Skip to main content

This is Deadman's secret key: Smallwood, Ringwood, Gurney.


Doctor Who
The Smugglers: Episode One


The latter historicals, more exercises in pastiche than setting out to explore historical events, are some of my favourites, and tend to be rather neglected. That can’t just be laid at the door of their absence from the archives; The Massacre is generally held up as a lost masterpiece. Probably the lack of esteem for The Smugglers and The Highlanders is down to seeing them as lightweight and disposable. Certainly, there’s little in the way of depth or serious drama here. But for me it’s the sense of playfulness and energy that makes it so enjoyable.

To some extent, the here approach may be a follow-on from Donald Cotton and Dennis Spooner’s take on this Whosub-genre, but this is also Innes Lloyd and Gerry Davis adjusting the series’ format to their purposes. By Season Five it’s arguable that it’s been so honed it’s straight-jacketed. This one stank badly in the ratings, and seems to have only hastened the death-knell for the historical. I hadn’t realised that the story was made as part of Season Three; while it’s probably not the best choice of a season opener, it does feel like more a companion to The Highlandersand the shifting sands of Season Four than the more “out-there” third season.

The story takes as its starting point children’s adventure fiction, the likes of Moonfleet and Kidnapped (the latter more likely an inspiration for The Highlanders). As such, there’s a level self-awareness to the performances and dialogue, and that feeling is compounded by the outright disbelief of Ben and Polly (particularly Ben) that they have arrived in the seventeenth century. As the first episode progresses this shifts towards scepticism, then acceptance. This comes at about the same time that Brian Hayles introduces us to the MacGuffin that propels the crew’s interaction with the guest cast; Avery’s gold.


The opening scenes of the episode are fairly relaxed, easing us in to the dynamic between the Doctor and his new companions. It’s interesting to see how contrasting in nature the character of Ben is to the Doctor, both in etiquette and interaction. It would be difficult to conceive of Hartnell’s Doctor allowing him to come aboard the ship out of choice; a brash, uncouth sailor. But that air of slight tension makes for a relationship that feels new and different. Polly is fairly easygoing, of course, but these are “modern” characters who, by design, do not instantly “get” the Doctor (until he becomes a “modern” Doctor).

And, with Ben, his Cockernee crewman with a capital “C” can grate a bit at times. It’s probably just as well that many of the guest cast are also going for it with the over-egged accents. Wills and Craze have an evident easy rapport, and the mutual winding up that the companions engage in makes Ben’s “Cor blimey guvn’or pull the other one I got to get back to my ship” routine more tolerable. Polly is initially identified as more carefree, yippee-ing her way along the beach while Ben just has a moan. In that sense, he’s a prototype for Victoria.


At this point in the show, with a TARDIS that can’t be directed, there’s a sense of danger to the companions deciding to wander off on their own. They really could be stranded in this time if the Doctor didn’t tag along (“I can foresee oodles of trouble”). Nevertheless, the Doctor seems to be quite amused with himself, and at their refusal to believe he has a time machine/that they may not be in the twentieth century any longer. This means that there isn’t the same edge to proceedings that there was in, say, The Aztecs. But it also seems that this is by design; The Smugglers is very much a romp, and serious debates on morality and ethics are far from the agenda.


For the story to work, it has to throw obstacles in the way of a return to the TARDIS. So the tide comes in, for starters. The encounter with Joseph “Holy Joe” Longfoot is accompanied by some lovely moments. Ben and Polly aren’t yet convinced of the period, although it begins a running joke concerning Polly being mistaken for a lad (I mean, as if) while the Doctor is most definitely leading the way. He refuses brandy (“No, we don’t touch it”), but it’s unclear whether this is supposed to suggest a view towards abstinence or just a dislike of that particular spirit (more likely, as he accepts a drink in the next episode). He also wins Joe’s approval by relocating the churchwarden’s dislocated finger. Joe identifies himself as a Christian repeatedly during the episode, and is also a staunch drunk, the two no doubt linked by regret over past deeds. He trusts the Doctor with a mysterious message.

Holy Joe: If you should come this way again and find me gone, remember these words. This is Deadman's secret key: Smallwood, Ringwood, Gurney.

And we move from church to inn, where there’s more of Polly being mistaken for a boy (“You would think it funny. You and your bell-bottomed sense of humour”, she says to Ben). Although the Doctor seems to join in chuckling, he draws the line at Ben calling her a “dolly locker duchess” (I think that’s what he says, anyway) and asks him to “Watch your tongue dear boy”.  By this point Ben seems to have accepted he’s not in his time, and has none of the Doctor’s reservations regarding booze (“I bet the beer’s better than what they serve nowadays”).

There are lots of “We don’t like strangers round ‘ere” clichés being thrown about, but I like the way that our new companions are asked to accept as real a scenario that comes straight out of the pages of adventure fiction.


Joe’s encounter with Cherub provides a fairly significant info-dump, sketching out the basics of the plot proper. Cherub is played by George A Cooper (Mr Griffiths in Grange Hill) with an accent verging on Eccles from The Goon Show. We learn that Joe was a mate in the Black Albatross, under Captain Pike, and that the crew are after Avery’s gold. And then Joe gets a knife in his back (a surviving sequence), with Cherub off to find the Doctor (having observed Joe whispering to him earlier). Despite his accent, Cooper is effectively menacing as Cherub. But his encounter with the Doctor provides more fun with Billy playing against Cherub’s uncivil behaviour (“Don’t you come the gentleman with me, matey!”) He also refers to him as “Sawbones” on learning he’s a doctor, before bundling him off to the Black Albatross, and it pretty much becomes the Doctor’s nickname throughout.


The Squire (portly Paul Whitsun-Jones) is so willing to accuse Ben and Polly of the murder of Joe that you just know he’ll be revealed to be up to no good later. They are knaves and rogues of highly suspicious intent.

The introduction of Pike, and the episode cliffhanger, is fairly underwhelming, both in terms of the non-threatening air that Pike has about him and the hackneyed dialogue that identifies him (“Well, by thunder, he’ll talk to me. Or my name’s not Samuel Pike!”).


An enjoyable opener, taking its time to let the plot kick in as it follows a young couple who happen uninvited aboard the TARDIS only to take a journey back through time. 

Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

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.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much