Skip to main content

I came here to take President Sarkoff back to his people.

Blake's 7
1.11: Bounty


It was inevitable that the series would trot out a retro-planet budget-saver at some point, and it’s a shame that it comes attached to a story as unimaginative as this one. Blake and Cally teleport down to a Federation planet with the intention of returning the exiled President Sarkoff (T.P. McKenna, The Greatest Show in the Galaxy) to his people on Lindor.


Sarkoff is under guard so there’s quite a bit of extended ducking and running for Blake and Cally to do, only to find Sarkoff is extremely reluctant to return. He is content to wallow in the historical artefacts that surround him in his small castle. His daughter Tyce thinks he should grow a pair.


The B-plot, which converges eventually with the A, sees the Liberator detect an unidentified ship (we are told later that it is the civilian cruiser Star Queen, which it turns out not to be) and Gan teleports over to investigate. Vila doesn’t like it, and he’s right.


Avon: As a matter of fact, I don’t like it either.
Vila: He agrees with me. Makes it all seem worthwhile somehow.


Gan, being a great hulking goob, screws things up for everyone else although we don’t find that out until later. That we are left dangling (Gan appears to call the Liberator to teleport him back and Zen informs Vila that this isn’t Gan’s voice; Vila races to the teleport room too late, so if nothing else the Liberator should really pipe Zen through to all important stations) is the only decent suspense sequence in the episode, and unfortunately the revelation of the culprits is a bit of a letdown (not that a scheme by Travis would been unexpected, but it would certainly have been more dramatic).


The highlight of the planetary scenes is McKenna’ Sarkoff, all charm and erudition. His response to Blake’s claim that he is not there to kill him is particularly amusing:

Sarkoff: I am grateful for your semantic precision...


Tyce has a jaw that could wrestle for supremacy with Cally’s (I recognise Carinthia West from something else, but imdb doesn’t help). Blake’s exposition of the background to Sarkoff’s exile is the most interesting aspect of this plot thread, as it has the whiff of commentary on Western power-grabbing. Blake learnt the details from the cipher machine we saw in Seek-Locate-Destroy.

The Federation refer to their machinations as the Lindor Strategy, beginning with rigged elections to wrest Sarkoff from power (he was convinced it was due to his unpopularity, since Lindor didn’t even join the Federation after he lost and his opposition to joining was foremost on his ticket) and only ending when he returns to power as a puppet leader of a subjugated people. Such underhand activity, not officially sanctioned, suggests it’s only really the signposting of their “stormtroopers” that sets the Federation apart from more obviously democratic structures (that there’s a fine line between democratic and totalitarian rule).


Blake, as ever seeing things in black and white first, says that Sarkoff must come by force if necessary. He persuades Sarkoff by starting to smash his collection up, which is the same kind of clinical manipulation that saw him threaten Kane’s hands in the previous episode.


There’s some rather rum “action” involving escaping in Sarkoff’s old car before they all teleport back to the Liberator for the final 20 minutes (again, this follows the structure of the previous episode).


Where, rather boringly, the ship has been overrun by Amagon smugglers (distinguished by their Arabian looks and garb.) And Jenna gets a wee subplot, since she knows their leader Tarvin and appears to have joined up with them.


Of course she hasn’t really as she remains mystifyingly hot for Blake. Tarvin is in it for the bounty on the crew and ship (13 million credits, or only 12 million if he decides not to turn in Jenna.) She promises him the 300 million credits-worth of booty on the ship and gets rid of a couple of guards while running with this gambit.


Vila has an argument with Avon while trying to unlock the neck bracelet on Blake. Avon’s trying to unlock the door but it’s bloody Gan who causes the ruckus by getting all irate and doing a GAN SMASH! that distracts them. I can’t tell if Darrow is genuinely cracking up when Vila asks him to “Shut up, please” but it’s a great moment. Keating plays Vila’s frustration at potentially having no one to unlock his neck bracelet amusingly too.


The stand-off between Tarvin and Sarkoff (who is his guest for the time being) sees him eventually shoot the smuggler when Tarvin is distracted by Blake. It should be involving, but it’s not really, and the extensive rewrites Boucher had to undertake show in the slackness of pace, so-so characterisation and lack of drama.


More of Blake as unlikely babe-magnet when Tyce says goodbye to him; Cally and (of course) Jenna get all catty that she didn’t mean her goodbye for anyone but Blake. It’s another groan-worthy episode ending, and a worrying development that suggests the series is going down a sub-Star Trek route of “humorous” (as in shite) sign-offs to the audience.


I can’t find much to recommend here. The plotlines are dull, and only McKenna distinguishes himself. A retro-theme might have worked well but it comes across as cobbled together, while the piracy plot is uninspired. Possibly the cleverest part is that the title refers both to Sarkoff and the crew, which says something for the overall level of invention. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.