The Crusade

“But, Joanna ? You defy me with the Pope !”

Le défi de Joanna au patriarcat médiéval, ou l’histoire de gens comme Haroun, font vivre tout un monde complexe et fascinant et en plus Whitaker a un vrai sens de la caractérisation et du drame.

Mais le problème c’est aussi qu’il est raciste. 

Il raconte alors une guerre atroce, et l’histoire de peuples qui souffrent et de dirigeants blasés. Il raconte aussi des amours brisés ou impossibles.

Mais le récit nuancé et touchant qu’il tente est carrément limité par ses clichés et ses monstres humains et il en devient sacrément indigent ..

I'm not particular a pure historicals fan, so that does colour my judgement somewhat. Still, though, The Crusades was pretty good! The Doctor has become less of a moral paragon briefly, Vicki gets some time to not just be Susan The Second, and I did enjoy how floridily everyone spoke

There is, of course, the racism - a white man in brownface plays Saladin and many of the side Muslim characters are stereotypes. Still, though, it's notable that the story puts Saladin in a much more positive light than the Christian Richard

❤️1️⃣ = REMARKABLE!

Thworping through time and space, one adventure at a time!

This review of the partly missing four-part historical The Crusade is based on the existing episodes 1 and 3 as well as the official BBC telesnap reconstructions of episodes 2 and 4. My watch also included Julian Glover’s intro and outro scenes (made for the Loose Cannon release of the story) as well as William Russell’s lovely recaps of episodes 2 and 4.

“DEFYING WITH THE POPE: A COMMENTARY”

The Crusade holds a bit of a soft spot in my heart—it combines an interesting historical era with a tense plot and amazing guest performances, and it is one of the stronger William Hartnell era historicals despite two of its four episodes currently missing.

I rather like the swift beginning, which sees the TARDIS crew getting into trouble immediately and separated from each other, with Barbara and Ian especially going through rough times (again). We bump into King Richard the Lionheart in the opening scene, and there’s even a fight scene with the regulars before five minutes have passed!

This story is most interesting from Barbara's and Ian's points of view. Barbara is hunted by El Akir and almost killed when trying to escape. Also, consider the unusually dark and bleak turn in Part 3, where Barbara is essentially instructed to murder someone and then commit suicide—this was a children's program after all!

Meanwhile, Ian is knighted in his attempts to save Barbs, facing torture by ants along the way (in what is one of my favourite scenes of the Hartnell era, despite taking place in the missing Part 4). This is probably my favourite Ian story, due to how well the character fits a classic knight stereotype. However, Ian's rescue operation doesn't get underway properly until Part 4, and by that time, they have to desperately hurry up to make it in time for the end credits.

The Doctor and Vicki spend the majority of this story in King Richard's court and don't get a whole lot done. Their scenes are used to explore the intricate court politics at the time, as well as arguing about stolen clothes with the fun supporting characters Ben Daheer and the Chamberlain. The warm chemistry between William Hartnell and Maureen O’Brien is absolutely lovely to watch, though, and Hartnell himself is on top form.

The political tension between Richard and Saladin is in full bloom at the beginning of the story, and nothing is resolved or has progressed by the end of it, which means that some might feel a bit cheated by this adventure, considering how dialogue-heavy it otherwise is.

I'd argue that the only bigger problem with the story is the fact that David Whitaker fails to develop any of the plot strands during the first three parts, and so is left in a great hurry to wrap everything up in the final episode before hurling the TARDIS crew into their next adventure. The fact that a lot is going on in Part 4, but we cannot see any of it, makes the ending of the story a bit less effective.

The Crusade finds its strength in the various fight scenes, dangerous situations, and glorious character conversations. The actors put a lot of power and emotion into the colourful Shakespearean dialogue, making it some of the most enjoyable in Classic Who.

Julian Glover remains one of the finest guest actors to appear on the show, both here and in his later (and more well-known and beloved) appearance in City of Death (1979). Glover's King Richard the Lionheart is as commanding as he is just, and Glover plays him with utmost devotion. At the same time, he is very rash and selfish, as the story depicts him as less of a hero than usual.

Another acting legend comes in the shape of Jean Marsh, making her first of three glorious guest appearances on the show as Richard's sister Joanna. She climbs right up to the top as the best actress to appear on the show and will remain there for quite some while (she'd be back in the 12-part epic The Daleks' Master Plan (1965-1966) in the following season).

The fiery argument between King Richard and Joanna at the end of Part 3 remains among my favourite scenes in Doctor Who history: here we get two acting giants passionately shouting at each other, culminating in the classic line "You defy me with the Pope?!!". I’m so happy this episode exists so we can watch this glorious scene in its original form!

And the brilliance of the guest cast doesn't stop there. Bernard Kay returns from The Dalek Invasion of Earth (1964) to play famous Saracen leader Saladin with a treacherous calm and intelligence that makes him instantly memorable (and breaks Oriental stereotypes prevalent at the time). His brother Saphadin is played by the equally brilliant Roger Avon. Another returning actor, Walter Randall (The Aztecs, 1964), becomes the villainous El Akir, calculative and sadistic, and he stands out well despite his similarities with Tegana from Marco Polo (1964).

The costume design and set decoration are impeccable as always, and what we can see from Douglas Camfield's direction is that he brings these characters and the setting to life perfectly.

John Cura’s telesnaps exist for the missing episodes, and the BBC reconstruction uses these, along with the surviving soundtracks, to create what feels like a fairly accurate representation of the two missing episodes. The tense chase sequence at the end of Part 2 is surprisingly well realised through the telesnaps and the onscreen subtitles explaining the unseen action.

Sadly, the use of blackface on the actors playing the Saracen characters, most notably Bernard Kay, means this story hasn't aged very well and should be seen as somewhat problematic nowadays.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:

• Sir John isn’t a believable fake King Richard because he doesn’t have red hair. We wouldn’t know, of course, because we see everything in black and white!
• The Doctor once again justifies his stealing by calling it “borrowing"—what a kleptomaniac he is!
• I love the return of the “characters standing still in the shot while waiting for the credits to roll” cliffhanger ending to Part 1.
• This story was originally going to suggest that King Richard and Joananna had an incestuous relationship, but these references were removed at the behest of William Hartnell and producer Verity Lambert because they felt such themes didn't fit a family series. Oh, but apparent murder and suicide do?
• Tutte Lemkow is known for playing supporting villains in '60s episodes of Doctor Who, but every single one of his performances (Marco Polo, The Crusade, and The Myth Makers) remains missing from the BBC archives.

“I admire bravery and loyalty, sir. You have both of these. Unfortunately, you haven’t any brain at all!”

A story where not much really happens? It’s not exactly bad or terrible, but it’s a thinly structured plot and mostly very forgettable. Another historical that drops us in and doesn’t really explain the context or history fully, instead letting the audience learn as the story progresses. It could work if there was much of interest here.

Probably not helped by two missing episodes with the reconstructions being the only way to watch, but from the first and third episode, it does seem like they had some decent sets and designs for the costumes.

There’s not a lot for our main cast to do, but we do have two very strong performances Jean Marsh and Julian Glover, neither character that interesting, but both performances some of the best we’ve had so far for side characters.

Fairly forgettable, and feels a little too small scale and short on story for four parts. Not bad, but totally forgettable.

The Crusade: 8.3/10 - A very fascinating story. The first two parts were slightly underwhelming and didn’t grip me too much but by the time the second part came around, I was certainly hooked. I loved Ian becoming a knight and the story with Barbara was actually very interesting unlike some other damsel in distress stories. I thought Vicki was another fantastic part of this story and she definitely had a lot of great chemistry with William Hartnell.

I was impressed with how they represented two different faiths in an intelligent way, the Muslim father and daughter are the two best "non-main" characters in the show up until this point.

The Doctor's character is getting very interesting, someone who seems to be a moral saint when it comes to issues of war and violence, but in this story was essentially a thieving trouble maker! "You stupid butcher, can you think of nothing else but killing?"

Sir Ian ‘Knight of Jaffa’ was a great idea, it never ceases to amaze me how good he is in this show, I don't know what's so appealing about his character - maybe it is that voice, the voice of reason. Vicki is finally coming into her own, "who's your friend?" I didn't feel she was Susan mk. 2 in this one, much more room was left for her in the storyline, her disguising herself in masculine clothes was fun.

What an amazing historical I believe in Jean marsh supremacy she was the best supporting role in the story love Vicki going into male drag the music is perfect having Barbara on her own throughout the ep shows how strong she’s become since the cavemen sadly the episode does feature blackface it was bad then bad now and sadly it did pull me out the story however it’s still extremely strong

A mediocre story. We have a dramatic history setting, with several smaller conflicts. But sadly, they lack connection.

The party lands in the 1190s, where a Barbara quickly gets captured. The rest of the group goes looking for the help of king Richard to get her back.

After that the story has a lot of smaller storybeats with different characters. Ian gets knighted, Barbara has to hide a child in a plundered home. The Doctor talks to Richard about a marriage plan and Vicki pretends to be a boy. And these are just some of the events. The story just keeps stacking them on.

And I think that’s the problem. The individual small parts are all fine, but it misses a bigger picture tale. Except for Ian, the rescue of Barbara seems almost forgotten. Instead we become quite aimless. Stuff just happens, and it can be interesting stuff, but why should it keep my full attention? How does it all tie together?

What could’ve helped, is a better explanation of the time period we’re in. Why are these things happening? Who is ‘Richard the Lionheart’? What does history have to say? We even have a character tailor made for this kind of stuff! But she gets shoved aside real quick and no one fills her role. With a better established time period, it would be easier to understand character motivations and plans. It would all connect just that little bit better. We could even know the end result in advance, if that would help! The only thing we get here, is some small hints from the doctor, but it’s so minimal it’s basically a footnote.

And that leads to a lack of foundation. A mismatch between the history knowledge of the writer and the audience. We have the smallest inclination of where we are, but the story acts like we’re supposed to know it all. Since this is still, at the most basic level, a kids show, I consider that a flaw in the storytelling.

It is, however, a story that makes me look back at its writer. This is the 3rd story by David Whittaker. And while I like his character work a lot, he seems to struggle with making a spread out main plot. I look back at his other tales, “The Edge of Destruction” and “The Rescue”, and similar problems prop up: He has a very cluttered and oddly random main story, but with some great character beats. Those beats always show he completely gets these characters.

But even those are mostly absent in this tale. It’s his longest one yet, at four episodes, but there’s really only one good, introspective character moment. It’s between the doctor and Vicki, and she shows separation anxiety from the party, who are her only family. It’s a very nice moment for both. Great as always, but it's 2 minutes in 100 minutes of storytelling. And that's not enough.

This is a story that lacks foundation. A reason to keep you hooked to the separate moments on screen. Historical knowledge could’ve filled that void, but it is just not there. And the main appeal of this writer, character defining moments, are sadly lacking as well. So that leaves the story very fractured and unfocused. It’s not the worst or unsalvageable, but it could have been more.

The Crusade has never been one of my favourite stories. I read the novelisation long ago and found it a little dull. The existing episode three did little to improve my opinions, although I did always enjoy the performances, particularly Jacqueline Hill’s and the scene between Julian Glover and Jean Marsh as Richard and Joanna. When the first episode, The Lion, was discovered I viewed it with trepidation and found that it did little to improve my view of the story.

Rewatching the story for this marathon I have discovered a little more respect for the story – mainly for the performances, if not an enjoyment.

My main issue is the dialogue. It is incredibly florid and ‘Shakespearean’. I am a great fan of Shakespeare but, for me, this style does not fit into Doctor Who very well. It is too stagey and to some extent forced. When the Doctor himself starts using words like ‘methinks’ and Jean Marsh stumbles over lines which, to the modern tongue, are oddly constructed, I have to wonder if it was a good choice. Doctor Who can be many many things, but a Shakespeare play is not one of them – at least not on the basis of this story.

The most engaging part of this story is Barbara’s plotline. Kidnapped by El Akir’s men, managing to escape into the dark streets of Lydda, only to be captured again, we have great scene after great scene – particularly the existing episode three – The Wheel of Fortune – which sees her contemplating the death of a young girl and herself to protect them from El Akir.

Unfortunately, this is punctuated by the Doctor and Vicki’s ineffectual politics in the court of King Richard which mainly boils down to Vicki posing as a boy, the Doctor avoiding arrest for stealing clothes and the Earl of Leicester suspecting them of being spies. This final idea goes nowhere when the Doctor and Vicki simply slip out of the palace and run back to the TARDIS. They are pursued, rather feebly, by the Earl of Leicester. He takes the word of Ian, someone he has never met, and the crew are able to escape.

Indeed, Ian, with William Russell due his holiday episode, is packed off for the majority of the story in search of Barbara, whom he finds and brings back with very little effort on his part. Even his encounter with Ibrahim in the desert seems merely a way to have him do something before reaching Barbara. It certainly has no impact on the plot.

Maureen O’Brien’s Vicki is markedly less of a confident character than she will become by The Time Meddler. She is very much the poor little orphan girl, even having a slightly cloying scene where she worries the Doctor will leave her and whining that the TARDIS is the only home she has now.

The Doctor is fun, and not a little softer than earlier serials of this era, but the whole stolen clothes part sits a little uncomfortably with me.

This story is another example of some bonafide historical characters meeting the Doctor and his friends but here we have a calvacade: King Richard I, Princess Joanna (or rather Joan according to online sources), Saladin and Saphadin (the Western names for the Arabic leaders). Checking online though, it seems that Richard’s knights are all inventions. There are plenty of Williams and even a de Preaux, but none of the names actually given in the story appear in online historical sources as far as I can tell.

The story revolves around real places such as Jaffa, Lydda and Ramla with mention made of Tyre and Genoa. Production restrictions of the time though mean that much of the story could be set anywhere. Ramla is tents and Jaffa is a castle. The only place with a sense of ‘exoticness’ is Lydda with its dark shadowy streets,

The costumes for the story are very good, although I am not sure where the Doctor gets all the clothes for himself, Vicki and Ian as he only seems to steal a couple of garments and one pair of boots from the dodgy market trader, Ben Daheer.  Also, there are some very flamboyant moustaches on show – particularly William de Tornebu and the Chamberlain!

Another make-up aspect that must be mentioned is Bernard Kay ‘blacking up’ to play Saladin. It stands out quite markedly as none of the other ‘Saracens’ are blacked up. Roger Avon (Saphadin) and Walter Randall (El Akir) are not, and many of the smaller roles and extras seem to be played by actors with, at the very least, a darker complexion, if not of a non-White ethnicity. Of course, nowadays, Kay’s casting would never happen and, to be fair, it’s not massively obvious in the production as the make-up is actually quite good, but as a sign of the times this production was made, it is interesting. One wonders if more of the cast would have been made up in this way if they did not look suitably exotic, or if – for the smaller roles – non-White actors/actresses were deliberately sought with only the plum role of Saladin going to the ‘best’ actor regardless of race.

Historical episodes are difficult to pull off with the fact the TARDIS crew cannot be seen to interfere too much in established events. I think this is worse when real historical characters are included as stories such as The Aztecs seem to suffer less from the problem.

The Crusade seems to take this to the extreme with the crew having hardly any impact on the events around them, aside from saving King Richard in the first few scenes (which his men could probably have managed without them).

The regulars watch as events unfold around them, particularly the Doctor and Vicki, and for much of the story I felt like the ‘guest’ characters treated them as minor distractions from the bigger events. Their interactions continually seemed cursory.  Also, I feel the story lacks focus. There is no outright villain which most stories, even the other historicals, do have. There is no Tegana or Tlotoxl. The closest we get is El Akir, but this is a character the Doctor and Vicki never meet, Ian only meets briefly (just before he is killed by another supporting character) and doesn’t even spend a huge amount of time in the company of Barbara whom he has kidnapped early in the story.

The separate stories of the regulars don’t really end satisfactorily either. The Doctor and Vicki and Ian and Barbara arrive back at the TARDIS with little idea of the troubles of the other couple. This is something played to comic effect in The Romans, but here just means the story ends on something of a damp squib.

All in all, it’s a story which doesn’t gel for me. There are some lovely set pieces, excellent performances and the regulars, on the whole, are superb as always but, as a sum of its parts, it just doesn’t satisfy.