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…

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …