Skip to main content

Steed, what do you know about faith healers?

The Avengers
2.18: Box of Tricks

There are some decent ideas in Box of Tricks, with Steed looking into the leakage of NATO secrets from the vicinity of wheelchair-bound General Sutherland (Maurice Hedley). Not least the dual-play title (the magician’s and the conman’s). Unfortunately, the two ideas don’t really connect and the results aren’t terribly involving.


It’s also, even for The Avengers, slightly difficult to swallow the connections drawn by Peter Ling (his final of three scripts for the series; Ling also wrote The Mind Robber for Doctor Who) and Edward Rhodes. I can’t see any good reason – other than it seemed like an idea at the time – for Gallam to be in league with stage magician Gerry Weston (Ian Curry). And the the deaths in the story – both of Weston’s assistants wind up dead, Venus concludes in the coda, because they found out what he was up to – seem like an afterthought built on having a dramatic pre-credits teaser. It beggars belief that, after two dead assistants, Weston wasn’t Number One Suspect.


Steed: There. Do you think this tape recorder has healing properties?

Then there’s the rather casual manner in which a shoebox-sized object, shoved down the back of General Sutherland’s wheelchair, isn’t discovered and must have a very long battery life to pick up the necessary meetings he’s attending. Dr Gallam’s (Edgar Wreford) ruse is possibly partly based on the orgone craze as a curative/energising method (Honor Blackman’s Goldfinger co-star Sean Connery reputedly had his own such chamber), and his hoodwinking of the well-meaning Kathleen is all-too believable. 


Kathleen repeats devotedly that Gallam has “cured hundreds of cases” with his magic box, and all one needs is faith; the episode appears generally jaundiced regarding notions of non-traditional medicine, albeit Steed charitably offers that there may be something in it, referencing psychosomatic disorders.


Weston: A touch of oriental magic, and a dash of western charm.

Gallam and Weston are clearly reliant on their subjects being dopes, and make no effort to hide their activities from Kathleen when they think they have the crucial tape recording (how do they know it gives them the goods?) As such, it takes Steed an unaccountable age to wrap things up, but he’s evidently not on form.


Venus: Nobody’s got any reasons to want to murder me, have they?

He appears very relaxed about Venus, who seems like the dumbest sidekick ever since she is ever-blithely unaware of what Steed is letting her in for (shouldn’t she have wised up by now?), taking on assistant duties, given the nasty things that befall anyone entering that particular box of tricks.


Julie Stevens sports a very nice new haircut, and gets her de rigueur musical numbers, but whenever I see it’s one of hers, I’m disappointed it isn’t a Mrs Gale episode instead. The supporting cast, particularly Jane Barrett as Kathleen (her self-remonstration, even thinking Gallam might be interested in her when he asks her to dinner, is quite sad) and Maurice Hedley as the General are very good.


Denise: If that’s all you’re interested in, why don’t you go and have a look at the cabinet yourself, it’s back stage.
Steed: Is it really? Thank you, I will.

Steed poses as a masseur, and seems pretty accomplished at the task, although his tact isn’t first rate. He incurs the wrath of new assistant Denise (April Olrich) when he’s more interested in talking about the box than chatting her up, and also has Henriette (Jacqueline Jones) interested (she ends up having to avoid other, even older men). He isn’t especially subtle probing the General for information either. Alarmingly, Steed also likes hanging around in basements behind drapes, waiting to give Venus a terrible fright (“What’s the matter, my dear?”)


Later he masquerades as very rich, very sorry hypochondriac Thackery, again not that smart when he’s dropping in on the Sutherlands as masseur Steed; it’s no wonder Gallam finds out so easily. He also, inexcusably, sits through an entire magic act before going to look at the (now removed) box Venus has stashed away. Still, he lets the punches fly with appropriate deftness, there being no Cathy about to do it for him.


Not a particularly stunning episode then. One with potential, but it’s squandered through nonsensical plotting and unconvincing motivation.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?