Skip to main content

This time he’s up against a mind superior even to his. The mind of the Director.


Doctor Who
The Faceless Ones: Episode Five


 The sudden galvanisation into activity during this episode reemphasises all the padding around the story’s midriff that has occurred. Ben and Polly might not have been so obviously short-changed if they’d be absent for one and a half episodes of a four-parter rather than three.


 The story opens up at last, both in terms of locations and interactions. The Chameleons were previously limited to Blade issuing guarded instructions to Spencer. But now boastful Blade is willing to hold forth, so there’s a bit more colour to the character and alien race. He also shows that the Chameleons are as guilty as the Cybermen of underestimating stupid Earth brains.

Blade: We could eliminate an entire squadron of their planes and they’d never get on to us. Their minds can’t cope with an operation like this.

That’s certainly fair comment on the Commandant.

Blade: Remember the teachings of our Director. The intelligence of Earth people is comparable to that of animals on our planet.

I imagine the Director as the Chameleons’ equivalent of L Ron Hubbard, given to imparting fanciful notions in his followers’ minds. There are certainly significant holes in his plan.


 Jamie’s brief scout round the Chameleons’ space station is further evidence of the story’s reinvigoration. The drawer full of human dolls precedes the Master’s rum activities by a good four years. The worst and laziest version of shrunken humans remains the action men of the Fourth Doctor era, though. It might have been nice touch to show a tiny Ben or Polly.


With faceless Chameleons lumbering about there’s an added frisson of tension. The Chameleons must be the most viscerally disturbing creation the series has seen up to this point. No one would think twice about them if they showed up in the Hinchcliffe era, but this is generally regarded as the programme’s “safest” period. They may actually be more frightening conceptually than anything Hinchliffe’s era came up with because they don’t represent evil (like, say, mangled madman Magnus Greel) or mutation and regression toward baser animal instincts (like the man-Krynoid, or the Noah-Wirrn). They represent a distorted reflection of us (regardless of their view of their own superiority), a nightmare imagining of the effects of atomic fall-out.


Fake Meadows is persuaded to provide further exposition of the Chameleons’ plan, under threat of reversion to his faceless state.

The Doctor: Why are you abducting all these young people?
Meadows: We had a catastrophe on our home planet. A gigantic explosion. As you’ve seen, we’ve lost our identities. My people are dying out.

It’s a curiously indistinct explanation. Presumably the explosion was of nuclear proportions, but the “loss of identities” is a strange choice of words. Identities as in physical distinctiveness, presumably. Or the director would not retain his status.

We learn that there are 50,000 of them “this time” (on the station?) but Meadows professes not to know how many originals are stashed at Gatwick. This is really very daft of the Chameleons. I can’t think of a good reason for them to be secreted at the Airport other than that it provides leverage for the Doctor to gain the upper hand in the final episode. It can’t be to do with proximity, as Blade heads off all over and beyond (including space) so they could surely have stashed them aboard the space station and all would have been well.


The Doctor: Because if we do find them we’ll find one of these on their arms, ay? And if we remove it, it will do something terrible to you, yes?

The Doctor establishes that the process can be reversed with the Chameleons’ machine, and that only Nurse Pinto knows where the originals are.

Meadows: She was cunning. She’s got her own original with her.

Ironically, considering their facelessness, the villains are imbued with more individuality than your average Who enemy. Each of them is fairly distinct, and having Pinto as a control-freak may just have been written to cover the reveal of real Pinto in the previous episode, but it fits.


The plan to copy Sam and use her to get close to the Doctor is feeble in the extreme, since the Chameleons could have done this with Ben or Polly ages ago. And they want to do this now, having tried to laser her last week.


 With fake Nurse Ratchet/Pinto apprehended then killed and Sam saved (every time she opens her mouth now, it’s like nails down a blackboard), thick Jamie is probed for information by the fake Inspector.


Jamie: Inspector. Have you escaped or something?
The Director: No one escapes from here.
Jamie: Surely the Doctor will think of some way of rescuing us.
The Director: Not this time, Jamie. This time he’s up against a mind superior even to his. The mind of the Director.

I half expected him to say “I am the Director and you will obey me!” when he reveals his true identity to Jamie. The name the Director does have the ring of a recurring villain.


The Doctor establishes that 25 personnel have been taken over, and comes up with an at-best dubious plan to pretend to be a Chameleon copy of the Doctor (taken over by fake Meadows) to get aboard the space station. And who should he team up with but companion surrogate number two, Nurse Pinto! Madelena Nicol would have made a much more interesting TARDIS traveller than Sam. Mature, brave and collected, and always in possession of a bottle of aspirin.

You can tell that Blade isn’t buying the story from the off, and it’s not surprising, but this is The Faceless Ones at its most engaging up to this point.

In another dramatic turn, Jamie has been copied.


The Director: Where do you come from?
Jamie Chameleon: From Earth. A place called Scotland.

After Ben in The Macra Terror, this confidence to play with identity in the series is becoming a minor running theme. Like Ben, and Crossland, the “possession” of Jamie is signified by a loss of regional accent. We also hear a bit of myth-spinning of the Doctor. Now this sort of thing has become far too commonplace, but its quite thrilling to get a whiff of the Doctor’s rep (at least, when it’s not Daleks doing it) at this point in the show’s history.

Jamie Chameleon: He’s not of Earth or this country. He has travelled through time and space. His knowledge is even greater than ours.


Blade, now arrived, informs the Director that the Doctor and Pinto are impostors (although that should be the other way round).

Blade: Director. This man is a danger to us. He must be destroyed.
The Director: And I say he should live. But as one of us.
Blade: You will regret it.
The Director: You have your orders, Captain Blade.

So the seeds of mutiny are planted even before the Doctor sets to work.


A huge step up from the previous episode, it splutters into gear and propels itself forward engagingly. If the possession of a companion so soon after The Macra Terror could be considered repetitive, it is feels sufficiently distinct. And the groundwork laid with the likes of Meadows and Pinto remaining peripheral in previous weeks now pays off. The lack of foresight regarding the bodies might be excused if the means of their concealment wasn’t so daft…

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

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.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…