Out of the Pure Historical this Season, this one is easily the weakest. I am very big on any kind of pure Historicals in Who and that Period offered such a great setting, sadly I think it does lack a bit and tended to go on for a bit too long than it probably should have. Not to say it’s a bad one, I very much enjoy the Doctor finding his Way to Ian and Barbara and all the mischief he gets on with at that journey. I also very much enjoy the beginning and the finale of the Story, but yeah overall while I enjoy it I think it’s far away from the highs we had in this Season.

Still a pretty solid way to end the first Season of the Show.

“Well, I can assure you Barbara, Napoleon would have never believed you”

La Révolution n’est plus qu’un tas de cachots sordides, de paysans stupides et de têtes coupées, et la pauvre Susan n’a plus que ses cris dans ce qui est sans doute sa pire histoire. Mais le pire c’est que l’épisode gâche un sujet qui, autrement, aurait pu être vraiment bien.  

Des mois et des mois de bataille politique, de luttes émancipatrices, de renaissance intellectuelle, sont sacrifiés par Spooner, qui préfère faire de son épisode une sorte de monument de cynisme. 

Et peut-être que son Docteur filoute, et apporte à toute l’histoire (et malgré elle) tout son charme, les compagnes n’ont jamais été aussi idiotes, et l’Histoire vide de vie et de sens.   

I think I'm just not a fan of pure historicals, but also Susan didn't get much (or, anything) to do in this one, the plot was a lot of travelling between locations, and all the side characters looked the same. At least the Doctor got a fancy outfit

I'm a sucker for a Doctor Who pure historical - especially in the shows first season. Its remarkable that the three stories here take up very different approaches to the same problem of needing the TARDIS to be inaccessible - Marco Polo has the crew all together throughout with Marco holding the key hostage to sell to Kublai Khan, the Aztecs has the TARDIS locking in Yataxa's tomb where the crew cannot access easily, and where Barbara ends up in a key position; and here where the French Revolution results in Ian, Barbara and Susan being arrested and the Doctor needing to recover them.

The story is simple - the Doctor is keen to throw Ian and Barbara off the TARDIS because of a perceived slight at the end of the Sensorites (one of the weaker cliffhangers between stories); the TARDIS lands in revolutionary France mid-Reign of Terror and the crew blunders into a safe house of a group of people opposed of Robespierre right as it is discovered. Ian, Barbara and Susan are arrested and sent to Paris and the guillotine; while the Doctor (almost burned to death) ends up taking on the role of a provincial official to get them back to safety. I think this is a story where interest in the period is required to fully appreciate: especially the terrifying nature of revolutionary France. The side story is also interesting; with an attempt to try and discover the identity of James Sterling, an English spy, who ends up being one of the key officials in the prison in charge of executions.

The set designs in this are good considering the budget of the show; I like the Direction (even though from all reports it was one of the more chaotic production jobs, with the Director having a breakdown mid-show) and the aminiation of the lost episodes is very functional for what it is - although clearly produced on a budget.

Negatives might include the animation point above (which also has some of the poorer audio quality of a Doctor Who story - and one where I hope recent discoveries of fan recordings may help them improve for the Season 1 Collection Blu-Ray when that comes); I think they probably could have achieved everything in four episodes and also the fact that again Susan is really not used at all well here - she spends basically the entire story locked up and when she isn't she's sick (which results in her and Barbara being re-locked up again).

The Reign of Terror: 4/10 - Well I just finished Reign of Terror. I didn’t particularly enjoy it. The best part was probably the twist with the bad guy turning out to be the good guy. I thought that was interesting. I also liked the costuming and Hartnell rocked his outfit. The rest of the story was very boring to be honest. I didn’t particularly care for any of the characters and the animation probably didn’t help with my opinion of it. 

📝7/10

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

"The Reign of Terror: History, Intrigue, and Filler"

The Reign of Terror opens with a powerful sense of closure as the Doctor mistakenly believes he’s returned Ian and Barbara to 1960s London. However, the landing on the right planet but wrong time sets the stage for a tale filled with mystery, historical intrigue, and a touch of comedy. The slow reveal of Revolutionary France is handled beautifully, with strong focus on the warm camaraderie of the TARDIS team and their gradual entanglement in the political upheavals of the era.

The atmosphere of the opening episodes is rich, with detailed costumes, sets, and music immersing viewers in the time period. The cliffhanger to Part 1, with the Doctor trapped in a burning house, is thrilling and sets the stakes high. Hartnell’s performance shines throughout, and his comedic escape from forced labor with the road workers is one of the serial's highlights. His impersonation of a French general to save his friends is particularly delightful, showcasing his flair for charm and authority.

The supporting cast brings a mix of menace and levity. Jack Cunningham's bumbling jailer provides comic relief, while James Cairncross’s Lemaitre exudes a commanding presence that keeps the audience guessing. The introduction of Jean and Jules adds depth to the story, though their characters can feel indistinct. Keith Anderson's portrayal of Robespierre as a determined but vile leader is memorable, though he doesn't quite rise to true villain status.

The serial makes excellent use of historical themes, such as Barbara and Ian's debate over the Revolution’s violence and its role in shaping the future. These moments ground the story in meaningful reflection, adding layers beyond its adventurous surface.

That said, The Reign of Terror is not without its flaws. Episodes 4 and 5, presented here via 2013’s crude animated reconstructions, drag the pace with repetitive exposition and filler scenes. The narrative progression feels stagnant at times, with some subplots, like Susan’s illness and the Doctor's continued ruse, struggling to hold interest. The City Administrator’s “big twist” identity reveal as James Sterling is a nice touch but lacks impact due to the slow buildup.

Despite some clunky cliffhangers and occasional lapses in logic, the serial wraps up on a satisfying note, tying up loose ends and marking the fall of Robespierre. The cameo from Napoleon is a fun touch that hints at the larger historical forces at play.

Ultimately, The Reign of Terror is an uneven but enjoyable mix of high-stakes drama, historical exploration, and lighthearted charm, elevated by Hartnell’s performance and its rich production design. While it struggles with pacing in the middle, the story’s atmosphere and character moments make it a solid entry in Doctor Who's first season.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:

• It’s fascinating that the Doctor considers the French Revolution his favorite period of Earth’s history, given its violence and chaos.
• The brief country road scene marks the first location shooting in Doctor Who, with Brian Proudfoot doubling for Hartnell.
• Edward Brayshaw, who plays Léon here, later appears as the War Chief in The War Games.
• Director Henric Hirsch collapsed from stress during Part 3, leading John Gorrie (The Keys of Marinus) to step in temporarily.

Probably the most interesting historical so far for me as i love the french revolution and feel it was a perfect place for this team.

One thing I’ve learned with the modern series, is that a boring story is worse than a bad story. Because with a bad story, you can still be entertained.

That being said, this story is very boring. One of the major causes for this is that all main characters don’t really interact. Which can work, if they were tested in some way. However, everything mostly comes down to idle dawdling until a conclusion is reached. It feels like pure padding, and has no real redeeming qualities to make up for it.

A great example of this is the picture of Ian that’s shown in the promotional art to the left. William Russell was on break during this story, so missed out on 2, yet he is still large in the picture, because even with the least amount of screen time he’s ever had up till now, there’s just nothing else to fill it with.

It wouldn’t be as bad if there was some background on the events that take place. As happened with Marco Polo, but even that is not really a thing. And I’ll be honest, I don’t know who Robespierre is, but I don’t know if it is up to the story or my general knowledge to make that known.

This leaves the first TV season with its first dud on the last episode. Hopefully future stories take more inspiration from the other stories in this season, instead of this one.

“Our lives are important, at least, to us. But as we see, we learn. Our destiny is in the stars, so let’s go and search for them”

The Reign of Terror is a strange tale.  It seems to fall between two stools as far as the historical stories go.   The historicals seem to fall into two camps – the comedy and the tragedy.  The Mythmakers, The Gunfighters, The Romans and The Time Meddler all go for a strong comedic angle whereas Marco Polo, The Crusade, The Massacre and The Aztecs very much take a serious, and often tragic, approach to the history they portray.  The Reign of Terror seems to be a little of both and, consequently for me, is far less satisfying.  The only other story which steers towards this dichotomy of style is possibly The Highlanders.

The subject matter is similar to The Massacre – a reign of terror in France where people live in fear for their lives.  It is quite merciless in its depiction of the violence of this regime, particularly in the first episode.  Susan and Barbara spend an awful lot of the story in a dark, dingy prison cell.  Susan, also for much of the story, is terribly ill.  The Doctor nearly dies in a burning building.  Ian’s cell mate dies before we really get to meet him.  Leon Colbert turns out to be a traitor and Robespierre is shot, relatively graphically, in the jaw.

In contrast, the jailer of the Concergerie is consistently played as a comedic character.  The Doctor’s encounter with the road crew is deliberately meant to be funny and his prancing around with ostrich feathers protruding from a ridiculous hat lends an odd tone to the second half of the story.

It just seems to me that these comedic elements sit awkwardly within the rest of the story.  Unlike the comedy of The Romans or The Mythmakers where it is the tone of the story and threaded throughout the script, the comedy in The Reign of Terror seems like isolated sketches or comes across as shoehorned into the script to desperately lighten the mood.  The worst offender for this is the roadworkers scene.  It serves no purpose, plotwise and, bearing in mind Barbara, Susan and Ian are all potentially headed for the guillotine, it frustrates the Doctor’s progress to Paris for no readily apparent reason – it doesn’t increase the tension as the Doctor is unaware of the predicament his fellow travellers are in.  The other problem with this vignette is how easily the Doctor gives in to the Overseer.  The Overseer tells him to join the crew and the Doctor says yes.  The Overseer doesn’t threaten him with his gun until the Doctor has agreed and there is no reason the Doctor couldn’t have fudged a reason why he couldn’t present his papers (not least because I don’t understand what authority the Overseer even has).  Seeing as Susan states this is the Doctor’s favourite period of history, I find it odd he isn’t better prepared to outwit the Overseer.

And then, of course, we also have the infamous shovel bashing.  When fans complain that the Doctor is never violent, they seem to wilfully forget all the times he is violent.  However, this occasion does seem a little gratuitous.  The Overseer is completely distracted by the coins and there is reason to believe the Doctor could easily have escaped without bashing him over the head with a shovel (which, bizarrely makes the man snore – I’m sure unconscious people don’t snore).  Certainly it would have seemed less out of place if one of the roadworkers had wielded the weapon.  Of course, for the first season, this isn’t completely out of character for the Doctor.  Only the presence of Ian seems to stop the Doctor braining Za with a rock in An Unearthly Child, so his lack of companions here suggests that, unchecked, the Doctor has few moral qualms about inflicting pain on others.  This is an interesting idea when viewed in the light of Donna’s comments to the Doctor at the end of The Runaway Bride about him needing someone to temper his more extreme actions.

Another strange element of this story are the final episode’s scenes with Napoleon.  Ian and Barbara get to play act as landlord and landlady and spy on a secret meeting between Napoleon and Paul Barras.  Basically, this is just a mini history lesson explaining how Napoleon began his rise to power in the wake of the revolution.  It has no true impact on anything in the story and isn’t even that interesting (although Ian does get to wear a lovely hat).

My other problem with the story was the lack of urgency.  Barbara is the only character who really makes any effort to improve their situation but even she gives in easily to Susan’s pathetic moans and mystery illness.  The Doctor wanders around getting himself in and out of trouble with his gift of the gab and Ian stumbles upon the answers to his mysterious message.  The supporting characters, with the possible exception of Edward Brayshaw’s Colbert, fail to make much impact.  In particular I found James Cairncross’ performance as Lemaitre ever so slightly weird.  Maybe it’s because I was fully aware of his secret identity of James Stirling, but every line, every look seemed to be laden with an odd secretive tone which just seemed to much.  It’s as if the audience is supposed to suspect him despite having no reason to.  Much of the story relies on some huge coincidences: Jules and Jean just happen to accost Ian and bring him back to their hideout where Barbara and Susan are; the Doctor just so happens to bring Lemaitre to the hideout who just so happens to be Stirling who Ian is looking for.

The story also takes a strange, never before seen/never seen since stance on changing history.  Rather than the ‘you can’t change history…not one line’ assertions of The Aztecs, here the Doctor and Susan suggest that you can try to change history, but something will happen to set it back on the ‘right course’ regardless of your efforts – which includes an odd explanation where Susan says that if they wrote a letter explaining to a historical character what would happen in the future, ‘they would lose the letter or just forget about it’ – or words to that effect.  It’s a weird scene thrown in at the very end of the story which seems at odds with the ethos of the programme up to that point, and certainly since then.  This seems to be the preference of Dennis Spooner, the writer, who would go on to become script editor after David Whitaker and develop this story's approach to the course of history in later historicals (particularly with dialogue in The Time Meddler).

In the story, we have the presence of Robespierre and, tangentially, Napoelon Bonaparte and Paul Barras but the setting of the French Revolution is a little more than a backdrop because the serial gives very little actual factual information about the so called Reign of Terror.  It’s never really explained who Robespierre is or why Ian, Barbara and Susan are arrested and sent to the guillotine.  The Doctor’s assumed identity of a governor of the southern province isn’t elaborated on and the story seems to assume the viewer already knows the basic facts of this period of history.  I think I know something of the period, but to be honest I think most of my knowledge is based on Carry On…Don’t Lose Your Head!

There is, though, much to enjoy.  The cliffhanger to episode one with the Doctor trapped in a burning farmhouse, is very exciting.  His rescue by Jean-Pierre and subsequent scene with the young boy is very sweet and shows how Hartnell was already softening his character even by the end of the first season.

Although, the sets are fairly limited throughout the story (we spend an inordinate amount of time at the prison and in one tiny room and Jules’ house), what we do have is the first ever location filming.  Even though we know it isn’t actually Hartnell on the film, it looks gorgeous and the cut from film to studio is neatly done, such as the part where the Doctor sits down on the milestone.The regulars are as always wonderful (to Carole Ann Ford’s credit, she makes a fairly thankless role believable and engaging, even if, storywise, she contributes absolutely nothing).  The supporting cast, too, are strong even if, as I’ve said, as characters they make little impact.

The costumes are authentic but I find it amusing that it’s the Doctor and Ian who get the fancy rags, whereas Barbara and Susan spend most of the story in the rather dowdy (and probably by the end of the story fairly dirty) dresses they pick up from the farmhouse in the first episode.

The animated missing episodes on the DVD of this release are an interesting curiousity.  They use a style which wasn't replicated in many other releases and consists of an awful lot of close ups with some very stark black and white contrasts.  It works in as much as it helps tell the story alongside the original soundtrack, but it isn't as accomplished as some of the animations which came later.

The Reign of Terror is a slightly odd fish of a story and not one I think particularly highly of but it does demonstrate an interesting bridge between the different ways historical stories were treated by the ever changing production teams.