Skip to main content

Happiness and peace are the reward of the believer.

Children of the Stones
5: Charmed Circle


The fifth episode ups the ante further, as two central characters (Margaret and Sandra) fall under the spell of Hendrick. Indeed, the serial is building towards the climax from this point on. There’s no longer the need for subterfuge, even if outright discussion and accusation between the opposing parties is saved for the finale.

HendrickPoor old Dai. Still, there’s no escaping one’s destiny is there?


But Adam is rightly beginning to lose his cool with Hendrick, whose smooth superiority leaves him casting doubt on matters they both know he has answers to. So the disappearance of Dai’s body, replaced by a number of stones; Hendrick makes cryptic remarks, and dismisses the idea that he is dead (and, sort of, he is right, as Matthew attempts to explain to Adam that “He’s just not here any more”).


The threads in this episode are more concentrated; Adam and Matthew reacting to the circumstances of Margaret and Sandra. For the former, this revolves around Matthew’s newfound talent for psychometry. He’s lucky he has such a laidback father who seems willing to let him dabble in the occult and arcane, get into danger, and who treats him as an equal in every way other than his revolting tastes in sandwich filling.


The first example of this is the rather inspired (this whole show is inspired, which makes it more difficult to single aspects out for praise) piece of time loop invention with Dai’s amulet. Occasionally the series places a reveal that we think must have happened earlier, as it isn’t that dramatic (the news that there 55 people in the painting, just as there are in the village; the realisation that it may be some kind of prophecy has been keyed in to the viewer since the visions in the first episode). 



Revealing an exact match between the fragments of the amulet left by Dai’s body and the fragments of the amulet left next to the Barber Surgeon centuries before is the kind of fancy genius that rejects any clear, rigorous analysis but is greeted with pleasure by the most impressionable parts of the brain. It makes more sense the less closely you look at it.


Demin’s psychically receptive performance isn’t perhaps the most enthralling of possessed states, and the word soup he comes forth with lacks sufficient jumble to allow a truly poetic deduction of its meaning, but the “bright shining visitor” as reference to the supernova is a nice turn of phrase. Later, Matthew will enter this altered state again as he tunes in to Sandra’s experiences at Hendrick’s, through holding her scarf.

HendrickVery perceptive, that son of yours. Perceptive and formidable.


The dinner deal at Hendrick’s provides a volume of additional information and confirmations. It also introduces us to a rather nattily designed set; Hendrick’s “dining room” where he serves his guests to the supernova.


Before this, we’re introduced to Link, his butler (the always superb John Woodnutt). There’s a conversation between the two that invites a gay reading of their relationship. Hendrick references the lateness of his guests, commenting that women are delightful creatures but punctuality is not one of their virtues. When Link responds (below) there’s a brief cut to Hendrick that is full of unspoken meaning.


LinkThere’s much to be said for the celibate lifestyle.
HendrickAnd yet I have my children.
LinkThe best of both worlds.

It’s surely significant that the conclusion sees the two men reunite as before, to go forward together again.


The episode repeats several times the prioritisation of the guests at Hendrick’s table; they must be processed in order of precedence to the village. The writers are careful to provide sufficient foreshadowing that we understand why Adam and Matthew are allowed to walk free as they are. So too with the use of atomic clocks, to ensure the precise moment at which the guests give themselves. It sets up the cleverness of the Adam and Matthew’s escape plan in the finale in such a way that we do not question it.

HendrickA hymn of celebration.
MargaretCelebration? What are they celebrating?
HendrickDeliverance from the past. And their entry into the future now.


Cuthbertson is utterly in command during the dinner scenes, which grow increasingly eerie, as the background noise of the villagers chanting outside becomes a constant. His conversation with Margaret is very clearly a sufferance, and he most definitely looks on her as a mere inquisitive child. Just as a parent expects obedience from a child beyond the point of having to explain things, he informs her that she doesn’t need to understand (the connection between the table and the circle). It is only necessary “that you believe me when I tell you; all works towards good”. He takes the role of priest, but he is equal parts parent and politician. Cuthbertson gets some wit in too. He has a nice line about the mason who worked on the room going out of business “ages ago”. But mostly there is an establishing of the formidable status of Adam, and particularly Matthew – as Hendrick earlier recognised – whose insights enable Margaret and Sandra to explain the workings of the room to Hendrick before he can inform them (of the table, and the bishop’s stone underneath, and how the house is at the centre of the circle).


Hendrick: Bon appetite – my children.

A particularly chilling line, one step short of something Hannibal Lector would come out with. What makes this episode particularly strong is that the writers are willing to turn two of the lead characters. We don’t really expect this, and it lends the sense that there may be no escape for our main protagonists.


HendrickHappiness and peace are the reward of the believer.

Hendrick also utters some incantatory words, to the effect that the new additions will complete the circle, and be at one with nature and the elements. The opening of the roof and the brilliant white light that floods the room is appropriately full-on as it reflects the same imagery as the painting. 



I suppose one might snipe that the sacrifice of the Margaret and Sandra is a cop-out, since a reset button is pressed in the last episode. But that would only really be fair if it was a total reset. What Burnham and Ray do is filtered through a veil of pervading unease.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

I only know what I’ve been programmed to believe. But, of course, the same goes for you.

Raised by Wolves Season One (SPOILERS) Ridley Scott’s latest transhumanist tract is so stuffed with required lore, markers and programming, it’s a miracle it manages to tell a half-engaging story along the way. Aaron Guzikowski ( Prisoners ) is the credited creator, but it has the Ridders stamp of dour dystopia all over it, complete with Darius Wolski ( Prometheus ) cinematography setting the tone. Which means bleak grey skies, augmented by South Africa this time, rather than Iceland. Raised by Wolves is a reliable mix of wacko twist plotting and clumsy, slack-jawed messaging; like the Alien prequels, it will surely never be seen through to a conclusion, but as an agenda platform it’s never less than engaging (and also frequently, for the same reasons, exasperating).

You’re like a human mummy!

The Lost City (2022) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most distressing part of The Lost City , a Romancing the Stone riff that appears to have been packaged by the Hollywood equivalent of a processed cheese plant lacking its primary ingredient (that would be additives), is the possibility that Daniel Radcliffe is the only viable actor left standing in Tinseltown. That’s if the suggestions at least two of the performers here – Sandra Bullock and Brad Pitt – are deep faked in some way, shape or form, and the other name – Channing Tatum – is serving hard atonement time. If the latter’s choices generally weren’t so abysmal and his talent in arears, I’d assume that was the only explanation for him showing up in this dreck.

Okay, just jump right into my nightmare, the water is warm.

Jerry Maguire  (1996) (SPOILERS) I didn’t much like Jerry Maguire at the time, which I suspect is intrinsically linked to the fact that I didn’t much like Tom Cruise at the time. I’m still not really a massive fan of either, but the latter at least made an effort to rein in his most irksome traits subsequently. Jerry Maguire , however, finds him drawing on the same “bag of tricks” that mystifyingly transfixed his fan base a decade before in Top Gun . Bonnie Hunt suggested the toughest part of the role was “ playing a character that doesn’t like Tom Cruise ”. I wouldn’t have had that problem. I do not like Tom and Jerry.