Skip to main content

Kroll couldn’t tell the difference between you and me and half an acre of dandelion and burdock.

Doctor Who
The Power of Kroll

All baloney? Certainly, The Power of Kroll was and is oft-cited as one of the worst Doctor Who stories evah, which is probably why there’s now a converse apologia that it isn’t that bad at all, actually, to the extent that a cult of Kroll has grown around it, bathing in its badness, Plan 9 from Outer Space-like. Both the 1998 DWM and 2003 Outpost Gallifrey story polls, way back before there was nu-Who to mess with the purity of the process, had it pegged at 145th out of 160-ish (the exact number depending on which other extraneous inclusions were allowed), which isn’t quite the pits but not far off. Far from being an exemplar of all that’s wrong with the much-maligned Graham Williams era, though, the story stands out because it effectively shuns many of its key ingredients. Albeit, the most notable exception to this proved the biggest stick to beat it with: never more variable production values.


The Power of Kroll is both spartan in visuals (everything from sets to costumes looks like ’60s filler, and probably would have been more forgiving in black and white) and in plot/sensibility. Lawrence Miles, although his disdain for this period of the programme is almost entirely unwarranted, was onto something when he observed "the programme’s always at its worst when there’s no wit or colour except when the Doctor’s on screen". While I suspect one can find exceptions that prove the rule, in Kroll it’s definitely just Tom enlivening proceedings. The only other story of this era that approaches the same level of routine joylessness is Underworld, also directed by Norman Stewart.


Elizabeth Sandifer declared "… the biggest problem this story has is that for a Robert Holmes script it’s complete and utter crap". Well no, I really don’t think that’s the biggest problem. The Holmes name is immaterial to the issues with it, but now Sandifer’s gone there she has to start making increasingly incendiary assertions like "the exact same story transmitted under Baker and Martin’s names would, I think, rank as one of their best". Er no, it really wouldn’t. True, you can’t get away from Holmes’ name on the script, but its flaws wouldn’t somehow be ameliorated if it had gone out under Robin Bland or Stephen Harris. 


Invision summarised the issues the writer faced: "The dictate from Read was that the story shouldn’t be saturated with Holmes’ usual undercurrents of wit and humour. What he wanted was a tense adventure designed to thrill, not to amuse". As such, Read’s attitude is the most baffling thing about all this. Was he unaware of the type of show being produced at this time? His otherwise very strong tenure script-editing would suggest otherwise, so quite how he thought the show was successfully going to ditch the by-now-omnipresent humour and hearken back to… well, the only Williams-era story that could be argued to thrill not amuse is The Horror of Fang Rock… is anyone’s guess. 


Sandifer makes five from Kroll not being very Holmesian and his subsequent five-year absence: "The fact that the programme has deteriorated to the point where Robert Holmes has given up on it cannot be taken as a good thing". Which is plain daft; if JN-T hadn’t been old blood averse, it surely wouldn’t have taken until 1983 for him to be asked to contribute again. There’s no indication Holmes disappeared of his own accord. Sandifer does, however, make a reasonable observation about the kind of show Whohas become at this point, one that ties into Miles' general malaise that the story is "Generally awful, but for different reasons than most of the worst stories of this era": that perhaps the series simply can’t make a Hinchcliffe-style (for want of a better comparison) story, so it’s possible that "all the show is for is light entertainment". It’s certainly this sensibility that many of the era’s most voracious critics (notably Sir Ian at the time) call it out for, and why the BBC Christmas tapes of the era with Tom are closer to outtakes from the actual show than something designed for a one-off chuckle. 


Thawn (to Fenner): You shot the wrong man.
The DoctorNot quite, you shot the wrong man’s hat, though.

This all comes back round to what one considers acceptable and appropriate for the series. Some might suggest there’s essentially very little difference between Williams-era levity and the excuses for humour in the Moffat era. Sandifer becomes uncomfortable with what she perceives as a lack of anything to say here (remembering as we must that Elizabeth has a punk fixation with the era, owing to her psychofugal psychochronographic disposition): "What is it that it’s defying… Is it mocking everything? If so, then there’s an uncomfortable nihilism". There is a sense that the show is up for mocking anything and everything at this juncture, but I wouldn’t agree it’s a negative or destructive impulse (quite the reverse); that seems to require a rather limited, restrictive definition of the value of content to hold true. Likewise, Sandifer asks "Is it mocking anything it can outsmart? That’s just bullying for people with high IQs". Again, there’s a sense it is doing something of that, but you only have to look at the difference between the Williams and Moffat eras to see where the bullying, malicious aspect actually manifests.  


There have been those who have compared the story to Holmes' later The Caves of Androzani, not least The Discontinuity Guide (I can’t really see it myself, aside from the mining aspect and the gun running), but it goes to highlight that the only way this would have really worked – without allowing Holmes to humourise it – would have been (a) to put in a different era and (b) give it to a Douglas Camfield or some such. That way, the aspects that stand out ("very slow, and with little of the usual humour of the era" – The Discontinuity Guide) would at least, hopefully, have been replaced with a degree of zip and atmosphere. 


The DoctorDon’t talk to me about politics.

It’s probably why, lacking anything but ironic attachment ("Kroll! Kroll! Kroll!"), there’s little scope for re-evaluation ("The Power of Kroll stays, quite simply, crap" as Alan Barnes commented in DWM 290). That said, in spite of the bad press the realisation of the all-powerful gets, he really is the least of the issues with the story (aside from that split screen, he’s no better or worse than the Skarasen). So for all the "you wonder how anybody thought they could get away with it" (The Discontinuity Guide again) and "Green men in silly wigs worshipping one of the worst special effects in the series" (Craig Hinton in DWB 83), I quite like the creature. Especially his pipe-busting tentacle. The effect that irks more is the "We really can’t be arsed" oil rig model that looks like it was knocked together in someone’s bath. Matt Irvine’s, hopefully not.


ThawnNow that we know they’re armed, we can prove we were acting in self-defence.

Sandifer, always on the lookout for meaning rising from the depths, suggested the moral was "half-hearted and cynical", as if she’s unfamiliar with Holmes’ body of work ("It’s an anti-colonialist parable that can’t muster up much more than 'Homicidal savages with funny skin probably shouldn’t be subject to genocide'"). This kind of critique misses the point that Kroll's a lame duck in the wrong pond. The moral would likely still be half-hearted and cynical if Holmes had been able to infuse it with humour, but she (and we) would be having so much fun we’d barely notice, or determine that it was quite clever of him, how he wittily made those self-same points but in a non-condescending fashion.




ThawnOh, I don’t hate them. I just want them removed permanently.

Kroll reminds me more of Revenge of the Cybermen than Caves, with it’s boring (bored) crew, and boring natives under threat. There’s more than a hint of a Trout story with the drab humans sitting at computer monitors arguing somnambulantly. Not that Neil "Calibos" McCarthy, Philip Madoc and John Leeson aren’t moderately good value. Madoc was famously up for the Thawn part, knowing which leads one to see Fenner’s permanently disgruntled expression throughout as reflective of his getting the short straw (Hinton: "A terrible waste of Philip Madoc – indeed, a terrible waste of time, money and talent for all concerned"). But you only have to witness his cup acting ("There are times I could well do without those Sons of Earth") to know you’re in the presence of greatness, even if he would opine "I wasn’t over-excited by it, and in fact I was rather sorry I did it".


DugeenAll life began on Mother Earth! All life is sacred!

Levene, in full view, diligently concentrates on his monitor, throws out the occasional hyperbole ("By the speed of this one, it's going to be a daddy!") and reveals an unlikely hippy instinct, while McCarthy’s snarling vehemence is so one-note ("Because he’s a Swampie lover!"; "Lily-livered sentimentalists whining about a few primitive savages") that you really wish Holmes could have had more of a freehand with his dialogue. 


Rohm-DuttI’ve never known such a place for rainstorms. That’s why it’s so wet.

Glyn Owen is quite awful as Rohm Dutt, however (great name, though). The part is the closest here to offering the opportunity for some eccentricity, but all Owen does is chew a bit of straw and attempt a vaguely antipodean twang between mouthfuls. The Doctor gives him too much credit when he comments "I know a rogue when I see one, and I have no desire to die in the company of a rogue". Now, if they’d just got Tony Selby on the blower…


VarlikLike all dryfoots, Rohm-Dutt, because we lead a simple life you think we’re fools.

The Swampies? From the green skin (not Holmes’ suggestion) to the native-in-colonial-attire Mensch, there won’t be anything like this on the primitive savages front again until Kinda. They have some endlessly repeatable native dialogue in their favour, though – "Let Kroll come from the bottomless deep!"; "Kroll rises from the depths!" – and a chant that’s only surprising for not having been turned into a dance anthem. 


RanquinKroll is all-wise, all-seeing–
The DoctorAll baloney! Kroll couldn’t tell the difference between you and me and half an acre of dandelion and burdock.

And Holmes does manage to smuggle some amusing material through, such as Ranquin’s subservience to the last as he makes excuses for the creature’s indiscriminate behaviour ("Master, this is thy servant!"). And Varlik’s hilariously offhand account of the first death according to the seven holy rituals ("That’s very easy. They just throw you down the pit and drop rocks on you").


RanquinYou have brought death to us all, dryfoot.
The DoctorIs that your considered opinion?

Just as one might malign Kroll for embodying the worst attributes of its era, one can recognise that it wouldn’t even be that without its prize player. Because Tom is still firing on all cylinders here, wading about the reeds in his waders with them stuck up his hat and generally being as thoroughly disrespectful as he can possibly be. If Romana is momentarily reduced to a screamer ("Well, he probably looked more convincing from the front"), who’s careless ("I dropped the tracer": "I picked it up") and even downright batty ("I’ll just see if there’s anything here" she volunteers, before heading down a corridor for the express purpose of being menaced by a tentacle), the Doctor’s reliably full of merry quips both random ("Will there be strawberry jam for tea?"; "Oh look, its coming this way""Maybe its saving you for pudding?") and wise ("Well, progress is a flexible word"; "You Earth colonists are always so insular"). He cockpunches a Swampie at one point, but I don’t think one can really take "narrow little eyes" as a racist slur (lazy perhaps, as an off-the-cuff reason for explaining immunity to hypnosis).


RomanaOh, a sort of Holy Writ.
The DoctorIt’s atrociously writ, but the pictures aren’t bad.

And there’s the gloriously absurd scene of Tom hitting the high notes (Nellie Melba indeed). If this was a Pert story he’d have insisted on a hovercraft chase, so we have that small mercy to be thankful at bare minimum. Poor old Graybags Williams commented "I didn’t like The Power of Kroll… That was the first and last time I took a holiday" (DWB 24/5). The production unit manager, one John Nathan-Turner, filled in for him… The Power of Kroll isn’t that bad, no. It isn’t that good either. If you really want a point of comparison other than the Bristol Boys, the exact same story transmitted under the banner of JN-T’s subsequent era might not rank as one of his best, but it would be far, far above his worst.























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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

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…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

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 …