Serial P, in four parts:
- The Lion - 3/27/65, 10.5m viewers
- The Knight of Jaffa - 4/3/65, 8.5m
- The Wheel of Fortune - 4/10/65, 9.0m
- The Warlords - 4/17/65, 9.5m
Sound Bytes:
"Despite a dose of misogyny (with torture and beatings on screen), the script manages to avoid racism, presenting Arabic culture with integrity." - review from The Discontinuity Guide by Cornell, Day and Topping (MonkeyBrain Books, 2004)
"It was the best Doctor Who script I ever worked on. Beautifully written, meticulously researched, and I don't remember having to alter a line." - Douglas Camfield, director, quoted in Doctor Who: The Sixties by Howe, Stammers and Walker (Virgin, 1994)
"[The Crusade's] story of captures, rescues and intrigues lacks the suspense of The Aztecs, the humor of The Romans and even the complexity of The Reign of Terror. As an episode of Doctor Who, it is distinguished mainly by the fact that it features...notable guest stars." - John Kenneth Muir, A Critical History of Doctor Who on Television (McFarland & Company, 1999)
Comments:
To my way of thinking, Doctor Who had three consistently great writers -- John Lucarotti, Robert Holmes and David Whitaker. Lucarotti was the go-to man for cerebral historical adventures, while Holmes provided horror and dark comedy. Whitaker was perhaps the most mainstream of the three; his episodes varied in style, but always featured strong characters and exciting (if sometimes unbelievable) plots.
Prior to The Crusade, Whitaker had written only a couple of modest, functional two-part stories, though of course he edited plenty of others. With this serial, he finally reached his full potential as a solo writer, crafting a script that's dangerously close to perfect.
A cynic might argue that The Crusade is not actually about anything. The Doctor and his companions arrive in the Holy Land, get into trouble, extricate themselves from said trouble, and then escape. As Muir suggests in the review cited above, the story doesn't necessarily have a "point" like The Aztecs does.
It's tough to muster a proper defense against Muir's criticisms, because he's sort of right. However, I maintain that The Crusade doesn't need a proper plot or some kind of agenda, simply because Whitaker has filled it with so many classic scenes. Who needs a sophisticated storyline when you've got great drama instead?
For instance, there's the subplot involving Haroun, a poor local man who helps Barbara to escape from the villainous Emir El Akir. Haroun hides Barbara in his house, and explains to her that El Akir murdered his wife and kidnapped his eldest daughter. In one of Doctor Who's bleakest scenes, he gives Barbara a dagger, instructing her to kill herself and his young daughter Safiya in the event that El Akir's guards break into the house. The alternative to suicide, he explains, is a life of shame and degradation in El Akir's harem.
Such powerful scenes are the exclusive territory of Doctor Who's historical adventures. You simply can't get realism like that in stories which take place on some orbital space station or alien quarry-planet. I'm sorry if that statement sounds a little elitist, but the average Doctor Who fan is so arrogantly dismissive of the "historicals" that I think a little arrogance in their defense is justified. It was an incalculably stupid mistake for future production teams to kill off the historical format; sure, it had limitations, but it also inspired many of Doctor Who's best episodes.
Getting back to The Crusade itself, I want to highlight another good subplot, involving intrigue at King Richard's court. Richard is eager to end his war with Saladin, and to hasten the peace process he decides to marry off his sister Joanna to Saladin's brother, Saphadin. Joanna finds out about this plan and understandably flies into a rage. The ensuing argument between Richard and Joanna is so good -- just so beautifully written and emotionally performed by the actors -- that I actually find it hard to believe that it comes from Doctor Who. I mean, I love this show and everything, but it doesn't usually reach great dramatic heights, does it?
On the negative side, I'll grant you that some of Whitaker's "medieval" dialogue sounds stilted when it comes from the guest actors who play minor characters. But thankfully, the major parts in The Crusade are taken by some of the best guest stars in Doctor Who's history. Julian Glover is fantastic as the temperamental Richard, and Jean Marsh makes a forceful Joanna. But by a narrow margin, I think that Bernard Kay gives the best performance as Saladin, who comes across as far more eloquent and cunning than Richard.
The regular cast are good, too, though Maureen O'Brien has very little to do as Vicki. Hartnell seems to be in his element; in my view, he could obviously relate to the historical stories more easily than the science fiction ones. There's no technical dialogue here to trip him up, so he gives one of his best and "cleanest" performances.
Unfortunately, The Crusade is surrounded by many mediocre serials, so it really stands out in Doctor Who's uneven and often tacky second season. For me, it perfectly represents what the best of the Hartnell era is all about -- history, drama and highfalutin dialogue. Naturally, it's half-lost.
Grade: A