Skip to main content

An end to male domination, my sisters. To freedom!


The Fantastic Journey
8. Turnabout

Joan Collins in the Battle of the Sex Slaves. And a mad computer. This episode, co-credited to Ken Kolb (whose claim to fame is Ray Harryhausen’s The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad) and story editor/ex-Trekscribe D.C. Fontana, is at once both tiresomely obvious in its sexual politics and occasionally surprising in its narrative twists. It doesn’t get stuck in one mode throughout, and as a result proves surprisingly enjoyable.

Get back on that trapeze, Joan.

HalyanaYou were right. The complex has gone mad.

A fair portion of its watchability is also down to Joan Collins, the love interest of the best-loved Star Trek episode of them all (The City on the Edge of Forever; there are some familiar Trek sound effects in this episode, and throughout The Fantastic Journey). Always the budget version of Elizabeth Taylor, Collins tended to mix TV guest spots with less-than-acclaimed movies. The shoulder-padded Dynasty in ‘80s may be her best-remembered period, but she attained a certain cachet during the ‘70s as middle-aged hot stuff. She had entered her 40s and, if anything, it proved to be her prime; she’d finish up the decade with back-to-back soft porn romps The Stud and The Bitch. Despite their dubious merits, her unabashed carnality proved quite seductive to the young mind.


Can you feel an orgy coming on?

Here, she relishes the role of the patriarch-toppling Queen Halyana; it’s just unfortunate that the script furnishes the character with a great deal of empty bombast. She gets stroppy and then threatening with Varian and Willaway when they are unable to give her what she wants. And we end up seeing her as a bit of a silly woman who has got in over her head (surely not Fontana’s intention). It takes men to teach her the error of her methods (Willaway and Varian). Come the conclusion and she has reconciled herself to needing a good man to roger her; the decision to try and get along may be reaching towards an ideal, but it serves to undermine her and her sisters.

Willaway: You don’t seem to have too much regard for women in this society.

As is common with Journey’s “troubled society of the week” plots, this could fit into any given sci-fi series. Repeatedly in Journey, there is an almost cheerful disregard for internal logic. As soon as you start asking how the civilisation reached this point any pretence at dramatic integrity evaporates. King Morgan (Paul Mantee) presides over a rabble of brawny open-chested leather men (“It’s only a woman” he says of Liana). The women serve (including his wife Halyana) and there’s an all-powerful computer to take care of the everything else (the Complex – nice name).

It's the honeycomb middle that weighs so little.

Willaway: I’m afraid that mind may not be sane.

We learn that men built the city. Koriel is another example of prime ‘60s/’70s architecture, this time resembling a swiss cheese. They were also responsible for the computer, but the men we see in the episode are near-medieval lunkheads. One might assume that society has been devolving for some time, since these oafs (give Morgan some credit, he’s friendly enough to his fellow men) appear devoid of scientific knowledge. Morgan even comments, “What evil magic is this?” as the computer zaps his comrades. But Adrea (Julie Cobb) who reprograms the Complex (badly) states that her father was one of the machine’s designers. We are told that there are no more builders (within one generation?) No one bothers to address the imbalances between a technologically advanced society being so culturally and ethically backwards (see also An Act of Love).

Halyana: The city is ours. An end to male domination, my sisters. To freedom!

And why would a computer designed by sexist men have a female voice (perhaps because it is designed so that it “responds only to men”)? It sounds a little too authoritarian for the liking of these blokes.

Now that's a computer!

The design work for the computer room is memorable. It resembles a child’s play set; primary colours, an enormous yellow button atop the computer and symbols that would look at home on the puzzle floor in The Adventure Game. As routine as it is, the malfunctioning computer is easily the best part of the episode and adds urgency to the plot.

Halyana: Where did the Complex put the men?Adrea: I don’t know, your majesty. I don’t even think the Complex knows. Something has gone wrong.

The dematerialisation of the men to what looks like some kind of limbo (“It was a dark place, like a prison”) is the first of the episode’s peculiar choices. Where do they go? How does the computer achieve this? Initially, I expected a reveal that all the men were in fact computer constructs (that might have been interesting). But it’s much less high concept that that, with no logic to explain what has happened; this is a multi-faceted machine of unbridled potential, it seems. Then there’s the scene where Morgan materialises in Halyana’s chamber for some lurve action (“Why couldn’t you be like this all the time” she derides, before zapping him back to his dimensional dungeon).

Also introduced is a poison subplot; no one could accuse of Fontana and Kolb of a coming up with an incident-free story. The poison is only activated if you stop eating for a certain period. It’s not that these elements aren’t entertaining, but that the writers appear to have inserted them in a borderline random fashion.

Halyana: They’ll provide excellent breeding stock for our colony.
Willaway: Now you see here, I will not be referred to as “breeding stock”.

Initially it looks as if Liana will be the focus of the episode when Morgan and his pals kidnapped her (Sil-El, that pretty kitty, fetches the rest of the group after her). Perhaps because of Saylor’s illness (this is her last appearance) she ends up having relatively little to do (there’s a scene where Varian comes up with a ruse to keep Liana free, accusing her of being a lazy good-for-nothing).

Scott has little to do in this adult world (there isn’t a kid to befriend in sight), aside from overhearing that they’ve been poisoned. Varian offers the occasional pearl of wisdom; he’s resourceful and less recalcitrant than his original self. Halyana takes his explanation of the properties of his tuning fork as a refusal to allow her to use it. So he and Scott spend a fair bit of the episode writhing about under the influence of poisoned food (he also uses his Jedi tricks to take the strain of the effects Scott is suffering). Sil-El gets hissy with a robot cleaner (but is not endangered – phew!) So it’s mainly about Willaway and Fred.

It's like HAL 9000 all over again.

Varian: Looks like our main man finally did it.
Fred: Yeah, and he’s never going to let us forget it.
(cut to:)
Willaway: I am never going to let them forget this.

Willaway starts out apparently sucking up to his dubious host Morgan, much as he did with Tarrant in A Dream of Conquest. Later he enjoys the episode’s standout sequence as he attempts to shut down the Complex in a countdown race against time (The Complex: You are destroying me!)

Fred: Listen, lady. There’s a lot of open territory between being lovers and mortal enemies.

This is the closest Carl Franklin comes to a proper plotline in the series so far. Yes, he’s still called on to do the Dr McCoy thing (analyse and cure his friends of the poison) but he also embarks on a fledgling romance with Connell (Beverly Todd). This may be utterly unconvincing but it makes a change from his propensity for pugilism.

That Joan; she's insatiable.

Halyana: I only learned how to take orders. I never learned how to give them.

The Queen asks for the menfolk back, to Willaway’s disgust, and for some reason they return changed. Varian advises them to go forward “not as enemies, masters and slaves, but as equals”. It’s all so simple! Like a disaffected couple seeking advice from a marriage guidance counsellor, both promise to try to make things work. It isn’t explained how Morgan could be “not as you were, but as I wanted you to be” when he appeared in Halyana’s bedroom. Nor is his complete change in attitude towards wifey clear; is he a big fraidy cat in the dark? As is often the case, the travellers do not initiate regime change so much as provoke a different perspective on the part of the rulers. All very civilised.

Fred: I hope you don’t expect you to call us Master Willaway from now on.
Willaway: No, er, Doctor Willaway will do. I have PhD, you know. 

So how tightknit team by this point? De facto leader Varian continues to be blessed by Martin’s performance, even when his characterisation wobbles. Scott is a bit of a wet blanket, all told. It’s not so much Eisenmann, who manages not to be overly annoying as the wholesomely American-as-apple-pie youth, but that minors in family shows tend to suffer from predictability and limit story potential. Most consistent is Willaway, of course, and McDowall instantly became the show’s crown prince when he joined. Fred isn’t best served for plotlines, but Franklin has an easy chemistry with his co-stars (especially McDowall). Unfortunately the exiting Saylor was never best used, albeit possessed of tremendous legs and a beautiful pussy; Sil-El rocks, and leaves a lion-sized hole in the show as he too absents himself from the last two stories.

Varian: Some men can’t abide one woman and others aren’t satisfied with a harem.

Curious last lines. Varian appears to be making a network-friendly reference to sexual preferences. Daring stuff. There’s a surfeit of groan-inducing dialogue and corny situations in Turnabout, but they help to infuse it with a so-bad-its-good quality. At rare points it is genuinely quite good, but mostly it’s winningly ridiculous. William Shatner would certainly have had a great time in his one.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.