Skip to main content

Have you ever heard of anyone shooting themselves with a silencer?

The Avengers
2.19: School for Traitors

Just when you thought all Venus Smith stories were faintly rubbish, a good one comes along, albeit our gorgeous chanteuse is just as daffy as ever, oblivious or indifferent to Steed dropping her in it at every turn. It might not be up there with there excellent fourth season A Sense of History, also set at a university, but School for Traitors makes engaging use of its fertile setting for spy yarns.


Steed: If he was murdered he wouldn’t have time to write to you, would he?
Venus: But he didn’t write to me.
Steed: Precisely.

Steed and Venus are investigating the “suicide” of Richard Davis, who was being blackmailed to hand over his research. Steed receives his summons from a one-off One-Seven (Frederic Farley) this time, who like his fellow One-hyphens disapproves of amateurs. In Venus’ case he’s probably onto something. He’s a humorous sort too, responding to Steed’s guise as a researcher into Hester Lynch Piozzi, Samuel Johnson’s friend, with “You know Steed, your cover usually has a large element of wishful thinking”.


Higby: He doesn’t know, does he? Just how much you like hurting people.

It’s peculiar, and perhaps unlikely, that the villains are merely a bunch of blackmailers rather than attempting to appeal to their victims’ political consciences. Claire Summer (Melissa Stribling), in collusion with pub landlord Higby (Reginald Marsh), coerces students and teachers into doing her bidding; they fall for her wiles, at which point she professes to be broke, persuading them to forge a cheque that puts them under threat of Higby calling the Old Bill unless they do as they’re told. Claire is repeatedly made out to be an incredibly black-hearted soul by Higby, and since she plans to burn Venus' face off with some spiked moisturiser, I’d say that’s a fair call.


East: I’ve been instructed to kill you.

This isn’t necessarily the most full-proof of schemes, though, since both Roberts (Richard Thorp) and East (John Standing) fail at their appointed tasks, and indeed go and tell Steed all about it. To that extent, it’s rather a refreshing episode from James Mitchell, in which characters act with common sense rather than out of plot expediency. Although, Steed rather drops poor Roberts in it, persuading him to profess to being of a similar political inclination to his blackmailers, who aren’t buying it for a moment. Of additional merit, while the reveal that Professor Aubyn (Frank Shelley) is the ringleader can be guessed, this is one occasion where it isn’t staring the viewer in the face.


Venus: Green, you’re from Derby aren’t you?
Green: Yes.
Venus: Well go on, buzz off and put that back on the shelf as you go.

Strong performances all round, in particular Standing as an irritatingly cocky shite who turns out to be alright really. He’s got his eye on the “delectable Venus Smith”, but everyone does on this occasion. Which is quite understandable, as she comes on in PJs and a mortarboard. We get three samplings of her crooning, though, so be warned. Venus lets Green (Terence Woodfield, Celation in The Daleks’ Master Plan and Maharis in The Ark) off for his attempted robbery on account of his being from Derby, which is quite amusing. Even Steed’s particularly flirtatious, dancing with her, calling her love and professing “Do you know, you’re looking particularly beautiful”.









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.

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.

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 .

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.