Skip to main content

If you hold on too long, someone’s going to put a bullet in your head.

The Avengers
2.8: Bullseye

Another Eric Paice teleplay, and an improvement over The Decapod although, where that had a decent twist, the whos, whys and whats of Bullseye lead to something of a shrug. Its greatest asset is Ronald Radd’s stock market tycoon Henry Cade, a Gordon Gekko a quarter of a century before Wall Street, revelling in buying up, stripping down and selling on his assets without conscience or regard for those who may lose out.


Cathy: I feel if I hold on a little longer someone’s going to go up to three pounds.
Young: If you hold on too long, someone’s going to put a bullet in your head.

Cathy’s back in the frame, and front-and-centre, similarly to Venus in the previous episode. Unlike Venus, though, she has sass and smarts on her side. Steed ensures a sizeable portion of shares in suspicious gun manufacturer Anderson’s Small Arms are purchased when Mr Anderson is discovered with a bullet in him (the first of a string; board members start dropping like flies), and all it takes is for Cathy to appear at the shareholders meeting, ask a few diligent questions, and presto, she’s taken his place.


Perhaps surprisingly, the portrait of the pressures of share dealing and Cade’s attempted takeover are far more engaging than the arms dealing side. Which is a bit of a murk of Anderson arms being smuggled to Africa under the watch of Karl (Bernard Kay).


There are shenanigans too; Karl is carrying on with Dorothy Young (Laurie Leigh) in front of her director husband (Felix Deebank), who is attempting to carry on with his secretary Jean (Mitzi Rogers); he manages to get her back to his house boat at any rate, in an example of some very dodgy '60s office dirty doggedness. Karl’s interests are purely those of leverage, however, as he’s also been carrying on with Doreen Ellis (Judy Parfitt). Quite how Karl came to gain such a hold over the company and its staff eluded me, and his demise is similarly perfunctory and insubstantial; he heads off for Brittany with Dorothy and we are told the river police caught up with the boat and recovered the guns.


Cathy: How would you describe your taste in décor?
Cade: Vulgar.
Cathy: I see you are a frank and straightforward man.
Cade: No, I’m cunning and devious.

Radd was only 33 when he made this, but he could easily pass for the 44 he’s playing as Cade. It’s amusing to see the positive impression he makes on Cathy, and particularly the way Steed overtly disapproves (“You don’t want to get mixed up with the likes of him”). Indeed, the episode ends with Cathy and Cade agreeing to a dinner date. While Cade, presumably an ex-pat since he has a home in the Bahamas, is unapologetic about his behaviour, he’s also winningly transparent, describing his typical actions upon taking over a business (first he pays off directors, then fires all the executive staff, then brings in an accountant to go through books for irregularities) and pointing out that Anderson has no moral high ground to stand on (three co-directors devoting their lives to making armaments, and each finding a bribe too big to refuse; which got them bumped off).


Appropriately, Cade is instrumental in tying up the case; Cathy sells her shares to him, enabling the takeover and thus putting a halt to Karl’s activities. To add insult to the company’s injury, Cade wastes no time in disposing of his purchase, selling it to a Japanese syndicate (questioned why he didn’t examine their files down to the last paperclip, he replies, “Well, I always say that, it frightens them you see”).


Steed: Fascinating place. Oh, they’re so greedy!

Of course, Cathy has reason to see the positive side of Cade (she thinks he puts on a show, and it may be that he’s less unscrupulous than he likes to make out), as Steed hasn’t exactly been doing everything in his power to win her favour. He has been entering her flat, posing as a window cleaner and telling the police she’s gone to the Isle of Wight when they show up at the door. He also arranges for her to meet Young on his houseboat. “Did you conduct any more of my private business while I was out?” she asks. His reaction to the sights of the stock exchange is similarly Steed-ish, although the proceedings are generally Steed-lite (“A shrewd man, your broker” Cade surmises of him when they finally meet).


Generally, not a great episode, but one with a great guest character (although, foreman George (Robin Wentworth) also raises a smile, commenting that his wife wouldn’t believe the truth, that he was stocktaking late into the night, so he may as well tell her a lie).


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.

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.

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 .

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’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.

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.