Skip to main content

I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.


Blake's 7
2.7: Killer


Robert Holmes’ first of four scripts for the series, and like last season’s Mission to Destiny there are some fairly atypical elements and attitudes to the main crew (although the A/B storylines present a familiar approach and each is fairly equal in importance for a change). It was filmed second, which makes it the most out of place episode in the run (and explains why the crew are wearing outfits – they must have put them in the wash – from a good few episodes past and why Blake’s hair has grown since last week).

The most obvious thing to note from Holmes’ approach is that he makes Blake a Doctor-substitute. Suddenly he’s full of smart suggestions and shrewd guesses about the threat that’s wiping out the base, basically leaving a top-level virologist looking clueless and indebted to his genius insights. If you can get past this (and it did have me groaning) there’s much  enjoyment to be had from the episode, not least from the two main guest actors.


Despite the production order, Avon’s pro-activity in leading a party (with Vila) down to a Federation base on Fosforon to steal a component (a crystal) from a cipher system (ie the MacGuffin to set the plot in motion) seems consistent with the position of working with Blake that he had reached at the end of Trial. There’s still the occasional barb (“I could never stand heroes” he tells Vila when the latter notes Avon has little time for Blake) and the obligatory confrontation with Blake at the climax, but it’s Blake’s behaviour that is all over the place. Perhaps Holmes is uncomfortable having such an unnuanced character to write for. Additionally, there was clearly enough foresight that Avon’s anti-detection screen from Trial is present and correct. 


There’s a rather nice matte painting on Fosforon, but the exteriors are mostly another industrial location (we haven’t had one for, oh, at least two episodes though).


The spaceship that the Liberator crew inevitably happen upon is at least 600 or 700 years old (but would take at least 3,000 years to get this far out, so there’s a paradox straight away). The premise is already echoing the first season’s Time Squad, and further back than that Star Trek’s Space Seed episode. It’s an effective idea to anchor the far future by having the not so far future appear like ancient history.


Someone’s decided Jan Chappell shouldn’t look quite so dowdy, and has given her a purple velvet ensemble. Her psychic skills are wheeled out too; she’s straight away on to there being something malignant on the ship. Blake’s emphasised humanity towards the Federation here doesn’t quite feel consistent with his previous staunch antagonism, and it may be another symptom of Holmes making him Doctor Blake. It’s the rest of the crew (Jenna, Avon) who object first to him warning Fosforon of the threat when the ship is salvaged, and then to his putting out a plague warning at the end. I don’t know that the set-up Holmes provides could have given a different solution, but Blake’s attitude here that the Federation is made up of human beings doesn’t translate when he’s blowing the shit out of Servalan’s space station in Trial.


Paul Daneman gives an excellent performance as Doctor Bellfriar, relaying a keen but relaxed intelligence. He has an instantly recognisable face, but one you can’t quite place in a particular role. There’s a certain dashing, Doctor Kildare-esque, charm to his performance and it’s a shame that he has to defer to Blake’s apparent keener grasp of viruses throughout. Colin Farrell (no, another Colin Farrell) provides solid ginger support as his assistant Gambrill (his line about having a pension to think about is very Holmes).


The other lead guest actor is (was) the always excellent Ronald Lacey as Avon’s old chum Tynus. It’s particularly delightful here is to have an actor who can give equal weight to a scene with Darrow. It makes the notion that they were once partners in crime more believable. Lacey’s probably best known for his role as Major Toht in Raiders of the Lost Ark, and  the baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells in Blackadder II. It should be noted that the low standard of Blake’s 7 uniforms is continued here, as the base is replete with actors and extras with strange shoulder-winged attire.


Vila: I always used to say to people, “I bet Avon’s got a friend. Somewhere in the galaxy.”
Avon: And you were right. That must be a new experience for you.

One thing about Holmes, he’s quick to identify that teaming Avon with Vila yields dividends in “writes itself” dialogue. He also makes Vila a borderline alcoholic (we’ve seen him get plastered before, but here he heads straight for the bottle at the first sign of danger).


It’s no surprise that the uneasy camaraderie between Avon and Tynus quickly descends into threats (Avon tells him he owes him one for not squealing – but he could easily find himself off to a prison colony if he doesn’t do what he’s told) and betrayal (Tynus sends Servalan a message).


What is a pleasant surprise with Bellfriar, and is perhaps Holmes making a distinction from the typical Who scientist, is that he is eminently considered and reasonable in his thinking. Told of the threat felt by Cally he doesn’t dismiss it, rather he calls for quarantine restrictions to be instated.

The history of K47 (crew members Kemp, Wardin and Tober) feels not dissimilar to the crew of the Hydrax in State of Decay, and one wonders whether Holmes absorbed Terrance Dicks’ unused (at that point) script to some extent as a premise. The idea of hibernation “pills” is a bit silly-sounding, as is the “Darkling” zone where ships disappear; it has the air of something to be found in a Jim Henson production. As for Blake’s decision to teleport down and get involved, well leads must I suppose.


As for the Michelin Men; what can you say? Quite extraordinary, and the episode should be feted for this if nothing else.



The script keeps the sense of mystery ticking over nicely (an element it also shares with the aforementioned Mission to Destiny), with the search of the ship conveyed through an audio link to Bellfriar. The doctor’s genial acceptance of Blake is a welcome change (and counterpoints Tynus nicely).

Bellfriar: Yes, but we’re absent-minded scientists you see. In fact, we’ve forgotten your name already. Haven’t we, Gambrill?
Gambrill: Whose name, sir?

In fact, you’re expecting this to be a smooth-talking bluff, but the reveal is actually that Bellfriar is a thoroughly decent chap (just not half the virologist that Blake turns out to be).


After some very variable creature effects in the series to date, the decidedly icky flaky body of Wardin is a grisly success (you aren’t even sure if the red patches are decayed clothing or congealed blood).  Who (and Tollund in The Creature from the Pit) director Morris Barry plays Dr Wiler.



It’s effectively Holmes giving B7 a zombie tale, with a dead crewmember reanimated to spread a virus. It also effectively captures the tail-end of the ‘70s disaster movie cycle (the disease on a train thriller The Cassandra Crossing had been released only a year or so previously). George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead would be released the same year as this.


The spread of the virus (a “space contamination” – ARGHHHH!) is quite chilling, relayed mostly by reports to the increasingly isolated Bellfriar and Blake. But Blake coming up with the idea that it’s an adapted virus, that Wardin was killed to release it (making an analogy to Lord Jeffrey Ashley spreading smallpox on purpose is just like something the Doctor would do) and that they should turn off the aircon to slow the spread, while Bellfriar dumbly absorbs his wisdom, does irk.


Tynus elaborate delaying tactics are eventually rumbled by Vila (a good thing that in the future they still use paper and that pens leave an impression on the page beneath!), but not before we see some base crew dressed as mushrooms rush off to deal with the fire that’s been started (it’s rather lucky that Tynus didn’t explain in his message to Servalan why Blake’s crew were there, since it means that the crystal-snatch is a success).



Bellfriar claws back some respect (for his abilities) with his stoic command that no one may leave the base and they will be shot if they try to. Unfortunately the script never addresses why Blake doesn’t succumb, nor indeed Vila and Avon (since there were Federation types coming to nasty ends just metres from them). And the demise of Tynus is a little clumsy (he tussles with Avon and is then electrocuted when he falls onto machinery by the look of it).


The reference to the “three day sweats”, known as the “Terran ague” is very Bob Holmes in creating a vivid environment in a couple of sentences. And the demise of Bellfriar is quite horrifyingly rendered (“I’ve forgotten how to read!”).


Perhaps Blake’s desire not to take responsibility for the plague spreading reflects a modicum of self-awareness after his sprees of recent weeks, but it still sits a little earnestly (“There has to be a warning, Jenna. There has to be”).



Excellent performances from the guest cast and an effective virus on the loose plot is let down somewhat by Homes decision to write Blake as the Doctor. He doesn’t have the charisma, and his character certainly doesn’t have the learning. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.