Considering some of the talent involved on both sides of the camera (Dennis Spooner, Douglas Camfield, Peter Butterworth, Alethea Charlton) it’s somewhat disappointing that this story fails to catch light. The idea of someone from the Doctor’s own planet interfering in history, actions in opposition to the principles that the Doctor holds dear, is certainly an interesting one and would be even more so to viewers in 1965.
I’m at a loss as to why `The Space Museum` always fares so badly in various polls over the years where it has even ended up at the very foot of the table. Just off the top of my head I can think of at least thirty stories its better than. The first episode alone is surely one of the finest Sixties episodes of all. All of the aspects singled out by some reviewers are actually no worse (and sometimes better) than in many other stories. Most are the production shortcomings which fans of classic Doctor Who are surely used to by now.
The
early years of Doctor Who did seem to like wholly historical stories
which in theory were easier to produce than sci-fi ones. While there would be
no issue with the Tardis landing amongst ordinary or fictional people, constant
encounters with well-known historical figures creates limitations on the
storylines. The BBC’s educational remit could be tested by depictions of the
likes of Marco Polo or Nero interacting with the Doctor while not all stories
are as strict about the effect the travellers have on history as `The Aztecs`
is. Its probably why the wholly historical adventures were replaced by pseudo
historical ones mixing supposedly real history with some alien antagonist.
Though generally intelligently written and made `The Crusade` harbours these
issues. All the way through you do get a sense that the production would be
more interesting without the Doctor and his companions in it at all. It sits at
the point where adherence to facts crashes into the need for some drama.
Long
before I saw this story I read the Target novel upon which it is based, `Doctor
Who and the Zarbi`. That book’s strange Chris Achellios cover and descriptive Bill
Strutton prose conjured up a totally alien world for young me. For ages I
imagined that the televised episodes were as elegant and bizarre and
imaginative as that book. So inevitably when I eventually saw it on a grainy
video it was hugely disappointing. I wanted those descriptions; I wanted it to
look like that book cover and it just didn’t. So, I sort of left it to one
side.
Opinions
I’ve heard about this story range from it being the best Sixties story to being
throwaway nonsense. Its neither of these things yet certainly drifts closer to
the former. I think I’d only seen it once before, probably on some grainy
videotape in the days when Sixties stories were passed around fandom like rare
commodities. All I could remember was a hectic farce which it is but maybe I
appreciate that more now plus finding out it was intended to embody those
attributes makes it easier to enjoy. Like a lot of seldom seen Doctor
Who stories it pays to re-watch and discover just what makes it tick.
Though ostensibly made to introduce a new companion, `The Rescue` is an interesting story whose brevity means that the usual meandering that fills many a Sixties episode is absent. Instead, David Whitaker’s script is tight (even if it contains some unlikely contrivances) and on a handful of sets plays quite theatrically in a good way with some excellent direction courtesy of Christopher Barry. Visually and narratively it is reminiscent of one of those pulp sci-fi stories from the 1930s especially with its twist of the alien monster not being an alien at all. It does have a few flaws but I would rate it as one of the top first Doctor tales.
