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. 

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.

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.

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…

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.

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

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.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism