Skip to main content

I’d rather fight a hundred of his sort than just one Dalek.


Doctor Who 
The Power of the Daleks: Episode Three


The third episode is essentially the battle of wits between the Doctor and the Daleks, the former attempting to out them or do for them at every opportunity while they gain ground by taking the path of least resistance.

The Doctor first tries to gain the upper hand through logic. If they are their servants, they will respond to any command.

The Doctor: Very well, immobilise yourself.

Which the Dalek apparently does, with a drooping eyestalk. Later, he attempts to dupe Lesterson (“I’d like to be friends”) in order to deactivate the Dalek. And it looks like he will succeed until he’s forced from the room.


Then he takes the opportunity to enter Lesterson’s lab but beats a retreat when faced with two armed Daleks.

The Doctor (to Ben): When I say run, run like a rabbit.

The Doctor of this story uses deductive reasoning sharply, concluding that whatever he does (destroy the Daleks and incur the reprisals of the colony or allow the Daleks to take over) the outlook is bleak.


The fall-out from this obsessive attention towards his nemeses is that Polly’s plight is ignored. Ben is worried about her and wants to find her, and he’s right to. But the Doctor dismisses his concerns, telling him that she is just exploring; “She is interested. I like that”. 

And, aside from some more tootling on his recorder, he’s dropped most of the more comedic flourishes of the first couple of episodes, establishing clear priorities. This is most clear in his comment on Quinn’s plight.

The Doctor: A little injustice is better than wholesale slaughter.

It’s an example of tidy plotting that Polly, whom he ignored, should be the leverage for stopping his action against the Daleks later; the message relayed to him being that she will be safe as long as he leaves the Daleks alone.


Meanwhile, the Dalek(s) run rings round Lesterson and generally prove highly adept at manipulating the colony under the pretext of servitude. When the Doctor leaves, the immobilised Dalek resumes its previous state.

Dalek: His order was wrong. I cannot serve human beings if I am immobilised. You gave me power. Your orders are right. I serve you.

Likewise, they tell Lesterson a load of porkies to get the materials they need for their production line, claiming they need them to manufacture a computer for meteorite detection. I like the near-trip up the Dalek makes when in conversation with Lesterson.

Dalek: A Dalek is bet-...  is not the same as a human.

So it’s a little disappointing that, after they play the trump card of revealing two more of their number at the climax sans weaponry, they revert nearly to type for demands of a cliffhanger. Surrounding Lesterson, they rant in unison “We will get our power”.


Throughout this, Robert James really sells Lesterson’s lack of discernment. Lesterson has his eye only on the horizon he thinks lies ahead, and from scene to scene he shows a complete lack of judgement. He smooths over Hensell’s concerns at the Dalek’s powers of reason.

Lesterson: Now there is no cause for concern, Governor. Wait until you see the amount of work it can do.

Which is just what a beleaguered governor wants to hear (later he comments “I have every confidence in Lesterson” and provides a permanent guard for the lab). And when told of the 100% accuracy of the Daleks’ meteorite detection he fixes on how it will be “an enormous saving for the colony” and no doubt bring enormous accolades for him too. Later, he exhibits the same failings with the Doctor.

Lesterson: You’ve done nothing but meddle and interfere since you landed on Vulcan.

Quite an accolade for the Doctor, but as soon as he offers friendship Lesterson buckles (“Very well. You may stay”). Notably, though, the Doctor makes a point of telling Ben that Lesterson is a first class scientist, and should not be underestimated.

The Quinn plotline is something of a damp squib after he reveals that he sent for the Examiner, because of the threat of the rebels. It provides Polly with slightly mundane motivation followed by kidnapping. Maybe she fancies Quinn? She pleads “Leave him alone” as he is marched off to confinement. Her kidnapping by Janley and Velmer feels a bit clumsy, though. Get a companion out of the way for an episode.  And the rebels’ short-sighted planning, not to mention the question of just what the oppression they are amounts to, involves using a Dalek gun (it “could win us the revolution”).


That said, the revelation that Janley is playing the rebels, working for Bragen, adds a layer of intrigue.

Bragen: I don’t want to take over a colony of rebels, do I Janley?

But it seems like a rather convoluted and risk method for attaining the governorship (he’s been promoted Deputy Governor just through a bit of clever arguing). Janley stirs them up, such that Hensell is undermined and loses his position. Then Bragen crushes them.

Bragen: The whole colony will be grateful and then I’ll be Governor.

Bragen has already shown his true colours in accusing Quinn of murdering the Examiner in order to blame it on the rebels and usurp the Governor. Which doesn’t take a lot of effort to come up with, as later Bragen (see above) reveals that this is essentially hisplan. It’s a consistent theme with the colonists, that personal goals blind them to the threat of the Daleks (because otherwise we the viewers wouldn’t buy into the scenario). Even the calculating Bragen doesn’t recognise what they are capable of, siding with Lesterson in order to keep the Doctor at bay (the real threat in his mind).


His scene opposite the Doctor lays his cards on the table, each calling each other’s bluff. He informs the Doctor that a body has been found in the swamp.

The Doctor: What is that to do with me?
Bragen: You’re the Examiner. Or maybe you’re not. Who are you?
The Doctor: There’s only one possible way that you could know I’m not the Examiner.

It appears that an impasse has been reached between them in respect of the consequences  of either telling the Governor their different truths.

Ben: He’d make a right Father Christmas, wouldn’t he.
The Doctor: I’d rather fight a hundred of his sort than just one Dalek.



Sustaining a scenario where the Daleks remain relatively impassive three episodes into the story is no mean feat, and Whitaker/Spooner largely succeed. Mainly because the battleground of the episode is an intellectual one between them and the Doctor, very much a rarity until Davros showed up to rant cerebrally. There can’t help be a bit of “I can’t believe they’re falling for it” because we know them so well, but for the most part the performances (Hensell, Lesterson) and the underlying motivations of the humans sell it. Most of the characters have ulterior motives and see the Daleks as only incidental or instrumental to their goals. The rebel plot remains lacklustre at this point; it can’t hope to be as compelling as the main thread, and it isn’t, with Polly’s kidnap coming across as filler material (and a holiday for Anneke). 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for