Skip to main content

Ah, that’s the stuff. Poison!

The Box of Delights
3: In the darkest Cellars underneath


Despite a grimy, evocative title the third episode is the least of the six. We’re treated to a nice little triptastic dream sequence, but there are a few too many longueurs along the way. To an extent such aspects are charming (a whole scene devoted to brewing up a cold remedy) but a run of such scenes makes the whole a little too lightweight.


Abner: I tell you, Sylvia. I’m tempted to get rid of Charles and his infernal ha-ha-what.

The first part of the first scene finds Abner questioning Rat and his nephew, in which Sylvia Daisy Pouncer (Patricia Quinn) making her first appearance. Quinn had appeared in both The Rocky Horror Picture Showand I, Claudius, but nothing could save her from the ignominy of hunting aliens a couple of years later in Doctor Who’s Dragonfire. Here, she meets Stephens theatrical flourish for theatrical flourish. Their attestations of devotion towards each other are studied at best (“My precious pearl, my blooming yellow sapphire”, “My golden idol, my graven image” “Oh but my emerald, my ruby”). And the impulse Rat warned of two episodes before has its first airing, as Sylvia seems curiously reluctant to let Abner mete punishment on Foxy Faced Charles (going as far as deflecting blame on Chubby Joe in order to curry favour for the Reynard-like minion).


Generally Abner, for all his fearsome qualities, appears to have difficulty seeing what is under his nose. Not just the discontent in the ranks, but his refusal to countenance the idea that Cole would have trusted the box to Kay (fuelled, it must be said, by Sylvia, who holds him and his dreamy, idle, mind in “utmost detestation and contempt”).


When Kay announces to Mouse, “She used to be my governess. She’s a witch” he’s not being over-dramatic; as we saw, Sylvia was identified as a witch in The Midnight Folk. There’s nothing else here to suggest her involvement in the black arts, however; despite a verbal flourish, her villainy is decidedly mundane.


Rat: Ah, that’s the stuff. Poison! But I can feel it doing me good all the way down there.

The best part of this scene is the return of Rat, however. Bill Wallis is giving it his all, relishing every crude extravagance the dialogue may hold (“It’s poison, but without it I can’t stand the climate”, he attests when plied with a drop of rum). Rat and his nephew have clearly been in brushes with some sort of legal apparatus (“He says there’s so many of you here, it’s worse than when he was on trial”) such is the wide-ranging world of possibilities Masefield has created. The last we see of Rat is a dissatisfied Abner furiously venting spleen on him (“Get back to your sewer and have a bath!”)


The departure of Rat and his nephew heralds the arrival of another performer who can more than hold her own against Stephens and Quinn. Perhaps surprisingly, as the diminutive Dukes makes it clear, if there had been any doubt, that she is the most accomplished of the young actors in Box. Maria arrives on the offensive (she’s a dead shot with both hands and has been expelled from three schools) and doesn’t back down in response to attempts to bribe her with a visit to see some stained glass (“It’s a moldy old lot of glass at St Griswalds”). There’s an amusing rapport between her and Stephens; he’s all oily charm and she unalloyed antagonism.


With Maria possibly in with the villains (as Peter later comments “Well, if she has, I think that’s the purple pim!”) Kay does a bit of detective work once back at his normal size. There’s a nice touch where he realises he hasn’t taken his hat off indoors on greeting the hotel owner Mrs Calamine (the site of Abner’s meeting); back when manners were everything! Mrs Calamine (Joyce Latham) informs him that Abner is actually the Sir Reverend Doctor Boddledale, who is  a very well known and very holy gentleman” (Masefield’s just rubbing it in with these unholy holy men). 


Curiously Sylvia Daisy Pouncer (the Reverend’s wife) strikes a chord with Mrs Calamine; she “reminds me of someone I can’t remember who”. No doubt this had something to do with Sylvia casting spells. The production team appears to have compensated for the very variable weather in this run up to Christmas by announcing inserting announcements of downpours into the script; indeed, there’s no longer any snow in sight.


Kay has no more luck on his second visit to Tatchester police station. The Inspector informs him that Boddledale is “a very sweet tenor” and that he has “sung with him many times”. Grout indulges in a bit of close talking with Stanfield during this scene, and it’s a wonder the latter could keep a straight face. This is where the episode’s curious preoccupation with possets is introduced (requiring a jorum of hot milk); Kay is reliably informed that it will “make a new man of you, Master Harker” This is clearly an incredibly dodgy psychedelic brew, as we will shortly discover.


Whose voice is Punch and Judy man’s? It sounds a bit like Robert Stephens to me. The oncoming posset creation is as nothing to the tedium of the Bishop’s Christmas party. The bishop really is a moldy old duffer (“Come and get your presents one by one”) and the dubious treat that follows is an extended bout of party games. Rye is evidently in no hurry with the plot, as we’re subjected to a narratively vacant unwrapping sequence. Even given the “justification” that the party disguises a burglary is insufficient pay-off.


There is more of what is now a running gag concerning the “bloodhound of the law” in respect of the pointlessness of contacting the police again, when it is discovered that Caroline Louisa was not on the train home.



All is sort-of well, however, as, under the influence of the posset brewed up by diligent Ellen (and boy, does she take her time making it), Kay has a crazy loopy dream in which he meets Herne dressed as a Roman. Herne sagely warns him that appearances may be deceptive (“Its no lamb –two wolves under a fleecy skin”), an apt metaphor for Abner’s guise as a clergyman.




Some of the imagery retains a punch (the close-up of a wolf’s head turning to camera is enough to make you choke on your hot toddy) but most intriguing is the sight of the Old Lady, whose visage changes to that of Caroline Louisa; it’s a connection that is not elaborated upon (aside from the groundwork laid in The Midnight Folk). If Caroline Luisa is aware that she has magical abilities she never lets on. The sequence is the most striking in the episode, and bridges the questions regarding the fate of Kay’s Governess and the (apparent) answers.


At breakfast Kay fails to figure out there’s something fishy about Caroline Luisa failing to sign off his newly arrived telegram with “love Caroline Louisa” (the cloth-eared boy). The following scene, as Kay and the blessed Joneses go off to sail their toy boat on the floods, is one that unattractively highlights the shortcomings off grand effects sequences on a TV budget. It doesn’t help that, as a dramatic cliffhanger, it really isn’t all that dramatic. Charles and Joe arrive in the aeroplane caroplane, attempting to find them. So the kids hold hands, go small, and climb aboard the boat. Unfortunately, treacherous “rapids” sally into view.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

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.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?