Skip to main content

I’ve just been hearing about your giant leap for space mankind.

Star Cops
2. Conversations with the Dead

Boucher announces his clever premise – and it is a clever premise – with a bit too much gusto here, as Spring has to ask Theroux to explain himself when he announces a murder investigation into two still living crew of a freighter that has plunged off course; they have limited life support and no fuel left to correct course, so they are “technically dead”. The conclusion isn’t quite so satisfying for either this case or the demise of Nathan’s girlfriend, but in general Conversations with the Dead improves on the opener through being attend to the investigation(s) rather than establishing the scene.


With the “dead” freighter crew investigation, there’s a similar problem to the guilty party in the opener in as much as once the main suspect enters the scene there’s no doubting its him. There’s a potentially dodgy Scotsman about (Sean Scanlan who, appropriately enough, has appeared in Rab C Nesbitt), but he reeks of deep fried red herring and is dispensed with as a possible post-haste.


The move to the Moonbase (at Spring’s zero G-sick behest) is welcome from the point of view of limiting unwieldy and pace-destroying weightless scenes (the opening with Calder doing a bit of business is excruciatingly unconvincing) but it further underlines the stereotype-heavy nature of Boucher’s vision of the future. I mentioned Troughton era Doctor Who, and this really wouldn’t be out of place with a Frenchman wearing a neck scarf and beret talking about garlic.


Spring: I’ve just been hearing about your giant leap for space mankind. Congratulations.

With Spring on Earth due to the death of Lee, David does the legwork looking into the freighter’s misdirection (it’s unsubtly called the Daedalus), and unearths that the crew were a couple (against policy). Dr Paton (Alan Downer) shows up, announcing there’s some handy experimental cryogenics equipment on board (ostensibly bound for Mars) and this might be the solution to the crew’s terminal difficulties (using the ship’s air supply to course redirect; quite nifty logic, there). The problem is, Boucher’s unable to disguise how obvious this ploy is as soon as he lays it out for David.


Spring: It would save an awful lot of unpleasantness if you informed us of any journeys you intend making – in the next eight years or so.

We later learn that Paton was refused a licence for human experimentation so arranged the little mishap (“a melancholy way to test my equipment”), knowing “there will be a place in history waiting for the man who is successful in this field”. I like Boucher’s reflex cynicism (it pervade Blake’s 7 too), with Paton claiming Spring can’t prove any of this and that he is a man of influence. It certainly looks as if he will get away with it for eight years (as long as it takes for the freighter to return), the precise charges depending on whether they are “deep frozen corpses” or not.


So while the scheme for the titular case is a good one, it fumbles its reveal of the perpetrator. With the murder of Lee, the mystery itself is kept bubbling along engrossingly, including the introduction of soon-to-be Star Cop Colin Devis (Trevor Cooper, whom Graeme Harper had worked with on Revelation of the Daleks; Harper was instrumental in getting him the gig), the hopelessly unwieldy motivation that no amount of characters’ marvelling over how unlikely it is forgives fails to really satisfy.


Essentially, Lee is murdered by the security agencies so Spring will get on their tail and pursue one of them to an American space station where there are a lot of top secret goings on going on (“We go in there. We bring him out and get everything he brings out and has learnt out the station”). Er… What’s to say the spy will learn anything? The plan is tenuous at best. Even with Nathan having asked the Americans to “stop him at all costs” it seems unlikely he’d make it there and just be allowed to wander about the place.


Again, there’s a palpable cynicism towards those that rule, where national and corporate interests are willing to use innocents as collateral in their quest for power or success, but in this case the motivation is too difficult to swallow (likewise, the idea that “John Smith” (Benny Young) should have got “a bit carried away that night in the park”, when the whole scheme would have crumbled if Nathan died).


Spring: He’s one of the department’s all time cretins.

On the other hand, interaction with Devis yields some conversational gems.  Spring, grumpy at the best of times like a Space Morse, is understandably even more so at the news of Lee’s demise. He requests of Devis “You may not be bright but you can at least be civil”, then goes on to be uncivil towards pretty much everyone he comes into contact with throughout. He causes friction wherever he goes with Devis’ deputy Corman (Sian Webber, who turns out to be with the security establishment, in a twist that actually isn’t readily apparent).


Theroux: Jeez, I wish I had a classical education.
Spring: I wish you had any kind of education.

His rudeness to David (when Nathan quotes Arthur Conan Doyle about eliminating the impossible, whatever remaining no matter how improbable being the truth) is nothing compared to the way he responds to Devis (Devis: You’re not as stupid as you look; Spring: I wish I could say the same for you, inspector”). The scenes between Calder and Cooper come alive in a way those with Evans don’t, mostly because Cooper’s a better actor, but also because Devis is such a thoroughly obnoxious character; sexist, boorish, slovenly and “thick” (as he admits himself). He’s also one of those characters who ends up likeable despite himself, mainly due to Cooper’s good work.


Of which, the colourful language is a calling card for Devis, whether it’s innuendo or talking about bat shit; there are times where one feels it’s for the sake of it, a sign of how this is “grown up”. Occasionally the non-coarse dialogue is also a bit intrusive (“I’ve just had a man executed, against all my principals and my beliefs” announces Nathan, just to let us know where his moral standing lies)


Christopher Baker does a solid enough job directing, but one only needs compare his results with Graeme Harper’s to see how he falls short. The attack on Spring in Chiswick Park recalls Deckard being attacked by Pris in Blade Runner, just without any of the style (Contrastingly it reminded the Anorak of Leon’s encounter with Deckard). Elsewhere, the model work is top notch, especially with the new Moonbase and buggy scenes. The incidental music continues to be very variable, however, like a bad ‘80s US cop show.


Conversations with the Dead and its predecessor ought really to have been absent the opening title song (some would say they all should have been), since its resonance comes in only after Lee has died. While there are failings of plotting and motivation here, the whole is indicative of Boucher’s keen capacity for space age crimes developing from the “realities” of the environment. He also introduces a fine addition to the main cast in Devis (bringing charges against Corman has cost him his job) and continues to emphasise his man vs machines commentary on effective police work; computer decisions are not to be trusted and can miss things (an crucial autopsy of a roller-skating freak, or “Urban Apache” (!) is called off because its wasting Category A resources).





Popular posts from this blog

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.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

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.