Skip to main content

The inside of that box is probably seething with space poison.

Star Cops
6. In Warm Blood

A not-so-clever play on words for what is at times a highly intriguing first episode from John Collee. Graeme Harper is again invaluable in creating a strong atmosphere. I recall rating this one particularly highly, based on the moody exploration of the vessel Pluto 5 and wizened corpses discovered (resonant of both Tobe Hooper’s Lifeforce and the mummified pilot in Doctor Who’s Terminus a few years earlier). On the significant downside, it’s Japanese stereotypes in the spotlight this week.


Scientific experimentation unleashed is again the subject of In Warm Blood, although whereas in Trivial Games and Paranoid Pursuits it was a reveal, here the mystery is how precisely the research does or does not connect to the case. Soon after the ship adrift in the asteroid belt for a year and a half is discovered (giving Evans a chance to overact, never a good idea), an old chum of Krivenko, Christina Janssen (Dawn Keeler), is found dead in her research lab. Nathan suspects suicide as a consequence of her hearing the news, particularly when archive news reports suggest her Nobel Prize winning drugs came about through result of unwarranted testing.


Spring: She’s Japanese, she’s a doctor, and her name is Anna Shoun.

And of course, that turns out to be it. The drugs the crew were taking, to counteract the effects of hypo-gravity, were just fine until the temperature hit 41 degrees centigrade, at which point their blood clotted instantly. Funding Janssen was Japanese multinational Hanimed, who put future Star Cop Anna Shoun on board (Sayo Inaba) in order to study the scene and report back to their CEO Richard Ho (Richard Rees). 


Shoun: I refuse to betray the trust of my people.
Spring: They’re using you!
Shoun: As are you.

Harper seems keen to evoke Blade Runner on a micro budget (large segmented video monitors, futuristic video phones), but is hampered by a script indulging laboured mugging over traditional greetings and questions of honour. Inaba is pretty, but not wholly convincing. I don’t think I realised Calder voiced Box when I first saw Star Cops, and his inflection is really very good, particularly his quizzing by Nathan over whether he uses people (“It is part of your job to make people act against their natures”).


Ho: For the majority to benefit, a few must always suffer.

Nathan has an effective, if obvious confrontation scene with Ho, where he pretends he has drugged him and turns up the sauna and, as a matter of fact piece on corporate greed, In Warm Blood is effective and pertinent. It’s in the attempts at multi-culturalism that Collee and co display a tin ear. Obviously then, the episode has Devis plus exercise bike in full effect, (“There you go, Colin, someone new for you to leer at”), identifying Anna as a “cheerful Chink”. But what was there any need for final moments, where he does a mock-martial arts bow and cry before running at David? It’s excruciating. We also have to put up with groaners like, “I was asking you as a doctor, not a Buddhist”. Even the music gets in on the dubious act.


One interesting element indulged by Harper is the Altman-esque cross conversations; they’re very much in force, sometimes to irritating effect. Harper’s work is impressive, although it’s somehow the budget limitations are always more obvious here than his Who work of the period. That might partly be the entire VT production. It might also be the tiny cast and limited locations. Like last episode’s Italy scenes, when it comes to recreating a country in a few sets, you’re probably on a hiding to nothing trying to pull it off convincingly. His space work is first rate, though.








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.