Skip to main content

So they’ve given you the run of the colony, have they?


Doctor Who
The Power of the Daleks: Episode Four


It’s quite a surprise that, after three episodes of increasing blinkeredness and self-deception, Lesterson makes such a volte-face in the fourth part. James plays the character with the same nervy consistency, but now with an increasingly cracked aspect. The doors of Lesterson’s perception buckle as the truth begins to break in on his reality.

This is very much his episode, as the inevitable Doctor Who standby of locking up the central character(s) is called upon to mark time. Ben and the Doctor are captured/arrested and there’s no sign of Polly (Wills on holiday). It’s a testament to the scripting that it doesn’t feel obviously like the story is sagging here. Nothing much is really happening, other than slow progression (of the Daleks’ plan, of certain characters’ realisation of truths). But that in itself is of a piece with the approach to this story; bangs and whistles are very much a secondary requirement.


Lesterson’s arc seems him recover almost forcefully from being unsettled at the cliffhanger to being aghast at the next one (notable to have him central to two consecutive ones). Dizzy Daleks; if only they’d reined in the ranting, Lesterson might have been unalerted for longer. As it is, he rallies himself by doing to the Daleks what the Doctor attempted; he cuts the power supply.

Lesterson: I want you to remember that I control you.

But the Daleks are less willing to take shit by this point, and the episode suggests this with subtle dialogue and unsettling pauses.  They aren’t yet up to strength, but their numbers are growing. Much is made throughout of the mystery of the fourth Dalek, and it’s a compelling hook that finds its answer at the end of the episode.

Dalek: We obey.
Lesterson: I’m glad we understand each other.
Dalek: We under-stand the human mind.

A fantastic line, all the more resonant for what is left unsaid. With the seeds of doubt firmly planted in Lesterson’s mind, the deft reintroduction of a thread from the second episode is required to keep advancement of the plot in check.


Lesterson confides his concerns in Janley. Why do the Daleks need all these raw materials?

Lesterson: I don’t want them to do anything without consulting me. What is it they do inside there?

Janley tells him he’s worrying too much.

Lesterson: I’m beginning to believe the Examiner is right about the Daleks. Their original thinking terrifies me. If I cannot control them, I will have them destroyed.

Pointedly, Janley’s threat of revealing what happened to Resner highlights Lesterson’s essential values. Just as realisation of the Daleks brings his mind back into focus (for now), so Janley’s manipulation resolves his moral outlook. On learning that Resner is dead, he tells Janley, “You’ve done a terrible thing”. There’s no room for movement there, and his code informs him that “Experiments are not more important than human life”.

Nevertheless, the Doctor’s revelation that the Daleks are reproducing is too much for Lesterson, who passes out. His next scene is at the climax of the episode as he observes the truth of the Daleks’ activities in increasing horror.

Lesterson: They’re conspiring together. Why didn’t I realise? They are evil!


His almost delirious terror recalls Poul’s robophobia in The Robots of Death, and the climax of the episode takes its time, allowing Lesterson to silently explore the ship and observe the Dalek manufacturing process. It’s difficult to judge how effective this sequence would have been; the photos of the mutants being deposited in cases look rather good, but then there are the cardboard cut-outs...


Until the climax, the Daleks are all impending threat. This is best illustrated with the Dalek with drinks attachment (“Do I bring liquid for your visitors?”), all the more disturbing for acting like a butler.

Dalek: Have you finished your liquid?
Bragen: No, no. I haven’t.

Bragen, who believes he has mastery of the situation, is visibly (I say visibly, although this is a recon) unsettled by their imposing presence. The Daleks are now gliding about the colony unimpeded. Not until Revelation of the Daleks would a story again pick up on how effectively the tension of Daleks interacting with humans without displaying direct aggression can be sustained.


The scene of the rebels testing out a “controlled” Dalek with its gun stick attached is less compelling. It reveals that the rebels are planning to take over by actually utilising the Daleks, and the trap of believing that they can manipulate the creatures, but it doesn’t add much new to the mix with the Daleks themselves. Indeed, repeating the “Dalek gets angry with the Doctor but can’t shoot him” from earlier in the story is a bit unnecessary (I wasn’t clear if the Dalek threatening the Doctor in this scene had its gun removed at the end of the rebels’ test; if it did I don’t see how it would be that worrying anyway).

Put it in the tum-ble dryer!

A big question here is how are the Daleks reproducing? I suppose it must come down to a relatively simple answer like gene banks. It seems unlikely that they’ve got a batch of frozen mutants on the ship. The script never broaches this, though. Only the nuts and bolts of their casings are addressed.

The Doctor: There’s only one explanation. The Daleks are reproducing themselves.
Janley: These things are machines. How could they reproduce?
The Doctor: Machines? The Daleks are brilliant engineers. Nothing is beyond them, given the right materials.

This story takes pains to position the Daleks as worthy adversaries of the Doctor. He acknowledges their intelligence and fortitude throughout; equal parts horror and respect.


But the Doctor doesn’t have much to do this week, other than react. He’s in the position of recognising that any influence he had under his assumed identity has floundered, and that the Daleks have gained the upper hand (“So they’ve given you the run of the colony, have they?”) There’s still the opportunity for flippancy, such as his reaction to Bragen’s promotion.

The Doctor: Oh, what a nice new uniform. Very smart, very smart. I would like a hat like that.

He succeeds in impressing his concern over the fourth Dalek trundling around on Lesterson, but any further action is blocked by Janley. Then he confronts Bragen.

Bragen: I am the leader of the Daleks.
The Doctor: Well, See if you can stop this one from killing me.

His main meat is being locked up with Quinn, who proves quite scathing. He blames the “Examiner” for events reaching this stage but, while he knew Bragen was up to no good, he didn’t realise he was leader of the rebels. It’s curious that the device of concealing Bragen’s identity at the meeting of the rebels is used initially, as it can’t come as much surprise to any viewer who saw him conspiring with Janley the week before. Quinn seems to think the Governor can count on mine workers for support (they’d never strike, presumably). There’s a nice touch where a dog barks in response to the Doctor attempting to pick a sonic lock through whistling.


Bragen’s first seen in the episode having a set-to with Valmar, who is probably wisely suspicious of one authority figure replacing another authority figure. I’m still not finding the rebel plot entirely convincing, because they seem to be rebelling for the sake of the plot alone. But I rather like that Hensell is so unaware of the dangers around him that he’s happy to swan off on a tour of the perimeter for a day or two.


Janley shows herself to be more than up to the challenge of Bragen’s calculated manipulation; not only does she threaten Lesterson and  lie that the Doctor attacked him, but she volunteers to have the Dalek with gun re-attached tested on her. If Bragen at least shows a bit of wit, Janley reveals only cold conniving.


This is Lesterson’s episode, and a great performance from James. The drinks-holder Dalek is inspired, and it’s remarkable how well-sustained the subdued presence of the Daleks is. They don’t go on the rampage until the final episode. I’m not sure any other story exploits their status so economically. 

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 .

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

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