Skip to main content

It’s the power that excites me, sir.

The Avengers
2.11: Death of a Great Dane

Death of a Great Dane’s opening suggests a much broader episode than proves to be the case, the kind of eccentric set up one would expect of later period Avengers; Gregory (Leslie French) attends a rain-lashed funeral, reminiscing that he was with the deceased for four years, at which point it is revealed this is a pet cemetery. If the remainder is straighter, the teleplay by Roger Marshall and Jeremy Scott is nevertheless replete with witty plotting and dialogue, superbly delivered by a fine cast.


Mrs Gale: Did he always travel on a full stomach?

After the discovery of an “indigestible breakfast” in the stomach of a car crash victim (£50,000 in uncut diamonds), Steed and Mrs Gale embark on the trail of funds of the bed-ridden (since his heart attack) Mr Litoff, who managed to build up up one of the world’s largest financial empires over the course of 25 years. It seems his personal assets have been converted to cash and illegally transferred offshore during the previous six months. Mr Litoff was known for his philanthropy, but “turned off the tap” at the time he was laid low. Cathy finds this development unlikely; it isn’t so surprising, then, that we eventually learn Litoff’s no longer in the land of the living, and it’s hisbody lying in the pet cemetery.


The plot is engineered by a typically eccentrically formulated trio, led by a particularly young and dashing Frederick Jaeger as Getz (quite unlike his Doctor Who appearances a decade or so later, in Planet of Evil and The Invisible Enemy), Litoff’s unsung assistant. His co-conspirators are Gregory, the servile butler, and Sir James (John Laurie on typically magnificent form; not for nothing would he appear three more times in the series), a crucial key to the deception as Litoff’s personal physician.


Along the way, we take in some colourful locations and scenarios. For no particular good reason, but very Avengers, diamond smuggler Miller was a keen magician, leading Steed to interview his wife (Clare Kelly) at the Big Laugh joke shop (“I hope he’s better at it than you are”, Cathy critiques of Steed’s sleights of hand; Steed then meets with her customary disapproval when he jokes he may see how he goes with the widow).


Sir James: Our dreams have betrayed us.

We are also invited to a wine tasting, a particularly exuberant showcase for Laurie, who has great chemistry with Macnee. Sir James dreams of founding a clinic in Asia, where he can be honest with his patients (“Madam, your heart flutters because you’re a gross and greedy overeater” would be a sample line), and feigns indulgence of Steed’s suspicions of Getz.


Mostly, though, the scene is about Sir James’ amazement at Steed’s perceptive palate (“You’re wonderful!”), although Cathy, despite being well-versed in pretty much anything and everything, doesn’t know you aren’t supposed to drink the wine at a wine tasting (Steed instructs her to imbibe milk before hand, though, “Keeps your palate perceptive and stops you getting sloshed” so which is it?) and goes home tipsy for an altercation with a lackey (at the event, she smiles in superior fashion when an old duffer complains “I don’t know why they allow women down here”).


Gregory: It’s the power that excites me, sir. I want to be rude, and ill-mannered, and order people about! And then I look forward to an association with a considerable number of good-looking women.

If Sir James’ motivation is clinics of his own (rather than wealth), Gregory’s is “rebellion against subservience”. As winning and larger-than-life as Laurie can’t help but be, French’s character is the most engaging, observing due etiquette and diplomacy but nursing adverse ambitions beneath his mild exterior. French plays Gregory as an appealing worm intent on turning, even when we learn of his motives (neither he nor Sir James were in on the murders of Mitchell and his wife); we’re almost sorry when Steed shows no clemency (“You will be wanting me?”), and Gregory opines “Sad about all my beautiful women”.


As with Sir James, the best Gregory scenes match him with Steed, comparisons between the two made visually through similar hats and umbrellas, and general geniality. They both like dogs too (“I bet you haven’t seen a decent tree in years” Steed greets the “surviving” hound), of course. As it seems did Miller, who could not bring himself to have Bell Hound put down to complete the deception (about which, alas for her, Mrs Miller knew). Gregory isn’t greedy, happy with a smaller cut of the fortune than Getz (“I’m quite content with eleven million pounds, sir”)


Jaeger makes for a particularly strong opponent, perhaps not furnished with as many memorable exchanges as his other co-stars, but enough to deliver a worthy villain of the piece. He also indulges much temple rubbing. For him, motivation is simply “dissatisfaction with a role of faceless service”.


Death’s plot is constantly moving, making every scene count, especially noticeable when in a season with its fair share of sluggish episodes. Sir James reveals himself at the end of Act Two, leading to Steed’s imprisonment (in luxury) until Cathy arrives in the following act. In common with her luck of late, she’s almost immediately identified as Steed’s accomplice, and both end up locked in Litoff’s bedroom (at which point her leather ensemble makes an appearance).


Her sending the message that Litoff’s body has been exhumed triggers a standard hasty resolution, but that’s not a drawback on this occasion; Death of a Great Dane follows The Mauritius Penny as another first class episode, one of the best of the season.









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.

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.

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.