Skip to main content

You’re the kind of machine who should be working for us.

The Black Windmill
(1974)

(SPOILERS) Michael Caine has made so many spy movies, a few are bound to have fallen through the cracks. It’s especially a shame that The Black Windmill, with its proto-Ransom/Taken premise and a fine director in Don Siegel, fresh from career renaissance maker Dirty Harry and follow-up Charley Varrick, doesn’t quite live up to the talent involved. Still, neither does it deserve its all but forgotten status.


Caine’s Major John Tarrant is on the trail of an international arms syndicate/sabotage ring, so they only go and kidnap his son and demand a ransom (£517k in uncut diamonds; about £6m in today’s money, so not that much really, not for an international arms syndicate, anyway). It becomes clear that contact “Drabble” (McKee, played by John Vernon) knows an awful lot about Tarrant, who he works for and what he’s investigating, which can only lead to the conclusion that someone in British Intelligence is helping him. All Tarrant wants is his son back, but his superiors have other priorities, which include the suspicion that Tarrant may be in on it. This state of affairs isn’t helped any when McKee places evidence in Tarrant’s flat suggesting an affair with his associate Celia Burrows (Delphine Seyrig).


So there’s a potentially effective web of intrigue and mystery set up. An additional layer comes with Tarrant’s friction with his ex-wife Alex (Janet Suzman). This isn’t explored to its full potential since her characterisation is undercooked, but the gist is that the security services killed their relationship and ruined Tarrant as any kind of decent person.


The chief problem with The Black Windmill is that Tarrant is too passive a character for too much of the duration. This might be explained in part by everyone noting how composed he is (“Isn’t that what I’m trained to do? Hide my feelings?”) but he’s continually pushed around by both his bosses and by McKee. He never really gets to show much initiative either; the means to get hold of the diamonds is intentionally laid out on a plate for him, and McKee’s dropping of the location of his kidnapped son is pretty foolish given the elaborate plan to hang the operation on Tarrant (which involves Tarrant being arrested, and hopefully not spilling everything he’s learned –including the windmill – before McKee can have him immediately abducted and killed).


In short, Tarrant isn’t the most satisfying of protagonists, although Caine, at his lizard-eyed zenith (the period ’65-’75 is probably his most consistently satisfying period as an actor, and there’s certainly an awful lot of dross in the decade that follows). His impression of his RP boss isn’t up to much, though. Anyone watching this would scarcely believe he’d one day get an Oscar for delivering a very ropey American accent. This is also an early sign of fashion disasters to come, with Caine not only sporting garish suits and oversized ties, but also experiencing the onset of his random “stylish” spectacles faze. A full decade where you’re longing for the return of those NHS specs.


The supporting cast is solid, although the honours go to Donald Pleasance, who seems to be doing something wildly interesting in what ever I happen upon him in lately. He’s Tarrant’s superior Harper, a nervy man with a particularly obsessive habit of playing and straightening his moustache. Pleasance makes the tic powerfully distracting, such that it becomes the focus of any scene he’s in. Harper’s described as someone who “If he hasn’t solved The Times Crossword by 10 in the morning, he has to go to his doctor for a check-up”, and his first appearance finds him misnaming a suspect as Sean Connery, to the disbelief of his superior and the rolled eyes of Caine. Pleasance even has a scene where he makes shredding compelling.


Vernon, four years from legendary status as Dean Wormer in Animal House, previously worked with Siegel on Dirty Harry, and he’s suitably implacable and ruthless. The sort of guy who has no compunction in torturing a child (fairly brutal this, even though its off screen), less still dispatching his associates/ girlfriends. Mentions too for Julian O’Connor, Joss Ackland (positively svelte and sporting a magnificent hat), Catherine Schell (gorgeous as ever, and in a single  scene effectively putting the fear up Harper as a nympho lush), Clive Revill, a pre-Watson Edward Hardwicke and David Daker.


The plot, adapted by Leigh Vance (who mostly worked in TV, including The Avengers, Mission: Impossible and Strange Report) from Clive Egelton’s novel Seven Days to a Killing, has its share of unlikely incidents (including the hows and whys of the bad guys showing up when they do and how they do for the opening abduction), but Siegel keeps things zipping along. Indeed, his non-local eye for the sights and sounds of London is particularly arresting, making this altogether fresh and vibrant visually. There are a series of notable set pieces, including a pulse pounding Tube chase (Daker after Caine) and a simple but tense sequence in which Tarrant slips back into England from France through Customs.


The showdown is pretty standard stuff, though, effectively staged but really just Caine showing up at the titular location (which suggests something much more intriguing and vital than it actually is) and getting handy with a machine gun (ending with McKee being bloodily bullet-riddled in the nethers). 


There’s a feeling that with a few more drafts this could have been closer to Le Carré in presenting a jaded approach to the Intelligence Services, shifting the focus from the fairly straightforward criminal antics of the villains. Roy Budd’s so-so presence on the soundtrack is also a reminder of superior things, in particularly his Caine outing a couple of years prior, Get Carter (when Caine’s summoned to the phone, “Is there a Mr Trapp in the house?” it’s a near quote of Carter). If only Tarrant had ordered that pint in a thin glass.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.