8: The Reign of Terror

Before Watching

Another historical, the last of the first series. In fact the last story of any kind of the first series. If you include “An Unearthly Child”– which admittedly is more of a Pre-Historical – then it’s 4 –all between the sci-fi serials and the Historicals. This one was not scripted by John Lucarotti, I knew, but by Dennis Spooner. This is a bit of a surprise since I mostly associate Dennis Spooner with some of the classic episodes of The Avengers, which would have led me to expect a more sci-fi sort of thing.

The French revolution is a fascinating if rather confusing period of History. I somehow don’t expect we’ll be seeing anything similar to “The Aztecs” with this one, although as much as Barbara wasn’t able to change history back then, it should stand even more so for this serial – we all know that the Doctor didn’t save Marie Antoinette, or discredit Robespierre, or see to it that Napoleon never took over.

My personal feeling before we start is that they might have trouble spinning 6 episodes out of this, but I’ve been wrong before. Only one way to find out.

After Watching

I’ll come clean from the start here. Although this one had some great moments, as a whole I liked it less than either “Marco Polo” or “The Aztecs”.  Dennis Spooner has a different approach to the Historical story from John Lucarotti. There’s more comedy, and less obvious educational content. That’s okay, but it’s different, and if it comes down to personal preference, I like the John Lucarotti approach more.

Any fictional account which uses the French Revolution as its background is going to invite comparisons with “The Scarlet Pimpernel”, or “A Tale of Two Cities” or both, and “The Reign of Terror” certainly does that. Which is not necessarily a negative, for the series has often drawn on a wide range of sources for inspiration for individual stories.

The French Revolution is a complicated period of History, and this sense of not really understanding what’s happening certainly comes across in the first couple of episodes of this story. “Marco Polo” and “The Aztecs” both took different approaches to the problems of a Historical story. In the former, the Travellers were attached to a real historical figure, and this figure, Polo, was cleverly used to share the viewers’ sympathies, and the duties of exposition and taking the plot forward. In “The Aztecs” the Travellers, well, Barbara, actually initiate action through trying to change history, and her attempts and their failure are the real engine that drives the plot forward. In “The Reign of Terror” the plot is neither nailed to the actions of one real historical person, nor does it revolve around the attempts of the regulars to alter History. In fact all the regulars can do is to try to find each other when they are separated, avoid the guillotine, and get back to the TARDIS. That’s perfectly consistent with much of what we’ve seen this series, I grant you.

This doesn’t mean that there are no historical figures portrayed in the story. Robespierre features quite prominently in the later episodes, and the Doctor even gets to speak to him. For me this scene isn’t all that effective. It’s a bit stilted, not least because Robespierre can’t really act out of character, and whatever the Doctor says to him we know that it can’t change history. Then towards the end, when Napoleon Bonaparte appears, Ian and Barbara see him as spectators do, they cannot get to interact with him. “The Reign of Terror” is at its best with the Doctor’s interactions with some of the more obviously comic characters – the overseer of a road gang he meets on his way to Paris, who calls him skinny, and soon after gets brained on the back of his head with the Doctor’s spade is one, and the jailor is another good example.

It’s important for the plot that the travellers are split up early in the second episode. Caught in a burning ‘safe’ house at the end of episode 1, Susan, Barbara and Ian are carried off to Paris and imprisonment, while the Doctor is left behind, and then woken by a young lad. The scene between him and Hartnell is rather charming, and another sign of just how much the grumpy gittishness of the first couple of stories has receded into the background.

Ian is imprisoned away from Barbara and Susan who are in the same cell as each other. Ian is in the same cell as a dying man, who gives him information for the British ‘scarlet pimpernel’ figure – James Sterling. The plot of many of the remaining episodes plays some interesting tricks before we find out just who this mysterious figure is. The Doctor, meanwhile, sets off to walk to Paris to free the rest of the crew. His plan involves stealing the uniform of a revolutionary official, and at first this seems to work rather well, although it does eventually lead to him having to meet Robespierre for the rather lifeless scene that I mentioned earlier.

I did like the final scene, though there is a real irony in it which I doubt was intended. After the travellers depart in the TARDIS we see the background of a star field, and hear the Doctor saying, “Our destiny is in the stars – so let’s go and search for it!” Was this a cryptic sign to the audience that in future season we’d see more and more stories like ‘The Daleks’ and fewer and fewer like ‘The Aztecs’? If it wasn’t, then its hugely ironic.

What Have We Learned?

The Doctor's favourite period of history is the French Revolution

COmedy can work well within Doctor Who if its not overdone.