Skip to main content

I was in MI-5 just long enough to realise, you can do good, or you can do well. Sooner or later, they make you choose.

Spooks: The Greater Good
(2015)

(SPOILERS) The last time I watched Spooks (or MI-5, as it is known in many countries) can have been no more recently than 2007, as Rupert Penry-Whatshishyphenate was still starring, and he got blown up soon after (as is wont to happen in their risk-friendly business). As the series carried on until 2010, and I only sporadically watched it before that, you could conclusively say I was only ever the most casual of viewers. It was okay, very much what you might expect of a BBC with one eye on the US (and the success of 24), having lost confidence in how to make their own style of television. Spooks could never really getting that the same kind of scale or conviction of threat as its American cousins, which rather worked against it. At its worst, it all looked rather silly, which undermined what was always the best aspect of British spydom: the intrigue itself. Spooks: The Greater Good, suffers from exactly the same problems.


It even has coloned title, taking its cues from the Mission: Impossible approach. Those films work (well, except for the second one) because they are big, breathless, and have sufficient self-awareness to rattle on through their essential ludicrousness and make that a virtue. Spooks has no such luck; it's one nod to the less than earnest is a white cat as "evidence" of a suspect's villainy. Even 24 (okay, I ducked out of the last couple of seasons), which was desperately serious, generally succeeded by detaching its lead character from reality. Jack Bauer would be successively hurled into bubble realities where all he had to do was survive 40 minutes at a time. Spooks is unable to escape its limitations. Everything, from the roving camera mimicry to the thrall to London landmarks, is asking to be scoffed at for presuming it can compete with the big boys. Instead, when the umpteenth batch of terrorists arrive intent on blowing up a landmark, it invites derision.


Spooks: The Greater Good does understand, however, that the most convincing way to present the intelligence services is to show them as inherently corrupt. In decades past, this was always a result of moles, or the cynicism of those in command; today it’s simply about corporate respect and branding. The makers know there’s insufficient reason to buy into the threat from foreign powers; it’s a bit passé.  So, while The Greater Good comes replete with a stereotypical Middle Eastern terrorist (one who can be manipulated on account of his wife; very Bauer-esque), it can’t rely on that for sustenance. We the jaded public are so indifferent, we’d more need convincing that the intelligence services weren’t nefarious and working against out best interests. As such, there’s a notional recognition that out greatest enemy is really ourselves. While that’s also there in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Greater Good offers merely lip service, or rather gloss. Surface detail, rather than carefully hewn substance, and a wilful lack of political relevance.


The Greater Good builds its plot on a series of half-baked tropes that don’t hold up for more than several seconds when sweated under harsh lights. Instead of working from a baseline of what British spy fare does well (John Le Carré, Len Deighton) and building in a few grand set pieces, we’re asled to suffer a series of WTFs. So someone in the MI-5 hierarchy allows terrorist Adem Qasim (Elyes Gabel) to escape custody and the reason is… they want the agency to collapse and be taken over by the CIA. As plot motivators go, it’s on the wispy side. So too is stalwart Harry Pearce (Peter Firth), doing dodgy deals to get to the bottom of this conspiracy. He goes so far overboard that he gives Qasim the keys to intelligence community kingdom in exchange for calling off a planned bombing (the prize Harry has requested before this is no easier to swallow; a telephone number that may well be completely useless). It doesn’t help that everything takes place with a thunderously straight face.


Harry’s the kind of maverick, hard-choices taking fellow intended to function as a British Bauer. The guy who will make the sacrifices, take the risks no one else can, because he believes the ends justify the means. Such flagrant copying of the 24 modus operandi would be all well and good if Harry could muster an ounce of Jack’s grit and determination. Or even if he could merely summon the clipped severity of a Le Carré spymaster. But Firth is a drab, stodgy presence, and as commanding as a custard eclair. Obviously, Spooks devotees will disagree, and as a lead he’s admittedly more agreeable than someone as wet and non-present as Clark Gregg in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. But that’s hardly an endorsement. It’s particularly a problem for a small screen hero pumped up to movie size, where the attention is all on him. Firth hasn’t had to deal with this kind of scrutiny since Lifeforce.


Helping Harry out is special guest young buck Game of Thrones guy Kit Harington as Will Holloway. Will has history with Harry, inevitably of the “you knew my father” variety, and the movie’s to-and-fro “Can I trust you or can’t I?” poise quickly gets stale. The real question isn’t whether Will can trust Harry, it’s why/how Harry is continually given licence to get up to all sorts of unconscionable behaviour. Harington’s doing his best to score a succession of movie roles to ensure his post-Thrones longevity, but thus far they’ve been decidedly second-rate. He’s a likable presence, but not a weighty one. If he can’t galvanise himself towards a signature part equal to the agreeable Jon Snow, he’ll be consigned to supporting roles in no time.


This is Bharat Nalluri’s fifth feature. It’s perhaps telling that his best received is Mrs Pettigrew Lives for a Day, decidedly not of the action genre to which he has staked his name (including the third entry in The Crow series). He directed the Spooks pilot all the way back in 2002, so they presumably thought they owed him. Nothing about the direction is bad per se, but nothing about is more than standard issue for this kind of fare. Lots of handheld camera, quick cutting etc. 


To be fair to Nalluri, he has a better sense of spatial geography than many who do this kind of thing, but he can’t disguise the holes in the plot. The highlights are a chase round Heathrow and a desperate attempt to eliminate a sniper during a meet, although blowing up David Harewood and shooting TV regular Lara Pulver maintain the Spooks agenda for shock deaths (which makes them less shocking, if you’re expecting them).


Jennifer Ehle is in there; she’s always note-perfect, it’s just a shame the parts don’t tend to equal her talent. Tuppence Middleton is surely a next-big-Brit-thing in Hollywood any day now, and plays the questionable character line well until the writers fail her. 


Really, the only singularly great role is Tim McInnery’s sneering, MI-5 superior Mace. There’s a touch of continuity here, as the character showed up in four episodes, the last of which aired nearly a decade ago. Mace is everything Harry isn’t in terms of viewer engagement. Rude, witty, abrasive, and even rather brave when it comes down to it. McInnery would never be cast as the leading man, but if The Greater Good had focussed on him venting spleen at wholly unsuspecting terrorists it might feasibly have been a great movie.


It probably wasn’t a bad idea on paper to bring back Spooks. When there’s a chance of a TV transition making a mint (like The Inbetweeners), it could easily be regarded as a no-brainer. But Spooks: The Greater Good isn’t sufficiently different. It’s borrowed writers from the last few seasons of the show, and a director from the first few. As such, it follows the restrained tradition of British big screen adaptations, rather than the flourish of US ones. Which is exactly what the show didn’t want to do at inception. It so desperately wanted to be our answer to their TV. All the cinema incarnation has done is show that its characters (or more particularly Harry) are ill suited to grand gestures. And that, for a British spy movie on a budget to really engage, it needs to put its script foot forward first, rather than striving for sub-Bond/Bourne spectacle.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ve crossed the Atlantic to be reasonable.

Dodsworth (1936) (SPOILERS) Prestige Samuel Goldwyn production – signifiers being attaching a reputable director, often William Wyler, to then-popular plays or classical literature, see also Dead End , Wuthering Heights , The Little Foxes , The Best Years of Our Lives , and earning a Best Picture nomination as a matter of course – that manages to be both engrossing and irritating. Which is to say that, in terms of characterisation, Dodsworth rather shows its years, expecting a level of engagement in the relationship between Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and his wayward, fun-loving wife Fran (Ruth Chatterton) at odds with their unsympathetic behaviour.