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…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

I think my mother put a curse on us.

Hereditary (2018)
(SPOILERS) Well, the Hereditary trailer's a very fine trailer, there's no doubt about that. The movie as a whole? Ari Aster's debut follows in the line of a number of recent lauded-to-the-heavens (or hells) horror movies that haven't quite lived up to their hype (The Babadook, for example). In Hereditary's case, there’s no doubting Ari Aster's talent as a director. Instead, I'd question his aptitude for horror.

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 …

There’s still one man out here some place.

Sole Survivor (1970)
(SPOILERS) I’m one for whom Sole Survivor remained a half-remembered, muddled dream of ‘70s television viewing. I see (from this site) the BBC showed it both in 1979 and 1981 but, like many it seems, in my veiled memory it was a black and white picture, probably made in the 1950s and probably turning up on a Saturday afternoon on BBC2. Since no other picture readily fits that bill, and my movie apparition shares the salient plot points, I’ve had to conclude Sole Survivor is indeed the hitherto nameless picture; a TV movie first broadcast by the ABC network in 1970 (a more famous ABC Movie of the Week was Spielberg’s Duel). Survivor may turn out to be no more than a classic of the mind, but it’s nevertheless an effective little piece, one that could quite happily function on the stage and which features several strong performances and a signature last scene that accounts for its haunting reputation.

Directed by TV guy Paul Stanley and written by Guerdon Trueblood (The…

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.