Anopticon

After years of writing “Can grow a beard” on CVs and applications, I’ve finally found an area I’m qualified to write about! Facial hair in Doctor Who has a prominent role, if you know where to look. Most people dismiss face-fur as the mark of a lazy man, but I contend that it’s far, far more than that. A singer needs his voice; a surgeon needs his hands; and an actor needs his face. Does that include the fuzz that sprouts when he forgets to shave? Absolutely!

There are two broad ways in which facial hair can inform the viewer. The first, most obvious, one is that facial hair signals the passage of time. Months or years can be added to a face with a beard and, in a few short seconds, we may see the emotions that come with that. Anguish and loneliness, exhaustion and grief – all of these can be conveyed by the crafting of a beard.

The second means of analysis is to relate the beard to the character himself. The beard can be a manifestation of cultural moulding as well as the character’s personality and choices. While it initially sounds a bit far-fetched to believe that these deeper messages lie within tangled strands of keratin, it’s important to note that actors and filmmakers deliberately plan and tweak the details of what their character looks like. Costume, makeup, mannerisms are all commonly manipulated to achieve the desired effect and facial hair has a powerful role here. Beards take a while to grow fully and the decision to grow one is important when a man’s job revolves around his appearance; it cannot be taken lightly. The beard can drastically change a face – I look like a toddler when shaven, but when bearded, I look like a king or a pirate or a musketeer. Or a homeless guy.

In this article, I’ll examine the facial hair of the Master and the Doctor. While this decision is the one that gives me the most to talk about, I also chose those two because the parallels between their characters adds another dimension to the analysis.

Delgado’s Master

Just look at that goatee! If you’re not jealous, you should be. It adds weight and emphasis to Roger Delgado’s chin, giving his wide face a bit of a vertical stretch so it looks a little longer. The touches of grey hint at wisdom and experience, further evidenced by the sweeping back of his hair to expose the forehead. This receding hair and thick beard balance each other out so that Delgado looks like the classy, older uncle I wish I had.

To analyse the beard, we can’t really employ the view that it signals the passage of time. While it would be very pertinent to most other characters, this approach to pogonology is almost meaningless for Delgado’s Master. As demonstrated with the regeneration of the Eleventh Doctor into the Twelfth, a Time Lord can possess an older-looking body from the moment of renewal. Therefore, unless Delgado’s incarnation of the Master is the first, and there’s been no confirmation of that, the grey in his beard could simply be a regenerative fluke.

Instead, we may examine the beard in terms of character. The Master chooses to sculpt his beard into the shape he wears and the result is neat and distinguished. Smooth cheeks, well-defined lines and every remaining hair has bowed to his will. This demonstrates power over his face, mastery and dominance. It’s difficult work taming the stray hairs and keeping the stubble at bay, so this conveys a desire to control the beard, just as he desires control over everything else.

But why have the beard at all? It’s far easier to stay clean-shaven than it is to keep a beard tidy. The answer lies in the second character trait demonstrated by this beard: vanity. I’ve already discussed how good it looks on him, and the Master knows it.

Pratt’s and Beevers’ portrayals of the Master lacked facial hair. Because they lacked hair. And faces. So we’ll move swiftly onto…

Ainley’s Tremas

(Spoilers for The Keeper of Traken)

Tremas was a Consul of Traken and Nyssa’s father. His grey beard and hair flowed freely, immediately telling us that he’s approaching the latter stages of life. Not quite there yet, but it’s on the horizon for him. Note the resemblance to depictions of Greek philosophers and Renaissance thinkers – his appearance evokes preconceived ideas of wisdom and experience. As he’s in a position of power and high standing, this makes perfect sense.

However, at the end of The Keeper of Traken, the Master takes over Tremas’ body, presumably chuckling with glee at the anagrammatic foreshadowing.

Ainley’s Master

The big, bushy beard is gone now. If we remember what it represented on Tremas’ face, we can see this transformation as the stripping away of all that time and wisdom. I believe this was intended to be viewed as a perverted form of regeneration; it’s a renewal of the Master but a corruption of Tremas.

While the Master becomes young, it’s an ascension from the burned and decrepit body he’d previous inhabited. However, as Tremas becomes young, as represented by the dark hair and short beard, he loses the man he had grown into. He loses the symbol of the wise philosopher, he loses the mark of dignity and experience. As the Master ascends, Tremas regresses.

A case can be made for the view that Tremas’ visual corruption must occur in order to become the Master onscreen. After all, the Master represents those deepest, devilish urges for power and conquest. For the peaceful Tremas to become that character, he must bend to the Master’s will. His beard is tamed, refined and controlled. Also, the Master’s plans are irresponsible and impulsive at times while Tremas’ beard represents wisdom. While cunning, the Master is not a very wise man, so he twists Tremas’ facial hair into something the Master can relate to – an ornament of vanity, hearkening back to Delgado’s incarnation.

But despite the resemblance to Delgado’s beard, this one is different. Gone are the touches of grey, which further underline the abandonment of wisdom in favour of youth. This goatee is also thinner, a pale imitation of Delgado’s furry Masterpiece. Similarly, Ainley’s Master isn’t truly the Time Lord that Delgado’s was. He’s now a possessed Trakenite, a mortal shadow of what he once was. His ‘regeneration’ was a perverse abomination, bearing only the slightest of resemblances to the Time Lord process.

He’s still vain; he’s still power-hungry; his beard is still cartoonishly evil. This man is still the Master, but he’s a fallen and crippled Master, he’s just hiding his vulnerability behind the face of Nyssa’s father.

 The War Doctor

I’m skipping Tom Baker’s sideburns because it was very difficult to see them under his hair, hat and scarf. John Hurt’s beard is more prominent and there’s more to say about it.

In The Night of the Doctor, we glimpsed the War Doctor’s reflection shortly after the Eighth’s regeneration. No beard. Then, in The Name of the Doctor, we see him with a beard. Time has passed, long enough for the dark hair to turn grey and a beard to grow. From the Doctor’s point of view, the Time War clearly occupied a large chunk of his life.

Now we can examine the character of the beard. Firstly, it’s a goatee. For decades, the goatee in Who has been associated with the Master and now the Doctor sports one. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but that’s a boring answer. More likely, the parallel between him and the Master is being deliberately emphasised by both the creators and the character. I say “the character” because his cheeks are bare. The Doctor has chosen this beard and I’d contend that he’s chosen it to compare himself with the Master.

And it’s a fair comparison in his eyes. This Doctor is now a soldier. A killer, a gambler, a man who will murder a few to save the many. He has so thoroughly abandoned his rules that the Master, as an amoral renegade, may be the only person he feels safe relating to. After all, philosophies aside, he and the Master are very similar.

This parallel coupled with shame may explain the beard. It’s shame which drives his future selves to reject him and drives him to reject his own name. Shame may also drive him to hide his face, to wear a mask. This underlines the distance between him and the normally clean-shaven Doctor whilst strengthening his connection to the Master.

However, while similar to him, the Doctor is not the Master and is certainly not as vain. This is reflected in the scruffiness of the beard and the wisps of hair sprouting from his cheeks; he’s clearly not maintaining it as well as the Master would. This serves as reassurance that the Doctor, while similar to him, is not the Master. And perhaps, this scruffiness can be seen as hope for some sort of redemption, evidence that the old Doctor is still in there somewhere.

The Eleventh Doctor

The Doctor, by virtue of his Time Lordliness, defies strict linear time. He ages linearly along his own timestream, but it’s hugely out of sync with the rest of the universe. In addition, his appearance defies linearity via regeneration, showing no general trend in the visible age of his incarnations.

When the Doctor loses his timelessness, however, it’s a shock. It’s a loss of the freedom and power he’s had since he ran away from Gallifrey. So when the youthful Matt Smith sported a beard in the Day of the Moon and the Wedding of River Song, we immediately knew that the Doctor was stuck on the ‘slow path’ with us and that time was passing for him.

Aging the Doctor is a simple way of raising the stakes. It has been used four times in the NuWho era, but only on the second and third occasions, shown in the aforementioned episodes, was this done by adding a beard. The fourth occasion occurred in The Time of the Doctor, and it adds an interesting dimension to the concept of aging the Doctor.

Either the Eleventh Doctor’s chin went bald, or he’d been shaving over the 900ish years spent defending Christmas. Given that he’s previously kept his face clean-shaven most of the time, it’s reasonable to suppose that he’d been shaving at least some of the time on Trenzalore. But what does it mean? Why should anyone care about whether the Doctor shaves?

It’s a question of identity. We can look at the first occasion the Doctor was aged in NuWho – the Sound of Drums/The Last of the Time Lords. The Master (using something that wasn’t his TCE for unknown reasons) aged the Tenth Doctor into Gollum to weaken and humiliate him. It works because the Master took away parts of the Doctor that he secretly prized: his dashing good looks, his height, his hair and his athleticism.

 

The Time of the Doctor is a similar thing, but it’s the culmination of life taking things away from the Doctor since he regenerated. Initially, he was an innocent hero, a boyish wizard rushing about and righting wrongs. Series 6 showed us the unsavoury consequences, and the ideal of simple, innocent heroism was replaced with cautious, conscientious heroism. And then, Series 7 robbed the Doctor of his friends and repeatedly questioned his morality and heroism before the War Doctor resurfaced. Yes, the anniversary special allowed him to prevent the genocide he’d regretted for years, but the loss of innocence still remained. This is evident when discussing a blood-drenched final death on Trenzalore: The Tenth Doctor struggled to accept it, but the Eleventh had given up on denying it. He’s had to abandon the black-and-white morality he once held, in favour of the realisation that a battlefield might not be the least apt setting for his death.

Then he gets there, he fights, he gets old. And he shaves. Because time has already stolen his cherished worldview as well as his mobility, his hearing and patches of his memory. He won’t lose his face too. He wants to die as the Doctor he is, the Doctor he chose to be. So he keeps hold of what youth he can by shaving, and probably chuckling about his resemblance to his first and youngest incarnation.

It’s a unique instance of aging the Doctor in two respects. Firstly, he could easily have avoided staying on Trenzalore. He could have run, but he stayed in that stalemate by choice, thus aging by choice. Secondly, this is the only instance so far in which the Doctor has actively opposed the aging process. It’s also the only occasion in which he’s been allowed to, but it quietly illustrates the Doctor’s defiance in the face of the inevitable rules of getting old.

And that’s it.

Both the Doctor and the Master wore beards that reflected decisions which, in turn, reflected their characters. Who they are can be worn on their faces, if you know how to read them. Or how to use the material available to create a semi-coherent argument. But at least it’s fun to think about!

 

 

With a mythos as rich and deep as that of Doctor Who, it’s inevitable that some stories are only skimmed in the main programme. So it’s no surprise that a number of spinoff productions have arisen to tell the stories that Who missed, such as those of popular companions and villains. However, the Dalek films of the 1960s took a different approach: adapting existing stories to the big screen and showing them in colour. While widely derided and frowned upon for deliberately rewriting fixtures of the main show, these films represent a key part of Who history. In this essay, I’ll explore the creation of these two films as well as the context in which they were made.

Dalekmania
When the second serial of Doctor Who, retroactively titled The Daleks, was broadcast, it garnered a respectable viewership. The first episode was watched by 6.9 million people when it was broadcast in December of 1963, rising to 10.4 million by the final instalment in February of the following year (Outpost Gallifrey, 2003). For context, the population of the UK in 1964 was 54,000,000 (The World Bank, 2016) and 83.5% of homes had televisions (BARB, 2016), meaning that approximately 45,105,882 people had access to a television. Therefore, roughly 23% of the potential viewing public watched the final episode of The Daleks. In light of this popularity a follow-up story, which would become The Dalek Invasion of Earth, was commissioned in March 1964 (Green & R, 2007). Ratings for this serial never dropped below 11.4 million, peaking at 12.4 million for the final episode on Boxing Day of 1964 (Howe, et al., 2013), 27% of the potential viewing public. Notably, ITV attempted to wrest some viewers away from the BBC by featuring the Beatles, at the height of their popularity, on Thank Your Lucky Stars at the same time as Dalek story, but Doctor Who achieved higher ratings (Turner, 2013).

Away from Who, the Daleks had begun appearing everywhere. Following the conclusion of The Daleks, tabloid newspapers designed to tap into popular interests to sell copies would regularly feature stories about the Daleks, notably the Daily Mail (Bignell & O’Day, 2004). Even the Radio Times, the BBC’s listings magazine, featured the Daleks on its cover to promote The Dalek Invasion of Earth, reflecting how highly regarded the programme and the Daleks had become due to their popularity (Bignell & O’Day, 2004).

Non-Who television appearances were also common. These included A World of His Own in August of 1964 (Green & R, 2007); The Avengers in 1965 (Smith, 2008); and The Black and White Minstrel Show in December of 1964 (Bignell & O’Day, 2004). The latter is particularly significant because The Black and White Minstrel Show was one of the most popular programmes at the time, implying that the Daleks were deemed popular enough to be featured (Bignell & O’Day, 2004).
Daleks would also appear on record covers (Green & R, 2007), as toys (Hall, 2004); in comic strips; and in books (Bignell & O’Day, 2004).

 

Dr Who and the Daleks
Amicus Productions, founded by Americans Milton Subotsky and Max Rosenberg, were making films designed to capitalise on the popularity of Hammer’s horror films. Recognising Dalekmania as a film opportunity, Subotsky approached the BBC and Terry Nation to secure the rights to make a Doctor Who film featuring the Daleks (O’Brien, 2004). The price was negotiated to £500 for the rights to adapt The Daleks into a film, with the option of making two sequels (Pratt, 2014) based on The Dalek Invasion of Earth and third Dalek serial, The Chase (O’Brien, 2004).

In order to fund the film, Subotsky and Rosenberg secured the funding of Joe Vegoda, who asked for his company’s name to be put on the film (O’Brien, 2004). As a result, Dr Who and the Daleks was an AARU production, which had the added benefit of preventing children from finding a link to Amicus’ horror films (Pratt, 2014).

Despite attending preliminary meetings, Terry Nation decided against adapting his television script for the film, instead requesting that the responsibility pass onto David Whitaker (O’Brien, 2004). Whitaker was uncredited in the film (IMDB, 2016), with Subotsky being credited for the screenplay instead (Pratt, 2014). Aside from length, numerous character changes were made for the film. The titular character was now the human ‘Dr Who’, inventor of Tardis, in which he travelled with his two granddaughters, Barbara and Susan, joined by Barbara’s boyfriend named Comic Relief Ian.

The main characters’ roles were also recast for the film, partly because of scheduling conflicts, and partly to ensure that the film had international appeal. Peter Cushing was cast as the ‘Dr Who’ due to his international popularity accrued from his career in horror films by Amicus and Hammer (O’Brien, 2004). Hartnell was said to be disappointed not to be cast (IMDB, 2016); and Terry Nation expressed his disappointment with Cushing’s portrayal of the Doctor, citing Hartnell’s irascibility in the role as a key facet which had been shed for the film (Pratt, 2014). Roy Castle was cast as Ian, having appeared in a previous Amicus film (O’Brien, 2004); a previous Hammer actress in Jennie Linden was cast as Barbara (IMDB, 2016); while Roberta Tovey (whose father George would later appear in Pyramids of Mars) was cast as a much younger Susan (IMDB, 2016). However, David Graham and Peter Hawkins made the transition from serial to film when they voiced the Daleks in uncredited roles (IMDB, 2016). Finally, as no more than a satisfying piece of trivia, Tom Priestley, son of J.B. Priestley, was a sound editor for this film (Pratt, 2014).

The Daleks themselves were also altered. Eight props were built by Shawcroft, the company who made the props for the main programme, for £350 each (Green & R, 2007). These Daleks were taller than their television counterparts and were made with several subtle alterations to their dimensions and angles.

After shooting had wrapped on the film, the Doctor Who production team hired three film Daleks for use in episode three of The Chase, and these can be identified in the episode as the ones that are far too tall (Green & R, 2007). Raymond Cusick’s original vision of Daleks with pincers instead of plungers was realised at last (Green & R, 2007). Regarding the second appendage, John Trevelyan (head of the BBFC) had to warn Subotsky against arming his Daleks with flamethrowers if he wanted to keep a U rating, so they were armed with fire extinguishers instead (O’Brien, 2004). In addition, ten background Daleks were also constructed as plaster moulds at a cost of £100 each (Green & R, 2007).

Production began with a budget of £180,000, £3800 of which was spent on the Daleks (Green & R, 2007). Shooting was conducted from 12th March 1965 to 23rd April 1965 (IMDB, 2016) at Shepperton Studios (O’Brien, 2004). During shooting, director Gordon Flemyng was unaware that the lights on the Daleks’ domes were supposed to be lit as the Daleks spoke. Instead, he had them light up randomly. As a result, the voice actors, attempting to match the lights in postproduction, were forced into slow, staccato delivery of the Daleks’ dialogue (IMDB, 2016).

The finished film was released in London on 25th June 1965 and elsewhere in the UK on 23rd August 1965 (IMDB, 2016). Critical response ranged from a ‘shoddy film’ that children might enjoy (The Observer, 1965) to ‘obliquely interesting’ (The Guardian, 1965). Some praised Cushing’s performance, the sets and the Daleks, but criticised the script, the Daleks’ dialogue and Roy Castle’s humorous performance (Monthly Film Bulletin, 1965) (Rich, 1965). My favourite review was in the Times:

‘A large-screen, colour version of the popular television children’s serial, this fantasy about time-travelling clearly owes quite a bit to H. G. Wells’s The Time Machine, and gains very little in its new expanded form. The technical advantages of the cinema over television only show up the shoddiness of the sets, and the dialogue, lifelessly delivered by a dispirited cast, is too feeble even to be funny.’
(The Times, 1965)

The film was released in the USA in July 1966 (IMDB, 2016) and did not make as much money as it did in the UK (Nette, 2015). One critic found the whole premise implausible but admitted that children would enjoy it (Boxoffice, 1966).

Despite these largely negative reviews, it made enough money to become the UK’s 20th biggest box office earner in 1965 (Nette, 2015), meriting a sequel (O’Brien, 2004).

Daleks’ Invasion Earth – 2150AD
The main cast changed significantly for Daleks’ Invasion Earth – 2150AD (IMDB, 2016). Cushing and Tovey were retained but Linden decided not to appear in the sequel, meaning that both Ian and Barbara had to be written out (O’Brien, 2004). Jill Curzon was added to the cast as ‘Louise’, Dr Who’s niece. Castle’s comic relief role was filled by Bernard Cribbins (who would famously play Wilfred Mott in the NuWho era) as Tom Campbell (O’Brien, 2004).
Filming for the sequel at Shepperton studios occurred between 31st January 1966 and 22nd March 1966 (Pixley, 2005). With the larger budget of £286,000 (IMDB, 2016), £50,000 was spent on promoting the film, including television adverts (Simpson, 2007). In addition, more location shooting was possible, which worked to the film’s advantage, enabling impressive shots of a post-invasion London to be achieved (O’Brien, 2004). The film garnered some praise for its special effects, cinematography and acting (Rich, 1966) (Monthly Film Bulletin, 1966), although some critics noted that the film seemed more attractive to adults than children (The Times, 1966) (O’Brien, 2004).

The sequel failed to match the success of its predecessor after its UK release on 5th August 1966 (IMDB, 2016). Some have attributed this underperformance to waning public interest in Daleks following the recent broadcast of the 12-part The Daleks’ Master Plan (O’Brien, 2004). Plans to adapt The Chase were abandoned (O’Brien, 2004), although Subotsky would later try and fail to revive the project several times, having retained the film rights until his death in 1991 (Simpson, 2007) (McFarlane, 2014). To date, despite mooted ideas (Pixley, 2007), no further Doctor Who films have been made for theatrical release.

Final Thoughts
For those watching at the time, these films were a glimpse into the future of Who. A large part of this lies in the fact that this was the first colour appearance of the Daleks and the Doctor, and the importance of this should not be understated. The monochrome of first two Doctors’ reigns provided a sombre, dramatic atmosphere, and this worked well for serious scripts. But when beautiful, fantastical elements are portrayed, the viewer is forced to imagine how they’d truly look in real life. The Dalek films brought this fantasy to life, the surreal alien beauty of the Skaroene city and jungle was vividly realised. Conversely, the colour in Daleks’ Invasion Earth – 2150AD brought realism to the devastation of London after the Daleks had seized power. In short, this was the first time that colour had been able to deepen the experience of Doctor Who.

Another window to the future lay in the budgets for these films. Elaborate props and extensive location filming allowed the viewer at the time to see how Who would look if allocated more money. Indeed, the visuals would be matched and beaten by later episodes as technology and ingenuity advanced, but the viewing public in mid 1960s were lucky enough to get an early peek at these shifts.

And for us, looking back, these films serve as a colourful, family-friendly remnant of the Dalekmania craze which helped to establish Doctor Who in the minds of the public. It was this popularity that kept it in production in the 60s, that helped to sustain it for long enough for us to be enjoying it today. For their significance in Who history alone, these films are certainly worth watching. Plus, they’re a laugh.

Works Cited
BARB, 2016. TV ownership. [Online]
Available at: http://www.barb.co.uk/resources/tv-ownership/
[Accessed 19 August 2016].
Bignell, J. & O’Day, A., 2004. Collaboration at the BBC. In: Terry Nation. s.l.:Manchester University Press, pp. 60-64.
Boxoffice, 1966. Dr. Who and the Daleks. Boxoffice, 13 June.
doctorwhotoys.net, n.d. Dalek Toy History. [Online]
Available at: http://doctorwhotoys.net/dalektoyhistory.htm
[Accessed 20 August 2016].
Green, J. & R, G., 2007. Dalek Invasion of Earth. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dalek6388.co.uk/dalek-invasion-of-earth/
[Accessed 19 August 2016].
Green, J. & R, G., 2007. Dalekmania & The Space Museum. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dalek6388.co.uk/dalekmania-space-museum/
[Accessed 19 August 2016].
Green, J. & R, G., 2007. The ‘Dr Who and the Daleks’ Movie. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dalek6388.co.uk/dr-who-and-the-daleks-film/
[Accessed 21 August 2016].
Hall, M., 2004. Merchandise. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dalek-mania.co.uk/INDEX2.htm
[Accessed 20 August 2016].
Howe, D. J. et al., 2013. The Dalek Invasion Of Earth. [Online]
Available at: http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/serials/k.html
[Accessed 19 August 2016].
IMDB, 2016. Daleks’ Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.. [Online]
Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060278/?ref_=tt_rec_tti
[Accessed 21 August 2016].
IMDB, 2016. David Whitaker. [Online]
Available at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0924256/
[Accessed 20 August 2016].
IMDB, 2016. Dr Who and the Daleks. [Online]
Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059126/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_20
[Accessed 20 August 2016].
IMDB, 2016. Jennie Linden. [Online]
Available at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0511614/
[Accessed 20 August 2016].
IMDB, 2016. Roberta Tovey. [Online]
Available at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0867964/
[Accessed 20 August 2016].
McFarlane, B., 2014. Subotsky, Milton. [Online]
Available at: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/890364/
[Accessed 28 August 2016].
Monthly Film Bulletin, 1965. Dr. Who And The Daleks, Great Britain, 1965. Monthly Film Bulletin, 1 August, p. 123.
Monthly Film Bulletin, 1966. Daleks – Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., Great Britain, 1966. Monthly Film Bulletin, August, p. 122.
Nette, A., 2015. Doctor who? Peter Cushing’s Dr Who and the Daleks turns 50. [Online]
Available at: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/doctor-who-peter-cushing-dr-who-daleks-turns-50
[Accessed 21 August 2016].
O’Brien, S., 2004. The Dalek Movies. [Online]
Available at: http://www.gamesradar.com/the-dalek-movies-from-the-sfx-archives/
[Accessed 20 August 2016].
Outpost Gallifrey, 2003. The Daleks. [Online]
Available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20080410054252/http:/www.gallifreyone.com/episode.php?id=b
Pixley, A., 2005. DWM Archive Extra: Daleks – Invasion Earth 2150 AD. Doctor Who Magazine, March, pp. 50-57.
Pixley, A., 2007. “Scratchman”. [Online]
Available at: http://thomas-stewart-baker.com/article52.html
[Accessed 28 August 2016].
Pratt, V., 2014. Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965). [Online]
Available at: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/1273075/
[Accessed 20 August 2016].
Rich, 1965. Dr. Who & The Daleks. Variety, 22 June, p. 6.
Rich, 1966. Daleks Invade Earth 2150 A.D.. Variety, 2 August, p. 6.
Simpson, R., 2007. The History of the Dr. Who Films. [Online]
Available at: http://www.petercushing.co.uk/historydrwho.htm
[Accessed 28 August 2016].
Smith, D. K., 2008. DEATH AT BARGAIN PRICES. [Online]
Available at: http://theavengers.tv/forever/peel1-4.htm
[Accessed 19 August 2016].
The Daily Cinema, 1965. Dr. Who and the Daleks. The Daily Cinema, 1 July.
The Guardian, 1965. A lack of method in their madness. The Guardian, 2 August.
The Observer, 1965. Films. The Observer, 22 August, p. 18.
The Radio Times, 1964. Dr. Who and the Daleks. The Radio Times, 19 November, p. 1.
The Times, 1965. Studio One (Tomorrow): Dr. Who and the Daleks. The Times, 24 June, p. 11.
The Times, 1966. Daleks – Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.. The Times, 21 July, p. 17.
The World Bank, 2016. Population, total (UK). [Online]
Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=GB
[Accessed 19 August 2016].
Turner, A. W., 2013. Chapter 6. In: Terry Nation: The Man Who Invented the Daleks. s.l.:Aurum Press.