Skip to main content

So Keels rush in where Steeds and angels fear to tread?

The Avengers
1.15: The Frighteners

This is more like The Avengers most people know, with its larger-than-life (albeit with down-to-earth ambitions) criminal types and the bowler-hatted presence of one John Steed. More parlance, this time deriving from the title, as The Deacon’s criminal gang put the frighteners on the beau of rich businessman’s daughter.


There’s a twist of sorts, in that the boyfriend (Philip Gilbert as Jeremy de Willoughby) is an absolute stinker. Director Robert Fuerst would return to the series an other seven times, and direct The Abominable Dr Phibes; he would also, alas for him, be pressed into service on The New Avengers. Writer Berkely Mather was one of the (three) credited writers on Dr No. The frighteners (not the name of their outfit, but give it another few years and it might well be) are a less than delectable gang of ruffians, the sorts who wouldn’t look out of place in Hot Snow.


Willoughby Goddard is a masterfully unruffled and rotund villain, with a very witty tongue. When he visits his now-reluctant financier (a remarkably svelte looking Stratford Johns as daddy Sir Thomas Weller) he declines the instruction to get out immediately (“Old brandies like this should never be drunk in haste”). When he sends his crew to sort Sir Thomas out, he informs them “There’s no money in it, boys, but when you’re doing your income tax return you can put it down to business expenses, advertise it”.


This doesn’t stop The Deacon from turning stupid when Keel threatens him with syringe full of Witch Hazel masquerading as hydrochloric acid. Keel isn’t the kind of doctor who would set you at ease today. In the past two (surviving) episodes, he’s been puffing away liberally (even giving his surrogate platonic girlfriend one to calm her nerves), inflicting violence on sundry bad guys, and now he pretends he’s going to horribly disfigure someone.  He’s brimming with bedside manner.


So The Deacon may not really have much justification in being so dismissive of the stupidity of henchman Moxon (Philip Locke, who would co-star with Johns 20 years later in the tedious Davison Doctor Who, Four to Doomsday). Moxon’s a delightfully unrefined cocker-nee. Just out the nick, he doesn’t want to get on the wrong side of the law again or he’ll be “eating porridge till it’s coming out me flippin’ ear-holes”. Keel manages to convince him his neck is broken (“Don’t be stupid, Moxon” responds The Deacon), but it’s Steed’s interaction with Moxon that’s the real treat.


Macnee is every bit as smooth and unruffled here as we know him later, just showing off a little bit more of the hard man. Steed applies “a little gentle psychology” to get Moxon to talk (“Now, their commandment is, thou shalt not grass to the law”). This is where Moxon decides of Steed “He’s bonkers. Stone bonkers” as the debonair secret agent (“Do you get a pension in your job?”) gets a bit rough with the underworld lackey (“He was going to shiv me perishing ear off with that slasher, I tell you”). 


Steed carries that wonderfully jaunty, disarming manner wherever he goes. Asked “Can’t you read?” when he enters the dry-cleaning shop (a front for the gang) against the instruction of the “proprietor” Beppi (Neil Wilson, Sam Seeley from Spearhead from Space) and the closed sign, Steed replies “I suffer under the disability of a public school education”. He also gets to pose as a feckless chaperone for Dawn Beryl’s Marilyn Weller.


He effortlessly steals any scene he’s in from the chiselled Keel. In the case of the latter, Carol is sidelined but still pines for the dashing doctor (“I’m not Mrs Keel, I’m his nurse”). Keel being the lead, though, he still has to come up with the necessary winning moves.


There are a number of choice scenes here, then, and it’s tighter and pacier than the two previous Season Oners. The exposing of Jeremy’s dodginess via his “dear old mum” (an old dear known to Keel) is a satisfying if not at all baffling ruse (we don’t need the explanation that Keel knew about Jeremy’s birthmark from examining him). 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus