Continuing to invest the viewer in the relationships of Portwenn's colorful characters, "Haemophobia" brings Doc Martin's "problem" into bold, and comical, relief while advancing his connection with schoolteacher Louisa. Soon after dismissing a cocky former pupil, Adrian Pitts (Rupert Young), who stopped by the village to ask him for a recommendation, Martin finds himself a victim of a pub prank that spotlights the reason why he left his surgical practice in London to become Portwenn's general practitioner: Martin has developed a phobia of blood, a condition he had previously confided only to Roger Fenn (Jeff Rowle).
The subsequent ridicule enrages him, affecting his bedside manner when he examines young Peter Cronk (Kurtis O'Brien), whose playground fall has caused internal injury that is initially undiagnosed. But when Peter's condition worsens, affecting also his mother, Joy (Mary Woodvine), prone to panic attacks, Martin finds himself having to confront his fears in order to save Peter's life. Dominic Minghella's lean, taut script balances pathos and mirth as it frames Martin as eminently fallible, uneasily detached from the mainstream---as is Peter---but absolutely proficient in his ability regardless of obstacle. His adversarial byplay with Louisa smacks directly of Joel and Maggie's sexually-charged tension in "Northern Exposure," while Louisa's confrontation with Adrian cements her romantic interest in Martin, which closes the episode on a simultaneously touching and hilarious note as Martin Clunes and Caroline Catz click for the long haul---no matter how contentious that haul might be.
"Haemophobia" closes the first series (or season) of "Doc Martin" with a firm establishment of character and setting while offering ample promise of future development. It also highlights the expert guidance of Ben Bolt, who directed all six first-series episodes, and whose approach here underscores the tension, humor, and empathy that distinguishes "Doc Martin" and its deliberately difficult, yet compelling, title character, literally the lifeblood of this charming, intelligent comedy-drama.
REVIEWER'S NOTE: What makes a review "helpful"? Every reader of course decides that for themselves. For me, a review is helpful if it explains why the reviewer liked or disliked the work or why they thought it was good or not good. Whether I agree with the reviewer's conclusion is irrelevant. "Helpful" reviews tell me how and why the reviewer came to their conclusion, not what that conclusion may be. Differences of opinion are inevitable. I don't need "confirmation bias" for my own conclusions. Do you?