Skip to main content

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes
(1975)

This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones, The Owl Service). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.


Dickinson’s trilogy curiously ran in reverse chronologically, so it would probably be loved by today’s prequel-afflicted age. The Changes – did Bowie read it or was it just happy ch-ch-chance? – amounts to both the last and first instalment as a result, while taking in subsequent events of the sequels. It deals with the immediate fallout of a strange compulsion overcoming the British population. Rather than transforming into, say, the living dead, they are seized by the urge to attack any machinery/technology around them. You know, the kind of chance-would-be-a-fine-thing luddite malaise that might just do the power of good in our current Ahrimanic-materialist epoch (per Steiner's definitions). Which was, essentially, Dickinson and adaptor Anna Home’s premise almost fifty years ago too, when the then-encroaching technocracy was positively quaint and pre-industrial by comparison.


Peter Wright, in the essay accompanying the BFI DVD release, refers to the serial’s ambitious and mature “treatment of racism, sexism and green politics”. Essentially, The Changes gives the lie to the idea that earnest progressivism is a post-millennial thing unless forwarded by Barry Letts. At times in the serial, this inevitably means the well-meaning proceedings tip over into straight-up patronising; the spiritually evolved Sikh community encountered by Vicky William’s Nicky are much too good to be true. But Nicky is no Mary Sue, so there’s that (Williams isn’t always well served by Nicky’s characterisation, but she’s more than capable in fulfilling lead protagonist duties).


Indeed, perhaps part of the problem with The Changes is that its facing down of prejudice, from racism to charges of witchcraft, is grounded in rural communities and yokels. In its own way, that seems a rather prejudicial take; one is knee-jerk unsurprised by such prevailing ignorance, inequality and veneration of the old ways, without the trigger of slipping into a pre-industrial fervour due to a techno-fear virus. Wright asserts such lurking bigotry was likely part of the intended commentary, but it might have been more effective had it been contrasted with the “sophistication” of the city environment. He suggests such attitudes “are not the consequence of the monolith’s influence, since neither prejudice arises from the need to destroy technology, nor are they necessary for a more ecologically balanced world. As a result… with its structural emphasis on continuity between the pre- and post- Changes worlds, racism and sexism are positioned as attitudes present before the disaster and which attain a greater freedom of expression in the superstitious aftermath…” 

Wright contrasts this with the book, where prejudice comes from a desire to return to the old ways. Again, though, the milieus Nicky explores aren’t so far from such days of yore, really; similarly, as picturesque as it is to be constantly bombarded with visions of 70s countryside, there’s a good reason the urban first episode is by far the most potent and powerful, with rioting townsfolk and simmering violence.


There’s also some very awkward motivation, of the sort that might fly under the blanket of child’s eye’s logic but looks very odd from an adult perspective. Nicky’s dad (Bernard Horsfall) and pregnant mum (Sonia Graham) manage to lose sight of their daughter as they attempt to leave the city and cross the English Channel. Dad goes back to look for her but then decides he and mum will continue to the coast and then he will turn back to retrieve Nicky. None of this seems remotely like good sense. Leaving his daughter in the first place – she goes back to their house, which, if he has as much faith in her as he says, should have been the first place he looked – and then his wife on a perilous channel crossing. Curiously, we don’t see them reunited. Indeed, the first episode plays out as an overpoweringly bleak scene setter, and if this weren’t ostensibly kids’ TV, one might easily envision mum not making it out alive.

After this, the next few episodes find The Changes sinking into a morass of inertia, as Nicky joins up with the aforementioned Sikh community while Paddy Kingsland gets out the electric sitar, just to let you know there’ll be a spot of innocent stereotyping along the way (I’m generally a fan of Kingsland’s work, but he is nothing if not uneven; this forms a prelude to the next decade’s TV soundtracks, from Doctor Who to Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy). Mostly, this is a very civilised BBC apocalypse, such that when villainous Edward Brayshaw (Rentaghost’s Mr Meaker) shows up to murder unsympathetic village leader Mr Baynard (David King), who dubbed the Sikhs “devil’s children”, it takes place off screen. Which doesn’t prevent a colourfully grim description of how he was “skewered through and through”. The visual depiction of Brayshaw’s rottenness is pretty much down to him dressing in black and needlessly smashing his mug after drinking poor dear Arthur Hewlett’s ale. 


Mr Gordon’s smelling out wickedness again.

Just as you’re giving up the will, the serial upticks a bit. Nicky is sent packing by the kindly Sikhs and falls from a horse and cart in absurd fashion; she is left alone by Roy Evans, much like her dad did, as he goes to seek help. So it is that she finds herself accused of being a witch. For falling asleep in a barn full of tractors. One significant thing The Changes has going for it is a liberal smattering of memorable guest performers, most of them Doctor Who veterans, either before or subsequently. One such, David Garfield, would appear a few years later as Neva in The Face of Evil. Here, his Davy Gordon has the beardy zealotry down pat, inflicting it on Peter (Jack Watson) and his family (son Jonathan – Keith Ashton doing a teenage Noel Gallagher, daughter Margaret – Zuleika Robinson, and wife Anne – Stella Tanner). Watson eventually dunks Davy – who can’t swim, so meeting the fate he meant for Nicky – rather appositely.

I am Merlin. Whoever touches me unbalances the world.

A boat disaster follows and from there a meeting with Tom Chadbon and Merelina Kendall’s seasoned city fugitives, before Nicky and Jonathan happen upon the source of the upheaval that has overcome Britain. The mysterious monolith. Mr Furbelow (Oscar Quitak) has succeeded in unleashing a force in his quarry excavations, one encountered by Merlin the magician before him. It seems the novel featured a personified, morphine-addled Merlin, but Home settles on something more nebulous. It’s difficult to say if a druggy Merlin would have been better (immortal guardians of old weren’t so great in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade), but this is definitely something of a damp squib. 


Nevertheless, there’s a cogent message here, since the force, like a “whirlpool, or a black star in space” is possessed with an almost Gaia-like mission to correct things. Just not this way. Merlin “woke it and was strong enough… He became it, it became him”. Alas, Furbelow roused it too soon and too suddenly. In trying to use its power to balance the world, out of whack due to our machines and pollution, he managed to make it “more unbalanced than ever”. Which is all very well, but Nicky has no indication of when and how this force will actually exert itself in more timely and appropriate fashion, now that its immediate effects have dispersed. Indeed, The Changes’ last shots show traffic back in action all over the land. So much for cosy eco-fables. Next stop iPhones, 5G and transhumans. Where are you now, Merlin?




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.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

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.

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.

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…

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

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

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.

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.