Skip to main content

In the old days, childbirth was a much simpler affair.

Star Cops
7. A Double Life

Thus far, Star Copshas maintained a degree of consistency. Nothing that gets into five star territory, but nothing below average either. That changes with A Double Life (if titles are any indication of the show’s quality, this one certainly sucks), a feeble story taking in cloning, doppelgangers and another opportunity for the series’ unswerving appetite for stereotyping any given nationality or race; this time it tries its hand at Arab culture.


John Collee scripts again (and the next too), but Christopher Baker is back in the director’s chair and one’s instantly aware of the dissipation of atmosphere (and turning up of lights). There are a few neat little ideas thrown into a plot concerning the kidnapping of the embryos of rich Arab woman Chamsya Assadi (Nitza Shaul), such as the doubling of one’s chances of conception on the Moon. There’s also comment on the deluge of individuals ending up in space looking for a living, “Like trying to keep tabs on a gold rush”. There are also chromosomal fingerprint tests. Less impressively, people make coffee in the same old way and relax in makeshift Moonbase chill out rooms with bargain basement chairs.


Madam Assadi who has “got to be the world’s most unpopular woman” and is related to a royal family, proceeds to take the law into her own hands and, in typical Star Cops fashion, is given to phrases such as “There is a saying in my country…” Shaul isn’t really very good, unfortunately; hers is one of those performances that’s so uncertain you half believe she might be intended as the perpetrator from the first scene. Which I guess provides a level of unintentional intrigue that isn’t really there.


Devis: Perhaps he had a twin.

It’s Devis’ oafish to-the-point-ness that gives Nathan his insight into the culprit behind the abduction. It isn’t concert pianist James Bannerman (Brian Gwaspari), despite his matching DNA; it’s his double Albi. Albi gets the best line in a bad bunch (“They’ve sent me a big fat hostage”, describing Devis), but his motives and behaviour are banal (he wants revenge for Assadi’s murder of daddy Cyrus Tiel).


Devis is typically tactless throughout, although one begins to wish he would show similar abandon in eviscerating of the script. “She probably flushed the bloody things down the loo” he concludes after the embryo abduction has taken place. He manages to insult Anna Shoun, although given Sayo Inaba’s performance that’s at least understandable (“Well, I told her she was too fragile for this sort of work”). Anna is given some quite good comebacks to slobbish Devis (“If you were more sophisticated, I might share your sense of humour”) but they mostly fall flat due to the delivery.


Shoun: My problem is a spiritual one. As a Buddhist I’m committed to the preservation of life.

Anna’s disinclination to kill is displayed as something odd, so obviously she needs to come around and be required to kill someone for the climax. Which she duly does. Just as it looks like there might be serious emotional and psychological fallout from this, Devis gets her to laugh. See? Killing people isn’t that bad after all!


Elsewhere, Krivenko shows himself to be a meddling arse, keeping Assadi informed of events so as to keep her sweet on Moonbase funding, which leads to Bannerman being kidnapped. Eric Ray Evans gets to flag up his limited range again, while Kenzy actually calls someone a “great galah”.


Spring: In the old days, childbirth was a much simpler affair.


This is dull, uninspired stuff. It’s a pretty bog standard plotline that, aside from the clone conceit, could have been used in any detective show thriving on the unlikely (a Jonathan Creek, for example). As such it’s no one’s finest hour, although Box has a mildly amusing sequence where he’s taking the piss out of Nathan. Who only merits comment for another pointer to his Morse-like qualities; he’s clearly really enjoying the opera compilation David gives him. Oh, and for the very silly visual gag in the last scene where Kenzy sees a double of Nathan on the shuttle.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?