Skip to main content

How can one have an accident with a face pack?

The Avengers
2.12: Death on the Rocks

More death in the title, and more diamonds too. Unfortunately, Death on the Rocksis a much less enticing affair than Death of a Great Dane, a standard undercover job in which Mr and Mrs Steed infiltrate a diamond ring (well, not a literal diamond ring).


Cathy’s endless font of knowledge is once more referenced (“You lived in Africa – you probably know more about illicit diamonds than I do”), and a background subplot features her apartment being redecorated by a less-than-bright workman, terrified by the head of a blue wildebeest (conservationist Cathy is playing a tape recording of lion noises at the time) and concerned when Steed tells him a stuffed crocodile is still alive; later Steed has taken over the painting when Cathy summons him (“Well, what did you want to see your loving hubby about so urgently?”) The redecoration motif continues in their new (Samuel Ross’s ex-) sumptuous lodgings (“It won’t go too well with my wife’s trophies, I’m afraid”, Steed advises of the current décor, pointing to a lion’s head).


Fenton: Your federation has run this industry long enough. It’s time we changed that.

The plot involves diamonds smuggled into the country among rock salt crystals (just add water and the valuables are revealed). There’s a touch of megalomania in there too; when Diamond Federation man Van Berg (Richard Clarke) shows up at a meeting of the accomplices and seizes the diamonds on display, Fenton (Gerald Cross, the voice of the Megara in The Stones of Blood) shoots him and, in response to the protestation that they couldn’t possibly take the Federation’s place and do a deal with the government, he replies “Why not? We shouldn’t be the first monopoly to establish ourselves over a few dead bodies. There’s a price for everything” Cynical and plausible, although the actual means in Eric Paice’s teleplay are a bit of a stretch.


The antagonists are split into the reluctant/coerced and the ruthless. Samuel Ross (Meier Tzelniker) is concerned for the safety of his daughter Jackie (Toni Gilpin), who is seeing the undesirable soon-to-be fiancé Nicky (David Sumner). Nicky’s very much put in his place when he takes Steed aside at a party the latter has thrown (Steed is schmoozing the ladies, dancing with each in turn, the smoothy). Steed deviously turns down the offer to trade diamonds for the syndicate, and Nicky threatens other forms of persuasion. Steed, the epitome of cool, merely retorts to the less-confident-than-he-professes youth “You’re sweating, Nicky”.


The opening teaser has Ross’s wife (Annette Kerr) killed by a beautician (“How can one have an accident with a face pack?” asks Cathy; “It was made of a plaster of Paris compound and hardened rather quickly” Steed explains casually).  That’s about as eccentric as the episode gets, though. Of note is Hamilton Dyce (General Scobie in Spearhead from Space; anyone who has seen it will instantly assume he’s a bad egg, long before he’s actually revealed as such) as one of the ring leaders, willing to kill his wife (Naomi Chance) to further his scheme. Ellen McIntosh makes a particularly efficient make-over murderer.


The shootout finale is as hasty as the show is accustomed to, albeit with additionally less-than-impressive hiding behind boxes while exchanging shots on a tiny set. A so-so episode, then, solid yet unremarkable.










Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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.