Skip to main content

Just one small question. Why do you want to blow up the world?


Doctor Who
The Underwater Menace: Episode Two


Any thoughts that TUMmight be aiming high in any way other than budget are dashed with Episode Two. We slip into a groove of escapes, captures and attempts at reasoning with various authority figures. In its favour are Julia Smith’s ability to keep the momentum up and the performances of Troughton and Furst. What could become ponderous drivel is never allowed to fall into a rut, partly because there’s a director who cares and partly because there are performances and dialogue to keep it never less than entertaining.

Zaroff: You er like my laboratory, yes? You find all this very impressive, no?
The Doctor: Not a bit, not a bit.
Zaroff: What do you mean?
The Doctor: I expected nothing less from the great Professor Zaroff.


It’s a story that is at once inventive and knowing yet almost elementary in its B-movie plot. Like Tim Burton recreating scenes from Ed Wood’s pictures in the film of the same name.
The Doctor manages to cause a distraction allowing Polly to escape fishification and, despite Damon’s suspicion of him, he is able to question Zaroff regarding his plan to raise at Atlantis. It seems the Doctor isn’t certain of what the Earth’s core contains (he only says that it is “believed to be” a white hot molten core, so he’s obviously not been there looking for those prehistoric monsters he wants to see At the Earth’s Core). Zaroff tells the Doctor that if he can’t lift Atlantis, he must lower the water level, by draining it into the core.

The Doctor: The water will be converted to super-heated steam. The pressure will grow and crack the Earth, destroy all life. Maybe even blow the planet apart.
Zaroff: Yes. And I shall have redeemed my promise to lift Atlantis from the sea. Lift it to the sky. It will be magnificent.

Well who are we to argue with a couple of geniuses?

The Doctor: Just one small question. Why do you want to blow up the world?
Zaroff: Why? You, a scientist, ask me why? The achievement, my dear Doctor. The destruction of the world. The scientist’s dream of supreme power.


Wonderful stuff. How inspired and batty that he’s so mad he wants to destroy everything for the sheer achievement of it.

The meat of the episode has the Doctor attempting to persuade others of Zaroff’s lunacy. He convinces Ramo easily, as the latter considers Zaroff a destroyer who, “ appeals to all that is base in our people”. That said, Ramo’s willingness to sacrifice the TARDIS crew could be classed as fairly base. Troughton gets to indulge in more business as he waits for Ramo to come back to him regarding an audience with the king. He tootles on his recorder, then is told by Ramo he should don ceremonial garb for his meeting. Of course, he’s enamoured by the headdress.


The Doctor: How do I look?
Ramo: What?
The Doctor: Never mind.


When he gets his audience, the Doctor makes a point of announcing himself as a man of science. To the Atlanteans, there’s not much difference between them. We’ve already seen the Doctor struggle to be heard in the face of an advanced adversary offering the locals just what they need in The Power of the Daleks. Coming after The Highlanders’ Doctor von Wer (“Urr ay-es!”) it’s quite appropriate that he attempts to expose Zaroff’s insanity the way he does.

The Doctor: But, have you noticed his eyes lately?
King Thous: No.
The Doctor: When he talks of his project. Have you noticed his eyes? They LIGHT UP like this.
King Thous: What does this mean?
The Doctor: The professor is as mad as a hatter.

The Doctor’s about as successful as he is in Power, with Thous returning from his deliberations, Zaroff in tow, giving the cliffhanger instruction “Do with them what you will!


Elsewhere, Polly spends most of the episode having a nap in the temple (the stress of near-augmentation). Meanwhile Ben and Jamie, in an indication of just how multi-cultural the series is becoming under Innes Lloyd, meet up with Sean and Jacko when they’re sent to work at the drill face. Jacko’s on the belligerent side initially, labelling Jamie “Jock!” Sean tries to smooth over troubled waters, commenting that the Jacko is “a bit like that you see” (like what? A racist? Or just angry?)

Before long, however, they’re all getting along famously. They duck out of the work party and spend the rest of the episode exploring tunnels (including a nice time-filler rescue of Jamie from a fall to his doom) until they luckily end up entering the temple by a secret door and meet up with Polly. I like Ben’s incredulous response to Polly explaining what was to have befallen her (“A fish? Ha ha!”); it accurately mirrors our reaction to the Fish People.


I’m not sure the recovery of this one is going to be ranked as a lost gem (Episode One is much closer to that level), but it’s a lot of fun whenever Trout or Furst are on screen. 

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).