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). 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.