Skip to main content

You see, millions of years ago, there was a twin...


Doctor Who
The Tenth Planet: Episode One


If The War Machineswas the first dawn of the more straightforward approach of Lloyd and Davis, The Tenth Planet forms something of a template for the next couple of years; base under siege storyline, memorable monsters, a ‘60s vision of the near future and an (at times) endearing indifference to plot logic and scientific principles. TPP remains arresting for a number of reasons.

In part, it came first so it has aspirations that its more stir-and-repeat successors lack. It also stands out for throwing Hartnell into a milieu that is foreign to his Doctor. Then there’s Derek Martinus’ direction, which makes the most of a limited budget in a story where epic events are occurring. More than these elements, I think it’s the premise that is so arresting. It’s not just the first Cybermen story, or the last Hartnell. It has a dazzling hook; the Earth’s twin planet has returned. It creates a mythic footing that would be repeated with The Tomb of the Cybermen (and a number of other Troughtons). An irresistible combination of the far distant past enmeshed with a one-time future.

The computer code titles are quite groovy; I like this kind of non-uniform approach to presenting a story. I was surprised that the same thing is done with the end titles; is that the only instance where this happens?

While the production team have gone to town on the Arctic exterior (particularly in the blizzard), the base interiors are very much on the threadbare side; the rocket cockpit is similarly cheap. It makes you appreciate what Martinus does to make this work. It could have been a laboured Richard Martin hash-up.


There’s a curious mix here; while the actual storytelling has become less thought-provoking than the Hartnell era at its height, there are contrasting attempts to make this feel more “adult”. The military trappings are part of that, and the glamour poses on the wall next to the bunks in the probe station. To some degree it’s the kind of approach Saward would embrace in the ‘80s, but more extremely. It also puts one in mind of the “action first, script later” attitude of Hollywood. Because this is really a disaster movie on a BBC budget. Complete with ill-equipped British actors attempting an international range of accents. At least Robert Beatty is authentic (coming across like a Canadian Ronald Leigh-Hunt). The star turn of the episode goes Earl Cameron as Williams, who invests huge conviction into his imperilled astronaut (I saw him in the ropey Kidman/Penn vehicle The Interpreter the other day; easily the best performance in the film). You almost believe he’s not stuck on a shitty set.


Most annoying is Shane Shelton’s priapic Italian Tito (“A woman!” “Mama Mia! Bellisima!”). He’s like a young Silvia Berlusconi. And, since there are Americans present, the Doctor is nicknamed “Pop” (I much prefer Sawbones). The impulse to show off a multicultural future is commendable, but when it’s instantly dragged down by the performances you begin to question the wisdom of the process. 

The Secretary General at least looks and sounds vaguely authentic, although his HQ includes an African ISC officer wandering about in traditional African attire (what, he does this at all times?)

The dynamic between the TARDIS crew is much the same as it was in The Smugglers; Polly is upbeat while Ben’s brashness earns the occasional reprimand from the Doctor. Although, Ben’s “We’re still at sea” on realising that they haven’t returned to their own time made for a nice turn of phrase.  And these being a very modern day couple, 1960s referencing is never far away.

Polly: Hey, Doctor. You’ve got the most fantastic wardrobe... Where do you shop? Carnaby Street?
Ben: Who do you think you are? Nanook of the North?
The Doctor: Now, now. Stop being so flippant.

Polly looks adorable in her fab winter gear, and shows off a lovely muff. Discussion of the Arctic conditions gives us the first intimation that this is an adventure first, science much later approach. Which I’ve always thought ironic given Kit Pedler’s name is on the script (ditto The Moonbase). With the benefit of hindsight, the Doctor not worrying about the cold is one thing (The Seeds of Doom), but a 
line like,

Polly: The Doctor was right about this being the coldest place on Earth. I’m freezing already.

Feels like desperately trying to make up for a lack of verisimilitude.

Continuing from The Smugglers’ strong showing, Hartnell is on good form here and there’s a through line from the characterisation of the Doctor as someone who shows up, seems to be known and have respect (The War Machines) to this story, where he has an almost clairvoyant ability to predict what is happening with minimal information provided (not to mention the kind of insight due to prior experiences that would later become all-too-common), to the Troughton of Tomb  who displays similar faculties and discerning overview.

It seems fitting that Billy should be positioned as a font of all knowledge in his final story. He observes more, and understands more than those around him, which lends him an almost soothsaying edge. About Time construes the situation as the Doctor treating an alien attack like it’s any other historical event; he notes the date, and then writes on a piece of paper when he confirms it to himself. Tat Wood then tries to bluff explain the Doctor’s later offer of shelter on Earth as “Why the hell not?” (Why would he if he knew the outcome of events?) I’m not convinced of that reading; I prefer to see his knowledge as illustrative of the Doctor’s insight and deductive reasoning.

Ugg-ugg-ugg-ugg.

I particularly like the touch of having him write down his answer on a piece of paper before the crew of the base learn that he is correct. His interaction with General Cutler is also well scripted, the latter being such a cock that we’re all-the-more behind the Doctor.

Cutler: I haven’t got time to deal with these now.
The Doctor: I don’t like your tone, sir.
Cutler: And I don’t like your face, or your hair.

What a wanker. Cutler’s a bit too off-and-on with the TARDIS crew, dismissing them, then paying attention, according to the needs of the scene. When the Doctor begins to explain the appearance of the unnamed planet, Cutler cuts him off.

The Doctor: You see, millions of years ago, there was a twin...

But then he sends some men to break into the “hut”, fixing on the Doctor being somehow mixed up in what is going on in space. In short, he’s not displaying the level-headed temperament the situation requires. He also mentions penguins. Twice.

The Doctor: Pretty soon we will have visitors.
Ben: Who d’you think’ll be bringing them? Father Christmas on his sledge?
The Doctor: Oh, quiet, boy. Quiet.

Too right! Tell him to STFU. This isn’t the Doctor setting a plan in motion à la McCoy era, but thereis an air of omniscience to the way he imparts his understanding here.

Back to the appearance of the planet, and how convincing is it that it is only been detected when the astronauts sight it? Jodrell Bank gets a mention when data is requested, but shouldn’t they have been aware of it way earlier? Cape Canaveral also gets a oblique reference from Polly, and the Moon landings have taken place at an unspecified juncture in this 1986, but from the casual response Ben’s enquiry gets it’s probably a good number of years earlier. There’s also a condition known as Space Fatigue. No doubt it was first identified in a Terry Nation script and has spread like wildfire ever since.

It’s 10 minutes into the episode before the threat is identified, and less than five minutes from the end that the Cybermen’s spaceship lands. As such, it’s a very well-paced opener, setting the scene and then piling on the mystery. The incidental music is effectively eerie, too. 

Masters of disguise. They lose that ability in later appearances.

The Cybermen don’t speak in this episode, which is something of a blessing in terms of their impact.  Martinus frames them skilfully, first in long shot in the blizzard and then “revealing” them (because their parkas are a highly convincing disguise) proper at the cliffhanger. What’s most striking is how physically imposing they are; these aren’t skinny blokes in moon boots as per the ‘80s. They’re big bastards wearing expressionless stockings over their heads. I think it’s their size that really sells how sinister they are, because, in and of themselves, the costume elements are fairly rudimentary.


A superb scene-setter. Some of the performances and sets are variable, and some of the plot elements are already creaking, but Derek Martinus absolutely sells it. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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 system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.