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

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?