In some respects, ‘The Massacre’ is Schrodinger’s Historical. A story that exists in three potential states, none of which quite allow us a glimpse of what it was really like. It is opaque, we view it through a haze or via our own chosen lens. To switch to a religious metaphor – we have the Father (the surviving soundtrack of the TV story/Loose Cannon recon), the Son (the John Lucarotti Target novelisation) and the Holy Ghost (John Lucarotti’s original TV script). The latter is not known to exist in any form and I’m not sure that we really know too much about it, apart from Donald Tosh’s assertion that it was not ‘historically inaccurate’. Even Lucarotti’s Target book (Alsatian dog carts under the Paris streets and all) is supposedly not based on those original scripts, rather it represents a new piece of work, a hybrid of versions and something new. A vision of the story that is less ambiguous and in which the Doctor/Abbot plays a much fuller, more active role – one which the Time Lords in the future question him about, with the accusation of changing history.
The version that is visible – well, god bless Loose Cannon for attempting this one with the merest whisper of a photographic record. It is a heroic effort on their part, but it is difficult to tell even how useful that recon is in imagining the story as transmitted. At the very least, it puts faces to the voices, which is surprisingly helpful with such a verbose script and large cast of characters. I have listened to the audio many times over the years, but this review is the first time I have watched the recon, an interesting experience in of itself. To supplement this, for this review, I also re-read the novelisation and also James Cooray Smith’s excellent Black Archive book on the story. Anyway, whatever method one choses when reviewing this, it is always going to be based on incomplete evidence and is caveated as such.
Historical Perspectives
Some history. In 1965, John Lucarotti was commissioned by Donald Tosh and John Wiles – a high minded, high-brow pair, to write a story based around the massacre in Paris of French Hugenots (protestants), centered around Saint Bartholomew’s Day 1572. In reality the massacre started on the day, rather than the eve, lasted months and spread to other parts of France. The event itself, as depicted in the story, follows the celebrations in the city for the marriage of the protestant Henri of Navarre and catholic Marguerite of Valois (daughter of Catherine de Medici and sister of the King) – an attempt to end the ongoing French wars of religion. As such there is a gathering of Hugenots in the French capital, concentrated around the figures of Admiral de Coligny and Henri of Navarre.
Accounts between Tosh and Lucarotti as to what happened next are slightly at odds, which is a not uncommon occurrence itself at this time. So, within the study of this story as a historical artefact, we ourselves need to act as historians and interpret the historical record of the authorship and production of the story. Who you believe, depends on where you place the weight of evidence. It appears that Donald Tosh wasn’t happy with what he saw as the historical inaccuracies in Lucarotti’s script, went off to the British Library to some research and re-wrote it. He is also credited with co-writing the final episode when Gerry Davis took over as script editor. Similarly, the reasons behind the changes which switch the story from a dual focus on the Doctor, to one centered on Steven Taylor are somewhat lost in the mists of time, but involve a weeks ‘holiday’ for Hartnell.
The events depicted in this story had previously been portrayed by Kit Marlowe in the play ‘The Massacre in Paris’ and by Alexandre Dumas in his novel ‘La Reine Margot’. The latter was the subject of two films of the same name, the first starring Jeanne Moreau in 1954, the second, a film I saw on its release in 1994 – hopelessly smitten with Isabelle Adjani, not knowing its relationship to the subject matter of a 1966 Doctor Who story.
If Dumas or Marlowe were source material for the story, the story hides it well. Margot (Marguerite de Valois,) and Henri of Navarre are missing from ‘The Massacre’, both of whom are at the core of the film ‘La Reine Margot’. Similarly absent are the Guise family – the Cardinal of Lorraine, the Duc de Guise. They were culpable for the massacre at Wassy, referenced in this story and are a key part of Marlowe’s story. The only reference to them in this piece, is that the Abbot of Amboise is their representative. This omission is particularly bizarre, since they are almost certainly behind the first assassination attempt on de Coligny and his eventual death and thus implicated in the start of the massacre and its prosecution. Of the sources, Marlowe’s little-performed play is particularly interesting as it is near contemporary with the events and Marlowe’s spymaster boss, Sir Francis Walsingham was in Paris during the massacre as English Ambassador. As such it exerted a huge influence over his future actions. We should also judge it through the lens of Protestant England though. As for the authorship of this story, I do not profess to know the religion of either author, but it would be an odd ‘Doctor Who’ story which didn’t side with those being oppressed and killed.
So, the subject matter, whilst low in the consciousness of the British viewing public, isn’t entirely unknown or quite the backwater that it is sometimes claimed to be. Tosh and Wiles would almost certainly have known all of the source material, including the 1954 film. I would also argue that the events had a much bigger influence on British history than the for example the events of ‘The Aztecs’ or ‘The Gunfighters’, possibly also ‘Marco Polo’. An example of this is that the influx of French Hugenot immigrants following these events shaped areas of London and the massacre and the marriage of Henri and Margot, in part scuppered attempts to marry Elizabeth I to French catholic royalty and informed domestic and foreign policy via Walsingham. Exerting an influence on the primary religion of England and the direction of the country. The subject is thus a clever way to explore religious conflict and sectarianism in Britain, whilst steering clear of the ghosts of Ireland (past or present in 1966) or the English religious conflicts and atrocities of reformation.
Different Perspectives – the divisive nature of ‘The Massacre’
This is a terrible idea for a ‘Doctor Who’ story – why would anyone think that persecution during the French Wars of Religion would appeal to children? Secondly it is also executed absolutely terribly for a family audience – there are no tales of daring-do, no romance, not much in the way of sword fights or even a battle, we even miss the wedding! What we have are a lot of people sitting about talking about the politics of religion and plotting, whilst Steven commutes between Protestant and Catholic camps, not really understanding anything of the events or their context. Thirdly, I absolutely love it. I would probably wouldn’t have if I’d seen it as a child, but as an adult I think it is terrific. I not only love the televised version, but have a real soft spot for the novelisation as well. My love of the story sort of crept up on me while I wasn’t looking with each re-listen of the audio over the years and it is now high up on my list of most-wanted episode returns.
On that subject, I am reviewing this story as an adult, not a child. I have different perspectives on the stories that I review, depending on my first encounters with them. I make no apology for this, it is a fact of life. There are stories that I grew up with on TV as a child into adulthood– all of the run from 1972 to the mid-1980’s. There are also stories that I encountered as a child in book form – all of the early Target books through to the mid 1980’s – including Hartnell and Troughton stories from before I was born. These stories are different, I experienced them as a child. There are other stories, like ‘The Massacre’ that I was aware of by the early 1980’s, but knew very little about, just short synopses in ‘The Making of Doctor Who’ or ‘Doctor Who Weekly’ and a few photographs. Likewise, certain lead characters – I knew a reasonable amount about Ian, Barbara, Susan, Vicki, Ben and Polly, Jamie and Victoria, but very little about Steven and Dodo, Sara, Katarina or Zoe. Why? Because for the most part, their stories were not novelised until the mid-1980’s, by which time my childhood was ending. The novelisation of ‘The Massacre’ wasn’t released until 1987 – I was 19. The only historical I knew much about as a child, was ‘The Crusades’ for that very reason. ‘Marco Polo‘ and ‘The Aztecs’ were probably next. I first properly ‘experienced’ ‘The Massacre’ via the audio release in 1999. I therefore have no real compunction in reviewing this as an adult, through adult eyes and my younger self can carry enjoying himself happily reading every other Target book than ‘The Crusaders’ – which was ‘boring’!
The architecture of the story is one where information is released over the course of four episodes, with characters added and events escalating in each episode, culminating in the assassination of de Coligny and finally the massacre itself. As such, I thought that I would look at the story in episode order.
The War of God
This opening episode has a fair amount of work to do, setting up the location and time period and putting in train the events leading up to the massacre. It also has to introduce a rather large cast of characters. The narrative really consists of the Doctor and Steven going for a drink, splitting up, with the Doctor visiting a chemist’s shop and Steven meeting some new protestant friends over a glass or two! These are the rather pleasant Nicholas Muss, a secretary to the admiral of France and Gaston, Viscount de Lerans, friend of Henri of Navarre, who is a bit of an arse. Gaston is played by Eric Thompson – father of Emma and voice of the British version of ‘The Magic Roundabout’. Nicholas and Gaston were both real people, Muss died with de Coligny when the mob invaded his apartment at the start of the massacre. As an aside, an internet search for Muss revealed a relative searching for details of his ancestor – it made me wonder at what they made of nearly every search directing them to ‘Doctor Who’ related wiki pages and reviews.
The rest of the episode consists of sparring and various jibes between the protestants and catholics that turn up at the inn, setting the scene for the religious tension and sketching in the backdrop of the royal wedding celebrations. We are also introduced to Anne, on the run from the guards of her former employer. We get her history with Wassy and the first mention of the massacre there. This is a reference to a historical event when the Hugenot congregation of a church in the town of the same name were murdered by catholic troops. This was in 1562, 10 years before the setting of this story, but it is hugely important to the plot, as it sparked the ‘French Wars of Religion’ and the simmering resentment that we see in this story. The architect of this earlier massacre was Francois, Duc de Guise, he was later assassinated as he attempted to take Orleans and the assassin implicated de Coligny in his killing. By the end of the story the Guise family will have their revenge.
Whilst lacking in action, this is all beautifully played and the dialogue is artfully written. We receive a huge amount of information in episode one, but because of the skilful setup of two opposing camps and the status of Steven as ‘innocent abroad’, in combination with it all being drip-fed throughout the episode, it never feels to me like an info-dump.
Finally, we have the cliffhanger, the revelation that the Abbot of Amboise looks like the Doctor. This is perhaps what the story is best known for or at least was before the audio of the story was available – it was known as the story where the First Doctor has a ‘doppelganger’, the bookend to ‘Enemy of the World’. It is surprisingly underdeveloped as the story progresses and really isn’t what the story is about, at least in its televised form – it is however a very prominent element in Lucarotti’s novelisation. One thing of note, is that all of the episode endings in this story are interesting and quite unusual, something I will return to.
The Sea Beggar.
The thrust of this second episode, is Steven falling out of favour with the Hugenot faction, after identifying the Abbot of Amboise as the Doctor and subsequently taking Anne under his wing. From this point it starts to become Steven’s story and Peter Purves really carries things. Some people seem to have an issue with this, I don’t – he is terrific and Steven finally gets the chance to stretch his wings.
Something this story also does well is to switch perspective – between protestant and catholic, the rulers and middle ranks and also the people of Paris. We are given a glimpse of the thinking of the Catholic masses via the old woman in the street and her views that Preslin should be burnt to death and more from the inn keeper, who is the equivalent of the opinionated racist cabbie of modern day. Sadly, these views are all too realistic. Later we see the manipulation of the ‘mob’ by the astute catholic politicians. After largely concerning itself with middle management (Lerans, Muss, Colbert, Duvall), we also now introduced to some of the main players in the plot – Marshall Tavannes (catholic Marshal of France), played by the wonderful Andre Morrell and de Coligny (a Hugenot and Admiral of France), played by Leonard Sachs. It is a broadening out of perspective that works rather well.
Steven and Anne end up on the streets of Paris after falling out with the protestant faction. And in these sequences, we start to see the good side of Steven, he can be headstrong and is ignorant of the era (he would be) and the politics of religion bewilder him. However, he starts to protect and care for Anne over the course of the episodes, sometimes somewhat grudgingly. It is something which she reciprocates, but through this story we really start to see him develop as a character. Peter Purves, whose role thus far has largely consisted of keeping Bill Hartnell happy, really gets a chance to shine. It is a good episode for Steven and Purves really makes the most of this, lost in a strange land, a difficult time to survive without understanding the complexities of politics and religion. Hartnell only appears in a brief pre-recorded scene as the abbot, where Steven recognises him. Tosh is unsure as to whether this was a deliberate act to give Steven something good to do (which seems odd, if so why give Hartnell two roles in this) or because Hartnell needed extra time off or Wiles had just had enough of him. Whatever the reason, this does start to feel rather like a Big Finish ‘Companion Chronicle’ (in which Purves is excellent by the way), with the Doctor very much in the background.
The episode ending is again unusual, we learn that the intended victim of the assassin ‘Bondot’ is de Coligny, who we have only just met, so the significance maybe somewhat lost. ‘Bondot’ is a code name for Maurevert, who was a real assassin in the employment of the Guise family. From this point on, things start to build towards the massacre.
So far, this is adult and complex. Even for a generation much more used to classic historical drama (we were brought up on ‘BBC classic serial’ productions), this must have been completely puzzling after the space age thrills of the ‘Dalek’s Masterplan’. There isn’t much in the way of incident or jeopardy, just a slow ratcheting up of the tension, leading to what feels like the inevitable denouement.
Priest of Death
As with previous episodes, we do not see a recap of the ‘cliffhanger’, instead we get Steven and Anne talking in Preslin’s shop – so the young viewers were probab ly left even more confused by events, being expected to remember what happened a week ago!. The scene that follows between Tavannes and de Coligny at the King’s council is an interesting clash of acting styles. Andre Morrell is smooth and softly spoken, but forceful with a hint of menace, whilst Leonard Sachs is more declamatory and theatrical, Morrell wins this encounter hands down. He really is a consummate screen actor. We also start to see the other major historical figures – King Charles and the Queen Mother – Catherine. The story started out with middle management and the lower classes, then more senior figures were introduced in the second episode, Abbot of Amboise, Marshall Tavannes, de Coligny and now the royal family in the third – although no sign of Henri of Navarre or Marguerite. In interviews, Wiles and Tosh mention deliberately keeping the Doctor and Steven away from major historical figures here, the theory being that they are constrained far more by events when meeting significant historical figures. It is an interesting approach, but I’m not entirely sure I agree with it, since it only really applies to this story, it is rather difficult to critique it further.
This is also the main episode in which we get to ‘see’ William Hartnell playing the Abbot of Amboise. On audio he sounds nothing like the Doctor. And there’s the rub. Some seem to pigeonhole Hartnell as a limited actor who played grumpy Sergeants, policemen, and gangsters (and Doctor’s). Well he did, but many actors would love the chance at playing that range of roles! He also played light comedy extensively as a young man. And the role that got him the part of the Doctor was as ‘Dad’ in ‘This Sporting Life’ – the ageing Rugby scout on his way out – it is a terrific, sensitive performance. So, he had range, like most actors though he had attributes that those casting him picked up on – his ability to play barely suppressed rage is definitely one of them! And that is there in his performance as the Doctor. As is his ability to completely switch that and be absolutely ‘loveable’ – that is all over his performance as the Doctor, as is his ability to play humour. It is his gleeful, playfulness as the Doctor that I haven’t seen in his other screen performances. Countering that he also played a range of roles that required him to be utterly cold and ruthless – in ‘Brighton Rock’ for example and we get some of that here as the Abbot, the performance is cold and controlled. It is clear that the abbot is a monster.
In Lucarotti’s novelisation, all of this is made explicit – the abbot is in Paris, but the Doctor is also coerced by the hugenot faction, into playing the role of the Abbot for part of the story. In that version of the story, it is a traditional ‘lookalike’ motif – similar to ‘The Prisoner of Zenda’ or ‘A Tale of Two Cities’. I’m not sure that the idea was to twin Paris with London in quite the same way that Dickens does, although that could have worked as a method of exploring religious intolerance. In its televised form, this narrative strand is rather undercooked – both Steven and the Abbot are utterly confused by events relating to his resemblance to the Doctor, with the result that there is a degree of ambiguity. There is a doubt right into the final episode as to whether the Doctor is pretending to be the abbot and even whether the abbot really exists.
Elsewhere, some of this episode is rather difficult to envisage without surviving images – particularly Maurevert shooting de Coligny with an arquebus, although apparently, he ducks whilst picking up some papers. This is the action highlight of the episode, but on the face of it is hardly action by HAVOC, is it? The aftermath, the scene between Tavannes and the Abbot is quite chilling, Tavannes ordering his death for his mistakes, with the aim to blame this act on the Hugenots, to deflect from their involvement in the assassination attempt. What I like about these scenes is that the earlier confusion between Steven and the abbot over each other’s identity drives these events and pushes the plot forward. Again, Andre Morrell is excellent in these scenes and I would love to see how Hartnell played this opposite him:
TAVANNES: We should have heard by now.
ABBOT: The King may have delayed him further.
TAVANNES: Due to your stupidity the Englishman has had a chance to warn him.
ABBOT: I said he did not hear anything.
TAVANNES: Then why did he run off?
ABBOT: I don’t know.
TAVANNES: If this should go wrong, you are to blame, and you will be the one to answer for it.
ABBOT: The Cardinal
TAVANNES: Is in Rome and cannot help you now.
ABBOT: If de Coligny is delayed by the King, then the news of his death will be delayed also. Bondot is an excellent marksman. You know that. There is only one thing for us to do, and that is to wait. Meantime, I will retire to my room.
TAVANNES: You will not. You will wait here with me.
COLBERT: Father Abbot.
TAVANNES: Well?
COLBERT: The attempt has failed.
ABBOT: I see. Was Bondot caught?
COLBERT: He rode away. But the Admiral was only wounded, not killed.
TAVANNES: So, the Sea Beggar lives. You have failed! Call the guards! It is strange, Father Abbot, that since you came everything which had been so carefully planned has gone wrong.
TAVANNES: This man is a traitor to the Queen. Kill him. You heard my order, kill him!
In the lead up to his death, Tavannes’s discussion with the Abbot seems like it is intended to throw suspicion that the Doctor is impersonating the Abbot after all. In a lot of the early synopses of this story, before the audio was available, Catherine is supposedly the villain of this story, but she is in it surprisingly little and as in real life, she is more of a political figure, switching sides as it suits her and casually using the deaths of others for her own ends. Really though it is Tavannes that drives events in this version of the story. I love the complexity of the writing and portrayal of Tavannes – smooth and silky one minute, thunderous another, then just chilling. Aside from Peter Purves, Andre Morrell really is the star turn here – it is a rich, complex performance.
The episode ends on the death of Abbot, his body lying in the street and Steven chased away by the catholic mob, manipulated by Colbert on the instructions of Tavannes, into believing that the hugenots had murdered the abbot. It is a calculated political act and very believable. I really would love to be able to see how this is depicted, it must have been a shocking image, someone who Steven and presumably the audience might believe to be the Doctor dead in the gutter in a Parisian street.
Bell of Doom
…And Doctor finally turns up. Now this is where the story changes are not entirely successful in my view. Don’t get me wrong the final episode is really strong stuff, but in order to get to the ending with Steven rejecting the Doctor for his callous attitude to those embroiled in the massacre and Anne in particular, Donald Tosh has to have the Doctor act somewhat out of character. Or rather in character for his portrayal in early season one, before he got to know Barbara and Ian. The denouement of the main plotline – the rising tensions between catholic and hugenot, leading to the state sponsored murder of the innocent for entirely political reasons, conversely is very well handled.
Steven has spent all night trying to avoid the guards and Anne has been alone worrying about Steven. He arrives at Preslin’s shop, having escaped the mob and is in a state of shock, assuming that he has just seen the corpse of the Doctor in the Paris street. He is left with the choice of leaving for an England as alien to him as France, trapped in a time not his own or trying to find the TARDIS key somewhere. While they are searching, the Doctor re-appears.
Now this is one part of the revised story that I don’t much care for, Steven believes that The Doctor is dead, his body left in the street, but the Doctor breezes in, tutting and shushing at him, no explanation of where he’s been and then basically sends poor Anne off to her death at her Aunt’s house. This for me is the cruellest the First Doctor has been since ‘The Daleks’ (the selfishness over visiting the city or getting the Thals to fight for his fluid link), possibly since hefting a rock, ready to bash in the head of an injured caveman. He appears oblivious to and even uninterested in the events Steven is embroiled in and just wants to leave as quickly as possible. He is only just aware of the date/year and all of that misdirection about impersonating the Abbot would appear to just be misdirection for the sake of a bit of intrigue to the story. Apparently, Lucarotti found this aspect of the revised story (the lack of explanation) unforgivable and I must say I agree with him. I would have been happy with the ambiguity to remain, if cleverly done.
DOCTOR: Go home, Anne. You must leave here at once.
ANNE: No! I’ve got nowhere to go!
DOCTOR: Where were you working?
ANNE: At the Abbot’s house.
DOCTOR: You go back there.
ANNE: I can’t! They’ll kill me!
DOCTOR: You must leave this shop, child.
STEVEN: Doctor, what’s happening?
DOCTOR: Oh, please don’t interfere. Now, my dear, there must be somewhere you can stay in Paris.
ANNE: No, there’s only my aunt’s place, and they’ll kill me there.
DOCTOR: Oh, nonsense. Tonight you will be quite safe. Now you go carefully through the streets.
ANNE: Well, what about the curfew?
DOCTOR: Well, you’ve been out in the curfew before, haven’t you?
ANNE: Yes, but the guards
DOCTOR: Then you know how to avoid the patrols. You go back to your aunt. You’ll be quite safe. And you take my advice and stay indoors tomorrow. Now do you understand? It’s too dangerous for you to stay here. Now off you go, child. Come along, off, off, off.
STEVEN: Look, Doctor, I don’t think you understand
DOCTOR: Ah, sh sh sh sh sh sh sh.
ANNE: Goodbye, Monsieur Steven. Safe journey.
STEVEN: Doctor, I don’t think she should go.
DOCTOR: Now off you go, my child. Off you go.
Whilst somewhat unforgivable, it does drive the narrative in an interesting direction. One that the series will return to from time to time. The Doctor with a different perspective on time appearing aloof and callous. In the Troughton era we will have it in ‘Evil of the Daleks’, when he manipulates Jamie into searching for Victoria. It is a staple of early Tom Baker stories – look at ‘Pyramids of Mars’, ‘Seeds of Doom’ or ‘Horror of Fang Rock’ for examples. Likewise, later McCoy or at times in the Tennant years or Capaldi. It acts to restate the Doctor’s unique perspective and alien credentials, but here it is rather perfunctory and the resolution at the end of the episode, whilst giving Hartnell a great speech, does not entirely work as a resolution to Steven’s story, his relationship with Anne or Nicholas and the Hugenots.
The Massacre of St Bartholomew’s Day
And so, onto the massacre itself and the resolution of the historical plot-line. Tavannes, for me the most interesting character in the story and the most real, the military man and politician has only the removal of the protestant elite in mind – safeguarding the regal succession from the protestants. Catherine however has other ideas – they are to unleash the fury of the mob. Wearily, Tavannes agrees, ever an eye on ‘policy’ on the condition that Henri of Navarre is spared to avoid war with protestant Europe.
CATHERINE: Never mind. I have it here, the order signed by the King. Our plans for tomorrow can go ahead.
TAVANNES: Thank God.
CATHERINE: God had very little to do with it. What is this?
TAVANNES: The list, Madame. When those Huguenots are killed we need have no further fear of a Protestant France.
CATHERINE: We have no need of lists, Marshall. The good people of Paris know their enemies. They will take care of them.
TAVANNES: The good people? Madame, if you rouse the mob the innocent will perish with the guilty.
CATHERINE: Innocent? Heresy can have no innocents. France will breath of pure air after tomorrow.
TAVANNES: And Navarre, Madame, your son-in-law? Is he to be slaughtered with the others?
CATHERINE: Tomorrow Henri of Navarre will pay for his pretensions to the Crown.
TAVANNES: Madame, we must not kill Navarre.
CATHERINE: Must not?
TAVANNES: Protestant Europe will merely shed a pious tear over the death of a few thousand Huguenots. The death of a prince will launch a Holy War.
CATHERINE: If one Huguenot life escapes me tomorrow, we may both regret this act of mercy.
TAVANNES: Not mercy, Madame. Policy.
CATHERINE: Very well, Marshall. Then you must get him out of Paris. After tomorrow, even I could not save him.
TAVANNES: I will see to it, Madame.
CATHERINE: And Marshall, close the gates of the city now.
The scene that follows, between Tavannes and Duvall, the glee with which Duvall greets the news that the massacre is to start and hoping for the honour of dispatching Navarre himself is really quite disturbing. Noticing this, Tavannes instead gives him the ‘honour’ of escorting Navarre out of the city. That moral complexity and sophistication is something that I love about the story. Tavannes is happy to murder de Coligny, Gaston, Muss and the other leaders, but even he is somewhat reluctant to play his part in a massacre of the general hugenot population.
DUVALL: Well, my lord?
TAVANNES: The order has been given. You may begin.
DUVALL: My men are ready. Where’s the list?
TAVANNES: There is no list.
DUVALL: But I thought?
TAVANNES: We are to unleash the wolves of Paris. None are to be spared.
DUVALL: Even better, my lord.
TAVANNES: Is it? I wonder. And Simon, when you have passed on the order I have a special charge for you.
DUVALL: My lord?
TAVANNES: Henri of Navarre.
DUVALL: I am to have the honour?
TAVANNES: Yes, but not of killing him. You will escort him out of Paris.
DUVALL: But my lord!
TAVANNES: You not hear me? You will be responsible for his safety. You will have to leave tomorrow’s work to others. Now get out.
TAVANNES: At dawn tomorrow this city will weep tears of blood.
To me the performance of Andre Morrell deserves to be far more recognised than it is. It is as good as Mark Eden as Polo or John Ringham as Tlotoxl or Julian Glover as Richard. It is terrific stuff and really elevates the already strong script.
I’m not sure how much of the recon of the woodcut ending is based on what appeared in the actual episode, however what is shown is quite gruesome and harrowing. In the real events, De Coligny was stabbed, thrown from a window into the street and then beheaded, his headless corpse then hung (not even sure how that works form a purely mechanical perspective!), other parts of his body removed and supposedly sent to the Pope. This action was instigated and carried out by the Guise family (Cardinal of Lorraine). Nicholas Muss died with de Coligny, de Teligny died in the Louvre Palace. Lerans apparently escaped, taking refuge with Marguerite de Valois. What was a strike against Hugenot nobility and their entourages spread from Paris to other main French cities and lasted for weeks with many thousands dying. In the days following the massacre in Paris, thousands of bodies were recovered from the Seine and there apparently was a ‘jubilee’ to celebrate the deaths of the hugenots. The catholics didn’t fare much better in years to come, Tavannes and the King were dead within a couple of years, the Guise family were also assassinated and the wars of religion rumbled on.
The are repercussions to events in Paris and in particular the Doctor’s attitude towards Anne, who has done so much to save Steven. The TARDIS scenes with Steven’s fury at the Doctor sound very well done and the Doctor frankly deserves this one. The Doctor still insists he is right:
My dear Steven, history sometimes gives us a terrible shock, and that is because we don’t quite fully understand. Why should we? After all, we’re all too small to realise its final pattern. Therefore, don’t try and judge it from where you stand. I was right to do as I did. Yes, that I firmly believe.
His speech after Steven leaves though is beautiful and I would love to be able to see it.
Even after all this time he cannot understand. I dare not change the course of history. Well, at least I taught him to take some precautions. He did remember to look at the scanner before he opened the doors. Now they’re all gone. All gone. None of them could understand. Not even my little Susan, or Vicki. And as for Barbara and Chatterton. Chesterton. They were all too impatient to get back to their own time. And now, Steven. Perhaps I should go home, back to my own planet. But I can’t. I can’t.
In ‘An Adventure in Space in Time’, it is presented as if Hartnell was losing it at this point, bewildered, stumbling over his lines, now I love that programme so much, but that always seemed to me to be wrong – it sounds like he plays it very well to me. The use of Chatterton instead of Chesterton isn’t a fluff by Hartnell, it is a character note – it is written in the script. The speech itself harks back to the Doctor’s conversation with Barbara in the Aztecs (also referenced in ‘An Adventure’) – ‘You can’t rewrite history, not one line of it’. However, what isn’t clear is how rescuing Anne would have been any different to Katerina – except in that the production team had learned the lesson that writing for a character from history in a science fiction setting is bloody hard work. So, Dodo arrives, that scene is pretty poorly written, it isn’t an auspicious start and to be honest doesn’t get much better for her unfortunately.
So, whilst flawed in places, I love this story. For the sake of Wiles’ on-going battle with Hartnell or alternatively due to the latter’s poor health, the emphasis on the story switches. I can’t quite make up my mind whether this is for good or ill. Steven becomes the hero of the piece and its primary focus as he shifts between Protestant and Catholic camps. The other protagonists get more screen time with the Doctor absent and there are some nicely drawn and played characters. The story slowly builds to the inevitable conclusion and the complexity of the motivations of the protagonists and the ambiguity of the role of the Doctor, even if this feels somewhat fudged at the end, make this an interesting piece. If you don’t like the ambiguity of the dual role, well the Lucarotti novelisation has more incident, the Doctor is at the heart of the story impersonating the abbot and moving events on – it is a much more traditional historical than the version that eventually made it to screen and as such may be more to taste of some. I feel that either approach works, but the appeal of this story to me is its very oddness. With Wiles and Tosh gone, historical stories would never be the same again, replaced by the more typical classic series strand, boy’s own adventures of ‘The Smugglers’ or ‘The Highlanders’, the approach favoured by Gerry Davis. Which are fine in their own way, but provide little to provoke thought.
Death obviously looms large in this one. If ‘Father’s Day’ was the life and death of one man – Pete Tyler and the impact on his family, then this one is death on a huge scale, tens of thousands of people across France, more if you count the wider ‘wars of religion’. It is a tragedy, which represents the vicious effects of religious intolerance in a number of countries during the reformation. It is a story of what happens when a political elite stokes up mob violence for their own ends. And as such is a salutary lesson for the modern world. There is massacre itself and the use of woodcuts to represent this, the discussion on the morality of leaving Anne to what is likely to be her death and finally the apparent ‘Death of Doctor Who’ and the imagery surrounding this. The impending massacre hangs over the whole piece, rather like the volcano in ‘Fires of Pompeii’, there the Doctor decides to help one family, in contrast to his rejection of Anne here. We see death on masse in a number of stories to come – ‘Dalek’, ‘Parting of the Ways’, ‘Last of the Time Lords’ etc. but I struggle to think of another story, possibly ‘The Myth Makers’ another Wiles/Tosh story where this is at the hand of other humans and is a calculated political act. It feels far more real and shocking for all of that.
Who is ‘The Massacre’ actually for?
I asked this question of myself to tie up a conundrum pondered in the introduction piece – as an adult I love ‘The Massacre‘, but I know that as a child I would have been much less enamoured of it. And this time around, I came up with a very simple answer – well me of course! In 1999, when I first listened to the story (on cassette) while travelling to work, I was 31. I don’t have to make allowances for the impact or otherwise on children of the story, I wasn’t a child when I first experienced it in audio form and we don’t have children of our own. I am free to enjoy what I like and express that in whatever way I chose. However, I first heard of the story as a child in 1976, with ‘The Making of Doctor Who’ and along with other historical stories, no more than a paragraph, factual, perfunctory and to the point. Even so, along with some of the other stories with no novelisation, it sort of fascinated me and drove me to find out more about the events covered in the story as I got older. That spark was planted in me as a youngster, by stories that were made before I was born and never repeated, existing only as ghostly outlines in fan articles and plot summaries.
And if you don’t like it? If you think Wiles and Tosh got everything wrong and it isn’t really ‘Doctor Who’. Well, take solace, at least it is 54 years old and older than a good proportion of the people in this forum. It was never repeated in the UK. It is also one of the least visible of stories (and eras for that matter) – a handful of publicity stills, a few photographs of the sets, no telesnaps, no clips, just the soundtrack. If you hate it, well at least it has the good grace to be unobtrusive to the point of near invisibility. Tosh and Wiles also did no lasting ‘damage’ to the show’s history or architecture, once gone Davis and Lloyd completely change tack and establish their own approach very quickly, one which made a much longer lasting mark on the show. The Doctor is rejuvenated by a natural, recurring repeatable process, not by the Toymaker, in a rush to get rid of the ailing and troublesome Hartnell. Conversely, all the eras and stories that I really dislike have the poor form to be highly visible and have a larger, longer lasting impact.
Another point sometimes made, is that it isn’t a proper ‘Doctor Who’ story. The Doctor doesn’t impact on events or drive the story, he is barely involved. I’ve thought about that. My eventual answer was – so what? Why should that matter? The narrative is Man from the future, lost in a time he doesn’t understand, trying to survive. It uses time travel to explore how the past is indeed a foreign country, whilst shining a light on a contemporary issue – religious intolerance and sectarian violence. That sounds like a sci-fi plot to me and a ‘Doctor Who’ one. The Doctor has often had to be circumspect about changing known events, later we have phrases like ‘the web of time’ or ‘fixed points in time’ to cover this. It is part of the earliest DNA of the show – from ‘The Aztecs’ (where changing one persons’ mind is deemed a success) onwards and is still explored today. The ‘absence of the Doctor’, well again it is there from the start of the show for purely practical reasons and was still a feature of the new series, with those ‘Doctor-lite’ episodes, again for practical reasons. It can very much work to the stories advantage though, it raises the stakes and also allows us to explore the world through the eyes of the companions and also focus on the guest cast. If ‘The Massacre’ is different, well I enjoy that difference. There are ‘different’ stories that I don’t enjoy, not that many though, again that is part of innovation. It is down to personal taste isn’t it ultimately?
So, is there a legacy to this story? Well, I would say yes. How many people outside of France – in the UK or Australia or New Zealand or Canada or the USA know about the events surrounding the massacre? Very few I would say. How many of them are ‘Doctor Who’ fans – quite a few I would suspect, those who aren’t connoisseurs of French film or Kit Marlow! Have many of them have delved a bit into the history of the events in this story – well, probably not that many, but a few at least. To me, the intellectual fearlessness of some stories, particularly the original run, but it is something that still carries on today, is something to be proud of. There are monsters and villains and spaceships and explosions, but the show is more than that isn’t it?
It has an ability to inspire people, particularly children and young adults to stretch themselves intellectually into areas that they might never have ventured and difficult, complex moral dilemmas, viewed from multiples viewpoints. To my mind, that is one of its real delights and something that harks right back to the series conception by Sydney Newman. The science teacher and the history teacher travelling in space and time. The idea is Reithian in concept, it is very BBC or at least the best of the BBC, the bit I would want to celebrate and protect. It might be an entire story like ‘The Aztecs’ or ‘The Massacre’ or just a cameo or line or a tall story referencing a scientist or author or philosopher or poet. ‘Doctor Who’ makes us intellectually curious. On taking on the role Christopher Eccleston said that he strongly believed if you give people ‘good stuff’ on TV as youngsters, that they will demand it as they get older. ‘Doctor Who’ at its best does that.
So, it might not suit everyone, few stories do. Those of us that it does are almost evangelical about it, so it does something right – even if it is for a limited audience. It has also inspired some of the stories I love most. Not especially on TV, although you could read the ending of ‘Fires of Pompeii’ as a reaction to the Doctor’s rejection of Anne here. Rather, in the audio format (particularly the BF Companion Chronicles) and in a handful of the books. In one of my other threads I reviewed a run of historical stories for Big Finish. Many of these chose largely obscure areas of history, at least from a UK perspective – the council of Nicaea or Vlad the Impaler for example and these are similarly used these to explore common themes – religious intolerance or the political use of mob-violence. But also, the personal – via the relationships of the companions to their history and the Doctor’s attitude to changing world events. For example ‘The Glorious Revolution’ we have Jamie dealing with his near past and the events that shaped his world and lead to Culloden. Or Hex delving into his family history in Ireland with the massacres of Wexford or Drogheda in ‘The Settling’ or similarly Evelyn in ‘The Marian Conspiracy’. Like ‘The Massacre’, they deal with complicated, difficult historical figures like Vlad or Oliver Cromwell or Mary and extreme, violent, complex events with no easy answers, where survival is sometimes the best you can hope for.
One of the things that I have welcomed in series 11 and 12 (see I can be balanced) is a renewed interest in history – and sometimes a similar approach, particularly with something like ‘The Demons of the Punjab’ and Yazz’s own family history. Who knows, maybe, just as ‘The Massacre’ or ‘The Aztec’s or ‘Marco Polo’ inspired my own development, younger minds might absorb those more recent stories and ‘Doctor Who’ might make the world a little cleverer place, not through simple messages, but through complexity and inspiring people to ask the right questions. A sense of intellectual curiosity, is a mighty fine thing to inspire, isn’t it?
And well here I am writing about it 54 years later. Donald Tosh and John Lucarotti knew a thing or two after all.
A Journal of Impossible Things 