Skip to main content

Step by Step, he's taking control of the planet.

Doctor Who
The Enemy of the World

It might have the whiff of sacrilege, particularly since it’s the one complete offering to result from all that frothing anticipation over untold legions of potentially returned missing episodes, but I almost think The Enemy of the World works better on audio. Of course, being a Bazza Letts’ directorial effort, that shouldn’t have been altogether surprising. And, it might just be that the more you entertain the story, what was initially surprising, different and engaging by comparison with its peer (or season) group becomes less so, namely its monster-free, relatively character-led script courtesy of the show’s first story editor (and generally all-round justly-esteemed) David Whitaker. Especially since, on the debit side, there is frequently cursory regard to little things like robust motivation and plot, and a mid-story twist that, while kind-of brilliant, has to be balanced against not being really that satisfying in execution.


There’s a tendency to see the Troughton era as the most kiddified of Doctor Who, with the least depth and most literal approach to its battles between good and evil. It’s a tack I tend to resist, at least in terms of sweeping generalities (you can pick out The Moonbase, but it’s hardly representative, fortunately), but I have to admit it does loom large at times, and it’s particularly glaring in a story like this one, where the more mature ideas butt heads with the more infantile elements. Invasion of the Dinosaurs, with which this is understandably compared for its fake-out paradigm, may feature the Number One lure to the younger set (dinosaurs!) while here there’s nary a monster in sight (meaning that historically, received wisdom discourteously dismissed Enemy as the boring story of the season), but it’s by far the more consistent and congruent in structure and characterisation.


But, when I first listened to Enemy (I’d read the Target, of course, but it wasn’t one that stuck in my mind, other than for the curiously guest-cast based cover and DWM reporting on Ian Marter’s scandalous use of “bastard”, so ordaining the descent of the range into a minefield of exploding guts and cussing that would have made Eric Saward proud), I was very much taken with it. The reveal of the underground group, deceived into believing the world above is a radioactive disaster, really does come out of leftfield (such that the Doctor’s later deduction that something is going on, on account of there being supplies for more people than Salamander’s base needs, seems entirely unmotivated; what if the staff are particularly fat (like one of his guard captains) or they’re in the habit of having a lot of guests over?)


Jamie: Well, I’ll say this, your security programme is rubbish.

That lustre wears off a little in the cold harsh light of the less-than-adorned recovered episodes. Three (the previous existing one) was always seen as a bit of a dud between all the surrounding action, what with it involving George Pravda (Denes) sitting in a corridor awaiting sentence while a chef (Reg Lye as Griffin) complains about the state of things and a henchman engages in ultra-violence by smashing a few plates. It sort-of confirmed all one’s worst expectations of Barry Letts directorial acumen (this being his debut). In context, it might be the weakest episode, but Griff is a superb creation, more than justifying the lack of action. This domestic diversion does, however, rather compound the sense that super-villain Salamander doesn’t have the most impressive of set ups, what with his aforementioned impressively portly guard captain (Gordon Faith) and falling for the old “pretend to save the bad guy in order to get into his good books routine”.


Sure, it worked for Tom Hiddleston in The Night Manager, but Jamie McCrimmon and Victoria Waterfield oughtn’t be fooling anyone (Victoria, possibly the most annoying of all companions, certainly outside of the ‘80s, is actually tolerable –  at points –  in this story, once you get past the first episode, and her recipe for Kaiser pudding, and rapport with Griff, is very amusing). Jamie in particular is given a role for which he should be woefully inept, as if it had been written with Ben in mind, and suddenly becomes quite clever (recognising Salamander’s motivation in removing honest man Denes and putting weak stooge Fedoris in his place.


Credit where it’s due; Letts, immersed in hardware (helicopters, hovercraft) and locations, makes a good fist of the first episode. It’s fast-paced, sets the scene and is easily the best of the six. Troughton going for a swim is just the sort of daffy thing only his Doctor would get up to (well, I say that; Matt Smith probably would too), and his response to Astrid’s “To me, you’re the most marvellous and wonderful man who’s ever dropped out of the sky” is hilarious.


The supporting cast, from Mary Peach’s Honor Blackman-esque Astrid, to Colin Douglas’ manipulative Bruce and Bill Kerr’s apparently combustible Giles Kent, are all strong, and the twist with Kent in the final episode is another example of Whitaker using the potential of a six-parter shrewdly, servicing the plot with twists and turns, even if, as executed, it doesn't quite pack the punch it should. Carmen Munroe is also effective as food taster Fariah, nursing an unspoken backstory in her hatred of Salamander the like of which one would generally expect from later, more “adult” eras. 


BenikOf course it doesn’t make sense if you haven’t got any sense. Just stand guard and try and keep your wits about you.

There’s also Milton Johns’ wonderfully sadistic turn as Benik (“You must have been a nasty little boy” accuses Jamie; “Oh, I was, but I had a very enjoyable childhood he replies); he even pulls Victoria’s hair at one point. There’s also an amusing eye roll from a guard after Benik has chewed him out, the kind of small touch that helps grounds the proceedings.


Balanced against that are some less convincing performances; Fedorin (David Nettheim), Denes’ deputy, is an unlikely baldy beardy bloke in a gimp suit who sits around getting pissed and manipulated by Salamander. In the underground, Adam Verney’s overwrought Colin was annoying enough on audio, but here the combination of wild eyes and over-emphasis is especially laughable, not helped any by the sometimes florid dialogue. Verney performs Colin as if he’s permanently about to explode, or like Michael Palin going off on one in a Python sketch (“I want to see the sun again, walk on top of the earth. Not like this, a rat underground”, and “like worms under the earth, sightless worms, wriggling around without hope, without purpose”, and his reaction to Christopher Burgess’ Swann being invited top side; “Why not me WHY? WHY NOT ME?”).


While The Enemy of the World has been referred to as Who doing Bond, and superficially it’s easy enough to see why it has been said, and also why it’s cited as a template for Pertwee Who, it doesn’t really translate that way for the most part. There are some notable compare-and-contrasts, though. For a villain, Salamander’s scheme is actually quite low key. I mean, apart from the triggering natural disasters part. He’s invested in being seen as a generous benefactor, for whatever reason, rather than as a power-mad dictator (or he could surely use the Sun Catcher to obliterate entire countries, and hold the world to ransom).


But whatever the nitty-gritty of his motivation (“Step by step, he’s taking control of the planet”), it’s left unrevealed to us, as he’s a paper-thin character who seems to be bad because he’s bad, and possibly because he’s Mexican (Donald Trump wouldn’t get on with him). Did Salamander create the Sun Catcher, or merely acquire it? And likewise his underground technology? He doesn’t seem like a scientific genius, or much like any kind of genius, really.


He’s not much good at improv either (trying to think on his feet when confronted by Swann, he does a terrible job, suggesting the survivors must be wiped out, and are evil and corrupt because they are physically mutated; although, he smokes a good cigar). Trout’s performance, boot polished and absurd in accent (“Suicide of course. Such a piddy”) was clearly instructive to Al Pacino when researching Tony Montana.


Salamander, “the shopkeeper of the world” ought to be a devious and intriguing mastermind, but he’s actually just Troughton doing a turn, and doing it well enough, but his plan for world domination is never more than a lot of elaborate key notes that make little sense when you break them down. There subtext to the underground community’s paradigm is quite neat, though; the leader tells the populace the reality they need/want to believe, and everyone buys into it (ironically, it’s the mainstream media that unwittingly blow his gaffe in this case, rather than toeing the official line, when Swann gets hold of a newspaper clipping). As such, there’s also a virtual compendium of conspiratorial devices here if one wants to get into it; the “benign” leader who says all the right things is actually a Machiavellian force enslaving and lying to the blissfully ignorant population whilst using advanced and unknown technology (manipulating world events and cause disasters) to solidify his grip on power.  


Enemy’s is also a progressively Star Trek globe, with its United Zones as an effectively one-world government, so making it rather difficult to manufacture convincing conflict. There are robot harvesters, and two-hour rocket trips, so there’s a lot to look forward to come next year.


Troughton is on good form as the Doctor, with some strong dialogue (“Which law? Whose philosophy?” In response to Astrid asking if he’s a doctor of such things), although his biding his time, wanting proof before getting involved, doesn’t really add up (continuing past the halfway mark), and feels like an attempt to peg the plot at a certain pace. As Doctor doppelgangers go, Salamander’s someway below the Abbot of Amboise, and closer to Meglos. Trout makes him both utterly ridiculous and impressively sinister. Most of all, as alluded above, his mangled verbiage is a constant source of entertainment (“Ees nor so good boys. Ees nor so good. Wars all this abow, huh?”; “An you take your littew puppy dog wi you” “Ees veree pridy”).


The finale is rather rushed, although Salamander getting sucked out of the TARDIS into space is effectively offbeat (strange for the best cliffhanger ending to be one leading into the next story; the others are pretty nondescript), and as noted Letts’ direction is reliably variable. But what really prevents Enemy from pushing towards classic status is the conflict between the intelligent story it wants to be and the less refined, more slipshod elements. Certainly, no one was dumbing down the previous two stories (another reason I resist the kiddie-centric view of his era). If The Enemy of the World has diminished slightly, now the jubilation over its recovery has died down, it nevertheless represents a commendably different Troughton story, even as part of an era awash with 21st century futures and weather control technology.





Futuristic Buttocks













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

Comments

  1. August 16 2017 is a Wednesday...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Ours must be a parallel universe, and Enemy's the real one. How else to explain the lack of personal hovercraft?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

The past is a statement. The future is a question.

Justified Season Six
(SPOILERS) There have been more than enough damp squib or so-so show finales of late to have greeted the demise of Justified with some trepidation. Thankfully it avoids almost every pitfall it might have succumbed to and gives us a satisfying send-off that feels fitting for its characters. This is a series that, even at its weakest (the previous season) is leagues ahead of most fare in an increasingly saturated sphere, so it’s a relief – even if there was never much doubt on past form – that it doesn’t drop the ball.

And of those character fates? In a show that often pulls back from giving Raylan Givens the great hero moments (despite his maintaining a veneer of ultra-cool, and getting “supporting hero” moments as he does in the finale, 6.13 The Promise), it feels appropriate that his entire (stated) motivation for the season should be undermined. He doesn’t get to take down Boyd Crowder, except in an incarcerating sense, but as always he is sanguine about it. After…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You’re only seeing what’s in front of you. You’re not seeing what’s above you.

Mr. Robot Season 2
(SPOILERS) I suspect my problem with Mr. Robot may be that I want it to be something it isn’t, which would entail it being a much better show than it is. And that’s its own fault, really, or rather creator and writer-director of umpteen episodes Sam Esmail’s, who has intentionally and provocatively lured his audience into thinking this really is an up-to-the-minute, pertinent, relevant, zeitgeisty show, one that not only has a huge amount to say about the illusory nature of our socio-economic system, and consequently the bedrock of our collective paradigm, but also the thorny subject of reality itself, both of which have been variably enticing dramatic fodder since the Wachowski siblings and David Fincher released a one-two punch at the end of the previous millennium.

In that sense, Mr. Robot’s thematic conceit is very much of a piece with its narrative form; it’s a conjuring act, a series of sleights of hand designed to dazzle the viewer into going with the flow, rath…

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

It’s the Mount Everest of haunted houses.

The Legend of Hell House (1973)
(SPOILERS) In retrospect, 1973 looks like a banner year for the changing face of the horror movie. The writing was on the wall for Hammer, which had ruled the roost in Britain for so long, and in the US the release of The Exorcist completed a transformation of the genre that had begun with Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby; the realistic horror film, where the terror was to be found in the everyday (the home, the family). Then there was Don’t Look Now, which refracted horror tropes through a typically Nic Roeg eye, fracturing time and vision in a meditative exploration of death and grief. The Wicker Man, meanwhile, would gather its reputation over the passing years. It stands as a kind of anti-horror movie, eschewing standard scares and shock tactics for a dawning realisation of the starkness of opposing belief systems and the fragility of faith.

In comparison to this trio, The Legend of Hell House is something of a throwback; its slightly stagey tone, and cobweb…