Skip to main content

Do you really think this is some sort of trap, Doctor?


Doctor Who
The Evil of the Daleks: Episode One


David Whitaker returns to the Daleks and writes the whole thing this time, albeit aided by two different credited script editors. The result is epic and daring in a way the series hasn’t seen before, starting off steeped in ‘60s pop before plunging headlong into strange Victorian occult science. And, something that is now all too abundant, the plot that’s set in motion revolves around the Doctor. He is central to the premise, a major shift in the attitude the series takes towards itself.

The first episode is all bait for the audience, just as it is for the Doctor, and its skill is in catching us on the hook while revealing very little. Jamie and the Doctor follow a trail of breadcrumbs in order to locate the stolen TARDIS but haven’t even met Edward Waterfield by episode’s end. And hints are dropped as to what Waterfield is up to and where he’s from but nothing is confirmed. In that regard, it’s something of a shame the obligatory Dalek turns up to announce that this is about them at the cliffhanger. This kind of intrigue could perhaps have been sustained for another episode before revealing them, and might have meant we could avoid the trials of a highlander halfway through the story.


One element that is instantly striking is the music, surely one of Dudley Simpson’s best scores for the series. The 1960s set London scenes could be part of a Cold War spy thriller, with Harry Palmer appearing round a corner at any moment. Accordingly, clues are dropped for the Doctor to seize upon; we are invited to acknowledge his Sherlock Holmes-like deduction skills, so it’s a slap in the face later to learn that they have been laid intentionally and liberally for him to discover. I’m not sure what the “Leatherman” reference is about, but Bob Hall reveals that a (not Doctor) J Smith signed to have the TARDIS taken away. Rather than Smith, the Doctor is given the surname Galloway in this story (Perry is told by Waterfield that is his surname).


Prior to this, the only significant story to have the Doctor and just one companion is The Massacre. Notably, both see the companion become disenchanted with the Doctor’s behaviour. By this point, it’s hard to believe that Troughton and Hines weren’t forever entwined; so natural is their chemistry and repartee. There are still efforts to retain Jamie’s inexperience with not just other worlds and wonders but other periods in history.

Bob Hall: Foreign, is he?
Jamie: You’re the one that’s foreign. I’m Scottish.

It becomes clear early on that Waterfield has ordered the abduction of the TARDIS but he refuses to elaborate on why, even when interest is shown from the likes of employees Perry and Kennedy. How does he know the Doctor? I’m unclear why Perry thinks he’s selling imitations, though. Wouldn’t that defeat the point? Waterfield’s activities here are a more minor league version of what Scaroth will get up to in City of Death. The blending of past (Waterfield) and future (the technology in Waterfield’s concealed room) with the present is a particularly strong element of the episode. The reveal of the Warlords’ tech in The War Games episode one is dealt with in similar fashion.


John Bailey had previously appeared in The Sensorites and would later turn up as Sezom in The Horns of Nimon. He essays the buttoned down Victorian with creditably; he probably had few options when he saw how BIG Marius Goring’s performance would be.

Some of the hints at where Waterfield comes from are a little clumsy (the references to hansom cabs); he’s smart enough to disguise such slips, surely? That said, the stresses of his task are clearly getting to Waterfield from the off, and he doesn’t run a very tight ship. Kennedy’s a loose cannon, while he entrusts Perry with tasks despite the latter announcing his unwillingness to engage in any nefarious.


Perry: The telephone box. What do we do with it?
Waterfield: Nothing. We do nothing… Nothing except wait.

This Doctor knows hand-rolled cigarettes when he sees them (this is the ‘60s) and concludes that the man is left-handed from the way the matches have been torn out of the matchbook

Jamie: Don’t give up, Doctor. Remember Bruce.
The Doctor: Bruce?
Jamie: Robert Bruce.


The scenes in the Tricolour coffee bar (identified on the match book, and where Perry is sent to make contact) go further to underline that Trout may be the most natural of Doctors for fitting in to a contemporary setting. Hartnell pretty much was the incongruous Victorian gentleman in The War Machines, while all the others draw attention to themselves, if only by costume (I’m thinking Davison as the other contender).

Jamie: Do you really think this is some sort of trap, Doctor?
The Doctor: Yes.
Jamie: Not the Chameleons again?
The Doctor: No. Someone else. I can feel them…

I like that his spider-sense is tingling around the Daleks, and it adds to the uncertain atmosphere here. It’s just the Doctor and Jamie now, without the TARDIS, and someone out to get them for reasons unknown. And the Doctor has got the willies.


And, while Jamie holds the fort on the comedy front, Troughton is mostly brooding and concerned. He’s not the whacky fellow of the first half of the season, and the lighter moments are more reactive to Jamie than of his own volition. He is aware that Perry is watching him.

The Doctor: Do I look strange or bizarre?
Jamie: Ay, well maybe I’m used to you.
The Doctor: That’s some comfort.

You have to wonder if Waterfield wants the Doctor to think it’s a trap, since being asked for a meeting at 10 p.m. is a fairly blatant give-away.

Jamie’s still appears to be uncertain around girls, reproaching the Doctor for making him approach the dolly birds to ask questions (“If only the laird could see that” he comments – I’m not sure whether this means the laird was dirty old bastard or that he’d tut-tut). It won’t be long before he’s groping Victoria at every opportunity, of course.

It’s surreal enough to hear Paperback Writer in the background to the coffee shop, but there are other musical delights in this episode too. One of the few plus points about RTD bringing back the Master was him drumming out an ominous riff on the series’ main theme. Dudley Simpson was way ahead of him. The fantastically unsettling, rhythmic Dalek theme, bastardises the Who theme tune in extraordinary fashion. We first hear it as Waterfield frets to his unseen masters, and again at the cliffhanger when Kennedy breaks into the secret room, intent on robbing his employer. Handy to have a Dalek doing time travelling guard duty.


About Time referred to the use of the Daleks in this story as “demonic forces from another plane of existence” and that’s a very good description of how they are presented, science fiction in an age that cannot recognise it. Similar approaches will be taken with the Lovecraft-infused Yeti and ancient deity-driven Mummies, but this does it with the series own creation rather than riffing on mythical beasties. It takes a really good writer to be able to twist around such an iconic presence and do something new with them, but Whitaker manages it twice in one season.


A superb episode, tantalising and vibrantly made. It’s doing something highly original but it manages to come across as what you’d expect to be archetypal of the series. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

What about the panties?

Sliver (1993)
(SPOILERS) It must have seemed like a no-brainer. Sharon Stone, fresh from flashing her way to one of the biggest hits of 1992, starring in a movie nourished with a screenplay from the writer of one of the biggest hits of 1992. That Sliver is one Stone’s better performing movies says more about how no one took her to their bosom rather than her ability to appeal outside of working with Paul Verhoeven. Attempting to replicate the erotic lure of Basic Instinct, but without the Dutch director’s shameless revelry and unrepentant glee (and divested of Michael Douglas’ sweaters), it flounders, a stupid movie with vague pretensions to depth made even more stupid by reshoots that changed the killer’s identity and exposed the cluelessness of the studio behind it.

Philip Noyce isn’t a stupid filmmaker, of course. He’s a more-than-competent journeyman when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster fare (Clear and Present Danger, Salt) also adept at “smart” smaller pictures (Rabbit Proof Fence

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.