Skip to main content

Some of us are normal, but the rest are happy ones.

Children of the Stones
3: Serpent in the Circle


The third episode is as replete with discussion as before, but there’s a shift in balance too. If the opening duo laid the groundwork and built the mystery, the third and fourth make clear that there is a very real threat. Accordingly, it’s a bit of an embarrassment (but a common trait of such fare; see Dana Scully) that for all his general acceptance of strangeness Adam continues to show reticence in certain areas (I’ll come onto this more next episode); when Matthew relates his experiences he is inclined to dismiss it with “What you saw is probably part of some traditional local ceremony”. If there’s a fault here, it’s that his disposition varies according to the requirements of a scene (if it needs an argument for or a counterpoint).


SandraSome of us are normal, but the rest are happy ones.

The threat is straight out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and the sense of the uncanny plays somewhere between the 1956 original and the remake that would follow a year after Stones’ first screening. A sense of full-on claustrophobia has not yet taken hold, but the whittling down of the non-happy-day residents of Milbury is brought sharply in focus. First there is Jimmo (Gary Lock), one of Matthew’s classmates, who shows his true pod colours when he correctly solves an equation on the blackboard. Then, the cliffhanger reveals that Jimmo’s father, Tom Browning (Hubert Tucker) has also been happified. Previously dismissive of village traditions, he is seen fully integrated as he indulges in some May Pole dancing. Doctor Who also suggested a sinister side to such innocuous behaviour in The Daemons, but the glassy-eyed possession theme gives it added import here.


It appears that Dai led Matthew to the rite as a form of shock treatment, to waken him to the seriousness of the situation. And it’s Dai who brought him home also. The kid and dad fleeing in the picture now takes on the dimensions of Adam and his son, particularly as Matthew compares his experience to the painting coming to life. The immediate aftermath finds Adam afraid of Mrs Crabtree, who was out there chanting (the chant is the same as the ominous babbling soundtrack we hear on the credits, which is a nice cost saving), and ups the idea that there is danger at every turn (as per the body snatchers, just a slightly less imminent threat). This is emphasised later when she takes the letter from America to Adam, having delivered it to Hendrick first.


Margaret, ever the Mulder, instantly sees the potential in the painting as a depiction of Milbury (“It’s like some terrible nightmare”). But again, the needs of conversation make Adam open this time (“Oh, I don’t know. There’s a lot we don’t understand” he says in response to a comment on how they are lucky to live in the 20th century). It becomes clear that the fewer stones depicted are because those chanting are in the process of being calcified.


There are also, like The Daemons, stirrings of a pagan/Christian debate. The church has been deconsecrated, and gifted to the Manor, so Hendrick is effectively the Mr Magister (the Master) of this tale; he minds the gate of Christian worship. The symbolism of the serpent is discussed, in reference to Dai’s amulet, and the presence of a serpent on the font in the church. Margaret (a font of knowledge) informs Adam that it was intended as a warning to be constantly on guard against the power of the serpent: a battle between the pagan and the Christian. 



So it seems that the series is setting up the pagan as a negative force, rather than a misunderstood one (although one could argue that this applies only to its misapplication in Milbury, which the final episode will moot). Earlier, she notes of the “Clipping the Church” ceremony that it was an old custom relating to renewing one’s faith by binding minds and souls together (but as the church is deconsecrated and the ceremony occurred by the stones, it makes no sense).


The best bit of pseudo-science to sound good this time out occurs when a horseshoe flies through the air and  attaches itself to one of the stones. Adam explains that, in contrast to the expected response from the stones which would have remained in alignment to the magnetic field of the Earth as it was when they were formed, they are aligned with its present magnetic field; “Some tremendous energy has passed through these stones very recently”.


Perhaps the highpoint is the discussion between Adam and Hendrick. It gives Hendrick a chance to show his more sinister dimensions and we also get to see just how imaginative the writers’ concept is. Adam discusses the contents of his telegram (Hendrick feigns ignorance), revealing that the stones are aligned to a super nova that exploded two centuries before Christ lived, leaving only a black hole. Further revelations follow, as Hendrick reveals he knows full well that a black hole is a mass of imploding energy; he is an ex-astronomer who resigned his Cambridge chair five years earlier, on coming into possession of some papers that revealed someone living in the village at the time had witnessed the star explode. “It was like coming home” is his eerie comment. The intimation that Hendrick may be reliving, reencapsulating or reincarnating a previous form of himself is touched upon as Adam casually dismisses this witness as a primitive cave dweller. This gets Hendrick’s goat because he was that primitive cave dweller, or as he puts it, “a visionary, spiritual leader, a man of destiny”.

AdamI beg his pardon.
HendrickI think you might be well advised to do so.

Adam takes him half seriously, and one area Thomas is good at is being faintly sarcastic. Just as Cuthbertson is skilled at suggesting steel behind his pomposity.


DaiI’ve got feelings. That’s quite different from understanding. Something happened here in the past, and its happening here again today.

Dai’s presence in the episode runs in tandem with Hendrick’s; both are reincarnated/repeated forms of past loops, but Dai is less conscious of his past and less able to martial his thoughts. If the kids interacting together for more than a minute exposes their limitations, when they are deflected off Jones’ consummate madness they are made to look slightly more capable. Dai refers to his serpent-adorned amulet as a treasure, but more importantly as a key. It is suggested that the amulet is designed to keep the owner from harm, so how that factors in to the events of the following episode is worthy of consideration.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

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.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

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 ?