What is it about The Caves of Androzani that fans love so much? How could the series possibly have gone straight from this story into The Twin Dilemma?
The success of Caves is all the more remarkable when you consider that it is basically a rewrite of a story which was far from successful - The Power of Kroll. Indeed, that was one of Robert Holmes' least favourite stories.
Clearly Holmes could see some merit in the basic storyline for Kroll, and no doubt felt that it suffered in execution. He had been told to include the biggest monster ever seen in the series - and he always hated it when he was given any sort of "shopping list". The "Swampies" were pretty generic stereotyped natives, and some of the inspirations were a little too obvious - the parallels with native Americans being pushed onto Reservations by colonists (and pushed off again when that land proved to be more valuable than previously thought), and the 1933 movie King Kong.
Given the chance to rewrite it, Holmes jettisoned the natives and the Kong references, and concentrated on the villain and his motivation:
- In Kroll, someone (Thawn) is paying a gun-runner (Rhom-Dutt) to supply weapons to the person who everyone thinks is his enemy (Ranquin) on a satellite, and he's doing it as it provides him with an excuse to fight and destroy that enemy. The villain comes from the prime planet of a system (Androzani Major), but the action is taking place on its satellite (Androzani Minor), where his enemy is based.
- In Caves, someone (Morgus) is paying a gun-runner (Stotz) to supply weapons to the person who everyone thinks is his enemy (Sharaz Jek), and he's doing it as it provides an excuse to fight and destroy that enemy. The villain comes from the prime planet of a system (Delta Magna), but the action is taking place on its satellite (Third Moon), where his enemy is based.
Just in case you hadn't noticed the similarities before. There are others - chiefly the fact that both stories have monsters which aren't very well realised - Kroll itself and the Magma Beast. The monsters come across as an afterthought - insisted upon by the producer - and Holmes is more interested in the core plot of the conflict between the main characters. Both stories are the penultimate ones of their respective seasons - stories which traditionally get little attention, or share of the budget. In both stories, the Doctor and companion arrive on the satellite, and he is mistaken for a gun-runner.
Why the big difference between two stories which bear such close similarities? Director, (re)writing, music, casting, and performances - and the significance of Caves being a Doctor's swansong.
The director of The Power of Kroll was Norman Stewart. He had been a production assistant since the Hartnell era, but had only directed one previous Doctor Who - and that was Underworld. That story has usually sat in the bottom two or three of the Tom Baker era, and bottom ten overall.
The director of The Caves of Androzani was Graeme Harper. He had also been a production assistant for a number of years, and had never directed a Doctor Who - but he had one huge advantage over Stewart. That was Douglas Camfield. Arguably the greatest director in the history of the series, in any era, he acted as mentor to Harper and the student learned much from the master.
As mentioned, Holmes rewrote his Season 16 story, jettisoning a lot of the surface, keeping the core, and adding some new political elements. John Normington's Morgus is Ian Richardson's Francis Urquhart a decade early - though I couldn't possibly comment...
Kroll suffers from its placing as fifth story in Season 16 - the Key to Time season. It stars Tom Baker, at a time when his popularity was beginning to wane. He was difficult to work with, failing to take the role seriously, and this was coming across on screen. Holmes had only written the story late in the day after another script fell through, and there were problems with the casting, due to actors pulling out at the last minute. Philip Madoc is wasted in the part of Fenner, when he clearly should have been given the part of Thawn. The usually reliable John Abineri seems to be a little embarrassed here. Despite extensive location filming in an interesting terrain, the story looks cheap.
The overall tone is "business as usual" for the Baker / Williams era. Dudley Simpson gives us a very generic score.
Caves, on the other hand, has a funereal feel throughout: it definitely benefits from being a regeneration story. It's physically darker, as well as in mood, thanks to much of it being set in dimly lit caverns.
Peter Davison realises that he has a fantastic script to end with, and is determined to make something special of it. He has always tended to take the part seriously anyway, and has been happy with his final season (even stating later that had he known it was going to be far better than Season 20 then he might have done another year).
Harper selects Roger Limb for the music, and he provides a creepy "rattlesnake" motif - and plenty of quiet moments. £ for £, Caves is probably as cheap as Kroll - but it simply doesn't look that way. Even the blatantly unrealistic backdrop to Morgus' office seems acceptable, because of the performances which are going on within it. As the old saying goes - if you're looking at the set then there's something wrong with the performances going on in front of it. Harper casts well. Compare Morgus to Thawn, Stotz to Rhom-Dutt, or - especially - Sharaz Jek to Ranquin.
There is definitely no sense of "business as usual" with Caves. It's unique within its season, within the Davison era, and within the overall classic era.
Regarding that other question - of how this could possibly have been followed by a mess like The Twin Dilemma - there's more to it than simply reversing the answers as to why Caves is so good.
Colin Baker's debut does suffer from perfunctory direction, and poor writing, design, casting and performances, but there's more to it than that. Its placing as the final story of a season is one of its special problems. To sign off for nine months on such a weak story leaves the viewer with a negative view of the series overall. Had Baker offered us a more popular version of the character, it would have helped - someone we liked and wanted to see more of. The decision to have him a less likeable Doctor wasn't, in and of itself, a bad one. Just compare with the Capaldi Doctor in his first year. The problem was that this was the set up we were presented with just before that long break. An unpleasant character who dressed like a clown. His final "whether you like it, or not..." comes across as a threat to the viewers.
A lot of us opted for the "not"...
No comments:
Post a Comment