Skip to main content

I am your ser-vant.


Doctor Who 
The Power of the Daleks: Episode Two


Episode Two maintains the high quality of the first installment, and it also continues to present us with a Doctor who is by turns indulgently playful and insightful and deadly serious. I particularly like Troughton’s performances  in these early stories; his whackiness doesn’t undermine the seriousness of the story, or his character. On the contrary. And his behaviour doesn’t come across as whimsical, rather it seems to present us with a character whose mind is so quick that any given moment’s preoccupation is just that; a moment later his focus will shift elsewhere, without any loss of concentration on the preeminent problem he faces.

While he far from dangles his thoughts on a stick before Ben and Polly, he doesn’t ignore his companions either. For example, the debate on where the missing Dalek went and whether Lesterson was responsible.

Polly: But he hadn’t opened the capsule.
Ben: No, he said he hadn’t opened it. Let’s get our facts straight.
The Doctor: Ha-ha. Excellent! Good thinking, good thinking.

And he’s deadly serious when it comes to discussing his old adversaries.

The Doctor: But all is not well with this colony. And add to that one Dalek... All that is needed to wipe out this entire colony.

I expect this line was the inspiration for Dalek. At least, it’s difficult to believe it didn’t enter the discussion somewhere along the line. And later:

The Doctor: I know the misery they cause. The destruction. But there’s something more terrible. Something I can only half remember.


I’m not sure we ever come back to this, but it adds resonance to the character amidst the japery. Later, Ben will suggest leaving (he’s clearly not picked up on the way the Doctor adventures, as he suggested the same thing in The Smugglers).

Ben: I’ve had enough of this dump.
The Doctor: Have you? What about the Daleks?
Ben: Well, they’re dead.
Polly: And what about that thing in the capsule? That was alive alright.
Ben: Ah well, I can’t explain that.
The Doctor: I can, and that’s why we have to stay.


There’s an underlining here that the Doctor’s moral bearings are unchanged (although this will be an area to debate in a later episode), and it’s a position he has and will frequently take; that he must take action because he’s the only one equipped to deal with a situation.
But the quirkiness of character on display in Episode One is not diminished; there are still the references to himself in the third person.

The Doctor: Of course, the real Doctor was always going on about the Daleks.

And Ben remains unaccepting of his regeneration (not referred to as such). Perhaps as a seaman he can’t accept the apparent mixture of authority and anarchy. Polly has no such problems. Indeed, her delight in the Doctor’s behaviour is one of the most enjoyable aspects of this episode.

Ben: You know, its little things like this that make it difficult to believe that you’re the Doctor. The other one. I mean, the proper one. Oh, nuts! You know what I mean.
The Doctor: Nuts. Yes, certainly. Crackers. Here we are.
Ben: You, my old china, are an out and out phoney.
The Doctor: China? Hmmm, yes. I went there once, I believe. I met Marco Polo.
Polly: Don’t listen to him, Doctor. I know who you are.


The business with the Doctor handing out fruit to everyone (including an askance Bragen) was – at least to some extent – a subterfuge to hide his suspicion that there was a listening device hidden inside them. Just what sort of surveillance expert would put a bug in some fruit is questionable. And how the Doctor picked up that it was planted in the fruit is baffling too (more of his semi-clairvoyance?), so much so that it feels like a bit of comic business worked backwards to make sense as a plot point. Nevertheless, it’s this sort of thing that makes the Doctor in this story so distinctive.

Ben: So that’s why you were messing about and talking nonsense.
The Doctor: I never talk nonsense. Well, hardly never. At first I thought there might be more than one.

Ben and Polly both start laughing after he says this. Was that due to something visual (and lost), or was it intended to mean that if there was more than one, one of them might have eaten a bug?


Another bit of comedic interaction I enjoyed was Polly being tutored in verbal gymnastics while – again – the visual and verbal displays sandwich a serious point being made by Ben.

Polly: Will Lesterson listen?
The Doctor: Lesterson listen. Lesterson listen. Lesterson listen. Exercise the tongue. Try it. Lesterson listen. Lesterson listen.
Ben: They think you’re the Examiner. Order them to destroy the Daleks. Chuck your weight about.
Polly: Lesterson listen. Lesterson listen. Lesterson listen.

Ben’s question is fair enough; in his confrontation with Lesterson the Doctor demands the destruction of the Daleks, and follows it up by pressing the urgency of dealing with them on Bragen.

The Doctor: If there was a bomb under this floor, timed to go off in five minutes, would you ask my permission before you ripped up the floorboards?

At least at this stage, any progress in ridding the colony of the Daleks is buried under having to make an appointment with Hensell to discuss this.


I praised Robert James’ performance as Lesterson in the first episode, and he deserves more credit here, overcoming a characterisation that doesn’t do an enormous amount for his scientific credibility. Sure, blinkered viewpoints are nothing new in mad scientists, but he doesn’t seem overly observant either. The Doctor quickly exposes his shortcomings in terms deviousness.

The Doctor: You didn’t even give them a glance. Why? Because you’d already been in there and seen them. Where is the third Dalek?

And we have a reiteration of his naivety in believing his discipline can be immune from external influences, when talking to Janley.

Lesterson: This is a scientific laboratory. Kindly keep your politics out of it.


Which is all no doubt part of a learned man’s zeal to discover everything he can about the contents of the spacecraft. Right? Well, no. On occasion he doesn’t seem capable of the most basic logical deductions.

Lesterson: I can’t think what this short, stubby arm is for.

The one that looks a bit like a gun barrel? He dismisses Resno’s concern that the Dalek is sentient.

Lesterson: You can’t use the phrase, “watching us”. You’ll have us believe the thing has an intelligence next.


But he has already concluded that it may have a “simplified positronic brain”. It’s also rather convenient (for the purposes of the story) that he is unable to lift the lid to look inside (since this has not proved impossible in previous stories). So he powers the Dalek up without having fully examined it, and then the short, stubby arm he had couldn’t account for shoots Resno dead. Given his blinkeredness I’m more inclined to buy into his belief that the Dalek can benefit the colony (he removes the gun arm), but at what point did he reach this conclusion? After giving it a cursory glance?

Lesterson: I have just completed an experiment that could revolutionise the whole colony.
The Doctor: Lesterson, what have you done? What have you done?
Then:
Lesterson: Yes, it will end the colony’s problems.
The Doctor: Because it will end the colony.

I wasn’t too sure about his rushing off to get help after Resno is shot, either. Janley lies that he is still alive in order to manipulate him later. But he then asks Janley how he is (we later learn that she stuffed him in the swamp) and she says he’s received medical attention. So where did he go to get this help?


The other significant thread in the episode is Quinn falling under suspicion when the radio room is sabotaged (something that brought to mind John Carpenter’s The Thingremake) and the radio operator has been rendered unconscious. Quinn’s discovered in the corner of the room holding wire cutters and Bragen identifies his button, which pretty much stacks the evidence against him. As with the regenerated Doctor, it’s Polly who allows intuition to be her guide while Ben is quick to conclude that he is guilty (he thinks Quinn wants to be Governor). Polly protests Quinn’s innocence.

Polly: There are some people you just know are all right.


Then there’s the cliffhanger, justifiably held up as one of the series’ most unsettling and iconic. And stolen wholesale by Victory of the Fatleks. The reactivated Dalek’s repeated refrain of “I am your ser-vant” is chilling, and it undercuts the frenzy that the Doctor has worked himself up into. It’s completely unexpected and an indication that the story isn’t going to devolve into a straightforward Dalek shoot’em up. In some ways it might have been better not to have Resno shot, as it signals to the audience that, whatever they say otherwise, the Daleks are as bad as ever. On the other hand, it could be argued that it works well for precisely that reason; we have them presented as calculated manipulators, with only the Doctor convinced of their true motives. How will that play out?


While there’s a few holes developing, and slightly questionable characterisation, this again gets full marks. The story is unfolding at a measured pace, very much a mystery that happens to feature Daleks rather than the action romp that one would expect of them at that point. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.