Skip to main content

I wish the world were a newt!

Jeeves and Wooster
1.4 The Hunger Strike

The Hunger Strikeand the season finale are effectively a two-parter, and give Exton to stretch and allow the interweaving plotting of the novels a chance to take effect. That would be because he’s adapting Right Ho, Jeeves, Wodehouse’s second full-length Jeevesnovel. It bases itself around Brinkley court and the trials and tribulations Bertie must face at the behest of his Aunt Dahlia, unwanted felicitations of love and finally the machinations of Jeeves in order to resolve the situation.


Exton shows due fidelity to the source material, which includes one of the best scenes in the series (adapted from one of the best scenes in the books) as Gussie Fink-Nottle, thoroughly-sloshed and dull of love for Madeline Basset, presents prizes at the Market Snodsbury Grammar School. This has been foisted upon him by Bertie (on pain of no future servings of prize chef Anatole’s dinners), who in turn was pressed with the task by Aunt Dahlia.


But that is yet to come, for The Hunger Strike concerns itself with one of Bertie’s less-than-bright schemes; the titular activity is not such a stinker in theory, but when applied en masse it has understandably undesirable consequences, thus hoisting Bertie by his own petard (“Jeeves is not the only one with a brain. On this occasion, I’m your man”). Bertie advises three different parties to abstain from Anatole’s heavenly dinner in order to sell how individually upset they are to their other halves.


Bertie’s attempts to forestay a visit to Brinkley Court falls apart when Aunt Dahlia informs him that Angela (Amanda Elwes, who emphasises her disdain for Tuppy perfectly, in one of only two appearances along with the next episode) has broken up with Tuppy Glossop (Robert Daws, once again wonderfully short-tempered, obnoxious, and food-fixated). Bertie is instructed to visit in order to help her with his “loathsome friends” (that would be Tuppy and Gussie).


His plan finds him advising Aunt Dahlia to starve herself in order to manipulate a concerned husband Tom (Ralph Michael, who would return in the final season) into lending her the money to keep her rag Milady’s Boudoir afloat (she lost the money he previously gave her at gambling). These two episodes are Brenda Bruce’s last appearance as the character, and she is instantly the perfect fit for the character; she is certainly the actress who comes to mind when I think of the Dahlia in the series, so I’ll have to pay attention when I get to the subsequent runs. As Bertie notes to Jeeves, aunts are noted for their strong opinions, “Aunt calling to aunt like mastodons bellowing across primeval swamps”.


Tuppy is on the receiving end of a cavalcade of abuse from Angela, whom he has belittled over an incident with a shark (“probably a flatfish”). He is referred to as the “blasted Glossop”, a “lump of dough”, and “always thinking about food” (to which he responds “I am not devoted to food!”); it is because of this that Bertie persuades him to reveal his love and adoration for Angela by abstaining from eating.


As Tuppy comments, pushing away dinner cooked by Anatole is “pretty extreme” and the plate of sandwiches Angela presents him with in the next episode is the natural follow-up to the climax of the episode in which the famished Tuppy raids the larder at night for steak and kidney pie. He is duly discovered, and Angela comments that he needs “three or four good meals during the night. It keeps him going until breakfast”. Daws is quite marvellous playing a great pig, his mouth stuffed full of food (a porcine apple is lodged there at one point), and Robert Young shoots the various trips to the larder in the spirit of great bedroom farce, with a series of near misses until the accumulation of events explodes in a flourish of discovery.


This episode introduces both Gussie and Madeleine (Francesca Folan). Madeleine was played by three different actresses, but it is Elizabeth Morton in the last two seasons who really gets her off to a tee. Folan isn’t quite wet and simpering enough, although we’re more than informed of the necessaries of how she believes the starts are God’s daisy chain.


Gussie, we are informed, is “just the sort of chap Madeline would scoop up with a spoon”. Bertie tells Tuppy he held feelings for her during a recent Cannes trip (which isn’t true; he’s attempting to avoid accusations that he has intentions towards his cousin Angela); his response that she is not, in Tuppy’s expert evaluation, “a weird Gawd help-us”, is on the chivalrous side, as she most certainly is. Madeline, as ever mistakes that “same dumb, yearning look in your eyes” as Bertie being thoroughly smitten with her.


If Folan isn’t the best Madeline, she nevertheless spews forth appropriate Madelinisms; “Oh, look. The little bunnies. How still they are” (referring to stone rabbits); “Oh, Mr Moon is ever so shy, he keeps hiding behind the clouds”.


In contrast, we’re blessed with the first and best incarnation of Gussie Fink-Nottle here, in the form of Richard Garnett. He’s the personification of one who gets “over-stimulated when he comes to the city” and Garnett’s ruminations (“Oh Bertie, life would be so much simpler if we were newts”, to which Bertie responds “Yes, well I’ve said the same thing myself a hundred times”; “I wish the world were a newt!”) Predictably, Gussie’s declaration of love to Madeline goes awry (he discusses the marked sexual dimorphism in newt species instead) and his response has the resigned apologetics of John Merrick (“Everybody’s been very kind. No complaints. No complaints at all”). Gussie’s teetotalism will be intrinsic to the next episode, but here he is inveigled into joining The Wooster Diet so as to impress upon Madeline that he is pining for her.


The resulting rejections of his cooking cause the sensitive Anatole to quit. Bertie advises Jeeves that Anatole is foreign, and therefore excitable (“I shall bear that in mind, sir”), but such assurance doesn’t wash with Aunt Dahlia. She banishes Bertie (“This is all your fault, Wooster”), who to be fair has just destroyed a chandelier with Tom’s shotgun, so setting up a grand finale in which Bertie is the subject of all-round opprobrium that serves to provide his salvation from unwanted entanglements.


There are no piano recitals from Bertie this episode or next, presumably because there was too much intricacy of plot to squeeze in, but the interplay between Fry and Laurie over Bertie’s white mess jacket is a delight (“I assumed it had got into your wardrobe by mistake, sir, or else it was placed there by your enemies”). Jeeves’ putdowns are effortless; replying to Bertie’s suggestion that women tried to catch his eye he snubs with “Presumably they thought you were a waiter, sir”. The doomed battle Bertie engages in over the jacket sees him bringing it along even though his valet conveniently forgot it (“Er, which way up does it go, sir?”)


This episode and the following are about as good as the first season gets in terms of sustaining a plot for the duration. It helps considerably to have a narrative that fills the 50 minutes, rather than having to pick-and-mix. And, in Right Ho, Jeevesand the burdens of Brinkley Court, Exley draws on one of the best Wodehouse plots.


Featuring:

Aunt Dahlia (1.2, 1.4)
Tuppy Glossop (1.1, 1.2, 1.4)
Madeline Bassett (1.4)
Gussie Fink Nottle (1.4)
Anatole (1.4)
Tom Travers (1.4)
Angela Travers (1.4)

Brief Appearances:

Barmy Fotheringay Phipps (1.1, 1.2, 1.4)
Oofy Prosser (1.1, 1.2, 1.4)







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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

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.

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.