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

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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…

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

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…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.

I’m what you might call a champagne problem.

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019)
(SPOILERS) The idea of teaming the two most engaging characters from the recent Fast & Furious movies for a spin-off seems like a no-brainer for making something better than Fast & Furious at its best (somewhere around 6 & 7), but there’s a flaw to this thinking (even if the actual genesis of the movie wasn’t Dwayne Johnson swearing off being on the same set as Vin again); the key to F&F succeeding is the ensemble element, and the variety of the pick’n’mix of characters. Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw – I can’t help thinking the over-announced title itself stresses an intrinsic lack of confidence somewhere at Universal – duly provides too much of a good thing, ensuring none of the various talents employed are fully on top of their game.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

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.

... you’re being uncharacteristically non-hyper-verbal.

Movies on My Mind Week Ending 7 May 2016
The Irishman
The Irishman (formerly I Heard You Paint Houses, based on Charles Brandt’s account of mob hitman Frank Sheeran, who was chums with Jimmy Hoffa, whom he professed to have offed) has been gestating for what seems like forever. I’d been wondering about its expiry date, as the names attached throughout have been the ever-longer-in-the-tooth holy trio of De Niro, Pacino and Pesci.
Now it seems there's a tight window (we’ll know by this time next week) for financing coming together. It seems the plan is to using de-aging technology (most recently seen making Downey Jr look less than zero in Civil War) to work its regressing magic on these wise guys. I’m a bit uneasy about that, as no matter how good it is, it’s distracting. Not that I think Scorsese would go there if he didn’t think he could pull it off, but it will still be there in the viewer’s mind.
Hopefully he’ll make going back to the Mob worthwhile; I’d presume so, as if his word…