Skip to main content

Now, you know about black magic, don’t you?

The Avengers
2.16: Warlock

A genuinely supernatural episode, one of the series’ big no-nos, for some fans, your appreciation for Warlock will likely rest entirely on whether you accept its premise. I regard it as one of the highlights of the second season, although the common verdict appears to be that it’s something of a disappointment.


Peter Hammond was one of the series’ best directors, and he pulls out the stylistic stops to make the most of Doreen Montgomery’s teleplay. Montgomery had a long career as writer for the big screen from the late ‘30s to the late ‘50s; this was her only contribution to the show, in an episode originally designed as the introduction for Cathy Gale’s character. There are liberally evident signs of this, most obviously Steed visiting her at the Natural History Museum, where she is studying skulls.


Steed: I know the face forget the name. Ah yes, poor Yorick. I knew him, you know, a fellow of infinite jest.
Cathy: More than can be said for you.

The Steed-Cathy repartee is firmly in place right off the bat, as is her status as a font of all knowledge (“Now, you know about black magic, don’t you?” –  including witchcraft, superstition and blood rites). Steed has discovered An Occult Grimoire at the home of this friend Peter Neville (Alban Blakelock, giving a fine transfixed performance, accompanied by simply-but-strikingly superimposed sparkly objects). Neville was, this being The Avengers, due to attend a Missile Committee meeting (always with the missiles!), but is bedbound, diagnosed with severe shock.


It’s up to Cathy to infiltrate the cause of his malaise, a black magic circle presided over by Peter Arne’s Cosmo Gallion. Arne, who gives a highly memorable, charismatic performance, was originally intended to appear in the Doctor Who story Frontios, but was murdered shortly before filming began. Cosmo’s services are for hire, in this case by Markel (John Hollis, Lobot in The Empire Strikes Back, and Sondeergard – who rocks – in The Mutants, as well as appearing in later Avengers The Cybernauts, The Superlative Seven and Legacy of Death).


While the episode hedges its bets with regard to the reality of magic (“It’s not a question of will, but of faith”), there’s little doubt what’s depicted is at very least psychically effected. Neville is sent into a spin, Cathy is drawn to the coven (even though she professes not to have been under the influence, she does appear to have arisen at the appointed, incantatory time). Cathy informs Steed that psychology plays a big part (but not all?) in warlocks exerting a hold over their victims, stating that one could exert influence at a distance, and “quite probably” make someone do what they ordered.


Montgomery’s teleplay picks up on the essentials of Crowleyian magic ((“Do ast thou wilt is the whole of the law”), but it’s softened slightly through Cosmo’s credentials as “an authority on paranormal psychology”. He’s an expert in “the study of trance states, hypnosis, telepathy, that sort of thing”. The magic community is obviously a small one, since Cosmo has read Cathy’s monograph on voodoo, and despite warning her with regard to the legality of joining black magic groups, he welcomes her into his own magic circle. Naturally, he’s taken with her, offering to cast her horoscope (she was born at midnight on 5/10/30, a half decade younger than Blackman herself)


Cosmo: Mr Markel, you’re really a very stupid man. Like all of your kind, you only believe what you can see and what you can touch.

Markel, who is after a formula for a new propellant (another propellant!), isn’t really interested in Cosmo’s methods, though, only his results, which leads to the latter unreservedly dismissing his idiocy (“Your methods are certainly effective, Markel. He’s dead” Cosmo notes after Markel aggressively attempts to discern why Neville’s brief case is absent the all-important papers). And, when Markel demands his money back, threatening Cosmo, the chrome-domed thug is soon on the receiving end of a heart attack administered by means a voodoo doll.


Cosmo is also intent on bringing Cathy to his magical beck-and-call (“Will with me, Cathy Gale”), considering her perfect for the Ritual of Asmodeus (the demon of lust, responsible for twisting people’s sexual desires, so one guesses the episode wouldn’t have gone out if Cosmo had brought the ritual to a successful head). As it is, there’s much writhing, chanting, and vigorously ecstatic gyration from a frenzied Julia (Pat Spender). So it’s a bit disappointing that events resolve themselves so perfunctorily (the name of the game for the show at this point). Cathy and Steed are surrounded, but Cosmo conveniently drops dead; his exertions required complete faith, so when he failed it destroyed him.


Steed is rigorously facile, throughout, chatting up a barmaid by telling her fortune (“Here’s to palmistry”) and running foul of Cathy (“You seem to think this is something to joke about. I saw too much of this sort of thing when I was in Africa, Steed” to which he responds levelly “I am only interested in who killed Neville”). His debonair attendance of Cosmo’s “very elementary” lecture, posing as a physicist, doesn’t manage to convince us that he’s a devotee, which doesn’t escape Cosmo’s notice either (“Well, for a start, his aura is wrong for a man of science”). It’s probably appropriate then that, for the third episode in a row, Cathy is centre stage. Steed is unmasked (or unhooded), tied up, and when he escapes, Cathy has already brought matters to a head.


Warlock features the penultimate appearance of One Ten (in the Studio Canal DVD release order, which I’m following), sharing pints in the pub with Steed, both in matching bowlers (“Myrtle, is this the bottom of the barrel?”), an additional incongruity with subject matter that starts with hexes and ends in a full-blooded occult ceremony. The close-out finds Steed and Cathy joking about finding something relaxing to do where someone else does all the work for a change. Such as boxing; Warlock’s certainly far from straightforward pugilism, a confident and sprightly change of tone and subject matter for the show.








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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.