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

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.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

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 gleefully distr…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).