Skip to main content

Slag, ash, clinker.

Doctor Who
The Mutants

I don’t think anyone out there is lauding The Mutants as an unsung classic, except perhaps those invoking The Daleks by one of its working titles (but let’s not go there), or possibly those with fond memories of the Target novelisation (Terrance Dicks at his most spartan, but what a cover!), but I do feel it’s on the receiving end of more than its fair share of disdain. Sure, it’s threadbare, slipshod, with some terrible casting decisions, ropey design work (and effects), and – despite a typically idea-laden script from the Bristol Boys – unable to sustain its six-episode length. It’s also got Big Nose on particularly abrasive form. But, in its favour – and it’s a magnificent favour – it features the one and only Professor Sondergaard. And as we know, or should, Sondergaard ROCKS!


As with most Doctor Who stories, documented to the nines as they are, The Mutants comes replete with its own set of oft-repeated wisdoms, from how it’s an allegory for the fall of the British Empire to one on apartheid, to how it starts off like the average Monty Python episode, to the legendary, Olivier-like performance of Rick James (he’s shit). And then there’s Tristram Cary and his Marmite moog (I’m a bit in between actually, not sold the way I am with Malcolm Clarke’s electronic assault on the eardrums in The Sea Devils; sometimes Tristram works, sometimes he gets Cary-ed away and the result is an unpleasantly atonal wall of noise).


The attempts at political subtext feel rather quaint now, not helped by the overstated and silly uniforms and entirely uncommitted performances (it’s mystifying that this bunch, a corpulent commander leading disinterested assistants, could subdue a planet full of Solonian warlords for five minutes, let alone 500 years). The Doctor is even required to spell it out in the first couple of scenes (“Well, Empires rise and fallAnd if this is their idea of a reception, this one has obviously imploded”). Inadvertently, it also gives the bastions of the Empire a trace of good graces (they’re pulling out, now they’ve strip mined the place), so the Marshal is positioned as a bad egg spoiling an otherwise, if not upstanding, no longer overtly adversarial carton.


But The Mutants definitely has something. That’s generally an excuse used for not wanting to label something terrible as terrible, and certainly around the midway, things are looking a bit dicey.


By this point, we’ve experienced classic lines such as “Die, Overlord Die!”, with James Mellor’s Varan making a highly unconvincing badass warlord, so much so one could easily imagine Matt Berry playing him for laughs and proving more fearsome. But one gets used to the unabating clash of performance styles (or, in James’ case, no style at all) after a while.


Paul Whitsun-Jones plays the Marshal as both pathetic and spiteful, but he’s never really intimidating: more plain churlish. Ky (Garrick Hagon – latterly Biggs Darklighter) is a dashing chap who really ought to have swept Jo off her feet, and as guest heartthrobs go Hagon makes a good stab of it, when not having to spout guff like “We want freedom and we want it now!” And then there’s Geoffrey Palmer, bringing effortlessly stuffy cool to – just –  the first episode, and George Pravda bringing George Pravda to scientist Jaeger. There’s also a curious Eastern European thing going on, what with Pravda’s natural tones and the accent adopted by John “Lobot” Hollis as Sondergaard (who, simply, ROCKS).


Jaeger: There’s no proof at all that my atmospheric experiments have anything at all to do with these mutations.

Bob Baker and Dave Martin entreat not only against oppression, but also the erosion of our imperilled environment. The above line is one for the climate change deniers, although one might perversely get the wrong end of the intended stick and posit that in the The Mutants the pollutants do no ultimate damage, merely accelerating a natural process, to an ultimately positive end.


The Doctor here is still an activist, though (“Land and sea alike, all grey. Grey cities linked by grey highways across grey deserts… Slag, ash, clinker. The fruits of technology, Jo”). And, at times, given to loony stream-of-consciousness abandon (“The slightest accident in this stage of the proceedings and we’d all reverse instantly into antimatter. Blasted out to the other side of the universe, as a flash of electromagnetic radiation. We’d all become unpeople undoing unthings untogether. Fascinating”: indeed, just ask Omega).


Ky: The disposed, the outcasts, the terrorists, as the overlords label them.

Being the ‘70s, we could get behind terrorists and see them as justified. Ah, heady days. What works its retro best in The Mutants is the psychedelia, though. It doesn’t have the creative flair Michael Ferguson brought to earlier colour foray The Claws of Axos, mainly because Chris Barry doesn’t seem to be putting in very much effort. But some of the ideas can’t help but bleed though into the visuals, mainly evidenced in the cave scenes and the garish lighting thereabout, all reds and greens, and the CSO-rendered radioactive chamber (and then there’s the presence of Sondergaard – did I mention he ROCKS?)


We also have a suitably New Age plot about metamorphosis, not the rather mundane (but let’s face it, much more integrally told) metamorphosis of the later Full Circle, but a transformation into a more evolved life form on every level. This is all about uncapping potentiality, achieving transcendence. Ethereal glowing and telepathy become second nature (“Go Varan. Go to the place of sleeping. The place of darkness and night”). Although, admittedly, the story isn’t really selling the “beauty within” thing, since ugliness is ultimately discarded (so it is what’s on the surface that counts?), and shiny, happy-floaty Super-Ky isn’t suddenly above getting his hands dirty (“Die, Marshal. Let there be an end to the torture of my people”).


Sondergaard: Strange things are happening to Solos, Doctor.

And you have hippy-shaman Professor Sondergaard (who ROCKS), a very groovy, chrome-domed anthropologist dude who isn’t smart enough to worked out that Solonians have lifecycles (he needs the Doctor’s help, naturally) but digs beads and has a winning way with Mutts (he’s a regular pied piper come the third episode, and has a good line in reverse psychology; “Very well, I shall go on. And you shall stay as you are now, forever”).


In fact, he’s a much more engaging doctor than the actual Doctor in The Mutants, who repeatedly calls the Marshal “quite mad” and is really little more than a delivery boy (talking of which the whole “particle reversal” obsession of Jaeger, simply because the Doctor mentioned it and anything’s worth a try, is desperately weak).


The Discontinuity Guide would have you believe Geoffrey Palmer is the best thing in this (he’s not, Exhibit A being the pre-preceding paragraph), and that his death in the first episode evidences its overall deficiencies in quality. But they also let Rick James off the hook with the the excuse that he’s “given some of the worst lines in Doctor Who’s history” (he isn’t, he just can’t act for toffee), so their appraisal is somewhat suspect.


If Barry had been a touch more engaged, and the escape-and-capture, stir-and-repeat, of longer stories such as this had been limited, and the casting had been more judicious, and the music more moderate, and the effects more consistent… No, I’m not sure The Mutants might have been a classic, but classic moments do shine through, and James Acheson’s mutant designs remain iconic (not quite as much as that Jeff Cummins Target cover, but effective nonetheless). And, of course, Sondergaard ROCKS!












Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

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.

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.

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

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.

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…

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.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism