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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.