Skip to main content

Melt them down. I’m going to melt the Daleks down to pools of metal!


Doctor Who
The Power of the Daleks: Episode Five


I’ve been praising Robert James’ performance in this story, and I’m going to have to continue repeating myself. His escalating hysteria is utterly gripping, particularly when faced with those who are actively seeking to undermine his credibility. James’ voice increasingly resembles a deranged Gussie Finknottle

Lesterson: I know what I’m going to do. Laser torches. Melt them down. I’m going to melt the Daleks down to pools of metal!
Janley: You won’t, Lesterson.
Lesterson: Do you think I care what you can do? Go on! Tell everybody I was responsible for Resner’s death. I don’t care. I’m going to wipe out the Daleks! Yes, tell everybody all about Resner’s death.

The revelation that he can no longer wield the threat of cutting off the Daleks’ power (which they can now store) sends him scurrying first to the Doctor and then Bragen. Both the Dalek present and then Janley and Bragen treat him as if he is losing it, alleging behaviour or instructions that he did not issue.

Lesterson: What are you doing?
Dalek: Laying the new emergency power supply as you ordered, master.

Whittaker and Spooner deserve credit for devoting as much time as they do to Lesterson’s deteriorating mental state, which in this scene reaches a place of tangible surreality. It’s probably not until Hindle in Kinda that we again see such a fully-fledged depiction of someone losing it. He claims, “I’m perfectly well”, which he clearly isn’t, but unlike those around him he does now perceive the enormity of the threat of the Daleks.

Janley: You ought to be in hospital. You promised you’d report there.
Lesterson: I promised nothing of the kind.

And then:

Bragen: Pity. It’s probably only temporary.
Lesterson: You’re trying to say I’m mad.


Bragen instructs that Lesterson be placed under restraint, and it’s this episode where the character comes into his own. Bernard Archard makes the most of the opportunity, and his scene opposite Peter Bathurst (Hensell) is a master class in cool menace. Hensell has returned from his trip and Bragen barely acknowledges him, returning to his writing after looking up from his desk. He informs Hensell of the imprisonment of the Examiner.

Bragen: As far as I’m concerned there’s nothing more to be said. So if there’s nothing further...
Hensell: Nothing further? Who the devil do you think you’re talking to? Stand up when you’re speaking to me, man!
Bragen: I prefer to remain seated.


Bragen is utterly confident that he has the upper hand, and the casual manner in which he undermines Hensell makes for a fine scene.

Hensell: I am the Governor!
Bragen: No, not now. I am.

Hensell’s death is only the third in the story up to this point (it becomes a Saward bloodbath in the final episode) and its impact comes from being so offhand. Bragen attaches a gun stick to the Dalek.

Bragen: I’ll arrange a demonstration for you. Do you still refuse my offer?
Hensell: I will not be intimidated.
Bragen: No, of course not. In character to the last, Hensell. Kill him.

It’s probably because much of the characterisation and plotting is so deft that a more typical Who villain line sounds somewhat clumsy. So “From now on, I’ll have complete obedience from everyone” seems like it’s been put in to underline what a villain Bragen is, rather than it being something he would actually say.


The Daleks are as cunning as ever, despite having recovered from their faux pas at the end of Episode four.

Dalek 1: No more than three Daleks are to be seen together at any one time.
Dalek 2: I obey.
Dalek 1: We are not ready yet to teach the human beings the law of the Daleks.

The “law of the Daleks” is mentioned twice in this story. Given the rampage they embark on in the final episode, I can only assume the “law” is akin to Judge Dredd’s; guilty of being humans, instant sentencing, which is death. They cannily decide to wait to make their move “until the humans fight among themselves. Then we will fight”.

We see the resurfacing of a Dalek having to stop itself from putting it’s foot in it too, fighting its “better” instincts when instructing Valmar regarding the static electricity cable.

Dalek: With static power the Daleks will be twice as... useful.

Their most memorable moment of the episode, more than the big cliffhanger, is the chillingly astute observation one makes after killing Hensell.

Dalek: Why do human beings kill human beings?
Bragen: Get on with your work.
Dalek: Yes, master. I obey.


With regard to the cliffhanger, there are a few clips of this sequence in existence, leading one to conclude that it would have been varyingly effective. Chris Barry inventively sells the appearance that there are untold numbers of Daleks spilling from a doorway, through the use of tight framing. But the cardboard cut-out Daleks used to add numbers behind the real ones confirms that the “less is more” approach the story has been taking so far is the more effective one. And, as with Bragen, having them revert to generic chanting undoes much of the good work that showed just how intelligent they are (“Exterminate. Annihilate. Destroy. Daleks conquer and destroy”).

There’s a bit of get-out writing concerning the specifics of the Daleks’ science; by drawing attention to what is apparently unscientific you can say, “It may seem like nonsense but they are very advanced”

The Doctor: They’re powered by static electricity. It’s like blood to them. A constant life stream.
Quinn: Static isn’t workable.
The Doctor: It is to the Daleks. They’ve conquered static, just as they’ve conquered anti-magnetics.


Aside from breaking out of prison, the Doctor doesn’t have very much to do here, although his attempts to elicit the correct tone to unlock the door by rubbing his finger around the rim of a glass is quite amusing. He’s also reunited with Polly, who seems remarkably well-informed about the Daleks’ natures.

Polly: Human beings can’t be friends with Daleks. They don’t have friends.
Valmar: I don’t see why not.
Polly: It’s a kind of hatred for anything unlike themselves. They think they’re superior.

It’s Ben’s turn to be absent from an entire episode, although it’s not as if Polly gets much to do on her return. But she does make it clear that she considers Ben to be a real man when she takes Kebble to task for pushing her around.


Fine work from Archard and James, such that the backseat taken by the regulars doesn’t feel like being short-changed. All of the action has been delayed for Episode Six but, due to the deliberate pace, it doesn’t come across as a story that has hit a dull patch. Even well-worn devices such as locking characters up haven’t managed to dilute it. Indeed, the machinations of Bragen justify the plot thread in this episode even if the rebels themselves lack focus.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

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 .

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.