Skip to main content

They will enslave us for all time.


Doctor Who
The Evil of the Daleks: Episode Five


The episode kicks off with another destroyed Dalek (crashing over the bannisters).


Not only are these incredibly easy to overcome (a far cry from the Doctor’s warning that one Dalek could take over the entire Vulcan colony), but also the Daleks don’t seem remotely concerned by the destruction of their fellows. Are they purposefully weedy cannon fodder Daleks, engineered purely for the test?


Victoria’s very pleased to see her silent guardian, who is presumably so noble that he has a purely platonic interest in response. Victoria’s okay when she’s not whinging. Unfortunately, this is very infrequent. Fortunately, she is rendered unconscious and the devoted Kemel spirits her away to Skaro (at the Daleks behest).


Terrall’s plotline comes to a head, and we’re none-the-wiser why the Daleks devised his tangential role on top of Maxtible’s machinations. Possibly they were just dabbling with human control (like the Robomen) but as it caused potential foul-ups of their plans you’d have thought they’d be more careful.


The Doctor’s a bit more playful in his company, offering pestering him and offering him a drink.

Terrall: I very rarely touch it.
The Doctor: Oh, how very unsociable.

But it’s a means to ascertaining the truth about the man. The Doctor notes that he has never seen Terrall eat or drink, to which Terrall responds that the Doctor has been reading too much Edgar Allan Poe. He also notes that Terrall has magnetic properties (which is curious to say the least; another example of the fantastical – and appealing – nature of Whitaker’s version of science).

Terrall: No doubt you are a keen student of human nature. But there are some things best left alone.
The Doctor: No, Mr Terrall, I am not a student of human nature. I am a professor of a far wider academy of which human nature is merely a part. All forms of life interest me.


It’s a classic bit of Doctor dialogue, setting out the scope of his “mission”. Left alone, Terrall struggles with his conditioning. Fortunately, far more believably than Stein in Resurrection of the Daleks.

Later, following his sword fight with Jamie, Terrall breaks down completely. The Doctor removes the black control box from under his collar.

The Doctor: Do you want to save this man’s life?
Ruth: Yes.
The Doctor: Then take him away from here, as far as possible.


Terrall’s parting concern, with his senses returning (“Wait… Victoria Waterfield. I feel I have harmed her in some way”), highlights that the only character in the story with less than salubrious motives (aside from the now deceased Toby) is Maxtible. It’s a welcome gesture that Whitaker doesn’t feel the need to have Terrall exterminated for his role as an unwilling Dalek agent.

Messing with minds is a recurring theme in Season Four, be it straightforward brainwashing (The Macra Terror) or emotionless facsimiles (The Faceless Ones). Then, Season Four was broadcast during a period that widely embraced mind-altering substances. One might argue that, if there’s a subtext within the show, Doctor Whopresents such experimentation in a negative light. But at no point are the victims in the series willing participants and the influence is as likely to promote conformity with the presiding social structure (The Macra Terror) as disruption (The Moonbase).


Maxtible reveals that Victoria’s abduction was achieved through the hypnosis technique he now practices on Molly (again, Maxtible shows himself to be such a resourceful fellow that his falling prey to good old fashioned avarice is an even greater disappointment).

Terrall: I’d no idea that mesmerism was one of your skills.

He continues to delude himself that he is partnering with the Daleks (“I prefer to call them my colleagues”) but that’s hardly surprising given the alternative.

We finally see a glimmer of the Doctor’s hope that he will find a path through his collaboration with the Daleks, resulting in their defeat. This comes by way of his conversation with Waterfield, who is posing many of the same moral concerns he expressed to Maxtible in the previous episode.


The Doctor informs him that he has synthesised the better emotions (“Courage, pity, chivalry. Even compassion”) within a positronic brain (that thing again; see Power of the Daleks). The Doctor conjectures that the Human Factor might drive the Daleks insane, but Waterfield – ever fearful – wonders that they may become super beings (surely that’s exactly what these “devils’ are to him right now?) The Doctor even invokes the earlier admonishments of Maxtible when he comments, “It’s no use having a conscience now”.

The Doctor: I can’t help feeling there is more to this than meets the eye.

So he has his wits about him, yet he is unable predict the Dalek Factor reveal of the final episode.

Waterfield: They will enslave us for all time.
The Doctor: That, Mr Waterfield, remains to be seen.

Waterfield goes on:

Waterfield: And sacrifice a whole world.
The Doctor: Yes, it may come to that. It may well come to that.
Waterfield: I don’t think you quite realise what you are saying.

But what the Doctor has in mind, a glimmer of hope, is clearly the sacrifice of a world other than Earth; Skaro (I don’t think he’s literally thinking about the Thals being wiped out, but effectively the Human Factor will wipe out the Daleks there).


Speaking of which, the climax of the episode is one of the series’ most unique and bizarre. Disturbing precisely because it seems so unthreatening. Whitaker takes Dalek compliance a step further than in Power (“I am your ser-vant”) as an initially reluctant Doctor engages in a ride on a Dalek (“It’s a game!”)

I expect Maxtible’s sinister parting shot was designed to make the cliffhanger slightly more traditional, but it doesn’t really rein in the oddness.

Maxtible: A rather amusing little game. Don’t you think Jamie?

The highlight of the episode is the conversation preceding this, however. Jamie takes the Doctor to task for his behaviour.

The Doctor: I’ve been up all night, but it’s been worth it.
Jamie: Don’t touch me.
The Doctor: Now, what’s the matter?
Jamie: Anyone would think this was a little game.
The Doctor: No, it’s not a game.
Jamie: Of course it isn’t, Doctor. People have died. The Daleks are all over the place, fit to murder the lot of us. And all you can say is,  “You’ve had a good night’s sleep”.
The Doctor: Jamie…
Jamie: No, Doctor. Look, I’m telling you this. You and me, we’re finished. You’re just too callous for me. Anything goes by the board, anything at all.
The Doctor: That’s just not true, Jamie. I’ve never held that the end justifies the means.
Jamie: Words. What do I care about words? You don’t give that much for a living soul except yourself.
The Doctor: I care about life. I care about human beings. You think I let you go through that Dalek test lightly?
Jamie: I don’t know, did you? Look Doctor, just whose side are you on?

There’s real emotional heft here. This kind of altercation hasn’t been seen since Steven’s tirade against the Doctor at the end of The Massacre (which had a strong build up, with The Daleks’ Master Plan littered with heavy losses of companions and friends). It’s the more powerful because of that infrequency.

Without needlessly invoking the spectre of the current version of Doctor Who, one of the problems is that the impact of this sort of scene is diluted by making it a fairly regular occurrence. The companion is called upon to doubt and question the Doctor, at which point we are asked to dwell upon his status as a “lonely god”. It becomes a rather tiresome trope. So too with McCoy’s incarnation; the Doctor’s actions were part of the grand scheme of an arch-manipulator, with Ace as his puppet. Here, because Troughton’s Doctor larks about so much, because Jamie is such a good-natured trooper all the time, because there’s no persistent agenda, it really is shocking.


But it’s notable too that the next story will also call upon the Doctor to display slightly inscrutable motives, leading the archeological expedition forward rather than imploring them to beat a hasty retreat.


Back on it’s A-Game, Episode Five is a outstanding. Discarding plot threads that have run their course (Terrall and Ruth), paying-off others (Jamie’s journey) and then turning the Daleks on their heads at the cliffhanger. 

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.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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 system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

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.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.