Skip to main content

I thought it was about time I recruited some little green men.

Star Cops
9. Little Green Men and Other Martians

It’s one of those ironies that Star Cops feels like it’s really coming together just as it gets kiboshed (it was planned as the tenth episode, the ninth falling by the wayside due to strike action). Chris Boucher and Graeme Harper converge for a densely plotted, twisty little number that even tantalises with the prospect of aliens (proper science fiction!) showing up. That would be too far out, of course…


Spring: We’ve got drugs, Mayan sculptures, dead pilots. How many cases have we got going on here?

As Spring opines, there’s enough material here for an episode double the length of Little Green Men and Other Martians and, as with a couple of the earlier Bouchers, it feels like it’s rushing a bit to reach the finishing line. It turns out that the aliens are a big archaeological con, picking up on the Chariots of the Gods craze (Were the ancient Gods really astronauts?: a bit passé by 1987, but that makes it better for this kind of take on the idea, in a way).


A 2000 year-old Mayan sculpture has been planted on the Mars surface to create a revenue stream for the museum that will host it. Along the way, a picture leaks, and the instigators indulge in a spot of murder and sabotage to keep their tracks covered. This is a solid idea on Boucher’s part, since it doesn’t require fabricated evidence that would eventually be torn apart; the object itself is real, its just where it allegedly comes from that isn’t.


If I’m honest, some of the method seem a little OTT (blowing up a passenger freighter bound for Mars, having already dispatched several pilots), and ringleader Philpott (Nigel Hughes, about as threatening as Chris Addison and just as appealing), who has a profoundly rubbish name for a villain, is rather unconvincing in the lengths he is willing to go to (which include blowing himself and the Star Cops up with him). But with an episode as pacey as this, one you have to really concentrate on to keep up with, it’s a relatively minor failing.


There’s even a greater sense of scale than on previous super saver outings. Harper opens on an atmospheric shot of the Martian surface, with a suitably eerie soundtrack, and there’s a whole sequence in a convincing-looking shipping silo. There’s also a bustling flight control, and a very Boucher line in unshiny futures where under-resourcing leads to important details being missed. For a series doing its best at real science though, Harper’s decision to include an explosion sound effect for the sabotaged freighter is glaring.


A drug smuggling plotline appears in the mix, which turns out to be a red herring (“It’s a lot of trouble to go to for powdered beef casserole”), and there’s a knowing wink at the stereotypes of the nosey journalist. Roy Holder (a memorable Krepler in Harper’s The Caves of Androzani) comes on in a raincoat (“And another thing; it doesn’t rain on the Moon”) and equipped with a hip flask (it’s got water in it). He tries everyone’s patience, but his lead is rock solid and Spring would have been blown up with the freighter if it wasn’t for him. 


Throughout the episode, Spring is due to imminently depart for Mars, in order to set up a Star Cops base there. He’ll be leaving David in charge (Erik Ray Evans missed out on the final episode due to a dose of Chicken Pox; his lines we’re divided between the remaining regulars and, to be honest, I only missed him when I realised he kept being referenced without making a showing), and Pal is initially only concerned about getting the deputy spot.


So she says. Actually, she’s cut up about Nathan going (it’ll be a couple of years, which sounds about right), even more so when she thinks he’s dead. Theirs is a nicely low key, growing mutual respect, and I’m not sure how welcome developing it further would have been in a second season. Although, I’m sure some tension would have been eked out of the situation, this not being a happily ever after world.


Vishenko continues to be a sore thumb even here, however. It’s not Jonathan Adams’ performance per se, unlike some of the regulars, it’s that his character is just too broad for a supposedly grounded series. Perhaps he’d have been less involved in a season two, if they were at least partly Mars-based.


Ending Star Cops like it did at least resulted in none of the fall-out that followed the cancellation of The Tripods two years before. That was cut off before the grand finish, an act of sheer bloody-mindedness emblematic of a corporation that continually behaved with embarrassment over science fiction. Perhaps the strangest thing is that Star Cops was commissioned in the first place, although that may have had more to do with its niche slot on BBC2. Who knows the precise reasons for it being dumped at an unholy time (8.30, midway through any challengers on one of the other main channels) and season (the height of summer), but it’s suggestive that even if it had miraculously done well there was little inclination to follow it up.


Is that a shame? Well, it’s 50-50. Star Cops really needed Boucher’s direct oversight rather than that of producer Evgeny Gridneff, the man he saw as ruining it. The first four episodes, although not perfect, are consistent in actualising the touchstone of germane space-based detective work, and the finale very much picks up that baton. In between, the best we see is lip service to the setting, and one wonders if it wouldn’t eventually just have fallen apart, such that the not-at-all-what-it-sounds-like title became a more accurate depiction of the show, a Dempsey and Makepeace in space. There are glimmerings here of a more melancholy, Morse-esque series with a twist, one that with sufficient investment and disinclination to indulge inappropriate fireworks, could have been something special. A reboot of The Wild Frontier might do well in the current landscape even, if viewers were able to get past the misleading title.



Star Cops ranked:

1. Little Green Men and Other Martians
2. Trivial Games and Paranoid Pursuits
3. Intelligent Listening for Beginners
4. In Cold Blood
5. Conversations with the Dead
6. An Instinct for Murder
7. Other People’s Secrets
8. This Case to Be Opened in a Million Years
9. A Double Life







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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

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'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.

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 .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

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.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.