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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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

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.

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.