Skip to main content

Nobody ever leaves the circle.


Children of the Stones
2: Circle of Fear


Episode Two focuses in on father-son theorising. The recovering Adam, who requires a large glass of Scotch to soothe his nerves, remains dismissive of supernatural forces. He sees the energy as electromagnetic, a “perfectly natural phenomenon”. So Margaret has to go to work on him as “a man of sensitivity”. It’s a curious conceit to fashion the scientist as a closet receptive, but it isn’t that uncommon; the hero has to be able to rise to the challenge of any forces that come his way. The magpie pseudo-science, pseudo-folklore reminds me a little of Doctor Who’s Image of the Fendahl, also concerned with scientists in a rural environment experimenting on ancient artefacts and encountering vast unleashed powers.


And, like that story (although much of that has tongue firmly in cheek), there are gloriously silly admissions such as “I read a fringe lunatic book on the psychic force in standing stones”, as if people put together a term like fringe-lunatic, and consider it viable reading. . Margaret’s understanding was that only certain people, “perceptives”, could feel the power, and it’s nice to see the constructive sparring of her objection to his electro-magnetism theory (“Even though you were earthed so was the stone?”), not to mention her witty making light of his experience; “You flew through the air with the greatest of ease”.


Matthew’s reaction to Dai is as unrestrained as kids hurling abuse at their elders probably got on mid-70s TV Series (“You – you nutter! You stupid old fool! Look at my bike! Look at my jacket!”)


Dai: Go on, swear a bit. Call me words.
Matthew: Oh no, the village idiot

Matthew’s initial apoplexy would suggest he’s the sort to heed Charlie’s advice never to talk to strange men who spy on you through telescopes. Especially when they try buttering you up with compliments like “You’re different then. Not mindless like the others”.


Jones is as great as ever and, cast to type as a trampish country-oddball, he instils confidence that his array of knowledge of both poaching and science (theodolites) is broad. I’m not quite sure how he knew Matthew let one of his rabbits go to leave the message in his trap (unless he’s been using that telescope again), but the sight of him tucking into the cold collation Matthew has left him, with a bottle of cider, is most amusing. His admonitions concerning the stones (“Don’t meddle with the stones”) intrigue, most of all the chillingly off-the-cuff comment that Matthew and his father are trapped there.


Dai: Leave? What do you mean? Leave the circle? Leave Milbury? Leave the stones? You never will.
Matthew: What do you mean?
Dai: Nobody leaves the circle.


He qualifies this by adding further unexplained mystery, how one can “get beyond their sight boy, but never out of their grasp. Not until the day of release”.


The back-and-forth of mystery and deduction is well conceived. I have to admit, Matthew’s keen scientific acumen comes across as a stretch, however. The only sign of his misspent youth is ham and bananas with gerkin and honey sandwiches. We learn that he has embarked on his own investigation in which he attempted to clarify the direction of the stones, on the premise that they all lean slightly towards the centre (the camera work around the stones, using low angles and wide angle lens – creates an effective sense of edginess and distortion). In fact, they are all “dead upright”. He only counted 23, of course; it would be 23, as that number is bound to show up even in non-odd TV and movies. The stones are all pointing in one precise direction – but upwards.


Adam: No stone circle was constructed at random.

Adam’s theory is that there is a giant dish under the ground, lending the entire circle a rock base. But he is baffled by the absence of an obvious path of alignment, so it is Matthew who provides the missing link. This is very much of a piece with the Quatermass and the Pit revelations that combine science, ETs and myth.  But Adam’s subsequent theorising is a leap into the dark, so he’s either secretly straining to unleash himself from the shackles of orthodox science or revealing what a sensitive man he is.


Adam: What we have here is a primitive Jodrell Bank immovably aligned with something up there.

He concludes that, if the dish was designed as a receiver for psychic forces, it follows that the signals must come from a force directly above it; this from a circle designed in Neolithic times. But why? There is nothing charted on that alignment path, so he asks Matthew to cable a friend in America at Montelimar Observatory.


The remainder of the episode backpedals on the theorising and concentrates on the sinister village undercurrents. Matthew attempts to make his father understand that the other kids are not normal, and then Adam leaves him home alone while he goes off for a pint (quite right too!) After his crackpot theory, he reverts to type with Margaret, commenting of ley lines “It’s all very unscientific”. And discussion focuses on where all the villagers have disappeared to, where they go to one night every month (“My guess is they turn into werewolves”). Only Lyle and Browning, also recent arrivals, were about. And the affable Hendrick comes back into focus (“He’s pretty well informed about the local phenomena”), his Highfield House identified as a focus of the village and having been built on the site of earlier houses (not dissimilar to the generational manor in Stones of Blood).


As per the last episode, we end on the stones, as Matthew, who has been dreaming of his picture which falls, sees the same imagery and chanting as his father. Going to the stones, he perceives a blue mist has formed with villagers standing in a circle. As he touches one of the stones, Dai appears and grabs him; Matthew falls to the ground.


At this point it appears that the ancient mystical has been identified as a negative force. Britain’s pagan past is something to be fascinated by but also to fear; it holds diabolical secrets, not enchantments that can free us. It’s an understandable trope to seize on, since it butts heads against the new religion that took control of the British Isles. Or perhaps, as subtext, the writers are suggesting that the past is as constraining as the present. The ‘60s saw a swing back to nature, to embrace old ideas and beliefs that had been neglected and were perceived to be spiritually liberating. Milbury’s ancient system is just another set of shackles. And the way to free oneself? The application of warped logic, if pseudo-scientists Adam and Margaret are any indication.

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.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

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.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

It's their place, Mac. They have a right to make of it what they can. Besides, you can't eat scenery!

Local Hero (1983)
(SPOILERS) With the space of thirty-five years, Bill Forsyth’s gentle eco-parable feels more seductive than ever. Whimsical is a word often applied to Local Hero, but one shouldn’t mistake that description for its being soft in the head, excessively sentimental or nostalgic. Tonally, in terms of painting a Scottish idyll where the locals are no slouches in the face of more cultured foreigners, the film hearkens to both Powell and Pressburger (I Know Where I’m Going!) and Ealing (Whisky Galore!), but it is very much its own beast.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.