User Reviews

I am a big fan of the early historical episodes, The Reign of Terror, is a very good offering, not quite in the same league as The Massacre, but it's a good watch.

Part 1 sees The Doctor, still angry with Ian, determined to boot him out of the TARDIS, trouble is, The Doctor has got the time wrong, and it's the middle of the French Revolution.

Some really good ideas, including the concept of the safe house, some lovely costumes. It's a bit paint by numbers in terms of mystery, but the conclusion with The Doctor trapped in a burning house is great. 7/10

"The Reign of Terror" was the eighth and final serial in the first season of "Doctor Who". Episodes 4 and 5 (out of six) are missing and have been reconstructed using off-air sound recordings and specially commissioned animations. The Doctor, his granddaughter Susan and her teachers Ian and Barbara, arrive by TARDIS just outside Paris in the year 1794. To be precise, they arrive in the days leading up to the "Thermidorian Reaction", the overthrow of Robespierre and his supporters on 27th July 1794. I won't set out the plot in full, as it is a complicated one, but it involves the Doctor and his companions becoming involved with British spies and with an anti-Robespierre counter-revolutionary faction. Ian, Barbara and Susan are arrested and held in the notorious Conciergerie Prison under sentence of death. The Doctor must use all his cunning to free them.

When I reviewed the preceding serial "The Sensorites", I pointed out that it marked something of a softening in the First Doctor's character. In some of the earlier episodes he had come across as a pompous, grumpy old curmudgeon, cowardly and selfish with an inflated opinion of himself and few moral principles. Ian and Barbara seemed to be the real heroes of the programme. In both "The Sensorites" and "The Reign of Terror", however, although the Doctor is occasionally grumpy and frequently pompous or patronising, especially to his companions, he also shows himself capable of courage, selflessness and resourcefulness. Here he disguises himself as a senior official of the revolutionary regime in order to penetrate the Conciergerie and find out where his companions are being hidden.

Like a number of other serials from that season ("An Unearthly Child", "Marco Polo" and "The Aztecs"), "The Reign of Terror" was set during the Earth's past rather than in outer space. In its early days the programme was regarded as having a mission to educate children about both science and history. Despite this, "The Reign of Terror" is not always historically accurate. The main inaccuracy is that scriptwriter Dennis Spooner seems to have confused the events of the Thermidorian Reaction with those of the Coup of 18th Brumaire (9th November 1799) when Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew the Directory and made himself de facto dictator of France. We therefore see Napoleon conspiring with Paul Barras against Robespierre. Barras was indeed one of the leading lights of the Reaction, but Napoleon took no part in it. (Indeed, at the time of these events he went into hiding, fearing that he would be targeted as a protege of Robespierre's brother Augustin).

My other criticism of the series is that it moves too slowly; the story did not really need to be spread over six episodes and a shorter running-time might have been more appropriate. A similar criticism could be made of other series from the first season, especially "The Sensorites" (also six episodes) and "The Daleks" (seven). "The Aztecs", by comparison, at only four episodes is much tauter and tells its story in a more economical fashion.

Overall, however, I found this an enjoyable series. The animated sequences are well enough done that they did not affect my enjoyment of the story. Yes, the historical details are not always accurate and one could complain that the plot, with its spies, its clandestine meetings, its dungeons, its cruel and implacable revolutionaries and its innocent victims rescued from tumbrils on their way to the guillotine, owes too much to "A Tale of Two Cities" and "The Scarlet Pimpernel". And yet all these ingredients, cliches though they may be, add up to a strangely satisfying historical adventure. The series may have aimed to educate children about history, but classroom lectures are not the only method of educating them. 7/10

A goof. Apart from the historical error I mention above, a young boy tells the Doctor and his companions that they are "a few kilometres" from Paris. The metric system did not come into use in France until 1799, five years after the events of this story, and even then it was not widely accepted by the common people.

A lot of Doctor Who fans love the early purely historical tales. I think they were often good but rarely achieved excellence because once you're familiar with the historical events themselves the story starts getting a little predictable and it becomes a case of 'how are they going to fit the Doctor into this story?' almost every time. "The Reign of Terror" is a solid, entertaining historical story but it never achieves excellence because for the most part the plot and characters are predictable and one-dimensional, and very ordinary.

What is clearly worth discussing about "The Reign of Terror" is the visuals. It really is a shame that 60's Who was produced in black and white because based on set photos etc. it is clear that many of the costumes and sets for these historical stories were wonderfully convincing and great to look at, perhaps more so than with 70's and 80's Who. There is a real sense of authenticity to "The Reign of Terror", which is hugely impressive for a serial surely shot in BBC studios.

At one point, of course, "The Reign of Terror" was completely lost, but since then all the episodes except the fourth and fifth have been found. The widely-available reconstructions of those episodes are reasonably good considering what there was to work with (not much). Still, they are watchable and bridge the gap nicely between episode three and episode six.

"The Reign of Terror" was the debut story for Dennis Spooner and it's a nice, strong first script from him. Well-drawn if predictable and perfunctory characters, solid dialogue, some decent attempts at humor. In general it's a good, solid script that never rises to excellence.

The direction is reasonably good here as is the acting, and the lush costumes and sets help the story come alive but it isn't quite among the better historical stories.

Episode 1: 8/10, Episode 2: 7/10, Episode 3: 6/10, Episode 4: 7/10, Episode 5: 7/10, Episode 6: 7/10.

Average: 7/10

__________________________

Reflections on Season 1: Season 1 of "Doctor Who" is actually fairly good, despite my indifference towards "The Aztecs" and "The Keys of Marinus" and dislike of "The Sensorites". "Marco Polo" is a wonderful adventure, "An Unearthly Child" quite involving, but mostly worth seeing for the first episode, "The Daleks" very good, and "The Edge of Destruction" extremely underrated.

The average rating for the stories in season 1 is 7.073/10.

Review for all 6 episodes:

This pure historical adventure beginning with A Land of Fear and continuing for 6 episodes takes place in the French Revolution. It is an excellent and thoroughly entertaining story from writer Dennis Spooner.

It features William Hartnell in a wonderful double role showing his ability to act very differently from his normal performance as The Doctor. The story revolves around the characters being caught up with the revolution and shows the way Dennis Spooner would continue to write in the series mixing very serious drama with humour. This is one of his very best efforts as sometimes later on he got that balance wrong in my opinion.

There are scenes, mostly in episodes 1 and 2, that are not so great and Carole Ann Ford as Susan is annoying at times. She is a sad shadow of the promise of the character in 'An Unearthly Child', the writers did let the character generally diminish in strength after the initial promise. Apart from these minor flaws, though, the vast majority of this story is real top quality and it gets better as it goes along.

This finishes the first season in the same superbly high standard that it began. The writing of most of the first series is brilliant and the main credit for the series must go to script editor David Whitaker and producer Verity Lambert. The scripts and story here maintain that brilliance. William Hartnell (The Doctor), William Russell (Ian) and Jacqueline Hill (Barbara) also maintain their fantastic characterisation and acting quality. The Doctor himself is particularly tremendous in this story.

The final 2 episodes are particularly strong and thankfully there are good animated reconstructions available with the original audio to preserve episodes 4 and 5 for which the videos were sadly wiped.

Overall very high standard story.

My Ratings: Episodes 1 & 2 - 8.5/10, Episodes 3 & 4 - 9/10, Episodes 5 & 6 - 9.5/10.

Overall average rating - 9/10

Average Rating for Season 1 - 8.46/10.

I watched this to examine a range of dramatic representations of the French Revolution. It's disappointing to reflect that it was made the same year as the magnificent and moving dramatisation of some of the same events in 'La Terreur et la Vertu', which (to my knowledge) has never been broadcast here in Britain.

The 'Doctor Who' historical adventures were originally intended to be part of the series' 'educational' remit, but 'The Reign of Terror' is perhaps only educational if you are reviewing the literary influence of Emma Orczy on English-language depictions of the Revolution. This adventure is essentially a time-travel riff on 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', with its focus on smuggling people out of Paris, British spies, and the apparent ease with which prisoners can be extricated from the Conciergerie or snatched from execution carts.

Historically, it peddles the post-Thermidore 'légende noire' as popularised in Victorian and Edwardian English-language popular fiction: an interpretation of events and characters popularised by Carlyle and reiterated by novelists. Unfortunately, this was taken up as a kind of substitute historical canon and is the basis for what most people here *think* they know about the Revolution and its protagonists. It might be too much to hope that a popular television series would try to challenge that.

The fact that episode 4 is called 'The Tyrant of France' grated on my nerves even before I started to watch: it is, simply, factually wrong. (Had it been used ironically, the unfolding political drama could have been more effective and poignant.) No-one even pronounces Robespierre correctly in terms of where the 3 syllables are (It's "Rob-ess-pyer", not "Robes-pi-erre" - which is why some engravings of the time misspelled it by putting an 'r' between the 'e' and 's'): Barbara is as bad as my old history teacher at school for that! Napoléon's role is also depicted misleadingly: in reality, he had been helped in his career by Augustin, Maximilien's brother, and would have been in danger had he been near Paris.

I can only bear this if I rationalise it in Whoniverse terms as taking place in some kind of Thermidorian AU or simulation. The fact that a key character uses the name 'Le Maître' does allow for some retconning of the narrative in Whovian terms, which might explain some of the historical strangeness. I recommend 'La Terreur et la Vertu' as a corrective (sadly, there isn't a subtitled version available).