Skip to main content

The horned beast!

Doctor Who
The Daemons

The Daemons, once heralded as an all-time classic, now languishes somewhat, tarnished by the kind of reappraisal that rendered the once-lost The Tomb of the Cybermen not, after all, all that. This may be fair enough – an unassailable status is always ripe for toppling – although I rest firmly in the defender camp for both. While The Daemons undoubtedly has its issues, it’s a story I enjoy in spite of and sometimes for the things it gets criticised over, be it the “cosy” UNIT family vibe, or just being “not really very good” (pretty much the party line in The Discontinuity Guide’s appreciation of the Pertwee era, while unaccountably finding Davison’s run cherishable).


The Doctor: You might say he blew a fuse.

So what of the major beefs, then? Well, I can’t honestly argue that the ending isn’t a weak cop-out, as Azal gets abjectly confused (“It does not relate!”) by Jo’s offer to sacrifice herself in the Doctor’s stead. It doesn’t actually annoy me, however, mainly because the tropes themselves – the computer self-destructing when confronted with imperfect logic, human values as oddities that make us unique and special, which ostensibly “higher” lifeforms perversely fail to comprehend - have been flourished many times across the genre.


The resolution might have been more irksome had Azal been built into a substantial character, but the consequence of delaying his appearance until the fourth episode, and then not actually seeing his face until the end of that episode, is that there’s so little to define him, other than his curious rationale for offering stewardship of mankind to the Doctor or the Master. And, while he’s quite well designed (you can’t really go too far wrong with Pan), I’ve never been fully on board with Stephen BOOMING Thorne’s performances, not in this, not in The Three Doctors, and not in The Hand of Fear.


As for the Doctor being a right bastard, he certainly has a couple of prize moments, of which Jo is mostly on the receiving end. All that’s missing from “Jo, did you fail Latin as well as science?” is “You stupid bloody bitch”. Later, he compounds this by being extremely contrary over her dismissiveness of the Brigadier (something she has undoubtedly learned from him), reprimanding her for showing disrespect towards her superior officer.


Winstanley: Forgive me. Well, I thought, the costume and wig.
The Doctor: WIG?

On the other hand, Pertwee has highly memorable moments – in a good way – throughout, belying the idea this is some kind of nadir for his incarnation’s personability. These include his response to the suggestion his hair might not be his own, his interaction with Osgood – which may be superior (“Let’s concentrate, shall we?”) but the back-and-forth of is a delight, in no small part thanks to Alec Linstead’s performance – “You’ve got the mind of an accountant, Brigadier”, and the Venusian lullaby “Close your eyes my darling, well three of them at least”, which appears to make Katy Manning genuinely crack up. It’s not as if Pertwee’s Doctor is ever that consistently approachable, as prone to giving a tongue-lashing as he is to turning on the charm (if not more so). Generally, though, he’s more likable here than, say The Mutants (which I’ve also revisited recently).


The Doctor: What’s the bounder’s name?

The other notable Doctor utterance in The Daemons that tends to receive a less than glowing reaction is his suggestion Hitler was only a faintly disreputable fellow. This one’s a storm in a teacup, since the reason for mentioning Hitler (or Genghis Khan; he’s not quite sure which bounder it is) is to compare one-time best chum and supreme bounder-whom-he-still-quite-likes-really the Master to someone else he once observed using similarly totalitarian language. He’s massaging his disapproval with a bit of sarcastic understatement. So they you have it, what more proof could you wish for of the Third Doctor’s suspect ideological (Tory) underpinnings?


Of the rest of the regulars, the Brigadier is at his best, and Courtney plays a blinder (see below), Jo is supremely dim throughout, and Manning’s and John Levene’s performances range from variable to plankish, so no change there, although the latter is especially noticeable as Benton has more to do. Richard Franklin pitches Yates as supremely uncomfortable as ever (he’s never really at ease until he gets brainwashed).


There’s no faulting Roger Delgado, of course, but the Master by this point rather beggars belief. There’s a superb scene where he magisterially begins identifying the villagers’ sly sins and best-kept secrets (“Are you still padding the grocery bills of the local gentry?”), promising he’s not there to judge, merely to fulfil their desires if they do as he says. Unfortunately, less than two scenes later he’s yelling at them, his persuasive veneer replaced by derision (“Why, you’re all less than dust beneath my feet!”). And isn’t this about the fifth time in row the Master has fundamentally miscalculated the power of the bottle he’s uncorking? Nevertheless, Delgado dishes up a storm, whether he’s in vicar’s duds or satanic rites robes.


Jo: But it really is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Well, that means the occult, you know, the supernatural and all that magic bit.

There are other negatives that should fairly be acknowledged; it’s definitely a bit murky in places just who is doing what in Devil’s End and how and why (the Master or Azal) in respect of Bok (like Azal, a memorable piece of design), heat shields and potential braining incidents. And, while the dialogue is often marvellously memorable (“In the name of the unspeakable one, back!”, “The horned beast!”, “This planet smells to me of failure!” and Miss Hawthorne’s linguistically inventive Quiquaequod), sometimes Sloman and Letts let things slip; Miss Hawthorne (the wonderfully lispy Damaris Hayman) references the old vicar, “the one who left in such mysterious circumstances”, like it’s Scooby Doo. Also, while Devil’s End is a suitably evocative name, are we really supposed to believe Satanhall is to be found nearby? However, I love the local yokels. They’re great fun, part-and-parcel of the story’s heightened appeal, as much in your average Hammer horror.


The Daemons’ position as one of the least threatening, most archetypal Who stories – its reputation held so high for so long on account of being a much-loved cornerstone of its era, from those who made the series down – makes it more striking for occupying territory the series hadn’t explored before, and wouldn’t again, really, until the cloth-brained The Curse of Fenric attempted to fashion a crude commentary on comparative faiths. This being the BBC, it was generally nervous of upsetting its licence payers, so it definitely was not okay to undermine the beliefs of the nation’s little ones (or rather, their discerning parents), however fractured they may have become by the early ‘70s; the show wasn’t in the habit of even broaching the subject of Britain’s dominant religion, let alone undermining its tenets.


Indeed, the show has mostly avoided – wisely, I think – getting into the sticky territory of challenging specific beliefs; far better to generalise or make something up to bring home your point. We’d seen Christianity in the show, but mostly in the context of the pure historicals (The Crusade, The Massacre) where the Doctor was passing judgement on events, rather than the validity of the faiths that supported them. Sure, there was an alien posing as a man of God in the second and third seasons, but he was a comedy character unlikely to cause offence. The supernatural and occult, or ideas that directly undermined a belief in the Christian God, weren’t generally entertained. You might invoke An Unearthly Child’s Stone Age tribe as an indirect support of evolution and so a slight to biblical accounts, but it was fairly oblique. And The Abominable Snowmen offered a religious order infiltrated and used by evil forces – even featuring what would later become commonplace, demonic possession, but was then highly unusual –  but they were Buddhist, so comfortably far from home.


That all changed with the Letts era, and it did so nearly from the beginning, even if the series largely reverted to form thereafter (the occasional “Set, Satan, Sadok” aside, but in referencing an Egyptian god it was again closer to The Abominable Snowmen example). The Silurians posited a race of intelligent reptiles ruling Earth while man was yet an ape, while Inferno suggested a reversion to a more primitive rung on the evolutionary ladder. The next logical step was tackling the antiquated prime religion itself. I even wonder if – given Buddhist Barry being rather aggrieved by the appropriation of Padmasambhava in The Abominable Snowmen – he took a touch of relish in rebalancing the scales.


In The Daemons, the Doctor indicates outright that Christianity is bunkum (“No, not your mythical devil, Jo, no. something far more real and more dangerous”), with, von Däniken style, the activities of alien visitors propelling its mythology (“Of course, Azael, the fallen angel”). The Bible is quoted, but to emphasise Old Testament intolerance and zealotry (“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”). Further, Letts introduces a force of good as a direct rebuke to this (“I’m a witch. White, of course”) and engineers the restoration of positive, celebratory forces of paganism at the conclusion, the invading religion having been wiped from the village in explosive fashion.  


We also have the curious exchange between The Master and Miss Hawthorne, where the former, as Reverend Magister, wears the woolly, ineffectual mask of the modern church, which doesn’t really believe in anything very much at all (the Master is a rational man, and “the soul is a dated concept, viewed existentially”) One wonders if Miss Hawthorne’s disdain (“A rationalist existentialist priest indeed!”) mirrors Letts’ view, who may have had no truck with Christianity but could appreciate that it was at least a belief system, and professing to be one of its adherents while believing nothing very much at all was far more objectionable than espousing its less forgiving tenets.


Miss Hawthorne: But that is magic. That’s precisely what black magic is.

Of which, the story’s debate in respect of science versus magic is often held up as a wonderful example of how the show always elevates enlightenment over ignorance, and science over superstition. Really, though, it’s nothing of the sort. While the plotting may sometimes suggest a slipshod approach on Letts’ part, I suspect his philosophical exchanges were entirely intentional. The Doctor’s discourse on psionic science, as Miss Hawthorne surmises, represents little more than smug semantics on his part. 


With a flourish of psychokinetic energy, or a wave of a psionic wand, Bazza is able to give stone creatures life and grant all manner of occult methodologies instant legitimacy (“All the magical traditions are just remnants of their advanced science”), while having the Doctor mention the (then) limits of scientific knowledge (how it’s “impossible for a bumble bee to fly”; Tom was rather fond of that one too). The Daemons actually seems to be saying that magic and science are the same thing, and neither perspective is superior to the other (as such, the Brigadier instructs Osgood of his technical specifications, “Never mind the mumbo jumbo”).


Underlining this is the tilt against science as practiced by the Daemon. There is no moral consideration to Azal’s actions. We are “a scientific experiment to them, just another laboratory rat”. Which leads to the Doctor’s rather alarming assertion “What does any scientist do with an experiment that fails? He chucks it in the rubbish bin” (I hope he checks for toxic waste first). Despite the Doctor’s dogmatism, science isn’t placed on a pedestal here, and it doesn’t win the day (illogical human compassion does). If only Azal had been a Buddhist, he might not have got himself into such a tizzy.


The Daemon element is, of course, something of a Nigel Kneale redux, adapting Quatermass and the Pit’s pre-von Däniken take on ancient astronauts and their influence on beliefs and superstitions, Christian and pagan. While it can claim its part in the zeitgeist thanks to “all that magic bitThe Daemons nevertheless has several Who antecedents, in the advanced, long-dormant semi-mythic race of The Tomb of the Cybermen and the alien/ cryptozoological beasts of The Abominable Snowmen (via HP Lovecraft). Letts and Sloman also precede the likes of Horror Express (1972, itself based on John W Campbell’s Who Goes There?) and its ancient alien aboard the Trans-Siberian Express, and even the quasi-archaeological horrors of Alien and John Carpenter siege movies The Thing and Prince of Darkness.


In broader terms the story effectively juggles the soon to be receding passions of the hippy era, voicing a generation’s era’s disaffectation with, and suspicion of, the prescribed religion, as exemplified by The Wicker Man (1973) a couple of years later. So, while The Daemons is a cosy story, and an unthreatening one, it is thematically much more substantial than many of its predecessors to that point; it only superficially looks like kids’ fare (although that facile ending admittedly doesn’t help its cause). As such, it even laces in more adult themes, from misrepresenting Crowley (“To do my will shall be the whole of the law”) to the Doctor and Jo engaging in a fertility dance (even the new series never went that far, yet).


Other elements also merit mention in defence of this out-of-favour story. If it’s a tale that peaks early, that’s in part because the first episode is near-perfectly paced, structured and written. Director Chris Barry is on form throughout (his contribution to the following season is decidedly less impressive), opening with effectively rain-lashed night filming, and taking obvious care with his compositions; he handles the logistics of the heat barrier particularly impressively. Not everything works (the mismatched scale of Azal’s hoof prints when seen from the air and the ground is all-too noticeable), and the CSO is dickey, but I’d dispute that it’s sometimes unclear what’s going on. You know when a point-of-view is supposed to be a point-of-view.


Alastair Fergus: But now the question is, can Professor Horner pull out his plum?

One of the highlights of the first episode is Professor Horner (Robin Wentworth), and the dead-on parody of twittish public school BBC(3) presenters; when Horner is told it would be “absolutely super” if he could break into the burial chamber at the stroke of midnight, he sardonically replies “Right ho, lad. I’ll do my best to be ‘absolutely super’!” Especially winningly, his reason for staging the event on Beltane is revealed as entirely mercenary; “My new book comes out tomorrow”.


Yes, The Daemons rather falls apart at the final hurdle, but otherwise unfolds confidently over its five episodes, and unlike many a Pertwee suffers no discernible sag midway through. It’s a top notch Brigadier story (“Chap with wings there. Five rounds rapid” – only diminished through being incessantly cited as a summation of all things Lethbridge-Stewart – “Fancy a dance, Brigadier?” “That’s kind of you Captain Yates. I’d rather have a pint”), enough to banish all memory of his bizarre and ignoble final fate as an exhumed Cyber-corpse at the instigation of Steven Moffat (talking of whom, I completely hadn’t made the connection between Osgood and his nu-Who namesake until this viewing, but I see that only as a good thing). And even if I’m not really that fussed by the added value of Benton and Yates in their civvies, they do have their amusing (and action-packed, and amusingly action-packed – Levene can’t get enough of that bazooka) moments.


Miss HawthorneThe May Day miracle has happened again. The Earth is born anew.

The familiar rural idyll is intrinsic to The Daemons’ appeal, so if that element and its accompanying clichés proves off-putting, or the UNIT family atmosphere provokes a disdainful response, the story stands little chance of finding many favours. Yet it ends on such a warm and good-natured moment (“You’re right, Jo, there is magic in the world after all”) it would surely take a heart of ice not to be melted. It may not be the absolute pinnacle of the Pertwee era, but The Daemons still stands tall, no CSO required.



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

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

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.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

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

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi