Skip to main content

You know what a scrounger is, my dear?

The Box of Delights
4: The Spider in the Web


The pace picks up again in the fourth episode, including a ream of exposition expertly delivered by Stephens. Before that, there’s the little matter of the treacherous weir to deal with. Woo-hoo! This is as typically Sunday Children’s Classic looking as the serial gets (well, that and some of the journey-through-time scenery in the following installment). What keeps it from becoming too twee is the presence of jovial antagonists (“Nothing like children for leading one a dance, what?”)


Returned to full size and back at the freshly burglarised Seekings. Kay launches into a remonstration of Ellen for deserting the house (bloody working class servant types, eh? They need thirteen year olds to keep them in line!). The poor woman is only recovering from the sick trick used to get her to leave (that her mother was terribly ill). 


The return of Maria finds Dukes yet again commanding attention (“I… was scrobbled!”) Unlike her peers, she isn’t the type to get upset or frightened (“I knew I shouldn’t have gone without a pistol!”).


Sylvia: You know what a scrounger is, my dear? We put you in it, and it has a thing that goes round and round. That is the scrounger. And pretty soon you come out as dog biscuit!

The flashback to Maria’s imprisonment by Abner’s gang mostly revolves around an effective cell set, shot at high angles. Abner and Sylvia introduce themselves from hatches at the sides. Maria’s refusal to join forces with this “pretty shady lot” is marked out by the unswerving insults she piles at Sylvia (“It can’t be too nice, or it wouldn’t have you in it”, says Maria of the gang). The scene is also noteworthy for Sylvia’s “Put her in the scrounger!” moment, as she explains how Maria may soon end up as dog food (those dreadful adults!) 


Rye knows just how conjure up menace; the cell goes dark, then the door opens and (Charles) enters putting a sack over Maria’s head. To underline that none of this has fazed Maria in the slightest, she summarises her adventure with “Well I’m here now, and I didn’t join their gang. What’s for dessert?


For some reason, Kay chooses to bring Peter along with him to investigate Abner’s masquerade as the head of Chesters Theological College (over at Chester Hills; actually Eastnor Castle in Herefordshire). Aside from his colourful vernacular (more “Purple pims” and now a “Gives me the fantods!”) Peter proves a resolutely unresourceful companion, and promptly gets himself captured when they split up (for which another sack is employed). 


There’s further indication that Kay knows the ways of the natural world, although this time in a less “nature spirit” manner. He makes light of Peter’s concern over discovery; there are clearly no gamekeepers about as, if there were, they would see signs of pheasants, and dead stoats and weasels.


Charles: I can feel the corpuscles coursing through my veins.
Abner: I wouldn’t have thought so.

Abner’s failure to hold his roguish crew in check may be his greatest failing; if not for his displays of the dark arts in the final episode, we might suspect his abilities at all. Instead of acting decisively or appointing reliable henchman, he persists with Charles and Joe and, most damagingly, continues to be advised by Sylvia. So he reluctantly takes a swim with Charles, who is none to good at disguising his canoodling behaviour (“Oh, jolly good sort old Sylvia… er Mrs Brown”). 



Perhaps Abner believes Charles’ fey, slightly campy manner signals him out as posing no real threat. Full respect to Stephens (and his beer jacket) for braving what looks like a very chilly lake. Poor old Chubby Joe; it appears that, when not scrobbling, he is ascribed menial tasks such as raking up leaves (clad in a monk’s habit).


Structurally, it is evident that what works on the page isn’t necessarily quite so effective on screen. Kay returns home to report Peter’s capture, makes yet another call on the police (this time with Maria), and then returns to Chesters. This serves to fill us in on some significant details (a newspaper bears the legend “Bishop of Tatchester kidnapped”) and confirms the abduction of Caroline Louisa (“She left two days ago to come home”) but it also diminishes the urgency of the situation. Still, Maria’s response to the Inspector’s blithe lack of concern is priceless; “Stupid man. Talking to Abner Brown himself”).


Fortunately, it's time for another of Kay’s hallucinogenic dreams; it appears that this time he needs no chemical inducement to trip-out. Yet again, he sees a vision of the Old Lady morphing into Caroline Louisa. We also see a watery vision of Rat, and his governess’ cry of “Kay!” before a wolf-headed figure pulls her away from her bedroom window (very suggestive, really). Regarding the Caroline Louisa/Old Lady connection, it occurs to me that they share scenes in the final episode thus making their link with each other even more oblique.



The final portion of the episode finds Kay, in miniature, back at the College and eavesdropping on Abner and Joe. Abner, using his globe/monitoring device, is listening to his chubby stooge complaining. Why do they need to get their hands on this perishing box; scrobbling clergy is “plain foolishness”. Abner would have maximum respect if he singularly did for Joe at this point, but he unwisely displays his own brand of foolishness by (apparently) capitulating to Joe’s suggestion that “If I knew why” he might be on board with the scheme.


The conversation further highlights that Abner is surrounded by idiots, as the vacuous Joe suggests facile means of extracting the truth from Cole; “Just threaten him a bit or using itching powder to keep him awake”. But, to be fair to Joe, at the start of the next episode his straightforward mind will hit on the truth of matters in a way Abner’s labyrinthine cerebrum cannot. Abner brings Joe, Kay, and the audience, up to speed on the relationship between Cole Hawlings and Arnold of Todi.


We learn that Arnold was a philosopher in the Middle Ages, back when a philosopher studied many things including magic. He encountered one Ramon Lully, who was also a philosopher in the Middle Ages and not “the chap who used to do the box trick down at Brixton Music Hall” at all. Lully travelled Spain, France and Italy on his quest, and offered his elixir of life to Todi in exchange for Arnold’s magic powers “which were contained in the box”.  However, soon after that, Arnold of Todi disappeared. Abner informs Joe that, according to legend, Arnold went into the past by means of the box but could not get out again. Setting up Kay’s journey in the next episode, it appears that one cannot take the box on travels into the past;  you enter at own risk and must find your own way out”.


Abner is oblique concerning whether or not Lully thieved the box. As Abner puts it, “There are people who believe that Ramon Lully got the box after Arnold went into the past without it”. And, in episode five, Arnold expresses no ill will concerning Lully’s actions. But it does imply a different side to the Cole we see, one for whom opportunism and undirected knowledge rather than wisdom may have been the order of the day.


And so comes the dramatic pay off, and the best cliffhanger out of the five. This is one that advances the plot by way of revelation, rather than ending on an action beat. Abner draws Joe’s attention to the picture of Lully in a dusty old tome;  You see who it is, don’t you?” Lully gradually becomes wrinkled and whiskery before Joe’s eyes and realisation dawns (lest we had not already reached such a point ourselves);


Joe: It’s him! It’s the old Punch and Judy Man! But he must be five… 700 years old!


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.