Skip to main content

Without paranoia, how are you going to know who your enemies are?

Star Cops
3. Intelligent Listening for Beginners

One thing about the Chris Boucher scripted episodes, they have marvellous titles; evocative and cerebral at the same time. Intelligent Listening for Beginners has surveillance as it’s starting point, the idea of all this information being recorded (legally or otherwise) and how to possibly analyse it with any coherence or rigour is a pertinent one in an age where just that is happening (if there were intelligent listening, there’d never be a successful terrorist attack…) Then there’s his use of computer viruses; if he were really prescient, everyone would have got around the problem by using Macs.


This one also features an operational Channel Tunnel (construction began the year after broadcast), terrorist hijackings and corporate interests buying whomsoever they want. The cover-up instituted by Michael Chandri (David John Pope, whose biggest claim to fame might be playing the Kandyman in Doctor Who’s The Happiness Patrol the following year) is perhaps the least effective part of the episode, simply because he announces that “Intelligent listening is a failure” yet we’re never given an insight as to why. Certainly, something of that order ten years from now (on top of whatever “they” have at the moment) doesn’t seem so remote.


By now, there’s a pattern of secret projects being developed in disparate off-Earth locations. It was there in the last episode, and it will be there in the next, but there are probably only so many space cases to think of and so far they are distinctive enough that the choices don’t feel repetitive. The quoting of William Blake for the virus (“The invisible worm that flies in the night”) is effectively creepy, and there’s some impressive stunt working in the opening sequence (and explosions).


More noteworthy is the claustrophobia of space, though; the prospect of being immobilised and isolated in the moon buggy on the way to visit Chandri, and later Spring’s escape from his base as it counts down to destruction.


Spring: You know, it used to take a lot of talent and the right sort of upbringing to be polite and have filthy manners at the same time. Now it just takes a computer.

Literary references go hand-in-hand with the continued slights against technology. Chandri doesn’t like Kindles and has a physical library. Spring continues his boundlessly enthusiastic tirades against machine minds. He’s also as snappy as ever, scalding David again when they don’t learn what Chandri was hiding (“If you talked less, and listened more, we might have found out what”). Spring’s also disapproving of the Black Hand Gang’ (an offshoot of The Organisation of Pan Continental Anarchists) getting their name and historical referencing wrong; they should have been called the Black Hand.


Chandri: My world, the world I came from, reveres all life.
Spring: This is a dead world, sir.

The attempt to reference Chandri’s religious background (Hindu, I’m guessing) is fairly clumsy (although not nearly as much as the sort of racial and cultural awareness being attempted in Doctor Who of that same period), but David’s description of a the laser weapon Kenzy’s trying to sell, which can pick out the pigmentation in the victim’s skin, as “Oh, the bastards have finally come up with a racist weapon” is quite funny. Evans continues to show his limitations, however. Particularly poor is his “Don’t patronise me, you supercilious bastard”, although it’s not a line that rolls of the tongue. Evans also has a distracting habit of putting a foot on tables.


Much of this episode is about setting up Kenzy and her fractious-to-respectful relationship with Spring. Linda Newton is more assured than some of her co-stars but one wonders about stereotyping again with a loud, cocksure Aussie who also happens to be a crook (rather than crook) and in the pocket of the Allied Pacific Consortium (she’s based on The Coral Sea space station). Spring is clearing the decks, getting rid of the rot, which means “Hubble is rubble” while Kenzy is caught on tape taking a bribe by new recruit Devis.


She isn’t going lying down, though (despite Devis’ innuendos; his sexism is overdone, even if he is “very cuddly when you get to know me”). The lack of Star Cops is noted (“Well, you will keep sacking people”) but there’s never a noticeable uptake beyond this point (unless recruits all work off screen). The climactic hijacking isn’t too bad, but trying to do the weightless thing means everything is slowed down, inimical to building up any tension.


The spying theme never really forms as much of a core point as it seems poised to in the early stages. There are familiar gags about military intelligence and the better quips about the value of paranoia, but generally the theme of secrets and surveillance is more immediately notable in the following episode. Also notable here is that sexism isn’t just limited to Devis. The normally restrained Spring refers to Kenzy as “the bloody woman” when she slyly wangles her way to reinstatement at the heroic post-terrorist-foiling press conference. Spring will also refer to her again the same way the following week. There’s a reference to the High Frontier here, one of the considered titles of the show.






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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

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