Skip to main content

If there’s a way in, there’s a way out.

Children of the Stones
6: Squaring the Circle


Like all good penultimate episodes, Six finds our heroes teetering on the brink of defeat. Whilst the details become increasingly clear, any attempts to extract themselves from this mire are doomed to failure.


From the first, Adam and Matthew are left struggling with the realisation that “We’ve lost them”. Veronica Strong is particularly er, strong, in her scene of transformed blessedness opposite Cuthbertson.

MargaretFeel? I feel light. Powerful. Whole.
HendrickAnd happy?
MargaretHappy. Oh yes, so happy.


If predictable, Adam’s hope against hope that she is okay is perfectly understandable. As promised, she returns to see him after visiting Hendrick but claims not have been to the manor at all. When Adam plays the recording of Matthew’s psychic experience, she passes out. Only to stir with the chilling lines “Don’t worry, Adam. I’m all right. I’m perfectly happy”. 



Amidst all this, Adam still finds time for a sense of humour, and Thomas’ exasperated sarcasm is quite winning and reassuring; the next day, when Margaret calls round, Mrs Crabtree is all over her like a rash.


Mrs CrabtreeWelcome. And how do you feel today?
AdamShe feels very happy, Mrs. Crabtree. And she’ll feel a lot happier with a cup of coffee.

The body snatchers vibe during this episode is quite overpowering, right down to Adam’s accusation that what Hendrick is creating is a “world empty of feeling”.  Matthew’s encounter with Sandra in the church grounds is particularly sinister (“Not goodbye, Matt. We’ll see you soon”). By this point, Adam has resolved to leave (his reaction to everyone knowing about it is amusing, although he should have sussed this would happen by now).


There is more groundwork for the finale as Matthew gains entrance to the church basement, where he discovers reel machines, computers and the smell of gas. His exchange with Hendrick brings back into focus that this is just a kids’ show, blessing its young protagonist with a philosophical insight well beyond his years.

HendrickWhat else has man every worshipped but power?
MatthewKnowledge. Knowledge and truth.


It never becomes clear just how Hendrick plans to spread his influence, “not only in the village but soon outside the circle”; presumably it will follow course once his mission there is complete? And presumably it’s the fate of the druid priest, in whichever age, not to fully realise that his plans will always be defeated by whichever version of the travellers he encounters this time? As he says to Adam, there are “aspects even I find hard to understand”. He readily admits that their arrival is unclear; perhaps his hubris prevents this, or perhaps the natural course of unfolding cognisance prevents it before it is too late? It does suggest a rather depressing inevitability; must the cycle continue until one day the black hole itself is extinguished?


The realisation of the trap ensnaring Adam and Matthew during the second part of the episode is simply but effectively rendered; the rush of repeated stones as they go by, and then blackness. As a big fan of British sci-fi (and Nigel Kneale in particular), John Carpenter must surely have been aware of this scene while making In the Mouth of Madness, which also features a town/village cut off from reality. Although we do not see it, the account Matthew gives of the grey stone “like a human” in the middle of the road, identified as Mrs. Crabtree (“It was her but huge, unearthly”), is surely the same as his premonition in the first episode.


The discussion that follows, as “guests” of Hendrick (whom Adam dismisses as a magus), finds Adam piecing together the vital clues, despite his host’s suggestions otherwise (“You’re going far too fast, my dear Adam”).

AdamI think we lost our way.


He theorises that they missed their turning in time, and thus “failed to get through to our present”. He also clarifies that the time shift was caused by the energies received there in the circle. It’s an intricate and satisfying puzzle that the writers have created; while Matthew reminds him of Dai’s advice that there is “no way out until the stones release us”, Adam is more positive. He reconstitutes himself as the man of science, for whom the tool of logic can provide clarity; “If there’s a way in, there’s a way out”.  But plans to head for the sanctuary are dashed by the realisation that there’s a crowd of happy villagers outside.


For all the answers it does give, the series is quite reserved about why any of this needs to repeat itself. This is actually one of its most appealing aspects. Like the earlier The Owl Service, and anathema to the modern age where any mysterious text is pored over and all the backstory filled in, Children of the Stones lays claim to the continued fascination it provides by refusing answers.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

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.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the