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). There 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 slighyl 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

What ho, Brinkley. So, do you think we’re going to get along, what?

Jeeves and Wooster 2.4: Jeeves in the Country  (aka Chuffy)
The plundering of Thank You, Jeeves elicits two more of the series’ best episodes, the first of which finds Bertie retiring to the country with a new valet, the insolent, incompetent and inebriate Brinkley (a wonderfully sour, sullen performance from Fred Evans, who would receive an encore in the final season), owing to Jeeves being forced to resign over his master’s refusal to give up the trumpet (“not an instrument for a gentleman”; in the book, it’s a banjulele).

Chuffnall Hall is the setting (filmed at Wrotham Park in Hertfordshire), although the best of the action takes place around Bertie’s digs in Chuffnall Regis (Clovelly, Devon), which old pal Reginald “Chuffy” Chuffnell (Marmaduke Lord Chuffnell) has obligingly rented him, much to the grievance of the villagers, who have to endure his trumpeting disrupting the beatific beach (it’s a lovely spot, one of the most evocative in the series).

Jeeves is snapped up into the e…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

Angry man is unsecure.

Hulk (2003)
(SPOILERS) I’m not a Hulk apologist. I unreservedly consider it one of the superior superhero adaptations, admittedly more for the visual acumen Ang Lee brings to the material than James Schamus, Michael France and John Turman’s screenplay. But even then, if the movie gets bogged down in unnecessarily overwrought father-son origins and dynamic, overlaid on a perfectly good and straightforward core story (one might suggest it was change for the sake of change), once those alterations are in place, much of the follow through, and the paralleling of wayward parents and upright children, or vice versa, translates effectively to the screen, even if the realisation of the big green fella is somewhat variable.

I do… very competitive ice dancing.

Justice League (2017)
(SPOILERS) Superheroes, and superhero movies, trade in hyperbole, so it shouldn’t be surprising that DC’s two releases this year have been responded to in like, only each at opposite ends of the spectrum. Wonder Woman was insanely over-praised in the rush to fete a female superhero finally leading a movie, crushing all nuanced criticism in its wake. Justice League, meanwhile, has been lambasted on the basis that it’s more of the same as Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, only worse – to the extent there have been calls for a Zach Snyder Director’s Cut, which is quite an extent, as extents go – as it’s guilty of being an unholy clash of styles, grimdark Zach scowling in one corner and quip-happy Joss pirouetting in the other. And yes, the movie is consequently a mess, but it’s a relatively painless mess, with the sense to get in and get out again before the viewer has enough time to assess the full extent of the damage.

‘Cos I’m the gringo who always delivers.

American Made (2017)
(SPOILERS) This is definitely more the sort of thing Tom Cruise should be doing, a movie that relies both on his boyish™ charm and at least has pretensions of ever so slightly pushing the envelope of standard multiplex fare, rather than desperately attaching himself to an impersonal franchise (The Mummy) or flailingly attempting to kick start one (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back); remember when Cruise wouldn’t even go near sequels (for about 20 years, The Color of Money aside, and then only the one series)? American Made is still victim to the tendency of his movies to feel superstar-fitted rather than remaining as punchy as they might be on paper (Made’s never quite as satirically sharp as it wants to be), but it at least doesn’t lead its audience by the nose.

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Sometimes when you take people away, they don't come back.

The Ward (2010)
(SPOILERS) I’d felt no particular compunction to rush out and see The Ward (or rent it), partly down to the underwhelming reviews, but mostly because John Carpenter’s last few films had been so disappointing, and I doubted a decade away from the big screen would rejuvenate someone who’d rather play computer games than call the shots. Perhaps inevitably then, now I have finally given it a look, it’s a case of low expectations being at least surpassed. The Ward isn’t very good, but it isn’t outright bad either.

While it seems obvious in retrospect, I failed to guess the twist before it was revealed, probably because I was still expecting a supernatural element to be realised, it being a Carpenter movie. But then, this doesn’t feel very much like a Carpenter movie. It doesn’t have a Carpenter score (Mark Killian) or screenplay (Michael and Shawn Rasmussen) and it doesn’t have Gary B Kibbe as lenser (Yaron Orbach). I suspect the latter explains why it’s a much more professi…

I think World War II was my favourite war.

Small Soldiers (1998)
An off-peak Joe Dante movie is still one chock-a-block full of satirical nuggets and comic inspiration, far beyond the facility of most filmmakers. Small Soldiers finds him back after a six-year big screen absence, taking delirious swipes at the veneration of the military, war movies, the toy industry, conglomerates and privatised defence forces. Dante’s take is so gleefully skewed, he even has big business win! The only problem with the picture (aside from an indistinct lead, surprising from a director with a strong track record for casting juveniles) is that this is all very familiar.

Dante acknowledged Small Soldiers was basically a riff on Gremlins, and it is. Something innocuous and playful turns mad, bad and dangerous. On one level it has something in common with Gremlins 2: The New Batch, in that the asides carry the picture. But Gremlins 2 was all about the asides, happy to wander off in any direction that suited it oblivious to whether the audience was on …