Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. (1966)

“Back in the cell?”

Unlike its predecessor, I’d never seen this film before.  Like its predecessor, though, it’s based on a rather flawed, if generally ok, television story by Terry Nation. Inevitably, given the source material, this is a much darker film, and there’s a certain awkwardness to this. It isn’t as good a film as its predecessor.

Again, the Daleks look much more impressive on the big screen, and there are loads of them. Their voices have improved considerably, although the fact that we see them on location means the smoke fired by their guns looks rubbish. The flying saucer, while much more impressive than the TV version, is nevertheless much less cool in design. Interestingly, though, they aren’t really much more of a focus than they were in the previous film, in spite of the fact that we now have no “Dr. Who and” in the title. So much for that thing we’re supposed to call “Dalekmania”.

The best thing about the film is, of course, the great Bernard Cribbins, as policeman Tom Campbell from an England of 1966 where posters advertise holidays in Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal. Lovely. He’s essentially playing the same type of character as Roy Castle, but more successfully as he’s a much more accomplished physical comedian; the extended mime sequence with the Robomen (who appear to be wearing gimp suits) is priceless. The other new character, Dr. Who’s niece Louise Who(?!), is a personality-free zone, but in that regard there’s no difference between her and Barbara.

Peter Cushing is a little more subdued here than in Dr. Who and the Daleks, not quite phoning it in but not quite firing on all cylinders, either. It’s also oddly disappointing to hear him referred to as “the Doctor”: David Whitaker’s influence on the script, no doubt. I suspect, given how faithful to its source material the original film was, that he is also responsible for the slight deviations from the original plot, in particular the combinations of people who get split up at which times.

For a deserted Earth, there’s an awful lot of product placement around- it’s good to know that Sugar Puffs are still popular in 2150. But the whole effect of the way the deserted Earth looks, along with the contemporary clothing, means that the highly evocative themes and imagery of World War Two Nazi occupation are no less evident here than in the televised original. Philip Madoc as the black marketer, and Eileen Way as the collaborator, particularly shine in their portrayal of character types which are very familiar from tales of Nazi occupation. All of this would have had much more resonance back in 1966, when much of London was still covered in bombed-out craters, than it is now, but we seem to be entering some rather less stable times in the Europe of 2012 than in 1966: a sobering thought.

The Daleks’ plan is very slightly less bonkers than in the original- at least they now have a reason for piloting the Earth around the Galaxy, rubbish though it is. And there’s now a reason why they suddenly all die at the end, even if it’s bobbins. Unfortunately, though, the film just isn’t that good; the four leads just look out of place in such a gritty tale, and the fact that Susan is a child is particularly awkward.

(And yes, I'll get round to The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe before the New Year!)

Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965)

“If they call us monsters…. What must they be like?”

I’ve reviewed every single episode of Doctor Who on this blog. Why on Earth did it take me so long to get round to watching this? Well, it was the lack of subtitles on the DVD, which is a pretty poor state of affairs for a DVD release. I’m not all that deaf, but lack of subtitles does tend to be something of a deterrent. Fortunately, though, the dialogue here is very clear and easy to follow.

Anyway, the film… Steven Moffat has recently given interviews in which he firmly (and clearly with the support of senior BBC bods; he wouldn’t be using words like “off-message” otherwise) squishes the idea that any hypothetical new film of Doctor Who might ignore the continuity of the television show, because that would “insult the audience.” I’m not sure he’s right for the right reasons, but I think he’s right to be wary of the idea; what if the film was successful and the new continuity came to obliterate the old? On the other hand, why make a two hour film based on the existing series when you could make thirteen episodes and a Christmas special? I don’t really see much sense in doing a film at all. We no longer live in an age where film is necessarily considered the superior medium, in any case.

And yet… it has been done before. And it seems to have done no harm to the TV show, wary though I am of taking this as a precedent. It’s not the best film ever made (mainly because the TV story on which it was based, Terry Nation’s The Daleks, isn’t the greatest story ever told), but it’s utterly fascinating to watch. I first saw this back in 1988, aged eleven, when I rented it from my local video shop. I’d become a Doctor Who fan just weeks earlier, catching the broadcast of part two of Remembrance of the Daleks, and I wouldn’t see The Daleks until Christmas Day 1989. I hated the film; it didn’t seem like Doctor Who at all. In hindsight, the reasons for this are rather interesting.

To begin with, this is bound to offend those with an excessive regard for “canon”. It simply doesn’t fit our conception of what Doctor Who is. The Doctor is a human scientist, who invented the TARDIS (which seems here to have mislaid its definite article) himself, and our four time travellers are not heroes but bumbling travellers. And yet, in 1965, neither of these things (perhaps the second, but only up to a point) was in any way inconsistent with what the audience had seen on their TV screen.

It’s rather difficult to judge Peter Cushing’s performance as the Doctor- or, rather, Dr. Who, as I shall have to get used to calling him; I’m usually the first to start winding up people who insist that “Doctor Who” is not the name of the character, but nevertheless it’s an assumption I tend to make for everyday purposes. Cushing is not playing a new version of the character, as per Troughton, Pertwee etc; he’s playing a version of the character Hartnell was playing on television, and that’s an important distinction. The concept of recasting the lead- regeneration, renewal, rejuvenation, whatever- had at this point occurred to no one, except possibly John Wiles. Cushing is playing the Doctor exactly as Hartnell did, albeit the cuddlier side of the character, with most rough edges removed. That makes it rather difficult to evaluate his performance, but he certainly has the charisma, even if he’s necessarily unable to put his personal stamp on the role, not being given the freedom allowed to Troughton or his successors.

The other three regulars are very different, too; Barbara (Barbara Who?!) is Dr. Who’s granddaughter, alongside Susan (Susie Who?), meaning that Dr. Who looks rather young for someone with a granddaughter in her twenties. Susan is very clever; Barbara, sadly, has no particular character traits. Ian is an accident prone Yorkshireman, here essentially to provide the comic relief. He isn’t so much the leading man as is his TV equivalent.

Oh, and TARDIS (no definite article, remember?) seems to work by disassembling particles and re-assembling them. This means, of course, that all four leads are instantly killed within the first five minutes, with copies of themselves having all those adventures on Skaro (although the planet isn’t named?), until they in turn all die at the end, and some second generation copies watch some stock footage of Romans.

The whole thing looks glorious in its Technicolor mid-Sixtiesness. It’s dated enormously, but that’s part of its charm; who can fail to be enchanted by the sight of Dr. Who reading The Eagle? There’s a sense of scale, too; the sets look much larger at Shepperton Studios than they did at Lime Grove, where most of them seemed about the size of the room I’m typing this in. The Daleks are also huge, impressive-looking, and there are loads of them, with nary a cardboard cut-out in sight. Admittedly, they do rather tend to spend all their time telling other Daleks things they already know for the benefit of the audience (something which, I believe, is known over on TV Tropes as “As You Know, Bob”), very…..very…..slowly….

Still, the cinematic scale also removes some of the coolness. The Dalek city doesn’t look anywhere as cool as the Expressionist original (although I like the moving eyestalks) and the orchestral score isn’t a patch on Tristram Cary. And other things are just different; the Thals look much, much gayer with all that make-up, and Antodus doesn’t die after falling down that chasm, as Milton Subotsky is rather more forgiving to his characters than Terry Nation. Mind you, the chasm looks far scarier than it did on the telly.

The climax is a bit sudden and dodgy, I suppose; this must be the slowest countdown ever, and the mighty Daleks are essentially defeated by a bit of pushing and shoving. This isn’t a great film; it’s rather formulaic and lacking in vim. But it’s entertaining enough.

Incidentally, a very Merry Christmas to all of you at home!