Reach out to the stillness of eternity.

The Avengers

3.14: The Secrets Broker

Wine seems to go down quite well in The Avengers (2.11 Death of a Great Dane, in which Cathy gets a bit blotto), and if The Secrets Broker isn’t quite of that vintage, it does involve a winning ruse (spiritualist séances as a cover for the passing of secrets) and several first rate performances, from Patricia English, Avice Landone and the inimitable, irrepressible Jack May.

Steed: I’m, uh, going to a wine tasting party.

Cathy: Do you really think you’ve got the palate?

May is Waller, the ringleader, but the group’s steeliest and most imperious member is Landone’s Mrs Wilson, effortlessly single-minded and callous whereas May, posing as the manager of a wine shop, is given to sucking a cigar and engaging in broad banter with Steed. “Wine and spirits” was probably the dubious connection that inspired writer Ludovic Peters (his only contribution to the show), and it works reasonably well, if entirely randomly, a sign of the eccentric arrangements that will become the norm.

Mrs Wilson: You think us fakes, yet we know so much about you.

The actual business being investigated is rather by-the-by, and not terribly intriguing, with a fairly involved plot in which two brothers, Frederick (John Stone) and Allan Paignton (Ronald Allen) are pressured into murder and theft (via instructions given at the séance; analysing quite why the séance is necessary will probably get you nowhere, even if adds to the heightened milieu). The wine shop produces a wine list that includes part of plans for a breach mechanism for an anti-tank gun; again, the intricacies of this are elusive (Steed surmises the full plans aren’t held so the instigators can’t double cross each other).

Cathy: (presented with a bottle of apricot brandy) What makes you think I have depraved tastes?

Steed: I can’t imagine, my dear.

Cathy goes undercover, as usual, at the research station where a colleague of Steed worked (Frederick’s victim). Marion (English) is working there, engaged in an affair with Allan, while her husband (John Ringham) remains oblivious; the villains’ aim is to steel plans, blackmailing Marion to cut the alarm system.

Waller: He seems like a gentleman of some means. I think, he might brighten up the proceedings a bit.

Steed’s interaction with Waller is a delight, as the former casually orders bottles of plonk and they discuss Rieslings and hocks. Steed arrives in the cellar for the showdown and, asked what the devil he’s doing there, advises he came for the wine list (“Oh, very droll” responds Waller). While fighting Steed warns “Mind the burgundy, Mr Waller” and is told “It’s a bad year, Mr Steed”. May comes across like a Peter Cook who can act, while given to the kind of hearty dialogue chewing that would make Iain Cuthbertson proud.

The rest of the cast is also memorable, with English (previously in Mission to Montreal), offering a believably beset turn as a woman caught in an unenviable predicament and a loveless marriage. The scenario of spying through stagecraft rather recalls The 39 Steps (the Hitchcock version).

Waller: Mrs Wilson and her daughter, Julia. Help yourself to anything you fancy, Mr Steed.

Steed: (eyeing up Julia) That’s very generous of you.

Steed is on particularly suggestive form, be it making innuendos about Cathy’s character or getting all Sid James over Mrs Wilson’s daughter. It must be all that vino (“Partaking of a few wines, in the company of Frederick Paignton” he informs Cathy: “What, again?” she responds wearily), particularly given the coda in which he and Cathy imbibe some of Waller’s cellar that got away.

Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog