Skip to main content

Now we shall keep our mysterious rendezvous.

Ice Station Zebra
(1968)

The fourth big screen adaptation of an Alistair MacLean novel, Ice Station Zebra was released in the same year as the more successful Where Eagles Dare. 1968 represents probably the high water mark for interpretations of the author’s work, although The Guns of Navarone remains the biggest hit. As with most movie versions of MacLean novels (or, let’s face it, movie versions of anybody’s novels) fans of the book find much to gripe about; the latter half diverges greatly from the page. Those who complain about the languid pace are onto something too. To be sure, there’s an array of valid criticisms that can be levelled at Ice Station Zebra. But it also has a factor going for it that elevates John Sturges’ movie, and keeps me coming back to it; the über-cool presence of Patrick McGoohan.


The man who played The Prisoner (he filmed Zebra during a break from the TV show, which helps to explain the only truly hopeless episode in the run; Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling, in which Nigel Stock essays a portly and passive Number Six) isn’t even the lead, but he has the best part and proceeds to tower his every scene. McGoohan is “David Jones” (“I once killed a man named Jones. Though not for that reason, of course”), a British spy on a mission to the titular Arctic ice station. The official explanation is that the personnel at the British weather station are in trouble and require rescuing, but we know better; we’ve already seen a satellite ejecting a capsule in the vicinity. Jones is passenger on a US nuclear submarine commanded by a reluctant and somewhat in the dark Commander Ferraday (Rock Hudson). Also on board is a company of Marines, ready for all eventualities as long as they’re above the waves.  Ernest Borgnine’s Soviet defector Vaslov and Jim Brown’s curt Captain Anders soon join the complement.


Jones: Oh, I know how to wreck them. And I know how to lie, steal, kidnap, counterfeit, suborn and kill. That’s my job and I do it with great pride.

The Hudson and McGoohan roles were initially earmarked for Navarone stars Gregory Peck and David Niven. Hudson does solid work (he cited this as his favourite movie role), but he can’t hold a candle to McGoohan; witness the table-pounding scene where Jones unleashes his fury in a short, sharp, burst. Hudson attempts to respond equally forcefully, but his is a pale whimper in comparison. If some find the protracted submarine scenes a bit of a chore, they’re a highlight for me because McGoohan is so fascinating to watch. He brings to bear the mock sincerity we’ve seen in his TV roles, responding to Ferraday, who has informed him that he will be checked for radiation from time to time, with “That’s very kind of you”. His mischievous superiority is delight, correcting his American colleagues’ inexactitudes. “A bullet goes just as fast up here as it does down there”, Anders pronounces of his matter-of-fact role. On the contrary, Jones responds, it goes more slowly; “It’s the denser air, you know”.


It’s questionable whether we are supposed to side with the crafty, mysterious Jones over the square-jawed heroism of Ferraday (the nominal lead). But we do. When it eventually comes time to find out what’s going on, McGoohan delivers a master class in making dry exposition interesting, but this also signals the point where Ferraday takes command of the proceedings; Jones must retreat to the sidelines from now on, if necessary at gunpoint.


Borgnine is enthusiastically broad as Vaslov (who did not feature in the novel; nor did Anders, nor the marines) although perhaps a little too good at playing the comic relief, since suspicions have been aroused about the sub-bound saboteur and the options are limited (it has to be a speaking role, and there are very few candidates). Jim Brown is suitably stern, as the anti-Ferraday; he has no interest in being loved by his men, and sees appreciation by the troops as a measure of an officer’s weakness.


It’s curious (or boring) to see the time spent getting the measure of the sub; this was an era when nuclear power was still an exciting development (well, exciting or extremely dangerous depending on one’s general outlook). The technological triumph of this new-fangled vessel is a point of pride, one to be shown off. There is much talk of radiation, and insecurity over its effects in this sub-aquatic environment. Vaslov is keen to be given a guided tour; there’s a cute shot where he is privy to the reactor but we see only the glow reflected on his face; perhaps Sturges had Kiss Me Deadly in mind. Any new tech will be used first and foremost for purposes of national defence, of course. Jones reveals that the advanced camera at the heart of the plot can “photograph a pack of cigarettes 300 miles up in space”.  Small beer now.


In general Sturges, who was hot off The Great Escape and had just dipped his toe in another MacLean with The Satan Bug, seems to have little time for visual realism. We’re never in any doubt that Zebra has been mostly filmed on sound stages, in stark contrast to the ultra-exposed shoot of another MacLean novel, Bear Island, nearly a decade later. I may be in the minority, but I don’t find this off-putting. No, there’s no chance of ever seeing the actors’ breath, but I rather like the heightened artifice of the Arctic landscape. It has something of the Bond world to it, especially the sight of the sub broken through a wasteland of ice.


Still, Sturges manages to pull a couple of rabbits out of his hat. Putting the camera at an angle to suggest an off kilter sub interior isn’t really convincing anyone (the interior world is much too bright and spacey; there’s none of the cramped, dripping claustrophobia of your classic movie submarine), but he ratchets up the tension during a sabotage attempt (in which a flooded torpedo tube triggers further flooding within the vessel) and the subsequent sinking of the ship. And the model work, it should be noted, is outstanding.


The ice-bound action climax and the confrontation with a platoon of Russian paratroopers led by Colonel Ostrovosky (Alf Kjellin, recently a regular face on The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) are additions to the Maclean novel. MacLean may have been partly inspired by events from a more entrenched Cold War period (the novel came out in 1963). These concern the recovery of an American spy satellite by the Soviets near Spitsbergen in 1959 and a CIA mission to an abandoned Soviet ice station in 1962. In contrast, an interesting tone is struck here; there is an absence of expected East-West strong-arm tactics, and a vague air of Détente is struck.


Very definitely, it is the agents (Vaslov and Jones) who persist in kind of behaviour that ingrains lines of national distrust. Indeed, the only significant shooting incident in the whole movie comes when Jones guns down Anders under the mistaken conclusion that he is the saboteur and spy. Jones, who has been one step ahead all along, turns out to have been tricked by old “comrade” Vaslov. While both want to secure the images of Soviet and American missile silos, the simple soldiers are have no interest in aggression for the sake of it. Ostrovosky has his orders, but once there is no way for him to secure his objective (Ferraday blows up the capsule holding the camera and footage) he is quite content to call it a day. Pointedly, the official cover story is one of cynical lies to mask what really went on. A Teletype machine announces Russian paratroops came to the aid of an American nuclear submarine in rescuing the ice station occupants, representing a “further example of international co-operation”. It’s notable that the conclusion essentially undermines the traditional heroics of MacLean’s novels in favour of something a little less morally certain and more nuanced.


Apparently Ice Station Zebra was one of Howard Hughes’ favourite movies. I couldn’t speculate why, but there is definitely an air of cosiness to its depiction of Cold War intrigue.. There’s also something undeniably seductive about polar intrigue, even when it doesn’t feature alien creatures that can perfectly copy humans. It’s the unwelcoming, inhospitable environment, the battle against the elements and absence of civilisation. Even when its clearly filmed in a studio. Coming as late as it does in the ‘60s cycle, Zebra’s impulse is perhaps surprisingly more attuned to a Bond type escapade than the jaded cynicism of Harry Palmer. There’s plenty of opportunity during time the running time to question the logic of its construction (was the sabotage just a stroke of luck? Vaslov had no guarantee the torpedoes would be required during the mission), but I’ll admit to being wholly indulgent of its deficiencies. Much of that is to do with the mighty McGoohan, who brings his intellect and shrewdness to a picture that would be far inferior in his absence.


**** 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.