supporting cast. Felicity Kendal is a name I have longed to see in Doctor Who for many, many years so it was fabulous to finally see her making an appearance. She is the quintessential English bird so she has everything to make Lady Clemency Eddison an understated aristocrat. You've got love how Felicity Jones switches from social stunner to cockney thief in a second once her cover is blown. Christopher Benjamin is always good for a laugh, and Adam Rayner and Daniel King provide some nice eye candy. Like a good Christie novel you have lots of caricatures (the stalwart vicar, the common thief, the embarrassed homosexual, the gruff Colonel) but they are captured so well by the cast they become good characters in their own right. It is the characters that make this sort of story essential viewing so it helps that Graeme Harper, usually a great action director, has managed to assemble such a memorable cast. I love the Colonel reminiscing about the dancing girls in stockings. I love the two boys walking through the garden hand in hand. I love Lady Eddison gulping down a flask before afternoon tea. Little touches of characterisation that add to the overall effect to a great list of suspects.
How Mike Morris can say that this is an Agatha Christie novel with all of the wit removed is beyond me. This is probably the wittiest script of the year (with Fires of Pompeii not far behind) with some absolutely corking lines: "Typical, all the best boys are on the other bus!", "Flapper or slapper?", "How is camptown races one word?", "Tell me there's no Noddy!", "The Belgians make such wonderful buns!", "There's a monster...and we're chasing it!" and a hundred other lines that are brought to life superbly. There is a real affection for the subject matter that shines through in the dialogue and the little reminders of some of those genius Christie book titles doesn't hurt the episode one bit.
To say Catherine Tate is bloody awful is the sort of statement a five year old would come up with. She's not, and here's why. Tate is clearly having a blast with this story and she gets the chance to show off a range of emotions. Donna makes for an unwilling but surprisingly effective detective, she has a touching heart to heart with Agatha Christie, she gets to kill off the monster and defend herself, plus she gets numerous witty lines and moments where you just want to kiss her. Anyone who thinks she isn't the ideal companion for the tenth Doctor go and watch the sparkling cyanide sequence, where between them David Tennant and Catherine Tate manage to explode in a firework of chemistry, chills and laughs. It's still one of my favourite sequences of the fourth season. To have Donna hobnobbing it with the upper classes is as funny as it sounds and my Simon loved the opening scenes. When Catherine Tate joined the show we had a companion that we both adored and that makes her contribution to the show even more special for me.
As good as Catherine Tate is, Fenella Woolgar steals the episode with her beautifully understated and yet completely mesmerising turn as Agatha Christie herself. I have read up quite a bit about the woman behind the novels and this is as close to accurate a portrayal as I am sure I am likely to see on television. Interesting that she considered her own books as throwaway novels ("Try hard as I might, it's hardly great literature") and scoffs at the title "Dame Agatha". Her thoughtful consideration of Murder on the Orient Express and Miss Marple make for hilarious vignettes ("Copyright Donna Noble"). Beyond all the witty mentions of her work is a rather melancholic portrayal of a woman who is disillusioned with the world and seeking rest after her husband's infidelity. Woolgar's quiet but meaningful "Can't a woman make her own way in the world?" speaks wonders. Her contribution to the "all assembled in the study" wrap up is essential; she clearly loves theatre as much as Poirot when it comes to these moments.
The plot unravels beautifully in the conclusion, clues such as Lady Eddison being laid up for six months, the torn scrap of paper that says "maiden", the vicar being brought up by the Christian fathers, the stolen jewel, Lady Eddison being such a fan of Agatha Christie books all contributing to a number of stacked twists. This is another of my favourite sequences this year, the dialogue coming thick and fast, the characters' reactions to the surprises is magical and Donna is at the centre of it all trying to keep up with everything.
The abandonment of a few hardcore fans aside, I find it impossible to wholly dismiss this episode. It is one of those rare Doctor Who episodes that goes for the funny bone as much as the jugular, that looks positively stunning (on the production side, you have the glorious sunny location, the evocative sets and an absolutely chilling monster in the form of the wasp) and is bolstered by terrific performances. It's sharp, clever, imaginative and whimsical. For these reasons, if anybody was going to compare Doctor Who to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which some people might find a useless exercise, but let's not forget how superb that show was at the height of its powers) it would be this one that I would pick. And this is set in the 1930's.
To summarise, like my friend Mike Morris (our butting of heads will forever keep us friends!) season four has not been the disaster he makes out. You've had two sparkling historicals (Fires of Pompeii and this), a bonkers but assured opener, a dark and action-packed morality play (Planet of the Ood) and a two parter that juggles nostalgia and cliche in the same breath. Only The Doctor's Daughter could be said to be a stinker and that is because it tries to do too much at once. I have heard it mentioned that season four only earned respect once it leapt into its second half. I don't agree with that statement but I can only imagine they are starting that run with The Unicorn and the Wasp.
I'm very please Gareth Roberts will be writing more Sarah Jane Adventures and having another stab at Doctor Who in the gap year. Nothing in this superb episode dents his reputation as the most entertaining writer of the new series.
A Review by Finn Clark 12/1/10
I was wrong. A year ago, I watched this story and hated it. This morning, I watched it and loved it. Yes, I'm an idiot.
The key difference between this and The Shakespeare Code is that last time, Gareth had been dealing with real history. Here, he's spinning on a genre. I don't feel comfortable calling it either pastiche or parody... it's certainly pitched most of its tents in the latter camp, but it looks close enough to the real thing that that's how I'd been trying to watch it last time. Basically, it's Gareth Roberts. If you're expecting a proper murder mystery with a cast of characters rather than joke opportunities on legs, you've come to the wrong place. The pacing's all wrong, a strong cast is wasted and the Unicorn appears to have been included in the story purely to justify the cool title. Almost everyone is defined by stereotype, albeit sometimes in order to subvert it. Professor Peach is murdered in the library with the lead piping. Gareth has fun with the "questioning the suspects" and "explaining the plot" scenes. The actors play their roles enthusiastically, but it's an oddly awkward moment when Christopher Benjamin briefly bares his soul to Felicity Kendal. Where'd that come from, then? His character hardly exists outside those sixty seconds or so when Gareth has a joke to get off his chest.
Fenella Woolgar's Agatha Christie is superb, though. She's pretty much the only person here who can be called real, but almost everything about her I loved. Her backstory. Her modesty about her books. Her historically recorded disappearance, which plants a little seed of reality in the heart of the silliness. The only problem is that, as usual for a celebrity historical, she's treated with forelock-tugging reverence that seemed a bit much for Shakespeare and Dickens, let alone Christie. I don't hate her, but for detective stories give me Margery Allingham any day.
However, none of that matters, because the story's basically about its jokes. Remember I said The Shakespeare Code wasn't funny? This thing is hilarious. Just the pre-credits sequence made me laugh more than Gareth's entire previous episode. He's being as arch and playful as he's been doing in Doctor Who for years, with some absolutely cracking abuse of cliches. "I was going to say you're completely innocent." "It was you, Donna Noble." "It was you, Agatha Christie." The lying flashbacks are a scream. I howled at the Doctor's Basil Fawlty pantomime for ginger beer, peanuts and salt. I was expecting the murder mystery to stop messing around at some point and get down to business, but it never did. Felicity Kendal's backstory is, um, extreme. The whole thing's a romp from beginning to end, with the story only backpedalling into any kind of more realistic level once we've ditched the mob and it's just Agatha Christie fighting the giant alien wasp. There's a sentence you don't see every day.
Oh, and the gay characters are wonderful, being the best Gratuitous Homosexuality in Rusty-era Who by a gazillion light-years. They're so glorious that Roger's death becomes a little sad.
What's particularly delicious is that it's the perfect genre to throw at the BBC. They've been doing detective story adaptations since dinosaurs walked the earth. If you cut them, they bleed 1920s. Thus, the episode looks delicious, with New Who's production values allowing a spot-on visual recreation of a prestige adapation of Poirot, Marple, Campion et al. The actors are excellent and aren't taking the piss, both of which are all-important. The sound editing is bad, though.
On a more prosaic level, wasps are a great idea for a monster. Everyone knows what a wasp looks like. It's physically threatening and it looks cool, yet it's conveniently vulnerable to any number of silver bullets. Unlike, say, Cybermen, there are lots of real things that kill a wasp.
It's also worth pointing out that this 1920s detective story manages to include both gay and non-white characters without being tokenistic about it. It's perhaps regrettable that the handicapped character can walk and that the only Christian character ends up recanting his faith, though.
I haven't mentioned the regulars yet. I've given up trying to find any flaws in Tennant's performance from 2007 onwards, but there's always more to say about Catherine Tate. On the one hand, her delivery of that Noddy speech is so poor as to be bewildering, while I also thought she could have done more with "I should have made her sign a contract". I've noticed before that she's not always good at changing direction in mid-flow. However those are just a couple of moments. As a comedienne, she's an invaluable asset for the story, clearly having a ball playing at being a 1920s lady. The way she puts on airs to the aristocracy and servants is a scream. If I had to pick out a showcase for Tate's Donna Noble, I'd be tempted to choose this, even if it's not one of her heartfelt episodes like Fires of Pompeii or Turn Left. "You're ever so plucky!" She also squeaks well.
Speculating wildly, might Gareth have been the unknown writer who turned in unusable scripts for the Tooth and Claw slot, forcing Rusty to step in and pen something at the last minute? I have no evidence for this whatsoever, but it sounds plausible and would suggest that he's become Mr Celebrity Historical. If this guess is correct, then his name would have been down for all three of David Tennant's entries in that pseudo-genre. I'd also like to mention my fan theory about the Christopher Benjamin character. Talons of Weng-Chiang was made in 1977 and set around the end of the 19th century, while this story was made in 2008 and set in 1926. That's a thirty-year gap in each case. Maybe Henry Gordon Jago and Colonel Hugh were the same character, or else brothers or cousins or something.
This viewing made me love this story, but it's still easy to take the wrong way. If you're not watching ironically, you'll probably find it hard to get past the undercooked characters and trivial story. I have quotes from people who reacted much as I did on my first viewing:
On the other hand, consider Gareth's 6th Doctor and Mel story for one of the Short Trips collections, complete with Pip & Jane dialogue. It's a brilliant story because it's deliberately terrible. The Unicorn and the Wasp is similarly lightweight, except when we're watching Fenella Wollgar. Trying to take its detective story seriously is the worst mistake you could possibly make. It's hilarious, but that's not any kind of excuse. Instead, it's the whole point. That's the reason why almost everything happens, rather than the usual engines such as character or plot. There's nothing lazy or stupid about Gareth's cliches here.
"The thrill is in the chase!" by Nathan Mullins 6/2/10
I had just sat down to watch a BBC3 repeat of Doctor Who, and it had to be one of the most unusual episodes to date. Now... this might sound really unusual and terribly silly in saying that the Doctor Who crew love to depict many of the villains as animals, quite like when we saw the Judoon march onto our screens, and the pigs in Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks, as well as that pig in aliens of London. But there's nothing wrong with that. Having a wasp as a central character is no big issue whatsoever. In fact, if you take time to consider that much of series four had small references made to the bees disappearing, and then in The Stolen Earth, the Doctor pointed out that the bees were flying back home, well, if you can explain away that there are bees from earth and bees who are aliens, why can't you have an alien wasp? What's the big deal? I think that it's innovative and above all an intelligent move to make.
To move away from the issue of the wasp, the episode is a beauty. We have a "murder, a mystery and Agatha Christie!" as Donna put it. The subtle references to Agatha Christies novels were exceptional, even though they were such minor details to have them included. God! I have to say it. This episode is above all thrilling and terribly exciting. When the Doctor had found out he had been poisoned, it was almost reminiscent of that scene in Casino Royal when James Bond is poisoned, and makes for his vehicle. The end of that scene sees him fully recover, but the excitement drawn from that very scene reminded me, very much of Casino Royal. But back to The Unicorn and the WASP. The emphasis on that word; goodness me.
The characters all have a part to play, and all really contribute well to the story, each in their very own way. Lady Eddison has a dark tale, that is spoken of at the very end. The character also unlocks the truth behind another particular character, and each character is sort of played out as a red herring. You sometimes guess whether that character might be behind it all, but you guess incorrectly, and when it is all sussed out, you kick yourself. The Doctor and Donna are one hell of a team. Their characters are superb and really get you in the mood for adventure. David Tennant is a brilliant actor. There, I've said it, and so is Catherine Tate. But she is an actress, so pardon me. Catherine Tate brings the right enthusiasm to the role, as does David who has by this time already hit his stride. I wish he weren't leaving, but he is, and I've got to move on. But may I just add that I love him. Not in that way but in a way that he has really made Doctor Who worthwhile for myself, and others alike. His Doctor has been the best since... since... those before him. I wish he had stayed on for at least another season, but at least there are four more specials to look forward to, with him in them.
The Unicorn and the WASP has a great cast: Felicity Kendal, and the actress who played Agatha Christie is just remarkable. She plays her as though she were almost her double. David Tennant's dad also had a guest appearance. The only plot hole I found that had me confused was that the bloke in the white suit, who fancied the waiter, was not present at the very end of the episode, which I found quite confusing, and I mean before the WASP, aka the vicar, had been sussed out.
There were also a lot of comedic moments, like when the Doctor began to panic as he had stuffed a load of food in his mouth, and then tried to spell out the word salt to Donna, which - take my advice - do not try this at home, especially when you've got half a ton of food in your mouth. The WASP that gave chase at the very end, and the Doctor driving a car that almost resembled Bessie, but had been painted black, gave me goosebumps. The Wasp looked terrific, and the CGI effects are outstanding throughout.
Honestly! I don't know why people bear such a grudge when they sit down to watch this episode. What's not to like? There's a car chase, half a dozen murders, a giant WASP, the Doctor and his plucky young assistant, a mystery, and Agatha Christie! Everything you could ever hope for to have in a Doctor Who episode!
A Review by Aengus Fallon 17/3/11
I was fairly disappointed by this episode, I have to admit. It wasn't nearly as funny as I expected it to be despite a stellar cast and a promising premise.
In all honesty, I got a little tired of being told Agatha Christie was a genius. I've read several of her books and, while always entertaining, they are a bit lacking in the characterisation department, among others. Compared to her contemporaries as well as authors of previous generations, she's hardly the best. They put her on too high a pedestal for my liking. I mean, she's hardly Shakespeare, is she?
If I was writing this episode, I'd have tried to get a good feel for her as a person (meaning both the good and the bad) rather than going about it completely uncritically like a fanboy. The series' portrayals of Dickens and Queen Victoria in The Unquiet Dead and Tooth and Claw were far better in my opinion for this very reason, particularly the former. Unlike her, they actually seemed to be real people. And Gareth Roberts himself did a much better job of humanising Shakespeare in The Shakespeare Code. Don't get me wrong, she was undoubtedly a talented writer but, that said, I could name a good 20 or 30 other writers from Britain alone whom I would consider better than her. Quite frankly, I find the thought of her being the most widely read author of all time to be slightly depressing.
The giant wasp rocked and it was wonderful to see Christopher Benjamin return to Doctor Who (albeit not as Henry Gordon Jago) but this episode was very little else to recommend it. A misstep in the otherwise extremely good fourth season.