Remembrance of the Daleks An Unearthly Child [pilot] |
BBC An Unearthly Child aka. "100,000 BC" and "The Tribe of Gum" |
|
| Episodes | 4 |  |
| Story No# | 1 | |
| Production Code | A | |
| Season | 1 | |
| Dates | Nov. 23, 1963 - Dec. 14, 1963 |
|
With William Hartnell, William Russell, Jacqueline Hill, Carole Ann Ford. Written by Anthony Coburn (and C.E. Webber). Script-edited by David Whitaker. Directed by Waris Hussein. Associate Producer: Mervyn Pinfield. Produced by Verity Lambert. |
| Synopsis: In the broadcast pilot to the most successful science-fiction series of all-time, the curiosity of two schoolteachers draw them into the realm of the mysterious Doctor and his unearthly grandchild, Susan. |
"I'm sorry. It's all my fault. I'm desperately sorry." by Neil Clarke 23/2/09
An Unearthly Child is such a strange story to watch: we know how "important" it is, as the first of a 30-season-long saga - but at the same time, it appears to have very little to do with the series at large. The pattern of pulpy thrills, alien planets and BEMs was established in The Daleks, while many of the key trappings of this story were quickly jettisoned: its brutality, its conviction and depth of characterisation. This is hardly surprising though; Doctor Who could never have survived being continually pitched at this exhausting level.
I don't feel An Unearthly Child itself needs defending; unfortunately, the following three 100,000 BC episodes do. I was aware this time round how unpleasant and, in fact, difficult they are to watch - though not in the way many people seem to think (ie, "It's slow and the cavemen are grating"); rather, because of its punishing tone. It's hard to believe this was the pilot of a kids/family show. Other people have commented on the almost post-apocalyptic sense of desolation, while Barbara's reaction to the incomprehensible turn of her life is the closest we're ever likely to get to a truly realistic reaction to the fantasy of Doctor Who. The unreasoning terror of her freakout in the forest is quite astonishing: the anguish and incomprehension of the line, "What's happening to us?!" is a far cry from Rose or Martha's more recent, pop-culturally aware introductions to the Doctor's world.
I have a particular respect for these pre-historic episodes. Cavemen would not be an obvious choice for any story today, let alone a season opener; just look at the pains the Davies series goes to be crowd-pleasing with flashy, broad strokes. While a series this long-running cannot be expected to remain static in its tone and so forth, I can't help but feel that in putting spectacle and cheap thrills over an approach this compelling, something has gone wrong. Because this story, which should seem so absurd (1960s schoolteachers meet primitive cavemen! That does not sound like a winner, does it?), is an amazing, taut piece of drama.
The Forest of Fear is particularly tense, gruelling, and harrowing; the bickering and the Doctor's cynicism is so much more realistic and - I would argue - compelling than the pulling-together blitz spirit of the new series. By contrast, this is a story of arbitrary violence - even including the cold-blooded murder of an old woman. The world of 100,000 BC is a cold, distrustful place. Even the off-screen animal attack on Za is unpleasant, simply through atmosphere and the actors' reactions.
It isn't easy viewing; whereas Rose, by comparison (the Unearthly Child of the new series), bends over backwards to be "accessible". This story certainly wouldn't go down so well with the primetime proles today, and that is a crying shame: that no one has the conviction to do something as simple but solidly made as this.
This simplicity allows the story to function as what it was: the series' introductory story - and it's more than ably supported by the spare but effective music, and almost stylised and beautifully effective sets (though clearly very much of their time- not a problem, in my eyes - details as simple as the realistically grassy, uneven ground in the forest keep it convincing).
Fandom's seemingly ingrained 60s-bashing - or, rather, apathy - ticks me off because the earliest stories, most completely represented by this story, are arguably so much better than practically everything else that was to follow. For 40 years. That's pretty impressive.
I'm not saying An Unearthly Child is the best-ever example of Doctor Who, but it's certainly one of the best pieces of TV to come out of the run. In fact, I would contend that almost no Doctor Who story works as well as TV (regardless of its merits as Doctor Who). Which is something of a cliche when it comes to this story (though one mainly applied to the first episode alone) - but the whole four episodes are almost incomparably better TV than the vast majority of the subsequent run. (It's easiest to back this up with exceptions to the rule: the best historicals, maybe Talons, are also great TV, Doctor Who or no - in the sense that I think Lawrence Miles has said The Deadly Assassin is great Doctor Who but crap TV, and vice versa for Revelation of the Daleks.)
This very first story managed to succeed in all the ways the majority of later Doctor Who stories - by comparison - fail, because there was no pressure to live up to what had gone before. (Although it helps that it's rather gloriously directed; often in Doctor Who the director appears entirely AWOL. I love the surprisingly frenetic bits like the fight in the cave and the final chase through the forest.) There are no real gimmicks (besides the TARDIS, which is more of a plot device anyway, or the Doctor's Edwardian costume, which is about as nondescript as an Edwardian costume could be), because the series wasn't having to outdo the previous 5, 10, or 20 years. So there's no need for sonic screwdrivers, UNIT, excess continuity (not that I'm saying continuity is always bad; with the wealth of past that Doctor Who has, it'd be stupid to ignore it; it's just that drawing on it does change the shape of the series).
So, this story, above all others, managed - and continues to manage, on rewatching - to remain pure and to the point, and not pulled out of shape by the history preceding it, or a wish to outdo the past. There's nothing campy or postmodern or self-indulgent here, and it's all the better for that.
Everything in this story shines because of that; the Doctor is an enigma. Ian and Barbara are normal, real people, not pyromaniacal teenagers or knife-wielding savages, or even investigative journalists. The TARDIS is justm "a ship"; no artron energy or cloisters, or even a wardrobe room. Going back to the very beginning, it's so refreshing: it's Doctor Who stripped back in a way that would be impossible now, even if you wanted it to be. Even a brand-new franchise which hit the reset button couldn't avoid working in the shadow of 40 years of TV stories, books, continuity and fandom. Doctor Who at its most basic, and effective, is, I think, really something to cherish.
An Unchildrenly Children's Programme by Jordan Burbidge 10/6/10
I don't know where people keep coming up with this "Doctor Who is/was a kid's show" rubbish; it is it is quite obviously false. You only have to look no further than all the myriad reviews that say something like "I was surprised at [whatever adult content] being in a kid's show". I seem to recall many years ago being informed that the show was originally intended for football fans. Now, while sports fans do often behave like children, that doesn't make it a kid's show. People generally don't refer to Star Trek as a children's programme, even though the bodycount/gruesomeness/etc is far lower and unrealistic optimism is generally higher (not to mention that when people do die, they are usually vapourized, so there is no corpse); yet I repeatedly see on these reviews people insisting that Doctor Who is. So to attempt to debunk this ridiculous myth (as if one can ever persuade someone who has their mind made up to believe something patently false), I will examine such data as bodycount, grimness and the like.
The first story has a relatively low bodycount, with only two people getting killed, and neither death is directly shown, but a very high grimness rating. Now, I don't know what kind of kid's show you lot grew up with, but I don't recall any even hinting at death, let alone mentioning or indirectly showing it. See that episode of Sesame Street where Bert and Ernie are trapped in the cave with all the corpses? No? Neither did I. How about that after achool apecial where Billy-Bob brutally offs his neighbour? No?
We start off rather innocently, with two school teachers talking about how one of their students (Susan) is both brilliant and stupid, and then trying to snoop to figure her out a bit. This is handled moderately well, apart from the examples of her "brilliance". If being bored in school were a sign of genius, the world is full of geniuses. Also, I don't see why ANY [unspecified] dimension would be necessary for a particular math calculation: I can't compute 2 + 2 without factoring in time and space! Really? Does the value of 2 change depending on when or where, or the addition operator change how it functions? Minor stuff, to be sure, but really rubbed me the wrong way, possibly because it just seemed a bit lazy not to come up with something better.
The teachers try to valiantly protect Susan from a very suspicious circumstance, and for their efforts are effectively kidnapped. They end up in caveman times (though they don't discover this until after the Doctor gets kidnapped by one of them). The rest of the show is caveman political intrigue and attempts to escape.
It is quite a bit better than it sounds, really.
The first time I tried to watch William Hartnell's Doctor, some twenty years ago (or thereabout), I couldn't stand him (much like my first attempts with Colin Baker). Upon subsequent viewings, however, my opinion of his portrayal and the stories of his era has softened considerably (also likewise with Colin Baker), and in fact there are some that I quite enjoy. I have no particular fondness for An Unearthly Child (et al.) - mostly because I'm not wild about caveman stories - but it gets the job done, and on the whole is very watchable.
We have: 1 kidnapping, 2 killings (offscreen), 1 mauling by some beast (offscreen), various skeletal parts (and corpses) laying around and a constant palpable threat of being brutally slaughtered by what amounts to a bunch of halfwits. Not to mention the prospect that some random dirty old man has trapped a young schoolgirl in a box for who-knows-what diabolical reason. We also have the somewhat lesser grimness of the threat of mauling, starvation, or freezing to the cavemen that they constantly go on about.
Possibility of being a kid's show: 2/10 (mostly because no violence is directly shown, the wounds from the mauling are not too graphic, and the hinted-at creepiness of trapping Susan in a box may very well be completely lost on a child).
6.5/10
A Review by Francis Salvi 17/3/11
When we think about Doctor Who, the things that spring to mind are the TARDIS, the Daleks, the Cybermen and of course the Doctor himself. But at the beginning, there were no Daleks or Cybermen, just the Doctor and the TARDIS.
An Unearthly Child wasn't only the title of the first story it was the title of the first episode. The episode in question stands up incredibly well today, even if it is 46/47 years old. What clicks this episode for me is the performance of the cast. Not having William Hartnell appear until later in the episode is a wise move, sustaining the air of mystery. Who is Susan Foreman? Why does she live in a junkyard? The two teachers, played splendidly by William Russell and Jacqueline Hill, effectively take on the role of the audience, asking the questions we'd ask if we were in their position. Add the TARDIS, whose set is fantastically designed by Peter Brachaki, and you have a true classic episode, not just of Doctor Who but of television in general.
Unfortunately, the heaps of praise above cannot be showered upon the last three episodes. As I have said to many a Who fan before, they should have moved straight onto The Daleks instead of trogging through the pretty shabby caveman story that follows the fantastic first episode. The only decent part is the few quotes early in Episode 2 that tell of the chameleon circuit, starting up the imagination of kids making them think that any police box could be a time machine....
The cavemen themselves are hideously unbelievable. I may not know much about cavemen but I do know that they didn't speak clear English, and they'd probably kill the travellers for food instead of trying to get them to make fire for them. The forest beast - glimpsed thankfully only briefly in Part Three - is just a dire prop. The resolution is bad as well; surely they could have overpowered the guards at the mouth of the cave?
All in all, a disappointing start to a TV series that has become my favourite series. If the final three episodes had been as good as the first, we would have had a smashing story.
Verdict: 3/10