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

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…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

What ho, Brinkley. So, do you think we’re going to get along, what?

Jeeves and Wooster 2.4: Jeeves in the Country  (aka Chuffy)
The plundering of Thank You, Jeeves elicits two more of the series’ best episodes, the first of which finds Bertie retiring to the country with a new valet, the insolent, incompetent and inebriate Brinkley (a wonderfully sour, sullen performance from Fred Evans, who would receive an encore in the final season), owing to Jeeves being forced to resign over his master’s refusal to give up the trumpet (“not an instrument for a gentleman”; in the book, it’s a banjulele).

Chuffnall Hall is the setting (filmed at Wrotham Park in Hertfordshire), although the best of the action takes place around Bertie’s digs in Chuffnall Regis (Clovelly, Devon), which old pal Reginald “Chuffy” Chuffnell (Marmaduke Lord Chuffnell) has obligingly rented him, much to the grievance of the villagers, who have to endure his trumpeting disrupting the beatific beach (it’s a lovely spot, one of the most evocative in the series).

Jeeves is snapped up into the e…

What I have tried to show you is the inevitability of history. What must be, must be.

The Avengers 2.24: A Sense of History
Another gem, A Sense of History features one of the series’ very best villains in Patrick Mower’s belligerent, sneering student Duboys. Steed and Mrs Peel arrive at St Bode’s College investigating murder most cloistered, and the author of a politically sensitive theoretical document, in Martin Woodhouse’s final, and best, teleplay for the show (other notables include Mr. Teddy Bear and The Wringer).

Don't give me any of that intelligent life crap, just give me something I can blow up.

Dark Star (1974)
(SPOILERS) Is Dark Star more a John Carpenter film or more a Dan O’Bannon one? Until the mid ‘80s it might have seemed atypical of either of them, since they had both subsequently eschewed comedy in favour of horror (or thriller). And then they made Big Trouble in Little China and Return of the Living Dead respectively, and you’d have been none-the-wiser again. I think it’s probably fair to suggest it was a more personal film to O’Bannon, who took its commercial failure harder, and Carpenter certainly didn’t relish the tension their creative collaboration brought (“a duel of control” as he put it), as he elected not to work with his co-writer/ actor/ editor/ production designer/ special effects supervisor again. Which is a shame, as, while no one is ever going to label Dark Star a masterpiece, their meeting of minds resulted in one of the decade’s most enduring cult classics, and for all that they may have dismissed it/ seen only its negatives since, one of the best mo…

Ruination to all men!

The Avengers 24: How to Succeed…. At Murder
On the one hand, this episode has a distinctly reactionary whiff about it, pricking the bubble of the feminist movement, with Steed putting a female assassin over his knee and tickling her into submission. On the other, it has Steed putting a female assassin over his knee and tickling her into submission. How to Succeed… At Murder (a title play on How to Succeed at Business Without Really Trying, perhaps) is often very funny, even if you’re more than a little aware of the “wacky” formula that has been steadily honed over the course of the fourth season.

You just keep on drilling, sir, and we'll keep on killing.

Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk (2016)
(SPOILERS) The drubbing Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk received really wasn’t unfair. I can’t even offer it the “brave experiment” consolation on the basis of its use of a different frame rate – not evident in itself on 24fps Blu ray, but the neutering effect of the actual compositions is, and quite tellingly in places – since the material itself is so lacking. It’s yet another misguided (to be generous to its motives) War on Terror movie, and one that manages to be both formulaic and at times fatuous in its presentation.

The irony is that Ang Lee, who wanted Billy Lynn to feel immersive and realistic, has made a movie where nothing seems real. Jean-Christophe Castelli’s adaptation of Ben Fountain’s novel is careful to tread heavily on every war movie cliché it can muster – and Vietnam War movie cliché at that – as it follows Billy Lynn (British actor Joe Alwyn) and his unit (“Bravo Squad”) on a media blitz celebrating their heroism in 2004 Iraq …

This here's a bottomless pit, baby. Two-and-a-half miles straight down.

The Abyss (1989)
(SPOILERS) By the time The Abyss was released in late summer ’89, I was a card carrying James Cameron fanboy (not a term was in such common use then, thankfully). Such devotion would only truly fade once True Lies revealed the stark, unadulterated truth of his filmmaking foibles. Consequently, I was an ardent Abyss apologist, railing at suggestions of its flaws. I loved the action, found the love story affecting, and admired the general conceit. So, when the Special Edition arrived in 1993, with its Day the Earth Stood Still-invoking global tsunami reinserted, I was more than happy to embrace it as a now-fully-revealed masterpiece.

I still see the Special Edition as significantly better than the release version (whatever quality concerns swore Cameron off the effects initially, CGI had advanced sufficiently by that point;certainly, the only underwhelming aspect is the surfaced alien craft, which was deemed suitable for the theatrical release), both dramatically and them…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …