Skip to main content

The conquest of humanity has eluded us. The Daleks must know why.


Doctor Who
The Evil of the Daleks: Episode Three


While Jamie’s excursion in search of Victoria is but an episode away, there’s a massive upside this padding (I hasten to add that I don’t think this section of the story is bad, it’s just not of the same standard as the rest of it); it puts the companion’s relationship with the Doctor under the spotlight. Not in the banal, “I wuv you, Doctor” manner of nu-Who, but in a compelling way that believably sees one of the Doctor’s most devoted sidekicks questioning everything he thinks he knows about his fellow time traveller.


That fraying of the bond between them begins here. After he is rescued by the Doctor (more on his kidnapping shortly), Jamie overhears him apparently betraying the Scot with Waterfield (Waterfield tells the Doctor was not supposed to mention the Daleks to Jamie; to be honest, I was unclear if Jamie was intended to overhear this and it was part of the whole subterfuge; he only fully agrees to the plan in a subsequent conversation with the Daleks, so maybe that was not the case).

Doctor: I know what’s happened to Victoria. She’s a prisoner of the Daleks.

Later, he confronts the Doctor.

Doctor: Jamie, you’re in a temper!
Jamie: Is that bad, then? Does that mean I won’t be co-operative? I won’t do everything I’m told?
Doctor: You were eavesdropping!

Having the Doctor attempt to find some entirely absent moral high ground is a nice touch, but even more resonant is that even here – where the Doctor is apparently called to account – he continues to manipulate his companion.

Doctor: I won’t have you ruining everything, trying to rescue Victoria Waterfield.


Which is, of course, precisely the plan. Whitaker doesn’t spend time on the Doctor’s moral quandary. While it’s clear that he is acting against his will, there’s a lack of handwringing that encourages us to see Jamie’s point-of-view. Not an awful lot happens in Episode Three, but it’s vital in setting out the character dynamics (at the end of Episode Two we know that the Daleks are planning these tests, at the end of Episode Three Jamie begins them).

Dalek: We do not trust you
Doctor: Well, we’re quits then.
Dalek: But we have your time machine. So you will obey us.

The bargaining chip of the TARDIS cannot be the only motivating factor for the Doctor (he needs to buy time to do for the Daleks, obviously) but he is content to let it appears so to the Daleks.

Doctor: And you want to introduce this Human Factor into the race of Daleks?
Dalek: Yes. The conquest of humanity has eluded us. The Daleks must know why.

Of course, RTD returned to the well of human/Dalek cross-pollination to derisible effect in Evolution of the Daleks (with an end result of going to extremes – madness – such is his lack of nuance). Eric Saward did the similar to extremely grizzly results in Revelation of the Daleks. Whitaker concentrates on the social and political dynamics of the resulting conflict in morals, ethics, psychology and philosophy. He does this very straightforwardly, however.


The big deal of using Jamie remains somewhat oblique. He is needed because “travelling with you makes him unique”. When the Doctor asks why not him, he is told;

Dalek: You have travelled too much through time. You are more than human.

Which suggests the Daleks don’t know the Doctor is a Time Lord (more to the point, at this period in the series, they don’t know that he is from another planet – something the Doctor mentions later in this very story). But why do the Daleks need a human who has time travelled (the series picks up on the theme of its effects in The Two Doctors and again during the 2005+ incarnation)? Is it something to do with their plans later for the Dalek Factor (since the Daleks time travel do they need that ingredient in the mix)? It’s not something we’re encouraged to ask, frankly. Whitaker is playing this in big, bold strokes that conjure an idea rather than break it down logically. 


Daleks have been brought from Skaro to be injected with the nebulous Human Factor once it’s been isolated. To achieve this, Jamie’s reactions will be recorded and transformed into thought patterns.

Dalek: It is for you, Doctor, to select the major feelings to make up this Hu-man Factor.

All of which leads one to expect a massive goof lining itself up for the Daleks to trundle into (as appears to be the case in a couple of episodes’ time). So it’s just as well they have a plan behind their plan; the worst you could accuse them of is being a bit slack in terms of scientific rigour (through arrogance or foolishness they do not isolate the Daleks infused with the Human Factor).


Jamie’s kidnap is a strange business, mainly because it seems as if the Daleks have two plans running simultaneously and that they do not completely dovetail. At least in part, this is down to human error; They are controlling Arthur Terrall (we don’t know that yet, but it’s pretty evident an alien force, punctuated by electronic noises on the soundtrack, is manipulating him) but the conditioning is erratic. Toby, meanwhile, is a loose cannon (Terrall did not want him to abduct Jamie). If this all goes to create an atmosphere of confusion and strangeness then that is appropriate, because the plot thread is not resolved in a wholly satisfactory manner.


Gary Watson’s performance as Terrall is suitably strained, and a point is made of identifying him as the kind man who suffered during the Crimean War. It’s a fine example of the series not making an emotional meal over a character point and not labouring any metaphorical aspects in having him no longer himself; in today’s show the writers would nurse Terrall’s condition to the point where they showed how little insight they have into so much matters, and then wrap it all neatly in a bow. The Doctor’s history reference sounds more like something his next incarnation would spew out.

Doctor: I watched the Charge of the Light Brigade. Magnificent folly.

Hmmm.


Toby’s outlived his usefulness, which wasn’t very extensive. First Terrall bashes him on the head, and then he’s exterminated. Anyone would think this was an Eric Saward script (no, not really).

The spooky aspects have receded somewhat. The strange environment still holds an impact (Daleks in a Victorian house) but we now know too much about the circumstances to be affected by Molly’s tales.

Molly: Well, they do say, sir, that the house is haunted. Mr. Kitts and the butler left. And Cook and the two footmen are complaining.


Toby exits this week, and Kemel (future Ice Warrior Sonny Caldinez) enters. He’s mute, and Turkish (you can see this, as he wears a fez).

Maxtible: His mind is, how shall I say, undeveloped.

Kemel is “strong but stupid”. It’s unfortunate that the racial connotation of this is unavoidable. And ironic that, as part of its attempts to present wider cultural backgrounds in its characters, the series stumbles headlong into crude stereotypes.  Kemel is the strong, silent, “noble savage” type that will be given an encore in the form of Toberman in the next story (The Tomb of the Cybermen).


In plot terms, however, this announces the start of Jamie’s trials of strength and endurance; the episode ends with Jamie encountering the quiet giant.

Maxtible: He’s an evil villain, Kemel. He would gladly murder us all our beds.


A slight step down from the first two episodes, but the plot remains engrossing. If occasionally a little confusing. 

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.

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…

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

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.

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…

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

And my father was a real ugly man.

Marty (1955)
(SPOILERS) It might be the very unexceptional good-naturedness of Marty that explains its Best Picture Oscar success. Ernest Borgnine’s Best Actor win is perhaps more immediately understandable, a badge of recognition for versatility, having previously attracted attention for playing iron-wrought bastards. But Marty also took the Palme d’Or, and it’s curious that its artistically-inclined jury fell so heavily for its charms (it was the first American picture to win the award; Lost Weekend won the Grand Prix when that was still the top award).

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.

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.