Skip to main content

As if it were all planned.

Children of the Stones
4: Narrowing the Circle


We’ve seen a fair bit of Kevin (Darren Hatch) before now, but we have barely glimpsed his father, Dr Lyle (Richard Matthews). Their role in this fourth episode is essentially a repeat of Jimmo and Tom Browning in the third, but in a much more detailed form.

MargaretAs if it were all planned.
Dr LyleNo proof. Just unspecified reactions to unexplained data. Planned by who?


Set against the “surviving” villagers (six in total, excluding Dai and Hendrick), Lyle becomes the arch-sceptic and logician. Adam references “Happy Day-itis” as a condition they will succumb to in due course, and it is noted that families seem to change together. Lyle poo-poos this, and assumes the scientific approach that Adam previously extolled. There’s a nice moment where Lyle asks them why they don’t leave if they are so concerned, and the weight of the capitalist system provides an answer; they need their jobs. “So you are, in effect, trapped,” he responds. Is this The Prisoner-esque case the series is making? That we are all trapped in our own Milbury construct, impelled to become Happy Day pod people living out a pre-programmed existence?


MatthewI’m inside his head. I can read his mind.

Like pod people, the Happy Day villagers never get sick, (there are 55 patients in the village; before Adam and Matthew arrived there were 53, the same number as the stones). So Lyle is pleased to be called out of town to an old patient. The concept of psychometry (once again, Margaret does the explaining) is introduced, as Matthew discovers that the gloves Lyle has left behind are full of static. When he puts one on, he sees what Lyle sees, and announces that something has blocked his exit from the Milbury.  As per his flip-flop style, Adam is now called upon to be sceptical of his son’s experience. He is relieved when Lyle surfaces the next day and disavows Matthew’s account. In an inevitable, but no less satisfying for it, moment, Lyle exits with the farewell words “Happy Day to you”, so confirming Matthew’s thoughts.


This is further underlined by the behaviour of Kevin, who can best be described as right little shit. Dai is onto him being a wrong ‘un from the start, reluctant to allow him to enter his sanctuary (“What did you bring him for?”), which he has sealed up in a blind panic over what may be in store. And rightly so; the terrible oik demands Dai hand over the amulet. His casting of the bones has repeatedly revealed the shape of a serpent, and presumably it is this serpent, in the form of Kevin, that has now gained access. 



As a result, Dai’s protective amulet crumbles and he is doomed. It’s too late when Matthew and ever-so posh Sandra later suss out Kevin and disinvite his company (“No, it’s time you got to school”).  With all the speculation over how the not-we are turned, one begins to wonder if there’s something nasty in Mrs Crabtree’s chocolate cake.


The paralleling of Dai and Hendrick in Three is now verbalised in the recognition that neither has been affected by Happy Dayitis; Dai has been safe at the sanctuary, while Hendrick is protected at the centre of the ley lines. In this episode Hendrick puts me in mind of Christopher Lee’s Lord Summerisle, presiding over Summer Isle in The Wicker Man. Both are the educated gentlemen presiding over superstitious and impressionable locals. And there’s a burst of that 1976 sunshine as he, Adam and Margaret discuss local lore in the grounds of the church. Of course, he professes no knowledge of the protection granted to him at the manor, while simultaneously noting how fortunate it is that Margaret has answered “Milbury’s call”.


When Dai’s amulet is broken, it seems so is his spirit, and he goes ranging off over the hills. When Matthew sees him in the distance he gives pursuit. But, when he arrives, there is only a stone there, one that wasn’t present before. Margaret notes that this is where the Barber Surgeon was known to have died, but the stone was removed years before and there is nothing left now. 



When Matthew takes them back to the spot, Dai is found lying there all dead and bloodied. It’s an effective moment, as the disturbing voices intrude; the gap between past and present within the loop is blurring.  This is the first episode that really ups the stakes; not only have the remaining numbers of the free been sorely impacted, but the one in-the-know ally has been felled.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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 .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

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.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?