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

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…

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…

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…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

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.

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.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

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 …