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

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…

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

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…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

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…

Now we're all wanted by the CIA. Awesome.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)
(SPOILERS) There’s a groundswell of opinion that Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation is the best in near 20-year movie franchise. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but only because this latest instalment and its two predecessors have maintained such a consistently high standard it’s difficult to pick between them. III featured a superior villain and an emotional through line with real stakes. Ghost Protocol dazzled with its giddily constructed set pieces and pacing. Christopher McQuarrie’s fifth entry has the virtue of a very solid script, one that expertly navigates the kind of twists and intrigue one expects from a spy franchise. It also shows off his talent as a director; McQuarrie’s not one for stylistic flourish, but he makes up for this with diligence and precision. Best of all, he may have delivered the series’ best character in Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa Faust (admittedly, in a quintet that makes a virtue of pared down motivation and absen…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.