Skip to main content

You’re not turning me into a fish!


Doctor Who
The Underwater Menace: Episode One


A much-maligned story, and one look at the design of the Fish People – in particular their water ballet – seems to confirm that its lowly reputation is justified. The premise, too, is seemingly brazenly pulp sci-fi, so it really requires the viewer to be on board with its absurdity to get the most out of it.

TUM was originally intended to be the second Trout story, swapped around because Hugh David didn’t fancy directing. He thought it couldn’t be realised convincingly (astute man) and it fell to Julia Smith to take up the reins. She, by all accounts, had a wretched time directing it, both in terms of the logistics involved and in dealing with a cast who made no secret of their contempt for the story and for her approach. Apparently it went £2,200 over budget (a couple of hundred being the most that would generally occur), so we’re not dealing with a cheap and cheerful little number that might occur with a Graham Williams era clunker.

It would be difficult to make an argument for an underlying serious intent behind the script; it betrays a haphazard mash-up of elements that you might expect from a Saturday matinee serial. There’s some tension between the crazed scientific principles of Zaroff and the superstitious devotion of the Amdo worshippers, but the identification a message underpinning this seems more of an afterthought (at the end of Episode Four) than a driving force.

Indeed, the overt insanity of Zaroff, THE mad scientist, seems almost metatextual. It’s not just Joseph Furst’s marvellously cracked performance that telegraphs this, it’s all over his dialogue and (anti-) motivation like an (his) octopus. Apparently, in the original script he wants to destroy the world following the death of his wife in a car crash. Which is rather anti-climactic motivation; much better that we have the Bond villain-on-steroids desire to go through with it for “the achievement”.

Prehistoric monsters!

Episode One, as with other introductory stories this season (The Smugglers and The Power of the Daleks), gives us a fair bit of time with the crew and their new recruit.  I’m not too struck with Ben’s cockernee overkill. Too often what is designed to be endearing chirpiness translates as gratingly broad. Jamie’s called “my old haggis”, while later he observes to Polly “you speak foreign. Go and talk to him. Ask him where we are”. 

The voicing of the thoughts of the crew as they speculate where they may be is the kind of experimentation of form that the series wouldn’t dabble in much beyond this story.

Polly: Please, let it be Chelsea 1966.
Ben: I hope it’s the Daleks. I don’t think.
The Doctor: Prehistoric monsters!
Jamie: What have I come upon?

Why Polly is now the one who wants to get back home (since it’s been consistently Ben harping on) is probably an indication of how the ball is being dropped character-wise. Certainly, this is where we really start to identify her as a screamer. Trout’s childlike expectation of what they might encounter is delightful.


The exploration of the coast line sees the companions head off without the Doctor, although they all end up together and captured deep beneath the ground soon enough. We see the first use in the series of Winspit Quarry in Dorset (later used in Destiny of the Daleks and Blake’s 7). Given the lack of subtlety of the rest of the story, the exploring section is quite open to any adventure/ tone.

The Doctor: Troglodytes.
Ben: What?
The Doctor: Ancient tribes from North Africa who lived in caves. Possibly, possibly. Where’s me diary?
Ben: Cavemen? Jamie, you better watch it. With that kilt someone might mistake you for a bird.
Jamie: What?

With this and The Highlanders there’s a playfulness with gender roles that would have been inconceivable during the Hartnell era.

Polly realising the date based on a coin commemorating the Mexico Olympics is a nice leisurely way of giving her an upper hand, and this kind of topicality was still relatively unusual for the series. Setting stories several years in the future tends to see the period they were made in become a great leveller (the UNIT era) in retrospect; TUM becomes loosely a present day story in terms of how we see Troughton’s era. At least it doesn’t – ahem – run with the Olympics reference like the shitty Fear Her. With regard to Polly “speaking foreign”, it’s one of those occasions where drawing attention to the issue only highlights the question of why no one has asked this before (as in The Masque of Mandragora).

Given the reliance on physical performance in this episode, it might have been more rewarding to have this returned to the archive than Episode Two. The Doctor gets in the way of a guard who is about to chastise Ara (canny, as she proves to be a useful ally), then tucking into Zaroff’s plankton.

The Doctor: Delicious! This is excellent! This is ambrosia! Sit down! Sit down!
Ben: What’s got into him?
Polly: I don’t know. I’ve never seen him go for food like this before. It’s usually hats.

I’m not sure that the legitimacy of the prophecy concerning the TARDIS crew is ever questioned, but there are certainly some inconsistencies in the presentation of Ramo. In the next episode he refers to the priest as superstitious, but he’s happy to go along with sacrificing the crew to Amdo here.

Ramo: The living goddess Amdo sees and hears all.
The Doctor: And she had a message about us? For you?
Ramo: Yes. She told us you would fall from the sky in time for our festival of the vernal equinox.

He also gives the Doctor “five minutes to make his point” which is a very modern phrasing. Sloppy scripting or a result of hanging out with Zaroff?


The Doctor’s extensive (omniscient?) knowledge has been evident so far this season both in his encounters with Cybermen and Daleks, and he is quick to identify Zaroff as the plankton propagator (I suppose not too many scientists are interested in that field, so they stand out).  He sends Ara with a message for Zaroff while the crew are trussed up to fall down a well as sacrifices. This is a pacy episode, wasting no time in throwing the companions into danger and revealing the main supporting cast.

Vital secret will die with me. Dr W.

More playfulness with the “Who” of the series’ title. With The War Machines, von Wer and now this, the series isn’t exactly leaping through the Fourth Wall, but it’s far more willing to nudge up against its own boundaries and artifice. It will pull back from that as the season progresses, but it’s an appealing take while it lasts.

Pay close attention to this eyes...

Furst’s entrance as Zaroff’s is as OTT as he will be throughout, his mangled English proving a delight (“I do not interfere with your sacrifice but I must first speak with that man”). His backstory is slightly impenetrable (he was believed dead, and the world believed he had been kidnapped with the East and West blaming each other). Trout’s admission that he had no secret is trumped by Zaroff completely not giving a shit; you’ve got to love him.

The Doctor: Now, here you are, the greatest scientific genius since Leonardo, under the sea. You must have a fantastic story to tell.
Zaroff: Perhaps I tell you some day. If you will live long enough to hear. Now this vital secret. What is it?
The DoctorI haven’t got one!
Zaroff: How dare you!
The Doctor: But I’m sure a great man like you wouldn’t want a modern scientific brain like mine to be sacrificed to a heathen idol.
Zaroff: You know I could have you torn to bits by my guards, yes?
The Doctor: Yes.
Zaroff: I could feed you to my pet octopus, yes?
The Doctor: Yes.
Zaroff: But you have sense of humour. I too have sense of humour! I need men like you! (Laughter from both) You come with me, aye?
The Doctor: I come with you.

That sense of humour is probably the last word in getting the most out of this story. We get a location on Atlantis (left of Gibraltar, south of the Azores, the Atlantic Ridge) which doesn’t fit with The Time Monster (clearly this is just one part of the vast submerged continent... ) and learn that the professor has promised to lift Atlantis out of the sea, a “sugar-coated pill” ensuring that he is accepted by the Atlanteans despite their antithetical attitude to his scientific principles.

Never trust a man with bushy eyebrows.

With Ben and Jamie sent to the mines, Polly seems quite okay with the genetic modification of workers until she’s told she will go under the knife. Colin Jeavons (Lestrade in the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes), equipped with massively bushy eyebrows like all the male Atlanteans (the designer was just taking the piss with this and the Fish People), does good work as Damon ( a bit Peter Miles).

Polly: It’s breathtaking. Sorry, that wasn’t supposed to be a pun.
Damon: Some people get most upset when they find they’re going to have the operation.
Polly: You’re not turning me into a fish!

The climax involving Polly, about to be stuck with a great hypodermic, exists as censor footage. It’s a reasonable cliffhanger, I suppose; I certainly don’t want to see a fishy Polly. 


An eventful and amusing first episode. It’s not clear at this point what the tone is going to be, or where exactly the story is going. Zaroff might be a good guy compared to the Atlantean zealots, although he appears to have no moral qualms concerning the potential deaths of the Doctor’s companions. And the seriousness of the threat of sacrifice/physical augmentation is thrown into sharp relief by show-stopping appearance of Furst (as with the Doctor in The Highlanders, his dialogue only underlines his deranged performance). 

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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