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

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.