Skip to main content

We had opened the way for them with our experiments.


Doctor Who
The Evil of the Daleks: Episode Two


It’s possible that the audio of Evil might be claimed to mask a crushing disappointment should the physical articles ever be happened upon. Except that we have a solitary physical article, and Episode Two ends up only supporting the case that this deserves its classic reputation. Derek Martinus is one of the series’ most underappreciated directors, and if anyone could make Galaxy 4 more vital than its pedestrian script would allow it’s him (so it will be interesting to see that recovered episode… one day).

Episode One is revealed to have employed the old stand-by of superfluous Dalek cliffhanger. Having shown up to kill Kennedy, it promptly glides off.


The chemistry between Troughton and Hines continues to reap dividends with comic business at the antiques shop (“And don’t knock into anything” instructs the Doctor, as he proceeds to do just that). If Jamie has been defined as a thickie to be mocked by Season Six (not so surprising with two geniuses as company), here he’s allowed a surprisingly focused mind that intuits the answers more quickly than the Doctor’s.

Jamie: I’ve got an idea. All the stuff in here is genuine.
The Doctor: Yes…
Jamie: But brand new.
The Doctor: Well done.
Jamie: Well, that’s impossible. Unless… Waterfield could have invented a time machine like the TARDIS, Doctor. And he’s bringing back all this stuff from Victorian times.
The Doctor: Well, it’s not very likely, is it?


Waterfield is convincingly presented as a man on the edge of losing his wits, uncomprehending of the Daleks’ mindless destruction (“You don’t have to kill!”) and unraveling under the pressure of the demands place on him (“I can’t. I can’t go on with this.”)


10 minutes into the episode, the Doctor and Jamie have been gassed and whisked away to 1866. If it were the case that Ben and Polly were going to be written out after the first episode of Evil, it would at least have made more sense to break their involvement as the contemporary adventure was left.


The device of allowing the audience to become aware of the new time period at the pace of the Doctor (and then Jamie) is usually a gradual Episode One experience. In this episode the Doctor is on the back foot, awaking to the greeting Molly the maid and being offered a powerful restorative. We learn that he is some miles from Canterbury (the series doesn’t often end up in Kent, does it?) and it is interesting to see his initial resistance to the idea that he has been taken back in time.


Maxtible: You will believe, Doctor. We are all of us victims of a higher power. A power more evil and terrible than the human brain can imagine.

There’s something highly arresting about the dislocation of the Daleks to the minds and setting of Victoriana. As noted in Episode One they become an almost supernatural force conceptually, associated with occult forces and diabolism. The sight of them rolling around a Victorian house is both incongruous and eerily potent.


Waterfield tells the Doctor that his daughter’s life is in her hands, and on cue we have a scene featuring the incredibly wet girl with the big tits. Its saving grace is some idiosyncratic Dalek dialogue.

Dalek: You will not feed the flying pests outside.

The Dalek threatens to force feed her (via plunger?) and before a scene is finished Victoria is whinging and heaving her bosom. Not helped by the incidental music taking a decidedly maudlin turn. Imagine, if you will, Victoria played by Gabrielle Drake. She was shortlisted for the role, apparently. I’m imagining it right now.

Maxtible: Here we are, Doctor. This is hallowed ground.


Marius Goring’s performance as Maxtible is as over-sized as his crazy hair, but it completely works. He demands your attention and gets it, smoking away on his big cigar. Accentuated by an explanation of his science that is verging on the giddy in how strange and at-odds it is with any attempts at rationalisation.  Perhaps that’s what makes it so seductive; unapologetically plunging head first into the fantastical experimentation. The references to the properties of mirrors put me in mind of the likes of Richard Stanley’s Dust Devil and Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. As such, it’s an idea that is very much owned by the fantasy arena.


The Daleks are “inhuman monsters” and “creatures of the devil”.

Maxtible: Following the new investigations twelve years ago by J Clark Maxwell into electromagnetism and the experiments by Faraday with static electricity…
The Doctor: Static?
Maxtible: Correct… Waterfield and I first attempted to define the image in the mirror and then to project through it.

They use 144 mirrors, polished, with electrical charges to “repel the image”.


Waterfield: In the middle of our final test with static, creatures burst out of the cabinet, invaded the house and took away my daughter. We had opened the way for them with our experiments.

The scenario has more in common with horror movies than science fiction, and conjures almost Lovecraftian imagery. So the actual appearance of a Dalek to issue the Doctor with commands could be seen as deflating the bag. Particularly as it seems a highly elaborate plan on their behalf just to do some tests on Jamie. How exactly would they have laid in wait for the Doctor at this point and time? The Dalek’s edict sets up the deceit of Jamie in future episodes, and this is a new an interesting idea for the series to play with, albeit one that doesn’t turn the Doctor into some kind of master manipulator of the McCoy years. Here he is, at least, under duress.  He is instructed to “reveal nothing to your companion” and there’s a great bit of Troughton outrage and alarm directed at his hosts (with an underlying implication that they have mixed themselves up in “devilish” practices)

The Doctor: What have you done with your infernal meddling?

There’s also an indication that Maxtible may be less the stooge and more the accomplice to the Daleks, as his outlining of the Daleks’ motives seems very well-informed; some factor in human beings, that they want to transplant into their own race.

Maxtible: My dear fellow, I am merely surmising. I know nothing definite.


Jamie ‘s introduction to the era is slightly less sure-footed, suffering from clumsy exposition and setting up of plot points for later. Mollie seems to fancy him as a bit of rough, while Ruth Maxtible doesn’t seem at all put out that he instantly fixates on the picture on the wall rather than complimenting her for her looks. It just comes across as a bit peculiar that Jamie wakes up and rather than orientating himself gets a massive stiffy for a painting (of Waterfield’s dead wife). It is Frazer Hines, though.


The appearance of Windsor “lovely boys” Davies as Toby seems to be a bit out of nowhere, and not altogether successful (bashing Jamie, then getting interrupted and grabbing the maid); while it adds to the unanswered questions (chief of which being why Jamie’s so vital; “Absolutely essential”), it comes across as the first sign of the script looking for filler.

The cliffhanger is more obligatory Daleks (“There will be no delay!”), who have worked well so far due to being place on the periphery of the action. A typical Dalek scene like this does them no favours.

It has a few less successful elements, but this gets full marks again for sheer inventiveness and atmosphere.  

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.

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…

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

And my father was a real ugly man.

Marty (1955)
(SPOILERS) It might be the very unexceptional good-naturedness of Marty that explains its Best Picture Oscar success. Ernest Borgnine’s Best Actor win is perhaps more immediately understandable, a badge of recognition for versatility, having previously attracted attention for playing iron-wrought bastards. But Marty also took the Palme d’Or, and it’s curious that its artistically-inclined jury fell so heavily for its charms (it was the first American picture to win the award; Lost Weekend won the Grand Prix when that was still the top award).

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…

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

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…

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.

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.