Skip to main content

You cannot walk away from the Mafia, Mr Steed.

The Avengers
2.23 : Conspiracy of Silence

Closer to a conspiracy of slumber, as some clown tries to kill Steed, but not in a remotely entertaining fashion. He doesn’t even pratfall. One might suggest this is a significant turning point for the show, with (one of) the lead now sufficiently iconic that an episode can revolve around this fact, but the truth is considerably more mundane, as Cathy is called upon to pose as a journalist (a common cover for her) and investigate not-terribly-interesting goings-on, amounting to a Conspiracy of Silence, beneath a big top.


The Italian Mafia want Steed dead so, being slipshod about these things, they get a clown to their dirty work and, unsurprisingly, he wimps out, while Steed is taking his hound for a walk in the park. We’re told “The most violent thing in his life’s laughter” by his wife Rickie (Sandra Dorne), but Carlo (Robert Rietty, a highly prolific voiceover actor) is indebted to the mob, for reasons Steed can only speculate (relatives in Italy). Our gentleman spy is on their list for getting too close to their $5m dope-peddling network. Carlo’s devoted wife threatens “If you won’t do it, I will”, but fortunately it doesn’t come to that.


Steed: Well, I’m blowed, you really thought you’d lost me, didn’t you?

Although, the confrontation takes place largely off-screen, leading Cathy to think the shots that ring out signal Steed’s demise. When he bursts in, bowlered and brollied (“What a terrible atmosphere in here. Why don’t you open the windows?”), Cathy’s relief is quickly disguised beneath a veneer of contempt. You could cut that sexual tension with a knife. This follows an earlier contretemps between the two, when she (rightly) suggests he is taking the wrong approach with Carlo, and he should be offered a way out of the situation.


While there are incidental pleasures with Steed (sitting in on the circus show, Arturo the clown (Tommy Godfrey) points a gun at him, to which Steed reveals his own; the clown’s gun, of course, unfurls with a ‘BANG’ flag), most of the proceedings revolve around Cathy sleuthing, most memorably conferring with Professor Sandy Toksvig (William Shearer, dinky enough to operate a Chumbley in Galaxy Four) and visiting Rant & Son Tattooists (Ian Wilson, it’s unclear if he is the elder or younger Rant), Rant being the sort of eccentric character who would proliferate in later seasons (see Look – (Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One) But There Were These Two Fellers… for an extreme version of Avengers clowns, and the uniqueness of their makeup).


Also in the cast are Roy Purcell (Powers in The Mind of Evil, the President in The Three Doctors; he has a bit of a Tom Hardy thing going on here) as the manager Gutman, and Alec Mango as mobster Sica (he’s got a bit of a Terry Gilliam vibe), a disgrace at covering his tracks. There’s little to recommend here, however. It drags along, firmly near the bottom of the season for both quality and intrigue.











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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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 ?