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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

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).