Skip to main content

Old Boggy walks on Lammas Eve.

Jeeves and Wooster
2.5: Kidnapped 
(aka The Mysterious Stranger)

Kidnapped continues the saga of Chuffnell Hall. Having said of 2.4 that the best Wodehouse adaptations tend to stick closely to the text, this one is an exception that proves the rule, diverging significantly yet still scoring with its highly preposterous additions.


Jeeves: Tis old boggy. He be abroad tonight. He be heading for the railway station.

Gone are many of the imbroglios involving Stoker and Glossop (the estimable Roger Brierley), including the contesting of the former’s uncle’s will. Also gone, sadly, is the inebriated Brinkley throwing potatoes at Stoker, which surely would have been enormous fun. Instead, we concentrate on Bertie being locked aboard Stoker’s yacht in order to secure his marriage to Pauline (as per the novel), Chuffy tailing Pauline in disguise (so there’s a different/additional reason for Stoker to believe Bertie and she spent the night together, this time at a pub en route to Chufnell Hall) and the positively inspired “Boggy be about” plotline, in which some of Plum’s rather less politically correct, by today’s standards, plotting is alleviated by redirecting it into depicting some ignorant Devonshire yokels, always an acceptable target.


Seabury: Well, I think you tell rotten jokes, you can’t sing, and you look completely stupid.

Enough of the Glossop plotline remains intact, in which Stoker plans to sell him the hall to be used as a sanatorium, including the thawing of his relations with Bertie after both mutually agree on how horrid Seabury is (Glossop, having donned blackface to entertain the little squirt as a minstrel, is inspired to clout him one after enduring endless insults). Of course, Glossop is married in Jeeves and Wooster, so the book’s subplot regarding his potential union with Chuffy’s Aunt Myrtle – now his sister - is gone (Jane Downs is just dynamite as Glossop’s wife anyway).


Constable Dobson: You mean some of them creatures up there is not boggys?
Sergeant Voules: Some of thems is as human as you or me. The question is, which ones?

Ah yes, the blackface. In Thank You, Jeeves, Bertie escapes Stoker’s yacht, as here, by donning boot polish and slipping away with the minstrel act. Only they’re an actual all-black minstrel group, which wouldn’t translate so well nearly 60 years later. This episode was shown 13 years after The Black and White Minstrel Show shut up shop, so Barmy and gang dressing in blackface might generously be assigned the status of relatively innocuous period piece trappings without condoning the essential racism of the practice.


Although, the qualifier shoved rather gracelessly into the piece, whereby Jeeves notes of minstrel acts that they are “said to originate, sir, with the entertainments got up on the cotton plantations of the new world, by the slaves employed on those facilities, in order to express joy and happiness at their lot. An unlikely contingency one surmises, bearing in mind their situation” doesn’t really address the use of blackface itself. Exton is caught between the stools of acknowledging the inappropriateness of the entertainment while simultaneously wishing to ignore its ramifications for the purposes of an enormously silly plot device.


And for the purposes of said plotting, it’s an undoubted winner, as Bertie mingles with the minstrels, engaging in a spot of Lady of Spain, and escapes from the yacht while Jeeves, aware that “Old Boggy walks on Lammas Eve”, makes a covert phone call alerting the local constabulary to the creature’s presence. 


The results find various parties mistaken for Old Boggy, including Stoker (persuaded to don blackface by Jeeves as camouflage in his hunt for Bertie, an idea that doesn’t really wash-burn, any more than the butter used to get rid of the polish), leading to Voules and Dobson hunting Boggy down to Oofy Prosser’s parents’ bash, where the minstrels are performing next. The resolution is economical and attractive: with the various Boggys all banged up, Stoker and Glossop can be let off by the magistrate, because, luckily, he is Lord Chuffnell.


Chuffy: Bertie once dropped a blancmange on the Bishop of Woolwich, when we were at Oxford.

Director Langton has fashioned a very sprightly visual narrative from Clive Exton’s teleplay, fully alert to the slapstick potential, and there are numerous amusing diversions en route, from the neat dovetailing of Bertie being ineligible for the chairmanship of the Drones’ dining committee (because he has a criminal record) to the resolution in which all those who might put themselves forward also now have a criminal record, to the anecdote of Bertie and the bishop and the blancmange, (“He looked up to see what was happening, fell straight into the Cherwell”, much to Stoker’s disapproval (“I don’t find this funny”; “No? Well, you had to be there”). 


The replacement of banjo with a trumpet in the previous episode, meanwhile, is acknowledged by Oofy’s band’s playing (“Women and children are huddled in frightened groups as far North as Grosvenor Square”). Martin Clunes is on hand to make Barmy a peerless idiot (“I finished miles ahead of you fellows” he claims proudly, having completed their practice song first; later, he puts his hat on, busked coins still in it, and observes his mother will be absolutely thrilled, “She’s always saying I should work for a living”).


Stoker: Means well? A man who makes a mockery of the church? A jailbird? A womaniser? A drunkard?

The result is one of the series’ broadest and most satisfying episodes, acknowledging old favourites (giving a false name to the court – “Quiet, Dr Crippin!”) and ending on a just-about happily ever after: we see Chuffy and Pauline arguing, with Jeeves observing, “I imagine the young couple will spend much of their happily married lives in a state of similar emotional turmoil”.



Sources: Thank You, Jeeves


Recurring characters:

J Washburn Stoker (2.4, 2.5)
Pauline Stoker (2.4, 2.5)
Lord “Chuffy” Chuffnell (2.4, 2.5)
Seabury (2.4, 2.5)
Myrtle (2.4, 2.5)
Dwight Stoker (2.4, 2.5)
Sergeant Voules (2.4, 2.5)
Constable Dobson (2.4, 2.5)
“Barmy” Fotheringay-Phipps (1.1, 1,2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5)
“Oofy” Prosser (1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5)











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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

‘Cos I’m the gringo who always delivers.

American Made (2017)
(SPOILERS) This is definitely more the sort of thing Tom Cruise should be doing, a movie that relies both on his boyish™ charm and at least has pretensions of ever so slightly pushing the envelope of standard multiplex fare, rather than desperately attaching himself to an impersonal franchise (The Mummy) or flailingly attempting to kick start one (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back); remember when Cruise wouldn’t even go near sequels (for about 20 years, The Color of Money aside, and then only the one series)? American Made is still victim to the tendency of his movies to feel superstar-fitted rather than remaining as punchy as they might be on paper (Made’s never quite as satirically sharp as it wants to be), but it at least doesn’t lead its audience by the nose.

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

By Jove, the natives are restless tonight.

The Avengers 4.17: Small Game for Big Hunters
I wonder if Death at Bargain Prices’ camping scene, suggestive of an exotic clime but based in a department store, was an inspiration for Small Game For Big Hunters’ more protracted excursion to the African country of Kalaya… in Hertfordshire. Gerry O’Hara, in his second of two episodes for the show again delivers on the atmosphere, making the most of Philip Levene’s teleplay.

I think we’ve returned to Eden. Surely this is how the World once was in the beginning of time.

1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992)
Ridley Scott’s first historical epic (The Duellists was his first historical, and his first feature, but hardly an epic) is also one of his least remembered films. It bombed at the box office (as did the year’s other attempted cash-ins on the discovery of America, including Superman: The Movie producers the Salkinds’ Christopher Columbus: The Discovery) and met with a less than rapturous response from critics. Such shunning is undeserved, as 1492: Conquest of Paradise is a richer and more thought-provoking experience than both the avowedly lowbrow Gladiator and the re-evaluated-but-still-so-so director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven. It may stand guilty of presenting an overly sympathetic portrait of Columbus, but it isn’t shy about pressing a critical stance on his legacy.

Sanchez: The truth is, that he now presides over a state of chaos, of degradation, and of madness. From the beginning, Columbus proved himself completely incapable of ruling these islands…

This is bad. Bad for movie stars everywhere.

Trailers Hail, Caesar!
The Coen Brothers’ broader comedies tend to get a mixed response from critics, who prefer their blacker, more caustic affairs (A Serious Man, Barton Fink, Inside Llewyn Davis). Probably only Raising Arizona and O Brother, Where Art Thou? have been unreservedly clutched to bosoms, so it remains to be seen how Hail, Caesar! fares. The trailer shows it off as big, bold, goofy, shamelessly cheerful and – something that always goes down well with awards ceremonies – down with taking affectionate swipes at Tinseltown. Seeing as how the unabashedly cartoonish The Grand Budapest Hotel swung a host of Oscar nominations (and a couple of wins), I wouldn’t put anything out of the question. Also, as O Brother proved, punctuation marks in titles are a guarantee of acclaim.

I’m an easy sell for Coens fare, though. Burn After Reading is very funny, particularly John Malkovich’s endlessly expressive swearing. Intolerable Cruelty makes me laugh a lot, particularly Clooney’s double t…

Thank you for your co-operation.

Robocop (1987)
Robocop is one of a select group of action movies I watched far too many times during my teenage years. One can over-indulge in the good things, and pallor can be lost through over-familiarity. It’s certainly the case that Paul Verhoeven’s US breakthrough wears its limited resources on its battered metal-plated chest and, in its “Director’s Cut” form at least, occasionally over-indulges his enthusiastic lack of restraint. Yet its shortcomings are minor ones. It remains stylistically impressive and thematically as a sharp as a whistle. This year’s remake may have megabucks and slickness on its side but there is no vision, either in the writing or direction. The lack of focus kills any chance of longevity. Verhoeven knows exactly the film he’s making, moulded to fit his idiosyncratic foibles. It might not be his best executed, but in terms of substance, as he recognises, it is assuredly his best US movie. Alas, given the way he’s been unceremoniously ditched by Hollywood, i…