Skip to main content

They are destroying the greatest force of order in the known universe.


Blake's 7 
1.10: Breakdown


So, a Gan-centric episode. Just what everyone has been waiting for! I’m rather grateful that Nation’s original premise for this never came to pass (an alien duplicate of Gan fights the mental giant, trying to take over the Liberator) as two roles for David Jackson is more than any episode could bear.


The first 30 minutes are Liberator-bound, and the snail’s pace suggests filler material was necessary at times (the examination of Gan’s bonce takes an age.) The rest of the episode is a massive step up from what preceded it, albeit not enough to completely make amends.


A nicely-lit model shot of the Liberator kicks the episode off, and then Gan starts going mental on the flight deck. Unfortunately Jackson’s not a good enough actor to make this dramatic; it’s actually quite funny until Jenna arrives and he starts strangling her. 

To an extent I can see why the authors of Liberation were fixated on Gan being a sex offender, as Jackson’s much more convincing as a simmering psycho with a penchant for doing nasty things to women than a worryingly kindly type (a bit like Robin Williams in that sense). 

Kudos to the stunt woman who enacted Jenna’s fall (to the extent I thought it might have been a dummy). And Gan being discovered, dragging Jenna away by her foot, adds a certain “What’s he got planned next?” vibe. The combination of Blake (decently) hitting him repeatedly on the head and Avon (indecently) kneeing him in the testicles has the desired effect.


The “Inflammation around the implant scar” is suitably grizzly, while Cally’s accusation that restraining Gan is barbarous is a rather unsubtle signpost that she will do something daft later. So much for her super-sensitive atunement to others. Blake’s suggestion that they might operate on him under Zen’s supervision gets short shrift.


Avon: There are quicker ways you could kill him but there are none more certain.


We find out that Avon has been thinking of his future beyond the Liberator, suggesting a “bolthole” on space laboratory XK-72 when other possible destinations prove unsuitable. It is financed by a consortium of neutral planets and researches weaponry and space medicine (the latter must be from Terry Nation’s pen!)

Avon: An interesting combination, don’t you think?


Of course, this requires traversing a prohibited zone of space (to fill up some running time). Except that Zen cannot identify what the danger is, so they press on through. Presumably it’s his temperamental logic coming into play but, since his prime directive sees Zen refuse to enter the zone, it’s a bit rum of him to then to turn off all primary and auxiliary computer functions and so put the crew in even greater danger.

Blake: Presumably Zen will come back to us when we are out of danger.
Vila: Sounds like a good idea. Any chance of joining him?

Another good Vila line:

Vila: I’ve just had a comforting though. We may all be dead before we find out why this is a danger zone.


Gan sets out on a HULK SMASH! rampage after Cally sets him free, the daft bint (“I thought he was normal again”). By which point the ship is being sucked into a gravitational vortex! 

The rhyme or reason of Gan’s destruction derby is indistinct, as he sets upon Avon (trying to override the computer controls) and starts smashing up equipment in the computer room. He pulls something apart, but it doesn’t seem to have done any lasting damage in the next scene, where control is back with the crew and Gan is restrained. Flying straight for the centre of the vortex doesn’t make much sense (surely it would just crush the ship, rather than allowing it pass through to the other side) but it does set up a subplot of the episode. Avon is thoroughly pissed off at Blake.


Avon: In the unlikely event that we survive this, I’m finished. Staying with you requires a degree of stupidity of which I no longer feel capable.
Blake: Now you’re just being modest.

Cally again shows limited judgement skills when she questions Blake as to why he won’t persuade Avon to stay. Why would he? Avon thinks everything he does is dumb and has zero respect for him.


Finally, it’s time to get out of the ship, and the welcome introduction of Count Scarlioni (Professor Kane, played by Julian Glover of City of Death and The Crusade). Glover delivers a tremendously memorable turn in the 20 minutes remaining. And it’s a clever touch that the first scene between him, Blake and Farren (Ian Thompson, The Web Planet and The Chase) makes Kane seem honourable and sympathetic and Farren appear to be a tiresome bureaucrat. If Farren isn’t completely rehabilitated by what follows, the roles are to some extent reversed.


Kane is impressed by the teleport and the shift of the audience to suspect his motives is only gradual; he asks lots of questions and, shown Gan, asks Cally why he has a limiter implanted...


The subplot concerning Avon’s intention to leave picks up steam, as he decides to spend some time on the space lab (he has already questioned Vila on why he stays with Blake, who replied that he likes their leader and he has nowhere else to go.)


Christian Roberts as Dr Renor (Tim Redman in UFO’s The Long Sleep) makes the most of a minor part, and again we see that first impressions aren’t justified. He arrives on the Liberator very much the ladies’ man doctor (“Hello hello hello!” he greets Jenna, then asking “Do you believe in love at first sight...”) but is immediately repelled by Kane’s decision to twiddle his thumbs rather than operate, while the Federation sends some pursuit ships to intercept the Liberator.


Likewise, we expect Farren (being apparently by-the-book) to turn Avon in when the latter offers his services (and the secret of matter transmission, amongst other tech) and identifies himself. Instead, he is annoyed by Kane violating the neutrality of the station and tells Avon about the approaching ships. 


This is the real strength of the last half; characters are called upon to behave in interesting or unexpected ways. We learn that Glover’s motivation is borne out of seeing stability as an absolute requirement, one he considers the Federation to provide. Without stability there can be no progress. In this sense he is the classic apolitical scientist, whose allegiances bow to wherever and whoever sustains his work. He refers to Blake and co as “Maniacs, killers, mindless destroyers. They are destroying the greatest force of order in the known universe.




His view is not shared by either Farren (who considers the lab’s neutrality as a point of principle – it represents a form of order in terms of his microcosm) or Renor (who is evidently non-plussed by the Federation – he considers brain implantation to be objectionable, whereas Kane regards it as better solution for a dangerous psychopath than execution). Glover is quite masterful at essaying Kane’s utter disregard for any moral imperative in saving Gan, casually picking his nails with his feet resting on a crate.




And it’s Vila, not Blake, who has cottoned onto Kane’s duplicity. He orders the doctor to operate, at gunpoint, although it’s fortunate that Avon arrives to back him up as I’m as dubious as Kane that Vila could have followed through. It’s Blake who shows the most intuitive understanding of Kane in the end (almost as a slap down to Vila previously telling Kane how Blake’s conscience would prevent him killing the doctor), threatening to destroy his hands if he doesn’t complete the operation on Gan in 20 minutes. “Animals!” responds Kane.


Blake: Is there any way we can thank you?

Kane: You could try getting caught.


The most extraordinary scene of the episode, though (well there’s another, but not in a good way) comes with Kane and Farren confronting each other. Kane calls for weaponry to be trained on the Liberator and Farren admonishes him for violating the lab’s neutrality. Accusing Farren of striking his hand, Kane proceeds to strangle, and then bludgeon, the official in a brilliantly unhinged piece of scripting and performance.




Having a plasma bolt directed at the Liberator hit the lab is much too unnecessarily tidy (and it would be more interesting if Kane got off without consequence for his behaviour.)


There’s further damage to the credibility of the episode in having Gan (drinking from a Liberation plastic beaker again) greeted by his fellow crewmembers. Why Blake saying, “Welcome back” to him results in everyone dissolving into peals of laughter is beyond me. But it’s really, really, awful.


It begins looking like it might be an inconsequential nadir of the season, but a last third change of scene and commanding guest star save the day. Lessons to be learnt here; don’t give Gan anything significant to do. He’s a big lummox. And never have the crew laugh everything better in the final scene. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.