Skip to main content

You know, those dresses really do suit you, Doctor.


Doctor Who
The Highlanders: Episode Three


If Episode Two is the highlight of the story, the third is only slightly its lesser in terms of pleasures. There’s more concentration on the serious plotline, Ben and Jamie’s fate aboard The Annabel, but also no let-up in the madcap enthusiasm for his adventures that the Doctor displays.


So it’s Ben who must engage in the earnest dramatics, first being defended by Jamie and the Laird against accusations of Englishness from Willie Mackay (ex Captain of the ship, usurped by Trask).

Jamie appropriately claims Ben is a deserted English sailor while Ben aims to convince the Scots that Grey is working a fiddle to have them sold into slavery. This has the potential of being dreary stuff, but maintains interest as there’s forward momentum throughout. With everyone but Jamie, Colin, Mackay and Ben signing a seven-year contract to work in the West Indies (the alternative is hanging), Ben indicates that he will sign too but then tears up the contracts as he appears to be reading them. Which results in him being beaten to the deck and sentenced to keelhauling. That’s pretty much it for him until the climax, when he gets the first decent cliffhanger of the story, dropped into the water as a “useful encouragement to the rest”.


The lines drawn between Grey and Trask suggest only more finesse from Grey in planning than any fundamental disagreements.

Grey: Once they’re safely sold in Barbados, they can be whipped to death for all I care. Until then, use a light wrist or you’ll answer to me.

There are more derogatory comments about slaves, although notably these come from the villains of the piece; the highlanders are not slaves, they are “men of high courage”.
Polly shows the same resourcefulness as in the previous episode; there are no signs of fear or any risk that she might start screaming. She suggests that she and Kirsty masquerade as orange sellers (“Nell Gwyn and all that”). Highlighted here is that Kirsty (despite being labelled a peasant in a previous episode) is of noble stock. Her family had their own servants and she regards orange sellers as “Common girls, the sort that hang around sailors”. Indeed.


Many of the best moments come from her reteaming with the Doctor, but there’s another meeting with F-finch before the Doctor rescues them from Perkins. She and Kirsty discover him in The Sea Eagle, and it’s another chance for Wills to be at her most seductively playful. Sergeant Clegg suspects them of being rebels.

Polly: What a nasty man! Tell him we’re not, Algy dear.

The initially priggish Ffinch is thawing a bit in terms of audience identification. He’s not really a bad sort, and his long-suffering acceptance of the problems Polly and Kirsty are causing him begin to make him more appealing.

F-finch: Can I go? Dash it, I haven’t had a wink of sleep.
Polly: Oh, you poor thing! Go on, but be careful. Not a word to anyone.


It looks like Perkins, arrived in The Sea Eagle, will expose them to Grey. But the Doctor-washerwoman – as ever in this story – appears at just the right moment and points a gun at the clerk. It’s true that the Doctor is never in any real danger, but the pleasure and involvement comes from him being on top of every situation he encounters. His ruses are thoroughly inventive and amusing, exposing the slow-wittedness of his adversaries. He tells Perkins to leave it 10 minutes before answering Grey’s summons (“You wouldn’t want another headache?”) but back in the barn reveals to Polly that the pistol isn’t loaded (“They’re dangerous things”).

And this exchange is delightful:

Polly: You know, those dresses really do suit you, Doctor.
The Doctor: Oh, you saucy girl!
Polly: You’re wonderful, Doctor.
The Doctor: I know.

I love the Doctor’s complete lack of modesty when informed of his brilliance (which happens on several occasions) and it’s difficult to think of another Doctor/companion combination with the rapport he shows with Polly in his first two stories.


The desire of the Doctor for a bit of shut-eye at this point is bizarre, certainly at variance with everything we expect of “the Doctor”. But this is a story where he has absolute confidence in his powers to resolve the situation for the best, and he does. If he wants 40 (post-regeneration) winks, who are we to deny him? He stirs himself long enough to set out a plan to buy weapons, lots of them, and a rowing boat (with the 17 guineas Polly and Kirsty have left). They will procure them from English soldiers.

Polly: Will they sell?
The Doctor: You don’t know the English soldier. He’d sell his own mother for tuppence ha’penny.


True to form, when Polly and Kirsty return with a few weapons, the Doctor has disappeared. Only to arrive with a wheelbarrow full of assorted swords, muskets and pistols.

Kirsty: You must have robbed the Duke’s arsenal!
The Doctor: Yes, something like that.
Polly: You’re fantastic!
The Doctor: I know!

We also see re-introduced another element that is illustrative of how deceptively simple Gerry Davis’ plotting is. The Doctor spies the Stuart seal and drops the giddy man act to persuade Kirtsy, sincerely and touchingly, that he she should let him use it as “bait, for a very greedy man”.


There’s no sagging in this story; it’s both tightly plotted and breezy in its energy. Mostly, though, it’s just a joy to witness the Mighty Trout.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

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 gleefully distr…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).