by Allan Fish
(UK 1976 42m) DVD2
Hello, below there
p Rosemary Hill d Lawrence Gordon Clark w Andrew Davies story Charles Dickens ph David Whitson ed Peter Evans m Stephen Deutsch
Denholm Elliott (the signalman), Bernard Lloyd (the traveller), Reginald Jessup (engine driver), Carina Wyeth,
It was in Cardiffin 1869, if memory serves, when Christopher Eccleston’s 9th Timelord hailed a coach only to find that its passenger was one Charles Dickens, esq. Amid the usual pleasantries, The Doctor admits to being a huge fan, that he’s read ‘em all, paying special attention when observing “what was that ghost one?” “’A Christmas Carol’” nodded Simon Callow’s Dickens, only to be told “no, the one with the trains…’The Signalman’. The best short story ever written.” Sadly I remember from my eager reading of Dickens’ works in the old Penguin classics series that only his Christmas Ghost Tales were included; a pity, for when I eventually did get to read it, I found myself concurring with the Timelord.
The Signalman tells of a lonely eponymous worker for the Great Western Railway who looks after a signal box on a desolate stretch of track near a tunnel. One day he is startled when a traveller calls to him from above with the fateful words “hello, below there!” He’s at first petrified by the stranger, slowly engaging him in conversation, but holds back from telling him what’s perturbing him until their next meeting, which is arranged for 11pm the following night. Then the signalman takes the stranger up to his signal box home again and tells him of how he saw a visitation and then, but a few hours later, a terrible accident occurred in the very tunnel yards from his box when the engine driver seemingly ignores his waving of the red flag and the red danger light on the approach to the tunnel. The stranger tries to comfort him by saying it’s merely a coincidence, but then the signalman tells of how again, several months later, another incident took place where a bride fell from a train directly outside his signal box, once again following the visitation. Taking his leave for the night, the stranger once again agrees to come and see him the following day…
Looking at the credits today, the name of Andrew Davies, the small screen’s premier literature adaptor of the last 20 years, leaps out at you, and it’s a typically perfect, understated adaptation (moved forward a few decades to around the 1890s – note the signalman whistling ‘Tit-willow’, written by Gilbert & Sullivan in 1884) perfectly in keeping with the direction of the ‘Ghost Story for Christmas’ regular Lawrence Gordon Clark. Both central performances are flawless, with Bernard Lloyd effortlessly capturing the sense of withering scepticism and eventual horror, like Mr Lockwood stranded on the Yorkshire Moors and being regaled of spooky tales by Nellie Dean. And then there’s Denholm Elliott, an actor beloved by many, but despite a score of more famous, better known credits, I sincerely doubt he ever gave so absolutely right a performance. The look of utter terror on his face when the stranger calls down to him from above, responding to his calls only with physical gestures, standing perfectly still like a ghost himself, as if aware of his own doom, or the sense of impatience when the stranger tries to rationalise the events he’s relating, with his repeated cries of “I’m not finished”, as chilling as the sound of the wind and the “wild harp it makes of the telegraph wires.” When the stranger says, on first acquaintance, “you look at me as though you had some dread of me”, that’s exactly how he looks.
With the terrifying ending, the story literally comes full circle, as if time itself was in a state of flux, which rather brings us back to that encounter dreamt by Russell T.Davies in Cardiff. For Davies perhaps knew that the Dickens who wrote The Signalman would take the events of ‘ The Unquiet Dead’ in his stride, just as the Timelord would recognise in The Signalman the sense of premonition, not to mention the sound of a bell and a red light spelling danger. It’s a story to set the Cloister Bell in the TARDIS sounding the alarm. Just remember, whatever you do, “don’t call out!”
“Looking at the credits today, the name of Andrew Davies, the small screen’s premier literature adaptor of the last 20 years, leaps out at you…..”
Amen to that!
As a lifelong Dickens obsessive, I would agree that this is one of his greatest short stories. He narrowly escaped death in a train crash at Staplehurst five years before he wrote this tale and is thought to have based the crash in the story on his own experience, which is possibly one reason for its amazing intensity, even by his own standards.
Must also agree that this adaptation does the story justice, with a great script by Davies and performance by Denholm Elliott in particular. I don’t remember the episode of Doctor Who you cite here very well, but sounds as if it’s about time I gave it a second look.
This is a classic segment from the finest horror show ever done on tv. The short tale maybe one Dickens finest but to cite as the best ever written would be a dim statement, even if it just referred to the horror genre or even that century….. Of ALL time, it is breathtakingingly arrogant in it’s ignorance. Mr Davies should be ashamed of such drival.
Why Mr Davies?
I mean the Who writer, not the adaptor,, who probably hasn’t read LeFanu, M.R. James, Henry James, Algernon Blackwood, Shirley Jackson, Lovecraft, Poe, Bloch, Richard Matheson, Robert Howard, ect, ect….which only touches upon the smallest tip of supernatural fiction, let alone fantasy or sf or the mainstream genres, and greats such as Hemingway. It’s like someone coming here and stating ‘Star wars -best film ever’! I’d scoff because it’s a childish and immature statement, not quaified by context. It is one of the best stories of it’s year and decade, but of all time, of all genres! No, it’s too dim for a 800 year old Time Lord to utter nonsense unless he is written by the witless Davies.
Still with the modern Who hate and the old Who kiss-up – you’re like the Superintendent of our very own Fun police, Bobby. I liked old Who as much as the next guy, but things have to change. If we had it your way, we’d all be living in the 1960s with The Outer Limits, Quatermass (that which survives), The Twilight Zone, Star Trek and Who (but only some Pertwee and Baker). For all the dire state of modern TV, you’re taking a pot shot at the wrong target.
Well, I did give the new Who a mighty long try watching the first episode, numerous ones after, including the ones you recommended. It’s just so infantile and childish, lots of story arcs that lead nowhere, emoting for a generation of wussies to cry over, plastic acting, sticking Daleks against cybermen, as if some kid was playing with toys. I hear now, the Doc got some romantic feelings or so for his companion. Perhaps I hate it because it’s not Science Fiction but the blandest of sci-fi, akin to comparing the original pilot ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before’ to the new, retooled Trek Franchise – squarely talking down the audience. Or because it sensitivities, it’s DNA come from mildly amusing soap-opera antics of ‘Buffy – The Vampire Slayer’,
I don’t think we’d be living in the ’60s by regular repeats (on the main channels) of those ’60s/’50s classics and even ’70s/’80s ones. After all, I wasn’t born when they came along and it was through repeats that I saw them. I also believe that it would be lovely idea to have classic black and white and foreign film slots – even in the dead of night – for those.
Just because the new Who is new, doesn’t in anyway make it worthwhile. That line you cited is an example of an immature writer putting idiotic words into a supposedly 900 year plus character. It’s something my 5 year old nephew might say, ‘What’s the best’, ‘Who’s the strongest’, yada, yada yah.
If the new Who can come within 1% of the original Who’s ‘The Talons of Weng-Chiang’ it would be a miracle that I would applaud.
But it can’t. It’s like saying if Tennessee Williams came anywhere near Shakespeare I would applaud. The way of writing in the 1960s has become largely obselete. It was good then, but it is old-fashioned. I agree new Who has its problems, but then it has to have at least half its output tailored towards children as it is a kids’ show at the end of the day. It’s just that in the old days they let plots take weeks and weeks to unfold in 20 plus minutes instalments. Nowadays plots do move quicker and for a different audience. It doesn’t suit traditionalists like you or Sam as you grew up in that era and compare everything to the same. But it has more intelligence at its best than most, certainly more than the Star Trek reboot which Sam nonetheless loved.
Those who can’t see the greatness in the best episodes – Blink, The Doctor’s Wife, even this year’s opening two parter, are just defeating themselves before they start. Even the best of Who from the old days date today. I have numerous friends who while great fans of the old series, agree it could never come back like that and feel the best of nu-Who more than matches it.
As for the comment on The Signalman, I agree it’s not quite the best ghost story ever written, but it’s up there. And if it makes any kid watching go back and read it, then great. The use of the quote in the first [aragraph was to entice those who remembert that scene to think, “hey this might be good.” The idea’s to educate, not patronise and tut tut at every statem,ent you don’t agree with.
PS: I think think ‘Batman – The Animated Series’ and ‘Battlestar Galatica’ are way to do reboots. Pure quality.
Again that’s only an opinion, Bobby. And most of the friends I spoke of who knew both Whos are massive fans of Galactica, too. But that doesn’t stop them being fans of new Who. Galactica is not made for kids, it can do what it wants. Who has to cater for kids, so we get the fun but junk episodes for then, the more complex, quick thinking puzzles setting up strands months and even series in advance for adults.
Allan you make some good points.
The Shakespeare linage is faulty, like comparing every movie to ‘Kane’ or every gangster film to ‘The Godfather’. each film and show must stand on it’s own, though comparisons must be allowed for shows trading in on anothers reputation.
You seem to think that I’m wallowing in some nostalgiafest by comparing the new who to the old.
When you talk about old Who, you are
talking about a show with 26 years of
seasons, so yes there was alot of piffle in between. The show would forgettable except for those steeped in their childhoods. Except for the first three seasons of Tom Baker, which led to the creation of the Appreciation Society, it’s broadcast in America, SF writers extolling it virtures in print and in intros to the episodes. It was always a family show,played like a drama. In those three seasons, it became adult horror. It’s the way that ‘The Avengers’ was only really special for the two seasons where Diana Rigg came on board. Everything before was a build up to it and everything afterwards, a slow lingering death. Those three years represent one of the greatest feats in the history of producership in broadcast history. Unless you are watching and comparing those, you’ll never understand.
I agree the new one is out for the kids market, which puts it the level of Rentaghost
……having a tradition of quality, contrary to the New Wave idiots, allows for sound judgement and comparison. Starting as if it’s year Zero led to the killing fields.
I do wish that someday you’d review those three seasons.
Where I’m coming from is the whole speculative fiction universe, from the great sf, fantasy and horror movies and shows, to the literature, from the short fiction of the 17th to the pulp tradition of the ’50s, from Wells to Dick, from Bester to Kubrick. Those three years rest comfotably there with the Quatermass Pits and Clarke’s black oblisk.
Unfortunately,
The problem you’ll have is that amongst the great episodes for adults and sci-fi fanatics, they have to have those for the kids to get the viewers that justify its existence. I think perhaps I’ll have to do an episode by episode countdown of new Wo episodes. As for the old, I’d love to get some of them as I have seen many of those you talk about, but it’s cost. There’s so much of old Who, being a completist, I’d have to get the lot.
OK, Bobby, have placed full episode ratings for Nu Who here…seemed more appropriate…
http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/the-rebirth-of-doctor-who/#comment-51085
I saw this recently, a chilling ghost/terrifying story that was good enough for a half hour special, but it needed something else for it to be completely creepy as it set out to be, obviously the ending is chilling and maybe a bit unsettling, something that was lacking on the rest of the short.
I still think that is a good piece of supernatural horror made for TV, one of the best out there, but this can’t compete with other chilling films and stories of the history of horror. **** for me.